SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: puborectalis who wrote (773589)3/7/2014 3:18:07 PM
From: tbolding  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1570355
 
Fed Nominee of Israeli Stanley Fischer Has a Citigroup Problem
By Pam Martens: March 4, 2014

Stanley Fischer, Former Vice Chairman of Citigroup, Nominated to Serve as Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors
Last evening, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee made the unexpected announcement that it was postponing the confirmation hearing of Stanley Fischer to serve as Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Two other Fed nominees were to be vetted today. The hearing had been scheduled for 10 a.m. this morning in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. No reason was given for the postponement.

There are surely some veteran lawyers at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) hoping the nomination of Fischer has been scuttled. The thought that Stanley Fischer, a former Vice Chairman of the serially corrupt Citigroup, could become Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, a regulator of mega banks like Citigroup, is not a source of comfort. Fischer was nominated for the post by President Obama, whose devotion to failing up on Wall Street regularly sets new heights.

As if as on cue, news broke just yesterday that Federal prosecutors have issued grand jury subpoenas to Citigroup in a money-laundering investigation, a topic with which the bank is intimately familiar.

During Fischer’s stint at Citigroup, from February 2002 through April 2005, he “amassed a personal fortune of between $14.6 million and $56.3 million” according to Bloomberg News. During that same period, Citigroup was repeatedly charged with fraud and embarked on its own exotic financial shenanigans that would end up collapsing the firm in 2008.

On April 28, 2003, the SEC charged that the investment banking business of Citigroup, Salomon Smith Barney, issued “fraudulent” research on telecommunications companies to promote its investment banking business. Jack Grubman, the company’s star telecom analyst, was the point man in the fraud according to the SEC and Citigroup rewarded him handsomely for it. The SEC noted in its complaint that “between 1999 and August 2002, when he left the firm, Grubman’s total compensation exceeded $67.5 million.”

Grubman was forced out of Citigroup in August 2002, while Fischer served on its Board. The New York Times noted dryly in an editorial at the time:

“Critics of Jack Grubman’s last deal, his $32 million severance package, are missing the big picture. Sure, most of the companies whose stock the fabled Wall Street telecom analyst bullishly plugged have gone bankrupt. But look at it this way: While investors lost $2 trillion in the implosion of the sector, his employer, Citigroup, made $1 billion in fees from the feverish dealmaking he helped arrange. It is no wonder the financial giant felt moved to show its appreciation, even as it forced him out.”

Exactly three months after the SEC’s complaint involving fraudulent research at Citigroup, the SEC charged Citigroup with aiding and abetting the Enron fraud, writing on July 28, 2003 that the company designed complex financial structures to help Enron “(1) inflate reported cash flow from operating activities; (2) underreport cash flow from financing activities; and (3) underreport debt.”

It should have been easy for any Wall Street regulator to deduce from Citigroup’s shady deals for Enron and Worldcom that it was highly likely it was not accurately reporting its own debt exposure. But that didn’t happen. Citigroup collapsed in 2008 and is only alive today because the U.S. government pumped in $45 billion in equity, made $300 billion in asset guarantees, and the Fed chipped in over $2 trillion in below market rate loans to the listing shipwreck.

In August 2012, the law firm Kirby McInerney settled a shareholders’ lawsuit against Citigroup for $590 million. The 547-page amended complaint depicts a financial institution that gamed the system with high risk leverage, off-balance-sheet gambles it inevitably lost and dysfunctional checks and balances — all while its Board and regulators were asleep at the switch.

The lawyers at Kirby McInerney wrote:

“As plaintiffs’ investigation of Citigroup’s subprime CDOs [Collateralized Debt Obligations] demonstrates, Citigroup’s 2004-2007 subprime CDOs produced tens of billions of dollars of super senior tranches – and, effectively, Citigroup never sold (except with its money-back guarantees) a single one. The essence of an underwriter’s function is to sell the securities it underwrites. Citigroup’s inability/failure to accomplish any such sales was an alarming but unheeded red flag as to the value and liquidity of these instruments. The difficulty in selling these super senior tranches was of Citigroup’s own making: it had stripped yield from these super seniors in order to make the junior tranches more marketable. These super seniors thus became, effectively, all risk and no reward.”

