GOP's Next 2012 Anti-Obama Tool: Gas Prices & Gouging

Since Our Nation's Unemployment Numbers Have Been Reduced, Donald Trump's "Birther" Claims Have Fizzled & Paul Ryan's Budget Backfired, What's The GOP's Next 2012 Anti-Obama Tool?

Scaring American Voters With Rising Gas Prices By Allowing Gas Price Gouging & Speculation To Occur!

President Obama Was Right About His Administration Investigating & Stopping Such Corrupt Behavior Just For Short Term Political Gain.

I Hope Attorney Holder Eric Holder Finds & Prosecutes The Culprits Responsible Soon!




High Gas Prices cut into driving habits — and Obama’s approval rating


Soaring gasoline prices are biting into household incomes and nibbling at Americans’ fuel consumption and support for President Obama, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

About six in 10 respondents said they had cut back on driving because of rising fuel prices, and seven in 10 said that high pump prices are causing financial hardship.

Obama, like previous presidents in times of high oil prices, is taking a hit. Only 39 percent of those who call gas prices a “serious financial hardship” approve of the way he is doing his job, and 33 percent of them say he’s doing a good job on the economy.

The Energy Information Administration said Monday that gas prices climbed last week to $3.88 a gallon, up 81 cents since the start of the year. It is the highest that pump prices have been since August 2008, before the financial meltdown.

Evidence of motorists’ hardships are littering the roads. The Automobile Association of America says the number of motorists running out of gas has been surging. John Townsend, a AAA spokesman, said that cash-strapped members “are pushing the envelope” and that emergency gasoline deliveries to stranded members jumped nationwide, including up 40 percent in the District.

That sort of hardship could slow the Obama reelection campaign. The Post-ABC poll results show that 60 percent of independents who say they’ve been hit hard by surging gas prices also say they definitely won’t support Obama in his bid for reelection.

In a theoretical match-up with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the top GOP performer in the Post-ABC poll, Romney wins by a 24-point margin among the independents who have taken a severe financial hit because of gas prices, and the president is up 7 percentage point among others.

At a fundraiser in Southern California last week, where pump prices are the highest in the country, Obama acknowledged the political peril of high gas prices. He said, “My poll numbers go up and down depending on the latest crisis, and right now gas prices are weighing heavily on people.”

He tried to show that he feels motorists’ pain. “I admit, Secret Service doesn’t let me fill up the pump anymore,” he said. “But it hasn’t been that long since I did.”

The poll also shows the stubborn nature of gasoline consumption, and the difficulty of weaning the country off its dependence on imported oil. About a quarter of all Americans say they would not alter their driving habits until prices, which are about $1 a gallon higher than a year ago, climb another $1.10 or to more than $5.

Even though gasoline prices are just a quarter of a dollar short of their all-time record of $4.11 for a gallon of regular set in July 2008, the Energy Information Administration forecast this month that gasoline consumption would average about 9.3 million barrels a day over the peak summer driving season, a 0.5 percent increase over last summer.

“Population growth and a recovering economy contribute to gasoline consumption growth,” EIA said, adding that high gas prices and better fuel efficiency standards would dampen demand. Consumption of diesel fuel is expected to climb 2.3 percent because of higher industrial output and trade.

“I think the evidence is strong that people are not very price responsive and that there are no magic thresholds where the effect changes suddenly,” said Severin Borenstein, a professor at the University of California Berkeley business school and director of the California Energy Institute.

In 2008 when prices last spiked, motorists carpooled, households drove the more efficient of their cars when a choice was possible and many people opted for public transportation. But the impact was slight.

Borenstein says the drop in consumption was 3 to 4 percentage points. “That’s a pretty small demand response when the price of gasoline nearly doubles,” he said. Moreover, he said, “this was happening in context of a giant recession, so there were income effects as well.”

Christopher Knittel, a professor of applied economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that “consumers are less responsive today than in the past, especially when compared to the 1970s.” With the growth of families with two income earners and other social changes, motorists are less likely to regard their day-to-day driving as discretionary.

But, Knittel said, “if prices continue to be high, they start to change what cars they buy and manufacturers start to change the cars they offer. So it really depends on the time frame.”

Knittel said that the increase in gasoline prices is partly a result of the recovering economy. “One of the reasons gas prices are high is that we are coming out of the recession,” he said. “So it’s sort of bitter sweet. The economy is getting strong, but it’s hurting our pocketbook.”

