Is born-again bank buster for real?

Who is Sandy Weill and why should we care that he now says he thinks big banks should be broken up?

Weill built Citibank into the financial colossus whose spectacular collapse in 2008 helped tank our economy. He said he had a vision of creating giant financial supermarkets that conjured up convenience, friendly service, well-lit aisles and lots of choices. But what he was actually building were massive financial tankers fueled on fraud and risky, toxic assets no one understood, kept afloat with dirty back-room deals, hijacked regulators, lobbying and campaign contributions.

To make that vision a reality, Weill also did more than anyone else to drive the final spike through the heart of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law, which for seventy years had kept risky investment banking separate from federally-guaranteed traditional banking, reducing the risk of bank failures. President Clinton signed the bill repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999.

For his efforts, Weill, 79, made gazillions before he retired in 2006, ahead of the financial collapse.

He also earned a spot among a very select group - Time Magazine’s “25 people to blame for the financial crisis.”  Weill, Time said, helped create the country’s “swollen banks,” which remain one of the economy most serious unsolved problems.

His Citibank is one the worst, and remains on life support only through $45 million [million?] worth of the taxpayers’ generosity.

It didn’t help Weill’s reputation that a few weeks after Citibank accepted its bailout, he used the Citibank jet to fly to his vacation in Cabo, a flight immortalized by the poets on the New York Post copy desk with the headline: “Pigs Fly.”

It was only six months ago that Weill announced he was “downsizing” and simplifying his life, selling his Central Park West apartment in Manhattan for $88 million – more than double what he’d paid for it, as well as attempting to unload his yacht for nearly $60 million. Weill moved to another apartment downstairs.

But downsizing doesn’t mean the same for an uber-banker that it does for the rest of us. He spent $31 million on the largest real estate-deal in Sonoma County’s history, buying a Tuscan-inspired villa that includes 8 acres of vineyards, seven miles of private hiking trails, and an 11,605-square-foot mansion made with 800-year-old Italian roof tiles and 200-year-old wood beams, and a fire truck that comes with seven firefighters. A real estate agent cautioned against viewing Weill’s purchase as a sign that the real estate market in the county north of San Francisco was recovering. As one Coldwell Banker agent said: “[The sale] is not an indicator of an emerging real estate recovery, but rather the ability of the world’s wealthiest individuals to buy what they desire.”

There’s been all kinds of speculation about why has now come out in favor breaking up big banks. But the best way to judge whether he’s serious, or just trying to get a little good PR, is to examine how much cash he’s willing to spend to make it happen.

When bankers, led by Weill, wanted to repeal Glass-Steagall, they fought for 20 years and spent millions in lobbying and campaign contributions before they won. The big banks would certainly put up a similar fight against its reinstatement. No one knows better than Weill that when it comes to changing banking regulations, it’s not what people say that matters; money talks.

How much is Weill willing to spend in support of his newfound conviction? Without massive amounts of money behind them, his words are no more than an old mogul’s sad, empty cry for attention.

 

 

 

Glass-Steagel / Lobbying / Martin Column - 07/30/2012

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

Re-Bending the Moral Arc of the Universe

Thanks largely to the Occupy movement, the disparity between the incomes of the wealthiest Americans and everybody else – now a chasm of historic proportions – has exploded onto the national consciousness. Even the Republican presidential candidates have stumbled into the fray; motivated by the fact that the current frontrunner is a financier, they are arguing over what they insist are the differences between “venture” capitalism (good) and “vulture” capitalism (bad).

Debating the role of finance and speculation in our economy in this election year is a bit of good news for beleaguered Americans who have been steadily losing their economic standing for decades and encouraged to offset that long decline through borrowing on credit cards and homes – until this house of cards collapsed in 2008.

