Home Foreclosure

Bankers. The red carpet’s still being rolled out for them in Washington, but if there’s a stain on it they’ll pout for days. Jason Linkins documents the latest set o f cheap white whines from very wealthy white men . This time they’re upset because nobody from the six largest banks in America was invited to the President’s CEO Roundtable. They’re offended because they didn’t meet with the President? From the looks of things they’re lucky not to be meeting with the warden . Let’s review the record for these corporate malefactors, and then decide: Which of these six banks was “America’s Most Shameless Corporate Outlaw” in 2010? #1. Bank of America Here are some recent headlines for the country’s largest bank: ” Bank of America Ends Year With Flurry of Lawsuits ” ” Arizona Sues Bank of America ” ” Arizona Wants Bank of America Held in Contempt ” ” Nevada, Arizona sue Bank of America over failed mortgage aid ” ” Allstate Sues Bank Of America For Selling ‘Toxic’ MBS ” ” Bank of America Hit With Missouri Class Action Over Loan Modifications ” Here are the details: Associated Press : “Attorneys general in Arizona and Nevada filed civil lawsuits Friday against Bank of America Corp., alleging that the lender is misleading and deceiving homeowners who have tried to modify mortgages in two of the nation’s most foreclosure-damaged states.” Courthouse News Service : “Bank of America violated a consent judgment it signed almost 2 years ago to provide loan modifications and help relocate borrowers, the Arizona attorney general claims … Bank of America has continued to misrepresent ‘to Arizona consumers whether they were eligible for modifications of their mortgage loans, when Bank of America would make a decision on their modification requests, whether Bank of America had approved their modification requests, why Bank of America declined their modification requests, and whether and when Bank of America would foreclose upon their homes.’” Consumer Affairs : “The bank is also facing at least three suits claiming that it reneged on duties it undertook by accepting $25 billion under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).” In total, Bank of America’s last annual report lists 29 pending lawsuits against the company. Lawsuits are not proof of guilt, of course. But the bank has already paid a fine for illegally concealing $6 billion in payouts to employees, and another fine for concealing major losses at its Merrill Lynch subsidiary. ( Both fines were low – not much more than a slap on the wrist – because Bank of America was on taxpayer-funded life support at the time.) BofA also confessed to committing fraud as part of a settlement this month, which the Justice Department noted was restitution “for its participation in a conspiracy to rig bids in the municipal bond derivatives market.” The Bank was also ordered to pay Lehman $590 million for illegally seizing its deposits , in violation of bankruptcy law. Bank of America has been one of the worst offenders during the foreclosure crisis, with documented case of widespread abuse and legal violations. From the Associated Press : “A document obtained last week by the Associated Press showed a Bank of America official acknowledging in a legal proceeding that she signed thousands of foreclosure documents a month and typically didn’t read them. The official, Renee Hertzler, said in a February deposition that she signed 7,000 to 8,000 foreclosure documents a month.” How generous has the taxpayer been to Bank of America? There was the TARP money, of course. And BofA, like other banks, has been suckling at the teat of Federal Reserve’s discount money window throughout the crisis. And, as Zach Carter noted, the bank was also one of two institutions that were the main beneficiaries of a special Fed program called the Primary Reserve Credit Facility. There were those cushy settlements with the SEC. BofA stock was trading at $53 at the end of 2006. As of this writing the stock is trading for $13.30. But its executives have been wasting corporate money and resources buying up 419 web URLs with insulting phrases and the names of their senior executives – most of whom nobody’s ever heard of – to protect their personal reputations. No company’s ever done that before. Bob Scully “blows” (bobscullyblows.com) and Bill Boardman “sucks” (billboardmansucks.com)? Who knew? Last year two senior executives received $9.9 million and two others received $6 million in total compensation. If they’re really worried about their reputations they should stop running their company in a way that “sucks” and “blows.” The guy who robbed a Bank of America branch in West Palm Beach is going to prison . The bank’s senior executives are hurt that they didn’t get invited to the Rose Garden for tea. Rap Sheet: BofA has probably committed more foreclosure offenses than any other single institution. It deceived stockholders, and the public, about the $6 million in bonuses it paid out (during the rescue process). It was equally deceptive about Merrill Lynch’s financial status. And it admitted to rigging bids for municipal bond derivatives. Shameless Quotes: CEO Brian Moynihan’s response toward demands that his bank comply with HAMP’s legal requirements? “Sure,” he sneered,” we’ll go back and check our homework again.” And he says he won’t accept anything but “constructive criticism.” #2. JPMorgan Chase ” We don’t think there are cases where people were evicted out of homes when they shouldn’t have been .” JPM Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. From the Washington Post : “J.P. Morgan Chase, one of the nation’s leading banks, announced Wednesday that it will freeze foreclosures in about half the country because of flawed paperwork.” As we learned recently, Jamie Dimon doesn’t feel loved or admired enough. Small wonder, given the way his bank treats customers. Even as he was making arrogant statements like this one, papers like the New York Times were telling the truth about the sleazy operation he’s running at JPMorgan Chase: “At JPMorgan Chase & Company, they were derided as ‘Burger King kids’ — walk-in hires who were so inexperienced they barely knew what a mortgage was … revelations that mortgage servicers failed to accurately document the seizure and sale of tens of thousands of homes have caused a public uproar …” Failure to accurately document home foreclosures is illegal. I’s lousy management, too. Chief Executive Dimon oversaw a sloppy operation that’s going to cost his shareholders a lot of money : “JPMorgan set aside $2.3 billion of reserves to cover mortgage repurchases or litigation expenses, including some for ‘mortgage-related matters,’ the lender said Oct. 13.” A whistleblower complaint alleges that the bank “sold to third party debt buyers hundreds of millions of dollars worth of credit card accounts. . .when in fact Chase Bank executives that many of those accounts had incorrect and overstated balances.” According to the complaint, “Chase Bank executives routinely destroyed information and communications from consumers rather than incorporate that information into the consumer’s credit card file … mass-executed thousands of affidavits in support of Chase Banks collection efforts … (and) did not have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in the affidavits.” It also claims that “when senior Chase Bank executives were made aware of these systemic problems, senior Chase Bank executives — rather than remedy the problems — immediately fired the whistleblower and attempted to cover up these problems.” There are also multiple lawsuits against Chase for allegedly manipulating the price of silver, and there is at least one report that the bank is being probed by several Federal agencies (including the Justice Department) over its trading activities in precious metals. JPMorgan Chase is also one of several banks that are being sued over the handling of Bernie Madoff funds . JPMorgan Chase “agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations it sold unregistered securities, many of which defaulted, to the state of Florida,” as the Orlando Sentinel reported. That’s a crime. Chase was also one of several banks that paid to settle charges that it illegally propped up a failed mortgage lender . (These settlements have typically allowed the banks to “admit no wrongdoing” – a practice which should be stopped. These are crimes.) JPMorgan Chase’s behavior in Jefferson County, Alabama made Huey Long look like a piker. The bank spread more than $8 million around the county through local interediaries to secure highly lucrative deals on municipal derivatives. As Bloomberg News put it, ” JPMorgan, the second-largest U.S. bank by assets, used fees on the unregulated derivative contracts — and a trip to a New York spa for one elected official — to curry political favor, a decade after the SEC adopted rules to drive out pay-to-play from the $2.8 trillion municipal bond market.” The bank conducted this criminal behavior under Dimon’s watch. And while it “neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing,” as usual, it had to pay a three-quarters-of-a-billion dollar settlement to wrangle its way out of this snakepit of illegality. Rap Sheet: Corruption in Alabama; widespread violation of foreclosure laws; sale of unregistered securities. Also under investigation for illegal manipulation of the precious metals market; mishandling of Madoff funds; deliberate lawbreaking in credit card processing, concealment of criminality. Shameless quotes: “Judy Dimon says the crisis took a toll on him. He used to stand up to bullies who threatened his smaller twin; now he felt as if he, and bankers in general, were being bullied.” (from a New York Times profile of Dimon) 3. Citigroup Citi’s being sued for gender discrimination by its own employees. Citi settled a class action lawsuit after illegally raising rates for credit card customers . The bank’s being sued by an independent trustee for allegedly “aiding and abetting” a Ponzi schemer . Citi executives were given slap-on-the-wrist fines for lying to investors about $40 billion in subprime exposures, which is a criminal act. It should also be remembered that Citigroup paid $2.65 billion in 2004 to settle class action lawsuits over its alleged illegal actions in propping up WorldCom stocks in return for enormous fees. As Citi’s annual report notes, “Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in numerous legal actions and other proceedings asserting claims for damages and related relief for losses arising from the global financial credit and subprime-mortgage crisis that began in 2007.” Citi is still being investigated by Italian courts for possible criminal behavior in the Parmalat case, and it’s being sued by a Norwegian bank for misrepresenting its financial condition and failing to disclose material information. It’s being sued by investors for misrepresenting its underwriting of mortgage backed securities. Rap Sheet : Violation of SEC law regarding corporate disclosures; illegal rate activity toward credit card customers. Under investigation for aiding and abetting a Ponzi scheme. Shameless quotes: “Almost all of us … missed the powerful combination of forces at work and the serious possibility of a massive crisis.” (Robert Rubin) “On November 3, 2007, I sent an email to Mr. Robert Rubin and three other members of Corporate Management. In this email I outlined the business practices that I had witnessed and attempted to address. I specifically warned about the extreme risks that existed within the Consumer Lending Group.” (Former Citi exec Richard Bowen) 4. Wells Fargo They illegally laundered drug money for the Mexican cartels – and nobody went to jail. Here’s a suggestion: Read stories “War Torn Mexico: A Population in Terror ,” which begins: “Massacres, beheadings, YouTube videos featuring cartel torture sessions and even car bombs are becoming commonplace in Juarez.” Study the statistics on the violent murders – which include Federal agents , children, and “penniless immigrants ” – and then remind yourself: These are Wells Fargo’s business partners. Rap Sheet: What can anyone add to that? Shameless quotes: “We’re more of a Main Street bank than a Wall Street bank.” “”Of all the decisions I’ve had to make, few have been as difficult as cutting the dividend.” (Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf) 5. Goldman Sachs Goldman is Goldman. The SEC charged them with fraud, and they settled the suit by admitting their marketing materials contained lies – they called them “mistakes.” They were fined by Great Britain for illegally concealing US fraud investigations. Goldman has a gender discrimination lawsuit, too, and theirs comes complete with strippers and racist emails . Goldman’s being sucked for deceiving its clients over an offering its own people privately (and thanks to Sen. Levin, famously) bragged was ” a shitty deal .” Goldman paid $60 million in Massachusetts to settle charges of predatory loan practices. After mismanagement drove Goldman into impending doom, the firm was saved by TARP funds and Federal Reserve’s Emergency Liquidity Programs. Total taxpayer lending to Goldman exceeded three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Goldman also received $13 billion in backdoor payouts through the AIG liquidation (under Tim Geithner’s supervision). Rap Sheet: Fraudulent misrepresentation; predatory loan practices; illegal concealment of an investigation. And God know what else. They’re Goldman, man! S hameless Quotes: “”We’re very important … We do God’s work.” (Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein) “If I whet My glittering sword, and Mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to Mine enemies.” (God) 6. Morgan Stanley Earlier this year the Wall Street Journal reported that “U.S. prosecutors are investigating whether Morgan Stanley misled investors about mortgage-derivatives deals it helped design and sometimes bet against.” The firm’s also being sued by US Bank for fraudulently misleading it and other investors over a structured residential investment called “Tourmaline.” A group of investors in Singapore is suing the firm for designing CDOs to fail and then selling them as “conservative investments.” The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority fined Morgan Stanley this year for failing to disclose material conflicts of interest to investors. The same agency hit the firm with a $12.5 million fine in 2007 for illegally concealing emails during customer arbitration hearings. In a particularly sleazy move, Morgan Stanley claimed that the emails had been lost on 9/11, when they were all safely stored in backup copies elsewhere. MS was also sued by the EEOC for gender discrimination . The firm was able to beat back an investors’ lawsuit over bloated executive pay – it set aside 62% of net revenue for employee compensation – so its executives get to keep fat bonuses for driving the company into the ground. Greed and stupidity aren’t illegal, after all. On the other hand, their portfolio of lawsuits including one that says they defrauded nuns in Europe . Rap Sheet: Despite numerous violations and charges, Morgan Stanley is a relatively minor player compared to its bigger colleagues. On the other hand, it illegally concealed evidence from arbitrators by using the World Trade Center attack as an excuse, and six of its own employees died in that attack. That’s simply vile. On top of that, they’re being sued by nuns . Shameless Quotes: “When we think back on 2001, we are filled with deep sorrow and outrage over the events of September 11. Who among us will ever forget the shock and horror of that day?” (Morgan Stanley Annual Report, 2001) “When you come that close to really going out of business, call it near death, death experience, the end of the line, whatever you want to call it, your only focus is to make sure your company survives.” (former CEO John Mack) __________________ We rescued these six banks. They’ve all broken the law, and they’re all under a cloud of suspicion regarding even more possible illegalities. And yet they’re all pouting because they weren’t invited to the White House. Which is our most shameless corporate lawbreaker? Bank of America’s the biggest, and it has probably committed the most widespread foreclosure fraud. JPMorgan Chase has played fast and loose with the law, and Dimon’s unwarranted arrogance raises their shamelessness quotient dramatically. It’s hard to top Wells Fargo and the drug cartels (although getting sued by nuns comes pretty close). Citi had Chuck Prince and Robert Rubin, two pretty shameless individuals. And Goldman … well, as we were saying, they’re Goldman . In any normal period of history all of these organizations would be recognized as corrupt institutions, and their leaders would be ashamed to show their faces among respectable people. But these aren’t normal times, are they? Frankly I’m stumped. You guys decide. They all deserve the title as far as I’m concerned.

Read the original here:
Richard (RJ) Eskow: Which of These Banks Was 2010′s Most Shameless Corporate Outlaw?

Bookmark and Share

No one has missed the headlines: Haphazard and possibly illegal practices at mortgage-servicing companies have called into question home foreclosures across the nation. The latest disclosures are deeply troubling, but they should not come as a big surprise. For years, both individual homeowners and consumer advocates sounded alarms that foreclosure processes were riddled with problems. While federal and state investigators are still examining exactly what has gone wrong and why, two things are clear. First, several financial services companies have already admitted that they used “robo-signers,” false declarations, and other workarounds to cut corners, creating a legal nightmare that will waste time and money that could have been better spent to help this economy recover. Mortgage lenders will spend millions of dollars retracing their steps, often with the same result that families who cannot pay will lose their homes. Second, this mess might well have been avoided if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had been in place just a few years ago. The new consumer agency is one of the signature accomplishments of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act signed into law by President Obama this summer. The new agency will take on oversight responsibilities that had been scattered among several federal agencies, and it will be a new cop on the beat that will end big loopholes in the regulatory system. For the first time, banks and non-bank lenders (such as payday lenders, check cashers and mortgage brokers) will be subject to the same federal oversight to ensure that they are all playing by the same rules-no more turning sideways and slipping through the regulatory cracks. Lost in much of the back-and-forth over wrongful foreclosures is the question of whether the scandal could have been prevented. The answer is yes. The practices now under investigation took root and grew because there was no single federal regulator with both the responsibility and the tools to look out for consumers. Had it existed, the new consumer agency could have stopped these problems before they multiplied. Many of the failures already admitted were not sophisticated scams that had been carefully concealed. By enforcing existing laws and involving state authorities early on, the agency could have made sure that the law was respected. No one would need to wonder whether the world of borrowing and lending works only one way: Families have to follow the legal rules, but the rules are optional for big banks. Once it is fully operational, the new consumer agency will have supervisory authority over all large mortgage servicers. It will be able to examine them on a regular basis to make sure they follow the rules. If those servicers decide it is cheaper or faster to circumvent federal law, the consumer agency will have the tools to hold them accountable. No one will be allowed to break the rules without triggering a strong and prompt federal response. Currently, the federal interagency foreclosure task force, including the members of the Financial Services Oversight Council, is working along with the state Attorneys General to get to the bottom of these problems. The implementation team for the new consumer agency is also working to assemble and coordinate teams to deal with servicing and other issues. These efforts are critical, but there is more work to do: We must ensure this kind of scandal-or some close cousin-does not happen again. A mortgage is the biggest financial commitment most Americans will make in a lifetime, and the toll on Florida has been especially heavy and the need for oversight particularly apparent. A few weeks ago, I watched proceedings in a Fort Lauderdale foreclosure court and saw firsthand the painful outcomes for numerous families. Unfair servicing practices can worsen a family’s already difficult economic situation, and the injury echoes from the family to the community and ultimately throughout the economy. Cops on the beat can stop problems before the damage spreads. If there ever was any doubt that the new consumer agency is necessary, the latest foreclosure developments should put that to rest. This post originally appeared in the Miami Herald .

Visit link:
Elizabeth Warren: New Consumer Agency Is Frightfully Necessary — And Late

Bookmark and Share

Home Foreclosures Jump In 3rd Quarter: Regulators

December 29, 2010

WASHINGTON (By Dave Clarke) – U.S. home foreclosures jumped in the third quarter and banks’ efforts to keep borrowers in their homes dropped as the housing market continues to struggle, U.S. bank regulators said on Wednesday. The regulators said one reason for the increase in foreclosures is that banks have “exhausted” options for keeping many delinquent borrowers in their homes through programs such as loan modifications. Newly initiated foreclosures increased to 382,000 in the third quarter, a 31.2 percent jump over the previous quarter and a 3.7 percent rise from a year ago, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision said in their quarterly mortgage report. The number of foreclosures in process increased to 1.2 million, a 4.5 percent increase from the second quarter and a 10.1 percent increase from a year ago, according to the regulators. The report, which covers 33 million loans serviced by national banks and federally regulated thrifts, also shows a sharp drop in the amount of loan modifications processed through the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), the Obama administration’s leading foreclosure prevention effort. HAMP loan modifications fell by almost 46 percent in the third quarter, according to the report. Regulators noted, however, that loan modifications done by servicers outside of HAMP increased by 10 percent in the third quarter. Overall home retention actions taken by banks to keep borrowers in their homes dropped by 17 percent compared to the second quarter. (Reporting by Dave Clarke, Editing by Chizu Nomiyama) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

22 Arrested In Foreclousre Protest At Chase

December 16, 2010

LOS ANGELES — Police arrested 22 demonstrators who blocked entry to a downtown Chase bank branch Thursday to protest what they said were unfair home foreclosures. The demonstrators, which included homeowners facing foreclosure, community advocates and labor leaders, silently allowed officers to bind their wrists behind their backs with plastic restraints and guide them into a police van. Dozens more demonstrators chanted and marched on a nearby sidewalk holding sighs that said “Stop Bank Greed, Save Our Neighborhoods” as the 12 men and 10 women were taken into custody. Detective Gus Villanueva said there were no injuries to police or protesters, who would be cited for trespassing and released. Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment member David Mazariegos said the demonstrators hoped to bring attention to the plight of people who were unjustly losing their homes. He said banks’ failure to modify many borrowers’ loans puts them in violation of the Home Affordable Modification Program in which lenders agreed to participate as part of the bank bailout. “The banks are not helping anyone stay in their homes,” Mazariegos said. “It’s highway robbery, what they’re doing to these people.” ACCE director Amy Schur said the groups were singling out JPMorgan Chase & Co. because most of the borrowers whose foreclosures and evictions they are contesting are serviced by that bank. A Chase spokeswoman did not immediately return a phone call Thursday.

Read the full article →

Obama Administration Will Spend Just $12 Billion Of The $50 Billion Promised To Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosure, CBO Says

November 30, 2010

The Obama administration will spend less than a quarter of the $50 billion it promised to help homeowners facing foreclosure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in a report Monday. The CBO projection raises fresh questions about the success of the administration’s foreclosure-prevention efforts and its commitment to helping homeowners, even as unemployment hovers near 10 percent. Corporations and large banks appear to be in full-fledged recovery — last quarter, corporate profits reached an all-time high of $1.66 trillion on an annual basis — but households and small businesses seem to have been left out. Washington policymakers talk constantly about helping “Main Street” recover from the steepest downturn since the Great Depression. Spending less than a quarter of the money promised to help residents of “Main Street” keep their homes may not seem in line with that goal. President Barack Obama and his top aides, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, have made numerous pledges to the ever-increasing number of homeowners faced with foreclosure, declines in home value and reductions in equity. The administration’s programs, announced by Obama in a Mesa, Ariz. high school just four weeks after he took office, originally aimed to “enable as many as 3 to 4 million homeowners to modify the terms of their mortgages to avoid foreclosure.” Using $50 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the bailout fund also known as TARP, the Obama Treasury Department would pay banks, investors and homeowners for every home loan modification that saved a borrower from foreclosure. To say the program has made a meaningful impact in ameliorating the housing crisis would be an overstatement. Through October, about 483,000 distressed homeowners were making reduced monthly payments thanks to the administration’s plan — barely 16 percent of Obama’s most conservative estimate. More than 755,000 borrowers have been tossed, due either to failure to keep up with the reduced payments, issues with documentation, such as proof of income, or bank blunders. The Treasury Department, which is overseeing the program, has not punished a single mortgage company for failing to comply with its directives, despite anecdotal evidence that homeowners are routinely misled or taken advantage of by their mortgage servicers. Treasury has spent just $710 million of that $50 billion through the end of last month. Meanwhile, home prices, which had stabilized, have begun to fall. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, a government watchdog, said last week that house prices have declined 3.2 percent nationwide during the past year. Moody’s Investors Service forecasts home prices to fall an additional 5 percent from their current values. FHFA predicts that home values won’t reach their June 2010 level until December 2013. The Federal Reserve expects 6.5 million home foreclosure filings this year through 2012, Fed Governor Elizabeth Duke said Nov. 18 in testimony to the House Financial Services Committee. Nearly one-quarter of homeowners with a mortgage owe more on that debt than their home is worth, putting them “underwater,” according to CoreLogic, a Santa Ana, Calif.-based data provider. The White House’s programs, while not meant to solve all of the nation’s housing woes, were supposed to make things better. Strapped homeowners would get a fresh shot at keeping their homes, the theory went, while banks and investors would face less losses from a reworked mortgage than a failed one. In turn, foreclosures would wane, putting fewer distressed homes on the market. Home prices would eventually rebound. That’s not happening. Instead, “the expected participation in the Treasury’s mortgage programs declined,” CBO wrote in its report. In March, when the budget office predicted that the administration would spend just $22 billion of the $50 billion it had allocated, or $10 billion more than it’s now predicting, it wrote that the difference stemmed “primarily from disparate outlooks on the number of eligible households and the participation rate among those households.” On Monday, CBO noted that it further “reduced its estimate of how many homeowners will receive aid under the Treasury’s mortgage initiatives. “Accordingly, CBO reduced the total expected expenditure of such programs from $22 billion to $12 billion,” it wrote. The White House’s Office of Management and Budget estimates that Treasury will spend $46 billion of TARP funds on its anti-foreclosure efforts. Last month, former Sen. Ted Kaufman, the head of the Congressional Oversight Panel — another bailout watchdog — said of Obama’s initial promise that “[a]t the time, our economy was on track to experience more than eight million foreclosures, so the goal was always modest compared to the scale of the problem. “Certainly it was modest compared to the boldness shown in rescuing AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bank of America, Citigroup, and the auto companies,” added Kaufman, a Delaware Democrat. “Yet now, two years later, we can see that even this modest goal will not be met.” In its most recent quarterly report to Congress, the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program wrote that “the most specific of TARP’s Main Street goals, ‘preserving homeownership,’ has so far fallen woefully short.” SIGTARP’s chief, Neil M. Barofsky, has been especially critical of the administration’s approach to helping homeowners. The bright spot in the budget office’s report was its forecast that TARP would cost the federal government just $25 billion. “Clearly, it was not apparent when the TARP was created two years ago that the cost would turn out to be this low,” the CBO report’s authors wrote. “While we are pleased that CBO recognizes that the overall costs of TARP are likely to be less than 5 percent of the original $700B authorized, we are working to ensure that our efforts to prevent foreclosures is as robust as possible,” Treasury spokesman Mark Paustenbach wrote in an e-mailed statement. The law authorizing the bailout gave the White House $700 billion to stabilize the financial system in a manner that “protects home values,” “preserves homeownership,” and “promotes jobs and economic growth,” among other responsibilities. Some may argue that the stabilization of Wall Street will be its sole accomplishment. ************************* Shahien Nasiripour is the business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail ; bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed ; follow him on Twitter ; friend him on Facebook ; become a fan ; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