That could circle around and undercut the recovery. Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland’s business school, estimates that the spike in gas prices since September translates into a 5 percent cut in discretionary income and that Americans “will be eating fewer restaurant meals, wearing fewer new clothes, curtailing summer vacation plans, and postponing furniture purchases and home improvements.”

In the Post-ABC poll, 12 percent of people who consider gas prices a financial hardship said they had slashed spending elsewhere.

The telephone poll was conducted April 14 to 17 among a random national sample of 1,001 adults. The margin of sampling error is 3.5 percentage points.


Sources: AP, Washington Post, Youtube

Ben Bernanke & Obama's $600B Bond Inflation "Stimulus" Monstrosity

The Fed’s Big Gamble: What Could Go Wrong

The Federal Reserve is about to take a huge risk in hopes of getting the economy steaming along again. Nobody is sure it will work, and it may actually do damage.

The Fed said Wednesday it is committing to buy $600 billion more in government bonds by the middle of next year in an attempt to breathe new life into a struggling U.S. economy.

Economists call it "quantitative easing." It gets the name "QE2" — like the ship — because this would be the second round. The Fed spent about $1.7 trillion from 2008 to earlier this year to take bonds off the hands of banks and stabilize them.

Here's how it's supposed to work this time: The Fed buys Treasury bonds from banks, providing them cash to lend to customers. Buying so many bonds also lowers interest rates because demand for Treasurys leads to higher prices and lower yields. Interest rates are linked to yields. Lower rates encourage people to borrow money for a mortgage or another loan.

At the same time, lower interest rates make relatively safe investments like bonds and cash less appealing, so companies and investors take the cash and buy equipment or other investments, like stocks. The S&P 500 takes off and Americans celebrate with a shopping spree. Businesses see a rise in sales and begin hiring again, and a virtuous cycle of more spending and more hiring ensues.

But many analysts and even supporters of the plan see dangers. It could make the weak dollar even weaker and lead to trade disputes with other countries. It could lead bond traders to believe that higher inflation is on the way, and they could derail the Fed's efforts by pushing rates higher. Many investors argue that it may create bubbles as hedge funds and other speculators borrow cheaply and make even bigger bets on stocks, commodities and markets in developing countries like Brazil.

"It's a desperate act," says Jeremy Grantham, co-founder of the investment firm GMO. Grantham says it's a clear message from the Fed to the rest of the world: "The U.S. doesn't care if the dollar weakens."

Here is a look at the ways the Fed's strategy could backfire:

Dollar drop

As word trickled out over recent months that the Fed was planning a new round of bond purchases, the dollar sank. It hit a 15-year low to the Japanese yen Nov. 1. Why? In the simplest terms, a country that cuts interest rates makes its currency less attractive to the worlds' investors. The interest rate is also the investors' yield, the payout they receive. When that yield falls, the world's banks move their money into countries with higher rates. They may exchange U.S. dollars for Australian dollars then invest the money in higher-paying Australian bonds.

"The Fed aims to push up the prices of stocks, bonds, real estate, and you name it," says Bill O'Donnell, head of U.S. government bond strategy at the Royal Bank of Scotland. "Everything is going to go up but the dollar."

A drop in the dollar can help companies like Ford that sell their products abroad. When the dollar weakens against the euro, for example, one euro buys more dollars than before. Foreign customers notice the price of the Explorer they've been eyeing is lower in their currency, yet Ford still pockets the same number of dollars for every sale.

The downside is that a weakened dollar pinches people in the U.S. because anything produced in other countries becomes more expensive, like oranges from Spain or toys from China.

"Look around you," says Thomas Atteberry, a fund manager at First Pacific Advisors. "How many things can you find that were made in the U.S.A?"


Blowing bubbles

Buying bundles of Treasurys knocks down interest rates, making borrowing cheap. But it also motivates investors to move out of safe investments into riskier ones in search of better returns. The stock market, for instance, rises in value and everyone with some of their savings in stocks feels wealthier. Ideally, it produces what what economists call a "wealth effect": People who feel better off spend more.

The problem, according to some critics, is that cheap borrowing costs and buoyant markets make a fertile environment for bubbles, which eventually pop. "The effort to help the economy sets up another more dangerous bubble," says Grantham, who warned of Japan's surging real estate and stock markets in the 1980s, soaring Internet stocks in the 1990s and the housing market in the 2000s.

Stocks in developing countries are a likely candidate for the next bubble. Cash from Europe and the U.S. has plowed into emerging markets, such as Brazil and Chile, since the financial crisis, largely because these countries have less debt and faster economic growth than in the developed world.

Another concern: Hedge funds borrowing cheap money can magnify their bets, taking a loan at 2 percent to buy a security that's rising 10 percent. They sell the security, pay off the bank and pocket the rest. That's true whenever interest rates remain low. Falling rates allow speculators to borrow larger amounts. In the extreme, losses from hedge funds and other borrowers can put their banks at risk and leave governments to clean up the mess.

The game only works as long as the investment keeps climbing. When the bubble breaks, the fallout can devastate an economy.

"I think bubbles are the main villain in this piece," Grantham says.

Cheap debt provided the fuel for the housing bubble, allowing home buyers to take out larger loans on the belief that somebody else would buy the house at a higher price. Fed chief Ben Bernanke's answer, Grantham said, is to start the cycle over again by blowing a new bubble. "All they can do is replace one bubble with another one," he said.






QE2: Fed Pulls The Trigger


In its latest move to jump start the sluggish recovery, the Federal Reserve announced it will pump billions into the economy.

The central bank will buy $600 billion in long-term Treasuries over the next eight months, the Fed said Wednesday. The Fed also announced it will reinvest an additional $250 billion to $300 billion in Treasuries with the proceeds of its earlier investments.

The bond purchases aimed at stimulating the economy -- a policy known as quantitative easing -- will total up to $900 billion and be completed by the end of the third quarter of 2011.

Ever since the Fed first signaled back in August that it was considering a second round of monetary stimulus, dubbed QE2, investors have been preoccupied with speculating on how much the Fed would buy.

Now the verdict is in, and is roughly in line with forecasts. Mainstream estimates had predicted a total between $500 billion and $1 trillion.

"It was all largely as expected," said Calvin Sullivan, chief strategy officer at Morgan Keegan. "The markets are responding as one would expect."

Stocks seesawed between gains and losses, as investors digested the news. The real surprise was in the bond market, where yields on the longer term 10-year and 30-year rose, after traders realized the Fed's plan called for 91% of its purchases at shorter maturities than expected.
Read the Fed statement

The Fed also reiterated its bearish view on the stalling economy, saying "the pace of recovery in output and employment continues to be slow."

Amid sluggish consumer spending, businesses have been reluctant to hire and the economy has grown at a snail's pace. At the same time, inflation is dangerously low, causing some economists to warn that the United States may even be flirting with deflation -- a debilitating drop-off in prices and demand.

The Fed has already kept the federal funds rate, a benchmark for interest rates on a variety of consumer and business loans, at historic lows near zero since December 2008. The Fed said Wednesday that it would continue to hold the rate at "exceptionally low levels" for an "extended period."

The federal funds rate is the central bank's key tool to spur the economy and a low rate is thought to encourage spending by making it cheaper to borrow money.

When already low rates failed to get consumers and businesses to spend, the Fed decided to resort to the more unconventional tool of quantitative easing, to lower interest rates even further.

But critics of QE2, including some Fed members, believe that too much monetary stimulus might lead to runaway inflation that could derail the economy, or future asset bubbles that could endanger economic stability over the long term.

The most outspoken voting member of the Fed, Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig, was once again the lone dissent among policymakers, saying he believed the risks of additional securities purchases outweighed the benefits.

Other opponents have argued that it simply won't work. The Fed already made nearly $2 trillion in similar purchases during the Great Recession, and current low interest rates have not jolted spending, they say.

"I don't think this is going to make any difference at all," said Paul Ashworth, senior U.S. economist with Capitol Economics, who feels the plan is too small. "This is a slippery slope. Once you're on it, it's very hard to get off."

He predicts a repeat of what happened with the first round of quantitative easing two years ago. The Fed initially announced a $600 billion program in November 2008, but then four months later, increased that to $1.8 trillion, when it wasn't enough.


Sources: CNBC, CNN, MSNBC

Geithner's Failure! Banks Returning To Toxic Assets

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished As Banks Seek Profits


To understand the meaning of no good deed goes unpunished, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner can look no further than Wall Street where the banks that received the biggest taxpayer bailouts are seeking to reap trading profits from securities rescued by the government.

Only months after it was started, the U.S. program designed to purge debts of no immediate discernible value from the balance sheets of troubled banks has helped transform the frozen debt into a money-maker as the bonds have rallied. Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc., who received 22 percent of the $418.7 billion American taxpayers loaned to troubled financial institutions, boosted holdings on their trading books of home- loan bonds that lack government guarantees while investors were raising cash for the program, according to Federal Reserve data.

Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America along with Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., all based in New York, added a combined $3.36 billion of the debt, for which there were few buyers as recently as March, to their short-term trading assets during the third quarter, up 16 percent from the second quarter, the most-recent data show.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Prices of these securities may slump again, leaving the banks exposed to potential losses that the Treasury Department’s rescue plan was designed to mitigate, said Joshua Rosner, a managing director at New York-based Graham Fisher & Co., which advises regulators and institutional investors.

Speculative Trade

“It’s a trade that will likely work out, but it’s still a speculative trade, which is not what a taxpayer should want from firms that have only recently come out of critical care,” Rosner said.

The Public-Private Investment Program was introduced in March by Geithner as a means of helping struggling banks by reviving the market for unpackaged loans and mortgage securities that aren’t backed by government-supported institutions, such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Under the program, asset managers were supposed to raise money from investors and, with additional capital and loans from taxpayers, buy as much as $1 trillion in toxic assets from U.S. banks, freeing up money for lending.

It’s “absolutely ridiculous” that banks, which were expected to reduce their holding of such volatile mortgage securities, bought them before the government program was running and may now profit, said Michael Schlachter, managing director of Wilshire Associates, the Santa Monica, California- based investment-consulting firm. “Some of them created this mess, and they are making a killing undoing it.”

Scaling Back

Officials for Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley declined to comment on the Fed data, as did Treasury spokeswoman Meg Reilly.

Geithner, 48, scaled back PPIP as the Fed declined to provide additional financing and banks balked at selling non- agency mortgages at a loss. It wasn’t until July that the Treasury chose New York-based BlackRock Inc., Invesco Ltd. in Atlanta and seven other firms to start PPIP funds.

To date, funds participating in the program have raised about $6 billion of equity capital from private investors, which the government has matched. The Treasury also provided $12 billion of debt capital, bringing the funds’ purchasing power to $24 billion. Neither the Treasury nor the funds have disclosed how much and what debt has been bought.

Prices for some of the securities that the funds were supposed to buy have almost doubled since March. The rally was fueled in part by traders jumping in before PPIP funds could get off the ground, said Steve Kuhn, who helps oversee about $440 million of mortgage-bond investments for Pine River Capital Management LLC in Minnetonka, Minnesota.

Market Rally

“Anytime people know there’s a buyer coming, they position for that, and that’s clearly what happened here,” said Kuhn, who is co-manager of the Nisswa Fixed Income Fund.

The rally was boosted further by investors seeking riskier fixed-income assets to offset record low yields on Treasuries and by the stabilization of the housing market, he said.

Typical prices for the most-senior bonds backed by hybrid Alt-A mortgages stood at about 58 cents on the dollar by mid- December, up from lows of around 35 cents in mid-March, according to Barclays Capital data.

Prices rose as high as 60 cents on the dollar in November. Fixed-rate prime jumbo mortgage securities were at 84 cents, up from 63 cents in March.

Before the credit crisis, senior non-agency home-loan securities didn’t typically trade below 95 cents on the dollar, JPMorgan Chase & Co. data show.

Alt-A loans fall between prime and subprime in terms of projected defaults. Jumbo mortgages are larger than government- supported Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are allowed to finance.

Non-Agency Debt

The Fed data on bank holdings of mortgage securities don’t distinguish between changes in value from buying or selling and those that result from rising or falling market prices. The higher values at Citigroup and Bank of America reflect in part purchases of non-agency debt, according to people familiar with each bank’s positions.

The value of non-agency debt designated by the four banks as held to maturity or available for sale fell a combined $2.9 billion to $70.8 billion in the third quarter from the previous three months. Under accounting rules, securities in these categories are usually held for longer than those designated as trading investments, helping to avoid writedowns. Debt available for sale can be sold more easily at a later stage than notes held to maturity.

Bank of America’s Wager

Bank of America, the largest U.S. bank by assets and deposits, added the most non-agency debt on its trading book in the third quarter, with an increase of $1.56 billion, or 73 percent, according to a Dec. 22 revision by the Fed of the company’s second-quarter data. The value of securities designated held-to-maturity or available-for-sale fell, by 1.7 percent to $37.3 billion.

The Charlotte, North Carolina-based firm, now led by Chief Executive Officer Brian Moynihan, reported $80 billion in writedowns and losses from the credit crisis, much of it related to defaulted home loans and bonds backed by them. The lender received $45 billion in federal bailout funds in October 2008 under the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, which it repaid Dec. 9. The U.S. still holds warrants in the bank.

Without new purchases, bank holdings tracked by the Fed usually decline as the underlying loans are refinanced or default. That shrank the overall market by 5 percent in the third quarter and by 30 percent since its peak in mid-2007, separate Fed data show.

Citigroup’s holdings of non-agency residential mortgage bonds designated for trading rose by $421 million to $13.5 billion in the third quarter, the Fed data show. Other holdings fell $2.3 billion, or 6.9 percent, to $33 billion.

$117.8 Billion Loss

The New York-based bank was among the largest and earliest losers on toxic home-loan securities and has posted $117.8 billion of writedowns and credit losses. The U.S. injected $45 billion of taxpayer capital into the company and extended guarantees for $301 billion of its assets, including mortgage debt. Citigroup, led by CEO Vikram Pandit, agreed last month to pay back $20 billion and cancel the insurance. The U.S. owns 27 percent of the bank’s common shares.

At Goldman Sachs, CEO Lloyd Blankfein increased non-agency home mortgage bonds designated for trading by $593 million in the third quarter, to $2.71 billion, and Morgan Stanley’s jumped $785 million to $4.25 billion, the Fed data show. Goldman Sachs’s other holdings climbed $76 million to $449 million. Morgan Stanley, now overseen by CEO James Gorman, classified all its holdings as trading assets, according to the Fed data.

Free Money

Of the seven biggest owners of residential mortgage-backed securities, only San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co. reduced holdings of the debt on its trading book, by $130 million to $44 million. JPMorgan added $49 million to the trading book, while cutting its other holdings of the securities by $1.47 billion to $12.7 billion, according to the Fed data.

Eric Petroff, director of research at Wurts & Associates, a Seattle-based firm that advises institutions on $30 billion in investments, said it’s no surprise that banks added to their holdings following the unveiling of PPIP.

“Any time the government says, ‘We’re going to buy something in the securities market,’ they’re putting out a sign that says, ‘Free money, come and get it’,” he said.

The renewed interest by banks in holding the bonds has helped restore liquidity, said Scott Buchta, head of investment strategy at Guggenheim Securities LLC in Chicago. Higher prices have also eroded potential profits of PPIP funds and increased the risk of losses, making it harder for asset managers participating in the program to attract investors, he said.

Returns Shrink

Four of the nine PPIP managers missed the original Sept. 30 deadline for raising the minimum $500 million by more than a month. One manager, Marathon Asset Management, was allowed to make its initial closing after raising $400 million.

“If you were looking at returns in the high teens to low twenties in PPIP, now you’re looking at the low-to-mid teens,” said Joel Paula, senior analyst at Cambridge, Massachusetts- based NEPC LLC, which advised Connecticut’s state pension board on its decision to invest $200 million with three PPIP managers.

Higher prices are also slowing the pace at which PPIP managers can and want to buy, because they must be more careful when examining securities and their underlying collateral, NEPC’s Paula said.

“If you do your homework, you can still find value, but you’re not getting 20 percent for doing nothing anymore,” Paula said in an interview.

Locked In

While fundraising and investing is moving slowly, time could ultimately play to the PPIP investor’s advantage, said Alan Papier, of consulting firm Mercer, a unit of New York-based Marsh & McLennan Cos. Under PPIP’s terms, investors are locked in for eight years and managers have up to two years from their initial closings to invest the money, giving them time to wait for prices to drop.

“Managers are trying to figure out whether the rally in residential mortgage-backed securities is sustainable, or if there will be some sort of pullback,” Papier said.

Bill Eigen, manager of the $5.4 billion JPMorgan Strategic Income Opportunities Fund, said he bought residential mortgage- backed securities in the spring. Since then, he has sold and begun shorting both residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities, anticipating that their price would fall.

“This stuff was supposed to trade on fundamentals and will again trade on fundamentals,” he said in an interview. “PPIP is not going to fill up buildings.”



View Larger Map


Sources: Bloomberg News, MSNBC, CNBC, Google Maps