Disclosures from a sick Wells Fargo obviously soil the efforts of deregulators on many issues. One of these is the very issue of disclosure.

In the Wells Fargo scandal, more than 5,300 employees created more than 2 million accounts unsolicited accounts for their customers.

Photo courtesy J B/Flickr, CC BY 2.0.

Photo courtesy J B/Flickr, CC BY 2.0.

First, the Wells Fargo employees faked the accounts to avoid being fired for failing an account creation quota.  Then, their bosses pressured them to meet quota because the bosses got bonuses based on quotas. And finally, their bosses and bosses’ bosses all the way to the CEO got bonuses when investors drove up the stock price as those investors figured those ever expanding account creation numbers demonstrated exceptional management.

Twelve times in the last half decade, CEO John Stumpf made reference to those account numbers on the quarter calls with Wall Street analysts.

The very core of this pathology involves disclosure.  In this case, both non-disclosure and fake disclosure.

Yet at this very time, Chair White’s Securities and Exchange Commission is railroading through a monster rule designed explicitly to reduce disclosure. Keeping with the tradition of misdirection, this reduction is misnamed the “Disclosure Update and Simplification.”

As Wells Fargo was diligent in reporting rigidly account sales figures, here are simply a few of the inconvenient items that are obviously material to how an investor values this stock that Wells Fargo elected not to disclose.

  • In 2009, Wells Fargo executives recognized that certain ambitious sales programs – such as “Jump into January” – were generating fraudulent accounts. This was not disclosed.
  • In February 2011, Chairman and CEO John Stumpf reportedly received an email from a 22 year veteran of the company explaining how the appearance of growth in new accounts could be faked; this employee was subsequently terminated. This was never disclosed.
  • In 2011, employee satisfaction surveys reportedly found that bank employees were uncomfortable with instructions from management to push customers to buy products. This was not disclosed.
  • In 2012 the community banking unit began to investigate suspicious practices in areas with high levels of customer complaints, such as Southern California. These investigations reportedly led to the firing of 200 employees in February 2013. This was not disclosed.
  • In 2013 and 2014, the board and management took action in response to these signals and at the behest of regulators— including increased risk management standards in the community banking divisions, modification of some sales goals, and an internal investigation by Accenture and Skadden, Arps on which the board was reportedly updated. This was not disclosed.
  • The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau began its investigation in 2013. This was not disclosed.
  • Wells Fargo employees delivered petitions with more than 10,000 signatures to the board at both the 2014 and 2015 annual meetings that urged the board to recognize the link between Wells Fargo’s high-pressure sales quotas and the fraudulent opening of accounts without customer permission. These petitions called on Wells Fargo to cease using these high-pressure quotas. This was not disclosed.
  • The New York Times reports that even after the company began to recognize the problem and provide ethics training that warned against creating false accounts, the continued sales pressure from management overwhelmed the ethical training. When employees either refused to sell customers products they did not want, or reported fraudulent account creation to the Wells Fargo ethics line, they were subject to discipline including termination. This was not disclosed.

While viewing this perfect example of non-disclosure, Chair White has been speeding through her SEC a major proposal to gut disclosure rules. The bewilderment of changes includes gutting disclosure on executive compensation.

The Agency proposes to delete its requirement that CEO and other senior officer pay be disaggregated. Disaggregation allows investors to see what in the pay package is cash, stock, options, etc. Had it been clear to investors that the millions in bonuses for the top brass stemmed from line salespeople (paid $25,000 a year) to open an absurdly high eight accounts per customer,[1] or be fired, or cheat and try not to get caught, then this runaway fraud might have lasted two years, instead of a possible two decades.

In addition,  White plans to reduce what firms using repurchase agreements (repo) for loans must disclose. Repo is like a pawn shop, where you deposit a watch worth $1,000 and get $900 for a day, then you buy back the watch for $1,100, which you agreed to from the outset. (You need to do well at the horse race track in the interim for this to work out for you.)  The financial crisis demonstrated that firms such as Lehman had grown addicted to repo, and had manipulated tax and other rules to enable its dependency. In fact, repo disclosure should be enhanced, not deleted.

There are a number of other disclosure rules that Chair White wants to white out.

On many items, White says the SEC won’t require a disclosure if GAAP requires it. GAAP may stand for “generally accepted accounting principles,” but that must be an inside joke since they’re not generally accepted. U.S. GAAP differs from accounting standards in other countries (an acute problem given that many public companies operate in multiple nations). And it can change, regardless of what the SEC does. As with many other proposals, the Agency is ceding its responsibility to safeguard disclosure.

That’s not a very cheery pep talk to write comment for the Nov. 2 deadline. So, Citizens, just try this:

Write Ms. White at regulations@sec.gov, put this in the subject line:  Re: “Disclosure Update and Simplification,” Proposed Rule; File No. S7-15-16; RIN 3235-AL82, and write something like: “Chair White,  Wells Fargo shows that all’s not well that ends well short of full disclosure. Wells Fargo shows that your disclosure idea goes in the opposite direction. Investors want to know.  Sincerely, your name.”

(Oh, and white-out apparently doesn’t work on computer screens, which is double-entendre.)

wellsgraph2The Fair Arbitration Now coalition strongly denounces Wells Fargo and its CEO, John Stumpf, for refusing to end the bank’s practice of preventing defrauded customers from suing in court. At a hearing held in the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services yesterday, Stumpf stated unequivocally that Wells Fargo will continue to force consumer disputes into secret individual arbitration. The hearing examined Wells Fargo’s massive scheme to fraudulently open accounts in his its customers’ names.

The FAN Coalition is disappointed, but not surprised, that the CEO of a powerful financial institution would publicly champion forced arbitration.  In 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a comprehensive study on forced arbitration, which found that it is heavily rigged in favor of financial institutions. Among other things, the CFPB found that in forced arbitration, consumers bringing claims against corporations won only 9 percent of the time. However, when corporations sued their customers, the corporation won in 93 percent of arbitrations. Additionally, arbitration proceedings are completely confidential, which allows which allows corporations like Wells Fargo to hide widespread wrongdoing, as was the case with their fraudulent account cross-selling scheme.

Yesterday, Stumpf was asked by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) whether his bank would continue to invoke forced arbitration clauses buried in the fine print of its customer contracts to prevent customers from holding the bank accountable for its illegal activities. Stumpf refused to end the practice, stating that he “believes in arbitration.” Stumpf previously declined to restore his customers rights last week when asked by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) during a hearing held by the U.S. Senate Banking Committee. At the same Senate hearing, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) stated that the bank’s use of forced arbitration allowed them to cover up their patterns of abusive conduct, noting that “[i]f we had class actions on thisback in 2010, 2009, 2008, then this problem never would have gotten so out of hand.”.

The CFPB recently proposed a rule to restore consumers’ right to join together in class actions. More than 280 consumer, civil rights, and small business advocacy groups and over 100,000 individuals commended the CFPB for taking this crucial step to limit big banks’ and other financial companies’ efforts to escape accountability for breaking the law, and urged the agency to use the full force of its authority to restore consumers’ right to choose how to resolve disputes with financial institutions.

497px-edward_snowden-2Oliver Stone’s 2016 film Snowden debuted at the height of a controversy over whether or not President Obama should pardon Edward Snowden. His defenders argue that his disclosures prompted important legal and policy changes, while his opponents argue that he’s a criminal who should come back to the United States to stand trial.

The film itself paints a portrait of Snowden as a young conservative from a military background. He begins his career with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) with a loyalty to the United States and a desire to serve his country. As he transitions through different positions with private contractors in the intelligence community, he becomes increasingly disturbed by the breadth of government mass surveillance systems. What he witnesses at work haunts him – he develops an aversion to being photographed – and plagues his relationship with his girlfriend. Eventually, it leads him to flee to a hotel room in Hong Kong where he works in secret with The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill and documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras. They race against the clock to make his story public before the government can arrest him.

The rest, as they say, is history.

It’s easy to get lost in the controversy of Snowden’s disclosures, but it’s important to remember the context of his decision to go public. Snowden was familiar with the whistleblowers in the intelligence community who came before him. Despite making their own disclosures through designated channels within the government, these workers had no safeguards against the severe retaliation they faced.

Take the case of Ed Loomis, a former National Security Agency employee and contractor within the intelligence community. After he reported an ineffective and wasteful surveillance program through a designated government hotline, the government responded by revoking his Top Secret security clearance, rendering him unable to work in the intelligence community. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) also raided his home for five hours. He and his wife watched as agents in Kevlar vests confiscated their possessions.

Contractors in the intelligence community deserve better than what happened to Ed Loomis. Public Citizen and many other organizations committed to open and transparent government support extending protections to contractors who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse in the intelligence community.  Without safeguards against employer retaliation, whistleblowers may either stay silent about government wrongdoing or make disclosures through the media.

Lawmakers recognize the urgent need for reform, but change has been slow. In 2015, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) introduced a bill to extend whistleblower protections to contractors in the intelligence community. In theory, this bill should not be contentious. Certain intelligence community contractors had access to such protections for a limited time without any evidence of negative consequences to national security. But, lawmakers controversially revoked these rights in 2012. So far, Congress has failed to take action on Sen. McCaskill’s critical measure.

Snowden ends with familiar audio clips from the 2016 presidential primary debates where the candidates voiced their opinions about his actions. Their reactions are mixed, but frustratingly, there is no discussion of the much-needed whistleblower protection reforms like those in Sen. McCaskill’s bill.

The controversy over Snowden and his 2013 disclosures is unlikely to end anytime soon. However, if policymakers want to prevent future national security leaks, they should make whistleblowing safe for all intelligence community workers – including contractors. Congress should enact Sen. McCaskill’s bill to protect these individuals who bravely risk so much in serving the public good.

There is overwhelming international consensus around the reality and human causes of the global climate crisis already affecting communities and habitats across the globe.

Despite the scientific consensus and the mounting evidence – found in the extreme weather events that have wreaked havoc and death throughout the U.S. – there is still widespread climate denial in the U.S.

Among our members of Congress are 182 climate deniers: 144 in the U.S. House of Representatives and 38 in the U.S. Senate. [i]And only roughly half of Americans believe global warming is caused by man-made emissions.[ii]

We know that this climate doubt was sowed (and funded) by Exxon and other Big Polluters that have known for more than four decades that its products were causing pollution and fundamentally disrupting the earth’s climate.

But if Big Polluters are the manufacturer of climate denial, Fox News is among its top distributors.

Fox Knew(s)

And like Exxon, the “powers that be” at Fox News seemingly understand the climate change threat, but perpetuate misinformation about the crisis anyway. In 2007, CEO Rupert Murdoch told Grist Magazine, “I think when people see that 99 percent of scientists agree about the serious extent of global warming, it’s going to become a fact of life.”[iii] Yet Fox News’ coverage of climate change is dismissive and often misleading. A 2012 Union of Concerned Scientists report found that Fox News’ representation of climate science was accurate just 7 percent of the time over a six-month study period.[iv]

There’s More Than One Way to Deny a Crisis

Fox News uses a variety of tactics to misinform, cast doubt and deny the realities of the climate crisis.

Fox News is dismissive of climate disruption – regularly characterizing the crisis as a hoax, scam and superstition.

Its hosts manufacture preposterous rationalizations for the increasingly dire reports and climate-related weather events.

Fox News reports have stated or left unchallenged statements that the “temperature basically hasn’t changed much since the ice age,” that it’s actually “getting colder,” that carbon dioxide “literally cannot cause global warming,” that stopping the burning of coal might hurt plants and that “wind farms” may be causing climate change instead. [v]

Fox News denies the scientific consensus that human activity is driving climate disruption and peddles the myth that the issue is still heavily debated by “scientists on both sides.” “There are hundreds of thousands on both sides debating” the causes of global warming, said one Fox News contributor.[vi] Among active climate scientists, 97 percent agree that human activity is a significant contributor to global warming.

In fact, Fox News regularly features climate deniers rather than representatives who have sounded the alarm on the climate crisis. [vii]

The network has even gone so far as attempting to discredit reputable climate science and attacking climate scientists. Fox hosts have accused NASA of “fudging the numbers” on climate change and called the phenomenon of climate change something only “corrupt” scientists believe in.[viii]

Fox News passes off as a climate “expert” a person who has no climate science training. Scientists have called statements by Joe Bastardi – a meteorologist often featured to comment on climate change – as “completely wrong,” “simply ignorant” and “utter nonsense.” [ix]

Why Does it Matter?

With 2.2 million viewers, Fox News occupies the No. 1 prime-time spot for all of cable. In short, it has a big microphone and it is using it to perpetuate the stark partisan divide in climate change perceptions, as well as shape and polarize its audience’s views on the climate crisis.

Fox News is tarnishing and making a mockery of, well, broadcast news.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that bold and immediate action is necessary to avoid irreversible climate disruption. And while the Obama administration has taken some actions to advance our fight against the global crisis, the sale of climate denialism by networks like Fox News continue to obstruct any meaningful action to slow down this climate crisis.

What Can Fox Do?

Fox News leadership should use the recent scandal and shake-up at the network to reposition its views on climate disruption. In fact, 21 organizations are calling on Fox News to do just that. This is an opportunity to do what CEO Rupert Murdoch promised nearly a decade ago: engage “readers, viewers and customers on sustainability issues through partnerships and content of the highest caliber.”[x]

And an opportunity for FOX to stop being part of the problem and start being part of the climate solution.

[i] https://thinkprogress.org/most-americans-disagree-with-their-congressional-representative-on-climate-change-95dc0eee7b8f

[ii] http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/01/14/global.warming.pdf

[iii] http://grist.org/article/murdoch1/

[iv] Id.

[v] http://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/31/10-dumbest-things-fox-said-about-climate-change/191859

[vi] Id.

[vii] http://climateshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/FeldmanStudy.pdf

[viii] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/americans-fox-news-climate-change_n_6993360.html

[ix] http://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/31/10-dumbest-things-fox-said-about-climate-change/191859

[x] http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/Is-News-Corp-Failing-Science.pdf

Our country is still reeling in the aftermath of the greed-fueled contagion of the 2008 economic collapse and Wall Street getting caught in villainous behavior is daily news. The anger of the American public toward Big Banks that were bailed out while average citizens went under—institutions that continue to get away with mere slaps on the wrist to settle claims of severe wrongdoing— is the foundation of the current populist political surge. It’s not surprising that Hollywood wants to get in on the act, and they should be applauded.

oneheart-invite215The Academy Award-winning  film The Big Short spotlighted for the movie-going public the complex web of financial maneuverings that tumbled down like a house of cards, leaving millions without homes and millions more with empty nest eggs. “A-listers” Julia Roberts, George Clooney, and Jodie Foster have even embraced the “us-versus-Wall Street” theme in the recently-available-for-the-small-screen film, Money Monster. The plot focuses on the problems that cascade from an everyman feeling wronged by a high-speed trading firm, and a “glitch” that bottomed out the value of a stock. Without commenting on the quality of the film, it can be said with all conviction that such glitches are not fiction.

In May of 2010, there was a flash crash that brought the curtain down on a trillion dollars of market value in a matter of minutes. And, in October 2013, in an unexpected twist, the normally very steady U.S. Treasury bond market went on a wild ride that was eventually blamed partially on high-frequency trading, computer programs called algorithms that automatically buy and sell financial instruments in much less than a blink of an eye.

Why should we risk our market stability with such rampant speculation? Spoiler alert: we don’t have to!

Right on cue to tamping-down on undesirable market behavior is an idea associated with Nobel prize-winning economist James Tobin, who called for a corrective tax on speculative trading that would  “throw some sand in the wheels” of the market to slow it down. Dozens of countries already have these taxes in place and the U.S. had a tax on Wall Street taxes from 1914 through 1965. Public Citizen has long advocated for reinstating a tax on Wall Street trades to protect consumers.

Not a Hollywood blockbuster, but another recent film, The Same Heart, also chronicles the rise of the high-speed trading ‘bot. However, the problem toward which the documentary film’s lens is primarily pointed is the horrible injustice of childhood poverty. But, instead of showing only the negative—the unthinkable hurdles of hunger, disease, and violence that billions of children face worldwide—it focuses on a possible solution: taxing Wall Street trades. The Same Heart makes the ethical and economic case for the wealthiest among us, the financial elite who make millions and billions of dollars in profit from financial transactions, to fund programs that invest in the world’s youth.

On September 27, at 1 pm in the Capitol Visitor’s Center, Public Citizen, in coordination with Media Voices for Children, which produced the film, the Child Labor Coalition, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is hosting an event called “Investing in our Future, One Transaction at a Time,” a panel discussion and screening of an excerpt of The Same Heart. I will be center stage for a dialogue with U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), filmmaker Len Morris, and experts from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Communications Workers of America, the Institute for Policy Studies, and the National Consumers League. In addition to speaking about how the tens of billions in estimated yearly revenues from a Wall Street tax could benefit the next generation, I will outline how current legislative proposals to reinstate a tax on Wall Street trades to make markets less volatile and work better for average investors.

A fairer market does not have to be a celluloid dream. If we want to flip today’s script: the robbers being the banks themselves, bad guys costumed in pinstripes, never jail stripes, we need to take on Wall Street. The first step is making Wild West Wall Street stock market gamblers pay their fair share by taxing their trades at a fraction of a percent.

And, even if you’re not in DC to make the movie and panel event, you can still help set the scene for a legislative win. Please tell your U.S. Representative that you want her or him to be a hero and cosponsor the Putting Main Street FIRST (Finishing Irresponsible Reckless Speculative Trading) Act (HR 5745). If you’ve already done that, be a social media superhero and help spread the word about the Take on Wall Street fight by sharing this blog on Twitter with the hashtags #WallStTax or #TakeOnWallSt.

With your help, soon we will reach a critical consensus: no longer will we let the One Percent steal the show.

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.