I can calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men. -Sir Isaac Newton

There are five zombie banks that control between 20%-40% of NYSE daily volume. It started earlier this year with Citigroup and Bank of America. They equaled 10% of NYSE total daily volume. Now the trend in High Frequency Trading (HFT) is on the rise. This begs several questions. If this is a healthy bull market, why are just five stocks running the exchange? Is it possible the bailout money is being funneled into just a few stocks? To get a really good answer we’re going to visit London England in the year 1720. Let’s explore how history is repeating itself with the new South Sea Bubble. The goal by the end of this article is to draw connections between the greatest financial bubble of all time and what’s happening today. Hopefully it will be so obvious you’ll feel sick.

One Chart to Rule Them All

There’s actually 315 years of stock market data available. People think DOW 4,000 is impossible, but look at this 315 year chart and how juicy DOW 1,000 is.

Here’s the theory. The country has nearly run out of credit forming the end of a Grand Supercycle. The money issue is obvious with state budget problems. So what is the most expedient way to generate credit in a corrupt system? A Ponzi scheme. Make it really big and complicated so no one can figure it out in time.

Here are some of the basics. The global financial markets, which are primarily run by New York banks, are being propped up by the Federal Reserve selling Treasuries. The money that is placed in Treasuries is then built out with leverage and funneled into the most wounded names in the banking system. These names get pumped up to create a cash machine that is used to cover debts of the United States of America. This is just a basic model, but understanding how this works will open windows into our corrupt financial system. A system designed to tax and steal without our knowledge.

Look at the stocks moving the market:

Volume continues to be concentrated in just a few names. Today, in a universe of over 5,000 stocks in the U.S. equity market, only 4 stocks contributed 20% of the volume.

Citigroup (C), Bank of America (BAC), Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) traded a total of 2.041 billion shares. Overall volume in the U.S equity market was only 10 billion shares. -Joseph Saluzzi

There is some variation to which names lead volume for the week. The PPT cash machine cycles through several names during the month. Read Themis Trading’s white paper, Toxic Equity Trading Order Flow on Wall Street: The Real Force Behind the Explosion in Volume and Volatility. This gives a concise explanation for current market mechanics. Here’s a section most of us don’t think about:

High frequency trading strategies have become a stealth tax on retail and institutional investors. While stock prices will probably go where they would have gone anyway, toxic trading takes money from real investors and gives it to the high frequency trader who has the best computer. The exchanges, ECNs and high frequency traders are slowly bleeding investors, causing their transaction costs to rise, and the investors don’t even know it.

What HFT Looks Like

The main HFT stocks are C BAC FNM FRE AIG and CIT. During Fed POMO days, where they’ve recently been injecting $30B into the market on a weekly basis, these names will cycle through large cash inflows. This is the new PPT vehicle. Check out the chart of AIG during a heavy week where $197B in Treasuries were on auction.

Note the blue shaded area on the chart. This is classic HFT or program trading where a stock churns shares within a very small range. Liquidity rebates are also happening where dealers like Goldman Sachs earn a quarter penny on every share traded. Everyone gaming the stock makes out. Shareholders looking for organic growth get chopped to pieces. It’s a giant cash machine and the stock goes nowhere, much like the S&P 500 intraday.

Then something happens… The PPT shows up. This move in AIG is a classic PPT push where a massive amount of capital is pumped in during the last hour of the market. HFT algorithms can see it coming and get out of the way. Here’s part of the reason why these moves come at the end of the day:

The directives of the FOMC are carried out in the context of two week maintenance periods. The Manager of the System Open Market Account is charged with achieving those objectives via the daily operations. (source)

Step One (08:30am):

• gather information, macroeconomic news
• desk telephones primary government security dealers
• large banks inform the desk about their reserve needs
• NY Fed gather data to provide forecasts of reserves

Step Two (10:30am):

• call to the Treasury concerning its forecast of its balance for the day

Step Three:

• formulate the actions for the day
• forecasts from Treasury, NY Fed, and Fed BoG combined
• interventions are formulated
• trading plan is formulated

Step Four (11:15am):

• conference call links…
• Manager (and staff)
• Director of the Division of Monetary Affairs at Fed BoG
• a Federal Reserve Bank president who sits on FOMC
• proposed actions for the day are detailed

Step Five (11:40am)

• desk traders contact primary dealers and execute day’s program

See our story Anticipating PPT Days for ideas on what these moves look like and how to trade them. This same move was seen in ABK AIG CIT FRE FNM during the last couple weeks. It is reminiscent of the moves seen prior to the September 2008 market crash. It used to be a safe assumption to put your money where the government puts theirs. Now that money disappears, in more ways than one.

Myth of Savings Accounts

Citibank (and many others) have a program called Deposit Reclassification. This is a relatively new financial scheme you won’t find on Wikipedia. It was invented for credit unions and banks to put dead money to use. That dead money comes from your savings accounts.

For accounting purposes, all Citibank consumer checking accounts consist of two sub-accounts; a transaction sub-account to which all financial transactions are posted; and a holding sub-account into which available balances above a pre-set level are transferred daily. (source)

What this means is banks using this program do not have to maintain a 10% deposit reserve on cash in savings accounts. So how do they guarantee cash that isn’t there? Banks use this sub-account loophole to circumvent all retail deposit reserve requirements. Under normal Federal Reserve System rules banks can leverage $100 in deposits into $1,000 of credit based on a 10% reserve. This is virtually free money for them. The more deposits they have the more credit they can create out of thin air.

With a 0% actual reserve–who knows? This nullifies what the FDIC says about the safety of the banking system and deposits. What deposits? Check out this presentation by the New Jersey League of Community Bankers on how it’s done.

Note that in July 2008, the banking system’s vault cash EXCEEDED both required and total reserves. [Vault cash is the physical banknotes that banks keep on hand to meet withdrawals; the vast majority of dollars exists in the form of electrons, and only a tiny sliver is metal coinage.] Now, in July 2009, the required reserves and vault cash have been relatively unchanged.

Over the same period, the monetary base has almost doubled from $847 billion to $1,681 billion while reserves grew by about the same amount, from a scant $45 billion to $803 billion. Where did this money come from? It is likely just FED “liquidity” or newly created currency. We would need to audit the FED to really be sure, but the timing and amount coincides with the Banker Bailout of October 2008. (source: Jake Towne for Congress)

Software also exists that allows banks to move money on a whim. There’s SWIFT that nearly everyone uses and fi-linx for Deposit Reclassification. These systems run a, “Now you see it. Now you don’t!” form of financial engineering. They can move money undetected in and out of accounts. One day the bank will have 0.6% cash on reserve, and the next they exceed the Fed 10% requirement. This is part of the reason bankers do not want the Fed to be audited. It’s also part of the reason we’re seeing enormous credit injections.

Banks and Bubbles

Current HFT names could be a modern version of the South Sea Company. In 1720 Britain had the equivalent of roughly $2T in debt and was nearly bankrupt. The South Sea Company was used to service that debt. Roll all of the debt into private stock, dupe everyone and their grandmothers into buying it, then sell for a profit. The public gets left holding the bag. Sound familiar?

A senior Bank of England official today compared the banking system over the last 20 years to the South Sea bubble of the early 18th century and said bankers had merely “resorted to the roulette wheel” to keep up with each other. (Guardian UK)

The South Sea Bubble was an enormous scam conceived after a costly war where Spain and France tried to control all of Europe. The stock became a vehicle for Britain to offloaded their war debt upon a naive investing public. Even Isaac Newton got soaked speculating in this stock. The South Sea Company was a Ponzi scheme. They were initially slave traders with one boat that did one trip a year. They never turned a legitimate profit. It is the original event that coined the term “bubble.”

Here’s some more good stuff from Ashley Seager at the guardian.co.uk:

The Bank’s executive director for financial stability, Andy Haldane, said in a speech in Chicago that having been stable over much of the 20th century, returns in the banking system relative to the wider stockmarket shot up after 1986 until 2006.

“Banking became the goose laying the golden eggs. There is no period in recent UK financial history which bears comparison,” he said. He said bankers and policymakers became seduced by the excess returns available: “Banks appeared to have discovered a money machine, albeit one whose workings were sometimes impossible to understand.

“One of the South Sea stocks was memorably ‘a company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is’. Banking became the 21st-century equivalent.”

“For a number of diseases, 20% of the population account for around 80% of the disease spread. The present financial epidemic has broadly mirrored those dynamics,” he said, adding that the failure of a core set of large, interconnected institutions such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and AIG contributed disproportionately to the spread of financial panic.

How the South Sea Company Operated

Keep the Fed pumped AIG chart in mind while reading the following. Excerpts from Harvard Magazine’s “The Damn’d South Sea” by Christopher Reed:

On January 1, 1720, the price of a share of South Sea stock stood at £128. On June 24 it hit £1,050. In September came the crash. By December the stock had returned to £128. Thousands declared themselves ruined. Banks could not collect loans on inflated stock and failed. Specie was in short supply. Work stopped on half-built homes. Investigations and revenge ensued, and a long struggle to restore stability.

Sir Isaac Newton, scientist, master of the mint, and a certifiably rational man…sold his £7,000 of stock in April for a profit of 100 percent. But something induced him to reenter the market at the top, and he lost £20,000. [roughly £3 million today]

To put these sums in perspective, Carswell points out that a middle-class family could live very comfortably at the time on £200 a year.

The maxim that credit was not wealth unless it rested on a wealth-producing asset had been ignored…,” writes Carswell (former secretary of the British Academy). Greed blinded many, but not all. One unidentified observer saw clearly: “The additional rise of this stock above the true capital will be only imaginary; one added to one, by any rules of vulgar arithmetic, will never make three and a half; consequently, all the fictitious value must be a loss to some persons or other, first or last.

“In order to pay out profits, the South Sea Company needed both to raise more capital and to have the price of its stock moving continuously upward,” writes the economist and MIT professor emeritus Charles P. Kindleberger in his classic work Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises (Wiley, third edition, 1996). “And it needed both increases at an accelerating rate, as in a chain letter or a Ponzi scheme.” The company repeatedly raised cash through new issues of stock as its price spiraled upward in the summer of 1720.

“It was clear that the Company could only pay the £7,500,000 to the government if they exchanged South Sea stock for government obligations at prices far above par 100. And, the higher the price of stock at the time of conversion, the greater the profits which would accrue to the Company. In addition to the profits the directors could make by holding South Sea stock were those available through stock manipulation which, in this case, included transactions in non-existent stock. The directors could create and purchase stock at a low price and sell it for an inflated price. It was a foolproof way of making a large fortune and it proved to be an irresistible temptation.

“Carswell employs a hydraulic metaphor to describe the action. The company first created £2 million in new South Sea stock, at £300 a share, and let investors pay for it in installments. Subscribers eagerly bought it up, and the company covertly issued £250,000 more for good measure. Then it announced that its cash position was so strong that it could lend shareholders money on the security of their South Sea stock. The price of the old stock at once rose to £325. The company issued yet more stock and made more loans, again and again.

“So Blunt…had constructed a financial pump,” writes Carswell, “each spurt of stock being accompanied by a draught of cash to suck it up again, leaving the level higher than before.” Success required that the level keep rising.

The South Sea Company was a confection of politics, commerce, and finance. None of its governors or directors had any experience of trade with the New World, but John Blunt, who wrote the charter and was the company’s dominant director, had been a scrivener and then director of the Sword Blade Bank. He and cohorts had a fine understanding of financial manipulation.

The company had the further splendid purpose of relieving the government of its burdensome unsecured public debt–obligations for which Parliament had assigned no funds–which then amounted to £9,000,000. South Sea was organized under the newish joint-stock principle, as a corporation with transferable shares. Holders of the national debt were obliged to exchange their government securities for shares at par in the company. The company could raise working capital–a huge amount of it–by borrowing on the security of the debt due from the government. In addition to its trade monopoly, the company would get an annual payment from the Exchequer of £568,279 10s., or 6 percent of the debt taken over. Stockholders had no promise that they would see any of this as dividends, but who could blame them for thinking that capital gains based on trading profits were a certainty?

Final Thoughts

Fortunately we now have technology that can dig under the surface. What does it mean again when the stock goes up while institutions are bailing?

A quick review of why the South Sea Company stock failed and why it’s like AIG C BAC etc:

1. Government funded stock secured by government debt
2. Stock operates in a monopoly environment
3. Corrupt system with unknown sums and fake shares
4. Depends on an infinite increase in value

What’s amazing is the South Sea Company stayed in operation for almost 100 years. However, the South Sea Bubble ended with purges, the Napoleonic wars, and about sixty years of total misery. It is partly responsible for the U.S. emerging as a new world power though. Here is some parting irony:

Historians wishing to study the company and the era can be awash in source material if they go to the right place–the Kress Library, Harvard Business School’s rare-book collection, housed in Baker Library.

Almost all of it was assembled by Hugh Bancroft, A.B. 1897, A.M. ’98, LL.B. ’01, president of Dow, Jones and Company. After his death in 1933, his wife presented the Bancroft collection to Harvard. It offers true value to scholars wishing to explore a seminal lunacy.

Lastly, Robert Prechter is very vocal about these connections. Check out the July issue of The Elliott Wave Theorist.

There was an iciness, a sinking, a sickening of the heart—an unredeemed dreariness of thought which no goading of the imagination could torture into aught of the sublime. What was it—I paused to think—what was it that so unnerved me in the contemplation of the House of Usher? -The Fall of the House of Usher by Edgar Allan Poe

The following story will explore how the Cayman Islands, home to 52,000 people, also houses nearly one foreign corporation per citizen.  It is also home to virtually all of the world’s hedge funds. The Caymans is being used by corporations to avoid U.S. taxes and hedge funds to illegally manipulate global markets. It goes without saying that the average citizen is not benefiting from this. In fact, now is a very critical time in history to expose this fraud. Let’s see why we should be unnerved while contemplating the House of Ugland.

Welcome to the Island of Zero

The house pictured above is home to international law firm Maples and Calder:

PO Box 309, Ugland House
South Church Street, George Town
Grand Cayman KY1-1104
Cayman Islands

This is a house used by 12 of the 30 companies listed in the Dow Jones Industrial Average to avoid U.S. taxes. President Obama referred to Ugland House a few weeks ago:

On the campaign, I used to talk about the outrage of a building in the Cayman Islands that had over 12,000 businesses claim this building as their headquarters. And I’ve said before, either this is the largest building in the world or the largest tax scam. And I think the American people know which it is: The kind of tax scam that we need to end.

Basically everyone has known about this corporate game for decades. Now that the U.S. is strapped for cash this method of tax evasion is coming to the surface. The federal corporate tax rate is 35%. The effective tax rate of U.S. companies that shelter in the Caymans is one to five percent. In 2001, almost half of the money U.S. companies earned outside the U.S.—47 percent—was accounted for in offshore tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, which has no corporate income tax. What’s really unnerving is many corporations don’t pay any federal tax at all.

During last summer’s market mayhem this report didn’t get the traction it deserves. From Reuters:

The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period.

During that time corporate sales in the United States totaled $2.5 trillion, according to Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who requested the GAO study.

Four companies alone have accumulated a combined total of more than $75 billion in earnings untaxed by the U.S.: Hewlett-Packard Co., Merck & Co., Pfizer Inc. and Coca-Cola,

Here is the intro to the report the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s investigative arm, wrote to Senators Levin and Dorgan:

July 24, 2008
The Honorable Carl Levin
Chairman Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Byron Dorgan
United States Senate

In response to your long-standing concerns about whether foreign-controlled U.S. corporations are abusing transfer prices and avoiding U.S. income tax, we compared the tax liabilities of foreign- and U.S.-controlled companies incorporated in the U.S. in three prior reports. We reported that from 1989 through 2000 foreign-controlled corporations were more likely to report zero U.S. income tax liability than U.S.-controlled corporations with a majority of both types of corporations reporting no liability.

Bloomberg recently ran a story about this featuring Seagate Technology, the world’s largest maker of hard disk drives, headquartered in Scotts Valley, California. Yet the documents it files with the SEC list its address on South Church Street in George Town, the capital of the Cayman Islands.

While the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent, Seagate paid an effective tax rate of 5 percent in the year ended June 2008, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The Caymans have no corporate income tax for companies incorporated there. The Caribbean island has helped scores of U.S. companies, including Coca-Cola Co. and Oracle Corp., to legally avoid billions in tax payments to the U.S. government, says U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan.

Maples and Calder, owners of Ugland House, incorporated more than 6,000 new companies over the past five years. Back in 2004, the building served as home to 12,748 companies using the same address. This five-story office building on South Church Street is now the official address for 18,857 corporations. About half those Cayman companies had billing addresses in the U.S., according to a 2008 GAO study.

Intel Defense

Intel’s former vice president of tax, licensing and customs, Robert Perlman told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee in March 1999 that Intel would have been better off incorporating in the Cayman Islands when it was founded in 1968.

“Our tax code competitively disadvantages multinationals simply because the parent is a U.S. corporation,” Perlman testified.

He has a point. The U.S. is criticized for having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. This can place U.S. companies at a major disadvantage while operating in the same space as highly subsidized foreign competitors.

Then again, many of these companies avoiding taxes were being subsidized by the U.S. government at the same time. Twenty-four of the 100 largest contractors with the U.S. federal government—including Altria Group Inc., Oracle Corp. and Procter & Gamble Co.—have subsidiaries in the Caymans, according to a March 2001 report by the GAO. Those 24 companies received a total of $35 billion from the U.S. government. “They are shortchanging our country even as they profit from it,” says Senator Dorgan.

The Caymans provide near-total financial secrecy for companies, banks and accounts. There are more than 500 banks and trust companies with deposits of more than $1 trillion in the Cayman Islands, according to the Cayman Monetary Authority. That’s more deposits than there are in New York City, and the Cayman Islands are about one-third the size of NYC.

“When $250 billion of the $880 billion in foreign bank deposits within U.S. banks is attributed to the Cayman Islands, to connect the dots you’ve got to ask questions about the extent of tax dodging in that country and other tax havens,” Levin says.

One of the many problems with this behavior is the role of corporations in the U.S. capitalist system. They were designed to replace the need for socialized government welfare programs. The trend of corporations paying fewer and fewer taxes, while offering fewer benefits to their employees, with stagnant wages, is contributing to a breakdown of the free market. Nations are running out of money, corporations are bailing or failing, and real wages have not improved for thirty years. This is a good example of how citizens are being victimized by the system. It is not just the U.S. who is missing tax revenue from this scam.  Instead of enforcing the law and cracking down the political dictate is to spend more. This is a Mafia style business solution.

How Corporations Game Taxes

A practice called transfer pricing may be the key to how U.S. corporations avoid taxes in the U.S. and other countries, Dorgan says. The accounting practice lets companies buy and sell products and services with their own offshore subsidiaries and set prices themselves. Companies abuse transfer pricing by shifting profits overseas to avoid U.S. taxes, Dorgan says. They set artificially high prices for imports and artificially low prices on exports, he says.

In a March report on financial crime and international law enforcement, the U.S. State Department cited examples of transfer pricing abuses, without naming companies. It said one company claimed to import dish towels from Pakistan for $153.72 each; another reported it had imported briefs and panties from Hungary for $739.25 a dozen; a third claimed it had paid $4,896 a unit for metal tweezers imported from Japan. The report also cited a company claiming to export toilet bowls to Hong Kong for $1.75 each. The State Department report called those prices absurd and ridiculous.

The fabricated high prices of imports let companies report artificially high expenses in IRS tax filings. The exaggerated low prices of exports allow companies to report smaller profits to the IRS. “Criminal individuals, corporations and other enterprises engage in abnormal international trade
pricing that transfers value and/or reduces U.S. tax liability,” the State Department report said.

Transfer pricing abuses by corporations cost the U.S. Treasury $53 billion
a year, according to Professor John Zdanowicz of Florida International
University in Miami. He says tracking a product used in transfer pricing
transactions between U.S. companies and their subsidiaries in the Caymans
and elsewhere is difficult. “Where it really comes from and where it’s really going, nobody knows, because of the secrecy,” he says. The $53 billion in lost U.S. taxes results from more than $150 billion of profit from improper transfer pricing, Zdanowicz says. “It’s a $150 billion shell game,” he says. (Bloomberg)

How to Make Money with Terrorists

The laws to prevent abuse are there, but enforcement is virtually non-existent. It’s particularly difficult when they are obstructed by the highest office. In 2004 David Evans wrote a phenomenal piece for Bloomberg called The $150 Billion Shell Game. Here is an excerpt from the most alarming section:

On April 13, 2003, President George W. Bush accused Syria of having weapons of mass destruction. “We believe there are chemical weapons in Syria,” he said on the South Lawn of the White House. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, appearing on CBS’s Face the Nation the same day, said busloads of Syrians were sent to Iraq to kill Americans. “Reasonable people don’t want to be associated with a state that’s on a terrorist list,” Rumsfeld said. “Who in the world would want to invest in Syria?”

Six weeks later, on May 31, Devon Energy Corp., an Oklahoma City–based oil and gas producer, entered a partnership with the Syrian government to spend $17 million to search for oil in Syria according to company filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Theodore Kattouf, then U.S. ambassador to Syria, attended the contract signing in Damascus. Devon channeled the business through a Cayman Islands subsidiary.

Devon’s work in Syria didn’t mark the first time a U.S. company won a contract through a Cayman subsidiary in what the U.S. called a terrorist state. A Halliburton Co. subsidiary sold $33.6 million in products and services to Iran in 2001, according to filings with the SEC. Vice President Dick Cheney was chief executive officer of Houston-based Halliburton, an energy services and engineering company, from 1995 to 2000.

Iran is blacklisted by the U.S. as a terrorist state, which means U.S. companies are forbidden from accepting contracts from Iran. The Halliburton unit that won the contract in Iran was incorporated in the Cayman Islands and therefore wasn’t subject to U.S. law, Halliburton says.

In February, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Republican Charles Grassley, sent a letter to the Treasury Department asking if Halliburton was being investigated for violating U.S. sanctions. The committee also wrote letters to ConocoPhillips and General Electric Co. asking about their revenue from terrorist states, including Iran and Syria.

Halliburton is the 30th largest military contractor, with fiscal 2001 federal contracts of $534.2 million, according to a March study by the General Accounting Office, the auditing arm of Congress. Halliburton has 13 subsidiaries in the Caymans, two in Liechtenstein and two in Panama.

General Electric, the world’s largest company by market value, has sold locomotives in Syria; in Iran, it sold medical equipment, provided oil and gas services and contracted to build hydroelectric generators, according to the Senate Finance Committee. ConocoPhillips, the largest U.S. oil refiner, runs a gas processing plant in Syria, the committee said. “We comply strictly with U.S. law in sales to Iran,” says GE spokesman Gary Sheffer. “If Congress decides to change the law, we’ll comply.”

“All of Halliburton’s business is clearly permissible under applicable U.S. laws and regulations,” says Wendy Hall, a Halliburton spokeswoman. “If Congress decides to change the laws and provisions, Halliburton will, of course, comply.”

Quick Hedge Fund Facts

So that’s the tip of the iceberg for international corporations legally abusing U.S. tax law. There have been famous cases of illegal abuse such as Enron. Back in December 2001, Enron Corp., the Houston based energy company that went bankrupt, used 441 Cayman affiliates to help hide $2.9 billion in losses.

To delve into what hedge funds do is another giant stinking pit of abuse and secrecy. Out of the total of 9,800 hedge funds operating at the end of the third quarter 2006 worldwide, 8,282 were registered in the Cayman Islands.

In 1993, the decision was made to turn this tourist destination into a major financial power, through the adoption of a Mutual Funds Law. This enabled easy incorporation and/or registration of hedge funds in a deregulated system. From the day of application, it takes two to five days for a hedge fund to be approved and costs $3,600 in total fees.

The number of hedge funds operating in the Cayman Islands exploded from 1,685 hedge funds in 1997 to 8,282 at the end of the third quarter 2006, a fivefold increase. Cayman Island hedge funds are four-fifths of the world total. Globally, hedge funds hold $1.44 trillion in assets under management, but through using leverage of anywhere from 5 to 20 times, they command up to $30 trillion of deployable funds. This equals the size of the NYSE.

CEO to Worker Pay

The point of all of this is to become aware of what is really going on when it comes time to raise taxes on the public.  This is going to happen.  It has to happen, because the U.S. is running out of money.  However, the money is out there.  It’s just not being legally distributed as it should be.  Instead the burden will be unjustly placed on you and me.  As long as the House of Ugland stands, our standard of living will fall.

The last concept related to all of this is the trend in CEO compensation. This is a visual demonstration of how we are being cheated by a corrupt system which is protecting itself to our severe disadvantage. The market collapse is doing nothing to change the gross inequality of the system. What the media typically avoids discussing is the effect inflation has on real wages. Basically, prior to the market crash it was impossible for most people to get ahead and beat inflation. If the market enters a long period of inflation along with higher taxes–forget it.

In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker, who earned just $5.15 per hour.  This is the second-highest level of this ratio in the 40 years of recorded data. In 2005, a typical CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks.

This extreme compensation ratio reflects both the extraordinary growth of CEO pay and also the diminishing value of the federal minimum wage that has not been raised since 1997. Adjusting for inflation, the purchasing power of the minimum wage is now at its lowest since 1955. When you hear rhetoric spew about why you have to pay your fair share, remember what you’ve learned here today.  This burden can only be carried for so long.

While I gazed, this fissure rapidly widened—there came a fierce breath of the whirlwind—the entire orb of the satellite burst at once upon my sight—my brain reeled as I saw the mighty walls rushing asunder—there was a long tumultuous shouting sound like the voice of a thousand waters—and the deep and dank tarn at my feet closed sullenly and silently over the fragments of the “House of Usher.” -Edgar Allan Poe

Sources:
London’s Cayman Islands: The Empire of the Hedge Funds
by Richard Freeman
March 11, 2007
Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations
1998-2005
July 2008
Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes
by Donna Smith
Reuters Aug 12, 2008
Coca-Cola, Oracle, Intel Use Cayman Islands to Avoid U.S. Taxes
By David Evans
Bloomberg May 5, 2009
The $150 Billion Shell Game
By David Evans
Bloomberg Aug 2004
CEO pay: Sky high gets even higher
August 30, 2005
CEO-to-worker pay imbalance grows
CEO-Minimum Wage Ratio Soars
by  Lawrence Mishel

Just then the ship took a slight but definite plunge – probably a bulkhead went – and the sea came rolling along up in a wave, over the steel fronted bridge, along the deck below us, washing the people back in a dreadful huddled mass. Those that didn’t disappear under the water right away, instinctively started to clamber up that part of the deck still out of water, and work their way towards the stern, which was rising steadily out of the water as the bow went down. It was a sight that doesn’t bear dwelling on – to stand there, above the wheelhouse, and on our quarters, watching the frantic struggles to climb up the sloping deck, utterly unable to even hold out a helping hand.”
-Charles Lightoller, Second Officer aboard Titanic

Nearly 100 years ago to this very month the unthinkable happened. The “ship that could not be sunk” did so in such a manner it tore the very fabric of reality. Shortcuts were made in the design to maximize profits. These shortcuts were known to the men responsible for the tragedy. Some had warned about the doomed ship, but they could not be heard over the trumpets extolling its historic soundness. Such is the way of man.

Warning Before the Cruise

Trying to figure out what the financial end game is, beyond simple Armageddon, is probably impossible. Right now many conflicting issues don’t make fundamental long-term sense. This is a very complicated maze. However, being lost inside while searching for enlightenment seems a worthy task.

So here we are today, facing such a disaster on a scale unimaginable to people living in 1912. Once again shortcuts known to the men responsible will cause pointless deaths. That’s right, people will die. After Argentina’s 2001 financial crisis a gross majority of the country’s dead were children. Not unlike the Titanic’s third-class kids.

One of the most poignant aspects of the Titanic’s sinking was how the band played on until the final end. This is such a fitting analogy for several reasons. The first is the ship was redesigned down to minimum regulations. This did not leave enough life boats for every man, woman, and child. Secondly, many of her passengers refused to accept the fact the ship was sinking. Keep this in mind as we walk through reports of how badly damaged our financial behemoth is, and how poorly it is regulated (see story).

Much of what you’re about to read is complicated. So complicated it goes beyond the means of this lone author. This story has been sitting for weeks, not knowing exactly how to tell it. Please be patient and sort through it as you may.

Today’s Iceberg

We are on the cusp of another critical seizure in capital flow. An event that might sink the ship. If one of the major banks, or someone like Greece (who is on the verge of bankruptcy), becomes insolvent we’ll see a domino effect of collapses. There was a digital run on the banks last September which nearly froze the credit system. Liquidity is so tight now another run has even greater probability of breaking the system. There is more and more debt chasing fewer and fewer real dollars. Current policy makers believe there is no ceiling to short-term debt creation, baring a collapse. Their formulas tell them the Fed can print money indefinitely, because the Fed is ultimately capitalized. Others are convinced we will learn what the ceiling is before this decade is out.

The Titanic sinking took 2h:40m. The well informed passengers didn’t know for over an hour. Half the critical period was spent in denial. Our financial ship is crippled, but still making power. We all know it has been fundamentally damaged. What we don’t know is the crew jumped ship with the best life boats. Meanwhile we’re up on deck listening to the music play. This is beyond criminal. And most of the unfortunates are stuck down in steerage with no way out. History shows the ship was doomed to sink no matter what was done. If not that year, then another. The lesson learned was how to save the people. Maybe this info will help you save someone.

