Governor Of Puerto Rico Set To Impose Capital Controls

Yesterday, in the latest plot twist surrounding the inevitable Puerto Rico default, we observed that after the commonwealth island’s Senate passed a surprising bill to impose a debt moratorium on any future debt repayment, its bonds – predictably – tumbled.

 

We also noted that the legislation addressed the Government Development Bank, or GDB, which is facing speculation that it’ll lapse into insolvency. The bank’s receivership process, liquidity and reserve requirements and payment obligations would be suspended indefinitely, according to an analyst’s read of the bill, which also seeks to split the entity into a “good bank” and “bad bank.”

Hedge funds holding debt in the GDB sued on Monday to stop the bank from returning deposits to local government agencies as it faces a growing cash shortage. The funds, which include affiliates of Brigade Capital Management, Claren Road Asset Management and Solus Alternative Asset Management, accused the bank of seeking to “prop up” local agencies at the expense of other creditors. The GDB has a $422 million debt-service payment due May 1.

 

The Government Development Bank serves the dual purpose of providing financial support to local governments and acting as a financial adviser to the commonwealth. The funds, which say they hold a “substantial amount” of almost $3.75 billion in the bank’s outstanding debt, blamed the entity’s deteriorating condition on a “hopeless conflict” between loyalties to Puerto Rico and to creditors.

Fast forward to today, when Puerto Rico Governor Alejandro García Padilla signed a measure into law Wednesday that would enable him to declare a moratorium on the commonwealth’s debt payments, mere hours after it cleared the Legislature amid concerns of securing enough support in the lower chamber and a full-court press by creditor lobbyists demanding changes to the bill.

What was more troubling is that in a move similar to what we have seen in Greece, only this time a voluntary one on behalf of the island and not its vassal owners (as happened with Greece), the newly signed Puerto Rico Emergency Moratorium & Financial Rehabilitation Act also empowers the governor to order the financially battered Government Development Bank (GDB) to restrict the outflow of cash in a bid to stabilize its dwindling liquidity levels, which stood at roughly $560 million as of April 1, according to the bill.

In other words, capital controls.  

This, incidentally, confirms what we said yesterday, when we concluded that “the situation is getting messier by the day with a compromise deal now seemingly impossible – absent a US government bailout – and meanwhile Puerto Rico’s money is running out, which will ultimately be the decisive catalyst that leads to the next step in the crisis.

That moment may have just arrived.

As Caribbean Business writes, García Padilla plans to sign an executive order to this effect immediately following the enactment of the moratorium legislation, sources said.

Several sources told Caribbean Business the urgency to enact the bill stems from concerns that municipalities and other public entities will request the withdrawal of funds each entity holds in the bank, which would further jeopardize the GDB’s operations.

Acting under the Puerto Rico Constitution’s police powers, the law allows the governor to declare a moratorium on the commonwealth’s entire debt, as well as a stay against any litigation that may result. The measure amends, or “modernizes,” the receivership process of not only the GDB, but also of the Economic Development Bank. If the GDB is placed under the new receivership process, a temporary “bridge” bank could be created to carry out some of the GDB’s functions and honor deposits.

The law also creates a new entity, called the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency & Financial Authority, that essentially takes over the GDB’s roles as the island’s fiscal agent and financial adviser. The entity’s board consists of only one member, and in addition to its fiscal agent duties, will take charge of the commonwealth’s debt-restructuring efforts.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1TCJNhm Tyler Durden

Guest Post: Why Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speeches Are Relevant

By Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org

On the fake-‘progressive’ (actually conservative-Democratic-Party) website that’s run by a longtime CIA asset Markos Moulitsas, “Daily Kos,” there was posted on February 24th an article by “motocat”, headlined, “I have personally been to a closed door corporate Clinton speech. This is what I experienced.” This person, he or she, didn’t indicate what the speech said, other than “how disappointing the whole thing was,” and, that it was a speech by Bill Clinton, not Hillary Clinton, and “It made me feel sort of sad to see how old and feeble he looked. The last time I had seen Bill speak was when he was running for his first term as President. He looked like a different man.”

Then the author went into speculation about what might be in Hillary Clinton’s speeches:

“Everyone wondering what Hillary possibly could have said in 30 minutes that was worth 250K is missing the point. These people are celebrities. They are booked to deliver paid speeches, because it benefits those who book them in some way. You might as well ask what Kanye West could possibly say in 45 minutes at Madison Square Garden that would be worth 250K to the promoter.

I have no doubt that Hillary does not want to release the transcripts of those speeches because those pouring through them for a gotcha news story or to prove a point, will surely find praise for the institutions she was speaking on behalf of. In this political climate, that would be a bad news cycle for her. I also have no doubt that she also showered glowing praise on the countless colleges whose commission speeches she spoke at, as well as praised the accomplishments of whatever non-profit she spoke on behalf of. Does anyone really think her speech to the US Green building council in 2013 was fair and balanced about negative aspects of what the Green building council has done? No. These are performances for a purpose.

Personally, I am surprised she just doesn’t come out and say the following.

‘For many years I worked as a paid speaker. I gave speeches to many different organizations in many different industries, who all paid me very well. It was my job, and part of my job was to be inspiring, encouraging, and flattering to those people in the audience and those who paid me.’

I’m not sure what people expect to find in these corporate event speeches she gave dozens of throughout the year. Backroom promises? Revelations about how she plans to screw the middle class? Confessions of cardinal sins? No company or speaker would be so stupid as to include that sort of thing in a corporate event speech anyway.

There are many important issues to be focusing on right now in this race and debate, but this isn’t one of them.”

There were over a thousand reader-comments to that idiotic article, as of April 1st, and then it said: “Comments are closed on this story.” The readers who had gotten through the article and were sufficiently struck by it to enter a comment to it were generally debating each other, via comments such as “What makes the diarist think that a pubic [that person’s perhaps Freudian misspelling of ‘public’] event selling tickets has any comparison to the intimate and closed door speeches given by the Clintons to the upper echelon of high finance?” versus (responding to that one): “or the private intimate talks by Bernie and with his supporters. How doe [that person’s misspelling of ‘do’, of course] we know Bernie has not promised something.” In other words: a foolish article elicited over a thousand comments from foolish readers, at that Democratic-Party propaganda site. They’re just the Democratic Party equivalent of Rush Limbaugh’s Republican-Party fools – no different, except for the labels they give themselves.

Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches (which none of those fools knew anything about – not even the article’s writer did) are not relevant because of anything that they said (which was public to all attendees; her meaningful comments might have been made privately to the executive who had hired her for the speech), but because the organizations that paid typically $225,000 to her, for each of them, were paying a servant, for extremely valuable services that that servant is being expected to provide to the owners and top executives of that organization if that servant becomes the U.S. President (or, in the case of her husband Bill) for valuable services that already were provided by that servant when he was a President. They’re pay-offs, for services that are anticipated, or else that have already been provided. They are not (such as the author was assuming) for “the speech.”

The fools who had read that article weren’t commenting about how atrocious and stupid it was; they were debating with each other, on the basis of their ignorance and stupidity, which enabled that article to hold their interest and then to engage comments from them upon other idiots’ comments about it.

This is how enough of such self-characterizing ‘liberal’ voters become suckered into voting for a far-right (except on ‘social’ issues) candidate who is as atrocious and unqualified to serve as President as is Hillary Clinton.

However, if her speeches are relevant as prospective, and/or retrospective, pay-offs to her, then who and what are these groups that have been providing these pay-offs to her: Here’s the complete list, as it was tabulated and posted online in March by the lawyer Paul Campos (then copied without credit to him, by several others). And, as you can see, they are anything but “the countless colleges whose commission speeches she spoke at, as well as praised the accomplishments of whatever non-profit she spoke on behalf of.”

http://ift.tt/1M0eqpx

DATE EVENT LOCATION FEE

  • March 19, 2015 American Camping Association Atlantic City, NJ $260,000.00
  • March 11, 2015 eBay Inc. San Jose, CA $315,000.00
  • February 24, 2015 Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women Santa Clara, CA $225,500.00
  • January 22, 2015 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Whistler, Canada $150,000.00
  • January 21, 2015 tinePublic Inc. Winnipeg, Canada $262,000.00
  • January 21, 2015 tinePublic Inc. Saskatoon, Canada $262,500.00
  • December 4, 2014 Massachusetts Conference for Women Boston, MA $205,500.00
  • October 14, 2014 Salesforce.com San Francisco, CA $225,500.00
  • October 14, 2014 Qualcomm Incorporated San Diego, CA $335,000.00
  • October 13, 2014 Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers Colorado Springs, CO $225,500.00
  • October 8, 2014 Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) Chicago, IL $265,000.00
  • October 7, 2014 Deutsche Bank AG New York, NY $280,000.00
  • October 6, 2014 Canada 2020 Ottawa, Canada $215,500.00
  • October 2, 2014 Commercial Real Estate Women Network Miami Beach, FL $225,500.00
  • September 15, 2014 Cardiovascular Research Foundation Washington, DC $275,000.00
  • September 4, 2014 Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP San Diego, CA $225,500.00
  • August 28, 2014 Nexenta System, Inc. San Francisco, CA $300,000.00
  • August 28, 2014 Cisco Las Vegas, NV $325,000.00
  • July 29, 2014 Corning, Inc. Corning, NY $225,500.00
  • July 26, 2014 Ameriprise Boston, MA $225,500.00
  • July 22, 2014 Knewton, Inc. San Francisco, CA $225,500.00
  • June 26, 2014 GTCR Chicago, IL $280,000.00
  • June 25, 2014 Biotechnology Industry Organization San Diego, CA $335,000.00
  • June 25, 2014 Innovation Arts and Entertainment San Francisco, CA $150,000.00
  • June 20, 2014 Innovation Arts and Entertainment Austin, TX $150,000.00
  • June 18, 2014 tinePublic Inc. Toronto, Canada $150,000.00
  • June 18, 2014 tinePublic Inc. Edmonton, Canada $100,000.00
  • June 10, 2014 United Fresh Produce Association Chicago, IL $225,000.00
  • June 2, 2014 International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association Denver, CO $225,500.00
  • June 2, 2014 Let’s Talk Entertainment Denver, CO $265,000.00
  • May 6, 2014 National Council for Behavorial Healthcare Washington, DC $225,500.00
  • April 11, 2014 California Medical Association (via Satellite) San Diego, CA $100,000.00
  • April 10, 2014 Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. Las Vegas, NV $225,500.00
  • April 10, 2014 Let’s Talk Entertainment San Jose, CA $265,000.00
  • April 8, 2014 Marketo, Inc. San Francisco, CA $225,500.00
  • April 8, 2014 World Affairs Council Portland, OR $250,500.00
  • March 24, 2014 Academic Partnerships Dallas, TX $225,500.00
  • March 18, 2014 Xerox Corporation New York, NY $225,000.00
  • March 18, 2014 Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal Montreal, Canada $275,000.00
  • March 13, 2014 Pharmaceutical Care Management Association Orlando, FL $225,500.00
  • March 13, 2014 Drug Chemical and Associated Technologies New York, NY $250,000.00
  • March 6, 2014 tinePublic Inc. Calgary, Canada $225,500.00
  • March 5, 2014 The Vancouver Board of Trade Vancouver, Canada $275,500.00
  • March 4, 2014 Association of Corporate Counsel – Southern California Los Angeles, CA $225,500.00
  • February 27, 2014 A&E Television Networks New York, NY $280,000.00
  • February 26, 2014 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society Orlando, FL $225,500.00
  • February 17, 2014 Novo Nordisk A/S Mexico City, Mexico $125,000.00
  • February 6, 2014 Salesforce.com Las Vegas, NV $225,500.00
  • January 27, 2014 National Automobile Dealers Association New Orleans, LA $325,500.00
  • January 27, 2014 Premier Health Alliance Miami, FL $225,500.00
  • January 6, 2014 GE Boca Raton, FL $225,500.00
  • November 21, 2013 U.S. Green Building Council Philadelphia, PA $225,000.00
  • November 18, 2013 CME Group Naples, FL $225,000.00
  • November 18, 2013 Press Ganey Orlando, FL $225,000.00
  • November 14, 2013 CB Richard Ellis, Inc. New York, NY $250,000.00
  • November 13, 2013 Mediacorp Canada, Inc. Toronto, Canada $225,000.00
  • November 9, 2013 National Association of Realtors San Francisco, CA $225,000.00
  • November 7, 2013 Golden Tree Asset Management New York, NY $275,000.00
  • November 6, 2013 Beaumont Health System Troy, MI $305,000.00
  • November 4, 2013 Mase Productions, Inc. Orlando, FL $225,000.00
  • November 4, 2013 London Drugs, Ltd. Mississauga, ON $225,000.00
  • October 29, 2013 The Goldman Sachs Group Tuscon, AZ $225,000.00
  • October 28, 2013 Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago $400,000.00
  • October 27, 2013 Beth El Synagogue Minneapolis, MN $225,000.00
  • October 24, 2013 Accenture New York, NY $225,000.00
  • October 24, 2013 The Goldman Sachs Group New York, NY $225,000.00
  • October 23, 2013 SAP Global Marketing, Inc. New York, NY $225,000.00
  • October 15, 2013 National Association of Convenience Stores Atlanta, GA $265,000.00
  • October 4, 2013 Long Island Association Long Island, NY $225,000.00
  • September 19, 2013 American Society of Travel Agents, Inc. Miami, FL $225,000.00
  • September 18, 2013 American Society for Clinical Pathology Chicago, IL $225,000.00
  • August 12, 2013 National Association of Chain Drug Stores Las Vegas, NV $225,000.00
  • August 7, 2013 Global Business Travel Association San Diego, CA $225,000.00
  • July 11, 2013 UBS Wealth Management New York, NY $225,000.00
  • June 24, 2013 American Jewish University University City, CA $225,000.00
  • June 24, 2013 Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Company, LP Palos Verdes, CA $225,000.00
  • June 20, 2013 Boston Consulting Group, Inc. Boston, MA $225,000.00
  • June 20, 2013 Let’s Talk Entertainment, Inc. Toronto, Canada $250,000.00
  • June 17, 2013 Economic Club of Grand Rapids Grand Rapids, MI $225,000.00
  • June 16, 2013 Society for Human Resource Management Chicago, IL $285,000.00
  • June 6, 2013 Spencer Stuart New York, NY $225,000.00
  • June 4, 2013 The Goldman Sachs Group Palmetto Bluffs, SC $225,000.00
  • May 29, 2013 Sanford C. Bernstein and Co., LLC New York, NY $225,000.00
  • May 21, 2013 Verizon Communications, Inc. Washington, DC $225,000.00
  • May 16, 2013 Itau BBA USA Securities New York, NY $225,000.00
  • May 14, 2013 Apollo Management Holdings, LP New York, NY $225,000.00
  • May 8, 2013 Gap, Inc. San Francisco, CA $225,000.00
  • April 30, 2013 Fidelity Investments Naples, FL $225,000.00
  • April 24, 2013 Deutsche Bank Washington, DC $225,000.00
  • April 24, 2013 National Multi Housing Council Dallas, TX $225,000.00
  • April 18, 2013 Morgan Stanley Washington, DC $225,000.00

