They’re sure running out of people…NOW go after those who can’t “legally” have kids and maybe have a nest egg!

Did someone step on SHIT?

Don’t fall for it! They’re running out of humans!

Industry News: Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) To Hold Investment Symposium For Domestic Partners

May 25th, 2010 • by mitch AMERICAN BANKING NEWS

Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) announced Tuesday that in conjunction with the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the Williams Institute – UCLA School of Law and The Principal Funds, it will host a private reception and investment symposium on wealth planning for domestic partners on Thursday, May 27, 2010.

The Wall Street bank said the symposium will focus on findings from two studies by the Williams Institute on challenges gay and lesbian individuals and their partners face under current retirement and real estate tax laws.

“We’re pleased to facilitate this discussion with GLAAD and the Williams Institute, said Robert Perry, Managing Director, Los Angeles Metro Regional Director, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney. “This event provides a forum for us to highlight our wealth planning expertise with a targeted focus on the individual needs of the LGBT community.”

Morgan Stanley will have Alan Wolberg, Executive Director, Wealth Advisory Resources, Planning Director – Soundview Region, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney as its feature speaker.

“On behalf of GLAAD, we are pleased to partner again with our long-time friends at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney on this symposium,” said GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios. “Wealth planning is critical to protect ourselves and our families, as well as to inspire and engage future generations in the work that is important to each of us.”

The event will take place on Thursday, May 27, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. at the Luxe Hotel Sunset Boulevard, 11461 Sunset Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90049.

Bank Investigations Cheat Sheet: ProPublica

by Marian Wang, ProPublica – May 13, 2010

Here’s our attempt to lay out exactly what’s known about which banks are being investigated by whom and for what. We’re going to keep updating this page, so please send usstories or details we’ve missed. Related: Covering the Bank Investigations: A Cautionary Tale

  What has been reported What the bank has said
 
Citigroup
Citing “a person familiar with the matter,” The Wall Street Journal has reported that Citigroup is under “early-stage criminal scrutiny” by the Department of Justice. Also citing unnamed sources, Fox Business reported on May 12 that the SEC has an active civil investigation into Citigroup and has subpoenaed the firm, but has not issued any Wells notices. A report on May 12th by the Journal cited unnamed sources saying that the Department of Justice is scrutinizing a few CDO deals that Morgan Stanley bet against–but which were underwritten by Citigroup and UBS. Neither the SEC nor the Justice Department have confirmed these reports.

Citing two anonymous sources, The New York Times has reported that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating eight banks to determine whether they misled rating agencies in order to get higher ratings for their mortgage-related products; Citigroup has been named as one of the banks. Subpoenas were issued on May 12, according to the Times and the Dow Jones Newswires, both of which relied on anonymous sourcing for their reports.

Citigroup has declined to comment to us and other outlets.

Credit Agricole
Credit Agricole has also been named as one of the banks that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating separately. Credit Agricole did not immediately respond to the Times’ request for comment and has not yet responded to ours.

Credit Suisse
Credit Suisse has also been named as one of the banks that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating. Credit Suisse declined to comment to the Times about the New York attorney general’s investigation.

Deutsche Bank
Citing “a person familiar with the matter,” The Wall Street Journal has reported that Deutsche Bank is under “early-stage criminal scrutiny” by the Department of Justice. Also citing unnamed sources, Fox Business reported on May 12 that the SEC has an active civil investigation into Deutsche and has subpoenaed the firm, but has not issued any Wells notices. Neither agency has confirmed these reports.

Deutsche Bank has also been named as one of the banks that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating separately.

Deutsche Bank declined to comment to Fox, the Journal, and the Times about possible investigations.

Goldman Sachs
The SEC has brought a civil fraud lawsuit against Goldman, alleging that the investment bank made “materially misleading statements and omissions” when it allowed a hedge fund to help create and bet against a CDO, called Abacus, without disclosing the hedge fund’s role to investors.

