Tag Archives: tarp

Italy Is Next In Line For a Banking Crisis

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The Wall Street Journal reports that Italy could be ground zero for the next European economic crisis:

In Italy, 17% of banks’ loans are sour. That is nearly 10 times the level in the U.S., where, even at the worst of the 2008-09 financial crisis, it was only 5%. Among publicly traded banks in the eurozone, Italian lenders account for nearly half of total bad loans.

….The U.K. vote to exit the European Union has compounded the strains on Europe’s banks in general and Italy’s in particular…. Brexit has many executives concerned that central banks will keep interest rates lower for longer than they might otherwise, in an attempt to counteract the slower growth—in the eurozone as well as Britain. European banks’ stocks slid after the vote, with those in Italy especially hurt.

….“Brexit could lead to a full-blown banking crisis in Italy,” said Lorenzo Codogno, former director general at the Italian Treasury. “The risk of a eurozone meltdown is clearly there if Brexit concerns are not immediately addressed.”

It’s not clear to me just how bad things really are in Italy, since the Journal compares their level of nonperforming loans to the US, not to peer countries like Portugal or Spain. Even better would be to tell us how Italy’s current NPL level compares to past levels. It it really way out of whack historically? Or just mildly worse than usual during this phase of an economic cycle?

That said, it’s apparent that Europe’s banking sector continues to have problems thanks to the endless can kicking done between 2010 and 2014. The hope that everything would just spontaneously get better if structural problems were ignored long enough was never a great plan, and it still isn’t. However, a standard bank bailout isn’t possible, thanks to new rules adopted by the EU two years ago. Philipp Hildebrand suggests instead something simpler:

As Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has pointed out, the rules as they stand…permit the temporary shoring-up of banks with public money to make up for a capital shortfall revealed by a regulatory stress test, if raising private capital is not feasible. It is a fortunate coincidence that the 2016 European Banking Authority’s stress test campaign is under way. And it is clear, with most European banks trading far below book value, that raising private capital at this juncture is not a practical option. At the same time, most European banks are perfectly viable, and so resolution is not the way to go.

The European Commission should therefore allow those governments that wish to do so to take temporary equity stakes in banks that need a capital boost. Importantly, state aid rules apply, so this should not be a free handout. Rather, it should be conditional on banks committing to significant steps to address the structural difficulties they face and diversifying income sources. This would be similar to the US Tarp process in 2008 that ended up returning money to taxpayers.

Perhaps so. “Temporary,” of course, has a tendency to last a long time in some countries. Still, this might be the best and easiest solution. If Italy thinks it best to rescue its own banks with an equity infusion, they should probably be allowed to do so. Ditto for Portugal, Spain, and other countries with continuing bank sector weakness. I don’t know if it would work as well as TARP did—and TARP did work, despite the bad rap it’s gotten—since Italy’s economy is fundamentally weaker than the US economy ever was. But it’s worth a try.

Link: 

Italy Is Next In Line For a Banking Crisis

Posted in Brita, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Italy Is Next In Line For a Banking Crisis

Trump’s Political Advisers Wanted to Vet Him. He Said No.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

For most major presidential campaigns, it is a routine act: you conduct opposition research on your own candidate. The reason is obvious; campaign officials and candidates want to know what they might have to contend with once the you-know-what starts flying. But not Donald Trump. At least not at the start of the campaign that would lead to him becoming the presumptive GOP nominee. According to a source with direct knowledge, when Trump was considering entering the presidential race early last year, his political advisers, including Corey Lewandowski, who would become his campaign manager, suggested that Trump hire a professional to investigate his past. But the celebrity mogul said no and refused to pay for it.

Marital infidelity, connections to mob-related persons, bankruptcies, the hiring of undocumented workers, policy flip-flops, deals gone bad, legal troubles—Trump’s life is an opposition researcher’s dream. That was no secret to his political lieutenants, who prior to his announcement discussed the need to conduct a deep dive into the tycoon’s background. The point was to go beyond Googling and perusing the many books written on Trump—and mount a full forensic examination of everything Donald. Especially before anyone else did. (Trump’s aides had heard a rumor that wealthy conservative donors, perhaps including the Koch Brothers, were underwriting a private opposition research effort aimed at the former reality TV star.)

“Everyone does this,” says a former Mitt Romney aide. “I don’t know a campaign that didn’t. It’s a standard procedure.” Political research firms specialize in this sort of work. “It’s an off-the-shelf service they provide,” this aide notes. “For X dollars, you get a different level of digging. I’ve never known a campaign that didn’t do this. After all, you’re expected to know your own record. Any responsible campaign would do that.”

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

One subject on the mind of Trump’s advisers was Jeffrey Epstein, the finance mogul who was arrested in 2006 and subsequently pled guilty to having solicited paid sex with a minor. He ultimately served 13 months in prison and had to register as a sex offender. (Several years ago, alleged Epstein victims filed a lawsuit against the US government claiming Epstein received too sweet a plea bargain.) Trump’s advisers didn’t know of anything in particular to worry about. But they knew that Trump had been linked to his fellow Palm Beach resident. In 2002, Trump had said of Epstein, “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” Epstein had occasionally visited Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s estate and club down the road from Epstein’s mansion. Trump also had flown on Epstein’s plane and had dined at his house. And Virginia Roberts, an alleged Epstein victim who tried to join the civil lawsuit, maintaining that Epstein kept her as a sex slave for several years when she was a teenager, was working at Mar-a-Lago as a changing room assistant when she was recruited, at age 15, to be a masseuse for Epstein. (A judge recently denied Roberts’ bid to become a plaintiff in the case.)

Trump has downplayed his association with Epstein. But these connections would be enough to cause any senior campaign staffer to want a full examination. “This vetting process was not for the purpose of looking at Epstein specifically,” a Trump insider says. “It was to be an audit to see what could be found on anything.” (Conservatives have pointed to Bill Clinton’s friendship with Epstein—he often was a passenger on Epstein’s private plane—as possible ammunition to be used in the 2016 campaign against Hillary Clinton.)

Though Trump would not authorize an extensive research effort to identify what oppo might be most harmful to his candidacy, his campaign did prepare responses to obvious lines of attack against the billionaire. Mother Jones reviewed one campaign memo outlining possible replies to expected assaults, but most of these topics were policy and political matters already in the public realm. What about Trump’s 1999 proposal to raise taxes on the well-to-do? Trump merely had proposed a one-time fix designed to erase the national debt, a move that showed that Trump possessed the foresight to see that deficits would become a major problem. What about his past donations to Democrats? Trump was supporting incumbents of both parties as an act of civic participation, and since 2011 he has only contributed to Republicans. What about Trump manufacturing his clothing line in China? He had played no role in the decision to out-source, and China was picked because US regulation and red tape made it too expensive to manufacture goods in the United States. What about his failure to serve in the military? Trump had received student deferments, and as a graduate of a military academy he has been a strong proponent of the US military and veterans.

This memo covered numerous issues. What about the bankruptcies filed by his companies? Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy. What about Trump’s previous support for universal healthcare? Trump has always called for a market-based system and has been an ardent opponent of Obamacare. What about Trump saying he has a plan to defeat ISIS but refusing to provide details? Trump does not want to tell ISIS in advance how he will defeat it; that would put US soldiers at risk. What about Trump’s support for the TARP bailout of the big banks? Trump believed TARP was necessary to stabilize the global financial system but came to conclude the program was poorly administered. What about Trump’s previous support for Jeb Bush, whom he once called the kind of political leader the United States needs? The Bush presidencies have been failures, Jeb Bush governed Florida as a typical politician who bowed to lobbyists and special interests, and it’s time to make America great again.

These were talking points designed to deal with the existing public record—not responses crafted to address new revelations. At the beginning of his presidential crusade, Trump would not allow his aides to prepare for that. The candidate, who now refuses to release his income taxes, did not want his own campaign scrutinizing his past. He was not willing to be transparent—not even for his own team.

Originally from:  

Trump’s Political Advisers Wanted to Vet Him. He Said No.

Posted in Casio, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s Political Advisers Wanted to Vet Him. He Said No.