AP Enterprise: Brown bank regulator an insider

SACRAMENTO, Calif. —
Gov. Jerry Brown’s appointee to head the department that oversees banking, financial and consumer regulations in California led a trade association that fought against tighter lending restrictions before the subprime mortgage crisis exploded and was an executive with Washington Mutual when the now-failed bank was among the most aggressive marketers of loans to high-risk borrowers.
Jan Owen, a Democrat, also is named in a congressional inquiry into whether lawmakers and certain executives received preferential treatment for home loans, although she was not accused of wrongdoing.
Consumer advocates said they are watching Owen’s decisions carefully to see how she performs in her role as commissioner of the California Department of Corporations. The Democratic governor appointed her in December to the $143,000-a-year position, and she started in January.
Owen, 59, of West Sacramento, has a long resume in California, including stints in both business and government, but it is her history with organizations that were at the heart of the mortgage meltdown that stands out in a state that has one of the highest home foreclosure rates in the nation.
Owen served as state director of government and industry affairs at Washington Mutual from 2002 until its collapse in 2008, one of the largest bank failures in American history. It was taken over by JP Morgan Chase, where Owen stayed on as vice president of government affairs until 2009.
“It is of concern if a person who takes a job there, at that pay level in particular, has such experience, particularly with the mortgage bankers association, JPMorgan and Washington Mutual,” said Rick Jacobs, president of the Courage Campaign, which advocates on behalf of policies for poor and working-class families.
“These are big institutions, some of which don’t even exist anymore because of what they did in the mortgage business, and what they did to California,” Jacobs said. “That should be watched very carefully.”
Owen declined to be interviewed by The Associated Press for this story, but a spokesman for the Department of Corporations, Mark Leyes, responded to questions by email and telephone. He said Owen’s professional background is an asset because she understands consumer issues.
“Understanding these industries and how they function- and fail – improves the ability to regulate effectively,” Leyes said in an email.
He said the department protects consumers by licensing and regulating the network of financial services and securities businesses, including brokers, dealers, investment advisers, financial planners and lenders. Because Owen “really understands how these complex industries operate, she knows what to look for and how to crack down,” Leyes said.
Officials with several consumer groups said they were hesitant to openly criticize Owen’s background because they will have to work with her in her new role. Lawmakers similarly were hesitant because Owen’s appointment still has to be approved in the Legislature. Although Owen’s appointment requires confirmation by the state Senate, she is allowed to work for up to one year before lawmakers decide.
Some consumer advocates who have worked with Owen in the past praised her, saying she was responsive to their concerns.
Orson Aguilar, executive director of the Greenlining Institute, a Berkeley-based national policy group that advocates for racial and economic justice, said he often found himself on the opposite side of the table from Owen on consumer protection and affordable housing issues when she was an executive at Washington Mutual.
“I think people would be surprised, but definitely she was somebody who was easy to work with and she got it. She just didn’t pay lip service, she tried her hardest” to help poor communities, he said.
Before joining Washington Mutual, Owen was executive director of the California Mortgage Bankers Association from 2000 to 2002, where she worked on behalf of lenders on regulatory issues that she now is in charge of enforcing.
Owen was among those who argued against a 2001 bill that attempted to control high-interest predatory lending several years before the collapse of the housing industry, which helped propel the state’s unemployment rate to more than 12 percent during the height of the recession.
SB60 by then-Sen. Joe Dunn, a Democrat, would have required lenders to assess whether potential recipients of high-interest, high-risk loans had the means to repay them and required the attorney general to document complaints against lenders.
The bill sought to end the “abusive practices imposed upon a captive market,” according to its text.
“These abusive tactics, known as `predatory lending’ practices, range from the charging of exorbitant fees and interest rates from those least likely to afford them, to aggressive sales of costly and unnecessary services, to outright fraud aimed at forcing foreclosures and allowing seizures of property,” the bill said.
That was 2001, long before most Americans had heard about the complex lending and financial instruments that contributed to the collapse of the housing market and billions of dollars in bank bailouts.
A report that year in American Banker, a trade magazine, notes that a hearing on the bill was canceled and said Owen’s office contacted the senator to try to “work with him” on it. A newsletter for bankers association members from 2001 quotes Owen as saying the legislation and other bills like it would turn lenders away from California, which would lead to complaints that low-income buyers and the elderly could not receive loans.
“There is a fine line between protecting consumers and making the process so cumbersome and risky that lenders will simply do business elsewhere,” she said in the newsletter.
Dunn’s bill died in committee that year.
The former senator, who is now executive director of the State Bar of California, did not return a call from The Associated Press seeking comment.
Leyes, of the Department of Corporations, said industry groups argued that the law duplicated existing federal regulations, although those did not cap interest rates or fees on loans. He noted that the association did not take an official public position on the bill.
“The industry wasn’t supportive of Dunn’s bill and similar efforts that year or in that time period. Jan was employed by the association, the CMBA, and she needed to represent their point of view,” he said.
Leyes said a similar bill by then-Sen. Carole Migden passed later. The Mortgage Bankers Association also lobbied against that bill.
The association also is listed as an opponent of the California Financial Privacy Act by then-Assemblyman Tim Leslie, which sought to prohibit financial companies from sharing customers’ data unless customers opted in. That legislation, AB21, died in a committee in 2002.
The California Reinvestment Coalition is one of many groups that lobbied in the early 2000s for tighter lending standards and more restrictions on high-interest loans. Its associate director, Kevin Stein, said he did not recall whether Owen spoke out publicly against the Dunn bill but said her resume raises some concerns about whether she will be an effective advocate for consumers.
Stein called Washington Mutual a “perfect example of what happens when regulators don’t regulate.”
“So she’s aware of that, and maybe there’s some appreciation that she might have for the role that regulations can and should play,” he said.
A spokesman for the governor, Gil Duran, said is uniquely qualified to lead the department.
“Jan Owen is a highly experienced and respected commissioner with a deep knowledge of California’s complex industries and regulations. Gov. Brown picks appointees based on their qualifications,” he said.
Owen’s name also is cited in two congressional investigations.
They include a 2009 inquiry into the collapse of Countrywide Financial Corp. as a potential “Friend of Angelo” – a reference to former Countrywide chief executive Angelo Mozilo, who helped high-profile clients get discounted mortgages.
Once the country’s largest lender, Countrywide played a major role in the collapse of the housing market because it aggressively pushed complicated home loans to people with a questionable ability to repay.
An April 2003 email exchange cited as part of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s investigation begins with an email message from Owen to Pete Mills, then-senior vice president of legislative and government regulatory affairs for Countrywide Home Loans.
“Don’t forget name and telephone number of the guy for refi for us,” Owen wrote.
Mills then emailed another Countrywide executive, asking him or “one of your top people,” to help Owen. In addition to noting her government affairs position at Washington Mutual, Mills refers in his email to Owen as “a good friend of Countrywide from her days as executive director at Calif. MBA.” A follow-up email urges another staffer to offer Owen a discount of half a percentage point on her loan and “no junk fees.”
Leyes said Owen does not remember ever receiving a refinancing offer from Countrywide, and public records reviewed by The Associated Press do not show her or her husband having any loans from the company for the two Sacramento-area homes they have owned.
The report concluded that Countrywide loan officers waived fees and knocked off points for VIP borrowers at no cost, saving them thousands of dollars in deals that were not available to regular applicants. It does not say whether Owen received a loan with preferential terms.
“She didn’t seek any preferential treatment even though she may have kind of innocuously asked into the terms that Countrywide provided for a refinance,” Leyes said. “What’s unfortunate is that that got included in that report back then and it didn’t get challenged or corrected at the time.”
Owen’s name also surfaced in a July 2010 House Ethics Committee investigation that cleared Rep. Laura Richardson, D-Long Beach, of wrongdoing in the foreclosure of her Sacramento home, an action that Washington Mutual later rescinded. Owen was among the bank officials who dealt with Richardson’s case.
Before she worked for the trade association and the banks, Owen was chief consultant to the Senate Banking Committee in the Legislature from 1992 to 1995, a deputy commissioner at the Department of Financial Institutions under former Gov. Gray Davis from 1996 to 1999 and acting commissioner from 1999 to 2000, when she left to head the bankers association
http://tourism9.com/    http://vkins.com/

