Bank Lawyer's Blog

Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

First, Bank of America issues a public pronouncement that it won't be selling many loans to Fannie Mae in the future, and instead of just shrugging it off and concentrating on ways to plug the gaping hole of taxpayer funds that are gushing out its backside, Fannie Mae feels compelled to respond like a pre-high schooler: "I broke up with you before you broke up with me!"

Last week, BofA disclosed it would no longer sell certain mortgages to Fannie Mae. The bank said a disagreement arose from a new mortgage repurchase policy with the GSE, which centered around mortgage insurance policies.

Fannie now tells HousingWire that abnormally long delays of repurchase claims at BofA brought into question whether the bank is acting in good faith to resolve toxic loans written by it and Countrywide, which was acquired in 2008. After some time, Fannie said it had to act.

"We were the one that decided not to renew the lender agreement," Fannie CFO Susan McFarland said in an interview with HousingWire Tuesday. "There was a precipitous drop in BofA's ability to appropriately resolve repurchase requests in a timely manner."

Susan then stuck out her tongue, whirled around, and stomped off.

So there!

The giant black hole of loss just announced that it lost a whopping $2.4 billion in the fourth quarter and wants the US taxpayer to cough up another $4.6 billion. I can see why they're desperate to collect as much as they can from everyone's (and by "everyone," we include ourselves) favorite whipping boy in the way of loan repurchases (apparently on the theory that if a loan goes bad, you can't simply blame it on the economy if someone forgot to date an employment verification form). Still, there's something unseemly about feeling compelled to engage in a pisssy little cat fight when you're a cat tied in a burlap sack, and your cheesed-off owner is about to drop you off Niagara Falls.

You'd think that your attention might be better focused elsewhere.

Then again, you'd think ours would be, as well.

The FDIC's Not Tough Enough?

Pravda Rueters reporter Philip Shishkin is bent out of shape over the gross injustice of the FDIC actually settling with some defendants in D&O litigation it's commenced without crushing those folks like grapes in a vat being stomped on by Roseanne Barr. Speaking specifically about a lawsuit against two former senior executives of the failed First National Bank of Nevada, Phil's steamed that the FDIC settled with the defendants for $20 million each, and agreed to pursue the collection of the judgment against the D&O carrier rather than the individuals.

Last year, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation sued two former senior executives of the defunct bank for alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, hoping to recover nearly $200 million in losses that it tied directly to those executives' decisions. The two men denied wrongdoing and settled for $40 million.

But they didn't pay a dime.

Instead, the federal agency - which is better known as a regulator that seizes control of failing banks and provides deposit insurance for consumers than for its prosecutorial endeavors - is still fighting in court to collect that money from Catlin Group Ltd., a Lloyd's insurance syndicate. Catlin provided an equivalent of malpractice insurance to First National's executives, but the insurer denied liability for the executives' alleged mistakes.

[...]

Concerns about whether the FDIC's strategy isn't aggressive enough in such cases at least partly echo criticism levied at other regulators and enforcement agencies for being too lenient.

Over the past 18 months, the FDIC has filed 22 lawsuits targeting personal finances of former executives, their insurance policies, and sometimes their spouses' assets, in an attempt to claw back some of the money, and to deter reckless banking practices in the future.

Of the lawsuits filed so far, none has gone to trial yet, and three have been settled. A look at the three deals suggests the FDIC is prepared to accept a fraction of the alleged damages as a settlement while some former executives deny wrongdoing and escape significant financial responsibility for bank failures.

The FDIC is not in the business of satisfying the revenge fantasies of bank haters by trying to squeeze blood from turnips. Instead, it's tasked by law with recovering the maximum amount of money it can from sources that actually possess money. Therefore, settling with the individual officers, obtaining a judgment, and pursuing claims against the insurance carrier before the applicable limitation periods run out is actually smart move. You go where the money is, not where the "pound of flesh" might be, if financial recovery, not personal vindictiveness, is your goal. Of course, objective facts aren't going to impede a predetermined, ideologically-based narrative of "lenient regulators" and "a corrupt system" from running its course, are they?

To me, Shishkin fatally undermines the credibility of his proposition when he trots two "experts" who are hardly unbiased.

But some critics, including a prominent senator, have faulted the agency for settling for too little and for failing to set precedents that could deter bankers in the future.

"Their recoveries should be much greater, and they should never allow a CEO to walk away with the idea that crime pays," says William Black, who as litigation director for an agency later folded into the FDIC, filed many of the hundreds of government's lawsuits against executives resulting from the savings-and-loan crisis of the 1980s.

Once again, some reporter revivifies the corpse of Bill Black and lets the zombie rant like your crazy uncle. I'm not going over the same well-plowed ground again, but if you want to know what Bill Black's all about, read previous posts here and here. In my personal opinion, he's got zero credibility on what the FDIC should or should not do today in D&O litigation. As to alleging that the defendants committed a "crime," perhaps Professor Black might want to brush up the law of libel.

Just as egregious is holding up Senator Carl Levin as a "prominent senator" whose criticism of the FDIC ought to be accorded serious respect. This is an intellectually dishonest clown who alleged recently that critics of Dodd-Frank are only trying to protect Wall Street. Referring to a settlement last December with former Wamu executives, Levin waxed hyperbolic.

Sen. Carl Levin, whose subcommittee's investigation of the financial crisis included a scathing chapter on WaMu, said the settlement "shows again how bank executives can beat the system."

Beat the system? The system worked. The FDIC came, it saw, it sued, it settled. It collected what it thought it could get under the circumstances. None of these yahoos seems to realize that when the article notes "the defendants denied any wrongdoing," that means the FDIC has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, in a court of law, that the defendants were negligent or even grossly negligent. The FDIC has the burden of proof, not the defendants. Unlike a trial in the press. Litigation is a often a crap shoot, and it's expensive, since the FDIC needs to hire outside law firms to pursue these cases. The FDIC puts on the green eye shade, calculates the odds dispassionately, and runs the numbers. Unlike either Black or Levin, it did so in possession of the facts.

Which is all as it should be in a system run by people who have a grip on reality.

I Can See Stupid People From My Back Porch

While many snark-meisters on both sides of the political spectrum claim Sarah Palin is the biggest airhead from America's biggest (in terms of land mass) state, my vote goes to Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski. She recently introduced legislation that would require loan servicers who are presented with a short sale offer by a borrower to respond to the offer in 75 days...or else.

The servicer would have to answer with an approval, denial or request to extend the response period up to 21 days. The companies could also approve the short sale subject to certain changes.

Homeowners would receive $1,000 each time the lender or servicer fails to respond, along with other "appropriate relief," according to the requirements of the bill.

"What we have here is a failure to communicate," Murkowski said in a statement. "Why don't we make it easier for Americans trying to participate in the housing market, regardless of whether the answer is 'yes,' 'no' or 'maybe?'"

Murkowski's inclusion of "maybe" was either an inept interpretation of the bill's alternative of a counteroffer on different terms than those proposed by the borrower, or she's enamored of actress Rebecca DeMornay, who, as a call girl named "Lana" in the 1983 movie "Risky Business," uttered the famous line "Yes. No. Maybe." in reply to a question with which both prostitutes and politicians should be well familiar. Either way, "yes" and "maybe" aren't what borrowers are most likely to hear from a servicer who's having a hard time finding his or her own posterior in the disorganized maze of confusion that constitutes many large mortgage servicing operations, much less someone in authority who's going to make a quick decision to take a loss.

Faced with a fine for not answering within 75 days, I predict the default answer will be "NO."

So many critically important issues face this nation and our leaders focus on useless twaddle like this. Not surprisingly, one of the co-sponsors of the bill is Massachusetts's favorite RINO, Scott Brown, who's apparent strongest attribute for re-election is the fact he's not Liz Warren.

Overdraft Fees "Disproportionate Impact"

Last Wednesday's post on the CFPB's opening salvo against overdraft programs generated some interesting correspondence. One banking lawyer, who requested anonymity (apparently on the theory that if the CFPB doesn't know your name, they can't kidnap your kids and hold them hostage until you shut up), shared the following observations about what he thinks the CFPB is up to:

Looks to us like the angle the CFPB will take on overdrafts is disparate impact under "Fair Lending".

"The CFPB inquiry is focused on transaction re-ordering to increase consumer costs, missing or confusing information, misleading marketing materials, and the disproportionate impact of overdraft fees on low-income and young consumers."(emphasis added)

This fits in conveniently with the dismissal of the City of St. Paul’s appeal of its SCOTUS case, originally due to be argued this week (well done article attached), which focused on whether there really is “disparate impact” grounds for a claim under “Fair Lending”. The press release by the City specifically notes that the City withdrew its appeal because "a victory could substantially undermine important civil rights enforcement throughout the nation."

"But it was clear that the scope of the decision at the Supreme Court could potentially impede our other efforts to protect people from predatory, discriminatory practices," [Mayor] Coleman said. Matthew Engel, an attorney representing some of the landlords involved in the lawsuit, said he understands the city's reasoning. "They basically could have overturned 40 years of civil rights case law," Engel said. The landlord respondents in the case did not oppose the city withdrawing its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, since it leaves them with a win at the 8th U.S. Circuit Court.”

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_19938569

It would seem likely to me that DoJ, HUD and the FDIC (which is at the forefront of disparate impact allegations) placed a good bit of pressure, and maybe some incentives, on the City to withdraw its appeal. Perhaps even the CFPB needed this result in order to launch the crusade de jour on overdraft fees. Seems that statistics may play an important role in future financial regulation. Appropriate (sarc1) since they were so helpful with CDO’s, credit ratings, FICO scores, etc. But they are more flexible than lies and damn lies. (sarc2)

I don't necessarily subscribe to the conspiracy theory, but nothing would surprise me any longer when it comes to the nanny state gravy train that's been rolling down the tracks the last several years. Moreover, as Hunter S. Thompson intoned, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."

As to "disparate impact," I think my correspondent has hit the nail squarely on the head. By the way, that was a nail I missed while focusing on all the screwing of banks the CFPB seems hell-bent on pursuing.

Other correspondents pointed out Richard Cordray's public utterances that impact "unfairness" or "abuse," which are expected to be potent weapons in the CFPB's arsenal as it launches preemptive strikes on those who would "trick" consumers into thinking that they understood overdrafts when, as we all understand by now, only Washington , D.C.-based bureaucrats really understand what's "fair" and what's not.

The bureau will request data from banks, and input from the public on how the ordering of transactions affects how much consumers pay, the agency said in the statement. Banks have sometimes debited customers’ accounts not in the order of the transactions, but with the highest amount first, so as to overdraw the account as quickly as possible and incur fees and interest.

The agency will also examine the quality of information consumers receive on overdraft programs, [and] bank marketing campaigns on overdrafts..., the bureau said.

Finally, the bureau is seeking feedback on a sample “penalty fee box” that could appear on checking account statements and state what fees consumers pay.

Overdraft programs: is it too early to add them to the endangered species list?

Tweet Me A Tale Of Overdrafts

The CFPB today launched the start of what could end up being a campaign to do away with overdraft protection programs. First, the CFPB sent out an e-mail to various "consumers" (some of whom are compliance officers with banks, it turns out), that asks consumers "to share" with the CFPB their thoughts on overdraft programs. Here's an excerpt:

Today, we're beginning an inquiry into checking account overdraft practices. As we do, we want to know more about how well consumers like you understand these practices.
 
Technology gives consumers more ways than ever to access their checking accounts. But that also means more - and easier - ways to overdraw those accounts. Banks often allow these overdraft purchases, but they assess a fee for each one. Because it's so easy to do, some people don't realize they're overdrawing. In addition, many people may not even realize they've opted into these fees on debit card purchases and ATM withdrawals.

[...]

We're hoping you'll share your answer on Twitter or Facebook so people can see that other people have similar experiences.
 
Sometimes, overdraft coverage and fees are automatic, like when you pay for something with a check or make an online bill payment. But your bank or credit union can't charge you for overdrafts on ATM or point-of-sale debit card transactions unless you have opted in. Knowing your status -- whether you have debit overdraft protection -- allows you to decide what is best for you.
 
We want to hear what you have to say about overdraft fees. We hope you'll share your status on Twitter or on Facebook. Your input will help us as we examine whether debit overdraft practices work for consumers. 

[...]

Regardless of how you tell us, it takes just a few seconds, and it will help us as we begin our examine overdraft products.

Oh Yeah, Baby! 140-character "Tweets" and Facebook status updates! When I seek scientific polling, I don't bother with also-rans like Gallup. I take whatever random sampling of snark folks with too much time on their hands and access to "The Internets" have to offer up. Especially when it "helps us as we begin our examine overdraft products." I guess it might have been better if the e-mail hadn't been drafted by Sofia Vergara.

As one community banking wag observed, "As if overdrafts hadn't already been beaten to a pulp by class action attorneys and the federal banking regulators." Hey, you can never get too much of a good thing, right? And when it comes to taking good care of consumers while simultaneously administering wedgies to bankers, nothing says "lovin'" like something from Liz Warren's oven.

