Posts tagged with 'Nomi Prins'
Weekly Audit: How Deregulation Fueled Goldman Sachs’ Scam
Filed under: 
by Zach Carter, Media Consortium blogger
Last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed fraud charges against Goldman Sachs and underscored what most Americans have believed for some time: Wall Street has rigged the economy in its own favor, and will stop at nothing—not even outright theft—to boost its profits. What’s worse, Goldman’s scam could have been completely prevented by better regulations and law enforcement.
Goldman’s heist
Let’s be clear. “Financial fraud” means “theft.” Goldman Sachs sold investors securities that were stocked with subprime mortgages and had been cherry-picked by a hedge fund manager named John Paulson. Paulson believed these mortgages were about to go bust, so he helped Goldman Sachs concoct the securities so that he could bet against them himself.
Goldman Sachs, like Paulson, also bet against the securities. But when Goldman sold the securities to investors, it didn’t tell them that Paulson had devised the securities, or that he was betting on their failure. By withholding crucial information from investors, Goldman directly profited from the scam at the expense of its own clients. If ordinary citizens did what the SEC’s alleges Goldman did, we’d call it stealing. (more…)
Weekly Audit: Crashing the Corporate Christmas Party
By Zach Carter, Media Consortium Blogger
While Wall Street will ring in the new year with huge bonuses and taxpayer-fueled profits, there is little holiday cheer for the workers whose tax dollars funded the bank bailouts. Although bank stock prices have soared for most of the year, the unemployment rate has steadily climbed and the foreclosure crisis has swelled to epic proportions.
Nomi Prins details the disconnect between Wall Street and the rest of us for AlterNet. The government’s massive giveaways to big banks did not stop with the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. In fact, earlier this month, the Internal Revenue Service granted Citigroup a $38 billion tax break for, well, nothing. Like every other financial boon the Treasury and the Federal Reserve have granted banks since 2008, this special holiday gift will help boost Citigroup’s profits, but does little to boost lending to small businesses, lower credit card interest rates or help struggling borrowers stay in their homes. (more…)
Weekly Audit: Obama’s Regulation Overhaul Comes Up Short
by Zach Carter, TMC MediaWire Blogger
President Barack Obama rolled out his plan to overhaul financial regulation last week. While much of the Obama plan relies on the same regulators and structures that led to the current meltdown, there is one key exception. The establishment of an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency would give ordinary citizens a seat at the financial policy table for the first time and prevent the abuses in credit card and mortgage lending that have wreaked havoc on households all over the country.
The new agency is the brainchild of Harvard University Law School Professor Elizabeth Warren. As chair of a key oversight panel for the Treasury Department’s bank bailout program, Warren has uncovered major deficiencies in the government’s handling of the plan, including nearly $80 billion in overpayments to bailed-out banks. American News Project features footage of an interview with Warren, who explains why we need a separate agency to regulate on behalf of consumers.
Several bank regulatory agencies, the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision are already charged with writing and enforcing consumer protection rules for credit cards and mortgages, but have generally abandoned these duties to act as cheerleaders for their banks.The current structure’s problems are two-fold. First, the current regulators are funded by fees levied on the very banks they regulate. When there are several different bank regulators, regulators compete to offer the weakest oversight and attract more banks, and, in turn, more funding. The process quickly becomes a race to the bottom. When the subprime mortgage boom was surging in 2003, the OCC, a federal bank regulator, went to court to ensure that the state of Georgia’s tough predatory lending laws could not be enforced.
Second, the regulatory agencies tend to look at the health of the bank, rather than the quality of the loans it makes. If a commercial bank like Citigroup makes a really outrageous predatory loan, then sells that loan to an unregulated investment bank like Goldman Sachs, Citi’s regulator doesn’t particularly care. A new regulatory agency that answers exclusively to consumers rather than banks would be a very meaningful change for the financial system.
The rest of the overhaul is a little frightening. As William Greider explains for The Nation, instead of crafting explicit rules to curb obvious abuses, Obama’s plan relies very heavily on ceding power to the Federal Reserve. Under the new framework, the Fed would both oversee “systemic risk” in the financial architecture and regulate the banks that have become “too big to fail.” This, Greider emphasizes, is a very bad idea. The Fed has repeatedly proven itself to be uninterested in regulating banks. Citi needed $45 billion in direct cash infusions from the U.S. taxpayer and hundreds of billions of dollars in other guarantees to stay afloat, as Nomi Prins writes for Mother Jones. Who was charged with regulating the company and making sure such an outrage never occurred? The Fed.
In a video spot for GritTV, former senior banking regulator William Black argues that it makes little sense to allow banks to become too big to fail at all. Sturdier regulations are better than nothing, but the real solution is to break them up. “Why would we allow banks to be so big that they threaten the global economy?” Black asks.
Going back to Prins in Mother Jones: Elsewhere, the regulatory revamp is simply too vague to be helpful. Regarding derivatives—the financial weapons of mass destruction that destroyed AIG—it’s not clear if Obama wants to regulate the entire industry, or a small, meaningless fraction. Obama’s plan is to require that “standardized” derivatives are traded on exchanges and allow “customized” derivatives to escape investor scrutiny. But the Treasury never explains what the difference is between these “standard” and “custom” products, or how it will make sure banks don’t game the system.
Lest we forget, this crazy finance system brought us the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. The unemployment rate, by conservative measures, is at 9.4% and rising. You may have noticed the stories about “green shoots” signaling the first inklings of economic recovery circulating through the media. But these signs are only promising, AlterNet’s Joshua Holland explains, if you take them completely out of context and ignore all of the other terrible news. The economy is in great shape … except for the millions of foreclosures that will take place this year, the skyrocketing unemployment rate, the decimated retirement funds, and the mountains of credit card debt weighing down the average U.S. consumer.
Serious consumer protections are nothing to scoff at, especially after watching an outbreak of predatory mortgage lending spawn an economic collapse. It comes as no surprise then, as Tim Fernholz notes for The American Prospect, that the bank lobby is already working to water down the new consumer protection agency’s powers. But even if a regulator for consumers makes the final legislative cut, with so many drastic problems in the current financial regulatory structure, the Obama plan simply does not do what is necessary to fend off another crisis.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy. Visit StimulusPlan.NewsLadder.net and Economy.NewsLadder.net for complete lists of articles on the economy, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical health and immigration issues, check out Healthcare.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.
Weekly Audit: Reining in the Subprime Scoundrels
by Zach Carter, TMC MediaWire Blogger
President Barack Obama is scheduled to unveil his agenda for revamping financial regulation later this week. As the economy struggles though a recession created by the banking industry, it’s crucial that Obama and his advisers craft a set of rules ensuring that the financial sector strengthens our economy instead of destroying it.
Various government regulatory agencies are sparring over how the final regulatory structure will be divided. But, as Robert Kuttner notes for The American Prospect, the most important aspects of the plan will not be who regulates what, but how stringently they are required to regulate. The Federal Reserve has had the power to devise consumer protection regulations for years, but has generally decided against writing strong rules to defend borrowers. There is perhaps no area of public policy more critical to the nation’s economic stability than consumer protections in banking, especially as the subprime mortgage crisis continues to devastate U.S. households.
Without stronger regulations, the government’s rescue programs for the financial sector will be a complete waste, and bailouts will only reward the destructive behavior that created the current recession. And the bailout plans are getting more absurd every week. Writing for Mother Jones, Nomi Prins details the latest bank bailout farce: The false euphoria emanating from the Treasury Department after it decided to allow 10 banks to return the bailout money it received from the public. Or, at least, some of the bailout money.
As Prins explains, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) accounts for just a tiny fraction of the bank rescue efforts currently orchestrated by the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC. When banks accepted TARP money, they agreed to implement a few modest restrictions on executive pay, though none of the other bailouts came with any strings attached. The FDIC, for instance, agreed to guarantee the corporate debt that banks issue to fund their operations without requiring banks to adopt any changes in the way they do business. This government backing has allowed banks to raise several billion dollars in funding at extremely inexpensive rates, at a time when most banks were struggling to raise any money at all. Suddenly, some of the chief beneficiaries of the FDIC program—Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and American Express, to name three—find themselves flush with cash and able to pay back the TARP money, and thus allow their CEOs to escape the executive compensation caps.
As Laura Flanders explains in the below video from GritTV, there is a difference between how “healthy” a bank appears to the U.S. Treasury and what it actually does for ordinary people. The TARP money was supposed to serve a public purpose by freeing up funds that could be lent out into the economy. But the very banks now going off the public payroll have been retroactively jacking up interest rates on credit cards all year and spending millions to lobby against legislation that would prevent foreclosures. Small surprise, then, that the state of the U.S. housing market is as bad as it has ever been.
“The lesson is pretty clear: you cannot stabilize the mortgage market and undercut the working family at the same time, you just can’t,” Flanders says.
It’s not as if the economy has suddenly turned a corner. In addition to all those foreclosures, the unemployment rate is 9.4% at last count and keeps surging higher. But the effects of the recession are not being felt equally among all workers. New America Media (NAM) features a piece by Raechal Leone that highlights the even more severe unemployment rate among blacks in the U.S.—a whopping 14.9%. Those numbers are not expected to get better anytime soon. When economists talk about the recession “ending,” they mean that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a measurement of the total output of the U.S. economy, will have stopped shrinking. Economists almost universally believe that the unemployment rate will increase well after GDP stops contracting—as many as five years in some predictions.
The Applied Research Center (ARC) has released a report detailing the disparate impact of the recession on minorities, accompanied by a host of constructive policy recommendations. In the financial world, minority borrowers still face a dramatically uneven playing field. Black and Latino borrowers were more much more likely to be steered into an expensive subprime mortgage during the housing bubble than white borrowers were. As Nina Jacinto details for Wiretap, these lending practices have been so pervasive that the NAACP has filed lawsuits against both Wells Fargo and HSBC for systematically targeting black borrowers with expensive supbrime mortgages.
We need to upgrade our anti-discrimination banking regulations to end this systematic predation. Many of the other policies that ARC endorses are not geared specifically toward ending the racial wealth gap, but would alleviate some of the glaring effects of institutional racism. Since people of color are disproportionately relegated to low-paying jobs (or, as Leone noted for NAM, no work at all), policies that make it easier for low-wage workers to organize and demand fair pay, like the Employee Free Choice Act, would help ease this rampant inequality.
The Obama team’s regulatory proposal will only mark the beginning of a policy debate that will likely last for months. But make no mistake, serious bank reform is one of the most important steps the government can take to make the economy accountable to ordinary citizens and CEOs alike. Without substantive change in the financial sector, the next meltdown could already be underway.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy. Visit StimulusPlan.NewsLadder.net and Economy.NewsLadder.net for complete lists of articles on the economy, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical health and immigration issues, check out Healthcare.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.
Weekly Audit: The Worst is Yet to Come
Last week’s passage of the economic stimulus bill marked the first major win for progressives on economic policy under President Barack Obama, but the hardest economic battles have yet to come. The fight against entrenched corporate interests and a global order that ignores the needy will likely be as long and arduous as the recession itself.
The stimulus package may be an absolutely essential step for fending off economic catastrophe, but it does nothing to overhaul the deeply flawed structure of our economic system. “In unleashing a flood of deficit spending and avoiding tax increases, the legislation didn’t threaten moneyed interests, didn’t alter the existing economic topography, and therefore didn’t attract the withering hostility from business groups that typically prevents ‘hope’ from becoming ‘change,’” David Sirota writes for Salon.
The Obama team seems to be considering nationalizing big, troubled banks temporarily, a prospect which was politically unthinkable just a few weeks back. Progressives have been pushing nationalization hard and it seems to be working. Several Republican Senators are supporting the idea, as temporary nationalization is already government policy for smaller banks that don’t employ massive lobbying teams.
But getting Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on board is only half the battle. In a piece for The Nation, Thomas Ferguson and Robert Johnson detail how hedge funds and private equity firms hope to capitalize on a big bank nationalization policy by using political clout to score unfairly cheap prices from the government.
“Much of the wind in the sails of this new push comes from private equity firms like KKR, Blackstone, or their political allies, mostly, though not entirely within the Republican Party,” Ferguson and Johnson write.
When the government nationalized troubled banks with the Resolution Trust Corp. under President George H.W. Bush, politically connected investors made out like bandits when the government resold the banks into the private sector. It is important that this corruption not be repeated. We don’t tolerate our politicians doing favors for wealthy constituents, and we shouldn’t allow our financial regulators to do so either.
The current recession has roots in excessive consumer debt—some of it predatory, some of it spawned by consumerism run amok. U.S. economic well-being has depended on destructive and environmentally unsustainable spending habits of its citizens for too long. Writing for In These Times, Terry Allen notes that “our own addiction to consumerism and failure to save tie us to debt and stress.” While consumer spending kept the economy from crashing until last year, it was very bad for individual households.
Over at The American Prospect, Matthew Yglesias discusses the global implications of lower levels of U.S. consumption. As the U.S. consumes less product, there will be major consequences for economies that rely on U.S. demand. Yglesias emphasizes that the current downturn is fully global, unlike every U.S. recession since the Great Depression. Potential solutions will have to involve coordinating policy responses with other countries to ensure that everyone is shouldering the stimulus load—and to help everyone adjust to an era in which U.S. consumers buy less stuff.
As Nomi Prins explains in Mother Jones, Wall Street bankers have always had a knack for bestowing lavish compensation upon themselves. Bonuses are routinely based on ill-conceived criteria that focus on short-term gains and create unnecessary risk. The key reforms, Prins says, do not merely involve capping executive compensation for bailed-out firms, but regulating bonus compensation and imposing heavy taxes on it in both good times and bad.
In recent years, Wall Street has dealt homeowners an absolutely devastating blow with various exotic mortgage schemes, but another major housing crisis is now looming for renters. Despite an overabundance of sprawling suburban developments, U.S. cities are facing a dramatic shortage of affordable rental housing. As hard as the economic crisis is for homeowners, those who rent in urban areas are being hit even harder. Many renters who cannot afford to buy a home under still face housing hardships today.
In the below video for American News Project, Garland McLaurin and Mike Fritz reveal the dire straits currently facing federal affordable housing programs. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, known as HUD, received a significant funding boost under Obama’s economic stimulus package—its $40.4 billion 2009 budget was supplemented by $13.6 billion. But thanks to years of neglect and political cronyism under the Bush administration, HUD housing units have a backlog of at least $22 billion in needed repairs, which severely hinders HUD’s ability to expand operations.
And the number of affordable rental housing units falls well short of what is needed. McLaurin and Fritz highlight Baltimore in their video, a city that has roughly 30,000 subsidized housing spaces, but will require 60,000 more to built in order to meet the city’s needs.
The proliferation of subprime mortgages was one of the chief drivers of the foreclosure epidemic. They seem absurd in retrospect. Lenders charged people with relatively weak credit scores higher interest rates to counter the risk in making loans to people with bad credit. But since credit scores are fairly closely linked to income level, lenders were essentially charging people with less money more than they would have charged an ordinary borrower. Not surprisingly, that business model is now completely destroyed.
But, as Daniel Fireside reveals in Yes! Magazine, there is a more effective way to expand access to homeownership, one that relies on charging—shock!—less for homes. Several U.S. cities now make use of non-profit land trusts to lower the costs of homeownership.
Here’s how it works: The land trust purchases a swath of property and builds housing on it if none already exists. The trust then sells homes to new homeowners, but does not sell the underlying land. The trust negotiates mortgages with banks on behalf of low-income borrowers. By using the land equity as part of the mortgage calculation, the necessary down payment is dramatically reduced. As a result, the home never falls into the hands of real estate speculators and the cost of owning a home falls by around 25%. If borrowers ever run into trouble on their loan, the trust works with them and the bank to fend off foreclosure. Land trusts feature foreclosure rates 30 times—not 30 percent, 30 times—lower than the national average.
Each of these initiatives is absolutely essential and will, unfortunately, involve brutal policy battles. Many people make a lot of money from the status quo. Let’s hope Obama has the political clout to tell corporate opportunists that the times are a-changing.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy. Visit StimulusPlan.NewsLadder.net and Economy.NewsLadder.net for complete lists of articles on the economy, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical health and immigration issues, check out Healthcare.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.
