Andy Kroll

Andy Kroll

Senior Reporter

Andy Kroll is Mother Jones' Dark Money reporter. He is based in the DC bureau. His work has also appeared at the Wall Street Journal, the Detroit News, the Guardian, the American Prospect, and TomDispatch.com, where he's an associate editor. Email him at akroll (at) motherjones (dot) com. He tweets at @AndrewKroll.

Get my RSS |

Obama: Markets No Better than Pre-Crisis

| Wed Feb. 24, 2010 12:49 PM PST

In a speech today to the powerful coalition the Business Roundtable, President Obama tried to rally some of the biggest players in the US economy around his plans to re-regulate the financial system—a system, he warned, "with the same vulnerabilities that it had before this crisis began." Obama was speaking to the Business Roundtable at their quarterly meeting in Washington, and set aside a few minutes in his speech—which ranged from job creation to international trade to health care—to emphasize the need for reining in Wall Street and preventing the kinds of reckless risk-taking and outright gambling that fueled the subprime meltdown and the Great Recession. "If we don't pass financial reform," he said, "we can expect more crises in the future of the sort that we just saw."

Here's more from his speech calling on the need for greater—and smarter—financial reform:

[A]s I said in the State of the Union, my goal is not to punish Wall Street. I believe that most individuals in the financial sector are looking to make money in an honest and transparent way. But if there aren't rules in place to guard against the recklessness of a few, and they're allowed to exploit consumers and take on excessive risk, it starts a race to the bottom that results in all of us losing.

And that's what we need to change. We can't repeat the mistakes of the past. We can't allow another AIG or another Lehman to happen again. We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to make gambles that threaten the whole economy. What does that mean? It means we've got to ensure consolidated supervision of all institutions that could pose a risk to the system. It means we have to close loopholes that allow financial firms to evade oversight and circumvent rules of the road. It means that we need more robust consumer and investor protections.

And I ask the Business Roundtable to support these efforts. There are lobbyists on the Hill right now trying to kill reform by claiming that it would undermine businesses outside of the financial sector. That is not true. This is about putting in place rules that encourage drive and innovation instead of shortcuts and abuse. And those are rules that will benefit everybody.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Advocate: Rein in CEOs!

| Wed Feb. 24, 2010 8:33 AM PST

The pro-financial reform organization Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) today sent a letter [PDF] to the Senate banking committee, who's leading financial-reform talks right now and is expected to release a bill next week, to make sure it includes new oversights and protections of corporate boards—the very leaders, AFR says, who blindly let financial markets implode under their watch:

"Institutional investors have recognized that risk management oversight failures by the boards of Wall Street banks were a central factor in the financial collapse. Moreover, it is well documented that the executive compensation plans prevalent on Wall Street, in which the vast majority of pay comes through stock options and bonuses based on short-term performance, ensured that bank executives reaped huge gains while the housing bubble grew, but suffered none of the downside when their over-leveraged bets and gambles on complex derivatives went sour."

In a November financial-reform discussion draft in the Senate [PDF], a number of investor protections and executive-compensation crackdowns were included, like giving shareholders a "say on pay" and requiring a majority vote for uncontested director elections, among others. Right now, though, it's unclear whether those reforms from last fall will make it into the draft being crafted by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), the committee's chairman, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), the ranking member, and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who joined Dodd after Shelby briefly dropped out of the talks earlier this month.

AFR's letter is intended as well a counterbalance to recent lobbying efforts, most visibly those by the US Chamber of Commerce, to oppose corporate-governance reform. For instance, Chamber CEO Tom Donahue said in January that the "mad scientists" who created tricky financial instruments (read: synthetic collateralized debt obligations, derivatives, option adjustable-rate mortgages) deserved the high salaries and bonuses they've earned in the past. However, AFR goes after Donahue in today's letter, citing his past leadership roles in maligned companies like Qwest and Sunrise Senior Living, and says his checkered record in corporate governance should cast serious doubt on any of his reform suggestions. "The US Chamber under Mr. Donohue is uniquely unqualified to speak credibly on what corporate governance structures are necessary to protect shareholder wealth," the letter concludes.

"Underwater" Crisis Grows

| Wed Feb. 24, 2010 7:11 AM PST

"Underwater": that's a watchword you've probably heard plenty throughout the Great Recession and the still dismal housing crisis. It's people who owe more than than their house in worth, and who essentially have few economic reasons (setting aside their own beliefs and fears) to stay underwater when they could rent more cheaply in a comparable, and sometimes better, home. Well, in a sign that the housing crisis remains bleak, the number of people underwater continues to increase, up to 11.3 million by the close of 2009 compared to 10.7 in 2009's third quarter, according to data from analyst FirstAmerican Core Logic. Another 2.3 million, the analysis says, are approaching negative equity but aren't underwater yet. Nationwide, homeowners are a whopping $800 billion underwater.

The details are even more troubling in states hit hardest by the subprime meltdown. In Nevada, for instance, 70 percent of all mortgage properties are underwater; elsewhere, 51 percent are in Arizona, 48 percent in Florida, 39 percent in Michigan, and 35 percent in California. That so many millions of homeowners are underwater reverberates throughout the economy as well: As real estate expert Brent White of the University of Arizona points out in a recent paper, underwater homes result in decreased consumer spending, the lifeblood of the American economy; and decreased household mobility, which can lead to higher unemployment and less productivity. It's a multi-pronged attack on our economy, dragging down not just the housing market but leading to people buying less and working less.

To blame for this pandemic of underwater homes are lenders, mortgage servicers, the government, and—yes—homeowners. Lenders and mortgage servicers, as myself and others have written, are generally loath to write down principal amounts on a homeowner's loan in, say, a modification setting—they don't want to take the losses, preferring to lower interest rates or extend the loan's term. The government, too, has utterly failed to tackle the negative-equity problem: It's flagship homeowner rescue, the taxpayer-funded Home Affordable Modification Program, doesn't force mortgage servicers to reduce principal balances, which is at the heart of our housing dilemma, and offers cursory, modest solutions; the program also has a ceiling on how far underwater you can be to qualify—125 percent underwater—and if you're in even worse shape than that, well, too bad.

And finally, homeowner are to blame for at least two reasons. First, because they purchased their home, as many did, during the housing bubble when prices were grossly inflated, the only direction their home's value could go was down; the odds were high they'd be underwater to some degree. And second, a lot of homeowners, as White highlights in his paper, remain in their underwater homes when the smartest thing to do—economically, at least—is strategically default, walk away, and start anew. For many of those 11.3 million underwater homeowners, walking away makes perfect sense, you can rent for cheaper, and you can take that extra money from your previous mortgage payment and invest or save it. "The real mystery," White writes, "is not—as media coverage has suggested—why large numbers of homeowners have been walking away, but why, given the percentage of underwater mortgages, more homeowners have not been."

Watchdog Blasts Private Financial Regulators

| Tue Feb. 23, 2010 12:17 PM PST

In a letter sent today to Congress' banking and finance committees, a leading government watchdog has urged House and Senate lawmakers to crack down on the financial-services industry's internal "private self-regulatory organizations," or SROs, a less understood but problematic player in the global financial meltdown. Put simply, an SRO is a regulator within, say, the securities industry tasked with protecting investors, but is often led, in a glaring conflict of interest, by the very same people that regulator is supposed to be overseeing. If that sounds dubious, well, that's because it is. And as the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) contends in its letter, one prominent SRO, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), has an "abysmal track record," so much that POGO openly questions "whether FINRA can ever be an effective regulator given its cozy relationship with the securities industry."

Despite FINRA's stated commitment to "putting investors first," a look at the regulator's record in the past few calamitous years casts doubt on that claim. FINRA, the POGO letter states, neglected to step in and regulate firms like Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch that all collapsed under FINRA's watch, while also failing to spot the massive, multibillion-dollar Ponzi schemes run by Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford. In Stanford's case, POGO found, an internal FINRA review discovered the regulator missed Stanford's scheme on several occasions; and with Madoff, the private regulator claimed it wasn't at fault for letting the biggest Ponzi scheme in history slip by even though experts said Madoff was under FINRA's purview.

Then again, when you look at FINRA's leadership, it's hardly surprising the regulator failed to spot the likes of Madoff and Merrill, Stanford and Bear Stearns. As POGO's letter says, conflicts of interests are rife within FINRA, to wit: FINRA chairman and CEO Richard Ketchum is a Citigroup alum; the regulator's executive overseeing member regulation came from Charles Schwab; and another executive in charge of enforcement is a former partner at a top law firm representing major financial institutions. Not to mention FINRA's ties to Madoff and Stanford—Shana Madoff, Bernie's niece, was on FINRA's compliance advisory committee until the firm went under, and two top level staffers for Allen Stanford served on other FINRA committees. "FINRA's numerous failures," POGO writes, "should hardly come as a surprise given the incestuous relationship between SROs and the financial services industry."

Yet despite these criticisms, FINRA's Ketchum wants more power for his organization, like overseeing investment advisers as well as securities brokers. Thus the purpose of POGO's letter today is to urge Congress not to let that power grab happen, and even more to encourage House and Senate lawmakers to curtail FINRA's authority. "Effective, independent, and efficient government regulation is the only proper way to safely oversee our markets," the letter concludes. "Our economy is too important to be left in the hands of the very financial industry that brought us to the brink of collapse."

Mon Jan. 13, 2014 10:19 AM PST
Mon Dec. 16, 2013 7:47 AM PST
Fri Oct. 18, 2013 9:12 AM PDT
Wed Sep. 11, 2013 9:44 AM PDT