Paper Gold?

For as long as Gold has been prized, there have been men who have tried to create it. For hundreds, if not thousands of years, the Alchemists strove to transmute base metals into Gold, without success. But even after its introduction to the West and the invention of the printing press by Gutenberg at the end of the Thirteenth century, no-one had the idea of trying to turn paper into Gold. In past centuries, those who would control money contented themselves with substituting paper for Gold, with limited success.

It took some true "visionaries", and the end result of a long process of economic wishful thinking, to seriously propose "paper gold". The notion goes back about 30 years, to the period just before the dawn of the "floating currencies" era. When the U.S. closed the the "Gold Window" in August 1971, the Dollar promptly dived against all its major trading partners. By February 1973, it had become impossible to pretend that any fixed ratio still existed between currencies, and the era of "floating currencies" began.

The IMF actually invented what became referred to as "Paper Gold" in 1971 - months before the U.S. severed the tie between the Dollar and Gold. The IMF knew this step was coming, and so it invented the "SDR" (Special Drawing Right). It was touted as a Reserve "Currency" that would replace both the U.S. Dollar and Gold in the basements of the world's Central Banks.

While these SDRs still exist, they have not done much over the past three decades or so except gather dust. Their prime purpose, to provide a substitute for Gold, was not fulfilled. The SDR was the last major attempt to provide a "substitute" for Gold. For at least the past two decades, the approach has been that no substitute for Gold is necessary. And to "prove it", Gold has been progressively debunked as either a money or even a viable investment option. The price has been forced down, then held down, then forced even lower.

If You Can't Replace It - Dilute It

The price of Gold cannot be held down by selling the physical metal. The decade between 1970 and 1980 proved that conclusively. Hundreds of years of history have proven conclusively that nothing can be sold as a "substitute" for Gold. In the years since the 1987 crash - when the $US 400 "glass ceiling" on Gold has been put and kept in place, Central Banks have continued to sell Gold, but only in emergencies. The real mechanism for holding down the price has been different.

Forward Selling - By Gold Producers

For most of the past decade, Gold mining companies gradually changed the way they market their Gold. To an ever-increasing extent, they have "forward sold". The mechanism is quite simple. A Gold mining company with proven reserves in the ground wants to sell a portion of these reserves forward. The company representative goes to a bullion dealer who agrees to pay him, for example, $500 per ounce for Gold to be delivered two years from now. The Gold company has locked in a profit, and on top of that, has the money now for Gold which is still in the ground.

The Gold bullion dealer is exposed, however. He is exposed to a possible loss if the Gold price falls in the future. So, to hedge this position, the bullion dealer sells Gold - for immediate delivery. "Wait a minute" (you cry), where is the bullion dealer to get the Gold to provide for immediate delivery? The answer brings us directly to the second part of the mechanism for maintaining the $US 400 Gold "glass ceiling".

Gold "Leasing" - The Central Banks' Contribution

Our intrepid bullion dealer goes out and "borrows" the Gold. Where does he borrow it from? That's easy. From the formidable 36,000 Tonne hoard still owned by the world's Central Banks.

To get the Gold - or more accurately, to get a marketable claim to the Gold - our bullion dealer pays what is known as the Gold lease rate (an extremely low rate of interest). He then sells the Gold - or the claims to Gold, and invests the money. This is the way the difference between the spot and forward prices for Gold is determined. The forward price is the money interest rate which our bullion dealer receives for his investment minus the lease rate which he paid to borrow the Gold.

The point is that this entire fandango (that's "fandango" - not "contango") can be performed by lending physical Gold, or it can be performed by lending a paper claim to Gold. The miners' Gold is still in the ground. The Central Bank sometimes lends Gold, or it lends a claim to Gold. These are what our bullion dealer sells. And since most demand for Gold is not a demand for the physical metal but a demand for paper (forward, future, etc) claims to the metal, this mechanism can meet the demand without an undue strain upon the available supply of the physical metal, and the upward pressure on the price of Gold that would cause.

E-mail this page to a friend
©2001 The Privateer Market Letter

Disinformazione in rete circa gli effetti devastanti dell’anatocismo

Studiamo.it..ovvero come fare disinformazione in rete sull'anatocismo

Come viene fatta la disinformazione in rete circa gli effetti devastanti dell’anatocismo

Dal sito studiamo.it,tanto caro e pubblicizzato nelle bacheche di tanti che dicono di voler avversare il potere bancario,riporto la seguente defizione ed esempio:
Cos’è l’anatocismo bancario
L’anatocismo esprime un metodo di calcolo degli interessi per il quale gli interessi maturati secondo una certa periodicità, pattuita tra creditore e debitore, sono essi stessi produttivi di altri interessi, cioè sono sommati al capitale dato in prestito (capitalizzati) in modo tale da contribuire (insieme al capitale) a maturare altri interessi nei periodi successivi. Questo metodo di calcolo favorisce il creditore a discapito del debitore.
Un esempio chiarirà meglio il concetto.
tasso d’interesse: 10%
capitale iniziale: € 1.000,00
periodicità di liquidazione degli interessi: trimestrale
quando non c’è l’anatocismo si ha:
interesse trimestrale = (1.000,00 x 3 x 10)/1200 = € 25,00
quindi, ogni trimestre i 1.000 euro di capitale fruttano sempre € 25,00
con l’anatocismo:
interesse del primo trimestre = (1.000,00 x 3 x 10)/1200 = € 25,00
interesse del secondo trimestre = [(1,000,00 + 25,00) x 3 x 10]/1200 = € 25,625
interesse del terzo trimestre = [(1.025,00 + 25,625) x 3 x 10]/1200 = € 26,265625
e così via per gli altri trimestri …
Fin qui studiamo.it
Ora,l’esempio che viene riportato per PLUB e nel PLUB
Tasso interesse 30%
Capitale iniziale £ 1.000.000
Per periodo anni 50 con capitalizzazione,anatocismo, annuale(figurarsi trimestrale come sopra)
Si debbono restituire:
Ad interessi semplici,come prevede la LEGGE,funzione lineare,£16.000.000
Ad interessi composti,vietati ed illegali,£ £ .497.929.222.947,cioè circa 500 miliardi

E’ un modo per esprimere lo stesso concetto ma,nel primo caso ,si da l’idea del nulla,dell’insignificante differenza rispetto al calcolo fatto ad interessi semplici - e ciò non casualmente perché gli articolisti non possono che essere filobancari; nel secondo esempio si coglie la potenza devastante degli effetti dell’anatocismo.
A considerarsi che negli anni 80 questi tassi,ma anche adesso per il credito al consumo,sono tutt’altro che irreali…si può ben cogliere il grande FURTO che viene perpetrato ai danni del popolo da questi criminali ed assassini.

Domenico BRUNI
Coordinatore PLUB
PARTITO LOTTA USURA BANCARIA

I BENI DEL FONDO PATRIMONIALE NON SONO ACQUISITI DAL FALLIMENTO

Da: FiloDiritto, Numero 321 - 1 febbraio 2010

- Diritto fallimentare, diritto della famiglia e delle successioni:
CASSAZIONE CIVILE:
I BENI DEL FONDO PATRIMONIALE NON SONO ACQUISITI DAL FALLIMENTO

La disposizione contenuta nell'articolo 46 n. 3 Legge Fallimentare, dettato nella vigenza del patrimonio familiare, deve trovare applicazione anche con riferimento al nuovo istituto del fondo patrimoniale, ad esso succeduto. La Cassazione ha così cassato la sentenza del Tribunale di Potenza che, in sede di reclamo, aveva confermato il decreto con il quale il Giudice Delegato aveva autorizzato il curatore del fallimento ad acquisire all'attivo beni immobili di proprietà del fallito costituiti in fondo patrimoniale.

