Search This Blog


This is a photo of the National Register of Historic Places listing with reference number 7000063

Sunday, July 10, 2011

SHEILA BAIR STEPS DOWN TODAY AS FDIC CHAIRMAN



The following is an excerpt from an FDIC e-mail:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 8, 2011 Media Contact:
Andrew Gray
Office: 202-898-7192
E-mail: angray@fdic.gov


Sheila C. Bair today officially stepped down as FDIC Chairman. Ms. Bair has served as Chairman since June 26, 2006. Vice Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg will assume the role of Acting Chairman effective as of the close of business today. Gruenberg has served as Vice Chairman of the FDIC Board of Directors since August 22, 2005. He has previously served as Acting Chairman from November 15, 2005 to June 26, 2006.

Sheila C. Bair said, "It is with great pride that I leave the FDIC after the completion of my five year term. It has been a remarkable journey. I feel honored to have served two Presidents and privileged to have led this great agency that worked so effectively to preserve confidence and stability in the banking system at a critical time."

"While I will truly miss the organization, I have the utmost confidence in Marty's stewardship of the FDIC and its unparalleled professional staff."

Chairman Bair will join the Pew Charitable Trusts as a senior advisor on September 7, after spending the summer with her family.

Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933 to restore public confidence in the nation's banking system. The FDIC insures deposits at the nation's 7,575 banks and savings associations and it promotes the safety and soundness of these institutions by identifying, monitoring and addressing risks to which they are exposed. The FDIC receives no federal tax dollars – insured financial institutions fund its operations."

THE FINAL JUDGEMENT AGAINST BIOVAIL EXECUTIVES

The following excerpt is from the SEC web site:

FINAL JUDGMENTS ENTERED AGAINST FORMER BIOVAIL EXECUTIVES EUGENE MELNYK AND BRIAN CROMBIE
“On April 14, 2011, the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final consent judgment against defendant Brian Crombie, Biovail Corporation's former chief financial officer, with respect to violations of the federal securities laws alleged by the Commission in a civil enforcement action filed in March 2008. Crombie consented to a final judgment that (i) permanently enjoins him from future violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1 and 13b2-2 and from aiding and abetting violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-16; (ii) requires him to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $100,000; and (iii) bars him from serving as an officer or director of a public company for five years.
Additionally, on February 15, 2011, the court entered a judgment by consent against Biovail's former chief executive officer, Eugene Melnyk, that (i) permanently enjoins Melnyk from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5; (ii) imposes a civil penalty in the amount of $150,000; and (iii) bars Melnyk from serving as an officer or director of a public company for five years. As the Commission previously has settled all charges against the other defendants identified in the complaint, the settlements with Melnyk and Crombie provide final resolution to this matter.
Biovail previously settled with the Commission by consenting to a judgment that, among other things, permanently enjoins it from violating antifraud and other provisions of the federal securities laws, imposed a $10 million civil penalty, and ordered it to pay disgorgement of $1. The Commission previously settled its claims against former Biovail vice president of corporate affairs Kenneth G. Howling by entry on December 21, 2009, of a final consent judgment that permanently enjoined Howling from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5 and imposed a civil penalty in the amount of $50,000. The Commission settled its claims against former Biovail vice president, controller and assistant secretary John Miszuk by entry on September 8, 2010, of a final consent judgment that (i) permanently enjoins him from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1 and from aiding and abetting violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-16; (ii) required him to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $75,000; and (iii) bars him from serving as an officer or director of a public company for five years.”

GARY GENSLER SPEAKS



The following speech is an excerpt from the CFTC website:

"Opening Statement, Meeting of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Chairman Gary Gensler
July 7, 2011

Good morning. This meeting will come to order. This is a public meeting of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to consider issuance of final rulemakings under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. I’d like to welcome members of the public, market participants and members of the media to today’s meeting, as well as welcome those listening to the meeting on the phone or watching the live webcast.

During today’s meeting, the Commission will embark upon the final rulemaking phase of implementing the Dodd-Frank Act. Specifically, we will consider final rulemakings relating to:

Enhancing the Commission’s ability to protect against fraud and manipulation;
Large trader reporting for swaps on physical commodities;
Definition of “agricultural commodity;”
Preventing certain business affiliate marketing and establishing other consumer information protections under the Fair Credit Reporting Act; and
Expanding scope of privacy protections for consumer financial information under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
Before we hear from the staff, I’d like to thank the dedicated CFTC staff for their tireless efforts to implement the Dodd-Frank Act while also enforcing the agency’s existing statutory authority. Staff has taken on the many challenges of bringing oversight to a swaps market that is more than seven times the size of the futures market that we have historically regulated, with limited funding and limited staff resources. They should be commended for their contributions to the agency, the financial markets, the economy and the American public.

I also would like to thank Commissioners Dunn, Sommers, Chilton and O’Malia for their significant contributions to the rule-writing process.

It is important to remember why it is so essential that we finalize rules to bring oversight to the swaps market. The 2008 financial crisis was very real. Millions more Americans are out of work today than if not for the financial crisis. Millions of homeowners now have homes worth less than their mortgages. Millions of people have had to dig into their savings; millions more haven’t seen their investments regain the value they had before the crisis. There remains significant uncertainty in the economy.

The 2008 financial crisis came upon us because the financial system failed. The financial regulatory system failed as well. Though there were many causes to the crisis, it is clear that swaps played a central role. They added leverage to the financial system with more risk being backed up by less capital. They contributed, particularly through credit default swaps, to the bubble in the housing market and helped to accelerate the financial crisis. They contributed to a system where large financial institutions were thought to be not only too big to fail, but too interconnected to fail. Swaps – initially developed to help manage and lower risk – actually concentrated and heightened risk in the economy and to the public.

Today’s public commission meeting is the first of many to fully implement the Dodd-Frank Act. This spring, we substantially completed the proposal phase of rule-writing and further benefited from an extra 30 days for public comment. The staff and commissioners now are turning toward final rules. And today, we are taking up five very important rules.

In the coming several months, we will have additional public meetings to finalize rules; for example: whistleblower rules; the process for review of swaps for mandatory clearing; and the registration requirements for swap data repositories.

Each of these rules is an essential component to fulfilling the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act to bring essential protections to the swaps markets and to the broader economy.

Before we hear from the staff on the rulemakings that we will consider today, I will recognize my fellow Commissioners for their opening statements."

$230 MILLION RETURNED TO U.S. WHILE PONZI SCHEME INVESTIGATED



The following excerpt comes from the SEC website:

"Washington, D.C., June 28, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today told a federal court that $230 million held in an offshore account by a hedge fund has been returned to the U.S. and will remain frozen pending completion of the SEC’s Ponzi scheme lawsuit against the fund’s adviser and its principal.

In a filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the SEC said the money was returned as a result of the court order obtained by the SEC in its case against Francisco Illarramendi of Connecticut and his firm Highview Point Partners LLC, which managed three hedge funds.

“We’re pleased with the return of this money to the U.S. and believe it will help preserve these assets for the benefit of defrauded investors,” said David P. Bergers, Director of the SEC’s Boston Regional Office.

Ethiopis Tafara, Director of the SEC’s Office of International Affairs, added, “In this case, the ability to freeze and repatriate the alleged financial crime proceeds was critical to the SEC’s effective enforcement of the U.S. securities laws.”

The SEC charged Illarramendi and his unregistered investment advisory firm MK Capital Management in January with running a multi-year, multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme. Stamford, Conn.-based Highview was added as a defendant in May. Three hedge funds managed by Highview and several entities affiliated with MK Capital Management were named as relief defendants for allegedly holding funds tainted by the Ponzi scheme.

After an evidentiary hearing, the Honorable Janet Bond Arterton, U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut, entered an order on June 16 freezing the assets of three hedge funds and ordering that all assets of the funds, including $230 million held in an offshore account, be immediately returned to the U.S.

Judge Arterton had previously frozen the assets of Illarramendi, Highview, MK Capital Management, and several affiliated entities.

In its filing today, the SEC informed the court that the $230 million was received last week and is being held in a bank within the U.S.

The SEC charges Illarramendi, Highview, and Michael Kenwood Capital Management with violating Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder, and also charges Highview with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The following entities are named as relief defendants, alleging that they received investor funds to which they have no right: Highview Point Master Fund, Ltd., Highview Point Offshore, Ltd., and Highview Point LP, Michael Kenwood Asset Management LLC, Michael Kenwood Energy and Infrastructure LLC, and MKEI Solar LP. In addition to preliminary emergency relief, the SEC seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus interest and penalties from the defendants, and disgorgement plus interest from the relief defendants.

Last year, the SEC returned more than $2.2 billion to harmed investors through financial recoveries in SEC enforcement actions.

Carlos J. Costa-Rodrigues, Sofia T. Hussain, Michelle Perillo, and LeeAnn Ghazil Gaunt of the SEC’s Boston Regional Office conducted the investigation following an examination conducted by Zerubbabel Johnson, Stephen M. Latin, Michael D. O’Connell, and Elizabeth Salini. Timothy Geishecker of the SEC’s Office of International Affairs assisted with the investigation. The SEC’s litigation effort is being led by Rua M. Kelly and Kathleen B. Shields. The SEC’s investigation is ongoing."

Saturday, July 9, 2011

FDIC DEPUTY DIRECTOR GEORGE FRENCH SPEAKS TO CONGRESS



The following statement before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit is an excerpt from the FDIC website:

Statement of George French, Deputy Director, Policy, Division of Risk Management Supervision, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on Legislative Proposals Regarding Bank Examination Practices, before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives; 2128 Rayburn House Office Building
July 8, 2011

Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Maloney, and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on H.R. 1723, the "Common Sense Economic Recovery Act of 2011." My testimony will briefly describe the condition of the industry and the steps that the FDIC and other federal banking agencies have taken to encourage financial institutions to originate and, when necessary, modify or restructure loans to creditworthy borrowers. I will also describe the FDIC's supervisory approach to troubled loans, our concerns about H.R. 1723 and the impact that this proposed legislation may have on banks' financial reporting and capital adequacy.

Condition of FDIC-Insured Institutions

The economic environment for banks and their borrowers is slowly recovering but remains challenging. As a result of continued high unemployment rates and the cumulative effect of substantial multi-year declines in real estate prices, insured banks face weak loan demand and elevated levels of nonperforming assets. As of March 31, 2011, about 12 percent of insured institutions were on the FDIC's "problem bank list." Notwithstanding these trends, the FDIC is cautiously optimistic regarding the current condition and trends in the banking industry. Experience suggests that the sooner banks are able to address the lingering credit quality issues on their books, the faster will be the pace of recovery.

During the first quarter of 2011, FDIC-insured institutions recorded annual net income of $29 billion, the highest level since before the recession, but still well below the all-time highs of the mid-2000s. The main driver of earnings improvement has been steadily reduced provisions for loan losses. This reflects general improvement in asset quality indicators, including declining levels of noncurrent loans and net charge-offs for all major loan types. However, the ratio of noncurrent loans1 to total loans, at 4.7 percent, is still high and remains above the levels seen in the late 1980s and early 1990s. While the reduced provisions for loan losses are encouraging, it is important to note that net operating revenue2 fell by $5.5 billion in the first quarter of 2011 compared to one year ago. Lower revenues, in part, reflect reduced loan balances, which have declined in ten of the past eleven quarters.

Given the lingering effects of the recent recession, loan demand is generally weak. Recent surveys, such as the Federal Reserve Senior Loan Officers' Opinion Survey and the National Federation of Independent Businesses' Survey on Small Business Economic Trends, indicate that borrower demand remains sluggish. FDIC examiners also report numerous comments from bankers about current weak loan demand and difficulties bankers are having finding qualified borrowers.

Despite the economic challenges, community banks, which comprise the vast majority of banks that we supervise, continue to play a vital role in credit creation across the country, especially for small businesses.3 As of March 31, 2011, community banks, which hold only 10.7 percent of industry assets, extended some 38.1 percent of the entire industry's small business loans.

Recent weakness in both residential and commercial property price trends highlight continued concerns. The S&P/Case-Shiller National Housing Index is down 5.1 percent year-over-year through first quarter 2011 and the Moody's/REAL Commercial Property Price Index has decreased by 13.4 percent for the year ending in April 2011. These indexes are down 29.7 percent and 48.9 percent, respectively from their peaks in 2006 and 2007.

These legacy issues have adversely affected the ability of many institutions to grow their lending activity. The primary reasons banks are not lending more is a combination of tightened underwriting standards based on lessons learned from the recent financial crisis and reduced borrower demand. Industry-wide, banks have plenty of capacity to lend; bank balance sheets are more liquid than before the crisis began in 2008 and capital levels continue to increase.

Credit Availability

The FDIC recognizes and supports the vital role of community banks in serving the credit needs of their borrowers and helping restore economic growth in cities, towns, and farming communities across the country. Throughout the real estate and economic downturn, the FDIC has advocated for policies to help community banks and their customers navigate this challenging economy. The FDIC's examiners operate out of our 85 field offices nationwide. They are well-versed in the business of community banks and their local markets, and have a keen awareness of the challenges many of these banks and their customers are facing. There are creditworthy borrowers that need flexibility in the current environment and bank regulators have provided financial institutions with that flexibility to help customers through the downturn.

The FDIC has joined several interagency efforts that encourage banks to originate and restructure loans to creditworthy borrowers. For example, the federal bank regulatory agencies issued the Interagency Statement on Meeting the Needs of Creditworthy Borrowers on November 12, 2008, which encourages banks to prudently make loans available in their markets. In October 30, 2009, the FDIC joined in issuing the Interagency Policy Statement on Prudent Commercial Real Estate Workouts, which encourages banks to restructure loans for commercial real estate mortgage customers experiencing difficulties in making payments. This guidance reinforces long-standing supervisory principles in a manner that recognizes pragmatic actions by lenders and small business borrowers are necessary to weather this difficult economic period. The agencies also issued the Interagency Statement on Meeting the Credit Needs of Creditworthy Small Business Borrowers on February 12, 2010, which encourages prudent small business lending and emphasizes that examiners apply a balanced approach in evaluating loans.

The policy statement on loan workouts addressed two common misconceptions about supervisory policy towards troubled loans. One of those is that regulators require write-downs of loans to creditworthy borrowers because the value of the collateral has deteriorated. This is incorrect. First and foremost, the agencies look to the ability of the borrower to repay the loan. If the borrower is expected to repay the loan in full according to its terms, there is no required write-down or placement in nonaccrual status, regardless of any deterioration in collateral.

Another misconception is that restructured or modified loans remain in nonaccrual status regardless of the borrower's demonstrated performance and prospects for repayment under the modified terms. In fact, the agencies' instructions for the quarterly Reports of Condition and Income (Call Reports) state that after the borrower demonstrates the ability to perform over a period of six months, the loan can be removed from nonaccrual status.

The FDIC believes that the clarification of policy provided by these interagency statements has helped community banks become more comfortable extending and restructuring soundly underwritten loans. In turn, we expect that borrowers will benefit from more flexible credit structures that banks may offer.

