Did Eric Trump actually think wealthy Russians were dumping money into
his dad’s golf courses during a recession because they’re big golf fans?
Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, breaks it down.
Showing posts with label Banks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Banks. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Why Is The USDA Dumping Millions Of Pounds Of Fatty Cheese On Poor People?
By Lorraine Chow
Here’s a problem that may have slipped under your radar: The United States is in the midst of an epic 1.25 billion pound
cheese glut. Low world market prices, increased milk supplies and
inventories, and slower demand have pushed the country’s cheese surplus
to its highest level in 30 years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said.
Blocks, crumbles and curds are sitting in cold storage stockpiles
around the nation; a mountain of cheese so large that every American
man, woman and child can eat an extra 3 pounds of cheese this year.
You might have noticed that the cost of dairy products has fallen across the board
at the supermarket, and while that’s good news for cheese lovers, dairy
farmers and producers have seen their revenues drop 35 percent over the
past two years. With more cheese than it knows what to do with, the
USDA decided to make two $20 million purchases of surplus cheese in
August and October and donated them to food banks. Critics say that the government is simply waving money—ahem, taxpayer funds—at the problem.
This handout abets large-scale dairy producers, who despite the glut, are on their way toward churning out a record 212 billion pounds
of milk this year. Michigan dairy farmer Carla Wardin told the Wall
Street Journal that she and her colleagues plan to deal with the
situation by “doing the same thing … you milk more cows.”
The problems don’t end there. Cheap dairy is not only bad for the health of
the environment (from methane-burping cows to water pollution), it’s
bad for public health. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
criticized the USDA and its decision-maker Tom Vilsack for effectively
dumping artery-clogging food products on poor people. “Please take a
moment to ask Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to reconsider the
USDA's plan to distribute the fatty cheese to programs that are already
struggling to provide participants healthful foods that fight disease,”
the group writes in an online petition.
Although cheese has some healthy properties such as bone-building calcium, cheese is loaded with fat and sodium, and even low-fat varieties
can contribute to “bad” cholesterol levels. And let’s face it, the way
we usually eat cheese is slapping it generously on top of pizza or
nachos, making it a delicious but unhealthy treat.
“Typical
cheeses are 70 percent fat and are among the foods highest in
cholesterol and sodium, exacerbating obesity, heart disease, and
diabetes," says PCRM. "Cheese is the number one source of saturated fat
in the American diet."
PCRM's petition concludes that
the USDA should help food banks and food assistance programs by
providing healthier fare such as fruits, vegetables, beans and whole
grains. The diabetes epidemic has risen in poor populations, and sending highly processed, high-fat cheese to food banks isn’t going to make things any better.
Manel Kappagoda, senior staff attorney and program director at ChangeLab Solutions, wrote in a 2014 article
that food banks are “a lifeline” for the 50 million Americans who live
in food-insecure households and lack access to affordable, nutritious
food."
Food pantries, she noted, are critical in
maintaining and improving the health of food-insecure Americans. For
this reason, many food banks across the country have implemented
nutrition standards that eliminate unhealthy products such as candy,
sugary drinks and other junk foods. Citing a survey from the Alameda
County Community Food Bank in San Francisco, Kappagoda said that
families and individuals who go to food banks don’t just want any
food—they want fresh produce, low-fat items and other healthy staples.
As
Kappagoda wrote, “to help improve the health of the people they serve,
food banks can’t just offer food—they must offer good food.”
Lorraine Chow is a freelance writer and reporter based in South Carolina.
Labels:
Banks,
Dirty Tricks,
Food,
Food Safety,
Health Care,
WTF
Thursday, September 22, 2016
I called the Wells Fargo ethics line and was fired
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Elizabeth Warren To Wells Fargo CEO: You Should Resign
Wells Fargo committed massive fraud and blamed it on its lowest level
employees. Senator Elizabeth Warren isn’t having it. Cenk Uygur, host of
The Young Turks, breaks it down.
"Facing off with the CEO whose massive bank appropriated customers' information to create millions of bogus accounts, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., had sharp questions Tuesday for Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf. She said Stumpf made millions of dollars in the "scam," telling him, "You should resign ... and you should be criminally investigated."
As we've reported before, Wells Fargo is paying $185 million in penalties for acts that date to at least to 2011. The firm says it fired some 5,300 employees who were found to have created false accounts as it sought to increase "cross-selling" — building the number of accounts each customer holds...
The exchanges between Warren and Stumpf were among the sharpest, but other senators also pressed the executive about what have become hot topics as public outrage has grown over the case. Here's some of what panel Chairman Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and others wanted to know:
Whether Stumpf regards the case as one of fraudWhether the bank will "claw back" any of the millions it has paid to former executive Carrie Tolstedt, who is retiring with nearly $125 million
How the bank will help customers whose credit ratings have been hurt by the fake accounts…”*
Read more here: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/20/494738797/you-should-resign-watch-sen-elizabeth-warren-grill-wells-fargo-ceo-john-stumpf
Hosts: Cenk Uygur
Cast: Cenk Uygur
"Facing off with the CEO whose massive bank appropriated customers' information to create millions of bogus accounts, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., had sharp questions Tuesday for Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf. She said Stumpf made millions of dollars in the "scam," telling him, "You should resign ... and you should be criminally investigated."
As we've reported before, Wells Fargo is paying $185 million in penalties for acts that date to at least to 2011. The firm says it fired some 5,300 employees who were found to have created false accounts as it sought to increase "cross-selling" — building the number of accounts each customer holds...
The exchanges between Warren and Stumpf were among the sharpest, but other senators also pressed the executive about what have become hot topics as public outrage has grown over the case. Here's some of what panel Chairman Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and others wanted to know:
Whether Stumpf regards the case as one of fraudWhether the bank will "claw back" any of the millions it has paid to former executive Carrie Tolstedt, who is retiring with nearly $125 million
How the bank will help customers whose credit ratings have been hurt by the fake accounts…”*
Read more here: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/20/494738797/you-should-resign-watch-sen-elizabeth-warren-grill-wells-fargo-ceo-john-stumpf
Hosts: Cenk Uygur
Cast: Cenk Uygur
Labels:
Banks,
Dirty Tricks,
Funny Shit,
Scam,
Stupidity,
The Truth,
WTF
Saturday, September 17, 2016
‘It goes beyond Wells Fargo’: Concerns grow over sales tactics in banking industry
By Jonnelle Marte and Renae Merle September 16 at 5:21 PM
Meeting that goal would mean an extra $800, but failure could lead to his termination.
“You either do this or you’re out,” Garza said.
The stakes were so high, Garza says, that his managers encouraged him to enter false income information or to accept questionable identification documents in order to speed approval for new accounts. Other times, he said, he would run a customer’s credit history without their permission to determine if they qualified for a credit card.
Such corner-cutting sales tactics — and worse — have become a new flash point in the debate over whether, eight years after the financial crisis, U.S. regulators are doing enough to hold Wall Street accountable for bad behavior.
Wells Fargo, the country’s largest retail bank and an institution once thought above the fray of financial crisis era scandals, has been under fire this week after acknowledging it had fired 5,300 employees over the past five years for opening as many as 2 million sham accounts customers didn’t ask for. The San Francisco-based bank, which did not admit wrongdoing, agreed to pay a $185 million fine and now finds itself in the crosshairs of a possible criminal investigation by two different federal prosecutors.
