mortgage

Huffington Post…

Some who talked to American Banker said that the political pressure to announce the settlement drove the timing, in effect putting the press release cart in front of the settlement horse. Whatever the reason for the document’s continued non-appearance, the lack of a public final settlement is already the cause for disgruntlement among those who closely follow the banking industry. Quite simply, the actual terms of a settlement matter.

Continue reading here:
Missing Final Document Raises Doubts On $25B Mortgage Settlement

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

Huffington Post…

By Tim Reid and Aruna Viswanatha Feb 9 (Reuters) – California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a veteran prosecutor with acute political instincts and a reputation for thick skin, gambled big in the settlement negotiations with banks over illegal foreclosures. It’s a gamble that appears to have paid off spectacularly. Harris, whose state has been one of the hardest hit by the U.S. foreclosure crisis, pulled out of talks with the banks last September, saying what they were offering was grossly insufficient. At the time, her office said on Thursday, California was being offered between $2 billion and $4 billion. The gambit carried significant risks. California is a non-judicial foreclosure state, meaning foreclosures can happen outside the court system. Thus there are no court files filled with the notorious “robo-signed” documents, leaving Harris with less leverage than other states in negotiating with the banks. Yet on Thursday, Harris held a press conference in Los Angeles to herald a deal that looks exceptionally favorable to California. Out of the $40 billion in total benefits that are expected to flow from the $25 billion settlement that the banks agreed to pay, California is set to emerge with some $18 billion. Harris wrung a commitment from the banks to reduce loans to distressed homeowners by $9 billion, and to provide $3 billion to assist short sales. Another $6 billion will fund restitution and anti-blight programs, among other things. There are also enforcement and penalty provisions unique to California that Harris said will make sure the banks comply with the terms of the settlement. Harris’ hardball tactics reflect a woman who has prospered in the rough and tumble politics of the Golden State. Born in Oakland, California, she is the daughter of a Tamil mother, a breast cancer specialist who emigrated to the United States in 1960, and a Jamaican American father, a Stanford University economic professor. Her parents divorced when she was a toddler and her mother raised Harris and her sister to be proud African Americans during the tumult of the Civil Rights era. By virtue of her gender and her parentage, Harris is the first female, the first African American and the first Asian American attorney general in California, and the first Tamil American attorney general in the United States. A career prosecutor, she was elected district attorney of San Francisco in 2003 after defeating two-term incumbent Terence Hall. She was re-elected unopposed in 2007. Convictions in San Francisco increased sharply during her tenure. But her unshakeable opposition to the death penalty led to a bitter stand-off with the city’s police department when, just four months into the job, a police officer was gunned down and killed by a gang member and Harris declined to seek the death penalty. She also came under fire when a scandal engulfed the San Francisco crime lab, resulting in the mass dismissal of drug cases. Yet she remained a highly appealing political figure, dubbed “the female Barack Obama” by some wags. In 2010, she prevailed over a weak field to win the Democratic nomination for attorney general, and then barely edged her Republican rival, Los Angeles district attorney Steve Cooley, in the general election. Harris is widely considered to be a likely future candidate for higher office; if the mortgage settlement proceeds as planned, it could ultimately help more than just the troubled homeowners. (Reporting By Tim Reid and Aruna Viswanatha; Editing by Jonathan Weber and Richard Chang)

Go here to read the rest:
The Woman Some Are Dubbing ‘The Female Barack Obama’

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

SEC May Target Big Banks In Lawsuit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities

February 9, 2012

Regulators may be preparing a lawsuit against some of the country’s largest banks in order to probe their role in the acceleration of the financial crisis. The Securities and Exchange Commission is planning to formally warn a number of firms that sold mortgage-backed securities in the years leading up to the meltdown of an impending enforcement action, the Wall Street Journal reports. At issue is whether banks knew at the time that the mortgages backing their securities were of poor quality — and whether the banks nevertheless presented a picture of the loans that was misleadingly reassuring. Mortgage-backed securities are generally believed to have played a central role in the near-meltdown of the national banking system a few years ago. The country’s largest financial firms repeatedly bundled subprime mortgages and used them to guarantee securities that were sold to investors. When those mortgages proved unsound, it triggered a series of financial failures that dealt a severe blow to the national economy. If such a lawsuit does come to pass, it would be part of a broader effort on the part of the federal government to assign responsibility for the financial crisis — and to better regulate hazardous trading practices and high-risk financial instruments in the hopes of preventing another one. At the same time, the SEC has been criticized for not doing more to stamp out misconduct. In 2009, one prominent whistleblower called the agency ” captive to the industry it regulates .” Multiple lawsuits and inquiries have already raised the issue of whether banks misrepresented the health of mortgage-backed securities during the housing boom. JPMorgan Chase faced one such suit last year, as did Washington Mutual and Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch division . Goldman Sachs is currently facing a potential class-action suit from investors over whether it purchased a number of mortgage-backed securities in 2005 without first examining their health. Goldman was also accused last year, by an investigatory Senate panel, of misleading Congress and investors as to the safety of the mortgage-backed securities it was selling. News of the possible suit comes at a moment when banks are already being called to account for their handling of another result of the collapsing housing market: the foreclosure crisis. On Thursday, the government announced that it had reached a $25 billion settlement with some of the country’s largest financial firms — among them Citigroup, Ally and BofA, all said to be targets of the SEC investigation — over charges that the banks engaged in systematic and widespread mortgage fraud. No major bank executives have yet to face prison over their role in the worse financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Read the full article →

National Mortgage Settlement All But Inevitable As California, New York Join Deal

February 9, 2012

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and California Attorney General Kamala Harris are joining the national mortgage servicing settlement, making a deal that includes all 50 states all but inevitable, according to a source who spoke Wednesday evening on condition of anonymity. “It’s hard to see any state staying out of the deal if California is in,” said the source. The settlement resolves allegations that five of the nation’s largest banks forged documents and wrongfully foreclosed on borrowers in what has come to be known as the “robo-signing” scandal. Schneiderman and Harris have been outspoken in urging the Obama administration to hold the nation’s biggest banks accountable for their role in the housing crisis and have resisted signing on to the settlement until now over concerns that it would go too easy on the banks and provide too little homeowner relief. The two states’ participation had widely been seen as necessary to a successful deal. California has been one of the hardest hit states during the foreclosure crisis, and because of this was considered a key state when it came to securing a deal. The five banks participating in the settlement — Ally Financial, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase — agreed to contribute a total of $25 billion to help struggling homeowners if California joined the deal. Without California, that figure would drop to $19 billion. The deal is being negotiated between the state attorneys general, the Obama administration and the banks. The majority of the settlement money is earmarked for helping homeowners change the terms of a mortgage or refinance it, or reduce the amount of principal owed. In this election year, the proposed deal has become a political lighting rod as some consumer advocates have criticized the Obama administration for what they perceive as terms that deliver too little help to desperate homeowners. “Even if the final settlement number is $25 billion, it pales in comparison to the scope of the problem,” said Margery Golant, a Florida-based attorney who represents homeowners and formerly served as assistant general counsel at subprime mortgage giant Ocwen Financial. “If you do the math, that’s a few hundred million per state. That’s not enough to change anything.” California and New York are joining more than 40 states that already have agreed to the settlement. Florida, Massachusetts, Nevada and Delaware have remained resistant to joining, though that will likely change now with California’s and New York’s participation, sources familiar with the negotiations said. Shaun Donovan, secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, said last week that a deal “will be finalized, I would expect, in the coming days.” A final deal has not been announced.

Read the full article →

In Minnesota, Missouri, Colorado, Economies Languish As GOP Candidates Vie For Votes

February 8, 2012

When Republicans in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado cast their votes for presidential candidates Tuesday, many will no doubt have the economy on their minds. Tying the three economies together is government, among the top three employers in all three states. And in all three states, government employment is falling too. Missouri particularly struggled last year, losing jobs while nationwide employment grew. And nearly a third of Missouri’s mortgages are underwater — a larger share than the national average. The state is also less confident about the future of the economy than 35 states. Though Minnesota and Colorado’s economies are doing better than average, they are still far from healthy. Minnesota’s home prices plunged 20 percent over the past five years. And Minnesota’s unemployment rate is lower than the national average largely because of slow population growth, said Troy Walters, an economist at IHS Global Insight. Coloradans may feel a bit wealthier than the nation as a whole since the same housing bust has not been as severe there. Home prices have fallen just 5 percent over the past five years, and 16 percent of Colorado mortgages are underwater — far below the national average.

Read the full article →

Neeta Pal: Foreclosure Dispatches: Views From Around the Country

February 7, 2012

Foreclosures aren’t going away. By now, the abuses that brought us to this point and continue to sink us further into the crisis — predatory lending practices, hastily securitized loans and mortgage servicing errors — are well known. Accountability for these abuses, however, remains an open question. As we await the outcomes of the 50-state attorneys general settlement and the Obama administration’s new federal Financial Crimes Unit led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, we must not lose sight of the homeowners and communities who suffer the collateral damages of foreclosure. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law teamed up with the National Coalition for the Civil Right to Counsel and independent producer Sarah Reynolds to create a multimedia video series entitled Fighting Foreclosure: Why Legal Assistance Matters that tells the stories of homeowners around the country. The series focuses on the perspectives of people who have seen or experienced firsthand what happens when homeowners go up against banks and mortgage servicers without an advocate at their side. Time and again, with counseling and legal representation , homeowners are able to catch documentation fraud, lending violations and other unlawful practices, and negotiate a fair settlement to stay in their homes. Community groups, legal aid lawyers, and housing counselors continue to act as first responders in a slow-moving foreclosure disaster that, according to the Center for Responsible Lending, is not even half-way over . Fighting Foreclosure: Charles Guider from TheBrennanCenter on Vimeo . Dispatch #1 : Sarah Ludwig and Josh Zinner, Co-Directors, Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project (NEDAP) in New York City NEDAP — a financial justice resource and advocacy center based in New York City — recently released a report showing that 345,435 mortgages were at risk of foreclosure in New York State in 2011. NEDAP’s analysis confirms that the state has a long way to go before the foreclosure crisis is over. The report shows that neighborhoods of color continue to be disproportionately affected. From where you’re sitting, what, in your view, is one of the main challenges facing homeowners in foreclosure? Servicers, servicers, servicers. We are years into the foreclosure crisis, and banks, through their mortgage servicers, continue to present serious obstacles to homeowners, resulting in millions of foreclosures that could and should have been averted. The problem should perhaps come as no surprise, since servicers generally continue to make more money from foreclosing on homes than from modifying mortgages, and public policy response has been slow at best in terms of requiring meaningful accountability by the industry. People who seek to negotiate effective loan modifications with servicers continue to get the major runaround, experiencing maddening delays and unreasonable denials of their loan modification applications. Meanwhile, the financial industry has spent millions upon millions of dollars lobbying against even the most basic reforms — to the profound detriment of families, communities, and the country. What is one aspect of the foreclosure crisis that has been overlooked by the media? The media, in general, have failed to address the fact that so little has been done to hold banks accountable — notwithstanding general consensus that banks and Wall Street caused the foreclosure crisis (enabled in no small measure by their regulators), and notwithstanding what we now know was a multi-trillion dollar bank bailout. Similarly, most media have categorically avoided core questions regarding the restructuring of our financial system to ensure fairness and equity going forward. Another glaring gap is coverage of the millions of people who’ve unfairly lost their homes to foreclosure. What’s happened to them? Where are they now? Where’s the redress? By some estimates, we are only halfway through our nation’s foreclosure crisis. What is the biggest change we need to make in addressing this problem going forward? Broadly speaking, we need to forge a coherent, comprehensive federal housing policy that is grounded in principles of fairness and equity, and that emphasizes non-speculative housing models, such as community land trusts, mutual housing, and limited equity cooperatives. It is also vital that we address pervasive unemployment, underemployment, and the lack of a living wage. In terms of the mortgage industry, servicers should be held to strict rules and legal standards, such as a fundamental duty to work in good faith with distressed homeowners. The rules should require servicers to reduce principal for people underwater on their loans, for example, and include meaningful enforcement mechanisms and strong penalties for non-compliance.

Read the full article →

Fannie Mae Ignored Crucial Warnings Of Mortgage Crisis

February 5, 2012

Years before the housing bust — before all those home loans turned sour and millions of Americans faced foreclosure — a wealthy businessman in Florida set out to blow the whistle on the mortgage game.

Read the full article →

Trisha Ocona Francis: An Open Letter to America

February 2, 2012

Please be advised that after reviewing my American Dream it has come to my attention that you and my mortgage bank have erroneously reported the existence of a negative rating against me, after believing that I was worthy of a loan for the most expensive item I will ever own. It seems like only yesterday that I was sitting at a table with people I paid and trusted and had the same thought about me, signing what seemed like endless documents that signified a monumental moment for my children and my life as a new homeowner. My destiny, like that of so many Americans — to get a piece of the American dream — came alive. However, years later I found myself in the most dreadful state of mind often leaving me feeling breathless, confused and weak, wondering how I was going to cover the next mortgage payment and the one after that. I began selling my valuables like my car, which I needed for work. Next, I parted with the family’s sentimental jewelry. After dipping into my savings, investments, and retirement funds, which diminished so quickly, I knew that it was time to search for personal loans. As a result of my mortgage interest rate going up, I had to unfortunately increase my tenant’s rent. Looking to my left and right at work, down my block, in the supermarket, and at my children’s schools, I realized there were many other Americans living just like me and were sinking in the same sorrow. This empathy enabled me to find the strength to put my pride aside and seek assistance. I talked with a representative that sounded sympathetic and eager to help me, yet there was no resolution. Sadly, opportunists were also waiting on the sideline at the right time to scam me. Due to desperation and vulnerability, I thought someone could really turn this poor situation upside down and had the key to resolve this crisis. The Oscars around the corner lost their beautiful home to foreclosure after owning it for 30 years, due to a defaulted $400,000 refinance loan. Then to make matters worse, an investor who never planned to live in that home or even in our neighborhood bought it two months later for a deal, NO — a steal, at a whopping $250,000 in what is called a “short sale.” No assistance ever reached their path or mine and it feels so wrong. The thought of how the American Dream I so longed to achieve, the America I so loved could bring me so much misery and sleepless nights, was troubling. Why did the banks get billions of dollars in a bailout when many failed, but as a working, tax-paying citizen, my cries were left on deaf ears? How do I get out and become free again? I know everything is a risk including homeownership, and it comes with a lot of sacrifice. However, I felt deceived and taken advantage of. What now? I remember as a child growing up in a six-member household, surviving with a father who earned his living as a local truck driver and a mother who was a housewife, we always knew that the first bill to ever get paid was the mortgage. There would be no new shoes, food to eat or utilities paid until my parents put together enough funds to make sure we were secure with a roof over our head. But once our housing was paid along with other bills, we were then able to go shopping for whatever else we needed and maybe sometimes even desired things. Once when I went to purchase a gallon of milk, I inquired about Jamie the friendly store clerk. I was sadly told that she was no longer around. I stood there dumbfounded as I witnessed another worker in tears asking for an opportunity to stay so that he could continue to support his family, but was told “Sorry, the sun just wasn’t shining in the store like it once did.” One day with “extra money,” I walked in the store again and I recognized the “For Hire” sign was displayed in the front window and months later the same employees hired were still there. The next day, I woke up and looked for my father. My mother told me, he was working today because his boss called him and said that the stores requested more deliveries to stock their shelves. Later that night, he told us that the factory where he picks up the items plans to open up a couple more days a week to meet the demand of the stores. My Aunt Lisa, who had held her job as the assistant to the VP for more than 25 years, no longer had to “retire early” as proposed by her boss weeks before should business have failed to pick up. Now years later, sitting at the dinner table, with a family of my own I thought if this cycle started with my parents, myself, and so many other Americans struggling to pay their housing bills, why isn’t the economic focus on that alone? Then the light came shining through; a plan, a real design for me, my son, my daughter, my parents, for the family members that sleep under my roof at night. The Blueprint! In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. Mortgages were sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. It was a crisis that cost us more than eight million jobs and plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we are still fighting to recover. — President Barack Obama, BluePrint So let me get this straight! Millions of Americans like myself will get the chance to come in from the rain. There will be a chance to receive a loan modification offering interest deductions, lower monthly payments or a principle deduction — refinancing for my fellow homeowners who are currently struggling and in much need of a lower rate. Principal deduction across the ball, bringing home values to their current and actual value is the only real modification that can work, since the prices of mortgages are severely detrimental to values and ever increasing naturally again. If the banks are neither incentivized or mandated to modify loans, the poor statistics of this success will occur again. There would be an emergency home loan program available should I fall behind and a forbearance program if my spouse or I were to become unemployed. In addition, there must be foreclosure prevention counseling from reliable free HUD-approved agencies to help me see to it that I never sink again into this cycle. My hope is that the vacant, foreclosed and abandoned homes like the two crack houses down the block will finally be bought, redeveloped, and employ local contractors. Furthermore, they could be sold or rented affordably to a new set of neighbors with kids for my children to play with in the summer would dissipate. With this venture, new homeowners would not fall into the same mess that I did. Thanks to assistance from homebuying tax credits, low interest rates and more clear disclosures, banks will be prevented from deliberately setting me up for fraud. It is crucial though that there be an establishment of a real watchdog for regulatory and enforcing our rights. Mandatory homeownership training for all seeking to get a mortgage will ensure everyone understands where things can go wrong and have a better understanding of how not to repeat the same errors. Your expeditious attention to this matter shall be greatly appreciated. Signed, American Homeowners

Read the full article →

José Viñals: How to Exit the Danger Zone: IMF Update on Global Financial Stability

February 1, 2012

Since September of last year, risks to global financial stability have deepened, notably in the euro area. However, over the past few weeks, markets have been encouraged by measures to provide liquidity to banks and sovereigns in the euro area. This recent improvement should not be taken for granted, as some sovereign debt markets remain under stress and as bank funding markets are on life support from the European Central Bank (ECB). Main sources of risk Many of the root causes of the euro area crisis still need to be addressed before the system is stabilized and returns to health. Until this is done, global financial stability is likely to remain well within the “danger zone,” where a misstep or failure to address underlying tensions could precipitate a global crisis with grave economic and financial consequences. Despite the recent improvements, sovereign financing stress has increased for many countries — with almost two-thirds of outstanding euro area bonds at spreads in excess of 150 basis points — and financing prospects are challenging. Markets remain very volatile and long-term foreign investors have sharply reduced their exposure to a number of euro area debt markets, including some in the core. Keeping these investors involved is essential to stabilizing markets. Moreover, deleveraging by European banks may ignite an adverse feedback loop to euro area economies and beyond, even if acute pressures have been mitigated by recent extraordinary ECB measures. Like cholesterol, deleveraging can be good and bad. European banks have had excessive levels of leverage and had expanded into a number of non-core areas. So, increasing bank capital levels, shedding bad loans and withdrawing from non-core businesses should be encouraged. But there is also the danger that deleveraging could be too fast, overly concentrated in some areas and could cut off credit at the expense of the economy. All these risks could spill over well beyond the euro area. Emerging European economies would be most affected, reflecting the substantial presence of euro area banks in these countries. Nor is the United States immune to spillover risks, given the close transatlantic financial and trade connections. A large shock from the euro area could be magnified by existing weaknesses, notably in the still-fragile U.S. housing sector. Policy Priorities Policymakers need to press ahead and bolster plans to restore financial stability in the euro area and beyond. Urgent policy action is needed: First, in the euro area, the “firewall” needs to be sufficiently large and convincingly built to avoid abnormally high funding costs for sovereigns and banks. To do this, it will be important to strengthen, and advance work on, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) as soon as possible. Action by the ECB to provide the necessary liquidity support to stabilize bank funding and sovereign debt markets will also be essential. At the international level, the IMF aims to raise up to $500 billion in additional lending resources to create a global firewall. This would further help not only restore confidence in the euro area, but also address potential spillovers. Second, a macroprudential gatekeeper is needed to assure bank deleveraging plans are consistent with sustaining the flow of credit to support economic activity and to avoid a downward spiral in asset prices. The potentially harmful effects of deleveraging should be addressed at both the national and international levels. Within the European Union, such a role should be coordinated among European banking authorities. Third, a credible increase in bank capital buffers remains necessary to restore market confidence. Banks should increase their capital levels, not just capital ratios, in line with the recent European Banking Authority (EBA) recommendations. For those solvent and otherwise viable banks that cannot raise sufficient private capital, public funds should be made available, based on strict conditionality. To complement this support and limit the additional burden on some sovereigns, a pan-euro-area facility should have the capacity to take direct stakes in banks. Fourth, adjustment remains essential, but the short-term impact on growth should be taken into account. The solvency of sovereigns must be assured. Governments have to implement credible medium-term fiscal consolidation strategies within a solid euro area framework. Over the longer term, initiatives to strengthen fiscal and financial union will be crucial to restoring market confidence. Elsewhere, the United States and Japan need to address their fiscal challenges, and the United States must solve the problems of the housing market and mortgage debt overhang. Fifth, policymakers in emerging markets should stand ready to counter funding and credit strains, and to deploy countercyclical policies where headroom is available . Emerging markets in many cases have built ample cushions of reserves that could be used to counter external liquidity shocks. The global financial system remains fragile. It is urgent to restore confidence in the euro area and beyond. Otherwise we run the risk of a deepening of the crisis, with far-reaching global economic and social consequences. Fortunately, it is not too late to put in place the right policies that take us out of the danger zone. But for this, we need good politics and the collective determination to reach now a cooperative solution both within Europe and at the global level. From IMFdirect blog .

Read the full article →

Small Business Borrowing Hits 4-Year High In December

February 1, 2012

(Reuters – By Ann Saphir) Borrowing by U.S. small businesses rose in December to the highest level in more than four years, pointing to continued strength in an important corner of the economy. The Thomson Reuters/PayNet Small Business Lending Index, which measures the overall volume of financing to U.S. small businesses, jumped 19 percent in December, its 17th consecutive double-digit rise, PayNet said on Wednesday. At 112.6, the index matched the level registered in November 2007; it was last higher in August of that year, as the subprime mortgage bubble was bursting. “The data show there’s some underlying strength,” PayNet founder Bill Phelan said in an interview. “When you get these capital project investments, you can really move the needle on the economy.” The U.S. economy grew at its fastest pace in 1-1/2 years last quarter, despite a beleaguered housing market and lackluster consumer spending. The PayNet survey suggests growth could continue, at least for the next few months. PayNet tracks borrowing by millions of small U.S. businesses, and the index is correlated with changes in U.S. gross domestic product a quarter or two in the future. Small businesses historically account for a disproportionate share of jobs growth. Separate PayNet data suggested one worrisome sign in the financial picture at small businesses: some are having a bit more trouble paying back their debt. Accounts in moderate delinquency, or those behind by 30 days or more, rose to 1.56 percent in December, from 1.53 percent in November, the first increase in nearly two years. “I don’t think this is Paul Revere making the call about impending invasion, but it certainly is something to keep an eye on,” Phelan said. Accounts 90 days or more behind in payments, or in severe delinquency, fell to 0.38 percent in December, a record low, from 0.40 percent in November. Accounts behind 180 days or more, or in default and unlikely ever to be paid, fell to 0.53 percent in December, from 0.58 percent in November, according to PayNet. PayNet collects real-time loan information, such as originations and delinquencies, from more than 250 leading U.S. capital equipment lenders. It also provides risk-management tools to the commercial lending industry (More on Thomson Reuters/PayNet Small Business Lending Index is available at http://financial.thomsonreuters.com/economic_indicators) (By Ann Saphir; Editing by Leslie Adler) Copyright 2012 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Detroit Family Relieved To Learn It Won’t Be Evicted

January 31, 2012

A Detroit husband and wife who have spent months worrying that they might be evicted from their home of 22 years received word on Tuesday morning and learned they will be able to stay. William and Bertha Garrett, who have lived on Pierson Street in Detroit for more than two decades, have been fighting their bank foreclosure for more than a year . They attempted to buy back their home with no success — until this week, they said. Two weeks ago the couple got formal notice of an eviction. On Monday, a contractor attempted to place a dumpster on the Garrett property, a step required before an eviction can take place, according to city code. But also on Monday, members of Moratorium Now, Occupy Detroit and Homes Before Banks rallied at the Detroit office of the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. , the trustee of the Garretts’ mortgage. The family’s supporters also blocked the contractor from placing the dumpster. On Tuesday morning a representative of Statebridge Co., a servicer for their mortgage, called the family to say the company would accept their offer of $12,000 to buy back their home, said the Garretts’ daughter, Michele Finley. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. has an administrative role as trustee of the mortgage but it is unable to make decisions about the property, said Kevin Heine, a spokesman for the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. Statebridge Co. and IA Services are the servicers for the mortgage, Heine said. Statebridge did not return a request for comment and IA declined to comment on the Pierson Street property. The Garretts, with the help of several of their children, have the $12,000 ready to buy back their home. The family is waiting for the delivery of a purchase agreement. “I’m so happy,” Finley said. “But until I see a signed piece of paper saying my parents have a house, I won’t believe it.” Finley said she is grateful for the support her family received from community members and plans to pay it forward and work with others facing foreclosure. “My verbal promise [to them] is, I’m in this for the long haul,” she said. “I did this for my parents, it wasn’t for anyone else. But what I have seen, the stories I have heard … [foreclosure] is an epidemic.” When U.S. state Rep. Hansen Clarke, who represents Detroit, heard of the Garretts’ situation, an office staffer reached out to the family. “We were determined to do anything we could to let them stay in the house,” said Winifred Money, who works in Clarke’s Detroit office. By the time Money called, the Garretts already knew that they wouldn’t be evicted. But Money is glad the issue was brought to the forefront. “Most of our calls are on foreclosure. There’s not a day that goes by that a new person isn’t calling,” she said.

Read the full article →

Joel Sucher: Is Newt Almost Right About Romney, Goldman Sachs, and Florida Foreclosures?

January 31, 2012

In a desperate attempt to claw up his poll numbers, Newt Gingrich has lobbed a bunch of accusatory mortar shells into Mitt’s campaign for Sunshine State supremacy. Probably the shell that’s created the most pushback is the one with Goldman Sachs painted on its side. It seems that the Massachusetts millionaire, according to his tax returns, had profited from investments, in particular a Goldman fund that was chock full of mortgage backed securities. By extension, Gingrich claimed, Florida homeowners whose defaulted mortgages were part of that Goldman fund had been had been victims of foreclosure. Mitt, according to Newt, seemed to be living up to his legacy as one helluva “vulture capitalist.” The New York Times jumped into the fray, throwing in its two cents to correct what they felt was a besmirchment of the already tarnished reputation of Wall Street’s vampire squid. No, The New York Times reported in a January 27 article , Goldie had already dumped its mortgage servicer, Litton Loan, back in late August, so it couldn’t be accused of foreclosing on anyone, at least not now, and certainly not on anyone’s Florida home. Servicers, as part of their business model, routinely collect payments from homeowners on behalf of investment trusts, which actually own the loans, and, per pooling and servicing agreements, routinely call the shots when it comes to foreclosures. So, in that realm anyway, Goldman had clean hands. However, that same day, Business Insider , in a piece titled ” Newt’s False and Pandering Attack on Goldman Sachs ,” did fill in some gaps notably missing in the Times piece. Blankfein and Company, according to the article, did hold “a very small number of whole loans in its Goldman Sachs Bank USA division,” and added that “it’s not out foreclosing on homes up and down Florida.” OK, at least they seemed to be doing a bit more in the way of homework. But it still begs the question: If Goldman itself is still holding these so-called “whole loans” in a mortgage portfolio, why is it inconceivable that they’re not “foreclosing on homes up and down Florida?” At the risk of being accused of defending Newt Gingrich as he tries to beat his way out of the Florida quicksand, let me suggest that there’s more here than meets the editor’s eyes at either The New York Times or Business Insider . In fact, there’s evidence that Goldman is not only holding on to these mortgages, they still have the ability to foreclose on homeowners, even those in the Sunshine State. In a November, 2, 2009 article for the McClatchy News Syndicate, ( “Goldman takes on a new role: taking people’s homes” ), correspondent Greg Gordon first revealed the existence of a little known Goldman affiliate known cryptically as MTGLQ. As a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman, MTGLQ was never listed as the “owner” of any loan, but simply functioned as the heavy who came after defaulting homeowners who hadn’t paid their mortgage vig (monthly payment). In his research, Greg Gordon found a bunch of interesting cases around the country involving MTGLQ’s foreclosure efforts, including one in Florida, where the company targeted Orland homeowner, Adela Mendez. Mendez sought refuge in bankruptcy court (filing bankruptcy stays the foreclosure process). Like its owner, MTGLQ doesn’t particularly covet publicity. It thrived in the shadowy world of sub-prime investing; working to squeeze out any remaining revenue from defaulted mortgages with clearly no profit potential. So what’s the status of MTGLQ? According to ex-Litton Loan executive, Chris Wyatt, he remembers MTGLQ well. As head of the executive resolution team at Litton Loan Servicing, he was in constant contact with the powers that be at Goldman (Litton had been purchased by Goldman in December, 2007). According to Wyatt (who’s currently working with Pacific Street Films on the documentary, “Foreclosure Diaries”), MTGLQ is an acronym for “mortgage liquidation”: a fitting moniker for what they did on behalf of their boss. When Goldman dumped Litton Loan last August, according to Wyatt, it still retained a portfolio of mortgage loans: so called “whole loans” which it continues to service. However, according to Wyatt, at the time of his exiting Litton in April 2010, MTGLQ was in the process of morphing its name into something less Darth Vaderish: Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company. Why? Clearly, publicity averse Goldman wanted to avoid any association with something as negative as “liquidation,” which a probing media would quickly determine was “foreclosure” by any other name. Gordon, in his article, also documents Goldman’s reticence to admit to anyone that it owned the company. In a 2007 he highlights — that of California homeowner, Tony Becker, forced into bankruptcy to protect his home — it took US District Court Judge William Alsup to drag that bit of information out of a reticent attorney for MTGLQ. Eventually, MTGLQ gave up trying to seize Becker’s house. What Wyatt uncovered, first hand, about Goldman’s foreclosure practices shocked him; so much so that he resigned from the company and soon wound up in the center of a kerfuffle of sorts after appearing as a “whistleblower” on MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan show in May 2011. Even though he never mentioned either Litton or Goldman (he simply kept the discussion to the foreclosure crisis) in an interview with Lisa Meyers, Goldman lawyers peppered Wyatt with “threats” regarding any possible future revelations. So in a strange irony of fate; Newt’s pot shots at Mitt may have inadvertently shed light on another one of Goldman’s little foreclosure “secrets.” Joel Sucher, a New York film maker, is working on “Foreclosure Diaries,” a documentary about the financial crisis. This is his first contribution to Off the Bus. If you would like to contribute as a citizen journalist to The Huffington Post’s coverage of American political life, please contact us at www.offthebus.org

Read the full article →

U.S. To Charge Four Ex-Traders With Fraud Related To Subprime Morgages

January 31, 2012

* Four former Credit Suisse traders expected to be charged -sources * Credit Suisse cooperating with investigators -sources * Charges stem from financial crisis (Adds details on those charged) By Lauren LaCapra and Jennifer Ablan Jan 31 (Reuters) – U.S. authorities are preparing to charge four former Credit Suisse Group AG employees with criminal and civil fraud related to write-downs on subprime mortgage derivatives at the height of the financial crisis, sources familiar with the matter said. Credit Suisse will not be charged in the matter, which is being investigated by federal prosecutors and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the sources said. The four people to be charged were former Credit Suisse traders who were fired, another source said, but it was unclear when and for what reason. The suspected illegal conduct took place roughly four years ago, the source said, adding that the bank had been cooperating with officials. The investigation stems from $2.85 billion in write-downs that Credit Suisse took on collateralized debt obligations in 2008, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Credit Suisse revealed those CDO losses in early 2008, and blamed them on a group of rogue traders – who the bank said had deliberately mispriced securities – and on a failure of internal controls. Credit Suisse, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the SEC and Manhattan U.S. attorney Preet Bharara declined to comment on the matter. Charges could come as early as Wednesday, people familiar with the matter said, but the timing was uncertain. The planned charges come as the Obama administration is stepping up efforts to prosecutes Wall Street bankers and others for misconduct related to the financial crisis. Last week during his State of the Union address, President Obama announced the formation of a mortgage-fraud task force to pursue subprime-related cases. The collapse of the subprime housing market was one of the triggers of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. (Additional reporting by Matthew Goldstein, Basil Katz and Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Gary Hill)

Read the full article →

Consumers Mostly Complain About Credit Cards To New Agency

January 31, 2012

The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has received about 12,000 complaints over the past six months from consumers who had problems with their credit cards and mortgages, according to the CFPB’s semi-annual report to Congress. In the half year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the agency received 9,307 credit card complaints and 2,326 mortgage complaints through its website, by phone, and through referrals from other federal regulators, according to the report released Tuesday. What are people upset about? There is no clear winning category among credit card complaints. “Billing disputes” edged out “Identity theft/fraud/embezzlement,” but collectively accounted for about a quarter of all complaints. More than half of all consumers who contacted the CFPB with a complaint about mortgages reported issues over making payments, or problems they experienced when they were unable to pay, such as related to loan modification or foreclosure. Established under the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law and launched last July, the CFPB has sought input from consumers on how it should carry out its mission, soliciting specific complaints regarding credit cards and mortgages. The number of complaints received so far should help the agency better understand consumer beefs. But, it represents just a small fraction of the universe of possible complaints the bureau could potentially receive, given the current foreclosure crisis and the more than 500 million outstanding credit card bills, according to the report. “The consumer response system is still in its early stages,” said Jennifer Howard, a CFPB spokeswoman. “We are using our website and public events to publicize the system and coordinating with other agencies to ensure consumers know CFPB is here to help. We expect that volume will pick up as more consumers learn about it.” The CFPB passed along about 75 percent of all the complaints it received to the company involved in the dispute. Slightly more than half — 55 percent — of those complaints were reported as “closed with relief,” meaning the company resolved whatever issue it was that led to the complaint. About 30 percent were closed without relief — were not resolved — and the rest are pending, according to the bureau. The bureau also provided some information in the report about how consumers felt about those actions. About 40 percent of consumers “did not dispute” the action the company took in response, while 13 percent of consumers did dispute the responses. Nearly half of all customers have not yet replied to the CFPB to tell the agency what they think about the response. What is missing from the report is any indication that the agency was anything but a conduit for these complaints, though the agency previously said in a press release about credit card complaints that they “provide potential insights into issues within the credit card marketplace that may inform the CFPB across its full range of activities: supervision, enforcement, rulemaking, research, and consumer education.” It is also quite likely that a bank or a credit card company would take a complaint forwarded along by its regulator more seriously than one that came through directly from a consumer. The agency’s most significant public outreach thus far has been a year-long request for feedback on efforts to both make mortgage documents more transparent and also to make it easier for the housing industry to comply with various federal laws. Over seven rounds of testing, the CFPB received about 27,000 individual comments on its website providing feedback on the prototype mortgage forms. Roughly half of these comments were provided by consumers and half by industry representatives, the bureau said. Also on Tuesday, a planned Republican boycott of new director Richard Cordray’s appearance at a Senate hearing to discuss the report fizzled , as only half the GOP members skipped out in protest of his recess appointment by President Barack Obama.

Read the full article →

Timothy Pratt: Don’t Bet On Las Vegas

January 31, 2012

Nearly 1 in 7 Nevadans who bought homes between 2004 and 2008 are at least 60 days behind in their mortgage payments or entering foreclosure, according to a new report . That’s almost the same amount that have already been foreclosed on, meaning the state may only be halfway through its housing crisis. What’s more, only Florida has a higher share of mortgages that are “seriously delinquent” or in foreclosure, meaning Nevada’s unfortunate status as ground zero for the issue may last a while. Due to the complex relationship between underwater and foreclosed homes and unemploymen t, this issue goes beyond homeownership itself and is a drag on the overall economy. The report, “Lost Ground, 2011,” was prepared by the Center for Responsible Lending. It includes state-by-state analyses of mortgages taken on during the height of the nation’s real estate boom and not only looks at their current status, but breaks them down by race, ethnicity and income. It concludes that “the nation is not even halfway through the foreclosure crisis,” considering that 2.7 million homes have been foreclosed on, but 4 million more are inches from the same end. In that sense, Nevada is like the rest of the nation; the difference is in the share of mortgages. According to the report’s interactive map, the top five states in their share of mortgages at risk of foreclosure, are Florida, with 17.4%; Nevada with 13.4%; New York with 9.8%; New Jersey with 9.7%; and Mississippi with 9.6%. The map allows you to see where the problem might be heading, which isn’t necessarily where it’s been in all cases, as with Michigan, which has been near the top until now, but may fall into the middle in the near future. Nevada has led the nation in foreclosures for some time, so that may remain the case. Other findings include: – middle- to upper middle class homeowners are more affected by the housing crisis in boom areas like the Las Vegas Valley; and – Hispanics and blacks, particularly the former, are more likely to fall behind in payments and face foreclosure. The center also makes a series of policy recommendation s aimed at regulating the mortgage industry and protecting consumers. It seems these ideas may be lost in the months leading up to the elections, as debt and jobs fight for the spotlight and members of Congress fight each other. Timothy Pratt writes from Las Vegas, Nevada. This story was originally published in his blog, Back to Work . If you would like to contribute as a citizen journalist to The Huffington Post’s coverage of American political life, please contact us at www.offthebus.org .

