November 7, 2014
|
The following is a transcript of a Democracy Now! segment.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: A
year ago this month, the Justice Department announced the banking giant
JPMorgan Chase would avoid criminal charges by agreeing to pay $13
billion to settle claims that it had routinely overstated the quality of
mortgages it was selling to investors. When the toxic mortgage
securities started turning bad, investors lost faith in the banking
system, and a housing crisis turned into the 2008 financial crisis that
led to millions of home foreclosures. New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman unveiled the settlement last November.
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN:Not
only will Chase have to pay the largest settlement ever levied against a
financial institution, but it has admitted in our statement of facts
that its own employees, employees of Bear Stearns and employees of
Washington Mutual made material misrepresentations to the investing
public about a large number of residential mortgage-backed securities
that they issued prior to the crash in 2008. This settlement is a major
victory in the fight to hold accountable those who were responsible for
that crash.
AMY GOODMAN: Soon after the JPMorgan
Chase deal was reached, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder discussed the
bank’s misdeeds during an interview with NBC News’ Pete Williams.
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: It
packaged loans that it knew did not pass its own stated due diligence
test. We have a whistleblower who indicated that she expressed concerns
about what the strength of these mortgage-backed securities were, and
they put them out there to the market and said that they were perfectly
fine, when in fact they were not.
PETE WILLIAMS: So, to be clear, you’re saying that JPMorgan’s conduct here contributed to the housing collapse?
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: Not
only the conduct of JPMorgan, it was the conduct of other banks doing
similar kinds of things that led directly to the collapse of our economy
in 2008 and in 2009.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: During that
interview, Attorney General Eric Holder mentioned the role of an unnamed
whistleblower from JPMorgan Chase who aided the Justice Department’s
case against the bank. Well, until this week, that whistleblower, Alayne
Fleischmann, a securities lawyer who worked for JPMorgan, had never
spoken publicly about what she witnessed inside the bank. That changed
yesterday when Rolling Stone magazine published a major new
piece by
Matt Taibbi headlined "The $9 Billion Witness: Meet the woman JPMorgan
Chase paid one of the largest fines in American history to keep from
talking."
AMY GOODMAN: In the article, Alayne Fleischmann
criticizes not only JPMorgan’s banking practices, but how government
regulators at the Holder Justice Department responded to the bank’s
lawbreaking. Today, in her first televised interview, Alayne Fleischmann
joins us here on Democracy Now!, along with Matt Taibbi, who has
closely covered the financial crisis for years. His latest book,
Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap, has just come out in paperback.
And we welcome you both to Democracy Now! for the hour.
MATT TAIBBI: Thanks for having us on.
AMY GOODMAN: So,
Alayne Fleischmann, start at the beginning. Why did you decide to come
forward? And how did you end up at Chase?
ALAYNE FLEISCHMANN: Sure.
For a long time, I was expecting it to come out. I’ve been talking to
the government for two-and-a-half years now. And first it went through
the SEC. Then it went through the Civil Division of the DOJ. And at some
stage after watching all of these major banks have deals that actually
the facts get wiped away, I started to feel that if I don’t come
forward, there’s a real chance of that happening here, too.
In
terms of JPMorgan Chase, I started there in March 2006 at sort of the
height of the boom. When I started, everything seemed normal. I didn’t
really realize some of the things that were happening in the background.
And then things started to change in about May, a couple months after I
had been there.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, what—when you went to work
there, what specifically was your job? And if you could walk us through
how you began to realize the huge problem that the bank was a part of?
ALAYNE FLEISCHMANN: Sure.
I started as what they call a deal manager. Basically, we coordinate
between all these different groups when we’re bringing in these loans,
that are then going to be sold to investors. I first noticed that there
was a problem when they brought in a new person to do our diligence,
which is just the review of the loans themselves to make sure they’re of
good quality. As soon as he came in, we suddenly—this wall sort of came
down between myself and the group that was doing this review, and you
couldn’t get information that you would normally get. On top of that,
there was immediately a sort of a no-email policy. He wouldn’t send
emails, and we weren’t allowed to send him emails. He would actually
come out and yell at you if you sent him an email.
AMY GOODMAN: What was the reason?
