PDA

View Full Version : How did it happen?


WakeUpSheeple
11-01-2008, 04:50 AM
We are in this mess today because of the deregulatory policies and negligent leadership of President George W. Bush, his financial regulatory officials, and congressional conservatives such as Phil Gramm.

The Bush solution: cut regulationsFirst, Bush and the conservative mantra of deregulation encouraged the explosion of risky new financial products, and blocked them from common-sense oversight and regulation.

Second, they turned a blind eye to dire warnings that risky lending practices were spiraling out of control.

Their failure to act allowed Wall Street CEOs to recklessly gamble with other people’s money.

Now, the bubble has popped and the markets have crashed, and conservatives are desperately casting about for someone else to blame for the consequences of their failed policies.

Their efforts to pass the buck are an insult to our intelligence. Conservatives policies dominated the past eight years while this crisis grew out of control. This is the legacy of their failed policies—it is time for them to own it.

Beginning in 2000, free-market ideologues led by President Bush, Phil Gramm, and Alan Greenspan encouraged the explosion of risky new financial products and blocked the products from regulation.
Under their watch, there was an explosion in subprime mortgage lending accompanied by exponential growth in new financial derivatives such as credit-default swaps that encouraged banks and lenders to take huge risks and gamble on products that no one really understood.

People knew these products were extremely risky. Five years ago, Warren Buffett called derivatives “financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal.”[1]

But Alan Greenspan and conservatives in Congress, led by Phil Gramm, encouraged the development of these risky new products, and blocked them from regulation. Greenspan said, “it seems superfluous” to regulate derivatives, and Gramm quietly slipped his Commodities Futures Modernization Act into a must-pass budget bill in 2000 to ensure the highly risky derivatives market would not be regulated.

As the housing bubble grew out of this risky marketplace, common-sense regulations were blocked by conservatives in Congress.
Predatory lending exploded as commercial and investment banks competed fiercely to originate more and more home mortgages by dropping their lending standards lower and lower. The more mortgages originated, the more could be bundled together as mortgage-backed securities—bonds consisting of mortgages or pools of mortgages that are sliced and diced in different ways and then sold as bonds to institutional investors around the world.

The development and sale of these mortgage-backed securities was turbocharged by the completely unregulated credit-default swaps market, which was expressly enabled by Gramm’s Commodity Futures Modernization Act. The credit-default swaps market acted as a kind of insurance on mortgage-backed securities and collaterized debt obligations, another type of bond that included slices of mortgages and other types of debt comingled with credit-default swaps. These swaps gave these risky new bonds a blue-chip patina even though they actually were very risky securities.

Bills trying to institute common-sense regulation to discourage banks from engaging in some of the risky lending practices that led to the current crisis were frequently introduced. One such amendment was offered in 1999, 2001, and 2005, and defeated by conservatives each time.

As risky lending exploded, the Bush administration and conservatives in Congress ignored and enabled Wall Street’s reckless behavior.
All this time, the Bush administration and conservatives in Congress turned a blind eye to warnings that predatory lending was getting out of control, and that the markets of new financial products such as credit-default swaps and collaterized debt obligations were getting too hot, too risky, and too big.

Under conservative leadership, the Securities and Exchange Commission turned a blind eye as the credit-default swaps market ballooned under its nose, going from essentially zero in 2000 to $17 trillion in 2005 to over $60 trillion in 2007.[2]

In fact, in 2004, the SEC actively abetted greater risk-taking on the part of the big Wall Street investment banks by allowing them to more than triple their so-called “leverage ratio” to 40-to-1 debt-to-equity levels, up from 12-to-1 levels. This change enabled these banks (Bear Stearns Cos., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley) to indulge in the highly irresponsible borrowing practices that led all five of them this year to either go bankrupt, sell themselves to a bigger bank holding company, or convert themselves into a bank holding company to avoid collapse.[3]

There were plenty of warnings about the housing bubble as well.

The current chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Sheila C. Bair—who today is at the forefront of cleaning up the subprime mess—realized back in 2001, when she was a senior official at the U.S. Treasury Department, that lending practices were amiss in the mortgage markets. She tried to persuade mortgage lenders to adopt a best-practice code of conduct to no avail.[4]

Community activists in neighborhoods where predatory lending was most evident warned the Federal Reserve repeatedly about the rising threat of abusive subprime loans, but Greenspan declined to act.[5] At the beginning of the decade, subprime mortgages accounted for only 6 percent of total residential mortgage originations. By 2006, subprime mortgages accounted for 25 percent of mortgage originations.[6]

Greenspan and other Bush administration regulators even refused to listen to repeated prescient warnings between 2000 and 2005 from Federal Reserve Board governor Edward Gramlich, who warned his colleagues about mounting problems in the mortgage markets.

Worse still, other federal regulatory agencies supported abusive subprime lending by pre-empting state laws protecting borrowers from lending abuses, as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency did in 2003.[7]

While the Bush administration and conservatives ignored the warnings and continued to promote deregulation, Wall Street CEOs gambled with other people’s money.
In a few short years, this toxic combination of risky new products and no regulation transformed the financial market from a place that traded in known quantities like stocks and bonds into a market where exotic new products that no one really understood were being traded at breakneck speed.

Now the bubble has burst, the stock market is crashing, credit markets are frozen, and conservatives are looking for someone to blame.
For the past decade, the Bush administration and conservatives aided and abetted wild risk-taking on Wall Street while CEOs raked in huge profits. Now that the bubble has burst and the market has come crashing down, they are desperately casting about for someone else to blame.

Charles Krauthammer and other conservative commentators are desperately trying to pin the blame on a 30-year-old law, the Community Reinvestment Act, which was weakened significantly by the Bush administration before the housing bubble started inflating.

Conservatives’ desperate attempts to pass the buck are an insult to our intelligence. This is their legacy of failed policies and failed leadership. It’s time for them to own it.
http://howdidthishappen.org/facts/

Patriotic Texan
11-01-2008, 05:59 AM
Just like blaming Bush for the ERON debacle when ERON's criminal activities were perpetrated during the Clinton years. But I bet you will find some way to blame that on Bush also.

maverick
11-01-2008, 09:36 AM
Just like blaming Bush for the ERON debacle when ERON's criminal activities were perpetrated during the Clinton years. But I bet you will find some way to blame that on Bush also.

blaming bush and clinton for the acts of enron crooks .... come on give us a break ...... now the crooks and crimnals were little george's bosom buds but was it little george's or clinton's fault they were crooks and crimnals ... nah!

could egulatory controls have prevented these crooks and scoundrels from "perpetrating" such a horrible crime against their employees, retirees and stockholders? me, i think so!

Senate subcommittee says Enron board at fault

WASHINGTON (CNN) --A Senate subcommittee released a report Sunday holding Enron's board of directors directly accountable for the energy giant's collapse.

The 60-page document from the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) is the result of months of interviews, testimony, and review aimed at determining what role the board played in the activities leading to the corporation's downfall and what steps it could have taken to protect the stockholders.

A lawyer for Enron disputed the report's findings and said the investigation had been a "stacked deck" from the very beginning.

The report cites numerous failures by the board, including the failure to stop Enron from using misleading accounting, the failure to ensure the independence of the company's auditor, Arthur Andersen, and the failure to protect shareholders from unfair dealings in an outside partnership run by the company's chief financial officer.

"The subcommittee does not accept the board's claim that it was out of the loop and can't be blamed for Enron's collapse," the subcommittee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, said. "The evidence shows that the board knowingly went along with Enron's high-risk accounting and off-the-books deceptions."

The subcommittee's ranking member, Sen. Susan Collins, said the board's actions and inactions "clearly contributed" to Enron's demise.

Houston-based Enron filed the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history on Dec. 2, having allegedly used thousands of off-the-book partnerships to hide nearly $1 billion in debt and to inflate profits.

Washington attorney Robert Bennett, who represents Enron, said he found the report unfair but was not surprised by its findings.

"It's a very selective use of the evidence, and largely in this characterization of that evidence," Bennett told CNN. "I think that this was an exercise from the very beginning in coming out with a negative report from the board. ... I think it was really a stacked deck."

Bennett said the report raised "some justifiable questions" on issues of governance, but the rest was "largely old hat."

Among the subcommittee's findings:

* The board knew Enron engaged in high-risk accounting, inappropriate conflict-of-interest transactions, extensive undisclosed off-the-books activities, and excessive executive compensation, but chose to ignore the practices.

* Despite clear conflicts of interest, the board allowed Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow to operate a partnership known as LJM, which did business with Enron and profited at its expense.

* The board knowingly allowed Enron to conduct billions of dollars in off-the-books activity to make its financial condition appear better than it was and failed to ensure adequate public disclosure of material off-the-books liabilities.

