Click for St. Louis, Missouri Forecast

// a href = ./ // St Louis News, Weather, Sports, The Big 550 AM, St Louis Traffic, Breaking News in St Louis

Online pharmacy:fesmag.com/tem

Have you a sex problem? Please visit our site:fesmag.com/medic

Site map
 
 
 
   NEW YORK (AP) — For more than 15 years, there were signs something was amiss with what federal prosecutors in Manhattan call the "703 account" at JPMorgan Chase & Co.
   Money was being transferred back and forth for no reason. The account holder was recording double-digit returns on investments that were too good to be true. The bank itself was worried enough about possible fraud to withdraw its own investments from him.
   The name on the account was Bernard Madoff and on Tuesday JPMorgan paid a steep price for keeping quiet about its suspicions.
   Federal authorities announced the nation's largest bank will add to its other costly financial woes by forfeiting a record $1.7 billion to settle criminal charges alleging it turned a blind eye to the Madoff fraud, plus pay an additional $543 million to settle civil claims by victims. It also will pay another $350 million civil penalty for what the Treasury Department called "critical and widespread deficiencies" in its programs to prevent money laundering and other suspicious activity.
   The bank failed to carry out its legal obligations to guard against money laundering while Madoff "built his massive house of cards," George Venizelos, head of the FBI's New York office, said at a news conference.
   Madoff banked at JPMorgan through what court papers referred to as the "703 account." In 2008, the bank's London desk circulated a memo describing JPMorgan's inability to validate his trading activity or custody of assets and his "odd choice" of a one-man accounting firm, the government said.
    In late October 2008, it filed a suspicious activity report with British officials. In the weeks that followed, JPMorgan withdrew about $300 million of its own money from Madoff feeder funds. The fraud was revealed when Madoff was arrested in December 2008.
   "Despite all these alarm bells, JPMorgan never closed or even seriously questioned Madoff's Ponzi-enabling 703 account," said U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. "On the other hand, when it came to its own money, JPMorgan knew how to connect the dots and take action to protect itself against risk."
   In a statement, JPMorgan said it recognized it "could have done a better job pulling together various pieces of information and concerns about Madoff from different parts of the bank over time."
   It added: "We do not believe that any JPMorgan Chase employee knowingly assisted Madoff's Ponzi scheme."
   Prosecutors called the $1.7 billion the largest forfeiture by a U.S. bank and the largest Department of Justice penalty for a Bank Secrecy Act violation.
   The settlement includes a so-called deferred prosecution agreement that requires the bank to acknowledge failures in its protections against money laundering but also allows it to avoid criminal charges. No individual executives were accused of wrongdoing.
   The agreement resolves two felony violations of the Bank Secrecy Act in connection with the bank's relationship with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, the private investment arm of Madoff's former business. The civil penalty was imposed by the Treasury Department's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
   Criminal charges will be deferred for two years as JPMorgan admits to its conduct, pays the $1.7 billion to a fund established for victims of Madoff's fraud and reforms its anti-money laundering policies, prosecutors said.
   A statement of facts included in the agreement describes internal communications at JPMorgan expressing concerns about how Madoff was generating his purported returns. As early as 1998, a JPMorgan fund manager wrote that the returns were "possibly too good to be true" and there were "too many red flags."
   In more recent years, executives were disturbed by the fact that Madoff wouldn't let the bank examine his books, the statement of facts says.
   "How much do we have in Madoff at the moment?" a bank analyst wrote in a 2008 email. "To be honest, the more I think about it, the more concerned I am."
   When Madoff finally revealed to the FBI that his investment advisory business was a Ponzi scheme, fictitious account statements for thousands of clients showed $60 billion in assets. Of the roughly $17.5 billion in principal that was real, most of it was gone.
   Since then, a court-appointed trustee has recovered more than $9.78 billion — including a portion of the JPMorgan civil payout — to redistribute to clients that invested directly with Madoff. The $1.7 billion criminal forfeiture and will go to a second victims' pool, already with $2.35 billion, that is processing claims from clients of so-called "feeder funds" that also invested heavily with Madoff.
   The JPMorgan settlement is the latest in a series of major deals it has made to resolve its legal troubles. In November, the bank agreed to pay $13 billion over risky mortgage securities it sold before the financial crisis — the largest settlement to date between the Justice Department and a corporation.
   The more than $2.5 billion that JPMorgan is paying comes from a company that reported $21.3 billion in net income for 2012. JPMorgan already has set aside $23 billion this year to cover settlement and litigation costs — including the $13 billion.
   The settlement of criminal charges "is good, but still inadequate to stop what can only be called a one-bank crime spree," said Dennis Kelleher, the president of Better Markets, a group that advocates strict financial regulation.
   "Once again, not a single individual working for JPMorgan Chase has been held accountable. Banks do not commit crimes; bankers do," Kelleher said in a statement. "Until individuals, including executives, are held personally liable, fined and jailed, the crime spree will continue."
   Asked why no individual bankers were charged, Bharara said the settlement was the best option under the law.
   "Obviously, the statement of facts recites in great detail some of the roles that various individuals played with the overall systemic failure," he said. "But in the interest of justice, you've got to look at every case individually and our view was at this point the obvious charge was against the bank. ... This is a statute directed against institutional failure and institutional deterrence and that's why it was brought the way it was today."
Published in National News

   WASHINGTON (AP) — Hiring is soft. Pay is barely up. Consumers are cautious. Economic growth has yet to pick up.

   And yet on Wednesday, the Federal Reserve is expected to take its first step toward reducing the extraordinary stimulus it's supplied to help the U.S. economy rebound from its deepest crisis since the Great Depression.

   If it does, the Fed will likely spark a debate: Has the economy strengthened enough to withstand the pullback?

   The answer might not be clear for months.

   The Fed is meeting this week at a time of deepening uncertainty about who will succeed Chairman Ben Bernanke when his term ends in January. On Sunday, Lawrence Summers, who was considered the leading candidate, withdrew from consideration.

   Summers' withdrawal followed growing resistance from critics. His exit could open the door for his chief rival, Janet Yellen, the Fed's vice chair. If chosen by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate, Yellen would become the first woman to lead the Fed.

   For months, the Fed has said it will slow its $85 billion-a-month in Treasury and mortgage bond purchases once the outlook for the job market has improved substantially. Those purchases have been designed to keep long-term loan rates low to get people to borrow and spend and invest in the stock market.

   Super-low rates are credited with helping fuel a housing comeback, support economic growth, drive stocks to record highs and restore the wealth of many Americans.

   Few think the Fed will significantly reduce its bond purchases — not now, anyway. Many economists think the Fed will announce when its two-day policy meeting ends Wednesday that it will slow its purchases by $10 billion — to $75 billon a month.

   The pullback is expected to come from the Fed's Treasury purchases. It will likely maintain the pace of its mortgage bond buying to try to keep home-loan rates down to sustain the housing rebound.

   Some had once expected a sharper first reduction in the Fed's purchases of around $20 billion a month. But that was before the government said that job growth was only modest in August and that employers added many fewer jobs in June and July than previously thought.

   So why do economists think the Fed will reduce its stimulus for the economy at all?

   In part, some Fed officials don't think the bond purchases are doing much good anymore. And they feel that by continuing to flood the financial system with cash, the Fed might be raising the risks of high inflation or dangerous bubbles in assets like stocks or real estate. Just the mention of a slowdown in bond purchases spooked investors. Some fear that the Fed's ultra-low-rate policies distorted the prices of some assets.

   In addition, the Fed eventually needs to sell its vast investment portfolio, which is on track to top $4 trillion next year, without upsetting markets. The more the Fed expands its portfolio, the harder and more perilous the eventual sell-off could be.

   And because the Fed has been raising expectations that its pullback will start as soon as September, some Fed officials may worry that defying those expectations would rattle investors.

   Finally, there's Bernanke's expected departure in January. If the Fed is going to slow its stimulus, officials may not want to wait until their last meeting of the year in December, just before a new chairman takes over. That's, in part, why some think a pullback in bond purchases will be announced Wednesday.

   "Bernanke may well want to have a bond-reduction program in place before a new chairman comes in," said David Wyss, a former chief economist at Standard & Poor's and now an economics professor at Brown University.

   All that said, it's possible the Fed will choose not to slow its bond purchases now. In recent public remarks, some Fed officials have sounded uncertain that the economy and the job market have improved enough.

   Once the Fed announces its decisions Wednesday, it will issue updated forecasts for the economy and Bernanke will hold a news conference.

   Analysts expect the Fed to downgrade its economic outlook for 2013 from its previous forecast in June. That forecast estimated that the economy would grow at a still-sluggish annual rate between 2.3 percent and 2.8 percent this year. Through the first six months of 2013, the economy has grown at a much slower 1.8 percent rate.

   Many think the Fed will try to cushion the response to a pullback in long-term bond purchases by stressing it has no intention of raising short-term interest rates anytime soon. The Fed has said it expects to keep its benchmark short-term rate near zero at least until the unemployment rate falls to 6.5 percent — as long as the inflation outlook remains mild.

   The unemployment rate is now 7.3 percent, the lowest since 2008. Yet the rate has dropped in large part because many people have stopped looking for work and are no longer counted as unemployed — not because hiring has accelerated. Inflation is running below the Fed's 2 percent target.

   Any long-term reassurances from the Fed could face skepticism from investors who know that a new chairman might alter its policymaking. In addition, up to five new officials could join the Fed's seven-member board next year.

   The Fed has struggled at times to send a clear message about its likely timetable for changing policies. Yet in recent months, the Fed and Bernanke have been explicit that a pullback in bond purchases would likely start by year's end and perhaps by September.

   "This is the market's consensus view, and Fed officials are the ones who have guided the market to that consensus," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "At this point, the Fed doesn't want to jumble its communications."

   Investors have sent long-term rates up in anticipation of a slowdown in purchases. Since Bernanke first hinted in May that a pullback was likely by year's end, the rate on the 10-year Treasury note has jumped from 1.63 percent in early May to 2.89 percent.

   And long-term mortgage rates have surged more than a full percentage point since May, an increase that's made home-buying more difficult for some.

   David Jones, chief economist at DMJ Advisors, foresees the Fed cutting back on its purchases at a rate of about $10 billion at each meeting between now and mid-2014.

   Even by that timetable, the Fed's stock of Treasury and mortgage bonds will grow: The investment portfolio will likely near $4.5 trillion by next summer. It's now a record $3.66 trillion — a four-fold increase from its level when the financial crisis erupted five years ago.

   Even after new bond buying winds down, the Fed plans to keep reinvesting its bond holdings. It just won't be adding to its stockpile. It will still be providing extraordinary support for the economy.

   And yet some economists remain unconvinced that now is the time to slow the purchases.

   "Interest rates have already gone up as a result of their just talking about bond reductions," said Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at California State University's Martin Smith School of Business. "If they actually began cutting bond purchases, that would push interest rates up more and damage the economy."

   Wyss thinks Bernanke's imminent departure is the main factor.

   "If this were a decision based on economics, I think the Fed would wait, but given the politics of a new chairman having to go before Congress for confirmation, that could be an argument for moving now," Wyss said.

 
Published in National News

Latest News

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Prev Next
GAUGE OF US ECONOMY UP FOR 3RD STRAIGHT MONTH

GAUGE OF US ECONOMY UP FOR 3RD STRAIGHT MONTH

WASHINGTON (AP) — A measure of the U.S. economy's health rose in March for the third consecutive month, a sign of stronger growth after harsh winter weather caused the economy's...

MARATHON WATCH: 'WE'RE TAKING BACK OUR RACE'

MARATHON WATCH: 'WE'RE TAKING BACK OUR RACE'

A look at the 118th running of the Boston Marathon. TAKING BACK RACE: The elite men and first wave of amateur runners have started. Boston Marathon race director Dave Mc...

SKOREAN PRESIDENT: FERRY CREW ACTIONS 'MURDEROUS'

SKOREAN PRESIDENT: FERRY CREW ACTIONS 'MURDEROUS'

JINDO, South Korea (AP) — South Korean President Park Geun-hye said Monday that the captain and some crew members of the sunken ferry committed "unforgivable, murderous behavior...

Rev. Joseph Jiang Released On Bail

 A 31-year-old St. Louis priest accused of sexually abusing a grade school student is free on bail.   The Rev. Joseph Jiang was released on Friday from the cit...

Ameren Missouri Rates Questioned

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - Missouri utility regulators plan to hear evidence in June on a pair of cases challenging the electricity rates charged by Ameren Missouri.   ...

Lobbyists Woo Missouri Lawmakers

ST. LOUIS (AP) - Industry and special interest groups have spent more than $200,000 in the last three years on trips for Missouri lawmakers.   Records reviewed by T...

Missouri Criminal Code Subject To Overhaul

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - Missouri lawmakers are poised to send Gov. Jay Nixon legislation to overhaul the state's criminal laws. House Majority Leader John Diehl says the ...

Missouri House Will Debate Student Transfer Program

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - Missouri House members plan to advance legislation that seeks to address a student transfer law requiring unaccredited school systems to pay for stude...

© 2013 KTRS All Rights Reserved