time

Christine Pelosi: Realizing the Shared Vision Is Up to Us

February 7, 2011

I’m excited by the new venture: as long as HuffPost and AOL’s shared vision imagines creative contrarian content, this site will flourish. But that will depend as much on the community as it does the leadership. Candidly, when I first got the HuffPost-AOL news, my thoughts turned to another high-profile media marriage: Comcast-NBC and the temporally if not causally related cancellation of Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Naturally, my first worry was this: will HuffPo’s populist voices be Olbermanned by corporatist interests at AOL? But I scratched my head reading dozens of comments from folks who plan to leave HuffPost in protest of what they fear could happen in this regard rather than fighting for the site to retain its populist integrity. I’m blogging because I’m staying. Let’s consider our history. Arianna’s politics have changed but not her contrarian DNA. She evolved past the left-right paradigm long ago to a “beyond left and right” approach to politics in “Third World America.” Ahead of the post-partisan curve, Arianna moved the HuffPost emphasis from traditional partisan appeals to more organic policy, impact, and movement questions that challenge Democrats as much as Republicans. She — and we — turned a $1 million investment into a $315 million success, proving that questioning authority is good politics and good capitalism. Meanwhile, the community’s politics are diverse and trending populist. There are more progressives on HuffPost, but we are given no quarter by the community — we are given a forum and we are held accountable. I’m sure readers will prove that in your responses to this post as you have every other time. The leadership can help build trust by responding to dark fears with sunshine. One key test of this new HuffPost-AOL marriage will be whether we read about AOL’s corporate practices with the same sunlight that HuffPost has regularly asked of other institutions from media to banking to government entities. That alone would be transformative on our constant quest for Truth 2.0. (And yes I’ll be watching to see where they post this essay in order to determine whether they welcome the question). So before you leave here in protest of what you think might happen, consider the role you could play in retaining the vision of creative contrarian content, and keep lending your voice if you want Huffpost to retain its.

Read the full article →

GOP Budget-Cutting Plan Marks Political Gamble

February 7, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Republican drive to cut spending, which begins in earnest this week, marks a political gamble that the public’s hunger for smaller government will trump its appetite for benefits, subsidies and other federal support. Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., calls it the “$64,000 question,” and then promptly answers it. “People will be supportive of almost any decreases in spending as long as they believe they’re done in an open, equitable and fair manner,” said Price, a member of the party leadership. Democrats, already eyeing the 2012 elections, sound disbelieving. “I’m not sure which country they’re speaking to,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla. “How they think that slashing, dramatically slashing important programs is going to help jump start the economy is beyond me.” The polls make clear the potential risks for both sides. In an Associated Press-CNBC survey last November, shortly after Republicans scored large gains in the midterm elections, 87 percent of those polled said record federal deficits were likely to cause a major economic crisis over the next decade. Also, 85 percent said the cost of financing the federal debt would cause problems for their children or grandchildren. Yet only 47 percent said cutting spending should be a higher priority than increasing it on education, health care and alternative energy development, which was backed by 46 percent. In a CNN survey last month, those questioned said by an 81-18 margin that is was more important to prevent significant cuts to Medicare than to reduce the deficit. For Social Security, the split was 78-21. So far, the House has been awash in Republican rhetoric about spending cuts. But with Congress still getting organized for the year, relatively little actual chopping has occurred. The House voted to reduce its own budget, went on record in favor of eliminating federal subsidies for presidential candidates and party conventions, and cheered itself for setting goals for cuts. This changes in the coming week, when work begins on a bill to keep the government in operation after March 4, but at a level $35 billion lower than enacted for last year. “These cuts will not be easy, they will be broad and deep, they will affect every congressional district, but they are necessary and long overdue,” Rep. Hal Rogers of Kentucky, the House Appropriations Committee chairman, said in a statement. The cuts will be specific and on a large scale, for the first time, as Republicans tackle a federal deficit projected to reach $1.5 trillion this year, and an accumulated debt of more than $13 trillion. Whatever the longer-term ramifications, Republicans who were sworn into Congress for the first time last month are eager to begin. “I think people, even in government in my local communities, are saying, `Yeah, we get it. We understand. We have to do something,” said Rep. Sean Duffy, elected to a seat in Wisconsin long held by Democrat David Obey, who was chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over spending on domestic programs. “I don’t feel there’s a backlash even in the district that had the benefit of David Obey’s earmarks,” Duffy said. Added Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, in the Republican’s weekly radio and Internet address: “In order to get Americans back to work and create jobs, there is no limit to the amount of spending that we’re going to be willing to cut.” Already, it is evident that dozens of new Republicans, many backed by tea party supporters, want more, not less, when it comes to spending cuts. When the leadership directed that Rogers slice $35 billion, some conservatives said they want more. “I think you’re going to see it get below that” by the time the House sends the measure to the Senate, Duffy predicted. Last fall’s GOP Pledge to America cited a goal of $100 billion for the year, and even though the fiscal year is more than half over, that’s what many of the conservatives want as a strong first step. If that’s what the newcomers want, that’s probably what they will get, because when added to the ranks of conservatives who were elected previously, they command a majority of the House. Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has pledged to give individual lawmakers ample opportunity to seek changes during floor debate. Duffy and others have signed onto a proposal by the 175-member Republican Study Committee to eliminate dozens of programs as part of an attempt to reduce deficits by $2.5 trillion over a decade. Not all of that would come in the first bill to reach the floor. But no opportunity to press President Barack Obama and the Democrats will be overlooked. It’s likely that several short-term bills will be needed while negotiations play out on the measure to tide the government over to September. The new budget year begins Oct. 1. Republicans will want to ratchet down spending on each one, although Duffy and others say they want no part of a government shutdown. Shutdowns summon painful memories for an earlier generation of Republicans. When Speaker Newt Gingrich led the rank and file into one in 1995, President Bill Clinton used it to depict him and them as irresponsible radicals. Additionally, the Treasury Department has said Congress will need to raise its borrowing authority this spring. Boehner and other Republicans have said they will use that as leverage to force a series of changes in government spending habits. Republicans also will release a budget this spring that is likely to call for changes in benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare as well as other programs. Over the summer and fall, they will send the Senate a series of spending bills for the 2012 budget year. There will be plenty of opportunity to clash with Obama and try and reinforce Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell’s hand in negotiations with majority Democrats in the Senate. “There are 87 new freshmen on our side of the aisle who came here to save the country,” said Price. ___ EDITOR’S NOTE – David Espo is AP’s chief congressional correspondent.

Read the full article →

3 More Banks Shuttered, 14 Failures Already In 2011

February 5, 2011

WASHINGTON — Regulators on Friday shut down three small banks in Georgia and Illinois, bringing to 14 the number of bank failures in 2011 following last year’s tally of 157 amid the sagging economy and mounting bad loans. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. seized American Trust Bank, based in Roswell, Ga., with $238.2 million in assets and $222.2 million in deposits; North Georgia Bank of Watkinsville, Ga., with $153.2 million in assets and $139.7 million in deposits; and Chicago-based Community First Bank, with $51.1 million in assets and $49.5 million in deposits. Renasant Bank, based in Tupelo, Miss., agreed to assume $147.4 million of the assets and all the deposits of American Trust Bank. BankSouth, based in Greensboro, Ga., is assuming $123.9 million of the assets and all the deposits of North Georgia Bank. Northbrook Bank and Trust Co., based in Northbrook, Ill., is acquiring the assets and deposits of Community First Bank. In addition, the FDIC and Renasant Bank agreed to share losses on $94.3 million of American Trust Bank’s loans and other assets. The FDIC and BankSouth are sharing losses on $120.1 million of North Georgia Bank’s assets. The agency and Northbrook Bank and Trust are sharing losses on $42.8 million of Community First Bank’s assets. The failure of American Trust Bank is expected to cost the deposit insurance fund $71.5 million. The failure of North Georgia Bank is expected to cost $35.2 million; that of Northbrook Bank and Trust, $11.7 million. The two Georgia banks brought the number of failures in that state this year to four. Georgia has been one of the hardest-hit states for bank failures amid an avalanche of bad loans – especially for commercial real estate. Twenty-one banks were shuttered in the state last year. Other states that have seen large numbers of bank failures are Florida, California and Illinois. The 157 bank closures nationwide last year topped the 140 shuttered in 2009. It was the most in a year since the savings-and-loan crisis two decades ago. The FDIC has said that 2010 likely would be the peak for bank failures. Already this year the pace of closures has slowed: By this time last year, regulators had closed 16 banks. The 2009 failures cost the insurance fund about $36 billion. The failures last year cost around $21 billion, a lower price tag because the banks that failed in 2010 were on average smaller. Twenty-five banks failed in 2008, the year the financial crisis struck with force; only three succumbed in 2007. The growing number of bank failures has sapped billions of dollars out of the deposit insurance fund. It fell into the red in 2009, and its deficit stood at $8 billion as of Sept. 30. The number of banks on the FDIC’s confidential “problem” list rose to 860 in the third quarter of last year from 829 three months earlier. The 860 troubled banks is the highest number since 1993, during the savings-and-loan crisis. The FDIC expects the cost of resolving failed banks to total around $52 billion from 2010 through 2014. Depositors’ money – insured up to $250,000 per account – is not at risk, with the FDIC backed by the government. That insurance cap was made permanent in the financial overhaul law enacted in July.

Read the full article →

Hackers Reportedly Penetrated Nasdaq Computer Network Multiple Times

February 5, 2011

WASHINGTON — A federal government official tells The Associated Press that investigators are trying to identify computer hackers who have repeatedly broken into the network of the company that runs the Nasdaq Stock Market. The official says that the hackers haven’t compromised the exchange’s trading platform and that investigators are looking into a range of possible motives for the cyberattacks – from financial gain to a national security threat. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the inquiry by the FBI and Secret Service is continuing. The official says the penetrations occurred over the course of more than a year. The Wall Street Journal first reported on the hacking. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below. The computer network that runs the Nasdaq Stock Market has been penetrated by hackers multiple times during the past year, according to a newspaper report. The Wall Street Journal reported on its website late Friday that federal investigators are trying to identify the perpetrators and their motive. People familiar with the investigation say the exchange’s trading platform, the system which executes trades, was not compromised, according to the report. A person involved in the Nasdaq investigation told the newspaper that so far the perpetrators “appear to have just been looking around.” Nasdaq officials declined to comment. A telephone message left with the FBI’s office in New York was not immediately returned. Possible motives include financial gain, theft of trade secrets or a national security threat designed to damage the exchange, the newspaper said. The Secret Service initiated the probe involving New York-based Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. last year. White House officials also have been informed. Investigators have not yet been able to track the cyber break-ins to any specific individual or country, but people with knowledge of the case told the newspaper some evidence points to Russia. However, they point out that hackers could be just using Russia as a conduit. In 1999, a group of hackers calling itself “United Loan Gunmen” infiltrated the computer that runs the websites for Nasdaq and the American Stock Exchange. The hackers left a taunting message and also claimed to have briefly created for itself an e-mail account on Nasdaq’s computer system, suggesting a broader breach in security. But at the time, Nasdaq officials said there was no evidence they manipulated financial data.

Read the full article →

Robert Lenzner: JP Morgan May Be Complicit in Madoff Scam

February 4, 2011

JP Morgan could be “complicit”, i.e. aiding and abetting the Madoff Ponzi scheme, by omission — that is not fulfilling its duty as a fiduciary — as well as by commission, according to white collar lawyers I have consulted today. It did not have to be an active partner in the Ponzi Scheme to be found guilty of a civil liability, lawyers say. Rather, the bank’s omission would be ignoring several red flags — troublesome signs of potential fraud — and never investigating their accuracy or meaning. The bank did not fulfill its requirement to investigate Madoff fully and so could be found to be compliant in the scam. Nevertheless, JPM denies being a party to the fraud and tries to defend its role by insisting that Madoff was not a major client of the bank. It apparently received many signs of trouble, but generally ignored or neglected these signs, according to the complaint filed yesterday. The suit alleges that JP Morgan earned approximately $500 million from servicing Madoff. There were numerable red flags, starting in 2002, that the bank never sought to pin down. Once the bank believed that Madoff’s performance figures were not possible in 2002, when the stock market was down 30%, JP Morgan Chase had a duty to cease its banking services and report Madoff to the authorities, some lawyers believe. JP Morgan, which was Madoff’s main banker, never investigated the reasons for hundreds of millions of dollars being transferred from Madoff’s account in New York to one in London — and then back to New York again. At the very least, JP Morgan was lax in not reporting these movements of cash to authorities under the requirements of regulations covering the issue of money laundering, say lawyers. In another instance, there were serious doubts about the due diligence done by a feeder fund to Madoff’s operation. In other words, the nation’s second largest bank, heretofore relatively unscathed, may be forced to settle the $6.4 billion suit brought against it by the bankruptcy trustee for Madoff’s firm, Irving Picard. In fact, it was not until 2008 — several months before Madoff came clean about the scam, that JP Morgan told Britain’s Organized Crime Agency that Madoff’s investment performance appeared to be “too good to be true.” This move came only after a bank employee in London had been threatened with physical injury by an officer of Swiss-based feeder fund Aurelia, who was trying to withdraw money from the Madoff fund in London. That is a shockingly long time for the bank to wait before informing the authorities. Mind you, JP Morgan did not then or any other time inform either the SEC, the Justice Department or the Treasury about its suspicions about Madoff. Not a particularly impressive performance by the House of Morgan. Better clean house of those patsies, Jamie.

Read the full article →

Fred Whelan and Gladys Stone: Where Will You Be A Month From Now?

February 4, 2011

You’re a month into your New Year’s Resolution, everything is going great and you’re putting your friends to shame. Good for you. Your “no excuses” strategy has paid off and if you keep this up you’ll reach your goal by the end of the year. Problem is you have a last minute business trip this week and an unexpected house guest next week which is going to throw you off. Still it’s only a couple of weeks and you can get back on track by mid-February. Riiiiiight. Think of what plagued you the last time you couldn’t achieve a goal. No matter what the reason was, you didn’t accomplish it because you stopped taking action towards it. Things may have started like this time. You had a good month, and then a couple of things got in the way and you lost all of your momentum. Unfortunately, you never regained it. It’s okay to get temporarily derailed. The key is to keep temporary from becoming permanent. This sort of thing happens all the time at work. You have a project with a corresponding deadline and something urgent comes up. You either work around the clock to get both done or negotiate for an extended deadline on the project. The project gets done, it doesn’t get dropped. CEO’s know that unexpected things will occur – everything from product recalls to a key executive leaving. Things might get delayed but they’re not given up on. Part of succeeding in business is overcoming the hurdles, dealing with the unexpected and getting the thing done. While you can do that for work, it’s sometimes harder to do that for your own personal goals. One reason is that it’s easy to slough off if you’re only accountable to yourself. Why do we let ourselves off the hook so easily? Mainly because we’re only letting ourselves down. Too bad there can’t be a project meeting about your personal goal. Since being accountable to yourself is more difficult, the best way to get back on track is to think about your motivation around the goal. Tap into the desire that you had at the outset – the reason you wanted to be promoted, lose10 pounds or write that book. Here’s how to reignite your motivation: look at a picture of your end goal every day. Keep it fresh by getting a new visual every month; keep taking steps towards your goal. Even if the steps are small, each step has you moving forward and puts you in a rhythm. People who consistently reach goals aren’t necessarily smarter or more energetic. What they are is persistent and everybody has that ability. So, the next time you have the flu or a holiday intervenes – like Presidents Day :) – use the suggestions above to get back into the rhythm. Then you’ll know where you’ll be a month from now – tracking towards your goal! “Vitality shows in not only the ability to persist but the ability to start over.” ~F. Scott Fitzgerald Fred & Gladys Whelan Stone Executive Search and Coaching Authors of GOAL! Your 30 Day Career Plan for Business & Career Success

Read the full article →

Penny Herscher: White-Collar Americans Are Guilty Until Proven Innocent

February 4, 2011

Americans have a legal right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and yet for white-collar workers, that’s nice in theory but simply not the case in practice. I am CEO of a California software company and saw this issue up close a few days ago. We are hiring right now. My team and I follow a rigorous hiring process — screen resumes, look for experience fit, interview on the phone, interview in person, discuss the candidate as a team, reference check and then hire. We look for skills, experience and values — will the candidate be a great fit for our open position and our company? Will they be successful working with us? I have been interviewing candidates over the past month and was sent the resume of an individual currently charged in the active New York insider trading case . NY prosecutors have charged six employees of high-tech firms and the expert network service Primary Global Research with leaking and profiting from sharing insider information with hedge funds. The state is proceeding against both high-tech insiders who allegedly leaked confidential information — like Walter Shimoon from Flextronics — and the conduit of the information to the hedge funds like PGR employee James Fleishman . And today the SEC piled on with additional charges of insider trading. My candidate was one of the six accused individuals. He had an excellent experience fit for the position we have open and, because he was a qualified candidate, and I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty, I explored the next step and consulted with my lawyers at Wilson Sonsini on the risks of bringing him in for interview and potentially hiring him. Bottom line — it’s not practical to hire someone in a customer-facing position who is facing criminal charges. My lawyer’s advice was pragmatic: The individual won’t be available 100 percent of the time to do the job. If you live and work in California, but you are being prosecuted in New York, you are going to have to take time out to travel, stand in court and defend your liberty. That’s going to be more important than any job. They’ll be distracted. Successful sales takes 1,000 percent focus, especially in this economy just emerging from a recession. You can’t afford to be distracted by anything. If the employee fights for their innocence they’ll be fighting for months or years — if they plead guilty and cooperate with the state in order to reduce their sentence or not serve any time then they are a convicted felon. And the toughest reason for a CEO to hear: Your company will be painted with their tainted brush if you put that person in a customer facing position. This is because you would have knowingly hired someone the government has stated is fraudulent — and if a customer has a dispute with your company that fact will hurt your defense. Your company will be presumed to be OK with fraud and on the defensive as a result. If we, as a business community, truly believed each person is innocent until proven guilty, then our customer base would be fine with us hiring someone under indictment, but my lawyers were right to advise me as they did. I checked. Most customers would not want to work with someone under indictment — it would be uncomfortable for them, and my company would be tainted. Most customers (and employees) would doubt and assume there is compelling evidence or the government would not have charged the candidate. I find myself terribly conflicted in the situation. I’m a CEO with a responsibility to my company and my employees, and yet I am a private citizen with faith in the law. I did not proceed with the candidate because I recognize that the law is our culture’s minimum moral standard, not the maximum, and so as a CEO I had to make a gray-area judgment that I did not like. The harsh reality for white-collar workers is that ” doubt is as powerful a bond as uncertainty ,” and in our current business climate, if accused by the State, they are at a practical level guilty until proven innocent.

Read the full article →

Financial Crisis Prosecutions On Wall Street Slow To Develop Despite Cries For Justice

February 4, 2011

NEW YORK — After the last major banking crisis, some two decades ago, roughly 3,800 bankers were prosecuted and sentenced to prison terms, by the Justice Department’s count. Yet this time, some four years after the economy descended into the most punishing financial crisis since the Great Depression, the public still waits for the Obama administration to deliver a similar kind of justice. The 2007-’09 financial crisis was “avoidable,” a bipartisan, congressionally-appointed panel concluded last week. Mortgage fraud “flourished” in the run up to the collapse. Securities fraud was apparently widespread. “Lenders made loans that they knew borrowers could not afford and that could cause massive losses to investors in mortgage securities,” the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission wrote in its report on the causes of the collapse . About $1 trillion worth of home loans made from 2005 to 2007 were “fraudulent,” the commission said, citing testimony from experts. The Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, told the commission that she defined fraud to include lenders’ “sale of unaffordable or structurally-unfair mortgage products to borrowers.” And yet, the perp walk so many Americans crave — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner once referred to it as the “very deep public desire for Old Testament justice” — hasn’t occurred. Wall Street figures have largely gone untouched. Bank directors kept their jobs. In a sign that perhaps the fallout from the crisis has passed, outsized compensation is back. “People need to go to jail,” said Liz Ryan Murray, policy director of National People’s Action, an advocacy organization that helped launch the website CrimeShouldntPay.com. “If you steal something, you go to jail. If you falsify documents, you go to jail. Why doesn’t that apply to big bank executives?” Officials from the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission have been asked those questions before — often during testimony before various congressional panels. DOJ prosecutes crimes, while the SEC files civil cases, though it can also refer cases to Justice for criminal prosecution. But those powers haven’t been used enough, experts say. The law-enforcement agencies suffer from a lack of combativeness. They’re handicapped by the fact that they’re looking at potential violations not while they’re in the act, but long after they were committed. And they deal with complicated transactions that could be difficult to explain to juries, rendering their efforts to take cases to trial more challenging. “These are tremendously difficult cases to make,” said retired federal judge Stanley Sporkin, who worked at the SEC for 20 years, seven of them as head of the commission’s enforcement division. Referring to the most prevalent allegations of fraud, those involving home mortgages and the financial instruments they were packed into, Sporkin said law enforcement is likely having trouble “finding where it started, what the person did, and where the fraud is.” Last year, the Justice Department promised to take swift action. “By taking dramatic action, our goal is not just to hold accountable those whose conduct may have contributed to the last meltdown, but to deter such future conduct as well,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in January 2010 during testimony before the crisis commission. A year later, that action hasn’t materialized, despite evidence of conduct that would seem to merit it. Last week, the Federal Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded that banks that sold home-loan bonds often didn’t disclose key details that would have helped investors accurately judge the quality of the investments. Investors were rarely told, for example, whether the mortgages failed to meet the banks’ own standards. That failure raises “the question of whether the disclosures were materially misleading, in violation of the securities laws,” the crisis commission said. It referred several financial-industry figures to law enforcement for potential prosecution. “I’m frustrated,” former Sen. Ted Kaufman told Lanny Breuer, the assistant attorney general heading the Justice Department’s criminal division, and Robert Khuzami, head of enforcement at the SEC, during a September hearing. “We have seen very little in the way of senior officer- or boardroom-level prosecutions of the people on Wall Street who brought this country to the brink of financial ruin. Why is that? Is it because none of the behavior in question was criminal? Is it because too much time passed before the investigators got serious? I mean is it — has the trail gone cold?” Or, the Delaware Democrat asked, “Is it because the law favors the wealthy and powerful?” Jeff Connaughton, Kaufman’s former chief of staff, said prosecutors and enforcement officials at the SEC aren’t being aggressive enough. Last November, Connaughton delivered a stinging speech to about 300 regulators and Wall Street executives at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York slamming law enforcement’s response to the financial crisis. Fraud was at the heart of the crisis, he said. And law enforcement’s response has been inadequate, to the point that it is unlikely to deter future financial fraud. “Where are the cases?” Connaughton asked. “There have been many successful cases brought against mortgage brokers, as well as an impressive list of recent cases against Ponzi schemes and insider trading.” But after the Justice Department in 2009 lost a high-profile case against two hedge-fund managers at the defunct investment firm Bear Stearns Cos., Connaughton noted, there have not been any additional criminal indictments at major firms for behavior connected with the financial crisis. “They realized how difficult it is to make a case” in the litigation against Bear Stearns, Sporkin said. “These are not easy cases.” Sporkin added that the SEC and the Justice Department may now be “gun-shy.” In September, Kaufman said he had thus far “waited in vain for the sort of prosecutions that we predicted would come” as a result of the financial industry’s near-collapse. “Criminals on Wall Street must be held to account,” he said. DOJ and SEC spokesmen declined to make officials available to answer questions on the record. Instead, the spokesmen referred questions to previous congressional testimony and public speeches. The SEC said it had pursued executives at New Century Financial, once the nation’s second-largest subprime mortgage lender; Goldman Sachs Group; Citigroup; and a top executive at Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, once the nation’s largest nonbank mortgage lender. Most of those cases have been settled. “We’ve brought a series of important enforcement actions in areas that most people associate with the financial crisis, and recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors in those cases,” Lorin Reisner, deputy director of the SEC’s enforcement division, wrote in an email. But, he added, “there is more work to be done.” The Justice Department also indicted the Taylor, Bean & Whitaker executive, Lee B. Farkas, and is said to be pursing a criminal investigation of Angelo Mozilo, the former chief executive of Countrywide Financial, once the nation’s biggest mortgage lender. In a November speech, Breuer, the assistant attorney general, touted Justice’s few victories and explained the department’s philosophy. It’s emblematic of law enforcement’s overall tone towards the financial sector, experts say. “There are some who, despite this track record, have expressed disappointment that we have not yet criminally prosecuted the leading financial institutions or their principals for conduct that may have helped lead to the financial crisis,” Breuer said Nov. 4 in New York. “Though I can certainly understand the impulse and desire to hold someone accountable, I also want to stress an equally important principle – that we can, and will, only bring charges when the facts and the law convince us that we can prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Added Breuer: “We simply can’t, and won’t, indict people based on outrage or suspicion alone.” While he oversaw the SEC’s enforcement division, Sporkin took a different approach. The former judge, who also served as general counsel at the Central Intelligence Agency after he left the SEC, said his philosophy could best be described as “getting in the first strike.” “What I tried to do was be ahead of the curve,” Sporkin said. “Rather than react, I was looking for the issues and then striking almost as you would in a war.” Sporkin’s team, he said, looked for laws that enabled them to go after what they viewed as fraudulent activity. “We were being instinctive. We were using our abilities to say, ‘What the hell is going on here?’ and then using the law to go after” corporations and Wall Street firms engaged in wrongdoing, he said. Sporkin’s approach stands opposite that of today’s law enforcement, said Joshua Rosner, managing director at independent research consultancy Graham Fisher & Co. “In the old days, [the SEC] was not shy about bringing actions against even the largest firms and would litigate,” Rosner said. “The offender knew that settling without admission of wrongdoing was not an option.” Rosner said the risk that prosecution poses to a firm’s reputation is much more effective when trying to change future behavior, as opposed to the SEC’s current approach of settlements and fines. He added that the SEC appears to be going after small-time crooks, rather than big firms on Wall Street. “The SEC might as well list the penalties today so banks can just build it into their necessary rates of returns on infractions — kind of like the back of a parking ticket,” he said. The former SEC enforcement chief said another problem hindering current prosecution of financiers is the lack of dramatics associated with today’s financial crimes. “You got to make it sound like it’s somebody coming to you, knocking on your head, and taking money out of your pocket,” Sporkin said of his approach to juries and explaining financial wrongdoing to the public. “You just can’t try these as some kind of academic case.” “Too bad he’s not at the SEC now,” Rosner said of Sporkin. Likewise, Connaughton, Sen. Kaufman’s former chief of staff, said law enforcement “needs someone like a Stanley Sporkin.” Even Sporkin, however, stressed that prosecutors and enforcement attorneys at the SEC face an uphill battle. “How do you tell a jury that a person who didn’t disclose something in a report should go to jail?” he asked. “These are hard cases to dramatize.” ************************* Shahien Nasiripour is a business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail ; bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed ; follow him on Twitter ; friend him on Facebook ; become a fan ; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

Read the full article →

CFPB May Crowdsource Payday Lender Crackdown

February 3, 2011

WASHINGTON — The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rolled out a preliminary version of its website on Thursday, and with it a few indications about the agency’s plans to crowdsource prospective regulations that may soon target shady payday lenders. The CFPB hopes to use its website at consumerfinance.gov to collect data not just from banks, but from consumers, in order to monitor trends in various lending markets. While they’re still devising specific plans, the agency hopes to have an active public presence, with a simple, closely-watched platform for borrowers to submit complaints. Elizabeth Warren, an adviser to President Barack Obama who is charged with setting up the bureau, told HuffPost in October that she hopes to use crowdsourcing to enhance the regulator’s impact. One of the agency’s crowdsourcing initiatives may involve payday lenders and check-cashing shops. Because these businesses are often small operations, they can be difficult for federal officials to track, appearing in a neighborhood only to disappear a few weeks later. Citizens could organize to take photos of new payday lending or check cashing products, and upload those photos to the CFPB website. That could help notify other members of the neighborhood about potentially-troublesome local companies, as well as helping the regulator build a list of shops to investigate. As Warren said in a speech at the University of California at Berkeley in October, “Through crowd-sourcing technology, consumers can deal collectively with those who would take advantage of them–and can reward those who provide excellent products and services.” Payday lenders provide short-term, high-interest loans to consumers that critics say are designed to be difficult to repay, often encouraging consumers to repay one payday loan with another. This can lead to a vicious — and expensive — cycle of debt. Members of the U.S. military are a particular target for high-interest lenders. A 2006 Department of Defense report concluded that payday lending was having a negative effect on military readiness and troop morale. The CFPB is yet to formally detail any specific programs, but the bureau hopes to submit new consumer-protection ideas to the public on its website and allow borrowers to voice approval or disapproval through an online voting system. The bureau’s website stresses the struggles facing borrowers. A “Protecting You” page features three stories from borrowers who have had problems with their bank, emphasizing that the CFPB hopes to respond to similar cases. The new website’s design represents a considerable change of tone from the consumer-complaint resources available from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, previously the ostensible go-to for borrowers. The OCC’s consumer call center, based in Houston, has long been criticized by state banking regulators and public-interest groups for being inattentive to consumer complaints. In December 2007 testimony before the House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, Ed Mierzwinski, Consumer Affairs Director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, noted that some state regulators referred to the call center as “OCC’s black hole in Houston.” The OCC, which declined to comment for this story, rolled out its helpwithmybank.gov website in 2007 in response to criticism that its call center is clunky, but many consumer advocates say the regulator remains clunky and unhelpful. The banking horror stories on the CFPB’s site are reproduced below: Karen, 32, is an airport security supervisor from Pennsylvania. When she refinanced her mortgage, her broker promised her a low fixed-rate loan but instead gave her two more expensive loans. Why? She didn’t know it at the time, but giving her both a large adjustable-rate first loan and a second smaller loan increased the fees she paid to the broker. Karen told the lender what she had in savings and her income, but the broker changed the numbers on her form. (Some brokers changed numbers in order to make borrowers eligible for higher loan amounts than they could otherwise qualify for–and to close a deal for a bigger mortgage that will give the broker bigger fees.) The broker scheduled Karen for a late-night closing and did not give her the closing documents at the time of closing, so she was not aware of these changes. The consumer bureau will work to prevent similar abuses, in part by enforcing the requirement in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that mortgage lenders document and verify a borrower’s income or assets before making a loan to ensure that the borrower can afford to repay it. Robin, 55, is a seventh-grade science teacher from Georgia. Her credit card company increased the rate on her existing credit card balance from 10.90% to 17.90%, even though she paid her account on time every month. The increase has been particularly difficult for her family because her husband’s landscaping business has been hard hit recently by the financial crisis. The consumer bureau will enforce the Credit CARD Act, which President Obama signed in 2009 to ban credit card issuers from arbitrarily raising rates on existing balances and other unfair practices. The CFPB will also be responsible for updating the credit card rules moving forward. Andrew, 62, is a retired Baltimore police officer and Vietnam veteran who manages a fitness center for seniors. Andrew had both a primary checking account and a separate “veteran’s account” in which he received $123 in benefits each month. In 2009, his bank made a mistake that caused confusion about a replacement debit card for one of his accounts. The bank had also automatically enrolled Andrew’s veteran’s account, including transactions using the debit card, in “overdraft” protection that he never asked for–a practice that has since been prohibited. When Andrew used the replacement card–expecting it to withdraw from his primary checking account–he was hit with hundreds of dollars in overdraft fees on his veteran’s account. Andrew discovered the bank’s error and explained the situation, but the bank was willing to refund only part of the fees. The consumer bureau will examine big banks to ensure that they are following the rules that now require banks to give consumers a real choice of whether to join overdraft protection programs for ATM and debit card transactions. The CFPB will update those rules to respond to changes in the marketplace over time.

Read the full article →

Learning To Walk: Fear, Shame And Your Underwater Mortgage

February 3, 2011

WASHINGTON — Nearly one in every four homeowners across the country owe more on their home than it’s worth. Once a month, those 10.8 million are faced with a question that cuts to the core of the American Dream and offers a confusing collision between a deep-seated sense of personal obligation and a cold, simple business calculation: Should I pay my mortgage? For decades, there was only one answer for most people: Of course I should keep paying, it’s the right thing to do. Besides, the argument went, a home is a great investment. Today, in the wake of the most seismic housing collapse in the nation’s history, that logic has increasingly been challenged by homeowners despondent about their lack of options. Although researchers find that some underwater borrowers who could continue paying their mortgages strategically default anyway, the vast majority continue to pay. Many homeowners, out of a combined sense of fear, shame, courage and morality, resist making what is otherwise a logical financial decision. Walking away from a home, however, is more than the sum of a few business decisions. For many homeowners, it’s either an act of civic defiance against a system they no longer buy into or the end result of being shuffled around by institutions that don’t help them solve their financial problems. While walking away is a frightening and dangerous step into the unknown, millions have beaten the path in the past few years. To find out what it’s like to walk away, The Huffington Post asked readers who were considering making the move, or who had already done so, to write in and share their stories. That was in January 2010. A year later, we followed up with them to see how they reflected on the experience. We initially heard from 58 people from all over the country who fit the criteria. Ten of them have become unreachable over the past year, but the remaining 48 were eager to share their stories. A year later, only eight of them are still paying their mortgage. Some requested anonymity because of the shame associated with foreclosure; others requested it because they don’t want to draw retribution from the banks. But there were those who were happy to share their tales on the record. Almost universally, the homeowners we spoke with took personal responsibility for their situations, declining to blame the banks or politicians. Yet nearly all of them faced similar struggles in their attempts to work with their banks: lost paperwork and little interest in finding a financial compromise. The hostility people felt from their banks made the decision to walk away easier for many, and some now even revel in it, celebrating a break from a system they see as rigged against them. “We get daily calls from creditors and banks that threaten this and that, and I just laugh knowing I am helping to bring down the system that has brought us all down and continues to reap giant profits at the expense of the little guy,” said one. Others are still haunted with shame by the decision. Most said they felt a mix of both. Many of the homeowners said they felt alone and powerless in their interactions with the banks and were curious to hear what other people in similar situations had to say. “There should be support groups for people who have to deal with these banks,” said Richmond Burton, 50, a soon-to-be-former resident of Long Island’s East Hampton. “It can drive you crazy. I’m very good at dealing with pressure, and they made it feel like you’re at their mercy.” Following Burton’s suggestion, HuffPost contacted Meetup.com and set up the infrastructure for underwater homeowners to do just that. This coming Tuesday, homeowners across the country can use Meetup’s tool to organize small gatherings of homeowners who have walked away or who have considered doing it. Often, the best advice comes from a neighbor. Burton’s effort to get out from under his home became a second job, he said. “I never would have thought that the American Dream was to not own a home, but that’s what mine became. I’m not ever going to take another mortgage. If I can avoid it, I’m not ever going to borrow money again,” said Burton. After years of failing to get approval for a “short sale” of his home, or even a decent mortgage modification, Burton said he stopped paying in August 2009 to help himself financially and to get his bank’s attention. (A short sale occurs when lenders accept a sum less than the outstanding value than a mortgage loan, in lieu of forcing a borrower into foreclosure.) He contacted HuffPost several months later and said he was still trying to get a short sale approved or persuade the bank to take the house in exchange for simply letting him walk away. The bank was refusing. When we reconnected a year later, he said he had just signed documents that would let him walk away without a penalty, but he was forfeiting his $120,000 down payment. What did it feel like to walk away from that much money? “It feels great,” Burton said without hesitation. “I’m starting again. I’ve still got my talent, I’ve got my intelligence. I’ve got my health. At least I’m free of the enormous amount of stress that I had and the frustration of doing the best I could and it wasn’t good enough. It wasn’t working. Ultimately, I made a decision that my physical and mental health was more valuable than this house and my investment in it.” Burton went more than a year without paying his mortgage before persuading the bank to accept a short sale. “The mortgage company was not wiling to work with me. The businesses that we have created to serve us are enslaving us. They’re not listening to us, they don’t even pretend to care about us. Really, our only option is to do what I’m doing, which is to fire them all. I’m doing everything I can to remove them from my life,” he said. Lenders and servicers say such decisions will destroy borrowers’ credit record and render them non-entities in the U.S. economy. Burton said that when he bought his Long Island home in 2000, his credit score had been somewhere in the 600s, an average figure. He allowed HuffPost to run his credit score through Equifax, one of three major credit-monitoring bureaus. As of Tuesday, after his ordeal of three years, his score is 614 — below average, but not savaged. A few months ago, he had no trouble buying an iPhone. He ignores the many credit card solicitations that come his way. The purpose of HuffPost’s investigation was not to determine who or what was to blame for the predicament that the homeowners found themselves in or whether they are deserving of sympathy — twin concerns that dominate the foreclosure discussion and will no doubt continue with ferocity in the comment section below this story. Our question was more direct: What are the costs and benefits of walking away from an underwater mortgage — not for the banks or the neighborhood or for society as a whole, but for the real people making the decision? MORAL STRUGGLE When Ernie Soto first wrote HuffPost, his mechanic business was falling apart and he was behind on his mortgage. Efforts to modify his loan had gone nowhere and he was considering filing for bankruptcy, walking away and buying a mobile trailer for his family to live in. “We laugh about it now, but we went through hell and back and back to hell,” he said a year later, after filing for bankruptcy and telling the bank it could have the house. Rock bottom came when he drove to the local vet to have his dog put to sleep. The repo man was in the parking lot. “I can’t leave until I take your truck,” he told Soto, 47. “It was just another low moment in our lives,” Soto said. Soto drained his savings paying the mortgage so he could keep his credit score high and maintain hope that a loan would come through for his small business. But it never did. Shortly after writing to HuffPost at the beginning of 2010, he and his family walked away. “We’d had enough. We moved to a trailer park, a mobile home. We bought my dad’s RV, figured we’ve gotta live somewhere.” Technically, Soto still owns his home and he routinely finds gigantic bills in his mail. At this point, he says, he can only chuckle darkly at the letters. The bank doesn’t seem to understand that he has walked away, that he’s done with them. Had he realized it would take his bank so long to foreclose, he said, he could have stayed in his house for free, but he was afraid that his bank would move faster than the guy who repossessed his truck. And didn’t want to put his family through the trauma of an eviction. “I was in unfamiliar territory. I don’t lose houses every so often,” he said. “I was thinking it’d be like the car, they’d come throw me out in three months.” Soto, a conservative Republican, said he has come to terms with his choice. “It was a tough decision. We thought about it and thought about it. I want to do the honorable thing, but wait a minute here — I didn’t get respect from the mortgage companies when I was asking for help. I didn’t get respect from the banks when I was asking for help. Now here we are, we bailed everybody out,” he said. “Am I just supposed to be the good Samaritan and just stay there? I asked the mortgage company, ‘What’s gonna keep me from giving you the keys?’” Banks are responding to that question by using their power in Washington — influence purchased with the checks people send to their banks each month — to make it financially tougher to liberate oneself from an underwater mortgage, just as millions are on the brink of making their break. ‘THERE IS SUCH A THING IN THE BIBLE’ Shelley Kluz said she saw a house in her neighborhood just like her own selling for $90,000. “It made me sick to my stomach, because we were already house-poor,” she said of the place she and her husband paid $325,000 for in 2004. Her husband, she said, wanted to cling to the house, but she wanted out, with three kids in a 960-square-foot home in Vacaville, Calif. “It was a big moral decision for us. We talked to our pastor, talked to our parents and had a really hard time coming to grips with the idea that we might not pay our mortgage, because we were always the people who paid their bills,” she said. The pastor said that if making the payments was harming the family, it was okay to walk away. “There is such a thing in the Bible as debt forgiveness,” she said. “We didn’t want to get in bad with God, doing something morally He thinks is awful.” In July 2009, on the informal advice of a bank representative, the Kluzes stopped paying their mortgage to encourage their bank to approve a short sale. The bank initially accepted a short sale offer, but the couple was told that investors had later rejected it. The bank suggested Shelley Kluz apply for a modification, apparently unaware she’d been trying for the past year. She did so anyway and was rejected. The family was still in the house when she wrote to HuffPost in early 2010. “We are in a weird limbo state of waiting. So, long story short, we are walking away. We are so fed up with this whole process,” she wrote at the time. Six months later, she and her family moved out, a year after they stopped paying. For $1,550, she said, they now rent a three-bedroom, two-bath home with a yard in the front and back — a feature their first home, with a monthly mortgage payment of $2,250, did not have. The new home is twice the size of the old one with twice as many bathrooms. Their old home was foreclosed upon a month after they left and, Shelley Kluz said, is still on the market for $142,000. They only moved five minutes away, she said, and she still drives by it occasionally. Her 7-year-old has taken it the hardest, having known no other home, she said, followed by her husband. “I think that’s just a guy thing,” she said. “I think he was more emotionally invested in the house because he spent a lot of his free time fixing it up. And then there was the whole stigma of being part of the foreclosure crisis.” “The American Dream, I don’t think that that’s really something that everyone should aspire to. There’s more to life than owning a home,” said the 37-year-old mother of three children. “This teaches you, what do you place value on? A piece of property? What things are really important?” Her family, she said, felt guilty about not upholding their end of the contract. “But that said, it was the best thing we could have done. Since we walked away, our house has only dropped further and we had no hope of getting out from under it,” she said. Now, “We actually have available spending money to do fun things with our family, we pay less money for a completely finished house, my kids have a backyard with grass, and best of all, we can breathe.” ‘PEOPLE SHOULDN’T FEEL ASHAMED’ Del Phillips stopped paying on his Chicago condo in November 2009, two months before he contacted HuffPost and 10 months after he lost his job. His short sale efforts were rejected and he was denied a modification because, according to a letter sent to him by his bank, his “unemployment is not of a permanent nature.” He was also rejected by Obama’s Home Affordable Mortgage Program, he said. He took his story to the local press and was stunned at the vicious response from readers. “We encourage people to work hard, get an education and strive for things. But, when there’s a bump along the way and we need a helping hand for a short time, we’re spit at without any support,” he said. “For a country that touts its devout following of Christianity — which is rooted in the teachings of a Jesus who said to love thy neighbor and help thy brother and sister — it was really a fun lesson in hypocrisy.” And the reality was that every institution Philips dealt with — from the government to his bank — offered him no choice but to walk away. Phillips filed for bankruptcy and plans to move out in March, knowing he could be foreclosed on any moment. More than 15 months of paying only the condo association fees helped him get by during his jobless stretch. And the bank was right: his unemployment was not permanent. He found a job in October that will pay enough for him to afford to rent when he moves — this coming Saturday, 16 months after he stopped paying his mortgage. “I feel like we have a stigma on things like bankruptcy, but those people shouldn’t feel ashamed,” Phillips said. “Yes, some people abuse, like Teresa on ‘Real Housewives,’ but I’m hoping everyday people who are going through this can find some strength in what I’ve done and ask, ‘Why should I care about the bank if the bank doesn’t care about me?’” Despite his bankruptcy, he said, he has more offers for credit cards than he can handle. HAPPIER, BUT NOT PROUD Andrea of Oakland, Calif., who let her property go into foreclosure last year, says it was “clearly financially the thing to do.” After buying her first condo in the Oakland foothills, her property’s value dropped from $440,000 to $250,000 in just three years, and her marriage fell apart. “In terms of quality of life and emotional pressure, I’m much happier now,” said the 38-year-old Andrea, who didn’t want her last name used in this story. Now she pays $1,500 a month for an apartment in Rockridge, one of the East Bay’s most coveted areas. Its leafy streets and atmospheric cafes make it a particularly desirable neighborhood for singles. In some cases, the mortgage money not going to banks finds its way into the local economy and gives walk-aways an ability to breathe easier. “I bought groceries and not just a few bags, but the liberating feeling of filling ones pantry for a change,” says Zannah Becker, who stopped paying her mortgage in Seattle. “I did not have to walk to the market with calculator in one hand and coupons in the other and make choices between what we had to have to get by and a few simple extras like a bottle of diet soda for my husband or a small treat for our daughter.” Having worked as a loan assistant, Andrea told HuffPost she initially thought she’d be able to navigate the system. “I figured I would be well-equipped in my knowledge from my previous job about how to figure it out,” she said, “and I was shocked honestly at their level of disinterest — it was either disinterest on their part in working it out, or lack a of just being organized. But to me, them not being organized to work it out was a symptom of there not being a financial incentive for them to work it out.” When the bank finally foreclosed on her, Andrea said she just let it happen — she felt there was nothing else she could do. “I had gotten in over my head, and I had gone through a divorce, and I was struggling to re-balance my life financially,” she said. When asked if she had advice for homeowners in similar situations, she said people shouldn’t be afraid of walking away. “I think if someone is being responsible and trying to work it out, and they give it everything they can, then it’s okay to do what you have to do, like a business would,” she said. “A lot a lot of people are going through it right now, so maybe five or 10 years down the road, there won’t be so much stigma.” Still, she asked HuffPost to keep her full name a secret. “To be honest, it’s just embarrassing and not something I’m proud of,” she said. Shaming homeowners is one option for a bank dealing with someone who has made the calculation that they are better off walking, and that’s part of the pressure to stay that homeowners we spoke to felt. Homeowners also say they’ve felt little support from the federal government, particularly through its highly-touted, and largely ineffective, Home Affordable Mortgage Program, or HAMP. The Obama administration set up the program to help homeowners modify their mortgages but very little modification has occurred. In fact, HAMP may have been more helpful to banks than to homeowners A group of senior Treasury officials, which included Secretary Tim Geithner, admitted as much to financial bloggers at a meeting this summer. “Officials pointed out that what may have been an agonizing process for individuals was a useful palliative for the system as a whole,” wrote one blogger of the meeting. “Even if most HAMP applicants ultimately default, the program prevented an outbreak of foreclosures exactly when the system could have handled it least…The program was successful in the sense that it kept the patient alive until it had begun to heal. And the patient of this metaphor was not a struggling homeowner, but the financial system, a.k.a. the banks.” Politicians and the media tag-teamed homeowners thinking of walking away last summer. Republicans cited the Wall Street Journal in successfully pushing language through the House that would punish strategic defaulters. “The Wall Street Journal has reported on families that have chosen to stop paying their mortgage and instead use the extra money they are saving each month to ‘buy season tickets to Disneyland…take a Carnival cruise to Mexico…’ and go out to dinner more often,” reads an email from a top House floor staffer GOP offices. House Republican leadership in an e-mail to colleagues explaining the anti-strategic-default effort. The legislation didn’t become law, but it sent a signal. Fannie Mae, the government-owned titan of the mortgage industry, has also been ready to warn homeowners about their financial duties. “Walking away from a mortgage is bad for borrowers and bad for communities and our approach is meant to deter the disturbing trend toward strategic defaulting,” Terence Edwards, a Fannie executive, said in a June statement . Edwards said homeowners who strategically default or fail to work “in good faith” to avert foreclosure would be ineligible for new Fannie Mae-backed mortgages for seven years. Freddie Mac, Fannie’s government-owned counterpart, has adopted the same policy. Fannie, in its statement, also warned it would pursue “deficiency judgments” in court that would allow it to recoup from borrowers the difference between the value of a home in foreclosure and the outstanding loan a bank still has on its books. After inflating the bubble until it burst, banks essentially now want to be insulated from their mistakes by dunning borrowers for every last penny. Deficiency judgments are allowed in 39 states and were a nagging concern to many of the homeowners we spoke to. The IRS may also loom over homeowners who walk away. Under current law, thanks to a measure spearheaded by Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) in 2007, the IRS cannot come after homeowners after they walk away. Before that law took effect, if a bank took, say, a $200,000 hit on a foreclosed home and “forgave” the debt, that forgiveness would be counted as taxable income for the former homeowner. A note to the fence-sitters: Miller’s law expires at the end of 2012. FAMILY VALUES Ray Scott, 45, lives with his wife and two kids in Ferndale, Mich., a suburb of Detroit, where the house he bought for $140,000 five years ago is now worth $90,000. “Last year we were trying to figure out whether it would make sense to walk away from the house or not, considering we’re never going to make it back — at least not in my lifetime — the equity that we already lost,” he said. Scott mulled many options, including foreclosure and a short sale, but the bank wouldn’t approve a short sale and he feared walking away would ruin his credit. Scott said he ultimately decided it was in the family’s best interest to stay. With his wife in nursing school, she needed a good credit rating to qualify for student loans. “If we’d decided to let the home go into foreclosure, or tried to go through with a short sale, that would have had an immediate negative impact on her credit rating, and it would have made it really difficult for her to qualify for student loans,” Scott said. “I didn’t want her to be in that position, where she wouldn’t be able to finance her education.” Further, with both his sons recently diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, Scott felt staying put and having a stable place for his kids was important. “We live in a good community,” he said. “There are good schools, good people, we know all our neighbors. People look out for each other here.” If not for the family concerns, Scott said he would have walked away in a heartbeat. “If it had just been myself and my wife, if the kids hadn’t been involved and she’d been all done with school, it would have been a really easy decision to make to walk away,” Scott said. “We’re so far under, we’re never going to recover the amount of money that we’ve already lost.” HOME IS HOME Kirk Arthur, a 43-year-old software sales manager from Miami, bought his house for $285,000 in 2008. At the time, he thought it was a steal: the house had been on the market for $450,000 only a year earlier. Now he estimates it’s worth just $150,000. “We figured the price couldn’t drop much lower,” Arthur told HuffPost. “Now we can’t foresee our condo appreciating even close to the $285,000 we paid for it two years ago.” Fortunately, Arthur said, he and his husband were able to negotiate with the bank to refinance their mortgage loan to a 4 percent interest rate, reducing their payments by $500 per month. He feels like things have turned out all right. “At the end of the day we were never in any danger of being homeless or even losing our home,” Arthur said in an email. “Yes, one of us lost our job during the hard times (me), but we managed through … I found a job within two weeks of getting laid off — twice. The job I have now is in line with my salary requirements. It’s sort of a happy ending.” Though the value of his home continues to drop, Arthur says he’s not interested in moving. It was hard to find a home that fit his needs and budget in an area where he wanted to live, Arthur said, and moving again would be expensive. “I’m not 25 years old, I’m 43,” he said, “I’ve got stuff.” What’s more, Arthur says that while property values in the area have dropped, the price of rentals has risen, minimizing any potential walkaway savings. But more than anything, it’s the idea of home that Arthur is unwilling to relinquish. “It comes from my parents,” he said of his desire to own. “Your home, your house is such a symbol of status, an important indication of where you are in life,” he added. “You can paint it, express yourself, make it your own … We’re happy in Miami.” FORECLOSURE AS THE NEW DIVORCE Jon Maddux is CEO of You Walk Away, a California-based company that helps homeowners navigate foreclosure. Founded in 2007, the company has assisted more than 4,000 people navigate foreclosure, according to its website. Maddux told HuffPost that fewer and fewer people are sobbing when they call for help. He said that’s because of growing cracks in the old chestnut that foreclosure victims are “financially irresponsible” or “deadbeats.” Same as what happened with divorce, he said. “People thought of it as horrific if someone was to get a divorce,” said Maddux. “And then, over the years, it was like, well, okay, they got divorced. It’s understandable because that’s what a lot of people do.” Some 60 to 70 percent of You Walk Away’s clients actually can afford their mortgage payments, Maddux says; most people just need assistance in handling an exceptionally-bad property investment. Maddux thinks renting is the future; statistics bear that out. According to U.S. Census data released this week, homeownership rates have dipped to their lowest level since 1998. “You can do whatever you need to do,” said Maddux of renting. “It’s important to be able to move if you find a job … in another city.” TRAPPED ON AN ISLAND Brian Shiro, 32, lives with his wife and 3-year-old son in Ewa Beach on Oahu, where he said the house he bought for $411,000 in October 2005 is now worth only around $250,000. Shiro, who said he earns a six-figure salary working as a geophysicist, says he can afford his mortgage, but half of his income goes to making the monthly payments. The bigger problem though, is the lack of freedom. He’d like to pursue other career opportunities, he says, but stands to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars if he moves now. Shiro bets that in 10 or 15 years, his home will recover its value, but even that assumption is a gamble. In the meantime, he’s unhappy being trapped on the island. “I’ve had to turn down some job offers, I’ve had to reconsider educational opportunities,” says Shiro, who recently applied to a doctoral program in civil and environmental engineering in the San Francisco Bay Area. “All sorts of things that would advance my career would require relocation,” he said. What’s more, his wife is pregnant with their second child, and Shiro feels his family has outgrown the space. “A four-member family in a small town home is a little cramped,” he said. “It’s an aspect you don’t hear talked a lot about too is people who are playing by the rules, making the payments, but for whatever reason just want to try to get on with their lives and can’t because they’re stuck in a holding pattern.” PEER PRESSURE When he contacted HuffPost last year, Wayne King said he was trying to do a short sale on his house in Columbus, Ohio, which he’d bought in 2002 for $128,000. Six years later, in 2008, he left his job as a professor at Ohio State University for a new gig at a software company outside of Boston. The short-sale process hadn’t been going well, despite the new floors and carpets King said he and his wife had installed. “When I owe $107,000, I can’t afford to take $80,000,” he wrote, referring to the lowball offers he’d received. “I am up-to-date on my mortgage, but I don’t know how long I can afford to keep paying the mortgage along with utilities and upkeep in one state and rent in another state.” By then, King had already soured on the folk wisdom about homeownership. “People are fed this storyline that buying a home is the best investment you can make,” he wrote. “Something that will always appreciate and never lose value, but buying a home has been the worse investment I have ever made.” His attempts at a short sale didn’t pan out. King said this year that his lender appraised the home at a level nobody would pay. He said he looked into renting the place out, but discovered that at the going rate for rents, he’d still be losing money. He can afford to continue paying the mortgage, but doing so would squeeze the family finances — he said he and his wife just had a baby — so now he’s ready to walk away. King is trying to do a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, which is a process similar to a formal foreclosure but widely believed to be less damaging to a homeowner’s credit. His understanding, after speaking to his bank and to counselors from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, is that he needs to be delinquent by at least one month for this to work. Then, he said, his bank told him it will take five months or more for the process to finish up. (HUD’s guidelines say a DIL should not take more than 90 days and that current borrowers can still be eligible.) “It’s this hopeless situation where there’s nothing I can do except sit on my hands while these four or five late payments end up on my credit report,” he said. Every month the deed-in-lieu process continues, the Big Three credit-monitoring bureaus will hear from the bank that King is delinquent, and they’ll plug that info into their proprietary algorithms for determining his credit score, which will sink lower and lower. King, a mathematician who works for a company that creates algorithms, is frustrated that his credit score is calculated in a secret way and that it’s impossible for him to know exactly how much lower the score will go. King’s algorithmic background makes him particularly sensitive to the vicissitudes of his credit score, but everyone else in the pack also spoke either with concern about their score or relief that they had been able to let go of it — like a Taoist on the path to a higher state of being. There’s a practical reason for that: a low score makes credit harder to access and life harder to live. But it’s also part of the reality that a low score will destroy someone’s personal finances. A spokeswoman for Experian, one of the Big Three credit reporting bureaus, said there’s no way to know exactly how badly any given financial decision will hurt a person’s credit score, or even if a deed-in-lieu will be better than a foreclosure. “There are hundreds of different credit scores out there in the marketplace,” the spokeswoman said. “Credit scores analyze the information from an individual’s credit report, and no single factor can be considered in isolation. For that reason, any given item can have a different point impact for each individual, even when the scoring system used is exactly the same. It’s not a formula, such as ‘Two delinquencies plus a foreclosure plus seven accounts all in good standing equal this score.’ It’s much more complex, and that’s why we really can’t provide an exact point value for a deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure, a short sale, foreclosure or a bankruptcy.” Meanwhile, King’s ongoing mortgage mess is an occasional topic of water cooler discussion at the office. “It’s embarrassing for me because I have to work in a very educated, more well-off environment, because most of the people I work with have Ph.D.s and probably make far above the median income,” he said. “So to be in the position where you’re — they’re constantly asking about the house. They all knew I had a house I was trying to sell.” While concerned about his credit score, King doesn’t want to feel like a deadbeat, either. “I’ve always paid my debts. It’s something that’s instilled in you,” he said. “You get it from the media. I was just watching Kudlow not that long ago and he was harping on the obligation to pay your debts. It just kind of permeates.” LET THEM EAT CAT FOOD CNBC anchor and noted oligarch Larry Kudlow articulated the mainstream position against strategic defaulters in a May column on CNBC.com. “[J]ust because a home loan is ‘underwater’ — meaning its value is lower than today’s current market price — why should a responsible person whine about it and walk away?” Kudlow wrote. “Why not service this loan for the longer term and wait for prices to improve? That’s called personal responsibility.” This is in keeping with received wisdom about the evils of foreclosure. As Brent White of the University of Arizona’s law school noted in an October paper, “the predominant message of political, social, and economic institutions in the United States has functioned to cultivate fear, shame, and guilt in those who might contemplate foreclosure.” One can think of keeping the strategic default rate low — White’s paper put it between 2.5 percent and 3.5 percent — as a slow-drip bank bailout. With rescued banks now profitable yet refusing to modify underwater mortgages, the widespread fear that prevents more strategic defaults “has led to distributional inequalities in which individual homeowners shoulder a disproportionate financial burden from the housing collapse,” White wrote. In other words, homeowners who shy from strategic default are collectively doing Wall Street and the banking system another favor — beyond just footing the bank-bailout bill as taxpayers. Yet the moral argument is out of sync with some basic financial logic. As White sees it, plummeting home prices mean: “Millions of U.S. homeowners could save hundreds of thousands of dollars by strategically defaulting on their mortgages.” Data suggest that wealthier Americans, not those with lower or mid-range incomes, have a greater proclivity for punting their mortgage obligations by embracing strategic defaults. The New York Times reported in July that more than one in seven homeowners with loans of more than $1 million are seriously delinquent, compared with one in 12 homeowners who owe less than $1 million. It’s a stat analysts chalk up to strategic default. “The rich are different: they are more ruthless,” Sam Khater, CoreLogic’s senior economist, told the Times. So are some big, well-heeled corporations. For example, investment bank and bailout recipient Morgan Stanley walked away from five San Francisco office buildings at the end of 2009. Real-estate company Tishman Speyer — which also leases space to HuffPost for its Washington, D.C. office — strategically defaulted on the biggest residential property deal ever in January 2010, around the same time Wayne King and others were pulling their hair out over whether they should do the same. And the Mortgage Bankers Association, lobbyists for mortgage lenders, walked away from their own headquarters in Washington, D.C. in February 2010. (The MBA did not respond to requests for comment for this story.) Peter Fredman, a foreclosure defense attorney in California, said he was getting so many calls from people who wanted to sue over their exploding interest-only mortgages that he decided to set up a “strategic default” calculator online as a public service. Instead of suing some penniless broker, he kept having to suggest, why not just walk away? “Ironically, a lot of people who feel that special obligation [to pay a mortgage] are the people in the worst position,” Fredman said. “Upper-class people, they have no problem with what’s going on. They have bigger considerations.” Fredman’s website puts it like this: “From the institutional lenders’ point of view, you should eat cat food and take your kids out of school before you stop making your mortgage payment. But that is because institutional lenders don’t eat or have kids. They are fictitious entities, constitutionally dedicated solely to the pursuit of money. Repaying your debts may be a matter of personal integrity that you may or may not be able to afford. But you have no moral obligation [to] the financial institutions because they do not operate in a moral universe.” ‘WE KNEW THESE PEOPLE’ Howell Ellerman teaches real-estate classes at Folsom Lake College in Folsom, Calif. Last fall, a student in his thirties asked Ellerman about the meaning of financial responsibility and the hard realities of home ownership in the wake of the housing meltdown. “He’s in a house that is $500,000 underwater. I think they bought it for $1 million,” recalled Ellerman, 51. “He asked me in front of the whole class, ‘Should I walk away from my house?’” “I can’t give you advice,” Ellerman said he told his student, “but in the world we live in, there isn’t a better time to walk away. You shouldn’t feel any compunction.” Ellerman himself had been prepared to walk away from the home where he and his wife and kids had lived for 12 years. They wanted to buy a bigger house 10 miles away asking $595,000 as a short sale after initially listing at $1.5 million. “We made an above-asking price offer and are now in contract to buy the house and move with our five kids there,” Ellerman wrote. “The question is what do we do with our current house, which we love and have taken great care of.” He wrote that they wanted to sell or rent out the previous house but were willing to walk away and take the credit hit if the bank wouldn’t cooperate. It didn’t — Ellerman said the bank initially approved them on a loan for the new house but then decided to foreclose on it instead, so they’re still in their old house. It sits on a cul-de-sac with 10 others. Ellerman said four emptied in the past few years. He’s certain two are foreclosures. He has no idea where any of the families went; he figures they couldn’t handle the shame. “Seriously, we knew these people. They’d been over for Christmas, and then all of a sudden we see the U-Haul truck pull up,” he said. “When people leave their houses they don’t even say goodbye. They leave like in the cloak of darkness in a U-Haul truck and you don’t even know where they go.” THE AMERICAN DREAM When Bob Balint of Sarasota, Fla., wrote to HuffPost last year, he was asking for advice rather than looking to tell his story. We told him to consult with a lawyer — good advice to anybody thinking of walking away — and he did. Balint, 55, a father of two, is a dispatcher for the local transit system, and his wife teaches young children. He said their combined income of $51,000, boosted by occasional overtime, was enough to make their mortgage payments. But overtime has given way to furloughs and their house, which they owe $225,000 on, is falling apart. Balint lives in a part of the country particularly ravaged by the housing collapse and similar houses nearby are going for as little as $40,000, he said. “It’s like buying a Lexus,” he said. “You can almost come up with that in cash. Gimme two years without paying every Tom, Dick and Harry that I owe and I’ll have it.” The Balints were late on a few payments through 2010 but made them up each time. “We’re hanging in there by hook and crook,” he said. After a year of wrestling with the decision, however, the Balints are finally pulling the ripcord. This January, they made their last mortgage payment. They’re walking away from the home they’ve lived in since 1994 to rent a better, cheaper place. He’s looking forward to the freedom that will come with renting. “You’re almost better off not owning. If you’re company buckles up, you’re stuck, you can’t move to the jobs,” Balint said. “The American Dream is for shit.”

Read the full article →

Grant Cardone: Never Be Ripped off by Credit Cards Again

February 2, 2011

Use the credit card companies and don’t let them use you! It is unnecessary for anyone to ever find themselves the victim of their credit cards. Because the current credit card industry is under tremendous attack by things like the CARD Act Implementation, competition, and the threat of a shift from plastic to mobile credit, the smart consumer is in a great position today if they know how to play the game. While credit cards have gotten a bad reputation for victimizing people with late fees, penalties, and high interest rates, the informed customer is in a position to turn the tables. Here are some secrets to help you take advantage of the credit card companies rather than having them take advantage of you. 1) Be in Control: Most people get a credit card as victims and agree to being taking advantage of. Reverse this by making your decision to only use them for their convenience factor without paying to do so. I never pay interest, sign up fees or late fees on a card — I use them. They don’t use me. 2) Pay Off the Balance in Full: I never carry a balance with the credit card company no matter how attractive the rate. If you can’t pay it off at the end of the month, don’t use it. This doesn’t take just commitment, but it takes an agreement from everyone in the family that credit cards are only used as an accounting device, its convenience, and only when you can pay it off. 3) Negotiate your rate: If you are going to have a recurring balance, which I don’t recommend, call and negotiate directly with the company. You have every right, and should, call and ask to have the advertised rate lowered. Also, the better your credit and payment history, the better your chances of selling this to them. 4) Customize Your Due Date: Let’s say your paycheck comes on the 15th and 30th, but your credit card bill is due on the 5th. To improve your cash flow and not put yourself under unnecessary pressure, coordinate the due date that best fits your cash flows. You don’t need stellar credit to make this call and ask for the change. 5) Ask to Have a Late Fee or Interest Fee Removed: If you have a good history of on-time payments and then find a late fee or interest fee on the statement because you didn’t get your payment in by the due date this time, ask that it be removed. I have done this successfully on over a dozen occasions. Ask for mercy that they remove the fee to reward you for your past good behavior. If the person you speak with can’t do it, ask for a supervisor and make it clear that you are willing to close the card out if they don’t remove it. 6) Negotiate the Annual Fee: There is tremendous competition for your business today. There’s no reason for you to pay for the use of a credit card. Even a $35 fee a year over a period of 5 years is $175. I’d personally much rather spend that on my wife. Tell the issuer that you want to use their card but don’t want to pay the fee. Chances are they won’t want to lose your business. While credit cards can be seen to victimize people they can also be an asset when used correctly. They provide convenience, act as the perfect accounting for expenses, accumulate travel points and cost you nothing. As long as you can be aware and responsible of how you make use of your credit cards, you’ll find that they can be great assets to your life. With estimates of over 1 billion Visa, Mastercards and Amex cards in circulation just in the US, it would be important that you make a decision to use your credit cards to benefit your household rather than participating in the credit card company victimizing you. Grant Cardone is a NY Times Best Selling Author and Sales Training Expert.

Read the full article →

Robert L. Cavnar: BP Wins: EPA Will Agree to Cut Oil Spill Estimate

February 2, 2011

I know I keep saying it, but I told you so .

Read the full article →

Susan Buchanan: Jobs Lost to Deep Drilling Ban Less Than Predicted

February 1, 2011

This article was published in “The Louisiana Weekly” on January 30, 2011 The Gulf Coast remains banged up and broken from BP’s spill but worries that Louisiana workers would be hit hard by the federal drilling ban — which ended in October — haven’t materialized. In an early January report on the moratorium, public-private partnership GNO, Inc. said big job losses that it and others expected haven’t occurred so far. Employment in the coastal, oil patch grew in 2010, according to the Louisiana Workforce Commission last week. If you tank up with gasoline, you probably figured out awhile ago that oil prices are rising. Petroleum companies have no intention of missing that boat, and want staff on hand at production facilities in Louisiana and elsewhere to help them meet demand and capitalize on higher prices. Robin Barnes, executive vice president at GNO, Inc., said “job losses on the Louisiana coast are, at least initially, not as high as we expected last June. Large and small companies have tried to retain employees rather than lay them off, and in some cases have shortened their hours.” GNO, Inc.’s January report was the second in its three-part Economic Impact Series, including an already-released segment on fisheries and a soon-to-be issued, final part on Louisiana’s brand. Barnes said smaller firms on the coast have dipped into their savings to cover payrolls. “Some companies have managed to hold on with money received from BP claims and the Vessels of Opportunity program,” she noted. “Unemployment could rise in the coastal economy this year, however, as businesses deplete their savings.” In September, the U.S. Dept. of Interior revised projected Gulf job losses from the deepwater moratorium to a range of 8,000 to 12,000, from an earlier view of 23,000. Those figures compare with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s forecast last spring that 20,000 jobs would be forfeited to the drilling ban. Last June, GNO, Inc. saw a potential drop of 12,500 to 21,900 full-time-equivalent positions from the deepwater moratorium. The group’s January report said “to date, we have not seen evidence of these projections,” but added that since June, Louisiana has lost over 25,000 jobs statewide. “While this cannot be assumed a direct correlation — unemployment was rising around the country — we are confident that the decrease in drilling permits and the significant slow-down of the oil and gas industry had an impact on this number.” Since the release of GNO, Inc.’s January report, however, Louisiana officials said that the state’s jobs grew in 2010 as a whole and that December’s unemployment rate of 7.2%, not seasonally adjusted, was unchanged from 2009′s end. Seasonally adjusted, the December jobless number was 8%. Last October, GNO, Inc. began releasing a Gulf Permit Index, tracking approved, federal deep and shallow water permits on a biweekly basis. On the shallow end, permits in the last quarter of 2010 averaged 6.3 per month versus 7.1 in the year earlier quarter. Curry Smith, GNO, Inc. communications and research manager, said last week, “only two, new deepwater drilling permits have been approved by BOEMRE since the moratorium ended on Oct. 12. And since then, only 16 new shallow-water permits have been approved, though there was no official ban on shallow drilling.” Deepwater permits were issued for new exploratory wells in November and December, respectively, to BHP Billiton Petroleum. Last week, Senator Mary Landrieu’s office said “five, deepwater platforms operating in the Gulf have left for other parts of the world, costing Louisiana and the Gulf Coast nearly 5,000 jobs.” Most of those rigs moved to the coast of Africa, in some cases temporarily, according to their owners. As a reference point, GNO, Inc. used 33 as the number of deepwater rigs shut in the Gulf by the drilling moratorium, though the actual figure is lower. The group said that each rig directly or indirectly employs between 415 and 732 Louisiana workers, and 33 rigs would employ between 13,695 and 24,156 workers. “While we have not seen evidence of this high level of unemployment, should the lack of permits continue, the number of jobs at risk is significant,” GNO, Inc’s January report said. Separately, Eileen Angelico, New Orleans spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, said last week that 21, rather 33 deepwater rigs were shut in the Gulf during the drilling ban. “Of the 33 deepwater rigs that were operating at the time that Interior Secretary Salazar called for the moratorium, 21 rigs eventually suspended operations,” she said. “Twelve rigs were completing operations, which were not covered under the moratorium, such as drilling a relief well; workover operations; and drilling waterflood, gas injections or disposal wells.” For example, Taylor Energy’s Diamond Ocean Saratoga was exempt as it continued to plug and abandon a Mississippi Canyon well, following platform damage from Hurricane Ivan. A notice from the Dept. of Interior late last May explained the types of rig operations that were exempt from the moratorium. Continuing with its reference number of 33 shut rigs, GNO, Inc. said “over the course of seven months from June to December 2010, 33 working, deepwater rigs would have accounted for state and parish income and rig royalties of between $9,868,799 and $16,864,585. We cannot assume that all these taxes were lost as a result of the moratorium, because — as we have discussed — income-tax paying workers have been kept on payroll, and some companies have found other sources of revenue.” Layoffs on rigs since last spring are far less than initially expected. The $100 million Rig Worker Assistance Fund, established with BP funds, was created to compensate rig employees unable to work as a direct result of the moratorium. GNO, Inc. said in January “this fund, housed at the Baton Rouge Area Foundation, has received approximately 624 applications, 343 of which were compensated. We estimate that each deepwater drilling rig relies on approximately 230 direct workers.” Rig employees did not lose their jobs in large numbers, and some workers that were laid off chose not to apply to the fund, GNO, Inc. said. The group said “job losses were mostly suffered by members of the low-income, unskilled labor force. The majority of directly and indirectly impacted businesses chose to retain most of their employees, despite a sharp drop-off in their needs for labor.” GNO, Inc. also said “drilling rigs may be keeping employees on payroll, but are not purchasing the goods and services — known in the industry as ‘rope, soap, and dope’ — that they did previously.” When asked what he thought about earlier projections that the moratorium could result in losses of 20,000 Gulf jobs, Don Briggs, president of the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association, said last week “I think they are probably high.” But, he said, “it’s been a very difficult number to quantify.” Briggs pointed out, for instance, that “companies like Baker Hughes, Halliburton and Schlumberger can move their people anywhere, to places such as the Haynesville,” the big natural gas-from-shale play in Northwest Louisiana. The GNO, Inc. study includes “qualitative” or anecdotal research from discussions with several, small business owners providing goods and services to oil and gas companies affected by the drilling ban. In addition, employees of non-profit groups assisting small businesses on Louisiana’s coast were interviewed. GNO, Inc. found that “the moratorium forced business owners to drastically change their business plans and utilize savings to compensate for significantly decreased revenue. Most small business owners have attempted to retain their employees in anticipation of drilling permits being granted in the near future.” GNO, Inc. expects that if drilling permits don’t increase much by second-quarter 2011, small businesses will be forced to begin major layoffs. Larger companies may choose to keep employees on longer, but not indefinitely. On January 3, BOEMRE told thirteen oil companies that they may be able to resume previously approved exploration and production activities without submitting revised plans. In its January report, GNO, Inc. said that its Gulf Permit Index had shown little increase in permits issued since then. “Thus, we maintain that a de facto, deepwater moratorium remains in place.” The group said that, given recent increases in shallow, permit approvals, however, “the de facto shallow-water moratorium ended.” GNO, Inc. said “the U.S. has experienced accidents in various industries, including mining, air travel, civil engineering, chemical transportation and others, yet none have resulted in the long-term, comprehensive shutdown of an industry.” The group does not weigh in on Louisiana’s clean energy-versus-oil debate. It does say “the safety of workers and the environment must be of paramount importance.” New systems and procedures should be described and implemented, using transparent methods. “This will allow the nation’s offshore oil and natural gas industry to return to work in a way that will preserve thousands of critical jobs,” in a region still recovering from hurricanes. Separately, Dr. Loren Scott, emeritus professor in economics at Louisiana State University, said he’s keeping an eye on job numbers in Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the coastal oil patch. In the Houma MSA, covering Lafourche and Terrebonne parishes, unemployment was 5.1%, not seasonally adjusted, in December, down from 5.7% in November and 5.3% in December 2009. Those numbers were all below prevailing national averages. Unemployment also fell in December in the Lafayette, Lake Charles and New Orleans MSAs, including Plaquemines Parish. Joseph Mason, LSU finance professor, said “nobody has a good number on job losses from the moratorium right now because of the nature of the holdups — limited licensing in shallow and deep water. The Administration and BOEMRE are still barely licensing projects — not just placing procedural hurdles, but simply locking out the industry, thereby leaving in place the ongoing, harsh economic effect.” Mason continued, saying “Obama said a few weeks back that permitting would gain speed,” but that hasn’t happened. Meanwhile, President Obama referred to oil as “yesterday’s energy” in his State of the Union speech last week, and said he wants the nation to focus on producing and using cleaner fuels. end

Read the full article →

Startup America: Will Obama’s New Initiative Live Up To Its Name?

February 1, 2011

WASHINGTON — “This is our generation’s Sputnik moment ,” declared President Obama in his State of the Union Address last week. As a result, we need to fund “a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the space race,” with particularly strong investments in biomedicine, information technology, and clean-energy technology. Reinvigorated, Obama’s two-year old innovation agenda took one small step forward on Monday, as administration officials, business executives and entrepreneurs gathered at the White House to unveil the administration’s Startup America Partnership , which aims to boost innovation and entrepreneurship in the U.S. by encouraging private investment in startups. To kick off the initiative, the administration hosted an event featuring a panel that included AOL co-founder Steve Case and Carl Schramm, the President and CEO of the Kauffman Foundation, both of whom oversee the project. Case, the initiative’s chair, is the second prominent business figure recruited by Obama in two weeks. Last week, the president named GE chief executive Jeff Immelt as head of a presidential advisory council on competitiveness. At Monday’s event, Case told the audience that even though the initiative is backed by the White House, it is a private sector endeavor that will largely run independently of the government’s efforts to spur small business development. “The last couple of years there was not as much of a focus on the entrepreneur,” Mr. Case told the New York Times . “I applaud that the president and his teams have really pivoted and made it a real commitment for the next couple of years.” Schramm, one of the initiative’s founding board members, joked in his speech on Monday that he hardly had any more Kauffman Foundation statistics to cite, as nearly every one of the preceding panelists had used at least one. In designing Startup America, it’s clear the administration took cues from a slew of widely-publicized Kauffman studies released over the past few years which find that young, high-growth firms or so-called “gazelle” firms comprise less than one percent of all companies, yet generate roughly 10 percent of new jobs in any given year . Similar Kauffman research shows that net job growth in the U.S. over the past three decades is entirely driven by startups. Yet in the beginning of 2010, American entrepreneurs formed new businesses at the second slowest pace in over 18 years . And a year later, the number of self-employed Americans has fallen for three straight months and is down 336,000 from a year ago, according to the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council . To open the floodgates of entrepreneurship and unleash waves of new jobs, the administration aims to provide small business assistance to those entrepreneurs capable of scaling their businesses. “This isn’t to say that one or two-man plumbing shops aren’t important to America’s economic well-being,” Fortune’s Dan Primack points out , “but simply to acknowledge the greater value of a company that may someday be able to hire hundreds or thousands of workers.” “It’s about investing in people who can change the world,” Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, told the audience on Monday, quoting Steve Case. Sperlin, Case and the eight other panelists announced some of the initiative’s 27 public and private commitments aimed at doing just that. On the private side, Intel has committed $200 million to expand startup investment, IBM will invest $150 million in business mentoring programs and Facebook will launch a series of mentoring events across the country. Also participating is the startup accelerator and seed investor TechStars , which will expand its network of business “incubators” to include entrepreneurship boot camps across 20 U.S. cities, aiming to create 25,000 jobs nationwide by 2015. On the public side, the SBA pledged $2 billion in small business loan assistance over the next five years, while the administration put forth a handful of policy suggestions, including a proposal to expedite the lengthy patent application process by charging applicants a “fast-track examination” fee. The White House said the Obama Administration will also ask Congress to permanently eliminate capital gains taxes on qualified small business investments. Congress passed the tax elimination as a temporary provision under the small business bill in September, but the new proposal would make the tax break permanent. However, to qualify for the tax break small businesses must have a net value under $50 million at the time of the investment, and be incorporated for at least five years. As Dan Primack notes, those qualifications effectively exclude the types of scalable, high-growth startups the initiative is designed to foster. Primack is also unimpressed with the corporate investments announced under the partnership. He points out that Intel’s $200 million investment basically maintains their status quo: “Yawn. Reminds me of Intel’s announcement last February that it and 24 VC firms would invest $3.5 billion in U.S. startups over two years. Isn’t that what Intel and VC firms do already? In fact, isn’t Intel typically the most active U.S. venture capitalist, via its Intel Capital arm? It would be as if the New York Yankees announced plans to, you know, play baseball games.” Several attendees at Monday’s White House event shared similar sentiments that the new initiative was merely a PR stunt, pointing to rumors that, prior to the partnership with Startup America, Intel already had plans to invest $200 million, and TechStars was well overdue for an expansion. In addition, some of the public programs proposed under the initiative were underway well before anyone had even heard of Startup America. Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker said in a statement that “it seems like the only thing being offered by the White House this morning is another catch phrase.” Buck added, “Not until the administration is prepared to break down Washington barriers to job creation — onerous mandates, costly regulations, and economic uncertainty resulting from massive budget deficits — will we renewed confidence from American small business owners.” As some dismissed what they perceived as a thinly veiled press stunt, others showed signs of approval for Obama’s new initiative. During the White House’s announcement on Monday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce e-mailed a press release announcing a $1 million expansion of its entrepreneurship education plans. In the release, the Chamber said the money will “bolster the private sector component of the White House’s new ‘Startup America’ initiative.”

