Around the Web: Tweak Show

Rather than providing a terrifying wakeup call to reshape our financial system, the economic meltdown turned out to be a boon to bank lobbyists.

The fight for financial reform looks like it will be a long war.

Who won the first battle? The too-big-to-fail bankers, who spared no expense in protecting their interests. Now they’re stronger than ever, and the job of regulating them has largely been turned over to the same regulators who failed to protect the country from the recent debacle.

House and Senate conferees are still haggling over the final details. In the latest “compromise” to emerge, Rep. Barney Frank has given up fighting for an independent consumer financial protection agency, agreeing with the Senate proposal to house consumer protection within the Federal Reserve.

It hasn’t helped that the man who was supposed to lead the charge  – President Obama – ­ has largely been missing in action. An independent consumer financial agency was once a linchpin of President Obama’s financial reform package. But it’s gone the way of other provisions that the big banks opposed. The president also once threatened to veto reform if it didn’t contain strong derivatives regulation, now the administration is actually working to undermine it.

One of the most articulate advocates of a stronger overhaul of the financial system isn’t waiting around to see the final bill to declare a verdict. Baseline Scenario’s Simon Johnson declares the reform effort a failure. Rather than joining with a handful of congressman and senators fighting for a more robust overhaul, Johnson concludes that the White House “punted, repeatedly, and elected instead for a veneer of superficial tweaking.”

Now the focus of financial industry lobbying will shift to the regulators, who will have the task of writing the new rules the administration and Congress balked at providing. The conference committee is televising its proceedings. It’s not a pretty picture, as when Texas Republican congressman Jeb Hensarling argued to gut some controls on bankers’ compensation out of concern that the federal government would be setting bank tellers’ pay.

If you have a strong stomach, you can view the remaining sessions here. The Democrats want the negotiations wrapped up by July 4.

Around the Web / Martin Column - 06/21/2010

Around the Web: Typos and Tired Arguments

Did a typo or a technical glitch cause “a moment of uncontrolled selling” aggravating an already skittish stock market into a full-blown plunge? The old gray lady diplomatically labels it “an errant trade.”  But CNBC calls it a typo.

Meanwhile the fight over financial reform goes on. If some of it sounds hauntingly familiar, that’s because…it is.

Unearthing old arguments against corporate reforms of the past, columnist Michael Hiltzik finds opponents trotted out the same lame doomsday scenarios 75 years ago they’re offering today.

In 1933, writes Hiltzik in the Los Angeles Times, the American Bankers Association urged members to “fight…to the last ditch” an “unsound, unscientific, unjust and dangerous” proposal Congress was considering.

What kind of dangerous radical thing could those congressional crazies have been up to?

Federal deposit insurance.

Just like financial reforms of the 1930s, most corporate reforms, Hiltzik reminds us, almost always turn out to be positive for their industries.

At Baseline Scenario, James Kwak does a good job dismantling the arguments against auditing the Fed, the proposal which appears to have been the subject of a Senate compromise Thursday that would allow a substantial audit to go forward.

The Obama administration has been fighting the proposed audit arguing that it will “politicize” the Fed and that the ordinary flawed mortals who inhabit Congress don’t have the intellectual chops to oversee the Fed’s monetary titans. “The idea that monetary policy is too technical for Congress to understand, and therefore should be done in secret, I don’t buy,” Kwak writes. “So is, say, climate policy. That’s a complex scientific topic, of crucial importance to the future of our nation (and the human race), that is clearly beyond the ability of Congress to understand and discuss responsibly. But we don’t exempt the EPA from Congressional oversight.”

Around the Web - 05/07/2010

Around the Web: Taking Reform Fight to the Streets

The Republicans apparently think it’s too soon to start debating Wall Street reform, and the Democrats didn’t seem to mind too much.

After all, their secret weapon is coming to town: The banker America loves to hate, Goldman-Sach’s Lloyd Blankfein, who will testify Tuesday before the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

But the political theater can’t conceal what’s really happening. The lobbyists are working overtime working to kill, dismember or water down legislation.

The public’s continuing frustration and rage over the on-going bailout and continuing disconnect between Wall Street and Main Street finds little expression in what passes for debate in D.C.

A handful of Democratic senators – Kaufman, Shaheen, Merkley, Brown, Sanders, Levin and Cantwell – are waging a battle for the party’s soul against a leadership and administration that wants only as much reform as will not offend Wall Street. Meanwhile, the Republican leadership postures and preens and preaches about how the Dems’ proposals will hurt Main Street while they try to woo Wall Street campaign donors away from the Democrats.

What we have been getting from the Obama administration are words of caution, from the president to top economic adviser Lawrence Summers.

The Fourteenth Banker suggests a disinvestment campaign like the one that brought pressure on South Africa.

There will also be demonstrations across the country all week to galvanize public support for reform.

Around the Web / Martin Column - 04/26/2010

Around the Web: Rookie Senator Fumbles Financial Reform

The news media / blogosphere have been having too much fun at the expense of the former Cosmo model who could be the key 41st vote if Republicans decide to kill financial reform.

It’s no shock Sen. Scott Brown would oppose it, given the enthusiastic support he got from Wall Street in his recent election, taking the Massachusetts seat long held by Ted Kennedy.

But Brown apparently got a little flustered when a reporter asked him to explain what exactly he was opposed to. It was one of those trick questions: What areas in the bill would Brown like to see fixed?

Brown responded by asking what the reporter thought. “Well, what areas do you think should be fixed?” Brown said. “I mean, you know, tell me. And then I’ll get a team and go fix it.’’

Eat the Press’s Jason Linkins snorted on Huffington Post: “Yes. Some reporter may want to point out the epic collapse of the derivatives market to Scott Brown, and he will assemble a team of... I don't know...sled dogs? To fix it? Is that good? Will that work?”

Brown told the Globe he opposed a consumer financial protection agency because it would add another layer of regulation.

“Which is, of course, true,” pointed out Washington Monthly’s Political Animal Steven Benen. “ That's the point of the legislation. The financial industry went unchecked and nearly destroyed the global economy. That's why the legislation is being considered – to bring oversight and accountability through regulation.”

Brown also faces some hard second-guessing on a novel argument he made against financial reform on Face the Nation last week: it’s a jobs killer. He asserted that it would cost his state 35,000 jobs – about 17 percent of the state’s financial sector workforce.

When the Globe followed up to nail down Brown’s source for that statement, his staff told the newspaper he got the figures from MassMutual, an insurance company based in the state that has opposed financial reform.

But company officials said Brown had misunderstood them; they were talking about job losses the state had already suffered. Even those figures were grossly inflated, the Globe found. According to the state’s Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development, the state has lost about 19,000 jobs in the financial sector, which includes the insurance industry, and also at banks, securities firms, investment management companies, and real estate businesses.

A MassMutual official insisted the company agreed with Brown anyway; similar losses could result from financial reform, he insisted. Sen. Brown stood by his earlier statements.

Whatever. A Globe columnist found Brown’s projections, as well as MassMutual’s, preposterous. “The idea that anything in the Senate bill could create additional job losses on a similar scale as the damage caused by the earthquake in the real estate and brokerage industries is simply nuts,” Globe columnist Steven Syre wrote.

Perhaps sensing an opportunity in Brown’s confusion, President Obama put in phone call to Brown from Air Force One.

The president probably didn’t bring up the question posed by Washington Monthly’s Benen: “Do you ever get the feeling that maybe Scott Brown isn't quite ready for prime-time, and that his service in the Senate is more humiliating than it should be?”

Around the Web / Martin Column - 04/21/2010

Around the Web: Can WAMU be the Blue Cross of Financial Reform?

During the debate over health care reform, the public was galvanized by the disclosure of  outrageous insurance rate increases by Blue Cross.

It was that public outrage that finally got the healthcare legislation passed over Republican opposition.

Now Senate backers of  a strong overhaul of the financial system hope that televised hearings on the details of the reckless lending, incompetent management and multiple regulatory failures that sank the nation’s largest savings and loan will fuel support for financial reform in the face of relentless opposition from Wall Street.

The hearings got underway Tuesday in the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, headed by Sen. Carl Levin,D-Michigan.

In strong contrast to hearings  held recently by the congressionally appointed committee to investigate the financial crisis, Levin’s opening hearing was tough, pointed and thorough. Levin said he intended for the hearings to serve as a case study for what happened at financial institutions during the meltdown. He compared WAMU’s selling and packaging of  high-risk option ARM and no-doc loans to dumping “pollutants into a river.”

Calling Washington Mutual’s former CEO Kerry Killinger “a forgotten villain of the financial crisis", Fortune’s Colin Barr sets the stage here. Business Week recounts the testimony here. CSPAN carried the hearings live they can be viewed here.

The star witnesses from WAMU were Killinger and former Chief Operating Officer Stephen Rotella. Killinger testified that WAMU was unfairly targeted by regulators because it not “too clubby to fail” as were larger financial institutions. Killinger insisted WAMU could have worked its way out of the crisis if regulators hadn’t eventually shut it down.

On Friday, we’ll hear from the regulators, who were well aware of WAMU’s questionable lending and securitization but continued to find that the savings and loan was financially sound.

Around the Web / Martin Column / Outrage - 04/13/2010

Around the Web: From Maestro to Cornered Rat

When he used to appear before Congress during boom times, Alan Greenspan was worshipped as a hero. The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward wrote an insider’s, book-length Valentine dubbing him the maestro. That was a stark contrast to the bruising the former Fed chair took this week from the panel appointed to investigate the financial meltdown. The reviews of his performance were even tougher.

No wonder. Greenspan lamely tried to evade responsibility for the policies he orchestrated that led to the worst economic crisis since the Depression. CBS Econwatch blogger Jill Schlesinger labeled Greenspan’s appearance “ a trip to the land of denial.”

Brooksley Born, one of the commissioners on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, bluntly told Greenspan that the Fed “failed to prevent the housing bubble, failed to prevent the predatory lending scandal, failed to prevent the activities that would bring the financial system to the verge of collapse.”

A little historical context: Greenspan helped undermine Born’s efforts to regulate derivatives when she was head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission in the Clinton Administration.

Frederic Sheehan, who’s written several books lambasting Greenspan and the Fed, credited the panel with doing a decent job in preparing for his testimony. Sheehan noted that Greenspan wasn’t used to having to answer follow-ups and seemed stumped. When he used to appear before the Senate as Fed chief, senators “were afraid, they didn’t want to look foolish in asking simple questions. A lot of the really simple questions are the ones that are still unaddressed or need to be addressed but never were when he was Fed chairman, particularly about money and credit. He walked away from those questions again today.”
One common theme in reviewing Greenspan’s performance was incredulity at his assertion that he was caught by surprise by the mortgage crisis. Diane E. Thompson, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, said in an interview with Washington Independent’s Anne Lowrey that she and other members of the Federal Reserve’s Advisory Council started warning Greenspan about mortgage problems in the early 2000s.

Meanwhile Angelides has problems of his own. Members of his panel complained to the New York Times that he seemed more interested in headline-grabbing hearings than deep investigation, that the panel had wasted too much time getting started and had issued no subpoenas even though it has the power to do so. As David Dayen writes on Firedoglake, “If anyone was watching this but me and the WSJ, they would have seen a cornered rat. Born nailed Greenspan – although, given the relative lack of interest in the FCIC, the benefit to that will be merely psychic in nature.” Stay tuned….

Around the Web / Federal Reserve / Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission / Martin Column - 04/09/2010

Around the Web: How a Big Bank Shows Its Gratitude

While the mainstream press has focused on the dubious notion that the Citibank bailout will turn out to be a good deal for taxpayers, the Center for Media and Democracy tallies up the real cost of the entire bailout so far: $4.6 trillion, with $2 trillion outstanding.

Most of that money comes from the Federal Reserve, not the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which amounts to a measly $700 million. The Fed bank dole is handled in complete secrecy, which is why Bloomberg News is suing to get the Fed to open its books, which got the WheresOurMoney treatment here.

As for Citibank and the supposed bonanza for taxpayers, Dean Baker takes it apart in this Beat the Press column. In any case, Citibank is eternally gratefully to taxpayers. Here’s how they’re showing it.

Get out the popcorn. Phil Angelides’ Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is gearing up for another round of hearings April 7 through 9, this one on subprime loans and scheduled to feature former Fed chair Alan Greenspan, who before the bubble burst, used to take pride in being able to obfuscate any economic issue. If Angelides thought Goldman’s CEO was like a salesman peddling faulty cars, I wonder what he makes of Greenspan, who worshipped the financial deregulation that made the wreck not only possible, but probable.

