We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein At a news conference last Wednesday, Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, conceded that the problem of too-big-to-fail is “still here”. If new rules and international cooperation did not solve it, he said, “additional steps” will be needed. Chairman Bernanke didn’t say what “additional steps” he has in mind. Since neither Dodd-Frank nor conclaves of central bankers are getting the job done, let’s give the chairman some help, by pointing out six things the Fed must do. Abandon nostalgia for a world that no longer exists Let’s start with some popular non-starters. Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, and a Professor of Entrepreneurship at the M.I.T. Sloan School of Management, writes in the New York Times writes that “the clearest possible statement of how to think about the modern financial system – and make it less risky” lies in a speech by Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, entitled “Ending Too Big To Fail.” …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest
Tag Archives: Ben Bernanke
Even In a Crisis, Gold Is Fragile
By Alex Dumortier, CFA, The Motley Fool
Filed under: Investing
With Cyprus dominating the financial markets news this week, the “risk on/risk off” switching process has governed stock market action this week. On the back of Thursday’s losses, stocks mirrored Wednesday’s gains, with the S&P 500
gaining 0.7%, while the narrower, price-weighted Dow Jones Industrial Average
rose 0.6%. On the week, the S&P 500 lost 0.2% — only its second weekly loss this year.
Reflecting the day’s gains, the VIX Index , Wall Street‘s fear gauge, fell 3% today, to close at 13.57. (The VIX is calculated from S&P 500 option prices and reflects investor expectations for stock market volatility over the coming 30 days.)
Gold: not anti-fragile
Philosopher-trader Nassim Taleb, the author of The Black Swan and, most recently, Antifragile, has been a harsh critic of the Federal Reserve, both under Ben Bernanke and his predecessor, Alan Greenspan. According to the argument he develops in Antifragile, the national economy is like a living organism in that it requires an environment that changes — sometimes in an adverse or hostile manner — in order to become stronger. Or, as he puts it, “Anything organic requires ‘variability stressors.'”
In this model, which I think is a powerful example of consilience, any efforts to artificially suppress that variability — such as quantitative easing — are doomed to weaken the organism and sow the seeds of larger, more damaging crises.
Consistent with this reasoning, you might think Mr. Taleb is very bullish on gold — a store of immutable value, according to its supporters. Not so. As reported by Barron’s Michael Santoli, at an investment conference in New York yesterday, Taleb told investors: “It’s too neat a narrative, gold. Central banks own gold,” before adding, “something that doubles [in value] in no time can’t be a real store of value.”
I’m not sure that the fact that central banks own gold is, in itself, relevant to the investment case — after all, Ben Bernanke himself said this is a matter of long-term tradition, rather than economics. However, I think Taleb is dead on with his two other remarks, particularly the third. Something that doubles in value is highly unlikely to be a real store of value. Why? Because if it behaves that way, it’s probably equally likely to halve in value in the same amount of time (or faster). By definition, a store value cannot exhibit that sort of volatility. Shareholders of the SPDR Gold Shares and the iShares Silver Trust may want to ponder Mr. Taleb’s words.
If you’re sick of “risk on/ risk off,” and you’re ready to invest based on competitive advantage and long-term …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance
Bernanke Admits His Childhood Home Is In Foreclosure And Relative Is Unemployed
By Agustino Fontevecchia Fed chief Ben Bernanke admitted he has an unemployed relative and that the house in which he grew up has been foreclosed on during the post-FOMC press conference on Wednesday. The Chairman stuck to his playbook, reaffirming that QE and record-low interest rates are here to stay, adding that while some of his colleagues are concerned about the possible risks of his unconventional policy, he isn?t. …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Markets
Cyprus Bailout: Welcome To Another Great Depression
By Tim Worstall, Contributor So, this is going to be a very sour reading of what has happened in Cyprus this weekend. It will also be a very partisan one, possibly even a partial one. But if Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz were right in their insistence that it was actually the Federal Reserve that caused the Great Depression (which is something that Ben Bernanke himself has insisted that the Fed will not repeat) then one way of interpreting what has happened is that the European Central Bank has just set us all up for another Depression. The trigger is that “tax” of a little over 6% on all depositors. …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest
A Tax Dodge for College Students
By William Baldwin, Forbes Staff
Why this country can’t have a flat tax: Higher education would suffer.
This is a set of instructions that will enable you or a loved one to claim a little-known tax benefit that will help pay for a college degree. Read carefully, because tax rules must be followed conscientiously and the sequence gets a little complicated. It involves adjusted qualified education expenses (AQEE), an exclusion phase-out, compound interest and American Samoa.
The tax benefit is called the Education Savings Bond Program. I read about this program in IRS Publication 970.
The idea is that you buy savings bonds when your kid is born and the interest compounds until the bonds mature (20 years). You cash in the bonds and use the money to pay tuition. If you qualify for the tax benefit, the interest income is free of tax.
More precisely, it may be partly free of tax, depending on your income and on how much of the bond proceeds go to tuition and fees.
Example. Suzy Creamcheese cashes in bonds worth $10,400, but has only $8,320 of AQEE. Yes, you could be sending your kid to an expensive private college and still have only $8,320 of qualified expenses, since the qualified expenses are what’s left after subtracting room and board, books, distributions from 529s and scholarships.
Since she’s using only 80% of the bond proceeds for AQEE, Suzy can exclude at most 80% of her interest.
That partial interest amount is then subject to a phase-out. The exclusion phases out if Suzy’s income gets too high.
To do the phase-out on Form 8815, Suzy first needs to calculate modified adjusted gross income.
That’s simple. You take income. Then you adjust it. Then you modify it.
The Internal Revenue Service spells out the modifications in its instruction sheet. Suzy has to add back the deduction for domestic production activities. There’s also something about “interest expense attributable to royalties and deductible on Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss.” Then Suzy adds the exclusion of income by “bona fide residents of American Samoa.”
Don’t skip this step. There’s probably an IRS prison farm in Mississippi where people are doing hard time for not adding back the Samoa money.
Suppose the modified adjusted gross income comes to $129,250. If Suzy is filing jointly, she subtracts this from $139,250, then divides the result by $30,000. The resulting fraction, one-third, is then multiplied by the maximum interest exclusion arrived at above. In our example Suzy would be permitted to exclude one-third of 80% of her interest.
How much interest are we talking about? Not much.
For the good of the country, Ben Bernanke is running off $100 bills and using them to cover the deficit. That pushes interest rates down. So the coupon on the savings bonds is 0.2%. Also, the most you can put into Series EE savings bonds in any one year is $10,000.
Twenty years at 0.2% sounds like only 4%, but there’s compounding. If Suzy invests $10,000, she earns $408 between now and 2033.
The benefit here is a tax holiday on a third of 80% of $408, or $109. In her tax bracket, Suzy will save $27.20, and she can use that windfall toward the cost of college.
Flat tax? Politically, it can’t happen. If there were a simple tax code Suzy would be out $27 and universities would be up in arms.
Bank of America Soars After Fed Approval
By Jessica Alling, The Motley Fool
Filed under: Investing
This week has been a big one for the nation’s banks. And after sitting on pins and needles, Bank of America investors can finally begin to celebrate. The Federal Reserve’s release of their second round of stress test results has been a big boon for B of A, as it sailed cleanly through both tests and received the green light for its capital plan. Up 3.9% so far in trading, it’s clear that Mr. Market approves of the bank’s performance, too.
Source: Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review 2013: Assessment Framework and Results.
Though investors won’t be receiving a newly increased dividend payment from B of A, they are happy with the bank’s plans for a $5 billion share buyback program, as well as the $5.5 billion redemption of two of the bank’s preferred stock. Both will provide value to its shareholders, a clear goal of CEO Brian Moynihan, who stated in 2011 that he was aiming at buying out all of the shares issued during the financial crisis that created a huge amount of dilution.
B of A investors also have to be happy about the decidedly less favorable outcome for two of the bank’s rivals, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs . Both are required to submit new capital plans to the Fed by the third quarter to address weaknesses identified in their current plans. Though the Fed did not object to JPM’s or Goldman’s current plans, it did note that the weaknesses were significant enough to require immediate attention.
With Bank of America trading at such high volumes, this positive news from the Fed has really created an environment where the stock‘s price could appreciate to the $15 target some analysts have been predicting. But the volatility that comes with increased trading volume could also sap the bank’s momentum at any new piece of negative news. In the coming week, investors should keep any eye on B of A’s movement due to the possible impact of Wednesday’s FOMC announcements and forecast. Ben Bernanke will be speaking on Wednesday to disclose the most recent policy developments from the FOMC, and B of A has proved to be the most vulnerable bank stock when it comes to policy concerns.
One day at a time
As most here at the Fool would tell you, basing any investment decision on one day’s price movements would be foolish (note the lowercase “f”), but being educated on the factors that can move your stock‘s price will help make you a better investor, capable of weathering the price fluctuations of any particular day. As today’s moves prove, there are certain events that can shed light on how a bank is managing itself and if it continues to be a good investment opportunity. By having the best Tier 1 common capital ratio of the big four banks, Bank of America has highlighted its strengths once again — making it a clear investment …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance
Interview: Former AIG CEO Hank Greenberg: What the Government Should've Done in 2008
By Morgan Housel, The Motley Fool
Filed under: Investing
Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Tim Geithner have probably been criticized and critiqued more than any other trio in the history of business for the Wall Street bailouts they designed in 2008 — as they should be.
But criticizing is one thing; saying, “Here’s what I would have done differently, and here’s why it would have been better,” is quite another, and something that happens far less often.
Last week, I sat down with former AIG chairman and CEO Hank Greenberg (who left AIG in 2005, before the company’s downfall and bailout). I asked him what Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner should have done differently in 2008. Here’s what he had to say (transcript follows):
Morgan Housel: How should Paulson, Bernanke, and Tim Geithner have responded in September 2008?
Hank Greenberg: They had their mind made up. They wanted to use AIG as a back-door bailout. You had Goldman Sachs, you had Morgan Stanley, you had many institutions who were using AIG to get them funds, and they did.
Now, they could have had access to the window, and they ultimately got access to the window, but they would have gotten a lot more access to the window. Their debt would have been much greater. This eliminated a lot of debt that they otherwise would have had to come up with.
Morgan Housel: What did you think about the terms and the validity of the other bailouts that were given to companies like Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs?
Hank Greenberg: The Fed guaranteed — Citi and a number of others — guaranteed a lot of their assets at a fraction of the cost. If the Fed, as an example, had guaranteed AIG FB for whatever; 100 or 200 basis points…
Morgan Housel That was the Financial Products division of AIG that was running the derivatives?
Hank Greenberg: Yeah. It all would have been over. AIG would have regained its AAA rating, and there would have been no collateral calls necessary, and a lot of those assets came back. In fact, AIG was buying some of them last year. Buying them out of the Fed, so clearly if they hadn’t lost their nerve and they’d done it the right way, it all would have been over.
For more on AIG
At the end of last year, AIG was the favorite stock among hedge fund managers. Have they identified the next big multi-bagger, or are the risks facing the insurance giant still too great? In The Motley Fool’s premium report on AIG, Financials Bureau Chief Matt Koppenheffer breaks down the key issues that you need to know about if you want to successfully invest in this stock. Simply click here now to claim your copy, and you’ll also receive a full year of key updates and expert analysis as news continues to develop.
Greg Mankiw Was Almost Federal Reserve Chairman Instead of Ben Bernanke
Via Scott Sumner, there is an interesting discussion from blogger Alex Jutca about having lunch with Greg Mankiw. What stands out most to me is that Mankiw tells him he was one of three that Bush had selected to replace Greenspan. That means we came close to having Federal Reserve Chairman Greg Mankiw: He laughed that he was one of President Bush‘s three finalists to replace Alan Greenspan, remarking that he didn’t even know it at the time. This begs the question of what kind of chairman Mankiw would have been. I think the evidence indicates he would have given us more inflationary policies. Throughout In 2009 he was calling for Fed commitments to “significant inflation”: Given the Fed’s inability to cut rates further, Mankiw says the central bank should pledge to produce “significant” inflation. That would put the real, inflation-adjusted interest rate — the cost of borrowing minus the rate of inflation — deep into negative territory, even though the nominal rate would still be zero. Also in 2009 he wrote a New York Times op-ed that was even more explicit that unemployment is worse than the risks of higher inflation: Having the central bank embrace inflation would shock economists and Fed watchers who view price stability as the foremost goal of monetary policy. But there are worse things than inflation. And guess what? We have them today. A little more inflation might be preferable to rising unemployment or a series of fiscal measures that pile on debt bequeathed to future generations. He continued to be an inflation dove into 2011, arguing that the Fed was “on the right track worrying more about the weak economy than about inflationary threats”. However, he recognized that a higher inflation target was “a political nonstarter” but still advocated for price level targeting that would allow for catch-up inflation. …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest
Kudlow: No Sequester Catastrophe
President Obama may be backing away from his doomsday spending-cut predictions as the sequester goes into place. But the new party line is that while there will be no impact in the first few days, there’ll be a slow, downward slump after that.
