Just in Time for Christmas

As day after day of misery goes by in the lives of the little folks crushed by the financial crisis, one question lies in the back of their minds. Who did this to us? Who’s looking for them and when will they be punished? We have known the answer to the first question for some time. The Wall Street investment banks’ sophisticated (read Crappy) investment packages whipped up a perfect storm.

They sold this Crap (their term not ours) to people who should have known better based largely on stellar ratings from the agencies charged with vetting these investments. The ratings agencies were pushed by their customers (big banks)  and did not look – as hard as they should – at the packages.

And it turns out that the bailout bucks we knew about (TARP) were nothing when compared to the zero interest loans the Federal Reserve was handing out to keep the banks afloat, trillions in secret loans. Bloomberg Markets Magazine blew the lid off this program. It was ten times the size of TARP.  By far the biggest hunk of these bucks (63% of the daily average) went to the same gang that got us into this mess – six humongous banks.

How did these half-dozen too-big-to-fail banks position themselves to come out of any crisis they might create covered in gold? Over a couple of decades they conned Congress into repealing the laws designed to prevent things like the 2008 crash. They even got “The Fools on the Hill” (AKA the Congress) to exempt banks from State Lottery laws. Who helped this along?  Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, fresh from 26 years and the top job at Goldman Sachs.

When the house of cards collapsed, who came up with the plan to save the banks? Bush Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson, fresh from the top job at Goldman Sachs, led the charge to save his comrades.  It gets even better; in 2006 Goldman Sachs was able to foresee that the crap was really crappy and likely to crash. Did they sound the alarm? Of course not, that might have interfered with their efforts to sell crap to their customers. Instead they bet it would crash and reaped a huge profit.

What ties this all together? Two of the key players, Rubin and Paulson, both came from Goldman at just the right moment to get rid of the pesky banking laws. So in addition to the efforts of all the banking lobbyists, you might say it was an “Inside Job.”

However, our wait to make those responsible pay may be nearly over. The SEC has charged six former Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac executives. More important, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and other State AGs are looking at criminal and civil charges. It would be nice to see a few of the arrogant bankers on their way to jail?  When you think about it, what they did was harmful than Bernie Madoff’’s scams. “Pants-on-Fire” Goldman CEO, Lloyd Blankfein has another view; bankers, he says, are “doing God’s work.”

A New Path?

The unemployment rate in the United States dropped precipitously last month (11.11) to 8.6%, the lowest it’s been since the early days of the recession in 2009. The disturbing note, however, is the contributing factor of those “no longer looking for work.” In addition to giving the merchants of gloom something to point to, it raises the issue that we would hope would concern us all. What happened to all those people? They didn’t just fall off the edge of the earth.

If they are still receiving unemployment benefits, they must be near the end of that lifeline. Odds are they have other family members who are still working, and while they may be tightening the family budget, they are not out on the street. In some cases they and perhaps their families are headed for disaster, loss of their car, even their home. That raises an ethical question for those cutting funding to our safety-net programs. How ethical is that effort? Is that the kind of nation we have become? Times are tough, crush the poor.

On the brighter side, maybe those no longer hunting for work have found it, at home: on the computer, in the basement, in the garage. History teaches us that tough times are when new enterprises are likely to be launched. Counterintuitive as it may seem, even comfortably employed individuals will leave their employer during dark times to launch the business they have been thinking about for years. And of course others, who have been thrust into the world of the unemployed unexpectedly, think “What the heck, I might as well give my dream a try.”

A series of articles in the business journal Fast Company got us thinking that there may be more going on in the current episode of lean times. Launching a business is never as easy as it looks, but it’s a whole lot easier today than ever. Depending on where you live, you can get set up with your local governing entity for a few bucks and open a bank account in the business name. Then your major problem is having something to support you and your family until it catches on.

A century ago, your prospects for customers when you opened a shop were those who happened by as they walked down the street, or those who heard that you offered sewing services from your home. These days, with a tad of social network skills the world is your marketplace. You can do business with someone a world away as easily as your next door neighbor. There are services that will connect you and guarantee that you get paid. You can even take credit cards without a major investment in technology.

