Biggest Loser, Too Big to Fail Edition

Welcome to this week’s episode of the Biggest Loser, Too Big to Fail Bank edition!

Each week we tally up the bad behavior of a banker who took taxpayers’ money in the bailout, only to engage in more obnoxious antics calculated to hurt the very taxpayers whose generosity has guaranteed the bankers’ gazillion dollar annual compensation.

This week we’re featuring a surprise guest, a banker who, in the past, the press fawned over as one of the savviest Wall Street titans, who managed to actually enhance his reputation during and after the 2008 financial collapse.

Please welcome JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, whose bank is the biggest in the nation, with total assets of $2.3 trillion.

He’s not one of those CEOs who presides over a big bank that everybody assumes is a zombie, like Bank of America and Citibank.

No, Dimon and his bank actually made money. He was presumed to know what he was doing. Especially by President Obama, who welcomed him to the White House on numerous occasions.

And Dimon has distinguished himself as the most vocal opponent of bank regulation, which Dimon says could be bad, not just for him, but for America.

Dimon is tops in the public relations game – his reputation wasn’t tarnished even after federal authorities found that his bank was improperly foreclosing on the nation’s veterans and JPMorgan Chase had to pay $45 million two months ago to settle a lawsuit.

Dimon was still invited to the White House and fancy seminars where the attendees hung on his every word.

That was before Dimon admitted last week that one of his top traders had lost $2 billion on trades that were supposed to hedge against other risky bets that the banks’ traders were taking.

These were bets that were supposed to reduce the bank’s risks, not cost it $2 billion.

It’s just the latest evidence that not even the smartest banker, not even Jamie Dimon, who just a couple of weeks ago had dismissed warnings about the bets as a “tempest in a teapot,” has a clue as to how their own firm’s complicated financial engineering works.

Admittedly, the competition for too big to fail biggest loser is tough because the bailed-out bankers’ behavior has been so bad.

Determining the biggest winners is easy, however: the politicians and lobbyists who have collected millions in campaign contributions and lobbying fees from bankers who have successfully crippled efforts at real reform. JP Morgan Chase’s latest losses will no doubt reinvigorate the debate over financial reform, causing the banks to shovel yet more money to the politicians and lobbyists in their effort to make sure that the only true reform – breaking up the big banks, so they’re not too big to fail  – never happens.

Beyond the reality TV theatrics of the political debate, we know who the real losers are – the taxpayers who foot the bill and citizens who are shut out of political debate by the corporations who dominate it with their money.

President Obama and his administration like to brag that taxpayers are making a profit from big chunks of the bailout. But that PR covers up the real story on the bailout: the federal government spent trillions to make the too big to fail banks like JP Morgan Chase bigger and more powerful, not to rein them in.

As Charlie Geist, a Wall Street historian and professor at Manhattan College told Politico, “The guy in the street in 2008 and 2009 was worried about his or her deposits, and now it’s clear they should still be worried.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Derivatives / Martin Column / Too Big To Fail - 05/16/2012

What's the `worst CEO' worth?

Why did the nation’s largest pension fund take a strong stance against Citibank’s excessive CEO compensation, but then turn around and vote for Bank of America’s lesser, but still outrageous, pay plan?

The California pension fund, CalPERS, was among the 92 percent of shareholders who went along with Bank of America in an advisory vote on CEO compensation earlier this week. In Wednesday’s vote, CalPERs did vote for measures that would have required disclosure on B of A’s lobbying activities as well an independent review of the bank’s foreclosure actions.

While But Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan faced noisy protests and pointed questions at the bank’s annual meeting in Charlotte, N.C,  both of those initiatives, like say on pay, were defeated.

In their nonbinding “say on pay” vote, Bank of America shareholders approved a $7 million 2011 pay package for Moynihan. Last month, 55 percent of Citibank’s shareholders, including CalPERS, voted against a 15 percent pay hike for their CEO, Vikram Pandit, who had been getting along on $1 a year in 2009 and 2010 while Citibank floundered.

CalPERS’ position this week is strangely at odds with its previous positions.

In the past, CalPERS has been has been particularly tough on Bank of America. In 2010, it cast an unusual vote against all of the bank’s directors, including then-CEO Ken Lewis.

Asked for comment on Wednesday’s Bank of America CalPERS vote, a spokesperson referred me to the pension board’s 79-page governing principles, specifically the provisions covering executive compensation. CalPERS declined to answer any questions about why the pension fund voted for Moynihan’s compensation fund, but against Citibank’s.

True, Moynihan’s pay is less ($7 million) than Pandit’s ($15 million), but that doesn’t make either of them acceptable, much less understandable, by anything but the tortured logic of the too big to fail, government-coddled banks.

To approve Moynihan’s pay, shareholders had to overlook mountains of evidence that the bank is on the wrong track. Back in October, the bank retreated on a scheme to soak its customers for a $5 a month fee on debit cards after President Obama blasted it. The bank, which Bloomberg News estimates received more than $1.5 billion in federal bailout aid, has repeatedly been the target of criticism for underperforming in voluntary government loan modification programs. Earlier this year, B of A was among the big banks that settled foreclosure fraud charges with the feds and states attorney general. Though it was touted as $25 billion settlement, it actually only cost the banks $5 billion. But the bank fraud it highlighted was real.

Richard Eskow of Campaign For America’s Future outlined Moynihan’s dark career trajectory, from B of A general counsel to head of its retail division to CEO, while the bank completed its disastrous $2.5 billion acquisition of slimy subprime lending king Countrywide. When Moynihan joined senior management the bank’s stock traded around $52 a share. Today it trades around $7 or $8 a share.

Tallying the eventual costs of the Countrywide acquisition, Eskow includes a massive $8.4 billion settlement with states over illegal behavior, $600 million to settle a class action suit,  $335 million to settle a discrimination suit and $50 to $55 million for its part of lawsuits against Countrywide’s former CEO.

One bank analyst, Michael Mayo, recently ranked the worst CEOs. Moynihan was at the top of the list (with Citibank’s Pandit not far behind). Mayo cited the stock slide along with the debit card fee debacle and the bank’s failure to stem its foreclosure fraud and mortgage servicing problems.

Eskow hits the nail on the head when he asks: By what standard does Moynihan still have a job, let alone a multimillion-dollar salary?

And by what standard does he merit a vote of confidence by CalPERS, which less than a month earlier had taken a strong stand against excessive pay for another failed bank executive, Pandit?

Especially after the pension fund’s chief investment fund officer, Joe Dear, vowed after the Citibank vote to get even more activist. “Excessive CEO pay is not in the interest of the shareowners and not in the interest of companies,” Dear told CNNMoney.

CalPERS has long been an advocate for improved corporate governance, but its credibility has sagged after it suffered staggering losses in the financial collapse and was caught in its own sleazy “pay to play” scandal.

CalPERS’ Bank of America’s vote leaves unanswered questions about the pension fund’s claims to increased activism. Did CalPERS single out Citibank because that was the only too-big-to-fail bank to fail its latest government stress test, as U.S News and World Report suggested?

Or could the vote have something to do with the confidential settlement last November of a lawsuit CalPERS and 15 other institutional investors filed against Bank of America? Could CalPERS officials have agreed to back off their previous hard line against the Bank of America board as part of a secret deal the public will never see?

Of course, we don’t know details – the settlement is sealed.

Was Citibank a publicity-grabbing one-off, or did the pension fund give Bank of America a bye? We’ll have to wait and see just exactly what CalPERS means by activism when it comes to challenging the pampered, powerful titans of the nation’s too big to fail banks.

For now, all we can do is paraphrase the classic film portraying of the lack of accountability of corrupt power, `Chinatown’:

“Forget it Jake, it’s Wall Street.”

 

 

 

 

Bank of America (BoA) / CalPERS / Citibank / Executive Pay / Martin Column - 05/11/2012

The President Aims For the Skyboxes

I keep telling myself I’m going to stop picking on President Obama and his administration because I don’t want to sound like a broken record.

One reader even suggested I might even be giving comfort to the Republicans.

Which, believe me, is not my intention.

But then the president and his people do something so clueless it seems to demand attention.

The latest example is the news that his campaign is contemplating moving the final extravaganza of the Democratic Party convention this summer in Charlotte, Bank of America’s corporate headquarters, to a stadium named for the country’s largest too big to fail bailed out bank.

You know, the one that wanted to charge its customers to use their debit cards, before the huge public outcry stopped them. Even the president slammed the bank’s debit card debacle. I wrote about some of the bank’s numerous other fiascoes here.

Now, the president and his campaign need to switch to the B of A stadium, according to the president’s people, because they need more luxury skyboxes for their big-money donors.

Remember when President Obama stirred the nation on election night in 2008? Speaking before a crowd of 240,000 in a public park in Chicago as well as a huge televised audience, Obama assured the country that “change had come to America.”

In 2008, the president spoke in Grant Park, which has been public space since the 1840s. Bank of America Park is an NFL stadium, home of the Carolina Panthers. They sell the naming rights for millions of dollars a year.  Local residents call it the BofA, or the Vault. Before the name belonged to Bank of America it belonged to the cell phone company Ericsson.

Imagine what a different impression the speech would have made if the president gave it surrounded by advertisements for the country’s banks.

We might have been better prepared for his economic policies if he had. The president has gone from shooting for the stars that night in Grant Park to aiming for the skyboxes.

I’m sure the president’s people will make sure that there are no actual advertisements on display while he speaks. But the symbolism, or optics, couldn’t be more powerful.

If the president and his party want to perform a public service, they should arrange to have the amount Bank of America, has contributed to each of the presidential candidates and their parties up on the scoreboard, along with the amount of bailout money, low-interest loans and loan buyouts the bank received from taxpayers.

If there was room, the party could display the names of its top donors.

If the BofA donations were displayed today, you might wonder why the president didn’t find somebody else’s stadium to give his speech from.

So far, the bank has forked over $126,500 to Romney and a measly $39,024 to the president.

But don’t cry for the president and his party. I’m sure they’ll more than make up the difference in the skyboxes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bank of America (BoA) / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 01/13/2012

The Bank Occupy Couldn't Live Without

Bank of America seems determined to keep providing fuel to keep the Occupy movement going strong.

You probably recall the bank’s plan to soak its customers by charging them to use their debit cards, which was withdrawn after a torrent of bad press.

Clearly, all is not happy in Bank of Americaland, where the stock has dropped about 50 percent from 2010 levels. Despite being propped up by millions in taxpayer help as well as by Warren Buffet, the bank remains in so much trouble that in September, the bank announced plans to lay off 40,000 employees, mainly in its consumer division.

Who needs those consumers anyway?

It’s not just the bank’s lowly employees that are losing their jobs. A couple of top executives are leaving too, but the bank made sure to cushion the pain of their leaving with millions of dollars in severance and benefits.

The bank was also forced to cut back one of its most prized activities last year, spending a paltry $2.2 million on lobbying last year, down from nearly $5 million before the financial collapse.

You may not have heard about the bank’s latest effort to keep the protestors busy. They’ve decided to put the squeeze on another bunch of customers, this time small-businesses.

Several small-business owners told the Los Angeles Times is now forcing them to pay their balances in full, instead of on a monthly basis, as they used to. This change, the business owners say, could wipe them out.

Meanwhile, a firm that helps small businesses get loans calls Bank of America’s level of small-business lending “a disgrace for the largest bank in the country”.

Ami Kassar, CEO and founder of MultiFunding, says Bank of America ranks 6,128 out of 6,800 based on its small-business lending.

Three years after the financial collapse, Wall Street is still a dysfunctional mess, providing little help for Main Street. Meanwhile, our political leaders, for the most part, show no inclination to correct the mistakes that have gotten us here.

 

 

Bank of America (BoA) / Martin Column - 01/05/2012

We the Fee

I couldn’t find any comment from the Republican presidential candidates on one of the most compelling financial events of the last week: Verizon’s virtually instant reversal of its $2 fee on people who pay their wireless bills over the phone or online.

Nor apparently did the White House have anything to say, even though the Federal Communication Commission’s announcement that it was “concerned” about the fee no doubt factored into Verizon’s decision. The FCC, once the cell phone industry’s best friend in Washington, D.C., has morphed into something actually looking like a consumer protection agency under Obama. It also killed the AT&T – T-Mobil merger that would have destroyed competition in the wireless marketplace and led to vastly higher prices and much worse service. The President certainly deserves a victory lap – and could use one – but remained incommunicado during his vacation in Hawaii.

Nothing from the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street either.

Fees have become the bane of the American consumer. Airlines make more money from fees than from air fares. Banks replaced tellers with machines and now force their customers to pay $3-$5 for the privilege of accessing their own money. Hotels apply “resort fees” for using the typically impoverished gym. And then there is the coup de grace: the fee you have to pay for getting a bill in the mail – a favorite of the cell phone and health insurance companies.

Undisclosed, or at best hidden in the fine print, these fees cripple consumers’ ability to compare prices. Which becomes a nightmare if you realize you are paying too much and decide to take your business elsewhere: many of these companies require you to stay with them for two years or pay an early termination fee in the hundreds of dollars.

Verizon’s retreat from the fee was a major victory for consumers, who organized a massive internet/Twitter/Facebook protest worthy of Zuccotti Park or Tahrir Square. In November, Bank of America tried to institute a $5 fee for using a debit card – it too was forced to back down in the face of national outrage.

How then to explain the silence of political candidates and public officials? The simple answer harkens back to the Occupy metaphor. The political class doesn’t sweat the small stuff like a $2 fee – they can afford not to. But most Americans can’t afford to throw away two bucks.

Harvey Column / Occupy / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Tea Party - 01/03/2012

Too Big For Justice

The too big to fail banks are still in cahoots with their regulators. That’s the message coming loud and clear from the Justice Department’s highly touted $315 million deal with Bank of America to settle racial discriminatory lending charges.

The charges stem from the actions of Countrywide, the subprime lending giant, which was bought by Bank of America after the housing collapse.

The Justice Department’s publicity offensive, labeling the deal “historic” can’t hide the stink emanating from it. Shame on the New York Times for swallowing the Justice Department’s propaganda whole.

The Justice Department concluded that Countrywide charged 200,000 minority borrowers across the country higher rates and fees than white borrowers. Countrywide also steered 10,000 minority borrowers into costlier subprime loans when similar white borrowers got traditional loans.

While $315 million sounds big in a headline, for the bankers, it’s just part of the cost of doing business, less a punishment than the latest favor in the bailout that doesn’t end.

Bank of America, which received $45 billion in bailout funds, admits no wrongdoing in the deal. Victims would get between $1,000 and $1,600 apiece under the deal.

The deal also allows Bank of America to hire its own monitor to keep track of whether the bankers live up to their Justice Department agreement.

Regulators typically whine that they just don’t have the resources to take on the banks at trial.

Regulators argue that they could never get their targets to settlements if they had to wring admissions of wrongdoing from their targets, because those admissions would be used against those targets by other litigants in future lawsuits.

Without the settlements, the crack Justice Department lawyers would be forced to, horror of horrors, try their case in court.

The reasonable response from taxpayers should be: So what? Life is hard. Do your job, which is to hold lawbreakers accountable, not make their lives easier.

The Bank of America deal is only the latest to highlight the lower standard of justice prosecutors have applied to banks. Prosecutors have become part of the government’s team whose main goal Is propping up the banks. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has yet to come up with a decent, functioning program to stem the ongoing fraud in foreclosures, or to help the substantial numbers of homeowners facing foreclosure.

According to news reports, the Justice Department has another six discriminatory lending investigations cooking. This agency would be a good target for future actions

The Bank of America deal also highlights why a strong Occupy movement is needed, outside the traditional political system: neither party, nor the president, will fight for one of the most basic notions of democracy: that lawbreakers, especially the most powerful, should not receive favorable treatment from authorities.

You can read a slightly more sympathetic rundown of the Bank of America deal here, a more skeptical take here.

 

 

Bank of America (BoA) / Martin Column / Too Big To Fail - 12/22/2011

The Real "Entitlements"

For most of us, the Wall Street housing bubble popped in 2008, with painful consequences.

But for those at the top of the nation’s too big to fail banks, the party keeps rocking, even though their institutions are still in trouble and wouldn’t even exist without taxpayers’ generosity.

Take for example that wild and crazy region known as Bank of Americaland, where dwells one of the country’s biggest and sickest banks.

It’s basically never recovered from the financial collapse, which, in Bank of America’s case included a nasty hangover induced by swallowing up the king of sleazy subprime lending, Countrywide, as well as fallen investment banking titan Merrill Lynch (labeled in 2009 by the Wall Street Journal the “$50 billion deal from Hell – no link).

Here’s how Bank of America has squandered its share of the bailout: engaging in a pattern of improper foreclosures on military families and spending millions in campaign contributions and lobbying to fight regulation of its business. Most recently, the bank imposed a new $60 annual debit card on its customers.

After all, the bank’s president, Brian Moynihan, insisted, Bank of America “has a right make a profit,” which occasionally will have to be guaranteed by U.S. taxpayers.

The company is doing so poorly that it’s going to have lay off 30,000 of its employees, some of whom will spend their waning days training their lower paid, outsourced replacements. But the company isn't doing so poorly that it didn’t manage to tuck away $11 million to the ease of parting for two of its top executives.

After all, they’re executives of a floundering bank that’s made a series of poor business decisions. So they’re “entitled” to get even more money on top of their fat salaries.

Across the political spectrum, it’s become fashionable to belittle programs like Social Security and Medicaid as “entitlements,” turning that into a dirty word. But like so much about our current, out of touch with reality political debate, it’s completely upside down.

The way the debate has been framed by our political leaders and media, they’re only “entitlements” if they’re claimed by the 99 percent of Americans who have suffered in the collapse of the middle-class and economic meltdown.

We need a crackdown on “entitlements” all right, but on the real  entitlements, the ones claimed by the top 1 percent, like those Bank of America lays claim to, scooping up millions for its executives while gouging its customers and buying our political system through lobbying and campaign contributions.

But Bank of America won’t give up these entitlements without a fight, because the bankers believe that these are the benefits they’ have a right to, along with their profits.

Bank of America (BoA) / Martin Column - 10/13/2011

"Wall Street Is Our Main Street" NOT

New York's Attorney General is under pressure from banks and, sadly, the federal government, to agree to a sweetheart settlement that will let the financial industry off the hook for its mishandling of mortgages and foreclosures, today's New York Times reports.

As my colleague Marty Berg has reported, the settlement, negotiated by other state Attorney Generals, is a disaster for consumers who got screwed by the financial industry that taxpayers had to spend hundreds of billions to bail out three years ago. Most of the banks are doing great now, while many Americans are barely hanging on by their fingernails.

The  Obama Administration - from the Justice Department to the Department of Housing and Urban Development – is pushing NY AG Eric Schneiderman to agree to an $20 billion settlement that would actually prevent people from further litigation against Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo. It's been widely criticized as a sell-out. Schneiderman's also pissed off Wall Street for trying to scuttle another settlement that would have shortchanged investors.

A member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York told the Times "Wall Street is our Main Street... we have to make sure we are doing everything we can to support them," that is, of course, "unless they are doing something indefensible." Yeah, right.

There haven't been many heroes over the last few years willing to take on Wall Street on behalf of the silent majority of Americans who can't make campaign contributions. The New York AG is one, and he deserves to know we appreciate his efforts. If you agree, email his people: NYAG.Pressoffice@oag.state.ny.us – or tweet him @AGSchneiderman.

 

 

 

Action / Foreclosures / Harvey Column - 08/22/2011

Lame Ducks, Bogus Excuses

Sen. Chris Dodd brought the big banks back to Capitol Hill Tuesday to hear more about the foreclosure mess.

By the end of the day Dodd, who is retiring from the Senate after presiding over the watering down of financial reform, had a novel response: he called for an investigation.

By now nearly federal agency as well as every state attorney general is already investigating the scandal, after banks disclosed the shoddy record-keeping they were using in the foreclosure process.

How hard any of these investigations is really digging is an open question. But the more the merrier, according to Dodd. He suggested it would be a first test for the systemic risk council, which was set up under the financial reform law that bears his name, along with his House colleague Barney Frank.

The systemic risk council will be made up of members of the Obama administration, led by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. The administration has already brushed off the foreclosure scandal, so it’s highly unlikely the council would come back later and reverse its assessment.

Meanwhile the congressional bailout monitor, now headed by former Delaware senator Ted Kaufman, issued a stern warning about the consequences of the foreclosure scandal in its monthly report. “If document irregularities prove to be pervasive and, more importantly, throw into question ownership of not only foreclosed properties but also pooled mortgages, the result could be significant harm to the financial stability,” the monitor wrote.

Not to worry, the big banks keep reassuring us. It’s just a matter of some sloppy paperwork.

The big banks’ credibility, to put it politely, is not so hot. For example, Bank of America insists that they would be doing better modifying mortgages if not for the investors standing in the way. So the investigative journalism outfit Pro Publica took a look and found out their explanation was bogus.

Around the Web / Bank of America (BoA) / Martin Column - 11/17/2010

BIPARTISANSHIP FOR BIG BANKS

With 2 weeks to go to the midterm elections, President Obama and the Republicans have found an issue they can agree on: if they just do nothing, the foreclosure scandal will go away.

They’re betting that the use of robo-signers to process foreclosure documents without actually reading them will just amount to a pile of sloppy paperwork.

They’re betting that blaming borrowers will trump public outrage over banks holding themselves above the rule of law that states they have to prove that they own a mortgage note before they can foreclose.

You can understand the Republicans’ position; they argue that the government has no responsibility and is only capable of making any problem worse.

President Obama’s approach can’t be much of a surprise either, after leaving his financial policy in the hands of Wall Street apologists, fighting the most robust financial reform, providing a failed foreclosure relief program and not raising a finger to help when banks opposed his own proposal and not using his bully pulpit to push it. The president, despite his occasional bursts of rhetoric, has never assumed the role of tough regulator and reformer he promised on the campaign trail, preferring to act as the big bank’s collaborator-in-chief.

The president’s name may not be on the ballot November 2. But many of the Democrats who are facing the voters advocate a more robust response: a foreclosure moratorium while the very real legal issues are sorted out.

The Obama administration has taken to sending signals to the voters, hoping that might allay their worries. The feds announced the formation of that entity designed to show concern while guaranteeing that no action will be taken for the foreseeable future: a task force.

A number of banks had started their own voluntary moratoriums on some foreclosures. But two of those banks, Ally and Bank of America, have already canceled them. Meanwhile all 50 state attorney generals have announced their own investigations into the mess.

Despite the efforts of bank apologists to minimize it, the foreclosure debacle continues to shape up as a series of nasty legal battles, with a dramatic, unsettling impact on the housing market.

Opponents of a foreclosure moratorium portray it as a way of giving homes to people who haven’t been making their mortgage payments. But that’s a phony argument. A moratorium will not end up causing anybody who hasn’t been paying their mortgage to own a house they didn’t pay for.

As far as borrowers living in their houses for free, let’s be clear: that’s happening now, and it’s not the fault of any moratorium. It’s happening as a result of the banks’ own chaotic approach to foreclosure, often not wanting to take possession of property that has lost its value or not hiring enough staff to manage the properties properly.

This is the terrible irony about the banks’ fear-mongering. While they’re always predicting awful consequences to any action that limits their own power, the banks create the consequences all by themselves, or with the help of their willing collaborators.

Bank of America (BoA) / Foreclosures / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 10/20/2010