HOW SUBPRIME POLITICIANS, LOBBYISTS AND BANKERS CAUSED CRISIS
Robert L. Borosage, Huffington Post Created by the government in the 1930s to help lubricate the US mortgage market by buying mortgages from the banks so they would have the cash to make more mortgages, Fanny and Freddy were able to borrow money at a discount because of a widely shared assumption that the government would stand behind their debts if push came to shove. Their operations were regulated, limited by laws detailing what mortgages they could assume (They were essentially prohibited from diving directly into the subprime muck). But as they grew and profited, their executives pocketed lavish salaries and bonuses -- giving them an incentive to grow even more (and as we discovered earlier this decade, to cook the books). Last year, for example, the Chair of Freddie Mac took home a cool $18,289,575. Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd reaped a 7 percent rise in pay to $13.4 million in 2007 while the company lost $2 billion and its shared fell 33%. Nice work if you can get i. . .
If the guarantees work, private speculators, having driven the stock down, will clean up on the upside. And the bank's CEO's will continue to pocket the multi-million dollar salaries that are de rigueur on Wall Street. Call it Wall Street socialism. Their losses are socialized; their profits are pocketed. You and I will pay for their failures. . .
Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are only the most recent and extreme version of Wall Street socialism. The Bush administration has done essentially the same for private providers of college loans. The Federal Reserve has made taxpayers the guarantor not simply of the banks that it regulates, but the shadow banking system of hedge funds and investment houses that it doesn't regulate. After the bailout of Bear Sterns, they basically are gambling with our money. The Federal Reserve has now traded more than $500 billion in federal bonds for the toxic paper of private banks and investment houses, some $200 billion of it in mortgage backed securities, worth dimes on the dollar. This massive subsidy -- justified as necessary to keep the banking system afloat -- is not accompanied by limits on what gambles the speculators can make, how much debt they can take on, what rewards they can pocket. They are playing with house money -- not exactly an incentive for prudence.
Dean Baker, Prospect I hate to make a whipping boy out of Ben Bernanke, he came into an impossible situation, but this is someone who has minimized the problems of the housing market at every turn. Before he took his post as Fed chairman he told the Washington Post that there was no housing bubble. In March of last year he told Congress that the problems in the subprime mortgage market were "likely to be contained" and not spread to the larger economy. After missing the last Bear Stearns, Bernanke told Congress that he doesn't anticipate another Bear Stearns. And now that we seem to be seeing something that looks a lot like Bear Stearns at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Bernanke tells us not to worry.
Jonathan Weisman Washington Post When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's stock prices plunged and rumors of their insolvency swirled, the presidential campaigns of Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama released terse statements about the mortgage giants, then went nearly silent. . .
"You see a consensus developing that the current system is unsustainable," said David C. John, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "But actually saying what has to happen next is a little bit scary if you're in a campaign, especially if some of your most prominent supporters have such deep ties to these entities."
Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, was president of the Homeownership Alliance, which advocates the expansion of homeownership through low-interest mortgages funded by Fannie and Freddie. Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., who is heading McCain's vice presidential vetting panel, was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae. Mark Buse, a longtime McCain aide, lobbied for Freddie Mac before returning to McCain's Senate staff.
And the list of Republican Fannie and Freddie lobbyists includes some of its most notable rogues -- including Tony Rudy, Edwin Buckham, Kevin Ring and David H. Safavian, all of whom were linked to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal -- as well as some of its leading power brokers, from Reagan White House chief of staff Kenneth M. Duberstein to uberlobbyists Vin Weber and Tom Korologos. Alberto R. Cardenas, one of McCain's top fundraisers, has lobbied for Fannie Mae, as have former
Obama also has ties to the firms. James A. Johnson, the former head of his vice presidential vetting panel, was a chief executive of Fannie Mae, as was Franklin D. Raines, who said this week that he has been consulting with the campaign on housing issues. Maria Echaveste, a top Clinton White House official whose husband, Christopher Edley Jr., is a close Obama friend and adviser, has lobbied for Freddie Mac, and former commerce secretary William M. Daley, a top Obama backer, was an in-house lobbyist.
Other Democratic luminaries who have advocated for the mortgage giants include strategist Steven Elmendorf, Rep. Doris Matsui (
That payroll has cost Fannie and Freddie nearly $200 million in lobbying and campaign contributions over the past decade, according to lobbying reports and Federal Election Commission disclosures. It has also won them plenty of protection from calls for greater regulation, less federal protection, and even nationalization.
With the current housing meltdown, that protection may be ending,
Robert Novack As financial storm signals appeared the past 18 months, some Bush officials urged drastic reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But, according to internal government sources, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson objected because it would look "too political." The Republican administration kept its hands off the government-backed mortgage companies that are closely connected to the Democratic establishment.
Paulson is a Republican, but as head of the Goldman Sachs investment bank he had close ties with Democratic-dominated Fannie Mae.
After prominent Democrat James A. Johnson's departure from Fannie following eight years as chairman and chief executive, and after Johnson joined the ZymoGenetics biopharmaceutical firm, he was named head of Goldman Sachs's compensation committee, helping to set Paulson's abundant salary there.
That connection was not enough for Paulson to recuse himself from dealing with the crisis threatening Fannie, Freddie and the whole American economy. He structured the bailout and was on the phone last weekend encouraging leading investment bankers to buy Freddie Mac bonds. Financial consultant Lawrence Lindsey, President Bush's former national economic director, told clients on Sunday, "Surely things are somewhat amiss when a country's finance minister plays bond salesman for a supposedly privately owned company."
Testifying before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday, Paulson stressed that there would be a federal purchase of assets only if necessary. But relying on investment bankers could be awkward for Paulson because of indiscreet jubilation from his old company. "This is our bailout," a senior Goldman Sachs official told a Wall Street colleague this week, suggesting that the firm will be cherry-picking for mortgage bargains.
Paulson is not unique in paying tardy attention to the mortgage companies. The only senior executive branch officials who expressed alarm about overextended Fannie and Freddie were former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, and their warnings were shrugged off.
It was worse on Capitol Hill. When Republican Richard Baker represented
Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel had trouble finding other Senate supporters for Baker's bill.
Baker, Hagel and Richard Shelby, ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, were rare members of committees with jurisdiction who took the issue seriously. The powerhouse Democratic overseers of the banking committees -- Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Christopher Dodd and Sen. Chuck Schumer -- protected Fannie and Freddie.


3 Comments:
These kind of analyses remind me of Warren Brown's sage admonition:
"Abandon your conspiracy theories, your worries that global oil companies are gouging us at the pump. For the record, they are. It's the kind of profiteering that accompanies any crisis -- war and rumors of war, hurricanes, or other actual or imminent disasters.
"What the oil companies are doing isn't moral. Nor is it illegal. But it is business.
"Crises usually are profitable for people positioned to exploit them; and they usually are costly for those who aren't."
- A Gas Crisis 30 Years in the Making (tinyurl.com/6ypkcz)
Or, put another way -- with regard to the current ProRev frontpage cartoon caption: "Capitalism necessitates an oppressed underclass? I had no idea!" -- the evolutionary nature of the human primate necessitates an oppressed underclass.
As a species we're not remotely close to transcending or "outgrowing" our hierarchical, anthropological reality.
Natura non facit saltus.
On the other hand, nothing comes without a price.
As Emerson wrote in his essay Compensation:
"The absolute balance of Give and Take, the doctrine that everything has its price, and if the price is not paid, not that thing but something else is obtained, and that it is impossible to get anything without its price, is not less sublime in the columns and ledger than in the budgets of states, in the laws of light and darkness, in all the action and reaction of nature."
Nemo malus felix.
Cheers!
"Nemo malus felix"
If only that were true. It depends on perspective and timing.
But I do agree with Emerson: "it is impossible to get anything without its price".
--
"They got what they wanted, and it cost them everything they needed."
- The decline and fall of the former United States of America (tinyurl.com/342hvw)
Post a Comment
<< Home