Yet More House Finance Hearing Geithner Liveblog
If I understand the rules Barney Frank laid down on Tuesday, the members who waited patiently but never got a chance to ask questions on Tuesday (people like Alan Grayson) get to go first.
You can follow along at CSPAN3 or the committee stream.
Here is Geithner’s statement.
Frank: When Geithner and Bernanke here on Tuesday, these members were here when they had to leave: After myself and Sub Chair. (Reads a list of name, including Grayson), they will be the first ones to ask. Systemic risk. Long had ability to wind down banks. Do we need authority to regulate excessive leverage? Innovations that have no value die of their own weight. But innovations that have values, thrive. By definition there are no rules. Securitization a set of innovations on par with earlier set. Greatly magnifies value of money. Problems when there are no rules.
Bachus: I have been informed AIG trying to force creditors to accept 70% reduction. Foreign bank paid dollar for dollar in bailout. Essential that any new regime not rely on taxpayer funding. What was released yesterday relies on taxpayer funding. This is unacceptable and will perpetrate moral hazard.
Kanjorski: We need to do this before these entities are close to death. Need to do this to prevent unknown calamities down the road. We must include regulation in the resolution authority. And we must regulate insurance–which is only regulated at state level. Particularly reinsurance.
Garrett: In light of Chinese and Russian calls for reserve currency, you might want to clarify your remarks [not sure if this was directed to Barney or Tim]. What are roles of current regulators. Federal reserve created to avoid asset bubbles, but they do. Forgive me if I’m still a skeptic if you say systemic regulator will prevent this from ever happening again. We will only be encouraging that it will happen again.
Geithner: [Note, this is NOT precisely what was in his statement] Here’s the list he just gave:
- First, we need to establish a single entity with responsibility for systemic stability over the major institutions and critical payment and settlement systems and activities.
- Second, we need to establish and enforce substantially more conservative capital requirements for institutions that pose potential risk to the stability of the financial system, that are designed to dampen rather than amplify financial cycles.
- Third, we should require that leveraged private investment funds with assets under management over a certain threshold register with the SEC to provide greater capacity for protecting investors and market integrity.
- Fourth, we should establish a comprehensive framework of oversight, protections and disclosure for the OTC derivatives market, moving the standardized parts of those markets to central clearinghouse, and encouraging further use of exchange-traded instruments.
- Fifth, the SEC should develop strong requirements for money market funds to reduce the risk of rapid withdrawals of funds that could pose greater risks to market functioning.
- And sixth, we need to establish a stronger resolution mechanism that gives the government tools to protect the financial system and the broader economy from the potential failure of large complex financial institutions.
Scott: As we rush to save our economy, we do not suffocate our economy. AIG problem not insurance. [tell that to their reinsurance side] But here we come with the insurance companies. Regulated by states.
[Bring back Glass Steagall!!!]
TG: Costs of weaknesses and gaps. Multiple regulatory bodies. Just didn’t work. Does not mean we should take away state insurance regulators and bank regulators.
Scott: Rein in hedge funds. They say they are regulated. How will this change where we are now?
TG: Province of SEC.
Campbell: 6-1 leverage ratio on bailout plan. A lot of the problems we had, too much leverage. Encourages more risk taking.
TG: What FDIC suggested. Substantial less than banks use today. We think leaves taxpayer much better protected. Stretch taxpayer resources prudently.
Campbell: Open to less leverage?
TG: [doesn’t really answer]
Campbell: Receivership authority. Asking now prior to comprehensive reform.
TG: In context of proposals for more accountability. They need to be viewed together. We’ll work with committee on best legislative vehicle. Understand can’t do this piecemeal.
Campbell: Why move on this separately. Are you expecting additional non-bank failures.
TG: [Again no real answer] It would be in the interest of the country to make sure we’ve got broader rules. Less costly for the taxpayer.
Campbell: Fixed income in general?
TG: Over the counter, where there’s been huge amount of standardization. Moved into clearinghouse.
Green: Too big to fail is the right size to regulate. Moral hazard, paralysis of analysis. What happend to long term capital. Prevented us from doing analysis that would have prevented AIG.
[Jeebus. Congressman, do you have a question?]
Frank: Foxes don’t want us to protect the henhouse–I’ve been watching television some and I think that’s right.
Lance: I wish you and President best. [cue Rush to beat him up] Do CDS require statutory change here and in the world.
TG: Looking at existing authority. Don’t want multiple global institutions. Don’t want balkanized system at global level.
Lance: My concern is that money will go to those centers of commerce. Regarding Money Market Mutual Funds which I thought were safe. You indicated SEC should strengthen. Does this also have to occur in London or Asia.
TG: We could do a lot here, but we’ll look at what needs to be done elsewhere too.
Ellison: Stress test?
TG: Resiliant diverse financial system. Parts have capital. Assessment is run by fed, not treasury, potential losses might face in event of deeper recession. Able to provide capital. Most institutions are going to want to raise capital. Govt will be there with capital if necessary. Giving a market will make it easier to raise private capital.
Ellison: Capital requirements for systemic firms.
TG: No capital requirements for hedge funds. Large institutions held to set of requirements. If they get big enough then regulated like banks.
Ellison: Consumer protection.
TG: I can’t address it today.
Ellison: Warren’s CPSB for finance.
TG: One of the things we’re looking at.
Ellison: Authority over systemic?
TG: FDIC would have central role. As now, banks and thrifts, concurrence of Treasury is necessary for a range of actions.
Ellison: Why not independent?
TG: Complicated set of checks and balances.
TG: Expand role FDIC would play.
Marchant: New PPIP. I am generally in favor. Concerns PIMCO and blackrock and several of the large money managers.
TG: Not yet, we haven’t made those judgments yet.
Marchant: Given ratios of leverage, actual investors have more skin in the game than proposed. If they just take hedge fund partners out and AMerica put their money in and management fees, not adequate incentive. They don’t have enough skin in the game.
TG: Want them to have interests aligned with ours. Better way of protecting taxpayers.
Marchant: Concept I agree with. Equity. Capital. Enough to plug hole? Allow response time between bank and FDIC. You may end up freezing the whole system.
TG: 6 month window. Throughout that time, they can sell assets into these type of new funds. Make a choice of what mix of asset sales.
Marchant: Will market have ability to look back and say, will regulator say "this sale can’t take place. Too devastating to FDIC. Does the FDIC have any function in saying this sale we can’t bear the loss of."
TG: Requires more thought and care responding to. Walk you through in more detail.
Frank: Clearly calls for cooperation of all regulators. At his suggestion will be consulting with minority with all of those who have a piece of action.
Klein: Join gentleman from TX about markets overseas. Fully support integrated system. Every day that passes, more money being spent, less confidence in place. Working quickly to get this organized. Criticism that sometimes no bid contracts used. Certain organizations given priority. Open competitive bidding process. A lot of qualified companies around the United States.
TG: Confidence in basic integrity.
Klein: Bonuses. Very important that these contractors, yes there will be fees, but the taxpayers have to feel there’s an upside. Taxpayers feel it’s on our dime.
TG: Agree completely. A dollar of taxpayer alongside private investment.
Klein: Very clearly articulated every step. Too big too fail. Smaller banks can’t get TARP. Other companies get huge check on click of a dime. Antitrust built on consolidation. Antitrust not enforced on level people would like to see. Anticompetitive activity, disaster we have to put money into. There has to be a definition of how we avoid getting too big to fail.
TG: Nation of 8-9000 banks. Much stronger bc of smaller banks. Access to capital. Hold to stronger standards on investments. Effective antitrust enforcement. Share of deposits that any single institution can have.
[not answering the question]
Bachus: Klein, too big to fail, you want to get away.
TG: I do.
Bachus: Draft legislation authorizes FDIC to spend unlimited amount of taxpayer cash to unwind systemically important fund. Isn’t that what taxpayers are so upset about?
TG: Who bears losses, important. Have to look at how costs are shared. Right now smaller banks forced to absorb disproportionate cost to protect system from larger institutions. Like to put in place fee structure that is more fair.
Bachus: Wouldn’t fairer be not prop up with taxpayer money?
TG: Cheaper for taxpayer over time for govt to take some risk in preventing greater cost.
Bachus: Is there really no alternative than saddling future generations for the mistakes of a few institutions? "Such sums as are necessary" is too open ended. Billions went to foreign banks.
TG: Purpose of action to ensure they can make their commitments.
Bachus: Even if it was a few days. Allow them to not default. They have obligations to a lot of Americans: pensioners, municipalities, banks? How about obligations to banks now?
TG: I need to look at it and get back to you.
Bachus: What was paid off dollar for dollar, CDS.
Donnelly: If auto dealers aren’t working, nobody’s working. Floor plan loans. Could you tell us where they are?
TG: Working on it. Exploring range of options. Important, helpful as part of overall solution. Will be able to tell you in next couple of days.
Donnelly: If dealers can’t get floorplan financing, there’s no point to GM and Chrysler.
TG: Found something to do on supplier side. Want to take best shot.
Donnelly: Want to have innovations with value added. Naked credit default swaps. Do these naked swaps provide any value added or is it just gambling?
TG: My own sense is that banning NDS wouldn’t help. Too hard to distinguish. If we could find a way to separate out gamble from hedge.
Donnelly: To me those are just simple bets. Take money out of truck driver and waitress pockets to pay off bets on Wall Street. TO me, from the Midwest, on Main Street, it just seems like gambling.
TG: My feel is we don’t need to ban this.
Donnelly: Mutual funds allowed to participate. A chance for people to get back some of the money in programs as opposed to just hedge funds.
TG: Absolutely.
Garrett: Need for comprehensive regulator. If we had something like that in place prior to what happened to GSEs? Would they have done something different.
TG: GSEs allowed to build up huge exposure. Balance of moral hazard and constraints completely wrong. Like in many things it would have been better for it to happen sooner.
Garrett: Fed here to try to get that done, didn’t happen soon enough. Had we had it ten years ago, they could have taken action?
TG: Let me make a broader point. Across the broader system.
Garret: I’m just looking at that.
TG: More generally our country did not have means to prevent build up of risk.
Garrett: FDIC has a set class of people. Not a set class of people. Not so clear who it is we’re trying to protect. Doesn’t that create some perverse incentives? More moral hazard. We regulate hedge funds now. I don’t think we do. If hedge funds come into it. Don’t you say now we create a perverse incentive. Same GSE explicit guarantee which is now implicit?
TG: I agree, if a class that will get a guarantee, that will create a huge moral hazard. How we balance that. On the other hand, true that firms can develop to point where their fate can threaten systemic stability.
Garrett: Wind down, foreign subsidiaries. Might other countries look at that and say "we’re going to seize these assets here before the US does." Have to do that at exact same time.
TG: Don’t want to leave our country vulnerable bc of time it takes to develop these things globally.
Kilroy: Treasury at that time (Lehman) had no plan B. We’re scrambling. AIG bonus uproar did offend a sense of justice. What we need to hear a lot more is how this will help Main Street. How would this help them.
TG: More stable, much likely in future that a working family could be taken advantage of by mortgage broker.
Kilroy: One of issues that arose in terms of getting toxic assets was issue of pricing them. We could be overpricing. Windfall for hedge funds.
TG: Two concerns. Too generous to bank, and to investor. Both can’t be true.
[Huh?]
TG: Leaves investors getting more reward. Not going to do that. Leaves taxpayer better protected.
Break for vote. Will start a new thread.
geithner using “oversight” as an alibi for the new power grab? it’s so transparent. how is that going to end?
I wish they’d let the hecklers interrogate the witnesses. They have much better questions and MUCH better bulls**t detectors.
Boxturtle (I’m starting to think Geithner is going to survive this)
Never ceases to amaze me how awful the committee AV people are. Read your mic levels people! It’s a trillion dollar hearing.
They’re probably using 1950’s technology.
Boxturtle (even so, the A/V grunt from the local high school ought to be able to get better sound than this)
The dominant theme in Geithner’s regulatory approach, as I have heard, is to bring most of the financial system under government oversight. But it is important to remember that you can have all the oversight you want, but unless you have regulation, and more importantly regulators who regulate, then the same thing could happen again. As weak and deregulated as our financial and political leaderships made the financial system, it was the failure of our regulators to regulate with what tools remained to them that made our financial crisis inevitable.
The Fed, SEC and CFTC have been paper tigers for years. They were “Hear no evil, see no evil” organizations at precisely the time that a succession of bubbles, the most and biggest in our history, were happening right under their noses. They not only did nothing. They maintained that nothing was going on. The talk now is of aggressive regulation. But Obama’s choices to head the SEC (Schapiro) and the CFTC (Gensler) are relatively mild and pro-business in their stances.
As Geithner just said, we need better tools but just as important we need people who will use them. Given Geithner’s own obvious pro-banker tendencies, do any of us think this will happen?
Agree.
It’s a cultural issue that has pervaded DC, and showed up most obviously in Katrina, when it became clear what crony capitalism had done to public safety.
Iraq shows what crony capitalism does to war.
And the current meltdown is crony capitalism in the financial markets.
It appears that the civil service needs more respect, better pay, and more law enforcement and judicial backup. (Local, state, and federal levels from what I’ve seen.)
the 110th congress taught me an important lesson: oversight does not equal accountability.
Who is this smug, geeky-looking little shit sitting behind Geithner?
And by the way, I just called Frank’s office (again) to raise the issue of the 5-minute rule and was met with a condescending, “we know better than the great unwashed” attitude. I told the phone person that the hearings need to go into multiple days, that because the material is terribly complex the time constraints are unrealistic at best, and stupid at worst. “I’ll pass the message along” was the canned response. Yeah..that’ll happen – right after Mars collides with Barstow later this afternoon…
I was wondering the same thing, but when I googled smug, geeky-looking little shit, I got no hits.
And, it sure does take a lot of patience to sit through these things, doesn’t it?
Yes it does. It’s hard not to pull an Elvis on the picture tube…
“That’ll be enough of that shit…”
Al Green taking his five minutes to rant and say nothing.
He did say that he saw no foxes in the room.
Is Ms. Bachmann armed today?
Did she bring her mouth?
someone with the tech skills should glue Bachmann and Katherine’s heads together and spin that head around exorcist style.
Bachmann is about as two faced as they come. That Woman speaks with forked tongue
The pension-hedge fund connection is being brought up. Hedge funds are high risk. Pensions are supposed to be low risk. There is an obvious discrepancy between the missions of the two.
“paralysis of the analysis” I actually liked when he said. That the general public does not understand these “sophisticated” investments. That the public’s pensions should not be tied up in these “sophisticated” investments/scams/gambling.
Will Senator Dorgan ever have an opportunity to ask Geithner questions
So (Glass-Steagall) in this hearing (Glass-Steagall), I wonder (Glass-Steagall) if anyone is going (Glass-Steagall) to bring up Glass-Steagall?
It is rather the 800 lb. regulation in the room, isn’t it?
Calling Senator Byron Dorgan
This is what fdl does better than any other existing blog – live blog the stress points of our democracy, like trials, committee hearings. And emptywheel is the best of the best.
Indeed.
Indeed!,
Thank you Marcy for doing this!
You likely don’t know how much you are truly appreciated by all of us out here.
Oh and why does Geithner continue to violate the law in not pursuing PCA (Prompt Corrective Action), i.e. if the government sees failing banks, it is required to intervene and resolve them?
Barney Frank – “no agency authority will be impinged upon” Gawd forbid we should have some turf wars. Agencies, no matter how incompetent, should come first.
Ah, that’s because he thinks the fox is running the henhouse.
The way it looks to me is that it’s a foxhouse, with ‘henhousish’ decor and a few Hen Architectural Features to make it appear to be a henhouse.
In fact, it is a swank looking, pricey slaughterhouse in which hens pay for the privilege of being defeathered, and worse.
Operated by very self-aggrandizing, egotistical foxes who are clearly TheSmartestGuyzInTheRoom.
“who bares the losses”
Privatize the gains, socialize the losses…..hmmmmm even a peasant can figure this one out
As I said on the previous thread, I think this all comes down to one trillion dollar question: are we willing to pay $2.00 (or probably $5.00) to save already-failed-institutions just because we are committed to an ideology that requires these failures to be successful, or can we just pay $1.00 to acknowledge reality and move on to a healthier, more inclusive economy. This whole proposal and debate is about alternatively bad ways of doing the former. Nobody’s advanced a coherent proposal for doing the latter.
We have given $180 billion to AIG and their market value is well under $10 billion. Our government is leveraging at least 18:1 and that’s not even considering that it is borrowed money!!!
The peasants need to learn their place.
The real owners/ George Carlin “they own you” “they own everything”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RhIxxvYtRE
change you can believe in/…prolly farthings of brass
Unlikely. These folks don’t seem to know their brass from a hole in the ground.
Boxturtle (Thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all week)
I would also ask Geithner if he proposes to bring CDSs under insurance regulation.
Aren’t CDSs just a way to make bad investments more justifiable to stockholders? If the investment is good, you shouldn’t need a CDS. And if it isn’t, you shouldn’t make it. If the idea is to remove excessive risk from the market, then shouldn’t the pseudo-insurance of CDSs be eliminated?
“naked” credit default swaps….what do fully clothed credit default swaps look like or do?”
Senator Dorgan on the Rachel Maddow show “restore portions of Glass Steagall”
He also said that we “nee a select committee of the U.S. Senate with subpoena power that gives us the narrative of what happened”
“we need a financial task force down at the Justice Dept working on these issures” right now
Dorgan “we need regulation its not a four letter word, we need effective regulation”
Enough of this , I’m getting a freaken headache !!
