July 28, 2011
Obama has to use the 14th Amendment.
Obama should invoke the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that states the following: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
First of all it will force the party of “personal responsibility” to pay their debts. Let me remind you that the debt ceiling needs to be raised not to expand government spending in the future as our far right folks think, but to pay for bills that already have been incurred in the past, mostly by the same personally responsible, fiscally conservative party, like paying for wars, Bush’s tax cuts, and interest on the existing debt. (Obamacare has not kicked in yet, just so you know).
Second, if someone will still question the legality of the move, he or she can take it to court. I can’t wait to see what sort of personal injury or loss of property they will claim to suffer from the event of NON-default. Well, I can imagine PIMCO folks or others who shorted Treasuries counting on default to have a monetary loss, but just picture them in front of US Supreme Court with this!
Third, I don’t think the Tea Partiers in Congress understand the whole seriousness of the situation. They are looking at the default as if it’s a tool to use against Obama and not something that will hurt them or their constituents in the end. Politicians who engage in political posturing to placate their caucus is one thing, everyone does it, but Tea Party block are true believers – they really do want US to default, all be damned. “That’ll show’em!” – they think. They need to get some education from some wily lawyers who used to run the show in Congress, but who also know what a compromise is. When grandma or some average Joe investor or some contractor doesn’t get paid – who cares! But when Wall Street gets nervous and when Tea Party financial spigots are scratching their heads at a bunch of hillbillies they sent to Congress – that’s a wake-up call. When Wall Street feels like it won’t get paid – they will make sure their message gets through. And that’s where, with all my antipathy towards lawmakers, I would prefer crafty lawyers to uneducated hacks. The hacks that love the Constitution so much they want to amend it. The same hacks that love America so much they want her to default.
And lastly, Bill Clinton says he would use this amendment “without hesitation” and “let them challenge me in court”. This alone would be enough for me!
July 23, 2011
Adults in the room
I always wondered at the ability of some, mostly on the right, to twist the meaning of words. Today the word is seriousness. John Boehner while abandoning the debt ceiling talks last night issued the following statement: “The White House is simply not serious about ending the spending binge that is destroying jobs and endangering our children’s future.” Of course! Destroying jobs and endangering children. When you’re painted into a corner and ran out of meaningful words to say you resort to “The American people”, “Our childrens future”, “Taxing the job creators” and other platitudes. All that in addition to not returning President’s phone calls! Contrast that with what Obama said last night: The deal is extraordinarily fair, I’m taking heat from my own party for this, I have been left at the altar a couple of times, Can they say yes to anything? Obama is like a superintendent in a crumbling apartment complex, who is figuring out how to fix the plumbing, repair leaking roof, get new washer/dryer while Boehner spends his time spreading rumors that increasing the maintenance fee will hurt those living in the penthouse. He doesn’t tell them, however, that when the roof collapses there will be no penthouse! So who’s serious here?
I’m also a little puzzled by those who see what’s unraveling and take the position of “the pox on both of your houses”. Both of your houses?! Obama, in his attempt to make a deal has moved so far to the right that pissed of his base and even prompted calls from senator Bernie Sanders to “primary” him. That’s leadership! That’s putting country before politics. He knows that this might make him a one-term president, but he’s doing what’s right. And what did Boehner do? He can’t deliver his caucus to do anything, thus to save face, he shows us some theatrics by walking out. I cut him some slack and will not accuse him for genuinely NOT wanting to make a deal, it is possible he really might want to make it, I accuse him for not having a hold on his own people. (Funny, how this used to be a problem on the left, liberals are notorious for being difficult to take marching orders). Why would Obama want to negotiate with the leader who does not lead? It’s like playing poker with the guy who doesn’t have the cash to pay up at the end of the day. Boehner ultimately can not make a deal even if he wants to. Serious people come to the negotiations with the readiness to back up their words with actions. Unserious people just have a lot of things to say and a lot of excuses to give. Like children who get caught stealing a cookie. They’re sending a boy to do a man’s job. Unfortunately that’s what Republican party has become now – a party of capricious little boys, not serious adults.