During 2004 and 2005, Citigroup sold $25 billion of CDO commercial paper super senior tranches with a guarantee to repurchase them all, at full price, if collateral concerns ever disrupted the rollover of the commercial paper. In addition to a fee of $375 million for the underwriting, it received $50 million annually for that money-back guarantee. This permitted Citigroup to hide its exposure off its books while boosting revenues by $50 million a year.

In addition, Citigroup created seven off-balance-sheet Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs), totaling $100 billion. Citigroup used “Enron-like accounting” to disclaim any exposure to the SIVs which did not appear in its public financial statements. This allowed the firm to avoid capital charges and reserves while enjoying income of at least $100 million per year from the SIVs.

The lawsuit noted that:

“In November and December 2007, Citigroup admitted that the purported ‘off balance sheet’ aspect of its SIVS was and had always been a fiction. With the stroke of a pen, approximately $50 billion of SIV liabilities (and the lesser value of the impaired assets purportedly collateralizing those liabilities) were transferred from ‘off’ Citigroup’s balance sheet to ‘on.’ Once there, they immediately degraded it. Citigroup’s capitalization was further weakened, its credit ratings were cut immediately, and billions of dollars of write-downs ensued.” Citigroup’s share price collapsed into the low single digits.

Sandy Weill, the Chairman and CEO who was at the helm of Citigroup when Fischer was there, stepped down as Chairman in 2006 after making over $1 billion in compensation during his tenure. Robert Rubin, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, who also served on Citigroup’s board, received over $120 million in compensation during his tenure from 1999 to 2009.

Fischer, who holds dual citizenship with Israel, is a former governor of the Bank of Israel. He served as First Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund from 1994 to 2001 and Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1988 to 1990. From 1973 to 1994 he taught economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).



To: puborectalis who wrote (773589)3/7/2014 7:52:22 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1570355
 
Highest Minimum-Wage State Washington Beats U.S. Job Growth

By Victoria Stilwell, Peter Robison and William Selway Mar 5, 2014 8:54 AM PT

When Washington residents voted in 1998 to raise the state’s minimum wage and link it to the cost of living, opponents warned the measure would be a job-killer. The prediction hasn’t been borne out.

In the 15 years that followed, the state’s minimum wage climbed to $9.32 -- the highest in the country. Meanwhile job growth continued at an average 0.8 percent annual pace, 0.3 percentage point above the national rate. Payrolls at Washington’s restaurants and bars, portrayed as particularly vulnerable to higher wage costs, expanded by 21 percent. Poverty has trailed the U.S. level for at least seven years.

The debate is replaying on a national scale as Democrats led by President Barack Obama push for an increase in the $7.25-an-hour federal minimum, while opponents argue a raise would hurt those it’s intended to help by axing jobs for the lowest-skilled. Even if that proves true, Washington’s example shows that any such effects aren’t big enough to throw its economy and labor market off the tracks.

“It’s hard to see that the state of Washington has paid a heavy penalty for having a higher minimum wage than the rest of the country,” said Gary Burtless, an economist at Brookings Institution who formerly was at the U.S. Labor Department.

Costs, Benefits Raising the U.S. minimum wage to $10.10 in three steps, as Obama proposes, would reduce employment nationally by about 500,000 workers, or about 0.3 percent, according to a Congressional Budget Office report published Feb. 18. At the same time, the increase would lift 900,000 people out of poverty and add $31 billion to the earnings of low-wage Americans, the report found.

While debate persists on the employment effect, “CBO is as qualified as anyone to evaluate that literature, and I wouldn’t argue with their assessment,” Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said Feb. 27 to the Senate Banking Committee.

The Cost of Minimum Wage Laws

Looking past the effect on jobs, increasing the minimum hourly wage to $10.10 would also reduce food stamp expenditures by about 6 percent, or nearly $4.6 billion a year, according to a report today from the Center for American Progress. The Washington-based research institute, which was founded by Obama adviser John Podesta, released its report as the president reiterated his call for a higher wage floor.

Washington voters in November 1998 approved increasing the state’s minimum wage in two stages to $6.50 and tying future annual changes to inflation as measured by the consumer price index.

Photographer: Mike Kane/Bloomberg
Employee Chinh To clean finishes the inside of luggage at the Filson Co. production... Read More


Groups representing retailers, restaurants and hotels opposed the measure, according to a voters pamphlet on the 1998 election published by Washington’s Office of the Secretary of State. Employment in those industries has increased in the state of Washington since then, Labor Department data show.

