What About The Rest of Us?

In one of the most appalling aspects of our current politics, our elites – elected officials, media lords and corporate chieftains, have swept the opinions and concerns of most Americans off the table to pursue their own agenda.

So we’re stuck with sterile political games focused on the national debt, even while a majority of Americans favor higher taxes on the rich and more aggressive action to reduce unemployment.

We get the highly touted insider trading conviction of a hedge fund billionaire while the Justice Department doesn’t pursue its own FBI’s massive evidence of the too big to fail bank’s fraud at the heart of the financial collapse.

It’s clear that whoever is setting priorities is not us. Take for example President Obama’s deficit commission, which has worked hard to legitimize the austerity agenda embraced by most of both parties. Not only was it stacked with well-known deficit hawks, It was made up of a collection of lifetime politicians, bureaucrats, with a CEO thrown in – because we wouldn’t want the CEOs to feel left out of any big idea brainstorming.

But what about the rest of us? Over at Campaign For America’s Future, Dave Johnson has been asking some intriguing, relevant questions.

For one, what would the deficit commission have looked like if it truly reflected the population of the country, rather than the backroom.

If a 100-person deficit panel truly reflected the country, it would present a stark contrast to the gang the president relied on:

•                19 people on the commission would receive some form of Social Security benefits, 12 of those as retirees. And on this deficit commission they get to talk when the ones making over $250K propose cutting Social Security.

•                43 of the commission members would have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement. 27 of those less than $1,000.

•                98 of the 100 members would make less than $250,000 a year.

•                50 of the members would come from households in which the total income of all wage-earners is less than $52,029.

•                13 would have income below the poverty level.

•                14 members would be receiving food stamps.

•                16.6% of the commission members would be un- or underemployed, and would be wondering why they are on a deficit commission at all instead of a jobs commission.

•                The commission would include the right proportion of factory and construction workers, and people who work in a kitchen, and work waiting tables, and teaching, and nursing, and installing tires, and all the other things that people do except, apparently, those on DC elite commissions. (People who do hard, manual labor get an extra vote each on what the retirement age should be.)

•                74 members would not have college degrees.

•                20 would not have graduated high school.

•                18 would speak a language other than English at home.

Under present circumstances it’s highly unlikely that the president would appoint a commission to consider the deficit or anything else for that matter that wasn’t stacked with wealthy insiders intent on slashing government services for anybody who is not like them. But highlighting the disconnect does point out in a particularly graphic way why those at the top have managed to get left out when its time to divide up the sacrifices.

 

 

 

 

 

Financial Crisis / Martin Column - 05/17/2011

The Never-Ending Bailout

Even though banks' super-charged profits and eye-popping bonuses are back, they want you to keep paying the costs of their foreclosures.

In California, where the foreclosure crisis has hit with brutal force, it will cost communities between $600 billion and $1 trillion in lost property value, almost $4 billion in lost property tax revenue, and over $17 billion in local government costs between 2008 and 2012, according to Ellen Reese, a University of California Riverside sociologist and Jan Breidenbach, who teaches housing policy at USC, writing in the San Bernardino Sun.

That amounts to be about $20,000 per foreclosure that local governments [meaning you] have to pay every time a bank forecloses on a home.

One California legislator has made a modest suggestion: have banks pay those costs at the time of the foreclosure, so taxpayers don’t have to absorb them later.

The way the banks have responded, you would think that the legislators had proposed seizing the banks and distributing the bankers’ money on Main Street.

The mortgage bankers’ association, in best fear-mongering fashion, told its members that making the banks pay the costs of their failed loans would dry up all future home lending in the state.

In her April 6 letter to her membership, the association’s president, Pam Sosa, doesn’t offer any suggestion how the costs banks are currently passing on to you and me could be mitigated.

Meanwhile the California Bankers’ Association says if the bill becomes law, they’ll simply pass the cost on to their customers.

Why should the banks have to pay when they’ve done such a stellar job convincing the politicians that you won’t mind picking up the tab for the bankers’ losses?

If you thought that the financial collapse would curtail the banks sense of entitlement to write their own rules for their business, you would be wrong.

If you thought that the financial collapse would have made the banks think twice before demanding that we pay the costs when their business goes south, their reaction to AB 935, sponsored by San Fernando Valley Democrat Bob Blumenfield, demonstrates that you would be wrong.

Of course, the real purpose behind AB 935 is not to get the banks’ money. It is provide more of a financial incentive to the banks to work out sustainable modifications that would allow homeowners to remain in their homes. The Obama administration’s Home Affordable Mortgage Program has had little success in encouraging banks to modify loans because in part, the incentives it offers to the banks are too small But the banks find it tough to make their case on the merits. They can’t argue they don’t have enough money to pay their own way. Instead they rely on fear tactics and the inside game, which has served them so well in getting legislators and regulators to water down efforts to crack down in the wake of the financial collapse. In the depths of the recession in California, at the same time bankers were collecting billions in bailout, they were spending $70 million in lobbying fees and campaign contributions to thwart or weaken legislation that would have protected homeowners in the foreclosure process.

Testifying earlier this week on behalf of AB 935, economist and blogger Mike Konczal described foreclosures as a “lose-lose situation.” A foreclosure fee that accurately covers the real costs the community will have to pay will encourage more sustainable modifications, he said. He also debunked the mortgage bankers’ argument that it would have an impact on new lending, because it will only be applied to already existing loans. Citing recent Federal Reserve statistics, Konczal said relatively few homeowners are actually walking away from their “under water” homes, “and are willing to pay to do right by their communities and their promises. It would be great to have a financial system that met them halfway."

But the banks disagreed. They fought back hard on AB 935. Late Tuesday, Peggy Mears of Alliance of Californians for Community Protection sent around an email to say that the legislation appeared to be dead for the year, stuck in legislative committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Financial Crisis / Foreclosure / Martin Column - 04/26/2011

Don't Let the Bad Guys Get Away!

Hollywood loves a good chase. Last night at the Oscars, Tinsel Town sent a strong message to the rest of the country – the bad guys are getting away, and the cops aren’t even on their trail.

For a brief instant the Obama administration’s sorry efforts in holding bankers accountable for the financial collapse took center stage at, of all places, the Academy Awards.

Accepting his Oscar for “Inside Job,” his documentary about the financial collapse, Charles Ferguson used the opportunity to remind the audience of millions that not a single banker had gone to prison for fraud.

Ferguson was saying what the mainstream media has deemed a non-story, following President Obama’s lead in downplaying accountability while highlighting evidence of economic recovery.

But Ferguson joins a handful of prominent critics, including Bill Black, Simon Johnson, former Sen. Ted Kaufman, Dean Baker and Matt Stoller, who have been sending the same message in a variety of less prominent venues.

Meanwhile the president, far from insisting that his prosecutors develop fraud cases against top bankers, appoints them to top positions in his administration.

Typical is this recent column from the New York Times oped columnist Joe Nocera, who pooh-poohs the criminal aspects of the financial meltdown, blaming it on widespread “mania.”

Make no mistake; these are hard cases to make. In the 90s I covered the prosecution of savings and loan magnate Charles Keating, the poster child for bad behavior and political shenanigans for that earlier banking fiasco that also followed a rash of deregulation. Keating was convicted in both state and federal court. Though the convictions were overturned, Keating did serve four and a half years of his five-year state sentence.

Good prosecutors don't mind tough cases. They enjoy the challenge. But their bosses set their priorities and have to give them the support they need.

The Obama administration is barely even trying, afraid of alienating the bankers it’s trying to court. The cases that have been brought are either minor sideshows or they’ve been mishandled.

A local prosecutor told me that federal authorities have shown no interest in the painstaking work of building serious cases against bank executives, which would involve authorities going after minor players such as mortgage brokers, and working their way up the chain of responsibility.

In Inside Job, former New York state attorney general Eliot Spitzer has a suggestion for prosecutors – do unto the bankers what the prosecutors did unto him: go through their credit card receipts looking for evidence of illicit activity, like paying for high-priced hookers. Bust the bankers for their bad personal behavior and then obtain their cooperation in investigating financial abuse.

It may work; it may not. But at least prosecutors wouldn’t be sitting on their hands. They’d be doing their jobs – aggressively going after the bad guys.

 

 

Around the Web / Martin Column / Uncategorized - 02/28/2011

Going Without Heat For Goldman-Sachs

With all the trillions tossed around in the government’s efforts to prop up the big banks, a $2.9 billion taxpayer-funded windfall to Goldman-Sachs might not sound like that big a deal.

But imagine if we still had that $2.9 billion, if it was still in the federal coffers and not in the pockets of Goldman bankers.

Maybe President Obama wouldn’t feel the need to cut off aid for poor people to help pay for heating oil through the cold winter – that $2.9 billion would more than pay for the proposed cuts.

Maybe you’re not in favor of helping poor people stay warm in the winter.

How about space travel?

That $2.9 billion could pay for nearly a year’s worth of research on manned space travel, which is also under threat.

But what did we taxpayers get from this generosity to Goldman Sachs?

Absolutely nothing. Worse than that, we rewarded extremely bad behavior.

The $2.9 billion payment was arranged by federal authorities as part of what they have described as their emergency efforts to salvage the financial system in the wake of the financial collapse brought on by the bankers’ greed, recklessness and fraud, enabled by regulators’ laxity.

The Federal Reserve, which was supposed to be overseeing this massive giveaway to the banks, contends it didn’t intend to give the windfall to Goldman-Sachs bankers. It was just $2.9 billion that got away from them in their hurry to fill the bankers’ pockets with our cash- I mean- save the economy. McClatchy News Service, using bland journalism-speak, calls it a “potentially huge regulatory omission.”

Goldman hit the jackpot on our bailout of AIG, in which taxpayers compensated the firm 100 cents on the dollar for bad proprietary trades. That means Goldman gambled with its own money, which it is entirely entitled to do.

But when they lose their money, as the old blues song says, they should “learn to lose.”

Lucky for Goldman, we’re there to pick them up, dust them off and wish them well, no questions asked.

Just how much longer are we going to allow our public officials, Republican and Democrat, to use our money to foot the bill for these deadbeats’ bad gambling debts?

Just how many people are going to have to go cold before we cut Goldman off?

AIG / Around the Web / Federal Reserve / Financial Crisis / Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 02/18/2011

The President's Odd Jobs Choice

About the only the job that Jeffrey Immelt would be less qualified for than jobs czar would be to lead a crackdown on the influence of big money lobbyists.

Oh wait- there is no crackdown on lobbying.

So Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, will have to make do with the job the president has given him as head of the administration’s reconfigured outside economic advisory council, which is supposed to focus on job creation.

I’ve written before about G.E. as a prime example of how major corporations benefited from the bailout without exhibiting any gratitude to taxpayers.

To say that Immelt is a weird choice for a job creation initiative is an understatement.

Under Immelt’s stewardship, G.E. has shredded thousands of jobs in the U.S. while outsourcing many jobs to India and China. In the years before the financial collapse, G.E. focused on building up its enormous credit operation, which melted down under the weight of bad loans along with the rest of the financial sector. If not for the generosity of taxpayers, who gave G.E. more than  $16 billion in low-interest loans to keep it afloat, Immelt himself probably wouldn’t have a job. In 2008, Forbes named Immelt one of the U.S. most overpaid executives.

His company has engaged in economic blackmail, threatening the state of Massachusetts that G.E. would close plants if state officials didn’t cough up tax breaks. It’s true that Immelt’s GE has embraced green technology – but only wherever there is a substantial government subsidy involved.

Meanwhile, GE is spending more than any other firm on lobbying, while it pays little or no taxes.

If Immelt has had any previous innovative ideas about substantially reducing unemployment, he’s kept them to himself. This is the person our president chooses to lead his jobs effort? For Immelt and other corporate and financial titans, the “too big to fail” bubble has never really burst. They’re continuing to rake in profits and shape government policies in their own interests, while the majority who don’t have access to power are shut out from financial security as well as political influence. Rather than challenging this unequal equation, our president has chosen to try to climb into the bubble himself.

Around the Web / Executive Pay / Martin Column / Too Big To Fail - 02/02/2011

Big Bank Launches Attack on Military Families

America’s least-hated banker hasn’t had much to say about how his institution, JPMorgan Chase, wrongfully foreclosed on 14 military families and overcharged thousands of others.

That banker would be Jaime Dimon, the subject of a flattering profile in the New York Times magazine last month, in which he was portrayed as an astute and careful risk manager and staunch defender of the benefits of large banks. Dimon admitted that he wasn’t careful enough before the financial collapse – he missed the problems posed by the securitized pools of investments stocked with bad mortgages that nearly sank the economy.

