Today, settled as a professor at Columbia, Stiglitz occasionally finds himself welcomed in the nation’s capital, though usually at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, to testify before Congress. While he had no great desire to go back into government, friends say he was deeply disappointed when an offer didn’t come from Obama last fall. Not surprisingly, Stiglitz believes his old rival was behind it, though Summers denies this. As for the invitation to dinner at the White House, there were a few theories kicked around the spacious Stiglitz household on Manhattan’s Upper West Side as to why it came at the last minute: one was that Obama, in an interview posted online that week by The New York Times, had cited Stiglitz as one of the critics he listens to, so it would have seemed strange if he hadn’t been invited to the dinner. While Stiglitz was flattered by the discussion over a dinner of roast beef and Michelle Obama’s homegrown lettuce, he can’t stop himself from complaining that an occasional meal with dissidents is not the best way for the president to formulate policy. “Some of the most difficult debates and judgments can’t really be hammered out in an hour-and-a-half meeting covering lots of topics,” he says. Stiglitz may a prophet without much honor in Washington, but he seems to be determined to keep the prophecies coming.
The Most Misunderstood Man in America – Michael Hirsh, Newsweek
July 22nd, 2009
Jamie Dimon has won big. JP Morgan Chase now stands alone, both in financial position and political clout – including special access to the White House and, as explained in today’s NYT, Rahm Emanuel’s likely attendance at his next board meeting tomorrow.
Dimon’s semiotics have been brilliant throughout the crisis – it wasn’t his fault, he was forced to take TARP money, and – in phrasing that will make the history books – bankers should not be “vilified”. But now he has a problem.
Larry Summers forcefully stated Friday that high recent profit levels for big banks (i.e., JPMorgan and Goldman) are based on the support they received and still receive from the government (listen to his answer to the second question, from about the 6:10 to 10:30 mark). At that level of generality, in a period of financial stabilization and consequent reduction in executive branch discretion, this statement does not threaten Dimon or anyone else.
And Summers’ statement on the dangers of “too big to fail” was “too vague to succeed”. Dimon saw this one coming and is very much aligned with Tim Geithner on the technocratic fixes that will supposedly take care of this – the mythical “resolution authority”, which will not actually achieve anything because it has no cross-border component, so the next time a major multinational bank (e.g., JP Morgan) fails, the choice again will be “collapse or bailout” (as Summers put it in the same Q&A Friday). Yes, I know the G20 is supposedly working on this; no, I don’t think they are making progress.
But Summers also drew a line in the sand on consumer protection.
Reformists within the administration really need a new consumer protection agency for financial products – there is little else they will be able to point to as an achievement on banking issues. Summers did not, for example, on Friday even mention the need for stronger regulation over derivatives; Dimon has likely already prevailed on this.
Consumer protection is easy for people to understand. If the banking lobby really defeats or defangs it this year – as it almost certainly can – won’t that make meaningful re-regulation of banking a big issue for the midterm elections in 2010 and beyond?
And does Dimon really want to publicly confront and defeat Larry Summers?
It must be tempting for Dimon to now press home his advantage, including at the White House. But as JP Morgan Chase stands alone at the top of our banking hierarchy, how far should he push his luck?
Summers has an unparalleled ability to move the consensus. And if he is now running from the left to become chair of the Fed – which was my impression on Friday – this will shift all candidates, including Ben Bernanke, towards being tougher on banks.
Why doesn’t Dimon instead seize on greater consumer protection as a way to rebuld legitimacy for finance – and to shape the new rules so as to create barriers to entry and growth for future rivals?
What would John Pierpont Morgan have done?
Jamie Dimon vs. Larry Summers – Simon Johnson, Baseline Scenario
July 22nd, 2009
Hank Paulson appeared before the House committee on (Lack of) Oversight and (Prevention of) Government Reform last week to defend his actions in the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch deal. For those of you who haven’t been following along, Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis has accused Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson of pressuring him to complete the Merill acquisition even after discovering that the losses at Merrill were several orders of magnitude higher than what he thought when the deal was struck. Bernanke and Paulson allegedly told Lewis that he and the entire board would be replaced if he didn’t conceal the losses until the deal was approved by shareholders.
I didn’t think Hammerin’ Hank’s reputation could fall any further but after listening to his arrogant testimony this week, I think I have to revise that. Paulson cast himself as the hero in his testimony:
“Many more Americans would be without their homes, their jobs, their businesses, their savings and their way of life,” he said in written testimony prepared for a hearing Thursday.
While losses have been staggering, “that suffering would have been far more profound and disturbing” had the government not intervened, he will tell the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
“Our responses were not perfect … But, having had the benefit of some time to reflect, and to consider views expressed by others, I am confident that our responses were substantially correct and they saved this nation from great peril,” Paulson wrote.
Well, gee, thanks Hank. There is no way to know how things would have turned out if you hadn’t bailed out every firm that acted as a counterparty to your net worth (Goldman Sachs), but it’s nice to know it hasn’t affected your self esteem.
While Bernanke prudently fell back on the “I don’t recall” defense, Paulson, believe it or not, defended his threat to Lewis:
Paulson said he told Lewis that reneging on the promise to purchase Merrill would show “a colossal lack of judgment.” He then pointed out to Lewis that the Fed could remove management at the bank if it saw fit, he said.
“By referring to the Federal Reserve’s supervisory powers, I intended to deliver a strong message reinforcing the view that had been consistently expressed by the Federal Reserve, as Bank of America’s regulator, and shared by the Treasury, that it would be unthinkable for Bank of America to take this destructive action for which there was no reasonable legal basis and which would show a lack of judgment,” Paulson said.
Paulson said he believed his remarks to Lewis were “appropriate.”
Faced with being forced out with only a golden parachute to cushion his fall, Lewis decided that maybe those Merrill losses weren’t really so important that they needed to be disclosed to BAC shareholders prior to voting on the merger. Based on the performance of BAC’s stock price since then, shareholders might disagree, but hey that’s a small price to pay for saving the “system”, right?
The charge that the failure of large financial institutions represents a systemic risk is one that suffers from a lack of evidence. Is the system really better off maintaining Citigroup on life support rather than letting it die a natural death? Is the system really better off by expanding the allegedly already too large to fail Bank of America? Is the system really better off when poorly managed companies are rescued at the expense of those who acted more prudently? Is the system really better off when losses are spread far and wide rather than concentrated with those who took the risks? What message does it send to prudent managers when their imprudent competitors are bailed out? Will they be so prudent next time?
The economic success of the US is not dependent on maintaining the status quo. Capitalism is a system which requires failure to advance. The failure of a few companies is not evidence that capitalism has failed but evidence that it is working. Failure sends a message to other market participants that the practices that caused the failure should be avoided. That message applies not only to private companies but to the government institutions that also failed us in this crisis. Attempting to return to the status quo rather than allowing private company failures and reforming failed government institutions does not advance us as a society. It mires us in mediocrity.
It is Paulson, Bernanke and Bush who showed a colossal lack of judgment. It is the management of Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who showed a colossal lack of judgment. It is Alan Greenspan and all the member of the Federal Reserve who showed a colossal lack of judgment. It is most of Congress that showed a colossal lack of judgment. It is Tim Geithner and President Obama who continue to show a colossal lack of judgment. And it is the American taxpayer who will have to pay the tab for the colossal lack of judgment shown by all of them.
The long term consequences of government actions over the last two years will become evident to investors in the coming years, but for now, attention is focused on the immediate situation. And the immediate situation is still improving. The stock market rallied 7% last week as earnings season kicked off with some highly visible positive surprises. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America and Citigroup all reported better than expected earnings (thanks in large part to the implicit guarantee of the government) and the remainder of the financial sector seems likely to follow suit in the coming weeks. Intel and IBM got the tech sector off to a good start. Next week will see a flood of companies reporting their second quarter results and while there will be a few disappointments such as Google last week, I believe the aggregate numbers will continue to be better than the market expects.
Paulson: A Colossal Lack of Judgment – Joseph Calhoun, Alhambra Inv.
July 22nd, 2009
