From: rexon nting 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: [camnetwork] BILL CLINTON'S ROLE IN THE MORTGAGE CRISIS



Mulindwa,

There are some reasons to believe that the current crises was grounded on 
failures in the system, however, giving the way the financial is interelated to 
the wider economy, it is very difficult to predict the future. It is amazing 
how we sometimes fail to recognise how our own failures to pay our mortgage and 
credit card bills led to this crises. 

To be more specific, the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933 was enacted after the 1929 
stock market crash where universal banks where accused of creating and 
marketing risky debt related products and when the economy become more 
turbulent, people could not pay these debts leading to the failures in the 
market. The prime concern of the act was to prevent investment banks from 
offering retail products. This was reappealed in 1999 during the era of Clinton 
leading to the creation again of universal banks. In the world wide financial 
market, through a series of mergers and acquisitions, the main universal banks 
that developed where bank of america, citigroup, jp morgan chase, deustche 
bank, hsbc, barclays. The traditional investment banks that remained where 
Goldman sachs, Morgan stanley, Merrill lynch and the now defunct Lehman 
brothers.

Going by your article that Clinton's administration that sanction the 
re-creation of universal banks in 1999 that have been banned by the 
Glass-Steagal Act of 1993 was the root caused of the recent crises, why then 
was Lehman Brothers (a traditional investment bank) the first to go burst? The 
problem here is, the maket works with individual psychology in the short term 
and in the long term, it is the fundamentals that drives the market and no 
single system can control the market from stabilising itself when it need. 

Banks are traditionally expected to finance their operations from retail 
deposit/savings. Others without a retail base like investment banks finance 
their operations through borrowing from other banks (interbank borrowing) with 
interest paid at a rate called LIBOR. Retail banks too sometimes borrow on the 
interbank market when they have aggresive expansion policies that their 
deposits/savings cannot finance. What specifically happened was, some banks 
(mostly investment banks that those not raise cash from retail deposits) where 
borrowing from the wholesale market (interbank borrowing through LIBOR) that 
had short term obligations to finance their operations and were not relying 
only on their retail deposits/savings. When it became apparent that people 
could not pay their mortgages/credit card bills as a result of the increase in 
the cost of basic commodities fuelled by the increase in petrol, they had to go 
burst. That is why Lehman went burst easily, freddie marc, Fannie mae, bank of 
Scotland. These banks were mostly borrowing from the wholesale market (from 
other banks with short term obligations) and when it became apparent that they 
could not meet their obligations, they have to go burst or be bailed out. Other 
banks with a significant exposure in emerging markets like Barclays, HSBC, BNP 
Paribas, Societe Generale, etc that were not hugely affected by this could 
still borrow from within their retail deposits to finance their operations even 
when some individuals were defaulting on their loans while others could not. 

Take note that, these whole problem was more rampant in the UK and US which are 
home owning countries where people have the tradition of owning their own 
countries as opposed to other countries where people mostly prefer to rent. In 
countries like France/Germany with strict morgage lending criteria where most 
houses are owned by banks and customers have to provide huge deposits before 
taking mortgages, these whole problem was not rampant. You can therefore 
conclude that Clinton's policy in abolishing the Glass-Steagal Act in 1999 
recreating universal banks was therefore good for the banking system and the 
wider economy, if not, more banks would have gone burst after increases in 
prices of petrol leading to increases in the prices of basic commodities. No 
one speculated that prices of petrol would increase dramatically and if there 
is anyone to blame, it is the Bush administration for attacking Iraq as that is 
the overall cause of scarcity in petrol and political instability 
internationally. 

Many thanks.  




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mulindwa Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dr. Valentine Ojo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Oryema Johnson 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Nyar Nyar'Onyango <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:44:50 PM
Subject: [camnetwork] BILL CLINTON'S ROLE IN THE MORTGAGE CRISIS



Bill Clinton's Role in the Mortgage Crisis
by Ralph Brauer | 11/27/2007 10:15:00 AM 


FDR Signs the Glass-Steagall Act (Carter Glass on Left)

Many Democrats wish Bill Clinton still occupied the White House. However, 
before you put him in Mt. Rushmore, you might want to investigate his role in 
the mortgage foreclosure crisis.

The chief aim of what I have termed the Republican Counterrevolution has always 
been to roll back the New Deal. Anti-gov'ment rhetoric hides this as surely as 
states' rights hid racist segregation. Of all the New Deal legislation the GOP 
has sought to overturn, one that has always been at or near the top of the list 
is the Glass-Steagall Act. Ironically, a Democratic president repealed this for 
them.

Glass-Steagall

An unreconstructed Southerner from Virginia, Carter Glass shepherded the 
creation of the Federal Reserve System through Congress, which has caused some 
to call him the "founding father of the Federal Reserve System." Later Glass 
would serve as Wilson's Treasury Secretary, recommending aid to Europe after 
World War I. Just before leaving Treasury to become senator, Glass warned about 
banks getting involved in stocks.

