Lehman Post Mortem

14Mar/1051

Lehman Post Mortem

Dylan Ratigan of lilywhite MSNBC, who made a minority hire after having been mocked for their continual RAAAAACIST fingerpointing---including Ratigan's insistence, without evidence, that the Tea Party movement is at root racist---actually does a good job in this segment, asking the right questions of Eliot Spitzer, whom they seem anxious to help rehabilitate despite his own manipulation of the system at others' expense to shield himself from prosecution. At issue is Lehman's practice of temporarily borrowing tens of billions of dollars from creditors against garbage assets just before issuing quarterly reports, then representing that liquidity as due to sales rather than borrowing. By Q2 of 2008, they were hiding $50 billion in debts in this fashion, even though, as was the case with Enron and Fannie & Freddie, they were doling out enormous bonuses to themselves. Ernst & Young signed off on those statements, much as Anderson had the Enron ones.

As Spitzer indicates, this could only have happened if the regulators weren't doing their job. And despite Timmy Geithner's* claim that regulation wasn't part of his job description while heading up the New York fed, it would have fallen under his purview. Transactions of that size, of course, need to be reported to the government. It would seem natural that the government might inquire just what the nature of the transaction was, and whether it was being represented fairly or fraudulently to the public.

Enron, of course, was laid at the feet of Republicans, and pretty fairly, I think, given that amount of money that was going to Republicans, although Enron was somewhat ecumenical. So it should surprise nobody that Lehman's once even-handed distribution of funds trended in recent years towards an almost 3:1 investment in Democrats:

Uncle Sam bailed out Freddie Mac and the company's twin sister, Fannie Mae, this week, and the next in line in the Wall Street family to get a helping hand might just be Lehman Brothers. Executives at the struggling investment bank are looking to sell the company with assistance from the government--and fast--as its stock plunges. Although the government isn't expected to completely bail out Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest U.S. investment bank, the company has built a strong financial relationship with politicians over the years and coincidentally ranks fourth in the largest contributors in the race for the White House.

Since 1989, Lehman Brothers's employees and political action committee have given $9.2 million to federal candidates, parties and political action committees, with 54 percent of that going to Democrats. In the current Congress, 271 lawmakers have collected nearly $3 million since 1989, with 72 percent going to Democrats. Democratic presidential candidates and senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama top the list of all-time recipients for the company, collecting $410,000 and $395,600 respectively. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of both the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, hauled in $181,450, while Sen. Chris Dodd, chair of the Senate banking committee, has collected $165,800. The top recipient of PAC money from Lehman Brothers has been Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over banking and the securities industry. Castle has collected $38,500 from Lehman's PAC since 1993.

Here's the upshot:

The question is whether Congress will be able to fix the system so it doesn't happen again.

A bankruptcy examiner's massive, 2,200-page report on the collapse of Lehman Brothers has found "credible evidence" that top executives, including the CEO, approved misleading statements and used accounting gimmicks to hide the truth from investors and the public. Worse, the report from Anton Valukas raises serious questions about the behavior of auditors and regulators, who are supposed to protect the public from this stuff.

Lehman Brothers' collapse in 2008 was the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history. It set off a panic and led to the multibillion dollar rescue package from Washington.

The Valukas report came about because the Lehman failure was a bankruptcy. There are no such reports on the companies who needed bailouts.

That's the beginning of our reform problem.

Thorough investigations like this one should be conducted on all bailouts. Who knows what an examiner will find?

The Lehman findings are scary enough.

The US public is owed an explanation of the whole thing, but even though the President and Congress are talking about reform, this looks like one of those places where Obama will say he's looking forward rather than backward, as opposed to those cases where he continues to reference the failed policies of his predecessors. The problem is that any such explanation is going to naturally involve an analysis of the overseers of the overseers---namely, Congress---of which Obama himself was a member and regarding which issues he may even have left a voting record.

Comparatively speaking, how small were the pittances that politicians received to incline them, consciously or unconsciously, to regard these institutions favorably, and how dear has their misfeasance been for their constituents. If they were members of a profession, rather than a racket, they wouldn't be able to afford their malpractice insurance.