Also today, the CFPB posted a "consumer advisory" on its web site on bank overdrafts. It covers some of the basics, including the astounding revelation that a consumer "can choose not to have debit overdraft." The consumers who rely on overdrafts to fund their between-paychecks needs might find that tidbit critically unhelpful.

However, the CFPB also warns consumers of the hidden danger of overdrafts: the fact that overdraft programs are designed to suck consumers into a black hole of insolvency and despair from which none will emerge.

For most banks, the overdraft fee is a fixed amount regardless of the amount of the transaction. You can incur several overdraft fees in a single day. This means that your $4 cup of coffee can end up costing you $35 and a small pack of gum can cost you another $35 all in the same day. That can be more than some consumers can bear.

The hyperbole of the foregoing can be more than some of the rest of us can bear. One commenter to the CFPB's post puts it succinctly.

How about a more even-handed or conservative message.  $4 cup of coffee that costs $35 or a pack of gum that costs $35.  You really think that this is normal behavior for the vast majority of consumers?  How about some personal responsibility rather than babysitting and handholding the minority that cry "poor me" when it is their own fault to begin with! 

How about requiring a financial management class for every high school student beginning in 9th grade, one every year, to teach them the basics of banking and financial plannng? 

Just another gov't agency to spend limited middle class tax dollars to protect the mindless minority.

Personal responsibility rather than babysitting? Perish the thought! Babysitting is the CFPB's raison d'être.

Today, overdrafts. Tomorrow? The nefarious practice of banks charging interest on consumer loans. Sure, it's "technically legal", but we all know that "abuse" is in the eye of the beholder who understands what's in the best interests of consumers when they do not.

Hanging On Every (Concealed) Word

Yesterday's post on United Western Bank's litigation against the OCC/OTS/FDIC trifecta generated a lot of email. One pointed me to Robert Barba's article in the American Banker (paid subscription required). Barba discusses the case's "plot twists."

In June, the judge granted the FDIC's request to be removed as a defendant. In July, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency replaced the OTS after those agencies merged. The OCC, FDIC, United Western executive team and its lawyers declined to comment for this story.

The tension between the parties intensified in the fall, as the executives sought from regulators as highly detailed an account of the administrative record as possible and accused the OCC of withholding information. The regulator spent months arguing that correspondence between the OTS and the FDIC involving their deliberative processes were privileged and cannot be made public.

February has been a particularly active month in the court fight.

On Feb. 9, Judge Amy Berman Jackson ordered the OCC to provide the executives with the FDIC correspondence. The FDIC then intervened in the case to protect the documents that the agency deems to be privileged. On Feb. 15, Jackson ordered the FDIC to either let the OCC release the documents or provide them to her in private. The FDIC is now proposing to release the documents to the executives, but under a protective order that would keep them from being made public, according to court filings.

He also discusses the regulators' contention that public disclosure of their discussions could have a "chilling effect" on the willingness of regulators to be open with one another in the future. Many of my correspondents think that would be an excellent turn of events. "Chilling" is what some of them want to see, along the lines of what happened to the French army in its retreat from Moscow in the winter of 1812.

Another correspondent has been plowing through the publicly available documentation, including copies of correspondence, and is convinced that "the government is hiding something." There's no question about that, but whether it's because there's a smoking gun under the covers or just a whole bushel of ineptitude, we'll have to wait to see. This correspondent states that the facts read like a novel.

Another correspondent agrees with that assessment: "Bleak House, the Banking Edition," she proposed. Or something like that.

Bank litigation: who knew it could be so gripping?

Bank Western: Still Standing

It's been six months since Western United Bank defeated a motion of the OTS (now OCC) to dismiss the bank's lawsuit against the regulator for placing the bank into an FDIC receivership last year. Since then, the bank has been attempting (vainly, but gamely) to get the OCC to cough up a complete administrative record of the deliberations that were undertaken by the regulators in making their decision to put the bank out of business in the midst of what the bank contends was likely to be a successful capital raising effort that would have permitted to the bank to remain open.

As is totally unsurprising to those of us who've spent our careers on the other side of no man's land from federal bank regulatory agencies, the OCC has been stonewalling. The OCC has claimed, on behalf of itself and the FDIC, that the documents sought by the plaintiff are privileged and should not be produced. The federal district judge handling the case has been tearing down that wall, brick by brick. On February 9, 2012, the court ordered the OCC to spew forth the requested record, so the court (and the rest of us, we hope) can see whether or not the OTS had legitimate grounds to close down the bank and appoint the FDIC as receiver. In the latest twist, the FDIC itself has intervened in an attempt to keep certain documents that might aid the claims of the plaintiff from seeing the light of day.

