victims

Huffington Post…

By David Berri of Freakonomics With the NBA away, sports fans are looking for something to satisfy their need to watch teams strive for victory. Well, why not take a look at the teams competing in the lockout? Okay, maybe this is a contest only a sports economist could love. But while it may not appeal to everyone, the labor dispute is still best thought of as a contest between two teams. The first team is the NBA owners. The owners are the dominant buyer in the world market for elite basketball talent, so they have substantial monopsony power. In the other corner are the players, who are currently trying to disband their union. This union gave the players monopoly power in the sale of elite basketball talent (more specifically, in helping to determine the conditions under which individual players would sell their services). When a monopsony meets a monopoly on the economic battlefield, the outcome is determined by bargaining. And in that case, bargaining power – or what we call leverage – means everything. Read the entire post at Freakonomics. Or more here: – Paying People to Quit: What Law Schools Can Learn From Zappos – One More Time: Most Notable Quote of 2011 – Turkey Sex: The Way It’s Done Now

More:
The Economic Battlefield Of The NBA Lockout

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

{ 0 comments }

Huffington Post…

Citigroup Inc said it will start charging a monthly fee of $10 on checking and savings accounts with combined balances of less than $1,500, joining a growing list of banks seeking to recoup revenue lost under new financial industry regulations. The fee will be waived if a customer completes one direct deposit and one online bill payment per month through an account, or maintains a balance of at least $1,500 in checking and savings accounts, Citigroup said on Friday The change takes effect in December. Under Citi’s current fee structure, customers are not required to maintain minimum account balances but must complete five transactions a month through an account to avoid a monthly fee of $8. Citigroup said it will not charge for debit card use or online bill payment. Stephen Troutner, head of banking products for Citi’s U.S. consumer bank, said free debit card use could woo customers from other banks that are weighing whether to charge for debit card use, such as JPMorgan Chase & Co and Wells Fargo & Co. “Customers have told us in no uncertain terms that is a huge source of irritation,” Troutner said. New York-based Citi is the latest bank to tinker with its fee structure following changes in U.S. consumer banking regulations and laws over the last two years. New regulations — part of a broad financial sector reform effort — limit overdraft fees and other penalty fees banks can charge. In response, many banks have begun introducing monthly service fees for accounts, debit card use and visits to branches. Bank of America Corp, the largest U.S. bank by assets, added checking account fees last year. The BofA changes include an ebanking account, which allows customers to use ATMs and online banking for free but charges a monthly fee of $7 for teller visits or receiving paper statements. (Reporting by Joe Rauch in Charlotte, N.C.; editing by John Wallace) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Visit link:
Citigroup To Start Charging Customers For Not Having Enough Money

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

{ 0 comments }

Country Moving Toward ‘Rentership Society’: Is The American Dream In Trouble?

July 21, 2011

Home ownership, long a central pillar of the American dream, seems increasingly unattainable for growing numbers of households. Yet old views died hard, and nine out of 10 Americans still consider home ownership “ an important part of the American dream ,” according to a June poll by The New York Times /CBS News. Indeed, there are signs of slight improvement in the housing market. In June, work started on 629,000 new houses, a five-month high that beat economists’ expectations saw an uptick in construction in every region in the country. But that doesn’t necessarily indicate the housing market is in recovery — because, as real estate analyst Mike Larson recently told The Washington Post , “[p]eople who don’t have jobs don’t buy houses.” And many, many people don’t have jobs. Unemployment rose to 9.2 percent in June, a figure that would actually be higher than 11 percent if there were still as many people actively looking for work as there were at the start of the recession, according to the Wall Street Journal . Among those who have jobs, wages are falling and many people can only find part-time work rather than full-time. The grim employment situation is reflected in home ownership statistics. On Wednesday, Morgan Stanley released a report showing that if delinquent borrowers are excluded, the U.S. home ownership rate is only 59.7 percent, which would be an all-time low. Leaving in the country’s roughly 7.5 million delinquent borrowers, home ownership is at 66.4 percent. Morgan Stanley housing strategist Oliver Chang told Bloomberg that given runaway foreclosures and tight credit for borrowers, America is moving “away from being an ownership society” — President George W. Bush’s vision of a country with high home ownership — and “towards becoming a rentership society.” Those unexpectedly high June housing starts might actually bear out Chang’s prediction. As recently pointed out by the WSJ , construction of single-family homes grew by 9.4 percent in June — but construction of multi-family homes with at least two units increased three times as much, by 30.4 percent. In other words, there were a lot more apartments than houses. A report from the investment management company PIMCO recently offered a number of reasons why housing demand is likely to stay depressed. A 20 percent down payment on a mortgage is becoming standard, the PIMCO report notes. For someone making $48,000 a year, it would take 16 years to save enough for that size of downpayment on a median-priced home. Meanwhile, college graduates are entering the workforce with high debt and low wages — the average salary for recent grads was $27,000 in 2010, down from $30,000 in 2007, PIMCO notes. These factors in combination “could serve to limit college graduate home purchasing power for the foreseeable future.” And current homeowners are more likely to save for retirement than try to make ambitious changes to their living situation. For retiring Americans, the PIMCO report predicts “one home instead of two, rent rather than own, smaller place rather than large.” A Reuters survey of economists found widespread skepticism at the idea that June’s housing starts indicated a substantive market recovery. Indeed, the National Association of Realtors reported Wednesday that existing home sales were down 0.8 percent in June , to a relatively anemic rate of 4.77 million. That’s 9 percent less than the rates a year ago, The Washington Post points out.

Read the full article →

BP: Oil Spill Victims Should Not Get Any More Payments

July 8, 2011

NEW ORLEANS — BP is arguing that most victims of last year’s Gulf oil spill should not get any more payouts for future losses because the hardest-hit areas are recovering and the economy is growing. The British oil company argues its case in a 29-page document made public Friday and filed with the Gulf Coast Claims Facility. The $20 billion fund is responsible for paying for damages from the spill. The company says the fund should end payments for future losses to everyone, except in limited cases for oyster harvesters. The company had already argued that fund administrator Ken Feinberg’s formula for determining final payments artificially inflates future expected losses.

Read the full article →

‘Brooklyn’s Bernie Madoff" Sentenced For Ponzi Scheme

June 17, 2011

NEW YORK (Jessica Dye) – With dozens of his victims watching, an investment manager once dubbed by the media as “Brooklyn’s Bernie Madoff,” was sentenced on Friday to 20 years in prison for operating a decades-long Ponzi scheme that bilked hundreds of investors out of more than $24 million. Philip Barry, 53, was convicted last November by a federal jury in Brooklyn on one count of securities fraud and 33 counts of mail fraud for the three-decade crime, which prosecutors described as a classic Ponzi scheme. Barry, a resident of Brooklyn’s Bay Ridge neighborhood, has also been ordered to repay $24 million to his victims, although prosecutors cast doubt on whether the restitution will ever happen. Barry declared bankruptcy in 2008. In a hearing before U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearie, seven of Barry’s 800 victims came forward to share tales of how Barry pledged to invest their hard-earned savings in safe options. Instead, he began ducking calls and promising a check was in the mail when, in fact, there was no check, they testified. “Phil Barry is a thief,” said Frances Monteleone, who lost the $215,000 she invested with Barry. “He stole my money, and he stole my future.” Barry’s attorney, Lisa Hoyes, compared Barry with Bernie Madoff, the Manhattan Ponzi schemer who received a 150-year sentence in 2009 for operating a $65 billion Ponzi scheme. Unlike Madoff, who inhabited a swanky Manhattan apartment and lived a lavish lifestyle, she argued, Barry lived modestly and declined to use investors’ money to pay for fancy cars or trips. “Does that make any difference to his victims?” Dearie asked in response. “PROFOUNDLY SORRY” Prosecutors had pushed for a prison sentence of 27 to 34 years, the maximum term allowed under federal guidelines. U.S. attorneys cited the 30-year duration of the scheme, the 800 estimated victims, and the $24 million in actual losses as proof that Barry ranked “toward the top of the list of Ponzi schemers convicted at trial.” In addition, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Goldberg argued, Barry’s victims, unlike Madoff’s victims, were primarily working-class individuals without the means to absorb the losses they suffered. Dearie did not give a reason for the lower-than-maximum sentence, other than to say that he had to consider a “sufficient” punishment. Barry read a short statement in which he said he was “profoundly sorry.” If granted leniency, he said, he would work to repay the money, possibly as a radio host, since he is barred from working again in the financial sector. “I never intended or expected this to happen,” he said. “No one plans to get lost in the woods. It just happens, one step at a time.” Barry voluntarily told prosecutors at the Brooklyn U.S. Attorney’s office in August 2008 that he owed investors more than $50 million. In October 2008, he declared bankruptcy, and testified in bankruptcy court that he owed investors in his operating company, Leverage Group, an estimated $60 million. In late 2009, he was arrested and indicted following a year-long investigation. Also in 2009, Barry and Leverage Group settled a civil lawsuit brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, agreeing to pay an as-yet-undetermined amount in disgorgement and civil penalties. The case is U.S. v. Barry, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, no. 09-833. Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Wendy N. Powell: Carrot or Stick, What Will It Take for Employers to Consider Unemployed Job Candidates?

May 27, 2011

“You’re fired, and by the way, you will probably never work again.” is what employers are thinking when they terminate or layoff employees. At any time, and in a heartbeat, any of us can become that unemployed job candidate. And if you are over the age of 50, look out; you may be prohibited from being considered for future employment at all. We wonder how this can be fair and legal asking ourselves, “Is this age, race, sex, discrimination?” In and of itself, being unemployed is not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act. Should “unemployed” be a protected class of people? Opinions swing wildly about this topic. In fact, many Americans think it is. We have never dealt with this problem before but again, we haven’t had a contemporary problem of this magnitude with jobs either. The unemployment rate is holding at 9 percent , 13.7 million Americans with little movement from April to May, 2011. Now, it has gotten to such a feverish pitch that there is proposed legislation in Washington, The Fair Employment Act of 2011 that would add “unemployment status” to the protected class list of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This bill, “the stick”, has been introduced, and is being deliberated in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. It is not expected to gain much momentum, but the mere fact that this bill needed introduction is a stunner. We never would have fathomed the need for such a bill but what is the real solution? If this legislation or some facsimile becomes law, how would the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (EEOC) handle the title wave of new complaints from job candidates who assume they were rejected solely based on the proposed new category of a protected class? Job candidates, in other words, could apply for multiple jobs and file appeals on the lack of consideration. For employers, the cost of litigation would be unmanageable and considerable. A potential “carrot” would be to create a program similar to the HIRE Act of 2010 that was discontinued in early 2011. Statistics are not yet available on the success or failure of the program, but it is clear that we are nowhere close to being out of the unemployment woods. There is the simple, novel idea of hiring employees based on applying the solid standard of bona fide occupational qualifications. According to USLegal.com : “In order to establish the defense of bona fide occupational qualification, an employer must prove the requirement is necessary to the success of the business and that a definable group or class of employees would be unable to perform the job safely and efficiently. An employer should demonstrate a necessity for a certain type of workers because all others do not have certain characteristics necessary for employment success.” It appeals to our common sense to make a connection between the qualifications of a currently employed individual and the unemployed. This makes little sense. Of course, employers wonder what is wrong with the candidate who has no job. There is some merit to this argument for some, but the vast reason hinges on the flailing economy and has nothing to do with the competencies and quality of the victims of contemporary job loss. There is no law governing what qualifications should be required for particular jobs. But, it’s not likely that any job would come along with a bona fide requirement that supports an employed vs. an unemployed candidate. Are we not incumbent to hire the most qualified candidate based on our selection criteria ? And are employers leaving themselves vulnerable to prove no connection between irrelevant qualifications and the protected classes? Perhaps we should appeal to Career Builder, Monster, and other career sites to take a critical look at their practice of permitting employers to post jobs that eliminate the unemployed from their candidate pools. If the mere size of the candidates is burdensome to employers, they provide simple internet search and sort options to employers that rank the qualifications of the most appealing candidates without discounting unemployed candidates. There are two distinct issues here; the legality vs. the ethics. We already know that it is legal to eliminate a sector of society from consideration from employment as long as the members are not a protected class such as age, race, or sex. But we need to also consider the ethics of the issue. Simply, is it ethical to eliminate the very group of people who need to be gainfully employed to turn around this desperate economy? Employers need to think about their reputation in the marketplace. If they will not consider a whole sector of the very qualified individuals, their market share may diminish. Word travels fast and if potential employees stop purchasing or doing business with their companies, they will suffer economically. Employers are not untouchable. They may become part of that unfortunate mass called the unemployed. It happens every day.

Read the full article →

GRAPHIC PHOTOS: ‘I Still Feel That Little Finger’: Table Saw Victims Speak Out

May 25, 2011

WASHINGTON — A consumers’ advocacy group and a panel of table-saw victims called on government regulators and the power-tool industry Wednesday to enact new safeguards against saw-related mutilation and amputation. The number of table-saw injuries has risen to 40,000 annually, an increase of 10,000 a year in the last decade, National Consumers League Executive Director Sally Greenberg told reporters at the National Press Club. About 4,000, or 10 percent, of the table-saw accidents each year result in finger amputation, according to statistics compiled by the NCL. The nonprofit group’s leader called for the Consumer Product Safety Commission , the federal agency tasked with protecting Americans from dangerous products, push through a table-saw safety standard that was first proposed in 2003 but has since languished. She also asked the tool industry to drop its opposition to the regulations and pass along any new costs to customers if need be. “The vast majority of table-saw manufacturers haven’t changed their technology in 50 years,” Greenberg said. “This is a major public health and safety issue that cries out for a public policy response.” Long used by carpenters, construction workers and woodworking hobbyists, table saws typically come with little more than plastic guards to prevent fingers and hands from coming into contact with the blade. These guards are often removed by the saws’ operators to make the work easier. The consumers’ league would like to see manufacturers forced to adopt a technology developed by a company called SawStop , which brings the blade to a standstill when it senses the electrical impulse emanating from human flesh. (A demo of the SawStop technology can be viewed here.) Greenberg said the NCL has no affiliation with SawStop and receives no funding from the company. The safety measure would add about $100 to the price of a saw, she added. NCL officials and table-saw victims have been meeting with lawmakers this week to make their case. The Power Tool Institute , a trade group representing table-saw manufacturers including Black & Decker and Bosch, said in a statement that the price of table saws would “increase dramatically” if companies had to use the SawStop technology. “The lower-priced consumer bench-top saws will disappear from the market,” the group warned. It also said SawStop would enjoy an unfair market advantage. Four victims of table-saw accidents spoke out in favor of new standards Wednesday, including Adam Thull of Crosslake, Minn. Thull owns his own woodworking business, and a year ago this month most of his right arm went through a table saw as he was cutting a wood panel. The blade sliced clean through the bone and nerve in his forearm. Thull’s been told it may take five years for him to recover, if he’s lucky. “My two small children and my wife suffer along with me,” the Minnesotan said. Considering Thull didn’t have health insurance, the accident has devastated him financially in two ways: With five surgeries down and six to go, he’s run up a medical tab that he can’t even fathom; and at the same time, he’s also lost his ability to earn money. He can only work for five or ten minutes at a time before the pain in his arm becomes unbearable. “I’ve been able to find ways to do it, but there’s no feasible way to turn a profit,” Thull said. “It takes me ten times longer to accomplish anything.” In his ten years in woodworking, the 30-year-old had made a decent living doing what he loved to do. But now his family is on food stamps and receiving aid from the Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota. He doesn’t know how he’ll earn money in the future. “The business is more or less done. There’s no way to pay the insurance costs,” he said. “The physical suffering is on me, but my six-year-old knows. He says, ‘I wish daddy was like before the accident.’” Although there are no hard statistics, Greenberg said that about 20 percent of table-saw accidents seem to be work-related, with the rest happening to hobbyists. Like Thull, many table-saw victims are injured in the course of self-employed work. Curtis Harper, a firefighter from Provo, Utah, said he lost his pinky and suffered severe nerve and ligament damage while he was notching a corner of a wooden board in 2007. Harper owns a small mantel-making business, Masterpiece Cabinet and Mill. Looking at his mutilated hand after it ran through the saw, his first thought was that he’d lose his primary job, as a firefighter. He’s since gone back to work at the firehouse, but he’s lost much of the strength in his hand. And the accident isn’t easy to forget. “Phantom pain is real,” Harper said. “I still feel that little finger.” WARNING: Some of the photos below are gruesome.

Read the full article →

Janet Tavakoli: Wall Street’s Advice to the IMF: Control Your Alleged Rapists!

May 22, 2011

We are outraged at your lack of empathy for your victims! We’re not talking about the targets of your sexual advances, of course. We mean us. You’re supposed to be bailing out trading partners, bankers in weak foreign countries bankrupted by bailouts. Remember, you pigs are supposed to be financially raping the citizens of the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain). We’ll get back to that shortly, but first we have to address some housekeeping. Jeopardizing Our Health Condoms aren’t foolproof, and the HIV virus doesn’t care how much you paid for a hooker in Thailand. It has come to our attention that you have allegedly been customers of our New York based suppliers of prostitutes , and we’re furious. We need you to stick to the job. Moreover, if you had just listened to our advice to Joran van der Sloot , you wouldn’t be caught allegedly doing anything in the wrong place at the wrong time. Targets Can Shoot Back As for the handling of your internal matters, it was a nice touch to call newly resigned IMF head and alleged sex offender Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s 2008 affair with a subordinate a “serious breach of judgment” and impose no real consequences. It was a great move to reportedly decline investigations and consequences for other managers involved in suspect activities. It’s well known that a permissive atmosphere enables harassment (and more) and dismays the targets who perceive they will get no support. This is exactly the kind of thing we do all the time, but you have to save all this good stuff for your next high profile job in finance or politics. Until now, your internal targets felt so intimidated you were able to sweep all this under the rug. You can’t count on that anymore with all the new publicity you’ve brought on yourselves. Targets have caught on that they have nothing to lose and at least can gain back the self-esteem you’ve tried to destroy. Targets’ careers are already embattled, so it is in their interest to take action, and they’re not going to apologize for standing up for themselves. Moreover, it’s a snap to see through the flaws in the IMF’s new “policy.” You say that when it comes to intimate relationships, you will investigate if there is evidence of harassment. Obviously, the complainer will have to produce the evidence. But how has letting you handle things worked out so far for targets? Targets will never buy that nonsense now. They’ll tell you to stuff it and act independently. Targets have a right to treat this as a matter of personal safety. When it comes to the topic of their personal safety, you have nothing to add. The IMF Can’t Even Negotiate “Consensual Sex” Even when sexual relations between your bosses and subordinates apparently begin as consensual, the IMF inspires targets to rebel. According to the New York Times : “One woman is said to have slept with her supervisor, who then gave her poor performance reviews to pressure her into continuing with the relationship.” We must point out that if you want someone to continue a sexual relationship, tell them their performance was great. In the battle of the sexes, he declared thermonuclear warfare! Remember Who You’re Supposed to Be Screwing This may sound as if we’ve developed a conscience, but don’t worry, we haven’t. The truth is that we need you do as we say and not as we do for a change. We need you to keep bailing out weak countries like Ireland. Many of Ireland’s bankers fled the country, and the people of Ireland are drowning in their debt. We love the way the IMF forced a loan on the Irish to pay off the government debt that was forced on them to pay off the bankers’ debts. To get the bailout loan, the Irish government had to slash spending, lay off tens of thousands of public workers, lower wages, increase taxes, and cut health care budgets. The bankers got away with financial murder, and the citizens are paying for it, just the way we like it. Instead of letting banks fail or restructuring banks, we need you to do the same thing to Greece and possibly other countries, too. The Greeks are already protesting: “We’re not Ireland!” Your recent scandals may encourage them to get even more insistent and come up with an alternative of their own. We do lots of business with these foreign banks and governments. So stop spending so much energy trying to screw each other and spend it screwing the citizens of countries with governments that need bailouts because they bailed out bankers. Clean up your act, so that we don’t have to clean up ours!

Read the full article →

Robert Scheer: One Lawman With the Guts to Go After Wall Street

May 18, 2011

The fix was in to let the Wall Street scoundrels off the hook for the enormous damage they caused in creating the Great Recession. All of the leading politicians and officials, federal and state, Republican and Democrat, were on board to complete the job of saving the banks while ignoring their victims… until last week when the attorney general of New York refused to go along. Eric Schneiderman will probably fail, as did his predecessors in that job; the honest sheriff doesn’t last long in a town that houses the Wall Street casino. But decent folks should be cheering him on. Despite a mountain of evidence of robo-signed mortgage contracts, deceitful mortgage-based securities and fraudulent foreclosures, the banks were going to be able to cut their potential losses to what was, for them, a minuscule amount. In a deal that had the blessing of the White House and many federal regulators and state attorneys general — a settlement probably for not much more than the $5 billion pittance the top financial institutions found acceptable — the banks would be freed of any further claims by federal and state officials over their shady mortgage packaging and servicing practices and deceptive foreclosure proceedings. At the same time, the SEC and other federal regulatory bodies are making sweetheart deals with the bankers to close off accountability for creating and collecting on more than a trillion dollars’ worth of toxic mortgage-based securities at the heart of the nation’s economic meltdown–a meltdown that has seen the national debt grow by more than 50 percent, stuck us with an unyielding 9 percent unemployment and left 50 million Americans losing their homes to foreclosure or clinging desperately to underwater mortgages. On top of which an all-time high of 44 million people are living below the official poverty line and fewer new homes were started in April than at any other time in the past half century. With housing values still in free fall, we continue to make the bankers whole. As Gretchen Morgenson reported in the New York Times , the Justice Department division responsible for checking for fraud in the bankruptcy system has found a widespread pattern of deception by banks foreclosing homes, and she concluded: “So an authoritative source with access to a lot of data has identified industry practices as not only pernicious but also pervasive. Which makes it all the more mystifying that regulators seem eager to strike a cheap and easy settlement with the banks.” Not really surprising given both the enormous hold of Wall Street money over the two major political parties and the revolving door through which executives travel between firms like Goldman Sachs and the top positions in the U.S. Treasury Department and elsewhere in the government. The financial crisis occurred only because Republicans and Democrats passed the laws that Wall Street lobbyists wrote ending reasonable banking industry regulation installed in the 1930s in response to the Depression. And when the greed they enabled threatened the foundations of our economy, under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, it was the bankers who were assisted into lifeboats that had no room for ordinary people. Not surprising then to find all of the power players in on the latest deals: the Obama administration that had bailed out the banks but not troubled homeowners; the regulators and Fed officials who all looked the other way when the housing bubble was inflated; and the state attorneys general who backed away from going after the perpetrators of robo-signed mortgages and other scams used to foreclose homes. But now Schneiderman has a chance to derail the deals, given that he is supported by the state’s tough 1921 Martin Act, which one of his predecessors as New York state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, had used to good advantage in exposing the financial behemoths that are so heavily based in New York. The Wall Street Journal describes the Martin Act as “one of the most potent prosecutorial tools against financial fraud” because, as opposed to federal law, it doesn’t carry the more difficult standard of proving intent to defraud. Last week, it was revealed that Schneiderman’s office has demanded an accounting from Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs as to the details of their past practice of securitizing those mortgage-based packages that proved so toxic. Maybe he will fail against such powerful forces, as did Spitzer and Andrew Cuomo after him, but it is a test worth watching, since no one else, from the White House on down, seems to be concerned with holding the bailed-out banks accountable for the massive pain and suffering they inflicted on the public.

Read the full article →

Jeff Madrick: The Victims of Insider Trading

May 17, 2011

Nothing surprises me more than when I read that trading on insider information is a victimless crime. In the wake of the conviction of hedge-fund giant Raj Rajaratnam, the claim has come up time and again. In fact, it is entirely untrue. The victims are all those who sold Raj a stock or other security at a lower price than they might have if they had the same information he had. In other words, the victims are pensioners, mutual fund investors, bank trusts holders, and on. It’s like what happened in the 1800s when some insiders knew the railroad had planned to build a track through a certain territory. They bought land from unsuspecting farmers, ranchers and maybe even the federal government on the cheap. That activity disgusts us. Same with stocks when the fund managers know about good earnings news to be reported the next day or a merger announcement to come. What the details of the Rajaratnam scandal also shows is that he who pays the most money for inside information also makes the most money. Money begets money, the big get bigger. That’s a pretty good example of what’s happened over the past thirty years in American finance. Now, when you can leverage that money up — borrow to the hilt at low rates — inside information really pays off. Many hedge-fund managers don’t make money for the insights but for their sheer chutzpah. Meantime, market integrity is out the window. Wall Street’s always had some kind of advantage over the rest of us. The pros could often call someone up at a company to get an edge. But passing out outright inside information — the kind that will move a stock price one way or the other substantially — should clearly be illegal. One of the more interesting facts about hedge funds is that, according to those who measure risk statistically by deriving ‘betas’ and ‘alphas,’ they do better on average than the amount of risk they take suggests they should. Mutual funds on average do not. Some interpret this as proof of how astute the hedge funds are compared to other investors. The data could also be interpreted another way. That given their size and wealth, they have more information about company strategies and results, takeovers, and the trading patterns of the market. They may even be able to push prices their way and bail out before others catch on. Cornering markets can be against the law. How often does “mini-cornering” — momentary attempts to buy enough supply to determine a quick price change — go on? That’s perhaps the main reason why they do better than the risk they take suggests they should. This is seedy stuff and there is no simple way to prevent it adequately. If such practices are common, it makes good sense for investors who have the money to sign up with hedge funds and get a piece of their unfair advantage. On the other hand, some hedge funds are totally honest. How can we tell which ones make it on smarts, good instincts and genuine preparation? Only if the government aggressively cleans up the act. Fear of prosecution is perhaps the only effective weapon. Meantime, good money flows to funds, often unwittingly, who exploit and take advantage — and that only distorts the efficient allocation of capital in America. Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 .

Read the full article →

Christopher Mondini: Why Facebook Needs a Foreign Policy

April 25, 2011

Facebook has appeared less frequently in international political news lately, but in the aftermath of attention the social media site received in the wake of Arab world unrest, they need to get their act together and gird themselves for the next wave. Facebook’s “deer in the headlights” response to calls for it to do more to help protesters in Tunisia and Egypt contrasted starkly with the proactive role of Google, whose employee, Wael Ghonim, went so far as to exhort the masses in Tahrir Square. Why the difference in approach? For better or worse, Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” mantra empowers its employees not only to decide how best to react to world events, but also how to shape them. One example was the “speak2tweet” work-around designed by Google engineers for Egyptians in the wake of a Twitter shutdown. Similarly, Google’s tools that have sprung up to assist the victims of earthquakes in Haiti and Japan, and, in particular, their transparency map of government controls are further evidence of the confidence with which Googlers seek to put “Don’t Be Evil” into practice. Hard lessons learned in dealing with Chinese censorship, having a physical presence (people, offices and servers) in many places around the world, and employing a deeper bench of talent in global policy issues have also helped Google navigate the shoals of political risk abroad. Facebook, like much of Silicon Valley, is full of brilliant engineers, whose talent for innovation is directed toward developing products and seizing markets. They are competitive, accustomed to (justifiably) feeling like the smartest people in the room, and proud of their contributions. What they seem to lack, however, are esteemed colleagues who understand the cultural and political environments into which their products are introduced. What’s more, Facebook’s public pronouncements often betray their impatience when questioned on these matters. If they were better at articulating it, Facebook might get away with the following argument: We are a company that offers a service that is governed by rules (e.g. no anonymous profiles) enshrined in a Users Agreement. By asking Facebook to change its rules (for example, to allow activists to have anonymous profiles), critics — including the U.S. Congress — are taking the easy way out. The rules that should be changed are those of repressive foreign regimes, not Facebook’s. Facebook’s responsibility ends with providing the service. Facebook’s facilitation of free assembly and free expression has clearly outpaced efforts to strengthen the rights of people around the world to freely assemble and express themselves, but is this Facebook’s fault? At its most benign, this argument translates as “We’re just a website.” But to the general public and policy makers the argument sounds like “The world just hasn’t caught up with us yet.” This communications gap has led to such gaffes as asserting that privacy doesn’t matter that much, a threat to move Facebook out of the U.S. to avoid its jurisdiction, and refusals to appear at congressional hearings on global internet freedom. What should Facebook do? First, decide who’s in charge. Facebook urgently needs a policy guru who can both reconcile internal conflicts, help their leaders understand how they are coming across, and serve as an appealing and persuasive spokesman to both governments and the media. Second, Facebook needs to engage with a broader circle of stakeholders. These include users, employees, U.S. and foreign governments, policy experts and forums like the Global Network Initiative . This will help them to establish the boundaries of their corporate responsibility. Formulating a policy that balances business goals with unwieldy social impacts will take time and be an ongoing process, a process that needs to be transparent, with results communicated regularly to Facebook’s 600 million users — and to national governments wherever they may log in. Another point about public perception: any assertion that Facebook lacks resources is trumped by awareness of the billions that investors have poured into the company, just as any assertion that they have no political mission is weakened when they host President Obama for a town hall meeting. Freedom on the internet is in retreat, as governments become better at imposing controls and using social networks to their own advantage. At the same time, the road that leads through Ukraine (2004), Iran (2009) and the convulsing Arab states of today will surely lead to more political upheavals. A little scenario planning, more dialogue with stakeholders, and a humbler articulation of a flexible foreign policy will help Facebook remain more hero than target.

Read the full article →

PHOTOS: Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire Remembered In NYC

March 25, 2011

NEW YORK — The centennial commemoration of the Triangle shirtwaist factory fire became a rally for organized labor Friday, as hundreds marched and vowed to resist efforts to weaken unions in state capitals across the country. Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer drew loud cheers when he pledged to fight “right wing ideologues” trying to curb worker protections. The rally in New York’s Greenwich Village neighborhood took place outside the former Triangle factory building, which burned March 25, 1911. Earlier, many people hoisting signs designed to look like shirtwaist blouses and bearing the names of the dead marched from Union Square several blocks south to the 10-story building, which is now part of New York University. The Triangle fire killed 146 people and helped to galvanize the U.S. labor movement. The victims were mostly young immigrant women, many of whom jumped to their death to escape the flames. The tragedy prompted many improvements in fire safety across the country, such as sprinkler installation and laws mandating fire drills. Days after the fire, 100,000 mourners marched in a funeral procession through the streets of New York, while another 250,000 lined the route. Their grief built support for the right of garment workers to unionize. Many of the victims’ family members and descendants attended the ceremony Friday. Pete Doob, a laboratory worker from Columbia, Md., came to honor his great aunt, 21-year-old Violet Schechter, who died in the fire just a week before she was to be married. “There were no regulations back then and there was no union to enforce them. With neither of those, the workers didn’t have a chance,” Doob said. Speakers repeatedly criticized Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who pushed through legislation earlier this month to eliminate public workers’ right to collective bargaining. The new law has been temporarily blocked by a county judge. Several other Republican governors, citing their states’ dire money problems, have made similar efforts to weaken public employee unions, saying the pension and benefits unions have negotiated in the past are unsustainable over time. U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who spoke at the ceremony, offered her support for unions pushing back. “Today we honor workers in communities all across this great country protesting loudly the actions to strip them of collective bargaining – of their right to have a voice in the workplace. We applaud you,” Solis said. Schumer went further, saying Walker and others “want to drag our nation back to 1911.” “Today some on the far right want to rob workers of their hard-earned collecting bargaining rights. They want to fray the social safety net under the false pretense of fiscal austerity,” he said. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was booed during his remarks. His plan to curb pensions and lay off thousands of teachers has rankled unions. President Barack Obama, in a proclamation recognizing the 100th anniversary of the fire, urged people across the country to participate in ceremonies honoring the workers who died in unsafe conditions. “Working Americans are the backbone of our communities and power the engine of our economy,” he wrote. At the rally, Cybele Locke, a historian from New London, Conn., said she believed many workers still face unsafe conditions. “We still have a long way to go to give workers the right to organize. I am here in support of all those people who are standing for collective bargaining,” she said. Chuck Helms, a representative of the Hudson County Labor Council of New Jersey, said he had come to the ceremony because he believed workers’ rights were fading. “I cannot let my children or my grandchildren go back to that time,” Helms said. “You know we are moving back. Not just unions, middle class in general is moving back in that direction. America has got to get out and protest.”

Read the full article →

Bernard Starr: Sub-Prime Mortgages and Harry the Snake

March 22, 2011

Sub-prime mortgages still plague the housing market. Real estate watch-dog Housing Wire , citing statistics compiled by Realty Trak , recently reported that “Lenders filed a record 3.8 million foreclosures in 2010, up 2% from 2009 and an increase of 23% from 2008.” But 2011, they said, “could be even worse.” As the government ponders penalties, the banks and lenders continue to seek a scapegoat. In a twist of logic comparable to the man who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy as an orphan, the big banks, whose greed and reckless lending brought us the crash of 2008-2009, are now attempting to wiggle out of responsibility by casting themselves as the victims, not the home buyers who were duped. On March 3, 2011 the New York Times reported that attorneys for the banks claim that helping homeowners facing default is “like taking money that should be paid to the Treasury and using it for an unappropriated social program.” And the Bank of America, the nation’s largest mortgage servicer, “is already readying what will be among the industry’s main arguments: that it is unfair to reward homeowners who are delinquent or underwater but cannot point to specific errors in their case” These statements echo the rant of financial commentator Rick Santelli who blamed the victims. Back in 2009 on CNBC ‘ he charged that bailing out sub-prime mortgage holders was “…promoting bad behavior.” He added, “reward those who can carry the water not those who drink the water.” Other critics of homebuyers have likened a bailout to raising taxes on the whole population to cover the losses of gamblers in Las Vegas. Shouldn’t home buyers have known, say the accusers, that they couldn’t afford a $400,000 home on a family income of $50,000 — $60,000? Some did know. A predatory bank tried to convince Alex and his wife that they could afford a $330,000 home on their graduate student stipends. They resisted and purchased a starter home for $120,000. But the vast majority of sub-prime buyers were persuaded to make purchases well beyond their means by unscrupulous lenders who would stop at nothing to close a deal. These buyers were putty in the hands of the “tin men” (and women). “Tin men” is a nickname, for fast-talking unethical salesmen known for their skill at selling ice cubes to Eskimos. At one time they confined their activities mostly to selling home items door to door or through seductive cold-call sales pitches, but now they can be found in many industries — including real estate sales and mortgage lending. The original tin men sold aluminum siding — thus the moniker — and they are brilliantly portrayed in the 1987 film Tin Men starring Danny DeVito and Richard Dreyfuss “Tin men,” as we shall soon see, played a major role in the sub-prime mortgage debacle. First, the back story. I initially met real-life tin men when I worked as an encyclopedia salesman during my college years. Tin men from different industries drifted in and out of the office where I worked. Their pitches and “cons” were hilarious. A number of the classic examples are in the film. Here’s a simple one that I love: A salesman is selling aluminum siding to a couple. He surreptitiously drops a ten dollar bill on the floor out of the couple’s sight. Then he says, “Excuse me a second,” reaches down to the floor, and comes up with the bill. “Oh, this must be yours,” he says to the couple, handing it to them. Since they know he could just as well have slipped it into his pocket, the salesman’s act of “honesty” inspires the customers’ confidence — a message of trust that gives a big boost to closing the deal The tin men loved to exchange stories of their stings. Like vaudevillians, they had names for their routines. In “Inside-Outside Man” a salesman shows up for an appointment; he could be selling siding, a raised dormer, or any home product. He arrives at the family’s house in a stretch limo. When the husband and wife open the door they look surprised to see the limo. The salesman explains: “The Vice President of the company is in town for a sales conference and wanted to sit in on my presentation. Would you mind?” Of course, they don’t mind at all; they’re flattered. The “Vice President” emerges from the limo. He is dressed to perfection and casts an imposing presence — a central casting senior executive. At one point in the “pitch” the salesman shows the family a much more expensive product than they had originally looked at, and says “This is very expensive and the other product is almost as good.” The “Vice President” jumps in and says: “Give it to them for the same price.” The salesman shoots back, “But we’ll lose money on the deal.” The Vice President responds, “That’s all right. ‘Faker’ Industries will pay for it as part of our promotion. Give it to them” The salesman looks stunned. Are you surprised that this quickly becomes a done deal? Frank, the manager of the encyclopedia office, told me the premier tin man story “My People.” Frank once worked for a carpet company that advertised “two rooms of carpeting for $79.” There was no such product. The “bait and switch men,” who got easy entry into homes with the advertised offer, were supposed to switch-sell to higher priced carpeting. But one time, the company got stuck with lots of the ad-priced orders. So they sent in the next tier of tin men — the “conversion salesmen” — to convert the $79 contracts to higher ones. The best conversion man in the business was known as “Harry the Snake.” He closed a more expensive contract every time. Frank couldn’t figure out how he did it. He asked the Snake if he could go out with him on one of his pitches. The Snake agreed. “Meet me on Church Avenue and Ocean Parkway tomorrow morning at 9 AM. Wear overalls and bring some tools and a tape measure. When we get into the home just start measuring the floors. Oh, and by the way, I’m Tony and you’re Vito.” (The family they were visiting was Italian. On other days they might be Morris and Abe or Juan and Jose.) Frank and the Snake had no trouble getting into the home in Bensonhurst Brooklyn the next morning. The lady of the house was thrilled that the carpet installers were actually there so soon after the incredible sale. Once inside, “Tony” and “Vito” started measuring. Then at one point “Tony” (Harry the Snake) headed for the door and said, “C’mon, Vito, let’s get outta here. I can’t do this to a nice Italian family.” The puzzled woman asked, “What’s the matter?” Tony answered, “When they sold you this carpeting, they showed you the junk; they didn’t show you the good stuff.” He then pulled out a swatch of carpeting from his pocket. “This is the junk they sold you.” He pulled on it and it disintegrated. Then he showed her a swatch of the “good stuff.” Again, no surprise that the higher priced deal was soon closed. Let’s fast forward to the sub-prime mortgage orgy. “Harry the Snake” must have felt that he died and woke up in tin man’s heaven. Now he’s a mortgage broker at a respected bank — one of the icons of corporate America. And he’s the inside man — suit, tie, and title: VP, Director of Finance. Let’s listen in as the Snake talks to Mr. and Mrs. Jones. The Joneses neighbors, the Smiths, whose income is the same as theirs, about $52,000 a year, just bought a house financed by Harry the Snake’s bank. They were surprised; The Joneses didn’t think their neighbors could afford a house, but there were the Smiths packing and getting ready to move. Can Mr. and Mrs. Jones afford to do the same thing? The Snake assures them they can. “Yes, indeed, you can afford to buy this $380, 000 house.” (The finance industry’s rule of thumb is that the price you can afford is about 2.5-3 times gross income). He tells them that home values will surely keep going up and that the word “down” will soon be gone from our vocabulary. And he assures them that his distinguished bank will put its money where its exuberance is and finance the deal. The Snake shows them that the figures work — with virtually no down payment and just interest only payments for the first three years: “And in three years when payments on the principle kick in and the adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) will be recalibrated to interest rates at that time [and as much as two percentage points higher for buyers like the Joneses with credit scores below 620], that won’t be a problem. The value of the house will rise so much, and probably your income as well, that you will be able to raise money from the increased equity to cover all the costs.” How could they resist this opportunity to latch on to the American dream, especially when it is backed by the full faith and credit of one of America’s great banks — and Harry the Snake? When you are tempted to point the “j’accuse” finger at “irresponsible” sub-prime homebuyers think about all the Joneses across America and how they were shamelessly victimized by the army of Harry the Snakes — and their banks and lenders who cheered them on. NOTE: This is a revision and update of a blog that I wrote in 2009 at UPI’s R&S section.

Read the full article →

Alan Grayson: Did They Die in Vain?

March 12, 2011

On May 4, 1886, in Haymarket Square in Chicago, the public rallied peacefully in support of 40,000 workers in Chicago who had gone on strike, to win the right to organize. The police attacked, and eight died. On July 6, 1892, in Homestead, Pennsylvania, 3800 workers went on strike, to win the right to organize. Three hundred hired and armed goons attacked them. Five people died. On April 20, 1914, in Ludlow, Colorado, 1200 coal miners went on strike, to win the right to organize. The Colorado National Guard attacked their shantytown, and burned it to the ground. Nineteen people died. Two women and 11 children were asphyxiated, and they burned to death. Here and around the world, many people have fought and died, so that you and I would have the right to organize. And so that 250,000 public workers in Wisconsin would have that right, too. This is not exactly a new idea. Six months after the Ludlow Massacre, President Wilson signed the Clayton Act, prohibiting the prosecution of union members under Antitrust Law. That was almost a century ago. Two decades later, during the Franklin Roosevelt’s first term as president, he signed the National Labor Relations Act into law. It protects the right to organize. That was over 75 years ago. The right to organize also is a fundamental principle of international law. Over 150 countries have ratified the “Right to Organize” Convention, an international treaty. It was adopted in 1949, over 60 years ago. So why are we even talking about this, 11 years into the 21st century? Because the teabaggers want to “take back America.” They want to take it back, all right — take it all the way back to the 19th century. When there was no right to organize. When people worked for a dollar a day. When grown men competed against children for jobs. When women were barred from most jobs entirely. When you worked until you died. Not to mention slavery. I want to see an America that is healthy and wealthy. They want an America that provides cheap labor to our corporate overlords. An America where the middle class is chained by debt. We didn’t ask for this fight. But we have no choice except to fight back. For the survival of the middle class in America. For us, for our children, and for our grandchildren. And so that the victims in Haymarket, in Homestead and in Ludlow did not die in vain. As Cardinal Spellman said 45 years ago, “it is a war thrust upon us, and we cannot yield to tyranny.” I’m ready to fight for what’s right. What about you?

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Does That Proposed Foreclosure Deal Help Main Street or Wall Street?

March 3, 2011

Bankers began whining as soon as word of a proposed mortgage fraud settlement case hit the street, even though it was a pretty sweet deal for them. From the Wall Street Journal : ” Banks Bristle at Mortgage-Loan Plan .” Even the lightest, most symbolic of penalties is apparently too much for their fragile egos. That’s too bad, because the penalties we really need are a lot tougher than that. I. Bristle at this . We used a five-point grading process to evaluate the administration’s reported proposal. We employed on simple principles of fairness and justice, along with some common-sense rules for any criminal settlement, such as: Does the punishment fit the crime? Are the victims being made whole? Will it deter future crimes? The media’s preference for euphemisms like “faulty robo-signing” and “erroneous paperwork” when describing bank criminality may be setting the stage for another free pass for banks. (If you think the Bonanno crime family’s protection racket was “an improperly allocated form of taxation,” you’ll love their choice of words.) The mixed signals and signs of infighting in the federal government aren’t encouraging either. Neither the slanted media coverage nor the Executive branch’s disorganization provides the right context for the kind of settlement that’s needed — one that includes much higher penalties and some criminal indictments. II. Deal or no deal? Here’s the outline of the administration’s proposed deal, according to most reports: Banks would have to write down the principal on underwater mortgages with $20 billion of their own money (investors in mortgage-backed securities and other financial instruments would not be held responsible). The banks would administer their own mortgage modification programs with these funds; no government money would be used. (Note: Any administration proposal would have to be accepted by the states.) The reactions began rolling in almost immediately. John Carney said the deal could be “an attempt by banks to get off easy,” especially if it includes amnesty from investor claims. Carney writes that he’s been saying for months that “the government would attempt… some sort of legal forgiveness,” asking: “Is this it?” Felix Salmon at Reuters, on the other hand, described himself as “cautiously optimistic,” while also making this observation: “A fine is a punishment for doing something wrong, while principal reduction, by contrast, can actually benefit banks if they do it right.” He adds: “But in this case it seems that most of the benefit might go to homeowners and bondholders… ” Yves Smith called it a ” Mortgage Fraud Whitewash: $20 Billion “Get Out of Jail Free” Settlement ,” agreeing with Marcy Wheeler that this program would amount to “HAMP 2.0″ — that is, a replay of the so-called “extend and pretend” program which gave many struggling homeowners a year or more of baseless hope — bleeding more house payments out of them — only to have the banks foreclose in the end anyway. III. The score Here are our screening questions and the results for this proposal: 1. Is the settlement comprehensive — does it address all the misdeeds that took place? A number of crimes fall under the “foreclosure fraud” heading, including the illegal transfer of home ownership from one bank to another, fraudulently misrepresenting the terms of a loan to borrowers, collusion to mislead home buyers about the current and expected value of their homes, concealing information from the authorities, perjury, and fraudulently deceiving both stockholders and securities investors. Some people would prefer to see “foreclosure fraud” defined as narrowly as possible, limiting it to people who lost their homes because property documents were filed illegally. That would exclude the vast majority of those borrowers who are currently “underwater” on their mortgages (approximately one in four mortgage holders) from any settlement. Grade: Unclear. The administration has yet to define the scope of people eligible for settlement funds. If they use the same definitions that applied to HAMP, however, the grade will be “fail.” That seems to be where they’re headed. 2. The punishment must fit the crime. Is $20 billion enough to right the wrong that’s been done? The U.S. housing market has lost nearly ten trillion dollars of value since the housing bubble collapsed, according to reliable data . The homes were never really “worth” all that money, but banks helped convince people that they were. And the Wall Street casino helped artificially pump up real estate values, setting homeowners up for a fall. Even if we lay 80 percent of the “moral hazard” for excess borrowing at the feet of homeowners — which I would strongly argue is unjust — that leaves banks with roughly $2 trillion in moral culpability. The proposed settlement amount of $20 billion is 0.01 percent of that figure. It’s also less than Wall Street reportedly paid out in bonuses last year , even as the U.S. taxpayer was rescuing them. An excellent analysis by Charles Hugh Smith suggests that mortgages would have to decline by an estimated $4 trillion to establish the right ratio between debt and equity. I suspect Smith would disagree with my proposed solution — which includes holding the banks responsible — but I can’t fault his estimate. A $2 trillion or $4 trillion settlement is both politically impossible and economically catastrophic — even the banks’ harshest critics don’t want to trigger another meltdown. What’s more, other Wall Street misdeeds played a part in the crisis, too. Let’s be both fair and conservative: What if we asked banks to assume only 10 percent of the imbalance between debt and equity, which is less than 5 percent of the loss in real estate values? That still gives us a $400 billion settlement. Is that a practical, achievable settlement number? Not in this climate. But as William Shatner says, ” Now you’re negotiating!” The administration, on the other hand, started at $25 billion and then dropped their number down to $20 billion… before discussions even began. That’s called “negotiating against yourself.” (Or in this case, against us.) Grade: Fail. $20 billion isn’t enough. It’s not even close. 3. The victims — all of the victims — must be made whole. How should the settlement money be dispersed? The administration’s proposal would let the banks give it out themselves. Worst. Idea. Ever. Even under the administration’s watchful eye, the HAMP program has been an invitation for banks to plunder their victims even more. The administration says the banks’ activities would be audited — but by whom? PricewaterhouseCoopers, who said nothing as AIG and Goldman Sachs pulled their shenanigans? The ratings agencies that certified mortgage-backed trash as “AAA” gold? Smith and Wheeler are right: Don’t do this. What’s more, the proposal is apparently structured so that the funds will only be available to homeowners who have stopped making their payments. That helps banks, as Carney observed, since these homeowners represent a threat to the banks’ self-interest. But there are other wronged parties, too, and any settlement should make provisions for them too. Grade: Mostly fail. All homeowners need help, but with the banks administering the funds it probably won’t help very many. A few will be helped, in all likelihood — but a number of them will probably get hurt. 4. The settlement should deter bankers from future acts of fraud. The fact that no Wall Street executives have been criminally prosecuted (see Yves Smith again) means bankers have no reason not to keep committing fraud again and again. They can continue to put their own banks at risk and break the law with impunity, secure in the knowledge that there will be no personal repercussions for them — even if they shatter the world economy in the process. Here’s an opportunity to change that. But $20 billion isn’t enough money. More importantly, criminal charges should be brought. Any comprehensive settlement should include, at a minimum, plea bargaining agreements with some senior bank officials. And some of the settlement money should come out of bank executives’ own pockets, rather than forcing shareholders (many of whom were also defrauded) to bear the cost of executive lawbreaking one more time. Grade: Fail. No jail and no financial penalties for individuals means no deterrence. 5. The syndicate must be broken up, and the system must be fixed. Bankers set up a front organization that was essentially a syndicate. It was designed to bypass local property laws, conceal the true owners of mortgages from the appropriate authorities, and enable Wall Street to function as an electronic casino — which in turn let them bundle mortgages and bet on them. The computer system behind this syndicate let them pump up the market by trading and gambling at light speed. MERS, the bankers’ front organization, combined an electronic database with a dummy corporation that allowed banks to conceal the true ownership of a mortgage from local courthouses by pretending that a company called “MERS Inc.” held the title. To pull off this legal fiction, MERS let 20,302 employees at different banks represent themselves as “officers” — of a company that doesn’t actually employ anyone. (“MERS Inc.” is a subsidiary of the database company, which itself only employs about 50 people. That’s more than 400 “officers” for each employee.) We’re not against databases (in fact we used to design them). We’re anti- deception . An effective settlement must require banks to stop using “MERS Inc.” or any other shell company to conceal the true holder of a loan from legal scrutiny. With today’s database technology it’s very easy to scan physical documents and attach them to a digital file. That includes papers that are filed in local courthouses in accordance with all relevant law , which would ensure that borrowers and courts are always able to track down the true holder of a loan. This requirement wouldn’t just stop fraud. It would also have the added benefit of slowing down the trading of mortgages. It would make it just a little less tempting to treat houses as if they were virtual gambling chips in a digital casino. After all, people live in those houses. Grade: Unclear. Nothing’s been said about the procedural issues, but they’re at the heart of the case. And the silence isn’t a good sign. Systemic change should be at the heart of any smart proposal. Grading on a curve The greater the penalty for fraud, the lower the likelihood it will happen again. What’s more, financial sector profits are artificially high right now because underwater homeowners are paying more for their mortgages than they should. The victims are subsidizing their predators, bolstering their already-high profits and contributing to those billion-dollar bonuses. A bold plan to reduce the principal on those mortgages would transfer some of those unproductive profits back into the general economy, where it would be used to purchase goods and services. That would lead to more jobs and a quicker recovery for everybody, not just Wall Street. Unfortunately, neither the president nor Congress has shown the willingness to do what needs to be done. While all the details aren’t in, all the signs indicate that this is a good deal for the banks and not for anybody else. This deal may — may — be better than nothing. But that’s grading it on a pretty steep curve. The administration can and must come up with a better proposal. Related posts: The Proposed Foreclosure Fraud Bank Settlement, Part 1: Journalistic Failures The Proposed Foreclosure Fraud Bank Settlement, Part 2: A Leadership Vacuum Pictures Of MERS, Part 1 Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

Massey Official Arrested For Obstructing Mine Disaster Investigation

February 28, 2011

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The security chief of a Massey Energy Co. subsidiary has been charged with obstructing the investigation of a 2010 explosion that killed 29 miners at the company’s Upper Big Branch Mine in southern West Virginia. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Charleston announced the arrest of 60-year-old Hughie Elbert Stover on Monday. Prosecutors say Stover is accused of lying to investigators. A federal indictment also charges he ordered the disposal of thousands of security documents. A message left at Stover’s home was not immediately returned. Massey says the company alerted prosecutors when it learned about the documents and acted to recover them and turn them over to the government. It was the deadliest blast at a U.S. coal mine since 1970. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below. CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) – The security chief of a Massey Energy Co. subsidiary has been indicted on federal charges alleging he obstructed the investigation of a 2010 explosion that killed 29 miners at the company’s Upper Big Branch Mine in southern West Virginia, federal prosecutors said Monday. The indictment accuses Hughie Elbert Stover, 60, of lying to an FBI agent and a federal Mine Safety and Health Administration inspector. It also accused him of ordering an employee to dispose of thousands of pages of security documents from the Raleigh County mine more than nine months after the explosion. The April 5 blast was the deadliest at a U.S. coal mine since 1970 and remains the subject of criminal and civil investigations. Stover is the first person connected to the case known to be charged with a crime. Stover was the head of security at Performance Coal, the Massey subsidiary that operates the mine. The indictment was handed up Friday and unsealed Monday when Stover was arrested. A telephone message left at his Clear Fork home was not immediately returned Monday. Stover is due to be arraigned March 15 in Beckley. The indictment centers on allegations that Massey regularly violated federal law by warning underground workers when government officials arrived to conduct safety inspections at the mine. The father of one of the victims told a congressional panel last May that Massey used radio messages warning that “a man” was on the property when MSHA arrived for an inspection. Stover is accused of lying when he told FBI and MSHA investigators on Jan. 21 that company policy prohibited such warnings. Stover “had himself directed and trained security guards at Performance’s Upper Big Branch Mine to give advance notice by announcing the presence of an MSHA inspector,” the indictment said. The warnings went out on a radio channel used by another Massey operation, but monitored at Upper Big Branch, according to the indictment. Stover also is accused of ordering an unnamed person to dump documents dealing with security at Upper Big Branch in a trash compactor Jan. 11 despite knowing the explosion was the subject of criminal and civil investigations. “The conduct charged by the grand jury – obstruction of justice and false statements to federal investigators – threatens our effort to find out what happened at Upper Big Branch,” said Booth Goodwin, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia. “This inquiry is simply too important to tolerate any attempt to hinder it. My office will continue to devote every available resource to this most critical of cases.” Assistant Attorney General Lanney Breuer said the indictment reflects the federal government’s “commitment to getting to the truth about what happened, including holding to account anyone who may impede this critical investigation.” A spokesman for Richmond, Va.-based Massey had no immediate comment. An MSHA spokeswoman declined to comment.

Read the full article →

William S. Lerach: Blame Wall Street, Not Hard Working Americans, for the Pension Funds Fiasco

February 26, 2011

The confrontations in Wisconsin and other states are the opening salvo of a political blame game — who is responsible for the gigantic public pension fund deficits that threaten states’ solvency and workers’ retirement savings? The conservative spin machine blames public employees, claiming their greedy unions extorted extravagant and now unaffordable benefits which justify pension cutbacks and union-busting. This is a false. The real cause of the pension fund debacle is the greed of Wall Street and its corporate allies. It’s a result of their dismantling of our nation’s regulatory safeguards and Wall Street’s capture and abuse of America’s public pension funds — charging them huge management fees, while losing trillions of dollars of pension fund assets in risky investments. Wall Street developed with no regulation. Abuses abounded. Financial markets were corrupt. Then came the 1929 Crash, a wealth destruction event that ended the dreams of an American generation. The Pecora hearings exposed self-dealing and fraud by Wall Street bankers. Wall Street faced ruin. But instead of wiping out Wall Street or nationalizing the banks, we chose to save capitalism and protect investors — by creating a new system of highly regulated financial markets. Congress created the SEC to oversee stock exchanges, require honest accounting and disclosure by corporations and broke up (and strictly controlled) the Wall Street banks. In time, this new regulatory framework created the greatest age of economic growth and prosperity in history. Despite periodic recessions and bear markets — there were no more investor wealth destruction events. As the U.S. became the world’s financial powerhouse, no one got more powerful than the Wall Street banks and their corporate allies. Then they set about undoing the very regulatory framework that had saved them. As politics came to depend on massive infusions of cash, no one provided more of it than corporations and Wall Street banks. They complained that regulation was restricting American competitiveness and economic growth — our citizenry was seduced by promises of greater growth and prosperity. Government, which had actually been the key to the solution, became portrayed as the problem. They captured Congress. And then came the regulatory teardown. Congress deregulated the S&Ls. Then it enacted severe cut backs on investor protections and curtailed their right to sue. Glass-Steagall was repealed — allowing the long forbidden financial giants — investment and commercial banks — to recombine. The Wall Street/ Corporate alliance used its power to see that regulatory agencies passed into the hands of appointees who were hostile to the regulations they were supposed to enforce. Investor protection rules were diluted. A pro-corporate Supreme Court curtailed suits against banks and corporations. The result was behemoth banks, less regulatory oversight and less accountability. So, what came from this era of de-regulation? Increased competitiveness, economic growth, wealth and prosperity? No — instead we got repeated waves of financial fraud and wealth destruction events. First came the S&L blowup of the mid-1980s. Over 3,000 S&Ls collapsed. A few years later it was the 2000-2001 dot.com/telecommunications meltdowns epitomized by WorldCom and Enron. Most recently, our major financial institutions were rocked by scandal — the worst crash since 1929. Investors lost over $20 trillion in these three massive wealth destruction events, which were the result of the teardown of the regulatory framework that had been erected over the prior 70 years to control our financial markets and protect investors. America’s public pension plans — guardians of the life savings of countless working people — were the biggest victims of these wealth destruction events. A pension system is a bet on the future — some money is set aside currently, but not enough to pay all the promised benefits. So, how pension funds are invested and safeguarded is key. Originally, many states required pension funds to invest in safe, interest-bearing bonds. But Wall Street could not make a lot of money from that, so it bank-rolled initiatives and legislation to repeal these protections and permit pension funds to be invested in the stuff they make big profits by peddling. Then Wall Street money managers captured pension funds’ investment portfolios by assuring trustees that ever-higher stock prices would pay for the retirement promises. Charging enormous fees, they made risky stock market bets, putting up to 80% of pension plan assets in the stock market. The Wall Street wisdom that ever-rising stock prices would fund pension plan promises was wrong. In fact, we have seen three major equity wealth destruction events in last 20 years. As a result, the financial situation of our public employee pension funds is precarious. These funds lost hundreds of billions in the S&L disaster and the 2001-2002 market crash. After the 2001-2002 wipeout — guided by Wall Street — fund trustees took much greater risks to try to make up for the prior losses. They poured billions into hedge funds, private equity, speculative real estate and that special Wall Street invention — collateralized debt obligations. Then, in the 2008-2009 financial crisis, the losses of public funds were stupendous. 109 state funds lost $865 billion in about one year. CalPERS lost $72 billion! Now virtually all of these funds are now grossly under-funded. New Jersey and Illinois are each over $50 billion underwater . Why are our public pension systems and plans in such precarious financial condition? Of course there are some examples of excessive pensions, of double-dipping and of “gaming” the system to “goose” the pension amount. But these are few in number. And, even in the aggregate, the financial impact of these excesses pale in comparison to the gigantic investment losses of these pension funds. So let’s place the fault where it really belongs — not with working people — but with Wall Street banks. Who made money on these risky investment gambles? Who takes pension fund trustees to play golf and on so-called “educational” junkets at lush resorts to enjoy lavish dinners? Wall Street. The inappropriate investments that caused these massive pension fund losses were not an accident. The pension fund field caught the Wall Street contagion — financial corruption. It’s called “Pay to Play.” The SEC saw it years ago but, controlled by anti-regulation political appointees, it did nothing. So a nationwide system of political contributions to elected officials who sit on fund boards and payoffs and kickbacks to politically well-connected “Placement Agents” to steer fund money to Wall Street became widespread. Not surprisingly, the investments obtained by “pay-to-play” kickbacks and contributions have generated horrific losses. An investment officer of the California Public Employee Pension Fund was forced to resign — he got an all-expense-paid trip to NYC from an investment group that got $600 million from the fund. The middle men on that deal — two former top CalPERs officials — got some $20 million to arrange this placement. Two other former CalPERS officials have been sued by the Attorney General for taking $50 million in placement fees to steer pension investments. CalPERs lost hundreds of millions on such investments. Alan Hevesi — the former head of the New York State Fund — pleaded guilty to doling out billions in that Fund’s assets to favored managers in return for benefits. The SEC has finally outlawed this system of bribes and kickbacks. But too late — the damage has already been done to the pension funds. Nationwide, public pension funds lost billions on these types of corrupt investments with Wall Street types. The horrible deficit numbers funds admit to actually hide a far more terrible reality. To determine how well a fund is “funded” it uses an assumed rate of return. It estimates how much the fund will earn on its investment portfolio in the future. For decades, public pension funds have assumed 7.5%-8%, even 9% annual growth, i.e., over 100% compounded over 10 years. Fat chance! Today, pension funds are engaged in massive deceptions to conceal the true extent of their funding deficits. They are concealing the massive black holes that haunt public budgets. These ridiculous 7.5%-9.0% assumed rates of return are not “little white lies” — they are Everest-sized whoppers. If the three big California Public Funds used a 4.5%-5% rate of return instead of the 7.5%-8% they now use, these funds would be $500 billion under-funded — 10 times the $50 billion shortfall they admit to. Since this is a nationwide deception going on in virtually all public plans, try extrapolating that out. Public employee funds are probably $3 or $4 trillion underwater. The massive shortfalls we now face exist despite prior “Bull Markets” and the current rally. And the next round of excess of a still under-regulated Wall Street will produce another wealth destruction event that will erase recent gains. This is no academic matter. The time to keep the retirement promises is now upon us. In the next several years, some 77 million U.S. baby boomers — including millions of teachers and public service workers — will enter retirement. Unfortunately, the U.S. public pension system has become a fraud-infested house of cards. Wisconsin shows us this house of cards is starting to collapse, sparking a major political battle. The conservatives will “scapegoat” public employees as a privileged — protected — class. But it was not firemen, cops, clerks, or teachers (or their unions) who lost trillions of dollars in risky investments in an under-regulated stock market over the past 20 years. The Wall Street money managers lost it in investments acquiesced in by the pension fund trustees they had wined and dined. It’s the same old story. The bankers pocket gigantic fees. The privileged few get fat. Ordinary people get run over. And now are even to be blamed — even punished — for a mess they did not create. We cannot allow these public pension plans to collapse. Nor can we break our promises to workers who relied in good faith on promised pensions. Fortunately, there is a solution that could help protect retirees and at the same time help finance our huge federal deficit — if we act fast. First — stop allowing Wall Street money managers to speculate with workers’ retirement savings in risky equities and other crazy investments. Second — create a new 7% or 8% inflation-indexed U.S. Treasury bond only for retirement funds, in staggered 10-30 year maturities. Require all pension plans to buy and hold these bonds. To allow an orderly transition — require that over the next seven years — 80%-90% of all pension plan assets must be put in these safe, high-yield bonds. These bonds will provide low-cost returns for pension funds. This will stop Wall Street’s gouging the funds with huge fees and speculating with workers’ retirement savings. This solution will also help finance our huge federal deficit. While the interest rate is high — we taxpayers are going to end up paying to solve this problem one way or the other. And, at least this way, the interest payments will go to support our fellow retired citizens — not the Chinese. It’s a simple, elegant solution — but Wall Street and the politicians they control will never permit it. William S. Lerach, is a national lecturer, writer and investor advocate. As a practicing attorney, he recovered $45 billion for investors, including $7.2 billion for the victims of the Enron fraud.

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: PMSC and Trafficking: Room for Improvement

January 27, 2011

One of the unpleasant aspects of the private military and contracting world concerns the way employees, especially Third World country nationals, are sometimes treated. Note that I wrote “sometimes.” What I am about to write about does not reflect the actions of the majority of contractors but it happens enough to warrant continuing concern. What I am specifically talking about is “trafficking in persons”; something done both by contractors and regular military forces. Over the past decade, Congress passed legislation to address its concern regarding allegations of contractor and U.S. Forces’ involvement in sexual slavery, human trafficking, and debt bondage. Prior to 2000, allegations of sexual slavery, sex with minors, and human trafficking involving U.S. contractors ( as in Dyncorp ) in Bosnia and Herzegovina led to administrative and criminal investigations by U.S. Government agencies. In 2002, a local television news program aired a report alleging that women trafficked from the Philippines, Russia, and Eastern Europe were forced into prostitution in bars in South Korea frequented by U.S. military personnel, which resulted in an investigation and changes to DoD policy. In 2004, official reports chronicled allegations of forced labor and debt bondage against U.S. contractors in Iraq. Needless to say these incidents were contrary to U.S. Government policy regarding official conduct. In 2000, the president signed into law two statutes responding in part to identified contractor and U.S. Forces’ misconduct in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Public Law 106-386 on October 28, and Public Law 106-523, “Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000,” on November 22. The stated purposes of the first statute are “…to combat trafficking in persons [CTIP], a contemporary manifestation of slavery whose victims are predominantly women and children, to ensure just and effective punishment of traffickers, and to protect their victims.” The second statute established “Federal jurisdiction over offenses committed outside the United States by persons employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces, or by members of the Armed Forces who are released or separated from active duty prior to being identified and prosecuted for the commission of such offenses.” Congress specifically extended this extraterritorial jurisdiction over trafficking in persons (TIP) offenses committed by persons employed by or accompanying the Federal Government outside the United States in Public Law 109-164, “Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act Of 2005,” January 10, 2006. Additional reauthorizations expanded the scope and applicability of the first statute. Public Law 108-193, the “Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003,” December 19, 2003, gave the Government the added authority to terminate grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements for TIP-related violations. That law says: The President shall ensure that any grant, contract, or cooperative agreement provided or entered into by a Federal department or agency under which funds are to be provided to a private entity, in whole or in part, shall include a condition that authorizes the department or agency to terminate the grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, without penalty, if the grantee or any subgrantee, or the contractor or any subcontractor (i) engages in severe forms of trafficking in persons or has procured a commercial sex act during the period of time that the grant, contract, or cooperative agreement is in effect, or (ii) uses forced labor in the performance of the grant, contract, or cooperative agreement. In 2006, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Council agreed on an interim rule implementing the above stated requirement, adding Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 22.17, “Combating Trafficking in Persons.” There are other regulations and laws on the subject but the above should suffice to demonstrate the U.S. government recognizes this is a serious issue. To their credit many, even perhaps most PMSC, do as well. For example, the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Providers , signed last November, has, a section that says: Signatory Companies will not, and will require their Personnel not to, engage in trafficking in persons. Signatory Companies will, and will require their Personnel to, remain vigilant for all instances of trafficking in persons and, where discovered, report such instances to Competent Authorities. For the purposes of this Code, human trafficking is the recruitment, harbouring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for (1) a commercial sex act induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years of age; or (2) labour or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, debt bondage, or slavery. While the sex aspect gets people attention it is the second part, “labour or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, debt bondage, or slavery” which is the more common offense. Try searching online for “TCN (stands for Third Country National] trafficking AND Iraq” and you’ll see what I mean. So with that as background how well are both governmental personnel and contractors doing in policing themselves in this area? They could be doing better, according to a new report from the Department of Defense Inspector General. It found: • While three quarters of the contracts sampled contained a Combating Trafficking in Persons clause, only little more than half had the required Federal Acquisition Regulation clause. • DoD contracting offices lack an effective process for obtaining information pertaining to trafficking in persons violations within the DoD. On the plus side: • DoD and other Federal law enforcement organizations were developing procedures to identify trafficking in persons incidents in criminal investigative databases. • Several organizations demonstrated Combating Trafficking in Persons awareness and quality assurance best practices. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that all Federal solicitations and contracts contain clause 52.222-50, “Combating Trafficking in Persons,” (CTIP) or the clause with Alternate I modification for contracts with performance outside the U.S. The team reviewed 368 DoD service or construction contracts for work in the Republic of Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the State of Kuwait, the State of Qatar, and the Kingdom of Bahrain awarded in FYs 2009 and 2010. The report found 53 percent of the contracts (195 of 368) contained a proper version of the mandatory FAR CTIP clause, and 26 percent of the contracts (95 of 368) contained an incorrect citation. 21 percent of the contracts (78 of 368) did not contain any form of the FAR clause. Noncompliance with the requirement to include the CTIP clause in contracts has two negative effects. First, contractors remain unaware of the U.S. Government’s “zero tolerance” policy and self-reporting requirements regarding CTIP. Second, contracting offices were potentially unable to apply applicable remedies to correct contractor violations when the CTIP clause was not properly present. The number of contracts without any form of a CTIP clause indicates that additional effort is still necessary to ensure compliance.

Read the full article →

Feds Arrest Over 100 In NY-NJ Mob Takedown

January 20, 2011

NEW YORK — Federal prosecutors say 127 people are facing charges in one of the largest Mafia crackdowns in FBI history. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said at a news conference Thursday in New York City that the defendants include high-ranking members of the Gambino and Colombo crime families and the reputed former boss of organized crime in New England. Holder says the charges cover decades worth of offenses, including hits to eliminate perceived rivals, a killing during a botched robbery and a double shooting in a barroom dispute over a spilled drink. Authorities say the investigation was aided by informants who recorded thousands of conversations by suspected mobsters. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below. NEW YORK (AP) – Federal agents dealt another major blow to New York’s five Mafia crime families by arresting more than 100 suspected mobsters throughout the Northeast on charges including murder, extortion and narcotics trafficking. The FBI said most of the arrests were made Thursday morning. Many were in Brooklyn, but they also occurred throughout New York City and in New Jersey and New England. Luigi Manocchio, the reputed head of New England’s Patriarca crime family, was arrested Wednesday in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., the U.S. attorney’s office in Providence said. A newly unsealed indictment accused him of collecting protection payments from strip club-owners. Also arrested was Thomas Iafrate, who worked as a bookkeeper for strip clubs and set aside money for Manocchio, prosecutors said. The takedown was the result of multiple investigations. Federal probes aided by mob turncoats have decimated the families’ ranks in recent years and have resulted in lengthy prison terms for several leaders. On Friday, a federal judge in Brooklyn sentenced John “Sonny” Franzese, 93, to eight years in prison for extorting Manhattan strip clubs and a pizzeria on Long Island. Federal prosecutors had sought at least 12 years behind bars for the underboss of the Colombo crime family – in effect, a life term. To bolster their argument, they had an FBI agent testify that Franzese bragged about killing 60 people over the years and once contemplated putting out a hit on his own son for becoming a government cooperator. In October, Mafia turncoat Salvatore Vitale was sentenced to time served after federal prosecutors praised his total betrayal of his own crime syndicate – and after he apologized to the families of his victims. Authorities said he had a hand in at least 11 murders, including that of a fellow gangster in the fallout from the infamous Donnie Brasco case. The evidence provided after his arrest in 2003 helped decimate the once-fearsome Bonanno organized crime family, Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Andres said. “The Mafia today is weaker because of his cooperation,” Andres said. “Mr. Vitale provided lead after lead. … The results speak for themselves.”

Read the full article →

Ellen Brown: The Fed Has Spoken: No Bailout for Main Street

January 13, 2011

The Federal Reserve was set up by bankers for bankers, and it has served them well. Out of the blue, it came up with $12.3 trillion in nearly interest-free credit to bail the banks out of a credit crunch they created. That same credit crisis has plunged state and local governments into insolvency, but the Fed has now delivered its ultimatum: there will be no “quantitative easing” for municipal governments. On January 7, according to the Wall Street Journal , Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke announced that the Fed had ruled out a central bank bailout of state and local governments. “We have no expectation or intention to get involved in state and local finance,” he said in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee. The states “should not expect loans from the Fed.” So much for the proposal of President Barack Obama, reported in Reuters a year ago, to have the Fed buy municipal bonds to cut the heavy borrowing costs of cash-strapped cities and states. The credit woes of state and municipal governments are a direct result of Wall Street’s malfeasance. Their borrowing costs first shot up in 2008, when the “monoline” bond insurers lost their own credit ratings after gambling in derivatives. The Fed’s low-interest facilities could have been used to restore local government credit, just as it was used to restore the credit of the banks. But Chairman Bernanke has now vetoed that plan. Why? It can hardly be argued that the Fed doesn’t have the money. The collective budget deficit of the states for 2011 is projected at $140 billion, a mere drop in the bucket compared to the sums the Fed managed to come up with to bail out the banks. According to data recently released, the central bank provided roughly $3.3 trillion in liquidity and $9 trillion in short-term loans and other financial arrangements to banks, multinational corporations, and foreign financial institutions following the credit crisis of 2008. The argument may be that continuing the Fed’s controversial “quantitative easing” program (easing credit conditions by creating money with accounting entries) will drive the economy into hyperinflation. But creating $12.3 trillion for the banks — nearly 100 times the sum needed by state governments — did not have that dire effect. Rather, the money supply is shrinking – by some estimates, at the fastest rate since the Great Depression. Creating another $140 billion would hardly affect the money supply at all. Why didn’t the $12.3 trillion drive the economy into hyperinflation? Because, contrary to popular belief, when the Fed engages in “quantitative easing,” it is not simply printing money and giving it away. It is merely extending CREDIT, creating an overdraft on the account of the borrower to be paid back in due course. The Fed is simply replacing expensive credit from private banks (which also create the loan money on their books) with cheap credit from the central bank. So why isn’t the Fed open to advancing this cheap credit to the states? According to Mr. Bernanke, its hands are tied. He says the Fed is limited by statute to buying municipal government debt with maturities of six months or less that is directly backed by tax or other assured revenue, a form of debt that makes up less than 2% of the overall muni market. Congress imposed that restriction, and only Congress can change it. That may sound like he is passing the buck, but he is probably right. Bailing out state and local governments IS outside the Fed’s mandate. The Federal Reserve Act was drafted by bankers to create a banker’s bank that would serve their interests. No others need apply. The Federal Reserve is the bankers’ own private club, and its legal structure keeps all non-members out. Earlier Central Bank Ventures into Commercial Lending That is how the Fed is structured today, but it hasn’t always been that way. In 1934, Section 13(b) was added to the Federal Reserve Act, authorizing the Fed to “make credit available for the purpose of supplying working capital to established industrial and commercial businesses.” This long-forgotten section was implemented and remained in effect for 24 years. In a 2002 article called “Lender of More Than Last Resort” posted on the Minneapolis Fed’s website, David Fettig summarized its provisions as follows: • [Federal] Reserve banks could make loans to any established businesses, including businesses begun that year (a change from earlier legislation that limited funds to more established enterprises). • Reserve banks were permitted to participate [share in loans] with lending institutions, but only if the latter assumed 20 percent of the risk. • No limitation was placed on the amount of a single loan. • A Reserve bank could make a direct loan only to a business in its district. Today, that venture into commercial banking sounds like a radical departure from the Fed’s given role; but at the time it evidently seemed like a reasonable alternative. Fettig notes that “the Fed was still less than 20 years old and many likely remembered the arguments put forth during the System’s founding, when some advocated that the discount window should be open to all comers, not just member banks.” In Australia and other countries, the central bank was then assuming commercial as well as central bank functions. Section 13(b) was repealed in 1958, but one state has kept its memory alive. In North Dakota, the publicly owned Bank of North Dakota (BND) acts as a “mini-Fed” for the state. Like the Federal Reserve of the 1930s and 1940s, the BND makes loans to local businesses and participates in loans made by local banks. The BND has helped North Dakota escape the credit crisis. In 2009, when other states were teetering on bankruptcy, North Dakota sported the largest surplus it had ever had. Other states, prompted by their own budget crises to explore alternatives, are now looking to North Dakota for inspiration. The “Unusual and Exigent Circumstances” Exception Although Section 13(b) was repealed, the Federal Reserve Act retained enough vestiges of it in 2008 to allow the Fed to intervene to save a variety of non-bank entities from bankruptcy. The problem was that the tool was applied selectively. The recipients were major corporate players, not local businesses or local governments. Fettig writes: Section 13(b) may be a memory, . . . but Section 13 paragraph 3 . . . is alive and well in the Federal Reserve Act. . . . [T]his amendment allows, “in unusual and exigent circumstances,” a Reserve bank to advance credit to individuals, partnerships and corporations that are not depository institutions. In 2008, the Fed bailed out investment company Bear Stearns and insurer AIG, neither of which was a bank. John Nichols reports in The Nation that Bear Stearns got almost $1 trillion in short-term loans, with interest rates as low as 0.5%. The Fed also made loans to other corporations, including GE, McDonald’s, and Verizon. In 2010, Section 13(3) was modified by the Dodd-Frank bill, which replaced the phrase “individuals, partnerships and corporations” with the vaguer phrase “any program or facility with broad-based eligibility.” As explained in the notes to the bill: Only Broad-Based Facilities Permitted . Section 13(3) is modified to remove the authority to extend credit to specific individuals, partnerships and corporations. Instead, the Board may authorize credit under section 13(3) only under a program or facility with “broad-based eligibility.” What programs have “broad-based eligibility” isn’t clear from a reading of the Section, but long-term municipal bonds are evidently excluded. Mr. Bernanke said that if municipal defaults became a problem, it would be in Congress’ hands, not his. Congress could change the law, just as it did in 1934, 1958, and 2010. It could change the law to allow the Fed to help Main Street just as it helped Wall Street. But as Senator Dick Durbin blurted ou t on a radio program in April 2009, Congress is owned by the banks. Changes in the law today are more likely to go the other way. Mike Whitney, writing in December 2010, noted : So far, not one CEO or CFO of a major investment bank or financial institution has been charged, arrested, prosecuted, or convicted in what amounts to the largest incident of securities fraud in history. In the much-smaller Savings and Loan investigation, more than 1,000 people were charged and convicted. . . . [T]he system is broken and the old rules no longer apply. The old rules no longer apply because they have been changed to suit the moneyed interests that hold Congress and the Fed captive. The law has been changed not only to keep the guilty out of jail but to preserve their exorbitant profits and bonuses at the expense of their victims. To do this, the Federal Reserve had to take “extraordinary measures.” They were extraordinary but not illegal, because the Fed’s congressional mandate made them legal. Nobody’s permission even had to be sought. Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act allows it to do what it needs to do in “unusual and exigent circumstances” to save its constituents. If you’re a bank, it seems, anything goes. If you’re not a bank, you’re on your own. So Who Will Save the States? Highlighting the immediacy of the local government budget crisis, The Wall Street Journal quoted Meredith Whitney, a banking analyst who recently turned to analyzing state and local finances. She said on a recent broadcast of CBS’s “60 Minutes” that the U.S. could see “50 to 100 sizable defaults” in 2011 among its local governments, amounting to “hundreds of billions of dollars.” If the Fed could so easily come up with 12.3 trillion dollars to save the banks, why can’t it find a few hundred billion under the mattress to save the states? Obviously it could, if Congress were inclined to put non-bank lending back into the Fed’s job description. Then why isn’t that being done? The cynical view is that the states are purposely being kept on the edge of bankruptcy, because the banks that hold Congress hostage want the interest income and the control. Whatever the reason, Congress is standing down while the nation is sinking. Congress must summon the courage to take needed action; and that action is not to impose “austerity” by cutting services, at a time when an already-squeezed populace most needs them. Rather, it is to create the jobs that will generate real productivity. To do this, Congress would not even have to go through the Federal Reserve. It could issue its own debt-free money and spend it on repairing and modernizing our decaying infrastructure, among other needed works. Congress’ task will become easier if the people stand with them in demanding action, but Congress is now so gridlocked that change may still be long in coming. In the meantime, the states could take matters in their own hands and set up their own state-owned banks, on the model of the Bank of North Dakota. They could then have their own very-low-interest credit lines, just as the Wall Street banks do. Rather than spending or selling off valuable public assets, or hoarding them in massive rainy day funds made necessary by the lack of ready credit, states could LEVERAGE their assets into a very strong and abundant local credit system, following the accepted business practices of the Wall Street banks themselves. The Public Banking Institute is being launched January 13 to explore that alternative. For more information, see http://PublicBankingInstitute.org .

Read the full article →

Why Inside Traders Escape Harsh Sentences

January 7, 2011

NEW YORK, Jan 6 (Reuters Legal) – The recent flurry of insider-trading arrests by the Manhattan U.S. Attorney has set Wall Street on edge. But if recent history is any guide, people found guilty of that crime tend to get off relatively easy, a Reuters Legal analysis suggests. The analysis covers sentences imposed in 2009 and 2010 in 15 insider-trading cases brought by the U.S. Attorney in New York, representing virtually all those imposed in that court during this period. Of these, 13 sentences, or nearly 87 percent, were lighter than the terms prescribed by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines — and seven of the sentences carried no prison time at all. The data from 2009, culled from a report issued last year by law firm Morrison & Foerster, reveal that only one prison term, for 63 months, was issued for insider trading in 2009. The routine practice of departing downward from the guidelines in insider-trading cases is particularly striking given the much lower rate at which judges in the New York federal court typically do so. According to U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics from fiscal 2009, New York federal judges departed downward from the guidelines in 57 percent of all cases, a full 30 percentage points lower than for insider-trading cases alone. To be sure, several defendants charged in connection to Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s massive insider-trading investigation have yet to be sentenced. In fact, two of the biggest targets — Galleon Group hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam and former New Castle Funds employee Danielle Chiesi — have not yet gone to trial. If either is found guilty, the guidelines would call for severe sentences: A maximum of 145 years in prison for Rajaratnam, whose trial is scheduled for February, and a maximum of 155 years for Chiesi. Defense lawyers and former prosecutors have several theories about why insider-trading sentences tend to be lighter than those prescribed by the federal guidelines. For one, judges in the Southern District of New York, who oversee most of the insider-trading cases filed nationwide, depart downward from the guidelines at a more frequent rate than do judges across the country. According to the Sentencing Commission, in fiscal 2009 42 percent of all sentences nationwide were below the guidelines, compared to the 57 percent of all sentences issued by judges in the Southern District. Another theory is that insider-trading defendants more commonly present the sentencing judge with glowing character references from friends, family, and colleagues, and these are often effective in persuading judges that a short prison term would be a sufficient deterrent. And unlike cases involving violent crimes or other types of white-collar crimes such as Ponzi schemes and shareholder fraud, insider-trading, which no doubt harms the investing public, typically doesn’t produce anyone to deliver heart-tugging victim-impact statements to the judge. “You’re not going to get a big presentation about how peoples’ lives were ruined,” said Sam Buell, a professor at Duke University School of Law and a former federal prosecutor. “In insider-trading cases, where are the victims?” DIFFICULT CALLS FOR JUDGES At a sentencing hearing in February 2009, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein spoke about the difficulties he faced when sentencing individuals guilty of insider trading, which he described as “serious” but also “peculiar.” “It’s taking advantage of inside information, theoretically, at the expense of the public,” he said. “But there are no victims in this crime, at least not in any real sense.” The case involved Alan Tucker, a former Pace University professor who in 2008 had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Under the sentencing guidelines, Tucker faced 37 to 46 months. At the hearing, Judge Hellerstein struggled to find the appropriate punishment for Tucker, noting that Tucker was an accomplished academic and that he has a son who suffers from autism. Judge Hellerstein sentenced Tucker to six months in prison, but subsequently reduced the term to three years’ probation. GUIDELINES NOT MANDATORY The federal guidelines, which went into effect in 1987, were meant to bring more consistency to sentencing, and over the years, penalties have stiffened for white-collar defendants. The guidelines are based on a point system in which a first-time offender guilty of insider trading automatically gets eight points — or a prison sentence range of zero to six months. Additional points are based on the amount the defendant gained by the illegal trading — which can quickly add up to stiff sentences. A defendant who made more than $200,000, for example, faces between 33 and 41 months under the guidelines. For a gain of more than $1 million, the range increases to 51 to 63 months. But under the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in United States v. Booker, district court judges are no longer bound by the guidelines. Now, they’re only required to consult them. Cooperation with the government in ongoing investigations may also help defendants receive lighter sentences than those called for by the guidelines. Last year, U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein sentenced a trader who faced 46 to 57 months under the guidelines to three years probation, citing his cooperation with the government. But cooperation with the government is not always necessary to get a good deal. In the last two years, at least eight defendants received shorter sentences even though they did not cooperate with the government. Only two of the seven who received sentences below the guidelines had cooperated with the government. James Gansman, a former Ernst & Young partner accused of giving inside information to a female companion, fought his charges through a trial. After a jury convicted him in 2009, he faced a prison sentence of 41 to 51 months under the guidelines. But last year, U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum sentenced Gansman to one year and one day, noting that Gansman did not personally gain from the trading. Gansman has appealed the conviction. Defense lawyers are now using these lighter sentences to try to set a new benchmark for insider-trading defendants who don’t cooperate with the government. In June, lawyers for Ali Hariri, a former executive at Atheros Communications who pleaded guilty to insider trading in connection with the government’s Galleon Group investigation, pointed to more than a dozen individuals who didn’t cooperate with the authorities yet who received sentences below the federal guidelines. Hariri’s lawyers argued that in order to “avoid disparity among defendants guilty of similar conduct,” Hariri should also receive a sentence below the guidelines, which call for a prison term of 24 to 30 months. In November, U.S. District Judge Richard Holwell sentenced Hariri to 18 months in prison. (Reporting by Andrew Longstreth; Editing by Eric Effron and Amy Stevens) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: The $10,000 Iraqi Civilian

January 4, 2011

Just how much is an Iraqi life worth? I don’t know but, in the aftermath of the killing of 17 Iraqi civilians by Blackwater employees at Nisoor Square in September 2007, apparently Iraq and the United States, had very different ideas, according to one of the recently released Wikileaks cables. (Note: One can find all the Wikileaks cable concerning Blackwater here . The cable shows, not surprisingly, that the Iraqi and U.S. governments were magnitudes of order apart on what an Iraqi life was worth. According to the cable the U.S. Embassy in Iraq obtained a copy of the Government of Iraq’s investigation report of the September 16 incident at Nisoor Square. The report recommended payments of $8 million and $4 million for each death and injury respectively, and called for the USG to replace Blackwater within six months of the incident. At that time the Embassy had begun accepting claims from victims of the incident and approved payments of $10,000 for each death, $5,000 for each injury, (800 times less than the Iraqi figure for both death and injury) and $2,500 for property damage. The cable said the Iraqi government report stated “the conduct of the PSD violated Iraqi law and a number of CPA [Coalition Provisional Authority] orders and that therefore the incident is a pre-meditated murder for which the Blackwater personnel must be held accountable. It also claims that the Ministry of Interior has information on seven other instances in which Blackwater personnel killed 10 Iraqis and wounded 15 others.” Perhaps the most interesting part of the cable is at the end: Numerous editorial cartoons have been published depicting Blackwater as bloodthirsty mercenaries. While the escalation of the Turkish border issue has been dominating the media, the Blackwater incident will likely remain a prominent issue for editorials and political cartoons as the unpopularity of private security firms makes it an easy target. This seems to indicate that the embassy regarded criticism of private security contractors as just an image problem, and not a serious oversight and accountability concern. According to another Feb. 7 2008 cable the U.S. Iraqi embassy had, at that point, paid “132,500 dollars to claimants: 40,000 dollars to the families of 4 killed, 65,000 dollars to 13 injured, and 27,500 dollars to 11 claimants for vehicle damage.” An interesting passage from this cable is: Blackwater Condolence Payments —————————— ¶19. (C) On January 18, 2007, the DCM and RSO met with Blackwater representatives and were briefed on Blackwater,s intentions to make condolence payments to the victims of the September 16 Nisur Square incident and to obtain an operating license from the Ministry of Interior. In a change from Blackwater’s previous position, the representatives said that Blackwater has hired a number of Iraqi attorneys, including one who has had significant experience dealing with MNFI on Iraqi claims cases, to work with local courts on payment issues and plans to follow procedures for payments as determined by local laws and regulations. Blackwater has set aside “a generous pot” of money for these payments and the Iraqi attorneys will be contacting survivors and relatives of the deceased. Representatives said that they intended to make payments to all claimants, including those with lawsuits pending in the United States, largely because they did not expect those lawsuits to be successful. They also said that they would take into account the specific requests and circumstances of the claimants where possible. ¶20. (C) Blackwater is also moving ahead with efforts to obtain an operating license from the Ministry of Interior (MOI), and said that through their lawyers’ communications with the MOI they were told that Prime Minister Maliki would approve the licensing of Blackwater if condolence payments are made. They have received this same assurance from members of the Ministry of Interior responsible for licensing. ¶21. (C) The DCM told Blackwater that the Embassy believed it was morally correct for Blackwater to make condolence payments. She also indicated that while the Embassy welcomes this action by Blackwater, it will not have any effect on the DOS/Embassy decision on whether to retain Blackwater, and that in regards to the MOI licensing issue, under no circumstances could the Embassy approve of or in any way be part of a bribery effort. The Blackwater representatives indicated that they understood and that the process would be straightforward and transparent. In fairness, Blackwater was more generous than the U.S. government when making compensation. The cable notes “On average, Blackwater said it expects they will pay at least twice as much as what the Embassy paid and substantially more for victims or families that were more significantly impacted by the incident.”

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: A Rose by any Other Name Would Smell Like a "New Humanitarian"

November 29, 2010

Remember when in February 2009 Blackwater changed its name to Xe Services? Didn’t do much good, did it? Almost everyone still thinks of it as Blackwater, or shades of the other Prince, the PSC formerly known as Blackwater. It just goes to show you that not every attempt at rebranding works well. Sometimes, in fact, they are major disasters. For example, if the SciFi Channel had done more due diligence before it rolled out its new name it would have discovered that, in most parts of the world, “syfy” is a slang term for syphilis. And being associated with a sexually transmitted disease is never a good marketing tactic. Of course, rebranding is par for the course for private military and security contractors. The public debate is frequently shallow and sensationalist, and often outright demagogic, so it is hardly surprising that PMSC seek to change the terms of the debate, considering that its critics often seek to influence it by using inaccurate terminology like “mercenary, “dogs of war,” or “guns for hire.” Remember that the PMSC trade group, the International Peace Operations Association, which then changed its name to simply IPOA, recently renamed itself the International Stability Operations Association. I see the change as an attempt to broaden their market appeal. Offering an organization that is of use to companies that can lay claim to helping establish stability will, at least potentially, cast a far wider net, that just those involved in peace operations. As both a marketing move and an attempt to attract future member companies it is a smart move. The sad thing is that for many years PMSC have been notably bad at doing public relations, or, if you want to use military terminology, information operations. Partly it was because in their early years PMSC were, and to some degree, still are headed by former military officers whose initial reaction to the idea of talking with the media is to echo the famous comment, “Off with their heads!” from the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. Another reason is that they were simply too cheap to pay for a fulltime public relations person or office. And when you are something on the order of DynCorp or KBR you definitely need a whole office. Or to paraphrase the old sports quote, image isn’t everything; it’s the only thing. Given that PMSC trade association have lobbied Congress to consider “best value” when awarding contracts, which involves weighing a company’s reputation among other factors, and not just its bid price, you can see why this is important. So, how’s that whole identity politics thing working out? This brings us to another paper presented at the presented at the SGIR 7th Pan-European International Relations Conference, in Stockholm, Sweden, September 9-11, 2010. This is ” New Humanitarians? Private Military and Security Companies ” by Jutta Joachim & Andrea Schneiker of the Institute of Political Science at Leibniz University Hannover, Germany. They start with the obvious, “Although Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) are gaining increasingly in importance, they still suffer from an image problem… Companies are therefore interested in presenting themselves as legitimate and acceptable contract parties.” And what do they find? Based on a discourse analysis of the homepages of select PMSCs and the industry association International Peace Operations Association (IPOA), we examine the ways in which they respond to negative labels. Drawing on the framing literature, we find that PMSCs present themselves as “new humanitarians.” Not only do they provide increasingly logistics or security for the staff of humanitarian organizations which are confronted with complex emergencies and ever-more dangerous missions, but the respective companies also appropriate the discourses of these organizations. The growing involvement of actors interested exclusively in profit is not without problems. Not only does it challenge the monopoly thus far enjoyed by non-profit organizations with respect to humanitarian assistance and the principles which guide their actions, but it contributes further to the normalization of privatized security. “Armed humanitarians” is also the title of Nathan Hodge’s book which I wrote about previously . Of course, such a rebranding has impact beyond that of image. It goes to furthering the legitimacy and staying power of the PMC industry. After all, who could possibly be against a humanitarian?. It would be like being against the Red Cross or Amnesty International. For PMSCs to present themselves as humanitarians has implications that go far beyond the humanitarian sector. It contributes to the normalization and power of PMSCs. By presenting themselves as do-gooders and others, including state militaries, international organizations, such as the United Nations, and even NGOs as incapable and less caring for the well-being of others, PMSCs enhance their legitimacy. Outsourcing of military and security-related tasks may, in turn, be more acceptable, easier to justify, and more difficult to resist, if not to say a moral obligation. In the view of the authors defining oneself as a humanitarian, which is generally considered to be an ethic of kindness, benevolence and sympathy extended universally and impartially to all human beings, is also smart business: In the case of PMSCs, presenting themselves as humanitarians may enhance their common acceptance and increase their pool of clients, such as NGOs, who might be less apprehensive in relying on their services, as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of RA International, a member company of the IPOA, explains: One should never underestimate the power of private companies who offer aid. Companies are almost always focused on efficiency, good negotiation, building their reputation (their brand) and getting things done on time and on budget. The basic rules of capitalism that work for the good of the communities they aid can in turn aid them in business and ultimately help post-conflict societies to recover and progress. So, in this view, someone like Adam Smith is really Mother Theresa in drag. And, as it turns out, for one of the few times in their history, PMSC are becoming rather deft and adroit in their public relations. PMSCs increasingly refer to themselves as “the New Humanitarian Agent[s]” emphasizing, like AECOM, that they “are committed … to make the world a better place”. Their humanitarian identity has evolved over time in response to scandals and crisis in the industry and is reflective of the post-Cold War kind in terms of the professed ambitions. Most indicative of a change in the industry is the way in which the IPOA more recently refers to it. PMSCs, according to the association, belong to the “Peace and Stability Operations Industry” of which the private security industry is only a “subset.” … The Journal of International Peace Operations of the IPOA is quite telling in this respect. Ads of companies quite frequently show sad looking girls (EODT), babies being fed (Blackwater), boys laughing and waving at one (IPOA), soldiers rescuing little kids (IPOA), or a globe (Blackwater, IPOA). Everyone is entitled to their own spin and it is true that in many cases PMSC are just as capable, if not more so that their traditional NGO counterparts such as Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders or the Red Cross. So, should we care whether IPOA et al is putting itself in the ranks of Nobel Peace prize winners? Well, the authors note a few problems. First, there is what we might politely call the hypocrisy factor: Analyzing the homepages of PMSCs and one of their associations–the IPOA–provides evidence that companies present themselves increasingly as “new humanitarians” interested in addressing the root causes of conflicts. On the one hand, they employ naming strategies, emphasizing their commitment to humanitarian aims and ethics. On the other hand, however, they paradoxically blame while at the same time align themselves with other humanitarian actors. As much as they consider the reluctance of Western states, international organizations, and NGOs to intervene in ongoing crisis as a problem, PMSCs also seek to benefit from and rent their legitimacy. Second, is the conflict of interest issue: First, PMSCs specialize in intelligence and risk assessments. In terms of effectiveness and efficiency, this may be an asset in situations of violent conflicts or humanitarian disasters and a comparative advantage vis-à-vis NGOs or international organizations. Given the kinds of information PMSCs can produce and have available, they may be in a better position to determine where help is most needed, coordinate the assistance and the logistics, or to estimate the effort or the danger involved. From a moral point of view, however, this capability can be problematic. Through their advice, PMSCs may shape and influence our understanding as to what constitutes a humanitarian crisis, who are the victims and who may deserve aid, and who is qualified to assist. Instead of political or humanitarian motives per se, the information companies provide is based on economic reasoning. Whether to intervene or not and offer assistance is, hence, no longer a question of duty or a certain ethics, but one of whether a crisis promises to be a lucrative market. Third, is the commitment issue: Similar to NGOs, most PMSCs operate transnationally and conceive of themselves as apolitical, neutral actors. Again, based on the criteria of efficiency and effectiveness, this makes their involvement appealing. Companies can be at site in a relatively short amount of time, are not be held back by cumbersome political debates, and may enjoy greater acceptance because they are not directly associated with the UN or any particular state. Judged in moral terms, however, their constitution may again be a problem. Compared to states, UN agencies or even NGOs which often have ties to countries other than those established during violent conflicts or natural disasters, companies do not have these kinds of relations. Consequently, they may feel less of a commitment beyond their assignment and ignore the long-term implications of their engagement or even the short-term consequences for ongoing conflicts. If problems arise, they may simply leave and set up shop elsewhere. While some might argue that the exit option is also available to NGOs, the implications are different for them than for PMSCs. Contrary to the former, which are forced to reflect whether their behaviour is in line with their ethics and are held accountable by their members and donors, companies, in comparison, evaluate their actions based on profits and the potential responses of their share-holders. And last, but hardly least: Finally, apart from moral concerns or those related to efficiency and effectiveness, there seems to be a further implication that has to be considered when PMSCs acquire a humanitarian identity. It contributes to their normalization and may, in the long-run, undermine the role of more traditional actors in the field. With PMSCs gaining in acceptance and legitimacy, international organizations and NGOs may either be increasingly be perceived as lacking the ability to take care of those in most need or may even feel less compelled to intervene.

Read the full article →

The Debt Problems Of The European Periphery

November 17, 2010

Last week’s renewed anxiety over bond market collapse in Europe’s periphery should come as no surprise.  Greece’s EU/IMF program heaps more public debt onto a nation that is already insolvent, and Ireland is now on the same track. Despite massive fiscal cuts and several years of deep recession Greece and Ireland will accumulate 150% of GNP in debt by 2014.   A new road is necessary: The burden of financial failure should be shared with the culprits and not only born by the victims. The fundamental flaw in these programs is the morally dubious decision to bail out the bank creditors while foisting the burden of adjustment on taxpayers.  Especially the Irish government has, for no good reason, nationalized the debts of its failing private banks, passing on the burden to its increasingly poor citizens.  On the donor side, German and French taxpayers are angry at the thought of having to pay for the bonanza of Irish banks and their irresponsible creditors.

Read the full article →

Video: Madoff’s Bed, Underwear Auctioned; Former Workers Sued

November 15, 2010

Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) — Five of Bernard Madoff’s former employees were sued by the trustee overseeing the bankruptcy of the con man’s investment firm in an effort to recover at least $70 million in allegedly fraudulent transfers. Separately, a New York auction of the spoils of Madoff’s fraud raised more than $2 million for his victims — as souvenir hunters snapped up his canopy bed, footwear and even his underwear. Bloomberg’s Deirdre Bolton reports. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

William K. Black: Lenders Put the Lies in Liar’s Loans

November 8, 2010

I have noted before a family maxim — one cannot compete with unintended self-parody. Andrew Kahr has recently written a column in the American Banker entitled ” Spread the Word: Lying to Banks is Illegal .” Mr. Kahr is one of the architects of subprime lending. He warns: Federal law provides that anyone who knowingly makes a false statement to a[n] … insured institution … shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than thirty years, or both. To say the least, this criminal law, intended to protect banks and hence the deposit insurance fund, is very, very rarely enforced against consumers. Why? How is a U.S. attorney to know that a customer has defrauded a bank by giving false information, unless the case is referred to him or her by the bank? And we’re not doing that, at least not for mortgages, credit cards or other everyday consumer lending. Hence, the plethora of consumers giving willfully and materially false information to banks on applications and during loan servicing has mushroomed. With “liar’s loans,” this went from a cottage industry to an epidemic. Mr. Kahr neglects to mention that “insured institution[s]” are required to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) (criminal referrals). As the FDIC explains: The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s financial recordkeeping regulations (31 CFR 103.18) require federally supervised banking organizations to file a SAR when they detect a known or suspected violation of federal law meeting applicable reporting criteria. Collectively, banks make massive numbers of SARS filings with regard to mortgage fraud, over 67,000 annually, but a mere 10 institutions file 72% of those referrals. The typical nonprime lender deliberately violates its legal requirement to file a criminal referral when it discovers mortgage fraud even though that practice would be irrational for an honest lender. The federal regulatory agencies have not taken any effective action against these pervasive violation of their rules despite an “epidemic” of mortgage fraud that drove the ongoing financial crises. Mr. Kahr continues by complaining that [T]he news often encourages consumers to believe that you can lie to get a loan, or to forestall collection action, and that this is perfectly normal, common and acceptable. After all, “he told me that my income would not be verified.” Nonverification, even if advertised in advance, is not an invitation to lie, and it does not exempt the liar from criminal consequences. Occasionally you can see a newspaper story about a tattoo parlor operator who managed to buy six houses with nothing down and false applications. But the multiple and professional fraudsters are relatively few. Surely the great bulk of the fraudulent applications come from individuals who just want to buy and live in the house, or to do so on better terms. Mr. Kahr sees only two sources of mortgage fraud — and both are by the borrowers. He correctly states that there appear to be “relatively few” “professional fraudsters” among borrowers. To him, that leaves only one alternative — “surely” millions of homeowners have defrauded the banks. The FBI, however, reports that 80% of mortgage fraud losses occur when “industry insiders” are involved in the fraud (FBI 2007). Mr. Kahr then returns to his primary theme — nonprime lenders acted irrationally by recurrently taking actions that were certain to increase mortgage fraud. In days gone by, some loan application forms included, in bold type at the bottom, an excerpt from the criminal law … defining fraud and specifying the penalties for it. Even before “the class of 2006,” we stopped doing that. After all, it reduced loan volume — both by discouraging bad applications and by increasing the decline rate based on less inflated claims by applicants. Let’s now do a thought experiment with “the bank where I work.” Suppose you let it be known to applicants and loan customers that your policy is to detect and to refer for prosecution cases in which a knowingly false statement is made by an applicant or borrower. What would happen then? “Well, then they would all go across the street, to my competitor.” We can certainly hope that the fraudsters would do so! And that your loan losses would correspondingly decline, giving you a dramatic edge over that competitor. You could charge lower rates and still earn a higher return. But why would the honest customer have any fear of doing business with you? He knows what his income, occupation and phone number are. Mr. Kahr is explaining the concept of “adverse selection.” If an honest bank does not underwrite effectively its controlling officers know that the bank will inevitably attract the worst borrowers and suffer severe losses. No honest bank would operate in the fashion Mr. Kahr described as being characteristic of nonprime mortgage lenders. An honest, competent lender would gain a “dramatic edge” in “return” over any lender that permitted adverse selection. Mr. Kahr explains that nonprime lenders invariably “made bad loans because [they] knew [they] could sell them [to Fannie and Freddie] and make taxpayers cover the losses….” Again, Mr. Kahr is blind to the implications of the strategy he suggests nonprime lenders followed. We need to review the bidding. Mr. Kahr has explained that nonprime lenders characteristically: Cared solely about maximizing loan volume and (nominal) yield Deliberately removed underwriting procedures and anti-fraud warnings in order to increase volume and (nominal) short-term yield even though they knew this would produce an epidemic of fraud and substantially reduce (real) yield (because it would cause massive losses) Were aware that these steps led to endemic mortgage fraud, yet the nonprime industry norm was to fund loans known to be fraudulent and to violate the law requiring that the lender file criminal referrals on the endemic frauds And, though they knew the loans they were selling were commonly fraudulent and would produce enormous net losses, the banks followed this strategy because they intended to sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie and transfer the catastrophic losses to the taxpayers The obvious point, ignored by Mr. Kahr, is that the banks could not lawfully sell endemically fraudulent loans to Fannie and Freddie. If they had disclosed the endemic fraud they would have been unable to sell toxic waste to Fannie and Freddie (and the private label secondary participants — who also bought hundreds of billions of dollars of fraudulent nonprime loans). The lenders had to make false “reps and warranties” to be able to sell fraudulent loans to Fannie and Freddie. The strategy that Mr. Kahr suggests the nonprime lenders followed required fraudulent representations by the lenders as to millions of loans. Mr. Kahr is describing the largest and most destructive financial fraud in human history. Recall that Mr. Kahr makes clear that the nonprime lenders knew two things they needed to deceive Fannie and Freddie about — the fact that the loans were endemically fraudulent and the fact that the lenders identified many fraudulent loans and characteristically failed to file criminal referrals and instead sold loans they knew to be fraudulent to Fannie and Freddie. Note also that Mr. Kahr asserts that the lenders knew that their strategy would cause hundreds of billions of dollars in losses to the American people — who were innocent, but would have to pay the cost of the frauds. Note something else implicit in Mr. Kahr’s analysis — the banks could have prevented virtually all serious mortgage fraud and prevented the entire crisis by using traditional underwriting practices — and doing so was certain to produce superior bank profits. It was the epidemic of mortgage fraud that hyper-inflated the bubble and caused the catastrophic losses. The combination of the hyper-inflated bubble and catastrophic losses is what drove the economic crisis in the U.S. and produced extreme unemployment. Mr. Kahr does not consider the interplay of the practices he ascribes to the nonprime industry. It is perfectly sensible for a bank that originates fraudulent loans not to file criminal referrals about the frauds if its strategy is to sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie and transfer the losses to the taxpayers. Consider four reasons why nonprime mortgage lenders typically do not file criminal referrals. One, if the lender files a referral alerting the FBI that it believes the loan may be fraudulent it cannot sell the loan to Fannie and Freddie without exposing itself to massive punitive damages for fraudulent sales. Two, the fraud incidence on liar’s loans that have been studied by independent reviewers is 80% and above. The regulatory agency gets a copy of the criminal referral. Even Bush’s crew of anti-regulators would have found it impossible to allow Indymac, WaMu, Countrywide to make hundreds of thousands of liar’s loans if they were also filing hundreds of thousands of criminal referrals. Three, Mr. Kahl’s arguments mean that the typical nonprime lenders was violating the rules requiring that they make criminal referrals and engaged in widespread fraud in selling the fraudulent loans to private label securitizers and Fannie and Freddie. When you are running a massive fraud you are reluctant to file adequate criminal referrals that might attract the FBI to investigate tens of thousands of fraudulent loans. Four, it was overwhelmingly the lenders that put the “lie” in “liar’s” loans. The “recipe” for a fraudulent lender to maximize its short-term (fictional) accounting income has four parts. 1. Grow rapidly by 2. Lending even to the uncreditworthy at premium yields 3. Extreme leverage 4. Pitiful loss reserves This recipe inherently means that the fraudulent lender (“accounting control fraud”) wants to maximize the dollar amount of the loans. It does so by making more, and larger, loans at premium yields while providing grossly inadequate reserves for future losses (ALLL). This requires the lender (directly, or through its agents — primarily loan brokers) to emasculate its underwriting standards and internal controls (maximizing adverse selection and vulnerability to fraud). Now consider what happens when one adds the additional perverse incentives that arise if the lender can sell its bad loans at a profit. The optimization strategy now has an added element — making the loans appear safer than they really are while providing premium (nominal) yields would increase the price at which the bad loans could be sold. Fraudulent nonprime lenders and their agents commonly found that fraud made the ideal paradox — charging premium yields for assets they made to appear relatively safe – possible. (Another variant was predatory nonprime lending — charging customers that were creditworthy, but less financially sophisticated, premium yields.) The two most effective fraudulent tactics were to overstate the borrowers’ income and the value of the house. Liar’s loans were the ideal device to produce a fictionally reduced debt-to-income ratio and appraisal fraud was ideal for producing a fictionally reduced loan-to-value (LTV) ratio. Fraudulent lenders and their loan brokers frequently used both of these tactics. Now consider whether (1) the borrowers or (2) the lenders and their agents were best able to create liar’s loans and to use these two fraudulent tactics which maximized yield while making the loan appear to be far less risky. Mr. Kahl answers the first question. Liar’s loans were created by lenders even though they were known to create intense adverse selection and severe losses. As Mr. Kahl stresses, competitive pressures cannot explain the rapid spread of liar’s loans because honest competitors would gain “a dramatic edge over that competitor. You could charge lower rates and still earn a higher return.” Lenders, therefore, created liar’s loans because their controlling officers found liar’s loans to be ideal. Liar’s loans were optimal for the four part recipe for optimizing (fictional) short-term income (and the officers’ bonuses) and had the added advantage of making the loans more valuable when sold by fraudulently understating the true debt-to-income ratio. No one disputes that it was nonprime lenders and their agents, not borrowers, that caused the “echo” epidemic of appraisal fraud, but there has been a critical failure to consider the logical implications of the appraisal fraud epidemic. Honest lenders would never cause, or permit, inflated appraisals. Honest lenders have the ability to prevent virtually all cases of deliberately inflated appraisals. Nonprime lenders and their agents typically created a deliberate “Gresham’s” dynamic to ensure inflated appraisals. The New York Attorney General’s investigation of Washington Mutual (WaMu) (one of the largest nonprime mortgage lenders) and its appraisal practices supports this dynamic. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said [that] a major real estate appraisal company colluded with the nation’s largest savings and loan companies to inflate the values of homes nationwide, contributing to the subprime mortgage crisis. “This is a case we believe is indicative of an industrywide problem,” Cuomo said in a news conference. Cuomo announced the civil lawsuit against eAppraiseIT that accuses the First American Corp. subsidiary of caving in to pressure from Washington Mutual Inc. to use a list of “proven appraisers” who he claims inflated home appraisals. He also released e-mails that he said show executives were aware they were violating federal regulations. The lawsuit filed in state Supreme Court in Manhattan seeks to stop the practice, recover profits and assess penalties. “These blatant actions of First American and eAppraiseIT have contributed to the growing foreclosure crisis and turmoil in the housing market,” Cuomo said in a statement. “By allowing Washington Mutual to hand-pick appraisers who inflated values, First American helped set the current mortgage crisis in motion.” “First American and eAppraiseIT violated that independence when Washington Mutual strong-armed them into a system designed to rip off homeowners and investors alike,” he said ( The Seattle Times , November 1, 2007). Note particularly Attorney General Cuomo’s claim that WaMu “rip[ped] off … investors.” That is an express claim that it operated as an accounting control fraud and inflated appraisals in order to maximize accounting “profits.” A Senate investigation has found compelling evidence that WaMu acted in a manner that fits the accounting control fraud pattern. Pressure to inflate appraisals was endemic among nonprime lending specialists. Appraisers complained on blogs and industry message boards of being pressured by mortgage brokers, lenders and even builders to “hit a number,” in industry parlance, meaning the other party wanted them to appraise the home at a certain amount regardless of what it was actually worth. Appraisers risked being blacklisted if they stuck to their guns. “We know that it went on and we know just about everybody was involved to some extent,” said Marc Savitt, the National Association of Mortgage Banker’s immediate past president and chief point person during the first half of 2009 ( Washington Independent , August 5, 2009). Inducing endemic appraisal fraud is an optimal strategy for a lender that is engaged in “accounting control fraud.” Accounting control frauds drove the second phase of the S&L debacle, the Enron era crisis, and the ongoing crisis. To sum up situation to this point: Mr. Kahr says that “the banks” created liar’s loans, knowing they would produce endemic mortgage fraud. They even redrafted their loan documents to encourage fraud. The nonprime lenders did not create liar’s loans due to competitive pressures because such loans cause severe losses. The banks identified widespread fraud – and deliberately violated the law by failing to file criminal referrals. The nonprime lenders and brokers encouraged the mortgage fraud because they profited from it. The fraud produced more loans that they could sell at a profit to Fannie and Freddie. The officers controlling the nonprime lenders and brokers knew that a strategy of endemic fraud would make them wealthy and transfer the losses to the taxpayers. The strategy that Mr. Kahr describes is fraudulent. Indeed, it is a classic accounting control fraud. The controlling officers of the fraudulent nonprime lenders and their brokers created the “echo” epidemic of appraisal fraud in order to maximize the firms’ accounting income and their personal compensation. Yet, Mr. Kahr, assumes that the nonprime lenders are the victims of an epidemic of fraud committed primarily by financially less sophisticated working class borrowers. He offers no proof — it is self-evident to him. He has no idea that the strategy he ascribes to the nonprime lenders is fraudulent. He has no apparent sympathy for the working class borrowers induced by fraudulent lenders and brokers to borrow money to buy homes (at the peak of the bubble) that they could never afford to repay — and the inevitable destruction of working class wealth. More to come tomorrow…

Read the full article →

Georges Ugeux: Barack Obama Visits Mumbai…on Diwali!

