Police Ignoring Laws in Florida: A Case of Systemic Corruption

Systemic corruption means not only that a department or agency has an organizational culture that allows for and may even laud corruption, but also that a city hall, as well as larger jurisdictions such as member-states and even federal agencies may be enabling the corruption by looking the other way and even lying to cover-up the lower-level corruption. A study at Florida Atlantic University published in the Journal of Criminal Justice identifies 24 categories of police misconduct in Florida from 2012 to 2023. Even though it is tempting to highlight violent illegal acts by police employees, lying regarding criminal law and refusing to take reports of criminal activity may be more detrimental because such misconduct is probably more common than is the violent sort. If so, the extent of corruption and the underlying false sense of entitlement by police patrol-employees and even their supervisors may be vastly understated in the United States.

The “24 categories of police misconduct” in Florida range “from assault/battery to weapons offenses, manslaughter, homicide, extortion and false statements/perjury (lying under oath).”[1] The results of the study state that “the most considerable incidence of police misconduct offenses was related to officer failure to report and perjury.”[2] The incidence of this type of corruption was higher than “sexual-related crimes” and “(d)rug and alcohol-related offenses.”[3] The serial lying to citizens and refusing their requests for police reports reflects back on the faulty use of psychological screening on police applicants. The propensity to bully too is indicative that such screening has been substandard and therefore should be drastically fortified.

The police department in Largo, Florida, which is located just north of St Petersburg and west of Tampa, is a case in point. As of 2025 at least, police personnel who have taken oaths to enforce (and thus acknowledge) Florid law were to take reports of fraud. “It takes several people to have reported a case of fraud for us to make a report,” one police employee told me when I called to confirm the wayward policy. The statement demonstrates not only corruption, but also a sordid breach of rationality, for if no initial reports of fraud by a person against another are allowed, then it would be impossible to make a complaint after several other people have done so regarding the same culprit. Incredibly, that same police employee nevertheless maintained that in Florida, reports of fraud are made to the police local departments.

That same squalid department also has a policy that landlords, including local individuals and property-management company employees, can enter rented residential space at any time for any reason because, as I heard when I called to confirm, “there is no such thing as trespassing on a person’s own property.” The department even lies to residents by claiming that neither the town nor Florida has any laws protecting tenants from what is in fact trespassing. The Largo police department took the decision to ignore section 82 of the Florida statutes, which stipulates the conditions under which a property-owner can enter leased premises. The sheer extraordinariness of the lie should not be overlooked, for a brazen, hardened corrupt mentality can be inferred, especially when wielded like a club by police employees who have sworn an oath to uphold rather than ignore and lie about the law.

As for Florida’s Law Enforcement Agency, the official line is that there is no state-level agency in Florida that oversees local police departments; the internal affairs offices of local police departments are the only avenue for complaints. That such a pertainent agency can so easily be coopted by their “brothers in arms” opens up the ethical problem of a conflict of interest. The office of Lori Berman (D), Minority Leader of the Florida Senate, also insists that no state-level avenue for complaints by residents of local police corruption exists; only the towns and counties could take such complaints. In investigating this problem by speaking with one of Berman’s employees, I suggested that federal oversight of corrupt local police departments is also possible. The result was a patronizing, “Now let’s slow down,” reply. I had heard enough, so I called Congresswoman Anna Luna’s office, whose district includes corrupt Largo. I asked which office in the U.S. Department of Justice I could contact regarding a corrupt police department, but was told by one of Luna’s enabling employees, “We have nothing to do with the U.S. Department of Justice.” Enabling the corruption of a local police department is itself a corruption, as is lying about the oversight of federal agencies by the U.S. House of Representatives. 

There is a saying in philosophy, “turtles all the way down.” A thread of corruption extending from local fraud, a lying local police department unwilling to uphold (or even acknowledge) the law, the state of Florida that is presumably unconnected from local agencies or departments, and federal office-holders from Florida for whom federal oversight does not exist either in the Congress or the U.S. Department of Justice qualifies as the epitome of systemic corruption. Just as an unethically dysfunctional culture of a company like Arthur Anderson, Wells Fargo, and Enron is notoriously difficult to dislodge or cure with disinfectant, a corrupt local police department encased and enabled at the state and Congressional level is as intractable as they come, utterly impervious to correction and reform. Translucent sunlight may be in short supply in the sunshine state.

---

1. Gisele Galoustian, “Study Finds Police Misconduct ‘Hotspots’ Across Florida,” News Desk, Florida Atlantic University, July 30, 2024.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.

Speculators and Price Volatility: The Case of Gasoline

According to The Huffington Post, “Oil prices took a nosedive [on May 5, 2011] in a historic selloff, erasing weeks of gains and indicating that the months-long climb in energy prices may have hit a ceiling. Crude oil plunged 10 percent as startled investors unloaded their positions and a weeklong decline accelerated into an outright freefall. The price of U.S. crude went from triple digits to double digits, falling below $100 after opening at close to $110. Brent crude, a European benchmark, lost $12 at one point in a sell-off that exceeded the one following Lehman Brothers' collapse.”  The question, for course, is why, the answer of which can lead us to consider some public policy recommendations. Understanding the previous price rise is a first step both to answering this question and for evaluating public policy solutions.

The price of oil had been increasing, according to the Huffington Post, “as fighting escalated in the Middle East and investors feared a supply shortage.” Even as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries was pledging to correct any oil supply disruption, the price of a barrel of crude continued to rise. Before the drop, Brent was up 50 percent compared to the same time the year before. Indeed, the rise could not be explained in terms of actual supply being threatened, as Libya represented only 2 percent of world supply at the time.

The fear was likely of a domino-effect that could potentially compromise even Saudi crude—as if Sunni protesters in Bahrain would spill over into Saudi Arabia (rather than tanks from the latter “spilling over” into Bahrain).  The fear, in other words, may have been exaggerated—even facilitated by speculators taking advantage of the general sense of instability in the Middle East. "Clearly these markets were overblown," said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist of IHS Global Insight. "We've been saying all along the fear factor has probably added 10 to 15 dollars to the price of a barrel." The ensuing “freefall” might have been a correction for this “fear factor.”

However, that the oil-price drop was accompanied by other commodities and even stocks could suggest that larger forces were involved. According to Reuters, “World stocks fell and the 19-commodity Reuters-Jefferies CRB index dropped more than 4.9 percent, heading for its biggest weekly decline since December 2008.” An oil-centered drop alone could be expected to result in higher stock prices as expected lower gas prices would be expected to have a stimulating effect on the U.S. economy. So it would appear that broader factors were at play—things that could have triggered the fear-correction.

Reuters reports that “(w)eak economic data from Europe and the United States fed concerns that have battered commodities all week. German industrial orders fell unexpectedly in March while U.S. weekly jobless claims hit eight-month highs, sparking a fourth day of profit taking in early trade. . . . Additional pressure came from news OPEC was considering raising formal output limits when it meets in June to convince oil markets it wants to bring prices down and reverse the impact of fuel inflation on economic growth.” However, it is not clear that the market was being so rational.

"This is just a market that rolled over and started feeding on itself," said John Richards, head of North American strategy for the Royal Bank of Scotland, according to the Huffington Post. "There was no triggering single event of news that would account for this. It's just much more the market's own internal dynamics taking prices down here," Richards added. “Internal dynamics” sounds a lot better than “feeding on itself.” The latter implies a growing disjunction between price and the “underlying” supply and demand for the commodity, whereas the former intimates a self-sustained system tending to equilibrium. 

Broadly speaking, the question may be whether a market for X tends internally to a homeostatic state of equilibrium or a schizogenic condition wherein a maximizing variable breaches any equilibrium-enforcing features. In ecological terms, by analogy, the question is whether a species tends to maximize its growth even at the expense of the overall ecosystem. In terms of the oil commodity market, the question is whether people simply betting on the price without any intended future use effectively divorce the market price from the actual and expected supply and demand. Moreover, does the disjuncture increase such that the betting acts as a maximizing variable at the expense of any equilibrium-tending mechanisms of the market itself?

Even if the “freefall” drop in the price of oil evinces a return to equilibrium closer to supply and demand, the disjuncture itself caused people to put off vacations and spend less on even necessities, and generally feel poorer. There is thus an ethical question regarding the legitimacy of betting on a commodity that people need. This includes not only oil, but food as well. Specifically, is the freedom to bet on necessities (even if necessities in the short run) worth the ensuing harm to consumers? Moreover, is trading on a commodities market inherently intended or designed for bets or, more narrowly, to arrive at a price whereby consumption demand meets supply? What, in other words, if economic liberty undoes the purpose of a market?

According to Bart Chilton, a top regulator at the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the number of speculative bets on oil and food were at record levels at the time of the price increases in both oil and food. President Barack Obama created an oil market fraud group in April to provide enhanced regulatory scrutiny of potential fraud and manipulation in the oil futures and derivatives markets, but most speculation was perfectly legal at the time so the reach of the group was rather limited in comparison to the problem.

Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General, wrote in a letter to the group, "Of course, there are lawful market forces that lead to price fluctuations and to differences between wholesale and retail price trends in these markets.” He urged the group “to identify whether fraud or manipulation played any role in the wholesale and retail markets as prices increased. If wholesale prices continue to decrease, fraud or manipulation must not be allowed to prevent price decreases from being passed on to consumers at the pump." However, manipulation in the form of betting was legal at the time. Even so, the financial reform bill passed in 2010 requires the CFTC to craft rules reining in excessive speculation. Nevertheless, citing inadequate market data, the agency failed to meet a key deadline on those rules in early 2011.

Accordingly, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) sent a letter to President Obama on the day of the “freefall” urging that regulators impose limits on oil speculation. “There is mounting evidence that the skyrocketing price of gas and oil has nothing to do with the fundamentals of supply and demand, and has everything to do with Wall Street firms that are artificially jacking up the price of oil in the energy futures markets,” Sanders wrote. “In other words, the same Wall Street speculators that caused the worst financial crisis since the 1930s through their greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior are ripping off the American people again by gambling that the price of oil and gas will continue to go up.” The question is whether “artificially jacking up” prices of commodities that people need ought to be illegal, and, if so, whether such a law could even be enforced.

Should futures traders be required to take delivery and use the commodity they have purchased? If so, people seeking to hedge risk may not be able to do so. Is not the “too big to fail” story about too much risk? Perhaps other means of hedging could be used. Furthermore, it may be that the government officials were not going far enough structurally. Were they to have incorporated anti-trust law, applying it strictly, perhaps a more competitive oil market would obviate the baleful effects of speculators. Even if there would be some opportunity costs in the reduced economies of scale enjoyed by oil companies (and gas stations), a market mechanism running on more competition would be worth that cost to the particular firms. The common good outweighs that of individual companies.

In going after “excessive” speculation or oligopolies, the devil may be in the details. For example, regulation may be difficult to write—assuming the corporate lobbyists do not obstruct it from even getting to that point (e.g., the failure of the CFTC to issue regulations)—not to mention enforcement. In a system of corporate capitalism, moreover, representative democracy may not be able to provide a homeostatic remedy after the horse has run out of the barn.

Sources:

Matthew Robinson, “Oil Crashes 10 Percent in Record Rout,” Reuters, May 5, 2011.

William Alden, “Oil Prices Plunge in Record Sell-Off,” The Huffington Post, May 5, 2011.

Zack Carter, “Eric Holder to Fraud Squad: Oil Price Plunge Should Benefit Consumers,” The Huffington Post, May 6, 2011.

Undermining the Dodd-Frank Act: An Incessant Desire for Profit

In the Dodd-Frank financial reform Act of 2010, financial firms in the U.S. are required to set aside higher reserves to cover losses on trades of securities, including those that “swap” the risk of default of a given security, such as bonds based on subprime mortgages. Almost immediately, the Wall Street bankers set about minimizing the new hindrance.  
Traders in the banks set about getting around the “margin requirements” by treating the “swaps” as futures, which do not require the higher reserves in Dodd-Frank. Whereas a futures contract for corn to sell at a certain price limits residual risk, swapping the risk of the default of an investment puts a party on the line for the entire investment. Moreover, unlike futures contracts, swaps have significant systemic risk because claims can all be made at once, overwhelming the parties assuming the liability in the swaps (e.g. AIG in September 2008). 
Managers at Wall Street firms have tended to not only minimize safeguards even though they protect the banks (from themselves), but also discount or even dismiss such high-risk, low-probability outcomes as come with risk to a bank as well as the entire financial system (i.e., systemic risk). Meanwhile, less money held in reserve means more money available to be lent or put into high-risk investments such subprime mortgages or bonds based bundles of such high-risk mortgages. 
Accordingly, the gradual trajectory already as of the beginning of 2013 was toward yet another systemic collapse of the financial system should enough housing markets take a down turn. “As the market gravitates to the cheaper platform—and it’s cheaper because it’s unsafe—that creates risk for everyone,” said James Cawley, CEO of trade execution firm Javelin Capital Markets.[1]  Put another way, market participants were operating according to the greatest profit, the greater risk notwithstanding. “In a distress scenario, you basically have what you had from AIG in 2008,” Cawley said; “Then someone has to step in, and we all know who that someone is: the U.S. taxpayer.”[2] So the question at the time was perhaps whether the SEC had the taxpayer’s back or was reflective of, or enabling a cozy revolving door between the federal government and Wall Street firms.
To be sure, the Volcker Rule, part of the Dodd-Frank Act, would, unless weakened, bar banks from short-term proprietary trading (i.e., on their own accounts, except for market-making), and from taking ownership states in private equity funds and hedge funds. U.S. Senator John Hatch speaking at Jack Lew’s confirmation hearing in early 2013 raised the question of whether Lew would act as U.S. Secretary of State to constrain banks’ risky proprietary trading, given that he had headed units at Citigroup that were involved in just such practices that would violate the Volcker Rule. 

Jack Lew at his confirmation hearing for U.S. Treasury Secretary. Lew had been the chief operating officer at units at Citibank.     NPR

Lew had been the COO of Alternative Investments at Citi. MAT and Falcon investment funds were sold as low-risk even though those funds were actually hedge funds with high risk.  As COO, Lew refused to offer the misled customers full refunds.  At least fourteen arbitration panels subsequently gave the customers the full refunds they had sought. Although he had not been involved in selling the funds, he did manage units that engaged in risky proprietary trading. The public would be justified in wondering if they too would be left on the hook as taxpayers rather than protected should Lew favor Wall Street's incessant desire for profit over the government's role to place that desire in check for the good of the system/whole.
After Lew, during President Trump's first term, the Federal Reserve Bank voted unanimously in late May, 2018 to weaken the Volcker Rule. The move was consistent with the president's desire to deregulate Wall Street. The flip side of the move that would enhance Wall Street profits was that the government would be doing less to protect the financial system as a whole even though the systemic risk of the largest five banks had increased with their growth. As Senator Dick Durbin had said after the financial crisis when people were looking to Congress to protect even the banks from themselves, “Congress is owned by the banking lobby.” So looking to the legislative branch should the executive be in sync with Wall Street's financial interests may not play well. Even after semi-stringent regulatory constraints have been passed, Wall Street can still have the edge in circumventing or mollifying the speed-bumps even though they are in the bank's own long-term interest, which can come to roust even in the short term as in 2008.

See Essays on the Financial Crisis, available at Amazon.

1. Eleazar Melendez, “Wall Street Setting Itself Up For Next Derivatives Crisis, Market Participants Warn,” The Huffington Post, February 14, 2013.
2. Ibid.

Wall Street Snuffed Out President Clinton's Goal of Homeownership for the Poor

It is one thing for the head of a government (or a government’s executive arm) to set a praiseworthy goal that is in the public interest, and quite another thing to rely on the financial sector to implement it. Finance has its own means tied to its own goals, with plenty of greed in the mix. Governmental officials may tend to minimize the potential damage from ego-laden greed to the goals of public policy. Such policy ideally strives for the good of the whole, whereas the goals of a private sector of a part. This could account, at least in part, for the financial crisis of 2008 and the continuing bear market in housing in much of the U.S.

According to The Wall Street Journal, housing prices had fallen for 57 consecutive months by May 2011.[1] Even though the recession had officially ended in June 2009, the real estate market still had yet to hit bottom.[2] Since the housing peak in 2006, home values nationally were down 29.5 percent, according to Zillow.com. Compared to the same time in 2010, prices were down 8.2 percent in the U.S. markets. In that year, house price depreciation had slowed or stabilized because of tax credits of up to $8000 that expired during that summer. Accordingly, negative equity became even more prevalent in the first quarter of 2011, when 28.4 percent of all single-family homes with mortgages were "underwater."[3] Monthly declines for February and March were "really staggering," according to Stan Humphries, Zillow's chef economist. He claimed that the declines reflected "the true underlying demand," which was "being completely overwhelmed by supply."[4] Fannie and Freddie sold more than 94,000 foreclosed houses in the quarter; this represents 23% more than in the previous quarter.[5] The increase in supply from the foreclosures was at relatively low prices, hence the impact on the market was particularly depressing.

A declining housing price translates into lost wealth for the homeowner. When home values decline, the values of mortgages often do not go down as well. Homeowners lose some of their equity, or the stake they have in their home. When equity becomes negative—that is to say, when the value of a mortgage exceeds the value of the property—homeowners become especially vulnerable to default and foreclosure. “Falling home prices can create a vicious cycle. When a property falls into foreclosure, it tends to depress the values of properties around it, making those homes more likely to experience a similar fate. [In 2010], nearly 2.9 million homes received a foreclosure filing, and more than 2.8 million homes got one in 2009.” based on the data provider RealtyTrac.[6] More foreclosures further reduced the value of residential mortgage-based securities, which in turn reduced the asset-values and returns of companies and individuals investing in the CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) worldwide. This investment asset essentially has mortgage-borrowers pay the holders of the respective CDOs, whose value is thus based on the value of the underlying mortgages.

Problematically, the holders of the CDOs, not the originator of the mortgage, assumed the risk that the mortgage borrowers might stop their mortgage payments. The mortgage servicers had sold their mortgages to an investment bank such as Lehman Brothers, which in turn would pass the then-securitized mortgage-based bonds on to investors such as Deutsche Bank and the two major banks of Iceland. Neither companies such as New Century (or Countrywide) nor investment banks like Lehman would face any risk unless they happened to be holding a significant number of the risky mortgages (or real estate) when the merry-go-round finally stopped in 2008.

Countrywide was bought up by Bank of America (by Ken Lewis, CEO at the time) and Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. Both Lewis and Dick Fuld (of Lehman) could be said to be empire-builders—meaning expansion at virtually any expense and even as an end itself. Pure ego plus greed. New Century and Lehman both assumed that they would never get caught with their pants down holding toxic mortgages. They were both wrong—oh so wrong. To be so wrong and yet blame the consumers is, at the very least, bad form.

Unfortunately, the housing market was “plagued by scandal” in the first quarter of 2011.[7] Homeowners and investors filed “numerous lawsuits alleging that big banks misplaced or even faked crucial mortgage documents.” After it was “revealed that companies that processed foreclosures signed thousands of documents daily without even reading them, potentially violating the law, some of the biggest banks temporarily halted their foreclosure proceedings” in the fall of 2010.[8] I suspect, however, that the failure of the underwriters (and compliance folks) is a red herring; most of the sub-prime residential mortgages required no documents proving income or even a job, and many of those mortgage applications contained lies known or even encouraged by the brokers. Not unexpectedly, the brokers and borrowers have differed on whether the latter should be expected to have resisted the, “It’s ok, really. Trust me,” from the “professionals.” In any case, the (in many cases) first-time homeowners were used, and the greed of the mortgage producers was ultimately behind it.

The claim, for example, made by some mortgage brokers and Wall Street securitization arrangers that the borrowers should have somehow known better than to sign low- or no-document subprime mortgages with steep ARM resets of up to double-digit interest rates is more than just disingenuous; the brokers had assured the potential homeowners that the inevitable increase in home equity appreciation from the rising housing market would give them the 20 percent equity stake that was necessary at the time to refinance into a fixed mortgages at a decent, constant interest rate. The brokers did not care whether the borrowers enabling the double commissions could make the higher ARM (adjustable rate mortgage) payments in case they might kick in. One might even say that the system was rigged by the mortgage-producing companies such as Countrywide at the expense of first-time mortgage-borrowers. Preying on the newbies, in other words, could characterize the system’s basis. Of course, such preying is unethical, for it puts others in harm’s way unless the prey should have known better, which I dispute. In short, it was not a fair fight when the harm came as even AAA-rated subprime (i.e., risky) mortgage-based CDOs ruptured in the financial crisis of 2008. 

In conclusion, although Clinton’s goal of putting poor people in their own homes had been laudable, constructing ARM mortgages with resets that low income people could not afford and relying on a rising market to obviate them was a recipe for years of a bear housing market. In other words, the system that the financial world established blocked Clinton’s goal from being sustainable, and thus achieved. Of course, Wall Street was not in the game to do Clinton’s bidding; finance had its own goals, which went on through two terms of George W. Bush in the White House. In retrospect, Clinton should have used government regulation to establish a viable system in sync with the goal rather than allow his henchmen—most notable Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve, Robert Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury, and Larry Summers also of the Treasury, to push Congress to keep the CDOs unregulated. In other words, Clinton, in trying to position himself in the political middle, followed Carter in adopting a deregulatory position even as it ultimately rendered his laudable goal unattainable and even reckless.

See Essays on the Financial Crisis and On the Arrogance of False Entitlement, both available at Amazon. 

---

1. Nick Timiraaos and Dawn Wotapka, "Home Market Takes a Tumble," The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2011, pp. A1-A2.

2. William Alden, “Home Prices Fall Again in Biggest Drop since 2008,” The Huffington Post, May 9, 2011.

3. Ibid.

4. Nick Timiraaos and Dawn Wotapka, "Home Market Takes a Tumble," The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2011, pp. A1-A2.

5. Ibid.

6. William Alden, “Home Prices Fall Again in Biggest Drop since 2008,” The Huffington Post, May 9, 2011.

7. Ibid.

8.Ibid.

Unnecessary Systemic Risk: Banks' Price-Fixing and Racketeering in Side Businesses

A lawsuit filed in a Florida district-court in 2013 alleged that JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and the London Metal Exchange (LME) artificially inflated aluminum prices.  The plaintiffs accused the companies of anti-trust practices and racketeering, including the “manipulation of the aluminum market through supply price fixing.”[1] This sounds like what had led to the forced break-up of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, though in that case exactly a century before, the restraint of trade had to do with the company’s main line of business (i.e., oil). In the case of the banks, however, owning commodity assets such as storage facilities and trading in raw materials do not constitute banking. This point triggers a larger question involving the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act.

Should we allow banks to expand even beyond these functions to owning commodities and related real-estate? What does this do to the banks' systemic risk?    Image Source: salisburyareafoundation.org. 

Under Glass-Steagal, commercial banks were not permitted to engage in investment-banking activities, such as proprietary trading and market-making. The law’s repeal in the late 1990's is ironic, for in just a decade the notion of systemic risk would flash into the public’s consciousness under the label of banks being “too big to fail.”
Rather than confront systemic risk directly, U.S. lawmakers and regulators have consistently preferred focusing on incremental change in particular areas. For example, when the lawsuit was filed in Florida, regulators were “scrutinizing ownership of commodity storage facilities by major U.S. banks.”[2] Unfortunately, the scrutiny was limited to price-fixing and racketeering, and those regulators probably were not talking to regulators at the SEC who were still promulgating regulations as part of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, which was ostensibly geared to reducing systemic risk through providing for the “orderly liquidation” of banks and other financial institutions too big to fail.
Were the various government regulators to compare notes, they might ask each other whether branching off into trading commodities and owning storage facilities increase the banks’ systemic risk. By taking on market risk (i.e., of commodity and commercial real-estate markets) that is higher than the risks in commercial banking, the banks increase their systemic risk. Factor in the legal and reputational liabilities associated with price-fixing and racketeering and the systemic risk increases even more.
Therefore, beyond the question of collusion and restraint of trade in a side business, it can and should be asked whether banks should go into side businesses at all, given the matter of systemic risk. Focusing narrowly on whether lines formed at warehouses, and, moreover, debating secondary issues more generally, are at the very least distractions from the fundamental matter of systemic risk. To the extent that Dodd-Frank fails to curb such risk, we as a society put the economy and financial system at a higher risk of collapsing if we follow the government and the media in focusing too narrowly on just the possible wrong-doing of the bankers. Ironically, sustaining such a focus may be in the banks’ own financial interest.

---

[1] Melanie Burton, “Glencore, JPMorgan Sued Over Warehouse Aluminium Prices,” Reuters, August 7, 2013.

[2] Ibid.

The Financial Crisis of 2008: On the Role of Negligence Breaching Fiduciary Obligation

Roger Lowenstein laments that “New York Times columnist Joe Nocera lamented that ‘Wall Street bigwigs whose firms took unconscionable risks … aren't even on Justice's radar screen.’ A news story in the Times about a mortgage executive who was convicted of criminal fraud observed, ‘The Justice Dept. has yet to bring charges against an executive who ran a major Wall Street firm leading up to the disaster.’ In the same dispassionate tone, National Public Radio's All Things Considered chimed in, ‘Some of the most publicly reviled figures in the mortgage mess won't face any public accounting.’ New York magazine saw fit to print the estimable opinion of Bernie Madoff, who observed that the dearth of criminal convictions is ‘unbelievable.’ Rolling Stone, which has been beating this drum the longest and with the heaviest hand, reductively asked, ‘Why isn't Wall Street in jail?’”

Lowenstein interprets these sentiments as implying “that the financial crisis was caused by fraud; that people who take big risks should be subject to a criminal investigation; that executives of large financial firms should be criminal suspects after a crash; that public revulsion indicates likely culpability; that it is inconceivable (to Madoff, anyway) that people could lose so much money absent a conspiracy; and that Wall Street bears collective guilt for which a large part of it should be incarcerated.”

Lowenstein argues that “(t)hese assumptions do violence to our system of justice and hinder our understanding of the crisis. The claim that it was ‘caused by financial fraud’ is debatable, but the weight of the evidence is strongly against it. The financial crisis was accompanied by fraud, on the part of mortgage applicants as well as banks. It was caused, more nearly, by a speculative bubble in mortgages, in which bankers, applicants, investors, and regulators were all blind to risk. More broadly, the crash was the result of a tendency in our financial culture, especially after a period of buoyancy, to push leverage and risk-taking to the extreme.”

Lowenstein also ticks off a loose monetary policy (i.e., extremely low interest rates), unaccountability at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, weak financial regulation, and an overconfidence in “risk management” methods in arguing that we should not be reductionist in ascribing the crisis to fraud alone or even primarily.  

Analysis:

Lowenstein is undoubtedly on firm ground in labeling the crisis a “multi-causal” affair. In a general sense, the positive feedback loop wherein everyone benefitted from a rising housing market turned to a negative feedback loop once that market decided to take a hard landing. However, even though he makes a good point that criminal fraud was probably not pervasive on Wall Street, he downplays the litigation that is still possible in going after senior managers at Wall Street banks for negligently breaching their fiduciary obligations to stockholders—the negligence being in the sheer recklessness (which I suspect is a function of individual personalities).

For example, Richard Fuld essentially ignored his risk committee at Lehman Brothers as he added leverage up to forty times value in order to continue buying CDO’s and commercial real estate by the bucketful—his ultimate objective most likely being to bring the bank up to the big league (e.g., with banks such as Goldman Sachs). Would not such recklessness based on egotism constitute fiduciary negligence? It is as though Fuld were under the illusion that the stockholders’ wealth in the bank was his own because of how much of the stock he himself held.

As another example, even Alan Greenberg over at Bear Stearns may have been negligent in not alerting the board as Jim Cayne, the CEO at the time, became “more aloof and full of himself” even as two of the bank’s hedge funds were going down in July 2007 (Greenberg, p. 145). Incredibly, Cayne was playing in a card-game tournament in Nashville for over a week as the executive committee labored daily over whether to liquidate the two hedge funds at the bank that were losing money from their mortgage-related securities and the ensuing redemption calls from nervous investors. Virtually everyone in the senior management of Bear Stearns should have informed the board of Cayne's conduct (i.e., his priorities, which evinced immaturity befitting the man's pot-smoking at the tournaments and even at work). If the directors would have failed to act (e.g., being too cozy with Cayne), the board too should be held by stockholders as woefully negligent.

Furthermore, being on the risk committee, Greenberg may have been negligent in deferring to Warren Spector on the risk issuing from the fixed-income area (e.g., mortgage-backed securities). Claiming that Spector was “imperious” in that area is no excuse for Greenberg failing to exercise diligence given the amount of business the bank was doing in CDOs. Greenberg recounts that “multiple variables contributed to an extremely complex dynamic, yielding consequences that I hadn’t previously encountered” (Greenberg, p. 156). However, he admits to have told Warren a few years earlier to unload CDO’s within 90 days because of the risk involved. Greenberg simply gave up in pushing back from the financial pressure of the large profits being made. Accordingly, he gave up on due diligence on the risk committee and should be held accountable by Stearns stockholders. 

Incidentally, I admire Greenberg for his straightforward recounting of the events leading up to the collapse of his bank, even though I do not buy his account of his role on the risk committee. Perhaps the lesson is that even an ethically solid and competent person is fallable, and may even inadvertantly fall into a negligent pattern of complacency in the midst of momentary profit. The depth of the causes leading to the financial crisis may be evinced, moreover, in that a person such as Greenberg became unintentionally complicit. As Greenberg himself observes, Jamie Diamond at Morgan had urged his bank out of the mortgage-related securities business altogether as far back as 2006 as the housing market was peaking. From this vantage-point, Greenberg himself must surely know in hindsight that he had fellen short.

Whereas Lowenstein claims that one of the causes of the crisis was that risk management methods were followed, I contend that they were relegated or ignored even by the risk averse because the standards stood in the way of large profits. To be sure, Greenberg and others on risk committees relied on the AAA ratings from Moody’s and S & P (though Greenberg had been sufficiently worried to urge quick sales of the bonds). Even so, it should have been prime facie evident that a mortgage-based bond is not a Treasury bond. Furthermore, the rating agencies’ managements should not be held blameless, as they did the bidding of Bear Stearns and Lehman in exchange for lucrative fees;  there was undoubtedly fraud or at least negligence in this conflict of interest.  

Whereas fraud may have been limited largely to salesmen at mortgage brokerage firms and the rating agencies, breaches in fiduciary obligation were, I suspect, running rampant on Wall Street. In other words, money being easy and regulation being light (or non-existent in the case of the CDOs) did not give the banks’ managements a pass on their fiduciary obligation to exercise a duty of care over stockholder’s equity in the banks. Whereas cheap leverage and lack of oversight are context, recklessness with others’ wealth may constitute the principal cause—the lack of concern for risk being part of it.

Generally speaking, boards allowed senior managements—as evinced in the persons of Dick Fuld and Jim Cayne—far too much rope with which to hang themselves. It is astounding to me that people like Fuld and Cayne were able to get anywhere near the authority of a CEO. Their glaring immaturity and incompetence may point to a systemic problem in corporate governance going far beyond what even institutional stockholders realize. It would seem that the boards of Lehman and Stearns were either asleep or in somebody’s pocket (which involves at the very lease a stark conflict of interest). Although holding the managers accountable for their recklessness leading up to the financial crisis of 2008 would be a step in the right direction, stockholder interest warrants systemic reforms to corporate governance itself such that “upper” managements are given much shorter leashes (and stature).  

Sources:

Roger Lowenstein, “Why No Wall St. Bigwig Has Been Prosecuted,” MSNBC.com, May 16, 2011.

Alan Greenberg, The Rise and Fall of Bear Stearns (NY: Simon and Schuster, 2010).

The Downfall of MF Global: Implications for Banks Too Big To Fail

Here is an alphabet-soup of regulatory agencies that let MF Global, a financial services company that specialized in futures-trading, engage in much, too much, risk: SEC, CME, CFTC and FINRA. On one level, regulators will never be able to stop practitioners from making risky or simply bad decisions; a business system populated only by firms above average is by definition impossible. As long as their managers have any freedom of movement at all, some firms, including some in the financial sector, will inevitably fail. The question I want to pose is whether this means that firms too big to fail (TBTF) should be allowed to exist at all. In short, although MF Global itself was not TBTF, the risk Corzine (who had been chairman of Goldman Sachs) permitted suggests that human nature might be insufficiently disposed to support mammoth concentrations of private capital whose fall could mean the collapse of the financial system itself. Ultimately, I suppose, human nature can only go so far, organizationally speaking.

MF Global admitted to $630 million in missing customer funds. Although accounting errors and bank-cushions could account for the discrepancy, MF Global used customer funds to loan itself money. To be able to do so, the former U.S. Senator and Governor of New Jersey, Jon Corzine, met personally as head of MF Global with federal regulators to get them to relax their proposed rule that would have forbid such a loan. According to the New York Times, financing by borrowing customer funds is not unheard of on Wall Street, but is “carries substantial risk.”

Corzine’s influence with the regulatory agencies may have been similar to the role that Madoff’s status played in his dealings with the SEC. It would seem that regulators are readily “captured” by high status alone—never mind relying on the regulated firms for information and possibly even being influenced by political contributions via elected officials acting on the behalf of big donors. Given the riskiness in borrowing customer funds without the traditional banking oversight of lending, the regulatory “status lapse” syndrome is dangerous—particularly if a firm TBTF is involved. In other words, might we be rolling the dice in Dodd Frank by relying so much on regulators? The possible mix of duplicity and risky multi-billion dollar bets at MF Global should drive home this point.

People at an exchange that cleared trades for MF Global have indicated that Corzine’s firm might have moved money out of customer accounts “in a manner . . . designed to avoid detection” as the firm headed toward collapse. CME Group, the parent company of the Chicago and New York Mercantile Exchanges, indicated that it appears that MF Global dipped into customer accounts after CME finished an onsite review of the securities firm during the last week of October, 2011. The CME statement read in part, “It now appears that the firm made subsequent transfers of customer segregated funds in a manner that may have been designed to avoid detection insofar as MF Global did not disclose or report such transfers to the [Commodity Futures Trading Commission] or CME until early morning on Monday, October 31, 2011.” CME served as a clearing house for trades that were made through MF Global, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Meanwhile, questions regarding MF Global’s $6.3 billion bet on E.U. state debt and the scrutiny by regulators were mounting, according to the Journal. That any bet would be for such a sum ought to raise a red flag for the firm making the bet. Although MF Global was not TBTF, the managers’ willingness to take on such risk suggests that the mentality to take on extraordinary risk carries on in the financial industry. This finding may render the very existence of financial firms deemed too big to fail as something we might want to revisit through legislation. In other words, if bets worth billions of dollars on European government debt were going on through the E.U. debt crisis, the risk alone (to say nothing of the utter stupidity) may suggest that financial-sector firms that are too big to fail are also too big to exist—especially if regulatory scrutiny is insufficient. The risk and the numbers may have reached a dangerous level, given how human nature treats risk (and the limits of human cognition).

Paul Volcker admitted on Charlie Rose in late October 2011 that he never thought he would talk in terms of trillions of dollars, but there it is, that day had arrived and with it, the horrendous risk of banks being too big to fail. Whereas Citigroup had $1.63 trillion in total assets at the end of June 2006, the bank had $1.94 trillion at the end of the third quarter 2011. Comparable figures for Bank of America are $1.45 trillion and $2.22 trillion. JP Morgan Chase: $1.33 trillion and $2.29 trillion. Wells Fargo: $500 billion and $1.3 trillion. Where is the lesson on TBTF from September 2008? It is as if the credit crisis and fall of Lehman Brothers had not happened. Thomas Hoenig, former Kansas City Fed chairman, said in a speech in February 2011, “We must break up the largest banks.” He said the government could do so by restricting the activities of government-backed banks “and significantly narrowing the scope of institutions that are now more powerful and more of a threat to our capitalist system than prior to the crisis.” According to the Wall Street Journal, regulators “can ultimately force a firm to sell off parts of itself if they don’t believe a firm could be wound down without threatening others.” Although Hoenig said he is not against BIG, just too big to fail, so it is possible that the biggest banks could show that “they are manageable, that their risk will not impact the taxpayer in the future,” I contend that the mere existence of concentrations of $1.94, $2.22, $2.29 and $1.3 trillion is inherently dangerous to the financial system and the greater economy. If even one of those should go under all at once, assuming losses are involved, investors, business managers, bankers and even consumers would surely hear a subtle fiscal “thud” and react aversely, even if in a self-fulfilling prophesy. If Wall Street bankers did not learn a lesson from September 2008, however, that “thud” could be far more than psychological. The example of MF Global may suggest that the bankers on Wall Street did indeed continue on in being all too willing to make risky multi-billion-dollar bets, having “slept through” the shrieking “wake-up call” of the financial crisis of 2008. The resumption of the extravagant bonus culture strongly suggests that the bankers still had an incentive to bet big with little regard for risk.

Treating the mega bank as too big to exist as a mega bank does not depend on regulatory scrutiny, which can be subject to the “status syndrome”; rather, once a firm hits the pre-established threshold, the regulators would simply come in and orderly “smash the atom” such that smaller firms result (with different owners, managers and employees—unlike the case of the companies coming out of Standard Oil, which had the same ownership and whose executives were even allowed to continue working in the same building!).

I think perhaps we presume too much regarding human nature, given the edifices we build ever higher and higher, as if in testament to the self-idolatry of our presumption that we cannot be wrong. Lest we come too close to the sun and turn our cities into deserts, we might want to fly our chariots a bit closer to the ground.

                                                

Sources:

Jean Eaglesham, Aaron Luchetti, and Jacob Bunge, “Regulators Enter the MF Fray,” The Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2011. 

Azam Ahmed and Ben Protess, “As Regulators Pressed Changes, Corzine Pushed Back, and Won,” The New York Times, November 4, 2011. 

Victoria McGrane, “Banks’ Critic Poised to Be Head of FDIC,” The Wall Street Journal, November 18, 2011. 

The SEC and the Courts on Wall Street Settlements in 2011

The SEC enforcement staff, including its chief, Robert Khuzami, decided to kick a gift horse in the mouth rather than to “take a lesson” and perhaps come out stronger for it. At issue was the rejection by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of the SEC’s proposed $285 million settlement with Citigroup. In his ruling, Rakoff denounced the penalty as “pocket change” to the bank, which would not even have to admit to any wrongdoing. Investors duped into buying into a $1 billion deal called Class V Funding III had lost $700 million. Betting at the time of issue against half of the assets in the deal, Citigroup did not share knowledge of its hedge with the investors.

The reaction of the SEC staff in Khuzami’s department was simply to “put down their pencils” and wonder how they should go about arranging settlements with financial firms accused of misconduct before and during the financial crisis of 2008. The SEC “doesn’t know what to ask for anymore in the settlements,” one of the people familiar with the Citigroup settlement said. Rather than take the judge’s judgment to heart, Khuzami urged the five-person commission running the SEC to vote to approve an appeal, and they did so. Rather than take the less convenient course of insisting that the banks too big to fail that manipulated their own clients at least admit wrong-doing and reimburse the losses, Khuzami viewed the judge’s ruling as if it were a political obstacle to be obviated by asking an appellate court to ignore it. Given the political muscle that must surely go with Citigroup’s wealth, Khuzami could have been assuming that the bankers would see to it that sufficient pressure would plied on enough appellate judges to make the obstacle easily avoidable. In other words, Khuzami was likely assuming that Rakoff was a fluke, given Citi’s influence—perhaps even in the SEC itself.

Considering the power of regulated banks such as Citigroup, it is not unreasonable to expect the chief executive of the U.S. Government, the President of the United States, to deviate from his avocation of influencing legislation far beyond his minority role as a veto. Rather than spending so much time hitting the stump to get voters to 1) influence their representatives in the legislature and 2) re-elect him, the president could get involved in the question of whether the verdict would be appealed. Lest it be said that that would introduce politics into the mix, I would counter that politics were already very much in the mix both in terms of the five-person SEC vote and in Khuzami’s response to the ruling (i.e., as an obstacle rather than as something to incorporate into future settlement offers). I would even say that politics was involved in Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s blessing of the decision to appeal, and therefore also likely a factor in the president’s decision not to intervene. Citi (and one of its major stockholders) had been Geithner’s sponsor when he was chosen to be president of the New York Federal Reserve.

Politics might also have been involved in the timing of the SEC’s announcement on the day following the appeal decision that the agency was suing the former chief executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for misleading investors and Congress on the volume of subprime mortgages on the books. Khuzami made the announcement himself, and it was well-covered in the media. Lest the decision to appeal in order to save a settlement deemed by a judge as too friendly to a major Wall Street bank be viewed with lackluster by the public, the timing of the Fannie and Freddie announcement could be anticipated to quickly impose a perception of going after the bad guys—even if the two conveniently-demonized organizations had been taken over by the very government that was suing them. The public would not be likely to suspect a double-standard for private-sector, well-connected banks, such as Citigroup.

Regardless of the political connections of Wall Street banks, for the U.S. president to tell the public that Wall Street should be held accountable only to look the other way on the SEC’s appeal decision—perhaps with the stated reason that politics should not be involved—seems duplicitous at best. As the chief executive, the president has a legitimate superordinate role to play in overseeing the decisions in the agencies within the executive branch. For a chief executive to claim that he or she should not impose on a subordinate department is a good indication that a subterranean agenda is in play. Furthermore, such an excuse evinces a refusal to assume responsibility (see #2 above). Too accustomed to seeing presidents obsess over pending legislation and propose still more (and act as commander in chief as well as figure head), the American citizenry has nearly lost any appetite for holding its presidents accountable as the chief executive of the executive branch—which extends beyond the West Wing. In the case of the SEC’s decision, the president was doubtless not willing to overrule his Treasury Secretary for political reasons.

Rather than deciding to appeal the ruling, the SEC should have accepted—with the president’s (or Treasury Secretary’s) intervention if necessary—the judge’s feedback as valid. Given the power and “too big to fail” risk of financial institutions like Citigroup, the government regulators act recklessly in accepting a “pocket change” no-guilt settlement. In announcing the decision to appeal, Khuzami said Rakoff’s position was “at odds with decades of court decisions that have upheld similar settlements by federal and state agencies across the country.” Precedent for precedent’s sake could merely be a vote for the status quo that favors even the fraudulent on Wall Street. We cannot assume that the stream of past court decisions necessary warrant being kept.

Clearly, Khuzami believed that requiring wrongdoers on Wall Street to admit to the wrongdoing would backfire on the government. Requiring an admission of guilt from defendants “could in practical terms press the SEC to trial in many more instances, likely resulting in fewer cases overall and less money being returned to investors,” Khuzami said. Just because powerful banks have a lot of money and power to throw at a trial, however, does not mean that the U.S. Government should cower over in trepidation or try to out-maneuver an inconvenient ruling that can actually be useful. Had he kept to the judge’s ruling, Khuzami could have gone back to Citi to say that more would be needed to avert a trial. It would not be his own opinion, after all, and contrary to Khuzami’s view, a judge’s opinion is not just an opinion; it is a ruling.

As for the issue of money damages and the number of trials, Khuzami was missing the forest for a few trees. For the viability of the U.S. and global financial system (and economy), banks too big to fail should be held accountable. It is therefore worthwhile even going to trial and staying the course through any appeals fueled by the banks’ deep pockets. At the very least, establishing a few precedents in terms of seeing that justice is served might have aided in the SEC’s credibility in negotiating settlements with teeth. Higher money damages would undoubtedly have followed.

In short, it would appear that the staff at the SEC needed more of a public service mission in which they could feel that they were making a difference in standing up to real power. In other words, they were not sufficiently fighters for the public good—the viability of the financial system and the economy as a whole. Instead, they were too interested in taking the route that is most convenient in terms of fear and stasis. It is in this realm that the chief executive can and should lead, if indeed he has that fire in his belly.

Sources:

Jean Eaglesham and Suzanne Kapner, “SEC Cops Want to Fight U.S. Judge,” The Wall Street Journal, December 15, 2011. 

David Hilzenrath, “SEC to Appeal Federal Judge’s Rejection of Citigroup Deal,” The Washington Post, December 15, 2011. 

Chad Bray and Nick Timiraos, “SEC Sues Former Fannie, Freddie Executives,” The Wall Street Journal, December 16, 2011.