- ‹ previous
- 2503 of 8902
- next ›
McCain Attacks Wall Street Greed - While 83 Wall Street Lobbyists Work for His Campaign
In the past few days, as the economic crisis has deepened, Senator John McCain has been decrying the excesses of Wall Street. At a campaign rally in Tampa on Tuesday, he vowed that he and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, if elected, "are going to put an end to the reckless conduct, corruption, and unbridled greed that have caused a crisis on Wall Street." He noted that the "foundation of our economy...has been put at risk by the greed and mismanagement of Wall Street and Washington."
He blasted CEOs who "seem to escape the consequences." He denounced Wall Streeters who "dreamed up investment schemes that they themselves don't even understand" and who used "derivatives, credit default swaps, and mortgage-backed securities" to try "to make their own rules." He excoriated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for gaming the system. And he slammed financial industry lobbyists for misguiding members of Congress. "I can promise you the days of dealing and special favors will soon be over in Washington." On Wednesday morning, after the federal government committed $85 billion to prevent the collapse of the American International Group (AIG) insurance conglomerate, McCain again assailed irresponsible corporate executives. "We need to change the way Washington and Wall Street does business," he proclaimed.
McCain has been quick with fiery, populist-tinged speeches. But one thing has been missing: any acknowledgment that McCain's own campaign has been loaded with the type of people he's been denouncing. (The McCain campaign did not respond to a request for comment; we will update the post if they do.) As Mother Jones previously reported, former Senator Phil Gramm, McCain's onetime campaign chairman, used a backroom maneuver in late 2000 to slip into law a bill that kept credit default swaps unregulated. These financial instruments greased the way to the subprime meltdown that has led to today's economic crisis. Several of McCain's most senior campaign aides have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And the Democratic National Committee, using publicly available records, has identified 177 lobbyists working for the McCain campaign as either aides, policy advisers, or fundraisers.
Of those 177 lobbyists, according to a Mother Jones review of Senate and House records, at least 83 have in recent years lobbied for the financial industry McCain now attacks. These are high-paid influence-peddlers who have been working the corridors of the nation's capital to win favors and special treatment for investment banks, securities firms, hedge funds, accounting outfits, and insurance companies. Their clients have included AIG, the newest symbol of corporate excess; Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy on Monday sending the stock market into a tailspin; Merrill Lynch, which was bought out by Bank of America this week; and Washington Mutual, the banking giant that could be the next to fall. Among these 83 lobbyists are McCain's chief political adviser, Charlie Black (JP Morgan, Washington Mutual Bank, Freddie Mac, Mortgage Bankers Association of America); McCain's national finance co-chairman, Wayne Berman (AIG, Blackstone, Credit Suisse, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac); the campaign's congressional liaison, John Green (Carlyle Group, Citigroup, Icahn Associates, Fannie Mae); McCain's veep vetter, Arthur Culvahouse (Fannie Mae); and McCain's transition planning chief, William Timmons Sr. (Citigroup, Freddie Mac, Vanguard Group).
When cable news shows air footage of McCain railing against greedy execs and the lobbyists who rig the rules for the benefit of Wall Street dealmakers, there ought to be a crawl beneath him listing these lobbyists. (Talk about a fair and balanced presentation.) Short of that, here's the list of the McCain aides and bundlers who have worked for the high-finance greed-mongers McCain has pledged to take on. So far, it seems, none of them have been cast out of the campaign. If McCain were serious about his outrage, he might throw these money-changers out of his own temple.
Phil Anderson: American Council of Life Insurers, Aetna, AIG, New York Life, MassMutual, VISA
Rebecca Anderson: Aegon, American Council of Life Insurers, Cigna, Barclays, Credit Suisse First Boston, HSBC
Stanton Anderson: The Debt Exchange
David Beightol: Allstate, Amerigroup, Charles Schwab, HSBC
Rhonda Bentz: VISA
Wayne Berman: American Council of Life Insurers, AIG, Americhoice, Shinsei Bank, Blackstone, Carlyle Group, Broidy Capital Management, Credit Suisse Securities, Highstar Capital, VISA, Ameriquest Mortgage, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Fitch Ratings
Charlie Black: JP Morgan, Washington Mutual Bank, Freddie Mac, Mortgage Bankers Association of America, National Association of Mortgage Brokers
Judy Black: Colorado Credit Union League, Genworth Financial, Bay Harbour Management, Merrill Lynch
Kirk Blalock: Credit Union National Association, Financial Executives International, American Insurance Association, Mutual of Omaha, Zurich Financial Service Group, Fannie Mae, Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco
Carlos Bonilla: Financial Services Roundtable, Freddie Mac
Christine Burgeson: Citigroup
Mark Buse: Freddie Mac, Goldman Sachs, Manufacturers Life Insurance Company
Nicholas Calio: Citigroup, Managed Fund Association, Fannie Mae, Merrill Lynch, The Investment Company Institute, TIAA-CRE, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
Ben Nighthorse Campbell: Amscot Financial Corporation, Community Financial Services Association, Fidelity National Financial
Andrew Cantor: American Insurance Association, Merrill Lynch
Alberto Cardenas: Fannie Mae
James Courter: Goldman Sachs, Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette, Investment Company Institute, Merrill Lynch
David Crane: Financial Services Roundtable, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte & Touche, KPMG, Ernst & Young, Bank of America, Association of Corporate Credit Unions, Freddie Mac
Dan Crippen: Merrill Lynch, National Multi-Housing Council
Arthur Culvahouse: Fannie Mae
Bryan Cunningham: Arch Capital Group
Alfonse D'Amato: AIG, Freddie Mac
Doug Davenport: Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, Goldman Sachs, VISA
Ashley Davis: Prudential Financial, American Financial Group, American Premier Underwriters, Great American Insurance Company
Mimi Dawson: MassMutual
Melissa Edwards: Freddie Mac, National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, Access to Capital Coalition
Chris Fidler: American Bankers Association, Milcom Venture Partners, National Association Real Estate Investment Trusts
Samuel Geduldig: American Bankers Association, American Institute of CPAs, America Gains, Berkshire Hathaway, Consumer Bankers Association, Ernst &
Young, Financial Services Roundtable, Investment Company Institute, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Prudential Financial, Sovereign Investment Council,
Fidelity Investments, FMR Corp.
Benjamin Ginsberg: Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance, AIG Technical
Services
David Girard-Dicarlo: American Financial Group, American Premier
Underwriters
Juleanna Glover Weiss: RJI Capital, American Institute of CPAs, BNP Paribas,
Ernst & Young, PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Slade Gorton: Allstate Insurance, Hannan Armstrong Capital
Phil Gramm: UBS Americas
John Green: Laredo National Bank, Alternative Investment Management Association, AIG, Blackstone Group, Carlyle Group, Citigroup, Credit Suisse Group, Fannie Mae, Icahn Associates, FMR Corp., AFLAC, VISA
Janet Grissom: American Institute of CPAs, NYSE, Merrill Lynch
Kristen Gullott: San Diego Credit Union
Kent Hance: Stanford Financial Group, Municipal Capital Markets Group, Inc.
Vicki Hart: American Financial Services Association, Citigroup, Investment Company Institute, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, New York Stock Exchange, VISA, Carlyle Group, Credit Suisse, Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis, Goldman Sachs, Stanford Group, Lloyd's of London, National City Corp.
Richard Hohlt: Capmark Financial Group, Fannie Mae, JP Morgan Chase and Co., Student Loan Marketing Association, Washington Mutual, Guaranty Bank & Trust, Peachtree Settlement Funding, Dime Savings Bank of New York
Gaylord Hughey: Heartland Security Insurance Group
Kate Hull: Credit Union National Association, Fannie Mae, Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, Zurich Financial Services, American Insurance Association,
Financial Executives International
James Hyland: American Insurance Association, Seattle Home Loan Bank, Self
Help Credit Union, National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees, Merrill Lynch,
Mortgage Investors Corp., Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis, Freddie Mac, New York Stock Exchange, Citigroup, VISA
Aleix Jarvis: Credit Union National Association, Fannie Mae, Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, Financial Executives International, Mutual of Omaha, American Insurance Association, Zurich Financial Services
Greg Jenner: American Council of Life Insurers, JG Wentworth, UBS, VISA, PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Frank Keating: American Council of Life Insurers
Steven Kuykendall: California Bankers Association
William Lesher: Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Commerce Ventures, Rabobank International
Thomas Loeffler: Citigroup, Fannie Mae, Investment Company Institute, World Savings and Loan Association, United Services Automobile Association (USAA)
Kelly Lugar: RJI Capital Strategies
Peter Madigan: Arthur Andersen, Bank of New York, Broadridge Securities Processing, Charles Schwab, Deloitte and Touche, Goldman Sachs, International Employee Stock Option Coalition, Mastercard, NYSE, Fannie Mae, Merrill Lynch, PNC Bank
Mary Mann: MassMutual
Paul Martino: Morgan Stanley, Baker Tilly
Jana McKeag: Venture Catalyst
Alison McSlarrow: Fannie Mae, Hartford
Mike Meece: Georgetown Partners
David Metzner: Ernst & Young, Harbinger Capital Investments, Prudential, Public Financial Management, Western Union
Susan Molinari: Freddie Mac, American Land Title Association, Association of Consumer Credit Unions, Beacon Capital Partners, College Loan Corp, Coventry First, E-Trade, Financial Services Roundtable, Rent-A-Center
John Moran: Cerberus Capital Management, American Council of Life Insurers, Accenture
John Napier: Freddie Mac
Susan Nelson: AIG, San Antonio Credit Union
Paul Otellini: Ernst & Young, Financial Services Forum
Steve Perry: Charles Schwab, Hoover Partners, HSBC, National Stock Exchange
Nancy Pfotenhauer: American Land Title Association, Mortgage Bankers Association
Elise Pickering-Finley: Credit Suisse, DE Shaw, Hartford Financial Services, Research In Motion, Retail Industry Lenders Association, URL Mutual
James Pitts: Advanced Association for Life Underwriting, AETNA, American Council of Life Insurers, AIG, Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, Debt Advisory International, Financial Services Coordinating Council, GE Financial Assurance, Hartford Life, Jefferson Pilot Financial, Kenwood Investments, MassMutual, Mutual of Omaha, New York Life, UNUM Provident, VISA, PMI Group
Tim Powers: AP Capital, Genworth Financial, Retail Industry Lenders Association, E-LOAN, General Electric Mortgage Insurance
Walter Price: Wachovia
Sloan Rappoport: Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc. (FBR), Trafelet Delta Funds
Hans Rickhoff: Capital One, Investment Company Institute, United Services Automobile Association (USAA)
Kathleen Shanahan: New York Stock Exchange
Andrew Shore: Accenture, Retail Industry Lenders Association, Barclays, Bond Market Association, Credit Suisse, TPG Capital
Katie Stahl: Alliance for Investment Transparency, Ares Management, Fairfax Financial Holdings, Uhlmann Financial Group
Milly Stanges: TIAA-CREF
Aquiles Suarez: Fannie Mae
Don Sundquist: Freddie Mac, The Hartford
Peter Terpeluk: JP Morgan Chase, Ernst & Young, Prudential
Fred Thompson: Equitas
Jeri Thompson: American Insurance Association
John Timmons: National Association of Federal Credit Unions
William Timmons Sr.: American Council of Life Insurers, Citigroup, Dun & Bradstreet, Freddie Mac, Vanguard Group
Vin Weber: Agstar Financial Services, AKT Investment Corp., American Institute of CPAs, Ernst & Young, Freddie Mac, Louis Dreyfus Corp, PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Jeffery Weiss: JP Morgan
Tony Williams: Russell Investment Group, American Life Inc., Northwestern Mutual
— David Corn, Jonathan Stein, and Nick Baumann
McCain has intimate personal experience with greed and mismanagement!
Remember the Savings and Loan scandal? Greed and mismanagement and McCain one of the original Keating Five!
He talks about fixing corruption! What a freaking hypocrit! Both he and Palin ? corrupt liars!
A huge cause for where we are today!
No thanks McCain; we're not taking your Bridge to Nowhere! Take Palin and your 83 Wall Street Lobbyists working on your campaign and jump off the bridge!
Shame on McCain
@ attl: Actually, a 'Maverick' in this sense is defined as follows:
1mav·er·ick
Pronunciation: \ˈmav-rik, ˈma-və-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Samuel A. Maverick ?1870 American pioneer who did not brand his calves
Date: 1867
1: an unbranded range animal ; especially : a motherless calf
2: an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party
What you're describing is more of a 'reprobate'.
That would be someone like the person described below.
ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "You were asked, 'Is he ready?' You said, 'I think he can be ready but right now, I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.'"
Joe Biden: "I think that I stand by the statement."
Narrator: "And what does he say about John McCain?" Biden: "I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off."
Oh KB, Read this if you have the guts. McCain may have FORMER lobbiest on his staff but OBAMA has REAL crooks, You know, the heads of Fannie and Freddie? Who took down about 110 MILLION
On May 23, 2006, as a jury in Houston deliberated the case against top Enron executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, a little-known regulatory agency in Washington, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), released a study with the dryly bureaucratic title "Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae." The document received far less attention than the news from Enron, but its conclusions were stunning. In meticulous detail, it outlined a culture of corruption at the Federal National Mortgage Association ? better known as Fannie Mae ? that rivals the most serious corporate scandals in recent years. In this case, however, the main players are Washington insiders ? some of them prominent veterans of the Clinton administration ? and the scandal's effects could ripple through Congress for years.
Fannie Mae is the biggest single source of money for mortgages in the United States. From 1998 to 2004, the years covered by the OFHEO investigation, it was headed by former Clinton budget director Franklin Raines, whose top management team included former Clinton Justice Department official Jamie Gorelick, sometimes mentioned as a future attorney general in a Democratic administration. During that period, the report says, Raines and his team grossly overstated Fannie Mae's earnings ? to the tune of $10.6 billion ? for the purpose of paying themselves big bonuses. "By deliberately and intentionally manipulating accounting to hit earnings targets," the report says, "senior management maximized the bonuses and other executive compensation they received, at the expense of shareholders."
In doing so, the report says, Raines and his team steered Fannie Mae far afield from its original mission, transforming it from a stable business into a risky one. Fannie Mae has its roots in the New Deal, when it was established to increase the amount of money available for mortgages. Over the years, its main business has been to issue debt and then use the proceeds to buy mortgages from lenders, allowing those lenders to give out new mortgages. Originally a government agency, Fannie Mae went private in 1968, with the goal of "increasing the availability and affordability of homeownership for low-, moderate-, and middle-income Americans," according to its mission statement.
But Fannie Mae is not just any private institution. It is congressionally chartered, meaning its existence is established in law, it does not have to pay state and local income taxes, and it is not subject to bankruptcy laws. It can borrow money at a lower rate than anyone else except the federal government itself. Given all that, there is a public perception that Fannie Mae is a rock-solid government institution. "There is an implied guarantee," says Sen. John Sununu, a member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee who has sponsored legislation to reform Fannie Mae. "Investors think they are the next best thing to Treasuries."...
According to the report, Raines became obsessed with propping up Fannie Mae's earnings per share, or EPS, even if he had to use creative accounting to make it happen. Raines set a series of increasingly higher EPS goals that, if met, would trigger bonuses for the executive team that far surpassed what they received in salary....
It worked. Fannie Mae met its EPS goals, and Raines rewarded his top executives ? and most of all himself ? with unheard-of amounts of money.
Even though his salary never topped $1 million, Raines's total compensation shot from $6.48 million in 1998 to $8.52 million in 1999, to $13.89 million in 2000, to $18.86 million in 2001, to $18.20 million in 2002, to $24.15 million in 2003, all on the strength of EPS bonuses. Investigators found that of the $90.12 million Raines was paid in that six-year period, more than $52 million came from EPS bonuses.
But I guess this dosn't matter does it? You koolaid drinkers make me sick
Who is the eilitist?
According to the report, Raines became obsessed with propping up Fannie Mae's earnings per share, or EPS, even if he had to use creative accounting to make it happen. Raines set a series of increasingly higher EPS goals that, if met, would trigger bonuses for the executive team that far surpassed what they received in salary....
It worked. Fannie Mae met its EPS goals, and Raines rewarded his top executives ? and most of all himself ? with unheard-of amounts of money.
Even though his salary never topped $1 million, Raines's total compensation shot from $6.48 million in 1998 to $8.52 million in 1999, to $13.89 million in 2000, to $18.86 million in 2001, to $18.20 million in 2002, to $24.15 million in 2003, all on the strength of EPS bonuses. Investigators found that of the $90.12 million Raines was paid in that six-year period, more than $52 million came from EPS bonuses.
Gorelick's situation was similar. OFHEO found that she took home $26.46 million in the period from 1998 to 2002 (she left in that year, so she wasn't there for the entire period under investigation). Of that figure, nearly $15 million came from EPS bonuses.
Of course, it wasn't legit. "Fannie Mae reported extremely smooth profit growth and hit announced targets for earnings per share precisely each quarter," the OFHEO report says. "Those achievements were illusions deliberately and systematically created by [Fannie Mae's] senior management with the aid of inappropriate accounting and improper earnings management."
In other words, they cooked the books. And to make matters worse, according to OFHEO, when regulators began to catch on to what was happening, Raines and his team then "sought to interfere" with the OFHEO investigation by trying to get Congress to start up a separate probe of OFHEO. Fannie Mae also lobbied Congress to cut OFHEO's funds unless it got rid of the top official in charge of investigating Fannie Mae.
Um, Obama may not have as many FORMER lobbiests but why does he need them when he has the bosses. Looky who his main economic advisers are!
Looky looky, who has the cookie
According to the report, Raines became obsessed with propping up Fannie Mae's earnings per share, or EPS, even if he had to use creative accounting to make it happen. Raines set a series of increasingly higher EPS goals that, if met, would trigger bonuses for the executive team that far surpassed what they received in salary....
It worked. Fannie Mae met its EPS goals, and Raines rewarded his top executives ? and most of all himself ? with unheard-of amounts of money.
Even though his salary never topped $1 million, Raines's total compensation shot from $6.48 million in 1998 to $8.52 million in 1999, to $13.89 million in 2000, to $18.86 million in 2001, to $18.20 million in 2002, to $24.15 million in 2003, all on the strength of EPS bonuses. Investigators found that of the $90.12 million Raines was paid in that six-year period, more than $52 million came from EPS bonuses.
Gorelick's situation was similar. OFHEO found that she took home $26.46 million in the period from 1998 to 2002 (she left in that year, so she wasn't there for the entire period under investigation). Of that figure, nearly $15 million came from EPS bonuses.
Of course, it wasn't legit. "Fannie Mae reported extremely smooth profit growth and hit announced targets for earnings per share precisely each quarter," the OFHEO report says. "Those achievements were illusions deliberately and systematically created by [Fannie Mae's] senior management with the aid of inappropriate accounting and improper earnings management."
In other words, they cooked the books. And to make matters worse, according to OFHEO, when regulators began to catch on to what was happening, Raines and his team then "sought to interfere" with the OFHEO investigation by trying to get Congress to start up a separate probe of OFHEO. Fannie Mae also lobbied Congress to cut OFHEO's funds unless it got rid of the top official in charge of investigating Fannie Mae.
McCain has intimate personal experience with greed and mismanagement!
Remember the Savings and Loan scandal? Greed and mismanagement and McCain one of the original Keating Five!
He talks about fixing corruption! What a freaking hypocrit! Both he and Palin ? corrupt liars!
A huge cause for where we are today!
No thanks McCain; we're not taking your Bridge to Nowhere! Take Palin and your 83 Wall Street Lobbyists working on your campaign and jump off the bridge!
Shame on McCain
@ attl: Actually, a 'Maverick' in this sense is defined as follows:
1mav·er·ick
Pronunciation: \ˈmav-rik, ˈma-və-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Samuel A. Maverick ?1870 American pioneer who did not brand his calves
Date: 1867
1: an unbranded range animal ; especially : a motherless calf
2: an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party
What you're describing is more of a 'reprobate'.
That would be someone like the person described below.
ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "You were asked, 'Is he ready?' You said, 'I think he can be ready but right now, I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.'"
Joe Biden: "I think that I stand by the statement."
Narrator: "And what does he say about John McCain?" Biden: "I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off."
Oh KB, Read this if you have the guts. McCain may have FORMER lobbiest on his staff but OBAMA has REAL crooks, You know, the heads of Fannie and Freddie? Who took down about 110 MILLION
On May 23, 2006, as a jury in Houston deliberated the case against top Enron executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, a little-known regulatory agency in Washington, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), released a study with the dryly bureaucratic title "Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae." The document received far less attention than the news from Enron, but its conclusions were stunning. In meticulous detail, it outlined a culture of corruption at the Federal National Mortgage Association ? better known as Fannie Mae ? that rivals the most serious corporate scandals in recent years. In this case, however, the main players are Washington insiders ? some of them prominent veterans of the Clinton administration ? and the scandal's effects could ripple through Congress for years.
Fannie Mae is the biggest single source of money for mortgages in the United States. From 1998 to 2004, the years covered by the OFHEO investigation, it was headed by former Clinton budget director Franklin Raines, whose top management team included former Clinton Justice Department official Jamie Gorelick, sometimes mentioned as a future attorney general in a Democratic administration. During that period, the report says, Raines and his team grossly overstated Fannie Mae's earnings ? to the tune of $10.6 billion ? for the purpose of paying themselves big bonuses. "By deliberately and intentionally manipulating accounting to hit earnings targets," the report says, "senior management maximized the bonuses and other executive compensation they received, at the expense of shareholders."
In doing so, the report says, Raines and his team steered Fannie Mae far afield from its original mission, transforming it from a stable business into a risky one. Fannie Mae has its roots in the New Deal, when it was established to increase the amount of money available for mortgages. Over the years, its main business has been to issue debt and then use the proceeds to buy mortgages from lenders, allowing those lenders to give out new mortgages. Originally a government agency, Fannie Mae went private in 1968, with the goal of "increasing the availability and affordability of homeownership for low-, moderate-, and middle-income Americans," according to its mission statement.
But Fannie Mae is not just any private institution. It is congressionally chartered, meaning its existence is established in law, it does not have to pay state and local income taxes, and it is not subject to bankruptcy laws. It can borrow money at a lower rate than anyone else except the federal government itself. Given all that, there is a public perception that Fannie Mae is a rock-solid government institution. "There is an implied guarantee," says Sen. John Sununu, a member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee who has sponsored legislation to reform Fannie Mae. "Investors think they are the next best thing to Treasuries."...
According to the report, Raines became obsessed with propping up Fannie Mae's earnings per share, or EPS, even if he had to use creative accounting to make it happen. Raines set a series of increasingly higher EPS goals that, if met, would trigger bonuses for the executive team that far surpassed what they received in salary....
It worked. Fannie Mae met its EPS goals, and Raines rewarded his top executives ? and most of all himself ? with unheard-of amounts of money.
Even though his salary never topped $1 million, Raines's total compensation shot from $6.48 million in 1998 to $8.52 million in 1999, to $13.89 million in 2000, to $18.86 million in 2001, to $18.20 million in 2002, to $24.15 million in 2003, all on the strength of EPS bonuses. Investigators found that of the $90.12 million Raines was paid in that six-year period, more than $52 million came from EPS bonuses.
But I guess this dosn't matter does it? You koolaid drinkers make me sick
Who is the eilitist?
According to the report, Raines became obsessed with propping up Fannie Mae's earnings per share, or EPS, even if he had to use creative accounting to make it happen. Raines set a series of increasingly higher EPS goals that, if met, would trigger bonuses for the executive team that far surpassed what they received in salary....
It worked. Fannie Mae met its EPS goals, and Raines rewarded his top executives ? and most of all himself ? with unheard-of amounts of money.
Even though his salary never topped $1 million, Raines's total compensation shot from $6.48 million in 1998 to $8.52 million in 1999, to $13.89 million in 2000, to $18.86 million in 2001, to $18.20 million in 2002, to $24.15 million in 2003, all on the strength of EPS bonuses. Investigators found that of the $90.12 million Raines was paid in that six-year period, more than $52 million came from EPS bonuses.
Gorelick's situation was similar. OFHEO found that she took home $26.46 million in the period from 1998 to 2002 (she left in that year, so she wasn't there for the entire period under investigation). Of that figure, nearly $15 million came from EPS bonuses.
Of course, it wasn't legit. "Fannie Mae reported extremely smooth profit growth and hit announced targets for earnings per share precisely each quarter," the OFHEO report says. "Those achievements were illusions deliberately and systematically created by [Fannie Mae's] senior management with the aid of inappropriate accounting and improper earnings management."
In other words, they cooked the books. And to make matters worse, according to OFHEO, when regulators began to catch on to what was happening, Raines and his team then "sought to interfere" with the OFHEO investigation by trying to get Congress to start up a separate probe of OFHEO. Fannie Mae also lobbied Congress to cut OFHEO's funds unless it got rid of the top official in charge of investigating Fannie Mae.
Um, Obama may not have as many FORMER lobbiests but why does he need them when he has the bosses. Looky who his main economic advisers are!
Looky looky, who has the cookie
According to the report, Raines became obsessed with propping up Fannie Mae's earnings per share, or EPS, even if he had to use creative accounting to make it happen. Raines set a series of increasingly higher EPS goals that, if met, would trigger bonuses for the executive team that far surpassed what they received in salary....
It worked. Fannie Mae met its EPS goals, and Raines rewarded his top executives ? and most of all himself ? with unheard-of amounts of money.
Even though his salary never topped $1 million, Raines's total compensation shot from $6.48 million in 1998 to $8.52 million in 1999, to $13.89 million in 2000, to $18.86 million in 2001, to $18.20 million in 2002, to $24.15 million in 2003, all on the strength of EPS bonuses. Investigators found that of the $90.12 million Raines was paid in that six-year period, more than $52 million came from EPS bonuses.
Gorelick's situation was similar. OFHEO found that she took home $26.46 million in the period from 1998 to 2002 (she left in that year, so she wasn't there for the entire period under investigation). Of that figure, nearly $15 million came from EPS bonuses.
Of course, it wasn't legit. "Fannie Mae reported extremely smooth profit growth and hit announced targets for earnings per share precisely each quarter," the OFHEO report says. "Those achievements were illusions deliberately and systematically created by [Fannie Mae's] senior management with the aid of inappropriate accounting and improper earnings management."
In other words, they cooked the books. And to make matters worse, according to OFHEO, when regulators began to catch on to what was happening, Raines and his team then "sought to interfere" with the OFHEO investigation by trying to get Congress to start up a separate probe of OFHEO. Fannie Mae also lobbied Congress to cut OFHEO's funds unless it got rid of the top official in charge of investigating Fannie Mae.
A Recipe for Economic Failure
Just as Cindy McCain has stolen her Cookie recipe from Hershey's, John McCain is stealing his economic plan right from the George W. Bush playbook. He is ill at ease when speaking about his plan for the economy because he knows he has been a direct supporter of the deregulation that caused the failures in our economy. Deregulation has allowed the Wall Street crowd to behave as chipmunk's hording up all their acorns and leaving the scraps for the average American. His one moment of honestly was when John McCain admitted "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should". Where does he get his economic vision from? McCain says "some of my best friends have opinions about economic policy". And who are these best friends? Seven of them run his campaign, and they are lobbyists for big oil, pharmaceutical, foreign dictators, and failed Wall Street giants. Doing more of the same again and again and telling people that they can expect different results does not make you a maverick. At best, it makes you insane. At worst, a liar.
McCain is not telling the truth, about the economy, or Barack Obama. Barack Obama's middle class tax cut gives 95% of working Americans a tax cut of up to $1,000. He will crack down on predatory lenders, punish corporations who send American jobs overseas, reform requirements on all regulated financial institutions and streamline our regulatory agencies. "This time - this election - is our chance to stand up and say: enough is enough!" (Barack Obama, 2008)
Elite Capitalists Greedy Scam of the Genteel Population
Greedy elite capitalists set the mortgage and securities standard, knowing exactly what they were doing for their own short-term interest benefit -- knowing the genteel buyers were going to lose their property by default -- made bogus mortgages for the last 20 years and bundled them into bogus securities; then sold them to bankers all over the world.
Now, the buyers of the elite capitalists' bogus mortgages are defaulting as the elite capitalists' bogus mortgages and securities have become worthless; but, since the bogus securities have been scattered all over the world, the entire world banking system is dependent upon benefit from the elite capitalists' bogus mortgages; which the elite capitalists are NOT receiving, so one by one the elite capitalists' banks are all defaulting and going bankrupt, while the elite capitalists sit back and say they do not understand what the problem is --- all the elite capitalists did was engage in FREE TRADE and the market is now seeking a correction. The elite capitalists knew they were bundling bogus securities.
How does this affect the elite capitalists? They will get baled out by the communal resources of the people, since all the elite capitalists did was give genteel people an opportunity to have a home they couldn't afford. What the housing and securities crunch really means is that the genteel population of the United States were scammed by the elite capitalists for benefit from short-term profit, and unlike Atlas, the genteel population are/were unable to carry the world of elite capitalist greed on their backs and have lost or are losing their homes. When the scammed population lose their homes, the securities default and the banks holding those securities collapse.
The real sorrow here is not that scamming greedy bankers are going to lose their capital if the government doesn't bale them out, the real sorrow is all of the genteel people that have worked so hard chasing the American Dream, and have lost everything, including their homes to the greedy bankers' scams; and the government using the peoples money is NOT baling out the people who are losing their homes to the greedy bankers, only baling out the scamming greedy bankers, because that protects the the elite capitalists' economy, not the best interest of the people, or the peoples' economy; so without responsibility or punishment, the elite capitalists start the whole dumb show over again, scamming the genteel population as consumers for short-term profit.
The purpose of the consumer is to generate capital for the owner's of the economy. The elite capitalists own the economy. The consumers consume products made by the owners of the economy and generate capital for the owners of the economy. That is the capitalist system. The shame of the thing is that with legislated enforced elite capitalist responsibility the system could be made to work for all who participate in the capitalist system for both capitalists and consumers. Awareness and demand of responsibility is the only way responsibility by the elite capitalists will happen.
Until the population as a whole becomes sufficiently aware to in mass demand responsibility, there will be no responsibility of the elite capitalists and the dumb show will continue to go on indefinitely. Elite capitalist McCain/Palin will protect the elite capitalists.
When banks are going down there are people hitting the streets without homes. Where are these people? They are there, but are being stored out of sight for slavery in jails and prisons. The dumb show must end and it starts with Obama/Biden.
In the spirit of balanced reporting, it would be helpful to know how many of those same types of Wall Street influencers work for Obama's campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if some are involved in similar activities (although I would be surprised if he had that many).
I would also be interested to know how close these individuals are to McCain and Obama. By the sheer numbers, I find it hard to believe that most of them would have direct contact or influence over the candidates.
Don't get me wrong. I shudder at the thought of a McCain/Palin administration. It would be useful, however, to get a fair account of Obama's supporters who fit a similar profile.
Awesome job, guys!
They should use this scroll as part of an economics ad running against McCain.
Maybe pair it with his complete 180 flip-flop on bailing out AIG. He was against it before he was for it!
JM writes: In the spirit of balanced reporting, it would be helpful to know how many of those same types of Wall Street influencers work for Obama's campaign.
Can't say about who is or is not working for Barack's campaign, but it is interesting to note that people in Finance, Insurance and Real Estate are contributing more heavily to Obama than to McCain.
Also of interest is that Lawyers & Lobbyists are contributing far more to Barack than to McCain (3 to 1), as are people in the sectors defined as Miscellaneous Business (not quite 2 to 1) and Communications & Electronics (3 to 1) (which I assume includes "media").
www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorallc.php?cycle=2008
One assumes these people believe an Obama administration would be more favorable to their interests.
Opensecrets, that doesn't actually tell you anything that people from a given industry donate to Obama. If a staunchly liberal cubicle-dweller like me donates, that goes down as a donation from someone in my industry, just as if it came from the CEO. I'd bet money (in fact, as a donor, I have bet) that the people in those industries donating to Obama aren't running the industries, just holding down a job.
So the where the lobbyists work is a much better indicator.
Eric, if you believed a particular candidate, if elected, would be tough on the industry where you're holding down that job, how likely is it that you'd donate to him/her, and work to get them elected?
The Lawyers & Lobbyists sector is one that always jumps out at me, as it's the one that includes lobbyists and those who work for lobbyists, and it's going 3 to 1 for Obama.
Obviously, they're not thinking an Obama administration is going to put Washington Lobbyists out of business.
Open Secrets, there are many reasons to vote for or support a candidate. I work in a WS company that just went bankrupt and have contributed to Obama's campain because I believe that his election is best for the country and my son's future.
The fact that it could cause my employer to make less money than it otherwise could have was not part of my considerations.
I may be naive, but I hope that is the way most people would think.
If You were The Boss... which team would you hire?
>
> With America facing historic debt, multiple war fronts,
> stumbling health care, a weakened dollar, all-time high
> prison population, skyrocketing Federal spending, mortgage
> crises, bank foreclosures, etc. etc., this is an unusually
> critical election year.
>
> Let's look at the educational background of the
> candidates and see what they bring to the job:
>
> Obama:
> Occidental College - Two years.
> Columbia University - B.A. political science with a
> specialization in international relations.
> Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
>
> Biden:
> University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in
> political science.
> Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)
>
> vs.
>
> McCain:
> United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 out of 899
> (meaning that, like George Bush, McCain was at the bottom of
> his class)
>
>
> Palin:
> Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
> North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
> University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
> Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
> University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism
>
> Now, which team are you going to hire to lead the most
> influential nation in the world?
>
>
>
>
>
I may be naive, but I hope that is the way most people would think.
It's long been said that the American voter votes his pocket book.
It's long been said because it's long been true.
It would appear that Judy Malone is about as computer savvy as I am.
Why should anyone listen to someone who can't figure out how to delete all the '>' marks when they cut & paste somebody else's thoughts, instead of typing out their own?
...and furthermore...
updated 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Some of John McCain's and Barack Obama's biggest fundraisers are executives from the stricken financial services industry, which will need all the help it can get from whoever wins the White House.
Merrill Lynch & Co.'s chief executive, for example, has raised more than $500,000 for McCain's campaign. Obama has received at least $1.5 million collected by three senior executives at Lehman Brothers.
...
Wall Street-based firms were among the most active at "bundling" contributions for the two candidates.
Three executives from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. have raised at least half a million dollars for Obama. That firm is Obama's top source of campaign money overall; its employees have contributed more than $690,000 to his campaign, according to the center.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26760673
I can't understand. If the rich pay most of the taxes, how can they stomach what is happening on Wall Street and with all the bailouts? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4cK06nCtlU
McCain has intimate personal experience with greed and mismanagement!
Remember the Savings and Loan scandal? Greed and mismanagement and McCain one of the original Keating Five!
He talks about fixing corruption! What a freaking hypocrit! Both he and Palin corrupt liars!
A huge cause for where we are today!
No thanks McCain; we're not taking your Bridge to Nowhere! Take Palin and your 83 Wall Street Lobbyists working on your campaign and jump off the bridge!
Shame on McCain
corproate donors donate both sides. USUALLY they prefer to donate the most to those who will support their world-view the most, but in an election where Congressional republicans are losing the popularity polls by more than 2 to 1, its not surprising that the Democratic candidate is getting a larger share of contributions than usual. No doubt Obama will be nice who donated a lot of money, but at least he's cut the national PAC money out of the Dem's financial obligations, both for himself, and the Party-as-a-whole.
Obama represents constituents of the left -- the 90% Common Population; whereas John McCain represents constituents of the right -- the 10% Elite Capitalists. When are people ever going to learn. Republicans and Democrats are not equal. The only equality the left's Democrats have with the right's Republicans is through their mass numbers and when the left is too frightened to use their mass numbers, there is no equality.
any links/sites?
So Martha.., if 90% of the people in America are "on the left" as you believe, and judging from your postings, you think the Democrats are much more to the left than the Repubs, how is it that the 10% you think represents the Republican total keeps outvoting the 90%??
How's that even possible?
It reminds me of the people who keep whining that the overwhelming force of the 4 million member NRA keeps outvoting the 140 million voters who are not NRA members, so they don't get the gun bans they hope for.
I think you forgot one. I could be wrong -- it's been a while -- but I'm pretty sure Slade Gorton was a lobbyist for Safeco Insurance after he left the Senate in 2000. Safeco is now owned by Liberty Mutual, so it may be hard to figure out which one to pin on him.
Obama is tied to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae who invested in his campaign, also big funders of Senator Christopher Dodd on the Senate Banking Committee since 1980. Obama had considered Dodd for VP but dropped in favor of Joe Biden.
JOHN MCCAIN FOUGHT HIS WHOLE LIFE FOR DEREGULATING EVERYTHING - BANKS, BABY FORMULA COMPANIES, BIG OIL, ETC.
NOW HE IS LYING AND SAYING HE WANTS TO REGULATE. DON'T TRUST HIM. HE IS AS BAD AS DICK CHENEY. HE WILL SAY ANY LIE TO GET ELECTED.
LOLLOL< McBush is an idiot. He is a proven LIAR and I cannot believe anyone with a single ounce of common sense would take McIdiot seriously.
Jiss
www.anonymize.us.tc
LOL, McBush is the epitome of Wall Street Greed. What a joke. At this point I am surprised anyone believes anything McBush says.
Sarah
www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
My God... I am just so disgusted with the republicans. How can they walk down the streets knowing what they have done to this country? How can the people of this country let them get away with it? How is it that they HAVE THE GALL to put up someone like John McCain for president when his right hand man Phil Gramm created most of the WORST problems we see in this country today? I just want Phil Gramm and John McCain to answer one question. How many kids in this country went to bed hungry last night because of your past actions and legislation? God help you both...
Maverick is just an euphemistic term for someone who would change their tune with the toss of a penny. No foundation, no policies and no scruples. As my father used to say, a mans color can be judged by the color of those around him. Talk about 'flip flop's'. Senator is better than a fish out of water.
@ attl: Actually, a 'Maverick' in this sense is defined as follows:
1mav·er·ick
Pronunciation: \ˈmav-rik, ˈma-və-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Samuel A. Maverick 1870 American pioneer who did not brand his calves
Date: 1867
1: an unbranded range animal ; especially : a motherless calf
2: an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party
What you're describing is more of a 'reprobate'.
That would be someone like the person described below.
ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "You were asked, 'Is he ready?' You said, 'I think he can be ready but right now, I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.'"
Joe Biden: "I think that I stand by the statement."
Narrator: "And what does he say about John McCain?" Biden: "I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off."
Let's be fair here. They call themselves "Republican" but are they really? I tend to call them Neocons because they don't really embrace the old Republican values - small government, personal responsibility, small-town values, etc. I'd hate to lump together a whole set of people simply because some of them went crazy.
Oh KB, Read this if you have the guts. McCain may have FORMER lobbiest on his staff but OBAMA has REAL crooks, You know, the heads of Fannie and Freddie? Who took down about 110 MILLION
On May 23, 2006, as a jury in Houston deliberated the case against top Enron executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, a little-known regulatory agency in Washington, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), released a study with the dryly bureaucratic title "Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae." The document received far less attention than the news from Enron, but its conclusions were stunning. In meticulous detail, it outlined a culture of corruption at the Federal National Mortgage Association better known as Fannie Mae that rivals the most serious corporate scandals in recent years. In this case, however, the main players are Washington insiders some of them prominent veterans of the Clinton administration and the scandal's effects could ripple through Congress for years.
Fannie Mae is the biggest single source of money for mortgages in the United States. From 1998 to 2004, the years covered by the OFHEO investigation, it was headed by former Clinton budget director Franklin Raines, whose top management team included former Clinton Justice Department official Jamie Gorelick, sometimes mentioned as a future attorney general in a Democratic administration. During that period, the report says, Raines and his team grossly overstated Fannie Mae's earnings to the tune of $10.6 billion for the purpose of paying themselves big bonuses. "By deliberately and intentionally manipulating accounting to hit earnings targets," the report says, "senior management maximized the bonuses and other executive compensation they received, at the expense of shareholders."
In doing so, the report says, Raines and his team steered Fannie Mae far afield from its original mission, transforming it from a stable business into a risky one. Fannie Mae has its roots in the New Deal, when it was established to increase the amount of money available for mortgages. Over the years, its main business has been to issue debt and then use the proceeds to buy mortgages from lenders, allowing those lenders to give out new mortgages. Originally a government agency, Fannie Mae went private in 1968, with the goal of "increasing the availability and affordability of homeownership for low-, moderate-, and middle-income Americans," according to its mission statement.
But Fannie Mae is not just any private institution. It is congressionally chartered, meaning its existence is established in law, it does not have to pay state and local income taxes, and it is not subject to bankruptcy laws. It can borrow money at a lower rate than anyone else except the federal government itself. Given all that, there is a public perception that Fannie Mae is a rock-solid government institution. "There is an implied guarantee," says Sen. John Sununu, a member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee who has sponsored legislation to reform Fannie Mae. "Investors think they are the next best thing to Treasuries."...
According to the report, Raines became obsessed with propping up Fannie Mae's earnings per share, or EPS, even if he had to use creative accounting to make it happen. Raines set a series of increasingly higher EPS goals that, if met, would trigger bonuses for the executive team that far surpassed what they received in salary....
It worked. Fannie Mae met its EPS goals, and Raines rewarded his top executives and most of all himself with unheard-of amounts of money.
Even though his salary never topped $1 million, Raines's total compensation shot from $6.48 million in 1998 to $8.52 million in 1999, to $13.89 million in 2000, to $18.86 million in 2001, to $18.20 million in 2002, to $24.15 million in 2003, all on the strength of EPS bonuses. Investigators found that of the $90.12 million Raines was paid in that six-year period, more than $52 million came from EPS bonuses.
But I guess this dosn't matter does it? You koolaid drinkers make me sick
Who is the eilitist?
According to the report, Raines became obsessed with propping up Fannie Mae's earnings per share, or EPS, even if he had to use creative accounting to make it happen. Raines set a series of increasingly higher EPS goals that, if met, would trigger bonuses for the executive team that far surpassed what they received in salary....
It worked. Fannie Mae met its EPS goals, and Raines rewarded his top executives and most of all himself with unheard-of amounts of money.
Even though his salary never topped $1 million, Raines's total compensation shot from $6.48 million in 1998 to $8.52 million in 1999, to $13.89 million in 2000, to $18.86 million in 2001, to $18.20 million in 2002, to $24.15 million in 2003, all on the strength of EPS bonuses. Investigators found that of the $90.12 million Raines was paid in that six-year period, more than $52 million came from EPS bonuses.
Gorelick's situation was similar. OFHEO found that she took home $26.46 million in the period from 1998 to 2002 (she left in that year, so she wasn't there for the entire period under investigation). Of that figure, nearly $15 million came from EPS bonuses.
Of course, it wasn't legit. "Fannie Mae reported extremely smooth profit growth and hit announced targets for earnings per share precisely each quarter," the OFHEO report says. "Those achievements were illusions deliberately and systematically created by [Fannie Mae's] senior management with the aid of inappropriate accounting and improper earnings management."
In other words, they cooked the books. And to make matters worse, according to OFHEO, when regulators began to catch on to what was happening, Raines and his team then "sought to interfere" with the OFHEO investigation by trying to get Congress to start up a separate probe of OFHEO. Fannie Mae also lobbied Congress to cut OFHEO's funds unless it got rid of the top official in charge of investigating Fannie Mae.
Um, Obama may not have as many FORMER lobbiests but why does he need them when he has the bosses. Looky who his main economic advisers are!
Looky looky, who has the cookie
According to the report, Raines became obsessed with propping up Fannie Mae's earnings per share, or EPS, even if he had to use creative accounting to make it happen. Raines set a series of increasingly higher EPS goals that, if met, would trigger bonuses for the executive team that far surpassed what they received in salary....
It worked. Fannie Mae met its EPS goals, and Raines rewarded his top executives and most of all himself with unheard-of amounts of money.
Even though his salary never topped $1 million, Raines's total compensation shot from $6.48 million in 1998 to $8.52 million in 1999, to $13.89 million in 2000, to $18.86 million in 2001, to $18.20 million in 2002, to $24.15 million in 2003, all on the strength of EPS bonuses. Investigators found that of the $90.12 million Raines was paid in that six-year period, more than $52 million came from EPS bonuses.
Gorelick's situation was similar. OFHEO found that she took home $26.46 million in the period from 1998 to 2002 (she left in that year, so she wasn't there for the entire period under investigation). Of that figure, nearly $15 million came from EPS bonuses.
Of course, it wasn't legit. "Fannie Mae reported extremely smooth profit growth and hit announced targets for earnings per share precisely each quarter," the OFHEO report says. "Those achievements were illusions deliberately and systematically created by [Fannie Mae's] senior management with the aid of inappropriate accounting and improper earnings management."
In other words, they cooked the books. And to make matters worse, according to OFHEO, when regulators began to catch on to what was happening, Raines and his team then "sought to interfere" with the OFHEO investigation by trying to get Congress to start up a separate probe of OFHEO. Fannie Mae also lobbied Congress to cut OFHEO's funds unless it got rid of the top official in charge of investigating Fannie Mae.
Thanks for double, triple and quadruple posting your cut & paste.
Oh, get a life. You are so judgement. You don't know why that person didn't delete all the > marks. Maybe they didn't have time. They were sharing a thought that perhaps they copied from an email they wrote or even if it was someone else's, big deal.
This is important information for sure. But what does this have to do with Obama? Does he have Raines in any advisory position in his campaign? I'm seriously interested.
Amala, I believe you mean "judgementAL"...
Somebody has time to peruse internet message boards, but is too busy to put their cut & paste in a readable format?
I'd guess "lazy" before "busy".
That's my judgement.
As far as campaign donations go, the same people give money to both candidates. Becasue remember it doesn't matter who wins. It just matters that they win. Like Yojimbo. He lets the two sides fight it out while he befriends both.
That's the myth. Yeah, rich people may pay more tax as individuals, but combined it is the middle class and low income households who really pay most of the tax. Besides which, many of the rich are probably investors in a lot these companies. If Washington wants to keep my ship from going under, why would I stop them?
If I were the boss I wouldn't hire any of those. I would hire Dr. Ron Paul, because he is note supported by lobbyists!
Average Joe American,
It was Clinton, your guy, who signed that bill. And...it was his right hand man, Rubin, who endorsed it. Give credit where credit is due.
The collective point that has been made in theses comments is that both parties are corrupted to the core.When Americans see that they need new political parties to keep things in balance, then we will see true change in governance. Until then people will just bicker about which party is less corrupt. UGH!!!
Well said, balance.
The government needs to change hands, and I don't mean just change from the right hand back to the left hand again, either!
When DemoPublicans & RepubliCrats see that Americans are finally willing to put people from other parties, or independents into the offices they've come to think of as rightfully their's, then there will be major changes taking place in the DemoPublican & RepubliCrat parties and in how they approach governance. And not until then.