November 5, 2010

Diwali is the most important celebration in India: it begins today and continues through November 9th. It is the equivalent of Christmas for the Christians or Yom Kippur for the Jews. This is the day that the President of the United States has chosen to visit Mumbai. While the Indian authorities have obviously agreed with the decision to pick this time for the President’s trip, much of the Indian press and public percieve the timing as a lack of sensitivity on the part of the U.S. However, this was not an oversight, and the President lit the traditional “diya” or oil lamp for Diwali at the White House yesterday before embarking on this trip. While observing Diwali was a tradition initiated by George W. Bush, Obama is the first U.S. President to attend events associated with the Indian holiday. “To those celebrating Diwali in India, I look forward to visiting you over the next few days. And to all those who will celebrate this joyous occasion on Friday, I wish you, your families and loved ones Happy Diwali and Saal Mubarak,” said the President. He will pay homage to the victims of the heinous Mumbai attack of November 26, 2008, by Pakistani terrorists. He even decided to stay at the Taj Mahal Hotel Palace in Mumbai, the iconic landmark that remained under the control of terrorists for four days. Was it, however, necessary to send home 90% of the 1,400 employees of the hotel, in order to replace them with US staff sent from thousands of miles away? Was it necessary to have a party of 3,000 people accompany the President? And what about the 43 warships around Mumbai? Was it really important to remove the coconuts from the trees surrounding Mumbai’s Gandhi museum? Was it necessary to prohibit Diwali celebrations in the whole District of Colaba in Southern Mumbai? At a time when we are looking for public saving opportunities, shouldn’t we rethink such escalations in security? The United States protects itself by constantly building higher walls. It reminds us of it the illusion of the Babel Tower: we cannot protect ourselves against the sky, let alone reach it. We human beings, are not able to protect ourselves against every risk. Our denial is very expensive. It is interesting to note that he will visit Holy Name High School, run by the Archdiocese of Mumbai, a very exclusive school but not exactly representative of Indian education. What matters, however, is that Mumbaites and Indians in general, are thrilled to receive the U.S. President who enjoys a hugely positive reputation in India. He and the First Lady are extremely popular, and the pride of welcoming them will supersede the rather strange aspects of the trip. The most delicate economic issue that will be addressed by business leaders from India is the attitude of the United States towards outsourcing. Generally demonized and sometimes considered the source of unemployment in the United States, outsourcing has massively improved the competitiveness of US companies and created hundreds of thousands of jobs in the United States. Outsourcing is for India what the value of the Yuan is for China: the target of considerable misconceptions as well as blunt attacks by U.S. officials. Ultimately, the fact of the matter is that the United States could not satisfy its IT needs with the insufficient number of engineers produced by the country’s Universities. At the end of the day, India and the United States have more fundamental issues to discuss, such as the situations in Pakistan and Iran. And it is true: the countries are natural partners. If the U.S. could realize the immensity of its power and influence in India, perhaps any feelings of being threatened by the country would subside. As to the question of a permanent seat for India at the United Nations Security Council, President Obama acknowledges the difficulty of the issue. There is no doubt that President Sarkozy (who favors India’s entrance) will relinquish the French seat to India! Happy Diwali, the Festival of Lights.

Read the full article →

Jamie Court: President Should Stop BP Administrator Feinberg From Helping The Chamber Of Commerce

October 26, 2010

You’re the President of the United States on the verge of a historic election. So you’re going to let one of your most important appointees give credibility to your biggest opponent and the BP spill victims’ greatest enemy, the Chamber of Commerce? BP Fund Administrator Kenneth Feinberg is scheduled for the keynote address at the Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform Wednesday. This is the oil-backed arm of the Chamber that wants to take away the legal rights of spill victims, and the rest of us too. So why is the President going to let Feinberg go? Obama should force Feinberg to withdraw or fire him. My letter to Obama today on behalf of Consumer Watchdog lays out the case for why this is just wrong. Given the Chamber’s controversial role in the 2010 election, the organization’s commitment to deny individual citizens their right to hold large corporations accountable and Mr. Feinberg’s own troubled record when it comes to administering the BP Victims Fund, it is highly inappropriate and probably unethical for Feinberg to go. Let’s start with the election. There is no greater threat to voters getting all the information they need to make an informed choice in the election next Tuesday than the Chamber of Commerce. Days before an election, Mr. Feinberg should not be credentialing one of its most anti-American causes — stripping citizens of their legal rights. The Chamber is engaging in one of the largest corporate campaign contribution laundering schemes in U.S. history. The President rightfully made public his concerns that the Chamber’s efforts to funnel millions of corporate dollars from undisclosed donors is compromising our democratic processes. Last Friday’s New York Times investigative report confirmed the fact that concealed donations to the Chamber’s efforts come from big oil, Wall Street tycoons and insurance industry trying to roll back financial protections, thwart the implementation of health care reform and shred environmental protections. The fact that the Chamber is largely hiding such activities from the American public is particularly troubling for our democracy. In California, for example, we at Consumer Watchdog have seen a Chamber-backed political action committee, JobsPAC, receive $3.8 million from the insurance industry for television commercials to elect the industry’s candidate for insurance commissioner. Television commercials for the industry’s candidate don’t disclose that the source of the contributions is from the insurance industry, only the Chamber’s committee. So the commercials can say the candidate for insurance commissioner is fighting the very insurance industry that is surreptitiously funding the advertisements. Now take a look at the Chamber’s Legal Institute. The Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform has led deceptive efforts to change the composition of state supreme courts in order to make them pro-business and anti-consumer. Feinberg himself has been slow to pay compensation to victims of BP’s Gulf spill, largely small businesses and individuals. While he forces claimants to jump through bureaucratic hoops and provide endless paperwork, he accepts multimillion-dollar compensation from BP under a contract that has not been fully made public. The Chamber’s activities aimed at thwarting consumer rights and oil industry environmental safety in the Gulf may create an outright conflict of interest for Feinberg: • The Chamber has lobbied against the Death on the High Seas Act (as well as the whole SPILL Act that passed the House). • The Institute’s 990 Internal Revenue Service tax filing show that several oil companies sit on the board of their Institute for Legal Reform. Charles James is EVP at Chevron and Charles Matthews is General Counsel at Exxon. Mark Holden is Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Koch Industries. • The Chamber filed amicus briefs supporting Exxon as it fought punitive damages post-Valdez. That is here: http://secure.uschamber.com/NR/rdonlyres/ew3o3lcvdfcby5nnnpqkstiww3sdjucpeg5np5asvytg72zv2donrmfd5jo2xbfjlzqi75sz2drtlgnuufov53pn5sg/exxonshippingcovbakersc.pdf • The Chamber has been especially involved in Louisiana. The Institute for Legal Reform owns an outlet called Louisiana Record that is a propaganda outlet and has consistently ranked Louisiana at the bottom of their legal rankings list. http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/lawsuit-climate.html The President shouldn’t allow his appointees to be helping the enemy of his Administration and the spill victims in the Gulf. All he needs to do is pick up the phone this time. Will he? ———————————————————————- Jamie Court is author of The Progressive’s Guide To Raising Hell http://www.raisinghellguide.com and president of Consumer Watchdog.

Read the full article →

Arthur Nadel, Florida’s ‘Mini-Madoff,’ Gets Big Sentence For $168 Million Scam

October 22, 2010

src=”http://i.huffpost.com/gen/211216/REUTERS-LOGO.jpg”> NEW YORK (Reuters, By Grant McCool) – Arthur Nadel, a fund manager whose $168 million fraud was one of several that collapsed in the declining economy and left hundreds of investors without their money, was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Thursday. Nadel, 77, dubbed “mini-Madoff” in his home state of Florida after epic swindler Bernard Madoff, was excoriated as “evil” and “a loser” by one of his victims during the sentencing proceeding in U.S. District Court in New York. “Arthur, you are an evil person,” said businessman Michael Sullivan of Barrington Hills, Illinois. “I assume you are a narcissistic psychopath” and “just a weak child seething with anger and loathing” who had “little success in life until you founded your fraudulent funds.” Judge John Koeltl rejected as too long U.S. prosecutors’ requested sentence of between 19-1/2 years and 24 years, citing Nadel’s age and a heart ailment. But Koeltl said Nadel orchestrated a “massive fraud” on investors, “many elderly and who lost the fruits of their lives,” adding that “it caused financial difficulties to the victims and those close to them.” The Sarasota-based fund manager obtained more than $300 million from investors across the United States in managing six different funds, stealing about $168 million between January 1999 and January 2009. Nadel pleaded guilty in February to running a Ponzi scheme, one in which early investors are paid with money from new clients. Looking thin and frail with one of his sons present in the back of the court, Nadel stood in prison garb and told the judge that he had read letters submitted to Koeltl by many of his 390 victims. “Their anger and outrage became mine at myself,” Nadel said. “I blame only myself for my acts.” His court-appointed lawyer had asked the judge to imprison Nadel for just five years, given his life expectancy, so that he would not die in prison. The scheme crashed with the declining economy in 2008 when more investors demanded redemptions, similar to the fate of New York financier Madoff’s unprecedented multibillion-dollar investment fraud. Nadel disappeared for two weeks after his fraud was revealed in January 2009. He has been jailed since then and denied bail. Madoff, 72, who also had many investors in Florida, was arrested in December 2008 and is serving a 150-year prison term after pleading guilty in March of 2009. The case is USA v Nadel, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 09-433. (Reporting by Grant McCool; Editing by Tim Dobbyn, Gary Hill) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Bill Singer: ATM Investment Scheme Guilty Plea

October 19, 2010

From 2005 to January 2008, Vance Moore II and Walter Netschi solicited over $80 million worth of investments in Automated Teller Machines (“ATMs”) purportedly placed in various retail locations around the country, including convenience stores, gas stations, malls, and hotels. Moore and Netschi claimed that the ATMs would generate revenue streams for their investors based on fees charged for withdrawals of cash. Moore and Netschi entered into contracts with investors representing that the investors collectively had purchased over 4,000 ATMs. Okay, so, you know, it doesn’t sound like that bad an opportunity. Those ATMs are all over the place and folks really seem to flock to them for cash. Of course, come on now, why the hell would I be writing about this investment if something hadn’t gone wrong? Talking about something going wrong, how about we simply start with the fact that approximately 90 percent of the machines sold to the victims (at this point, I think I’ll stop referring to those folks as “investors” and call them “victims”) either did not exist or were never owned by Moore or Netschi. Ah yes, a mere trifle, a little detail, as it were. To further the fraudulent scheme, Moore transmitted monthly reports and monthly payments to the victims relating to their investments in the ATMs. The reports actually contained false information and the payments were not revenues from ATMs, but were simply monies received by Netschi from new investors. Can anyone spell P-O-N-Z-I? Apparently, not all the victims were easily duped. Some of them noticed discrepancies in the reports or asked too many questions. In response to such queries, Moore apparently told some whoppers. For example, in the fall of 2006, a victim visited the location of an ATM in Florida that he thought he had purchased from Netschi’s company and that was purportedly being serviced by Moore’s company. The investor could not find the ATM and was informed by the hotel where the ATM was supposedly located that no such ATM existed. Moore then falsely represented to the investor that the ATM in question had been relocated elsewhere in Florida. Now, how would I imagine some of Moore’s artful deflections went? How about: Oh, that ATM? Oh, that’s not there anymore. We moved it. Where? Oh, either it’s in Disneyworld in Epcot or in the middle of the Everglades. I’ll get back to you on that. In reality, Moore and Netschi did not use the victims’ funds to purchase ATMs, but rather used the money to further the fraudulent scheme and to enrich themselves. Reality can be a bummer! Seems that there has been lots of self enriching going on the past few years. Nice work, if you can get it. Alas, our tale comes to a familiar ending. On September 21, 2010, Moore, 55, of Raleigh, North Carolina, and Netschi, 62, of McKinney, Texas, were indicted on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and nine counts of wire fraud. Each count in the Indictment carries a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine of the greater of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss derived from the offense. The indictment also seeks $80 million in forfeiture from Moore and Netschi. On October 18, 2010, Vance Moore II plead guilty in Manhattan federal court before U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Griesa . Moore, 55, of Raleigh, North Carolina, faces a maximum penalty of 200 years in prison, and a fine of over $2,500,000. Moore has also agreed to a money judgment of $50 million and to specifically forfeit his right, title, and interest in properties located in North Carolina and Florida. At present, Netschi has not plead and may proceed to contest the allegations at trial. He faces the same penalties as Moore. NOTE: The charges and allegations contained in the Indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. Read about another recent ATM scam at “Bulgarian Indicted for ATM Skimming Fraud” http://www.brokeandbroker.com/index.php?a=blog&id=566

Read the full article →

Richard Zombeck: Bankers New Tactic: Blame the Victim

October 18, 2010

Once again, as another harebrained scheme unravels, the swinging dicks of Wall Street manage to appear impervious to reality and completely immune to the truth. Nearly every Attorney General in the country is now investigating what was not just simply serial fraud but a no-holds-barred crime spree affecting millions of mortgages across the country. If you want to see an excellent explanation of the foreclosure fraud, check out the in-depth post, ” Foreclosure Fraud For Dummies ” by Michael Konczal’s, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. The Wall Street frat boys, in a propaganda blitz that would make Tokyo Rose and Joseph Goebbels envious, have come out in droves to blame the victims. In a piece from the New York Observer , one guy who was most likely too gutless to be identified by name is described only as a man wearing a bespoke blue-striped shirt, a Hermés tie patterned with elephants and Ferragamo loafers said, “You had people putting zero down to get massive houses they couldn’t afford to be in, but now they want to stay. And the government wants to let them stay, because they’re voters.” One example of these massive houses is the house in Maine that started the robo-signer investigations. Nicolle Bradbury bought her house seven years ago for a whopping $75,000. “A major step up from the trailer she had been living in with her family”, the New York Times reported . Propaganda isn’t new to the Masters of the Universe. It started with the dream of homeownership and cheap loans. Alan Greenspan perpetuated the attitude by suggesting that people use their homes as ATM machines and praised the use of Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARM). Wall Street ran with that and pushed ARMs at an alarming rate. At the height of the boom, during the four to five year period before the financial meltdown it was virtually impossible to get a conventional 30 year mortgage. When the financial crisis hit, banks quickly went into action and blamed the entire fiasco on subprime borrowers. “If it weren’t for the banks pushing these risky mortgages on brokers and agents with massive incentives, no one would have bought them. But when it’s the only thing you can buy and you’re looking at skyrocketing home values being artificially inflated, what choice do you have,” said Steve Dibert a loan fraud investigator at MFI-Miami . Bankers, of course, see it the other way around and prefer to blame homeowners — who had nothing to do with creating, what bankers refer to as “complex financial instruments” when asked to explain credit default swaps, securitized loans, and derivatives as if the rest of us are too stupid to understand. Citi chairman Richard D. Parsons told the Observer this summer in an interview, “The loans wouldn’t have been there in the first place if American home buyers, driven by what The Weekly Standard calls immediate gratification without personal responsibility, hadn’t overstepped their bounds.” Stories like Bradbury’s are the majority. As opposed to the occasional ridiculous story of the cab driver with eight homes and the 14-year-old who bought a McMansion with paper route money, which the banks would like us to believe are the cause of the meltdown. The majority are hardworking, honest people who simply want to stop being screwed at every turn. One homeowner who contacted me through ShameTheBanks.org had this to say: For the past three years, my life has been on hold. All of my income goes right back to fix my mistakes. I don’t have enough to eat but don’t qualify for food stamps because I make too much money. I don’t get free legal assistance to fight foreclosure because I make too much money. No help paying for my medicine because I have health insurance and make too much money. I work two jobs and burn the candle at both ends. I sold almost everything I have, which is fine; probably shouldn’t have it in the first place. Now I have two things left – my art house/foreign film movie collection and my childhood Lego sets that I wanted to give to my children someday. I shouldn’t have to be making that choice. Not this close to the finish line. Follow the money. I pay taxes. TARP gives that tax money to the banks. Some of it comes back to me to get me over the hump. I continue to pay taxes and my creditors. Everyone wins. Try to explain that to an editor for the Wall Street Journal , also for some reason anonymous in the New York Observer article who joked, “The problem is they don’t deserve to be in that place. They probably deserve to be there less than they used to,” referring to incomes lower now than they’d been when the loans were made in the first place. “You do need to foreclose, and you need to go back to people living in houses that are consistent with their income levels.” That’s right, let the serfs go back to their hovels. Cake anyone? Anton Schutz, president of Mendon Capital Advisers said, “Your mortgage didn’t get to a robo-signer by accident, it’s because you’re not paying.” “We’re not evicting people who deserve to stay in their house,” Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase chief executive, said on a conference call with analysts on the company’s third-quarter earnings last week. John Carney, Senior Editor, CNBC.com, wrote , “It’s actually a bit sickening to hear defaulted borrowers describing the misdeeds of banks as ‘mortgage fraud.’ What some banks have done might well be fraud–but the fact of that fraud doesn’t erase the other fact that the borrower agreed to make payments or face the penalty of losing her home.” What Mr. Carney along with the rest of the foreclosure proponents, doesn’t seem to understand, or has conveniently forgotten, is that millions of homeowners were convinced by the banks and servicers that defaulting on their loans would help save the very homes he seems to think they deserve to lose. In many cases banks and servicers pushed people into default with false promises of modifying their loans. Banks were offered programs like Making Home Affordable and HAMP in an effort to negotiate interest and principal reduction with homeowners. The same banks and servicers told struggling and desperate homeowners that in order to qualify for the program they had to be in default. Once homeowners were behind on their mortgage, some were offered trial modifications that according to the program guidelines, were to last three months and then made permanent if the new payments were made on time. Over one million trial modifications were started, some lasting up to nine months. Inevitably, at some point in the trial process homeowners were denied a permanent modification – in most cases no reason was given for the denial. The banks and servicers took this opportunity to hold homeowners accountable for the difference in the payments, added fees and fines for default, legal fees, and a slew of other junk fees servicers have become notorious for, pushing them even further into default. By managing to keep people paying for a little longer, tacking on fees, and stalling the foreclosures, loan servicers were able to suck out an estimated $4 billion from struggling homeowners – all by playing them for suckers. In addition they were also over charging investors extra fees for managing the loans. Chandra Anand, 59, a telecommunications consultant from Germantown, told The Washington Post that he called his lender in the fall of 2008, before he missed any payments, to warn the company that his wife’s open-heart surgery might cause the family financial difficulty. He was told that in order to qualify for a loan modification he needed to miss payments. So he did and applied for a modification. He never heard back from his lender until he got a foreclosure notice in January 2009. Every time he calls his lender to resolve his situation an official tells him “to be patient, that it could take 60 more days to review things,” Anand said. “It’s now been a year and a half.” There are hundreds of stories like this, submitted by homeowners, at ShameTheBanks.org . In response to attorneys general and lawyers questioning the paperwork around foreclosures a few of the banks have postponed foreclosures in an attempt to rectify the situation. To hear the banks tell it, it will be a quick fix. According to a Wall Street Journal article , a bank spokesman for Chase said that its cancellations only cover foreclosure sales scheduled between Oct. 9 and Oct. 31 because it doesn’t expect the review to take longer. Jamie Dimon, Chase’s CEO made a similar statement. These are the same bankers who told Congress nearly 2 years ago that it could take years to ramp up their infrastructure to handle loan modifications in order to help homeowners. Maybe they’re planning on another hiring spree like the one they had when they needed to foreclose on millions of homes. To keep up with the rash of foreclosures, document processors and mortgage service firms rushed to hire anyone they could — hair stylists, Wal-Mart clerks, assembly-line workers who made blinds — and gave them jobs in their foreclosure departments without formal training, according to court papers. Several of these employees have testified that they did not really know what a mortgage was, couldn’t define “affidavit,” and knew they were lying when they signed documents related to foreclosures, according to depositions of 150 employees for mortgage companies taken by a law firm in Florida. Martin Andelman of MandelmanMatters interviewed a former Chase employee who told him, “A perfect foreclosure  was supposed to take 120 days and the closer you came to that benchmark, the better your numbers looked and higher your bonus would be.” The point is, foreclosure makes more money than modifications. It even makes more money than high interest rates. As Moe Tkacik, of Washington City Paper writes: Banks do not just walk away from a cash cow like “mortgage servicing” without a good reason. Mortgage servicing is a $200 billion a year business and that is not because of the flat 0.25% fee mortgage servicers receive to process the timely payments of responsible homeowners. In the boom years, mortgage servicers raked in fees every time they convinced a homeowner to refinance–the more “adjustable” the better!–and in the bust years, late fees and foreclosures  are the cash cows. Like all things banks do, it is truly recession-proof! The catch is that because foreclosures sort of necessarily involve, you know, “laws” governing “property rights” and “trespassing” and whatever, they require someone acting on behalf of the theoretical new “owner” of the property (whoever that is) to sign an affidavit saying something along the lines of, “yes, I’ve thought about it and reviewed the documents and whoever the local sheriff is should know that definitely these people deserve to have their locks abruptly changed and all their shit ransacked by some contract team of meatheads, and whoever shows up on this property after that they should feel free to harass, arrest, and what the hell waterboard. Andrea Bopp Stark, a lawyer with the Molleur Law Office in Biddeford, Maine, told The Washington Post , “that a number of her clients should be eligible for loan modifications through a Treasury Department program but that servicers are in such a state of disarray that they often can’t give homeowners basic answers about the state of their loan modification request. Then a few weeks or months later, the same servicers evict homeowners as if those applications were never filed.” “Their whole bureaucratic procedure,” Stark said, “is working against helping homeowners.” “There are several class actions pending for homeowners who allege that they are being foreclosed despite being eligible for HAMP modifications,” said Alan White, a professor at the Valparaiso University Law School. “In a case where a homeowner should be approved for HAMP modification, but the servicer has lost the paperwork or just hasn’t responded yet, the robo-signer will send the foreclosure documents to the court without checking to see whether in fact there is an alternative to foreclosure in the works.” “We waited and waited and waited for wide-scale loan modifications,” said Sheila C. Bair, the chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation , one of the first government officials to call on the industry to take action. “They never owned up to all the problems leading to the mortgage crisis. They have always downplayed it.” The latest development, uncovered by Huffington Post Investigative Fund, is about banks now collecting taxes . According to the article: In many cases, the banks and hedge funds created new companies to do their bidding. They gave the companies obscure, even whimsical names and used post office boxes as their addresses, masking Wall Street’s dominant new role as a surrogate tax collector. In exchange for paying overdue real estate taxes, the investors gain legal powers from local governments to collect the debt and levy fees. At first, property owners may owe little more than a few hundred dollars, only to find their bills soaring into the thousands. In some jurisdictions, the new Wall Street tax collectors also chase debtors over other small bills, such as for water, sewer and sidewalk repair. Pretty convenient arrangement considering they also collect those taxes in the form of escrow payments from borrowers. I have heard and read hundreds of stories from homeowners who have paid their taxes and insurance through escrow payments with their mortgage only to find that the servicer didn’t actually pass those payments along to tax offices and insurance companies. Now the homeowner is behind on their taxes and the insurance has been canceled for non-payment. So, one department collects the escrow payments that should be going towards taxes, but doesn’t pay it, then another department takes over the collection of taxes and fines the homeowner – who has been paying all along. In many cases the the servicer don’t apply these payments to anything. They simply pocket the money, much in the same way they pocket trial modification payments. By blaming homeowners, bankers are trying to harness the anger of ordinary people — who are angered by the economic disaster that Wall Street itself created — and give ordinary people a reason to turn on each other. In a pervasive culture of greed, like the one that exists on Wall Street, the lack of ethics and compassion has permeated every corner of the industry. It has become more important for banks to simply make money at any cost than it has to take part and play a role in a flourishing and successful economy, as they are designed and expected to do. That being said, it almost makes sense that they would vilify the very people who they bilked, conned, and stole from, now that the jig is up. In her book” Bird by Bird”, Anne Lamott tells the story of a conversation with her pastor. In it she questions why she doesn’t have an abundance of money. The pastor says to her, “If you really want to see what God thinks about money, just look at who he gives it to.”

Read the full article →

William K. Black: Capitalism Would Have Killed the Chilean Miners: A Reply to Mr. Henninger

October 15, 2010

One of our family sayings is: “you can’t compete with self-parody”. Daniel Henninger is the most recent proof of this saying. He authored a column on October 14, 2010 entitled ” Capitalism Saved the Miners .” Mr. Henninger is an editorial writer/editor for the Wall Street Journal. His essay, of course, was designed to attack President Obama. Mr. Henninger wrote that the rescue of the Chilean miners reflected badly on President Obama’s criticism of Republican candidates’ views about markets: “The basic idea is that if we put our blind faith in the market and we let corporations do whatever they want and we leave everybody else to fend for themselves, then America somehow automatically is going to grow and prosper.” Henninger’s responded to this quotation from the President: “Uh, yeah. That’s a caricature of the basic idea, but basically that’s right. Ask the miners. If those miners had been trapped a half-mile down like this 25 years ago anywhere on earth, they would be dead. What … meant the difference between life and death for those men? Short answer: the Center Rock drill bit. Longer answer: The Center Rock drill [was] developed by a small company in it for the money, for profit. That’s why they innovated down-the-hole hammer drilling. If they make money, they can do more innovation. This profit = innovation dynamic was everywhere at that Chilean mine.” Well, not really. Let’s begin with why the miners needed to be saved. They needed to be saved because the private mine they worked for appears to have been a “control fraud.” In a control fraud the person controlling a seemingly legitimate entity uses it as a “weapon.” Our ongoing financial crisis was driven by an epidemic of accounting control fraud, which caused the housing and commercial real estate bubbles to hyper-inflate. Accounting control frauds target creditors and shareholders as their primary victims. Anti-purchaser control frauds maximize profits by defrauding purchasers about quality and/or quantity in order to gain a competitive advantage over honest sellers. George Akerlof described this form of control fraud in his famous 1970 article on “lemons.” Anti-purchaser control frauds can maim or kill their victims, e.g., Chinese infant formula frauds. The worst anti-employee control frauds increase profits by avoiding costs that would protect workers from being maimed and killed. Illegal, private Chinese coal mines are the infamous example of this type of control fraud. We know that the Chilean mine was private, that it had a bad safety record, and that it has been ordered to shut down permanently. The BBC reports that the (strongly conservative) President Pinera promised the people of Chile that: “never again in Chile would people be allowed to work in such inhumane conditions.” Reports from Chile stress that the mine violated the law in failing to have a second entrance to the mine (which would have greatly reduced the risk of the miners being trapped by the collapse of a portion of the shaft). Local officials have claimed that the only way the mine owners could have gotten away with such an obvious violation of the safety rules was through bribery of the regulatory officials. Reports from Chile also state that the mine did not have the required ladder that would have allowed the workers to escape the mine in the immediate aftermath of the collapse through a ventilation shaft that subsequently became inaccessible. The “innovation dynamic” that was “everywhere” in the Chilean mine due to the profit motive also explains why the ladder was not there. To sum it up, the miners wouldn’t have had to be rescued but for the perverse incentives of that unregulated capitalism inherently produces (which is what Obama warned about). (The governmentally-owned coal mines in China also have a far better safety record than the private Chinese coal mines.) Once the mine shaft collapsed in Chile, the private mining company declared that it not only could not pay to rescue the miners — it could not even pay their wages. The private company threatened to file for bankruptcy. The rescue was paid for by the State-owned mine (i.e., the Chilean government had to bail out the private mine owner to the tune of an estimated rescue cost of $10 to $20 million in order to rescue the miners). A $25 ladder apparently would have prevented the tragedy, but the private owners’ profit motive led them to avoid that expense. The Chilean mine had gold and copper ore. Both of those minerals are selling for record prices. This makes the private mining company’s failure to provide another exit and a ladder all the more outrageous. Where did the profits go? Capitalism would have left the miners to die. The government paid to rescue the miners. Mr. Henninger is right to advise that we should “ask the miners” — because that is exactly what the private mine and Mr. Henninger failed to do. The private mine ignored the miners’ warnings about the inadequate safety of the mine. The government of Chile did not listen to the miners’ union on safety issues. And the miners’ families sued the private mine owners — blaming them for the collapse that nearly killed them. When we prevent a corporation from engaging in fraud or endangering its workers we do not harm capitalism, but rather save honest businesses from being driven from the marketplace. Akerlof demonstrated in 1970 — forty years ago — that control frauds can produce a “Gresham’s” dynamic in which the markets drive ethical firms and professionals out of the marketplace. When cheaters prosper, markets become perverse. Effective regulators serve as the “cops on the beat” that allow honest firms, workers, lenders, investors, consumers, and taxpayers to prosper. Crossposted from New Deal 2.0.

Read the full article →

Ludy Green, Ph.D.: Despite Bad Economy, One Non-Profit Employment Agency Finds Good Jobs for Battered Women

September 14, 2010

As the economy worsens, job seekers are growing more frustrated with their inability to find decent work. This crisis is even more acute for a certain sector of society, victims of domestic violence. Second Chance Employment Services was founded specifically to help these women find good jobs, even in a bad economy. According to a survey of studies conducted by the United States General Accounting Office (GAO), “the effects of domestic violence on a woman’s job performance can make it difficult for some battered women to maintain their employment or to advance in their jobs.” The largest study ever conducted on economic security and domestic violence, entitled, Voices of Survival, The Economic Impacts of Domestic Violence: A Blueprint for Action , noted that “An independent source of income is the single most significant indicator that a woman will be able to permanently leave an abuser.” It was from my frustration with the lack of employment services for battered women that I decided to found Second Chance Employment Services in 2002. I saw the résumés of too many women with gaps in their employment history get ignored by hiring professionals. I witnessed too many women coming out of domestic violence shelters return to their abusers because they couldn’t find a job that would support themselves and their children. Despite the daunting facts about abuse victims and their inability to find and maintain good jobs, Second Chance Employment Services has spent the past nine years overcoming the obstacles these women face. To date, we have secured over 700 career-track jobs with health benefits for victims of domestic violence, with salaries ranging from $32,000 to $98,000 per year. But Second Chance, the nation’s only no-fee employment placement agency dedicated to victims of domestic violence, still faces an uphill battle. According to a NOW Legal Defense Fund report , “Studies show that 24 to 52 percent of surveyed battered women had lost their jobs — at least in part — because of domestic violence.” Further, the report finds that “Batterers sabotage women’s ability to work in other ways by failing to provide promised child care or transportation, stealing car keys or money, hiding clothing, or inflicting visible injuries.” As a career woman myself, a human resources professional to be exact, I’ve seen first hand what studies like these only report in dry figures. I’ve personally witnessed women losing their jobs because of domestic abuse, and I’ve watched them in their struggles to find new work. The challenges faced by these women are bad enough in a good economy, but in a bad economy, they’re seemingly impossible to overcome. The current economy has caused an increase in abuse, making the work of Second Chance even more crucial. In 2009, the Associated Press reported the number of abuse and neglect cases rose 23% in Fairfax County, Va.; 29% in Montgomery County, Md.; and 18% in the District of Columbia. The Washington Post reported, “Counselors across Northern Virginia said they have seen many of their clients, mostly women, return to their partners’ home faster than usual because they have been unable to support themselves… In some cases, the women return to the shelter within the month because they were abused again.” Second Chance was created to fill a much needed gap in victim’s services — finding victims an independent source of income so they can permanently escape abuse — and it has been recognized time and again for the creative work we do. Second Chance was even given the prestigious Award for Innovation in Victims Services by the United Stated Department of Justice. With the economy still dragging, and jobless numbers increasing, Second Chance provides a much needed service for the least vulnerable of all job-seekers, victims of domestic violence. Even as we ourselves face a tightening budget and watch countless non-profits close their doors for a lack of funding, we’ll continue to keep our doors open, so we can open the doors to meaningful employment for the women we serve. If you would like to find information about Second Chance Employment Services go to our website www.scesnet.org or contact at 1-888-331-7451.

Read the full article →

BP Claims Czar Kenneth Feinberg May Give Spill Victims A Big Concession

September 13, 2010

HOUMA, La. — The administrator of the $20 billion compensation fund for victims of the Gulf oil spill said Monday he might waive the current requirement that wages earned from helping out in the cleanup be subtracted from people’s spill claims. Doing so would be a key concession following strong criticism from residents about the claims process. Meanwhile Monday, BP crews resumed drilling the final 50 feet of a relief well meant to allow them to permanently seal the blown-out well in the Gulf of Mexico. John Wright, who’s leading drilling efforts aboard the Development Driller III vessel, told The Associated Press in an e-mail that the operation had resumed. BP said crews started drilling at 1:40 p.m. CDT. BP and the government have said it would take about four days from the time crews started drilling again to intersect the blown-out well. Once the relief well intersects the blown-out well, crews will pump in mud and cement to permanently seal the well. At the town hall meeting in Houma, La., fund czar Kenneth Feinberg told hundreds of people who packed a convention center that he is reconsidering the requirement that cleanup wages be subtracted from claims. He said he understands the loud concerns raised by people who are still hurting. “I’m taking it under advisement,” Feinberg said. “The last time I said, no way, I’m deducting it. Now, it’s open for discussion.” The April 20 rig explosion killed 11 workers and led to 206 million gallons of oil spewing from BP PLC’s undersea well into the Gulf of Mexico. The flow of crude was first stopped by a cap placed atop the well in mid-July. Glenn Poche, a 61-year-old shrimper from Lafitte, La., said after the town hall meeting with Feinberg that he felt like he had more questions than answers about why he only received a $600 emergency payment for six months. He said he was making thousands each month from his business before the waters he worked in were shut down because of the spill. “He gave me $3.30 a day to live on,” Poche said. “I can’t pay my bills.” Like other people at the forum, Poche said he believes it is unfair for claims evaluators to give payments based on 2009 wages when shrimp prices were lower last year than they have been in 2010. Feinberg told those gathered that several types of financial documents could be used to show income, not just 2009 tax returns. Feinberg also said he would consider giving people in certain situations a supplemental payment after their emergency payment. Currently, people are getting an emergency payment and then, down the road, a lump-sum final payment. The final payment requires recipients agree not to sue BP. “I will come back again and again to face the music, hear the criticisms, listen to the concerns,” Feinberg said. One after another, shrimpers, boat workers and other victims came up to a microphone and yelled their demands at Feinberg. Some cursed. Others shouted insults. Their concerns included the slow payment process, the fact that some people in similar situations are receiving vastly different payments and the bureaucracy they have to go through to get their money. Feinberg said the fund has paid out $150 million since he took over processing claims three weeks ago. Before that, BP was in charge of paying out claims, and it paid nearly $400 million. Feinberg said his team hoped to finish processing remaining emergency payments in the next 30 days. As of Monday, there were roughly 12,000 claims for emergency payments that have proper documentation that have yet to be paid, Feinberg said. Another 12,000 unpaid claims have inadequate documents. Five hundred claims filed are ineligible for money from the fund because they deal with impact from the oil drilling moratorium, while roughly 1,000 claims appear to be fraudulent, Feinberg said. “I am doing the best I can,” Feinberg said, as the crowd grew louder. “And if the best is not good enough, I am sorry.” Later, when Feinberg said there were many people who still wanted to ask questions and he had only 10 minutes left to address them, one woman, in tears, shouted: “We have the rest of our lives.” Feinberg told The Associated Press after the event that within the next week to 10 days, Gulf residents will have another key question answered: How much he is earning for his services. He declined to disclose that figure to the AP on Monday. He said he plans to continue to confront his critics. One angry man charged toward Feinberg after the event, demanding to speak to him personally. Several police officers swarmed around Feinberg. “Absolutely not a thought in the world that I would throw in the towel,” Feinberg told reporters.

Read the full article →

John Perkins: Mr. CEO, Can You Spare a Job or a Free Lunch

September 3, 2010

“An economic policy which does not consider the well-being of all will not serve the purposes of peace and the growth of well-being among the people of all nations.”( Eleanor Roosevelt) In case you are tempted to feel sorry during these troubled times for the corporatocracy… this just in: The CEOs who fired the most workers during the current economic recession also rewarded themselves with the highest pay. Top managers at the fifty corporations with the greatest number of layoffs were paid an average of $12 million in salary, bonuses and other perks — 42 percent more than the average for the Standard & Poor’s 500. To make matters worst, at most of these companies — a whopping 72 percent in fact — layoffs were announced at a time when earnings were increasing. This according to a study by the Institute for Policy Studies that covered the period from November 2008 to April 2010. Isn’t it comforting to know that while you and I are experiencing the worst economy we’ve seen in our life-times, with jobless claims rising to 500,000, the CEOs are thriving? They are purchasing luxury cars, yachts, new homes, and even buying off foreclosed properties at fire-sale prices. Perhaps we should sleep better at night knowing that they are working so hard to offset their ruthless firings of employees by trying to revive the Rolls Royce dealerships and mortgage companies! Not only are some of the world’s richest CEOs getting richer off the backs of laid off employees, but they’re doing it at the same time profits rise and shareholder cigars are lit with martinis in hand celebrating the companies continued reign of predatory capitalism. These same 50 top layoff leaders’ companies also enjoyed a 44% average profit increase in 2009. And many of them paid little or no taxes (e.g. Exxon, with over $45 billion in profits, recorded no U.S. income taxes and GE generated $10 billion in pretax income and took a tax BENEFIT of $1.1 billion). I have to admit that I was never terribly enamored with Karl Marx. When I was a young man, many of my peers called on his writings to justify taking to the streets against the Vietnam war, but I — a business student — saw that war more as an excuse for the military-industrial complex to get rich than as a class struggle. Now, however, I have to suspect that Marx was wiser than I used to believe. In fact, the Institute for Policy Studies report estimates that CEOs in the U.S.’s largest publicly traded corporations earn an average compensation 263 times higher than the typical American production worker. Sounds like the exact situation Marx warned us about! The study cites some very telling specific examples. Among them: – Wal-Mart’s CEO Michael Duke laid off 13,350 workers and earned almost 20 million for his trouble; – The now disgraced Mark Hurd of HP managed to reduce his work force by 6400 and still earn $24.2 million; – AMEX’s Kenneth Chenault earned $16.8 million while American Express laid off 4,000 employees accepted $3.39 billion in TARP funding; – Intel Corp’s Paul Otellini trimmed about 5,000 jobs and received $14.4 million in compensation. The report notes, “The $598 million combined compensation of the top 50 CEOs in our layoff leader survey could provide average unemployment benefits to 37,579 workers for an entire year — or nearly a month of benefits for each of the 531,363 workers their companies laid off.” As I wrote in Hoodwinked , “When we examine the state of our economy — the shortage of businesses that produce real things that people need, the huge gap between rich and poor, the current national debt, and the exploitation of the many by a very few — we see a profile similar to that in the Third World.” Our overall standards may be higher than in the Third Word; however, in relative terms the similarities are shocking. And each year, in fact each quarter, with every new report, the situation grows worse. The sad fact is that the rich get richer and the middle class is disappearing. Some of the most shocking statistics that highlight the discrepancies are those around hunger. While the CEOs feast on caviar, nearly 17 million, or almost 1 in 4, American children are at risk of hunger. Those hungry children are the victims of bloated, unregulated, corporate Robber Barons who lay off workers (parents) for bottom line greed. WHAT YOU CAN DO You and I can change the future for the better by taking action now. Demanding accountability and regulations that protect workers and stop the excessive payouts, golden parachutes and layoffs. A list of the companies is available at Please send emails to every company on this list that you patronize or are tempted to patronize and tell them the you will NOT buy from them until they change their ways, until their executives are willing to reduce their compensation and hire back those fired workers. Only through expressing our discontent will we make a difference! We must demand a completely new economic policy that benefits all not just the wealthiest in our country. It is up to you and me!

Read the full article →

Andrew Kreig: Victims In $3.6 Billion Ponzi Protest Court Process

August 24, 2010

Victims of the $3.6 billion financial fraud by Minnesota businessman Tom Petters are justifiably angry about the federal victim-restitution process that began after his 2008 arrest. The feds used hardball tactics to install well-connected cronies in key positions, which should trouble anyone who fears the precedent if their own finances get trapped in such a dispute nationally. Most remarkable was that the federal judge supervising the case named the prominent local attorney Douglas Kelley to be court receiver and U.S. trustee. This was even though Petters, above as shown shortly after his arrest in 2008, had previously hired Kelley to defend his companies. Victims are so disturbed at such decision-making and what they regard as excessive legal fees by Kelley and his team that some of them financed The Second Fraud , a documentary about their case that premieres Aug. 25 at the Uptown Theater in Minneapolis for a one-night showing. On behalf of the Justice Integrity Project , I’m on a seven-person panel assembling there to discuss the case after the movie. Kelley and at least four other representatives of the government or Petters defense were invited, but none have confirmed. Here’s a look at the discussion about this fascinating case: For more than a decade, Tom Petters masterminded the first multi-billion dollar U.S. “Ponzi scheme” ever discovered. Authorities raided his companies on Sept. 24, 2008 after a tip from his former receptionist-lover, who’d received $8 million in bonuses during her ascendancy into his executive ranks. Petters, a college drop-out now aged 53, received 50-year prison term in April. This ended his huge donations to leading politicians in both major parties, his swank lifestyle, and his control of such well-known companies as Polaroid and Sun Country Airlines. But Second Fraud filmmaker Ryan Frost says: Ultimately we discovered a tangled web of local professionals: judges, politicians and lawyers, some of which may have knowingly or unknowingly allowed the Petters fraud to perpetuate in the first place. Now these groups are left in charge to clean up the mess. As hundreds of years of legal precedent are blatantly ignored, creditors and victims are crying foul from the sidelines as they are swindled a second time by the very system that is in place to protect them. On Friday, I published a column as part of my legal reform group’s research on such situations nationally. During the post-film panel, I’ll be among those arguing that Petters oversight so far fails to provide the legal checks-and-balances among various litigants we need to protect the victims of such cases. First-hand accounts will come from Chicago hedge fund manager Thane Ritchie and New Jersey liquidator William Procida, who was elected by creditors such as Richie to be receiver via a process in Illinois promptly after the fraud was discovered. Procida, who says he’s handled the liquidation of billions of dollars of assets, will describe how Kelley used his twin roles as Petters attorney and as a former prosecutor to consolidate power in unusual ways. Among them was the decision by U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery to issue an order that empowered Kelley, her former law school classmate and colleague at the Justice Department. The order also granted Kelley judge-like immunity, thereby limiting the ability of various parties to force oversight. Count me among those who don’t understand the fascination with handing off complex problems in this way, even to well-credentialed private attorneys. To be sure, a special master is a longstanding concept. But this kind of vast power potentially has life-or-death consequences for companies and people alike, with too few due process rights. Kelley essentially runs the show in Minnesota for victims nationwide. Kelley is subject largely to post-decision review by the judge, who named him ex parte in a private meeting. Creditors claim the Petters assets are being chewed up in legal fees, forfeitures to federal government and other controversial transactions. In response, Kelley argues in his occasional public remarks that his decision-making balances the best interests of all to obtain optimal returns. Neither Kelley nor the judge has responded to my invitations for comment. Others on the post-film panel with its creator Frost will be law professor Richard Painter, bankruptcy expert Garrett Vail and longtime journalist James Merriner, author of the spiked ad campaign decrying court oversight of the Petters case. The moderator is Bill Hillsman, founder of the ad agency that created Minnesota’s campaign victories for underdog Senate Democratic candidate Paul Wellstone in 1992 and third-party gubernatorial candidate Jesse Ventura in 1998. Nationally, some take the problem of excessive bankruptcy fees as a big problem. The American Bankruptcy Institute published a report in July entitled, “When a Pig Becomes a Hog….” Without mincing words, the report quotes a Texas judge as saying last year: “At some time [the] Court must draw the line as to what is reasonable and what is not.” The judge concluded, “When a pig becomes a hog it is slaughtered.” That’s Texas talk, and perhaps a little rough for sensibilities elsewhere. But $3 billion in missing assets with only lawyers to help can be worse than tough talk. For some, it’s grim reality.

Read the full article →

Robert A. Mintz: Don’t Bank on Subprime Indictments Anytime Soon

August 16, 2010

In filings this month in federal court in Los Angeles, lawyers for former Countrywide Financial Corp.’s chief executive Angelo Mozilo argued that the Securities and Exchange Commission now admitted that the home lender had fully disclosed to investors the increasingly risky mortgages that Countrywide was originating. They called for the case against him to be dismissed. The SEC has yet to respond. Whether emboldened by the perceived lackluster performance so far from regulators investigating subprime loans or merely a tactical move, Mozilo’s grandstanding in the face of both an SEC complaint and an on-going federal criminal investigation is likely a reaction to the government’s track record — or lack of one — in bringing successful major prosecutions in connection with the subprime mortgage crisis. In fact, three years after the start of the biggest collapse in the home loan market in history and despite the announcement of criminal investigations into Goldman Sachs, Countrywide, AIG and others, investors are still waiting for a conviction of a major player for conduct related to the subprime mortgage crisis. Contrast that with the dotcom collapse in 2000 which led to a string of highly successful, big name prosecutions of CEO’s and CFO’s at companies such as Enron, Tyco, Adelphia and WorldCom to name just a few. It is fair to wonder if these criminal prosecutions are ever coming. The answer is, maybe not, and certainly not in the numbers that the public had expected. If you’re still waiting for a wave of high profile criminal prosecutions to emerge from the haze of the subprime mortgage meltdown, it may be time to readjust your expectations. To be fair to prosecutors, it’s not for lack of desire. In fact, shortly after the implosion of Bear Stearns, DOJ prosecutors obtained indictments of two former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers alleging that they knowingly misled investors about the future prospects of their fund. Armed with a series of seemingly bullet proof, smoking gun emails in which the defendants appeared to be trashing the very investments they were promoting to their investors, prosecutors painted a vivid portrait of Wall Street insiders telling one story to their investors, while privately maintaining an altogether different opinion of the long-term health of the fund. But in the end, prosecutors were unable to convince jurors that the defendants should be held responsible for failing to predict the global economic crisis that swept their funds, along with much of the U.S. economy, into a tailspin. Both defendants were acquitted of all charges. While prosecutors have yet to follow up with any major indictments, SEC regulators have moved ahead, recently announcing settlements with Citigroup and their biggest prize to date — Goldman Sachs. The agency had charged Goldman with intentionally misleading clients by selling a mortgage-security product that they failed to disclose was designed in part by another Goldman client that was betting on the housing market to crash. Despite the record-setting settlement of $550 million, the SEC resolved the matter on terms that suggest that a criminal prosecution is unlikely to follow. Indeed, buried in the Goldman settlement, which was only approved by a federal judge this month, are signs that perhaps their civil case was weaker than originally billed and that federal prosecutors would face an even more daunting task in trying to build a criminal case where the standard of proof is higher. Generally the SEC will demand that a defendant settle on the most serious allegation made in its complaint. Instead, regulators struck a deal that essentially watered down the toughest charge. The SEC complaint contained an allegation that Goldman violated Rule 10b of the securities laws, which includes a broad antifraud provision covering trading in securities. This allegation is one of the most potent weapons in the SEC’s arsenal. Instead, Goldman settled on Rule 17a, which carries a lesser stigma for a financial firm and can involve unintentional fraud as well as negligence. The fact that regulators were willing to back off their claim of intentional wrongdoing is a strong indication that they had doubts as to whether they could ultimately make the charges stick. In addition, while the terms of the Goldman settlement contained an unusual provision which required Goldman to issue a statement that it was “a mistake” to fail to disclose the role of the other Goldman client, that “admission” contrasted incongruously with other language in the settlement in which Goldman expressly denied any wrongdoing. Both the Goldman settlement and the Bear Stearns acquittals show just how difficult it will be to pin criminal intent on the salesmanship that pervades Wall Street. The reality is that this financial meltdown was far more complex and affected by many more external factors than those that followed the dotcom collapse. Cases like Enron and WorldCom were more self-contained. In those prosecutions, since the criminality occurred within the company, cause and effect were easier to demonstrate to jurors. In this case it will be more difficult to draw direct lines of causation between defendants and losses since there are likely going to be many other factors to take into account. While it is still too early to count prosecutors out in the government’s efforts to hold someone accountable for the staggering losses to investors, the presence of lax regulations that clearly contributed to the crisis creates significant difficulties for establishing criminal liability which requires evidence of clear cut wrongdoing. In the wake of a financial crisis it is always tempting to promise that those who are responsible will be brought to justice. But it is one thing to witness a crime and then search for those who committed it. It’s an entirely different matter when prosecutors have to find both the crime and the criminals. In the end, it’s hard to image any outcome in which the victims won’t still far outnumber the villains. Robert A. Mintz is the former Deputy Chief of the Organized Crime Strike Force of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of New Jersey and is currently the head of the Government Investigations and White Collar Criminal Defense practice group at McCarter & English, LLP.

Read the full article →

Robert A. Mintz: Don’t Bank on Subprime Indictments Anytime Soon

August 16, 2010

In filings this month in federal court in Los Angeles, lawyers for former Countrywide Financial Corp.’s chief executive Angelo Mozilo argued that the Securities and Exchange Commission now admitted that the home lender had fully disclosed to investors the increasingly risky mortgages that Countrywide was originating. They called for the case against him to be dismissed. The SEC has yet to respond. Whether emboldened by the perceived lackluster performance so far from regulators investigating subprime loans or merely a tactical move, Mozilo’s grandstanding in the face of both an SEC complaint and an on-going federal criminal investigation is likely a reaction to the government’s track record — or lack of one — in bringing successful major prosecutions in connection with the subprime mortgage crisis. In fact, three years after the start of the biggest collapse in the home loan market in history and despite the announcement of criminal investigations into Goldman Sachs, Countrywide, AIG and others, investors are still waiting for a conviction of a major player for conduct related to the subprime mortgage crisis. Contrast that with the dotcom collapse in 2000 which led to a string of highly successful, big name prosecutions of CEO’s and CFO’s at companies such as Enron, Tyco, Adelphia and WorldCom to name just a few. It is fair to wonder if these criminal prosecutions are ever coming. The answer is, maybe not, and certainly not in the numbers that the public had expected. If you’re still waiting for a wave of high profile criminal prosecutions to emerge from the haze of the subprime mortgage meltdown, it may be time to readjust your expectations. To be fair to prosecutors, it’s not for lack of desire. In fact, shortly after the implosion of Bear Stearns, DOJ prosecutors obtained indictments of two former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers alleging that they knowingly misled investors about the future prospects of their fund. Armed with a series of seemingly bullet proof, smoking gun emails in which the defendants appeared to be trashing the very investments they were promoting to their investors, prosecutors painted a vivid portrait of Wall Street insiders telling one story to their investors, while privately maintaining an altogether different opinion of the long-term health of the fund. But in the end, prosecutors were unable to convince jurors that the defendants should be held responsible for failing to predict the global economic crisis that swept their funds, along with much of the U.S. economy, into a tailspin. Both defendants were acquitted of all charges. While prosecutors have yet to follow up with any major indictments, SEC regulators have moved ahead, recently announcing settlements with Citigroup and their biggest prize to date — Goldman Sachs. The agency had charged Goldman with intentionally misleading clients by selling a mortgage-security product that they failed to disclose was designed in part by another Goldman client that was betting on the housing market to crash. Despite the record-setting settlement of $550 million, the SEC resolved the matter on terms that suggest that a criminal prosecution is unlikely to follow. Indeed, buried in the Goldman settlement, which was only approved by a federal judge this month, are signs that perhaps their civil case was weaker than originally billed and that federal prosecutors would face an even more daunting task in trying to build a criminal case where the standard of proof is higher. Generally the SEC will demand that a defendant settle on the most serious allegation made in its complaint. Instead, regulators struck a deal that essentially watered down the toughest charge. The SEC complaint contained an allegation that Goldman violated Rule 10b of the securities laws, which includes a broad antifraud provision covering trading in securities. This allegation is one of the most potent weapons in the SEC’s arsenal. Instead, Goldman settled on Rule 17a, which carries a lesser stigma for a financial firm and can involve unintentional fraud as well as negligence. The fact that regulators were willing to back off their claim of intentional wrongdoing is a strong indication that they had doubts as to whether they could ultimately make the charges stick. In addition, while the terms of the Goldman settlement contained an unusual provision which required Goldman to issue a statement that it was “a mistake” to fail to disclose the role of the other Goldman client, that “admission” contrasted incongruously with other language in the settlement in which Goldman expressly denied any wrongdoing. Both the Goldman settlement and the Bear Stearns acquittals show just how difficult it will be to pin criminal intent on the salesmanship that pervades Wall Street. The reality is that this financial meltdown was far more complex and affected by many more external factors than those that followed the dotcom collapse. Cases like Enron and WorldCom were more self-contained. In those prosecutions, since the criminality occurred within the company, cause and effect were easier to demonstrate to jurors. In this case it will be more difficult to draw direct lines of causation between defendants and losses since there are likely going to be many other factors to take into account. While it is still too early to count prosecutors out in the government’s efforts to hold someone accountable for the staggering losses to investors, the presence of lax regulations that clearly contributed to the crisis creates significant difficulties for establishing criminal liability which requires evidence of clear cut wrongdoing. In the wake of a financial crisis it is always tempting to promise that those who are responsible will be brought to justice. But it is one thing to witness a crime and then search for those who committed it. It’s an entirely different matter when prosecutors have to find both the crime and the criminals. In the end, it’s hard to image any outcome in which the victims won’t still far outnumber the villains. Robert A. Mintz is the former Deputy Chief of the Organized Crime Strike Force of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of New Jersey and is currently the head of the Government Investigations and White Collar Criminal Defense practice group at McCarter & English, LLP.

Read the full article →

Massey: Don’t ‘Rush To Judgment’ Blaming Us For West Virginia Mine Explosion

August 13, 2010

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — A 36-foot crack in the Upper Big Branch mine isn’t venting methane and didn’t contribute to a blast in April that killed 29 men, a federal official said Friday, disputing a company’s claim that the crack could have caused the blast. The crack has been the subject of a running dispute between the Mine Safety and Health Administration and the mine’s owner, Virginia-based Massey Energy. Company officials have suggested a massive crack could have unexpectedly flooded the southern West Virginia mine with explosive methane gas. Ruling out any possible contributing factors at this point in the investigation is “completely irresponsible,” company spokesman Jeff Gillenwater said in an e-mail. “No one investigating the tragedy at UBB should rush to judgment,” he said, insisting the crack merits further investigation. Some of the victims’ relatives said Massey told them the crack was 150 feet long. MSHA coal administrator Kevin Stricklin strongly disputed that in a media briefing earlier this week but couldn’t offer an exact measurement. Stricklin said he sent a geologist underground to measure the crack for a second time Thursday. The crack – near the longwall mining machine and a number of other, smaller cracks – was 36 feet long about 5 inches deep, he said. Investigators believe the April 5 explosion occurred in an area near the machine. But the geologist said the crack in the sandstone floor was “rootless,” meaning it did not lead to a coal seam, and was not venting methane, Stricklin said. Cracks and floor heaving are common in longwall mining, he said, and this one had no special significance. Stricklin wouldn’t rule out another crack elsewhere in the mine causing the blast. “I just didn’t want a family member thinking this particular crack was the cause of the explosion,” he said. “I didn’t want the question lingering out there.” Stricklin also insisted earlier this week that all explosions are preventable. Even if a massive inundation of methane occurred, he said, it should not have automatically exploded. Mines should have enough fresh air movement to carry methane out, the equipment underground should not be able to provide a spark, regular inspections should find flaws in any safety systems, and all mines should be thoroughly coated with rock dust to prevent coal dust from exploding. “Those are four key components we stand by,” Stricklin said. “We don’t think explosions need to occur anywhere.”

Read the full article →

Brooke Stephens: The Missing Mandate: Financial Literacy

August 11, 2010

As legislators and lobbyists congratulate themselves on the 2300 pages of legalese drafted to reform Wall Street banks and the financial services industry, not one paragraph addresses a major reason why the meltdown occurred: how American consumers learn to manage money. According to several mortgage banking studies, nearly 70 percent of the victims of foreclosure admit they did not understand the terms of the deal they signed or the long-term impact on their lives. Congress had plenty of chances to address this problem. More than 30 bills focused on financial literacy have been introduced since 2006. All of them died in Senate or House committees. None were included in this recent reform bill. Money, like sex, is supposed to be taught at home but in a 2008 Charles Schwab study, 69% of parents interviewed reported they were more prepared to discuss sex than money with their children. Parents groomed on three decades of TV advertising whose vocabulary is liberally sprinkled with four letter words –shop, sale– cannot teach what they don’t know. Now they are miserably discovering two new four-letter words: debt and poor. These nonstop shoppers learned the hard way how one afternoon of reckless spending at the mall can take a decade to pay off. Money management is a lifetime skill that has to be taught, nurtured and developed like personal hygiene and proper table manners, yet only 18 percent of US school systems have required any personal finance classes in their curriculum. Sixth graders don’t need to know the intricacies of credit default swaps but they are quite capable of learning comparison shopping, planning a budget based on a weekly allowance and understanding the difference between wants and needs. Sallie Mae’s survey of 2008 college graduates indicated that 84% said they needed more financial education to manage their affairs. More than 300 nonprofit national agencies advocate for financial literacy under the Consumer Federation of America. They depend heavily on private grants, corporate partnerships and volunteer trainers; thus, their influence on schools and public policy is limited. The present economic debacle has made state education departments aware of the blatant need for financial education. Currently, 38 states are considering financial literacy for their high school curricula; only nine states have made it mandatory. Funding, as always, has all states grasping for any lifeline to address this issue—which can be a mistake. Enter Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Chase and Citigroup and their foundations. They have partnered with the National Council on Economic Education to distribute “one size fits all” financial literacy material for high school students with little or no diversity in its content. What is appropriate for upscale students in Greenwich or Grosse Point where students check stocks on their Blackberries will not work for children of immigrant families in the South Bronx or Houston’s ninth ward where parents use check cashing stores and pay bills with money orders. The solution is simple and twofold: create a national financial fitness campaign like the President’s physical fitness program. NCEE could sponsor a financial knowledge challenge focusing on pragmatic concepts of daily finances, investing and planning for money issues that arise in everyone’s life. Imagine how different the last few years would have been if a national financial literacy program had become an educational mandate after the 1987 market crash. Fewer foreclosures and bankruptcies and less credit card debt for a start. The four letter words our children should begin learning in primary school are: cash, cost, save, plan and know (what you’re signing) which can begin with something like the hundred pennies game created for six-year-olds by Girls Incorporated in their “Money Matters” after school program launched in 1999 with phenomenal continued success. Financial literacy funding could come from fines charged to Wall Street bankers for their malfeasance; the recent $300 million paid by Goldman Sachs would be a nice beginning. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan would find this a slam-dunk since his entrance into educational administration was as executive director of the Ariel Financial Academy in urban Chicago. Duncan’s recent partnering with the Treasury Department to support financial education is a small beginning but not nearly enough. The kindergarten constituency can’t vote, pay taxes or hire a lobbyist, but they will inherit the current debt. We should arm them with some tools to cope with that impending problem. Grade school students love finding innovative solutions to money problems and the challenge of how to stretch and save dollars. Working with young children also means they don’t bring their parents’ money anxiety into the classroom so they don’t know yet how hard finances can be. For them whether it’s a major recession or the hundred pennies game, it’s just a game. A life-changing game.

Read the full article →

Howard Steven Friedman: BRIC and Beyond: How Aging Populations Strain Economic Growth

August 1, 2010

In previous articles about BRIC and N-11, the lists of countries identified by Goldman Sachs as being likely to have a major impact on the world economy by 2050, I discussed the importance of population and the limits of accuracy in long-term forecasts. There I noted that population projections are usually much more accurate than projections of GDP per capita and that, barring any changes in national borders or cataclysmic events, China and India will have at least twice the population of any other country in 2050. I also mentioned the importance of the age distribution, but want to expand on this point more. The age distribution is important because there’s an age range where the population is more likely to be employed and producing economic growth. The “support ratio,” commonly defined as the percent of a population between ages 15 to 65, is a snapshot of the age distribution of the population. Large support ratios reflect countries where a large percent of the population is available to work. A significant amount of the growth in Asian economies in the last decade is associated with the demographic bonus of having a large support ratio . If a large percent of the population is in school or retired then the support ratio will be low. The age range used for the support ratio is somewhat arbitrary. For this article I am using the age range 15 to 59, which I will call the “narrow support ratio,” as it reflects the aspirations of many of my friends to be retired before age 60. So what can we say about the age distributions in the G7, BRIC and N-11? Currently the majority of the population in all 22 of these countries is between ages 15 to 59 with Japan and Nigeria having the lowest rates (52% and 53%) while China has the highest rate (67%). That is to say, all 22 countries have “narrow support ratios” greater than 50%. Japan is an older society with more than one-third of its population 60 or older, while Nigeria is a young population with more than 40% of its population less than 15. Over the next 40 years, the declining fertility rates and lengthening life expectancies will likely result in a much older world population. Japan’s “narrow support ratio” is expected to fall below 40% by 2050 meaning there will be a huge financial burden on society. The US will see an aging population, though not as extreme as the rest of the G7. In fact, the US is the only G7 country expected to have a “narrow support ratio” greater than 50% in 2050. Of the BRIC and N-11 countries, China, Russia and South Korea are the only countries expected to have more than one third of their population 60 or older. These three countries stand out in the list of BRIC and N-11 countries as the only ones with “narrow support ratios” projected to be less than 50%. These lower “narrow support ratios” will strain the family’s and government’s ability to support those elderly needing care. Countries that are projected to have declining support ratios are well aware of the upcoming economic challenges. For example, Japan has put into place programs to promote fertility and make child-rearing both more convenient and more affordable. Besides government programs such as this, the other obvious solution is expanding the support ratio. If the typical retirement age is raised to 67 or even 70, this will abate some of the burden but expanding the support ratio needs to be more than an academic exercise. That would require meaningful, productive work to be available for people at these advanced ages. I raise this concern knowing that many unemployed people in their 40s and 50s are the victims of explicit or implicit ageism. As for the BRIC and N-11 countries, those with sharply declining support ratios will be challenged to achieve continuous major growth with China, Russia and South Korea facing more dire prospects than some of the other countries on the two lists.

Read the full article →

Alexandra Wrage: Paying the Fox to Buy New Chickens

July 15, 2010

Corruption is center stage right now. Fines against companies are counted in billions. Executives are extradited and imprisoned. President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Attorney General Holder and their staffs address the corrosive impact of corruption in speeches at home and abroad in Accra, Nairobi and Doha. Compensating the victims of corruption is a hot new topic. Restitution to victims is hard not to like. When public officials take bribes to buy shoddy goods at inflated prices, their citizens suffer. When food and drug officials take bribes to approve tainted or inert pharmaceutical products, their citizens suffer. And when government inspectors take bribes to avert their eyes from code violations, their citizens suffer. Compensating the citizens of corrupt governments is a compelling and attractive idea. But it’s more complicated than it sounds. Let’s imagine a US company that has used bribery as a routine marketing strategy. They’ve done this in violation of US law and the laws of every country in which they operate. Instead of selling a good product at a competitive price, they’ve paid bribes to encourage government officials to buy their products in spite of quality or cost. In some cases, they’ve convinced government officials to buy products their countries don’t need at all. What does compensation to the victims look like? The company may be assessed a fine and told to pay that back to the people of China, for example, or Iraq, or Nigeria. How does that work? Is the check made payable to the Treasury? How is the money spent? How do we have any confidence that the money isn’t promptly looted? Remember that the penalty has been assessed because the country in question had officials who sold themselves to the highest bidder and, presumably, that hasn’t changed. Some argue for monitoring of the funds, but the anti-bribery enforcement agencies don’t have the staff or expertise for that. We want our enforcement agencies deterring and punishing crime, not overseeing a vast grant-making body managing victim restitution funds. Of course the citizens of corrupt countries are the first and often most vulnerable victims of corrupt governments. But they aren’t the only victims. When companies are made to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and remediation and have their reputations ravaged because their executives thought bribery was a good idea, the shareholders suffer. When competitor companies that don’t bribe lose contracts to those that do, they’re also victims. Unlike almost any other international crime, everyone is a victim of corruption. Although bribery tends to be most prevalent in the least democratic countries, no community is immune. Bribes are paid to circumvent health and safety regulations, to avoid environmental standards, to sidestep customs and security at ports and airports, to encourage police to harass others or to ignore harassment, to buy doctors, judges, mayors, governors and dictators, UN officials and International Olympic Committees. The impact of bribery is global. The US Department of Justice does not attempt to compensate victims of bribery. The UK Serious Fraud Office does. The US has been accused by some of making anti-bribery efforts a profit center. The UK, on the other hand, has declared that BAE Systems plc must pay a part of its recently assessed fine as a donation to Tanzania. Tanzania, where the then Attorney General has been implicated in the tainted deal. A donation to Tanzania. We’ll see how that works out.

Read the full article →

Robert Scheer: There’s Just No Pleasing Some Robber Barons

July 14, 2010

The flight from reason that now marks American public discourse came home for me last Friday when I found myself on public radio debating whether Barack Obama is anti-business. The “news hook” for KCRW’s “Left, Right & Center” show, which I have co-hosted for 15 years, was an absurd spate of charges from Obama’s former big-business allies that he had become their enemy. If only it were so. One of those who has been complaining is billionaire publisher Mort Zuckerman, who now finds in a White House he once supported “hostility” to the business culture he credits with the country’s greatness. I assume he is not talking about the belated efforts to hold BP accountable for the cost of the oil spill that our pro-drilling president once thought not possible. And then there was Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric and once friendly to Obama but now alarmed by new regulations. He was one of the many CEOs cited by Fareed Zakaria in The Washington Post as evidence of “Obama’s CEO problem.” General Electric is a company that got into deep trouble when it stopped worrying about making better light bulbs and came to devote much of its business through GE capital to fancy financial products. With GE having been saved by the taxpayers, one wonders what the conglomerate has to complain about. Or Wall Street donors now stiffing the Democrats and claiming Obama is hostile to them. All this comes at the very time that Wall Street lobbyists stand poised to win a sweeping victory preventing a reversal of the radical deregulation that made the banking debacle possible. The “Volcker rule,” restoration of the New Deal-era barrier between investment and consumer banking that Obama had pledged to support, is gutted. As a disappointed Paul Volcker told Louis Uchitelle in an interview for The New York Times, he would rate the reforms just a B and not even a B-plus. Leading Wall Street economist Henry Kaufman told the Times: “The legislation is a Rube Goldberg contraption, and there are long timelines before the Volcker rule is fully implemented.” Game over, Wall Street won big-time, and the Bush-Obama policy has made the financiers whole while largely ignoring the deep plight of the true victims of the economic collapse, the unemployed and the foreclosed. The argument that Obama is anti-business is nothing more than the old propaganda trick that the best defense is a good offense, so blame the victims for your crimes. The high-tone intellectual argument for that position was supplied by Harvard professor Niall Ferguson, a transplanted Thatcherite, at the same Aspen, Colo., gathering where Zuckerman spoke. At a conference on ideas paid for and attended by the rich and well-positioned, Ferguson argued that the high rate of unemployment is not due to the Wall Street high rollers whose funny-money games wiped out 8 million jobs but rather the extension of the government’s unemployment insurance program: “The curse of long-term unemployment is that if you pay people to do nothing, they’ll find themselves doing nothing for very long periods of time. Long-term unemployment is at an all-time high in the United States, and it is a direct consequence of a misconceived public policy.” Yes, except that the public policy that was so terribly misconceived was that of radical deregulation, launched by the Reagan Revolution and implemented by President Bill Clinton, not the pathetic palliative of unemployment checks. Notice that the attacks on Obama are not about his having followed George W. Bush’s example of throwing money at Wall Street, the cause of the meltdown and the run-up of the national debt, but rather the much smaller amount spent on ameliorating the pain that the titans of finance caused for ordinary citizens. And of course there is never a word of self-criticism on the part of folks like Ferguson, Immelt and Zuckerman for their own roles in having cheered on the radical deregulation that made this mess not only possible but inevitable. Not so Volcker, once the darling of fiscal conservatives when he tamed inflation during the Carter and Reagan years, and when as Fed chair and later as an influential observer he failed to stand publicly against the move to radical deregulation. As was reported in the Times interview, “In retrospect, Mr. Volcker regrets not challenging the widely held assumptions that underpinned much of this. `You had an intellectual conviction that you did not need much regulation–that the market could take care of itself,’ he says. `I’m happy that illusion has been shattered.’” Unfortunately, that illusion has not been shattered for many of the elite in this country, as evidenced by their rage against Obama’s too modest steps in the right direction.

Read the full article →

Robert Creamer: One Big Thing Congress Can Do to Improve the Economy Before Election Day

July 11, 2010

Members of Congress see it in their town meetings, their mail, their polls and focus groups: the voters are angry. Of course at any given time, some set of voters are always unhappy. But right now it’s different. Right now most people are unhappy. The level of anger and unhappiness does not arise from disagreement with some government policy. It is not because they don’t like the new health care law, or “big government”. Voters are angry and unhappy because from their perspective the economy still stinks. Vast numbers of those who lost their jobs when the recklessness of the Wall Street banks sent the economy over the cliff, are still out of work. Those who are working have experienced stagnant incomes. Everyday Americans are worried about the economic futures of their families. And it’s no wonder. A recent study showed that more than half of Americans have been directly affected by the recession. When Congress returns from its Fourth of July recess, there are not many things it can actually do to improve the economic picture in the four short months before Election Day. But there is, in fact, one thing Congress can do that will have a big impact right away: pass a jobs bill that provides fiscal relief to state and local government and extends unemployment benefits . State and local government is facing the worst fiscal crisis in a generation. The recession slashed revenue, yet the same recession increased the demand for many critical services. As a result there is a very real chance that in the next few months state and local government will lay off between 600,000 and 800,000 people. That result would be catastrophic for the already-weak economic recovery — as well as the political environment for Democrats. Let’s say that the economy generates a fairly robust 150,000 new private sector jobs each month. That’s a total of 600,000 new jobs between now and November. But that job growth could be entirely wiped out by layoffs from state and local government. If private sector job growth is slower, then these layoffs could move the job figures into negative territory. That could very well pull economic growth into the red as well triggering a double dip recession. And extending unemployment benefits is equally critical. The Labor Department says more than 1.7 million people have run out of unemployment benefits, and that figure could rise to more than 2.1 million people by the end of this week. Americans who are out of work are not laggards who want something for nothing. They are — by definition — seeking jobs that the economy does not provide. Does it make any sense that Congress could find the money to bail out Wall Street bankers and their $10 million bonuses and can’t afford to make sure that the victims of Wall Street recklessness have something to keep their families from falling into poverty until they can find work? More crucial to the cold calculus of economic growth, by blocking Congress from extending unemployment benefits, the Republicans have withdrawn millions of dollars of potential spending from the economy — money that would otherwise have been spent at the grocery store or the mall. That’s just plain stupid. Of course you hear the Republicans — and some Democrats — blathering on about how an extension of unemployment benefits or fiscal relief to the states must be “paid for” through other cuts or new revenue. They argue that the public is “fed up” with rising deficits and we must restore “fiscal discipline” now. You didn’t hear a peep from the Republicans when it comes to “un-paid for” funding to support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And there is a case of collective Republican amnesia when it comes to the fact that when Democrat Bill Clinton left office there were fiscal surpluses as far as the eye could see — and that in eight short years, the Bush Administration ran up more in national debt than all of the other Presidents in American history combined. Nor does any Republican reference former Vice-President Cheney’s famous observation that “deficits don’t matter.” But as a matter of sheer economics, we do not need “fiscal discipline now.” We need economic growth now. Economic growth is the only real path to assure a shrinking deficit and a healthy fiscal policy over the next decade. The “real economy” is not composed of loans, money flows, currency transactions, or stock markets. The “real economy” is the process of creating goods and services that meet people’s needs. Truck drivers, fire fighters, farmers, steelworkers, software engineers, tailors, janitors, writers, teachers — most people who work for a living — are all engaged in “real” economic activity. The flow of money is not the “real economy” at all. It is a means of keeping score — a means of allocating who gets what – of determining what products are produced and what services are provided. That doesn’t mean that the level of personal debt, or the federal deficit, or the price of the dollar aren’t critically important to economy. But they are ultimately only important insofar as they impact what goes on in the “real economy” — the quantity and mix of goods and services. That’s why the biggest economic problem we face in the short term is not the federal deficit — it is the deficit between the capacity of our economy to produce goods and services and the amount of economic demand there is to pay people to engage in productive activity. Right now, nine and half percent of our work force is sitting idle, not producing the goods and services people need to enjoy a better life. The goods and services they would have produced on any given day are simply wasted — lost forever. As a society, we miss out on the housing they could have built, the food they could have produced, the software they could have designed, the research they could have done. That is actual economic waste. It means there is simply less economic pie to go around. And since the top two percent of the population do a pretty good job making sure they get a big slice, you can bet that average Americans are the ones who are stuck with smaller and smaller pieces of pie. So our first priority is to eliminate the deficit between our productive capacity and what we are actually producing as a society. First and foremost we have to get people back to work. In other words, putting people back to work is not a “lagging indicator” of economic growth. It is economic growth. Economic growth is about nothing other than people working to produce more goods and services. The problem is that in recessions, individual consumers and businesses cut back on spending. They set money aside and reduce the demand for goods and services. During the current recession the savings rate in the U.S. went from only 1% to 6.4%. Now it’s 4%. In fact, over the long haul our society should be saving more, but the problem is that a big increase in saving during a recession reduces economic demand and just deepens the spiral of fewer people working and less demand, which leads to more layoffs and less demand and so on. So while it is perfectly rational for an individual or family to cut back its spending and save more when times are tough, that is a disaster for the overall economy. But acting together through the government we can break that spiral. That was the great lesson that John Maynard Keynes learned from the Great Depression. The federal government has to act decisively to close the deficit between productive capacity and actual production — it needs to create the economic demand to assure that everyone is back at work. To do that it has to borrow money. That’s what is necessary to put the economy back on its feet and grow private sector demand once again. We did it in early 2009 with the Stimulus Bill that saved or created almost 3 million jobs. We need to do more. There is absolutely no evidence that the increase in public sector debt necessary to spur demand and put people back to work has been “crowding out” private borrowing or raising interest rates. In fact interest rates are at record lows. The Federal Funds rate is near zero. Over the last year the yields on long-term bonds have actually dropped. There is, in other words, less competition to place debt than a year ago. In fact, the markets are more concerned with the prospect of deflation, not inflation. President Obama and the Democratic leadership of both the House and Senate have pushed hard for measures that would prevent state and local layoffs and extend unemployment. The Republicans have obstinately opposed these measures. And there are some Democrats who worry that a vote for a jobs bill would leave them vulnerable to a charge that they are “tax and spend” liberals. But let’s face it, the Republicans are going to say that no matter what they do. The real question between now and the election is whether the Congress can do anything to make voters feel that their personal economic situation is improving. The real question for voters in November won’t be if a Member of Congress voted yes or no on House Bill “whatever.” It will be whether their brother-in-law found work. The last thing Democrats can afford is to go into Election Day with is an economy that is actually losing jobs once again. That is exactly what may happen if Congress does not pass state fiscal relief and extend unemployment benefits. That would lead to a political narrative that is much more toxic for Democrats in swing districts than any single vote – certainly not a vote to save the jobs of firemen, police officers, teachers, the people who care for the elderly and the men and women who repair our roads. One final note. The Republicans often blithely argue that “only the private sector creates real jobs.” They need to get out of their ivory towers and fancy think tanks and look around. In the economic sense, “real” jobs include any job that actually produces goods and services that add to the store of our collective well-being. Next time you need a police officer, ask him if he has a “real job.” How about the teacher who teaches Johnny to be a productive member of our society? What about the guy who builds the road you drive to work on; or the fellow who cleans the street after the ball game? What about the person who empties the bed pan for an elderly veteran in a nursing home? Now compare the contribution these people make to our collective well-being with the trader at Goldman Sachs that bets on the price of exotic derivatives for a living. Congress must pass fiscal relief for the states as soon as possible. And while it’s at it, the Senate needs to finish the job of holding the big Wall Street banks accountable that caused this economic mess in the first place. Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com .

Read the full article →

Fortune’s Stanley Bing: What BP Can Learn From LeBron

July 9, 2010

1. Don’t over-communicate. Just because people want to know what you’re up to doesn’t mean you have to satisfy them. Keep them guessing. They won’t go away in the meantime. 2. Extend the time period when all you’re doing is seriously analyzing the situation. It’s a “process.” Did anybody count the number of times LeBron used the phrase, “the process,” or “this process,” as in, “This process has been everything I thought it would be,” or “I took this process very seriously.” Aside from building suspense, which is just good strategy for any product, it also made his eventual action seem well-considered, thoughtful, responsible, and certainly not all about the money. BP bumbled immediately into first under-estimating and then simply mangling its analysis of the situation. They would have been better served by engaging in a LeBronian “process.” Tony Hayward could have said, “There are a number of solutions to this thing, but I’ll be honest with you, we’ve never encountered this kind of crisis before, it’s very complicated, and we’re not going to jump to conclusions before we go through the right process.” 3. Which brings us to another important thing that LeBron got right and Hayward did not. For the most part, I believe that LeBron, like all world-class athletes, defaulted to the first person plural, utilizing “we” instead of “I” when discussing his decision. “We” had engaged in the process. There was a lot of “we” throughout the staged event. Contrast this to Tony Hayward, who was all about HIS life, often abandoning his proper role as a faceless bureaucrat and investing his appearances with way too much individuality. LeBron never departed from his anointed role as a professional athlete behaving pretty much as required and expected. 4. Never communicate through unstructured channels. LeBron certainly realized that a real group of sports reporters and cold, critical bloggers and journalists would eat him for lunch as soon as he announced his decision. So he gave the exclusive interview to ESPN, which managed it like a video event — part national election, complete with colored map, and part marketing circus, with snazzy graphics, logos, sound packages, and a long run-up to the event itself, which didn’t even come on until 9:22. 5. When you do finally decide to communicate, study the playbook. LeBron was obviously coached by some kind of professionals on what his message track was an how best to communicate it, what affect to adopt, etc. For instance, to offset notions from disgruntled sentimentalists that he should remain in Cleveland, he invoked the wisdom of his mother. Nobody’s going to attack a guy’s mother. Tony Hayward should have talked more about his mother and less about getting his life back. Then people would have thought, “Hey, the guy has a mother. He can’t be all bad, even if he IS screwing up the Gulf.” 6. Apologize briefly, then move on to the positives. LeBron seemed genuinely sorry for the people of Cleveland, who will clearly be committing mass seppuku after this. He thanked the City, the Cavaliers, his teammates, sort of weirdly invoking all that HE had done for THEM, if I was hearing that correctly, but at any rate, he moved smoothly from that sad stuff into a mention that a man has to do right by his family, which is one big, positive for Americans, and then invoked perhaps the most important American value: the desire to Win. Family + Winning = Something We Understand. Hayward, from his post as a snotty Brit, used neither of these strong tools to convey his messages. Imagine if his pitch had been, “I’m moving my family down here to Pensacola until this is solved. We’re going to beat this thing and win.” Much better, right? 7. Get a warm-and-fuzzy sponsor. LeBron’s event looked pretty much like a crass, over-commercialized and industrial-strength product of the sports/media hype machine. It was obviously timed and scripted by professionals who do this for a living, whether the event is an election, a beauty pageant, or a reality program. But behind LeBron was a big flag with the logo of the Boys & Girls Club, a very worthwhile organization that was in some way I don’t really care about a beneficiary of this hoopla. You can’t be critical of anything associated with the Boys & Girls Club! BP should immediately give a billion dollars to the World Wildlife Federation or some similar organization that helps birds, shrimp and other creatures who are the victims of its horrendous errors. The WWF logo should be on every BP communication. Commercials should be shot featuring Mr. Hayward fondling a pelican who has been cleansed by the power of his money. 8. When you’ve run out of things to say, disappear. I imagine LeBron will do that now and let his playing time speak for him from this time forth. I think a decision of that nature has been made for Mr. Hayward already.

