Sense on Cents View RSS

In Bed with Wall Street: Book Talk at Library of Congress 5 Nov 2014 6:28 AM (10 years ago)

America awakes this morning to a Republican wave breaking over Washington and coursing across our nation. While some may view yesterday’s election results as simply a stamp of approval of “right vs left”, I think the nation as a whole said something far more meaningful than that. I believe a significant percentage of voters tried to send a message to Washington and their state capitols of “right vs wrong.”

In an attempt to echo those who voted for “right vs wrong,” I welcome submitting my book talk given a few months ago but just posted this morning on the Library of Congress’ website.

Future generations are counting on us to stand up and speak out against corruption and crony-style politics. We need to hold those charged with protecting the public interest to proper account. To that end, I hope those who will view this clip will also share it with others. I get very specific in terms of exposing real corruption, naming names, and proposing reforms.

(If you find the volume on the clip not to be strong enough, I encourage you to utilize the closed captioned (cc) button in the lower right of the clip accessed at the library’s website, the link to which is below the first paragraph above, so as to visualize the spoken words, especially during the Q/A segment.)

Navigate accordingly.

Larry Doyle

Please order a hard copy or Kindle version of my book, In Bed with Wall Street: The Conspiracy Crippling Our Global Economy.

For those reading this via syndicated outlet or by e-mail or another delivery, please visit the blog to view this clip and to comment on this piece of ‘sense on cents.’

For those who are interested in contacting me, please write to me via e-mail at senseoncents@aol.com.

Taking a Time Out 10 Sep 2014 6:56 AM (10 years ago)

I owe it to the very loyal and faithful followers of my blog to share with you that I am taking a break from my regular writing.

Rest assured, Sense on Cents is not going away.  I have grown to love this blog and all that it has meant in terms of relationships and information. If not for this blog, I never would have written my book. Additionally, if not for this blog I would not now be in the midst of a new professional pursuit with people whom I hold in the highest regard. The work in this new endeavor is fully consistent with my longstanding interest in identifying and mitigating risks in all their forms and fashions.

In the interim, I hope people will continue to use my blog and all the links as a valued resource. I do continue to use Twitter to highlight issues I believe warrant attention. Beyond that, I am always reachable and amenable to answering any questions people may have.

If you would like, please do not hesitate to contact me at senseoncents@aol.com.

Thank you!!

LD

How Does the Islamic State Fund Itself? Here’s How 26 Aug 2014 8:55 AM (10 years ago)

Ongoing developments in the South China Sea, the Ukraine, and Gaza all present very real dangers and risks to our global economic and political landscape. That said, I think most people might agree that the perilous situation playing out within the Islamic state in Iraq and surrounding locales is like nothing we have ever seen before.

If you do not think so, in order to gain a better appreciation for the mindset of those occupying and terrorizing this region, you may want to view the murder of journalist James Foley. God bless him and his family. I caution you that this video clip is particularly gruesome and some may not care to view it. That said, I think it is important that people know just how vicious this group known as ISIL actually is. (Thanks to our friends at No Quarter for highlighting that clip and sharing it.)

ISIL is not only vicious but they are well organized and well financed. This 5-minute Bloomberg clip addresses how the Islamic State is funding itself:

In what may be the biggest understatement ever written at this blog, the risks of this terrorist group present a very real danger to all of us on many levels.

Navigate accordingly.

Larry Doyle

Please order a hard copy or Kindle version of my book, In Bed with Wall Street: The Conspiracy Crippling Our Global Economy.

For those reading this via syndicated outlet or by e-mail or another delivery, please visit the blog to view this clip and to comment on this piece of ‘sense on cents.’

Please subscribe to all my work via e-mail.

Dick Kovacevich Calls BofA $17Bln Fine, ‘Extortion’; “You Have To Put People in Prison” 22 Aug 2014 12:54 AM (10 years ago)

Former Wells Fargo CEO is no lightweight within financial circles. He packed a heavy punch just yesterday in railing on the Department of Justice’s $17 billion settlement with Bank of America.

Kovacevich defined this penalty imposed on BOA as purely political. I do not necessarily agree with everything stated by Kovacevich in this 4-minute video clip but I certainly agree with his major point. He reiterates the comment I highlighted yesterday that banks do not engage in criminal behaviors, bankers do.

For Kovacevich to make the case that individuals should have been pursued criminally speaks volumes. In the process of making that point, he breaks ranks with his industry brethren who have been typically mute when addressing the rampant fraud that was perpetrated and brought on our ongoing economic crisis.

BofA settlement political theater: Kovacevich from CNBC.

Navigate accordingly.

Larry Doyle

Please order a hard copy or Kindle version of my book, In Bed with Wall Street: The Conspiracy Crippling Our Global Economy.

For those reading this via syndicated outlet or by e-mail or another delivery, please visit the blog to view this clip and to comment on this piece of ‘sense on cents.’

Please subscribe to all my work via e-mail.

“Banks Do Not Commit Misconduct, Bankers Do” 21 Aug 2014 4:56 AM (10 years ago)

The Department of Justice is soon expected to announce a $17 billion settlement with Bank of America. Is this justice?

I will defer in writing my own commentary this morning because the words and details on this topic provided by Dean Starkman qualify as a Sense on Cents Instant Classic:

There’s a much deeper problem here, however, and one that has received far less attention: Not only has the Department of Jus­tice (DOJ) failed to build any criminal cases for financial-crisis misdeeds, but it’s also now settling with these banks without even filing civil complaints.

A complaint is the cornerstone of civil litigation, the foundation for even routine lawsuits. One of its primary benefits—and of adversarial legal proceedings generally—is that a complaint can bring huge amounts of previously undisclosed information into the public record. In these mortgage securities cases, the Justice Department had not only an obligation but an opportunity: to show the country what it found, to deter future misconduct, to complete the story of the financial crisis in humanizing, clarifying, searing detail.

And to do all that, the department didn’t need to do anything special. Just what lawyers normally do. Instead, by imposing a fine without documenting the underlying abuses, the Justice Department has permitted the banks, for a price, to bury their sins.

. . .  New York’s superintendent of financial services, Benjamin M. Lawsky, made the following observation: “In order to deter future offenses, it is important to remember that banks do not commit misconduct—bankers do.”

After reading Starkman’s piece is there any doubt that the Department of Justice is a misnomer? The fines imposed by DOJ on Wall Street banks are anything but justice.

I could not possibly more highly recommend, Wrecking An Economy Never Means Having To Say You’re Sorry

Navigate accordingly.

Larry Doyle

Please order a hard copy or Kindle version of my book, In Bed with Wall Street: The Conspiracy Crippling Our Global Economy.

For those reading this via syndicated outlet or by e-mail or another delivery, please visit the blog to comment on this piece of ‘sense on cents.’

Please subscribe to all my work via e-mail.

Juan Williams’ Wide-Angled View of Ferguson, MO 20 Aug 2014 5:21 AM (10 years ago)

I am compelled to digress today from our standard navigation of the economic landscape to touch upon the troubling situation playing out in Ferguson, MO.

I hope those who read this commentary and my blog would come away thinking the only side I come down upon in any situation is that of the truth. Over and above that pursuit, I hope people would also believe I have a real contempt for corruption and a real love for my fellow man.

The troubles in Ferguson are clearly very fluid and a cauldron for those who feel disenfranchised. Similarly, there are some folks who would use the loss of a young man’s life to further incite violence for violence sake.

Might America be able to use the unrest in Ferguson to have an intelligent conversation on the issues involved? I certainly hope so.

As much as many people might like to point at one reason or another as the sole or primary cause of the ongoing tragedy and trouble in Ferguson, I would hope that cooler and calmer heads can prevail and we can all take a much wider-angled view. What do I see as some of the issues that should be addressed?

Correlations between single parent families and a host of social ills; the all encompassing relations between races; correlation between education and employment opportunities; reasons why people have strong sense of disenfranchisement and animus toward local and federal government (could it be a sense that real corruption within our government is finally catching up with us? you think? I do!!); personal responsibilities.

This list is certainly not comprehensive but it is a start. Is our nation able to have the necessary honest conversation? If not now, when?

To that end, I applaud Juan Williams for doing just that in this morning’s Wall Street Journal. I have cut out his editorial entitled Ferguson and America’s Racial Fears to share with my own children and would encourage others to do the same. I welcome providing the link here and a few of  Williams’ words of wisdom:

Yes, the death of Michael Brown is a tragedy. Yes, the use of excessive and in this case lethal force by police must be fully investigated. And yes, the increased use of military equipment by local police forces is a frightening threat to American democracy and the constitutionally protected right to peaceful protest. Fear cannot justify police in tanks and carrying military weapons facing down people who want to protest the shooting of an unarmed man.

But please, let’s hit pause on the political spin and bitter exchange of racial fears. If we are to stop angry clashes between police and poor black men, it is time to admit that thuggish behavior creates legitimate fear in every community. Close to half of black men drop out of high school. High unemployment and high rates of out-of-wedlock birth leave too many of them without guidance. Given this reality, the violent behavior of young black men and the police response have become a window on racial fears.

The imbalance in economic and political power among racial groups as well as the long and difficult history of racism in the U.S. amplifies these fears on all sides. After Hurricane Katrina there was black fear that a conservative administration did not respond quickly because most of those in need were black. And white police responded by shutting off escape routes out of fear of black looters. History tells us it was government ineptitude, not racism, that led to the slow response, and the reports of looting were overblown by white paranoia. Despite today’s increased racial diversity, these racial fears persist across America.

I would suggest that all the protest groups in Ferguson stay on the case and peacefully demand justice. Then they should drive to big cities like Chicago and Baltimore. There they should hold protests against the forces feeding the racial fear of young black men among white people, black people and everyone else—the drug dealers, the gang bangers, the corrupt unions defending bad schools, and the musicians and actors who glorify criminal behavior among black men.

Far too many in our nation would like to point the finger at selected individuals or groups as the core of the problem.

When will America have an adult dialogue and dismiss the destructive political correctness that impedes the needed conversation so we can fully pursue and embrace the truth in all its colors and from all its corners?

Navigate accordingly.

Larry Doyle

Please order a hard copy or Kindle version of my book, In Bed with Wall Street: The Conspiracy Crippling Our Global Economy.

For those reading this via syndicated outlet or by e-mail or another delivery, please visit the blog to comment on this piece of ‘sense on cents.’

Please subscribe to all my work via e-mail.

Standard Chartered Money Laundering: Wash, Rinse, Repeat 19 Aug 2014 4:31 AM (10 years ago)

When a penalty does not fit the crime it should come as no surprise that the activity in question is likely to perpetuate.

We would seem to see evidence of this reality in the ongoing “wash, rinse, repeat” cycle of money laundering activities at the laundromat heretofore known as Standard Chartered Bank.

The Financial Times peers inside this washing machine this morning to reveal the following dirty laundry:

Standard Chartered is in talks to pay up to $300m to New York’s top banking regulator to settle allegations it failed to identify suspicious transactions, despite promising to improve its procedures after it was fined for violating sanctions rules two years ago.

New York’s Department of Financial Services could announce the settlement as soon as this week, people familiar with the matter said. StanChart is also likely to agree to additional disciplinary measures, such as extending the contract of an independent monitor charged with identifying dubious transactions.

Does it strike you as odd that this independent monitor would have his contract extended? With this news it begs the question as to how effective the monitor has been to date. Perhaps a new monitor might be in order along with a “throw the bums” out cleansing of selected executives at the bank as well.

The current investigation is a follow-up to the bank’s 2012 settlement with the US authorities including the DFS, which alleged StanChart violated US sanctions laws that prohibited transactions with Sudan, Iran, Libya and Myanmar.

The penalty of up to $300m is steep for a follow-on settlement and comes close to the original DFS fine in 2012, reflecting Mr Lawsky’s position that banks that sign up to certain terms in a settlement need to abide by them.

StanChart has had a rocky history with US authorities since the 2012 sanctions settlement. Sir John irked regulators when he dismissed the bank’s actions as “clerical errors” rather than a “wilful” intention to break the rules, even though the group had accepted responsibility for breaching sanctions.

His comments earned Sir John, Mr Sands and then finance director Richard Meddings a summons to Washington, where all three were personally reprimanded by US authorities. Sir John was forced to apologise to investors and the bank’s staff, and admitted his remarks had been “both legally and factually incorrect”.

Reprimanded? Really?

What a joke.

Jaspal Bindra, head of StanChart’s Asia operations, last week complained that regulators were treating banks like criminals for lapses. Mr Bindra told the Reuters news agency that “banks have been asked to play the role of policing anti-money laundering . . . [but when] we have a lapse we don’t get treated like a policeman, we are treated like a criminal”.

Lapse? Really?

This new evidence would seem to indicate that the Standard Chartered Laundromat has been open 24/7/365.

How would we know if it is not still maintaining those hours of operation?

I addressed this situation 2 years ago in a 3-minute interview on China Central TV. I think it is worth rerunning as I highlighted that Benjamin Lawsky, head of the New York State Department of Financial Services, was under real pressure by the lightweights in Washington not to act unilaterally against Standard Chartered.

Fast forward two years and Standard Chartered’s dirty laundry is on display again.

No surprise.

Navigate accordingly.

Larry Doyle

Please order a hard copy or Kindle version of my book, In Bed with Wall Street: The Conspiracy Crippling Our Global Economy.

For those reading this via syndicated outlet or by e-mail or another delivery, please visit the blog to view the embedded video and to comment on this piece of ‘sense on cents.’

Please subscribe to all my work via e-mail.

Official Study: The SEC and Quid Pro Quo 15 Aug 2014 5:44 AM (10 years ago)

“The findings of this study suggest that the SEC is influenced by considerations other than the merits of the case and raise questions regarding the effectiveness with which the agency plays its deterrence and compensation roles.”

Maria M. Correia
London Business School

The phrase “quid pro quo” is universally understood as something that is given or taken in return for something else. The actions involved are not necessarily always illegal or unethical but very often the connotation of the phrase especially when used in a political context expressly implies a form of corruption.

“On the federal level, the Hobbs Act makes it a felony for a public official to extort property under color of office. Trading campaign contributions for promises of official actions or inactions are also prohibited under the act.”

I think most people in our nation today would accept the premise that Washington politicians actively engage in practices that would fall under the heading of quid pro quo. How do they often play this game? Let’s navigate as Ms. Correia hits the Washington establishment and the SEC hard:

I find that politically connected firms on average are less likely to be involved in SEC enforcement actions and face lower penalties if they are prosecuted by the SEC. Contributions to politicians in a strong position to put pressure on the SEC are more effective than others at reducing the probability of enforcement and penalties imposed by an enforcement action. Moreover, the amounts paid to lobbyists with prior employment links to the SEC (LD’s edit: here’s the revolving door, folks!!) and the amounts spent on lobbying the SEC directly, are more effective than other lobbying expenditures at reducing enforcement costs faced by firms.

These findings are consistent with firms using long-term political contributions in exchange for regulatory favors.

I find that continued contributions to high ranking politicians from the majority party are more strongly associated with a reduction in enforcement costs. Contributions to politicians sitting on committees involved in setting the SEC’s budget or overseeing the agency and, in particular, to their chairmen are also associated with a stronger reduction in the probability of
enforcement and penalties.

While Correia lays out in methodical fashion just how the SEC is influenced “by considerations other than the merits of the case”, a recent commentary in the International Business Times  reminds us that — all assertions to the contrary — the Department of Justice has also fallen under a similar influence. Can we ever forget the following:

In a 2012 speech then-Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer said that the larger economic consequences of sanctioning Wall Street banks should be a factor in whether or not the government moves ahead with a prosecution.

Those engaged in the quid pro quo may like to dismiss the overwhelming stench associated with these corruptible practices as simply how our political system and financial regulatory oversight work these days.

Those outside the Washington beltway have a keener sense of smell and know that the very real corruption involved in these practices is eroding the rule of law in our nation and with it the very foundation of our democracy. Why do you think whistleblowers so often are strung along and/or silenced?

While the cronies play these games and make/take their payments, the American dream for more and more of our fellow citizens is subsequently fading in the rear view mirror.

