Posts

Jamie Dimon’s Company Fined $88.3 Million for Trading with the Enemy

/23 Comments/in , /by

That’s not the technical term for violating economic sanctions against Cuba, Sudan, Iran, and Liberia (and FWIW I think the sanctions against Cuba are stupid).

Nevertheless, that’s basically what the sanctions JP Morgan Chase just admitted to violating amount to.

The big dollar amounts involve $178.5 million in wire transfers with Cubans.

JPMC processed 1,711 wire transfers totaling approximately $178.5 million between December 12, 2005, and March 31, 2006, involving Cuban persons in apparent violation of the CACR.

But the more interesting violation came when JPMC refused to turn over some documents relating to Khartoum until the government told the bank they knew JPMC had the documents.

The apparent violation of the RPPR occurred between November 8, 2010, and March 1, 2011. On October 13, 2010, OFAC issued JPMC an administrative subpoena pursuant to section 501.602 of the RPPR directing JPMC to provide certain specified documents related to a specific wire transfer referencing “Khartoum.” In response to this subpoena and a subsequent communication, JPMC compliance management failed to produce several responsive documents in JPMC’s possession, and repeatedly stated that JPMC had no additional responsive documents. OFAC ultimately provided JPMC with a list of multiple responsive documents that OFAC had reason to believe were in JPMC’s possession based on communications with a third-party financial institution. This prompted JPMC to correct its prior statements that the bank possessed no additional responsive documents and to produce more than 20 responsive documents. JPMC did not voluntarily self-disclose the apparent violation of the RPPR to OFAC. The base penalty for this apparent violation was $250,000.

And in spite of that apparent obstruction, TurboTax Timmeh Geithner’s agency still treated Jamie Dimon’s disloyal company leniently because of what they called JPMC’s “substantial cooperation.”

OFAC mitigated the total potential penalty based on JPMC’s substantial cooperation,

According to Bloomberg’s count, the Fed lent this disloyal company $68.6B after banksters like Jamie Dimon crashed the economy.

During and after the period JPMC took that money, it financed trade with Iran, tried to hide the Khartoum deal, and financed more trade with Sudan (though it sent money to Cuba and sent Iran 32,000 ounces of gold, now worth $55 million, before taking our money, in 2006). Some of this trading with the enemy was reported internally to “JPMC management and supervisory personnel;” at least some of this wasn’t the work of rogue employees.

This is the kind of MOTU that Obama considers an ally.

JP Morgan Chase Nickel and Diming the Last Nickels and Dimes from the Unemployed

/in , /by

The National Consumer Law Center just released a report on something that’s been a pet peeve of mine for some years: states’ increasing reliance on pre-paid cards to distribute unemployment compensation, rather than checks. (h/t Susie) As the report explains, issuing funds via a card is much cheaper for the states. But what’s really happening is that unemployment recipients end up paying for the cards out of series of fees the banks issuing the cards charge (which violates the law that says administrative costs should not come out of benefits).

The report spells out in detail how banks are screwing unemployment recipients in which state:

  • US Bank refusing to let AR post its fee schedule
  • PNC requiring recipients to work with customer service to transfer fees to their own bank account in IN
  • Chase charging $1 for the very first in-network ATM withdrawal in TN
  • Chase charging $2.75 for out-of-network ATM withdrawals in WV, even in areas without convenient access to a Chase branch
  • Chase charging $.25 for cash back with a purchase in TN and RI
  • Chase charging $.10 for every point-of-service use after the second one in CO
  • Chase charging $.25 for PIN transactions in ME and TN
  • US Bank charging $20 overdraft fees (on pre-paid cards!) in AR
  • Chase charging $1.50 for denied transactions in MI and WV
  • Chase charging $.50 to check a balance and $1 for insufficient funds in RI
  • Regions Bank charging a $2.50 90-day inactivity fee in AL
  • Chase charging $12.50 to issue a check to close out an account in CO and CT

Check out this state-by-state summary to see what your state’s card charges and how that compares with other states.

This list, of course, demonstrates another thing: Chase’s significant role in the market (it serves 13 of the 40 states that use pre-paid cards) and–aside from US Bank’s egregious overdraft fees–its use of the most abusive practices.

That’s notable because Chase’s parent company–and its CEO, Jamie Dimon–is also taking the lead in threatening to cut off poorer consumers because the government wants to limit what debit card issuers like Chase can charge merchants.

Bank executives have said they will raise their fees to compensate for losing debit card processing revenues.They predict that some people will be unable to afford the fees, forcing them out of the banking system into the realm of check cashers and payday lenders.

The term that the banks use for this is “unbanked.” The rules “will have the adverse consequences of making a portion of current bank clients unbanked.

You will not be able to profitably serve them,” Dimon told analysts during the bank’s fourth-quarter earnings conference call Friday.

About 5 percent of today’s banking customers “may be pushed out of the banking system,” he said.

You see the nice trap Dimon is setting for those who don’t profit mightily by sucking at the federal teat, like his bank does? Unbanked consumers are precisely those who, if they receive unemployment, will rely on these cards and have to pay their usurious fees. So after forcing them out of the banking system because JP Morgan refuses to cut its escalating profits in response to Dodd-Frank, JP Morgan will still profit off these people by nickel and diming them at the time they can least afford to be nickel and dimed.

Corporate Fairy Tales in Afghanistan

/in /by

It’s a corporate fairy tale: working class boy joins the military, goes into banking, brings the joys of mineral exploitation to exotic locales.

From Congo to Colombia, from Iraq to Sierra Leone, [Ian] Hannam [the JP Morgan banker overseeing the development of a gold mine in Afghanistan] and his small team of soldiers-turned-bankers and advisers did business with oligarchs, gem dealers, and former mercenaries. He could be bracingly direct. When he landed in Baghdad for a meeting with Iraq’s oil minister, the minister asked, “What are you here for?”

“I’m here to make five new Iraqi billionaires every year for the next 10 years,” Hannam said with a twinkle in his eyes.

And it ends, I guess, as corporate fairy tales do: with the mineral riches finally being liberated from the oppressive soil.

But at least someone will have begun releasing the wealth trapped in Afghanistan’s stones.

It’s all the bits in between that raise eyebrows about the viability of our little project in Afghanistan and the structure of our empire. While the story focuses on Hannam, the JP Morgan banker, it’s as much a story about General Petraeus.

Then, in 2009, mining in Afghanistan got the push it needed — from the U.S. military. Petraeus had been appointed commander of U.S. Central Command, which had ultimate authority over Afghanistan. He realized that a U.S. exit from Afghanistan depended on getting the country’s economy running.

[snip]

Realizing that conventional foreign-aid organizations weren’t getting the job done, Petraeus moved a crack economic stabilization team from Iraq into Afghanistan. That team quickly realized that mining would be key.

And Deputy Under Secretary for Defense Paul Brinkley.

Hannam was at the banquet hall for a reception thrown by the Trade Bank of Iraq to honor J.P. Morgan. Also at the reception was Paul Brinkley, a deputy under secretary of defense charged with jump-starting Iraq’s stalled economy. A former tech company executive, Brinkley served as a matchmaker of sorts between Iraqi entrepreneurs and foreign businessmen. With the blessing of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, he operated outside normal bureaucratic channels, eschewing the bulletproof vests and helmets his civilian colleagues wore in combat zones. In three years he had secured some $8 billion in private investment contracts for Iraq, helping start textile mills, cement factories, and electronics companies. Hannam and Brinkley had heard about each other’s work. J.P. Morgan had been one of the first Western companies to plant the flag in Iraq, overseeing the country’s currency and setting up a big oil project in Iraqi Kurdistan. Hannam and Brinkley fell into conversation about Afghanistan, which was to be Brinkley’s next posting.

These men, of course, were prominently seen last June pushing James Risen to report a breathless story on Afghanistan’s $1 trillion mineral riches the night before Petraeus would testify to Congress.

[Risen] explained that he based his report on the work of a Pentagon team led by Paul Brinkley, a deputy undersecretary of defense charged with rebuilding the Afghan economy. Using geological data from the Soviet era and USGS surveys conducted in 2006, Brinkley dispatched teams to Afghanistan last year to search for minerals on the ground. The data they’ve come back with, combined with internal Pentagon assessments that value the deposits at more than $900 billion, constitute news, according to Risen. (Those surveys are still under way, according to a briefing Brinkley gave yesterday.)

[snip]

So was the story a Pentagon plant, designed to show the American public a shiny metallic light at the end of the long tunnel that is the Afghan war, as skeptics allege? Risen said he heard about the Pentagon’s efforts from Milt Bearden, a retired CIA officer who was active in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The men co-authored a book, “The Main Enemy,” in 2003, and Bearden is now a consultant working with Brinkley’s survey team.

