Archive for March, 2009

Pandit’s Pay Was $38 Million in 2008

Monday, March 16th, 2009

Pandit’s Pay Was $38 Million in 2008

Citigroup said Pandit’s pay, perks and stocks and options were valued at $38.2 million in 2008, a year in which the company received government bailouts worth about $45 billion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123720964130241001.html
.
.
.

By BHATTIPROLU MURTI

Citigroup Inc. said Monday that Chief Executive Vikram Pandit’s pay, perks and stocks and options were valued at $38.2 million in 2008, a year in which the company received government bailouts worth about $45 billion.

Mr. Pandit’s pay package included

    stock-based awards and option grants valued at $37.3 million at the time of grants early last year, according to a company filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission

.

    The value of the stocks and options has plummeted to $1.83 million as of last Thursday

, when the company’s stock closed at $1.67, down from Jan. 22 grant date closing of $24.40, the company said. Citigroup shares traded recently at $2.55, up 43%.

The CEO’s pay package included a

    salary of $958,333

, all other compensation of $16,193. Mr. Pandit, who became the CEO in December 2007, received a salary of $250,000 in 2007.

Citigroup’s top executives, including Mr. Pandit and former senior counselor Robert Rubin, declined to be considered for bonuses or other incentive or retention compensation for 2008, a move similar to those at other financial companies that received government bailout.

Also, Mr. Pandit has said that he will accept $1 base pay until the company returns to profitability.

    Citigroup said Mr. Pandit reimbursed the company $171,808 related to his personal use of corporate aircraft during 2008.

Under the first two bailouts, the U.S. government gave the company $45 billion. Under the third bailout, the government agreed to a rescue plan in return for a huge stake in Citigroup.

Pay practices at several companies, especially banks, is under close scrutiny following their bailout by the government running into billions of dollars.

Citi Names Four Board Nominees
Citigroup confirmed its quartet of nominees for director slots at next month’s annual meeting, with the names including former Philadelphia Fed chief Anthony Santomero.

The other three names — former U.S. Bancorp Chief Executive Jerry Grundhofer, former Bank of Hawaii Corp. Chief Executive Michael O’Neill and William S. Thompson, former co-head of bond giant Pimco — were reported last week as likely candidates as part of the overhaul of the banking giant’s board.

Mr. Santomero resigned as Philadelphia Fed president in 2006, and has most recently been a senior advisor at consultancy McKinsey & Co. He was a finance professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, experience which Citi was reportedly seeking to add to the board.

Shareholders will vote on the nominations at the company’s April 21 annual meeting.

The board will have 14 members after the annual meeting. Of the 15 current directors, three have said they won’t stand for re-election. Two who have reached the board’s retirement age of 72 will step down by the meeting date. Mr. Parsons added the board will consider future additions.

The 15-person board came under fire from regulators, shareholders, employees and even some top Citigroup executives for failing to adequately oversee the company as it took on greater risk. That set the stage for net losses totaling more than $37 billion in the past five quarters.

—Mike Barris contributed to this article
Write to Bhattiprolu Murti at bhattiprolu.murti@dowjones.com

Obama Braces for a Backlash Over Wall Street Bailouts

Monday, March 16th, 2009

NEWS ANALYSIS

Obama Braces for a Backlash Over Wall Street Bailouts

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: March 15, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is increasingly concerned about a populist backlash against banks and Wall Street, worried that anger at financial institutions could also end up being directed at Congress and the White House and could complicate President Obama’s agenda.

Karin Cooper/CBS, via Associated Press
Lawrence H. Summers on “This Week” called new bonuses at A.I.G. outrageous.
Related
A.I.G. Lists Which Banks It Paid With U.S. Bailout Funds (March 16, 2009)

Blog

The Caucus
The latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
More Politics News
Readers’ Comments
Is President Obama at risk of becoming another target of a backlash against Wall Street?
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (742) »
The administration’s sharp rebuke of the American International Group on Sunday for handing out $165 million in executive bonuses — Lawrence H. Summers, director of the president’s National Economic Council, described it as “outrageous” on “This Week” on ABC — marks the latest effort by the White House to distance itself from abuses that could feed potentially disruptive public anger.

“We’ve got enormous problems that need to be addressed,” David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, said in an interview. “And it’s hard to address because there’s a lot of anger about the irresponsibility that led us to this point.”

“This has been welling up for a long time,” he said.

Mr. Obama’s aides said any surge of such a sentiment could complicate efforts to win Congressional approval for the additional bailout packages that Mr. Obama has signaled will be necessary to stabilize the banking system.

As it is, there have already been moves in Congress to limit compensation to executives at banks and Wall Street firms that are receiving government help to survive.

Beyond that, a shifting political mood challenges Mr. Obama’s political skills, as he seeks to acknowledge the anger without becoming a target of it. A central question for Mr. Obama is whether his cool style — “in a time of crisis, we cannot afford to govern out of anger,” he said in his address to Congress last month — will prove effective when the country may be feeling more emotional.

Even as Mr. Summers was denouncing A.I.G. for the bonuses, he suggested that there was little if anything the government could do to stop them, seconding the conclusion of Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. But even if their reasoning was legally sound, they also risked having the administration look ineffectual in the face of what Mr. Summers said was the worst financial abuse of the last 18 months, since the economy began turning down in earnest.

“Never underestimate the capacity of angry populism in times of economic stress,” said Robert Reich, a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and labor secretary under President Bill Clinton. “A big challenge for President Obama will be to maintain a rational and tactical public discussion in the midst of this severe downturn. The desire for culprits at times like this is strong.”

In a further development, A.I.G. on Sunday named dozens of financial institutions that benefited from its huge rescue loan from the Federal Reserve last fall. The list included Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Wachovia.

On Monday, the White House is expected to unveil proposals to help small businesses, an effort to make clear that the administration is not only focusing its attentions on Wall Street and big corporations like the automakers.

But the financial crisis is the most acute problem facing the administration, one it will not be able to play down. Christina D. Romer, the White House’s chief economist, said Sunday on “Meet the Press” on NBC that the administration was close to unveiling details of its plan to remove the worst of the bad assets from the books of banks, a move sure to refocus attention on winners and losers from bailouts.

The disclosure that A.I.G., which has received $170 billion in government assistance to remain afloat and avert a cascade of failures in the financial system, is paying bonuses to its executives is the latest in a series of episodes that Mr. Obama’s aides said seemed to be feeding a resurgence of public anger.

The public responded angrily to previous disclosures of large bonuses on Wall Street, to auto executives who flew on corporate jets to Washington for Congressional bailout hearings, and to last week’s face-off between Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” and Jim Cramer, the CNBC financial commentator, over the network’s reporting on the crisis.

“There’s unquestionably a strong populist surge out there,” said Joel Benenson, Mr. Obama’s pollster, citing his own polls and focus groups. “It’s been brewing for close to four years. For the last two years, Americans were clearly indicating that they believe that one of the biggest obstacles to progress on America’s toughest challenges — notably health care and energy independence — was the influence of special interests and corporate interests on the agenda in Washington.”

A New York Times/CBS News Poll in February found that 83 percent of respondents said the government should cap the amount of compensation earned by executives of companies that are getting federal assistance.

Mr. Obama’s advisers argued that to at least some extent, this was a sentiment they could tap to push through his measures in Congress, including raising taxes on the wealthy. They pointed out that in his speech to Congress, Mr. Obama denounced corporations that “use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet.”

“The president has been very clear about this,” Mr. Axelrod said. “There is reason for anger, but we also have to solve the problem. We need a functioning credit system. That’s our responsibility, and he intends to meet it.”

Still, aides acknowledged the risks of a backlash as Mr. Obama tries to signal that he shares American anger but pushes for more bail-out money for banks and Wall Street.

For all his political skills and his capturing of the nation’s desire for change in the 2008 election, Mr. Obama, a product of Harvard Law School who calls upscale Hyde Park in Chicago home, has shown little inclination to strike a more populist tone. The danger, aides said, is that if he were to become identified as an advocate for the banks and Wall Street, people could take out their anger on him.

“The change now is you have a free-floating economic anxiety that has expressed itself in a kind of lashing out at those being bailed out and people who are bailing out,” Michael Kazin, a professor at Georgetown University who has written extensively on populism. “There’s not really a sense of what the solution is.”

“I do think there’s a potential for a ‘damn everybody in power’ kind of sentiment,” Mr. Kazin said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/us/politics/16assess.html?_r=1&hp

RBS Reserve Management Trends

Monday, March 16th, 2009

http://www.centralbanking.co.uk/publications/books/rmt09.htm

The 2009 edition of RBS Reserve Management Trends will be published, and available for download here on March 18 2009

Downloadable pdf available 00.01am March 18 2009. Order now
Now in its fifth annual edition, RBS Reserve Management Trends is the world’s leading independent source of hard data on central bank reserve management - data vouchsafed by reserve managers themselves.

Exclusive survey report
The book contains an exclusive report of a survey of 39 central banks, responsible for more than $3 trillion in reserve assets, on their responses to the global financial crisis.

As well as detailed analysis of the answers, all comments and observations volunteered by reserve managers are reproduced in full.

This year the survey provides the first detailed analysis of how central banks have responded to the crisis and how they intend to manage reserves in the light of upheavals in markets around the world.

This year the survey focuses on:

How global financial turmoil has impacted reserve-management policies
How reserve managers view counterparty risk
How central banks reacted to illiquidity in major markets
How views on the assets that are seen as attractive have changed
How central banks will look to diversify
How the amount of reserves will change
The answers may surprise you. Taken together the answers provide a snapshot of how countries manage their reserves at this time of unprecedented market turmoil.

Chapters by specialists
The book features six chapters by expert authors drawn from central banks, academia and the private sector.

Diversification reconsidered
Han van der Hoorn of the European Central Bank rethinks central banks approach to diversification. Does it always reduce risk?

Market meltdown
James Barth, Tong Li and Triphon Phumiwasana explore in depth the turbulence of 2008 in assets of interest to reserve managers.

Global decline
Kit Juckes and David Simmonds analyse what the crisis will mean for the development of reserves at a global level.

Strenght in numbers
For Joshua Aizenman the crisis has shown the benefits of large holdings of reserves for countries around the globe. But how they have used the reserves has varied, he shows.

Policy dilemmas
Could rational reserve management undermine a central bank’s financial stability role? This and other uncomfortable dilemmas are discussed by Ludek Niedermayer, a former vice-governor of the Czech National Bank.

Liquidity risk revisited
Ib Hansen, who heads the financial markets function at the Danish central bank, discusses the impact of the crisis on reserve management there, the intervention of autumn 2008, and how the central bank will be managing liquidity and counterparty risks in the future.

Statistical digest
Comprehensive tables by country displaying in user-friendly form the major trends in foreign exchange and gold reserve holdings, with currency and country breakdowns, and with gold marked to market rather than at an arbitrary historic cost.

RBS Reserve Management Trends 2009 is the fifth in a series of annual publications dedicated to providing an ongoing commentary on official reserve management. The series draws on expert opinion and experience of practitioners to allow central bankers to benchmark their policies against those of their peers.

RBS Reserve Management Trends 2009 is published by Central Banking Publications Ltd, an Incisive Media company. It builds on several previous publications in this field, including How Countries Manage Reserve Assets (2002), purchased by over 80 central banks, and four previous editions of RBS Reserve Management Trends.

page top^
Table of contents

Trends in reserve management – 2009 survey results
Nick Carver and Robert Pringle, Central Banking Publications

Rethinking the risks of diversification
Han van der Hoorn

The credit crunch and yield spreads
James R. Barth, Tong Li and Triphon Phumiwasana

A new era for global reserves
Kit Juckes and David Simmonds

When liquidity and reserve management collide
Ludek Niedermayer

Reserves and the crisis: a reassessment
Joshua Aizenman

Liquidity risk revisited
Interview by Nick Carver

Appendix 1 Survey questionnaire

Appendix 2 Survey replies

Appendix 3 Reserve statistics

Obama Appointees Stretched Thin

Monday, March 16th, 2009

Ambitious Agenda Has Obama Appointees Stretched Thin

 

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has filled nearly twice as many government posts as the previous two presidents did at this point in their first terms. The problem is, the current administration has so much more on its plate that it needs more key people in place to advance its ambitious agenda.

[the top slots in the department of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, right, are still vacant.] Associated Press

The top slots in the department of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are still vacant.

With just 43 confirmed aides seeded among dozens of departments and agencies, the administration in eight weeks has scrambled to wrestle with two wars and multiple economic crises while pushing ahead on a huge fiscal-rescue plan. Obama aides are also crafting sweeping changes to the country’s energy sector, education and health-care systems, and tax policies.

But even supporters are beginning to grumble that the administration may now have more balls in the air than hands to catch them. Strains are beginning to show as agencies regroup to spend the sums pushed their way via the $787 billion stimulus bill while also racing to formulate crucial policies unrelated to the economic crisis.

With a secretary of commerce yet to be confirmed, that agency is leaning on career employees to help develop a plan for doling out some $4.7 billion of stimulus grants and revive the troubled digital-television coupon program. Lawmakers and businesses are clamoring for guidance from the departments of Interior and Energy on billions of dollars in renewable-energy grants and the rules for offshore energy development.

Overseas, the administration faces a range of international challenges and two pivotal summits — the Group of 20 and NATO — lacking most of its top roster of diplomats, including key State Department officials for economics, European affairs and arms control, all of whom are either caught up in prolonged vetting or awaiting Senate confirmation.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D., Conn.), an Obama ally, said at a hearing earlier this month that he found it “deeply troubling” that the Treasury Department was too short-staffed to send anyone to explain its rescue plans for insurance giant American International Group Inc. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner remains his department’s sole confirmed official, even as it has pushed ahead on a vast array of prescriptions for the country’s housing, banking, insurance and auto industries.

And despite the administration’s bold plans on the energy front, Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman said he still has no clear “indication that they have a blueprint that they want Congress to pursue.”

White House officials dismiss the notion that the administration is stretched too thin, saying that Mr. Obama has moved ahead briskly on the hiring front despite some setbacks, and that key decisions haven’t been delayed. “We are moving ahead in quiet and aggressive fashion on a whole array of issues,” said White House spokesman Bill Burton. “When it comes to staffing, we are remarkably ahead of where previous administrations were at this point.”

According to the White House’s tabulation, Mr. Obama by the end of February had inserted 512 staffers scattered throughout government, compared with 288 for the Bush administration and 286 under President Bill Clinton. Of those, 32 Obama aides were for more senior jobs requiring Senate confirmation, compared with 22 under George W. Bush and 25 under Mr. Clinton. The administration by March 1 had hired a striking 183 noncareer senior executives, compared with just two under Mr. Bush and 57 under Mr. Clinton.

What’s different is the workload. Mr. Bush faced no war and no global financial crisis when he arrived in the White House. His administration also started out slowly by comparison on the policy front. Mr. Bush signed his hallmark tax-cut bill more than four months into his presidency, and the No Child Left Behind Act seven months after that.

“There’s no question that [the Obama administration is] on course in terms of filling out the government,” said Terry Sullivan, an expert on presidential transitions who teaches political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “But no one since Roosevelt has had to deal with a similar level of crises the minute they walked in the door.”

Mr. Obama has strewn hundreds of handpicked staffers throughout key agencies, from Health and Human Services to the Treasury. But an unusually high number of them are designated as counselors or advisers, limiting their policy clout and keeping them largely out of the public eye.

The sprawling HHS, with 64,000 employees and a budget of more than $700 billion, now has 26 staffers put in place by Obama, but no confirmed officials in top jobs. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius was nominated last month as HHS secretary, but Senate finance committee staffers say her confirmation paperwork has yet to arrive. HHS officials insist they are steaming ahead on the strength of career staff and strong White House guidance.

On March 6 the agency disbursed to the states $3 billion of new Medicaid funding, the first chunk of $135 billion that will flow through HHS from the stimulus bill.

At the Commerce Department, none of the top slots has been filled, and the administration is on its third nominee for secretary — former Washington Gov. Gary Locke — after the first two picks pulled out.

With most of her department’s top slots still vacant, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now relying largely on a squad of special high-level advisers to push ahead on challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iran and the Middle East.

At Interior, Secretary Ken Salazar is the only Senate-confirmed Obama appointee for a department that manages one-fifth of the land in the U.S.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu is also the lone Senate-confirmed Obama appointee in his vast department, which is now in charge of dispensing roughly $40 billion of stimulus money over the next two years.

—Amy Schatz and Laura Meckler contributed to this article.Write to Neil King Jr. at neil.king@wsj.com and Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123716137102835601.html

Morgan Stanley Says S&P 500 to Drop 25%, Cuts Outlook (Update1)

Sunday, March 15th, 2009

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aUX5fDy9mtbQ&refer=us

Morgan Stanley Says S&P 500 to Drop 25%, Cuts Outlook (Update1)



By Lynn Thomasson

March 13 (Bloomberg) — The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index may fall 25 percent in the next few months as earnings slump for a seventh quarter and the recession deepens, Morgan Stanley said.

The New York-based bank also reduced its year-end S&P 500 forecast by 15 percent to 825, joining four other Wall Street firms that cut their estimate in the past three weeks as stocks tumbled. The average year-end prediction for the S&P 500 is now 983, compared with 1,078 at the start of 2009, based on a Bloomberg News survey.

“The valuation must become outright ‘cheap,’” wrote Jason Todd, Morgan Stanley’s interim replacement for Abhijit Chakrabortti, who left the U.S. equity strategist job in January. “We are not there yet.”

U.S. stocks are still expensive even after the S&P 500 dropped 52 percent in 17 months, according to a method used by Benjamin Graham, the father of value investing and mentor of Warren Buffett. He measured equities against a decade of profits to smooth out distortions, a method that shows the S&P 500 traded at 14.5 times earnings yesterday, according to data compiled by Yale University Professor Robert Shiller. At the bottom of the three worst recessions since 1929, the average ratio fell below 10. To reach that, the S&P 500 would have to sink more than 30 percent.

Plunge to 560

Should the S&P 500 follow Todd’s forecast, the index would tumble to 560 and then surge 47 percent to finish 2009 at 825. Wall Street equity strategists lost credibility last year when none predicted a down year and the average forecast was for a gain of 11 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The stock index plunged 38 percent, the steepest decline since the Great Depression.

Strategists at Barclays Plc, UBS AG, Credit Suisse Group AG and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. have reduced projections this year as the worsening financial crisis drove the S&P 500 to a 17 percent drop in 2009. On March 9, the index slid to the lowest level since September 1996.

“Throughout 2008 we were continually caught out by underestimating the size of markdowns and provisioning for the financial sector,” Todd wrote in a report dated yesterday. “We were bearish but not nearly bearish enough.”

Home prices need to stabilize, financial firms must report smaller losses and earnings at U.S. companies have to improve before Morgan Stanley becomes more bullish on equities, he said. American International Group Inc. reported a $61.7 billion loss, the biggest in U.S. history, last week and U.S. foreclosure filings climbed 30 percent in February from a year earlier, RealtyTrac Inc. said yesterday.

The S&P 500 fell 0.4 percent to 748.11 at 11:33 a.m. in New York today.

To contact the reporter on this story: Lynn Thomasson in New York at lthomasson@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: March 13, 2009 11:47 EDT

Bernanke on 60 Minutes - Part 2

Sunday, March 15th, 2009

Bernanke on 60 Minutes

Sunday, March 15th, 2009

Bernanke Gives Rare TV Interview

Sunday, March 15th, 2009

.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4866969n
.

.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/12/60minutes/main4862191.shtml

Ben Bernanke’s Greatest Challenge

Fed Chairman Discusses Recession, Financial Rescues And Recovery In Wide-Ranging 60 Minutes Interview

(CBS)  Aside from the president he’s the most powerful man working to save the economy, but you have never seen an interview with Ben Bernanke.

Bernanke is the chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, better known as the Fed. The words of any Fed chairman cause fortunes to rise and fall and so, by tradition, chairmen of the Fed do not do interviews - that is until now.

The Federal Reserve controls the economy by setting interest rates. But after the crash of 2008, Bernanke invoked emergency powers, and with unprecedented aggressiveness has thrown a trillion dollars at the crisis.

Ben Bernanke may be the most important Fed chairman in history. The question is, can he help lead America out of this deep recession and when?



“Mr. Chairman, I’m gonna start with a question that everyone wants me to ask: when does this end?” 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley asked Bernanke.”It depends a lot on the financial system,” he replied. “The lesson of history is that you do not get a sustained economic recovery as long as the financial system is in crisis. We’ve seen some progress in the financial markets, absolutely. But until we get that stabilized and working normally, we’re not gonna see recovery. But we do have a plan. We’re working on it. And I do think that we will get it stabilized, and we’ll see the recession coming to an end probably this year. We’ll see recovery beginning next year. And it will pick up steam over time.”

Asked if he thinks the recession is going to end this year, Bernanke said, “In the sense that this decline will begin to moderate and we’ll begin to see leveling off. We won’t be back to full employment. But we will see, I hope, the end of these declines that have been so strong in a last couple of quarters.”

“But you wouldn’t say at this point that we’re out of the woods?” Pelley asked.

“No,” Bernanke replied. “I think the key issue is the banking system and the financial system.”

“Unemployment, as we sit here, is about 8.1 percent. I wonder, do you expect double digit unemployment?” Pelley asked.

“Well, it’s hard to forecast exactly where we’re going. Unemployment is rising. Job losses are still very severe. And no doubt, the unemployment rate’s gonna go higher than it is. But I think, again, that if we do succeed in stabilizing the financial system, that we’ll begin to see a slower pace of decline, and eventually, a stabilization that will set the basis for a recovery,” Bernanke said.

“You seem to be saying that we’re not heading into a new American Depression?” Pelley asked.

“I think we’ve averted that risk. I think we’ve gotten past that and now the problem is to get the thing working properly again,” the chairman said.