In the wake of disclosures last year about massive problems in the foreclosure process, Dimon led the charge in dismissing them. He appeared to be less concerned with evidence of bankers’ extreme carelessness than he was that the efforts of 50 states' attorneys general to investigate might slow down the housing recovery.

As Fortune reported, “He (Dimon) strode into the foreclosure fiasco last fall with guns blazing, as usual, claiming Chase wouldn't be tarnished by the banking industry's mortgage misbehavior.”

Dimon has repeatedly insisted his bank hadn’t wrongly foreclosed on anyone.

Whoops.

Over the last several weeks, the news media has reported that JPMorgan Chase had wrongfully foreclosed on 14 active-duty military families and overcharged thousands more on their mortgages.

Bank officials said they discovered mistakes and were in the process of reversing the foreclosures and about $2 million in fees to 4,000 families that the bank overcharged.

The bank may have discovered those ‘mistakes’ in the process of preparing their response to a lawsuit filed by a South Carolina Marine captain whose house they foreclosed on, in violation of the protections provided by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

Under that law, banks aren’t supposed to charge active-duty members of the military more than 6 percent interest on the mortgages.  In addition, members of the military are supposed to be exempt from the delinquency process – including foreclosure.

The Marine captain, Jonathan Rowles, is serving in South Korea. His wife, Julia Rowles, told National Public Radio that she and her husband have been fighting with Chase ever since Rowles was commissioned as an officer five years ago.

They got harassing collection calls, sometimes in the middle of the night, Julia Rowles said. "They would say, 'we will take your house. We will report you to the credit agency. This is a bad situation that you don't want to be getting into. Pay us today.' ”

The bank was charging them 9 to 10 percent interest and nearly $2,000 a month, when they should have been paying $1,400."

JPMorgan’s Dimon has sent his PR spokesmen to deal with the mess. Back in November, Dimon has insisted that his bank is especially friendly toward those who serve their country. On Veterans’ Day, he was touting JPMorgan’s increased efforts to recruit veterans because “it is, quite simply, the right thing to do.”

In the wake of JPMorgan’s disclosures, other big banks, including Citibank, Ally Bank and Goldman Sach’s Litton Loans are reviewing their policies concerning home lending to military families.

Unfortunately, the JPMorgan fiasco is only the latest in a long, tawdry history of financial institutions targeting members of the military for predatory lending. During the recent fight over financial reform, the nation’s military leaders had fought to have the nation’s car dealers covered by the new financial consumer protection agency. But they were no match for the clout of the car dealers, who won the exemption they lobbied for.

According to Army Times, Chase has advertised itself as a military-friendly bank since at least 2005, when it began touting its Home Finance Military Mortgage program, which offers a discount on closing costs in home purchases or refinancing for military members and retirees. Mobilized National Guard and reserve members who had a Chase mortgage in good standing could defer entire mortgage payments for up to 18 months during call-ups. Both those initiatives go beyond the requirements of the SCRA. A bank spokesman couldn’t say if any of the 4,000 service members receiving checks, or Rowles, for that matter, participated in those initiatives.

In November, Dimon celebrated Veterans’ Day by touting his banks’ efforts to recruit those who served their country to work at JPMorgan because “it’s the right thing to do.”

This week Dimon is off to the meeting of the global elite at Davos, Switzerland, where he was complaining about the unjustified hostility toward his profession. “I just think this constant refrain [of] ‘bankers, bankers, bankers,’ - it’s just a really unproductive and unfair way of treating people,” Dimon said. “People should just stop doing that.”

Foreclosures / Martin Column / Outrage - 01/27/2011

Financial Firm Finds Profit Center in Fallen Warriors

When it comes to battling the fine print that rules the financial realm, the nation’s military families have been taking a beating.

And the government officials who were supposed to be protecting the solders have been MIA.

Earlier this summer I wrote about how members of the military mobilized in a losing effort to have the nation’s auto dealers covered by the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

The nation’s military was no match for the lobbying firepower of 18,000 well-organized car dealers.

Now, thanks to Bloomberg News, we’ve learned how top Obama administration officials signed off on a secret deal that allowed the country’s second biggest life insurance company to make millions of dollars off life insurance policies for the families of deceased veterans.

It turns out that in 1999, authorities made a verbal agreement with Prudential Life to allow them to withhold the lump-sum life insurance payments the company was supposed to hand over to some 6 million veterans’ families. Instead, the life insurer were permitted to offer the survivors a checkbook, which amounted to an IOU known as “retained-asset accounts.” Meanwhile, the insurer would deposit the lump sum into its own accounts earning eight times as much in interest from the settlements as they paid to the military families.

What’s worse, those accounts weren’t even insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

So what happened when the Obama administration discovered the shameful deal?

Remember, this wasn’t the Bush administration, that believed that the best way to protect consumers was to let financial institutions run amok. These were Obama people, who had been sobered up by the financial collapse, who knew the dangers that lurked when financial deals were done in the dark, who promised to toughen financial regulations.

Did the Obama administration jump in and call the whole disgraceful thing off? Hardly. Bloomberg found that Obama administration officials in 2009 turned what had been a verbal agreement into a written one. Though a committee filled with top administration officials, including Timothy Geithner, was supposed to be monitoring government life insurance programs, when the committee actually had a meeting, those officials didn’t bother to show up.

Since Bloomberg revealed the deal earlier this summer, more than 10 years after it was struck, elected officials have leaped into action to condemn Prudential’s actions and demand investigations. While the Obama administration didn’t make the original deal, they formalized it rather than calling it off. It’s another unfortunate example of the Obama administration going soft while the financial industry takes advantage of consumers.

But they have the opportunity to make it right. It will be tough. The administration would have to admit a mistake. As of June 30, Prudential had made $662 million in interest off the lump-sum settlements.

Prudential has offered a pathetic paternalistic excuse, saying the company was actually helping emotionally distraught families by withholding their money during their time of grief.

The Obama administration should demand that Prudential return that windfall to veterans’ families. The company can certainly afford it. It received $4.5 billion last December when it got out of a securities brokerage joint venture with Wells Fargo. Since posting a $1.6 billion loss in the fourth-quarter of 2008, the company has recovered nicely, posting seven quarterly profits, most recently for more than $1 billion. The company’s stock posted a whopping 64 percent gain last year. The company’s CEO, John Strangfeld, is doing OK too, with total compensation of $18.4 million in 2009, though that was down from his 2008 payday, which amounted to $21.6 million.

President Obama has taken some admirable steps to improve veterans’ care after years of Bush era neglect. He should do the right thing and make Prudential turn over the profits it made from the nation’s war dead to their families.

Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama - 10/01/2010

Suck it in And Cope, Buddy

Charlie Munger is one of the world’s richest men, a partner to Warren Buffet in Berkshire-Hathaway, which was a major recipient of taxpayers’ generosity in the bailout.

So it’s no surprise that Munger recently told a crowd at the University of Michigan: “Thank God for the bailout.”

Having come through the financial collapse unscathed, Munger went on to offer some advice to those less fortunate than himself, who are suffering in distress without the benefit of much federal help.

Munger sees a sharp distinction between the necessity of bailing out the wealthy, like himself, and everybody else.

"Now, if you talk about bailouts for everybody else, there comes a place where if you just start bailing out all the individuals instead of telling them to adapt, the culture dies," he continued.

The bailouts were required to save America, according to Munger, but bailing out Americans who aren’t bankers would have been a big mistake.

"There's danger in just shoveling out money to people who say, 'My life is a little harder than it used to be,'" Munger said. "At a certain place you've got to say to the people, 'Suck it in and cope, buddy. Suck it in and cope.'"

Munger, at 86, is probably not as comfortable navigating the vernacular as he is the corridors of power, probably meant, “suck it up.”

Full disclosure: I worked for a newspaper of which Munger, who also founded Los Angeles-based mega law firm Munger Tolles & Olson, was a primary owner. I had plenty of opportunity to watch his philosophy in action.

His view of the workplace and his employees seemed to be shaped by a close reading of Charles Dickens, not so much as social critique but as a how to manual.

Dickens is especially relevant with a new report about all of the people who will need to be “sucking it in” – 1 in 7 Americans now live in poverty, according to a report issued last week by the Census Bureau. That’s the highest level in 15 years. Four million more people descended poverty in 2009. Especially hard hit are children: one 1 in 5 in the U.S. now live below the poverty line.