* His father, Peter F. Geithner, was the director of the Asia program at the Ford Foundation in New York in the 1990s. During the early 1980s, Peter Geithner oversaw the Ford Foundation's microfinance programs in Indonesia being developed by Ann Dunham Soetoro, President Barack Obama's mother, and they met in person at least once.

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

Filed under: Too Lazy to Categorize Leave a comment

Comments (51) Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

James Shore's ghost
March 15th, 2010 - 21:18

although Enron was somewhat ecumenical.

When you dolly up your preening whinnying for “effete” elitism’s effect your narrative should at least contain a half-sane premise. No, ye who takes the majority of his donations from ex-Wall Street Marxists – Memememememe – and who defies Capitalism’s intent with every waking day, Enron wasn’t ecumenical.

And then the weighting of last donation assigned totality of universal motivation, then a genealogy flow chart containing Bozo-logic conspiracy points, yours is the logic of a pussy, and not just any pussy, from vulva to cervix it’s akin to a Mexican whore’s pussy after she’s worked a weekend Klan rally. Tortured.

Maybe stick to the truly ecumenical, twat ripping Bozo.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- Bob Reed
  March 16th, 2010 - 05:39
  
  Don’t be such a coward. Face people with your assertions and accusations instead of doing drive byes, or are you that much of a wannabe gangsta?
  
  Oh, and hit the tip jar on your way out!
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
  - Not James Shore's mom
    March 16th, 2010 - 07:09
    
    Dearest one who jiggles mightily as he retreats in the face of advances made by the sworn enemies of America, my taxes pay your welfare, for your puddin’ pops, for your pork rinds and greased biscuits, for your motherfuckin’ nightly dinner.
    
    Trickle down on my homey and share my wealth, yellow-bellied astroblimp.
    
    Like or Dislike: 0 0
    ( REPLY )
    - Bob Reed
      March 16th, 2010 - 08:58
      
      Retreat! Only tactical ones I assure you.
      
      And welfare? How many times do I have to ‘splain this to you rockhead?
      
      My arse has been in harms way more often than your sorry one has darkened barista’s doors on open mike poetry reading night! All to protect your right to spew the sophmoric rants that are your ouevre.
      
      Think of it as more like a debt of gratitude; along the lines of that which we owe your Dad for his heroic service in Korea…
      
      And as long as you’re buyin, homey, I prefer fried chicken, watermelon, and oven roasted potatoes, thank you very much.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
- Dan Collins
  March 16th, 2010 - 10:06
  
  Maybe try to use facts? http://article.nationalreview.com/318437/the-enron-list/byron-york
  
  It’s really pretty comparable, isn’t it?
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
  - Not James Shore's dad's McVagina
    March 16th, 2010 - 23:39
    
    It’s really pretty comparable, isn’t it?
    
    If you’re deeply partisan and deeply stupid, deluded and/or totally drunk, could be I suppose.
    
    Where’s the numerics of Ken Lay’s and Enron’s contributions to George Bush state and 2000 Presidential campaign in your facts, Sir? How fuckin’ convenient to fail to mention contributions to George W. Bush and to wish all those facts away like a dreamy Kansas cheerleader clutching a dog named Toto.
    
    Phil Gramm co-sponsored the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, did he not, and where’d his wife, Wendy, end up, yes, at Enron’s money nipple.
    
    If you don’t know anything about Enron I’d suggest you read about it. There’s books!
    
    You need to take what you do more seriously, Screech.
    
    Like or Dislike: 0 0
    ( REPLY )
    - Dan Collins
      March 17th, 2010 - 05:53
      
      Enron contributed $740k to Bush over eight years (Gubernatorial and Presidential). In 2008, Lehman donated $290k to Obama.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Not James Shore's dad's McVagina
      March 17th, 2010 - 13:35
      
      To be honest, I have no idea what your actual point is herein.
      
      Geithner is where? The Federal Reserve. It’s the S.E.C. that regulates securities firms and investment banks. Lehman, like Bear, was a primary dealer who dealt with both with the Fed and Treasury, but Lehman wasn’t a bank, which is what the Fed overseas, douchebag. And it’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to you, Danny “Knows Not Shit” Collins.
      
      What was George Bush’s pet name for his “close friend” Kenneth Lay, Kenny Bubbles, Ken-Ken, Kenny Boy? I’d look it up but it doesn’t really matter, now does it. Kenny was Bush’s biggest money man in Texas, everyone in Texas knows that. What was Kenny Lay’s inaugural celebration gift to Georgie Porks and Dickers Cheney – $300,000, for festivities!
      
      Stop being a total pom-poming douchebag. Poor dead Kenny Lay was millions into Bush and the Texas Repubs. He was a fund raiser for Bush, sent out emails, I was there, remember. But that, in reality, doesn’t mean shit. It was Wendy Gramm and Phil Gramm that truly delivered the goods for Dead Kenny Ken-Ken Boy, not GeeDub Bush and/or Limp Dickers. Get this through your conspiracy-laden head, a smoking gun requires a quid pro quo. Without a smoking gun, you got what? Gossip? Rumors? Inference? Guilt by association? Tabloid trash.
      
      Shit, just think what sort’a accusatory story one could concoct about you using your own fevered logical nuances, who have you taken money from, huh, huh, huh, and where’d you get that watch, huh, huh, huh.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Not James Shore's dad's McVagina
      March 17th, 2010 - 13:35
      
      is = was
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Dan Collins
      March 17th, 2010 - 13:51
      
      Listen up, you dickless pussyface, what is it you think the Federal Reserve system does?
      
      Working within the Federal Reserve System, the New York Fed implements monetary policy, supervises and regulates financial institutions and helps maintain the nation’s payment systems.
      
      Regulates financial institutions, shitferbrains. Presumably, the President’s job therefore has something to do with regulation, fuckstick. I just want to point out that Lehman, in its last years, was putting its money where they thought the power was going. I’ve already mentioned their repo transactions, which certainly should have been noticed and red-flagged by Geithner. Unfortunately for them, they weren’t as close to Turbo Timmy’s heart as Goldman-Sachs, you raging bubonic pustule.
      
      It amazes me that you would accuse somebody else of partisanship, fuckwad. You lecture me about my capacity to write, pusillanimous felcher? Why don’t you go curl up with a bottle and some gay porn and pound your pud? It’s about all you’re good for.
      
      You bring nothing at all, ever, but vicious, mindless, reflexive, suppurating pus.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Bob Reed
      March 17th, 2010 - 14:20
      
      Oh, and thor, your invocation of Gramm’s name as some sort of indictment is weak tea indeed. Anyone who happens to recall, or researches, the repeal of Glass-Steagall understands that it was a heavily pushed initiative of Clinton-Summers-Rubin who saw it as an essentially element of the “globalization” of the US economy; so that our banks could compete with overseas entities that were free to engage in activities that were limited only to investment banks here.
      
      Face it homey, Lehman directly gave lord Obamus nearly half as much cake in one pass as Enron had laid on Boooooooooosh! over the years.
      
      And, I don’t remember any Presidential pardons issued by Booooooooooosh! for any of the Enron brass; not like the Holder engineered, Clinton executed, pardon of Mark Rich…
      
      So nice try on the, “I’m a Texan, and I KNOW! bit, but that ain’t playin’ so well here…
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Punters McShannahan
      March 17th, 2010 - 14:52
      
      Well, feeble, flabby, floating, full-of-gobshite fibber, if you want to know the truth, which of course you don’t because you’re a phony full-of-shit lunatic, the Glass-Steagal act was already being circumvented by the time it was repealed.
      
      It’s a long story and you and your batwing stupid ilk are loathe to ever learn fact from fiction, but it was Sandy Weill and others who started merging brokerage firms and banks that brought down Glass-Steagal.
      
