This page can be viewed at http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=j_p_morgan_chase_1
Troubled British mortgage giant Northern Rock agrees to sell £2.2 billion (about $4.4 billion) of its mortgage assets to US investment bank JP Morgan. The assets represent about 2 percent of its mortgage portfolio and the price represents a 2.25 percent premium on the assets’ value. Northern Rock says it will use the funds to pay back some of the £25 billion ($50 billion) in emergency loans it has been given by the Bank of England to help it through the financial crisis. (BBC 8/5/2008)
To assist in the merger of Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. and JP Morgan Chase & Co., the US Federal Reserve authorizes the New York Fed to form Maiden Lane LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. Once established, Maiden Lane is extended credit by the Fed to acquire certain Bear Stearns assets. Maiden Lane funds the purchase of the Bear Stearns asset portfolio of mortgage related securities, residential and commercial mortgage loans, and associated hedges through senior and subordinate loans of approximately $29 billion from the New York Fed, and a much smaller amount, approximately $1.15 billion, from JP Morgan Chase. As of March 14, 2008, the asset portfolio has an estimated fair value of approximately $30 billion. (Federal Reserve Bank of New York 3/2008)
The United States Federal Reserve has lent Wall Street’s largest investment bank billions of dollars, as the credit crisis threatens to spiral into a full-blown banking crisis. In developments currently rocking the world’s financial markets, the Fed and rival Wall Street bank, JP Morgan Chase, are funneling emergency loans to Bear Stearns, whose exposure to battered credit markets has led to a crisis of confidence in its ability to continue trading. In accelerating numbers, clients and trading partners are pulling business from Bear Stearns, after rumors of its solvency began circulating. During a last-minute conference call with investors, management at the investment bank warned that its emergency lending facility with the Federal Reserve has failed to staunch the bleeding. “We have been subject to a significant amount of rumor and innuendo in the past week,” says Bear Stearns chief executive Alan Schwartz. “We attempted to provide some facts but, in the market environment, the rumors intensified and a lot of people wanted to act to protect themselves first from the possibility that the rumors were true, and wait till later for the facts.” Bear Stearns appears most fragile of Wall Street’s major investment banks, since the July 2007 collapse of two internal hedge funds, providing initial clues about the scale of the unfolding credit crisis. Shares across the banking sector plunge as analysts fear that the Fed’s willingness to intervene suggests that Bear’s future is pivotal to the banking system, and that its failure precipitates losses that may cascade through its trading partners. Bear Stearns stocks are in freefall, closing down 47 percent. Pierre Ellis at New York’s Decision Economics said, “Clearly the Fed is addressing what they feel is a systemic risk very aggressively.” (Belfast Telegraph 3/15/2008)
The share price in the insurance giant AIG collapses to $4.76 amid fears over the company’s credit rating, which is subsequently cut by Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s. This means that the company needs additional capital, and it is given permission by New York State to access $20 billion in its subsidiaries. In addition, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase work to prepare a potential $75 billion lifeline. (Son and Holm 9/16/2008; Bloomberg 3/5/2009) However, this is not enough, and the US government will be forced to seize control of AIG the next day (see September 16, 2008).
According to a survey of factories released by Credit Lyonnais South Asia (CLSA), a brokerage firm that monitors Asia-Pacific markets, although Chinese manufacturing contracted in January and February, the rate was slower in February than the previous month. The survey is issued as China’s legislature and a top government advisory body meet in Beijing. It is expected that the meeting will yield additional measures to stimulate the economy. In a statement released with the survey, CLSA declares, “The rate of contraction remained marked, reflecting a reduction in global demand and an uncertain economic outlook.” Manufacturing is reportedly 40 percent of China’s economic output. A drop in exports demand has led to thousands of factory closures, prompting protests by laid-off workers. Chinese leaders are concerned that additional job losses may fuel unrest. According to the CLSA survey, production and new orders fell in February, and manufacturers continued to shed jobs in an effort to cut costs. “Manufacturing activity is still contracting, only at a more moderate pace than at the end of 2008,” says Eric Fishwick, the head of CLSA’s economic research. China is one of the few major economies still growing, although growth fell to a seven-year low of 6.8 percent in the final quarter of 2008, compared with the same period a year earlier. Last November, the government announced a $586 billion plan to boost domestic consumption in an attempt to assist in cushioning the impact of the global slowdown. Officials say that the effects of public works spending will be slow. Quoting Premier Wen Jiabao, Xinhua News Agency reports that some indicators, such as recent upturns in power demand and rising steel output, suggest that the economy is stabilizing. However, trends remain dismal in the US and around the globe. “China cannot expect to recover just by spending its way out of the slowdown,” says Jing Ulrich, JP Morgan’s chairwoman of China equities in a report issued today. “While early signs of economic stabilization are encouraging, it remains to be seen if this uptrend is sustainable.” (International Herald Tribune 3/2/2009)
Regulatory reports on Bank of America, Citibank, HSBC Bank USA, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo indicate that, as loan defaults of every kind soar, the institutions face “catastrophic losses” should economic conditions “substantially worsen.” Already suffering as a result of what the banks term “exotic investments,” the reports disclose that, as of December 31, 2008, current net loss risks from derivatives—quasi-insurance bets tied to loans or other underlying assets—have swelled to $587 billion. According to McClatchy journalists Greg Gordon and Kevin G. Hall, obscured in the year-end regulatory reports that they reviewed were figures reflecting a jump of 49 percent net loss in just 90 days.
Bailout Money Shoring Up Reserves - Taxpayer bailout money has already shored up four of the five banks’ reserves, with Citibank receiving $50 billion and Bank of America $45 billion, in addition to a $100 billion loan guarantee. According to their quarterly financial reports as of December 31:
JP Morgan had potential current derivatives losses of $241.2 billion, overrunning its $144 billion in reserves, and future exposure of $299 billion.
Citibank had potential current losses of $140.3 billion, outstripping its $108 billion in reserves, and future losses of $161.2 billion.
Bank of America reported $80.4 billion in current exposure, lower than its $122.4 billion reserve, but $218 billion in total exposure.
HSBC Bank USA had current potential losses of $62 billion, over three times its reserves, and potential total exposure of $95 billion.
San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, which took over Charlotte, N.C.-based Wachovia in October 2008, reported current potential losses totaling almost $64 billion, below the banks’ combined reserves of $104 billion, but total future risks of about $109 billion. (Gordon and Hall 3/9/2009; Idaho Statesman.com 3/9/2009)
Wells Fargo, the second largest home lender in the US, posts a surprising record first-quarter profit, outperforming the most hopeful estimates on Wall Street. The bank’s earnings are the most since July 16, 2007, with shares down 33 percent in 2009. The report also states that Wachovia Corporation, acquired by Wells Fargo in October 2008, is exceeding expectations. According to data compiled by Bloomberg, Wachovia’s $101.9 billion in losses and writedowns are the most for any US lender, and its adjustable-rate home loans are considered among the industry’s riskiest. Yet, in its preliminary report, Wells Fargo states that acquiring Wachovia “has proven to be everything we thought it would be.” Official first-quarter results will be released the third week in April.
Other Banks Also Gain; Profits Expected - The preliminary earnings report rallies the stock market, and the S&P 500 caps a fifth consecutive weekly gain and adds 3.8 percent to a two-month high of 856.56, the longest stretch since the bear market began in October 2007. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rises 246.27, to 8,083.38. The largest US lender, Bank of America, gains 35 percent today; JPMorgan 19 percent, and Citigroup 13 percent. The 24-company KBW Bank Index surges 20 percent, its biggest one-day gain since May 1992. Oppenheimer & Co. analyst Chris Kotowski says of these firms, “Barring an act of God, they had better report some number that is in the black or potentially risk being involved in some of the most intense securities litigation on record.”
Accounting Rules May Have Helped Profit Statements - Christopher Whalen, a managing director of Risk Analytics, says that the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s relaxation of accounting rules may have helped banks—including Wells Fargo—report a profit. “Most analysts are expecting loss rates to be much, much higher than we have seen in the last 20 to 30 years, even longer,” he says. “Given that, provisions of the large banks are not high enough.”
Wells Fargo 'Underperforming?' - While Wells Fargo Chief Financial Officer Howard Atkins says that increasing the bank’s provision for loan losses to $23 billion is adequate compared with other large US banks, FBR Capital Markets analyst Paul Miller wrote in a report that the bank’s addition of a $4.6 billion provision was below his estimate of $6.25 billion. “We remain cautious based on what we don’t know.” Miller rates Wells Fargo shares “underperform” and said that the preliminary report did not contain the percentage of non-performing loans and trends in Wachovia’s option-adjustable rate mortgate portfolio, a percentage Miller deems important. Atkins says that Wells Fargo benefited from strong trading results at Wachovia’s capital markets business, which the bank continues to shrink. He said that the improvement will not reverse those plans. Approximately 75 percent of Wells Fargo’s mortgage applications are refinance. President Obama said that homeowner interest rates, at less than five percent, are the lowest since 1971, and that it was “money in their pocket” for homeowners. Wells Fargo’s biggest shareholder is Berkshire Hathaway Inc., an acquisitions and investments firm owned by Warren Buffett. (Shen and Mildenberg 4/9/2009)
The US Treasury Department concludes that financial firms American Express, Bank of New York Mellon, Branch Banking & Trust (BB&T), Capital One Financial, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Northern Trust, State Street, and US Bancorp can return $68.3 billion in emergency bailout funds to government coffers although some of the banks have assets that are still government-controlled, with warrants worth approximately $4.6 billion. Twenty-two smaller banks already returned $1.9 billion. Morgan Stanley receives Treasury permission to return its TARP funding despite bank stress test details released early last May ordering the bank to increase its capital cushion fund by raising $1.8 billion. In a Treasury release, Secretary Timothy Geithner explains, “These repayments are an encouraging sign of financial repair, but we still have work to do.” President Obama comments that the ability of companies to repay the government does not detract from the need for reform. “The return of these funds does not provide forgiveness for past excesses or permission for future misdeeds,” he says. “This is not a sign that our troubles are over. Far from it.” (United Press International 6/9/2009; DASH 6/9/2009)
While California grapples with budget problems as a result of the havoc wreaked by the global recession, a collection of banks—Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and JP Morgan Chase among them—say that commencing Friday, July 10, they will not accept state IOUs, adding pressure for the state to close its $26.3 billion budget gap.
IOUs Result of Credit Crisis - The banks initially made a commitment to accept IOU payments when the economically devastated state announced that it would issue more than $3 billion in IOUs beginning on or around July 1. Since the beginning of the year, state leaders have tried and failed to agree on a budget, and Governor Arnold Swarzenegger imposed monthly one to three-day monthly furloughs on at least 200,000 state employees; the furloughs are still in effect. The state began issuing IOUs—‘individual registered warrants’—to hundreds of thousands of creditors one day after the end of the 2009 fiscal year. John Chiang, California state controller, said, “Without IOUs, California will run out of cash by the end of July.” California’s annual budget is the eighth largest in the world. If the state continues issuing warrants, creditors will be forced to hold them until their maturity on October 2 or find other banks willing to honor them before maturity. The maturity of the IOUs will allow the state to pay back creditors directly at a 3.75 percent annual interest rate.
Response by California Bankers Association - California Bankers Association spokeswoman Beth Mills says that some banks might work with creditors to develop a short-term resolution, such as extending lines of credit to creditors. Mills says the banks were concerned that there aren’t processes in place to accept IOUs; she said that some of the banks were also worried about fraud issues, and notes that the July 10 deadline was not set by all banks. She adds that dozens of state credit unions would continue to accept IOUs.
Significance of California's Problems - Twelve percent of the nation’s gross domestic product comes from California and the state has the largest share of retail sales of any state. Retail consultant Burt P. Flickinger, managing director of Strategic Resource Group, explains, “California is the key catalyst for US retail sales, and if California falls further you will see the US economy suffer significantly.” Flickinger warns of more national retail chain and brand suppliers bankruptcies. At one dollar for every 80 cents, the state sends more in tax revenues to the federal government than it receives in return. Although California’s deep recession primarily only affects the state itself, it could make it harder for a national economic recovery since, because of its size—38.3 million people—it affects businesses from Texas to Michigan. Even if lawmakers solve the state’s deficit swiftly, there will likely be more government furloughs and layoffs with tens of billions of dollars more in spending cuts. This could cause a ripple effect throughout the state’s economy and fear of even more job losses. Jeff Michael, director of the Business Forecasting Center for the University of the Pacific at Stockton, predicts that one million jobs are expected to be lost in the state in two years, with unemployment estimated to peak at 12.3 percent in early 2010. In 2008, for the first time since the Great Depression, personal income of Californians declined. Income revenue fell 34 percent for the first five months of 2009. (Williams 6/29/2009; Knutson 7/7/2009)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) regulators take over real estate lender Colonial BancGroup Inc. in the biggest US bank failure this year. Regulators also close four banks in Arizona, Nevada and Pennsylvania. This increases to 77 the number of federally insured banks that have failed in 2009. The FDIC is appointed receiver of Colonial BancGroup, based in Montgomery, Alabama; Community Bank of Arizona, based in Phoenix; Union Bank, based in Gilbert, Arizona; Community Bank of Nevada, based in Las Vegas; and Dwelling House Savings and Loan Association, located in Pittsburgh. The FDIC approves the sale of Colonial’s $20 billion in deposits and about $22 billion of its assets to BB&T Corp., which is based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. According to the FDIC, the failed bank’s 346 branches in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, and Texas will reopen at normal times starting on Saturday as BB&T offices. A temporary government bank is established by the FDIC for Community Bank of Nevada to give depositors approximately 30 days to open accounts at other financial institutions. As of June 30, Community Bank of Nevada had assets of $1.52 billion and deposits of $1.38 billion; Community Bank of Arizona had assets of $158.5 million and deposits of $143.8 million; Union Bank had assets of $124 million and deposits of $112 million as of June 12. MidFirst Bank, based in Oklahoma City, agrees to assume all the deposits and $125.5 million of the assets of Community Bank of Arizona, as well as about $24 million of the deposits and $11 million of the assets of Union Bank, with the FDIC retaining what’s left for eventual sale. Dwelling House had $13.4 million in assets and $13.8 million in deposits as of March 31. PNC Bank, part of Pittsburgh-based PNC Financial Services Group Inc., agrees to assume all of Dwelling House’s deposits and about $3 million of its assets; the FDIC will hold the rest for eventual sale. The FDIC expects Colonial BancGroup’s failure to cost it an estimated $2.8 billion and that of Community Bank of Nevada, $781.5 million; Union Bank, $61 million; Community Bank of Arizona, $25.5 million; and Dwelling House, $6.8 million. The 77 bank failures nationwide this year compare with 25 last year and three in 2007. As the economy spiraled downward, bank failures increased seismically, siphoning billions out of the FDIC which, at $13 billion as of the first quarter, is at its lowest level since 1993. While losses on home mortgages may be leveling, commercial real estate loan delinquencies remain a potential trouble spot, say FDIC officials. The FDIC’s list of problem institutions soared to 305 in first quarter 2009—the highest since the savings and loan crisis in 1994—increasing from 252 in fourth quarter 2008. Regulators anticipate US bank failures will cost the FDIC about $70 billion through 2013. The shutdown in May of Florida thrift BankUnited is expected to cost the federal insurer $4.9 billion, the second-largest hit since the financial crisis commenced. So far, the costliest is the seizure of big California lender IndyMac Bank in 2008, where it is estimated that the FDIC lost $10.7 billion. In September 2008, the largest US bank failure was the failure of Seattle-based Washington Mutual Inc. (WAMU), with about $307 billion in assets. In a deal brokered by the FDIC, JP Morgan Chase and Co. purchased WAMU for $1.9 billion. (fdic.gov 8/2009; Gordon 8/14/2009)
Since implementing a program to help millions of homeowners restructure their mortgages to prevent foreclosure, only 235,247 loans have actually been modified, according to the US Treasury Department in its first progress report. After the plan was announced in February, the first banking institutions began accepting applications in April. Between now and 2012, the Obama administration says it is on track to assist 4 million homeowners. The report occurs a week after the administration summoned institutions to Washington to discuss speeding up the program after large numbers of borrowers’ complaints that assistance was barely occurring. The Obama administration plans 500,000 modifications by November 1, and hopes to hold the institutions responsible for their performance with the release of monthly reports that allow consumers to see which banks are slow to implement the plan. So far, institutions have extended offers to 15 percent or 406,542 homeowners in danger of losing their homes, with uneven performances by 38 participating servicers. Morgan Stanley’s subsidiary, Saxon Mortgage Services, tops the list with 25 percent of its delinquent loans placed in trial modifications. Saxon is followed by Aurora Loan Services, a Lehman Brothers Bank subsidiary, with 21 percent. GMAC Mortgage, partially owned by the US government, has put 20 percent of its troubled loans into trial modifications, while major banks JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America have late loan trial modifications of 20 percent, 15 percent, 6 percent, and 5 percent respectively. The lenders acknowledge that they must improve their performance, and say that they are committed to President Obama’s foreclosure prevention plan, stressing that they were already performing modifications prior to the administration’s program. Wells Fargo says that it will soon have the ability to send eligible borrowers trial modification agreements within 48 hours. “We set a high bar for ourselves in terms of customer service, and we didn’t hit that bar in all cases in the first seven months of this year,” says Mike Heid, co-president of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, “We have added 4,000 employees to our loan workout division this year. JPMorgan Chase says it has another 150,000 applications in need of processing and is currently training an extra 950 workout specialists hired earlier in 2009, bringing its modification staff to 3,500 people. “We know we’ve got more work to do,” says Chase spokesman Tom Kelly. “But the bank is pleased with its performance to date.” CitiGroup’s mortgage agency, CitiMortgage, added 1,400 staffers to its modification team, with 800 dedicated to loss mitigation at its recently opened Tucson, AZ call center. It began placing troubled borrowers in trial modifications in early June. “In the next quarter, one can expect the pace will be even higher,” Sanjiv Das, CitiMortgage head, says. Bank of America says it needs to improve its reach out efforts, while noting that it holds nearly one in four trial modifications offered under the Obama plan and has extended nearly 100,000 offers, although only 28,000 trial modifications are in process. Bank of America purchased mortgage giant Countrywide Financial last year, and has the largest number of eligible delinquent loans with almost 800,000. Borrowers have been pressuring the Obama administration as well as servicers and are complaining that servicers are not responding to applications and calls, are losing their paperwork, and are not making timely decisions. Servicers say they are increasing their staffing and upgrading their computer systems to handle the hefty increase in applications. Says Michael Barr, assistant US Treasury secretary for financial institutions, “We are working with servicers to ensure that they can adequately implement the program and servicers are increasing staff and training, but they must also treat borrowers more respectfully and respond in a much timelier manner.” (Luhby 8/9/2009)
New York City’s public advocate, Bill de Blasio, is publicly challenging former Governor George E. Pataki for using anonymous contributions to affect elections. De Blasio has managed to persuade several Wall Street firms, including Citibank, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley, not to donate money towards political advertising. Now he is criticizing Pataki, who as governor supported disclosure of donors but now, as chair of the political advocacy group Revere America, is using anonymous donations to fund a $1 million advertising campaign against Democrats. In a letter to Pataki, de Blasio writes that it is hypocritical for Pataki to use such donations, saying that “opposing disclosure of your contributors completely contradicts your previous actions and positions as governor of the State of New York.” De Blasio tells a reporter: “I think it’s fair to say Pataki was one of the people doing meaningful work on campaign finance and getting a lot of respect for it. And now, a decade later, he’s in the vanguard of the exact opposite. It’s an extraordinary turnaround.” The letter is also signed by seven members of New York’s Congressional delegation, all Democrats. De Blasio has had no success in persuading any of 16 groups that have spent a combined total of $22 million on campaign advertisements to disclose their donors. Paul Ryan, a lawyer for the Campaign Legal Center, says, “I think it’s entirely appropriate to ask those who are running their organizations to disclose more information.” Pataki says he still believes in disclosure, but says efforts to “boycott, to intimidate, to picket” donors contributing to Revere America have persuaded him to keep their identities secret. Pataki claims not to know which individuals or corporations may be donating to his organization, and says his entire focus is on policy (Revere America opposes health care reform). He calls de Blasio’s letter an “off-putting” act of partisan politics, and mocks de Blasio as “the person who has a job with no responsibilities.” De Blasio’s office indeed has little real power, but de Blasio has used his position as a public official to become a vocal critic of campaign finance practices. He is currently calling on Internet giant Yahoo! to eschew campaign donations, a position the corporation is considering. Ryan notes that the pledges from firms like Yahoo! or Goldman Sachs mean little, as the firms could easily donate anonymously. De Blasio says his efforts are just one part of a much larger struggle. “To me this is the first battle in a long war,” he says. “Before January, in the way of limitations and disclosure, you were fighting a very tense and difficult battle in elections, but the worst you could see from corporate America was conventional weapons. Citizens United (see January 21, 2010) introduced nuclear weapons.” (Chen 10/27/2010)
TPMDC reporter Brian Beutler notes that many Congressional Republicans, led by but not limited to those who consider themselves “tea party” members (see April 30, 2011), are heeding the advice of a small number of unorthodox financial experts who go against the “common wisdom” that a possible credit default by the US would lead to potential catastrophe among national and global financial markets. The issue centers on Congressional Republicans’ insistence that they will not raise the US debt limit, or debt ceiling, unless the Obama administration gives them a wide array of draconian spending cuts; in the past, raising the US debt limit has been a routine matter, often handled with virtually no debate and little, if any, fanfare. Beutler says that the most influential of these advisors is Stanley Druckenmiller, who made billions managing hedge funds. Druckenmiller’s advice was that the US could weather several days of missed interest payments if the US debt ceiling were not immediately raised without serious consequences. House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), and Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) are all echoing Druckenmiller’s claims in media interviews and in Congress. Beutler writes that the newfound popularity of Druckenmiller’s claims “alarms everyone from industry insiders to Treasury officials to economists, conservative and liberal, to non-partisan analysts who say the consequences of the US missing even a single interest payment to a debt-holder would be catastrophic—even if it was followed immediately by a legislative course correction.” Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Binder, now a Princeton economist, warns that if the US were to default on its debt even for a few days, the US dollar would crash in value, interest rates would spike, and the US economy would find itself spiraling into a full-blown recession. Binder writes: “For as long as anyone can remember, the full faith and credit of the United States has been as good as gold—no one has better credit. But if investors start to see default as part of US political gamesmanship, they will demand compensation for this novel risk. How much? Again, no one can know. But even if it’s as little as 10-20 basis points on the US government’s average borrowing cost, that’s an additional $10 billion to $20 billion in interest expenses every year. Seems like an expensive way to score a political point.” JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon agrees, telling PBS viewers: “Every single company with treasuries, every insurance fund, every—every requirement that—it will start snowballing. Automatic, you don’t pay your debt, there will be default by ratings agencies. All short-term financing will disappear. I would have hundreds of work streams working around the world protecting our company for that kind of event.” JPMorgan issued a statement after Dimon’s comment saying that even a brief default would trigger “a run on money market funds… that would leave businesses unable to meet their short-term obligations and teetering on the bring of bankruptcy.” JPMorgan compares the money-market run to the aftermath of the 2008 Lehman Bros collapse, which sent the US into a recession. Analyses and reports by the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee and Government Accountability Office have warned of dire consequences following a default even of a day or two. Toomey and others insist that a credit default would simply make the Treasury Department find other ways to avoid missing interest payments, but, economists and financial leaders warn, the consequences of that would be enormous. Binder writes: “If we hit the borrowing wall traveling at full speed, the US government’s total outlays—a complex amalgam that includes everything from Social Security benefits to soldiers’ pay to interest on the national debt—will have to drop by about 40 percent immediately. That translates to roughly $1.5 trillion at annual rates, or about 10 percent of GDP. That’s an enormous fiscal contraction for any economy to withstand, never mind one in a sluggish recovery with 9 percent unemployment.” Druckenmiller and some Republicans believe that forcing a credit default would end up benefiting the country, as the Obama administration would give in to Republican demands for enormous spending cuts in return for Republicans’ agreement to raise the debt ceiling. Business Insider reporter Joe Weisenthal recently wrote: “Of course, a default by the world’s most stable nation would probably have impacts in ways nobody can imagine, but one thing seems to be clear. The notion—as some people suggest—that a default would somehow increase US credit-worthiness is absurd.” (Weisenthal 4/20/2011; Rampell 4/26/2011; Beutler 5/20/2011)
Except where otherwise noted, the textual content of each timeline is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike