The Resolution Law Group: SEC in Action: Finds Nomura Holdings Not Ineligible Issuer Even with Judgment, Will Consider Redrafted Shareholder Proposal Regarding Exelon, & Puts Out Regulation M, Rule 105 Violation Sanctions

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance has given relief to Nomura Holdings, Inc. over an entry in the final judgment issued against its subsidiary Instinet, LLC last month. The staff said that Nomura made a good cause showing under 1933 Securities Act Rule 405(2), and now the SEC says it won’t consider the company an ineligible issuer even with the entry of that final judgment.

The SEC opened up an administrative proceeding action against Instinet, accusing it of purposely abetting and aiding and violating sections of the Investment Advisers Act. The claims involved purported soft dollar payments.

J.S. Oliver Capital Management, L.P., an Instinet customer, had asked for the payments for expenses it did not tell clients about. The Commission says that Instinet made the payments per JS Oliver’s request, even though there were red flags indicating that the requests for payment approval were improper. The Nomura subsidiary turned in a settlement offer that led to a cease-and-desist order against the brokerage firm, & the regulator accepted the settlement offer.

Responding to a no-action request from Exelon Corp. to leave out from the latter’s proxy materials a shareholder proposal for a pay ratio cap for certain named executives, this SEC division said the proposal would be excluded unless it is redrafted (or a request is made to the board of directors). SEC staff did not agree with Exelon that the proposal, which concentrates on senior executive compensation-related policies, was misleading, false, or pertained to mere ordinary business.

Canadian-registered portfolio management firm Qube Investment Management Inc. turned in the proposal, asking that the compensation committee or the board restrict how much each named Exelon executive officer could make to no more than 100 times the median annual total paid to all company employees. Qube said that at least one Exelon executive is making 200 times the pay of the average American worker.

Exelon argued that the proposal would properly limit the power of tis board to decide compensation, and under Pennsylvania law this subject was not appropriate for action by shareholders.

SEC staff agreed that there was some ground’s for Exelon’s argument about the proposal not being appropriate subject for shareholder action or that it could cause the company to violate state law. That said, staff noted that the defect could be fixed if it was reframed as a request or a recommendation.

In other SEC news, the Commission has just issued final rules to make clear the roles of its ethics counsel and general counsel. The regulator’s general counsel is to advise staff lawyers about professional duties arising from their official duties, as well as probe allegations of professional misbehavior. As for its ethic’s counsel, the SEC said its job did not include looking into allegations about professional misconduct or making referrals to the authorities. The rules and accompanying modification/clarifications will go into effect once they appear in the Federal Register.

Also, the SEC has sanctioned Axius Holdings, LLC. for violating Regulation M’s Rule 105. The Commission claims that Axius took part in 13 offerings that the rule covers between June 2008 and March 2010 and then went on to short the stock of the companies during the restricted periods.

As a result of these alleged trading activities, Axius and its owner Henry Robertelli purportedly made profits of about $31,000. Now, the two of them must pay disgorgement in that approximate amount, plus prejudgment interest and a monetary payment.

The Resolution Law Group is a securities fraud law firm that represents institutional investors and high net worth individuals in recovering their money.

Advertisements

The Resolution Law Group: JPMorgan Could Settle “London Whale” Fiasco for $800M

According to a source knowledgeable about negotiations, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) could pay at $800 million in penalties in the investigations conducted by regulators over the “London Whale” trading scandal. The regulators are the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the British Financial Conduct Authority, and the US Office of the Comptroller Currency. The announcement of the settlement is expected shortly.

The trading fiasco involved JPMorgan trading in complex derivatives, which were amassed by a trader who was dubbed the London Whale. The traders are accused of betting on credit derivatives, which let them wager on the supposed health of certain companies. Authorities contend that when the positions began to go bad, the traders valued them in a way that was too positive. The trades would cost the financial firm over $600 billion.

Following the debacle, the bank said that it made changes to internal controls. JPMorgan maintains that it was the one that detected the traders’ questionable activities and notified the authorities.

