Imagine, it was so bad, even the Obama administration knows they have to pursue charges. I imagine at least a few of the guilty parties were the ones who ran to the White House, pleading the case for banker bonuses:

The bipartisan panel appointed by Congress to investigate the financial crisis has concluded that several financial industry figures appear to have broken the law and has referred multiple cases to state or federal authorities for potential prosecution, according to two sources directly involved in the deliberations.

The sources, who spoke on condition they not be named, declined to identify the people implicated or the names of their institutions. But they characterized the panel's decision to make referrals to prosecutors as a significant escalation in the government's response to the financial crisis. The panel plans to release its final report in Washington on Thursday morning.

In the three years since major lenders teetered on the brink of collapse, prompting huge taxpayer rescues and amplifying an already painful recession into the most punishing downturn since the Depression, public indignation has swelled while few people who played prominent roles in the crisis have faced legal consequences.

That may be about to change. According to the law that created the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, the panel has a responsibility to refer for prosecution any evidence of lawbreaking. The offices that have received the referrals -- the Justice Department, state attorneys general, and perhaps both -- must now determine whether to prosecute cases and, if so, whether to pursue criminal or civil charges.

Though civil charges appear a more likely outcome should prosecution result, one source familiar with the panel's deliberations said criminal charges should not be ruled out.

The commission's decision to refer conduct for prosecution underscores the severity of the activities it has uncovered and plans to detail in its widely anticipated final report, the sources said.

The Wall Street Journal, of course, puts all the blame on government regulators.

I can think of very few reasons (none of them good) why Obama is so determined not to fix the actual problems in the banking industry. Economist James Galbraith spells out what needs to be done:

When the crisis went public in August 2007, Henry Paulson's Treasury took every step to prevent the final collapse from happening before the 2008 elections, extracting billions from the Federal Housing Authority and from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to relieve the pressure on bank balance sheets. It worked until it didn't. In September 2008 the collapse of Lehman triggered the collapse of American International Group (AIG) and the steps that led to the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) and to the effective nationalization of the commercial paper market, meaning that the Federal Reserve has become the primary short-term funder of major American corporations.

Upon taking office, President Obama had a chance to change course and didn't take it. By seizing the largest problem banks, the government could have achieved clean audits, replaced top management, cured destructive compensation practices, shrunk a bloated industry, and cut the banks' lobbying power and therefore their capacity to obstruct financial reform. The way to write-downs of bad mortgage debt and therefore to financial recovery would have been opened.

None of this happened. Instead the Treasury administered fake "stress tests" and relaxed mark-to-market accounting rules for toxic assets which permitted the banks to defer losses and to continue to carry trash on their books at inflated values. This reassured the banks that they would not be permitted to fail—and so back to bonuses-as-usual they went. The banks survived, and the administration today claims this “proves” they didn’t need to be taken over. But to what end did they survive? The banks are bigger, more powerful, and more obstructionist than ever—and largely uninterested in making new commercial, industrial, or residential loans.

Continue reading »

They still don't seem to get it: It's not really a recovery without jobs. There was no recovery. There was only the federal government propping up the banking industry, and it didn't really fool anybody:

After showing signs of a fledgling recovery from the worst downturn in decades, the U.S. housing market appears to be heading back toward the doldrums, as the expiration of a lucrative tax credit for buyers and increased uncertainty about the economy cause home sales to plummet.

The sudden weakness in residential real estate has struck nearly every region of the country, according to recent government and industry data, driving down sales of new and previously owned homes alike in May. On Thursday, the National Association of Realtors said an index that measures sales contracts signed on existing homes plunged 30 percent in May, more than twice what analysts had forecast, to the lowest level since the group started tracking the numbers in 2001.

Those sharp declines come despite record-low mortgage rates and historically cheap home prices. The market's renewed fragility highlights concerns about whether the U.S. economy will hurtle back into recession and illustrates the impact of the nation's high unemployment rate, now at 9.7 percent. On Friday, the government will issue jobless figures for June that could signal what is in store for housing and economic growth.

As long as people are without jobs or fear losing their livelihoods, they are unlikely to commit to buying a home and saddling themselves with 30 years of mortgage payments.

"It sounds simplistic but it bears repeating: 'No job = No house,' " Mike Larson, an analyst with Weiss Research, wrote in a note to clients Thursday. "With so many Americans unemployed or underemployed, the housing market is going to keep hurting."

Gee, I wonder how much they pay Mike to come up with insights like that. Is Weiss Research hiring, I wonder?

And here's more bad news -- or maybe "good" bad news, because the administration will find this hard to ignore:

Payrolls declined by 130,000 last month, according to the median estimate of 82 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. Private employment, which excludes government jobs, rose for a sixth consecutive month, the survey showed.

The pace of hiring signals it will take years for the world’s largest economy to recover the more than 8 million jobs lost during the recession that began in December 2007. The turmoil in financial markets brought on by the European debt crisis raises the risk that employment will slow, depriving American households of the income needed to maintain spending.

I wouldn't worry. After all, so many of the jobless are considering suicide, it should cut into the jobs-needed number considerably.

Every once in a while, when you least expect it, Congress manages to throw a bone to the little guys!

WASHINGTON — Retailers have begged Congress for years, in vain, to limit the fees they must pay to banks when customers swipe credit or debit cards. Bills never reached a vote. Amendments were left on the table. The Senate did not even grant the courtesy of a committee hearing.

That long record of futility ended in a landslide Thursday night. Sixty-four senators, including 17 Republicans, agreed to impose price controls on debit transactions over the furious objections of the beleaguered banking industry.

The amendment to the Senate’s sweeping financial legislation could save billions of dollars for family restaurants and dry cleaners, Wal-Mart and Amazon.com, and every other business whose customers increasingly pay with debit cards. It does not address credit card fees directly.

Consumers also could save money, particularly at businesses like grocery stores that compete on price. But some experts warned that lower profit margins could lead banks to curtail bank card reward programs.

The Senate approved a series of amendments unfavorable to the banking industry over the last week, but this one was widely regarded as the most surprising. Meddling in dealings between businesses generally is anathema to Republicans and a relatively low priority for Democrats.

And this was not an easy vote. Lobbyists for the wounded but formidable banking industry made clear to some senators that this decision would affect future campaign donations, according to people who participated in those conversations.

But retailers mounted an unusually effective yearlong campaign to frame the issue as a chance for Congress to help small business. A leading trade group for chain retailers worked with small-business groups to make sure that every time a senator held a town hall meeting back home, a local business owner showed up to ask about card fees.

(Limbaugh once again blames mortgage collapse on the government)

Ever since Wall Street was bailed out and the anger rose in the public's mind over what they did to the global economy, CEO's and other big time moneymakers have been acting like they live on another planet. It's hard living on millions of dollars a year, isn't it? The latest poutage is coming from The head of JPMorgan Chase & Co.

This might be the stupidest thing I've heard from the real entitlement society so far.

"When profits fall too sharply then capital will move somewhere else, where there is more money to be earned, for example non-regulated markets," Chief Executive Jamie Dimon said in the German mass circulation Sunday paper Welt am Sonntag.

"The question is, is that what regulators want?," said Dimon who heads the second-largest U.S. bank.

Dimon has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration's proposed financial regulatory reforms, particularly of a proposed bailout fee on big banks which he has called a "punitive bank tax.

In the German interview, he also said the banking industry could do with more influence on politicians.

Both the industry and government wanted what was best for their country and the economic system but there were areas where the banks lacked possibilities to demonstrate their arguments to politicians and supply them with the right facts, he said.

This almost left me speechless. Do I really need to give you guys context and demonstrate how the Senate lives to fulfill all of their needs?

