Fight For Financial Reform

Boehner's On Board: Momentum For an Innovative Live TV House/Senate Conference

Richard Eskow — Sat, 22 May 2010 11:11:56 -0400

Momentum is building for putting a historic conference between the House and Senate online and on live television, as they debate the future of financial reform. This is the time to contact Senators and Representatives to support this critical step toward open government - and a stronger, fairer, safer economy.

Yesterday we asked conservatives to join with progressives in calling for the House/Senate financial reform conference to be broadcast on live television. We pointed out that this would be consistent with the spirit of the GOP's "Sunlight Resolution," and with a number of conservative calls to avoid "backroom" deals as health reform was being finalized. We also pointed out that a broadcast of this kind would weaken the influence of bank lobbyists, which means we're likely to get better legislation.

House Minority Leader John Boehner is now on board. He said this in a letter written to Nancy Pelosi yesterday: "(C)onsistent with the new House initiative of live streaming video of House floor proceedings, we believe the conference debate should include live webcasting so even more Americans can engage in the debate ..."

Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said back in March that he wants to televise the conference. His remarks this week were slightly more equivocal, as we reported in our earlier piece. There's no need to equivocate out of concern for the GOP, however, if Boehner supports the idea. And on the Senate side, Republican Senators Shelby and Corker have now both expressed support: "That'd be great," Corker told Talking Points Memo yesterday. "Sure." As TPM reports, the weakest expression of support came from Democratic Sen. Dodd: "I have no opposition to it," he said.

Boehner's letter (pdf) contained a number of partisan jabs against Democrats and the health reform process, but hit several of the right notes: "The financial system is the lifeblood of our economy," it began, concluding: "Republicans support bringing sunshine to the legislative process. As Chairman Frank said, we should have members of the House and Senate, Majority and Minority sitting in a public forum with C-SPAN coverage ... (that) should include live webcasting."

He's right. And there's no need to stop there. With just a little imagination, we have the opportunity to use technology to open government up in some of exciting ways. We can record and segment video of the live webcast so that it can be indexed and searched by subject, and so can be cross-linked to written transcripts and supporting documents. That way researchers, journalists, and interested citizens could study the debate in the months and years to come: to learn, or merely to cast an informed ballot at election time. They could also embed crucial debate moments and related information into articles, papers, and blog postings. (The technology exists and is simple to use.)

But even a simple webcast and/or C-SPAN broadcast would be a great step forward, and some other Senators and Representatives can help make sure it happens. Why not give them an encouraging call? They include Majority Leader Harry Reid (202-224-3542), Speaker of the House Pelosi (202-225-0100), and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (202-224-2541). (We just checked John Boehner off the list, but you can call him at 202-225-0704 to express your approval.)

Sen. Dodd - who coolly told TPM, "we'll see how it all works out" - can be reached at 202-224-2823. You can also let Chairman Frank know you support full televising of the conference as he originally proposed, by calling 202-225-5931. And Members of the Senate Committee can be found here, while House Committee members are here. If your Senator or Representative is among them, a call to them could be particularly effective.

Now is the time: The Congress is on the brink of conducting an important exercise in open government - one that will also ensure that we get the most effective financial reform possible. The momentum is building. All that's needed is a little push.

The Best Solution to Vampire Squid? Calamari

Mary Bottari — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:01:32 -0400

The financial services reform bill will be debated in the Senate next week. The great test for the bill will be what it does to rein in Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street institution famously described by Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi as “a vampire squid jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”

The bill is being taken up just a week after the Securities and Exchange Commission issued civil fraud charges against Goldman for creating mortgage-backed investment vehicles deliberately designed to fail in order to benefit preferred clients. Everyone knows it’s tough to handcuff a squid. So some are advocating for a simpler solution.

Today, Senators Sherrod Brown and Ted Kaufman proposed a tasty dish of calamari. They unveiled the “Safe Banking Act of 2010” a commonsense measure to cap the size of the biggest banks as the single best way to prevent future taxpayer bailouts. Their bill will be offered as an amendment in the Senate and will result in the break up of the largest “too big to fail” institutions.