This is a discussion that President Obama should embrace for reasons that transcend the usual relentless drive to get re-elected. Obama has frequently recalled Martin Luther King’s dictum that “the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.” Economic inequality became as much a priority for King as racial inequality towards the end of his life. As Ron Suskind points out in his masterly assessment of President Obama’s first years in office, Confidence Men, King wrote that, “‘the contemporary tendency in our society is to base our distribution on scarcity, which has vanished, and to compress our abundance into the overfed mouths of the middle and upper classes until they gag with superfluity. If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity.”

That adjustment is now a matter of great urgency, because the arc of the moral universe has been twisted away from justice.

The middle class is no longer riding the coattails of the rich. To the contrary, the American dream – that through hard work one can hoist oneself up from modest beginnings or even poverty to a better life – has vanished. The Wall Street Journal reports that the economic recovery may take generations. LINK. Saturday’s New York Times contains an interactive feature that illustrates the deepening divide between the wealthy and everyone else. It lets you check out which professions are more likely to usher you into the 1% club, and how much you need to make to qualify as a member of the 1% in various cities throughout the country. ’

Readers' comments to the article are poignant in their reflection of the profound economic struggle so many Americans are facing. Not all those among the 1% are defensive; indeed, many who might be in the 1% themselves point out that when it comes to the distribution of wealth, and the opportunity that wealth provides, it’s really the .01% at the topmost pinnacle vs. the 99.99% – a distinction the data confirms.

Whatever the numerical pivot point, the destruction of the middle class in this country is a stunning transformation that King would have seized upon. As a community organizer, he understood the importance of calling out inequality wherever it is found in order to engage the powerful force that is the American people. Demanding the attention of the affluent, and their intervention, King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Contrary to some pundits and outspoken advocates of the .01%, challenging the increasing distance between the “haves” and the “have nots” – now that the category of “I have because I borrowed to get it” has been foreclosed – isn’t class “warfare.” As the New York Times pointed out: “Class reality has nothing to do with class warfare.”

The super-elites do not want the presidential candidates even to broach the subject of income inequality because they understand, as King knew, that the discussion inevitably will lead to a national demand for action by the 99.99%, which, to this point, is disorganized, fractured and only dimly aware of the strength they might wield if they were united.

Consider this historical example. Back in the mid-1980s, auto insurance rates in California were skyrocketing. Auto insurance companies weren’t just jacking up everyone’s premiums; they were basing rates on where a person lived, rather than their driving safety record. So people who lived in low-income neighborhoods often paid more for the insurance they were required by law to buy – if they could afford it at all. People who couldn’t afford it – lower middle class and the poor – were surcharged with a penalty for not having had prior insurance when they later scraped the money together to buy it. Not surprisingly, there were lots of uninsured motorists on the road, which forced up the price of insurance for those who did buy it. It all came down to one problem: insurance companies were unregulated and free to impose arbitrary prices. But the insurance lobby was able to block any reforms in the state legislature by pitting urban vs. rural drivers, and the middle class against the poor.

California voters, presented with the opportunity, were not so easily manipulated. By directly attacking and then addressing the inequities in the insurance marketplace, Proposition 103 educated and united the constituencies: the 1988 measure mandated an across the board, twenty percent rollback of auto, home and small business insurance premiums. It also ended zip-code based premiums for auto insurance. Everyone saved money; the only losers were the insurance companies. The industry spent an unprecedented $63 million on advertisements scapegoating the urban and, with a thinly veiled racial tinge, the poor. But the strategy didn't work. The voters saw through the industry’s cunning and passed the initiative, with conservative Republicans in Orange County joining Democrats in Los Angeles to provide the margin of victory.

As a candidate in 2008, Obama promised that the presidential election would be meaningful to the vast majority of Americans who had been disenfranchised by the corrupt political system that precipitated the financial collapse. But he failed to wield his victory as a sword on behalf of those Americans. Now he has a chance to win a second chance to do so. He faces a much tougher battle this time around, among other reasons because corporations are far more deeply entrenched in the guts of the democracy, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, which has unleashed the furious, dominating power of corporate money in electoral campaigns.