      Nonetheless, I was referring to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, dumbshit. It gave Enron a ticket to attempt to fleece the electric power market. Wendy Gramm, Wendy Gramm, Wendy Gramm, think, think, think.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Bob Reed
      March 17th, 2010 - 15:11
      
      Nice regurgitation of the Time magazine talking point, hoss. Any more you need to peddle to meet today’s quota? I mean, feel free to; anyone that can turn a poigniant and personal discussion of schizophrenia into a platform to peddle Obamacare stuff will be allowed that luxury.
      
      You should do a little better homework; as Rachel Maddow snarks, with narratives at least based on fact!
      
      Yes, Mr. Weill lobbied for repeal of Glass-Steagall, so did others-SHOCKAHZ!. But let’s see, who was pushing for it hardest….Hmmmmmmm…. Oh, I don’t know. Say, maybe, Then President Clinton maybe? And Larry Summers? With an assist by insider Rubin? And the bipartisan duplicity of the aformentioned Gramm? All in the name of the holy-grail of one-worlders; “GLOBALIZATION!”
      
      The same reason we’re trying to convert the US into a Euro-weenie socialist paradise under your boy O!
      
      Were’t you ever admonished with the parental cliche; “just because [X] is doing something, do you have to also?”
      
      Can’t we all just admit it was bad policy, and move on from there. Move on to talking about, “the failed Obama economic policies”, just like we heard O! himself demagogue about “the failed Boooooooooooooosh! economic policies”.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Punters McShannahan
      March 17th, 2010 - 15:16
      
      And you lied about Enron as well, Mr. Collins.
      
      Adding Ken Lay and his Enron cronies personal contributions and alone they laid out more than your liar’s Enron estimate. Add hard and soft money and we’re talking between $2 and $3-million to Bushy and the Repubs.
      
      Again, a-hole, America is a free country. Felonious Kenny Lay supported his Bushy deregulation-boy, a-hole, yet there’s no proof that George “The Worst President in U.S. History” Bush did anything wrong. Farm-raising wittle political pet Bushies is legal.
      
      Get your facts straight. The quid pro quo came from the Gramms. Learn history.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Bob Reed
      March 17th, 2010 - 15:20
      
      I’m sure that O! didn’t recieve dime one in soft money from Lehman-no, no, NO!, perish the thought. Why, his fundraising apparatus was the paragon of transparency and accountability, what with the cridut-card security measures waived and what not…
      
      Sure made it convenient to hand out those Master-Card gift cards so people could act as professional donors, didn’t it home-skillet?
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Bob Reed
      March 17th, 2010 - 15:23
      
      Oh, and your boy, O! is quickly replacing any notion of Bush, or Carter even, as the absolute worst Presidents in US history…
      
      Also the spendy-est too! A cool 2 trillion in only 421 days. Why it took Boooooooooosh! years to match that figure…
      
      Change!, it’s all we’ll be left with after O! finishes rape our wallets!
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Punters McShannahan
      March 17th, 2010 - 15:03
      
      Regulates financial institutions, shitferbrains. Presumably, the President’s job therefore has something to do with regulation, fuckstick. I just want to point out that Lehman, in its last years, was putting its money where they thought the power was going. I’ve already mentioned their repo transactions, which certainly should have been noticed and red-flagged by Geithner. Unfortunately for them, they weren’t as close to Turbo Timmy’s heart as Goldman-Sachs, you raging bubonic pustule.
      
      Listen closely – you’re fuckin’ wrong, as usual, Mr. “Know Not” Collins.
      
      It was the S.E.C.’s responsibility to regulate Bear and Lehman, and even if the Fed had questions of Lehman, it wasn’t their baby to regulate.
      
      You Lie.
      
      Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke just got done testifying to what I stated. Watch CNBC instead of beating-off with weaselzipper someday and maybe you’ll learn something.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Bob Reed
      March 17th, 2010 - 15:12
      
      Oh, and you’re getting your “socks” mixed up. Keep ‘em straight man!
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Punters McShannahan
      March 17th, 2010 - 15:24
      
      You, Bob, just got your crusty socks blown off and your talking points stomped on.
      
      This is why you dopes lose elections. You’re hijackers hellbent on flying a 747 plane into the American economy; on the wings of your lies the economy collapses like a tall building.
      
      Which fuckin’ Christian Taliban madrasas did you two idiots learn economics in?
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Bob Reed
      March 17th, 2010 - 15:33
      
      Oh, bravo, hoss (golf clap)…
      
      Now which of my “points” got blown away exactly? And nice metaphoric pun there with the “wings” assertion. Especially since you linked it with your whole “Madrass” and “Christian Taliban” meme.
      
      Still, hyperbole and doesn’t dress up the pablum any better, I’m afraid.
      
      Dan may have said “Fed” when he meant “Treasury” at some point along the way; I’d need to review the tape to be sure. But aside from repeating Time magazine assertions surrounding the repeal of Glass-Steagall, you scored no points that I’m aware of.
      
      Did Lehman provide any “soft” money to O!?
      
      Can it ever really be known, due to the mafia-like, deliberately opaque, fund raising apparatus he ran; after reneging on his pledge to accept public funds, by-the-way?
      
      And was repealing Glass-Steagall not a Clinton administration legislative initiative, undertaken in the name of “Globalization” and allowing US banks to act in the same irresponsible manner as European ones were?
      
      European banks that are still in a world of trouble, by-the-way?
      
      Stubborn facts and inconvenient truths, hoss. Learn ‘em, Love ‘em!
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Punters McShannahan
      March 17th, 2010 - 15:52
      
      Enron’s collapse had nothing to do with Glass-Steagal, moron.
      
      Lehman collapsed before Obama was President.
      
      What the fuck would it matter if they gave pre-collapse money to Obama?
      
      The final stomp!
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Dan Collins
      March 17th, 2010 - 15:55
      
      Fuck you, Tom. The Fed ought to have understood what was going on with the repo transactions, fuckwad, especially since those were happening in Turbo Timmy’s bailiwick, dick.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Bob Reed
      March 17th, 2010 - 16:11
      
      I realize that Glass-steagall had nothing to do with Enron, and that Lehman collapsed before Obama was sworn in.
      
      At lot of folks seem to be concerned with where a lot of other money of Lehman’s went before they collapsed; as well as where a lot of other corporate money is going, vis-a-vis bonuses, payroll, investments, gratuitous operating expenses, etc…
      
      What does it matter what money Enron gave before their bankruptcy…
      
      Touche! Tu Quoque!
      
      Stomp? I felt no stomp…
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Punters McShannahan
      March 17th, 2010 - 16:22
      
      It doesn’t matter what the Fed knew, least of all Mr. Geithner, it’s why they’re attempting to reform the Fed’s structure and regulatory responsibilities, ye conspiratorial genius who will soon probably attempt to blame Barney Frank if he can’t figure out how to blame a Jew or a Black person.
      
      Shit happens. Weaknesses are exposed when shit happens. Grow up, if possible.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Dan Collins
      March 17th, 2010 - 16:36
      
      Fuck off. Lehman and the rest of them dealt directly with the reserve banks. If they didn’t have a fucking duty of care, and if their function wasn’t in large part regulatory, then I have no idea what the fuck Turbo Timmy was getting paid for. Yeah, you sure don’t like to place the blame, do you? Don’t tell me to grow up, boy. Screw your callow ass.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - not Karl Marx!
      March 17th, 2010 - 16:59
      
      Lehman was a primary dealer of U.S. Gov’t bonds, of course they dealt with the Federal Reserve and its branch banks. But they weren’t regulated by the Federal Reserve.
      
      You’re wrong.
      
      I’m right.
      
      Brokerage firms file their financials with the S.E.C., they are audited by the S.E.C.. The Fed can do things like change margin rates (lending rates), but they don’t regulate brokerage firms, they regulate banks.
      
      No matter what weaselzipper says, I’m right.
      
      Want to bet me?
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Dan Collins
      March 17th, 2010 - 17:06
      
      Wanna bet me that the Fed Reserve system has everything to do with repos?
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Bob Reed
      March 17th, 2010 - 17:10
      
      Yes thor, Barney Frank’s name might possibly surface in the discussion; after all, he has sat on the House Banking comittee for evar! It’s reasonable to think that he’s had his spoon in the soup of a lot of the legislation that’s transpired over the years.
      
      And we are all aware of his track record on integrity of ideas and ideological axe grinding. Remember his stalwart defense of “the impeccible leadership of Frankln Raines”, and his excoriating of the IG for suggesting that there may have been a problem with accounting and practices at Fannie/Freddie.
      
      And, *yawn*, again with the racist affixing of blame? Really, hoss, the racist thing is played out; invent a new tune. And your boy O! and your ideological as well as partisan fellow travelers are more likely than any of us Christians of being anti-semitic…
      
      Weaknesses are exposed when events occur; but the knee-jerk reflex to resort to government command and control is not always the cure.
      
      Let businesses that made poor investments and decisions fail maybe. Use existing legislation and statutes to jail a few of those responsible. You might be surprised how effecient the invisible hand of the market can be when, you know, it’s actually free to act.
      
      Smith, Hayek, Friedman. The three wise men of economics!
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
Enoch_Root
March 16th, 2010 - 05:23

aren’t you the same one who cried foul when people posed as your deceased mother?

or do your sensibilities only apply to you?

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- Not James Shore's dad's McVagina
  March 16th, 2010 - 07:18
  
  You’re one to fuckin’ talk. You admin a website for Reich-wing waterheads buckin’ for a ball fight.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
  - Enoch_Root
    March 16th, 2010 - 07:58
    
    this isn’t a Leftist blog, moron.
    
    Like or Dislike: 0 0
    ( REPLY )
    - Not James Shore's dad's McVagina
      March 17th, 2010 - 13:43
      
      This is batwing soup with extra nuts and twigs.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Bob Reed
      March 17th, 2010 - 14:00
      
      You should know, you’re the one that brings the nutz and twigs…
      
      Oh, and by the way, Dan pwn3d your arse yet again!
      
      Don’t forget to hit the tip jar on the way out Hoss!
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
Punters McShannahan
March 17th, 2010 - 15:44

Yes, Mr. Weill lobbied for repeal of Glass-Steagall, so did others-SHOCKAHZ!. But let’s see, who was pushing for it hardest….Hmmmmmmm…. Oh, I don’t know. Say, maybe, Then President Clinton maybe? And Larry Summers? With an assist by insider Rubin? And the bipartisan duplicity of the aformentioned Gramm? All in the name of the holy-grail of one-worlders; “GLOBALIZATION!”

Time Mag? I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. I was in the business, off the top of my head I remember this shit.

Banks were buying discount brokerages and promising not to do underwriting so as to bypass Glass-Steagal and brokerage firms were buying Credit Unions so they could do banking and bypass Glass-Steagal. Then Weill put Solomon, Citibank and Travelers under one roof calling it Citicorp, or was it Citigroup, I think it was Citicorp – Bob, look that up, Wiki it, ya loser. At the end of the ’90′s there was no more Glass-Steagal even when there was Glass-Steagal.

This is what most educated people refer to as common knowledge. And the most common knowledge of all was the argument from our big banks to repeal Glass-Steagal was that in other countries those other countries’ big banks are doing it so why can’t we (we meaning American banks in America), yet in those other countries, Canada for instance, they have fuckin’ regulations, unlike the previous George “Tah Wegulations Es’teh Ebol” Bush administration’s anti-regulatory policies.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- Bob Reed
  March 17th, 2010 - 16:05
  
  Well, WIKI is not the most reliable source of information when it comes to matters that effect public policy, or more pointedly, may embarrass or implicate promonent lefties or progressive policy initiatives; in short, when it doesn’t fit the brave new narrative, it’s conveniently altered or left out of the record. I need only point to facts that contradict the AGW cult, that also are mysteriously missing from any wiki page, as proof positive of that.
  
  I don’t need to look up anything to acknowledge what you posit; that financial holding companies were simulataneously owning Banks, both commercial and investment, credit unions and other entities. But, they were prohibited from easily shifting funds in-house between them so easily, nor were their commercial banking arms allowed to count private investment paper, with perhaps the exception of Fannie/Freddie certificates, among their assets for purposes of capitalization and reserve. So while, as you assert, there may have been a de facto evasion of the regulations, banks would have been in regulatory hot water had they openly engaged in those practices and been audited.
  
  And remember, Bush tried to increase the regulatory oversight on Fannie and Freddie, arguably one of the primal causes of the real estate bubble that was at the root of the financial crisis 18 months ago. But we all know how that went down.
  
  Bush didn’t hate regulations, just excessive and capricious regulation.
  
  CIVILITY NOW!, argue civilly, and we can discuss things. I’ll forgove you for the vitriol you’ve dorected at me, but you do owe Dan an apology.
  
  Your expertise, coupled with patience for us dilletantes, should facilite discussion; not lead to criticism on high of allus “know-nothings”.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
not Karl Marx!
March 17th, 2010 - 17:36

Attention Bettors:

http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2010/03/17/HP/R/30716/Bernanke+Testifying+on+Fed+Bank+Supervision+Powers.aspx

At 47:20 you have your answer specifically for your Lehman question.

This is not the first time Bernanke and Paulson have gone over all this shit. Same shit different day. Here it is today.

“I won.” Barack Obama

“Me too.” thor

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
not Karl Marx!
March 17th, 2010 - 17:42

I know it’s Volcker testifying with Bernanke today.

I meant Paulson and Bernanke have previously testified to what happened step by step, institution by institution. I often watch this shit, ya see.

So sorry that I’m always right.

Off to drink pints. Toodles.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- Dan Collins
  March 17th, 2010 - 17:58
  
  Yeah. We’re here to protect our regulatory role, which doesn’t involve any regulation.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
- Bob Reed
  March 17th, 2010 - 18:06
  
  Always right? *snork*
  
  In your dreams, suckah!
  
  What are you drinking pints of, bud light, michelob ultra?
  
  Try a Man’s beer, Guinness!
  
  Do they even have that in Florida?
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
Dan Collins
March 17th, 2010 - 17:49

Do you not understand what I am saying? The Fed enabled the repo transactions that were conducted to falsify the quarterlies. The lending institutions who went to the windows for Lehman on those occasions knew that the collateral they were receiving was fictional. The Fed, with due diligence, should have known that was the case, too, but they were happy to be above it all.

The institutions who forwarded the money to Lehman on these occasions could not have been unaware, given the timing, what the purpose was, betting correctly that if Lehman collapsed they would be bailed out. If the Federal reserve had a single duty of care, just one, it was to verify that the minimum reserves were sustained by the lending institutions, and that would have meant understanding not only their representations of the collateral that they were putting forth, but verifying it. They did not.

You seem to believe the self-serving fiction that the officers and boards of the reserve banks exist merely as clearing houses for loans priced by the Chairman. That’s bullshit.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- not Karl Marx!
  March 17th, 2010 - 18:07
  
  You act like the relationship between the Fed and non-governement entities is open to caring, nurturing and attitudes of love and regret (ha, I jest only so slightly).
  
  Damn, dude, it’s about following the law, as it’s written and fulfilling the functions that the Fed is entitled to do and not do.
  
  All this has already been gone over. I’m OK with you just finding out that there were gaps in regulation. I see the high-pitched squealers tizzying their talking points on their attention-needy websites as if this is the first hot wind of what the Fed did and did not do.
  
  Work yourself up into a lather. Suit yourself. The government didn’t fuck up, not Dodd, not Frank, not Bernanke, Paulson – ultimately it was his call on what to do with Lehman, surprise!
  
  Go nuts. Whitey Tape redux. I don’t care. I’m out the door. Better things to do.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
  - Dan Collins
    March 17th, 2010 - 18:12
    
    You’re okay with that? How big of you.
    
    Nobody’s responsible.
    