You get a pretty good idea of what's been happening from a filing last week made by the plaintiff's attorneys in response to the FDIC's attempt to intervene in the case in order to prevent the court from pulling up the window shade and letting in some light. You can read all fourteen pages, as I did. For those who don't geek out on this stuff, here are some highlights:

The court ordered the OCC to produce documents by March 7, 2012, ruling that either they weren't privileged or, if they were, the privilege was overridden in this case. After that ruling, the FDIC intervened, asking the court to over rule itself. Plaintiff's counsel alleges that the FDIC "still seeks to withhold several pieces of relevant information from the Bank, including a critical memorandum on the Bank, agendas, an email, and certain portions of Office of Thrift Supervision ('OTS') Regulatory Profiles." The bank wants all of the documentation produced so that the court has a complete administrative record when it holds against the OTS/OCC/FDIC decides whether or not to overturn the seizure of the bank.

There exist some technical legal arguments that are interesting to bank lawyers but might cause the eyes of laypeople to glaze over, including whether or not the documents sought are relevant, whether or not they are privileged, the extent of that (qualified) privilege, whether the documents are "factual" or "deliberative," and "yada, yada, yada." The bottom line for the plaintiffs is that the judge has already ruled on all essential points, so what we have here is not a failure to communicate, but a failure to comply. Although the plaintiff's counsel doesn't explicitly mention it, the next stop on that train's run is the city of "Sanctions." Judges don't like it when they issue an order and a party says, "I'm not through arguing with you yet, your holiness."

One of my favorite arguments that has been made by the agencies in this case is the "chilling effect" it would have on regulators if their deliberations are open to the light of day. I understand that concern. P.J. O'Rourke put the problem well in regard to the revelations of investigative journalists:

I am a journalist and, under the modern journalist's code of Olympian objectivity (and total purity of motive), I am absolved of responsibility. We journalists don't have to step on roaches. All we have to do is turn on the kitchen light and watch the critters scurry.

I'd tell the regulators to just buy industrial strength sunglasses and SPF 50 sunscreen and welcome to the world inhabited by those of us who have actual accountability for our decision-making. Sometimes hindsight's the bear that you eat, and sometimes it's the bear that eats you.

Another point that brought a raised eyebrow (I can still raise the one not frozen by Botox) was that the FDIC had apparently redacted factual information from some of the documents it did produce. If a fact's a fact, you can't redact. I think Johnnie Cochran said that.

There are a number of other issues that might pique the interest of some readers. To me, the mere fact that a year following the seizure, and six months after the judge told the regulators to produce a complete administrative record, the regulators are still playing "Hide The Salami" with the plaintiff and the court, gives the non-litigator class a flavor of what it's like to engage in a lawsuit with a party that, basically, is not accountable. Who's picking up the tab of the OCC and the FDIC as they stiff-arm their way through hectares of scorched earth? Why, that would be the very institutions they regulate, through their assessments. I suppose Congress could pass a law that clipped a few tail feathers, but that's as likely as Newt Gingrich referring to himself in the first, rather than the third, person.

The best chance the plaintiff's have--that any person really has who doesn't have unbelievably substantial political stroke--is the federal district court judge hearing this lawsuit. At some point, she can impose some pain for not producing what she's ordered be produced. Even that pain, however, will be subject to being appealed, again and again, on every issue that creative minds can concoct, up and down the appellate court ladder, for years and years, until, finally, everyone but the plaintiff will have forgotten what all the sturm und drang was about in the first place.

Nevertheless, I don't get the feeling this plaintiff is going anywhere soon, and we'll be waiting for the next shoe to drop.

Update: Windy City and Windy Lawmakers

On the theme of "The Beat(ing) Goes On," we note the following:

First, the FHFA, parent of insolvent Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, continues to slug it out with the City of Chicago over that city's requirement that lenders who have not yet foreclosed on vacant homes are nevertheless responsible for registering with the city, paying a fee, and maintaining the property (or facing fines). Freddie this week started requiring servicers of loans subject to the law to pay the fees under protest or not be reimbursed. As reported by Housing Wire, the effect of this battle is to slow down the already glacial pace of foreclosures and OREO disposition in the city. As to pro-consumer types who think that's a good thing, I remind you that if you're a taxpayer, it's not a good thing. As anyone who hasn't lived in a cave for the last few years understands, the American taxpayers are stuck with the tab for losses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If you're not a taxpayer, then it's a problem for the rest of working stiffs.