The nation’s future cannot be dictated by the 1% and their money  – not if the country is to retain the democracy that was bequeathed to us by the Founders. If Obama or some other candidate engages the citizenry in a debate over the foundational issue of economic inequality, and offers a vision of democracy in which regular people are back in charge – starting with a constitutional amendment restoring the primacy of humans over money in the electoral process – he will be able to lay claim to having re-bent the moral arc of the universe traced by King.

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Occupy / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Supreme Court - 01/16/2012

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: 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

Roll Back Interest Rates Now!

Washington has spent trillions of taxpayer dollars to bail out the Money Industry – not just the $700 billion cash life preserver, but also loans at near zero percent interest. Then the banks and credit card companies turned around and loaned us our own money at ten times the interest rate they paid, forcing us to pay through the nose coming and going.

And there’s no sign of relief. The New York Times reports that interest rates on mortgages, car loans and credit cards are reaching historical records. Credit card rates could climb another three points by the fall, according to one expert.

And that doesn’t include the endless creation of other techniques to fleece beleaguered consumers – ATM charges, minimum balance requirements, and my personal favorite, “billing fees.” That’s a fee you pay the company for the privilege of receiving a bill. To catch a glimpse of where this is all headed, just look at how the airlines are unbundling their services. Last week, Spirit Airlines announced that flyers will be required to pay up to $45 for carry on baggage.

Having abetted the financial collapse with decades of deregulatory coddling of Wall Street (PDF), Washington spared no expense to rescue its patrons. But regular Americans never got any relief.

In fact, now that Washington has declared “mission accomplished” on the economy, it's shutting down programs that were designed to benefit Wall Street but indirectly affected the rest of us. For example, last month the Federal Reserve stopped buying risky mortgage-based securities from banks – a two-year, $1.25 trillion bailout that relieved the banks of the risks of these speculation-driven investments. It was intended to encourage the firms to expand their lending. The end of this federal subsidy is one reason why experts are saying mortgage rates are going to go up.

On the very day in 2008 that the Bush Administration first proposed the $700 billion bailout, I urged that Congress slap a cap on the interest rates that recipients of any bailout would turn around and charge American consumers. And I’ve repeated that call since. But there was no quid pro quo for the public in the deal. Even in the so-called Credit Card Reform Act of 2009, Congress not only placed no cap on credit card rates, it gave the industry months in which to raise interest rates through the roof before the new rules kicked in.

Congress has gone back to work on “financial reform.” The purpose, supposedly, is to pass new laws that would prevent another financial collapse. There’s no reason why Congress can’t include some relief for Americans who are still suffering from the last debacle. My proposal: a rollback of credit card interest rates. Although there’s no reason to do it, lets be generous and let the banks and credit card companies earn three percentage points more from us than they have to pay when they borrow our money from the Federal Reserve. That would knock interest rates down to around 4%. Citibank, which is alive today only because it got $45 billion of taxpayer support, is charging upwards of 15% for its best credit card customers. Most of the other big card companies are doing the same.

Lowering interest rates would provide needed relief for tens of millions of American families, and would jumpstart the economy by stimulating more spending. No doubt some would say that we should not return to the era of “cheap money” when everybody was encouraged to spend more than they had by putting lifestyle improvements on plastic. I’m not advocating fiscal irresponsibility, but right now that argument sounds more than a little patronizing. True, some Americans got in over their heads, but the financial collapse itself was the fault of greed-driven Money Industry speculators, many of whom walked away with millions of dollars in pay and bonuses. So they’re all set; they got theirs – in fact, are still raking it in – but now average Americans are told they need to scale back at a time when many are struggling to put food on the table and might need to use a credit card to pay for a doctor’s visit? Why should Americans pay exorbitant rates to fatten the coffers of the firms that got us into this mess?

I say, roll ‘em back!

