Good for The Wall Street Journal for giving a nice run to an exclusive that the TARP oversight panel is investigating banks for gouging customers despite getting billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts.
I criticized the Journal and much of the rest of the press for giving short shrift to the Congressional Oversight Panel’s report last week on the state of the TARP, so it’s especially nice to see the group and its chairwoman Elizabeth Warren not just not ignored, but prominently placed on page one.
Here’s the Journal’s good lede, which explains the issue and puts it into good context quickly:
The committee overseeing federal banking-bailout programs is investigating the lending practices of institutions that received public funds, following a rash of complaints about increases in interest rates and fees.
Since the Troubled Asset Relief Program was launched last October, banks bolstered by capital infusions have boosted charges on a wide range of routine transactions, hiked rates on credit cards and continued making loans criticized as predatory by consumer advocates. The TARP funds are intended to open lending spigots and make it easier for people to borrow money.
While banks may be making it easier to borrow money, they’re making it much more difficult to pay it back.
Last week, for example, Bank of America Corp. told some customers that interest rates on their credit cards will nearly double to about 14%. The Charlotte, N.C., bank, which got $45 billion in capital from the U.S. government, also is imposing fees of least $10 on a wide range of credit-card transactions.
Citigroup Inc., another recipient of government cash, is trying to entice customers to borrow at high rates. “You could get $5,000 today,” Citigroup’s consumer-finance unit wrote in fliers mailed to customers. The ads don’t disclose that the loans often carry annual interest rates of 30%.
See, Warren gets it. If we’re going to turn around this economy and make it structurally healthy for the long run, these practices aren’t going to cut it. It’s not like credit cards and bank fees weren’t already outrageously high before these latest hikes.
The story also illustrates what happens when you give someone from outside the bubble responsibility for overseeing the system, even if Warren is just empowered to squawk from a somewhat elevated platform, not to actually regulate.
“The people who are subsidizing the activities of the banks through their tax dollars are the same people who are furnishing the high profits through consumer lending,” Ms. Warren said in an interview. “In a sense, we’re asking taxpayers to pay twice.”
Compare that to the banks’ actual regulator:
So far, regulators are focusing mostly on nursing banks back to health. “To my knowledge, the TARP funds weren’t supposed to change consumer-protection requirements that apply to all institutions,” Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan said in an interview.
Nothing to see here. Business as usual.
Meanwhile, big banks are using taxpayer funds to give usurious loans to their most-needy customers. Don’t think 30 percent credit-card APR is usury? How about 120 percent payday loans—and not from a shady pawn shop with bulletproof glass?
Regional banks U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co. offer “checking account advance” loans that allow customers with direct-deposit accounts to access funds before they are credited to a customer’s account balance. The short-term loans carry annual interest rates of about 120%.
One beef I have is that the Journal pretty much lets a bank flack from Pacific Capital Bancorp get by with saying that it isn’t using TARP money for its most-injurious loans, which charge interest rates of more than 100 percent:
Debbie Whiteley, a Pacific Capital spokeswoman, said the bank isn’t using TARP capital to make tax-refund loans. Still, the government infusion is helping to improve the bank’s overall financial health, according to the company, meaning it will be in better position to make a variety of loans.
- 1
- 2
I remember reading the CJR when it actually was a review of journalism. Pieces like this seem to have reduced it to a platform for former journalist now reduced to writing about journalism to simply hold court about stories they agree with and disagree with. The WSJ story is a great story, but this review of it is just ranting and editorializing in disguise on issues that Mr. Chittum may or may not be qualified to expound upon. Boo.
#1 Posted by Bryan, CJR on Mon 13 Apr 2009 at 12:00 PM
Ryan:
Good Job...
#2 Posted by Woody, CJR on Mon 13 Apr 2009 at 12:18 PM
I'm torn because in general I think Bryan is right, but I really love the ranting and editorializing. Since my comments share guilt in this, I'll make an effort to clean up my act.
I think the news/editorial line is an important issue in journalism. We all hate to read a he-said-she-said. But we don't want an editorial presented as news. The Economist is so entertaining and readable because it is liberal with it's analysis (aka embraces its bias). But it leaves less of the analysis to the reader and opens the door to manipulating them.
Ryan, I agree with your point about double counting. But you let slide a similarly dubious claim that "in a sense we're asking tax-payers to pay twice". That claim would require more analysis to dismantle (namely that, since the tax payer is bailing out the banks until they return to profitability, any profit they get from customers will be another bailout they won't need.) Is this bias or is it over the acceptable analysis line? I suspect it's also because you may not agree with my analysis.
Also, while we're spouting off about CJR, I'll take the opportunity to say that I cringe every single time I read "inside the bubble".
#3 Posted by Chris Corliss, CJR on Mon 13 Apr 2009 at 01:45 PM
Bryan,
This ain't news. It's commentary.
You may not like our bombast, but our readers know where we're coming from -- unlike yours. I think it should have been disclosed that you work for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the very agency being criticized in our piece. So there it is.
We wish the OCC felt as strongly about predatory lending practices during the mortgage feeding frenzy as you apparently do about journalism commentary.
Anyway, I think it's a core journalistic mission to write about what the powerful are doing to the not-so-powerful. It's nice to have somebody in the government doing that, and I couldn't care less if they step on OCC's turf. Strong regulators are good for journalism because they generate valuable information for readers, in this case that banks are charging usurious (too pointed? How about "exorbitant"? Let's face it: "high" just doesn't seem to do justice to 120-percent loans) rates to their customers who can least afford it—and they're only going higher.
Chris, I disagree on your point about taxpayers paying twice. That assumes that we have to bail out the banks. We don't. We should, but we don't have to. What the TARP panel is saying I think is that taxpayers are paying twice for is to keep the existing corporations intact and to get their credit-card interest rates jacked up. We've already paid once, the higher rates and fees are the second time, what you're positing is that they might help prevent a third one.
I also cringe when I use the "bubble" thing. Problem is, I don't know what else to concisely call something that I think is a real issue, and one that needs to be highlighted. Suggestions are welcome !
#4 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Mon 13 Apr 2009 at 05:11 PM
Fair enough. The point that this is commentary, and it’s your column, is well taken. Being a long-time CJR reader, I read it for the CJR's insight into what makes good journalism and for what it contributes to the profession of journalism, but not for the commentary of a CJR editor or writer on what public policies he or she happens to agree or disagree with. But that's just me. I appreciate that you called me and told me that you were disclosing that I work for the OCC. No problem at all. I also told you that I commented as a reader and private citizen and the comment in no way reflects my employer. I would have given you my official e-mail if my comments were in any way official. As way of disclosure, in addition to working at the OCC, I volunteer my time lecturing occasionally on corporate communications, media relations, and technology practices in public affairs. I try to keep up with all of the industry reading on my breaks, which included the CJR. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of commenting from work. I do think CJR should consider changing its privacy notice to be consistent with your practice of checking IP addresses to determine from where readers submit comments so you can determine who they work for. But again, that’s just me.
#5 Posted by Bryan, CJR on Mon 13 Apr 2009 at 06:15 PM
Hi, Bryan,
Point taken, and I'll pass that along for consideration. It's not like we sit there checking IP addresses all day. That's only the second time I've even looked at that. We would only disclose something like this in very rare instances.
I've gotten a note from a frequent reader who objected to this "outing" on the basis of Internet protocol, so I'll explain my thinking.
In this instance, we had a government PR employee taking (essentially) anonymous shots to delegitimize criticism of his government employer.
That's kind of a story, no?
In other words, I don't think anyone—but especially the government—ought to be allowed to get away with anonymous PR pushback, pretending they're just a concerned reader.
#6 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Tue 14 Apr 2009 at 04:00 PM
But, if we made a law to stop "gouging", causing the banks to go further in the red, we SHOULD bail them out. Which of course would be making them pay twice. So we all agree they should pay twice.
Or, let's take it a different way. The argument turns on the fact that we don't HAVE to bail out the banks a second time. But isn't it also true that people don't have to use banks and can instead keep money under their mattress and borrow from family? So they don't HAVE to pay twice even with "gauging".
Or, from a practical perspective, if our goal with the bailouts is to get banks to lend again, why are we making it so difficult for them? Any bank that takes the money gets micromanaged by congress and the press. We make it hard for them to take the bailout and we make it hard for them to lend out the money. Cutting off the nose to spite the face.
#7 Posted by Chris Corliss, CJR on Tue 14 Apr 2009 at 07:20 PM