Faith-based investors push bankers for transparency

May. 07, 2010
Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange May 5. (CNS photo/Brendan McDermid, Reuters)

WASHINGTON -- As Congress debates legislation to restrict the activities of financial traders, a group of faith-based institutional investors is pressuring four of the nation's largest banks to become more transparent in the way they transact investment deals.

The investors, under the banner of the New York-based Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, have introduced shareholder resolutions that call upon the banks to act more openly and with clarity in the trading of financial products known as derivatives.

If votes at two recent shareholder meetings mean anything, the campaign seems to be catching on.

Resolutions offered during shareholder meetings at Citigroup and Bank of America met with unprecedented success. A Citigroup resolution April 20 captured 30 percent of the vote; a similar measure at Bank of America April 27 garnered 39 percent of shareholder votes.

Traditionally, shareholder resolutions receive single-digit support the first time they are offered. Even resolutions encouraging divestment from South Africa under apartheid in the 1980s met with minimal success when first proposed. Eventually, the resolutions were approved and the widespread divestment from South Africa that followed helped bring down the apartheid system.

ICCR representatives say transparency in derivative trading is necessary to prevent another economic meltdown and a deepening of the current steep recession.

Two more banks are being targeted by ICCR-backed resolutions: Goldman Sachs May 7 and JPMorgan Chase May 18.

The firms are four of the five financial institutions reportedly accounting for 96 percent of all derivatives trading in the United States.

For the record, a derivative is a financial contract with its value linked to the expected future price movements of an asset -- a share of stock or a currency, for example.

While such trading is not illegal, questions have arisen over how derivatives were packaged and marketed and whether investors were fully informed about what they were buying before the economic collapse in 2008.

Oblate Fr. Seamus Finn, director of social justice for the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate and a leader within the ICCR, said the resolutions evolved from a 30-year effort to call attention to banking practices that enrich a few while placing people worldwide at deeper risk of financial losses and deeper poverty.

"We believe derivatives, improperly handled, are a risk for the entire financial institution," Finn said.

Preview NCR's Family Life Issue

Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.

You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.

Catherine Rowan, corporate responsibility coordinator for the Maryknoll Sisters, was to present the ICCR-backed resolution at Goldman Sachs. She expected the meeting to be interesting in light of the recent negative publicity the company has received.

"We see this as an opportunity to educate our fellow shareholders," Rowan told Catholic News Service May 3. "It's the shareholders' responsibility to hold management accountable. We're trying to illustrate the need for greater transparency and disclosure."

Goldman Sachs is the poster child for banking practices run amok. The firm remains under fire from politicians and regulators for the way it packaged and sold mortgage-related securities before the 2008 collapse of the housing market.

The firm's practices in those deals led the Securities and Exchange Commission April 16 to file civil fraud charges against it and one of its traders, Fabrice Tourre, alleging they misled clients in the marketing of mortgage securities. During subsequent Senate Banking Committee hearings, senators publicly rebuked Goldman Sachs executives.

If that's not enough, the Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into the firm's activities. Whether charges will be filed remains uncertain.

Throughout it all, Goldman Sachs executives have denied any wrongdoing.

It should be noted that derivative trading is not illegal. The questions in this case revolve around whether Goldman Sachs and the other banks fully shared with investors that the derivatives being sold were based on shaky mortgages.

Admittedly, derivatives are a sometimes risky investment. Shrewd investors know they ought to have a good picture of what they are getting into.

However, Sr. Barbara Aires, coordinator of corporate responsibility for the Sisters of Charity of St. Elizabeth in Convent Station, N.J., said failed financial deals reach far beyond individual investors or institutions hedging their bets on big gains in a short period of time.

"We have seen the impact of these failed situations, whether it was in the housing debacle or whether in the Enron-type thing," Aires told CNS. "We see unbelievable practices where some people make enormous amounts of money and others go down the drain.

"Producing wealth and capitalism, I'm not for getting rid of all this," Aires said. "But it needs balance, and it needs fairness."

Legislation that would rein in banking practices by eliminating irresponsible risk-taking and improving oversight of banking firms is pending in the Senate. The likelihood of its passage grew after the Goldman Sachs hearings.

The Senate began amending the bill May 4 after Republicans dropped objections in late April to beginning debate on it.

Even should the bill pass, the ICCR will continue to push for openness in financial deal making. It is important, Maryknoll's Rowan said, that each financial institution being targeted publicly state its commitment to fair banking practices.

"We've been working on this issue ... and we will continue to plug away," she said.

Fr. Finn is absolutely right

Fr. Finn is absolutely right when he says “We believe derivatives, improperly handled, are a risk for the entire financial institution". Warren Buffet called derivatives financial “weapons of mass destruction”. That said derivatives, at least the more traditional ones, such as those concerning crop prices, can be quite good.

Major problem with them is people would buy them without understanding them. Read any investment book and they will tell you to avoid “Wall Street hype” and don’t buy anything you don’t understand. Buying a stock is easy: a car company has X number of shares, makes a car, and sells the car. If people like the cars, more will sell thus profits go up, more people will want the stock, and the stock price goes up. That’s a very simple formula. ANY idiot can figure that out (a 12 year old will tell you to buy stock in Coca Cola or Disney). Now, buying a security that’s value is dependant on yet another security, such as home mortgages, is asking for trouble. In Duff Macdonald’s “Last Man Standing”, the author writes of an incident where even James Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase admits that he doesn’t always understand derivatives. Right there, as an investor, that tells me, keep the hell away from them. If a graduate of Harvard Business School, protogee of Sandy Weill, and CEO of JP Morgan has difficulty, unless you’re a math wizard, don’t play with them.

Now, I have a problem with the whole Goldman Sachs issue. Admittedly, I am invested in rivals JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup (at $1.37/share, how could I not?) but, as a horse player, when I go to a pari-mutuel window to say, bet a $20 on the #5 horse in a race, should the pari-mutuel clerk be required to tell me that the person that just left put $10,000 on the #1 horse? Of course, I know people are betting differently than me. Should Goldman Sachs, as a ‘market maker’ have to do the same? The derivatives market that people are talking about is what is called “casino economics”.

Another major issue with the whole bank reform legislation is: for the past 30 years, deregulation has been going on for culminating with Bill Clinton finally repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999 and the Bush administration NOT enforcing the few laws left. Within 9 years of Glass-Steagall’s repeal, the financial system collapsed. The Bush administration was so filled with anti-regulation, Milton Friedman ideologues that no regulation was enforced. So what happened in those 8 years? Enron, World Com, Dennis Koslowski at Tyco, Bernie Madoff, Bear Sterns, housing bubble, and Lehman Brothers. If we were all smarter, during the Bush years, we might have been able to get Goldman Sachs to come up with some sort of abacus derivative where we could have bet on a financial calamity. Maybe we could have made a few billion

Post new comment

NCR Comment code:

  1. Be respectful. Do not attack the writer. Take on the idea, not the messenger.
  2. Use appropriate language. Avoid vulgarities and slurs.
  3. Keep to the point. Deliberate digressions don't aid the discussion.

For more detailed guidelines, visit our User Guidelines page.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
(if you have one; if not, leave this blank)
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <font> <swf> <swf list>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may use <swf file="song.mp3"> to display Flash files inline

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This is to prove you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.