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

Where’s Our Bailout? (Redux)

Between August 2007 and April 2010, the U.S. Federal Reserve handed out up to $1.2 trillion in public money to banks and other companies in the form of short-term loans to help them cope with cash flow problems, according to a recent report by the Bloomberg news service. In addition to U.S. banks and speculators, big bucks went to financial institutions owned by foreign governments; domestic firms like Ford and G.E. as well as Toyota and Mitsui and a German real estate investment firm.

While American taxpayers kept big businesses all over the planet alive, no such loans are available to taxpayers to cover their own personal cash-flow problems, including not being able to pay their mortgages, monthly bills, put food on their tables or a few holiday presents under the tree.

New figures, ironically also issued by the Federal Reserve, show how much help $1.2 trillion could be – if put in the hands of Americans. According to the Fed, the total amount of all money Americans owed on their credit cards as of last September was $693 billion. All of that could be paid off – in full – leaving another $500 billion, say, to help people avoid foreclosures or give every consumer in the United States a hefty tax cut.

Imagine the “stimulus effect” on our economy of paying off every credit card in the nation.

Although the Fed has portrayed the bailouts as the only way to keep money flowing in the economy, the Money Industry has yet to open its spigot and expand lending. Instead, they’ve used our dollars mostly to inflate CEOs’ executive salaries and pay themselves even more ridiculous bonuses.

Zeroing out America’s credit cards would solve that problem instantly. The credit card companies would get the money, of course, but Americans could start fresh and begin investing in their families, their businesses and their local economies.

Unfortunately, our country’s leadership owes its allegiance to the multi-national mega-corporations that grease the system with billions of dollars in campaign contributions. Wall Street’s “investment” in Washington caused the financial depression we are in today, and its no wonder that Washington’s attention is focused so narrowly on the welfare of the wealthy and large corporations. In fact, with its infamous decision equating corporations to human beings, the United States Supreme Court has turned the corruption of our democracy by money into a principle of our Constitution. Until we change that, Americans will be second class citizens in a country controlled by wealth and power.

 

Citizens United / Foreclosure / Harvey Column / Outrage / Supreme Court / TARP - 01/11/2012

All the President's Millionaires

While there’s some shuffling of desks close to President Obama, the most important factor isn’t changing ¬– the 1 percent is retaining a tight grip on the administration.

Exit Bill Daley (income from J.P. Morgan in 2010 = $8.7 million). Enter Jacob Lew (income from Citigroup in 2010 = $1.1 million). Lew was CEO of the Citigroup division that invested in credit default swaps, among other risky investments that sank the economy. But the bank, which survived only thanks to taxpayer generosity, paid Lew a $900,000 bonus.
Were they really paying him for overseeing the investments that nearly sank the bank – or were they compensating him for the work he did for the bank while he served in the Clinton administration, betting that Lew would serve again?
And who can forget Daley’s predecessor, Rahm Emanuel, who got paid $16.2 million during a 2 1/2/ year as an investment banker, and remained a hedge fund favorite?
Meanwhile, still firmly in place near President Obama’s ear as his closest outside adviser on creating jobs is Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric. The Center for Public Integrity’s i-watch news is out with a devastating investigation into how GE under Immelt lost more than $1 billion getting into the subprime loan business, ignoring its own whistleblowers who were trying to tell their bosses how the irresponsible pursuit of profits led to widespread fraud.
This is more than just inside baseball – with these people in charge of the Democrats and the Republicans as well, there’s little hope that the administration will come to grips with the foreclosure crisis – or hold bankers accountable for looting and tanking the economy. Only a huge public outcry, much larger than the Occupy has mustered so far, can hope to change that.

Martin Column / Occupy / Outrage / President Barack Obama - 01/09/2012

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

“If We Build It, He Will Come”

Washington has become Wall Street’s “field of dreams.” There, the money conglomerates engage in their beloved sport of financial speculation, cheered on by a small but powerful group of public officials who have sold out the rest of the country.

Deregulation was a home run for the financial industry. Wall Street’s friends in Washington sacked the rules of the game, unleashing the hedge funds, banks, investment firms, insurance companies and other speculators who made billions before the crash, then got billions more from the taxpayers after the crash.

Meanwhile, as today’s New York Times points out, almost nothing has been done about “derivatives,” the virtual technology for the speculation that drove our economy into the dugout three years ago. Federal agencies that were supposed to issue new regulations to prevent another debacle have been tied up in knots by Wall Street lawyers.

Jobless and fearful for their kids’ future, people are furious about what happened.  But it was always going to be a daunting task to mobilize the public behind the necessary reforms when they are so complex, and anything drafted to appeal to directly to Americans’ wallets – say, by providing a cap on credit card interest rates, or low-rate mortgages, or other forms of financial relief – would have inspired the financial industry to retaliate with nuclear weapons. Neither the President nor anyone in Congress were willing to start that fight, principled as it would have been.

So it has all come down to Elizabeth Warren, the brainiac Harvard law professor who suggested, in a law review article in 2005, that Congress create a new federal agency with the mission of protecting consumers against false advertising, misleading contracts and the general thievery of the financial industry.  Democrats proposed the agency as part of the Wall Street reform legislation in 2009, and after the industry thought they had whittled it down to something they could easily live with – or simply get around – Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the President signed it.