According to those in the know, as part of the settlement with regulators, the financial firm will admit it should have detected the problem sooner and that its lax controls let traders in their London unit construct the risky position and conceal the losses. The admissions come in the wake of the SEC’s recent reversal of its longtime policy that used to let all banks settle without denying or admitting to wrongdoing.

Also, JPMorgan has yet to resolve matters with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is the regulator that oversees the market where the London Whale losses happened. The agency has been looking at whether the firm amassed a position so huge that it was able to manipulate the market for derivatives and it reportedly plans to impose its own penalty later this year.

This week, a formal indictment was announced against two ex-JPMorgan employees. Prosecutors filed criminal charges against, trader Julien Grout and manager Javier Martin-Artajo last month for allegedly concealing losses from the trades by overstating their positions’ value in the purported hopes that hundreds of millions of dollars in losses would go undetected. They are charged with falsifying bank records, wire fraud, and contributing to regulatory filings that were false.

However, both men are still in Europe and extraditing them could be difficult if not impossible. A third trader, Bruno Kisi, has not been charged. He is the one that was dubbed the London Whale because his wagers were so big. However, Iksil and authorities in New York arrived at a nonprosecution deal which involves him cooperating against Grout and Martin-Artajo.

Meantime, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and federal prosecutors are still looking into the bank’s losses in the London Whale fiasco.

If you feel you are the victim of Bank Fraud, please do not hesitate to email or call the The Resolution Law Group (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

 

 

The Resolution Law Group: A Judge in Palm Beach, Florida has ordered a bank to modify a homeowner’s mortgage instead of foreclosing on it.

A Judge in Palm Beach, Florida has ordered a bank to modify a homeowner’s mortgage instead of foreclosing on it. The order has created a panic in the lending and servicing community.

Judge Howard Harrison ruled that the lender provisionally modified the loan, and the trial modification was intended to motivate the homeowner to continue making payments, despite the evidence that the lender never intended to allow a permanent modification. Judge Harrison ordered the lender to reduce the interest rate to 3.15 percent and to extend the loan to be paid over 40 years.

Geoffrey Broderick, the senior partner of the Resolution Law Group, says “while the Court’s ruling is a step in the right direction, Judge Harrison may have exceeded his authority, and the matter will certainly be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. We will be closely following the case through the appellate process. “

Mr. Broderick adds that “The housing market will continue to suffer until it is fixed by the Courts or the Legislature. Somebody has to fix the problem. That is why The Resolution Law Group continues its fight for homeowners. Homeowners cannot expect the problem to fix itself.”

The Resolution Law Group continues to prosecute ground breaking litigation in Federal Court on behalf of homeowners suing lenders and servicers for, among other things, the illegal use of MERS, robo-signing, and intentionally ignoring underwriting standards and encouraging inflated appraisals.

The Resolution Law Group is currently enrolling clients into the pending lawsuit. For further information, visit its website at www.TheResolutionLawGroup.com

If you feel you are the victim of Mortgage Fraud, please do not hesitate to email or call the The Resolution Law Group (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud

The Resolution Law Group: JPMorgan Received Asset Management Conflicts Warning from OCC in 2012

According to a source with direct knowledge about the Office of Comptroller of the Currency’s findings, the agency had already warned JPMorgan Chase (JPM) last year that the investment bank had erred when it directed clients toward its in-house investment products.

OCC examiners found that in late 2011 JPMorgan had not complied with restrictions placed on in-house financial products sales, as well as fulfill its duties to retirement plan investors under ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act). Following these discoveries, the agencies ordered JPMorgan to pay back fees to customers.

While the issues highlighted by the OCC more than likely won’t pose much of a problem to JPMorgan—typically the US Department Of Labor resolves such violations by ordering restitution and in a confidential manner—the alleged infractions do point to what could become a problem of regulatory tension between federal regulators and JPMorgan, as the former group seeks to put to rest criticism that its poor oversight played a role in allowing the financial crisis of 2008 to happen. Now, since Thomas Curry took over as Comptroller of the Currency, OCC appears to have made it a priority to monitor the growing risks that can arise via routine bank functions, as well as from activities that could lead to “operational risks.”