Read the full article →

Dean Baker: Debts Should be Honored, Except When the Money is Owed to Working People

January 31, 2011

This seems to be the lesson that our nation’s leaders are trying to pound home to us. According to the New York Times , members of Congress are secretly running around in closets and back alleys working up a law allowing states to declare bankruptcy. According to the article, a main goal of state bankruptcy is to allow states to default on their pension obligations. This means that states will be able to tell workers, including those already retired, that they are out of luck. Teachers, highway patrol officers and other government employees, some of whom worked decades for the government, will be told that their contracts no longer mean anything. They will not get the pensions that they were expecting. Depending on the specific circumstances, they may find their pensions cut back 20 percent, 30 percent, perhaps even 50 percent. There would be no guarantees if a state goes into bankruptcy. There has been a concerted effort to bash public sector employees by either highlighting the few instances where pensions actually are exorbitant or just making things up. Untruths about Goldman Sachs, General Electric or any other major company rarely appear in the media, and are usually quickly corrected when they do. However, exaggerations or outright fabrication are a standard practice for those who report on state and local budgets when it comes to public employees. The public has been bombarded with stories of public employees retiring with six-figure pensions while still in their early 50s. There may be some instances of such inflated pensions, but that is far from the typical story. If we look to New York State, the hotbed of bloated public budgets, we find that the state’s main retirement system pays an average pension of $18,300 a year . For many workers this is their whole retirement income since they were not covered by Social Security. This is the general story of public pensions. Public sector workers are often better situated than their private sector counterparts, in that they even have pensions. But study after study shows that these workers paid for their pensions with lower wages than their private sector counterparts. It is tragic that so many private sector workers cannot count on a secure retirement, but it won’t help them to make workers in the public sector equally insecure. And, there is the matter of paying debts. State governments are legally obligated to pay retirees the pensions they worked for just like any other debt. It is fascinating to see the interest by many pro-business conservative types in defaulting on this debt. Many of these same people have been determined to argue that homeowners who are underwater in their mortgages should pay their debts. They certainly have not been offering them any assistance in staying in their homes. In fact, back in 2005, some of the same crew were busy re-writing the bankruptcy law. They wanted to make it harder for individuals to get out of their debt through bankruptcy. They felt it was so important the people paid their debts to credit card companies and other lenders that they actually applied the law retroactively. People who took out debt under one set of bankruptcy rules suddenly found that Congress had changed the rules after the fact and they would now be subjected to a much harsher set of bankruptcy rules. Let’s see if we can find a pattern here. When families take out a mortgage in the middle of a housing bubble, which may have been misrepresented at the time of sale, the homeowner has an obligation to repay the money to the bank. When people take on credit card debt, they absolutely have an obligation to repay the bank – even if it means changing the rules after the fact. However, when the government signs a contract with workers, it doesn’t have to pay the workers’ pensions if it proves to be inconvenient. Of course, we may also throw in the fact that when the flood of bad mortgage loans issued by the banks threatened to push them into bankruptcy, the Treasury and the Fed give them trillions of dollars of loans at below market interest rates. There certainly seems to be a pattern here. The story has nothing to do with preferences for the market or government intervention. The picture here is very simple: The rules get changed whenever it is necessary to make sure that money flows upward from ordinary workers to the rich. In 21st century America, upward redistribution seems to be the guiding principle.

Read the full article →

Rep. Brad Miller: Republican Amnesia on the Financial Crisis

January 31, 2011

Sometimes party loyalty asks too much, even among today’s rigidly unforgiving Republicans. In December, the four Republicans on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) appeared to accept the Republican agitprop explanation, or “narrative,” of the financial crisis: government regulators, under pressure from liberal Democrats like Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, bullied banks into making foolish, “politically correct” loans so poor folks could buy homes that they couldn’t afford. But when the FCIC issued its final report last week, three of the four Republican commissioners flinched, apparently unwilling to sacrifice forever their scholarly reputations to the cause of partisan hackery. Instead, the three Republican commissioners argued that the financial crisis was caused by a combination of dimly understood macroeconomic forces, an unforeseeable “perfect storm.” Was this crisis preventable? ” We don’t know ,” said Republican FCIC commissioner Keith Hennessy. That argument has also been justly mocked by economics bloggers as “hoocoodanode?” (“Who could have known?”), but is far less laughable. Only one commissioner, Peter Wallison, stuck with the Republican agitprop narrative. Republican politicians with little scholarly reputation to protect are undeterred , of course, by the defection of three of the four Republican FCIC commissioners or by the repeated demolition of the narrative by economists. But here’s a question Republicans in Congress don’t want to hear: why haven’t they reminded us that they warned before the financial crisis that subprime mortgages would come to grief? And why haven’t banks, happily exculpated by the narrative, reminded us that they warned at the time that they were being forced to make foolish loans that would endanger their solvency? The answer is simple: the Republican narrative was created from scratch after the financial crisis. During the height of subprime lending, the lending industry, conservative commentators and Republican politicians celebrated subprime mortgages as the triumph of the innovation that comes from unfettered capitalism. Subprime mortgages, they said, made homeownership possible for millions of American families who could never own their own home under the dreary, stultifying rules that Democrats like me proposed. Robert Crouch testified at a congressional hearing on behalf of the Mortgage Bankers Association on November 5, 2003. Crouch said that “through innovations in the mortgage finance industry, and through various financing and risk enhancing tools created for the specific purpose of extending credit to our more needy communities, credit-impaired individuals now have ample opportunity to obtain loans through this ‘non-prime,’ or ‘sub-prime’ market.” The growth of the subprime market, Crouch said, “disproportionately benefited low-income and minority borrowers, as these groups are much more likely to rely on subprime credit. One clear and visible outcome has been an increase in homeownership rates for low-income and minority borrowers.” William M. Dana testified at a congressional hearing on March 30, 2004, on behalf of the American Bankers Association. Dana said that “the ABA believes that the development of the subprime market has been a positive development for American consumers.” Market innovation “has made credit available to many consumers who had previously been left out of the marketplace,” he said. “The development of the subprime market has assisted those borrowers tremendously.” What Republican politicians said was so similar it was almost like bank lobbyists wrote their remarks for them. “I need not remind my colleagues on the committee that Americans currently enjoy the highest rate of homeownership in the history of America,” Congressman Jeb Hensarling said at a congressional hearing on May 24, 2005. “The benefits of free enterprise and competition have been plentiful. With the advent of subprime lending, countless families have now had their first opportunity to buy a home or perhaps be given a second chance. The American dream should never be limited to the well-off or those consumers fortunate enough to have access to prime rate loans.” Nor was there a discouraging word about subprime mortgages from conservative commentators. The Republican narrative puts much of the blame for the financial crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”), a 1977 civil rights law aimed at “redlining.” At the time, banks literally drew red lines on city maps around neighborhoods in which they would not lend. But in 2000, the conservative CATO Institute published an article that said “CRA” should stand for “Community Redundancy Act.” The article argued that “progress predicated on technology, financial innovation, and competition — not CRA — has broadened the U.S. financial marketplace,” including lending in neighborhoods that had once been redlined. If a lender discriminated against a low-income neighborhood, “the profit motive would lead another lender to move in and fill the void.” It’s true that Republicans were critical of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the principle culprits in the Republican agitprop narrative. But Republicans’ criticism was that Fannie and Freddie weren’t buying enough mortgages for riskier, low-income borrowers. Fannie and Freddie were shareholder owned corporations run for a profit, but they began as government agencies that bought mortgages from banks so banks could lend more money and more families could buy homes. Both were “privatized” in the sixties, and both did very well by doing good. In 2001, Fannie was 13 and Freddie was 18 on Fortune Magazine’s list of the most profitable corporations. But by the nineties, Fannie and Freddie did not have the business of buying mortgages to themselves. Others in the industry were also buying mortgages and selling mortgage-backed securities, also quite profitably. The competition was bitter. Fannie’s and Freddie’s competitors argued that despite the subsidy from the government’s implicit guarantee, Fannie and Freddie were neglecting affordable housing for low-income Americans for the sake of profits. Fannie’s and Freddie’s competitors urged that Fannie’s and Freddie’s business be largely limited to affordable housing for low-income borrowers. Republican criticism of Fannie and Freddie was part of an internecine battle in the financial industry between Fannie and Freddie on one side, and their competitors, companies like AIG and Lehman Brothers, on the other. Fannie’s and Freddie’s competitors — and their Republican allies — argued that Fannie and Freddie had an “implicit guarantee” from the federal government that amounted to an unfair subsidy. Peter Wallison (yes, same guy) wrote an article in the American Banker on March 3, 2006 opposing an increase in the “conforming loan” limit that was typical of the criticism of Fannie and Freddie at the time. Fannie and Freddie were already “doing less than conventional lenders in helping the underserved,” Wallison said. Fannie and Freddie “only provided about 4% of credit going to minority borrowers.” Rather than compete with other lenders for profitable mortgages for upper-income borrowers, “Fannie and Freddie should do a much better job of providing affordable home financing to a neglected portion of the mortgage market.” If political bullying is to blame for Fannie’s and Freddie’s conduct, Republicans were at least equally guilty. The financial crisis occurred seven years and eight months into a Republican administration that let the financial industry write its own rules. A narrative of the financial crisis that absolves Republicans and the financial industry requires an acrobatic and brazen imagination. Believing the narrative requires willful amnesia.

Read the full article →

Marcus Samuelsson: Marcus Samuelsson: A Dispatch From Davos

January 29, 2011

I’m so excited to be here in Davos. I was here many years ago as a student cook. It was the same principle of hard work and trying to not get yelled at in Swiss-German. I’m excited about the discussions here. I heard Medvedev, Clinton, and ran into Bill Gates, and Michael Dell came to one of my sessions. Best food? It’s a tie between the Canadian beaver tails with chocolate and the Indian Pavilion. I love the swiss cheese but can’t make a meal out of it. The hotel where I was part of a dinner had a small explosion the next morning — nobody got hurt but kind of a scary moment. The weather here has been fantastic — I find myself looking at the mountaintop often, but no skiing for me this time. I have now shared my views on food safety, cooking for the State Dinner, cooking from a diversity point of view, food in Harlem, and talked about foodrepublic.com — our site that we will launch in the next month. It’s been such a pleasure being here and I hope I get to come back next year. Gruezi as they say here in Davos, Graubünden. See you in Harlem!

Read the full article →

More Small Banks Close, Failures Climb To 11

January 29, 2011

WASHINGTON — Regulators on Friday closed banks in Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Wisconsin, lifting to 11 the number of bank failures in 2011 following last year’s toll of 157 taken down by the weak economy and piles of soured loans. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. took over the banks: First Community Bank, based in Taos, N.M, with $2.3 billion in assets; FirsTier Bank, based in Louisville, Colo., with $781.5 million in assets; First State Bank of Camargo, Okla., with $43.5 million in assets; and Evergreen State Bank, based in Stoughton, Wis., with $246.5 million in assets. Minneapolis-based U.S. Bank agreed to assume the assets and deposits of First Community Bank. Bank 7, based in Oklahoma City, is acquiring the assets and deposits of First State Bank. McFarland State Bank of McFarland, Wis., is acquiring those of Evergreen State Bank. The FDIC was unable to find a buyer for FirsTier Bank, and it approved the payout of the bank’s insured deposits. The failure of First Community Bank is expected to cost the deposit insurance fund $260 million. The failure of FirsTier Bank is expected to cost $242.6 million; that of First State Bank, $20.1 million; and Evergreen State Bank, $22.8 million. The 157 bank closures nationwide last year topped the 140 shuttered in 2009. It was the most in a year since the savings-and-loan crisis two decades ago. The FDIC has said that 2010 likely will be the peak for bank failures. Already this year the pace of closures has slowed: By this time last year, regulators had closed 15 banks. The 2009 failures cost the insurance fund about $36 billion. The failures last year cost around $21 billion, a lower price tag because the banks that failed in 2010 were on average smaller. Twenty-five banks failed in 2008, the year the financial crisis struck with force; only three succumbed in 2007. The growing number of bank failures has sapped billions of dollars out of the deposit insurance fund. It fell into the red in 2009, and its deficit stood at $8 billion as of Sept. 30. The number of banks on the FDIC’s confidential “problem” list rose to 860 in the third quarter of last year from 829 three months earlier. The 860 troubled banks is the highest number since 1993, during the savings-and-loan crisis. The FDIC expects the cost of resolving failed banks to total around $52 billion from 2010 through 2014. Depositors’ money – insured up to $250,000 per account – is not at risk, with the FDIC backed by the government. That insurance cap was made permanent in the financial overhaul law enacted in July.

Read the full article →

Al Norman: Wal-Mart Collapses On Civil War Battlefield

January 27, 2011

Another Major Historic Gaffe By Giant Retailer By Al Norman ORANGE COUNTY, VA. The historic Wilderness Battlefield in Fredericksburg, Virginia claimed another casualty this week: Wal-Mart. The southern-born retailing giant fell on its own sword by announcing abruptly on January 26th that it was withdrawing its plans for a superstore near the site where 29,000 soldiers perished in one of the most remarkable two days battles in the history of the Civil War. Wal-Mart’s surrender ended their 26 month siege of the Wilderness Battlefield, an attack that sparked national attention, activated numerous historic preservation groups, and aimed a barrage of bad press towards Wal-Mart headquarters. It was not a strategic attack worthy of a General Lee or Grant—and it ended with a low-key withdrawal. “We just felt it was the right thing to do,” a Wal-Mart spokesman told the Associated Press. This is actually the second major preservation gaffe by Wal-Mart in Frederickburg, Virginia. In the mid-1990s, I was invited to Fredericksburg, to help residents fight off a proposed Wal-Mart on the site of Ferry Farm—George Washington’s boyhood home. Augustine Washington moved his family to the Ferry Farm property in 1738, when his son, George, was six years old. George received his formal education during his years there, and forged friendships in the neighborhood that lasted the rest of his life. I told the crowd of activists fighting the Ferry Farm Wal-Mart, “I cannot tell a lie: this is most dumbest site I have ever seen for a Wal-Mart.” That is, until they amassed their corporate troops on the edges of the Wilderness Battlefield. An estimated 160,000 troops fought at the Wilderness. The Confederate Army and the Union suffered heavy losses. The battle was a tactical draw. But the Battle of the Wilderness marked the beginning of the end of the American Civil War. The Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) was one of the groups that took the lead in the pushback against Wal-Mart. “Do you believe a Wal-Mart Supercenter belongs within sight of both the Wilderness and Chancellorsville battlefields?” Jim Lighthizer, President of CWPT said in an email alert. “Do you want to see the historical significance of both of these irreplaceable battlefields marred forever by more pavement, more traffic and more development that a Wal-Mart Supercenter will bring in its wake? And do you want to see this land – within easy artillery range of Ulysses Grant’s headquarters during the battle of the Wilderness – turned into just another highway strip of big box stores, fast food joints and convenience stores?” The outcome of the Wilderness Battle may have been hard for Union or Confederate troops to predict at the time—but the political outcome of the Wal-Mart/Wilderness Battle 145 years later was never in doubt. Local officials favored the project even before the volley of facts against the project were fired. Wal-Mart marched by the Orange County Planning Commission on a narrow 5-4 vote, and the Orange County Supervisors voted 4-1 to grant a special permit for the project. Hardly a shot fired. But the Wilderness Battleground became a national flashpoint for sprawl. “The question for Wal-Mart, one of the world’s most successful corporations, is whether they need a fifth Wal-Mart within 20 miles to be sited on this ‘cathedral of suffering,’” said Vermont Congressman Peter Welch. Actor Robert Duvall visited the site in opposition. “I believe in capitalism, but I believe in capitalism coupled with sensitivity. Sensitivity towards historical events and the feelings of the people of this whole area.” Duvall offered to “graciously chase out” Wal-Mart from the Wilderness site. By 2009, Wal-Mart was digging in to make its stand at the Wilderness. “Two years ago,” a company spokesman said, “the county decided this site was one where growth should occur. We have looked at alternative sites and there are other sites but they require rezoning. There is no guarantee the county would approve another site.” Facing almost certain litigation, Wal-Mart squared off gainst its enemies. In a press release dated September 23, 2009, the National Trust for Historic Preservation fired its legal ammunition. The Trust said the superstore “would harm the historic battlefield and encroach upon the Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park…The County has responsibilities to protect those historic resources under Virginia law and under the County’s own Comprehensive Plan for development.” The Trust was ultimately denied legal “standing” in the case, but other parties continued the charge. The lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Orange County. Seven and a half months after the appeal was filed, the plaintiffs won the first skirmish. A Judge in the Orange County Circuit Court ruled that opponents had the legal right to move forward with their lawsuit. The Judge found that a huge Wal-Mart superstore raised valid concerns about increased traffic and litter. “The use of land by an establishment like Wal-Mart could have an adverse and immediate impact,” the Judge wrote. Six neighbors were given “standing” in the case. They are Curtis Abel, Sheila Clark, Dwight L. Mottet and Craig Rains, all residents of Lake of the Woods, and Susan Caton, owner of Susan’s Flowers Etc. in Locust Grove; and Dale Brown, who lives in Spotsylvania County. Brown can see the project from his property. These local residents have helped topple the largest retail corporation on the planet. One day before the trial was to begin, Wal-Mart hoisted the white flag. Rather than face a string of bad headlines, and ultimately lose their case, Wal-Mart withdrew its artillery. “I hope this sends a message not only to Wal-Mart but to other developers that the preservation community is willing to fight for historic sites,” said a lawyer representing the plaintiffs. Jim Lighthizer was gracious in victory. “We have long believed that Wal-Mart would ultimately recognize that it is in the best interests of all concerned to move their intended store away from the battlefield. We applaud Wal-Mart officials for putting the interests of historic preservation first. Sam Walton would be proud of this decision.” Actually, I imagine that Sam Walton would have wondered what bonehead at Wal-Mart Realty could have settled on such a controversial site. But Wal-Mart blundered onto Ferry Farm, and then repeated the mistake at the Wilderness Battlefield a decade later. What these very public defeats make clear is that Wal-Mart has learned nothing from its own arrogant corporate history. Al Norman is the founder of sprawl-busters.com. He has been helping communities fight big box sprawl for the past 17 years.

Read the full article →

Ian Fletcher: Obama Whistles Past Economic Graveyard in Deluded SOTU Address

January 26, 2011

Not that I really expected otherwise, but Obama’s State of the Union address was a great disappointment on economic issues. Although the president made token noises about how serious our economic problems are, he immediately negated these gestures with other statements that made clear he does not understand. Statements like the following: We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time. We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. Unfortunately, as I discussed at some length in my book , the old “education is the solution” mantra just won’t cut it: One commonly suggested solution to America’s trade problems is better education. While this would obviously make America more competitive, that it would be enough is unlikely, if by “enough” we mean able to maintain wage levels in the face of foreign competition. For a start, our rivals are well aware of the value of education, so it can’t be a unique source of advantage for us. And unfortunately, the U.S. is simply no longer formidable from an educational point-of-view. Roughly the top third of our pop-ulation enjoys the benefits of a world-class college and university system, plus other forms of training such as the military and the more serious trade schools. But the rest of our population is actually worse educated, on average, than their opposite numbers in major competing nations. Thanks mainly to the high-school movement of the early 20th century, the U.S. once led the world in high school completion, the most readily comparable international measure of education. But we have been slipping behind for decades. This is clear from the fact that while we still lead a-mong 55-to-64-year-olds (who were schooled over 40 years ago), we rank only 11th among 25-to-34-year-olds. (South Korea is first.) Not only is our college graduation rate of 34 percent behind 15 other nations, but it does not even reach the average for developed countries. Studies designed to measure specific skill sets tell an even direr story. According to the 2006 Program for International Student Assessment, American 15-year-olds were outmatched in math and science by students from 22 other nations. The very bottom of our population is more alarming still: one 2003 study reported that a third of the adults in Los Angeles County were functionally illiterate. Furthermore, it is a testable hypothesis whether education on its own can protect wages, and the evidence is to the contrary. For one thing, a college degree is no longer the ticket it once was: workers between 25 and 34 with only a BA actually saw their real earnings drop 11 percent between 2000 and 2008. And, as David Howell of the New School for Social Research has written after looking at this problem on an industry basis, “Higher skills have simply not led to higher wages. In industry after in-dustry, average educational attainment rose while wages fell.” This should be no surprise, as merely shoveling education into workers’ heads obviously will not save them, or the industries they work in, if these industries are bleeding market share and revenue due to imports. Neither can people be expected to devote time and money to acquiring more education (or be able to afford it) if there are no jobs for them at the end. Who feels like pursuing advanced training in automotive engineering today? The weak education of American workers is thus a self-reinforcing problem: educated workers not only support, but require , strong industries. As for “innovation” as the solution? That’s another thing that’s nice enough, but not a solution per se to our economic decline; some remarks by Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) make this point well: Putting money into research is this Holy Grail for people here who are all college educated when the majority of the country is not, and who put themselves on this elevated plane thinking they know. I remember [Clinton Labor Secretary] Robert Reich saying, ‘Here’s what America has to do, Marcy: see this salt shaker?’ ‘Yeah?’ ‘America’s going to do the design,’ he said. ‘It’ll be made elsewhere, but we’ll do the design.’ I thought, ‘Wouldn’t that be an answer from a professor?’ I want both! I want engineering and pro-duction because I know the people in my district who used to make goods but don’t anymore, and they have a right to make what they end up buying. Ralph Gomory, no less than the former chief scientist of IBM, has criticized what he calls “the Innovation Delusion” in this very webzine.

Read the full article →

Kristie Arslan: Economic Recovery Starts with Small Business

January 26, 2011

Getting our economy back on track depends on the success of our nation’s small businesses. Critical measures enacted last year like the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act and the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts delivered much needed tax relief to small businesses, especially the self-employed and micro-businesses, helping business owners keep their doors open and even expand their operations. The latest messaging from the White House signals that President Obama is serious about continuing to support the small business community. During his State of the Union address, the President stated that he is open to fixing an element of the health care reform law that unwittingly created a significant regulatory burden for small business owners: Now, I’ve heard rumors that a few of you have some concerns about the new health care law. So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved. If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses. The President is referring to a small, but incredibly onerous provision buried in the health care reform bill requiring small business owners to submit IRS Form 1099 for every purchase of goods and services over $600, which will increase the time and money spent on tax preparation for three out of four business owners. This is the type of burdensome regulation that prevents small businesses from thriving. It is also the type of burden that the President seems eager to eliminate with his vision for a 21st century regulatory system. This goal was recently promoted by the President in the pages of the Wall Street Journal . In the lead up to the State of the Union, the President issued an executive order addressing the overwhelming regulatory burden on small businesses, especially our nation’s smallest businesses — the self-employed. A key component directs federal agencies to consider the cost/benefit analysis of proposed regulations and choose the least burdensome path for small business. The executive order is a step in the right direction as agencies have all too often issued regulations without considering their impact on small business, creating onerous compliance costs and difficulties. There is, however, a glaring problem with the E.O. and the Regulatory Flexibility Act: the agency with the single largest impact on small business — the IRS — is exempt from this law. The IRS is not required to perform any sort of analysis regarding the impact of their regulations on small business. Without addressing the elephant in the room, there is only so much benefit this E.O. will deliver to the majority of small businesses. Enhancing competitiveness and expanding employment are solid economic goals. But policies to get us there have to take into account the demographics of our nation’s businesses. Policymakers need to continue legislating to the majority of small businesses , not just to the corporate giants.

Read the full article →

Jeffrey Hollender: Five Things Business Leaders Must Do in 2011

January 26, 2011

As 2010 came to a close, StrategyOne, an Edelman public relations company, released the results of a survey on the public attitudes toward American business. The results were pretty ugly, but hardly surprising: Six in ten respondents said corporate America didn’t meet expectations in 2010; seven in ten have higher expectations for 2011. When asked to grade how well corporate America did in 2010, 82 percent assigned a grade of ‘C’ or lower, and 40 percent assigned a grade of ‘D’ or ‘F.’ Eighty-eight percent of consumers found that corporations had recovered from the recession better than American families, and 85 percent thought corporations had better prospects for the coming year. Only 17 percent of those surveyed thought companies deserved an ‘A’ or ‘B’ for honest and moral conduct in 2010. Surprised? No one who occupies a corner office today should wonder why Americans hold such a low opinion of them and their colleagues. Consider these facts — eight reasons why we’ve entered very dangerous territory. According to the commerce department, profits at American companies grew to an annual rate of1.659 trillion in the third quarter of 2010 — the highest they’ve been since the government began keeping track more than 60 years ago. Just 1 percent of Americans own 90 percent of the nation’s wealth. For the richest among us, annual income soared from 4 million in 1974 to an average of 35 million in 2007. Tax rates on executive pay have been cut in half since 1970. From 1985 to 2004, taxes on the top 0.1 percent fell from 42 percent to 34 percent. Meanwhile… The U.S. housing market is down around 25 percent from its peak in 2006. In many markets, the drop is even worse. The average price of homes in Southern California, for example, has plummeted 41 percent. The broader and more meaningful U-6 measure of unemployment, which includes people who have stopped looking for work or who can’t find full-time jobs, is currently around 17 percent. The unemployment rate for native-born African-Americans with less than a high school education is 28.8 percent. Their U-6 measure is a catastrophic 42.2 percent. One out of every seven Americans now rely on food stamps. While most consumers could not cite these statistics, they are nonetheless experiencing their very real impacts each day. They’re also unwittingly suffering from our economic system’s lack of full-cost accounting, which has made it perfectly acceptable for companies to “externalize” their negative social and environmental impacts and shift the burdens of these impacts, financial and otherwise, to society at large. The result is the de facto public subsidization of harmful practices and products, a world where “bad” stuff is cheap (think coal, candy and genetically-modified corn) and “good” stuff is comparatively expensive (think organic food, hybrid cars, and higher education). Put it all together and you get the biggest challenge we face as a nation today — a dangerously negative trajectory pulling us ever closer to the point of no return. Twenty three years ago, I founded Seventh Generation with the idea of creating a different way of doing business, and I’ve spent over two decades building the company into one that many consider a model of meaningful systemic corporate responsibility. During my tenure, I saw business make an incredible amount of progress. Milton Friedman’s thesis that the only responsibility of business is to increase shareholder value has been rejected in boardrooms across the country. Today, an increasing number of businesses are committed to taking responsibility for all of their stakeholders, even if their results fall well short of expectations. While many of you know that I am no longer executive chairman of Seventh Generation, my work in corporate responsibility from inside a company has given me a rare perspective on this evolution,. The fact remains that all businesses will need to become radically more sustainable, transparent and responsible to succeed and survive in the twenty-first century. It’s no longer simply “nice to do”; it’s become a business imperative. So, what do we do about our current mess? As we know from Americans’ attitudes about business and the state of our economy, big changes are needed. The time for incremental improvements has passed, and if business leaders don’t step up and make some major changes, they will risk an increasingly more aggressive and violent public response. To reverse course and avoid these outcomes, here are five things business leaders must do in 2011: Insist on a national economic strategy (as the Chinese have) that makes tough choices about America’s future. We need to regain our lead in alternative energy, rebuild a modest manufacturing base, diversify our agriculture, and spend much less on defense and much more on education, infrastructure and public transportation Embrace transparency. There’s nowhere left for business to hide anyway. Tomorrow’s most successful brands will be authentic because they are transparent and able to build loyalty that advertising can’t buy. Realize that corporate responsibility and sustainability aren’t departments. They’re business strategies, and only strategies that are holistic and systemic will work. The age of doing good with the left hand while screwing people and the environment with the right hand is over. Show a little self-restraint. Greed isn’t good anymore. Senior management compensation is out of control, and political influence by business is killing our democracy. Start doing the right thing because it’s the right thing, not because your lawyer told you to do it. It’s a simple matter of survival–wiping out what remains of the middle class will leave no one to buy your stuff! Create ownership not employment and high wage green jobs not low-wage service sector positions. Together, these steps form a reasonable and effective way to begin promoting the politics and policies of a just and sustainable world. This is the task that I believe to be the most important and profound challenge in today’s society, and the time for us to get to it is quickly running out.

Read the full article →

Robert L. Borosage: A Strong State of the Union Address for a Union in a Different State

January 26, 2011

No surprise that President Obama knows how to deliver a speech. His State of the Union speech will add to his reviving poll numbers. He set up what should be a centerpiece of Washington’s debate over the next months: invest and grow vs. the Republican “cut and grow,” or in the Republican Study Group version, “gut and grow.” This is an argument that will mobilize progressives and that the president can win if he wages it. Americans are more concerned about jobs and growth than they are about deficits and cutting spending. And the president did a good job of describing how investments in research and development, infrastructure and education are vital to our growth. But what was striking was not how new, but how dated and conventional the speech seemed. This was a speech that sounded as if it were anchored in 1992 or before. But the world has changed, and the illusions of conventional wisdom have been shattered since then. Obama movingly described the plight of working Americans who found their jobs, indeed their dreams, shipped out from under them. But Americans aren’t losing jobs and income and security, as the president then suggested, because of “revolutions in technology” and China and India “educating their children” and “investing in new research.” As Germany’s success as a high wage export nation proves, Americans have lost wages, benefits and job security, and are scarred by Gilded Age inequality because of failed public policies: a Wall Street trade policy explicitly designed to facilitate the export of jobs rather than products; a corporate war on labor plus executive pay policies that keep workers from capturing a fair share of productivity gains; and inadequate investment in areas vital to our growth, and of course, successive top end tax cuts. The flawed diagnosis leads to an inadequate prescription. Investment in education, R&D and infrastructure is essential, as the president said. A move to new energy and capturing a lead in the green industrial revolution are vital. But the Chinese are using their mercantilist toolkit to make themselves the global manufacturer of solar panels and windmills. Without a serious industrial policy and a reformed trade policy that challenges Chinese mercantilism, US technology and companies will build green jobs abroad. The president, eager to brandish his fiscal probity, chose not to make an explicit argument for putting off budget cuts until the economy comes back. Instead he agreed the time had come for getting our books in order. He noted that we couldn’t afford to make the top end tax cuts permanent — a populist gesture that was popularly received according to reports from dial testing of independents. But his emphasis was on spending cuts — extending his three year freeze on federal DOMESTIC discretionary spending to five years, to the lowest levels as a percentage of GDP since Eisenhower. (thereby virtually insuring that his investment agenda will suffer the fate of his recovery plan — too small and cribbed to do the job). The source of current deficits — two unfunded wars, massive defense spending and “homeland security spending” increases, successive tax cuts, skewed to the wealthy and recession — were not mentioned. Obama wisely argued that the main source of future deficits comes from soaring health care costs — as opposed to entitlements, making the case for continuing with his health care reforms. But instead of going after next step common sense reform that would actually save big time money — lifting the ridiculous ban on Medicare from negotiating bulk savings on prescription drugs for example, he turned, in a gesture to Republicans, to ending “frivolous lawsuits,” a political posture that doesn’t do anything on the cost of health care. The president chose to put Social Security on the table, arguing for the need to “strengthen Social Security” in the context of deficit reduction -”to put ourselves on solid ground ” — where it simply doesn’t belong. It hasn’t added to the deficit, and reforms won’t help reduce the deficit in the short term. The AARP, which had been silent in the run up to the speech, was sufficiently alarmed to put out a statement decrying the error. Washington still seems oblivious to the straits we are in. Republicans are clueless, arguing for the same policies that drove us into the worst downturn since the Great Depression. They assume the economy is growing so they can slash and burn government spending while pursing top end tax cuts (and blame Obama for excessive spending and regulation if jobs don’t revive). Obama assumes the economy is growing so he doesn’t need to push an immediate jobs program, or a new global strategy or take on the unsustainable concentration of wealth or the big banks. The president set up a debate on investment which progressives will be happy to join. But the limits of this debate are too narrow, the reforms too limited. This isn’t 1995 when Bill Clinton could count on a rising economy and a dot com bubble to fuel his revival. What is reviving in America is the old economy that was unsustainable — Gilded Age inequality, debilitating trade deficits, concentrated and highly leveraged banks, and a declining middle class. Progressives will have to challenge the confines of this debate and offer a far bolder strategy to revive the American dream that politicians of both parties invoke.

Read the full article →

Dan Solin: Rich and Poor Serve Their Wall Street Masters

January 26, 2011

I am often accused of being too hard on brokers (usually by brokers!). They say I cherry pick bad portfolios and there are many “hard working, honest brokers” who do the right thing for their clients. That has some surface appeal and I used to believe it. I no longer do. I have reviewed thousands of portfolios sent to me by readers of my books and blogs. I have yet to see a globally diversified portfolio in an appropriate asset allocation, invested solely in low cost, high quality, stock and bond index funds, exchange traded funds or passively managed funds. Not one! I also regularly review findings (misnamed “awards”) issued by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) which has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between investors and their brokers. In last week’s blog , I wrote about the experience of Joanne Bohnke, a 74-year-old widow of modest means, who was harmed by the misconduct of her broker. She got partial recompense, which is rare for investors, since these panels tend to either side totally with the securities industry or award only a fraction of the damages suffered by the investor. Wealthy investors fare even worse, both with their brokers and with FINRA arbitration panels. Lawyers for the broker brand the wealthy as “sophisticated investors”, implying that their financial success in their business life made them fair game for the machinations of their broker. The panels usually buy this defense and rarely make any meaningful awards in these cases. For this reason, my curiosity was piqued by an award (Case Number: 08-04276) in an arbitration brought by James D. Murphy, a 61-year-old Florida retiree, against Salomon Smith Barney. The panel awarded Mr. Murphy $1,042,986.22, plus interest. This is a big number for a FINRA award. According to Robert Savage, Tampa based counsel for Mr. Murphy, his client had net losses in his portfolio of almost $2.3 million, representing a significant portion of his initial investment of $4 million. Mr. Murphy had been a conservative investor, with a portfolio consisting almost exclusively of municipal bonds, which he held to maturity. His broker persuaded him to use these bonds as collateral, and buy stocks on margin with the proceeds. According to the Statement of Claim, the activity in Mr. Murphy’s account was stunning. He started with an average equity in his account of $3.6 million in 2003 and ended with an average equity of $1.3 million in 2008. During this time period, his broker turned over his account thirty times, racked up a whopping $807,301 in margin interest and (according to Mr. Savage) $500,000 in commissions. When I talk about the transfer of wealth from you to your broker, this is precisely what I have in mind. On an account with an average equity of $3.6 million, the brokerage firm gained $1.3 million (in commissions and margin interest) for “managing” this portfolio. Mr. Murphy’s average equity decreased from $3.6 million to $1.3 million during this period. Viewed in context, the award of the FINRA tribunal fits into a familiar pattern. The panel simply required the brokerage firm to return most of the gains it made from its wrongful conduct. It should have awarded what are known as “well managed account damages”, which is the difference in the account as managed and what it would have been if the account had been invested in a globally diversified portfolio of low cost stock and bond index funds, in an appropriate asset allocation for Mr. Murphy (or it could have used other appropriate benchmark investments). There are no circumstances which would justify the excessive trading and margin interest in this account. It would be unsuitable for any investor, except a day trader. I ran some numbers which are interesting. I assumed the right asset allocation for Mr. Murphy was 60% stocks and 40% bonds, which gives the broker the benefit of the doubt since it is probably too aggressive for someone Mr. Murphy’s age. I used an initial investment of $3.6 million in 2003 and computed the value of the portfolio on December 31, 2008, using a passively managed portfolio of stock and bond funds. The ending value was $5,051,660! The panel should have done a similar calculation and made an award that would have compensated Mr. Murphy for his real losses. In addition, since there is no justification for this amount of margin (or any margin) or for the excessive trading in this account, the panel should have assessed punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and all costs against Salomon Smith Barney. Instead, it denied Murphy’s request for attorneys’ fees and for punitive damages. In a final blow, the panel assessed Mr. Murphy $15,300 in hearing fees. It assessed the same amount against Salomon Smith Barney. Mr. Savage stated there was no settlement offer in this case. I am not surprised. There is no incentive to settle when you are confident you will either prevail at the hearing or, at worst, have to give up just a portion of your ill-gotten gains. Whether you are rich or poor, you need to understand the present system is set up to transfer your money from your pocket to the coffers of your brokerage firm. They have closed the loop with the cozy FINRA mandatory arbitration scheme. No matter how bad the conduct of your broker, if you recover at all, it will likely be for a small portion of your losses, which will be further reduced by attorneys’ fees. A corporate representative for the brokerage firm would not respond to questions concerning the case. His comment was limited to noting “respectful disagreement” with the award. He should have been thrilled with it. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.

Read the full article →

Johann Koss: Davos 2011: Communities of Action to End Extreme Poverty

January 25, 2011

This week in Davos, Switzerland, policy leaders from around the world will convene amidst a range of profound undercurrents that are redefining many tenets of global cooperation. At one side of the spectrum, longstanding economic powers are grappling with high unemployment, tight budgets, and a profound sense of economic fragility. At another side, emerging economies that teetered on the brink of ruin barely a decade ago are now the apples of investors’ eyes globally. Meanwhile prices for the world’s most fundamental commodity — food — are breaching all time records, starkly highlighting the persistent challenges entailed in meeting basic human needs. High food prices prompt alarm for the huge numbers with scarce resources to buy it, alongside quiet pride among the farmers and investors fortunate enough to benefit from selling it. Far away from the conference centers, the pace of technological innovation continues unabated. Hundreds of millions more people are getting access to mobile phones and the Internet every year, and social networking entrepreneurs are finding new and exciting ways every day for all of those people to connect at personal, professional, and humanitarian levels. The unprecedented ability of geographically diffuse communities to link and act around common interests marks one of the great transformations of our time. But the inevitable focus on navigating new global sources of influence and power cannot be left to overshadow the persistent challenges faced by the world’s poorest and least influential people — the ones whom the world has spent 10 years promising to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to cut extreme poverty in its many forms by half by 2015. With roughly one fifth of humanity still living on less than $1/day, the global community must take advantage of the latest tools available to fulfill its commitments. To that end, a year ago more than 60 members of the World Economic Forum’s community of Young Global Leaders made public pledges at the Forum’s Annual Meeting Davos, committing their own private individual and organizational efforts to time-bound, quantified and practical initiatives that can help achieve the MDGs. This week, at the 2011 annual meeting, the MDG Pledges initiative is launching its first major progress report, which is also posted on www.mdgpledges.org . Over the past year, many MDG pledges have made exciting progress. For example, Veronica Colondam and the YCAB Foundation have helped to educate more than 2,700 school drop outs in Indonesia. Leading economists Esther Duflo, Kristin Forbes, Michael Kremer, and Vikram Akula, through Deworm the World, have dewormed more than 3 million children. Zainab Salbi and Women for Women International have supported nearly 43,000 women survivors of war across a range of developing countries. James Kondo and Table for Two have helped to deliver approximately 6 million school meals in Africa. And at a person-to-person scale, Alec Oxenford and the Germinare Foundation have helped two students receive a full scholarship that will enable them to complete both primary and secondary school. These pledges reflect the spirit of the Millennium Developing Goals, one in which everyone must make their best effort to contribute however they can. The pledges are not a supplement for government action. They are an invitation to other individuals and organizations to make their own pledges for the goals, and to register them publicly on www.mdgpledges.org . More than anything, they are indicative of how far and fast an interconnected global community can move forward together, when individuals and organizations decide to collaborate in tackling the world’s most pressing challenges.

Read the full article →

Obama’s Clean Energy Aspirations Face Dirty Reality

January 25, 2011

$150 billion in the next ten years–that’s what the Obama administration has been promising in government spending for clean energy since the president was still just a candidate running for office. When the president delivers his State of the Union address this Tuesday, he is expected to announce his intent to support programs that will help the nation to pursue cleaner sources of energy–a potentially large source of new jobs. Obama’s rhetorical commitment to clean energy has been well documented. But despite the fervor of his speech, his follow-up on a clean energy agenda, both in early-stage innovation and in large-scale deployment, has been seriously hampered by the administration’s inability to pass the legislation necessary to facilitate a thriving clean energy future. Obama has vowed to transform the landscape of the energy economy, weaning America off its foreign oil dependence and shifting to renewable sources over the next ten years. Specifically, he has repeatedly promised to devote $15 billion dollars in clean energy investment each year, as well as announcing his intention to pass sweeping energy reform legislation to reduce greenhouse emissions. “This is the beginning of the 2012 elections,” said Mark Muro, an energy expert at the Brookings Institution. “I think we’re going to hear very powerful rhetorical arguments, but meanwhile, the budget realities don’t seem very promising. There are simply areas where we have done too little, and we need to invest much more.” In the 2010 State of the Union Address , Obama promised to pass “a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America,” echoing his 2009 statement that he wanted Congress to send him “a market-based cap on carbon pollution.” The energy bill that would have delivered these very things languished in the Senate this summer before finally vanishing altogether–in what may have been the Obama administration’s best chance for passing energy reform. The right-shift that hit Congress this November will only make it more difficult for legislators to get any major energy reform passed. “We really are in the clean energy arena, wrestling with what comes after cap-and-trade if we’re not going to have it,” said Muro. “But there’s no way around the fact that we’re going to need some revenue.” And that revenue has been at the heart of Obama’s promises since back in his campaign days, when he pledged to “invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in renewable energy” during his 2008 speech at the Democratic National Convention –a figure he reiterated up until his 2009 State of the Union Address. With the passage of the American Recovery Act, $59 billion dollars were allocated to clean energy expenditures, with $400 million going to found ARPA-E , a government lab for energy innovation. Of those $59 billion dollars, $32.5 billion has been spoken for, and about $3.5 billion has actually been spent–in part because of the long-term nature of such projects. But some experts fear that the unspent money will be subject to pushback in Congress. “It’s fair to say that money that hasn’t been spent and hasn’t been granted is certainly subject to recall or removal,” said Gerry Langeler, managing director of OVP Venture Partners, a venture firm with a clean energy focus. “I’m sure we’ll see some of that.” Over the years, Obama’s promises on clean energy have grown less specific, if not any less passionate. After the recent BP Oil Spill , he again reaffirmed the need to “seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels,” rattling off a series of possible solutions without committing to any one of them. “The one approach I will not accept is inaction,” he concluded. It may be that the president recognizes the steep challenge he faces to push through serious energy reform in a divided Congress. In a recent interview with Rolling Stone , he affirmed that the energy policy may have to be done “in chunks, as opposed to some sort of comprehensive omnibus legislation.” But for all of his ardent talk, Obama has not yet been able to introduce the transformative changes he has sought. On Tuesday night, many will be watching to see what renewed commitments he will make to the sector–and whether he can follow through. “I think there’s a little bit of lip service–this has been publicly his agenda for some time,” said David Cheng, a senior analyst at Cleantech Group, a clean energy research and consulting firm. The recent appointment of General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt as the head of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness seems to point to a greener leaning administration–in his time at GE, Immelt has been outspoken in his support for clean energy initiatives. While introducing Immelt, Obama singled out GE for “investing in innovation, building a clean energy center, an advanced battery manufacturing plant, and other state-of-the-art facilities in Schenectady that are resulting in hundreds of new American jobs and contributing to America’s global economic leadership.” Immelt is a member of the American Energy Innovation Council , a group of business leaders who have urged strong action on the clean energy front, including recommending expenditures of $16 billion for research and development each year–last year, the U.S. spent about $5 billion in the sector. “No business will invest when there is no certainty about what a market will look like two, five or 10 years into the future,” he said in their report . “If we’re serious about transforming our energy markets, we must send the right signals and create demand for the technologies that solve these problems.” Those who’ve watched Immelt navigate GE through the changing energy field are enthusiastic about his experience, as well as his ability to turn clean energy into a viable buisness venture. “Jeff Immelt and GE have made clean energy a profitable business segment for them,” said Dennis Costello of Braemar Energy Ventures. “They’re now a major player in that industry.” But Immelt, in statements to the Financial Times , didn’t seem too optimistic about the prospects for comprehensive national energy reform. “In the short term, it’s going to be driven by companies, and maybe some states. I think a city and a state in the US can still be a catalyst,” he said. “It’s not going to be a high priority of this Congress to attack all this stuff, but there will be plenty of activity that takes place even without that.” Still, clean energy players seem optimistic about the appointment of a private sector leader in what will be a very public role. “The beauty of appointing Jeff and specifically someone who’s running GE is that they have so consistently thought both long term about their business and particularly about being a leader,” said Langeler. “His mindset is not only should the U.S. create jobs, but where will we create them and how competitive will we be in the world when we do. He’s going come out helping the country as best he can to lead.” The president claimed recently that he keeps a checklist in his pocket of the promises he made during the campaign, and that his administration has accomplished 70 percent of what he had set out to do. The short energy checklist of the Obama-Biden campaign promised the following: the creation of five million jobs through the investment of $150 billion dollars in a decade, saving more on oil in ten years than was then imported from the Middle East and Venezuela combined, putting 1 million hybrid cars on the road by 2015, 25 percent dependency on renewable sources by 2025 and 80 percent gas emission reduction by 2050 through cap-and-trade. Though for many of these changes it will take years, even decades, to fully judge their implementation, the concrete goals that have been set seem to be mired in administrative difficulties. Still, Obama’s greatest accomplishment may be his public dedication to clean energy–words that resonate, even if they don’t do. “Time and time again he’s demonstrated that he understands that the greater problem that are going to affect America are not just economic but environmental,” said Cheng. “This president has been the most progressive, the most aggressive in terms of pushing out a clean energy agenda than any other president in the past.”

Read the full article →

Ernan Roman: Lessons From My Chimney Cleaner About Service and Marketing Best Practices

January 24, 2011

A few weeks ago I called a local chimney-cleaning company and set up an appointment for a cleaning. When the workmen arrived, I asked them to remove their sooty shoes when walking around the house. Despite this request, the workers left an ugly trail of black soot stains on our basement carpeting. So began a fascinating opportunity to experience how some companies are mastering the integration of marketing and customer service. My problem was turned into a marketing opportunity by the company — but only because the person I spoke with to file my complaint understood that customer service is actually a marketing opportunity. That person happened to be the owner of the company. Viewing customer service and marketing as two sides of the same coin is the first step in turning service disasters into marketing opportunities. This can only occur if marketing and customer service teams work together based on the recognition that customer retention is essential. Marketing can no longer afford to view customer service as a labor intensive “operations” function. In this era of empowered consumers with social media megaphones, the ability of dissatisfied customers to voice their opinions worldwide is astonishing and frightening. Back to my chimney-cleaning saga: The owner listened carefully to my complaint and acknowledged his company’s responsibility for the problem. He said, “On behalf of our company, I would like to apologize for what happened. I would also like to thank you for taking the time to call . We will do what it takes to clean up the mess we created.” The owner and I reviewed the details of the damage and the follow-up action, which was to have a professional carpet cleaning company come to my home within a week, at no charge. I then asked why he had thanked me for making the call. His reply was the essence of both great marketing and great customer service. He said, “I want to be able to go to your home next year and the following year and the year after that, to clean your chimney. By calling our company, you provided me with the opportunity to prove to you that, while we made a mistake, we have the professionalism and integrity to take care of our customers. I want to prove to you, that even though we have already been paid for this job, we are not just looking for the bucks. I want you as a long-term customer.” I was intrigued. What he had just said was in line with one of the most important, though often overlooked tenets of innovative marketing: One of the most important metrics for identifying the success of a marketing initiative is its capacity to generate repeat purchases. I asked about the company’s customer service team. Was I getting a good outcome simply because I had been lucky enough to speak with the owner of the company? Or was this approach really part of the organization’s service culture? My call, as it turned out, had been no accident. Customer service reps at this firm were empowered to resolve customer problems ; they worked closely with the marketing department to ensure that customer acquisition and retention were tightly integrated. This was a fairly small company, a fact that intrigues me on two fronts. First, smaller organizations (which are likely to have fewer problems with “turf and fiefdoms”), may well have the inside track when it comes to seamlessly coordinating marketing and customer service efforts. Second, those companies that do manage to integrate these departments successfully find themselves in a position to significantly improve the customer experience and increase customer lifetime value. Here are seven tips to help you improve your customer experience: 1. Do not view customer service call centers as cost centers. These are revenue centers. 2. Customers’ post-sales experiences have significant impact on repeat purchase likelihood and willingness to recommend the company . Companies must consider the financial ramifications of losing customers due to poor post-sale experiences. 3. Do not cut back on training, quality control procedures, and related investments in customer service call centers. 4. Remember that it’s seven to 10 times more expensive to acquire a new customer than to sell an existing customer. 5. Mistakes happen. Make sure that, when they do, your frontline people are empowered to take responsibility for those mistakes, and propose a solution that is fair to the customer. 6. Customers expect high-quality post-sale support. If it is lacking, they will not only be inclined to go elsewhere, but they will also be inclined to use the power of social media to let others know about their dissatisfaction. 7. The big question is not whether we can get a customer to buy from us once, but whether, after a customer service problem, we can get him or her to buy from us a second time. What kind of experience will make a customer decide not only that he or she isn’t going to demand a refund, but that a repeat purchase is in order? The owner of that chimney-cleaning company knew that I, as his customer, considered the marketing and customer service experience to be inseparable — so he made sure that he and his entire team operated under the same assumption. As a result, I am now a satisfied customer, a committed candidate for repeat business — and an evangelist for his firm. Ernan Roman is President of the marketing consultancy, Ernan Roman Direct Marketing. Recognized as the industry pioneer who created three transformational methodologies: Integrated Direct Marketing, Opt-In Marketing, and Voice of Customer Relationship Research. Cross posted at 1to1® Media .

Read the full article →

SOTU PREVIEW: What Obama Will Focus On In Tuesday’s Address

January 23, 2011

WASHINGTON — Under pressure to energize the economy, President Barack Obama said Saturday he will use his State of the Union address to outline an agenda to create jobs now and boost American competitiveness over the long term. Heading quickly into re-election mode, Obama is expected to use Tuesday’s prime-time speech to promote spending on innovation while also promising to reduce the national debt and cooperate with emboldened Republicans. “I’m focused on making sure the economy is working for everybody, for the entire American family,” Obama said Saturday in an uncommon preview of his speech, offered up in an online video to his supporters late Saturday afternoon. The president announced that the economy would be the main topic of his speech, a nod to how important that issue is to the country’s standing and his own as well. At the halfway point of his term, Obama said the economy is on firmer footing than it was two years ago: it is growing again, albeit slowly, while the stock market is rising, and corporate profits are climbing. But with the unemployment rate stubbornly stuck above 9 percent, Obama will signal a shift Tuesday from short-term stabilization policies toward ones focused on job creation and longer-term growth. Obama offered no details on specific proposals he will call for in his address, though he has offered hints in recent weeks. Perhaps the clearest came in an overlooked speech in North Carolina last month, one that will likely serve as a template of what the nation is about to hear. Obama said then that making the U.S. more competitive means investing in a more educated work force, committing more to research and technology, and improving everything from highways and airports to high-speed Internet. In his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday, Obama also highlighted free trade as a way to increase U.S. exports and put Americans to work. “That’s how we’ll create jobs today,” Obama said. “That’s how we’ll make America more competitive tomorrow. And that’s how we’ll win the future.” Obama’s challenge will be to find the money and political will to spend it, at a time when he’s pledged to reduce spending and tackle the mountainous debt. In his preview to supporters Saturday, Obama said he would emphasize fiscal restraint Tuesday, but didn’t go into detail, saying only that any spending cuts should be done in a “responsible way.” The president is under growing pressure to tackle the debt from the public and lawmakers, particularly some newly elected Republicans who ran on pledges to cut spending. Obama, too, has made spending cuts a priority, setting up a bipartisan fiscal commission which recommended tax hikes and cuts to entitlement programs – both efforts that would likely be a hard sell with the American people. Obama will speak Tuesday to a Congress changed both by Republican wins in the November election and the attempted assassination of one of its own. Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head two weeks ago during an event in her district in Tucson, Ariz. Since then, the president has appealed for more civility in politics, and in a nod to that ideal, some Democrats and Republicans will break with tradition and sit alongside each other in the House chamber Tuesday night. Obama hinted Saturday that he would build on that theme during the State of the Union, tying the country’s economic success to bipartisan cooperation. “We’re up to it, as long as we come together as a people_Republicans, Democrats, Independents_as long as we focus on what binds us together as a people, as long as we’re willing to find common ground even as we’re having some very vigorous debates,” Obama said. The White House sees competitiveness as a framework Republicans could support. GOP lawmakers traditionally have backed the types of trade deals and research-and-development efforts that Obama is promoting. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., appeared to give the president an opening when he said last week in a speech that “my advice to my colleagues is if the president is willing to do what we would do anyway, then we should say yes.” Yet for all the talk of bipartisanship, Obama will deliver Tuesday’s address at a time when his White House is shifting into re-election mode. Obama plans to file papers to formally run for re-election around March, and several aides are moving to Chicago to run the 2012 campaign. Saturday’s video preview to supporters signaled a return to the campaign-style outreach Obama’s team mastered in 2008, and underscored his need to rally his base around his agenda. The White House is keenly aware that Obama’s re-election prospects likely hinge on the state of the economy. More than half of those questioned in a new Associated Press-GfK poll disapproved of how he’s handled the economy, and just 35 percent said it’s improved on his watch. Three-quarters of those surveyed did say it’s unrealistic to expect noticeable improvements after two years. They said it will take longer. Obama’s preview Saturday focused exclusively on his domestic agenda, with no mention of foreign policy. Obama is, however, expected to frame his call for competitiveness in global terms, calling for a new Sputnik moment – a reference to the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of the first satellite, ahead of the U.S. He intends to say the U.S. is again facing challenges from abroad, this time from fast-growing economies in China, India and throughout Southeast Asia. In his travels to Asia and during Chinese President Hu Jintao’s recent trip to Washington, Obama has said he’s been struck by the rapid rise of that region and the laser-like focus on competing in the global economy. “They are thinking each and every day about how to educate their work force, rebuild their infrastructure, enter into new markets,” Obama said in November, after wrapping up a 10-day Asia trip. “We should feel confident about our ability to compete, but we are going to have to step up our game.”