“Several months ago, Milt started telling me about what they were finding,” Risen said. “At the beginning of the year, I said I wanted to do a story on it.” At first both Bearden and Brinkley resisted, Risen said, but he eventually wore them down. “Milt convinced Brinkley to talk to me,” he said, “and Brinkley convinced other Pentagon officials to go on the record. I think Milt realized that things were going so badly in Afghanistan that people would be willing to talk about this.” In other words, according to Risen, he wasn’t handed the story in a calculated leak. Calls and emails to Brinkley and to Eric Clark, a Pentagon public relations contractor who works with him, were not immediately returned.

All of which makes you wonder about the provenance of this story…

And of course, in addition to Hannam, Petraeus, and Brinkley, there is JP Morgan itself, which seems to be investing a lot of time in a project they don’t expect to be profitable and won’t put their own money into.

In late September, J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon, Brinkley, and Mining Minister Wahidullah Shahrani met at J.P. Morgan’s headquarters in Manhattan. Dimon pledged J.P. Morgan’s support. On the way down in the elevator, Dimon told Shahrani, “You’re in good hands with Ian. He’s eccentric, but he gets things done.”But soon Brinkley’s team was wondering. On the day the deal signing was to take place, Hannam’s team stopped acting like former warriors and began behaving like, well, nervous investment bankers. Hannam, after talking about how rich he was going to make his clients, suddenly began to complain that there was no way to make a profit. The 26% royalty rate for the mine, his team claimed, was way too high. Mining Minister Shahrani was bewildered — the rate had been agreed upon years before, when the Naderi family had first bid for the mine. Nothing had changed.

Brinkley’s Pentagon team was deeply frustrated. They felt the bankers had pulled a fast one. Had Hannam’s group not done its homework? Or were they just being bankers, trying to squeeze more money out of the deal with some 11th-hour brinkmanship?

Brinkley lit into the J.P. Morgan group: “When are you going to get this done? You’ve told people you’re going to do it!” The bankers, in turn, felt they were being unfairly pressured by the government, which seemed desperate to get the deal done even if it was uneconomical.

[snip]

J.P. Morgan says it isn’t putting any of its own money into the project. Hannam secured $40 million from investors in the U.S., Asia, and Europe. They included Enso Capital founder Joshua Fink, son of BlackRock’s Larry Fink; British mining titan Peter Hambro; and Thai businessman Pairoj Piempongsant. Hannam created an investment vehicle, Central Asian Resources, to enter into a joint venture with Naderi’s new mining company, Afghan Gold.

Which in turn makes you wonder about the off-and-on relationship between the President and Jamie Dimon, particularly in the months leading up to JP Morgan playing hardball on the gold mine in Afghanistan. Have there been other considerations involved in the government’s relationship with JP Morgan? When Dimon boasts about JP Morgan being a good bank–in spite of the fact that they practice some of the same reprehensible policies as their rivals–is he saying something more?

Mind you, it’s not that Petraeus is wrong: Afghanistan needs something besides poppies if it’s ever going to become a viable nation-state.

I’d just like a bit more transparency about the public-private endeavors our government builds to make that happen. And I’d like a lot more information about all the favors being exchanged to make that happen.

Goldman’s Lies and Jamie Dimon’s Piggy Bank

/in , /by

After a drawn out battle to liberate the records of the Fed’s discount window lending, they’ve finally been released. Bloomberg (who led the legal fight to liberate them) has made the records available here.

While it’s going to take a while for those who understand this stuff to collate the data–the Fed released individual PDFs–thus far there are two stories. First, when Goldman Sachs President Gary Cohn testified to the FCIC that Goldman had only accessed the window once–and that at the request of the Fed–he appears to have not been telling the truth.

Goldman Sachs Bank USA, a unit of the company, took overnight loans from the Federal Reserve on Sept. 23, Oct. 1, and Oct. 23 in 2008 as well as on Sept. 9, 2009, and Jan. 11, 2010, according to the data released today. The largest loan was $50 million on Sept. 23 and the smallest was $1 million on the most recent two occasions.

Goldman Sachs President and Chief Operating Officer Gary D. Cohn told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission June 30 that “we used it one night at the request of the Fed to make sure our systems were linked with their systems, and it was for a de minimis amount of money.” Peter J. Wallison, a member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, then asked, “you never had to use it after that?”

“No, and as I said, we used it on the Fed’s request,” Cohn replied.

Maybe now that we’ve established the principle that people should go to jail for lying like this, we can finally send a bankster to jail?

Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, observes that Jamie Dimon was serving on the Board of the NY Fed at the same time as sucking at its teat.

Under court order, the Federal Reserve today identified more banks that took loans during the financial crisis using a once-secret system that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called “welfare for the rich and powerful.”A Sanders provision in the Wall Street reform law already had forced the Fed last Dec. 1 to name banks that took trillions of dollars in emergency loans during the crisis.

“The Federal Reserve bailout was welfare for the rich and powerful and you-are-on-your-own rugged individualism for everyone else,” Sanders said. “The information released by the Fed today should never have been kept secret.  This money does not belong to the Federal Reserve; it belongs to the American people.  I applaud Bloomberg News, Fox News and others for their success in lifting another veil of secrecy at the Fed.”

Sanders said the latest disclosure raises questions about conflicts of interest. While Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, served on the board of directors of the New York Fed, in one month alone, April of 2008, JPMorgan Chase received a combined $313 billion in Fed loans.

“This is an obvious conflict of interest on its face that must be investigated as part of the independent audit that my amendment requires to be completed this summer.  When JPMorgan Chase was telling the world about their great financial success, it seems like they were using the Fed’s discount window as a giant piggy bank.”

I guess this is the kind of information about the banksters about which we little people are supposed to remain ignorant?

A Modest Proposal: Indefinitely Detain the Banksters

/in , , /by

Obama has declared that he has the authority under the 2001 AUMF to indefinitely hold anyone “if it is necessary to protect against a significant threat to the security of the United States.”

He doesn’t say that person has to be a terrorist, much less part of al Qaeda. He doesn’t say that person has to have any tie to the enemy as defined by the 2001 AUMF, that is, “those nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” He doesn’t even say that person has to have been rounded up on a battle field, however you define that.

If detaining someone indefinitely is “necessary to protect against a significant threat to the security of the United States,” Obama says, he can do it.

So I say, fine! Let’s indefinitely detain the banksters that crashed our entire economy. They fairly routinely hold the workers and taxpayers of this country hostage these days, just like terrorists do. And when you account for the number of people they’ve left homeless and hungry, the damage they have done may well surpass that of the attack on 9/11. Clearly, the banksters are a “significant threat to the security of the United States”–they’re the biggest threat to the security of the US. And the genius of Obama’s EO is it doesn’t even require the detainees, themselves, represent a threat. Rather, if their detention is necessitated by the security threat, we can detain them. We don’t have to trouble with sorting the good banksters, like Jamie Dimon, from the bad banksters, like Dick Fuld. We can detain them all, just to make sure we don’t accidentally miss any. (Sorry Bill, we can’t take any risks, so this includes you too!)

Simple as that. Our biggest security threat solved!

Mind you, Obama’s Executive Order laying out this amazing limitless standard specifies that the EO only applies to “those detainees held at Guantanamo on the date of this order.”

But we all know that EOs don’t have to say what they mean. We know OLC ruled back in 2001 that, “There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.” We know Bush did just that–change the terms of an EO without changing the text, so none of us had warning we were being spied on. But when national security is threatened–our government has decided–it’s okay to change EOs with no warning.

So all Obama has to do to authorize the indefinite detention of the banksters that represent the biggest threat to our security right now is simply pixie dust his EO, and voila! He can round up the banksters, put them on some tropical island somewhere (I suspect they’ll feel right at home in the Cayman Islands).

It’s as easy as that, vanquishing a security threat, arbitrarily detaining people in the name of security forever.

Right?

Or Maybe Your Profit Levels and Bonuses Are Simply Obscene?

/in , /by

Jamie Dimon says they’re going to have to chase 5% of their customers away in response to limits Dodd-Frank put on the usurious rates banks charge merchants for each debit card transaction.

Federal limits on debit card processing fees will force banks to charge customers more for services, making accounts too expensive for as many as 5 percent of customers, JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive Jamie Dimon said Friday.

The rules, proposed as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, would cap the fees that merchants pay banks for processing debit card transactions at 12 cents each.

That is almost 75 percent less than the average 44 cents per transaction that banks get now.

U.S. banks could lose about $13 billion of their annual industry debit processing revenues because of the rules, which the Federal Reserve proposed last month.

Dimon also announced today that their profit was up 47% last quarter. And that’s after the $10 billion in bonuses Dimon’s banksters will share.

In other words, JP Morgan could easily afford to keep serving its poorest customers, just by accepting reasonable profit and bonus levels instead of the positively immoral ones they’re now getting. But it has chosen, instead, to push millions into “unbanked” status, I guess because those people aren’t as worthwhile as people as JPM’s MOTUs are.