Read the full article →

Women 2.0: Four Secrets to Building (or Rebuilding) a Great Team

January 31, 2012

About the guest blogger: Julia Hu is the Founder & CEO of LARK , a consumer electronics startup that helps couples sleep better together with the LARK product ( now in Apple stores across America ). Prior to LARK, she was National Sustainability Chair for global startup incubator Clean Tech Open , and ran international marketing in China for D.light Design . She received her Masters and Bachelors at Stanford and has half of a MBA from MIT Sloan (a dropout, but they’re nice enough to include her as a case study and speaker). Follow her on Twitter at @ourlark . You are always building, and rebuilding a great team. It is never in stasis — even when you are not hiring you are tweaking roles to better fit people within your company, or partnering with strategic partners, or letting people go. At the end of the day, your team is first (or a close second) in what makes your business successful. But, it’s definitely first in line for how happy you are everyday when you are slaving away on building something new. Here are four lessons that I have discovered building my own team at LARK , and hope I am living by: Lesson #1: Build a team based on values It wasn’t until our team was around seven and we were interviewing for our eighth teammate that I suddenly realized there was an unspoken common set of values that our team all seemed to share. We were still small enough that the whole team interviewed every single candidate independently. I then independently asked everyone for their yay or nay — and to my surprise, each candidate, even though some were incredible people, was unanimously voted in or out by the team. We all seemed to know who fit and didn’t fit in our company. It’s not that our team is similar — we’re all pretty quirky and consider ourselves independent thinkers, but it was the first time that I realized we had made our own set of values. For example, we valued people who listened and then were confrontational, we didn’t value someone being an independent rock star, that we valued a bit of mischief over poise. Be extremely methodological about articulating your core values so you can have a framework to prioritize equally “good values” and make hard decisions. What’s hard about this is that values are assumptions and norms that are unspoken, and everyone just takes it for granted. However, the larger your team becomes, the more conscious you need to be in institutionalizing these values. Lesson #2: Build a core team based on defensible strengths. Understand what you need to defend and develop to build a successful business, and think of everything else as a support system. In other words, hiring a team is risky — focus on hiring those that will lower your risk and outsource everything else. Only when you and your team are ready to be married to a motivated startup-type person and their skills are core to your business should you hire them as an employee. At LARK, our key defensible strengths are user experience, sleep, and mobile tech. To mirror that, our biggest employee teams are behavior change product people and mobile engineers. However, because sleep expertise is truly a complex academic subject, our amazing sleep experts that help us build out the product are also focused on leading cutting edge research for the top universities, so they are contracted advisors. Everything else we partner or outsource creatively. Partners have proven models of success, the know-how, and the relationships to de-risk your company. Find the right ones. Manufacturing is really hard for us — so we partnered with the top manufacturing supply chain company, PCH International , and created a new business unit (they never used to work with startups) to scale quickly. Lesson #3: Reward risk well but don’t forget the one year cliff! On the risk reward curve, there is the most risk at the beginning of the journey, and the least cash, social proof, and other great people to work with. The real toughness of a startup is at the moment that you need the best people, they are the hardest to hire. But this is exactly the time you can’t settle. You have to be the pickiest you will ever be in hiring to find the most risk-taking and nimble and sharp people to turn an idea into a business. And once you find those people that add some magic, then hire them as an employee, reward them with a rich stock package, and ask them to take a risk with you. However, while almost everything else has to be based on faith, I am a firm believer that everyone, including the CEO and founders, should take one-year cliff on four-year vesting. After being pretty naive, I realized that not all co-founders and teammates are equally vested in the success of a company. Not everyone will be willing to mortgage a home or work 16 hour days. And for those who don’t fit the bill, splitting up without splitting the baby is important. And that leads me to the last lesson that I learned the hard way, the one that stresses leaders out the most. Lesson #4: Firing is part of the job. Fire quickly, experiment often. In fact, it’s proven through lab research that leaders loathe nothing more than firing their team. I sure don’t — that’s why we don’t hire casually. Most people think about the sunk costs — how much training they’ve received, how much they know about the product, how they’re cool people and not that bad at their job — and hope the problem will solve itself. I’ve found that usually there’s two issues: They’re doing the wrong job. If you think they can be happier doing another job — help them experiment and move around. You’re just not happy with them. And the best advice I got about firing was — “Remember, they are not happy either. They deserve better: they deserve to be somewhere where they are happy.” Take risks, find amazing people who are unproven, but remember to fire when appropriate. There you have it — my four secrets to one of the hardest and most rewarding parts of building a company. Editor’s note: Guest blogger and LARK CEO Julia Hu is a speaker at the Women 2.0 PITCH Conference on February 14, 2012. Get your ticket now to join the biggest Women 2.0 event of the year!

Read the full article →

Timothy Pratt: That Sinking Feeling

January 31, 2012

When it comes to indicators on the recession and its aftermath, both Las Vegas and Nevada are at the top of all the bad lists and at the bottom of all the good ones. But we can’t be ostriches, so here comes the latest quarterly report by CoreLogic , showing Nevada still tops the nation in the percentage of houses underwater. The figure: 58 percent. While this is less than the nearly two-thirds seen as little as eight months ago, it’s still bad news. (The top five is rounded out by Arizona, Florida, Michigan and Georgia, which nudged out California for the first time.) This particular part of the economy is undoubtedly linked to joblessness. Some analysts argue that sinking housing values actually push people out of an area. Others say they may help cause immobility and thus further unemployment, a vicious circle. Before considering these ideas, let’s put Nevada’s numbers in context. Nationwide, there are 10.7 million houses underwater, or worth less than what their owners owe the bank. That’s down at least 200,000 from the previous quarter, which — surprise — is about the number of houses that have slid into foreclosure during the last three months, according to a recent report on household debt from the New York Federal Reserve. It’s also 22.1 percent of all mortgages, or nearly 1 in 4. In Nevada, meanwhile, 58.3 percent of all mortgages are underwater, and another 4.8 percent are approaching negative equity, the technical term. If housing prices continue to slide, which recent news indicates i s the case, then that figure should start to rise again. So what does this mean for unemployment in the valley and the state of Nevada, which also continue to lead the nation? Again, analysts have looked at areas with plummeting housing values and the relationship to state-to-state migration. Back in June, economist Mike Konczal summarized their research: people with high negative equity might have even higher mobility than others, meaning they are more likely to rent out their place or simply walk away. Which sounds familiar to anyone living in the Las Vegas valley. So the question continues to be, are we losing people who may have skills needed in the near future to diversify the local and state economy? Elsewhere, Konczal pondered the ties between sinking housing values, foreclosures and unemployment. He wrote: So unemployment increased more in places with a lot of underwater mortgages in the past year. Question: As the worst mortgage debt in the highest unemployment states continues to be foreclosed on, and no mortgage relief, cramdowns, or inflation is inbound, how much will this become a spiraling problem? Foreclosures depress housing values making unemployment worse increasing foreclosures? The link between how a further local depression in housing values could increase unemployment needs some more causation analysis, but I think there’s a real, and worrisome, problem here. How many more states will end up in a Nevada spiral before this is done? And, to the concern of those of us who live here, when will the “Nevada spiral” end? Las Vegas writer Tim Pratt writes a blog, Back To Work , at Nevada Workforce Connections. If you would like to report as a citizen journalist on aspects of the nation’s political and economic life where you live, please contact us at www.offthebus.org .

Read the full article →

Treasury Investigating Freddie’s Reported Bets Against Homeowners

January 31, 2012

The Treasury Department is investigating a report that Freddie Mac, the mortgage giant, bet against homeowners’ ability to refinance their loans even as it was making it more difficult for them to do so, Jay Carney, a White House spokesman, said on Monday.

Read the full article →

David Woolner: 130 Years After His Birth, We Still Live in FDR’s World

January 31, 2012

Government has a final responsibility for the well-being of its citizenship. If private cooperative endeavor fails to provide work for willing hands and relief for the unfortunate, those suffering hardship from no fault of their own have a right to call upon the Government for aid; and a government worthy of its name must make fitting response. – Franklin D. Roosevelt January 30 marked the 130th birthday of Franklin D. Roosevelt. For most of today’s generation, FDR has become a somewhat distant figure, far removed from the day-to-day struggle to make ends meet at a time of slow growth and high unemployment. They know from their history books that FDR launched the New Deal in the midst of the Great Depression, and that he led the nation to victory in the Second World War. But aside from these basic facts, the average American knows very little about the extent to which the government — and America’s role in the world — was transformed in the critical years between 1933 and 1945. Yet, if these same individuals were to pause for a moment to consider just how much Franklin Roosevelt’s leadership continues to influence their lives, they might soon conclude, as the late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. once observed, “that the world we live in today is Franklin Roosevelt’s world.” Consider, for example, just a few of the major initiatives that were introduced under FDR’s leadership: the banking and financial reforms that brought us the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation , the Securities and Exchange Commission and, until the passage of the Graham-Leach Act in 1999, the separation of commercial and investment banking . These monumental pieces of legislation brought much needed stability and transparency to our financial system and helped restore the American people’s faith in the banking and securities industries. What is more, they were not inspired by any deep-seated enmity for capitalism on FDR’s part. Rather, they were based on common sense principles derived from the hard-won lessons of the 1920s, which, above all else, taught the American people that “heedless self-interest” represents not just “bad morals,” as FDR put it , but also “bad economics.” FDR also acted swiftly and effectively to help troubled American homeowners through such programs as the Home Owners Loan Corporation , which refinanced approximately 20 percent of all urban mortgages in the country in less than three years; revolutionized the mortgage industry through the widespread use of the 30-year amortized mortgage; and led to the establishment of the Federal Housing Authority (FHA). His administration also pushed through the Social Security Act , which not only provided pensions for the aged, but also our nation’s first national system of unemployment insurance, two programs that remain critical to our social and economic wellbeing. Then there was the passage of the National Labor Relations Act that established the National Labor Relations Board and guaranteed the rights of workers to form unions and engage in collective bargaining, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, which established maximum hours and minimum wages for all workers, unionized or not. But that was not all. To put people back to work, FDR launched a series of efforts to improve America’s woefully inadequate economic infrastructure. Between 1935 and 1943, the most famous of these programs, the Works Progress Administration (WPA), literally built much of modern America, including 572,000 miles of rural roads, 67,000 miles of urban streets, 122,000 bridges, 1,000 tunnels, and 1,050 airfields. The WPA also constructed thousands of schools, hospitals, water treatment facilities, firehouses, and nearly 20,000 other state and local government buildings, many of them adorned by murals painted by out of work artists. This infrastructure helped lay the basis for the massive economic expansion that took place during World War II and the post-war years. In the meantime, the Rural Electrification Administration “wired” the 90 percent of American farms that still had no electricity while the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and Soil Conservation Service restored America’s forests and farmland. As a result, there is hardly a community in this nation that still does not enjoy the benefits of the public works ushered in under the New Deal. Finally, we should remember that prior to World War II the United States had turned inward and refused to play a leading role in world affairs. Convinced that the Second World War had come about in part from the global economic depravity that helped give rise to fascism in Europe and Asia, FDR used the war as a catalyst for the construction of a new political, strategic, and economic order. It was based in large part on the extension of American moral and military power through the United Nations and the extension of American economic power through the creation of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and a new multilateral economic system that would open up the world’s markets and natural resources to freer trade. Taken together, these measures resulted in a permanent restructuring of the world’s social, economic, and strategic makeup. They formed the basis of the new world order that has given rise to the globalization of the world’s economy and the American-led multilateral security system that the United States has played a leading role in since 1945. In much the same way that FDR’s wartime leadership expanded America’s role in the world, the New Deal dramatically expanded the scope of the federal government’s responsibilities in American life. Where Washington had previously been only a distant factor in the social and economic standing of the nation, it now became the federal government’s responsibility to maintain economic prosperity, to mitigate the worst effects of unfettered capitalism, to spread industrial and agricultural development to impoverished regions of the nation, to guarantee workers’ right to choose their unions, to protect the bargaining rights of those unions, and to conserve and develop the nation’s vast natural and artistic resources. In less than a decade, the United States government had become the primary guarantor of social and economic justice for all Americans, rich and poor alike. Today’s right-wing extremists, much like the conservative critics in FDR’s own day, call this “socialism.” But the New Deal did not set out to radically change the foundations of American capitalism. On the contrary, it revised that system in order to save it. While Roosevelt did foresee and support the increased socialization of the American economy and society — insofar as that meant greater government responsibility for the people’s welfare — he took for granted that the system would remain rooted in free market principles, and he was no socialist. The overall result was to create a domestic social and economic structure that allowed capitalism to flourish even as the government put in place the means by which it might be regulated. This new “philosophy,” which included the embrace of Keynesian economic policy , stood at the root of what President Obama has correctly called the post-1945 creation of the “strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known.” President Obama is right to call for more action on the part of the federal government to stimulate the struggling U.S. economy. He is also right to demand a return to an America where “everyone gets a fair shot, …everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.” But thanks to the mythology perpetuated by the same right wing that attacked FDR, the New Deal and the philosophy behind it has been largely forgotten. Instead, we are told time and time again that the free market will provide all we need — excessive wealth for some and well paying jobs for everyone else — so long as government, with its nasty habit of deficit spending, gets out of the way. This free market myth ignores the overwhelming evidence from the 1920s, ’30s, and ’40s that the free enterprise system can fail and that there are times when the government must step in to restore the economic health of the nation. Yet it has become so pervasive that even in the wake of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, our political discourse remains fixed not on how much the government should spend to restore the economy, but on how to reduce the deficit; not on how we might use government to restore basic fairness to our economic system, but on how we might reduce government involvement in the economy at a time when we can least afford it. In such a political environment, is it any wonder that even President Obama’s effort to pass his modest jobs bill faces an uphill battle? Franklin Roosevelt once said that there was nothing he loved so much “as a good fight.” Perhaps, in this critical election year, it is time for the president and the leaders of the Democratic Party to take on the right-wing soothsayers of doom and make the case clearly and unequivocally for the one instrument strong enough to take on the forces of greed and avarice that have hijacked our democracy. Perhaps they should remind the American public, as Franklin Roosevelt did, that there comes a time in the life of every people when the only way to take on the forces of “economic tyranny” — whose callous behavior has twice in the past century nearly brought our country to ruin — is to turn to “the organized power of government.” Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 .

Read the full article →

Home Prices Fell For Third Straight Month In Nearly All Major Cities

January 31, 2012

WASHINGTON — U.S. home prices fell for a third straight month in nearly all cities tracked by a major index. The declines show that most homeowners are not reaping the benefits from some signs of an improving housing market. Prices dropped in November from October in 19 of the 20 cities tracked, according to the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller home-price index released Tuesday. The steepest declines were in Atlanta, Chicago and Detroit. Phoenix was the only city to show an increase. The declines partly reflect the typical fall slowdown after the peak buying season. Still, prices fell in 18 of the 20 cities in November compared to the same month in 2010. Only Washington and Detroit posted year-over-year increases. Prices in Atlanta, Las Vegas, Seattle and Tampa fell to their lowest points since the housing crisis began. And prices have fallen 33 percent nationwide since the housing bust, to 2003 levels. “The trend is down and there are few, if any, signs in the numbers that a turning point is close at hand,” said David M. Blitzer, chairman of the S&P’s index committee. The Case-Shiller index covers half of all U.S. homes. It measures prices compared with those in January 2000 and creates a three-month moving average. The November data are the latest available. Home values remain depressed despite some hopeful signs at the end of last year. Sales of previously occupied homes rose in the last three months. Homebuilders are more optimistic after seeing more people express interest in buying this year. And home construction picked up in the final quarter of last year, which helped housing contribute to broader economic growth. Home prices tend to follow sales, which are still below healthy levels. And a large number of vacant homes are sitting idle on the market, which means prices will likely stay unchanged for several years, said Paul Dales, senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics. “The most likely scenario in the U.S. is that in 2012 prices will bob around a bit, with one month’s gain being reversed the next month,” Dales said. “But in general, over the next couple of years, house prices will do nothing more than remain broadly stable.” Dales said prices might not rise consistently until 2015. He said lower unemployment and better pay raises are essential to a full housing rebound. Among other improvements needed: _ The supply of homes for sale must decline further. The inventory fell in November to a seven-month supply, although a healthy supply is about six months. _ Sales need to rise consistently and more first-time buyers must drive the increases. First-time buyers stay longer and invest in their homes, which helps neighboring home values rise. _ More young people and immigrants must buy. Declining immigration and a rise in renting has hampered home sales. _ More than a million homes at risk of foreclosure must be cleared from the market. Many are in limbo because a government investigation into questionable mortgage lending practices, which has dragged on for more than a year. _ Banks must further loosen lending requirements. Conditions are improving for those in position to buy a home. Job growth is up, prices are down, mortgage rates are at record lows and rental prices have risen sharply since the housing bust. Still, many people can’t afford to buy or are unable to qualify for mortgage. Some people in position to buy are holding off, worried that prices could fall even further. Many economists say the U.S. could be experiencing what similarly occurred in Britain in the 1990s, when it took four years for home prices to rise again after falling prices left homeowners with little financial equity in their homes.

Read the full article →

Lilly Ledbetter: Three Years Ago Today, Fairness Prevailed

January 31, 2012

I grew up in Possum Trot, Ala., chopping cotton in the springtime and picking it in the fall. The work was hard on our hands and the sun was hot on our skin. But we learned early on — boys and girls alike — that we had to do a good day’s work for a good day’s pay. Years later I was hired as an overnight manager at a Goodyear factory. I thought the same principle I learned in my poor, rural town still was true, so I worked just as hard as everyone else. I got some treatment you might expect as a young woman at a factory in the South — so I worked even harder to prove to the men around me that I was smart and good at what I did. I took pride in my job. And twice a month I went to my mailbox and found the paycheck I thought I’d earned. One day I opened that mailbox and found something that would change my life. An anonymous coworker — to this day, I don’t know who — had left a pencil-written note on a torn piece of paper with some numbers on it. It showed how much more my male coworkers were making, even though they had less education, training and experience. I’d been at Goodyear almost 20 years, and was still making 20 percent less than the lowest-paid male supervisor in my same position. I’d been praised and promoted by my bosses, but rewarded with much smaller raises than my male coworkers got. It hit me in the gut like a ton of bricks. I immediately thought of the countless overtime hours that I worked every chance I could, and realized I was paid for them based on an unfair salary. All those good days of work hadn’t earned me the good day’s pay I deserved. It was about fairness, and it was against the law. It was about supporting my family — school, doctors’ bills, groceries and the mortgage. It was about my local economy, and the money I didn’t have to spend in the community. And it was about my retirement: Since that’s based on our salaries, too, I’m still shortchanged long after I’ve stopped working. Because my Goodyear pension isn’t enough to pay two bills, I burned through my small 401(k) in two years before I became eligible for Social Security. So I went to court, and won. The company appealed and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where Goodyear won by one vote. The Court said I should have filed my complaint within six months of the first unfair paycheck I’d received almost two decades earlier. There was nothing the men could do that I couldn’t — but I couldn’t fight for fair pay if I didn’t even know I was being paid unfairly. Like so many women, I’ve never asked for or gotten a handout. I’ve only asked for a fair shot. Barack Obama heard about my case and went to work. His grandmother worked in a bank her whole life, including long after she’d hit the glass ceiling. She even had to train the men who were paid higher salaries to do the work she’d showed them how to do. And he never wants his two girls to be disrespected in the same way. As a senator he fought to give women enough time to file a complaint after we learn we’re being discriminated against and underpaid. He believes we should reward hard work and responsibility. He stands up for the middle class because he’s struggled, too. And he continues to fight because he knows what happened over a generation can’t be fixed overnight. I had to wait more than a decade and a half before I even knew I was being discriminated against. Within a week and a half after President Obama was inaugurated, he signed his name to the law that bears mine. Three years ago today, he made it the very first one he enacted. I’ll never see a cent of the salary I lost over all those years at Goodyear. My case is over and the Lilly Ledbetter law won’t help Lilly Ledbetter. But in recognizing what’s right and fair, President Obama’s leadership has given me a much richer reward: knowing that my daughter, my granddaughter and every other woman in America will never again feel helpless when they don’t get an equal day’s pay for an equal day’s work. A version of this post appeared in the Charlotte Observer.

Read the full article →

Deborah Doane: Bankers’ Bonuses: The Bigger Problem

January 31, 2012

With bankers’ bonus season in full swing, and thanks to relatively recent European rules, we at least get to see exactly the sort of pay deals being awarded to the top bankers in the City. RBS chief executive Stephen Hester’s bonus, which he eventually turned down following public outrage, will be followed by a series of other bonus announcements in the coming weeks. Most of the focus has been on the fact that these huge bonuses are being given in a time of austerity for everyone else, and that they’re rewarding failure, not success, most notably in the case of RBS, whose share price remains painfully low, and where 21,000 people have been laid off. But if these weren’t bad times for the majority, what type of success should be rewarded? Banks where bonuses have been high in the past and are expected to be high again this year include Barclays and Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs, of course, was a key perpetrator of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. And both banks are amongst the biggest global profiteers in commodity speculation. Rising commodity prices over the past few years have been the mainstay of investment banking profits. They have also played a role in food riots and revolutions around the world. In 2010, the same year as CEO Bob Diamond earned a £6.5 million bonus, Barclays earned an estimated £340 million from speculating in food futures markets, making it the UK’s biggest player in these markets, and earning it the “worst company of the year” award at this year’s Public Eye on Davos . Goldman Sachs, whose top risk-taking earners averaged £4 million bonuses in 2010, earned an estimated £1 billion in 2009 from food speculation. The result of this type of ‘success’ contributes to food price rises that were 6% in the UK towards the end of last year. For the poorest countries in the world, food prices have risen by almost 50% since 2007 , putting basic staples out of the reach of the world’s poorest people, and forcing millions of people into hunger and poverty. Other risky behaviour by the big banks includes debt-based investment , plunging Europe into financial chaos and raising risks for taxpayers and investors alike, investment in land deals in developing countries which forces people off their land and contributes to high food prices, and investment in toxic assets that contribute to runaway climate change, like the Canadian Tar Sands, where RBS has leveraged almost £7bn finance since it was bailed out. There was a buzz of CEO lip service to corporate responsibility at Davos, but dig beneath the surface and you’ll see finance sector lobbyists taking every opportunity to fend off regulation that would embed corporate responsibility. RBS spent £2.5 million on lobbyists in Washington between 2008 and 2011, opposing measures to enable banking reform that would protect consumers and curb commodity speculation through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform act. And UK finance ministers met Barclays at least 15 times within the first year of the coalition government. So our judgement of bankers’ pay shouldn’t just be about the end result of the pay deal, but also about what kind of activity is being rewarded and encouraged in the first place. Regrettably, banks still reward a short-term profit, risk-taking approach, which continues to lead to the pursuit of socially, economically and environmentally damaging activities. Why not pay (modest) bonuses instead for keeping people in work when times are tough? For paying taxes? For pulling out of commodity trading? For investing in the long-term, not the short-term, for example by investing in renewables? For supporting small businesses? For improving corporate transparency? As our politicians play the blame game over excessive bonuses, and as a few corporate leaders are shamed into not taking what they think they deserve, real change will only come when we scratch beneath the layers of a poison system past its sell-by date. There’s far more to excessive pay than meets the eye. And there’s a lot more we can do about it beyond curbing this year’s pay packets. Deborah Doane is Director at World Development Movement

Read the full article →

SEC Probes Deutsche Bank’s ‘Crap’ CDOs

January 30, 2012

The Securities and Exchange Commission investigates a Wall Street behemoth over claims that it assembled and sold a package of subprime mortgage-backed securities at the behest of hedge fund king John Paulson without telling other investors that Paulson planned to short it. Sound familiar? Almost two years ago, Goldman Sachs was in the SEC’s cross hairs over such an allegedly fraudulent scenario and ended up settling charges for $550 million, but not without becoming the poster boy for Wall Street shenanigans that helped crash the economy. Now, it’s Deutsche Bank that is being probed by the SEC, Der Spiegel reports , for allegedly letting Paulson help pick “junk” mortgage-backed securities that went into a collateralized debt obligation without telling other investors that the hedge funder was shorting the CDO, called START. Deutsche Bank was the fourth-largest issuer of CDOs in the United States, but it has largely avoided the glare of a federal investigation while its competitors, including Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JPMorgan, have all been probed by the SEC over how they marketed deals involving subprime mortgage-backed securities. The agency has come under criticism for that lapse, with particular focus on the fact that the SEC’s enforcement chief, Robert Khuzami, previously worked as the general counsel at Deutsche Bank when it was packaging such CDOs . The bank gained a certain infamy for its role in packaging START, as well as other CDOs, during hearings led by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) last year. It was revealed then that Deutsche banker Greg Lippman once advised a colleague to buy protection for the bank against START, emailing him: “Start is crap you should short because I bet we’ll have to … buyback cash ones next year.” Another email that came out during the hearing described Paulson’s role in structuring the CDOs: “The $1 billion START 2005-B trade was backed by a static pool of CDS [credit default swaps] on mezzanine RMBS [residential mortgage-backed securities] for Paulson Advisors ($4 bln risk arb hedge fund). Paulson retained the bottom 6% of the trade and we sold the rest of the capital structure. Paulson, who came to us with the strong desire to short the U.S. housing market, wrote CDS on underlying ABS (over 100 names) to DB [Deutsche Bank] and DB intermediated them into the deal.” Germany’s biggest bank was also sued over the deal last October by Loreley Financing, which had purchased $440 million worth of CDOs from 2005 to 2007. Loreley claimed that Deutsche defrauded the plaintiffs by issuing CDOs that were “destined — and indeed, designed — to fail.” Duncan King, a spokesman for Deutsche Bank, declined to comment on the SEC probe. As to the Loreley lawsuit, King stated in an email: “Along with other banks and financial institutions, Deutsche Bank is faced with lawsuits brought forward by retail and institutional clients who have lost money in the course of the financial crisis. We look into these claims carefully and, if they prove wrong, defend ourselves vigorously.” SEC spokesmen and Loreley Financing’s lawyer declined to comment to The Huffington Post. The Zombie Insider-Trading Case In another sign that the SEC is sharpening its claws, the agency isn’t letting death get in the way of a case. On Friday, a New York federal judge granted the SEC the right to pursue the estate of Charles Wyly Jr., the Dallas billionaire who was facing insider-trading charges when he died in a car crash in August, Thomson Reuters correspondent Alison Frankel reports . Frankel adds that U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, in her ruling, found “that it doesn’t make sense to permit Wyly’s estate to hold onto his allegedly ill-gotten gains simply because he’s no longer alive.” FDA Monitored Email Of Medical-Device Whistleblowers The Washington Post revealed Monday morning that the Food and Drug Administration monitored the personal email of its own scientists and doctors “after they warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that they believed posed unacceptable risks to patients, government documents show.” The staffers have filed suit against the FDA in federal court in Washington, arguing that they were harassed or dismissed based on information uncovered through the snooping. CFPB Outlines Ambitious Agenda For Next 6 Months In its first semiannual report to Congress, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau outlined an ambitious agenda, according to American Banker . Over the next six months, the CFPB plans to issue final rules requiring a lender to verify a borrower’s ability to repay a mortgage loan; propose a rule streamlining disclosures required by the Truth In Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; propose rules regarding the mortgage market, including new servicing standards, loan originator compensation rules and restrictions on high-cost loans; and propose initial rules defining the scope of its nonbank program. The bureau has hired more than 750 staffers and spent about $123.3 million in fiscal year 2011, according to its report. Food Industry To White House: Don’t Make Us Pay For Safety A coalition of food industry groups — including the National Frozen Pizza Institute, American Frozen Food Institute and American Meat Institute — wrote a letter to the White House Monday, urging the administration to stop using industry fees to fund food safety initiatives and to use congressional funding instead. “As consumers continue to cope with a period of prolonged economic turbulence and food makers struggle with record high commodity prices, the creation of new food taxes or regulatory fees would mean higher costs for food makers and lead to higher food prices for consumers,” says the letter. “As such, we believe imposing new fees on food makers is the wrong option for funding food safety programs.” Regulators and food safety advocates tend to prefer fees because they “guarantee a dedicated revenue stream for their activities,” rather than depending on the fickle whims of lawmakers, reports The Hill . Today’s Must-Reads In a giant conflict of interest, taxpayer-owned mortgage giant Freddie Mac has giant investment portfolios that will pay off if “homeowners stay trapped in expensive mortgages with interest rates well above current rates,” report ProPublica’s Jesse Eisinger and National Public Radio’s Chris Arnold . California health officials are investigating skin-lightening products sold in the Bay Area for possible mercury contamination, says California Watch . Two Japanese suppliers of automotive electrical components — Yazaki Corp. and DENSO Corp. — agreed to plead guilty and to pay a total of $548 million in criminal fines for their involvement in multiple price-fixing and bid-rigging conspiracies in the sale of parts to automobile manufacturers in the United States. It’s the second-largest criminal fine ever for an antitrust violation, announces the Justice Department .

Read the full article →

David Coates: Republican Truth and Real Truth: GSEs and the Housing Bubble

January 29, 2012

In any wars of words in an election season, truth is often an early casualty. The war of words between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich is no exception. The two Republican front-runners are currently telling each other carefully fabricated stories about their own pasts that cover tracks and reinvent reputations . But in the end that is less damaging to the entire democratic process than the accidental and less contrived stories that, in passing, they are also telling us. Right now, as they attack each other with increasing venom, the four remaining Republican presidential candidates are collectively rewriting a critical part of our immediate past — and in the process are seriously misleading us as they battle with each other. The main rewrite now underway in their twice-weekly televised clashes is a rewrite on housing finance. In Florida, and no doubt soon again in Nevada where the foreclosure crisis is even more severe, the men seeking the Republican nomination persistently blame the housing bubble on public policy and on federally underwritten regulatory agencies: on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and on the evil impact of the Community Reinvestment Act. They did so in Tampa last Monday in the first of their two Florida debates, and they did so even more starkly in their second debate in Jacksonville on Thursday night. They said this: Mitt Romney : [to Newt Gingrich, in Tampa] “You also spoke publicly in favor of these GSEs, these government-sponsored enterprises, at a very time when Freddie Mac was getting America in a position where we would have had a massive housing collapse….Freddie Mac did a lot of bad for a lot of people.” [Then, of Newt Gingrich, in Jacksonville] “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a big part of why we have the housing crisis in the nation that we have….He should have stood up and said, look, these things are a disaster. He should have been anxiously telling the American people that these entities were causing a housing bubble that we’re seeing here in Florida and around the country.” Rick Santorum [ in Tampa] “There were several of us in the United States Senate back in 2005 and 2006 who saw this on the horizon, who saw the problem with Fannie and Freddie, and tried to move forth with a bill…we said, if you don’t constrain these two behemoths from continuing to underwrite this subprime mortgage problem, then we’re going to have a collapse. Unfortunately that proved – proved to be true.” [in Jacksonville] “In 2006…in warning of a meltdown and a bubble in the housing market, I stood out, I stood tall, and tried to get a reform….to gradually decrease the amount of mortgage that can be financed by Freddie – or underwritten by Freddie and Fannie over time, keep reducing that until we get rid of Fannie and Freddie.” Ron Paul : [in Tampa] “…in addition to that, it was an insult to injury, because they kept interest rates especially low with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and there was a line of credit there, and it was a guarantee. As a matter of fact, I had introduced legislation 10 years before the bubble burst to eliminate that line of credit. But then the Community Reinvestment Act added more fuel to it, you know, forcing banks to make loans that are risky loans.” [in Jacksonville] “…we know how the bubble came about. It was excessive credit, interest rates held too low, too long, the Federal Reserve responsible for that. Community Reinvestment Act, which is Affirmative Action telling banks that they have to make these risky loans.” In focusing on Newt Gingrich’s relationship with Freddie Mac in this fashion, his three main challengers offer us an explanation of the housing crisis that puts full responsibility for it (and its consequences) back onto the GSE’s, the Federal Reserve and the CRA; and they are not alone in this. Theirs is a view recently reinforced by the SEC decision to prosecute senior GSE managers for failing to disclose the scale of the subprime loans on their books; by the widely-read newspaper articles of the GSE’s long-time critic, Peter Wallison; and by the extensive coverage of the new book by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner, Reckless Endangerment , one that singles out Fannie Mae for particular criticism and censure. The only problem with that view is that factually it is, in all its essentials, entirely misleading! • Blaming a Community Reinvestment Act passed in 1977 for a crisis that emerged only three decades later was always a stretch. If the Act was guilty, its guilt certainly took a very long time to kick in; and it is a claim which recent research has entirely discredited. As Levitin and Wachter have reported on the basis of their careful survey of all the relevant research data, “there is little evidence that the CRA contributed directly to the bubble. CRA subject institutions made a disproportionately small share of subprime mortgage loans,” and “relatively few subprime loans even qualified for CRA credit ,either because they were made outside CRA assessment areas or were made to higher income borrowers.” The findings of the Federal Reserve staffers Avery and Brevoort’ s were similar: that “areas covered by the CRA experienced lower delinquency rates and less risky lending,” not higher ones. “According to recent Fed data , 75 percent of higher-priced loans made during the peak years of the subprime boom were made by independent mortgage firms and bank affiliates not covered by the act.” “Only 6% of…subprime loans had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend,” the Financial Crisis Inquiry Report noted, “were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law.” Which is presumably why the Report could definitely conclude, as it did, that “the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis.” • Timing matters too in relation to the GSEs and the development of a housing bubble. There is overwhelming evidence that the role of the GSEs in the explosion of housing prices and the spread of subprime lending was, at most, secondary and late. It was definitely not primary and early. The GSE’s did have an implicit government guarantee of solvency that enabled them to borrow at lower rates; and they did defend that special status with heavy lobbying. They also were the source of the securitization of mortgages that slowly transformed US housing finance from a “lend and hold” model of mortgaging to a “lend and sell on” one. But what they did not do was either initiate the lowering of underwriting standards that fueled the explosion of subprime lending, or spread those toxic assets through the U.S. and then global financial systems. Private lenders were responsible for the first of those two crucial drivers of the housing crisis, and private banks were responsible for the second. As Mark Zandi has recently noted, in 2002 before the housing boom, the two agencies held almost 54% of all mortgage debt. By summer 2006, at the peak of the bubble, their market share was down to 40%; and “it is difficult to see how the agencies could have been responsible for inflating the housing bubble at a time when they were losing a full 14 percentage points of market share.” Only as private lenders ran into difficulties did Fannie and Freddie move in to take up the slack, jumping ‘back into the housing market at precisely the wrong time.” It was in competition with private lenders, and in order to recapture market share, that eventually the GSEs did indeed lower their underwriting standards. But that belated lowering was a consequence of Fannie and Freddie being privately-owned, not of being government-sponsored. It was a lowering driven by shareholder pressure, demanded in order to compete with private-label mortgage backed securities ” In contrast , the wholly public FHA/Ginnie Mae maintained their underwriting standards and ceded market share.” It is data like this that led the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to report that, in their view, “the two entities contributed to the crisis but were not a primary cause.” • In consequence we would do well to discount both the Wallison thesis, and that advanced by Morgenson and Rosner. The Wallison enthusiasm for the SEC decision to prosecute senior GSE managers – his assertion that the prosecution “has made it clear that the two government sponsored enterprises played a major role in creating the demand for low quality mortgages before the 2008 financial crisis” – has been effectively rebutted by

Read the full article →

Big Banks Betting Wave Of Mortgage Defaults Will Slow

January 28, 2012

* Declining delinquencies spark hope that worst is passing * JPMorgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo forecast savings * Citigroup wary, watching repeat defaults By Rick Rothacker and David Henry Jan 27 (Reuters) – Even as President Barack Obama is calling for more assistance for struggling mortgage borrowers, major banks are looking forward to spending less to handle problem home loans. The chief executives of JPMorgan Chase & Co and Bank of America Corp, the two biggest U.S. banks, said this month their rate of spending to handle troubled mortgages had topped out and should begin to decline soon with falling delinquency rates. Wells Fargo & Co, the fourth-biggest bank, also is counting on lower mortgage expenses this year. With fewer problem loans to process, the banks could reduce the army of back-office staffers who handle the paperwork and phone calls required by foreclosures. Bank executives are under pressure from investors to reduce expenses to improve profits amid weak demand for loans in the slow economy. If the three big banks are right in anticipating that the wave of mortgage defaults will subside, their bottom lines will get a lift — and property values will firm up, to the benefit of neighborhoods across the country. Others are not so optimistic. Executives of Citigroup Inc , the third-biggest bank, continue to caution that mortgage issues, including legal liability for alleged abuses, remain the biggest single threat to the U.S. banking industry. And some consumer advocates worry that the banks could scale back too quickly on their mortgage workout staff. Obama, who said in his State of the Union address on Tuesday that he intends to ease the mortgage burdens of “millions of innocent Americans,” is sending Congress a plan to allow homeowners to refinance at lower rates even when they owe more than their homes are worth. Also under discussion: a multistate settlement in which banks could pay up to $25 billion in exchange for protection from future lawsuits about improper foreclosures and lending and servicing abuses. After the bust in house prices, the banks built up armies of staff to handle problem loans, said Guy Cecala, publisher of industry trade journal Inside Mortgage Finance. “I’m not passing judgment on how well it works or how efficient it is,” he said. “But they have adequate staffing.” JPMorgan nearly tripled its staff over three years to 20,000 people. “That number has probably peaked, and I think you will see it coming down over the next couple years,” JPMorgan Chief Executive Jamie Dimon told analysts who questioned him about expenses after the company reported lower fourth-quarter profits. Dimon forecast that two-thirds of the $925 million of expenses JPMorgan incurred to service mortgages in the quarter will go away. JPMorgan’s mortgage delinquencies are down sharply from 18 months ago, and the bank charged off less than half as much money for problem home loans in the fourth quarter as it did a year earlier. Bank of America is working off a mountain of mortgage problems left from its 2008 purchase of subprime lender Countrywide Financial. It now has about 32,000 workers handling delinquent or other at-risk mortgage loans, more than six times the staff it had in 2008. The bank spent $2 billion in the fourth quarter, excluding litigation costs, on the issue. Chief Executive Brian Moynihan said that over time that spending will be reduced to $300 million per quarter, even taking into account stricter servicing regulations faced by banks. Moynihan noted that total loans more than 60 days past due declined more than 20 percent from a year earlier to about 1.1 million in the fourth quarter. He said the bank expects costs to decline in 2012 but that it could take up to two years for expenses to return to normal levels. The resolution of problem loans will depend on how fast the economy improves and the unemployment rate declines, Bank of America spokesman Dan Frahm said. The bank will continue to make “investments necessary to meet the needs of our customers,” he added. San Francisco-based Wells Fargo told analysts it expects to reduce its quarterly expenses for troubled mortgages and foreclosures to as low as $600 million, compared with $718 million in the fourth quarter. “We do believe that there are some cyclically high mortgage costs that are going to roll off,” CEO John Stumpf told analysts. Dan Alpert, managing partner with investment bank Westwood Capital LLC, said, “If the expectation is that the economy is strengthening and new defaults will start to slack off, then yes, expenses should go down.” But Alpert cautioned that if the economy is doing “a head fake, like in the first and second quarters of last year, then defaults will start going up again.” Diane Thompson, an attorney with the not-for-profit National Consumer Law Center, said it is premature for banks to say their operations are ready to be scaled back. Banks continue to lose documents, give bad information to customers and take too long to resolve loan modification applications, said Thompson, whose organization assists struggling borrowers. Banks could also have additional costs if they agree to new servicing standards to reach a settlement with federal officials and state attorneys general investigating alleged foreclosure abuses. Some statistics suggest the foreclosure crisis is far from over. A study last fall by the Center for Responsible Lending estimated that while more than 2.7 million homeowners who received loans between 2004 and 2008 had already lost their homes to foreclosure, another 3.6 million were still at serious risk of ending up in the same boat. Citigroup executives cautioned last week, for the second time in three months, that overall delinquency rates had stopped falling recently because some borrowers, who previously defaulted and had their mortgages modified, had defaulted again. Citigroup also said its servicing costs increased in the fourth quarter because it spent more to comply with a settlement banks reached last year with some regulators over the handling of mortgages . “We continue to believe mortgage-related issues are the single largest source of risk facing the U.S. banking industry,” Citigroup Chief Financial Officer John Gerspach told analysts. Alongside servicing costs for existing mortgages and potential losses on the loans, banks also still face allegations that they broke laws during the housing boom by giving loans to unqualified borrowers and then fraudulently packaged and sold mortgage-backed bonds. Obama pledged Tuesday to ramp up government investigations of those allegations, which could lead to billions of dollars of litigation expenses and penalties for banks. But Citigroup executives also noted that repeat defaults are not as frequent as it had expected and that early-stage delinquencies were less common in the fourth quarter than in the third quarter. Paul Miller, a bank analyst at FBR Capital Markets, said big banks’ servicing expenses are likely to fall from current levels. But he cautioned that significant relief will not come as quickly as the banks would like. “I would think 2012 is probably the year it peaks,” Miller said, “but it’s not like it’s going down by 50 percent.” (Reporting By Rick Rothacker in Charlotte, North Carolina and David Henry in New York.; Editing by Alwyn Scott and John Wallace)

Read the full article →

Ridiculous Number Of Spanish Youths Now Unemployed

January 27, 2012

MADRID — Spain’s brutal unemployment rate soared to nearly 23 percent Friday and closed in on 50 percent for those under age 25, leaving more than 5 million people – or almost one out of every four – out of work as the country slides toward recession. Spain’s National Statistics Institute reported that 5.3 million people were jobless at the end of December, up from 4.9 million in the third quarter – a jump in the unemployment rate from 21.5 percent to 22.9 percent in the fourth quarter. For those under age 25, the rate hit a whopping 48.5 percent, and the institute also reported that Spain now has 1.6 million households in which no one has work. The numbers didn’t surprise Spaniards, who are gearing up for another recession after the economy briefly surfaced from a crippling two-year downturn triggered by the 2008 credit crunch and a burst domestic real estate bubble that had supercharged Spain’s economy for nearly a decade. Spain already has the highest unemployment rate in the 17-nation eurozone, where the average jobless rate is just above 10 percent. Ireland holds the No. 2 spot with 14.6 percent unemployment and had to take an international bailout last year. Javier Pelayo, an unemployed construction worker begging outside a Madrid subway station, said he hasn’t had steady work for more than a year. He sat on a piece of cardboard with a handwritten placard reading: “For the love of God, help me feed my son.” “They have evicted me from my house and I’ve come to the capital to see if my luck improves, but this is how you find me,” said Pelayo, 40, who moved to Madrid with his wife and son after losing five years worth of mortgage payments on his apartment because he couldn’t make the payments. Even highly trained professionals have extreme difficulty find work, or anything that pays enough for them to make it on their own in Spain. Katia Linderman Matas, a biologist, said she’s looked for years for a job in Spain but will now search in Austria and Germany because she speaks German. “(In Spain) you have to work nine hours instead of eight with bad conditions and the money isn’t enough for you to get by,” said Matas, 29. “If I wasn’t living with my mother, I don’t know what I’d be doing now.” Spain was Europe’s top job creator until 2008, and began to emerge from recession at the end of 2010 but is now expected to head into a new one this quarter, and the average yearly salary is only about euro21,000 ($27,600). Spain’s new center-right government said the bad unemployment news wasn’t a surprise and that an overhaul of labor laws aimed at spurring job growth will be put into place this month. “It’s a negative report and one that will make the government work with greater intensity,” said Deputy Prime Minister Soraya Saenz de Santamaria. The economy shrank 0.3 percent during the fourth quarter, and the Bank of Spain last month predicted the economy will contract 1.5 percent in 2012. Meanwhile, a survey of 4,576 businesses last week by Spain’s Chamber of Commerce showed only 3.7 percent expect to add new jobs in the first quarter of this year. The rest said they would keep employment the same or cut jobs. Saenz de Santamaria said the unemployment news “will lead the government to accelerate the rhythm of reforms,” and experts said the government must make drastic labor law changes to make it easier for businesses to fire workers and negotiate with unions. Under the current system, people who are laid off or fired must be paid between 20 to 33 days of salary per year worked, and companies can’t negotiate directly with their unionized workers because they must adopt wage deals set for entire sectors. “(Companies) need strategic planning to match workers with the needs of the economy, but even if you reform the labor laws, it’s not going to jump-start employment immediately,” said Antonio Barroso, an analyst for the Eurasia Group consulting firm. “You need credit, you need the financial sector to improve.” Other analysts think Spain might get a boost from looser labor reforms because most of Spain’s businesses have less than 100 employees. “A lot of these businesses with say three or four workers might hire another person, or they could go from six workers to eight, but they are waiting for the government to make its moves,” said Francesc Pujol, an economics professor at the University of Navarra. The government on Friday unveiled a budget-discipline law that will allow the government to impose penalties on debt-laden regional governments if they run deficits after 2020. Spain’s regions – like states or provinces – must bring their spending under control by that year or face possible fines of 0.2 percent of regional gross domestic product, said Finance Minister Cristobal Montoro. Spain’s deficit for 2011 is expected to be 8 percent of national income, 2 points above the former Socialist government’s predictions. Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy acknowledged that regional government deficits, most of which are run by his center-right Popular Party, were responsible for 75 percent of the deviation. Rajoy’s government is still committed to reducing the deficit to 4.4 percent in 2012 and down to the EU limit of 3 percent the following year, although with a recession looming, that pledge may prove very difficult to keep. Since taking office Dec. 23, the government has approved austerity measures to rein in the country’s swollen deficit with euro8.9 billion ($11.5 billion) in spending cuts and euro6.2 billion ($8.2 billion) in tax increases. With so much economic gloom in Spain, 24-year-old Anderson Heras was pondering heading back to his native Ecuador after working for years in Madrid as a waiter. His most recent job offer was from a restaurant for 10 days per month on contract and the rest under the table in cash. A supermarket said it might hire him if he did a weeklong unpaid tryout. Government unemployment office worker Iria Regueiros said most people seeking jobs have little hope and aren’t qualified enough to find work elsewhere in Europe. “Spain has broken down,” she said. “I don’t see a common (European) market. We don’t share a common language, our qualifications aren’t governed by the same yardstick and in the end we are at the mercy of a system that’s been set up more for financial institutions than anything else.” ___ Associated Press writer Harold Heckle contributed from Madrid.

Read the full article →

Jim Harris: Occupy Davos?

January 27, 2012

There’s the published agenda for the World Economic Forum (WEF) this week in Davos — and then there are the elephants in the room. “Severe income disparity” is the most likely risk facing business and political leaders according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk 2012 Report. This finding really caught me by surprise. So while the Occupy Wall Street movement isn’t anywhere on the agenda here at WEF in Davos, its impact has been very much felt. “Capitalism, in its current form, no longer fits the world.” A statement from an occupy protester? No, it was uttered by WEF Founder Klaus Schwab. But it’s not a view that I have found widely shared by the 2,600 delegates here. The ultimate irony, of course, is that those at WEF aren’t even the one per cent — they’re the 0.0001 per cent of global corporate and political elites. There’s a lot of talk about the European debt crisis, which centres on Greece. At the heart of it is the fact that wealthy Greeks don’t pay taxes; tax evasion is a national past time for the rich. In turn the Greek government’s austerity program will cut the benefits and pensions of average citizens. Here’s a warning: That’s the recipe for revolution. Average citizens won’t accept austerity programs if the wealthy aren’t pulling their weight. And the cascading impact that a Greek default will have on German and French banks will highlight just how interconnected the world that we live in is. Erosion of Trust The Edelman Trust Barometer shows that trust in financial institutions and banks is at an all-time low . That might not come as a surprise given the origins of the 2008 U.S.-led credit crisis. A quick refresher: The subprime meltdown was caused by Wall Street investment banks selling securitizing mortgages (which was profitable). Then some of the very same investment banks made a killing by betting against these very same securities triggering the credit crisis. Then some of the very same financial institutions got hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts, which some, like Goldman Sachs, in turn used to buy equities at drastically reduced prices, in turn making a killing and then paying huge bonuses. The regulation of investment banks and markets (or the lack thereof) is the government’s responsibility. Ultimately these events have proven to be deeply corrosive to trust and in turn to faith in government. As the Sufi saying goes, “The eye cannot see itself.” How will Davos delegates, comprised of corporate and political elites, see that it is greed at the center of the problem? What do all these have in common? At the heart of them all is the occupy critique: The privatization of public wealth and socialization of liabilities. Unsustainable Consumption I feel like someone on the sinking Titanic while the band played on. Few participants that I have talked to understand the depth of threats that I perceive we are facing globally and tectonic shifts that the limits to growth will ultimately force upon all governments and corporations. If everyone in the world consumed as much as we do in North America, we’d need another three planets to provide. So clearly our lifestyle is not sustainable. In Natural Capitalism authors Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and Hunter Lovins document our wasteful industrial process of harvesting raw materials, manufacturing, and then landfilling. When you look at the cycle after six months, only six per cent of the raw materials are in use. In other words, 94 per cent of the total cycle is waste! For me there’s no deep understanding of this at Davos. When people talk of resource productivity, they’re thinking about tinkering with the system as opposed to wholesale transformation. Another issue that hasn’t had much attention here is the fact that globally governments are spending $1.5 trillion a year on militarism (the U.S. is responsible for about half this amount) and $700 to $800 billion subsidizing oil and gas . So when issues like poverty, access to safe drinking water, combating malaria and AIDS are discussed here — in my mind I keep coming back to the mantra that it’s not a lack of resources to address these chronic problems — the central problem is a gross misallocation of resources. So dear reader, while you won’t hear reports of these issues from Davos, you got to read them here. Not to be Completely Pessimistic There are reasons for hope. From one survey: A staggering 92 per cent of millennials (those born after 1981) believe that a company’s purpose should be measured by social purpose not just profit. This contrasts starkly with CEOs who believe that profit maximization is the goal of business. So if corporations want to attract and retain the best and brightest employees as baby boomers begin retiring en masse, they will have to focus on the social good to ensure their social license to operate. A large number of the participants at WEF are highly idealistic. One such group is the WEF’s Young Global Leaders. Another trend that gives me hope is the dramatic rise of the influence of the Internet. A staggering 6.5 million people signed petitions in a single day opposing SOPA and PIPA — convincing a number of U.S. politicians to withdraw their support from the bills. I would deeply appreciate your feedback and comments on this. And I will write more about Davos in my next blog… so click on the RSS feed to be automatically notified about the next one.

Read the full article →

Jed Kolko: If It’s Florida, It Must Be Housing

January 27, 2012

Republican presidential candidates have kept housing on the back burner – until now. Next Tuesday’s Florida primary is moving housing front-and-center. Bold new proposals? Don’t be silly. (Hey, I’m an equal-opportunity critic – I said the same about Obama’s State of the Union .) But Romney did hold a housing roundtable, and the candidates are using housing as a scoop for slinging mud at each other. At least that’s something. Why does the Florida primary thrust housing into the limelight? Four reasons: 1) The housing bust took Florida down. Prices in most of Florida have fallen by at least 40% since their peak. Along with Nevada , Arizona and inland California , Florida was ground zero for the housing bubble, and now its residents are deep underwater. 2) Florida is in foreclosure purgatory. It takes more than two years for homes to go through the foreclosure process in Florida, longer than any other state except New York and New Jersey (which have far fewer foreclosures to begin with). That means 14.0% of Florida loans are stuck in foreclosure, compared with 6.3% in Nevada , 3.2% in Arizona , 3.2% in California and 2.7% in Michigan , according to LPS . This keeps Florida’s housing market in limbo and prevents Florida from benefitting from a plan to sell government-owned homes to investors after a foreclosure is complete. 3) Searches and prices are bubbling. Despite the bust and the foreclosure backlog, demand is stirring in Florida. Our Metro Movers Index shows that far more house hunters are looking to move to Florida – especially to North Port – Bradenton – Sarasota , Fort Lauderdale , Cape Coral and West Palm Beach -than they are looking to leave. Thanks, baby boomers and investors. And prices rose more than 2% in the third quarter of 2011 in West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale and several other Florida metros. 4) What happens in Florida doesn’t stay in Florida. Florida is a national housing story. One-third of all the searches for Miami homes on Trulia.com are from people living more than 500 miles away. What’s more, Chicagoans and New Yorkers can’t seem to get enough of Florida. Three of the top 10 long-distance search destinations from Chicago are Florida metros, as are five of the top 10 search destinations from New York . You or someone you love cares about Florida. The Florida housing market represents the worst of the bubble and hope for recovery. Let’s hope the Republican candidates have something to say about it, because Florida voters will.

Read the full article →

Mike Lux: Settlement Release Looks Tight

January 27, 2012

Big breaking news about the long-fought over bank settlement: senior sources high up in the negotiations have outlined the terms of the legal release. Here’s what I was told: No release on any fair housing, fair lending, or civil rights claims. No release on any Federal Housing Finance Agency or Government-Sponsored Enterprise claims. No release on any Consumer Financial Protection Bureau claims (which would admittedly be modest, since the Bureau was only established in July 2011). No release on tax liability claims. No release on criminal liability claims. No release on SEC claims. No release on National Credit Union Association claims. No release on FDIC claims. No release on Federal Reserve claims. No release on the “vast majority” of origination claims. No release on the “vast majority” of securitization claims, including all claims of state pension funds. No release on legal liability surrounding Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). According to these (two) sources, the release is almost entirely confined to robosigning cases. Now, I haven’t seen the actual language, so I can’t verify all this, and I don’t know what the phrase “vast majority” means. I also don’t know if every player in the negotiations is 100 percent signed off on it. But I have a lot of trust in my sources that this real and that they wouldn’t be trying to BS me on how narrow this is. If the language is indeed as tight as my sources are telling me, this is very big news. All along in this battle, there have been two things progressives working on this issue have been fighting hardest for: one was that we got a broad, deep, well-resourced, and serious investigation of the big financial fraud issues that have gone down in this country over the last decade; the other was that if there was a settlement, that the legal releases the banks got was drawn as narrowly as it could be drawn, as tight as a drum. That combination, in the view of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and those of us fighting by his side, would create real potential of finally holding the Wall Street bankers who wrecked our economy and abused us all accountable for their actions, and for getting a serious amount of money for writing down underwater mortgages. While there are still legitimate questions in both areas, it is looking like we may be achieving both of these huge goals. One other big question remains in all this: with a release this narrow, will the big banks actually settle? JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and unnamed bank lobbyists are already threatening to walk away, and are clearly really unhappy, so that isn’t clear. If they walk away, though, progressives can certainly live very well knowing that they will be prosecuted aggressively by AGs like Schneiderman, Beau Biden of Delaware, Kamala Harris of California, and hopefully others, so it’s a win-win for us. My view is: anything that makes Jamie Dimon and big-bank lobbyists unhappy is good for the rest of us. It is too early to declare victory, because we still don’t know all the details and the bankers have yet to be brought to justice. Progressives still have to remain vigilant. But it increasingly is looking like we may finally be in a position to start winning some big victories against the big banks. And with the developments of this week and the appointment of Richard Cordray at the CFPB, it also increasingly looks like Barack Obama is going to have some real credibility to run against Wall Street.

Read the full article →

Brian Hamilton: Private Businesses Are Improving, But a Big Unknown Lurks

January 27, 2012

Like a glacier, once the U.S. economy starts moving in one direction, it tends to keep moving that way. It takes many events to move it in another direction, and this usually takes some time. For months, we have reported that privately held companies have higher revenues , better margins and profits and more operating efficiency, based on the financial data we get daily from business owners. While polls that track consumer and businessperson optimism should be considered by analysts of the economy, the actual facts of economic data will hopefully trump how people “feel.” In general, over the long run, when revenues rise for private companies, these businesses tend to hire people. There are 27 million privately held companies, which historically account for up to 70 percent of GDP and 80 percent of new jobs. Conditions are improving, and there is little objective data to refute this fact. The last jobs report seems to add to the positive view of current trends. GDP is growing ; inflation remains controlled; and interest rates are still low, at least for now. That’s especially encouraging, considering the economy’s glacier-like movement, which we’ve seen throughout American history. For every four years or so of expansion, we’ve had about a year of a recessionary economy. You don’t see one year up, one year down or two years up, two years down. It is important to remember that the economy does not act like the financial markets, which can and do vary significantly in the short run. Of course, we don’t know for sure what will happen in the current cycle. Business owners are real people , with families to feed, workers to pay. And they’re clearly not moving very far with their planning so long as Washington isn’t providing coherent and consistent information about future costs. Even so, the glacier-like nature of the U.S. economy gives me confidence that things are getting better. So what could melt this cheerier outlook for the U.S? Some economists worry it could be the European debt crisis or the value of the U.S. dollar. Those are important issues, but they are not the largest drivers of economic activity. The largest drivers are always around whether revenues are increasing and whether people are making more money in their businesses. If they are, business owners will hire more, buy more and perpetuate the positive cycle. Once again, there is a tendency for some to lump financial market analysis with “Main Street” analysis; yet the relationship of these two is dubious at best. Now, the complicating fact here is that it is true that all factors probably affect one another, which is why it is so important to look at the big picture and the very few factors that business people look at when hiring: Am I generating more revenue and more profits? If so, is this trend in my business likely to continue? However, for sport, I will rebut my own analysis because I do believe there is one economic risk that could make previous economic cycles less reliant as a predictive basis for seeing into the future. In my view, the single issue of most concern is the national debt. As any entity borrows more money, the risk of that entity goes up, and the cost of borrowing will eventually go up. Our national debt continues to grow in spite of the ad hoc attention it gets in Washington. Politicians tend to pay attention to this problem for a while and then other issues arise that take the focus away from it. At some point, we have to reconcile that, if you don’t have the money, you shouldn’t spend it, because you can’t borrow endlessly. This seems so simple, yet Washington is very good at taking the simple and making it complex and taking the complex and creating the endless loop. There seems little doubt that our lenders will and should look at us differently because of our debt and rightfully view us as a higher risk, which will have the effect of increasing interest rates. (Does it really matter how S&P rates us? Just look at the facts.) This will cascade to higher mortgage rates, higher car loan rates, and higher commercial loan rates, among others. Because interest rates are typically among the top costs for private companies, any increase would have a very negative and quick effect on the recovery generally and on hiring specifically. I’m really concerned about this, as interest rate cost is a leveraged expense that has a material effect on the profits of most businesses and on the savings of almost all people. Clearly, since the 1960s, neither political party has had spending discipline, as the national debt has grown almost uninterrupted for 50 years. I don’t know how we’ll get there. Will it take a third-party system? Term limits? We don’t want a crisis to necessitate change as increases in interest rates will be very difficult to reverse if there is an impression that we cannot manage our finances. A major obstacle to Washington getting that discipline lies within each of us. We’re all for cutting government spending until it comes to something that would affect our own budgets in our own districts or from our own pockets. A nonprofit doesn’t want its funding cut. Someone living near a major military base doesn’t want to feel the effects of cuts there. A person working for a government agency does not want a cut in that agency’s budget. Nobody wants cuts in Medicare, etc. A private company with government contracts… Until we get to the point as a nation, as individuals, where we say, “Yes, you can cut my personal budget,” nothing’s going to happen. It is easy to blame politicians but it is important to remember that they are a rough proxy for us as citizens (emphasizing “rough”). Are the best years of the United States behind us? I don’t think so, but the national debt will remain the biggest threat to this glacier of an economy.

Read the full article →

Newt’s Income Raises Questions

January 26, 2012

WASHINGTON — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich beat his main GOP presidential rival, Mitt Romney, to the punch by releasing his most recent tax return. But Gingrich still hasn’t revealed how he earned most of his $3.1 million. The 2010 tax return made public last week shows that $2.4 million, more than three-fourths of Gingrich’s income, came in payments he regularly received, in addition to his salary, from different businesses he ran before announcing his candidacy for president. Those businesses managed speaking engagements, appearance fees, consulting work, book and video deals and paid positions that Gingrich held in other groups. Gingrich, who has demanded more transparency from Romney, doesn’t identify where the money came from, including amounts he received from his consulting business. The Associated Press requested details about Gingrich’s income and the identities of who paid him for his services. The campaign has not decided whether it will release further information about Gingrich’s income, spokesman R.C. Hammond said. Other GOP presidential candidates, including Romney and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, have provided details of such income. Romney’s financial reports filed last year and his 2010 tax return released this week specify groups that paid him for appearances and how much he received. Santorum, who has yet to release his tax return, lists on a financial report the businesses that paid him as a consultant, payments he received serving on specific boards and activist groups, and money he earned as a FOX News contributor and a newspaper columnist. The way Gingrich has earned a living in recent years has become an avenue for political attack by Romney. Romney charges that the $1.65 million Gingrich received from the government-backed mortgage company Freddie Mac from 1999 to 2007 was for influence peddling, which Gingrich has denied. Romney also has demanded that Gingrich identify other clients who paid for his services and what he did for them, accusing Gingrich of “potentially wrongful activity.” “If you’re getting paid by health companies, if your entities are getting paid by health companies that could benefit from a piece of legislation, and you then meet with Republican congressmen and encourage them to support that legislation, you can call it whatever you’d like. I call it influence-peddling,” Romney told Gingrich. Gingrich has accused Romney of attacking his consulting work out of political desperation, hoping to stifle Gingrich’s rising popularity among GOP voters. Gingrich said he has never been a lobbyist. But he is battling the perception that he was selling his influence, if not actually lobbying, as he campaigns to win Florida’s GOP presidential primary on Tuesday. Gingrich has said he was exercising his rights as a citizen, not a lobbyist, in 2003 when he publicly advocated changes in Medicare. And he’s argued that he and his group, which received millions from dozens of health-related businesses, made sure not to cross the line into lobbying when he met with congressional members and others to promote the Medicare changes sought by then President George W. Bush. A liberal-leaning watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, is urging a federal investigation of Gingrich’s activities. “Mr. Gingrich’s claim that he simply engaged in `public advocacy’ doesn’t pass the smell test,” said Melanie Sloan, the group’s executive director. “Mr. Gingrich was a lobbyist, and he should not be allowed to play word games with the American people.” To make its case that Gingrich was lobbying, Sloan’s group cites the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which defines a lobbyist as someone who receives payment for services from a client, makes more than one lobbying contact for the client on an issue and spends at least 20 percent of their time in a three-month period on lobbying activities. A lobbying contact is defined as communication on behalf of a client regarding “the formulation, modification or adoption of federal legislation.” Gingrich’s tax return doesn’t show how much money he received as a consultant working through his Gingrich Group and his Center for Health Transformation. The center urges changes to health-related policies and laws, practices and technology but says it “does not provide lobbying services nor directly or indirectly participate in lobbying activities of any kind.” Instead, all of Gingrich’s income is lumped together as $2.4 million in payments from Gingrich Holdings, a sort of parent company managing his interests in other businesses. The Center for Health Transformation served more than 100 companies in 2010, with some paying as much as $200,000 a year to join Gingrich’s organization. While the center has said it generated $55 million from hundreds of corporate sponsors from 2001 to 2010 with Gingrich leading the effort, it said it won’t release a list of clients due to confidentiality clauses in its contracts. Last year as he prepared for the presidential run, Gingrich sold his interest in the Gingrich Group and the Center for Health Transformation. He hasn’t said how much he received in the buyout, but his financial disclosure form shows his Gingrich Productions is owed between $5 million and $25 million from the Gingrich Group. Gingrich’s tax return also doesn’t show how much he received from his Fox News contract as a frequent on-air contributor. That contract was managed by Gingrich Communications, a business that handles his appearances and speaking engagements. Last fall when Gingrich was first denying ever working as a lobbyist, he told a South Carolina audience that he didn’t need to walk the halls of Congress to make a living because of the bounty he received in speaking fees. “I’m going to be really direct, OK? I was charging $60,000 a speech. And the number of speeches was going up, not down,” he said. Gingrich has not identified the groups that paid him for those speeches. Gingrich also continued to earn money as an author, although it’s not clear how much of his earnings came from payments received by Gingrich Communications from his books. While the $2.4 million in Gingrich’s business payments are not detailed, the tax return does identify more than $712,000 of other income: _$252,500 for his salary from Gingrich Holdings; _$191,827 for his wife’s salary from Gingrich Productions and $5,918 from the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington as a member of the church’s professional choir; _$76,200 for his congressional pension; _$72,274 from his share of his daughter’s business; _$38,637 for dividend and interest payments; _$33,124 in tax refunds; _$21,625 in speaking fees paid directly to Gingrich and not his businesses; _$20,000 for him and his wife for serving on boards of directors. The boards are not identified. ___

Read the full article →

California Still Not Joining National Mortgage Settlement

January 26, 2012

One day after New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was named co-chairman of a federal mortgage fraud task force, California Attorney General Kamala Harris announced that she still refuses to join the national foreclosure settlement currently under negotiation among the Obama administration, the state attorneys general and the nation’s five largest banks. “We’ve reviewed the details of the latest settlement proposal from the banks, and we believe it is inadequate for California,” said Shum Preston, spokesman for the California Department of Justice in a statement released Wednesday. “Our state has been clear about what any multistate settlement must contain: transparency, relief going to the most distressed homeowners, and meaningful enforcement that ensures accountability. At this point, this deal does not suffice for California.” One major issue still undecided is the extent to which banks will be released from liability for misconduct in the mortgage market, say sources familiar with the negotiations. If a broad release is granted, states couldn’t pursue their own civil investigations of bank misdeeds. Another ongoing concern is that the financial benefit that homeowners would receive from the settlement seems too small, say sources familiar with the negotiations. The deal has been in the works since October 2010, when attorneys general from all 50 states banded together with the federal government to punish five large financial institutions — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Ally Financial — for mortgage-related misconduct, including robo-signing and failure to provide mortgage modifications to eligible homeowners. In addition to a monetary penalty, the deal is expected to reform the mortgage servicing industry and offer relief to homeowners in the form of mortgage modifications, principal writedowns, refinancing and other options. Both Harris and Schneiderman walked away from the negotiations over concerns that the deal would be too soft on the banks. In his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, President Barack Obama announced the formation of the Financial Crimes Unit, under which “federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general [will] expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.” Schneiderman is one of five men selected to co-chair the new unit, which is part of a larger Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force , a sprawling cross-agency investigative effort established by Obama in November 2009 to “hold accountable those who helped bring about the last financial crisis as well as those who would attempt to take advantage of the efforts at economic recovery.” With representatives from more than 20 federal agencies and 94 U.S. Attorney’s Offices, the task force has disappointed critics, who argue that it’s chosen to pursue relatively small fraudsters while leaving alone the major offenders, including the CEOs of banks that wrongfully foreclosed on struggling homeowners. “Look at what happened with WorldCom. … Those guys were committing fraud at their own companies, and still they went to jail for what they did,” said a prominent securities lawyer, referring to the fates of CEO Bernard Ebbers and other WorldCom executives. In comparison, “these financial shenanigans had an impact way beyond any one company, and these guys are still walking around free,” said the lawyer. “There’s just not been much effort to hold Wall Street or any of these other guys accountable.”

Read the full article →

Creation Of Obama’s New Financial Fraud Task Force Feels Like ‘Groundhog’s Day’ To Some

January 25, 2012

The announcement that President Barack Obama would create a task force devoted to cracking down on financial fraud comes comes just three years after he announced a different fraud task force, leaving many in the enforcement community scratching their heads. In his State of the Union address on Tuesday night Obama announced the formation of the Financial Crimes Unit, which will include a “special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis,” he said. “This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.” The language was reminiscent of a speech Obama gave in November 2009 when he announced the creation of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force , a sprawling investigative unit established to “hold accountable those who helped bring about the last financial crisis as well as those who would attempt to take advantage of the efforts at economic recovery.” With representatives from more than 20 federal agencies and 94 U.S. attorneys offices, that task force, created in 2009, has disappointed critics who argue that it has chosen to pursue relatively small fraudsters while leaving alone the major offenders, including the CEOs of banks that wrongfully foreclosed on struggling homeowners. “Look at what happened with WorldCom. … Those guys were committing fraud at their own companies, and still they went to jail for what they did,” said a prominent securities lawyer who wished to remain anonymous, referring to the fates of CEO Bernard Ebbers and other WorldCom executives. In comparison, “these financial shenanigans had an impact way beyond any one company, and these guys are still walking around free,” said the lawyer. “There’s just not been much effort to hold Wall Street or any of these other guys accountable.” So what will make this new investigative group any better? One difference is that the new unit will pool state and federal resources to leverage impact, said an official with the Department of Justice. “Given that there are federal, state, civil and criminal components to these investigations, marshaling our efforts will be more effective.” Another key difference is the new unit’s narrow focus, enabling the investigators to delve deeply into the issues instead of having to spread themselves across a variety of different types of fraud, said the DOJ official. Specifically, whereas the older task force is charged with investigating the financial fraud that lead to the economic crisis in the broadest sense — corporate fraud, insider trading, Ponzi schemes — this working group is very narrowly targeted on fraud related to the origination and securitization of mortgage loans. For some consumer advocates, the new unit sounds promising. “I think it is a good sign that the administration has made this commitment to pursuing origination fraud,” said Diane Thompson, counsel for the National Consumer Law Center, one of the nation’s premier consumer organizations. “There has been a dearth of accountability for the fraud that landed us in the global economic catastrophe we are living through.” Others remain less convinced. “I am agnostic about this,” said Dean Baker, an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney general, is one of the new unit’s five co-chairs. Schneiderman gained prominence last year with his resistance to the deal currently being negotiated between the Obama administration, the Department of Justice, and the majority of the state attorneys general with five of the nation’s largest banks after their being charged with falsifying mortgage documents and inappropriately denying loan modifications to needy homeowners, among other wrongdoings. Schneiderman has resisted participating in any deal that doesn’t allow states to pursue their own cases against the mortgage companies. The new group is a subunit of the larger task force. “I have respect for Schneiderman, but he is basically joining an existing task force on mortgage fraud that has done nothing for two years,” Baker said. “Perhaps he will be able to turn things around, but if that was the intention it would seem to make more sense to simply let him set up his own task force.” Three of the new unit’s co-chairs have also served on the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, which raises concerns for David Dayen, a progressive blogger who’s written extensively on the housing crisis. “Three of the five co-chairs of this panel have a history of dragging their feet on enforcement against the banks in precisely the same areas that this panel will allegedly investigate,” wrote Dayen in a post . Dayen is referring to Tony West, assistant attorney general for the civil division, Robert Khuzami, director of enforcement for the Securities and Exchange Division, and Lanny Breuer, assistant attorney general for the criminal division. In addition to Schneiderman, the final co-chair is John Walsh, U.S. attorney general for district of Colorado.

Read the full article →

Lauren DeLisa Coleman: 2012 Elections: View From the Cloud

January 25, 2012

As the presidential nominations race heats up, one can barely keep track of all the video content related to the elections. Debates, gaffs, press conferences are all being downloaded, edited and shared at lightning speed; thanks to technology. Being an informed politico or smart constituent isn’t as easy as it used to be simply due to the sheer amount of digital information that’s available on a daily basis. But voters across the country are beginning to participate in a trend that could just make for one of the most informed constituencies ever: storing video content on the Cloud. “I, for one, have a lot of things to do during my week,” explained LeAnne Lindsay, a mortgage administrator in Philadelphia, PA. “I want to keep up, but it’s really hard. I was trying to get through coverage on my lunch break, but that’s a challenge. Now I’m just downloading and organizing all my election-related video through content storage systems and watching it during the weekend and even reviewing it when I think there may be something where there is some double-talk from candidates. I don’t want to miss a thing, but it needs to be on my time.” Welcome to the 2012 elections, Cloud style. You no longer have to take up space on your computer with massive video files. Citizens are tapping into the Cloud to upload content and simply access it when they have the time. An example of Cloud computing is something you probably use everyday: Gmail. All the content is stored on super computers elsewhere, easily accessed when you want it. There are several products being used, but a popular one seems to be a newcomer called QVIVO. The platform is a pioneer; most Cloud media lockers have shied away from video due to its large file size — hundreds of times larger than music. Netflix doesn’t store subscribers’ downloaded movies and TV shows, and the companies that do store your media on a Cloud locker, such as Google and Amazon, only store music at this time. Only now are startups such as QVIVO taking this next logical step to a providing consumers with a strong management system for video storage. QVIVO not only automatically imports users’ media files but organizes them into slick libraries complete with cover art, trailers and subtitles. All the Internet’s popular files and formats are supported in HD. QVIVO is the only cloud of its type that actually manages video media in this manner, on any platform. iCloud approaches video in a completely different manner from QVIVO when it comes to content management. “Unlike other Cloud media platforms, we’ve spent a considerable amount of time perfecting video,” said QVIVO co-founder Liam McCallum. “Uploads are lightening fast, and all the heavy lifting of converting files to right formats is done automatically for users in the QVIVO Cloud.” QVIVO is also connected. For example, a family member’s profile could be linked to their Facebook accounts so that they can check-in, ‘like’ and rate their favorite media surrounding the candidates. In addition, with a single button users can tell friends what they’re into while watching video of candidates. QVIVO apps are free and will soon be available for the Android and iPhone. Ben Mitchell, an election watcher from Michigan, concurs with the value of this technology for his needs. “I can’t tell you the amount of time I’ve spent trying to get home-streaming working smoothly around the house,” Mitchell said. “The fact that I can now stream video around the home between any PC with QVIVO installed is a winning feature for me, so I’ve been trying it with all sorts of subject matter and just recently found it’s really great for keeping track of what’s going on with the candidates as well. I can stay on top of the reports better.” Looks like having one’s ‘head in the Clouds’ no longer has a negative connotation. While the verdict may be several months away as to the selection of the Commander-in-Chief, many people have already voted positively on the Cloud for managing the political discussion. Lauren DeLisa Coleman is a writer specializing in new technologies. If you would like to contribute as a citizen reporter to The Huffington Post’s coverage of the 2012 elections, please contact us at www.offthebus.org

Read the full article →

Labor Leaders And Economists Unimpressed With Jobs Proposals In Obama’s State Of The Union

January 25, 2012

President Obama’s emphasis on creating manufacturing jobs in his State of the Union address on Tuesday sounded just right to union leaders. But even these most ardent supporters expressed doubts that his proposals would do much to alleviate unemployment, agreeing with economists and business leaders contacted by The Huffington Post Tuesday night that the speech offered little that would move the needle in the jobs market. “If you do exactly what he’s asking for, it would make almost no difference,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. In December the unemployment rate fell to 8.5 percent and many economists expressed hope that the nation was beginning to emerge from its jobs crisis. Economists and business and labor leaders said after the speech, however, that the president’s proposals would not have a real impact on the jobless rate. For some, his proposals were just a reminder of how ineffectual the president’s jobs plans have been through the Great Recession and nascent recovery. In contrast to what Obama said in his speech, Baker said, lower taxes abroad are not the reason why jobs are going overseas. China’s cheap currency has played a much more important role in bringing manufacturing jobs to East Asia. Commenting on Obama’s suggestion that cracking down on piracy in China would play a major role in creating jobs in the United States, Baker said, “It’s kind of a joke.” Baker was skeptical of Obama’s claim that higher-paying, high-skill manufacturing jobs are bountiful in the United States and just waiting for Americans to be trained for them, he added. The fact that new manufacturing jobs generally do not pay better than the old ones is proof that not many such jobs are available, he said. “I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can’t find workers with the right skills,” Obama had stated in his speech. The president stressed the importance of a rebound in manufacturing jobs to the future of the U.S. economy and asserted that the manufacturing industry is on the upswing. Yet, many of the new jobs don’t pay the old middle-class wages: While auto workers once earned a basic wage starting at about $28 an hour, new hires now start at wages at about half that amount. “The lines on manufacturing are silly,” Baker wrote in an email critiquing Obama’s speech. “Jobs in the sector are barely increasing (125,000 over the last year).” Added Baker: “This is not much to boast about, we are down by 2 million manufacturing jobs since the recession began.” Kevin L. Kearns, president of the Business and Industry Council, agreed that Obama’s specific proposals would have too small of an impact. He also pointed to a need for reform of China’s currency policy. If the president pushed for that, it would be a far stronger move, Kearns said, than “saying, ‘I saved 1,000 jobs in the tire industry by imposing the tariffs on pirated Chinese tires.’” And as far as Obama’s proposals for re-educating the workforce, Kearns said, “The best retraining program is called a job.” Union leaders were the most upbeat about Tuesday night’s speech. Damon Silvers, policy director at the AFL-CIO, said the speech exceeded his expectations. “His rhetoric was spot-on, and it described the real scale of the country’s needs,” he said. But Silvers acknowledged that Obama’s specific policy proposals amounted to either policies that Obama could pursue without Congress’ cooperation or ones that would make obstructionist Republican lawmakers look “really extreme, because they are.” “We would like to see the rhetoric more fully fleshed out,” Silvers said. “But it’s understandable given that it’s clear that this Congress this year will not act in the national interest.” Ultimately, Silvers said, the economy needs a $4 trillion public investment program over 10 years — with investments focused on education and infrastructure — to make the economy competitive enough to support a strong middle class in the long run. While Obama’s speech did not outline such a large-scale project, it did highlight the scale of the country’s problems, he said. “It’s about a choice as to whether we’re going to invest in people or are going to continue to grow the 1 percent in this country,” said Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union. “We have to insist on responsibility from everyone.” Congressional Republicans are currently blocking Obama’s $450 billion jobs bill, the American Jobs Act, which economists estimate would create from 1 million to 2 million new jobs. The bill includes more than $250 billion in tax incentives for small businesses and employers, along with a plan for infrastructure spending, state spending, unemployment insurance and neighborhood rehabilitation. “Getting the American Jobs Act is really the most critical thing right now,” said John Arensmeyer, chief executive of Small Business Majority, a small business advocacy organization. Though U.S. economic growth has started to gain momentum, even at this pace it would take until 2019 for the economy to get back to full, pre-recession employment, economists say. In his speech, Obama stressed that the United States has created 3.2 million jobs in the last two years. But over that same period of time, the public sector lost half a million jobs and appears poised to continue shedding positions. When population growth is accounted for, the jobs deficit left over from 2008 and 2009 is still well over 10 million jobs. Lila Shapiro contributed research.

Read the full article →

Bob Edgar: Mr. President: A Bit More Bold Please!

January 25, 2012

The populist tone of President Obama’s State of the Union speech was no surprise; since he went to Kansas last month to link his presidency to the “new nationalism” of Theodore Roosevelt, it has been clear that the president will seek reelection by casting himself as a champion of economic fairness. Bully for him, as TR might say, and even better for the country if he can capture a bit of Roosevelt’s energy and passion. We could use both those qualities in a president these days, as heirs of the corporate titans Roosevelt battled a century ago hold sway over Washington. But watching Obama’s address, I was struck by his failure to strike at the heart of what’s wrong — the enormous sums of money that special interests, particularly big corporations, have invested to buy our elections and the power that goes with them. Thanks to the Supreme Court, in Citizens United and a string of other decisions, corporate and other special interest dollars now flow virtually unimpeded through our political system. The court’s declaration that corporations are people and enjoy the same free speech rights most of us thought were reserved to individuals has put big money in control. In Washington and most state capitals, political leaders have long understood that deep-pocketed donors can make and break their careers; now “SuperPACs,” fueled by anonymously-donated corporate money, are allowing those politicians to keep their hands clean while their friends do the dirty work of tearing down their political opponents. There are several ways to attack this stranglehold on our democracy; full disclosure of corporate contributions would help, and so would public financing of our elections. The president’s call for a bill to stop the bundling of campaign contributions by lobbyists is another positive step, as is his call for a ban on insider trading by members of Congress. But to really put people back in charge, we must force passage of a constitutional amendment that will permit sensible controls on corporate political spending. An array of organizations and some courageous elected officials are pushing a variety of amendment proposals. All have merit, and polls suggest an amendment would have strong public support, but I’m convinced that none will move forward until voters demand it. That’s why Common Cause has launched Amend2012 , a campaign to help voters speak where they’re sure to be heard — at the ballot box. We want to put a voter initiative or referendum question on the ballot in every state so that the people can instruct their representatives and senators to pass an amendment and submit it to the states for ratification. We understand that this is a heavy lift; amending the Constitution isn’t easy and it shouldn’t be. We may only get on the ballot in a few states this year and we know that it will take several years to get a vote in every state. But we’ve made a start and we’re determined to see it through. If the president and his Republican adversaries truly are serious about change in Washington, they’ll join us.

Read the full article →

WATCH: Postal Worker Caught With Truckloads Of Stolen Mail

January 25, 2012

On top of a financial crisis of devastating proportions, it looks like the U.S. Postal Service has yet another problem on its hands: an employee that’s hoarding stolen mail. Karen Samford, a 72-year-old postal worker in Texas, has been suspended from her job after admitting she stole and kept literally truckloads of bulk mail over the last decade, MyFoxHouston reports ( h/t The Consumerist ). Her boss reportedly became concerned with the excess mail in her office and asked if she had stashed any elsewhere, to which she admitted to renting entire storage units to hold the junk mail. “This is a hoarding problem,” she told MyFoxHouston. “People can have mental issues… it doesn’t make them insane. It makes them stupid.” Read the entire MyFoxHouston report here. Hoarding has been an especially popular topic of late, in part due to the success of TLC’s Hoarding: Buried Alive , a show profiling those who suffer through the practice. This week, for example, firefighters in Arizona struggled to extinguish a house fire after finding thousands of beer cans and ceiling-high stacks of newspapers upon entering the home. The owner said he was just “holding on to” the trash. But Samford’s episode is only the latest public relations disaster for the struggling agency. USPS also made headlines just last week after a security camera caught on tape a postal worker throwing a package over a fence . And it’s not just USPS that’s guilty of some bad deliveries. A similar event transpired last month when a FedEx employee delivered a package in much the same manner . USPS has bigger problems than bad deliveries anyway. The independent government agency is facing the possibility of default due to a monstrous budget shortfall, even as it desperately seeks ways to reduce costs and raise revenues — including cuts and raising the price of stamps . Last month USPS announced it would delay the closure of some 3,700 local post offices and hundreds of mail processing centers to allow Congress time to pass legislation that would stave off default. The closures are currently estimated to result in $6.5 billion worth in savings and some 100,000 layoffs. If USPS does reduce services, many small business owners fear the increased expenses of relying on more expensive private companies like FedEx will weigh on them, The Huffington Post reports .

Read the full article →

Occupy Movement Responds To Obama’s State Of The Union

January 25, 2012

The Washington, D.C. faction of the Occupy movement is slated to issue a response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday. From their encampment in McPherson Square in D.C., Occupiers are expected to deliver their message via the “people’s microphone,” a system of call-and-response where one person reads part of a statement and the crowd then repeats it. An organizer for Occupy D.C. tells the Atlantic Wire that their group didn’t coordinate with the larger Occupy Wall Street movement. Choire Sicha at The Awl gives a preview from an embargoed press release sent around to reporters, writing that it’s strangely “off-key”: The language of the speech is bombastic yet vague, unspecific and sort of… narcissistic? Lots of rambling about how politics is bought and paid for, yadda yadda. (I mean, yes, that’s true! But it’s just atmospherics; why not name some names then?) About half of its claims are reminiscent of the Tea Party. (To be fair, Occupy and the Tea Party share about a 50% base common interest! Which is good and fascinating!) What’s worse about the planned speech is: it’s vaguely poetic without at all being poetry. Their rebuttal is expected to be streamed live, via Occupy DC’s UStream account . Below, Occupy’s entire statement: This 2012 “State of the 99%” response to the State of the Union will be delivered by a group of Occupiers assembled outside in a well-lit spot at McPherson Square following the conclusion of the President’s State of the Union address and/or the Tea Party response. The presentation will unfold this way: one participant will begin in the center/front of the group, in the middle of the camera frame, surrounded by the others. That person will deliver the first line of the speech, and will then be echoed by the People’s Mic. That person will then read their second line, and as the People’s Mic echoes the second line, that person will move off to the side and rejoin the group, while another person will step into the center spot to read the next two lines, with each line again echoed by the People’s Mic. This will continue, cycling through the crowd, with each person reading two lines and being echoed by the People’s Mic. Mic check! [mic check] Mic check! [mic check] Fellow Americans, good evening! [Fellow Americans, good evening!] We are men and women of the 99 percent Many of us have spent many months at Occupy Wall Street and at other Occupations across the country and around the world We are here tonight to report on the State of the 99 percent in America Of course most Americans know the state of the 99 percent very well But sometimes the one percent, on Wall Street and in Washington, need a reminder Financially, the state of the 99% is not strong That is an understatement. Never in our lifetimes have so many hard-working Americans Faced so many difficulties, so many uncertainties, so many indignities In Occupy camps around the country We find Americans from all walks of life [3 personal story couplets] Some of us have had it rougher than others And it turns out living in camps is no picnic either But we do not give up easily And we take inspiration from the brave Americans who came before us From Dr. King, who gave his life fighting for economic justice From the Suffragettes, who insisted the voice of women be heard From all of those brave or foolish enough to believe in America’s defining idea theidea of democracy That we are all created equal And we all have an equal voice in shaping the laws we all live by America Let’s be honest. When our courts tell us corporations have more right to speak than we the people do That’s not democracy. When pepper spray and midnight raids make a joke of the 1st Amendment right to assemble. That’s not democracy. When defrauding clients, blowing up our economy, forging thousands of documents and seizing people’s homes illegally is not a crime but protesting all that is a crime That’s not democracy. Our America is not a democracy, not yet. We all know why: Wall street owns Washington. Bribery is legal, and the laws we live by are for sale to the highest bidder That is why our government serves the very rich and powerful at the expense of the rest of us It protects the bonuses of bankers and Wall Street executives, while failing to keep hard-working families in their homes; It shields offshore tax havens for the very wealthy, while letting our bridges, schools, and infrastructure fall apart; There have been dark periods in our nation’s history, when corruption became the norm when grave injustices stood in the way of America living up to its best ideals. But time and time again, Americans stepped up to take back their government and correct our course. Today Occupy Wall Street and the 99% movement step into this proud American tradition. But fear not, one percent! We are not here just to help the 99% at your expense. We are here to help you too. For when you’ve begun to think rigging the game is fair game When you regard hard-working Americans as undeserving of a middle-class life and unworthy of the profit their own work creates When you treat the people who build your buildings and serve your food and raise your children and patrol your streets without respect You have not only lost touch with our humanity You have lost touch with your own humanity You need to find it again, for everyone’s sake Real democracy will do you good We are the 99% We are here to create the democracy we have all been promised. We are the 99%. Our finances are weak, but our spirit is strong. We are the 99%. Our spring is coming.

Read the full article →

WATCH: Kendall-Jackson President On Undercover Reality TV Show

January 25, 2012

As anyone who has actually pursued the dream of the wine industry knows, it ain’t easy. Thus was the lesson when Kendall-Jackson President Rick Tigner sported fake braces, color-changing contacts, a sweet new handlebar mustache and cut and dyed hair to become the newest reality TV star on CBS’s ” Undercover Boss .” (SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO) The show disguises executives to go undercover into the day-to-day depths of their companies. For Tigner, this meant picking grapes, bottling wines and doing the dirty work at his billion-dollar brand — the parent of labels including La Crema, Murphy Goode and others. According to SFGate , Tigner posed as Jake, “a good-old boy grocery store manager from Plano, Texas” who was starring on a pilot about people considering a career change. The Huffington Post obtained a clip of the show, featuring slapstick scenes of Tigner breaking bottles and fumbling through grape-picking. “That’s disastrous,” said one employee about Tigner accidentally breaking branches on the vines. “That’s like dropping money on the ground. A later scene showed Tigner working the tasting room with a complete lack of knowledge about the wines. (We would have hoped he would have at least been good at that part.) But in Tigner’s defense, it’s not his job to know the wines; it’s his job to keep Kendall-Jackson a billion-dollar company. Check out the episode on CBS on January 29 at 8:00 p.m., and check out our preview clip below:

Read the full article →

Romney Makes Startling Remark

January 25, 2012

WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney said corporations “are people too.” Now, he says not only that banks are people, but they “aren’t bad people.” The comment came Tuesday in Florida, which has the seventh-highest foreclosure rate in the country. “In this case, it’s because of the banks,” he said to a small group in front of a Fannie Mae-foreclosed home in the town of Lehigh Acres in the southwest part of the state. “Well, the banks aren’t bad people. They’re just overwhelmed right now.” The remarks echoed Romney’s previous response to a heckler last August two days before the Ames Straw poll. “Corporations are people, my friend…of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People’s pockets. Human beings my friend,” he said. It’s part of a pattern of Romney making offhand remarks that make him sound out of touch with the economic , which he says he can fix. “Don’t try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom,” he said in Las Vegas last October, which has the highest foreclosure rate of any metro area over 200,000 people according to RealtyTrac. Nevada leads the states among foreclosures. “I’m also unemployed,” he said to a group of unemployed people in June, also in Florida, which has jobless rates above the national average. “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me,” said Romney in New Hampshire earlier this month as part of an answer on why he favored competition among health insurers. “If someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I want to say I am going to get somebody else to provide that service to me.” Romney later defended his remarks as being taken out of context; however, Romney himself took a quote of Obama out of context in an attack ad. The remarks came on the same day that the former Massachusetts governor — who has an estimated wealth between $190 million and $250 million — released his tax returns , which showed that he and his wife paid a 13.9 percent effective rate on $21.7 million in 2010–much lower than most middle-class taxpayers due to their income entirely deriving from investments.

Read the full article →

Apple Reports Massive iPhone Sales

January 24, 2012

NEW YORK — After uncharacteristically tepid sales in the July-to-September quarter, Apple came back with a vengeance in last three months of 2011, vastly exceeding analyst estimates and setting new records. Apple Inc. on Tuesday said it sold 37 million iPhones in the quarter, double the figure of the previous quarter and more than twice as many as it sold in last year’s holiday quarter. The result may make Apple the world’s largest maker of smartphones. Samsung Electronics, which held that position for most of last year, has said it expects to report shipping about 35 million smartphones in the October to December quarter. October saw the launch of the iPhone 4S, and the addition of Sprint Nextel Corp. as an iPhone carrier in the U.S. Apple said net income in the fiscal first quarter was $13.06 billion, or $13.87 per share. That was up 118 percent from $6 billion, or $6.43 per share, a year ago. Analysts polled by FactSet were expecting earnings of $10.04 per share for the latest quarter, Apple’s fiscal first. Revenue was $46.33 billion, up 73 percent from a year ago. Analysts were expecting $38.9 billion. The Cupertino, Calif., company shipped 15.4 million iPads in the quarter, again more than doubling sales over the same quarter last year. Apple shares rose $33.03, or 7.9 percent, to $453.53 in extended trading, after the release of the results. Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer said the company expects earnings of $8.50 per share in the current quarter, and sales of $32.5 billion. Both figures are above the average estimate of analysts polled by FactSet, even though Apple usually low-balls its estimates. Apple ended the quarter with a cash balance of a staggering $97.6 billion. For years, investors have been frustrated with Apple’s unwillingness to put the cash to use. Complaints have been muted as Apple continues to generate record-breaking results and as the stock price keeps rising. Apple executives have said the cash hoard gives the company flexibility to make acquisitions and long-term supply deals. If the stock rally in extended trading survives into regular trading Wednesday, Apple will retake the position of most valuable company in the world from Exxon Mobil Corp. Apple first unseated Exxon last summer, and the two have been trading places since then.

Read the full article →

Jayshree Bajoria: Can Sanctions Bring Iran to the Table?

January 24, 2012

The European Union adopted an oil embargo against Tehran (BBC) on Monday, banning all new contracts and agreeing to freeze the assets of Iran’s central bank within the EU. The move follows new sanctions from the United States on Iran’s oil and financial sectors. The EU — responsible for 20 percent of Iranian oil exports — and the United States have also been trying to persuade major importers of Iranian oil in Asia — China, Japan, India, and South Korea — to reduce their purchases in order for these sanctions to bite. The efforts aim to pressure Iran to halt its controversial nuclear program. What’s at Stake The United States and the EU worry that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability, which Tehran consistently denies. The latest round of sanctions is aimed at bringing Iran back to the negotiation table and ultimately halting its uranium enrichment program. The sanctions also take place in a climate of increasing tension and concern over U.S. military action, an option the Obama administration has said remains on the table. The administration hopes the sanctions will cause enough economic pain to force Tehran to engage in diplomacy. A visit by IAEA investigators to Iran ( FT ) this month to seek explanations over its nuclear activities will be watched for signs of Tehran’s willingness to negotiate. The Debate Following the U.S. sanctions late last year, Iran warned that it would close the strategic Strait of Hormuz — a crucial passageway for the global oil supply — if its oil exports are affected. Iranian lawmakers repeated the threats (VOA) following the EU sanctions. Yet, as TIME ‘s Tony Karon notes, both sides seek a diplomatic solution. The United States hopes that in the coming weeks, Iran will return to talks with the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council: Russia, China, France, Britain, and the United States, plus Germany). Laura Rozen (Yahoo) reports that Washington has prepared a proposal in which Iran would agree to halt enrichment of uranium to 20 percent and turn over its existing stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium in exchange for no new penalties from the UN Security Council. But CFR’s Ray Takeyh has expressed doubts that the Iranian negotiators would agree to “relinquish that stockpile.” Iran’s enrichment of uranium up to 20 percent brings it much closer to developing a nuclear weapon. Plus, analysts remain divided over fundamental questions of how close Iran is to actually making a bomb or whether it has even decided to make one. Yousaf Butt, a consultant for the independent Federation of American Scientists, says, “Iran is not doing anything that violates its legal right to develop nuclear technology” (ForeignPolicy.com) . However, David Albright of Washington-based think tank ISIS says, “Iran has already overcome many obstacles on the path to finally acquiring nuclear weapons .” He adds, “Downplaying the threat can end up serving to undermine the development of non-military methods to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons.” Policy Options Options for dealing with Iran — from diplomacy and regime change to covert action and military strike — are highly contested among policymakers and analysts, as this CFR Crisis Guide shows. ” The Iran crisis ( FT ) is moving closer to both of the worst-case outcomes that people fear: Iran with a bomb or a bombing campaign to stop it,” says Mark Fitzpatrick of the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies. But currently, Takeyh says, ” we are on the threshold not of war but of diplomacy .” To allow enough time for diplomacy to work, there have to be small but significant successes, says Matthew Bunn of Harvard ( NYT ) . He suggests the following deals: Iran agrees not to build up stocks of either 3.5 percent or 20 percent enriched uranium any further, not to increase the number of operating centrifuges if no further sanctions or murders of scientists take place (although Washington has disavowed any involvement in these killings), and not to enrich uranium to 20 percent anymore in return for receiving fuel for the Tehran research reactor. Background Materials Foreign Affairs.com features an intensifying debate over the case for and against a military attack against Iran to deter its nuclear program. This article first appeared on CFR.org .

Read the full article →

Wendy Brandes: The Agony and Ecstasy of a Small Business

January 24, 2012

I have a small fine-jewelry business . I’ve also had a root canal. I think they’re very similar: Forewarned might be forearmed, but it doesn’t eliminate the need for painkillers. I knew — both from talking to people with experience and plain old common sense — that the business would be the most challenging thing I’d ever done, job-wise. I was also told that the root canal would hurt. I still needed Percocet for the tooth … and sometimes I wish I could have it for the business too. Of course, there are joys to having a jewelry business. I love it when customers tell me that the earrings they bought from me online are even better than they expected; that their new necklace is their favorite jewelry ever; or that they can’t take their eyes off their custom-made engagement ring. Redesigning old jewelry is especially rewarding. It’s fun to convert an unworn cocktail ring into three streamlined stacking rings or give a lone stud earring new life as a pendant . My job even helped me make the most of my root canal: I engraved my gold crown with my initials . The ache the business gives me — in a place where molars don’t grow — comes from a classic small-business conundrum: the high cost of producing low quantity. You might think that problem is unique to my luxury jewelry line, where a one-of-a-kind 18K gold and diamond design can go for upwards of $20,000 and raw-material prices of metals have tripled since I launched in 2005 . But every small, self-financed businessperson I speak to — whether butcher, baker, candlestick maker, computer programmer, hair stylist, photographer or fashion designer — tells me the same story. The problem is the cost of labor. Even when you’re making goods out of inexpensive materials, you need to pay for labor. U.S. labor is expensive because, despite the ongoing recession, the U.S. has a high standard of living and a minimum hourly wage of $7.25. In countries without such a high standard of living, people will work for a dollar a day or less. That’s why manufacturing and other jobs — including customer-service phone lines, as many of us know — have moved overseas. Using inexpensive labor enables companies to sell goods or provide services at prices U.S. consumers are willing to pay. So why don’t I move my production overseas, especially when a ring that cost $40 to produce in New York City cost $4 in Asia (before last year’s surge in the price of silver)? Forget for the moment about quality issues and the idealistic wish to keep jobs in the U.S. I simply can’t afford to produce cheaply. Factories require bulk orders because they would go out of business selling one $4 ring at a time. A minimum requirement for me is 100 units of each ring style. If I start ordering 100 rings at a time, I need to find a way to sell them or I’m going to drown in inexpensive rings. Quantity orders from retailers aren’t easy to come by when you’re a start-up. As Annie Lin, who, with her sister Karen, had a U.S.-made contemporary women’s clothing line called AIRA from 2008 to 2011, tells me, getting the brand in front of customers was “the hardest part” because both boutiques and department stores “heavily relied on the ‘usual’ brands they often order from and leave a small budget for new designers.” Limited distribution means limited profit, which scares off the kind of deep-pocketed investors who would be able to finance mass production. Another Catch-22. Because I’ll try anything once, I did the 100-unit order with a few styles, just to see if an inexpensive piece would fly off the proverbial shelf. I sold 30 of one style — a large quantity for me — all to individual customers. I made $20 on each sale and 30 trips to the post office. I’d rather hold out for one big engagement ring that nets $5,000 than do that again. At least I developed a better understanding of factories’ requirements for large orders. My factory was giving me a break, really. A hundred units barely qualifies as mass production. Walmart is the gold standard of huge orders: A 2005 Wall Street Journal series identified a small order of pens for Walmart as 48,000 units. Designers like me and the Lin sisters persist as long as we can, praying we’ll have that “lightning in a bottle” moment: the right celebrity, the right store, the right press. Sometimes the money runs out before the moment comes. The AIRA line, which retailed from $180 to $550, was in seven boutiques but just breaking even when the Lins pulled the plug. Annie says, “In retrospect, if we did not find a celebrity to wear our clothing or somehow lower our price point … we were looking at six or more years before seeing profit.” Maybe a design award will give me the push I need: I’m a finalist for Fashion Group International’s Rising Star Award for jewelry (the awards will be announced on Thursday, January 26). My friend, designer Stacy Lomman , is also in an optimistic state of mind because she is a finalist for the Rising Star Award in women’s wear after just 18 months in business. Financially, however, not much has changed for Stacy since 2010, when she was interviewed by the Huffington Post about her use of social media to finance her first runway show. Now preparing for her fourth show, she is conducting yet another campaign on the Kickstarter “crowdfunding” site to raise money to buy fabric for the 10 to 12 looks she’ll sew singlehandedly. Being a Rising Star finalist means “I’ve proven that I am someone to watch,” she says. A win could help her “secure some type of corporate sponsorship in order to take my business to the next level.” Here’s hoping that finding that financial backing isn’t like pulling teeth.

Read the full article →

Daniel Tutt: An Occupy Prayer Breakfast: There Is Enough For Everyone!

January 24, 2012

Each year, the wealthy and powerful gather in Washington, D.C. for the National Prayer Breakfast, an invitation-only, $650-a-plate, networking opportunity started by a secretive conservative group called ” The Family .” The goal of the breakfast, according to The Family, is to recruit the powerful attendees into smaller, more frequent prayer meetings, where they can “meet Jesus man to man.” Since its inception in 1953, every president has attended this annual event, and major military, corporate and faith leaders go each year. But this year, on the second Thursday of February, as the 1% comes together to network and pray, an alternative, ” People’s Prayer Breakfast ” will commence across town at Church of the Pilgrims. Organized by a broad network of faith leaders, faith-based social justice advocates, members of the Occupy movement at K Street and Freedom Plaza, the gathering will issue a challenge to President Obama and all the participants at the National Prayer Breakfast to focus their conversations and prayers on the suffering of the 99%. Not since the raising of the Golden Calf during the early Occupy Wall Street protests several months ago have faith communities taken a visible role in the Occupy movement. The People’s Prayer Breakfast offers an opportunity to raise media visibility for the Occupy movement nationally, as well as unite mainline religious communities with Occupy’s concern for the poor and economic justice. Participants will reflect, pray, and draw attention to the suffering and marginalization of millions of U.S. citizens languishing in economic distress, uncertainty and poverty. The People’s Prayer Breakfast’s motto, “Enough for Everyone!” rings true to the majority of Americans according to a new report on economic inequalities in America released by the University of California at Santa Cruz. Researchers found that Americans are more egalitarian than we typically think, and are very concerned with unequal wealth distribution. A majority of Americans claim that a more ideal wealth distribution would be one in which the top 20 percent owned between 30 and 40 percent of the privately held wealth, which is a far cry from the 85 percent that the top 20 percent actually own. In what many have criticized as a leaderless revolution , religious leaders and communities of faith offer an established leadership structure to Occupy. The leaders and organizers of the People’s Prayer Breakfast hope to expand this model outside of Washington, D.C., similar to how the National Prayer Breakfast has expanded to dozens of cities nationwide. Rev. Brian Merritt, one of the founding members of Occupy Faith DC is participating in the alternative prayer breakfast, “because prayer is a sacred act that connects us to something greater than ourselves and moves us to action in transforming the world.” Rev. Merritt, a Pastor in the Palisades Community Church will join dozens of other national faith leaders in declaring that, “prayer is not about bringing people into access to powerful people and giving the wealthy assurance that they should remain untroubled by those who hunger, cry, struggle and are left out by their actions.” The People’s Prayer Breakfast will also gather and display hundreds of prayers from children around Washington, D.C. during the morning program. Faith leaders from around the country will be in attendance and endorsements from Dr. Cornel West and other nationally recognized faith leaders have already come in.

Read the full article →

Ebong Eka: Can You Hear Me Now? Doesn’t Matter — Just Email Me!

January 24, 2012

Media and the American landscape changes continually with technology. As a result, the way we get our information will change accordingly. We’re basically becoming a “three screen Information society.” A ” Three Screen Information Society ” is comprised of: 1) a smart-phone, 2) tablet PC and 3) a flat screen. Smart-phones are mobile computers that can do everything from reminding you to send flowers to your mother on Mother’s Day to helping you find your car in a mega-mall parking lot. Tablet PCs, like the iPad, Kindle Fire and Motorola Xoom, aren’t just for Angry Birds (which is as addicting as Zynga’s “Words with Friends”) but are also used to read newspapers, watch movies and read best-selling books. Flat screens, on the other hand, aren’t as mobile but provide visually rich content in High Definition (HD). The good news about our current technological landscape is the prices for these amazing tools (or toys) continue to fall. The bad news is the costs associated with using these technological marvels and computer devices are starting the rise. Checking email, surfing the Internet, using great apps like Facebook and Twitter all require robust data plans… for which we pay our phone carrier’s for the privilege. Mobile phone companies also realize the increasing demand for data. “Data usage is increasing at about 40 percent a year,” said AT&T’s spokesman Mark Siegel. With over 300 million cell phone users in the U.S. alone, that’s a lot of data usage! AT&T recently announced they will be raising prices by as much as 33 percent on Jan. 22, 2012. New customers on its least-expensive program will pay $20 a month for 300 MB, while three gigabytes (GB) will cost you $30 a month. The price increase will only affect new customers and not those currently in existing contracts. The higher the demand for data usage, the more likely we’ll see price increases for these services in the future. Before contemplating an early exodus from your current phone carrier, here are a few tips to consider: 1. Check your phone bill for your current data usage. You may have room to lower your bill by choosing a lower priced plan or by increasing the plan. 2. Research other carriers and compare your current data needs with what the other carriers offer. Don’t only focus on price! 3. Most phone carriers offer a corporate discount. Check with your company and the phone carriers to see if you qualify for a corporate discount. You can save as much as 22 percent per month/bill for working at your company. 4. Consider switching carriers — Sprint and T-mobile offer unlimited data plans (with some data speed restrictions of course). Maybe it was good for the consumer that the AT&T and T-mobile merger didn’t happen. More importantly, with the exponential increase in data usage, “Can You Hear Me Now? (TM)” will no longer apply. Just send me an email instead! Stay tuned for more money tips! Got Money questions? Email your questions: info(at)EbongEka.com

Read the full article →

Mitt Romney Releases Tax Returns

January 24, 2012

By Steve Holland and Kim Dixon TAMPA, Fla./WASHINGTON, Jan 24 (Reuters) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released tax records on Tuesday indicating he will pay $6.2 million in taxes on a total of $42.5 million in income over the years 2010 and 2011. Bowing to increasing political pressure to provide more detail about his vast wealth, the former private equity executive released tax returns indicating he and his wife, Ann, paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent in 2010. They expect to pay a 15.4 percent rate when they file their returns for 2011. Romney’s tax rate is below that of most wage-earning Americans because most of his income, as outlined in more than 500 pages of tax documents, flows from capital gains on investments. Under the U.S. tax code, capital gains are taxed at 15 percent, compared with a top tax rate of 35 percent for wage earners. Romney released the tax returns after a week in which his chief rival for the Republican presidential nomination, former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, questioned whether Romney was hiding information about his finances and cast him as being out of touch with most Americans. Gingrich’s attacks on Romney helped him upset the former Massachusetts governor in the South Carolina primary on Saturday. Since then, Romney has vowed to be more aggressive in returning fire. He has launched a series of attacks questioning Gingrich’s character, judgment and lucrative work as a Washington consultant, and released his tax returns to try to nullify Gingrich’s criticisms on that front. The tax rates Romney reported paying could add fuel to a national debate over the fairness of the tax code, and coincides with broader concerns about income inequality symbolized by the Occupy Wall Street movement. Romney’s campaign officials stressed that his tax rate is based mostly on income from investments that are held in a blind trust. Romney’s holdings include an undisclosed amount in funds based in the Grand Cayman Islands and other overseas entities. Romney advisers stressed that the holdings in the Caymans – along with those in a Swiss bank account that was closed in 2010 after an investment adviser decided it could be politically embarrassing to Romney – were reported on tax returns and were not vehicles to avoid taxes. They also stressed that Romney, whose holdings are in three blind trusts, makes no decisions as to how his money is invested. Regardless, the emerging picture was of a man of great means who contributes mightily to charity. The documents showed he and his wife contributed $7 million in charity over the two years, much of it going to his Mormon church. That represents more than 15 percent of the Romneys’ income for those years. Romney, whose estimated net worth is $190 million to $250 million, is among the wealthiest Americans ever to seek the presidency. Top campaign officials and the director of Romney’s blind trust, Brad Malt, briefed Reuters on the details ahead of a more general release of the information Tuesday morning. Campaign counsel Ben Ginsberg, asked why Romney was not releasing tax records for the years in the 1980s and 1990s in which Romney made his fortune at private equity firm Bain Capital, said the two years covered by the tax returns should give a broad picture of Romney’s financial situation. “We’re not going to get into the game of once you give them something, they demand more,” Ginsberg said. “This is a fulsome release and we’re proud of it.” The tax issue may have been a factor in Romney’s loss to Gingrich in South Carolina. It became a distraction to Romney’s campaign, and Romney’s fuzzy answers on when and if he would release his records aggravated the problem. First he said he might release them, or might not. When the questions kept coming, he said he would put them out in April, after his 2011 forms were completed. Only after he was defeated in South Carolina did his aides say he would release them this week. Gingrich has released his returns for 2010, but has not released an estimate for last year, as Romney did. Long considered the front-runner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, Romney was staggered by Gingrich’s lopsided win in South Carolina, and is looking to regain enough momentum to defeat Gingrich in Florida, which votes on Jan. 31. (Editing by David Lindsey and Paul Simao) Copyright 2012 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

WATCH: Janitors Fire Back At Newt Gingrich

January 19, 2012

Despite his current surge in the South Carolina polls, Newt Gingrich’s star is not rising among one group of workers who have been a key talking point on the campaign trail: unionized janitors who the former House speaker says make “an absurd amount of money” and should be fired and replaced with poor schoolchildren. At a high school in Hudson, N.H., where Gingrich gave a speech last week, the janitors are represented by the Teamsters union. They start off earning $16.86 an hour, or $28,324 a year, according to the local union contract. Before Gingrich arrived on Jan. 9, several of them were readying the auditorium for his event. The men weren’t impressed by his plan for their jobs. Those surveyed began with one basic point: If their jobs are turned over to schoolchildren, they would be out of work. But they quickly moved on to what they see as the more offensive issue: that a man like Gingrich — who made around $1.6 million offering advice to mortgage giant Freddie Mac — would claim to know anything about janitorial work. “If you leave these custodians go, they’re going to be out of a job,” said Jerry Mishow, head custodian at the school, who earns the top janitorial wage of $25.41 an hour, or $42,688 a year. “Leave well enough alone.” “It just shows how out of touch with reality he is,” added Brian McNamara, another custodian. “I don’t think he knows what it feels like to be down in the trenches, actually, you know, with the average everyday guy,” said a third custodian, Peter Petrakis. “He doesn’t even know what a custodian job is,” Mishow added. “How can he put kids mixing chemicals and everything else ?” “That’s so wrong on so many levels,” Petrakis agreed. Janitors are not the only people to disparage Gingrich’s controversial strategy to fight both child poverty and the jobs crisis by replacing adult janitors with working kids. Economists who study job creation say it won’t improve the economy, academics who study children and poverty say it won’t help poor kids, and unions who represent janitors say it’s an affront to working people. “You could take one janitor and hire 30-some kids to work in the school for the price of one janitor,” Gingrich said at Monday night’s Republican debate in South Carolina. “And those 30 kids would be a lot less likely to drop out. They would actually have money in their pocket.” His remarks were greeted with cheers from the audience. “It’s another absurd statement designed to appeal to the anti-union right-wing base,” said Robert Troeller, president of Local 891, International Union of Operating Engineers, which represents New York City custodial engineers. “A man with a million-dollar line of credit at Tiffany’s has the audacity to claim janitors are overpaid.” Video by Anne Thompson.

Read the full article →

Report: Proposed Down Payment Rules Could Limit Minorities’ Access to Affordable Homebuying

January 18, 2012

Nearly three-quarters of African-American and Latino mortgage borrowers could be excluded from affordable homeownership if federal regulators approve a proposal to require 20 percent down payments, according to a study released Wednesday. Co-authored by the UNC Center for Community Capital and the Center for Responsible Lending, the study says that such a move would not only restrict minorities’ access to homeownership but also that of roughly 60 percent of all creditworthy borrowers. The proposal is part of a host of new regulations under consideration through the Dodd-Frank Act, legislation passed in the wake of the financial crisis. Policymakers have been tasked with developing new guidelines for the mortgage market to avoid a repeat of the easy lending environment that led so many Americans to take out bigger mortgages than they could afford — often with no money down. While no one is asking to return to the days of easy money, the study cautioned that the pendulum might now be swinging too far in the other direction, tightening lending requirements too much. Many housing experts say that 10 percent is a more reasonable down payment requirement. Federal regulators are still working out the proposed policy. “If you’re requiring homebuyers to actually save a 20 percent down payment in advance of buying the home, it would take decades for many families to amass that kind of money even though they could still afford to make those monthly mortgage payments,” said Ginna Green, a spokeswoman for the Center for Responsible Lending. Though borrowers from all walks of life would be impacted by such a policy, minorities would be disproportionately affected because they have, on average, lower incomes than their white counterparts, according to Green. “African-Americans, Latinos, teachers, firefighters, anyone who is working-class and having trouble making headway in this economy will have even more trouble if these guidelines were to come to fruition,” Green said. “It’s like the pendulum has swung from one side to the other in the housing market. On one end, minorities got the riskiest loans, and now, on the other end, minorities are going to bear the brunt of these onerous down payment requirements.” In the report, the researchers found that increasing down payment requirements does produce a reciprocal decrease in the number of borrowers who default on their mortgage loan. Specifically, for loans that meet the government’s proposed guidelines, the default rate was 7.1 percent as compared with rates of nearly 10 percent on loans sold to the Federal Housing Administration, which has a down payment requirement of 3.5 percent. Nonetheless, the researchers concluded that the benefit of lowered default rates — which, in turn, produce lower foreclosure rates — is overshadowed by borrowers’ restricted access to affordable mortgage loans. Some prominent economists disagreed with the report’s finding, including Dean Baker, co-director for the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “I know of almost no planet where a slight increase in the cost of getting a mortgage will shut out 60 percent of creditworthy borrowers. On my planet, we just had a horrible housing bubble burst and wreck the economy for a decade in large part because banks were able to pass on junk mortgages at no risk. This is an incredibly modest provision that will have no impact on creditworthy borrowers.” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, was more moderate in his dissent. “I think a down payment requirement of 20 percent is too high. I’d like to see more like 10 percent,” he said. Nonetheless, Zandi believes the government should determine the requirements. “The very important thing to remember here is that when policymakers figure out what the future of mortgage finance looks like, it’s very likely that the government will only be able to play a role with loans that meet these requirements,” he said. “With a 20 percent down payment, only one-third of loans would fall under their guidance,” Zandi said. “But if you lower the down payment requirements, the government could oversee closer to two-thirds of the loans, which is where I’d like to see them be.” UPDATE: 5:42 p.m. — Not all borrowers would be required to make a 20 percent down payment, under the proposal. Rather lenders could still offer loans with lower down payments if the bank held onto at least 5 percent of the credit risk (the dollar calculation of the chance the borrower will not pay back the loan). This is likely to increase the interest rate charged to the borrower.

Read the full article →

Anna Cuevas: HAMP’s Second Lien Modification Saves Fewer Than 50% of Second Mortgages

January 18, 2012

In January 2011, one of the government’s largest mortgage lenders, Fannie Mae, implemented the U.S. Treasury’s Second Lien Modification Program. Also referred to as 2MP, slightly less than 50 percent of eligible Housing Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) second liens have been modified to date. Through the 2MP initiative, services of second mortgages have the option to modify the lien or to extinguish it — which is an admission that the mortgagor is not likely to be repaid for the second mortgage, and as a result, they clear their interest in the property by filing a lien waiver. To qualify for this HAMP modification directive, the borrower’s first lien must be in modification. In addition, the remaining balance of the principal of the second mortgage must be a minimum of $5,000 with an existing monthly payment of $100 or more. It should be noted that Second Lien Modification Program is voluntary, and not all banks have opted to participate. Of the major HAMP servicers, only six have chosen to do so. These services for these lenders are notified by the U.S. Treasury Department if a second lien is eligible for modification under the program. To date, over 115,000 second liens have been identified as eligible. Yet, less than half had begun the modification process. Almost 10,000 of those were extinguished. The HAMP loan modification program continues through 2012. Initial projections estimated that 3 to 4 million mortgages would benefit from the program; however, at its current rate of 25,000 to 30,000 a month, fewer than 1 million mortgages have been modified. If you are the holder of a second mortgage that meets the guidelines stated above, you should contact your lender to determine if they participate in HAMP’s 2MP program. Some of the voluntary participants as of this writing are Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, and Ally Financial. Anna Cuevas, known as “America’s Loan Modification Guru,” has guided thousands of Americans in keeping their homes from foreclosure. A popular blogger (askaloanmodguru.com), Cuevas has been called a “superhero of the loan modification industry” and has been nominated for CNN’s Heroes. She is the #1 bestselling author of SAVE YOUR HOME Without Losing Your Mind or Money.

Read the full article →

IRS’s Corporate Auditors Find $9,354 Of Additional Tax Owed Per Hour

January 18, 2012

(The author is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.) By David Cay Johnston Jan 17 (Reuters) – Congress will spend a trillion dollars more than it levies this year, so how do Washington’s politicians respond to the 11th consecutive year of federal budgets in red ink? They plan to shrink the IRS. Go figure. Cutting the IRS budget by more than 5 percent in real terms makes as much sense as a hospital firing surgeons or a car dealer laying off salespeople when customers fill the showroom. Shrinking the IRS makes sense if you believe government is too big and that cutting everywhere is the best way to shrink government. But this is the staff that generates revenue, and there is easy money to be made. Congress should listen to the national taxpayer advocate, a position it created to make sure taxpayers had a voice in how the IRS operates. In her annual report, released last week, advocate Nina Olson said Congress needed to “ensure that the IRS continues to be effective, either by reducing the IRS’ workload or by providing adequate funding to enable it to accomplish its assigned mission.” Instead of cutting, we should be expanding the revenue-generating staff because there is plenty of tax money to be had, even in this awful economy. IRS data show that auditors assigned to the 14,000 or so largest corporations found $9,354 of additional tax owed for every hour spent testing tax returns in the 2009 fiscal year. The highest-paid IRS auditors make $71 an hour. Based on a 2,080-hour work year, that works out to around $19 million of lost revenue annually for every senior corporate auditor position cut from the payroll. WHY CUT? It makes no economic sense to trim the ranks of auditors who generate more than a hundred times their annual salaries. Run a business that way and you go broke. So why would President Barack Obama and Congress cut the IRS budget? Their actions illuminate the rise of corporate power and values, and the diminishing voice of Joe Sixpack, thanks partly to how we finance election campaigns. Then there is the growing army of corporate lobbyists and the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, which allows corporations (and unions) to spend all they can afford on influencing elections. Keep in mind the IRS costs just a half penny for each dollar of tax collected. Its proposed $11.8 billion budget would be less than the Agriculture Department spends each month. If the IRS budget is cut, the losers will be workers and ordinary investors, who will find it harder to get their questions answered and their problems resolved by the agency. On the whole, these people do not cheat on their taxes because their incomes are easily checked – through reports by employers, mortgage banks and others. Under a law taking effect in stages between last year and next, brokerages must report the cost basis of securities. This change will reduce capital gains cheating. TAX CHEATS The winners will be tax cheats among sole proprietors and other business owners, who are subject to less verification. The latest IRS tax gap report, issued Jan. 6, estimates that just one percent of wages escapes tax, while 56 percent of “amounts subject to little or no” verification do so. http://link.reuters.com/daw95s America’s biggest corporations, those with more than $250 million in assets, also may escape some tax if the IRS budget is cut. These nearly 14,000 companies pay about 86 percent of corporate income taxes. Audits of these big firms were down even without a budget cut. And audits have become far more complicated, partly because Congress changed the tax code more than once a day on average from 2001 through 2010, Olson reported. From 2005 to 2009, hours spent auditing the biggest corporations declined by 33 percent, according to IRS records analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University in New York. http://link.reuters.com/faw95s Two decades ago, when the economy was a third smaller, the IRS staff numbered about 118,000. Now it numbers 95,000 and is on the way to about 90,000. The likelihood of a big company being audited has plummeted 50 percentage points from 72 percent in 1990 to 22 percent in 2010. Big company audits are now limited to specific issues known to the companies in advance, not unlike when cops tip off owners of favored gambling dens before a raid. Each audit also begins with an “estimated time to completion.” Working auditors tell me this is really a hard deadline that allows companies to run out the clock with delays in producing documents. Some IRS tax detectives privately ridicule this system, calling it “audit lite.” Whether you like the corporate income tax or think it is an abomination, failing to enforce it with the same rigor as taxes on wage earners and most investors is indefensible on economic, budget deficit and moral grounds. IRS budget cuts worsen budget deficits and send a corrosive signal that only chumps file honest tax returns. So you have a choice. Do nothing and suffer the consequences or call your congressman, senators and the White House – today – and then vote in politicians who support, rather than undermine, tax law enforcement. (Editing By Howard Goller and Eddie Evans)

Read the full article →