Warren was the obvious person for the job, and almost immediately Americans began calling on President Obama to nominate her for the post.

What Wall Street didn’t realize at first is that it is way, way easier for Americans to get behind a human being than a thousand-page piece of legislation that has been lawyered and lobbied into mush. America has become a celebrity-driven culture, and while Elizabeth Warren is no Lady Gaga, she is one of a small number of outsiders that have occasionally busted up the D.C. establishment – just as Ralph Nader did in the 1970s, and Jimmy Stewart fictionally did in the Frank Capra movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

Whether President Obama will nominate Warren to the position has become the defining question of his Presidency for millions of Americans, especially those who voted for "change we can believe in" in 2008.

When confronted with demands by civil rights leaders to take action against racial discrimination in the late 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt’s legendary retort was “make me do it.” Whether he ever said that, the strategy he suggested is literally page one of the best manual for citizen empowerment and political organizing.

Let’s put it in more contemporary terms. President Obama has made it clear he doesn’t want to nominate Warren. It’s just another fight he’d rather not have. He embraces consensus, not controversy.

But the President has to know she’s the best person for the job. So the burden is on Americans to make it impossible for him not to nominate her. Part of that means punishing the people who are working against her – members of Congress, and those in the Administration – because they are doing Wall Street’s dirty work. These are the same people who let Wall Street plunder our nation and then bailed Wall Street out with our money.

My guess is, we can make Obama do it.

Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Harvey Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Uncategorized - 06/22/2011

Around The Web: Wall Street Rules

When it comes to the big money, we’re still playing by Wall Street rules.
For example, California pension officials are paying their investment advisors hefty bonuses  even though the funds suffered whopping losses in the real estate crash, an investigation by Associated Press found.

The pension fund faces unfunded liabilities of billions of dollars, though there are sharp differences about the exact amount.

While the rest of the state suffers layoffs, cutbacks and furloughs, life is good for the crew at CALPERS. Fifteen employees were paid more than $200,000 – two more than two years earlier. Though the fund lost nearly $60 billion, all the funds investment managers got bonuses of more than $10,000, and several got more than $100,000.
CALPERS’ generosity extended beyond its investment advisers; the agency also gave its public affairs officer nearly $19,000 in bonuses for two straight years, and a human resources executive who got nearly $16,000 for those years.
Officials at CALPERS offer a variety of explanations: they say the bonuses cover 5 years to encourage their advisers to think long term, not short term. As a result, some of the managers’ funds that saw the steepest short-term declines got the largest bonuses. They have to pay the big bonuses despite the losses because they’re contractually obligated. They insist they have to pay the bonuses because if they don’t, their investment advisers will go to work at hedge funds.

Sound familiar? These are the same explanations we got from the big, bailed out banks who insisted that they had to hand over huge bonuses even though had to go on the dole.
CALPERS’ bonus system seems guaranteed to give its investment advisers lavish bonuses. When times are tough, the bonuses are a little less lavish. But none of the investment experts are actually accountable or will lose out for plunging the state’s pension in too deep into an unsustainable real estate bubble.

California’s pension system is hardly alone in making sure that those who manage its money are rewarded handsomely whether they win or lose.

In Massachusetts, the executive director of the state employees pension fund quit earlier this year while the Legislature contemplated a pay cap. Michael Travelgini, was paid a base salary of $322,000. In 2008, even though the fund’s investments lost money, they did better than other states, so he was given a $64,000 bonus.

Travelgini said the state’s investment managers weren’t paid enough. He’s going through the revolving door to work at a hedge fund that does business with the state, though he won’t solicit the state for a year.

These compensation issues are a strong reminder for the rest of us the lingering issues of the bubble culture. The people who run the pension systems seem to have been infected by the culture of Wall Street and forgotten whose money they’re managing. It will take a powerful disinfectant to remind them.

Around the Web / Executive Pay / Martin Column - 09/27/2010

Funny Money

I had to laugh when I saw Treasury Secretary Geithner and Fed Chair Bernanke announce, with great fanfare, a new high-tech $100 bill. It’s supposed to ward off counterfeiters.

How big is the currency fraud the two G-men are after? Of the roughly $625 billion in “Franklins” in circulation, less than 1/100 of one percent is reported counterfeit, according to the Treasury Department.

That means that Geithner and Bernanke are trying to protect the taxpayers against the loss of $62.5 million from phony hundred dollar bills. That might seem to be a big hit on the American people – we need every dollar we can get these days - except that’s nothing when you compare it to, say, the $750 billion in taxpayer money that went to rescue Wall Street from speculation and outright thievery.

It’s less than nothing when compared to the estimated $600 trillion dollars in “derivatives” – packages of investments – that are sitting in investment portfolios throughout the global economy. That sum is about ten times the value of the entire output of goods and services by every country on earth. The geniuses on Wall Street were giddy trading derivatives with each other, getting a cut of every transaction, until suddenly the players realized they had no idea what the derivatives were worth. Indeed, many derivatives have no intrinsic economic value, but rather are simply bets on how other packages of investments will perform on Wall Street. Derivatives were at the core of the Wall Street collapse that threw our economy into a deep dive.

