Magaziner: Explore any legal avenue to limit cost to taxpayers


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

magazinerCandidate for Treasurer Seth Magaziner says that he has a history of standing up to big Wall Street firms, highlighting his work as the author of a shareholder proposal to break up Citigroup. He has worked at Trillium Asset Management, a socially responsible investment firm, for the last four years.

Magaziner said in an email to me: “I believe that one of the biggest disappointments with the Dodd-Frank Financial reform was its failure to adequately deal with the ratings agencies, which absolutely shared a great deal of responsibility for the 2008 financial crisis. It is ludicrous that bond issuances are rated by for-profit companies which are paid by the issuers. The conflicts of interest are mind-boggling.”

He continued, “38 Studios was a terrible deal for taxpayers. I believe we should explore any legal avenue that might limit the cost to taxpayers, including the role played by the ratings agencies. As Treasurer I will also work to bring all parties to the 38 Studios deal to the negotiating table, to see if we can reach a settlement that will minimize cost to taxpayers while avoiding the potentially severe consequences of an outright default.”

Magaziner has criticized Frank Caprio’s initial support of the 38 Studios deal, but as I pointed out in a previous post, Caprio did eventually come out strong against the deal and did his best to prevent it from happening.

Despite his criticism of Caprio, the two candidates seem to agree more than they disagree. But it seems that Magaziner’s approach is too muted. I’d like to see him be more vocal about standing up to Wall Street and fighting for the people of Rhode Island.

Caprio: Ratings agencies hands weren’t clean in 38 Studios deal


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Frank_CaprioFormer Treasurer (and current candidate for Treasurer) Frank Caprio reached out to me concerning my stories about the deceptive ratings practices of the ratings agencies.

According to Caprio, the ratings agencies hands weren’t clean in the 38 Studios deal because they did in fact overrate the bonds. Furthermore, Caprio asserts that if he is re-elected as Treasurer, that he will dig into the ratings agencies.

As Ian Donnis reported in August 2010, Caprio visibly fought to prevent the 38 Studios deal from happening by going directly to the ratings agencies and investors. Unfortunately, his efforts were circumvented by the EDC, who had the discretionary power to issue the bonds. Some people have criticized Caprio for his initial support for 38 Studios and then changing his stance in opposition of the deal. In my opinion, it was courageous for Caprio to change his mind and he demonstrated leadership qualities by standing up for the taxpayers of Rhode Island.

To take action, Caprio said he would follow similar steps that he took in 2009 regarding the mismanagement scandal at the Central Landfill. Although he didn’t have an official oversight role as Treasurer, he pressured the State to take action. The result was that the right outside experts and attorneys were hired and without even having to file a lawsuit, his work led to a recovery against the Central Landfill board’s directors liability insurance of its policy limit of $5 million dollars.

Concerning the misdeeds by the ratings agencies, Caprio believes RI can look to the actions taken by the Obama administration and states such as CT and CA in seeing which law firms could be possible partners to work with RI against the ratings agencies.

Caprio also claims that the State can save substantial money by not voluntarily repaying the 38 Studios bonds. Instead, the State needs to call the bond insurer (Assured Guaranty) and the bond holders (large institutional investors) to the negotiating table to negotiate a settlement.  He thinks that under the threat of non-payment by the State the insurer (who faces an $80 million dollar payout) and the bondholders would entertain the following:

  1. Since the bondholders have received over $20 million in payments already and the fact they can agree to a waiver of default per the bonds, the state should get the waiver (holders of 50 percent of aggregate principal of bonds have to agree – which is USAA and Transamerica) and start a deliberate negotiation.  Caprio says, “I believe the bondholders will see it in their interest to take a haircut on future payments. The institutional holders of these bonds don’t want the national attention on this minimal investment they have in their multi-billion dollar portfolios.”
  2. The bond insurer should then be asked to be part of the solution with paying the new negotiated reduced amount to the bondholders and in return include them as leading the civil lawsuit currently being litigated against First Southwest, Wells Fargo, executives of EDC, etc. The bond insurer will then be in position to recover any payments it makes as part of this process.

All along this process the rating agencies will be briefed and updated by the State and it’s leaders. No default will happen since we will get time to negotiate per the waiver of default process allowed in the 38 Studio bonds (see page B-46: Waivers of Events of Default).

“I believe the State taxpayers will be relieved of having to make payments now for this failed deal. Remember that the RI taxpayers are not legally obligated to pay this bill per the bond nor by state law,” maintains Caprio.

Caprio has been outspoken on this issue for a while now. Last June, GoLocalProv reported:

Caprio says state, not Wall Street, has leverage

At a minimum, before making a decision on payment, Caprio said the state [needs to] convene a meeting of interested parties—including the bondholders and the insurer on the bonds—to attempt to negotiate a deal using the fact that it is not legally obligated to pay as leverage.

“I’m not going to lead the fight to defend multi-billion [dollar] insurance companies who are sophisticated investors to make sure they are made whole,” Caprio said, adding that the burden of paying back the bonds would fall on the average Rhode Island taxpayer. “If this money was coming out of every legislator’s personal pocket, would they be so quick to pay on debt which they have no legal obligation to pay?”

It seems to me that Caprio has a thorough understanding of the complexities of this issue and I commend him for that. I’ve been frustrated with a lot of other candidates and pundits who have simply been using Wall Street’s own talking points to bully Rhode Islander’s into thinking they have a bogus “moral obligation” to the 1%.

In my next feature, I’ll post candidate for Treasurer Seth Magaziner’s thoughts on how to deal with the ratings agencies.

Ratings agencies lose appeal but will RI stand up to them?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

This is a quick update to a couple of stories I’ve written about how ratings agencies should be held liable for their deceptive ratings practices. You can read them here and here.

An appeals court just rejected the ratings agencies claims that the opinions they expressed in a case involving the CA pension system were protected by free speech.

Kudos to Frank Caprio, who said that he asked the ratings agencies not to rate the 38 Studios bonds in order to stop the deal in 2010, for being vocal on this issue.

The question still remains – when will Rhode Island stand up to the ratings agencies? When will AG Kilmartin join the federal government and other states in suing the ratings agencies?

image courtesy of Rolling Stone
image courtesy of Rolling Stone

Mattiello, Paiva-Weed both tiptoe back from 38 Studios support


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

mattiello2Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed and House Speaker Nick Mattiello just made a striking shift about the 38 Studios bailout, which is interesting since they both have a history of supporting the bailout.

Go back to what Paiva-Weed, and former Speaker Gordon Fox, said when the 38 Studios bonds were being issued.  At that time, in 2010, Fox and Paiva-Weed told Wall Street’s credit-rating agencies that the state would bail out 38 Studios bondholders if 38 Studios was unable to pay, although the Rhode Island Constitution forbids the General Assembly to “pledge the faith of the state for the payment of the obligations of others” without voter consent.  Still, even though our constitution is meant to give voters the right to have a say whenever the state is pledged to pay, Fox and Paiva-Weed did their best to get around our constitutional right and signaled that they would get the General Assembly to do a bailout if one was requested.  The rating agencies decided to act as if there really was a promise by the state to pay, as if it really was state debt—though of course our state really didn’t have any kind of obligation, because the procedures that the constitution designed to protect taxpayers were never followed.  Since the Speaker and the Senate President were in favor of making taxpayers pay for a bailout if need be, their perceived unofficial clout was enough to make some Wall Streeters think they could profit from participating in this dirty deal, even though 38 Studios didn’t seem to have  a very viable business.

But the State House leaders are taking a different line in today’s Providence Journal.  Paiva-Weed now says that what she said to the rating agencies in 2010 is not binding now, and Mattiello similarly says that he’s not bound by what Fox said then even though Mattiello had been Fox’s #2 at the time.  Instead, Paiva-Weed and Mattiello now say that they’ll look at what’s best for Rhode Island right now (since we all know that our State House leaders are dedicated to figuring out what’s best for Rhode Island).

Paiva-Weed has been a longtime bailout supporter.  Last June, when the House was debating the state budget, Mattiello was a big advocate on the House floor for bailing out 38 Studios bondholders.  This year, Mattiello is often portrayed in the media as someone who hasn’t taken a position about a bailout.  In today’s story, Paiva-Weed and Mattiello don’t say that they’re against the bailout.  And I wouldn’t be surprised if they go back to saying that taxpayers should pay for this debt which we don’t owe, like they’ve said in the past.  But they’re now saying that if they come out in favor of a bailout it will be because of what’s best for the state right now, not because of the personal pledge to the Wall Street rating agencies that was made in 2010.

It’s no secret that the 38 Studios bailout is very unpopular.  The strongest advocates for a bailout have been those in high-ranking positions, like Fox and Paiva-Weed and (last year) Mattiello.  After all, it’s generally those in high places who arrange all sorts of shady deals like 38 Studios, and it helps them if they can continue the tradition that those who seek to profit from these dirty deals will always be assured of being paid.  If you go a little further down the power ladder to the representatives who were actually elected by voters, there was a serious rebellion last year against doing the bailout.  And of course the bailout is even more unpopular among the voters themselves, who are the least powerful in this debate, which is why there was an effort to stick them with the bill in the first place.

From what I hear, a sizeable number of politicians who have to face the voters are planning to vote against the 38 Studios bailout this year, though there are also lots of politicians who are holding out against the voters’ will and supporting a bailout.

What I notice about the statement in today’s Projo by Mattiello and Paiva-Weed is that it’s exactly the kind of thing that would provoke the Wall Street rating agencies.  Paiva-Weed is pretty clearly going back on what she said to the rating agencies 4 years ago.  Mattiello is making a similar shift, even though he’s known to belong to the same clique as former speaker Gordon Fox and the preceding speaker William Murphy. Because Paiva-Weed and Mattiello said what they did in today’s Projo, we’re likely to see a downgrade by credit-rating agencies now that’s quicker or more severe than it would have been if Paiva-Weed and Mattiello had said nothing.

If Paiva-Weed and Mattiello have decided that they need a big downgrade to scare people into supporting the bailout, they’re doing exactly the right thing to anger the credit-rating agencies and provoke a big reaction, even though Paiva-Weed and Mattiello have always been careful not to suggest that they’re actually against a bailout.  If all this works, we get a serious ratings downgrade, the politicians pass the bailout again, the crooks on Wall Street immediately put us back to a higher rating, and our unelected leaders get to preserve their reputation as people who can insure that those who want to be paid in these kinds of dirty deals will get a taxpayer bailout.

Let’s remember, by the way, that our credit rating is actually not the most important thing.  Good investors look past the credit rating on a bond and do their own due diligence to see whether the bond is a good investment.  They have to do that, since the credit-rating agencies got a reputation for doing shoddy work during the financial crisis, putting AAA ratings on investments that were worthless.

I assume that the rating agencies will lower our state’s credit rating, even on the legally binding voter-approved debt that’s obviously going to be paid no matter what happens.  So yes, ratings agencies can certainly make these unjustified ratings as a way to pressure us into a bailout, but those rating agencies don’t speak for the whole market.  Whether the rating agencies lower our voter-approved bond rating to BBB, or further to B, or even to D, doesn’t matter as much as what investors are willing to pay.

It’s traditional for rating agencies to retaliate, but it’s the business of smart investors to look instead at whether their investments will make a profit.  Since we’re a small state that needs to sell only a small number of bonds, we only need a few smart investors, as I explained earlier.  So let’s put aside the hype about credit ratings.  Focusing on retaliatory credit ratings downgrades, rather than on what’s a good deal for investors in our voter-approved bonds, is exactly what people do when they want to present a slanted case for a bailout.  For investors who want to buy legitimate, voter-approved bonds, we can actually offer a better deal when we don’t let the insiders waste our scarce taxpayer money on bailing out their dirty deals like 38 Studios.

Providence sues Wall St. over high frequency trading


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Michael Lewis may have made high frequency trading a household word, but Providence, RI is the first public pension fund to sue Wall St. for the stock market manipulation his new book helps expose. The Capital City was the first to join a class action lawsuit that says investors were defrauded by algorithmic insider trading.

“Providence is holding Wall Street accountable,” said Mayor Angel Taveras in a press release. “City employees who have served honorably should not have their retirement incomes compromised by high-tech schemes that enrich Wall St. insiders at the expense of hardworking Americans.”

high frequency tradingHigh frequency trading is computerized stock trading that enables a large number of trades to happen in fractions of a seconds. The same technology that performs these trades can effectively glean other investor’s intentions and beat them to the buy.

Lead attorney Patrick J. Coughlin, best known for successfully suing Enron for $7 billion, said high frequency trading is simply using technology to do what’s called front running. “It’s always been illegal to front run,” he said.

