From National Journal:

This is the worst-case scenario from Europe, and it just might come true: Italy defaults on its debts. Every major Italian bank collapses. Recession grips the eurozone. Sovereign defaults and bank failures ripple across the Continent. Saddled with bad loans to nations and lenders in Europe, American banks hemorrhage cash. Credit freezes in the United States. Multinational companies, unable to raise money, curb U.S. investment and hiring. Wall Street demands, but fails to get, new bailouts. The entire developed world plummets into recession and, quite possibly, depression.

This, in contrast, is the placid warning that President Obama gave Americans about the threat: “If Europe is contracting,” he said on Monday, “then it’s much more difficult for us to create good jobs here at home.” There’s still a chance that Europeans, through some combination of fiscal and monetary action, can stop the crisis before it shatters the feeble U.S. recovery. But the worst case is so much worse than Obama’s description, and Washington has failed to prepare voters for the possibility. “The [potential] shock we’re talking about is of very large magnitude,” says Viral Acharya, a New York University professor who studies financial risk extensively. “If you’re just having an Armageddon coming your way, [America’s] buffers may not be adequate.”

(more…)

There were three winners in the CNBC debate: Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich. Gov. Rick Perry was the obvious loser because of his memory lapse.

The guy with the toughest job on Wednesday night was Herman Cain, who has been hammered by sexual-harassment charges. He needed a strong performance to put him back on message with his 9-9-9 tax plan and pro-business, free-enterprise views. I give him first prize, simply because he performed so well. He had the most to gain and the most to lose. He gained.

How these sex-harassment charges play out remains to be seen. And how much damage they will do to the Cain campaign is an unknown. But it’s noteworthy that a new Rasmussen poll for the Florida Republican primary shows Cain at 30 percent, Romney at 24 percent, and Gingrich at 19 percent. At the moment, Cain is still at or near the top of the pack. So far, it’s hard to find any Republican-voter migration away from Cain.

But the more interesting story might be Newt Gingrich, who has surged into third place. When I interviewed him on Tuesday, the night before the debate, I asked him about 1 percent versus 99 percent, the class-warfare argument being propagated by President Obama and the Wall Street protesters. Gingrich replied, “I am for 100 percent. I think this idea of 99 percent and 1 percent is grotesque European-socialist class-warfare bologna.” (Italics mine.) No one puts it that well.

(more…)

It was a year and a half ago (May 17, 2010) when we first warned about Greece and hypothesized just how close France and the UK might be to the continental vortex we thought was in the process of spinning out of control. We also warned that we could expect the same result here if we persisted on pursuing the same economic model in the United States. Well, things have not improved.  Not there, and not here. Things have only gotten worse.

Greece is in violation of the covenants that were imposed as conditions of the first tranche of the bailout it received just last July. Italy just experienced a severe downgrading of its debt as did two of the three largest banks in France, with France’s largest bank having been placed on a negative watch list by the rating agencies. A major French/Belgian-owned bank is in a state of near collapse over its exposure to Greek debt as we write this. Concurrently, The Fed has embarked on what can be described as “QE 3 light” (…if at first — or second — you don’t succeed…), with Chairman Bernanke warning just last week that the US economy “is close to faltering.”

Let’s review the anatomy of the persistent and growing dilemma in Europe as well as the vacuous, if not clueless, approach the White House is pursuing to deal with our own deteriorating situation in the United States.

(more…)

On Fox Business’ Freedom Watch last week I sat down with Democratic strategist and former Chuck Schumer aide Christopher Hahn to discuss the “ Durbin amendment” to the Dodd-Frank Bill.  If you are unfamiliar with the attachment to the bill, you may nonetheless be feeling the effects soon enough in the form of higher banking fees from checking account maintenance to debit card usage.

What the amendment (that went into effect on October 1st) does is place a cap on per-transaction “swipe fees” that banks charge retailers when purchases are made via debit cards.  They used to charge retailers roughly 44 cents per transaction.  Dodd-Frank limits this to 21 cents.  Since these fees are absorbed by the retailers, it doesn’t take a Wharton Business School degree to see that the immediate beneficiaries of this government intrusion into the private sector are the so-called big-box, high-volume retailers such as Walmart, Walgreens, Home Depot, Target, and others.

