« The Final Sprint for Health Care Has Now Begun, and Where the White House is Placing Its Bets | Robert Reich's Blog | Why Olympia Snowe Should Vote Against the Baucus Plan »

The Continuing Disaster of Wall Street, One Year Later


As he attempted to do with health care reform last week, the President is trying to breathe new life into financial reform. He's using the anniversary of the death of Lehman Brothers and the near-death experience of the rest of the Street, culminating with a $600 billion taxpayer financed bailout, to summon the political will for change. Yet the prospects seem dubious. As with health care reform, he has stood on the sidelines for months and allowed vested interests to frame the debate. Nor has he come up with a sufficiently bold or coherent set of reforms likely to change the way the Street does business, even if enacted.

Let's be clear: The Street today is up to the same tricks it was playing before its near-death experience. Derivatives, derivatives of derivatives, fancy-dance trading schemes, high-risk bets. “Our model really never changed, we’ve said very consistently that our business model remained the same,” says Goldman Sach's chief financial officer.

The only difference now is that the Street's biggest banks know for sure they'll be bailed out by the federal government if their bets turn sour -- which means even bigger bets and bigger bucks.

Meanwhile, the banks' gigantic pile of non-performing loans is also growing bigger, as more and more jobless Americans can't pay their mortgages, credit card bills, and car loans. So forget any new lending to Main Street. Small businesses still can't get loans. Even credit-worthy borrowers are having a hard time getting new mortgages.

The mega-bailout of Wall Street accomplished little. The only big winners have been top bank executives and traders, whose pay packages are once again in the stratosphere. Banks have been so eager to lure and keep top deal makers and traders they've even revived the practice of offering ironclad, multimillion-dollar payments – guaranteed no matter how the employee performs. Goldman Sachs is on course to hand out bonuses that could rival its record pre-meltdown paydays. In the second quarter this year it posted its fattest quarterly profit in its 140-year history, and earmarked $11.4 billion to compensate its happy campers. Which translates into about $770,000 per Goldman employee on average, just about what they earned at height of boom. Of course, top executives and traders will pocket much more.

Every other big bank feels it has to match Goldman's pay packages if it wants to hold on to its "talent." Citigroup, still on life-support courtesy of $45 billion from American taxpayers, has told the White House it needs to pay its twenty-five top executives an average of $10 million each this year, and award its best trader $100 million.

A few banks like Goldman have officially repaid their TARP money but look more closely and you'll find that every one of them is still on the public dole. Goldman won't repay taxpayers the $13 billion it never would have collected from AIG had we not kept AIG alive. (In one of the most blatant conflicts of interest in all of American history, Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein attended the closed-door meeting last fall where then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who was formerly Goldman's CEO, and Tim Geithner, then at the New York Fed, made the decision to bail out AIG.) Meanwhile, Goldman is still depending on $28 billion in outstanding debt issued cheaply with the backing of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Which means you and I are still indirectly funding Goldman's high-risk operations.

So will the President succeed on financial reform? I wish I could be optimistic. His milktoast list of proposed reforms is inadequate to the task, even if adopted. The Street's behavior since its bailout should be proof enough that halfway measures won't do. The basic function of commercial banking in our economic system -- linking savers to borrowers -- should never have been confused with the casino-like function of investment banking. Securitization, whereby loans are turned into securities traded around the world, has made lenders unaccountable for the risks they take on. The Glass-Steagall Act should be resurrected. Pension and 401 (k) plans, meanwhile, should never have been allowed to subject their beneficiaries to the risks that Wall Street gamblers routinely run. Put simply, the Street has been given too many opportunities to play too many games with other peoples' money.

But, like the health care industry, Wall Street has platoons of lobbyists and an almost unlimited war chest to protect its interests and prevent change. And with the Dow Jones Industrial Average trending upward again -- and the public's and the media's attention focused elsewhere, especially on health care -- it will be difficult to summon the same sense of urgency financial reform commanded six months ago.

Yet without substantial reform, the nation and the world will almost certainly be plunged into the same crisis or worse at some point in the not-too-distant future. Wall Street's major banks are already en route to their old, dangerous ways -- now made more dangerous by their sure knowledge that they are too big to fail.

15 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

The mega-bailout of Wall Street accomplished little.

I dispute this. Do you really think we'd be no better off today had the government not stepped in to underwrite the banking industry?

None of this in any way excuses the lack of reform since the bail-out, and the unbridled arrogance of the bankers. But the case for bailing out the industry was fairly strong, and still in hindsight you can mount a reasonable defense for it.

In terms of What Needs To Be Done, containing leverage looks to be a crucial part of the equation. Derivative trading per se need not be a problem, indeed derivatives can be a very effective risk management tool, but for any single institution, at some point the total notional exposure generated through derivative positions creates more risk than it mitigates. But this risk is only a (mathematically) more complicated version of trading/investing with borrowed money, which if it goes wrong, will go wrong catastrophically.