Read the full article →

Robert E. Prasch: Join a World-Wide Bank Run in December — Move Your Money

November 24, 2010

“A spectre is haunting Europe.” Its not the revolution that Karl Marx supposed would come about. Nor is it Parisian students and workers taking to the streets as in May 1968. It is the vision of hordes of Europeans striking back at those who caused the 2008 financial crash. This time, organizers are calling for the use of a new weapon, one available to any of us with a bank account. It is the simple act of removing all of our money from the banks, and doing so en masse on the same day — December 7th. While it is hard to know who first thought of this marvelous act of political theater, it has begun to take serious traction in France and is now spreading across Europe. It has especially taken off since a ringing endorsement of the idea began making the rounds on YouTube and Facebook by the always amusing, and surprisingly thoughtful, ex-soccer star Eric Cantona. Cantona, already famous for his performances with Leeds United, Manchester United, and the French National Team, has remained in the public eye while developing new interests in photography, film, and live theater (Happily for the discerning taste of the French public, he is an excellent photographer, and in the latter endeavors he has the advantage of being mentored by a well-established and highly-talented young actress — his wife, Rachida Brakni). Of late, the famously mercurial temper that Cantona exhibited on and off the soccer pitch has been redirected from rivals and unruly fans. A prominent target is French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s proposal to create a ministry, museum, and mass public debate on “national identity,” all of which Cantona publically ridiculed as “idiotic.” His sights are now trained on the banking and financial system that he — correctly — holds responsible for France’s current economic problems. This is important because Sarkozy and the EU leadership is using this crisis to erode welfare state protections even as ostensibly scarce public monies are deployed to shore up the banks most responsible for the problem. Which brings us to the economics of a mass withdrawal of deposits from the banks. Will it bring about an actual bank run or financial crash? Certainly not. For one thing, an organized and deliberate action such as Cantona proposes lacks the element of panic so characteristic of bank runs. Additionally, the banks and the central banks overseeing them will have time to prepare for the event, and should be able to reallocate their holdings of cash, reserves, and other assets in advance. If necessary, banks can always borrow short-term funds on the inter-bank market or even directly from the central bank. A mass withdrawal should, however, shrink the profitability of banks, as retail deposits are normally considered cheap and stable sources of funds with which to finance loans. Large European banks, relative to their American peers, are more dependent on retail deposits, so they will especially miss these funds when the time comes to calculate profits and bonuses. But what of the politics? Here in the United States it is now overwhelmingly clear that a dozen or so of the largest financial institutions responsible for the crash and ensuing recession have gained, not lost, by their irresponsible decisions. They repeatedly tell us that they have “learned lessons.” This is true, they have: Learned that their past decisions have enriched senior management beyond belief. Learned that their market share is now substantially larger than before the crash. And learned that the government has deemed them Too Big To Fail (this latter designation lowers their cost of funds and enhances their profitability). Showing admirable “bi-partisanship,” Republican and Democratic administrations have worked hard and seamlessly to bring about these “lessons.” This summer, the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform and Consumer Protection Act enshrined the perspective of financial elites that reform should be primarily symbolic. In a sentence, over $12,000,000,000 of stock market, real estate, and other asset values disappeared, while rates of home foreclosures and unemployment soared, with virtually NO political or legal consequences. I might be a cynic, but I hope to never be as cynical as those who engineered these outcomes. Bringing Cantona’s symbolic protest here to the United States could mark the beginning of a new politics, one marked by actions taken outside of the normal party process where “hope and change” are now effectively stifled by the duplicity of our elected officials. Moreover we, the people, need a victory. We need to do something that simultaneously creates a spectacle and an unmistakable political message. So let us join with Cantona and the good people of Europe by withdrawing our money from the four largest American banks on December 7th (Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo). They deserve our contempt several times over, so lets present them with their just rewards! Sadly, the next largest two in size, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, do not have many retail accounts. But perhaps we could gesture at them with a middle finger on our merry way to withdraw money from the others! In preparation, open an account at a credit union or a community bank over the next few weeks so you will have somewhere to put your money when the protest ends. If you are worried about the security of your funds on the day of the protest, withdraw all but a token sum beforehand and then close your account on December 7th. Perhaps happiest of all, this protest has no downside. You don’t even need a permit — after all, you are just going to the bank! Your actions will tie up their bank operations all day, and their back offices for some time afterwards. While waiting in line, you will have a chance to meet friends, neighbors, and like-minded fellow citizens who care deeply about the future of this nation. You will hurt the profits and the public image of several irresponsible and predatory financial institutions. You will embarrass the political leadership of the nation. And finally, your money will almost certainly end up in a more service-oriented and socially responsible institution. You will be glad that you turned out on December 7th. Robert E. Prasch is a professor of economics at Middlebury College where he teaches courses on Monetary Theory and Policy, Macroeconomics, American Economic History, and the History of Economic Thought. His latest book is How Markets Work: Supply, Demand and the ‘Real World’ (Edward Elgar, 2008).

Read the full article →

Dory Rand: Farm Loan Crisis of 1980s Demonstrates How "Stripdowns" Worked without Working

November 24, 2010

The longer this foreclosure crisis drags on, the clearer it is that voluntary loan modification programs are inadequate to meet the needs of millions of borrowers with homes worth less than the mortgages. A recent commentary published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland shows how an old tool could be used in this new context to help underwater borrowers. The fact that the current modification programs, such as the Home Affordable Modification Program, are voluntary means that homeowners have little power to force reluctant mortgage loan servicers to the bargaining table. While several “judicial foreclosure” jurisdictions (where foreclosures must be approved by a judge) are implementing mandatory or voluntary court-supervised mediation programs that bring homeowners and servicers to the table, such programs are too few to address the nationwide problem of ongoing foreclosures. Continuing to rely exclusively on voluntary modifications and expect a different result would be irrational and irresponsible. There are other options proven to be more effective at keeping people in their homes, such as allowing judges to modify mortgage loans on primary residences through the bankruptcy process. Under this option, bankruptcy judges would reduce the balance of the mortgage loan to the current market value of the home and turn the remaining balance into an unsecured claim that would be treated the same as other unsecured debts in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Almost any kind of secured loan, including mortgages on rental properties and vacation homes, can be modified through bankruptcy under current law-except loans for primary residences. When this exclusion was established, housing represented a borrower’s most stable investment. With home values on the decline, a home mortgage now represents many borrowers’ most volatile investment. When Illinois Senator Dick Durbin proposed the idea of judicial modification for primary residences ( S. 61 ) in 2009, it was shot down by the financial industry as a bankruptcy “cramdown.” Opponents argued that allowing judicial modification would create a “moral hazard” by allowing debtors to get out their debts and discouraging other borrowers who could afford to pay from keeping current on their payments, lead to higher mortgage interest rates/reduce the availability of credit, prompt an avalanche of bankruptcy petitions, and/or give judges too much power. The Cleveland Fed piece is fascinating because it documents how the same objections were raised in opposition to judicial modification of family farm loans (the process was then called “stripdown”) during the agricultural lending crisis of the 1980′s, and how none of the feared results came to pass after Congress allowed farm mortgage stripdowns by creating a new Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code. According to the authors, “the actual negative impact of the farm stripdown legislation was minor.” Furthermore, “what was most interesting about Chapter 12 is that it worked without working… [I]nstead of flooding bankruptcy courts, Chapter 12 drove the parties to make private loan modifications. In fact, although the General Accounting Office reports that more than 30,000 bankruptcies were expected the year Chapter 12 went into effect, only 8,500 were filed in the first two years.” The Chapter 12 reforms have been on the books for more than two decades now. While the authors note that there are some important differences between the agricultural foreclosure crisis of the 1980′s and the current home foreclosure crisis, we can learn some lessons from the earlier crisis. The authors concluded that “the effects of the stripdown provision… on the availability and terms of agricultural credit suggest that there has been little if any economically significant impact on the cost and availability of that credit.” Now that we understand how allowing judicial modification of mortgages on primary residences through bankruptcy would likely result in most parties negotiating private modifications without causing other significant adverse consequences, it’s time for our policymakers to allow use of this proven tool to help stop the current tsunami of foreclosures.

Read the full article →

Administration Official Blames Foreclosure Firms For ‘Inexcusable Breakdowns’

November 23, 2010

WASHINGTON (By Martin Crutsinger, AP) – An Obama administration official says a preliminary investigation into the foreclosure process has found inexcusable breakdowns in the basic controls mortgage lenders should have been using. Assistant Treasury Secretary Michael Barr said Tuesday that a foreclosure task force composed of 11 federal agencies had found serious problems in the way home foreclosures were being handled. Barr told a new financial stability council headed by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that the task force hoped to have a set of recommended improvements ready by late January. Barr said the goal of the task force was to hold banks accountable for fixing the problems that have been found and making sure that individuals who have been harmed are given a way to seek redress. Bar said the investigation had found “widespread and, in our judgment, inexcusable breakdowns in basic controls. The problems must be fixed.” Barr was delivered his comments before the Financial Stability Oversight Council. The group of top federal officials including Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was holding its second meeting. The panel was created by the Dodd-Frank legislation passed by Congress last summer in an effort to fix flaws in current government regulation that were exposed by the financial crisis that struck with force two years ago. Barr said that the 11 federal agencies were coordinating their investigation with state regulators across the country. He said the federal task force hoped to report back to the stability council at its January meeting. “Major financial institutions are being reviewed for problems across a wide range of issues in foreclosure processing,” Barr said. Members of the stability council heard Barr’s presentation but made no comments during the portion of the group’s meeting that was open to the public. The foreclosure crisis followed a housing boom that had been fueled by borrowers being allowed to take out risky loans with variable interest rates that they could not afford. Several major lenders temporarily suspended their foreclosures to review thousands of cases for improper handling. Attorney generals in all 50 states have also launched a joint investigation into the issue.

Read the full article →

Wells Fargo To Amend 55,00 Foreclosures

October 28, 2010

CHARLOTTE, N.C./SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Wells Fargo & Co. said on Wednesday it will re-file documents on 55,000 foreclosures, drawing immediate fire from one of the state attorneys general most critical of banks in the continuing home foreclosure crisis. The announcement was the first admission of possible problems in the way the San Francisco-based bank repossesses homes. Wells Fargo — the second largest U.S. home mortgage servicer — has continued to foreclose on delinquent borrowers in recent weeks, even as its rivals instituted moratoriums amid a public furor over whether banks cut corners in the foreclosure process with so-called “robo-signers” of legal documents used to justify taking homes. Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray — who filed a lawsuit against Ally Financial Inc earlier this month over affidavit problems — said he was “pretty unhappy” about the Wells Fargo announcement. “We had talked to them and they assured us they didn’t have any of these problems,” said Cordray in an interview with Reuters. He added that the Wells Fargo admission “makes it hard to believe any of the big financial firms in terms of what their process has been.” Attorneys general in all 50 U.S. states are investigating whether lenders rushed through foreclosures and evicted borrowers from their homes without properly checking documents. Lawsuits have already begun to trickle in and banks may also face fines or be forced to repurchase faulty loans. Wells Fargo found problems with foreclosure affidavits in 23 U.S. states where the final internal review or the notarization of the documents did not meet company standards. The bank plans to re-file the affidavits by mid-November. In cases where the foreclosure is imminent, the bank will ask for an extension from the local courts. “We found human errors, and we are fixing those errors,” said Teri Schrettenbrunner, Wells Fargo spokeswoman, who declined to discuss the nature of the errors the bank found. NO SYSTEMIC U.S. PROBLEM espite problems, the bank had no plans to institute its own moratorium because it believes the filing mistakes did not lead to borrowers being unjustly evicted from their homes. On average, borrowers are 16 months behind on payments at the time of their foreclosure, according to Wells Fargo data released on Wednesday. One analyst said Wells Fargo’s announcement was a minor surprise, given its prior statements that a foreclosure moratorium was unnecessary. “Do I regard this as devastating? No, but the bank should have known this before they spoke about it beforehand,” said Nancy Bush, bank analyst with NAB Research. Bank of America Corp., the largest U.S. mortgage servicer, instituted a 50-state foreclosure moratorium earlier this month that has since been partially lifted. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and GMAC Mortgage, a division of Ally Financial Inc., both imposed 23-state halts. Wells Fargo also said the affidavits will have no impact on its mortgage repurchase obligations. The bank has reserved $1.3 billion to repurchase bad mortgages from investors. The foreclosure crisis in recent weeks has sparked fears of a shoddy paper trail for mortgages held by third-party investors totaling billions of U.S. dollars, which banks could be forced to repurchase. On Wednesday, the chief of the U.S. Treasury’s homeowner preservation office told a Congressional panel she did not see a systemic threat posed by banks rebuying mortgages, and regulators were monitoring the situation closely. (Reporting by Joe Rauch and Dan Levine) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Video: Florida Election Burdened With Growing Foreclosures: Video

October 21, 2010

Oct. 21 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Lizzie O’Leary reports on the increasing number of home foreclosures in Florida and the potential impact on midterm elections. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Bank Of America Plans To Resume Some Foreclosures

October 18, 2010

WASHINGTON — The pace of U.S. home foreclosures may not slow much after all. Bank of America said Monday that it plans to resume seizing more than 100,000 homes in 23 states next week. It said it has a legal right to foreclose despite accusations that documents used in the process were flawed. Other major leaders have yet to say whether they will follow suit and resume foreclosures in the states that require a judge’s approval. But analysts expect the move by the nation’s biggest bank will give way to an industrywide effort to push ahead with a wave of foreclosures that have depressed the housing market. Banking analyst Nancy Bush of NAB Research said other lenders are likely to follow because foreclosure practices were similar from bank to bank. “We’ll be back to square one by the end of the year,” she said. The bank’s move could mean that the costs of the foreclosure document mess will wind up being less than some investors had feared just days ago. Bank shares sank last week after JPMorgan Chase & Co. said it set aside $1.3 billion in the third quarter to cover legal expenses that include the foreclosure problems. Bank of America Corp. says it’s confident of its foreclosure decisions in a majority of its questionable cases. The bank is still delaying foreclosures in the 27 other states, which don’t require a judge’s approval. Its move comes two weeks after the bank began halting foreclosures nationwide amid allegations that bank employees signed but didn’t read documents that may have contained errors. “The basis for our foreclosure decisions is accurate,” Dan Frahm, a Bank of America spokesman, said in announcing the bank’s new approach. The company said it plans to resubmit documents with new signatures in the 23 states that require a judge’s approval to restart the foreclosure process. It will delay fewer than 30,000 foreclosures. Bank of America was the only lender to halt foreclosures in all 50 states. Other companies, including Ally Financial Inc.’s GMAC Mortgage unit, PNC Financial Services Inc. and JPMorgan, have halted tens of thousands of foreclosures after similar practices became public. Shares of Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America had been flat earlier in the day but jumped on the news. They rose 36 cents, or 3 percent, to close at $12.34. Analysts at FBR Capital Markets said in a note to clients that the bank’s announcement demonstrates that the issue may be “overblown.” Still, more problems surfaced Monday that suggest the controversy may be far from over. A deposition released by the Florida attorney general’s office revealed that the office manager at a Florida law firm under investigation for fabricating foreclosure documents signed 1,000 files a day without reviewing them. The manager also would allow paralegals to sign her name for her when she got tired, the deposition said. Cheryl Salmons, office manager at the Law Offices of David Stern, would sign 500 files in the morning and another 500 files in the afternoon without reviewing them and with no witnesses, said former assistant Kelly Scott in a deposition released by the Florida attorney general’s office. Jeffrey Tew, an attorney for Stern’s firm, didn’t immediately return a phone call. Government-controlled mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have stopped referring foreclosures to Stern’s firm while they review the firm’s filings. In some states, lenders can foreclose quickly on delinquent mortgage borrowers. By contrast, the 23 states in which Bank of America is restarting foreclosures use a lengthy court process. They require documents to verify information on the mortgage, including who owns it. Those states are: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont and Wisconsin. ___ Associated Press Writer Mike Schneider contributed reporting from Orlando, Fla.

Read the full article →

Video: JPMorgan’s Patterson Says Weaker Dollar in U.S. Interest: Video

October 15, 2010

Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) — Rebecca Patterson, global head of foreign exchange at the private banking unit of JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York, talks about the outlook for global currencies. The dollar rose for the first time in four days versus the euro as falling global stocks and growing U.S. legal scrutiny of home foreclosure practices boosted demand for the greenback as a refuge. Patterson also discusses international ire over currency valuations. She speaks with Susan Li on Bloomberg Television’s “First Up.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: JPMorgan’s Patterson Says Weaker Dollar in U.S. Interest: Video

October 15, 2010

Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) — Rebecca Patterson, global head of foreign exchange at the private banking unit of JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York, talks about the outlook for global currencies. The dollar rose for the first time in four days versus the euro as falling global stocks and growing U.S. legal scrutiny of home foreclosure practices boosted demand for the greenback as a refuge. Patterson also discusses international ire over currency valuations. She speaks with Susan Li on Bloomberg Television’s “First Up.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: U.S. Stocks Drop as Banks Tumble on Foreclosure Concerns: Video

October 14, 2010

Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Courtney Donohoe reports on the performance of the U.S. equity market today. U.S. stocks declined, dragging benchmark indexes down from five-month highs, as financial companies slumped amid concern over growing legal scrutiny of home foreclosure practices. Bloomberg’s Pimm Fox also speaks. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: U.S. Stocks Drop as Banks Tumble on Foreclosure Concerns: Video

October 14, 2010

Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Courtney Donohoe reports on the performance of the U.S. equity market today. U.S. stocks declined, dragging benchmark indexes down from five-month highs, as financial companies slumped amid concern over growing legal scrutiny of home foreclosure practices. Bloomberg’s Pimm Fox also speaks. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Sharga Sees Second Foreclosure Wave in Some States: Video

October 14, 2010

Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) — Rick Sharga, senior vice president for marketing at RealtyTrac Inc., talks with Bloomberg’s Mark Crumpton about U.S. home foreclosures in September. Lenders took over 102,134 properties last month, RealtyTrac said in a report today, a record number that probably will decline in coming months as major banks halt repossessions and review their foreclosure practices. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Sharga Sees Second Foreclosure Wave in Some States: Video

October 14, 2010

Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) — Rick Sharga, senior vice president for marketing at RealtyTrac Inc., talks with Bloomberg’s Mark Crumpton about U.S. home foreclosures in September. Lenders took over 102,134 properties last month, RealtyTrac said in a report today, a record number that probably will decline in coming months as major banks halt repossessions and review their foreclosure practices. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Sorrentino Says Banks Need Access to Foreclosed Assets: Video

October 11, 2010

Oct. 11 (Bloomberg) — Frank Sorrentino, chairman and chief executive officer at North Jersey Community Bank, talks about the possible impact of a halt in home foreclosures at the largest U.S. mortgage firms on the housing market. Sorrentino talks with Matt Miller and Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Foreclosure Freeze May Sideline U.S. Homebuyers: Video

October 11, 2010

Oct. 11 (Bloomberg) — A halt in home foreclosures at the largest U.S. mortgage firms may sideline buyers worried about legal issues, further depressing sales at a time when distressed properties account for almost a quarter of all transactions. Bloomberg’s Monica Bertran reports. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

White House: No Need For National Foreclosure Moratorium

October 10, 2010

WASHINGTON — A top White House adviser questioned the need Sunday for a blanket stoppage of all home foreclosures, even as pressure grows on the Obama administration to do something about mounting evidence that banks have used inaccurate documents to evict homeowners. “It is a serious problem,” said David Axelrod, who contended that the flawed paperwork is hurting the nation’s housing market as well as lending institutions. But he added, “I’m not sure about a national moratorium because there are in fact valid foreclosures that probably should go forward” because their documents are accurate. Axelrod said the administration is pressing lenders to accelerate their reviews of foreclosures to determine which ones have flawed documentation. “Our hope is this moves rapidly and that this gets unwound very, very quickly,” he said. With the reeling economy already the top issue on voters’ minds, the doubts raised over foreclosures and evictions are becoming a political issue with the approach of Nov. 2 elections. Underscoring those pressures, two leading lawmakers took opposing stances on the wisdom of a moratorium. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., a top House Democrat, said she backed a foreclosure moratorium and government talks with the banking industry to concoct ways to let lenders reshape troubled mortgages. She said the foreclosure problem has been “extremely vexing” in her state. The No. 2 House Republican, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, said a national moratorium would remove the protections that lenders need. “You’re going to shut down the housing industry” with a national stoppage, Cantor said. “People have to take responsibility for themselves.” In recent days, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in a tough re-election race, urged five large mortgage lenders to suspend foreclosures in his state until they establish ways to make sure homeowners don’t lose their homes improperly. Attorney General Eric Holder said that the government is looking into the matter, and Democratic lawmakers urged bank regulators and the Justice Department to probe whether mortgage companies violated laws in handling foreclosures. The attorneys general of up to 40 states plan to shortly announce a joint investigation into banks’ use of flawed foreclosure paperwork, a person familiar with the investigation told The Associated Press late Saturday. On Friday, Bank of America became the first bank to halt foreclosures in all 50 states. Three other institutions – JPMorgan Chase & Co., Ally Bank’s GMAC Mortgage unit and PNC Financial – have stopped foreclosures in the 23 states where foreclosures must be approved by a judge. President Barack Obama vetoed a bill last week that would have made it easier for banks to approve foreclosure documents, which the White House said could hurt consumers. Axelrod spoke on CBS’ “Face the Nation” while Wasserman Schultz and Cantor appeared on “Fox News Sunday.”

Read the full article →

Robert Scheer: ‘The Great American Stickup’: It Was The Economy, Stupid

September 14, 2010

Excerpted from ‘ The Great American Stickup ‘ “It Was the Economy, Stupid” “How did this happen?” ~ President George W. Bush “It was a humbling question for someone from the financial sector to be asked–after all, we were the ones responsible.” ~ Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., former Goldman Sachs CEO They did it. Yes, there is a “they”: the captains of finance, their lobbyists, and allies among leading politicians of both parties, who together destroyed an American regulatory system that had been functioning splendidly for most of the six decades since it was enacted in the 1930s. The big cop-out in much of what has been written about the banking meltdown has been the argument by those most complicit that there was “enough blame to go around” and that no institution or individual should be singled out for accountability. “How could we have known?” is the refrain of those who continue to pose as all-knowing experts. “Everybody made mistakes,” they say. Nonsense. This was a giant hustle that served the richest of the rich and left the rest of us holding the bag, a life-altering game of musical chairs in which the American public was the one forced out. Worst of all, legislators from both political parties we elect and pay to protect our interests from the pirates who assaulted us instead changed our laws to enable them. The most pathetic of excuses is the one provided by Robert Rubin, who fathered “Rubinomics,” the economy policy of President Clinton’s two-term administration: The economy ran into a “perfect storm,” a combination of unforeseen but disastrously interrelated events. This rationalization is all too readily accepted by the mass media, which is not surprising, given that it neatly absolves the majority of business reporters and editors who had missed the story for years until it was too late. The facts are otherwise. It is not conspiratorial but rather accurate to suggest that blame can be assigned to those who consciously developed and implemented a policy of radical financial deregulation that led to a global recession. As President Clinton’s Treasury secretary, Rubin, the former cochair of Goldman Sachs, led the fight to free the financial markets from regulation and then went on to a $15-million-a-year job with Citigroup, the company that had most energetically lobbied for that deregulation. He should remember the line from the old cartoon strip Pogo: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” For it was this Wall Street and Democratic Party darling, along with his clique of economist super-friends — Alan Greenspan, Lawrence Summers, and a few others — who inflated a giant real estate bubble by purposely not regulating the derivatives market, resulting in oceans of money that was poured into bad loans sold as safe investments. In the process, they not only caused an avalanche of pain and misery when the bubble inevitably burst but also shredded the good reputation of the American banking system nurtured since the Great Depression. If we accept a broad dispersal of blame or a sense of inevitability — or simply ignore the details, since they can be so confusing — we lose the opportunity to rearrange our institutions to prevent such disasters from happening again. That this is true has only been reinforced by the tentative response of the Obama administration in its first year. Even after a crash that economists agree is the biggest since the granddaddy of 1929, the president’s proposed reform legislation stops far short of reintroducing the kind of regulation of the markets that prevented such disasters in the intervening eighty years. We still see a persistent fear, stoked by the same folks that led us into this abyss, that regulation and scrutiny will kill the golden goose of Wall Street profits and, by extension, U.S. prosperity. If we as a people learn anything from this crash, however, it should be that there are no adults watching the store, only a tiny elite of self-interested multimillionaires and billionaires making decisions for the rest of us. As long as we cede that power to them, we can expect to continue getting bilked. Three key myths consistently propagated about the financial markets proved devastating in this event. The first is that buyers and sellers are all logical and well informed about what they are doing, so the markets will always be “corrected” to provide accurate price values. The second is that whatever happens in these “free markets,” the general public will not be hurt — only irresponsible gamblers will lose their shirts. The third is that whenever the government gets involved, it will only screw things up; even if regulators only ask questions, it will poison the pond and spook the fish, to everybody’s detriment. All of these assumptions were proven false; the brave new world order of super-rational high-tech derivative marketing based on a Nobel Prize-winning mathematical model turned out to be a prescription for financial madness. A win-win system too good to be true turned out to be a cruel hoax in which most suffered terribly — and not just that majority of the world’s population that suffers from the whims of the market, but even some who designed and sold the new financial gimmicks. Left to their own devices, freed of rational regulatory restraint by an army of lobbyists and the politicians who serve them, one after another of the very top financial conglomerates imploded from the weight of their uncontrolled greed. Or would have imploded, as in the examples of Citigroup and AIG, if the government had not used taxpayer dollars to bail out those “too big to fail” conglomerates. Along the way, these companies — including the privatized quasi-governmental Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac monstrosities — were exposed as poorly run juggernauts, with top executives having embarrassingly little grasp of the chicanery and risk taking that was bolstering their bottom-lines. Worst of all, damage from this economic chain reaction didn’t, of course, stop at the bank accounts of Saudi investors or American CEOs but led to soaring unemployment and federal debt, the acceleration of the home foreclosure epidemic, massive unemployment, and the wholesale destruction of pension plans and state education budgets.

Read the full article →

Saul Friedman: Consequences of Unequal Distribution of Wealth: The Rich Get Richer…

August 8, 2010

Shirley Sherrod had it about right when she said, “Y’all, it’s about poor versus those who have. It’s really about those who have versus those who don’t. And they could be black, they could be white, they could be Hispanic…” That wasn’t exactly the whole truth, for she and her husband Charles were ardent, longtime civil rights activists who understood that years of racism played a large role in perpetuating the ignorance and poverty in the South among blacks as well as whites. (Racism is here defined as the belief among many whites, supported by the law, that non-whites were inferior. Only in America did the Supreme Court, in Dred Scott , hold that black slaves were chattel, less than human.) Overcoming that sad heritage, Ms. Sherrod, who has spent a lifetime helping in the struggles of the poor, of all shades, put her finger on a fundamental human problem in much of the world — especially the United States — the unequal distribution of wealth among too many of us. That is the subject of a new book that has become the rage among social scientists and activists in Europe, especially Britain. It’s called The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger , written by British public health researchers Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, who have produced an unprecedented rediscovery of the causes of so much of today’s anger towards the institutions of government and finance. The book was called to my attention by a Canadian reader, Dr. Rob Dumont, a PhD, from a prominent and wealthy family. In a reply to one of my pieces on poverty, he quoted from the book to tell me that according to its central thesis, the growing gap in many countries between the haves and the have-nots, is responsible for more than the misery of poverty. According to the book, such health and social problems as “Obesity, Mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, homicides, imprisonment rates, lowered life expectancy, over consumption of resources, teen pregnancy and the lack of social mobility,” all have in common strong links to inequality of wealth. Interestingly, the authors, who have exhaustively documented their work, do not denounce the wealthy. Rather they point out that the most affluent citizens as well as the most wealthy countries also suffer from these ills. Their analysis mocks the American Declaration of Independence which proclaimed, “all men are created equal.” The original sin of slavery gave lie to that promise and the lack of equality has taken a toll in this nation even today. As one knowledgeable Amazon reviewer, Dr. Nicholas P. G. Davies, a Briton, wrote, “Inequality issues are often presented as being about the poor, but this book shows we are all poorer for living in more unequal societies. Inequality is as bad for the rich as it is for the poor. Society is poorer as inequality becomes greater.” AWilkinson and Pickett make this clear with dozens of graphs, which rate the nations based on the problems that come with inequality. As they say, “The impacts of inequality show up in poorer health, lower educational attainment, higher crime rates, lower spending of social capital, lower cooperation with and trust of government.” One graph, showing that “health and social problems are worse in more unequal countries,” makes these points: “The U.S., Portugal and the United Kingdom rate high in the mount of income inequality. For the U.S., low taxes (by international standards), a weak trade union movement, low minimum wage and a tradition of individualism have resulted in a high level of income inequality.” Indeed, the U.S., with its obsession with the market economy, has modest social programs, Social Security and Medicare, while most of the other 20 nations listed are Social Democracies with a broad array of social insurance benefits, including universal health care. Canada is roughly in the middle of the pack, along with France, Spain and Switzerland. Japan and the Scandinavian nations have the lowest income inequality; offering cradle-to-grave social programs. Some critics suggest that the book cherry picks its statistics and the alleged problems to prove their point. But who could argue with the graph that puts the U.S., the richest country, almost off the charts that show the relationship between a huge income gap — perhaps the highest among civilized countries — and such health and social problems as infant mortality, higher than most European nations, homicide and imprisonment rates, the highest in the world, obesity, child well-being (poverty among children has reached new heights) and drug and alcohol addiction? Any thinking American can verify the sad truth in another graph that shows these health and social problems are worse in more income unequal states. With the rise of unfettered rapacious, anti-labor capitalism, which touted sweatshops and child labor, income inequality rose to criminal leves. And today, as you might expect, the southern states, namely Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia and Florida “have high levels of income inequality and much poorer outcomes in the health and social areas.” These states also have the highest levels of poverty, and the lowest levels of education attainment, and in the last couple of years, income inequality has become worse throughout the United States, especially in the industrial north, as a result of the 2008-9 recession, which has increased home foreclosures, personal bankruptcies, and the numbers of Americans — nearly 50 million — struggling against poverty or near poverty. Yet at the same time, the rich are becoming obscenely richer. Michelle Singletary reported in the Washington Post last month that while the average income for the top one percent of earners rose 281 percent, or $973,000 per household, in the last decade, the bottom fifth saw their incomes increase 16 percent, or $2,400 per household. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who wrote the forward for the American edition of the book, noted that today’s CEOs are paid more than 350 times that of the average worker. Surely we’ll see the results of such inequality in health and social problems in the next few years.. In his inaugural speech, President Obama said “The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.” But that’s exactly what has happened, as bankers have made huge profits and gotten scandalous bonuses while real unemployment reached towards 15 percent. Franklin Roosevelt fought the economic royalists of his day to help Shirley Sherrod’s Georgia get electricity and survive the Great Depression with the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Works Progress Administration. What has Obama done? One can blame the Republicans or the U.S. Senate, but where is the leadership of the President? It won’t do to give Ms. Sherrod a job. Platitudes like “I feel your pain” are not true. It might help to use the powers of his federal government to put Americans to work. But as she said, “Folks with money want to stay in power and they’ll do what they need to do to stay in power…It’s always about money, y’all,” You can find out more about “Spirit Level,” at the excellent British web site Equality Trust . Write to saulfriedman@comcast.net Friedman also writes for www.timegoesby.net

Read the full article →

Third World America MAP: Share Your Stories!

August 6, 2010

All across the country, Americans are suffering. In her forthcoming book , Third World America , Arianna Huffington details the economic collapse, and the toll it has taken on so many people, families and communities. Below, we’ve mapped the areas hardest hit by home foreclosure, unemployment and bankruptcy this year. But the map of Third World America is not yet complete: participate below to add your story. Submit text, pictures or video — and share with us how you personally have been affected by the financial crisis.

Read the full article →

Treasury Makes $10.5 Billion From Sale Of Citigroup Shares

July 1, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department said Thursday it has raised $10.5 billion from the sale of a total of 2.6 billion shares of Citigroup stock it received as part of the government’s rescue of the bank. The government sold the shares at a profit as it seeks to recoup the costs of the $700 billion financial bailout in 2008. Treasury says the latest sale of 1.1 billion shares, which figures into the total, completes its second phase of selling operations. In the latest Citigroup sale, the stock sold for an average price per sale of around $4.03, Treasury said. That would represent a profit form the $3.25 price Treasury paid to obtain the shares. Citigroup’s shares slipped 8 cents to $3.68 in morning trading Thursday. The government still owns 5.1 billion shares of Citigroup stock and expects to continue selling shares at a future date. Citigroup, hard hit by the financial crisis, received $45 billion in taxpayer-funded bailout money. That was one of the largest bank rescues by the government. Of the $45 billion, $25 billion was converted to a government ownership stake. The bank repaid the other $20 billion in December. “We are pleased that Treasury has profitably sold a third of its common shares in Citi, adding to the substantial return for taxpayers realized last year,” said Jon Diat, a spokesman for Citigroup. The government’s bailouts of banks and insurance giant American International Group Inc. has touched a nerve with the American public – and by extension – lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Ordinary people have been incensed that taxpayer money has helped banks, while so many Americans are struggling under near double-digit unemployment, soaring home foreclosures and lackluster wage gains. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told a watchdog panel last week that that banks have repaid about 75 percent of the bailout money they received. The government’s investments in aided banks have brought taxpayers $21 billion, he said. At the same time, Geithner acknowledged there likely will be a partial loss from the rescue of giant insurer American International Group Inc., into which the government plowed $182 billion. Geithner also said the auto industry has made significant structural changes, and the prospects that General Motors and Chrysler will repay the nearly $60 billion in bailout money have improved.

Read the full article →

Taxpayer-Owned Fannie Mae Attacks Struggling Homeowners

June 23, 2010

Taxpayer-owned mortgage giant Fannie Mae is targeting families by going after struggling homeowners who strategically default on their mortgage, the firm announced Wednesday. A default is considered strategic when homeowners have the capacity to pay, yet choose to walk away from their mortgage. The trigger, researchers say, is negative equity: When the value of a home is less than what the lender is owed on it, borrowers are more likely to strategically default. About 11.3 million homeowners with a mortgage, or 24 percent, owe more on their mortgage than the home is worth, according to real estate research firm CoreLogic. Another 2.3 million have less than 5 percent equity in their homes. All told, about 29 percent of all homeowners with a mortgage are either underwater or very close to it. The firm estimates that the typical underwater homeowner won’t return to positive equity until late 2015 or early 2016. And Fannie Mae, an arm of the federal government and a big part of the Obama administration’s housing policy, wants to make sure that if struggling families walk away, they suffer for it. Homeowners who strategically default or did not work “in good faith” to avert foreclosure through other means will be ineligible for new Fannie Mae-backed mortgages for seven years. The firm said it will also pursue homeowners in court, seeking so-called “deficiency judgments” to recoup outstanding debt by seizing borrowers’ other assets. Thirty-nine states do not limit the ability of lenders to recover what they’re owed. Fannie Mae said that next month the firm “will be instructing its servicers to monitor delinquent loans facing foreclosure and put forth recommendations for cases that warrant the pursuit of deficiency judgments.” “Walking away from a mortgage is bad for borrowers and bad for communities and our approach is meant to deter the disturbing trend toward strategic defaulting,” Terence Edwards, Fannie’s executive vice president for credit portfolio management, said in a statement. Strategic defaults among homeowners have been on the rise. More than a million homeowners went that route last year, nearly double the amount in 2008 and more than four times the level in 2007, according to a recent analysis by the credit reporting company Experian and Oliver Wyman, a management consulting firm. A study by a team of academics from the University of Chicago and Northwestern University estimated that nearly a third of home mortgage defaults in March were strategic. The deeper underwater homeowners are, the more likely they are to walk away from their mortgage, the researchers noted. Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed a bill barring strategic defaulters from obtaining home mortgages backed by the Federal Housing Administration. The agency guarantees nearly one in four new mortgages. “I can’t help but notice that every group now frantically calling for tough penalties for homeowners who walk away was virulently opposed to judicial modification of mortgages in bankruptcy,” Rep. Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat, told the Huffington Post. Bank of America and Citigroup, the nation’s largest and third-largest banks by assets, respectively, support changing existing law to give federal judges the power to modify mortgages in bankruptcy, otherwise known as “cramdown.” Proponents argue that if homeowners were able to modify their mortgages in bankruptcy, the number of strategic defaults would substantially decrease, if not nosedive. About 3 million homes will receive foreclosure notices this year, real estate research firm RealtyTrac estimates. More than 1 million will be repossessed by lenders, adding to the nearly 2.2 million homes that lenders took over from 2007 to 2009. Fannie Mae and its sister firm Freddie Mac guarantee nearly three out of every four new mortgages, according to leading industry publication Inside Mortgage Finance . The two firms control about $5.5 trillion in home mortgages, according to their federal regulator. That’s nearly half of all outstanding mortgage debt in the U.S. Their share of the mortgage market is nearly double what it was 20 years ago. Because Fannie controls such a large portion of new mortgage issuance, the freezing out of homeowners for seven years could prove devastating. Brent T. White, a law professor at the University of Arizona, recently wrote in an academic paper that most homeowners can recover from a foreclosure within two years. In fact, defaulting on a mortgage is not as bad as most people think, White notes. “Lenders are unlikely to pursue a deficiency judgment even in recourse states because it is economically inefficient to do so; there is no tax liability on ‘forgiven portions’ of home mortgages under current federal tax law in effect until 2012; defaulting on one’s mortgage does not mean that one’s other credit lines will be revoked; and most people can expect to recover from the negative impact of foreclosure on their credit score within two years (and, meanwhile, two years of poor credit need not seriously impact one’s life),” he writes. There is a “huge financial upside” for seriously underwater homeowners to strategically default on their mortgages, White said. While it’s still taboo among most homeowners, it’s common behavior among corporations. In December, Morgan Stanley, the nation’s sixth-biggest bank by assets, walked away from five San Francisco office buildings the $820-billion firm purchased as part of a landmark $2.43-billion deal near the height of the real estate boom. A group led by Tishman Speyer Properties gave up a 56-building apartment complex in Manhattan in January after defaulting on some $4.4 billion in debt. A spokesman for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the nation’s biggest municipal pension fund and one of several investors in the venture, told the Huffington Post that they “basically walked away from it.” Fannie was effectively nationalized in September 2008. Taxpayers own 79.9 percent of Fannie and Freddie. The Obama administration announced on Christmas Eve that it would provide unlimited financial assistance to the firms, disregarding what was a $400 billion cap on taxpayer bailouts. Their debt is backed by the U.S. government. The two firms, facing growing losses on sour mortgages in perhaps a worsening housing market, have already taken $145 billion from taxpayers. Fannie Mae is responsible for $83.6 billion of that bailout. Freddie Mac did not say it would take a similar position on strategic defaulters. “Such so-called strategic defaults, once rare, are now common enough to jeopardize the already-weak housing and mortgage markets,” wrote economists Celia Chen and Cristian deRitis of Moody’s Economy.com in an April 13 note. “If the trend continues, strategic defaults could both accelerate the pace of home foreclosures and also make it harder for new borrowers to obtain mortgages. Both factors would in turn worsen the decline in house prices.” JPMorgan Chase, the nation’s second-largest bank by assets with more than $2.1 trillion, warmed investors last month that underwater homeowners may not continue to make their payments even when they’re able to, according to a May 10 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A top executive at Freddie Mac posted a note on the firm’s website pleading with homeowners to not intentionally walk away from their homes. “Knowing the costs and factoring in the time horizon, some borrowers have made the calculation that it is better to purposely default on the mortgage. While I understand how that might well be a good decision for certain borrowers, that doesn’t make it good social policy,” Freddie Executive Vice President Don Bisenius argued in a May 3 note. The firm warned investors and analysts about the risk of increased strategic defaults in March 2008. Referring to it as “ruthlessness,” Dick Syron, Freddie’s former chairman and CEO, said the firm was “seeing an increase in ruthlessness” that had “the potential for changing consumer behavior.” Fannie Mae said Wednesday that borrowers who have “extenuating circumstances may be eligible for new loan in a shorter timeframe” than the seven-year period it’s warning about. Republicans in the House recently tried to rein in the twin mortgage giants. Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, attempted Wednesday to amend the financial reform bill under consideration by the House and Senate to mandate that the federal government appoint an inspector general to oversee Fannie and Freddie. The mortgage behemoths’ federal regulator has been operating without an independent watchdog looking over it and Fannie and Freddie since 2008. Republicans have also tried to amend the bill to subject Fannie and Freddie to the Freedom of Information Act so members of the public can keep tabs on the firms by compelling the disclosure of documents and records. Both efforts were thwarted by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who ruled that they were not “germane” to the legislation under consideration. Emails sent after normal business hours to spokesmen for the White House and Treasury Department requesting comment were not returned. Ryan Grim contributed reporting.

Read the full article →

Taxpayer-Owned Fannie Mae Attacks Struggling Homeowners

June 23, 2010

Taxpayer-owned mortgage giant Fannie Mae is targeting families by going after struggling homeowners who strategically default on their mortgage, the firm announced Wednesday. A default is considered strategic when homeowners have the capacity to pay, yet choose to walk away from their mortgage. The trigger, researchers say, is negative equity: When the value of a home is less than what the lender is owed on it, borrowers are more likely to strategically default. About 11.3 million homeowners with a mortgage, or 24 percent, owe more on their mortgage than the home is worth, according to real estate research firm CoreLogic. Another 2.3 million have less than 5 percent equity in their homes. All told, about 29 percent of all homeowners with a mortgage are either underwater or very close to it. The firm estimates that the typical underwater homeowner won’t return to positive equity until late 2015 or early 2016. And Fannie Mae, an arm of the federal government and a big part of the Obama administration’s housing policy, wants to make sure that if struggling families walk away, they suffer for it. Homeowners who strategically default or did not work “in good faith” to avert foreclosure through other means will be ineligible for new Fannie Mae-backed mortgages for seven years. The firm said it will also pursue homeowners in court, seeking so-called “deficiency judgments” to recoup outstanding debt by seizing borrowers’ other assets. Thirty-nine states do not limit the ability of lenders to recover what they’re owed. Fannie Mae said that next month the firm “will be instructing its servicers to monitor delinquent loans facing foreclosure and put forth recommendations for cases that warrant the pursuit of deficiency judgments.” “Walking away from a mortgage is bad for borrowers and bad for communities and our approach is meant to deter the disturbing trend toward strategic defaulting,” Terence Edwards, Fannie’s executive vice president for credit portfolio management, said in a statement. Strategic defaults among homeowners have been on the rise. More than a million homeowners went that route last year, nearly double the amount in 2008 and more than four times the level in 2007, according to a recent analysis by the credit reporting company Experian and Oliver Wyman, a management consulting firm. A study by a team of academics from the University of Chicago and Northwestern University estimated that nearly a third of home mortgage defaults in March were strategic. The deeper underwater homeowners are, the more likely they are to walk away from their mortgage, the researchers noted. Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed a bill barring strategic defaulters from obtaining home mortgages backed by the Federal Housing Administration. The agency guarantees nearly one in four new mortgages. “I can’t help but notice that every group now frantically calling for tough penalties for homeowners who walk away was virulently opposed to judicial modification of mortgages in bankruptcy,” Rep. Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat, told the Huffington Post. Bank of America and Citigroup, the nation’s largest and third-largest banks by assets, respectively, support changing existing law to give federal judges the power to modify mortgages in bankruptcy, otherwise known as “cramdown.” Proponents argue that if homeowners were able to modify their mortgages in bankruptcy, the number of strategic defaults would substantially decrease, if not nosedive. About 3 million homes will receive foreclosure notices this year, real estate research firm RealtyTrac estimates. More than 1 million will be repossessed by lenders, adding to the nearly 2.2 million homes that lenders took over from 2007 to 2009. Fannie Mae and its sister firm Freddie Mac guarantee nearly three out of every four new mortgages, according to leading industry publication Inside Mortgage Finance . The two firms control about $5.5 trillion in home mortgages, according to their federal regulator. That’s nearly half of all outstanding mortgage debt in the U.S. Their share of the mortgage market is nearly double what it was 20 years ago. Because Fannie controls such a large portion of new mortgage issuance, the freezing out of homeowners for seven years could prove devastating. Brent T. White, a law professor at the University of Arizona, recently wrote in an academic paper that most homeowners can recover from a foreclosure within two years. In fact, defaulting on a mortgage is not as bad as most people think, White notes. “Lenders are unlikely to pursue a deficiency judgment even in recourse states because it is economically inefficient to do so; there is no tax liability on ‘forgiven portions’ of home mortgages under current federal tax law in effect until 2012; defaulting on one’s mortgage does not mean that one’s other credit lines will be revoked; and most people can expect to recover from the negative impact of foreclosure on their credit score within two years (and, meanwhile, two years of poor credit need not seriously impact one’s life),” he writes. There is a “huge financial upside” for seriously underwater homeowners to strategically default on their mortgages, White said. While it’s still taboo among most homeowners, it’s common behavior among corporations. In December, Morgan Stanley, the nation’s sixth-biggest bank by assets, walked away from five San Francisco office buildings the $820-billion firm purchased as part of a landmark $2.43-billion deal near the height of the real estate boom. A group led by Tishman Speyer Properties gave up a 56-building apartment complex in Manhattan in January after defaulting on some $4.4 billion in debt. A spokesman for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the nation’s biggest municipal pension fund and one of several investors in the venture, told the Huffington Post that they “basically walked away from it.” Fannie was effectively nationalized in September 2008. Taxpayers own 79.9 percent of Fannie and Freddie. The Obama administration announced on Christmas Eve that it would provide unlimited financial assistance to the firms, disregarding what was a $400 billion cap on taxpayer bailouts. Their debt is backed by the U.S. government. The two firms, facing growing losses on sour mortgages in perhaps a worsening housing market, have already taken $145 billion from taxpayers. Fannie Mae is responsible for $83.6 billion of that bailout. Freddie Mac did not say it would take a similar position on strategic defaulters. “Such so-called strategic defaults, once rare, are now common enough to jeopardize the already-weak housing and mortgage markets,” wrote economists Celia Chen and Cristian deRitis of Moody’s Economy.com in an April 13 note. “If the trend continues, strategic defaults could both accelerate the pace of home foreclosures and also make it harder for new borrowers to obtain mortgages. Both factors would in turn worsen the decline in house prices.” JPMorgan Chase, the nation’s second-largest bank by assets with more than $2.1 trillion, warmed investors last month that underwater homeowners may not continue to make their payments even when they’re able to, according to a May 10 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A top executive at Freddie Mac posted a note on the firm’s website pleading with homeowners to not intentionally walk away from their homes. “Knowing the costs and factoring in the time horizon, some borrowers have made the calculation that it is better to purposely default on the mortgage. While I understand how that might well be a good decision for certain borrowers, that doesn’t make it good social policy,” Freddie Executive Vice President Don Bisenius argued in a May 3 note. The firm warned investors and analysts about the risk of increased strategic defaults in March 2008. Referring to it as “ruthlessness,” Dick Syron, Freddie’s former chairman and CEO, said the firm was “seeing an increase in ruthlessness” that had “the potential for changing consumer behavior.” Fannie Mae said Wednesday that borrowers who have “extenuating circumstances may be eligible for new loan in a shorter timeframe” than the seven-year period it’s warning about. Republicans in the House recently tried to rein in the twin mortgage giants. Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, attempted Wednesday to amend the financial reform bill under consideration by the House and Senate to mandate that the federal government appoint an inspector general to oversee Fannie and Freddie. The mortgage behemoths’ federal regulator has been operating without an independent watchdog looking over it and Fannie and Freddie since 2008. Republicans have also tried to amend the bill to subject Fannie and Freddie to the Freedom of Information Act so members of the public can keep tabs on the firms by compelling the disclosure of documents and records. Both efforts were thwarted by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who ruled that they were not “germane” to the legislation under consideration. Emails sent after normal business hours to spokesmen for the White House and Treasury Department requesting comment were not returned. Ryan Grim contributed reporting.

Read the full article →

Goldman Sachs Set to Face Senate’s Levin in a Post-Crisis Day of Reckoning

April 27, 2010

By Christine Harper April 27 (Bloomberg) — Goldman Sachs Group Inc. , Wall Street’s most profitable firm, will face off against a U.S. Senate subcommittee today in a pivotal hearing that could have repercussions for the future of the financial industry. Carl Levin , a Michigan Democrat who leads the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations , released documents that he said showed the company “put its own interest and profit ahead of the interests of its clients,” a conflict he called on Congress to end. Lloyd Blankfein , Goldman Sachs’s chairman and chief executive officer, will dispute that assertion and argue the firm was merely managing its own risk. The hearing takes place as the Senate debates financial reform legislation that could prevent banks from trading for their own accounts and require them to separate derivatives businesses from regulated depository subsidiaries. It also follows a U.S. regulator’s civil-fraud lawsuit against Goldman Sachs and an employee, Fabrice Tourre , for misleading investors in a mortgage-linked investment, charges the firm denies. “This market is not free until it is free of self-dealing and until it is free of conflict of interest,” Levin, 75, said at a press briefing yesterday. “It is not free until it ends the gambling operation that results in gambling debts that the public ends up paying.” Tourre, Blankfein The hearing, set to begin at 10 a.m. in Washington, will start with questioning of Tourre; Michael Swenson , a managing director in the structured-products group; Joshua Birnbaum , a former managing director in the same group; and Daniel Sparks , a former partner who ran the mortgage department. Later in the day, the subcommittee will hear from David Viniar , the firm’s chief financial officer, and Craig Broderick , the chief risk officer. Blankfein , 55, will be the final witness, facing the panel alone at the end of the hearing. “We didn’t have a massive short against the housing market and we certainly did not bet against our clients,” Blankfein will tell the committee, according to a prepared text of his remarks. While the firm contests the SEC’s complaint, “I also recognize how such a complicated transaction may look to many people,” Blankfein said in his remarks. “We have to do a better job of striking the balance between what an informed client believes is important to his or her investing goals and what the public believes is overly complex and risky.” Shares Fall Goldman Sachs fell 0.4 percent to $151.43 by 12:23 p.m. in Germany, after dropping 3.4 percent to $152.03 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading yesterday, before Levin’s statements were made public. The shares have tumbled 17 percent from their level before the SEC filed its suit and are down 10 percent so far this year in New York. Yesterday U.S. Senate Republicans blocked Democrats from advancing their plan to overhaul Wall Street regulation as the two sides debate provisions including consumer protections and derivatives. Both parties are trying to tap into voter anger at Wall Street and the bank bailouts that took place as Americans grappled with record home foreclosures and rising unemployment. Goldman Sachs would probably be hardest hit among large U.S. banks if Congress bans firms from trading for their own account. Viniar, the CFO who’s scheduled to testify today, estimated in January that approximately 10 percent of the company’s revenue derives from trading that has no connection with customer business. That would have been about $4.5 billion last year. Employees of Goldman Sachs, which set a Wall Street pay record in 2007 when Blankfein was awarded a $67.9 million bonus, are among the biggest political donors in the last two decades. Campaign Contributions Nine of the 10 members of Levin’s committee have accepted campaign finance donations from the firm’s employees, both individually and through a political action committee, since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics , a Washington-based research group. The exception is Senator Edward Kaufman , a Democrat from Delaware, who never raised money for an election because he was appointed to fill Vice President Joseph Biden ’s former seat and hasn’t run for a full term. Arizona Republican John McCain , who ran for president in 2000 and 2008, has accepted the most of any member of the subcommittee with $337,065, while Jon Tester , a Democrat from Montana, has taken just $6,400, the group’s data show. While the spotlight is on Goldman Sachs at today’s hearing, Levin emphasized that the firm’s actions represent practices that he said are widespread on Wall Street. “To sell to customers at the same time you’re betting against what you’re selling — we think it’s not uncommon and think it ought to end,” Levin said yesterday. “We think there are a number of banks engaged in similar conduct, but we had to focus on one.” ‘Heavy Bets’ Levin, whose committee first subpoenaed information from Goldman Sachs in June, estimates that the firm made $3.7 billion in 2007 by placing “heavy bets” against mortgage-linked securities, including some it created. The figure doesn’t take into account losses Goldman Sachs suffered on mortgage-related securities it held, he said. “We respectfully disagree with Chairman Levin’s statement,” Lucas van Praag , a spokesman for Goldman Sachs, said yesterday. “We did not have a big bet against the housing market, as our performance in residential mortgages demonstrates, and we believe we at all times worked appropriately with our clients.” Goldman Sachs released data on April 24 that showed the firm reaped gains on its mortgage trading activities in 2007 and then lost money in the same unit in 2008. ‘Real Bad Feeling’ Among the evidence Levin released yesterday was an internal e-mail that describes how the firm’s mortgage derivatives desk started the quarter with a $6 billion “long” position on BBB- rated mortgages “and shifted the position to net short $10bn notional.” An October 2007 internal e-mail sent to Sparks , who ran the mortgage business and is among those testifying today, includes the comment “real bad feeling across European sales about some of the trades we did with clients. The damage this has done to our franchise is very significant. Aggregate loss of our clients on just these 5 trades along (sic) is 1bln+.” Swenson , the managing director in the structured-products group who is also to appear today, boasted in his 2007 performance review that “I said ‘no’ to clients who demanded that GS should ‘support the GSAMP’ program as clients tried to gain leverage over us,” he said, referring to the name for Goldman Sachs’s own mortgage-backed deals. “Those were unpopular decisions but they saved the firm hundreds of millions of dollars.” Conveyor Belt In a September 2007 e-mail to Blankfein, an employee describes having met with 10 or more individual “prospects” and clients and tells Blankfein about how their attitudes differ from those of institutional clients. “The institutions don’t and I wouldn’t expect them to, make any comments like ur (sic) good at making money for urself (sic) but not us,” the e-mail said. “The individuals do sometimes, but while it requires the utmost humility from us in response I feel very strongly it binds clients even closer to the firm, because the alternative of take ur (sic) money to a firm who is an under performer and not the best, just isn’t reasonable. Clients ultimately believe association with the best is good for them in the long run.” Goldman Sachs built a “conveyer belt” of mortgage deals and then bet against them, Levin said, actions that he said contributed to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Conflicts of Interest Levin said his committee isn’t responsible for determining whether any crimes occurred, although he said the panel will decide after the hearing whether to refer the matter to the SEC or the Justice Department. “The SEC and the courts will resolve the legal question of whether Goldman’s actions broke the law,” Levin said. “The question for us is whether Goldman’s actions in 2007 were appropriate and whether we should act, legislatively, to bar similar actions in the future.” While Levin said he is ready to vote on a financial regulation package in the Senate this week, he said he thinks it could be strengthened. He has proposed an amendment that would help resolve the conflicts of interest among Wall Street firms that he said are embodied in the documents. He also endorsed banning so-called naked credit-default swaps, or bets on a decline in creditworthiness by parties that have no exposure to the underlying loans or bonds. ‘Cherry-Picked’ After Levin posted internal Goldman Sachs e-mails on his Web site on April 24 that he said show the firm “made a lot of money by betting against the mortgage market,” the firm responded with more than 70 pages of e-mails and other documents that it said showed the firm lost money on mortgages in 2008 and that executives didn’t have any kind of consensus that the market would fall. Goldman Sachs disputes the SEC’s claims that the firm defrauded investors when selling a collateralized debt obligation tied to mortgages by failing to inform them of the role played by hedge fund Paulson & Co. The company said on April 24 that Levin’s committee “cherry-picked” the evidence it released and jumped to conclusions “even before holding a hearing.” As other banks struggled throughout the financial crisis, Goldman Sachs posted record earnings in 2007 and then topped that in 2009. In late 2008, following the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. , the firm was allowed to convert to a bank under the oversight of the Federal Reserve and received $10 billion of taxpayer money, which it repaid with interest about eight months later. ‘Ultimate Harm’ While Levin said his committee hasn’t found any evidence that Blankfein was himself aware of the firm’s positions on specific deals, he said the documents show that Blankfein knew the firm was shorting the market in 2007. “The ultimate harm here is not just to the clients who were not well-served by their investment bank, the harm here is to all of us,” Levin said yesterday. “The toxins that Goldman Sachs and others helped inject into our financial system have done incalculable harm to people who have never heard of a synthetic CDO and who have no defenses against the harm that such exotic Wall Street creations can cause.” To contact the reporter on this story: Christine Harper in New York at charper@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Republicans Block Debate on Financial-Overhaul Legislation in 57-41 Vote

April 26, 2010

By Alison Vekshin April 26 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Senate Republicans blocked Democrats from advancing their plan to overhaul Wall Street regulation, saying they want to force changes before beginning full debate. No Republican broke ranks today to join Democrats in the 57-41 vote, with 60 needed to begin consideration of the bill. The two sides remain apart on several provisions, including consumer protections and derivatives. “All of us want to deliver a reform bill that will tighten the screws on Wall Street,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , a Kentucky Republican, said before the vote. “But we’re not going to be rushed into another massive bill based on the assurances of our friends on the other side.” President Barack Obama said in a statement he was “deeply disappointed” that Republicans blocked debate on the measure. The proposal would redesign rules governing the financial services industry in response to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The measure is aimed at averting a repeat of the $700 billion in taxpayer-funded aid to firms including Citigroup Inc. and American International Group Inc. The next step is “we continue to put that bill together,” Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, the Banking Committee’s ranking Republican who has been negotiating with committee Chairman Christopher Dodd , told reporters after the vote. Concessions Sought Democrats, who control the Senate 59-41, will use the outcome of the vote to accuse Republicans of obstructing new Wall Street rules. Republicans want to use their unified opposition as leverage to win concessions from Democrats in negotiations on a compromise. Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska joined Republicans in voting not to begin debate. He said in a statement he wouldn’t support a plan he hadn’t seen, though he may back a future bipartisan compromise. Majority Leader Harry Reid , a Nevada Democrat, said in a statement that Republicans voted “to protect the big banks and their bonuses and to keep this important debate hidden from public scrutiny. He switched his vote from “yes” to “no” to allow himself to seek another vote on the matter later. Under Senate rules, any lawmaker on the prevailing side can move to reconsider a vote. ‘Sound Ideas’ “Hardly do we claim perfection in what we’ve written,” said Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who wrote the bill. “But we believe in sound ideas that deal with these very issues that caused the problems in the first place, and what we need to do is be able to debate those ideas.” Dodd and Shelby met today. Shelby told reporters after the meeting, “I’m hoping that we can get a bill. I’d like to get a bill this week or next week.” Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine said after today’s vote that she believes “there’s strong support on both sides of the aisle to get it done.” The Obama administration “strongly supports” the Democrats’ plan and believes it will “protect American families and the long-term health of the nation’s economy,” said a White House statement. Republicans are “playing a game” in their effort to block consideration of the bill, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said at a briefing. Republicans say the Democratic measure would set up a permanent bailout of Wall Street banks and create new bureaucracies. Democrats say the legislation would save the government from having to step in with taxpayer money to prop up ailing financial firms whose collapse would disrupt the economy. Voter Anger Republicans and Democrats are trying to tap into voter anger at Wall Street and the bank bailout that was approved as Americans grappled with record home foreclosures and rising unemployment. Senate Democrats forced the vote to portray Republicans as “defenders of the banks and large financial institutions and portray themselves as defenders of the little guy,” Stu Rothenberg , editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, said today in a telephone interview. “One way of putting pressure on Republicans is to try to force a vote to make them defend themselves, make them vote ‘no,’” he said. Tomorrow, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein and six current and former Goldman Sachs employees are scheduled to testify before the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The Securities and Exchange Commission on April 16 sued Goldman Sachs, alleging the bank defrauded investors when selling a debt instrument tied to mortgages. Goldman Sachs denied wrongdoing. House Version The House approved its financial regulation plan in December, and the two chambers’ bills would have to be reconciled before a final measure could go to Obama. The measures are based on his proposal to create a consumer protection agency, strengthen oversight of hedge funds and derivatives and set up a council of regulators to monitor the financial system for systemic risk. Senate Democrats reached agreement on derivatives language, including a provision that would require commercial banks to wall off their swaps trading desks. The agreement, to be included in the broader bill, also would require mandatory clearing and exchange trading for standardized derivative products, and impose a fiduciary duty on banks that trade derivatives with municipalities. To contact the reporter on this story: Alison Vekshin in Washington at avekshin@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Goldman Sachs Set to Face Senate’s Levin in Post-Crisis Day of Reckoning

April 26, 2010

By Christine Harper April 27 (Bloomberg) — Goldman Sachs Group Inc. , Wall Street’s most profitable firm, will face off against a U.S. Senate subcommittee today in a pivotal hearing that could have repercussions for the future of the financial industry. Carl Levin , a Michigan Democrat who leads the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations , released documents that he said showed the company “put its own interest and profit ahead of the interests of its clients,” a conflict he called on Congress to end. Lloyd Blankfein , Goldman Sachs’s chairman and chief executive officer, will dispute that assertion and argue the firm was merely managing its own risk. The hearing takes place as the Senate debates financial reform legislation that could prevent banks from trading for their own accounts and require them to separate derivatives businesses from regulated depository subsidiaries. It also follows a U.S. regulator’s civil-fraud lawsuit against Goldman Sachs and an employee, Fabrice Tourre , for misleading investors in a mortgage-linked investment, charges the firm denies. “This market is not free until it is free of self-dealing and until it is free of conflict of interest,” Levin, 75, said at a press briefing yesterday. “It is not free until it ends the gambling operation that results in gambling debts that the public ends up paying.” Tourre, Blankfein The hearing, set to begin at 10 a.m. in Washington, will start with questioning of Tourre; Michael Swenson , a managing director in the structured-products group; Joshua Birnbaum , a former managing director in the same group; and Daniel Sparks , a former partner who ran the mortgage department. Later in the day, the subcommittee will hear from David Viniar , the firm’s chief financial officer, and Craig Broderick , the chief risk officer. Blankfein , 55, will be the final witness, facing the panel alone at the end of the hearing. “We didn’t have a massive short against the housing market and we certainly did not bet against our clients,” Blankfein will tell the committee, according to a prepared text of his remarks. While the firm contests the SEC’s complaint, “I also recognize how such a complicated transaction may look to many people,” Blankfein said in his remarks. “We have to do a better job of striking the balance between what an informed client believes is important to his or her investing goals and what the public believes is overly complex and risky.” Shares Fall Goldman Sachs dropped $5.37, or 3.4 percent, to $152.03 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading yesterday before Levin’s statements were made public. The shares have tumbled 17 percent from their level before the SEC filed its suit and are down 10 percent so far this year. Yesterday U.S. Senate Republicans blocked Democrats from advancing their plan to overhaul Wall Street regulation as the two sides debate provisions including consumer protections and derivatives. Both parties are trying to tap into voter anger at Wall Street and the bank bailouts that took place as Americans grappled with record home foreclosures and rising unemployment. Goldman Sachs would probably be hardest hit among large U.S. banks if Congress bans firms from trading for their own account. Viniar, the CFO who’s scheduled to testify today, estimated in January that approximately 10 percent of the company’s revenue derives from trading that has no connection with customer business. That would have been about $4.5 billion last year. Employees of Goldman Sachs, which set a Wall Street pay record in 2007 when Blankfein was awarded a $67.9 million bonus, are among the biggest political donors in the last two decades. Campaign Contributions Nine of the 10 members of Levin’s committee have accepted campaign finance donations from the firm’s employees, both individually and through a political action committee, since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics , a Washington-based research group. The exception is Senator Edward Kaufman , a Democrat from Delaware, who never raised money for an election because he was appointed to fill Vice President Joseph Biden ’s former seat and hasn’t run for a full term. Arizona Republican John McCain , who ran for president in 2000 and 2008, has accepted the most of any member of the subcommittee with $337,065, while Jon Tester , a Democrat from Montana, has taken just $6,400, the group’s data show. While the spotlight is on Goldman Sachs at today’s hearing, Levin emphasized that the firm’s actions represent practices that he said are widespread on Wall Street. “To sell to customers at the same time you’re betting against what you’re selling — we think it’s not uncommon and think it ought to end,” Levin said yesterday. “We think there are a number of banks engaged in similar conduct, but we had to focus on one.” ‘Heavy Bets’ Levin, whose committee first subpoenaed information from Goldman Sachs in June, estimates that the firm made $3.7 billion in 2007 by placing “heavy bets” against mortgage-linked securities, including some it created. The figure doesn’t take into account losses Goldman Sachs suffered on mortgage-related securities it held, he said. “We respectfully disagree with Chairman Levin’s statement,” Lucas van Praag , a spokesman for Goldman Sachs, said yesterday. “We did not have a big bet against the housing market, as our performance in residential mortgages demonstrates, and we believe we at all times worked appropriately with our clients.” Goldman Sachs released data on April 24 that showed the firm reaped gains on its mortgage trading activities in 2007 and then lost money in the same unit in 2008. ‘Real Bad Feeling’ Among the evidence Levin released yesterday was an internal e-mail that describes how the firm’s mortgage derivatives desk started the quarter with a $6 billion “long” position on BBB- rated mortgages “and shifted the position to net short $10bn notional.” An October 2007 internal e-mail sent to Sparks , who ran the mortgage business and is among those testifying today, includes the comment “real bad feeling across European sales about some of the trades we did with clients. The damage this has done to our franchise is very significant. Aggregate loss of our clients on just these 5 trades along (sic) is 1bln+.” Swenson , the managing director in the structured-products group who is also to appear today, boasted in his 2007 performance review that “I said ‘no’ to clients who demanded that GS should ‘support the GSAMP’ program as clients tried to gain leverage over us,” he said, referring to the name for Goldman Sachs’s own mortgage-backed deals. “Those were unpopular decisions but they saved the firm hundreds of millions of dollars.” Conveyor Belt In a September 2007 e-mail to Blankfein, an employee describes having met with 10 or more individual “prospects” and clients and tells Blankfein about how their attitudes differ from those of institutional clients. “The institutions don’t and I wouldn’t expect them to, make any comments like ur (sic) good at making money for urself (sic) but not us,” the e-mail said. “The individuals do sometimes, but while it requires the utmost humility from us in response I feel very strongly it binds clients even closer to the firm, because the alternative of take ur (sic) money to a firm who is an under performer and not the best, just isn’t reasonable. Clients ultimately believe association with the best is good for them in the long run.” Goldman Sachs built a “conveyer belt” of mortgage deals and then bet against them, Levin said, actions that he said contributed to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Conflicts of Interest Levin said his committee isn’t responsible for determining whether any crimes occurred, although he said the panel will decide after the hearing whether to refer the matter to the SEC or the Justice Department. “The SEC and the courts will resolve the legal question of whether Goldman’s actions broke the law,” Levin said. “The question for us is whether Goldman’s actions in 2007 were appropriate and whether we should act, legislatively, to bar similar actions in the future.” While Levin said he is ready to vote on a financial regulation package in the Senate this week, he said he thinks it could be strengthened. He has proposed an amendment that would help resolve the conflicts of interest among Wall Street firms that he said are embodied in the documents. He also endorsed banning so-called naked credit-default swaps, or bets on a decline in creditworthiness by parties that have no exposure to the underlying loans or bonds. ‘Cherry-Picked’ After Levin posted internal Goldman Sachs e-mails on his Web site on April 24 that he said show the firm “made a lot of money by betting against the mortgage market,” the firm responded with more than 70 pages of e-mails and other documents that it said showed the firm lost money on mortgages in 2008 and that executives didn’t have any kind of consensus that the market would fall. Goldman Sachs disputes the SEC’s claims that the firm defrauded investors when selling a collateralized debt obligation tied to mortgages by failing to inform them of the role played by hedge fund Paulson & Co. The company said on April 24 that Levin’s committee “cherry-picked” the evidence it released and jumped to conclusions “even before holding a hearing.” As other banks struggled throughout the financial crisis, Goldman Sachs posted record earnings in 2007 and then topped that in 2009. In late 2008, following the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. , the firm was allowed to convert to a bank under the oversight of the Federal Reserve and received $10 billion of taxpayer money, which it repaid with interest about eight months later. ‘Ultimate Harm’ While Levin said his committee hasn’t found any evidence that Blankfein was himself aware of the firm’s positions on specific deals, he said the documents show that Blankfein knew the firm was shorting the market in 2007. “The ultimate harm here is not just to the clients who were not well-served by their investment bank, the harm here is to all of us,” Levin said yesterday. “The toxins that Goldman Sachs and others helped inject into our financial system have done incalculable harm to people who have never heard of a synthetic CDO and who have no defenses against the harm that such exotic Wall Street creations can cause.” To contact the reporter on this story: Christine Harper in New York at charper@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Treasuries Gain Second Week on Inflation Data, Increase in Jobless Claims

April 17, 2010

By Cordell Eddings and Daniel Kruger April 17 (Bloomberg) — Treasuries gained for a second week as reports that showed consumer prices excluding food and fuel were unchanged and jobless claims unexpectedly rose spurred speculation the Federal Reserve will keep rates low. Two-year note yields dropped below 1 percent for the first time in almost a month yesterday as the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Goldman Sachs Group Inc. for fraud and an index of U.S. consumer sentiment unexpectedly declined. Producer prices rose 0.5 percent in March, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey before a report next week. “Good inflation data is signaling to the Fed that there’s no hurry to raise rates,” said David Brownlee , head of fixed income at Sentinel Asset Management in Montpelier, Vermont, which manages $22 billion. “Bonds seem to me to be cheap.” The 10-year note yield fell 11 basis points on the week, or 0.11 percentage point, to 3.76 percent, according to BGCantor Market Data. The yield on April 5 rose above 4 percent for the first time since June. The 3.625 percent security maturing in February 2020 gained 29/32, or $9.06 per $1,000 face amount, to 98 27/32. Shares of Goldman Sachs slid as much as 16 percent yesterday after it was sued by regulators for fraud tied to collateralized debt obligations that contributed to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. ‘Completely Unfounded’ “The SEC’s charges are completely unfounded in law and fact and we will vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation,” Goldman Sachs said in a statement. Consumer prices rose 0.1 percent in March, in line with forecasts, while the core rate held steady, reflecting cheaper rents and clothing. U.S. debt rose yesterday as confidence among U.S. consumers unexpectedly fell to the lowest level in five months. The Reuters/University of Michigan preliminary April consumer sentiment index fell to 69.5 from 73.6 in the previous month. The data followed a report on April 14 that showed retail sales rose 1.6 percent in March, the biggest gain in four months. “The surprising number was consumer confidence as it doesn’t jibe with the recent uptick in retail sales,” said Kevin Flanagan , a Purchase, New York-based chief fixed income strategist at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney. “The theme for this week has been establishing the new range for the 10-year note. We tested four percent and established it as a new top.” The difference between yields on 10-year notes and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, or TIPS, a gauge of trader expectations for consumer prices, narrowed to 2.34 percentage points, from this year’s high of 2.49 percentage points in January. The five-year average is 2.15 percentage points. ‘Bullish on Treasuries’ “We remain bullish on Treasuries and favor expressing this in the front end,” analysts at BNP Paribas SA wrote in a report on April 15. “The downside surprise in core CPI this week, along with stable inflation expectations and relatively contained TIPS breakevens, all should lead the market to expect the Fed to remain on the sidelines for the foreseeable future.” Central bank officials indicated the recovery won’t generate enough jobs or inflation to change a pledge to keep interest rates low when they meet this month. Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke told Congress on April 14 that high unemployment and weak construction are among the “significant restraints” on the pace of growth. He repeated the Fed’s view that borrowing costs are likely to stay low for an “extended period” as the economy contends with weak construction spending and high unemployment. Hawkish Comments’ “Don’t be misled by occasional hawkish comments,” John Richards and Jim Lee , strategists at Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc in Stamford, Connecticut, wrote in a note to clients on April 15. The firm is one of 18 primary dealers that trade with the Fed. “With inflation quiescent and Bernanke reiterating the ‘extended period’ language yesterday, the lower- longer group at the Fed is in firm control.” Declining confidence threatens to restrain household spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the economy. While recent figures showed retail sales picked up in March, a 9.7 percent unemployment rate and mounting home foreclosures are risks for the recovery. “There is concern that the recent optimism in consumer spending is unsustainable without clear improvement in the unemployment rate,” said Christian Cooper , an interest-rate strategist at primary dealer Royal Bank of Canada in New York. Initial jobless claims jumped by 24,000 to 484,000 in the week ended April 10, the Labor Department reported on April 15. Economists forecast claims would fall to 440,000, according to the survey median. ‘Remains a Worry’ “The growth data is looking better but it remains a worry that jobless claims have not fallen to a level that is consistent with job growth,” said Carl Lantz , head of interest- rate strategy at Credit Suisse AG in New York, another primary dealer. “The labor market is not clicking on all cylinders. We are still a long way from there.” Treasuries also gained as European Union finance ministers yesterday told Greece to brace itself for the International Monetary Fund’s conditions for granting a bailout package for the debt-strapped nation. The yield premium investors demand to hold Greek 10-year bonds instead of benchmark German bunds rose for a fourth day. “The endless Greece saga is just not going away,” said Ward McCarthy , chief financial economist at primary dealer Jefferies & Co. Inc. in New York. “Greece sort of provides a failsafe bid under Treasuries.” Hedge-fund managers and other large speculators increased bets in the futures market in the week ended April 13 that 10- year notes will decline, according to U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission data. Speculative short positions, or bets prices will fall, outnumbered long positions by 274,741 contracts on the Chicago Board of Trade. So-called net-short positions rose by 30,008 contracts, or 12 percent, from a week earlier, the Washington- based commission said in its Commitments of Traders report. To contact the reporters on this story: Cordell Eddings in New York at ceddings@bloomberg.net ; Daniel Kruger in New York at dkruger1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Jobless Claims in U.S. Unexpectedly Increased Heading Into Easter Holiday

April 8, 2010

By Courtney Schlisserman April 8 (Bloomberg) — More Americans unexpectedly filed claims for jobless benefits last week, a jump that may in part reflect difficulty in seasonally adjusting the data ahead of the Easter holiday. Initial jobless applications increased by 18,000 to 460,000 in the week ended April 3, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The week leading up to Easter and the two weeks that follow are traditionally a volatile time for claims, a Labor Department analyst said, making it difficult to discern the underlying trend in applications. “The trend is still down,” said Jonathan Basile , an economist at Credit Suisse in New York, who had the highest claims forecast among analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News. “I would look for continued gradual improvement as we go forward.” Companies like Home Depot Inc. are adding to workforces for the first time in years on mounting confidence that sales and profits will continue to improve, while others are still waiting for sustained increases in demand. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said yesterday that joblessness, home foreclosures and weak lending to small businesses pose challenges to the economy. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index fell 0.6 percent to 1,175.59 at 9:40 a.m. in New York. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note fell one basis point to 3.85 percent. Exceeds Forecast Economists forecast claims would fall to 435,000 from a previously reported 439,000 the prior week, according to the median of 47 projections in a Bloomberg News survey. Estimates ranged from 420,000 to 450,000. Easter is a difficult period to adjust for seasonal factors because it’s a floating holiday that doesn’t come at the same time each year, the government analyst said. Additionally, a state holiday in California on March 31 also complicated the tabulation of the data, he said. The four-week moving average of claims, a less volatile measure than the weekly figures, increased to 450,250 last week, from 448,000. The number of people continuing to receive jobless benefits decreased 131,000 in the week ended March 27 to 4.55 million, the fewest since December 2008. The continuing claims figure does not include the number of Americans receiving extended benefits under federal programs. Continuing Claims The number of people who’ve used up their traditional benefits and are now collecting emergency and extended payments fell by about 223,000 to 5.81 million in the week ended March 20. The unemployment rate among people eligible for benefits, which tends to track the jobless rate , fell to 3.5 percent in the week ended March 27, the lowest level since January 2009, today’s report showed. Twenty-three states and territories had an increase in claims for that same week, while 30 had a decrease. Payrolls rose by 162,000 in March, the biggest gain in three years, the Labor Department reported April 2. The unemployment rate was 9.7 percent for a third month. It has not increased since reaching a 26-year high of 10.1 percent in October. Corporate profits increased 8 percent in the fourth quarter, capping the biggest year-over-year gain in a quarter century, figures from the Commerce Department showed last month. Start Hiring Home Depot Inc., the largest U.S. home-improvement retailer, is adding store jobs for the first time in four years as it expects a rebound in sales, Chief Executive Officer Frank Blake said in an interview on April 5. “We have already added to our payroll this year,” Blake said. “As you have positive transaction growth, you need more associates to handle that in the stores.” Even so, Bernanke said yesterday that joblessness was among the challenges to the economic recovery. “We are far from being out of the woods,” he said in a speech in Dallas. While the financial crisis has abated and economic growth will probably reduce unemployment over the next year, the U.S. faces hurdles including the lack of a sustained rebound in housing, a “troubled” commercial real estate market and “very weak” hiring. Other companies continue to eliminate jobs. CA Inc., the second-largest maker of software for mainframe computers, said April 6 it will cut about 1,000 jobs as part of its 2010 restructuring plan. The reductions probably will be completed by the end of September, the company said. To contact the reporter on this story: Courtney Schlisserman in Washington at cschlisserma@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Stocks in U.S. Fall as Consumers Shun Debt Amid Labor Market Uncertainty

April 7, 2010

By Whitney Kisling April 7 (Bloomberg) — U.S. stocks tumbled, with benchmark indexes slumping the most since February, as a bigger-than- estimated decrease in consumer credit and concern Greece may default fueled concern the economic rebound may slow. Occidental Petroleum Corp. helped lead declines in 36 of 40 Standard & Poor’s 500 Index energy companies as oil slipped from the highest level since October 2008 on bigger-than-forecast growth in inventories. Visa Inc. and American Express Co. lost at least 1.7 percent after the Federal Reserve said consumer borrowing fell by $11.5 billion in February, indicating Americans are reluctant to take on more debt. The S&P 500 lost 0.6 percent to 1,182.56 at 4 p.m. in New York, retreating from an 18-month high. The Dow Jones Industrial Average sank 72.32 points, or 0.7 percent, to 10,897.67. About three stocks fell for every two that rose on U.S. exchanges. “We’re in a buying stampede, and it’s pretty rare to have them go much more beyond this,” said Jeffrey Saut , the chief investment strategist at Raymond James & Associates, which manages $230 billion in St. Petersburg, Florida. “Things are pretty overbought here on a short-term basis. I’m still pretty perky on stocks even though I’m cautious near-term.” Equities extended declines after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke , speaking in Dallas, omitted a reference to holding interest rates lower for an extended period. Stocks had briefly pared losses earlier after a $21 billion offering of 10- year Treasury notes, which influence rates on consumer and commercial loans. The notes drew a lower-than-estimated yield of 3.9 percent and a measure of demand was the strongest since 1994. ‘Extended Period’ Most U.S. stocks rose yesterday, led by banks, as investors bet that the Fed will keep its benchmark interest rate at a record low for an “extended period” to safeguard the economic recovery and lenders rallied on analyst upgrades. Bernanke didn’t mention the plans to keep rates low in his speech today from Dallas. On the economy, he said joblessness, home foreclosures and weak lending to small businesses pose challenges to the world’s largest economy as it recovers. “We are far from being out of the woods,” he said. Stocks also fell as concern grew that Greece may default on its debt as it struggles to fund the European Union’s largest budget deficit. The extra yield, or spread, between Greek 10-year bonds and benchmark German bunds widened to 405 basis points today, the most since the introduction of the euro in 1999. ‘Sovereign Concerns’ “There’s also still a lot of sovereign concerns out there,” said David Lutz , managing director of equity trading at Stifel Nicolaus & Co. in Baltimore. “Greece’s borrowing costs have jumped.” More than three-quarters of stocks in the S&P 500 are “overbought” as of the April 5 close, according to Bespoke Investment Group LLC, which identified shares that are at least one standard deviation above their average price over the past 50 days. That reading is the highest since the bull market began in March 2009 and indicates equities may see “short-term losses,” Harrison, New York-based Bespoke said in a note to clients. S&P 500 energy shares lost 1 percent as a group, as crude oil fell 1.1 percent to below $86 a barrel. A government report today showed U.S. inventories climbed for a 10th week, the longest stretch of increases in five years. Occidental Petroleum retreated 2.5 percent to $86.30. Massey Explosion Massey Energy Co. slid the most in the S&P 500, losing 6.7 percent to extend its 11 percent decline from yesterday after an April 5 mine explosion killed 25 people in West Virginia. The mine is among sites where Massey, the largest coal producer in Central Appalachia, disputed U.S. findings of safety violations, records show. The U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration has issued more than $900,000 in fines for the Upper Big Branch mine in the past year, according to federal data. Visa, the world’s biggest payments network, slid 1.8 percent to $90.71 and credit-card issuer American Express Co. sank 1.7 percent to $42.37. The decline in the Fed’s measure of credit card debt and non-revolving loans was worse than the lowest estimate in a Bloomberg survey of 34 economists. Las Vegas Sands Corp., the casino operator expanding in Macau and Singapore, slid 2.1 percent to $22.93 after it was cut to “ neutral ” from “buy” at UBS. The shares, which have risen 57 percent in 2010 before today, would be more attractive at a lower price, UBS said. Missing Estimates AMB Property Corp. said first-quarter earnings , excluding some items, probably were 30 cents a share at most. That’s less than the average analyst estimate in a Bloomberg survey. The shares declined 3.9 percent to $27.53. Netflix Inc. slumped 4.4 percent to $79.73 after Barclays Capital downgraded the shares to “equalweight” from “overweight.” Advanced Micro Devices climbed 3.3 percent to $9.66 after UBS AG raised earnings estimates and moved the share-price target up to $13 from $12. EOG Resources Inc., which produces natural gas and oil, climbed 6.5 percent to $103.74 after saying output will rise about 20 percent in both 2011 and 2012. The advance was the second-biggest in the S&P 500. S&P 500 companies will post first-quarter profit growth of 30 percent, according to estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Alcoa Inc. will mark the unofficial start of the first-quarter earnings season when it reports results on April 12. Two of the biggest retreats in the last 13 months have occurred during earnings seasons. The S&P 500 dropped 3.9 percent in the week ended Jan. 22 and 4 percent in the period to Oct. 30, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Investors who bought after those dips were rewarded with gains of more than 10 percent within two months, the data show. To contact the reporter on this story: Whitney Kisling in New York at wkisling@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Consumer Spending Up Again, But Incomes Stagnant In February

March 29, 2010

WASHINGTON — Confidence is growing that the economic recovery won’t fizzle out. Consumers kept cash registers humming last month at a decent pace, pointing to modest and steady economic gains ahead. The Commerce Department reported Monday that consumers boosted their spending by 0.3 percent in February, marking the fifth straight monthly gain. Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight, called it “an encouraging sign of consumer revival.” The pickup in spending was a tad slower than the 0.4 percent increase registered in January and marked the smallest increase since September. Nonetheless, the spending gain was considered decent, especially given the snowstorms that slammed the East Coast and kept some people away from the malls. “Households are starting to ease up on their tight grip on their wallets, though it would be nice if they had more money to spend,” observed Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors. Americans’ incomes didn’t budge. Incomes were stagnant in February, as the bad weather forced employers to trim workers’ hours. That followed a solid 0.3 percent gain in January and marked the weakest showing since July, when incomes actually shrank. Income growth is the fuel for future spending. February’s flat-line reading suggests shoppers will be cautious in coming months. Spending growth in February matched economists’ expectations. The reading on income was a bit weaker than forecast. Both the spending and income figures in Monday’s report point to a modest economic recovery. That cheered Wall Street investors. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 46 points to close at 10,896. The Dow hasn’t traded above that level since September 2008. Many analysts predict the economy slowed in the first three months of this year after logging a big growth spurt at the end of 2009. The economy will expand at a 2.5 percent to 3 percent pace in the January-to-March quarter, analysts predict. That’s roughly half the 5.6 percent pace seen in the final quarter of last year. In normal times, growth in the 3 percent range would be considered respectable. But the nation is emerging from the worst recession since the 1930s. Sizzling growth in the 5 percent range would be needed for an entire year to drive down the unemployment rate, now 9.7 percent, by just 1 percentage point. Unlike past recoveries, where consumer spending led the way, this one is hinging more on the spending of businesses and foreigners. High unemployment, sluggish wage gains, hard-to-get credit and record-high home foreclosures are all expected to deter consumers from going on a spending spree – one of the main reasons why the pace of the recovery will be more subdued than in the past. With spending outpacing income growth, Americans’ savings dipped in February. Americans saved 3.1 percent of their disposable income, down from 3.4 percent in January. It was the lowest reading on the savings rate since October 2008 and suggested that people have more of an appetite to spend. Consumers increased their spending on “nondurable” goods, such as food and clothing, by 0.7 percent in February. That was down from a 1.7 percent increase in January. They boosted spending on services by 0.3 percent, up from a 0.2 percent rise in January. But they cut spending on “durable” goods, such as cars and appliances, by 0.4 percent, not as deep as the 1.4 percent reduction in January. Consumer spending accounts for the single-biggest slice of overall economic activity. That’s why it is so closely watched by investors and economists. So far in the current quarter, consumer spending is shaping up to be better than it was at the end of last year. “U.S. consumers board recovery train,” said Sal Guatieri, economist at BMO Capital Markets Economics. For the entire January-to-March quarter, analysts think consumer spending will grow at a pace of around 3 percent. That would mark an improvement from the 1.6 percent growth rate logged in the final quarter of last year and would be the biggest increase in three years. Analysts are growing more confident that consumers will keep spending sufficiently into the coming months as the job market heals. Economists predict that employers added around 190,000 jobs in March, in what they hope will be the start of consistent payroll gains. If they are right, it would mark the biggest jobs gain in three years. The unemployment rate is expected to stay at 9.7 percent for the third straight month. The expected turnaround in job-creation would be welcome, but many economists say it will take at least until the middle of this decade for the situation to get back to normal, meaning a jobless rate of 5.5 percent to 6 percent. And, it will also take years for the economy to recover the 8.4 million jobs wiped out by the recession.

Read the full article →

Bernanke Says Large Bank Bailouts `Unconscionable,’ Must Not Occur Again

March 20, 2010

By Steve Matthews and Phil Mattingly March 20 (Bloomberg) — Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said government bailouts of large financial firms are “unconscionable” and must be ended as part of a regulatory overhaul following the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. “It is unconscionable that the fate of the world economy should be so closely tied to the fortunes of a relatively small number of giant financial firms,” Bernanke said today in a speech in Orlando, Florida. “If we achieve nothing else in the wake of the crisis, we must ensure that we never again face such a situation.” Congress is considering a resolution mechanism for financial firms that are so large or interconnected to other institutions that their failure could damage the financial system. A plan by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd , a Connecticut Democrat, would allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to liquidate a large firm after a panel of bankruptcy judges determines the company is insolvent and with approval of the Fed, FDIC and Treasury Department. The Fed chairman has faced criticism from Congress for bailouts that he said were intended to prevent a possible depression. Lawmakers including Dodd have criticized the Fed’s purchase of $29 billion of securities in March 2008 to facilitate the merger of Bear Stearns Cos. with JPMorgan Chase & Co., and loans to keep American International Group Inc. from default. All large financial firms rather than just big banks should be subject to stronger regulation, Bernanke told bankers gathered for the Independent Community Bankers of America convention. Shareholders and creditors should not be protected from losses in any plan, he said. Revamping Approach The Fed is revamping its approach to supervision of large banks, using economists and quantitative analysts to help with horizontal reviews targeting risks across the financial system, Bernanke said. “We at the Federal Reserve have been working with international colleagues to require that the most systemically critical firms increase their holdings of capital and liquidity and improve their risk management,” he said. The Fed chief also endorsed the concept of financial firms having “living wills,” or plans on how to unwind should they become insolvent. Dodd’s proposal includes a provision that requires large, complex companies to periodically submit “funeral plans” for their quick and orderly shutdown in the event of failure. “An idea worth exploring is to require firms to develop and maintain a so-called living will, which will help firms and regulators identify ways to simplify and untangle the firm before a crisis occurs,” he said. No Authority While the FDIC has the power to take over failing deposit- taking firms and wind down assets, no such authority exists for financial firms that aren’t classified as banks, such as AIG or a hedge fund with extensive links throughout the banking system. The Fed chairman also defended the central bank’s structure, including 12 regional banks, as a useful decentralized network to monitor the financial system and economy. He said the oversight of small banks has been critical to the Fed in setting monetary policy. “ A supervisory agency that focused only on the largest banking institutions, without knowledge of community banks, would get a limited and potentially distorted picture,” he said. Fighting Efforts Answering questions after his speech, Bernanke urged community bankers to help keep the central bank informed about changes in finance and the economy. “We greatly value the input and information we get from community banks all across the country,” he said. “In the current crisis, understanding commercial real estate, understanding other problems in credit markets is greatly aided by knowing what’s happening in community banks.” Bernanke and Fed bank presidents are fighting efforts from Congress to shrink the Fed’s role in bank supervision. Dodd proposed that the Fed’s supervisory authority include only bank holding companies with more than $50 billion in assets, while the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency would regulate other banks. A bill passed by the House of Representatives in December left the Fed’s current supervisory authority intact. Supervisory Authority The Fed oversees about 5,000 bank holding companies and more than 800 state member banks. The Board of Governors in Washington delegates supervisory authority to the regional Fed banks which have examiners on staff. Smaller bankers are on the “front line” of coping with aftershocks from the financial crisis, including “high unemployment, lost incomes and wealth, home foreclosures, strained fiscal budgets,” Bernanke said. The central bank chairman didn’t comment directly on the economy or outlook for monetary policy in his remarks. The Fed has kept the federal funds rate target for overnight loans between banks in a range of zero to 0.25 percent since December 2008. Policy makers began using the “extended period” language in March 2009 and have repeated it at each meeting since then. To contact the reporters on this story: Steve Matthews in St. Louis at smatthews@bloomberg.net ; Phil Mattingly in Washington at pmattingly@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Dennis Santiago: La-La Land Gets Feisty

February 26, 2010

L.A. City Councilman Richard Alarcon is hopping mad about the way his City and his people are being treated by the banking and finance industry and he’s building a template for how the City of Los Angeles will respond to it. He wants banks doing business with the City to prove they are involved in “investing local” and he is not of a mind to shy away from divesting Los Angeles’ treasure from banks who do not. And how much treasure is that? Start with around $28.9 billion dollars in city operating and related pension funds the City can influence directly. Then there’s the wealth of ordinary people and businesses local leaders can influence by example. When I testified to the Jobs and Business Development Committee on February 23rd I included in my testimony a 17 page table detailing the amounts of deposits in small and large bank branches in every zip code in Los Angeles County. It contains a powerful message that the actions of the City of Los Angeles messages a resident and commuter economic base of nearly $300 billion dollars in bank deposits presently split equally between large and small banking institutions. If such an effort activate an “invest local” movement succeeds, that is a potential public-private economic powerhouse. The hearing aired several public frustrations centering on issues including foreclosure prevention, access to banking by “Unbanked and Under Banked” persons and a most interesting side trip into the world of swaps. Alarcon reported that his 7th District faces the highest rate of pending single family home foreclosures in the City. With the 2010 wave of Option-ARM mortgage resets still to come, he has even more future social stress to weigh on his mind. A packed room filled with the yellow t-shirts from the Alliance for Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) and purple t-shirted members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) made their feelings known with the thunder of a crowd watching a Laker game. What was their message? The real net effect of the nation’s foreclosure prevention programs has done diddly. They do have a point. People are not only losing their homes they are suffering extraordinary emotional stresses dealing with a seemingly heartless loan modification process. A group from the California Reinvestment Coalition (CRC) even flew all the way down from San Jose to direct their anger specifically at the practices of the Bank of America who they allege as being singularly uncaring compared to every other bank dealing with these issues in the San Jose area. They reported they even went to Bank of America’s headquarters to express their concerns but alas Charlotte does not know the way to San Jose. The truth is that there’s no easy answer to the foreclosure problem for anyone involved with the process, bank or otherwise. Alarcon took a long view about loan modifications in his remarks. He opined that loan modifications are just kicking the can down the road and worried out loud that we’d wind up back at square one five years from now unless the programs ultimately morph into substantive principal reduction programs. The fly in that ointment though is that one can’t really offer mortgage principal relief to the troubled borrowers without creating an even greater political demand for equal or better principal relief for the far larger number of current mortgage obligors as well as a new series of tax credits for lien free real estate owners. Never mind the considerable effect it would have on bank balance sheets as mark-to-market rules trigger a mass devaluation of book assets, policy makers need to worry just as much about the implied hit to their property tax base. Like I said, there are no easy answers to this one. My gut still says we are looking at some sort of transformational outcome that will turn renters back into renters en masse. The real question is will be the landlords be a new wave of private barons, deputized banks turned unwilling REIT, federal GSE’s morphed into national rental property management companies, or does Los Angeles have in mind another one of those public-private coops that have been tried in the past be the City? The words from a song echo in my head. “life is so strange … destination unknown”. Here’s the thing, there isn’t actually anything in the draft ordinance that guides an implementable operational outcome to the issue at this time. Nebulous laws aren’t the way to San Jose either. If “responsible banking” in Los Angeles is to deal substantively with the issue of foreclosure, the control language outlining specific, actionable and realizable expectations of bankers and the specification of the public apparatus to that will be created to manage the process needs to be added to the text of the final ordinance. Councilman Alarcon also noted that fellow committee member Councilman Bernard Park’s 8th District contains the highest concentration of unbanked and under banked persons in the City of Los Angeles. It’s not a small problem. The FDIC’s 2009 Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households estimates that 7.7 percent of U.S. households are unbanked – meaning they have neither checking or savings accounts – and 17.9 percent of U.S. households are underbanked – meaning they make extensive use of far costlier non-bank alternatives to their financing needs. That’s a whopping 30 million households. The FDIC’s findings indicate the problem disproportionately impacts African-Americans, Hispanics and American Indians five to seven times greater than Whites and Asians. And so we get to one of the expanded objectives of City of Los Angeles Motion 09-0234 also known as the “Responsible Banking Practices” motion to compel banks doing business with the City to help address this concern. It’s a big ask and one that is a bit more complex than both government and banking probably realize. I’ve seen these we’ve got a good idea initiatives in a multitude of business and civic contexts now and I have to tell you that displacing establish incumbent businesses is not as easy as one thinks. It costs money for any business to establish a physical point of presence in a community and Los Angeles is a tough town to do that in. Bank accounts cost overhead to support and you typically have to maintain a minimum balance of some sort to gain service fees relief from a bank. Unbanked people tend not to like costs showing up as recurring fees on their already meager account balances. The check cashing shop down the street may cost more but the charge only hits when you actually have a check and the payday loan guy gives you money you need now. My message here is not that I’m supportive of higher cost alternatives to banking. Quite the contrary! I cut my teeth on civic involvement with Rebuild LA almost twenty years ago. I’ve witnessed my share of cycle of poverty perpetuating infrastructures and understand that it’s important to find and implement sustainable game change solutions. What I am saying is that a municipality contemplating mandating that banking and financial services vendors must somehow compete with entrenched “irregular immediacy” financial services models as a predicate to being eligible to deliver conventional services is a lot to ask from a portion of the banking industry that has little demonstrated business acumen addressing this kind of market demand profitably. Both of the above issues are certainly intriguing social responsibility challenges to ponder. Personally, I’d suggest making them agenda items for a banking practices task force to investigate separately rather than try to incorporate it into the original tenets of 09-0234. It’ll bog it down and in my opinion Los Angeles does not have the time to let that happen. Better to leave appropriate hooks in 09-0234 to bring the outcome of the task force’s recommendations back into the process to add to a bureaucratic vehicle created by an ordinance. The immediate need remains to perfect the primary motion into an draft ordinance that will actually be “operable” and pass it into law. Where to improve? The Los Angeles motion is presently moving along a track that could result in an ordinance that is strong on policy and weak on efficacy. The February 23rd hearing further amplified policy but left it up to the staff apparatus of the city to continue to pursue efficacy. The draft from the Los Angeles Chief Legislative Analyst’s (CLA) office is based on a copy of an old Philadelphia ordinance. The inspection criteria matrix is a direct extract from the 1978 CRA law. I have to tell you straight up. A photocopier is not a proper tool for designing a micromanagement version of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) able to inspect, analyze and verify compliance with “invest local” policies by any municipality, county or state. Something more specific and actionable is needed. Something that, as committee member Bernard Parks alluded to several times during the hearing, will stand up to legal scrutiny. I see the stakes in that poker hand and raise you to stringent legal AND political scrutiny. The most glaring flaw in the draft is reliance on federal CRA scores. CRA ratings are federal ratings that are updated infrequently, once every three years nominally. The scores are also computed looking at the bank as a whole AND focusing on community involvement in its’ primary markets of presence. Thus a bank like say the Bank of New York – Mellon or Capital One who do business with the Los Angeles area can argue well within the limits of statutory reason that they owe Los Angeles or any other community outside their local areas nothing under CRA guidelines. No boys and girls, I did not make that observation up. Forescee Hogan-Rowles from the L.A. public-private Community Financial Resource Center (CFRC) did and I figure the on the record observations of someone who is also a Commissioner of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power deserves the stature of ordinance designing guidance in this process. There’s a lot more brain trust out there that can help the City of Los Angeles get this template right. The CLA and CAO need to be taking advantage of it. Naturally you utter stuff like this within earshot of people and the next question becomes, “Ok if not CRA then what Dennis?” Time for me to put my mouth where my foot is so here’s this week’s lesson in financial analysis and requlatory reporting regime design. In this case, all you city councils, county boards of supervisors and state legislatures please pay close attention. The City of Los Angeles desires to annually assess using objective data on the specific “local economy impact” of banks wishing to do business with the City. These data will be used as part of the City’s criteria to qualify the eligibility of banks to conduct such business. The City further specifies that these objective tests be based on “evidentiary grade” public document data submittals and that the City wishes to create an effective solution to capturing this data that can be scaled for use by other government entities similarly interested in “local” efficacy measurement. 1. All banks are required to submit quarterly Call Reports to the FDIC as all credit unions are similarly required to do so with the NCUA within 30 days of the end of each operating quarter. The City is aware that these Call Reports are entity wide reports that are not locality specific however it does imply that the reporting infrastructure to file these reports exists. 2. All banks are also required to file a branch level of detail Summary of Deposits report commensurate with the FDIC timed to coincide with the June 30th (2nd Quarter) Call filing each year. 3. Evaluation categories, a. Local institutions: These will be defined as financial institutions with depository and lending operations contained within Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara and Riverside counties. The economic impact of these institutions will be considered to fall within a City of Los Angeles greater economic zone benefitting the resident and commuter populations of the City. The primary test for qualifying as a local institution will be their listing of branch locations as reported in the most recent FDIC Summary of Deposits reference file. b. Broad-Based institutions: Broad-based institutions are depository and lending operations with greater than 10% business activity in locations outside of zip codes contained within the economic inclusion zone. In the case of multiple unit bank holding companies (BHC’s), the broadness test for an institution will be considered taking into account all of the banking units of the BHC. 4. Annual reporting data, a. For local institutions, the June 30th FDIC Call Report or NCUA 5300 filing shall serve as the basis of analysis. b. For broad-based institutions, a special June 30th Call Report styled equivalent filing encompassing just those branches identified within the zip codes of the Los Angeles economy zone detailing lending information of interest to the City shall serve as the basis for analysis and comparison against local institutions. (final requirements TBD to be identified by the yet to be commissioned L.A. Banking Practices Committee) c. All institutions are to additionally file an annual statement detailing their past year performance on loan modifications and access by “unbanked and underbanked” persons specifically within the Los Angeles area as well as a statement on their goals for the coming year. These goals to be part of each succeeding year’s performance evaluation. (Again, the specifics of what the statement needs to have in it should be delegated to a commission of specialists to ensure the best possible capture of objectivity.) I’ve rambled almost enough. I’ll end this section with one additional message to the FDIC and NCUA. You can make this process a lot easier on America by adding the most critical pieces of information on lending to the data collection set and output fields of the SOD file. That would enable scaling the process to apply across the nation as a level playing field. I’m more than happy to help draft a Notice of Proposed Rule Making to facilitate. Hey so what ya’ll wanna bet all them prarie dogs in banking are looking up right about now wondering what that cracking sound that just went overhead was? And now a side trip into swaps. This is actually more my partner Chris Whalen’s commenting territory and I’ll leave it to him to do any definitive banter on the topic elsewhere but it seems that Los Angeles got talked into one of those “hey sovereign government you know you can lessen the cost of your municipal bond issuance by also purchasing a swap deal with it” things. This one was a good deal for the City the first four years as interest rates chugged along normally but when Ben Bernanke decided the Fed was going to artificially drive interest rates to zero percent to save Manhattan Island from itself it put the City of L.A. in the awkward position of shelling out $10 million a year in windfall profit money to the Bank of New York – Mellon on a deal that last until 2028 OR the City can buy out of it for $29 million which by the way is equal to three years of payments aka one business cycle of look ahead modeling aka about where Ben Bernanke might have changed interest rates in God knows what direction by then territory. Read the world’s newspaper about sovereign debt boys and girls. They aren’t the only ones that got nailed with that one. My mechanic likes to point out whenever I try to play with my car too much that “it costs money to go to the school of hard knocks”. But a Federal Reserve artificial windfall and there was no pre-packed out in the deal structure protecting both parties against severe non-normal departures from the projected interest rate curve model at deal instantiation? Hmm? I think I’ll leave this one here for the moment. It’s time to close the kimono for the weekend. This one had a lot of babble not normally exposed to ordinary people. Hope you’re being entertained.

Read the full article →

Housing Woes To Continue, More Losses Coming

February 24, 2010

The nation’s second-largest bank expects the number of delinquent home loans to skyrocket over the next year, echoing analysts’ expectations of a gloomy housing market that is nowhere near recovery. JPMorgan Chase’s pessimistic outlook cuts across the entire housing market. In its annual report filed Wednesday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the lender says its writeoffs — those loans so delinquent they’re uncollectible — could jump 26 percent for its prime mortgage loans, 25 percent for subprime loans, and 19 percent for home equity loans. More homeowners with JPMorgan Chase mortgages will lose their homes this year compared to last year, the bank says. “Given the potential stress on consumers from rising unemployment and continued downward pressure on housing prices, management remains cautious” about its home mortgage loans, the bank said in its filing. The estimates are based on “management’s current economic outlook.” In 2009, the firm wrote off $1.9 billion in prime mortgage loans. In 2010, it expects to write off $2.4 billion. For subprime loans, it wrote off $1.6 billion. This year, it expects $2 billion to be written off. And the lender expects home equity loan losses, a $4.7 billion hit last year, to reach $5.6 billion in 2010. The numbers are based off the firm’s quarterly estimates for the “next several quarters.” Because of the firm’s size and extensive lending operations across the country, its numbers and outlook are reliable signs for where the nation’s consumers — and the economy — are headed. It’s not pretty. While housing prices have temporarily stabilized, giving some homeowners some relief, Patrick Newport, an economist with IHS Global Insight , said he expects housing prices to decrease again later this year. He also said he expects a substantial number of home foreclosures (which would drive down housing prices) — perhaps as much if not more than last year’s record total of 2.8 million . More than 3 million homeowners could lose their homes this year, analysts predict. Newport points out that while the high unemployment rate is largely behind borrowers increasingly falling behind on their mortgage payment, “the one wildcard that no one has a good handle on right now…is strategic defaults.” Those are also known as walkaways. As the Huffington Post has previously reported , homeowners are increasingly walking away from their mortgages. Some can afford to make their payments; others are drowning in debt. But both groups are starting to realize it makes more sense to mail the house keys to their lenders than make payments on a house that’s worth much less than the mortgage. This week, real estate research firm First American CoreLogic reported that at the end of last year, more than 11.3 million, or 24 percent, of all homeowners with a mortgage owed more on their mortgage than their home is worth. The number of “underwater” homeowners is up six percent from Sept. 30. An additional 2.3 million homeowners had less than 5 percent equity in their homes, meaning they owed at least 95 cents for every $1 in the house’s value. That makes nearly 29 percent of all homeowners with a mortgage either underwater or nearly underwater. Newport said he wonders why more homeowners aren’t walking away. “The price that you pay for walking away is you probably won’t be able to borrow to buy a home for about four to five years [and] you probably won’t be able to use your credit card for two to three years,” he said. “But, you’ll have this big weight off your shoulders and you’ll probably save tens of thousands — and in come cases hundreds of thousands — of dollars by walking away. “The puzzle right now is why more people aren’t doing that,” Newport said. If walkaways increase substantially, bank losses — like those expected at JPMorgan Chase — would be enormous, as firms would be forced to swallow losses on loans they thought would be repaid. Which is why JPMorgan Chase’s expected losses, while grim, could actually be worse.

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: Whirlpool Bites Hands Of American Taxpayers That Feed It

February 19, 2010

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture as part of the Making It In America project. I am a Fellow with CAF. Whirlpool, recipient of federal stimulus “smart grid” dollars, is closing an Evansville, Indiana freezer-topped refrigerator and icemaker production plant and moving the 1,100 jobs to Mexico. Whirlpool knows that taxpayers will shoulder the unemployment and other costs. Closing a plant like this also means all the supplier, transportation and other third-party jobs go away. For example, 100+ Disabled Workers Could Lose Jobs Whirlpool employees aren’t the only ones losing their jobs when the plant closes. More than 100 blind or disabled individuals could also be left jobless. The Evansville Association for the Blind has issued a public plea, asking businesses to consider using their employees. There will be more home foreclosures, and local businesses are stressed or have to go out of business. Whirlpool is profiting from making all this someone else’s problem. Whirlpool is even playing nearby Iowa against Indiana, shaking the state down for millions to move just 60 of the 1,100 jobs there. So, of course, Wall Street celebrates the move, the setting states against each other, the cost-shifting and the resulting “increase in margins.” The workers are still trying to do something about this. Inside Indiana Business writes about a rally on February 26, Organizers have invited guests including AFL/CIO President Richard Trumka and Jim Clark, president of the IUE-CWA union with which Local 808 is affiliated. Employees with the least seniority are expected to lose their jobs first, March 26. The remaining workers will be let go until production ceases in early summer. Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO President, writes: The Whirlpool Corp. is closing a refrigerator manufacturing plant in Evansville, Ind., putting more than 1,100 people out of work. Even worse, Whirlpool will continue to produce these refrigerators, but not in Evansville and not anywhere else in America. They are planning to manufacture them in Mexico, where weaker labor and environmental laws make them “cheaper” for Whirlpool to produce. This is outrageous and unacceptable, especially in light of Whirlpool’s profitability and the $19 million dollars in economic recovery money Whirlpool recently received from the federal government as a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Those are OUR economic recovery funds, not Mexico’s. You can sign their Whirlpool: Keep It Made in America petition here . Will Congress listen?

Read the full article →

Obama Housing Help Announcement: $1.5 Billion For Five Hardest-Hit States

February 19, 2010

LAS VEGAS — President Barack Obama is unveiling $1.5 billion in housing help, a boost timed to his appearance in the city with the worst foreclosure crisis in the nation. Obama’s move, detailed by aides in advance of his town hall here Friday, is the latest by a White House determined to show it is helping families rebound from a deep recession. The downturn is taking an election-year toll on Obama’s party as voter frustration builds. Obama was to announce that housing finance agencies in the five hardest-hit states in the housing crisis will receive $1.5 billion to help spur local solutions to the problem. Those five are Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan and Nevada. The policy wrinkle comes during a two-day Western trip with different agendas for the president. He will be back in town-hall mode, a venue that aides say allows him to connect with people and distance himself from the messy process of Washington governing. The president is also out to help vulnerable senators protect their seats and, in turn, gain as much legislative leverage as he can. At the town hall and a business speech he will be lending his support to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, a top 2010 election target of Republicans. Obama’s political involvement comes as the Democrats’ command of the Senate grows shakier, jeopardizing the president’s agenda. The tide of change that Obama rode to office is threatening to slam against his own party. The first day of the trip was all politics. Obama campaigned Thursday for Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado in Denver, then held a $1 million fundraiser for Democrats in Las Vegas. Reid is one of Obama’s allies, despite a flap over the president’s tendency to refer to Las Vegas as a symbol of imprudent spending, which has the city’s mayor fuming at the president. For Obama, slowing the foreclosure rate is a key step in the recovery of the overall economy. Millions of people have lost their homes because they couldn’t afford the mortgages anymore, and millions lost jobs because of the associated slowdown in new home building. Reid’s state leads the nation in home foreclosures; Las Vegas was the metro area with the highest foreclosure rate in January, with one in every 82 homes receiving such a filing. The money for the new rescue effort will come from the $700 billion financial industry bailout program, according to a senior administration official who spoke anonymously Thursday night because the formal announcement had not been made. Economic issues, such as unemployment or reduced income, are expected to be the main catalysts for foreclosures this year. Initially, subprime mortgages were mostly the culprit, but homeowners with good credit who took out conventional, fixed-rate loans are the fastest growing group of foreclosures. Obama will cap his Las Vegas trip with a speech to the city’s Chamber of Commerce before returning to Washington later Friday. ___ Associated Press writers Darlene Superville and Adrian Sainz contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

California Bondholders Dread IOUs as Schwarzenegger Fails to Win Obama Aid

January 13, 2010

By Edwin Chen, John McCormick and Michael Marois Jan. 13 (Bloomberg) — California’s hopes are fading for federal help in closing a projected $19.9 billion deficit that has caused the lowest-rated state’s borrowing costs to rise 26 percent in three months. “We recognize they have enormous problems,” David Axelrod , senior adviser to President Barack Obama , said in an interview. “But we can’t solve all of those problems from Washington.” Investors are growing more concerned that California , the world’s eighth-largest economy , will repeat last year’s fiscal crisis that forced it to use IOUs to pay bills. With Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger seeking $6.9 billion in federal assistance to narrow the deficit, the extra interest paid on the state’s 10-year bonds over AAA-rated municipal securities has risen to 1.34 percentage points from 1.06 points in three months. Schwarzenegger’s plea for help may become a test case for Obama, who last year called the 62-year-old Republican governor “an outstanding partner with our administration.” Dozens of states face budget shortfalls amid the worst recession since the Great Depression, and at least 36 have already reduced fiscal 2010 expenditures, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers . ‘Huge’ Concern “There’s a huge amount of concern about California,” said Howard Cure , who helps handle municipal-bond investments for Evercore Wealth Management in New York, which oversees $1.5 billion. “There’s a relatively large reliance on hoping that the federal government will send extra money their way. It’s going to be very politically difficult for that to happen.” Schwarzenegger wants the Democratic president to reduce required programs, waive rules and provide additional funding. In recent days, the governor has stepped up his campaign for “fairness,” focusing much of his Jan. 6 state of the state address and Jan. 8 budget address on an appeal for a greater share of federal money. “It is unfair the way the money is being distributed right now,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Jan. 10. “The federal government is forcing us to spend money we don’t have,” Schwarzenegger said in the Jan. 8 speech outlining his $82.9 billion spending plan for the fiscal year beginning July 1, speaking of education requirements and costs associated with detaining undocumented immigrants. California, whose economic output is greater than that of Russia , may be in the greatest need of any state. It recorded the nation’s third-highest rate of home foreclosures in November, behind Nevada and Florida. 12.3 Percent November’s unemployment rate in California was 12.3 percent; the national average is 10 percent. The Golden State’s general-obligation debt rating from Moody’s Investors Service is Baa1, the eighth-highest investment grade, and A from Standard & Poor’s, the sixth-highest. Greece, the poorest member of the 16-nation Euro region, is rated two steps higher at A2 by Moody’s and two lower at BBB+ by S&P. An S&P/Investortools index of California state and local debt returned 13.2 percent in 2009, 1.4 percentage points less than the national average . Mounting deficits are forcing California taxpayers to pay higher interest. The state’s 10-year bonds yielded 4.6 percent on Jan. 11, up from 4 percent on Sept. 30, according to Bloomberg indexes . Average 10-year municipal tax-exempt security yields were 81 percent of those on U.S. Treasuries of comparable maturity on Jan. 11, according to a Municipal Market Advisors index. California’s obligations yielded about 0.9 percentage points more than the federal debt. ‘Unlikely’ Funding Schwarzenegger’s budget “relies on a substantial amount of federal funding that is unlikely to come,” said David Blair , municipal bond analyst at Pacific Investment Management Co. in Newport Beach, California, which oversees $24 billion in local- government debt. “This budget isn’t anywhere near providing a solution.” California has recently received federal assistance. Its current budget, approved in July, includes about $8 billion in federal stimulus money. The state also has benefited from Build America Bonds, a form of debt that was part of the economic-stimulus package passed by Congress almost a year ago that give issuers a 35 percent interest-rate subsidy. Local and state governments in California sold $15.5 billion of the debt since April, almost a quarter of the nationwide total, Bloomberg data show. Less School Aid Still, lawmakers in California, which accounts for 13 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, have slashed $32 billion in spending, cutting funding for schools, universities and welfare programs. They also have raised taxes by $12.5 billion during the past year. In his state of the state address, Schwarzenegger called health-care legislation pending in Congress, Obama’s top domestic priority, a looming threat. “While I enthusiastically support health-care reform, it is not reform to push more costs onto states that are already struggling,” he said. Speaking of special Medicaid payments Senator Ben Nelson obtained for his state as a condition for supporting health-care legislation, Schwarzenegger said Nebraska “got the corn and we got the husk.” ‘Disaster for California’ Schwarzenegger urged his state’s congressional delegation to vote against the final bill because it is “a disaster for California” and “a trough of bribes, deals and loopholes.” “In Hollywood, they use very vivid language,” Axelrod said of the speech. “He’s advocating for his state and that is much of what is motivating that.” Obama and his party are unlikely to spark a voter backlash in California if the administration turns down the state’s appeal for financial dispensation, said Gary Jacobson , a political scientist at the University of California in San Diego . California is “a pretty blue state, and his popularity remains high,” Jacobson said. “I don’t think the legislature or the governor can foist blame off on the Feds very effectively.” Schwarzenegger, who leaves office a year from now because of term limits, declined an interview request. While Susan Kennedy , the governor’s chief of staff, said he has a “great” relationship with the president, she said she wasn’t aware of any off-camera time the two men have spent together. She said her boss calls Obama “visionary.” ‘Pretty Good’ Axelrod described the relationship between Obama and Schwarzenegger as “pretty good” while saying that uniform standards for federal aid must be applied to all states. Schwarzenegger’s relationship is more complicated than what is typical between a governor and president of different parties. California’s first lady, Maria Shriver , is the niece of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy , a Massachusetts Democrat. Like her uncle, she endorsed Obama, 48, early in the presidential campaign. Her husband, a former professional bodybuilder, made fun of Obama’s “skinny legs” and “scrawny little arms” as he campaigned with the Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain of Arizona. Schwarzenegger and Obama started mending their relationship after the election. Since then, they’ve publicly praised each other. Any disagreements they now have are over policy, Kennedy said. “He clearly separates the president himself — whom he has tremendous admiration for and whom he likes personally and has a good relationship with — from the policy,” she said. Basketball Challenge While Kennedy said Obama has challenged Schwarzenegger to a basketball game, she said she doubts it will ever be played. “I’m not sure that Arnold can jump,” she said. Schwarzenegger attended Obama’s inauguration in January 2009 and a meeting between governors and administration officials at the White House in February. He met again with the president in March to discuss infrastructure issues. That same month, Schwarzenegger introduced Obama before a town-hall event in Los Angeles, calling him a “fantastic partner” for California. The president said the governor had “turned out to be just an outstanding partner with our administration.” Stimulus Package Schwarzenegger won early friendship from the new administration when he backed Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill, joining three Republican governors to sign a letter of support. He also worked with the administration to establish the Governors’ Energy and Climate Coalition to back a comprehensive energy bill. Such efforts may not be enough to persuade the president to provide much of the help Schwarzenegger seeks, Mac Taylor , California’s legislative analyst, said in a report yesterday. He estimated the state shouldn’t expect more than $3 billion if federal aid is approved. “We believe that the likelihood of Washington agreeing to all of the governor’s requests is almost non-existent,” Taylor said. — With assistance from William Selway in San Francisco. Editors: Max Berley , William Glasgall . To contact the reporters on this story: Edwin Chen in Washington at echen32@bloomberg.net ; John McCormick in Chicago, at jmccormick16@bloomberg.net Michael B. Marois in Sacramento at mmarois@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Michael Rose: 100 Years Later: Remembering The Factory that Built the American Dream

January 1, 2010

On New Year’s Day of 1910, Henry Ford started producing Model T’s at what was then the world’s largest auto factory – the Highland Park Ford Plant. It was an airy complex that would change the world with his new ideas – the moving assembly line, and more than doubling his workers’ pay to the unheard of sum of $5.00 a day. The assembly line made mass production possible and the unexpected result of boosting his workers’ paychecks meant they could buy his cars and everything else under the sun. Other company’s had to compete for the same workers and his employee’s twofold pay increase drove wages up around the country which stimulated demand. This true “trickle down” phenomenon gave birth to the modern American Dream of home ownership, plentiful high paying jobs, decent schools and a pathway to citizenship for those willing to do a hard day’s work. There are still lessons to be learned. “Mass production and the $5.00 day gave the country an enormous boost; it simply made consumers out of almost everyone, in terms of automobiles. The automobile industry was so important to the economy that as it went, the economy seemed to go,” said David Lewis, professor of Business History at the University of Michigan. Today, the fabled factory is hidden behind a strip mall and like much of the city that surrounds it, it’s a mostly abandoned hulk that occasionally attracts tourists and historians from around the world who come to pay homage to the site that gave birth to modern manufacturing and the rise of the American middle class. If you didn’t know what you were looking for you’d probably drive by the Model-T Plaza that abuts the crumbling, former administration building with broken windows on Woodward Avenue and not be able to imagine this forlorn site teeming with over 25,000 employees. People dubbed the factory “The Crystal Palace” because of its vast amount of glass and bright interiors. The factory’s enormous size made people think that Ford had gone mad. “Frankly, this happened in Henry Ford’s life again and again; he did things that people thought were harebrained, were stupid, were simply flat-out wrong, and most of the time Henry Ford proved to be right. It gave him reason to begin to doubt any of his critics and to believe in his own infallibility,” said Charles Hyde, professor of History at Wayne State University. To prove his critics wrong, he had to produce and sell an unthinkable number of cars. Within a few years he was turning out so many Model T’s at the Highland Park Plant that it seemed like everyone was driving a Model T. This was at a time when there was far more competition than there is today. There were over 290 different makes of cars being made in over 145 cities, in 45 states. Michigan had 45 different car companies — 25 in Detroit alone. But most American and European manufacturers were still targeting the rich. The average price of a car was between $1,500 and $3,000. That would be about $65,000 or $70,000 today. This was beyond the means of ordinary people. “Henry Ford wanted to build a car that everyone could own. He made a famous statement early on. ‘I will build a car for the great multitude of the finest materials available by the best workmen that can be hired of the simplest design that can be made so that every man with a decent income can take a ride in the countryside and enjoy God’s great pleasures,’ as he put it,” said Lewis. He redesigned the complete manufacturing process and made it as efficient as possible. No wasted motion. He installed thousands of single purpose machines, many he devised himself, to speed up assembly. In essence, the factory became one giant machine. The machines and workers were arranged sequentially. The tools and parts were within easy reach. Everything was synchronized. As one part was put on, another was ready. The line kept moving. It was a relentless pace, but Ford’s costs began to drop substantially. In some cases, the moving assembly line reduced by 80 to 90 percent the amount of labor it took to perform a task. Passing those savings on throughout the manufacturing process began to make believers out of Ford’s critics. “Mass production drove down the cost of producing an automobile dramatically. You can think of all of the developments that have come since — automation, robotics, and what is now called lean production — and none of them had nearly as much influence on cost-cutting,” said Lewis. As his costs plunged, he lowered his price from $850 to $490 a car. By 1914, he was selling almost 250,000 Model T’s a year. But his system, reverse engineered from the mechanized cattle disassembly lines that he saw meatpackers use in Chicago, was taking its toll on the employees. The Highland Park plant had an annual quit rate of over 370 percent. He had to hire 40,000 people a year to be sure he had 10,000 working at all times. Absenteeism was over 10 percent. More than 1,000 people failed to show up every day, even more on Mondays and Fridays. This significantly reduced the efficiency of the factory. Once again Ford devised a solution. He created an incentive. He decided to raise wages to an unprecedented level. In January, 1914, he announced that he was going to pay his workers $5.00 a day. Typical industrial workers were earning about $2.00 a day. This represented an enormous increase. He also reduced the workday from nine hours to eight hours, allowing employees to earn much more money and work a shorter day. He imposed some restrictions on his largely immigrant workforce. In order to qualify for the $5.00 a day, the employees had to learn to speak English. He set up schools and made sure they attended. He insisted that they all become citizens and disavow their cultural origins. At the graduation ceremonies from the Ford English School, there was a gigantic melting pot up on the stage, and the workers who were about to graduate would walk down into this melting pot on a ladder dressed in their native, ethnic costumes — whether it was from Italy or Poland or Greece or wherever — and they would do some kind of quick change and then come out the other end dressed in business suits or plain American dresses, with each worker waving a flag to show their new loyalties. “Henry Ford was not just building Model T’s; he was also building men, and he was really creating men that were in his own image. In that sense, he really was trying to be a god,” said Hyde. His god-like industrial wizardry transformed the auto industry and sent ripples through the whole economy. “How wonderful! A device by which the cost of production could be dramatically reduced, and the customers could get price cuts and the employees could have their wages doubled. We have nothing on the economic scene like that today. Don’t we wish we had,” said Lewis. Some may decry the unintended consequences of the consumer society but one thing has changed since Henry Ford’s day. The formula Ford stumbled on had been strengthened through hard fought collective bargaining and, as productivity steadily increased, wages grew. But this grand bargain has been tossed aside. Starting in the 1970s workers’ income started to lose their connection to increases in productivity. Even though productivity has risen dramatically since 1973 wages have been stagnant or falling. At the same time the wealthiest one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) have seen their earnings rise 181%, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). This works out to approximately, $1.7-million a year per person in this bracket. But it’s a paltry pay boost compared to the top one-hundredth of one percent (0.01%) who’ve seen their income rise 497% to $6-million during the same period. These incomes collected by the few have come at the expense of everyone else. Instead of the American Dream we’ve created a nightmare of stagnant wages, weakened unions, closed factories, jobs shipped overseas, home foreclosures and hateful immigration policies. “Over the last several years we’ve had an economic policy of making people better consumers instead of helping them earn a better wage,” said Lawrence Mishel , president of EPI. “This fed the credit bubble as it fueled consumption.” The Economic Policy Institute is spearheading an ongoing program designed to put to rest the notion that Americans are helpless and incapable of doing anything about economic inequality. “We have to reestablish the connection between wages and productivity growth,” said Mishel. “People get this.” “There has never been a single reason for Americans to despair of our capacity to improve our condition,” EPI announced when launching its initiative. They’re calling it the ” Agenda for Shared Prosperity ,” in contrast to the last 30 years of greed. Anticipating upcoming Republican calls for more tax cuts for the corporations and the rich, increased privatization, unfettered pay raises for CEO’s and an industrial policy that puts millions out of work, EPI has assembled a team to make the case that, “the success or failure of the economy is measured not by the value of the stock market or the size of the gross domestic product, but rather by the extent to which the living standards of the vast majority of Americans are rising.” As we celebrate the centennial of the factory that created the American Dream, it’s time to dedicate ourselves to renewing this dream. They said Henry Ford was crazy to believe in the impossible. He proved his critics wrong and I believe we can do what some consider impossible today. Let’s get busy. Happy New Year.

Read the full article →

Schwarzenegger May Appeal to Obama as $21 Billion Deficit Defies Solution

December 24, 2009

By Michael B. Marois and William Selway Dec. 24 (Bloomberg) — California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger wants President Barack Obama to help ease large- scale cuts to the most populous U.S. state’s already diminished social programs amid a $21 billion anticipated deficit. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, plans to ask for relief totaling as much as $8 billion, according to a California official who asked not to be identified because details haven’t been resolved. Instead of seeking one-time stimulus money or a bailout, the state wants the U.S. to reduce mandates and waive rules stipulating minimum expenditures on programs such as indigent health care, the official said. California has been among the states most affected by the economic recession. It has the lowest credit rating and recorded the nation’s second-highest rate of home foreclosures, trailing only Nevada. Unemployment peaked at 12.5 percent in October amid the loss of 687,700 jobs from the year before, when the jobless figure was 8 percent. Wealth declined as the stock market lost 40 percent of its value in 2008. “The problem is that there are no easy solutions left,” said Jean Ross , executive director of the California Budget Project, a Sacramento-based think tank concentrating on issues facing the poor. “Where do you go to cut that doesn’t permanently compromise the level of public services that this state needs to remain economically competitive and to have some semblances of a safety net left for vulnerable populations.” Schwarzenegger and lawmakers worked to close a record $60 billion gap from February through July with $32 billion in spending cuts, $12.5 billion of temporary tax increases, $8 billion of federal stimulus money and more than $6 billion of other one-time fixes. Taxes and Cuts California’s deficits show how local governments are being forced to chose between raising taxes or cutting more funding for schools, health care and other programs, even as the economy is emerging from the recession that began in December 2007. The nascent recovery has yet to produce any job gains, a drag on states that rely on income and retail sales taxes. Nationally, 35 states and Puerto Rico expect to have $56 billion less next year than they will need to pay for all of their programs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures . In Nevada, Arizona and New Jersey, the difference amounts to more than one-quarter of their budgets, the conference said. Funds from the $787 billion federal economic stimulus bill enacted in February run out at the end of next year. Schwarzenegger, 62, will detail his request for help when he delivers his annual State of the State address on Jan. 6 and unveils his budget on Jan. 8, his last chance to reshape California’s fiscal policies before he leaves office in January 2011 after seven years. Limited Arsenal This time, Schwarzenegger’s arsenal of one-time accounting maneuvers he and lawmakers have previously used to temporarily paper over parts of the gap — such as accelerating income-tax collections — has been mostly depleted, making efforts to erase the latest $21 billion deficit more difficult. The state also has struggled to implement cost-cutting measures that were part of the $85 billion spending plan approved in July. Courts blocked part of the budget that cut funding for home care for the disabled and another part that borrowed $800 million from an account that sets aside money for local transportation agencies. An accounting error means the state has to spend almost $1 billion more on schools than budgeted. Officials also underestimated the cost of health care for the poor by $900 million, and lawmakers failed to pass legislation to realize $1 billion less in anticipated prison spending. Combined, the state faces a $6.3 billion gap in the current year and another $14.4 billion in the next. ‘Low-Hanging Fruit’ “We’ve already gone after the low-hanging fruit and the medium-hanging fruit and the higher-hanging fruit, so it’s going to get tougher and tougher now to balance the budget,” Schwarzenegger told reporters in November. The governor has said he won’t increase taxes again to close the gap. That means more cuts, complicated by mandated expenditures for programs such as Medicaid health-care for low- income residents. With reductions already made to programs for the poor, additional trims jeopardize those federal funds. “In terms of programmatic reductions, we have to keep an eye on the fact that in some areas — be it education or health and human services — if you run afoul of federal maintenance of efforts requirements, you risk the loss of federal dollars,” said Schwarzenegger’s budget spokesman H.D. Palmer. “As tough as 2009, these factors are going to make 2010 even more challenging.” Biggest Issuer The state was the biggest bond issuer this year, selling $36 billion of debt. It may come to market with at least $5 billion more of public-works obligations in the fiscal year that begins July 1, state Treasurer Bill Lockyer said. California general-obligation debt rating from Moody’s Investors Service is Baa1, the company’s eighth-highest investment grade, and A from Standard & Poor’s, the sixth-highest. A Standard & Poors/Investortools index of California state and local debt has returned 13.1 percent this year through Dec. 22, about 1.5 percentage points less than the national average . Investors have demanded higher interest rates from California, compared with other borrowers. The state’s 10-year bonds yielded 4.6 percent by the end of last week, 1.51 percentage points more than top-rated municipal borrowers, according to Bloomberg indexes . Three months ago, that difference was as little as 1.06 percentage points. ‘Always Prolonged’ “It’s never a quick budget, it’s always prolonged and when it’s prolonged the headlines get worse and spreads widen,” said Peter Hayes , who oversees $115 billion in municipal bonds for New York-based BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest asset manager. Democrats, who control both chambers of the Legislature, are expected to oppose wholesale cuts to health and welfare programs. Such resistance, along with Republican opposition to tax increases, will be exacerbated as election-year politics heightens the partisan divide. Half of the state’s 120 Assembly and Senate seats go before voters in November. Budgets and tax increases in California must be approved by a two-thirds majority, and Democrats are two votes short in the Senate and six in the Assembly. “When you are looking at a deficit in the size we have, everything needs to be on the table,” Assembly Speaker Elect John Perez , a Democrat from Los Angeles, told reporters on Dec. 11. “The reality is that the likelihood of passing taxes in this environment is slim, but everything has to be on the table. We have to come up with a resolution to this budget crisis that asks everyone to sacrifice, not just the people that in the greatest need.” To contact the reporters on this story: Michael B. Marois in Sacramento at mmarois@bloomberg.net ; William Selway in San Francisco at wselway@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Video: Meyer Sees Return in Housing Demand, Consumer Spending: Video

December 23, 2009

Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) — Michelle Meyer, an economist at Barclays Capital, talks with Bloomberg’s Betty Liu, Adam Johnson and Sheila Dharmarajan about the outlook for consumer spending and housing demand. Meyer also discusses her expectation for a rise in home foreclosures. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Meyer Sees Return in Housing Demand, Consumer Spending: Video

December 23, 2009

Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) — Michelle Meyer, an economist at Barclays Capital, talks with Bloomberg’s Betty Liu, Adam Johnson and Sheila Dharmarajan about the outlook for consumer spending and housing demand. Meyer also discusses her expectation for a rise in home foreclosures. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Homeowners in U.S. Lost $5.9 Trillion Since 2006 as Defaults Cut Values

December 9, 2009

By Dan Levy Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) — U.S. homeowners have lost about $5.9 trillion in value since the housing market’s peak in March 2006 as mounting foreclosures and the recession weighed on prices, according to Zillow.com . Almost half a trillion dollars was wiped out this year through November as housing headed for a third straight annual decline. New foreclosures and higher mortgage rates in 2010 may hinder a rebound, the property data service said today in a statement. “A phenomenal amount of wealth has been erased since the housing bust,” Stan Humphries , chief economist for Seattle- based Zillow, said yesterday in an interview. “For many households, most of their wealth is tied up in real estate.” The net worth of U.S. households at the end of June fell 19 percent from two years earlier to $53.1 trillion, according to Federal Reserve data. Employers have cut more than 7.2 million jobs since the start of the recession in December 2007. Unemployment was 10 percent in November as payrolls declined by 11,000, the Labor Department said last week. LaVonna Gottschall paid $260,000 for her Merced, California, home in September 2007. She put down more than half the price and financed the rest with a 30-year fixed loan. Today, houses in her neighborhood are worth 59 percent less, according to Zillow. “I almost wiped out all my savings,” Gottschall, 64, a retired insurance-company clerical worker, said yesterday in an interview. “I did the right thing. I didn’t get in over my head. Now I’m living month-to-month.” Foreclosure Filings The slowing of property declines because of a government tax credit for first-time buyers and record-low mortgage rates will be tested as more foreclosures reach the market and borrowing costs rise, Humphries said. More than two-thirds of the 154 markets tracked by Zillow have lost value this year. Home foreclosure filings surpassed 300,000 for the eighth straight month in October, according to RealtyTrac Inc. More defaults and job losses “loom over any nascent housing recovery,” James Saccacio , chief executive officer of the Irvine, California-based seller of default data, said Nov. 12. The value of U.S. housing today is about $24.7 trillion, down 19 percent from the market’s peak, according to Zillow. Homes declined $489 billion in the first 11 months of the year. Biggest Drops Merced had the biggest percentage loss in house value from January through November with an estimated 37 percent decline, according to Zillow. Las Vegas was second at 25 percent. The loss was 21 percent in Fort Myers, Florida; 17 percent in Stockton, California; and 16 percent in Orlando, Florida . Values dropped 16 percent in Bakersfield, California, and Anderson, South Carolina, and Phoenix; and 15 percent in Naples, Florida, and Modesto, California, rounding out the 10 biggest declines, Zillow said. Los Angeles had the biggest dollar loss with an estimated $60.8 billion wiped out, Zillow said. Chicago followed with a decrease of $49.6 billion, New York was third at $49 billion, Miami-Fort Lauderdale was fourth at $45.9 billion and Phoenix fifth at $45.1 billion. Boston had the biggest dollar gain, at $23.3 billion, according to Zillow. Increases were estimated at $12.4 billion in Providence, Rhode Island; $10.7 billion in Denver; $7.6 billion in Atlanta; and $4.7 billion in Rochester, New York. Gottschall’s house on a cul-de-sac in Merced has three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a gray-tiled roof. She bought it to be “more comfortable” and now regrets that she didn’t wait another year before purchasing. The median home price in Gottschall’s ZIP code sank to $95,800 in October, the latest Zillow data show. To contact the reporter on this story: Dan Levy in San Francisco at dlevy13@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Bair as Critic-in-Chief of Banks Shuns Status Quo as FDIC Term Winds Down

December 4, 2009

By Robert Schmidt and Alison Vekshin Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) — Sheila Bair has no intention of giving up the fight. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chief, a Republican, will not seek reappointment once her term ends in 18 months. Until then, she said in an interview at Bloomberg’s Washington office yesterday, she plans to pursue an agenda that puts her agency at the forefront of new policies on home foreclosures, securitized mortgages and making sure creditors share the cost of shutting down systemically important firms. Bair also intends to see through major changes in the regulatory system, many of which the financial industry opposes. The House of Representatives is set to take up a package of proposals next week. “The industry needs to understand that the system was broken,” Bair said. “The status quo is not acceptable.” Bair’s activism is likely to place her, at times, in conflict with the Obama administration, Congress and her fellow regulators. It’s a path that Bair knows well — and one that has won her a reputation as a Washington regulator who stands up for Main Street. “We still have a lot of cleanup to do,” Bair said, dismissing criticism that she doesn’t play well with others. “I am who I am. I do my job as best as I see fit with an eye toward protecting the government interest and the public interest.” Bair clashed last year with former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner , then the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, during the government’s efforts to stabilize the financial system. Ouster Sought Once Geithner had been picked by President Barack Obama to run the Treasury, Geithner sought her ouster, three people familiar with the matter said at the time. Obama decided to keep Bair after lawmakers, including House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank , lobbied the president in her favor. “In the Bush administration, she was not seen as a team player,” said former FDIC General Counsel John Douglas , now a partner at the Davis Polk & Wardwell law firm in New York. “When they were trying to do some of these big rescue efforts, last September and October, it was clear she was standing up for what she thought her role was as chairman of the FDIC.” Bair’s independent streak persists. She dismissed one government official’s claim that she delayed for several weeks the Dec. 2 announcement of Bank of America Corp.’s repayment of $45 billion in aid as she sought assurances about the strength of the lender’s finances. Tough or Weak “Are you kidding me?” she said, before declining to comment specifically on the negotiations. “People need to make up their minds whether they want us to be a tough regulator or a weak, accommodating regulator,” she said, adding that she gets along well with Geithner and the rest of Obama’s economic team. Reports of tensions are blown up by the media, she said. Still, Bair’s policy forays will put her on the turf of the Treasury , the Congress and the Federal Reserve. In the interview, Bair said she is considering expanding the FDIC’s mortgage relief efforts to help address what she called a growing problem of foreclosures spurred by unemployment . Under one plan, the FDIC would agree to share in losses on mortgages whose principal has been reduced by banks that acquired the loans from other failed banks. The FDIC already requires lenders with FDIC loss-sharing agreements to modify mortgages at risk of foreclosure by cutting interest rates or deferring the loan’s principal, Bair said. The effort could affect as much as $45 billion in single- family home loans, Bair’s spokesman Andrew Gray said. Support Among Democrats The push to help borrowers keep their homes has given Bair support among Democrats in Congress. The FDIC chairman has “credibility and good will” on Capitol Hill, said Representative Brad Miller , a North Carolina Democrat who sits on the Financial Services Committee. “She is certainly seen by many, including me, as being the best of the bunch among the regulators.” Bair also said yesterday she would try to jump-start the market for bonds backed by consumer debt, including home mortgages, car loans and credit cards. Congress is considering similar moves in legislation to overhaul financial regulation. The FDIC board plans to consider on Dec. 15 a proposal in which federally insured banks agree to retain an ownership interest — potentially 5 percent to 10 percent — of the loans they package into bonds and sell to investors. Banks would have to disclose more data about the quality of the individual loans and agree to tighten underwriting standards. Secured Creditors     In exchange, the FDIC would agree not to seize the bonds along with other assets if the bank were put in receivership, said Michael Krimminger , Bair’s special adviser for policy. Bair is also leading a push to make secured creditors help pay for big bank failures.     The proposal would require creditors, like repurchase agreement lenders, to accept haircuts of as much as 20 percent to repay the government for costs incurred in winding down systemically important firms. Bair, in the interview, said the FDIC urged House lawmakers to include the controversial idea in the legislation; it is now in the measure the House will vote on next week.     As Bair continues to push for policy changes, she is also presiding over the most bank failures in 17 years — 124 thus far in 2009. Another 552 lenders are on its confidential “problem list.” Special Assessment     The surge has sent the agency’s deposit insurance fund into the red, and Bair has had to tap banks for a special assessment to shore up its finances.     In the interview, Bair denied that she planned to run for office. “I’m not running for the Senate in Kansas, I’ll say that right now,” she said. “We’ve got a lot of work ahead of us so for the foreseeable future, I’m staying right where I am.”     She said she will probably return to academia or work for a non-profit organization. Bair was a professor of financial regulatory policy at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst from 2002 before coming to the FDIC in 2006. To contact the reporters on this story: Robert Schmidt in Washington at rschmidt5@bloomberg.net ; Alison Vekshin in Washington at avekshin@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Bair as Critic-in-Chief of Banks Shuns Status Quo as FDIC Term Winds Down

December 4, 2009

By Robert Schmidt and Alison Vekshin Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) — Sheila Bair has no intention of giving up the fight. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chief, a Republican, will not seek reappointment once her term ends in 18 months. Until then, she said in an interview at Bloomberg’s Washington office yesterday, she plans to pursue an agenda that puts her agency at the forefront of new policies on home foreclosures, securitized mortgages and making sure creditors share the cost of shutting down systemically important firms. Bair also intends to see through major changes in the regulatory system, many of which the financial industry opposes. The House of Representatives is set to take up a package of proposals next week. “The industry needs to understand that the system was broken,” Bair said. “The status quo is not acceptable.” Bair’s activism is likely to place her, at times, in conflict with the Obama administration, Congress and her fellow regulators. It’s a path that Bair knows well — and one that has won her a reputation as a Washington regulator who stands up for Main Street. “We still have a lot of cleanup to do,” Bair said, dismissing criticism that she doesn’t play well with others. “I am who I am. I do my job as best as I see fit with an eye toward protecting the government interest and the public interest.” Bair clashed last year with former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner , then the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, during the government’s efforts to stabilize the financial system. Ouster Sought Once Geithner had been picked by President Barack Obama to run the Treasury, Geithner sought her ouster, three people familiar with the matter said at the time. Obama decided to keep Bair after lawmakers, including House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank , lobbied the president in her favor. “In the Bush administration, she was not seen as a team player,” said former FDIC General Counsel John Douglas , now a partner at the Davis Polk & Wardwell law firm in New York. “When they were trying to do some of these big rescue efforts, last September and October, it was clear she was standing up for what she thought her role was as chairman of the FDIC.” Bair’s independent streak persists. She dismissed one government official’s claim that she delayed for several weeks the Dec. 2 announcement of Bank of America Corp.’s repayment of $45 billion in aid as she sought assurances about the strength of the lender’s finances. Tough or Weak “Are you kidding me?” she said, before declining to comment specifically on the negotiations. “People need to make up their minds whether they want us to be a tough regulator or a weak, accommodating regulator,” she said, adding that she gets along well with Geithner and the rest of Obama’s economic team. Reports of tensions are blown up by the media, she said. Still, Bair’s policy forays will put her on the turf of the Treasury , the Congress and the Federal Reserve. In the interview, Bair said she is considering expanding the FDIC’s mortgage relief efforts to help address what she called a growing problem of foreclosures spurred by unemployment . Under one plan, the FDIC would agree to share in losses on mortgages whose principal has been reduced by banks that acquired the loans from other failed banks. The FDIC already requires lenders with FDIC loss-sharing agreements to modify mortgages at risk of foreclosure by cutting interest rates or deferring the loan’s principal, Bair said. The effort could affect as much as $45 billion in single- family home loans, Bair’s spokesman Andrew Gray said. Support Among Democrats The push to help borrowers keep their homes has given Bair support among Democrats in Congress. The FDIC chairman has “credibility and good will” on Capitol Hill, said Representative Brad Miller , a North Carolina Democrat who sits on the Financial Services Committee. “She is certainly seen by many, including me, as being the best of the bunch among the regulators.” Bair also said yesterday she would try to jump-start the market for bonds backed by consumer debt, including home mortgages, car loans and credit cards. Congress is considering similar moves in legislation to overhaul financial regulation. The FDIC board plans to consider on Dec. 15 a proposal in which federally insured banks agree to retain an ownership interest — potentially 5 percent to 10 percent — of the loans they package into bonds and sell to investors. Banks would have to disclose more data about the quality of the individual loans and agree to tighten underwriting standards. Secured Creditors     In exchange, the FDIC would agree not to seize the bonds along with other assets if the bank were put in receivership, said Michael Krimminger , Bair’s special adviser for policy. Bair is also leading a push to make secured creditors help pay for big bank failures.     The proposal would require creditors, like repurchase agreement lenders, to accept haircuts of as much as 20 percent to repay the government for costs incurred in winding down systemically important firms. Bair, in the interview, said the FDIC urged House lawmakers to include the controversial idea in the legislation; it is now in the measure the House will vote on next week.     As Bair continues to push for policy changes, she is also presiding over the most bank failures in 17 years — 124 thus far in 2009. Another 552 lenders are on its confidential “problem list.” Special Assessment     The surge has sent the agency’s deposit insurance fund into the red, and Bair has had to tap banks for a special assessment to shore up its finances.     In the interview, Bair denied that she planned to run for office. “I’m not running for the Senate in Kansas, I’ll say that right now,” she said. “We’ve got a lot of work ahead of us so for the foreseeable future, I’m staying right where I am.”     She said she will probably return to academia or work for a non-profit organization. Bair was a professor of financial regulatory policy at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst from 2002 before coming to the FDIC in 2006. To contact the reporters on this story: Robert Schmidt in Washington at rschmidt5@bloomberg.net ; Alison Vekshin in Washington at avekshin@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Bair Plans Sprint to Finish Line During Final 18 Months of Term at FDIC

