It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If there was a total financial meltdown, what would be uncovered from the investigations that would eventually follow?
The U.S. Treasury late yesterday modified its proposal to allow for purchases from institutions outside of the U.S., a step Paulson today said was needed to mute the impact of the credit crisis in the U.S. ``As you think about this, if a financial institution has business operations in the United States, hires people in the United States, if they are clogged with illiquid assets, they have the same impact on the American people as any other institutions,'' he told ABC News.
The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.
Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.
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.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338 (November 12, 1999), is an Act of the United States Congress which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act, opening up competition among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited a bank from offering investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate. For example, Citibank merged with Travelers Group, an insurance company, and in 1998 formed the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking and insurance underwriting services. Other major mergers in the financial sector had already taken place such as the Smith-Barney, Shearson, Primerica and Travelers Insurance Corporation combination in the mid-1990s. This combination, announced in 1993 and finalized in 1994, would have violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Acts by combining insurance and securities companies, if not for a temporary waiver process [1]. The law was passed to legalize these mergers on a permanent basis. Historically, the combined industry has been known as the financial services industry.
WHAT'S SO SCARY about the entire mess is that the guys (they are mostly men, white men) who created the mess, or were a part of its creation, are the same guys who are in charge of a solution. Take Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman: In 2004, he talked about the "new moderation" in, and the "stability" of, the financial system and economic life. Hank Paulsen, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, who was so much a part of the mayhem that is unraveling and a strong proponent of further deregulation, is the man at the helm of the Treasury Department. These are the people that are devising the new policies that are supposed to squelch the hemorrhage. Most of their advisers come from the financial world, a bunch of them directly from Goldman Sachs. They created the problems with the clapping approval of Congress (in utter bipartisanship, always happy to rake in huge sums of money from Wall Street) and all the White House tenants, all the way back to Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. In other words, the people responsible for the problems (though you too, dear readers, share responsibility -- at least those of you who have lived on credit for the past three decades and repeatedly voted for those bums) are in charge of the solution. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse!
Sec. 7. Funding. For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.
by John P. Hussman, Ph.D. @ www.hussmanfunds.com
With regard to assisting homeowners, purchasing the bad mortgage securities from financial institutions will do nothing to help those homeowners because it does nothing to alter the cash flows expected of them. Congress will be a far better steward of public funds by offering distressed homeowners what amounts to a refinancing, coupled with a partial surrender of future appreciation.
In practice, the homeowner would default on the existing mortgage, but the government would purchase the foreclosed property at an amount near existing foreclosure recovery rates (presently about 50% of mortgage face value). The government would then sell that home back to the owner with a zero-equity mortgage, allowing individuals to keep their homes. Importantly, there would be an additional, marketable lien placed on the property itself in the form of what might be called a “Property Appreciation Receipt” (PAR), which would be provided to the original mortgage lender. Though it would accrue no interest, it would provide a claim to the original lender on any appreciation in the value of the home up to the difference between the foreclosure proceeds and the original mortgage amount. Note that the PAR would only become relevant at the point that the government was fully repaid.
For example, consider a homeowner with a $300,000 mortgage balance on a home now worth less than the mortgage balance itself. The government would buy the foreclosed property at say, $200,000 and mortgage it to the existing homeowner. The original lender would receive $200,000, plus a Property Appreciation Receipt (PAR), giving it a claim on $100,000 of any future appreciation of the property. If the homeowner was to sell the property later for, say, $250,000, the owner of the PAR would receive $50,000, and there would be a remaining lien on future appreciation of that same property, which would be assumed by the new buyer. If the next buyer sold the home for $250,000, no funds would be due to the PAR holder, but if it was sold for $275,000, another $25,000 would be payable. At any point the home was to sell for more than $300,000, the PAR would be fully repaid and there would be no further claim.
Some provision would have to be made for the appreciation of an unsold home, but that detail could be accomplished through some form of equity extraction refinancing. To account for time value, the claim on future appreciation could be increased at a small rate of interest. Though the credit impact of a mortgage default would likely be sufficient to dissuade solvent homeowners from making inappropriate use of the program, the government could impose additional costs or eligibility requirements to avoid such risks.
WHAT'S SO SCARY about the entire mess is that the guys (they are mostly men, white men) who created the mess, or were a part of its creation, are the same guys who are in charge of a solution. Take Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman: In 2004, he talked about the "new moderation" in, and the "stability" of, the financial system and economic life. Hank Paulsen, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, who was so much a part of the mayhem that is unraveling and a strong proponent of further deregulation, is the man at the helm of the Treasury Department. These are the people that are devising the new policies that are supposed to squelch the hemorrhage. Most of their advisers come from the financial world, a bunch of them directly from Goldman Sachs. They created the problems with the clapping approval of Congress (in utter bipartisanship, always happy to rake in huge sums of money from Wall Street) and all the White House tenants, all the way back to Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. In other words, the people responsible for the problems (though you too, dear readers, share responsibility -- at least those of you who have lived on credit for the past three decades and repeatedly voted for those bums) are in charge of the solution. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse!