BIPARTISANSHIP FOR BIG BANKS

With 2 weeks to go to the midterm elections, President Obama and the Republicans have found an issue they can agree on: if they just do nothing, the foreclosure scandal will go away.

They’re betting that the use of robo-signers to process foreclosure documents without actually reading them will just amount to a pile of sloppy paperwork.

They’re betting that blaming borrowers will trump public outrage over banks holding themselves above the rule of law that states they have to prove that they own a mortgage note before they can foreclose.

You can understand the Republicans’ position; they argue that the government has no responsibility and is only capable of making any problem worse.

President Obama’s approach can’t be much of a surprise either, after leaving his financial policy in the hands of Wall Street apologists, fighting the most robust financial reform, providing a failed foreclosure relief program and not raising a finger to help when banks opposed his own proposal and not using his bully pulpit to push it. The president, despite his occasional bursts of rhetoric, has never assumed the role of tough regulator and reformer he promised on the campaign trail, preferring to act as the big bank’s collaborator-in-chief.

The president’s name may not be on the ballot November 2. But many of the Democrats who are facing the voters advocate a more robust response: a foreclosure moratorium while the very real legal issues are sorted out.

The Obama administration has taken to sending signals to the voters, hoping that might allay their worries. The feds announced the formation of that entity designed to show concern while guaranteeing that no action will be taken for the foreseeable future: a task force.

A number of banks had started their own voluntary moratoriums on some foreclosures. But two of those banks, Ally and Bank of America, have already canceled them. Meanwhile all 50 state attorney generals have announced their own investigations into the mess.

Despite the efforts of bank apologists to minimize it, the foreclosure debacle continues to shape up as a series of nasty legal battles, with a dramatic, unsettling impact on the housing market.

Opponents of a foreclosure moratorium portray it as a way of giving homes to people who haven’t been making their mortgage payments. But that’s a phony argument. A moratorium will not end up causing anybody who hasn’t been paying their mortgage to own a house they didn’t pay for.

As far as borrowers living in their houses for free, let’s be clear: that’s happening now, and it’s not the fault of any moratorium. It’s happening as a result of the banks’ own chaotic approach to foreclosure, often not wanting to take possession of property that has lost its value or not hiring enough staff to manage the properties properly.

This is the terrible irony about the banks’ fear-mongering. While they’re always predicting awful consequences to any action that limits their own power, the banks create the consequences all by themselves, or with the help of their willing collaborators.

Bank of America (BoA) / Foreclosures / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 10/20/2010

The Lawyer With the Dragon Tattoo

This year’s most fearsome movie heroine is Lisbeth Sander, the hacker vigilante who outwits corporate and political evildoers with her superior investigatory skills, not to mention some kickboxing and the deft use of a taser. “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” smashes and hacks her way through the government officials, business executives and journalists that comprise Sweden’s lazy and corrupt Establishment. They do everything they can to stop her, but – I’m about to give away the ending – Sander ultimately triumphs, exposing decades-long corporate and government conspiracies.

Elizabeth Warren shares none of Sanders’ characteristics – except an exceptional intellect – ­but when it comes to inspiring fear and loathing among the denizens of Washington and Wall Street, she is every inch as frightening, as has been pointed out over the last few days in profiles and posts across the mediascape.

Warren, a bankruptcy professor at Harvard Law, long criticized the practices of America’s banks and credit card companies in law reviews and academic pieces. In 2005, when the financial industry was lobbying Congress to make it harder for the average American to declare bankruptcy, Warren penned a landmark analysis that concluded that most Americans sought bankruptcy protection not because they were freeloaders but because they could no longer afford to pay their medical bills. Long before the current crash, Warren proposed the establishment of a federal agency to protect consumers against credit card tricks and other financial abuses.

In November 2008, in a rare example of a perfect congressional appointment, Senate President Harry Reid put her in charge of the congressional task force monitoring how the $700 billion in taxpayers' bailout money was spent. She has demanded answers to the same question we ask here: “where did the money go?”  The results of her investigations, which can be found here, pull no punches.