"In particolare, il Tribunale di Potenza aveva ritenuto che non fossero ravvisabili validi motivi per escludere che i beni del fondo patrimoniale, quali beni del fallito, dovessero essere inclusi nel fallimento; che il soddisfacimento dell'esigenza posta a base della costituzione del fondo patrimoniale ben avrebbe potuto essere soddisfatta anche con l'acquisizione dei relativi beni da parte degli organi fallimentari, con la formazione di una massa separata destinata soltanto a soddisfare i creditori per debiti contratti nell'interesse della famiglia; che segnatamente non sarebbe stata correttamente evocabile nel caso di specie, in cui si tratta di fondo patrimoniale, la disposizione di cui all'articolo 46, n. 3, Legge Fallimentare, che sottrae al fallimento i redditi dei beni costituiti in patrimonio familiare (salvo quanto disposto dagli articoli 170 e 326 Codice Civile), attesa la diversità dei due istituti.

Tuttavia, quanto a quest'ultimo punto, pur essendo condivisibile il rilievo attinente alla non coincidente disciplina dei due istituti in esame, essenzialmente consistenti nella maggiore attenuazione dei vincoli di inalienabilità e inespropriabilità disposta con riferimento al fondo patrimoniale, occorre evidenziare come risultino identici sia i rispettivi fini perseguiti, in entrambi i casi individuabili nell'obiettivo di garantire un substrato patrimoniale alla famiglia, sia lo strumento a tal fine predisposto, consistente nella predisposizione di un patrimonio separato costituito da un complesso di beni determinati, assoggettati ad una speciale disciplina di amministrazione ed a limiti di alienabilità ed espropriabilità".

Secondo la Cassazione, nel senso dell'applicazione dell'articolo 46 Legge Fallimentare depongono anche le ulteriori seguenti considerazioni.

"Innanzitutto la giurisprudenza di questa corte, che ... ha comunque escluso che i beni facenti parte del fondo patrimoniale, in quanto costituenti un patrimonio separato, siano compresi nel fallimento (C. 00/8379, C. 90/11449). Inoltre la modifica apportata all'articolo 46, n. 3, Legge Fallimentare dal Decreto Legislativo 2006, n. 5, con la quale fra l'altro il richiamo al patrimonio familiare è stato sostituito con quello relativo al fondo patrimoniale, circostanza che indirettamente comprova che la mancata formalizzazione di un divieto di acquisizione da parte del fallimento di beni facenti parte del fondo patrimoniale fosse imputabile ad un difettoso coordinamento normativo determinato dalla successione di leggi nel tempo, anzichè alla volontà del legislatore.

Infine dalla previsione contenuta nell'articolo 155 Legge Fallimentare, come modificato dal Decreto Legislativo 2006, n. 5, che esclude l'acquisibilità al fallimento dei patrimoni destinati ad uno specifico affare, così confermando il principio della non confondibilità di beni deputati al soddisfacimento di specifiche esigenze secondo le modalità normativamente indicate, con gli altri beni dell'imprenditore fallito".

(Corte di Cassazione - Sezione Prima Civile, Sentenza 22 gennaio 2010, n.1112: Fallimento - Fondo patrimoniale).

Tremonti: i governi non fanno qualcosa che è il loro dovere

Economia: Tremonti, banchieri non fanno loro mestiere e governi loro dovere

MILANO (MF-DJ)--"I banchieri al lavoro o in vacanza, locali o centrali fanno qualcosa che non e' il loro mestiere e i governi non fanno qualcosa che e' il loro dovere".

Lo ha dichiarato il ministro dell'economia Giulio Tremonti durante un intervento al convegno Ispi aggiungendo che, a Davos, "quello di Sarkozy e' stato l'unico intervento di grande rilievo".

Il ministro ha poi affermato che "Basilea 3 e' la via diretta per produrre, la' dove viene applicato, il credit crunch". red/ste/rug

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

Tremonti: «I banchieri non fanno il loro mestiere, ma Basilea 3 non va»

ECONOMIA&LAVORO

ILSOLE24ORE.COM > Economia e Lavoro

Tremonti: «I banchieri non fanno il loro mestiere, ma Basilea 3 non va»

1 febbraio 2010

«L'impressione è che i banchieri sia in vacanza, sia al lavoro, sia locali, sia centrali facciano qualcosa che non è il loro mestiere e che i governi non facciano qualcosa che è nel loro dovere». È quanto ha detto il ministro dell'Economia, Giulio Tremonti, nel corso di un incontro organizzato da Aspenia-Ispi riferendosi all'incontro di Davos che si è concluso domenica. «Nella montagna incantata - ha sostenuto Tremonti- l'unico discorso politico di grande rilievo è stato quello del presidente francese Sarkozy». Il responsabile del dicastero di via XX Settembre ha anche parlato delle nuove regole per la finanza tuttora in discussione. «Basilea 3 - ha commentato - è la via diretta per produrre, laddove viene applicata, il credit crunch».

I rapporti con la Cina: G3, non G2
«G3, non G2». Così il ministro dell'Economia, Giulio Tremonti, ha rimarcato la necessità che tra i grandi del mondo oltre agli Stati Uniti e alla Cina compaia anche l'Unione europea. «I tavoli con due gambe - ha messo in rilievo il ministro durante il suo intervento ad un incontro organizzato da Aspenia - non stanno in piedi, ce ne vogliono almeno tre. L'Europa è fondamentale per tutti, ovviamente anche per noi». Dopo l'Erasmus, ha detto ancora Tremonti, «sarebbe fantastico avere una squadra di calcio comune» in Europa. Anche perché «dalla crisi l'Europa è uscita più unita», ma ora, secondo il ministro, bisogna capire «che cosa si vuole intendere per Europa: un insieme di stati o qualcosa di più? Io credo qualcosa di più».

The Great Greek Unraveling of the EU

The Daily Bell, February 01, 2010 - by Staff Report

George Papandreou / Getty

The yield on 10-year Greek bonds blasted upwards by over 40 basis points to 7.15% in a day of wild trading. Spreads over German Bunds reached almost four percentage points, by far the highest since Greece joined the euro, and close to levels that risk a self-feeding spiral. Contagion hit Portuguese, Spanish, Irish, and Italian bonds. George Papandreou (pictured left), the Greek premier, said in Davos that his country had been singled out as the weak link in an "attack on the eurozone" by speculators and political foes. "We are being targeted, particularly by those with an ulterior motive." - UK Telegraph

Dominant Social Theme: Nothing to see here, Move along.

Free-Market Analysis: We've been writing about the decline and fall of the European Union for years. And for some reason, (even despite our criticisms!) the EU has slithered onward, swallowing up countries like a boa constrictor or pressing them close to its bosom in a tender embrace - one that we have always maintained might eventually turn deadly. Yes, we figured that one or more "hug-ees" would eventually face the prospect of eventual strangulation.

And now indeed we are faced with the prospect of the "hug too far." And it is Greece that may prove to be the unlovable morsel. The Greeks, in our opinion, are a pretty indigestible bunch anyway. Theirs is a very old culture relatively speaking and we just have this funny feeling that the Greeks as a nationality don't really care all that much about the EU so long as it delivers to THEM. But what if the EU is delivering austerity and deep cuts in social and educational services? We have a feeling that Greek society could be wracked by protests and violence. And if that happens, the euro's price relative to other currencies will drop faster than a dead constrictor from the top of a tree.