Suck it in, kids.

Another recent outburst from a member of the nation’s uber-rich shows that Munger is not alone in his self-righteous entitlement.  Steve Schwartzman, billionaire head of one of the nation’s largest and most successful hedge funds, Blackstone Group, recently compared President Obama’s proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire to the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939. “It’s a war,” Schwartzman said.

He didn’t elaborate on the metaphor, but as I understand his perverse analogy, he’s comparing the president  to the Nazis and the nation’s rich to Poles, who thought they  were safe, because they had negotiated a peace treaty with the Reich. Hitler’s Army invaded  anyway.

Apparently Schwartzman believed that he and Wall Street had a deal with Obama that he would go easy on them. After all, the administration did oppose the toughest proposals for financial reform, instead leading the effort to pass a timid tinkering that doesn’t limit Wall Street’s risky behavior or offer enough public protection from its excesses. So Obama suggesting that the Bush tax cuts should expire would amount to a giant betrayal.

Schwartzman later apologized, but it’s breathtaking that a person – especially one of such prominence and presumed sophistication – not only sees the world in such distorted terms, but feels OK about saying so.

Munger and Schwartzman’s comments reflect not only their profound sense of entitlement, but just how far the nation’s most wealthy and powerful have gone in their war on the middle class.

Men like Munger and Schwartzman have not—at least in the recent past—felt the need to vent their contempt for those who don’t share their advantages. Instead, they would negotiate and lobby for deregulation behind closed doors, and when their investments went south, scare the taxpayers into bailing them out.

What’s striking now is their bold frankness. In the wake of this financial collapse and bailout, which strengthened them while crushing ordinary folks, Munger and Schwartzman aren’t afraid to come out from behind the closed doors of the boardroom and strut their stuff.

Martin Column - 09/22/2010

Around The Web: Nothing Natural About Financial Disaster

Maybe this is the one that will finally cause people to take to the streets.

The crack investigative journalists at Pro Publica and NPR’s Planet Money have uncovered the latest evidence of how the big bankers schemed to keep their bonuses and fees coming by creating a phony market for their mortgage-backed securities, which were tumbling in value as the housing market tanked in 2006.

The Pro Publica/NPR investigation shows how the bankers from Merrill-Lynch, Citigroup and other “too big to fail” financial institutions undermined a system of independent managers who were supposed to be evaluating the value of the securities. The banks simply browbeat the managers into buying their products rather than face losing the banks’ business.

Meanwhile, the bankers continued to make money off every deal, even though the rest of us paid a high price for their continued trafficking in complicated financial trash.

Then when the entire business unraveled in the financial collapsed, these bankers got a federal rescue and a return to profitability.

Pro Publica acknowledges it’s complex material, so they’ve accompanied their investigation with a cartoon and graphs to make it easier to understand.

My WheresOurMoney colleague Harvey Rosenfield wrote recently about the falseness of the claim that either Hurricane Katrina or the financial collapse were primarily natural disasters. The NPR/ProPublica investigation is yet more evidence that the bankers’ irresponsible self-dealing turned a downturn in the housing market into full-blown catastrophes.

Writing on his blog Rortybomb, Mike Konczai hones in on the stark contrast in the fate of the bankers and many of the rest of us:  “Remember that by keeping the demand artificially high for the housing market in the post-2005, these banks created its own supply of crap mortgages. These mortgages inflated and then crashed local housing prices. Meanwhile the biggest banks got tossed a lifeline and homeowners can’t even short sale their home much less have a bankruptcy judge that can set their mortgage to the market price with a large penalty. And everyone lines up to tell those people what ‘losers’ they are, how `irresponsible’ they’ve been for being pulled into becoming the artificial supply for artificially created demand of housing debt. What sad times we are living in.”

Meanwhile the SEC is supposedly investigating the self-dealing. We’re still waiting for the tougher new SEC that the Obama administration promised. In the latest indication that we may have to wait a while longer, a federal judge has rejected the agency’s proposed $75 million settlement with Citibank over charges that the bank misled its own shareholders about the shrinking value of its mortgage-backed securities. The SEC said the bank misled investors in conference calls by saying its subprime exposure was $13 billion, when it was actually more than $50 billion. Among the pointed questions the judge asked: Why should the shareholders have to pay for the misdeeds of the bank executives, and why didn’t the SEC go after more of the executives?

The judge’s questions about accountability mirror the uneasy questions a lot of us have about this administration’s reluctance to take on the bankers whose behavior led to ruin for the country while they profited.

Around the Web / Derivatives / Executive Pay / Martin Column / Outrage / Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) / Too Big To Fail / Uncategorized - 08/31/2010

F**king Grandmothers, Widows and Orphans

“They’re fucking taking all the money back from you guys? All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?”

"Yeah, Grandma Millie man. But she’s the one who couldn’t figure out how to fucking vote on the butterfly ballot."[Laughing from both sides]

"Yeah, now she wants her fucking money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her ass for fucking $250 a megawatt hour."

– Transcript of two Enron traders discussing the blackouts in California caused by the company’s manipulation of electricity prices in 2000.

“I’ve managed to sell a few Abacus bonds to widows and orphans that I ran into at the airport….”

– Email from Fabrice Tourre, Goldman Sachs trader, joking about derivatives he was selling that later proved worthless.

I have a job I really love – fighting injustice – so I always thought that being a Wall Street trader was just about as boring and inconsequential a job as you could think of. I mean, how enjoyable could it be to sit in front of a computer all day, doing nothing but moving an artificial construct around – “a ‘thing,’ which has no purpose, which is absolutely conceptual and highly theoretical and which nobody knows how to price'" as the Goldman dealer described the derivatives he was peddling.

But it seems these guys were able to have a few laughs after all. Turns out the money ain’t bad either.

It would all be very amusing if their antics – “God’s work,” as Goldman’s CEO Lloyd Blankfein described it not long ago – hadn’t cost the country trillions of dollars, and many Americans their jobs, homes and pensions.

Not so funny.

Something is seriously wrong when the pursuit of wealth unabashedly becomes the preeminent aspiration of a culture. And when those who succeed in obtaining vast riches and privilege have nothing but disdain for the rest of the nation, and aren’t a bit embarrassed to say so.

The financial collapse was not an isolated, once in a century deviation. During the 1990’s, Enron and other energy companies, California’s public utilities and the Chamber of Commerce got together and, with the aid of a few million dollars in campaign contributions, got the California Legislature to deregulate electricity rates. Wall Street loved the idea. As soon as the law took effect, in late 2000, the traders jumped in and engineered phony shortages that ultimately cost California taxpayers $70 billion. We’ll be paying off the debt from that debacle for another twenty years.

With hindsight, it is clear that the California energy crisis was merely a forerunner of the current financial collapse. And I’ve noted the disturbing similarities between how Governor Gray Davis and President Obama responded to an emergency not of their own making. As I pointed out in “The Smartest Guys in the Room,” an action movie figure is the Governor of California today as a result.

Two crises in the same decade. Both the product of avarice. How could we let that happen?

9/11 had something to do with it. For most of the years that followed, the American people were told that our greatest enemy lived in a cave half way around the world. That was wrong, as it was eighty years ago, when in the midst of the Great Depression President Franklin Roosevelt told Americans, “our enemies of today are the forces of privilege and greed within our own borders.”

We now know that the enemies of American consumers and taxpayers were sitting in front of multiple computer screens by day, living in palaces and yachts and on their own private islands. Their weapons were pieces of paper that were backed by other pieces of paper that were backed by packages of mortgages, student loans and credit card debt, the complexity and value of which no one understood.

The people who were supposed to defend us against financial mayhem were overtly or covertly working for our enemies. They betrayed us, as we have painfully documented, and whether it was a few million to California lawmakers or $5 billion over ten years to Washington, it all came down to money.

The Republicans rail against the Democrats. The Tea Partiers rail against both. But where's the debate over the culture of greed that is eroding our values, not to mention our strength as a nation? When will our universities and religious institutions weigh in? When the Times of London asked Goldman’s Blankfein if it were “possible to make too much money,” he replied: ““Is it possible to have too much ambition? Is it possible to be too successful?” My answer to those questions is “yes.” What's your answer?

Goldman-Sachs / Harvey Column / Outrage - 05/04/2010