Back in 2008, no one could have expected that Congress would create a financial consumer watchdog agency of the kind Warren advocated for years.  But her powerful and outspoken performance as chair of the bailout oversight panel has made her the obvious and only credible candidate to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by the otherwise innocuous financial “reform” legislation Congress passed a few weeks ago.

Which, of course, has got Wall Street fired up, members of Congress tied in knots and the White House cornered. Unlike the Byzantine complexities of the financial swindles and the ostensible legislative “solutions,” none of which garnered public attention much less support, the question of whether the President will appoint a skilled lawyer/consumer advocate to protect consumers, or whether he will instead choose a Wall Street insider as he did when he appointed Treasury Secretary Geithner and White House economic advisor Larry Summers, is one the public and press can easily grasp.

The appointment raises the kind of simple and straightforward “whose side is he really on?” question that Obama has so far been able to soft peddle, though he unceremoniously surrendered on the public option in the health care bill and on “too big to fail” banks in the financial reform bill, to name just a few instances of his unilateral disarmament.

Make no mistake: Warren is a highly sophisticated lawyer that knows all the tricks of the financial industry and how to use the powers of government to stop them. This expertise will be essential. I wrote a ballot proposition, approved by California voters in 1988, that regulates the insurance industry. Having spent the last twenty-two years defending it against incessant lawsuits by industry lawyers and not infrequent efforts of elected state officials to hobble it, I can tell you that few decision-makers in the federal government have the technical skills and expertise to go head to head against the battalions of lawyering orcs deployed by big financial firms. Warren does.

Which brings us back to the fascinating spectacle of the hypocritical Washington establishment trying to grapple with her candidacy. She is, literally, made for the job, and a spontaneous grassroots campaign for her appointment is mounting around the country. But the politicians, obeying their paymasters on Wall Street, are trying to figure out a strategy to sabotage her nomination. It’s almost comic to behold. Republicans should be hailing Warren as a savior of beleaguered taxpayers, but one of their Senate leaders said that her tenure as chair of the bailout watchdog was “marked with ‘controversy”” and implied that Warren doesn’t have the necessary qualifications.

It’s the same for some Dems: Senate Finance Committee Chair Chris Dodd, who had never met a financial “innovation” (or industry lobbyist) he didn’t embrace until the whole rotten system collapsed two years ago, damned Warren with faint praise, then suggested she couldn’t be confirmed. He floated the name of FDIC Chair Sheila Bair, but she said no thanks.

Nor has the Obama administrationt been particularly supportive. Two weeks ago, Treasury Secretary Geithner was forced to dispel rumors that he is opposed to Warren by mouthing some platitudes about how “capable” and “effective” she would be in the post. A White House spokesperson told reporters, “We’ve got many good candidates. I know that the president will look at this job and the several other jobs that are created as part of this legislation and make an announcement.”

Warren’s appointment could be one of the few meaningful victories for consumers in the aftermath of the Wall Street deregulation disaster. She is not your typical accommodating political appointee. She does not appear likely to “play ball” with Team Obama or anyone else inside the Beltway when it comes to protecting consumers against the pillaging financial industry. The White House is well aware that once appointed, she would be very hard to fire, especially for doing her job with the zeal it requires. Having never served in such a position, Warren has not yet been tested, so my assessment of her political spine is partly speculation. But if I’m right, she's at least as threatening as Lisbeth Sander.

Harvey Column / President Barack Obama - 08/07/2010

Around the Web: Volcker Rules - Not!

Until the morning of January 21, 82-year-old former Federal Reserve president Paul Volcker had been a lonely and largely ignored figure among President Obama’s economic advisers.

Volcker seemed to be the only one of Obama’s advisers not under the spell of the “too big to fail banks” and their highly touted innovations.

Volcker was especially vocal about protecting the public from the financial world’s riskier innovations. As he told a financial conference last year, “Riskier financial activities should be limited to hedge funds to whom society could say: ‘If you fail, fail. I'm not going to help you. Your stock is gone, creditors are at risk, but no one else is affected.’ ”

It was Volcker who had said that the only financial innovation to benefit consumers in the last 20 years was the ATM card.

But he wasn’t getting much traction with the president and his advisers.

Then the Democrats lost Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.

In a lurch back toward the populism he had embraced during his campaign, President Obama hastily reached out for Volcker.

During a press conference, the president endorsed something he called the Volcker rule as an essential plank of his financial reform plan. That rule would restrict banks from risky proprietary trades with their own (borrowed) money.

Here’s what the president said:

“Banks will no longer be allowed to own, invest, or sponsor hedge funds, private equity funds, or proprietary trading operations for their own profit, unrelated to serving their customers.  If financial firms want to trade for profit, that's something they're free to do.  Indeed, doing so –- responsibly –- is a good thing for the markets and the economy.  But these firms should not be allowed to run these hedge funds and private equities funds while running a bank backed by the American people.”

For more on proprietary trading and the Volcker rule, read this from Rortybomb’s Mike Konczal and the NYT. For more about why the Volcker rule was a good idea, see this from WSJ’s Dealbreaker.

Obama mentioned the Volcker Rule a couple more times, as did the man who was marshaling financial reform through the House, Rep. Barney Frank.

But neither the president nor anybody else in the Democratic leadership ever mounted a public campaign to make it an essential part of reform. In fact, within a month, the president was already backing off his support of the Volcker rule.

And now, like many other parts of the reform that would have protected consumers and inconvenienced banks, it has been largely gutted.

Bloomberg reports “lobbying by banks and congressmen sympathetic to Wall Street’s views, as well as some administration members in the banks’ defense, trampled the views of Volcker and others who favored a stronger proposal.”

The weaker provisions won’t even go into effect for as many as 12 years.

It would have been one thing for Obama and the Democrats to go down swinging on the Volcker Rule. But they didn’t even put up much of a fight.

If you’re as disappointed as I am with the president’s lack of leadership on this, after he made such a big deal about it, why not let him know?

Around the Web / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column / Paul Volcker / President Barack Obama - 06/30/2010

Bombing Ants in the Sausage Factory

The only aspect of the financial reform legislation that’s truly strong is the level of rhetorical nonsense that both parties have unleashed around it: Democrats and the media exaggerate when they praise it as “the toughest financial overhaul since the Great Depression.”

Not to be outdone, the Republican House minority leader, John Boehner, has weighed in, describing the proposal as a nuclear weapon being used to kill an ant.

Which would make the financial crisis the ant, I guess.

On Tuesday, the nuclear bomb had to go back to the, uh, sausage factory, for some more grinding after Sen. Robert Byrd’s death and the defection of a former Republican reform supporter left the Dems with less than the 60 votes they need to overcome the wall of Republican opposition.

One of the few chinks in that wall had been Sen. Scott Brown. But Brown balked after a $20 billion tax on hedge funds and banks was inserted into the legislation to pay for the costs of modest additional regulation. The Republican senator from Massachusetts said he opposed placing a greater burden on financial institutions and he feared the costs of the tax would be passed on to consumers. So the reform proposal is headed back to the conference committee.

Let’s be clear: overheated and mangled rhetoric aside, the financial reform proposal does nothing to reduce the risk posed by our “too-big to fail” banks or to prevent another crisis. The proposal leaves much of the details to regulators subject to lobbying by the very institutions they’re supposed to oversee.

Now legislators think they’ve found a better bet to fund their reform: you!

According to the New York Times, they’re considering ending the Troubled Asset Relief Program early and diverting about $11 billion in taxpayer funds.

The Times observed this leaves legislators with a couple of awkward choices. “So,” the Times concludes, “the choice becomes a tax that might be passed along to consumers, or a charge directly to American taxpayers.”

Is this the best they can do? I’m increasingly sympathetic to Sen. Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who is bucking his president and party, opposing reform because it doesn’t get the job done.

I would suggest that Boehner got it wrong, that the ant[s] are not the financial crisis; they’re the legislators scrambling around serving the banks’ interests when they’re supposed to be serving ours.

But that would give ants a bad name.

Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column / TARP - 06/29/2010

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

Consumer Protection, Fed Style

One of the big unsettled issues for the congressional conference committee considering financial reform is whether to create an independent financial consumer protection agency.

That’s what the House bill does. The argument for an independent agency is that consumers need a strong advocate in the financial marketplace.