Ah, is it sad to behold? The European "recession" is providing the socialist hacks that run the EU with all the drama they can handle. As country after country threatens to breach EU financial discipline, the ramifications will become increasingly obvious and severe in our opinion. The Greek crisis is only one of many on the way. Numerous EU countries are spending much more on social programs than they can afford. The monetary boom of the mid 2000s covered up this state of affairs but now the bust has revealed the true bankruptcy of Europe and undercut the EU strategy, which was simply (so far as we can tell) to aim a money spigot at individual European tribes until the pressure pushed them into the constrictor's lap. Here's another take on what's going on:

EU sets tough targets for Greece rescue ... EUROPEAN officials will this week set the Greek government a four-month deadline to impose a stringent regime of budget cuts and financial reforms. Leaked documents have revealed Brussels will publish a plan for Greece this week, under the headline "Urgent measures to be taken by May 15, 2010". The package includes demands to "cut average nominal wages, including in central government, local governments, state agencies and other public institutions". It also suggests new taxes on luxury goods and proposals to speed up tax payments by the self-employed. Greece has been under pressure from international investors over fears it will default on its debts, precipitating an unprecedented strain on the euro. Fears of a Greek debt default have spread concerns that other EU countries could face problems - including Ireland, Spain, Portugal or Italy. Richer eurozone countries such as Germany and France would be expected to bail out Greece in the worst-case scenario, to prevent a disastrous crash in the value of the single currency. Officials in both countries have been attempting to play down such speculation, heaping further pressure on Greece to resolve its problems itself. (- Times Online)

OK, so Greece will be bullied into cutting its social/civil programs (being free-market oriented, we're in favor of that - not the bullying part though) at which point the EU, in the guise of Germany (mostly), will step in to backstop the Greek government. We do believe that there will be some grumbling in Germany over this as the German economy is not very healthy at this moment either. But we would propose that this grumbling will grow louder as Germans watch first Portugal, then Spain, then Ireland and all those funny little central European countries go through their own version of the Greek crisis. When exactly will Germans decide enough is enough? Will France step in to fill the breach? You think?

Add into all this looming trouble the British discontent with the EU generally and you have the makings of exciting times (delightfully so, from our perspective) for those who wish to hold the EU together. We don't doubt it can be done in some sense - but the result might be a euro pegged close to zero, given how distorted the euro-model will have to become to absorb all the looming damage. And how much, really, is a devalued euro worth? Really, things were much simpler when the EU was simply a free-trade zone instead of a United States of Europe.

This brings us back to our recent discussion about the memes of the power elite. The EU, in our opinion, is one of the elite's biggest and most absurd promotions (though most of them are fairly absurd, actually) and readers of the Bell (heck, anybody with a portfolio) will want to follow developments closely. The unraveling of the EU, if it does indeed occur, would have far more pertinent and immediate ramifications than the apparent unraveling - even - of the global warming theme.

This is yet another example of how "investing" hinges on the Anglo-American elite's attempt to substitute dominant social themes - and their success or failure - for a market-based economy. Kind of like substituting propaganda for production. In fact, it is no small thing as the EU project has taken 50 years and counting to reach this point - 50 years we might add of increasing official lies and bureaucratic misdirection - and generally, an ever-widening ambit of authoritarianism, incompetence and increasingly open malfeasance.

Once the EU bureaucracy began turning back votes and insisting on "do-overs" it was fairly finished in our opinion. What's been going on, finally, as we've pointed out numerous times, is that the great EU experiment has boiled down to compulsive, serial bribe-making to keep the unruly tribes of Europe in check. But the tribes of Europe are very old and human culture is almost impossible to vitiate in a single generation - or even two or three. The Basques, a most fascinating human phenomenon, are said to trace their roots to the last of the Cro-Magnon invasions 15,000 years ago. Now that's history. The EU is still searching for an anthem.

Conclusion: If the money isn't there, we have serious doubts as to whether the loyalty will be either. The unraveling of the EU, to the degree that it occurs, could have big impacts on the price of gold, on the dollar and on world currencies in general, with all the additional attendant ramifications currency turmoil would entail. Another meme bites the dust?

Update - S.604 - 32 Co-sponsors!

S.604
Title: A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] (introduced 3/16/2009) Cosponsors (32)
Related Bills: H.R.1207, S.2939
Latest Major Action: 3/16/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

---

All Information (except text)	Text of Legislation	CRS Summary	Major Congressional Actions All Congressional Actions All Congressional Actions with Amendments With links to Congressional Record pages, votes,reports
Titles	Cosponsors (32)	Committees
Related Bills	Amendments	Related Committee Documents
CBO Cost Estimates	Subjects

Update - HR 1207 - 317 Co-sponsors!

Update - HR 1207 - 317 Co-sponsors!

Submitted by sunny on Tue, 05/12/2009 - 11:18

in

• Daily Paul Liberty Forum

Updated on December 3, 2009

On record so far on thomas: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi...

Title: To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/26/2009)
Co-sponsors (317)
Latest Major Action: 2/26/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

NEW - a link to contact the house financial services committee:
http://financialservices....

Here's 2 related links for easy access:

Democratic List of Shame: http://www.dailypaul.com/...

Republican List of Shame: ALL HAVE SIGNED ON

HR 1207 Co-Sponsors (as of 12/3/2009)

Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] - 2/26/2009
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] - 2/26/2009
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 2/26/2009
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 2/26/2009
Rep Rehberg, Denny [MT] - 2/26/2009
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-15] - 2/26/2009
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] - 2/26/2009
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 2/26/2009
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 2/26/2009
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 2/26/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 2/26/2009
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 3/5/2009
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] - 3/6/2009
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 3/6/2009
Rep Young, Don [AK] - 3/6/2009
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] - 3/6/2009
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 3/6/2009
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] - 3/6/2009
Rep Heller, Dean [NV-2] - 3/6/2009
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 3/6/2009
Rep Taylor, Gene [MS-4] - 3/6/2009
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 3/9/2009
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 3/10/2009
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] - 3/10/2009
Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] - 3/10/2009
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 3/10/2009
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] - 3/11/2009
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 3/11/2009
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 3/16/2009
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 3/16/2009
Rep Buchanan, Vern [FL-13] - 3/17/2009
Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] - 3/17/2009
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] - 3/18/2009
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 3/19/2009
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] - 3/19/2009
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 3/19/2009
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 3/19/2009
Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [WY] - 3/19/2009
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 3/19/2009
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 3/23/2009
Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-9] - 3/23/2009
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 3/23/2009
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 3/24/2009
Rep Blunt, Roy [MO-7] - 3/24/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 3/26/2009
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] - 3/26/2009
Rep Paulsen, Erik [MN-3] - 3/30/2009
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 3/30/2009
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 3/30/2009
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 3/31/2009
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] - 4/1/2009
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] - 4/1/2009
Rep Fallin, Mary [OK-5] - 4/2/2009
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 4/2/2009
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 4/2/2009
Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] - 4/21/2009
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] - 4/21/2009
Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. [MI-3] - 4/21/2009
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] - 4/21/2009
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 4/21/2009
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 4/21/2009
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 4/21/2009
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] - 4/21/2009
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] - 4/21/2009
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 4/21/2009
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 4/21/2009
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 4/21/2009
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] - 4/21/2009
Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4] - 4/21/2009
Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-9] - 4/21/2009
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] - 4/21/2009
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] - 4/22/2009
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] - 4/22/2009
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 4/22/2009
Rep Thompson, Glenn [PA-5] - 4/22/2009
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] - 4/22/2009
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] - 4/22/2009
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] - 4/22/2009
Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] - 4/22/2009
Rep Jenkins, Lynn [KS-2] - 4/23/2009
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] - 4/23/2009
Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] - 4/23/2009
Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] - 4/23/2009
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] - 4/23/2009
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] - 4/28/2009
Rep Biggert, Judy [IL-13] - 4/28/2009
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 4/28/2009
Rep Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] - 4/28/2009
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] - 4/28/2009
Rep Putnam, Adam H. [FL-12] - 4/28/2009
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] - 4/28/2009
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] - 4/28/2009
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] - 4/28/2009
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] - 4/28/2009
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] - 4/28/2009
Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] - 4/28/2009
Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] - 4/28/2009
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] - 4/28/2009
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 4/28/2009
Rep Smith, Adrian [NE-3] - 4/28/2009
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 4/29/2009
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 4/29/2009
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] - 4/29/2009
Rep Bono Mack, Mary [CA-45] - 4/29/2009
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] - 4/29/2009
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] - 4/29/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 4/29/2009
Rep Upton, Fred [MI-6] - 4/29/2009
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 4/29/2009
Rep Buyer, Steve [IN-4] - 4/30/2009
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 4/30/2009
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] - 4/30/2009
Rep McCarthy, Kevin [CA-22] - 5/4/2009
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] - 5/4/2009
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] - 5/4/2009
Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [WA-5] - 5/4/2009
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] - 5/4/2009
Rep Moran, Jerry [KS-1] - 5/4/2009
Rep Cassidy, Bill [LA-6] - 5/4/2009
Rep Walden, Greg [OR-2] - 5/4/2009
Rep Crenshaw, Ander [FL-4] - 5/4/2009
Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] - 5/4/2009
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] - 5/4/2009
Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] - 5/4/2009
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 5/6/2009
Rep Linder, John [GA-7] - 5/6/2009
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 5/6/2009
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] - 5/6/2009
Rep Dent, Charles W. [PA-15] - 5/6/2009
Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19] - 5/6/2009
Rep Schock, Aaron [IL-18] - 5/6/2009
Rep Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie [SD] - 5/6/2009
Rep Austria, Steve [OH-7] - 5/6/2009
Rep Adler, John H. [NJ-3] - 5/6/2009
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] - 5/7/2009
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] - 5/7/2009
Rep Walz, Timothy J. [MN-1] - 5/7/2009
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] - 5/7/2009
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 5/7/2009
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 5/7/2009
Rep Shadegg, John B. [AZ-3] - 5/7/2009
Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] - 5/7/2009
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] - 5/7/2009
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] - 5/11/2009
Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] - 5/11/2009
Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7] - 5/11/2009
Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] - 5/11/2009
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] - 5/11/2009
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] - 5/11/2009
Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] - 5/12/2009
Rep Fortenberry, Jeff [NE-1] - 5/12/2009
Rep Mack, Connie [FL-14] - 5/12/2009
Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] - 5/12/2009
Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] - 5/12/2009
Rep Maffei, Daniel B. [NY-25] - 5/12/2009
Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] - 5/12/2009
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 5/13/2009
Rep Minnick, Walter [ID-1] - 5/13/2009
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-7] - 5/13/2009
Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] - 5/13/2009
Rep Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-52] - 5/13/2009
Rep Perriello, Thomas S.P. [VA-5] - 5/13/2009
Rep Ortiz, Solomon P. [TX-27] - 5/14/2009
Rep Ryan, Paul [WI-1] - 5/14/2009
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] - 5/14/2009
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 5/20/2009
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5] - 5/20/2009
Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] - 5/20/2009
Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5] - 5/20/2009
Rep Reichert, David G. [WA-8] - 5/20/2009
Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] - 5/20/2009
Rep Berry, Marion [AR-1] - 5/20/2009
Rep Schauer, Mark H. [MI-7] - 5/20/2009
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] - 5/20/2009
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] - 5/20/2009
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] - 5/21/2009
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 5/21/2009
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 5/21/2009
Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] - 5/21/2009
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] - 6/2/2009
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 6/2/2009
Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] - 6/2/2009
Rep Young, C.W. Bill [FL-10] - 6/3/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 6/3/2009
Rep Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. [NJ-11] - 6/3/2009
Rep Halvorson, Deborah L. [IL-11] - 6/3/2009
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] - 6/4/2009
Rep Holden, Tim [PA-17] - 6/4/2009
Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] - 6/4/2009
Rep Kratovil, Frank, Jr. [MD-1] - 6/4/2009
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 6/9/2009
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [IA-3] - 6/9/2009
Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] - 6/9/2009
Rep Tonko, Paul D. [NY-21] - 6/9/2009
Rep Mitchell, Harry E. [AZ-5] - 6/9/2009
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 6/9/2009
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] - 6/9/2009
Rep Carney, Christopher P. [PA-10] - 6/9/2009
Rep Childers, Travis [MS-1] - 6/9/2009
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] - 6/9/2009
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 6/10/2009
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] - 6/10/2009
Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] - 6/10/2009
Rep Boehner, John A. [OH-8] - 6/10/2009
Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] - 6/10/2009
Rep Lee, Christopher J. [NY-26] - 6/10/2009
Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] - 6/10/2009
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 6/10/2009
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 6/11/2009
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 6/11/2009
Rep Speier, Jackie [CA-12] - 6/11/2009
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 6/11/2009
Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] - 6/11/2009
Rep Bright, Bobby [AL-2] - 6/11/2009
Rep Cao, Anh "Joseph" [LA-2] - 6/11/2009
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] - 6/11/2009
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 6/11/2009
Rep McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [CA-25] - 6/11/2009
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] - 6/11/2009
Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] - 6/11/2009
Rep Schmidt, Jean [OH-2] - 6/11/2009
Rep Shuler, Heath [NC-11] - 6/12/2009
Rep Teague, Harry [NM-2] - 6/12/2009
Rep Nunes, Devin [CA-21] - 6/12/2009
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 6/15/2009
Rep Sarbanes, John P. [MD-3] - 6/15/2009
Rep Edwards, Chet [TX-17] - 6/16/2009
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 6/16/2009
Rep Coffman, Mike [CO-6] - 6/16/2009
Rep Giffords, Gabrielle [AZ-8] - 6/16/2009
Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] - 6/16/2009
Rep Griffith, Parker [AL-5] - 6/16/2009
Rep Kosmas, Suzanne M. [FL-24] - 6/17/2009
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 6/17/2009
Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario [FL-25] - 6/18/2009
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 6/18/2009
Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] - 6/18/2009
Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] - 6/23/2009
Rep Space, Zachary T. [OH-18] - 6/23/2009
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 6/23/2009
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 6/23/2009
Rep Snyder, Vic [AR-2] - 6/23/2009
Rep Lewis, Jerry [CA-41] - 6/24/2009
Rep Markey, Betsy [CO-4] - 6/25/2009
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 6/26/2009
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 7/7/2009
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] - 7/7/2009
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 7/7/2009
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] - 7/7/2009
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] - 7/7/2009
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 7/8/2009
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] - 7/8/2009
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 7/8/2009
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 7/8/2009
Rep Murphy, Scott [NY-20] - 7/9/2009
Rep Fudge, Marcia L. [OH-11] - 7/9/2009
Rep Melancon, Charlie [LA-3] - 7/10/2009
Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] - 7/10/2009
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] - 7/10/2009
Rep Diaz-Balart, Lincoln [FL-21] - 7/10/2009
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 7/13/2009
Rep Yarmuth, John A. [KY-3] - 7/14/2009
Rep Titus, Dina [NV-3] - 7/14/2009
Rep Kirkpatrick, Ann [AZ-1] - 7/14/2009
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 7/14/2009
Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] - 7/14/2009
Rep Boyd, Allen [FL-2] - 7/14/200
Rep Salazar, John T. [CO-3] - 7/15/2009
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] - 7/15/2009
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] - 7/15/2009
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] - 7/17/2009
Rep Visclosky, Peter J. [IN-1] - 7/20/2009
Rep Scott, David [GA-13] - 7/20/2009
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 7/20/2009
Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] - 7/20/2009
Rep Dahlkemper, Kathleen A. [PA-3] - 7/22/2009
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 7/28/2009
Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37] - 7/28/2009
Rep Boccieri, John A. [OH-16] - 7/28/2009
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 7/30/2009
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 7/30/2009
Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] - 7/31/2009
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 9/8/2009
Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] - 9/8/2009
Rep Delahunt, Bill [MA-10] - 9/9/2009
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 9/10/2009
Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [TX-15] - 9/10/2009
Rep Schrader, Kurt [OR-5] - 9/15/2009
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] - 9/15/2009
Rep Nye, Glenn C., III [VA-2] - 9/17/2009
Rep Kildee, Dale E. [MI-5] - 9/21/2009
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 9/22/2009
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 9/23/2009
Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] - 9/23/2009
Rep Cuellar, Henry [TX-28] - 9/24/2009
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14] - 9/29/2009
Rep Davis, Lincoln [TN-4] - 9/30/2009
Rep Chu, Judy [CA-32] - 10/6/2009
Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1] - 10/6/2009
Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] - 10/6/2009
Rep Driehaus, Steve [OH-1] - 10/6/2009
Rep Spratt, John M., Jr. [SC-5] - 10/13/2009
Rep Higgins, Brian [NY-27] - 10/13/2009
Rep Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch [MD-2] - 10/20/2009
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 10/22/2009
Rep Hill, Baron P. [IN-9] - 10/22/2009
Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] - 10/23/2009
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] - 10/27/2009
Rep Heinrich, Martin [NM-1] - 11/2/2009
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 11/5/2009
Rep Kissell, Larry [NC-8] - 11/5/2009
Rep Clay, William. Lacy [MO-1] - 11/19/2009
Rep Lujan, Ben Ray [NM-3] - 11/19/2009
Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16] - 12/1/2009
Rep Rodriguez, Ciro D. [TX-23] - 12/1/2009
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] - 12/1/2009
Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] - 12/1/2009

http://digg.com/politics/...

What Fed Whistleblower Know?

What Does Senator Bunning Know, And, More Relevantly, What Does The Just Disclosed Fed Whistleblower Know?

by Tyler Durden , Zero Hedge, 01/26/2010 19:59 -0500

First, watch the below video. Note Senator Bunning's agreement with Zero Hedge on who the proposed head of the Fed should be (i.e., John Taylor). But that's irrelevant. What is - at 5:40 Bunning says that "Geithner will be fired by the President for his inability to handle his job as Secretary of the Treasury." True. What is even more relevant, and hints at a potential smoking gun, begins at 8:00 "[Bernanke's] staff did not agree with him [on bailing out AIG]...I am talking about an email that he sent his staff, after his staff recommended that the Federal Reserve not touch AIG, just like Lehman Brothers."

Ok fine, so Bernanke steamrolled opposition: that's nothing new - whoever thought the Fed is any more democratic than the country it is supposed to serve, surely is naive. Here is HuffPo's Ryan Grim on the matter:

A Republican senator said Tuesday that documents showing Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernake covered up the fact that his staff recommended he not bailout AIG are being kept from the public. And a House Republican charged that a whistleblower had alerted Congress to specific documents provide "troubling details" of Bernanke's role in the AIG bailout.

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), a Bernanke critic, said on CNBC that he has seen documents showing that Bernanke overruled such a recommendation. If that's the case, it raises questions about whether bailing out AIG was actually necessary, and what Bernanke's motives were.

And as we type, Harry Reid has noted that he wants to get a reconfirmation vote on Bernanke on Thursday - presumably before all the rot that will soon be uncovered about yet another Bernanke fiasco is made public. Hopefully the man who owns roughly $3 million in commercial real estate and is thus a direct beneficiary of a Bernanke reconfirmation, has done his math on senatorial support. A key question however is: shouldn't the debt ceiling issue be resolved first - after all the fact that our national debt "ceiling" is nothing but a joke these days, is a direct consequence of Fed policies to pile bail out upon bail out. It also leaves the question open of what additional information has to still be presented. Back to HuffPo:

Senators will be voting on Bernanke's confirmation for a second term in the coming days. But only senators on the Banking Committee have had access to documents that illuminate just what decisions he made and how he made them. And that access only came after Bunning publicly complained that Dodd and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) were the only members of the committee could see them.

Darrell Issa identifies the specific documents that need to be disclosed (see below) and has requested from Edolphus Towns that these be made public, as the "Board's staff did not return calls" in an attempt to procure these documents directly.

The take home message: the Fed has finally produced a whistleblower. Could this be the catalytic event that brings the house of cards down.

One only wonders at this point how deep the rabbit hole runs: if one declassified document confirms that recent testimonies by various bankers and Head of Treasury Departments may have bordered on perjury, one can only imagine the impact of not only the 250,000 pages of AIG docs already in Commission possession are released for crowdsourced analysis, but also what would happen if there is finally disclosure around the second bailout of AIG in February of 2009, which as we have repeatedly noted, was an even closer call for AIG bankruptcy than before. Oddly, with Goldman having no more risk exposure to AIG whatsoever then, courtesy of ML III, the insurer was still not allowed to fail. The question remains - why?

Arming Goldman Sachs With Pistols

Arming Goldman Sachs With Pistols: Alice Schroeder (Correct)

Commentary by Alice Schroeder

(Corrects second paragraph of story published Dec. 1 to say the New York Police Department believes some bankers may have received handgun permits.)

Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- “I just wrote my first reference for a gun permit,” said a friend, who told me of swearing to the good character of a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker who applied to the local police for a permit to buy a pistol. The banker had told this friend of mine that senior Goldman people have loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank.

I called Goldman Sachs spokesman Lucas van Praag to ask whether it’s true that Goldman partners feel they need handguns to protect themselves from the angry proletariat. He didn’t call me back. The New York Police Department has told me that “as a preliminary matter, it appears that some of the records you requested may be in the possession of this department” after I asked for information on approved handgun permits for bankers. The NYPD also said it will be a while before it can name names.

While we wait, Goldman has wrapped itself in the flag of Warren Buffett, with whom it will jointly donate $500 million, part of an effort to burnish its image -- and gain new Goldman clients. Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein also reversed himself after having previously called Goldman’s greed “God’s work” and apologized earlier this month for having participated in things that were “clearly wrong.”

Has it really come to this? Imagine what emotions must be billowing through the halls of Goldman Sachs to provoke the firm into an apology. Talk that Goldman bankers might have armed themselves in self-defense would sound ludicrous, were it not so apt a metaphor for the way that the most successful people on Wall Street have become a target for public rage.

Pistol Ready

Common sense tells you a handgun is probably not even all that useful. Suppose an intruder sneaks past the doorman or jumps the security fence at night. By the time you pull the pistol out of your wife’s jewelry safe, find the ammunition, and load your weapon, Fifi the Pomeranian has already been taken hostage and the gun won’t do you any good. As for carrying a loaded pistol when you venture outside, dream on. Concealed gun permits are almost impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain in New York or nearby states.

In other words, a little humility and contrition are probably the better route.

Until a couple of weeks ago, that was obvious to everyone but Goldman, a firm famous for both prescience and arrogance. In a display of both, Blankfein began to raise his personal- security threat level early in the financial crisis. He keeps a summer home near the Hamptons, where unrestricted public access would put him at risk if the angry mobs rose up and marched to the East End of Long Island.

To the Barricades

He tried to buy a house elsewhere without attracting attention as the financial crisis unfolded in 2007, a move that was foiled by the New York Post. Then, Blankfein got permission from the local authorities to install a security gate at his house two months before Bear Stearns Cos. collapsed.

This is the kind of foresight that Goldman Sachs is justly famous for. Blankfein somehow anticipated the persecution complex his fellow bankers would soon suffer. Surely, though, this man who can afford to surround himself with a private army of security guards isn’t sleeping with the key to a gun safe under his pillow. The thought is just too bizarre to be true.

So maybe other senior people at Goldman Sachs have gone out and bought guns, and they know something. But what?

Henry Paulson, U.S. Treasury secretary during the bailout and a former Goldman Sachs CEO, let it slip during testimony to Congress last summer when he explained why it was so critical to bail out Goldman Sachs, and -- oh yes -- the other banks. People “were unhappy with the big discrepancies in wealth, but they at least believed in the system and in some form of market-driven capitalism. But if we had a complete meltdown, it could lead to people questioning the basis of the system.”

Torn Curtain

There you have it. The bailout was meant to keep the curtain drawn on the way the rich make money, not from the free market, but from the lack of one. Goldman Sachs blew its cover when the firm’s revenue from trading reached a record $27 billion in the first nine months of this year, and a public that was writhing in financial agony caught on that the profits earned on taxpayer capital were going to pay employee bonuses.

This slip-up let the other bailed-out banks happily hand off public blame to Goldman, which is unpopular among its peers because it always seems to win at everyone’s expense.

Plenty of Wall Streeters worry about the big discrepancies in wealth, and think the rise of a financial industry-led plutocracy is unjust. That doesn’t mean any of them plan to move into a double-wide mobile home as a show of solidarity with the little people, though.

Cool Hand Lloyd

No, talk of Goldman and guns plays right into the way Wall- Streeters like to think of themselves. Even those who were bailed out believe they are tough, macho Clint Eastwoods of the financial frontier, protecting the fistful of dollars in one hand with the Glock in the other. The last thing they want is to be so reasonably paid that the peasants have no interest in lynching them.

And if the proles really do appear brandishing pitchforks at the doors of Park Avenue and the gates of Round Hill Road, you can be sure that the Goldman guys and their families will be holed up in their safe rooms with their firearms. If nothing else, that pistol permit might go part way toward explaining why they won’t be standing outside with the rest of the crowd, broke and humiliated, saying, “Damn, I was on the wrong side of a trade with Goldman again.”

(Alice Schroeder, author of “The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life” and a former managing director at Morgan Stanley, is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Alice Schroeder at aliceschroeder@ymail.com.

Last Updated: December 3, 2009 13:57 EST

Mediolanum, 50 promotori indagati

L'indagine della procura di Milano nasce dagli accertamenti su Giovanni Guastalla, commercialista svizzero arrestato nel corso del procedimento Italease

Mediolanum, 50 promotori indagati
fatture false per 10 milioni di euro

La società chiarisce di essere estranea ai presunti reati, imputati ai soli professioni e ai loro clienti

Milano - Cinquanta promotori finanziari di Mediolanum sono indagati per evasione fiscale dalla procura della Repubblica di Milano. Venerdì scorso è stato perquisito lo studio del commercialista Marco Baroni, il consulente dei promotori finanziari. Il suo nome è stato fatto da Giovanni Guastalla, il commercialista svizzero arrestato per riciclaggio e associazione per delinquere nell'ambito di uno dei tronconi di indagini relative alla società Italease. Le fatture riferite a operazioni inesistenti sarebbero state emesse, secondo l'accusa, tra il 2006 e il 2009.

L'inchiesta a carico dei promotori finanziari di Mediolanum (società che conta tra i suoi principali azionisti il Gruppo Fininvest), nasce dagli accertamenti compiuti su Guastalla. Secondo quanto ipotizzano i magistrati, il fiduciario elvetico avrebbe emesso fatture per un ammontare complessivo di 10 milioni di euro a favore dei promotori finanziari di Mediolanum per operazioni inesistenti. Gli indagati hanno in comune come commercialista Baroni, il quale aveva un contratto di consulenza con Mediolanum per i suoi promotori. Nell'inchiesta sono finiti anche una trentina di clienti della società.

Mediolanum fa comunque sapere di essere estranea in quanto società: l'indagine riguarda cioè i singoli promotori finanziari, che hanno comunque teoricamente ancora tempo per sanare le fatture emesse nel 2009, con la prossima dichiarazione dei redditi.

LaRepubblica.it, 01 febbraio 2010

Should Germany bail out Club Med or leave euro itself?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Should Germany bail out Club Med or leave euro itself?

Submitted by cpowell on Sun, 2010-01-31 20:29. Section: Daily Dispatches

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
The Telegraph, London
Sunday, January 31, 2010

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7119986/Should-Germany-bail-o...

Germany faces a terrible dilemma. Either Europe's paymaster agrees to underwrite a Greek bailout and drops its vehement opposition to a de facto EU economic government, treasury, and debt union, or the euro will start to unravel, and with it Germany's strategic investment in the post-war order.

The spike in yields on 10-year Greek bonds to 400 basis points above German Bunds has been shockingly swift -- a warning to Britain too that markets can suddenly strike any country that takes creditors for granted.

We can argue over whether Greece, Portugal, or Spain are at risk of being forced out of the euro. But there is another nagging question: whether events will cause Germany and its satellites to withdraw, bequeathing the legal carcass of EMU to the Club Med bloc.

This is the only breakup scenario that makes much sense. A German exit would allow Club Med to uphold contracts in euros and devalue with least havoc to internal debt markets. The German bloc would enjoy a windfall gain. The D-Mark II would be stronger. Borrowing costs would fall. The North-South gap in competitiveness could be bridged with less disruption for both sides.

To be sure, Germany is happily placed in the current EMU system. By compressing wages for a decade it has stolen a march on EMU. Critics unfairly call this a beggar-thy-neighbour policy. It is simply the way Lutheran society operates, in deep contrast to the way Latin society operates -- a cultural clash that should have given pause for thought before Europe's elites launched headlong into their adventure.

German goods are flooding the South. In the 12 months to November, Germany-Benelux had a current account surplus of $211 billion: Spain had a deficit of $82 billion, Italy $74 billion, France $57 billion, and Greece $37 billion. German industry will not give up this edge lightly. However, the matter will in the end be decided by democracy. German citizens were given a pledge by their leaders in the 1990s that loss of the D-Mark would not lead to monetary disorder, or leave them liable for Club Med debt. That is the sacred contract of EMU.

"Politically," said Bundesbank chief Axel Weber, "it's not possible to tell voters that they are bailing out another country so that it can avoid painful austerity measures that they themselves have gone through. Such aid, whether conditional, or -- even worse -- unconditional, is counterproductive."

Dr Weber is right on both counts. Fresh loans for Greece can achieve nothing useful at this stage. Greece already has a public debt hurtling towards 138 percent of GDP by 2012 (Standard & Poor's). It is already in a debt compound spiral. The EU elites have yet to acknowledge that Greece and much of Club Med need gifts -- not loans -- akin to transfers paid to East Germany after unification, or North Italian perma-subsidies to the Mezzogiorno.

Athens has promised to slash the budget deficit by 10 percent of GDP over three years, though the country is sliding deeper into slump, faces 20 percent unemployment by the year's end, has a tottering banking system, and has already lost control of its streets before spending cuts have even begun. Such a policy is economically self-defeating -- since it risks tipping the country into depression, and causing tax revenues to collapse -- but will it be tolerated by Greek society?

The Papandreou government has craftily invited the European Commission to set up a vice-regal inspectorate in Athens, to become the focus of popular fury. The media talks of "guardianship." Ta Nea, an Athens newspaper, writes of "ultimatums" and "suffocating deadlines" for wage and pension cuts. "Either we obey the commands of unprecedented austerity and face the risk of widespread social unrest or we refuse to implement the orders."

Spain's troubles are less immediate, but it lost as much competitiveness during the early EMU boom, that debt trap of negative real interest rates. External corporate debt is dangerously high. The budget deficit was 11.3 percent of GDP last year. Madrid has drawn up E50 billion of cuts to sweeten the markets, even though unemployment is already 19 percent. The jobless typically receive 50 to 60 percent of former earnings for around 18 months; then the ax falls. The social distress hits with a lag. How much more tightening can Spain endure before Catalan, Basque, and Galician seperatism rocks the Spanish state?

Fiscal austerity in these circumstances without monetary and exchange stimulus to offer a lifeline is incoherent. These policies must fail because they are based on EU wishful thinking that high-debt nations can regain competitiveness within EMU against a zero-inflation Germany. Such a strategy will drive them into a debt-deflation spiral.

Europe will have to embrace "fiscal federalism" if it is to hold monetary union together. That is when we will probe the limits of EMU solidarity. Hedge funds are betting that Berlin will pay to ensure stability. No doubt Chancellor Angela Merkel is of that mind, but the Free Democrats are not, nor are Bavaria's Social Christians, or the Bundestag's finance committee. Economy minister Rainer Bruderle said last week that there would be "no bailouts" regardless of risks to EMU. Is that just brinkmanship?

EMU architects were warned in the early 1990s that monetary union would prove unworkable as constructed. They scoffed, sure that any crisis could be exploited to force the pace of economic union. Commission chief Romano Prodi later admitted as much. "The euro will oblige us to introduce a new set of economic policy instruments. It is politically impossible now. But someday there will be a crisis and new instruments will be created."

We will soon learn if this gamble will pay off, or prove catastrophically wrong.

Rating e Rischiosità del Credito di Impresa

Rating e Rischiosità del Credito di Impresa: Comportamenti del Sistema Bancario

Dott. Massimo SINIGAGLIA, Università di Piacenza, 22 Gennaio 2010

[Documento pdf]

Boies Schiller Fires Back in Lehman-Barclays Dispute

Boies Schiller Fires Back in Lehman-Barclays Dispute

Zach Lowe

The American Lawyer

February 01, 2010

Barclays' lawyers at Boies Schiller & Flexner made a hefty filing Friday in an effort to convince a judge to dismiss a suit arguing Barclays got a $5 billion sweetheart deal when it purchased Lehman Brothers' North American assets at the height of the financial crisis. The thousands of pages filed provide a fascinating glimpse into the chaos of September 2008, the kind of glimpse you can only get either when dozens of people are unusually candid or when a lawyer accidentally waives attorney-client privilege and, in the process, opens up a lot of secret stuff to public scrutiny.

The dispute is complicated, and there are dozens of prongs to the Lehman-Barclays transaction, but you can boil the Barclays/Boies Schiller argument down to this: There was no secret agreement to give Barclays a $5 billion windfall in the deal, and Lehman -- and its financial advisers as well as its lawyers at Weil, Gotshal & Manges -- knew exactly what they were doing when they agreed to the deal in late September 2008, according to court records. (Lawyers on all sides of this conflict declined to comment or didn't return messages seeking comment.)

As you'll recall, Lehman's bankrupt estate and special litigation counsel at Jones Day filed a special motion a year after Lehman's collapse asking a bankruptcy judge to reconsider the sale of Lehman's North American assets to Barclays. Under the terms of that deal, Barclays paid about $1.5 billion for the assets and a separate chunk of $45 billion in cash for securities valued at $49.7 billion, according to court records and summaries from Bloomberg and The New York Times.

At the heart of the dispute is Lehman's claim that higher-ups at both banks conspired to devalue those securities during the deal and that Barclays has since seen those securities rise in value. In the papers filed Friday morning -- which include a 110-page deposition of Weil bankruptcy guru Harvey Miller -- the Barclays side argues (among many other things) that the two sides did their best to value the securities accurately, but there was no way to do so precisely with the markets fluctuating wildly. And regardless, the papers say, everyone in the know understood that the agreement was a broad one covering a pile of securities with just a few exceptions. Haggling over individual securities was not going to hold up the deal, which was essential to preserve Lehman's value and avoid a total liquidation, according to Miller's deposition and other records. "The values were fluctuating," Miller testified under questioning from David Boies. "The figures were, I say, not reliable, and it was a deal to buy the business, not a balance sheet deal." Miller testifies several times that insiders felt Lehman was "aggressive" in marking its securities, meaning that Barclays believed Lehman was over-valuing them and wanted their value cut before making the deal.

There "was nothing secret" about those disagreements, Barry Ridings, a Lazard executive who advised Lehman during the bankruptcy, testified in a deposition conducted by Jonathan Schiller. In a separate declaration, James Seery, a partner at Sidley Austin who was a top executive at Lehman in Sept. 2008, claims that the securities in question were likely worth about $45.5 billion -- just a hair higher than the amount Barclays paid in cash.

Representatives for Lehman's estate and the estate's trustee released statements Friday repeating their claim that Barclays received a secret windfall, according to Reuters. The Lehman side argues that the cash-for-securities exchange was intended to be an even deal. A representative for the estate's trustee (James Giddens of Hughes Hubbard & Reed) said the Barclays papers stem from a "strained" interpretation of the sale terms, Reuters reports.

The Barclays team argues that there was never any agreement that the exchange was to be "a wash," and that Barclays made the deal hoping to make a profit but also risking that the securities could decline in value even further.

The Miller and Ridings depositions are among the centerpieces of the massive Barclays filing Friday. Both are lengthy, and both go to the question of how Lehman's key advisers understood the deal. Beyond that, they provide vivid windows into the moment at which modern capitalism nearly collapsed. You almost feel you need to be eating popcorn while you read them. Miller talks about the hundreds of people swarming Lehman's headquarters, and remembers worrying about the lack of security and rumors that reporters from The Wall Street Journal had snuck in. He recalls how his partner at Weil, Lori Fife, had to explain to hundreds of lawyers gathered in court on Friday, Sept. 19, the details of a document that slightly amended the terms of the Barclays sale. The document wasn't finished, so Fife relied on some scribblings on a legal pad to give an oral presentation while the judge, James Peck, took a break, Miller testifies. The courtroom erupted in applause when Peck finally approved the deal -- something Miller could never remember seeing before.

The filings also contain dozens of confidential Weil e-mails formerly protected by attorney-client privilege. But as we reported earlier, the Boies Schiller team argued that the Lehman side inadvertently waived the privilege when it raised the possibility that Weil's lawyers weren't aware of the alleged secret windfall.

Objections to the Barclays motion are due March 4.

This article first appeared on The Am Law Daily blog on AmericanLawyer.com.

Vivendi Suit: Plaintiffs Predict $9.3 Billion Payout

Jury Rules for Shareholders in Vivendi Suit; Plaintiffs Predict $9.3 Billion Payout

New York jury finds company liable, but not its executives

Larry Neumeister

The Associated Press

February 01, 2010

A jury on Friday decided in favor of U.S. and European shareholders who said the Paris-based Vivendi media group lied to the public about its shaky finances, setting the stage for the possible distribution of several billion dollars in damages to investors.

The company was found liable, but not its executives, according to the verdict in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

Vivendi said it will appeal. Lawyers on both sides said any potential payouts should it fail would be more than a year away. The jury deliberated 14 days before reaching its verdict.

Plaintiffs said in a release that the potential payout to investors could total $9.3 billion. A lawyer for Vivendi said it was impossible at this stage to estimate actual damages because it was not clear how many were in the class and who will seek payouts.

Regardless, shareholders' attorney Arthur Abbey said he believed the award was the largest securities class action jury verdict in history, measured by the number of people affected and the dollars involved. He said plaintiffs were elated.

Thousands of investors from the United States, France, England and the Netherlands said Vivendi covered up its troubles in 2001 and 2002 as the one-time public water company grew into a media and communications empire. The company flirted with bankruptcy before reorganizing successfully.

Jean-Marie Messier, who took over the company's top post in 1996, was forced out as CEO in July 2002, when the company was known as Vivendi Universal.

Defendants in the trial were Vivendi, Messier and former chief financial officer, Guillaume Hannezo.

The jury concluded on 57 separate claims that Vivendi was 100 percent responsible for misstatements or omissions that misled shareholders. It concluded that Messier and Hannezo were not responsible.

It found that Vivendi acted recklessly rather than knowingly in the damage the jury found that it caused. It also concluded that at times the misstatements or omissions inflated the company's stock by as much as $11.

The amount of money plaintiffs will receive if the verdict does not get reversed is based on the jury's calculation of how much the shares were inflated as a result of Vivendi's alleged misdeeds.

Outside court, Vivendi attorney Paul Saunders said the company was disappointed and is focused on its appeal, which he said "we expect to win."

"We feel very good about the appeal," he said, adding that the company would ask the judge within a month to toss out the case entirely.

He said the company was pleased that the jury gave the plaintiffs only half of the rate per share that they were requesting.

"To that extent, this is a partial victory for us," he said.

He said that if the case is not thrown out, it would take at least a year to determine how many people deserve compensation and how much money was at stake.

"We have just really begun to fight," he said. "We are going to challenge everything we can challenge."

Saunders said the company would challenge on appeal whether the court had proper jurisdiction over a foreign company, whether it was proper to calculate damages by estimating the amount of inflation that resulted to share prices and whether the judge's rulings were wrong during the trial.

In a statement, lawyers for the plaintiffs said: "This verdict shows that deserving investors can get just compensation through class actions, even against the strongest opposition. Very few of these cases go all the way to trial, and we are gratified at the outcome."

The verdict stemmed from a lawsuit brought by the Retirement System for the General Employees of the City of Miami Beach and several individuals.

Gerard Morel, a retiree from Caen, France, who testified at the trial, in a statement called it a "victory for investors everywhere."

Rick Rivera, pension administrator for the Miami Beach retirement fund, said in the same statement: "This case shows that pension funds can play a positive role in making sure the stock market is free of fraud and is fair for all investors."

Plaintiffs said in a statement that their estimated payout was based on an analysis by their economics expert assuming all class members submit claims. The total includes prejudgment interest that the court would have to rule was appropriate.

Any claims procedure to be supervised by the court will be announced only when the appeals process is completed.

During the trial, Messier testified that he acted in good faith when he tried to expand a French water company into a global media giant. But he said he did not foresee technological limitations and worldwide financial problems that contributed to its near-bankruptcy in 2002.

"Some of my management decisions turned wrong, but fraud? No. Never. Never. Never," he said.

Beginning June 2, Messier will stand trial in France on charges of misleading investors over the company's financial health while he was transforming the once-stodgy water utility into a high-flying film, music and pay TV conglomerate.

Messier, a one-time star of the French business world, and six other former top Vivendi executives were ordered to stand trial after a probe opened in 2002, following a complaint by investors alleging that they had been misled into buying or holding Vivendi stock.

The six other officials charged in the case include Edgar Bronfman Jr. and Hannezo.

Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Editor's note: For more on the Vivendi case, see the latest in ongoing coverage from The Am Law Litigation Daily.

OUTSOURCING CHORES ON BARTER

OUTSOURCING CHORES ON BARTER

Author: Neha Gupta, Writer for Ormita Australia Limited
Website for the Ormita Commerce Network: http://www.ormita.com.au
Date Issued: 29 January 2010

The life of an entrepreneur is very demanding. Time is always short and deadlines are always around the corner. It becomes very hard to maintain balance between work and personal life. It is therefore important that family time is spent carefully, and not on household chores like cleaning, mowing your lawn, maintaining your appointments etc

Outsourcing these small jobs to other businesses by way of barter deals is a very good way to ensure more productivity for the business owner and a better quality of life.

Some major jobs that you can outsource are

1.Driving your kids to school: How many times a week do you get late for a meeting because you had to drop your kids to school before coming to office or how often after a tiring day at work do you wish to sleep in till late but have to get up early because you have to drive the kids to school? This will never be the case if you outsource this job to a professional who will drive your children to school daily and save you the stress.

2.Preparing meals: Parents always want to ensure that their kids get a healthy diet but it’s not always easy to prepare a meal after a hard day at work and if you often order in a pizza or burger you know you compromise with your family’s health. A better resolution would be to outsource this task. Probably for Monday to Friday ask the food services to make your family meals and on weekends when you are free you can cook for your family. This way cooking will become a fun thing rather than a task.

3.Garden maintenance: Mowing your lawn, plantings new flowers, watering the trees in your backyard are some of the chores that are essential to maintain your garden. These jobs can easily be outsourced to professionals. They will maintain your pretty garden for you and save your time and energy.

4.Secretarial services: Sometimes keeping family and home appointments in order is harder than keeping a business in place. The feeling of guilt because you forgot a family commitment can be a big cause of stress. Getting secretarial assistance to maintain a record of personal appointments like parent teacher meetings, an appointment with your doctor, taking the kids to a dentist etc. can save you the stress and guilt. Also jobs like grocery shopping, making arrangements for family holidays etc. can be taken care of by them.

5.Laundry service: Hiring a laundry service to collect laundry and return your clothes to you on periodic bases is another way to outsource minor household chores.

6.Hiring cleaning service: You can hire people to clean your home once a week instead of you. These people are professionals and will give you the best results.

Like this there are many tasks at home that you can assign to a professional and lessen your burden. The main benefits of outsourcing these jobs are

Better quality of life. As you have more time to rest, exercise, do leisure activities, indulge in your hobbies.

Better family life. Outsourcing household tasks means more time for family. You can use this time to play with your son, to shop with your daughter, to catch up with distant family and friends or to spend a lazy evening with your spouse.

Less stress, more productivity. This helps you to minimize stress and improve productivity as while in a meeting you are no worried about picking up kids from school or finding time to clean the kitchen.

Often you can trade directly with providers of these services. Other times you may need the assistance of a barter exchange or commerce network to match what you are selling with providers of services you need. The benefits provided by a formal barter network, however, are that you do not need to trade directly with someone whose services you need. These formal barter companies, instead, maintain a record of the value of each barter deal [buy or sell] and do three, four and five-way matching so you get what you need while providing your service in return – all without having to worry about sourcing barter partners.

SHARING PREMISES TO GROW YOUR BUSINESS

SHARING PREMISES TO GROW YOUR BUSINESS
Author: Neha Gupta, Writer for Ormita Australia Limited
Website for the Ormita Commerce Network: http://www.ormita.com.au
Date Issued: 1 February 2010

If you want to be incrementally better: be competitive but if you want to be exponentially better: be cooperative. That’s the mantra of those who have established profitable and successful businesses. Cooperate with other entrepreneurs. Sharing your business premises with a business complimentary to yours could be of great assistance in this regard.

Choosing a business which compliments yours help create a good ambience. For example: if you own a beauty salon then sharing the premises with a cosmetic store, spa, aerobics centre or gym can be a good idea. Similarly, book stores, coaching institutes or tuition centers sharing space with a coffee shop can be a good combination. A skin care clinic sharing space with a nature or herb store can attract more attention than a normal clinic. Wedding planner sharing business space with a wedding gown designer will certainly give an edge to both the businesses.

Some of the benefits of sharing business space are :
Larger stores attract more attention: It’s a known fact that a large store attracts more attention. When you are driving by a small store you might just ignore it but a large store catches your attention sooner and is hard to ignore. But we all know that the rent or cost for a large space to create your business might be too much so sharing large space among two or more business is a good idea.

Diversify customer base: Customers save time and energy when they get more than one service at one single location as it saves them the time to commute. Also many times customers end up buying things because they were readily available whereas if not so they might have never made the purchase. So, having more than one business under the same roof helps you increase your customer base.

Share costs: Many costs can be shared when sharing business space. Rent, electricity and water bills are the ones you know upfront. But there others like cost of having a restroom can be shared as this space can be shared by both businesses. Also, advertising cost as it might be better to plan a single advertising budget. In some cases even employees can be shared like having a common receptionist or typist etc.

Advertise one another: Both businesses can advertise one another. You can refer your customers to them and vice a versa. Also may be offering common customer special deals for being loyal to both businesses will promote both the businesses together. Sharing advertising cost can reduce the expenditure for each entrepreneur by almost half.

Sharing the business premises means sharing not just land or rent, it can mean sharing your burdens and expenditures, your labor and advertising budget and when success comes knocking the SUCCESS. So, share premises and partner for success.