The Wall Street Journal, citing “people familiar with the probe,” reported in April that the Justice Department has been conducting a criminal investigation into Goldman’s CDO dealings following a referral from the SEC. Neither agency has confirmed this, but the AP, citing another unnamed source, has reported the same thing. Since then, many news organizations–including the The New York TimesABC News and the Washington Post–have also reported on the criminal probe, citing unnamed sources. No charges have been brought.

Goldman Sachs has also been named as one of the banks that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating separately.

Goldman called the SEC’s accusations “unfounded in law and fact.

After the reports of a criminal investigation, a Goldman Sachs spokesman declined to confirm that the bank had been contacted by the DOJ but also told several news outlets that “given the recent focus on the firm, we’re not surprised by the report of an inquiry. We would cooperate fully with any request for information.”

The bank has declined to comment to us on the New York attorney general’s investigation.

 
JP Morgan Chase
Citing “a person familiar with the matter,” The Wall Street Journal has also reported that JPMorgan Chase has received civil subpoenas from the SEC and is under “early-stage criminal scrutiny” by the Department of Justice. Neither the SEC nor the Justice Department has confirmed these reports. A JPMorgan spokesman told the Journal that the bank “hasn’t been contacted” by federal prosecutors and isn’t aware of a criminal investigation.

Merrill Lynch (now part of Bank of America)
Merrill has not been named in any SEC investigations. But as we pointed out, a lawsuit brought by a Dutch bank asserts that Merrill Lynch did a CDO deal that was “precisely” like Goldman’s. The SEC has declined to comment on whether it is investigating the deal.

Merrill Lynch has also been named as one of the banks that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating.

Merrill has said its CDO deal was not like Goldman’s, calling Goldman’s Abacus deal an “entirely different transaction.”

The bank did not immediately return the Times’ request for comment about the investigation by Coumo, but when we called and asked, a spokesman from Bank of America, which merged with Merrill, said, “We are cooperating with the attorney general’s office on this matter.”


Morgan Stanley
Citing “people familiar with the matter,” The Wall Street Journal reported on May 12 that the Justice Department has been conducting a criminal investigation into Morgan Stanley’s CDO dealings, including its role in helping design and betting against two sets of CDOs from 2006 known as Jackson and Buchanan. The Justice Department declined to comment. No charges have been brought, and according to the Journal, the probe is “at a preliminary stage.” A Morgan Stanley spokeswoman said the bank had “no knowledge of a Justice Department investigation into these transactions.” The Journal reported that the SEC has subpoenaed Morgan Stanley on several occasions, but the bank says it has received no Wells notices, which would indicate pending SEC charges.

Morgan Stanley has also been named as one of the banks that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating.

A Morgan Stanley spokeswoman said on May 12that the firm has “not been contacted by the Justice Department about the transactions being raised by The Wall Street Journal, and we have no knowledge of a Justice Department investigation into these transactions.”

The investment bank declined to comment to the Times about the Coumo’s investigation.


UBS
Citing “a person familiar with the matter,” The Wall Street Journal reported that UBS has received civil subpoenas from the SEC and is under “early-stage criminal scrutiny” by the Department of Justice. In a report on May 12, the Journal reported that the Justice Department is scrutinizing a few CDO deals that Morgan Stanley helped design and bet against–but which were marketed by Citigroup and UBS. Neither the SEC nor the Justice Department has confirmed these reports. The firm has not disclosed that it has gotten any Wells notices.

UBS has also been named as one of the banks New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating.

A UBS spokesman has declined to comment on any of the investigations.

Moooove Over SLACKERS!! NY AG CUOMO probing 8 banks over securities

AP Source: NY AG probing 8 banks over securities

NEW YORK — The New York attorney general has launched an investigation into eight banks to determine whether they misled ratings agencies about mortgage securities, according to a person familiar with the investigation.

finance-20100513-US.Wall.Street.InvestigationAttorney General Andrew Cuomo is trying to figure out if banks provided the agencies with false information in order to get better ratings on the risky securities, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation has not been made public.