Some folks, including those at the SEC and atop Capitol Hill, may think there is nothing new here.

I challenge them to read and respond to Ms. Correia’s study.

Navigate accordingly.

Larry Doyle

Please order a hard copy or Kindle version of my book, In Bed with Wall Street: The Conspiracy Crippling Our Global Economy.

For those reading this via syndicated outlet or by e-mail or another delivery, please visit the blog to comment on this piece of ‘sense on cents.’

Please subscribe to all my work via e-mail.

Helen Davis Chaitman Reviews In Bed with Wall Street 14 Aug 2014 5:16 AM (10 years ago)

I truly appreciate reading the thoughts of highly intelligent professionals. I appreciate even more reading the thoughts of those highly intelligent professionals who stand up and speak out in courageous fashion on the serious issues of the day.

Very few individuals with whom I have crossed paths since launching Sense on Cents in early 2009 embody these character traits more than Helen Davis Chaitman.

Helen Davis Chaitman is a nationally recognized litigator with a diverse trial practice in the areas of lender liability, bankruptcy, bank fraud, RICO, professional malpractice, trusts and estates, and white collar defense. In 1995, Ms. Chaitman was named one of the nation’s top ten litigators by the National Law Journal for a jury verdict she obtained in an accountants’ malpractice case. Since early 2009, Ms. Chaitman has been an outspoken advocate for investors in Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. She has lobbied in Congress for statutory changes to assure Madoff investors of the protections of the Securities Investor Protection Act.

Ms. Chaitman is truly tireless in fighting for justice and recently launched the site JPMadoff to expose the relationship between JP Morgan and Bernie Madoff that facilitated the perpetration of Wall Street’s largest Ponzi scam.

I am honored that Ms. Chaitman would review my book In Bed with Wall Street. Her review is currently being widely disseminated throughout the blogosphere. I welcome sharing her thoughts here:

By Helen Davis Chaitman

I confess: Larry Doyle is my hero. Along with a handful of courageous, brilliant people, Larry has spoken out about the corruption that is Wall Street in his wonderful book “In Bed with Wall Street.” This is a must-read if you want your grandchildren to live in a country that protects against the ravages of the super-rich.

Americans like to believe they can teach third world countries about good government… But wait–do we really want to spread the word on how to corrupt our regulators and prostitute our legislators?

The Fraud that is FINRA

Larry shows how, step by step, the rich and powerful have distorted the purpose for the existence of FINRA, the securities industry’s self-funded, self-regulatory organization whose stated purpose is to be Wall Street’s own private police. FINRA is a private organization formed as a result of a merger of the National Association of Securities Dealers and the regulatory arm of the New York Stock Exchange. It is funded and run by the Wall Street firms but it is completely above the law: Unlike even the SEC, FINRA cannot be sued – no matter what it does. Larry describes FINRA as the “Cops on the Take” and he is 100% correct. How convenient that Wall Street supervises itself!

Mary L. Schapiro, former Chief Executive Officer of FINRA and then Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, described FINRA as having overarching objectives of investor protection and market integrity. If you believe that, read Larry’s book. You will see that FINRA exists to enrich itself and to protect the big Wall Street players, no matter how illegal their practices, while tormenting the small players who can’t afford to grease the appropriate palms.

Speaking of greasing palms, Congress does not come cheap. During the ten-year period from 1998 – 2008 – the lead-up to the catastrophic world financial crisis – Wall Street contributed $1.7 billion to favored legislators’ campaign funds and $3.4 billion to lobbyists who, of course, spread the wealth among those who count. Wall Street plays both sides of the aisles; 55% of the contributions want to Republicans; 45% went to Democrats. Wall Street is not interested in one political parties’ credo or the others’. It simply wants to own Congress. And it does. Larry lays out all the details in his book. Nobody can say that Wall Street is reckless with its money. As Larry writes: “The funds may have bought Wall Street the desired ineffectual oversight, but they also bought America and the world a crisis of epic proportions.”

Larry does an excellent job of explaining the crisis with auction rate securities (“ARS”) which represented approximately 10% of the total US money market and of the municipal bond market. And he explains how FINRA failed to protect investors because it was busy protecting its own $650 million investment in ARS–the securities regulator was competing with the public it was supposed to be protecting.

Larry describes how Wall Street outsmarted the public by requiring customers to litigate disputes with the Wall Street firms through FINRA’s own arbitration process. About half of the people in the United States, about 160 million people, own stock or a stock fund.  All of the securities firms require customers to sign agreements that, in the event of a dispute, the customer must litigate through a FINRA arbitration. But guess what?  The FINRA arbitrators “are paid by the regulators that are funded by the industry.” As some have said, “in order to get along, the arbitrators had better go along.”

The Fraud that is SIPC

If you invest in securities and you rely upon your broker’s promise of SIPC insurance, read this book. The Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) is a scam. SIPC was formed by Congress in 1970 to be made up of all the securities firms. SIPC is supposed to assess its members to fund insurance to protect customers whose brokers steal their money or their securities. The insurance provides a substantial inducement for people to do business with securities firms and SIPC’s members enjoyed the increased business that the promise of SIPC insurance provided.

Now let’s talk about how they paid for the insurance. For the entire period from 1996 through 2008 each SIPC member paid a flat fee to SIPC of $150 year in exchange for which each member was able to assure all of its customers that their accounts were insured up to $500,000? That’s not a typo. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Schwab, with their tens of thousands of customers, wrote one check each year for $150 to fund tens of billions of dollars of promised insurance.  And Larry explains how, after the Madoff collapse, SIPC changed its mind about what the insurance was that it had promised investors. Why? Because the SIPC fund was under-funded and the thought of making a special assessment against SIPC’s members never occurred  to SIPC’s members. Should we be surprised?

The Fraud that is Whistleblower Protection

Nor should we be surprised to learn that the SEC’s 20-year whistleblower program rewarded only five people from 1989 – 2009 and the total bounty paid to those five people was less than $160,000 altogether! The SEC just doesn’t like whistling. Larry quotes Preet Bharara, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, stating that insider trading was “rampant and routine and that this criminal behavior was known, encouraged and exploited by authority figures in several investment funds.”  And, of course, the SEC did nothing, in 20 years, to prosecute insider traders.

Larry recounts the work done by several admirable whistleblowers – all of whom were ignored by the regulators.  The stories make you want to take all of your money out of the stock market and put it in your mattress!

The Fraud that was Congress’ Response to the 2008 Global Economic Collapse

In perhaps the most important chapter of the book, Larry reviews the work of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (“FCIC”) appointed by President Obama to investigate the cause of the global economic collapse.  Clearly, the failure to regulate Wall Street allowed the greed of the Street to destroy the economic lives of millions of innocent people.  And the regulators did nothing to stop at. Wall Street successfully paralyzed them. The star of the FCIC’s hearings was former Citigroup chief underwriter for consumer lending, Richard Bowen. As Larry explained:

Bowen highlighted that he had determined in mid-2006 that more than 60 percent of the mortgages that Citi had purchased from third-party originators and sold to investors such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were defective – that is, they did not meet Citi’s standards.  Bowen sent messages to senior Citi management, including former US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, indicating the seriousness of this matter and the urgency with which it needed to be addressed, but his whistleblowing fell upon deal ears.  Bowen also testified that in 2007, the defective mortgages purchased by Citi increased to over 80 percent.

Bowen had been fired by Citi in 2009 after having blown the whistle within the bank.

The FCIC’s final report fell far short of its mission, apparently in an effort to appease the major Wall Street firms. As former SEC Commissioner Arthur Levitt explained, once word of a proposed regulation got out, industry lobbyists would rush to complain to members of Congress with jurisdiction over the specific activity at issue.

The power of Wall Street to decimate legislation intended to protect the public against the greed of securities firms is most evident in the enactment of the Dodd Frank legislation.  Dodd-Frank directed 22 separate federal regulators to undertake work on over 400 separate rules. Years after the enactment of the legislation, most of the regulatory work has still not been done.

As Larry explains, the banks that were too big to fail are now, six years later, much, much bigger. “The four largest mortgage originators (Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, U.S. Bancorp, and Bank of America) now write approximately 50 percent of the home mortgages in our country.  The largest originator, Wells Fargo, has approximately 30 percent of the market.  The four largest banks issue close to 70 percent of the credit cards. The six largest banks by assets (JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley) hold assets valued at close to two-thirds of our nation’s GDP.  In 1995, the six largest banks held assets equal to 17 percent of our nation’s GDP. The four largest banks hold close to 40 percent of our nation’s bank deposits, up from 32 percent pre-crisis.  The five largest banks hold 95 percent of the exposure within the quadrillion-dollar (this is a thousand trillion) derivatives market. That figure represents approximately $3.2 million for every man, woman, and child in the United States of America.”

Is there hope for the future?

Larry cries out for change. My favorite sentence in Larry’s book sums up his message – a message which every American should take to heart:

Financial institutions that are “too big to fail,” combined with politicians who are too compromised to govern and regulators who are too captured and corrupted to protect, produce an incestuous cabal that is simply too big to trust.

You owe it to your children and grandchildren to read this book.

Check out In Bed with Wall Street: The Conspiracy Crippling Our Global Economy.

HDC

Larry Doyle

Please order a hard copy or Kindle version of my book, In Bed with Wall Street: The Conspiracy Crippling Our Global Economy.

For those reading this via syndicated outlet or by e-mail or another delivery, please visit the blog to comment on this piece of ‘sense on cents.’

Please subscribe to all my work via e-mail.

Inspectors’ General ‘Limitations on Access to Records’ 13 Aug 2014 5:40 AM (10 years ago)

Information is everything.

Access to information on a timely basis is critical to an agency, an organization, an administration, and a government at large being well run. The sharing of information is often sporadic if the interests of those involved are not properly aligned.

Regrettably for the American public, our interests are not often properly represented and aligned with those atop Capitol Hill — on both sides of the aisle — and those within 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. All we need to do is look at the pathetic if not anemic levels of public approval to understand that. Truth be told, though, those within power should not operate based purely on public polls and levels of approval.

Although often times it seems that they do take just that tact.

All this said, we are living through seemingly an unprecedented period when sourcing information is forever breaking new ground. How might we know if the information itself is utilized to truly protect and promote the public interest as opposed to allowing waste, fraud, and abuse to propagate?

The Inspector General Act of 1978 was instituted to keep a proper check on those running our government. Let’s navigate as recently 47 Inspectors General attached their names to a letter expressing real discontent with the manner in which the current administration is operating:

The undersigned federal Inspectors General write regarding the serious limitations on access to records that have recently impeded the work of Inspectors General at the Peace Corps, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Justice. Each of us strongly supports the principle that an Inspector General must have complete, unfiltered, and timely access to all information and materials available to the agency that relate to that Inspector General’s oversight activities, without unreasonable administrative burdens.

The importance of this principle, which was codified by Congress in Section 6(a)(1) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (the IG Act), cannot be overstated. Refusing, restricting, or delaying an Inspector General’s access to documents leads to incomplete, inaccurate, or significantly delayed findings or recommendations, which in turn may prevent the agency from promptly correcting serious problems and deprive Congress of timely information regarding the agency’s performance.

My recent commentary highlighting the road blocks in place at the SEC that have impeded the ability of its IG to perform would seem to be the rule rather than the exception for this administration.

This dynamic and the subsequent lack of real transparency strike me as problematic and anything but consistent with the principles of a free, open, and democratic society.

But don’t take my word for that just read the opinion expressed by the 47 Inspectors General:

This nation’s 35 years of experience since the IG Act was passed has demonstrated that effective and independent oversight by Inspectors General saves taxpayers money and improves the operations of the federal government.

Do you wonder if those running our government appreciate these principles (saving taxpayer money and improving operations) or if perhaps they have a different agenda?

I wonder that all the time.

Navigate accordingly.

I thank the regular reader who brought this IG letter to my attention.

Larry Doyle

Please order a hard copy or Kindle version of my book, In Bed with Wall Street: The Conspiracy Crippling Our Global Economy.

For those reading this via syndicated outlet or by e-mail or another delivery, please visit the blog to comment on this piece of ‘sense on cents.’

Please subscribe to all my work via e-mail.