One Reporter's Fight With the Fed

I didn’t know Mark Pittman, a reporter at Bloomberg News. We emailed a few times about the landmark lawsuit he instigated challenging Federal Reserve secrecy. I do know that Pittman is a genuine hero in a story which has very few.

He died too young last year, at 52. From what I gather, Pittman combined rumpled style, intellectual firepower and fierce persistence. The fight he waged to get the Fed to open its books serves as a lasting legacy and a strong reminder that one savvy, dogged person can make a real difference.

Earlier this month, Pittman’s employer, Bloomberg News Service, won yet another round in its fight with the Fed.

Federal Reserve / Martin Column - 03/31/2010

Letting Go Of Principals

After more than a year of ineffective attempts to stem the foreclosure crisis, the Obama administration this week may be edging toward acknowledging reality.

This sick housing market isn’t going to heal itself, and won’t get better with the band-aids they’ve applied so far. The stakes are high not just for the homeowners: without some stability in housing, the rest of the economy can’t heal either.

The administration announced today that it would begin to encourage banks to write down the principal when modifying borrower’s underwater mortgages. Bank of America also said this week it would tiptoe into principal reduction.

Time, and follow-through will tell whether the administration intends the principal write-downs as another band-aid or something more substantial. Time will also tell whether the administration will fight for write-downs or wilt in the face of the inevitable backlash. It’s also important to note that all of the administration’s foreclosure initiatives rely on the voluntary cooperation of lenders, with modest incentives paid by the government.

There is every reason for healthy skepticism of the administration and the banks’ ability to tackle the problem. As John Taylor, president of the National Reinvestment Coalition testified before a congressional panel this week: “We rush to give banks tax breaks, but we dawdle to help homeowners who through no fault of their own lost their jobs because of the economic crisis or bought defective loans that caused the economic crisis.”

Foreclosures / Martin Column - 03/26/2010

Don’t Dump the Government, Sue It!

When our government institutions fail us through incompetence or corruption – the financial collapse being Exhibit A – what is the solution? That’s the question I posed a few weeks ago.

The Tea Partyers increasingly seem to advocate getting rid of government altogether, or at least the federal government. They (and the health insurance industry) are getting a lot of mileage these days by arguing that the Wall Street debacle shows government cannot be trusted to regulate health care. It’s not a crazy argument, but their solution is.

When government fails, the answer is not to get rid of government, but to force it to work better. How?

To start, citizens should be given “standing to sue” the federal government. It might surprise you to learn that the courts have often rejected the right of citizens to go to court to enforce state and federal laws. When I worked for Congress Watch, the D.C.-based lobbying group founded by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, back in the late 1970s, one of our top goals was to make sure that when Congress passed a law, no matter the subject, it gave Americans the right to sue if a federal agency failed to enforce that law, conducted itself in an arbitrary manner, spent taxpayer money improperly, or if the law was unconstitutional. We were often unsuccessful, defeated by lobbyists for big business who hoped to later subvert the agencies with impunity. Nader has written frequently about this tool of democracy, and it’s also covered in an excellent biography of the Nader consumer organizations by David Bollier that is now available online.

Can you imagine how much economic damage could have been  avoided if citizens had been able to sue the federal agencies that unilaterally stopped regulating the Money Industry over the last decade?

A lot of Americans don’t like litigation – because they have never seen how it can work to protect their interests as consumers or taxpayers. But suing the government is a crucial, even life-saving right that is part of the law in some states, including California. For example, my colleagues at Consumer Watchdog and I sued the California Department of Managed Health Care when it suddenly started permitting HMOs to evade state laws and deny autistic children medically-necessary treatments. The agency’s misconduct began after intense behind-the-scenes lobbying by the heath insurance companies. The trial will be held this fall in a Los Angeles Superior Court and based on a recent preliminary ruling by the judge, we are looking forward to forcing this renegade agency to follow the law.

No doubt the prospect of litigation against the government raises fears of wasted taxpayer resources. But court rules allow judges to block truly frivolous cases. And I believe the costs would be more than offset by the benefits to Americans.

Standing to sue is one of many proposals for systemic reform that you don’t hear much about, because they aren’t sexy. They involve changes to the internal mechanisms of government. But if they were adopted, government would operate far more effectively and with much greater accountability to the public.

Harvey Column - 03/23/2010

What Would Pecora Do?

There have been lots of positive comparisons between Phil Angelides and Ferdinand Pecora, who led an earlier investigation of Wall Street excesses that led to the Great Depression.

Pecora was a no-holds barred former prosecutor who ran his hearings with meticulous preparation and theatrical flair, and his work galvanized public support for widespread reforms.

Some have been impressed by Angelides’ reputation as a reformer from his days as California treasurer, when he tried to use the power of the state’s investments for socially worthy causes and implemented some protections for shareholders. Angelides was widely praised after public hearings earlier this year for his understanding of high finance and his scolding of the head of Goldman-Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, comparing him to a used –car dealer.

I’ve been less impressed by Angelides, who doesn’t seem to have a grasp on the opportunity he has to marshal support for real financial reform. And he’s too cozy with a Democratic leadership that’s been soft on Wall Street in the wake of the financial meltdown.

I’m also suspicious of Angelides, the politician and former real estate developer who unsuccessfully ran for governor against Arnold Schwarzenegger, because of his close ties to the Democratic Party elite. In addition, I’m wary of the impact of Angelides' main job running a coalition promoting green technologies. That’s certainly a laudable goal, but Angelides and his Apollo Alliance aren’t going to get very far without lobbying the Obama administration and the Democrats, who would not be happy with a hard-hitting report.
Whatever drama Angelides manages to muster at any given moment, I’m concerned that his multiple roles and background will cause him to soft-pedal his investigation. Those concerns were only heightened after Angelides surfaced as part of a curious SEC report last week that cautions firms about “pay to play” in the state investment business.
According to the SEC, when Angelides was running for treasurer in 2002 he hit up a top J.P. Morgan official to co-chair a fundraising event. It wasn’t just an honorary position. The price tag for the co-chairmanship? $10,000.

According to the report, the official didn’t co-chair the event but donated $1,000 to Angelides” campaign personally ­– and helped raise $8,000 more. In asking other J.P. Morgan brass to contribute to Angelides, the official noted that that the state of California was an important client for the firm.

Just how important became clear in the next couple of years, when J.P Morgan received about $37 million in fees from the state on more than 50 bond offerings totaling $15.8 billion – overseen by Angelides as state treasurer.

In the SEC’s curious take on the matter, neither Angelides nor J.P. Morgan is accused of doing anything improper.  Angelides isn’t even mentioned by name. The agency merely uses its report to caution finance officials about not running afoul of SEC regulations.

OK, so the SEC doesn’t think Angelides did anything wrong soliciting funds from J.P. Morgan and then giving them the state's business. But the report serves as a bitter reminder that those who we’re counting on to get to the bottom of the financial meltdown are steeped in the toxic brew of cash and politics that has seeped into the core of our government.

I hope I’m proven wrong about Angelides; that his intimacy with this unseemly world has left him with a sense of sustained outrage and not empathy for it.  But it will take more than a few zingers to convince me. I mean, let’s be serious. Would Ferdinand Pecora have solicited money from J.P Morgan? Not much chance. After Pecora grilled the son of the legendary banker, J.P. Morgan, Jr. described the investigator as having “the manners of an assistant prosecuting attorney who is trying to convict a horse thief.”

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission / Martin Column - 03/23/2010

Around the Web: On to Financial Reform

With the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership declaring historic victory on health care reform, the next big item could be fixing the troubled banking system.

It could make the battle over health care look like a walk in the park. The financial industry, Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats are all lined up to kill or weaken it.

They’ve already succeeded in getting Sen. Chris Dodd to weaken his reform proposal, which the Senate Banking Committee passed Monday on a 13 to 10 party line vote. Here’s the Atlantic’s take, including what Dodd had to say Monday.

Getting Dodd to soften his stance probably wasn’t that tough. He’s traditionally a staunch ally of Wall Street and only took a strong stance when it looked he was going to have to face angry voters. But then Dodd dropped out of the race, became a lame duck and returned to form as the financial industry’s best friend.

For example, Dodd has abandoned support for a strong independent financial consumer protection agency, instead placing it within the Federal Reserve, which has ignored consumers in the past even though it had authority to protect them. In National Journal’s Clive Crook’s assessment, Dodd’s proposal will enshrine “too big to fail” banks in law rather than fix the problem.

Now the full Senate will consider it. Here’s Barry Ritholtz’s analysis of what should be on the final bill.

Around the Web / Consumer Financial Protection Agency - 03/22/2010

One Would Hope

The head of President Obama’s Security and Exchange Commission went before Congress Wednesday to wring her hands about how the Lehman fiasco “raises serious concerns” about the effectiveness of post-Enron reforms.

“One would hope,” SEC chair Mary Schapiro told a congressional committee wanly, that the post-Enron Sarbanes-Oxley Act “would have prevented this kind of conduct.”

Eight years after Congress passed reforms that were supposed to prevent another Enron or WorldCom scandal, the Lehman mess reminds us how the government regulators and the accountants that are supposed to be vigilant watchdogs against destructive, deceptive bookkeeping continue to fail. They have remained in cahoots to ensure that the financial titans can ignore the rules and then evade the consequences for their bad and even fraudulent decisions.

According to the bankruptcy trustee’s scathing but sober 2,200 page report, Lehman used a financial maneuver known as Repo 105s, manipulating their financial reports disguise its bad debt from investors and the public as the company’s condition worsened before it finally went bankrupt, triggering the worst economic collapse since the Depression. The Repo 105 transactions secretly moved billions of dollars of debts off of Lehman’s books.

One would hope that President Obama and the Democrats would finally recognize  in the Lehman debacle that while Wall Street chieftains like Lehman CEO Richard Fuld may indeed be masters of a universe, it’s an alternate universe far from our own.

In that alternate universe, the bankruptcy trustee’s report detailing his company’s accounting shenanigans actually absolves Fuld of responsibility for his company’s demise. He told the New York Post the report showed he did nothing illegal.

After all, Fuld was CEO, way too busy to be bothered with details like how his company was hiding $50 billion worth of bad debt. In Fuld’s alternative universe, the Sarbanes-Oxley requirement that CEO’s sign off on the accuracy of their company’s financial statements didn’t apply to him.

In that alternate universe, when a court-appointed bankruptcy states that Fuld “was at least grossly negligent,” that amounts to getting a seal of approval.

Though Fuld’s company declared bankruptcy, his own fortunes did not suffer in any sense that someone forced to live in this universe, rather than that alternative one, would recognize as suffering. Between 2000 and 2008, he took home $484 million. He left with a $22 million retirement package. In fairness to Fuld, that’s a paltry sum by Wall Street standards for the head of a failed firm. By comparison, Merrill Lynch’s Richard Prince was paid $166 million before he left.

Also in fairness to Fuld, he was not the only one whose conduct was criticized in the Lehman report. But in Fuld’s alternate universe, when the trustee found that Lehman’s accounting firm, Ernst & Young, failed to show professional standards of care, that amounts to an award for public service.

In that alternate universe, the little people are just incapable of understanding why it’s better for Lehman to have concealed its debt to make the firm look healthier while it was in fact going down the toilet in 2008.

And taking a big chunk of our economy with it.

While I and most others who are not Richard Fuld find grounds for at least a thorough  criminal investigation rather than vindication in the Lehman trustee’s temperate prose, Fuld does have one point.

Everything that Lehman did to cook its books was done under the noses of federal regulators. So, Fuld insists that everything Lehman did was hunky-dory.

One would hope that the president and the Democrats would recognize that back here in the universe the rest of us live in, millions are suffering because of the deceit, arrogance and cluelessness of the bankers who seem to have escaped the meltdown with their wealth and power intact.

One would hope that if President Obama and the Democrats were serious about real reform, they would be making the Lehman report Exhibit One in an effort to discredit the financial lobbyists and their pals in Congress who are foiling efforts at sensible, robust regulation.

One would hope that the president and the Democrats would be determined to correct the mistakes of the past and not repeat them. One would hope the Lehman report would cure, once and for all, the president and the Democrats’ stunning lack of curiosity about how the financial industry blew up the universe we all live in. One would hope that the president and the Democrats wouldn’t find it acceptable to live in a universe where its masters aren’t accountable for their actions, but the rest of us are.

Executive Pay / Lehman / Martin Column / Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - 03/19/2010

Around the Web: Rewarding Fed Failure

Bottom line on the new Chris Dodd reform proposal: much watered down from his earlier proposal and maybe even weaker than the weak House bill.

Here’s the summary from A New Way Forward: “The bill contains no real solution to too-big-to-fail, no real enforcement guarantees, the bad guys are off the hook, the financial system will continue to be as big and dangerous and full of risk taxpayers will likely own. Dodd made a few good steps forward and major steps backwards”. The rest of their analysis is here.

From the Atlantic Wire, a solid roundup of assessments. The takeaway: Too many concessions to the big banks, and it is still faces many obstacles to passage. And who exactly besides Chris Dodd and Wall Street thinks it’s a great idea to house consumer protection within the Federal Reserve? Only last year, Reuters reminds us, Dodd was labeling the Fed “an abymsal failure."

But Elizabeth Warren, the congressional bailout monitor who has campaigned aggressively for strong reform, including an independent agency to protect financial consumers, offered a lukewam endorsement of Dodd’s plan.

I’ll give Alan Sherter the last word. When Dodd says that he doesn’t have the votes for an independent financial consumer protection agency, what he really means is that “lawmakers have more to gain by advocating the interests of banks than those of consumers.”

Around the Web / Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Derivatives / Executive Pay - 03/15/2010

AIG Founder Asks “Terrorists” for Help

One of the particularly infuriating aspects of the financial crisis is the unapologetic hypocrisy of the Wall Street titans.

These devotees of free markets didn’t hesitate to grab the taxpayer life preservers blithely tossed to them by the U.S. Treasury when they were about to go under. Taxpayers never got a “thank you,” much less “I’m sorry,” from these geniuses who nearly destroyed our economy.

