In Defense of Bankers

MacroAndCheese's picture

Bankers have been under siege lately.  I should know, I am one.  Just this week we saw a post on this site tying the suicide of a Greek man in the main Athens square to bankers, urging bankers of all stripes to resign en masse as a means of striking back.  Yesterday we read a guest post by a writer here wondering half seriously if we should execute corrupt bankers.  Commenters were evenly split on whether bankers should be simply executed, or if there was perhaps a better way to inflict even more pain.

I would find these deliberations somewhat amusing, if they weren’t so far afield of reality and so pervasive in our society.  The root of the vitriol seems to come from the perception that bankers are solely responsible for the financial crisis that started in 2007.  This view is compounded by the generalized lumping of all bankers into the same pot, just as if postal workers should also be held responsible for the ills of our government.

It takes just a quick, cursory look at the financial crisis to see what a massive joint effort it truly was, but first let’s clarify just who these guilty bankers are—who were the ones who had a direct hand in the financial crisis, and who did not.  We can presumably blame upper management.  We could point a finger at the guys who packaged and sold those securitized CLOs, CDOs, etc.  We should probably add the people who arranged the mortgages that went into those products.

Those are all bankers, for sure.  But we can’t very well blame bank tellers, can we?  We also can’t really blame stock or bond traders, or traditional loan officers, or credit officers (apart from the ones associated with the bad asset packaging), or the commercial real estate teams, or the bank administrative arms, or the notary people, or the IT departments, or collections, or the bank asset managers who didn’t buy the toxic products.  It would be a stretch to finger the people issuing bankers’ acceptances or letters of credit, or all the folks who service credit cards.

So I’ll go out on a limb here and pencil in a figure of 5% as the number of bankers that were directly involved some way in the financial crisis.  I realize it probably seems high to you too, but let’s be conservative and go with that.  Let’s call these people the “Bad Bankers.”  (For disclosure, I am not a Bad Banker.)

Now let’s take a spin around the financial block and see who else was involved in the crisis.  Let’s start with the investors who bought the products from the Bad Bankers.  Investors who bought these CDOs and CLOs are certainly fully complicit, because banks would hardly waste their time creating investments that no one would buy.  So we really have to include pension funds, endowments, mutual funds, 401k plans, hedge funds, etc.

But these guilty investors are among the most conservative institutions, and they certainly would not have made their purchases if the investments had not been highly rated.  That trail leads to the ratings agencies, most notably Moodys, Standard and Poors, and Fitch.  In fact many institutions can or will only buy AAA-rated investments, that is, only bonds deemed to be of the highest possible credit, virtually certain to return principal and interest.  So the ratings agencies are certainly to blame as well.  How in the world could something with a AAA rating be worth pennies on the dollar just a few months later?

At the same time, regardless of the rating, the products themselves were bad.  Had the mortgages been performing, we would not be in this mess in the first place.  The problem is that the investments that the rating agencies endorsed consisted of mortgages with no down payment, borrowers with poor credit ratings, faulty documentation, etc.  We can’t blame the ratings agencies for the fact that the products were so bad, and we really can’t blame the Bad Bankers, because they would not have agreed to lend money to the borrowers under those conditions.  The Bad Bankers were just representing a huge lender.

The stars of the show, the lenders that made it all possible, are none other than FNMA and FHLMC:  Fannie and Freddie.  These are the government agencies that set the standards and leant the money to the subprime and “Alt A” borrowers, that stretched farther and farther to find potential borrowers so that more and more Americans could own their own homes, no matter how inappropriate that might have been.  No Fannie and Freddie, no financial crisis.  It’s that simple.  Our list of the guilty is growing exponentially.

