Monday, January 25, 2010

BANKING ON DEATH

We all know that part of what drove our economy into a tailspin in 2008 were the incredibly stupid bets market players made. These bets are called credit default swaps. Essentially they are unregulated insurance contracts written and sold by market players who never intended on paying out if things went wrong (primarily because they didn't have the capital on hand).

What the "insurance writers" were really after were the premiums. When the unregulated insurance writers found out that they couldn't pay out on the bets that went bad (like subprime mortgage securities), all financial hell broke loose.

Well, hang on to your hats. It looks like we're going to do this financial stupidity all over again, but on another level. Only this time the big market players are banking on death. Here's how it works.



Traditionally if you purchase a life insurance policy the expectation is that you will pay premiums. In return you have a life insurance policy that can pay anywhere from $100,000 on into the millions. Your family, or your designee, receives a payment upon your death. If you decide you want to cash out, for whatever reason, you cancel the insurance policy and settle with the insurance company. You get a fraction of what you paid into the policy. Most insurance companies anticipate people cashing out, which helps to keep their costs down (since they don't have the big payout at the end). Pretty simple, huh?

Today, however, Wall Street's investment banks want to purchase your life insurance policy and turn it into a security. Specifically, the idea is to get life insurance policy holders to sell their policies to Wall Street. In return the insured party (you, for example) receive a fraction of what you paid into the policy. The new beneficiary of your death are Wall Street market players.

To be sure, Wall Street market players continue making payments on your insurance policy. But instead of waiting for one person to die, what they do is bundle up hundreds, if not thousands, of insurance contracts. These contracts - and the future payouts - are then sold to market players as securities. So you could conceivably have 10,000 life insurance policies wrapped into one security.

What we end up with is a system that creates what economists call "perverse incentives" because of how they encourage the holders of these securities to cheer on your death. Worse, it provides Wall Street and the market players who buy into these securities a financial incentive to oppose national health care initiatives, to stall the release of new medicines, or to hinder medicinal patent sharing proposals. Anything that might prolong your life is viewed as bad news for this security market.

Death is money.



As economists Marshall Aueback and L. Randall Wray put it, we could see the evolution of a powerful alliance where:

Big Pharma and Big Finance might well try to keep new miracle drugs off the market; or, if these drugs were capable of extending life and thereby reducing profits on the securities, make them prohibitively expensive, thus curbing access.
Aueback and Wray add that it's "fairly easy to see some profitable synergies developing between financial firms marketing bets on death and health insurers opposed to universal, single-payer health care."

By keeping health insurance policies alive the securitization of death could bankrupt the insurance industry. Keep in mind that insurance companies have traditionally banked on policy holders canceling their policies long before they pass on. Keeping policies alive for Wall Street undermines this approach.

Or, Wall Street could do an end run around the insurance industry - as they did with credit default swaps - and create securities with the sole purpose of purchasing insurance policies. Another unregulated market, with a focus on encouraging death. Great.


Apart from the financial issues involved, there are also the ethical ones (which I discussed with reference to Dead Peasant Insurance in my book). Should we allow market players to literally bank on death in a way that might encourage them to oppose the release of medicines and public policies that make our lives healthier?

In my view, markets should neither encourage nor cheer on death. Like Dead Peasant Insurance, banking on death through the creation of death securities is not an industry that needs to be encouraged.

- Mark

Post Script: Here's a video with some interestings numbers on death.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

WHERE'S MY LEGACY ASSET LOAN, MR. BERNANKE?

A few posts back I discussed Legacy Assets. In a few words, legacy assets are poorly performing, or non-performing contracts. More simply stated, they're toxic crap. Rather than watch these toxic legacy assets drag the mortgage market down the federal government created a series of loan programs designed to get market players reinvolved in the mortgage market. One of those programs is TALF.

TALF is the acronym for Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility.

This loan program allows market players to use toxic assets - what the financial industry has ingeniously gotten everyone to call legacy assets - as collateral (check out the Federal Reserve's mind-numbing explanation of the program here). Using toxic (legacy) assets as collateral is just one of the ways the federal government determined it could support the market because (1) it allows market players to use the loans to get cash into the mortgage market, and (2) it provides a guarantee that if the loan is not repaid the federal government American taxpayer will take the hit.

Either way, it is a market subsidy. First, to the loan originators (mortgage brokers and banks) who made the dumb decisions that inflated our market (and it gets them off the hook legally). It also subsidizes the mortgage/housing market, which is still reeling from the 2008 bubble and market collapse.

I provide this background because it appears that we've been making billions in TALF loans over the past year, as you can see here, here, and here. Here's a list of the banks market players work with on these legacy asset loans (interestingly, they're the same guys who got us in this mess; e.g. Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, etc.).