ALAYNE FLEISCHMANN: It
was never given, which was extremely worrisome, because normally the
reason why you have a compliance and diligence department is to actually
have written policies about what you’re doing, to be able to explain to
people how you’re making your decisions. So it’s exactly the opposite
of what you would normally expect.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And when you say to review the quality of the loans, if you could—
ALAYNE FLEISCHMANN: Sure, yes.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —for
people who are not aware—you were, in essence, certifying that these
individual loans could be packaged into a group of securities to then be
sold to investors in a huge package, right? But you had to go through
every individual loan? Was that—
ALAYNE FLEISCHMANN: Yeah, that’s
pretty much what happens. It’s really that you’re taking the actual loan
files, that was done between the lender and the borrower, and looking
at them to make sure everything looks right. Does this person have
enough money to pay off their loan? Do they have the sort of history
where we think that they’re going to pay this loan? And if we find that
they don’t, then we’re actually not supposed to purchase the loans, and
certainly shouldn’t be selling them to other investors without at least
telling them there’s something wrong with them.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, what was the smoking gun for you?
ALAYNE FLEISCHMANN: Everything
about—what really started happening—in particular, it became apparent
in October—was that sometimes we had deals coming in where even though I
wasn’t even the person looking at the loans, you could tell from where I
was that something was wrong with them. The GreenPoint deal, which is
what Matt talks about in his article, even when the loans came in, they
were very, very old, which usually you try to actually pull these loans
and sell them within two to three months—these loans were going back to
close to the beginning of the year. If you work in the industry, you
know immediately what that means, is either they couldn’t sell them,
because the buyers were telling them they weren’t any good, or, even
worse, they’d been sold and then had missed a bunch of payments, so they
had actually been sold back to the originator. Any of those loans you
wouldn’t normally sell to investors as regular loans.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Now, Matt, you’ve referred in your article to these loans as basically selling old, beat-up used cars—
MATT TAIBBI: Right.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —as if they were new. Could you explain that?
MATT TAIBBI: Yeah,
that’s exactly what Alayne is talking about. Essentially, what the bank
was doing was they—you know, there are companies out there, these
mortgage lenders, like a company that might be familiar to people is,
like, Countrywide—in this case, it was an originator called
GreenPoint—they would go out into neighborhoods, and during this boom
period, they were giving mortgages to anybody and everybody with a
pulse, essentially. They were especially low-income neighborhoods. They
were offering these very advantageous loans to people, whether they
could afford the houses or not. They were buying huge masses of these
loans. And then they were—
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: They were called like
"liar’s loans," or stated income where no one even checked whether the
person had the income to actually pay it off.
MATT TAIBBI: That’s
exactly right. That’s exactly right. That was the verbiage, "liar’s
loans." The FBI warned that there was going to be an epidemic of these
liar’s loans way back in 2004. The industry ignored these warnings. The
government ignored these warnings. And there was this huge influx of
these stated income loans, where people could just say that they made an
enormous amount of money, and nobody would check.
So the bank
buys all these loans, and then what they were doing is essentially
throwing them into big pools, making hamburger out of them, and then
selling that hamburger to pension funds, insurance companies, hedge
funds, all kinds of investors. Typically ordinary people were the people
on the other end buying this stuff. They were investing in these
securities, and often they didn’t even know it.
What Alayne was
involved with was making sure that these loans were of good quality, so
that pension funds, when they bought these securities, weren’t buying
something that was going to blow up on them a year later. And what she
found was that they were buying loans that were of very dubious quality,
that were extremely risky, and that should not have been made into that
hamburger.
***
AMY GOODMAN: Last November, Attorney
General Eric Holder appeared on NBC News just after the JPMorgan Chase
settlement was reached. He was questioned by NBC’s Pete Williams.
PETE WILLIAMS: What about those who say, "Well, the message here is, if you do wrong, you just pay for it and move along"?
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: This
was not simply something that JPMorgan simply signed a check and
smilingly said, "This is a good deal for us." This inflicts pain on that
institution.
PETE WILLIAMS: But is this, in essence, a sort of template? We can expect to see other settlements now?
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: I
certainly think that the way in which this case has been settled is a
template of what we can expect, both in terms of getting maximum amounts
of money and then using that money so that we get it to people who
suffer the greatest amount—that is, either investors or homeowners.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s
Attorney General Eric Holder. Alayne Fleischmann, let’s take it back a
step. When you started to alert your colleagues and your supervisors at
JPMorgan Chase, what did they say?
ALAYNE FLEISCHMANN: Well, what
happened was the transaction, at one point, just stopped. It turned out
that 40 percent of the loans in this deal had problems with them. When
we tried raising this issue with our superiors, what actually happened
is they just started yelling at the diligence managers who were clearing
the loans, sort of yelling, berating them, making them do reports over
and over again. And it became clear that, although they wouldn’t say it,
it was going to be like that until they would clear the loans. So what
actually happened is these loans started being cleared, but basically
just by sort of the brute force of what was going on there.
I
raised it first with a managing director and an executive director, and
couldn’t get any response. After that, I decided the best possibility
would be to write a letter to another managing director that actually
laid out everything I was seeing. I used the GreenPoint deal as an
example, which is why the letter specifically says exactly who was doing
what all over this deal. But it also lays out general problems in our
diligence that the salespeople were being involved, which isn’t normal,
and that there seemed to be a lot of pressure on diligence managers to
clear loans that shouldn’t have been purchased or sold.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And the importance of putting it down in a—
ALAYNE FLEISCHMANN: Yeah.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —putting all the facts down in a letter, what that meant inside the company?
ALAYNE FLEISCHMANN: Yeah.
Well, what it used to be is that the way that you could stop these
things from happening was, if you write a memo that lays out what’s
happening, the management won’t go forward, because they realize that if
they do, there’s going to be this evidence of what happened.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: There’s going to be a paper trail of the—mm-hmm.
ALAYNE FLEISCHMANN: Yeah.
The big worry with these settlements and the way they’re being done—and
I’m not the only whistleblower in these cases—is that you have these
emails and these memos, but nothing happens. A fine gets paid, and then
all of the facts and who did what gets washed away. So, as a
whistleblower, you’re thinking, "I did all of this, and the DOJ has all
of this, but for some reason they’re not going forward on it."
AMY GOODMAN: So, what happened when you went outside the company? How did you go outside?
ALAYNE FLEISCHMANN: Well,
one issue I had is that although I warned not to securitize the loans,
there was no way—I was blocked off, especially after I had raised
complaints, from being able to see any of the data or the diligence
process, which right there shows that something was wrong. So, after I
left JPMorgan, I actually had no idea, for a full four years, that the
loans had been securitized. On one hand, I was worried they would, but I
really thought no one would ever actually securitize those loans.
MATT TAIBBI: This is an important distinction—
ALAYNE FLEISCHMANN: Yeah.
MATT TAIBBI: —because
Alayne had no idea that a crime had been committed until she had
concrete knowledge that the loans had actually been resold to somebody
else. They’re certainly allowed to buy as many bad loans and as many
risky mortgages as they want. It’s not until they go to some investor
and represent to them that these are, you know, AAA-rated securities or
whatever, or highly rated securities, that they’re actually committing
fraud. And so, she had no way of knowing that. Even after she was laid
off from the company, she had no knowledge of what actually happened. So
she couldn’t actually report the crime yet, because she only saw one
half of the deal.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you were laid off in—at the beginning of 2008, right?
ALAYNE FLEISCHMANN: Eight, yeah.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, actually before the crash. Already there was turmoil—
ALAYNE FLEISCHMANN: Yeah.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —in the home loan market, but there was not—the crash had not happened.
ALAYNE FLEISCHMANN: Right.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And
so that the bank, when Jamie Dimon and other leaders later said that
they had no realization that the market was tanking as fast as it could,
at least your memos were certainly indicating to them that there were
major problems in their portfolios.
MATT TAIBBI: Well, what’s
funny is they actually said two completely opposite things. There was an
article in Fortune magazine later in 2008 in which they report that
Jamie Dimon, the CEO of the company, knew as early as October of 2006
that the industry was rife with underwriting problems, all the things
that Alayne is talking about. The company was aware of this, and there
are quotes in which the CEO is telling his subordinates, "We’ve got to
get out of these investments, because this whole thing can go up in
smoke." And then, meanwhile, so Chase is selling its own investments in
these kinds of mortgages, but they’re taking these same mortgages and
selling them to investors and not telling them that they have these
concerns. Later, when they testify in front of the Financial Crisis
Inquiry Commission in 2010, Dimon said exactly the opposite. He said,
essentially, "Well, we had no idea that these things were happening. We
got caught up in the fact that housing prices were just going
continually upward."
AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about the settlement. What happened next?
MATT TAIBBI: Well,
so, the settlement happened in—I guess, a year ago about this month.
And what’s interesting about it is, Alayne, by that point, had already
talked to civil investigators in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in
Sacramento, and she talked to some very talented lawyers there who
seemed very anxious to press this case. And they were about to release a
very detailed civil complaint against Chase in September of last year,
and just hours before that press conference, when they were going to
announce that, reportedly, Jamie Dimon, again, the CEO of Chase, called
up the assistant attorney general, asked to renegotiate, and they
canceled the press conference, and they went back into negotiations. And
a few months later, they had a settlement in which they paid a lot of
money, but none of the facts came out in that.
AMY GOODMAN: Just like if you were in trouble, you could make that call.
MATT TAIBBI: Yeah,
I could call up—yeah, I could call up the mayor or the president and
have a court case go away. I mean, that’s exactly what happened in this
case, is they basically put in a phone call to the very top of the
criminal justice system.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what happened to your
contacts with the Justice Department, if you could talk about that, that
process? How detailed did they want to get into the information that
you had?
ALAYNE FLEISCHMANN: Well, my first contact, it was
actually after four years. I was working in Calgary, and I got a call
from the SEC.
AMY GOODMAN: Because you come from Canada.
ALAYNE FLEISCHMANN: Yeah.
He introduced himself as an investigator from the Enforcement Division.
And as I sort of paused for a minute, jokingly, he then said, "You
weren’t expecting to hear from me, were you?" And after that, they set
up my first interview with the SEC, which was very short. It was only
maybe an hour, hour and a half. They were only interested in one deal.
And even though I kept bringing up GreenPoint and they had the letter
that I had written, they weren’t actually interested in that. And
the SEC settlement was based on that other deal.
And then, it
wasn’t until later, about December 2012, that I first met with
the DOJ investigators. And it was very clear that this was going to be
very different. As soon as they walked in, you could tell they knew
these securities up and down, and they were really anxious to go forward
with it and felt very comfortable going forward with the case. So, in
that meeting, it was a very detailed meeting, sort of hours of going
through how the process works and what happened. And then I had an
actual deposition in about May of 2013, where they nailed down a lot
more of that.
And you could see at that stage—first, I got to find
out for the first time ever how many of these loans had actually gone
into—had been sold to investors in sort of one pool, and it was hundreds
of millions of dollars’ worth of them, with nothing actually disclosed
about the problems with the loan. And then, second, I got to really see
what their case was, and they clearly realized they had an incredible
case there.
AMY GOODMAN: Testifying before the Senate Judiciary
Committee in 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder suggested some banks are
"too big to jail."
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: I am
concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large
that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit
with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal
charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps
even the world economy. And I think that is a function of the fact that
some of these institutions have become too large. Again, I’m not talking
about HSBC; this is just a more general comment. I think it has an
inhibiting influence—impact on our ability to bring resolutions that I
think would be more appropriate.
AMY GOODMAN: Matt Taibbi, respond to what Attorney General Eric Holder has testified.
MATT TAIBBI: Well,
again, I mean, it’s a crazy thing when the leading law enforcement
official in the nation comes out and says, "Well, some companies are
just so big that we can’t prosecute them no matter what they do." In
that case, he was speaking—he was testifying in the wake of a settlement
the government had entered into with HSBC, which is the biggest bank in
Europe and the biggest bank in Great Britain, which had admitted to
laundering over $800 million for a pair of Central and South American
drug cartels. And if you can’t send someone to jail for laundering $800
million of drug money, you know, because the company is too big, clearly
something is very seriously wrong. But yet, this became sort of the
unofficial official policy of the Justice Department. And this greatly
affected the way they dealt with companies like JPMorgan Chase, like
Citigroup, like Bank of America. They tried to find a way to effect some
kind of resolution that didn’t involve criminal charges, didn’t involve
penalties to individuals, and also didn’t put the facts of any of what
they had actually done out into the public.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And in
that vein, this is—you know, it’s the old Monopoly board game all over
again, get out of jail free. Instead of paying $200 to get out of jail,
you pay $2 billion to get out of jail. But the amounts of money that
these governments are getting as a result of this—I mean, I just checked
with the New York state comptroller. New York state alone, this year,
is getting out of its bank settlements with Wall Street a windfall of $5
billion. That’s just New York state. Other states are getting their
share, and of course the federal government is getting huge infusions.
And so, they suddenly have all this cash. And then they also had this
other stuff that you’ve talked about, which is consumer relief—
MATT TAIBBI: Right.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —apportions.
So, the governments actually get cash settlements, but then they
supposedly negotiate additional money for the citizens, a consumer
relief. Could you talk about that?
MATT TAIBBI: Well, OK, there’s a
couple of things here. First of all, these settlements, they always
come up with a big number, but the number is always actually—when you
actually look at the accounting, it turns out to be smaller than they
announce. In the case of the Chase settlement, the number they announced
was $13 billion. But there’s a couple of really important factors here.
One is that $7 billion of that—it’s $7 billion, right?—was
tax-deductible, which means that all of us, American citizens, anybody
who pays taxes, actually picked up the check for about $2.4 billion
worth of the settlement. So we paid part of that settlement, which is
crazy. I mean, the ordinary person, if we get a speeding ticket, we
can’t deduct that when we go to pay our taxes. But these people cratered
the world economy, and they get to write a tax deduction for it.
Four
billion dollars of the settlement was what they call consumer relief.
And what this really boils down to, I mean, there’s some loan
forgiveness, where they’re allowing people to pay less principal towards
their home loans, but mostly it comes down to letting people have a
little extra time to pay off their payments. And it’s not always the
bank that is actually doing that; it’s often the investors in those
loans who are actually giving the relief. So, it’s not really the bank
paying $4 billion. It’s just a number.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn
to President Obama speaking in September, when Attorney General Eric
Holder announced that he would resign.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: He’s
helped safeguard our markets from manipulation and consumers from
financial fraud. Since 2009, the Justice Department has brought more
than 60 cases against financial institutions and won some of the largest
settlements in history for practices related to the financial crisis,
recovering $85 billion, much of it returned to ordinary Americans who
were badly hurt.
AMY GOODMAN: Matt Taibbi, your response?
MATT TAIBBI: Well,
I mean, the first thing I would say is, OK, they brought a bunch of
settlements and they collected a bunch of money, but there isn’t a
single individual, in this entire tableau, who is actually individually
paying any kind of penalty for any of these misdeeds. All of that money
came out of the pockets of shareholders. No executives had to pay a
fine. No executives had to do a single day in jail. There were not even
charges filed against any individuals. And—
AMY GOODMAN: What was the actual crime you feel Jamie Dimon committed that you feel he should be in jail for?
MATT TAIBBI: Well,
I can’t stand here and tell you that Jamie Dimon committed a crime. But
certainly there are people in these companies, and in cases like
Alayne’s case, who would be targets of criminal fraud prosecutions, and
probably at a lower level than Jamie Dimon. I think it would be hard to
prove, although who knows? Because they didn’t try. In a normal drug
case, what you would do is you would take everybody who was guilty, and
you would try to roll them up the chain and see how far you could go.
And that’s exactly what they did not do in this case. They didn’t
aggressively go after everybody. They didn’t follow every lead. Instead,
they just sort of went into a back room, decided on a number and made
the whole thing go away. And yes, that is a kind of justice, it’s a kind
of resolution, but I think it’s insufficient.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: In
fact, as you note in your article, after the settlement agreement with
JPMorgan Chase, the stock of the company went up dramatically, the stock
price of the company went up dramatically, and Jamie Dimon ended up
getting a huge raise from his board of directors.
MATT TAIBBI: Yeah,
yeah, in the first weeks after the settlement was announced, the market
capitalization of JPMorgan Chase went up 6 percent, which translated
into about $12 billion worth of value. So that’s most of your settlement
right there. Actually, it’s more than almost—more than the entire
settlement, if you look at it as a $9 billion settlement. And yes, Jamie
Dimon, just a few weeks after being dinged for the largest regulatory
fine in the history of capitalism, got a 74 percent raise by the board
of—by the Chase board.
AMY GOODMAN: And we’re going to break. When
we come back, we’ll hear Senator Elizabeth Warren asking questions of
Jamie Dimon about that raise. Stay with us.
Juan González is the co-host of the nationally syndicated radio news program,
Democracy Now!.
No comments:
Post a Comment