The bank’s longtime chief executive, John Stumpf, is set to appear before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday to explain how such a massive scheme was able to fester for years, and Wells Fargo’s troubles are now fodder for the presidential campaign trail.
Wells Fargo is hardly alone in aggressively pushing accounts, industry veterans say. Consumers have filed more than 31,000 complaints since 2011 about the opening, closing and management of their accounts and issues dealing with unauthorized credit cards, according to an analysis of complaints filed with the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The complaints name many of the nation’s largest institutions. The banks say many of the complaints are unfounded, or the result of identify theft. Few, they said, are related to outright fraud; some are complaints about unauthorized credit checks. Several institutions echoed Wells Fargo in saying they are regularly reviewing and improving their training and compliance programs to deter wrongdoing.
But critics say consumers often are being steered into accounts and services they don’t need, fueled by a business culture that places unreasonable demands on employees to plug products in order to drive revenue at a time when banking margins are thin.
“Extremely unreasonable sales goals and collection quotas” are the biggest issues facing bank employees, said Erin Mahoney, a coordinator for the Committee for Better Banks, a labor coalition made up of bank employees, community groups and unions that formed in 2013. “We have stories from every bank. It goes well beyond Wells Fargo.”
Efforts to combat the problem have been episodic, and few top executives have been held accountable. Regulators fined Santander Bank $10 million in July for working with a vendor that allegedly enrolled customers in overdraft protection services they never authorized. Last year, Citibank and its subsidiaries were ordered to pay $700 million to consumers for allegations they misrepresented the cost and benefits of credit card add-ons. And PayPal was ordered to pay $25 million in fines and customer refunds for claims consumers were unknowingly given credit accounts. All three settlements contained no admission of wrongdoing.
Taken together, such incidents expose a potential vulnerability in the nation’s banking system that has generated far less attention from authorities than, say, periodic warnings about the threat of cybercrime and identity theft. It’s not just outsiders who represent a threat, but front-line workers who have access to personal records.
Garza, the former JPMorgan Chase banker, has recounted his experiences with lax oversight in various media accounts and in a June presentation before members of Congress. At the time he worked for the banking giant in Dallas, he said in an interview he made just $11 an hour. The bonus he could claim for reaching his monthly goals for new accounts helped keep him off public assistance.
“You make a determination, a hard one, and say do I take this ID and meet my monthly quotas and put food on the table?” Garza said.
After two years at the bank, Garza said he quit in 2013. He now works for a phone company.
Chase said it has no record of problems with Garza and that its policy is to move swiftly to terminate employees who encourage illegal behavior. It said it uses sales targets to award bonuses, not to punish.
“We reward our bankers for great customer experiences and when they help customers get products that they need and use,” said Patricia Wexler, a spokeswoman for Chase.
At the center of the bad behavior appears to be an effort by banks to persuade customers to sign up for multiple products, known as “cross-selling.” A customer who opened a checking account, for instance, would be encouraged to consider a credit card or savings account. Someone with a mortgage may be asked to open a checking account. The simple sales strategy became a profit center for many banks amid historically low interest rates and tighter banking industry regulations, analysts say.
The “aggressive sales metrics and incentives programs” used by retail banks often encourage workers to sell products to customers even when they may not be a good fit or the paperwork is incomplete, the National Employment Law Project said in a report released this summer.
Ruth Landaverde, who spent five years as a customer representative and personal banker for Bank of America in Los Angeles, recalls a push from the company to move customers from checking accounts that charged no monthly fees to more complex accounts that did charge fees. “How is that going to benefit the client?” said Landaverde, 34, who also spent more than a year as a sales representative at Wells Fargo.
She says she heard from several Spanish-speaking customers who did not understand that the new accounts would charge fees. Others said they received credit cards they did not ask for. Landaverde was dismissed from Bank of America after she was investigated over questions about an account she opened for a friend. Bank of America declined to comment.
Several banks insist their systems are sound. Some say many of the complaints filed with federal regulators stem from problems that originated with partners — an overly aggressive retail clerk, for instance, who signs up a customer for a store credit card that is ultimately managed by a bank. In some cases, customers complain about being issued cards they didn’t authorize when in reality the store just changed vendors, turning a store card from Visa into one from American Express, for instance.
Wells Fargo is considered among the most aggressive in cross-selling services. It has long been known for an initiative known as “Gr-eight” or “Eight is Great,” reflecting its goal to have customers use an average of eight of its products, up from about six.
“If we stay squarely focused on our customers, cross-selling them, helping them, we’ll win,” Stumpf, the chief executive, said in a March 2010 speech to investors.
That push helped turn Wells Fargo into a Wall Street darling. The firm’s return on common equity — a key metric of profitability — stands at nearly 12 percent, compared with 7 percent at Citigroup and 10 percent at JPMorgan.
“It has always stood out for financial performance and relatively little regulatory trouble,” said Erik M. Oja, an equity analyst for S&P Global Market Intelligence.
But, according to court filings, that focus on cross-selling came with aggressive new sales goals.
“In order to achieve its goal of selling a high number of ‘solutions’ to each customer, Wells Fargo imposes unrealistic sales quotas on its employees, and has adopted policies that have, predictably and naturally, driven its bankers to engage in fraudulent behavior to meet those unreachable goals,” stated a 2015 lawsuit filed by the Los Angeles city attorney.
Wells Fargo says it started to notice a problem, too. Starting in 2011, Wells Fargo officials say they recognized some of their employees were breaking the rules in order to meet sales goals. In some cases, the employee would create a phony email address — noname@wellsfargo.com was often used, according to regulators — in order to get credit for setting up an online account the customer didn’t request. Other times, the employees would take money from an established account and create a new one.
It initially treated these cases as “employee misconduct,” a company spokeswoman said, firing the worker. But Wells Fargo soon realized customers were being harmed by the conduct, incurring maintenance charges and late fees for accounts they didn’t realize they had. Over the next four years, the bank says it fired roughly 1,000 employees a year for such conduct and launched an aggressive effort to stamp out such behavior.
“On average, 1 percent [of employees] have not done the right thing and we terminated them. I don’t want them here if they don’t represent the culture of the company,” Stumpf said in an interview.
But the scale of the abuse, about 1 percent of the company’s workers every year, has stunned lawmakers and prompted calls for the company’s top executives to either step down or forfeit some of the millions in bonuses they earn every year. Stumpf, for example, made $19 million last year, including more than $10 million in performance pay.
Now, many are asking how could problems have persisted for so long without top executives and regulators taking quicker action.
“Where were the internal controls? This stuff was not sophisticated,” said Sheila Bair, former head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., a banking regulator. “Why weren’t there red flags? Why weren’t they catching this?”
Thursday, September 8, 2016
Wells Fargo caught creating ‘ghost’ accounts to steal millions from customers
By Zach Cartwright
Wells Fargo, one of the world’s biggest banks, just got caught in an elaborate scheme charging customers for bank accounts they never signed up for.
CNN Money reported Thursday afternoon that the bank fired approximately 5,300 employees who opened an estimated 1.5 million unauthorized bank accounts and cards. Customers charged for those accounts were never notified of their existence. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced it would fine the bank $100 million for the scam — the largest fine the agency has ever imposed. Workers were incentivized to scam customers in order to net year end bonuses.
“The Bank had compensation programs for its employees that encouraged
them to sign up existing clients for deposit accounts, credit cards,
debit cards, and online banking,” the CFPB wrote on its website.
“According to today’s enforcement action, thousands of Wells Fargo
employees illegally enrolled consumers in these products and services
without their knowledge or consent in order to obtain financial
compensation for meeting sales targets.”
According to the CFPB, accounts were maintained by Wells Fargo employees secretly moving customers’ money from existing accounts into the phony accounts, and then subsequently charging those customers for having insufficient funds in their original accounts.
Credit card accounts opened by Wells Fargo employees without customers’ consent also resulted in annual fees, in addition to interest charges and late fees. CNN Money reported that bank employees submitted 565,443 applications for credit cards on customers’ behalf without their knowledge or consent, dating back to 2011.
“We regret and take responsibility for any instances where customers may have received a product that they did not request,” Wells Fargo said in a public statement.
In addition to the $100 million fine levied by the CFPB, Wells Fargo may have to end up paying up to $85 million in additional fines and penalties, as well as an estimated $5 million in refunds to customers who were scammed.
Wells Fargo, one of the world’s biggest banks, just got caught in an elaborate scheme charging customers for bank accounts they never signed up for.
CNN Money reported Thursday afternoon that the bank fired approximately 5,300 employees who opened an estimated 1.5 million unauthorized bank accounts and cards. Customers charged for those accounts were never notified of their existence. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced it would fine the bank $100 million for the scam — the largest fine the agency has ever imposed. Workers were incentivized to scam customers in order to net year end bonuses.
According to the CFPB, accounts were maintained by Wells Fargo employees secretly moving customers’ money from existing accounts into the phony accounts, and then subsequently charging those customers for having insufficient funds in their original accounts.
Credit card accounts opened by Wells Fargo employees without customers’ consent also resulted in annual fees, in addition to interest charges and late fees. CNN Money reported that bank employees submitted 565,443 applications for credit cards on customers’ behalf without their knowledge or consent, dating back to 2011.
“We regret and take responsibility for any instances where customers may have received a product that they did not request,” Wells Fargo said in a public statement.
In addition to the $100 million fine levied by the CFPB, Wells Fargo may have to end up paying up to $85 million in additional fines and penalties, as well as an estimated $5 million in refunds to customers who were scammed.
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Americans deserve more than an apology for the foreclosure fraud epidemic
Despite talk of "recovery," former homeowners remain scarred after their government abandoned them
By David Dayen“I lost my home of 30 years to fraudclosure.”
“I have been fighting this bank for over five years now. I am finally losing everything to their fraud.”
“We feel captive in our own home.”
This is a sampling of what I have awakened to practically every day for the past few months, since my book “Chain of Title: How Three Ordinary Americans Uncovered Wall Street’s Great Foreclosure Fraud” came out. Hundreds of people have emailed me, sent me letters, attended my public events, to relate their personal horror stories of foreclosure and dispossession. They come from across America, from different social and economic backgrounds. Some lost everything, and some haven’t given up.
They contact me, a non-lawyer who has only written about and not participated in their struggle, because they have been abandoned, by a government that chose sides against them after the crash of 2008. They seek answers that I mostly don’t have and support I mostly cannot provide. Outside of referring them to legal aid, I cannot solve their foreclosure problems. I cannot convince a judge disinclined to rule in their favor, or a bank disinclined to see them as anything but a financial asset to be plucked, to change their minds. I can only note in sorrow that the massive netting of fraud laid by the mortgage industry over a decade ago continues to capture people like them.
But despite my lack of assistance, they typically express to me their gratitude, for one simple reason: just by giving voice to similar nightmares, I have instilled in them hope that they aren’t utterly alone in their misery, that they haven’t been singled out by a vengeful nation, that somewhere out there they have an ally and a confidant.
I wrote my book for them, for everyone who suffered as a result of the largest consumer fraud in American history and the greatest economic collapse in nearly a century. They shouldn’t be forgotten. In fact, somebody should apologize to them for having to bear the weight of the financial collapse on their shoulders, even while that suffering was exacted through outright fraud. It might as well be me.
In “Chain of Title”, I detailed how three foreclosure victims uncovered an unparalleled pattern of deceit: mortgage companies systematically using false evidence in courtrooms and county offices to take people’s homes away. This routine document fabrication covered up the unspeakable crime of breaking the chain of title on millions of home mortgages, confusing the underlying ownership and damaging 350 years of functioning property records law.
It was a work of history, depicting events mainly in 2009 and 2010. But that history lives on in my email inbox, to this very day.
Julian Soncco of Phoenix, Arizona, told me how his bank, GMAC Mortgage, broke into his home and changed the locks while he was supposed to be under bankruptcy protection. He received a favorable judgment on two occasions but has still never recovered his home. “In this country,” Soncco wrote, “no such person, no matter how much power they hold, should have the right to take or rob a family from their home without any just reason.”
Michael Powell of Albuquerque, New Mexico, said he survived two foreclosure cases over the past five years, with a third attempt possible. “People would look at me like I was crazy when I’d talk of bogus documents and robo-signing,” he wrote. Diane Bauman of Baldwin, New York, described a foreclosure case against her by JPMorgan Chase going on six years, where affidavits suddenly turned up in the last month, purporting to fix defective documents.
Kim Bolin of St. Louis, Missouri, was told to stop making payments while she negotiated a modification, and then was put into foreclosure simultaneously. The lender submitted as proof of ownership an assignment dated 2013 from the original lender Intervale Mortgage, which went out of business in 2008. Kim, her husband and her three kids expect to be out on the street in the next two weeks. “The feeling of failing your kids is unbelievable,” Bolin wrote. “I now have a heart condition that is causing rapid breathing and a rapid heart rate – the only reason they can find is the huge amount of stress I’m living with every day.”
It’s impossible to expend the time and resources necessary to verify these and the hundreds of other stories I get daily. I can’t even get through all the names of these victims. But I can paint a picture of the type of people who write them, which is nothing like the one the industry frames, a tale of deadbeats and losers who miss mortgage payments and try to scam banks into acquiring a free house.
These people are meticulous. They’ve kept every scrap of paper related to their cases, probably to preserve their own sanity. They know how the law works. Their perseverance, even while recognizing the odds against them, is remarkable.
Andy Williams drove four hours from Chicago to St. Louis to see me speak last month. His foreclosure case began eleven years ago, and he’s compiled a half-dozen law firms to help borrowers in foreclosure in the Chicago area. His lonely battle for consumer rights occurred in parallel with the subjects of my book, thousands of miles away in Florida. There was no wide-ranging community to bring all these voices together, nobody to tell them they weren’t alone.
Which I guess made me the conduit. So I hear all these stories, knowing that years after the foreclosure crisis began, judges and lawyers and prosecutors and politicians don’t want to hear them anymore. Any drive to protect the public, if it was ever there, has withered. Having exhausted other options, foreclosure victims have to approach a writer as a last line of defense. It powerfully illustrates the dislocation people feel, of being stuck in a Kafka-esque trauma without resolution.
Political analysts still manage to wonder why people are angry in a time of economic recovery, without ever even hinting recognition of the scarring impact of the foreclosure disaster. More than 9.3 million American families gave up their home between 2006 and 2014, either in a foreclosure or a short sale or some other transaction. That translates to about 14 million people, all of whom have family and friends and colleagues who at least know of the pain caused by the foreclosure crisis.
There have been more since then.
It didn’t have to turn out that way. All of the losses didn’t have to be placed upon homeowners. Somebody could have been held responsible. We could have enforced the simple rule that you can’t take a person’s home with false evidence. This bare minimum would have engendered some faith that the system works, that justice still burns somewhere in America.
So to those who have reached out to me, and those who haven’t, to everyone still feeling the pain of foreclosure, I have just one thing to say. Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And when in your desperation you turned to me, I failed you. Because I wish I had something better to express than an apology.
POSTSCRIPT: This is my last column for Salon as a contributing writer. I am tremendously thankful to everyone I worked with here for their encouragement and support, and I exit with the best wishes that this incredible operation will thrive in the future. Thanks.
David Dayen is a contributing writer for Salon. His
first book, "Chain of Title," is out now. Follow him on Twitter at @ddayen.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Cenk Uygur blasts Wall Street Journal for attacking Sanders: ‘You committed class warfare on us’
By Arturo Garcia
After defending Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) record against the Washington Post last month, Young Turks host Cenk Uygur ripped the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. for its criticism of the Democratic presidential candidate.
“They cry their crocodile tears: ‘Sanders is actually gonna fix the system. How dare he, class warrior?'” Uygur said. “No, you committed class warfare on the rest of us. You stole our government, then you redirected trillions of money into your pockets.”
The op-ed by Bret Stephens accused Sanders of trying to paint everyone working on Wall Street as a criminal because of his campaign’s focus on economic and campaign finance reforms.
“No political or social penalties attach, in today’s America, to the wholesale indictment of this entire industry and the people who work in it,” Stephens complained. “Had another presidential candidate made a similarly damning remark about some other profession—public-school teachers, say, or oil-rig workers—there would have been the usual outcry about false stereotypes, the decline of civility and so on. When Bernie says it about Wall Street there’s a collective shrug, if not nodding agreement.”
“That’s not what he did,” Uygur responded. “You’re lying about that. ‘Cause you don’t want him to fix [the Glass-Steagall Banking Act] ’cause that’s how you guys get rich — by gambling with our money.”
Stephens also said that one reason Sanders has connected well with younger voters is because his idea of wisdom is “to hold fast to the angry convictions of his adolescence.”
“Isn’t it kind of juvenile to go around calling a presidential candidate childish?” Uygur asked, adding that younger voters are often more informed than their elders.
“The older voters who watch TV get broad general comments about the candidates,” the host said. “They never dig into the issues. The younger voters, who get their news online, have access to all their positions on all their issues. They’re far more educated than the older knucklehead voters you guys have been brainwashing all these years.”
Watch Uygur’s commentary, as aired on Tuesday, below.
After defending Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) record against the Washington Post last month, Young Turks host Cenk Uygur ripped the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. for its criticism of the Democratic presidential candidate.
“They cry their crocodile tears: ‘Sanders is actually gonna fix the system. How dare he, class warrior?'” Uygur said. “No, you committed class warfare on the rest of us. You stole our government, then you redirected trillions of money into your pockets.”
The op-ed by Bret Stephens accused Sanders of trying to paint everyone working on Wall Street as a criminal because of his campaign’s focus on economic and campaign finance reforms.
“No political or social penalties attach, in today’s America, to the wholesale indictment of this entire industry and the people who work in it,” Stephens complained. “Had another presidential candidate made a similarly damning remark about some other profession—public-school teachers, say, or oil-rig workers—there would have been the usual outcry about false stereotypes, the decline of civility and so on. When Bernie says it about Wall Street there’s a collective shrug, if not nodding agreement.”
“That’s not what he did,” Uygur responded. “You’re lying about that. ‘Cause you don’t want him to fix [the Glass-Steagall Banking Act] ’cause that’s how you guys get rich — by gambling with our money.”
Stephens also said that one reason Sanders has connected well with younger voters is because his idea of wisdom is “to hold fast to the angry convictions of his adolescence.”
“Isn’t it kind of juvenile to go around calling a presidential candidate childish?” Uygur asked, adding that younger voters are often more informed than their elders.
“The older voters who watch TV get broad general comments about the candidates,” the host said. “They never dig into the issues. The younger voters, who get their news online, have access to all their positions on all their issues. They’re far more educated than the older knucklehead voters you guys have been brainwashing all these years.”
Watch Uygur’s commentary, as aired on Tuesday, below.
Saturday, January 9, 2016
Hillary Clinton Is Not Telling The Truth About Wall Street
And it's damaging her campaign.
By Zach Carter
WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton's campaign spent much of this week waging a
dishonest attack on Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and his campaign's Wall
Street reform platform. The risky attempt to make inroads with
progressives on one of her weakest issues is damaging the credibility of
some of her top lieutenants.
Sanders has in fact proposed attacking shadow banking in two principal ways: by breaking up big financial firms that engage in shadow banking, and by severing federal financial support for shadow banking activities by reinstating Glass-Steagall.
These would be substantive changes. A lot of shadow banking takes place at firms with traditional banking charters, like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. Some of it takes place at specialized hedge funds, or at major investment banks like Goldman Sachs. Breaking them up would not eliminate the risk shadow banking poses to the economy, but it would limit it. Risky shadow banking activities cannot bring down institutions that are too-big-to-fail if there are no too-big-to-fail institutions.
Yet the Clinton campaign has repeatedly said Sanders is wholly ignoring shadow banking, accusing Sanders of taking a "hands-off" approach to it that would not apply to firms like Lehman Brothers and AIG. This barrage has come from Clinton's press aides, campaign CFO Gary Gensler, and Clinton surrogate Barney Frank.
In a bizarre appearance on Chris Hayes' MSNBC show, Frank claimed that splitting up Morgan Stanley or Bank of America "is not going to do anything, literally not anything to restrain shadow banking." He even said that since Lehman Brothers was "very small" when it failed, Sanders' break-up-the-banks plan would be unworkably broad and apply to too many firms.
It's hard to see these comments as anything but dishonest. Lehman Brothers was not "very small" when it failed. At $639 billion in assets, it was the single-biggest bankruptcy filing in American history. Only six U.S. banks are now larger than Lehman was, and the next-largest institutions are almost half Lehman's size. AIG -- then the world's largest insurer -- was even bigger.
Breaking up major institutions and forcing banks that accept insured deposits out of the shadow banking system are not the only conceivable tactics for mitigating risks posed by shadow banking.
Clinton's plan includes some vague but sensible proposals to take a harder look at the sector, require more transparency, and impose new leverage limits on some players. Her approach eschews a focus on the threat posed by large institutions in favor of monitoring risks across the financial system (she has repeatedly rejected calls to break up the biggest banks). The Clinton team could easily make a case for her approach without saying strange and false things about Sanders' plan.
And indeed, the Clinton camp's relentless references to Lehman and AIG undercut her own regulatory approach. If bank size were truly irrelevant to the shadow banking problem, then there would be no need to consistently highlight two too-big-to-fail institutions, one of which wreaked havoc on the economy by failing, and another of which was bailed out to avoid further havoc.
Jaret Seiberg, a regulatory specialist at Guggenheim Partners - and one of the most astute finance-friendly observers of American politics - issued a note to clients this week saying that key elements of Sanders' platform have bipartisan appeal and political viability that will put pressure on other candidates to present more aggressive anti-Wall Street messaging.
"This is not just about breaking up the biggest banks," Seiberg wrote. "Sanders is calling for a system in which financial firms are smaller, the government controls the interest rates that banks charge, certain fees are capped, the Postal Service becomes a viable competitor to banks and payday lenders [and] CEO's would be criminally liable if employees defraud customers.
"Sanders appears to argue that he could implement much of this agenda on his own even without the need for legislation," Seiberg continued. "We caution against dismissing this view. There is much that the White House, Treasury, or the financial regulators could do by executive order …. Bashing Wall Street is a populist message that appeals to conservatives and liberals. Sanders has now laid out the most radical option on the table that other candidates will be judged against."
So it's easy to see why Clinton would want to steal some of Sanders' populist thunder. But focusing on Wall Street could easily backfire on Clinton. Aside from giving opponents more opportunities to highlight speaking fees she accepted from Goldman Sachs and other banks, it risks demoralizing progressive voters. Financial reform is a major issue with the Democratic Party base. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has become one of the most popular figures within the party, built on her almost single-minded focus on Wall Street accountability. Too-big-to-fail and Glass-Steagall are major causes among Warren's supporters, many of whom have flocked to Sanders, but would be perfectly happy to vote for Clinton over a Republican in November.
Unless Clinton needlessly alienates them. Turning out an enthusiastic base has increasingly become essential for both parties over the past decade. With Clinton up more than 15 percentage points in Iowa polls and ahead by even wider margins nationally, it's hard to see the upside in her campaign's current assault on Sanders.
Making things up in order to criticize Sanders proposals that Democrats actually like only damages Clinton's credibility with Democratic voters.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Russell Simmons Slapped With Class Action Lawsuit For Fraud After RushCard Accounts Locked
By Meaghan Ellis
[Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images]
Russell Simmons is the latest face of controversy following a fiasco involving a RushCard glitch that prohibited thousands of customers from accessing their accounts. According to The Grio, it all started when a number of RushCard customers did not receive their scheduled direct deposits, consisting of paychecks, government benefit checks, and electronic funds transfers.
Many customers reported that their accounts reflected zero balances as if their deposits were never received, but the employers who sent deposits made it clear that the problem wasn’t on their end. As expected, Russell Simmons and the RushCard company – which markets to low-income Americans unable to obtain accounts with regular banking institutions – have received a flood of complaints via Facebook, and quickly attempted to resolve the staggering number of complaints.
Many frustrated cardholders have taken to social media to voice their concerns. Some news outlets have even slammed Russell Simmons and RushCard for exploiting the poor. The card debacle has placed emphasis on the number fees required to get and obtain a RushCard.
According to The Root, the prepaid card company recently released a public statement addressing the issue, detailing its efforts to rectify the financial problems customers are facing. In the statement, RushCard CEO Rick Savard stated that the problem began when the company transitioned from an older processor to a new one. The transition led to the glitch that has prompted numerous problems for cardholders.
[Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images]
Russell Simmons is the latest face of controversy following a fiasco involving a RushCard glitch that prohibited thousands of customers from accessing their accounts. According to The Grio, it all started when a number of RushCard customers did not receive their scheduled direct deposits, consisting of paychecks, government benefit checks, and electronic funds transfers.
Many customers reported that their accounts reflected zero balances as if their deposits were never received, but the employers who sent deposits made it clear that the problem wasn’t on their end. As expected, Russell Simmons and the RushCard company – which markets to low-income Americans unable to obtain accounts with regular banking institutions – have received a flood of complaints via Facebook, and quickly attempted to resolve the staggering number of complaints.
Many frustrated cardholders have taken to social media to voice their concerns. Some news outlets have even slammed Russell Simmons and RushCard for exploiting the poor. The card debacle has placed emphasis on the number fees required to get and obtain a RushCard.
I cut up my @rushcard, stepped on it, got in the car and drove over it, hit reverse to back over it again, then got out and spit on it! #BYE— Tonya (@Tee2theB) October 23, 2015
this rush card thing is reaffirming how much it costs to be poor. my goodness.— El Flaco (@bomani_jones) October 19, 2015
The situation is so catastrophic, Russell is personally responding to frustrated customers hoping to resolve these issues.RushCard: $20 activation fee. $10 monthly fee. $2.50 transaction fee Wells Fargo 'second chance checking': $50 minimum deposit. fees waived— CHRIS FOXX (@FoxxFiles) October 19, 2015
@UncleRUSH do you pick and choose who you respond to. I've DM'd you numerous time and haven't received a response— Jannise Jackson (@jannisejackson1) October 21, 2015
According to the Daily Mail, thousands of RushCard cardholders were unable to access their funds for more than a week. One couple even insists they were “forced to choose between feeding their children or paying their electric bill.” Although funds are now available to most customers, some of the calculations are reportedly still inaccurate.@UncleRUSH @RushCard I did DM u you did not acknowledge me did you steal the money or what— Priscilla Lee` (@I_aM_TRILL) October 20, 2015
According to The Root, the prepaid card company recently released a public statement addressing the issue, detailing its efforts to rectify the financial problems customers are facing. In the statement, RushCard CEO Rick Savard stated that the problem began when the company transitioned from an older processor to a new one. The transition led to the glitch that has prompted numerous problems for cardholders.
The hip-hop mogul has also took to Twitter with a brief statement and a number of updates about the card fiasco. “We have a handful of people left who are still not able to access correct information about their accounts,” the statement reads, according to Rolling Stone. “Their funds are there but their information is still inaccurate. We are working to contact them individually to assist them with their needs.”Russell Simmons' RushCard has tech error, users can't access their money: https://t.co/AkFNofwy4z— XXL Magazine (@XXL) October 19, 2015
We are still working through all of @RushCard's problems. We have made progress, but see that there a number of people still affected.— Russell Simmons (@UncleRUSH) October 22, 2015
We continue to work through all of @RushCard’s issues. If you are still experiencing problems, pls DM me your name, phone # and address.— Russell Simmons (@UncleRUSH) October 20, 2015
According to Rolling Stone, the credit card debacle has led to an investigative probe of Russell Simmons’ company. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has stepped in to conduct the investigation. On Friday, October 23, CFPB director Richard Cordray stated that he has been in contact with Savard and the federal agency “will make sure that action is being taken to address harm that has occurred, the harm that may still be occurring, and the cascading financial effects of consumers not having access to their funds for more than a week,” reports Yahoo News.An update for our @RushCard members: pic.twitter.com/Z2s49d0SN2— Russell Simmons (@UncleRUSH) October 22, 2015
However, the RushCard announcements haven’t been enough to please those who are still suffering drawbacks from the card confusion. Due to the financial hardships, limited answers, and partial resolutions, impatient customers have already moved forward to resolve the mater with legal recourse. It has been reported that the 58 year old business magnate has been hit with a class action lawsuit. The suit slams the card company, accusing it of fraudulent induction practices.Customers who can least afford missing paychecks. — Rushcard issues leave customers short of funds http://t.co/Qt1re2WhDC (h/t @aminatou)— PostBourgie.com (@PostBourgie) October 19, 2015
“Plaintiff’s and class members were fraudulently induced into purchasing RushCards and depositing money into their RushCard accounts because they were led to believe their funds would be ‘safe and protected’ with unhindered access to these monies.”The unfortunate situation has already prompted a number of customers to cancel their RushCard accounts as the uncertainties lead many to believe the card now comes with a number drawbacks. Hopefully, the situation can be resolved and that the company can regain the trust of its customers.
Friday, July 24, 2015
Millions (of dollars) welcome Eric Holder home
Posted by Jim Hightower
Novelist Thomas Wolfe famously wrote: "You can't go home again." But Eric Holder has proven him wrong.
Holder, who was President Obama's Attorney General until stepping down earlier this year, recently returned to his old home place – Covington & Burling. Where's that? Well, it's not actually a place, but a powerhouse Washington lobbying-and-corporate-lawyering outfit. It runs interference in Washington for such Wall Street clients as Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo – and it's a place where Holder definitely feels at home.
After serving as a deputy attorney general in the 1990's (where he demonstrated a kind and gentle approach to prosecuting corporate crime), Holder was invited in 2001 to leave his government job and join the corporate covey of Covington & Burling lawyers. There, he happily hauled water for big name corporations until tapped to re-enter the government in 2009 as AG.
The most striking thing about his six-year run as America's top lawyer was his ever-so-delicate treatment of the Wall Street banksters who crashed our economy in 2008. Despite blatant cases of massive fraud and finagling, Holder failed to prosecute even one of the top Wall Streeters involved.
Indeed, he kindly de-prioritized criminal prosecution of mortgage fraud and even publicly embraced the soft-on-corporate-crime notion that Wall Street banks are "Too big to fail" and "Too big to jail."
It's no surprise then that Holder is once again spinning through the revolving door of government service to rejoin his corporate family at Covington & Burling. In fact, in his years away, the firm kept a primo corner office empty for him, awaiting his return home.
In a way, he never really left! But now his paycheck for serving corporate interests will be many millions of dollars a year. Happy homecoming, Eric!
"After Years of Not Prosecuting Banks, Eric Holder Returns Home to Defend Them," www.portside.org, July 6, 2015.
Listen to this Commentary
Holder, who was President Obama's Attorney General until stepping down earlier this year, recently returned to his old home place – Covington & Burling. Where's that? Well, it's not actually a place, but a powerhouse Washington lobbying-and-corporate-lawyering outfit. It runs interference in Washington for such Wall Street clients as Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo – and it's a place where Holder definitely feels at home.
After serving as a deputy attorney general in the 1990's (where he demonstrated a kind and gentle approach to prosecuting corporate crime), Holder was invited in 2001 to leave his government job and join the corporate covey of Covington & Burling lawyers. There, he happily hauled water for big name corporations until tapped to re-enter the government in 2009 as AG.
The most striking thing about his six-year run as America's top lawyer was his ever-so-delicate treatment of the Wall Street banksters who crashed our economy in 2008. Despite blatant cases of massive fraud and finagling, Holder failed to prosecute even one of the top Wall Streeters involved.
Indeed, he kindly de-prioritized criminal prosecution of mortgage fraud and even publicly embraced the soft-on-corporate-crime notion that Wall Street banks are "Too big to fail" and "Too big to jail."
It's no surprise then that Holder is once again spinning through the revolving door of government service to rejoin his corporate family at Covington & Burling. In fact, in his years away, the firm kept a primo corner office empty for him, awaiting his return home.
In a way, he never really left! But now his paycheck for serving corporate interests will be many millions of dollars a year. Happy homecoming, Eric!
"After Years of Not Prosecuting Banks, Eric Holder Returns Home to Defend Them," www.portside.org, July 6, 2015.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Bernie Sanders Exposes 18 CEO's Who Took Trillions In Bailouts, Evaded Taxes And Outsourced Jobs
Written by Jason Easley | PoliticusUSA
Sen. Bernie Sanders fired back at 80 CEOs who wrote a letter
lecturing America about deficit reduction by released a report detailing
how 18 of these CEOs have wrecked the economy by evading taxes and
outsourcing jobs.
80 CEO’s raised the ire of Sen. Sanders by publishing a letter in
the Wall Street Journal urging America to act on the deficit, and reform
Medicare and Medicaid.
Sen.
Sanders responded to the lecture from America’s CEO’s by releasing a
report that detailed how 18 of them have helped blow up the deficit and
wreck the economy by outsourcing jobs and evading US taxes.
There really is no shame. The Wall Street leaders whose recklessness and illegal behavior caused this terrible recession are now lecturing the American people on the need for courage to deal with the nation’s finances and deficit crisis. Before telling us why we should cut Social Security, Medicare and other vitally important programs, these CEOs might want to take a hard look at their responsibility for causing the deficit and this terrible recession.
Our Wall Street friends might also want to show some courage of their own by suggesting that the wealthiest people in this country, like them, start paying their fair share of taxes. They might work to end the outrageous corporate loopholes, tax havens and outsourcing provisions that their lobbyists have littered throughout the tax code – contributing greatly to our deficit.
Many of the CEO’s who signed the deficit-reduction letter run corporations that evaded at least $34.5 billion in taxes by setting up more than 600 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax havens since 2008. As a result, at least a dozen of the companies avoided paying any federal income taxes in recent years, and even received more than $6.4 billion in tax refunds from the IRS since 2008.
Several of the companies received a total taxpayer bailout of more than $2.5 trillion from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department.
Many of the companies also have outsourced hundreds of thousands of American jobs to China and other low wage countries, forcing their workers to receive unemployment insurance and other federal benefits. In other words, these are some of the same people who have significantly caused the deficit to explode over the last four years.
Here are the 18 CEO’s Sanders labeled job destroyers in his report. (All data from Top Corporate Dodgers report.)
1). 1. Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $1.9 billion tax refund.
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department? Over $1.3 trillion.
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $1.9 billion tax refund.
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department? Over $1.3 trillion.
Amount of federal income taxes Bank of America would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $2.6 billion.
2). Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2008? Zero. $278 million tax refund.
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department? $824 billion.
Amount of federal income taxes Goldman Sachs would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $2.7 billion
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2008? Zero. $278 million tax refund.
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department? $824 billion.
Amount of federal income taxes Goldman Sachs would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $2.7 billion
3). JP Morgan Chase CEO James Dimon
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department? $416 billion.
Amount of federal income taxes JP Morgan Chase would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $4.9 billion.
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department? $416 billion.
Amount of federal income taxes JP Morgan Chase would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $4.9 billion.
4). General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $3.3 billion tax refund.
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve? $16 billion.
Jobs Shipped Overseas? At least 25,000 since 2001.
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $3.3 billion tax refund.
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve? $16 billion.
Jobs Shipped Overseas? At least 25,000 since 2001.
5). Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $705 million tax refund.
American Jobs Cut in 2010? In 2010, Verizon announced 13,000 job cuts, the third highest corporate layoff total that year.
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $705 million tax refund.
American Jobs Cut in 2010? In 2010, Verizon announced 13,000 job cuts, the third highest corporate layoff total that year.
6). Boeing CEO James McNerney, Jr.
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? None. $124 million tax refund.
American Jobs Shipped overseas? Over 57,000.
Amount of Corporate Welfare? At least $58 billion.
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? None. $124 million tax refund.
American Jobs Shipped overseas? Over 57,000.
Amount of Corporate Welfare? At least $58 billion.
7). Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer
Amount of federal income taxes Microsoft would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $19.4 billion.
Amount of federal income taxes Microsoft would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $19.4 billion.
8). Honeywell International CEO David Cote
Amount of federal income taxes paid from 2008-2010? Zero. $34 million tax refund.
Amount of federal income taxes paid from 2008-2010? Zero. $34 million tax refund.
9). Corning CEO Wendell Weeks
Amount of federal income taxes paid from 2008-2010? Zero. $4 million tax refund.
Amount of federal income taxes paid from 2008-2010? Zero. $4 million tax refund.
10). Time Warner CEO Glenn Britt
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2008? Zero. $74 million tax refund.
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2008? Zero. $74 million tax refund.
11). Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2009? Zero. $55 million tax refund.
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2009? Zero. $55 million tax refund.
12). Deere & Company CEO Samuel Allen
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2009? Zero. $1 million tax refund.
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2009? Zero. $1 million tax refund.
13). Marsh & McLennan Companies CEO Brian Duperreault
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $90 million refund.
14). Qualcomm CEO Paul Jacobs
Amount of federal income taxes Qualcomm would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $4.7 billion.
15). Tenneco CEO Gregg Sherill
Amount of federal income taxes Tenneco would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $269 million.
16). Express Scripts CEO George Paz
Amount of federal income taxes Express Scripts would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $20 million.
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $90 million refund.
14). Qualcomm CEO Paul Jacobs
Amount of federal income taxes Qualcomm would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $4.7 billion.
15). Tenneco CEO Gregg Sherill
Amount of federal income taxes Tenneco would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $269 million.
16). Express Scripts CEO George Paz
Amount of federal income taxes Express Scripts would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $20 million.
17). Caesars Entertainment CEO Gary Loveman
Amount of federal income taxes Caesars Entertainment would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $9 million.
18). R.R. Donnelly & Sons CEO Thomas Quinlan III
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2008? Zero. $49 million tax refund.
Amount of federal income taxes Caesars Entertainment would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $9 million.
18). R.R. Donnelly & Sons CEO Thomas Quinlan III
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2008? Zero. $49 million tax refund.
Eighteen
of the 80 CEOs who signed the call for deficit action are actually some
of the biggest outsourcers and tax cheats in America. First, they
crashed the economy in 2008. They followed that up by taking billions in
taxpayer bailout dollars. Their next step was to outsource jobs and
evade taxes. Now they are calling for action on a deficit that they
helped create over the past four years.
Bernie Sanders is
exposing the hypocrisy of these CEO's, and every American should
understand that if Mitt Romney is elected president, these pigs see
potential for unlimited feeding from the taxpayer trough. Only by
standing together can we tell these CEOs that the bill has come due, and
it is time for them to pay.
We can tell these gluttons of our dollars that the all you can eat taxpayer buffet is now closed.
Friday, April 10, 2015
Big banks require tellers to use predatory practices
By Moyers & Company
Front-line workers at our nation’s big banks — tellers, loan interviewers and customer service representatives — are required by their employers to exploit customers, according to a revealing report out today from the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD). Big banks have internal systems of penalties and rewards that entice employees to push subprime loans and credit cards on customers who would be better off without them.
CPD’s report outlines several illegal predatory practices big banks have been caught employing, usually via their front-line workers:
Several anonymous big bank employees went into detail about how their employers incentivize sales:
As the report concludes, “Our nation’s big banks are committed to a model that jeopardizes our communities and prevents bank employees from having a voice in their workplace.”
April 9, 2015 by Katie Rose Quandt
This post first appeared on BillMoyers.com.
Front-line workers at our nation’s big banks — tellers, loan interviewers and customer service representatives — are required by their employers to exploit customers, according to a revealing report out today from the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD). Big banks have internal systems of penalties and rewards that entice employees to push subprime loans and credit cards on customers who would be better off without them.
CPD’s report outlines several illegal predatory practices big banks have been caught employing, usually via their front-line workers:
- Blatantly discriminatory lending:
In 2011 and 2012, Bank of America and Wells Fargo paid out settlements for charging higher rates and fees to tens of thousands of African American and Hispanic borrowers than to similarly qualified white customers. Minority customers were also more likely to be steered into (more expensive, riskier) subprime mortgages. - Manipulating payment processing to maximize overdraft charges:
When a savings account balance drops too low, the bank charges a hefty overdraft fee on each subsequent purchase. Both Bank of America and US Bank paid settlements for intentionally processing customers’ largest debit card payments first, regardless of chronological order, in order to hit $0 faster and maximize overdraft fees. US Bank was also accused of allowing debit card purchases on zero-balance accounts to go through (and incur overdraft fees), instead of denying the charges upfront. - Forcing sale of unneeded products:
Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup were accused of forcing customers to purchase overpriced property insurance. - Manipulative sales quotas:
Lawsuits show Wells Fargo and Bank of America created incentive programs for employees with the interests of the company — not the customer — in mind. Wells Fargo’s sales quotas encouraged bank workers to steer prime-eligible customers to subprime loans, while falsifying other clients’ income information without their knowledge. Bank of America’s “Hustle” program rewarded quantity over quality, encouraging workers to skip processes and checks intended to protect the borrower.
Several anonymous big bank employees went into detail about how their employers incentivize sales:
- An HSBC employee reported that when workers fell short of sales goals, the difference was taken out of their paychecks.
- A teller at a major bank said she is expected to sell three new checking, savings, or debit card accounts every day. If she falls short, she gets written up.
- Customer service representatives at one major bank’s call-center said everyone is expected to make at least 40 percent of the sales of the top seller. Credit card sales count for extra, encouraging callers to push credit cards on customers who would be better served with checking or savings accounts.
- A call-center worker said she offers a credit card to every customer, regardless of whether it would be beneficial. She explained: “If you aren’t offering, you can get marked down — the managers and Quality Analysts listen to your call, and can tell if you aren’t offering.”
As the report concludes, “Our nation’s big banks are committed to a model that jeopardizes our communities and prevents bank employees from having a voice in their workplace.”
April 9, 2015 by Katie Rose Quandt
This post first appeared on BillMoyers.com.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
How Privatization Rips Us All Off
Average Americans are the products, and few of us see any profits.
By Paul Buchheit
The Project on Government Oversight found that in 33 of 35 cases the federal government spent more on private contractors than on public employees for the same services. The authors of the report summarized, "Our findings were shocking."
Yet our elected leaders persist in their belief that free-market capitalism works best. Here are a few fact-based examples that say otherwise.
Health Care: Markups of 100%....1,000%....100,000%
Broadcast Journalist Edward R. Murrow in 1955: Who owns the patent on this vaccine?
Polio Researcher Jonas Salk: Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?
We don't hear much of that anymore. The public-minded sentiment of the 1950's, with the sense of wartime cooperation still in the minds of researchers and innovators, has yielded to the neoliberal winner-take-all business model.
In his most recent exposé of the health care industry in the U.S., Steve Brill notes that it's "the only industry in which technological advances have increased costs instead of lowering them." An investigation of fourteen private hospitals by National Nurses United found that they realized a 1,000% markup on their total costs, four times that of public hospitals. Other sources have found that private health insurance administrative costs are 5 to 6 times higher than Medicare administrative costs.
Markup reached 100,000% for the pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences, which grabbed a patent for a new hepatitis drug and set the pricing to take whatever they could get from desperate American patients.
Housing: Big Profits, Once the Minorities Are Squeezed Out
A report by a coalition of housing rights groups concluded that "public housing is a vital national resource that provides decent and affordable homes to over a million families across the country."
But, according to the report, a privatization program started during the Clinton administration resulted in "the wholesale destruction of communities" and "the displacement of very large numbers of low-income households of color."
It's gotten even worse since then, as Blackstone and Goldman Sachs have figured out how to take money from former homeowners, with three deviously effective strategies:
The public bank of North Dakota had an equity return of 23.4% before the state's oil boom. The normally privatization-minded Wall Street Journal admits that "The BND's costs are extremely low: no exorbitantly-paid executives; no bonuses, fees, or commissions; only one branch office; very low borrowing costs.."
But thanks to private banks, interest claims one out of every three dollars that we spend, and by the time we retire with a 401(k), over half of our money is lost to the banks.
Internet: The Fastest Download in the U.S. (is on a Public Network)
That's in Chattanooga, a rapidly growing city, named by Nerdwallet as one of the "most improved cities since the recession," and offering its residents Internet speeds 50 times faster than the American average.
Elsewhere, 61 percent of Americans are left with a single private company, often Comcast or Time Warner, to provide cable service. Now those two companies, both high on the most hated list, are trying to merge into one.
The Post Office: Private Companies Depend on it to Handle the Unprofitable Routes
It costs less than 50 cents to send a letter to any remote location in the United States. For an envelope with a two-day guarantee, this is how the U.S. Postal Service recently matched up against competitors:
By Paul Buchheit
The Project on Government Oversight found that in 33 of 35 cases the federal government spent more on private contractors than on public employees for the same services. The authors of the report summarized, "Our findings were shocking."
Yet our elected leaders persist in their belief that free-market capitalism works best. Here are a few fact-based examples that say otherwise.
Health Care: Markups of 100%....1,000%....100,000%
Broadcast Journalist Edward R. Murrow in 1955: Who owns the patent on this vaccine?
Polio Researcher Jonas Salk: Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?
We don't hear much of that anymore. The public-minded sentiment of the 1950's, with the sense of wartime cooperation still in the minds of researchers and innovators, has yielded to the neoliberal winner-take-all business model.
In his most recent exposé of the health care industry in the U.S., Steve Brill notes that it's "the only industry in which technological advances have increased costs instead of lowering them." An investigation of fourteen private hospitals by National Nurses United found that they realized a 1,000% markup on their total costs, four times that of public hospitals. Other sources have found that private health insurance administrative costs are 5 to 6 times higher than Medicare administrative costs.
Markup reached 100,000% for the pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences, which grabbed a patent for a new hepatitis drug and set the pricing to take whatever they could get from desperate American patients.
Housing: Big Profits, Once the Minorities Are Squeezed Out
A report by a coalition of housing rights groups concluded that "public housing is a vital national resource that provides decent and affordable homes to over a million families across the country."
But, according to the report, a privatization program started during the Clinton administration resulted in "the wholesale destruction of communities" and "the displacement of very large numbers of low-income households of color."
It's gotten even worse since then, as Blackstone and Goldman Sachs have figured out how to take money from former homeowners, with three deviously effective strategies:
- Buy houses and hold them to force prices up
- Meanwhile, charge high rents (with little or no maintenance)
- Package the deals as rental-backed securities with artificially high-grade ratings
The public bank of North Dakota had an equity return of 23.4% before the state's oil boom. The normally privatization-minded Wall Street Journal admits that "The BND's costs are extremely low: no exorbitantly-paid executives; no bonuses, fees, or commissions; only one branch office; very low borrowing costs.."
But thanks to private banks, interest claims one out of every three dollars that we spend, and by the time we retire with a 401(k), over half of our money is lost to the banks.
Internet: The Fastest Download in the U.S. (is on a Public Network)
That's in Chattanooga, a rapidly growing city, named by Nerdwallet as one of the "most improved cities since the recession," and offering its residents Internet speeds 50 times faster than the American average.
Elsewhere, 61 percent of Americans are left with a single private company, often Comcast or Time Warner, to provide cable service. Now those two companies, both high on the most hated list, are trying to merge into one.
The Post Office: Private Companies Depend on it to Handle the Unprofitable Routes
It costs less than 50 cents to send a letter to any remote location in the United States. For an envelope with a two-day guarantee, this is how the U.S. Postal Service recently matched up against competitors:
- U.S. Post Office 2-Day $5.68
- Federal Express 2-Day $19.28
- United Parcel Service 2 Day $24.09
Paul Buchheit teaches economic inequality at DePaul University. He is the founder and developer of the Web sites UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org and RappingHistory.org, and the editor and main author of "American Wars: Illusions and Realities" (Clarity Press). He can be reached at paul@UsAgainstGreed.org.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Insiders aiding online, off-shore loan sharks
Posted by Jim Hightower
When it comes to pursuing their prey, sharks are master maneuverers. Loan sharks, that is.
These days, this usurious species goes by the less threatening name of "payday lenders." But they are no less voracious, targeting folks in rough financial straits and luring them with easy-money come-ons. With lethal interest rates of more than 700 percent, automatic renewal clauses, and other razor-sharp gotchas, a $500 payday loan can sink a hapless borrower thousands of dollars into debt. That's why states have been restricting the sharks' interest-rate gouging and entrapment techniques.
But, with a flip of their tails, many payday lenders are simply swimming around state laws by operating online and offshore from such regulatory safe-harbors as the Bahamas, the Isle of Man, and Malta. From there, sharks can make loans, then begin devouring their borrowers' bank accounts, even in states that ban such loans.
How can shady operators pull-off billions of dollars worth of these devious – and maybe illegal – transactions each year? With inside help from such pillars of the financial establishment as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo. Of course, these upstanding corporate citizens don't dirty their hands (or reputations) by making these predatory loans, but they willingly allow offshore sharks to tap directly into the borrowers' checking accounts and withdraw unconscionable interest payments electronically… and mercilessly.
There's a four-letter F-word for what the banks are doing to their own depositors: Fees. Automatic withdrawals by the sharks can cause a tsunami of overdrafts in a borrowers' bank account – and banks happily collect fat fees for every overdraft.
To help stop this multibillion-dollar feeding frenzy on hard-up people go to www.responsiblelending.org
"Major Banks Aid in Payday Loans Banned by States," The New York Times,
February 24, 2013.
"Short-term loans meet real, immediate needs," Austin American Statesman, March 7, 2013.
When it comes to pursuing their prey, sharks are master maneuverers. Loan sharks, that is.
These days, this usurious species goes by the less threatening name of "payday lenders." But they are no less voracious, targeting folks in rough financial straits and luring them with easy-money come-ons. With lethal interest rates of more than 700 percent, automatic renewal clauses, and other razor-sharp gotchas, a $500 payday loan can sink a hapless borrower thousands of dollars into debt. That's why states have been restricting the sharks' interest-rate gouging and entrapment techniques.
But, with a flip of their tails, many payday lenders are simply swimming around state laws by operating online and offshore from such regulatory safe-harbors as the Bahamas, the Isle of Man, and Malta. From there, sharks can make loans, then begin devouring their borrowers' bank accounts, even in states that ban such loans.
How can shady operators pull-off billions of dollars worth of these devious – and maybe illegal – transactions each year? With inside help from such pillars of the financial establishment as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo. Of course, these upstanding corporate citizens don't dirty their hands (or reputations) by making these predatory loans, but they willingly allow offshore sharks to tap directly into the borrowers' checking accounts and withdraw unconscionable interest payments electronically… and mercilessly.
There's a four-letter F-word for what the banks are doing to their own depositors: Fees. Automatic withdrawals by the sharks can cause a tsunami of overdrafts in a borrowers' bank account – and banks happily collect fat fees for every overdraft.
To help stop this multibillion-dollar feeding frenzy on hard-up people go to www.responsiblelending.org
"Major Banks Aid in Payday Loans Banned by States," The New York Times,
February 24, 2013.
"Short-term loans meet real, immediate needs," Austin American Statesman, March 7, 2013.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)