Shock Absorbers One possible explanation: Businesses have plenty of ways besides job cuts to absorb the costs of a minimum-wage increase, according to Arindrajit Dube, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, whose research found no significant effects on employment. Price increases, reductions in profits and savings from lower turnover can help soak up the shock.

“When you put all of these together, then the finding that moderate increases in minimum wages do not appear to have much of an effect on employment is less surprising,” Dube said in an interview.

Not everyone buys that argument. Minimum-wage laws not only reduce employment opportunities and earnings for low-wage workers, they also reduce demand for their labor as it’s replaced by other forms of capital, according to research published in 2008 by David Neumark, an economist at the University of California at Irvine, and William Wascher, an economist at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington.

Boehner, Reid The federal minimum-wage legislation is opposed by business groups such as the National Retail Federation, along with many Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio.

In the Democratic-controlled Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada on Feb. 25 postponed a vote on the legislation, a centerpiece of the party’s election-year focus on income inequality. The delay until senators return March 24 from a week-long break gives labor unions more time to organize support for the proposal, said a Senate Democratic leadership aide who requested anonymity to discuss strategy.

Gridlock in Congress may mean the debate is waged more immediately by states and cities instead of at the federal level.

State Minimums As of January, 21 states and the District of Columbia had a higher minimum wage than the federal floor. Cities including San Francisco and Santa Fe, New Mexico, require even higher hourly earnings than the proposed federal level, at $10.74 and $10.66 respectively.

New Jersey voters in November approved increasing the minimum wage by $1 an hour to $8.25, tying future increases to the consumer price index. In January, after the raise took effect, private employers added 8,320 jobs in New Jersey, according to ADP Research Institute. That was the fastest pace of job growth since December 2012.

Raising Prices Joe Olivo, the chief executive officer of Perfect Printing, a Moorestown, New Jersey, company that makes materials such as marketing brochures for businesses, was among those who opposed the state’s minimum-wage increase. Since it began, he hasn’t cut his 48-person staff. Instead, he’s looking to pass on the costs by raising prices, a step that he said could impede his business’s ability to grow and hire in the future.

“If I am losing work and I have less money to grow, what good does it do for those employees that are looking for future work?” said Olivo, 47. “The people that are looking for jobs find it harder.”

Those kinds of long-term costs leave economists including Charles Brown undecided in the debate. Brown is a professor of economics at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor who reviewed the CBO’s analytical approach.

“The report does a very careful job of trying to make the best use of the available literature,” Brown said in an interview. “If I balance short-run gains against short-run losses, this looks like a reasonable thing to do. The problem is, we don’t have a good handle on how large those long-run effects are likely to be.”

$15 Minimum Washington’s relatively benign experience with a higher minimum has encouraged some communities in the state to push for even more.

SeaTac, Washington, a Seattle suburb where the major employer is the region’s international airport, voted in November to raise the hourly minimum by more than 60 percent to $15 for 6,300 people who work at the airport, hotels and nearby businesses.

Companies including parking lot operator MasterPark LLC had said the higher pay might lead to job losses. Since it passed, 140 MasterPark employees have received raises and the company hasn’t cut jobs because that might compromise service, managing partner Roger McCracken said.

“We’re in the valet business -- that means employees,” he said. Instead, the company responded by tacking on a 50-cent daily “living-wage surcharge” to prices.

Seattle’s Mayor Now, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, a Democrat elected in November, is following SeaTac’s lead as he also promotes raising the city’s minimum to $15. A task force of business and labor representatives, advised by academics from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Washington in Seattle, is meeting monthly and hopes to produce a proposal in April, Murray said in an interview.

The Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue metropolitan area ranks 14th in a list compiled by Bloomberg of 50 cities where it’s hard for fast-food workers to gain upward mobility, based on median pay compared with rent, tuition and health-care costs. Advocates such as Murray say a higher minimum would help change that.

“We can’t rebuild this economy if it’s just people who buy 94-foot yachts and play in the derivatives,” Murray said. “You build an economy when a middle class is buying microwaves or flat-screen TVs or the next set of clothes for their kids.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Victoria Stilwell in Washington at vstilwell1@bloomberg.net; Peter Robison in Seattle at robison@bloomberg.net; William Selway in Washington at wselway@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Carlos Torres at ctorres2@bloomberg.net

bloomberg.com