Note, too, that Chase is one of the national leaders in contracting with states to provide debit cards for state unemployment benefits. I wonder if JPM will forgo these big state contracts and captive consumers as part of its “unbanking” plans?

White House Brags about Exporting our Pyramid Schemes to Korea

/in /by

The list of statements of support for the Korea Trade Agreement the White House sent out last night tells you a lot about what you need to know about the trade agreement. Among others on the list are Tom Donohue, whose laundering of foreign money into election coffers had a significant role in the shellacking Democrats took in November. Donohue thinks this deal is great:

This agreement will create thousands of new jobs, advance our national goal of doubling exports in five years, and demonstrate that America is once again ready to lead on trade. The administration has done its part. Now it’s time for the new Congress to make passage of KORUS a top priority in January. We will do everything in our power to round up the votes.

Then there’s John Engler, who for a while as head of the National Association of Manufacturers instituted a policy of refusing to meet with Democrats.

Then there’s the CEOs of credit card nation, Vikram Pandit and Jamie Dimon.

But to me, the most telling endorser of this agreement is Dick DeVos, the CEO of Amway and perennially one of the biggest single funders of the Republican Party. DeVos is thrilled because this will help Amway meet their growth targets.

Like most companies, we support a more competitive playing field. This new trade agreement allows Amway to continue meeting aggressive growth targets, and gives a much needed boost for all export business in Michigan.

So we’re going to push through this trade agreement so Dick DeVos can expand his pyramid scheme, get richer, and funnel that money into the Republican Party.

But then, I guess that’s what Pandit and Dimon have in mind, too.

JP Morgan Chase’s Several Week Timeline

/in /by

In addition to dropping MERS today, JP Morgan Chase had an earnings call at which Jamie Dimon was asked questions about JPMC’s foreclosure fraud. Calculated Risk has a transcription (both the AP and WSJ attribute these comments to Dimon, though CFO Douglas Braunstein made comments about the foreclosure fraud as well). But I just wanted to note the contradictory stories Dimon is telling about timing.

Analyst: I was wondering if you could give us any sense for timing of resolution in terms of reopening these 115,000 cases?

JPM: It’s going to take several weeks to go through the files and make sure and correct any errors that are in there. The underlying stuff is all accurate. So that’s the key substance. Obviously we know there’s a lot of state AGs and we have conversations with them. We’re hoping [to get back to] the normal process — for us, the sooner the better for everybody involved. We don’t think there are cases with people have been evicted out of homes where they shouldn’t have been. These foreclosures go through multiple process, so we’re hoping it will be sooner rather than later and those conversations are starting to take place.

[snip]

Analyst: And the foreclosure stuff, outside of how it directly may impact you or somebody else, how do you look at the drag it may have on the housing market, kind of the macro impact, what do you think about that?

JPM: Again, I hope — this is a hope. This is not a knowledge. Is that when people take a deep, sigh breath, go back to the right, look to the substance underlying the files and go back to modifying, foreclosing and doing the right thing, all told, it could be a blip. Talking about three or four weeks it will be a blip in the housing market. If it went on for a long period of time it will have a lot of consequences, most of which would be adverse on everybody.

Analyst: The foreclosure suspension, it’s a matter of weeks instead of months, did I hear you say that?

JPM: No. I didn’t say weeks to clean up the files. We actually have to have little in depth conversations with regulators and AGs and stuff like that. So I don’t know exactly when. I’m hopeful that it all starts to move at one point. I don’t know if it’s going to be three weeks or five. But I think it will be a real shame if we don’t get this resolved and moving again.

Analyst: In all likelihood you should be allowed to foreclose as we go into next year.

JPM: I hope so. It’s not up to me. [my emphasis]

First, note the clear reversal. At first, Jamie Dimon says it will take several weeks to “correct any errors” (meaning, to write new affidavits with proper notarizations to replace the ones he admitted to earlier). When asked about the overall impact on the housing market, Dimon gives a classic, “nice economy you’ve got here; it’d be a pity if it died if it takes us longer than three or four weeks to fix ‘our errors.'” But based on that statement, an analyst clarifies that he imagines it will take weeks. To which Dimon response, “I didn’t say weeks to clean up the files.”

But he did.

The real reason for his squirminess–aside from the fact that he all but admits that his company had fabricated affidavits and notarizations, amounting to fraud on courts in multiple states–appears to be the awareness that 50 Attorneys General and some unnamed regulators have him by the balls and will tell him, MOTU Dimon, when he can start foreclosing again. (Nowhere does he admit to doubt that JPMC will be able to foreclose.) He seems to be hoping that if the regulators and prosecutors just look at the “substance underlying the files”–that is, look at the delinquent payments rather than the insufficient paperwork–they’ll green light foreclosures and we can all go on to pretend that the banksters haven’t been engaged in systematic fraud to hide their larger systematic fraud.

But I do find it remarkable that in an earnings call, Dimon all but admitted to fraud, admitted that the Attorneys General will dictate what happens going forward, and yet didn’t lay that out (or the underlying problem of fraud built on fraud) as an earnings risk. It’ll be interesting if JPMC admits the legal jeopardy to the SEC.

NY Post Floats Dimon to Replace Geithner

/86 Comments/in /by

Talk about unclear on the concept! The NY Post claims that “a number of policy makers” have proposed ousting Geithner and giving the position of Treasury Secretary to one of the MOTUs who was effectively Geithner’s “client” at both the NY Fed and Treasury. (h/t scribe)

Sources tell The Post that a number of policy makers have begun mentioning Dimon as a successor to Geithner, whose standing in Washington has suffered because of the country’s high unemployment rate, the weakness of the dollar, the slow pace of the recovery and the government’s mounting deficit.

Last week, Geithner faced a withering attack from some Republican members of the Joint Economic Committee, getting into a testy exchange with one congressman who at one point asked Geithner if he would step down.

Dimon, meanwhile, has achieved rock star status during the financial crisis, having navigated JPMorgan through the recession and being a go-to guy when Uncle Sam last year needed Wall Street’s help during the collapses of Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual.

Furthermore, while many bank chiefs are facing heat over outsize bonuses, Dimon has repeatedly made clear he won’t write fat checks to attract or keep talent.

Now, you can never tell whether the Post is reporting news or spewing propaganda, and the fact that the Post reports only that Republicans want to get rid of Geithner and not–for example–Democrat Peter DeFazio suggests that this might be the current state of Republican spin.

Still, it is true that Obama thinks Dimon can do no wrong. And it is true that Obama’s economic policy has been totally captured by people like … Dimon.

So who knows? Maybe this is a genuine trial balloon?

JP MorganThe Banks Forces Chrysler into Bankruptcy

/70 Comments/in , /by
the end of Chrysler

photo courtesy of S and C

The UAW was willing to negotiate, but the banksters weren’t. So Chrysler will now enter bankruptcy.

The Obama administration will announce at noon today that it will take Chrysler LLC into a historic bankruptcy to force a cut in debt key to a partnership with Fiat S.p.A. after three firms refused a sweetened offer.

With the UAW late Wednesday ratifying cost cuts in its contract and cuts in the money due its retiree health-care trust fund, President Barack Obama will announce a Chrysler-Fiat deal and the government’s “surgical” bankruptcy plan later today.

The administration "was willing to give the holdout creditors a final opportunity to do the right thing," an administration official said. But "the agreement of all other key stakeholders ensured that no hedge fund could have a veto over Chrysler’s future success."

The lack of an agreement will not "impede the new opportunity Chrysler now has to restructure and emerge stronger going forward," the official said.

The Administration claims they’ll be able to pull off a surgical bankruptcy and still pull off the Fiat deal on the other side, leaving Chrysler with some lease on life. But meanwhile, the banksters get to collect on their bets against Chrysler and get rich rich rich! All while sucking at the Federal teat. 

Update: JPMorgan Chase may have been willing to deal. It was a couple of hedge funds that were the final holdouts.

The holdouts are no longer the big four banks (and TARP recipients) that together own 70 percent of Chrysler’s debt. Both the Journal and the Washington Post have fingered three hedge funds — Oppenheimer Funds, Perella Weinberg Partners’ Xerion Capital Fund and Stairway Cap Management — as the sticklers. The government is faced with the unenviable prospect of getting unanimous consent from all the bondholders to make a deal, which gives the hedge funds extraordinary leverage. In the parlance of Wall Street, taking a hit on what you are owed is known as a "haircut." The hedge funds seem to be allergic to the barbershop.

From Obama’s statements.

He starts by saying they get a new lease on life. 

Talks about its role in US history, and in building the middle class. 

It’s been a pillar of our economy, but a pillar that’s been weakening. Designing cars that were less reliable and less fuel efficient than competitors. As I’ve said from the start, we cannot keep this Read more →