Our two crime-fighting government officials missed the real crime against the taxpayers – like everyone else who was supposed to be looking after the public’s interest. They sat idly by while hundreds of wealthy and politically-connected individuals made billions of dollars trading worthless securities until greed and the laws of gravity caught up with them.

Geithner and Bernanke remain at the scene of the crime. Which, of course, is still going on, day and night, and will continue until Congress puts an end to it, if our elected representatives can overcome the power of the Dark Side – derivatives lobby.

Meanwhile, we are meant to be thrilled and comforted by the spectacle of a greenback that is tough to duplicate. It’s like a cheap magic trick designed to distract us from what’s really going on.

You can see a $100 bill, after all. And it's easy to imagine some lowlife printing it up in a shed in his backyard. But no Americans ever saw a Wall Street trader concoct a derivative or try to foist one off on a clerk at the local grocery store. The derivatives that brought America to its knees exist only as electronic apparitions on a bank of monitors in front of some speculator at a Goldman Sachs or similar operation. Those are the people who were really “making” money.

Meanwhile, the new U.S. $100 bill introduced by Geithner and Bernanke has a big blue stripe down the middle, and all sorts of busy and confusing images designed to thwart criminals. It looks like something that has been run over several times by a truck. Just like our economy.

Derivatives / Harvey Column - 04/22/2010

Obama Strikes Out

That didn’t take long.

Just a couple of days after the New York Times reported that Wall Street was unhappy with the return on its massive investment in the Democratic Party; President Obama softens his rhetoric on the big bankers. He told Business Week he didn’t “begrudge” bailed-out too big to fail bankers their bonuses, benignly comparing them to all the top baseball players who earn fat salaries yet don’t make it to the World Series.

“That’s part of the free-market system,” Obama opined.

Obama knows some of the bankers personally, he tells Business Week, and finds them “savvy businessmen.”

Before the bankers complained publicly about their lack of return on campaign contributions to Obama and the Democrats, the president had recently been trying out a tougher stance: suggesting “too big to fail” banks, their risky behavior and the fat bonuses that fuel it should be reined in.

President Obama has been consistently inconsistent in the fight over financial reform. He’ll make strong proposals one day (judicial cram-downs to help homeowners in foreclosure, for example) and then leave them to die without his support in Congress under withering assault by bank lobbyists. He’ll blast the bankers’ bonuses one day and cozy up to them the next. It was less than a month ago that the president labeled the bonuses “obscene” and pledged to tax them.

By contrast, the bankers have been relentless and shrewd in their fight to delay, confuse, stymie and water down attempts at reform. They have fought in the back rooms, in the media and the floors of Congress, using checkbooks and rhetoric.

The president is spot on, however, when he refers to the remaining big bankers as savvy. After they wrecked the economy, they didn’t waste the financial crisis. They’ve come back bigger and stronger than ever, with fewer competitors, with a firm grasp on a steady pipeline of cash from the federal treasury.

For a more clear-eyed view of the bankers, what they’ve been up to and what they have to do, we have Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Law professor and congressionally appointed bailout monitor. “This generation of Wall Street CEOs could be the ones to forfeit America’s trust,” she wrote Monday in the Wall Street Journal [no link]. “When the history of the Great Recession is written, they can be singled out as the bonus babies who were so short-sighted that they put the economy at risk and contributed to the destruction of their own companies. Or they can acknowledge how Americans’ trust has been lost and take the first steps to earn it back.”

With his wish-washy approach, the president is in his own real danger of losing America’s trust as a champion of reform. Making lame comparisons between ruthless bank CEOS and clueless overpaid athletes doesn’t help the president’s credibility any.

Even the analysts on ESPN Sports Center know that.

Contact the president yourself and let him know what you think of the bailed-out bankers’ bonuses.

Executive Pay / Martin Column / Too Big To Fail / Uncategorized - 02/10/2010

Getting a Haircut and a Hotdog

Lawmakers are always looking for a fig leaf when it comes to presiding over a massive public bailout of their friends on Wall Street. So, for example, when Treasury Secretary Geithner appeared on Capitol Hill last March to explain why AIG got one hundred cents on the dollar, which it promptly turned around and handed over to Goldman Sachs and its other Wall Street partners, Republican Congressman Spencer Bachus wanted to know, “Was there any discussion over a haircut – [the Wall Street Banks] taking 95% or 90% as full payment?”

Five or ten cents on the dollar – that’s what Congressman Bachus and his colleagues on Capitol Hill think is a sufficient penalty for having hopped into bed with AIG? 

AIG / Goldman-Sachs / Harvey Column - 12/14/2009

Heads banks win, tails taxpayers lose

Remember when high risk and reckless trading led to economic collapse?

That was so five minutes ago.

Goldman-Sachs is back to its old tricks, roaring to record profits from high-risk trading - and the federal government is aiding and abetting the whole thing.

You might have thought the feds would be discouraging Goldman from using the economy as its private casino, but that’s far from the case.

Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column - 09/15/2009