If you think, by the way, that his prostitution bust means Spitzer was wrong about predatory lending, my advice would be to check your 401(k).
But obviously the point isn’t whether the federal government should regulate nationally chartered banks alone or whether states should, too—I personally don’t care, just as long as somebody does—or whether the preemption doctrine should apply to banking law, or even what percentage of the current crisis is attributable to problems with the national banks (probably about a quarter).
No, the point is that the lending industry’s dangerous practices were openly discussed by public officials, including a nationally prominent one, for many years—way, way before the practices led to the international problem that hangs over us today.
What happened to these mortgages in the aftermarket—Wall Street’s creation of what George Soros calls “the superbubble”—is another matter and should be the subject of a separate inquiry. But without the mortgages, there are no securities, and there is no crisis.
But let’s be clear: reporting on problems in the mortgage industry itself did not require any special forecasting abilities or even particular insight. Any honest discussion of the press’s performance during the run-up to the mortgage crisis must take this into account.
1. “Spitzer attacks plans that may protect banks from state laws.”
12 December 2003
Financial Times
2. “STATES VS. THE FEDS: A FRAGILE TRUCE; In policing money pros, a tug-of-war over who’s in charge.”
BusinessWeek
29 September 2003
3. “A new case tests who regulates America’s banks”
The Economist
24 January 2004
4. “The Enforcer: As His Ambitions Expand, Spitzer Draws More Controversy —- In Latest Move, He Pushes Fund Giant to Cut Fees; New Clash With the SEC —- Eyeing Drugs and Annuities”
The Wall Street Journal
11 December 2003
5.”Bank-Cop Fight: Spitzer Takes On U.S. Regulator,”
The Wall Street Journal
22 March 2004
6.”Tough Washington Insider to Face His Critics on Bank Regulation”
The New York Times
2 June 2004
7. “Countrywide Settles with NY Official”
Origination News
1 January 2007
You are on to something here, and it involves the state-federal relationship when it comes to finance. I read today that former New York investment banker Goldman Sachs is seeking a New York rather than federal bank charter. Hmmm. Why would this former go-go company do this just weeks after the federal government agreed to make it a bank in order to save it from a Lehman-like meltdown? And I note that the federal government has come to the aid of insurance companies that are chartered and registered by the states. It took the collapse of AIG for the states to realize they couldn't underwrite AIG's more than $1 trillion in failed investments, even though AIG was supposed to be a company with more than $1 trillion in assets. There is now talk I hear about making federal insurance companies. We have an insurance industry which has created and now manages a large part of the $64 trillion in derivatives through the credit default swap market, yet it is only backed by a few billions in state funds in the event it defaults. Who defaults on an insurance policy, you may ask. We might soon see.
Last point is that we have a secret derivatives market operating in the United States that Joe Six-Pack knows nothing about. Look somewhere for a quote on a credit default swap and see if you can buy one, if you want to see what I mean. Billions have been made on this market and pocketed by the elite players who are in the know about it. But Joe Six-Pack only gets to pick up the costs when it defaults and collapses, threatening to bring down the economies of the western world.
Posted by edward allen on Tue 14 Oct 2008 at 02:22 PM
I can tell you exactly where the failure was. The problem was that republicans were raising concerns about lending practices and we have a media that sides with democrats (come on, let's be honest here) and goes against anything pushed by republicans. Of course, the media should be pushing back on both parties far more than they do.
We also have a media that refuses to let any third parties have equal time so voices who are 100% accurate on the subject (Ron Paul) are too oftenlocked out of discussions or portrayed as a kook because he doesn't follow any party line.
This is all problems of the press and in an optimistic view should be able to be fixed by the press, but I don't believe that can happen when the country is divided so sharply party line, which is also the fault of the press by turning even the slightest story into an 'us vs. them' conflict.
If, as some have said, journalism died in 2008, than it was by suicide. Unfortunately the poison that killed journalism has in the process severely wounded this entire country.
That's a massive problem when you consider the two party system has proven to be corrupt and unwilling to do what the public wants (like not passing a bailout bill or staying in Iraq).
Posted by Tim on Tue 14 Oct 2008 at 03:08 PM
You're trying to be a comedian here right Tim? The MSM has been firmly in the pocket of GOP hacks since the Reagan revolution. There is no liberal/democratic press to speak of outside os a few shows on TV like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, and the occasional piece in the NYT.
GOP hacks continually spin the same crap over and over again - Democrats are tax ands spend, liberal, big government socialists whereas the GOP is small government (now there's a real joke).
This mess was caused by a lack of regulation so you can't have it both ways, if it's the democrats fault then obviously they aren't big government as deregulation doesn't fit into that model but it sure does fit the supposed GOP model now doesn't it. Don't let the fact that the deregulation that brought this mess on the world was written and sponsored by Republicans get in the way of that theory though.
Posted by Doug Alder on Tue 14 Oct 2008 at 10:17 PM
More tedious navel-gazing by a media critic. Trying to blame the media for this fiasco is like trying to blame a tourist for the Chicago fire. This disaster was caused by lax (or nonexistent) regulation and greed, same as most financial meltdowns. Both were amply covered in the news media. But here's the sad truth: People didn't care because they routinely ignore news that they don't want to hear. Mortgage rates were LOW, loans were PLENTIFUL, and home prices were SOARING. No one wanted to take away the punch bowl from the party just because of some skeptical news coverage. Stop pretending that the news media can cause or cure all ills. It's solipsistic in the extreme.
Posted by m.a.s. on Wed 15 Oct 2008 at 12:22 PM
More tedious navel-gazing by a media critic. Trying to blame the media for this fiasco is like trying to blame a tourist for the Chicago fire.
This disaster was caused by lax (or nonexistent) regulation and greed, same as most financial meltdowns. Both were amply covered in the news media.
But here's the sad truth: People didn't care because they routinely ignore news that they don't want to hear. Mortgage rates were LOW, loans were PLENTIFUL, and home prices were SOARING. No one wanted to take away the punch bowl from the party just because of some skeptical news coverage.
Don't assume that the news media causes or can cure all ills.
Posted by m.a.s. on Wed 15 Oct 2008 at 01:03 PM
Thank you for a truly sad, wonderful article.
A couple things that might interest you.
Credit Default Swaps are, in their current formulation, insurance fraud. They are insurance on bond devaluation events (ratings downgrades and bankruptcies). But you can't sell your fire insurance policy to someone else! And you certainly can't sell 20 copies of your fire insurance policy, all around town! It's should be regulated like any insurance market.
But what's much lower on the radar, and what is bound to be the avenue for some _really_ malicious/criminal activities is what is called "dark pools of liquidity."
POSIT, Pipeline, Millenium, and at least a half dozen more companies run off the books trading venues. You and I can't trade there, so it is an exclusive (and therefore elitist ;) market. RegNMS says that you can't trade outside the box (if you want to buy at 21, you _have_ to buy from everyone selling at a price under 21, even if it is Joe Schmoe from Kalamazo selling at 20.90). But if you trade through any of these "dark pools" no one knows! It is all, as far as I can tell, under the table.
Is the best price in one of these dark pools? You and I will never know because we aren't a registered broker/dealer. Is someone violating trading regulations by trading through a dark pool? Neither you, nor I, nor anyone knows how oats, green peas, and barley, grows.
I sound glib. There is _no_ legitimate reason for these entities to exist.
Recent reports say more than 5% of all trades move through these institutions.
Posted by Joshua Simeon Narins on Sat 18 Oct 2008 at 08:14 PM