Will Tiny Tim Geithner Face Criminal Charges? What About Hank Paulson? Bipartisan Trials For Crooked Elites!

There's a memo going around stating Tim Geithner was indicted last week, in custody for a brief moment and released the same day. I haven't seen it. Yesterday we talked a little about accountability for the economic meltdown and the looting of America in the final days of the Bush Regime. In China, dozens of corrupt officials-- starting with their version of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson-- and most of the Wall Street banksters would have been given speedy trials and then lined up against a wall and shot. But we don't do that here. In fact, we don't hold our ruling elites accountable for economic crimes. We celebrate them instead.

So wasn't I shocked when Fox News reported that Geithner could be facing criminal charges in regard to the bailout of AIG. Last week, in a NY Times OpEd, Phil Angelides, former chairman of the short-lived Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, asked a simple question: Will Wall Street Ever Face Justice? Obviously the nexus of the kind of massive criminality we're talking about isn't Wall Street alone, but Wall Street and Washington, DC. The Bush Regime may not have conspired in 9/11 but they sure were behind the looting of America that Wall Street is (barely) blamed for. And Angelides, a former Democratic Treasurer of California, warned his readers that Holder's claims to be fighting financial fraud are utter bullshit.

Four years after the disintegration of the financial system, Americans have, rightfully, a gnawing feeling that justice has not been served. Claims of financial fraud against companies like Citigroup and Bank of America have been settled for pennies on the dollar, with no admission of wrongdoing. Executives who ran companies that made, packaged and sold trillions of dollars in toxic mortgages and mortgage-backed securities remain largely unscathed.

Meager resources have been applied to investigate the financial assault on our country, which wiped away trillions of dollars in household wealth and has resulted in 24 million people jobless or underemployed. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which Congress created to examine the full scope of the crisis, was given a budget of $9.8 million-- roughly one-seventh of the budget of Oliver Stone’s Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations did its work on the financial crisis with only a dozen or so Congressional staff members.

Despite their limited budgets, both inquiries turned over rocks and exposed disturbing financial practices, and both entities referred potential violations of law to the Justice Department. The final reports from the two investigations were completed last year, but the resources that were needed to dig deep beneath those rocks-- or the rocks turned over by private litigants or other investigatory efforts-- weren’t mobilized. One example: The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s report contains evidence about Clayton Holdings, a company hired by more than 20 major financial institutions to perform “due diligence” on mortgage loans those companies were buying, bundling and selling. Clayton sampled 2 to 3 percent of those mortgages and found a significant number of defective loans. Yet the other 97 percent were not sampled, and that fact and the information about loan defects were never disclosed to investors-- “raising the question,” the report noted, “of whether the disclosures were materially misleading, in violation of securities laws.”

In numerous court cases, plaintiffs, including the Federal Housing Finance Agency, have cited this evidence to support their claims of fraud and misrepresentation. But, inexplicably, there is no indication that the Justice Department promptly convened a high-level investigation to thoroughly examine who knew what when at these banks. In contrast, after the savings-and-loan debacle of the late 1980s, more than 1,000 bank and thrift executives were convicted of felonies. But today the rate of federal prosecutions for financial fraud is less than half of what it was then.

The belated creation of a Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group, led by federal officials along with New York State’s aggressive attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, offers hope that the needed surge of investigation and enforcement may finally be initiated. But for it to succeed, the Obama administration must give the group the wherewithal to do so.

First, the working group must have a strong and independent staff with the budget, expertise and training to do the job. This is vital given the bureaucratic inertia so far. Mr. Holder’s commitment of 55 lawyers, investigators and other staff members is a start, but far short of what is needed. Keep in mind that the Dallas Bank Fraud Task Force from the savings-and-loan era, cited as a model at the time, had more than 100 law enforcement professionals on the job. And the new working group also needs to be free from political meddling, including from the House Republicans who have regularly run interference for their big-bank allies.

Second, bank regulators, who are currently not part of the group, should be. During the savings-and-loan crisis, regulators aided law enforcement by filing more than 30,000 suspicious-activity reports, making referrals and sharing expertise. During the deregulatory mania that led up to the crisis, regulators like the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision (since abolished) made next to no referrals. Regulators can begin to atone for their past laxity by helping the working group now.

Third, the working group’s scope needs to be broader-- it should include mortgage origination, not just securitization. It should eschew a narrow view of mortgage fraud that focuses primarily on borrowers in favor of one that also encompasses the wholesale creation, sale and packaging of defective mortgages led by corporate executives.

Finally, the working group needs to prioritize the cases that caused the biggest losses and damage, moving with the creativity and flexibility that state attorneys general like Mr. Schneiderman have urged. The clock is ticking. During the S.&L. crisis, Congress extended the statute of limitations to 10 years from 5 for financial fraud affecting banks and some other types of financial institutions, but it’s already been nearly eight years since the F.B.I.’s now famous warning of an epidemic of mortgage fraud. Congress should review the law to ensure that the 10-year period applies to the range of activities and institutions under investigation by the working group. And it should extend the statute of limitations if needed to permit a thorough investigation.

No one should seek or condone prosecutions for revenge or political purposes. But laws need to be enforced to deter future malfeasance. Just as important, the American people need to believe that a thorough investigation has been conducted; that our judicial system has been fair to all, regardless of wealth and power; and that wrongs have been righted.

No one wants to see Obama and his administration come out as the bad guys in this Bish-mess. So they should stop acting like the bad guys and do what they were put in office to do. Firing Federal Housing Finance Agency Edward DeMarco would be a baby step in the right direction. And if Holder and Geithner can't do their jobs, they should get the ax too-- and fast.

Will The Banksters Be Brought To Heel?

Yesterday we mentioned how America's Wall Street aristocracy is doing its Marie Antoinette impersonation in the face of rising unemployment, increased foreclosures and a stagnant economy-- all conditions they were instrumental in bringing about. Tomorrow this decade's version of the Pecora Commission will begin taking testimony from the banksters. In Pecora's day-- a day before the likes of Rahm Emanuel, Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers at the apex of the Democratic Party-- they know how to interact with banksters without ingratiating and groveling. I have low expectations. So does everyone else.

Last night the NY Times reported that Obama is looking into levying a special bankster tax to help reduce the federal deficit. Republicans, Blue Dogs and Chuck Schumer might not like it-- and its hard to believe the Three Horsemen of the Wall Street Apocalypse, Emanuel, Geithner and Summers will get behind it-- but it would probably wind up being the most universally popular thing he could do.

The bank fee would recover some of the money that taxpayers put up to bail out the financial system after its near collapse in the fall of 2008, a rescue effort that has contributed to the largest annual budget deficits since World War II.

...With popular anger building as big banks show profits and pay sizable bonuses while unemployment remains high, the Obama administration has come under pressure at home and abroad to support a financial transactions tax on institutions and to heavily tax their executive compensation.
But the United States, led by the Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, has been opposed, arguing that a transactions tax would simply be passed on to customers and a bonus tax could be easily circumvented.

The 27-nation European Union called for a global transactions tax in December and Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain had proposed the idea in November at a meeting of the Group of 20 developed and emerging nations, saying revenue could be stockpiled to finance any future bailouts. Separately, Britain and France have proposed a large tax on financial executives’ bonuses.

Emanuel's perspective is that Obama will need all the Wall Street criminals to continue donating to his re-election efforts if he's going to beat back the Republicans in 2012, so you can count on him trying to broker a deal the way he did with Big Pharma. Emanuel is one of them and it's unlikely he's smart enough to take into account just how loathed the banksters are among the "little people" he never interacts with. I hope I'm wrong but I have no faith in any commission created by an overly compromised Congress, a commission that is bipartisan, which only means Republicans and corporate Democrats will make sure the banksters are protected. We'll soon see if Phil Angelides has the strength to make something out of this mess. If he does, he'll be a national hero, but after hearing him and that clown Bill Thomas on NPR the other day, my expectations dropped to almost zero. I'd put a lot more faith into New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to effectively fight back against the banks, even if his motives are self-serving. I wish Eliot Spitzer was in action though.



UPDATE: Do You Ever Get Advice From Your Broker?

If you do, be careful. According to a client e-mail from a senior exec at Goldman Sachs, released by the NY Times this morning, that advice is more likely to benefit the company and satisfy their priorities than to benefit the clients. Goldman Sachs is refusing to explain the e-mail, which warns the client not to consider the advice as objective or even based on independent research.

Dear client,

We may from time to time discuss with you Trading Ideas generated by our Fundamental Strategies Group. As part of our commitment to managing conflicts of interest appropriately, this message is to explain how the Fundamental Strategies Group interacts with other parts of our organization and how that impacts on the Trading Ideas.

The Fundamental Strategies Group is a group of cross-capital structure desk analysts employed by our Securities Divisions to assist our traders. They develop Trading Ideas in conjunction with traders. We may trade, and may have existing positions, based on Trading Ideas before we have discussed those Trading Ideas with you. We may continue to act on Trading Ideas, and may trade out of any position, based on Trading Ideas, at any time after we have discussed them with you. We will also discuss Trading Ideas with other clients, both before and after we have discussed them with you.

You should not consider Trading Ideas as objective or independent research or as investment advice. When we discuss Trading Ideas with you, we will not be acting as your advisor (including, without limitation, in relation to investment, accounting, tax or legal matters) and the provision of Trading Ideas to you will not give rise to any fiduciary or equitable duties on our part. We will not be soliciting any action based on Trading Ideas and it is your responsibility to seek appropriate advice.

Any opinions that we express when we discuss Trading Ideas with you will be our present opinions only and we will not have any obligation to update you in the event of a change of circumstances or a change of our opinions. We prepare Trading Ideas based upon information that we believe to be reliable but we make no representation or warranty that such information is accurate, complete or up to date and accept no liability, other than for fraudulent misrepresentation, if it is not.