And some of those with manufacturing skills that seem unwanted in today’s work force are finding that they can use those skills to create things in a world where handcrafted quality is appreciated. From welding to woodwork, handmade goods are in demand. So perhaps those who are no longer looking for work have created their own little corner and are very happy there, thank you very much. And if they do well, they may hire a helper or two. That’s where jobs are created.  

 © 2011 GLG

British Tabloid Culture

British Tabloid Culture

There’s a celebrity “A” list from Hugh Grant to JK Rowling parading before Lord Justice Leveson in London. The ongoing Leveson Inquiry is investigating media ethics in Britain centered on the Murdoch phone hacking mess. The celebs, along with lesser known folk, are laying out the damages the phone hacking, celebrity stalking, tabloid press has inflicted on them. Yes, it’s not just the Murdoch papers that employ these pond scum techniques. Nor is the damage limited to the crimp that it puts in the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Much sadder are the tales of everyday folk, most notably the family of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler. 

In an effort to keep the headlines coming Murdoch’s minions repeatedly emptied the voicemails from Milly’s mobile phone, leading her parents (and the police) to believe that she was alive and picking up the messages. Actually the 13-year-old had been lured into the hands of "predatory" nightclub bouncer Levi Bellfield on her way home from school and lay dead in a field at the end of that day. Bellfield was subsequently charged with the murder of two more young women. Witnesses are laying out stories of inconvenience, embarrassment, and tragedy before Lord Justice Leveson, all brought on by the telephone hacking, police bribing, peeping Tom, high speed chase stalking style of journalism favored by the British tabloids.

The lurid stories gained by these methods dim in shock value to the testimony of one former Murdoch editor, Paul McMullan, once a deputy features editor at The News Of The World. According to published reports, McMullan admitted that all these "worthy tools'” as he called them, were not only routinely used at the paper, they were aggressively urged upon him and his colleagues by their bosses.

McMullan even called out two former Murdoch executives, Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks. Coulson was the chief spokesperson for Prime Minister David Cameron by the time the firestorm hit, while Ms. Brooks headed all the Murdock newspaper holdings in Britain. McMullan said they could have been the “heroes” of journalism; instead they became the “scum,” apparently for their failure to take responsibility for the use of the worthy tools at The News Of The World.  He also calls Ms. Brooks an “arch-criminal.”

McMullan’s testimony was particularly hard to swallow when he described a culture that not only used these “tools” but believes they are “worthy tools.” He hotly defended a wide range of behaviors that we find ethically repulsive. When asked to define public interest, McMullan replied, “If the public is interested,” adding that if they don’t approve they could stop reading these stories. This culture seems pervasive among British tabloids and within the Murdoch Empire. Unlike McMullan we do not see these “tools” as “worthy,” we see them as disgustingly shameful.

“Round One,” The Banks vs. The Rest of Us

“Round One,” The Banks vs. The Rest of Us

Within a month Federal District Judge Jed Rakoff has launched what may be the beginning of the end for rapacious behavior on the part of our banking sector. Earlier this month he refused once again to rubberstamp an under-the-table deal the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) made with a “Too Big To Fail” Bank, this time Citi. Unlike earlier deals that came before him, he is apparently not going to agree to any settlement without all the gory details being revealed.

As you may recall from our 11.15.11 OP-ED, Citi has been charged with fraud. With selling their customers a bundle of crappy investment vehicles while at the same time betting against them. Of course the crappy stuff turned out to be crappy and when they failed, Citi’s customers took a hit somewhere north of $700 million bucks and Citi collected on their bet. Judge Rakoff questioned the settlement -$95 million- and the fact that only one individual was charged with criminal behavior. In an earlier case (Bank of America) Rakoff signed off when the SEC upped the penalty. Two other Federal Judges signed off on similar deals with Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Securities, as many judges have over the years.

