My companion, a senior UK investment banker and I, are discussing the most successful banking types we know and what makes them tick. I argue that they often conform to the characteristics displayed by social psychopaths. To my surprise, my friend agrees.

He then makes an astonishing confession: “At one major investment bank for which I worked, we used psychometric testing to recruit social psychopaths because their characteristics exactly suited them to senior corporate finance roles.”

Here was one of the biggest investment banks in the world seeking psychopaths as recruits.



UK Independent, “Brian Basham: Beware corporate psychopaths – they are still occupying positions of power.”

There is absolutely no good reason why all debt issues are not put up to competitive bids. This is not like defense contracting, where in some situations it is at least theoretically possible that X or Y company is the world’s only competent manufacturer, say, of armor-plated Humvee doors, or some such thing. It’s still wrong and perverse when companies like Halliburton or Blackwater get sole-source defense contracts, but at least there’s some kind of theoretical justification there.

But this is a bond issue, not rocket science. In most cases, all the top investment banks will offer virtually the same service, with only the price varying. Towns and cities and states lose billions of dollars every year allowing financial services companies to overcharge them for underwriting.

It gets even worse in the derivatives markets, where banks routinely overcharge state and local governments for things like interest rate swaps, for one very obvious reason – swaps are not traded on open exchanges, so only the banks know how to price them.



How Banks Cheat Taxpayers

Occupy Wall Street has set the snowball rolling; you may not think much of OWS — I have my own reservations, although none are philosophical or moral—but it has made America aware of a sinister, usurious process by which wealth has systematically been funneled into fewer and fewer hands. A process in which Washington played a useful supporting role, but no more than that.

Over the next year, I expect the “what” will give way to the “how” in the broad electorate’s comprehension of the financial situation. The 99 percent must learn to differentiate the bloodsuckers and rent-extractors from those in the 1 percent who make the world a better, more just place to live. Once people realize how Wall Street made its pile, understand how financiers get rich, what it is that they actually do, the time will become ripe for someone to gather the spreading ripples of anger and perplexity into a focused tsunami of retribution. To make the bastards pay, properly, for the grief and woe they have caused. Perhaps not to the extent proposed by H. L. Mencken, who wrote that when a bank fails, the first order of business should be to hang its board of directors, but in a manner in which the pain is proportionate to the collateral damage. Possibly an excess-profits tax retroactive to 2007, or some form of “Tobin tax” on transactions, or a wealth tax. The era of money for nothing will be over.


Wall Street has destroyed the wonder that was America.

June Geffre lost her husband Tom to pancreatic cancer in November 2009. Months before he died, he applied for the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Geffre said a permanent modification was granted shortly after he passed away – but she’s run into all sorts of problems because her dead husband never got to sign the papers.

“Here I was, paying every month (the amount the bank told me to pay), thinking I was OK and waiting for the OK that the loan would be approved in my name and everything,” said Geffre. “Then they hit me in July saying, ‘We can’t accept your money anymore.’”

She said bank representatives told her she was paying the wrong amount and was now in default. She was at her wit’s end when ASU’s Homeowner Advocacy Unit and other community agencies stepped in to help.

“Ms. Geffre sent at least five copies of the death certificate. It took that long for Bank of America to realize her husband was dead,” said Alyson Vivattanapa, a student attorney with the Homeowner Advocacy Unit.



Widow: Bank won’t honor loan mod after husband dies

In the future, history classes will be told that the United States in the 21st century had an explosion of homelessness at the same time that there were so many empty houses on the market that banks were bulldozing them to save the expense of maintaining them. The most flattering conclusion about us that will be derived from these facts is that we were a nation of deliberate and intolerable cruelty.

(Source: alexandraerin, via lycanpedia)

[I]t seems to me that if you’re broke enough that you’re not paying any income tax, you’ve got nothing but skin in the game. You’ve got it all riding on how well America works.

You can’t afford private security: you need to depend on the police. You can’t afford private health care: Medicare is all you have. You get arrested, you’re not hiring Davis, Polk to get you out of jail: you rely on a public defender to negotiate a court system you’d better pray deals with everyone from the same deck. And you can’t hire landscapers to manicure your lawn and trim your trees: you need the garbage man to come on time and you need the city to patch the potholes in your street.

And in the bigger picture, of course, you need the state and the private sector both to be functioning well enough to provide you with regular work, and a safe place to raise your children, and clean water and clean air.