JPMorgan Chase’s assets under management that are found in its proprietary mutual funds reached $223 billion at the start of 2013, which a significant rise from $96 billion in 2009. All assets under the bank’s purview, including retirement plans, alternate assets, and funds, have been growing for 16 quarters in a row.

Also during 2013’s first quarter, a $31 billion gain allowed JPMorgan’s client assets to hit $2.1 trillion. Unlike other asset managers, the bank conducts securities underwriting, commercial banking, and money management on such a big scale and in such an interlinked fashion that, per guidelines in the OCC’s exam handbook, such actions merit more regulatory examination.

Regulators & ERISA Assets
Because ERISA assets are some of the most legally protected, there is a greater chance that regulators will pay attention to them. That said, Section 406(b) of ERISA obligates retirement fund fiduciaries to always place clients’ interest first.

As OCC doesn’t directly supervise ERISA, its perspective is via supervising banks’ winder duties to make sure operations are performed in a way that decreases operational risks, as well as reputational and legal harm. Although monitoring ERISA compliance has long been part of OCC’s examination wheelhouse, some observers are finding that the agency’s current concentration on both the Act and how banks sell proprietary investment instruments is an add-on previous monitoring practices.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is also looking at JPMorgan and its proprietary products sales. While it is not known at this time whether the agency’s inquiries will result in formal action, a number of ex-JPMorgan Chase financial advisers already have sued or filed arbitration claims accusing the bank of pressuring them to place client assets in in-house products. The financial firm denies the securities’ cases allegations.

Meantime, according to Reuters last year, the Labor Department too has been examining JPMorgan. The DOL is looking at the firm’s purchases for 401(k) plan stable value funds under its management of $1.7 million in mortgage debt that it underwrote before the real estate crisis. Already, investors have filed securities cases alleging wrongdoing that, once again, the bank denies.

If you feel you are the victim of Bank Fraud, please do not hesitate to email or call the The Resolution Law Group (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud

The Resolution Law Group: District Judge Not Inclined to Toss $5B Securities Fraud Case Against Standard & Poor’s

A U.S. district judge in California has put out a tentative decision in the $5B fraud lawsuit against Standard & Poor’s indicating that he will likely reject a motion to dismiss the civil case against the credit rating agency. Judge David Carter said he needs more time to come up with his final ruling, which is expected on July 15, but for now, he is turning down S & P’s request to toss out the case outright.

Federal prosecutors sued S & P contending that the credit rater chose not to alert investors that the housing market was failing in ‘06 and inflated high-risk mortgage investments’ ratings. The Obama Administration said the ratings agency did not act fast enough to put downgrade a large number of subprime-backed securities despite realizing that home prices were dropping and borrowers were finding it hard to pay back loans. Instead, collateralized debt obligations and mortgage-backed securities continued to receive elevated ratings from the top credit rating agencies, allowing banks to sell trillions of these investments.

Contending that the credit rater committed fraud by making false claims that its ratings were objective, the US Department of Justice wants S & P to pay $5 billion in penalties, The government believes that between 9/04 and 10/07, S & P delayed updating both its ratings criteria and analytical models, which means the requirements were weaker than what analysts say should have been necessary to ensure their accuracy. During this time, S & P credit rated about $1.2 trillion in structured products related to $2.8 trillion worth of mortgage securities and charged up to $750 per rated deal. The government says that this means that S & P saw the investment banks that put out the securities as its primary customers.

Now, S & P wants the MBS case thrown out, contending that the lawsuit is too broad and doesn’t offer enough specific examples of the alleged fraud. The credit rating agency maintains that the statements federal prosecutors say are the allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations are ones that investors were not supposed to take at face value and, therefore, they cannot be grounds for the securities fraud case.

Also, S & P’s legal defense says that just like other market participants, including the US Treasury, the credit rating agency did not have the ability to predict how severe the ensuing “catastrophic meltdown” would be and, if anything, this showed a “lack of prescience” rather than fraud.

However, Judge Carter in his tentative ruling, did say that S & P’s statements in employee conduct codes and official policy statements about its standards and processes for ratings deals aren’t just “mere aspirational musings,” but instead are “specific assertions of policies… in stark contrast” to conduct that the government is alleging occurred.

If you feel you are the victim of Mortgage Fraud, please do not hesitate to email or call the The Resolution Law Group (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud

The Resolution Law Group: Bank of America whistle-blower’s bombshell: “We were told to lie”

Bank of America’s mortgage servicing unit systematically lied to homeowners, fraudulently denied loan modifications, and paid their staff bonuses for deliberately pushing people into foreclosure: Yes, these allegations were suspected by any homeowner who ever had to deal with the bank to try to get a loan modification – but now they come from six former employees and one contractor, whose sworn statements were added last week to a civil lawsuit filed in federal court in Massachusetts.

“Bank of America’s practice is to string homeowners along with no apparent intention of providing the permanent loan modifications it promises,” said Erika Brown, one of the former employees. The damning evidence would spur a series of criminal investigations of BofA executives, if we still had a rule of law in this country for Wall Street banks.

The government’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which gave banks cash incentives to modify loans under certain standards, was supposed to streamline the process and help up to 4 million struggling homeowners (to date, active permanent modifications number about 870,000). In reality, Bank of America used it as a tool, say these former employees, to squeeze as much money as possible out of struggling borrowers before eventually foreclosing on them. Borrowers were supposed to make three trial payments before the loan modification became permanent; in actuality, many borrowers would make payments for a year or more, only to find themselves rejected for a permanent modification, and then owing the difference between the trial modification and their original payment. Former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner famously described HAMP as a means to “foam the runway” for the banks, spreading out foreclosures so banks could more readily absorb them.

These Bank of America employees offer the first glimpse into how they pulled it off. Employees, many of whom allege they were given no basic training on how to even use HAMP, were instructed to tell borrowers that documents were incomplete or missing when they were not, or that the file was “under review” when it hadn’t been accessed in months. Former loan-level representative Simone Gordon says flat-out in her affidavit that “we were told to lie to customers” about the receipt of documents and trial payments. She added that the bank would hold financial documents borrowers submitted for review for at least 30 days. “Once thirty days passed, Bank of America would consider many of these documents to be ‘stale’ and the homeowner would have to re-apply for a modification,” Gordon writes. Theresa Terrelonge, another ex-employee, said that the company would consistently tell homeowners to resubmit information, restarting the clock on the HAMP process.

Worse than this, Bank of America would simply throw out documents on a consistent basis. Former case management supervisor William Wilson alleged that, during bimonthly sessions called the “blitz,” case managers and underwriters would simply deny any file with financial documents that were more than 60 days old. “During a blitz, a single team would decline between 600 and 1,500 modification files at a time,” Wilson wrote. “I personally reviewed hundreds of files in which the computer systems showed that the homeowner had fulfilled a Trial Period Plan and was entitled to a permanent loan modification, but was nevertheless declined for a permanent modification during a blitz.” Employees were then instructed to make up a reason for the denial to submit to the Treasury Department, which monitored the program. Others say that bank employees falsified records in the computer system and removed documents from homeowner files to make it look like the borrower did not qualify for a permanent modification.

Senior managers provided carrots and sticks for employees to lie to customers and push them into foreclosure. Simone Gordon described meetings where managers created quotas for lower-level employees, and a bonus system for reaching those quotas. Employees “who placed ten or more accounts into foreclosure in a given month received a $500 bonus,” Gordon wrote. “Bank of America also gave employees gift cards to retail stores like Target or Bed Bath and Beyond as rewards for placing accounts into foreclosure.” Employees were closely monitored, and those who didn’t meet quotas, or who dared to give borrowers accurate information, were fired, as was anyone who “questioned the ethics … of declining loan modifications for false and fraudulent reasons,” according to William Wilson.

