About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

WSJ reported McCain criticism of execs' pay without mentioning his approval of Bear Stearns aid

April 07, 2008 2:21 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: The Wall Street Journal reported that Sen. John McCain "displayed a strong populist streak over the housing crisis this weekend, blasting what he called the 'outrageous' and 'unconscionable' compensation of Bear Stearns and Countrywide executives and their 'co-conspirators,' " but did not mention that McCain reportedly expressed support for the Fed's decision to extend a $30 billion line of credit to facilitate the acquisition of Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase.

16 Comments

In an April 7 Wall Street Journal article, reporter Laura Meckler asserted that Sen. John McCain "displayed a strong populist streak over the housing crisis this weekend, blasting what he called the 'outrageous' and 'unconscionable' compensation of Bear Stearns and Countrywide executives and their 'co-conspirators.' " Meckler later added that "McCain's rhetoric is notable because it comes from a self-described conservative Republican and follows comments he made nearly two weeks ago emphasizing that some problems were caused by irresponsible borrowers who bought homes they couldn't afford, betting that rising prices would save them." She then quoted McCain's statement from a March 25 speech: "It is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers." However, while Meckler noted that in his March 25 speech, McCain "didn't rule out more sweeping federal aid," she did not mention that McCain reportedly agreed with the Federal Reserve's decision to extend a $30 billion loan backed by Bear Stearns assets to facilitate the acquisition of the near-bankrupt investment firm by JP Morgan Chase, which reportedly puts taxpayers at risk for $29 billion of the loan if the value of Bear Stearns' assets declines.

Meckler quoted McCain saying, "I think it's outrageous that someone who is the head of Bear Stearns cashes in millions and millions of dollars in stocks," and reported that "James Cayne, chairman and former CEO of Bear Stearns Cos., recently sold the vast majority of his stake in the company, generating $61 million. As one of the largest shareholders, he also lost a lot of money with the firm's collapse." A March 28 Associated Press article reported that "Cayne sold 5.66 million shares for exactly $10.84 a share on March 25, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. His stake was once valued at about $1 billion when the stock was trading at $171.50 per share. ... His stake at one point plunged to about $27 million when JPMorgan announced nearly two weeks ago it would acquire the No. 5 U.S. investment bank for $2 per share. JPMorgan later upped that offer to $10 per share, and agreed to acquire 39.5 percent of the company without a shareholder vote to block any rival offers."

An April 3 Associated Press article reported that during weekend of March 14-15, "Bear Stearns informed the Fed that it was on the verge of having to file for bankruptcy protection because nervous creditors were demanding to be repaid. The investment house was purchased by JP Morgan Chase & Co. with assistance from the Fed in the form of a loan backed by $30 billion of Bear Stearns assets. JP Morgan has agreed to absorb the first $1 billion of losses if the value of the assets declines, but taxpayers are at risk for the remaining $29 billion. Bear Stearns, with a stock price around $150 per share a year ago, was sold for $10 a share, becoming the biggest victim of a severe credit crisis that hit financial markets in August."

From the April 7 Wall Street Journal article:

The likely Republican presidential nominee displayed a strong populist streak over the housing crisis this weekend, blasting what he called the "outrageous" and "unconscionable" compensation of Bear Stearns and Countrywide executives and their "co-conspirators."

It is part of Sen. John McCain's effort to show anger at the people behind the housing crisis and sympathy for those who are facing foreclosure, while remaining skeptical of proposals that would commit the federal government to aggressive action to help them.

Asked about the housing crisis Saturday, the Arizona senator volunteered his disgust with executives who have earned millions at companies at the center of the crisis; he sounded themes heard more often on the Democratic presidential campaign trail.

"And could I add, I think it's outrageous that someone who is the head of Bear Stearns cashes in millions and millions of dollars in stocks. And I think it's unconscionable when the guy who apparently is the head of Countrywide and his co-conspirators make huge amounts of money while Americans are facing the threat of losing their own homes," he told reporters in Prescott, Ariz. "It's a terrible thing."

James Cayne, chairman and former CEO of Bear Stearns Cos., recently sold the vast majority of his stake in the company, generating $61 million. As one of the largest shareholders, he also lost a lot of money with the firm's collapse.

Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Financial Corp., received total compensation of nearly $250 million from 1998 through 2007 and collected an additional $406 million from the sale of Countrywide stock, according to a report by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

[...]

Sen. McCain's rhetoric is notable because it comes from a self-described conservative Republican and follows comments he made nearly two weeks ago emphasizing that some problems were caused by irresponsible borrowers who bought homes they couldn't afford, betting that rising prices would save them.

In a speech March 25, he said: "It is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers." He also said that any assistance shouldn't "reward people who were irresponsible at the expense of those who weren't."

The proposals he made that day were modest, though his speech didn't rule out more sweeping federal aid. He said any help should be temporary and targeted to "deserving homeowners," with no help for speculators or those who bought property to rent or as a second home.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by anotheramerican (April 07, 2008 2:56 pm ET)
         
      I've heard the Fed backed the Chase loan to prevent a possible domino effect of possible collapse of other banks from a run which turns into a panic and a widespread collapse of the financial markets. So I understand while McCain might have  a problem with the compensation, he also might have supported the Fed backing up Chase loan.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dbeden4153 (April 07, 2008 3:25 pm ET)
           
        Yeah, but that absolves all responsibility of the banks to not only use their own money as investment capital, but to take responsibility for well...anything.

        Of course, technically we all own Bear Sterns now.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (April 07, 2008 3:39 pm ET)
             

          DB,

          Here's how it works: A Delaware-based limited liability company will be set up to receive, upon completion of the merger, $30 billion in various Bear holdings, such as mortgage-backed securities. The Fed will lend $29 billion to that company, which will pass all the money along to JPMorgan, Bear's new owner. JPMorgan itself will lend $1 billion to the Delaware company. The company, managed by BlackRock ­Financial Management, will pay back the loans by gradually liquidating the assets. As a protection for the Fed, it gets paid back fully before JPMorgan gets back anything on its loan. The other sweetener for the Fed is that if there's money left over even after ­JPMorgan gets repaid, the Fed gets it all.

          ...

          If this case proves anything, it's that the Fed is ready to press the limits of its charter to keep the financial system afloat. Effectively acquiring the Bear assets at a bargain price and then liquidating them is similar to what Resolution Trust Corp. did when it shut down savings and loans and auctioned off their loan portfolios in the 1990s. The difference is that Congress set up the RTC but had nothing to do with the Fed's moves.

          http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_14/b4078000069548_page_2.htm
          Report Abuse
      • Author by DEMS_SOL (April 07, 2008 3:26 pm ET)
           
        Yes - as this is about the third or fourth post comparing something McCain said with his approvalof the Bear-Stearns buy out we can assume Media Matters would have rathered the financial markets collapse.  More ammunition to fire at conservatives slipped right through their fingers.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Sueelldd (April 07, 2008 3:51 pm ET)
             
          I dont have a problem with the Bear Stearns buyout either, we do not need more economic distress.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (April 07, 2008 11:40 pm ET)
               
            Except they wanted a bigger bail out so they would get more money from us taxpayers. Greedy retards that they are.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by roundhouse (April 08, 2008 7:45 am ET)
             
          "as this is about the third or fourth post comparing something McCain said with his approvalof the Bear-Stearns buy out we can assume Media Matters would have rathered the financial markets collapse."

          Whatever, you phony. You can just keep all that claptrap about free markets to yourself the next time any discussions of regulation arises.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (April 08, 2008 7:38 am ET)
           
        "I've heard the Fed backed the Chase loan to prevent a possible domino effect of possible collapse of other banks from a run which turns into a panic and a widespread collapse of the financial markets." AA

        Yeah, you just remember how the government came to the rescue of these Wall St profligates the next you spout your Republican free market fundamentalism and personal responsibility mumbo-jumbo.

        You make me sick, AA. How phony can you Republitards get?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by notanotherconservative2254 (April 07, 2008 3:10 pm ET)
         

      There were plenty of greedy fat cats who made more than $100 million since 2000.  I just don't know how they can live with themselves.

      Oh, wait... that is Hill and Bill.

       

      Never mind. 

       

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (April 07, 2008 4:33 pm ET)
           

        NAC,

        Are you contending that Bill and Hill made their money off of the poor mortgages of others or investing in mortgage companies during this time?

        You forgot your cheerleading phrase ;).

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (April 07, 2008 11:41 pm ET)
             
          I think he's getting ready to change his name again so absentmindedly forgot his slogan.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (April 07, 2008 3:20 pm ET)
         

      I'm no fan of the Bear Stearns bailout, but you can reasonably argue that 1. it was necessary to protect consumers as well and 2. if you believed it was necessary to protect consumers, you can support it without supporting how much their CEO gets paid.

       Seriously, if you believed the bailout was the best thing for the market and homeowners, would it be ethical to say "yeah but the CEO might get paid too much still so I'm not supporting it."? 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dbeden4153 (April 07, 2008 3:31 pm ET)
           

        Dex, I think our de-regulation of the financial markets are the primary cause of this.  Yes, the consumer is going to get hurt, but bailing out Bear Sterns is just putting your finger in the hole in the dam.  It'll stave off the falling economy for a bit, but there's no policy for moving the economy forward at all.

        That being said, I still don't think it was a good idea to bail out Bear Sterns.  We need some responsibility in the financial markets, and if the government's going to bail out any firm that's "too big to fail," then there's nothing to stop these other firms from taking the same financial risks.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by dexteritas0071418 (April 07, 2008 3:37 pm ET)
             

          Dbed,

           I was an econ minor in college, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to make a firm decision on the matter, and I"m pretty sure it was a very 50-50 decision to a lot of economists in terms of whether it was better short-term and whether it will be better long-term (the bear bailout). I think you will agree with me that you and I WISH bailing a bank that made crappy financial decisions out wasn't the best thing to do.

          That being said, I think MMfA erred in trying to somehow connect supporting the rescue of Bear to supporting the salary terms of Bear's CEO. I don't think those follow logically at all.

           

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by dbeden4153 (April 07, 2008 4:00 pm ET)
               

            "That being said, I think MMfA erred in trying to somehow connect supporting the rescue of Bear to supporting the salary terms of Bear's CEO. I don't think those follow logically at all."

            I agree.  And you're right, it's wishful thinking on my part.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (April 08, 2008 8:41 am ET)
           
        Seriously, dex? Do you think this tax aid for corporations was good for homeowners?

        How about real tax aid for homeowners instead?

        Do you have any idea what kind of golden parachute these pukes were given for busting their company? It's sick.
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.