But Fannie and Freddie are really only there to serve their master, the federal government.  As we all know, our government has been pushing home ownership during multiple administrations, pushing the ratio from an already unsustainable 64% to a mind-boggling 68% over the last few years that preceded the crisis.  Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, encouraged Fannie and Freddie to leverage their activities even more, during the height of the fiasco.  For the record, he is still the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

But the government, as ill-advised and well-intentioned as it was, could not have forced us to buy the homes that Fannie and Freddie would fund, that the ratings agencies would endorse, that the Bad Bankers would package, that the institutions would buy.  For that, they needed millions of US citizens.  Yes, it may be hard to turn down a house we can’t afford when someone is willing to lend money at low rates (we have Alan Greenspan to thank for the low rates, by the way), but why should we choose to live beyond our means?  Whose fault would that be?  Now our very long list of the guilty just became much, much, much longer.

The simple fact is that our entire country went through a bubble, just like the Japanese before us, and the Europeans now.  Among other things, bubbles require a pervasive herd mentality, and lots and lots of credit.  Our bubble was not perpetuated by the Bad Bankers, who were also living the bubble dream.  The Bad Bankers bought plenty of their own products, entranced by the same AAA ratings that ensnared the rest of us.

Sure, we can blame bankers, good and bad alike.  We can also blame our pen for staining our shirt pocket, and cut off our nose to spite our face.  In that same way, the government has been all too happy to blame the banks for the crisis, to avoid taking responsibility for its own prominent role in the debacle.  But when we blame bankers, we fail to address the issues we still face in a responsible, effective manner.  The Bad Bankers are gone, or neutered.  The rest of the chain that comprised the crisis remains very badly flawed, and we continue to single out the banks at our own peril.

Comment viewing options

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

I feel a bit sorry for you, as you've been sunk into the groupthink so long that you actually believe what you wrote.

#1  JPM and GS would not have survived the crisis had capitalism been allowed to work itself out as Adam Smith had planned.  You can't be 20 and 40:1 levered and survive a turbulent volatile perfect storm.  It's simply not possible, and even with the lower leverage ratios your beloved "top tier" banks in the US have now, they STILL wouldn't survive without the cheap loans Uncle Sam is providing AND the blatant cash bailouts of countries, states, corporations, and fellow banks, not to mention real estate, automobiles (except the one financial institution that allowed taking physical delivery of precious metals, THEY were allowed to fail after being raped by your beloved white shoe bank).   We also don't have the telephone and transaction records for GS and JPM during the Lehman and AIG bailouts, so we don't have all the facts about what they did to spur failure, and then bet on bailouts (or in Lehman's case NO bailout) in the other direction.  Unless GS had inside information, there's no possible way, for instance, they knew how to bet on AIG in both directions successfully, and thus claiming they "didn't need" the bailout they actually got from the failed counterarty risk.

#2  In a capitalistic world, you'd be working in a different industry right now, so the fact you get ANY paycheck to work at a business that over it's history made no money, means you're a bit of a leech on society, no?  Yes.  Instead of printing "woe is me" articles that are going to get you in big trouble with the public who aren't on the government's tit, why don't you quietly go about your day, ignore your office mates who clearly have entitlement problems and balls too big for their shorts, and just be happy you're a well paid government worker now?  Because that's what you are, a government worker, like a postal clerk.  If you're a socialist, or just believe you're a public servant trying to help people, there's no shame in that.  But writing what you wrote is just ignorant and frankly sad, for you.  

#3  Everyone else paid for their mistakes, and continue to pay.  The only people that haven't paid for mistakes is those working in your industry, who not only haven't paid, but have been given free money.  So while it is 100% true that the greed was not just attributed to one group, the 99% (if I may use that instead of your 95%) actually are PAYING.  So the cacacophony that you hear from Occupy and Tea Party are not the cries of those who are piously claiming to have no greed, they are the cries of those who've been punished but remained alive long enough to see that you have NOT.  So again, the fact that you are drawing attention to yourself with this post, is not just unwise, it's a factor of your being immersed inside a cocoon of other people that are trying to justify their good fortune.  Sorry dude, it's just not justified, and everyone (the 99%) can see it, you (the 1%) are the only ones NOT seeing it.  So my advice, in the interest of consistency, is you should not be referring to ANY of your fellow bretheren as those who "make your skin crawl".  I've heard that phrase before, and it's usually from the mouth of a biggot.

Lastly, if you want to write an intelligent well-thought and wise article, I advise you to study the founding fathers from the Revolutionary period, MEN like John Handcock, John Adams, and Sam Adams.  When things resorted to bloodshed, as they inevvitably will in this case too, it is because the 99% overreact and resort to theivery and violence, which is condemnable.  Study the reactions of the founding fathers to the Boston Massacre and even the great Boston Tea Party.  They publically condemned them, even tho the masses were fighting on their behalf.  Why?  This is because they understood that the 99% were reacting to wrongs being thrown at them from men in ivory towers (back then London) who weren't willing to be fair.  Had you read this period thoroughly, you'd realize that articles like this are what CAUSE overreactions-- overreactions you may be witnessing in these comments when the 99% are calling for "blood" or "prison sentences" or for the gov't to "crack down".  So you, sir, are the CAUSE of what's going to happen to your people, you in particular, and boys like Jamie Dimon who're actiing like petulant children in public.  (at LEAST Blankfein has the wisdom to keep his mouth shut even if he THINKS the way you do-- but my bet is he fully realizes he's been stealing from the gov't coffers and willing to keep his mouth shut to not spoil thte golden goose).  

So I would IMPLORE you to write another article, admitting you were wrong, and then I'd recommend finding another job outside the current thieving banking industry.  If you write such an apology in public, you'd probably become a hero instead of lambasted justifiably.  if you need inspiration, I recommend the Bible (and I'm not a religious man), there's a great story of a man named Paul who did such a 180 degree turn in life he even changed his name from Saul just to complete the transformation.  This is what you should do.  I will even tell you that there will be two upside for you.

1.   You'll not suffer at the hands of the 99%, because you will become their Paul, and your testimonial (in the form off the apology) will be widely printed as evidence of how wrong the 1% are and just how delusional they've become.  Who knows, you might even inspire some public pity from those who're about to hand you your head, so to speak, and they may be lighter on the group that even continues to act like you did in this article.  Sometimes compassion can come from strange places, eh?

2.  Should you choose to get out of the currently evil industry of banking now, you might even be able to get back INTO banking when it becomes important again, AFTER the coming inevitable credit crash.  Your turnaround will give you credibility when it's a dire time to have some.  Sure, there will be some crazies that continue to call for your head, but those are the people who'll be drowned by the EVENTUALLY cooler-thinking majority of those who just want fairness.  And considering that your types are currently in dire need of some sympathy from the likes of the 99% who can easily turn on you and make you gone or the rest of your life miserable (in prison), consider having sympathy for those who make wicked comments against you in this forum.  After all, to GET compassion when you're clearly wrong, you need to be the kind off person who GIVES compassion.

I hope this reply isn't too late to save you from your own ignorance.  Take a vacation NOW and start talking and LISTENING to the 99%.
























steelhead23's picture

Look, I can give banksters a bit of a break.  After all, in their Pavlovian quest for profits, individual or corporate, who could expect them to pass up juicy CDS for bonds they designed to fail (Magnetar anyone?).  Its a reflex.  To be expected.  And macro is right, the reason for this excessive reflex response is that the government has failed to beat the living hell out of the banksters.  In fact, the banksters have managed to convey this Pavlovian reflex to their overseers in government (revolving door anyone?), meaning the overseers routinely lubricate the banksters genitalia with their tongues whenever they hear a bell.  Also, the short shrift given to Greedscam grossly diminishes the role of EZ money in the creation of the bubble.  In the Pavlovian analogy, Greedscam was the one vigorously ringing the bell.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla's picture

There would be a whole lot less vitrol towards bankers if the government would do its job and prosecute those responsible and shutdown insolvent banks rather than change accounting rules to make them appear solvent then bail them out directly through tax dollars or indirectly through financial repression.  The politicians are completely in the hands of banksters and vis versa.  They are both at fault ... and you can be sure that the DNC and RNC will do nothing to change it.

williambanzai7's picture

Obviously you knew what kind of reaction this post would draw.

However, let me ask you one simple question: How can you say the bad bankers are gone when the two leading culprits are still at the head of Goldman and JPM and none of the former leaders of an industry that is clearly lacking in all self restraint has been held duly accountable?

Just because it works to say I was too dumb to Be a responsible CEO, does not mean everything is hunky dory. The Street is clogged with shit at the top and until it is cleared out everyone who choses to associate themselves with it should be asking some serious questions. But they choose not to. It's easier to scoff at the Goldman VPs NYT OpEd.

This is not hyperbole, you know damn well what I am talking about.

MacroAndCheese's picture

William I'm going to give you a two-part answer.

1)  Yes it all hit the fan on Dimon's watch and Blankfein, and god knows how many more.  Some of them are still there, some are not.  At my institution the top dogs were taken out to the woodshed, though not before one of them could amass what we plebes conservatively estimate to be $100 mm after tax.  I think this is totally, completely wrong, and as you as a lawyer know, there's not a damn thing we can do about it.  They got us.  Believe me, my personal income has been dramatically reduced directly because of that guy and I am not happy about it.

2)  Isn't it up to those two banks?  I'm thinking specifically of the two examples you mention, because those two didn't need bailouts.  The banks that needed bailing out, sorry pal but you're outa there.  One of the two people you mentioned makes my skin crawl, so hey, they can keep him.   And for a part (b) to this second answer, remember, everyone was drinking the kool-aid, so if a bank had a CEO who lost money in the crisis but kept his risk at manageable levels and is a good manager, I don't see why he should be automatically slated for the glue factory.

I am not defending the people you and I are thinking about, William.  Far from it.  But take a look at the comments, they're crazy, they're just insane.  Yes I knew they would come, and I am here to calmly state my case.  The banks should get their fair share of the blame, and they were in there with both feet.  But they deserve 10%, or 15%, or 20% of the credit, not the whole ugly pie.

PS if I had heard the term "bankster" before today I would have used it, that's a nice one.


undertheradar's picture

Uhh, how did the bailout of AIG and making good on all CDS not in turn bailout those two examples in a rather direct way?

Kayman's picture

"But take a look at the comments, they're crazy, they're just insane." 

Selling insurance ( CDS ) without reserves and without the ability to fund the loss, is insane.

Turning an otherwise productive country into a skimming, churning paper asset focused zombie is insane.

Your view of insanity simply does not coincide with mine.

chunga's picture

Maybe we should cut this guy some slack...

His life must be pure hell for suffering the hardship of all these junks.

Naaaa...pile on.

Bank of America CEO Moynihan must testify in MBIA lawsuit: judge

chunga's picture


Keying "banskter" into dreaded google = 1.25 million search results.

You confess to being a banker (one of the good ones) and have never heard it.

That's classic!


waterhorse's picture

I was just going to remark on that also.  Kind of hard to believe, especially if you read blogs like this, NC, Ticker, etc.  "Banksters" are mentioned daily.

AnAnonymous's picture

Bankers are just US citizens who happen to be bankers.

What they do, any US citizen wishes to do.But they are not in the position of.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous said:

Bankers are just US citizens who happen to be bankers.

What they do, any US citizen wishes to do.But they are not in the position of.

A world of fantasy.
This is how Chinese citizenism citizens deal with reality.
More of the US citizenism fantasy.

By the way, is there an obligation for fantasy to be self consistent? Or should not fantasy be allowed to be fantasy.
Point at much as you wish to the errings of US citizenism, it is your creation, your own fantasy.
It is funny how Chinese citizenism citizens like to project their fantasies onto others.

Save that as Chinese citizenism is real, well, it gives situations like Tibet.

Westcoastliberal's picture

Mr. Banker,

I recall my late Father and the relationship he had with his banker regarding real estate.  Once a year we would visit the bank, my Dad in his overalls walking in to talk with Mr. whateverhisnamewas, who was the president of the local bank.  Mr. president would chit chat with my Dad for a few minutes asking about family & mutual friends & acquantences, then they would get down to business & Mr. president would ask if my Dad wanted to roll over the principal on the note for another year.  Most times my Dad would say yes and Mr. president would calculate the interest on the outstanding balance of the note and my Dad would write the bank a check. We would then leave with Mr. president escorting us out with a cheerful farewell.  And that's that.

So when I read you making noises like you guys aren't ALL bad asses, I recall that experience and wonder what the hell happened since.

I can tell you what happened.  Your industry insidiously robbed us of our wealth by buying more and more politicians and inventing more and more "products" to create financial traps for the great "unwashed".  My Dad would be as welcome in a modern bank as a leper.  Roll over the principal on the note and pay simple interest annually?  Are you kidding? Where's the bonus in that?

No I don't blame the tellers. But the rest of you in banking and financial services can go to hell as I'm sure you will.

MacroAndCheese's picture

That banker may have been my grandfather.  He would not recognize banking now.  I am the grandson of your banker.  I bring the same values to my job.

I'm sorry you feel that way.  It's why I wrote today.

El Oregonian's picture

Ha, I just printed this story out, now off to the crapper to wipe my ass with it so I can find something useful for this tripe...

Dburn's picture

Rotten Tomato with a turd inside hitting brass balls

Freddie and Fannie ex-CEOs were interviewed on why they bought the toxic crap that banks were generating late in the game. "We had to compete, major banks like Citibank ,JP Morgan and others were our main competitors".

In short you are all re-used Douche Muffins.

adr's picture

The problem is the banking and public market system. Although there are many perfectly nice people working for banks, trying to work honestly. The system itself is dishonest and corrupt. A bank loan officer is just like the good man that worked at the gate of the gulag. His job was just to check the prisoners destined for torture in. He didn't participate in the torture, in fact he was never allowed to see what was past the gate. For all he knew they were just workers and he was keeping the record of the employees.

Even though the loan officer at the bank said she looked over everything with a fine tooth comb, and gave me a truth in lending disclosure. It didn't stop a $4500 mistake showing up at closing. Turns out she screwed up and didn't include upfront mortgage insurance payments. I had to come up with $4500 in six hours or my deal was toast. Then later I found $1500 in earnest money that was improperly applied.

The bank should have eaten that $4500 for their mistake. Still haven't got my $1500 back. But I needed the house. The evil empire and the gatekeeper won. The loan officer may not have meant to make the mistake, but her boss decided it was my problem knowing suing him would cost me more than the $4500 .

jayman21's picture


See if your state has a limit on small claims court.  Normally one can file a case with very little money.  Might be worth your time to file if limit is bigger than the 4500.

thedon's picture

At least get the easily verifiable facts right

"Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, encouraged Fannie and Freddie to leverage their activities even more, during the height of the fiasco.  For the record, he is still the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee."

Does Spencer Bachus (R) know this?  Next you will say Pelosi is still Speaker of the House.

Benjamin Glutton's picture

A rebuttal from Professor Black.


Green Slime Drives Our Financial Crises Posted on by | 11 Comments

By William K. Black

“Pink slime” just had its fifteen minutes of fame.  BPI, the producer of pink slime, calls it “Lean Finely Textured Beef.”  BPI’s slogan is “expect a higher standard.” Pink slime starts with fatty tissues that are inherently more likely to be repositories of salmonella and e coli infections.  The tissues are shredded and rendered and most of the fat drained off.  The pink slime, however, is still more likely to be infected after this processing and that makes it dangerous and can make it smell spoiled.  BPI’s “innovation” was to gas the pink slime in Mr. Clean (ammonia) to try to kill bacteria and reduce the stink.  The resultant pink slime is then frozen into bricks and shipped in bulk.


Pink slime was originally limited to dog food, but it has secretly been fed to Americans for a decade.  Major hamburger chains, grocery stores, and school lunch programs added it to make up 15% of our burgers.  The government didn’t require disclosure of pink slime or ammonia.  Tests have established that pink slime remains more likely to harbor dangerous bacteria and that the only way to reduce that problem is to add so much Mr. Clean that the pink slime stinks and tastes awful.  Because BPI could not sell the product if it continued to stink and taste awful they reduced the amount of Mr. Clean they used in processing and the risk of the pink slime harboring dangerous bacteria rose.

The New York Times revealed the pink slime scandal in a story that ran on December 31, 2009.  Unfortunately, it buried the lead.  The story broke the news that Gerald Zirnstein, a government microbiologist, had dubbed the product “pink slime” in 2002, but it did so around the 25th paragraph and the story did not generate a demand for reform.     

A few weeks ago, Kit Foshee, a former BPI employee fired for blowing the whistle on pink slime, helped make the secret adulteration of hamburgers with pink slime a scandal.  Once the public focused on pink slime they decided that they did indeed “expect a higher standard” for their burgers and BPI lost so much business that it closed three of its four plants producing pink slime.

The infected, odiferous, and bad tasting pink slime (aka, the “higher standard”) secretly added to our burgers for over a decade would be embarrassing to any system that pretends to the label “free enterprise,” but it has special resonance amongst economists.  Adam Smith’s most famous saying, which captures his central vision of markets, is a seemingly paradoxical tale about butchers.  He wrote that we could rely on the butcher providing us with wholesome meat not because of his altruism, but because of his far more reliable devotion to self-interest.  Our butcher may not care about us, but he cares about whether he gets our business.  This causes him to act reliably as if he cared for our well-being.  He knows that if he sells us unfit meat we will cease buying meat from him and his business will fail.  Pink slime is inconceivable in Adam Smith’s ode to the self-interested butcher.

Relying on corporate butchers’ self-interest (greed) has been proven to be unreliable by the pink slime deception.  Greedy corporate butchers taught that they should not really care about the customer’s well-being realized that they could maximize their self-interest by selling us pink slime as long as they could do so secretly.

Modern finance theory extended Smith’s paradoxical tale about the butcher to the financial world.  Theorists assured us that financial markets were, absent regulation, reliably “efficient” because they were “self-correcting.”  Any pricing error created a profit opportunity for trades and those trades removed the pricing error.  “Accounting control fraud” is impossible because it would create a consistent pricing bias by overstating the value of the securities issued by the frauds.  The markets exclude fraud so effectively that “a rule against fraud is not an essential or … an important ingredient of securities markets” (Easterbrook & Fischel 1991).

“Private market discipline” adds to the impossibility of accounting control fraud.  Creditors suffer severe losses and fail if they make imprudent loans.  They have an incentive to develop the experience, expertise, and systems to ensure that they underwrite superbly prior to making large, risky loans.  A lender’s central expertise should be underwriting and an investment bank’s central expertise should be “due diligence.”  The biggest banks and investment banks, which pay starting compensation of well over $100,000 should have incomparable skills in conducting, respectively, underwriting and due diligence.



W10321303's picture

"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and....

I was there when Jesus Christ.......Pleased to meet you, hope you know my name, bet you're wondering, what's the nature of my game...."

Sympathy for the Devil...Rolling Stones

aerial view's picture

 The public's regulators, law makers, enforcers, gatekeepers and protector is suppose to be our elected and hired employees including district attorneys, judges, FBI/police, congress and the president. They have been complicit enablers of creating a fraudulent, corrupt, wealth robbing, stinking, rotten, immoral system that has sacrificed the hardwork of 99.99% in order to serve the psychopathic destructive charades of the 0.01%!

Ag Star's picture

Bankers and Government are one in the same are they not?  But if there is some slight difference-- let's just kill all of them and be sure none of their DNA is passed on.

jon's picture

you keep writing the words "bad bankers" but all i can see is "ben bernanke"


lots and lots of credit, hmmm. like, from some kind of big reserve of sorts

waterhorse's picture

I'll hand it to you, MacNCheese - you do have some brass balls to post this shit.  But that's exactly what it is, shit. 

James's picture

No waterhouse.

No brass balls.

He's a weak souled individual displaying, once again, bankers delusion and their physcopathic behavior.

ALL of them are pussies.

If the bankers are such great bussinessmen why is it they can't survive on their own w/out STEALING from taxpayers?

And did you notice that in his eyes everybody else  is at fault?

Joebloinvestor's picture

This article sounds like a child molester protecting a murderer.

Notice how the words "ethics" and "moral compass" are missing?

Conscience? what is that?

AndrewCostello's picture

The truth is that most of the worlds wealth is fake, and was just printed over the last 50 years.  We've used that currency to manipulate all sectors of our society.


Nothing will get better until we finally have a free market.  A truly free market.

smiler03's picture

Andrew Costello spamming his book again, for free. Low-life.

DevilsPrinciple's picture

Bank managment runs the show, you work for them, ergo YOU are a BAD  banker. Kiss my bloody arse. 

Rockfish's picture


Rat in the cheese says it all.  Here you go WB7 do your thing.

New American Revolution's picture

I'm sorry, FUCK YOU,... I didn't quite get the transition from the 'bad bankers' (i.e. Banksters FUCK YOU) and the people who bought their worthless issues that the Banksters FUCK YOU knew were worthless issues are now somehow complicit FUCK YOU in their scheme FUCK YOU.

With your reasoning FUCK YOU, it is hard to come to FUCK YOU any other conclusion FUCK YOU that you are not an innocent FUCK YOU banker, but one of the worst FUCK YOU MUTHRFUCKER Banksters, and YES!!!   FUCK YOU, Maybe you do need to be taken out into the square FUCK YOU, and beheaded.... FUCK YOU!!!

Am I getting FUCK YOU through to FUCK YOU, you?

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

He certainly has a way with words...I mean, a fucking way with words.



onlooker's picture


It is said that Shakespeare wrote that all the Lawyers should be shot, yet lawyers abound.  Bankers own all the money, most of the power, and control the political systems World Wide.

No matter what system is in place or what country it is in, Bankers will own and or control it.


Cockroaches, Bankers, and rats will always be a plague upon the World.

ZackAttack's picture

No Fannie and Freddie, no financial crisis.

Good thing they didn't have those in Spain or Britain; otherwise, there might've been a housing bubble there, too. Really dodged a bullet on that one.

Rockfish's picture



To THE BANKERS with love.


ebworthen's picture

Bad Bankers are gone?  Funny, I'm sure Jamie (Caesar) Dimon is still running around, and Vikram (Bailout Boy) Pandit is too.

Government and Banks in cohoots to leverage the housing and other markets is not a good argument for slathering blame on citizens who believed TPTB, just as they are trying to be led to believe we are in "recovery" and they should go buy a car or take out a student loan.

When propaganda and massaging reality are the rule of the day from the top down, blaming the plebians is equivocation.

HelioCentric's picture

bankers are bad, everyone here knows it, their snakes in suits.

but bankers can be caged like an animal like a lion or willd CHEETAH (see what i did thur?) BUT they have been caged the, fed opens the locks with 0 or negative real interest rates and the bubble begins


no bubble

bankers want to steal government helps them get government out and the problem is solved

eatthebanksters's picture

One bad apple can spoil the barrel...we all know there are plenty of honest and good bankers; they are types we need to move forward with a new economy if and when the corrupt bankers are ever brought to justice.  The problem as I see it is that there are enough bad bankers that we just cant' point the finger at any one or ten of them.  You know they number in the thousands.  If and when the justice department ever starts locking some of these assholes up, if and when congress ever gets the balls to create simple yet strict laws regarding common sense separation of business units and fiduciary respnsibility, we may start to trust bankers as a group again.  Until then fuck any one of them unless they can prove to me they are not a crooked operator.

HelioCentric's picture

this article shows that the real problem is bankers and rhe government

No Fannie and Freddie no Bubble, no ensuing crash and its that simple

im not going to say bankers are honest people, but without government there helping them commit these crimes they could never do it in the first place, if government Ahem...SEC actually did their jobs you would see less bankers commiting acts of fraud

who has the power to leave interest rates at 0? thats right the FED
and what is the fed? a government agency not independent of government, but rather independent WITHIN government

p.s. i apologize for my poor sentence structure and poor punctuation im just a 15 year old result of american education

e_goldstein's picture

Lloyd, is that you?

waterhorse's picture

Yes, doing "God's work".  But by the whining, I thought it might be Jamie. 

Zola's picture

MacroCheese - dont make the stupid assumption you are the only one from the industry on ZH . There are many people on ZH who know the difference bewteen fraudulent , manipulated markets and true capitalism where there is sound money, true price discovery and prosperity for the entire nation not just a few elite institutions connected to the teat of a Federal reserve independent in name only and led by a moral midget. You should do well to educate yourself on what capitalism really is and instead of an embarassment you can start contributing something in the debate between more and less government intrusion into the lives of everyone.

HelioCentric's picture

you obviously just like everyone else here hasnt seen what true capitalism is, that predates us by 99 years, unless of course your referring to the history books

thruid's picture

....."We can’t blame the ratings agencies for the fact that the products were so bad, and we really can’t blame the Bad Bankers, because they would not have agreed to lend money to the borrowers under those conditions.  The Bad Bankers were just representing a huge lender."..........

No, you can't blame the ratings agencies for the fact that the products were bad, but you SURE AS HELL COULD BLAME THEM FOR RATING THEM TRIPLE FUCKING AAA !!!!!   The institutions that securitized the mortgages and their CEO's knew exactly the SHIT they were foisting off on investors and the ratings AGENCIES WERE HIRED EXPRESSLY TO RATE THEM TRIPLE FUCKING AAA DUMBASS !!  Also you might note that Lloyd ASS FUCKER Blankfein is not in jail for selling this shit to his investors while he took side bets against what he was recommending to the SHEEP HE WAS HUMPING !!  Ohh no, he is doing Gods work,  which must be paying off the political elite and their cronies in the SEC and Justice Dept not to prosecute this fucking asshole and all the other assholes that perpetrated this on the American people.  No, mere execution is too good for those motherfuckers.

chunga's picture

Thread jumping a little bit here...

It would be nice to see ZH break down the role of "credit default insurance"; and I don't mean PMI.

Ooops...sorry, can't call it "insurance" because theoretically it would be regulated as such...LOL.

Handing out all sorts of money is great if you know it will be paid back at a mark to fantasy value.

Well, not actually paid back by the "insurance" company that holds the paper. They're TBTF...fling it at the taxpayers.

All the lenders' agents played the game and put most of the lies in the liars loans.

If you hire a general contractor, who hires a painter to paint your house and he burns it down instead, who are you gonna sue?

The general contractor and the painter! ha ha

Question for Macro: ever hear of IRS Form 4506-T?

Ghordius's picture

good comments, really good comments

the only thing I can add is:

ok, let's stop blaming the top banksters and let's execute the top banks - since Mitt and Co. says they are people, it follows that you can execute them like you would with very dangerous people (no, a "huge" fine is something they just laugh off - and prisons don't scare'em)

How? Well, the same way as it was done with the Bell Corporation - too big? make smaller. And limit their size.

it's called Anti-Trust and if I remember correctly it was seen as a requirement to a capitalistic system, long time ago...

five companies juggling 80% of the derivatives market? How many Trillions again? start there...