In his economic history of the Great Depression, John Kenneth Galbraith pointed 
out one of the causes was: 
  The large-scale corporate thimblerigging that was going on. This took a 
variety of forms, of which by far the most common was the organization of 
corporations to hold stock in yet other corporations, which in turn held stock 
in yet other corporations.
Galbraith would note: 
  During 1929 one investment house, Goldman, Sachs & Company, organized and 
sold nearly a billion dollars’ worth of securities in three interconnected 
investment trusts—Goldman Sachs Trading Corporation; Shenandoah Corporation; 
and Blue Ridge Corporation. All eventually depreciated virtually to nothing.
It is hard to imagine today what it felt like to walk through the door of a 
bank in those days and learn that the dollars you had earned had vanished. 
Every day spent working and saving had been for nothing. A great many farmers, 
brick layers, carpenters, factory workers believed the bankers had stolen their 
lives.

When Franklin Roosevelt took office, both the President and Congress knew the 
banking crisis demanded immediate action. The result was one of the crown 
jewels of the New Deal: the Glass-Steagall Act, officially known as the Banking 
Act of 1933. Glass made sure the bill forbid banks from getting into the 
investment business. In addition, the bill established the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Company, which protects our bank deposits.

In 1971, in Investment Company Institute v. Camp, no less than the United 
States Supreme Court would write what stands as the most cogent summary of the 
reasons for Glass-Steagall:

  Congress was concerned that commercial banks in general and member banks of 
the Federal Reserve System in particular had both aggravated and been damaged 
by stock market decline partly because of their direct and indirect involvement 
in the trading and ownership of speculative securities.

  The legislative history of the Glass-Steagall Act shows that Congress also 
had in mind and repeatedly focused on the more subtle hazards that arise when a 
commercial bank goes beyond the business of acting as fiduciary or managing 
agent and enters the investment banking business either directly or by 
establishing an affiliate to hold and sell particular investments. 
Many arguments the Supreme Court advanced in support of Glass-Steagall, would 
prove prophetic three decades later.

Bill Clinton and the Wall of Me

Billionaire Sanford I. Weill, who according to Louis Uchitelle made "Citigroup 
into the most powerful financial institution since the House of Morgan a 
century ago," has what I call the Wall of Me leading to his office, which he 
has decorated with tributes to him, including a dozen framed magazine covers. A 
major trophy is the pen Bill Clinton used to sign the repeal of the 
Glass-Steagall Act, a move which allowed Weill to create Citigroup. Fittingly, 
Citigroup is a major contributor to guess which current Democratic Presidential 
candidate?

A Frontline report on the repeal of Glass-Steagall shows how those with money 
end up with pens from the President of the United States on their walls. 

  Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the 
deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned 
Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the 
bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations 
resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. Whether Weill made any 
difference in precipitating a deal is unclear.

  Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees 
to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman 
of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by 
accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill's chief lieutenant. The previous 
year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the 
upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, 
the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?"
When Bill Clinton gave that pen to Sanford Weill, it symbolized the ending of 
the twentieth century Democratic Party that had created the New Deal. Although 
the 1999 law did not repeal all of the banking Act of 1933, retaining the FDIC, 
it did once again allow banks to enter the securities business, becoming what 
some term "whole banks."

The repeal of one of the most important pieces of legislation in this nation's 
history came about as a result of another Clinton "triangulation, " the 
wobbling attempt to find the middle of the road that has somehow managed to 
pass for a philosophy with many Democrats for over two decades. As former 
Clinton former campaign Richard Morris once described it, you move a little to 
the left, a little to the right. I'd love to hear Clinton give that explanation 
to a foreclosed home owner today.

With the stroke of a pen, Bill Clinton ended an era that stretched back to 
William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson and reached fruition with FDR and 
Harry Truman. As he signed his name, in the whorls and dots of his pen strokes 
William Jefferson Clinton was also symbolically signing the death warrant of 
Liberal America and its core belief in the level playing field that had guided 
the Democratic Party. But it was the gift of the pen to Sanford Weill and its 
assuming an honored place on the Wall of Me that rubbed salt in the wound.

In his famous First Inaugural Roosevelt asserted:


  Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of 
public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. 
Clinton not only repealed the act Roosevelt had put in place to curb those 
practices, but presented one of the pens used to sign it to one of those "money 
changers."

What Hath Clinton Wrought?

What can be said in Clinton's favor is that in 1999 few people anticipated the 
out-of-control growth of the hedge fund industry and the subprime mortgage 
market. The New York Times described the new financial world created by the 
repeal of Glass-Steagall in a June 2007 profile of Goldman Sachs: 
  While Wall Street still mints money advising companies on mergers and taking 
them public, real money — staggering money — is made trading and investing 
capital through a global array of mind-bending products and strategies 
unimaginable a decade ago.
Curiously, Goldman Sachs head Lloyd Blankfein paints the perfect big picture of 
what has happened: 
  We’ve come full circle, because this is exactly what the Rothschilds or J. P. 
Morgan, the banker were doing in their heyday. What caused an aberration was 
the Glass Steagall Act. 
Blankfein's analysis testifies to the full impact of Bill Clinton's actions, 
for like many members of the Counterrevolution he sees the New Deal as an 
aberration and longs for a return to the days J. P. Morgan and other tycoons 
gave the Gilded Age its nickname. His "aberration" was eliminated not because 
of the actions of some radical Republican, but because of Bill Clinton. No 
wonder Goldman Sachs is also a prime contributor to you-know-who.