What, are we to believe that lower spending and smaller government damage the economy? Doesn’t that run counter to virtually every reasonably objective study in recent years — including ones from a number of U.S. academics and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Europe — that describe how countries with lower government spending grow more, and how countries with higher government spending grow less?
However you calculate the sequester spending cuts, and however uneven they may be, the reality is that the sequester at least moves the ball in the right direction. I maintain that by reducing the government spending share of gross domestic product, the sequester is pro-growth.
The White House and the Congressional Budget Office are predicting a 0.5 percent to 0.7 percent decline in GDP, post-sequester, and a loss of 750,000 jobs. All this from a spending reduction of roughly 2.4 percent over the next 10 years, in which Uncle Sam’s spending growth will be $44.8 trillion rather than $46 trillion.
Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and other demand-siders have called for a slow, gradual federal-spending reduction. Well, that’s exactly what they’re going to get. The first fiscal year of sequester will see $44 billion in spending cuts, which is about one quarter of 1 percent of GDP. That’s pretty gradual.
Read More at Human Events . By Lawrence Kudlow.
Photo Credit: CNBC (Creative Commons)
Do Bank of America and Citigroup Need This Subsidy?
By Amanda Alix, The Motley Fool
Filed under: Investing
Last summer, Bloomberg‘s revelation that JPMorgan Chase received a de facto taxpayer subsidy of $14 billion made tongues wag for a time, but the subject eventually faded into the background. Of course, the Bank of Dimon wasn’t the only bank receiving a helping hand with its borrowing costs, but Jamie Dimon‘s appearance in Washington to answer questions regarding the London Whale trading debacle naturally put his bank in the spotlight.
This year, the update on this issue has come out before the advent of spring, and the numbers have climbed a bit. Whereas last year’s news reflected a total subsidy, as of 2009, of approximately $76 billion for the 18 largest U.S. banks, the most recent article has bumped that amount up to around $83 billion. It is estimated that JPMorgan’s cut has risen to over $17 billion.
Five largest banks get the most gravy, but do they need it?
Bloomberg notes that, of that $83 billion, the top five banks gobble up about $64 billion. Besides JPMorgan, Bank of America , Citigroup , Wells Fargo , and Goldman Sachs all get a sizable chunk of taxpayer charity.
The article explains that the subsidy is an implicit part of the TBTF landscape, whereby these large institutions are considered so systemically important that they must be pampered like toddlers lest they topple and take the whole economy with them. We’ve already been there, of course, and this seems to be the way the big banks’ supposedly fragile ecosystem is being handled since the financial crisis.
This subsidy isn’t direct, but it comes about as banks receive extremely favorable financing terms because creditors assume they will be rescued if anything goes awry. Still, it’s a lot, and it makes you wonder whether these banks really need this much support. Unfortunately, it appears they do.
B of A and Citi: negative profit without the subsidy
From Bloomberg’s calculations, which were annualized over 10 years, JPMorgan would make a small profit without the subsidy, as would Goldman. B of A and Citi, though, would be in negative profit territory if the subsidy was taken away. Only Wells Fargo would produce a somewhat decent return without the additional backup.
What would happen to Bank of America and Citi if this goody bag was suddenly unavailable? Normally, I wouldn’t count on anything being done on this score, but Ben Bernanke‘s appearance before the Senate Banking Committee last week might have lit a match under this issue.
When the Fed Chair was asked by freshman Senator Elizabeth Warren whether or not banks should be paying for this subsidy, he responded that banking reforms are attempting to change the need for such a helping hand. Also, when pressed, he said he believed the subsidy should end.
Nothing may happen, at least for a while — but each time this subject comes up, it gets a little more oomph behind it. It looks like B of A and Citi had …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance
Bernanke Admits QE Distorts Markets, Brags Of 'Best' Inflation Record As Fed Chairman
By Agustino Fontevecchia, Forbes Staff
With murmurs at the FOMC growing louder every time Fed Chairman and his acolytes express support for ultra-loose monetary policy and continued quantitative easing, Ben Bernanke faced the Senate Banking Committee where he once again defended his tenure as central bank chief. The Chairman told policymakers the “benefits of asset purchases, and of policy accommodation more generally, are clear,” but did note “there is no risk-free approach to this situation.” …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest
Ben Bernanke
Best Markets Since The S&P Bottomed In 2009
By Kenneth Rapoza, Contributor The U.S. has become the new emerging market in the last year. With the Federal Reserve supportive of asset prices, betting against the world’s biggest hedge fund manager — Ben Bernanke — seems unwise.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest
Why The Davos Crowd Is Delusional
By James Gruber, Contributor You’ve got to hand it to Ben Bernanke and the world’s central bankers: they’ve succeeded in driving many assets to record or near-record highs. Stocks, bonds, commodities – all are at elevated levels versus history. The trouble is there’s no evidence that reigniting these asset bubbles is improving the economic picture. The high priests of Davos may tell us the worst is over, but if they’re right, the trillions of dollars printed in recent years will filter through to economies and create skyrocketing inflation that they’ll be powerless to stop. My base case though remains that they’re wrong (again) and the massive credit bubble of the past three decades will deflate despite their best efforts to prevent it happening.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest
Geithner sees US economy strengthening gradually
Outgoing Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner thinks the U.S. economy will strengthen this year — as long as Congress avoids cutting spending too deeply in a budget deal and Europe‘s economy gradually improves.
In an interview on his last day in office, Geithner tells The Associated Press, “The economy is stronger than people appreciate.” He agrees with many private forecasters that economic growth will accelerate this year, in part because the U.S. economy is no longer being held back by oil shocks and Europe‘s debt crisis has subsided.
Asked about his future, Geithner rules out the possibility that he would return to Washington as chairman of the Federal Reserve next year, when Ben Bernanke‘s term ends, if asked by President Barack Obama.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News
The Real Deal On Japan's New QE-Bazooka And Why The Yen Trade Broke Down
By Agustino Fontevecchia, Forbes Staff Japan, the nation that pretty much invented quantitative easing, is now following in Ben Bernanke’s footsteps, launching an open-ended asset purchase plan and a 2% inflation target to fight the steady drop in prices that have plagued the world’s third largest economy for twenty years. The Bank of Japan (BoJ) is joining others in what could be dubbed a new era for central banks, as ailing economies and massive debt loads have eroded the barrier of independence and essentially pushed monetary policymakers into trying to spark growth via stimulus, as the debate on the effectiveness of those policies ranges on.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest
37 Statistics Which Show How Four Years Of Obama Have Wrecked The U.S. Economy
The mainstream media covered the inauguration of Barack Obama with breathless anticipation on Monday, but should we really be celebrating another four years of Obama? The truth is that the first four years of Obama were an absolute train wreck for the U.S. economy. Over the past four years, the percentage of working age Americans with a job has fallen, median household income has declined by more than $4000, poverty in the U.S. has absolutely exploded and our national debt has ballooned to ridiculous proportions. Of course all of the blame for the nightmarish performance of the economy should not go to Obama alone. Certainly much of what we are experiencing today is the direct result of decades of very foolish decisions by Congress and previous presidential administrations. And of course the Federal Reserve has more influence over the economy than anyone else does. But Barack Obama steadfastly refuses to criticize anything that the Federal Reserve has done and he even nominated Ben Bernanke for another term as Fed Chairman despite his horrific track record of failure, so at a minimum Barack Obama must be considered to be complicit in the Fed’s very foolish policies. Despite what the Obama administration tells us, the U.S. economy has been in decline for a very long time, and that decline has accelerated in many ways over the past four years. Just consider the statistics that I have compiled below. The following are 37 statistics which show how four years of Obama have wrecked the U.S. economy…
1. During Obama’s first term, the number of Americans on food stamps increased by an average of about 11,000 per day.
2. At the beginning of the Obama era, 32 million Americans were on food stamps. Today, more than 47 million Americans are on food stamps.
3. According to one calculation, the number of Americans on food stamps now exceeds the combined populations of “Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.”
Read More at thedailysheeple.com . By Michael Snyder.




