The Credit Wolves Stalk South-Central

Before they fell into a costly cycle of subprime refinancing, Harold and Patricia King could afford to live in their modest two-bedroom home in south-central Los Angeles. They had paid $17,500 for it in 1968 with the help of a low-interest G.I loan.They raised two children and two grandchildren there. Harold retired in 1994 after 30 years on General Motors’ assembly line. His wife retired a few years later from her clerical job with the school district. They had a monthly fixed income of $2,900 and a fixed monthly mortgage payment of less than $1,000. They could handle it.

Unlike some who were able to take advantage of the cash they squeezed from the value of their homes, the Kings have little more than financial devastation to show for it. They refinanced 10 times — eight times between 2000 and 2006 — through various financial institutions. They wound up with more than a half million dollars in debt and payments more than their monthly income. Earlier this year they joined the more than 1 million other homeowners across the country that face foreclosure.

While we’ve seen and heard lots of stories of families suffering through losing homes they could never actually afford, the King’s saga puts into sharp focus one of the overlooked aspects of the on-going foreclosure crisis –many homeowners who had traditional– and affordable – mortgage loans were sold into subprime hell via refinancing deals.

In its 2006 study, “Losing Ground,” the Center for Responsible Lending found that between 1998 and 2006, “the majority of subprime loans have been refinances rather than purchase mortgages to buy homes,” and that homeowners who repeatedly refinance face a higher likelihood of facing foreclosure.

In February, the Kings packed their belongings in boxes, preparing for the loss of their long-time home. But they decided to fight for the home they’ve lived in for more than 40 years.  With the help of their lawyer, they’ve been able to stave off foreclosure, at least through the rest of the year. They’ve gone on the offense, suing their most recent lenders earlier this year for fraud and elder abuse.

Tracking the complex cast of characters and institutions with key roles on the business side of the Kings’ plight also offers a stark reminder that the explosive growth in subprime created vast wealth that never trickled down to hard-hit communities like south-central Los Angeles, a once-vibrant largely African-American and Latino neighborhood increasingly blighted by the lasting marks of the severe recession – high unemployment and high rates of foreclosure.

Take for example Deutsch Bank, which bought the MortgageIT firm that provided one of their Kings’ refinancings. In 2009, the banking giant increased its compensation to its executive board nine-fold over the previous year, led by the bank’s president, who was paid $13 million. Deutsch Bank’s path through the rocky financial crisis was helped along by its share of more than $50 billion it got in funds from the taxpayer bailout–funds the federal government paid to insurance giant AIG, which were then passed on to AIG’s clients – what has been labeled the “back-door bailout.”

The Kings also crossed paths with a lesser-known firm called Green Tree, which at one time was hired to act as the servicer on their loan – collecting the Kings’ mortgage payments every month. Founded by Lawrence Coss, a former car salesman, the firm had made a fortune in the 1990s by loaning money to people to buy mobile homes. Around the time Harold King was retiring from GM, Coss was drawing attention as the country’s highest-paid executive, winning a $69 million bonus ­– the largest bonus of all time when it was awarded in 1996. The following year he did even better, with a $102 million bonus. However, the fat profits that got Coss the bonus later turned out to be a mirage, built from bundles of risky loans and shaky accounting. Coss had to give some of his bonus back but managed to hang onto his ranches and philanthropic foundation. If anybody had been paying attention back in 2001, the unraveling of Green Tree’s business could have provided an early warning signal of the problems to come.

But in places like south-central Los Angeles, the country’s financial institutions were on a lending spree.  The Kings originally borrowed some money against their equity to supplement their retirement income. But then a series of lenders decided that the retired couple on a fixed income were good candidates for much larger refinancing.  What they offered the Kings were adjustable-interest rate loans with low teaser rates and exorbitant closing costs, fees and prepayment penalties. The Kings readily acknowledge now that they are financially unsophisticated and didn’t understand what they were getting themselves into. The deeper they went into debt the worse they felt.

“I felt guilty; I didn’t want to discuss it,” Patricia King says now. “I knew that something was deeply wrong. You hope for the best. But nothing good ever happened.”

Eventually lenders told the Kings that they needed to find somebody with better credit if they wanted to refinance their home. They brought in their 35-year-old grandson Antonio, who at the time worked at the Coca-Cola bottling plant.

According to the Kings’ lawsuit, Antonio King informed lenders that his monthly income was $3,700 a month, but when the broker or lender prepared the application, it showed his monthly income as $10,200 a month. The application, submitted on Antonio King’s behalf, also exaggerated the value of the home, from $154,000 to $540,000.  The Kings’ lawyer, Philip Koebel said of their grandson: “He threw himself to the credit wolves.”

Koebel said Antionio King found an ad for what sounded like an attractive new loan with a monthly payment of about $1,000 a month.

The Kings didn’t understand that they were getting into a negative amortization loan. The Kings were told that they would save $1,000.00 per month in comparison to a conventional mortgage if they made the minimum payment. They were not told that the minimum payment didn't even cover the interest. They were not told that the difference would be added to the principal of their mortgage and that they would be charged additional interest on the ever increasing balance of their mortgage.

With the money they got, the Kings paid off the previous loan. But they couldn’t keep up with the new payments. Antonio tried to work out a loan modification but Green Tree, which was servicing the loan,  “was not interested in making the loan affordable to the Kings,” according to their lawsuit.  Eventually Antonio filed bankruptcy in an effort to save his grandparents’ house. His 80-year old grandfather mows lawns in the neighborhood to bring in a couple of hundred dollars a month.

The lenders have fought to have the Kings lawsuit thrown out, so far unsuccessfully. In court papers their defense lawyers characterize the lawsuit as nothing more than “vague allegations and broad generalizations.” The Kings, they say, were “reaping the rewards of the strong housing market at the time and taking cash-out payment after cash-out payment each time they refinanced the loans.”

The Kings “were clearly very familiar with the loan refinancing process,” the lenders’ lawyers contend.

Like many others, the Kings didn’t see that the world had fundamentally changed, Koebel said. “Once a mortgage loan had been a relatively simple matter; a talk with a banker and a fixed payment for life. They’re not supposed to put your home at risk.”

Foreclosures / Martin Column - 08/09/2010

Quotable: Neil Barofsky

"Even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car."

Neil Barofsky, January 2010

Homepage Content / Quotable / SIGTARP / TARP - 04/01/2010

Letting Go Of Principals

After more than a year of ineffective attempts to stem the foreclosure crisis, the Obama administration this week may be edging toward acknowledging reality.

This sick housing market isn’t going to heal itself, and won’t get better with the band-aids they’ve applied so far. The stakes are high not just for the homeowners: without some stability in housing, the rest of the economy can’t heal either.

The administration announced today that it would begin to encourage banks to write down the principal when modifying borrower’s underwater mortgages. Bank of America also said this week it would tiptoe into principal reduction.

Time, and follow-through will tell whether the administration intends the principal write-downs as another band-aid or something more substantial. Time will also tell whether the administration will fight for write-downs or wilt in the face of the inevitable backlash. It’s also important to note that all of the administration’s foreclosure initiatives rely on the voluntary cooperation of lenders, with modest incentives paid by the government.

There is every reason for healthy skepticism of the administration and the banks’ ability to tackle the problem. As John Taylor, president of the National Reinvestment Coalition testified before a congressional panel this week: “We rush to give banks tax breaks, but we dawdle to help homeowners who through no fault of their own lost their jobs because of the economic crisis or bought defective loans that caused the economic crisis.”

Foreclosures / Martin Column - 03/26/2010

Fed Up: Down With Bernanke

President Obama can’t credibly rail against Wall Street fat cats while fighting for their chief enabler.

Here’s all you need to know right now to decipher the confusing messages from the White House and the Democratic leadership:

Ignore the faux populist rhetoric and keep your eyes on the contentious U.S. Senate vote on confirmation of Ben Bernanke to a second term as chair of the Federal Reserve.

If Obama and Democrats want to show they now “get it” on why people are so angry over the mishandling of the bailout and the economy, they should dump Bernanke without delay.

But the White House and Democratic leadership, including senators Harry Reid and Chris Dodd, continue to strongly support Bernanke. Other Democratic senators, like Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer, as well as Republicans such as senators Richard Shelby and John McCain, oppose him.

The prime reason Bernanke deserves to be dumped is that he is not a reformer or strong regulator during a time of reform and increased regulation. The crisis hasn’t caused him to reconsider. Bernanke even opposes a key plank in President Obama’s reform proposal – the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

He may nod reassuringly in the direction of Main Street but he’s an insider of the Wall Street elite whose prevailing philosophy is a combination of “What’s good for Wall Street is good for the U.S.A” and “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

Some observers credit Bernanke with keeping the country from slipping into another Great Depression.

The country managed to avoid an economic fiasco on the scale of the depression. But why should Bernanke get the credit?

Everything the Fed does is cloaked in a secrecy and doublespeak that mocks the president’s promise of the most transparent administration in history.

What we know for sure about the Fed’s response is that it shoveled cash and cheap credit in the direction of its favored Wall Street targets. Bernanke and the Fed have resisted disclosure of any facts and figures about what they did. When the details do emerge, they smell fishy.

For example, Reuters reported on emails that were obtained through subpoena by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, who is investigating the role of the Fed in the AIG bailout.

What Reuters found was that the Fed, under Bernanke’s direction, along with the SEC, wanted to protect the details of the AIG bailout with a level of secrecy usually reserved for matters of national security.  In the emails, Bernanke’s staff ridicules the clamor for more public disclosure about the bailout.

At issue are payments the Fed made to firms that carried insurance with AIG on bed bets those firms had made on investments. Those firms, called counterparties, included the likes of Goldman Sachs. The Fed paid off AIG's counterparties 100 cents on the dollar on their bad bets: extremely unusual with companies in such deep distress relying on the kindness of taxpayers not to take some losses.

Just what do Bernanke and the Fed have to hide? Whose interests are being protected?  We need to get to the bottom of those questions, not reward those keeping us from the answers to them.

Even if Bernanke did get credit for his role in the bailout, that wouldn’t be enough reason to confirm him for another term. He missed the housing bubble before the meltdown and has shown no indication he would recognize another bubble when it occurs. He has also misread the impact of the economic stimulus.

In addition, the Fed under Bernanke's watch failed at on one of its cores missions – reducing unemployment. Bernanke is more afraid of increasing inflation than he is of increasing unemployment. It’s time for the Fed to shed its cloak of secrecy and elitism and push for an economy that benefits everybody, not just Wall Street. That transformation will be challenging; Bernanke has shown he’s not the kind of leader for these times.

Obama’s treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, is trying out the old scare tactics, threatening that the markets will fall if Bernanke loses his job. But these are the same kinds of scare tactics that a previous administration used on Congress to forestall debate in its haste to push a poorly considered bailout scheme. We may have expected such tactics from the Bush Administration, but President Obama set higher standards for his administration. Now is the time for him to live up to them.

Contact the president and let him know what you think. Let your senator know too.

Federal Reserve / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 01/25/2010

Barack Obama, Meet Gray Davis

The Massachusetts Massacre rocked the D.C. establishment. But when it comes to political earthquakes, there’s no place like California. A look back at the Golden State’s electricity crisis, when a cautious governor let the state’s taxpayers bear the financial brunt of deregulation and was later ousted, suggests that last Tuesday’s vote was merely a foreshock of what lies ahead unless President Obama and congressional Democrats step up.

Nine years ago, Wall Street energy traders took advantage of California’s newly deregulated electricity market to do what Wall Street always does. By gaming the system, buying and selling electricity contracts multiple times, sending power out of state and ultimately shutting down their power plants to create blackouts, the speculators drove the price of electricity through the roof, until the state’s utilities collapsed and the California economy seized up. It was a massive windfall for Wall Street.

Although deregulation had been signed into law by Republican Governor Pete Wilson, it didn’t take full effect for several years. By the time deregulation proved to be the disaster myself and other consumer advocates predicted it would be, the Governor of California was Gray Davis, a moderate Democrat who was on the short list of contenders for the Presidency in 2004.

Then the lights went off – in middle of January, when consumption in California is at its lowest of the year. The energy industry said its plants were down for maintenance. The Bush Administration blamed California for not building enough power plants. But anyone not on the industry’s payroll or blinded by worship of the free market could figure out that California was being scammed, big time, by an artificial shortage.

With traffic signals dark and businesses shutting down, we called upon Governor Davis to send in the National Guard, seize control of the power plants, and turn the juice back on.

Davis didn’t know what to do. Deregulation wasn’t his idea, but it melted down on his watch. We later heard that representatives of the California Public Utilities Commission and some of the state’s utility companies had privately urged him to use the power of eminent domain to take over the plants. But Davis declined.

Instead, he brought in Wall Street advisors from firms like the Blackstone Group to guide him. At that point, the state’s utility companies had run out of money to pay for electricity. The energy companies refused to generate any more electricity unless the state of California – the taxpayers – stepped in. The Wall Street rating agencies piled on, threatening to downgrade the state’s credit rating if Sacramento didn’t agree. It was “blackout blackmail,” but Davis’s Wall Street advisors convinced him that it was the only solution, and he capitulated.

California borrowed tens of billions of dollars to pay the energy companies their vastly inflated prices for electricity. Our electricity bills will reflect that debt for another 20 years. Meanwhile, Wall Street firms reaped billions of dollars – from the phony crisis, and from the bonds that were floated to pay for it.

The lights came back on. But California voters never forgot how Gray Davis handled the confrontation between Wall Street and Main Street. And when an action figure from the movies gave them an opportunity, they terminated Davis’s political career.

Similar forces were at work in the Massachusetts election. Bay State voters were simply the first in 2010 to have the opportunity to express their dismay at how Washington has handled the financial crash that Wall Street engineered.

Like Davis, President Obama wasn’t even on the scene when Congress and federal regulators dismantled the Depression era safeguards that protected us against a speculation-driven collapse. But when confronted with an unprecedented crisis, President Obama, like Governor Davis, choked.

Instead of using every measure of his presidential authority to stop the speculation, punish the perpetrators, reform the financial system and relieve struggling Americans, Obama brought in a cadre of Wall Street players whose advice was, not surprisingly, to spend trillions of taxpayer dollars to bail out the banks, credit card companies and hedge funds, and let Wall Street go back to business as usual with barely a slap on the wrist. The hundreds of millions of Americans who didn’t qualify for a federal bailout were left empty-handed.

Like Davis, Obama will have a couple of years to turn this political and personal debacle around.

Putting a cap on the interest rates we pay to borrow our own money from banks and credit card firms would help millions of consumers weather the coming months and get the economy going again.  Replacing Geithner, Summers and others who used to work for the industry with a few Nobel Laureates like Joseph Stiglitz who warned of the coming collapse would be good for the White House, now trapped in its own pro-Wall Street bubble. Last week, Obama proposed breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks, which would prevent more reckless speculation and future crash/bailouts. But Americans now wonder if the President will follow his words with deeds, or surrender to the industry lobbyists without a fight, as he did before.

Whether Obama will find the courage that eluded Gray Davis remains to be seen.

Harvey Column / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 01/25/2010

Finding Opportunity Among Democrats' Troubles

It’s the bankers, stupid!

President Obama, fresh from a stinging defeat in Massachusetts, came out swinging Thursday against the banks, promising a return to the spirit of Glass-Steagall.

The rhetoric was strong but the details were a little vague. It sounds like he’s suggesting limiting the size of banks as well as their ability to gamble with taxpayer backing. You can be sure the finance lobby will fight to block whatever new initiative the president offers.

Obama’s rhetoric is a year late but does provide opportunity nonetheless. The key thing is that Obama and the Democrats’ problems put real financial reform back on the table.

The debate over breaking up the banks has been fraught with fear-mongering and propaganda: supporters of the big banks argue business won’t have the resources to make big deals. Even smart people say dumb things in the debate, as Dean Baker points out. Broken-up banks will still be huge by any standard, just not quite so capable of taking the entire economy with them when they crash.

The obstacles to reform remain the same as they have been:

1.) a financial industry with unlimited resources for the fight

2.) politicians squeamish to take on their contributors in that industry, and only too willing to let bankers squiggle out of regulation in the legislative fine print

But Obama and other Democratic leaders have felt the sharp prick of the pitchforks in their rear ends.

They know that the public is aware of their clueless response to the financial crisis, shoveling billions to the titans of finance while failing to stem rising unemployment and foreclosures.

One step Obama didn’t take this morning was to scrap his entire financial team, the engineers of his too-comfy relationship to Wall Street and timid response to the crisis that has afflicted Main Street.

Except for 80-year-old Paul Volcker, the former Fed chief who has been born again as a reformer, they should all be fired.

On Thursday, Obama insisted he wasn’t afraid of a fight with the bankers. Certainly none of his team except Volcker have shown any inclination for doing or saying anything that would upset the bankers, let alone a brawl.

The current Fed chief, Ben Bernanke, is also feeling the chill from Massachusetts. Roll Call  is reporting that his confirmation for another term may be in peril, while The Hill reports that Senate Majority Harry Reid has “serious concerns” about how Bernanke, who has strong backing from Obama, plans to deal with the economy.

Now is the time to hold the president to his word. By all means contact Obama and applaud his tough speech Thursday. Contact your congressperson and senator and remind them that you’re paying attention to the reform battle and aren’t about to be fooled. Check out my open letters to Sens. Boxer and Feinstein for my bottom line on real reform.

We  need to tell the president and Congress that we won’t settle for phony reform that lacks transparency or a piddling tax on banks that represents just a fraction of their revenues. We need to tell them that we won’t settle for legislation alone – we need an antitrust crackdown to break the power of the big banks.

If you need ammunition for your phone calls and emails, here’s a study that shows how the financial industry has managed to thwart meaningful reform so far: it spent $344 million lobbying Congress – just in the first three quarters of 2009!

Meanwhile, Goldman-Sachs announced record profits last year, while it doled a mere $16.2 billion for bonuses.

Time will tell whether Obama is capable of delivering the fight he promised to back up his newfound populist punch. But let’s not give the president, or Congress, any excuse to back off or get distracted. Only relentless jabs from you and others will keep them from getting cozy again with their financial industry cronies.

The question right now is not whether Obama is up for the fight. The question is: can we turn our anger and frustration into a political force?

Glass-Steagel / Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama - 01/21/2010

"Apology Accepted, Captain Needa"

It’s not about “sorry” anymore.

Even before the Wall Street titans were sworn in last week, it appeared as if the goal of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s chair, Californian Phil Angelides, was to wring an apology from the men whose companies led the nation into an economic abyss. Whereas most Americans, let me venture, would like to wring their necks.

About twenty-five years ago, I wrote about “inseki jishoku,” the Japanese tradition of accepting responsibility for one’s actions and resigning one’s position as penitence. “These social balancing mechanisms are powerfully ingrained within the Japanese culture. In business activity, they create by necessity a ‘state of intimacy’ among management and employees,” William Ouchi, a management expert, told me at the time. I suggested that there would be less corporate crime in this country if American CEOs embraced a similar approach. 

That never happened.

So what would be the point of a symbolic apology from the titans of the Money Industry – assuming they would be willing to offer one (they tried hard not to, in the event)?

No amount of apology is going to salve the grievous wound in the American psyche as the banks’ profits and bonuses break records.

Like most Americans, I am having a hard time getting my head around how these companies can claim to be earning a “profit” and their executives billions of dollars in extra compensation after American taxpayers were forced to pitch in trillions of dollars to keep the companies afloat.

The truth is that they were able to get away with it because no one in Washington ever imposed any kind of quid pro quo for the bailout.

No cap on the exorbitant interest rates we now pay to borrow our own money from the credit card companies, for example.

No relief for people trying to keep up with their mortgages and pay the rest of the bills.

If symbolism is what this is all about, I say we’ve moved beyond the “apology” stage. How about sending some of these people to jail for twenty years? Or is it "legal" to destroy an economy and cost Americans their life savings and jobs? I had hoped the Angelides investigation would be the beginning of an intensive investigation that, like the Watergate hearings, would lead to holding people criminally accountable for their actions. Not so far, at least.

As I watched the politicians and the leaders of Goldman Sachs, Chase and Bank of America sashay around an apology at the witness table, it reminded me of a scene from the Empire Strikes Back. Han Solo and the Millenium Falcon have just managed to elude Darth Vader’s entire fleet of starships. Informed that Vader wants an update on the search, Captain Needa replies, “I shall assume full responsibility for losing them, and apologize to Lord Vader.”  Vader, using the Force, strangles him. “Apology accepted, Captain Needa.”

Executive Pay / Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission / Harvey Column - 01/18/2010

Stuck in the Fog

One thing is clear: Citigroup executives thought they had a deal with the government to pay back their bailout money so they could pay themselves as much as they wanted.

Then it all started to unravel. The Washington Post disclosed that the IRS granted Citigroup huge tax breaks (meaning billions) as part of the exit strategy the "too big too fail" bank worked out with Treasury officials.

After that the stock market rejected the government and Citigroup’s assessment of the bank’s health and the deal fell through.

Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 12/17/2009

If You Can't Explain it, You Can't Regulate it

Imagine if government officials who controlled some crucial aspect of our lives, say the war in Afghanistan, spoke about it in public only in another language.

Greek, say.

Only those who understood Greek would be able to talk about it or ask questions.

Now imagine that those who controlled the policy were unelected, appointed by a mysterious group of Greek-speaking weapons manufacturers whose business would benefit from the war.

Got it?

That’s about what we have in the U.S. Federal Reserve, a quasi-government agency that speaks in its own language, whose members are appointed by banks, and are not accountable to anybody else.

Federal Reserve / Martin Column - 11/24/2009

Wall Street Gives Thanks

(Translated into English by Harvey Rosenfield)

November 22, 2009

Dear People of the Rest of the Country:

The holidays are here. Like you, we have all worked very hard during this difficult and trying year.  Now it’s time for all Americans to take a well-deserved few days off, chill out at your favorite Caribbean getaway, crack open a bottle (we like the 2006 Antinori Cab), gather around family and friends and yachts, and recognize how blessed we are for getting to “do God’s work,” as Master Blankfein says.

Harvey Column / Uncategorized - 11/23/2009