stock - Represent Consumers

Guide to congressional cosmetics

President Obama praised the STOCK Act when he signed it into law in April as a good first step to rid Congress of financial conflicts that undermine public confidence.

But it’s really no more than a fast makeup job to cover up the continuing blemishes on our democracy and give the president and members of Congress some talking points for the campaign trail.
The STOCK Act is supposed to prohibit legislators from profiting from the nonpublic information they get on the job. The STOCK Act also prohibits members of Congress from participating in initial public offerings unavailable to the public, and provides some additional public disclosure of congressional stock trading.
But we already know that members of Congress do better than civilians when they invest in the stock market. According to a 2011 study, investment portfolios of members of the House beat the market by about 6 percent annually, mimicking the performance of the stock portfolios of their Senate colleagues.
As an example, the Washington Post reported, four congressmen sitting on a committee investigating deceptive billing practices by video game makers sold their stock in the country’s biggest video game maker, GameStop, one of the companies under investigation.
One of the most egregious examples is Sen. Tom Coburn, the Republican Oklahoma senator who has made a name for himself preaching government austerity and self-righteously criticizing both parties for not having the courage to make the cuts needed to reduce the debt.
But austerity and sacrifice were apparently not on Sen. Coburn’s mind when he bought $25,000 in bonds in a genetic technology company at the same time he released a hold on legislation that the company supported. A hold is an informal Senate practice by which a senator can stall a piece of legislation. Coburn, meanwhile, cast one of the few votes against the STOCK Act, dismissing it as nothing more than a stunt.
One clue to just how innocuous the STOCK Act is: it was opposed by only two votes in the House and three in the Senate. This confirms my theory that whenever you see much ballyhooed-bipartisanship at work, you can be sure that members of Congress are either doing the bidding of the 1 percent, or covering their own butts.
The bottom line is that while members of Congress pass laws that prohibit other government officials from presiding over companies and industries in which they have a financial interest, Congress effectively exempts itself from such broad restrictions.
Writing on Yahoo Finance, Ron DeLegge outlines the STOCK Act’s major flaws and omissions: it still allows the sleazy, little-known practice of members selling “political intelligence” to lobbyists as well as continuing to allow members of Congress to own stock in industries over which they can exert influence.
The STOCK Act reminds us, when it comes to Congress, we shouldn’t be distracted by lame cover-ups or blather about bipartisanship, we should follow the money.
And we shouldn’t forget: it’s not their money.
It’s our money.

What's the `worst CEO' worth?

Why did the nation’s largest pension fund take a strong stance against Citibank’s excessive CEO compensation, but then turn around and vote for Bank of America’s lesser, but still outrageous, pay plan?

The California pension fund, CalPERS, was among the 92 percent of shareholders who went along with Bank of America in an advisory vote on CEO compensation earlier this week. In Wednesday’s vote, CalPERs did vote for measures that would have required disclosure on B of A’s lobbying activities as well an independent review of the bank’s foreclosure actions.

While But Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan faced noisy protests and pointed questions at the bank’s annual meeting in Charlotte, N.C, both of those initiatives, like say on pay, were defeated.

In their nonbinding “say on pay” vote, Bank of America shareholders approved a $7 million 2011 pay package for Moynihan. Last month, 55 percent of Citibank’s shareholders, including CalPERS, voted against a 15 percent pay hike for their CEO, Vikram Pandit, who had been getting along on $1 a year in 2009 and 2010 while Citibank floundered.

CalPERS’ position this week is strangely at odds with its previous positions.

In the past, CalPERS has been has been particularly tough on Bank of America. In 2010, it cast an unusual vote against all of the bank’s directors, including then-CEO Ken Lewis.

Asked for comment on Wednesday’s Bank of America CalPERS vote, a spokesperson referred me to the pension board’s 79-page governing principles, specifically the provisions covering executive compensation. CalPERS declined to answer any questions about why the pension fund voted for Moynihan’s compensation fund, but against Citibank’s.

True, Moynihan’s pay is less ($7 million) than Pandit’s ($15 million), but that doesn’t make either of them acceptable, much less understandable, by anything but the tortured logic of the too big to fail, government-coddled banks.

To approve Moynihan’s pay, shareholders had to overlook mountains of evidence that the bank is on the wrong track. Back in October, the bank retreated on a scheme to soak its customers for a $5 a month fee on debit cards after President Obama blasted it. The bank, which Bloomberg News estimates received more than $1.5 billion in federal bailout aid, has repeatedly been the target of criticism for underperforming in voluntary government loan modification programs. Earlier this year, B of A was among the big banks that settled foreclosure fraud charges with the feds and states attorney general. Though it was touted as $25 billion settlement, it actually only cost the banks $5 billion. But the bank fraud it highlighted was real.

Richard Eskow of Campaign For America’s Future outlined Moynihan’s dark career trajectory, from B of A general counsel to head of its retail division to CEO, while the bank completed its disastrous $2.5 billion acquisition of slimy subprime lending king Countrywide. When Moynihan joined senior management the bank’s stock traded around $52 a share. Today it trades around $7 or $8 a share.

Tallying the eventual costs of the Countrywide acquisition, Eskow includes a massive $8.4 billion settlement with states over illegal behavior, $600 million to settle a class action suit, $335 million to settle a discrimination suit and $50 to $55 million for its part of lawsuits against Countrywide’s former CEO.

One bank analyst, Michael Mayo, recently ranked the worst CEOs. Moynihan was at the top of the list (with Citibank’s Pandit not far behind). Mayo cited the stock slide along with the debit card fee debacle and the bank’s failure to stem its foreclosure fraud and mortgage servicing problems.

Eskow hits the nail on the head when he asks: By what standard does Moynihan still have a job, let alone a multimillion-dollar salary?

And by what standard does he merit a vote of confidence by CalPERS, which less than a month earlier had taken a strong stand against excessive pay for another failed bank executive, Pandit?

Especially after the pension fund’s chief investment fund officer, Joe Dear, vowed after the Citibank vote to get even more activist. “Excessive CEO pay is not in the interest of the shareowners and not in the interest of companies,” Dear told CNNMoney.

CalPERS has long been an advocate for improved corporate governance, but its credibility has sagged after it suffered staggering losses in the financial collapse and was caught in its own sleazy “pay to play” scandal.

CalPERS’ Bank of America’s vote leaves unanswered questions about the pension fund’s claims to increased activism. Did CalPERS single out Citibank because that was the only too-big-to-fail bank to fail its latest government stress test, as U.S News and World Report suggested?

Or could the vote have something to do with the confidential settlement last November of a lawsuit CalPERS and 15 other institutional investors filed against Bank of America? Could CalPERS officials have agreed to back off their previous hard line against the Bank of America board as part of a secret deal the public will never see?

Of course, we don’t know details – the settlement is sealed.

Was Citibank a publicity-grabbing one-off, or did the pension fund give Bank of America a bye? We’ll have to wait and see just exactly what CalPERS means by activism when it comes to challenging the pampered, powerful titans of the nation’s too big to fail banks.

For now, all we can do is paraphrase the classic film portraying of the lack of accountability of corrupt power, `Chinatown’:

“Forget it Jake, it’s Wall Street.”

Bank of America (BoA) / CalPERS / Citibank / Executive Pay / Martin Column - 05/11/2012

Different strokes for different protestors

Operating on very different pieces of turf, the Occupy movement and the budding shareholder revolt are putting the status quo on notice: no more business as usual.

With May Day marches across the country earlier this month, the occupiers signaled they’re not going away. They intend to keep taking public space, protesting and reminding the country what our democracy has lost in a takeover by corporate powers.

Meanwhile, corporate shareholders appeared to be slumbering in the wake of the financial crisis, lulled by soothing predictions about economic recovery and buoyed by a stock market recovery.

But taking advantage of an advisory vote granted them in the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, shareholders have recently taken highly publicized swipes at excessive compensation plans for CEOs at Citibank and British Petroleum and several smaller banks.

At Citibank, 55 percent of shareholders rejected the notion that a company whose shares dropped 45 percent over the past year, wiping out $60 billion in shareholder equity, owed its CEO a $15 million salary hike. Citibank’s board said it would carefully consider the shareholders’ concerns.

CEO compensation plans narrowly won approval at General Electric, where the value of the stock has fallen 45 percent over the past 5 years, as well as at insurance giant Cigna, but not without noisy protests. At Credit Suisse and Barclays, a sizeable minority of shareholder voted against their executives’ compensation packages.

And excessive compensation is not the only thing shareholders are upset about. Some Cigna shareholders also expressed their opposition to the $1.8 million Cigna spent lobbying against health care reform in 2009.

At Wellpoint and Aetna insurance companies, shareholders want company officials to improve disclosure of their political spending, after the Center for Political Accountability found that both companies’ disclosure policies "leave significant room for serious misrepresentation of the company's political spending through trade associations."

Four of Wellpoint’s directors who are standing for reelection also face unusual no vote campaigns because the company has failed to live up to earlier commitments to improve disclosures of their political spending.

To be sure, these actions represent only a small number of corporations so far; most shareholders are approving without a fight the executive pay plans proposed by the board of directors’ compensation committees.

But like the occupiers protesting in the public square, the shareholders at these major corporations have driven a very large, sharp stake into their turf, and these first, highly publicized steps toward more accountability and transparency are likely to inspire more like them.

Occupiers, with their horizontal leaderless anarchist principles and drum circles, and shareholders, with their focus on the bottom line, might not seem to share much other than a desire for more accountability and a sense that the system as it is, isn’t working. But both groups are equally shut out of this political season, with neither party doing anything but paying the slightest lip service to their issues.

The occupiers and the shareholders are also carrying an important message for the rest of us: democracy isn’t just a matter of walking in to the ballot box and pulling the lever for our team every four years and waiting for the politicians to fix our problems.

Martin Column / Occupy / Outrage - 05/09/2012

Corporations Gone Wild

It’s a magnificent time to be alive – if you’re a giant corporation, that is.

Spring is here, and after a deep chill, the mighty mega-businesses are not merely reborn, but blossoming. “Big U.S. companies have emerged from the recession more productive, more profitable, flush with cash and less burdened by debt,” swoons the Wall Street Journal. The seductively sweet smell of speculation – in mortgages, derivatives, oil, wheat – once again fills the air. Amidst the giddy exuberance of the stock market, why dwell on the dreary conditions among the human population, where one out of every six Americans lives below the poverty line, one of every ten is out of work, and one of every five homes are worth less than the loans that secure them?

Oh to be young, free and incorporated – preferably in an island like Bermuda.

Being a Big Business wasn’t always so much fun. For a long time, corporations had to obey the same rules as the rest of us. And after Wall Street drove America into a ditch four years ago, Corporate America was hurting, too. True, many of us never really thought of inanimate objects as capable of suffering. And come to think of it, I never did meet a homeless corporation (though I’ve encountered many a crooked one). But with bailouts, special tax breaks, and the ability to borrow taxpayer money from the Fed at .05% interest, that painful period didn't last very long.

And then, in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decreed in the infamous Citizens United case that under the U.S. Constitution, corporations are the same as people and spending money is a form of free speech. So when corporations write checks, it’s the same as you and me speaking. And corporations have the right, under the First Amendment, to use money to buy public officials and purchase elections.

Corporate America’s been partying like its in Ft. Lauderdale on Spring Break ever since.

As you might expect from a climate of unrestrained corporate debauchery, there’ve been some ill-fated hook-ups, like AT&T and T-Mobile (the annulment cost $4 billion). But don’t worry about a newly rejuvenated Ma Bell not having any BFFs. Its 100 million customers literally cannot dump the company, at least not without paying a massive “early termination fee.” AT&T’s allies on the Supreme Court ruled last year that the company can strip you of your right to take it to court, leaving you no way to sever the relationship if your service fails, your “unlimited” data plan gets throttled, or you get overcharged.

Big businesses were screwing people way before Citizens United and Concepcion v. AT&T, of course. But those decisions fundamentally altered the balance of power between citizens and corporations in the courts, Congress and the executive branch.

Philosophers, scientists and science fiction writers have long predicted that the moment would come when artificial creatures, created by humans, would become more intelligent than humans – a technological "singularity" projected to arrive later this century. But no one would have guessed that 2010 would become the date of the political singularity – the year in which a legal construct – a corporation – would become more politically powerful than humans.

That corporations don’t yet have all the benefits of personhood misses the point. Justice Stevens’ dissent in Citizens United warned: “Under the majority's view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.” But corporations don’t need to vote. Corporations decide who gets elected simply by dumping vast quantities of cash into elections on behalf of candidates who will do their bidding.

As a student of American civic life named Tony Montana once explained, “In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power.”

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Uncategorized - 04/12/2012

Nice recovery, if you can afford it

According to economists and the media, in June 2009 we came out of the deepest recession since the Great Depression and we’ve been on the upswing since. Unemployment’s down, with corporate profits recouping their losses from the recession and hitting new highs along with the stock market.

But it really continues to be a tale of two economies: one that works for the 1 percent and another, in which the 99 percent are increasingly falling behind.

For some striking evidence, look at the recent study by a prominent economist reported in the New York Times.

As the recovery took hold in 2010, UC Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saenz reported, the top 1 percent captured 93 percent of the income gains.

Top incomes grew 11.6 percent in 2010, while the incomes of the 99 percent increased only 0.2 percent. That tiny gain followed a drop of nearly 12 percent over the previous two years – the largest two-year drop since the Depression.

Other signs on the economic landscape also show the wreckage for those not protected by wealth.

Despite a dip in unemployment and the most the most recent more optimistic job creation numbers, the economy isn’t producing enough jobs on a sustained basis to permanently reduce unemployment. And many of the jobs that have been created pay severely reduced wages. Under the two-tiered wage systems increasingly favored by U.S. corporations, new blue-collar jobs pay start at a steeply lower hourly wage than they did in the past – $12 to $19 an hour as opposed to $21 to $32.

One in seven Americans are on food stamps, while high gas prices put the squeeze on low-income and working people alike. Meanwhile, foreclosures are on the rise in the wake of the state attorneys general announcement of a settlement over foreclosure fraud charges with the biggest banks, though the details of the settlement still haven’t been released.

The Occupy movement has put the great divide between the 1 percent and the 99 percent on the political map, forcing President Obama to acknowledge income inequality in his state of the union speech as the “defining issue” of our time, while the Republican’s front-running presidential candidate, Mitt Romney has dismissed such concerns as “envy.”

Obama’s concern about inequality has yet to translate itself into effective action, and it’s unclear, given the strong ties he’s had to the big banks and corporate titans, whether he’s capable of delivering.

Occupy, after delivering a much-needed jolt to the public discourse, likewise, has also yet to show that it can go beyond influencing the debate to actually winning gains for the 99 percent and reducing the widening inequality gap.

It’s no coincidence that income inequality has accelerated as large corporations have grown more influential in our political system through the clout of their cash, encouraging deregulation, tax cuts, trade deals and a host of other policies that benefit the 1 percent and disadvantage the rest of us. The fight against income inequality and for a more fair economy inevitably leads to the fight to rid our government of toxic corporate donations. Find out about WheresOurMoney’s constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court’s terrible decision that unleashes unlimited, anonymous corporate political donations, here.

Income inequality / Jobs crisis / Martin Column / Occupy - 03/09/2012

In Taxbreakistan, the Usual Casualties

Rather than confronting the country’s growing economic disparity and attempting to reduce it, our political leaders are pursuing policies that just make it worse.

Remember when we were told that the bailout was supposed to save our economy? It worked amazingly well for those who are well off – the banks are back in the black, the bankers are pocketing huge bonuses, corporate profits are soaring and the stock market is humming along.

But for those less fortunate, the situation remains dire: unemployment is stuck around 10 percent, wages are stagnant, state and local governments face staggering cutbacks in all services, and foreclosures continue unabated.

The most recent example of this glaring callousness is the deal President Obama reached with GOP leaders to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for 2 years in exchange for keeping unemployment compensation coming for 13 months.

Both the president and the Republicans profess to be unhappy with everything they had to give up and said nasty things about each other. The president insisted it was simply the best deal to be had to get some stimulus in the face of Republican intransigence. But the president never took to the airwaves to challenge the Republicans on the tax cuts or the unemployment insurance. After his party’s “shellacking” in the midterms, he just headed for the back room to make a deal on his own, without ever trying to galvanize public opinion, which according to the polls, wasn’t even sympathetic to the high-end tax cuts.

So far the Senate has appears ready to pass the deal with votes to spare but the House has balked.

Back when he was candidate Obama, the president had no qualms about proclaiming just how unfair the tax cuts for the wealthiest were, how little they do for the rest of the economy, and how worthy they were of opposing. Now the president labels as `sanctimonious’ those who agree with the position he took so forcefully when he ran for president.

But the tax cuts for the wealthy won’t work any better now that that they’re the Obama tax cuts than they did when they were the Bush tax cuts.

The Center for American Progress breaks the $954 billion Obama tax cut deal into two parts: first, a $133 billion tax cut for the wealthiest, including $120 billion in lower taxes for the top 2% of U.S. households, plus $13 billion in estate tax savings. The other $821 billion consists of government cash for unemployment benefits, tax cuts for the middle class and small-business job-creation incentives.

The deal is supposed to create somewhere between 2.2 and 3.1 million jobs, though some find those estimates vastly inflated. CAP contends that the deal offers a relatively expensive way to create those jobs.

Economist Dean Baker questions a lot of the phony hysterics being used to sell the deal as scare tactics. He doubts the president’s assertion that is the only way or last chance to extend unemployment benefits. If unemployment stays above 8 percent as the Federal Reserve projects that it will, both Republicans and the president will feel pressure to extend benefits.

But one of the worst aspects of the deal is the way that it actually raises taxes on the working poor, according to the Tax Policy Center. That’s because the president has agreed, as part of the deal, to phase out his own Making Work Pay tax cut (implemented as part of his previous stimulus package) and replaced it with a temporary Social Security payroll tax cut. The Making Work Pay tax cut was focused on the working poor, giving single people with incomes of at least $6,452 and less than $75,000 a $400 tax break and couples making less than $120,000 an $800 tax break. People at the lower end of those income ranges would do worse under the present Obama tax cut deal. Wealthier taxpayers meanwhile, stand to do better with the payroll tax break than they did under Making Work Pay, which phased out at higher income brackets.

To me the tax deal looks suspiciously like the bailout – shoveling money to those who have suffered the least, without any conditions imposed to require that they plow some of that cash back into the economy, only the vain hope that they will share their prosperity.

We assumed that’s what the bailout recipients would do with all of our tax money.

We know now how that worked out.

Federal Reserve / Martin Column / President Barack Obama / TARP - 12/14/2010

SEC TO Mozilo: Fraud Pays

The SEC is at it again. They’re bragging that the agency nailed the largest penalty of its kind in history against the king of the subprime lenders for defrauding his shareholders.

And no doubt, $65 million dollars sounds like a lot of money.

But when you remember how much money Angelo Mozilo raked in during his reign, and when you break down the details of the SEC fine, it doesn’t add up.

It certainly doesn’t add up to much in the way of punishing Mozilo.

As usual when the SEC settles the civil charges it files, Mozilo and his two former colleagues admitted no wrongdoing as part of their settlement.

The SEC accused Mozilo, the butcher’s son who rose to be the president of Countrywide, of keeping from shareholders his fears that his collection of subprime loans was trash while reassuring his stockholders that everything was hunky-dory.

Federal prosecutors are still poking around in the ashes of Countrywide, and maybe they will come up with something.

But so far here’s the scorecard on Mozilo: the SEC said he received $141.7 million as a result of fraud and insider trading. They fined him $22.5 million.

As the Center for Public Integrity points out, that means he has give back just 16 cents of every ill-gotten dollar he got.

In addition, the SEC touts the $45 million that Mozilo will have to turn over to Bank of America shareholders, though that money won’t come out of Mozilo’s very deep pockets. That will come from his insurer and the company that bought Countrywide, Bank of America.

The fines seem even slighter when you contemplate what Mozilo was paid in his days as master of the universe.

In his time as executive chairman of Countrywide between 1999 and 2008, he was paid a total of $410 million in salary, bonuses and stock options.

In 2007, when the company’s stock tanked, dropping from $40 to under $10, Mozilo had an off-year too. He was only paid $10.8 million.

In perspective, this doesn’t seem like much for the SEC to brag about. Sixteen cents on the dollar certainly isn’t going to strike fear into the heart of any business titan.

Martin Column / Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - 10/19/2010

Money Never Sleeps

Oliver Stone’s sequel to his 1984 hit "Wall Street" opens as the Bubble is about to burst on a culture of material excess that makes Gordon Gekko’s 1980s cell phone – then a symbol of extravagance available only to the mega-rich – ridiculously quaint. Stone’s Wall Street circa 2008 is set in a New York constructed of light, with ubiquitous flat screens providing instantaneous, 24/7 updates on the status of global power and wealth. When the results of decades of speculation first hit the housing market and then the stock markets, the great titans of Wall Street start eating their own. But that was only an appetizer for the main course: the American taxpayer.

I really couldn’t enjoy the love story between Shia LaBeouf and money, much less the one between Shia and his girlfriend, who happens to be Gekko’s estranged daughter and thus presents a trading opportunity for the ambitious young man. As the movie traced the collapse of Bear Stearns and then the stock market into a pile of scrap paper, I got more and more angry.

In one scene, the silver-haired heads of the giant firms that run Wall Street – surrogates for Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, etc. – cloaked in bespoke suits, are gathered around an ornate table in a wood-paneled conference room with one of their former colleagues, who is now the Secretary of Treasury (aka Hank Paulson), to discuss how much taxpayer money they need in order to stay afloat. Hundreds of billions of dollars are referred to in single digits. The consensus, quickly obtained, was “seven.” It was like the Godfather movies, when the heads of the Families would convene to handle some event that threatened their criminal way of life.

I found myself remembering the scene, in the third Godfather, when small-time hood Joey Zasa locked the conference room doors from the outside, trapping the heads of the Families inside so they could be slaughtered by his assasins.

The nation hardly needs Oliver Stone’s portrayal of the markets as organized crime to stoke people’s recollection of what the debacle did to our economy and our kids’ futures. Our anger has reached a white hot point that, like the sun in a magnifying glass, is now being directed against public officials all over the country. “Money never sleeps” is Gordon Gekko’s new mantra, and vast sums of money are flowing into the political process to influence the November elections - largely an attack on incumbent Democrats in Congress.

But where was all this money back in the third week of September, 2008, when the Bush Administration’s three page proposal to bail out Wall Street with billions in taxpayer money was presented to Congress along with the threat that the United States would collapse if it wasn’t approved on the spot?

In what I must acknowledge was a serious overestimation of the impact one citizen could have at such a moment, I flew to Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, thinking I might be able to draw someone’s attention to the sheer lunacy of what was being proposed. Joan Claybrook, the President of Public Citizen, and I held a news conference just outside the House Banking Committee hearing room, where the plan was being presented by the Bush Administration. We were like two voices whispering in a hurricane. Later, I met with members of the California congressional delegation who were in shock and ready to do the bailout deed forthwith. Ok, I said, at least require disclosure of how our money was spent and a quid pro quo: that the companies receiving taxpayer dollars could not loan them back to us for more than a few percentage points profit. The legislators responded to the interest rate cap as if I had proposed that they resign from Congress.

It would have been nice back then if there had been a hugely funded campaign backed by angry Americans telling Congress not to act hastily or stupidly. But in fact, the big money we are seeing now in American politics is not from the grassroots, but from the same greedy folks who caused the debacle in the first place or who profited from the bailout. According to US News and World Report, business and conservative backed organizations are behind the “independent expenditure” campaigns that are targeting Democrats and outspending them two to one. A recent article in the New Yorker uncovered two extremist billionaire brothers funneling over $100 million from their family oil business into Tea Party non-profits. Long-time big business Republican operatives like Karl Rove (now running a group called "American Crossroads") and Dick Armey ("FreedomWorks") are supplying more than tea for the new tea party.

The sudden resurgence of interest in politics on Main Street would be cause for great celebration, and the opportunity for real change, as citizen leader Jamie Court writes in his new primer on political activism: “The Progressive’s Guide To Raising Hell.” Instead, it’s just another dismaying example of big money corrupting our political system. If it succeeds, get ready for more speculation, more bubbles, and more pain for the average American.

"Greed is good," Gekko said back in the day, but Wall Street needs to own Washington, and Wall Street is already projecting victory in November. Commenting on the rise of the Dow in September, an analyst said, "’There is a good chance that the strength we have seen in the market recently is due partly to an expectation about the result of the election... Investors are starting to understand that a likely result of this election is gridlock, and that is good."

Harvey Column / Outrage - 10/03/2010

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

Around the Web: Typos and Tired Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

Federal deposit insurance.

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

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

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

Around the Web - 05/07/2010