So you know, if your "legacy asset" (your home) is under water you're not eligible for these type of loans. Only the institutional market players are.

- Mark

Friday, January 22, 2010

THIS IS HOW WE GET HEALTH CARE REFORM

A couple of days I wrote that the Democrats needs to stop whining about not having enought votes when they have a 59-41 advantage in the Senate. Then I wrote that Dems need to grow a pair. Here's one path that explains how you do it.

Step 1 -- The Senate passes a "reconciliation" bill with the popular public option and other budget-related fixes to the original Senate bill on issues like the national exchange and excise tax. This takes only a simple majority.

Step 2 -- The House passes both the original Senate bill and final reconciliation bill back-to-back and sends them to the President.

Step 3 -- A signing ceremony takes place that Democrats and voters can be proud of.

I know. This kind of strategy is bold and will piss off the Republicans. My response is, So What. They've been angry (and hateful) for years.

Look, the Republicans could care less about working with President Obama. They also have no shame about how they left the country (and want to pursue the same deregulation/tax cuts for the rich policies again). And they definitely don't have any sense of responsibility about fixing what they broke under President Bush.

Instead, they're acting like the homeowner who set their own house on fire, then show up to complain to the Fire Department about the water damage ... and the fact that the house isn't rebuilt. Why President Obama still thinks he can work with them is beyond me. 

Read this, and then sign the petition.

- Mark

POSTSCRIPT: This is great. I guess there's more Dems out there who think like me on this.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

TODAY'S SUPREME COURT DECISION ... AND THAT FATEFUL TYPO

In 1907 Congress passed a law that prohibited corporations and banks from contributing money to federal campaigns. Teddy Roosevelt, who made a name for himself as America's Trust Buster (breaking up Standard Oil), supported the legislation because of the amount of power corporations had over elections and the political process.

Put simply, corporations were buying and corrupting our state and federal governments.

Later, in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech (but the SC did uphold a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions).

It appears that this all went out the door with today's Supreme Court decision. 

In a 5-4 decision the majority said that the government has no business regulating or limiting political speech by putting limits on corporate contributions. Specifically, since corporations use money to voice their opinion, and are considered protected persons, the Supreme Court said that the state could not violate their First Amendment rights (free speech).

In practical terms, corporations can now spend what they want on political campaigns.

One of the issues that should be addressed (hopefully) after this decision is whether corporations should be accorded the same protections as living, breathing human beings in America. Consider the following:


1. Corporations have the financial resources to hide behind propriety rights, indefinitely.
2. Corporations can hide behind different bankrutpcy laws.
3. Corporations can be foreign owned.

More importantly, people often forget that corporations gained "personhood" status because of the functional equivalent of a typo in 1886. Consider this ...

In the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886) decision, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are entitled to 14th Amendment protections when it came to taxes (yes, I've deliberately oversimplified the primary issue involved here). They had lost their initial court effort in California's Superior Court. This is where it gets really fun.

The railroad company used the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875 - which was designed to help blacks avoid hostile southern state courts in their pursuit of justice - to appeal their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the railroad's favor. Their decision said nothing about corporate "personhood" (it focused on the tax claim). Then a court reporter - not a SC Justice - wrote a case summary of the decision in the headnotes that would literally change the content of the decision.

In the summary the reporter wrote that corporations enjoy the same rights under the 14th amendment (equal protection, 1868) as does a natural person. The U.S. Supreme Court didn't issue this interpretation. A court reporter did!

And just like that - because of the functional equivalent of a typo - corporations were enshrined with the same 14th amendment protections as living and breathing people. Now, because of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito, they can spend as much as they want ... because they're people too.

- Mark

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

FINAL THOUGHT ON THE MASSACHUSETTS VOTE

OK, this should be the last post on yesterday's election in Massachusetts.

First, I like these quotes from Yves Smith. They mirror my blog comments from last night and this morning.


He [President Obama] clearly doesn’t get it ...

Mr. President, the American people have core values, and they don’t encompass political cronyism and tolerance of fraud and corruption ...

When Obama continued the Bush/Paulson moves on the bank bailouts, that was the beginning of the end of his “change” Presidency ...

The President expended so much political capital and goodwill placating the likes of Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein. Now that they’ve got their government checks, they can do whatever they like and continue to poison the polity ...

For those of you unfamiliar with the two clowns in the last quote, here's a score card.

ON THE ECONOMIC (BAILOUT) SIDE
Jamie Dimon is CEO of bailed out JP Morgan ($45 billion) and once famously said that "we should teach the American people, you're supposed to meet your obligations."  Dimon made the deal of the century by scamming the Obama administration American taxpayer, and is worth about $1.7 billion.

Oh, and he apparently can't hold his own umbrella.



Lloyd Blankfein is CEO of bailed out Goldman Sachs, and made $56 million the year before the market collapsed, which included a $26 million bonus. He's famous for saying (a year into the market collapse) that as a banker he's doing "God's work."  No word on whether he holds his own umbrella.

ON THE POLITICAL SIDE
On the political side, one thing is clear: Democrats need to grow a pair.

Specifically, they need to stop wondering what to do about a Republican filibuster in the Senate. Democrats still have 59 votes out of 100. It takes 51 votes to pass legislation in the Senate. President Bush would have made himself emperor with 59 Republican Senators.

As I've said on air many times, the Democrats should craft their own policy and then force the Republicans to filibuster every one of them. Then leave it up to the Republicans to explain their obstructionism to the American public. Seriously. Break up the health care bill into 25 small bills, if you must. Then strip out all of the crap the Republicans and fake Democrats (i.e. Senators Lieberman and Nelson) wanted. Then let the games begin. If that doesn't work, go to reconciliation. That takes only 51 votes too.

Finally, do something for Joe Six-Pack. Three things stick out. An immediate payroll tax cut, spend hundreds of billions on infrastructure projects, and then go after Wall Street. 

- Mark

MASSACHUSETTS: "NO MORE POLITICS AS USUAL"

Dylan Ratigan gets it right when he says that the vote in Massachusetts yesterday was a good one because it sent a simple message: NO MORE POLITICS AS USUAL.



We all know that Americans are still pissed off about Wall Street laughing all the way to the bank while unemployment, debt, and uncertainty hangs over the head of Joe Six-Pack. Political bribery, like we saw on the health care vote, is not good politics.

President Obama needs to stop embracing politics as usual in Washington (lobbyists, money, and old fashion legislating/bribery) and start working for middle-class America. Otherwise the politics of change that delivered him to the White House will sweep him and the Democrats out. Unfortunately, after blowing his trump card on saving the ungrateful bankers, he may have blown his leverage with the Massachusetts vote.

More simply, he may have lost the aura of change that swept him into the White House.

- Mark

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

WHY COAKLEY LOST MASSACHUSETTS

Off the top of my head, this is why I think the Democrats lost the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts.

1. President Obama rewarded Wall Street for their incompetence, while doing little to nothing for Main Street. Americans are rightfully pissed.

2. President Obama didn't push Congress when it came to allowing cheaper medicines in from countries like Canada. There goes the elderly independent vote.

3. President Obama made it look like he didn't really want a single payer system, or a public option, both of which he pushed for on the campaign trail. The base was uninspired.

4. Unemployment is at 10% when the Obama administration said it wouldn't hit 10%. This was simply a dumb move.

5. After the House passed foreclosure legislation that would help stem record foreclosures by allowing bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages, it died in the Senate without President Obama pushing for it. Nothing for Main Street.

6. President Obama's Making Home Affordable plan is being undermined by banks, who have Federal trillion-dollar guarantees and aren't in any hurry to negotiate with distressed homeowners. Sitting by as homeowners get kicked out of their homes by the very banks that created our mess is no strategy for winning votes.

Now, to be sure, Martha Coakley ran a terrible campaign. But there's little doubt that people are still pissed about what happened last year. Especially since no one's been disciplined and Joe Six-Pack has been left holding Wall Street's bags. This is not the Change people voted for. It's really that simple. I understand why independents bailed out on Barack Obama.

I may have more to say about this tomorrow. Then again, maybe not.

- Mark

AGAIN, WE'RE STILL IN TROUBLE ...

If you want to know what's happening on the national real estate market scene check out these 10 charts from Michael David White. For my money, the key charts are the national debts that need to be cleared out (Chart #5), the Housing Market Overhang (Chart #7), and the Mortgage Performance/Negative Equity (Chart #8) that continues to bog down our markets.

I've discussed these issues on air and on this blog before. Still, it's nice to see them bunched together in a market that many people think is recovering. In a few words, we're still in trouble. As I've written, much of the positive news we've seen vis-a-vis the banks is smoke & mirrors. As well, President Obama's Making Home Affordable plan has become a disaster, especially since the banks don't have to negotiate in good faith (having the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve backstop your toxic bets, and other derivative products with trillions of dollars in guarantees encourages banks to drag their feet).

In all cases, Michael David White makes it clear that we've got more big hurdles to clear. Why the MSM continues to interview the same tired cheerleader/analysts - i.e. the same people who didn't see our 2008 train wreck coming - instead of interviewing people like Michael David White is a mystery to me.

- Mark

THE MONOPOLY STANDARD ...

