Beyond Fixing the U.S. Government's Debt

After a number of failed attempts over decades to solve a problem, it is natural that the problem itself would barely get mentioned, let alone any cure. I submit that the U.S. federal debt is a case in point. President Reagan made it an issue in 1980, and Congress has tried to mandate for itself automatic spending cuts and tax increases, but to no avail. The desire for instant gratification outstripped self-discipline. This could perhaps be said of the society generally. 
In anticipation of the “fiscal cliff” steep U.S. tax increases and budget cuts that were set to go into effect January 2013 for a decade, Moody’s Investor Service served notice to Americans and their federal government that the sequestration of $1 trillion over the ten years and the immediate end of the Bush Tax Cuts would mean a downgrade in the credit rating of the U.S. Government. The New York Times reported that the rating agency, like S&P before, “emphasized political dysfunction more than soaring government debt. The agency said that Washington must come to agreement to head off billions of dollars in simultaneous tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to begin in January—and to put the government on a sustainable fiscal trajectory. Only then would the United States keep its AAA rating.”[1] Moody’s pointed to the need for “specific policies that produce a stabilization and then [a] downward trend in the ratio of federal debt to G.D.P. over the medium term.”[2] 

Moody's Investor Services     (Reuters)

Significant reductions in spending over ten years, plus an immediate end of the tax-rate reductions that George W. Bush had signed into law, would presumably have produced a downward trend in the ratio of federal debt to G.D.P. over the medium as well as long term unless a recessionary impact would be such as to counter the effect from the sequestration and tax increases. Pressure would have built to exempt spending on unemployment compensation and other sustenance programs, while the tax revenue would have fallen short. In other words, the sequestration, had it been allowed, would not have been a sure thing in reducing the federal debt. 
As of June, 2019, the debt stood at over $22 trillion. The will in a democratic system to take corrective action can be so deficient that a serious problem can get much worse. Whereas the rating agencies were ready to downgrade the U.S. Government's credit rating when the debt stood at $16.7 trillion, no such warning went up six years later when the debt was substantially more and no hint of any sequestration was in the air. 
Ronald Reagan had made balancing the federal budget a salient part of his 1980 platform, though once in office he pushed for tax cuts and increases in defense spending that undercut prospects for a balanced budget. The experiment in whether cutting taxes could actually boost tax revenue due to more economic activity failed. In 2013, sequestration failed even to launch. It is no wonder that as the debt passed the $20 trillion mark, the political discourse had given up on a cure. That such a debt might be too big to be paid off, that the U.S. Government was de facto already out of reach, was never mentioned even in conversation. 

1. Jonathan Weisman, “Moody’s Warns That U.S. May Face Debt Downgrade,” The New York Times, September 12, 2012.
2. Ibid.

Holding the U.S. Debt-Ceiling Hostage: A Case of Political Expediency over Statesmanship

In April of 2011, S & P lowered expectations on U.S. Government debt from “stable” to “negative.”  Astonishing, the $14.2 trillion U.S. debt was still rated as AAA. The shift in expectations did not trigger higher borrowing costs because the market presumed that a political deal lowering the deficit would be facilitated by the warning-call. At the same time, Congress and the U.S. president were grappling with the need to extend the federal debt ceiling. The federal government was projected at the time to reach its borrowing limit by May 16, 2011, though the Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, said he could use accounting options to push the date back to July 8. He assured the public that Republicans in Congress had told President Obama that they would go along with a higher limit. “I want to make it perfectly clear that Congress will raise the debt ceiling,” the Geithner said.  He also said the Republican leaders had assured the president that they “couldn’t play around with the government’s credit rating. They recognize it, and they told the president that.”[1] Such a recognition and statement by the Republican leadership, if true, would evince statesmanship over political expediency, for Republican lawmakers could have leveraged their votes on raising the ceiling to get more in negotiations on the budget. This would be particularly notable considering that appropriations to keep the U.S. Government's non-essential operations going were pawns in a Congressional-presidential power-struggle during the Trump administration. 

However, Rep. Paul Ryan, chair of the U.S. House Budget Committee and later to become Speaking of the House, said that while it was true that nobody wanted the U.S. Treasury to default, “(w)e want cuts in spending accompanying a raising of the debt ceiling. And that is what we have been telling the White House.” A spokesperson for Obama said a debt ceiling vote could not be contingent on upcoming negotiations over the budget.  So, in effect, the matter of default on the U.S. debt was being used for leverage in negotiations rather than held as untouchable.  It is no wonder S & P lowered its expectations concerning the ability of U.S. Government officials to avoid default by failing to raise the federal debt limit. Had the lower expectations been assumed to be a wake-up call for federal lawmakers and the executive, S & P would have been naive.

To say that no one wants default but then to hold it ransom is disingenuous and duplicitous. It is as if to say, “I don’t want to do it but I have to,” when in fact the deed does not have to do it. We see such statements from corporate managers and customer service employees. “Unfortunately, that can’t be done”—weakness that seeks to dominate typically takes assumes the passive voice as if to hide—when in fact the person or especially his boss could. Company policies are in actuality guidelines. Sadly, customers typically enable the false rigidity by taking it at face value rather than questioning it by going above the employee or even manager. 

Rep. Ryan could have resisted the temptation to gain greater advantage on the budget by holding the debt ceiling hostage. Even if he made the statement to cover himself with his political base in Janesville, Wisconsin, he bore responsibility for giving the appearance of putting partisan advantage over statesmanship.  

Given the encroaching nature of expediency whether for power or profit (or both), even verbal statements can get the ball rolling even for other political parties. Soon the government's duty to act in the public interest becomes a mere byproduct, as if by accident rather than primary intention. Given human nature, political expediency and the desire to make even more money are inherently antithetical to any self-enforced limitation. Hence in government, we can say that statesmanship involves voluntarily giving force to a self-imposed constraint or limitation. 

1, “Geithner Confident Congress Will Raise Borrowing Limit,” USA Today, April 18, 2011, p. 6A.

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).

Apollo Global Flew Too Close to the Sun: Personal and Institutional Conflicts of Interest

I submit that people tend to get more upset over the exploitation of personal conflicts of interest than the institutional sort. That is to say, our blood boils when we learn of another person contravening a duty in order to gain financially, yet we don’t mind when a CPA firm falsely gives a qualified opinion on an audit so the company being audited will continue with that audit firm the following year. Logically, as the money involved is more in the case of the CPA firm and individuals within the firm stand to benefit personally as the firm is enriched by the continued business, yet even so, we cannot stand direct personal enrichment resulting from a conflict of interest. In August, 2016, Apollo Global, a large private equity firm, settled with the SEC. Both personal and institutional conflicts of interest brought on the $53 million fine. Hence, this case is useful in comparing the two sorts of conflicts of interest.

The S.E.C. accused the private equity firm of misleading investors and failing to supervise a senior executive who was twice caught “improperly charging personal items and services” to Apollo’s funds (and, by extension, to the investors).[1] Misleading investors here is an institutional conflict of interest because the activity is 1) systemic in an organization rather than being done by a person and 2) premised on the institutional relationship between the investor class and the firm. A person improperly charging personal items constitutes a personal conflict of interest because the individual’s personal gain is put before the person’s obligation to the company. In both cases, a narrower gain supplants a wider benefit, which in turn is usually associated with a duty.

The misleading of investors involves the private equity firm’s failure to inform its investors of “so-called monitoring fees.”[2] Apollo had been charging the fees to some of the companies it owned as compensation for the consulting and advice it had provided to them. The Apollo executives were essentially breaking out the supervisory aspect of owning a company and charging the latter for it. In short, Apollo was charging some of its companies for being owned. The private equity firm was even accelerating the monitoring fees when one of its companies was about to be sold or gone public. Specifically, “Apollo would accelerate the remaining years of monitoring fees into lump-sum payments.”[3] According to the S.E.C., these payments effectively reduced the “amounts available for distribution to fund investors.”[4] Apollo, and therefore its management, stood to gain. This represents a narrowing of the beneficiary group (from the companies and the fund’s investors to Apollo itself) by exploiting the fund’s duty to inform its investors. This is known as an exploitation of a conflict of interest.

Regarding the personal conflict of interest, one of Apollo’s senior executives submitted “fabricated information to Apollo in an effort to conceal his conduct” from 2010 to mid-2013.[5] The SEC charged Apollo’s management with knowing of the manager’s misconduct yet failing to do anything about it. In charging the fund for personal items, the manager gained personally, while the fund paid the price. Hence, here again the narrowing of a benefit is involved. The manager exploited his duty to report only work-related expenses in order to gain personally.

Which conflict of interest here aggravates you more? Another person enriching himself—stealing, in effect—or the fund’s charging its companies for functions that are part of ownership and misleading investors about it? I contend that most people would say the former, even though the misleading of fund investors has been a recurring problem. “A common theme in our recent enforcement actions against private equity firms is their failure to properly disclose fees and conflicts of interest to fund investors,” said Andrew Ceresney, the S.E.C.’s head of enforcement.[vi] Ceresney could cite the Blackstone Group and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company as just two such cases.

I submit the following explanation. We humans are more easily resentful of other people enriching themselves unethically than of organized groups of people doing the same thing institutionally. A person found stealing raises our ire more than a company found misleading investors so to profit more at their expense. Something about groups and institutionalization mitigates our reactions. As a result, better legislation and improved regulatory enforcement oriented to breaking up institutional conflicts of interest (even before they are exploited!) find insufficient political will. The Dodd-Frank financial reform law of 2010, coming on the heels of a major financial crisis, thus leaves the CPA and rating company conflicts of interest in tact. We can expect, likewise, that private equity firms will continue to be tempted to exploit their conflicts of interest even as individual managers found to be stealing from the company "trough" will face prosecution. I contend that American society, including its business sector, could do worse than regard institutional conflicts of interest as more rather than less harmful than the personal variety.

---

1. Ben Protess, “Apollo Global Settles Securities Case as S.E.C. Issues $53 Million Fine,” The New York Times, August 23, 2016.

2.Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

BuzzFeed’s Internal Firewalls Fall to a Conflict of Interest

In spite of the fact that public-accounting firms rely on their respective audit clients’ decisions to be retained to perform the next year’s audit, society deems an unqualified audit-opinion to be independent. The assumption is that the audit firms can police themselves, keeping their financial pressures from influencing the audit opinions. The ongoing temptation is of course to produce a clean opinion so as to be retained as the client’s public accountants. Unfortunately, someone at a given CPA firm must have authority requiring attention both to audit opinions and the firm’s own financial performance; internal policies separating pressure from the latter from reaching the former can thus be easily overcome from the vantage point of that authority. This vulnerability was on display in 2015 in the “dot-com” industry in BuzzFeed.


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

Standard & Poors: Internal Controls Enabling a Conflict of Interest

After the financial crisis of 2008, rating agencies reassured the public that additional “internal safeguards” would prevent the sort of over-stated ratings that had contributed to the crisis. Congress did not deconstruct the structural conflict of interest wherein a rating agency is tempted to overstate the rating on financial security such as a corporate bond because the agency’s revenue would be higher if more of the bonds are sold. I contend that reliance on a company’s internal “fire walls” is naïve, given the strong, sustained temptation that exists as long as an institutional or structural conflict of interest is in place. To obviate the problem, the conflict itself must be deconstructed.

The full essay is at "Standard & Poors."

Facebook’s IPO: Morgan Stanley’s Conflict of Interest

Morgan Stanley’s underwriting of Facebook’s IPO has been thought by some of the bank’s rivals to be incompetently managed.  According to the New York Times, “(r)ival bankers and big investors have complained that Morgan Stanley botched the I.P.O., setting the price too high and selling too many shares to the public.”[1] Interestingly, the incompetence is positively correlated with unethical policy decisions at the bank. Even as the bankers as underwriters were eager to sell lots of shares, they may have given some of their institutional customers—albeit only the most preferred, as per the bank’s other services—some privileged information. If this charge is true, the conflict of interest at the bank should be closely examined by Congress and any relevant regulators.

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

1. Evelyn Rusli and Michael De La Merced, “Facebook I.P.O. Raises Regulatory Concerns,” The New York Times, May 22, 2012.

dit Downgrades in the E.U.: Blaming the Messenger?

On January 13, 2012, “S&P stripped France and Austria of their prized triple-A credit ratings and reduced the ratings of seven other [states in the euro-zone], including Italy, Spain and Portugal. Germany, Finland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg were spared, along with Belgium, Estonia and Ireland.”[1] Italy was downgraded from single-A to triple-B-plus. "We think there are elements missing in their analysis … when it comes to the growth strategy … there is no space for maneuver for fiscal impetus but we believe that a growth strategy will have to rely mainly on structural reforms," Olivier Bailly, an E.U. Government spokesman, told reporters.[2] “Bailly also called the timing of the S&P decisions ‘very odd’ citing fiscal policies adopted to weather the crisis in the downgraded countries as well as the two successful debt auctions in Spain and Italy last week. ‘We think that there is a strange timing in this announcement considering the signals from the markets,’ Mr. Bailly said.”[3] The “very odd” and “strange timing” reference a tacit political motive behind S&P, which the European officials point out is an American company.

The full essay is at "Essays on the E.U. Political Economy," available at Amazon.

1. Christopher Emsden, Matina Stevis, and Bernd Radowitz, “E.U. Leaders Focuson ‘Progress’,” The Wall Street Journal, January 16, 2012.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

Fraud at S&P: A Conflict of Interest

By the summer of 2011, the U.S. Government had brought relatively few cases against large financial institutions for their roles in the financial crisis of 2008. For instance, the government investigated Washington Mutual and Countrywide without taking any further action in spite of reports of “liars’ loans.” In the case of the three major ratings agencies, the business model “is riddled with conflicts of interest, since rating agencies might make their grades more positive to please their customers. Before the financial crisis,“banks shopped around to make sure rating agencies would award favorable ratings before agreeing to work with [one of the agencies].”[1] In spite of accounts of the agencies’ mixing of business and ratings, the Dodd-Frank law of 2010 retained the issuer-pays business model while putting the agencies on the same legal liability level as accounting firms. 


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

1.  Louise Story, “Justice Inquiry Is Said to Focus on S&P Ratings,” The New York Times, August 18, 2011. 

European Banks Ignoring the E.U.

As banks based in the empire-scale E.U.'s state of the United Kingdom decided to pull back their operations around the world in mid 2011, the bankers may have overlooked key distinctions between their banks’ operations within the E.U. and internationally. Besides ignoring the converging impact of E.U. financial regulation within the E.U., the bankers were discounting the proposal of European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet for a European rating agency. The proposal implies that certain advantages can be had for the E.U. as a whole—benefits that Lloyds, for example, implicitly discounted to the extent that the bank treated pulling back in the states of Ireland, the Netherlands, and Spain similar to pulling back in Dubai, which is not an E.U. state.

The full essay is at "Essays on the E.U. Political Economy," available at Amazon.

Rating Moody’s and S & P: A Structural Conflict of Interest

For years, banks and other issuers have paid rating agencies to rate their securities. This is a bit like restaurants paying food critics to write on their food.  In the wake of the SEC’s charge that  people at Goldman Sachs built the Abacus investment to fall apart so a hedge fund manager, John A. Paulson, could bet against it, the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations questioned representatives from Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s about how they rate risky securities. Carl M. Levin, the Michigan Democrat who heads the Senate panel, said in a statement: “A conveyor belt of high-risk securities, backed by toxic mortgages, got AAA ratings that turned out not to be worth the paper they were printed on.” Throughout the testimony, the institutional conflict of interest was salient whereby credit-rating agencies put market-share considerations foremost in rating securities presented by the banks that are paying the agencies.

The full essay is at Institutional Conflicts of Interest, available at Amazon. 

Paper Tigers: Firewalls Forestalling Institutional Conflicts of Interest

Structural, or institutional, conflicts of interest are of great significance in applied ethics, even though they often play second fiddle to the conflicts centered on a person’s particular interests. An organizational or institutional conflict of interest, whether within one organization or in the arrangements between organizations, is not any less unethical than a personal conflict of interest.  Therefore, when we take the claims of vested organizational interests that their internal firewalls are more than just paper tigers at face value, our foolhardiness can really be at our detriment. I present a few cases to suggest that “firewalls” in an organization to prevent it from a conflict of interest are, in general, insufficient and thus ought not be relied on. Instead, the public (or government regulatory agencies) should insist that one of the two interests in an institutional conflict of interest be given up.

The full essay is at Institutional Conflicts of Interest, available at Amazon.