Steffy: Cheeseheads may have stadium financing right

Laugh not at the cheeseheads.
Last week, the Green Bay Packers began selling shares in their team for $250 each. In return, buyers get almost nothing.
As an investment, buying a piece of the Pack isn’t a smart move, but as a means for financing stadiums, the team may be on to something. Taxpayers in Houston, who have underwritten about $1 billion worth of sports facility bonds, may want to take note.
The Harris County-Houston Sports Authority services the debt on Reliant Stadium, Minute Maid Park and the Toyota Center. It has faced a cash squeeze since 2009, when the firm that insured the bonds got downgraded. Ballooning debt payments and a one-time drawdown earlier this year have eaten into the authority’s reserve account, and some of the bonds were in technical default.
While an actual default is unlikely anytime soon, revenue to pay the debt is tied to hotel and rental car taxes, which have slowed because of the recession.
Even the new Dynamo stadium, which the team will pay for, comes with city and county commitments for infrastructure upgrades.
By comparison, the Packers’ “stock offering” is really a voluntary stadium tax paid at the discretion of fans. The team wants to finance a $143 million expansion of the iconic Lambeau Field, but Green Bay, a city of only about 100,000, lacks the tax base to fund a Reliant-style sports palace.
As the Motley Fool pointed out, the Packers, the only publicly owned team in U.S. professional sports, isn’t a bad investment on paper. Its first public offering in 1950 had a split-adjusted price of 2.5 cents a share. Based on the latest offering price of $250, Packers stock would have generated a return 200 times better than gold, and better than buying Apple in 1984 or Ford in 1977.
Except you’ll never realize that return. The Packers are nonprofit, so there are no earnings and no dividends paid to investors. Under the terms of the offering, the shares can never be sold or transferred except to an immediate family member. If the team catches you trying to sell, it can buy the shares back at the 1950 price of 2.5 cents.
No leg up at all
What’s more, your investment bears no privileges typically associated with ownership – no premium seating, no ticket discounts, not even a chance to jump ahead on the legendary season ticket waiting list, now several lifetimes long. You get a stock certificate and an invite to the team’s annual meeting.
So it isn’t really a stock offering at all, which may be why the Securities and Exchange Commission had nothing to do with it, and, as the prospectus points out, no “federal, state or international securities laws” govern it.
The Packers timed the offering well, selling more than $46 million worth of stock in the first two days, capitalizing on last season’s Super Bowl victory and this year’s as-yet-undefeated season. The team may sell as many as 880,000 shares, raising as much as $220 million.
A few differences
The Houston Texans are, of course, not the Green Bay Packers. This year is the franchise’s most promising, but these days coach Gary Kubiak is hoping his squad can make it to the playoffs before even the water boy winds up on injured reserve.
Also unlike the Packers, the Texans are owned by a consortium of wealthy businessmen who believe they shouldn’t have to pay for things like stadiums.
They convinced elected officials, as team owners in many other cities have done, that taxpayers should foot, or at least guarantee, the bill.
By comparison, the Green Bay approach seems more simple and more fair. Let those who love the sport pay for the facility. Call it a user fee, call it a voluntary tax or call it a “stock offering.”
In the end, the cheeseheads may have the last laugh.
Loren Steffy is the Chronicle’s business columnist. His commentary appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Contact him at loren.steffy@chron.com. His blog is at http://blogs.chron.com/lorensteffy. Follow him on his Facebook fan page and on Twitter at twitter.com/lsteffy.

http://tourism9.com/

Portugal slips deeper into recession in Q3

LISBON (Reuters) – Portugal‘s economy shrank a greater than initially reported 0.6 percent in the third quarter, slipping deeper into recession as austerity and financing problems weighed amid the debt crisis while export growth slowed.
Austerity measures under Portugal’s 78 billion euro bailout agreed with the European Union and the IMF in May are expected to lead to the deepest recession since the country returned to democracy in 1974. The government projects the economy will contract 1.6 percent this year and 3 percent in 2012.
The National Statistics Institute‘s second reading of GDP on Friday showed a sharper quarter-on-quarter contraction than the flash estimate of minus 0.4 percent.
GDP contracted by 0.2 percent in the second quarter and 0.6 percent in the first quarter of this year, INE said.
“The reduction of economic activity is still more of a reflection of difficulties with the financing of the economy rather than the impact of austerity … which means the recession will continue to worsen in the quarters to come when austerity measures fully kick in,” said Filipe Garcia, head of Informacao de Mercados Financeiros economic consultants.
INE said that year-on-year GDP fell 1.7 percent, the same as in its flash estimate, after a contraction of 1 percent in the previous quarter.
Parliament approved last week a tough 2012 budget that suspends holiday and year-end bonuses for civil servants and hikes many taxes further.
The INE said internal demand, which has already suffered from higher taxes and pay cuts imposed this year, dropped 0.6 percent from the previous quarter as both investment and public consumption ebbed.
Compared with a year ago, internal demand fell a steep 4.6 percent, with private consumption down 3.3 percent and investment slumping by 13.7 percent.
Exports rose just 2.7 percent from the previous quarter, their positive impact neutralised by a 2.4 percent increase in imports. Export growth also decelerated to 6.5 percent year-on-year from 8.7 percent in the second quarter.
Nevertheless, another batch of INE data on Friday showed exports growing faster in the three months through October than in the third quarter, with Portugal’s trade gap falling a steep 30 percent from a year earlier.
The government is hoping a recovery may begin by late 2012 mainly on exports, although many economists warn Europe’s economic slowdown would make it much more difficult for Portugal to return to growth and meet its 2012 budget deficit target under the bailout. It has to slash the gap to 4.5 percent next year from this year’s projected 5.9 percent.
(Reporting By Andrei Khalip and Sergio Goncalves)

http://tourism9.com/