I understand the great populist urge to curb banker pay, but I don't see how this gets to the core of why these outlandish pay-packages come about - because these folks can take huge risks with borrowed money. So I'm more in favor of cutting the bonus craziness off at source, which means regulating in a strict way the modes to which and the extent by which leveraged funds can be put to work.

That the tax-payer, right now, is the source of many of those funds, makes this a moral imperative, as well as a practical one.

user-pic

We should not have bailed out wall street or the big banks. Instead, the government should have taken them over. Then the government should have taken back the billions that the executives paid themselves during the last 20 years. We didn't need a house cleaning, we needed to tear down the house and build a new one. We don't need "reform". We need to tear down the corrupt system and start over.

user-pic

Yeah, something happened. Unemployment has continued to rise and it's looking like we are going to have a jobless recovery. But wages are remaining stagnant or still declining while more wealth is being concentrated at the top, so in those regards the song remained the same.

user-pic

It seems that this runaway train is once again careening down the tracks headed for a fall fall. A committee of federal regulators on the tracks will not prevent another derailment.
Whatever reform that can be devised will be implemented in a long, slow process that will begin effectively after the next disaster. However, reinstatement of Glass-Steagall would be a good start. Why can't Congress start with that?

user-pic

A "fall fall" is coming? Interesting play on words. I assume you believe there will be another crash, of some sort, this fall.

Well, I think you are right, though, I think it will happen this winter or early spring.

Just look at sales and use taxes being paid to state and local governments. They are way down, which means that a lot less is being bought and sold in the real economy. Look at the real economy. It isn't doing enough business to pay the "FIRE" sector.

When the fire sector doesn't get paid in full it forecloses on the real economy. The insurance companies cancel insurance policies, which forces businesses out of business, landlords kick the real business out of the building being rented, the bank calls the loan.

Right now, the real businesses are robbing Peter to pay Paul. The are extending payables in order to have cash to pay the banks, insurance companies and landlords. In addition, the banks, insurance compaies and landlords are not foreclosing as normal.

The real businesses are losing money, hand over fist. They can't go on much longer. 90% of the businesses in construction or automobiles or related are losing money.

When the real businesses lose money, they lay off people, they go bankrupt, etc. If enough go broke, they bring the whole economy down with them.

user-pic

Holy crap! A year has passed already!

Anyway, I think phrases like The Street today is up to the same tricks is a euphemistic gloss we should dispense with now that a year has come and gone. Why be polite? Wall Street isn't.

So next time, please shed the protective hazmat suit and tell it like it is, professor. It's not like you are going to lose your job if you speak the unvarnished truth. Thanks.

user-pic

Our Nation is being Raped and pillaged by the Capitalist Parties.

What else would you have expected?

The Capitalists won't let you legislate against GREED
The Capitalists won't let the People have an alternative.

Why should they?

user-pic

What if China and others continues to try to unload US treasury notes and does not help with our debt as much as in the past, and what if these big banks crash again? How do we pay for health care reform if we also have to bail-out these banks again?

For that matter, how do we do much of anything?

We need to build a real non-bubble economy to sustain such things as health care and training a retooled workforce. I hope it is not too late.

Bob Spencer

user-pic

The people who's minds are hard wired into Wall Street are going to fix Wall Street? Fix it for who?

user-pic

The biggest mistake that Obama made was to continue the bailouts. What should have been done was to break up the big banks, trash AIG. (It was already trash) and rescue those smaller banks that could be rescued. This country - especially the financial sector - needed and still needs a huge dose of reality. Harsh and irrevocable.

C

user-pic

If it takes another Depression to break the system so it can be rebuilt, then so be it.

user-pic
user-pic
The earlier the policyholder dies, the bigger the return...

Ooo. Talk about a disincentive to call an ambulance. "Mr. Kroaker, this is Dr. Manson, he'll be taking you to the other side... keep crawling toward the light." There's your movie - evidently starting Sebastian Cabot and Kate Smith!

user-pic

I was thinking that it would help provide jobs for all the unemployed "security contractors' as our wars are scaled back. Kind of black ops team to ensure the insurance bundles pay off in a beneficial and timely manner. Another "snuff Granny" plan, with benefits that will kill two birds with one stone by cutting out all those high end of life healthcare costs, while enhancing the profits of Wall Street.

user-pic

This column is mostly about the politics of financial regulation reform and less about the policy of it. Reich is typically more persuasive and informative when he sticks to the latter. Here we have a mention of restoring Glass-Steagall, but it's mostly a round-up of "never should haves."

But while we're talking politics, we're going to move the debate a lot further by pushing proposals to be stronger in specific ways than just bashing them as milquetoast (I think I have the spelling correct, professor).

The president's proposals are going to be fought tooth and nail. If he has no audience among the left--which Reich seems to be encouraging--then we get nothing. We need to welcome what he's recommending, push him to do more, and then have his back when the financial lobby kicks in.

Leave a comment

Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address