Is born-again bank buster for real?

Who is Sandy Weill and why should we care that he now says he thinks big banks should be broken up?

Weill built Citibank into the financial colossus whose spectacular collapse in 2008 helped tank our economy. He said he had a vision of creating giant financial supermarkets that conjured up convenience, friendly service, well-lit aisles and lots of choices. But what he was actually building were massive financial tankers fueled on fraud and risky, toxic assets no one understood, kept afloat with dirty back-room deals, hijacked regulators, lobbying and campaign contributions.

To make that vision a reality, Weill also did more than anyone else to drive the final spike through the heart of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law, which for seventy years had kept risky investment banking separate from federally-guaranteed traditional banking, reducing the risk of bank failures. President Clinton signed the bill repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999.

For his efforts, Weill, 79, made gazillions before he retired in 2006, ahead of the financial collapse.

He also earned a spot among a very select group - Time Magazine’s “25 people to blame for the financial crisis.”  Weill, Time said, helped create the country’s “swollen banks,” which remain one of the economy most serious unsolved problems.

His Citibank is one the worst, and remains on life support only through $45 million [million?] worth of the taxpayers’ generosity.

It didn’t help Weill’s reputation that a few weeks after Citibank accepted its bailout, he used the Citibank jet to fly to his vacation in Cabo, a flight immortalized by the poets on the New York Post copy desk with the headline: “Pigs Fly.”

It was only six months ago that Weill announced he was “downsizing” and simplifying his life, selling his Central Park West apartment in Manhattan for $88 million – more than double what he’d paid for it, as well as attempting to unload his yacht for nearly $60 million. Weill moved to another apartment downstairs.

But downsizing doesn’t mean the same for an uber-banker that it does for the rest of us. He spent $31 million on the largest real estate-deal in Sonoma County’s history, buying a Tuscan-inspired villa that includes 8 acres of vineyards, seven miles of private hiking trails, and an 11,605-square-foot mansion made with 800-year-old Italian roof tiles and 200-year-old wood beams, and a fire truck that comes with seven firefighters. A real estate agent cautioned against viewing Weill’s purchase as a sign that the real estate market in the county north of San Francisco was recovering. As one Coldwell Banker agent said: “[The sale] is not an indicator of an emerging real estate recovery, but rather the ability of the world’s wealthiest individuals to buy what they desire.”

There’s been all kinds of speculation about why has now come out in favor breaking up big banks. But the best way to judge whether he’s serious, or just trying to get a little good PR, is to examine how much cash he’s willing to spend to make it happen.

When bankers, led by Weill, wanted to repeal Glass-Steagall, they fought for 20 years and spent millions in lobbying and campaign contributions before they won. The big banks would certainly put up a similar fight against its reinstatement. No one knows better than Weill that when it comes to changing banking regulations, it’s not what people say that matters; money talks.

How much is Weill willing to spend in support of his newfound conviction? Without massive amounts of money behind them, his words are no more than an old mogul’s sad, empty cry for attention.

 

 

 

Glass-Steagel / Lobbying / Martin Column - 07/30/2012

Bankers' gambles – now with a bailout guaranteed

After the 2008 banks bailout, we were promised that financial reform was going to prevent future bailouts.

Never again.

But as we approach the fourth anniversary of the financial collapse, we’re learning just how hollow those promises were.

The most recent example stems from reports that regulators have secretly designated derivatives clearinghouses too big to fail in a financial emergency.

That means that in a crisis, such clearinghouses, in which risky credit default swaps are traded, would be bailed out at taxpayer expense through secret access to cheap money at the Federal Reserve’s credit window.

That’s where the big banks and the rest of corporate America lined after the 2008 to borrow trillions at low interest – with no strings attached.

The Fed didn’t require the banks to share that low interest with consumers or homeowners. The Fed didn’t require that banks make some attempt to fix the foreclosure mess. The Fed didn’t require corporations hire the unemployed or lower outrageous CEO pay.

The Fed just shoveled out the cheap loans.

Now the Fed is planning to extend that generosity, as a matter of policy, to derivative clearinghouses – which puts taxpayers directly on the hook for Wall Street’s risky gambles, like the ones that recently cost J.P. Morgan Chase $2 billion.

While those trades didn’t threaten to sink the economy, it was the unraveling of those kinds of complex gambles that tanked the economy in 2008.