Where is the Liquidity

One of the logic traps is trying to figure out who is responsible for the system failing. A shark infested waters theory makes it nearly impossible to determine which predator struck first. Did the Fed engineer this. Did prime brokers manipulate the Fed first. Was there collusion to whip every last dime out of debt slaves. Who knows. Let’s look at what we do know, which they thankfully publish in plain sight.

Liquidity is to the capital markets what oil is to an engine. The engine is running out of oil. Even PPT Mobil 1 has performance limits. Here are some of the mechanical issues. Who else is watching the volume seize up on SPY, DIA, and the Qs? These are fundamental stocks with fundamental volume issues.

A lack of liquidity is one of the underlying reasons volume is leaving equity markets.  Liquidity is what gives us an orderly market less prone to price shocks, gap opens, and blatant manipulation.  Margin calls, collateral requirements, risk, and uncertainty has taken much of that liquidity away. Funds have blown up, prime brokers don’t exist in the same space anymore, and capital has made an exodus out of equities into derivatives. Money is moving out of the regulated markets into the unregulated markets. It is lack of regulation on insane amounts of leveraged credit that brought us here.

Thanks to Zero Hedge for their amazing investigative work:

The Capital Markets Liquidity Index subcomponents:

• The Capital Markets US Treasury Bill Index CPMKTLTBI
• The Capital Markets Short Term Large Certificates of Deposit Index CPMKTLCD
• The Capital Markets Commercial Paper Index CPMKTLCP
• The Capital Markets Agency Discount Notes Index CPMKTLDN
• The Capital Markets Banker’s Acceptance Index CPMKTLBA
• The Capital Markets Short Term US Treasury Bond & Note Index CPMKTLTBO
• The Capital Markets Short Term US Federal Agency Index CPMKTLTA
• The Capital Markets Short Term US Corporate Investment Grade Bond Index CPMKTLCBO

Goldman Monopoly

GTM’s (prior story) on how the tri-party repo system works is critical to understand. Since many of the banks funding that system are gone, or incapable of funding, one big shark is left in the lagoon–Goldman Sachs. How do you trade a market when a single entity controls a large and growing share of the daily volume? Goldman Sachs is running about one out of every ten trades on the NYSE.

The FINANCIAL — The New York Stock Exchange, a subsidiary of NYSE Euronext (NYX), on April 9 released its weekly program-trading data submitted by its member firms. The report includes trading in all markets as reported to the NYSE for Mar. 30-Apr. 3.

The data indicated that during Mar. 30-Apr. 3, program trading amounted to 32.6 percent of NYSE average daily volume of 3,343.7 million shares, or 1,089.0 million program shares traded per day.

“Program trading encompasses a wide range of portfolio-trading strategies involving the purchase or sale of a basket of at least 15 stocks,” NYSE reports.

In all markets, program trading by member firms averaged 3,389.9 million shares a day during Mar. 30-Apr. 3. About 32.1 percent of program trading took place on the NYSE, 0.8 percent in non-U.S. markets and 67.1 percent in other domestic markets, including Nasdaq, NYSE Amex and regional markets.

Goldman Sachs is one of 15 major program trading participants. This is one of many examples of GS increasing their stake in a shrinking space. Their principal program purchases of 850 million shares representing 81% of all traded shares, more than half of all NYSE reporting firms principal trades. Program trading accounts for 33% of all NYSE daily volume, and GS runs 30% of those trades.

Dark Pools and Iceberg Orders

That was just Goldman’s share of program trades on a regulated exchange, which doesn’t reflect the vast unregulated market. Dark pools have roughly 10% of all shares traded in the US cash equities market. Dark pools are not public markets. It’s a method to match trades outside of the public eye, and also do what would be illegal transactions in a regulated market. They can be used to reduce market impact when trading large orders. Dark pools of liquidity became very popular prior to the 2007 market top. Firms with buy ratings on stock XYZ could dump shares with little impact. Imagine how important they are today in an illiquid market. Dark pools are also used to game the public market. Trades like iceberg orders can show a 10,000 block sale as a 100 block print.  Read about the basics here.

Guess what bank holds the #1 spot in the dark pool arena? Goldman Sachs and their Sigma X pool, which transacted 156.3 million shares in February 2009. All the dark pool numbers in this data are single-counted. Morgan Stanley recently complained about market participants overestimating dark pool volumes–not so. February had a record number of dark pool transactions. This makes sense in a less than liquid public market doesn’t it. Of that record volume GS controls 15% of it. More evidence of Goldman Sachs having monopoly advantage in a wounded illiquid market. Predators like Goldman need equally skilled competitors to maintain balance of the system. Last summer GTM suggested this might happen (see story). The “crash the market to monopolize it theory” holds more water now.

Where Reality Sinks

As of last December, there is $1,400T (yes that’s quadrillion) sitting in interest rate swaps, mostly split between N. America ($775T) and Europe ($555T). This OTC market dwarfs the cash equities market. It’s hard finding exact global market figures, but NYSE Euronext is $31T. They move more than one third of global stock volume. The regulated U.S. stock market is roughly 2% of the size of the unregulated global derivatives market.

The picture is a decent representation of just how massive the unregulated derivatives market is.  It is not properly scaled for 2009, which is more akin to the Titanic next to a dingy.  Not only is this market massive, it has been growing at a reckless pace, is highly leveraged (over 400:1 in many cases), and is extremely complex.  Critics say the total 2008 derivatives markets value of $1,566,655 billion is misleading, because the number is notional.  Meaning it isn’t real money, but credit agreements between two parties where the principal is never exchanged.  Wasn’t that what AIG was doing in a perfectly safe manner?

Can we also assume a good chunk of those swaps are waiting for the Fed to raise rates? If this is true, we’re in a very precarious situation. On one hand the Fed has to print money until the end of days, and on the other roughly 75% of the world’s total liquidity is trading swaps on the rates. Note: This is a rough educated guess based on BIS numbers.

Some of the big boys in derivatives are using it to play catchup in lieu of their massive recent losses in equities.  The risky trades AIG was doing are still going on. And they’re being placed at an accelerated rate. Some are looking for a slam dunk when rates go back up.  That is not a guarantee and there is a ridiculous amount of levered credit expecting this to happen.

Also, the tri-party repo system has broken down. This might be the prime reason of lower intraday stock market volume, and what appears to be institutional abandonment of index ETFs like DIA/SPY/Qs.  The main entities which loaned money for margin trading, like JP Morgan, are in collections mode. It’s possible the Fed has run out of capital or the need to fund temporary open market operations. These funds are often used to trade index futures. The lack of TOMO activity this year is very curious. The PPT might be fundamentally ineffective for now. Then again they are not necessary during stock rallies. Time will tell.

Life Boats and End Times

Read Deepcaster’s summary of the shadow banking system for new doors to open and explore. You will be in shock. Seeing the actual numbers is madness. JP Morgan had $91 trillion in derivatives as of Sept. 2007. What do they have now after taking on Bear Sterns, which was naked shorted into oblivion before they could offload much of anything.

Each American household owes $455,000 on the U.S. National debt of $53T (pre-TARP). What’s the math on $1.5Q divided into massive global job loss, rampant inflation, and a doubling of the money supply every four years? How does a system that functions purely off the backs of debt slaves work when the slaves stop earning or can’t pay their debts? This feels like a mega tsunami is just offshore. And the guy who works the monitoring station got hit by a bus.

The financial industry is fundamentally doomed. Anticipate a large scale event that uses shock doctrine to control and manipulate people’s minds. Since WW II the ability to master groups and make them susceptible to brainwashing has been perfected. A massive bank collapse could be the catalytic event used to marginalize and control societies in a new direction.

Part 2 Thoughts

Last week John Stewart interviewed Elizabeth Warren. She is the Harvard Law professor (and bankruptcy expert) who chairs the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP. Stewart asked, “So in your mind the banks don’t see this as a come to Jesus moment?” Watch the show and maybe you’ll be curious about when that day will come.

The next installment in this line will cover the Fed and their manipulation of “free market” liquidity. We’ll explore TOMO/POMO funding, gold manipulation, and PPT charts. There is a way to use TOMO data to go back in SPY volume and say, “See! This is where they pumped money into the market.” It is very time consuming, but it will be done.

Sources:
Greece on the Verge of Bankruptcy
By Manfred Ertel
BusinessWeek April 7, 2009
Why Some Dark Pools Are Increasing Their Volumes
By Nina Mehta
Traders Magazine March 13, 2009
OCC’s Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activities
Fourth Quarter 2008
Market Intervention, Data Manipulation Still Accelerating
http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1214722800.php
http://www.finchannel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34403&Itemid=2
http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qa0903.pdf#page=108
http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/PT041609.pdf

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. -Sir Winston Churchill at Lord Mayor’s Luncheon following the victory at El Alamein in North Africa, London, 10 November 1942

In today’s spin doctored media maelstrom can China be more truthful than the United States? The following will uncover some reasons why CBS, Bernanke, the Fed, and other members of the power Elite are lying to you. We will then explore the mechanics of how a total Fed collapse can happen. And we’ll end with a review of how a stronger police state is being formed.

Official speeches to assure investors and prop up the markets have routinely come ahead of financial disasters. In January of 2008 Bush said the economy was “strong and solid.” That was the worst January open the Dow ever saw (see story). The same thing happened this last January with a hope filled new administration, and a new worst opening–ever. Here is part four of: Our Engineered Market Meltdown.

Notice the Timing

The timing of events during the last several days should be frightening, but the message in the U.S. is, “Don’t worry, be happy!” Do not underestimate the power of what China has said. This is unprecedented:

President Obama and his new government have adopted a series of measures to deal with the financial crisis. We have expectations as to the effects of these measures. We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am definitely a little worried. -Wen Jiabao 03/13/09

On Friday China questions the “full faith” of the U.S. dollar. What this means is they will not bail out the U.S. with non-stop purchasing of Treasuries, the blood of the financial body.

The Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao, spoke in unusually blunt terms on Friday about the “safety” of China’s $1 trillion investment in American government debt, the world’s largest such holding, and urged the Obama administration to offer assurances that the securities would maintain their value. (NY Times)

On Sunday Bernanke does the first national interview a Federal Reserve chairman has ever done in 96 years. He says everything is fine and we’ll be back to business as usual by the end of the year. Then on Wednesday the Fed announces they will buy Treasuries until the end of days. So…

1. China warns about the financial stability of the U.S.
2. Bernanke goes on national television
3. Says he’s from Main Street, just like you and me
4. Then boldly lies about the economy

Three days later…

• FOMC announces a final push of a desperate crisis management plan
• U.S. dollar sees its 3rd biggest one-day decline ever
• Fed is now matching all of China’s $1 trillion in Treasuries

CBS: A Tool of the Elite

What 60 Minutes did with Ben Bernanke is upsetting. It’s the same tactic that was used with Hank Paulson on Frontline. These are shill journalism puff pieces hero worshiping the architects of financial Armageddon.

A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group’s ideological claims. Shills are often employed by confidence artists. The term plant is also used.

Dan Rather had been with CBS for decades and was one of the most familiar faces in American journalism. He refused to be a shill and was working on exposing G.W. Bush.

Eight weeks before the 2004 presidential poll, Rather broadcast a story based on newly discovered documents which appeared to show that Bush, whose service in the Texas Air National Guard ensured that he did not have to fight in Vietnam, had barely turned up even for basic duty. (Guardian UK)

He was fired by the network the day after the 2004 election. The war quietly went on and media criticism of Bush dropped. Now that his administration is gone Rather is suing CBS for $70M. This is a prime example of how compromised the national media is. Do not expect the truth from them.

What needs to be understood is we are seeing the mask of the system having peeled back. The reality is ugly, evil, and incomprehensible to the average citizen. AIG employees recently received a security memo warning them not to identify themselves to the public. So what do the Elite do? They humanize deceit and try to paint collusion as incompetence. They want the public to mistake strategy for incompetence. None of this is accidental. It has been planned for years. This crash was engineered and won’t end until it’s end game time. The end game is a new global banking monopoly.

What Fascism Looks Like Today

It’s a simple theme. Crash the market then monopolize it. Argentina was forced into selling their sovereign natural resources to international corporations at mafia discount prices. The U.S. is now selling its financial sovereign resources at mafia discount prices. Don’t think so? Paulson and Bernanke forced the remaining major banks to sign off on a fascist takeover of the country’s largest independent banks. From Frontline’s Inside the Meltdown:

NARRATOR: Then on Sunday, October 12th, something extraordinary. Paulson personally called the CEOs of the nation’s nine largest banks and told them to come to his office the next day at the Treasury building. Sheila Bair from the FDIC was there.

NARRATOR: The nine CEOs sat in alphabetical order across the table from Paulson and Bernanke.

JON HILSENRATH: You have Wells Fargo all the way at the end and you have Bank of America more towards another end. And you have, basically, the icons of Wall Street who are showing up.

NARRATOR: Paulson said the entire banking system was in deep trouble.

SHEILA BAIR: It was serious. It was somber. And the government did most of the talking.

JON HILSENRATH: It was made clear to these nine very powerful CEOs when they sat down at the table that this wasn’t a negotiation.

NARRATOR: Paulson hoped one bold act would boost the nation’s confidence in the banks and get them lending again, a direct infusion of cash.

MARK LANDLER: And then he basically came out and said it: “We want to take a stake in the largest banks in the country.”

NARRATOR: Paulson and Bernanke were offering each of the banks tens of billions. The government would become a major stockholder.

MARK LANDLER: And that then set off a pretty lively discussion.

DAVID FABER: Some of them were, like, “I don’t want the money.” But it was, like, “You’re taking the money.”

SHEILA BAIR: The government was very assertive. Treasury was very assertive on why the program was there, why they needed to take it with all the conditions.

DAVID FABER: “Here’s the plan. Here’s what we’re doing. Here’s what we need you to do. You’ll get the money in a few weeks.”

NARRATOR: Paulson gave each man a single piece of paper spelling out the conditions.

MARK LANDLER: Before they had to leave town that night, they were told, “Return this document with your signature on it.” And all nine of them did so.

NARRATOR: Paulson would spend $125 billion that day. Moral hazard was a thing of the past.

Bernanke Buys Bonds

Don’t forget that the Federal Reserve System is a private central bank. They are not the government and they do not represent American citizens. In fact they own the government’s ability to make currency. And they own you and me. It’s called debt slavery. The more debt they loan the more power they have. However, there is a major flaw in this fiat money system. To prevent a total collapse of the system the Fed is now purchasing debt on a massive scale. Depressions end when debt is finalized. The majority of debt hasn’t been wiped out, but transferred to central banks. Can an economy grow when a central bank controls the country’s GDP?

From David A. Rosenberg, BofA/MER’s North American Economist (a great read):

So, as the Fed’s balance sheet now expands to represent nearly 25% of GDP, we no longer have to ask the question as to whether or not we are just like Japan, for that is what the BoJ balance sheet looked like after the central bank embarked on its quantitative easing program nearly a decade ago.

The additional $1.15 trillion in announced purchases is likely to boost the balance sheet well in excess of $3 trillion, especially if you also include the recently expanded TALF program size of $1 trillion (there is also talk that the Fed is going to expand the TALF program to include distressed assets – in the press statement, it did say “the range of eligible collateral for this facility is likely to be expanded …”).

For the traders who watch DIA, SPY, and QQQQ there is a telling lack of volume in the recent rally. There appears to be an abandonment of index ETFs by major institutions. This seems to make sense with the Fed supporting bonds over equities.

How Shadow Banking Works

Many people have been fascinated by GTM’s story on How to Trade a PPT Day. One of the sticking points is where the money comes from to push the markets up so violently. The following is an amazing explanation of PPT mechanics. Understanding this will help you understand why the Fed is in trouble.

These are excerpts from The Federal Reserve is Bankrupt by Matthias Chang, former Political Secretary to the Prime Minister of Malaysia:

The repo market is the market whereby all financial institutions (regulated and unregulated) invariably go to obtain financing to meet reserve requirements, bridging finance, to lend or purchase securities, to hedge and or to invest on short-term basis.

It used to be that mainly US Treasuries (bear this in mind at all times) were used as security for Repo transactions, as it is considered as most secure i.e. as good as cash since it is backed by the credit of the US government!

This requirement is no longer the case. More of this issue later.

A deliver-out repurchase agreement is where securities are delivered to the cash lender for custody in exchange for cash.

A tri-party repurchase agreement is similar to a deliver-out repurchase agreement, except that the security is placed in the custody of a third-party entity. The third-party ensures that the security meets the cash lender’s requirements and provides valuation and margining services. This is the primary form of repurchase agreement for securities dealers in the United States. Bank of New York and JP Morgan Chase are the two main custodians or clearing banks in the US and supervise the vast majority of the tri-party repos. Bear this in mind at all times.

Okay, one quick note here. Lehman Brothers used JP Morgan for tri-party repos. Two weeks before their collapse JP Morgan issued a $5 billion collateral call on Lehman, who stalled for time. The next week JPM demanded a $5 billion all cash redemption from LEH. Between Sept 11-12th Lehman refunded $8 billion in cash. On September 15th they were out of business. (see Gasparino, Charles. “Losing Lehman.”Trader Monthly, Nov/Dec 2008.)

Repos can be of any duration but are most commonly over-night loans. Repos longer than over-night are called Term Repos. There are also Open Repos which are transactions which can be terminated by both parties on a day’s notice.

The largest players of repos and reverses are the dealers in government securities. There are about 20 primary dealers recognized by the Fed which are authorized to bid for new-issued treasury securities for resale in the market. The dealers are highly leveraged, 50 to 100 times their own capital. To finance the purchase of treasury securities, the dealers need to have repo monies in large amounts on a continuing basis. The institutions that supply such huge funds in the repo market are money funds, large corporations, state and local governments and foreign central banks.

How the Final Crash Might Happen

A killer tidal wave in the Atlantic is possible, but what Matthias Chang suggest will have a similar effect:

Recall that I had mentioned earlier that Federal Bank of New York and JP Morgan Chase were the primary clearing banks for repos.

The banks’ quarterly financial reports show that as of Dec. 31:

• J.P. Morgan had potential current derivatives losses of $241.2 billion, outstripping its $144 billion in reserves, and future exposure of $299 billion.
• Citibank had potential current losses of $140.3 billion, exceeding its $108 billion in reserves, and future losses of $161.2 billion.
• Bank of America reported $80.4 billion in current exposure, below its $122.4 billion reserve, but $218 billion in total exposure.
• HSBC Bank USA had current potential losses of $62 billion, more than triple its reserves, and potential total exposure of $95 billion.

• Wells Fargo, which agreed to take over Charlotte-based Wachovia in October, reported current potential losses totaling nearly $64 billion, below the banks’ combined reserves of $104 billion, but total future risks of about $109 billion.

The Fed’s rescue of Bear Stearns through JP Morgan was not so much to save the former but rather to shore up the “clearing system” of the repos for which JP Morgan Chase and the Bank of New York were the main pillars. One of the functions of a “clearing bank” for repos is to value and match securities tendered for cash borrowings. If Bear Stearns securities are now valued as junks, the integrity of JP Morgan and Federal Bank of New York as clearing banks in this market is as good as zero! And bearing in mind that the five major investment banks in the US rely heavily on the repo market for their funding, any gridlock in this part of the shadow banking system would tear wide open the entire banking system, including the traditional counter-part.

Hence, the FED intervention by the creation of the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF) which was in effect the backstop for all investment banking using tri-party repos!

This was what Bernanke said:

We have been working with market participants to develop a contingency plan should there ever occur a loss of confidence in either of the two clearing banks that facilitate the settlement of tri-party repos.

The inherent weakness of tri-party repos is that the counter-party risks of billions worth of funding agreements are shouldered by essentially two players – Federal Bank of New York and JP Morgan Chase.

1. Panic swept across the entire repo market.
2. No securities were considered safe enough for repos except US treasuries.
3. Fundings in the repo market grind to a halt.
4. Market players withdrew funds and began hoarding treasuries.
5. The rest who own structured products were slaughtered.

As has been observed, the Fed intervened aggressively to check the run on the repo market. Various measures were taken, but in my view the most dangerous was the widening of the collaterals which the Fed was willing to accept to secure funding of the players in the repo market. The Fed also intervened by lending a huge chunk of its US treasuries in exchange for junks to facilitate credit expansion.

In the result, what happened was that the Fed’s present balance sheet of approximately $2 trillion is made up mostly of junk securities.

The Fed is no different from banks in that confidence in the quality of its assets is critical and that if and when the market recovers, there is in fact a market for the junk assets that it took on to unravel the gridlock in the financial markets.

Remember Bernanke has stated numerous times the financial system depends on confidence of the participants. China loudly stated their lack of confidence last week.

When Joe Six-Packs realizes that the Federal Reserve Note is not even secured by US treasuries and or the FED has real tangible assets, but its balance sheet is littered with junks and toxic waste, there will be a run on the Fed i.e. when Americans and foreigners no longer have faith in the Federal Reserve Notes as “money”.

Nouriel Roubini declared:

The process of socializing the private losses from this crisis has already moved many liabilities of the private sector onto the books of the sovereign. At some point a sovereign bank may crack, in which case the ability of the government to credibly commit to act as a backstop for the financial system – including deposit guarantees – could come unglued.

In my opinion, the Fed has already become “unglued”. Whatever guarantees given to secure the indebtedness of CitiGroup and others to prevent a run on these banks are useless.

What Will the End Game Look Like?

Minnesota National Guard Soldiers with the 1st Combined Arms Battalion, 194th Armor stand guard to assist police in maintaining order during demonstration Sept. 1, in St. Paul, Minn. The demonstrators were protesting during day one of the Republican National Convention. (Photo: Master Sgt. Edwin Holt)

David Rockefeller, Jr. and his contemporaries at the Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, and Trilateral Commission want to see their global banking monopoly solidify before they die. These are internationalists working to destroy nation-state identity. The daily operations of these groups is to marginalize all threats against the power Elite.

In 2002 David Rockefeller, Sr. authored his autobiography Memoirs and states:

For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

And what they’ve been working on has been taking too long to materialize. Therefore expect a large 9/11 type catalytic event that will use shock doctrine to force compliance. Failure of any of the key central banks would also bring this about.

We will probably see the emergence of a stronger police state in the U.S. if their propaganda methods, like using Bernanke on CBS, continue to fail. We already saw mass arrests made during the RNC and DNC. And we’ve seen wave after wave of protests moving west out of Eastern Europe. Some people look at this as class warfare between the Haves and the Have-Nots. It is possible their accelerated plans will cause a new Sons of Liberty movement in the U.S. where a power struggle between an enlightened citizenry and the corrupt will take place. The reality is Earth has finite resources with exponential population growth. Something inevitably has to give under the current scarcity based system.

The United States House of Representatives has met in closed session seven times since 1825. The most recent closed session was held on March 13th of 2008 to discuss classified details of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Program during debate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008.

Rumors leaked from that session warn of civil unrest, financial collapse, and protective measures for members of Congress. Several members have since spoken out against bully tactics and threats used by Paulson. He warned members of Congress that if the bailout bill wasn’t passed the U.S. would face total economic collapse and civil riots.

Another current issue to understand is the move to change the Posse Comitatus Act. After the U.S. Civil War it was illegal for the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. This stems from the British occupation and garrisoning of troops in civilian homes during the American Revolutionary War. After the LA Riots and Hurricane Katrina there have been power struggles to allow the U.S. Military to act as law enforcement on domestic soil. These have been thwarted, but there is a new concerning development. From the Army Times:

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

From the ACLU on the U.S. Army’s domestic deployment:

Well, you need to start with the Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878 and it actually makes it a crime for the military to perform civilian functions within the country, unless there’s an explicit act of Congress.

As they say, it’s a slippery slope, and once you start going down the path of having the military deployed in the U.S. it gets harder to draw the limit. And again, it’s not the military, it’s the way that the military might be used by people to avoid certain protections, and certain civil liberties — for example, crowd control is an example how this could be used — how it could be wielded in ways that are dangerous, and that’s why it’s important to, before you take any step, so we know what the threat is, because it’s hard to go back once the line has been eroded.

This line of thinking might seem paranoid, and sure that could be the case. However, these are very real possibilities. The global financial system is closer than it’s ever been to a system wide collapse. For investors it’s probably wise to heed the grey line in Picture of the Year.

Sources:

China’s Leader Says He Is ‘Worried’ Over U.S. Treasuries
The New York Times March 13, 2009
CBS newsman’s $70m lawsuit likely to deal Bush legacy a new blow
The Observer, Sunday 28 December 2008
Ben Bernanke’s Greatest Challenge
Fed Chairman Discusses Recession, Financial Rescues And Recovery In Wide-Ranging 60 Minutes Interview
March 15, 2009
The Federal Reserve is Bankrupt
How Did It Happen and What are the Ugly Consequences?
by Matthias Chang
ACLU on the U.S. Army’s domestic deployment
Monday Oct. 27, 2008
As America Collapses US Government Secret Plans Revealed
Posted by indglass on May 21, 2008
BofA CEO Lewis: Bank Will Not Need More TARP Funds
By: Maria Bartiromo, Anchor | 06 Feb 2009
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/paulson-meet-us-bank-heads/story.aspx?guid={C3A179AE-940F-44DB-B3E5-434EFC87D1EA}
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/etc/script.html
https://www.gpcresearch.ml.wallst.com/common/emaillink/pdf.asp?SSS_33E1CD86723A60F4C774F41FC5F2027E&pdf=pdf/Bernanke_buys_bonds.pdf
David A. Rosenberg
Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1
Army Times, Sep 30, 2008

“The choice is between which mistake is easier to correct: underdoing it or overdoing it.” -Tim Geithner May 30, 2008

Ever notice how official speeches to prop up the US capital markets are timed right before a massive sell off?  How about those last hour rallies when the market looks really bad?  Today was a great example of a Plunge Protection Team (PPT) trading day.  This article will explain who they are, how they operate, and how you can profit.

Consider the background story on today’s market.  Does it make sense to engineer a rally while stalling on a stimulus plan.  The Washington wait-n-see numbers game is going strong.  Politicians, and the money behind them, are holding their ammo in reserve–no matter how often they deny this agenda.  They did it with the auto makers two months ago. Remember that?  A bailout was going to save the auto makers and then the market rallied out of nowhere, just when all looked lost.  The auto bailout almost became a non-event. The critical size of their cash infusion was nowhere near the size initially rumored.  The reality is, credit needed to cover all systemic threats to the market doesn’t exist. They wait and see for who is about to die, then they jump.

GTM covered this topic in detail last year, during a similar market environment.  You can read the full story here: Front Running A Systemic Market Crash: PPT Style.

Mechanics of the PPT
The following is from Robert McHugh, Ph.D. at Technical Indicator Index:

The origin of the Plunge Protection Team Intervention Risk Indicator:

For the past several years, we have seen repeated “out of the blue” short-covering rallies just about the time a  decline seems to be gaining some momentum. Our suspicion has been that the “Working Group” established by law in 1988 to buy markets should declines get out of control, has become far more interventionist than was originally intended under the law. This group has since been dubbed the Plunge Protection Team. There are no minutes of meetings, no recorded phone conversations, no reports of activities, no announcements of intentions. It is a secret group including the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Head of the SEC, and their surrogates which include some of the large Wall Street firms. The original objective was to prevent disastrous market crashes. Lately, it seems, they buy markets when they decide markets need to be bought, including equity markets.

Their main resource is the money the Fed prints. The money is injected into markets via the New York Fed’s Repo desk, which once upon a time showed up in the M-3 numbers, warning intervention was nigh. But, in November 2005, the Fed announced with little comment and no palatable explanation that it would no longer report the M-3 number after March 2006. Without the useful resource of M-3, we needed to find other tools to monitor when the PPT is likely to intervene, prolonging a rally and killing shorts.

For the PPT to be effective in driving markets higher, the potential for a sustained turnaround rally depends upon a high volume of open short interest. By measuring this short interest by the level of CBOE put options, we can gauge when markets are ripe for PPT intervention. The way it works is, the PPT decides markets need intervention, a decline needs to be stopped, or the risks associated with political events that could be perceived by markets as highly negative and cause a decline, need to be prevented by a rally already in flight. To get that rally, the PPT’s key component — the Fed — lends money to surrogates who will take that fresh electronically printed cash and buy markets through some large unknown buyer’s account. That buying comes out of the blue at a time when short interest is high. The unexpected rally strikes blood, and fear overcomes those who were betting the market would drop.

These shorts need to cover, need to buy the very stocks they had agreed to sell (without owning them) at today’s prices in anticipation they could buy them in the future at much lower prices and pocket the difference. Seeing those stocks rally above their committed selling price, the shorts are forced to buy — and buy they do. Thus, those most pessimistic about the equity market end up buying equities like mad, fueling the rally that the PPT started. Bingo, a huge turnaround rally is well underway, or a rally already underway is extended, and sidelines money from Hedge Funds, Mutual funds and individuals rushes to join in the buying madness for several days and weeks as the rally gathers a life of its own.