Read the full article →

Danny Schechter: As Financial Reform Goes Down to the Wire, Will There Be Change?

June 24, 2010

charade | sh əˈrād| noun an absurd pretense intended to create a pleasant or respectable appearance : talk of unity was nothing more than a charade. The plan was to get the financial reform bill “done” by this weekend so that President Obama could pull it out of the his back pocket at the G20 meeting in Canada to demonstrate American “leadership” on an issue the whole world is legitimately worried about: the real prospect of an even more serious global economic collapse. The Congress has been working on this deal for months. The Senate passed its version after the House adopted a different measure. It was then up to the Conference process to “reconcile” the two bills, and come up with a law all could live with before taking the summer off to prepare for killer elections in the fall. No one reminded these alleged public servants of that axiom about the best laid plans of men and mice as in “the best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men. Gang aft agley, … aft agley” (often paraphrased in English as “The best-laid plans of mice and men / Go oft awry”). Its hard to know how “gang aft agley” they really went since all of the legislators are masters of compromise and beholden to financial interests that have gone through the provisions with a fine tooth comb and a surgical pair of scissors. Already the proposed independent Consumer Protection Agency has been buried in the Federal Reserve Bank. The too big to fail provisions are history, and the wrangle over tough rules on derivatives have been targeted by liberals from New York who fear that the trading desks will move overseas. Forget about principles here. Exemptions are being carved out, as I write, for mutual funds and manufactures. Three “moderate” Republicans including Scott Brown of Massachusetts have demanded reforms that will make it a reform in name only. Scott is carrying water for Boston’s State Street Bank. Behind the scenes, the industry with 25 lobbyists for every member of Congress is intensifying the pressure at the federal and local level, putting the squeeze on. Every member has a little something they now need to vote yes. Explains Senate negotiator Chris Dodd, “I dredge votes on the floor of the US Senate. I come back and I feel like a bulletin board…I’ve got notes stuck in every pocket.” These lobbyists have poured hundreds of millions into the coffers of these politicians. As Senator Dick Durbin admitted last April, “[T] he banks–hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created–are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.” According to MIT’s Simon Johnson who writes “The Baseline Scenario,” it’s the White House that’s doing Wall Street’s bidding while claiming the opposite. He writes, “The president signed off on the most generous and least The administration has scrambled to create some political cover in terms of “reform”–but the lack of substance here is already clear to people who follow it closely, and public perceptions will shift quickly.” And it’s not just the Congress that is backpedaling as I write. The Courts and the prosecutors are doing their share to issue ‘get out of jail cards” for suspected and convicted White Collar criminals. Dow Jones reports, “The U.S. Supreme Court found fault Thursday with the federal government’s high-profile convictions of Enron’s Jeffrey Skilling and former media mogul Conrad Black, rejecting the government’s use of a key white-collar crime law on which part of the prosecutions were based. The justices sent the cases back to two different lower courts to determine whether portions of Skilling and Black’s convictions should be thrown out.” A Congressional provision has insured that convicted white collar criminals cannot be sued by the people they ripped off. Joseph Collins, a corporate lawyer who worked for Refko will not have to pay back investors he helped defraud. Appeals Court Judge Gerald Lynch wrote, “It is perhaps dismaying that participants in a fraudulent scheme who may even have committed criminal acts are not answerable in damages to the victims of the fraud.” “It is perhaps dismaying.” Huh???? Even the people who enabled Bernie Madoff seem to be getting off. Writes the NY Times White Collar Crime blogger, Peter J. Henning: “Senior members of Mr. Madoff’s securities operation, including his brother and two sons, have not been charged with any crime to this point, and one wonders whether anyone will be charged with being an accomplice to the fraud. Mr. Madoff received his 150-year sentence nearly a year ago and little has happened on the criminal front since then.” The operative phrase: “One wonders…..” So, the criminals go free while the Congress and the courts compound the crimes. If this is not a vivid demonstration of corruption at the highest levels, what is? Meanwhile, in England, under a conservative government financial crime is being treated differently. Yesterday, according to news reports, “the UK government announced a complete overhaul of the financial services industry in the UK, increased focus on white-collar crime, and a review, with possible reform, of the banking industry.” And while all this is going on, the economy continues to fall into the crapper as Republicans sink a measure to extend unemployment benefits for working people who are already being designated “the new poor.” Writes, Mike Whitney, “Consumer spending is flat, home prices are set to fall, unemployment will likely edge higher, private sector credit is still contracting, capacity utilization is far below pre-crisis levels, the CPI is slipping, and yields on US Treasuries are priced for deflation. The government must pick up the slack or there will be a general fall in prices that will trigger more layoffs, larger deficits, and social unrest.” Don’t worry; each party will blame the other. Already Republican candidates are telling the unemployed “to get a job,” no matter how low it pays. Even as the bill went down to the wire, pro-reform activists believed they were winning. Let’s hope so, but there is more at stake. When some weakened bill is passed as, no doubt, one will, prepare for the TV spin by the punditocracy shilling for the status quo, and rationalizing it as the best law that could emerge under the circumstances in such a dysfunctional institution. And then watch as the Obama Administration hails it as the second coming. News Dissector Danny Schechter directed the film P LUNDER THE CRIME OF OUR TIME and wrote a companion book viewing the financial crisis as a crime story, Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org

Read the full article →

Lauren Ashburn: Ex-Oilman Trace Adkins on Obama: ‘He’s Hamstrung’

June 16, 2010

Trace Adkins may be best known for his cowboy-style country music crooning, but in his first in-depth interview about the BP oil spill, this former oil rig roughneck and derrickman reveals he’s unhappy with BP’s “company man” mentality and the media’s portrayal of his former profession. And he insists the president, despite his rhetoric, is powerless. “He’s hamstrung now,” Adkins says. Without opening leases on the continental shelf and drilling for oil in “depths that are more manageable,” he says companies are forced to drill in deeper water where the risks are exponentially greater. But he believes the actions that led to the Deepwater Horizon well disaster are not the fault of the federal Minerals Management Service (MMS). While President Obama named a new head of MMS today after firing the previous leader for not adequately monitoring rigs, Adkins paints a different picture of the agency. “As far as the coziness with MMS…when that orange helicopter landed on the heliport, everybody’s butt puckered… [MMS] had complete free reign.” So what’s Adkins’ solution? “There’s nothing we’re going to do to stop it,” he says. “They don’t want to come out and say ‘well there’s really nothing we can do about it’. They can’t say that, but I can. ” We caught up with Adkins on his 64-acre farm in Tennessee. Q: What is the advice you have? Lift the moratorium on drilling, first of all. I don’t know how many tens of thousands of wells we drill in the Gulf of Mexico. But how many times have you heard about this happening? I think that is a pretty good track record, and the chances of it happening again are even less now because they’re going to learn from this and this is not going to happen again. I’m not going to say never. Chances are going to be slim. The President was going to open up some of those leases on the continental shelf, in water that we absolutely know how to do it, in depths that are more manageable. And he should go ahead and do that, but he’s hamstrung now. But he should. As far as any advice about the well, it’s gonna have to sand itself up. It’s going to have to bridge over is what we call it; at some point bring enough material into bore that it will clog itself up and it will stop. Could take some time. That’s what’s going to stop it. There’s nothing we’re going to do to stop it. Nobody will tell anybody that, but I’ll tell ‘em. They don’t want to come out and say ‘well there’s really nothing we can do about it’. They can’t say that, but I can. Q: What about a nuclear explosion? God, what a bad idea. No, it’s not a solution. You have an open hole going into a reservoir that is under high pressure. And if you create enough of an explosion that you cover it up with a bunch of material, it will just be a few months and that pressure is going to find its way out of there and seep through all of that material. If that’s what they’re trying to accomplish by blowing it up and creating a pile of rubble; I don’t know what they expect to accomplish by something like that. Q: What’s your advice to BP? Pay for your mess. That’s’ all they can do. They’re going to have to pay for the mess and probably change their name. They’ve pretty much soiled BP at this point. Q: Will the oil stop at some point? Yeah, it will. It’s not like an artesian well. It’s not going to continue in perpetuity. If it did, we wouldn’t have the oil crisis we have today. Every well we ever drilled would still be producing and we wouldn’t have anything to worry about. But they do deplete. It will stop. Q: Do you watch the coverage of the BP oil spill? I’ve been keeping up with it, sure. Q: Did your time on the oil rig make you feel closer to the story? Yeah, sure. As a matter of fact, I was asked by the folks at Transocean [drilling contractor]…to record a video for them [that] addressed that audience there at the memorial service [May 25th]. I was proud to be asked to do that and glad to do it. It’s a brotherhood out there. It’s a very dangerous occupation. We all knew that and we all looked out for one another. It was a team- type atmosphere out there. You were looking out for one another. Always. One of the things I’ve been a little dismayed by is that some of the coverage seems to try to make it look like some of those guys out there are reckless, irresponsible yahoos. And nothing could be farther from truth. And as far as the coziness with MMS, I’m here to tell you when that orange helicopter landed on the heliport, everybody’s butt puckered. There was no coziness. When MMS landed on the rig, everybody got really uptight. They’d come unannounced, they’d get off helicopters and start walking. They wouldn’t even tell anybody what they were looking for, where they were going to go or what they were going to do. They had complete free rein. And you had to be ready any time for them to land. And we always were. I worked on a drilling rig and derrick for 6 years- three years as a roughneck –and was promoted three years as a derrickman- assistant driller. I don’t know how many wells we drilled, but we ain’t never drilled a well in over 200 feet of water. So the blowout preventer was always above water. It was on the riser pipe – it was standing up below the rig floor. We maintained it, serviced it, function- tested it every week. More regularly if we thought we needed to. And that’s what failed on the Deepwater Horizon well – was the blowout preventer. When a blowout preventer fails in just under 5000 feet of water: Game over. There’s nothing you can do about it. The reality is that they haven’t been able to secure the rights to drill where they know how to do it. So they’ve been forced out into deep water and the risks get exponentially greater and this is what this you end up with. Q: Do you feel for families of the victims? Only in last couple days have I being hearing stuff about some of shortcuts the BP company man was making out on the rig and some of the things that I heard that he demanded of Transocean. I know I worked for some tool pushers [rig managers] when I was offshore who would have looked at that company man and told him to’ go to hell- ‘it’s going to be the end my crew and I’m not going to do it’. But for some reason they did what the company man wanted them to do. I trusted my life a lot quicker to that old tube pusher who had been drilling wells for 30 years than I did to that company man who just graduated from college. Q: Why did you quit? I wanted to try [singing]. In ’91, things were getting a little tough in the oil field and Global Marine was starting to lay some people off. I talked to my wife and said, ‘hey, you know, I think I’m going to take a voluntary layoff and let’s go to Nashville and see what we can do’ and that’s what we did. Trace Adkins grew up near Shreveport , La. He spent six years in the late ’80s as a roughneck and derrickman for Global Marine on an oil rig in the Gulf before launching his music career. He’ll be on tour with Toby Keith beginning June 19th in Holmdel, NJ. He releases a new CD ‘Cowboy’s Back in Town’ August 24th.

Read the full article →

Bernie Madoff: "F–k My Victims"

June 7, 2010

Bernie Madoff appears to have none of the remorse expected of a man staring down a 150-year sentence. According to a lengthy new piece by Steve Fishman in New York magazine, Madoff, who apparently pals around with a former mob boss and a spy in a federal prison in Butner, North Carolina told a fellow inmante, “F— my victims. I carried them for twenty years, and now I’m doing 150 years.” Madoff, whose con artist bona fides seems to have turned some fellow inmates into “groupies,” even indicated to other prisoners that some of his victims actually deserved to have their money taken from them. Overall, Madoff comes off as cocksure, unrepentant and a bit miffed at the world. Here’s New York magazine: He was past apologizing. In prison, he crafted his own version of events. From MCC, Madoff explained the trap he was in. “People just kept throwing money at me,” Madoff related to a prison consultant who advised him on how to endure prison life. “Some guy wanted to invest, and if I said no, the guy said, ‘What, I’m not good enough?’ ” One day, Shannon Hay, a drug dealer who lived in the same unit in Butner as Madoff, asked about his crimes. “He told me his side. He took money off of people who were rich and greedy and wanted more,” says Hay, who was released in December. People, in other words, who deserved it. The idea that Madoff “carried” his investors or those in his employ, was echoed by earlier comments he reportedly made to another prison. Late last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that Madoff told Kenneth C. White, a convicted bank robber, that he “carried” his employees for years and felt that they had ?turned their back on him” In December, Madoff reportedly suffered a broken nose and fractured ribs in a prison fight. (It was initially reported that Madoff fell out of bed.) Convicted of a decades-long Ponzi scheme, Madoff’s total take from investors is said to approach $19 billion Read the entire piece at New York magazine here.

Read the full article →

`Black Boxes’ Retrieved After Libya Crash Kills 103; Boy Is Only Survivor

May 12, 2010

By Alaa Shahine and Franz Wild May 13 (Bloomberg) — An Airbus SAS jet’s “black box” voice and data recorders were recovered from the wreckage of the Afriqiyah Airways flight that crashed on landing in Tripoli, Libya, killing all but one of the 104 people on board. Rescue workers recovered 96 bodies after yesterday’s accident along with the flight recorders, Libya’s official JANA news agency said, citing Transportation Minister Mohamed Zeidan. The 93 passengers included 62 Dutch tourists, of whom one, a child, survived, according to Markus van Tol, a spokesman for the ANWB Royal Dutch Tourist Association. The twin-engine A330 plane “crash-landed in the final approach” after the flight from Johannesburg, airline spokeswoman Elizabeth McQuiggan said in a telephone interview, adding that it’s not clear what caused the accident. The wide-body plane, powered by engines from General Electric Co. , first flew on Aug. 12 last year and was delivered new to Afriqiyah Airways on Sept. 8, according to U.K. aviation consultants Ascend Worldwide Ltd. The crash is the second in 12 months involving an A330, and Airbus said it will provide “full technical assistance” to air-accident investigators. Zeidan said there is no evidence that terrorism caused the accident, according to JANA. Passengers on the flight came from Britain, Finland, France, Germany, the Philippines and Zimbabwe, as well as Libya, South Africa and the Netherlands, he was reported as saying. Crash Site Metal parts from the plane, which crashed at about 6 a.m. local time, were strewn on the ground at the site of the impact, television footage showed, while rescue workers could be seen wearing masks and searching for survivors in the wreckage. The service, Afriqiyah Flight 771, was also carrying 11 crew members, the Tripoli-based airline said on its website . Afriqiyah, which was founded in 2001 and serves cities in Africa, Asia and Europe, had an 11-strong Airbus fleet before the crash, including two more A330s, Ascend safety director Paul Hayes said by e-mail. Of the 93 passengers on the flight, 11 had planned to end their journey in Tripoli, with the rest travelling to onward destinations, a spokeswoman for Johannesburg airport said at a press conference broadcast on Dutch television. Some 42 people were due to catch a connection to Dusseldorf in Germany, with 32 bound for Brussels, seven for London and one for Paris, she said. Dutch Victims Dutch holiday company Kras.nl, part of TUI Travel Plc, had clients on the plane, according to its website. Another tour operator from the Netherlands, Stip Reizen, said 38 of its customers were en route to Dusseldorf, the ANP news agency reported, citing a spokeswoman from the company, and the ANWB’s von Tol said some Brussels-bound passengers were also Dutch. “This is truly tragic and touches us all,” Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said on national television, adding that there is “uncertainty” about passenger logs and the exact number of people from his country on the flight. The child who survived is a boy who shouted “Holland, Holland,” while being treated for fractures at a hospital in Tripoli, leading to the conclusion regarding his nationality, Dutch Foreign Affairs minister Maxime Verhagen said. Forensic experts have been sent to the crash scene in order to aid identification of bodies, the minister said at a press conference in The Hague. The British Foreign Office confirmed on its website that one U.K. national was on the plane. Afriqiyah’s route network includes London Gatwick airport. An Airbus A330 operated by Air France crashed into the Atlantic Ocean on June 1 while en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, killing all 228 people on board. While more than 1,000 pieces of debris and 50 bodies have been found, no definitive reason has been presented for the accident, with early studies suggesting the plane flew into poor weather with speed sensors that weren’t properly functioning. The black boxes from the aircraft have yet to be recovered. Prior to the Air France incident the A330 had never had a fatal crash in commercial flight, though a development model came down after takeoff during testing, according Hayes, who says there are 650 of the jetliners in operation worldwide. To contact the reporters on this story: Franz Wild in Johannesburg at fwild@bloomberg.net ; Alaa Shahine in Cairo at asalha@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Polish President’s Body Returns Home as Country Comes to Terms With Loss

April 11, 2010

By David McQuaid and Piotr Skolimowski April 11 (Bloomberg) — The body of Polish President Lech Kaczynski is being flown to Warsaw this afternoon as the country deals with the aftermath of yesterday’s plane crash that wiped out key members of its political elite on their way to Russia, where they were to mark the 70th anniversary of a massacre of Polish officers. Coffins carrying the bodies of 60-year-old Kaczynski and his wife, Maria, will arrive at Warsaw’s military airfield at 2 p.m. local time today. The two were identified yesterday by the late president’s twin brother Jaroslaw, who heads the opposition Law and Justice Party. A 90-minute ceremony will be held at the airfield, after which the president’s coffin will be borne in a funeral procession through Warsaw to the Presidential Palace. “This is the most tragic event in the history of Poland outside wartime,” Prime Minister Donald Tusk said in a televised speech yesterday. “Such a dramatic event is unprecedented in the modern world.” Wailing sirens interrupted life across the country at noon today as Poles observed 2 minutes of silence and all traffic was brought to a halt. The crash also killed central bank Governor Slawomir Skrzypek and leaders of the country’s main opposition parties and military, including the Army Chief of Staff Franciszek Gagor. The accident happened as the aircraft struck trees in heavy fog on landing approach in Smolensk, killing all 96 on board, according to Russia’s Emergency Ministry . Ceremonial Duties Under Poland’s constitution the duties of the president, which are largely ceremonial, will be assumed by the speaker of the lower house of parliament, Bronislaw Komorowski . He will set a date for a presidential election within two weeks and the vote must be held within 60 days. Komorowski is the candidate of Tusk’s Civic Platform party and polls show he was poised to defeat Kaczynski in presidential elections, originally scheduled for the second half of the year. Executive power under Poland’s constitution is concentrated in the hands of the prime minister as head of government. The president has the power to veto legislation and make some appointments, including generals, judges, ambassadors and the governor of the central bank. Kaczynski, a former anti-communist dissident who promised Poles a “moral revolution,” came to power in October 2005. “Two candidates for president are dead along with almost the whole leadership of the leading opposition party,” said Edmund Wnuk-Lipinski, a sociologist at the Polish Academy of Sciences. “It’s hard to imagine it won’t have consequences for the way politics is practiced in Poland.” Market Stability Piotr Wiesiolek , a deputy governor of the central bank, will temporarily assume the governorship. The central bank’s Monetary Policy Council will meet on April 12 to discuss how to proceed. The death of the governor won’t affect the zloty, which is up 6 percent against the euro this year, or the country’s financial stability, board member Anna Zielinska-Glebocka said in a phone interview. Tusk’s chief adviser, Michal Boni , said in televised comments there is no need for emergency measures to stabilize the economy after the deaths. Boni, who is in constant contact with Wiesiolek, said the authorities stand ready to act should the need arise. Implications “We do not see any negative implications for markets,” said Simon Quijano-Evans , head of Europe, the Middle East and Africa at Credit Agricole Cheuvreux, in an e-mailed note to clients. “Poland’s constitutional framework is solid and clearly states the steps that have to be taken in such a situation, and the economic system will continue to function in an orderly manner, with the central bank taking a very clearly- defined role.” European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet said he was “saddened and shocked” to hear of the accident and that he “deeply regrets the loss of a highly esteemed” colleague. Hundreds of Poles gathered in front of the presidential palace, lighting candles, laying flowers and praying. The roads leading to the palace were crowded with onlookers as the police blocked off the surrounding area. Churches around the country announced services to commemorate the dead. “I thought it’s some stupid April Fool’s kind of a joke when I heard the news and I am in such a state of shock that I can’t stop crying,” said Maria Przyborska, a 54-year old teacher from Warsaw, who laid roses at the palace gates. “I didn’t vote for Kaczynski, but this was my president and I can’t understand how this could happen.” World Leaders Respond The delegation was to attend an anniversary ceremony commemorating the murder of thousands of Poles killed in the spring of 1940 by Soviet forces under Josef Stalin at the Katyn forest, close to the city of Smolensk. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on April 7 hosted a meeting with Tusk in an effort to heal the two countries’ difference over the massacre, making him the first Russian leader to pay his respects to the more than 4,000 Polish officers killed in the Katyn forest, a crime denied by the Kremlin for half a century. U.S. President Barack Obama said he called Tusk to express his “deepest condolences to the people of Poland on the tragic deaths,” according to a statement. The “loss is devastating to Poland, to the United States, and to the world. President Kaczynski was a distinguished statesman who played a key role in the Solidarity movement, and he was widely admired in the United States as a leader dedicated to advancing freedom and human dignity.” ‘Grief and Mourning’ Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ordered “a thorough investigation in full and closest cooperation with the Polish side,” according to a statement on the Kremlin’s Web site. He declared April 12 a day of mourning. Medvedev also addressed the citizens of Poland on state television to say “all Russians share your grief and mourning. I want to express my deepest, most heartfelt condolences to the people of Poland, and my empathy and support to families and friends of the victims.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the deaths a “political and human tragedy for Poland, for our neighbor country,” in comments broadcast by N24 television out of Berlin. “I gladly remember that Lech Kaczynski invited me to the Polish national holiday on the 11th of November 2008, that was a very special gesture also for a neighbor country like Germany; we spent many, many hours talking about Polish and European history.” ‘Shocked’ Israeli President Shimon Peres said his country is “shocked by the report of the terrible tragedy that has struck Poland,” in a statement distributed by e-mail yesterday. Israel “shares in the mourning of the Polish people and the free world.” Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown said “the whole world will be saddened and shocked as a result of this tragic death,” according to a statement. The government of the largest of the 10 former communist nations to join the European Union since 2004 held an emergency cabinet meeting yesterday after the crash. The country, whose economy was the only EU member to avoid a recession during the credit crisis, will hold a week of national mourning, Komorowski said in comments broadcast by TVP INFO. ‘No Divisions’ “In the face of this tragedy we are all together; there are no divisions, no differences,” Komorowski said. The plane, a Tupolev 154 built in 1990, clipped the tree line at about 10:50 a.m. yesterday Moscow time and broke in two as the pilot attempted a fourth landing amid heavy fog at a military airport near Smolensk, Rossiya-24 said, citing officials at the scene. Newswire RIA quoted an unnamed Russian security official as saying pilot error was a factor in the accident. The Tu-154 model has been around since 1968. Russia’s largest airline, OAO Aeroflot, stopped operating the plane in January of this year, spokesman Oleg Mikhailov said in a phone interview yesterday. “There hasn’t been an accident on this scale in politics since the airplane was invented,” said Wnuk-Lipinski. “It’s such a shock that I still find it hard to believe this has really happened.” Pilots’ Decision Rossiya-24 TV showed live footage of rescue workers attempting to extinguish pockets of fire among the wreckage at the airport, about 320 kilometers (200 miles) west of Moscow. “The plane was landing in bad visibility,” Andrei Yevseyenkov, press secretary for the Smolensk region’s governor told Rossiya-24. “Dispatchers at Severny military airport suggested that the plane land in Minsk (about 200 kilometers away) but the pilots took their own landing decision.” Medvedev dispatched the Emergency Ministry’s Sergei Shoigu to the site of the crash and formed a special commission headed by Putin to investigate the cause. Tusk and Putin also met at the crash site and laid flowers by the wreckage. The two will talk with Russian officials conducting the investigation. The Investigative Committee of the Prosecutor General’s Office is looking into whether bad weather, human error, a technical malfunction or other reasons caused the crash, according to a statement on the committee’s Web site. A criminal case has been initiated, it said. Both flight data recorders have been recovered from the plane’s wreckage and are now being examined by Polish and Russian investigators in Moscow, Russia’s Interstate Aviation Committee said in a statement on its Web site. Russian specialists waited for the Polish team of prosecutors, air- safety specialists and pathologists to arrive before opening the black boxes, Polish government spokesman Pawel Gras said today at a news conference in Warsaw. Political Elite Among the victims were key members of Poland’s biggest opposition party, Law and Justice, including current and former heads of the party’s parliamentary caucus, Grazyna Gesicka and Przemyslaw Gosiewski as well as the party’s main economic expert Aleksandra Natalli-Swiat , and deputy parliamentary speaker Krzysztof Putra . The list also includes deputy parliamentary speaker Jerzy Szmajdzinski , who was the presidential candidate of the opposition Left Democratic Alliance. That means the crash killed the presidential candidates of two of Poland’s three largest parties. Kaczynski had already won the endorsement of the opposition Law and Justice party. He was to officially declare his candidacy in May. ‘Twist of Fate’ “These are all people who are on the front line for Poland domestically and internationally,” said Marek Matraszek, Warsaw-based head of CEC Government Relations, which advises companies in their relations with the government. “They will be very difficult to replace.” Ryszard Kaczorowski, the last Polish president in exile during World War II, Janusz Kurtyka, the head of the Institute of National Remembrance, which investigates Nazi and Soviet crimes against Poles, were also on board the plane, according to a list of passengers posted on the government’s Web site. Former Czech President Vaclav Havel , who led his country’s fight against Communism, called the crash a tragedy without comparison. “I would say that we weren’t that close politically but that is irrelevant,” Havel said yesterday in an interview on Czech state-run television. “Even if it had been a different Polish president, to have all this occur together, it’s an unbelievable twist of fate.” To contact the reporter on this story: David McQuaid in Warsaw at dmcquaid1@bloomberg.net Piotr Skolimowski in Warsaw at pskolimowski@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →