London calling – is anyone listening?

Here we go again.

The scandal over bank manipulation of a key interest rate is just the latest strong signal that bankers rigged the system to benefit themselves and screw everybody else.

Not that we need another signal.

The scandal stems from something called LIBOR – the London Interbank Offered Rate. It’s an integral part of the global banking system. LIBOR is supposed to reflect the interest rate at which banks loan money to each other. It’s also a benchmark rate for other transactions, everything from home mortgages and credit cards to complex derivatives.

That means that the cost of the mortgage loan is pegged to whatever LIBOR is. On a home mortgage loan, for example, the interest rate might be a few points above LIBOR. The Financial Times estimates that about $350 trillion worth of contracts are tied to LIBOR.

It turns out that British-based Barclays Bank was manipulating the rates to increase their own profits, and to disguise how the bank was performing­ – possibly with the collusion of their regulators. The conservative Economist calls it “the rotten heart of finance,” and cautions that it is about to go worldwide.

The scandal hit home in England first, causing Barclays’ Bank president to resign and pay a record fine, and regulators on both sides of the Atlantic promising to get to the bottom of it.

But there are strong suspicions that Barclays wasn’t alone, that other too big to fail banks might have also engaged in the same shenanigans. The Wall Street Journal reports that at least 16 banks are under investigation, in three criminal and 10 civil probes.

It’s bad enough that Barclay traders have been caught discussing the manipulation in emails, referring to the rate manipulation as “the fixings” and requesting a particular rate as casually as if they were ordering a double latte.

What’s worse, the Financial Times started raising questions about the LIBOR-rigging five years ago and the Wall Street Journal cast doubt on the banks’ LIBOR practices in May 2008. 2008. So any regulator or prosecutor with an iota of curiosity could have been digging into LIBOR since then.

As we already know, curiosity about bankers’ malfeasance has been a rare commodity among the officials who are supposed to be scrutinizing their bank behavior. Remember President Obama’s repeated promises to get tough on bankers, most recently in his State of the Union speech in January?

Don’t expect Mitt Romney to make an issue of it – at least 15 of Barclay’s most senior U.S.-based bankers have donated the maximum $2,500 contribution to his presidential campaign. The CEO who resigned, Bob Diamond, had been among the co-hosts for a London fundraiser when Romney goes to London for the Olympics. (Barclays’ political action committee has also contributed significant amounts of cash to Democrats, though not the president, over the years.)

The LIBOR scandal rips the curtains away from one of the nastiest Big Lies on both sides of the 2012 presidential campaign: the president’s line that his Dodd-Frank reform has fixed the financial system, and Romney’s pitch that regulation is the problem and that we should leave bankers alone to run their business as they see fit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Column / Mitt Romney / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 07/09/2012

Main Street talks back

Inside the D.C. bubble, Wall Street’s titans continue to have their way.

Their Republican allies in the Senate helped the titans kill the Buffet Rule, which would have required those who made more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent in taxes, double what investors pay on capital gains income.

Wall Street has continued to stifle efforts to regulate risky derivatives like the ones that led to the financial collapse, while most of the Dodd-Frank financial reform enacted in the wake of the financial crisis has yet to be implemented.

In the Wall Street Journal (no link), columnist David Weidner asserted Wednesday that Wall Street has gotten some of its swagger back. “Big financial interests,” Weidner wrote, “are beating back every broadside with a vigor not seen since the financial-bubble days.”

But outside Washington it is a different story.

Voting for the first time on the CEO compensation of a too-big –to-fail bank, Citibank shareholders rejected a $14.9 million annual compensation for its top executive.  The “say on pay” vote, mandated as part of Dodd-Frank, is strictly advisory. Citibank officials can ignore it if they want.

For years, the company’s executives had promised that their pay would be strictly tied to performance. The CEO, Vikram Pandit, had been making $1 a year since the bailout during which time the bank performed miserably. But this year, the bank’s directors decided that Pandit deserved to get back on the gravy train with the rest of the industry’s CEOs.

The following day, shareholders at another smaller regional bank, FirstMeritCorp of Akron, Ohio, rejected the compensation package for their CEO in another “say on pay” vote. Directors of that bank wanted to raise the CEO’s pay $1 million to $6.4 million a year, after the bank’s stock had fallen 20 percent during the past year.

They’re just a couple of non-binding votes. But I found it striking that when Main Street voters had the opportunity to express their opinion directly on one aspect of Wall Street’s practices, the voters voiced disapproval.

Wall Street can’t dismiss their shareholders as a bunch of Occupy Wall Street types out to destroy the system, or marginalize their rejection as mere envy. These are hardnosed investors who would like nothing better than for Wall Street banks to get on solid footing and make money. But these voters realize that despite all the administration’s happy talk about how well the bailouts have worked, the banks still aren’t sound, and that the outrageous pay for top executives who haven’t delivered is a big part of the problem because it encourages focus on short-term profit, loading up on risk and relying on continuing government help to prop up their businesses.

According to Weidner, polls show that most voters have moved on from anger at Wall Street. That may be so. But if ordinary citizens, rather than Washington insiders beholden to Wall Street, were making decisions, I think they would coolly, calmly and rationally favor the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes, and sensible regulation that would keep the titans from getting too carried away with themselves and their schemes.

 

Congress / Derivatives / Executive Pay / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column - 04/20/2012

Corporations Gone Wild

It’s a magnificent time to be alive – if you’re a giant corporation, that is.

Spring is here, and after a deep chill, the mighty mega-businesses are not merely reborn, but blossoming. “Big U.S. companies have emerged from the recession more productive, more profitable, flush with cash and less burdened by debt,” swoons the Wall Street Journal.  The seductively sweet smell of speculation – in mortgages, derivatives, oil, wheat – once again fills the air. Amidst the giddy exuberance of the stock market, why dwell on the dreary conditions among the human population, where one out of every six Americans lives below the poverty line, one of every ten is out of work, and one of every five homes are worth less than the loans that secure them?

Oh to be young, free and incorporated – preferably in an island like Bermuda.

Being a Big Business wasn’t always so much fun. For a long time, corporations had to obey the same rules as the rest of us. And after Wall Street drove America into a ditch four years ago, Corporate America was hurting, too. True, many of us never really thought of inanimate objects as capable of suffering. And come to think of it, I never did meet a homeless corporation (though I’ve encountered many a crooked one). But with bailouts, special tax breaks, and the ability to borrow taxpayer money from the Fed at .05% interest, that painful period didn't last very long.

And then, in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decreed in the infamous Citizens United case that under the U.S. Constitution, corporations are the same as people and spending money is a form of free speech. So when corporations write checks, it’s the same as you and me speaking. And corporations have the right, under the First Amendment, to use money to buy public officials and purchase elections.

Corporate America’s been partying like its in Ft. Lauderdale on Spring Break ever since.

As you might expect from a climate of unrestrained corporate debauchery, there’ve been some ill-fated hook-ups, like AT&T and T-Mobile (the annulment cost $4 billion). But don’t worry about a newly rejuvenated Ma Bell not having any BFFs. Its 100 million customers literally cannot dump the company, at least not without paying a massive “early termination fee.” AT&T’s allies on the Supreme Court ruled last year that the company can strip you of your right to take it to court, leaving you no way to sever the relationship if your service fails, your “unlimited” data plan gets throttled, or you get overcharged.

Big businesses were screwing people way before Citizens United and Concepcion v. AT&T, of course. But those decisions fundamentally altered the balance of power between citizens and corporations in the courts, Congress and the executive branch.

Philosophers, scientists and science fiction writers have long predicted that the moment would come when artificial creatures, created by humans, would become more intelligent than humans – a technological "singularity" projected to arrive later this century. But no one would have guessed that 2010 would become the date of the political singularity – the year in which a legal construct – a corporation – would become more politically powerful than humans.

That corporations don’t yet have all the benefits of personhood misses the point. Justice Stevens’ dissent in Citizens United  warned: “Under the majority's view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.” But corporations don’t need to vote. Corporations decide who gets elected simply by dumping vast quantities of cash into elections on behalf of candidates who will do their bidding.

As a student of American civic life named Tony Montana once explained, “In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power.”

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Uncategorized - 04/12/2012

Doing the minimum for the 99 percent

From both left and right, commentators have been heating up the Internet with proposals to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour.

It’s not just Ralph Nader beating the drum for the Occupy movement to spearhead a movement to raise the wage, which hasn’t been increased since 2009.

Ron Unz, commentator at the American Conservative, has proposed an increase as part of a new Republican immigration strategy, and he’s has been pleading for Mitt Romney to adopt an increase in the minimum wage as part of his campaign.

Romney has yet to heed Unz’s plea, which force the candidate to fight some ingrained Republican dogma that preaches against the minimum wage, let alone increasing it. According to this old dogma, the minimum wage discourages small business from hiring.

It was President Obama’s chairman of his council advisers, Alan Kreuger, wrote a study, back when he was a Princeton economics professor, who debunked that notion.

In the past, Romney has shown some willingness to discard the customary Republican disdain for the minimum wage, speaking in favor of increases pegged to increases in the consumer price index.

Then last month, after the Wall Street Journal and others beat up on Romney’s minimum wage position, the leading Republican contender backed down. “There’s probably not a need to raise the minimum wage,” Romney told CNBC.

On this issue, the Wall Street Journal and the Republican base is way out of step with voters across the country, who consistently support an increase. According to one recent poll, 67 percent of voters favor an increase.

Which brings us to the other candidate: the president. He’s always said he favors an increase.

Back in 2007, when he was just a contender in Bettendorf, Iowa, Barack Obama gave a speech on “Reclaiming the American Dream,” in which he promised:  “I won’t wait 10 years to raise the minimum wage, I’ll raise it every single year. That’s the change we need.”

After Obama was elected, during his transition to the presidency, Obama’s team promised to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011, with future raises pegged to inflation “to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage.”

But the only increase during Obama’s administration was the one in 2009 from $6.55 to $7.25, which was mandated by a law passed during a previous administration.

The president had nothing to do with it.

Last year, when his labor secretary, Hilda Solis, was asked about the need for a minimum wage hike, Huffington Post reported that she “largely ducked the questions.”

Maybe keeping his campaign promise and improving the economy are not good enough reasons to recharge the president’s enthusiasm for launching a campaign to boost wages for the lowest paid workers.

Fortunately, there are plenty of other reasons that should convince him to do what he said he would.

For one, it’s simply the right thing to do.

As the president himself pointed out just four months ago in a speech with a broad populist message in Osawatomie, Kansas, income inequality is the “defining issue of our time.”

In 1968, the federal minimum wage was $1.60 an hour. Gasoline was 34 cents a gallon and an average new car cost $2,800 dollars.

So the worker on minimum wage could buy nearly 5 gallons of gas for an hour’s wage.  Now that minimum wage worker can buy less than 2 gallons of gas for an hour’s wage.

If you adjust that 1968 wage for inflation, it would be $10 an hour – far more than today’s $7.25 minimum wage.

As the New York Times pointed out Sunday, the average corporate CEO made $14.4 million last year, compared to the average annual U.S. salary of $45,230. A fulltime worker paid the minimum wage makes far less – $15,080 a year.

Correcting for inflation, those with the least income have seen their incomes reduced over the past decade.

Another good reason for Obama to get with it– his base, which has been frustrated with his compromises with Republicans and cave-ins to bailed-out bankers, strongly supports an increase. And so do independent voters. Obama needs both of those groups to win re-election. So doing the right thing is also smart politics.

Income inequality / Martin Column / Mitt Romney / President Barack Obama - 04/11/2012

Attention Unhappy AIG Employees: Good Riddance

Looks like the top lawyer and other fat cats at AIG, whose salaries are now paid by American taxpayers, are maneuvering to be able to escape limits on their pay. Today’s Wall Street Journal reports that a Ms. Anastasia Kelly, the General Counsel of AIG, and four other insurance executives gave notice last week that they were “prepared” to leave by the end of the year if their pay is cut by Kenneth Feinberg, the government “pay czar” who sets compensation levels for companies that got bailout money. AIG got $182 billion in taxpayer dollars. AIG’s top employees want to bust the $500,000 pay cap set by Feinberg.

Harvey Column / Outrage - 12/07/2009

Administration still won't rein in lavish pay schemes

Imagine if you could report the value of your work on your tax return, rather than your actual income. At the end of the year, you’d issue yourself a W2 or a 1099 based on a comparison of how other people who did the same kind of work valued their efforts. The lower the worth you put on your work, the lower your taxes. Let’s just say the IRS wouldn’t be too happy with a system that encouraged low-balling.

Wall Street bankers were able to arrange an equally self-serving compensation system for themselves - and they got away with it.

Executive Pay / Harvey Column - 09/20/2009