— 

None of the 91 speeches was to a college, nor to any other such type of organization.

At zerohedge, the payments for all the speeches were totaled to: $21,667,000.

Here are some of the other routes through which she is also preparing for her ultimate retirement (and her and Bill’s bequest to daughter Chelsea): arms deals, oil and gas (and here), and donors.

Anyone who would presume that Hillary Clinton gets paid those types of fees for “her speeches,” because she’s a “celebrity,” needs to go back to elementary school. (But, of course, since the aristocracy are in control of the country, the elementary schools aren't even teaching about such matters – nor are the high schools, which should be.)

In other words: her paid speeches are just a part of the legal graft she’s in politics for. “You might as well ask what Kanye West could possibly say in 45 minutes at Madison Square Garden that would be worth 250K to the promoter.” No, it’s not like that, at all.

Hillary Clinton is no Kanye West. She makes her money in a very different way. Serving a far wealthier clientele. What she serves them, is us.

After all: how else would you get a wealth-distribution that’s like this?

It requires lots of lies, and lots of suckers for them, to make them believe in “the system.”

To produce the meat, shepherds are needed; and people such as Hillary Clinton are specialized in doing that type of job.

Hello, meat; this is the farm.

 


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/25LRHK2 Tyler Durden

Panama Tax Haven Leak: The Bigger Picture

A Huge Leak

The “Panama Papers” tax haven leak is big …

After all, the Prime Minister of Iceland resigned over the leak, and investigations are taking place worldwide over the leak.

But Why Is It Mainly Focusing On Enemies of the West?

But the Panama Papers reporting mainly focuses on friends of Russia’s Putin, Assad’s Syria and others disfavored by the West.

Former British Ambassador Craig Murray notes:

Whoever leaked the Mossack Fonseca papers appears motivated by a genuine desire to expose the system that enables the ultra wealthy to hide their massive stashes, often corruptly obtained and all involved in tax avoidance. These Panamanian lawyers hide the wealth of a significant proportion of the 1%, and the massive leak of their documents ought to be a wonderful thing.

 

Unfortunately the leaker has made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate media to publicise the results. In consequence the first major story, published today by the Guardian, is all about Vladimir Putin and a cellist on the fiddle. As it happens I believe the story and have no doubt Putin is bent. 

 

But why focus on Russia? Russian wealth is only a tiny minority of the money hidden away with the aid of Mossack Fonseca. In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the selective reporting is going to stink. 

 

The Suddeutsche Zeitung, which received the leak, gives a detailed explanation of the methodology the corporate media used to search the files. The main search they have done is for names associated with breaking UN sanctions regimes. The Guardian reports this too and helpfully lists those countries as Zimbabwe, North Korea, Russia and Syria. The filtering of this Mossack Fonseca information by the corporate media follows a direct western governmental agenda. There is no mention at all of use of Mossack Fonseca by massive western corporations or western billionaires – the main customers. And the Guardian is quick to reassure that “much of the leaked material will remain private.”

 

What do you expect? The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists”, which is funded and organised entirely by the USA’s Center for Public Integrity. Their funders include

 

Ford Foundation
Carnegie Endowment
Rockefeller Family Fund
W K Kellogg Foundation
Open Society Foundation (Soros)

 

among many others. Do not expect a genuine expose of western capitalism. The dirty secrets of western corporations will remain unpublished.

 

Expect hits at Russia, Iran and Syria and some tiny “balancing” western country like Iceland. A superannuated UK peer or two will be sacrificed – someone already with dementia.

 

The corporate media – the Guardian and BBC in the UK – have exclusive access to the database which you and I cannot see.

They are protecting themselves from even seeing western corporations’ sensitive information by only looking at those documents which are brought up by specific searches such as UN sanctions busters. Never forget the Guardian smashed its copies of the Snowden files on the instruction of MI6. 

 

What if they did Mossack Fonseca database searches on the owners of all the corporate media and their companies, and all the editors and senior corporate media journalists? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on all the most senior people at the BBC? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every donor to the Center for Public Integrity and their companies?

 

What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every listed company in the western stock exchanges, and on every western millionaire they could trace?

 

That would be much more interesting. I know Russia and China are corrupt, you don’t have to tell me that. What if you look at things that we might, here in the west, be able to rise up and do something about?

 

And what if you corporate lapdogs let the people see the actual data? 

Indeed, Wikileaks comments:

Washington DC based Ford, Soros funded soft-power tax-dodge “ICIJ” has a WikiLeaks problem https://http://twitter.com/ChMadar/status/717395684207550467 

And:

Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros.

U.S. Companies Use Foreign Tax Evasion

American companies are big users of foreign tax havens.  For example, we pointed out in 2014:

American multinationals pay much less in taxes than they should because they use a widespread variety of tax-avoidance scams and schemes, including …  Pretending they are headquartered in tax havens like Bermuda, the Cayman Islands or Panama, so that they can enjoy all of the benefits of actually being based in America (including the use of American law and the court system, listing on the Dow, etc.), with the tax benefits associated with having a principal address in a sunny tax haven.

 

***

 

U.S. Public Interest Research Group notes:

Tax haven abusers benefit from America’s markets, public infrastructure, educated workforce, security and rule of law – all supported in one way or another by tax dollars – but they avoid paying for these benefits. Instead, ordinary taxpayers end up picking up the tab, either in the form of higher taxes, cuts to public spending priorities, or increases to the federal debt.

USPIRG continues:

The United States loses approximately $184 billion in federal and state revenue each year due to corporations and individuals using tax havens to dodge taxes. On average, every filer who fills out a 1040 individual income tax form would need to pay an additional $1,259 in taxes to make up for the revenue lost.

  • Pfizer, the world’s largest drug maker, paid no U.S. income taxes between 2010 and 2012 despite earning $43 billion worldwide. In fact, the corporation received more than $2 billion in federal tax refunds. In 2013, Pfizer operated 128 subsidiaries in tax haven countries and had $69 billion offshore and out of the reach of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
  • Microsoft maintains five tax haven subsidiaries and stashed $76.4 billion overseas in 2013. If Microsoft had not booked these profits offshore, they would have owed an additional $24.4 billion in taxes.
  • Citigroup, bailed out by taxpayers in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, maintained 21 subsidiaries in tax haven countries in 2013, and kept $43.8 billion in offshore jurisdictions. If that money had not been booked offshore, Citigroup would have owed an additional $11.7 billion in taxes.

Al Jazeera reports:

Rich individuals and their families have as much as $32 trillion of hidden financial assets in offshore tax havens, representing up to $280bn in lost income tax revenues, according to research published on Sunday.

 

***

“We’re talking about very big, well-known brands – HSBC, Citigroup, Bank of America, UBS, Credit Suisse – some of the world’s biggest banks are involved… and they do it knowing fully well that their clients, more often than not, are evading and avoiding taxes.”

 

Much of this activity, Christensen added, was illegal.

So the Panama Papers stories haven’t focused on it, but U.S. corporations are hiding huge sums of money in foreign tax havens.

Obama and Clinton Enabled Panamanian Tax Evasion Havens

Of course, Obama and Hillary Clinton enabled and supported Panama’s ability to act as a tax evasion haven.

So it’s a little disingenuous for them now to say we should “crack down” on tax havens.

US and UK – Not Panama – Biggest Tax Havens for Money Laundering Criminals and Tax Cheats

But the bigger story is that America is the world’s largest tax haven … with the UK in a close second-place position.

The Guardian noted last year:

The US has overtaken Singapore, Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands as an attractive haven for super-rich individuals and businesses looking to shelter assets behind a veil of secrecy, according to a study by the Tax Justice Network (TJN).

Bloomberg  headlined in January, The World’s Favorite New Tax Haven Is the United States:

After years of lambasting other countries for helping rich Americans hide their money offshore, the U.S. is emerging as a leading tax and secrecy haven for rich foreigners. By resisting new global disclosure standards, the U.S. is creating a hot new market, becoming the go-to place to stash foreign wealth. Everyone from London lawyers to Swiss trust companies is getting in on the act, helping the world’s rich move accounts from places like the Bahamas and the British Virgin Islands to Nevada, Wyoming, and South Dakota.

 

“How ironic—no, how perverse—that the USA, which has been so sanctimonious in its condemnation of Swiss banks, has become the banking secrecy jurisdiction du jour,” wrote Peter A. Cotorceanu, a lawyer at Anaford AG, a Zurich law firm, in a recent legal journal. “That ‘giant sucking sound’ you hear? It is the sound of money rushing to the USA.”

 

Rothschild, the centuries-old European financial institution, has opened a trust company in Reno, Nev., a few blocks from the Harrah’s and Eldorado casinos. It is now moving the fortunes of wealthy foreign clients out of offshore havens such as Bermuda, subject to the new international disclosure requirements, and into Rothschild-run trusts in Nevada, which are exempt.

 

The U.S. “is effectively the biggest tax haven in the world” —Andrew Penney, Rothschild & Co.

 

***

 

Others are also jumping in: Geneva-based Cisa Trust Co. SA, which advises wealthy Latin Americans, is applying to open in Pierre, S.D., to “serve the needs of our foreign clients,” said John J. Ryan Jr., Cisa’s president.

 

Trident Trust Co., one of the world’s biggest providers of offshore trusts, moved dozens of accounts out of Switzerland, Grand Cayman, and other locales and into Sioux Falls, S.D., in December, ahead of a Jan. 1 disclosure deadline.

 

“Cayman was slammed in December, closing things that people were withdrawing,” said Alice Rokahr, the president of Trident in South Dakota, one of several states promoting low taxes and confidentiality in their trust laws. “I was surprised at how many were coming across that were formerly Swiss bank accounts, but they want out of Switzerland.”

 

***

 

One wealthy Turkish family is using Rothschild’s trust company to move assets from the Bahamas into the U.S., he said. Another Rothschild client, a family from Asia, is moving assets from Bermuda into Nevada. He said customers are often international families with offspring in the U.S.