Who are the two guys behind Geithner?
Geithner munchkins.
Seriously, probably Treasury internal counsel or something…
Snap and Crackle
along with Glass-Steagall, two other items
that that allowed them to leverage at 45 to 1 ratios
and that that allowed them to throw off the shackles of having cash on hand to back up their ‘bets’
believe both were accomplished by a wave of Secty Paulson’s pen –
Geithner doesn’t want naked credit default swaps banned because it’s “terribly hard to do.”
“It’s hard. Hard work.”
BAH!
same shiite different day
Does this mean that we could also take out a life insurance policy on someone on Texas death row?
I wouldn’t really consider doing that because they might get out and be made enough to be impolite.
BTW, did y’all know WalMart has taken out insurance policies on (at least some of) it’s imployees.
Bizarre, huh? Makes you wonder if they do anything to speed their employees demise.
How about Geitner/W$ gets to keep their naked credit default swaps, and America gets to institute public administration of corporal punishment for financial sector crimes, up to and including execution by stoning.
Has he been talking to Evan Bayh? That sounds like the centrist senator’s reason for not allowing changes to bankruptcy law.
To ban them you set a date in the future, perhaps 6 months from the decision and from that time on they’re not legal. This allows time for current positions to begin to reflect the fact they won’t have NDSs in the future. As I recall it was just an OCC decision to allow them and one would think it could be rescinded any time.
Is there something I’m missing?
Geithner defends naked CDSs. Do we really need to go any further? This is bogus. Anything that Geithner has to say after this is bogus. What an idiot.
During the bailout hearings last fall I clearly remember Senator Harkin saying these CDS need to “go”
During RAchel Maddow’s interview with Senator Dorgan he called them “exotic financial instruments”
only the fat cats know how to use them and walk away with mill..billions
billionaires for bush
http://www.billionairesforbush.com/photos.php
tey are evil,and in a down market spell catastrophe
geithner says it’s too hard to distinguish between “legitimate hedges” and gambling (naked swaps?).
me: turn it over to the cftc and turn the cftc over to michael greenberger. don’t think he would have a problem with it since when he was at the cftc they did it all the time for commodities.
bull cripes. has he ever talked to an actual accountant? a legitimate hedge is one where the payout/cashflow structure of the hedge is matched, as close to one-on-one as possible, to an underlying series of cashflow streams from real fracking business activities. No evidence of such a match or of a good faith attempt to do such matching at the time the hedge was put in place (and there would be compliance documentation of this, everywhere this side of Madoff-land), and you have yourself a naked swap.
There’s a few billion models and algorithms that can help him figure it out, very effectively. I have a whole hard drive full of them under my desk.
What he’s really saying is that he doesn’t have or more likely doesn’t want the regulatory authority to seize the documents he needs to make that determination, and his buddies at the banks aren’t willing to produce the documentation voluntarily ’cause they’re in the fraud business.
This stuff makes me angry.
yup,and taxpayers are BEGINNING to open their eyes about it
.. and by the way, if there is documentation of the underlying (business or “real”) cashflow streams and that documentation turns out to have been falsified to justify the hedge, if that’s what Geithner’s really sayin’ (in other words, audit accountants can find no evidence that there’s a real underlying business there), then the solution is to unwind the whole thing, counterparties be darned, and drag the trader away in handcuffs. ’cause that would be illegal, even under current law, such as it is.
So, here’s a formula simple enough enough even for Geithner: seize the documentation. if the underlying cashflow documentation isn’t there, its a naked hedge, and deal with it accordingly. if the documentation is there and its out of whack with the contracted payout schedule of the hedge, then its a naked hedge, and deal with it accordingly. if the documentation is there and its matched, then its a real hedge. if the documentation is there and the real company’s treasurer says he’s never seen it before, then you arrest the trader as a terrist. Fairly simple.
hedge, if that’s what Geithner’s really sayin’ (in other words, audit accountants can find no evidence that there’s a real underlying business there
——————-
Madoff101
there is no there,there
If that’s the case, then we shouldn’t be having the debate at all. We should just be making arrests. And nationalizing the corporate criminal facilitators who averted their eyes while the fraud was being perpetuated.
Everything here assumes that we are dealing with legal gambling (uncovered and unmatched swaps), not with fraud. If they falsified evidence of a matching set of cashflows, then we’re talking about something completely different.. not naked swaps, but outright fraud. In other words, Nick Leeson. There is a difference, and there are different solutions to the two problems.