The entire ethos of modern Wall Street, on the other hand, is complete indifference to all of these matters.



Matt Taibbi, “A Christmas Message From America’s Rich.”

circlingtheroundabout:

Josh Harkinson: Meet the Financial Wizards Working With Occupy Wall Street | Mother Jones

High up in a Manhattan conference room on Sunday, a group of investment gurus discussed Occupy Wall Street. Should they support a set of tough-sounding financial reforms just proposed on the campaign trail by presidential candidate Jon Huntsman? Or was it reasonable to demand even deeper reforms? “This isn’t enough,” argued Cathy O’Neil, a former hedge fund quant who organizes the group, a branch of Occupy Wall Street known as the Alternative Banking Group. She proposed that the gathering of financial experts come up with improvements to Huntsman’s plan and present them to Occupy Wall Street’s General Assembly. Another OWS supporter, whose day job involves consulting for private equity firms, looked up from his laptop and smiled. “That’s an excellent idea!”

As unlikely as it may have seemed when protesters first descended on New York’s financial center this fall, an increasing number of Wall Street insiders are now returning the favor, you might say, by occupying Occupy Wall Street. Sympathetic to the movement’s critiques of the banking system, they’ve been quietly lending their expertise to Occupy efforts to develop real ideas for revamping the industry.

The Wall Street-climate change connection

Think “climate change” and the companies that come to mind are oil giants like Exxon Mobil or BP – not JP Morgan or Bank of America.

But a new study by Urgewald, a German environmental organization, establishes a strong link between large multinational banks and the coal industry, one of the biggest contributors to climate change.

The study (.pdf), “Bankrolling Climate Change,” identifies the top 20 “climate killer” banks by the amount of financial support they give the coal industry. Number one is JP Morgan Chase, followed by Citi and Bank of America. That’s despite lofty rhetoric from these companies about their work to address climate change.

The Wall Street-climate change connection

Think “climate change” and the companies that come to mind are oil giants like Exxon Mobil or BP – not JP Morgan or Bank of America.

But a new study by Urgewald, a German environmental organization, establishes a strong link between large multinational banks and the coal industry, one of the biggest contributors to climate change.

The study (.pdf), “Bankrolling Climate Change,” identifies the top 20 “climate killer” banks by the amount of financial support they give the coal industry. Number one is JP Morgan Chase, followed by Citi and Bank of America. That’s despite lofty rhetoric from these companies about their work to address climate change.

President Barack Obama has selected Richard Cordray, a former Ohio attorney general, to serve as the director and top consumer cop at the CFPB. Cordray is an exceptional choice. That’s why he’s earned the support of business leaders such as Mike Van Buskirk, the CEO of the Ohio Bankers League; top executives of leading Ohio companies such as Nationwide, American Electric Power, Procter & Gamble, Forest City and Limited Brands and countless Ohio mayors and sheriffs from both parties…

The only opposition to Cordray and the CFPB is coming from Wall Street lobbyists and their allies in Congress — namely, 44 Republican senators, who have vowed to oppose any nominee unless the agency’s authority to help consumers is watered down.

Their opposition is unprecedented. This is the first time, according to the Senate historian, that a party has blocked a qualified nominee solely because it does not like the existence of the agency the nominee was selected to lead — in this case, an agency devoted to Ohio’s consumers. And consumers in every state.



For Richard Cordray, CFPB, the time is now

Economic Inequality Is Not Sustainable

Inequality has been rising for decades for most Americans in the form of stagnating incomes for the majority and sky-rocketing incomes for those at the very top. When income stopped growing, families responded by working more and borrowing more… Families borrowed to make ends meet, to cover health care costs, to put a child through college, and to purchase a home in a neighborhood with good schools.

The financial sector was only too happy to oblige. Increasingly unencumbered by regulation and flush with cash, Wall Street created a variety of new ways to extend credit. Basically, America didn’t get a raise and the financial sector said, “Don’t worry, buddy, we’ll loan you the money to pay the bills.” Of course, the whole thing was unsustainable. Thus came the Great Recession and the struggle ever since among everyday Americans to make ends meet.

But we can reverse this destructive course—if we understand what we are up against.

