Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Breaking News! (And our last day of posting!)
In other related news, Republicans in the Senate voted to block debate of the financial regulation reform bill for two consecutive days on Monday and Tuesday.
All hope might not be lost, however, for proponents of reform. GOP Senators have begun to realize that the American people really do despise Wall Street, and have agreed to end their filibuster.
Great news, just hitting the presses. Sadly, this blog will cease today. We here at Bank Reg 101 hope you've enjoyed our reporting. But in the future, we urge you to Regulate, then Make Bank.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Goldman, Toyota, and Funeral Homes
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg54HtOpRQv0cVNE0hlXqYRmsR-HDO-qqIiNkRsVLazaa6-FURI3DVJ4M_4-vNGZlppK-QmyXT2ev2_aIQIN0aeh0XoSv_e5xepC0lUZ8_SbyhbwRSDdSvCrXtYoc_BlW8QCdTgHZj8NNTx/s400/cartoon.jpg)
(Cartoon via robsright.com)
Just a quick elaboration on my last post, with a twist coming from the video that Kelly just put up.
Andrew Ross Sorkin went on Colbert the other night and gave a much more vivid explanation of the deceptive wheeling-and-dealing that Goldman (and as we're learning, many other banks, as well) practiced. Where my explanation of the deals captures in only the most limited way the nastiness of GS's ways, Sorkin gives a much better explanation:
They were building cars [for which] they thought, or hoped, the brakes wouldn't work, and then [were] buying funeral homes that they thought would pay off later.
Oh, how simple, and effective, and affective. Wait, am I talking about Sorkin's explanation, or Goldman's ruse?
SEC Accuses Goldman of Fraud cont..
Here is an article from the LA Times on April 17 on the subject..
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-goldman17-2010apr17,0,7190484.story (copy and paste because for some reason it's not letting me make it a direct link)
and here is also last night's Colbert Report on the subject..
The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
Goldman Sachs Fraud Case - Andrew Ross Sorkin | ||||
www.colbertnation.com | ||||
|
Friday, April 16, 2010
When Investments Sound like Cruise Missiles: United States v. Goldman Sachs
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp4nNnxKRCebRegF6z8uW5TC6rOQe333kgQ2MOFHE2qbT0YZzl9t5tUiMQvteXRqY8_6z0couvX_LoTg9s2vJKq2W65bNcD6VQmSbfBSOtWmZV4svZkAHOFbvGuI_g5y1iTqwVUWLWgtrR/s400/block-iv-tomahawk-300x225.jpg)
Today, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil suit against Goldman Sachs for fraud.
Bipartisan support for financial reform looked likely up until now. Though two camps had emerged prior to the introduction of a bill, they had been, for the most part, based on the issue rather than the party. However, with legislation looming Democrats and Republicans have split at the seam (hard to say we didn’t see this coming). With President Obama leading the way, Senate Democrats are pushing their bill with no rewrite necessary. Expecting that a few key Republican senators, particularly those up for reelection, will support the bill, Democrats are much less inclined to change this bill than the healthcare reform passed last month. While the GOP rallies around senator McConnell, both parties agree that overheated rhetoric will only hurt policy.
Effectively the bill would give the FED the right to monitor the nation’s largest banks, those with assets over $50 billion. Then, if any institution were deemed instable the law would provide the Treasury Secretary with the authority to take over and effectively shut the company down. The overall goal, voiced by both Obama and Geithner, is to avoid any more taxpayer bailouts of financial institutions.
As legislation approaches, White house press secretary Gibbs adds that Obama “could not accept bad policy in pursuit of bipartisanship.” It is about time that the President has favored policy over politics. Though it would be great if everyone in Congress could work together, it is clear that in this particular case political clout is trying to overshadow lawmaking. Something needs to be done to prevent future collapses and if partisanship gets in the way of this bill then it could be years before another solution appears.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Krugman's Banking Regulation Study Guide
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbbmBQuFskeHRETkkfy8KMmlqadVgSVM-5ICE-yTShKZFDA2bTn5eLd3wi3h6IJp3BiUFNLu9EwJ56ZZeU6NYY9ha9CrorAMZY581pnsRknHQnj2iB9x7fwCLDoGVCIaF04MtdivyNVgnK/s400/ts-krugman-190.jpg)
Paul Krugman, Nobel-winning economist and columnist for the New York Times, used his column a couple of weeks ago to spell out in simpler terms--terms average people like us can understand--who is for what kind of banking reform, and what each kind of reform package looks like. Keep in mind, Krugman is a dyed-in-the-wool progressive and Keynesian (he advocated a much larger stimulus package than the one delivered in Spring 2009) and his tone and content reflect that.
Breaking up big banks wouldn’t really solve our problems, because it’s perfectly possible to have a financial crisis that mainly takes the form of a run on smaller institutions. In fact, that’s precisely what happened in the 1930s, when most of the banks that collapsed were relatively small — small enough that the Federal Reserve believed that it was O.K. to let them fail.Krugman forms the other side of the pro-reform crowd. His plan is "to update and expand old-fashioned bank regulation."
What ended the era of U.S. stability was the rise of “shadow banking”: institutions that carried out banking functions but operated without a safety net and with minimal regulation. In particular, many businesses began parking their cash, not in bank deposits, but in “repo” — overnight loans to the likes of Lehman Brothers.These "shadow banks are the keys to Krugman's reform ideas. Regulators should be able to seize failing shadow banks, he says, and put strict limits on their activities and their influence in the banking system.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Meet Elizabeth Warren
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCz_2sYnH-mgfZbmFf9zC9XV49p9F-PZuU0yFpwgzpqUYsZ3XQ92nL_Yg7LNQstxObL1vvTRlajHGkc85hSaeQZE7rknYjON2isNQ3BM2i7Po8F4TRvAGtJUScWTleqKdVxnFqMrTsS1kG/s400/warren.jpg)
One of the lesser-known, but equally important, figures in the debate over banking regulation has been Elizabeth Warren, a professor of law at Harvard and the Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, which was created to supervise the TARP bank bailout money.
- First, should we consider financial operators to be performing a service (like that of doctors or lawyers), or should we call them what they really are (or what they've shown themselves to be over the last two years), which are glorified gamblers who have loaded the die?
- Second, can we consider the clause, "by becoming involved in financial operations, you submit yourself to vast potential risk," to be an adequate cop-out from public oversight?