Banks Say No. Too Bad Taxpayers Can’t.

Gretchen Morgenson, NY Times

FROM the earliest days of the credit crisis, the nation’s big financial institutions have been less than forthcoming about ballooning loan losses buried inside their books. To some degree this is understandable: denial is a powerful thing, after all, and writing off troubled loans during a period of severe stress is, for bankers, the equivalent of getting a root canal.

As profits rebound at many of these institutions, however, artful dodging becomes more disturbing. And when disguising problems winds up harming the taxpayer — the same folks who rode to the rescue of banks with billions of dollars — the denial is downright exasperating.

Among the more glaring bookkeeping fictions on big banks’ balance sheets today are the values they assign to all of the bounteous second mortgage loans. doled out during the mortgage bonanza. As any realist will attest, many of these loans are worth little, and yet there they sit, at fantasy levels, on banks’ ledgers.

Refusing to face reality on second liens ultimately hurts shareholders. But taxpayers are the ones holding the bag when institutions try to avoid losses by refusing to buy back problem loans they have sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants that are wards of the state.

Fannie and Freddie helped grease the nation’s housing machinery before and during the boom years, scooping up loans from all corners of the country. The more of these that Fannie and Freddie bought, the easier it was for banks to write new mortgages.

To protect themselves from getting piles of garbage loans shoveled their way when they buy mortgages, Fannie and Freddie require lenders or loan servicers to sign contracts requiring those firms to repurchase loans that don’t meet certain standards relating to borrower incomes, job status or assets. Loans that were extended fraudulently, or deemed to have been predatory, are also candidates for buybacks.

Surprise, surprise: banks don’t want to repurchase these loans. So when Fannie or Freddie identify problem mortgages and request repayment, a battle royal begins. Banks may argue, for example, that the repayment requests have flaws of their own.

But for us as taxpayers, watching this battle from the sidelines, one growing concern is how aggressively Fannie and Freddie will pursue their requests. If banks refuse to buy back flawed loans, taxpayers will have to cover more of the losses.

A lot of money is at stake here, and the figure is growing all the time. According to March 31 figures from Freddie, for instance, the amount of problem loans that it has asked other firms to buy back stood at $4.8 billion — up 26 percent from $3.8 billion just three months earlier.

Freddie also said that as of the end of March, 34 percent of its buyback requests had been outstanding for 90 days or more. Three months earlier, that figure was 30 percent. That increase suggests a greater reluctance among banks to respond to Freddie’s demands.

Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/business/06gret.html?src=twt&twt=nytimesbusiness

Share

Janet Tavakoli Explains Derivatives To Max Keiser – Wall Street Financial Terrorism

Share

Why President Obama Must Take Steps to Combat White-Collar Crime or Face Impeachment

Sam Antar

Syndicated writer William K. Wolfrum wrote a must read provocativeblog post on Alan Colmes Presents Liberaland website about possible future efforts by the Republicans to impeach President Barack Obama. He observes:

Republicans can not beat Obama at the ballot box. But you can be assured that they will do all they can so that his legacy is terribly tainted in scandal. There is just no way the GOP will allow Obama to serve out eight years and leave office with a strong record of liberal accomplishment that he can hand over to a Democratic successor. Simply put, for Republicans, Barack Obama must be destroyed and completely invalidated before his term or terms are over.

Republicans will attempt to impeach Barack Obama. The “why” of the matter is completely insignificant. They’ll find something and work overtime to make it appear to be the Greatest Scandal Ever. It’s just a matter of time. Provided, of course, that they have the numbers.

Wolfrum referred to my concerns that excessive government spending on an unprecedented scale will no doubt lead to unprecedented levels of white-collar crime. I believe that the Republicans will exploit that issue, in any way possible, to bring down the Obama Administration, barring more serious efforts by the Administration to deter, prevent, and prosecute white-collar criminals. Yes, that’s politics.

In his blog post, Wolfrum wrote:

A while back, my friend Sam Antar – a former key player in the infamous and egregious “Crazy Eddie’s” fraud – told me that it was just a matter of time before Barack Obama faced impeachment charges.

“With all the stimulus money going out, the Republicans will eventually find some corruption charge they think will stick,” said Antar, now a corporate whistle-blower who tends to view things from a non-partisan prism. “It’s just a matter of time.”

In June 2009, I wrote an Open Letter to President Barack Obama warning him to be prepared for an unprecedented onslaught of white collar crime:

Within a couple of years, you can expect a massive crime wave on an unprecedented scale resulting from spending trillions of extra taxpayer dollars to stimulate the economy and bail out the financial sector in a relatively brief period of time. Not enough attention is being paid to effective internal controls to prevent such crimes. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies do not have enough resources to effectively investigate and prosecute such crimes.

The Republicans will run against you on a simple platform, “The Democrats are responsible for white-collar crime, corruption, and waste on an unprecedented scale.” The Republicans will say that you should have cut taxes and simplified the tax system to stimulate the economy and reduce the incentive for criminals to commit fraud.

Among the sources that I cited in making my case was a warning by FBI Director Robert Mueller:

Given the trillions and trillions of dollars involved in the government’s current moves to stem the economic crisis, “from the purchase of troubled assets to improvements in infrastructure, health care, energy and education — even a small percentage of fraud would result in substantial taxpayer losses.”

We simply do not have enough resources to effectively investigate and prosecute most white-collar crimes and the criminals know it. White-collar crime investigations are increasingly complex cases that require enormous specialized resources and take long periods of time to successfully prosecute them.

For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission only employs about 3,642 employees to police our capital markets. The Internal Revenue Service only employs about 2,725 Special Agents to conduct criminal investigations into such crimes as tax evasion and money laundering and that number has remained flat for ten years. The FBI employs 13,492 Special Agents and not all of them are assigned to investigating white collar crime. By contrast, the New York City employs approximately 34,500 police in uniform to combat crime in a city of 8 million people. Therefore, the NYC Police Department has more cops in uniform than the combined amount of people employed by the SEC, criminal investigators at the IRS, and special agents at the FBI (34,500 compared to 20,859).

We can debate endlessly about the need for more regulation. However, the more important issue is that, we as a nation, simply do not have enough resources to combat white-collar crime and the criminals know it and are exploiting it.

If President Obama does not take further serious steps to significantly increase law enforcement resources, the Republicans will exploit the white-collar crime issue at election time. As I said before, “That’s politics.” However, it’s not a political issue. It’s a national economic security issue. White-collar crime poses a grave threat to the integrity of our free market economic system and our future prosperity as a nation.

Written by:

Sam E. Antar

Disclosure:

I am a convicted felon and a former CPA. As the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie, I helped Eddie Antar and other members of his family mastermind one of the largest securities frauds uncovered during the 1980′s. I committed my crimes in cold-blood for fun and profit, and simply because I could.

If it weren’t for the efforts of the FBI, SEC, Postal Inspector’s Office, US Attorney’s Office, and class action plaintiff’s lawyers who investigated, prosecuted, and sued me, I would still be the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie today.

There is a saying, “It takes one to know one.” Today, I work very closely with the FBI, IRS, SEC, Justice Department, and other federal and state law enforcement agencies in training them to identify and catch white-collar criminals.

I do not seek or want forgiveness for my vicious crimes from my victims. I plan on frying in hell with other white-collar criminals for a very long time. Hopefully, President Obama will help send many more criminals to join me in hell.

This article originally appeared on Sam Antar’s website, http://whitecollarfraud.blogspot.com

Share

Who has a deeper sense of fairness, a mortgage banker or a chimpanzee?

Jeff Wise, BigMoney.com

In this corner, Pan trogolodytes, or the common chimpanzee. In the other, an American mortgage banker. Which has a more highly evolved sense of fairness? Thanks to a combination of psychological experimentation and economic happenstance, the truth can now be known.

In effect, both chimpanzees and bankers have been made to take to a test called the “Ultimatum Game.” Commonly conducted in behavioral economics research, the procedure involves giving the first of two players a certain sum of money to divide.

This person can keep as much of it as he wants and pass the rest along to the second player. The second player can either accept what the first player offers or cancel the whole deal, in which case neither player gets anything.

In strictly rational economic terms, the second player should be willing to accept any amount of money that the first player offers. Even one penny, after all, is better than zero. But human beings are not strictly rational. Millions of years of evolution as social animals have left us with deeply ingrained expectations of fairness. So most people react to an offer of one cent with indignation and reject the deal as unfair. Realizing this, most first players tend to offer splits that are at least moderately fair—60/40, say.

Neither bankers nor chimpanzees conform to this rule of thumb, however.

A team of evolutionary anthropologists in Leipzig, Germany recently carried out an experiment with captive chimpanzees that was essentially an ape-friendly version of the ultimatum game.

They seated two chimps in front of a device that allowed the first one to pull a rope attached to a tray containing raisins. The further the first chimp pulled the rope, the more raisins it got, leaving the rest for the second chimp. For either to get any raisins, though, the second chimp had to pull on a rod to bring the tray forward.

The researchers found that 95 percent of the time, the second chimp was willing to accept a deal in which it got two raisins while the first chimp got eight—an 80/20 split. Thus, chimpanzees don’t seem to have the same expectation of fairness that normal humans do. As a result, the first chimp can be much more greedy. Even a small, unequal reward will be enough to convince the second chimp to sign off on the deal.

Now, how would a mortgage banker perform in this experiment? Thanks to the collapse of the real-estate market, we now know. As a great number of homeowners have begun defaulting on their mortgages and owing more than their homes are worth, banks are increasingly willing to allow so-called “short sales,” in which the mortgage holder allows the property to be sold for whatever it can fetch.

The bank takes a loss, but it stands to recoup more than if the buyer trashed the house and walked away.

Complicating many short sales is the fact that many of the homeowners in these cases are also delinquent on second mortgages as well. Also known as homeowner’s loans, they are considered subordinated debt, meaning that they are second in line to be paid off after the first mortgage holder. But they are also a lien on the property, so that they can prevent the property from being sold.

Read more here: http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2010/05/28/monkey-business?page=full

Share