This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Friday, Nov. 5, 2010
With more than 100 professional designations for financial-services providers, it can be hard to figure out who you can trust with your with your money. New government regulations may change that.
By Katherine Reynolds Lewis
Wondering whether to jump back into the market after the Federal Reserve's plan to pump $600 billion into the economy sent stocks to their highest level since September 2008, but worried about the uncertain outlook? People looking for good financial advice can have a hard time.
There are no federal rules for the training or conduct of someone who hangs a shingle as a financial planner. “Certified” financial service providers include more than 100 professional designations, with acronyms like CFP, CFM, CIMA, CFA, CLU, CPA, EA and PFC, representing everything from a single self-study course to years of education, professional training, continuing education, testing and ethics.
Adela Pena, 63, thought she was being responsible when she took early retirement from a telecommunications company in 1998 and invested a $400,000 lump sum pension payment in an annuity recommended by a financial adviser. She watched the value of her portfolio plummet and the adviser stopped returning phone calls. By 2008, she had only $49,000 left.
“Now all I’m living off is my Social Security and the generosity of my children,” she said in an interview from her San Jose, Calif., home. “It’s not like I spend my money foolishly. My children and I never really went on vacation because I wanted to make sure I had some money in my old age so they wouldn’t have to worry about me.”
New Government Oversight
Now, for the first time, financial planners could be subject to government oversight and broker-dealers could be required to act in their customers’ best interests, after two landmark reviews ordered by Congress in this summer's financial regulatory overhaul. The initiatives could reshape the marketplace for financial and investment advice. Policymakers hope new rules will restore some of the confidence shaken by the global financial crisis and stock market collapse in 2008, and better protect investors for the future.
“If I go to someone who markets himself as a doctor or a lawyer, I know that person has passed an exam and that person is subject to a code of professional conduct,” said Marilyn Mohrman-Gillis, managing director for public policy at the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, the organization that grants the CFP designation. “It’s easier to be a financial planner than it is to be a cosmetologist.”
Financial Advisors: New Rules Protect Consumers
High College Dropout Rate Threatens U.S. Growth
This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2010
Just over half the students who enter a four-year college complete their degree and even fewer community college students graduate, leaving many without the qualifications they need to land a job.
By Katherine Reynolds Lewis
Millions of first-year college students and their families now paying for the most expensive postsecondary education in U.S. history face a land mine: just 56 percent of those who enroll in a four-year college earn a bachelor’s degree. Those new undergraduates are now reaching the end of the first semester, a critical crossroads between finishing and dropping out.
Some students drop out because of trouble paying the cost — the average college debt upon graduation is a whopping $24,000. Others struggle to hold down a job while also attending college — tuition, room and board at many private universities tops $50,000 a year, and some state schools charges $10,000 a year just for tuition. But more than half of first-year students are simply underprepared for college-level work, said Jeff King, director of the Koehler Center for Teaching Excellence at Texas Christian University, which is developing a tool to identify students who are most at risk of dropping out. “There’s increasing pressure … to prove that after these thousands of dollars that parents are paying for a credential, the students are learning,” King said.
Education policymakers for decades have focused on opening the doors to higher education to more students, without much thought about whether those students are prepared and what happens if they’re not. Now, they’re starting to take action. Over the past decade, the U.S. has fallen from leader to 12th place in the ratio of young people with the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree, well behind Russia, Canada, Korea and Japan.
Study Harder
This article was originally published by Financial Planning magazine in October 2010.
The Dodd-Frank legislation calls for studies of fiduciary duty and financial planning oversight. What they find could change the industry.
By Katherine Reynolds Lewis
The buzz of activity in Washington over financial regulatory reform hasn't died since Congress passed the sweeping Dodd-Frank legislation and President Barack Obama signed it into law on July 21; it's merely moved from the halls of Congress to the regulatory agencies. For planners, the legislation kick-started two major initiatives that could transform the way financial advice is regulated and for the first time subject financial planning to explicit regulatory oversight.
The first is a study by the SEC about the obligations of brokers, dealers and investment advisors toward their clients. This study is likely to result in new rules imposing a fiduciary duty on all professionals who provide personalized investment advice, given SEC Chair Mary Schapiro's support for a uniform fiduciary standard. The second is a study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the oversight of financial planning, which will result in recommendations to Congress of any legislation needed to close regulatory gaps and protect investors. Both studies are due in six months.
"It's very significant. Many major policy initiatives grow from government studies," says Marilyn Mohrman-Gillis, managing director of public policy for the CFP Board of Standards. "This regulatory reform bill provides a golden opportunity to start important change in the industry."
Justice quizzed on death penalty
This article was originally published by Gannett News Service and the Jackson Clarion-Ledger on Thursday, Sept. 30, 2010.
By Katherine Reynolds Lewis
WASHINGTON — Mississippi Justice James Graves Jr. clarified his position on the death penalty Wednesday during a Senate hearing on his nomination for a federal judgeship.
Responding to a question from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., Graves explained that he joined a dissenting opinion in a capital murder case for reasons related only to claims by the defendant, Anthony Doss, that his attorneys had been ineffective and that he was mentally retarded.
"I take responsibility for joining that opinion, but I have not now nor have I ever subscribed to any point of view that the death penalty was unconstitutional," Graves told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The United States Supreme Court has determined that the death penalty does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. I would follow the law as handed down by the United States Supreme Court."
Graves, 56, is a nominee for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which hears appeals from case in Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.
He pointed to his nine years as a Mississippi justice, during which he voted to affirm convictions and the death penalty in at least a dozen capital punishment cases.
Graves is the only black justice on the court, which he joined in 2001. Before that, he was a Hinds County Circuit judge for 10 years.
He holds a bachelor's degree from Millsaps College and law and master's degrees from Syracuse University.
The Other Real Estate Crisis — Commercial Property
This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Saturday, Sept. 18, 2010 and the Washington Post on Sunday, Sept. 19, 2010.
The landmark Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. has been a watering hole for presidents and pundits alike. But like other commercial real estate properties throughout the country affected by the mortgage crisis, the Mayflower is under water.
By Katherine Reynolds Lewis and Jonathan O'Connell
It was dubbed Washington's second best address by Harry S. Truman, and it has hosted events for every presidential inauguration since Calvin Coolidge. Franklin Roosevelt used it as a retreat to work on his 1933 inaugural address. And FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was a lunchtime regular.
The elegant Renaissance Mayflower Hotel, a Washington landmark since 1925, was considered a hot property when Rockwood Capital of San Francisco acquired it for $260 million in March 2007. Then, practically overnight, the real estate market collapsed and credit evaporated in a historic global financial meltdown. The new hotel owners, saddled with $200 million in debt, watched as the value of the property tumbled. By August, credit agency Realpoint estimated its value at $128 million.
The Mayflower loan was underwater, the plight of hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of commercial properties across the nation that are worth less than their mortgages. If the hotel's owner couldn't find a way to restructure the debt, it could lose the property.
A staggering $1.4 trillion of commercial real estate loans will come due nationwide in the next four years, forcing borrowers such as Rockwood to refinance or default on their obligations. Trouble lingers even at doorsteps in Washington, one of the strongest markets in the country thanks to a broad employment base, a sound infrastructure and a massive government presence.
This is happening at a time when the capacity to absorb such debt has been slashed, following the bankruptcies of financial firms such as Lehman Brothers and the collapse of the commercial mortgage-backed securities issuance down to a tenth of its peak size. The thought of a string of commercial real estate defaults walloping the barely recovering economy and jeopardizing the stability of still-tottering banks is enough to keep analysts up at night.
"It's a very tricky time right now," said Geoffrey DiMeglio, director of consulting at Market Outlook, a consulting firm. "Even in a weak recovery, I don't see employment improving the fundamentals in real estate fast enough to get these properties out of default."
Are There Still Banks Too Big to Fail?
This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Friday, Sept. 3, 2010.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that federal regulators must be ready to close down the largest banks and financial institutions if they once again threaten to bring down the global financial system.
By Katherine Reynolds Lewis
Two years after Washington had to spend hundreds of billions to bail out much of Wall Street, members of a Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission said Thursday the country still has a problem with financial institutions that are "too big to fail."
Federal officials and most financial experts agree that so-called too-big-to-fail-institutions like AIG and Citigroup helped cause the crisis and were a huge drain on the Treasury and Federal Reserve.
The major financial overhaul legislation pushed through by President Obama this year put in safeguards to try to avoid a repeat of the crisis in which federal officials were forced to decide which firms would go under or be auctioned off and which had to be propped up because of their importance to the financial world. But commissioner Byron Georgiou, a skeptic, noted that the six largest financial groups in 2009 constituted 63 percent of gross domestic product, an increase over the 58 percent of GDP they represented in 2007, at the height of the housing bubble, and both up from a mere 17 percent in 1995.
“Given their increasing size, do you really believe these institutions would be allowed to fail today?” said Georgiou, a personal injury and financial fraud lawyer. “Are we really in any better shape today to avoid the bailouts that have been so criticized in the last few years?”
Could Lehman Brothers Have Been Saved?
This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Thursday, Sept. 2, 2010.
The former CEO of Lehman Brothers testified during one of the final hearings of the commission investigating the U.S. financial crisis that federal regulators prematurely forced the firm into bankruptcy before all other options were exhausted.
By Katherine Reynolds Lewis
Just days before the two-year anniversary of Lehman Brothers' collapse, banking regulators passionately defended their handling of the crisis at a Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission hearing, while the former Lehman CEO insisted the government prematurely forced the firm into bankruptcy before all other options were exhausted.
"Lehman was forced into bankruptcy not because it neglected to act responsibly or seek solutions to the crisis, but because of a decision, based on flawed information, not to provide Lehman with the support given to each of its competitors," said Richard S. Fuld Jr., the former chairman and chief executive officer. "We had the collateral. We had the capital."
In testimony Thursday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke countered that charge, saying it was impossible for the Fed to rescue Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy in 2008 because the Wall Street firm lacked sufficient collateral to secure a loan. Asked how the Lehman case differed from that of American International Group Inc., which received $182 billion in taxpayer aid, Bernanke said there was a fundamental difference.
AIG, as the biggest insurance company in the U.S., had valuable assets which could back up the Fed's emergency loan, he said. "The Federal Reserve will absolutely be paid back by AIG," Bernanke said.
Whether it would have been possible to save Lehman Brothers is one of the most perplexing questions to emerge from the financial meltdown that led to one of the worst recessions in U.S. history. That question clearly divided the 10 members of the commission, whose questions at each were other almost as pointed as the ones they posed to witnesses, who gave sworn testimony.
The hearings underscored a hard truth: that for all the new laws and pending regulations Congress and the Obama administration have put forth in response to the meltdown, future crises will only be averted if industry professionals and the regulators who oversee them use good judgment and pursue hints of trouble even in the face of rosy conventional wisdom.
Recession Aside, Are We Headed for a Labor Shortage?
This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Thursday, Aug. 26, 2010.
Despite one of the worst recessions of modern times, the U.S. economy could face significant labor shortages in the coming months because of a mismatch between the quality of the available labor and the demands of industry.
By Katherine Reynolds Lewis
Alan Yellowitz of Fairfax, Va., has been job hunting since January 2009, when he was laid off from his information technology sales job along with the rest of his department. Competing with hundreds of applicants for every opening, he has clawed his way to the final round of interviews several times — only to fall short of winning the position. "There are so many more people looking for the same jobs," Yellowitz, 47, said in an interview. "It's crazy how companies are picking and choosing. You feel beat up after a while."
Yellowitz — like many of the other 14.6 million unemployed Americans like him — wasn’t supposed to be in this bind, as the oldest Baby Boomers started to retire and the labor supply began to tighten. Nearly 20 years ago, the first in a series of economic reports predicted a dramatic labor shortage as an estimated 76 million Baby Boomers departed the workforce and the smaller cohort of Generation X workers — or Baby Bust — took their place. As recently as this spring, researchers predicted there could be five million more jobs than workers available to fill them by 2018, resulting in $3 trillion of lost U.S. economic output.
"We have this huge bump coming through of older people followed by a dearth of younger people," said lead researcher Barry Bluestone, an economist and dean of the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University. "We're going to have a huge labor market shortage."
Huge labor shortage? That’s hard to imagine amid the worst recession in modern times, with unemployment locked at 9.5 percent and many discouraged Americans simply dropping out of the market. One skeptic, Wharton business school professor Peter Cappelli, said. "They've been predicting a labor shortage since the mid-1990's and guess what, it's not happening.”
Yet some evidence suggests there may already be spot shortages of labor, as employers complain about the difficulty of filling open positions and the lack of skilled workers.
New Financial Rules Will Lower Bank Profits
This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Friday, July 2, 2010.
The landmark financial overhaul legislation will raise banking industry regulatory costs, lower their profits and limit their use of their own assets in risky investments.
By Katherine Reynolds Lewis
A major overhaul of financial regulations that cleared the House this week will put the banking industry on course for higher regulatory costs, lower profits and a renewed emphasis on more traditional activities like taking deposits and making loans.
The landmark legislation awaiting final action in the Senate later this month stops short of banning banks from investing their own assets, dealing in highly speculative derivatives or investing in hedge funds and private equity firms, as many reformists had urged. But the complex web of new rules in the 2,000-plus-page document will add an estimated $11 billion to the industry’s regulatory costs in the coming years. And it would put a crimp in the industry’s activities and shed more light on their activities with the use of clearinghouses and data repositories.
Rather than marking the finish line in marathon legislative negotiations, the new law's approval is more of a handoff in a relay race. Regulators will receive the baton and a mandate to write dozens of new rules to restrict banks' activities, increase capital requirements, protect consumers from fraud, and impose more oversight to prevent a repeat of the problems that caused the near meltdown of global financial markets and triggered a worldwide recession.
Once the financial industry emerges from the near-term pain of that transition, the new regulatory structure could facilitate measured growth in a new environment with less moneymaking potential but greater transparency and protection from failure, analysts said.
"In the long run the industry will be safer, people will be more confident and the spreads will be narrower," said Robert Litan, vice president for research and policy at the Kauffman Foundation. "The bill is sweeping in nature but a lot of the details have yet to be filled in" by regulators, Litan noted. "We don't know whether that's going to be a heavy touch or light touch."
Scott Brown Blocks Financial Reform Vote
This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Wednesday, June 30, 2010.
Freshman Republican Sen. Scott Brown objected to a stiff new banking fee which would cover the $19 billion cost of implementing new financial regulation.
By Katherine Reynolds Lewis
Just as Congress was on the verge of passing the broadest overhaul of financial regulation since the Great Depression — following hundreds of hours of debate over the last year — lawmakers are back at the drawing boards. Freshman Republican Sen. Scott Brown objected to a stiff new banking fee which would cover the $19 billion cost of implementing the new regulation.
"It is especially troubling that this provision was inserted in the conference report in the dead of night without hearings or economic analysis," Brown, R-Mass., wrote to the Democratic lawmakers shepherding the legislation through Congress. "Costs would be passed on to the millions of American consumers and small businesses who rely on major U.S. financial institutions for their checking, ATM, loans or other services."
Brown's constituents include the country's largest mutual funds, such as Fidelity Investments and State Street Corp., which objected to paying a fee when it was excesses in the banking industry at the heart of the financial crisis that sparked a worldwide recession.
