American Banker has a terrific story on the revolving door, digging into the records of former Federal Housing Authority commissioner David Stevens, who left the FHA earlier this year to head the Mortgage Bankers Association.
The Banker got hold of Stevens’ emails through a Freedom of Information Act request and writes that they show how chummy he was with the MBA and the bankers he was supposed to be regulating.
This is an excellent, tough lede:
David Stevens arrived as a commissioner at the Federal Housing Administration in 2009 vowing to restore financial discipline to a government housing body facing the stresses of a post-crash world. A former mortgage banker himself, Stevens, now 54, bolstered the agency’s finances and pursued alleged wrongdoing at nonbank lenders including Berkshire Hathaway and Goldman Sachs & Co. affiliates.
One group the FHA did not feud with during Stevens’ tenure: top industry players, such as Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. A collection of emails between Stevens and the Mortgage Bankers Association may help explain why.
The communications reveal that while at the FHA, Stevens enjoyed close social and professional ties with the mortgage industry’s main lobby — a group whose members originated roughly $300 billion in FHA-guaranteed loans last year.
Stevens turned to the MBA for policy memos, was copied on its internal lobbying strategy debates and asked its boss at the time to devise “an excuse” for him to attend one of its conferences.
The social details are cringeworthy enough, like then MBA CEO John Courson offering to play “social secretary” for Stevens and his wife in New York and talking about attending a “luau” while in Puerto Rico.
You remember Courson and the MBA, right? They’re the mortgage bankers lobbyists who walked away from their gleaming DC headquarters while saying it was wrong for homeowners to walk away from their mortgages. Watch The Daily Show’s classic sketch on that:
But what’s really ugly is what the Banker’s Jeff Horwitz and Kate Berry reveal about how Stevens played with the MBA’s lobbying machine.
The FHA opposed a law that would have banned paying bonuses to brokers for putting borrowers into loans with higher interest rates than they deserved. These yield-spread premiums played a critical role in the housing bubble, incentivizing fraud by brokers who stuffed people into loans they couldn’t afford—all so the broker and mortgage company could make more money. They’re one of the key pieces of evidence connecting executives to the crimes committed for them on the ground. That Obama’s Federal Housing Authority would oppose such a common-sense anti-predatory lending law was baffling. Even a banker-friendly outpost like Tim Geithner’s Treasury Department couldn’t figure it out.
The Banker helps us understand why it happened:
“We understand you have concerns” about the Merkley amendment, senior Treasury attorney Dan Sokolov wrote Stevens in May 2010. “We don’t have a good handle on what they are.”
Stevens forwarded the note to MBA boss Courson, along with a request for the MBA’s take. “Cab [sic] one of your people write a short memo to me on this?” Stevens asked. “We are on it,” Courson replied.
And then there’s this:
In October 2009, a housing consultant, Howard Glaser, alerted the MBA to a surprise push by the National Association of Realtors to block the Home Valuation Code of Conduct, which was designed to eliminate appraisal abuse.“We need to pull out all the stops to make sure this [effort to block the legislation] does not pass,” wrote an executive member of the MBA and title insurer First American, who was included on the email. An MBA lobbyist, Steve O’Connor, agreed. “We need to scramble on this one,” he said. “There is an FHA play here as well, so we think about a bank shot where they [FHA officials} weigh in and oppose the moratorium if it screws up their risk-management plans.”
After further internal MBA discussions about which members of Congress might support the NAR’s opposing position, Courson forwarded the entire email chain to Stevens. The NAR was defeated.
- 1
- 2
Yeah, good luck with that amplifying thing. The world markets are crashing thanks to all the bs bank shenanigans--it just took until now for the entire world ponzi scheme to blow up for real.
#1 Posted by nswfm, CJR on Thu 4 Aug 2011 at 06:02 PM
Surprise, surprise, the govt regulators are captured by the industry they "regulate." What's the lefties' solution? Why, make the regulator more powerful, of course, so they can fuck up the economy even worse.
#2 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Thu 4 Aug 2011 at 08:58 PM
Ajay
Given that this incestuous form of capture has been on going for decades why the leftie's reference. Did Bush appoint only professional and independent staffers and administrators while in offce. And exactly who would you point out as being a leftie who actually has any authority to do any thing in DC? There are no left of center people in the current Democratic administration. At best there are a group of moderate Democrats in the Congress including a very small number of seriously left of center represeentatives.
#3 Posted by Jack, CJR on Fri 5 Aug 2011 at 05:40 PM
Jack, at least Bush talked about reducing regulation, though he ended up increasing it too. Whereas the Democrats' solution to a completely incompetent SEC, which didn't even understand the evidence against Madoff when brought to them, is to grow the SEC bigger, of course! If you think there's no lefties in DC today, I don't think you understand what the term means. ;) All the overreaching regulation passed under Obama, like the unconstitutional Obamacare and the patently stupid Frank/Dodd, perfectly exemplifies their ignorant mindset.
#4 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Fri 5 Aug 2011 at 06:04 PM
The solution to regulatory capture is to end regulation, Ajay?
How would that work?
#5 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 12:48 PM
You don't get it Ed.
In the free market, bunnies just appear out of magical hats. You're not supposed to question the magic of the trick, you're supposed to enjoy the show.
Oh, and if the bunny trick doesn't work, it's the government's fault somehow and we're moving on to the next trick.
Magic.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 01:24 PM
Name a scandal... And you'll find regulations that were in place that should have caught it, and regulators who were in place who were asleep at the switch. Madoff... MCI... Enron... Lehman Brothers... FHA... Fannie/Freddie... You name it.
And yet, the commie/liberal response to the repeated failure of regulations and regulators is always to increase the numbers of each.
I will never understand this misguided faith that government can somehow advance society. Every single group of smart people who have ever convened any government that endured for more than a few dozen years has realized one common truth - namely that government is inherently dangerous and should be limited to the core police powers necessary to maintain order and regularity.
Why these screwy commies insist otherwise defies comprehension.
Putting the government into the schools has resulted in schools crappier than Brazil's, for crying out loud.
Putting the government into healthcare has resulted in fraud and abuse in Medicare that exceeds the profits of the private healthcare industry nearly tenfold.
Putting the government into the financial regulation business has resulted in a maze of silly regulations and loopholes that lure the public into falsely believing that the government has removed risk from investment.
It's just crazy... Yet nonetheless, the commie/liberal/progressives insist that government is a solution - a mechanism to improve society.
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 02:13 PM
Padi and Ajay, I fundamentally agree with y'all, but surely you realize that progressives and the like aren't, by any stretch, the only big-govt dupes. Many so-called conservatives and so-called libertarians happily compromise their supposed principles for the sake of getting re-elected or gaining more money, prestige, or power (e.g., "regulatory" power). Republican congressional "leadership," Cato/Reason/Koch, Perry, Palin, et al.: they all have their areas of big-govt that they are unwilling to cut or abolish, whether it be "subsidies" (farm, energy, arms manufacture), "regulatory" monstrosities (FedRes, SEC), or entire departments and bureaus (IRS, CIA, DOEd, EPA). And only a precious few "conservatives" are willing to scale back the profligate, hyper-Wilsonian, global military footprint. That said, yes: Dems and "lefties" are THE big-govt types. But dig just a little deeper than the superficial political labels and you'll see plenty of that big-govt love and State-worship on "both sides of the aisle." For excellent contemporary and historical examples of this, see "How Not to Deal with Economic Depression" and "The Political Economy of 19th-Century Banking."
#8 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 05:25 PM
You notice I'm not applauding the GOP in any way.
They helped get us where we are now.
And I'm all for cutting military spending - I guarantee I could cut 25% with a red marker - starting with the DLA here in Virginia...
But I can't understand the faith in government. Show me a place in the Universe where increasing the size of government has accomplished anything positive for society.
The "social democracies" of Europe are falling apart. China is the most capitalist economy in the world. Russia is (rightly) lecturing us on fiscal policy.
It's just nuts... And the answer is so simple... Shut down 75% of government, keep the core power necessary to maintain order and justice, and let people make (and keep) some damned money.
The ones who are willing to work will succeed, and the ones who aren't will fail.
And by rewarding success and punishing failure, the general condition will improve immediately
Yes, capitalism isn't perfect. Yes, some oversight is necessary to ensure that the truly incapacitated in our society are cared for. Yes, some policing of the free market is necessary to keep it free and competitive. But ONLY for these purposes.
Hoping to manipulate markets by force of law to achieve general social ends - better education, better health care, better housing, better (insert social objective here) is patently stupid. It won't work. It NEVER works.
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 05:51 PM
Yeah, Padi. From reading your CJR comments over time, I gathered that you were aware of, and repulsed by, the big-govt Republicans and the "Kochtopus."
If you haven't already read them, I bet you'd be very interested in the following essays.