Bernanke, age 55, has been chairman of the Federal Reserve Board since 2006. He had previously served as a Fed governor, then chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, before being appointed as Fed chairman by President George W. Bush.

For this interview, he opened up the Fed headquarters, rarely seen by the public. It’s a monumental building along the National Mall. Construction started in 1935 in the depths of the Great Depression.

“You know Mr. Chairman I think the Federal Reserve, for most people, is a mystery,” Pelley remarked.

“Well, it’s an institution that people don’t hear so much about but it’s a very important one. It manages monetary policy for the country. It’s one of the main tools we have for stabilizing our economy and keeping prices stable,” Bernanke said.

Asked when it was founded, Bernanke told Pelley, “The Fed was created by Congress in 1913. And its original purpose was to deal with financial panics, which is what we’re doing right now.”

Bernanke’s crisis started in 2007 with the mortgage meltdown; lenders began to fail. Bernanke cut interest rates repeatedly. In 2008, the Fed stopped the collapse of Bear Stearns by arranging a sale to another firm.

But then came the end of Wall Street as we knew it. Mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were seized by the government. On Sept. 14, Merrill Lynch was sold in distress. The next day, the 158-year-old investment bank Lehman Brothers failed

“You didn’t rescue Lehman Brothers. It set off a worldwide panic when it went bankrupt. And I wonder, looking back, whether you think that was a mistake,” Pelley asked.

“There were many people who said, ‘Let ‘em fail.’ You know, ‘It’s not a problem. The markets will take care of it.’ And I think I knew better than that. And Lehman proved that you cannot let a large internationally active firm fail in the middle of a financial crisis. Now was it a mistake? It wasn’t a mistake for the following reason: we didn’t have the option, we didn’t have the tools. All the Federal Reserve can do is make loans against collateral,” Bernanke replied. .

(CBS)  The day after Lehman, Bernanke’s Fed did something astounding: it loaned $85 billion to a company that wasn’t a bank at all - American International Group (AIG), the global insurance giant that was also involved in backing risky mortgage investments. Bernanke says, unlike Lehman, the Fed could make the loans based on good collateral in AIG’s portfolio.

“There have now been four rescues of AIG, $160 billion. Why is that necessary?” Pelley asked.

“Let me just first say that of all the events and all of the things we’ve done in the last 18 months, the single one that makes me the angriest, that gives me the most angst, is the intervention with AIG. Here was a company that made all kinds of unconscionable bets. Then, when those bets went wrong, we had a situation where the failure of that company would have brought down the financial system,” Bernanke said.

“You say it makes you angry?” Pelley asked.

“It makes me angry. I slammed the phone more than a few times on discussing AIG. I understand why the American people are angry. It’s absolutely unfair that taxpayer dollars are going to prop up a company that made these terrible bets, that was operating out of the sight of regulators, but which we have no choice but the stabilize, or else risk enormous impact, not just in the financial system, but on the whole U.S. economy,” Bernanke explained.

By September, Bernanke and then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson went to Capitol Hill to urge a massive bailout of the banking system, which lawmakers soon passed.

Asked how close of a call it was, Bernanke said, “It was very close. It was very close. The Congress passed the bill that gave Treasury the right to put capital into the banks in the first week of October. And it was in the second week of October that the crisis reached its peak. If we had not had those powers, we could have had a much, much worse outcome. So it was a very dangerous situation.”

“Was anyone on Capitol Hill skeptical? Did they push back at all, you know, ‘Mr. Chairman, it’s probably not quite that bad’?” Pelley asked.

“Well, I do remember one conversation I had where I was addressing a caucus of congressmen. And a congressman said to me, ‘Mr. Chairman, you know, I’m talking to bankers in my town. I’m talking to shopkeepers in my town. And they say things are normal. Nothing’s going on. We don’t see any problem.’ And I turned to him and I said, ‘You will,’” Bernanke recalled.

That second week of October, the Dow fell 18 percent - its worst week in history. At that point, $8 trillion had been lost.

In the crisis, Bernanke had freedom to act immediately - he doesn’t need permission from Congress or the president. While they debated on Capitol Hill, Bernanke cut interest rates nearly to zero; then he used Depression-era emergency powers to launch a dozen rescue programs of his own. There was support for money market funds, mortgages, short term lending to small business, and support for auto loans, student loans and small business loans - commitments of a trillion dollars, doubling the size of the Fed’s balance sheet.

Asked if it’s tax money the Fed is spending, Bernanke said, “It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed, much the same way that you have an account in a commercial bank. So, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money than it is to borrowing.”

“You’ve been printing money?” Pelley asked.

“Well, effectively,” Bernanke said. “And we need to do that, because our economy is very weak and inflation is very low. When the economy begins to recover, that will be the time that we need to unwind those programs, raise interest rates, reduce the money supply, and make sure that we have a recovery that does not involve inflation.”

(CBS)  He’s not kidding about printing money: the Fed issues U.S. currency, which is why it says “Federal Reserve Note” on all the bills in your wallet. The Treasury Department’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing is just a few blocks from Bernanke’s office. It prints the money at the Fed’s request.

The Fed’s mandate from Congress is to put enough money i the system for maximum employment, but not so much that it sets off inflation.

The Fed actually pays for itself and returns billions in profits to the Treasury.

In a sense, Bernanke has been preparing for this emergency his whole professional life. He got a PhD in economics from MIT. He chaired the economics department at Princeton, where his specialty was the Great Depression.

He’s among many economists who now believe it was the Federal Reserve itself that helped turn a recession in 1929 into a global calamity.

“They made two mistakes, basically. One was they let the money supply contract very sharply. Prices fell. Deflation. So monetary policy was, in fact, very contractionary. Very tight during that period. And then the second mistake they made was they let the banks fail. They didn’t make any strong effort to prevent the failure of thousands of banks. And that failure had terrible effects on credit and on the ability of the economy to right itself,” Bernanke explained.

Bernanke told 60 Minutes we were close to a second Depression and he is determined to not let the major banks fail on his watch.

“One of the things that I think many people watching this interview don’t understand, is why there are multiple bailouts, four bailouts of AIG, three bailouts of Citigroup. There is a sense that this is a band-aid approach, that we’re not getting to the root of the problem,” Pelley remarked.

“Well, part of the issue is that, you know, the economy has gotten a good bit worse. You know, the first part of the crisis was subprime and other assets that were toxic. Now, we’re in a second phase, which is that the economy is very weak,” he said. “So the economy’s weakness has meant that some of the initial attempts to stabilize the banks haven’t been enough, and we’ve had to do more.”

“You know, Mr. Chairman, there are so many people outside this building, across this country, who say, ‘To hell with them. They made bad bets. The wages of failure on Wall Street should be failure,’” Pelley remarked.

“Let me give you an analogy, if I might,” Bernanke said. “If you have a neighbor, who smokes in bed. And he’s a risk to everybody. If suppose he sets fire to his house, and you might say to yourself, you know, ‘I’m not gonna call the fire department. Let his house burn down. It’s fine with me.’ But then, of course, but what if your house is made of wood? And it’s right next door to his house? What if the whole town is made of wood? Well, I think we’d all agree that the right thing to do is put out that fire first, and then say, ‘What punishment is appropriate? How should we change the fire code? What needs to be done to make sure this doesn’t happen in the future? How can we fire proof our houses?’ That’s where we are now. We have a fire going on.”

Bernanke told Pelley that “fire” is still burning.

Asked if all the big banks the Fed regulates are solvent, Bernanke said, “I believe they are, yes. But we are doing a stress test right now, where we’re looking at what the positions of the banks are under a tougher economic scenario than the one that we currently expect. And what we plan to do is to say how much capital would each bank need to be well capitalized. Not just solvent, but well capitalized, even in these more adverse scenarios.”

“Are you committing in this interview, that you are not going to let any of these banks fail? That no matter what their balance sheet actually looks like, they are not gonna fail?” Pelley asked.

“They are not gonna fail,” Bernanke said. “But what we can do, should it be necessary, is try to wind it down in a safe way.”

In other words, Bernanke thinks government should stabilize failed financial companies and take them apart slowly. “So, for example, in the case of AIG, we’ve prevented a bankruptcy, because of the chaos that would create. But we’re also demanding that AIG divest itself, sell off its subsidiaries, and use the proceeds to pay back the government,” he said.

“What are the dangers now? What keeps you up at night?” Pelley asked.

“I think the biggest risk is that, you know, we don’t have the political will. We don’t have the commitment to solve this problem, and that we let it just continue. In which case, you know, we can’t count on recovery,” Bernanke said.

The Fed estimates the wealth of American families fell 18 percent in 2008, the worst since the Great Depression.

(CBS)  Ben Bernanke is doing things with the Federal Reserve that have never been done before. It may be because he’s not a creature of Washington or Wall Street.

He grew up, middle class, the smartest kid in a town now falling on hard times. He told Pelley, because the Fed is so powerful, it should be more open.

Bernanke meets with his six fellow governors of the Federal Reserve - all of them appointed by the president of the United States - at the Fed’s headquarters. Bernanke also chairs the Federal Open Market Committee, which decides interest rates.

Those meetings, which take place inside the Fed’s boardroom in Washington, are secret. Asked why, Bernanke took Pelley inside the boardroom and explained, “If we held those things with a TV camera on us it would create lots of volatility and problems in the market. But I should say that, you know, we’ve come a long way. In 1994, when the Fed made a policy decision to change interest rates, wouldn’t even announce that we made a change. But now, after every meeting, we put out a statement, say what we did, explain what we did, why we’re doing it. And three weeks later, we put out minutes to describe everything that happened in the meeting. So we’re becoming much more transparent.”

“When I called and proposed this interview about a year ago, your representative laughed out loud. And said, ‘The Fed chairman never does an interview.’ Why are you doing this?” Pelley asked.

“Well, it’s an extraordinary time. It’s an extraordinary time. This is a chance for me, I think, to talk to America directly,” Bernanke said.

It’s also a chance for America to understand where he comes from.

Ben Shalom Bernanke grew up in one of the few Jewish families in Dillon, S.C., today a town of 6,000 people.

His grandfather, Jonas, immigrated from Eastern Europe, landed at Ellis Island, and came to Dillon to start a drug store.

“Our family came here in 1941. My grandfather, Jonas Bernanke bought this building, made it to the JB Drugs, after his initials,” Bernanke told Pelley.

Later, his father and uncle took over the store which has since become a restaurant.

“We’re sitting on this corner where your family’s store was. And I see it’s Main Street. People feel like guys like you are tuned into what happens on Wall Street and you forget places like this,” Pelley remarked.

“I come from Main Street. That’s my background,” Bernanke said. “I’ve never been on Wall Street. And I care about Wall Street for one reason and one reason only because what happens on Wall Street matters to Main Street. And if we don’t have stabilization in the financial markets, if we don’t take the steps necessary to make sure that credit is flowing again, then my father couldn’t get a loan to build his new store.”

Bernanke and Pelley went to the old neighborhood the Bernankes left years ago. A recent owner couldn’t quite make the mortgage, so the economy literally hit home.

“When you first heard that your childhood home had gone into foreclosure, what did you think?” Pelley asked.

“Well, I was sorry to hear it. But, you know, in a way, I wasn’t surprised. Dillon has taken, you know, a pretty big hit in the economic downturn. Unemployment rate’s about 14 percent. And there have been a good number of foreclosures and plant closings and those things I think about that,” Bernanke said.

Numbers were always Bernanke’s thing: he taught himself calculus and got an SAT score of 1590 out of 1600. A friend talked him into aiming high for college.

“I came home from school one day and there was a phone call for me. And I picked up the phone. They said, ‘This is the Harvard Admissions Department. We’d like to let you know that you’re accepted in the freshman class.’ And I said, ‘Come on, who is this really?’ But my parents had their doubts about my leaving and going too far from home,” Bernanke recalled.

“No! Wait a minute. Your parents weren’t thrilled that you were going to Harvard?” Pelley asked.

“My mother was definitely against it. First of all, she said, you know, ‘You don’t have the clothes. You won’t be able to dress properly for Harvard. And it’s a long way from here. How you gonna come home on holidays and so on.’ So, my parents ate into their savings to let me go, which I’m always grateful for.”
(CBS)  Bernanke helped pay for college working construction and working at “South of the Border” - the future chairman of the Fed wore a poncho and waited tables.

Asked what he learned about work, Bernanke said, “Work is hard, that in order to feed your family and to give your kids opportunities you, it’s not an easy thing.”

Back in the marble confines of the Federal Reserve, Bernanke told Pelley he understands that many Americans are afraid.

“I’ve been kicking around the country. I spoke to a woman in Ohio, who took her son out of college, because she got laid off. I spoke to a woman in Nevada, who has an advanced stage of cancer. And she was told by her county hospital that they couldn’t treat her because a hole had been blown in the state budget. What do you say to those people?” Pelley asked.

“Well, I got into economics, because I wanted to make things better for the average person. When I see a job loss number, 650,000, like we saw last month, I know that’s not just a number. That’s 650,000 lives that have been disrupted. Families that have had to move or take children out of school. Houses that may be in danger of foreclosure. I know something about what people are going through,” Bernanke said.

And that makes it all the more outrageous when he hears of financial firms handing out perks and bonuses after they’ve taken bailout money. “The era of this high living, this is over now. And that they need to be responsible and use the money constructively,” he said.

“And you would say what to those bankers right now in this interview?” Pelley asked.

“I’d say that their job right now is to find a way to make loans to creditworthy borrowers, to get their banks back on the path of making good loans, safe loans, and to have a reasonable sense of humility based on, you know, what’s happened in the last 18 months,” he replied.

We asked Bernanke what it’s been like at the office the last 18 months, with his staff working 80 hour weeks.

“I noticed when we were in your office. You have a couch in there. You [have] been sleeping on that couch?” Pelley asked.

“Once in a while,” Bernanke said. “And sometimes, it goes through the weekend. Sometimes it goes overnight.”

The Federal Reserve is the life blood of the banking system. Its 12 regional banks are clearing houses for commercial banks.

One of the vaults associated with the Reserve Bank is in New York. Robots carry cash in the vault that’s as big as a football field and four stories high. Each pallet, loaded with $100 bills, is worth $64 million. The Fed has 22,000 employees. It clears your checks and your ATM withdrawals. And it provides economic forecasts.

But one of its most important responsibilities is regulating the nation’s biggest banks, to be the watchdog.

“You’re supposed to keep them out of trouble. So, how did all this happen?” Pelley asked.

“Well, a lot of mistakes got made. No question about it. But, you know, this was a much bigger thing than any single firm or any single individual,” Bernanke replied. “Over the last dozen years or so, enormous amounts of savings has flowed into the United States, and some other industrial countries. That savings has come from China and East Asia. It’s come from oil producers. And hundreds of billions of dollars, it has come into our financial system. And, you know, that would be great if we took that money and invested it wisely, and got a high return. But instead, our financial system didn’t do a good job. We had a regulatory system that was like a sandcastle on the beach. When you had little small waves just lapping up against the sand castle, everything looked good. But when you had a big breaker come in, suddenly the system wasn’t strong enough to deal with it.”
“Does the Federal Reserve bear any responsibility for missing what was happening to the banks, as it was happening?” Pelley asked.

“Well, like other regulators, we probably could have done more. We’ve already done a lot of - put a lot of effort into reviewing our practices. And reviewing the bank’s practices. We are trying to strengthen our regulation at every point that we can. So, I don’t want to deny that we certainly could have done a better job, and others could have done a better job,” Bernanke conceded.

Now President Obama and the Congress have a fiscal stimulus plan of nearly $800 billion. There’s that separate bailout for financial firms - at least $700 billion. And plans are developing for a way that would take on the bad debt of crippled institutions.

“There was a panic in 1907. So the Fed was created to prevent that from ever happening again. And then we got the Great Depression. And now we have this. How do we prevent this from occurring another time?” Pelley asked.

“Well, tougher regulation of large firms. It includes having a set of laws that allows us to wind down. A large, internationally active firm, without the adverse impacts on the markets that a disorderly bankruptcy would have. It includes possibly having a systemic regulator. A regulator that has some responsibility to look at the system as a whole,” Bernanke said.

“Your response has been to do what the Fed didn’t do in 1929, and that is pour money into the system. But there’s an argument made today that that’s not what the problem is. The problem isn’t that there’s too little money in the system. The problem is there’s too much fear in the system. That with these companies being propped up by the government, no one on Wall Street can tell who’s solvent and who’s not. And therefore, business does not move,” Pelley pointed out.

“Well, I absolutely agree that confidence is key,” Bernanke said. “People don’t know what’s happening. And they’re afraid. And they’re not sure what, you know, whether or not the system is gonna recover. So, how do you get confidence, that’s the question. And I think the way to get confidence is to show progress.”

Asked if he’s seeing any progress, Bernanke said, “I think all of our efforts, so far, have produced results. We’re buying about $500 billion in mortgages, in package and securities by the G.S.E.s, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And that seems to have brought down mortgage rates significantly. It allows people to refinance. To get out of high rate mortgages. We are seeing progress in the money market mutual funds, and in the business lending area. And I think as those green shoots begin to appear in different markets and as some confidence begins to come back that will begin the positive dynamic that brings our economy back.”

“Do you see green shoots?” Pelley asked.

“I do. I do see green shoots. And not everywhere, but certainly in some of the markets that we’ve been functioning in. And we’ve seen some improvement in the banks, as well,” Bernanke said.

Asked what the first signs of recovery will be, Bernanke told Pelley, “Well, I think that one sign would be that a large bank is successful in raising private equity. Right now, all the private money is sitting on the sidelines saying, ‘We don’t know what these banks are worth. We don’t know that they’re stable.’ And they’re not willing to put their money into the banks.”

“If you had a message for the American People in this interview, what would it be?” Pelley asked.

“Scott, I’d say three things. I’d say, first of all, that the Federal Reserve is here, and is gonna do everything possible to support this recovery. The second thing I would say is that we have to understand, though, that recovery is not gonna happen until the financial markets and the banks are stabilized. And we do have a plan, we have a program for that. But it’s gonna take some patience,” Bernanke said.

“But the third and final thing I’d just like to say to the American People is that I have every confidence that this economy will recover, and recover in a strong and sustained way. The American people are among the most productive in the world. We have the best technologies. We have great universities. We have entrepreneurs. I just have every confidence that as we get through this crisis, that our economy will begin to grow again, and it will remain the most powerful and dynamic economy in the world.”
.

.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/15/AR2009031501678.html?hpid=topnews

Bernanke Gives Rare TV Interview

Bernanke Gives Rare TV Interview
On ‘60 Minutes,’ Fed Chief Tries to Demystify Bailout Approach
By Neil Irwin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 16, 2009; A06

Ben S. Bernanke last night ventured to a place few Federal Reserve chairmen have gone before: In front of TV cameras, for an interview.

The last time a sitting chairman of the secretive central bank did a television interview was Alan Greenspan’s 1987 appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Last night on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Bernanke was confident in the long-term outlook for the U.S. economy, argued strongly that bailouts of financial firms are essential to protect ordinary Americans, and voiced some populist outrage at the actions of financiers who got the nation into its current mess.

“I come from Main Street,” Bernanke told correspondent Scott Pelley, while on the central drag of Dillon, S.C., where Bernanke grew up and his father owned a drugstore. “That’s my background. And I’ve never been on Wall Street. And I care about Wall Street for one reason and one reason only — because what happens on Wall Street matters to Main Street. And if we don’t have stabilization in the financial markets, if we don’t take the steps necessary to make sure that credit is flowing again, then my father couldn’t get a loan to build his new store.”

Before Congress passed the $700 billion financial rescue package, Bernanke told Pelley, the world was “very close” to global financial meltdown. During the debate over the package in September, when a congressman told Bernanke that bankers and businesspeople in his district hadn’t seen any ill effects of the crisis, the Fed chairman replied, “you will.”

Bernanke did not shed new light on the future of the central bank’s policies. Instead, he directed his message at ordinary Americans, using unusually plain language to try to inspire confidence and bolster support for the rescue of the financial system.

Bernanke has taken on a more conversational, sometimes even jaunty tone in recent speeches and congressional testimony, which continued in the “60 Minutes” interview. For example, normally Fed officials speak of “increasing reserves” as their technical language for what ordinary people would call “printing money.” Bernanke was more blunt in the TV interview, saying that the Fed is effectively printing money to boost lending and stimulate the economy.

The appearance also seemed designed to show Americans his human side. Where Fed chairmen traditionally try to maintain aloofness and mystique, Bernanke discussed his mother’s concern about him being so far from home when he was admitted to Harvard as a teenager, said he learned the importance of hard work when he waited tables to help pay for college and admitted to spending a few nights on his office couch in recent months.

Speaking about bankers who received multimillion-dollar bonuses while their companies drove the economy into the ditch and have required government aid, Bernanke said that “the era of this high living, this is over now. And that they need to be responsible and use the money constructively.” He added that they need to “have a reasonable sense of humility” based on the events of the last 18 months.

By tradition, Fed chairmen do not do on-the-record media interviews — a tradition Bernanke has generally held until now. The rare exceptions are usually short quotes in major articles such as a 10,000-word New Yorker profile of him published last year.

But Bernanke has sought to make the Fed more transparent. Just last month, he took extensive questions at the National Press Club, a setting that was as close to a news conference as a Fed chairman has ever come.

In the lengthy segment last night, Pelley said, “when I called and proposed this interview about a year ago, your representative laughed out loud and said, ‘The Fed chairman never does an interview.’ I wonder: Why are you doing this?”

“Well,” Bernanke replied, “it’s an extraordinary time. It’s an extraordinary time. This is a chance for me, I think, to talk to America directly.”

America might hope it goes over better than Greenspan’s 1987 appearance on “Meet the Press.” The following week, the stock had its largest single-day drop in history.