Let's take a look at Jamie Dimon and JP Morgan via the AFL-CIO:

In February 2010, Dimon received nearly $8 million in restricted stock units as part of his 2009 annual compensation. In addition to this stock award for 2009, he also received an additional $6,244,300 in special stock appreciation rights that vest over five years.[3]

--

According to the Los Angeles Times, JPMorgan Chase spent more than any other bank on lobbying in 2009. JPMorgan Chase boosted its lobbying expenses 13 percent in 2009 to $6.2 million, enough to pay for more than 30 lobbyists.[5]

And JP Morgan spent the most via the LA Times:

Even as the financial industry has sought to keep a low public profile, some of the country's largest banks have ramped up their spending on lobbying to fight off some of the stiffest regulatory proposals pending in Congress.

Lobbying expenditures jumped 12% from 2008 to $29.8 million last year among the eight banks and private equity firms that spent the most to influence legislation, according to data compiled from disclosure forms filed with Congress.

The biggest spender was JPMorgan Chase & Co., whose lobbying budget rose 12% to $6.2 million, enough for the firm to have more than 30 lobbyists working for it. Among other banks, spending on lobbying rose 27% at Wells Fargo & Co. and 16% at Morgan Stanley.

"I have never seen such a scrum of bank lobbyists as I have in the last year -- and I've worked on quite a few bank issues over the years," said Ed Mierzwinski, a lobbyist for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a coalition of state consumer organizations. "It seems like everybody is out of work except for bank lobbyists."

Well, yet another ConservaDem senator has decided to call it quits:

Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat prominently mentioned in connection with the White House in recent years, is ready to announce he won't seek re-election, saying he's fed up with Congress.

"To put it in the words most Hoosiers can understand: I love working for the people of Indiana, I love helping our citizens make the most of their lives, but I do not love Congress," Bayh said in comments prepared for an announcement later Monday in Indianapolis. His statement was obtained by The Associated Press from a Democratic official who declined to be named publicly.

Bayh's departure continues a recent exodus from Congress among both Democrats and Republicans, including veteran Democrats Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Patrick Kennedy of Mass. The announcements have sprung up in rapid-fire fashion amid polls showing a rising anti-incumbent fervor and voter anger over Washington partisanship, high unemployment, federal deficits and lucrative banking industry bonuses.

The analysis, of course, was that this represented a big pickup opportunity for Republicans:

Sen. Evan Bayh's exit gives Republicans a prime pick-up opportunity. Former Indiana Sen. Dan Coats (R) is running for the seat. Bayh was leading Coats by 20 points (55% to 35%) in a recent Research 2000/DailyKos poll.

Republicans now have Senate pick-up opportunities in at least eight states -- Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, and North Dakota.

To take back control of the Senate, Republicans will need to gain a net of 10 seats.

Democrats have pick-up opportunities in at least three states -- New Hampshire, Ohio, and Missouri.

Democrats have been hammering Coats for his residence, his lobbying and more. And a Democratic official says Bayh was ahead.

"They polled last week and were way ahead of Coats," the official said, adding that petitions were due tomorrow and the Bayh campaign's "were all done."

The decision "must have been a last minute, personal decision."

As for who could run to replace Bayh, look to Reps. Brad Ellsworth and Baron Hill. Democrats are working to convince either -- both of whom represent swing districts in the Southern part of the state. Ellsworth, the former Vanderburgh County sherriff, is seen by some observers as, potentially, the strongest Democratic candidate. Hill is a former Indiana high school basketball star.

Also, look to see if Rep. Mike Pence on the Republican side reverses course and decides to jump into the race now.

DOWNLOADS: (860)

PLAYS: (1882)

Embed

(h/t CSPAN Junkie)

Without one Republican vote, the House passed a deeply flawed bill that attempts to control the excesses of the financial services industry - while also letting them escalate many of the same crazy practices that led to this crisis. The Republicans, of course, thought the bill was too stringent.

The good news is that authorization for the Consumer Financial Protection Agency is included, and now the fight moves to the Senate:

Dec. 11 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. House voted to tighten rules for derivatives and create powers to break apart healthy financial firms that threaten the economy in legislation passed today over objections of Wall Street and Republicans.

Lawmakers voted 223-202 to set up a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, expand oversight of hedge funds and build a $150 billion industry fund the government would use to take apart failed systemically risky firms. The House failed to add language letting bankruptcy judges reset mortgage terms, known as a “cram-down.” The focus now shifts to the Senate, where lawmakers lack a schedule for action on a bill.

“We are sending a clear message to Wall Street: The party is over,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference after the vote.

The measure is central to lawmakers’ effort to end rescues of firms deemed too big to fail, which led to bailouts of New York-based American International Group Inc. and Citigroup Inc. The banking industry and the nation’s biggest business lobby fought to scale back the legislation. Republicans called the bill a permanent government bailout and 27 Democrats joined to vote against the measure.

“The free market, particularly when it’s in an innovative phase, works best with a fairly defined set of rules, and that’s what we’ve done,” House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who offered the legislation, said today at the news conference.

Krugman points out (again) that the administration should have nationalized troubled banks. They didn't, and the under-regulated, undisciplined banking industry is hurting everyone else as a result:

Ask the people at Goldman, and they’ll tell you that it’s nobody’s business but their own how much they earn. But as one critic recently put it: “There is no financial institution that exists today that is not the direct or indirect beneficiary of trillions of dollars of taxpayer support for the financial system.” Indeed: Goldman has made a lot of money in its trading operations, but it was only able to stay in that game thanks to policies that put vast amounts of public money at risk, from the bailout of A.I.G. to the guarantees extended to many of Goldman’s bonds.

So who was this thundering bank critic? None other than Lawrence Summers, the Obama administration’s chief economist — and one of the architects of the administration’s bank policy, which up until now has been to go easy on financial institutions and hope that they mend themselves.

Why the change in tone? Administration officials are furious at the way the financial industry, just months after receiving a gigantic taxpayer bailout, is lobbying fiercely against serious reform. But you have to wonder what they expected to happen. They followed a softly, softly policy, providing aid with few strings, back when all of Wall Street was on the ropes; this left them with very little leverage over firms like Goldman that are now, once again, making a lot of money.

But there’s an even bigger problem: while the wheeler-dealer side of the financial industry, a k a trading operations, is highly profitable again, the part of banking that really matters — lending, which fuels investment and job creation — is not. Key banks remain financially weak, and their weakness is hurting the economy as a whole.

Continue reading »

Joe Nocera, who writes the Executive Suite column for the New York Times, has done an interesting thing today. He 1) points out banks are lying about their involvement in subprime mortgages, he 2) notes that Barney Frank is absolutely wrong to defend them and 3) offers documents that support his claim. This is something we used to call "journalism," and I'm happy to see it:

“There has not been a case made that there is an enforcement problem with banks,” Edward Yingling, the head of the American Bankers Association, said last week. “There is a problem with enforcement on nonbanks.”

As I wrote in my column last week, this has become something of a mantra for the banking industry. We aren’t the ones who brought the world to the brink of financial disaster, they proclaim. It was those awful nonbanks, the mortgage brokers and originators, who peddled those terrible subprime loans to unsuspecting or unsophisticated consumers. They’re the ones who need to be regulated!

Apparently, when you say something long enough and loud enough, people start to believe it, even when it defies reality. Here, for instance, is the normally skeptical Barney Frank on the subject: “What happened was an explosion of loans being made outside of the regular banking system. It was largely the unregulated sector of the lending industry and the underregulated and the lightly regulated that did that.”

To which I can now triumphantly reply: Oh, really???

Last weekend, after the column was published, an angry mortgage broker — someone who felt she and her ilk were being unfairly scapegoated by the banking industry — sent me a series of rather eye-opening documents. They were a series of fliers and advertisements that had been sent to her office (and mortgage brokers all over the country) from JPMorgan Chase, advertising their latest wares. They were dated 2005, which was before the subprime mortgage boom got completely out of control. They’re still pretty sobering.

“The Top 10 Reasons to Choose Chase for All Your Subprime Needs,” screams the headline on the first one. Another was titled, “Chase No Doc,” and described the criteria for a borrower to receive a so-called no-document loan. “Got Bank Statements?” asked a third flier. “Get Approved!” In a number of the fliers, Chase makes it clear to the mortgage brokers that the bank doesn’t need income or job verification — it just needs to look at a handful of old bank statements.

“There were mortgage brokers who acted unethically, absolutely,” my source told me when I called her on Monday. (She asked to remain anonymous because she still has to work with JPMorgan Chase and the other big banks.) “But where do you think mortgage brokers were getting the subprime mortgages they were selling to customers? From the big banks, that’s where. Chase, Bank of America — they were all doing it.” So enough already about how the banks weren’t the problem. Of course they were. Here’s the evidence, right here. Read ’em and weep.

I haven't seen Michael Moore's new movie, but Howie Klein has, and while he praises it, he excoriates Moore for dredging up the discredited Chris Dodd Countrywide story, which has been picked over to death, with nobody finding any impropriety.

First, everyone who has seriously looked at the claims of a sweetheart deal has dismissed them: the Senate Ethics Committee; an independent compliance firm; the (not exactly Dodd-loving) Hartford Courant. And not once, but twice.

This is not the definition of the word "is." The man got a mortgage. He was told that he would get enhanced customer service, and assumed it was because of his good credit score. He got the exact same mortgage rate that anyone else buying a mortgage at the time would have gotten. He didn't know the CEO of Countrywide, nor anything about a Friends of the CEO program [...]

Why does this feel like, in the interest of being able to sit on Leno and say, "I went after Democrats too!," Moore passed up the real story here? It would have been really powerful if he made the connection between the bullshit allegations about Dodd and the banking industry desperately wanting to put the breaks on important housing and foreclosure legislation that Dodd was championing in the Senate at that very moment. Well, mission accomplished assholes, excuse me, the Sheriff is here to foreclose on my house (is it possible its the same one from Roger and Me? Oh, the irony) [...]

All in all, still love Moore, still want everyone to see the movie, but kind of wish he hadn't decided to jump ugly with one of the most progressive Senators in the Senate -- the guy responsible for the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Credit CARD Act, who voted for cramdown, worked to make that disaster of a bankruptcy bill better, then voted against it twice, voted for a 15% cap on interest rates, and is co-sponsoring another cap that is likely to come up again, is a leader on direct-student-loan reform, is in favor of a consumer financial protection agency and stripping the fed of some of its regulatory authority, and just last week introduced legislation to reign in the diabolical overdraft fee practice-- all stuff, if you are keeping score, which Moore clearly wasn't, that banks would rather paint a hammer and sickle on their walls than accept! I wish Moore hadn't got played like a three dollar harmonica. He should donate the 10 grand to Dodd's campaign.

It appears that the premise of Moore's film is that banking interests have taken over the government and prevented any meaningful regulation on the industry. Dodd's case can be an example of that, but not in the way Moore thinks. The banking lobby has consistently kneecapped him, with old charges that have a Whitewater quality to them, with all the same innuendo and the same lack of factual detail, right at the moments when Dodd was trying to get things passed to crack down on them. Dodd could have given away the Banking Committee Chair to completely-in-the-pocket Tim Johnson, but he didn't. And in the last few days, Dodd has introduced the aforementioned legislation to end the practice of banks charging overdraft fees on debit cards automatically, with 1000% interest, instead of giving customers the opportunity to have a transaction denied; introduced a plan for a single bank regulator that is at odds with the Obama Adminstration and his House counterpart Barney Frank, as well as being hated by the banking industry; and has taken the lead on weakening the power of the Fed, which is deeply desirable. In other words, despite the many slings and arrows, Dodd is basically doing the job Michael Moore would expect someone in his position to do, and doing it with gusto. He should be commended and not smeared.