Seriously, this stuff isn’t anywhere near as complex as they’re making it out to be. Highschool algebra and basic corporate financial accounting. The Morgan Stanley training session for this stuff was about a day long.
house of cards,all fall down…Geitner props it up for a time
if only we could harness our outrage, i’m thinking it could be a serious source of alternative energy.
Scan through EW’s ‘GT: Did not really answer the question’ notes in this thread.
Underscores your point about the unbelievably dysfunctional format of the 5-minute rules this committee is using.
we’ve had effective hearings in years past, we could again. there is no need to reinvent the wheel – we could do it just like we’ve done it in the past. the fact that we do not, i take as a deliberate choice because these hearing are not meant to inform anyone let alone the public. they are meant manipulate the public and to gain political advantage.
watch George above “they own you”
There is something going on right now that could be an important model for the future. Obama is doing an electronic town hall where people submitted and voted on questions. Something like this could be expanded for committee meetings.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/openforquestions/
Town Hall
i know. i like that idea too.
it’s so frustrating to hear my president talk nonsense about something on which he is so obviously clueless.
I stand to applaud.
However, this does not appear to be sustainable.
We may create out own social realities, but the world of physical alterations doesn’t give two hoots.
LOL.
altogether now, we all jump on geithner’s naked cdss bs.
somebody needs to ask PBO this in his online town hall today!
banksters….please dont takeaway our favorite shinny goose that lays golden eggs
If it’s too hard for Timmeh, then Obama needs to appoint somebody else goddammit.
All the regulation and oversight in the world is not going to save us from a “system” that is broken. The financial system that is now “operating” is broken, it does not work, it is governed by greed and run by crooks. What we need is a living wage, less of the damned credit business, and less of the gigantic international corporations. With local business and a living wage we would all be a lot better off.
But big and growing Chinese banks (among other biggies like the Japanese) are the boogie men.
It’s not about us… not yet.
i didn’t understand this until recently, but the financial services industry is like the telco industry – a part of our MIC. and that, i think, is why we see some companies associated with our
poodlesallies treated as part of our MIC. it’s because they are.That needs to start with education so people can understand money, debt, and interest. I live in wisconsin so costs of living are lower but one can live comfortably on $25,000/year salary with no debt. It is not heaven but it isn’t the hardest thing ever either. To many people don’t seem to understand credit and interest until they are 10 years out of school and learn by having a mountain of debt. If this was stressed earlier and pre-debt taking on then I believe wealth creation would be a lot easier for the middle class.
If the gangster and bankster Dems and Repukes are going to try to fill our ethical void then we need to go to the drawing board to create a Party that can be trusted to really fill that void. We have less than two to four years, need to git crackin’.
time for me to reprise some old (not that old) geithner quotes. here’s one from 2007:
if anyone else wants to play this game, here’s a bunch of links to sources (speeches, previous statements before congress, etc):
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/…..ment-14637
The truth is there is no justification for equity backed CDSs. They aren’t a legitimate hedge. If Geithner wants a legitimate hedge, then he should tell investors to go out and buy regular insurance.
But it all goes to show just how in the bag for the financials Geithner is. He considers even naked swaps to be legitimate.
All of his talk about regulation reminds me of his and Bernanke’s invocations of transparency. They say it but they don’t mean it. It is all just something to keep the rubes quiet.
KABUKI 101 without the austere makeup
jesus fucking christ. what happened to my cspan3? obama is lecturing us on how to improve science education. he is so full of shit.
Committee adjourned to vote on floor will be back.
he just said universal healthcare,and single payer
oh, please tell me it was positive? (i turned it off) . if obama does a turnaround on this and starts pushing for a good single payer system i will be so impressed and happy. fingers crossed.
Eeep … the Cat’s out of the bag !
Nick Leeson should ask to have his convictions vacated…clearly what he was up to was small potatoes to what his bosses were doing. Think about it…the Execs of these companies are not only getting away with massive failures on schemes that make Leesons look like they were actually “good bets”, but are getting rewarded for “staying on” (except they aren’t, and are still getting bonuses).
Incroyable!
Anybody a little uneasy about making it more difficult for holders of mutual funds to redeem their funds in the future if (when) something like this happens again? Instead of the little people having access tho their money the gonifs retain possession thereby making a taxpayer bailout less necessary?
If this whole scheme is allowed to proceed as is we are definitely going to be revisiting this in my lifetime and I’m almost 59. The difference is the next time there will be no chance to fix it because (hopefully) the people being screwed will have the recent memory of what’s being done to them today.