-- "Anatomy of the State" (mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp)
-- "Statism Left, Right, and Center" (lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard237.html
-- "War, Peace, and the State" (mises.org/rothbard/warpeace.asp)
Whether you'll agree with the author on any topic, one thing is for sure: he is one of the most hated, censored, misrepresented, and personally attacked thinkers by the "mainstream" of both left and right, and, if only for that reason, he is worth reading.
#10 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 06:48 PM
"Name a scandal... And you'll find regulations that were in place that should have caught it, and regulators who were in place who were asleep at the switch. Madoff... MCI... Enron... Lehman Brothers... FHA... Fannie/Freddie... You name it."
People don't get credit for the scandals that don't happen. I don't see you talking up the Canadian banks or the Texas banks, both of which had strong banking regulation and were protected from the crisis, but everybody sees the failures.
What we should be doing is examining both successes and failures and seeing how we can encourage the former and prevent the latter.
But where's the magic in doing that? We want bunnies.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 08:27 PM
Thimbles wrote: "We want bunnies"
padikiller responds: Then look to the government.
The government can pull economic bunnies from the hat all day long.
#12 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 08:42 PM
Free market people can make fraud disappear!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/25/AR2009052502108_2.html
"Greenspan had an unusual take on market fraud, Born recounted: "He explained there wasn't a need for a law against fraud because if a floor broker was committing fraud, the customer would figure it out and stop doing business with him."
This made no sense to her. She'd spent much of the 1980s defending clients caught up in a vast conspiracy by two wealthy brothers, Nelson and William Hunt, who duped investors while trying to corner the world silver market.
"After all," Born said, looking back, "I'm a lawyer, and I think the existence of fraud prohibitions is critically important."
But Greenspan was insistent, she said.
Finally, he said, "Well, Brooksley, I guess you and I will never agree about fraud.""
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/14/AR2008101403343_2.html
"once the Bush administration arrived in 2001, the push was for less regulation, not more. Voluntary oversight became the favored approach, and even those were accepted grudgingly by Wall Street, if at all.
In private meetings and public speeches, Greenspan also argued a free-market view. Self-regulation, he asserted, would work better than the heavy hand of government: Investors had a natural desire to avoid self-destruction, and that served as the logical and best limit to excessive risk. Besides, derivatives had become a huge U.S. business, and burdensome rules would drive the market overseas."
"Greenspan shot back that CFTC regulation was superfluous; existing laws were enough. "Regulation of derivatives transactions that are privately negotiated by professionals is unnecessary," he said. "Regulation that serves no useful purpose hinders the efficiency of markets to enlarge standards of living.""
And this Greenspan guy? He was appointed a regulator! Magic!
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 10:43 PM
Why is government better than freedom?
Huh?
Government = guns
Why does it take guns to make the world a better place, Thimbles?
#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 11:12 PM
I'm not trying to be snarky..
I really would like one of you commie/liberals explain to me exactly why you think that government can elevate the human condition better or faster than free enterprise can.
Of course, you can't do this. And you know it.
There are a couple of truths that the commie/liberals don't want to acknowledge:
1. Only work can elevate the human condition. It takes effort. Every single mooch who sits on his or her ass and sucks down welfare or unemployment money from the gubmint instead of actually doing some damned work, costs society. PERIOD. It takes work to accomplish anything.
2. The government is inefficient. Any interference with the free market comes at a price. PERIOD.
#15 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 11:38 PM
"1. Only work can elevate the human condition. It takes effort. Every single mooch who sits on his or her ass and sucks down welfare or unemployment money from the gubmint instead of actually doing some damned work, costs society. PERIOD. It takes work to accomplish anything."
Not if you're a free market parasite who has lied and bought his way into power over people.
At which point, he crushes his labor, he damages his environment, he wipes out his competition, he disserves his customers, and he stagnates inovation instead of promotes it because innovation threatens the world from which his profits flow.
And in that world, Owners = guns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 10 Aug 2011 at 12:35 AM
Thimbles wrote: "Not if you're a free market parasite who has lied and bought his way into power over people.
At which point, he crushes his labor, he damages his environment, he wipes out his competition, he disserves his customers, and he stagnates inovation instead of promotes it because innovation threatens the world from which his profits flow"
padikiller repeats himself: "Yes, capitalism isn't perfect. Yes, some oversight is necessary to ensure that the truly incapacitated in our society are cared for. Yes, some policing of the free market is necessary to keep it free and competitive. But ONLY for these purposes"
and...
"I really would like one of you commie/liberals explain to me exactly why you think that government can elevate the human condition better or faster than free enterprise can."
Crickets chirping.....
