Deregulation = License to Lie, Cheat and Steal…And I Can Prove It

Remember the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program with which the federal government came to the rescue of faltering banks in 2008? Well, according to a Bloomberg report, that was just a fraction of the financial help the Federal Reserve Bank wound up doling out to troubled lenders.
 
The real total was reportedly closer to $8 trillion, after you add up benefits outside TARP, including emergency loans given at below-market rates: $8 trillion!!! Congress officially approved $750 billion, but the Fed, on it’s own independent authority, decided that it was OK to “loan” $8 T-R-I-L-L-I-O-N to banks with bogus debt instruments!!!!! 

The astounding amount of money the central bank parceled out was surprising even to Gary H. Stern, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1985 to 2009, who says he “wasn’t aware of the magnitude.” Wasn’t aware??? 

Add up guarantees and lending limits, and as of March 2009, barely into President Obama’s 2nd full month in office, the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year. 

Bloomberg came up with that number after reviewing “29,000 pages of Fed documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and central bank records of more than 21,000 transactions.”
Bloomberg adds, “The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day.” That’s nearly twice the amount made public in the Fed’s pitch to Congress for  TARP.

Not only that, but after being saved by the bailout, bankers lobbied against government regulations, a job made easier by the Fed, which never disclosed the details of the rescue to lawmakers even as Congress doled out more money and debated new rules aimed at preventing the next collapse.

“When you see the dollars the banks got, it’s hard to make the case these were successful institutions,” says Sherrod Brown, a Democratic Senator from Ohio, who in 2010 introduced an unsuccessful bill to limit bank size.“This is an issue that can unite the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. There are lawmakers in both parties who would change their votes now.”
 

Unbelievably, it gets worse.

“TARP at least had some strings attached,” says Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, referring to the program’s executive-pay ceiling. “With the Fed programs, there was nothing.”

Bankers didn’t disclose the extent of their borrowing. On Nov. 26, 2008, then-Bank of America (BAC) Corp. Chief Executive Officer Kenneth D. Lewis wrote to shareholders that he headed“one of the strongest and most stable major banks in the world.” He didn’t say that his Charlotte, North Carolina-based firm owed the central bank $86 billion that day.David Jones, a former economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York who has written four books about the central bank said about the information disclosed, “The Fed is the second-most-important appointed body in the U.S., next to the Supreme Court, and we’re dealing with a democracy”. “Our representatives in Congress deserve to have this kind of information so they can oversee the Fed.”

The Dodd-Frank law required the Fed to release details of some emergency-lending programs in December 2010. It also mandated disclosure of discount-window borrowers after a two-year lag.

Lawmakers were left in the dark.
 

They had no clue that one bank, New York-based Morgan Stanley (MS), took $107 billion in Fed loans in September 2008, enough to pay off one-tenth of the country’s delinquent mortgages. The firm’s peak borrowing occurred the same day Congress rejected the proposed TARP bill, triggering the biggest point drop ever in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. (INDU) The bill later passed, and Morgan Stanley got $10 billion of TARP funds, though Paulson said only “healthy institutions” were eligible. Mark Lake, a spokesman for Morgan Stanley, declined to comment, as did spokesmen for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.
 

Had lawmakers known, it “could have changed the whole approach to reform legislation,” says Ted Kaufman, a former Democratic Senator from Delaware who, with Brown, introduced the bill to limit bank size. Byron L. Dorgan, a former Democratic senator from North Dakota, says the knowledge might have helped pass legislation to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, which for most of the last century separated customer deposits from the riskier practices of investment banking.
 

“Had people known about the hundreds of billions in loans to the biggest financial institutions, they would have demanded Congress take much more courageous actions to stop the practices that caused this near financial collapse,” says Dorgan, who retired in January.
 

Instead, the Fed and its secret financing helped America’s biggest financial firms get bigger and go on to pay employees as much as they did at the height of the housing bubble.
Total assets held by the six biggest U.S. banks increased 39 percent to $9.5 trillion on Sept. 30, 2011, from $6.8 trillion on the same day in 2006, according to Fed data.
For so few banks to hold so many assets is “un-American,”says Richard W. Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. “All of these gargantuan institutions are too big to regulate. I’m in favor of breaking them up and slimming them down.”
 