The Providence pension fund invested some $611 million during the time the lawsuit covers (2009-present) and traded some 26 million shares, Coughlin said. But he didn’t want to speculate on how much the Providence pension fund lost out on as a result of high frequency trading. “It’s in the millions of dollars, I’ll say that.”

He did say he thinks his lawsuit will attract some of “the largest state funds in the nation.” That would mean Providence would no longer be the lead plaintiff as “the largest loser is the presumptive lead plaintiff,” he said.

His firm, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, has worked with Providence in the past, he said, and that the city knew about the his lawsuit prior to the 60 Minutes segment on high frequency trading.

The suit names as defendants the stock exchanges themselves and many of the biggest trading firms like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citigroup. It also names a number of lesser-known Wall Street trading firms such as Chopper Trading and Jump Trading.

It alleges they “employed devices, contrivances, manipulations and artifices to defraud in a manner that was designed to and did manipulate the U.S. securities markets and the trading of equities on those markets, diverting billions of dollars annually from buyers and sellers of securities to themselves.”

You can read the whole filing here.

Out-of-state progressive left still skeptical of Raimondo


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Click on image for original story by David Sitora.
Click on the image for original story by David Sirota.

Another national journalist took another shot at Rhode Island’s most hotly-debated politician: Gina Raimondo.

Syndicated progressive columnist David Sirota connects dots between Raimondo’s Wall Street campaign supporters and Rhode Island’s inability to afford to make good on pension promises while almost simultaneously cutting taxes for the rich and increasing subsidies for corporations.

It’s an accurate picture of what the last decade or so of economic policy in the Ocean State can look like when not mired in the details the local media microscope provides Rhode Island. We’ve cut taxes for the winners and we’ve cut services for the losers. We broke financial commitments to workers and we made new ones to corporations.

“So who is the real Gina Raimondo?,” Sirota asks. “Is she the politician whose pension schemes aim to protect corporate welfare subsidies while converting retiree money into Wall Street fees? Or is she the defender of pensioners against the plutocrats?”

Many on the left – and in particular the pro-labor left – feel her campaign is co-opting the progressive label for a very different agenda. At the very least she’s using the term more broadly than it has been used in the past and pro-union progressives have good reason to both take umbrage and be skeptical of her political positioning as a lefty. Organized labor is the anchor of support for the entire progressive left in Rhode Island, so it’s something of an offense to trample all over the flagship then claim to be a member of the fleet.

I’d really like for her to address the issues and allegations raised in Sirota’s latest indictment of her. I think that’s how anyone campaigning as a progressive should handle such a damning indictment of progressive credentials from a well-respected progressive writer.

Social impact bonds: ‘do they promote public good, or sell it?’


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

raimondo fist pumpGina Raimondo “kicked off” her campaign for Governor yesterday, and wouldn’t you know it, but the centerpiece of her policy proposals will be a new invention of Goldman Sachs, the “social impact” bond.

What, you might ask, is a social impact bond?  The idea is that some great source of capital like, oh, I don’t know, Goldman Sachs, lends some community millions of dollars to improve early-childhood education. Perhaps they build a new pre-K facility, or even use the money to pay some teacher salaries. A wealth of evidence shows that this kind of investment pays a return of sorts because the kids who enjoy this better education are less likely to become teen parents or teen lawbreakers. It stands to reason, therefore, that the community so enriched by this investment can repay the bond by sending to Goldman Sachs the money that would have been spent on the welfare or jail that those teens didn’t need. How’s that for a win-win?

From the perspective of the public budget, you’re really no further ahead, of course, since the money you were going to spend on jails is spent on paying Goldman instead, but at least you have this shiny new school, and fewer criminals, too.

Of course if your pre-K students grow up to be peaceable, responsible, taxpaying, and generally lovely adults — who happen to live somewhere else — well, you can’t make an omelette without cracking a piggy bank, right?

Snark aside, what do we really have here?  Is it a good idea or not? Is this a way for communities to access funds for desperately needed investments, or is it a new way for the financiers who burned down our economy just a few years ago to rape the public funds — again?  Bear in mind, please, that there is a substantial risk here. Research about the future costs of jail and welfare are estimates, made to illustrate various cost/benefit analyses. They are not carefully calibrated prices. The weight of evidence says there will be savings, and the side benefit is happy people and less crime. To me, that’s enough to argue for investment, but the happy people and less crime parts of the benefit aren’t going to help pay off a loan.

It might be worth asking at this point, why those communities can’t afford to invest in these improvements the evidence says will pay off. Oh, right, it’s all the tax breaks of the past decades. Did you know that business taxes used to be the third most important source of revenue to the state of Rhode Island?  Now they are fifth, behind the lottery and all the fees collected by various departments. Did you know that the richest Rhode Islanders paid over three times the income tax of the average taxpayer in 1996, and in 2011, a bit more than twice?  Over the past decades, our state and nation have cut taxes repeatedly in a vain and misguided attempt to stimulate the economy and things have only gotten worse for everyone except those whose taxes were cut.

So now that we can’t afford to make these investments in education and infrastructure (not to mention the human capital our business community claims they want access to but won’t pay for) here’s a new plan: take money from the rich, not as taxes, but as loans, and in return pay them the benefits that used to be thought of as belonging to everyone. And if the benefits don’t actually pan out, do you imagine that the financiers will be at risk?

It’s easy to imagine a community in dire straits, seeking to salvage the futures of some of its residents, with such a desperate and risky scheme. Business owners on Federal Hill used to find themselves wondering in the same way if they should ask the mob for help. But to imagine — no, to actually see and hear — a gubernatorial candidate suggest that this is a good idea on its own merits is appalling. The idea is a disgrace, a wholesale sellout of the very concept of the public good.

So what do we learn here?  First, that the creativity of people paid millions of dollars to think of new ideas to make more money is nearly boundless. Over the past decades, we offered a bargain: tax cuts for rich people in exchange for a better economy. But they used the money to buy political power and used it to extract still more money from the rest of us. They are already on the way to owning the world. Here is yet one more way for the fabulously wealthy to solidify their control of our politics and our world.

The other thing we learn?  That clearly Gina Raimondo is not at all worried by the idea that she might be perceived as too closely tied to the wolves of Wall Street. The question she should answer: does she want to promote the public good, or sell it?

What will be the big issues in 2014 governor’s race?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

raimondo taverasIt’s all well and good to know who the characters in the 2014 campaign for governor are, but we still need to know the major themes before we can know what the plot might look like.

Here’s a list of some of the public policies I hope get a good vetting during the next 12 months.

  • Wall Street vs. Main Street: Hedge funds, the real estate bubble, municipal bankruptcies and retirement investments … they all speak to what role high finance should play in economic development. Good, bad or indifferent – and I think it is a very good thing – because someone from Head Start and someone from venture capital are running against each other in a Democratic primary, RI will get to see this popular talking point play out in the form of a political campaign.
  • Tests vs. teachers: High stakes tests will and should be a part of this conversation, but the bigger issue is the achievement gap between affluent suburbs and impoverished urban areas. If NECAP scores demonstrate anything, they show that rich kids are getting a decent public education and poor kids, by and large, are not.
  • Cuts vs. expenditures: Conservatives will claim we need the lowest tax rates in the region to improve our economy while it remains to be seen if progressives will campaign on making the rich and powerful pay their fair share. Note that these goals aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive of each other. RI could, for example, the lower the small business tax rate and eliminate corporate tax expenditures (read: giveaways).  And here’s hoping Clay Pell runs on a “tax me” platform!
  • Legal vs. criminal: There are a host of issues before the General Assembly that will likely spill over into the governor’s campaign because of their national implications – think voter ID and pot prohibition. Payday loans will be a particularly interesting one, as both Angel Taveras and Gina Raimondo have worked together on this issue.

What am I forgetting? Let us know in the comments what issues matter most to you this campaign season…

Divest pension funds from guns, but don’t stop there


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

gina linc pensionDivesting from dangerous weapons is a step in the right direction, and I applaud Gina Raimondo’s effort to make our pension fund more socially responsible. This blog doesn’t often have opportunity to agree with the hedge fund-loving general treasurer, but I certainly hope the State Investment Commission takes her advice and takes our money out of a company that distributes guns.

I’d also encourage Raimondo and the others who control Rhode Island’s $7 billion nest egg to look hard for other opportunities to be more socially responsible with our money. This would be a pension reform progressives would be proud to support, and would be better for our economy than cutting COLAs or enriching hedge fund managers.

Divestment, or socially responsible investing, is already a movement in Rhode Island. The Providence City Council recently voted to make its investment portfolio better match its values (what that will look like still remains to be seen) and Brown Divest Coal has long advocated for the Ivy League endowment to take its money out of companies that harm the environment.

Here’s hoping Seth Magaziner’s political ambitions will help shine a bright light on why socially responsible investing is a better bet for Main Street. High finance can be community-minded. And the more it is, the more profitable being community-minded will become.

RI should divest from hedge AND index funds


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

mike downeyBoth J. Michaels raise good points about how the public sector should manage its financial investments in Ed Fitzpatrick’s great column this morning for which he writes the perfect lede about Rhode Island’s game of pension football:

“It was the best of investment strategies. It was the worst of investment strategies.”

Thankfully, there may be a third way that could take the best of both while skimming away the parts nobody likes.

J. Michael Downey makes the point that General Treasurer Gina Raimondo’s big bet on hedge funds serves as a wealth transfer from local retirees to Wall Street investors. “Instead of promoting retirement security for all Rhode Islanders, the changes have apparently enriched wealthy hedge fund managers,” he told Fitzpatrick.

Meanwhile, J. Michael Costello, “one of the longest-serving members of the State Investment Commission and managing partner of Endurance Wealth Management,” according to the ProJo, defended hedge funds saying, “we have a very underfunded pension system that has to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in excess of what comes in every year. As a result, you need to be careful with the various market fluctuations, so the motivation is to use these types of funds that traditionally hedge against significant downside events.”

If only there were a way to protect against downside events without transferring wealth to otherwise disinterested economic actors … Oh wait, there is!

Rhode Island should consider divesting from both index and hedge funds and invest instead in local and/or sustainable funds. There is certainly a way to structure a fund that hedges against the S&P 500 while boosting the (not-yet-indexed?) Ocean State 250.

It’s also well worth noting on this blog that Raimondo has defended the investment and denounced the fees – and I hope to get to compliment her efforts one day at transferring the wealth back from Wall Street to Main Street.

Hedge funds: Wall Street snake oil


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

why managed fundsIn 2012 powerful right wing special interests predicted Gina Raimondo’s pension cuts would serve as a model for the rest of the country. They have, but perhaps not the way the Manhattan Institute, Michael Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal editorial board had hoped.

Instead, a diverse coalition is coalescing to call attention to the often hidden dangers of hedge funds.

Rolling Stone magazine, Forbes.com, the Institute for America’s Future, labor unions and this scrappy independent blog have all made strong arguments for why and how what Raimondo called “Truth in Numbers” was actually a politically calculated wealth transfer from Rhode Island public sector retirees to Wall Street billionaires.

But, whether you believe hedge funds are a silver bullet to beat the stock market or high finance snake oil, the same debate on their effectiveness is happening in the world of private sector investment as is happening in the Ocean State’s public sector investment. Mom and pop money managers and the mainstream media are serving up credible economic evidence that safer, traditional investments are more profitable in the long run.

A PBS Frontline investigation from April, 2013 called The Retirement Gamble reported on a hypothetical example eerily similar to Rhode Island’s pension investment.

In short, fees matter. So what can you do? You aren’t going to find a fund that invests your money for free, but experts say you can come close by buying index funds. Their fees can be a tenth of what the average mutual funds charges. And over time, in bull and bear markets, on average, index funds perform better than their more expensive actively managed fund cousins. This is no secret to anyone who is paying attention.

So why aren’t our trusted financial advisers and those ads telling us to buy index funds? Why do some 401(k) plans not even offer them on their menus?

It’s because even though an index fund might be a better option for you and me, a broker operating under a suitability standard has no incentive to sell it to us. He or she will make higher commissions from options that have higher fees.

And here’s an infographic that also illustrates the hedge fund myth.

moneymanager_infographic

The $100 million question


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

occupy prov 38Should we the people of Rhode Island pay large institutional bondbuyers $100 million we don’t legally owe them?

It’s the biggest political and economic dilemma facing the Ocean State since pension cuts and our elected officials don’t want the discussion to happen.

Last week, a legislative committee tasked with investigating the pros and cons to taxpayers was roundly criticized for holding an informational meeting on the $100 million question but only presented one side of the debate. After the session, Ted Nesi, Rhode Island’s most respected reporter, wrote this gem of a lede:

“In a battle pitting Rhode Island against Wall Street, Wall Street will always win.”

As someone who vehemently wants Rhode Island to be more politically powerful than Wall Street, it felt like I had the wind knocked out of me when I read this. Then, Ian Donnis of RIPR added insult to my economic theory injury by writing in his weekly news/media column: “If you read one overview on the debate over defaulting on 38 Studios’ bonds, make it this one by Ted Nesi.”

But is it true that Wall Street will always win when its interests are pitted against the people of Rhode Island?

Enter Occupy Providence and the the Stephen Hopkins Center to help the state figure it out.

I think they had a better discussion on this issue than did the rest of the state. You can watch the entire hour-long public discussion here. Please, for the love of Rhode Island and its economic well-being, at least compare and contrast this with this discussion by the legislative committee designated to study the decision, which you can watch here.

I think Elaine Heebner, who isn’t a financial expert at all, offers one of the most important perspectives on this very big political and economic question for the Ocean State.

These economic experts, moderated by WJAR’s Bill Rappleye, disagreed with the theory put forth by our political leaders. Bob Cusack, a former bondbuyer and former East Providence city councilor, said he doesn’t suspect the fiscal implications of default will be as severe as some are predicting. (For more on the fiscal merits of default, read this post by Cate Long, of Reuters, who crunched the numbers.)

Perhaps just as importantly, the panel faulted state leaders for not having a robust debate about it. Cusack, said something at the State House on Thursday that I think we can all agree with: “It’s not enough for pundits and even officials to predict the reaction of rating agencies.” He suggested we ask them ourselves.

As I’ve written on several occasions now, I think this $100 million question will show a new kind of political divide for Rhode Island – one in which we see who thinks Rhode Islanders fiscal interests should be subservient to Wall Street’s. I don’t know if they are, and hope for the people’s sake they are not.

Plus, I would really like to get to write this headline: “RI to Wall Street: Drop Dead”

38 Studio loan default makes for strange bedfellows


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

occupy prov 38As legislative leaders draw criticism for only inviting one perspective to speak today about defaulting on the 38 Studios loan, Occupy Providence, an activist collective, and the Stephen Hopkins Center, a libertarian group, have joined forces to sponsor an event that offers a pretty good diversity of opinion.

WJAR’s Bill Rappleye will moderate a panel debate at the State House today at 2:30. Panelists include Gary Sasse, former executive director of the RIPEC and senior adviser to Governor Don Carcieri, RI Future contributor Tom Sgouros, Bob Cusack a former public finance investment banker, John Chung, a Roger Williams law school professor and Elaine Heebner, for a citizen’s perspective.

Both Occupy Providence and the Hopkins Center oppose repaying the loan. And this isn’t the only example of atypical political allies on this issue: both the Rhode Island Republican Party and the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats don’t want to repay the loan either.

“The key leaders in RI government are showing poor priorities if they bail out Wall Street and keep historically low tax rates for the rich, when we could be stabilizing transit funding and making education more affordable,” said Randall Rose, a longtime leader of the local Occupy movement.

Brian Bishop of the Hopkins Center added that his organization “would prefer lower taxes for everybody, including the rich. But our common ground with Occupy Providence is an objection to cutting the voters out of their constitutional role in approving debt. This sham technique in which the state does not directly borrow the money, but is perceived to be on the hook because of risk to its credit rating and fiscal reputation, must end. Legislators should stand up for taxpayers over Wall Street on this issue.”

But, they still thought it was important to have a robust debate on the issue. “We have specifically invited state leaders who support the bailout to defend their position,” said the press release. “This will fill a need for fair, thoughtful debate on the subject.”

I think this issue is shining a light on a new kind of political division in Rhode Island.

What RI should know about hedge funds, part 2


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

hedge fundsThe truly remarkable thing about the hedge fund industry is that once you strip away the confusion about how shares are valued and what exactly the returns are, you find returns that are far from extraordinary. In fact, the average returns over the past 20 years for the industry — the returns actually experienced by the vast majority of hedge fund investors — are less than they would have earned in government bonds. (And this isn’t just a matter of the huge losses in 2008-2009, though obviously that didn’t help.)  This isn’t to say that some customers aren’t lucky in their choice of funds, but the odds are stacked heavily against them.

As if this isn’t bad enough, fraud in the hedge fund industry is hardly confined to Bernie Madoff. The unregulated and opaque nature of the funds lends itself to fraud. Plenty of managers have succumbed to the obvious moral hazard, and Simon Lack, in his book, “Hedge Fund Mirage: The Illusion of Big Money and Why It’s Too Good to Be True“, provides plenty of examples. With a hedge fund, the entire investment is at risk, so fraud is an ever-present concern.

The Hedge Fund Fraud Casebook provides over 100 examples of hedge fund fraud, all of which happened before anyone realized that Bernie Madoff, the former president of the NASDAQ and famous fund manager, was running a giant Ponzi scheme, but also before the frauds of Conrad Seghers, James Dickey, Ed Strafaci, Mark Focht, Paul Eustace, Michael Berger, and many more were uncovered. When the industry standard is to charge high fees and to tell your customers what you want and when you want, can any of this be a surprise?

Surveying the industry landscape at the end of his book, Lack says he used to blame the managers for running a rigged game, but eventually he turned around and now blames the customers for enabling this bad behavior. This is a funny kind of Wall Street blame-the-victim ethics, but it is true that a lot of institutional investors — like pension funds — have the resources to have discovered these facts on their own. And they haven’t.

Let’s be clear: any investment portfolio should be hedged somehow. Even within the world of stocks, most fools know you don’t make a portfolio out of a single company’s stock. Diversifying stocks is one way to hedge. Diversifying investments so that you’ve got some money in things that tend to go up in value when your other investments go down is also wise. This is what hedge funds originally did. But the evidence implies that the lowest cost way to do that now might be to do it yourself. Want to hedge your exposure to stocks with investments in bonds?  Go find a friendly bond dealer and buy some. Or invest in a mutual fund for bonds. Want to invest in failing mortgages?  You can find ways to do that without paying 2-and-20. Gold?  That can be done, too, if you must. But if you go to a hedge fund, you should know that you’re walking into a casino where the odds are great that you’re not going to walk out with nearly as much money as the advertising claims. If you walk out with any at all. The occasional lucky patsy can walk out of a rigged game a winner, but that doesn’t mean the game isn’t rigged. As they say in poker, if you can’t tell who’s the patsy at the table, well, you’re the patsy.