November 21, 2010
Jedi Master has spoken
Many of you know my stance on taxes – I don’t think that progressive taxation is the end of the world. But when one of the richest men on the planet says that he and the ones like him are not taxed enough there must be something to it. Buffett Tells ABC Rich People Should Pay Higher Taxes Or as Fox News would conclude – a hidden socialist agenda.
I read a book about Buffett recently. His genius is simplicity. The way he succeeds is he gets the same information as everyone else – from annual reports – but he knows what information is important. He just knows how to ask the right questions. All of those Efficient Markets Theory apologists that question his record are a bunch of Ph.Ds that claim to know the future by looking at the charts of past events. There are still a bunch of those being employed by big banks to this day as market technicians. But in essence, they are no better than astrologists.
Despite having grown up in a very conservative family (his father was a member of the John Birch Society) he nonetheless learned to think for himself and has become known for his support of progressive causes throughout his career. But he does not let any sort of ideology guide him. All that matters is economic sense and right now that means to lower taxes on middle class and raise them on the top 1%. That also means that without Uncle Sam coming to rescue in 2008-2009 there would be no Ford, GM and Citi anymore and millions more would be unemployed. Pretty Good for Government Work
Of course, our fiscal conservatives love to point out, in horror, to France and Germany with their constant strikes that paralyze railroads and airports, etc. implying that this is what we’re going to turn to if we raise taxes on the rich, but, frankly, it’s like comparing apples and oranges: the unions in this country are so neutered that the only thing they can do these days is give concessions to the employers. Unions Yield on Wage Scales to Preserve Jobs Trust me the strike in this country would be suicidal for workers and unions. Employers would just move operations elsewhere. The diminished union influence is, in my opinion, one of the primary reasons why middle class is disappearing here. The top 1% controls about 23% of the wealth in this country. And the rest are living paycheck to paycheck while voting Republican and fearing Socialism.
November 11, 2010
Obama keeps tax cuts for the rich
First of all let me congratulate those destitute 1% of the population who were scraping by paycheck to paycheck and who can now breathe a sigh of relief. I heard so many frightening stories about how the 3% increase of their tax rate will slow the economic recovery. Now these 3% will sure trickle down to the rest of the population. But enough sarcasm – I’m really happy for them. Maybe now they will finally stop complaining that Obama administration treats them unfairly. From my previous posts you probably know that the abundance of complaints and general thinness of skin (real or assumed) on Wall Street (who else is in the top tax bracket?) is my favorite topic. The amount of wimps in the top bracket is breathtaking. Makes you wonder how is it that they made it to the top?
I think it all comes down to the fact that being viewed as a victim has become fashionable in this country. It’s a foolproof PR strategy. Moreover, it’s convenient – you get to blame a third party (Obama, government, stiff regulations, communists, etc.) for all of your misfortunes.
Obama, unfortunately, got himself in the position where he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. One part of the country thinks that he’s in bed with Wall Street, the other part of the country is convinced that he’s out to destroy capitalism, and media doesn’t bother to notice the controversy. For their own convenience certain news sources can criticize Obama for having too many Goldman guys in his administration (alluding, of course, that he’s conniving against the working man) and in the same breath accuse him of socialistic tendencies. I fault Obama for not fighting back hard enough against this nonsense. He’s in dire need of some pit bulls and a Fox-like echo chamber with talking heads. If there’s one thing I admire about the Republicans is that they are masters at propaganda. Their mantra that repetition makes it true really works: death panels, Obama’s Kenyan birth, middle class tax increases – all of it stuck.
Now that Obama kept Bush’s tax cuts do you think that he’s going to be thanked by the business community? Fat chance! Investors Show Obama No Respect in Global Poll as Profits Surge As I described above it’s convenient to always be pissed off about something. Investors made money this year, profits surged – but they’re still not happy. If they are not pissed off at Obama they really have no one else. They need him as a human receptacle of all kinds of misdirected anger. Especially now that the Congress is Republican.
To Obama I say – may the force be with you!
October 17, 2010
The Foreclosure Situation
Given the recent development on the foreclosure front here’s my 2 cents and a possible solution.
How can a trust with tens of thousands of individual loans in it dispute each one of those defaulted loans one by one in court? This isn’t going to happen. And it’s not because it’s too long and too costly – there are ways around that, but because trusts can’t prove that they own those mortgages, they don’t have the paperwork needed. To go forward with foreclosure en masse would mean some abrogation of the sacred contract. Also, if the house has several liens on it, as happens in most cases, the potential buyer, who’s hunting for a cheap foreclosed home can’t be 100% sure what exactly he’s buying. It can turn out that he’s going to be second in line, after the primary mortgage holder claims to own the property as these two unfortunate guys found out. I mean what reliable source or a database do you check to know what it is that you’re buying with a foreclosed home? I think foreclosure has a risk of becoming a four-letter word.
What it can mean is foreclosure market will be dead for a long time, because bargain hunters will be spooked by the legal uncertainty. In reality it would look like the whole country will be plagued by haunted houses that no one can sell, buy, move into, bulldoze to the ground and not even touch with a ten foot pole. Wouldn’t that signal that the new construction will be hot again? People have to live somewhere. Just a speculation on my part.
That’s just one of many problems. The other one is sloppy record keeping.
Even before the mortgage meltdown, the servicing industry “was plagued with problems,” such as servicers charging unauthorized or excessive fees and making false or unsubstantiated statements about how much borrowers owed, says David Vladeck, head of the bureau of consumer protection at the Federal Trade Commission, which has brought several recent cases against servicers.
I read a few articles in the past few days and to my horror I found out that no one is really insured from being foreclosed upon in this unceremonious manner, even if you’re current on your mortgage! That is because most of those small lenders that originated your loans are non-existent right now, those loans are long gone from their balance sheets into the trust without proper documentation being transferred into the hands of a new owner or lost altogether. In this case how do you prove that you paid all your mortgage bills on time? You have your records, sure, but they have theirs! Prove that your records are correct! These robo-signers are a sort of indiscriminate roulette that can pull your own mortgage out of some system purely by mistake and make you in default. “Because it says so on the computer screen” – you will be hearing when, puzzled, you call your mortgage servicer trying to clear the little misunderstanding. You will be speaking with some clueless person who will be immune to your logic and calls to reason, because I suspect they all are being trained to not understand questions for which there are no standard answers from the manual. What recourse do you really have in situation like this other than going to court?
The solution. With such clusterfuck in the foreclosure process and a high unemployment rate the solution begs for itself. Just like in early 2000s a bunch of no name lending companies popped up here and there I can see a huge market for foreclosure specialists. The business model would look like this: A small company gets a list of the prospective foreclosures from the trust or from the sponsoring bank and hires high-school drop outs for $10 an hour to phone the properties on the list. If somebody still lives there and pays mortgage or at least is working out a payment plan – those get dropped from the FC process. If no one answers the phone, the bank is given the green light to proceed with the FC. I mean this is a rough idea, perhaps those employees have to do visits to the property and follow some guidelines, etc. but you get the idea. Then they send the updated list back to the bank, which, in turn, proceeds with the wholesale robo-signed foreclosures. It’s a sort of quid pro quo: if banks want to speed up the process and bypass the paperwork requirement they have to pay to make sure that no current homeowners end up on the list. Isn’t that a reasonable requirement? This way we kill many birds with one stone: the FC proceeds at a reasonable speed (not as fast as it is right now, but not as slow as it would under the judicial review); a bunch of unemployed people get jobs (and maybe, as a positive side effect, even pay their own mortgages); politicians can move on something else, like fighting socialism – everybody’s happy. I think even Republicans can support something like this – after all it’s good for business.
October 5, 2010
ABS East 2010. Time of disconnect.
The annual securitization industry conference has just concluded in Miami. I attended it mostly due to gracious gesture of my former colleague who got me a free pass at the very last moment. Since I’ve been out of industry for a year I had to get current on recent developments. My second reason for going was anthropological, of course. I wanted to get a general feel of the market participants.
I will get very specific with terms during my observations, but I will make the best effort to explain terms to the uninitiated. This is not, after all, a financial blog.
But first things first. The biggest topic of discussion and concern at the conference was government and legislative actions. After attending a few panels and listening to speakers from different camps I came to sad conclusion that Wall Street, Government and regulatory and legislative bodies are a beast with more than two hands and naturally neither hand knows what the other is doing. First, let me describe the participants. Each panel consisted of specialists in that particular area of expertise. If it was a regulatory panel – there were people from some government agencies, FDIC, OCC, etc. If it was a research panel – it had a bunch of analysts on it, and if it was a traders’ panel – you guessed it! Normally, at this sort of conferences, I would just skip the lectures all together and hang out by the pool or at the bar with salespeople, but this time I wanted to make full use of the conference pass acquired through the kindness of others. I had to go listen to the panelists in order to refresh my memory on things and get the feel on the state of current affairs. So the uncertainty about legislative maneuvers was on everybody’s minds. Because this is not a specialty industry publication and it’s not even a market blog I will not delve into the specifics about deals and bonds performance. (Those who are interested to know about trade ideas can ask me specifically, but being in a generous mood I put a few at the end of the post). I will try to make it into a 3d party observation from 10,000 foot view.
“It’s not the product, it’s the macro.”
October 2, 2010
Wall Street and Charity
Still Stuck in Denial on Wall Street
This article in today’s NYT stirred old memories and current sentiments. And you know how much I like to write about Wall Street, so here it is.
First a disclaimer: I love Wall Street the same way I love a casino. It’s Disneyland for adults, it’s a fun place to be. It’s like a sandbox with geeks, bullies, jerks, alphas and omegas making toy trades.
I decided to explore why it is so hard for guys on Wall Street to see themselves as villains or at least to be honest about their role in the crisis. They still insist they are the good guys who are being unfairly treated by Obama. Beaten like a piñata for no reason.
I remember how at the very beginning of my Wall Street career I tried to justify my work to myself, give it some meaning, although I was unable to explain what it is that I do to folks back home. Then after some time I gave up the idea that I’m doing socially useful work, even marginally. But I knew what I was doing and I didn’t pretend to be someone that I’m not. I was there for the money, I was no longer under the illusion that my occupation will somehow make the world a better place. Money is what makes young ambitious kids endure long hours jerking off stupid spreadsheets, when their peers are actually feeding the hungry in Africa or teaching kids in Harlem. But then, after a few years something starts to bug them. They start thinking: it would be nice to make all that money and actually see the results of your labor that have made a difference in society, a change for the better. (Notice that here I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt. I award them human qualities. I truly believe that people genuinely feel the need to voluntarily share the reasonable part of the windfall with less fortunate at some point in their lives. But someone who proofread this story for me felt that charitable impulses are to be displayed strictly in public, checks to be written when cameras are clicking, otherwise what’s the point? But that person is a hopeless cynic.) Wall Street loves to participate in all kinds of charities, fund raisers, etc. It is hard for any individual, even a Wall Street type, to see himself doing something that lacks meaning. It is important for a sane person, especially after he made tons of money, to feel like he’s making the world a better place. And since he could not get other than only monetary fulfillment at work he either a) gets active in charity or, if he’s a sociopath, b) keeps clinging to the belief that he’s a nice guy who helps small businesses get funding and keeps the economy going. You know, it’s nice to make all that dough and be seen as a nice, caring, charitable person who helps little neighborhood cupcake bakeries get capital by day and donates money to special needs children by night via industry social. All right, I won’t question the motives of bankers who do charity in this post, I will assume they are doing it from big heart and generosity. I’m simply questioning their approach to their primary profession. And I think the answer is that for some it’s hard to admit that creating and trading mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps did not really fund that cupcake store down the street.
Now, if you think that I’m writing this to pile up on greedy bankers you’re wrong. I have no problem with bankers being greedy and conniving and shrewd. If they weren’t then there would be no money to be made. That’s their business, that’s what they do. If they want to feel good about themselves they should donate to charity and that’s that. But I don’t want them to pretend that what they are doing during the day is noble. My problem with Wall Street is that they still see themselves and insist on everyone seeing them as innocent sheep. Does that guy in the article, Anthony Scaramucci, honestly believe that what he’s doing is simply helping small businesses get financing? He’s either naïve, which I doubt, or he finds himself in the position where admitting to himself that all these years he participated in the biggest fleecing of America would make his head explode. I think guys like him have no avenue, other than charity, to make them feel good about themselves. I find it disingenuous when they pretend to be nice and fluffy vegetarians who get pushed around by big and nasty Obama. All I want them is to acknowledge that this is what they do, they eat what they kill, and not hide under the ‘nice guy’ guise. As you probably inferred from my writing is that I’m in the “no illusions about what we did” camp. What we did, what I did wasn’t nice. It was fun, though, it was breathtaking at times, frustrating at other times, but it was never boring. I too gave money to charities, partially because I genuinely felt the need to share and partially because I got to dress up and socialize and have drinks and nice dinner. I know. (You see, I come from a humble, plebeian background – free food, or at least that’s the way I looked at it after I wrote a check, can still be a factor for me to attend any event). At least I’m honest about it, and a guy like Scaramucci isn’t. Before you protest and call me names answer this one question to yourself: Would you do your job for $50,000 with no bonus? Would you be a quant, a structurer, a trader, a salesperson or a spreadsheet whacker if that was the pay? Or would you rather go work for the UN or be a teacher for $50K?
So go and make your money the shrewd way, give to charity to make yourself feel better but please don’t pretend to be a Ghandi. And if you feel like you’re being beaten like a piñata, take it as a man. Many millions of unemployed and those who lost everything would love to be beaten with that kind of stick.
July 29, 2010
Trickle Down Economics
Here’s a gem from Stephen Colbert. This is how trickle down economics works.
June 14, 2010
Republicans for Regulation
It turns out Republicans don’t favor free markets at all. Only they could come up with a legislation like this one.
On Strategic Default
Basically, they are trying to punish borrowers who, while being deeply underwater, are defaulting strategically – that is stop paying mortgage while staying in the house and spend money on other things. Things like going out to the restaurants, shopping, investing money in their small businesses, etc. You know, the normal things that help the economy rebound and keep the Republicans happy. I must also add and this is important – that while doing it, home borrowers are not actually breaking any contractual obligations. Default is an option. It’s the ultimate free market at work, just like the founding fathers have prescribed. But Republicans are not happy.
Frankly, it’s hard for me to guess why they are upset, because here we have people making rational economic decisions, which leaves me with only one option – they are upset with immoral behavior. Which they in turn seek to legislate. I can not put it better that this University of Arizona law professor.
I wonder if Congress might consider a similar measure mandating that any corporation or bank that strategically defaults on a contractual obligation is not entitled to any tax breaks or other government assistance, including any future financial bailout. The point is, of course, that business and banks strategically default all the time when it is in their economic interest to do so.
Why no similar move by the House to punish strategic default by banks and corporations? It is interesting that House Republicans are generally opposed to most regulation of corporate activities—preferring to leave the market to self-regulate—but have acted with House Democrats to regulate the economic activities of average Americans. This is yet another example of the double standard in America—one set of rules for Wall Street and another for Main Street—but this time the House is actually codifying this double standard.
Unfortunately, this kind of moralistic grandstanding by the House does nothing to help the millions of struggling underwater homeowners who have seen their retirement security disappear. Instead, it worsens the impact of the best bad choice they have to save themselves from financial ruin, which is to strategically default and let the banks have their homes—which, by the way, is a perfectly legitimate option under the terms of the mortgage contract.
The Left customarily criticizes conservatives for being too beholden to raw capitalism to the detriment of society as a whole. They are approaching it from the wrong end. They should criticize the self-proclaimed “capitalists” for not being capitalist enough. Because, (and it’s becoming a tired adage) it’s socialism for corporations and capitalism for the little guy.
However, it feels like Republicans didn’t just do it on their own accord. It does feel like it has an imprint of an invisible hand of Wall Street. The whole situation has a flavor of a strong player at the poker table losing a big pot to some schmuck who doesn’t know how to play and instead of saying ‘nice hand’ and moving on, he’s calling for a floor manager. Think about it – the big wigs on Wall Street got beaten in their own game and by who! To put it simply the scammers were being scammed, and they didn’t like it. The other team played dirty for once and won. But I thought it was understood among the players that it’s part of the business, a so-called leakage. That’s why I am very surprised to find moralists on Wall Street – out of all places, for Christ sake! Now I’m truly expecting the next logical move by Republicans – putting equal penalties for default on corporations.