Employees at the six biggest banks made twice the average for all U.S. workers in 2010, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics hourly compensation cost data. The banks spent $146.3 billion on compensation in 2010, or an average of $126,342 per worker, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That’s up almost 20 percent from five years earlier compared with less than 15 percent for the average worker. Average pay at the banks in 2010 was about the same as in 2007, before the bailouts.
 

So the next time you hear a Republican Presidential candidate, like Michelle Bachmann, or Willard Romney, or Newt Gingrich, or John Huntsman call “Regulations” “Job-killers”, remember how LESS OVERSIGHT, LESS REGULATION, LESS ACCOUNTABILITY, has produced the following events in recent history:
 

WorldCom:
 

In 1998, the telecommunications industry began to slow down and WorldCom’s stock was declining. CEO Bernard Ebbers came under increasing pressure from banks to cover margin calls on his WorldCom stock that was used to finance his other businesses endeavors (timber, yachting, etc.). The company’s profitability took another hit when it was forced to abandon its proposed merger with Sprint in late 2000. During 2001, Ebbers persuaded WorldCom’s board of directors to provide him corporate loans and guarantees totaling more than $400 million. Ebbers wanted to cover the margin calls, but this strategy ultimately failed and Ebbers was ousted as CEO in April 2002.
On July 21, 2002, WorldCom filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, the largest such filing in United States history. The company emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2004 with about $5.7 billion in debt. At last count, WorldCom has yet to pay its creditors, many of whom have waited years for the money owed.
On March 15, 2005 Bernard Ebbers was found guilty of all charges and convicted on fraud, conspiracy and filing false documents with regulators. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
 

Enron:
 

The Enron scandal, revealed in October 2001, eventually led to the bankruptcy of the Enron Corporation, an American energy company based in Houston, Texas, and the dissolution of Arthur Andersen, which was one of the five largest audit and accountancy partnerships in the world. In addition to being the largest bankruptcy reorganization in American history at that time, Enron was attributed as the biggest audit failure.
 

Shareholders lost nearly $11 billion when Enron’s stock price, which hit a high of US$90 per share in mid-2000, plummeted to less than $1 by the end of November 2001. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) began an investigation, and rival Houston competitor Dynegy offered to purchase the company at a fire sale price. The deal fell through, and on December 2, 2001, Enron filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Enron’s $63.4 billion in assets made it the largest corporate bankruptcy in U.S. history until WorldCom’s bankruptcy the following year.
 

The Savings and Loan Crisis:

 
The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly dubbed the S&L crisis) was the failure of about 747 out of the 3,234 savings and loan associations in the United States. A savings and loan or “thrift” is a financial institution that accepts savings deposits and makes mortgage, car and other personal loans to individual members—a cooperative venture known in the United Kingdom as a Building Society. “As of December 31, 1995, RTC estimated that the total cost for resolving the 747 failed institutions was $87.9 billion.” The remainder of the bailout was paid for by charges on savings and loan accounts[1]—which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s.
 

The deregulation of S&Ls in 1980 gave them many of the capabilities of banks, without the same regulations as banks. Savings and loan associations could choose to be under either a state or a federal charter. Immediately after deregulation of the federally chartered thrifts, state-chartered thrifts rushed to become federally chartered, because of the advantages associated with a federal charter. In response, states such as California and Texas changed their regulations to be similar to federal regulations.
 

More important, however, was the moral hazard of insuring already troubled institutions with public dollars. In the view of a savings and loan president or manager, the trend line was fatal over the long haul; thus, to get liquid, the institution had to take on riskier assets, particularly land. When the real estate market crashed, the S&Ls went with it. By insuring the risk, the government guaranteed that desperate S&L owners and managers would engage in ever more risky investments, knowing that if they were successful, the institution would be saved, and if unsuccessful, their depositors would still be bailed out.
 

Yes, blame those “Jobs-Killing Regulations” for all of the country’s financial woes.
 

We Americans have short memories, but love good fairy tales.

 

hg