If you’re not a “accredited” investor, who can afford to dine at tables like these, why should you care?  Because, though you might not be one yourself, you probably belong to one. Institutional investors — pension funds, university endowments, banks, charitable foundations — make up a huge proportion of the money invested in the hedge fund industry, though exact data is hard to come by. You probably have a piece of this somewhere, perhaps as a taxpayer whose municipal or state government is investing heavily in hedge funds, or as an alumnus/a of some college, or as a customer at a big bank. Rhode Island’s pension fund has increased its investment in hedge funds substantially, and as much as a quarter of the value of the fund is now invested in “alternative investments”, which includes hedge funds, and private equity funds (also not an industry known for its low fees and transparency).

The stated reason behind this is to increase the returns. This is important, as a result of the 2011 pension changes. With fewer people paying less money into the pension fund, investment returns are more important than ever before to make good the state’s debts to its retirees. Perhaps it’s possible to negotiate lower fees, or find ways to increase the transparency of the funds you invest in, but there are valid reasons to be very skeptical.

Here and in other states, when your money winds up in a hedge fund, the people in charge of your money have put it in the care of fund managers whose incentives do not involve keeping your best interests at heart. And while those Very Serious People invest your money in these risky and opaque funds, they are relying on the empty promises of representatives of a corrupt industry. If they do well, you’re lucky. If, as is more likely the case, they do not — well, you’re the patsy.

Part I of this series

Updated: clarified that the RI fund’s allocation to alternative investments is not exclusively hedge funds.

What Rhode Island should know about hedge funds, part 1


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

hedge fundsWhat’s the purpose of investing in a hedge fund?  Because “hedge fund manager” is almost synonymous with “fabulously wealthy” in the popular press, lots of people think hedge funds are all about high risk and high returns.

Originally, though, hedge funds were thought to provide high returns simply by being consistent, if dull. The idea was that by “hedging” risk with investments whose value fluctuates independently from one another, a good manager could deliver solid but unspectacular results, but do so year after year. 

Since the origination of these funds, more than 40 years ago, the industry has transformed from a handful of conservative investor funds in a relative backwater of the investor world to include funds that follow a much wider variety of strategies, and have trillions of dollars under management. In the process, the meaning of the term has changes, and these days, it just means any unregulated investment fund.

What’s that?  Unregulated?  Well, yes. The SEC, which regulates lots of other Wall Street activity, doesn’t have much to say about hedge funds, except that you have to be a “accredited investor” to invest in one. Essentially this just means you have to be rich enough.

A mutual fund, open to anyone with a dollar, is regulated by the SEC, and is subject to various kinds of disclosure and reporting requirements. Hedge funds, by contrast, only give their clients (usually referred to as fund “partners”, which sounds chummy, doesn’t it?) the information they want to release. If they want to tell you what their returns were, they can. If they don’t, that’s your problem.

Fees are high, too. Where a mutual fund might charge a service charge of one percent or less to its customers’ accounts each year, the standard in the hedge fund industry is 2%, plus a 20% share of any investment gains. Naturally, they do not share in any losses.

Lack of information and high fees?  Such a deal. The reason customers put up with this kind of abuse is the promise of high returns. That’s what makes it so shocking that over the past 20 years, most investors would have made substantially more money by investing in low-interest US government bonds. (This is not just a matter of the 2008-2009 downturn, though that plays a role.)

That’s the message of Simon Lack, whose book, “Hedge Fund Mirage: The Illusion of Big Money and Why It’s Too Good To Be True“, describes his experiences in the hedge fund industry. Lack, a trader at JP Morgan, spent several years investing in hedge funds on behalf of the bank.

JP Morgan did its part to foster the recent flourishing of the hedge fund industry because in the 1990’s, astute traders there noticed the contrast between the weak returns of the industry and the wealth of the managers. The contrast led them to wonder whether they should try investing in a different way. Lack helped start their Capital Market Investment Program, which provided seed money to fledgling funds in exchange for a share of the fees as well as the investment returns. With one foot on the management side of the business and the other with the customers, Lack has a unique perspective on the business.

What he learned was this: The fabulous wealth of hedge fund managers serves as the best possible marketing tool for hedge funds. Look at me, the private jets and penthouse apartments say. I am successful and if you invest with me, you can be too. But he also asked this: where are the hedge fund investors who have become fabulously rich by trusting their money to such managers? And he’s still looking for them.

In his book, Lack points out that a manager can make money when the fund makes money, but that many managers make even more money when a fund’s early good returns inspire lots more people to invest in it. Taking a couple of percent off the flood of new money each year can be much more profitable than hoping for a fraction of the investment gains, and if the fund grows quickly, your wealth can, too, no matter what the returns. The incentives aren’t to nurture your customers money and make it grow, but to expand the business and bring in lots of new money.

What’s more, for a variety of reasons that Lack described, a fund’s growth usually decreases the rate of its returns. A large fund is somewhat more cumbersome and profitable opportunities are not always to scale. So you have managers becoming absurdly wealthy while overseeing a fund whose growth serves their interests, but not those of their customers.

Lack also puzzles over the problem of reporting investment gains. A fund will naturally report its gains in the most flattering light possible. What you might not realize is how much latitude there is for telling the story a fund manager wants you to hear. When reporting returns, a fund might report the growth of the investment pool. But the investment pool can grow both by getting new customers and by investment gains, so that’s not what will be experienced by any individual investor. Plus the shares of a hedge fund can be very challenging to value, and there’s a certain arbitrary nature to any answer to this question.

If a hedge fund invests in bonds, for example, do you value bonds at the price at which they were bought, or the price at which they can be sold?  These prices are different at the very moment the bonds are bought, so we’re not talking about market movements, just about the difference between a bid price and and ask price. Depending on which price the fund manager chooses to use to value the portfolio, it will affect the calculation of the fund returns, though the actual amount of money won’t change.

Furthermore, a customer’s shares might be “worth” some specified net asset value, but they might not be redeemable at that value, due to redemption limitations, withdrawal fees, or some other clause in the “partnership” contract. As I’m sure you can imagine, this is just the beginning of the confusion. The point is that when you buy shares in a hedge fund, you are putting a great deal of trust in the management of that fund, and the management holds all the information in the relationship, and has incentives that are not perfectly aligned with yours. Does that sound like a recipe for success?

Read part II.

Pensions, hedge fund managers, David Boies


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

dan loebAs Rhode Island considers whether Gina Raimondo is making a wise gamble with our money by moving more of public sector retirees’ pension account into risky hedge funds, the New York Times Dealbook blog reports that the S&P 500 stock index outperformed the average hedge fund for the fourth year in a row.

Swashbuckling bets and robust returns are exactly what investors are hoping for — and paying for in outsize fees — when they allocate money to hedge funds. But far too often in recent years, investors have paid hefty fees for lackluster returns.

And last year was no different.

For the fourth consecutive year, most hedge funds failed to beat the market. The average hedge fund gained 6.4 percent last year, according to a composite index that tracks 2,200 portfolios compiled by Hedge Fund Research.

By comparison, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index climbed 16 percent when factoring in dividends. In 2011, the average hedge fund lost more than 5 percent, versus a 2 percent gain for the S.& P. 500.

The Dealbook post also listed the 10 highest paid hedge fund managers, according to Institutional Investor Alpha’s annual “Rich List. At least two of whom Rhode Island invests a considerable sum of our pensioners retirement security with:

Loeb was featured in Rolling Stone magazine on April 11 about his crusade to take over more pension plans, and his lack of affinity for defined benefit pension plans.

Dan Loeb, who isn’t known as the biggest hedge-fund asshole still working on Wall Street (only because Stevie Cohen hasn’t been arrested yet), is on the board and co-founder of a group called Students First New York. And Students First has been one of the leading advocates pushing for states to abandon defined benefit plans – packages which guarantee certain retirement benefits for public workers like teachers – in favor of defined contribution plans, where the benefits are not guaranteed.

In other words, Loeb has been soliciting the retirement money of public workers, then turning right around and lobbying for those same workers to lose their benefits. He’s essentially asking workers to pay for their own disenfranchisement (with Loeb getting his two-and-twenty cut, or whatever obscene percentage of their retirement monies he will charge as a fee). If that isn’t the very definition of balls, I don’t know what is.

There’s an interesting connection here between hedge fund managers, public teacher pensions and the so-called ed. reform movement; StudentsFirst was founded by Michelle Rhee and she is also on the board with Loeb and other hedge fund managers.

But there’s another interesting local connection too: David Boies, the high-price super lawyer who is defending Raimondo and her pension plan at a great discount is also on the StudentsFirst board with Loeb and Rhee.

According to a Ted Nesi post from November, Boies agreed to defend in court the pension cuts to state workers and teachers for $50 an hour when he usually charges $960.

Jack Reed takes it to the banks and their regulators


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Screenshot-ReedThere’s been a surprising dearth of coverage in the local press of Jack Reed’s exemplary work last week, as he stuck it to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) alongside Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren.  Here’s a .

Here’s the rub, from Dave Dayen at Salon:

The vast majority of borrowers – 3.4 million – will receive $1,000 or less. To pick a category at random, 234,000 borrowers had a loan modification approved, were kicked out of their homes anyway, and will receive for their trouble – for having their home effectively stolen – a whopping $300 (for comparison’s sake, the third-party consultants got $10,000 per review).

HuffPo notes Reed’s role here:

Under questioning from Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, regulators came the closest to acknowledging that the reviews, which resulted more than $2 billion in payments by the banks to consultants, were poorly conceived and supervised.

exity of the task,” said Daniel Stipano, a top lawyer at the OCC. He cited the number of financial institutions, consultants and homeowners involved and the difficulty in negotiating state law as among the challenges that reviewers and regulators had to negotiate.

Dave explains how this hearing and the OCC mortgage fraud settlement relate to the broader housing collapse.  Dave’s thrilled to see that the foreclosure fraud issue is FINALLY getting some play with the national press — with the tag-team effort by Reed, Warren, and Brown appearing — and even leading — on many national network news casts this week.

I have spent the better part of four years trying, with little success, to raise awareness aboutforeclosure fraud, the largest consumer fraud in the history of the United States.  In fact, there’s a whole little band of us writers and activists and foreclosure fighters. We have provided multitudes of evidence about fake documentsforged documentsillegal foreclosuresforeclosures on military members while they served overseasforeclosures on homes with no mortgagesbreaking and entering into the wrong homessuicides by foreclosure victims, and above all the complete lack of accountability for these crimes and abuses.

But instead of giving voice to thousands upon thousands of victims of illegal foreclosures, instead of documenting the banks’ criminal practices, maybe what we all should have done is simply let the Office of Comptroller of the Currency – part of the Treasury Department — and the Federal Reserve construct their own settlement with the banks. Then, when it utterly unraveled — as it has over the past couple of months — the unimaginable fraud heaped upon homeowners would get more attention than ever before, particularly from a frustrated and angry Congress led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

The OCC’s pathetic response to the housing crisis, its attempt to cover up its own corruption/ineptitude, and Warren’s star power make this the perfect moment to bear down on these issues.  Reed deserves praise for helping to lead the charge — let’s hope he keeps plowing forward.

Gina’s Moral Obligation: Wall Street, Not RI


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

There is an old saying in politics. “Don’t tell me what your priorities are. Show me your budget, and I will tell you what your priorities are.”

Over the course of her first term as General Treasurer, Gina Raimondo, when pressed to make a choice stand with workers or with Wall Street she will choose her friends from New York over hard working Rhode Islanders. At least thus far.

She was endorsed by working men and women throughout Rhode Island and had an opportunity to work with our public employees to collaboratively put together a plan to strengthen our obligation to the men and women who provide vital services for our state. Raimondo chose a different route.

The treasurer chose to call on her Wall Street friends to fund a front group by the name of Engage RI. They raised nearly $1 million, and proceeded to travel from town to town, city to city pitting RIPTA users vs. public employee retirement security, pitting social service providers vs. public employee retirement security, pitting small business owners against public employee retirement security, and worst of all pitting school children against the very public school teachers who work with children every day.

In the end big business financing, financial manipulation, scare tactics, and pitting one Rhode Islander against another was enough to secure passage of the  what has been called “the single most harmful pension reform ever passed in the United States.”

Frozen COLA’s, slashed defined benefits, massive increases in age requirements, and 401k’s with an anemic 1 percent match were just some of the ways Treasurer Raimondo chose to deal with this particular obligation to hard working Rhode Islanders.

Fast forward to 2012, the 38 Studios deal has proved to be a failure and the state is on the hook for over $100 million in the form of a “moral obligation” bond. The dust had yet to settle from media reports and the Governor’s announcement concerning the state’s role in this failed venture there was the treasurer calling for the state to honor its “moral obligation” to the bond holders. She made her opinion known early and often, and continues to assert the state must pay in light of the fact other elected officials, and industry leaders have expressed concern and feel it may not be in the State’s best interest to pay.

As a proud public servant who works side by side with hard working men and women every day it is alarming an elected official in this case the treasurer would put such extraordinary effort into persuading the state to walk away from its “moral obligation” to public employees and teachers.

What is even more alarming is while the treasurer advocated for the state’s “moral obligation” to hard working Rhode Islanders be broken she has consistently asserted her position we cannot under any circumstances walk away from our “moral obligation” to bond holders. I find these two contrasting positions to be especially concerning, and they lead me to question who exactly does our General Treasurer – with gubernatorial aspirations – stand with?

Does she stand with the cashier at the local market, the gas station attendant at the local gas station, the cook at one of our great restaurants; the life guard at one of our beautiful beaches. Does Raimondo stand with the child care provider, the painter, the lobsterman, the nurse and the bus driver?

Or Does the Treasurer stand with the Wall Street insider, the bond holder, and hedge fund partner? Does Treasurer Raimondo stand with John Arnold former ENRON Executive who pumped more than half a million into Engage RI while she pumped her fists to crowds at the State House.

“Don’t tell me what your priorities are. Show me your budget and I will tell you what your priorities are.”

‘Unions Buy Local’ Campaign Set to Launch


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Two of Rhode Island’s largest unions, NEARI and the RI Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals, are launching a new  Unions Buy Local campaign just prior to this Mother’s Day weekend.  Shopping locally makes sense as we try to work with our neighbors to help grow our local – and state – economies.

Rhode Island union members and other working people have the real purchasing power in the state, much more so than wealthy individuals. We want to use that purchasing power to support local businesses and jobs for local workers in these businesses – and strengthen ties within our local communities.

Participation is simple – members will just pass a “union buck” whenever they spend money at a local business, dine at a local restaurant, or pay for a local service. The project will roll out in three locations next week: Thursday in Warren, Friday in South Kingstown, and Saturday in North Kingstown. More towns will be announced over the next few weeks.  The campaign will continue between Mother’s Day and Father’s Day.

Union members know they fight for all working people when they engage in contract fights and legislative battles on issues like increasing the minimum wage or protecting workplace safety.  Too often, Big Business tries to pit Main Street businesses against the interests of organized labor.   But as is becoming clearer to more Americans, the interests of Wall Street business and Main Street business are truly divergent.  That’s why it is a shame that here in Rhode Island, groups like EngageRI tried to severely diminish the purchasing power of retirees and working people in general – something that will truly hurt local business.

Unions Buy Local is a positive way for the working people of Rhode Island to demonstrate to local merchants and shop owners how much teachers and public employees contribute to the local economy.  As NEARI President Larry Purtill said in the latest edition of the NEARI magazine Newsline:

“If we want local business owners and workers to support us and our financial security at budget time, then we have to support theirs.  Everybody wins in this campaign.  We will not be asking business owners to do anything but open their doors and understand we want to help them.  All we ask in return is for those who have been critical of union and public employees to stop and think before they act.  There are always ramifications to every position one takes.”

Surprising Occupy Surprises Even Cynical Me

From the very beginning, the Occupy movement has been one surprise after another. The scale of the turnout in lower Manhattan is said to have stunned the AdBusters crew. The scale of peripheral support that came to the major protests surprised the activist core. The scale of the police response surprised the major media that wanted to ignore the story. And the speed with which the movement swept across the country surprised everyone.

But more than anything, the biggest surprise has been the movement’s staying power. Despite virtually all the US encampments being raided or voluntarily abandoned, the movement continues to offer up – you guessed it – surprises.

Occupy the SEC

Last weeks’ 325-page letter to the SEC et al from an Occupy Wall Street working group that supports the Volcker Rule portion of Dodd-Frank, came as a shock to the financial community. This was no rambling left wing polemic (such as you might be reading now), but a carefully considered expression of the broad ranging benefits of controls on the largest institutions. It was the kind of thing that could only be constructed by people who come from inside those large financial institutions.

To decode, this was Wall Street occupying Wall Street. Well and truly the 5th Column.

Surely, it is dawning on even the most strident radical capitalist that it is in their own self-interest to come to grips with the basics of this movement. It’s one thing when left wing radicals are talking about income inequality. It’s something else altogether different when it’s a major topic at the World Economic Forum in Davos!

This doesn’t need to make sense; only fiction needs to make sense. It is what it is, and I am very pleasantly surprised.

Reestablishing Solidarity

As the winter weather kept many people indoors and away from Occupy actions, I’ve become a bit concerned that the potentially fractious nature of hardcore activist collaborations would create an atmosphere that might discourage or alienate the large mass of peripheral supporters like me. While it’s true that I haven’t seen much evidence of this, I also haven’t seen much evidence of the opposite.

For this reason, I’ve suggested to every Occupier I know that it would be helpful to us on the periphery if Occupy created a series of regular, low-risk protests scheduled at such a time and constructed in such a way that so-called “regular people” could feel safe in coming out and showing solidarity with the core of the movement. The model that I keep pointing to is the regular Monday night protests held in 1989 in Berlin on both sides of the Berlin Wall.

Don’t Screw This Up

I’ve heard from many in and around the core of the movement their concern about some issues and ideas taking precedent over others. If that line of thinking becomes  prevalent, this movement will fail.

To be sure, it is crucial that the movement remain open to and aware of ALL the various viewpoints, issues, communities, etc. that make up this remarkable collection. But it is equally crucial that ALL these communities recognize that is the solidarity among themselves that attracts the large mass of peripheral supporters. And it is that large mass on the periphery that will force the change – NOT the hardcore at the center. The relationship is symbiotic; the periphery needs the center and vice versa.

To succeed – that means radically altering the dialog, awakening the apathetic and driving for real change – this movement can’t let itself get ripped apart. Everything needs to be focused on maintaining solidarity and attracting supporters.

Solidarity is the Goal

I’ve spent the last 30 years wondering what the hell was wrong with people in the US. Didn’t they see where this country was heading? Didn’t they understand that we couldn’t just keep growing on leverage without it eventually biting us in the ass? Didn’t they see that we were becoming an empire with our military spread far and wide? Didn’t they see that this nation was rapidly driving itself deep into the “bad guys of history” category?

Surprisingly, Occupy has shown that many more people than I had thought do seem to understand.

So don’t let us down, Occupy. We don’t want to go down on the wrong side of history. You are our last, best chance to pull the US back from the brink of catastrophe.

If we blow it now, we won’t get another opportunity like this in our lifetime.


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387