How to Join the ‘Day Without Immigrants’ on May Day
How to Join the ‘Day Without Immigrants’ on May Day
A coalition led by immigrants and workers is aiming to mark this year’s May Day with the biggest workers strike and mobilization in over a decade...
...
A coalition led by immigrants and workers is aiming to mark this year’s May Day with the biggest workers strike and mobilization in over a decade...
Read full article here.
Metro Phoenix Woman Fights For Toys R Us Workers' Severance Pay
Metro Phoenix Woman Fights For Toys R Us Workers' Severance Pay
Auerbach got mad and got moving. With the help of two groups, Rise Up Retail and Center for Popular Democracy, she joined other former employees to lobby politicians in Washington, D.C., and to...
Auerbach got mad and got moving. With the help of two groups, Rise Up Retail and Center for Popular Democracy, she joined other former employees to lobby politicians in Washington, D.C., and to march into the lobbies of companies they hold responsible.
Read the full article here.
Banks eye changes to CEO gatherings
Banks eye changes to CEO gatherings
BANKS EYE CHANGES TO CEO GATHERINGS — When the Financial Services Forum holds its next meeting, a key item on the agenda may well be the fate of the organization representing CEOs of the nation's...
BANKS EYE CHANGES TO CEO GATHERINGS — When the Financial Services Forum holds its next meeting, a key item on the agenda may well be the fate of the organization representing CEOs of the nation's largest banks, insurers and asset managers.
Sources familiar with the matter told M.M. that some banks are ready to hash out whether it makes sense to keep investing in the group, wind it down or consider other options, including merging its functions with those of another trade organization. The CEOs are scheduled to meet next in October. Its members include the heads of JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
Washington's banking industry insiders have been chattering about the direction of the group since longtime president and chief executive Rob Nichols was named last year as head of the larger American Bankers Association. The ABA represents a broad range of small, regional and large banks.
"There's an ongoing debate among all the banks whether it's worth having all these different trade associations," one source familiar with discussions said.
Forum spokeswoman Laena Fallon did not comment on any CEO discussions about overhauling the organization.
“The Forum CEOs are looking forward to their annual fall meeting and are working together on a number of shared industry priorities including cybersecurity, strengthening the financial system, and helping provide credit to drive the economy forward," Fallon said.
JACKSON HOLE KICKOFF — The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's annual economic symposium starts today in Jackson Hole. The main event for the markets will be tomorrow morning's speech by Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen on the Fed's "monetary policy toolkit." Bloomberg's Steve Matthews and Jeff Black expect that "any description she offers of the U.S. economy will probably be crafted to keep an interest-rate rise on the table for the central bank’s policy meeting next month — without committing it to act." http://bloom.bg/2bOzoxt.
The Wall Street Journal's Greg Ip argues that central bankers are facing big questions about their relevance, because of the persistence of slow economic growth since the 2008 crisis and therefore low interest rates. He lays out what they may do next: http://on.wsj.com/2bWVnp2.
'FED UP' MEETING AHEAD OF THE FESTIVITIES — In a sign of the movement's growing clout, a coalition of labor and community groups banding together as "Fed Up" expect at least seven Fed presidents and one Fed governor to show up at a public meeting in Jackson Hole this afternoon. Among other things, they will talk about reforming the Fed's structure and how monetary policy affects working-class communities. Fed Up expects the attendee list to include Fed Governor (and potential Clinton Treasury Secretary) Lael Brainard, New York Fed President William Dudley, Kansas City Fed President Esther George and Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari.
The meeting will be livestreamed here at 6:30 p.m. ET: http://bit.ly/2bAZAuy.
Fed Up director Ady Barkan told M.M. that a major topic of discussion will be a proposal to overhaul the structure of the Fed to minimize the influence of commercial banks. "We're going to be asking them whether they support that, and why not if they don't," Barkan said.
HAPPY THURSDAY — It's been a pleasure serving as your guest host the last couple of weeks. I'm handing it over to my colleagues tomorrow, so please keep sending tips to Pro Financial Services editor Mark McQuillan: mmcquillan@politico.com. Happy to keep in touch on Twitter @zachary.
THIS MORNING ON POLITICO PRO FINANCIAL SERVICES – VIctoria Guida on the GAO's opinion on community-based flood insurance -- and to get Morning Money every day before 6 a.m. -- please contact Pro Services at (703) 341-4600 or info@politicopro.com.
DRIVING THE DAY — Hillary Clinton will give a speech on the "disturbing 'alt-right' philosophy" of Donald Trump's campaign; 3 p.m. ET in Reno, Nev. ... Fed Up meets with Federal Reserve officials at 6:30 p.m. as the economic symposium begins in Jackson Hole. ...
FOR YOUR FALL CALENDAR — A federal appeals court has scheduled Oct. 24 oral arguments in the government's fight to keep MetLife under scrutiny of the Federal Reserve because of its potential systemic risks.
TIME TO MEASURE THE DRAPES, MAJORITY LEADER SCHUMER? — The New York Times gives Democrats a 60 percent chance of retaking the Senate. http://nyti.ms/2bOAPfg.
HOW DELAWARE DEFEATED CORPORATE SUNSHINE — A 3,000-word Reuters investigation on the state's fight against proposals that would reveal the owners of corporate shell companies: "[T]he proposed law continues to languish, thanks in part to [Delaware Secretary of State Jeffrey] Bullock. He was neither the first nor the only official to take up the fight, but became a leader in defending the status quo as worldwide support for change gained traction." http://reut.rs/2c8f8vb.
GOVERNMENT AT ODDS WITH ITSELF ON STUDENT LOANS — Bloomberg's Shahien Nasiripour on how the CFPB has become student loan borrowers' advocate against the Education Department: "Both the [CFPB] and the Obama administration share the same goal: improved customer service and fewer loan delinquencies. But industry observers see the administration as more accommodating to the industry's needs, while the consumer bureau has made clear that it's ready to sue. It's as if the Obama administration is using a carrot while the consumer bureau is brandishing a stick." http://bloom.bg/2bjb5uv.
EX-FED OFFICIAL WARNS AGAINST GOING EASY ON INFLATION — Former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh argues in a WSJ opinion piece that central bankers should resist calls to accommodate higher inflation, which has yet to rear its head, despite low interest rates: "A new inflation target would undermine the Fed’s commitment to any policy framework. It would please the denizens of Wall Street who pine for still-looser Fed policy. And households would be understandably miffed to receive a new lecture on unconventional monetary policy — this one on the benefits of higher prices." http://on.wsj.com/2bhsAqQ.
U.S., EU DUKE IT OUT OVER APPLE, TAXES — The FT's Barney Jopson and Arthur Beesley on the intensifying feud: "The U.S. has launched a stinging attack on the European Commission in a last-ditch bid to dissuade Brussels from hitting Apple with a demand for billions of euros in underpaid taxes. In a sharp escalation of the transatlantic feud, the U.S. Treasury Department issued a rare warning on Wednesday that Brussels was becoming a 'supernational tax authority' that threatened international agreements on tax reform. The criticism comes as the European Commission is finalizing a probe into an alleged sweetheart tax deal that Ireland granted to Apple, the biggest single case in a crackdown on corporate tax avoidance across the EU. After prolonged delays, a definitive ruling is expected next month." http://on.ft.com/2bhuJT5.
FLOOD INSURANCE POLITICS IN LOUISIANA SENATE RACE — Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon endorsed Republican Rep. Charles Boustany in the race for the state's open U.S. Senate seat, arguing that he is "the only candidate I trust to fight for affordable flood insurance." Congress faces a September 2017 deadline to reauthorize the government-run National Flood Insurance Program. "I look forward to working with Commissioner Donelon to write common-sense flood insurance policy as Louisiana’s next United States Senator when Congress begins work on reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program in 2017," Boustany said in a statement.
NYT'S TAKE ON GOLDMAN CATERING TO THE 'COMMON MAN' — From William Cohan in DealBook: "As it has done many times in its past to survive and to thrive, Goldman is in the process of reinvention. This explains Marcus, its new online lending business named after the company’s founder, Marcus Goldman, along with GS Bank, its online savings account business with no minimum balance requirements. After all these years, Goldman Sachs has suddenly discovered retail banking. But it is not out of altruism or charity, nor is it nefarious. It is all about making money from money, which has always been Goldman’s specialty." http://nyti.ms/2bCDhcf.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-money/2016/08/banks-eye-change...
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
By ZACHARY WARMBRODT
Source
How Much Do U.S. Cities Spend Every Year On Policing?
How Much Do U.S. Cities Spend Every Year On Policing?
Over the past three decades, U.S. cities have allocated larger and larger shares of their budgets towards law enforcement. Today, the U.S. collectively spends $100 billion a year on policing and a...
Over the past three decades, U.S. cities have allocated larger and larger shares of their budgets towards law enforcement. Today, the U.S. collectively spends $100 billion a year on policing and a further $80 billion on incarceration. Even though crime levels have dropped substantially over the last 30 years in line with the spending uptake, a report released last month argues that this occurred in spite of higher police budgets. Compiled by The Center for Popular Democracy, Law for Black Lives and the Black Youth Project 100, the report makes the case that investment in mental health, housing, youth development and living wages would stabilize communities and prove more effective than policing.
Read the full article here.
Transcript: WSJ Interview With Philadelphia Fed’s Patrick Harker
Transcript: WSJ Interview With Philadelphia Fed’s Patrick Harker
Patrick T. Harker, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, sat down for an interview with The Wall Street Journal’s Michael S. Derby on Thursday, Oct. 13, 2016. Here is a transcript...
Patrick T. Harker, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, sat down for an interview with The Wall Street Journal’s Michael S. Derby on Thursday, Oct. 13, 2016. Here is a transcript of the exchange, lightly edited for length and clarity.
MICHAEL S. DERBY: So we already talked about a lot of the economic and monetary policy stuff. And we just met, so I’m not going to keep getting you to say the same things over and over again. And since I knew this – we were going to be talking after, you know, the speech – I thought we might sort of take a step back and think about, you know, you’ve been in the job a year and a – I mean, a little over a year now.
And, you know, you come to the position from a different background than some other central bankers do. I mean, there’s a lot of economists and research directors who’ve come up, or people from the financial sector. And so I figure I’d start off by asking you just your sense of, you know, like how it’s been, you know, coming in, and what kind of things you’ve learned about the job, and the challenges you’ve faced so far as you, you know, come to lead this institution.
You know, a little bit about my background. While I have degrees in engineering, I also have a degree in economics. I’m published a lot in spatial economics, so micro/spatial economics, what are called Takayama-Judge models or all-trade models. So – (laughs) – yeah. And then – and in addition to that, I’m a quant. So it’s not as though I came to the job with no understanding of the economics that underlie what we do. So let me start with that.
It’s been a really great first – little over first year for a couple of reasons. One, this role is not only important at the national level with respect to monetary policy, which is always the headline event for the Fed and the (Federal Open Market Committee), but I really enjoy the work we’re doing at the regional level, and really trying to create a better environment for job creation and economic mobility and inclusiveness for the economy here. You know, and Philadelphia, the Third District, is uniquely challenged given that we are the poorest top 10 city in America. We have communities throughout our district that are struggling. And so I think the Fed, through our research capability, our ability to convene people, we can have meaningful conversations about that and really start to create more and more opportunity. That’s why we launched this Agenda for Poverty and Prosperity, right?
So we’ve got a challenge here. I think that challenge is also national, but we have it uniquely here in Philadelphia, in the region. And even despite the fact that Philadelphia as a city itself is doing quite well, we need to start bringing more people into the economy productively, first and foremost for those people, but also for the economy. I mean, as I discussed in the speech just prior to this, we need more people in the workforce. And so immigration may be part of that solution, but a substantial component of that, just you look at the numbers, are bringing more people – unskilled people into job-training programs and workforce-development programs to get the jobs they need, and then have those jobs for them, and that they’re able to live somewhere near those jobs, right? It’s no good to have the jobs and have the skills and not be able to get to the job, right? So I think it’s a three-legged stool that we’re trying to develop here.
You know, and that’s – this is a – the other thing, to answer your specific question, is this is an incredible team of people. I mean, I’ve been really – I got to know them a little bit when I was director here, but you only get to meet certain people, right? Now I’ve been out and about in the Bank and in the community and see what we do, and, boy, it’s really impressive what the Philly Fed does. And I think you multiply that across the system.
MR. DERBY: What have you been doing to – I mean, if you come – like, as you say, you do have the M.A. in economics and you’ve done – you’ve done work in that area. But, like, as you’ve been – and you were director, obviously.
MR. HARKER: Yes.
MR. DERBY: So you weren’t unattached to what the institution was doing. But your predecessors – say Charles Plosser, I mean, he had some very strong views on monetary policy and the economy.
MR. HARKER: Yeah. Yeah, yeah.
MR. DERBY: And what have you been doing to come into your own on that front?
MR. HARKER: So I tend to be more of a pragmatist. And first you start with a little bit of humility on what we really know and the state of theory and practice when it comes to macroeconomics. Despite a lot of advances – and we’ve made a lot of advances in the field – there’s still a lot of things we don’t know, I mean, at a fairly fundamental level, right? I mean, we still debate questions on measuring inflation and inflation dynamics, measuring GDP and GDP – what’s happening with productivity. So you come into this understanding that while we have a deep bench of theorists and empiricists that need to inform policy, at the end of the day you need to base your judgment not on an ideology, but on the facts on the ground, right, as best we know them. And I think that’s what I bring to the table.
And then part of that is, you know, engineers are inherently pragmatic by nature. You know, the old engineering joke, the optimist says the glass is half-full, the pessimist says it’s half-empty, the engineer says you’ve got twice as much glass as you need there. (Laughter.)
MR. DERBY: I haven’t heard that joke, but yeah, that’s a good one.
MR. HARKER: So I think – and it’s part of, I think, the portfolio of talent that the Fed has attracted. You don’t want everybody to have the same background. You don’t want everybody to have the same life experiences. So you need some people in the room who have come from different experiences. You need some people in the room, I believe, who have actually worked on the other side of the financial markets – actually participating in the financial markets, not just regulating them, right, and theorizing about them. So I think you need – it’s the mix that makes for the richness of the conversation that happens in the room.
MR. DERBY: Has the Fed been too dominated by academics, and especially academic economists? Because that’s been one of the criticisms the Fed has faced at various points over the years.
MR. HARKER: So that’s an interesting question because I think that the Fed has – over time it cycles. You need some base knowledge of economic theory to be able to meaningfully participate in the conversation, but you can get that in different ways, right? You also, I think, need some understanding of markets and market functioning, right? And you can learn that, but it’s better if you’ve had some of that experience. And lastly, I think you need in the room – not everybody brings – you know, not everybody has all three of these things I’m saying at once, right, but it’s the mix of people. You need people with practical industry experience. And again, you can either get that by having run large institutions, for-profit, nonprofit; being on corporate boards, so they get some sense of how that decision process – that all has to be in the mix. But at the base we still need those economists, right, because ultimately we are dominated by, you could say – but really for a good reason – that base of economic talent because that’s the business we’re in.
MR. DERBY: And does the Fed have a good balance on that front right now, or could it –
MR. HARKER: I think so.
MR. DERBY: I mean, there’s obviously an opening in Atlanta coming, although he – I mean, Dennis was a markets guy.
MR. HARKER: Yeah. So I don’t know. I mean, that’s up to the board in Atlanta, obviously, to decide the choice they’re going to make, in conjunction with the governors. But I think right now we have a good balance. I mean, the conversation around the table is diverse in terms of people’s perspectives, and that’s healthy.
MR. DERBY: Is your – is the pragmatism that you bring to this, is it leading you to have any firming thoughts about how you think the economy works and how monetary policy should be conducted?
MR. HARKER: Right, so our best theory of the economy, right, is embodied in something like a DSGE model, right? And in that model, the two key words in there, it’s “dynamic” and “stochastic,” right? So there’s a lot of uncertainty in those models.
So what you know, having been an engineer and done control theory and optimization theory, right, you know the limits of those models as well, right? In any kind of dynamic control environment, which is embedded in that model and the way we think the economy works over time, a key component of any kind of complex system like that is that you need to learn by doing. That is, you can’t step back and say the model is a perfect or near-perfect representative of the system you’re trying to control or manage. You have to tweak it, move, learn; tweak it, move, learn, right? And so that’s what we know not even in economics, but in large dynamic stochastic systems.
I don’t think that’s any different with respect to macroeconomic policy. I think, as we move toward normalization, and if we believe the risks are balanced, which I do, then – and there are some risks that I’m worried about, such as some distortive effects of a low interest rate environment – then it’s time to move, and then see what happens, and then move. And so that’s what I mean by pragmatism. It’s understanding that theory, which I understand well. And as that applies to macroeconomics, it brings a more experimental flavor, I think, to the way you think, as opposed to an ideological point of view.
For me, I think that’s healthy because I know those kind of systems are inherently complex. The nonlinearity alone is complex, and then you add the stochastic nature, and there you should have a lot of humility to say we really don’t know exactly what’ll happen. That’s why we move cautiously, but move, to see what happens.
MR. DERBY: Well, in that way of thinking about things, I mean, there’s always been that axiom, you know, monetary policy works with long and variable lags.
And if you’re confronted with lots of uncertainty and you’re, you know, move, see what happens, but those see what happens are dynamics that play out over a long period of time –
MR. HARKER: They are, but then you see some of that future in things like expectations, whether they’re inflation expectations, market expectations. So you’re right, you’ll never perfectly know what’s going to happen, say, 18 months from now after you make that move, but you can get some glimpse of it with how markets respond and expectations become anchored or unanchored relative to such a move.
MR. DERBY: It seems as if there’s been – we see in the markets a lot of grumbling about the Fed communications or the guidance that the Fed has given, in that the Fed has not done with rates what the dot plot suggested it was going to do in December. Some market participants are, like, we were right, you know, we won, the Fed was wrong.
MR. HARKER: (Laughs.)
MR. DERBY: What do you think the dynamic is between financial markets and the Fed right now? Is it – is it a healthy dynamic? Or is there – is there a problem?
MR. HARKER: I don’t think there’s a problem. I do think the market is possibly underestimating the rate of normalization, but we’ll see, right?
And part of the challenge is, when it comes to communication, the dot plots are all forecasts, but people take the path of the Fed funds rate as a policy statement, not as a forecast. And we have not made that clear, right? We’re asked to forecast what we think the Fed funds rate will be. That’s a different question than saying, you know, what will the Fed funds rate be? And so that one dot plot I think causes us some problems when it comes to communication.
MR. DERBY: The December?
MR. HARKER: No, I’m just saying the path of the Fed funds rate. I think that causes us some communications challenges, because nobody says our dots for inflation or (gross domestic product) are anything other than a forecast. They take this one – and really, you think about what we’re asked: Given the path of the economy as we best know it, forecast it today, what do we think the Fed funds rate will be? But that’s not a promise that it will be that, right? And I think that’s been a challenge for us, because as things happen – as shocks, large or small, hit the economy – we have to react accordingly. We can’t stay on that predetermined path because it’s not a predetermined path.
MR. DERBY: So how do you fix it? I know (Cleveland Fed President) Loretta Mester’s talked about confidence bands. I know it’s a matter that the Communications Committee is considering. I don’t know if you’re on it. What would you like to see done differently?
MR. HARKER: So there are a lot of options. One is to add even more information with confidence bands. That’s one alternative.
The other – but it would be very difficult to do, that other central banks have done – is just get a consensus view. But we’re a large, diverse Committee. So that may work, but you know, we’d have to think about that carefully.
I mean, there are various options on how to do that.
MR. DERBY: So, but yeah, I mean, there’s nothing you particularly favor –
MR. HARKER: No, not at this point. I think we really – I need to weigh the pros and cons of that. We’re not far enough along, at least in my mind, to be able to make that decision.
MR. DERBY: And just the overall state of communications. I know there’s also been, you know, I mean, days when you’ll have four and five Fed officials speaking. The Dallas Fed had a paper that talked about maybe collectively people need to speak a little bit less and pick their – pick their spots a bit more.
MR. HARKER: Well, what do you think about that? (Laughs.)
MR. DERBY: Ah, you know, I mean, we take it as it comes. So, I mean, that’s not our place to rule in on that.
MR. HARKER: I don’t know, right? I mean, you have to be careful because the way the way the system is set up is to have – especially with the regional banks – is to have a diverse, independent view. And I think it’s – is it incumbent upon us to distill that view and to – or limit that view, or is it incumbent upon the public to distill that view, right? I mean, that’s the question, right? Should we limit what we communicate in terms of our diversity of views, or should we let the public and the media work with those diverse views? I’m more in the camp of the latter, because I think the more information we put out there it’s – the better, even if it’s not all – we’re not all saying the same thing in the same way.
MR. DERBY: OK. Well, back to the pragmatism question again. I mean, do you feel that that leaves you – and I’ll just ask this because this is often how central bankers get, you know, graded – but it does lead you to be so far more hawkish or dovish? I suppose in that you favored a rate rise in September that didn’t happen, that –
MR. HARKER: Yeah, I would tend to be because, again, I – as we discussed earlier, with the lags that we know are in such a dynamic stochastic system, I think it’s important that we take some move now and have a gradual path of normalization, as opposed to wait, wait, wait, and then have to have a steeper rise. I just think that’s prudent. And being a Philly guy, I’m more an Eagle.
MR. DERBY: Oh, yeah. (Laughter.) OK. I got to remember that one.
But on the other side of it, I mean, the Fed has undershot its inflation target for years. And the New York Fed just had a report yesterday that showed some – another little trailing off in inflation expectations. And I know they’ve – that report has shown at various points softening. And I know energy’s a big part of all of this, but you talk about the dual mandate, and one side of that mandate is still – still seems rather elusive.
MR. HARKER: But I’m seeing signs with some increase in health care inflation and others that that 2 percent target is – remember, there’s a long lag to that too, right? So I think we’re within the zone, with 1.7 percent core (personal consumption expenditures), where it is prudent to make a move sooner rather than later.
MR. DERBY: So you’re not a whites of their eyes type of –
MR. HARKER: No, because I think the lags are pretty long. And we know that, historically. So we could get behind the curve. And again, we’re talking about a 25-basis-point increase, which would leave policy still quite accommodative.
MR. DERBY: One of the things the Fed forecast changed was lowering the long-run – long-run growth rate. And I wanted to know where you – what you thought about it, because that was a – struck us as a fairly meaningful shift.
MR. HARKER: Yeah, and I lowered mine too primarily because of the neutral funds rate, right, R-star. Until we see that start to move up, and with that productivity, it’s hard to forecast that we’re going to see a robust growth. So we’ll – again, that is – we have to take that as it comes, because we don’t move R-star. Other policies do that. So we just have to accept that fact and do the best we can, given that we – in my view, as I said in the speech earlier, we don’t have a set of policies that are necessarily conductive to economic growth at this point. There are some challenges there.
MR. DERBY: Does the change in that view tell us anything about the Fed’s assessment of secular – I’m sorry – the secular stagnation argument?
MR. HARKER: The secular stagnation assumes there’s nothing that can be done to move R-star, right, by definition. I don’t believe that. I just don’t think monetary policy can move it. But I think there are things we can do to increase the potential of the economy.
MR. DERBY: So I’ve noticed that – I mean, you – that has been an emergent theme in a number of comments from Fed officials recently, about the limits of monetary policy and what could be done on the fiscal front or the other side of the equation. And why are we hearing more about that? Because you’ve spoken about it several times as well. So why –
MR. HARKER: Well, it is true, right? (Laughs.) And so I think, first, it’s true. And also it’s important that we communicate what we can’t do, right, because often people look at the Fed for solving problems that are really outside of not just our mandate, but, with the tools we have of monetary policy, our ability to effect that change.
MR. DERBY: Can you point to some examples of that?
MR. HARKER: Well, go back to the speech I made earlier, right? If we want long-term growth, it comes from population increase and productivity increase in the long run, right? If we don’t have population increase – and we know that’s been a pretty large part of what we’ve seen – we should expect slower growth. Just look at Japan as an example. There is nothing, in my view, monetary policy can really do if your economy is shrinking because the number of people you have is shrinking. You may be able to affect per capita GDP, but you can’t affect headline GDP if you – if you have a smaller population, unless you have some extraordinary productivity growth that, at least in the foreseeable future, in the planning horizon, is hard to see.
MR. DERBY: Do you think people are asking the Fed to do some of these things in part because the political process is so gummed up or paralyzed?
MR. HARKER: Yes.
MR. DERBY: So that’s part of it? And also, the extraordinary actions taken during the financial crisis, I’ve gotten the sense from some quarters, have given people the belief the Fed can do more, or is the magic thing that can fix everything, and so why not ask them to target this and target that now.
MR. HARKER: Right, right. And that is not – we can’t do that in theory nor in practice.
MR. DERBY: Well, what would you say to, say – I’m sure you’ve met with the Fed Up people, and then they’re pressing you not to raise rates because they want the –
MR. HARKER: Right.
MR. DERBY: – in their view, the recovery to spread out to everybody, and they think if you raise rates that’s not going to – that’s not going to happen.
MR. HARKER: No, I understand their frustration. I think the frustration is very real. I’ve been out and about in the community, not just meeting with Fed Up but meeting lots of people throughout the district. But the long-term solution there is back to this Agenda for Poverty and Prosperity that we have. It’s that three-legged stool. It’s jobs, skills that can – individuals can have, and the housing and the environment that they can live in to be productive. That’s going to – that’s going to move the needle. I think if – whether we change the Fed funds rate or not will have a – not anywhere near the effect that that set of changes in policy around workforce development, job creation and housing would have. And that’s why we’re really focused on that here.
MR. DERBY: Does that mean you have to interact with the political system more than otherwise would have been the case, say, in the past?
MR. HARKER: Well, I don’t know. I wasn’t here in the past, OK? (Laughs.)
MR. DERBY: Oh, well, but I mean just as – I mean, as a student of the institution.
MR. HARKER: Yeah. I think what – I think what we need to do is provide the intellectual research capability that the Fed has a lot of and train it – you know, put our lenses firmly on these issues, for two reasons. One is I think it’s the right thing to do. We’re not going to write the policy. We’re not going to decide the policy. But we can do the research that lays out the parameters of what most likely will and won’t work, right, and the costs and benefits of those.
But also, we’re not going to have the long-term growth if we don’t reach full potential. And a big part of reaching full potential in the economy is we can’t leave a lot of people behind, all right? It’s just – it’s not just going to hurt those individuals; it’s going to hurt the economy overall. That’s why I think it’s so important. If our job is maximum employment, we got to bring those people into the workforce. And I think just moving the Fed funds rate or holding it steady is not going to be very effective in doing that. It’s going to be these other issues.
MR. DERBY: Have you spoken with elected leaders –
MR. HARKER: Oh yeah.
MR. DERBY: – and got any sense that this is getting through?
MR. HARKER: Oh, they get it. Yeah, yeah.
MR. DERBY: OK.
MR. HARKER: But, you know, it’s a complicated time in our country. And again, this is not what – this is particularly one of these issues that’s not just a national issue. We tend to think of it as a national issue, but it’s community by community, city by city. You know, dealing with state leaders, city leaders, it’s really important.
You go across the river to Camden, and I spent some time over there and my mother was born in Camden. There’s a place that has a plan that they’ve put together with the administration in a bipartisan way – with the Christie administration to really bring Camden back, and do it in an inclusive way so you’re not just saying, oh, well, they’re gentrifying, but where do the gentrified go? We’re not solving the problem if the gentrified just get pushed to the edges. And so they’ve got a plan, and they’re executing that plan. And we’re doing some research there to sort of see how it plays out over time, what we can learn. That’s the kind of thing the Fed can do. We can step in and say, let’s bring our analytical capability to these issues and see what we can learn from these changes.
MR. DERBY: Well, at the national level, I got the sense from your remarks earlier today that political paralysis, or just an unwillingness of the two sides to engage, or the unwillingness of one side to engage with the other side, is a major problem for the economy right now. Did I hear that accurately?
MR. HARKER: Yeah. I mean, if – I think – you know, I think – I’ll put my citizen hat on, right, and not my Fed hat. (Laughs.)
MR. DERBY: OK.
MR. HARKER: Of course. That’s frustrating to everyone. And again, we see this in this partisan conflict index. We measure this. We know that this is elevated and it’s stayed elevated. And we know the implications of that, the results of that on economic growth: it’s not good. And so it – that’s where I think we are the Fed, with our research capability, can at least be a voice of nonpartisan, here are the facts as we know them, and you have to make use of these facts or not. It’s up to you. But this is what we know will or won’t work.
MR. DERBY: Well, in desiring to be nonpartisan, I mean, the Fed has been drug into the – or has been pulled into this election campaign in a way that I haven’t really seen before. I mean, does that – does that alarm you?
MR. HARKER: Yes. I can honestly say, in my (Federal Open Market Committee) meetings to date and my daily interactions around here, politics never enters the equation. I’ve just not seen that, right? Now, I don’t know what’s inside people’s heads, but I’ve never, ever seen it articulated in any way. People are just trying to do what they believe is the right thing with the right policy. So I think it’s unfair that we’ve been brought into this political situation because I think the strength of the Fed is that we stay independent and we stay nonpartisan. And I think the leadership of the Fed, myself included, are deeply committed to making sure that happens.
MR. DERBY: Do you think the Fed is well-suited that if it were to come under – I mean, if it were to come under strong political pressure to follow a certain policy line, would it be able to withstand that pressure?
MR. HARKER: I can’t speak for everybody else, but I could.
MR. DERBY: OK. I just figured I’d ask.
I wanted to ask you about the inflation target. There’s been some talk about raising it recently as one possible way to help address the R-star argument, among other things. So I’m curious where you stood on that matter.
MR. HARKER: Well, first, it would be good to get to 2 percent and then have that. (Laughs.) But I’m not sure increasing the inflation target will move R-star as much as just economic growth will move R-star. In which case, it would be nice if growth was that robust where we started to have the inflation target exceeded on a routine basis, and we’d have to rethink what that is. But we’re not there right now.
MR. DERBY: Right. But I thought part of the idea was that you communicate – in that you say this, that it exerts an influence.
MR. HARKER: Yeah, there are all – look, expectations are clearly a critical part of macroeconomics. That may have an effect. I’m more – and I won’t dismiss that effect. But I think the other policies will have a larger effect over time.
MR. DERBY: So you’re not looking for any changes in how the Fed approaches its inflation target right now? I know there’s another idea of, like, ending the bygones policy.
MR. HARKER: I don’t think right now. Until we get past where we are now towards something that one may consider more normal, I think it’s – then it’s time to revisit that.
MR. DERBY: OK. And I know we’ve talked a lot about – or just you’ve confronted these questions before – but just the Fed being ready or having tools in case it confronts another economic downturn.
MR. HARKER: Yeah. I mean, I – that’s another reason I am supportive of a slow but consistent path toward normalization, so we can get further and further away from zero. I think there are risks of hanging around zero too long. And if the economy can withstand it, I think it’s appropriate to move.
MR. DERBY: What would you say to people that say the entire reason why the stock market is at the levels that it’s at is because of near-zero rates and Fed actions, and –
MR. HARKER: Yeah, I’m always skeptical of somebody who says that the sole reason – the only reason is this. I think it is a contributing factor. Is it the only factor? No. But I do believe it’s a contributing factor. And I say that going back to my previous life as a corporate director. Again, you are looking at shareholder value, and you’re looking at shareholder value and how to enhance it. Well, in the long run, it is investing in new businesses, investing in new plant and equipment.
But you also can return value to the shareholder through dividends or stock buybacks. And if the debt is that cheap, it’s one of the things that your – one of the arrows in your quiver that you’re going to use. When debt is that cheap, you’re going to make that switch from equity to debt. And I think there is some truth in the fact that the equities markets reflect those individual decisions by companies that are perfectly rational for those companies to do in this low-rate environment.
MR. DERBY: Do you worry, though, that raising rates, as it starts to affect that calculus, starts to deflate or cause the stock market to sell off, and then that’s a negative input for confidence and it just causes things to come from that?
MR. HARKER: Not if we do it – not if we do it cautiously and pace the rate of normalization. If we have to do it quickly, I’d worry about that. But that’s why I don’t want to have a wait and then rapid rise later policy.
MR. DERBY: And do you believe – I mean, it sounds like from the meeting minutes people are coming around to there’s going to be an action relatively soon.
MR. HARKER: Yeah, again, I can’t speak for the Committee. But for me, I would like to see that sooner rather than later.
MR. DERBY: Take another step back and talk about some of the reform proposals that have been directed towards the Fed.
MR. HARKER: Sure.
MR. DERBY: One of the ideas – we’ll just go down them by the list – this will actually be (Dartmouth College economics professor) Andy Levin’s list in a way, but just because it kind of pulled together a lot of different things. But the quasi-private status of the regional Federal Reserve banks, I mean, that has been long something that has – outside critics have criticized the Fed for. You know, you hear arguments the Fed is just doing the work of the bankers that own it. If the Fed were to be made – regional Fed banks were to be made fully part of government, would it help address that criticism?
MR. HARKER: I don’t think so, because I – we’ll start with the fact that I don’t think the bankers – I can only speak for myself – influence my policy decisions, other than the information they give me on what’s happening in their communities.
And so one of the reform proposals is to remove bankers from the board, right? That would be part of this proposal. And I think that’s a mistake, because if I think about my board, we meet every 14 days, they vote on the discount rate, and I get information from them about what is going on in their communities. And that information, to me, is very important because data, by definition, is backward looking, right? You can only have data about what happened. They give me information about, for example, one banker was involved with a health care institution in his community. Nurses were getting a 9 percent raise and they were getting – teeing up for a possible other increase in their wages because they couldn’t find nurses. That’s actually helpful information. As we start to tease out the picture of where we’re seeing wage pressure, OK, that’s only one anecdote and you have to be careful of solo – you know, caution about anecdotes, but it still – it gives you some sense of the right questions to ask, right?
Similarly, asking the bankers and others on the board what they see with respect to business investment. We have a lot of data on that, but what are they seeing on the ground? What are people doing and not doing? And again, in our case, all the bankers are community bankers. They’re not (Large Institution Supervision Coordinating Committee) institutions. They’re institutions that are serving their local communities, and they’re part of the fabric of those local communities. Those voices are really important to me, and I’d hate to lose those.
MR. DERBY: You can’t have them on an advisory council and meet with them –
MR. HARKER: You could, but not every 14 days.
MR. DERBY: OK.
MR. HARKER: You’re not going to have any advisory council – (laughs) – I mean, we have a great advisory council, our Economic Community Advisory Council, chaired by Madeline Bell, who’s the head of Children’s Hospital here, one of the leading if not the leading children’s hospital in the world. But again, we meet on a regular basis, but not that frequently. And so I worry about losing information in that process.
MR. DERBY: OK. But on the matter of Fed ownership, I mean, you don’t see that – any conflicts coming from that structure?
MR. HARKER: It’s never affected – again, I can only – it’s never affected anything with respect to our policy stance – my policy stance.
MR. DERBY: And how do you ensure that, say, board members don’t get information about the policy outlook that other people – like, if it’s not being distributed, you know, broadly?
MR. HARKER: Yeah, I mean, they get the same economic update that we would give to any group as we run around the district and talk about – you know, our economists talking about issues. They don’t get any proprietary information. Everything we present to them, at least here in Philly, is publicly disclosed information.
MR. DERBY: There was a change that the New York Fed had made on its – how it handled the –
(Break.)
MR. DERBY: There we go. The New York Fed had made a change in how it briefed, or made – the president no longer gives a recommendation on what the discount rate should be, so that whatever the board votes from is entirely self – it comes from them now. And that way they don’t have any – they can’t draw an inference from what the president – say, President Dudley – tells them. Do you have that same policy here?
MR. HARKER: No. And I don’t get the sense, though – my board is quite independent. And as a director, I was quite independent. So I’m not sure that it has that kind of influence, at least in Philadelphia. I can’t speak for any other bank.
MR. DERBY: So you – just to be clear, I mean, you do it the traditional – you make a recommendation to them based on –
MR. HARKER: And the board is quite independent in their perspective on that.
MR. DERBY: OK. Actually, that is a question. I mean, from your – what’s different from – what’s changed in your perspectives from being on the board to being a president? What do you know now about how this all works that you didn’t know then?
MR. HARKER: I know a lot. (Laughter.)
So I think the biggest issue is outside of monetary policy. It’s just the complexity of the Federal Reserve system and everything that we do, right? When you sit in a board room, you have some sense of that, but you don’t get a deep dive in everything we’re doing in the community. And by definition, the board members have no access into supervisory information, right? Because we do – there is a real strict wall of separation there, other than anything that’s public information. So obviously, on this side, as the supervisors, as the regulators, I have a lot more information now than I ever had as a board member.
MR. DERBY: So it’s mostly an informational difference?
MR. HARKER: Yeah.
MR. DERBY: I think what people might find interesting: How much of your time do you spend on actual economic and monetary policy thinking and working, compared to the other demands of the job?
MR. HARKER: So, of course, it goes in cycles, right. There’s, I think, for me, eight times a year (inaudible) the FOMC. Then we have a conversation with the team here after the FOMC, just a sort of after-action report of, you know, what’s happening. I would say in any given cycle of eight times a year. So think of that roughly as six weeks; so a little more than a third. We may even be bumping up to half of that is spent on monetary-policy issues. Another big chunk of that is spent on regional development issues and community development issues, which I think feed into that view. And then there’s the day-to-day running a bank.
MR. DERBY: Yeah. I mean, it’s a large organization with a lot of stuff to do in services and –
MR. HARKER: Right. Right, right.
MR. DERBY: Yeah, interesting.
Back on the reform front, one thing we didn’t talk about was diversity. And that is now coming even more into the fore with what’s happening down in Atlanta with the congressman writing about, you know, their hopes for the pick down there. Can the Fed – can and should the Fed do better in terms of diversity, especially at its top leadership levels, again, when it comes to governors and bank presidents?
MR. HARKER: Yes.
MR. DERBY: OK.
MR. HARKER: So I think about Philadelphia. We’ve had a 20 percent increase in the diversity of our top leadership team here, and we’ve – and if I think about the board, we’ve tried to increase diversity there both in terms of ethnicity and gender. Our Economic Community Advisory Council, which gives us an insight into what’s happening in communities, but also an opportunity to engage people possibly being board members, that is quite diverse. Sixty percent of those members are either women, minorities, or both, because there’s overlap.
So I think we’re making progress, and I think with the staff as a whole. But there is an issue at the top, and as you mentioned, at the senior leadership within at least – I can only speak for this bank. And there’s a matter of working hard to bring people – bring them into the Fed system, get them the experiences they need to grow in leadership in the Fed, and to be prepared for those next steps. I think that’s an area I’m very committed to, because it starts with recruiting a diverse workforce here, or, in the case of directors, diverse directors, and having sort of feeder systems for that, whether it’s inside the bank and the system or outside that you could then draw from.
MR. DERBY: Well, I’ve heard the case made one of the problems is because the academic profession is tilted in the way that it is that academic economists have been historically tilted towards white men, and that’s just – that is the reality of who is in the profession. And so, therefore, as you’re looking for people to move up through it, it’s – that creates a –
MR. HARKER: I mean, as a former university president, it’s not just economics; (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) disciplines generally. That’s a problem. I think, in terms of gender, that’s starting to change in those disciplines. But it’s still a challenge for underrepresented groups. So I think that is a challenge.
But we need to then therefore look for leadership not necessarily out of that channel, right, and look for others, whether it’s coming from experience in the financial-services industry or other parts of academia or other industries altogether. I think we need to start broadening our thinking about that if we’re going to really change the nature of the leadership of the Federal Reserve. And I do think it’s important to do. I mean, we’re very committed – I’m very committed to that here. We’re making some progress, but we need to keep pushing.
MR. DERBY: Has the lack of diversity had any policy implications so far?
MR. HARKER: Well, in addition to diversity of ethnicity, gender, et cetera, it’s also important to have diversity of thought. And so I am concerned about avoiding group-think. So that, I think, has more policy implications than other forms of diversity, although I do think we need to have appropriate and important understanding of low-, moderate-income communities and what they’re facing. I think that is important. And that’s why we have really enhanced our efforts here in our community development, in this agenda, to really get a deeper, deeper understanding of what’s going on there, because that has to inform our policy as well. And so the leadership has to be informed by that. They don’t necessarily have to come from that. But they could, right? They potentially could.
MR. DERBY: Do you think the Philadelphia Fed is fixed to be a leader on, say, understanding the plight of low and –
MR. HARKER: I hope so. Yeah, I hope so, for two reasons. One, I think we have the talent here to do that. And second, it’s important to this district. If we’re going to serve the district, which is part of our charge, we have challenges in this district. We have a lot of opportunity, too, in Philadelphia, but we’ve got some challenges.
MR. DERBY: OK. Well, I often do this towards the end of interviews sometimes, but to ask if, I mean, if there is any issue or thing that you would like to see people talk about or point that you feel that you’ve been trying to make that might not be getting through. Kind of an open-ended question there, but I mean, is there something you think people need to understand about the Fed that they’re – it’s just not getting through? Is there anything like that?
MR. HARKER: I’d go back to our earlier conversation. I do think that people don’t quite understand the limits of what monetary policy can do, and therefore what the Fed can do. And we’re – we create the environment, the platform for the economy to grow, but we’re not going to drive that growth. As I said earlier in the Q&A after the speech, I think people – we don’t have the secret sauce all by ourselves that’s going to make the economy grow. It’s just not the way it works. And I think people don’t necessarily understand that. And I’m worried about that because I think we’re being asked to do more than we’re capable of.
Source
Immigration Advocates Praise de Blasio's Proposal for Municipal ID Program
Immigration advocates are praising Mayor Bill de Blasio's proposal for a municipal ID program.
In his State of the City address, de Blasio said that the city would make ID...
Immigration advocates are praising Mayor Bill de Blasio's proposal for a municipal ID program.
In his State of the City address, de Blasio said that the city would make ID cards available to all New Yorkers.
That includes people who usually can't get other forms of identification, like the homeless and undocumented immigrants.
On Tuesday, the Center for Popular Democracy released a report analyzing similar programs in other cities.
Advocates say that the program could be a big help to vulnerable populations.
"Without this ID, it can be difficult to register to a child for school. It can be difficult to open a bank account. It can be difficult to even exercise your right to vote, to file a complaint with the police department," said Brittny Saunders of the Center for Popular Democracy.
"We also want to make sure that this card is available to multiple constituencies in this city," said City Councilman Carlos Menchaca of Brooklyn. "There's so many constituencies in this city that can benefit from this card, so we want to make sure that we know all those so we design the best cards that everyone has it."
Menchaca, who is the immigration chair for the City Council, also said that the Council plans to hold hearings in the next month about the best way to design the program.
Source
Warren Calls on Yellen to Increase Diversity at the Fed
Warren Calls on Yellen to Increase Diversity at the Fed
Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen on Tuesday committed to increasing diversity at the central bank, particularly within the Fed’s leadership ranks.
“It’s something we will continue to...
Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen on Tuesday committed to increasing diversity at the central bank, particularly within the Fed’s leadership ranks.
“It’s something we will continue to focus on,” Yellen said during the question-and-answer period of her semiannual testimony before the Senate Banking Committee. “Diversity is an extremely important goal, and I will do everything I can to advance it.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked Yellen to commit to increasing diversity among the bank’s top officials, noting that 10 of the 12 Fed’s regional presidents are men. “Does the lack of diversity among the regional Fed presidents concern you?” Warren asked Yellen.
“Yes, I believe it’s important to have a diverse group of policymakers who can bring different perspectives to bear,” Yellen responded, adding that the central bank monitors hiring searches closely to make sure regional banks recruit diverse candidates.
Warren said she trusted Yellen’s commitment, but that her response shows the Fed’s selection process for regional leaders is “broken” and lacks transparency.
“You’re telling me diversity’s important, and yet you just signed off on all these folks without any public discussion about it,” Warren said. “Congress should take a hard look at reforming the regional Fed selection process so that we can all benefit from a Fed leadership that reflects a broader array of backgrounds and interests.”
Warren and other lawmakers — 116 House members and 10 senators — signed a letter to Yellen last month that urged her to fill the bank’s top echelon with more diverse leaders. Yellen responded to the letter last week affirming the need for more diversity, according to Warren.
On Monday, activists for the “Fed Up” campaign pushed for diversity in the Fed’s regional branches in a report published by the left-leaning Center for Popular Democracy.
“It’s not enough to say, ‘I’m committed to diversity,'” Dushaw Hockett, executive director of Safe Places for the Advancement of Community and Equity, another group advocating for the Fed Up campaign, said in an interview after today’s hearing. “What’s the plan? What are the mechanisms for how we get there, and how are we going to evaluate whether we’ve achieved them?”
The emphasis on diversity comes on the heels of a Government Accountability Office report showing pervasive issues with racial and gender discrimination among rank-and-file employees of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, where 25 percent of Asian employees, 25 percent of female employees and 27 percent of black employees said they have experienced discrimination at the agency.
By Tara Jeffries
Source
Crece interés de inmigrantes por irse de NYC a sus países
Crece interés de inmigrantes por irse de NYC a sus países
Hace siete años José V dejó su trabajo en Colombia como cajero en un banco y llegó a Nueva York, dispuesto a quedarse. Las deudas y los serios problemas económicos de su familia lo pusieron a...
Hace siete años José V dejó su trabajo en Colombia como cajero en un banco y llegó a Nueva York, dispuesto a quedarse. Las deudas y los serios problemas económicos de su familia lo pusieron a soñar con una mejor vida, que no podía alcanzar con su salario mensual de apenas $350. En menos de una semana de llegar a la Gran Manzana ya estaba trabajando en un restaurante como lavaplatos, ganando más dinero, y en cuestión de semanas la vida le empezó a sonreír.
Lea el artículo completo aquí.
Lawmaker calls for passage of construction worker bill
Lawmaker calls for passage of construction worker bill
In particular, a 2013 report by the Center for Popular Democracy concluded that 75 percent of construction workers who died on the job between 2003 and 2011 were U.S.-born Latinos or immigrants....
In particular, a 2013 report by the Center for Popular Democracy concluded that 75 percent of construction workers who died on the job between 2003 and 2011 were U.S.-born Latinos or immigrants. Based on the report, 60 percent of the fall death cases investigated by OSHA were Hispanic or immigrants. In New York, the percentage stands at 74 percent and 88 percent in Queens, respectively.
Read the full article here.
Report: Threat of Foreclosure on Calif. Homes Disproportionately Affects Minorities
National Journal, The Next America - March 15, 2013 - Leading mortgage lender Wells Fargo is urged to be more transparent about relief reporting and to grant principal reductions. An overwhelming...
National Journal, The Next America - March 15, 2013 - Leading mortgage lender Wells Fargo is urged to be more transparent about relief reporting and to grant principal reductions. An overwhelming majority of homes in California’s major cities that are in danger of foreclosure are also in majority-minority ZIP codes, according to a report released this week.
The report focuses particularly on homes with mortgages serviced by Wells Fargo. Of the 21 major California cities examined, more than eight in 10 homes in danger of foreclosure are in areas where at least half of its residents are minorities—evidence, the report’s authors say, that further supports the idea that the housing crisis has been particularly harmful to African-American and Hispanic homeowners.
The findings come on the heels of the housing-market decline and the ensuing Great Recession that ensnared many homeowners who have been fighting to maintain their financial standing and retain their homes. While the report focuses on the California economy, other Americans are in similar circumstances. Across the nation, homeowners—many of them minorities—struggle to stay afloat as they watch their savings plummet and their dreams of maintaining a middle-class American lifestyle disappear. In its place are notices of default and the impending threat of bankruptcy.
In California, a total of 65,466 homes are in the pipeline for foreclosure, many of them purchased before the housing market crash in 2007.
Coauthor Ady Barkan, of the Center for Popular Democracy, a national organization based in New York, said the report focuses on Wells Fargo because the bank is responsible for the highest number of homes in California’s foreclosure pipeline—in addition to being headquartered in the same state. As leading lender, the bank is responsible for mortgages for 11,616 California homes—nearly 1 in 5 homes in the pipeline.
The “foreclosure pipeline” refers to homes that have received a notice of default or a notice of trustee sale. While some homeowners eventually pay back the debt, more often the homes are foreclosed, Barkan said.
Wells Fargo spokeswoman Vickie Adams took a contrary view, saying that the term “pipeline” can be overused and doesn’t take into consideration the complexities of the mortgage-lending industry. She added that the bank offers various programs and workshops to help educate its customers on their options to prevent losing their home.
“It’s always challenging to articulate some of the specifics of what some perceive to be a pipeline of sorts,” she said. “The facts are when a home has come to foreclosure, there are oftentimes that a customer is able to find options to prevent [it].… In foreclosure, no one wins. What we do is try to provide a great deal of support to the community in a number of ways.”
The wide variety of data sources that reports use can often create conclusions that aren’t necessarily in line with standard industry practices, Adams added.
“We all understand everyone’s right to raise issues they believe are important, but I think it’s really important, again, to look at the data and understand what the data says and use the measures that are appropriate for the industry,” she added.
According to the report, the opaque nature of Wells Fargo’s reporting data has made it difficult to track who is receiving the help. The report’s authors urge the bank to practice more-transparent reporting practices that include race, ZIP code, and income data for all foreclosures, short sales, and principal reductions.
According to Adams, the data for relief efforts and other information is available through industry publications such as RealtyTrac and Inside Mortgage Finance, as well as government sources.
Last year, the bank settled a lawsuit with the Justice Department, which alleged that the financial institution had discriminated against minority borrowers during the housing bubble, charging higher fees and rates to minorities than whites, even when they had the same credit risk.
The Wells Fargo case wasn’t unique: Lawsuits surrounding discriminatory housing practices and predatory sub-prime mortgage lending hit major banks everywhere.
(RELATED: Big Banks, Racial Discrimination Linked in Housing Crisis)
Using data from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Database, the report found that between 2007 and 2009, Wells Fargo was 188 percent more likely to put African-Americans into riskier sub-prime loans than white borrowers with similar credit history; the risk for Hispanics was 117 percent.
Adams maintains that Wells Fargo is a “fair and responsible lender” that adheres to regulations according to the Fair Lending Act. She added that the bank works closely with various advocacy and real estate organizations to help minority and low-income borrowers.
The report, co-authored by the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, Center for Popular Democracy, and the Home Defenders League, asks Wells Fargo to commit to principal reductions in the interest of saving homeowners from complete financial ruin.
Between 2009 and 2012, Wells Fargo granted $6.3 billion in principal forgiveness; their goal is to hit $7 billion by 2014, Adams said.
“We take it very seriously, and we work very hard at it. We really are focused on excellence, helping our customers succeed financially, and we have a culture of continuously improving our home-lending activity,” Adams said.
The report argues that allowing all 65,466 homes in California to be foreclosed would be a detriment to the state and local economy. Foreclosure would cause the homes to lose 22 percent of their value, at an estimated cost of $7.6 billion. Maintenance costs for vacant homes would cost the government $19,227, resulting in a total cost of nearly $467 million for taxpayers.
“Communities have already sustained significant harm from the foreclosure crisis; unless Wells Fargo changes its practices, more harm will be done in coming months and years. New homes continue to enter the pipeline, inflicting tremendous stress and damage on homeowners and communities until Wells Fargo adopts significant new policies,” the report states.
Source
17 hours ago
17 hours ago