SkinsHokieFan Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Is this a surprise? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/10/AR2009061002565.html?hpid=topnews Lawmakers Invested in Bailed-Out FirmsConflict-of-Interest Questions Arise By Paul Kane and Carol D. Leonnig Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, June 11, 2009 Top House lawmakers had considerable holdings in major financial institutions that took billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts at the end of last year, according to annual financial disclosure reports released yesterday. From stock holdings to retirement funds to mortgages, more than 20 House leaders and members of the House Financial Services Committee had large personal stakes in the Wall Street powerhouses whose collapse last year led to an unprecedented government intervention in the marketplace. In some instances those lawmakers, like millions of other investors, sold their holdings at steep losses while others retained the stocks at greatly diminished value. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her husband lost hundreds of thousands of dollars investing in American International Group, which has received $170 billion in government loans and cash injections, making it by far the largest recipient of federal bailout dollars. Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and his wife held stock, retirement plans and other investments worth at least $183,000 and as much as $495,000 in firms benefiting from federal government rescue efforts, including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. At least 18 members of the House Financial Services Committee -- which oversees the banking and housing industries at the core of the economic meltdown -- held stock last year in firms that received federal bailout assistance, according to a review of the forms that were available yesterday. The release of the annual disclosure forms was not scheduled to occur until tomorrow, but the House clerk's office briefly posted many of them online yesterday, apparently by accident. A firm called LegiStorm captured the data and posted them on its Web site. The Senate will release its forms tomorrow. The disclosure forms require lawmakers to reveal a broad range of personal holdings and liabilities but not the precise value. Lawmakers are not required to disclose any information about their primary residence, only on rental properties that they own, and they do not have to reveal the terms of those mortgages. Also, Congress requires only that lawmakers list the place of employment and board memberships for spouses, not their annual salaries or director's fees received by spouses. Some ethics watchdogs were critical of members of Congress for investing directly in companies they oversee. "You wonder if they're voting on things because it's good for the country or because it would increase their personal wealth," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. But other legal experts said lawmakers, like thousands of other voters, are not receiving special treatment. "This illustrates one of the purposes of financial disclosure, and that is for the public to be able to judge whether they think that a particular interest creates at least an appearance of a conflict," said Robert L. Walker, the former chief counsel for the House and Senate ethics committees. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the Financial Services Committee, co-authored the $700 billion bailout legislation and continues to oversee its implementation. Frank is one of the few lawmakers who go beyond what the law requires, disclosing more than 145 pages of month-to-month statements from his accounts with Citigroup Global Markets. Frank does not invest directly in stocks, instead concentrating largely on state and local bonds, with a small amount directed into mutual funds. Frank's personal portfolio broke about even for 2008 -- at about $1 million -- because of steady gains in bonds. In an interview yesterday, the self-proclaimed "regular Sam Adams" said others should heed his investment advice: "I get a steady 4.5 percent, and I help my state in the process. I'm a patriot, and I'm making money, too." Other lawmakers were not so fortunate. The Pelosi family lost between $100,000 and $1 million as AIG's stock tanked last year. Pelosi's husband reported a partial sale of between $1,000 and $15,000 of AIG stock on the last day of December 2008. For all their stocks and other investments, taking the most conservative estimate, the Pelosis lost at least $730,000 as stocks nose-dived and other investments soured. But Pelosi, whose husband, Paul, runs the San Francisco investment firm Financial Leasing Services, remains one of the wealthiest members of Congress. Her 22-page disclosure revealed investments in San Francisco condos, a Napa Valley vineyard, a hotel resort in Rutherford, Calif., and a San Francisco limousine business. She reports $100,000 to $1 million in income last year from grape sales at the vineyard. Some members of the financial services panel also took a hit on companies that required federal bailout dollars. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), a member of the GOP leadership and booster of his state's imploding auto industry, watched his holdings in Chrysler plummet. His disclosure forms for the end of 2007 showed he had between $1,000 and $15,000 in company stock, which by the end of last year fell to between $1 and $1,000 in value. After receiving more than $10 billion in federal assistance late last year, Chrysler was guided into bankruptcy by the Obama administration, which helped engineer this week's sale of Chrysler to the Italian carmaker Fiat. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) sold all her holdings in Morgan Stanley in March 2008, cashing out her stock for between $15,000 and $50,000 -- holdings that a year earlier were worth between $50,000 and $100,000, records show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 No wonder they wanted the bailout so bad, and why it was so big :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 So the stunning new is: Lots of members of Congress are invested in lots of companies? Sounds to me like what it's saying is that a lot of Congressmen were invested in a lof of financial companies long before the bailout(s). And that they took a bath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted June 11, 2009 Author Share Posted June 11, 2009 So the stunning new is: Lots of members of Congress are invested in lots of companies? Sounds to me like what it's saying is that a lot of Congressmen were invested in a lof of financial companies long before the bailout(s). And that they took a bath. Which gives them even more incentive to bail them out with OUR money It is very easy to spend billions of dollars to shore your investments back up when its not your money you are spending The story of Morgan Stanley being bought by Bank of America is sickening and how that went down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Which gives them even more incentive to bail them out with OUR moneyIt is very easy to spend billions of dollars to shore your investments back up when its not your money you are spending The story of Morgan Stanley being bought by Bank of America is sickening and how that went down. Do you mean Merrill Lynch? Morgan Stanley was bailed out and still survives as its own bank.The article isn't really that damning by itself though. What they really should have done is compared Congress's portfolios in bailed out companies vs. non-bailed out companies. Maybe look at a particular sector like the investment banks. A smoking gun would be something that showed that Congress had disproportionate assets in Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, who were the only investment banks that survived vs. Lehman Brothers, the one who wasn't saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted June 11, 2009 Author Share Posted June 11, 2009 Do you mean Merrill Lynch? Morgan Stanley was bailed out and still survives as its own bank.The article isn't really that damning by itself though. What they really should have done is compared Congress's portfolios in bailed out companies vs. non-bailed out companies. Maybe look at a particular sector like the investment banks. A smoking gun would be something that showed that Congress had disproportionate assets in Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, who were the only investment banks that survived vs. Lehman Brothers, the one who wasn't saved. Yes Merrill Lynch, thank you Again Dj, the point is many people in Congress on both sides took quite a beating in the fall with their portfolios What better way to boost them up then use our money to do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Yes Merrill Lynch, thank you Again Dj, the point is many people in Congress on both sides took quite a beating in the fall with their portfolios What better way to boost them up then use our money to do it? Everyone invested in the stock market took quite a beating. Every homeowner took quite a beating. I don't think Congress differs significantly from the stockholding or homeowning public in that the bailout helped them financially.What would be suspect, however, and possibly criminal, is if Congress chose to bail out certain firms rather than others because of a disproportionate financial interest. That would have been a much more interesting story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted June 11, 2009 Author Share Posted June 11, 2009 Everyone invested in the stock market took quite a beating. Every homeowner took quite a beating. I don't think Congress differs significantly from the stockholding or homeowning public in that the bailout helped them financially.What would be suspect, however, and possibly criminal, is if Congress chose to bail out certain firms rather than others because of a disproportionate financial interest. That would have been a much more interesting story. But does everyone have the opportunity to use someone else's money to make back some of their losses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Wow... there is no defense for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Wow... there is no defense for this. Definitely. Right now, we should force Congress to pass a law that doesn't allow them to invest money in US companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Definitely. Right now, we should force Congress to pass a law that doesn't allow them to invest money in US companies. And we should prohibit them from having mortgages. And houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 And we should prohibit them from having mortgages. And houses. Kids too. Dont want them spawning more devils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 And we should prohibit them from having mortgages. And houses.Also, we MUST prevent employees of the Federal Reserve from posessing any money. Because they control the supply of it, ya know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I don't think requiring members of the US Congress to put their investments into some sort of "blind trust" funds is out of line. Wouldn't worry about the article unless they can point to specific examples of representatives helping company A (invested in) but not identical company B (didn't invest in). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECU-ALUM Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I wish I could say I was surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I love all the outrage on the right. These guys make me chuckle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I love all the outrage on the right. These guys make me chuckle. Its BOTH parties involved in this :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 And we should prohibit them from having mortgages. And houses. Well, we can't have them renting either. That's just asking for abuse. They'd have to be homeless, while the served. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted June 11, 2009 Author Share Posted June 11, 2009 Well, we can't have them renting either. That's just asking for abuse.They'd have to be homeless, while the served. I like that idea Honestly, I think dorms should be set up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I like that idea Honestly, I think dorms should be set up I'm sure Nancy Pelosi would get around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Definitely. Right now, we should force Congress to pass a law that doesn't allow them to invest money in US companies. Wouldn't bother me in the slightest if we did that. This is sleazy. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I like that idea Honestly, I think dorms should be set up Dorms are an interesting analogy because it sets up a simple question: Who is more susceptible to illegal bribes? Professional athletes who can make money simply by performing well and helping their teams win? Or college athletes who are prohibited from being paid?Trying to restrict the private income of government officials will only increase corruption. Like anything else, prohibition in this area will simply create a black market. The smarter idea is to mandate that all lawmakers disclose their investments, as has happened here. If there is real reason to suspect corruption, the voters should punish those that are acting in their own interests rather than those of the public. Let the market decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Tea Party time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Its BOTH parties involved in this :doh: I'm talking about the right-wingers on this site whose panties have been in a twist for the past 5 months. All you have to say is Obama, bailout, or stimulus and they start twitching and ranting our secession, constitutional amendments, treason, etc. It's hilarious stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Dorms are an interesting analogy because it sets up a simple question: Who is more susceptible to illegal bribes? Professional athletes who can make money simply by performing well and helping their teams win? Or college athletes who are prohibited from being paid?Trying to restrict the private income of government officials will only increase corruption. Like anything else, prohibition in this area will simply create a black market. The smarter idea is to mandate that all lawmakers disclose their investments, as has happened here. If there is real reason to suspect corruption, the voters should punish those that are acting in their own interests rather than those of the public. Let the market decide. I think you not only have to look at who owned stock in what but also who but look at the correlation of what each company gave to each party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.