Cuomo’s office is investigating Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, UBS AG, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Credit Agricole and Merrill Lynch, which is now part of Bank of America Corp.

Representatives from Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Credit Agricole declined to comment. Others were not immediately available comment.

During the housing boom, Wall Street banks often packaged pools of risky subprime mortgages together. The securities were then typically given top-notch ratings and investors purchased them, in part, because of their high ratings.

The ratings, given out by Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings, are used as a guide for investors to judge how risky an investment might be.

As the housing market collapsed and more customers fell behind on repaying their mortgages, the securities began to fail.

The securities have been widely blamed for exacerbating the credit crisis and costing investors and the banks themselves billions of dollars in losses. The ratings agencies have come under fire for having given such high ratings to securities that soured.

The attorney general’s probe comes as federal regulators are investigating whether some of the banks misled investors when marketing and selling the securities and other investments that were tied to mortgages.

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged Goldman Sachs with fraud over its packaging of mortgage securities. Goldman is facing a separate criminal investigation into the same securities. Goldman has denied the charges and plans to defend itself.

Earlier this week it was reported that federal prosecutors are investigating whether Morgan Stanley misled investors about its role in a pair of $200 million derivatives whose performance was tied to mortgage-backed securities.

The increased scrutiny over how banks managed, packaged and portrayed mortgage securities and derivatives comes as Congress discusses a major overhaul of financial regulations. Politicians have said an overhaul would add more transparency to investments and trading.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Securities and Investments: Fraud Digest

Securities and Investments 

Morgan Stanley

Action Date: May 12, 2010 
Location: New York, NY 

EDITORIAL: On May 12, 2010, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Executive announced in response to a Wall Street Journal article that he was unaware of any criminal investigation by the Justice Department that his firm, like Goldman Sachs, misled investors about mortgage-backed derivative deals. The WSJ had reported that Morgan Stanley was the subject of such an investigation. In addition to determining whether the firm was betting against the very products it was promoting to investors, the Justice Department COULD investigate whether Morgan Stanley and other securities firms exercised secret control over the rating agencies, causing risky investments to get the highest ratings by these firms. The Justice Department COULD also investigate whether the mortgage-backed trusts put together by Morgan Stanley were comprised of much riskier mortgages than represented to investors. Another investigation COULD be conducted regarding the pay-outs from the insurance policies behind the CDOs and whether the servicing companies working for the trusts are collecting twice – from the insurance and from the foreclosures – and then turning around, acquiring the foreclosed properties for $10 – and profiting yet a third time. Investigators COULD even determine whether foreclosure mills working for trusts created by Morgan Stanley are now using forged proof of ownership to foreclose because Morgan Stanley never acquired the mortgages, notes and assignments they claimed to have in their vaults, backing the mortgage-backed securities. In the battle between the Justice Department and Wall Street, Goliath is in New York, not D.C. 

The cautionary tale of Aegis Mortgage’s bankruptcy – Aug. 17, 2007

Not Much Has Changed! What could we have learned?

The darker side of buyout firms

The case of Aegis Mortgage shows that when private equity loses a high-risk bet, ordinary employees are the ones who suffer, reports Fortune’s Katie Benner.

By Katie Benner, Fortune reporter
August 20 2007: 1:24 PM EDT

 

NEW YORK (Fortune) — Buyout firms like to present themselves as a can’t-fail combination of operational genius and financial support that can heal sick businesses and create thriving companies. But sometimes, as in the case of Aegis Mortgage, genius fails and bankruptcy is declared. The private investment firm Cerberus bought a controlling stake in the Houston-based mortgage lender in 1998, but despite an infusion of cash and talent, Aegis ceased operations on Monday, August 6. Now hundreds of employees have been laid off – all without health insurance. It’s a reminder that risky turnarounds can mean real pain for more than just investors raising questions about how Cerberus will treat other ailing companies it has purchased, notably Chrysler.