Read the full article →

Stewart Acuff: Dying to Work

January 22, 2011

It is 9 pm on a very cold Philadelphia night as I sit down to write this. I’ve just returned from a closed casket viewing of my 19-year-old union brother Mark Keely who was blown up in a gas main explosion three nights ago. Three other union members of his work crew were burned from head to toe. Brother Mark was 19 and had been on the job just five months. Death and horrible injury is a daily possibility for members of the Utility Workers Union of America. Our members are the first of the first responders cutting off the electricity and gas so firefighters and police officers can so their jobs. No one knows how many lives Brother Keely and his crew saved with their ultimate sacrifice. Hundreds and hundreds of union members were at St. Cecilia’s Catholic Church tonight — gas workers and utility workers and cops and fire fighters and machinists and on and on. I cried as I hugged Mark’s Dad and Mother and greeted member after member with Local Union President Keith Holmes. Mark’s death is a stark reminder that America’s workers go to the job every day risking their health and their lives. 17 of us die every week. My mother died of a massive heart attack in her classroom six months before her retirement. Yet those who blather and blabber about how American workers live too well and how we have to compete with the poorest and most exploited workers in the world and how we have to raise the Social Security retirement age never have to get off their asses at their desk with the best view of whatever city they are in. Mark Keely worked hard every day of his working life. He deserved to live a full, rich life like all other workers. But until we realize that working families deserve the best of life–not material riches but dignity and respect and safety, too many of us will die before our time.

Read the full article →

Bank Of America Posts Big Loss On Bad Home Loans

January 21, 2011

NEW YORK — Bank of America on Friday reported a loss of $1.6 billion in the fourth quarter after its costs related to soured home loans increased. The quarter’s results were a clean-up effort by the bank in an endeavor to start 2011 with a clean slate. The deep slump in the real estate market has continued to hamper Bank of America more than its competitors because of its 2008 purchase of Countrywide Financial, the country’s largest mortgage company at the time. “Last year was a necessary repair and rebuilding year,” said CEO Brian Moynihan. Bank of America Corp.’s loss available to shareholders after paying out dividends was 16 cents per share. Analysts surveyed by FactSet had forecast the bank would earn 18 cents a share. Excluding a charge of $2 billion related to the home loans, the bank would have earned 4 cents a share. A year earlier, Bank of America had reported a loss of $5.2 billion after it repaid $4 billion related to its bailout during the financial crisis. The bank reported revenue of $22.4 billion for the quarter, down from $25.1 billion in the previous year. Bank of America also kept aside an additional $4.1 billion for bad home loans that it could be forced to buy back from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and other investors, and another $1.5 billion for litigation expenses. Investors say that the bank should take back the bad home loans because they were sold on improper documentation. Besides buying back bad loans, several banks were stung by accusations in the fourth quarter that they failed to properly review documents used in foreclosures. Attorneys general from all 50 states are conducting an investigation. The results of the nation’s largest consumer lender stand as a proxy for the health of the people’s finances. And Bank of America’s results echoed what other banks have been reporting earlier in the week that the fiscal health of the American people is improving. For the sixth consecutive quarter, there were fewer people that were late meeting monthly payments. The bank’s losses from lending in its credit card and home loan business declined $414 million from the third quarter of 2010, because of a drop in delinquencies and bankruptcies. For the full year 2010, the bank reported a loss of $3.6 billion, compared to a loss of $2.2 billion in 2009. Bank of America’s shares were down 27 cents, or 1.9 percent, in pre-market trading Friday.

Read the full article →

Les Leopold: Financial Socialism by and for Wall Street Elites?

January 21, 2011

More than 70 percent of Americans say big bonuses should be banned this year at Wall Street firms that took taxpayer bailouts, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. An additional one in six favors slapping a 50 percent tax on bonuses exceeding $400,000. Just 7 percent of U.S. adults say bonuses are an appropriate incentive reflecting Wall Street’s return to financial health. A large majority also want to tax Wall Street profits to reduce the federal budget deficit. A levy on financial services firms is the top choice among more than a dozen deficit-cutting options presented to respondents. Bloomberg As bonus season arrives, the gap between the American people and Wall Street couldn’t be wider. And where is Washington in this great divide? Don’t ask. At a moment when Americans desperately want jobs on Main Street and expect Wall Street to pay its fair share, Washington officials are hard at work — seeking jobs for themselves on Wall Street. (Congratulations, Peter Orszag, on parlaying your position as Obama’s OMB director into a top job at CitiGroup, the bank that received hundreds of billions in taxpayer bailouts and guarantees on your watch!) Most Americans rightly sense that our mixed free-enterprise economy, which once built a broad middle class, has devolved into a system of financial socialism by and for elites. The public wants and deserves answers to these basic questions: 1 . Why do people in the financial sector make so much more money than the rest of us? Mainstream economists claim that your income reflects the economic value you produce — at least in free and open markets. But are proprietary traders, for example, really 100 times more valuable than neurosurgeons? In the UK, some economists say no: The British New Economics Foundation calculates that “While collecting salaries of between £500,000 and £10 million, leading City bankers destroy £7 of social value for every pound in value they generate.” Let’s try a back-of-the envelope calculation of Wall Street’s net social value. Compare their bonuses and profits for roughly the last five years (about $500 billion) with the economic losses produced in the financial crisis the bankers caused (about $4 trillion in value destroyed, not counting the ongoing travails of the 22 million people who haven’t yet been able to find a full-time job). For every dollar “earned” on Wall Street, about 8 dollars were destroyed. (In case you’re suffering from financial amnesia and forgot how the financial sector single-handedly caused the economic crisis, please see The Looting of America . Chapter One can be found gratis on Alternet.com.) There’s plenty of room for argument about this kind of calculation. But even Wall Street wizards would have trouble defending the billions they’ve acquired by profiting from a bubble that blew up the economy. What’s the real value of junk CDOs that were rated AAA and then sold for enormous profits before they blew up? We could make a strong case that those who profited from such bubble investments – like the people who sold synthetic CDOs to Wisconsin school districts — should pay back their fraudulent profits. (In fact, the school districts have filed a lawsuit toward that end.) 2. Do current profits of financial firms come from tax-payer bailouts? The old free-market mantra was that you could make as much as you wanted, so long as you were willing to accept all the risks that went with it. Joseph Schumpeter, a great defender of capitalism during the 1940s when much of the world was turning towards socialism, called the process of winning and losing “creative destruction.” In his vision of capitalism, the best and the brightest staked everything in their quest for success, and only the true innovators survived. Inefficient enterprises would be left by the wayside. So… are the survivors of the economic collapse like CitiGroup, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, receiving their just rewards? Actually, it sounds a bit quaint these days to suggest that the rich must actually suffer the consequences of failure. These top financial institutions did not have to pay for their reckless gambling and gaming because they were deemed to big too fail, and so were bailed out. Goldman Sachs, for example, made a very bad bet when it purchased $13 billion of financial “insurance” from AIG to cover its toxic assets. AIG, due to its own enormously bad business decisions, could not pay up and was on the verge of bankruptcy. Had it gone under, as Schumpeter probably would have urged, Goldman Sachs would have received pennies on the dollar for its bad gamble, and might have gone broke. Instead, AIG was bailed out by taxpayers and Goldman Sachs got 100 cents on the dollar. It gambled, lost, and instead of suffering the consequences, was made whole by the government. And now Goldman Sachs execs are hauling in tens of millions in bonuses (disguised as stock options, even as its profits slip a bit from astronomical highs.) Clearly, the “free and open” market did not determine who should be spared “creative destruction.” Instead, CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase et al were saved because of their deep political connections. These companies would be kaput were it not for taxpayer bailouts, hastily contrived loans, and all kinds of market guarantees from their friends at the Fed. Schumpeter would have recognized this scheme in a flash: It’s precisely the kind of crony socialism that he detested, only this time the game was was designed by and for financial elites in the world’s largest capitalist economy. (Please don’t compare the Wall Street rescues to the GM and Chrysler bailouts. Wall Street received ten times as much and will pay themselves a hundred times more than the top auto-executives. And the auto industry didn’t topple the US economy and send millions to the unemployment lines.) 3. But since Wall Street is paying us back, why shouldn’t they go back to earning whatever they can? Let’s follow through on that logic. Let’s say you raid your husband’s pension fund for $100,000 and take the bus to Vegas, naively hoping to triple your money. As luck would have it, you lose it all. Desperate, you manage to borrow another two million from a rich friend (Wall Street calls it “leverage”) — and then you really load up on your bets. Tragically, you lose that too. I hate to tell you this, but you’re in big trouble now. Don’t expect the government to come around and offer to cover your losses with taxpayer bailouts so you can keep on gambling till the lights go out, and then, if you win, pay back the government. That is, unless you’re too big to fail — say, a very large, well-connected investment bank. In that case, party on! It’s true, Wall Street has paid us back for much of the bailout money we gave them. That’s the good news. The bad news is that, having been rewarded for their bad behavior, they’re now back at the casino tables, playing many of the same games that took down the economy in the first place. This time there are even fewer players who are now way too big to fail. And fewer players means less competition — hence the rise in banking “fees,” especially for the average consumer. 4. Where does all their wealth come from? There are only two possible sources for all the money the financial sector is spewing: The bankers are either creating new wealth or they’re siphoning off wealth from the rest of us. Hedge fund honchos like to boast about how they weren’t bailed out and therefore are entitled to their enormous hauls. (The top 10 in 2009 earned an average of $900,000 an HOUR. The top 25 earned as much as 658,000 entry level teachers.) But our noble hedge fund managers have a great deal of difficulty accounting for what I call their “paradox of productivity.” You see, there’s supposed to be a connection between the productivity of your employees and your profits. Apple Corporation, for example, earned about $6 billion in 2009 by expertly engaging its 35,000 employees. (They went on to earn $6 billion in the last quarter of 2010 alone.) Along the way they offered us an array of popular new products that people are enjoying and putting to use. Appaloosa, the hedge fund, earned about as much as Apple in 2009 by speculating on god knows what. But it has fewer than 250 employees and it’s not at all clear what these individuals added to our economy — certainly not the iPad. How can 250 workers, no matter how wise and talented, produce as much real worth speculating on stuff as 35,000 Apple employees can make inventing, manufacturing and marketing useful products? They can’t. So hedge funds must be siphoning off wealth from elsewhere, not creating it themselves. (If you think I’m wrong, please prove otherwise, because I haven’t found a single book or paper about hedge funds, even from insiders or academics, that explains this paradox of productivity.) Ever since the crash, I’ve been calling for a ban on Wall Street bonuses and for new taxes on the financial sector. Though I felt like I was hollering in the wind, apparently most Americans agree (if we can believe the polls cited above). I naively thought that during the crash the government would come done hard on Wall Street as it did during the 1930s. I was wrong. Instead we have institutionalized a festering problem that allows Wall Street to continue siphoning off the nation’s wealth. So we have to think about a more radical restructuring. I believe the only way to end financial socialism for elites is to turn the core of high finance into group of heavily regulated public utilities — like power, water and electricity (not semi-private entities like Fannie and Freddie before they were nationalized). Financial socialism for elites has failed and will fail again, plunging millions of Americans into joblessness and sinking our nation deeply into debt. Big government has many faults, of course. But the American people, I believe, can tell the difference between public utilities that aim to serve the economy and a private oligopoly that only serves a tiny elite. Ironically, those who run the government don’t want government to end financial socialism (maybe because of financial industry campaign contributions–or because of Wall Street’s inviting revolving door). It may take another crash before Washington is willing to listen. Les Leopold is the author of The Looting of America: How Wall Street’s Game of Fantasy Finance destroyed our Jobs, Pensions and Prosperity, and What We Can Do About It Chelsea Green Publishing, June 2009. He is currently working on a new book, How to Earn $900,000 an Hour: The Rise of Wall Street Billionaires and the One-sided Class War, (hopefully to be published in 2011).

Read the full article →

Dennis Santiago: A Deepening Dearth of Lending

January 21, 2011

I was on Canadian network BNN last week. It is earnings time for banks and as much as I loathe talking about economic safety and soundness through the distorting lens of equities I attempted to field questions. It seems that “earnings per share” is looking better at some banks this quarter and people are asking if the time is “now” to get in on the gamble. The buzz must be hot to get people to pony up because I’m getting emails asking if I think this is the bottom of the well. Just a reminder, brokerages earn a living by charging commissions on the volume of transactions, not on the gain or loss of the investment. As I tried to explain on air, picking through the lint in my belly button I’m not sure that today is the equivalent of the day Ford was at $1.00/share for the banking sector. We’re still seeing a lot of accounting based earnings coming from numbers in a computer being moved from one ledger to another creating what – in the time of Sarbanes-Oxley (remember that?) – would be categorized as one-time events. As for me, I still see banking as a supporting cast service provider to the economy. I’m waiting to see indicators of fundamental change in the direction of Main Street. Everything else is what the Wall Street townies call “optics” when happy hour comes around. The continuing decline of domestic economic reinvestment It’s not looking all that great on Main Street. Domestic economic reinvestment continues to slumber like Sleeping Beauty waiting for true love’s kiss. It’s weird really. How else can one explain the juxtaposition of “exceeds analysts expectations” with “six one-hundredths of a percent of real growth” in the same news cycle? These are the times when the solace of perspective is best found by ignoring volatility and focusing on the deeper trend lines. Just so you know the overall amount of commercial and industrial lending by banks in the United States eroded by about 1/3rd from roughly $1.4 trillion in Dec-2007 to a bit over $1 trillion at the end of Sep-2010. Not to make light of a $400 billion dollar loss in going concern domestic economic investment by the banking system, but the really shocking numbers are in the unused line of credit commitments of banks to U.S. business. This is the canary number I like to look at because it is a direct expression of banking and finance confidence in Main Street industry. It’s gone from $92 billon in Dec -2007 to just $24 billion as of Sep-2010. More importantly, the vast majority of this contraction of credit availability to American industry has been by the larger banks, C&I LOC from $87B down to $18.8B by the institutions with assets over $10B. Poof! We are now entering the fourth year of our saga. The kicking the can down the road approach to preserving banking infrastructure as a vital national resource continues. It’s now been husbanded by both a Republican and a Democratic White House. Both have succeeded in preserving banking. The “can” itself – the US domestic economy — is still getting smaller. Is that really the best plan we can come up with? So what can you do? Next time you interact with your bank, ask them to tell you more about they are doing about expanding loan production. Ask specifically to tell you some details about what they are actively doing to clear away their remaining impediments to new lending. Are they modifying or disposing of whatever non-performing assets they have to get them back on track? How else are they using their resources to invigorate the Main Street economy? How are those line of credit commitments to small business commercial and industrial borrowers coming along towards recovering to pre-2008 levels? Some bankers will balk that you’d dare to ask such questions. Others will gladly wax on about all the things they are doing to make things better. You’ll certainly learn something about who’s being a responsible banker and who isn’t. Be prepared to be both disapppointed and pleasantly surprised. Bear in mind that these questions aren’t about small versus large. They are about discovering where decency and responsibility still are in America. It’s there. The task at hand is to find and reward it. Remember that in America the voices of ordinary people still matter. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Read the full article →

Deborah Levine: Unemployment: Dispatch From Among the 9.4%

January 20, 2011

A week ago, I found myself surrounded by a room full of strangers listening to confident young man expound on the dos and don’ts of resume writing and acing a job interview. Ok, so “found myself” isn’t exactly accurate. In truth, I was required to be there by the Department of Labor, as were my classmates who, like me, had all been collecting unemployment for at least six months, most of us more. We were a diverse group, united by the fact of being out of work for longer than the higher-ups at the DOL believe we should be. A little guidance was what we needed, our Job Search Follow-Up summonses explained, in the form of a mandatory hour-long workshop on the myriad ways in which the Department of Labor is here to help — preceded by 60 minutes of waiting in an unstaffed windowless room wondering if anyone actually knew we were there. If we failed to attend, the letters said, we would risk losing our weekly unemployment benefits. The room was full. The workshop was led by a deep-voiced 30-something man in a standard-issue jacket and tie. I had to give the guy credit. Day in and day out he stands before countless representatives of the disgruntled formerly-employed and manages to maintain both professionalism and a sense of humor while doing so. Ironically, as jobs go, telling people how to get one — especially people who didn’t ask in the first place — is probably not high on anyone’s list. Among our instructor’s words of wisdom was a warning: “Showing up for an interview 15 minutes early is appropriate — showing up an hour early is desperate,” and an existential question to ponder: “People put on masks every day — to the employer, are you the true you or are you the interview you?” My classmates and I listened dutifully to our leader, hopeful that if we just sat quietly and let him do his thing, we could be out of there in less than the proscribed hour. But he wanted class participation, and so, ever covetous of our weekly $405 checks, we participated. From their replies to questions about the average length of a job interview and the proper timing of a thank you note, I learned a few things about my classmates. My neighbor to the right was a former professor of Russian history so concerned with following the letter of the law that he didn’t file his claim during the week he spent interviewing at a University in Florida because he wouldn’t be able to answer truthfully that we was “ready and able to work” in New York. On my left was a former Human Resources manager with whom the instructor frequently checked his facts, in front of her a client services type copiously taking notes, and behind me a media Jill-of-all-trades not unlike myself, a writer and editor whose position was “eliminated” in a company reorganization after I loyally and enthusiastically put in over a decade at what I had once considered my dream job. In the 19 months since I was laid off (19 and a half, but who’s counting?), I’ve experienced many “firsts”: first time filing for unemployment, first time going into double-digit credit card debt, first time dipping into my rolled-over 401K. Withdrawing from my retirement savings more than two decades before I was technically eligible was something it never occurred to me I might do, let alone do again and again. In the past year alone, overdrawn checking accounts have forced me to tap those once-taboo funds three times, diminishing my meager nest egg nearly by half. Last year’s monetary gifts from relatives earmarked for my kids’ college accounts went instead to bills and rent. On a more positive note, being “downsized” has meant not being a full-time working parent for the first time since I became a mother. This too has led to a number of unexpected firsts: first time picking up my kids at dismissal time rather than from after-school (I actually had to ask someone where in the building I would find them at 3), first time accompanying them on a field trip without nagging guilt about skipping out on work, first time staying home with a sick child without furtively checking my email while playing Connect Four. I’m 40-years-old and for the first time in my adult life I honestly have no idea what the future holds in the way of a career or overall financial security. Still, I know I’m among the lucky ones. Just as my severance was ending a year ago, my husband — who had been laid off from his own publishing job two years earlier — miraculously landed a long-term freelance assignment and is now slated to become staff. Rather than how we’ll pay the rent or make our car payments, our worries are now of the slightly less dire “How will we pay for summer camp, let alone college?” and “Will we ever get out of debt?” variety. We are resigned to having no washer-dryer, dishwasher or second bathroom for the foreseeable future. Having lost faith in the concepts of job security and financial stability, it’s the unforeseeable future we worry about now. While continuing to plug away at freelance work, peruse the industry job sites and pound the pavement for interviews, I’ve gone back to school for yet another degree. This time I’m studying to be a teacher, one of the most underrated jobs one can have in this country, but also among the most rewarding. I have no illusions that I’ll ever be able to kick up my heels and relax into retirement. But if I have to be working for a paycheck into my old age, at least as a teacher I’ll be doing something positive for the world, rather than promoting products I no longer believe in that this planet doesn’t need. Of course, no one’s hiring teachers around here right now either. But a girl’s gotta have a dream.

Read the full article →

Leo W. Gerard: Time to Wield the Foreign Policy Stick

January 20, 2011

America plays the role of abused partner in its relationship with China. Although the Asian giant repeatedly injures U.S. industry by violating international trade rules, America has responded, almost exclusively, by pleading and begging for China to stop. China says it’s sorry. And continues to violate the rules. America respectfully beseeches China to discontinue manipulating its currency, and China says it will. Then it allows the value to increase a completely insignificant amount. Still America does nothing. Nothing. It simply accepts the abuse. U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and Michael Williams, senior vice president of U.S. Steel stood with me Wednesday at a press conference in Pittsburgh to urge President Obama in his meetings this week with Chinese President Hu Jintao to announce that America is done with soft talk. We want President Obama to tell President Hu that America has heard enough promises; the United States is bucking up and pulling out that big stick that Teddy Roosevelt carried in foreign policy negotiations. This is a rare issue on which politicians, Republican and Democrat, manufacturers and organized labor all agree. Here’s what Sen. Casey said at the press conference, “In my estimation, and that of a lot of Americans, the time for talking is over. The time for action is now.” He, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., plan to introduce legislation next week to force the federal government to hold China accountable, to enforce compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules – rules that China agreed to comply with when WTO countries permitted it to join even though it is a non-market economy. Mr. Williams described the effect of China’s unchallenged trade practices on American steel production: “Our facilities in Pennsylvania and throughout the United States are among the most advanced in the world: We make the highest quality steel for the most demanding applications; Our technology is world competitive; and Our workers are second to none in skill and know-how. However, the more than 21,000 U.S. Steel employees nationwide, and the more than 4,700 employees here in Pennsylvania, know all too well that we do not always operate in a fair global marketplace. Instead, we are often faced with the reality of a distorted market – a market where we have to compete against job-stealing dumped and subsidized imports from countries that abuse the rules to gain a false competitive advantage. No country more than China hurts all American manufacturing by the way it artificially undervalues its currency – making its exports artificially cheap and making competitive imports from the U.S. and elsewhere artificially expensive.” Here are the facts: American industries have found that they can produce products, ship them to China and price them lower than Chinese competitors. But all too often, China prohibits sale of the American-made products on the mainland. Sen. Casey gave an example, C.F. Martin & Co., which manufacturers its world-famous guitars in Eastern Pennsylvania. Martin tried to register its mark to sell its instruments in China. But it has been unable to do that because a Chinese manufacturer already registered the mark and is counterfeiting the guitars. “To say it is unlawful does not begin to describe the gravity of it,” the senator said. In addition to countenancing counterfeiting, China provides illegal subsidies to its export industries, violates international regulations forbidding forced technology transfer when American companies seek to manufacture in China and deliberately undervalues its currency to falsely lower the price of its exports. When Mr. Williams, Sen. Casey and I all said this must be stopped with enforcement of international regulations, someone in the audience asked if that would prompt a dreaded trade war. That won’t happen because we already are in a trade war. The United States simply is not fighting back. We are playing the passive partner in a perverted relationship, repeatedly allowing the abuser to pound us. Mr. Williams said it best: “U.S. Steel wants a strong America. To have a strong America, we need a strong manufacturing base. To have a strong manufacturing base, we need strong enforcement of international trade regulations.” Sen. Casey agreed, “Our government must take every step necessary. It is not enough to say to the unemployed, ‘We are trying and we are asking.’” Wield the stick, President Obama.

Read the full article →

June Carbone: The Real Job Killers? State Budget Crises.

January 20, 2011

Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 . I sit on the Faculty Senate of a large Midwestern university. Every meeting for the past year has been consumed with planning for this year’s budget crisis. For those insulated from Washington politics, the timing is curious. The economy is improving. State revenues are increasing. Yet this year will be the worst in over a decade for cuts to higher education, school teachers in the suburbs, police in crime-ridden cities, and bridge and infrastructure repair everywhere. Virtually every state will be affected. The cumulative impact will worsen unemployment and may be enough to trigger the feared double dip recession, touching off a new round of economic misery. In this context, Congressional debate of the misnamed “Repealing the Job Killing Health Care Act” is a tragic distraction from the immediate source of job losses — the rejection of the economic lessons that have kept the economy on track since the Great Depression. As Paul Krugman explained in his critique of the euro in this week’s New York Times Magazine , national fiscal policy and state spending are fundamentally different, whether in Europe or the U.S. Spending at the national level includes automatic correctives. Run federal deficits too high for too long, the dollar falls, imports become more expensive and the demand for American goods increases. States, however, cannot print money and they are rightly subject to balanced budget provisions that require that they slash expenses when revenues fall. Economists have accordingly maintained since the New Deal that federal spending should be counter-cyclical — a recession is the time to spend money to create jobs. Policy makers since Richard Nixon have further argued that much of the counter-cyclical spending should go to the states; they are closer to people’s needs and more directly hurt by falling revenues. So if the concern is jobs, counter-cyclical federal spending implemented through a Republican idea — revenue sharing — should be the new Congress’ first priority. It would forestall the job slashing taking place in statehouses throughout the country and do more to reduce unemployment than any proposal currently on the table. Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs. Yet no one is talking about revenue sharing. President Obama proposed some aid to the states as part of his original stimulus package, but Republicans pared those measures back in favor of tax cuts that contributed less to job preservation. When the Republicans insisted on running up the deficit through tax cuts for the wealthy, the president responded with more tax cuts for everyone else — but not the spending most directly tied to jobs. The bailout of financial fat cats lasted long enough to bring back high corporate profits and rising stock market prices. Yet assistance to the states is being cut off at a time likely to forestall economic recovery. The results reject the conventional economic wisdom of the last half century and inflict needless misery on the teachers, policemen, and construction workers who form the backbone of the country. While China undertakes massive public investment in schools, universities, technology, roads and a 21st century infrastructure, we are dismantling the institutions essential to our ability to compete. The token fight to repeal health care is a distraction from the job demolition derby underway in the states as a direct result of federal cutbacks. Yet the connection between ideologically driven federal policy and state layoffs does not even seem to merit notice in the scores of stories about layoffs, tuition increases and reduced crime protection. It is time to focus attention on the real job killers and hold them accountable.

Read the full article →

Raymond J. Learsy: ‘Noble’ OPEC Criticzes The International Energy Agency

January 19, 2011

OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries supplying over 40% of the world’s oil consumption) feels put upon. It’s Secretary General lashed out at the International Energy Agency for having categorized current oil prices as “alarming”, calling for OPEC to show more flexibility in boosting supplies (see CNBC “OPEC Says World Well Supplied, Criticizes IEA” 01.1811). OPEC’s Secretary General Abdalla Salem El-Badri immediately countered that “At the moment there is more than enough oil on the market… Oil prices have been driven by technical means… the weak dollar and speculation” all the while critical of the IEA for warning of the risks to economic growth due to rising oil prices. It is significant that El-Badri’s comments come while OPEC’s official output quota has remained unchanged since instituting a record cut in its production in December 2008. December 2008 was a fateful moment for OPEC and the price of oil. At the time oil was hovering around $40/barrel and OPEC and its minions in the oil universe were rattled, to say the least. Even the Saudi monarch, King Abdullah got into maelstrom by promulgating that he considered $75 a barrel to be a “fair price” (please see “Big Oil Prices Put in Jeopardy by Fall in Oil Prices” New York Times 12.15.08). But with the price at $40/bbl we were summoned to a far higher calling. You see, according to that font of wisdom on all matters oil, Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi instructed, “You must understand that the purpose of the $75 price is a much more noble cause. You need every producer to produce, and marginal producers cannot produce at $40 a barrel” (please see “OPEC’s Noble Cause” 12.17.08). That was then, and the price was $40/bbl. This is now with West Texas Crude selling for over $90/bbl and London Brent crude selling just under $100/bbl at $98/bbl. More than a doubling of price since December 2008, shooting past Al Naimi’s “noble” and King Abdullah’s “fair” price of $75/bbl months ago. The IEA opined in a report last Tuesday that OPEC would need to pump 400.000 barrels per day more than expected this year to balance the market. El Badri said OPEC would respond if there is a need for more supply. “OPEC”, he reiterated “as always, is watching the market carefully. We remain committed to market stability.” Translation. OPEC is prepared to do little or nothing to help reduce the current level of prices. Their lack of willingness to hold the price at moderate levels gives the speculators a one way bet on ever higher prices. What if El Badri had said in response to the IEA, “Yes we agree with you, current prices are alarming and a risk to the world’s economy. Especially a levels so significantly higher than the $75/bbl we consider to be “fair”. We will do what we can to rectify the situation. As you are aware Saudi Oil Minister al Naimi has at his disposal some 4.5 million barrels per day (bpd) pumping capability which are being held idle and on standby. Certainly he and all of us at OPEC will do our utmost to bring about a price which we consider as “fair” and tolerable to the world’s economy.” Don’t hold your breath, but were it to come to pass it would send the speculators running for the hills and evolve and entirely new relationship between suppliers and consumers around the world, one of mutual respect and true interdependence. One last observation. We in the United States are by far the largest consumers of oil in the world. Yet we have done little or nothing to significantly reduce our oil consumption and to politically confront an intransigent OPEC with the authority and interplay that an industry’s largest consumer normally has on the sway of a given industry’s outlook and policies. We have been silent and have permitted our Department of Energy to remain mute while prices have escalated by well over 200% or $1 billion rent a day on the nation’s economy ($90/bbl plus today – $40/bbl December 2008 = $50/bbl x 20,000,000 bpd US consumption= $1 Billion/day). Or more to the point, gasoline at well over $3.00 a gallon. We have permitted our oversight agencies such as the CFTC to stall and stall and equivocate rather than bringing massive and destructive speculation to heel. The lack of meaningful oversight and action by our government agencies is exemplified by a Department of the Interior and its Minerals Management Service whose ineptitude has already bequeathed to us the massive Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster. Where is our national policy on this issue? We not only owe it to ourselves but to oil consumers throughout the world who are paying a heavy price in part because of our lack of meaningful leadership.

Read the full article →

RREEF Closes on $95.25M London Square Acquisition

January 14, 2011

Institutional investment advisor, RREEF, on behalf of an offshore client, has acquired London Square, a retail shopping center and office building located at the corner of SW 137th Ave. and SW 120th St. in Miami for $95.25 million, or $318.42 per square foot. London Square totals 299,103 square feet including 60,665 square feet of Miami office space for lease . At the time of sale the property was 99 percent leased to national and regional tenants…

Read the full article →

Lloyd Chapman: FDIC Forum Ignores #1 Challenge for Small Businesses

January 13, 2011

On Thursday, January 13, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) will host an Obama Administration forum on “Overcoming Obstacles to Small Business Lending.” The American Small Business League (ASBL) believes the event will fail to address the #1 job killing issue facing small businesses: the diversion of small business contracts to corporate giants. For the last five consecutive years, the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Inspector General has named the issue as the agency’s #1 challenge . The ASBL has estimated that every year more than $100 billion in federal small business contracts are diverted to some of the largest corporations on earth. In February of 2008, President Barack Obama promised to end the abuse . Despite, thousands of business closures and countless lost jobs, the Obama Administration has failed to honor its promise, and end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants. The most recent information released by the Obama Administration shows large recipients of small business contracts such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Dell Computer, Xerox, SAIC, General Dynamics, Bechtel and John Deere. In addition to the concerns about billions of dollars in federal contracting abuse, the ASBL does not believe the Obama Administration’s forum on lending is likely to create new jobs or stimulate the economy. The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) and the Congressional Oversight Panel have separately concluded that small businesses are in desperate need of demand, not loans. ( http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/SBET201006.pdf ; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/13/federal-oversight-panel-s_n_574781.html ) In December of 2009, the Obama Administration held its first forum on obstacles to small business lending. At the time, U-6 unemployment was 17.1 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics . More than a year later, U-6 unemployment has remained near 17 percent. We’ve spent trillions of dollars and focused small business assistance on lending, yet unemployment remains unreasonably high. Let’s just try something crazy like not giving federal small business contracts to some of the biggest companies in the world, and instead direct those dollars to the nation’s 27 million small businesses. Ending the diversion of small business contracts to corporate giants would put more money into the middle class economy, and create more jobs, than anything the Obama Administration has proposed to date.

Read the full article →

Dan Solin: Fools Rush in…

January 12, 2011

Many market trends are “obvious” to readers of my books and blogs. Here are some of them: The U.S. will become a third world country; The dollar is doomed; Inflation is inevitable; Interest rates will rise dramatically; Municipal bond defaults will rise at an alarming rate. Now is the time to dump municipal bonds. The stock market will continue its recovery well into 2011, and probably longer. I don’t understand why anyone is interested in my opinion on any of these issues. They could be right or wrong on any or all of them. I don’t have a clue. I believe the markets have taken all of the facts that underlie these beliefs into consideration and have priced the dollar, stocks and bonds accordingly. I also know that most investors make terrible investing decisions based on whatever their beliefs may be. Here’s my take on a prudent course of action. If you believe the U.S. is doomed (and even if you don’t), your portfolio should have exposure to international stocks. Most experts recommend a range of 30%-50%. If you believe the dollar is doomed (or not doomed), consider a globally diversified bond portfolio for that portion of your assets allocated to bonds. The SPDR Barclays Capital International Treasury Bond ETF (BWX) is a good place to start. As for inflation and interest rates, whether or not you believe these are risks, your bond portfolio should consist of short or intermediate term bonds (with maturities five years or less) in an index fund or an ETF. As those bonds mature, they will be replaced by new ones that will reflect current interest rates. It’s your personal hedge against inflation. What about the municipal bond issue? If the market perceives municipal bonds as risky, issuers will have to offer more interest to compensate for the higher risk of default. Historically, riskier assets have higher returns over time than less risky assets. If you can afford the increased risk, and are prepared to hold on for the long-term, maybe this is the right time to buy a low cost municipal bond ETF, like the iShares National Municipal Bond ETF (MUB). Many investors are fleeing bonds and going back to stocks, now that the pundits are predicting a continuation of the stock market recovery. The fact that they failed to call the recovery when the markets bottomed out in March, 2009 does not stop them from making more predictions. It also doesn’t deter investors from believing they have the ability to predict random events. Net inflows to bond funds (and out of stocks) peaked in October, 2009 at $231 billion. Think of all those hapless souls, relying on the financial media and their brokers and advisers, who “fled to safety” and missed out on the dramatic market recovery which continues to this day. Your asset allocation shouldn’t change with the latest survey of self-styled experts, economists or others. Endless talk and conflicting opinions fuel fear and uncertainty. Fear compels investors to make trading decisions. Trading decisions benefit brokers and their firms. It’s a crazy cycle, which repeats endlessly. Only advice based on long-term data qualifies as investment advice. If you’re paying for any other kind of advice, understand the price may far exceed the fees you are paying. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.

Read the full article →

Simon Johnson: The Bill Daley Problem

January 9, 2011

Simon Johnson is the co-author of 13 Bankers , out in paperback on Monday. Bill Daley, President Obama’s newly appointed chief of staff, is an experienced business executive. By all accounts, he is decisive, well-organized, and a skilled negotiator. His appointment, combined with other elements of the White House reshuffle, provides insight into how the president understands our economy — and what is likely to happen over the next couple of years. This is a serious problem. This is not a critique from the left or from the right. The Bill Daley Problem is completely bipartisan — it shows us the White House fails to understand that, at the heart of our economy, we have a huge time bomb. Until this week, Bill Daley was on the top operating committee at JP Morgan Chase. His bank — along with the other largest U.S. banks — have far too little equity and far too much debt relative to that thin level of equity; this makes them highly dangerous from a social point of view. These banks have captured the hearts and minds of top regulators and most of the political class (across the spectrum), most recently with completely specious arguments about why banks cannot be compelled to operate more safely. Top bankers, like Mr. Daley’s former colleagues, are intent of becoming more global — despite the fact that (or perhaps because) we cannot handle the failure of massive global banks. The system that led to the crisis of 2008, and the recession that has so severely damaged so many Americans, encouraged excessive risk-taking by major private sector financial institutions and, yes, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other Government Sponsored Enterprises (although these were most definitely not the major drivers of the crisis — see 13 Bankers ). Today’s most dangerous government sponsored enterprises are the largest six bank holding companies: JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley. They are undoubtedly too big to fail — if they were on the brink of failure, they would be rescued by the government, in the sense that their creditors would be protected 100 percent. The market knows this and, as a result, these large institutions can borrow more cheaply than their smaller competitors. This lets them stay big and — amazingly — get bigger. In the latest available data (Q3 of 2010), the big 6 had assets worth 64 percent of GDP. This is up from before the crisis — assets in the big six at the end of 2006 were only about 55 percent of GDP. And this is up massively from 1995, when these same banks (some of which had different names back then) were only 17 percent of GDP. No one can show significant social benefits from the increase in bank size, leverage, and overall riskiness over the past 15 years. The social costs of these banks — and their complete capture of the regulatory apparatus — are apparent in the worst recession and slowest recovery since the 1930s. Paul Volcker gets it; no wonder he has resigned. Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, gets it. Tom Hoenig, president of the Kansas City Fed, gets it. Elizabeth Warren, the tireless champion of consumer rights, gets it. Gene Fama, father of the efficient financial markets view, gets it better than anyone. I discussed the issue in public for two hours at the American Financial Association (AFA) meetings in Denver on Friday with two presidents of the AFA (Raghu Rajan and John Cochrane) and a Nobel Prize winner (Myron Scholes). This is not a left-wing or marginal group — there must have been at least 500 people in the audience (video will be available). The top minds in academic finance understand the problem vividly and are articulate about it — there is no rebuttal to the points being made by Anat Admati and her distinguished colleagues. This is not a left-right issue — again, look at the list of people who co-signed Professor Admati’s recent letter to the Financial Times. This is a question of technical competence. Do the people running the country — including both the executive branch and the legislature — understand economics and finance or not? If the country’s most distinguished nuclear scientists told you, clearly and very publicly, that they now realize a leading reactor design is very dangerous, would you and your politicians stop to listen? Yet our political leadership brush aside concerns about the way big banks operate. Why? Top bankers, including Bill Daley, have pulled off a complete snow job — including since the crisis broke in fall 2008. They have put forward their special interests while claiming to represent the general interest. Business and other groups, of course, do this all the time. But the difference here is the scale of the too big to subsidy — measured in terms of its likely future impact on our citizenship and our fiscal solvency, this will be devastating. Most smart people in the nonfinancial world understand that the big banks have become profoundly damaging to the rest of the private sector. The idea that the president needed to bring a top banker into his inner circle in order to build bridges with business is beyond ludicrous. Bill Daley now controls how information is presented to and decisions are made by the president. Daley’s former boss, Jamie Dimon, is the most dangerous banker in America — presumably he now gets even greater access to the Oval Office. Daley is on the record as opposing strong consumer protection for financial products; Elizabeth Warren faces an even steeper uphill battle. Important regulatory appointments, such as the succession to Sheila Bair at the FDIC, are less likely to go to sensible people. And in all our interactions with other countries, for example around the G20 but also on a bilateral basis, we will pursue the resolutely pro-big finance views of the second Clinton administration. Top executives at big U.S. banks want to be left alone during relatively good times — allowed to take whatever excessive risks they want, to juice their return on equity through massive leverage, to thus boost their pay and enhance their status around the world. But at a moment of severe financial crisis, they also want someone in the White House who will whisper at just the right moment: “Mr. President, if you let this bank fail, it will trigger a worldwide financial panic and another Great Depression. This will be worse than what happened after Lehman Brothers failed.” Let’s be honest. With the appointment of Bill Daley, the big banks have won completely this round of boom-bust-bailout. The risk inherent to our financial system is now higher than it was in the early/mid-2000s. We are set up for another illusory financial expansion and another debilitating crisis. Bill Daley will get it done.

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: Put Your Empirically Proven Data Where Your Mouth Is

January 9, 2011

As a military veteran, and someone who is more interested in actual facts than rhetoric, I have long been bugged by two claims made by private military and security contracting advocates, i.e., first, that most security contractors are, by way of past military experience, somehow more “professional” than the average soldier or marine on their first or second hitch, and, second, that most private military contractors are more cost-effective than using their public sector counterparts. Of course, one expects PMC trade associations to say this kind of thing; it is what they get paid for. Their membership would hardly be paying their dues if they said, for example, gee, I don’t know the answer to that question but we should form a group to study it. Still, given how often they make those sorts of claims, one might think they would at least provide some evidence. I mean how difficult is it to create a page on their websites and cite a few, empirically sound, methodologically rigorous, peer reviewed studies to back up their claims? If a military veteran takes work as a private security contractor after their first tour of active duty, not all of which will have been spent in a war or conflict zone, are they really going to be that much more experienced than someone on active duty who, nowadays, likely has had repeated tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan? To provide some perspective let’s look at a recently published paper It is Outsourcing, Managing, Supervising, and Regulating Private Military Companies in Contingency Operations and was a 129-page thesis written by Ali Kemal Dogru, a student at the Naval Postgraduate School. He is a First Lieutenant in the Turkish Army and has earned an M.A. in Security Studies (Stabilization and Reconstruction) from the NPS. It’s important to remember that Lt. Dogru is not against the use of PMC. But it is clear he feels that they can be better controlled and regulated. Here are two excerpts relevant to the above points. The first, for those who have actually been in the military, is not new or original, but given how little it is actually mentioned in public bears noting. Both militaries, which are public agencies, and PMCs, which are private corporations, are security providers; however, there are striking differences between them. The first difference is that unlike militaries, private military is not considered to be a profession. Samuel Huntington defines professionalism by means of three primary characteristics: expertise, social responsibility, and corporateness. He conceptualizes the military as a profession, only if its officer corps has internalized all of these characteristics. According to Huntington, what separates an officer from a mercenary is that while for an officer, social responsibility outweighs monetary motivation; for a mercenary, private gain is the primary motivation. When the criteria that Huntington uses to measure professionalism are applied to PMCs, it becomes clear that private security is not a profession for two prominent reasons: first; money, most of the time even if not always, outweighs social responsibility in the private military sector. Second; unlike militaries, PMCs lack of corporateness. PMCs are private entities that have distinct organizational cultures and norms. Expertise, on the other hand, is perhaps the most important reason that principals prefer PMCs, as they provide some services that require considerable proficiency. Nevertheless, though necessary, expertise is not sufficient alone to make private military a profession. The second difference is that militaries are responsible to both the state and the society, whereas PMCs are only responsible to their principals in terms of their contracts. As Martha Minow states, “Military training, unit discipline, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and international legal standards governing war and armed conflicts ensure accountability for the military but not for private corporations and their employees engaged in military work.” According to Peter Warren Singer: Private employees have distinctly different motivations, responsibilities, and loyalties than those in the public military. No matter their background, while in a private company, employees are directly responsible to the corporation and its executives; they are hired, fired, promoted, demoted, rewarded, and disciplined by the management of their private company, not by government officials or the public. There are many regulations and laws that keep militaries accountable at both national and international levels. However, there is neither overarching international regulatory framework nor effective regulatory mechanisms at the national level that keep PMCs accountable, including the Geneva Conventions. Moreover, even though some countries have written laws and regulations that seek to exert control over PMCs, enforcement still remains a challenge. Despite the patches to existing gaps in regulations, some PMC personnel still fall outside of the national and international regulatory framework. In other words, PMCs in a sense operate in the grey area. Last but not least; while for militaries there is only one legitimate principal (state), for PMCs, there are many options, including: states, international organizations, such as the UN, regional organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private corporations, and weak governments. Picking and choosing between multiple principles brings about many potential hazards on the part of the governments that employ them, while providing PMCs with considerable flexibilities. Unlike militaries, PMCs have the opportunity to select between these alternatives, and to switch sides, depending on who pays the most. Integrity and probity, which are important components of the military profession, do not make sense in the private military sector. Then there is the cost-effectiveness issue. As Bill Clinton might have said, it all depends on what you mean by cost. It also depends on what your time frame is. I find this passage particularly relevant, and not a little ironic, given that the studies mentioned below has been cited by PMC supporters as proving their claims. In contingency operations, governmental agencies have basically two alternatives: using a military unit, or contracting with a PMC. In this context, in order to properly decide to contract out a particular function, governmental agencies need to know whether it is less expensive to use a PMC rather than a military unit or not. However, there are extraordinary difficulties in making a comparison between a PMC and a military unit. First, pay is just one factor that determines the total costs. If governmental agencies just rely on direct or production costs in their make-or-buy decisions, they may fail to make the right decision, either by overestimating the possible benefits of outsourcing PMCs or by underestimating the actual costs of outsourcing PMCs. Governmental agencies may waste taxpayer’s dollars unless transaction costs are thoroughly analyzed. How, for example, can costs associated with training, healthcare, retirement salaries, and compensations of military personnel be incorporated into calculations and compared? How should training costs for contractors, monitoring, information and contract management costs be taken into account while making comparisons between military units and PMC alternatives? Traditional cost analysis generally ignores these transaction costs. The second complication is that gathering detailed data with respect to PMCs and military personnel is painstaking. For instance, a March 2010 GAO report demonstrates that the Pentagon could not provide the GAO with critical data to make a comparison, since it does not have enough information regarding “the number of military personnel that would be needed to meet the contract requirements or the cost of training personnel to carry out security functions.” The third complication is that even though there are aggregated data with regard to money spent on PMC, it is often difficult to break down this general data into individual contracts. For example, A 2008 CBO report states: “From 2003 through 2007, U.S. agencies awarded $85 billion in contracts for work to be principally performed in the Iraq theater, accounting for almost 20 percent of funding for operations in Iraq.” The Department of Defense’s share in this total is almost 90 percent ($76 billion). According to the CBO figures, total expenditure for private security services was between $6 billion and $10 billion during the 2003-2007 period. The CBO also notes that “between $3 billion and $4 billion of that spending was for obligations made directly by the U.S. government for private security services in Iraq.” Though providing a general picture, these figures are not comparable, since they do not give any idea of how much the agency would spend if it performed the same tasks internally. At this point, it is useful to look at comparable figures to better understand whether PMCs are costeffective. … What then is the cost of contractor personnel in comparison to military soldiers? Is outsourcing really cost-effective? The CBO released a cost comparison analysis of a PMC versus its military alternative in 2008. According to the report, “the costs of a private security contract are comparable with those of a U.S. military unit performing similar functions.” Nevertheless, “during peacetime, the private military contract would not have to be renewed, whereas the military unit would remain in the force structure.” To put it another way, there is no savings during wartime. In this analysis, CBO took three types of costs into consideration while estimating the military unit’s cost: military personnel costs, operating costs, and equipment costs. In the analysis, the military pay rates include “basic pay, subsistence and housing allowances, plus a federal tax advantage because those allowances are not taxed,” however exclude “free health care for military families back home, and deferred benefits, such as pay and health care for those who receive military retirement benefits.” While estimating the costs associated with Blackwater employees, CBO took personnel, monitoring, contract management, equipment, and insurance costs into consideration. Summations on both sides were then compared. Nonetheless, training costs on both sides are not incorporated into these calculations. This is partly because while staff of organizations are usually considered “assets,” money spend on their training is not recognized as “asset specific.” In other words, it is assumed that the investment in training of military personnel has no value to the organization, if these personnel leave the job. However, since human capital of PMC relies on former military personnel, who were already trained by the military in the past; calculations that exclude training costs may misrepresent the actual situation. The chart above shows that there is not much difference between Blackwater and an Army infantry unit in terms of operational costs. However, this comparison does not reflect the real picture, since costs may change depending on the type of function that is outsourced, the length of contract, and the conditions under which the function is performed. Moreover, it is difficult to generalize these findings, as different PMCs would have different performances. On the other hand, there are considerable reasons that make us believe that militaries are less efficient in the long-term than PMCs. Most significantly is that, unlike PMCs, militaries are idle in peacetime. From the government’s perspective, the money, which is spent on weapon, equipment, and manpower in peacetime, is a lost economic output, since most of this capital is idle when not being used. Therefore, rather than maintaining huge forces that must be paid and trained periodically, sometimes outsourcing some tasks to PMCs only when necessary may be cost-effective. For example, in 2005, CBO estimated that over a 20-year period including both peacetime and wartime, outsourcing logistical functions to PMCs would cost around $41 billion, whereas obtaining the same logistical functions from the United States military would cost approximately $78 billion. This estimation clearly shows that it is profitable for the Department of Defense to outsource some logistical functions to PMCs. PMCs also perform other functions, such as security, military training and military advice. In order to figure out which functions PMCs execute more efficiently, performances of PMCs and militaries must be measured and compared on a case-by-case basis. Although it is relatively easier to measure costs associated with logistics, it is more difficult to measure costs related to functions like security, military training and advice. Alternatively, it may sometimes be costly to utilize PMCs, particularly when there is no effective oversight mechanism to keep their activities under control. Paying for duplicate services, fraud, and sustainability problems of the reconstruction projects may yield unintended consequences if PMCs are not properly managed and supervised. In fact, effective monitoring and good contract management are themselves costly, even if there is no fraud.

Read the full article →

Banks Lose Pivotal Mortgage Case

January 8, 2011

The highest court in Massachusetts ruled against U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co. Friday in a pivotal mortgage foreclosure case that could spark more turmoil and uncertainty in a housing market already mired in depression. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a lower court judge’s ruling invalidating two mortgage foreclosure sales because the banks, in their capacity as trustees for mortgage securities, did not prove that they actually owned the mortgages at the time of foreclosure. The decision, which highlights the failure of financial firms to adhere to the rules that govern mortgage-backed securities, is likely to lead more borrowers to sue bank servicers and trustees for wrongful foreclosures. It’s unclear what the ruling means for people who were forced from their homes after defaulting on their loans or for those who purchased houses in foreclosure sales. “There are now thousands of these homes that have been purchased through foreclosures handled in a very similar fashion where the titles are defective,” said Ward P. Graham, a Massachusetts title attorney who co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of the Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts, Inc. Last fall, the banking industry’s foreclosure machine came under intense scrutiny with revelations that low-level employees called “robo signers” powered through hundreds of foreclosure affidavits a day without verifying a single sentence. At the time, analysts warned that the banks’ allegedly fraudulent document procedures could imperil their ability to prove that they owned the mortgages. The Massachusetts ruling stokes those concerns. “This decision is going to raise serious problems in hundreds of thousands of foreclosure cases,” said homeowner-defense attorney Thomas Cox, a Maine attorney who was one of the first to put the robo signing scandal in the national spotlight. “It has the potential to require that foreclosures be done over, and I think there’s going to be significant turmoil nationally. There’s going to be major uncertainty.” In the Massachusetts case, the Supreme Judicial Court found that the banks, who were not the original mortgagees, did not show that they held the mortgages at the time of foreclosure. As a result, the court found, the banks did not demonstrate that the foreclosure sales were valid. The banks argued that the securitization documents they submitted were sufficient to prove they owned the mortgages before the publication of the notices of sale and the foreclosure sales. Wells Fargo said in a statement Friday that as trustee of a securitized pool of loans, it expected those servicing the loans to abide by all applicable state laws, including those governing foreclosure sales. The San Francisco bank was a trustee of the securitized trust in question. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., was the servicer. In a separate statement U.S. Bancorp said the judgment has no financial impact on the company. “The issues addressed by the court revolved around the process of servicing the loan on behalf of the securitization trust, which was performed in this case by the servicer, American Home Mortgage,” the bank, which is based in Minneapolis, said. It later issued another statement saying that as a trustee of the securitization trust that it has no responsibility for the terms of the underlying mortgage, foreclosure procedure, the conduct of the servicer, the process by which the mortgage is transferred to the trust, or the sufficiency of the mortgage documentation.” American Home Mortgage Servicing, which is based in Coppell, Texas, said in a statement that the “decision is of limited applicability because it is based on law that is unique and specific to Massachusetts. The decision does not extend to foreclosures in other states.” Attorney Paul Collier III, who represents Antonio Ibanez, one of the homeowners in the case, said the ruling affects thousands of mortgages in Massachusetts and could have a far-reaching impact on the nation’s banking industry. “For homeowners and foreclosures in general, it means that any mortgage foreclosure which was initiated by a securitized trust at a time when the trust had not obtained a mortgage assignment which gave it the lawful right to do so is void. Those homeowners, like Mr. Ibanez, still own the property,” Collier said. It’s up to lawmakers to take action to remove the uncertainty over mortgages raised by the decision, said Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin. Without legislative action, the court’s ruling will have a “chilling effect” on the real estate market, he said. The broader implications of the case sent bank stocks lower, with Wells Fargo stock falling 65 cents, or 2 percent, to close at $31.50. It earlier traded as low as $30.64. Stock in U.S. Bancorp slid 20 cents to close at $26.09, after dropping as much as 2.4 percent after the ruling.

