Goldman Joins JPMorgan On The PR Offensive Against The US Middle Class, As Americans Find A Surprise Champion In The Face Of Fed's Tom Hoenig

Tyler Durden's picture

The campaign by the big banks against the people of the US is getting louder by the day. First, it was JP Morgan' Jamie Dimon, who segued into the Goldman "god' banker" refrain that all megabanks are not just critical but need to get even bigger in the form a 36-page lament to shareholders (in which among other things he repeats that even though JPM was bailed out, and even though it was handed Bear with Maiden Lane I left to pick up all the crap he did not want, none of those activities by the US taxpayers were necessary), and today it is none other than Goldman Sachs, which after prudently keeping a low public profile for a few months, is about to remind everyone who runs the world. And with the US public comprised of phlegmatic sheep, or morts as Michael Lewis put it very graphically, it appears that nobody is willing to stand up to those who run not just the markets, the economy and the administration, than the Fed's contrarian Tom Hoenig. In an exclusive interview with HuffPo's Shahien Nasiripour, Hoenig indicates that even among members of the Fed, there are people who not only think rationally, but realize that should the big banks/hedge funds (really just JPM and GS at this point) get their wishes to continue the status quo, the next leg of the crisis can't be far behind.The only problem: this time America itself will go down with the big banks: remember - all negative swap spreads indicate is that the banks insured by America, are now perceived as less risky than America itself.

Key highlights from Narisirpour's interview:

In a 45-minute interview this week, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City President Thomas M. Hoenig, who's emerged as one of the few influential voices calling for a fundamental redesign of a broken U.S. financial system:

  • Lambasted the tilted playing field that benefits Wall Street banks over Main Street banks;
  • Called the idea that the U.S. needs megabanks to compete globally a "fantasy";
  • Said Congress should mandate simple, easily understood and
    enforceable rules -- rather than guidelines -- so regulators can
    restrain financial firms and rein in the financial system;
  • Prodded the Senate to get tougher on permanently ending Too
    Big To Fail by enacting laws that would take away much of the
    discretion currently held by policymakers (who bailed out financial
    firms when confronted with these decisions in late 2008);
  • And criticized the Federal Reserve's ongoing policy to keep
    the main interest rate near zero because it "guarantee[s] a spread to
    Wall Street", enabling unearned profits and "encourag[ing] speculation."

Among the key matters discussed, most of which we have discussed previously extensively on Zero Hedge, were the hot topic of Megabanks and their worthlessness (but don't tell Dimon or Blankfein). It is no secret that should all the US megabanks be forced to mark their assets to market, all of them would be immediately insolvent.

One of the effects of Too Big To Fail, Hoenig said,
"has been that the concentration of financial resources in this country
has nearly doubled over the last 15 to 20 years. That's what we have to

The banks owned by the four largest financial firms in the U.S. --
Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo --
collectively account for about 43 percent of all assets in the U.S.
banking system, according to a HuffPost analysis of Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation data.

The top 12 banks in the U.S. control half the country's deposits. By
comparison, it took 25 banks to accomplish this feat in 2003 and 42
banks in 1998, according to a Jan. 4 research note by Jason M. Goldberg
of Barclays Capital.

Those four megabanks collectively hold about $7.4 trillion in
assets, according to the most recent regulatory filings with the
Federal Reserve. That's equal to about 52 percent of the nation's
estimated total output last year.

"The fact that they needed to be supported by TARP tells me that
they're too big," Hoenig said. "I think that that's a very clear signal
that they're too big. The fact that they had to be bailed out under
those circumstances suggests they are too big, and that needs to end."

In response, he says policymakers should simply break up the megabanks and split them off into their component parts.

"I think they should be broken up," Hoenig said. "I think there's no
reason why as we've done in other instances of [sic] finding the right
mechanism to break them into their components.

"Without the fear of loss to creditors, these large firms can use
higher leverage, which allows them to fund more assets with lower cost
debt instead of more expensive equity," he said.

That allows them to get even bigger, leaving their smaller
competitors behind who need to worry about raising equity before they
can fund more loans.

"If the top 20 firms held the same equity capital levels as other
smaller banking institutions, they would require $210 billion in new
equity or reduced assets of over $3 trillion, or some combination of
both," he said.

...The need for MegaBanks:

"That is a fantasy -- I don't know how else to describe it. Our
strengths will be from having a strong industrial economy. We will have
financial institutions that are large enough to give us influence in
the markets but not so large that they're too big to fail.

"The outcome of that is that strong banks [and] strong economies
bring capital to themselves, and they are by themselves competitive.

"The United States became a financial center not because we had
large institutions but because we had a strong industrial economy with
a good working financial system across the United States -- not just
highly-concentrated in one market area," he said in an apparent
reference to Wall Street.

JPMorgan Chase Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon defended megabanks in his annual letter to shareholders this week, arguing for the economic benefits of outsized financial institutions.

...Glass Steagall and its return:

The U.S. should revive parts of Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era
law that long prohibited banks from underwriting securities and
engaging in other Wall Street-like activities, to break up megabanks,
Hoenig told HuffPost.

"At the moment I would be inclined to break them up along those
lines of activities, and then let the market define what the right size
is, and it will be, I suspect, smaller, much smaller, given our recent
experience," he said.

"When Glass-Steagall was set aside and Gramm-Leach-Bliley [the law
that repealed it] was introduced, I gave a speech which raised the
concern that we would encounter mega-institutions," Hoenig said.
"People would say... 'They're not too big to fail', but when the crisis
came they would be too big to fail, and that's what we've gotten

'So I am partially in favor of re-establishing elements of
Glass-Steagall that separates the very important commercial banking
that is so critical to our economy and our payment system from what I
call high-risk activities in investment banks and hedge funds. I have nothing, nothing at all against high-risk activities in
hedge funds and so forth, but they should not be part of our commercial
banking payment system.

...On the ZIRP-fueled carry trade and why it should be immediately abolished before the next asset bubble become too untenous:

Popularly known as the lone dissenter on the Fed's policy-making
panel who twice this year has voted against the Fed's decision to keep
the main interest rate "exceptionally low" for "an extended period," Hoenig said part of the problem with near-zero rates is that it guarantees Wall Street profits.

"When you guarantee a zero rate, you guarantee a spread to Wall
Street or to others, and you encourage speculation, and that's what you
want to avoid," he said. "If we've learned anything from the last
episode, we want to avoid encouraging speculative activity and zero
rates, I'm afraid, have the effect of encouraging it."

On Wall Street, "industry profits could exceed an unprecedented $55
billion in 2009, nearly three times greater than the previous all-time
record," according to a Feb. 23 report by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

The national unemployment rate, meanwhile, is nearly 10 percent. Hoenig calls that "unfair."

Low interest rates enable banks to make a killing because they
borrow at near zero yet lend or invest at much higher rates. They also
can trade in securities. For banks facing debilitating losses on
consumer lending products like credit cards, auto loans and home
mortgages -- something that happens in every recession -- low interest
rates are an easy way to make money and protect against losses.

But while Hoenig acknowledges that low rates were necessary in the
immediate aftermath of the crisis, he said they should now be steadily

And much more, the full highlights from the interview, as well as the full 45 minutes interview can be heard at the following link.

Yet none of this makes an impression on Goldman, which is the topic of BusinessWeek's cover story: "Goldman Sachs - Don't Blame Us" - as the title implies Goldman makes a concerted effort to make its core role in the financial collapse essentially non-existent, and a non-issue. From the article:

The real story of what Goldman did is so much simpler than the
conspiracy theories, says [CFO David] Viniar. Faced with a crisis they didn't
foresee,[but helped create] Goldman bankers merely did their jobs, no more and no less.
The firm had no subprime agenda, no motives that were at odds with
those of their clients. If they were half as smart and devious as the
public believes, Goldman would have done far better than it did in

More to the point, Goldman is now taking its fight to the masses (of QIB billionaires):

Now, Goldman has shifted tactics. On Apr. 7 it will release its 2009
annual report with a letter to shareholders that will, for the first
time, explicitly defend its conduct during the mortgage bubble and
subsequent collapse.

The story goes on to show how Goldman was merely a scapegoat, and how it had no involvement in the bailout of AIG, or every other Fed and Government action which over the past 2 years has done nothing but benefit Goldman almost exclusively, its trading platform, its funding structure, its balance sheet, and, most relevantly, its compensation practices. Once again, Goldman, just like the BLS, assumes the US public is stupid and will buy whatever garbage is presented to it. Well, the US may be generally very, very lazy and unwilling to become an activist for its convictions, but it is hardly stupid (or at least of the magnitude the powers that be wish it was), and is very aware of the difference between right and wrong. Which is why we have a tough time with this explanation:

In the end, Goldman asserts, the secret to its success was not that it
was smarter than AIG or could divine the future any more clearly or
that it had all those government connections that enabled it to get
paid in full.
Rather, Goldman's advantage, it says, was that it did the
dull, unglamorous work of repricing its securities at true market
value, a Goldman hallmark since its days as a tight-knit partnership,
when screwups came right out of partners' capital. Although that's not
the case anymore, Viniar, the CFO, says the approach he takes is the
same. "I personally see the profit-and-loss statement of each of our 44
business units every single night,
" says Viniar. At a now-legendary
meeting on Dec. 14, 2006, he says, Goldman executives, jittery after 10
straight days of losses in their mortgage portfolio, "literally went
through almost every position we had on the mortgage desk."