After mulling over the Citi deal for a couple weeks, Rakoff took a very different tack. This time he rejected the premise that Citi could walk away with a fine and a promise to never do it again. He wants all the gory details out on the table. A path that drew a snarky headline, “Rakoff Cements Status as Populist Firebrand”, on the American Lawyer Magazine website’s report on his ruling. Basically saying that his failure to play “go along to get along” would end any chance of promotion for the judge.  But isn’t that what ethics is all about, doing the right thing without regard for self interest?

An end may be at hand to the age of repeated SEC “Peanuts and a promise” deals for those who pull off massive ripoffs. As Steve Denning noted in a recent Forbes article, What Shall We Do With The Big, Bad Banks, “Over the last 15 years, some 19 large major financial institutions have been found by the SEC to have broken anti-fraud security laws at least 51 times—laws  that they agreed ‘never again to breach’. The group of offenders included Citigroup, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, UBS, Goldman Sachs, Wachovia, and AIG. In this period, the Securities and Exchange Commission has never once brought a contempt of court citation against any of the banks for repeated offences.”

The leaders of these behemoths, the Lloyd Blankfeins and Jamie Dimons and their minions who hide behind these “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” deals with the SEC, may be called to task if it turns out that they were aware of the double dealings underlying the SEC charges. An outcome sure to be cheered by the State Attorney Generals across the country that have been pursuing the culprits who triggered the financial collapse we are enduring; looking for someone to jail.

Wouldn’t that be nice? Three cheers for Judge Jed Rakoff.

What's Fair

What's Fair

 

A Bloomberg Businessweek focus on wealth inequality (11.16.11) came up with some stunning conclusions. Using Census numbers –and a wide variety of past and present expert opinions– they point to the existing and growing disparity of wealth in America and conclude that it is bad for our economy. The gridlock we are experiencing leads those who are slipping behind to conclude that they have no hope, that they are at the mercy of the rich. The two ends of the economic ladder slip into bitter blame game positions.

Here’s where this game goes wrong for the rich. Income inequality leads to social instability. That leads to the belief that the system (read Stock Market) is rigged in favor of the ultra rich and you lose as much as a generation of investors. They point to the stock market following the crash in 1929. It took until 1954 for it to regain its pre-depression level, more than a quarter century. One wonders how long an extended downturn of that nature might last if we do not find our way out of the gridlock now engulfing us. Unlike the ‘30s, ‘40s, and ‘50s, in the era of the 401k etc. there are lots of middle class folks with a stake in the stock market these days.

We keep hearing that the rich create jobs. But the research shows that jobs are created by small businesses. Those folks are not the rich; they are what’s left of the middle class. They are looking for loans to grow and hire, but the banks that we all bailed out are not lending to small businesses. Instead they are back in the risky games that got us into this mess. Worse, small businesses are paying the high corporate taxes –not the big guys.

Speaking of taxes, it makes no sense for the poor and middle class to shell out a bigger piece of their income than the rich. Everyone seems to understand this except those in DC who hold to the job creation myth, and of course the rich who haven’t been able to do the math. When you talk to the savvy wealthy folks, you find that they favor a more equitable tax system. They understand that you can’t build a healthy economy on the backs of the poor. The smartest investor on the planet, Warren Buffett, figured it out years ago. No matter how big your slice is, you can’t do well if the pie keeps shrinking.

In the meantime, if the rich are not creating jobs with their wealth, what are they doing with their money? Well, their investments seem focused on commodities, where they speculate and drive up prices on food and oil; thanks for high gas prices. And they are driving the luxury market; if it’s expensive, they’re buying. Even the price of first class air travel – would you believe aircraft fitted with showers and private compartments? After all you have to look sharp when you arrive in some exotic locale. And what’s $15,000 or $20,000 for a plane ride. There are some pretty obvious ethical issues in all this. Too bad they don’t seem to matter much in our world where the Lobbyists rule in DC. How many of them do you think work for the middle class and the poor?