The Senate decided that an independent consumer financial watchdog wasn’t needed, and that the consumer financial protector should live in, of all places, the Federal Reserve. After all, the Fed already has responsibilities to “implement major laws concerning consumer credit.” We all know how well that worked out.

The problem is that the Fed has functioned as a protector of the big banks, never more so than since the big bank bailout and in the battle over financial reform.

Despite promises for greater transparency, the Fed has repeatedly resisted attempts to get it to disclose all the favors it’s done for financial institutions since the bailout. If the Fed had put up half the fight against bank secrecy that it’s waged on behalf of bank secrets, consumers would never have been subjected to all those lousy subprime loans.

It is telling that no actual consumers or consumer organizations actually think that housing consumer protection inside the Fed is a good idea. Who does? The big banks and the Fed.

For those who still need convincing that a Fed-housed consumer protection agency is a bad idea, the Fed has provided a more recent example of what it means by consumer protection.

Last month it unveiled a database that’s supposed to help people choose the most appropriate credit card.

The database might be useful to professional researchers but provides little that would be of use to ordinary consumers. It presents the credit card statements by company but provides no other search functions, such as comparing credit cards by interest rates or fees.

Some of the presentation suggests that the information was dumped onto the Fed’s website without much thought. Bill Allison, who is editorial director of the Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit organization that digitizes government data and creates online tools to make it accessible to readers, said the following:

“I don't think there's anything wrong with posting it, but this is obviously not data you can search,” Allison told Bailout Sleuth.

He also pointed out that some of the agreements themselves aren't particularly informative. He cited the entry for Barclays Bank Delaware, which notes that the bank may assess fees for late payments and returned checks. “The current amounts of such Account Fees are stated in the Supplement,” the agreement reads.

But that supplement is not contained in the Fed's database. The Fed promises to go back and refine its database. But if they’re not devoting the resources to get this right now, with their ability to protect consumers under the microscope, do you really expect they’ll do better later?

An independent consumer protector is not simply some technicality to be bargained away. We’ve learned from the bubble and its aftermath that consumers need all the help they can get. Contact your congressperson and tell them you’re still paying attention to the reform fight. Check out your congressperson and see if they’re on the conference committee. If they are, your voice is especially important. While you’re at it, contact the president and remind him we won’t settle for any more watering down of financial reform.

Action / Federal Reserve / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column - 06/02/2010

Quotable: Martha Roper

"One of the biggest concerns about this (financial reform) legislation, which we support, it relies on its success on regulators to do, effectively, what they did very poorly in the run up to this crisis."

Barbara Roper, director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America

Homepage Content / Quotable - 05/04/2010

Just Who is Us, Mr. President?

President Obama went down to the playground where Wall Street bullies have been beating up kids and taking their lunch money. He suggested that the bullies should help create rules that would stop them from beating up kids.

How lame is that?

One blogger compared Obama’s timid performance to FDR’s attack on Wall Street for its rabid opposition to the New Deal. But I kept thinking about the other Roosevelt, the one who took on the railroad trusts.

While Teddy Roosevelt was far from perfect, he had his moments: “A typical vice of American politics,” he said, “is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues.” He could have been talking about Obama.

What we saw on Thursday was a terrible thing: a brilliant and articulate president of the United States unwilling or afraid to tell it like it is.

It’s not the Republican minority who pose the greatest danger to real financial reform. It’s the powerful Wall Street wing of the majority Democrats who don’t want to offend the bankers. Our representatives need to know we want real reform, not just lip service that basically preserves the status quo. Our representatives need to have the courage to support the stronger proposals by Sens. Kaufman, Brown, Shaheen, and Merkley that would do more to actually break up the big banks and put limits on their risky gambling.

Mr. President: Let’s get real. Let’s say out loud that banks and bankers have grown too powerful.

Let’s get real. It’s absolutely not in the banks’ interest to “join us” in supporting reform. By suggesting that as the solution, you abandon your own credibility and avoid the “real issues” of a government corrupted by those bankers’ money.

