When Money Talks Financial Writers Listen

If you cover Wall Street, should you take Wall Street speaking fees?

Paul Starobin, Columbia Journalism Review

Financial journos get big payday

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gillian Tett, the US managing editor of the London-based Financial Times, is “sharp” and “glamorous,” according to a 2010 profile by The Daily Beast. She may even be “the most powerful woman in newspapers,” the Beast said, as the FT “intends to become a status symbol of American business.” Tett is also a star on the Wall Street speaking circuit, a fact not mentioned in that profile. Testimonials from satisfied customers can be found on the website of Leigh Bureau, the speakers’ agency that books many of her talks. “Tett really wowed them, she talked about the present and the future of the markets,” according to an unnamed “federal mortgage company” that hired her. “We were very pleased with the forward-looking focus of Gillian’s topic, as many of the guests who were attending were clients of ours concerned with the next steps for their investments,” according to an “investment and asset management firm.”

Asked about her engagements, Tett told me she receives up to $20,000 a speech. A cut goes to the Leigh Bureau, and travel, lodging, and related expenses are paid by the customer. On occasion, Tett ventures outside the US, as in a speech last year to Unigestion, a Swiss asset manager. As for the money that comes to her from speaking—“well into the six figures,” she calculates-—she says she donates it, “for the most part,” to charity, specifically to a project for disadvantaged youngsters in the British city of Liverpool.

Tett has plenty of company. Many journalists give paid speeches to businesses and business groups. And Wall Street, as it happens, is probably the top source of such engagements. Household names like Bank of America as well as obscure hedge funds, private-equity firms, and others in the financial world frequently hire journalists—including scribes who regularly cover Wall Street—to deliver speeches at events ranging from publicized conferences to small private dinners with select clients. Millions of dollars have flowed to journalists in speaking fees in recent years.

Read more here

Share

Why Politicians Don’t Want to Touch the Housing Crisis

Republicans complain Obama’s new measures are a political ploy. But when it comes to housing, there may be no safe political ground.

Molly Ball, The Atlantic

Barack Obama would have you believe that Mitt Romney is a heartless zillionaire who doesn’t think the government should do anything about Americans losing their homes to foreclosure. Romney would have you believe that the foreclosure problem is yet more evidence of Obama’s failure to heal the economy.

Meanwhile, when the GOP candidates were asked about housing in last week’s debate, they all basically dodged the question. And Obama’s plan, announced Monday in Las Vegas, is beingcriticized as too little, too late, by some Democrats.

The housing issue, it seems, is a political hot potato — one every candidate can’t wait to toss to the next guy before it burns him up.

It’s one of those issues that confounds partisan equations and eludes easy messaging, because voters basically want to hear politicians say two contradictory things. They want the government to act to stem the tide of foreclosures. But they don’t want their money going to help those they see as irresponsible.

It was housing policy, after all, that spurred CNBC’s Rick Santelli to declaim the rant that’s credited with catalyzing the tea party movement in 2009. “How many of you people want to pay for your neighbors’ mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?” he railed.

But that sentiment coexists with the notion that something has to be done — that’s why Democrats pounced so gleefully on Romney’s statement last week that the government should “let [the foreclosure process] run its course and hit the bottom.” On Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney took a shot at Romney’s statement, saying, “That’s not a solution.”

All of this has unfolded against the backdrop of Las Vegas, the nation’s foreclosure capital, where half-built subdivisions decorate the sprawling edges of the metropolitan area. The state’s governor, Brian Sandoval, and junior senator, Dean Heller, both Republicans, have both said they disagree with Romney’s hands-off position.

In the politics of housing, “On the one hand, there is some of that Rick Santelli rage,” said Matt Bennett of the center-left think tank Third Way, a former Clinton administration official. “There’s real discontent over the idea that people who acted irresponsibly are getting a bailout or a break, while people who are struggling to manage their underwater mortgage while paying their bills aren’t.

Read more here

Share

Ignoring Massive Industry Fraud, BOfA CEO Hypes Benefits Of Faster Foreclosures

Lee Fang, Think Progress

Speaking at the Atlantic Idea Fest earlier this week, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan sat down for a televised interview with CNBC’s Larry Kudlow. Defending the bank’s new $5 per month debit card fee, Moynihan invented something he called the “right to make a profit.”

But another segment of the interview sheds a great deal of light on how Bank of America sees its role in the economy. A year ago, Bank of America was among the many bankscaught in a sweeping “robo-signing” scandal, in which documents were allegedly fabricated in places all over the country in order to foreclose on more homes. Although Bank of America has continued using robo-signing tactics today, Moynihan and Kudlow dismissed the potentially massive fraud, and bantered about how faster foreclosures could be great for the country:

KUDLOW: Isn’t it fair to say the faster the foreclosure, the better off we’re going to be? And I know there’s pain. But of course, some people lose, other people win. Young families come in, they’re going going to get very low prices. But the point is, the faster we clear our the unsold inventory, the sooner this country might start creating jobs in a real economic growth situation. Is that fair?

Read more here

Share

Diana Olick From CNBC Explains Mortgage Securitization

On Thursday, Diana Olick from CNBC gave a great presentation about how mortgage securitization works.  The only thing I would  disagree with about this is her claim that homeowners going into default triggered this mess.  It actually started in 2007 when investors lost their appetite for mortgage backed securities.

Share