Archive for the ‘banking fraud’ Category
Why Another Financial Crash is Certain
How to Make $4 Trillion Vanish in a Flash
On August 9, 2007, an incident took place at a bank in France that touched-off a financial crisis that that would eventually wipe out more than $30 trillion in capital and thrust the world into the deepest slump since the Great Depression. The event was recounted in a speech by Pimco’s managing director Paul McCulley, at the 19th Annual Hyman Minsky Conference on the State of the U.S. and World Economies. Here’s an excerpt from McCulley’s speech:
“If you have to pick a day for the Minsky Moment, it was August 9. And, actually, it didn’t happen here in the United States. It happened in France, when Paribas Bank (BNP) said that it could not value the toxic mortgage assets in three of its off-balance sheet vehicles, and that, therefore, the liability holders, who thought they could get out at any time, were frozen. I remember the day like my son’s birthday. And that happens every year. Because the unraveling started on that day. In fact, it was later that month that I actually coined the term “Shadow Banking System” at the Fed’s annual symposium in Jackson Hole.
“It was only my second year there. And I was in awe, and mainly listened for most of the three days. At the end….I stood up and (paraphrasing) said, ‘What’s going on is really simple. We’re having a run on the Shadow Banking System and the only question is how intensely it will self-feed as its assets and liabilities are put back onto the balance sheet of the conventional banking system.’”
BNP had been involved in credit intermediation, that is, it was exchanging bonds made up of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) for short-term loans in the repo market. It all sounds very complex, but it’s no different than what banks do when they take deposits from customers and then invest the money in long-term assets. (aka–”maturity transformation”) The only difference here was that these activities were not regulated, so no government agency was involved in determining the quality of the loans or making sure that the various financial institutions were sufficiently capitalized to cover potential losses. This lack of regulation turned out to have dire consequences for the global economy.
It took nearly a year from the time that subprime mortgages began to default en masse, until the secondary market (where these “toxic” bonds were traded) went into a nosedive. The problem was simple: No one knew whether the underlying mortgages were any good or not, so it became impossible to price the assets (MBS). This created, what Yale Professor Gary Gorton calls, the e coli problem. In other words, if even a small amount of meat is contaminated, millions of pounds of hamburger has to be recalled. That same rule applies to mortgage-backed securities. No one knew which MBS contained the bad loans, so the entire market froze and trillions of dollars in collateral began to fall in value.
Subprime was the spark that lit the fuse, but subprime wasn’t big enough to bring down the whole financial system. That would take bigger ructions in the shadow banking system. Here’s an excerpt from an article by Nomi Prins which explains how much money was involved:
“Between 2002 and early 2008, roughly $1.4 trillion worth of sub-prime loans were originated by now-fallen lenders like New Century Financial. If such loans were our only problem, the theoretical solution would have involved the government subsidizing these mortgages for the maximum cost of $1.4 trillion. However, according to Thomson Reuters, nearly $14 trillion worth of complex-securitized products were created, predominantly on top of them, precisely because leveraged funds abetted every step of their production and dispersion. Thus, at the height of federal payouts in July 2009, the government had put up $17.5 trillion to support Wall Street’s pyramid Ponzi system, not $1.4 trillion.” (“Shadow Banking”, Nomi Prins, The American Prospect)
Shadow banking emerged so that large cash-heavy financial institutions would have a place to park their money short-term and get the best possible return. For example, let’s say Intel is sitting on $25 billion in cash. It can deposit the money with a financial intermediary, such as Morgan Stanley, in exchange for collateral (aka MBS or ABS), and earn a decent return on its money. But if a problem arises and the quality of the collateral is called into question, then the banks (Morgan Stanley, in this case) are forced to take bigger and bigger haircuts which can send the system into a nosedive. That’s what happened in the summer of 2007. Investors discovered that many of the subprimes were based on fraud, so billions of dollars were quickly withdrawn from money markets and commercial paper, and the Fed had to step in to keep the system from collapsing.
Regulations are put in place to see that the system runs smoothly and to protect the public from fraud. But banking without rules is more profitable, so industry leaders and lobbyists have tried to block the efforts at reform. And, they have largely succeeded. Dodd-Frank – the financial reform act — is riddled with loopholes and doesn’t really resolve the central issues of loan quality, additional capital, or risk retention. Banks are still free to issue bogus mortgages to unemployed applicants with bad credit, just as they were before the meltdown. And, they can still produce securitized debt instruments without retaining even a meager 5 per cent of the loan’s value. (This issue is still being contested) Also, government agencies cannot force financial institutions to increase their capital even though a slight downturn in the market could wipe them out and cause severe damage to the rest of the system. Wall Street has prevailed on all counts and now the window for re-regulating the system has passed.
President Barack Obama understands the basic problem, but he also knows that he won’t be reelected without Wall Street’s help. That’s why he promised to further reduce “burdensome” regulations in the Wall Street Journal just two weeks ago. His op-ed was intended to preempt the release of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s (FCIC) report, which was expected to make recommendations for strengthening existing regulations. Obama torpedoed that effort by coming down on the side of big finance. Now, it’s only a matter of time before another crash.
Here’s an excerpt from a special report on shadow banking by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York:
“At the eve of the financial crisis, the volume of credit intermediated by the shadow banking system was close to $20 trillion, or nearly twice as large as the volume of credit intermediated by the traditional banking system at roughly $11 trillion. Today, the comparable figures are $16 and $13 trillion, respectively…..The weak-link nature of wholesale funding providers is not surprising when little capital is held against their asset portfolios and investors have zero tolerance for credit losses.” (“Shadow Banking”, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Report)
So, between $4 to $7 trillion vanished in a flash after Lehman Brothers blew up. How many millions of jobs were lost because of inadequate regulation? How much was trimmed from output, productivity, and GDP? How many people are on now food stamps or living in homeless shelters or struggling through foreclosure because unregulated financial institutions were allowed to carry out credit intermediation without government supervision or oversight?
Ironically, the New York Fed doesn’t even try to deny the source of the problem; deregulation. Here’s what they say in the report: “Regulatory arbitrage was the root motivation for many shadow banks to exist.”
What does that mean? It means that Wall Street knows that it’s easier to make money by eliminating the rules….the very rules that protect the public from the predation of avaricious speculators.
The only way to fix the system is to regulate all financial institutions that act like banks. No exceptions.
The Author: Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com
Systemic And Intential Fraud? (Part I and II)
Gee, a bank would never create a system that was intentionally programmed to screw the customer….. especially a state pension fund…. right?
Bank of New York Mellon Corp. currency traders used a foreign-exchange system called “Charlie” to create fake trades and overcharge Virginia pension funds by at least $20 million, according to allegations in recently unsealed documents in a Virginia court.
Oh, the allegation is that they did exactly that!
To be fair the banks involved are denying they did anything wrong. But this has whistleblowers involved, who it appears have inside information on exactly how this was done, and unfortunately there also appear to be records that at least strongly imply that there was a problem with the execution of these trades.
The alleged scheme was to take a foreign currency order and then “give” the fund the worst price of the day for it – that is, if buying give them the highest price and if selling give them the lowest, when in fact the bank had executed the trade “on time.” This of course would allow the bank to pocket the difference between the actual executed trade and the worst price of the day.
This sort of scheme is also illegal, if indeed it happened, as you’re paying the institution to execute the trade when ordered, not to skim off as much as it can by structuring the transactions to its benefit and your detriment.
At this point it appears the allegations include trades executed for Florida, Virginia and California pension funds, and include State Street and Bank of NY Mellon.
We shall see what sort of evidence is developed as this proceeds…. watch this one closely folks, as if this is proved up it’s hard-core evidence of an intentional scheme developed for the express purpose of screwing the customer, in this case state pension funds, out of significant amounts of money.
If this claim is proved up the obvious question will then be “who else got hosed and by what mechanism?” within the banking system, since the allegation here is made that the in-house systems involved were intentionally designed to produce the scam, not that a single bad broker or other individual exploited some sort of loophole.
*************************************************************************************************
And in a follow-up to the sordid accusations against BONY and State Street, we have this!
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. ignored or dismissed warning signs about the Madoff fraud even as it earned hundreds of millions of dollars from its relationship with his firm, according to a lawsuit unsealed Thursday.
Uh yeah, I’ve speculated on this before. How do you have a custodial account relationship with a huge fund like Madoff’s that never clears an actual trade and yet not have any idea that something funny is going on – and that “funny” thing might be criminal?
Well, as it turns out, the bankruptcy trustee believes that not only did JP Morgan suspect something was wrong, they were pretty sure of it and yet continued and enabled the relationship for the purpose of making a profit.
“While numerous financial institutions enabled Madoff’s fraud, JPMC was at the very center of that fraud, and thoroughly complicit in it,” according to the 115-page lawsuit, filed under seal in December by Irving Picard, the trustee seeking to recover money for Mr. Madoff’s victims and made public on Thursday.
The profit, in this case, was more than a billion dollars.
JP Morgan denies wrongdoing and knowledge. We’ll see.
I’d argue that it’s pretty tough to move the sort of money around that Madoff did and not have any idea how it’s happening. But that’s me – after all, we are talking about a total “take” here of $50 billion, right? That’s the total scam that Madoff supposedly was responsible for, which strongly implies that this amount of money had to either come or go somewhere, and if it came and went without leaving any sort of trace in the market then I think we got ourselves a little bit of a problem.
Picard’s lawsuit was filed under seal in December.

Bank of America, Wachovia Employees Received Up to $55,000 in Bribes
The newest twist in a long-running federal mortgage fraud case was revealed Thursday as a “Bank Bribery Scheme,” in which prosecutors said three Bank of America or Wachovia employees pulled in bribes of as much as $55,000.
Federal prosecutors announced the scheme as they unsealed indictments against 10 more defendants in the serpentine case, part of a broader federal crackdown on mortgage fraud.
The nationwide “Operation Stolen Dreams” has involved 1,215 criminal defendants, including 485 arrests, officials said Thursday in Washington. Losses are estimated at more than $2.3 billion.
The FBI is working more than 3,000 mortgage fraud cases, almost twice as many as two years ago. Fraud helped fuel the nation’s foreclosure crisis.
“Mortgage fraud ruins lives, destroys families and devastates whole communities…,” Attorney General Eric Holder said.
In Charlotte, prosecutors showcased Operation Wax House, which has now produced charges against 35 people since the first in November 2008.
Of those 35, 25 had previously agreed to plead guilty, including 10 in the last week.
The latest defendants have been indicted, indicating they do not have plea deals.
From the beginning, prosecutors have said the mortgage fraud involved seven pricey subdivisions in Union and Mecklenburg counties. The investigation has touched every step of the mortgage process. Defendants include a real estate agent, an appraiser, a builder, buyers, mortgage brokers and attorneys.
Prosecutors have said the victims were banks that loaned money for the homes.
Thursday’s court documents detail allegations of nearly $11 million in fraudulent deals for eight Waxhaw houses, all forced into foreclosure or distressed sale at a steep loss.
Participants in the fraud agreed to buy homes at one price from builders, arranged buyers at a higher price and then lied to get mortgages at the higher level, according to court documents. Prices were generally inflated by $200,000 to $500,000. At closing, the difference between the two prices was shared by fraud participants.
The deals occurred mainly during 2006 and 2007.
Prosecutors have identified five “cells” of fraudsters. Thursday’s charges involve participants in Cell No. 2.
Each of the 10 is charged with at least one count of bank fraud or bank bribery, each of which carries a maximum prison sentence of 30 years. In addition, each is charged with at least one count of mortgage fraud conspiracy or bank bribery conspiracy, which each call for a maximum sentence of 5 years. Other charges include perjury, identity theft and money laundering.
At least five of the new defendants were connected to the “Bank Bribery Scheme,” which took place from September 2007 through January 2008, the filing said.
In those cases, mortgage fraud participants and unidentified others paid bribes of $4,000 to $55,000 to three bank employees and others for false letters of credit. The documents, typically used by businesses, can be used for such activities as obtaining other financing or guaranteeing payment for goods.
Landrick O.A. McClain, 47 of Silver Spring, Md., is described as the “leader and primary financier” of the scheme. He owned a Washington financial services firm, Credit Risk Re Limited. As of Thursday, an arrest warrant was pending for him.
Ericka L. Flood, also known as Ericka Lomick, 35, of Charlotte, is described as a go-between for McClain, the bank employees and others.
She also is called a promoter in the fraud case and was a mortgage broker for several Charlotte companies. She controlled the Kashmir Group, which was allegedly used to receive money from the scam. For example, in one sale, Kashmir allegedly received $409,000.
Flood, like the bank employees, was released on bond with the condition she not work in the banking, financial services and mortgage industries.
McClain, Flood and unidentified others allegedly paid bribes to the indicted bank employees, who are no longer with the banks. They are:
Jamilia N. Brown, 29, Charlotte. Brown, was an assistant branch manager for Bank of America’s Cotswold branch and allegedly accepted a bribe of $55,000 for a fake letter of credit.
Vic F. Henson, whose maiden name was Vic F. Gray, 41, Charlotte. Henson was a Bank of America branch manager in Charlotte who allegedly participated in both the mortgage fraud and bribery schemes. Henson allegedly received two bribes totaling $38,000. She also arranged to “falsely verify” a deposit for a “fraudulent loan application for a buyer whose identity was stolen” and used to apply for loans, according to documents.
Bonnie S. Ramey, 43, Charlotte. Ramey worked at a Wachovia branch in the Ballantyne area and allegedly accepted a bribe of $9,000 in cash for producing a bogus letter of credit from the bank. The $468.5 million letter of credit was issued “as a guarantee that a Swiss entity would carry out certain contractual obligations in Iceland.” The relation to the mortgage fraud is not explained. The bank couldn’t immediately comment on the alleged transaction.
Anne Tompkins, U.S. attorney for North Carolina’s Western District, which includes Charlotte, noted the wide impact of mortgage fraud and pledged that “investigating and prosecuting these cases will continue to be a top priority for this office.”
Bankers Apologize to Congress
By Bill Bonner
01/15/10 Baltimore, Maryland – The public spectacle continues. Bankers appeared in Congress yesterday.
‘Yes…we sold a lot of toxic, explosive stuff to our clients,’ they said.
‘Yes, we used our own money to bet against them…’ admitted Goldman’s top man.
‘Yes, we blew up the whole world economy. We’re sorry.’
Associated Press reports:
“The bankers – whose companies collectively received more than $100 billion in taxpayer assistance to weather the crisis – offered no regrets for executive pay that is now likely to increase as a result of their survival…
“Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, took the brunt of the questions, especially on his firm’s practice of selling mortgage-backed securities and then betting against them.
“‘I’m just going to be blunt with you,’ Angelides told him. ‘It sounds to me a little bit like selling a car with faulty brakes and then buying an insurance policy on the buyer of those cars.’
“Blankfein replied: ‘I do think the behavior is improper. We regret the consequence that people have lost money in it.’ Later, though, he defended the firm’s actions as ‘exercises in risk management.’”
This is not the first time we’ve seen this show. We’re not old enough to remember the Pecora hearings of the 1930s. But they shared the same story line: captains of industry and finance make blunders; they cause Great Depression; politicians save the day.
Back in the ’30s, the guys hauled before Congress generally refused blame. They were just doing their jobs. By and large, they were right.
This bunch today is more media savvy. They realize that their power and money come at a price. The feds have to pretend to punish them; they have to pretend contrition.
And the rest of us can only enjoy the show. After all, it’s the greatest show on earth. We love every minute of it. But it’s only entertaining when you understand the real plot.
What’s the plot?
Well, you already know it. After the bubble blew up, the feds swung into action to repair it. But you can’t really fix a bubble…at best you can only create a new bubble.
The real economy is still deflating. Just look at the jobs situation. Far from slowing or stabilizing, 2009 was the worst year yet for job losses – ’07…’08 …and ‘09…each year has produced greater losses. Even James Grant, who predicted a “barn burning recovery” now admits that his forecast has gone up in flames. He was “either early or wrong,” he says.
And just look at the real estate market. “Home prices are softening again,” says David Rosenberg. As for commercial real estate, here’s Kenneth Laub, who’s been in the business for 50 years, as reported by Bloomberg:
“He says the current downturn will overshadow all of the others…
“‘It won’t be a typical part of a cycle where we’re down for two or three years and things recover,’ says Laub, 70, whose New York firm, Kenneth D. Laub & Co., says it has handled more than $40 billion of real estate transactions since its inception in 1969. ‘It will be longer than we’ve gone through before.’
“As in past slumps, the weak US economy is curbing demand for commercial space, increasing vacancies and causing rents and property values to fall. The key difference today is the explosion in debt financing and related derivatives that fueled a run-up in commercial real estate prices in the 2000s, Laub says. That’s left property owners struggling to make mortgage payments. The overhang of debt will delay any recovery, he says.
“‘It’s not a supply-demand thing; it’s an overleveraged condition,’ Laub says.
“Laub expects a wave of restructurings by troubled commercial borrowers as hundreds of billions of dollars of loans come due annually during the next few years. Commercial real estate may still be recovering a decade from now, he says. ‘What you’re going to see is a tremendously long workout period unprecedented in commercial real estate in this country,’ Laub says. ‘That’s where we’re going, and it’s just beginning.’”
Bad property market. Weak employment market. That’s the background. And it will probably last for years – until the extraordinary debt in the private sector has been worked down to more comfortable levels.
Against this natural process of de-leveraging and depression struggle the feds – our heroes…making the situation worse!
Instead of blaming themselves for their silly theories…for causing the bubble with artificially low interest rates…and then failing completely to understand what they had done…they blame Wall Street.
Sure, the bankers, more knave than fool, took advantage of the situation. But they didn’t cause it.
Still, they’re very sorry they almost brought modern civilization to an end…but, hey, business is business…
Oh the roar of the greasepaint…the smell of the crowd! What a circus!
The Biggest Financial Deception of the Decade
The Biggest Financial Deception of the Decade
By Jeff Clark
01/12/10 Stowe, Vermont – Enron? Bear Stearns? Bernie Madoff? They’re all big stories about big losses and have hurt a lot of employees and investors. But none come close to getting my vote for the decade’s most dastardly deception…
First came Enron, with $65.5 billion in assets, going belly-up and becoming the largest bankruptcy in US history at that time. The stock went from a high of $84.63 in December 2000 to a whopping 26¢ one year later. And what had we been told by the media? Fortune magazine dubbed Enron “America’s Most Innovative Company” for six consecutive years.
Next came WorldCom filing for bankruptcy in 2002, their assets of $103.9 billion dwarfing Enron’s. Tyco, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems…also made headlines for their acts of fraud and mismanagement.
A few years later, Bear Stearns set us all up for the Big Meltdown of 2008. It was B.S. (no, I mean Bear Stearns) that pioneered the asset-backed securities markets, and we all know how that turned out. Later we learned that as losses mounted in 2006 and 2007, the company was actually adding to its exposure of mortgage-backed assets. With net equity of $11.1 billion supporting $395 billion in assets, Bear leveraged itself up to an astonishing 35-to-1.
And during it all, Bear Stearns was recognized as the “Most Admired” securities firm in a survey by Fortune magazine (there’s that Lower Manhattan tabloid darling again). Frequent sightings of company executives on country club fairways assured the public that all was well. And CEO Alan Schwartz told us there was “no liquidity crisis for the firm” and insisted he “had the numbers to back it up.” His company was sold four days later to JPMorgan Chase at $10 per share, a 92% loss from its $133.20 high.
Lehman Brothers, the 158-year-old investment bank, was next and still today holds the title as the largest bankruptcy in US history. L.B. succumbed to 2007’s Word of the Year, “subprime,” and its $600 billion in assets all went poof! In just the first half of 2008, before the meltdown, Lehman’s stock slid 73%.
And what did CEO Dick Fuld tell us in April of that year? “I will hurt the shorts, and that is my goal.” He must have been referring to the attire of his tennis club buddies, because the ones who actually got hurt were numerous other banks, money market funds, institutions, hedge funds, REITs, brokers, private and public trusts, foundations, government agencies, foreign governments, employees, and investors.
Moving on to the largest US government bailout recipient by far, AIG’s troubles spawned my favorite placard of the decade: seen outside their Manhattan offices stood a sign that simply read, “Jump!” Maybe its creator heard what I did from AIG’s financial products head Joseph Cassano: “It is hard for us, without being flippant, to even see a scenario within any kind of realm of reason that would see us losing one dollar in any of these [credit default swap] transactions.”
Oops!
Topping off our list of the infamous debacles of the decade is Bernie Made-off (er, Madoff), who scammed $65 billion over 20 years from unsuspecting institutions and wealthy investors…
By now you are probably wondering… What’s bigger than all these debacles? He’s covered the major frauds and scams of the past decade – what could possibly be left?
To quote my favorite sleuth, Hercule Poirot, “When all the facts are laid before me, the solution becomes inevitable.”
Here are a few clues…
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on July 16, 2008, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are “adequately capitalized” and “in no danger of failing.” Then-Secretary Treasurer Henry Paulson declared on August 10, 2008, “We have no plans to insert money into either of those two institutions.”
– Both Fannie and Freddie were nationalized 28 days later, on September 8, 2008.
Ben Bernanke claimed on February 28, 2008, “Among the largest banks, the capital ratios remain good and I don’t expect any serious problems of that sort among the large, internationally active banks…” Henry Paulson added on July 20, 2008, that “It’s a safe banking system, a sound banking system. Our regulators are on top of it. This is a very manageable situation.”
– Since the recession started in December, 2008, 144 banks have failed.
Paulson informed us on April 20, 2007, that “All the signs I look at show the housing market is at or near the bottom.”
– The number of foreclosures skyrocketed shortly thereafter and will now any day surpass those during the Great Depression.
Ben Bernanke announced on June 20, 2007, that “[The sub prime fallout] will not affect the economy overall.”
– Less than one year later, the stock market crashed, losing 53% of its value, and is still down 25% despite one of the biggest bounces in history.
Those in charge of our country’s finances not only failed to see the crises developing and then bungled the handling of the recovery, they’ve deliberately misled us about what they’re doing to our currency. In spite of emphatic promises, flowery speeches, pat-on-the-back assurances, and continual reassurances, here’s what they’ve actually done to the dollar:
- Since September 1, 2008, the monetary base has ballooned from $908 billion to $2.0 trillion. The current monetary base is now equal to bailing out General Motors 23 times.
- Bailout funds in 2008 and 2009 total $8.1 trillion. That’s almost 78 WorldComs. It’s over 123 Enrons.
- US debt has risen sharply, from $6.2 trillion in 2002 to $12.1 trillion today. That’s over $39,000 per citizen.
- David Walker, the comptroller general of the Government Accountability Office from 1998-2008, warned that the US is on the hook for $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Independent analysts peg the figure at near twice that. Whatever the number, it is incomprehensibly large. The only way we will meet these liabilities is to print the money and inflate them away.
We’re bailing out corporations that should fail, making financial promises we can’t keep, and adding layers of debt we can’t possibly repay. And the real killer is, if we don’t have the cash, we just print it. It is, by any reasonable account, the “blunder that will plunder” the next several generations. It is changing America permanently, and the problems will persist long after you and I are laid to rest.
Bottom line: after all the bailout programs, housing initiatives, rescue efforts, stimulus schemes, bank takeovers, wars, unemployment benefit extensions, and numerous other promises, the biggest financial deception of the decade is what the US government is doing to the dollar. Nothing else even comes close.
This reckless activity has spooked our foreign creditors, weakened our global standing, diluted our currency, is punishing savers and retirees, and ultimately sets us up for a level of inflation this country has never seen before.
Yet, what is the guardian of our economy and money telling us now?
“Will the Federal Reserve’s actions to combat the crisis lead to higher inflation down the road? The answer is no; the Federal Reserve is committed to keeping inflation low and will be able to do so. In the near term, elevated unemployment and stable inflation expectations should keep inflation subdued, and indeed, inflation could move lower from here.” (Ben Bernanke, December 7, 2009).
This is pure rubbish. If inflation could be controlled by just thinking stable inflation thoughts, then Ben should be able to grow a full head of hair by just thinking scalp follicle thoughts. This is so ridiculous, it’s insulting.
Government actions make a mockery of their words; what they say and what they do are diametrically opposed. It’s clear that inflation is not a question of “if,” but “when.”
Any level-headed individual has to conclude that there will be a steady – and likely accelerating – decline in the dollar’s purchasing power. It’s inevitable.
The great masses don’t quite understand it yet, but they will. There will be no escape from the cold, hard slap in the face citizens will receive when a high level of inflation arrives. And when it does, it will make a mockery of any opposing viewpoint.
So the question before you is simple: Will you be a prepared survivor for what lies ahead, despite what our government leaders tell us, or will you be a complacent victim of the biggest financial deception of the decade?
For me, there’s only one solution. Don’t kid yourself into thinking a man-made asset will protect your purchasing power. This is the time to be overweight gold and silver. I advise letting them serve their purpose for you.
Regards,
Jeff Clark
for The Daily Reckoning
Darrell Issa Seeks To Expand AIG Disclosure Inquiry To Ben Bernanke, Hank Paulson And Goldman's Friedman
Submitted by Tyler Durden
It is about time someone asked for this: Darrell Issa has finally demanded that which is on everyone’s mind – the testimony of the kingpins of the bailout: Bernanke and Paulson.
Bernanke and Paulson should provide statements about the decision to fully reimburse New York-based AIG’s bank counterparties for $62.1 billion in derivatives and efforts to limit disclosure about the payments, Darrell Issa, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said today in a letter. Treasury and the Federal Reserve should be subpoenaed for documents tied to the rescue, Issa said.
“This committee’s investigation will not be complete until we gain the perspective of all the most senior government officials responsible for the AIG bailout,” Issa said in the letter to Edolphus Towns, the New York Democrat who is chairman of the panel. “The perspective of Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson and documents in the possession of the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury Department are necessary.”
We applaud Congressman Issa’s persistence in this matter. In addition to the above, the WSJ now reports that Goldman’s Stephen Friedman, who was chairman of the NY Fed at the time, has also been “invited.” Zero Hedge petitioned a week ago that Mr. Friedman should not be forgotten in the hustle and bustle to blame everything on Tim. We are happy that the former Goldman Board member will be willing and able to discuss any potential impropriety that may have arisen from selling CDS protection on AIG to fund the difference from the collateral margin to par (in essence making them whole and half) in a time when public disclosure on the government’s attachment to AIG was limited to a select few.