Stop negotiating with Wall Street. Cop to their massive financial support for your campaign, and those of your colleagues in Congress. And tell Wall Street change is coming whether they like it or not.

Martin Column / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 04/23/2010

Bursting D.C.'s Bubble

The battle for financial reform comes down to the ownership of one critical piece of real estate, one that has managed to avoid the crash that has ended the dreams of security for so many: the nation’s Capital.

“We’re at a critical moment point in our democracy,” Elizabeth Warren, the congressional bailout monitor, told those of us gathered on a webinar Wednesday. “Either the banks own Washington or the people do.”

Warren was referring to something that the Democratic Senate whip, Dick Durbin, said last year about the place where he works, in an rare moment of a politician telling the truth:  “The banks own this place.”

Elizabeth Warren, a tireless promoter of consumer protection and truth teller about the decline of the decline of fortunes of regular folks, prefers to view Durbin’s declaration as premature.

But a more definitive answer is not far off, according to Warren; it could come next month. The full Senate is expected to begin debate on financial reform when it returns from recess this month with a final vote in May.

Congress is one place where the bubble hasn’t burst. The value of those congressional seats hasn’t gone down since the crash; it’s gone up. Representatives and senators are raking n more than ever from corporate lobbyists.

The banks are fully mobilized, unloading $1 million a day to block, neutralize and weaken reform. The webinar, sponsored by Americans for Financial Reform and Americans for Responsible Lending, was an effort to galvanize reform supporters into action.

As reluctant as I am to disagree with Warren about anything, on this one I’m with Durbin. From the evidence, it’s hard to see how Wall Street hasn’t gotten everything it wants from the politicians, even after the greatest financial meltdown since the Depression.

The question is whether we can take back that inflated piece of real estate and reestablish its true value.  Can we turn our frustration and rage over the bailouts and our elected representatives’ impotence into action?

There are marches – April 29th on Wall Street and May 17 on K street, where the lobbyists have their offices. And there are elected representatives to inundate with messages in favor of reform. Reform advocates can’t match the bankers’ cash, but they have people power on their side.

One questioner asked Warren at what point the Senate reform proposal from Sen. Chris Dodd, which was initially strong before Dodd watered it down, would become so weak it wouldn’t be worth supporting. Warren didn’t answer the question directly. “They’re not leaving much margin for error,” she said.

Unfortunately, when it comes to financial reform, the devil is in the details, and we have to insist on real reforms.

That means:

× Breaking up banks that are too big to fail (Dodd’s proposal doesn’t do that now).

× Creating a strong and independent financial consumer protection agency  (Dodd proposes to house it in the Fed, with other banking regulators able to veto the consumer protector’s decisions)

× Forcing banks to have more “skin in the game” (The Senate bill require bankers to keep money in reserve equal to 5 percent of loans they bundle and sell off; European regulators require twice that amount).

× Congress setting the amounts of capital financial institutions would have to keep on hand, rather than leaving it for the regulators to decide.

What we’ve learned in the past several months, from the report on the Lehman bankruptcy and the Fed’s recent disclosures on its involvement in Bear-Stearns takeover by J.P. Morgan, is that regulators weren’t asleep at the switch before, during and after the financial crisis. Rather, the regulators have actively colluded with the banks in an attempt to conceal the banks shady practices. Too much of what is being called financial reform is actually just maintaining the status quo while pretending to overhaul the system.

I don’t agree with a lot of what the Tea Party has offered. They don’t offer much in the way of positive proposals, and seem particularly weak in grappling with the issue of unchecked corporate power. But I think they’ve shown how a group of people (with some corporate funding) can shake up and shape a national debate. The Tea Party has no corner on frustration, anger, betrayal or the sense that something has gone deeply wrong in our country. There’s no reason we can’t channel that frustration and anger to plant the flag of real reform in the middle of real estate that, after all, belongs to us. Now’s the time to do it.
Here’s how to contact your senator and representative. Here’s the web site for Americans for Financial Reform.

Action / Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Martin Column / Too Big To Fail - 04/08/2010

Quotable: Neil Barofsky

"Even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car."

Neil Barofsky, January 2010

Homepage Content / Quotable / SIGTARP / TARP - 04/01/2010