As is often the case, the story of the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the growth 
of the subprime mortgage market that is now crumbling around us like a 
financial house of cards can be best be told by a graph:





If you think of this graph as the level playing field, notice how flat it was 
before Bill Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall, then notice how steep it has 
become. Those subprime loans amount to nothing more than an organized ripoff of 
millions of innocent Americans, with the steepness of the graph illustrating 
the how far the playing field has tilted.

The result is that all of a sudden people are thinking Glass-Steagall wasn't 
such a bad idea after all. Robert Kuttner testified before Barney Frank's 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services in October, evoking the dreaded 
specter of the Great Depression: 
  Since repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999, after more than a decade of de facto 
inroads, super-banks have been able to re-enact the same kinds of structural 
conflicts of interest that were endemic in the 1920s – lending to speculators, 
packaging and securitizing credits and then selling them off, wholesale or 
retail, and extracting fees at every step along the way. And, much of this 
paper is even more opaque to bank examiners than its counterparts were in the 
1920s. Much of it isn’t paper at all, and the whole process is supercharged by 
computers and automated formulas. 
Then there is Dow Jones MarketWatch' s Kostigen: 
  I'm not saying that Glass-Steagall would have made a difference to the 
evolution of the collateralized debt obligations. But it might have helped 
identify and isolated the damage.
As Congress continues to investigate the mortgage crisis, more people are 
wondering whether the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a mistake.

The Future of Your Mortgage

In testimony before Congress on November 8, Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke 
painted a grim picture of the current crisis and even grimmer picture of the 
future: 

  On average from now until the end of next year, nearly 450,000 subprime 
mortgages per quarter are scheduled to undergo their first interest rate reset. 
[My emphasis]
According to a December 2006 study by the Center for Responsible Lending, a 
nonpartisan research and policy organization: 
  More than 2 million people with subprime loans are facing foreclosure this 
year and nearly 20 percent of subprime mortgages issued between 2005 and 2006 
are projected to fail.
But numbers and testimony and even history mean little to those who suddenly 
find themselves up against the wall. In every city and town across this country 
"For Sale" signs are popping up on lawns. Behind each of those signs lies a 
personal story, a family tragedy, which like the tragedies of the Great 
Depression, tells of innocent Americans felled by an affliction they never saw 
coming. Walk any street in this country today--even in affluent neighborhoods- 
-and each time you see one of those signs the hairs on the back of your own 
neck stand up, because those signs instill the same fear people felt when they 
walked into a bank in 1932 and found their money gone.

Two million people have found themselves one step away from figuratively being 
tossed out onto the street, the way millions were in the 1930s. Meanwhile, 
there are young people starting new lives for whom home ownership is rapidly 
receding, middle-aged people who finally had scraped together enough for a down 
payment only to find they can't get a mortgage and older people for whom their 
home was their retirement and now find its value dropping like George Bush's 
poll numbers. Finally there are even millions more for whom the collateral 
damage from the crises promises to cast its shadow over their American Dream.

The International Monetary Fund recently drew the following lessons from 
various financial crisis: 
  It is difficult to tell at the time whether a financial crisis will have 
broader economic consequences
  Regulators often cannot keep up with the pace of financial innovation that 
may trigger a crisis.
Both have characterized what happened after the repeal of Glass-Steagall. It is 
too bad Bill Clinton did not have their wisdom when he made his decision, but 
then when you make decisions by triangulating, how much weight do you give such 
studies?

And the current crop of politicians? Look closely at their donor lists, which I 
detailed in the series "Follow the Money." Then wonder why no moderator or 
other candidate has asked Hillary Clinton if she supports her husband's repeal 
of Glass-Steagall? Ask the other candidates if they support Bill Clinton's move.

Meanwhile the signs keep sprouting and the playing field keeps tilting and soon 
the snow will start to fall, drifting against the signs. How many more people 
will have lost their homes when the snow melts?


 The Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy"
            Groupe de communication Mulindwas 
"avec Yoweri Museveni, l'Ouganda est dans l'anarchie"



__._,_.___ 
Messages in this topic (2) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic 
Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Calendar 
MARKETPLACE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods 
 
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to 
Traditional 
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity
Visit Your Group 
Y! Messenger
Group get-together

Host a free online

conference on IM.

John McEnroe
on Yahoo! Groups

Join him for the

10 Day Challenge.

Check out the
Y! Groups blog

Stay up to speed

on all things Groups!
. 
__,_._,___ 
_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
% UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/


The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including 
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------

Reply via email to