Blog

Richard (R.J.) Eskow

By Richard (RJ) Eskow
Senior Fellow, Campaign for America’s Future

Peter J. Wallison has a bright future … as a surrealist author.. He and the other Republicans on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission tried to undermine that group’s work by attempting to ban phrases like “Wall Street” from its final report. Now he’s trying to rebut news reports about their behavior. His response is a brilliant example of what might be called “uninentional literature,” a hallucinogenic mashup of Lewis Carroll and George Orwell that belongs on everyone’s shelf.

News reports said that Wallison and his fellow Republicans on the Commission also wanted to ban the words “shadow banking,” “interconnection,” and “deregulation” from a report on the Great Recession and its causes. That’s like banning the phrase “plastic surgery” from a story about the Kardashians.

Not true, insists Wallison. “Only in the fever-swamps of the left could anyone believe that,” he writes. For example, Wallison says he and his colleagues merely objected to the Commission’s use of “Wall Street” as “a general term for the financial system.” Wallison says it’s unacceptable, politically motivated, and imprecise to use the phrase “Wall Street” as if it referred to the controlling financial interests of the United States.

Wall Street: n. The controlling financial interests of the United States.
- American Heritage Dictionary

What do dictionaries matter when you’re rewriting reality? Wallison says he and his fellow Republicans were only willing to use the phrase “Wall Street” to mean “the major commercial and investment banks that were underwriters for the private label securities that the commission majority’s report discusses.”

That’s like defining “Republicans” as “the people who tried to block health care for 9/11 responders.” While it’s true, it’s only one, very narrow aspect of a much larger reality. (more…)

Zach Carter

Zach Carter
Economics Editor, AlterNet; Fellow, Campaign for America’s Future

Foreclosure fraud is ruffling a lot of feathers on Wall Street, and while the full scope of losses remains unclear, even major banks are now acknowledging that this is a multibillion-dollar disaster, not just a set of minor paperwork headaches.

So how bad will it get for Wall Street? There are several disaster scenarios in which the housing market simply shuts down, where the potential losses for Wall Street are simply incalculable. But even situations that do not directly rip apart the basic functioning of the mortgage system could be enough to shut down one or more big banks, creating serious trouble for the financial system, and a major test of the recent Wall Street reform bill.

JPMorgan Chase loves using its research department to push its political agenda, and the bank is currently characterizing the foreclosure fraud outbreak as a set of “process-oriented problems that can be fixed.” That puts them in the rosy optimist camp for this crisis, and they’re projecting a total of $55 billion to $120 billion in losses for the entire industry, spread out over a few years.

But take a look at the analysts’ methodology. The actual scope of losses gets drastically larger if you just change a few arbitrary assumptions.

JPMorgan’s analysts look at about $6 trillion in mortgages issued between 2005 and 2007 — this is the height of the bubble, but it excludes plenty of lousy loans issued in 2003, 2004 and 2008. They then estimate defaults of $2 trillion and losses of $1.1 trillion on those defaults. (more…)

Zach Carter

Zach Carter
Economics Editor, AlterNet

I’ll have plenty to say about the escalating foreclosure fraud scandal later this week. For now: This is a big, big deal. It isn’t a clerical error, it’s an aggressive attempt to slap borrowers with thousands of dollars in illegal fees for the luxury of being foreclosed on. And what’s more, this absurd, shady business was priced into the entire mortgage securitization scheme from the get-go. Banks have been fudging their documentation for years in order to cut costs and score higher profits from securitization—the business model has relied on this corner-cutting since day one of the housing boom.

The good news is that borrowers can use this epic fraud to defend themselves. If a bank can’t prove that it has the right to foreclose on a borrower by showing the proper documentation to a judge, then it doesn’t have the right to foreclose. This is a tremendous opportunity for neighborhood advocates. Make them pony up the docs, it might just save your home. The problem isn’t restricted to GMAC—foreclosure counselors and attorneys talk about the issue of forged or destroyed documentation all the time, and we already know that JPMorgan Chase and Countrywide (now Bank of America) have major documentation problems. Including GMAC, that’s three of the biggest players in every aspect of the mortgage market.

If courts actually follow the law here, we get the best of both worlds—big losses for Wall Street on their predatory loans, and borrowers who get to stay in their homes (mortgage-free, at that). The only question is whether these mortgage losses prove so severe that Wall Street banks come back begging to the government for another bailout. If so, it’s an opportunity to do what should have been done in 2008—break up these financial monsters into smaller creatures that don’t require bailouts when they fail. (more…)