Friday, March 28, 2014

Bank of America to Pay $6.3 Billion to Settle Mortgage Securities Suit

Bank of America to Pay $6.3 Billion to Settle Mortgage Securities Suit - NYTimes.com

"Bank of America is paying $6.3 billion to settle a lawsuit arising out of troubled mortgage-backed securities it cobbled together and sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the run-up to the financial crisis.


The bank agreed on Wednesday to pay that sum
to settle a lawsuit filed on behalf of the two government-sponsored
mortgage finance firms by their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance
Agency. As part of the settlement, Bank of America will also repurchase
mortgage securities from Fannie and Freddie that are valued at about
$3.2 billion.
The agreement covers what are known as
private-label mortgage-backed securities sold by Bank of America and its
affiliated entities like Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch."

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

LIBOR: The World’s Most Dishonest Number

LIBOR: The World’s Most Dishonest Number | The Big Picture

"The FDIC has sued 16 of the largest banks in the world plus the
British Bankers Association (BBA) alleging that they engaged in fraud
and collusion to manipulate the London Inter-bank Offered Rate (LIBOR). 
BBA called LIBOR “The most important number in the world.”


LIBOR is actually many numbers that depend on the currency and term
(maturity) of the loan.  The collusion involved manipulating most of
these rates.  A vast number of loans and derivatives are priced off of
these “numbers.”  Estimates of the notional dollar amount of deals
affected by the collusion range from $300-550 trillion in deals
manipulated at any given time.  The LIBOR frauds began no later than
2005 and continued through 2011."

The fact that the FDIC “only” sued 16 of the largest banks in the
world does not indicate that the other elite banks were run honestly. 
The other elite banks were not part of the group that set LIBOR so they
could not join in the cartel.  The LIBOR conspiracy could only succeed
and persist if none of 16 elite banks was controlled by honest officers
and no regulator acted to end the collusion once they became aware of
the collusion (which happened no later than April 16, 2008).  We ran a
real world test of the ethics of the leaders of 16 of the world’s most
elite banks.  The scorecard according to the U.S. government agency that
investigated the matter (the FDIC) reports that each of the leaders
failed.  Our twin emergencies are financial and ethical.


According to the FDIC investigation, the three largest banks in
America (including the world’s two largest banks), the four largest
banks in the U.K, the largest bank in German, the largest bank in Japan
(plus one of the handful of surviving “main banks”), the third largest
bank in France, the two largest Swiss banks, the second largest bank in
Canada, and the second largest bank in the Netherlands conspired
together to manipulate LIBOR and not only lied about it but also covered
up the cartel and the fraud scheme it used.  The 15 surviving banks’
total assets were nearly twice as large as the U.S. GDP as of September
30, 2013."




Here are the data on the banks sued by the FDIC




Bank ($ billions, IFRS, as of 9/30/13)
Bank of America Corp 3063^
Barclays PLC 2275
Citigroup Inc 2693^
Credit Suisse Group AG 1643^
Deutsche Bank AG 2420
HSBC Holdings PLC 2723
JPMorgan Chase & Co 3678^
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC 1829
UBS AG 1160
Rabobank 908
Lloyds Banking Group PLC 1409
Societe Generale 1698
Norinchukin Bank 846
Royal Bank of Canada 825
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ 2469
Total: 29639
Source: SNL Financial








...



"Ethics


Consider the ethical and political implications of what the FDIC
investigation has confirmed.  The entire barrel of apples is rotten. 
Every CEO failed the ethical test, and the ethical bar that they failed
to surmount was set exceptionally low.  That can only happen when a
“Gresham’s” dynamic has been allowed to persist for years because of the
three “de’s” (deregulation, desupervision, and de facto decriminalization). 
Such a dynamic can cause “bad ethics to drive good ethics out of the
markets.”  No one should be able to view the facts the FDIC cites
without a sense of horror combined with an urgent commitment to
transform the industry that has done so much financial and ethical harm
to our nations.  "

..

"Crony Capitalism and Politics


There are two possibilities:  the Obama administration knew for six
years that the world’s largest banks were endemically led by frauds or
the administration learned of that fact recently when it learned of the
results of the FDIC investigation.  The LIBOR scandal became public
knowledge with the Wall Street Journal’s April 16, 2008 expose,
so the Bush administration also knew it was dealing with elite frauds. 
If the Obama administration has long known that fraud was endemic among
the leaders of the world’s largest banks, then its policies toward those
CEO and the banks they control have been reprehensible and harmful.


If the administration has just learned from the FDIC investigation
about the true nature of the CEOs that it has refused to hold
accountable and allowed to retain and even massively increase their
wealth through leading control frauds then we can doubtless expect a
series of emergency actions transforming the administration’s finance
industry policies.  The FDIC lawsuit provides a “natural experiment”
that allows us to test which of the possibilities was correct.


Let’s review the bidding.  The U.S. government, through the FDIC, has
found after a lengthy investigation that the leaders of 16 of the
world’s largest banks conspired together to form a cartel to manipulate
the LIBOR “numbers” and to defraud the public about the scam.  This
should have led the criminal justice authorities to prosecute large
numbers of senior officers of these banks – but none of them have been
prosecuted.  It obviously poses a grave threat to the “safety and
soundness” of the entire financial system.  The endemic frauds led by
elite CEOs demonstrate such a pervasive failure of integrity and ethics
by the leaders of the finance industry that there is a moral crisis of
tragic proportions. "






People Battle to Regain Online Privacy

People Battle to Regain Online Privacy - WSJ.com

"

More people are turning to a new wave of tools that let them cover their footsteps online or let them know who's watching them.
They're
downloading programs that allow them to see how their online activity
is being monitored or who can get access to their social-media
information. They're turning to browsers and search engines that don't
track their queries, and to services that encrypt their messages. Some
may soon opt for a new wave of phones that help hide their activity from
trackers.
The fears about privacy are
widespread. According to the Pew Research Center, half of Americans—up
from 33% in 2009—are concerned about the wealth of personal data on the
Internet.
But growing numbers of people
are also staging everyday rebellions against rampant data mining.
According to the same Pew survey, 86% have taken steps to mask their
digital footprints.










For instance, ad-blocking tools,
which keep ads off your screen and prevent the ad companies from getting
data about you, have become the most popular browser extension on the
Web: More than a quarter of Americans have downloaded them, according to




















Forrester Research Inc"



"DuckDuckGo and other Google alternatives
have seen traffic soar. Since its founding in 2011, for instance,
DuckDuckGo has risen to 4.5 million visits a day. Ixquick, another
anonymous search browser, had 2.5 million users a day in the spring of
2013, before the Snowden disclosures. Now it has five million a day.
Many
users are also looking to protect their email. Encrypted and so-called
ephemeral messaging—texts that disappear seconds after you send
them—have become explosively popular among teens, and have long been
used by security professionals.
But now
people who aren't worried about parents or hackers are seeing value in
these apps. WhisperSystems' free encrypted messaging service has had a
3,000% surge in installs since the Snowden revelations, the company
says."


Revealed: Apple and Google’s wage-fixing cartel involved dozens more companies, over one million employees

Revealed: Apple and Google’s wage-fixing cartel involved dozens more companies, over one million employees | PandoDaily

"Confidential internal Google and Apple memos, buried within piles of
court dockets and reviewed by PandoDaily, clearly show that what began
as a secret cartel agreement between Apple’s Steve Jobs and Google’s
Eric Schmidt to illegally fix the labor market for hi-tech workers,
expanded within a few years to include companies ranging from Dell, IBM,
eBay and Microsoft, to Comcast, Clear Channel, Dreamworks, and
London-based public relations behemoth WPP. All told, the combined
workforces of the companies involved totals well over a million
employees."

"Although the Department ultimately decided to focus its attention on
just Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar, the
emails and memos clearly name dozens more companies which, at least as
far as Google and Apple executives were concerned, formed part of their
wage-fixing cartel."

..

"The “effective date” of Google’s first wage-fixing agreements, early
March 2005, follows a few weeks after Steve Jobs threatened Google’s
Sergey Brin to stop all recruiting at Apple: “if you hire a single one
of these people,” Jobs emailed Brin, “that means war.”


Jobs threatened Brin and Google on February 17, 2005; nine days
later, Apple’s VP for Human Resources sent out an internal email to
Apple recruiting,


All,


Please add Google to your “hands-off” list. We recently agreed not to
recruit from one another so if you hear of any recruiting they are
doing against us, please be sure to let me know.


Please also be sure to honor our side of the deal."
"This is just a tiny sample of the “overwhelming” evidence used by
both the Justice Department’s antitrust division, and the District Court
judge in San Jose, to debunk the company executives’ claims that each
had coincidentally implemented identical non-solicitation policies at
the same time, with the same companies, without knowing what the other
side was doing.


From that point on, the secret cartel expanded. Later that year, in
September 2005, eBay CEO Meg Whitman called Schmidt complaining that
Google’s recruiters were hurting profits and business at eBay. Schmidt
emailed Google’s “Executive Management Committee”—the company’s top
executives— summarizing Whitman’s, and “the valley”’s view that
competing for workers by offering higher pay packages was “unfair”:

whitman

"Within weeks of Whitman’s call to Schmidt, eBay was placed on a Google
list of “Sensitive” companies, for whom Google placed fewer restrictions
on its recruiters except at the executive recruitment level. It was at
this time that Google began to internally formalize its illegal
wage-suppression pacts—and Schmidt was clearly worried about getting
caught."


"Schmidt was then asked if Google sales executive Omid Kordestani could share “with Ebay/PP the rules as they pertain to them?”


Schmidt responded:


“I would prefer that Omid do it verbally since I don’t
want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later? Not sure
about this.. thanks Eric”
Google’s HR head at the time, Shona Brown, agreed with her boss, in lower-case ee cummings syntax:


“makes sense to do orally. i agree.”
A year later, by the end of 2006, Google upgraded eBay to its “Do Not
Cold Call” list, joining OpenTV, Nvidia Technologies, and Intuit along
with the original five companies."



...

"For now, it’s enough to try to absorb what all of these
cross-company, cross-industry secret labor-fixing agreements mean. Most
labor stories about wage theft and corporate abuse tend to focus on
low-wage earners and the most disadvantaged. Certainly it strains one’s
sensibilities to compare an exploited low-wage worker in the fast food
or retail industry to tech engineers and programmers, who are far better
compensated, live more comfortably, and rarely worry about putting food
in their children’s mouths.


In terms of pathos, there is no comparison; minimum wage earners are
struggling to survive, and nearly all of the well-educated,
privileged-born people in the media world agree that tech industry
workers are all a bunch of overpaid misogynist libertarian bros, a caricature
that makes it perfectly fine to hate the entire class, and impossible
to consider them as political comrades stuck in the same predicament as
the rest of the non-multimillionaires in this country.


What’s more important is the political predicament that low-paid fast
food workers share with well-paid hi-tech workers: the loss of power
over their lives and their futures to the growing mass of concentrated
power in Silicon Valley, whose tentacles are so strong now and so great,
that hundreds of thousands of workers around the globe—public relations
and cable company employees in the British Isles, programmers and tech
engineers in Russia and China (according to other documents which I’ll
write about soon)—have their lives controlled and their wages and
opportunities stolen from them without ever knowing about it, all the
while being bombarded with cultural cant about the wisdom of the free
market, about the efficiency of free knowledge, about the need to take
personal responsibility and to blame no one but yourself for everything
that happens in your life and your career."













U.S. banks enjoy "too-big-to-fail" advantage: Fed study

U.S. banks enjoy "too-big-to-fail" advantage: Fed study - Yahoo Finance

"A landmark study by Federal
Reserve economists found that large U.S. banks enjoy a "too-big-to-fail"
advantage in financial markets, confirming the suspicions of many Wall
Street critics more than five years after the financial crisis.

The
series of research papers, published on Tuesday by the U.S. central
bank's influential New York branch, suggests the biggest and most
complex banks benefited even after the financial crisis from lower
funding and operating costs compared to smaller firms. The researchers
used data through 2009.
The biggest banks also, Fed economists found, can take bigger risks than their smaller peers.
While
the study did not pinpoint the reason big banks borrow more cheaply,
Wall Street critics say it is because investors believe the U.S.
government would again rescue them in a panic, despite new rules adopted
in the wake of the 2007-2009 crisis and aimed at avoiding future
bailouts."

U.S. banks enjoy "too-big-to-fail" advantage: Fed study

U.S. banks enjoy "too-big-to-fail" advantage: Fed study - Yahoo Finance

"A landmark study by Federal
Reserve economists found that large U.S. banks enjoy a "too-big-to-fail"
advantage in financial markets, confirming the suspicions of many Wall
Street critics more than five years after the financial crisis.

The
series of research papers, published on Tuesday by the U.S. central
bank's influential New York branch, suggests the biggest and most
complex banks benefited even after the financial crisis from lower
funding and operating costs compared to smaller firms. The researchers
used data through 2009.
The biggest banks also, Fed economists found, can take bigger risks than their smaller peers.
While
the study did not pinpoint the reason big banks borrow more cheaply,
Wall Street critics say it is because investors believe the U.S.
government would again rescue them in a panic, despite new rules adopted
in the wake of the 2007-2009 crisis and aimed at avoiding future
bailouts."