Search posterous

Search all posts and users. Type a name, type a favorite song title, whatever! See what comes up.
  

More posterous blogs











More recommended blogs »

Here are posterous posts filed under bankofamerica...

"The assistance to banks, once thought to cost the taxpayers untold billions, is on track to actually reap billions in profit for the taxpaying public." -- President Obama, December 8, 2009
"But like many other big banks, Bank of America is once again making money, in large part through Wall Street businesses like trading stocks and bonds, rather than by making loans." -- New York Times, December 29, 2009

After a year of holy hell we may be witnessing an economic miracle: The Bank of America, so recently on life support, comes up with $45 billion in hard cold cash to repay TARP in less than a year. I mean this is one of the most amazing turnarounds since the 1969 Mets.

Not only are the big Wall Street players repaying the bailout funds more rapidly than expected, but our president tells us that we, the taxpayers, are going "to actually reap billions in profits."

Time to celebrate? Or are the big banks paying back TARP with funny money and accounting tricks?

Are we finally getting our fair share of bailout-induced Wall Street profits and bonuses? Or is that "profit" actually recycled bailout money that is coming from us?

Why the big banks are in a frenzy to repay TARP is no secret: They seek an escape from federal restrictions so that they can pay themselves however much they want, whenever they want. After all, they truly believe that they deserve mega-salaries and bonuses, even after they crashed our economy, and even though they still are causing unemployment by not loaning out money. But bankers see nothing at all wrong with seven figure compensation packages for helping to create the Great Recession and destroy over seven million jobs. (As my cousin Jeff points out, this is a precisely like the captain of the Exxon Valdez demanding and getting a big bonus.)

But just how did such a troubled bank come up with that kind of money?

Some of it is easy to spot. Bank of America will sell $4 billion worth of assets and it will raise another $18.8 billion by selling new stock. That dilutes stock holder equity but who cares. Better to pay back the taxpayer.

That leaves about $22.2 billion that comes from "trading stocks and bonds, rather than by making loans." Just what does that mean? Do the BOA financial wizards (the same ones that lost hundreds of billions last fall) just have a run of good luck? What enormous skills did they put to work?

Then again, it might be prudent to explore whether BOA and the other big Wall Street banks are engaged in one or more of the following:

1. High-speed trading where the bank -- informed of your intention to buy or sell -- comes in a nano-second before you make the trade to get a better price at your expense? Yep, this is the latest casino game played by the big banks and of course no one has the nerve to outlaw it. Is BOA playing this game and if so how big a player are they? If in fact, "profit" is coming from this form of market manipulation it would mean that taxpayers, each time they trade stocks or bonds, are helping BOA repay their TARP money -- that is taxpayers are being scammed to repay taxpayers.

2. Creating, packaging and selling the same kind of derivatives that crashed the system only a year ago? No, say it ain't so! But we need to remind ourselves that all of those derivative products that should have been outlawed are still legal. Also, because everyone knows that Bank of America and the other 19 large banks are officially too big to fail, there's little risk in taking a gamble with them. There are fat fees embedded in those make-believe securities. The billionaire bailout logic of this move is quite galling: The fantasy finance instruments that crashed the system in the first place are being traded again so as to pay us back for bailing them out... so that we can bail them out again in the future when these unregulated instruments crash again.

3. Moving money around from one federal bailout program to another? TARP is only a small portion of the enormous government rescue packages for Wall Street that total more than $12 trillion. (See Nomi Prins's excellent accounting.) BOA has access to all kinds of liquidity deals where money can be obtained at little or no cost. The taxpayer is guaranteeing all kinds of toxic assets held by Wall Street banks. Maybe I'm not being fair to these honorable bankers, but I suspect a few of them would be more than willing to set up an elaborate shell game so that, presto, $22.2 billion in cash appears under one of the fast moving thimbles. Are they paying back TARP with our own money yet again?

4. Revaluing toxic assets? As Ben Bernanke makes clear, no one knows how to properly value the toxic assets -- CDOs, CDO squared, cubed and synthetic. (See The Looting of America for how these casino games work...and don't work.) Why can't these assets be valued properly? Because there's no real market for them. So it becomes a judgment call which in turn gives bank accountants quite a bit of leeway. Perhaps they are marking them up as other assets rise, which in turn frees up capital for the TARP payback? Go ahead and try to prove that their accountants are wrong.

5. Pure fantasy finance? It is possible that BOA and other banks are trading back and forth credit default swaps (insurance policies on assets that neither party own) booking CDSs as assets with value, when in fact they have no value at all? Is this legal? I have no clue but it seems to have been going on for years before the crash. If it started up again, who would be shocked?