Have you ever wondered how manipulating the money supply helped bring on last year’s economic meltdown? Probably not. Simply put, using the money supply to explain what happened last years just isn’t that interesting. It's kind of like when you play Monopoly. No one counts all the money in the Monopoly bank (every game comes with $20,580). It just doesn’t seem that important.

I'll try and change that here.

THE MONOPOLY CONCEPT (understanding our parasitic sociopaths)
Continuing with our Monopoly game concept it appears to me that as long as everyone gets their $1,500 to start the game most of us don't think twice about the money supply in our Monopoly game.

But we begin to think about the "money supply" when, over time, money gets lost from the game, or when someone cheats and takes money out of the bank. If money is lost over time most families will either buy another game, or order more money. Problems emerge, however, when someone starts cheating, or manipulating the money supply deliberately.

When cheating happens the game is ruined on many levels. For example, if the theft is on a grand scale eventually the bank won’t have enough money to pay out $200 to everyone who passes GO. Or the bank won't be able to pay out when someone needs a loan and wants to mortgage their property. In most game situations – especially among friends - the culprit is usually caught and receives a scolding, pounding, or dogpile.

All are richly deserved.



Our lives after the 2008 meltdown would be so much simpler if we operated by the Monopoly Standard. Simply put, the morons who caused our financial collapse were moving money to their side when no one was looking. They cheated. By making claims on money they didn't earn they manipulated the money supply. But instead of 'fessing up and suffering the consequences of their actions (like becoming unemployed, foregoing bonuses, reduced wages, etc.) our parasitic sociopaths essentially said, "I'm keeping my money for the next game." With the bailout we essentially said, "OK."

Nice.

In a Monopoly game among friends and family a dogpile might be sufficient to teach these people a lesson. But we're not talking about cheating in a game among friends or family. Cheating and manipulating claims on our money supply happened in the real world. Our world. The idiots on Wall Street should have gotten pounded, but good.

So how did our Wall Street players cheat and manipulate claims on our money supply? According to economist - and frequent guest on my (still on hiatus) radio show - Mark Thoma there were three developments that helped inflate the money supply. These developments, along with regulatory lapses, contributed to the great bubble and crash of 2008. Using Professor Thoma's arguments I'll try and make our money games as Monopoly-friendly as possible.

SHOW ME THE MONEY (so I can loot and steal it ...)
First, the regulators at the Federal Reserve adopted an easy money policy. If we're talking Monopoly, essentially we allowed every player to start with $3,000 instead of $1,500. Then we said when you Pass GO you'll get $400 instead of $200. In the real world, the Federal Reserve's low interest rate policies essentially did the same thing. This created new flows and new claims on money which added cash to our financial system.

Second, since we always knew that we had older Monopoly games lying around the house we knew that we could always draw money from those games if we ever ran out of money. In the real world, this was the equivalent of knowing that we had our oil producing friends (OPEC) and Asia (particularly China) available to provide us with a never-ending line of credit. So we borrowed recklessly.

Finally, we allowed players to mortgage their properties for more money than they were worth. The bigger the property (like Boardwalk and Park Place), the bigger the mortgage (loan). Then we allowed the borrowers to make bets on which players would pay off their mortgages. We went from a "work hard and get ahead" system to a “what’s mine is mine” Casino Economy. Conceptually this is what Professor Thoma is talking about when he wrote about generating more cash "endogenously within the system." We borrowed and bet our way to wealth and thought it was all real (actually, we've made it real with taxpayer backed bailouts).

Easy money, a generous line of credit, and a debt-based casino economy is what we ended up with. No wonder the market players played along. There was virtually no limit to what they could claim.

For most of us, playing Monopoly like this is neither challenging, nor fun. We all understand why. Similarly, most of us understand that these practices, in the real world, do not represent capitalism. It's government-escorted market socialism. It transfers wealth from one group (you and me) to another (Wall Street).

Now for the fun part.

OUR JACKED UP MONEY SUPPLY
In Monopoly we know that someone is going to get rich. The game gets challenging when someone ends up with 3 to 4 times what everyone else has. It stops becoming fun when the wealth gaps get bigger, or when everyone goes broke.

In the real world, economists count the amount of money "Main Street" has (or has a claim on) by keeping tabs of something called M-1. When economists look at the amount of money the big players have (or make a claim on) they look at something called M-3. Traditionally the amount in M-1 has run behind what Wall Street claims by a factor of 3 to 4, just like in our Monopoly game.

Friday, January 15, 2010

JUST A THOUGHT ...

Some kids want to play centerfield for the Yankees. Others want to play quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys. Then you grow up and realize that real talent is singing like Teddy Pendergrass. He passed away on Wednesday, at age 59.

Some argued that he lost something after he was paralyzed in an auto accident in 1982. I don't think so. You be the judge.



and now this ...



What a loss.

- Mark