Goldman Sachs' Revolving Door: Regulatory Capture

In July 2012, Andrew Williams, a former spokesman for U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, announced plans to head over to Goldman Sachs at the end of that month.[1] Williams was the second of the Secretary’s spokesmen to head to theWall Street bank. Such moves may reflect a standing policy at the bank to have a revolving door. The previous U.S. Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, had been the CEO at Goldman. This suggests that the revolving door was to include populating high offices in government, presumably not out of a sense of civic duty, but, rather, to see that Goldman's interests would be protected and even promoted through public policy. Hence President Obama was said to have had a Wall Street government with respect to positions bearing on Wall Street. I submit that deconstructing such a revolving door would be very difficult. 

From the standpoint of a government official being hired by Goldman, the prospect of becoming wealthy is a large incentive to make the jump. Such an official would typically have scruples about using his contacts in government to pull strings for the bank. Mired in scandal following the financial crisis of 2008, Goldman’s leadership no doubt understood the value in hiring good PR men. Such hires could even put a good face on the cozy relationship between the bank and people still in government.

The “revolving door” dynamic is also difficult to break up because it contributes toward the capture of regulators by the regulated. This is known as regulatory capture. The regulated companies supply information that regulators need in order to devise regulations; the companies can use this reliance to their advantage even just in providing tainted, self-serving data. Moreover, the revolving door can make it easier for the managements of the regulated companies to get even high government officials to put political pressure on the regulatory agencies to go soft on regulating. In the case of Goldman Sachs, it is reasonable to expect that Henry Paulson would have bent to the bank's request for lax regulatory oversight from the SEC, which of course had no idea how many subprime-mortgage-derivative bonds Wall Street had been producing and selling up to the financial crisis of 2008. 

 

The SEC can be soft on Wall Street and point to insufficient staffing as the reason, while the reality is far more sordid in terms of the relationship between the regulators and the powerful regulated. 

Legislated restrictions on former government financial officials going to Wall Street banks could of course be circumvented, given the incentives described above, though prohibiting employment (or financial enrichment, such as by consulting) in the industries related to an official's area for many years seems possible. Even if Goldman Sachs could not hire away Treasury or SEC offiicals, the bank could still count on ex-Goldman folks who occupy key offices in the U.S. Government. 

Generally speaking, the financial and related political power of such huge aggregations of wealth such as a Wall Street bank has (and is) naturally overpower weak governments, by which I mean governments that depend on or do not have the will to resist the allure of money (or threats) from entities subject to the government. A government whose elected officials must rely on large sums of donated money just to get reelected is ripe for succumbing to corporate offers with strings attached. A strong government is insulated, whether by law, will, or power generally from such strings. A government that has many points of access (of influence) is likely to be weak in not only rebuffing pressure to reduce taxes and spend more, but also standing up to large corporations. A government in a pro-business society is likely to be weak with respect to the power of business, other things equal. Even more significant than these variables, however, is the tenuous basis of representative democracy amid Wall Street bewindowed towers. 

1. Bonnie Kavoussi, “Andrew Williams, Ex-Treasury Spokesman,Headed to Goldman Sachs,” The Huffington Post, July 12, 2012. 

Corporate Appointees in the West Wing: A Counter-Productive Way of Holding Business Accountable

Presidents in governments are called to be leaders, which means advocating a vision of change from the status quo. Otherwise, they are merely administrators. So it would be counter-productive for a U.S. president to fill his administration with people financially invested in the status quo. Yet President Obama did just that, in spite of the fact that his rhetoric envisioned radical change in health insurance and still regulations on Wall Street to prevent another financial crisis. In short, he not only let the regulatees in the room, but also gave them important roles with power that would affect their respective industries.

For example, President Obama's chief of staff, William Daley, had been a top executive at JPMorgan Chase, where according to The New York Times, he was paid as much as $5 million a year and supervised the Washington lobbying efforts of the nation’s second-largest bank. Daley also served on the board of directors at Boeing, a large military contractor, and Abbott Laboratories, the global drug company, which had "billions of dollars at stake in the overhaul of the health care system." Although some argued that the White House needed someone on the inside who had the ear of business, the conflict of interest in having someone so tied to vested commercial interests decide on who gets into the Oval Office and determine the President's agenda ought to be troubling. Just one year earlier, a Wall Street reform bill had been passed that sidestepped the question of whether banks too big to fail should be allowed to exist and did nothing to address the fact that executive compensation had been so out of step with performance in the years leading up to the financial crisis. Also, the enacted health-care reform law, Obamacare, included a mandate and excluded a public option as per the interests of the heath insurance lobby. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest like this one is enough to spur us on to investigate it even though Obama's time in office has passed. That there were more blatant conflicts of interests in Obama's choice of appointees should raise even more of a red flag. Was he blind to them (unlikely), or did he intend to stay within the status quo in spite of his rhetoric against health insurance companies and investment banks? Put another way, if he really intended to offer an alternative to private insurance companies and constrain Wall Street firms in the wake of the financial crisis, putting corporate insiders in key offices would be counter-productive. Of course, he may have meant to hold back on his rhetoric, given all the financial inducements that the corporate sector could offer. Obama was much richer leaving office than he was when he entered the White House.
Larry Summers, whom Obama appointed as his chief economic advisor, had been instrumental in the Clinton Administration in keeping derivative securities from being regulated. How could Summers advise on a solution when he was against regulating the financial sector, at least where most needed (CDO's), and had actually played a role in causing the financial crisis? Simply in his choice of Summers, Obama sent a signal that he was a creature of the status quo (and its powerful adherents). 
Timothy Geithner, whom Obama nominated to be Secretary of the Treasury, had been president of the New York Fed, a job that not even Geithner saw as regulating. The big banks had had a formal say in his assuming that role--Citigroup being his sponsor. It is no surprise that he played a major role in AIG paying Goldman Sacks dollar-for-dollar on the CDO swaps even though AIG was essentially on life-support with federal money. So he would be an unlikely pick for a president who wanted systemic change involving the relationship between the federal government and Wall Street. Mark Patterson, Geithner's chief of staff, had been a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs, and Lewis Sachs, a senior advisor at Treasury, had been head of Tricadia, which bet against the CDOs (mortgage-based derivatives) it was selling to clients.
William C. Dodley, President of the New York Federal Reserve after Geithner left to become Treasury Secretary, had praised financial derivatives (including sub-prime-mortgage-based) before the financial crisis and, not coincidentally, had also been the chief economist at Goldman Sachs.
Gary Ginsler, Obama's head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, had been an executive at Goldman Sachs. He had helped ban the regulation of financial derivatives, including those based on risky sub-prime mortgages.
Mary Shapero, Obama's head of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had been CEO of an investment banking self-regulation body. As a MBA student, I volunteered to help a professor with his research on NASD self-regulation. I was attracted by the application of systems theory to the notion of industry self-regulation. In hindsight, I was very naive concerning the propensity of a self-regulatory body to hold to the public good, rather than take the industry's own interest as a starting point and perhaps even devolve to enable a few bad participants with the self-regulatory body serving as a cloak. Even at the industry level, money talks; securitizing especially sub-prime mortgages was very profitable for investment banks through the first seven years of the twenty-first century.
Campaigning on September 29, 2008 in heat of the financial crisis, Obama said, "The era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington have led us to a financial crisis." That is, "A lack of oversight in Washington and on Wall Street got us into this mess." Even so, as president he signed the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act, which in hindsight has been recognized as moderate at best, for it left the conflict of interest at rating agencies, executive compensation, and CPA firms largely entact. Obama resisted adding strings to the TARP federal funds for the big banks, such as restrictions on executive compensation and employee bonuses even though the E.U. enacted new restrictions. Furthermore, as of mid-2010, no financial firm or individuals therein had been prosecuted under Obama for fraud--not even Countrywide. In short, Obama as president fell well short of the "Real Change" mantra of his campaign. As one person observed at the time, Obama put together a Wall Street government. To think that real change could come from such a status-quo of appointees is so incredulous that Obama's very claim of real change could only be taken in hindsight as a false selling-point not unlike the traders at Goldman Sachs who were telling even good clients that the bonds based on sub-prime derivatives were safe even as the traders privately regarded them as "crap." Whether misleading the American people or good clients, the culprit is private advantage over public good via deceit. 
In the case of Obama, I suspect the answer can be found in following the money. Goldman Sachs contributed $1 million to Obama's presidential campaign. Also, he was considerably richer after his two terms in office. I suspect that he had discovered that he could say one thing in public and do another thing in private. It may be that representative democracies are susceptible to becoming invisible plutocracies with a patina of democracy to satisfy the masses while the representatives and the business executives make out quite well working together.

For more on institutional conflicts of interest, see Institutional Conflicts of Interest, available at Amazon.com

Sources:

 Eric Lipton, “Business Background Defines Chief of Staff,” The New York Times, January 6, 2011.
"Inside Job" (2010), Sony Pictures Classics.

Were Raises at Bailed-Out U.S. Companies Approved by Treasury?

In early 2013, the Special Inspector General for Troubled Asset Relief Program reported that the U.S. Treasury Department disregarded its own guidelines in order to allow large pay increases for executives at three major companies that had received bailouts during the financial crisis. In particular, eighteen raises for executives at American International Group (AIG), General Motors, and Ally Financial were approved. Fourteen were for $100,000 or more. A raise for the CEO of a division of AIG was $1 million. Treasury approved these raises even though they exceeded the pay limits set in Treasury’s own guidelines.

Was Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner smirking because his friends were happy?     NYT

In assessing Treasury’s approval of the raises, one must weigh the argument that they were needed to retain expertise needed to restore the companies to financial health (and thus be able to pay back the bailouts) against the argument that bailouts should come with strings such that the funds are not used opportunistically. At the very least, executives associated with the companies’ failures should not be rewarded. However, what about new-hires brought in to restore the companies?  If the restoration is successful, shouldn’t those managers be compensated?  Even if the raises were not necessary to retaining talent, managers who had not been part of the problem should be compensated for effective work. At the same time, it is proper and fitting that companies being bailed out be subject to strings, and thus neither the companies nor their employees should be able to benefit inordinately.
That Treasury disregarded its own guidelines can be read as an indication that the officials were concerned that vital talent would be lost had the guidelines been followed. The bailouts in the E.U. contained limits on executive compensation without any apparent hindrance to the viability of the banks. In other words, the argument that the raises were necessary to retain talent could have been a ruse. An alternative interpretation consistent with this scenario is that the business sector had too much influence over Treasury officials. In addition to lobbying influence and connections between Treasury officials and former colleagues on Wall Street, it is possible that pro-business officials had adopted the business line that government should not interfere with business—even companies being bailed out.
Put another way, contrasting the lack (or ignoring) of strings at Treasury with the salience of strings in the case of the E.U.’s bailouts may illustrate a cultural difference between Americans and Europeans generally with respect to pro-business ideology. Had executives at the three bailed out companies above enjoyed inordinate influence within Treasury, the conflict of interest for the government officials could have been enabled by a shared ideology: namely, what is good for GM is good for America.

Source:

Marcy Gordon, “Treasury Disregarded Own Guidelines, Allowed Executive Raises At Bailed-Out GM, AIG,” The Huffington Post, January 28, 2013.

See also: Skip Worden, Essays on the Financial Crisis.

Jamie Dimon of JPMorganChase Exploits an Institutional Conflict of Interest

U.S. Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, said on July 18, 2011 that he was not concerned about dire warnings from Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, a bank that was too big to fail and thus evinced systemic risk. Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, said the government regulations may have been suffocating the economic recovery. While it was nice of Jamie Dimon to be so civic-minded as to want to protect the recovery, his real objective was likely to increase his bank’s profitability through relaxed financial regulations in the U.S. If so, his ulterior motive was not in line with the economy overall, much less with society and the common good.

The full essay is at Institutional Conflicts of Interest, available in print and as an ebook at Amazon.