Read the full article →

Electric Ford Focus Will Go On Sale This Year

January 7, 2011

DETROIT — Ford Motor Co. said Friday that an electric version of its Ford Focus sedan will go on sale in North America by the end of this year. Ford introduced the electric Focus at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. The car is expected to go up to 100 miles on an electric charge. The automaker says the Focus can be fully charged in three to four hours using a 240-volt outlet. That’s half the time it takes to charge the Nissan Leaf, a competitor that went on sale last month. Ford also said its fuel efficiency numbers will be competitive with the Leaf. Late last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated the Leaf would get the equivalent of 106 miles per gallon in city driving and 92 miles per gallon on the highway. The EPA determined the figures by estimating it will cost $561 per year in electricity to charge the car. Ford said the Focus will have a unique, Microsoft-designed powering feature that will charge the vehicle during off-peak hours, when utility rates are cheapest, to save on electric bills. It also has a touchscreen with information such as the amount of charge left, the distance to the next charging station and the amount of gasoline saved. Pricing wasn’t announced. The Leaf starts at $32,780, but it is eligible for a $7,500 federal tax credit that drops the price to $25,780. The electric Focus will be Ford’s first electric car on the market. It began selling an electric version of the Transit Connect van last year. The Chevrolet Volt, an electric car with a small gas engine that takes over if the charge runs out, is the only other electric car on sale in the U.S. right now, but other competitors are planning to introduce electrics soon. In 2012, Toyota plans to begin selling an electric RAV4 crossover, Chrysler plans an electric Fiat 500 minicar and Honda will sell an electric version of the Fit subcompact. Ford said it plans to introduce four other electric vehicles in North America and Europe over the next two years. The electric Focus will go on sale in Europe next year.

Read the full article →

Kevin Connor: The Foreclosure Fraud Scandal Just Got Harder to Ignore

January 7, 2011

The Massachusetts Supreme Court issued a major decision against the banks on the issue of foreclosure fraud earlier today. In US Trust vs. Ibanez , the court ruled that the banks in the case did not have standing to foreclose when they failed to assign the mortgage prior to foreclosure. The case carries significant implications, as many foreclosures may be declared invalid in Massachusetts, and the ruling could influence other state courts. The decision has already sent bank stocks down. Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has identified a fundamental problem with the mortgage securitization and foreclosure process, Wall Street bankers and their friends in Washington may also have a harder time working hand in glove to stamp out the foreclosure fraud firestorm. Last October, when foreclosure fraud started capturing national headlines, the Obama administration joined the banks’ PR offensive and helped spin illegal foreclosure as a minor clerical issue. At a critical point in the process, White House adviser David Axelrod appeared on Face the Nation to say that he regretted that there was “uncertainty” in the housing market, that the administration was working closely with financial institutions, and that they hoped the issue would be resolved quickly.  He also said that the administration opposed a nationwide moratorium due to the fact that some foreclosures were valid. At the time, Yves Smith said that the comments revealed “astonishing” priorities on the part of the Obama administration . We do not know whether Bank of America wrote Axelrod’s talking points, but we do know that he was partying with the bank’s top public relations strategist a few days later. Axelrod attended an epilepsy research fundraiser in Boston later that week that was co-chaired by Bank of America executive Anne Finucane . The other co-chair, along with Finucane’s husband? Axelrod’s wife, Susan , a co-founder of Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy. Other prominent attendees are listed here . In  one picture from the event , David is standing next to an amused Finucane, a huge, clownish smile on his face, trademark mustache and brow in full effect, with one arm extended as if he is about to shake the hand of the photographer. Obama’s point man on foreclosure fraud could not possibly look like a bigger corporate tool, arm in arm with Bank of America’s top public relations strategist at the height of the foreclosure fraud mess. The “foreclosure fraud as inconsequential clerical error” argument has always been spin meant to mislead the public, put forward by Wall Street with help from government cronies like David Axelrod. Zero Hedge calls these folks the “kleptocratic banker mafia syndicate,” and they come together at events like the Axelrod-Finucane fundraiser to further strengthen their social ties. But did they forget to invite the judge? When the foreclosure fraud scandal hits the front pages again, and threatens to hurt powerful financial institutions — rather than just the foreclosed, unemployed, and powerless — will the syndicate keep pushing the paperwork canard? Will Obama dispatch another Wall Street flack to the Sunday circuit, to say that the issue needs to be resolved quickly? And will talking points matter when court cases keep piling up? It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Read the full article →

Dylan Ratigan: Free Market Fraud

January 7, 2011

At first glance, the December jobs report seems to be a step in the right direction. An unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, the lowest level in 19 months. And a president, happy to boast about another 103,000 jobs being created last month. However, renowned economist Peter Morici points out two important caveats. For one, 260,000 Americans simply dropped out of the labor force in December. They are out of work, yet no longer counted as unemployed by the government. And secondly, 103,000 jobs is nowhere near the number of jobs we need to be adding each month. To bring unemployment down to 6 percent by 2013, businesses need to hire an average of 350,000 new workers each month. Even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who continues to defend his Quantitative Easing (aka money-printing) program, couldn’t ignore the writing on the wall during a Senate hearing Friday morning. “If we continue at this pace”, said Bernanke, “we are not going to see sustained declines to the unemployment rate.” This “pace” that we’re operating at is working out just fine for the incumbent power structure, but it is strangling the rest of America. And it’s not the first time a group of outdated industries has controlled our government for their own benefit, and at the detriment of everyone else. It took a courageous — and at the time crazy — leader by the name of Teddy Roosevelt to step up and change that. He took on the biggest financial giant there was, JP Morgan, and he won. Roosevelt’s underlying premise — if you’re too powerful and you’re profiting at the expense of the American people — then you are an enemy of freedom and the government must break you up. It was that simple. Here we find ourselves today in a similar situation, where six industries have a stranglehold over Washington. And the draining of our current and future wealth will only continue as both the media and the political class not only tolerates but spreads the phrase “free market” when the reality doesn’t match the rhetoric. Our politicians continue to take money from massive corporations to subsidize them in a rigged marketplace that only cares about protecting the incumbent structure. At the same time, the American people are drowning in a red sea of debt caused by perpetuating banking, health care, energy and defense systems that are expensive, ineffective and protected from competition. So I have a challenge for those so-called free market Republicans who rode a wave of voter discontent into Washington. I challenge you to end massive corporate subsidies. To end tax loopholes. And to end rigged trade with China and release the true power of free markets. This can no longer be simply a talking point to win votes. Because this broken system is not only costing American jobs… it’s costing us the very prosperity and freedoms that this country was founded on. WATCH: “The Bears Talk China’s Manipulation” ….

Read the full article →

Mark Engler: The Rich Can Already Call It a Year

January 7, 2011

Well, 2011, it’s been nice. But I think we’ve worked enough already. In any case, we’ve already made enough money. Time to call it a year. This is a ridiculous idea, right? Yet, as the Canadian Financial Post reported at the beginning of the week, “Top CEOs will have earned average workers’ full annual pay by 2:30 p.m. today.” The “today” in question was Monday, January 3, the first business day of the year. Here’s their explanation: Canada’s best-paid chief executives earned 155 times the average income earner during the darkest days of the recession, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said in a report Monday. Declaring that those 100 chief executives were “recession proof,” the think tank said they earned an average of $6.6 million in 2009 compared with $42,988 for the average Canadian. That means by 2:30 p.m. Monday, the first working day of the year, those CEOs will have earned the full year’s wage of the average Canadian, said Hugh Mackenzie, the author’s study and research associate for the centre. I’m not sure how the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives , when producing this brilliant bit of PR, crunched the numbers to come up with the exact time of 2:30 p.m. on January 3. However, their general point stands. And, in fact, the situation is even worse in the United States. Here, as the AFL-CIO has tracked , the average compensation for a Fortune 500 CEO is $9.25 million per year. Even if we grant that these businesspeople are workaholics putting in seventy-hour workweeks and taking no vacation, that comes to $2,541 for every hour they labor. Calling it quits after the first week of January, these American CEOs would each be able to take home an annual income of over $177,000. Whether the world would be worse off if they did check out for the rest of the year is a debatable point. As CNN Money has noted , not all of the companies run by the top-twenty-earning CEOs were even profitable. For example, in 2009 Johnson & Johnson experienced its first annual sales decline in seventy-six years, yet its CEO, William Weldon, was nevertheless paid $22.8 million , in large part for making “difficult personnel decisions.” (Translation: firing as many as 8,000 workers.) Of course, even these Fortune 500 CEOs are not making money very quickly by the standards of the financial sector. The New York Times reported that the top twenty-five hedge fund managers made $25.3 billion between them in 2009, with George Soros personally raking in $3.3 billion. That’s $8.2 million per day. It goes without saying that, while the incomes of the rich may be “recession proof,” that is not the case for the wages of the rest of us. But a lot of people don’t realize that this is not just a result of the recession of the past couple years. Over the last several decades, as earnings at the very top have skyrocketed, incomes for those outside of the top 20 percent have been basically stagnant, with productivity gains not translating into wage increases . And we are working ever more hours just to stay afloat. I have written a couple times before about Take Back Your Time Day , which takes place on October 24 each year. The notion behind this holiday is that if working hours in the United States were on par with those in Germany, the Netherlands, or Norway, then, come October 24, we’d be able to take the rest of the year off. If you don’t want to use those other countries as points of comparison, that date could be adjusted. Economist Juliet Schor explains that “the average worker [in the U.S. was] putting in 204 more hours in 2006 than in 1973.” That’s a full five weeks of extra work per year. If Americans just worked the same amount they did in the early 1970s, we’d be able to finish up our working year on about November 25. This would mean turning the entire month of December into a glorious annual sabbatical. Or we could spread the free time out over the entire year. (Three Fridays off per month, anyone?) The result: a far more reasonable balance between work, family, and leisure — a standard of life that used to be widely enjoyed in this country. Certainly, that’s not as sweet as being able to take your hard-earned week’s pay of $177,000 and clocking out from now until 2012. But it’s something the rest of us can dream of — and demand. Cross-posted from the “Arguing the World” blog at Dissent magazine.

Read the full article →

Identity Theft Victim Can’t Convince Freddie Mac He Owns His Home

January 7, 2011

The Identity Theft Resource Center says Ty Powell is a victim of identity theft. Freddie Mac says he hasn’t paid his mortgage in two years. The local paper says he’s dead. Powell says, “I don’t know what to say.” He’s afraid to leave his Casa Grande, Ariz. house for an extended period of time because the mortgage servicer, Chase, might send someone to break in and try to change the locks — something Powell said already happened twice last year after the bank foreclosed on him. The foreclosure was completed last July, and Powell, 30, could be evicted at any time. He said he doesn’t sleep much. “I spent Christmas alone,” he said. Powell said he bought the house from a builder in January 2007, paying $217,000 in savings and cash he’d earned playing professional basketball in Brazil after graduating from Yale in 2002. But as far as Freddie Mac knows, it owns a delinquent $376,703 mortgage taken out in November 2006. Powell said he was in Brazil at the time and had nothing to do with that mortgage. Jay Foley, founder of the nonprofit Identity Theft Resource Center, said the builder apparently used Powell’s personal information, which Powell sent months in advance from Brazil, to take out a fraudulent mortgage in his name. The builder went as far as to make some payments on the mortgage and even attempt a loan workout in 2008. “The builder took out a mortgage on the house in Ty’s name. Then he turned around and maintained the mortgage until Ty came back and bought that house,” Foley said. “This builder sounds like a pretty slick dude and I would love to see him making little rocks out of big ones someplace.” Powell said he found an eviction notice on his door in March. He hired a pricey lawyer. “The argument was that I was not properly served,” he said, “which was not the right argument.” An Arizona judge ruled in favor of Freddie Mac in September. Foley reached the same conclusion as Powell. “His attorney is arguing the wrong point,” he said. “Instead of arguing the loan was fraudulent, the attorney’s arguing it’s the nature of the service because Ty wasn’t served.” Now Powell owes tens of thousands in legal fees, both to his own lawyer and to Freddie Mac’s. Foley isn’t the only one advocating for Powell. In October, his congresswoman, Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.), wrote a letter to Freddie Mac stating that the “home mortgage loan was secured without his consent along with various credit cards, and student loans.” (Kirkpatrick was defeated in November by Republican Paul Gosar, whose office should now have Powell’s case file.) Freddie Mac just doesn’t buy it. The loan is in default, the mortgage giant says, so it’s their house now. “We first learned of Mr. Powell’s claim after the foreclosure was completed last July,” a Freddie Mac spokesman told HuffPost. “He filed suit in March 2010 — eight months later — and our request for summary judgment was granted by the court on Sept. 14, 2010. “We believe the foreclosure was legitimate because the loan secured by the property was in default. Despite a mortgage workout in 2008, no mortgage payment had been received since January 2009. We have also referred the matter to our fraud investigations unit.” The Casa Grande Dispatch reported this summer that Powell “died on July 12, 2010, at Casa Grande Regional Medical Center of heart problems.” Managing Editor Donovan Kramer Jr. told HuffPost there’s no record of the email sent to the paper alleging Powell’s passing, or much else. “This was a very brief one and apparently there was no corroborating information,” he said. Powell figures the death notice is a threat from the fraudster. Foley said it’s more likely an effort by the perp to confuse Freddie Mac. Either way, there’s plenty of information corroborating the claim that Powell is a victim of identity theft. The Identity Theft Resource Center provided HuffPost with a stack of letters from banks and local municipalities absolving Powell of other, smaller frauds committed in his name, like phony accounts and drivers’ licenses Chase, the servicer of the allegedly-bogus mortgage, declined to comment because of “ongoing litigation” it refused to describe. Powell said he didn’t know anything about that. “I’ve exhausted all of my resources to try to remedy this,” he said. Convincing Freddie Mac he doesn’t have a mortgage, he said, is like convincing “birthers” that Obama has a legitimate birth certificate. “Obama has the luxury of dismissing these claims as from people on the fringe,” he added. “I don’t have the luxury of dismissing this ridiculousness.”

Read the full article →

Foreclosure Case Deals Big Blow To Banks, Lenders

January 7, 2011

NEW YORK (By Jonathan Stempel and Dena Aubin) – In a ruling that may affect foreclosures nationwide, Massachusetts’ highest court voided the seizure of two homes by Wells Fargo & Co and US Bancorp after the banks failed to show they held the mortgages at the time they foreclosed. Bank shares fell, dragging down the broader U.S. stock market, after the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on Friday issued its decision, which upheld a lower court ruling. The decision is among the earliest to address the validity of foreclosures conducted without full documentation. That issue last year prompted an uproar that led lenders such as Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Ally Financial Inc to temporarily stop seizing homes. Courts in other U.S. states are considering similar cases, and all 50 state attorneys general are examining whether lenders are forcing people out of their homes improperly. Friday’s decision may also threaten banks’ ability to package mortgages into securities, including whether loans that were transferred improperly might need to be bought back. Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp lacked authority to foreclose after having “failed to make the required showing that they were the holders of the mortgages at the time of foreclosure,” Justice Ralph Gants wrote for a unanimous court. Wells Fargo was not immediately available for comment. U.S. Bancorp spokesman Steve Dale said the ruling has no financial impact on the bank, which has “no responsibility for the terms of the underlying mortgage or the procedure by which they were transferred” into a mortgage trust. “What they were doing was peddling these mortgages and leaving the paperwork behind,” said Michael Pill, a partner at Green, Miles, Lipton & Fitz-Gibbon LLP in Northampton, Massachusetts, who represents homeowners and is not involved in the case. In early afternoon trading, Wells Fargo shares were down nearly 4 percent at $30.92, while U.S. Bancorp was down 1.4 percent at $25.93. Bank of America stock was down 2.8 percent, JPMorgan fell 3.7 percent, and the KBW Bank Index, which includes all four lenders, was down 2.3 percent. Major U.S. stock indexes were down 0.6 percent to 0.8 percent. ‘UTTER CARELESSNESS’ In the Massachusetts case, U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo had said they controlled through different trusts the respective mortgages of Antonio Ibanez as well as Mark and Tammy LaRace, who lost their homes to foreclosure in 2007. The banks bought the homes in foreclosure, and sought court orders confirming they had title. A lower court judge ruled against them, and Friday’s decision upheld this ruling. In a concurring opinion, Justice Robert Cordy lambasted “the utter carelessness” that Wells Fargo and US Bancorp demonstrated in documenting their right to own the properties. Massachusetts is one of 27 U.S. states that do not require court approval to foreclose. Gants did suggest in his opinion how banks might properly transfer mortgages via securitization trusts. “The executed agreement that assigns the pool of mortgages, with a schedule of the pooled mortgage loans that clearly and specifically identifies the mortgage at issue as among those assigned, may suffice to establish the trustee as the mortgage holder,” Gants wrote. “However, there must be proof that the assignment was made by a party that itself held the mortgage.” The cases are U.S. Bank N.A. v. Ibanez and Wells Fargo Bank NA v. LaRace et al, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, No. SJC-10694. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel and Dena Aubin; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn and Matthew Lewis) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Obama Allows Chevron, Shell And 11 Others To Resume Offshore Drilling Without Further Review

January 4, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Monday it will allow 13 companies to resume deepwater drilling without any additional environmental scrutiny, just months after saying it would require strict reviews for new drilling in the wake of the BP oil spill. The government said it was not breaking its promise to require environmental reviews because the 13 companies – which include Chevron USA Inc. and Shell Offshore Inc. – had already started drilling the wells without detailed environmental studies. Drilling was suspended last year when the administration imposed a months-long moratorium following the BP spill. The ban was lifted in October, but drilling has not yet resumed in waters deeper than 500 feet in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. officials said the 13 companies must comply with new policies and rules before resuming activity at 16 Gulf of Mexico wells. All but three are exploratory wells – the same type BP was drilling when the blowout of the Deepwater Horizon rig occurred. The April 20 explosion killed 11 workers and set off the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history. “For those companies that were in the midst of operations at the time of the deepwater suspensions (last spring), today’s notification is a significant step toward resuming their permitted activity,” said Michael Bromwich, director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. The decision is a victory for the drilling companies, which in the past had routinely won broad waivers from rules requiring detailed environmental studies. After the BP disaster, the Obama administration pledged it would require companies to complete environmental reviews before being allowed to drill for oil. The administration has been under heavy pressure from the oil industry, Gulf state leaders and congressional Republicans to speed up drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which has come to a near halt since the moratorium on deepwater drilling was imposed last spring. The delay is hurting big oil companies such as Chevron Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC, which have billions of dollars in investments tied up in Gulf projects that are on hold. Smaller operators such as ATP Oil & Gas Corp., Murphy Exploration & Production Co.-USA, and Noble Energy Inc., also have been affected. A federal report said the moratorium probably caused a temporary loss of 8,000 to 12,000 jobs in the Gulf region. Bromwich and other officials stressed that the policy announced Monday was not a reversal of its previous plans not to grant waivers known as categorical exclusions for deepwater projects. Instead officials characterized the action as a sort of grandfather clause that applies only to companies that had already begun drilling before the BP blowout. In August, Bromwich instructed his staff not to grant categorical exclusions for drilling plans that involve use of a blowout preventer similar to the one that failed to stop the BP spill. But the August directive did not specify that any companies would be exempted under a grandfather provision. “This decision was based on our ongoing review of environmental analyses in the Gulf and was in no way impacted by a singular company,” said Melissa Schwartz, a spokeswoman for Bromwich. Bromwich said in a statement that the new policy will accommodate companies whose operations were interrupted by the five-month moratorium on deepwater drilling, while ensuring that the companies can resume previously approved activities. William Snape, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, called the announcement “another sad chapter in agency denial that anything is wrong.” Snape said Bromwich and his boss, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, seem to want dangerous oil and gas drilling to go on in the Gulf and Alaska “without any meaningful public scientific review of the risks learned from the BP disaster.” But Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, called the announcement “a positive development for an industry that has been anxiously waiting to get back to work.” Marathon Oil Co. said it was seeking to obtain permits for deepwater drilling, including one project that was suspended by the moratorium. In an e-mailed statement, Marathon said it is working with the ocean energy bureau on the permits and is optimistic the company will receive approval. The firms will not be required to complete a detailed review under the National Environmental Policy Act, but they must comply with new policies and regulations set up in the wake of the BP spill, Bromwich said. The 13 companies won’t be required to revise their exploration plans if an updated estimate of the most oil that would be released in an uncontrolled spill is less than the amount included in spill-response plans on file with the bureau. If the worst-case discharge estimate is higher, “further reviews will be conducted,” according to the statement. The 13 companies that received the notice are: ATP Oil & Gas Corp.; BHP Billiton Petroleum (GOM) Inc.; Chevron USA Inc.; Cobalt International Energy; ENI U.S. Operating Co. Inc.; Hess Corp.; Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corp.; Marathon Oil Co.; Murphy Exploration & Production Co.-USA; Noble Energy Inc.; Shell Offshore Inc.; Statoil USA E & P Inc.; and Walter Oil & Gas Corp. ___ Associated Press writers Dina Cappiello in Washington and Harry R. Weber in New Orleans contributed to this story.

Read the full article →

Al Norman: The Wal-Mart/Netflix Conspiracy: Bad Movie

January 2, 2011

Judge’s Ruling Clears Way For Class Action Litigation OAKLAND, CA. — It must have seemed like a great plot line at the time. On May 19, 2005, Wal-Mart and Netflix put out a press release announcing that the companies’ two online retail sites would “promote each other’s core business.” The deal was described as a “joint promotional agreement” which would allow each company to benefit from each other’s “complimentary expertise.” The agreement was a non-compete deal which divided up the DVD market by drawing a bright line separating DVD rentals from sales, based on the companies’ strengths. Netflix would promote Wal-Mart’s sale of DVD movies, and Wal-Mart would promote Netflix’s DVD rental business. Neither company would intrude onto the other’s territory. According to their joint press release, the two companies agreed “to market one another’s key movie business at their respective websites.” Wal-Mart agreed to stop its DVD rental service — which it did in June of 2005 — and its rental customers would “be offered the option to become Netflix subscribers at their current Wal-Mart rate for one year from the date they sign up.” Wal-Mart also agreed to use its website, walmart.com, to promote and refer customers who wanted to rent DVDs to Netflix. To this day, walmart.com/movies does not rent DVDs. In return, Netflix, which claims to have more than 16 million members, agreed to promote Wal-Mart’s online movie sales, including a pre-order price guarantee, which Netflix allowed to be accessed from its website, and promoted through mailers sent to Netflix subscribers. The pre-order price guarantee ensured customers the “lowest available price on pre-order movies,” according to the companies’ joint statement. In response to this “agreement” between two of its rivals, Blockbuster advertised a special offer to Wal-Mart and Netflix DVD subscribers: if a Wal-Mart or a Netflix subscriber switched to Blockbuster’s online DVD rental service, the subscriber got two months of free service, a free DVD of their choice, and a freeze of their subscription rate for a year. “We’ve experienced tremendous growth in our online movie sales,” said Wal-Mart’s chief marketing officer for the retailer’s website, “and are committed to enhancing our focus in this business at Walmart.com. We’re equally excited to team with Netflix, the pioneer of online movie rentals, which not only distinguishes both of our core online competencies, but offers a complementary solution of value, service, and convenience to customers.” Netflix’s CEO, Reed Hastings, added: “This agreement bolsters both Netflix’s leadership in DVD movie rentals and Wal-Mart’s strong movie sales business, while providing customers even more choices and convenience. Both companies will continue to expand their respective leads in providing the best in movie entertainment to millions of online customers.” But for DVD rental subscribers, it was not apparent how this deal translated into “more choices and convenience.” Instead, it looked like a choice made for the convenience and profit of the retailers — not for consumers. The deal ended major competition in DVD sales and rentals. Netflix told its investors that it believed the agreement “would not materially impact the company’s current subscriber growth or financial performance.” Netflix boasted that teaming up with Walmart.com would bolster the company’s competitive position, because the popularity of Walmart.com and the Web site’s traffic “offer an opportunity for increased awareness and referrals to the Netflix service.” This week, the Netflix/Wal-Mart DVD deal was back in the headlines — but with a negative spin. A U.S. District Court Judge in Oakland, California ruled that a Netflix subscribers’ lawsuit brought in 2009 challenging the DVD agreement as monopolizing the market could proceed as a class action lawsuit. In an order dated Dec. 23rd, Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled that the plaintiffs were “united by common and overlapping issues of fact and law.” According to the lawsuit, the alleged conspiracy began when the chief executive of Netflix, met the CEO of Walmart.com for dinner in January 2005 to discuss how to push back competition in the DVD market in the U.S. At that time the Netflix and Wal-Mart website were competitors in online DVD rentals. The lawsuit charges that Netflix and Wal-Mart colluded to divide the DVD market and reduce competition when they announced their “joint promotional agreement.” The lawsuit claims that this agreement was reached after main rival Blockbuster began challenging Netflix by renting DVDs online. Netflix’s agreement with the Arkansas-based retailer removed Wal-Mart as a rental competitor, and gave Netflix an advantage over Blockbuster by having Wal-Mart directing subscribers to Netflix. Despite their market agreement with Netflix, Wal-Mart dropped hands with its partner when the lawsuit was filed. The giant retailer — no stranger to class action litigation — decided to settle with the plaintiffs, and reportedly will end up paying out $40 million to erase the claim. A hearing on the Wal-Mart motion will be held in early February. Netflix is not part of that settlement — it was a deal that Wal-Mart cut on its own The Judge agreed that the Wal-Mart/Netflix alliance kept DVD rental prices higher than they would have been in a fully competitive marketplace. “As a result, millions of Netflix subscribers allegedly paid supracompetitive prices,” the Judge wrote. At the time of the Wal-Mart/Netflix deal, Blockbuster had approximately 9,100 stores worldwide. That number today has fallen to 7,000 stores. In 5 years, Blockbuster has been forced to shut down 23% of its stores. Blockbuster now tells its shareholders “the Company is no longer just a chain of video stores… Blockbuster now offers convenient access to media entertainment any where and any way consumers want it — whether in stores, by mail, through vending / kiosks or digital download.” Now that a judge has ruled the plaintiffs can form a class, Netflix may be forced either to appeal the decision, or face years of litigation. A company spokesman told the Associated Press, “The case has no merit and we’re going to continue to defend it.” At least Wal-Mart understands how this movie ends: it has learned to treat class action lawsuits as a loss-leader, settling dozens of them. Netflix should download Wal-Mart’s script: settle the case, admit no wrong-doing, pay millions to the plaintiffs, and get back to its “core competency.” Al Norman is the founder of Sprawl-Busters, and the author of the book “The Case Against Wal-Mart.” He can be reached at info@sprawl-busters.com

Read the full article →