Bank of America characterized the affidavits as “rife with factual inaccuracies.” But they match complaints from borrowers having to resubmit documents multiple times, and getting denied for permanent modifications despite making all trial payments. And these statements come from all over the country from ex-employees without a relationship to one another. It did not result from one “rogue” bank branch.

Simply put, Bank of America didn’t want to hire enough staff to handle the crush of loan modification requests, and used these delaying tactics as a shortcut. They also pushed people into foreclosure to collect additional fees from them. And after rejecting borrowers for HAMP modifications, they would offer an in-house modification with a higher interest rate. This was all about profit maximization. “We were regularly drilled that it was our job to maximize fees for the Bank by fostering and extending delay of the HAMP modification process by any means we could,” wrote Simone Gordon in her affidavit.

It is a testament to the corruption of the federal regulatory and law enforcement apparatus that we’re only hearing evidence from inside Bank of America now, in a civil class-action lawsuit from wronged homeowners, when the behavior was so rampant for years. For example, the Treasury Department, charged with specific oversight for HAMP, didn’t sanction a single bank for failing to follow program guidelines for three years, and certainly did not uncover any of this criminal conduct. Steven Cupples, a former underwriter at Bank of America, explained in his statement how the bank falsified records to Treasury to make it look like they granted more modifications. But Treasury never investigated. Meanwhile, the Justice Department joined with state Attorneys General and other federal regulators to essentially bless this conduct in a series of weak settlements that incorporated other bank crimes as well, like “robo-signing” and submitting false documents to courts.

These affidavits, however, should return law enforcement to the case. William Wilson, the case management supervisor, alleges in his statement that this “ridiculous and immoral” conduct continued through August of 2012, when he was eventually fired for speaking up. That means Bank of America persisted with these activities for at least six months AFTER the main, $25 billion settlement to which they were a party. So state and federal regulators could sue Bank of America over this new criminal conduct, which post-dates the actions for which they released liability under the main settlement. Attorneys general in New York and Florida have accused Bank of America of violating the terms of the settlement, but they could simply open new cases about these new deceptive practices.

They would have no shortage of evidence, in addition to the sworn affidavits. According to Theresa Terrelonge, most loan-level representatives conducted their business through email; in fact, various email communications have already been submitted under seal in the Massachusetts civil case. State Attorneys General or US Attorneys would have subpoena power to gather many more emails.

And they would have very specific targets: the ex-employees listed specific executives by name who authorized and directed the fraudulent process. “The delay and rejection programs were methodically carried out under the overall direction of Patrick Kerry, a Vice President who oversaw the entire eastern region’s loan modification process,” wrote William Wilson. Other executives mentioned by name include John Berens, Patricia Feltch and Rebecca Mairone (now at JPMorgan Chase, and already named in a separate financial fraud case). These are senior executives who, if this alleged conduct is true, should face criminal liability.

Bank accountability activists have already seized on the revelations. “This is not surprising, but absolutely sickening,” said Peggy Mears, organizer for the Home Defenders League. “Maybe finally our courts and elected officials will stand with communities over Wall Street and prosecute, and then lock up, these criminals.”

Sadly, it’s hard to raise hopes of that happening. Past experience shows that our top regulatory and law enforcement officials are primarily interested in covering for Wall Street’s crimes. These well-sourced allegations amount to an accusation of Bank of America stealing thousands of homes, and lying to the government about it. Homeowners who did everything asked of them were nevertheless pushed into foreclosure, all to fortify profits on Wall Street. There’s a clear path to punish Bank of America for this conduct. If it doesn’t result in prosecutions, it will once again confirm the sorry excuse for justice we have in America.

Please do not hesitate to email or call The Resolution Law Group (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud

The Resolution Law Group Report: Jon Corzine will not face criminal charges over MF Global

There will be no criminal charges for former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine over the use of customer funds leading up to collapse of MF Global.

The criminal probe into whether there was wrongdoing on the part of Corzine by the Department of Justice will now be dropped due to lack of evidence, said a report in The New York Post, citing a person with knowledge of the matter.

But the former CEO of Goldman Sachs is not out of the woods.

Corzine is facing civil charges by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission for illegally using customer funds in the last few days of MF Global to help keep the company afloat. The firm’s former assistant treasurer Edith O’Brien is also caught up in the scandal and charged by the CFTC for making the transfers.

Ultimately Corzine was charged by the regulator for failure to segregate and misuse of customer funds and failure to supervise diligently. O’Brien was charged with one count failure to segregate and misuse of customer funds.

To support the allegations, the CFTC used a recorded telephone conversations to support their charges that Corzine was fully aware of the transfers.

Both Corzine and O’Brien have denied any wrongdoing.

The across-the-board automatic federal budget cuts that began in March do not seem to be derailing the recovery so far, given that the job market over all has continued to grow. And certainly some of the scariest predictions about the sequester didn’t come true (partly because Congress stepped in to prevent their occurrence). But if you look closely at the data, the sequester still does seem to be affecting certain industries pretty badly.

Government payrolls have been shrinking for several years. Those declines were mostly driven by state and local layoffs at first; lately, the layoffs have gotten worse at the federal level. In the last four months, the federal government has laid off 40,000 workers. And that number doesn’t indicate the full extent to which the sequester has affected employment, as many government agencies have resorted to furloughs rather than full-blown layoffs.

Below is a chart showing the numbers of federal workers who have been working “part time for economic reasons,” a term meaning they want to be working full time, but can’t get their employer to give them full-time hours. The numbers are not seasonally adjusted, so I’ve charted the trends for 2011, 2012 and 2013 to compare the level in a given month with its level exactly one year and two years earlier.

As you can see, there was a huge jump in the number of reluctant federal part-timers in June compared with the same month in 2011 and 2012. In June 2013, 148,000 federal workers were working part-time hours (defined as fewer than 35 hours a week) but wished they were working full time, compared with 58,000 in June 2012 and 55,000 in June 2011.

In fact, in every month starting in February, when agencies perhaps started preparing for the sequester, the number of reluctant federal part-timers has been higher than its level in 2012. In each of those months in 2013, the level has also been higher than in 2011, with the exception of April, when there were an equal number of federal part-timers for economic reasons in 2011 and 2013 (64,000).

And of course, these figures show only what’s happening with federal workers. There are plenty of private-sector workers whose jobs and hours depend on federal money, too, as I wrote in an article last week.

In that article, I calculated which industries were most reliant on federal defense money, based on Labor Department data showing where the Defense Department spends its money, and how money spent in any one sector affects employment in all the others (for example, employment of metal workers might rise when the government orders a new jet). The top five defense-sensitive industries are ship and boat building, facilities support services, aerospace product and parts manufacturing, scientific research and development services and electronic instruments manufacturing (which includes companies that make navigational instruments, for example).

Here’s a look at the monthly change in employment in these defense-sensitive industries, shown at an annualized percentage growth rate, versus all other industries:

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Numbers are seasonally adjusted, and change is expressed at an annual rate. May is the most recent month for which seasonally adjusted data are available for the smaller defense-sensitive industries. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Numbers are seasonally adjusted, and change is expressed at an annual rate. May is the most recent month for which seasonally adjusted data are available for the smaller defense-sensitive industries.

As you can see, in the last few months, the defense-sensitive industries have been shedding jobs, while the rest of the country’s employers have been adding jobs over all. The trends for the previous months are noisy, but if you smooth them out, it looks as if the defense-sensitive industries and the other industries were both doing about equally well, with the exception of a huge downward spike in employment in the defense-sensitive industries around the time of the summer 2011 debt ceiling crisis.

If you suspect that you are the victim of Bank Fraud, do not hesitate to email or call please contact The Resolution Law Group at (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud