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

King of the Hill

Though we need to wait until November to find out who the next president will be, we already know who the king is.

That would be JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, who got the regal treatment from the Senate Finance Committee this week when he was called to testify about the disastrous trades that has cost his firm more than $3 billion so far and reduced the firm's market value by $27 billion.

You know, the trades that Dimon originally dismissed as a “tempest in a teapot.”

Which gives you some idea of the teapots that President Obama’s favorite banker can afford. President Obama has particularly close ties to the bank: JPMorgan’s PAC was one of the top donors to his 2008 campaign, offering more than $800,000, and the president’s former chief of staff, William Daley, was a top executive there.

Dimon is equally popular on Capitol Hill. Instead of a grilling him about his failure to take action for months after questions were raised about the strategy surrounding the failed trades, most of the senators treaded lightly.

Instead of scrutinizing the foreclosure fraud and failure that led to JPMorgan’s $5.3 billion share of a $26 billion settlement with state attorneys generals, several senators took the opportunity to offer Dimon a platform to continue his campaign against regulation of Wall Street, including modest reforms like the Volcker rule which many say could have prevented the JPMorgan loss – had it been in place.

For his part, Dimon denied that he knew anything, took some vague responsibility and minimized the losses as an isolated event.

The route to traditional royalty is through birth or marriage. Dimon won his political crown through another time-honored path – he bought it. Most of the senators he faced had benefited from the generosity of his bank’s campaign contributions. As the Nation’s George Zornick reported, the senators had received more than $522,000 from JPMorgan, about evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.

The staff of the Finance Committee and JPMorgan are connected through a web of revolving door contacts. The banking committee’s staff director is a former JPMorgan lobbyist, Dwight Fettig. One of the banks’ top lobbyists is a former staffer for banking committee member Sen. Chuck Schumer, while three of its outside lobbyists used to work for the committee or one of its members.

J.P. Morgan has pummeled Congress and regulators with more than $7.6 million worth of lobbying in an effort to get banking rules written to favor the bank.

The king’s appearance before his subjects on the Senate Finance Committee was a powerful demonstration, for those who still need it, of just how little of the spirit and the practice of real democracy remains in an institution that is supposed to embody it.

If our representatives were truly beholden to us, rather than to Dimon and others with large supplies of cash to dole out, his testimony would have had a starkly different tone.

He has a lot to answer for. So do those who let him off so easy.

And it’s not just Dimon that the senators have failed to oversee. While bankers’ profits are back, the banking system is still broke.

If those senators were serving us, rather than serving as lapdogs to bankers, Dimon and other Wall Street monarchs might be looking at prison cells, not red carpets.

 

Martin Column / Too Big To Fail / Uncategorized - 06/14/2012

Bipartisans, bankers and baloney

Along with protecting their profits, big banks also care deeply about getting revenge against those politicians who cross them.

That’s the message from the primary defeat of Sen. Richard Lugar, the veteran Indiana Republican who has been highly touted as one of the last of a vanishing breed of respectable bipartisan statesman-politicians.

Lugar, 80, was defeated by a tough-talking Tea Partier, Indiana state treasurer Richard Mourdock, who said his idea of compromise was bashing Democrats until they gave in.

While much of the media has blamed Lugar’s defeat on his willingness to work with Democrats, if you follow the money against Lugar, you’ll find other, familiar forces at work.

This was hardly a grassroots victory against the Washington status quo, unless by grassroots you mean the Financial Roundtable and the American Bankers Association.

As Politico and the Republic Report detailed, the attack on Lugar was funded by the Financial Services Roundtable and the American Bankers Association, along with Wall Street-backed anti-tax, anti-regulatory groups including Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks and the Club for Growth.

Even though Lugar opposed financial reform, Wall Street is still mad at him because he took the side of giant retailers like Target and Wal-Mart in another epic battle, over debit swipe fees.

The banks suffered a rare defeat in the Senate last year when it rejected a delay in implementing a rule that limited the amount banks could charge you to swipe your debit card, costing the banks about $16 billion. Lugar was one of the few Republicans who sided with the retailers to stand for election this year.

His defeat will no doubt serve as a useful example for legislators considering opposing Wall Street.

On key votes on bread and butter issues, Lugar the bipartisan voted against economic stimulus, and he favored extending unemployment benefits only if the Bush era tax cuts were extended.

I wouldn’t waste any tears for Lugar.

It’s only a matter of time until he lines up a lobbying deal, if he wants one. He can join his former Senate colleague from Indiana, Evan Bayh, a Democrat who was also celebrated as a great bipartisan.  After leaving the Senate gnashing his teeth over the increased partisan rancor, Bayh landed a sweet gig lobbying his former colleagues on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce.

If by bipartisan one means always ready to fight for corporate interests, big banks or the titans of retail, then both Lugar and Bayh fit the definition. But Lugar’s defeat is just the latest example of how the media and the Washington insiders persist in wringing their hands over the phony loss of bipartisanship while ignoring the much more compelling reality of corporations that wield way too much power in Washington at our expense.

 

 

 

 

Bipartisanship / Lobbying / Martin Column - 05/21/2012

No Lobbyist Left Behind

If we forced CNN commentators to wear the names of their clients on their sleeves like NASCAR drivers we might have a deeper, more honest debate over what’s going on in Washington.

Unless you live under a rock without any form of media, it’s hard to miss the nonstop frenzy over dumb comments made by CNN commentator Hilary Rosen about Ann Romney.

Rosen said Romney never worked a day in her life, which made her unqualified to comment on the economy. Republicans then attacked Rosen as another in a long line of Democratic elitists who have no respect for women who work in the home.

When she comments on CNN, the network labels Rosen a “Democratic strategist,” though they don’t disclose any particular strategy that she’s come up with.

CNN doesn’t mention her work representing many high-profile clients in Washington, D.C. with interests across a wide range of issues. Her firm, SKDKnickerbocker is filled with former government employees cashing in on their contacts on behalf of their corporate clients. The firm, which includes President Obama’s former communications director Anita Dunn as managing director, isn’t required to disclose clients because it doesn’t acknowledge that what it does is lobbying. In Washington-speak the firm is “political consulting and public relations firm.”

Last year, Bloomberg Business week reported that the firm coordinated an army of lobbyists unleashed by a coalition led by Google, Apple and Cisco pushing for a tax holiday.

The Republic Report compiled a partial list of clients, including big railroads, agricultural interests, PepsiCo and General Mills and for-profit education companies.

In addition, the Washington Free Beacon reported that Dunn pitched SKDKnickerbocker’s services as part of a team that offered to restore hedge funds’ sullied reputations, though apparently nobody swung.

Rosen’s poke at Ann Romney may have stirred up media frenzy, offering just the excuse for a jive revival of jive working mom v. stay-at-home brawl that sheds no light and offers no insight to anybody.

It’s also not the kind of controversy that’s likely to upset Rosen’s clients, who will recognize it for the sideshow it is compared to their free-flowing access to the White House. It’s more likely that it will provide Rosen with an opportunity for some good-natured self-deprecating humor to grease her way as she makes the rounds through the corridors of power.

The Obama administration has made a big deal about how it holds itself to a higher standard by not taking money from lobbyists. But that doesn’t mean lobbyists don’t have a strong presence in the White House, as the New York Times reported Saturday. “Many of the president’s biggest donors, while not lobbyists, took lobbyists with them to the White House, while others performed essentially the same function on their visits,” the Times reported.

Several years ago, GOOD magazine came up with the idea of making politicians wear suits with the names of their biggest contributors, like NASCAR drivers advertise their sponsors. Politicians have been reluctant to embrace the idea. They’re perfectly happy to keep us focused on the sideshow provided by Rosen and those like her, who babble phony nonsense on TV but profit from their access to the real game off-screen.

Lobbying / Martin Column / Mitt Romney / President Barack Obama - 04/17/2012

Bipartisanship for dummies

Ever notice how all the dysfunctional wrangling in D.C. stops the minute our politicians need to do the 1 percent’s bidding?

When it comes to taking away your rights as an investor, consumer or citizen, politicians who can’t seem to agree on anything else seem to work together fine.

The latest proof that “bipartisanship” is a cynical gimmick is the so-called JOBS act, passed by the House with bipartisan support and now under consideration by the Senate, with the blessing of President Obama.

In this case, the bill’s original Republican sponsors came up with the idea of packaging a collection of measures that would weaken investor and consumer protections by the acronym JOBS, which stands for Jumpstart Our Business Startups.

After all, who could be against JOBS? Most Democrats in the House were happy to sign on – only 23 voted against it. Even Democratic representatives Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters voted for it.

Maybe these politicians thought the JOBS branding and the bipartisan marketing would conceal what the bill really was – the latest of several disastrous bills dismantling sensible financial regulation.

The JOBS act is the ugly stepchild of the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Billey Act repealing the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which kept banks from mingling federally-guaranteed banking activities from riskier activities, and the 2000 Commodities Futures Modernization Act, a Frankenstein bill that kept credit default swaps deregulated and led to the Enron scandal in 2001.

Both pieces of legislation contributed directly to the 2008 financial collapse.

In the case of the JOBS act, it would gut many of the accounting reforms contained in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was passed in the wake of the Enron debacle. The JOBS act would exempt emerging companies worth up to $1 billion from disclosure, reporting and governance rules. It would allow such companies to operate for 5 years without regulatory oversight.

John Coffee, securities law professor at Columbia University Law School, says it could be more accurately described as the “boiler room legalization act” because it would allow companies to raise money from small investors on the Internet, without any regulatory supervision, evoking the small operations that sold dubious investments over the phone using high-pressure tactics.

Arthur Levitt, former head of the SEC, told San Francisco Chronicle columnist Kathleen Pender the bill was “a disgrace.”

In a scathingly sarcastic column in the New York Times, Pro Publica’s Jessie Eisenger wrote: “Nigeria shouldn’t be the only country to benefit from the Web. Right here in America, the elderly are increasingly attractive to a variety of entrepreneurial spirits. If JOBS becomes the law, such innovators could flourish.”

Barbara Roper, the Consumer Federation of America’s director of investment protection suggested that “Republicans cannot believe they have suckered the Democrats into taking up their idea that deregulation is the way to promote job growth.”

I don’t think the Democrats got suckered. I think they know exactly what they’re doing. President Obama has been struggling in his fundraising because Wall Street and the big-money donors have lost their enthusiasm for him this electoral cycle.

But he’s showing signs of bouncing back, after his campaign manager, Jim Messina, issued a pledge that the president would stop demonizing Wall Street. In February, the president went on a fundraising blitz, raising $45 million, up from $29 million the previous month.

But it’s still far less than the $56 million he raised during the same month in 2008, when he was fighting Hilary Clinton in a bruising primary campaign. The president and his party have to deliver for their funders, and the JOBS act is a perfect gift to show the big donors what they can expect for their generosity.

But they all must take us for a bunch of clods if they think we can’t tell the difference between a nasty attack on our rights and real jobs promotion.

Call your senator today and remind them you can’t be fooled by an acronym.  Suggest you know how to spell jobs, and this awful piece of legislation doesn’t.

 

Congress / Derivatives / Jobs crisis / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 03/20/2012

Betrayals and Bailouts

In the latest betrayal from Freddie Mac, the same clever devils who helped bring us the financial collapse three years ago, there is unfortunately no surprise.

The high rollers who run the company, whose mission is supposed to be to support homeowners, apparently still think it’s a good idea to use our homes as a casino.

That’s the conclusion reached in an investigative report by NPR/Pro Publica, which found that Freddie Mac had placed billion-dollar investment bets that paid off when borrowers couldn’t refinance from high-interest mortgages into more affordable loans.

According to the NPR/Pro Publica report, Freddie Mac increased “these bets dramatically in late 2010, the same time that the company was making it harder for homeowners to get out of such high-interest mortgages.”

In effect, Freddie Mac combined high interest mortgages into packages of securities and sold some to speculators, but it kept the ones that would result in the biggest profits so long as the homeowner never refinanced. Freddie Mac stands to lose if its customers refinance and taske advantage of lower rates.

Freddie Mac was betting against homeowners even though taxpayers had bailed out it and its larger sister, Fannie Mae and the government placed the under a conservatorship after the housing bubble burst in 2008 and it faced mounting mortgage losses.

Though Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are known as government-sponsored entities, they in fact have been private, profit-making entities for four decades.

Congress created Fannie and Freddie as private companies with a public mission ­– supporting homeownership, by insuring the mortgages issued by commercial lenders. But the companies had government officials sitting on their boards, and got breaks on taxes and recordkeeping requirements.

During the real estate bubble, the two firms adopted all the bad behavior of other big financial institutions – and worse. Authorities found that at Fannie Mae, senior executives cooked the books between 1998 and 2004, making it look like they hit profit targets in order to justify $115 million in bonuses. Three top executives eventually reached a $31.4 million settlement [with govt or private private pre-bailout] – without admitting guilt.

Executives at the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae spent millions on campaign contributions and lobbying, courting both Democrats and Republicans (including presidential contender Newt Gingrich) in a successful campaign to ward off more stringent regulation and tighter reins on their bookkeeping, all the while taking on greater amounts of risk, establishing close ties with one of the worst offenders in spreading toxic loans, Countrywide Bank. Meanwhile executives at the two firms were paid lavishly, even after the bailout.

Republicans love to blame the GSEs for the financial collapse, labeling them do-gooder agencies who went wrong in pursuing too aggressively an agenda of providing housing to low-income people.

In his excellent autopsy of the financial collapse, “The Great American Stick-up,” Robert Scheer finds merit in much of the conservative critique. He labels the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “highly culpable” for causing the financial crisis – but not for the reasons Republicans say. While the GSEs used the rhetoric of helping people, their efforts to boost low-income and middle-class wasn’t their primary mission, or the reason for their downfall.

Fannie and Freddie didn’t go under because they were trying too hard to help people; it was because they were doing everything they could to super-charge their profits, just like the Wall Street firms.

Scheer quotes the testimony of a one-time regulator, Armando Falcon, who faced stiff opposition from Republicans as well as Democrats when he tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie. Falcon testified in April 2010 before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which investigated the causes of the meltdown. “The firms would not pursue any activity…unless there was a profit to be made,” Falcon said. “Fannie and Freddie invested in subprime and Alt A mortgages in order to increase profits and regain market share. Any impact on meeting affordable housing goals was a by-product of the activity.”

 

 

 

 

Executive Pay / Foreclosure / Martin Column - 02/07/2012

Busting Wall Street, by the numbers

How many FBI agents does it take to bust one Wall Street crook?

This isn’t the beginning of a joke. It’s one way to measure how serious the Obama’s administration latest highly touted financial fraud task force is about tackling its beat.

The task force is staffed with 10 FBI agents, according to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

You can get some idea of whether that’s an adequate number by comparing it to the law enforcement effort in the wake of the Savings and Loan crisis in the 1980s, a major but vastly smaller financial collapse.

It only cost the taxpayers a mere $150 billion in bailout money, compared to the 2008 banking collapse, which cost us trillions.

Bill Black, a former S&L regulator turned white-collar criminal law expert and law professor at University of Missouri at Kansas City, has been one of the sharpest critics of the administration’s sharpest critics.

Black makes the point that regulators investigating S&L fraud two decades ago made thousands of criminal referrals, and the FBI assigned 1,000 agents to follow up on those referrals. Black says the referrals led to more than 1,000 felony convictions, including the executives of the S&Ls.

Black is just one of many who have noticed that President Obama’s heart has not really been into the task of putting top bank executives in jail.

As recently as December 11, the president told 60 Minutes in an interview: “I can tell you, just from 40,000 feet, that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal.”

Black points out that this at best a non-answer; at worst it’s double-talk. The president says that “some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn’t illegal.”

So the reasonable follow-up question would be: where are the prosecutions, over the past 3 years, of the rest of the behavior, the part that was illegal?

The other aspect of Obama’s answer that I find worrisome is the president’s perspective – he acknowledges that he’s making a judgment based on a view from 40,000 feet.

That’s a distance of 7.5 miles. The president isn’t predicting the weather here; he’s talking about whether crimes were committed in the process of the worst financial disaster in almost a century.

Good prosecutors and FBI agents don’t investigate from 7.5 miles away. They get in a suspect’s face, and into their history, find out who their friends and associates are. They dig into their family lives if they need to.

That’s how they operate when their hearts are in it if they want to make the case.

But even when their hearts are in it, good law enforcement people can’t do their jobs without resources.

And that’s a decision the president can make. He doesn’t have to ask Congress.

Call the president today and let him know that we won’t be fooled by faux enforcement efforts, and the we know the difference between what 10 FBI agents can do and what 1,000 can do – even from seven miles away.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Financial Crisis / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 01/29/2012

Around the Web: Outsourcing Foreclosure `Catastrophe'

You wouldn’t think the leader of the free world would be so willing to outsource a massive foreclosure scandal to state attorneys general, judges, regulators and the big banks that created the mess in the first place.

But that’s exactly what President Obama has done, standing aside while 50 state attorneys general launch investigations, while banks implement their own voluntary moratoriums, announcing they have halted some, but not all, foreclosure proceedings.

A growing number of politicians, civil rights and consumer groups and labor unions have called for a nationwide moratorium amid allegations that banks violated foreclosure laws by using sloppy, false or fraudulent paperwork to kick people out of their homes.

But President Obama doesn’t like the idea of a foreclosure moratorium, which he fears could put the kibosh on his fragile recovery.

Where is the administration’s effort at finding some other creative solution to the mess the big banks have created across the country? What we find instead are regulators that have been ignoring clear warning signs about the banks’ troubled foreclosure crisis.

The federal response so far has been limp at best: a Justice Department inquiry (short of an investigation) and a call by a federal regulator for the banks to voluntarily verify that their foreclosure paperwork is in order.

Recent press reports call into question whether the banks have even implemented the foreclosure moratoriums they promised. Meanwhile more banks, this time Wells-Fargo, acknowledge they have also violated the laws governing foreclosure by submitting unverified documents to take people’s homes. Isn’t there an election coming up where the Democrats are fighting to maintain control of Congress, with their entire agenda at stake? Isn’t there already one party that has expertly cornered the whole do-nothing stick-your-head-in-the-sand approach to unemployment and foreclosure? Doesn’t the president know how awful it looks to most people to have the bailed-out banks getting away with yet more hanky-panky?

You would think the president would want to appear more engaged in this issue that’s so close to the heart of our on-going economic troubles.

His treasury secretary fears “unintended consequences". Apparently the administration would prefer the banks continue to foreclose on people using phony documents. While Wall Street predicts a catastrophe if a moratorium is implemented. If the big bankers want to know who created a catastrophe that will cost them billions, they only need to look in the mirror.

Bank of America (BoA) / Foreclosures / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama - 10/15/2010

Elizabeth Warren's Inside Move

So President Obama did not appoint bailout critic and middle-class champion Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

He did appoint her to an important-sounding post as a White House adviser with responsibility to set up the agency, which after all was her idea in the first place.

Is the president actually marginalizing her with the window dressing of a fancy title? Or will she have a meaningful role in setting up the agency and shaping policy?

The punditocracy has gone into overdrive analyzing the president’s handling of Warren.

The positive spin is that it’s a savvy political move on Obama’s part to get her to work right away creating the agency and avoid a Republican filibuster, and that the president will finally be hearing from an insider not under Wall Street’s spell.

The more skeptical interpretation sees it as the latest example of the president’s failure to push back against Wall Street on issues that Wall Street cares about. As he has in the past, rather than picking a principled fight with Wall Street (and Republicans) Obama found a way around it.

The third spin, from Barney Frank, is that Warren actually didn’t  want a permanent appointment now, keeping her options open to either exit the administration or accept the job later.

Writing on WheresOurMoney.org earlier, Harvey Rosenfield, eloquently described why Warren is the best person to lead the new agency.

Warren has been a long-time critic of predatory lending practices and the American way of debt. In her role as congressional monitor of the federal bank bailout she’s been a fearless straight shooter and a down-to-earth demystifier of the complexities and foibles of high finance.

But Obama’s handling of her appointment reinforces the impression that he’s weak in the face of Wall Street’s power. Why in the world, with a high-stakes election less than 2 months away, would the president want to avoid a fight with Wall Street and Republicans on behalf of the undisputed champion of the middle-class and consumers? If the president does intend to appoint Warren to head the agency later, does he seriously think it will be easier later?

Unlike most of the president’s other top economic advisers, Warren has never been cozy with Wall Street. But it’s simply not realistic to expect the president is about to get more aggressive in reining in the big banks with Warren on the inside.

The president has shown that he is capable of ignoring perfectly good advice from well-respected advisers with impressive job titles within his administration. Remember Paul Volcker? The former Fed adviser has been a lonely voice within the Obama administration warning about the continuing dangers of the too big to fail banks and too much risky business in the financial system. But the president used Volcker as little more than a populist prop, preferring the more conciliatory approach championed by his other top economic adviser, Larry Summers, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Fed president Ben Bernanke. These three effectively fought off the tougher aspects of financial regulation at the same they time touted themselves as real reformers. While the president made clear Warren will work directly for him, will she be able to match Summers, Geithner and Bernanke, all seasoned bureaucratic infighters? She’s done little to endear herself to them and has publicly tangled with Geithner.

There’s no question that Warren, a Harvard bankruptcy law professor, has already played an extraordinary and important role in helping understand the financial collapse and its fallout. She’s never been anything but forthright, no-nonsense, principled, unafraid to speak truth to financial power and to demand accountability. She will need all those qualities as well as thick skin and nerves of steel for her new job. The stakes are high. I wish her well.

Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Martin Column / Paul Volcker / President Barack Obama - 09/17/2010

Consumer Protection, Fed Style

One of the big unsettled issues for the congressional conference committee considering financial reform is whether to create an independent financial consumer protection agency.

That’s what the House bill does. The argument for an independent agency is that consumers need a strong advocate in the financial marketplace.

The Senate decided that an independent consumer financial watchdog wasn’t needed, and that the consumer financial protector should live in, of all places, the Federal Reserve. After all, the Fed already has responsibilities to “implement major laws concerning consumer credit.” We all know how well that worked out.

The problem is that the Fed has functioned as a protector of the big banks, never more so than since the big bank bailout and in the battle over financial reform.

Despite promises for greater transparency, the Fed has repeatedly resisted attempts to get it to disclose all the favors it’s done for financial institutions since the bailout. If the Fed had put up half the fight against bank secrecy that it’s waged on behalf of bank secrets, consumers would never have been subjected to all those lousy subprime loans.

It is telling that no actual consumers or consumer organizations actually think that housing consumer protection inside the Fed is a good idea. Who does? The big banks and the Fed.

For those who still need convincing that a Fed-housed consumer protection agency is a bad idea, the Fed has provided a more recent example of what it means by consumer protection.

Last month it unveiled a database that’s supposed to help people choose the most appropriate credit card.

The database might be useful to professional researchers but provides little that would be of use to ordinary consumers. It presents the credit card statements by company but provides no other search functions, such as comparing credit cards by interest rates or fees.

Some of the presentation suggests that the information was dumped onto the Fed’s website without much thought. Bill Allison, who is editorial director of the Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit organization that digitizes government data and creates online tools to make it accessible to readers, said the following:

“I don't think there's anything wrong with posting it, but this is obviously not data you can search,” Allison told Bailout Sleuth.

He also pointed out that some of the agreements themselves aren't particularly informative. He cited the entry for Barclays Bank Delaware, which notes that the bank may assess fees for late payments and returned checks. “The current amounts of such Account Fees are stated in the Supplement,” the agreement reads.

But that supplement is not contained in the Fed's database. The Fed promises to go back and refine its database. But if they’re not devoting the resources to get this right now, with their ability to protect consumers under the microscope, do you really expect they’ll do better later?

An independent consumer protector is not simply some technicality to be bargained away. We’ve learned from the bubble and its aftermath that consumers need all the help they can get. Contact your congressperson and tell them you’re still paying attention to the reform fight. Check out your congressperson and see if they’re on the conference committee. If they are, your voice is especially important. While you’re at it, contact the president and remind him we won’t settle for any more watering down of financial reform.

Action / Federal Reserve / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column - 06/02/2010