6. They made if fair and square buying low and selling high on the stock, bond commodity markets? No comment.

The sad point is that the media and our political watch-dogs are drinking the Wall Street Kool-Aid again. Even the president seems to have had a few sips. They now believe that the financial markets are up and running, everything is fine and banks who couldn't tie their shoes a few months ago are humming again.

But, at this late date, it should seem obvious that these kinds of bankers will do anything it takes, by all means necessary, to make more money. Paying back TARP means more compensation for executives and traders - lots of it. If that requires cooking the books, they will do so as long as it's legal, or even just defensible in court.

But we're missing much more than the possibility of yet another financial slight of hand. We are willfully ignoring the most basic question: If BOA isn't lending out money, what value does it produce for our economy and our society? If BOA can come up with $22.2 billion in extra crash by trading "stocks and bonds," is that really good for us or is it a sign of rot within our billionaire bailout society?

Les Leopold is the author of The Looting of America: How Wall Street's Game of Fantasy Finance destroyed our Jobs, Pensions and Prosperity, and What We Can Do About It, Chelsea Green Publishing, June 2009.

Follow Les Leopold on Twitter: www.twitter.com/les_leopold

Filed under: Bank of America

Filed under: bank of america

dmgerbino says...

Published: October 19, 2009
In the latest attack on overdraft fees charged by banks, Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who heads the Senate Banking Committee, introduced legislation on Monday to limit the number of fees charged to one per month, and to require a bank to seek consumers’ permission to cover debit card and check purchases that would push their bank balance below zero.

Read the rest of the article at the New York Times

Filed under: Bank of America

Terr says...

Corporate Social Responsible News: Bank of America's CSR Plan; Laser Plus's "Green Plus" Award; Insight Forum's Symposium

Filed under: Bank of America

Terr says...

WASHINGTON — Wall Street may have discovered a way out from under the bad debt and risky mortgages that have clogged the financial markets. The would-be solution probably sounds familiar: It's a lot like what got banks in trouble in the first place.

In recent months investment banks have been repackaging old mortgage securities and offering to sell them as new products, a plan that's nearly identical to the complicated investment packages at the heart of the market's collapse.

"There is a little bit of deja vu in this," said Arizona State University economics professor Herbert Kaufman.

But Kaufman said the strategy could help solve one of the lingering problems of the financial meltdown: What to do about hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgages that are still choking the system and making bankers reluctant to make new loans.

These are holdovers from the housing bubble, when home prices soared, banks bought risky mortgages, bundled them with solid mortgages and sold them all as top-rated bonds. With investors eager to buy these bonds, lenders came up with increasingly risky mortgages, sometimes for people who could not afford them. It didn't matter because, in the end, the bonds would all get AAA ratings.

When the housing market tanked, figuring out how much those bonds were worth became nearly impossible. The banks and insurance companies that owned them knew there were still some good mortgages, so they didn't want to sell everything at fire-sale prices. But buyers knew there were many worthless loans, too, so they didn't want to pay full price for the remnants of a real estate bubble.

In recent months, banks have tiptoed toward a possible solution, one in which the really good bonds get bundled with some not-quite-so-good bonds. Banks sweeten the deal for investors and, voila, the newly repackaged bonds receive AAA ratings, a stamp of approval that means they're the safest investment you can buy.

"You've now taken what was an A-rated security and made it eligible for AAA treatment," said Richard Reilly, a partner with White & Case in New York.

As for the bottom-of-the-barrel bonds that are left over, those are getting sold off for pennies on the dollar to investors and hedge funds willing to take big risk for the chance of a big reward.

Kaufman said he's optimistic about the recent string of deals because, unlike during the real estate boom, investors in these new bonds know what they're buying.

"We're back to financial engineering, absolutely," he said. "But I think it's being done at least differently than it was before the meltdown."

The sweetener at the heart of the deal is a guarantee: Investors who buy into the really risky pool agree to also take some of the risk away from those who buy into the safer pool. The safe investors get paid first. The risk-taking investors lose money first.

That's how the safe stack of bonds gets it AAA rating, which is crucial to the deal. That rating lets banks sell to pension funds, insurance companies and other investors that are required to hold only top-rated investments.

"There's no voodoo going on here. It's just math," said Sue Allon, chief executive of Allonhill, which helps investors analyze such hard-to-price investments.

Financial gurus call it a "resecuritization of real estate mortgage investment conduits." On Wall Street, it goes by the acronym Re-Remic (it rhymes with epidemic).

"It actually makes a lot of fundamental sense," said Brian Bowes, the head of mortgage trading at Hexagon Securities in New York. "It's taking a bond that doesn't necessarily have a natural buyer and creating two bonds that might have a natural buyer for each."

