As
Hudson City
Pays
Discrimination
Tax, Goldman
Sachs Refi-ed
Only Whites in
NYC
By
Matthew R. Lee
NEW
YORK,
September 24
-- The lack of
seriousness in
US bank
regulation
grows from the
relatively
smaller to the
largest banks,
with Hudson
City, trying
to be bought
by M&T,
and Goldman
Sachs trying
to buy GE
Capital Bank
the most
recent
examples.
Fair Finance
Watch has
raised Hudson
City's
disparate
lending record
to the Federal
Reserve
throughout the
stalled review
of the M&T
proposal,
stating to the
Fed that
"Hudson City's
record was
even worse in
2013 than in
the 2011 data
cited above.
In the NYC MSA
for
conventional
home purchase
loans, while
Hudson City
made (only)
five such
loans to
African
Americans in
2011, this
fell to only
FOUR such
loans to
African
Americans in
2013, compared
in 2013 to 427
such loans to
whites: a more
than one
hundred to one
ratio, totally
out of step
with the
demographics
and other
lenders'
records."
Now Hudson
City has
announced a
$32 million
settlement
with the
Justice
Department and
Consumer
Financial
Protection
Bureau. But
Fair Finance
Watch and
Inner City
Press,
reviewing the
just-released
2014 data,
find that
Hudson City
did WORSE in
2014, even
while it knew
its deal was
stalled.
In 2014 in the
New York City
MSA, Hudson
City made 233
home purchase
loans to
whites - and
only ONE to an
African
American,
denying
African
Americans'
application
4.16 times
more
frequently
than those of
whites.
In
this context,
is the $32
million
anything more
than a
discrimination
tax? Inner
City Press and
Fair Finance
Watch have now
raised to the
Fed: watch
this site.
Meanwhile
Goldman is
trying to
speed through
Federal
Reserve
approval to
buy $16
billion in
insured
deposits from
GE Capital,
and the Fed so
far seems bent
on helping;
opposition now
comes from
NCRC and
members
nationwide. It
began by
withholding
basic parts of
Goldman's
application, click
here to view.
On September
22, 2015, the
Federal
Reserve
belatedly
released the
2014 Home
Mortgage
Disclosure Act
data. A quick
review of the
lending of
Goldman Sachs
Bank USA in
the New York
City
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area shows the
Goldman Sach
focus which
should require
publish
hearings in
this case.
Fair Finance
Watch, hours
after the data
was released,
has commented
to the Federal
Reserve at the
highest level
that "in the
New York City
MSA in 2014,
for
conventional
home purchase
loans (Table
4-2), Goldman
Sachs Bank USA
made 45 such
loans to
whites, only
two to African
Americans and
only one to a
Latino. For
refinance
loans (Table
4-3), Goldman
Sachs Bank USA
made 16 loans
to whites and
NONE to
African
American or
Latinos. This
is
inconsistent
with the
demographics
of the New
York City MSA
and with other
lenders'
records; it
further
militate for
the timely
requested
public
hearings."
Goldman Sachs
has purported
to respond to
the comments
of Inner City
Press / Fair
Finance Watch
by releasing a
small amount
of the
withheld
information,
and arguing
that what the
wider Goldman
Sachs does
cannot or will
no be
considered by
the Federal
Reserve on
this Bank
Merger Act
application by
Goldman Sachs
Bank. We've
put Goldman
Sachs'
response
online, here.
It says:
“FFW
states that
the audio
released by
examiner Ms.
Carmen Segara
requires an
extension of
the comment
period and a
public
hearing... GS
Bank believes
the issue is
outside the
scope of the
statutory
factors for
Board
consideration
under the Bank
Merger Act...
Goldman Sachs
Bank USA ('GS
Bank') hereby
submits its
response to
the three
comment
letters,
submitted on
September 2,
September 3
and September
9, 2015 (the
'Comment
Letters'), by
the Inner City
Press's Fair
Finance Watch
('FFW')....
"FFW
makes
accusations of
'predatory
practices' in
the 'mortgage
field' and
'municipal
finance,' and
states that
there are a
number of
compliance
settlements
that must be
reviewed in
connection
with the
Application.
FFW references
several
articles
related to
lawsuits,
settlements
and other
events, all
but one of
which involve
Goldman Sachs
but not GS
Bank. GS Bank
respectfully
submits that
such comments
are not
substantiated
by specific
arguments or
facts. GS Bank
notes that
none of the
articles
relate to GS
Bank itself,
and believes
these issues
are outside
the scope of
the statutory
factors for
Board
consideration
under the Bank
Merger Act.”
Goldman Sachs
is arguing
that the acts
of a parent
company cannot
be considered
when its bank
applies to buy
($16 billion)
in insured
deposits, an
absurd
argument. FFW
has submitted
another
comment to the
Fed, including
that
"ICP
has received
by mail from
Goldman Sachs'
counsel a
purported
response which
claims that
issues ranging
from conflict
of interest
and
under-regulation
by the FRB
(evidenced for
example by the
audio leaked
by
whistleblower
Carmen
Segarra) is
not cognizable
under the Bank
Merger Act -
an absurd
argument. The
FRB would be
the decision
maker,
therefore such
issues must be
addressed.
"Goldman
Sachs
cavalierly
states that
since it
withdrew some
of its
indefensible
requests for
confidential
treatment of
its
application,
that issues is
resolved. It
is not - too
much is still
being
withheld.
Significantly,
Goldman Sachs
has offered no
explanation of
the specious
requests for
confidential
treatment it
made, denying
commenters
access to
information
during the
comment
period. As
others now
argue, the
comment period
would be
extended and
hearing held."
Inner City
Press will be
covering this
wider National
(Community
Reinvestment
Coalition)
protest, in
which it
joins; it has
also submitted
more comments
to the New
York State
regulator, in
a proceeding
currently
slated to come
to a head on
September 28,
the first day
of the UN
General
Assembly
debate.
Goldman
Sachs'
Response to
Inner City
Press / Fair
Finance Watch
Comments on GE
Capital
Application,
Sept 1...
by Matthew
Russell Lee
As
Inner City
Press exposed
last month,
Royal Bank of
Canada jumped
the gun and
began doing
business with
City National
Bank without
any Federal
Reserve
approval (see
Los
Angeles Times,
here.)
Now,
even as New
York
regulators
says their
comment period
on Goldman
Sachs' GE
Capital
proposal
extends at
least through
September 28,
Goldman has
published fine
print notices
in the New
York Post and
a newspaper
in Utah
saying the
Federal
Reserve will
stop listening
on September
19.
Really? After
the Fed made
Goldman Sachs
a bank holding
company with no public
comment period
at all, so
Goldman could
get a
bail-out?
After the
Fed's coziness
with Goldman
Sachs was
again
demonstrated,
by the audio
taped by
then-Fed
examiner
Carmen Segarra?
Inner City
Press
immediately
submitted a
Freedom of
Information
Act request
for all of
Goldman Sachs'
GE Capital
application
and related
records. The
Federal
Reserve has
provided a
heavily
redacted copy,
on which Inner
City Press /
Fair Finance
Watch has
commented to
the FRB in
Washington:
"Among
many other
things,
Goldman Sachs
believes it
can withhold
the volume of
deposits it
seeks to
acquire from
GE Capital
Bank, WHAT is
seeks to
acquire (and
what not to
acquire) from
GE Capital
Bank, its
number of
employees in
Utah, the
contact people
on its
application,
the number of
non profit
organizations
it tells the
FRB it serves
on the board
of --
presumptively
public -- and
even the NAMES
of the
exhibits it
seeks to
withhold
entirely. This
is abusive and
unprecedented
and the FRB
must, in
response, have
the comment
period begin
again.
Otherwise,
applicants
only benefit
by making
absurd and
abusive
requests for
confidential
treatment.
There is much
more to be
said,
including at
the public
hearings ICP
is requesting,
but it is
imperative
that the Board
act on this as
quickly as
possible."
Goldman
Sachs' Heavily
Redacted
"Confidential"
Application to
the FRB to
Acquire GE
Capital Bank
Deposits
by Matthew
Russell Lee
When
Goldman Sachs
became a bank
holding
company
literally
overnight in
2008, Inner
City Press /
Fair Finance
Watch and
others
including NCRC
asked the Fed
how
this was done
with no public
comment period
at all.
The answer, it
seems, is to
be found in
the audio
leaked by
Carmen Segarra
of the Federal
Reserve,
showing
further Fed
favors for
Goldman Sachs.
With
this history,
and Goldman's
history in
predatory
lending with
Litton
Servicing and
as an
underwriter, see Occupy Wall Street video here,
and UN
/ migration
connection
here, it
seems clear
that the Fed
must hold
public
hearings on
Goldman Sachs'
GE Capital
application,
when it is
filed.
But with the
Federal
Reserve, you
can never be
too sure, or
too careful.
When Community
Bank System of
upstate New
York filed
with the Fed
nine answers
to questions
asked after
Inner City
Press'
challenge, it
tried to
withhold fully
eight of the
nine
responses. More
here.
Inner City
Press
immediately
filed a
Freedom of
Information
Act request
for the whole
submission -
and even the
Federal
Reserve saw
through
Community Bank
System's
absurdly --
and tellingly
-- overbroad
withholding,
releasing all
but one part
of one of the
eight withheld
responses. But
since then,
all the Fed
has done is
seek a mere
antitrust
control
commitment.
Here's
is the Federal
Reserve's
letter to
Inner City
Press granting
most of its
FOIA request:
Freedom
of Information
Act Ruling
Rejecting
Community Bank
System
Withholding 8
of 9 Responses
on Oneida
Ap... by Matthew
Russell Lee
here
is the now
unredacted
version of
Community Bank
System's
submission.
Unredacted
Version of
Community Bank
System's
Responses on
Oneida, After
ICP's FOIA
Request by
Matthew
Russell Lee
We'll
have more on
this.
Background:
The largest
bank merger
recently
proposed, that
of Royal Bank
of Canada and
affluent-focused
Los
Angeles-based
City National
Bank, has
since April
been the
subject of a
Community
Reinvestment
Act challenge
by Fair
Finance Watch.
The LA Times
has reported
on the "letter
from the Fed
[which] asks
the banks to
respond to
questions
raised in
written
comments by
[FFW].
Spokesmen for
the banks
declined to
comment....
Fair Finance
Watch, a New
York advocacy
group for
minorities,
questioned a
deal between
the banks in a
June 11
comment letter
to the Fed."
Inner City
Press first
put that Fed
letter online,
here; then
Canada's
National /
Financial Post
reported
without credit
it had
"obtained" it.
By contrast,
in the pending
proposal of Community Bank System - Oneida, the Syracuse
Post-Standard
disclosed
that "Inner
City Press
forwarded the
letter to news
outlets. Some
of the Fed's
questions
focus on
whether
Community
could
improperly
control
matters at
Oneida in
advance of the
acquisition. Community
is working on
Fed's
questions,
said Hal
Wentworth,
Community's
senior vice
president for
retail
banking."
One common
theme is that
non-control
(and therefore
antitrust)
laws are being
violated. One
difference is
that Community
Bank System
does comment
to the media
-- if only to
blame
the messenger
-- while
larger RBC and
CNB do not.
Arrogance?
On
Community Bank
System's
blaming the
messenger, FFW
has commented
to the Fed
that it will
"will comment
again when
Community Bank
System I has
provided a
copy of its
response to
the FRS'
questions of
July 13.
Beyond the CRA
and
impermissible
“control”
questions
raised
therein, we
wish at this
time to raise
the issues
that, in a
public
response to
ICP's
comments,
Community Bank
System's SVP
for retail
banking said
the following,
in a prepared
statement no
less:
'In a
statement
today, Hal
Wentworth,
Community's
senior vice
president for
retail
banking, said
that Inner
City Press is
not a local
group and
pointed out
that letter
was the only
one filed on
the Oneida
deal. "This
activist does
not do
business with
either Oneida
or Community
Bank."'
If it
would be
inappropriate
for Community
Bank System to
comment on or
disclose
information
about its
customers, in
this context
the same
applies to the
above-quoted,
which,
separately, is
reminiscent of
human rights
abusing
countries
emphasizing
where the
rights groups
who study and
report on them
are based."
Now Community
Bank System is
trying to
withhold eight
of its nine
responses;
Inner City
Press is
challenging
this under the
Freedom of
Information
Act, comparing
Community Bank
System's
outrageous
withholding at
the Fed with
other banks,
and with
Community Bank
System's to
the OCC, more
here.