Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Responses to Dire Warnings of Imminent Danger

Posted by on Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:55 AM

1. In the best way we can, in the face of no viable alternatives beyond doom.

From NOAA:

NOAA’s National Weather Service has issued a report that analyzes forecasting performance and public response during the second deadliest tornado outbreak in U.S. history. The report, Service Assessment of the Super Tuesday Tornado Outbreak of February 5-6, 2008, also addresses a key area of concern: why some people take cover while others ride out severe weather.
....
In reviewing the public response, the team found that two-thirds of the victims were in mobile homes, and 60 percent did not have access to safe shelter (i.e., a basement or storm cellar). The majority of the survivors interviewed for the assessment sought shelter in the best location available to them, but most of them also did not have access to a safe shelter. Some indicated they thought the threat was minimal because February is not within traditional tornado season. Several of those interviewed said they spent time seeking confirmation and went to a safe location only after they saw a tornado. Many people minimized the threat of personal risk through “optimism bias,” the belief that such bad things only happen to other people.

2. Willed ignorance in the face of growing danger, in service of greed.

From the Boston Globe:

The federal agency that insures bank deposits, which is asking for emergency powers to borrow up to $500 billion to take over failed banks, is facing a potential major shortfall in part because it collected no insurance premiums from most banks from 1996 to 2006.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures deposits up to $250,000, tried for years to get congressional authority to collect the premiums in case of a looming crisis. But Congress believed that the fund was so well-capitalized - and that bank failures were so infrequent - that there was no need to collect the premiums for a decade, according to banking officials and analysts.

Now with 25 banks having failed last year, 17 so far this year, and many more expected in the coming months, the FDIC has proposed large new premiums for banks at the very time when many can least afford to pay. The agency collected $3 billion in the fees last year and has proposed collecting up to $27 billion this year, prompting an outcry from some banks that say it will force them to raise consumer fees and curtail lending.

3. Manipulate and lie, to temporarily cover your ass.

From NakedCapitalism:

Readers may recall that during Lehman's demise, a pitched battle was underway between some short sellers, epitomized by David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital. Einhorn raised questions about Lehman's financial statements, specifically, inconsistencies and rosy looking valuations. The struggle became weirdly per[s]onalized, as Lehman sought to burnish the image of charmismatic CFO Erin Callen, as contrasted with the presumed to be evil company wrecking Einhorn. Of course, if the real performance (as opposed to what the reports said) was as bad as Einhorn's line of inquiry suggested, it was management that had done the company-wrecking, but that level of detail is often lost on CNBC.

And one of the regular features of the Lehman versus its detractors affair was leaks to the media, leaks of a sort that even if the firm had done it in a way that it had plausible deniability, were clearly intended to reach outside parties, particularly the media.

Now let us turn to Citi. Recall what transpired, per the Wall Street Journal:

Citigroup Inc. was profitable in the first two months of 2009 and is having its best quarter in a year and a half, Chief Executive Vikram Pandit said in an internal memo aimed at boosting employee and investor confidence in his struggling bank.

Yves here. This is simply stunning. The Journal says up front a supposed internal memo was in fact intended to reassure investors.
....
Dunno about you, but this looks to me like a bald faced attempt to manipulate the stock price, and it certainly worked.

Updated:

Well, the Citigroup thing might also be a little pump-and-dump scam! From Bloomberg:

Four Citigroup Inc. executives who bought the bank’s stock last week generated a $2.2 million paper profit within nine days, regulatory filings show.

The executives, including director Roberto Hernandez, benefited as the company’s stock climbed 47 percent from March 10 through yesterday’s close of markets, after Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit said in a memo that the bank is having the best quarter since 2007. Their buying spree was the first by bank insiders since Jan. 14, filings show.
...
Pandit wrote in the internal memo March 10 that the company was profitable in January and February, leaving him “encouraged with the strength of our business so far in 2009.” The comments triggered Citigroup’s biggest one-day percentage gain since Nov. 24, spurring global markets.

And, for those of you who bitched about the relatively tiny US automaker bailout:

General Motors, which has borrowed $13.4 billion from the federal government since December to keep itself out of bankruptcy, said on Thursday that it had withdrawn a request for an additional $2 billion that it thought was needed to stay alive through the end of this month.

 

Comments (17) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
"Of course, many people claim not to be convinced by this so-called climate change evidence. That is because they are shortsighted sociopathic morons who don't want to lose money." - Bruce Sterling, 1998
Posted by balderdash on March 12, 2009 at 12:14 PM
2
Humanity = Too Stupid to Survive!
Posted by Planet Sized Asteroid Heading to Earth on March 12, 2009 at 12:22 PM
3
Other than the folks who can't afford to dig one (see: mobile home owners), I don't understand why anyone living in Tornado Alley doesn't have a storm cellar. I suregod would have one, if I had to live there.
Posted by Geni on March 12, 2009 at 12:25 PM
4
Don't forget 4. Anger and bloodlust. I want to see a river of red down the middle of Wall Street, with bankers' heads, hands, genitals, and entrails bobbing in the current.
Posted by Greg on March 12, 2009 at 12:25 PM
5
To Socialist Republicans, Lies aren't Lies if you don't have to go to prison.
Posted by Will in Seattle on March 12, 2009 at 12:55 PM
6
Hey Rainbows and Sunshine Golob, are you coming to the Slog Happy tonight? I want to go over fiscal ideas with you.
Posted by Joh on March 12, 2009 at 1:11 PM
7
Hey, look everyone B of A is doin' GREAT!
Posted by The Amazing Jim on March 12, 2009 at 1:35 PM
8
Joh: I'm planning on attending, cheer in tow.
Posted by Jonathan Golob on March 12, 2009 at 1:51 PM
9
Let me get this straight: the Globe is reporting that the FDIC cannot, in fact, insure anyone's money?

Run on banks in 5, 4, 3...
Posted by EmilyP on March 12, 2009 at 1:54 PM
10
@9: No, but after they announced a big increase in banks' FDIC payments this year my savings accounts' interest rates were lowered even more.
Posted by Amelia on March 12, 2009 at 2:05 PM
11
@EmilyP: No. That isn't right.

The FDIC is still insuring deposits, and has an unlimited right to borrow money from the US treasury.

Normally, the insurance payouts after a bank failure are meant to come from a fund generated by premium fees levied on member banks. The fund, as I pointed out way back in September, is relatively small compared to the outstanding insured deposits--in part because congress refused the FDIC's request to charge any fees to member banks for nearly a decade.

Which means, with all the recent bank failures, the fund is depleted. And as promised, the FDIC is now borrowing money from the US treasury to cover further losses.

In short, your cash is safe--but it might be worth thinking about the risk of inflation in the near future.
Posted by Jonathan Golob on March 12, 2009 at 2:09 PM
12
Thanks Golob @11. Luckily I'm in a credit union, but most Americans probably aren't.
Posted by EmilyP on March 12, 2009 at 2:13 PM
13
As a midwest resident, I have to say that Point 1 is mostly bullshit. Sure some people don't have access to shelter, but it's unlikely that they'd take it if they had it. We had a funnel down twenty miles away last week, and in our 12-unit apartment building, only my husband and I took our pets and moved to the interior corridor, the safest part of the building. This is absolutely typical of midwesterners, despite the fact that we get clobbered by tornadoes every year. It's not lack of an alternative in most cases, it's lack of brains.
Posted by Electra on March 12, 2009 at 2:31 PM
14
Uncle Henry Gale sat worried on the stoop until he saw the twister.
Posted by Amelia on March 12, 2009 at 3:05 PM
15
@ 12, even though it's a different entity that insures CUs (NCUA), aren't they also subject to the same laws as FDIC?
Posted by whatever, mind on March 12, 2009 at 4:21 PM
16
Now I see why the FDIC commissioned 60 Minutes to do that puff piece for them last week. I liked how the woman in charge said they weren't even close to running out of money, but in the *unlikely event* they needed some they'd seek a treasury loan.

nice.
Posted by jk on March 12, 2009 at 5:40 PM
17
@15 -- Yeah, EmilyP has proven twice in one thread that she has no idea WTF she is talking about on this matter. Welcome to the awesome power of the blog and "open source news".
Posted by Good Grief on March 12, 2009 at 5:58 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy