Bank execs pinky swear to regulate themselves in the future

[The_pantless_hero]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100114/u ... 9195353200

Banking CEOs get hauled before Congressional committees and are grilled on why they fucked up and why we should believe they still arn't doing it. CEOs basically say "regulation was lax and it was the job of the companies management to regulate themselves and they failed. Also, please no more regulation." Seriously, who buys this shit? How many regulations were ever put in place because companies were ever able to regulate themselves? Why exactly should we not regulate them when they are obviously continuing to do the same thing they were doing previously? Some of them seem to want to point to the Federal Reserve and yell "plenty of regulation!" Given that an investigation basically for the Federal Reserve colluding with the banks is beginning, I don't seem to trust that that is limiting them any more than the SEC.

[Barringtonia]

CEOs basically say "regulation was lax and it was the job of the companies management to regulate themselves and they failed. Also, please no more regulation."

Did they really say that, I don't think so.

However, the bankers insisted that regulators played a role in the crisis, arguing that they failed to keep up with the proliferation of new, sophisticated financial products – such as mortgage-backed securities and credit insurance – and lacked authority to police the growing markets.

"In many instances, stronger regulation may have been able to prevent some of the problems," Dimon said in his prepared testimony.

Mack called for an umbrella regulating agency covering all aspects of the financial services industry, while Dimon said that in the future, policymakers must do a better job of identifying gaps in regulations left by the development of new financial instruments. "I don't think it's unique to the financial services," he said. "New products have problems."

But he added: "The solution is not to cap the size of financial firms… We need a regulatory system that provides for even the biggest banks to be allowed to fail, but in a way that does not put taxpayers or the broader economy at risk."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... y-mistakes

[Perendinate (Ancient)]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100114/us_time/08599195353200

Banking CEOs get hauled before Congressional committees and are grilled on why they fucked up and why we should believe they still arn't doing it. CEOs basically say "regulation was lax and it was the job of the companies management to regulate themselves and they failed. Also, please no more regulation." Seriously, who buys this shit? How many regulations were ever put in place because companies were ever able to regulate themselves? Why exactly should we not regulate them when they are obviously continuing to do the same thing they were doing previously? Some of them seem to want to point to the Federal Reserve and yell "plenty of regulation!" Given that an investigation basically for the Federal Reserve colluding with the banks is beginning, I don't seem to trust that that is limiting them any more than the SEC.

Self-interested entities such as morons who don't keep your money safe banks... shouldn't be left to self-regulate themselves, for such a vital cornerstone of our economies it is honestly shocking that a state would entertain the idea of allowing more de-regulation.

[Dimoniquid]

NOT THE PINKY SWEAR!

[Karsol]

March on the banks!

[Barringtonia]

The difference is that they're no longer the same companies, they're bank holding companies now and that entails far more regulation. What they're saying is that there's a lot of regulation over what they can do now as opposed to whether there was enough regulation before the crisis, when they had very few restrictions over what they did.

Partly they say that the regulations in place before the crisis where neither sufficient nor policed with authority.

Ultimately, they're not saying 'give us even less regulation', they're asking for effective regulation rather than populist measures that don't actually do anything.

[Rumbria]

You'd think that they would at least cool it off for a while until the heat died down.

Seriously...

[Vonnerz]

when the response of the banks to the supena is

We will work with the committee to provide relevant information as appropriate." *

you just gotta hope for a severe arse reaming of the banks legal staff...

* http://www.cnbc.com//id/34825880

[Neu Leonstein]

Given that an investigation basically for the Federal Reserve colluding with the banks is beginning, I don't seem to trust that that is limiting them any more than the SEC.

How is that scandalous? I pointed that out months ago, and then as now the answer is "Well, duh, it's a bail-out for them, of course it's going to channel money into their accounts."

You'd think that they would at least cool it off for a while until the heat died down.

Seriously...

I'm sure they're trying. It's just that when you get dragged out of the office to talk to politicians trying to score some good lines on the evening news every other day, it gets tiring.

you just gotta hope for a severe arse reaming of the banks legal staff...

They'll be working their arses off, that much is assured. But at least they'll be earning their money. I've seen the kind of work lawyers at investment banks usually do, and it just amounts to changing standardised contracts every so often and signing things.

[Maurepas]

The difference is that they're no longer the same companies, they're bank holding companies now and that entails far more regulation. What they're saying is that there's a lot of regulation over what they can do now as opposed to whether there was enough regulation before the crisis, when they had very few restrictions over what they did.

Partly they say that the regulations in place before the crisis where neither sufficient nor policed with authority.

Ultimately, they're not saying 'give us even less regulation', they're asking for effective regulation rather than populist measures that don't actually do anything.

Meh, Id rather they be outta business anyway...

[Vonnerz]

you just gotta hope for a severe arse reaming of the banks legal staff...

They'll be working their arses off, that much is assured. But at least they'll be earning their money. I've seen the kind of work lawyers at investment banks usually do, and it just amounts to changing standardised contracts every so often and signing things.

hmm yeah I should have said their Corporate Legal Affairs* people rather than legal staff...

*is that even the right term?

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Is it just me or is it always molotov cocktail time for me these days.

[Greed and Death]

You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.

[The_pantless_hero]

You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.

Retort: "Then we let your asses fry in the fire next time you go down."
I'm sure all those big banks would thoroughly enjoy being broken down and sold off to random people.

[Farnhamia]

You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.

Retort: "Then we let your asses fry in the fire next time you go down."
I'm sure all those big banks would thoroughly enjoy being broken down and sold off to random people.

Which wouldn't be too far in the future. Let's see, banks stop lending money, the economy shuts down, consumers stop spending, banks' revenue stream dwindles to nothing, banks go out of business, bank executives who made that threat are seen selling apples on Wall Street.

[The_pantless_hero]

Golden Apples by the looks of it.

[Vonnerz]

You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.

Retort: "Then we let your asses fry in the fire next time you go down."
I'm sure all those big banks would thoroughly enjoy being broken down and sold off to random people.

should have been done the first time around...but then that's free market economics and not socialism...

[Greed and Death]

You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.

Retort: "Then we let your asses fry in the fire next time you go down."
I'm sure all those big banks would thoroughly enjoy being broken down and sold off to random people.

The CEOs would have a claim on the assets. They would get about 1/3 to 1/2 their bonuses and pay.
then the economy would enter massive deflation, and they would be of the small groups of millionaires.
It is why AIG got their bonuses, because if the executives didn't get them they would oppose the sale of AIG to the fed and they would get half their bonuses in the bankruptcy proceedings.
Bank executives win if they fail and they win if they succeed.

[Farnhamia]

You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.

Retort: "Then we let your asses fry in the fire next time you go down."
I'm sure all those big banks would thoroughly enjoy being broken down and sold off to random people.

should have been done the first time around...but then that's free market economics and not socialism...

Well, there is a downside to allowing huge companies like Citigroup and AIG and various others implode, namely, they tend to take thousands of jobs with them when they go, which only makes things worse. Frankly, the bail-out should have included conditions and not have been just a deivery of money. They should have been told, "Here's some money to see you through this patch, but we expect you to put this money to work by lending it, don't just sit on it."

[Greed and Death]

You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.

Retort: "Then we let your asses fry in the fire next time you go down."
I'm sure all those big banks would thoroughly enjoy being broken down and sold off to random people.

should have been done the first time around...but then that's free market economics and not socialism...

Well, there is a downside to allowing huge companies like Citigroup and AIG and various others implode, namely, they tend to take thousands of jobs with them when they go, which only makes things worse. Frankly, the bail-out should have included conditions and not have been just a deivery of money. They should have been told, "Here's some money to see you through this patch, but we expect you to put this money to work by lending it, don't just sit on it."

They were lending too much, that's why they went bankrupt.

[Vonnerz]

You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.

Retort: "Then we let your asses fry in the fire next time you go down."
I'm sure all those big banks would thoroughly enjoy being broken down and sold off to random people.

should have been done the first time around...but then that's free market economics and not socialism...

Well, there is a downside to allowing huge companies like Citigroup and AIG and various others implode, namely, they tend to take thousands of jobs with them when they go, which only makes things worse. Frankly, the bail-out should have included conditions and not have been just a deivery of money. They should have been told, "Here's some money to see you through this patch, but we expect you to put this money to work by lending it, don't just sit on it."

They were lending too much, that's why they went bankrupt.

bingo. live by the sword die by the sword unless you are a free market supporting conglomerate.

[Farnhamia]

You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.

Retort: "Then we let your asses fry in the fire next time you go down."
I'm sure all those big banks would thoroughly enjoy being broken down and sold off to random people.

should have been done the first time around...but then that's free market economics and not socialism...

Well, there is a downside to allowing huge companies like Citigroup and AIG and various others implode, namely, they tend to take thousands of jobs with them when they go, which only makes things worse. Frankly, the bail-out should have included conditions and not have been just a deivery of money. They should have been told, "Here's some money to see you through this patch, but we expect you to put this money to work by lending it, don't just sit on it."

They were lending too much, that's why they went bankrupt.

Well, I did hear it complained that the banks were just sitting on the bailout money. They were lending to people who couldn't repay the loans. Their reaction when their fingers got burned was to stop lending to anyone at all. I heard stories of companies with perfect records as borrowers, the sorts you'd trust with your last dime, not being able to borrow a dime.

[The Rich Port]

See, THIS is why I hate Capitalism. Way too much money makes you delusional and a compulsive idiot. They should take away those damned bonuses and distribute them EVENLY, not with the executives and the CEO getting 90% of them.

[Greed and Death]

You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.

Retort: "Then we let your asses fry in the fire next time you go down."
I'm sure all those big banks would thoroughly enjoy being broken down and sold off to random people.

should have been done the first time around...but then that's free market economics and not socialism...

Well, there is a downside to allowing huge companies like Citigroup and AIG and various others implode, namely, they tend to take thousands of jobs with them when they go, which only makes things worse. Frankly, the bail-out should have included conditions and not have been just a deivery of money. They should have been told, "Here's some money to see you through this patch, but we expect you to put this money to work by lending it, don't just sit on it."

They were lending too much, that's why they went bankrupt.

Well, I did hear it complained that the banks were just sitting on the bailout money. They were lending to people who couldn't repay the loans. Their reaction when their fingers got burned was to stop lending to anyone at all. I heard stories of companies with perfect records as borrowers, the sorts you'd trust with your last dime, not being able to borrow a dime.

Except when a bank goes bankrupt they still have money.
They fell below federal reserve requirements.
Most of the bailouts just put them over fed reserve requirements and let them keep their current loans.