“We can either limit the size and leverage of 'too big to fail' financial institutions now, or we will suffer the economic consequences of their potential failure later," said Kaufman. “Breaking apart too-big-to-fail banks is the necessary first step in preventing another cycle of boom-bust-and-bailout.”

Brown and Kaufman have put their finger on a critical issue that has been ignored in the debate to date. Since Congress passed the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking Act of 1994, the largest banks have swelled to mammoth proportions. In 1994, the six largest banks had assets equal to 17 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). They now have assets estimated to be more than 60 percent of GDP. A $50 billion industry fund to unwind these institutions as proposed in the Senate bill would hardly be sufficient. The collapse of these “systemically dangerous” institutions could threaten the entire economy.

The Brown-Kaufman amendment says that the big banks cannot not have liabilities greater than 2 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Today that would be about $280 billion. Other financial institutions are capped as well. While this sounds like a tremendously large number, experts like economist Simon Johnson (13 Bankers) tell us this is the way to go. Such a provision would force the nine largest banks to shrink down and sell off some assets to fit under the cap. A few of these institutions already exceed a larger cap provided for in current law.

Why is this the best solution to the “too big to fail” problem? The 2008 financial crisis was met with the most extreme and sustained government intervention in the market that we have seen since the New Deal era. Policymakers on both sides of the aisle have recognized that the dramatic actions by the U.S. government to prop up the financial system may have succeeded in pulling us back from the brink, but introduced a whole new era of moral hazard. Many U.S. financial services institutions have been deemed “too big to fail” and have been granted the implicit guarantee of the U.S. government for the foreseeable future. For the first time, this federal backstop has been granted to investment banks like Goldman engaged in speculative activities, not just traditional commercial banks.

There has been an ongoing dispute between Democrats and Republicans over how to tackle the too big to fail problem and put an end to government bailouts. Both groups say that their various policy prescriptions will “end” too big to fail. They are both wrong. In a crisis, the Federal Reserve will do whatever it takes to save these institutions. The only way to put an end to unlimited taxpayer bailouts is to break up the too big to fail banks that currently exist and to prevent them from growing that big in the future.

Other amendments to the bill will crack down on Goldman as well, including provisions to rein in derivatives trading, restore Glass-Steagall depression-era protections and new rules to ban conflict of interest trading.

Tackling the Vampire Squid and other big banks does not have to be complicated. It can even be tasty with a little side of linguini.

A Short Citizen’s Guide to Reforming Wall Street

OurFuture.org Staff — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:44:00 -0400

Fraud At Last

Isaiah J. Poole — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:13:28 -0400

Goldman Sachs: Too Big To Obey The Law

OurFuture.org Staff — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:12:00 -0400

Looters In Loafers

OurFuture.org Staff — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:04:48 -0400

Phony Bipartisanship Won't Fix Wall Street

Zach Carter — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:30:00 -0400

I generally find Andy Kroll to be both a rigorous and persuasive journalist. He knows what he's talking about on Wall Street reform, and he routinely pens informative yet approachable articles about very complicated subjects. So I was both surprised and disappointed to see his piece from this past Thursday, in which he argues that Democrats need to lighten up on the political push to overhaul the nation's broken financial system.

This strikes me as exactly the wrong argument at exactly the wrong time, but before I go into the why, let's examine Kroll's what. This excerpt sums up his argument:

"[Democrats are] potentially setting the stage for another health-care-esque bruiser in the Senate. Already, the bill, which should theoretically garner plenty of bipartisan support (everyone wants to end too-big-to-fail, predatory lending, and dangerous financial products, right?), has divided the Senate . . . . the debate over new financial reforms has rapidly disintegrated into a partisan shout-fest . . . . One of the few lawmakers . . . asking for a reasonable debate on the bill is Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) . . . . Corker's pleas, however, could be bowled over if Reid decides the Democrats need to plow onward with financial reform."

Unless I'm misreading Kroll, the implication here is that Democrats are being too hasty, Bob Corker is being reasonable, and the right thing to do is slow down and negotiate, lest the partisan black-eye of last month's health care debacle be repeated.

I think this is wrong on both politics and policy. Let's start with the politics. The Senate health care showdown finally put some wind in the Democrats' sails. At last, Democrats drew a line in the sand around some core policies, allowing people to see exactly what it was that Democrats stood for, and realize it was something they, the public, actually supported. As a result, nearly everybody in the country felt better about the party in power than they had since January 2009. Democrats took their political licks while they refused to coalesce around a set of concrete demands—the party's leadership looked (and, I believe, were) willing to accept any bill that garnered a Republican vote and could be characterized as "reform." That reeked of political opportunism, and people found it unattractive.

But after pushing hard for their bill at the end, Democrats came away from the health care battle looking very good. I still miss my public option, but I simply cannot understand how that final thrust hurt them politically. They stood for something, and people liked what they stood for. Repeating this "bruiser" on Wall Street reform would be very good for Democrats come November, no matter how the final vote turned out. Democrats would be principled defenders of the reasonable ideas Kroll lists in his article, and the only price they'd pay would be among (part of) the Tea Party crew. Something tells me the Dems aren't going to win those votes anyway.

Republicans do not support better consumer protections, nor do they support ending too-big-to-fail. They support anything that makes lots of money for their backers on Wall Street (this is true for some Democrats, as well). In last week's interview with Ezra Klein, Corker does indeed come across as a reasonable person. He's basically right about uncertainties in the technocratic minutia surrounding the resolution authority. And Ezra does a nice job showing how Corker's core differences with Democrats on this topic are not philosophical, but technical.

But technicalities were not the source of all the trouble when Corker was negotiating with Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) on the Senate Banking Committee, which is why Corker refused to even state his 14 objections to the Dodd bill to Ezra. During February and March negotiations, Corker tried to gut proposals to strengthen consumer protection and hampered efforts to the rein in the derivatives market (a.k.a. the crazy casino that brought down AIG). Corker was instrumental in pushing to give the existing slate of regulators—who utterly failed to regulate consumer protection leading up to the crisis—veto power over any rules devised by a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. He also convinced Dodd to place that regulator under the jurisdiction of the secretive consumer scourges at the Federal Reserve. There is no good, principled argument for such an arrangement. The Fed and other existing regulators have repeatedly proven themselves either totally incompetent with regard to consumer protection, or totally uninterested in its enforcement. For a list of their failures, see this article I wrote for The Nation in March.

Moreover, the resolution authority that Corker discusses with Klein cannot and will not end too-big-to-fail, however it is tweaked. Too-big-to-fail is fundamentally a political problem, not an economic problem. If the banking behemoths remain tremendous, their political connections will endure. When the next crisis comes, they will find a way to secure their bailouts—regardless of whatever laws we put on the books now. It's not obvious that the Federal Reserve's bailout operations during this crisis were legal, and it will not be obvious the next time they are invoked. The only way to break the bailout cycle is to break the banks' political power, and doing that requires breaking them up. It is not an accident that a new resolution authority is the policy supported by Too-Big-To-Fail-Captain Jamie Dimon of the Lobbying Battleship J.P. Morgan Chase.

Corker is a freshman Senator eager to make a name for himself on Capitol Hill, and if he emerges from the haggling over Wall Street as a moderate who can cut deals with Democrats, his stature within the Republican Party will increase significantly. But there's only one way for him to accomplish that goal: he must vote for the reform package the Democrats put forward. So what Democrats need to do is move on a bill that actually breaks up the banks that brought down our economy, and force Corker's hand. If he, like nearly all other members of his party, decides that the price of losing Wall Street's campaign contributions is too high, then so be it: Voters will see which party stands for reform, and which party stands with Wall Street. But if Democrats give still more ground on their already weak bill in hopes of winning over coy Republicans, they'll simply be repeating the health care mistakes of 2009.

Democrats need to move forward with a strong bill as soon as possible. "Delay!" is the rallying cry of the status quo, one that has been quite effective in the debate over Wall Street reform. The financial crisis hit in full force during the summer of 2007. By the fall of 2008, Wall Street had nearly destroyed itself. President Obama put forth a reform proposal in June of 2009. It is now the spring of 2010. The time for action is long overdue.

Update: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the top lobbying group for the U.S. executive class and a big bank booster, is urging Congress to adopt "bipartisan" reform. A good rule of thumb: if the Chamber wants something, it's probably not good.