Harvey Column / Outrage / Uncategorized - 04/14/2010

AIG Founder Asks “Terrorists” for Help

One of the particularly infuriating aspects of the financial crisis is the unapologetic hypocrisy of the Wall Street titans.

These devotees of free markets didn’t hesitate to grab the taxpayer life preservers blithely tossed to them by the U.S. Treasury when they were about to go under. Taxpayers never got a “thank you,” much less “I’m sorry,” from these geniuses who nearly destroyed our economy.

But one among them has set himself apart. I refer to Maurice Greenberg, the founder of American International Group, or AIG. In its prime, AIG was possibly the largest insurance company on the planet, selling everything from life insurance to environmental liability coverage for big corporations.

Greenberg was used to the royal treatment accorded the billionaires at the top of the Money Industry. He pulled in $20 million in 2004 from AIG and an off-the-books executive slush fund the company setup for its top execs.

Like many of his peers at that level, Greenberg was a major player in American politics. AIG and Greenberg’s charities donated tens of millions of dollars to grease the wheels in Washington and keep his company free of regulation.

But unlike many of his insurance brethren, who had figured out that they were usually better off keeping their thoughts to themselves, Greenberg never hesitated to pronounce his views, especially when he thought it was good for business. So Greenberg put himself and his behemoth insurance company at the forefront of “tort reform” – an insurance industry inspired propaganda effort to blame trial lawyers and personal injury lawsuits (“torts”) for higher insurance premiums.

“Tort reform” conveniently diverted public attention from the fact that insurance companies were raising rates in order to offset investment losses in the stock market  - often while friendly state insurance regulators looked the other way. There was another benefit, too. The “solution” advocated by the insurance companies was to restrict the rights of Americans to have their day in court. This usually involved capping damages or attorneys fees, both of which enabled insurance companies to pay out less in claims, and keep more money for themselves. Too many willing state legislatures fell for this trick, though California voters ultimately got it right and capped the insurance industry’s premiums.

Back in 2004, when George Bush and the Corporate Republican Establishment were firmly in control of Washington, “tort reform” was high on their list of priorities. In fact, they expanded their attack, targeting the class action lawsuits that consumers often bring against corporations. Greenberg was a particularly vociferous cheerleader for the push to limit the ability of injured or ripped-off consumers to undertake a class action.

Referring to legislation that would restrict consumers’ ability to bring a class action lawsuit, Reuters reported in 2004 that "Greenberg likened the battle over reforming class action litigation to the White House's 'war on terror.’” Reuters quoted Greenberg as saying, “It's almost like fighting the war on terrorists….I call the plaintiff's bar terrorists."

That was 2004. A year later, Greenberg himself was in a world of legal trouble (PDF). He was ousted in 2005 after an investigation by New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer found that AIG had engineered a series of sham transactions intended to make AIG’s financial picture look better. In 2006, AIG paid $1.6 billion to settle a variety of charges.

Then came the financial collapse. AIG was at the forefront of the form of Wall Street gambling known as “credit default swaps,” under which AIG would sell insurance on packages of subprime mortgages known as “derivatives.” Though long gone, Greenberg remained AIG’s biggest shareholder, so he lost billions when AIG’s credit default swaps went into default and the Bush Administration took over the company in exchange for a taxpayer bailout that now totals $182 billion.

Ever since then, Greenberg’s been insisting on justice… for himself.

Demanding an investigation of the government’s decision to seize AIG, Greenberg suggested “class-action lawsuits that put people under oath in depositions and discovery.”

A fervent deregulator, Greenberg now blames the federal government for failing to regulate his industry. “I don’t recall any regulator coming to look at the [insurance] holding companies, and if they did, it was a very superficial job,” according to a report on a speech Greenberg gave last year.

In a speech in February, Greenberg had this to say about improving America’s judicial system: “We go around the world preaching about the importance of the rule of law…. We better take a look at America and make sure we have the rule of law here first.”

AIG / Harvey Column - 03/15/2010