Aegis, which was founded in 1993, closed its mortgage production operations on August 6. Two days later, employees were warned that there would be layoffs within 60 days and that benefits would be terminated effective midnight August 10, according to Aegis employees. They were also told that earned paid-time off would not be paid out and that there would be no severance. When the layoffs came on Monday, August 13, 782 people out of 1,302 employees were fired. Those let go were shocked to find that they were not eligible for COBRA. While Federal law requires businesses with more than 20 employees to offer departing workers the chance to buy an extra 18 months of health insurance, it is only required for companies with an active benefit plan, and Aegis had terminated its plan days before. Moreover, Aegis admitted in its bankruptcy filing that it didn’t have the money to pay employee benefits anyway.

Those actions have some up in arms. Richard Thompson, who co-founded Aegis in 1993, is asking Cerberus and Aegis to take care of its employees. “As a founder of Aegis, one of our stated corporate values was to always do the right thing,” says Thompson, who was CEO until October 2006, when Cerberus ousted him. “The right thing is to reinstate the company’s health insurance policy for the thousands of families affected by their actions last week.”

Thompson, of course, has reason to dislike Cerberus. Not only was he fired, he is suing Cerberus for mismanaging the company and destroying its chance to go public. Other observers note that many companies that go bankrupt leave their employees stranded. John Challenger, head of executive outplacement firm Challenger Gray Christmas, says: “Creditors will line up, so the company is taking these harsh actions to save what they can. You’re going to see lots of fighting over the company assets.” In its bankruptcy filing, Aegis said it had $625 million in debt and owed banks including Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley. Madeleine LLP, a subsidiary of Cerberus, is also in line for money.

Cerberus declined to comment; an Aegis spokesman said that the company is doing what it can to help its remaining 500 or so employees, including providing health care and job training.

What happened to Aegis? The company managed to survive the mortgage meltdown and S&L problems of the ’90s, but it had been wounded. Plans in 1997 to hold an IPO for its REIT business were scrapped when the REIT sector began to exhibit problems. The conditions were perfect for a company like Cerberus, which regularly scoops up distressed businesses it believes will be winners in the future. The mortgage business was suffering in the late 1990s, but the industry is cyclical and Cerberus was betting on returns during the upswing. (Indeed, even as the subprime business began to melt down this spring, Cerberus agreed to buy sub-prime lender Option One Mortgage from H&R Block this April.)

So in 1998, Cerberus agreed to buy a controlling stake in Aegis, which had $2.5 million in equity. Following a familiar pattern, Cerberus immediately injected a huge amount of money into the company ($47 million), placed its own people on the board and kept the management team, including Thompson, in place. It rolled pieces of other dying lenders into Aegis and built a thriving mortgage lending operation.

In late 2006, the company had grown its capital in reserves to $361 million, and like all other lenders it couldn’t issue mortgages fast enough for the Wall Street machine that used them to create high-risk, very profitable bonds. At the height of the mortgage origination boom, Aegis employed about 3,500 people, mostly in the Houston area. But Aegis lost it all in just nine months when the market for mortgage loans tanked.

The failure calls into question the management and health of Cerberus’s other loan plays. Cerberus owns a majority stake in GMAC and its mortgage subsidiary ResCap. Thanks to the credit crunch, the ratings agencies have downgraded ResCap, thus making it more expensive for the company to operate. The rising cost of capital may hurt Chrysler Financial, too, the healthy operation within Chrysler that should have been able to help fund the ailing automaker’s turnaround. At a minimum, Cerberus will take a financial hit because of Aegis and the bankruptcy is an embarrassment amid the firm’s recent spate of high-profile acquisitions.

“Cerberus has become a major player in the global economy. Its many constituents rightly will expect a higher standard of behavior than was exhibited last week with Aegis,” says Thompson. It’s a sober reminder that even the vaunted geniuses of private equity can’t save every company, and that employees – more than investors – are the real victims when they go under.

13 BANKERS: MIT’s Johnson Says Too-Big-to-Fail Banks Will Spark New Crisis

Review by James Pressley :BLOOMBERG REVIEWS

March 22 (Bloomberg) — Alan Greenspan, the master of monetary mumbo jumbo, leaned back in his chair and grew uncharacteristically forthright.

