Toon

Barney Frank sticks up for failed policy

Via-Washington Examiner


By: Thomas Sowell


October 19, 2010 Among long-time politicians who are being seriously challenged for the first time this election year, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., best epitomizes the cynical ruthlessness which hides behind their lofty rhetoric.

Having been a key figure in promoting the risky mortgage lending practices imposed by the federal government on lenders, and on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy these risky mortgages from the lenders, Frank blamed the resulting collapse of financial markets and the economy on everybody except himself.

In February 2009, as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank summoned the heads of some of the biggest banks in the country before his committee. In the words of the Los Angeles Times, these bankers "endured hours of hectoring" by "indignant lawmakers" on that committee.

These bankers were in no position to talk back to members of this committee, much less point out how committee members -- including Chairman Frank -- had themselves promoted laws and policies responsible for the current economic disaster.

This is a committee with the power to promote legislation detrimental to this heavily regulated industry. That in turn gives the committee the power to force others to sit there and take it, when they are demonized on nationwide TV.


Frank has never hesitated to use his power ruthlessly. On one occasion, he threatened bankers with summoning them before his committee and forcing them to reveal their home addresses -- which would of course put their spouses and children at the mercy of any kooks that might come along.

Meanwhile, Frank could piously invoke "social justice" in defense of similarly ruthless community activist groups like ACORN or National People's Action, which had in fact besieged the homes not only of bankers but also of public officials who dared to oppose their agendas. In Frank's words, these groups were simply people who "cared about equity" and who were just "trying very hard to preserve some equity and some social justice."


But the harassment and shakedown activities of such groups were perhaps best captured by the words of a leader of one of these groups, who addressed her followers by saying: "We want it. They've got it. Let's go get it."


These were not just idle words. The dirty little secret that few in the media seem to want to discuss is that community activists, including Jesse Jackson, have over the years extracted literally billions of dollars from financial institutions, as the price of peace and of not challenging these institutions in hearings before federal regulators, as these groups are empowered to do under the Community Reinvestment Act.


Much of this money has been extracted in the form of risky mortgage loans of the sort that have been at the center of the housing boom and bust, and its repercussions in financial markets and in the economy as a whole.


Among others who have been at the heart of the risky lending behind the financial meltdown are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whom Barney Frank has also championed and protected. When federal regulators uncovered irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting, and in 2004 issued what Barron's magazine called "a blistering 211-page report," Frank lashed out -- not at Fannie Mae, but at the regulators who uncovered Fannie Mae's misdeeds. He said "a leadership change" in the regulatory agency was "overdue."

Politicians who say we need more regulation almost never mean regulation in the sense of impartially enforcing explicit rules, such as the accounting rules that Fannie Mae was violating to cover up its own risks. They mean regulation with arbitrary powers, such as those under the Community Reinvestment Act, which enable regulators to carry out the agendas that politicians give them.

When Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, tried to get stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back in 1992, and when President George W. Bush did so in 2004, Barney Frank opposed them.

A reining in of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be a reining in of Barney Frank's power. But he can't stop the voters from reining in his power, unless he can once more get by this election year with pious rhetoric to conceal his cynical actions.

Little Dictators

Via- IBD

Congress: The spectacle of the very same people responsible for one of the nation's great financial calamities angling to be given even more control to fix the problem would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Rep. Barney Frank, the Democrat who sits atop Congress' efforts to deal with the financial crisis, has enough chutzpah for 100 politicians — which is saying a lot.

In comments before testimony from both Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Fed chief Ben Bernanke Tuesday, Frank said he wants to regulate pay on Wall Street — even for companies that aren't getting bailouts.

And he called retention bonuses — a time-honored practice on Wall Street and elsewhere in America in which key employees are compensated for their enormous value — "extortion" and "bribes."

Frank, one of the chief architects of the housing mess that's brought us so low, isn't satisfied merely with pretending he and his Democratic pals aren't to blame for all this. No, exploiting voter anger over the now-infamous AIG bonuses, he also wants to dictate to American capitalism what it can earn and what it can't.

This is the kind of thing that normally happens in Third World countries ruled by tinhorn dictators, or in fascist states, where the democratic rule of law has collapsed. Not the U.S.

Yet, that's where we find ourselves today, isn't it? Democrats in Congress, who steadfastly rejected virtually all efforts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as they went on the wildest, most irresponsible lending binge in the history of finance, now pose themselves as the saviors of fallen capitalism.

The hypocrisy is nothing short of stunning.

Take Frank. As we've written before, he spearheaded congressional Democrats' efforts in 1992, 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2005 to block reform of Fannie and Freddie.

Those two "government-sponsored enterprises" were the nexus of this crisis, holding $5.4 trillion of the $12 trillion in U.S. mortgages, while originating or funding 90% of the subprime market.

Their failures presaged the subsequent financial meltdown from which we're still trying to regain our economic footing.

Then there's Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, another posturing moralist in the flap over AIG bonuses. He turns out to have inserted the bonuses into the bailout legislation in the first place.

An innocent move? Please note Dodd was No. 1 on the list of recipients of AIG's political contributions. Also that his wife was a former director of IPC Holdings, a company controlled by AIG.

We wish all this tinkering with the private sector was limited to Congress. But it isn't. The Treasury wants what the Washington Post called Tuesday "unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy."

Citing the AIG precedent, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs defended this radical move, saying on CNN, "We need resolution authority to go in and be able to change contracts, be able to change the business model, unwind what doesn't work."

Breathtaking. Coupled with the vast expansion of government spending over the next 10 years, this is socialism, pure and simple.

Yes, we know it's unfashionable to use the "S" word. But we're willing to be unhip in the service of the truth.

It's a frightening thing to see a once mighty, and free, capitalist economy placed under the heel of an incompetent government. But that's precisely what's happening now.

Executive pay, the focus of much public fury right now, is only the start. Your pay will be next, rest assured. So hold on to your wallets, sure, but also hold on even tighter to something even more precious that now seems at risk: your freedom.

More...

Via-

More...

Let The Inquisition Start With Frank

Oversight: Congressman Barney Frank says he wants some of those responsible for our current financial meltdown to be prosecuted. And we couldn't agree more. First up in the court dock: Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.

Even by the extraordinarily loose standards of Congress, it takes some chutzpah for someone such as Frank to suggest that he'll seek prosecutions for those behind the housing and financial crunch and for what he called "a strongly empowered systemic risk regulator."

For Frank, perhaps more than any single individual in private or public life, is responsible for both the housing market mess and subsequent bank disaster. And no, this isn't partisan hyperbole or historical exaggeration.

But first, a little trip down memory lane.


It was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), that lay behind the crisis. After regulatory changes made to the Community Reinvestment Act by President Clinton in 1995, Fannie and Freddie went into hyper-drive, channeling literally trillions of dollars into the housing markets, using leverage and implicit taxpayers' guarantees.

In November 2000, President Clinton's Housing and Urban Development Department would trumpet "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families." The vehicles for this were Fannie and Freddie. It was the largest expansion in housing aid ever.

Still, from the early 1990s on, many people both inside and outside Washington were alarmed by what they saw at Fannie and Freddie.

Not Barney Frank: Starting in the early 1990s, he (and other Democrats) stood athwart efforts by regulators, Congress and the White House to get the runaway housing market under control.

He opposed reform as early as 1992. And, in response to another attempt bring Fannie-Freddie to heel in 2000, Frank responded it wasn't needed because there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."

In 2002, Frank nixed reforms again. See a pattern here?

Even after federal regulators discovered in 2003 that Fannie and Freddie executives had overstated earnings by as much as $10.6 billion in order to boost bonuses, Frank didn't miss a beat.

President Bush pushed for what the New York Times then called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

If it had passed, the housing crisis likely would have never boiled over, at least not the extent it did, taking the economy with it. Instead, led by Frank, Democrats stood as a bloc against any changes.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, said. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

It's hard to say why Frank did all this. It could be his close ties to the Neighborhood Assistance Corp., a powerful housing activist group based in Boston, which controls billions in loans. Or that he received some $40,100 in campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie from 1989 to 2008. Or that he has been romantically linked to a one-time executive at Fannie during the 1990s.

Whatever the case, his conflicts are obvious and outrageous, and his refusal to countenance reforms of Fannie and Freddie contributed mightily to today's meltdown. If you're looking for a culprit in the meltdown to prosecute, no one fits the bill better than Frank.


More...


