Underwater secrets

Local governments'  have often stirred controversy with their use of eminent domain. While it's supposed to be used for the public good, too often it has been used to profit developers, while the public just feels ripped off.

Still, the idea of local governments using eminent domain as a tool to stabilize home prices in some of Southern California’s hardest hit communities is an intriguing one.

It’s the kind of bold action that’s been missing in the government’s limp response to the foreclosure crisis.

But the scheme that’s unfolding in Southern California’s Inland Empire, rated as the one of the most underwater in the nation, is a step in the wrong direction.

It smacks of politically-connected high-finance types, boasting of their access to politicians as their “secret formula,” wheeling and dealing in secret.

A san Francisco venture capital firm is cooking up a scheme in San Bernardino to use the government’s eminent domain power to seize some underwater mortgages from investors who own them and have been unwilling to offer borrowers principal reduction that would allow them to stay in their homes.

The firm’s idea, apparently, is to for San Bernardino County and other local government’s form a joint powers authority that would allow those government to act together to use eminent domain to seize mortgage loans, not the property, of underwater homeowners who were not behind on their payments at “market value.”

Then, according to the scheme, the firm would find investors to issue new mortgages to the homeowners at that lower, more affordable “market value.”]

The plan was hatched by San Francisco-based Mortgage Resolution Partners. That’s the firm originally headed by Phil Angelides, former state treasurer, real estate developer and venture capitalist best known recently for leading a congressionally-appointed investigation into the financial crisis.

After issuing a report highly critical of the banks, Angelides didn’t stump the country to put pressure on authorities to follow up on his report with prosecutions.

He went into the mortgage business himself, swaddling his efforts to make profits from distressed mortgages in good intentions of finding solutions to the foreclosure crisis.

It was Angelides who boasted in a letter to potential investors that his firms’ secret formula was its connections to public officials. Reuters reported that Angelides told potential investors they could generate 20 percent profits.

After Angelides’ involvement in the firm was publicized earlier this year, he stepped aside. Replacing him was Steven Gluckstern, a hedge fund veteran who was one of President Obama’s major bundlers in the 2008 election.

According to published reports, Mortgage Partners would make its profit charging a fee on every mortgage seized. How much will it be paid and how? That hasn’t been disclosed. But according to Naked Capitalism, its sources say that the firm expects to make a 5.5 percent fee on each mortgage ­– paid for by having the government seize the mortgages at a discount and sell them back to the homeowner for a profit.

The most serious general flaw in the scheme is that has unfolded behind the cloak of confidentiality agreements between government officials and Mortgage Resolution Partners, with no public disclosure or debate on the concept or details, giving the whole deal the stink of a sweetheart deal, not a solution.

When the Riverside Press-Enterprise sought written records of communication between county officials and the mortgage firm, they were told there were none.

The use of eminent domain is highly controversial because it has often been justified as benefiting the public when it ends up benefiting real estate developers. In this case, investors who own the mortgage loans have already weighed in opposing the plan. Though the plan’s backers say eminent domain has been used to seize intangible goods, they acknowledge it hasn’t been used to seize mortgage loans before. So investors are likely to challenge the process in court.

But I wouldn’t shed too many tears for the investors, who have stood in the way of principal reductions or any other means of helping homeowners.

Another question raised by the current plan: why is only Mortgage Resolutions Partners being considered as a partner for the joint powers authority? The idea should be put out for an open bid. Maybe other firms would have even better plans and offer a better deal.

And there are plenty of other issues surrounding the plan. Walter Hackett is a former banker who is now lead attorney in the Legal Aid Riverside’s branch near San Bernardino. While he likes the idea of using eminent domain as a tool to stabilize home prices,

he questions why eminent domain would be used to seize mortgage loans – which are more difficult to set a price on – rather than property itself. Seizing the property and paying the investor for the fair market value of the property, rather than the mortgage, would extinguish the old mortgage and the new investors could then issue a new one to the borrower at the market value.

Hackett also questions why eminent domain would be used only on mortgages deemed current, so-called performing loans, rather than including properties that have already fallen into foreclosure that are still owned by investors. “Former owners, or others might be able to afford reduced payments once the properties are priced at market value, rather than at the price of the underwater mortgage,” Hackett said.

Hackett’s unusual background, having been a banker and represented homeowners in foreclosure, would be invaluable in redesigning such a proposal. It should not be left only to the venture capitalists and the county politicians.

I’m not suggesting that local governments shouldn’t find a way to use eminent domain or find other creative solutions to help struggling homeowners. But we also need to stop assuming that when the financiers and politicians go into the back room, they come out with something that’s in our interest – even if they say it is.

We learned from the bailout and the government’s subsequent coddling of the financial industry how the secrecy and lack of transparency undermine trust in both our financial system and our government.

However inconvenient to the bankers and hedge fund honchos, such proposals must be hammered out with full public participation and debate. We don’t need any more secret formulas” brewed with corporate cash and political connections in back rooms with you and me kept out.

 

 

Foreclosures / Martin Column - 07/12/2012

Why the Supreme Court Wants to Kill Universal Health Care

Name the most popular federal program of all time, and you’ll understand why the Republican Supreme Court wants to kill health care reform before it gets going in 2014.

It’s Social Security, of course. Part of FDR’s New Deal, Congress enacted it in 1935 to provide insurance against the vicissitudes of old age, poverty and unemployment, all of which were made more horrific by the Great Depression.

Social Security retirement benefits are based on an individual mandate, just like the new health care law is. Workers and employers are required to pay taxes into the system now, to cover them later. You can’t have a solvent health or retirement insurance program if participation is voluntary, because no one will contribute until they need the benefits – and then they can’t pay for them, as I’ve noted. Social Security, like the health care law, is a universal system - everyone has to be part of it – both getting the benefits and paying for its cost.

Due to a limited grasp of their own history, most Americans don’t realize how similar today's campaign against universal health care is to the one waged against Social Security.

Republican lawmakers bitterly opposed (PDF) FDR’s measure – and still do, though these days they cloak their hostility behind the hysterical and unfounded argument that Social Security is about to go bankrupt. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan claimed in 2004 that retirement benefits had to be cut and the system “privatized” or the nation would face an economic disaster (it did four years later, thanks not to Social Security but to Greenspan’s policies).  The Bush Administration concocted a plan to turn over Social Security proceeds to Wall Street, which it claimed would do a better job of investing people’s retirement savings.  Had it succeeded, most of that money would have been lost in the financial crash of 2008.

But the conservatives’ attempts to demolish Social Security have consistently failed. Why? Because Social Security works. Americans support it by huge margins – even Republicans.

Hence the vehemence of the attack on the health care law now. The anti-government forces realize that once Americans begin to receive the benefits of universal health care – no denials for pre-existing conditions, no medical underwriting, no caps on benefits – they won’t want to give them up.

That’s not all.  Under the law passed by Congress, the insurance industry stands to gain the most from the mandate that all Americans buy health insurance. But the experts understand that the program will end up being too expensive – in most states, private insurance companies are going to be able to raise their rates at will.  If this doesn’t kill universal care, it will eventually lead to a single public system just like Social Security.

Last week’s spectacle at the Supreme Court – three days of “hearings,” with some lawyers appointed by the Court itself to argue positions no party had taken – looked more like a political ambush by a legislative body than the supposedly chaste pursuit of constitutional principles.  It’s important to remember that an unelected majority of the U.S. Supreme Court almost nipped Social Security in the bud 75 years ago. Pro-industry conservatives on the Court consistently rejected FDR’s proposals to provide Americans relief from the New Deal, as I explained recently.  The Social Security law was considered in danger by FDR’s advisors. Criticism of the Supreme Court became widespread, and FDR began to prepare a plan to add more justices to the nine serving on the high court. Unwilling to provoke a constitutional confrontation that would sully the independence of the judicial branch, the Supreme Court backed down, and upheld the law.

It’s difficult to discern any similar hesitation by the current majority of the Supreme Court, with five of its nine members increasingly unabashed ideologues willing to rewrite the Constitution. Think about the Court’s decision to interfere with the Florida vote count and award the 2000 election to George Bush. Consider its 2011 decision in Concepcion v. AT&T, where five Republican appointees determined that “arbitration clauses” inserted in the fine print of virtually every contract between a giant corporation and consumers can rob people of their right to their day in court.  And then there’s the infamous 2010 Citizens United case, in which the five ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of free speech, protected by the First Amendment. In one fell swoop, the Court disenfranchised the vast majority of Americans who cannot hire their own lobbyist or fund the election of a friendly politician.

On the other hand, yesterday President Obama sent the politicians on the high court a powerfully worded message. Briefly channeling FDR, he said: “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Much is at stake here – more than health care reform itself. Public confidence in government is at record lows. As the financial crash of 2008 confirmed, money has corrupted the electoral process; the wealthy and powerful dictate public policy. The judiciary used to be the only branch of government in which a citizen could take on any person or corporation and be accorded equal stature. When Americans loses their confidence in the integrity of the courts, what is left?

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Supreme Court - 04/03/2012

Purchasing power, One-Percent style

There’s been a good deal of talk about how the Occupy movement “changed the debate in this country” to focus on income inequality.

But while members of Occupy Wall Street skirmished  with police over a patch of ground in lower Manhattan, the members of the country’s top 1 percent bypassed the political debate and have gone back to work wielding their influence in the corridors of power.

It’s been a particularly wrenching patch for the 99 percent, who are excluded from those corridors.

First, Congress this week, with President Obama’s blessing, passed something Republicans misleadingly labeled a JOBS Act, which basically gives a green light for fraud by removing important investor protections under the guise of promoting startups.

Second, Congress has been pushing financial regulators to weaken even further a mild piece of sensible financial regulation that would prevent banks from making risky gambles with their own accounts – the ones guaranteed by you and me as taxpayers. It’s the final coup de grace marginalizing the views of one-time Federal Reserve chair Paul Volcker, for whom the rule is named. Volcker has been a lonely voice among the president’s financial advisers, advocating stronger action to rein in the behavior of the too big to fail banks. Largely ignored by the president, Volcker’s views are getting stomped by Congress and financial regulators.

There is no mystery why we have suffered these setbacks: our political system has been overwhelmed by the power of money. The bankers lobby has swarmed the Capitol to drown any opposition to its views. The bankers have also come with their checkbooks in an election year, and they’re looking to buy whoever is for sale, of whatever party. According to a new report by Public Citizen, politicians who advocated for a weaker Volcker rule got an average of $388,010 in contributions from the financial sector – more than four times as much as politicians advocating to strengthen the rule, who still managed to haul in an average of $96,897 apiece.

Our politicians, insulated by a celebrity-obsessed media and swaddled in Super PAC cash, could care less about the consent of the governed. Republicans have only to wave around their magic wand that makes all problems the fault of government regulation in order to hypnotize their followers, while the Democrats only have to remind their followers how scary the Republicans are to keep them in line.

Meanwhile, the Occupy movement, which started with such promise in galvanizing public support against corporate domination of our politics, has splintered into a thousand pieces, wasting precious energy and time in confrontations with police rather than building a broad-shouldered coalition working on many different social and political fronts.

The challenge for Occupy remains the same: building a force that actually includes the members of the 99 percent who have not yet gotten active, who may be still stuck in apathy, cynicism or hopelessness or who may simply not have a perspective that includes social and political action.

The next opportunity is a series of protests planned nationwide for May 1, which has traditionally been a time of action around the immigration rights issue. This year occupiers, labor allies and a variety of community organizations are planning to join their issues. Can we forge a message strong enough and the numbers large enough to rock the corridors of power?

Congress / Martin Column / Occupy / Paul Volcker - 03/28/2012

The Truth About the AG Mortgage Settlement...."Coming Soon"

The "settlement agreement" between state attorneys-general, the Obama Administration and five large banks over unlawful home foreclosures was front-page news everywhere this morning. Only one problem: you can't get a copy of the agreement itself.  All we have is a few hand picked details promising "relief" to defrauded borrowers, and pledges by the banks that they'll obey the law from now on.

Check out the special web site, which proudly trumpets the "landmark settlement," the "historic"agreement and the "landmark relief," but offers only a factsheet entitled "Servicing Standards Highlights" that purports to summarize the deal, and a bunch of phone numbers for the banks and the AGs.

Everything else is "coming soon."

This is an outrage, and frankly, the news media and all the rest of the pundits out there ought to have demanded the full and complete document before heralding the settlement as a major event. To my astonishment, most of the reports I read today failed to note that the actual settlement agreement has not been released to the public.

Ever heard of the lawyer's favorite maxim, "the devil's in the details"? The banks here were accused of failing to comply with legal technicalities like proving that they actually held the mortgage to the homes they foreclosed on.  When it comes to themselves, the bankers know those details matter: You can be sure that their lawyers have negotiated and reviewed every single comma. Shouldn't American taxpayers and homeowners, who have borne the terrible brunt of these banks' gross irresponsibility and greed for the last three years, had a chance to review the proposal before our elected officials signed on the dotted line?

I've seen this kind of stunt many times before - for example,  a settlement of a lawsuit that was described by the parties in a press release as returning $500 million in overcharges to insurance customers. Months later, the settlement agreement itself is quietly filed with the court, and surprise! You had to fill out a ten page claim form to get your money, and the insurance company got to keep whatever's left. (As a lawyer for one of the policyholders, I joined with Consumer Watchdog in an objection to the settlement.)

It is no little irony that many people lost their homes because they didn't read the fine print of the loans, or couldn't understand what it meant. But when it comes to the settlement of the fiasco, no one can read it even if they want to. We have nothing in print, fine or otherwise, beyond the press materials.

Remember you heard it first here: there'll be lots of surprises when we finally get to look at the details of this deal.

 

 

Foreclosure / Foreclosures / Harvey Column - 02/10/2012

Stop Forecclosuregate Bailout

Is President Obama going to try to sell us another bank bailout in his State of the Union address tonight?

Of course, he won't call it a bailout. He'll tout it as “the largest multi-state settlement of charges of wrongdoing against corporate malefactors in history;” something that sounds important and unprecedented.

But don’t be fooled, a bailout is exactly what Obama administration officials are scheming, under the guise of settling foreclosure fraud charges against the big banks.

The fraud stems from widespread robo-signing in which banks used forged documents or had employees sign off on documents they hadn’t read.

The Obama administration has been pressuring state attorneys general to end a joint federal-state investigation with a sweetheart deal that would amount to another bailout for the banks – rewarding them again for their bad behavior, this time with a light slap on the wrist.

Unlike in 2008, we know a lot more about how government officials under the influence of Wall Street misbehave. When administration officials met privately with state AGs Monday in Chicago, they were met with protestors, and a number of groups have been mobilizing phone calls to the White House and state AGs.

Let me give you some perspective: Banks have made hundreds of billions off the adjustable, high-interest loans they pawned off on borrowers, then sliced and diced and resold to investors until the bankers’ shenanigans sank our economy. Now the Obama administration wants to settle with them for between $19 and $25 billion in fines. Some of that money could be sent directly to 750,000 borrowers who were found to be victims of robo-signing. But there haven’t any thorough investigations to determine the full scope of that scandal or how many people were actually effected.  Part of the money could be used to reduce principal (by a piddling $20,000) for a small number of homeowners, and some could be used to pay housing counselors, who provide advice for people facing foreclosure.

But as in previous foreclosure reduction efforts and previous settlements with the banks, enforcement and accountability are completely lacking.

And while $19 to $25 billion may sound like a lot of money to us, to the bankers, it’s pocket change: It’s neither punitive nor a deterrent.

This foreclosure deal is so bad that Kamala Harris, the California AG who is a close ally of the president’s, walked away from it, promising instead to join with Nevada’s AG to scrutinize the bankers’ foreclosure practices more closely.

In doing so, Harris is behaving like real law enforcement official, not a bank apologist. Like any prosecutor, she knows she has to have solid evidence in hand before she talks about a plea bargain.

A  handful of other state AGs are expressing skepticism about the proposed settlement, but the Obama administration continues to pressure the AGs to settle before the banks’ behavior is fully investigated and understood.

As MIT economist and Baseline Scenario blogger Simon Johnson told Dave Dayen at Firedoglake, “Why go small when you have a strong case for fraud?”

Harris isn’t the only one who walked away from what she saw as a shabby deal for her constituents. The New York AG, Eric Schneiderman also balked, and when he started to question the deal, he was booted off the negotiating committee.  What particularly disturbed Schneiderman was the notion that as part of a proposed settlement, banks would get immunity from lawsuits, not only relating to robo-signing, but for other mortgage-related fraud as well.

“I wasn't willing to provide a release that ... released conduct that hadn't been investigated, essentially,” Schneiderman told National Public Radio. Schneiderman has started his own investigation.

Initially the joint state-federal investigation looked like it had teeth. Back in 2010 when the process began, Tom Miller, the Iowa AG who headed the multi-state task force, stated bluntly: “We will put people in jail.”

What happened?

Remember what Deep Throat told investigative reporters Woodward and Bernstein during Watergate: Follow the money.

After Miller launched that initial investigation of the banks’ foreclosure practices, he raised $261,445 from finance, insurance and real estate interests – more than 88 times as much as he’d raised before the investigation. Not all that much money in the scheme of things, but apparently enough to inspire him to back off. Now Miller is leading the settlement juggernaut.

Where we see fraud, our leaders see financial opportunity.

We can’t let Miller and the Obama administration let the banks off the hook again at our expense. We want thorough, transparent investigations and indictments where appropriate.

Please call the White House today and tell them that if it walks like a bailout and quacks like a bailout, we’ll know it’s a bailout, no matter how administration officials try to dress it up.

 

And we don't want any more bailouts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreclosure / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 01/24/2012

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

Billion-Dollar Campaign Bus Leaves Unemployed Behind

Congress and the president threw the long-term unemployed under the bus last year in the deal to extend the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

As the president and his fellow politicos revv up his re-election campaign bus, are they now poised to run over the 99ers, as the long-term unemployed are known?

The head of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver, appears ready to concede without a fight that the cost of extending unemployment benefits to the 99ers is “prohibitive.”

Two members of Cleaver’s caucus, Reps. Barbara Lee and Bobby Scott have proposed H.R. 589 to fund some benefits for the long-term unemployed.

Once again, Congress appears to be unwilling to find the $14 billion to extend unemployment compensation for the more than 1 million Americans out of work for at least 99 weeks.

President Obama seems more preoccupied with fighting for the $1 billion he says he will need for his reelection campaign.

How much could one of those 99ers contribute to the president, or anybody’s political campaign, for that matter?

That’s what occurred to me when I read who Obama – the man who at one time was supposed to transform American politics – had chosen to run his campaign to keep his job.

That would be Jim Messina, one of the undisputed experts at raising massive corporate campaign cash, a former staffer for Sen. Max Baucus, one-time head of the one Senate’s Finance Committee and one of the top vacuums of special interest contributions ever, according to Public Citizen.

So much for the grass roots that got the president where he is today. He’s dancing with Wall Street, big pharm and the insurance industry now. Messina apparently takes a dim view of the grass roots activists and their issues, which tend to clog up his vacuum cleaner.

For the corporate titans Obama will be relying on, it’s been a very, very good recovery.

For a lot of the grass roots folks who walked precincts and made phone calls in 2008, not so much. They’ve lost jobs, health insurance, homes, savings, pensions, and security.

Minorities have been especially hard hit, USA Today reports, by a “dual system” of finance. More than 20 percent of African-Americans and Hispanics will lose their homes in the present housing crisis, the Center for Responsible Lending contends.

Meanwhile the long-term unemployed, many of them older workers, face high hurdles reentering the workforce. Younger people face their own challenges, often taking lower paying jobs when they can find employment.

The politicians may be giving up on those of us who are unemployed but we shouldn’t. Call your congressperson and demand that they find the money for H.R 589.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Column / President Barack Obama / Uncategorized - 04/05/2011

In this “Bust Bowl,” It’s Every Person for Themselves

During the 1930s, drought and dust storms combined to devastate farms in the heartland of the United States, already decimated by the Great Depression. One quarter of the population of the “Dust Bowl” lost their farms and ranches when the banks foreclosed on them. Millions left the Great Plains for California or elsewhere.

Today, the entire nation is trapped in a “Bust Bowl,” laid low from coast to coast by the collapse of an economy based largely on finance and speculation. The “official” unemployment rate, which has been above 9.5% for the last fourteen months, understates the true devastation wrought by the Wall Street debacle. Vast numbers of our citizens have descended into poverty: 42 million Americans – one in seven – are considered poor.  Just an hour or two outside LA, 15 to 20% of residents in towns like Bakersfield and Riverside are below the poverty line.

Back in the Thirties, farmers joined together to protect each other against foreclosures: trying to block authorities from seizing the farms, moving furniture back into the homes of the evicted, and refusing to bid on properties that were foreclosed. But there’s little sympathy for our neighbors evident these days.

To the contrary, speculation has ingrained itself so deeply in the American psyche that people view foreclosures as an opportunity to snatch up a home at distressed prices. And now that some banks are pulling homes off the market because they can’t prove they hold the mortgages, as my colleague Martin Berg has described, would-be purchasers are unhappy. The New York Times quoted a Florida mother who was supposed to move into a foreclosed “three bedroom steal” when Fannie Mae took the house off the market. “Now I’m sharing a room with my son,” she complained. “What the hell is up with that?”

It’s hard to feel sorry for someone who is trying to reap some kind of a windfall from someone else’s tragedy.

I know, everyone’s just trying to get by. The Times noted that one man who had lost his own home to foreclosure after falling behind on his payments had made a successful bid on another foreclosed home – his “dream house” – only to have the deal frozen by the bank.

But is the solution to beggar thy neighbor?

Consider the debt collector profiled in the New Yorker this week. A former drug dealer who did some time, “Jimmy” now runs a small operation in Buffalo, New York. He buys bad debts from businesses like banks and credit card companies for a few cents on the dollar, and then does what he can to collect from the people who owe the money. Anything he can get, he keeps. With so many Americans out of work and deeply in debt, the collection business is booming these days. Buffalo’s home to quite a few such firms these days, because, as Jimmy explains, “Buffalo is broke!” Jimmy’s got five kids and he’s trying to make a living and meet the payroll for his staff, whose job is to nag and cajole people into paying something on what they owe. Plus he’s up against some bigger firms that are willing to break the law in order to collect. But it’s not a pretty picture, especially because it soon becomes clear that Jimmy’s company is in trouble, and he may soon find himself among the debtors of Buffalo.

The average American is not going to be able to leverage himself out of this economic nightmare.

In the Thirties, the federal government ultimately came to the rescue: prodded by Roosevelt, Congress authorized the courts to reduce a farm mortgage to its diminished market value, and to suspend a farm foreclosure for three years. (A conservative US Supreme Court initially struck the law down as an improper intrusion of the government in the banking business, but it was later upheld.) Farmers were also allowed to borrow money through the federal government to pay off their old mortgages. This was the New Deal.

This time around, Wall Street firms have been given access to trillions of dollars of federal money at rates approaching zero interest, but with no requirement that they lend this taxpayer money back to taxpayers at all, much less at fair interest rates. Thus the banks, credit card companies and investment firms are back in business and in fact, most are rolling in dough. The rest of us have to pay exorbitant interest to borrow our money, if it is offered at all. And at the behest of Wall Street, the US Senate rejected a proposal to allow federal bankruptcy courts to modify mortgages so people could stay in their homes. A few days ago, the Obama administration rejected a nationwide moratorium on foreclosures. "While we understand the eagerness to make sure that no American is foreclosed upon in error, we must be careful not to over-reach and apply a remedy that will make the underlying problem of foreclosures worse," according to the Federal Housing Administration.

I'd call this a "Raw Deal."

Foreclosures / Harvey Column / Outrage - 10/10/2010

Financial Firm Finds Profit Center in Fallen Warriors

When it comes to battling the fine print that rules the financial realm, the nation’s military families have been taking a beating.

And the government officials who were supposed to be protecting the solders have been MIA.

Earlier this summer I wrote about how members of the military mobilized in a losing effort to have the nation’s auto dealers covered by the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

The nation’s military was no match for the lobbying firepower of 18,000 well-organized car dealers.

Now, thanks to Bloomberg News, we’ve learned how top Obama administration officials signed off on a secret deal that allowed the country’s second biggest life insurance company to make millions of dollars off life insurance policies for the families of deceased veterans.

It turns out that in 1999, authorities made a verbal agreement with Prudential Life to allow them to withhold the lump-sum life insurance payments the company was supposed to hand over to some 6 million veterans’ families. Instead, the life insurer were permitted to offer the survivors a checkbook, which amounted to an IOU known as “retained-asset accounts.” Meanwhile, the insurer would deposit the lump sum into its own accounts earning eight times as much in interest from the settlements as they paid to the military families.

What’s worse, those accounts weren’t even insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

So what happened when the Obama administration discovered the shameful deal?

Remember, this wasn’t the Bush administration, that believed that the best way to protect consumers was to let financial institutions run amok. These were Obama people, who had been sobered up by the financial collapse, who knew the dangers that lurked when financial deals were done in the dark, who promised to toughen financial regulations.

Did the Obama administration jump in and call the whole disgraceful thing off? Hardly. Bloomberg found that Obama administration officials in 2009 turned what had been a verbal agreement into a written one. Though a committee filled with top administration officials, including Timothy Geithner, was supposed to be monitoring government life insurance programs, when the committee actually had a meeting, those officials didn’t bother to show up.

Since Bloomberg revealed the deal earlier this summer, more than 10 years after it was struck, elected officials have leaped into action to condemn Prudential’s actions and demand investigations. While the Obama administration didn’t make the original deal, they formalized it rather than calling it off. It’s another unfortunate example of the Obama administration going soft while the financial industry takes advantage of consumers.

But they have the opportunity to make it right. It will be tough. The administration would have to admit a mistake. As of June 30, Prudential had made $662 million in interest off the lump-sum settlements.

Prudential has offered a pathetic paternalistic excuse, saying the company was actually helping emotionally distraught families by withholding their money during their time of grief.

The Obama administration should demand that Prudential return that windfall to veterans’ families. The company can certainly afford it. It received $4.5 billion last December when it got out of a securities brokerage joint venture with Wells Fargo. Since posting a $1.6 billion loss in the fourth-quarter of 2008, the company has recovered nicely, posting seven quarterly profits, most recently for more than $1 billion. The company’s stock posted a whopping 64 percent gain last year. The company’s CEO, John Strangfeld, is doing OK too, with total compensation of $18.4 million in 2009, though that was down from his 2008 payday, which amounted to $21.6 million.

President Obama has taken some admirable steps to improve veterans’ care after years of Bush era neglect. He should do the right thing and make Prudential turn over the profits it made from the nation’s war dead to their families.

Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama - 10/01/2010

Around The Web: Nothing Natural About Financial Disaster

Maybe this is the one that will finally cause people to take to the streets.

The crack investigative journalists at Pro Publica and NPR’s Planet Money have uncovered the latest evidence of how the big bankers schemed to keep their bonuses and fees coming by creating a phony market for their mortgage-backed securities, which were tumbling in value as the housing market tanked in 2006.

The Pro Publica/NPR investigation shows how the bankers from Merrill-Lynch, Citigroup and other “too big to fail” financial institutions undermined a system of independent managers who were supposed to be evaluating the value of the securities. The banks simply browbeat the managers into buying their products rather than face losing the banks’ business.

Meanwhile, the bankers continued to make money off every deal, even though the rest of us paid a high price for their continued trafficking in complicated financial trash.

Then when the entire business unraveled in the financial collapsed, these bankers got a federal rescue and a return to profitability.

Pro Publica acknowledges it’s complex material, so they’ve accompanied their investigation with a cartoon and graphs to make it easier to understand.

My WheresOurMoney colleague Harvey Rosenfield wrote recently about the falseness of the claim that either Hurricane Katrina or the financial collapse were primarily natural disasters. The NPR/ProPublica investigation is yet more evidence that the bankers’ irresponsible self-dealing turned a downturn in the housing market into full-blown catastrophes.

Writing on his blog Rortybomb, Mike Konczai hones in on the stark contrast in the fate of the bankers and many of the rest of us:  “Remember that by keeping the demand artificially high for the housing market in the post-2005, these banks created its own supply of crap mortgages. These mortgages inflated and then crashed local housing prices. Meanwhile the biggest banks got tossed a lifeline and homeowners can’t even short sale their home much less have a bankruptcy judge that can set their mortgage to the market price with a large penalty. And everyone lines up to tell those people what ‘losers’ they are, how `irresponsible’ they’ve been for being pulled into becoming the artificial supply for artificially created demand of housing debt. What sad times we are living in.”

Meanwhile the SEC is supposedly investigating the self-dealing. We’re still waiting for the tougher new SEC that the Obama administration promised. In the latest indication that we may have to wait a while longer, a federal judge has rejected the agency’s proposed $75 million settlement with Citibank over charges that the bank misled its own shareholders about the shrinking value of its mortgage-backed securities. The SEC said the bank misled investors in conference calls by saying its subprime exposure was $13 billion, when it was actually more than $50 billion. Among the pointed questions the judge asked: Why should the shareholders have to pay for the misdeeds of the bank executives, and why didn’t the SEC go after more of the executives?

The judge’s questions about accountability mirror the uneasy questions a lot of us have about this administration’s reluctance to take on the bankers whose behavior led to ruin for the country while they profited.

Around the Web / Derivatives / Executive Pay / Martin Column / Outrage / Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) / Too Big To Fail / Uncategorized - 08/31/2010