Morgan Stanley's Recession Doom Scenario

The global economy is likely to be stuck in the "twilight zone" of sluggish growth in 2013, Morgan Stanley has warned, but if policymakers fail to act, it could get a lot worse.

The bank's economics team forecasts a full-blown recession next year, under a pessimistic scenario, with global gross domestic product (GDP) likely to plunge 2 percent.

"More than ever, the economic outlook hinges upon the actions taken or not taken by governments and central banks," Morgan Stanley said in a report.

Under the bank's more gloomy scenario, the U.S. would go over the "fiscal cliff" leading to a contraction in U.S. GDP for the first three quarters of 2013. In Europe, the bank's pessimistic scenario assumes a failure of the European Central Bank (ECB) in cutting rates and a delay of its bond-buying program.

But the bank says investors should also be nimble, in case policy action is "convincing and decisive," leading to a big uptick in growth.

"Importantly, investors should keep an open mind and be prepared to switch between the scenarios as policy developments unfold." Read More >>

Banks face billions more in Libor losses

Banks implicated in the Libor-fixing scandal will likely take billions more in losses as a result of pending litigation and regulatory penalties, according to industry analysts at Morgan Stanley. The analysis -- which the authors admit is crude -- is based in part on the experience of Barclays, the British bank which admitted that its staffers attempted to manipulate the London Interbank Offered Rate.

Many of the world's major banks, including Deutsche Bank (DB), Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Credit Suisse (CS), Citigroup (C, Fortune 500), UBS (UBS) and JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) have disclosed that they are being investigated.

Barclays has agreed to pay $453 million to U.S. and U.K. regulators, a settlement which provided the basis for Morgan Stanley's calculation that at least ten additional banks could be fined between $420 and $651 million by regulators. Other banks implicated in the scandal -- but not included in the Morgan Stanley analysis -- could also face penalties.

Banks that have not yet settled with regulators will likely pay a premium, as Barclays received preferential treatment from regulators because it was cooperative and settled quickly. The other banks, according to the analysis, should expect to pay 30% more. Under another scenario, the banks could face even higher fines after the U.K. Serious Fraud Office completes its investigation. Read more >>

Potential Disaster For U.S. Corn Supply

Corn supplies in the U.S., the world’s biggest exporter, are declining at the fastest pace since 1996 just as a Midwest heat wave damages the world’s largest harvest for a third consecutive year. Stockpiles were probably 3.168 billion bushels (80.47 million metric tons) on June 1, 47 percent less than on March 1, the average of 22 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg shows.

The worst Midwest drought in more than a decade is wilting a harvest that the U.S. Department of Agriculture says will be the biggest ever. The agency updates its inventory estimate June 29 and its production forecast two weeks later. Futures surged 28 percent since reaching a 20-month low June 15, and Morgan Stanley expects prices to advance an additional 7.9 percent to $7 a bushel in two months if the drought persists.

The rally is boosting global food costs that the United Nations estimates dropped 14 percent from a record in February 2011 and widening losses for ethanol producers including Decatur, Illinois-based Archer Daniels Midland Co. “We have a potential disaster developing for the U.S. corn supply,” said Peter Meyer, the senior director for agricultural commodities at PIRA Energy Group in New York who cut his corn- crop forecast after surveying fields in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio last week. “This year may be the worst yet.” Read more >>

Dismal year-to-date performance of some of the major global banking stocks

Here's a little overview of the year-to-date performance of some of the major global banking stocks on December 29, 2011, before the opening bell:

BofA: -60.38%
Citi: -44.76%
Goldman Sachs: -46.41%
JPMorgan: -23.03%
Morgan Stanley: -45.24%
RBS: -50%
Barclays: -34.32%
Lloyds: -63.02%
UBS: -29.33%
Deutsche Bank: -28,55%
Crédit Agricole: -56.04%
BNP Paribas: -37.67%
Société Générale: -59.57%

These are just some of the Too Big To Fail institutions. And while your governments have enough faith in them - or so they want you to believe - to prop them up with trillions of dollars of your money, investors are fleeing them, even if they can expect them to be propped up further.

That doesn't just say something about confidence in the individual banks, it shouts loud and clear from the rooftops on confidence in the banking system as a whole, and indeed on governments' ability to continue bailing them out. In other words: bailouts don’t build confidence, they are taken as a sign that trouble's on the way. More...

The World is in a global synchronous recession

Image via WikipediaAs the third quarter comes to an end, strategists and investors are beginning to prep their clients and portfolios for the chance that the whole globe slides into a recession at the same time.

The worse news is that with uncertainty in Europe, the U.S. and China as high as when the quarter began, they can’t find much to do about it.

“A more sinister scenario could also unfold, namely a global synchronous recession where deflation becomes more visible,” said Morgan Stanley’s Adam Parker, the head of U.S. equity strategy, in a note to clients this week. “In recent days, a number of clients have told us they are having great difficulty in getting defensive, even when they want to.”

The S&P 500 continued its churn Wednesday near its 2011 lows as copper plunged. European benchmarks zigzagged as member countries reportedly remain conflicted about increasing the size of the Greece bailout fund. China’s equity benchmark fell to a new low for the year. More...

Investment Banks Caused, and Are Profiting From, Rising Food Prices

Image via WikipediaForeign Policy has a must-read story about the role that Goldman Sachs has played in driving up food prices globally. The story starts back in 1991, when Goldman planted the seeds of a trend that other institutions would follow, to the detriment of anyone who relies on eating food.
Or at least, anyone who eats who doesn't also have endless supplies of money.
The World Development Movement (a British organization) recently launched a campaign targeting Barclay's for its role in also profiting from higher food prices, as one of the three biggest players in the commodities markets (alongside Goldman and Morgan Stanley).
The Ecologist explains the World Development Movement's analysis of Barclays' involvement in food speculation:

Barclays could be generating as much as £340 million a year through gambling on the price of key commodity crops like coffee, sugar and wheat, the Ecologist has learnt. By creating funds to allow investors to speculate on the price of food, in the same way they would invest in the shares of a company, Barclays and others are able to bet on the price of food. However, food commodity trading is leading to higher and more volatile prices, say campaigners, which affect poor families in the less industrialised world the hardest as they can't afford basic foods and also make it more difficult for farmers to plan and invest. More...

"Banging" the U.S. Stock Market

Janet Tavakoli
Chicago residents grew up to the sound of local early morning radio rundowns of pork belly futures and other exchange traded commodities. Every trick in the book from manipulation of soybeans to silver has played out in Chicago's trading pits. Every market professional I've talked to in Chicago since Thursday is of the same opinion. It makes no difference whether human beings or computers are front running and manipulating trades. The gyrations in the market last week have the look and feel of classic market manipulation.

If you want to manipulate a market, deregulate it as much as possible. Then make it as "dark," and fast as possible. Make it hard for outsiders to view your trades as they get done, and make it even harder for anyone to figure out why you are trading. Get as much monopoly power as possible over the market. Get funding at the cheapest possible rate. The best possible rate is the near zero cost funding available from the Federal Reserve.

Next, get your "men" stationed in the most influential positions at the exchanges. Make sure your cronies have shock and awe market dominance through, say, High Frequency Trading algorithms that now make up the majority of stock trades.

Then, make sure you have advance information of major market-moving events. A bailout announcement by the European Union would do nicely. A few days before the announcement, "bang" the market. Pound down the value so you can monetize put options and other bearish instruments. Trigger customers' stop-loss orders, and pick up bargains at their expense. Then cash-in again when the market pops up on bailout news.

To paraphrase Paul Erdman's 1975 tongue-in-cheek observation: "The lack of discretion in financial and political circles these days is appalling."

Meanwhile, take the heat off of yourself by leaking "fat finger" rumors to CNBC, since they can be relied up on to repeat as gospel any self-serving news you throw at them. Did someone type billions? It should have been millions. If we want to rescue the market from the Jaws of future disasters, we have to recognize that "this was no boating (or typing) accident." The system itself is flawed.

(See also: "How to Corner the Gold Market," TSF, March 30, 2010)

The NYSE was supposed to provide market liquidity. Trading safeguards are no good unless they are system-wide. The current and former heads of the NYSE, billed as the "best and the brightest," i.e., the most connected, should be asked a few questions about High Frequency Trading and "liquidity" providers. Our mega-bank trading desks that control most of the volume on the exchanges should be called in for an accounting and justification of their trading activities. Trading patterns during last week's debacle and over the last year should be examined.

Unfortunately, as others have observed before, the SEC is both largely incompetent and captured. They are learning to crawl in the space age. Moreover, the next stop for SEC officials seems to always be a highly paid influential job at a law firm, fund, or other entity that heavily relies on Wall Street for revenues. Financial reform requires radical overhaul of our "regulators."

As for Wall Street mega-bank reform, Congress seems disinclined to break up our Too-Big-To-Fail banks, define proprietary trading, or sever Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and proprietary trading at large banks from the Federal Reserve's, i.e., taxpayers' heavy subsidies. (See also: "Goldman Sachs: Spinning Gold," Huffington Post, April 7, 2010.)

If everyone wants to stick to the story of "woe is us, we had no idea things could go this wrong," then fine. No one is in control; no one is in charge; and no one can competently regulate our current system. This is a compelling argument for immediate radical financial reform.

Underemployment Hits 20% in Mid-March

Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's underemployment measure hit 20.0% on March 15 -- up from 19.7% two weeks earlier and 19.5% at the start of the year. Gallup Daily tracking makes it possible to monitor the underemployment rate throughout the month, rather than just once per month, making it the best and most timely way to measure the U.S. jobs situation.

The findings underscore why Americans say the most important problem facing the nation today is jobs and unemployment. Gallup's underemployment measure is based on more than 20,000 phone interviews collected over a 30-day period and reported daily. Gallup's results are not seasonally adjusted and tend to be a precursor of government reports by approximately two weeks.

More Part-Time Employees Seeking Full-Time Work

Gallup classifies Americans as underemployed if they are unemployed or working part-time but wanting full-time work. On March 15, Gallup's unemployment rate was 10.3% -- essentially the same as the 10.4% of March 1, but down from 10.8% in mid-February. However, this decline in the percentage of unemployed Americans was more than offset over the past 30 days by an increase in the percentage of those working part-time but wanting full-time work, from 9.0% in mid-February to 9.7% in mid-March.

Gallup's data suggest that while the U.S. unemployment rate has declined over the past month, the employment gains may be largely taking the form of new part-time jobs. Many of those acquiring these new jobs may be Americans who find that, although they would prefer to be working full-time, only part-time work is available.

Focus on Underemployment, Not Unemployment

Even with historic healthcare legislation under consideration, Congress passed and the president signed a new jobs creation bill on March 18. No doubt, national attention will shortly shift to unemployment and anticipation of the government's April 2 report of the March unemployment rate. In this regard, Gallup's mid-March unemployment rate is likely indicative of the not-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate the government will release in April, as is Gallup's broader underemployment rate.

The danger associated with focusing on unemployment is reflected by the recent statement of Morgan Stanley economists suggesting that the U.S. may add as many as 300,000 jobs in March owing to an improvement in the weather, economic growth, and the government's hiring of temporary census workers. If anything close to this number of new jobs is announced by the government in early April, there is likely to be an enthusiastic, possibly even celebratory, response. Government officials are liable to tout the continued benefits of last year's stimulus and the future benefits of the new jobs bill. Many Wall Streeters will likely argue that the surge in jobs is simply another confirmation of the strength of the overall economic recovery.

However, before policymakers celebrate too much, they should note Gallup's recent findings involving its new, more inclusive measure of underemployment. To be sure, there are some benefits associated with the unemployed getting part-time jobs, no matter the source. For example, Gallup's self-reported spending data show that part-time workers who want full-time work spent on average 24% more per day ($51) during the past 30 days than did the unemployed ($41). While this represents an improvement and is good for the economy, it is not nearly as good as the 85% higher daily spending of those having full-time jobs ($76).

It is also often suggested that a growth in part-time jobs may indicate future growth in full-time work -- that companies hire part-time workers before committing to hiring new full-time employees. While this is sometimes the case, it may not be so at this point in the U.S. economy: Gallup data show that one in three part-time employees who are wanting full-time work are currently "hopeful" about finding a full-time job in the next 30 days -- not much of an endorsement of the idea that today's new part-time work will progress to full-time jobs.

Regardless of how one interprets the shifts taking place between part-time and full-time jobs, it is important that policymakers focus on the broader goal of reducing underemployment, not just unemployment. Part-time, temporary jobs like those associated with census-taking are far better than no job and may reduce the unemployment rate, but they do not represent the kind of job creation needed for a sustainable economic recovery.

Morgan Stanley Strategist: Head for the Hills!

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

James Pressley

Bloomberg reported earlier this week that the former chief global strategist for Morgan Stanley is telling people to prepare for the worst. One more time folks, this is no conspiracy theorist. Barton Biggs, MORGAN STANLEY'S FORMER CHIEF GLOBAL STRATEGIST is telling you there is going to be an economic collapse. Read the article below.

Barton Biggs has some offbeat advice for the rich: Insure yourself against war and disaster by buying a remote farm or ranch and stocking it with ``seed, fertilizer, canned food, wine, medicine, clothes, etc.''

The ``etc.'' must mean guns.

``A few rounds over the approaching brigands' heads would probably be a compelling persuader that there are easier farms to pillage,'' he writes in his new book, ``Wealth, War and Wisdom.''

Biggs is no paranoid survivalist. He was chief global strategist at Morgan Stanley before leaving in 2003 to form hedge fund Traxis Partners. He doesn't lock and load until the last page of this smart look at how World War II warped share prices, gutted wealth and remains a warning to investors. His message: Listen to markets, learn from history and prepare for the worst.

``Wealth, War and Wisdom'' fills a void. Library shelves are packed with volumes on World War II. The history of stock markets also has been ably recorded, notably in Robert Sobel's ``The Big Board.'' Yet how many books track the intersection of the two?

The ``wisdom'' in the alliterative title refers to the spooky way markets can foreshadow the future. Biggs became fascinated with this phenomenon after discovering by chance that equity markets sensed major turning points in the war.

The British stock market bottomed out in late June 1940 and started rising again before the truly grim days of the Battle of Britain in July to October, when the Germans were splintering London with bombs and preparing to invade the U.K.

`Epic Bottom'

The Dow Jones Industrial Average plumbed ``an epic bottom'' in late April and early May of 1942, then began climbing well before the U.S. victory in the Battle of Midway in June turned the tide against the Japanese.

Berlin shares ``peaked at the high-water mark of the German attack on Russia just before the advance German patrols actually saw the spires of Moscow in early December of 1941.''

``Those were the three great momentum changes of World War II -- although at the time, no one except the stock markets recognized them as such.''

