Testimony Could Undercut SEC Charge Against Goldman

The government has testimony from a Paulson & Co. official that could contradict its own claims against Goldman Sachs, CNBC has learned.

Paolo Pellegrini told the government that he informed ACA Management that Paulson intended to bet against, or short, a portfolio of mortgages ACA was assembling.

If true, the testimony would go directly against government claims that ACA did not know Paulson was hoping the collateralized debt obligations would fail, and subvert charges that Goldman breached its duty by not informing ACA of Paulson’s position.

CNBC has examined documents in which a government official asked Pellegrini whether he informed ACA CDO manager Laura Schwartz about Paulson’s position in the portfolio, named Abacus 2007-AC1.

“Did you tell her that you were interested in taking a short position in Abacus?” a government official asked Pellegrini, referring to the name of the CDO portfolio.

“Yes, that was the purpose of the meeting,” Pellegrini responded.

Oops. I am guessing that is not the answer they anticipated:

The exchange is key in that the Securities and Exchange Commission is charging that the failure to disclose Paulson’s position was a “material” factor that could have caused both ACA and German Bank IKB to back out of the CDO investment. When the CDO failed, Paulson reaped a gain of more than $900 million, the government has said.

The SEC does not mention the exchange in its complaint against Goldman.

“We look forward to presenting a complete and accurate evidentiary record in court,” SEC spokesman John Nester said in a statement to CNBC.

CNBC further learned that Pellegrini and Schwartz met at least three times to discuss the CDO and Paulson’s short position on Abacus.

Because of the deal’s structuring, Paulson stood to gain $900 million from the deal but lose only $20 million.

Here’s the thing. Couldn’t they have actually done a TAD more investigating before making these charges against Goldman Sachs? I mean, they make the charges just the other day, and voila, a few days later, this testimony comes out completely contradicting their charges. I’m just saying, maybe SOMEONE could have done a little more homework before leveling these charges, don’t you think?

And while I am at it, NQ reader Peggy Sue supplied this fascinating testimony from William Black on Lehman Brothers to the House Finance Committee. It is quite an indictment of a number of federal entities, especially the Fed, as well as the SEC:

Holy smokes. Mr. Black didn’t mince any words, did he? He is exactly the kind of straight talker we need to clear up this big, huge, mess. And he exposes the sheer incompetence of those who have been charged with oversight of financial institutions, especially continuing “business as usual” when that business was costing us millions and millions of dollars.

It sounds to me like there are a helluva lot of people running this show deserving of lawsuits, too – I’m not holding my breath that they will get their comeuppance, though. They’ll probably get promotions…

Bloomberg’s Jonathan Weil once again distinguishes himself and provides great insight on this dynamic in writing, Fudging Losses is Easy When the FDIC Does It Too:

No wonder so many banks are delaying their losses. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. keeps showing them how, by doing the same thing with its own.

Last week the FDIC, led by Chairman Sheila Bair since 2006, said its insurance fund’s liabilities exceeded assets by $8.2 billion as of Sept. 30. That marked the first time since 1992 that the industry-financed fund had shown a deficit. There’s plenty of reason to believe its financial health is much worse.

How much worse?

Here’s how the numbers break down. The FDIC said its fund’s latest deficit included a $38.9 billion reserve for future bank failures, as of Sept. 30. By comparison, the agency reported $30.7 billion of such losses for the previous year.

The credibility of that reserve figure gets shaky when you consider how much the number of troubled banks has risen lately. The FDIC last week said the tally of banks on its “problem list” more than tripled during the past year. The list consists of banks that, in the agency’s view, exhibit “unsafe or unsound” lending practices or financial conditions. (The FDIC doesn’t name the banks.)

Specifically, the FDIC said there were 552 banks with $345.9 billion of assets on its problem list as of Sept. 30 — almost 7 percent of all U.S. banks. That was up from 171 banks with $115.6 billion of assets a year earlier.

The upshot: The FDIC says it expects only a modest increase in losses from bank failures during the next four quarters, while it also says the number of banks on the brink of failure has skyrocketed.

The analysis here is simple. The number of problem banks and problem assets increases by 300%. The reserve fund increases by 30% or 1/10th the rate of increase.

While Wall Street banks are supposedly racking up mega-profits and readying to pay extraordinary bonuses, the American taxpayer will be receiving a bill on Tuesday for the hamburgers the industry is eating today.

Thank you, Jonathan Weil.

LD

The intrigue behind the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America may never be known. Will Congress pursue total transparency and integrity to compel all pertinent parties to be fully forthcoming? Would Congress go so far as to appoint an independent investigator with powers to subpoena Ben Bernanke, Ken Lewis, John Thain, Hank Paulson, Larry Summers, and Tim Geithner? Does the rule of law apply in our country only when convenient? Bloomberg provides a peek into this intrigue, Republicans Say Fed Set Late Report of Merrill Loss:

House Republican staffers said the Federal Reserve tried to control the timing of disclosures of rising losses at Merrill Lynch & Co. in the weeks leading up to its takeover by Bank of America Corp., according to a memo obtained by Bloomberg.

The memo, prepared by staffers for Republican lawmakers at a House Oversight Committee hearing tomorrow, cites what it identifies as excerpts from internal Fed e-mails to support the conclusion. Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is scheduled to testify at tomorrow’s hearing in Washington.

The e-mails show that the Fed “engaged in a cover-up and deliberately hid concerns and pertinent details regarding the merger from other Federal Regulatory agencies,” Representative Darrell Issa, the panel’s senior Republican, said in an e-mailed statement.

Strong words by Representative Issa.

Cover-up? Who was negatively impacted by not revealing information on losses at Merrill Lynch? Existing Bank of America shareholders, who may very well have voted against this deal.

Hiding details from other Federal regulatory agencies? Such as? The SEC. The OCC. The FDIC, which would assume a significant percentage of losses on assets purchased by Bank of America. How did FDIC chair, Sheila Bair, feel about that prospect?

“Dear Ben, Strong discomfort with this deal at the FDIC, for all the reasons you and I have discussed,” Bair said in a Jan. 14 e-mail, according to the memo. “My board does not want to do this and I don’t think I can convince them to take losses beyond the proportion of assets coming out of the depository institutions.”

Who else was clearly reluctant to finalize this transaction? Bank of America chairman and CEO, Ken Lewis. He testified in February to New York State authorities about being pressured by Bernanke and Paulson. Lewis hedged his statement about Bernanke’s and Paulson’s pressuring him, if not outright threatening him, under questioning by Congress earlier this month.

Will we learn more today from Bernanke or will this chapter close without a full accounting of what truly happened? Will Congress pass the Obama administration’s proposal to make the Federal Reserve the uber-regulator to stem systemic risk? Might shareholder rights be trampled in the process? Do the ends justify the means? Do laws mean anything? Can one be a well-intended crook? So many questions.

LD

Right now, we all feel like we don’t know what to do with cash if we have it.

Many of us have accounts with banks and worry about whether or not they are solvent. Even with the FDIC promise, I know many people still worry about how easily or quickly they would be able to get access to their own money if their bank were to have problems.

You should also know that if a large failing bank were to be Nationalized, the stockholders would take the hit, but the account holders would not. In other words, if you have an account in one of these banks, it will remain intact. Whether or not limits would be set on how and when money can be removed remains to be seen. It has happened with some of these banks that have failed in order to quell “Runs” on the money.

So it would be a LOT easier to check your bank’s status now than to worry about it later. Of course, a bank’s rating can change as well, from bad to better or from good to not-so-good. So it’s best to check back every so often.

If you want to check your bank’s current rating or your credit union’s rating, go to the Safe and Sound at Bankrate.com.

You can also check the ratings for all the banks in your city, state, region. For each bank, you can get a report that provides more details as to why the bank has a particular rating.

Here’s a list of bank closings for 2008 and 2009. You can see 2007 and earlier closing list here. As you can see, this has been going on for awhile. The publicity on these closings was practically non-existent in 2007, and fairly paltry in 2008. In fact if you click on that link, you will see that there were bank Closings all the way back to 2000, with Penny Pritzker’s Superior Bank as one of the early, avoid-the-rush sub-prime lender seizures.

In some cases, the FDIC takes over the bank, but in many of the cases, accounts are just transferred to more solvent area banks, which makes for a smoother transition for customers.

2009

May 01-American West Bank-Layton, UT

May 01-Citizens Community Bank-Ridgewood, NJ

May 01-Silverton Bank, N.A.-Atlanta, GA

Apr 24-First Bank of Idaho-Ketchum, ID

Apr 24-First Bank of Beverly Hills-Calabasas, CA

Apr 24-Michigan Heritage Bank-Farmington Hills, MI

Apr 24-American Southern Bank-Kennesaw,GA

Apr 17-Great Basin Bank of Nevada-Elko, NV

Apr 17-American Sterling Bank-Sugar Creek, MO

Apr 10-New Frontier Bank, Greeley, CO

Apr 10-Cape Fear Bank-Wilminton, NC

Mar 27-Omni National Bank-Atlanta, GA

Mar 20-Team Bank N.A.-Paola, KS

Mar 20-Colorado National Bank-Colorado Springs, CO

Mar 20-First City Bank-Stockbridge, GA

Mar 06-Freedom Bank of Georgia-Commerce, GA

Feb 27-Security Savings Bank-Henderson, NV

Feb 27- Heritage Community Bank-Glenwood, Ill

Feb 13 – Pinnacle Bank of Oregon-Beaverton, OR

Feb13- Cornbelt Bank and Trust Co. – Pittsfield, Ill

Feb 13- Riverside Bank of Gulf Coast – Cape Coral, FLA

Feb 13 – Sherman County Bank- Loup City, NEB

Feb 6 – County Bank – Merced, CA

Feb 6 – Alliance Bank-Culver City CA

Feb 6 – FirstBank Financial Services -McDonough, GA

Jan 30 -Ocala National Bank – Ocala, FLA

Jan 30 – Suburban Federal Savings Bank – Crofton, MD

Jan 30 – Magnet Bank – Salt Lake City, UT

Jan 23 – First Centennial Bank – Redlands, CA

Jan 16 – Bank Of Clark County – Vancouver, WA

Jan 16 – National Bank of Commerce – Berkeley, ILL

2008

Dec 12 – Sanderson State Bank – Sanderson, TX

Dec 12 – Haven Trust Bank – Duluth, GA

Dec 5 First Georgia Community Bank – Jackson, GA

Nov 21 – PFF Bank and Trust – Pomona, CA

Nov 21 – Downey Savings and Loan Association, F.A – Newport Beach, CA

Nov 21 – Community Bank- Loganville, GA

Nov 7 – Security Pacific Bank, Los Angeles, CA

Nov 7 – Franklin Bank, SSB – Houston, TX

Oct 31 – Freedom Bank- Bradenton, FLA

Oct 24 – Alpha Bank and Trust – Alpharetta, GA

Oct 10 – Meridian Bank-Eldred, ILL

Oct 10 – Main Street Bank – Northville, MI

Sept 25 – Washington Mutual Bank-Henderson, NV and Park City, UT

Sept 19 – Ameribank-Northfork, WV

Sept 5 – Silver State Bank-Henderson, NV

Aug 29 – Integrity Bank-Alpharetta, GA

Aug 22 – Columbia Bank and Trust-Topeka, KAN

Aug 1 – First Priority Bank-Bradenton, FLA

Jul 25 – First Heritage Bank, N.A-Newport Beach, CA

Jul 25 – First National Bank of Nevada-Reno, NV

Jul 11 – IndyMac Bank – Pasadena, CA

May 30 – First Integrity Bank, NA-Naples, FLA

May 9 – ANB Financial, NA, Bentonville, AZ

Mar 2 – Hume Bank-Hume, MO

Jan 25 – Douglass National Bank-Kansas City, MO

If banks, much like students, are not required to pass rigorous testing, then “social promotion” in finance will produce results not unlike those in education–underperformance and ultimately an inability to compete on the global stage.

Against that backdrop, I personally looked forward to the results of the Bank Stress Tests. Let’s finally get an honest assessment of the “students.” Let’s see how they have performed and let’s project to see how they will perform!!

As with any test, the results are only meaningful if the process and proctor have unquestioned integrity. The proctors for the Bank Stress Test are none other than Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Fed chair Ben Bernanke. Why is a testing authority of the magnitude of FDIC, led by Sheila Bair, not more involved in the process? Ms. Bair is the one individual in our country with the greatest level of interaction with and understanding of the student body, that being the banking industry as a whole and individual banks specifically.

What does the FDIC, led by Ms. Bair, have to say about the upcoming Bank Stress Tests? The New York Post provides a CHILLING perspective:

The stress tests the government are about to conduct on some of the nation’s largest banks is being blasted by insiders at Sheila Bair’s Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., who say it’s a pointless exercise that’s more sizzle than steak.

The FDIC’s basic beef with the stress test is that it is not a credible way to assess how much additional cash beaten-down banks will need to weather what many Wall Street experts predict will be more losses in the coming months.

The tests are conducted by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve on the nation’s 19 biggest banks, including behemoths Citigroup, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase.

“It’s a sham,” one source told The Post, describing the test as an “open-book, take-home exam” that doesn’t actually work.

While specific details are still being worked out, the Treasury and Fed’s tests are expected to determine how banks might perform under the assumption that unemployment ratchets up and overall economic conditions worsen beyond what the market has seen so far.

However, Bair and others argue that the remedial test won’t be able to determine accurately how much each bank will need in the future.

These people say some banks found in solid shape today may later go to Uncle Sam hat in hand as the markets worsen. They also note that anything done now will largely be arbitrary.

Officials from the FDIC declined to comment.

The FDIC’s panning of the stress tests highlights the growing rift between Bair and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner over how to fix the ailing financial sector.

Many high-profile analysts already are voicing the concern that losses will pile up in areas most of Wall Street hasn’t watched closely, such as residential and commercial loans that are currently on banks’ balance sheets.

Banks can house these assets on their balance sheets at nearly their full value if they hold them to maturity. However, the credit crunch has made many of these loans worth far less. For example, market players said banks today will get anywhere from 60 cents to 80 cents on the dollar for option ARMs and home-equity loans they own.

Critics also argue that the stress test fails in comparison to other valuation methods such as Basel II, which took years to develop and was to serve as a global standard for assessing how much capital a bank should hold in relation to its risk.

“How is the Fed and the Treasury over a couple of weeks supposed to take a weird set of macroeconomic assumptions and come up with a number [for banks]?” one source asked.

The transparency of the test has also been called into question since expectations are that the Treasury won’t disclose specifically which banks need more cash to remain stable and which will pass muster.

Treasury expects to release some of its findings at the end of April.

Make no mistake, scathing insights such as these do not just happen to end up in the press. They are strategically released by people who do not want to be implicated in the future for not having provided fair warning. Ms. Bair, specifically, and her colleagues at the FDIC are much like many exemplary parents of students trapped in an urban school district. Their frustration is palpable because they care so much about the future of their children.

Let’s review some of the parents’ comments about the testing process: pointless exercise…more sizzle than steak…not a credible way…SHAM…open book, take home exam…transparency called into question…

I can hear Secretary Geithner now, “Best of luck in 7th grade, boys and girls.”

LD

The main point I tried to highlight in that piece was the need for true price discovery for these toxic assets. A loyal reader provided tremendous insight in highlighting that the PPIP needs to assure that sellers are truly at arm’s length from buyers to insure that the price discovery process is real and fair.

There are potential concerns with this price discovery process highlighted in my piece Send in the Clown. Are the bank portfolios, located within the largest banks needing to sell toxic assets, attempting to prop the market higher?

I received some real time market color from KD at 12th Street Capital as to initial responses from customers, both buyers and sellers, who may participate in this PPIP. What have I learned?

If buyers and sellers previously had a wide gap in the perceived value of these toxic securities, then it appears as if that gap may have widened. While cheap government financing and loss mitigation allow buyers to pay higher levels, their bids are only higher by a few points. Meanwhile sellers, instead of working toward a middle ground in the price discovery process, have actually raised their prices.

How might this get rectified? Uncle Sam, in the persons of Tim Geithner and Sheila Bair, will strong arm parties on both sides to engage and transact.

What may expedite this process? Little publicity has been given to the fact that the two largest corporate credit unions in the country, U.S. Central Credit Union and West Corp Credit Union, failed last week. What do these credit unions own in their portfolios? Lots of toxic assets. Who will handle the liquidations? The FDIC.

Buyers know that forced liquidations by failed institutions will establish price levels. If I am a buyer, why should I be in a hurry to purchase assets, knowing that there are plenty of assets for sale.

Why is the administration making the case for new and unprecedented powers at potentially Treasury, Fed, and FDIC to overtake non-financial institutions?

Matthew Richardson and Nouriel Roubini write on the predicament facing certain banks (thank you, Andy):

Finally, we have to anticipate the likelihood that some banks will resist selling their loans and securities. Why? Currently, the government has been giving them the option to keep holding them with the hope that market conditions will improve.

Going forward, the government must insist on the banks’ involvement in the new program. The reason that financial institutions must be pressured is that they are the cause of the financial crisis. They took advantage of loopholes to avoid regulatory requirements, taking a huge bet on securities they were never meant to hold in the first place.

What happens if removing toxic assets from a bank’s balance sheet at near-market prices shows it is effectively insolvent? Then we will have to face the elephant in the room. We may then have to start asking, “Why keep insolvent banks afloat?” And having asked that, we will have to search for ways to manage the ensuing systemic risk.

Either way, once the plan is fully implemented, we will be entering a new phase of the financial crisis.

The powers that be in Washington know that the liquidation process of these toxic assets will inevitably cause the failure of even more entities, both financial and non-financial. To that end, they are making the case now for new powers to step in, take over certain institutions that may pose real systemic risk, and methodically liquidate them. If that is the case, as a potential investor I am behooved to wait and be patient.

Moody’s Cuts Wells, BofA Ratings. What prompted these cuts? Exposure to commercial real estate. Exposure to option-ARM mortgages. Exposure to California and southwestern U.S. market that has extraordinary high levels of delinquencies and defaults.

The waves are high and getting higher. The cross currents are vicious. The undertow is strong.

LD

We can’t do it ALL at once!!! When China’s premier is questioning our credit worthiness and Larry Johnson is predicting runaway inflation [Larry said that on Batchelor's Sunday show], methinks we need to get our house in order and then build the add-ons — and only if we can. If we have to wait a few years, we wait a few years.

Now I realize that the Teflon Don of D.C., Mr. Barack Obama, has some experience buying things he can’t afford, like his mansion in Chicago, but perhaps the American people realize they’re not going to get such sweetheart deals with crooks in order to bail themselves out of massive debt because they’re already in bed with the Chinese Communists to the tune of ONE-FOURTH of ALL U.S. DEBT (!), and the American people would eventually like to sleep alone, fleece-free, and out from under the thumb of the Chinese, so much so we dare not mention human rights! (More about that tomorrow!)

Larry Doyle’s and my hero, Sheila Bair:

JUST A THOUGHT: Since Sheila has the FDIC job down cold, could she also pinch-hit as Secretary of the Treasury? Just a thought …

… and while we’re dreaming, can Hillary pinch-hit for Obama as president?

(I always say to myself: A girl can dream. Why not. Sometimes it sure beats the hell out of reality.)

I thoroughly respect Sheila Bair. Our Head of the FDIC has been an honest broker each and every time I have heard her speak. I looked forward to her interview with Paul Gigot of The Wall Street Journal.

Ms. Bair addresses the finer points of the Obama Foreclosure Mitigation Plan which is targeted at helping 9 million homeowners stay in their homes. Specifically she touches on:

1. how this program will not reward bad behavior;
2. how it can be viewed as helping people who have managed their finances appropriately;
3. expectations of redefaults given her experience with the failed institution Indymac.

As I initially mentioned, I believe Sheila Bair is an honest broker in an impossible position. Her seeming lack of enthusiasm does not strike me as not believing in the benefits of this program, but rather a subtle acceptance that this program can only go so far. Additionally, this type of program will have plenty of unintended consequences. Will people who are currently paying their mortgages on schedule start to become delinquent on their mortgages in order to gain the benefits of this program?

I think Ms. Bair will make the best of a bad situation. That said, no program will be totally effective. I am fully supportive of programs that will assist Americans, but don’t be fooled to think that we will get 100% return on all dollars spent.

Let’s go to the video . . .

1. FDIC had a $26bln loss in the 4th quarter and now has only $18bln in reserves. (Little doubt that FDIC premiums — insurance premiums that banks must pay — will be increasing to rebuild reserves. All costs ultimately flow through to customers). In fact in today’s WSJ, FDIC Poised to Double Fees Charged to Lenders

2. banking industry had first loss in 4th quarter 2008 since 1990

3. troubled institutions rose to 252 from 171 in 3rd quarter

4. banks have taken a total of $750 billion in writedowns on problem assets!!

5. banks have increased loan loss reserves to $69 billion from $32 billion

These numbers in conjunction with the Bank Stress Test lead me to make the relatively easy projections that:

— Government will have significant stakes in certain major institutions while continuing to take over and shut down many smaller institutions.

— Banks will continue to look to build reserves against future losses. This development along with a limited if not nearly non-existent “shadow banking system” (securitized consumer loan market) will mean that credit will be tight.

— As banks need to preserve capital, their ability to recruit and pay people will be severely restricted. I know employees are looking to leave these organizations to work at smaller shops without these problems.

— Although bank stocks are currently getting a bounce given government indications of support, these are not companies that have attractive growth prospects under these conditions.

LD

Comment by MBC | 2009-01-21 21:15:32
Hi LD,
Can you explain what the ramifications are if we nationalize US banks?

You had written in a previous thread, “the strong likelihood that the banking system in the United States has some form of nationalization. These are truly historic and challenging times and how this banking meltdown is handled from here will be both gut wrenching and critically important to our immediate and long term economic health and well being. We will be watching VERY closely.”

Thanks so much, remember like you are explaining to a high school student.

Comment by LD | 2009-01-21 22:02:46
MBC,
Well, given that we have never nationalized banks and had them continue operating all I can do is offer my opinion.

We effectively have nationalized banks via the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) but then paid off the depositors and closed the doors after selling off assets.

That is what I am recommending for institutions that are deemed insolvent. This approach was taken in Sweden in the early ’90s and the economy recovered fairly quickly (a few years).

In these instances, the shareholders are effectively wiped out. The creditors (people who have lent money to the banks) would get paid out up to the FDIC limit (250k) for individuals. For institutions which have lent money, they would have their repayment largely if not totally guaranteed by the government.

Departments or divisions that have value could then either spin themselves off or be sold. After all this is done, shut the doors. The party is over.

Why would such Draconian steps have to occur? Simply because the losses on loans of all types along with losses on investments will have overwhelmed the capital in the bank.

A second approach would have the government nationalizing the institution but then continue to operate it in hopes of generating revenue to write off the losses.

What is the risk here? That the losses on the loans and investments just merely get worse and it ends up costing even more money down the road than it would cost right now. This approach was taken in Japan in the ’90s and the economy did not turn around for a full decade (it is called The Lost Decade)

In each of these scenarios we need to be aware that the motives of the government are far different than the motives of private capital. The government is here to serve the public welfare. The private capital is in business to serve the interests of shareholders. Given changed motivations, we can only assume there will be different business practices.

Ultimately, we are trying to achieve not only stability in the banking system as a whole but growth and increased lending.

Does this make sense? Hope it helps.

Comment by LD | 2009-01-21 22:11:46
MBC,
After writing my own response to your question, I just saw this article from the Wall Street Journal, “What if Uncle Sam Takes Over Your Bank?” The people there must be monitoring NQ for ideas….(lol). I have yet to compare my reply to the article.

Having now just read the WSJ article, I hope that my comments with their details fully clarify the nationalization topic.

~LD

So much for a "stunt."

John McCain got involved in the bailout negotiations after Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Sen. Lindsey Graham yesterday that the bailout plan would fail unless McCain came in and brought balky Republicans aboard. That’s what Bob Schieffer reported on this morning’s Early Show. Schieffer’s account stands in stark contrast with the allegation by Dems like Barney Frank and their MSM cohorts that McCain’s moves of yesterday were nothing more than a political "stunt."

Here was Schieffer speaking with the Early Show’s Maggie Rodriguez at 7:05 AM EDT today:

BOB SCHIEFFER: I am told, Maggie, that the way McCain got involved in this in the first place, the Treasury Secretary was briefing Republicans in the House yesterday, the Republican conference, asked how many were ready to support the bailout plan. Only four of them held up their hands. Paulson then called, according to my sources, Senator Lindsey Graham, who is very close to John McCain, and told him: you’ve got to get the people in the McCain campaign, you’ve got to convince John McCain to give these Republicans some political cover. If you don’t do that, this whole bailout plan is going to fail. So that’s how, McCain, apparently, became involved.

Continued Schieffer . . .

SCHIEFFER: He has gotten what he wants, he’s going to have this meeting, kind of a summit today with the president and Barack Obama. …

Read all.

January 1, 2007 The International Economy

Fannie and Freddie post-election: the significance of the Democratic victories.

BYLINE: Owen Ullman

A decade ago, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the United States’ two mortgage financing behemoths, were flying high. They were among the most profitable companies in the world, had political connections to the White House and Congress, earned enormous bonuses for their corporate chieftains, and did not have to play by the same rules as other corporations. For all that, they could thank their congressional charters, which established them as Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs).

Those charters, which remain in place, grant them lines of credit from the Treasury, exempt them from local taxes, allow lower capital requirements than banks must meet, and spare them the mandatory disclosure requirements imposed on other public corporations. Most importantly, the implicit guarantee that Uncle Sam would bail them out in a crisis means a lower risk premium of roughly twenty-five basis pointswhen they borrow money. That quarter-point advantage is the basis oftheir lucrative business of buying and securitizing mortgages in thesecondary market.

As they grew larger and richer, critics warned that their lack of transparency and weak federal oversight would get them in deep trouble. Not a chance, they countered arrogantly. Well guess what? Like Icarus flying to close to the sun, the two companies have fallen far andfast onto their–dare we say–fannies.
It turns out the critics were right on the mark about the abuses that could result from lax accountability. Freddie paid a fine in 2003to settle charges that it misstated prior earnings by nearly $5 billion. Last December, Fannie reported that it overstated past profits by $6.3 billion. Meanwhile, federal regulators are trying to recover bonuses the top executives of each company received during the time earnings were misstated. In a suit filed against Fannie on December 18 to recover $115 million in compensation, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) said former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin D.Raines and other executives used numerous ruses to boost the company’s bottom line, and thus their bonuses.

Yet amid all the turmoil, lawsuits, and financial uncertainty befalling the companies, the current management teams at Fannie and Freddie have something to be thankful for in 2007: Democratic control of Congress.

The Democrats are less likely than Republicans to rein in the two companies’ financial practices. For the most part, Democrats like having leverage over the two GSEs so they can prod them to establish larger funds to make housing more affordable to low-income families. It is one of the top goals that the new House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) has promised to pursue.
Frank, who has one of the sharpest minds in Congress, also has predicted that Congress will pass a bill in 2007 to tighten regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That may be his intention, but the political reality is that the Democratic Party has many higher prioritiesto pursue after twelve years out of power. Frank’s counterpart in the Senate, Chris Dodd (D-CT) has not expressed any interest in going after the GSEs. So it is likely that any legislation will remain on the backburner.

18 August 2007 The Washington Post

Higher Caps Urged For Fannie, Freddie; Democrats Seek Bigger Role for Firms

BYLINE: David S. Hilzenrath; Washington Post Staff Writer

Leading Democrats pressed their case yesterday to give Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a larger role in the troubled mortgage markets, arguing that the two companies should be allowed to buy bigger mortgages and more of them.

The market upheaval has shifted a long-running discussion of the government-sponsored finance companies from the esoteric edges of inside-the-Beltway policy arguments to the forefront of the debate over how Washington should respond to a credit crunch. It has given supporters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fresh ammunition to challenge those who think the companies should be kept on a tighter leash.

Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a candidate for president, told reporters that regulators should raise limits on the companies’ mortgage investments by 5 percent so they can pump more money into the housing finance system. Together, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hold about $1.4 trillion of mortgages and securities backed by mortgages.

Dodd was elaborating on a position he staked out days earlier and was firing back at President Bush, who last week said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reformed before the government considers loosening their restraints.

Dodd said Congress can’t pass a reform bill fast enough to deal with the crisis at hand.

20 September 2007 The New York Times

Fannie Mae to Be Allowed to Expand Its Portfolio

BYLINE: By ERIC DASH

A government regulator gave Fannie Mae permission yesterday to slightly increase the amount of mortgages it can buy for its investment portfolio, a move that analysts say will do little to ease the strain on the housing market.

The moves, along with similar ones for Freddie Mac, should give the nation’s two biggest mortgage buyers a bit more flexibility in managing their portfolios. The changes are also intended to encourage the companies to purchase as much as $20 billion each in subprime loans.

But just two days ago, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, in a letter to Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts said relaxing the portfolio restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could prove ”ill advised.”

Wall Street analysts said that Ofheo’s changes would do little to ease the pressures on the housing market. And Fannie Mae, which has lobbied to raise the portfolio limit by 10 percent, and several Democratic lawmakers said yesterday that the moves did not go far enough.

In a statement, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, the chairman of the Banking Committee and a Democratic candidate for president, called Ofheo’s decision ”timid and inadequate.” He said the administration was ignoring the severity of the subprime mortgage crisis.

Others, however, suggested it could be a way for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to start regaining Ofheo’s trust.

”I actually think this was a smart way of giving the enterprises an opportunity to prove themselves,” said Josh Rosner, a managing director at Graham Fisher & Company who has been critical of Fannie Mae. Under the requirements, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must provide more frequent and detailed financial disclosures, including a monthly report that should more clearly parse out their purchases of subprime loans. . . .

It also came just two days after Mr. Bernanke sent a letter to Mr. Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, that defended the current portfolio limits and urged Congress to move cautiously if it considers letting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages over the current $417,000 limit.

16 November 2007 The Investor’s Business Daily

Freddie Mac’s Woes Come As Dems Try To Expand Lender; Sen. Schumer Not Giving Up; $2 bil loss, weak capital makes it harder to argue for larger Freddie, Fannie

BYLINE: SEAN HIGGINS

SECTION: FRONT PAGE NEWS; Pg. A01

LENGTH: 652 words

Freddie Mac on Tuesday declared a $2 billion third-quarter loss and warned it may have to slash its dividend and curb its mortgage buying to meet capital requirements.

A top Senate Democrat stuck to his solution: Let Freddie and Fannie get bigger. But it may be a harder case to make now. . . .

Big Problem, Bigger Solution?

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement Tuesday that it should surprise no one that the government-sponsored enterprises have been “negatively impacted” by the credit crunch.

“Today’s news does nothing to lessen the critical role that the GSEs must play in providing much-needed liquidity to a struggling market,” Schumer said.

A spokesman for Schumer confirmed he was referring to his own plan to lift the GSEs’ portfolio caps by 10%, at least temporarily.

Leading Democrats had proposed lifting the GSE caps to alleviate the broader housing crunch.

But that was before GSEs looked like part of the problem, reporting huge third-quarter losses.

To reach its mandated level of capital, Freddie Mac has signaled it may voluntarily limit its growth.

That comes as Democrats were gearing up to push the opposite direction. Schumer, and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., have both introduced bills that would lift the caps by 10%.

Their legislation would take 85% of that increase and use it to help refinance subprime mortgages at risk of foreclosure.

Frank is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which has authority over GSEs. Schumer is on the Senate Banking Committee. . . .

Republicans Favor Tight Curbs

Privately, a Senate Democratic aide conceded that enlarging GSEs now will be a “tough row to hoe.”
Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., didn’t mention expanding GSEs in a statement on Freddie’s losses.

Republicans have long opposed expanding the GSEs, arguing the risk of a financial crisis is too high.
“Because the GSEs are already large enough to pose a risk to the entire housing finance system, we must focus our efforts on making sure they are well-capitalized and well-regulated, rather than discussing ways to expand them,” Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the ranking Republican on the Senate banking panel, said in a release.

Freddie and Fannie can borrow at lower rates because Wall Street assumes the federal government would bail out them out in a crisis.

Robert Steel, a top adviser to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, told the Hill newspaper that Congress should focus on comprehensive GSE reform rather than raising the portfolio caps.

Those fears gained greater currency in 2004 when the GSEs were forced to restate past earnings lower. The scandal resulted in the forced departure of then-Fannie Mae Chairman Franklin Raines.
Congress later passed legislation giving the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight more authority over the GSEs.

Bottomline–Frank, Schummer, and Dodd, apart from being some of the top recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac largesse, did little to avert this crisis and in fact appear to have exacerbated it. So count me a sceptic when it comes to trusting these clowns to put together a bailout program. They ignored clear warnings. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact of history.

“Hillary took to the floor of the Senate today to lay out her plan for halting the economic meltdown, and her Senate staff has the video of her speech up online. … [L]isten to what she’s got to say. She’s speaking about what needs to be done NOW to address the economic meltdown taking place up on Wall Street this week. She talks in detail for over 20 minutes and dammit, it just breaks my heart that someone this capable and brilliant isn’t headed to the White House this fall.”

COMPARE AND CONTRAST: Ricki Lieberman and Ann, a No Quarter reader, strongly suggest you compare the video that NancyA has posted below with, ahem, Barack Obama’s video on “solving our financial crisis.” Obama urges everyone to “watch the ad and share it with everyone you know.” Uh, Barack, I think we’ll be sharing Hillary’s video that NancyA put up below.

…………………………………………………………

NANCYA’s post: While Senators John McCain and Barack Obama were auditioning for who could best handle a national economic emergency, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton released the following statement from her office in Washington, DC. As usual Senator Clinton understands the dangers of this “once in a century” crisis. She calls it “the greatest market upheaval since the Great Depression”. She did the following:

…called for swift and strong action to stem the growing credit crisis on Wall Street. Assailing the Bush Administration for ignoring repeated warnings of the growing crisis and failing to provide adequate oversight of an increasingly complicated market, Senator Clinton offered a series of bold, specific proposals, including creating a new version of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) to restore confidence in the market, curbing the most damaging and manipulative trading practices, providing relief to homeowners facing foreclosure, and reasserting competent federal oversight.

She outlined several proposals. Here is a list of her proposals:

* Create a new entity to buy up and quarantine toxic mortgage securities that are dragging down the markets which would allow the markets to stabilize. Last spring Senator Clinton was among the first to call for a new entity modeled after the successful Depression-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) or the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) created after the Savings and Loan crisis.

In response, Senator Clinton outlined a series of proposals to address the crisis, a crisis she warned about during the primary:

* Place a temporary moratorium on the most abusive stock transactions, many of which involve the “short-selling” of stocks. Yesterday, Senator Clinton wrote to the Securities and Exchange Commission urging such a moratorium, saying it would provide breathing room for the markets to recover, for investors to make accurate assessments of companies and for regulators to assess what trading practices should be permanently banned.

* Convene an emergency economic summit to show the American people their government is working together. Bringing together leaders in the administration and Congress with lenders, consumer advocates, non profits, financial institutions, and all stakeholders will allow a coordinated response to the crisis.

* Aggressively pursue and encourage mortgage modifications. Senator Clinton has introduced legislation to remove barriers to mortgage modification and to encourage lenders to voluntarily work with borrowers to keep them current on payments and in their homes.

* Restore competent federal oversight of the increasingly complicated financial markets. The rapid evolution of the securities and banking industry overwhelmed the current regulatory framework, resulting in a “shadow banking system” that operates outside of oversight and without accountability.

* Require transparency and accountability on executive pay. Senator Clinton has proposed the Corporate Executive Compensation Accountability and Transparency Act to impose new transparency rules on executive pay, end the accounting techniques that hide compensation, and provide shareholders a say in executive compensation packages.

* Ensure the accountability of financial institutions borrowing money from the Federal Reserve’s new lending facilities. Taxpayers deserve to know that the companies they are bailing out are on the road to recovery and aren’t throwing more good money after bad.

Here is video of her remarks to the Senate yesterday:

The transcript of Senator Clinton’s remarks follows.

Senator Clinton: Thank You, Mr. President. We have seen the financial landscape in our country reshaped over night. The titans of Wall Street have been rendered insolvent or even bankrupt. These are firms that survived the Great Depression, World Wars, the attacks of September 11th, but were no match for a mounting credit crisis allowed to escalate in the shadows of our financial system. The Federal Government has taken over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bear Stearns had to be rescued by J.P. Morgan Chase after the federal government guaranteed J.P. Morgan’s investment. And while they’re in talks to keep part of the company viable, Lehman Brothers has declared the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history. Merrill Lynch has been purchased by Bank of America and the Federal Government has agreed to rescue AIG. This past Monday we saw the largest drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average since 9/11. Now even money market funds are affected. For only the second time in our history, one has been valued at less than 100 cents on the dollar. Alan Greenspan has called this a once-in-a-century event. In my state of New York, tens of thousands of hard-working employees have lost their jobs. And the livelihoods of tens of thousands more who depend on Wall Street’s economy are threatened as well.

New York City and New York State, already facing serious economic and fiscal challenges, will now be forced to contend with a battered Wall Street, the lifeblood of our state’s economy. And the sudden collapse of these firms and the government takeover of some have shaken our markets and buffeted the economy as a whole.

Many are now asking, What’s next?

I know that New Yorkers and Americans are deeply concerned and more than a little bewildered. As our markets have grown more complex and interconnected globally, so too have the crises that have emerged. And we are still sorting out the details.

One of the consequences of the secrecy and lack of oversight under the Bush Administration is that we do not know what we do not know. But it is important to recognize what we do know about what went wrong so that we can assess what needs to be done right now to make it right.

What we have seen over the course of the last eight years is an administration that refused to recognize the threats lurking in our economy, no matter what lurked just beneath the surface or what problems were facing middle class families.

Now, we know that many CEO’s are paying lower tax rates than their receptionists. We know that President Bush and those who carry his mantle seek to lower those taxes even further. Middle class families have seen their wages decline even as the cost of living has skyrocketed. This administration has the worst job creation record in 70 years. Millions of families were locked into ballooning and unaffordable adjustable-rate loans as this administration stood by denying there was a crisis. Regulators and regulations designed to keep pace with the markets have been steadily chipped away by Washington Republicans even as companies experimented to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in ever more complex and risky financial instruments.

Now, we were reassured that the risk was too diversified and investments too sophisticated to put our economy in jeopardy. Meanwhile, behind closed doors, the cracks were showing as the value of mortgage-based securities slipped day by day by day. And the President and his supporters in Congress repeatedly chanted – and still chant the mantra today – that the fundamentals of our economy are strong.

The administration waxed philosophical when middle class families started facing foreclosures at record levels. The administration and their allies derided my proposals over the last two years to offer assistance to troubled homeowners seeking refinancing as a bailout. They dismissed my concerns and the concerns of millions of Americans even as the storm clouds gathered. They said they didn’t believe the government should intervene and provide borrowers an affordable opportunity to avoid foreclosure. Even when I and others warned the Bush Administration repeatedly from the start of this crisis that decisive action was demanded immediately to help families stay in their homes, that that was the best way to stave off a deepening economic crisis, their only responses were predictions for a soft landing and that the crisis could be contained.

Well, as I traveled throughout our country, I could see that no soft landing was forthcoming.

Many families, hundreds and even thousands of miles from Wall Street, were having their lives turned upside-down by the home mortgage crisis, and the ripple effects being felt throughout the economy, as a consequence of the broken economic policies of the last eight years.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration waited until this past summer to admit that massive housing relief was necessary. The administration finally supported in concept much of what I had proposed: mortgage modifications, freezes for unreasonable mortgage rate increases, and an expanded role for the Federal Housing authority.

But their response was half-hearted, without adequate resources or a commitment to enforcement. And so the home mortgage crisis slowly but surely eroded the value of risky debt instruments upon which Wall Street firms were depending. The house of houses of cards began to fall. My proposals, as well as those of others, were greeted as too much, too soon. Now we are forced to reckon with too little, too late.

When giant Wall Street firms revealed their dire straits and turned to this administration for the exact same help as we had sought for middle-class families — discounted loans, loan modifications and government-backed lending to weather the storm, Adam Smith was nowhere in sight.

Taxpayers have loaned these banks upwards of half a trillion dollars. And after years of laissez-faire policies for the middle class, the Bush Administration has acted on behalf of Wall Street with the largest and most significant federal interventions in the history of our modern financial system. The largest banks in the world can have closed-door meetings with the White House and the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department to discuss their bailout options, but millions of homeowners with mortgages worth more than their homes, or who are facing default and foreclosure, don’t have the same opportunity.

And this administration seems to be once again paralyzed.

Now, I represent both the workers and the homeowners and the investment firms. I wish we had taken action long before this for the sake of all of my constituents, but now we must have a concerted, focused effort. I don’t believe we can wait until the next president. I am extremely hopeful and optimistic that we will have a president who will work with us to resolve our economic challenges, but I don’t think we can wait.

However, I do believe we can avoid a deepening crisis. We can take steps right now to address the root causes of what is taking place in our economy to stem the tide of foreclosures and mortgage defaults and the aggregating consequences in the credit markets on Wall Street and throughout the global economy.

But we must cast aside the haphazard, half-hearted approach of this administration and bring every stakeholder to the table to seek out and implement the right solutions. We must be as vigilant on behalf of homeowners and middle class families as we are on behalf of Wall Street firms. We must chart a new course based on the facts at hand, not the ideology at work for eight long years. We’ve tried being reactive. It’s time now to be decisive.

No options should be off the fable, certainly not because they don’t fit into a narrow ideological prism that this administration abandoned — for some — at the first signs of trouble. Ideologues in Washington or in the market who thought that the only danger to the marketplace was the Federal Government are now going hat in hand to that same government seeking help to stay afloat.

So to those who suggest that the steps taken thus far are enough, let me be clear: we may need to take even more significant steps to avoid a self-sustaining cycle of depressed home prices and foreclosures with the consequent effects on the entire marketplace.

We’ve already pumped hundreds of billions of dollars of liquidity into the markets but we still cannot see the end of this crisis. The biggest problem now is that our entire financial market is anchored down by the mortgage securities that are untouchable. We’ve seen the banks and the financial institutions that had the largest exposures to these instruments among the first to fail. But now we’ve begun to see some of the mightiest institutions, even those making a profit, fall by the wayside, the market thrown into upheaval, and others the target of predatory short sellers.

The Federal Reserve has used virtually every arrow in its quiver, from rate cuts, opening its lending windows and in desperation has even created some new arrows through its new lending facilities. By some estimates, the Fed has put out more than a half a trillion dollars through discounted loans, bailouts and takeovers to stabilize the market and the economy. While necessary to prevent even deeper disaster, we’ve seen that the benefits of these actions have had limited effects.

This situation reminds me of that old fable, where people are standing by the side of a river and they keep seeing babies being rushed down the river in the current and they desperately reach out trying to save as many babies as possible. Day after day they’re reaching out. They get new tools, they build a bridge, they get a ladder, they’re constantly trying to get to those babies. They’re hoping that they can save as many, until finally somebody walks up and says, “Who’s throwing them in? Go upriver, find out what the real problem is and stop that!”

The real problem has always been the way our home mortgage system got totally out of whack with new kinds of instruments that were sold many times over with very little regard to the realities of life, human nature, and the inevitable ups and downs in the economy, with the results that until we reach in and fix the home mortgage crisis, we can bail out everybody from here till kingdom come, we will not get a handle on this economic crisis.

So here’s what I believe we should do.

First, in light of historic bank failures, even with the largest federal intervention in the history of the mortgage market, we need a government entity, a modern-day Homeowners Loan Corporation, referred to as HOLC — H-O-L-C — or we need to build on the Resolution Trust Corporation created to help deal with the Savings and Loan Crisis.

Now, I personally believe and was among the very first to suggest that a HOLC, a Homeowners Loan Corporation, could be a preferable way of unfreezing and beginning to fix our struggling mortgage market. Some of my colleagues and many other respected economists and government officials have called for the creation of an entity like the Resolution Trust Corporation, which was created after the Savings and Loan crisis to liquidate in an orderly way the virtually worthless assets that the failed S&L’s held.

Just yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, Paul Volker, and Eugene Ludwig and Nicholas Brady made such a proposal. They said a HOLC, an RTC, we’ve got to come up with an entity that will assume these debts and burdens and begin to work our way out.

Last spring when I called for a modern version of the HOLC, that’s the Depression-era entity that bought up old mortgages and issued new, more affordable ones in their stead, most people did not pay much attention. But I think it’s important to note that by the time the HOLC closed its books, that agency had turned a small profit and helped over a million people keep their homes. And this was 70 years ago. Our population has grown dramatically. So, obviously, if we did it right, we would be able to save a lot of homes. And I think if it is administered correctly it could be actually a net expenditure or even winner for the federal government.

Now, with the FHA reforms that I have long championed adopted this summer in our Omnibus Housing Bill, the FHA could be already a modern Homeownership Lender Corporation. But we need to look to new ways to revive and if necessary create a new market for mortgage securities based on sound accounting, transparent recordkeeping and responsible lending.

A new government entity like the HOLC with a focus on attacking the source of the problem can serve the purpose of clearing a lot of those toxic mortgage securities from the market. We know there will not be any semblance of a normal or orderly marketplace until we have found a way to resolve these mortgage securities that are metastasizing in the bottom of our markets. By taking this paper out of the market and quarantining it in this new entity we will be able to give the market breathing room to recover. We will also be able to set the stage for an orderly sale of these securities and in turn allow some of them to recover and actually regain some of their value. Perhaps just as importantly, not only would our financial markets stabilize but so would our housing markets.

This is an extraordinary measure but it is not without precedent. This is the greatest market upheaval since the Great Depression. We are, indeed, in a crisis, and in times of crisis there are opportunities for leadership. Congress could show the American people that leadership working with the President by embracing this bold proposal.

Second, I’m calling on the Securities and Exchange Commission to take immediate action to address the abusive and manipulative short-selling practices that are rattling the markets, threatening firms and jobs and sending shockwaves across the broader economy. I commend the SEC for yesterday tightening rules against manipulative short-selling. The SEC’s rulings are a positive step in curbing the heightened volatility casting uncertainty on domestic markets and financial institutions. However, the Commission did not go far enough.

As a Senator from New York, I have a special duty to represent the workers of the financial services industry and to try with all my might to retain New York City as the financial capital of the world. The abuses that have disrupted the markets today will impact the lives of so many far beyond New York.

So I think it’s necessary for the SEC to take steps similar to the emergency rule it imposed this past July when the Commission concluded that there now exists a substantial threat of sudden and excessive fluctuations of security prices generally, and disruption in the functioning of the securities markets that could threaten fair and orderly markets.

Conditions now pose a greater threat than they did in July, and several of the institutions that the Commission sought to insulate from abuse do not even exist or certainly not in the in the same form that they did two months ago.

So we need to stay a step ahead, not a step behind. So I urge the Commission, as I expressed yesterday in a letter to Chairman Cox, to move toward a temporary moratorium on all of the abusive and manipulative short-sale practices associated with substantial financial firms like those the Commission identified in July. A temporary moratorium would allow the marketplace to take a step back, take a deep breath, and it would allow the Commission and other regulators to identify and weed out the sources of these abusive transactions.

