Former Tennessee congressman Harold Ford Jr.'s northern exposure

Ford's investor-friendly positions as chairman of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council make him an ideal vehicle to protest Obama's "fat cat" insults and Schumer's post-crisis interest in financial regulation. Is that what you're looking for, New York?

By Jason Horowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 15, 2010; C01

Harold Ford Jr. has gone viral.

"You can judge from the editorials in the city, and just the response in the city and in the state that people don't want party bosses telling anyone that you can't run," Ford said in a phone interview between meetings in New York on Thursday afternoon. "People want an independent strong voice representing New York in the Senate."

The former Tennessee congressman has reintroduced himself as public muller of a primary challenge against New York's low-polling junior senator, Kirsten Gillibrand (D). Ford has resided in New York for less time than many of the grad students taking his "political reality" class at New York University and he has no discernible support from the Democratic establishment. His conservative record on gay rights, abortion and gun control is so out of step with the party's primary voters that it makes Gillibrand's right-leaning record look progressive. Ford, the son of Tennessee's first black congressman, took a job as a Bank of America Merrill Lynch executive, and has cultivated a core constituency of Wall Street donors, many of whom are frustrated with President Obama's regulatory crackdown and what they see as a sudden cold shoulder from Sen. Chuck Schumer. Yet for all those moneyed ties, Ford has raised nothing -- literally, zilch -- to rival the millions of dollars in Gillibrand's coffers.

But as a shoestring publicity campaign for the Harold Ford brand, his 2010 media blitz has all been something to behold.

The New York political media, famished for a competitive political contest, has been more than willing to entertain this outsider as a potential contender for Gillibrand's seat. Ford, a talented 39-year-old with a book, titled "More Davids Than Goliaths," coming out a few weeks before the U.S. Senate primary this September, has cast his nascent primary challenge as that of a principled Democratic insurgent, staring down Schumer and Obama administration officials who have protected Gillibrand from opponents in the party.

In the interview, Ford said that the notion that he was doing this for publicity was "insulting to voters."

New Yorkers, he said, deserve a candidate who would fight for their interests, tax breaks and a health-care overhaul beneficial to the state, which he believes is not being done now. "Independence and jobs" were his echoing watchwords. "That's not about publicity," Ford said "That's real."

So, too, is the tacit approval of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who privately boosted Caroline Kennedy's Senate bid after Hillary Clinton was appointed secretary of state. A year later, Bloomberg appears less invested though decidedly comfortable with letting his loyal operatives make a few bucks; his pollster Doug Schoen and campaign manager Bradley Tusk are advising Ford.

Like Bloomberg, Ford defends Wall Street bonuses as critical to the city's tax base. When asked in the interview whether he himself had received a bonus from his employer, his spokesman, Davidson Goldin, interrupted, as he did on other topics not related to Ford's rationale for running, which the media handler understood to be the sole focus of the interview. At that point in the interview, Ford stayed silent, but Goldin later offered that Ford's "salary is set by contract."

While Ford refused to compare himself to politicians who ultimately dropped their primary bids against Gillibrand, he acknowledged that his has been received differently.

"Maybe it's the benefit of time. People have had the opportunity to experience some of the policies passed in Washington," said Ford, adding, "and there is dissatisfaction with Senator Gillibrand."

Gillibrand, who has sat back and waited for intervention on her behalf from Schumer or the White House, is getting more involved.

"The notion that 'Tennessee' Harold Ford is an independent outsider is completely contrived," said Jefrey Pollock, Gillibrand's political adviser. "But his extreme views against reproductive rights, against marriage equality and against immigration are all too real. Kirsten Gillibrand is not backing down from this fight."

* * *

For Ford's rebel rationale to have any credibility, he needed a villain. He found one in Schumer, his former benefactor who raised money and campaigned for Ford during his narrow defeat to Bob Corker in the 2006 U.S. Senate race in Tennessee. Schumer has successfully swatted away Gillibrand's would-be primary challengers, and Ford argued that party pressure on him not to run "exacerbated" the situation and sped up his timetable.

"The only person Chuck Schumer has to blame is himself and his fellow Washington insiders for having the gall to interfere with a free election," said Goldin, Ford's spokesman. "And for blocking an independent Democrat from running."

But according to a source in Schumer's office familiar with conversations between Schumer and Ford, the senator called Ford after a November Politico story reported that the Memphis native was exploring his chances against Gillibrand. They agreed to a face-to-face meeting to discuss Ford's New York political future. But on the morning of the meeting, the New York Times reported that Ford was "weighing" a challenge to Gillibrand. In the days that followed, the Times reported the substance of the meeting under the headline "Schumer Urges Ford Not to Run."

"The only person the senator has talked to about Ford not running was Ford himself," said a person close to Schumer, who was granted anonymity to discuss the private conversations. The Schumer intimate suggested that Ford exploited his meeting with Schumer to build up his insurgent story line.

"He has not talked to anyone else because he has no interest in feeding this David-versus-Goliath fairy tale that seems to be the only thing the Ford campaign has going for it right now," the person close to Schumer said.

The Ford camp denies any such setup.

The White House and leaders in Washington have been less careful about fueling the Ford phenomenon. During a White House briefing on Jan. 11, press secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated the administration's support for Gillibrand. But then by telling reporters to "stay tuned" for administration efforts to knock Ford out, Gibbs may have unwittingly boosted Ford's status as an anti-establishment comer.

On Jan. 12, Ford sat down again for dinner with Schoen, the Bloomberg pollster, at the apartment of Richard Plepler, an HBO executive who is taking a leading role in promoting Ford's potential candidacy, according to a source with knowledge of the dinner who was granted anonymity to speak of the private meeting. Ford has also kept in daily touch with Tusk, Bloomberg's reelection manager.

"I'm involved a lot and Mayor Bloomberg is not," said Tusk, who said he is providing free advice for now but would sign on with Ford if he runs. As might be expected in New York politics, Tusk is himself a former aide to Schumer. "I deeply admire and respect Chuck and always have," he said. "But Gillibrand is her own entity."

Tusk argued that while Ford is not a household name among regular New York voters yet, he "has the ability to be known. The ability to raise money and the ability, clearly, to do press."

* * *

The one constituency with whom Ford does have high name-recognition is the city's top Democratic bundlers. "At least among my friends, Harold has an extremely strong base," said Orin Kramer, an investor at Boston Provident whose early support for Obama imbued him with gravity in the New York donor firmament. While Ford has yet to raise a cent for the race, Kramer said he would have financial support if he in fact ran.

"People regard him quite properly as an extraordinary political talent," Kramer said.

"We bonded with him years ago and he is one of our friends," said Robert Zimmerman, another influential fundraiser and Democratic National Committeeman. But according to several of these bundlers, it's not all about friendship. A show of support for Ford's potential candidacy also sends a message to Washington.

Ford's investor-friendly positions as chairman of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council make him an ideal vehicle to protest Obama's "fat cat" insults and Schumer's post-crisis interest in financial regulation.

"Mr. President, you did what you need to do, we now have to do what we have to do," said one prominent member of New York's Democratic donor universe, who was granted anonymity to freely reflect the sentiments of his peers. The donor said Wall Street needed to elect Ford as a "champion for New York's economy and financial services sector," because Schumer "is preoccupied with being majority leader and a national leader, and our junior senator is a second vote for Chuck."

("Nobody stands up for New York's economy more than Senator Schumer," said Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon. "But that doesn't mean doing whatever the banks want even when they're wrong.")

Many of these donors are simply underwhelmed by Gillibrand, whose garrulousness is much noted, and have not embraced her as they did Clinton before her. Gillibrand has expressed irritation at her inability to crack into the uppermost echelons of the fundraising circuit, namely into the sprawling Fifth Avenue apartment of the first couple in Democratic Party fundraising, Steven Rattner and Maureen White.

Rattner, the Bloomberg confidant and money manager, former Obama car czar and Times reporter who remains close with the paper's owner, Arthur Sulzberger, has gushed about Ford in print. According to one Gillibrand supporter, the senator has ascribed the reason for her discord with the couple to a broken-off relationship with White's younger brother more than a decade ago.

"If I got mad at every girlfriend one of my five brothers ever dated, I'd be mad at a lot of people," White said. "The only relevant part of that story is I've known her longer than most people.

"I'm not enthusiastic about Kirsten for a very simple reason," White continued, "New York State needs someone great. It's not clear to me that she has the talent to follow in the footsteps of Robert Kennedy, Daniel Patrick Moynihan or Hillary Clinton."

If Ford gets elected, White said, "he'll be a national presence for New York State from day one."

* * *

In 2006, Schumer, then chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and architect of the Democratic takeover of the chamber, recruited Ford as the nominee to fill the seat vacated by Tennessee's Bill Frist. Schumer called him "a great candidate" and helped Ford raise millions of dollars for a bruising and tight contest against Corker, a Republican. The contest is perhaps most remembered for a racially charged ad aired by the Republican Party at the end of the election, in which a winking blonde said she met the unmarried Ford at a Playboy party. Schumer released funds to keep Ford ads airing on television until Election Day. But he fell just short.

Soon after his defeat, Ford started spending substantial time in New York City and became an official resident in 2008. Like Bloomberg, he got to know the benefit circuit, squiring around his now-wife, Emily Threlkeld, an executive with the fashion designer Carolina Herrera and the stepdaughter of Wall Street grandee Anson Beard -- as well as the table-hopping nightspots, like Graydon Carter's Waverly Inn.

An interview in the New York Times on Jan. 13 revealed the chasm between Ford and his recession-weary constituents more starkly. He preferred the Giants over the Jets because he was closer to their owner. He had been to Staten Island only by helicopter. He got pedicures.

For now, at least, Ford is counting on media interest in a competitive race and the strength of his anti-establishment message to keep his campaign going, whatever the ultimate goal.

"I'm considering it more and more seriously every day," he said.

The Case Against Geithner

by Dylan Ratigan, Huffington Post

As we sit here today, Wall Street continues to exploit a policy of government-sponsored giveaways and secrecy to pay themselves billions.

Record-setting bonuses due to banks like Goldman Sachs as early next week.

Yet instead of acting as our cop, Secretary Tim Geithner has become central to what may be a cover-up of the greatest theft in U.S. history.

Here is the evidence.

COUNT 1: The AIG Emails:

Recently-released emails show Geithner's New York Federal Reserve Bank directing AIG to keep details of the 100-cents-on-the-dollar bailout secret in 2008 -- A reversal of the traditional role of government, which is to force companies to become more transparent, not less.

A Treasury Spokeswoman says: "Secretary Geithner played no role in these decisions and indeed, by November 24, he was recused from working on issues involving specific companies, including AIG."

Friday, the White House also defended the Treasury Secretary:

Gibbs: These decisions did not rise to his level at the fed.

CNN's Ed Henry: How do you know that he wasn't involved? He was the leader of the New York Fed.

Gibbs: Right, but he wasn't on the emails that have been talked about and wasn't party to the decision that was being made.

He wasn't party to a decision to hide $62 billion dollar payouts to firms that became insolvent during his 5-year watch at the New York Fed?

Congressman Darrell Issa speculates that maybe Geithner wasn't on the emails in question because his people felt so strongly they already knew their boss's intentions, they didn't feel the need to bother him with the details.

COUNT 2: He wasn't even a regulator!

In Geithner's own words during confirmation hearings in March:

"First of all, I've never been a regulator...I'm not a regulator."

According to the New York fed bank's website, that was your job!! And I quote from the Fed's website: "As part of our core mission, we supervise and regulate financial institutions in the Second District."

That district of course is the epicenter for bailed out banks and billion dollar bonuses.

Count 3: "The Christmas Eve Taxpayer Massacre."

As you were wrapping those last presents, Geithner's Treasury Department lifted the 400-billion dollar cap on taxpayer responsibility for potential losses for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The new cap? Unlimited taxpayer funds! Interesting timing... Christmas eve, Tim?

Still no word on recovering the hundreds of millions paid to the CEOs who created this mess.

COUNT 4: He's too cozy with certain banks.

Remember those call logs when he first started... 80 contacts with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and CitiGroup CEOs in just 7 months!

But Bank of America's CEO only got three calls. Apparently Bank of America is not one of Geithner's favorites, especially when you consider that there are still many unanswered questions about Tim Geithner's role in threatening to fire Bank of America management if they didn't go through with a deal to buy Merrill lynch.

COUNT 5: TARP Special Investigator Neil Barofsky's report says Geithner's New York Fed overpaid the big banks through AIG by billions of dollars.

Geithner says it had to be done. Maybe so, maybe not, but this takes us to our final point.

Since then, the Treasury Secretary has yet to really prove whose side he's on -- the Wall Street big wigs or the American taxpayer? Here's the litmus test: Mr. Geithner, show us the past ten years of AIG emails or step down so that we can get somebody who will. A crime has been committed against the American taxpayer and right now you are standing at the door of the crime scene refusing to let anyone in.

Show us you're not involved Mr. Geithner, prove the white house correct in defending you. All we are asking for is the transparency promised by the President you serve.

Follow Dylan Ratigan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DylanRatigan

Banks Prepare for Bigger Bonuses, and Public’s Wrath

Note from Greetings: OK.. this is just appalling...

By LOUISE STORY and ERIC DASH, NY Times

Published: January 9, 2010

Everyone on Wall Street is fixated on The Number.

The bank bonus season, that annual rite of big money and bigger egos, begins in earnest this week, and it looks as if it will be one of the largest and most controversial blowouts the industry has ever seen.

Bank executives are grappling with a question that exasperates, even infuriates, many recession-weary Americans: Just how big should their paydays be? Despite calls for restraint from Washington and a chafed public, resurgent banks are preparing to pay out bonuses that rival those of the boom years. The haul, in cash and stock, will run into many billions of dollars.

Industry executives acknowledge that the numbers being tossed around — six-, seven- and even eight-figure sums for some chief executives and top producers — will probably stun the many Americans still hurting from the financial collapse and ensuing Great Recession.

Goldman Sachs is expected to pay its employees an average of about $595,000 apiece for 2009, one of the most profitable years in its 141-year history. Workers in the investment bank of JPMorgan Chase stand to collect about $463,000 on average.

Many executives are bracing for more scrutiny of pay from Washington, as well as from officials like Andrew M. Cuomo, the attorney general of New York, who last year demanded that banks disclose details about their bonus payments. Some bankers worry that the United States, like Britain, might create an extra tax on bank bonuses, and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, is proposing legislation to do so.

Those worries aside, few banks are taking immediate steps to reduce bonuses substantially. Instead, Wall Street is confronting a dilemma of riches: How to wrap its eye-popping paychecks in a mantle of moderation. Because of the potential blowback, some major banks are adjusting their pay practices, paring or even eliminating some cash bonuses in favor of stock awards and reducing the portion of their revenue earmarked for pay.

Some bank executives contend that financial institutions are beginning to recognize that they must recalibrate pay for a post-bailout world.

“The debate has shifted in the last nine months or so from just ‘less cash, more stock’ to ‘what’s the overall number?’ ” said Robert P. Kelly, the chairman and chief executive of the Bank of New York Mellon. Like many other bank chiefs, Mr. Kelly favors rewarding employees with more long-term stock and less cash to tether their fortunes to the success of their companies.

Though Wall Street bankers and traders earn six-figure base salaries, they generally receive most of their pay as a bonus based on the previous year’s performance. While average bonuses are expected to hover around half a million dollars, they will not be evenly distributed. Senior banking executives and top Wall Street producers expect to reap millions. Last year, the big winners were bond and currency traders, as well as investment bankers specializing in health care.

Even some industry veterans warn that such paydays could further tarnish the financial industry’s sullied reputation. John S. Reed, a founder of Citigroup, said Wall Street would not fully regain the public’s trust until banks scaled back bonuses for good — something that, to many, seems a distant prospect.

“There is nothing I’ve seen that gives me the slightest feeling that these people have learned anything from the crisis,” Mr. Reed said. “They just don’t get it. They are off in a different world.”

The power that the federal government once had over banker pay has waned in recent months as most big banks have started repaying the billions of dollars in federal aid that propped them up during the crisis. All have benefited from an array of federal programs and low interest rate policies that enabled the industry to roar back in profitability in 2009.

This year, compensation will again eat up much of Wall Street’s revenue. During the first nine months of 2009, five of the largest banks that received federal aid — Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley — together set aside about $90 billion for compensation. That figure includes salaries, benefits and bonuses, but at several companies, bonuses make up more than half of compensation.

Goldman broke with its peers in December and announced that its top 30 executives would be paid only in stock. Nearly everyone on Wall Street is waiting to see how much stock is awarded to Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldman’s chairman and chief executive, who is a lightning rod for criticism over executive pay. In 2007, Mr. Blankfein was paid $68 million, a Wall Street record. He did not receive a bonus in 2008.

Goldman put aside $16.7 billion for compensation during the first nine months of 2009.

Responding to criticism over its pay practices, Goldman has already begun decreasing the percentage of revenue that it pays to employees. The bank set aside 50 percent in the first quarter, but that figure fell to 48 percent and then to 43 percent in the next two quarters.

JPMorgan executives and board members have also been wrestling with how much pay is appropriate.

“There are legitimate conflicts between the firm feeling like it is performing well and the public’s prevailing view that the Street was bailed out,” said one senior JPMorgan executive who was not authorized to speak for the company.

JPMorgan’s investment bank, which employs about 25,000 people, has already reduced the share of revenue going to the compensation pool, from 40 percent in the first quarter to 37 percent in the third quarter.

At Bank of America, traders and bankers are wondering how much Brian T. Moynihan, the bank’s new chief, will be awarded for 2010. Bank of America, which is still absorbing Merrill Lynch, is expected to pay large bonuses, given the bank’s sizable trading profits.

Bank of America has also introduced provisions that would enable it to reclaim employees’ pay in the event that the bank’s business sours, and it is increasing the percentage of bonuses paid in the form of stock.

“We’re paying for results, and there were some areas of the company that had terrific results, and they will be compensated for that,” said Bob Stickler, a Bank of America spokesman.

At Morgan Stanley, which has had weaker trading revenue than the other banks, managers are focusing on how to pay stars in line with the industry. The bank created a pay program this year for its top 25 workers, tying a fifth of their deferred pay to metrics based on the company’s later performance.

A company spokesman, Mark Lake, said: “Morgan Stanley’s board and management clearly understands the extraordinary environment in which we operate and, as a result, have made a series of changes to the firm’s compensation practices.”

The top 25 executives will be paid mostly in stock and deferred cash payments. John J. Mack, the chairman, is forgoing a bonus. He retired as chief executive at the end of 2009.

At Citigroup, whose sprawling consumer banking business is still ailing, some managers were disappointed in recent weeks by the preliminary estimates of their bonus pools, according to people familiar with the matter. Citigroup’s overall 2009 bonus pool is expected to be about $5.3 billion, about the same as it was for 2008, although the bank has far fewer employees.

The highest bonus awarded to a Citigroup executive is already known: The bank said in a regulatory filing last week that the head of its investment bank, John Havens, would receive $9 million in stock. But the bank’s chief executive, Vikram S. Pandit, is forgoing a bonus and taking a salary of just $1.

U.S. Will Push Mortgage Firms to Reduce More Loan Payments

By PETER S. GOODMAN, November 29, 2009 New York Times

The Obama administration on Monday plans to announce a campaign to pressure mortgage companies to reduce payments for many more troubled homeowners, as evidence mounts that a $75 billion taxpayer-financed effort aimed at stemming foreclosures is foundering.

“The banks are not doing a good enough job,” Michael S. Barr, Treasury’s assistant secretary for financial institutions, said in an interview Friday. “Some of the firms ought to be embarrassed, and they will be.”

Even as lenders have in recent months accelerated the pace at which they are reducing mortgage payments for borrowers, a vast majority of loans modified through the program remain in a trial stage lasting up to five months, and only a tiny fraction have been made permanent.

Mr. Barr said the government would try to use shame as a corrective, publicly naming those institutions that move too slowly to permanently lower mortgage payments. The Treasury Department also will wait until reductions are permanent before paying cash incentives that it promised to mortgage companies that lower loan payments.

“They’re not getting a penny from the federal government until they move forward,” Mr. Barr said.

From its inception early this year, the Obama administration’s program, called Making Home Affordable, has been dogged by persistent questions about whether it could diminish a swelling wave of foreclosures. Some economists argued that the plan was built for last year’s problem — exotic mortgages whose payments increased — and not for the current menace of soaring joblessness. Lawyers who defend homeowners against foreclosure maintained that mortgage companies collect lucrative fees from long-term delinquency, undercutting their incentive to lower payments to affordable levels.

Last month, an oversight panel created by Congress reported that fewer than 2,000 of the 500,000 loan modifications then in progress had become permanent under Making Home Affordable. When the Treasury releases new numbers next month, it is expected to report a disappointingly small number of permanent loan modifications, with estimates in the tens of thousands out of the more than 650,000 borrowers now in the program.

More unsatisfactory data is likely to intensify pressures on the Obama administration to mount a more muscular effort to stem foreclosures beyond the Treasury’s campaign this week. Populist anger has been fanned by a growing perception that the Treasury has lavished generous bailouts on Wall Street institutions while neglecting ordinary homeowners — this, in the midst of double-digit unemployment, which is daily sending more households into delinquency.

“I’ve been very frustrated by the pace of the program,” said Senator Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat who sits on the Senate Banking Committee. “Very few people have emerged from the trial period.”

Though the administration’s program was initially proclaimed as a means of sparing three to four million households from foreclosure, “they’re going to be lucky if they save one or one-and-a-half million,” said Edward Pinto, a consultant to the real estate finance industry who served as chief credit officer to the government-backed mortgage company Fannie Mae in the late 1980s.

A White House spokeswoman, Jennifer R. Psaki, said the administration would continue to refine the program as needed. “We will not be satisfied until more program participants are transitioning from trial to permanent modifications,” she said.

Capitol Hill aides in regular contact with senior Treasury officials say a consensus has emerged inside the department that the program has proved inadequate, necessitating a new approach. But discussions have yet to reach the point of mapping out new options, the aides say.

“People who work on this on a day-to-day basis are vested enough in it that they think there’s a need to do a course correction rather than a wholesale rethink,” said a Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition he not be named for fear of angering the administration. “But at senior levels, where people are looking at this and thinking ‘Good God,’ there’s a sense that we need to think about doing something more.”

Mr. Barr, who supervises the program, portrayed such deliberations as part of a constant process of assessment within the Treasury. He expressed confidence that the mortgage program had sufficient tools to deliver relief, characterizing the slow pace as reflecting a lack of follow-through, and not structural defects requiring a revamping.

“We’re seeing a failure by some of the bigger banks on execution,” Mr. Barr said. “We’re going to be quite focused and direct on particular institutions that are not doing a good job.”

The banks say they are making good-faith efforts to comply with the program and provide relief.

“We’ve poured resources into this,” said a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, Tom Kelly. “We’ve made dramatic improvements, and we continue to try to get better.”

Some senators contend that the Treasury program, addressing mortgages whose low promotional interest rates had soared, is outmoded. At this point, foreclosures are being propelled by joblessness, which is sending millions of previously credit-worthy people with ordinary mortgages into delinquency.

Within the Senate, some discussion now focuses on pursuing legislation that would create a national foreclosure prevention program modeled on one started last year in Philadelphia. That program forces mortgage companies to submit to court-supervised mediation with delinquent borrowers aimed at striking an equitable resolution before they are allowed to proceed with the sale of foreclosed homes.

Some Democrats say the time has come to reconsider a measure opposed by the Obama administration: giving bankruptcy judges the right to amend mortgages as a means of pressuring lenders to extend reductions.

Lawyers who defend homeowners against foreclosure increasingly say they doubt the Treasury program can be made effective. Under the plan, companies that agree to lower payments for troubled borrowers collect $1,000 from the government, followed by another $1,000 a year for up to three years. The program is premised on the idea that a small cash incentive will induce the banks to cut their losses and accept smaller payments.

But the mortgage companies that collect payments from homeowners — servicers, as they are known — generally do not own the loans. Rather, they collect fees from investors that actually own mortgages, and their fees often increase the longer a borrower remains in delinquency.

Under the Treasury program, borrowers who receive loan modifications must make their new payments on a trial basis and then submit new paperwork validating their income to make their modifications permanent.

But borrowers and their lawyers report that much of the required paperwork is being lost in a haze of bureaucratic disorganization. Servicers are abruptly changing fax numbers and mislaying files — the same issues that have plagued the program from its inception.

“People continue to get lost in the phone tree hell,” said Diane E. Thompson, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center.

Some lawyers who defend homeowners against foreclosure assert that mortgage companies are merely stalling, using trial loan modifications as an opportunity to extract a few more dollars from borrowers who would otherwise make no payments.

“I don’t think they ever intended to do permanent loan modifications,” said Margery Golant, a Florida lawyer who previously worked for a major mortgage company, Ocwen Financial. “It’s a shell game that they’re playing.”

A Squeeze on Credit Card Customers Ahead of New Rules

Note from Greetings: Check those card statements, folks... no matter how great your credit. Last minute antics by the credit card companies before the new laws come into effect.

By ANDREW MARTIN and LOWELL BERGMAN

Banks are struggling to make money in the credit card business these days, and consumers are paying the price. Interest rates are going up, credit lines are being cut and a variety of new fees are being imposed on even the best cardholders.

One recipient of new credit card terms is Anita Holaday, a 91-year-old in Florida, who received a letter last month from Citibank announcing that her new interest rate was 29.99 percent, an increase of 10 percentage points.

“I think it’s outrageous they pursue such a policy,” said Susan Holaday Schumacher, Ms. Holaday’s daughter, who pays her mother’s bills. “That rate is shocking under any circumstances.”

While the average interest rates charged by banks are lower than Ms. Holaday’s, her situation is not all that unusual. The higher rates and fees reflect the grim new realities of the credit card industry — the percentage of uncollectible balances has hit a record even as a new law may further limit the cards’ profitability.

Banks began raising interest rates and pulling back credit lines about a year ago as delinquencies crept upward and regulators discussed reforms. As banks have become more aggressive in making changes, lawmakers have accused them of trying to impose rate increases before many of the new rules take effect in February.

On Monday, the Federal Reserve provided new evidence of the banks’ actions. About 50 percent of the banks responding to the Fed’s survey said they were increasing interest rates and reducing credit lines on borrowers with good credit scores. About 40 percent said they were imposing higher fees. The banks also said they were demanding higher minimum credit scores and tightening other requirements.

A study by the Pew Charitable Trusts, released late last month, concluded that the 12 largest banks, issuing more than 80 percent of the credit cards, were continuing to use practices that the Fed concluded were “unfair or deceptive” and that in many instances had been outlawed by Congress.

In response to voter complaints, the House of Representatives voted last week to make the law effective immediately. The bill now goes to the Senate, where a vote has not been scheduled. The Senate Banking Committee chairman, Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, meanwhile, is pushing legislation that would freeze interest rates on existing credit card balances until the law takes effect.

Whatever the starting date, the law makes it much harder for banks to change interest rates on existing balances, and requires more time and notice before a new rate can go into effect.

In their defense, banking officials say they have no choice but to raise rates and limit credit. Because of the new rules and the prolonged economic malaise, they say it is now far riskier to issue credit cards than it was just a few years ago.

“We sell credit; we don’t sell sweaters,” said Kenneth J. Clayton, senior vice president for card policy at the American Bankers Association. “The only way to manage your return is through the price of the product or the availability.”

The nation’s largest banks are scrambling to figure out a new business model that fits within the new rules and current economic conditions. Those banks made handsome profits over the last decade by charging high interest rates and penalty fees to a small group of customers who routinely paid late or exceeded their balances.

Already, banks are shifting to a model in which a smaller pool of Americans will be eligible for credit cards, and customers with cards will probably pay more for the privilege through annual fees and higher interest.

Meanwhile, the banks are in the process of shedding customers considered too risky. That means tens of thousands of Americans will no longer be able to splurge on Nike gym shoes or flat-screen televisions unless, of course, they have enough cash to pay for them.

Still, even consumer advocates have said that the banks were too quick in the past to give out credit. “You know, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you keep borrowing and borrowing in order to consume now, eventually you crash and burn,” said Martin Eakes, chief executive for the Center for Responsible Lending. “That’s what we’re facing.”

In the 12 months that ended in September, the number of Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover card accounts in the United States fell by 72 million, according to David Robertson, publisher of The Nilson Report, an industry newsletter. There are 555 million accounts still in the marketplace, he said.

In roughly the same time period, banks lowered credit limits by 26 percent, to $3.4 trillion, from $4.6 trillion, according to an analysis of government data by Foresight Analytics.

Interest on credit card accounts, meanwhile, has increased to an average of 13.71 percent, up from 11.94 percent a year ago, according to federal records.

As to credit card charge-offs — industry lingo for uncollectible balances — the number tracks the unemployment rate and, therefore, is hovering at around 10 percent.

For the banks, this is uncharted territory. In the modern financing era, credit cards were long a profit center, producing tens of billions in annual profits with a default rate that hovered around 4 percent until the recession.

“We know we are going to lose a lot of money next year in cards, and it could be north of $1 billion in both the first quarter and the second quarter. And that number will probably only start coming down as you see unemployment and charge-offs come down,” Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, said in an earnings call last month.

Banking officials said that because the new law limits their ability to reprice credit as a customer’s risk profile changes, they will instead have to price for future risk at the start, when a cardholder applies for a new card.

That means fewer applicants will be approved for new credit cards, and those who are accepted will increasingly be charged annual fees or variable interest rates, rather than fixed rates. Currently, about 20 percent of credit cards charge annual fees, a percentage that is rising, said Bill Hardekopf, chief executive of LowCards.com. Current cardholders, too, will be affected.

Asked to explain its rate increases, Citibank issued a statement saying the “actions are necessary given the losses across the industry from customers not paying back their loans and regulatory changes that eliminate repricing for that risk.”

Ms. Holaday Schumacher did not accept that explanation. She said she haggled with Citibank to try to get her mother’s bills forwarded to her house in Washington and, during the process, two bills were inadvertently paid late, resulting in the rate increase.

“How unbelievably unfair for an older person who might not understand what this is all about,” she said. Citibank declined to comment on the account.

Still, many of the nation’s banks are trying to repair their tarnished reputations with consumers.

American Express and Discover Financial, for instance, have vowed to stop charging fees when cardholders exceed their credit limits. JPMorgan has started a program that can help consumers categorize their spending and pay down their balances more quickly.

And Bank of America is promoting a line of consumer products so simple that the terms and conditions fit on one page. The BankAmericard Basic Visa, for instance, has no rewards and a single interest rate.

Andrew Rowe, Global Card Services strategy executive at Bank of America, said the new products represented a sea change in the bank’s attitude toward consumer products. Instead of benefiting from consumers who displayed risky behavior by penalizing them with fees, the bank is now trying to help them break those bad habits, he said.

“We succeed if our customers succeed,” he said. “That’s the paradigm shift.”

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, for one, said he would welcome consumer products that were simpler and less risky. But, he added in an interview with the PBS documentary program “Frontline”: “It’s a bit of a late conversion. It would have been nice to happen earlier.”

Edmund L. Andrews contributed reporting.

The Banks Are Not Alright

By PAUL KRUGMAN, NY Times, October 19, 2009

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. O.K., maybe not literally the worst, but definitely bad. And the contrast between the immense good fortune of a few and the continuing suffering of all too many boded ill for the future.

I’m talking, of course, about the state of the banks.

The lucky few garnered most of the headlines, as many reacted with fury to the spectacle of Goldman Sachs making record profits and paying huge bonuses even as the rest of America, the victim of a slump made on Wall Street, continues to bleed jobs.

But it’s not a simple case of flourishing banks versus ailing workers: banks that are actually in the business of lending, as opposed to trading, are still in trouble. Most notably, Citigroup and Bank of America, which silenced talk of nationalization earlier this year by claiming that they had returned to profitability, are now — you guessed it — back to reporting losses.

Ask the people at Goldman, and they’ll tell you that it’s nobody’s business but their own how much they earn. But as one critic recently put it: “There is no financial institution that exists today that is not the direct or indirect beneficiary of trillions of dollars of taxpayer support for the financial system.” Indeed: Goldman has made a lot of money in its trading operations, but it was only able to stay in that game thanks to policies that put vast amounts of public money at risk, from the bailout of A.I.G. to the guarantees extended to many of Goldman’s bonds.

So who was this thundering bank critic? None other than Lawrence Summers, the Obama administration’s chief economist — and one of the architects of the administration’s bank policy, which up until now has been to go easy on financial institutions and hope that they mend themselves.

Why the change in tone? Administration officials are furious at the way the financial industry, just months after receiving a gigantic taxpayer bailout, is lobbying fiercely against serious reform. But you have to wonder what they expected to happen. They followed a softly, softly policy, providing aid with few strings, back when all of Wall Street was on the ropes; this left them with very little leverage over firms like Goldman that are now, once again, making a lot of money.

But there’s an even bigger problem: while the wheeler-dealer side of the financial industry, a k a trading operations, is highly profitable again, the part of banking that really matters — lending, which fuels investment and job creation — is not. Key banks remain financially weak, and their weakness is hurting the economy as a whole.

You may recall that earlier this year there was a big debate about how to get the banks lending again. Some analysts, myself included, argued that at least some major banks needed a large injection of capital from taxpayers, and that the only way to do this was to temporarily nationalize the most troubled banks. The debate faded out, however, after Citigroup and Bank of America, the banking system’s weakest links, announced surprise profits. All was well, we were told, now that the banks were profitable again.

But a funny thing happened on the way back to a sound banking system: last week both Citi and BofA announced losses in the third quarter. What happened?

Part of the answer is that those earlier profits were in part a figment of the accountants’ imaginations. More broadly, however, we’re looking at payback from the real economy. In the first phase of the crisis, Main Street was punished for Wall Street’s misdeeds; now broad economic distress, especially persistent high unemployment, is leading to big losses on mortgage loans and credit cards.

And here’s the thing: The continuing weakness of many banks is helping to perpetuate that economic distress. Banks remain reluctant to lend, and tight credit, especially for small businesses, stands in the way of the strong recovery we need.

So now what? Mr. Summers still insists that the administration did the right thing: more government provision of capital, he says, would not “have been an availing strategy for solving problems.” Whatever. In any case, as a political matter the moment for radical action on banks has clearly passed.

The main thing for the time being is probably to do as much as possible to support job growth. With luck, this will produce a virtuous circle in which an improving economy strengthens the banks, which then become more willing to lend.

Beyond that, we desperately need to pass effective financial reform. For if we don’t, bankers will soon be taking even bigger risks than they did in the run-up to this crisis. After all, the lesson from the last few months has been very clear: When bankers gamble with other people’s money, it’s heads they win, tails the rest of us lose.

Promised Help Is Elusive for Some Homeowners

By PETER S. GOODMAN

MESA, Ariz. — She had seen the advertisements for the new government program offering relief. She had heard President Obama promise that help was on the way for homeowners like her, people who had lost jobs and could no longer make their mortgage payments.

But when Eileen Ulery called her mortgage company — Countrywide, now part of Bank of America — the bank did not offer to alter her mortgage. Rather, the bank tried to sell her a new loan with a slightly lower monthly payment while asking her to pay $13,000 toward the principal and a fresh $5,000 in fees.

Her problem was that she did not yet present a big enough problem to merit aid.

Yes, she was teetering toward delinquency. She was among millions of homeowners rapidly sliding toward danger for whom the Obama administration had devised an aid program — some already in foreclosure proceedings, others headed that way as they ran out of means to make their payments. But unlike those in imminent peril of losing their homes, Ms. Ulery had never missed a payment.

“I don’t know who this bailout is helping,” she said. “We’ve given these banks all this money and they’re not doing what they say they’re doing. Something’s not working right. They keep saying they’re doing all this, but we don’t see it down here at this level.”

More than three months after the Obama administration outlined a new program aimed at rescuing millions of distressed homeowners by compensating banks that modify mortgages, Ms. Ulery’s experience illustrates the mixture of confusion, frustration and limited assistance that now reigns.

Through many months of wrangling over the fate of the financial system, with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars dispensed on bailouts, distressed homeowners have waited for their own rescue amid talk that it was finally on the way. Modifications of so-called subprime and Alt-A mortgages — those made to people with tarnished credit — actually fell by 11 percent in May from April, according to research by Alan M. White at Valparaiso University School of Law.

A Treasury spokeswoman, Jenni Engebretsen, confirmed that homeowners like Ms. Ulery — current on their mortgages yet grappling with a hardship like unemployment — were eligible for loan modifications under the program. She said mortgage servicers had offered to modify more than 100,000 loans since the department announced the program.

But how many loans have been modified? Ms. Engebretsen declined to say, noting that the Treasury was working with mortgage companies to “fine-tune reporting systems.”

A spokesman for Bank of America Home Loans, Rick Simon, confirmed that the bank offered Ms. Ulery refinancing and not loan modification. The bank is now focusing on modifications only for those borrowers “who are already in severe threat of foreclosure,” he said.

“We’re still putting the systems in place to handle people who are current on their loans,” Mr. Simon said, declining to say how many loans Bank of America had modified. “It’s still very, very early in the program.”

Ms. Ulery, 63, is the face of the latest wave of troubled American homeowners, a surge of people in financial danger not because of reckless gambling on real estate, but because of lost income.

Far from being one of those who used easy-money loans to speculate on homes proliferating across the desert soil of greater Phoenix, she has lived in the same modest, stucco-sided condo in suburban Mesa for a dozen years. She bought the two-bedroom home in 1997 for $77,500.

For two decades, she worked as an executive assistant at nearby Arizona State University, bringing home more than $1,000 every other week — enough to pay the bills.

Round-faced, wry and given to staccato bursts of laughter, Ms. Ulery regularly visits yard sales, seeking out plates and patchwork quilts for her collections. She takes pleasure in her two grandchildren and her beagle. She enjoys an occasional glass of wine, favoring a $6 merlot that comes in a screw-top bottle.

“I’m not an extravagant-type person,” she said. “I see these big houses all around, and they’re beautiful, but I’m comfortable in my little condo.”

Like tens of millions of other American homeowners, she added to her mortgage balance as the value of her condo swelled, at one point exceeding $200,000. She refinanced to pay off some credit cards and settle into a 30-year, fixed-rate loan. Later, she took out a home equity line of credit to buy a new Hyundai. She refinanced again in 2007, borrowing $20,000, mostly for a new roof.

Over the years, her monthly payment swelled from about $600 to more than $1,000. With planning and self-control — she tracks her monthly expenses on a color-coded spreadsheet — she always came up with the money. “I’ve never been late,” she said.

But the equation broke down last year, when she lost her job in university budget cuts. Ms. Ulery received six months of severance. She arranged a monthly $1,500 Social Security check. But when the severance ran out in October, her mortgage finally exceeded her limited means.

With so many people out of work, and with her doctor counseling rest for a stress-related illness, she did not pursue another paycheck, negotiating to have her university pension begin earlier. She has been leaning on credit cards.

Across the country, millions of homeowners in similar straits have been sliding into delinquency. Some owe more than their houses are worth.

Ms. Ulery is among that unhappy cohort — her house is worth about $122,000, and she owes $143,000 — but walking away is not for her.

“In my family, we don’t do that,” she said. “You pay your bills. And I wanted my home.”

In March, she heard about the Obama administration program. The Countrywide Web site directed her to a government site, makinghomeaffordable.gov, she said. There, she took a test to determine her eligibility for a loan modification.

Was her home her primary residence? Check. Was she having trouble paying her mortgage? Check again, and so on until the screen told her that she might qualify.

In April, she called the bank. The representative said the bank was not doing modifications for people like her, she recalled. He shifted the conversation: if she handed over $18,000, he could lower her payment to $967 from $1,046. Her interest rate would actually increase slightly, with the drop largely because she was putting down more money.

“I just laughed,” Ms. Ulery said. “It was a really good deal for them.”

To which she poses her own question: What sort of deal is it for the American taxpayer? As she sees it, the same banks that generated the mortgage crisis are now getting public money to fix it, while doing little more than seeking new fees.

“I don’t think the government gets it,” she said. “These are the same people you couldn’t trust before.”

I Ponied Up for Sheryl Crow?

By MAUREEN DOWD, NY Times

LOS ANGELES

Talk about being teed off.

The economy is croaking and bankers are still partying at a golf tournament here on our dime.

It’s a good argument for nationalization, or better yet, internationalization. Outsource the jobs of these perfidious, oblivious bank executives to Bangalore; Bollywood bashes have to cost less than Hollywood ones.

The entertainment Web site TMZ broke the story Tuesday that Northern Trust of Chicago, which got $1.5 billion in bailout money and then laid off 450 workers, flew hundreds of clients and employees to Los Angeles last week and treated them to four days of posh hotel rooms, salmon and filet mignon dinners, music concerts, a PGA golf tournament at the Riviera Country Club with Mercedes shuttle rides and Tiffany swag bags.

“A rep from the PGA told us Northern Trust wrote one big, fat check in order to sponsor the event,” TMZ reported.

Northern No Trust had a lavish dinner at the Ritz Carlton on Wednesday with a concert by Chicago (at a $100,000 fee); rented a private hangar at the Santa Monica Airport on Thursday for another big dinner with a gig by Earth, Wind & Fire, and closed down the House of Blues on Sunset Strip on Saturday (at a cost of $50,000) for a dinner and serenade by Sheryl Crow.

In the ignoble tradition of rockers who sing for huge sums to sketchy people when we’re not looking, Crow — in her stint as a federal employee — warbled these lyrics to the oblivious revelers:

“Slow down, you’re gonna crash,
Baby, you’re a-screaming it’s a blast, blast, blast
Look out babe, you’ve got your blinders on ...
But there’s a new cat in town
He’s got high payin’ friends
Thinks he’s gonna change history.”

Northern Untrustworthy even offered junketeers the chance to attend a seminar on the credit crunch where they could no doubt learn that the U.S. government is just the latest way to finance your deals and keep your office swathed in $87,000 area rugs.

In what is now an established idiotic ritual of rationalization, the bank put out a letter noting that it “did not seek the government’s investment” even though it took it, and that it had raised $3 million for the Los Angeles Junior Chamber of Commerce Charity Foundation and other nonprofits. They riposted that they have a contract to do it every year for five years; but this isn’t every year.

The bank cloaks itself in a philanthropic glow while wasting our money, acting like the American Cancer Society when in fact it’s a cancer on American society.

It asserted that it earned an operating net income of $641 million last year and acted as though it did Americans a favor by taking federal cash.

I would ask Northern No Trust: If you’re totally solvent, why are you taking my tax dollars? If you’re not totally solvent, why are you giving my tax dollars to Sheryl Crow?

Coming in a moment when skeptical and angry Americans watched A.I.G., Citigroup, General Motors and Chrysler — firms that had already been given a federal steroid injection — get back in line for more billions, the golf scandal was just one more sign that the bailed-out rich are different from you and me: their appetites are unquenchable and their culture is uneducable.

President Obama served them notice on Tuesday night in his Congressional address, saying: “This time, C.E.O.’s won’t be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over.”

But will they notice?

John “Antique Commode” Thain had to be ordered by a judge to tell Andrew Cuomo’s investigators which Merrill Lynch employees got those $3.6 billion in bonuses that Thain illicitly shoved through as his firm was failing and being taken over by Bank of America with the help of a $45 billion bailout. Kenneth Lewis, the Bank of America C.E.O., made the absurd assertion to Congress that his bank had “no authority” to stop the bonuses, even though he knew about them beforehand.

“They find out they’re $7 billion off on the estimate of losses for the fourth quarter and they never think maybe we should go back and adjust these bonuses?” Cuomo told me, as Thain was finally responding to investigators on Tuesday at the New York attorney general’s office. “He refused to answer questions on the basis that ‘the Bank of America didn’t want me to.’ You can take the Fifth Amendment or you can answer questions. But there’s no Bank of America privilege. The Bank of America doesn’t substitute for the Constitution. And who’s the Bank of America, by the way?”

He gets incensed about how ingrained, indoctrinated and insensitive the ex-masters of the universe are. “They think of themselves as kings and queens,” he said. And they’re not ready to abdicate.