Complete Original Article

A small bank with big friends

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal featured a page-one story noting Rep. Barney Frank's support of the troubled OneUnited Bank in Boston. Rep. Frank earmarked $12 million in TARP funds for the bank, already operating under remedial orders from state banking authorities for bad loan practices and excessive compensation, purportedly because the bank invested heavily in FNMA stock which was made worthless by the government takeover. The Journal describes the earmark:

Mr. Frank says that in order to protect OneUnited bank, he inserted into the bill a provision to give special consideration to banks that had less than $1 billion of assets, had been well-capitalized as of June 30, served low- and moderate-income areas, and had taken a capital hit in the federal seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"I did feel that it was important to frankly try and save them since it was federal action that put them into the dumper," Mr. Frank says.

Treasury says that OneUnited's application for TARP funds was subject to the same review process as other banks faced. The Journal nevertheless quotes South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford explaining the larger forces at play: "If you've got the right lobbyist and the right representative connected to Washington or the right ties to Washington, you get the golden tap on the shoulder." .

Our friend Norm Carpenter writes: "It probably helped that the bank was the only minority owned bank in Massachusetts (!), had Frank as a supporter and one time depositor, and, as a clincher, had the husband of Maxine Waters (D-Calif!!) on its board until last spring." Rep. Waters said she was unaware that the bank received TARP funds. OneUnited was "just a small" bank, she said.
related-Political Interference Seen in Bank Bailout DecisionsComplete

Original Article-Power Line
More...

Political Interference Seen in Bank Bailout Decisions

Barney Frank Goes to Bat for Lender, and It Gets an Infusion

Troubled OneUnited Bank in Boston didn't look much like a candidate for aid from the Treasury Department's bank bailout fund last fall.

The Treasury had said it would give money only to healthy banks, to jump-start lending. But OneUnited had seen most of its capital evaporate. Moreover, it was under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use.

Nonetheless, in December OneUnited got a $12 million injection from the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. One apparent factor: the intercession of Rep. Barney Frank, the powerful head of the House Financial Services Committee.

More...

Mr. Frank, by his own account, wrote into the TARP bill a provision specifically aimed at helping this particular home-state bank. And later, he acknowledges, he spoke to regulators urging that OneUnited be considered for a cash injection.

As President Barack Obama's team sets about revising the $700 billion TARP program, following last week's release of the second half of the money, among the issues it faces is widespread dissatisfaction with way the program has been implemented. Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner, testifying Wednesday at his Senate confirmation hearing, acknowledged "there are serious concerns about transparency and accountability...confusion about the goals of the program, and a deep skepticism about whether we are using the taxpayers' money wisely."

Bankers, regulators and politicians complain of a secretive and opaque process for deciding which banks get cash and which don't. The goal of aiding only banks healthy enough to lend -- laid out by the Treasury when the program began -- clearly seems to have shifted, but in a way that's hard to pin down and that the Treasury has declined to explain. Part of the problem is that some powerful politicians have used their leverage to try to direct federal millions toward banks in their home states.

"It's totally arbitrary," says South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. "If you've got the right lobbyist and the right representative connected to Washington or the right ties to Washington, you get the golden tap on the shoulder," says Gov. Sanford, a Republican.

Several Ohio banks received funds after Ohio's congressional delegation complained bitterly about the treatment of Cleveland-based National City Corp., which regulators forced into a merger rather than provide with cash. And in Alabama, the state's top banking official says a windfall there -- five banks are slated to receive funds -- is testament to the influence of two powerful Alabama lawmakers who sit on key congressional committees.

A link between such lobbying and the release of TARP cash can't be proved. Treasury officials have said that political influence plays no role in the selection process. "The decisions are made by a committee of officials at Treasury based on recommendations and data provided by the regulators through the applications process," said Brookly McLaughlin, who was a spokeswoman for the Treasury until the Bush administration ended on Tuesday.
Restoring Credit Flow

Treasury and Federal Reserve officials have repeatedly said the TARP program was successful in its primary purpose, which was to bring the credit markets back from the precipice.

The task of further restoring credit flow now falls to Mr. Obama's team, which has spoken in favor of pumping more money into banks, as has Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. The new administration is weighing a range of ideas, including using at least $50 billion of the TARP money to prevent foreclosures, and possibly other measures such as setting up an "aggregator bank" to hold toxic assets now burdening banks' books.

The federal plan to invest in banks was controversial from the start. The Treasury said it would acquire preferred stock in banks, and sometimes warrants for common stock as well, but not any voting or management rights. Within the broad structure known as TARP, this is called the Capital Purchase Program.