Wall Street Showdown: Take Action!

Zach Carter — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:52:57 -0400

The next few weeks will be crucial for the effort to rein in the Wall Street casino and hold the bailout barons accountable. Here's a list of major Wall Street reform rallies taking place around the country in the coming weeks. With the Wall Street bill going to the Senate floor, make sure your voice is heard!

INTERVIEW

George Goehl of National People's Action discusses the actions that will be a part of the "showdown" against Wall Street financial institutions.

Wells Fargo Shareholder Showdown, Tuesday, April 27, San Francisco

The shareholders of Wells Fargo will meet to celebrate the epic profits they've scored on the backs of American homeowners and taxpayers. Wells Fargo was one of the most active subprime lenders during the housing bubble, and received an epic bailout when their excess finally caught up with them. If you're in San Francisco, show them you've had enough. Find out more here.

Bank of America Shareholder Showdown, Wednesday, April 28, Charlotte, N.C.

Bank of America runs the notorious subprime swindler Countrywide, whose former CEO Angelo Mozilo is currently facing fraud charges from the SEC. But Bank of America has been operating other assaults on borrowers even after the housing crash, actively cheating them in loan modification schemes, in violation of their agreement with the Obama administration. If you're in Charlotte, tell them the swindle stops here. Find out more here.

Wall Street Showdown, Thursday, April 29, New York City

Join thousands of protesters going straight into the lion's den to take back our economy from outright greed and predation. If you lost your house, your job, or your retirement, chances are the trouble all started here. Find out more here.

Liveblogging the Washington Mutual hearing

Zach Carter — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:50:46 -0400

4:25

Levin is ripping Killinger on option-ARM delinquencies. WaMu performed a study concluding that option-ARMs were about to default like crazy, and right after that study, WaMu started pushing option-ARM securities hard to investors. The company sold a $3 billion batch of these securities on an "urgent" basis, according to internal emails, which is a pretty big deal to ram through for a company of WaMu's size ($300b). Killinger is pleading that he didn't know the details of that securitization, and he's saying he doesn't know if it would have been appropriate to tell investors that the company had done

"I don't know what actually happened," Killinger said.

Killinger is trying to dance around criminal charges. If he acknowledges that something should have been disclosed to investors that was not, in fact, disclosed, it will be very hard for him to pass the buck in court. He was the company's CEO. His job title and his epic paychecks mean that he is ultimately responsible for everything. If he ever acknowledges that the company messed up its disclosures, he's almost certainly on the hook for negligence.

**************************

3:30

Wow. This is making me nauseous. Killinger is talking about how bad he felt about laying off thousands of people, and the effect this would have on their families.

Interestingly, no tears for the thousands of foreclosures Killinger needlessly caused.

****************************

3:25

Killinger is now saying that regulators didn't treat the company with "the same equal handed and fair manner" that other financial instituitons received, and said his company would have survived had it not been placed into receivership.

First, this is crazy.

Second, Killinger's rationale is doesn't make sense. He's saying the company died because liquidity dried up, and the firm went under before the government's liquidity operations kicked in. Liquidity didn't kill Washington Mutual. Massive, massive losses from bad mortgage lending killed Washington Mutual.

Killinger argues that because lots of other banks got bailed out via TARP and various government-blessed mergers, WaMu should have been bailed out too. But WaMu was exactly the kind of company that didn't deserve to participate in rescue operations. It was engaged in reckless lending, it pushed outrageous, predatory products and coached its loan officers to convince borrowers into taking out loans that were not appropriate for them, especially option-ARM loans. It's securitization operations were wildly fraudulent. Washington Mutual was a textbook predatory lender that served no other useful social purpose.

Now, plenty of banks that were saved should not have been. And no banks should have been bailed out under the generous terms the U.S. government offered. But the fact that too many banks were saved doesn't mean Washington Mutual should have been one of them.

******************************

3:15

So now we've got COO Stephen Rotella and Chairman and CEO Kerry Killinger testifying.

Rotella just claimed he never knew about fraud until 2008, but oops! he misspoke. He didn't know about a particular fraud until 2008. He knew about another fraud when the company did an audit in 2007.

Levin is now detailing the kinds of fraud that were perpetrated in the origination arm. In one loan, a man who was employed as a signmaker supposedly made $34,000 a month. When WaMu tried to get the loan insured by Radian (an AIG FP-type company), Radian refused, because it was crazy to think that you could make $400,000 a year from making signs.

************************

2:15

So far we have two major allegations of misconduct in the securitization shop. One, is that WaMu knowingly sold fraudulent loans to investors in the form of securities.

Two, is that WaMu expected a certain class of loans-- option-ARMs-- to have heavy delinquencies in the coming months. But instead of dropping the option-ARM business, the company tried to jam as many option-ARMs as possible through its securitization machine before markets figured out that the securities were junk. They not only packaged existing option-ARM loans into securities, they issued as many new option-ARMs as possible, in order to score securitization profits before the market collapsed. WaMu even conducted a study on option-ARM delinquencies, determined that they would be incredibly high, and didn't tell its investors that the company expected those option-ARMs to go bad, and by extension, the option-ARM securities.

This is very similar to what Goldman Sachs did with its production of synthetic subprime CDOs-- a private company scoring profits by setting its investors up for a fall (in Goldman's case, they were going a step further, creating the synthetic CDOs not only so they could sell them, but so they could bet against them).

**************************************

1:50

Internal WaMu audits found that the company's loans were fraudulent. But even after those loans were explicitly determined to be fraudulent, WaMu still decided to sell them to investors in the form of securities. It's not just that the company figured out loans they had already securitized were fraudulent, but that they knowingly sold fraudulent loans to investors.

Beck is pleading that he didn't know about the fraud audit. That requires quite a stretch of the imagination. He headed the capital markets group. He was in charge of securitization. It's just unthinkable that the company wouldn't tell him about this problem. But whatever the truth, it's terrible for the company. If they didn't tell him, Beck's supervisors are guilty of gross negligence, at best. If they did tell him, and he didn't do anything about it, they're still guilty of gross negligence. There's nothing Beck or his bosses can say to exonerate themselves.

This is how the mortgage business worked. In the go-go-go years, nobody anywhere cared about loan quality, and nobody cared about fraud. Levin's panel should conduct similar investigations into every major banking conglomerate that survived the financial crisis. My guess is there would be plenty of similar stories to those we're hearing today.

Sadly, Congress probably doesn't want to go after Wall Street firms that are still paying high-powered lobbyists.

********************************

1:45

David Beck, WaMu's securitization chief, says he never saw the company audits indicating widespread fraud. If true, that would insulate him from personal charges of misconduct, but implicate the company's executives for failing to notify its securities shop about the fraud.

********************************

1:35

This is amazing. Levin is citing internal WaMu docs indicating that the employees under internal fraud investigation were given all expenses paid trips to Hawaii and the Bahamas as a reward for their high-output.

Let me say that again. WaMu sent employees it was investigating for fraud on luxury trips to Hawaii and the Bahamas.

What's more, employees who were ultimately fired for engaging in fraud were offered other jobs with the company. Astounding stuff. But contemporary finance is all about being rewarded for failure. None of the executives at any of the bailed out banks were forced out of office as a condition of their bailouts. The one major executive who has stepped down-- Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis-- left with a massive, $50-plus-million-dollar pay package.

*******************************

1:30

Levin is on a roll. He's pressing WaMu home loan president David Schneider about his actions following internal company reports about fraud in his division. He says the people who admitted to committing fraud were fired. But Schneider admits that he never follwed up with WaMu's legal department to determine whether the company tried to notify investors who bought the mortgage backed securities comprised of fraudulent loans.

******************************

12:50

Pay attention to David Beck's testimony. He's the guy who ran WaMu's securitization shop. This is where the repeal of Glass-Steagall had an effect on WaMu's business model. Basically, WaMu's origination team (the commercial bank) became slaves to the securitization team (the investment bank). One arm of the company issued bad loans in order to package them into profitable securities for another arm of the company. The prospect of booming investment banking revenues encouraged the commercial bank to do reckless things. That's why ending the separation between investment banking and commerical banking was a big mistake.

Now, WaMu could have sold the loans to other Wall Street investment banks for securitization. This is what subprime lenders like New Century and Ameriquest did. And that would have been a problem with or without the Glass-Steagall repeal. But it's not obvious that Washington Mutual-- an enormous mortgage firm with a long history of boring, plain-vanilla mortgage lending-- would have totally converted its operations to subprime and alt-A insantiy without the lure of in-house securitization profits.

Bankers really want to protect their investment banking revenues, because they're what make money when the economy is terrible. All of the major banking conglomerates like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America are taking a beating on their business that are tied to the real economy-- mortgages, credit cards, etc. But their fancy investment bank securities trades are doing very well. So there has been a tremendous lobbying push to defend the Glass-Steagall repeal. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon likes to highlight that both investment banks and commercial banks had problmes in the crisis, but that argument is basically irrelevant. The fact that different types of firms made mistakes doesn't change the fact that some firms made mistakes because of the repeal (among them Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America).

Repealing Glass-Steagall may not have been the only factor leading to the crash, but it was certainly a significant one.

*************************************

12:30

I hope members of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission are taking notes on this hearing.

Levin et al are presenting evidence of wrongdoing, and asking a direct questions about accountability. The FCIC would treat these guys like experts from the industry whose opinions are truly valuable, rather than people who need to answer for screwing up. The FCIC's job isn't to decipher every techincal dimension of the meltdown and present a long-winded report for bankers who already know what went wrong. It's job is to distill the crisis into a handful of basic problems and communicate those to the public.

This WaMu hearing is doing a terrific job highlighting how excessive and poorly designed pay packages fueled the crisis and encouraged rampant fraud. That's a very important dimension to the problem, and one that resonates with the public. There's something fundamentally unfair about Kerry Killinger becoming a megamillionaire for running a fraud machine that wreaked havoc on the economy.

Granted, nobody defends WaMu these days, not even the financial press, so they're an easy target for politicians on both sides fo the aisle. But I did not come away from a single FCIC panel with a clear, distilled understanding of what they were trying to communicate.

****************************

12:15

Fraud on Fraud. Coburn is asking the panelists whether the massive fraud in WaMu's mortgage origination business had a "material adverse" effect on the company's prospects. That's important, because if it really was a material adverse issue, SEC regulations would require WaMu to disclose the mortgage fraud to its investors. Of course, WaMu never disclosed it, which means-- if the mortgage fraud was "material"-- WaMu committed securities fraud by failing to tell investors.

This is not a left-right, progressive-conservative issue. Any conservative should value fair play and basic market transparency. WaMu shows that the U.S. financial system basically didn't have any of that for a very long time.

******************************

11:45

Cathcart said the "drying up of liquidity" in 2007 was the first real sign that the company was headed for big trouble. That's an important point for the Wall Street reform bill currently being considered in the Senate. All three of the WaMu guys talking right now were aware that the business was rife with fraud, but Cathcart was saying that so long as they had access to cheap funding, he didn't think they would go over a cliff.

This matters because the "drying up of liquidity" in 2007 wasn't a minor event. It was a massive credit crunch that shook the financial system to its very core. Banks were able to survive on false optimism for about a year, so you didn't see major failures until 2008, but by 2007, the crisis was in full swing.

This a very good argument for breaking up the big banks. Strengthening capital requirements and liquidity requirements alone won't be enough, because nobody will know how much capital and liquidity is needed until it's too late. You have to protect the system against a scenario in which everybody screws up-- bankers and regulators alike. If a bank's failure could jeopardize the entire financial system, policymakers will find some legal justification for propping it up. In that scenario, giant banking behemoths will not be allowed to fail. Even if regulators get the "resolution mechanism" being contemplated by the Dodd bill, they won't use it.

The only credible way to deal with this problem is to put a cap on bank size and activities, so that banks can actually fail without wreaking havoc on the economy.

***************************

11:15:

Vanasek said he was not surprised at the level of fraud found in WaMu lending, and he wasn't suprised that the audit concluded the fraud was a result of the "willful" actions of WaMu employees. And, indeed, it was.

There are two types of financial outrages: things that are outrageously illegal, and things that are, outrageously, legal. So far, this hearing is all about the first category.

**************************