Dimon Lambastes Loans and Expresses His Devotion to Derivatives

Discussion in 'Media' started by hvactec, Jun 22, 2012.

  1. hvactec
    Offline

    hvactec VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,315
    Thanks Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +132
    By William K. Black

    The ongoing U.S. crisis was driven largely by financial derivatives. Nine of America’s systemically dangerous institutions (SDIs) failed or had to be bailed out – Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Countrywide, Wachovia, and Washington Mutual (WaMu). The SDI failures were primarily due to losses caused or aided by the sale and purchase of enormous amounts of fraudulent derivatives, and deregulation, desupervision, and de facto decriminalization proved exceptionally criminogenic. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and the Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act of 1999, respectively, made credit default swaps (CDS) into a regulatory black hole and repealed the Glass-Steagall Act’s prohibition against banks mixing commercial and investment banking.

    The Dodd-Frank bill should have repealed the two deregulatory acts passed near the end of Clinton’s term with broad bipartisan support, but the Obama administration never tried to go back to the legal governance system for finance that worked brilliantly for nearly a half-century and Jamie Dimon and JPMorgan led the lobbying blitz that ensured that the Dodd-Frank Act would have the taste, depth, and substance of light beer made by an enormous commercial American brewery. The Volcker rule was intended to partially restore the Glass-Steagall Act by restricting banks’ proprietary derivatives investments to hedging. The rationale was that there is no public policy basis for providing federal subsidies to banks to speculate in financial derivatives. That public policy argument against subsidizing dangerous bets by banks in derivatives is compelling and cuts across all political spectrums. Among banks, only the SDIs are massive users and issuers of financial derivatives. The largest SDIs love financial derivatives. Merrill Lynch failed because it was the largest purchaser of its own “green slime” derivatives, particularly collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) “backed” largely by endemically fraudulent liar’s loans. Such purchases were guaranteed to swiftly make Merrill’s investment officers wealthy and destroy the firm. My most recent columns have quoted Dimon’s dictum about accounting control fraud:

    “Low-quality revenue is easy to produce, particularly in financial services. Poorly underwritten loans represent income today and losses tomorrow.”

    READ MORE Dimon Lambastes Loans and Expresses His Devotion to Derivatives | | New Economic PerspectivesNew Economic Perspectives
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  2. waltky
    Offline

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,901
    Thanks Received:
    1,792
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,888
    Wonder if any of `em are going to jail?...

    Seven big banks settle U.S. rate-rigging lawsuit for $324 million
    Tue May 3, 2016 - Seven of the world's biggest banks have agreed to pay $324 million to settle a private U.S. lawsuit accusing them of rigging an interest rate benchmark used in the $553 trillion derivatives market.
     
  3. there4eyeM
    Offline

    there4eyeM unlicensed metaphysician

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    8,090
    Thanks Received:
    821
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,303
    Derivatives menace the entire financial structure.
    This may, perversely, turn out to be a 'blessing', as total destruction of that structure may lead to healthy reappraisal of the human situation and its subservience to materialism.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,764
    Thanks Received:
    1,287
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,912
    The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, P.L. 95-128, 91 Stat. 1147, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]

    The Act instructs the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions (Section 804.)[6] -Wikipedia

    This encouraged banks to make "subprime" loans which were then bought by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, thereby creating a market for these non-investment grade instruments. As more money flowed into the housing market a 20 year boom in real estate prices ensued, thus allowing borrowers to avoid foreclosure by selling at a profit.

    Based on this false sense of security, more and more of these loans were made and sold as private securities through a number of investment vehicles. Lots of money was being made, and credit rating agencies were all to happy to give their blessings to these loans, which were buoyed by ever increasing real estate values. It became a world wide phenomenon.

    Finally, the point of impossibility on this asymptotic curve finally became obvious to everyone and a frantic sell-off of these non-credit worthy securities began. Hardest hit were the large financial institutions who had eagerly participated in return for federal approval of multi-billion dollar expansions and mergers. New accounting rules required them to assess their reserves at current market value, which was now in free fall. As a result, they had to call in existing loans and not make any new ones in order to maintain their required asset ratios.

    This caused a drastic reduction in the money supply in our economy and around the world, leading to the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression.
     

Share This Page