Insurance Companies Next Bail-out?

Some months ago I started reading about the potential problem of variable rate annuities and the insurance companies that sell these investments with a "guaranteed" return. The problem has recently been exasperated with the continued decline in the stock market and scared people looking for a safe investment for fixed income. The buzzing on blogs like this one and articles at Bloomberg , Barron's and others are pointing to big trouble with many life insurers. Below is a post that I found today from a guy that's really pissed:

The insurance business is supposed to be simple and relatively stable. It's not difficult to sell insurance, collect premiums, hedge your risk elsewhere with re-insurers and then invest the remaining premiums conservatively.

So what the hell happened? AIG (AIG) allowed an unhedged fund to operate from within and a tiny 400 person division brought down a giant that employed 125,000. Hartford (HIG), Prudential (PRU), Lincoln National (LNC), MetLife (MET) and Genworth (GNW) are all suffering the same fate. All are facing ratings agency downgrades based on capital ratios that fall with the stock market.

The culprit in this mess are guaranteed variable annuity contracts. A relatively new phenomenon in the annuity business, guarantees on annuity returns are irresponsible and should never have been allowed to exist. I don't remember which insurance company first got the bright idea to offer a minimum guaranteed return for their investors, but once launched by 1, the other firms soon followed with similar guarantees.

Insurance regulators whistled by the graveyard and made no effort to stop or even slow down the proliferation of these contracts and the rest is history. Sure, there were no evident problems during the bull market of the past 13 years, but once markets began correcting it was simply a matter of time until these guarantees began to destroy capital cushions at all of the above firms.

Big deal, you say. Let these insurers go belly-up if they can't raise new capital. One small problem. Millions of Americans have their retirement savings in annuities and millions more have life insurance policies with the above firms. Our fragile system could not withstand a large run by policy holders to cash out their life insurance policies, as these companies operate like banks and only keep a small percentage of assets in liquid form.

So to prevent disaster, you will soon be asked to give half a trillion or so of borrowed money in order to save these life insurers all because of their damned guarantees on variable annuity returns. They won't ask for $500 billion all at once, because the sheeple might actually notice and complain. Instead we'll wake one morning soon to hear that Treasury has given $100 billion to the industry and that the problem is now solved.

Does the pattern sound familiar? It should. The government assault on taxpayers to rescue big business is always incremental. Drip, drip, drip until we drown.

Bailouts, Buyouts, Nationalizations: It's Never Enough

Martin Weiss writes:

... Two years ago, when major banks announced multibillion-dollar losses in subprime mortgages, the world's central banks injected unprecedented amounts of cash into the financial markets.

But that was not enough.

Six months later, when Lehman Brothers and AIG fell, the U.S. Congress rushed to pass the TARP, the greatest bank bailout legislation of all time.

But as it turned out, that wasn't sufficient either.

Subsequently, in addition to the original goal of TARP, the U.S. government has loaned, invested, or committed $400 billion to nationalize the world's two largest mortgage companies … $42 billion for the Big Three auto manufacturers … $29 billion for Bear Stearns, $185 billion for AIG, and $350 billion for Citigroup … $300 billion for the Federal Housing Administration Rescue Bill … $87 billion to pay back JPMorgan Chase for bad Lehman Brothers' trades … $200 billion in loans to banks under the Federal Reserve's Term Auction Facility (TAF) … $50 billion to support short-term corporate IOUs held by money market mutual funds … $500 billion to rescue various credit markets … $620 billion in currency swaps for industrial nations … $120 billion in swaps for emerging markets … trillions to cover the FDIC's new, expanded bank deposit insurance, plus trillions more for other sweeping guarantees.

And it STILL wasn't enough.

If it had been enough, the Fed would not have felt compelled this week to announce its plan to buy $300 billion in long-term Treasury bonds, an additional $750 billion in agency mortgage backed securities, plus $100 billion more in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paper.

Total tally of government funds committed to date: Closing in on $13 trillion, or $1.15 trillion more than the tally just hours ago, when the body of this white paper was printed.

And yet, even that astronomical sum is still not enough! ...

Click Here To Read Entire Article

Obama Fires GM CEO Rick Wagoner

GM CEO resigns at Obama's behest

The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said.

Wagoner's departure is one of the remarkable strings attached to a new aid package the administration plans to offer GM.

The White House confirmed Wagoner was leaving at the government's behest after The Associated Press reported his immediate departure, without giving a reason.

On Monday, President Obama is to unveil his plans for the auto industry, including a response to a request for additional funds by GM and Chrysler. (excerpt) read more at politico.com

Root causes of hyperinflation

The main cause of hyperinflation is a massive and rapid increase in the amount of money, which is not supported by growth in the output of goods and services. This results in an imbalance between the supply and demand for the money (including currency and bank deposits), accompanied by a complete loss of confidence in the money, similar to a bank run. Enactment of legal tender laws and price controls to prevent discounting the value of paper money relative to gold, silver, hard currency, or commodities, fails to force acceptance of a paper money which lacks intrinsic value. If the entity responsible for printing a currency promotes excessive money printing, with other factors contributing a reinforcing effect, hyperinflation usually continues. Often the body responsible for printing the currency cannot physically print paper currency faster than the rate at which it is devaluing, thus neutralizing their attempts to stimulate the economy.

Read entire Wikepedia article

China Proposes New Global Monetary System

China calls for new reserve currency

By Jamil Anderlini in Beijing

Published: March 23 2009 12:16 | Last updated: March 24 2009 00:06

China’s central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund.

In an essay posted on the People’s Bank of China’s website, Zhou Xiaochuan, the central bank’s governor, said the goal would be to create a reserve currency “that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies”.

EDITOR’S CHOICE

Brown seeks to build G20 consensus - Mar-23

UN panel calls for council to replace G20 - Mar-22

Alphaville: Currency ‘ugly contest’ - Mar-24

City braced for wave of protest - Mar-23

Opinion: Peripheral care should be the central concern - Mar-22

In depth: G20 - Mar-05

Analysts said the proposal was an indication of Beijing’s fears that actions being taken to save the domestic US economy would have a negative impact on China.

“This is a clear sign that China, as the largest holder of US dollar financial assets, is concerned about the potential inflationary risk of the US Federal Reserve printing money,” said Qu Hongbin, chief China economist for HSBC.

Although Mr Zhou did not mention the US dollar, the essay gave a pointed critique of the current dollar-dominated monetary system.

“The outbreak of the [current] crisis and its spillover to the entire world reflected the inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system,” Mr Zhou wrote.

China has little choice but to hold the bulk of its $2,000bn of foreign exchange reserves in US dollars, and this is unlikely to change in the near future.

To replace the current system, Mr Zhou suggested expanding the role of special drawing rights, which were introduced by the IMF in 1969 to support the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate regime but became less relevant once that collapsed in the 1970s.

Today, the value of SDRs is based on a basket of four currencies – the US dollar, yen, euro and sterling – and they are used largely as a unit of account by the IMF and some other international organisations.

China’s proposal would expand the basket of currencies forming the basis of SDR valuation to all major economies and set up a settlement system between SDRs and other currencies so they could be used in international trade and financial transactions.

Countries would entrust a portion of their SDR reserves to the IMF to manage collectively on their behalf and SDRs would gradually replace existing reserve currencies.

Mr Zhou said the proposal would require “extraordinary political vision and courage” and acknowledged a debt to John Maynard Keynes, who made a similar suggestion in the 1940s.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

• Print article
• Email article
• Order reprint

What Is The Law

What Is Law ?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

From The Law, by Frederick Bastiat

China Divesting of US Treasuries

China inoculates itself against dollar collapse
By W Joseph Stroupe

There is mounting evidence that China's central bank is undertaking the process of divesting itself of longer-dated US Treasuries in favor of shorter-dated ones.

There is also mounting evidence that China's increasingly energetic new campaign of capitalizing on the global crisis by making resource buys across the globe may be (1) helping its central to decrease exposure to the dollar, while (2) simultaneously positioning China to make much greater profit on its investment of its reserves into hard assets whose prices are now greatly beaten down, while (3) also affording it greatly increased control of strategic resources and the geopolitical clout that goes with it. This is turning out to be a win-win-win situation for China as it capitalizes upon the important opportunities afforded it by the present global crisis.

The exact size and the precise composition of China's huge FOREX reserves, the exact degree of China's exposure to the dollar and its viable options, if any, in decreasing that exposure are matters of intense interest, because China's policies in this regard could have gargantuan implications for the US and the global financial systems and for the dollar...

Read entire article at Asia Times