That's when the decision was made to pare back Goldman's exposure to
the housing market. Contrary to popular belief, the firm did not make
an about-face and short the market. Rather, the decision was to take a
neutral position. "I wish we knew as much as people are giving us
credit for knowing," says Viniar. "Nobody—certainly not us—knew the
depths of the financial crisis we were going to face."

Yet it found out soon enough, and invoked every single governmental connection it had ever made to assure that it would continue its parasitic existence. The firm would have now been a distant memory (whose stock the daytrading algos may or may not be gunning to $1-2/share levels, but which would for all intents and purposes be worthless) had it not been for the actions of the top three men in the US: Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner: there is no way that Goldman can refute this. None. Which is why Goldman's stock is pushing on $200.

What Goldman should do and should have done long ago, is sincerely apologize for what everyone knows it has done (and continues doing). The US is far more forgiving than even GS' PR department can imagine. Instead, the firm continues to blindly pushing on with the "glove does not fit" defense, further antagonizing the general population, and retrenching itself as the world biggest financial leper (and a suitable scapegoat to deflect attention from JP Morgan, which over the past 2 years may have very well surpassed Goldman in administrative and regulatory capture).

One last point:

Viniar won't say that Goldman never took a short position on securities
it sold to clients—"I could never use the word never," he says.
Viniar's point is that it wasn't standard practice, that Goldman didn't
tell clients to do one thing while it did the opposite.

And that's all you need to know about Goldman Sachs: market maker for the billionaires, in which Goldman always takes the other side of the trade, and pushes the market to that point where everyone but itself is stopped out. Just observe the massive beating on the EURUSD trade that Goldman put its clients through, and which made Goldman a few billion dollars richer.

One thing is certain, the flames of anti-Goldman hatred will soon be fanning high again, as soon as the Goldman letter is made public.

Talking to top Goldman executives, I couldn't resist asking the obvious
question: If the firm could just write a multibillion-dollar check to
erase the outrage—deserved or not—over the AIG payout and be done with
the public agony, wouldn't it just do it? The question elicited sighs
of exasperation and created some tension; I just wasn't getting it. No,
was the answer. The executives all agreed that would be an implicit
admission of guilt, and Goldman Sachs isn't guilty of anything.

Perhaps. What Goldman is surely guilty of is that the next time Wall Street implodes, which is as certain to happen as that the Fed is run by a few Wall Street cronies who care nothing about Main Street and just want to see America's uberwealthy transfer ever more wealth away from the middle class, taxpayers will say no: if the administration, Treasury and Fed goes against their decision yet again, we are confident that there will be a revolution. We agree with BusinessWeek's Roben Farzad who asks: "The question is: Has Goldman Sachs shorted itself?" In continuing the charade of ignorance, Goldman has certainly planted the seeds of its own destruction. One can hope the seeds won't grow to also bring the destruction of America itself.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
doggis's picture

this is lord of the rings' "battle for middle earth" wall street style. the two towers of GS/JPM has constructed ingenious financial derivative weapons that will be put to use to defeat and ultimately rule all of us - at any/all costs. the question is: Will our story end up with the same outcome as tolkien triliogy?

AccreditedEYE's picture

The Squid has more evil in 1 tentacle than Orthanc and Barad-dur put together. (yes, I'm a geek)

_Biggs_'s picture

No, man.  Haven't you been reading around here?  Ingenious financial derivative weapons are good.

Dr. No's picture

But the hearts of men are easily corrupted

mkkby's picture

What a bunch of psychopaths.  We need to take away the big bank subsidies, break them up and disband the fed.  But how will that ever happen when politicians owe their jobs to pac money and corporations have the same civil rights meant for humans?

Bolweevil's picture

Mr. Hoenig is gonna get kicked out of The Fed's fightclub for breaking rules #1 and #2.

Don Smith's picture

Getting kicked out of the club may be preferable to the "Andrew Maguire" treament.  He better keep his eyes out for cars speeding quickly out of side alleys.

john_connor's picture

It's too late.  Geithner already out saying they are very close to financial reform legislation (without any substance). 

In other words we are right back where we were in 2007, except much more indebted.

SteveNYC's picture

"The firm would have now been a distant memory (whose stock the daytrading algos may or may not be gunning to $1-2/share levels, but which would for all intents and purposes be worthless) had it not been for the actions of the top three men in the US: Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner"


If only, if only. P,B, and G can not escape the fate that karma will deal them. You can't fuck 300 million people and just expect to be let off the hook when it comes time to meet your maker. No vigilantism necessary, they will be reincarnated as toilet bowls, leppers, or something far, far worse.

crosey's picture

On this Good Friday, perhaps the Almighty will have mercy on them.

If not, Hell might be an eternity of short-squeezes for them?

dumpster's picture

yep the slum pits of calcutta ... has openings   .. they are filled by ex-bankers from previous lives .

need some one to go on down and clean up the pipes , large turds get caught in the steel mesh,

always a bright spot .  we think how unfair for these men working in the sewers .  but the spot is always filled with many waiting in line

pan-the-ist's picture

Do you seriously believe that the pipe cleaners 'deserve' their caste by wrongs committed in a previous life Hindoo?  That is the most disgusting feature of the Indian culture.  At least Muhammadean's don't accept their condition.  Christians on the other hand... shoveling shit is just the latest test.  Grin and bear it.

Chumly's picture

Christians on the other hand... shoveling shit is just the latest test.

BWHAHAHAHAHahahaa!!  Hillarious! But, I appreciate your recognition.

Seer's picture

300 million?  Oh no!  GS is international, the numbers are MUCH bigger (just ask those in Greece and elsewhere).  I'd hope that the pace of karma picks up before GS includes some sort of terrorist legislation that fingers anyone critical of them as being a terrorist.

We're now begining to see how GS and similar US corporations have been effing the rest of the world (why "they hate us").

crosey's picture

3 wishes to be granted from the genie:

  • Marked-to-market on Monday
  • 1 case of Macallan 25
  • 1 box of Habanos


JW n FL's picture
Client/Parent Total American Bankers Assn $8,970,000 JPMorgan Chase & Co $6,170,000 Citigroup Inc $5,500,000 Independent Community Bankers of America $4,750,000 Bank of America $3,570,000 Wells Fargo $2,880,000 Barclays $2,490,000 Consumer Bankers Assn $1,395,000 Electronic Payments Coalition $1,060,000 Bank of New York Mellon $1,041,000 Royal Bank of Scotland $980,000 Institute of International Bankers $810,000

But Wait, Obama's New Bank Plan Won't Fix A Thing| Henry Blodget | Jan. 21, 2010, 2:49 PM

Read more:


Treasury Department Is Already Saying Volcker Rule Won't Change Goldman Sachs I LOVE this! Goldman Sachs To Become The Fourth Largest Bank Holding Company

September 21, 2008

New York, September 21, 2008 -- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE: GS) today announced that it will become the fourth largest Bank Holding Company and will be regulated by the Federal Reserve.

In recent weeks, particularly in view of market developments, Goldman Sachs has discussed with the Federal Reserve our intention to be regulated as a Bank Holding Company. We understand that the market views oversight by the Federal Reserve and the ability to source insured bank deposits as providing a greater degree of safety and soundness. We view regulation by the Federal Reserve Board as appropriate and in the best interests of protecting and growing our franchise across our diverse range of businesses.

Since the spring of this year, the Federal Reserve has been reviewing our liquidity and funding profile, capital adequacy and overall risk management framework. We are pleased that the Federal Reserve recognizes the strength and health of our liquidity and funding and the overall quality of our risk management. We have maintained our Tier 1 capital levels well above the Federal Reserve’s “well-capitalized” threshold of 6 percent since these ratios were first calculated in 2004. For the past several quarters, in light of the difficult market environment, we have been reducing our risk exposures and increasing our capitalization. Our Tier 1 capital ratio at the end of the third quarter was 11.6 percent.

“When Goldman Sachs was a private partnership, we made the decision to become a public company, recognizing the need for permanent capital to meet the demands of scale. While accelerated by market sentiment, our decision to be regulated by the Federal Reserve is based on the recognition that such regulation provides its members with full prudential supervision and access to permanent liquidity and funding,” said Lloyd C. Blankfein, Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs. “We believe that Goldman Sachs, under Federal Reserve supervision, will be regarded as an even more secure institution with an exceptionally clean balance sheet and a greater diversity of funding sources.”

Goldman Sachs already has two active deposit taking institutions – Goldman Sachs Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Bank Europe PLC – which, together, hold more than $20 billion in customer deposits. We are moving assets from a number of strategic businesses, including our lending businesses, into GS Bank USA. With over $150 billion in assets, GS Bank USA will be one of the ten largest banks in the United States. While these assets are fully funded for term, they also are available to be funded by the Federal Reserve. We intend to grow our deposit base through acquisitions and organically.

Goldman Sachs is a leading global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of services worldwide to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high net worth individuals. Founded in 1869, it is one of the oldest and largest investment banking firms. The firm is headquartered in New York and maintains offices in London, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Hong Kong and other major financial centers around the world.


0% Fed window ='s.....

January 21, 2010 Goldman Sachs Reports 2009 Earnings Per Common Share of $22.13; Fourth Quarter Earnings Per Common Share were $8.20


Would someone from the NY Fed kindly explain the precise nature of the waiver that has been granted to Goldman so that it can operate in this fashion?  If this is temporary, is it envisaged that Goldman will cease being a bank holding company, or that it will divest itself shortly of activities not usually allowed (and with good reason) by banks?  Or will all bank holding companies be allowed to expand on the same basis.  (The relevant rules appear to be here in general and here specifically; do tell me what I am missing.)


JPMorgan Chase & Co. 270 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017-2070 NYSE symbol: JPM


Investor Contact: Lauren Tyler (212) 270-7325 Media Contact: Joe Evangelisti (212) 270-7438 1 On a managed basis. For notes on managed basis and other non-GAAP measures, see page 13.




1 OF $25.2 BILLION


                                                                         ON RECORD REVENUE


1 OF $108.6 BILLION





TARP Funds
On October 13, 2008, I went to Washington, DC with eight other chief executives of other financial firms. We were asked by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC and the New York Federal Reserve Bank to agree to accept a package of capital from the government to help fix the collapse in the credit and lending markets.

JPMorgan Chase did not ask for, nor did we need, a capital infusion from the federal government. As I noted earlier, our capital ratios remained well in excess of recommended regulatory levels throughout the crisis, even excluding federal assistance. We continued to lend to customers, invest in the business, hire new employees, and attract substantial deposit flows. However, federal officials asked us to set an example for others by accepting the TARP funds as a sign of support for the government's actions to strengthen the economy. We viewed our participation as the right thing to do for the economy and the financial system. We think the government acted boldly in a very tough situation, and the outcome possibly could have been far worse had it, and other governments around the world, not taken such steps. Some individual financial institutions were certainly rescued through these actions, but the entire economy benefited from the restoration of stability to the financial system.

After acceptance of the government's $25 billion preferred stock investment, we continued our lending activities to consumers, businesses and governments. In the fourth quarter of 2008 alone, we extended over $150 billion in new credit to consumers, businesses, municipalities and non-profit organizations. That figure includes over $50 billion in new consumer originations (mortgages, home equity loans, credit cards, student loans, auto loans, etc.); over $20 billion in new credit extended to 8,000 small and mid-sized businesses; and $90 billion in new and renewed commitments to our corporate and other clients. We also dramatically increased our presence in the interbank market, lending an average of $50 billion a day to other banks. We did so while maintaining prudent risk management and underwriting standards, mindful of market and credit risks.

In early May 2009, we successfully completed an extensive stress testing program for major banking institutions that determined there would be no need for us to raise additional capital even under the most adverse scenario envisioned by regulators. After consultation with our regulators and the Treasury Department, we received approval to pay back TARP funds in June 2009. Along with the $25 billion that we repaid, we paid $806 million in dividends on the preferred stock. In December 2009, the United States Treasury sold for $936 million the JPMorgan Chase warrants it received in connection with its TARP investment. Thus, all told, taxpayers received more than $1.7 billion, or an 11% annualized return on their investment.

How much have they borrowed at the 0% Fed window... ?

Lending activity focused on the large number of companies raising capital, as they looked to strengthen their balance sheets and pay down debt. Arbitrage and directional opportunities created by rights and convertible bond issues resulted in borrowing demand for shares of the issuer. CB arbitrage in particular had a terrible year in 2008, and has bounced back strongly in 2009 as issuance has increased.


So.... Goldman / JP will make loans... with 40% equity participation... when the requirements at the Fed window are still 20% (mean)... and pass thru the dollars directly to the bottom line for earned income... 6% rates? plus 40% equity requirements... and those are GREAT! TERMS! from the Squid and Friends.


The "American Tax Payer" has paid to Lobby / Bribe Congress and the House (White House as well)... so that the TBTF's will not only maintain maket share but grow thier foot print thru 0% loans at the Fed window and pick thru the best assets... The TARP funds repayment is NOT where the funding is coming from... it is comiong from the Fed Window at 0%...


Audit the Fed... Audit the Beltway... PAC, Soft and / or other monies and lets Hang these guys.


As long as the Lobby controls the purse strings inside the Beltway... nothing will change.




Be well all, JW


P.S. Gold Bugs are idiots! Junk that!

AccreditedEYE's picture

I really hope someone forwarded this story to Simon Johnson and Paul Volcker... Gotta keep ammo going to the troops.  

buzzsaw99's picture

He has no vote and is on the way out. The public consumption dissent from middle earth. This changes nothing.

AccreditedEYE's picture

Indeed. I had false hope...  I wish it were as simple as destroying the One Ring in Mordor to fix the mess that we are sitting in.

williambanzai7's picture

Humpty Banker sat on a wall.
Humpty Banker was just too big to fail.
All the Fed's Bankers including it's Chairman
Were sure to let Humpty do it again.



sweet ebony diamond's picture

"It is no secret that should all the US megabanks be forced to mark their assets to market, all of them would be immediately insolvent"

i think a better statement is:

should all megabanks be forced to mark their assets to common-law valuation metrics all of them would be immediately insolvent.

HarrisonBergeron's picture

As soon as interest rates rise appreciably, whether a week or a day from now, the

IR swaps will turn JPM into a supermassive black hole. With a few TBTF to follow. I think the negative swap spread is the tell for this move. The TBTF think they have put together a perfect racket but are overplaying their hand. 

aint no fortunate son's picture

Business Week covers - aren't they supposed to be the kiss of death?

Oh yeah, and FUCK YOU Jamie.

Cookie's picture

My hatred knows no bounds. From Wall St. via London to Bangkok (where they launder Myanmar drug money), I loath them all

boooyaaaah's picture

<<<In response, he says policymakers should simply break up the megabanks and split them off into their component parts.

"I think they should be broken up," Hoenig said. "I think there's no reason why as we've done in other instances of [sic] finding the right mechanism to break them into their components.>>>>


Wait a minute.  If the federal reserve's mission statement is to keep full employment and regulate the banks and money supply, then why doesn't ---the fed break up the banks -- all by themselves

Also if I remember correctley the hedge funds had almost brought the big banks to their knees --- prompting Paulson and the SEC chief to take drastic measures.

The hedge funds were actually doing a better job of regulating than the FED

Is there a way we can tap into this creative distruction into this before it is too late. Or have we lost or only opportunity.

Maybe the Fed could isue to the American public a one time naked short SDR against GS & JPM.

Hoenig for chairman

Git er done


Seer's picture

Maybe the Fed could isue to the American public a one time naked short SDR against GS & JPM.

LOL!  Yes, but since corporations are "people" (recently backed by the SC), GS & JPM would take this to the Supreme Leaders and have it all tossed out; that or they'd be able to short themselves so that they could take themselves out and make a killing (and the zombies would rise again).

Madcow's picture

There's no way to hide deteriorating cash flow.

As incomes fall and taxes increase, there is simply no way around collapsing rents, debt repudiation, bond payment defaults, etc. etc. etc. 

A bunch of silly rhetoric. Just stick to the math:

Collapsing money supply x Increasing public sector borrowing = Skyrocketing interest rates.

Sure, that helps the dollar - until it doesn't. 

Jim B's picture

More self-serving BS from Wall Street...  The arrogance is mind numbing


HarrisonBergeron's picture

a poet once said:

"Yeah I'm rollin' down Rodeo wit a shotgun

The rungs torn from the ladder can't reach the tumour
One god, one market, one truth, one consumer "

mark456's picture

Good linux hosting option package offered by ucvhost which not only provides the best in terms of hosting packages but also believes in truly being there for the customer, 24x7. windows vps Moreover , they offer unlimited bandwidth as well as nearly 1GB storage along with database maintenance, email facility along with storage, availability of sub domain and many other important features for a very low price. ucvhost