Take Off The Kid Gloves

Take Off The Kid Gloves

The Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) ended its fiscal year in September having filed a record number of cases (735), up almost 10% from their pace (677) last year. They collected nearly $3 billion in penalties both years. Meanwhile the annual Johnson Associates’ “Executive Compensation Study” shows an alarming drop in pay for the folks on Wall Street, as much as 20% - 30%. Alarming perhaps to the Wall Street types, but to those who are trying to make ends meet the Wall Street pay scale, that begins at a hundred grand and can escalate into seven or eight figures, still looks really good. 

Reuters reports that over the last two years the SEC has removed a management layer and restructured their enforcement division. And, they have created a new whistleblower bounty program alongside other incentives to encourage witnesses to cooperate. Given the two record years they have registered, it must be working.

Or is it? It appears that the SEC is still treading softly with the big banks and the individuals behind the misdeeds (AKA CEOs etc.).  A Federal District Judge, Jed Rakoff, doesn’t seem convinced that a proposed settlement with Citibank is tough enough on the bank. Citi is charged with fraud; selling customers crappy financial instruments at the same time the bank was betting they would fail. The very same double dealing that triggered the financial collapse we are enduring.

In a hearing last week Judge Rakoff questioned the SEC on the settlement: $95 million when the investors Citi ripped off lost $700 million. The judge has taken a similar position with several lowball settlements the SEC proposed in the past. Rakoff also questioned why only one individual in this case has been charged with wrongdoing.

We –along with many others, including State Attorney Generals across the country– have been wondering about the SEC slap-on-the-wrist penalty proclivity. A concern the Attorney Generals also direct toward the Justice Department; why has it not zealously prosecuted bankers who triggered the recession? We know who they are and what they did. Instead, after bailing them out we are forced to watch as they go back to the same risky stuff all over again, sure that we will bail them out again when it collapses. All the while taking home eight-figure bucks.

The banks’ reaction to the relatively mild restraints of the Dodd/Frank Act is to pile new fees on their customers. They have grown so accustomed to inflated profits from what are nothing more than risky gambling schemes that when a little of that revenue stream is cut off, they sock it to their customers instead of living lean. In the meantime we have to listen to Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase “Whiner in Chief,” and Goldman Sachs CEO, Lloyd Blankfein (AKA The Artful Dodger) complain. They are so misunderstood and unappreciated after all they do for us, poor babies.

Alan Johnson, managing director of Johnson Associates, the firm that carried out the Wall Street wage study, put the ethical issue very succinctly, “Wall Street executives,” he said, “haven’t gotten the memo at all.”

Not for Sale

Not for Sale

There are –and always have been– so-called “pay for play” print and broadcast deals. That’s why federal law requires them to be labeled “advertising” or “paid programming”. Unfortunately, there is no such law covering internet content. So it should come as no surprise that web based news sites are being targeted by those looking for a plug for one thing or another.

While we understand legitimate efforts to gain media exposure, when there is money involved the ground rules need to be crystal clear.  Apparently, with no legal firewall, some of the slime that inhabits the fringe of every sector of media and marketing will attempt to slip over the ethical wall that protects most all of the world of commerce.  

Hamilton Nolan, who writes for the popular blog Gawker, recently received an email from a marketer suggesting an easy way to earn a little extra money. All he had to do was drop in a website link for one of their clients, only –of course– if it “fits naturally in the context of the article.” In a series of emails this solicitation was identified as coming from a so-called “marketing agency” specializing in this kind of placement. Payment offered began at $130 and escalated quickly to $175. Not bad, as Nolan noted, for five seconds’ work.  

The “agency” claimed to represent a number of “major” clients, Motorola, Dell, and T-Mobile, all of whom denied any connection. The agency also told Nolan that they had writers taking their bucks from a wide range of top ranked internet sites including The Huffington Post. You can guess Huffington’s response; it was mirrored by the other sites where writers and/or editors were said to be on the “take”.

Who knows how many clients these guys really represent? Or how many writers and/or editors at internet sites have succumbed to this siren call? There is always a certain amount of slime on both sides of the ethical wall. Sadly, one cannot exist without the other.