On another matter, Congressman Darrell Issa has apparently uncovered documents that directly link former Countrywide founder Angelo ("The Tan Man") Mazilo to the "Friends of Angelo" loan program that benefited members of Congress with favorable home loan terms.

Issa is working with Mozilo's attorneys at Irell & Manella to schedule questioning over the program, according to a letter provided to HousingWire. Since 2008, Issa pushed the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to investigate the "Friends of Angelo" Countrywide program and uncover which lawmakers allegedly received heavily discounted mortgages in return for access.

[...]

"Documents obtained by the committee show that former Countrywide Chief Executive Officer Angelo Mozilo personally referred government officials and other individuals positioned to benefit the company into the VIP program, known internally as 'Friends of Angelo,'" according to the letter.

As we noted a couple of months ago, this is incredibly old news that, based on the complete lack of ethics sanctions so far, is unlikely to to lead anywhere other than to a pile of political hay in an election year.

Certainly, we expect an ethics committee than ran off the rails trying to investigate Maxine Waters' more obviously questionable activities to wake up and look deeply into whether, six years ago, four House members got their discount points waived or an interest rate that even Warren Buffet couldn't garner. Of course, we also expect Bill Clinton to swear off sex and enter a Franciscan friary next week.

We note that Clinton is still nowhere near any Franciscan friars.

Hives: For Bankers As Well As For Bees

Leslie Kwoh had a relatively disconcerting prognosis for young investment bankers in today's The Wall Street Journal, and that prognosis was that a great many of them would suffer the tortures of the damned.

A University of Southern California researcher found insomnia, alcoholism, heart palpitations, eating disorders and an explosive temper in some of the roughly two dozen entry-level investment bankers she shadowed fresh out of business school.

Every individual she observed over a decade developed a stress-related physical or emotional ailment within several years on the job, she says in a study to be published this month.

Wait a minute: was she talking about bankers or Demi Moore?

No, it was investment bankers.

During their first two years, the bankers worked on average 80 to 120 hours a week, but remained eager and energetic, she says. They typically arrived at 6 a.m. and left around midnight.

By the fourth year, however, many bankers were a mess, according to the study. Some were sleep-deprived, blaming their bodies for preventing them from finishing their work. Others developed allergies and substance addictions. Still others were diagnosed with long-term health conditions such as Crohn's disease, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis and thyroid disorders.

Not only that, but a few of them actually lost their moral compasses and became consumed by dreams of greed beyond those of even Croesus. Imagine that!

Oh, the humanity!

By the sixth year, the participants, now in their mid-30s, had split into two camps: the 60% who remained "at war" with their bodies, and the remaining 40% who decided to prioritize their health, meaning they paid more attention to sleep, exercise and diet and set limits on how much they allowed work to consume them.

Roughly one-fifth of the bankers left the profession, she adds. For fear of being exposed, the banks prohibited her from detailing the exact size of the study group, attrition rate and precise start date.

By the eigth year, most of the survivors had inked a contract with Old Scratch and, for periods ranging from a few weeks to a few decades, enjoyed peace of mind, the erstwhile ministrations of Brazilian supermodels, and boxcar loads of blow. At the end of the tunnel was an eternity of Hellfire and damnation, but even that price paled in comparison to the agony of the first few years of "bankerhood."

And the Occupy Wall Street crowd is envious of Wall Street? They ought to thank their lucky stars they aren't cut out for this particular "lifestyle."

The National Rant-time

I know readers expect that on "Hump Day", this blog will drill down to the core of the burning issues of bank law and mine the nuances of arcane legal minutiae until your eyeballs revolve like pinwheels staked to ground at the midpoint of a wind farm. If we can't bore the socks off of you, we've got no business blogging about bank law.

Well, we're going to deviate from our customary game plan tonight. No, it's not because Kate Upton graced the cover of the annual Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue released today, although that normally would be sufficient cause to distract us from our appointed rounds. Rather, it was The Onion's airing of the President's tongue lashing of the American public for being such a bunch of whining wimps. Rather than try to explain it, just see for yourself.

In The Know Panel Analyzes Obama's Furious, Profanity-Filled Rant At Nation