Mr. Hahn may have offered the weak Democratic operative/apologist defense of the bill in that Durbin was just doing what Senators do by helping his constituents, but I made it a point to remind him that the populist senator’s constituents in this case are not the consumers in his state but rather Big Retail.  The last time I checked, many retail titans are far wealthier than most Wall Street “fat cats” already.  The Walton family’s combined wealth far outstrips Warren Buffett’s (or Bill Gates’, for that matter), making them the de facto richest family in the world.  They are about to get a little wealthier as Walmart reaps its share of this estimated $7 billion annual windfall the Durbin amendment shifts from the banking to the retail sector. (more…)

The story of ShoreBank has caught national attention, as this relatively small, so-called ”community development bank” has been the target for bailout assistance via state and federal taxpayer money. In the past, particular banks have received assistance if they were deemed “too large to fail,” on the presumption is that if they did fail, they would take the banking industry — and possibly the economy itself — with them. ShoreBank, however, is a special case, and the favoritism shown it is based more on its banking philosphy than its size. What is it about ShoreBank’s philosophy that has garnered the favor of those who apparently see it not as “too large” to fail, but too important to fail? To answer that, we will be exploring the concept of the “Triple Bottom Line” (TBL or 3BL), which is the most succinct statement of Shorebank’s mission and purpose. In this series of articles we will discuss what the triple bottom line is, where it came from, and where it is leading us. We will see just how important 3BL philosophy is to those who subscribe to it and why they must protect its champion, ShoreBank, at all costs. As we explore it, we will see how it is more than just a new business model, but an maturing philosophy that begs protection from stakeholders whose goal is to establish it as a societal norm. Indeed, as we shall see, the Triple Bottom Line represents a philosophy which has been deemed “too important to fail.”

What is the Triple Bottom Line?

The Triple Bottom Line (TBL or 3BL) is the most succinct statement of Shorebank’s mission and purpose, and the bank proudly touts its commitment to the 3BL objectives. What are these objectives? Essentially, they are an organizational commitment to social and environmental concerns in addition to economic concerns (profit). Shorebank’s website summarizes it as follows:

Most businesses have a single bottom line – maximizing shareholder return. “Triple bottom line” companies typically manage to achieve three returns: profitability, social return and an environmental return. ShoreBank describes its triple bottom line as profitability, community development impact and conservation.

ShoreBank claims that pursuing profit alone is inadequate for businesses today, and therefore it feels traditional accounting measures must now also incorporate the goals of social welfare and environmental responsibility as well.

How is the Triple Bottom Line Practiced?

The vision behind 3BL is praiseworthy, as responsible and upstanding companies will by necessity conduct their business in ways friendly to their employees, customers, and community — as well as protect and preserve their environmental resources. However, how does 3BL actually work in practice? Is it a feasible and practical business model that accomplishes its stated goals? Let’s look again at ShoreBank’s website for the explanation. ShoreBank explains that it invests and loans money to foster community development and environmentally friendly projects. Then it attempts a description of how it codifies its progress towards fulfilling its 3BL aims:

(more…)

As the Central Illinois 9/12 Project has briefly written about in the past, one form of banking in which Shorebank is engaged is microfinance, especially in foreign countries. As this is not a type of finance that is well known to the general public, we will discuss briefly what microfinancing is, how it is used in conjunction with green initiatives and Sharia law, and how Shorebank is using this type of financing in their banking processes.

The Consultive Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP) defines microfinance as simply “the  supply of loans, savings, and other basic financial services to the poor.”  These loans are generally relatively small, but carry with them a high interest rate due to costs incurred by defaulting on loans and the transaction costs that are disproportionate to the size of the loan.  (The cost of manpower and other factors needed to make the loan are the same regardless of the size of the loan – thus for smaller loans, the  percentage of these costs in relation to the amount of the loan is greater.)  Specifically, the microfinancing industry enables people to receive loans when they would not otherwise be able to do so, whether due to poverty, lack of a bank account, inability to provide collateral, and/or inability to prove employment. In 2007, there were 873 microfinance institutions worldwide serving more than 133 million loan recipients.

Microfinance was initially, and oftentimes still is, aimed at providing loans and opportunities to those who otherwise may not have the funds to get a business off of the ground, but microfinance is sometimes tied into other things such as green initiatives. Shorebank, a community development bank whose practices the Central Illinois 912 Project has highlighted before, is a partner in an eco entrepreneurship through a project called “Yurtcozy.” This initiative allows individuals to “offset their carbon footprint” by buying carbon credits which enable a microfinance loan recipient to receive funding  for things such as energy efficient appliances and solar lighting. It may also finance education on clean energy for microfianance recipients and partnerships in green initiatives. Yurtcozy asserts that if the carbon credit purchases were made for all microfinance loan recipients worldwide, then loan recipients could decrease their carbon emissions by 260 million tons, and thirty percent of their income would be unlocked.

One of Shorebank’s first forays into microfinance was through the establishment of Grameen Bank in Bangladesh in 1983. Grameen Bank was founded by Mohammed Yumus, a Noble Peace Prize Recipient in 2006 and 2009 recipient of the Congressional Medal of Freedom from President Obama. Yumus’ description of the features of Grameencredit includes stating that “credit is a right,” and it’s built on “trust” (i.e., social justice in banking.)