Ways to Build Edge for a PPT Rally

Look at the Fib 49.20 reversal on the VIX from the Oct. swing high and Jan. swing low:

Look at the 3min bars on FAS when it broke consolidation at $7.55.  This was a good setup. Another piece of edge for those anticipating a PPT push, which turned a breakdown into a clean W shaped day:

This is what a PPT rally looks like.  The prior day’s closing hour was a clue this could happen today. The yellow arrows show yesterday and today’s PPT push (right back to the previous day’s close–coincidence?):

This is what it looked like for the S&P 500.  Intraday you can see it happen with a massive push, the biggest move for the day:

Conclusion

Some people are calling today a bottom.  They are calling for a sustained bull rally.  Please consider our explanation of the PPT in lieu of a greed based wild guess.  We are in the greatest bear market of our lifetime.  Do you really think this market can turn around–suddenly?  See the Picture of the Day and draw your own conclusions about the overall market direction.

Trading Record

Equity Curve

Monthly Portfolio

Original Template

What do solar stocks have to do with market manipulation? The following contains a brief overview of some of the factors that influence the price/volume trends we’ve been writing about. We also explore a reason you won’t get this info on CNBC. At SEMICON West, which is one the largest trade shows on the planet, there was not a single US solar wafer or thin film manufacturing company on property. This is a stark lack of showing when 1,121 other companies representing the entire industry were there.

Who Was There?
So where was SunPower. Is it possible they were told/threatened not to come? The other missing big US solar names were FSLR ENER EMC ESLR HOKU WFR and AKNS. Not a single booth representing the United States to do business in. Some of them had a few employees walking around, but no floor space. Here is a list of every PV company exhibiting a product: Photovoltaic Exhibitors at SEMICON West 2008

AMAT was there, but they don’t work on the stuff you dig out of the ground. They make machines. This lack of US attendance is startling when 79% of SEMICON West visitors are involved in product selection and purchasing, and 32% of them were there to talk solar.

What is Holding Solar Back?
This begs the question. Why is solar depressed in the US, and why isn’t Wall Street promoting these companies? There hasn’t been a growth story like this to get excited about for decades. Apparently, it’s politically safer to get excited about ethanol which is a net energy loser and kills people. That is if statistics on starvation linked ethanol deaths ever do surface.

From The Times UK

The rush towards biofuels is threatening world food production and the lives of billions of people, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser said yesterday.

“It’s very hard to imagine how we can see the world growing enough crops to produce renewable energy and at the same time meet the enormous demand for food.”

Josette Sheeran, executive director of the World Food Programme, told the European Parliament in Brussels yesterday: “The shift to biofuels production has diverted lands out of the food chain. Food prices such as palm oil in Africa are now set at fuel prices. It may be a bonanza for farmers – I hope it is true – but in the short term, the world’s poorest are hit hard.”

The amount of energy used to commercially produce food is insane. From the mining of potash, to the diesel to plow, then ship, then package, then distribute it. So one of the politically viable solutions therefore is to increase this ratio! The saying goes, “What’s good for Big Oil…”

Who Owns the World? [numbers updated Jan 2009]
This issue is huge and will give us years of information to chew through. However, here is a really fascinating aspect of one of the roadblocks to cheap unlimited energy, Washington, D.C. industry lobbying.

$114,058,794 Electric Utilities are the #3 spender for 2008
$ 94,531,539 Oil & Gas are the #4 spender for 2008

Last year GE spent $15,038,000 in Washington. Over the last 10 years they spent $178M furthering their agenda on Capitol Hill, which makes them the largest single corporate lobbying entity. Guess why wind is so politically popular compared to overseas solar manufacturing! By the way, that’s a GE turbine in that thing. One theory aligns the United States and the military-industrial complex with the attitude of, “We own the world.” GE used to say, “We bring good things to life.” Close enough for government work. If they can’t own it what are the chances of seeing it grow and develop? Think about their nightmare of a home owner going to Home Depot to buy a Do-It-Yourself Home Solar kit.

Then there are the utility companies that burn coal. What country owns the largest coal reserves in the world? Even kids know this stuff. Yes, it’s the United States. Here is another wild energy dichotomy. Compare the explosive 2008 bull market in coal stocks to solar stocks. Keep in mind coal is not a growth sector.

Companies like ANR had a PE of 52 at the peak of the coal trade. The math doesn’t quite add up. Especially when you consider the coal industry is primarily mining in the same areas they used 150 years ago. Can a 150 year old industry be a growth industry? Don’t mistake demand for growth.

So how is Big Oil going to charge the public for unlimited energy unless they own it?

From The New York Times on Duke Energy’s CEO Jim Rogers

Solar is currently too expensive to make economic sense, according to Rogers, because the cost to put panels on a roof is greater than what a household would save on electricity. But what if Duke bought panels en masse, driving the price down, and installed them itself — free?

“So we have 500,000 solar units on the roofs of our customers,” he said. “We install them, we maintain them and we dispatch them, just like it was a power plant!” He did some quick math: he could get maybe 1,000 megawatts out of that system, enough to permanently shutter one of the company’s older power plants. He shot me a toothy grin.

Even in this era of green evangelism, Rogers is a genuine anomaly. As the head of Duke Energy, with its dozens of coal-burning electric plants scattered around the Midwest and the Carolinas, he represents one of the country’s biggest sources of greenhouse gases.

What they call “green evangelism” is still a system of control with a monthly debt obligation, also known as ownership. They own you.

Do Solar Companies Talk?
This attitude of US corporate ownership was confirmed at SEMICON West. A high profile executive of a large solar company was offended when asked a seemingly innocuous question. He is of Chinese ancestry and was asked if he felt Wall Street has an agenda against Chinese companies.

Anyone who watches CNBC (owned by GE) can see this behavior. However, the trigger words “East/West” were used. This immediately caused a stunning emotional reactionary response. He made it clear that they are not a Chinese company, but an international corporation legally no different than US corporations. The exec was gracious and diplomatic in resolving his anger, but the answer was more than obvious. Yes, there is major US financial leverage being used against international solar companies and they are frustrated by it.

Grow Baby Grow!
Recent estimates project the global solar photovoltaic (PV) market to grow from US$13 billion, to over $40 billion in 2012, when electricity produced by PV technology will reach grid parity in many parts of the world. The chip makers were doing 17% growth in the boom years.

So there were companies like Intel doing 17%. Today companies like LDK Solar are doing 50% year-over-year growth. LDK had the prime spot at SEMICON West. They were right in front at the main entrance with a HUGE overhead picture of the new factory site.

A comparison could be made between LDK and Intel of the early 90′s. That will have to be another article, but LDK on their own merits is growing at an incredible pace. Not just growing, but immediately accretive and profitable. They are ramping to be the world’s largest solar company by every metric. Their mid-2009 capacity is projected at 2.3GW. This should put them in the number three spot.

A brilliant investor who runs Fund My Mutual Fund broke down the recent fundamentals:

Sources:
SEMICON West 2008 Highlights
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2008&indexType=s

Semiconductor Growth Is Slowing
by Dan Bloom
July 12, 2006

Rush for biofuels threatens starvation on a global scale
TimesOnline
March 7, 2008

A Green Coal Baron?
by Clive Thompson
June 22, 2008
http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/2540/20080725161031/www.semiconductor.net/articles/blog/1590000359/20080717/AMATSolar1.jpg

http://investor.ldksolar.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=196973&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1240475&highlight=

“Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.” –Seed Police agent

Monsanto had a big day on earnings news and people were clamoring to jump on board. Prime example of a dangerous Wall Street philosophy: “Hey, we’re making tons of money so we don’t care about the consequences of what we’re doing. We’ll deal with that when the time comes.” What the financial press won’t discuss are the ethics of investing in MON. Have you thought about what it means to invest with war profiteers?

Originally this was going to be a piece on the technical merits of shorting MON, but there is a higher moral imperative here. A theme at GTM is the retail investor taking it to the man. If there’s ever an epic poster child for The Man (evil corporate entity) it is Monsanto. There are many fundamental reasons why this company should taste our steel. This article will explore some of corporatocracy’s pervasiveness, and why shorting MON could be psychologically satisfying.

This is going to be a slam piece. That’s right I said it. I’m saying it to all MON longs. Monsanto deserves to be shorted into oblivion. If you eat processed grains that are not organic, you are likely eating Monsanto genetically modified food (which is banned in Europe for safety concerns). Almost every sugar-free product on the market is a Monsanto money maker. If your snack has soybean oil in it, you are certainly drinking from the Monsanto tap–a poisoned source.

Monsanto got their start in 1901 selling saccharin to a Coca-Cola addicted public. Questions arose about the safety of saccharin, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture tried to ban it. They failed in their effort against the Monsanto lobby machine. Saccharin poisoning lead to my grandfather’s death from colon cancer. How many grandparents has Monsanto killed? Ironically, Monsanto’s founder John Francis Queeny died from cancer, possibly saccharin poisoning–poetic justice. The modern version of saccharin is sold as NutraSweet. The chemical is aspartame which Donald Rumsfeld sold to Monsanto earning $12M off the stock. The Bush Administration has been dubbed the Monsanto Cabinet for all their connections to the company. Got your attention now?

We’re going to cover a short background on Monsanto and explore why their world food production monopoly is dangerous. See our prior story on monopoly in Argentina for similar policies. The main quoted source in this article is from the Pulitzer work of Barlett and Steele published in Vanity Fair. Their story is called Monsanto Harvest of Fear.

Let’s start with the Monsanto party line:

As an agricultural and technology company committed to human rights, we have a unique opportunity to protect and advance human rights. We have a responsibility to consider not only how our business can benefit consumers, farmers, and food processors, but how it can protect the human rights of both Monsanto’s employees and our business partners’ employees. — Hugh Grant, Monsanto, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

What’s so Bad About a Chemical Company?

Okay, all fine and good on the surface, but is this trustworthy. Monsanto is after all an American institution. Its safety glass protects the U.S. Constitution and its synthetic fibers are the basis of AstroTurf. However, if they’re such a great company, why did they completely rebuild their corporate image in 2002. By the late 1990s Monsanto rebranded itself into a “life sciences” company and spun off its chemical and fibers operations into a new company called Solutia. Then after additional reorganization Monsanto re-incorporated in 2002 and officially declared itself an “agricultural company.”

Check out the price history of Solutia vs. Monsanto:

It’s as though the original Monsanto, the company that long had the word “chemical” as part of its name, never existed. One of the benefits of doing this, as the company does not point out, was to channel the bulk of the growing backlog of chemical lawsuits and liabilities onto Solutia, keeping the Monsanto brand pure.

Short List of Grievances Against Monsanto:

1. 1917 US government suit against Monsanto over the safety of saccharin
2. 1965-1972 UK landfill illegal toxic waste dumping
3. Agent Orange chemical warfare +5M people poisoned
4. 1979 dioxin chemical spill Kemner v. Monsanto longest civil jury trial in U.S. history
5. Responsible for 56 contaminated Superfund sites
6. Anniston, Alabama mercury and PCB-laden waste discharged into local creeks over 40 years
7. Terminator seeds that lead to world food shortages, poverty, and death
8. Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone Posilac (rBST) (rBGH)
9. Using coercive tactics to monopolize world markets
10. Pursuing 500 cases annually against customers for “seed fraud”
11. Andhra Pradesh Government vs. Monsanto on India seed price fixing
12. Department of Justice and SEC criminal and civil charges for international bribing
13. False advertising for “biodegradable” Roundup weed killer
14. India child labor abuse in the manufacture of cotton-seeds
15. India farmer suicides +150,000 and counting
16. Corporate tax evasion at Sauget, Illinois facility
17. Campaign against dairies which do not inject bovine growth hormone from advertising

Who is Monsanto?

“If you’re talking about PCBs, Agent Orange, Bovine Growth Hormone, water privatization, biopiracy, untested/unlabeled genetically engineered organisms, or persecuting small family farmers, you’re talking about the Monsanto Corporation.” -Organic Consumers Association

Monsanto was founded on chemicals in 1901, starting with saccharin and aspirin, and continuing post-WWII with the most toxic substances ever created by man — PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls, the stuff we once used in air conditioners) and dioxin (a by-product of creating herbicides and pesticides). And let’s not forget Agent Orange, the defoliant that deforested Vietnam and is linked to veterans’ mental and physical health problems. Monsanto’s chemical past is responsible for over 50 Superfund cleanup sites, including two of the nation’s largest in Nitro, West Virginia and Anniston, Alabama.

From 1929 to 1971, Monsanto’s Anniston works produced PCBs as industrial coolants and insulating fluids for transformers and other electrical equipment. Today, 37 years after PCB production ceased in Anniston, and after tons of contaminated soil have been removed to try to reclaim the site, the area around the old Monsanto plant remains one of the most polluted spots in the U.S. A biologist conducting studies for Monsanto in streams near the Anniston plant got quick results when he submerged his test fish. As he reported to Monsanto, according to The Washington Post, “All 25 fish lost equilibrium and turned on their sides in 10 seconds and all were dead in 3½ minutes.”

On January 1, 2002, New Year’s Day, The Washington Post carried a front page report on Monsanto’s legacy of environmental damage in Anniston, Alabama. Plaintiffs in a pending lawsuit provided documentation showing that the local Monsanto factory knowingly discharged both mercury and PCB-laden waste into local creeks for over 40 years. In a story on January 27, The New York Times reported that during 1969 alone Monsanto had dumped 45 tons of PCBs into Snow Creek, a feeder for Choccolocco Creek which supplies much of the area’s drinking water. The company also buried millions of pounds of PCB in open-pit landfills located on hillsides above the plant and surrounding neighborhoods.

Agent Orange Challenge

See if you can watch all five minutes start to finish and how it makes you feel about investing in Monsanto:

Monsanto might be most famous for its history with dioxin. Agent Orange is the code name for a powerful herbicide and defoliant used by the U.S. military in its Herbicidal Warfare program during the Vietnam War. An estimated 21,136,000 gal. (80 000 m³) of Agent Orange was sprayed across South Vietnam, netting Monsanto vast profits.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has listed prostate cancer, respiratory cancers, multiple myeloma, type II diabetes, Hodgkin’s disease, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, soft tissue sarcoma, chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, peripheral neuropathy, and spina bifida in children of veterans exposed to Agent Orange as side effects of the herbicide.

Vietnam veterans and their families who brought the original Agent Orange lawsuit 25 years ago alleged that the government “is just waiting for us all to die.” They alleged that most of those still alive would succumb to the effects of toxic exposure before the age of 65. U.S. veterans obtained a $180 million settlement in 1984, with most affected veterans receiving a one-time lump sum payment of $1,200.

Vietnamese citizens exposed to Agent Orange got a double-edge sword.