Moreover the Commission should give close consideration to the many calls for the immediate restoration of the uptick rule, whose repeal has been linked to the recent market volatility and proliferation. I know there are technical problems in terms of moving toward digitized trading but we ought to be able to figure out how to handle those.

Third, I’m calling on President Bush to convene an economic summit right now that brings together leaders in the administration, the Congress, with lenders, consumer advocates, nonprofits, financial institutions and all the stakeholders. Such a summit, I believe, would restore confidence, demonstrate that the entire country is focused on solving the problem we face.

Fourth, I want to propose, once again, that we aggressively pursue and encourage mortgage modifications. I’ve introduced such legislation. I believe it’s important. Ten million homeowners are under water today carrying more than $2 trillion in mortgage debt. That is a huge anchor on our markets and economy. Modification, done right, is a strategy that serves lenders and borrowers as well as the broader markets.

Fifth, it is clear that for too long the rapid evolution of the securities and banking industry overwhelmed our regulatory framework resulting in an entire shadow banking system that operated outside of oversight and without accountability. It’s not enough just to shift responsibility or move lines on a flowchart. We need a new regulatory framework. We’ve been living off of the one from the Great Depression. Now is the time to create a new framework.

Six, I proposed the Corporate Executive Compensation Accountability and Transparency Act to impose new transparency rules on executive pay and the accounting techniques, the high compensation, and provide shareholders a say in executive compensation packages.

Finally, and seventh, I’m proposing that we require any financial institutions borrowing money from the Federal Reserve’s new lending facilities to open their books and ensure accountability and transparency to identify unsound practices. These banks and other entities have tapped the Fed’s new lending windows levels for over $300 billion in capital. They’ve shifted a lot of that risk onto the backs of our taxpayers. These are unprecedented interventions and we should make sure that these companies aren’t using taxpayer dollars to subsidize golden parachutes or risky investments, throwing your good money after bad. If we’re bailing you out we deserve to know exactly your liabilities. And you have to be part of this new regulatory framework.

This crisis has not abated. It’s time for us to start acting like Americans again. There isn’t anything we can’t solve once we put our minds to it. For that we need leadership. I know that our leader, Senator Reid, has said that the Senate will remain in pro forma session. We are ready to work with the administration, to work with the other stakeholders to change course and end the failed economic policies and failure of regulatory oversight that brought us to this point.

Now there’s much more, Madam President, that we need to do. Individuals have to take responsibility. We know that. But in this dynamic environment we must work together to stabilize the market, tackle the root causes that have festered too long, and restore confidence in our economy.

We’ll weather this storm but let’s do it sooner instead of later. Let’s try to save as many boats in the water right now instead of cleaning up the wreckage on the banks. I believe we can do that, and I thank you, Madam President, for your attention, and I hope that we’ll be able to start seeing action very soon. Thank you, and I yield the floor.

After watching the video of her remarks and reading the transcript, I sit here wondering why she isn’t our Democratic presidential candidate. And I remember the sadness and hole in my heart that I felt when I returned home from Montana and knew I would not see her as our candidate or our president this year.

The Pritzkers are one of the nation’s wealthiest families and heirs to the fortune created by the Hyatt hotels. Yes, Penny is a billionaire. So basically, Penny could squash me like a bug right now for writing this.

Among their other endeavors, the Pritzkers were the owners of Superior Bank in Hinsdale, Illinois when it was seized. Yes, I did say seized.

Here’s a Press Release from the Office of Thrift Supervision, Bureau of the US Treasury:

OTS Closes Superior Bank FSB; Hinsdale, Ill. Thrift is Insolvent

WASHINGTON – The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) closed Superior Bank FSB, Hinsdale, Ill., today and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver.

The FDIC transferred the insured deposits and substantially all the assets of Superior Bank into a newly chartered, full-service mutual savings bank, known as Superior Federal, FSB, which will open for business on Monday morning. All depositors of Superior Bank automatically become depositors of Superior Federal, and will have immediate access to their insured funds. All 18 of Superior Bank’s Chicago metropolitan area offices will open for business Monday and will continue to offer full banking services, including online banking. Superior Bank’s loan production and servicing operations will also continue to operate normally.

OTS used its authority under the FDIC Improvement Act of 1991 to close Superior Bank when it found that the bank remained critically undercapitalized — that its tangible equity capital was less than two percent of its total assets. The bank failed to implement a capital restoration plan that it submitted to OTS on May 24 this year.

Superior Bank suffered as a result of its former high-risk business strategy, which was focused on the generation of significant volumes of subprime mortgage and automobile loans for securitization and sale in the secondary market. OTS found that the bank also suffered from poor lending practices, improper record keeping and accounting, and ineffective board and management supervision.

Superior became critically undercapitalized largely due to incorrect accounting treatment and aggressive assumptions for valuing residual assets. The bank also experienced significant losses during 2000 from its automobile lending program.

OTS has determined that Superior Bank is insolvent, having incurred losses that have depleted all or substantially all of its capital. OTS also determined that Superior Bank was no longer able to transact business in a safe and sound manner.

OTS notified the bank of its serious concerns in July 2000. The bank was purchased by two families in 1988 — the Pritzker family of Chicago, owner of Hyatt Hotels and other interests, and the Dworman family of New York, with interests in real estate and financial services activities — and was operated through a complex network of holding companies.

In light of these findings, OTS determined that closure and the appointment of FDIC as receiver were necessary to protect the interests of the bank’s insured depositors.

As of March 31, 2001, the failed bank had total assets of $1.9 billion and total deposits of $1.5 billion. FDIC insures depositors’ accounts up to the statutory limit of $100,000.

Superior is the only bank that OTS has closed in 2001, and only the fourth OTS-regulated institution closed in the past five years.

The FDIC has established a toll free telephone number for customers of Superior. That number is 1-800-331-6306, and will be available until midnight tonight and then from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily thereafter.

I thought you might also like to hear an interview with one of Penny Pritzker’s victims and how this bank closing affected her life. You will also hear her reaction to the thought that Barack Obama would hire Penny Pritzker as his campaign Finance Chair, not to mention her horrified reaction to the thought that Ms. Pritzker might one day be “Secretary of the Treasury”. If “Play” doesn’t work, Click in MP3 Stream link. Buckle your seat belt first, please. This woman does not spare details and is not in a good mood. I suppose I wouldn’t be in a very good mood either if I lost my savings to Penny Pritzker.

I guess the main stream media didn’t think this Petty little Penny Pritzker Problem (say that three times fast) was important enough to look into.

Additional links on this bilking of innocent people:
NY Times, December, 2001

FDIC Failed Bank Information – Superior Bank

OTS Closes Superior Bank FSB; Hinsdale, Ill. Thrift is Insolvent

OTS Announces Resolution of Charges Against Auditor of Closed Superior Bank FSB

And please visit my blog:

Hyper Educated Uppity Woman