December 4, 2009

By Robert Schmidt and Alison Vekshin Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) — Sheila Bair has no intention of giving up the fight. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chief, a Republican, will not seek reappointment once her term ends in 18 months. Until then, she said in an interview at Bloomberg’s Washington office yesterday, she plans to pursue an agenda that puts her agency at the forefront of new policies on home foreclosures, securitized mortgages and making sure creditors share the cost of shutting down systemically important firms. Bair also intends to see through major changes in the regulatory system, many of which the financial industry opposes. The House of Representatives is set to take up a package of proposals next week. “The industry needs to understand that the system was broken,” Bair said. “The status quo is not acceptable.” Bair’s activism is likely to place her, at times, in conflict with the Obama administration, Congress and her fellow regulators. It’s a path that Bair knows well — and one that has won her a reputation as a Washington regulator who stands up for Main Street. “We still have a lot of cleanup to do,” Bair said, dismissing criticism that she doesn’t play well with others. “I am who I am. I do my job as best as I see fit with an eye toward protecting the government interest and the public interest.” Bair clashed last year with former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner , then the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, during the government’s efforts to stabilize the financial system. Ouster Sought Once Geithner had been picked by President Barack Obama to run the Treasury, Geithner sought her ouster, three people familiar with the matter said at the time. Obama decided to keep Bair after lawmakers, including House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank , lobbied the president in her favor. “In the Bush administration, she was not seen as a team player,” said former FDIC General Counsel John Douglas , now a partner at the Davis Polk & Wardwell law firm in New York. “When they were trying to do some of these big rescue efforts, last September and October, it was clear she was standing up for what she thought her role was as chairman of the FDIC.” Bair’s independent streak persists. She dismissed one government official’s claim that she delayed for several weeks the Dec. 2 announcement of Bank of America Corp.’s repayment of $45 billion in aid as she sought assurances about the strength of the lender’s finances. Tough or Weak “Are you kidding me?” she said, before declining to comment specifically on the negotiations. “People need to make up their minds whether they want us to be a tough regulator or a weak, accommodating regulator,” she said, adding that she gets along well with Geithner and the rest of Obama’s economic team. Reports of tensions are blown up by the media, she said. Still, Bair’s policy forays will put her on the turf of the Treasury , the Congress and the Federal Reserve. In the interview, Bair said she is considering expanding the FDIC’s mortgage relief efforts to help address what she called a growing problem of foreclosures spurred by unemployment . Under one plan, the FDIC would agree to share in losses on mortgages whose principal has been reduced by banks that acquired the loans from other failed banks. The FDIC already requires lenders with FDIC loss-sharing agreements to modify mortgages at risk of foreclosure by cutting interest rates or deferring the loan’s principal, Bair said. The effort could affect as much as $45 billion in single- family home loans, Bair’s spokesman Andrew Gray said. Support Among Democrats The push to help borrowers keep their homes has given Bair support among Democrats in Congress. The FDIC chairman has “credibility and good will” on Capitol Hill, said Representative Brad Miller , a North Carolina Democrat who sits on the Financial Services Committee. “She is certainly seen by many, including me, as being the best of the bunch among the regulators.” Bair also said yesterday she would try to jump-start the market for bonds backed by consumer debt, including home mortgages, car loans and credit cards. Congress is considering similar moves in legislation to overhaul financial regulation. The FDIC board plans to consider on Dec. 15 a proposal in which federally insured banks agree to retain an ownership interest — potentially 5 percent to 10 percent — of the loans they package into bonds and sell to investors. Banks would have to disclose more data about the quality of the individual loans and agree to tighten underwriting standards. Secured Creditors     In exchange, the FDIC would agree not to seize the bonds along with other assets if the bank were put in receivership, said Michael Krimminger , Bair’s special adviser for policy. Bair is also leading a push to make secured creditors help pay for big bank failures.     The proposal would require creditors, like repurchase agreement lenders, to accept haircuts of as much as 20 percent to repay the government for costs incurred in winding down systemically important firms. Bair, in the interview, said the FDIC urged House lawmakers to include the controversial idea in the legislation; it is now in the measure the House will vote on next week.     As Bair continues to push for policy changes, she is also presiding over the most bank failures in 17 years — 124 thus far in 2009. Another 552 lenders are on its confidential “problem list.” Special Assessment     The surge has sent the agency’s deposit insurance fund into the red, and Bair has had to tap banks for a special assessment to shore up its finances.     In the interview, Bair denied that she planned to run for office. “I’m not running for the Senate in Kansas, I’ll say that right now,” she said. “We’ve got a lot of work ahead of us so for the foreseeable future, I’m staying right where I am.”     She said she will probably return to academia or work for a non-profit organization. Bair was a professor of financial regulatory policy at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst from 2002 before coming to the FDIC in 2006. To contact the reporters on this story: Robert Schmidt in Washington at rschmidt5@bloomberg.net ; Alison Vekshin in Washington at avekshin@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Ellen Brown: Goldman’s Profits Come From Our Pockets: Why We Need a Tobin Tax

November 9, 2009

“The homeless in America have Goldman Sachs to thank for their homelessness and starvation right now. They took the money from their pockets, they put it in their bonuses for this year. . . . That’s a financial terrorist crime.” — Former stock trader Max Keiser in a France 24 interview In the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression, Goldman Sachs is having a banner year. According to an October 16 article by colin Barr on CNNMoney.com : While Goldman churned out $3 billion in profits in the third quarter, the economy shed 768,000 jobs, and home foreclosures set a new record. More than a million Americans have filed for bankruptcy this year, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute. Barr writes that Goldman’s “eye-popping profit” resulted “as revenue from trading rose fourfold from a year ago.” Really. Revenue from trading ? Didn’t we bail out Goldman and the other Wall Street banks so they could make loans, take deposits, and keep our money safe? That is what banks used to do, but today the big Wall Street money comes from short-term speculation in currency transactions, commodities, stocks, and derivatives for the banks’ own accounts. And here’s the beauty of it: the Wall Street speculators have managed to trade in practically the only products left on the planet that are not subject to a sales tax. While parents in California are now paying 9% sales tax on their children’s school bags and shoes, Goldman is paying zero tax to sustain its gambling habit. Race track winnings and other forms of gambling are taxed at up to 25% . But stock market trades get off scot free. That helps explain Goldman’s equally eye-popping tax bracket. What would you guess – 50%? 30%? Not even close. In 2008, Goldman Sachs paid a paltry 1% in taxes – less than clerks at WalMart. Speeding Tickets to Slow Day Traders? Wall Street bankers have been called today’s ” welfare queens ,” feeding at the public trough to the tune of trillions of dollars. The fact that their speculative trades remain untaxed suggests a tidy way that taxpayers could recover some of their bailout money. The idea of taxing speculative trades was first proposed by Nobel Prize winning economist James Tobin in the 1970s. But he acknowledged that the tax was unlikely to be implemented because of the massive accounting problems involved. Today, however, modern technology has caught up to the challenge, and proposals for a “Tobin tax” are gaining traction. The proposals are very modest, ranging from .005% to 1% per trade, far less than you would pay in sales tax on a pair of shoes. For ordinary investors, who buy and sell stock only occasionally, the tax would hardly be felt. But high-speed speculative trades could be slowed up considerably. Wall Street traders compete to design trading programs that can move many shares in microseconds, allowing them to beat ordinary investors to the “buy” button and to manipulate markets for private gain. Goldman Sachs admitted to this sort of market manipulation in a notorious incident last summer, in which the bank sued an ex-Goldman computer programmer for stealing its proprietary trading software. Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Facciponti was quoted by Bloomberg as saying of the case: The bank has raised the possibility that there is a danger that somebody who knew how to use this program could use it to manipulate markets in unfair ways. The obvious implication was that Goldman has a program that allows it to manipulate markets in unfair ways. Bloomberg went on: The proprietary code lets the firm do ‘sophisticated, high-speed and high-volume trades on various stock and commodities markets,’ prosecutors said in court papers. The trades generate ‘many millions of dollars’ each year. Those many millions of dollars are coming from ordinary investors, who are being beaten to the punch by sophisticated computer programs. As one blogger mused: Why do we have a financial system? I mean, much of its activity looks an awful lot like gambling, and gambling is not exactly a constructive endeavor. In fact, many people would call gambling destructive, which is why it is generally illegal…. What makes Goldman Sachs et. al. so evil is that they offer vast wealth to our society’s best and brightest in exchange for spending their lives being non-productive. I want our geniuses to be proving theorems and curing cancer and developing fusion reactors, not designing algorithms to flip billions of shares in microseconds. Gambling is an addiction, and the addicted need help. A tax on these microsecond trades could sober up Wall Street addicts and return them to productive labor. It could transform Wall Street from an out-of-control casino back into a place where investors pledge their capital for the development of useful products. The Tobin Tax Gains Momentum Various proposals for a Tobin tax have received renewed media attention in recent months. President Obama gave indirect support for the tax in a Press briefing on July 22, when he recommended that the government consider new fees on financial companies pursuing ” far out transactions “. Leaders from France, Germany, and the European Commission endorsed putting a speculation tax on the agenda at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh in September. Brazil has now imposed what may be the first Tobin Tax on foreign investment inflows. A U.S. bill proposing to tax short-term speculation in certain securities, called ” Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street’s Bailout Act of 2009 “, was introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) last February. A different bill to regulate derivative trades was approved by the Financial Services Committee in October. Derivatives are essentially bets on whether the value of currencies, commodities, stocks, government bonds or virtually any other product will go up or down. Derivative bets can cause shifts in overall market size reaching $40 trillion in a single day. Just how destabilizing short-term speculation can be – and just how lucrative a tax on it could be – is evident from the mind-boggling size of the market: $743 trillion globally in 2008. Another arresting fact is that just five super-rich commercial banks control 97% of the U.S. derivatives market: JPMorgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. Pros and Cons Promoters of international development have suggested that a mere .005% tax could raise between $30 billion and $60 billion per year, enough for the G7 countries to double international aid. But more than raising money, the tax could be an effective tool for slowing harmful speculative practices. According to a number of Nobel Prize economists, a downsized speculative market would go far towards creating a more sturdy financial system, helping to avoid the need for future bailouts. But if the tax is too small, it might not have the desired effect on speculation. The larger 1% tax originally proposed by James Tobin is therefore favored by some proponents . The much-needed income from a U.S. tax could be split between federal and state governments. Opponents of the Tobin tax, led by the financial sector, argue that it would kill bank jobs, reduce liquidity, and drive business offshore. Supporters respond that Tobin tax profits could be used to create new jobs, and that the small size of the tax would hardly affect cash flows – although certainly the speculative market would shrink. Players in dice-rolling speculative operations have long claimed that their trades “stabilized” the system by enabling investors to hedge risk, but the recent financial crash has exposed that defense as being without clothes. Inflows of “hot money” are not good for a country. They create quick speculative bubbles that can collapse equally quickly when the money flows out again. Better for the country and its economy are the funds of prudent investors who intend to stick around for a while. A modest tax could even encourage these preferred investors, who will be more confident if their investments are not liable to collapse suddenly from hot money outflows. Besides technical questions about how to implement the tax internationally, the offshore argument probably presents the most serious challenge. Should a Tobin tax pass in the U.S., investors would be likely to move to other markets beyond the reach of taxation. The U.S. could penalize traders for doing business abroad, but governments in major markets like Germany and London would no doubt need to endorse the tax for any meaningful shift to be seen. Some experts have argued that the Tobin tax would be best implemented by an international institution such as the United Nations, which would gain a large source of funding independent of donations from participating states. That proposition sets off alarm bells for other observers, who see any international tax as a move toward further strengthening the power of the global financial oligarchs. However, the very fact that the United Nations, the G20, and the Bank for International Settlements are discussing this option suggests that we the people need to jump in and stake out our claim for national purposes, before we lose the tax money to international bodies controlled by the global bankers. We need to design the tax the way we want, before they design it the way they want. It needs to be collected by the U.S. Treasury and to go into the Treasury’s coffers. It needs to bypass Wall Street and reach Main Street, where it can be used to stimulate local business and investment. Officials from the International Monetary Fund insist that implementing a Tobin tax would be logistically impossible. But Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winning economist and former World Bank leader, disagrees. In Istanbul in early October, he said that a Tobin tax was not only necessary but, thanks to modern technology, would be easier to implement than ever before. “The financial sector polluted the global economy with toxic assets,” he said, “and now they ought to clean it out.” While Wall Street’s welfare queens have been busy collecting generous government handouts, the 50 states have been left to fend for themselves. Some 48 states have faced budget crises in the past year, forcing them to cut libraries, schools, and police forces, and to raise taxes on income and sales. A sales tax on the exotic financial products responsible for precipitating the economic crisis is long overdue.

Read the full article →

Dan Dorfman: The Right Country for Old Men

November 6, 2009

Brett Favre, the aging 40-year-old quarterback of the Minnesota Vikings football team, proved to the rest of us Sunday that getting older doesn’t mean you’re losing it. To the contrary, demonstrating that novelist Thomas Wolfe was wrong in his belief that you can’t go home again, the supposedly washed-up quarterback hurled four touchdowns to lead the Vikings to an impressive win over his former team, the Green Bay Packers. It reminded me of another old geezer, Richard Russell, the 85-year-old editor of Dow Theory Letters, a well-regarded investment newsletter out of La Jolla, Ca., and a recent critically acclaimed film, No Country for Old Men . It was a movie filled with violence and that’s precisely what Russell thinks we confront, but in this case it’s more financial and economic violence The last time I caught up with our octogenarian was in the summer of 2007. At the time, Russell, who has written the letter since its inception in 1958 and is habitually cautious on the stock market, made what I thought was a remarkable call, telling me he thought there was a good chance “all hell could break loose.” I relayed his fears to a money manager, who criticized me, saying, “Why do you waste your time talking to the living dead?” That was a dumb, thoughtless comment as the sharp, informed and perceptive Russell turned out to be dead on as serious strains in the financial system, a housing bust and an ensuing recession followed. In the process, the Dow Industrials plunged more than 50% from their October 2007 high by early March of 2009. That call was by no means a fluke. Russell boasts a number of other spectacular forecasts. Among them, he urged subscribers to sell at the top in February of 1996 and correctly turned bullish at the bottom in December of 1974. Equally impressive, in August of 2007, he once again demonstrated his visionary skills, urging subscribers to sell. Some two months later on October 19, 2007, known as Black Monday, the market got slaughtered. The Dow that day dived 508 points or 22.6 %, in process shedding about $500 billion of market value. So the obvious question is: what next? Russell, who believes the primary trend of the stock market and the economy is bearish, doesn’t think an injection of trillions of Federal Reserve-made fiat dollars can halt a bear mark and turn it into a bull market. “The stock market is coming unglued,” he says. He acknowledges that he doesn’t know whether “we are facing a simple correction in a bull market rally or the collapse of a counter-trend rally in a bear market.” Either way, losses are losses, observes Russell, who says that unlike other market analysts, he’s not ruling out the possibility that we’ll once again revisit the March low in the Dow (6547). Addressing himself to the economy, Russell questions how we can have a real recovery while we’re losing jobs and home prices continue to fall. As for the recent announcement of a 3.5% growth rate in third-quarter GDP, he notes that many analysts took this to mean that the recession is over. Russell, though, has his doubts, raising the question: Is it real GDP growth or has the GDP been manipulated by government stimulus? Speaking of housing, Russell sees more chaos ahead. Noting that home foreclosures have leapt into the hundreds of thousands — a situation that is likely to worsen next year–he points out that foreclosed homes tend to put banks in the real estate business, which is the last thing banks want. So they, in turn, sell or dump foreclosed homes at whatever price the market will bring (further depressing home prices). Observing, too, that many foreclosed homes are now selling below the cost of replacement, Russell points out that as commodity prices rise, this disparity will grow. Turning to the stock market, he rattles off a bunch of reasons as to why he doesn’t like its current tone. In brief: –Far too many distribution days. –The bullish percentage of stocks on the New York Stock Exchange is declining. –The percentage of stocks trading above their 50-day moving average is also declining. –The Transportation Average, which broke below a preceding decline low on October 28, continues to fall (even on days when the Dow is up). Likewise, transports are sort of sinking out of sight on higher volume. –Sentiment is too bullish regarding the market, and nobody expects the current rally to top out and fall apart. –Russell’s primary trend index is now only eight points above its moving average and therefore very close to a sell signal. –The Dow, so far, has not been able to close above the 50% level (10725) of the 2007 to 2009 decline. Russell further notes that one of his favorite stock averages — which often tends to lead the market and is not followed by many analysts — is also flashing bearish signs. That’s the Dow Jones Composite Index, which is made up of the 30 industrial stocks, the 20 transportation stocks and the 15 utility stocks. As of now, it’s completely trading completely below its 50-day moving average, strongly indicating further market weakness. Russell wraps up, noting everyone needs protection from Federal Reserve-created credit inflation and the sinking dollar. His strategy: Be sure you own some gold, which is approaching an all-time high of $1,100 an ounce amid heavy gold buying by India and a falling dollar. Write to Dan Dorfman at Dandordan@aol.com

Read the full article →

Republicans Ride Economic Woes to Wins in Two States

November 4, 2009

By Heidi Przybyla Nov. 4 (Bloomberg) — Republicans swept governors’ races in New Jersey and Virginia as voters concerned about rising jobless rates and record home foreclosures punished Democrats. New Jersey’s Democratic Governor Jon Corzine , a 62-year-old former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. , lost to Republican Christopher Christie , 47. In Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell , 55, beat Democrat Creigh Deeds , 51, by a 17-point margin. In a congressional race in New York that took on national significance, Democrat Bill Owens defeated Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman . Republicans said the results were a sign the electorate is looking more favorably at their party one year after President Barack Obama’s election. “It’s great news,” said David Carney , a political director for former President George H.W. Bush . “When we’re like us, we win; when we’re like them, we lose,” said Republican Dick Armey , the former House majority leader from Texas, who now chairs FreedomWorks, a group that has aligned with conservative activists. Armey is on one side of a debate among Republicans over whether the party’s response to losses in the 2006 and 2008 elections should be to move further to the political right. In New York, that strategy may have backfired as Republicans including Armey and 2008 Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin endorsed Hoffman, 59, a conservative who ran as a third-party candidate. They chose Hoffman over the pick of local party leaders, Dede Scozzafava , 49, who dropped out last weekend. The split vote handed Democrat Owens a narrow victory in a district that has been represented by a Republican since the Civil War. Unemployment In Detroit, voters approved a $500.5 million school bond proposal for a district that considered filing for bankruptcy. The election also resulted in Ohio becoming the 13th U.S. state to allow casinos, as voters approved gaming halls in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo. The elections came as the national unemployment rate reached 9.8 percent in September, and 937,840 U.S. homes received a default or auction notice or were repossessed by banks in the third quarter, a 23 percent increase from a year earlier, RealtyTrac Inc. said Oct. 15. The U.S. dollar has dropped 12 percent in the past year against a basket of six major currencies, even as stocks in the S&P 500 have rallied 55 percent from a 12-year low in March. ‘Frugal Government’ Speaking to supporters in Richmond, Virginia, Governor- elect McDonnell pledged “a wise and frugal government” and to keep taxes, regulation and litigation “to a minimum.” “Tomorrow begins the task of fixing our broken state,” said Christie, who pledged to cut regulations and spending and “get government back under control.” The Republican wins in two out of three races could embolden conservative activists seeking to promote rivals for the seats of party lawmakers and officials such as Florida Governor Charlie Crist who supported Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus. The results in New York, in particular, will stoke a debate in the Republican Party over its direction, said former Republican Representative Tom Davis of Virginia. He said his party must develop a message that goes beyond opposition to Obama’s agenda by offering alternatives to his policies. “You’ve got to be able to mold that discontent into majorities,” said Davis, who led his party’s recruitment efforts in Congress. Mayoral Races In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg , an independent, was elected to a third term, beating Democrat William Thompson , the city’s comptroller, by a 5-point margin. Bloomberg, who becomes the first three-term chief executive of the biggest U.S. city by population since 1989, is founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP. In Boston, Mayor Thomas Menino won an unprecedented fifth consecutive four-year term, and in Detroit, Dave Bing , a former NBA star, won re-election. In Miami’s mayoral race, Tomás Regalado defeated Joe Sanchez. In Maine, voters repealed a state law that would allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. Final results for a similar proposal in Washington state were not available. Exit polls indicated the gubernatorial and House races weren’t referenda on the president’s job performance, though Democrats learned the possible limits of gains made in last year’s election, when Obama became the first in his party to win Virginia since 1964. ‘Local Issues’ Obama’s spokesman said the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia turned on the economy and “local issues that didn’t involve the president.” “The economy was on people’s minds in these elections,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. The president plans to call McDonnell and Christie today, Gibbs said. Obama talked with Corzine and Deeds last night. The administration is “not concerned” that the results will make it more difficult to keep Democrats representing Republican- leaning districts on board with the president’s agenda, he said. Still, the outcome in Virginia and New Jersey may be unreliable barometers of how the elections next year will play out, with local issues such as taxes and transportation driving much of the debate. Virginia hasn’t elected a governor from the party that holds the White House since 1973. McDonnell’s election ends an eight-year streak of Democratic governors. Virginia Campaign Deeds trailed McDonnell for much of the race, except in the weeks after a thesis paper McDonnell wrote more than 20 years ago calling working women “detrimental” was publicized. McDonnell recovered in the polls after his campaign ran a television ad that showed Deeds equivocating on whether he would raise taxes. Yesterday, McDonnell won 58.7 percent to 41.3 percent, with the support of many of the independent and female voters who backed Obama a year ago. In New Jersey, Christie started the campaign with a lead in polls that reached 12 percent in July and fell as Corzine aired a series of television ads attacking his driving record, ethics and opposition to abortion. Christie won 49 percent to 45 percent. The last time a Republican won a statewide election in New Jersey was 1997, when incumbent Governor Christine Whitman defeated challenger James McGreevey in a tough campaign. Whitman’s 1993 campaign, in which she defeated James Florio amid voter outrage over $2.8 billion in tax increases he pushed through in his first term, marked the only defeat of a sitting New Jersey governor in a general election. Independent Voters In Virginia, 65 percent of independents cast their ballots for McDonnell and in New Jersey, Christie took 60 percent of the independent vote, according to CNN’s early exit polls . The economy and jobs were the most important issue to voters in both states, with 32 percent of New Jersey voters and almost half of Virginia voters saying so. Six in ten New Jersey voters and 55 percent of Virginians said Obama had no effect on their vote. The data refute the arguments of Republicans who said the races were referenda on Obama, said David Plouffe , the president’s former campaign manager. “These are local races,” he said in an interview yesterday on Bloomberg Television. “By Thursday or Friday the remnants of this will be forgotten.” Tom Reynolds , a former congressman from New York and head of the National Republican Congressional Committee , agreed. “It probably will have little to do with next year’s outcome,” he said. “Whether it is who wins the House baseball game or a fight in the off-year, people are wanting to take credit.” Turnout While voters in Virginia said the race wasn’t a referendum on Obama, the low turnout among blacks and young voters was a failure of his grassroots campaign machine , said Jennifer Duffy , an analyst at the Cook Political Report in Washington. “Looking to 2010, it’s a good lesson to relearn,” she said. “It’s not going to be the silver bullet for Democrats.” Amo Houghton , a former New York congressman and founder of the Republican Main Street Partnership , which promotes centrist Republicans, said the ouster of Scozzafava by Hoffman could be a bad omen for the party. Hoffman had assailed Scozzafava’s support for the stimulus, gay marriage and abortion rights. Owens had 49 percent of the vote, compared with 45.6 percent for Hoffman. “It’s tragic,” he said. “You don’t turn on your own people if you believe in the country and the two-party system.” Armey said Republicans would have won if they “had nominated a true conservative from the outset.” John Lapp, who was the director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006 under then Illinois Representative Rahm Emanuel , said the results last night could impair Republicans chances in swing districts, such as the Northeast, where there are only two Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine. “There has been a purist civil war, revolution for the heart and soul of the party and the moderates have lost,” Lapp said. To contact the reporter on this story: Heidi Przybyla in Washington at hprzybyla@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →