Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Geithner on Financial System Reform
Topic Started: Apr 13 2010, 04:45 AM (169 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/12/AR2010041203341.html
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Good article. This one, the one posted by Ax about reductions in Congressional earmarks and the one I posted about the shrinking federal deficit fit nicely together to show that things are looking up. Geithner may have been sloppy about his own taxes, but when it comes to fiscal policy, he's one smart cookie. Hope springs eternal.
Edited by kathyk, Apr 13 2010, 06:35 AM.
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
:rolleyes2:
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
from the article
 
Crucially, if a major firm does mismanage itself into failure, the Senate bill gives the government the authority to wind down the firm with no exposure to the taxpayer. No more bailouts. Instead, we will have a bankruptcy-like regime where equityholders will be wiped out and the assets will be sold.

These are important steps, but they are not enough. Ending "too big to fail" also requires building stronger shock absorbers throughout the system so it can better withstand the next financial storm. To do that, the Senate bill closes loopholes and opportunities for arbitrage, and it brings key markets, such as those for derivatives, out of the shadows.

Transparency will lower costs for users of derivatives, such as industrial or agriculture companies, allowing them to more effectively manage their risk. It will enable regulators to more effectively monitor risks of all significant derivatives players and financial institutions, and prevent fraud, manipulation and abuse. And by bringing standardized derivatives into central clearing houses and trading facilities, the Senate bill would reduce the risk that the derivatives market will again threaten the entire financial system.
Good, those are important stuff; let's hope those provisions become stronger.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
Rule of thumb: if the banking/finance lobby opposes it, the American people should support it.
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Of that snippet, I am only concerned about how the gov't somehow decides when they want to destroy "wind down" a company. I'm fine with regulation, transparency, and no more gov't bailouts, yada yada yada, but but are the "equityholders" that get "wiped out" in such a scenario people like Joe Lunchbucket who have some 401k money in the wrong place? Can't we rely on regulation and transparency to spot light troublesome organizations so that they can just go on and fail on their own (and give fund managers a chance to avoid investing there)?

I guess what I'm saying is I don't like artificial things like a bureaucrat deciding it's time to take down somebody. If my money is in that firm still, I think I'd like a chance for the firm to rescue themselves (and my money) rather than just wiping it out.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Kincaid
Apr 13 2010, 11:24 AM
Of that snippet, I am only concerned about how the gov't somehow decides when they want to destroy "wind down" a company. I'm fine with regulation, transparency, and no more gov't bailouts, yada yada yada, but but are the "equityholders" that get "wiped out" in such a scenario people like Joe Lunchbucket who have some 401k money in the wrong place? Can't we rely on regulation and transparency to spot light troublesome organizations so that they can just go on and fail on their own (and give fund managers a chance to avoid investing there)?

I guess what I'm saying is I don't like artificial things like a bureaucrat deciding it's time to take down somebody. If my money is in that firm still, I think I'd like a chance for the firm to rescue themselves (and my money) rather than just wiping it out.
Think FDIC "winding down" failed consumer banks. It happened 120 times in 2009, and 43 times in 2010 so far. There's nothing arbitrary about it -- failed banks' depositors' assets are safe (depositors can still withdraw their money and their checks won't bounce; literally no interruption in business as far as the depositors are concerned), but equity and bond holders got wiped out. Apply same to other financial institutions (insurers like AIG, investment banks like Goldman Sachs, lenders like GE's financing arm, etc.).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Well, Joe Lunchbucket is protected by the FDIC in a bank failure. We all know there is no protection on a stock. So, the question still remains, is not Joe Lunchbucket an equity/bond holder if he just happens to have fund invested there on a 401k? Do we want some bureaucrat deciding, based on some rules (perhaps open to interpretation) to wind down a company and wipe out those equity/bond holders?

I still remember my Savings and Loan going down in that great debacle. They complained that rule changes encouraged them to undertake certain lending practices. They claimed they were strong enough and solvent but then Federal regulators changed the rules and forced them to be swallowed up by Bank of America.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Kincaid
Apr 13 2010, 11:24 AM
Of that snippet, I am only concerned about how the gov't somehow decides when they want to destroy "wind down" a company. I'm fine with regulation, transparency, and no more gov't bailouts, yada yada yada, but but are the "equityholders" that get "wiped out" in such a scenario people like Joe Lunchbucket who have some 401k money in the wrong place? Can't we rely on regulation and transparency to spot light troublesome organizations so that they can just go on and fail on their own (and give fund managers a chance to avoid investing there)?

I guess what I'm saying is I don't like artificial things like a bureaucrat deciding it's time to take down somebody. If my money is in that firm still, I think I'd like a chance for the firm to rescue themselves (and my money) rather than just wiping it out.
They want to avoid another Lehman scenario. Right now, once a firm is insolvent, they go to the bankruptcy courts who's mission is sorting out creditor claims rather than minimizing systemic damage.


Essentially, they want to be able to do to failed investment banks what the FDIC does with failed deposit-taking institutions. Notwithstanding the whining of the former WaMu CEO, I don't think there's any real issue with the FDIC intervening before its absolutely necessary.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply