The same people who were present at the creation of the original bubble are driving the boat in this second incarnation.
|By: David Dayen Tuesday December 11, 2012 1:50 pm|
|By: David Dayen Friday November 30, 2012 8:03 am|
A federal judge has blessed the Hostess liquidation, after labor and management failed to reach agreement on an equitable solution. This isn’t surprising at all; management was basically set up to liquidate the company and strip the assets. Twinkies and Ding Dongs will survive; the company has solicited several offers for the brands. It’s just the 18,500 employees who will be out of luck; even if some of them get retained after the fire sale, getting absorbed into a new company almost certainly means that they will not all get their jobs back.
Meanwhile the executives will get a BONUS for all this.
|By: David Dayen Thursday November 8, 2012 11:39 am|
In case you were wondering what all those retiring and defeated lawmakers do with themselves once banished from Capitol Hill, I have a simple answer for you: they get paid.
|By: David Dayen Monday September 24, 2012 11:35 am|
Investors, envisioning a bottom in the market and capitalizing on public policy to sell off the inventory, have pushed into this space in a big way in 2012, providing almost the entire margin of the modest recovery this year.
|By: David Dayen Sunday August 26, 2012 1:00 pm|
The last financial crisis can be blamed in large part on runaway securitization. Wall Street giants sliced and diced mortgage loans into bonds that they sold around the world. They claimed that they diversified the mortgage pools so that even a few defaults would not undermine the value of the securities, and they offered tranches of the bonds at a decent yield. As global demand increased for the securities, Wall Street pressured originators to close more and more loans, regardless of creditworthiness. This caused a bubble in prices. Moreover, financial innovators took the lower-tranche loans and cut them up into once-removed securities, making bets on bets on the housing market that were allegedly “safe”. We all know how this ended, and how the securitization bubble took a crash in housing prices and made it exponentially worse.
So now we’re poised to do that all over again.
|By: David Dayen Friday July 13, 2012 7:21 am|
Mitt Romney’s problems over when precisely he left Bain Capital continue to pose a problem for him. He contradicted himself on two separate forms to two federal agencies, both of which carry a perjury statute. He told the SEC from 1999-2001 that he remained the CEO and sole shareholder of Bain Capital, and he told the FEC in a Financial Disclosure Form that he left Bain in 1999. I suppose there’s a way that both could be true, but it’s highly unlikely.
And now, there’s little reason to believe that the narrative the Romney campaign has pushed, that he left in 1999, is totally factual.
|By: David Dayen Monday June 25, 2012 10:00 am|
First there was the Tom Hamburger story in WaPo showing that Bain specialized in investing in companies that shipped away American jobs. Then, the New York Times explained how the relative health of the companies in which it invested didn’t matter to their bottom line. Now the Boston Globe has a story on Mitt’s dealings with the firm headed by junk bond specialist (and convict) Michael Milken.
|By: David Dayen Friday June 22, 2012 12:02 pm|
The big story of the day is a deeply reported piece by Tom Hamburger, showing that Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital in many ways invented the cottage industry of shipping US jobs overseas.
|By: David Dayen Wednesday May 23, 2012 9:20 am|
The actual argument Obama made about Mitt’s role at Bain is a fairly sound one on the merits: the role of a President bears no resemblance to the role of a business leader, particularly a private equity or leveraged buyout specialist. One should have a concern on how to create jobs and the other has what amounts to a fiduciary duty to create profit. And those simply aren’t always compatible.
|By: David Dayen Tuesday May 22, 2012 8:01 am|
I can’t help but be bemused by the pickle that Cory Booker finds himself in. The problem for him wasn’t his Harold Ford-like approval of private equity firms. It was his denigration of a key Obama campaign talking point, right as it was getting started. Booker found himself facing a crew of Obama supporters eager for revenge, and they’re taking it, while ignoring Obama’s reliance on private equity donors.