Geithner to Banks: “Ix-Nay on the Solvency-Inay”
I suppose, if Wells Fargo boasted wildly in its earnings report that it not only made a profit, but passed its stress test with flying colors, and Bank of America and Citi remained silent about the results of their stress tests in their earnings report, then we all might conclude that Bank of America and Citi had fared rather poorly on their tests.
As opposed to all of us concluding that Bank of America and Citi failed their no-fail stress test based on the FDIC want ads and the way Geithner has been wandering around saying "Shhhhhhh!" all week.
Still. Isn’t it bad form for the Treasury Department to order financial institutions to hide data about their financial health on their earnings reports? (h/t Stephen)
The U.S. Treasury Department is asking banks not to mention the regulatory "stress tests" as part of their first-quarter earnings results, according to a source familiar with government discussions.
If I were a BoA or Citi stockholder, I’d be finalizing my suit against Geithner right now to avoid the rush.
It’s starting to look like the shorter list to prepare will be the Wall Streeters who don’t deserve to be in jail, rather than those we should lock up. How on earth can Geithner’s action here be legal?
There was a provision in one of the Bush-era security acts which allowed a president to allow companies cooperating with the government on some secret project or other to keep the money they earned from the contract off their balance sheets. Initially, it was to hide the money from warrantless wiretapping, but it could just as easily go to defense contractors or, for that matter, financial companies.
After all, when financial chicanery is your number one industry, by definition it’s vital to the national defense….
Hmm, linky? I wonder exactly what that provision says. I also wonder if this gives the international banks a pass on accurate reporting to the other countries they operate in.
If I were a European regulator, I would take a dim view of America ordering a corporation in my country to hide material information.
Boxturtle (Of course, those regulators have the same pressures ours do, they might let this one slide)
Is this what you’re looking for? This 2006 Article by Mike Ruppert at FTW entitled: The Abyss Awaits Excerpt:
GREAT CATCH!
This is very nasty stuff.
The deeper we go, the more corrupt it gets.
Maybe we need a bulldozer instead of hearings. Just raze DC and start over again.
Whoa.
What. A. Catch.
2006?!
Eliot Spitzer’s OpEd on 14 Feb 2008, just before he was ‘outed, wrote about how the Bush administration used a law from the 1860s to preclude the states from bringing investigations and legal action against subprime lending — the Bush admin’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) brought up that 1860s rule in order to prevent states from going after subprime lenders. (Apparently, the OCC brought out that rule in 2004, which was about the time that the FBI was sounding the alarms about mortgage fraud, but all the agents were being put on ‘terrorism’ assignments.)
And ’securitization’ was all about off-balance sheet accounting, as near as I can figure out. Definitely related to subprime lending.
Finally, the intro to Kevin Phillips’ “Bad Money” (p. xxv, paperback) has a graph showing that the global derivatives market hit $615 Trillion in 2008. That was more than double its total in 2004.
I hate to say it, but there’s an occasional commenter around these parts who uses the name ?Didier and who seems to wear a tin foil hat a foot thick. But reading this, it sure makes that commenter — who generally comes across like an alarmist conspiracy theorist — appear somewhat credible.
It also implies that GWBush was not as stupid as he appeared to be.
This certainly has the appearance of malice aforethought.
Did you go to the Deep Capture website the other day? I know it is hard to get through, but once you work at it, there is some amazing information.
Thx, yes, it is fascinating. And I’ve read some there, but not quite sure what to make of it. Sounds plausible, and what’s most interesting is that alternate versions of its themes seem to spring up weekly.
Hmmmm… I should put up an Oxdown asking for great econ reads…
My top two: “Bad Money” by Kevin Phillips and Nomi Prins’ “Other People’s Money”.
Oh jeebus, don’t encourage that crackpot.
Sorry, sorry, sorry.
But that item aq74 quoted is eerie…
(scuffling off now…)
ROTL, I wear my collander at all times…just in case they’re right. hee,hee.
I don’t think it was Bush’s idea, more like Addington or Yoo or that Viet Dinh who was mastermind of the Patriot Act.
Obama is continuing his administration’s alarming reliance on secrecy in this matter as well as in the state secrets defense pioneered by BushCo. This is a complete reversal of his campaign rhetoric.
So, the promise was good for the campaign, but really, we are all too noisy, ignorant, or complacent to actually be told what
ourhis government is up to.You may want to check out the latest “Frontline” documentary called ‘Black Money’. BAE was mentioned, although I’m not imputting any linkages to either bank discussed here.
Apparently it’s in the 1934 Act that created the SEC. From commenter NorkaWest at CalculatedRisk:
Also provided is a link to the whole act.
I guess I’m shocked that it’s even LEGAL to fail to disclose something to material to the balance sheets. I’m sure it’s against FASB, the rules for 401K filing, and it likely violates other financial regulations as well. Is it fraud? Dunno.
I read the story and it looks like it was a request rather than an order. A request that Citi and BofA will be happy to comply with.
Boxturtle (I agree with EW, if I’m a stockholder I’m talking to my lawyer)
Where’s the SEC in all this?
Even with so much news about financial mismanagement and government bail-outs, people are still buying and selling shares in financial services companies. Failure to disclose material information or disclosing false information would seem a big problem. (Admittedly, the new FASB rule that authorizes managers to unrealistically value their loans is some cover, but it seems a small fig leaf.)
Thousands of investors may legitimately feel deceived by glowing false reports or material omissions. Will Congress immunize companies from such disclosure wrongs the way it immunized telecoms from liability for aiding and abetting Mr. Bush’s serial felonies? Or will it close the courts to investors by claiming national security or state secrets [sic] are involved?
This just up at TPM, from a link claiming that 4 – 6 people (all holdovers from Bu$hCo) are making the TARP decisions: Wow, the page does not like this web link… So I will put it in plain text for anyone to copy/paste into a browser window:
http://realtime.sunlightprojec…../04/10/who’s-manning-the-tarp-desk/
Anyone know whether this is, in fact, the case?
(Excuse me while I just pick my jaw up off the floor… could take awhile after the crash landing….)
“(Admittedly, the new FASB rule that authorizes managers to unrealistically value their loans is some cover, but it seems a small fig leaf.)”
SEC should trump any pronouncements made by the FASB. My first thought was, “These are public companies. How can they get away without making these disclosures.” More questions for the congressional hearings that (so far, at least), have not been held.
We must demand hearings.
might be a clue: from the la times
Great catch, thanks.
What a farce!
“Obama Website Slams Secrecy Claim That Obama Now Invokes”:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi…..hp?ref=fp3
According to William Black these are not valid stress tests any way. Perhaps the fear is that those who fail them, might squawk about the test results. Regardless, it’s a sham…meant to make the markets “feel” better.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com…..tress.html
ttp://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/225897/Geithners-Stress-Test-”A-Complete-Sham,”-Former-Federal-Bank-Regulator-Says
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..69813.html
This newsday just gets worse and worse. Holder will not review Siegelman:
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/…..siegelman/
There is one encouraging bit of news. US courts are going after corporations in human rights matters:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/….._0410.html
And another: EW just posted an excellent analysis on Posada Carilles. I was so hoping she would!
Then there is this:
Let’s try the link to that again.
[Hum, repeating a page to earlofhuntingdon: I left you something at the end of masaccio’s midday post, about what the bond raters did.]
But that’s OK in thier reality. I think I read were GE 150 to 1. If any still owns stock sell it on Monday and put what little you get in can.
jo6pac
The race to the bottom continues.
ya know, and GREAT POST btw, Marcy, but my thinking as I was OUT and supporting Obama after he won the primaries, was “He may not have a lot of experience, but he’s SMART, he and speaks properly (BIG whew! after the last 8 years of embarrassment and shame) and he’ll CHOOSE THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO HELP HIM!!!!”
after being made a total moran [sic] for being so excited about Pelosi in 2006, i wonder if i’ll EVER learn in this big game of “poohlitics”……..
i seem to me to be the “eternal niaeffe”.
Well lookie here, I just happened on a Wells Fargo skeptic, with an eloquent chart to boot.
Want the truth about Wells Fargo?
Take a look at what the analysts are not talking about on TV. The most recent audited financial statement for WF covers up to Dec 31st in the 2008 year end report: https://www.wellsfargo.com/pdf/press/4q08pr.pdf On page 23 of this report, the bank outlines the loan exposure carried on its books, including $18.25 billion in CDO’s and over $51.7 billion in mortgage backed securities. There is also more than $100 billion in commercial real estate exposure, and a whopping $227.35 billion in consumer mortgages and credit card debt. Less than 2.5% has beenm reserved for loan losses to cover these liabilities (otherwise known as ‘assets’ on the balance sheet).
Now to put all of that into context, economists know that consumer debt levels are currently at all time highs. They also know that bankruptcy levels are rapidly climbing, both at the corporate and consumer level. They know that a record number of home mortgages are underwater, meaning that they are worth less than the value that is still owed. We know that unemployment continues to escalate month after month, ie. The bottom is NOT in. Lets put it all together…
People who lose their jobs lose their ability to repay loans. This is underlined by the data reported in the Biz section of USA Today on Monday, April 6th, where a record 4.2% of consumer loans are now at least 30 days delinquent and an ADDITIONAL 4% were already in default. These people often turn to credit cards as a source of cash to make ends meet. So the fact that unemployment has risen sharply since the last financial statement was issued by WF would suggest that the situation is in fact worse than it was just 4 months ago. And recall that loss provisions of less than 2.5% have been reserved against loan writeoffs, well below the average for the country of at least 8% in trouble, and probably this number will get worse since job losses continue to accelerate. Yet WF manages to pre-announce earnings of more than $3 billion… How can this be?
Well, since this thread has been revived by promoting it to the FDL Front Page, this might be an appropriate place to mention Rachel Maddow’s segment on the economy featuring the NPR Economy guys, who are going to appear on Meet The Press this weekend.
One of them mentioned that his favorite graph showed Household Debt as a % of Gross National Product, IIRC. He said that it reached 100% in 2007– and that the only previous time it hit that high: 1929.
They were talking at the beginning about the segment about Debt, which turned quickly to Household debt as critically.
So, remember what President Bush told us to do right after 9/11 in 2001?
Didn’t he suggest that we just “go shopping”?
And wow, did we ever respond: Six years later, Household Debt hits record levels.
Ah, another way in which the path to economic ruin was paved by George W. Bush.
Bob in HI
Household debt hadn’t yet driven us over the cliff, though many people were going bankrupt from health care costs. No, what hit us was higher gasoline and food prices and then job losses due to the crisis which kicked in because of the housing boom & bust.
You can say households weren’t strong enough to withstand the impact of the crisis, but I don’t think you can say household debt started the crisis.
Of course, household debt and general weakness has been brought on by 30+ years of Republicans utilizing bad economic theory and stupid ideology.
To all who responded to my comment at #19, sorry to have added to the stinking pile; it was surely big enough already. I had to take care of my taxes – $119.12 in the hole. Being just one of the little people, they’d attach my pathetic bank account.
I never thought I could laugh about the bail-out, but I’m sitting here
gasping for breath. Scroll down until you find the Paulson story.
Forgot to give credit to bluebutterfly for the link to the story ridiculing Paulson at my #35.
The stress test have really bad results, or they’d be announced. The delay is to fix the results so the results are not bad.