At a hastily arranged meeting on Oct. 13, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson basically forced the chiefs of the country's nine biggest banks to accept cash infusions. The government invested $125 billion in the nine. Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. subsequently returned for more money.

A further $125 billion was committed under the Bush administration to buy stakes in some of the remaining 8,500 U.S. banks and thrift institutions. More than 250 have received cash or commitments so far, totaling about $68 billion. The recipients range from large regional banks to Saigon National, a 12-employee lender catering to Vietnamese-American businesses in Southern California.

The procedure for getting a capital injection is complex. State and federal regulators sometimes complain that even they don't understand how it works.

A bank applies through its federal regulator, which either recommends to the Treasury that the bank receive money or quietly tells the bank to pull its application. A public turndown could be a death sentence because it would tell investors and consumers the government thinks the bank isn't viable.

If the regulator forwards the application, the Treasury decides whether to approve it. If the Treasury's reviewing team is uncertain, it sends the request to a panel of federal regulators to debate the matter.

The results have many in the industry scratching their heads. Two banks in Green Bay, Wis., have received federal investments. But in Arizona, a state hit hard by the housing slump, officials say they are perplexed that a dozen or so state-chartered banks haven't heard back from Treasury about the status of their applications.

Arizona's banking superintendent, Felecia Rotellini, says she is teaming up with local bankers and state legislators who plan to start lobbying Arizona's congressional delegation for help. "Some states are getting better treatment, and we just want it to be a level playing field," Ms. Rotellini says. "I think it's just a question of advocacy. It has to be a congressional voice."

A body set up to monitor the program, the Congressional Oversight Panel, has said the process of allocating money lacks transparency and accountability. The Treasury declines to explain why one bank is chosen for a federal investment and not another. Those that receive federal cash sometimes boast they have a government seal of approval, leaving banks that are shut out facing awkward questions about why they didn't.

In mid-October, days after summoning the nine big-bank executives to Washington to accept aid, the government took a far different approach with Cleveland's National City, which was struggling with soured real-estate loans.

National City executives consulted with their examiners at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is a division of Treasury, about whether they should apply for a capital injection. Local OCC officials gave them the green light, according to people familiar with the matter.

In Washington, National City got a chillier reception. The company was facing mounting losses stemming in part from its ill-timed purchases of two Florida banks shortly before the state's real-estate market imploded. Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan informed National City executives they shouldn't apply because their bank was too weak. Instead, he told the bank to sell itself. Within a week, it agreed to a $5.6 billion takeover by PNC Financial Services Group Inc. in Pittsburgh. (PNC declined to comment.)

A political firestorm erupted in Ohio when it became clear the government had turned down National City, a 163-year-old bank with deep roots in Cleveland. Ohio's congressional delegation sent dozens of letters to Messrs. Dugan and Paulson and threatened to hold hearings on how the Treasury had supposedly wrecked a bank they said wasn't in immediate danger of collapsing.

Some lawyers, bankers and analysts say the case marked a turning point in the Treasury's handling of capital injections. For one thing, since then, some weak regional banks have pocketed billions of dollars in TARP funds.

In addition, Ohio banks are now faring better. Twelve Ohio banks have subsequently received a total of $7.7 billion in taxpayer funds. In neighboring Michigan -- like Ohio, hurt by the auto-industry slump -- only two banks have had federal infusions and a third has preliminary approval, for infusions totaling $638 million.

Among the Ohio beneficiaries is Huntington Bancshares Inc., of Columbus. It received a $1.4 billion federal investment in November, even though, like National City, it was hurt by souring real-estate loans and the weak regional economy. Amid mounting losses, the bank last week replaced its chief executive.

In Alabama, Colonial BancGroup Inc. asked for Treasury cash in November. With its application blessed by its state regulator and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Montgomery bank figured it was a shoo-in for funds, say people familiar with the bank.
Real-Estate Loans

But because Colonial was weighed down by real-estate loans, the Treasury sent the bid to its panel for reviewing controversial applications, consisting of four federal regulatory bodies: the FDIC, the Fed, the OCC and the Office of Thrift Supervision. Negotiations lasted several weeks. Eventually, the Treasury gave preliminary approval to Colonial's request for $550 million in capital.

The slow process infuriated Alabama officials. The same day that Colonial announced its application had been approved, Trabo Reed, Alabama's deputy banking superintendent, wrote a letter to Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, complaining that the government had dragged its feet and kept banks and state officials in the dark. The letter didn't specifically cite Colonial (which had no comment).

Rep. Bachus's office forwarded the letter to the heads of bank regulatory agencies and asked them to examine the situation. Since the letter was forwarded, two more Alabama banks have received TARP funding. Five Alabama banks, including Colonial, are slated to collect a total of about $4.2 billion.

In all, about 50 state-chartered Alabama banks applied, according to state banking superintendent John Harrison. He says his office helped shepherd them through the process, figuring that "the more applied, the more had the chance to get it."

Mr. Harrison says that in addition to Rep. Bachus, Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, "has been a big proponent for Alabama state-chartered banks...and he was really concerned that the TARP money went here." The banking official added: "We're blessed with a U.S. senator that was on the banking committee and Spencer Bachus being the ranking Republican" on the House panel. "I think [the Treasury] got the message."

Aides to Rep. Bachus said he did nothing more than forward Mr. Reed's letter and ask for consideration. Sen. Shelby has consistently opposed the financial-system bailout. His office denied that he was involved in helping Alabama banks get money. "Sen. Shelby has never intervened on anyone's behalf for TARP money," an aide to the lawmaker said.

The bank that Rep. Frank of Massachusetts went to bat for, OneUnited, saw its capital level sink in early September after the U.S. took control of the overextended mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. OneUnited, a closely held Boston-based lender with offices in Florida and California too, held large amounts of Fannie Mae preferred shares. Their value plunged after the U.S. put Fannie and Freddie into a federal conservatorship, acquired preferred shares in them and took warrants entitling the government to nearly 80% of their common stock.

The moves left OneUnited's capital badly depleted. A measure called "Tier 1 risk-based capital" equaled only 1.88% of assets at the bank, versus a desired level of about 6%. A OneUnited lawyer, Robert Cooper, says he called Rep. Frank and Rep. Maxine Waters of California, both Democrats, to complain that the Treasury's move had hurt the bank.

Rep. Waters heads the House Financial Services subcommittee on housing, and until last spring her husband, Sidney Williams, was a OneUnited director. Rep. Frank, besides heading the Financial Services Committee, has longstanding ties to OneUnited, and recalls having had a deposit account at a predecessor bank in the 1960s.

Later that month, Rep. Frank was intimately involved in crafting the legislation that created the $700 billion financial-system rescue plan. Mr. Frank says that in order to protect OneUnited bank, he inserted into the bill a provision to give special consideration to banks that had less than $1 billion of assets, had been well-capitalized as of June 30, served low- and moderate-income areas, and had taken a capital hit in the federal seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"I did feel that it was important to frankly try and save them since it was federal action that put them into the dumper," Mr. Frank says.
Porsche for Executives

On Oct. 27, the FDIC and Massachusetts bank regulatory officials, alleging poor lending practices and executive-compensation abuses by OneUnited, slapped it with a strong enforcement action, a cease-and-desist order. Among other things, the officials told the bank to get rid of a 2008 Porsche for executives.

Mr. Cooper, the bank's attorney, dismisses the order as a "hastily cobbled together" action. "What we are talking about is a hiccup, a blip on the screen of an otherwise-stellar enterprise," he says. Asked whether the bank had sold the Porsche, he said only that it was complying with the order.

Mr. Frank -- who has played a leading role in both the initial design of TARP and current planning to revamp it -- says he spoke with a federal regulator and asked that OneUnited be given consideration for TARP money, "without in any way impinging on their general safety and soundness rules." Mr. Frank said he didn't remember which federal regulator he spoke with.

On Dec. 19, OneUnited received $12 million from the Treasury, on condition it raise $20 million from its shareholders, which it did.

Ms. McLaughlin, the spokeswoman for the Bush administration Treasury, said that OneUnited's application was subject to the same review process as other banks faced.

Mr. Frank said he didn't try to interfere with the regulatory process. "We have never told the regulators that they should ease up on them or not order them to do this or that," he said.

He cites the bank's status as the state's only financial institution owned by African-Americans. "We did say, yes, I thought it would have been a social tragedy if the one minority bank in Massachusetts that has been working so hard and had been overextended into housing was to be wiped out by a federal action, the Fannie-Freddie preferred [shares] thing, and that's why I think it was important to try to help them."

Rep. Waters said she was unaware that the bank received money. OneUnited was "just a small" bank, she said.

Complete Original Article