The New York Times is equating Lehman Brothers with Enron:

The bankruptcy examiner’s report filed by Anton R. Valukas on the 2008 demise of Lehman Brothers discusses some accounting gimmicks that are eerily reminiscent of how Enron tried to prop up its balance sheet back in 2001 before it collapsed.

Both companies appear to have played right along the edge of properly accounting for transactions designed to make them appear much stronger than they turned out to be, becoming steadily more aggressive as they teetered on the brink of ruin.

How many other Wall Street banksters and corporate con men are using shady accounting practices to protect their house of cards? Time will tell.

Gary Gensler cut deals with Goldman Sachs for 18 years. Now, he's leading the charge for regulatory reform. The New York Times explains:

The proposals championed by Mr. Gensler, if adopted by Congress, would substantially alter what is now a largely unregulated market in over-the-counter derivatives, financial instruments used by companies and investors to protect themselves and bet on moves in variables, like interest rates or currencies, and to speculate.

The proposals include forcing the big banks that sell derivatives to conduct their trades in the open on public exchanges and clear them through central clearinghouses, so that any investor can see the prices that dealers charge their customers. Today, those transactions are bilateral and private.

The banks and their customers might have to post collateral or guarantees to prevent the kinds of panics seen during the financial crisis, in which some investors worried that trading partners might have trouble keeping their side of the contract.

In this way, the clearinghouses would work as circuit breakers in the great web of derivatives trading encircling the globe. Shifting the products, and the risk of default, off the books of the banks and onto these middlemen would ensure that no single bank was too interconnected to fail, the rationale goes.

The banks, for their part, sense a threat to the billions of dollars in profits they earn each year from trading in these complex derivatives.

Many don't understand these complex financial instruments, but, they need reform. They've helped to turn Wall Street into one giant, rigged casino that is designed so that Wall Street firms win, regardless of whether the economy grows or tanks. The Times continues:

Mr. Gensler’s conversion would seem to put him at odds with his mentors, like Robert E. Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, and with his former colleagues on Wall Street.

“Wall Street’s interest is not always the same as the public’s interest,” he says now. “Wall Street thrives and makes money in inefficient markets, and I am creating efficiencies in the market...”

“I disagree with anyone who says derivatives did not play a part in the crisis,” he said in defense of more oversight. He added: “Like San Francisco after the earthquake, we had a calamity, and now we need building codes.”

Regulatory reforms create efficient markets that champion economic growth and protect Main Street interests. Now is our chance to pass it.

If you haven't already seen it... even Heidi Montag supports the CFPA!

It's happening. The teeth are being slowly pulled out of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. The LA Times explains:

The move this week to downgrade a proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency to lure bipartisan support instead appears to be undermining the Obama administration's effort to overhaul the nation's regulation of the entire industry.

The overhaul, aimed at preventing a repeat of the economic meltdown that helped send the nation and world markets into a deep recession, now might be moving closer to the junk heap of congressional bills than to a significant new law.

Creating a powerful and independent consumer agency, which is strongly opposed by the financial industry and Republicans, has been the major roadblock in drafting a bill that could pass in the Senate. Desperate to surmount that hurdle as this year's legislative clock winds down, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) floated the idea this week of putting the new agency in the Federal Reserve.

Although the move would gain some Republican support, it has led to howls of protests from many Democrats and consumer advocates that threaten to derail any compromise. And for good reason.

America is suffering from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. We let the banksters call the shots and they did - to the tune of record profits for them and a lack of jobs and opportunity for us. Now, they're trying to strip the teeth out of an organization that will protect us from their excesses. The LA Times continues:

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), another supporter, said Wednesday that many House Democrats were unlikely to agree to give the Fed more consumer authority.

"It's somewhere between bad and terrible," Sherman said of the proposal. "For a number of my colleagues . . . that might just kill it."

Dodd's proposal might not even get through his own committee, potentially adding further delay in a mid-term election year in which major legislation is unlikely to get through Congress if not finished by the summer.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said he and some colleagues on the Banking Committee would try to amend the legislation to add a stand-alone consumer agency outside the Fed or any other banking regulatory body.

"There's quite a bit of disappointment with the Fed," Reed said Wednesday. "I think the best approach is an independent entity."

The banksters and their obstructionist friends are at it again. It's time for us to pressure our Senators to look out for Main Street, not Wall Street.

Today, U.S. Judge Burton Lifland ruled that a proposed "money-in, money-out" formula to determine claims for the thousands hurt by Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. The ruling means, according to Reuters, that "investors' claims should be based on how much money they put into the firm minus how much they took out over the years."

The ruling is expected to be appealed, but it highlights the confusing nature of our protection laws. Tom pointed this pointed in the aforementioned Reuters article:

"The court's ruling underscores how weak and confusing our investor protection laws are today," said Tom Matzzie, president of Accountable America, a group pressing for deeper reform in the financial industry. "Very little has changed from before the Madoff frauds until today."