#17 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 10 Aug 2011 at 08:39 AM
"padikiller repeats himself: "Stuff no one, including the speaker, takes seriously coming from this source."
Tell me what you define as necessary oversight without skirting the porous border of what you label communism. Tell me what you define as care for the incapacitated that you won't belly ache about as stealing from hard working, high salaried, honest joes like lawyers.
You talked a lot about how you don't support fraud and criminals in the banking system either, but your vision for seeing any in the greatest financial market collapse since the great depression suddenly won't go beyond your flipping nose.
All you do is attack government and fist pump yourself as you make lame old arguments.
So yeah, you want me to take the time to address you and your question? Why don't you take some time and develop what exactly you would have done in governmental capacity to address the rampant fraud by mortgage brokers, rating agencies, investment banks, inside traders who bet on their clients' failures, and the over leveraging of the entire financial system. What would you have done to protect the public and prevent the crash in the years previous to 2008?
and no, "Cut more taxes. Cut services drastically. Cut spending more. Fire people. Lots of them. Most of them. Shrink government. Close the departments of education, labor, commerce, and health and human services. Drastically cut sections from all of the remaining agencies.
And all will be better in the world."
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_budget_narrative.php#comment-37810
is not an acceptable answer.
#18 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 10 Aug 2011 at 12:45 PM
I have presented concrete examples of the failure of government to advance society. Let's do it again...
Our schools are akin to Brazil's... Our space shuttles blow up because government workers can't follow directions.. Our Mars probe blows up because a government worker confuses metric and English measurements. Our Medicare system wastes nearly tens times the money on fraud and abuse than private insurers make in profits. Government regulators asleep at the switch who should have prevented or mitigated all of the major recent financial scandals... ATF agents pumping guns to Mexican gangs... State Department can't protect the private communications of the Secretary of State.. Etc... Etc.. Etc...
It only takes one peek into your nearest government school, subsidized public housing complex or trailer park to see that government social programs are not only failing to improve society, but are unquestionably driving the devastation of low-income American families.
As for governmental inefficiency:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/08/50-examples-of-government-waste/
I've supported my position, so let's try this again...
"I really would like one of you commie/liberals explain to me exactly why you think that government can elevate the human condition better or faster than free enterprise can."
Crickets chirping..... Still...
#19 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 10 Aug 2011 at 04:20 PM
Another example of a (fatal) failure in federal governmental regulation:
"Federal officials said they turned up a dangerous form of salmonella at a Cargill Inc. turkey plant last year, and then four times this year at stores selling the Cargill turkey, but didn't move for a recall until an outbreak killed one person and sickened 77 others."
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/08/10/government-knew-about-bacteria-in-turkey/
#20 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 10 Aug 2011 at 04:33 PM
Ed, yep, getting rid of the govt regulation monopoly would simply enable private markets in such information. Consumer Reports-type organizations would provide the same info but guarded by competition, keeping them honest. Rather than the FDA or govt bureaucrats deciding that you couldn't have eye surgery that may save your eyesight, you could make that decision for yourself. Of course, Thimbles doesn't know anything about this because he believes in the "magic" of govt instead, despite the repeated failures of govt regulation we see every year.
Dan, since I'm an anarcho-capitalist, I'm well aware that the Republicans' position is only different in degree, not kind, but unfortunately they're the only major party giving less govt some lip service. I'm not sure why you lump Cato/Reason/Koch in with the rest though, the libertarians are a far sight better than most and I have voted Libertarian for President, and most other positions where they ran someone, in every election so far. I don't know why you lump the "Kochtopus" in with big govt republicans either, just because they sponsor some Republicans. As far as I can tell, the Koch brothers push for more small govt straight across the board and are heroes of the cause.
padi, you will not get an answer because they have none. All they can do is rail against "corporations," all the while closing their eyes to the much bigger "fraud and criminals" ensconced in their wonderful church of big government.
#21 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Wed 10 Aug 2011 at 08:35 PM
Harvard study: Tax cuts and spending cuts work. Tax increases don't.
"We examine the evidence on episodes of large stances in fiscal policy, both in cases of fiscal stimuli and in that of fiscal adjustments in OECD countries from 1970 to 2007. Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases. As for fiscal adjustments those based upon spending cuts and no tax increases are more likely to reduce deficits and debt over GDP ratios than those based upon tax increases. In addition, adjustments on the spending side rather than on the tax side are less likely to create recessions.
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/alesina/files/Large%2Bchanges%2Bin%2Bfiscal%2Bpolicy_October_2009.pdf
It isn't rocket science, people....
If you leave more money in the private sector, you get more growth.
That's just the reality here.
#22 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 10 Aug 2011 at 09:42 PM
"So yeah, you want me to take the time to address you and your question? Why don't you take some time and develop what exactly you would have done in governmental capacity to address the rampant fraud by mortgage brokers, rating agencies, investment banks, inside traders who bet on their clients' failures, and the over leveraging of the entire financial system. What would you have done to protect the public and prevent the crash in the years previous to 2008?"
Chirpity chirp, lameoes.
#23 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 10 Aug 2011 at 11:04 PM
"It isn't rocket science, people...."
Funny you should mention Alesina. a year ago he was the toast of the town in Europe.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_28/b4186012969951.htm
How's Europe working out these days?
#24 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 10 Aug 2011 at 11:16 PM
Thimbles dodges and weaves: "Why don't you take some time and develop what exactly you would have done in governmental capacity to address the rampant fraud by mortgage brokers, rating agencies, investment banks, inside traders who bet on their clients' failures, and the over leveraging of the entire financial system. What would you have done to protect the public and prevent the crash in the years previous to 2008?"
padikiller responds: I don't agree that there was (or is) "rampant fraud" in the financial system. To the extent that fraud occurred (and it certainly did occur), it should be prosecuted. I contend however, that fraud is much more rampant in government boondoggle programs like unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, SS disability, etc, than it is in the financial sector.
To protect the public, I would get the government out of 90% of financial regulation and I would privatize the FDIC and get rid of the OTS. I would reduce the SEC's role to prevent insider trading and market collusion. No more safety nets for investors or financial companies at taxpayer expense
The biggest problem in the financial markets is the false sense of security caused by governmental regulation. Markets will boom and markets will bust. When they boom, lots of people make money, When they bust, lots of people lose money. But getting the government out of the equation will let more people make more money, will free up capital to fund business growth, will create jobs, and will improve society.
So... Let's ask this for the fourth time:
"I really would like one of you commie/liberals explain to me exactly why you think that government can elevate the human condition better or faster than free enterprise can."
Crickets chirping..... Still...
#25 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 11 Aug 2011 at 07:59 AM
"what exactly you would have done in governmental capacity to address the rampant fraud by mortgage brokers, rating agencies, investment banks, inside traders who bet on their clients' failures, and the over leveraging of the entire financial system. What would you have done to protect the public and prevent the crash in the years previous to 2008?"
"padikiller responds: I don't agree that there was (or is) "rampant fraud" in the financial system."
Oh my stars and garters, we have Alan "the goddamned" Greenspan commenting with us tonight! Jesus, I wish you had told us you were a celebrity. Man. this is so cool.
Sorry Al, I asked you a direct question about fraud and your answer was "I don't believe in fraud"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwGRJA28lY
I didn't ask you about your beliefs, Mr. "R E A L I T Y" Bell, I asked you about well documented, well attested to reality. This ain't a "Do you believe in God?" kind of question.
The paper trails are there:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-two-documents-everyon_b_169813.html
The forged documents are there. The false loan information for falsely appraised property which was falsely rated and sold as "shitty deals" are there.
Google timberwolf. Read about countrywide. Look at the financial inquiry report. Watch the oscar winning movie "Inside Job". Take some...
Oh I forgot. I'm dealing with a fundie here. Not a person who makes rational decisions based on available evidence, but a person so small minded that his tiny world view has completely filled that little cavity in his skull. Science and fact? They just ping off his cranium. It's more fun to fist pump and scream commie than it is to think based on the evidence presented by R E A L I T Y.
Why should any of us have to answer a damned question to a joke like you? You are living in "Pretend Land" where global warming is a Soroist plot to institute death camps for millionaires and train babies in the ways of Mao.
None of us have to answer to you, because the R-E-A-L-I-T-Y is you and your policies have failed over the last several decades, not us and ours. Your laws and regulations, your "market friendly" regulatory appointments, your lack of oversight. You're the one who has explaining to do and what is your answer? "I don't believe in explaining."
Screw you. You don't get to question me. How have you elevated the human condition,
maggotlawyer? "By telling the long term unemployed to get a job in a 10% unemployed / deflating economy and by defending fraud whenever I see a concrete example of it, which I never do because I am moralistically blind. Fraud is just another way to make an honest buck; that is, if the damn government didn't get in the way."I asked you a damn question, Greenspan. If you can't give me an honest answer based on the documented realities of the crash, then I have nothing to say to you.
Coward.
#26 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 11 Aug 2011 at 02:10 PM