But one among them has set himself apart. I refer to Maurice Greenberg, the founder of American International Group, or AIG. In its prime, AIG was possibly the largest insurance company on the planet, selling everything from life insurance to environmental liability coverage for big corporations.

Greenberg was used to the royal treatment accorded the billionaires at the top of the Money Industry. He pulled in $20 million in 2004 from AIG and an off-the-books executive slush fund the company setup for its top execs.

Like many of his peers at that level, Greenberg was a major player in American politics. AIG and Greenberg’s charities donated tens of millions of dollars to grease the wheels in Washington and keep his company free of regulation.

But unlike many of his insurance brethren, who had figured out that they were usually better off keeping their thoughts to themselves, Greenberg never hesitated to pronounce his views, especially when he thought it was good for business. So Greenberg put himself and his behemoth insurance company at the forefront of “tort reform” – an insurance industry inspired propaganda effort to blame trial lawyers and personal injury lawsuits (“torts”) for higher insurance premiums.

“Tort reform” conveniently diverted public attention from the fact that insurance companies were raising rates in order to offset investment losses in the stock market  - often while friendly state insurance regulators looked the other way. There was another benefit, too. The “solution” advocated by the insurance companies was to restrict the rights of Americans to have their day in court. This usually involved capping damages or attorneys fees, both of which enabled insurance companies to pay out less in claims, and keep more money for themselves. Too many willing state legislatures fell for this trick, though California voters ultimately got it right and capped the insurance industry’s premiums.

Back in 2004, when George Bush and the Corporate Republican Establishment were firmly in control of Washington, “tort reform” was high on their list of priorities. In fact, they expanded their attack, targeting the class action lawsuits that consumers often bring against corporations. Greenberg was a particularly vociferous cheerleader for the push to limit the ability of injured or ripped-off consumers to undertake a class action.

Referring to legislation that would restrict consumers’ ability to bring a class action lawsuit, Reuters reported in 2004 that "Greenberg likened the battle over reforming class action litigation to the White House's 'war on terror.’” Reuters quoted Greenberg as saying, “It's almost like fighting the war on terrorists….I call the plaintiff's bar terrorists."

That was 2004. A year later, Greenberg himself was in a world of legal trouble (PDF). He was ousted in 2005 after an investigation by New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer found that AIG had engineered a series of sham transactions intended to make AIG’s financial picture look better. In 2006, AIG paid $1.6 billion to settle a variety of charges.

Then came the financial collapse. AIG was at the forefront of the form of Wall Street gambling known as “credit default swaps,” under which AIG would sell insurance on packages of subprime mortgages known as “derivatives.” Though long gone, Greenberg remained AIG’s biggest shareholder, so he lost billions when AIG’s credit default swaps went into default and the Bush Administration took over the company in exchange for a taxpayer bailout that now totals $182 billion.

Ever since then, Greenberg’s been insisting on justice… for himself.

Demanding an investigation of the government’s decision to seize AIG, Greenberg suggested “class-action lawsuits that put people under oath in depositions and discovery.”

A fervent deregulator, Greenberg now blames the federal government for failing to regulate his industry. “I don’t recall any regulator coming to look at the [insurance] holding companies, and if they did, it was a very superficial job,” according to a report on a speech Greenberg gave last year.

In a speech in February, Greenberg had this to say about improving America’s judicial system: “We go around the world preaching about the importance of the rule of law…. We better take a look at America and make sure we have the rule of law here first.”

AIG / Harvey Column - 03/15/2010

Around the Web: Will the Dodd Abide?

The fight for financial reform enters a new stage this week when Sen. Chris Dodd launches his latest version of his proposal. The New York Times highlights the senator’s weak nods in the direction of granting shareholders more power: giving them “advisory” votes on executive pay and the ability to nominate board members.

Dodd’s earlier proposal was considered stronger than the House reform bill, which was strongly supported by consumer advocates and opposed by bankers and the Obama administration. Dodd is a long-time ally of financial and insurance industries who have backed him over the years. But those close ties were undermining him politically after the financial crisis, so he was attempting to forge the appropriate image of a tough politician. Then Dodd dropped out of his tough reelection bid and he began to back off from some of his positions, like support for a strong and independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency. His effort to negotiate a bipartisan bill broke down and now some are reporting that Dodd has returned to some of the tough positions he had advocated. Here’s Calculated Risk’s breakdown of the proposal Dodd is about to unveil. Though it’s hard to imagine the push for financial reform going any slower, that’s what Republicans want, the Washington Post reports.

At the same time, the American Bankers Association meets in Washington this week, Business Week reports. They are ready to battle any attempt at greater consumer financial protections. They’ll defeat it outright if they can, and fight to water it down if they can’t kill it.

Around the Web / Consumer Financial Protection Agency - 03/14/2010