Nobody knows for sure how large the derivatives market is, but the estimates are truly mind-boggling. One derivatives expert estimates that there were $1.2 quadrillion in derivatives last year – 20 times the size of the world’s economy.

While requiring these derivatives to be traded on clearinghouses is supposed to increase transparency, that assumes regulators are aggressive, diligent and understand the trades.

But signaling that these derivatives should be eligible for a bailout is nothing short of insane, at least from the taxpayers’ perspective. From the bankers’ perspective, it’s a pretty good deal, and a reassuring indication that nothing much has changed since the financial crisis: the regulators are still deep in the bankers’ pocket.

Meanwhile, the real reforms that might have a shot at actually fixing the problems and protecting our economy from the big bankers’ addiction to risk get little or no consideration in what passes for political debate.

The best step we could take is to re-impose the Depression-era   Glass-Steagall Act, which creates walls between safe, vanilla, and consumer banking (which have traditionally been federally guaranteed, and riskier investment banking and derivatives trading But the bankers oppose Glass-Steagall, and for the present, they remain in control of both political parties and the regulators’ financial policies.

Federal Reserve / Glass-Steagel / Martin Column - 06/26/2012

Giving Toxic Waste a Bad Name

Face it, if we found out that a Vegas casino was run like our banking system, the worst strung out addict wouldn’t gamble there.

Even they wouldn’t be able to stand the stench.

Casino operators know you have to provide at least the appearance that the games aren’t crooked.

Casino operators know they can’t force people to spend their hard-earned money gambling on a toxic waste dump.

But the bankers and their political cronies who have been playing us for suckers forced us to pay to clean up the shambles, as well as the continuing costs of the broken economy.

Now the casino operators are trying to assure us that everything is hunky-dory, but that same foul scent is still wafting from their dumpsite. Goldman Sachs shrugs off  the Securities and Exchange Commission’s fraud charges, hiring the president’s former lawyer to fight them, while it rakes in eye-popping profits that beat even the most optimistic projections.

The man we hoped would clean up the mess, President Obama, appears at long last to be taking a more nimble, hands-on approach to financial reform than he did on health insurance reform. But the plans endorsed by him and the Democratic leadership contain too little actual reform and too much reshuffling of the same weak hand regulators have been bringing to the casino.

We’ll never win against the sharks the way the game is rigged now.

That’s the bitter lesson brought home by the revelations of the last month, from probes into the tragic bank follies of the Lehman and Washington Mutual collapses, and the  SEC lawsuit charging Goldman-Sachs with fraud.

As we learn more details of each of these debacles, they provide potent weapons  in the fight to overhaul the system that led to the financial meltdown.

Far from being an unforeseeable natural disaster, it was a predictable consequence of the system we still have in place today. In each case, the financial giants rigged the game with fraudulent bookkeeping and lack of disclosure while regulators looked the other way. And far from being isolated instances of improper conduct, the Lehman, WAMU and Goldman fiascoes are prime examples of how far the financial industry has fallen in common sense and ethical standards.

But the Democrat leadership has squandered its credibility on financial reform, offering legislation that largely preserves the status quo.

Rather than galvanizing public outrage against Wall Street into support for fundamental change to rebuild a financial system that truly serves our economy, the president and the Democratic leadership are caving in to Wall Street lobbyists and Republican obstructionists who pay lip service to reform while they block and dilute it.

Meanwhile, we’re treated to the truly disgraceful spectacle of each party accusing the other of having taken more campaign cash from Goldman-Sachs and the other major casino operators than the other.

The truth is they’re both beholden to the cash generated by the toxic dump of our financial system. The Democrats may be ahead in the fundraising game right now, but the Republicans are working hard to curry favor from Wall Street and catch up.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are left on the sidelines.

Fortunately we don’t have to stay there.
Several other Democratic senators have proposed amendments worthy of support.

Among the most articulate voices for a stronger version of reform is Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Delaware. Along with senators Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, Carl Levin D-MI, Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., Kaufman has proposed a bill that moves toward rebuilding the wall that used to separate traditional, federally guaranteed banking activities from high-risk speculative gambling. That wall was torn down when the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act was repealed during the Clinton Administration. In addition, a conservative Democrat who faces a tough reelection fight, Blanche Lincoln, D-Arkansas, has proposed derivatives regulation that is substantially tougher than that which has been proposed by the Obama Administration.

Now is the time to clean up the casino. We have to channel our  genuine, justified anger into action to push our politicians to do the right thing, whether they want to or not.

Action / Glass-Steagel / Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 04/20/2010

Finding Opportunity Among Democrats' Troubles

It’s the bankers, stupid!

President Obama, fresh from a stinging defeat in Massachusetts, came out swinging Thursday against the banks, promising a return to the spirit of Glass-Steagall.

The rhetoric was strong but the details were a little vague. It sounds like he’s suggesting limiting the size of banks as well as their ability to gamble with taxpayer backing. You can be sure the finance lobby will fight to block whatever new initiative the president offers.

Obama’s rhetoric is a year late but does provide opportunity nonetheless. The key thing is that Obama and the Democrats’ problems put real financial reform back on the table.

The debate over breaking up the banks has been fraught with fear-mongering and propaganda: supporters of the big banks argue business won’t have the resources to make big deals. Even smart people say dumb things in the debate, as Dean Baker points out. Broken-up banks will still be huge by any standard, just not quite so capable of taking the entire economy with them when they crash.

The obstacles to reform remain the same as they have been:

1.) a financial industry with unlimited resources for the fight

2.) politicians squeamish to take on their contributors in that industry, and only too willing to let bankers squiggle out of regulation in the legislative fine print

But Obama and other Democratic leaders have felt the sharp prick of the pitchforks in their rear ends.

They know that the public is aware of their clueless response to the financial crisis, shoveling billions to the titans of finance while failing to stem rising unemployment and foreclosures.

One step Obama didn’t take this morning was to scrap his entire financial team, the engineers of his too-comfy relationship to Wall Street and timid response to the crisis that has afflicted Main Street.

Except for 80-year-old Paul Volcker, the former Fed chief who has been born again as a reformer, they should all be fired.

On Thursday, Obama insisted he wasn’t afraid of a fight with the bankers. Certainly none of his team except Volcker have shown any inclination for doing or saying anything that would upset the bankers, let alone a brawl.

The current Fed chief, Ben Bernanke, is also feeling the chill from Massachusetts. Roll Call  is reporting that his confirmation for another term may be in peril, while The Hill reports that Senate Majority Harry Reid has “serious concerns” about how Bernanke, who has strong backing from Obama, plans to deal with the economy.

Now is the time to hold the president to his word. By all means contact Obama and applaud his tough speech Thursday. Contact your congressperson and senator and remind them that you’re paying attention to the reform battle and aren’t about to be fooled. Check out my open letters to Sens. Boxer and Feinstein for my bottom line on real reform.

We  need to tell the president and Congress that we won’t settle for phony reform that lacks transparency or a piddling tax on banks that represents just a fraction of their revenues. We need to tell them that we won’t settle for legislation alone – we need an antitrust crackdown to break the power of the big banks.

If you need ammunition for your phone calls and emails, here’s a study that shows how the financial industry has managed to thwart meaningful reform so far: it spent $344 million lobbying Congress – just in the first three quarters of 2009!

Meanwhile, Goldman-Sachs announced record profits last year, while it doled a mere $16.2 billion for bonuses.

Time will tell whether Obama is capable of delivering the fight he promised to back up his newfound populist punch. But let’s not give the president, or Congress, any excuse to back off or get distracted. Only relentless jabs from you and others will keep them from getting cozy again with their financial industry cronies.

The question right now is not whether Obama is up for the fight. The question is: can we turn our anger and frustration into a political force?

Glass-Steagel / Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama - 01/21/2010

Open Letters to Sens. Feinstein and Boxer

NO COMPROMISE TOP 10

As the debate over financial reform moves to the Senate I’ve written a couple of open letters to my senators. I’m not endorsing any particular legislative proposals but I do outline the items that shouldn’t be compromised.

Feel free to borrow my ideas for letters to your own senators, or to disagree. Whether you agree or disagree, I’d like to hear what you think.

What’s your bottom line on what financial reform should contain?

OPEN LETTER TO SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Dear Sen. Feinstein:

Throughout the economic crisis, you have continued to raise serious questions about whether the bailout was protecting the financial industry or the public. Now is the time to turn that skepticism into constructive action.

Sen. Feinstein, voters are counting on your continuing leadership to make sure Congress provides real financial reform to prevent future meltdowns and bailouts stemming from reckless practices and lack of government oversight.

Though you voted for the bailout, at the time, in September 2008, you compared the  preparations for the so-called financial rescue to the build-up to the war in Iraq. "There is a great deal of cynicism among those of us who have to live with having voted to go into Iraq based on misinformation and intelligence that later turned out not to be truthful," you said.

On March 23 of this year, you were among a group of senators who met with President Obama to express concern that his administration’s proposals didn’t go far enough, and that his economic advisers were many of the same people who oversaw the deregulatory fever that played such a key role in our financial crisis.

Unfortunately, Sen. Feinstein, your concerns have been borne out.

Financial reform as passed by the House of Representatives is filled with loopholes. Lobbyists from financial firms recently rescued from ruin by taxpayers have mounted a fierce campaign to maintain a system in which “too big to fail” institutions” can manipulate the regulatory system.

The good news is that Sen. Chris. Dodd has proposed much stronger legislation, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2009.  By all accounts, his proposal faces a bruising battle as the financial industry gathers all its forces to protect its interests. Sen. Dodd has indicated that compromise is inevitable.

But Sen. Feinstein, the stakes are too high to compromise on the most important aspects of reform. Some of these are contained in Sen. Dodd’s proposal. Others are contained in other legislative proposals under consideration in the session about to begin.

Please help make sure that these key elements of reform are not the victims of compromise:

• Vote against the confirmation of Ben Bernanke to another term as Federal Reserve chair. He was at the center of the bubbles before the meltdown and also helped engineer a bailout that profited Wall Street while Main Street suffered.

•Reinstate a modern-day form of Glass-Steagal, as proposed by Sens. McCain and Cantwell.

•Audit the Federal Reserve, as proposed in legislation sponsored by Reps. Paul and Grayson, which would open up the operations of the institution to public scrutiny for the first time.

•Reconsider and approve judicial cram-downs, which would give bankruptcy judges the power to lower mortgage payments. This would put real teeth in the Obama Administration’s anti-foreclosure efforts.

In the Dodd bill:

• Support creation of a strong, independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency, with regulatory oversight of the Community Reinvestment Act (not provided in the House bill)

•Support creation of a an Agency for Financial Stability, responsible for identifying, monitoring and addressing systemic risks posed by large complex companies and their products, with the authority to break up firms if they pose a threat to the financial stability of the country

• Remove exemptions (contained in the House reform bill) for banks and credit unions with assets of less than $10 billion – about 98 percent of deposit-taking institutions in the country.

• Bar pre-emption (also allowed in the House bill), which would let states, if they choose, to pass tougher financial regulations for nationally chartered banks.

• Don’t exempt other consumer-financial businesses,  such as auto dealers from oversight by the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (as the House bill does.)

• Give two agencies, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission broad authority to force derivatives markets onto exchanges where they pose less risk.

I’m urging you to put everything you’ve got behind this fight to protect consumers and homeowners. Voters put their trust and faith in you to see that their interests are protected, not compromised away. We’re relying on you to convince your colleagues to put the public’s interests ahead of the private profits and the power of the financial giants.

Sen. Feinstein, your skeptical instincts have been right since the Bush administration tried ramrod through a 3-page $700 bailout. Now everyone in the country can plainly see how that bailout benefited the large financial institutions but did little for small business, consumers and  homeowners. Thank you for your raising the right questions in the past. Thank you for helping us get back on the right track now.

Sincerely,

Martin Berg

Editor

WheresOurMoney.org

AN OPEN LETTER TO SEN. BARBARA BOXER

Dear Sen. Boxer:

Voters are counting on your continuing leadership to make sure the promise of real fundamental financial reform becomes a reality.

In 1989, you were one of a handful of senators to vote against repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the Depression-era law that had kept banks’ traditional business separate from their riskier speculative business.

Though you were in the small minority opposing the deregulatory fever sweeping Washington, your vote showed tremendous leadership, courage and prescience.

You withstood the pressures from financial industry lobbyists and contributors as well as the demands of your own party. As you know, then-President Clinton and his economic advisers, after initially opposing the repeal, eventually made a deal to sign off on the dismantling of Glass-Steagall.

We all know what happened over the last decade – record profits for financial institutions while the economic foundation for American families has gotten increasingly shaky. Voters have watched with dismay as the massive federal bailout has helped create even fewer financial institutions, with even greater wealth and wielding even more political power.

Neither the Obama administration’s proposals nor the bill passed by the House of Representatives offer sweeping reform, nor do they do anything to break up the power of the “too big to fail” institutions. They also don’t do enough to ease the threat these banks continue to pose to the rest of the economy.

Now Sen. Christopher Dodd has proposed much stronger legislation, the Restoring American Financial Stability.  By all accounts, his proposal faces a bruising battle as the financial industry gathers all its forces to protect its interests. Sen. Dodd has indicated that compromise is inevitable.

But Sen. Boxer, the stakes are too high to compromise on the most important aspects of reform. Some of these are contained in Sen. Dodd’s proposal. Others are contained in other legislative proposals under consideration in the session about to begin.

Please help make sure that these key elements of reform are not the victims of compromise:

• Vote against the confirmation of Ben Bernanke to another term as Federal Reserve chair. He was at the center of the bubbles before the meltdown, helped engineer a bailout that profited Wall Street while Main Street suffered, and has fought increased transparency in the financial system.

• Reinstate a modern-day form of Glass-Steagall, proposed by Sens. McCain and Cantwell.

• Audit the Federal Reserve, as suggested in the proposal by Reps. Paul and Grayson, which would open up the operations of the institution to public scrutiny for the first time.

• Reconsider and approve judicial cram-downs, which would give bankruptcy judges the power to lower mortgage payments. This would put real teeth in the Obama Administration’s anti-foreclosure efforts.

In the Dodd bill:

• Support creation of a strong, independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency, with regulatory oversight of the Community Reinvestment Act (not provided in the House bill).

• Support creation of a an Agency for Financial Stability, responsible for identifying, monitoring and addressing systemic risks posed by large complex companies and their products, with the authority to break up firms if they pose a threat to the financial stability of the country.

• Remove exemptions (contained in the House reform bill) for banks and credit unions with assets of less than $10 billion – about 98 percent of deposit-taking institutions in the country.

• Bar pre-emption (also allowed in the House bill), which would let states, if they choose, to pass tougher financial regulations for nationally chartered banks.

• Don’t exempt other consumer-financial businesses,  such as auto dealers from oversight by the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (as the House bill does).

• Give two agencies, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission broad authority to force derivatives markets onto exchanges where they pose less risk.

I’m urging you to put everything you’ve got behind this fight to protect consumers and homeowners. Voters put their trust and faith in you to see that their interests are protected, not compromised away. We’re relying on you to convince your colleagues to put the public’s interests ahead of the private profits and the power of the financial giants.

Sen. Boxer, you were right in 1989 when you were in the minority. Now everyone in the country can plainly see the wreckage from the great deregulatory experiment you opposed. Thank you for your vision. Thank you for helping us get back on the right track now.

Sincerely,

Martin Berg

Editor

WheresOurMoney.org

Action / Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Glass-Steagel / Martin Column - 01/10/2010

Loopholes and Lumps of Coal

While the financial industry got a stocking stuffer, we got stiffed.

House Democrats passed something they called reform and handed  it over to the Senate.

But the bill is laden with loopholes, put there by Blue Dogs and New Democrats doing the bidding of the financial institutions.

Democratic leaders, from President Obama to Rep. Barney Frank have demonstrated that they are at best ineffectual in spearheading efforts to win real reform that puts consumers and taxpayers’ interests first. At worst, they're undermining those efforts.

The resilience shown by the financial industry in blunting efforts at sensible regulation has been nothing short of breathtaking.

Despite these setbacks, the battle may not be lost.

Glass-Steagel / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 12/15/2009

Prophetic Warnings Haunt Regulation Debate

Here’s how the highly partisan, polarized view of who’s to blame for the financial crisis breaks out:

Liberals blame Bush era deregulation which allowed greedy head bankers to run amok.

Conservatives blame poor people, who encouraged Democratic politicians who cater to them to force banks to lower their lending standards. And of course, there’s ACORN.

But those clashing views break down when you look into the history of the fight to repeal the landmark Depression-era Glass-Steagal  Act.

Glass-Steagel / Martin Column - 11/13/2009