You're now on the archive server. Commenting has been disabled.

For All of You Guys Who Thought Goldman Was Invincible and the Administration Wouldn't Touch Them...

Reggie Middleton's picture




I have been advocating this limitation for some time.

For
those that listen to CNBC pundits knocking the separation of deposit
taking entities from trading risk assuming entities, here are some
common sense rebuttals.

This proposal would not have stopped the AIG failure

No,
it would not have. It would have prevented deposit taking institutions
such as Citibank and JP Morgan from trading on a speculative basis with
AIG though. Theoretically, it would have allowed those that would have
got jerked on the AIG to have sunk or swam on their own accord. We
never had to stop AIG, we had to stop the repercussions of what an AIG
would have caused.

  This proposal would harm lending and jobs. This is a bad time.

I
don't see how. The banks aren't lending now, and they have the capital.
The reason why they aren't lending is #@%$% balance sheets and credit
impaired assets.

It's unfair!

What
the hell is this? Kindergarten! You're right, it's not fair. The banks
have received more than their fair share of assistance. See 10 Ways to say No, the Banks Have Not Paid Back Their Bailout from the Taxpayer!
I am all for limiting the size and risk federally insured institutions
can take. You don't have to face limitations, just leave the insurance
program!

The big foreign banks will just come and take all of the American business if "Glass-Steagal" lite is enacted.

Bullshit!
Wall Street has been the leading financial center of the world for
many, many decades. We just repealed Glass Steagal in the Clinton
administration. Are we suffering from short-term memory-itis?

Ben Bernanke might have outperformed Wall Street on the AIG bailout. The Maiden Lane protfolio has thrown off over $6 billion of cash plus capital appreciation...

This is slightly off topic, but I must correct another CNBCism. Are you guys daft? Let's get this straight. I buy a portolio in distress and back stop the seller for $181 billion. I then take another $350 billion to artificially inflate the bid under these assets. I then sit back as some obvious "non-investor" types claim I am this expert trader that outperformed the other traders that I bailed out and gave an implicit taxpayer put option to. Can you guys even calculate that ROI?

 I've
been calling for reducing risk and breaking up the big banks for some
time. It is good to see that politicos read my work :-)




Similar Articles You Might Enjoy:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 19:05 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 19:04 | Link to Comment pros
pros's picture

You can't believe what Obama says (I and my kids, friends worked our asses off to elect this guy, with millions other suckers...we learned the hard way)

let's see what he does...

 

the betting is NOTHING...

just watch

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 20:25 | Link to Comment kurt_cagle
kurt_cagle's picture

That's one of the reasons I'm actually suspecting that things may be different this time. Obama's been quietly distancing himself from Geithner and the fact that Bernanke's confirmation vote is no longer on the docket would suggest that Obama's let it be known to Reid that while he won't withdraw Bernanke, he likely won't push to see him reconfirmed either.

I think the one to look most carefully at is Raum. He was instrumental in picking the current advisory staff, and was a fairly staunch DLCer back in the day. I see his hand in the selection of Geithner and in many of the bank appeasement strategies that have been followed for the last year, and I've noticed that as the outcry has increased Raum has receded from publicity (and presumably from influence).

Obama was a lawyer, not an economist or financier. He made the mistake of relying too heavily on his advisors, without necessarily fully appreciating that they may be conflicted. He's now paying the price by having a "safe" Senate seat get picked off by a conservative populist and consequently losing what little leverage he had there. I dare say that Geither is probably not getting a lot of phone calls from his boss of late.

I'm not a huge Obama fan - I felt at the time that he was elected that he was too young, too politically inexperienced, and too easily influenced by the need for political expediancy. He's better than Bush, who I felt was essentially just an alcoholic placeholder for Cheney, who was an unprincipled opportunist who took advantage of the situation to advance his own fortunes. Overall I think that Obama is still relatively idealistic, but he just got slapped in the face hard by the reality disconnect that occurs when living in the Bubble, and the next few months will likely see him trying to tear himself out of it, at least for a little while, as he attempts to regain the ground he lost.

On the other hand if he does manage to adhere to the spirit and not just the letter of his proposals, his life span may end up being measured in month. When trillions of dollars are at stake, those in power won't let that disappear easily, especially if the populist wrath brings the ravening hordes down on the banks' doorsteps.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 23:12 | Link to Comment THE DORK OF CORK
THE DORK OF CORK's picture

You may have a point about Obama , Kennedy made a mess of the bay of pigs but matured into the job and tried to take on the hidden goverment

Of course the rest is history

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 19:02 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 19:02 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 18:53 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 01/22/2010 - 03:18 | Link to Comment Reggie Middleton
Reggie Middleton's picture

+112323

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 18:45 | Link to Comment Scarecrow
Scarecrow's picture

Gee Reggie, it only took you one whole year to be right. Good job man! Great call!

 

Hardly a moment to say see I told you so. Why don't you wait and see what the real effect is before coming across so smug.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 18:44 | Link to Comment crosey
crosey's picture

Obama has no clue as to what is really going on.  In my years, most politicians don't.  They have egos, and not brains.  Obama is probably one of the least experienced Presidents we've ever had, and he's being played like a violin.  Moreover, his primary interest is to expand the entitlement state, and align globally.

He just wants to be liked, and build a legacy.

So he (finally) had to follow Volcker's advice.

Otherwise, more evidence of the Peter Principle forthcoming.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 18:12 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 18:04 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 18:00 | Link to Comment dumpster
dumpster's picture

a wonderful place to sell bridges here to some on zero hedge lol

 

We've got a long long way to go and one canned speech is nothing to get excited about.

D. Stewart Armstrong

 

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 17:58 | Link to Comment deadhead
deadhead's picture

Thanks Reggie.

pssst...sti, it's a real laugher.  every sell side analyst has them losing money throughout the end of 2010 yet another 52 week high.  you know their balance sheet.

today, credit suisse guy came out with outperform.

this one will be fun to watch. 

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 17:42 | Link to Comment casey
casey's picture

Notice how Obama drags out Volcker when he wants the little people to think he is getting tough with the banks?  Tomorrow, he puts Volcker back in the closet and its 'business as usual'.

When Emmanuel, Geithner, Rubins, Summers, Bernanke are ushered out the door and their replacements aren't GS retreads, he may be serious.  Until then, don't hold your breath.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 17:39 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 17:39 | Link to Comment dumpster
dumpster's picture

malfunction of the edit button lol

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 17:31 | Link to Comment dumpster
dumpster's picture

obama should just outlaw the debt lol

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 17:31 | Link to Comment dumpster
dumpster's picture

obama should just outlaw the debt lol

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 17:31 | Link to Comment dumpster
dumpster's picture

obama should just outlaw the debt lol

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 17:38 | Link to Comment dumpster
dumpster's picture

how to delete lol

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 17:31 | Link to Comment dumpster
dumpster's picture

obama should just outlaw the debt lol

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 17:35 | Link to Comment dumpster
dumpster's picture

eratta

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 17:30 | Link to Comment dumpster
dumpster's picture

obama should just outlaw the debt lol

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 17:29 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 17:28 | Link to Comment dumpster
dumpster's picture

white wash city

 

the same old same old under a different rug ,

 

 

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 17:15 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 16:58 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 16:57 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 16:50 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 16:39 | Link to Comment Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

Lots of Kabuki Theater in store for us now folks!

Break out your kimonos and buy that company that sells that white makeup.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 16:38 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 16:33 | Link to Comment Leo Kolivakis
Leo Kolivakis's picture

I think Buffett is absolutely right on this:

“There ought to be a huge downside,” said Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is the largest shareholder in Wells Fargo & Co. “Make it so that the CEO of an institution that fails, or goes to the government and needs help, really gets destroyed himself financially. Why should he come out any better than somebody that gets laid off as an auto worker at General Motors?”

Buffett, who collects a $100,000 salary as Omaha, Nebraska- based Berkshire’s leader, said CEOs must act as the “chief risk officer” of their companies. He has repeatedly criticized bankers for failing to realize that housing prices could fall and said they exacerbated their mistakes by borrowing to increase the size of their failed bets.

“I think you have to change the incentives,” Buffett said on the cable news channel. “It’s nice to have carrots but you need sticks. The idea that some guy is worth $500 million and leaves and only has $50 million, that’s not much of a stick. There ought to be a huge downside.”

 

AMEN!!!!!

 

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 16:23 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 16:18 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 16:16 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 16:15 | Link to Comment Rick64
Rick64's picture

Obama has to get back some of his support from the public or he won't get re-elected and the tide is turning against the DEMs. He went along with the strategy of geitner, big banks, and the fed, and it didn't work now there will probably be a battle between the banks and Obama via the stock market and we will see who is boss.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 16:10 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 15:57 | Link to Comment surfer
surfer's picture

I would suggest term premium just jumped, if we take this at face value regardless of motive, I think bubble blowing just came out of fashion. Bernanke reappointment ?? Volatility just arrived be ready LOL

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 15:51 | Link to Comment THE DORK OF CORK
THE DORK OF CORK's picture

"I don't see how. The banks aren't lending now, and they have the capital. The reason why they aren't lending is #@%$% balance sheets and credit impaired assets."

I both agree and disagree with this statement

1. The banks may have capital but they do not have enough if they mark to market

2. I agree that banks should not lend until they enough capital and are healthy again

but at the risk of repeating myself on these pages I fail to see how taxpayers money should be transferred to both equity and bondholders.

This is the most important point - recapitalisation of banks do not require the risk capital to be subsidised by the taxpayer.

Once the banks are recapitalised agents can have the option of providing risk capital at a higher return if they wish and subsequently they will take much more interest in the lending policy of their banks

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 15:43 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 15:42 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 15:41 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 15:40 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 15:38 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 16:23 | Link to Comment Leo Kolivakis
Leo Kolivakis's picture

Shhhhhh! I am quietly buying this dip...LOL!

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 20:21 | Link to Comment Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

Are you invested up to your eyeballs in SolarCity's lease program, Leo?

$105 million in 2008 from USBankcorp and another $90 million in Dec. 09 to meet demand. PG&E is forced to pay excess power in cash as of 2010 instead of just credit on your bill.

Very attractive to Calif homeowners... Lowe's is  selling solar panels off of the shelf. Yes Calif has a lot of foreclosures but they have a lot of solvent home owner as well... ready to buy Leo's solar investment company products...

How'd a guy from cold cloudy Canada figure that one out?

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 15:36 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 15:32 | Link to Comment arnoldsimage
arnoldsimage's picture

what obama does at this point is irrelevant. the banksters have already looted our country and paid themselves obscene bonuses.

Thu, 01/21/2010 - 15:24 | Link to Comment Cyan Lite
Cyan Lite's picture

But... isn't this unfair for the banks?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!