Forbes points out that the U.S. is not practicing what it is preaching:

A report by the Tax Justice Network says that the U.S. doesn’t even practice what it preaches. Indeed, the report ranks America as one of the worst. How bad? Worse than the Cayman Islands. The report claims that America has refused to participate in the OECD’s global automatic information exchange for bank data. The OECD has been designing and implementing the system to target tax evasion. Given the IRS fixation on that topic, you might think that the U.S. would join in.

 

However, it turns out that the United States jealously guards its information. The Tax Justice Network says the IRS is stingy with data. Of course, with FATCA, America has more data than anyone else. FATCA, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act is up and running. The IRS says it is now swapping taxpayer data reciprocally with other countries. The IRS says it will only engage in reciprocal exchanges with foreign jurisdictions meeting the IRS’s stringent safeguard, privacy, and technical standards.

The Tax Justice Network report blasts the U.S. for being a one-way street:

The United States, which has for decades hosted vast stocks of financial and other wealth under conditions of considerable secrecy, has moved up from sixth to third place in our index. It is more of a cause for concern than any other individual country – because of both the size of its offshore sector, and also its rather recalcitrant attitude to international co-operation and reform. Though the U.S. has been a pioneer in defending itself from foreign secrecy jurisdictions, aggressively taking on the Swiss banking establishment and setting up its technically quite strong Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) – it provides little information in return to other countries, making it a formidable, harmful and irresponsible secrecy jurisdiction at both the Federal and state levels. (Click here for a short explainer; See our special report on the USA for more).”

The Washington Post writes:

One of the least recognized facts about the global offshore industry is that much of it, in fact, is not offshore. Indeed, some critics of the offshore industry say the U.S. is now becoming one of the world’s largest “offshore” financial destinations.

 

***

 

A 2012 study in which researchers sent more than 7,400 email solicitations to more than 3,700 corporate service providers — the kind of companies that typically register shell companies, such as the Corporation Trust Company at 1209 North Orange St. — found that the U.S. had the laxest regulations for setting up a shell company anywhere in the world outside of Kenya. The researchers impersonated both low- and high-risk customers, including potential money launderers, terrorist financiers and corrupt officials.

 

Contrary to popular belief, notorious tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, Jersey and the Bahamas were far less permissive in offering the researchers shell companies than states such as Nevada, Delaware, Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming and New York, the researchers found.

 

***

 

“In some places [in the U.S.], it’s easier to incorporate a company than it is to get a library card,” Joseph Spanjers of Global Financial Integrity, a research and advocacy organization that wants to curtail illicit financial flows, said in an interview earlier this year.

 

***

 

Too often, however, shell companies are used as a vehicle for criminal activity — disguising wealth from tax authorities, financing terrorism, concealing fraudulent schemes, or laundering funds from corruption or the trafficking in drugs, people and arms.

 

***

 

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, a group of 34 advanced countries, drew up its own tough tax disclosure requirements, called Common Reporting Standards, and asked roughly 100 countries and jurisdictions around the world to approve them. Only a handful of countries have refused, including Bahrain, Vanuatu and the United States.

Bloomberg reports:

Advisers around the world are increasingly using the U.S. resistance to the OECD’s standards as a marketing tool — attracting overseas money to U.S. state-level tax and secrecy havens like Nevada and South Dakota, potentially keeping it hidden from their home governments.

Salon notes:

Several states – Delaware, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming – specialize in incorporating anonymous shell corporations. Delaware earns between one-quarter and one-third of their budget from incorporation fees, according to Clark Gascoigne of the FACT Coalition. The appeal of this revenue has emboldened small states, and now Wyoming bank accounts are the new Swiss bank accounts. America has become a lure, not only for foreign elites looking to seal money away from their own governments, but to launder their money through the purchase of U.S. real estate.

And the UK is a giant swamp of tax evasion and laundering as well …

The Independent reported last year:

The City of London is the money-laundering centre of the world’s drug trade, according to an internationally acclaimed crime expert.

 

***

 

His warning follows a National Crime Agency (NCA) threat assessment which stated: “We assess that hundreds of billions of US dollars of criminal money almost certainly continue to be laundered through UK banks, including their subsidiaries, each year.”

 

Last month, the NCA warned that despite the UK’s role in developing international standards to tackle money laundering, the continued extent of it amounts to a “strategic threat to the UK’s economy and reputation”. It added that the same money-laundering networks used by organised crime were being used by terrorists as well.

 

***

 

Interviewed by The Independent on Sunday, Mr Saviano said of the international drugs trade that “Mexico is its heart and London is its head”. He said the cheapness and the ease of laundering dirty money through UK-based banks gave London a key role in drugs trade. “Antonio Maria Costa of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime found that drug trafficking organisations were blatantly recycling dirty money through European and American banks, but no one takes any notice,” he said. “He found that banks were welcoming dirty money because they need cash, liquidity during the financial crisis. The figures are too big to be rejected …. Yet there was no reaction.”

(Background.)

In a separate article, the Independent wrote:

Billions of pounds of corruptly gained money has been laundered by criminals and foreign officials buying upmarket London properties through anonymous offshore front companies – making the city arguably the world capital of money laundering.

 

The flow of corrupt cash has driven up average prices with a “widespread ripple effect down the property price chain and beyond London”, according to property experts cited in the most comprehensive study ever carried out into the long-suspected money laundering route through central London real estate, by the respected anti-corruption organisation Transparency International.

 

***

 

Any anonymous company in a secret location, such as the British Virgin Islands, can buy and sell houses in the UK with no disclosure of who the actual purchaser is. Meanwhile, TI said, estate agents only have to carry out anti-money-laundering checks on the person selling the property, leaving the buyers bringing their money into the country facing little, if any scrutiny.

 

***

 

Detective Chief Inspector Jon Benton, director of operations at the Proceeds of Corruption Unit, said: “Properties that are purchased with illicit money, which is often stolen from some of the poorest people in the world, are nearly always layered through offshore structures.

 

***

 

Companies set up in the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories such as Jersey, British Virgin Islands and Gibraltar are the preferred option for concealment of corrupt property purchases.

 

More than a third of company-owned London houses are held by effectively anonymous firms ….