According to Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 deaths and disabilities, and 500,000 children born with birth defects. This chemical has been reported to cause serious skin diseases as well as a vast variety of cancers in the lungs, larynx, and prostate. Children in the areas where Agent Orange was used have been affected and have multiple health problems including cleft palate, mental retardation, hernias, and extra fingers and toes.

In February 2004, the newly formed Vietnamese Association of Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA) filed a class action law suit in a New York court, against Monsanto. On March 10, 2005, Judge Jack B. Weinstein – who had defended the U.S. veterans victims of Agent Orange – dismissed the suit, ruling that there was no legal basis for the plaintiffs’ claims.

In June 2001 Monsanto was accused by farmers of Ninh Thuan province of pressuring them to use genetically modified seeds that resulted in corn and maize crop failures and economic ruin.

Monsanto representatives responded with demands and threats urging the authorities to take action against by the state-run Nguoi Lao Dong newspaper (The New Worker) in Saigon, which printed a story about the farmers complaints, based on research done by social scientist Bui Dac Hai.

Agent Orange activists were outraged that Monsanto had returned to haunt Vietnam. Former wartime ambassador Madame Nguyen Ngoc Dung, told CorpWatch: “We have strongly criticized officials responsible for granting a license” (to Monsanto).

The activists say that Monsanto has been assiduously cultivating technocrats inside the ministries of trade, investment and planning, who prefer to put the war totally behind them and believe that any campaign over Agent Orange undermines good trading relations with the US, and is therefore bad for business.

World Seed Domination

“Whoever provides the world’s seeds controls the world’s food supply.” -Barlett and Steele

For nearly all of its history the United States Patent and Trademark Office had refused to grant patents on seeds, viewing them as life-forms with too many variables to be patented. But in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, turned seeds into widgets, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the world’s food supply. Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data.

Some farmers don’t fully understand that they aren’t supposed to save Monsanto’s seeds for next year’s planting. Others do, but ignore the stipulation rather than throw away a perfectly usable product. Still others say that they don’t use Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds, but seeds have been blown into their fields by wind or deposited by birds. It’s certainly easy for G.M. seeds to get mixed in with traditional varieties when seeds are cleaned by commercial dealers for re-planting. The seeds look identical; only a laboratory analysis can show the difference. Even if a farmer doesn’t buy G.M. seeds and doesn’t want them on his land, it’s a safe bet he’ll get a visit from Monsanto’s seed police if crops grown from G.M. seeds are discovered in his fields.

Monsanto’s fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them. They go after farmers, farmers’ co-ops, seed dealers—anyone it suspects may have infringed its patents of genetically modified seeds. As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the “seed police” and use words such as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” to describe their tactics.

Investigators will say, “Monsanto knows that you are saving Roundup Ready seeds, and if you don’t sign these information-release forms, Monsanto is going to come after you and take your farm or take you for all you’re worth.” Investigators will sometimes show a farmer a photo of himself coming out of a store, to let him know he is being followed.

“Monsanto spends more than $2 million a day in research to identify, test, develop and bring to market innovative new seeds and technologies that benefit farmers,” Monsanto spokesman Darren Wallis wrote in an e-mailed letter to Vanity Fair.

What they don’t say is how most of their products have no independent testing. They tell you everything they make is safe and will save money, they submit it to the FDA for a rubber stamp, and their claim goes unchallenged until people get sick or die. When Monsanto faces blowback they pull out all the stops to block the truth.

Their 2008 annual report shows $5B in sales on Roundup and $6.4B in sales on seeds. Monsanto’s environmental and litigation reserve is $272M, roughly half the cost of yearly R&D. They spent over $6M in 2008 lobbying in Washington, D.C. which puts MON in the upper tier of corporate lobbying.

Of the many forms of suffering Monsanto has spread across the globe the latest is starvation. Every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes–one child every five seconds. Today our world is home to 6.6 billion people. In 2005, almost 1.4 billion people lived below the international poverty line, earning less than $1.25 per day. They can not afford to purchase food from an international corporation, nonetheless buy suicide seeds Monsanto pushes through a monopoly system. This is corporate bio-warfare targeting defenseless people. Selling seeds that die after one harvest while destroying indigenous crops is a massive global crime. Part of the sad irony is America has turned into the oppressor it fought a Revolutionary War against.

What is Corporatocracy?

This beauty of eternal Calvin wisdom was written over 15 years ago about the auto industry. It still applies today, as it applies to Monsanto.

John Perkins was quoted in our prior story about the banking industry. What he warns of will be featured in Clive Owen’s new movie The International.

The majority of the people in the United States have no idea that we are living off the benefits of a clandestine empire. That today there`s more slavery in the world than ever before. And then you have to ask yourself, ‘Well if it’s an empire, then who’s the emperor?’… We do have what I consider to be the equivalent of the emperor, and it`s what I call the Corporatocracy… At the very top of the corporatocracy you really can`t tell where the person`s working, for a private corporation or the government, because they’re always moving back and forth. So, you know, you’ve got a guy who one moment is the president of a big construction company, like Halliburton, and the next moment he’s Vice President of the United States.” -John Perkins

A Monsanto official told the New York Times that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food,” said Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications. “Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

It would be nice to think the FDA can be trusted with these matters, but think again. Monsanto has succeeded in insuring that government regulatory agencies let Monsanto do as it wishes.

Take a look:

Rumsfeld was chairman and C.E.O. of the pharmaceutical maker G. D. Searle & Co. when Monsanto acquired Searle in 1985, after Searle had experienced difficulty in finding a buyer. Rumsfeld’s stock and options in Searle were valued at $12 million at the time of the sale.

They even had L. Paul Bremer (the guy who headed Iraq between the fall of Saddam and the time the elected government took over) order that “farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties.” And we wonder why Iraqis are struggling to appreciate American intervention.

The list of other connections runs long and deep. Several staff attorneys held positions at the FDA and EPA with the common theme of: “Work for Monsanto, get a cushy job in the government for long enough to promote Monsanto products like GMOs or growth hormones, then go back to Monsanto.”

Two standouts, however, are Don Rumsfeld and Clarence Thomas. Thomas, once a lawyer for Monsanto and now Supreme Court Justice, helped steer a patent-rights case through the high court, benefiting Monsanto and other seed companies that tinker with nature.

But that harm was done by the “Original Monsanto Company,” not “Today’s Monsanto Company” (the words and the distinction are Monsanto’s). The Monsanto of today says that it can be trusted—that its biotech crops are “as wholesome, nutritious and safe as conventional crops,” and that milk from cows injected with its artificial growth hormone is the same as, and as safe as, milk from any other cow.

Final Thoughts

They said saccharin was perfectly safe. They said dioxin was perfectly safe. They say Roundup Ready genetically modified (GM) food is safe, but every living thing near it dies. Monsanto products are historically plagued with cancer fallout. One of their most egregious acts is refusal to account for the 3.5M people currently suffering from dioxin poisoning, or acknowledge those who died from Agent Orange. Still trustworthy and worth giving money to?

Monsanto’s CEO says they are a company committed to the protection and advancement of human rights. What he means is Monsanto is committed to the control of those “rights”. Taking food away from humanity to feed livestock and fill gas tanks is barbaric policy. It makes sense if the policy is designed to kill people and reduce world populations. This is a dark subtext to Monsanto’s game plan.

They are selling genetically modified seeds which kill indigenous crops, creating a world monopoly controlling food supply, and driving farmers to suicide. It’s my understanding that GM and Roundup Ready seeds do not increase yield over time, but show a bell curve yield. Transgenic cotton, and other GM seeds, are prone to viral infection and crop failure. Also ground saturated in Roundup poisons future crops and surrounding wildlife. These products destroy eco-diversity.

Another critical issue is destruction of generational planting seeds, like corn in Mexico. Their indigenous seeds become contaminated with Monsanto GM seeds subsidized by the U.S. which is forced into local fields.

All this boils down to Monsanto controlling too much of the world’s food supply. This is more powerful than using bombs or guns. They control the food so they control the people. With this food hegemony they can marginalize with impunity, which is being done in India, Mexico, and S. America. The policy of Monsanto is to inflame bio-warfare with viral GM seed infestation. Taken to the extreme farmers will not be able to save seed or continue sustainable agriculture. Monsanto says they are a food company. Are they profiting by feeding or killing?

Sources:
Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear
Vanity Fair
May 2008
by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele
Monsanto Seed Police | Big Brother is Watching
May 6, 2008
Agent Orange Victims Sue Monsanto
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11638
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
http://www.purefood.org/monlink.html
http://www.monsanto.com/responsibility/human_rights.asp
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14926.cfm
http://www.monsanto.com/pdf/pubs/2008/annual_report.pdf
http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org
http://www.globalresearch.ca
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4153635.stm
http://www.combat-monsanto.co.uk

Today we are seeing the outcome of a long battle in economic ideology. This story will be in two parts. The first part covers Phil Gramm and his legislation. The second part explains the financial Armageddon resulting from that legislation. Deregulation created a system of incentives that channeled the greed of an industry that has yet to have a crisis of conscience.

Economic ideology often looks fine in print, but the theory based policies of the last two decades have shown disastrous results. Phil Gramm and his group of deregulators removed rules put in place after the Great Depression to prevent abuse of the financial system. See story. After a few short years the lack of oversight has turned the orderly capital markets into the Wild West.

Part of what’s really happening is the United States is nationalizing all major systemic threats to the fiat money system. A system that cracked with deregulation as the catalyst. Policy designed to limit Big Government had the opposite effect. Ironic isn’t it? Some believe the US can no longer be competitive in a free market. Therefore nationalized U.S. companies will be better able to compete with China and foreign capital which operates highly subsidized industries.

When the government deregulates key industries it’s a grave mistake and even more costly than keeping them regulated. They did it with the airlines, they did it with energy trading, and they did it with Wall Street finance. How many bankruptcies is that? The cost of those mistakes is passed on to you and me, the taxpayers and the shareholders. The Elite actually laugh about this fact.

The following excerpts are from two of the best articles written all year on this subject. They are submitted here, chopped up and slightly edited, for reference and comparative analysis:

Story One: Deregulation Nation

Phil Gramm, Unswayed Champion of Deregulation
The New York Times
By Eric Lipton and Stephen Labaton
November 16, 2008

Background on Phil Gramm

On Capitol Hill, Mr. Gramm became the most effective proponent of deregulation in a generation, by dint of his expertise (a Ph.D in economics), free-market ideology, perch on the Senate banking committee and force of personality (a writer in Texas once called him “a snapping turtle”). And in one remarkable stretch from 1999 to 2001, he pushed laws and promoted policies that he says unshackled businesses from needless restraints but his critics charge significantly contributed to the financial crisis that has rattled the nation.

He pushed through a provision that ensured virtually no regulation of the complex financial instruments known as derivatives, including credit swaps, contracts that would encourage risky investment practices at Wall Street’s most venerable institutions and spread the risks, like a virus, around the world.

Many of his deregulation efforts were backed by the Clinton administration. Other members of Congress — who collectively received hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions from financial industry donors over the last decade — also played roles.

In late 1999, Mr. Gramm played a central role in what would be the most significant financial services legislation since the Depression. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, as the measure was called, removed barriers between commercial and investment banks that had been instituted to reduce the risk of economic catastrophes. Long sought by the industry, the law would let commercial banks, securities firms and insurers become financial supermarkets offering an array of services.

The measure, which Mr. Gramm helped write and move through the Senate, also split up oversight of conglomerates among government agencies. The Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, would oversee the brokerage arm of a company. Bank regulators would supervise its banking operation. State insurance commissioners would examine the insurance business. But no single agency would have authority over the entire company.

Banking Corporatocracy

His economic views — and seat on the Senate banking committee — quickly won him support from the nation’s major financial institutions. From 1989 to 2002, federal records show, he was the top recipient of campaign contributions from commercial banks and in the top five for donations from Wall Street. He and his staff often appeared at industry-sponsored speaking events around the country.

He left Capitol Hill in 2002 joining UBS as a senior investment banker and head of the company’s lobbying operation.

Mr. Gramm, now 66, who declined to discuss his compensation at UBS, picked an opportune moment to move to Wall Street. Major financial institutions, including UBS, were growing, partly as a result of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Increasingly, institutions were trading the derivatives instruments that Mr. Gramm had helped escape the scrutiny of regulators. UBS was collecting hundreds of millions of dollars from credit-default swaps. (Mr. Gramm said he was not involved in that activity at the bank.) In 2001, a year after passage of the commodities law, the derivatives market insured about $900 billion worth of credit; by last year, the number had swelled to $62 trillion.

Gramm’s Wife and Swaps

Created to help companies and investors limit risk, swaps are contracts that typically work like a form of insurance. A bank concerned about rises in interest rates, for instance, can buy a derivatives instrument that would protect it from rate swings. Credit-default swaps, one type of derivative, could protect the holder of a mortgage security against a possible default.

Earlier laws had left the regulation issue sufficiently ambiguous, worrying Wall Street, the Clinton administration and lawmakers of both parties, who argued that too many restrictions would hurt financial activity and spur traders to take their business overseas. And while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission — under the leadership of Mr. Gramm’s wife, Wendy — had approved rules in 1989 and 1993 exempting some swaps and derivatives from regulation, there was still concern that step was not enough.

They Knew the Risks

From 1999 to 2001, Congress first considered steps to curb predatory loans — those that typically had high fees, significant prepayment penalties and ballooning monthly payments and were often issued to low-income borrowers. Foreclosures on such loans were on the rise, setting off a wave of personal bankruptcies.

But Mr. Gramm did everything he could to block the measures. In 2000, he refused to have his banking committee consider the proposals, an intervention hailed by the National Association of Mortgage Brokers as a “huge, huge step for us.” It was Mr. Gramm who most effectively took up the fight against more government intervention in the markets.

In the final days of the Clinton administration Mr. Gramm celebrated another triumph. Determined to close the door on any future regulation of the emerging market of derivatives and swaps, he helped pushed through legislation that accomplished that goal.

In December 2000, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was passed as part of a larger bill by unanimous consent after Mr. Gramm dominated the Senate debate.

“This legislation is important to every American investor,” he said at the time. “It will keep our markets modern, efficient and innovative, and it guarantees that the United States will maintain its global dominance of financial markets.”

But many experts disagree, including some of Mr. Gramm’s former allies in Congress. They say the lack of oversight left the system vulnerable. Some critics worried that the lack of oversight would allow abuses that could threaten the economy.

Frank Partnoy, a law professor at the University of San Diego and an expert on derivatives, said, “No one, including regulators, could get an accurate picture of this market. The consequences of that is that it left us in the dark for the last eight years.” And, he added, “Bad things happen when it’s dark.”

UBS was among them. The bank has declared nearly $50 billion in credit losses and write-downs since the start of last year, prompting a bailout of up to $60 billion by the Swiss government.