Economic Inequality Is Not Sustainable

Inequality has been rising for decades for most Americans in the form of stagnating incomes for the majority and sky-rocketing incomes for those at the very top. When income stopped growing, families responded by working more and borrowing more… Families borrowed to make ends meet, to cover health care costs, to put a child through college, and to purchase a home in a neighborhood with good schools.

The financial sector was only too happy to oblige. Increasingly unencumbered by regulation and flush with cash, Wall Street created a variety of new ways to extend credit. Basically, America didn’t get a raise and the financial sector said, “Don’t worry, buddy, we’ll loan you the money to pay the bills.” Of course, the whole thing was unsustainable. Thus came the Great Recession and the struggle ever since among everyday Americans to make ends meet.

But we can reverse this destructive course—if we understand what we are up against.

“Mass. A. G. Coakley sues 5 banks on foreclosures.”

“Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley accused five big banks of making the foreclosure crisis worse by both cutting corners and also rushing to unnecessarily foreclose homeowners without following the rule of law.”
Standard & Poor’s reduced its credit ratings on 15 big banking companies, mostly in the Europe and the United States, on Tuesday as the result of a sweeping overhaul of its ratings criteria.

JPMorgan Chase & Co , Bank of America Corp , Citigroup Inc , Wells Fargo & Co , Goldman Sachs Group Inc , Morgan Stanley , Barclays Plc , HSBC Holdings Plc, Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and UBS AG , were among the banks that had their ratings reduced by one notch each. A notch is one third of a letter rating.


S&P cuts ratings on big banks after criteria change

A federal judge angrily blocked Citigroup Inc’s proposed $285 million settlement over the sale of toxic mortgage debt, excoriating the top U.S. market regulator over how it reaches corporate fraud settlements.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan said the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission appeared uninterested in actually learning what Citigroup did wrong, and erred by asking him to ignore the interests of the public.

“An application of judicial power that does not rest on facts is worse than mindless, it is inherently dangerous,” Rakoff wrote in an opinion dated Monday.

The judge added that it was difficult to discern “from the limited information before the court what the SEC is getting from this settlement other than a quick headline.”

He said the proposed settlement was “neither reasonable, nor fair, nor adequate, nor in the public interest.”



Judge blocks Citigroup-SEC settlement

As a story in the January issue Bloomberg Markets magazine shows, between August 2007 and April 2010, the Federal Reserve secretly administered the largest bailout in U.S. history without approval or oversight from the legislative branch. To give a sense of the scale of this effort, as of March 2009, the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year, to the rescue.

Even as they were tapping the Fed for emergency loans at rates as low as 0.01 percent, the banks that were the biggest beneficiaries of the program were assuring investors that their firms were healthy. Moreover, these banks used money they had received in the bailout to lobby Congress against reforms aimed at preventing the next collapse.

By keeping the details of its activities under wraps, the Fed deprived lawmakers of the essential information they needed to draft those rules. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, for example, was debated and passed by Congress in 2010 without a full understanding of how deeply the banks had depended on the Fed for survival. Similarly, lawmakers approved the Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to rescue the banks without knowing the details of the far larger bailout being run by the Fed…

There is no question that the Fed and other central banks should have an independent status that allows them to conduct monetary policy free from political interference and public pressure. That independence should be accompanied by transparency and accountability to the taxpayers who would have been on the hook if the central bank’s gamble hadn’t worked out.



Fed’s Secrecy During Crisis Limits Effort to Stop Another: View

The Fed needs more oversight and stricter regulation, but watch the usual Paultards and other libertarian concern trolls agitate once again for the Fed’s abolishing. — Ryking

Our recent crash course in brutal market outcomes should underline a crucial point: The patina of smartness that has so long shielded Wall Street from critical inquiry amounts to little more than the evasions undertaken by people with money who do not care to hear others questioning how they make that money. Despite the Randian lore now coursing through the Tea Party and the GOP presidential field, genius and common sense do not prompt financiers to invent increasingly unpredictable financial instruments to make more money (or maybe wreck the global economy); ideology does. Canada, for example, forbids certain types of investment for the simple reason that it could put too many Canadian citizens at real risk. We’ve made other choices. So when a former Fed employee tells me that you need people in finance regulating finance because it’s so darn complicated, it looks more like the ideology of high finance infecting the seats of regulation.


ows and the downfall of the smartest guys in the room - bookforum.com / daily review (via ronmarks)

(via ronmarks)