(more…)

The Central Illinois 9/12 Project became one of the first to expose — beginning this past March on BigGovernment.com – Shorebank’s extensive green and microfinancing agendas, in anticipation of that bank’s impending bailout.  Shorebank, a Chicago-based, community-based investment bank, is focused on domestic and foreign microfinancing, is heavily engaged in the financing of “green” projects and “green” jobs, and has a host of ties to the Obama and Clinton administrations.  Most recently, we wrote in April about Shorebank seeking a “bailout” from larger financial firms that have previously received bailout money from the federal government. Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky had previously proposed that the bank receive funds from the State of Illinois to help cover its loss of capital since the beginning of the nation’s economic downturn in 2008.

As we previously wrote, Shorebank would potentially be eligible for TARP funds if it were to be recognized as a “Community Development Financial Institution.” In order to to received needed federal TARP money and prevent seizure by the FDIC, Shorebank needed to receive appropriate matching funds from private sources.  News stories have been released over the past several days indicating that Shorebank has potentially received such funding.

Shorebank has reportedly received $20 million from General Electric, $20 million from Goldman Sachs, and $20 million from Citigroup – with additional large funds being promised by J.P.Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley. Shorebank also has received funds from the Northern Trust Corporation, State Farm, and Harris N.A.  It has been reported that the bank could also receive funds from Wells-Fargo and PNC Financial Services.  Assistance from these financial institutions puts Shorebank’s raised capital from private sources within the range needed to make it eligible for TARP funds.

As we reported previously, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Chase all received tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money from TARP.  Does this then mean that Shorebank is being bailed out by bailout money?

(more…)

At some point in the past few weeks, Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias was sitting in his million-dollar Chicago condo wondering how he could possibly stop the death spiral of his campaign for the United States Senate.

It had all seemed so perfect just a few months ago—The dashing and urbane Alexi had burst on the political scene only four years ago spending millions of his parents money to win statewide office in his very first foray into politics.  He shot hoops with his role model and political patron, Barak Obama.  He had wealth, charisma, connections and unbridled ambition and a solidly blue state in which to make all his dreams come true.

But things started to go poorly from the start.  His entry into the race for his idol’s Senate seat was met with a collective wince from Democrats.  From the White House on down, political operatives made overtures to nearly every possible alternative candidate short of Rod Blagojevich.  State Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, Chris Kennedy, and Dem mandarin Bill Daley are just the alternatives that readily come to mind.  Even with all these A-listers taking a pass, Alexi still drew four primary opponents.  The scuttlebutt was that Democrat insiders felt Alexi lacked depth and that, coupled with troubles at his family’s Broadway Bank, he would be a very weak candidate.

He spent a ton of cash to eke out a primary win.  But 61% of Democrats wanted someone else to be the nominee.  Meanwhile, moderate GOP Congressman Mark Kirk cruised with nearly 60% of the Republican primary vote against six challengers.  Since then, things have gotten progressively worse for Alexi.

(more…)

Before the most recent report on Lehman Brothers’ use of Enron-like methods to hide debt from its balance sheet, Greece had recently been accused of similar shenangians.  The sovereign was under scrutiny for swaps it had set up with Goldman Sachs that allowed the nation to mask its real debt load, effectively cooking its books in order to meet the fiscal standards required for admittance into the Eurozone in 2001.  This was not the first time this type of deceptive transaction had been consummated.

The joyfully iconoclastic financial blog Zero Hedge had uncovered a little-known 2001 report by a little-known Italian Economist named Gustavo Piga which showed that Italy had used almost the exact same transactions as those used by the Greeks to mask their finances and gain entrance to the Eurozone in 1997.  For his courageous exposé, most disturbingly Piga’s life was threatened.  Why was this the case?

Piga had been the first to find “…a real-world example of how sovereign borrowers can use derivatives to window-dress public accounts as a means of achieving short-term political goals.”  As the Council on Foreign Relations which collaborated with Piga on the report noted, Italy was able to do this by “taking a cash advance in 1997 against an expected foreign exchange profit in 1998.  Under accounting rules, this is simply impermissible.  Borrowers cannot use loans to anticipate capital gains on a bond.”  The transactions allowed Italy to artifically reduce their deficit in 1997 by increasing their deficit in 1998.

And according to the CFR, what was the significance of this Enron-like Italian book-cooking?

(more…)

If you ask people on the street (outside of Chicago) if they have ever heard of ShoreBank, the answer would likely be “no.” While ShoreBank isn’t a Goldman Sachs, a Bank of America, or a JP Morgan, to the Progressives, this “little” bank is in many ways every bit as big and important as the aforementioned “large banks.”

Why?

One of the core components of President Obama’s fundamental change for America is to create clean energy jobs, also known as “green jobs”.  During his campaign and as recently as his State of the Union Address, President Obama continues to talk about the need “green” jobs. In fact, during his State of the Union 2010 speech, the President stated, “We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities –  and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. “

In a speech given by the President in Virginia on Dec. 15, 2009, he said, “The simple act of retrofitting these buildings to make them more energy-efficient — installing new windows and doors, insulation, roofing, sealing leaks, modernizing heating and cooling equipment — is one of the fastest, easiest and cheapest things we can do to put Americans back to work while saving families money and reducing harmful emissions.”

In the  stimulus package last year, President Obama devoted nearly $60 billion of his plan for building a new green-based economy.

(more…)

Since its founding, ShoreBank has been a progressive-minded bank focused on community development. However, it soon adopted the progressive commitment to environmentalism after founders Ron Grzywinski and Mary Houghton were approached in 1993 by Ecotrust, an environmentally-conscious firm focusing on debt for nature swaps in rainforest countries as well as environmental banking in the Pacific Northwest. The partnership of the two firms led to the establishment of ShoreTrust (now ShoreBank Enterprise Pacific) which provided financing, marketing and management assistance to small businesses in the Pacific coastal rain forest area. From there, the rest of the ShoreBank family eventually followed in adopting the green agenda.

For the entire story chronicling the founding of the bank and its move towards its environmental commitment, you may read Alka Srivastva’s dissertation for Case Western Reserve University here>>>.

From there, it did not take long for ShoreBank to incorporate environmentalism into its mission and formalize its commitment to the green agenda. In 1999, ShoreBank’s board of directors adopted a new conservation and development policy requiring the bank itself to reduce its waste and also encourage its customers to adopt more sustainable practices. The concept of environmental health then assumed its place alongside the goals of community development and profitability to form the “Triple Bottom Line” slogan that the company champions today. As evidence of its own commitment, ShoreBank has even addressed its own carbon emissions by purchasing offsets for 450 metric tons of C02 to offset emissions through 2010.

ShoreBank’s environmental advocacy is now prevalent throughout its dealings, both  in how it relates to its domestic banking customers, and in its international development objectives.

(more…)

We all know what the words “debt,” “taxpayer,” and “interest” mean, but how many people know what the words “jizya”, “dhimmi” and “Grameen” mean? In order to understand the precipice of disaster that the banking system is resting upon today, one must understand all these words, and then some. No solution can be found by only understanding the first three. Only an illusion of understanding exists until the latter, and more, like “jihad” and “Sharia Law”, are considered.

The jizya amounts to a tax paid by Non-Muslims to Muslims in order that they may live in peace. A fair comparison is money paid by business owners to neighborhood thugs in order to gain protection. Think Mob. Engaging in this endeavor creates the status of dhimmi – a willingly subservient protected group of third class subjects. Let’s just call this what it is – extortion based slavery. Let us also understand that this is an endgame of this thing called “jihad”.

From the Koran:

(9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

(30:39)  And whatever you lay out as usury, so that it may increase in the property of men, it shall not increase with Allah; and whatever you give in charity, desiring Allah’s pleasure– it is these (persons) that shall get manifold.

(3:130) O you who believe! do not devour usury, making it double and redouble, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, that you may be successful

(2:275) Those who swallow down usury cannot arise except as one whom  Shaitan has prostrated by (his) touch does rise. That is because they say, trading is only like usury; and Allah has allowed trading and forbidden usury. To whomsoever then the admonition has come from his Lord, then he desists, he shall have what has already passed, and his affair is in the hands of Allah; and whoever returns (to it)– these arc the inmates of the fire; they shall abide in it.

You get the idea.

(more…)

In February of this year, I wrote a study (co-authored with Mike Flynn) about the lessons of the Japanese “Lost Decade.” At the end of the 1980s, Japan faced a very similar situation to ours: an asset bubble burst, the economy went into recession, and the financial sector stumbled. In that study we argued (as did others in separate publications) that if American didn’t properly learn the lessons of the Lost Decade, that we too would suffer a similar long night of economic malaise. Unfortunately, the warning has not been heeded.

Japan spent most of the 1990s screwing around with monetary policy, increasing taxes on its citizens, and spending trillions on stimulus projects. Sound familiar? The result was 10-years of stagnant economic growth, out of control unemployment, and national debt rising to double the rate of GDP, all while the rest of the world laughed at the nation that appeared to be returning to empire status. And that is where we are headed.

(more…)