“The virtually unregulated over-the-counter market in credit-default swaps has played a significant role in the credit crisis, including the now $167 billion taxpayer rescue of A.I.G.,” Christopher Cox, the chairman of the S.E.C. and a former congressman, said Friday.

Gramm Hindsight Philosophy

“Phil Gramm was the great spokesman and leader of the view that market forces should drive the economy without regulation,” said James D. Cox, a corporate law scholar at Duke University. “The movement he helped to lead contributed mightily to our problems.”

But looser regulation played virtually no role, Gramm argued, saying that is simply an emerging myth.

“There is this idea afloat that if you had more regulation you would have fewer mistakes,” he said. “I don’t see any evidence in our history or anybody else’s to substantiate it.” He added, “The markets have worked better than you might have thought.”

“He is a true dyed-in-the-wool free-market guy. He is very much a purist, an idealist, as he has a set of principles and he has never abandoned them,” said Peter G. Fitzgerald, a Republican and former senator from Illinois. “This notion of blaming the economic collapse on Phil Gramm is absurd to me.”

But Michael D. Donovan, a former S.E.C. lawyer, faulted Mr. Gramm for his insistence on deregulating the derivatives market.

“He was the architect, advocate and the most knowledgeable person in Congress on these topics,” Mr. Donovan said. “To me, Phil Gramm is the single most important reason for the current financial crisis.”

Mr. Gramm, ever the economics professor, disputes his critics’ analysis of the causes of the upheaval. He asserts that swaps, by enabling companies to insure themselves against defaults, have diminished, not increased, the effects of the declining housing markets.

“This is part of this myth of deregulation,” he said in the interview. “By and large, credit-default swaps have distributed the risks. They didn’t create it. The only reason people have focused on them is that some politicians don’t know a credit-default swap from a turnip.”

“They are saying there was 15 years of massive deregulation and that’s what caused the problem,” Mr. Gramm said of his critics. “I just don’t see any evidence of it.”

[Well Senator, here comes your evidence. Michael Lewis's work deserves a Pulitzer Prize and should be read in full from the original source. It's a little vulgar, but that's what makes it real. That's what brings you into Wall Street.]

Story Two: Armageddon’s Engine of Doom

The End of Wall Street’s Boom
Condé Nast Portfolio.com
By Michael Lewis
December 2008

What Lewis Thinks

I stumbled into a job at Salomon Brothers in 1985 and stumbled out much richer three years later, and even though I wrote a book about the experience, the whole thing still strikes me as preposterous—which is one of the reasons the money was so easy to walk away from. I figured the situation was unsustainable. Sooner rather than later, someone was going to identify me, along with a lot of people more or less like me, as a fraud. Sooner rather than later, there would come a Great Reckoning when Wall Street would wake up and hundreds if not thousands of young people like me, who had no business making huge bets with other people’s money, would be expelled from finance.

The rebellion by American youth against the money culture never happened. Why bother to overturn your parents’ world when you can buy it, slice it up into tranches, and sell off the pieces?

What Eisman Thinks

There’s a long list of people who now say they saw it coming all along but a far shorter one of people who actually did. Of those, even fewer had the nerve to bet on their vision. It’s not easy to stand apart from mass hysteria—to believe that most of what’s in the financial news is wrong or distorted, to believe that most important financial people are either lying or deluded—without actually being insane. A handful of people had been inside the black box, understood how it worked, and bet on it blowing up. Whitney rattled off a list with a half-dozen names on it. At the top was Steve Eisman.

Eisman entered finance about the time I exited it. He’d grown up in New York City and gone to a Jewish day school, the University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard Law School. In 1991, he was a 30-year-old corporate lawyer. “I hated it,” he says. “I hated being a lawyer. My parents worked as brokers at Oppenheimer. They managed to finagle me a job. It’s not pretty, but that’s what happened.”

He was hired as a junior equity analyst, a helpmate who didn’t actually offer his opinions. That changed in December 1991, less than a year into his new job, when a subprime mortgage lender called Ames Financial went public and no one at Oppenheimer particularly cared to express an opinion about it. One of Oppenheimer’s investment bankers stomped around the research department looking for anyone who knew anything about the mortgage business. Recalls Eisman: “I’m a junior analyst and just trying to figure out which end is up, but I told him that as a lawyer I’d worked on a deal for the Money Store.” He was promptly appointed the lead analyst for Ames Financial. “What I didn’t tell him was that my job had been to proofread the ­documents and that I hadn’t understood a word of the fucking things.”

The second company for which Eisman was given sole responsibility was Lomas Financial, which had just emerged from bankruptcy. “I put a sell rating on the thing because it was a piece of shit,” Eisman says. “I didn’t know that you weren’t supposed to put a sell rating on companies. I thought there were three boxes—buy, hold, sell—and you could pick the one you thought you should.” He was pressured generally to be a bit more upbeat, but upbeat wasn’t Steve Eisman’s style.

Eisman stuck to his sell rating on Lomas Financial, even after the company announced that investors needn’t worry about its financial condition, as it had hedged its market risk. “The single greatest line I ever wrote as an analyst,” says Eisman, “was after Lomas said they were hedged.” He recited the line from memory: “ ‘The Lomas Financial Corp. is a perfectly hedged financial institution: It loses money in every conceivable interest-rate environment.’ I enjoyed writing that sentence more than any sentence I ever wrote.” A few months after he’d delivered that line in his report, Lomas Financial returned to bankruptcy.

Eisman wasn’t, in short, an analyst with a sunny disposition who expected the best of his fellow financial man and the companies he created. “You have to understand,” Eisman says in his defense, “I did subprime first. I lived with the worst first. These guys lied to infinity. What I learned from that experience was that Wall Street didn’t give a shit what it sold.”

FrontPoint Partners

Eisman quit Oppenheimer in 2001 to work as an analyst at a hedge fund, but what he really wanted to do was run money. FrontPoint Partners, another hedge fund, hired him in 2004 to invest in financial stocks.

He attracted people whose worldviews were as shaded as his own—Vincent Daniel, for instance, who became a partner and an analyst in charge of the mortgage sector. Danny Moses, who became Eisman’s head trader, was another who shared his perspective.

Both Daniel and Moses enjoyed, immensely, working with Steve Eisman. He put a fine point on the absurdity they saw everywhere around them. “Steve’s fun to take to any Wall Street meeting,” Daniel says. “Because he’ll say ‘Explain that to me’ 30 different times. Or ‘Could you explain that more, in English?’ Because once you do that, there’s a few things you learn. For a start, you figure out if they even know what they’re talking about. And a lot of times, they don’t!”

What Makes a Bad Bond

By the spring of 2005, FrontPoint was fairly convinced that something was very screwed up not merely in a handful of companies but in the financial underpinnings of the entire U.S. mortgage market. In 2000, there had been $130 billion in subprime mortgage lending, with $55 billion of that repackaged as mortgage bonds. But in 2005, there was $625 billion in subprime mortgage loans, $507 billion of which found its way into mortgage bonds. Eisman couldn’t understand who was making all these loans or why.

The big Wall Street firms had just made it possible to short even the tiniest and most obscure subprime-mortgage-backed bond by creating, in effect, a market of side bets. Instead of shorting the actual BBB bond, you could now enter into an agreement for a credit-default swap with Deutsche Bank or Goldman Sachs. It cost money to make this side bet, but nothing like what it cost to short the stocks, and the upside was far greater.

The arrangement bore the same relation to actual finance as fantasy football bears to the N.F.L. Eisman was perplexed in particular about why Wall Street firms would be coming to him and asking him to sell short. “What Lippman did, to his credit, was he came around several times to me and said, ‘Short this market,’ ” Eisman says. “In my entire life, I never saw a sell-side guy come in and say, ‘Short my market.’”

The juiciest shorts—the bonds ultimately backed by the mortgages most likely to default—had several characteristics. They’d be in what Wall Street people were now calling the sand states: Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada. The loans would have been made by one of the more dubious mortgage lenders; Long Beach Financial, wholly owned by Washington Mutual, was a great example. Long Beach Financial was moving money out the door as fast as it could, few questions asked, in loans built to self-destruct. It specialized in asking home­owners with bad credit and no proof of income to put no money down and defer interest payments for as long as possible. In Bakersfield, California, a Mexican strawberry picker with an income of $14,000 and no English was lent every penny he needed to buy a house for $720,000.

The funny thing, looking back on it, is how long it took for even someone who predicted the disaster to grasp its root causes. They were learning about this on the fly, shorting the bonds and then trying to figure out what they had done.

Eisman knew subprime lenders could be scumbags. What he underestimated was the total unabashed complicity of the upper class of American capitalism. For instance, he knew that the big Wall Street investment banks took huge piles of loans that in and of themselves might be rated BBB, threw them into a trust, carved the trust into tranches, and wound up with 60 percent of the new total being rated AAA.

Gaming the Rating Agencies

“I didn’t understand how they were turning all this garbage into gold,” he says. He brought some of the bond people from Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and UBS over for a visit. “We always asked the same question,” says Eisman. “Where are the rating agencies in all of this? And I’d always get the same reaction. It was a smirk.” He called Standard & Poor’s and asked what would happen to default rates if real estate prices fell. The man at S&P couldn’t say; its model for home prices had no ability to accept a negative number. “They were just assuming home prices would keep going up,” Eisman says.

As an investor, Eisman was allowed on the quarterly conference calls held by Moody’s but not allowed to ask questions. The people at Moody’s were polite about their brush-off, however. The C.E.O. even invited Eisman and his team to his office for a visit in June 2007. By then, Eisman was so certain that the world had been turned upside down that he just assumed this guy must know it too. “But we’re sitting there,” Daniel recalls, “and he says to us, like he actually means it, ‘I truly believe that our rating will prove accurate.’ And Steve shoots up in his chair and asks, ‘What did you just say?’ as if the guy had just uttered the most preposterous statement in the history of finance. He repeated it. And Eisman just laughed at him.”

“With all due respect, sir,” Daniel told the C.E.O. deferentially as they left the meeting, “you’re delusional.”

This wasn’t Fitch or even S&P. This was Moody’s, the aristocrats of the rating business, 20 percent owned by Warren Buffett. And the company’s C.E.O. was being told he was either a fool or a crook by one Vincent Daniel, from Queens.<

You have to understand this,” Eisman says. “This was the engine of doom.”

Then he draws a picture of several towers of debt. The first tower is made of the original subprime loans that had been piled together. At the top of this tower is the AAA tranche, just below it the AA tranche, and so on down to the riskiest, the BBB tranche—the bonds Eisman had shorted. But Wall Street had used these BBB tranches—the worst of the worst—to build yet another tower of bonds: a “particularly egregious” C.D.O.

The reason they did this was that the rating agencies, presented with the pile of bonds backed by dubious loans, would pronounce most of them AAA. These bonds could then be sold to investors—pension funds, insurance companies—who were allowed to invest only in highly rated securities. “I cannot fucking believe this is allowed—I must have said that a thousand times in the past two years,” Eisman says.

Feeding the Machine

Eisman, Daniel, and Moses then flew out to Las Vegas for an even bigger subprime conference. By now, Eisman knew everything he needed to know about the quality of the loans being made. He still didn’t fully understand how the apparatus worked, but he knew that Wall Street had built a doomsday machine. He was at once opportunistic and outraged.

His dinner companion in Las Vegas ran a fund of about $15 billion and managed C.D.O.’s backed by the BBB tranche of a mortgage bond, or as Eisman puts it, “the equivalent of three levels of dog shit lower than the original bonds.”

fter taking a fee, he passed them on to other investors. His job was to be the C.D.O. “expert,” but he actually didn’t spend any time at all thinking about what was in the C.D.O.’s. “He managed the C.D.O.’s,” says Eisman, “but managed what? I was just appalled. People would pay up to have someone manage their C.D.O.’s—as if this moron was helping you. I thought, You prick, you don’t give a fuck about the investors in this thing.”

“Then he said something that blew my mind,” Eisman tells me. “He says, ‘I love guys like you who short my market. Without you, I don’t have anything to buy.’ ”

That’s when Eisman finally got it. Here he’d been making these side bets with Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank on the fate of the BBB tranche without fully understanding why those firms were so eager to make the bets. Now he saw.

There weren’t enough Americans with shitty credit taking out loans to satisfy investors’ appetite for the end product. The firms used Eisman’s bet to synthesize more of them.

Here, then, was the difference between fantasy finance and fantasy football: When a fantasy player drafts Peyton Manning, he doesn’t create a second Peyton Manning to inflate the league’s stats. But when Eisman bought a credit-default swap, he enabled Deutsche Bank to create another bond identical in every respect but one to the original. The only difference was that there was no actual homebuyer or borrower. The only assets backing the bonds were the side bets Eisman and others made with firms like Goldman Sachs. Eisman, in effect, was paying to Goldman the interest on a subprime mortgage. In fact, there was no mortgage at all.

“They weren’t satisfied getting lots of unqualified borrowers to borrow money to buy a house they couldn’t afford,” Eisman says. “They were creating them out of whole cloth. One hundred times over! That’s why the losses are so much greater than the loans. But that’s when I realized they needed us to keep the machine running. I was like, This is allowed?”

Bankrupt Without a Conscience

“The investment-banking industry is fucked,” Eisman had told me a few weeks earlier. “These guys are only beginning to understand how fucked they are. It’s like being a Scholastic, prior to Newton. Newton comes along, and one morning you wake up: ‘Holy shit, I’m wrong!’ ” Now Lehman Brothers had vanished, Merrill had surrendered, and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were just a week away from ceasing to be investment banks. The investment banks were not just fucked; they were extinct.

He had tried a thousand times in a thousand ways to explain how screwed up the business was, and no one wanted to hear it. “That Wall Street has gone down because of this is justice,” he says. “They fucked people. They built a castle to rip people off. Not once in all these years have I come across a person inside a big Wall Street firm who was having a crisis of conscience.

A friend of mine created the first mortgage derivative in 1986, a year after we left the Salomon Brothers trading program. (“The problem isn’t the tools,” he likes to say. “It’s who is using the tools. Derivatives are like guns.”)

Salomon CEO Speaks

John Gutfreund [CEO of Salomon Brothers] had been forced to resign from Salomon Brothers and fallen on harder times. I heard later that a few years ago he’d sat on a panel about Wall Street at Columbia Business School. When his turn came to speak, he advised students to find something more meaningful to do with their lives. As he began to describe his career, he broke down and wept.

He thought the cause of the financial crisis was “simple. Greed on both sides—greed of investors and the greed of the bankers.” I thought it was more complicated. Greed on Wall Street was a given—almost an obligation. The problem was the system of incentives that channeled the greed.