* The Enron board approved excessive compensation for company executives and failed to monitor the cumulative cash drain caused by its 2000 annual bonus plan and a company-financed, multi-million-dollar personal line of credit for Chief Executive Kenneth Lay.

* The board's independence was compromised by financial ties between the company and certain board members. The board also failed to ensure the independence of Andersen, which provided internal services while serving as Enron's outside auditor.

Enron, once one of the largest companies in the United States, allegedly used thousands of special-purpose partnerships to hide nearly $1 billion in debt and inflate profits. It has laid off some 4,200 employees and was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange.

The subcommittee said it issued more than 50 subpoenas, reviewed more than 350 boxes of documents and interviewed 13 Enron board members as well as representatives from Andersen, Enron, and experts in corporate governance and accounting. The subcommittee held a hearing May 7 with those experts and former and current Enron board members.

In issuing its report, the subcommittee recommended steps which publicly traded companies should take to strengthen oversight and independence.

They include prohibiting any accounting practices that put the company at risk with generally accepted accounting principles and result in misleading financial statements, prohibiting conflict-of-interest arrangements and off-the-books activities that give a false impression of a company's health, and preventing excessive executive compensation.

Subcommittee members also recommend prohibiting an outside auditor from providing internal auditing or consulting services and from auditing its own work for the company.

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/07/senate.enron/index.html

Patriotic Texan
11-01-2008, 01:24 PM
You are correct Maverick, but at least there were investigations to lead to that conclusion.


Surprise: Democrats Block Investigation Into Countrywide Mortgage Scandal
By Rob on June 20, 2008
What were you expecting? Accountability? Transparency? Honesty?

The Republican-led Congress conducted bipartisan hearings and investigations following scandals at Enron, WorldCom, and other corporate entities during the early part of this decade, in part to address public concerns about the possibility of unethical links between high-powered lawmakers and the powerful interests they were charged with overseeing. But the Democrat-controlled 110th Congress has no such track record. Under Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who once ironically pledged to “drain the swamp” in Washington, the House has stood flatfooted as scandals have erupted involving the trial lawyer industry and possible sweetheart deals between senior Democrats and mortgage lending giant Countrywide.

Speaker Pelosi and her committee chairs have refused to hold even a single hearing on the illegal kickback scandal that has embroiled the powerhouse trial lawyer firm formerly known as Milberg Weiss, despite assertions by the firm’s former chief (a major Democratic donor now serving a two-year prison sentence) that the criminal acts his firm engaged in are an “industry practice.” And this week, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) stated he has no plans to hold even a single oversight hearing to look into special “VIP” housing perks that Countrywide gave powerful congressional Democrats at the same time it was hiking mortgage rates on American families. House Republican leaders have formally requested bipartisan hearings on both matters.

Just to sum up, Senators Christopher Dodd and Kent Conrad both got sweetheart, “VIP” loans from Countrywide mortgage. Both Senators then greased the wheels in the respective Senate committees they chair to push through legislation potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Countrywide mortgage.

Meanwhile, the Democrat Congressional leadership doesn’t see anything wrong with that picture worth investigating.

While you’re pondering that, remember it was Democrats Pelosi and Waxman screaming for congressional investigations when the scandal at hand was Enron and involved Republicans:

One more point; Just remember it was Gov. Ann Richards (D) to be the first politician to suck up to Ken Lay (ERON CEO) to the point she even gave Ken his very first appointed position (Governors Business Council)

sparky-4
11-01-2008, 01:56 PM
everybody saw Meeks and Waters berate those regulators for brining up concerns about Freddie and Fannie
they didn't listen because their buds was running the show

Democrats like Frank failed to reel them in

bigfatfurrytexan
11-01-2008, 10:29 PM
jeez. :rolleyes:

i would rather just leave it with "our elected officials screwed up and didn't do their jobs" than to try to parse out who was right and who was wrong.

Where i come from, a unit is a team. the team succeeds or fails as a whole, not in individual parts. the whole team has failed here, folks. and it isn't the first time.

and are we demanding that they be held accountable? nope. we sit around and bicker about "which side" screwed up the most.

Newsflash: THEY ARE ALL SCREW UPS AND REPEATEDLY SHOW THEMSELVES TO BE ABJECT FAILURES DUE TO THEIR OWN GREED FOR MONEY AND POWER.

Check kiting. Savings and loan scandal. subprime mortgages. energy costs. inappropriate use of office. trying to fondle little boys. on and on and on...

can any of you honestly say that one side is without blood on their hands? of course not. so why keep trying?