Angelides meanwhile, appears to be playing down expectations for the FCIC, kvetching to the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board about the small size of the panel’s budget ($8 million) and short time frame (final report due in December).

While everybody was bowing down to Greenspan, they should have been listening to Harry Markopolos, the man who was tried to blow the whistle on Bernie Madoff but was repeatedly ignored by the SEC. Now he’s written a book. He doesn’t think the SEC has improved much.  Russell Mokhiber has a good interview with Markopolos in his Corporate Crime Reporter.

Around the Web / Federal Reserve / Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission / Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - 04/01/2010

Around the Web: On to Financial Reform

With the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership declaring historic victory on health care reform, the next big item could be fixing the troubled banking system.

It could make the battle over health care look like a walk in the park. The financial industry, Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats are all lined up to kill or weaken it.

They’ve already succeeded in getting Sen. Chris Dodd to weaken his reform proposal, which the Senate Banking Committee passed Monday on a 13 to 10 party line vote. Here’s the Atlantic’s take, including what Dodd had to say Monday.

Getting Dodd to soften his stance probably wasn’t that tough. He’s traditionally a staunch ally of Wall Street and only took a strong stance when it looked he was going to have to face angry voters. But then Dodd dropped out of the race, became a lame duck and returned to form as the financial industry’s best friend.

For example, Dodd has abandoned support for a strong independent financial consumer protection agency, instead placing it within the Federal Reserve, which has ignored consumers in the past even though it had authority to protect them. In National Journal’s Clive Crook’s assessment, Dodd’s proposal will enshrine “too big to fail” banks in law rather than fix the problem.

Now the full Senate will consider it. Here’s Barry Ritholtz’s analysis of what should be on the final bill.

Around the Web / Consumer Financial Protection Agency - 03/22/2010

Around the Web: Rewarding Fed Failure

Bottom line on the new Chris Dodd reform proposal: much watered down from his earlier proposal and maybe even weaker than the weak House bill.

Here’s the summary from A New Way Forward: “The bill contains no real solution to too-big-to-fail, no real enforcement guarantees, the bad guys are off the hook, the financial system will continue to be as big and dangerous and full of risk taxpayers will likely own. Dodd made a few good steps forward and major steps backwards”. The rest of their analysis is here.

From the Atlantic Wire, a solid roundup of assessments. The takeaway: Too many concessions to the big banks, and it is still faces many obstacles to passage. And who exactly besides Chris Dodd and Wall Street thinks it’s a great idea to house consumer protection within the Federal Reserve? Only last year, Reuters reminds us, Dodd was labeling the Fed “an abymsal failure."

But Elizabeth Warren, the congressional bailout monitor who has campaigned aggressively for strong reform, including an independent agency to protect financial consumers, offered a lukewam endorsement of Dodd’s plan.

I’ll give Alan Sherter the last word. When Dodd says that he doesn’t have the votes for an independent financial consumer protection agency, what he really means is that “lawmakers have more to gain by advocating the interests of banks than those of consumers.”

Around the Web / Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Derivatives / Executive Pay - 03/15/2010

Around the Web: Will the Dodd Abide?

The fight for financial reform enters a new stage this week when Sen. Chris Dodd launches his latest version of his proposal. The New York Times highlights the senator’s weak nods in the direction of granting shareholders more power: giving them “advisory” votes on executive pay and the ability to nominate board members.

Dodd’s earlier proposal was considered stronger than the House reform bill, which was strongly supported by consumer advocates and opposed by bankers and the Obama administration. Dodd is a long-time ally of financial and insurance industries who have backed him over the years. But those close ties were undermining him politically after the financial crisis, so he was attempting to forge the appropriate image of a tough politician. Then Dodd dropped out of his tough reelection bid and he began to back off from some of his positions, like support for a strong and independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency. His effort to negotiate a bipartisan bill broke down and now some are reporting that Dodd has returned to some of the tough positions he had advocated. Here’s Calculated Risk’s breakdown of the proposal Dodd is about to unveil. Though it’s hard to imagine the push for financial reform going any slower, that’s what Republicans want, the Washington Post reports.

At the same time, the American Bankers Association meets in Washington this week, Business Week reports. They are ready to battle any attempt at greater consumer financial protections. They’ll defeat it outright if they can, and fight to water it down if they can’t kill it.

Around the Web / Consumer Financial Protection Agency - 03/14/2010