The Corporate Observer : Washington D.C. Class Action Lawyer & Attorney : Steven Berk Law Firm : Consumer Protection, Corporate Abuse : The Corporate Observer Blog

Paul Volcker – a voice for reasonable regulation on Wall Street

Paul Volcker, for decades a lion in the regulatory community, has had an undeniable impact on the new financial regulations moving across President Obama’s desk. All proponents of Main Street should applaud him. Mr. Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, has recently found his voice as lead Economic Advisor to President Obama. The proof:

The Volcker rule:   A key piece of the financial reform legislation, which President Obama signed into law earlier this week.  The rule will help ensure a dividing line between commercial and investment banks.

Mr. Volcker hoped for a complete separation of traditional banking from investment/hedge fund banking industries. Recall, this was the way of the world before the drastic deregulation of the 80’s and 90’s.  Unfortunately, today’s political reality would not permit such a stark division of commercial banks and investment banks. Instead of a complete separation of functions, the bill that President Obama signed into law limits commercial banks to investing just 3% of their capital in investments that do not benefit their customers. In other words: trading for their own account and perhaps contrary to the interests of their customers and the public. And as we now know getting into enough trouble to need a multi-billion dollar bail out. 

Volcker, always a thoughtful proponent of government regulation, was largely cast aside and silenced during the economic booms spurred by deregulation. In a recent interview with the New York Times, Volcker called the idea of a self-regulating market an illusion which he is happy to see shattered.  

This week, we salute Mr. Volcker for his efforts on behalf of the Main Street and the public. Despite Wall Street’s kicking and screaming, Volcker’s singular gravitas has successfully stood up to those Gucci wearing lobbyists of the financial industry. Although not enough, the Volcker rule is a step in the right direction. It helps Main Street to be sure. Unless banks find a creative way around it, we should be spared – at least for awhile –  the volatility and cost associated with the unbridled greed of banks we all witnessed the last several years.

Assisted by Zachary Kady

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New York Times reported yesterday yet another fraudulent investment scheme. Ho hum. This time it is a group of investors suing an entity called Lancer Offshore and a few other hedge funds run by Michael Lauer. Lauer’s gains from the scheme total around $62 million, and overall losses for investors total over $550 million. Nothing new, right?  

Wrong. This time Bank of America is up to its ears (if a bank had ears) in this fraud. BAS (an investment subsidiary of Bank of America) allegedly aided and abetted Lancer Funds in deceiving its investors. BAS acted as the prime broker for Lancer. Their role was to clear and settle trades, and act as the custodian for some of the securities held by Lancer. Bank of America’s biggest blunder was allowing Lancer funds to report the value of their investments in a manner that has been banned for almost 50 years. Yes 50 years; think pre-Beatles, pre-color TV.

The investors allege that by reporting the value of certain restricted stocks at the same price as freely traded shares, Bank of America allowed Lancer to dramatically inflate its earnings. During the period when Lauer was making his trades, Lancer’s account was overseen by three different executives, all of which called Bank of America’s actions standard procedure. Perhaps Bank of America should revise its “standard procedure”.

Bank of America moved to dismiss those allegations. But that effort was summarily rejected by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin – click here to read the ruling. Not surprisingly, Bank of America acted irresponsibly in the face of a duty to protect investors. The investors claim that Bank of America knowingly posted reports and account statements based on fraudulent data. Bank of America seems to be at the head of the line when it comes to high profile cases of bad judgment and investor protection. Stay tuned to A Voice For Main Street for more news on Bank of America’s culpability in this case and other related stories.

Assisted by: Zach Kady

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With subpoena power and the threat of jail time (how many hundreds of years did Madoff get?), stepped up enforcement can moderate the rampant speculation and greed to function efficiently as a lubricant to the markets like oil in a car and not sparks in a dry forest.

Well… judges?  The envelope please… (imagine whispers and hushed speaking voices) it’s of course Gretchen Morgenson herself; brilliant, insightful New York Times Columnist and all around contributor to humanity.  She is always honest, informed and on-target (she would have won last year but she was too busy scaling K2 in Nepal).  Ms. Morgenson, who likes to be called Ms. Morgenson, said she was “thrilled” to even be considered and would put this award right up there with her Pulitzer Prize (not).

Why all this *ahem* praise for Ms. Morgenson?  This Sunday she reported on the next impending financial crash, this time involving overinflated bank stocks.  Gosh.  Didn’t we just get off that ledge, abyss?  Or was it a precipice?

(Fill in your word – this blog is interactive).  

Ms. Morgenson’s piece succinctly reports that despite unpromising data coming from the banks, the numbers are just not there: bank stocks are soaring – soaring on air and not cash and profits.  The analysis Ms. Morgenson highlights in her column of smaller, non-money-center banks (which excludes Citigroup, Bank of America, etcetera) illustrates that “the number of financially sound banks is declining.”  Coupling these two facts together, Ms. Morgenson concludes that it is time to

“determine whether fundamentals in the industry support this rocket-fueled surge in bank shares.”

Thanks Gretchen, good column as always – but I sense an undertone of panic and fear; a siren signaling a second crisis in the financial sector.  With all due respect to Ms. Morgenson, it’s not time to panic just yet.  To be sure, it is difficult not to doubt everything financial, from soaring bank stocks to the dollar bill with which I buy my Snickers (yes a Snickers).  But we’re seeing plenty of signs of stability and the markets (all of them) seem to be better patrolled by the Feds.  Greed and profit taking will always be there it just needs to be maintained at a moderate level – and not get silly.  To ensure that doesn’t happen, we have the regulators and enforcers.  With subpoena power and the threat of jail time (how many hundreds of years did Madoff get?), stepped up enforcement can moderate the rampant speculation and greed to function efficiently as a lubricant to the markets like oil in a car and not sparks in a dry forest.  So let those bank stocks soar for awhile on greed and speculation.  They will come back down to earth.  In the meantime, a little speculation is good for the sector.

(Post was prepared with the assistance of David Martin, University of North Carolina 2010)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link