“If they’re too big to fail, they’re too big,” the former Federal Reserve chairman said when asked about the dangers of outsized financial institutions.

It was October 2009, and the man who helped make megabanks possible was sounding more like Teddy Roosevelt than the Maestro as he entertained what he called a radical solution.

“You know, break them up,” he told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. “In 1911, we broke up Standard Oil. So what happened? The individual parts became more valuable than the whole.”

Greenspan the bank buster crops up near the end of “13 Bankers,” Simon Johnson and James Kwak’s reasoned look at how Wall Street became what they call “the American oligarchy,” a group of megabanks whose economic power has given them political power. Unless these too-big-to-fail banks are broken up, they will trigger a second meltdown, the authors write.

“And when that crisis comes,” they say, “the government will face the same choice it faced in 2008: to bail out a banking system that has grown even larger and more concentrated, or to let it collapse and risk an economic disaster.”

The banks in their sights include Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Though Wall Street may not like “13 Bankers,” the authors can’t be dismissed as populist rabble-rousers.

Cash for Favors

Johnson is an ex-chief economist for the International Monetary Fund who teaches at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Kwak is a former McKinsey & Co. consultant. In September 2008, they started the Baseline Scenario, a blog that became essential reading on the crisis. When they call Wall Street an oligarchy, they’re not speaking lightly.

Drawing parallels to the U.S. industrial trusts of the late 19th century and Russian businessmen who rose to economic dominance in the 1990s, the authors apply the term to any country where “well-connected business leaders trade cash and political support for favors from the government.”

Oligarchies weaken democracy and distort competition. The Wall Street bailouts boosted the clout of the survivors, making them bigger and enlarging their market shares in derivatives, new mortgages and new credit cards, the authors say.

Suicidal Risk-Taking

These megabanks emerged from the meltdown more opposed to regulation than ever, the authors say. If they get their way — and they will, judging from current congressional maneuvering over President Barack Obama’s proposed regulatory overhaul — Wall Street will retain its license to gamble with the taxpayer’s money. This isn’t good for anyone, including the banks themselves, which often feel compelled by competitive pressure to take suicidal risks.

“There is another choice,” they write: “the choice to finish the job that Roosevelt began a century ago, and to take a stand against concentrated financial power just as he took a stand against concentrated industrial power.”

Obama finds himself in the middle of a struggle that has coursed throughout U.S. history — the struggle between democracy and powerful banking interests. The book’s title alludes to one Friday last March when 13 of the nation’s most powerful bankers met with Obama at the White House amid a public furor over bailouts and bonuses.

The material that sets this book apart can be found at the beginning and end. Chapters three through six present an all- too-familiar, though meticulously researched, primer on how the economy became “financialized” over the past 30 years.

Regulatory Arbitrage

Crisis buffs won’t miss much if they skip ahead to the last chapter, where the authors debunk arguments that curbing the size of banks is too simplistic. A more complex approach, they say, would invite “regulatory arbitrage, such as reshuffling where assets are parked.”

They propose that no financial institution should be allowed to control or have an ownership interest in assets worth more than 4 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, or roughly $570 billion in assets today. A lower limit should be imposed on investment banks — effectively 2 percent of GDP, or roughly $285 billion, they say.

If hard caps sound unreasonable, consider this: These ceilings would affect only six banks, the authors say: Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

“Saying that we cannot break up our largest banks is saying that our economic futures depend on these six companies,” they say. “That thought should frighten us into action.”

Though Jamie Dimon won’t like this (any more than John D. Rockefeller did), incremental regulatory changes and populist rhetoric about “banksters” are getting us nowhere. It’s time for practical solutions. This might be a place to start.

“13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown” is from Pantheon (304 pages, $26.95). To buy this book in North America, click here.

(James Pressley writes for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer on the story: James Pressley in Brussels at jpressley@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: March 21, 2010 20:00 EDT

By: Simon Johnson
The Baseline Scenario