TruePublica notes:

The consequence of its operations is that money laundering is now at such levels and so widespread that the authorities have recently admitted defeat in its battle of attrition by stating openly it has been completely overwhelmed and lost control. Keith Bristow Director-General of the UK’s National Crime Agency said just six months ago that the sheer scale of crime and its subsequent money laundering operations was “a strategic threat” to the country’s economy and reputation and that “high-end money laundering is a major risk”.

Indeed:

TJN  [the Tax Justice Network] says the UK would be ranked as the worst offender in the world if considered along with the three Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man) and the 14 Overseas Territories (including notorious tax havens such as Bermuda, the Cayman and Virgin islands).

 

In their 2015 Index, TJN state: “Overall, the City of London and these offshore satellites constitute by far the most important part of the global offshore world of secrecy jurisdictions.”

For background on the Isle of Jersey, see this Newsweek article.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1REQoGP George Washington

European “Continental Crisis” Hinges On Critical Threshold In Dutch Referendum

In early January, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker warned that a Dutch advisory referendum, which took place today, on the bloc’s association agreement with Ukraine could lead to a “continental crisis” if voters reject the treaty.

In an interview in January for Dutch daily NRC Handelsblad, Juncker said Russia would “pluck the fruits” of a vote in the Netherlands against deepened ties between the European Union and Ukraine. “I want the Dutch to understand that the importance of this question goes beyond the Netherlands,” NRC quoted Juncker as saying. “I don’t believe the Dutch will say no, because it would open the door to a big continental crisis.”

The reason why “When it gets serious, you have to lie” Juncker is so nervous, is that the vote, launched by anti-EU forces, is seen as test of the strength of eurosceptics on the continent just three months before Britain votes on whether to stay in the European Union.

Fast forward to today when the vote has just taken place, and based on initial exit polls, Juncker was dead wrong. According to Reuters, in a rebuke for the government, which campaigned in favor of the EU-Ukraine association agreement, roughly 64 percent voted “No” and 36 percent said “Yes”. 

As a reminder, the political, trade and defense treaty is already provisionally in place but has to be ratified by all 28 European Union member states for every part of it to have full legal force. The Netherlands is the only country that has not done so.

And, it appears, that in a big hit for those who had plotted the Ukraine ascension, the Dutch may have just frozen Ukraine dead in its tracks.

According to Reuters, Eurosceptics had presented the referendum as a rare opportunity for their countrymen to cast a vote against the EU and the way it is run – including its open immigration policies. 

But here lies the rub. Although it is non-binding, it will be considered as an advisory referendum by the government if turnout reaches 30 percent. Otherwise it will be considered null and void and need not be taken into consideration by the government.

And while according to some initial exit polls, the turnout was just 28%, or below the required threshold, the most recent data has the turnout as 32%, or sufficient.

Still, this number may change before the night is over, so keep a close eye on this otherwise insignificant vote in the Netherlands as it may have momentuous consequences for the country and the entire European project.

The turnout, far lower than in national or local elections, reflected many voters’ puzzlement at being asked to vote on such an abstruse topic. “Yes” voters were certainly confused: “I think the people who asked for this referendum have made a huge commotion,” said Trudy, a “Yes” voter in central Amsterdam. “It’s nonsense, which cost lots of money, and it’s about something nobody understands.”

Which, of course, is what anyone who is in the vast minority will say.

Meanwhile, Geert Wilders, leader of the eurosceptic Freedom Party, urged voters to send a message to Europe by saying “No”. “I think many Dutchmen are fed up with more European Union and this treaty with Ukraine that is not in the interests of the Dutch people,” he told reporters. “I hope that later, both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe, other countries will follow.” 

As Reuters adds, a clear vote against the treaty in the run-up to Britain’s June 23 referendum on whether to quit the EU could escalate into a domestic or even a Europe-wide political crisis.

Dutch leaders say voting against the treaty would also hand a symbolic victory to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

It is unclear if anti-Russian sentiment swayed voters nearly two years on but increasing resentment among the Dutch at the consequences of the EU’s open-border policies has propelled Wilders – who openly opposes Muslim immigration – to the top of public opinion polls.

In many ways, Wilders is the local Donald Trump.

 

Reuters also notes that the ballot also taps into a more deep-seated anti-establishment sentiment highlighted by a resounding rejection in 2005 of a European Union constitution, also in a referendum.

However, just like in Greece, the gears are already set in motion to ignore the majority vote.  In parliament, Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s conservative VVD party has said it would ignore a narrow “No” vote, while junior coalition partner Labour has said it would honor it, setting the stage for a split.

But ignoring a clear “No” would be risky for Rutte’s already unpopular government — which has lost further ground over Europe’s refugee debate – ahead of national elections scheduled for no later than March 2017.

While we are confident that ultimately the will of the “No” voters will be ignored, just as it was in Greece, the resentment toward an oligarchic class which clearly can only operate under a non-democratic, call it despotic, regime is sure to spread. As for the Netherlands, while nothing may happen for the next 12 months, it will take some very brazen vote tampering next year to perpetuate a status quo which no longer serves the majority of its own country. 


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1N9k35r Tyler Durden

“Rotten To The Core”

Submitted by Bill Bonner, courtesy of Acting-Man

We live in a world of sin and sorrow, infected by a fraudulent democracy, Facebook, and a corrupt money system. Wheezing, weak, and weary from the exertion of trying to appear “normal,” the economy staggers on.

Staggering on…., Image credit: David Sidmond

Last week, we gained some insight into the ailment. Something in the diagnosis has puzzled us for years: How is it possible for the most advanced economy in the history of the world to make such a mess of its most basic bodily functions – getting and spending?

By our calculations – backed by studies, hunches, and deep research – the typical American man (it is less true for women) earns less in real, disposable income per hour today than he did 30 years ago.

He goes to buy a car or a house, and he finds he must work longer to pay the bill than he would have in the last years of the Reagan administration. How is that possible? What kind of economic quackery do you need to stop capitalism from increasing the value of workers’ time?

What kind of policies and circumstances are required to stiffen its joints… clog up its innards… and rot its brain? Globalization? Financialization? Bad trade deals? Too much red tape? Too many cronies? Too many zombies?

We can identify at least one source of the quackery…

All of those things played a role. But our answer is simpler: poison money. The bigger the dose… the sicker it got. When you say you “have some money,” you usually believe that there is, somewhere, an electronic database in which it is recorded that you are the owner of some amount of currency.

You have $100,000 in your account, right?   Does it mean that there is a little cubbyhole somewhere, with your name on it, in which you will find a stack of 1,000 Ben Franklins? Nope. Not even close. No cubbyhole. No stack of money. No nothing.

Does it mean the bank is carefully guarding some 1s and 0s, digital information proving that it at least “stores” your money in its database? Nope again! What it means is there is a financial institution of uncertain integrity… with a complex electronic balance sheet of uncertain accuracy… listing alleged financial claims and contracts of uncertain quality…

…and that you are one of the many thousands of entries on the debit side… with a claim to a certain number of dollars… which the institution may or may not have, each of uncertain value.

When prolific American bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he reportedly said “Because that’s where the money is”. Not anymore, not really, Photo credit: Allan Grant

Today, banks – and this could be said of the entire financial system – no longer have “money.” They have credits and debits. Your deposit is your bank’s liability and your asset.

But look at the balance sheet. You don’t know how many of the claims shown on the left are right… or whether, when the other creditors get finished with it, any of the assets shown on the right are left. All you know is that the system works. Until it doesn’t.

System Seizure

For many months, we have urged readers to prepare themselves for problems. One day, the accumulation of contradictions, misinformation, and plain old “trash” in the system will cause a seizure. You will go to the ATM, and it won’t work.

That day, your life could take a big turn to the downside… depending on how widespread the problem is… the cause of it… and how you prepared for it. Of course, we don’t know for sure that that day will ever come. We are always in doubt, especially about our own forecasts.

And then, one morning…, Photo credit: sxc

Still, the potential problem seems likely enough… and grave enough… to justify some minimal precautions. You might cross the street blindfolded without getting run down, but it is still a good idea to look both ways. Usually, we look to the right… where we see the problems inherent in a credit-based money system.

The feds can create all the credit they want. But real people can’t pay an infinite amount of debt service. Like a junkyard dog reaching the limit of his chain, the credit cycle has a way of jerking people back to reality.

Real Money

But there are other potential problems coming from the left. An electronic, credit-based money system is fragile. It can be hacked by thieves. It can be attacked by terrorists. It can be shut down by accident. Even a “bug” could bring it to its knees.

And then what? How will you get money? How will you spend it? How will you buy gasoline or food? Our advice: Keep some cash on hand. Make sure you own some gold, too – real gold, coins that you can hold in your hand and you can flip to your grandchildren.

“Hey kid,” you say with a knowing and superior air, “take a look at this. This is real money. You don’t have to plug it in.” By the way… Gold just had its best quarter in 30 years. Do buyers know something? Maybe.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/25LJ3eG Tyler Durden

U.S. Oil Production Continues to Drop in Latest EIA Report (Video)

By EconMatters

We had nearly a 5 Million drawdown in Oil Inventories during what is technically still the building season for Oil Stocks.

© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle 


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1quJREo EconMatters

Stocks Soar On Oil Ignition, Biotech Bonanza

In what was shaping up to be a low-volume snoozer of a day, things changed dramatically at 10:30am when the DOE confirmed last night’s API data according to which US crude inventories had their biggest weekly decline since January even as distillates and gasoline stocks rose. That headline sent WTI soaring by 5.4%, the most since March 16.

 

The crude spike was all the “momentum ignition” that futures needed to stage a dramatic surge, soaring from 2035, jumping as much as 20 points higher to 2055 before the slightly more hawkish than expected FOMC Minutes reported pushed ES lower by 10 point. And then, out of nowhere, a massive buying program emerged out of nowhere, and sent the E-mini tofresh highs.

 

It wasn’t just oil: an even more notable notable move took place in the biotech sector, which surged by over 5%, its biggest intraday gain since November 2011, and accounted for nearly half of the S&P500’s gain. The reason was the collapse of the Valeant-Allergan deal. No really: while talking on CNBC, Brent Saunders said that now that the deal has been pulled, Allergan could weigh deals. That is all the slgos needed to hear and unleashed a massive frontrunning spree, buying up every N/M PE company they could find.

 

To be sure, as equity algos were scrambling into risk, the VIX was getting crushed, and while it was a last second VIX slam that prevented the S&P from closing red for the year yesterday, today’s the selling started early, and from 16 the VIX was back at just around 14 at last check.

 

Not everyone was rushing into a Risk On mode, however: while the 10Y sold off modestly, it was at 1.75%, back to Monday’s levels.

 

But that didn’t stop the S&P500 from closing at the day highs, some 1.1% higher, while the Nasdaq raked in 1.6%, just 80 points away from the “psychological 5000 level” and the highest of 2016, on hope the biotech bubble may be rekindled.

All this took place as the dollar tumbled from overnight highs, sending the JPY and the EUR surging, and resulting in even more headaches for Kuroda and Draghi, with the latter now once again forced to think how to create another Bund “hit” like last May as the yield on the 10Y Bund is almost at all time lows.

The USDJPY plunged below the critical support of 110, sliding as low as 119.30, and at last check was trading around 109.70, virtually assuring that the BOJ will have to do something in the coming weeks to push the Japense currency weaker once again.

 

The bulk of the sector moves were summarized by Credit Suisse as follows:

  • Biotech outperforms as investors try and find what companies PFE targets next…and what AGN does next with the $30bn they get from TEVA –likely keeps M&A interest in biotechs, especially smid caps alive
     
  • Asset Managers outperform – DOL Fiduciary Standards less burdensome (Longer phase in time through April 2018…Grandfathering for existing plans …Disclosure requirements were relaxed) – WETF, LPLA, RFJ, SF etc
  • Ferts holding in despite weak MON #s; some debate about whether they would have to update guidance again today (on FX and/or glyphosate) so maybe relief no further guide down but I don’t think many expected a change
  • Energy ripping — Crude at day’s high and Oil E&P, Oil Servs and most subgroups all rallying.  We highlighted Dislocation between HY cash and energy prices this morning – most thought it read bearish for HY (as opposed to bullish for energy) but maybe not
  • Lighting plays hit on CREE (-19% on warning) …ETN read thru
  • Paper names down on BAML call –initiates KS at UP and downgrades UFS to UP
  • Banks underperform;  Several street downgrades (brokers #s continue to get cut)
  • German bunds near record lows on a flight to safety
  • Industrial short cycle names hit on MSM read thru; March Sales being worse than February is driving conversations with clients about “short cycle trends weakening sequentially” as a potential sign that the rally we have seen in short cycle stocks can’t be sustained
  • Casinos weak on WYNN #s – Macau just below expectation

Finally, some observations from CS on what to look forward to as we are about to enter the prime of earnings season: here’s what stands out

One of our favorite ways to gauge sentiment around earnings at the sector and industry group level is by tracking the pace of upward EPS estimate revisions.  At the sector level, revisions weakness has been broad based, with no sectors seeing more than 50% of revisions to the upside in the past 13 weeks. However, two of the weakest sectors – Materials and Industrials – have started to rebound off of post financial crisis lows. Consumer Discretionary revisions trends have also seen an uptick in recent weeks.  Revisions in many defensive oriented sectors – Staples, Telecom and Utilities – had been in decline but have recently begun to show signs of improvement. Banks, Diversified Financials and Real Estate have seen revisions trends fall to levels near or below past lows (post ’09), but the latest data shows signs of an uptick so we are watching for a bottom. Banks in particular recently saw revisions hit extreme lows.  Pharma/Biotech revisions have fallen to post ’09 lows, with no signs of a bottom emerging as of yet.

So it’s all really bad news (but thankfully there are buybacks, and non-GAAP adjustments, and multiple expansion, and of course, the Fed) but because the terrible is becoming a little less terrible for a few companies, just BTFD.

And now we sit back and watch what crazy things Peter Panic may do tonight to offset the collapse in the USDJPY to levels not seen in one and a half years, which have made a total mockery out of Japan’s QQE and NIRP.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1quJRnY Tyler Durden

How Much Of S&P Earnings Growth Comes From Buybacks

Having pounded the table on buybacks as the only marginal source of stock purchasing since some time in 2013, we were delighted one month ago when Bloomberg finally got it, writing an article titled “There’s Only One Buyer Keeping S&P 500’s Bull Market Alive.” The answer: corporate stock repurchases of course.

This is what it found:

Demand for U.S. shares among companies and individuals is diverging at a rate that may be without precedent, another sign of how crucial buybacks are in propping up the bull market as it enters its eighth year. Standard & Poor’s 500 Index constituents are poised to repurchase as much as $165 billion of stock this quarter, approaching a record reached in 2007. The buying contrasts with rampant selling by clients of mutual and exchange-traded funds, who after pulling $40 billion since January are on pace for one of the biggest quarterly withdrawals ever.

 

“Anytime when you’re relying solely on one thing to happen to keep the market going is a dangerous situation,” said Andrew Hopkins, director of equity research at Wilmington Trust Co., which oversees about $70 billion. “Over time, you come to the realization, ‘Look, these companies can’t grow. Borrowing money to buy back stocks is going to come to an end.”’

But, when you have the ECB backstopping purchases of corporate bonds, giving companies a green light to issue debt at will and use the proceeds to buyback even more stock, it won’t end just yet.

However, now that it is common knowledge that over the past several years the market has been conducting the most elaborate acrobatic example of pulling itself up by its bootstraps, by conducting a slow motion LBO in which just over 1% of the S&P has been purchased with incremental leverage, another question which bears answer is how much of S&P EPS growth comes from buybacks?

This is important because with Q1 earnings season starting and expected to post the worst, -8.5% drop in EPS since the financial crisis, and one in which collapsing energy and financial will be routinely ignored, we asked what would happen to “earnings” if one also excluded the benefit from buybacks.

Here is the answer courtesy of Deutsche Bank:

About 25% of S&P 500 EPS growth comes from buybacks on average since 2012. The S&P 500 companies on aggregate pay out 2/3 of their earnings through dividends & buybacks.

 

 

Buybacks are an important part of the earnings payout and a significant driver of total shareholder return and EPS growth in a slow sales world. However, the complexities in correctly measuring buyback payout ratios, buyback yields and buyback flows cause investor confusion. Just as option expense shouldn’t be excluded from EPS or from any FCF measures used for valuation, it should not be neglected in net buyback activity measures. Buyback yield estimates should reflect the continuous issuance of stock to employees at option exercise prices that are well below the market price at which shares are repurchased. This is why we estimate buyback yield as: (net dollars spent on buybacks less option expense) / market cap. This is because although companies report net dollars spent on buybacks, they spend more per share repurchased than what they receive per share issued.

In other words, since the financial world now openly excludes everything it does not agree with, if one were to exclude the contribution of buybacks to Q1 earnings, the S&P would be down not 8.5% but double digits. And, more troubling, if excluding energy and buybacks, then Q1 EPS would be not only negative (7 of 10 sectors are projected to decline in Q1, so energy and 6 others), but even more negative. We expect this to be addressed by the mainstream media some time in 2018.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1ScPkpn Tyler Durden

Here We Go Again: Obama Pushes Banks To Lower Home Loan Standards

Recently, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the following: “One of the key legacy achievements of this presidency will be the important reforms of Wall Street. Those reforms have led to a financial system that is more stable and ensures that taxpayers are not on the hook for bailing out financial institutions that make risky bets.”

Evidently the Obama administration has a different definition of “risky bets”, and “taxpayers not on the hook” than most people, because as the Washington Post reports:

The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.

 

… administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.

So on one hand the Obama administration is touting the fact that they are sure they’ve cleaned up the financial system to the point where it’s more stable, and taxpayers “definitely” won’t be on the hook for bailing out banks making risky bets. On the other hand, the administration is pushing banks to loan to sub-prime borrows again, less than eight years after completely blowing up the global financial markets for doing precisely that.

For the banks, this is clearly great news – make more loans + more government guarantees = risk free profits…

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

 

The FHA, in coordination with the White House, is working to develop new policies to make clear to banks that they will not lose their guarantees or face other legal action if loans that conform to the program’s standards later default. Officials hope the FHA’s actions will then spur Fannie and Freddie to do the same.

… for those who, however, still pay taxes and will be tasked to bail out banks during the next crisis, not so much.

It appears as though the US isn’t just competing with China for jobs and market share, but also to see who will be the fastest to blow up the global financial markets again.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1VxHWdM Tyler Durden

San Francisco Home Prices: “This Is Troubling”

The following chart from the Paragon Real Estate Group, showing median house prices in San Francisco, is troubling, for reasons which do not need an explanation.

 

And here is a bonus chart:it shows the minimum amount of qualifying income one needs to purchase a “median priced house” based on prevailing prices and mortgage interest rates, with 20% downpayment, including taxes and insurance.

Source: Paragon


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1MeQmoN Tyler Durden