Supervisory Approach for Troubled Loans

The FDIC strives for a balanced approach to supervision that relies significantly on the validation of banks' own credit risk management processes and their adherence to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The FDIC does not micro-manage banks in how they deal with individual customer relationships or how they manage their loan portfolios. The FDIC does not instruct banks to curtail prudently managed lending activities, restrict lines of credit to strong borrowers, or require appraisals on performing loans unless an advance of new funds is being contemplated.

During economic expansions, problem credit relationships are relatively rare at most institutions and are handled in the normal course of business without jeopardizing earnings performance or the capital base. On the other hand, recessions and real estate downturns often result in an increase in problem loans. This necessitates an increased level of bank management resources devoted to monitoring credit performance, loan workouts, loan grading and review processes, and accurate accounting entries for problem loans. In carrying out their statutory responsibilities to ensure a safe-and-sound banking system, banking supervisors also need accurate information about problem assets. Supervisors and investors expect the financial statements prepared by banks to be accurate and to adhere to the standards prescribed by the accounting profession for problem loan accounting, troubled debt restructuring, and loss recognition. Adherence to generally accepted accounting principles should render an accurate, transparent depiction of banks' asset quality, earnings, and capital -- which are central aspects of the bank supervision process.

Accurate problem loan reporting which portrays the actual performance and condition of individual loans and groups of credits within a given portfolio is essential. We rely on these loan reporting conventions to determine the condition of financial institutions both during examinations and in interim periods through off-site monitoring. Aggregate past-due and non-accrual data provided by banks in their quarterly Call Reports are critical components of our supervisory evaluation of banks' financial condition and our assessment of necessary corrective actions.

During each on-site examination, examiners exercise a fact-based, informed judgment to evaluate the quality of individual assets and groups of assets held by an insured institution. Loans that present heightened risk of not being repaid, usually already noted by the bank itself, are subject to adverse classification (Substandard, Doubtful, or Loss) and warrant increased management attention to limit loss exposure. During the credit review process, examiners also review the accuracy and reliability of internal grading systems used by management and in the vast majority of cases, the examiners' results validate bank management findings.

The findings of each on-site examination are discussed with bank management and, as warranted, the bank's board of directors. Such communication provides management with an opportunity to discuss the examiner's conclusions and for examiners to consider management's views, as appropriate. The findings of each examination are also subject to a secondary internal review to ensure that our examination policies and procedures were followed, before the Report of Examination is issued to the bank – this internal review process ensures consistency in our supervisory approach to evaluating loans and other aspects of institution risk. On March 1, 2011, the FDIC issued Financial Institution Letter-13-2011, Reminder on FDIC Examination Findings, which encourages an open dialogue between examiners and bank management regarding our examination findings and process.

FDIC Concerns about H.R. 1723

The purpose of the risk management examination is to ascertain the financial condition of an institution. In order to do so, transparent and accurate disclosure and reporting are key requirements. Under the proposed legislation, as long as an amortizing loan is current and has performed as agreed in the recent past, institutions could disregard currently available borrower financial information indicating that the borrower lacks the ability to fully repay the principal and interest on the loan going forward. This, in turn, would enable institutions to include accrued but uncollected interest income in regulatory capital when its collection in full is not expected. Prospective information about the borrower's ability to repay the loan would be disregarded for purposes of placing loans in nonaccrual status and measuring capital, including for purposes of Prompt Corrective Action determinations.

This proposed legislation would result in an understatement of problem loans on banks' balance sheets and an overstatement of regulatory capital. This would be contrary to GAAP and the exercise of our supervisory responsibilities. Compromising the quality of information about nonaccrual or troubled loans, or preventing supervisors from acting on such information, would detract from supervisors' and investors' ability to properly evaluate the safety and soundness of banks or require corrective action as needed.

Changing the agencies' regulatory capital standards to allow institutions to avoid treating certain loans as nonaccrual loans would result in institutions reporting higher regulatory capital than GAAP capital. Such regulatory capital forbearance would detract from investors' confidence in the reliability of all banks' financial statements. Moreover, historical experience has been that policies to systematically delay the recognition of bank losses can ultimately increase losses to the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund, and thus the cost that healthy banks pay for their deposit insurance premiums.

In our judgment, a safe-and-sound banking system that serves as a foundation for economic growth needs a strong base of high quality capital. We have been strong supporters of recent efforts to strengthen banking industry capital and we believe that under-reporting of nonaccrual loans for purposes of capital measurement would be inconsistent with the direction regulators should be taking with respect to bank capital.

Conclusion

By and large, the banking industry today has ample lending capacity, but the challenge facing many banks is weak loan demand. For some banks, the primary challenge continues to be cleaning up balance sheets from the lingering effects of the crisis, recognizing existing losses, and in some cases raising new capital. This is a painful process, but it is a necessary process.

The FDIC recognizes the challenges in this difficult environment and encourages banks to prudently originate new credits and work with distressed borrowers. At the same time, we believe that accurate, transparent financial reporting is the cornerstone of sound banking practice and we will continue to advocate for standards that promote confidence in the nation's financial institutions.

Thank you and I would be glad to answer any questions from the members of the committee.


1 Noncurrent loans are those that are 90 or more days past due or are on nonaccrual.

2 Net operating revenue equals net interest income, plus noninterest income.

3 Small business lending defined here as under $1 million for commercial and industrial loans and nonfarm nonresidential real estate financing; and under $500,000 for agricultural production and agricultural real estate financing

BUSINESS AND TWO EXECUTIVES CHARGED BY SEC WITH TAKING INVESTOR FUNDS



July 6, 2011
The followign is an excerpt from the SEC website:

The Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday charged a New York-based brokerage firm and two executives with misappropriating investor funds.
The SEC alleges that Windham Securities, Inc., Windham’s owner and principal Joshua Constantin, and former Windham managing director Brian Solomon fraudulently induced investors to provide more than $1.25 million to Windham for securities investments and fees by making false claims concerning the intended use of investor funds as well as Windham’s investment expertise and historical returns. Instead of purchasing securities for investors as represented, the defendants misappropriated the investors’ funds and then provided false assurances to investors to cover up their fraud.
According to the SEC’s complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Windham, Constantin, and Solomon misappropriated investor funds from an investment opportunity they had recommended to investors in Leeward Group, Inc., then a private company they told investors Windham was helping to take public. Constantin and Solomon raised more than $1.1 million for investments in Leeward and collected an additional $135,000 in fees purportedly for access to Windham investment opportunities or other related investment services. Constantin then transferred approximately $668,000 of the funds raised from investors to his personal bank account and to the account of Constantin Resource Group, Inc. (CRG), an entity he owned and controlled. Constantin used these funds to pay his personal and business expenses and to pay Solomon, among other things. Constantin also transferred $450,000 of investor funds to purchase Leeward securities in the name of Domestic Applications Corp. (DAC), an entity he controlled and in which none of the investors held any ownership interest. Constantin and Solomon then attempted to conceal their fraud and falsely reassure investors by fabricating phony promissory notes and Windham account statements that falsely showed that the investors had purchased Leeward securities.
The SEC’s complaint charges Windham, Constantin, and Solomon with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and charges Constantin with liability as a control person for Windham’s Exchange Act violations and as an aider and abettor of Windham’s and Solomon’s Exchange Act violations. In its complaint, the SEC also names CRG and DAC as relief defendants. The SEC’s complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and penalties against Windham, Constantin, and Solomon, and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest against CRG and DAC as relief defendants.
The SEC’s investigation is continuing.”

Substituting the word "misappropriate" for the word "stealing" seems to diminish an inappropriate action from a crime to a merely overlooked caveat. If one were to hack into a major bank and drain it of money perhaps they just "misappropriated" the funds and hence, should be held to a much lower level of accountability than someone who steals.