$700 Billion Bail Out: Fire The Arsonists
In making any new investment, isn't it prudent to invest slowly and methodically, evaluating and improving the process and the values paid? Shouldn't the U.S. taxpayers' money be invested wisely?
[Election 2008: Economic Meltdown]
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson along with Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben
Bernanke offered to solve all of the current Wall Street credit problems.
Their solution, Congress remits to them a blank check payable for $700 Billion. That's
slightly less than $2,300 from every man, woman and child in the United States.
To paraphrase a member of Congress, "it's like a paying an arsonist to put out the fire."
Maybe it's time we fire the arsonists.
Secretary Paulson, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Dartmouth with a Harvard M.B.A., is
brilliant. Having started at Goldman Sachs in 1974, he rose through the ranks to become
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs from the firm's initial public
offering in 1999 until his swearing in as Treasury Secretary in July 2006. It is more than
ironic that he has amassed much of his personal of fortune of $500 million by creating
and selling the very "toxic waste" investments that he is proposing that we, the U.S.
Chairman Bernanke has pronounced that the price to be paid for this is at what he
describes as "hold-to-maturity" value. He says "the holders have a view of what they
think it's worth. It's hard for outsiders to know." So, the Chairman proposes we trust the
firms who own the investments to tell us how much they're worth, and then pay whatever
they say.He argues this is much better for our markets and economy than paying current
"fire sale" value. Really? It sounds like a terrible investment to me. So, let's look at the
Chairman's background to understand his experience with investments and the
Chairman Bernanke received a B.A. in economics in 1975 from Harvard University
(summa cum laude) and a Ph.D. in economics in 1979 from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. Since 1985 he was Professor of Economics at Princeton, where he rose to
Chair of the Economics Department. He is another incredibly brilliant man. So for
twenty years, from 1985 until his swearing in as Chairman of the Federal Reserve in
June, 2005, he has worked strictly as an academic. He spent not a single day in business
and has no experience in the private sector.
So the Secretary who helped to start and feed the fire, and the Chairman who wrote and
taught about it, now want American taxpayers to give them total authority to buy $700
billion worth of investments that the very people who own them call "toxic waste."
Today, Warren Buffet came out in favor of the Treasury Secretary's proposed bailout.
However, Mr. Buffet, perhaps the greatest value investor of all time, didn't buy at "fire
sale" prices the "toxic waste" investments that he is recommending the U.S. taxpayer buy
at the much, much higher "hold-to-maturity" prices. Instead, with his own money, he
made a sweetheart deal to invest $5 billion in Goldman Sachs preferred stock. This
investment carries a 10% interest rate, along with warrants that today guarantee him at
least a $1 billion profit on his investment in just 1 day! Mr. Buffet buys entire
companies when he wants to make a great investment.
He buys stock in companies on the open market when he is exploring a longer-term
investment approach. Historically, he makes specially negotiated investments in companies
when he is taking advantage of market conditions to make a short-term trade,
as he did with Level 3 a few years ago.
Why should the U.S. taxpayer get ripped off while he makes billions on a short-term?
When the Congressional committee suggested that the $700 billion be made available in
stages, not all at once, Secretary Paulson said it would be a grave mistake. In making any
new investment, isn't it prudent to invest slowly and methodically, evaluating and
improving the process and the values paid? Shouldn't the U.S. taxpayers' money be
invested wisely? Why rush to hand this money to a bunch of "consultants" to invest all at
once? We are asked to believe Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke will hire the
right investment bankers, and act wisely. These are the same two gentlemen who have
repeatedly assured us that everything was under control since two Bear Stearns hedge
funds collapsed in June of 2007.
We've been rushed to action before by this duo. On January 17th in testimony to
Congress, Chairman Bernanke said, "To be useful, a fiscal stimulus package should be
implemented quickly and structured so that its effects on aggregate spending are felt as
much as possible within the next 12 months or so.''
When the Federal Reserve lent $29 billion to JP Morgan to buy Bear Stearns, with the
assets of Bear Stearns as collateral in March of 2008, Secretary Paulson defended the
move as necessary to prevent "severe" damage to financial markets. Then we saw
Fannie, Freddie, AIG and Lehman fall. They were wrong then, what has changed that we
should rush to believe them now?
Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Chairman from 1979 to 1987 commented at the time that
the Federal Reserve under Bernanke was testing the "time-honored central bank mantra
in time of crisis: lend freely at high rates against good collateral; test it to the point of no
return.'' So, what exactly is the "point of no return?"
No one, certainly neither Secretary Paulson nor Chairman Bernanke know the full extent
of the problem with these "toxic waste" investments. So, let's do a little math.
It is estimated that the total net worth, or wealth of the entire United States is
approximately $57 trillion. It is further estimated that the total value of all derivatives is
approximately $600 trillion. Derivatives are financial agreements between two parties
often backed only by their "promise", and little or no assets. In his 2002 letter to
shareholders, Warren Buffet said, "derivatives are financial weapons of mass
destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal." Let's assume
only 10% of these derivatives are "toxic waste", that there is no ability by the issuer to
honor their contract. That comes to $60 trillion, or a few more trillion than we have if we
sold our entire country. Bottom line: we don't have enough money to fix the financial
toxic waste that these geniuses with their MBAs, PhDs, and fancy computer models
created, and that Mr. Buffet warned us about more than 5 years ago.
Since we don't have enough money to fix that problem, what can we do? Strengthen the
safety net for the poorest Americans, create jobs for those who can work, and promote
American industry and energy independence.
Here's a 5 point plan for bolstering confidence and our economy:
1. Double the time period for unemployment benefits
2. Increase aid to states to enhance welfare, workfare and child care
3. Increase aid to states to increase pay to teachers
4. Create and fund important infrastructure projects a la the Depression Era WPA to
revitalize our roads, bridges and utility grid.
5. Provide tax incentives to promote energy efficiency, solar power, and a $10,000 credit
for any new vehicle that can run 40 miles continuously without the use of liquid fuels
(this last one may save General Motors and the United States)
Oh yes. I almost forgot.
Point 6. FIRE THE ARSONISTS!
Jeff M. Wilson, BSE, CLU, ChFC is President of Wilson Advisory Group, LLC. He
received his B.S. Economics from The Wharton School of the University of
Pennsylvania and was trained by one of the principal advisors to the DuPont family.
Wilson Advisory Group was founded in 1987 to deliver independent wealth
management services free of the conflicts of interests that prevail in most Wall
Ann GarrisonNovember 30,2013 @ 12:14 PM
It was sexy to be against the war back then. He was probably in it to get laid.
carpinteyrobwmJuly 14,2013 @ 09:29 PM
carpinteyrobwmJuly 14,2013 @ 08:34 PM
amslctciikJuly 13,2013 @ 01:47 AM
http://youngsgear.us - louis vuitton bags cheap on the inside...
No Record Exist!!