The risk is, if the housing market slips even more, even the AAA-rated investments may not prove safe. The deal also relies on the rating agencies, which misread the risk at the heart of the subprime mortgage crisis, to get it right.

And then there's the uncertainty about the value of the underlying investments, which FBR Capital Markets analyst Gabe Poggi called "totally combustible." Poggi likes the deals because they appear to have breathed some life into the market, but he said it only works if everyone knows exactly what they're buying.

The Obama administration is also working on a plan to get banks buying and selling risky bonds. But the public-private partnership announced this spring is still in the works and has yet to help investors figure out what those bonds are worth. By creating Re-Remics, banks can help start the process themselves.

The concept has been around for years, but it has become increasingly popular lately as a way for banks to sell off bonds backed by commercial properties such as malls and office buildings. Analysts say they've seen a few dozen deals aimed at repackaging debt held over from the mortgage boom. Investment banks have also dabbled in turning collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, into Re-Remics.

That's where Allon gets nervous.

"I think that's trouble," she said.

CDOs are already complicated. Repackaging them makes it harder to figure out what the investment is worth. The more obscure the concept, she said, the more likely the deal has gotten too creative.

Wall Street has a tendency to push the boundaries of good ideas, Bowes said. But he said banks are still smarting from the market implosion and are unlikely to rush into new, risky ventures.

"A lot of the market innovations, they all started out with this fundamentally good concept and they often tend to deteriorate over time, or just evolve into more and more risky versions of the same concept," Bowes said. "This time around, the likelihood is, it will take a lot longer for that to happen."

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Filed under: Bank of America

czech says...

Last year 2008, while the Bank of America crashed, CEO Ken Lewis made $6,019 an hour

According to a recent report by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Bank of America issued $3.33 billion in cash and stock bonuses to executives in 2008, despite receiving $45 billion in bailout fund

Filed under: Bank of America

thepete says...

(download)

I'm taking the A train downtown to meet my buddy @jordanmsu at Grand Central when the train stopped at 168th and let all these clones on. What TheHell?

Filed under: Bank of America

willdearman says...

This week was a slow one news wise, and a short one for the many that had July 3 off.  Here are items of interest that were not otherwise mentioned in my blog posts this week:
 
On this we agree: CRA loans weren’t the bad loans [Felix Salmon]
There was quite the war of words this week between Felix Salmon and other bloggers about the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and whether it was a significant contributor to the current financial turmoil. This final post in the series does a good job to crystallize the opinions of each side.
 
As a former banker I am somewhat familiar with the CRA.  While I don't believe it caused the financial crisis, I do believe that it provided banks an innaccurate basis for modeling loans with high loan to value and for low income borrowers
 
Global Warming and Model Risk [Rortybomb]
Entirely unrelated to the CRA, Mike posts interesting discussion about model risk.  I cannot possibly say it any better than he does: In quant circles, it can be called “model risk.” In everyday circles, it can be called “you don’t know what the f*** you are talking about.”
 
This change in transparency went largely unreported.  If you look back at Zero Hedge's prior posts on Goldman's proprietary trading as a percentage of total market trades, you will see that this is an important issue.  I am personally concerned about proprietary and programmatic trading causing on unnatural market volatility.
 
California: The haves and have-nots [Felix Salmon]
Lists which California creditors will get cash and which will get warrants. In a related story, Bank of America will accept the warrants as cash through July 10. At any rate, I have determined that LocationStore will no longer be seeking State of California RFQs.  This payment method could really put a small business in a bind.

Filed under: Bank of America

 


LOS ANGELES — Its budget gap growing and its political process for addressing the gap unhinged, California will begin Thursday to pay vendors and taxpayers with i.o.u.’s, only the second time the state has adopted the emergency payment method since the Great Depression.

 

Read more: http://globaleconomicnews.blogspot.com/2009/07/california-paying-bills-with-ious.html


Tags: Darrell Steinberg, Schwarzenegger, California politics, California budget, Twitter, Bank of AmericaWells Fargo, Chase, Professional Engineers in California, State legislature, Warrants, IOU’s, budget gap, the great depression, 

Filed under: Bank of America

willdearman says...

Will Dearman's Lifestream Daily Digest for June 11th, 2009 includes 11 items:

9:22pm via Google Reader
11:00pm via Google Reader
2:45am via Google Reader
2:57am via Google Reader
4:47am via Google Reader
5:37am via Google Reader
7:25am via Google Reader
This has to be the best trade I have ever seen. And made by Austin-based Amherst Holdings http://bit.ly/bQQPW [#]
2:07pm via Twitter
2:33pm via Google Reader
2:43pm via Google Reader
The World Health Org has now officially declared H1N1 a pandemic http://bit.ly/Xn8w8 [#]
2:53pm via Twitter

Filed under: Bank of America