Biggs isn't suggesting that Mr. Market is infallible: He can get ``panicky and crazy in the heat of the moment,'' he says. Over the long haul, though, markets display what James Surowiecki calls ``the wisdom of crowds.''

Like giant voting machines, they aggregate the judgments of individuals acting independently into a collective assessment. Biggs stress-tests this theory against events that shook nations from the Depression through the Korean War, which he calls ``the last battle of World War II.''

Refresher Course

Biggs has read widely and thought deeply. He has a pleasing conversational style, an eye for memorable anecdotes and a weakness for Winston Churchill's quips. His book works as a brisk refresher course.

What really packs a wallop, though, is his combination of military history, market action, maps and charts. It's one thing to say that the London market scraped bottom before the Battle of Britain. It's another to show it.

In May and June 1940, some 338,000 British and French troops had been evacuated from Dunkirk by a flotilla of fishing boats, tugs, barges, yachts and river steamers. The French and Belgian armies had collapsed; the Dutch had surrendered. Britain stood alone, as bombs shattered London and the Nazis prepared to invade. Yet stocks rallied.

Mankind endures ``an episode of great wealth destruction'' at least once every century, Biggs reminds us. So the wealthy should prepare to ride out a disaster, be it a tsunami, a market meltdown or Islamic terrorists with a dirty bomb.

The rich get complacent, assuming they will have time ``to extricate themselves and their wealth'' when trouble comes, Biggs says. The rich are mistaken, as the Holocaust proves.

``Events move much faster than anyone expects,'' he says, ``and the barbarians are on top of you before you can escape.''

Why Is All This Happening? It’s the War Between Bankers

Image via Wikipedia

by Bill Sardi

The public may have casually become aware of recent news announcements about an agreed upon goal between bankers to reach an 8-percent cash reserve requirement in their institutions. A list was recently published showing few banks currently have reached this reserve requirement. This list was obviously issued to apply public pressure via the public’s ability to direct their deposits to more stable banks, thus nudging other banks to increase their reserves.

Banks deploy depositors’ money into interest-bearing loans in order to generate profits and keep a portion in reserve to meet depositors’ immediate needs. Recall that withdrawal of $16.7 billion in cash from Washington Mutual bank over a 9-day period is what drove that bank into insolvency even though it had $307 billion of (over-valued) assets and deposits of $188 billion at the time. So cash reserves are of greater importance into today’s unstable financial environment.

It all sounds so collegiate – a bunch of the world’s bankers have agreed to stabilize their institutions so as to better withstand current economic challenges and create greater public confidence in banks. News reports make it sound like bankers are cooperative. But in reality, there is a war going on between bankers, in particular central bankers, those bankers who supply money to depository banks where the public banks their money.

First shots fired

The first shots in this war were apparently fired by banks in Japan a number of years ago. This dispute between bankers is what has led to the current worldwide financial crisis.

Bruce Wiseman makes us aware of this war in his report A Look Behind The Wizard’s Curtain: The Financial Crisis: The Hidden Beginning. Wiseman’s upcoming book and movie on this topic are scheduled for release in 2010.

Wiseman reports that the top ten banks in the world in the 1970s were American banks. But in the 1980s six Japanese banks rose into the top-ten ranking. Wiseman explains this sudden rise, which was said to shift the center of world banking from New York to Tokyo, was due to the low reserves (said to be as low as 3%) kept by bankers in Japan.

With lower reserve requirements, Japanese banks had more available funds to loan than competing banks throughout the globe. These Nippon bankers could establish branch banks throughout the world and dominate the world’s financial markets.

The 8-percent reserve requirement agreed upon in the Basel I agreement, named for the location of its signing at the Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, is intended to put the world’s banks on a level playing field when it comes to doing business outside their own countries.

Wiseman says this low-reserve requirement practiced by banks in Japan was perceived as drawing a samurai sword against the rest of the world’s bankers and this didn’t rest well with Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the US Federal Reserve Bank and Board Member of the International Bank of Settlements, a bank for the world’s central bankers headquartered in Basel, Switzerland. Something had to be done about unfair competition in the banking arena.

Bankers in Japan were informed via the Bank of International Settlements, the "central bankers’ bank," that they would not be allowed to continue their operations in major foreign markets unless they agreed to a minimum reserve requirement – the 8% rule. Japanese bankers were coerced to agree to what has become known as the Basel I accord which was signed in 1988.

Foot dragging over reforms

But it’s now 21 years later, and bankers are still dragging their feet to comply with a stability measure that, had it been implemented, may have staved off part of the current economic crisis long before it occurred.

Don’t get a false impression that Japanese banks are solely to blame for bank instability. Five investment banks in the U.S. (Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill-Lynch and Morgan Stanley) appealed to the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and won the privilege to carry a 20-to-1 or even 30-to-1 ratio of capital to loans (not the same as cash reserves, as mentioned above).

For example, instead of these investment banks employing a more traditional capital-to-loan ratio of 10-to-1 (let’s say $1 billion of capital to issue $10 billion in loans), they were given the green light to loan at the ratio of 20-to-1 or even 30-to-1 ($1 billion of capital to issue $20 billion or even $30 billion in loans). This was a conscious decision by the SEC that probably was coerced by political influence.

Basel II spawns real estate bubble

This bankers’ war continued over the following decade and a half, culminating in Basel II in 2004, another agreement between banks to standardize reporting requirements for credit worthiness and capital that each depository bank holds. This is when the so-called "mark-to-market" rules were established. The Bank of International Settlements is attempting to get banks to value their real estate assets on real market value and to reveal all of the non-performing loans (foreclosures) they have on their books. Such revelations and transparency would doom many banks, including some of the world’s largest banks.

Basel II also made provision for reduced reserve requirements for mortgage-backed home loans. This made home loans more profitable and is set off the explosive false growth in residential real estate and created the financial bubble that finally popped in 2008. Central bankers are to blame for setting off this wild fire in the real estate market.

How many banks intend to comply?

A recent survey conducted by the Financial Stability Institute attempted to determine how many banks in 115 jurisdictions in less developed nations in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East intend to comply with Basel II. The survey was not sent to banks in Japan, possibly for good reason. The 2004 survey revealed 95 countries currently plan to comply with Basel II reporting requirements, and even more countries said they intended to comply with Basel II in a 2006 survey.

However, according to a report in Risk Magazine, the banking industry is fighting finalized reforms in the Basel II mandates, claiming the amount of capital required cannot be raised within the allotted time framework. Finance ministers and central bank governors of the 20 leading economies (called the Group of 20) wants full implementation by 2012.

Prudent banking

Prudent banking is not beyond the capability of bankers. For example, according to a Wall Street Journal article, while Basel II requires a capital to loan ratio of 9%, banks in India are required to have a 12% standard.

Bankers in China have been even more prudent. Chinese banks adhere to a cap on loan-to-deposit ratios of about 75% (the actual ratio is more like 67%), and leverage ratios (capital-to-loan ratios) in the single digits – considerably below what the big U.S. banks have been allowed to accumulate. Furthermore, in China, home buyers can only borrow up to 70% of the value of their property (60% if it's a second purchase).

Fang Xinghai, director-general of Shanghai's financial-services office, recently described the difference between the Chinese and U.S. approaches to bank regulation in the Wall Street Journal: "In the U.S., the regulators don't believe in regulation to begin with," he said, and pointed a finger at former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's belief that the Fed's job wasn't to prevent or deflate assets bubbles, but to "deal with the consequences."

The Wall Street Journal report goes on to say that bankers in Spain certainly incurred exposure to an overbuilt real estate market (an estimated 1.2 million unsold new homes), but they avoided further trouble by consolidating all their assets, even non-performing home loans, onto their balance sheets. For comparison, "Special investment vehicles," employed by American banks, "cooked the books" and keep risky debt off of bank ledgers.

Resorting to the unthinkable

Unable to create a level competitive field for banking, the bank reform effort has now shifted away from cooperation to a master plan to take down the world’s economies and exercise complete control in the aftermath by introduction of a master plan to control banking and currency.

According to Wiseman, the plan underway now is to intentionally "take down the United States and the U.S. dollar as the stable datum of planetary finance and replace it with something called a Global Monetary Authority" that will issue a single global currency via the world’s central bankers, who in turn distribute money to depository and investment banks.

What Wiseman is talking about here is that a small group of less than a dozen central bankers are likely to rule the world via control of currency.

As confirmation of Wiseman’s claim, the call for a "global monetary authority" was echoed by a Yale professor in the Financial Times in 2008.

What looms is a single global currency, probably issued by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which will then exert control over the world’s banks. A more complete picture of what is likely being planned is provided here and here.

The intentional take-down of the world’s economies and establishment of a world currency will be spawned out of planned chaos which would provoke the planet’s masses to beg for relief. The new currency and its new central bank will be offered up as the quickest solution to the world’s economic turmoil.

But will world control be lost?

However, the bankers and elites risk losing control of the world that they now hold. As investigative journalist Daniel Estulin reports, "One of Bilderberg’s primary concerns accordingly is the danger that their zeal to reshape the world by engineering chaos in order to implement their long term agenda could cause the situation to spiral out of control and eventually lead to a scenario where Bilderberg and the global elite in general are overwhelmed by events and end up losing their control over the planet." (The Bilderberg Group, comprised of over 100 influential people, meets annually to discuss issues of world concern.)

Yet central bankers and elitists plod ahead, all the while attempting to tighten their grip on the masses. Following the G20 (20 leading countries of the world) meeting at the beginning of April, 2009, it was reported that, "The world is a step closer to a global currency, backed by a global central bank, running monetary policy for all humanity." A communiqué released by the G20 leaders stated that, "We have agreed to support a general standard drawing rights (SDR) allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity," and that, "SDRs are Special Drawing Rights, a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund that has lain dormant for half a century." Essentially, "they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body."

IMF plants an agent in our midst

The IMF has the right man in place to do the job in the U.S. Timothy Geithner, U.S. Treasury Secretary, was director of the Policy Development and Review Department (2001–2003) at the IMF. Geithner is also well connected in other circles. He was also part of a consulting firm in the 1980s owned by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Furthermore, Geithner was also president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a staffer at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Geithner, as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, apparently sees no conflict between his duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution and a one-world currency. He goes along with the agenda to abolish the US dollar in favor of a global medium of exchange. Geithner was quoted to say: "Our hope is that we can work with Europe on a global framework, a global infrastructure which has appropriate global oversight."

What lies ahead

Foot dragging by the world’s bankers to comply with banking standards and the intentional collapse of world economies to force bank reform has dragged the world into a quagmire that could lead to mass starvation, suicide and even war. A former top British bank regulator recently called for the formation of an international bank police agency to bring the bankers into line. But such an idea appears to be too late. Efforts to usher in an IMF-issued currency appear to be steaming forward.

Such plans, to usher in a one-world government and a single currency, were made decades ago by elitists and central bankers, but they were waiting for world events to be engineered in a manner to create the perfect storm that would cause Americans to give up their sovereignty, and their greenbacks, in exchange for a new type of play money and subservience to another rule of law outside the U.S. Constitution. Professor Carroll Quigley described this covert plan in the 1960s in his book entitled Tragedy and Hope: A History Of The World In Our Time. Another broad description of this plan is found here.

World control

Few Americans catch on to the fact that central bankers, not elected representatives, have controlled America for some time now. It was the British banker Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild who said in 1791: "Allow me to issue and control a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws."

The world exists for the central bankers to plunder, and no one else. What is good for the central bankers is good enough for the rest of the world. It’s like the world is a tiger that is being slung around by its tail. If central bankers aren’t paid their dues, the world must suffer. Yet the bankers must not be deprived of their seven, eight and even nine-figure commission checks amidst the turmoil. The world is being slung into economic chaos over a long-standing war between central bankers. If the masses only knew.

December 14, 2009

Bill Sardi [send him mail] is a frequent writer on health and political topics. His health writings can be found at www.naturalhealthlibrarian.com. He is the author of You Don’t Have To Be Afraid Of Cancer Anymore.

Morgan Stanley accused of conspiring with rating agencies to defraud investors

Reuters
Morgan Stanley has been sued by a Virgin Islands pension fund that accused the Wall Street bank of defrauding investors by marketing $1.2 billion (753 million pounds) of risky mortgage-related notes that it expected to fail.

The lawsuit filed December 24 in Manhattan federal court said Morgan Stanley collaborated with credit rating agencies Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's to obtain "triple-A" ratings for notes marketed in 2007 as part of a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) known as Libertas.

According to the complaint, the CDO was backed by low-quality assets, including securities issued by subprime lenders New Century Financial Corp, which quickly went bankrupt, and Option One Mortgage Corp, then owned by H&R Block.

The complaint alleged Morgan Stanley knew the CDO's assets were far riskier than the ratings suggested, but was "highly motivated to defraud investors" with pristine ratings because it was simultaneously "shorting" almost all the assets. This was a bet that their value would fall, which they did in 2008.

"Morgan Stanley was betting the entire investment it was promoting would fail," according to the complaint, which was made available on Tuesday. "The firm achieved its objective."

Alyson Barnes, a Morgan Stanley spokeswoman, declined to comment. S&P spokesman Frank Briamonte had no immediate comment. Moody's did not immediately return a call seeking comment. Moody's, a unit of Moody's, and S&P, a unit of McGraw-Hill Cos, were not named as defendants.

Many banks face lawsuits from investors who say they were misled into investing in securities they believed were safe but which were in fact tied to risky subprime mortgages.

Morgan Stanley is also a defendant in a closely watched case in the same Manhattan court that concerns whether rating agencies deserve free speech protection for their opinions.

The December 24 complaint said Morgan Stanley knew securities in the Libertas CDO were suffering a dramatic rise in delinquencies, but provided a misleading "risk factor" in a prospectus that rising delinquencies "may" hurt values in the $1 trillion residential mortgage-backed securities market.

It called this representation "analogous to Captain Smith's telling passengers of the Titanic that some ships have 'recently sunk' in the Atlantic and therefore 'our ship may sink,' without mentioning the facts that his ship struck an iceberg, had a hole in it, and was filling with water."

The lawsuit seeks class-action status, and also seeks compensatory and punitive damages, among other remedies. It was filed by Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, a law firm specializing in securities class-action lawsuits.

Morgan Stanley shares were up 22 cents at $29.51 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

The case is Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands v. Morgan Stanley & Co et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 09-10532.

Goldman Sachs and Others Investigated for Betting Against Securities They Created

Image via CrunchBase

Noel Brinkerhoff
Betting against their own securities has prompted numerous investigations of Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street institutions. Prior to the financial collapse, Goldman and others figured out a way to package risky securities, such as subprime mortgages, and sell them to investors who were told they were buying sound investments. Little did the investors know that the firms selling the synthetic collateralized debt obligations (or CDOs) turned around and bet that the CDOs would fail—costing pension funds and insurance companies billions of dollars.

“The simultaneous selling of securities to customers and shorting them because they believed they were going to default is the most cynical use of credit information that I have ever seen,” Sylvain Raynes, an expert in structured finance at R & R Consulting in New York, told The New York Times. “When you buy protection against an event that you have a hand in causing, you are buying fire insurance on someone else’s house and then committing arson.”

In addition to Goldman, CDOs were sold and bet against by Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley and Tricadia Inc.—an investment company whose parent firm’s CDO management committee was overseen by Lee Sachs. Sachs is now a special counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. The schemes are now being investigated by Congress, the Securities and Exchange Commission and Wall Street’s Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

Obama's Dog and Pony Show with Bankers

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Tom Eley
Obama holds stage-managed meeting with Wall Street bankers
The stated aim of the gathering of Wall Street bankers at a private White House meeting with President Barack Obama on Monday was to cajole the nation's largest financial institutions into offering loans to cash-starved businesses and consumers.

In reality, the event was a media exercise designed to placate growing popular anger toward the Obama administration. The true nature of the event was not lost on its attendees. “It's a PR [public relations] stunt,” an unnamed CEO flatly told Time magazine prior to the meeting.

Attending were Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, Ken Lewis of Bank of America, Richard Fairbank of Capital One, Bob Kelly of Bank of New York Mellon, Ken Chenault of American Express, and Ron Logue of State Street Bank. Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, John Mack of Morgan Stanley, and Dick Parsons of Citigroup joined the meeting via video conference.

The nation's biggest banks will soon hand out year-end executive bonuses totalling in the tens of billions. This conspicuous display of bank prosperity comes just over one year after the US Treasury and Federal Reserve began to funnel trillions of dollars to the finance industry. This ensured that the banks would profit from the economic crisis that they precipitated through rampant financial speculation.

The vast majority of the population continues to suffer through the nation's worst social crisis since the Great Depression. One in six workers is without a job or underemployed. For those who have work, speed-up and pay and benefit cuts are the rule. The foreclosure crisis continues. Hunger is at a record high. The destruction of the social safety system by cash-strapped states is accelerating, and the Obama administration is readying years of budget austerity to right the US fiscal crisis at the expense of the working class.

Appearing on the CBS news program “60 Minutes” on Sunday evening, Obama acknowledged the anger. Referring to the Wall Street financiers as “fat cat bankers,” Obama noted, “They're still puzzled why is it that people are mad at the banks.”

“Well, let's see,” Obama continued, “you guys are drawing down 10, 20 million dollar bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got 10 percent unemployment.”

Obama did not mention that this is an outcome of the policies of his own administration, which has overseen the Wall Street baillout and has explicitly campaigned to oppose any measure that would curb executive pay. Meanwhile, it has spearheaded the attack on workers' pay, including through the forced bankrupcy of General Motors and Chrysler.

Monday's meeting comes nine months after a similar meeting at the White House in March. Then, Obama pledged not to take any measures that would impinge on the interests of the financial oligarchy. Bank of America's Lewis said at the time that he was confident that no “punitive” actions would be taken after the “pleasant” meeting. (See “Obama holds ‘very pleasant’ meeting with top US bankers”)

While the media had predicted that Obama's criticisms on “60 Minutes” meant he would shame the executives or give them a “dressing down” on Monday, by all accounts the meeting was likewise as pleasant as it was unsubstantial. No transcripts of the discussion have been released.

Richard Davis, CEO of US Bancorp, told the media “there wasn't a lot of disagreement.” “He didn't call us any names,” Davis said, referring to Obama's “fat cat” reference on “60 Minutes.”

Obama pleaded with the bank executives to “explore every responsible way” to increase lending “to help creditworthy small and medium-sized businesses.” Over the past year, a general lack of cash liquidity has forced many businesses to fold, scale back operations, and lay off workers.

Last fall, Obama, President George W. Bush, and Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, among others, justified the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) as critically necessary in order to “jump start” or “open the spigot” of lending. Since then every facet of the Wall Street bailout, including the unaccounted trillions extended to the banks from the Federal Reserve, has relied on the same rationale.

But all evidence shows that the banks have hoarded the cash or used it to engage in new forms of speculation. Overall loan volume continued to fall from the second to third quarters this year, according to recent data.

What the banks have made liquid has not been invested in production. Instead much of it has been been shifted into new asset bubbles, primarily in Asia. From this and other speculative practices the banks have made windfall profits only one year after they teetered on the brink of collapse.

The banks have used some of these profits to pay back TARP funds in order to escape modest limitations on executive pay. Citigroup and Wells Fargo became the latest Wall Street firms to do so, announcing Monday they would pay back $20 billion and $25 billion, respectively. They join Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley.

Obama also implored the bankers to “close the gap” between their declared support for finance reform and their vocal opposition to the regulatory bill passed by the US House of Representatives last week, even though the proposed law would, if anything, expand possibilities for financial speculation.

Such hypocritical entreaties from the president characterized the meeting. There was no mention of any penalties or consequences to banks that fail to increase their lending. Unsurprisingly, results were slim, with only Bank of America announcing it intends to make $5 billion more available to small and medium-sized businesses, a drop in the bucket compared to the enormous need for capital and liquidity.

Wall Street executives' determination to not lend to the productive sectors of the economy―while rewarding themselves billions in compensation―is not a question of morality, nor is it an aberration. It arises from the historical decay of capitalism and its turn to evermore parasitic forms of financial speculation.

While media accounts attempted to present the gathering as an example of Obama “taking on” the bankers, they could not conceal the real relationship of forces. The Obama administration's efforts to put on the show of getting tough produced the opposite image, that of the president as willing supplicant before the masters of Wall Street.

It is significant that Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, Mack of Morgan Stanley, and Parsons of Citigroup did not attend in person. While their last-minute cancellations were chalked up to weather―fog in the Washington DC area delayed some flights on Monday morning―they more likely aimed a rebuke at Obama over his “fat cats” comments. Parsons was already a substitute for Citi CEO Vikram Pandit, whose decision to skip the event was attributed to his bank's negotiations with the Treasury to pay back TARP.

“The President has real problems only the banks can help him solve,” according to Time magazine. “On jobs, housing and the strength of the economy, he needs bankers to change their behavior, and there's only so much he can do to force them. So when he sits down with the financial industry elite on Monday, he may talk tough, but he'll also be asking for their help.”

The admission that a democratically elected president has no power over a handful of financiers is an acknowledgement of the oligarchic character of US society. The financial aristocracy in fact controls every lever of state power and dictates economic and social policy. Obama is their representative.

Muslim Special Ops Expert Predicts Suitcase Nukes 7 US Cities

Image by spinneyhead via Flickr

Lee Benson with Deseret News writes,

"Heart of a Soldier" tells the story of two men who, well before it happened, foretold not only of the terrorist attack of 9/11 but also the 1993 bombing in the World Trade Center parking garage that preceded it.

One of the men, Rick Rescorla, was chief of security for Morgan Stanley with an office in the World Trade Center. He died on 9/11, but not before he shepherded all but six of Morgan Stanley's 2,700 employees to safety because of a well-prepared and well-executed evacuation plan. He'd have made it out, too, had he not gone back in the building looking for those six.

The other man, Daniel J. Hill, is still alive. "Muslims that I talk to say things like, 'America thinks they're safe now. They've forgotten about 9/11. But watch, Daniel. Stay near your TV. It's going to be bigger than 9/11,' " he said.

Hill said the next terrorist attack will involve suitcase nuclear bombs that will be detonated in small, low-flying two-seater private airplanes manned by men hanging onto the belief that, like the 9/11 hijackers, they are about to die as martyrs and enter paradise.

The nukes, he said, will be detonated over New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Miami, Houston, Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

"I don't know the second, hour or day. I just know they have the means, will, motivation and desire to do it," he said, noting that it's believed that years ago the suitcase nukes, acquired from former USSR operatives, were smuggled into America across the Mexican border.

"I'm a Muslim," he says. "I'm a special ops expert, I'm a terrorist and I've lived among Muslims. I fought the Russians with the same guys we're now fighting in Afghanistan. I met Osama. I volunteered to assassinate him. I know (the enemy) so well because I've worked, slept and prayed alongside them for years. I've become one of them. I know their nature, I know their culture, I know how they think. I can quote the Koran like a Southern Baptist minister can quote the New Testament. I know these are people who do not tire, who do not quit. There are odds this won't happen, but they aren't big odds."

Read More...

U.S. banks extort customers for $38 billion in overdraft fees

While bonuses paid to executives at nine bailed out U.S. banks in 2008 were greater than the net income at some of the banks, Reuters reports U.S. banks will generate $38.5 billion in customer overdraft fees this year, and a large portion of that revenue comes from the "most financially stretched consumers."

The median bank overdraft fee rose this year by one dollar to $26. "Banks are returning to a fee-driven model and overdraft fees are the mother lode," said Mike Moebs, of Moebs Research Services. Overdraft fees accounted for more than 75 percent of service fees charged on customer deposits, said Moebs.

Bonuses for Goldman Sachs Group Inc, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co were "substantially greater" than the banks' net income. U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat and member of the influential Senate banking committee, called Goldman "tone deaf" on the issue of compensation.

Here are a few comments from authorities in France and Britain on bank sector bonuses:

"Fury erupted in Britain over news that Royal Bank of Scotland, which needed a government rescue, was paying an annual pension of 703,000 pounds ($1 million) to its former chief executive Fred Goodwin. Months later, after a campaign that included windows of his Edinburgh home being smashed, Goodwin agreed to reduce his pension, to 342,500 pounds annually.

"FRANCE -- France reacted to public anger over bonuses for financial traders this week by summoning bank chiefs for a meeting and telling the central bank to ensure that new rules on payouts are respected. President Sarkozy instructed top banking executives to report to him on August 25 on their bonus policies."