John Gutfreund did violence to the Wall Street social order—and got himself dubbed the King of Wall Street—when he turned Salomon Brothers from a private partnership into Wall Street’s first public corporation.

He and the other partners not only made a quick killing; they transferred the ultimate financial risk from themselves to their shareholders. It didn’t, in the end, make a great deal of sense for the shareholders. (A share of Salomon Brothers purchased when I arrived on the trading floor, in 1986, at a then market price of $42, would be worth 2.26 shares of Citigroup today—market value: $27.) But it made fantastic sense for the investment bankers.

The shareholders who financed the risks had no real understanding of what the risk takers were doing, and as the risk-taking grew ever more complex, their understanding diminished. The moment Salomon Brothers demonstrated the potential gains to be had by the investment bank as public corporation, the psychological foundations of Wall Street shifted from trust to blind faith.

No investment bank owned by its employees would have levered itself 35 to 1 or bought and held $50 billion in mezzanine C.D.O.’s. I doubt any partnership would have sought to game the rating agencies or leap into bed with loan sharks or even allow mezzanine C.D.O.’s to be sold to its customers. The hoped-for short-term gain would not have justified the long-term hit.

Gutfreund agreed that the main effect of turning a partnership into a corporation was to transfer the financial risk to the shareholders. “When things go wrong, it’s their problem,” he said—and obviously not theirs alone. When a Wall Street investment bank screwed up badly enough, its risks became the problem of the U.S. government. “It’s laissez-faire until you get in deep shit,” he said, with a half chuckle.

[If you enjoyed this please read the entire articles at their original source. They have much more detail than the pieces cut out here.]

President Meets with Working Group on Financial Markets

Fact Sheet: December 2007 Marks Record 52nd Consecutive Month of Job Growth

“I had quite a fascinating and productive meeting with the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, chaired by Secretary Paulson. I want to thank the members for working diligently to monitor our capital market system, our financial system. And while there is some uncertainty, the report is, is that the financial markets are strong and solid. And I want to thank you for being diligent. This economy of ours is on a solid foundation…”

What is the Working Group on Financial Markets?

Executive Order 12631 — Working Group on Financial Markets

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish a Working Group on Financial Markets, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Establishment. (a) There is hereby established a Working Group on Financial Markets (Working Group). The Working Group shall be composed of:

(1) the Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee;

(2) the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or his designee;

(3) the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or his designee; and

(4) the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or her designee.

(b) The Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee, shall be the Chairman of the Working Group.

Sec. 2. Purposes and Functions. (a) Recognizing the goals of enhancing the integrity, efficiency, orderliness, and competitiveness of our Nation’s financial markets and maintaining investor confidence, the Working Group shall identify and consider:

(1) the major issues raised by the numerous studies on the events in the financial markets surrounding October 19, 1987, and any of those recommendations that have the potential to achieve the goals noted above; and

(2) the actions, including governmental actions under existing laws and regulations (such as policy coordination and contingency planning), that are appropriate to carry out these recommendations.

(b) The Working Group shall consult, as appropriate, with representatives of the various exchanges, clearinghouses, self-regulatory bodies, and with major market participants to determine private sector solutions wherever possible.

(c) The Working Group shall report to the President initially within 60 days (and periodically thereafter) on its progress and, if appropriate, its views on any recommended legislative changes.

Sec. 3. Administration. (a) The heads of Executive departments, agencies, and independent instrumentalities shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the Working Group such information as it may require for the purpose of carrying out this Order.

(b) Members of the Working Group shall serve without additional compensation for their work on the Working Group.

(c) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of funds therefor, the Department of the Treasury shall provide the Working Group with such administrative and support services as may be necessary for the performance of its functions.

Ronald Reagan
The White House,
March 18, 1988.
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 11:23 a.m., March 21, 1988]

Treasury’s War Room

These quiet meetings of the Working Group are the financial world’s equivalent of the war room. The officials gather regularly to discuss options and review crisis scenarios because they know that the government’s reaction to a crumbling stock market would have a critical impact on investor confidence around the world. (Fromsom)

In fact, as Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the U.K. Telegraph notes, Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson has called for the PPT to meet with greater frequency and set up “a command centre at the US Treasury that will track global markets and serve as an operations base in the next crisis. The top brass will meet every six weeks, combining the heads of Treasury, Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and key exchanges.”

“The government has a real role to play to make a 1987-style sudden market break less likely. That is an issue we all spent a lot of time thinking about and planning for,” said a former government official who attended Working Group meetings. “You go through lots of fire drills and scenarios. You make sure you have thought ahead of time of what kind of information you will need and what you have the legal authority to do.”

In the event of a financial crisis, each federal agency with a seat at the table of the Working Group has a confidential plan. At the SEC, for example, the plan is called the “red book” because of the color of its cover. It is officially known as the Executive Directory for Market Contingencies. The major U.S. stock markets have copies of the commission’s plan as well as the CFTC’s.

“We all have everybody’s home and weekend numbers,” said a former Working Group staff member.

The Working Group’s main goal, officials say, would be to keep the markets operating in the event of a sudden, stomach-churning plunge in stock prices — and to prevent a panicky run on banks, brokerage firms and mutual funds. Officials worry that if investors all tried to head for the exit at the same time, there wouldn’t be enough room — or in financial terms, liquidity — for them all to get through. In that event, the smoothly running global financial machine would begin to lock up.

This sort of liquidity crisis could imperil even healthy financial institutions that are temporarily short of cash or tradable assets such as U.S. Treasury securities. (Fromsom)

[This might explain the often seen cash infusion, or massive buying of index futures, after 2:30pm.]

According to John Crudele of the New York Post, the Plunge Protection Team’s (PPT) modus operandi was revealed by a former member of the Federal Reserve Board, Robert Heller. Heller said that disasters could be mitigated by “buying market averages in the futures market, thus stabilizing the market as a whole.”

Some Say the PPT Doesn’t Exist (from John Mauldin)

Every time the market drops and then “mysteriously” rallies, knowing individuals look at each other and nod, seeing the handiwork of the PPT.

Let’s say it straight out. The plunge protection team does not exist. It is an urban myth. Let me step by step prove it does not exist, and see if we can learn something in the process.

Art Cashin, of CNBC fame, and one of the real veterans of the markets, who has seen it all, wrote me the following very clear thoughts:

Trading desks do arbitrage program trading for a fraction of a percent on a trade. Any attempt by the Fed to manipulate the market would just make a lot of money for hedge funds and trading desks.

The amounts of money required to attempt such a manipulation would be huge. We are talking tens of billions of dollars if there was a true collapse going on. The collective size of the trading community in the world (hedge funds and “prop” desks – a prop desk is a proprietary desk for an investment bank or broker-dealer) is in the multiple hundreds of billions. It would require the willingness to lose billions of dollars every time you took the plunge, so to speak.

If the Fed or Treasury or some slush fund did buy stocks, it would inject liquidity or more total money into the financial system or money supply. Since the Fed openly manipulates the money supply every day in transactions that everyone can see, in order for the Fed to hide the activity of the PPT, they would have to take out liquidity by selling treasury notes. Otherwise, the numbers at the end of the day or week would not add up, and someone would notice. But if they were taking out liquidity and the money supply did not go down, then someone would know something was up. You can’t hide these numbers, unless you can get a lot of clerks at the Fed and elsewhere to agree to lie.

[Maybe not a lie. As Spock once said, "An omission." They stopped publishing M3 in March 2006. This is three years after Mauldin called it a myth.]

How To Hide PPT Action (from Mike Whitney)

This may explain why the Federal Reserve mysteriously decided to stop publishing its M-3 report. Since the Fed is the “main resource” for buying averages in the futures market “the money is injected into markets via the New York Fed’s Repo desk, which easily showed up in the M-3…. Without the useful resource of M-3”, Robert McHugh, Ph.D.says, “we need to find other tools to monitor when the PPT is likely to intervene, and kill shorts.”

What PPT Action Looks Like (from Minyanville)

Wall-Streeters and the media have called those who claim the government intervenes in the stock market ridiculous. They’d better. If it were ever found out that Washington does intervene in the market, all remaining confidence in the integrity of markets would be lost.

Tuesday morning in Europe when UBS (UBS) announced it would write down $19 billion and Deutsche Bank (DB) made similar pronouncements, both stocks were down big and the market was indicated much lower. That was the same day Lehman Brothers (LEH) was supposed to sell $3 billion in preferred stock to raise much needed capital. Imagine Lehman trying to get that deal done in such a messy tape.

Then all of a sudden those stocks began to turn. Along with the market, they closed higher on the day. Futures steadily rose all morning and methodically ended at the highs of the day. U.S. stocks saw one of the biggest rallies of the year. LEH not only got its deal done, but the stock rose so much the firm decided to grant another $1 billion in stock to its most loyal and secret investors.

It’s all highly convenient things turned out this way. The markets went from potential disaster based on fundamentals to a rip-roaring rally just when the government and banks needed it. It’s also highly suspicious.

But the pundits don’t do a very good job of debunking all the ancillary evidence of such intervention. Their main argument is that there’s no way to hide stock market buying by the government. That argument is very flimsy; there are many ways to hide it.

How about all these “loans” the Federal Reserve is making to dealers. There could easily be an arrangement that looks like a simple loan but in fact indemnifies the dealer from losses on any assets purchased with the proceeds of the loan. Just look at the deal the Fed made with JPMorgan (JPM) in buying Bear Stearns (BSC).

The Fed said it was taking control of $30 billion of a BSC portfolio, but not buying those assets, as currently the 1913 Federal Reserve act doesn’t permit such an action. However, the Fed is the the residual claimant, so it’s apparent it effectively has equity even if it won’t admit it. Overall, the Fed appears to be using any legal or structural manifestations necessary to accomplish what it wants to do despite what the Federal Reserve Act actually permits it to do.

How To Stage A PPT Bull Run

The editors of the New York Times summarized the feelings of many market-watchers who were baffled by this odd recovery:

“The torrent of bad news on housing is only worsening, with a report yesterday that new home sales for January had their steepest slide in 13 years…Manufacturing has already slipped into a recession, with activity contracting in two of the last three months. How is it then that investors took Mr. Bernanke’s words as a “buy” signal?”

Robert McHugh, Ph.D. has provided a description of how it works which seems consistent with the comments of Robert Heller. McHugh lays it out like this:

The PPT decides markets need intervention, a decline needs to be stopped, or the risks associated with political events that could be perceived by markets as highly negative and cause a decline; need to be prevented by a rally already in flight. To get that rally, the PPT’s key component — the Fed — lends money to surrogates who will take that fresh electronically printed cash and buy markets through some large unknown buyer’s account. That buying comes out of the blue at a time when short interest is high. The unexpected rally strikes blood, and fear overcomes those who were betting the market would drop. These shorts need to cover, need to buy the very stocks they had agreed to sell (without owning them) at today’s prices in anticipation they could buy them in the future at much lower prices and pocket the difference. Seeing those stocks rally above their committed selling price, the shorts are forced to buy — and buy they do. Thus, those most pessimistic about the equity market end up buying equities like mad, fueling the rally that the PPT started. Bingo, a huge turnaround rally is well underway, and sidelines money from Hedge Funds, Mutual funds and individuals’ rushes in to join in the buying madness for several days and weeks as the rally gathers a life of its own. (Robert McHugh, Ph.D., “The Plunge Protection Team Indicator”)

According to Michael Edward: (“The Secrets of the Plunge Protection Team” Rense.com)

“Since 911, there have been at least three major long-term stock market rallies. In all 3 instances, when the markets opened all the indexes began to quickly plunge. In each incidence, by early afternoon the markets were brought back from the brink of collapse to the surprise of everyone, including historical analysts….An event that should have sent markets spiraling downward was the Enron, et al, unprecedented corporate accounting scandals. Yet despite this, an unprecedented across-the-board markets rally began on July 24, 2002. Once again, the European Press called it a ‘PPT rally.’”

The Danger of Free Market Intervention

Edward goes on to say that outside the US it’s “no secret” that the market is being manipulated. He cites an article in the UK Guardian on 9-16-01 which states, “that a secretive committee… dubbed ‘the plunge protection team’… is ready to coordinate intervention by the Federal Reserve on an unprecedented scale. The Fed, supported by the banks, will buy equities from mutual funds and other institutional sellers.”

Kenneth J. Gerbino put it like this in his recent article “The Big Sell Off” on kitco.com:

Latest figures from the Bank of International Settlements: $8.3 trillion of real money is controlling $313 trillion in derivatives. That’s 38 to 1 leverage. These figures are just for the over – the – counter derivatives and do not include the global exchange traded derivatives in currencies, stocks and commodities which are another $75 trillion.”

“$8.3 trillion of real money is controlling $313 trillion in derivatives!”

This illustrates the sheer magnitude of the problem and the economy-busting potential of a miscalculation. That’s why Warren Buffett calls derivatives “financial weapons of mass destruction.” If there’s a fire-sale in hedge funds or derivatives, there’s nothing the Plunge Protection Team or the Federal Reserve will be able to do to stop a meltdown. The market will crash leaving nothing behind.

Conclusion (from Bob Chapman)

Treasury securities are also used to fuel the Fed’s repo pool which is used to power the PPT’s market manipulations by making tens of billions of dollars available on a moment’s notice. The Fed creates money out of nothing to buy treasuries from the primary dealers, who then use the sales proceeds to fund the operations of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets which assists the elitists in stealing from you on a 24/7 basis. The dealers offer to buy these securities back from the Fed within a month or less in what are called repurchase agreements. Thus, this “funny money” is shoveled back and forth from the Fed to the primary dealers and from the primary dealers back to the Fed as needed whenever the Illuminati deign that financial assistance for manipulation of markets is needed.

Treasuries are therefore the engine which drives this fraudulent scheme, a scheme that is completely illegal because the authority granted in Reagan’s Executive Order creating the PPT is exceeded beyond all belief in what one day will be exposed as the greatest abuse of financial power by US government officials in the history of our country. Because of this blatant illegality, Buck-Busting Ben and Hanky Panky Paulson deny that the PPT does anything but meet occasionally to brainstorm pending issues.

Sources:

Executive Order 12631 — Working Group on Financial Markets
March 18, 1988
Stock Market Manipulation – The secret maneuverings of the Plunge Protection Team (PPT)
by Mike Whitney
The Key To All Market Analysis
by Bob Chapman
July 5 2008
President Meets with Working Group on Financial Markets
Market Manipulation Under Veil of Secrecy?
Minyanville
Apr 03, 2008
Plunge Protection Team
by Brett D. Fromson
The Washington Post
Sunday, February 23, 1997; Page H01
NYSE Announces Third-Quarter 2008 Circuit-Breaker Levels
June 30, 2008
http://www.nyse.com/press/circuit_breakers.html
The Plunge Protection Team
by John Mauldin
April 05, 2003