    Fuck that.
    
    Like or Dislike: 0 0
    ( REPLY )
    - not Karl Marx!
      March 18th, 2010 - 03:46
      
      I’m OK with your being ignorant.
      
      Do you know who is ultimately responsible for the goings on at Lehman?
      
      Dick Fuld.
      
      How is one ignorant to that? Maybe write Dick’s name down until you can remember it. As CEO of Lehman his average pay was well over $20-million per annum for over 15-years. The CEO and the CFO sign off on the financials as well as present them to the board of directors, who are supposed to represent the shareholders, and who, in theory, have the ability to fire the CEO and CFO.
      
      If Dick Fuld and his corporate cronies committed fraud then they should be held accountable in the court of law.
      
      But not in your wittle backwards world of ignorance and teh Holy political fish bowl of Salem Witches! No, in your illusions it’s Barney Frank! Or Timothy Geithner, who had no regulation authority over Lehman’s accounting practices, who needs to be burned at the stake!
      
      You lie. Consistently you lie. Yours is a twisted make-believe of lies.
      
      Lies are easier than truth. Cheap and easy, it’s always the cheap and easy with you and yours.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Bob Reed
      March 18th, 2010 - 05:55
      
      Franklin Raines: more than 90 million dollars in salary and bonuses-despite presiding over scandal and accelerating the percentage of sub-prime mortgages handled. No doubt, the exorbitant salary was for the excellent leadership that Madam Waters alluded to…
      
      Jamie Gorelick: 26 million dollars in salary and bonuses, despit ebeing directly involved in the accounting scandal and attempt at cover-up…
      
      Jim Johnson: 26 million dollars in salary and bonuses, as well as being a recipient of 7 million dollars in loans from Countrywide financial-the reason he had to step down from Obama’s VP search comittee…
      
      Barney Frank’s butt-buddy had a plum job at Fannie Mae. Chris Dodd was the number one beneficiary of their campaign contributions over the years, but the politician that got the most contributions over the shortest period of time?
      
      You guessed it hoss, O! Number 3 on the all time list behing Kerry and ahead of Hillary…
      
      Seems to me you’re worried about a private industry concern taht made bad decisions about executive compensation when you should be more OUTRAGED! about a GSE where corrupt and connected individuals were paid large coin ro engage in Enron-esque accounting chicanery to increase those bonuses; as well as prominent members of congress who blocked reform of oversight and regulation of those same entities, who benefitted in, ahem, one way or another from their own personal connections…
      
      But, you know, that’s OK because ot beneffitted people who can count you among their fanboys.
      
      Yep…Lies are easier than truth, and misdirection easier than facing your own selective citation and interpretation of history.
      
      Guess you had one too many bud-lites!
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
  - Bob Reed
    March 17th, 2010 - 19:28
    
    Gaps in the regulation? Not really, more like gaps in enforcement of the existing regulation.
    
    And, all this has not been gone over carefully enough. But the Democrats don’t want to, you know, actually hold real hearings on this stuff, nor the abuse of policy and practice by Fannie/Freddie or the shills in Congress who protected them in their malfeasance-like Frank and Dodd.
    
    You see, they got better things to do, like Obamacare, Cap-np-tax, deciding who should be burned at the stake for (gasp) TORTURE!, and important stuff like how best to use the unused and repaid balance of TARP funds and spendulus bux to further their electoral wet dreams…
    
    Oh, and by the way, the whitey tape stuff you sling around was blue-on-blue mudslinging, so son’t try and pin that outrage on any of us on this side of the spectrum…
    
    Like or Dislike: 0 0
    ( REPLY )
    - Hail ye Karl Marx!
      March 18th, 2010 - 04:53
      
      Are you claiming the Bushtrons didn’t enforce regulations, Mr. Loony-zooms?
      
      Sadly for you, O-ring Bob, history writes itself over time. It’s over time that you – pure Reich-wing Reagan scum – will be viewed as the worst generation in American history. The R-scum people, the ignorant imploders of American financial might, the war criminals, public liars and frauds equal to the worst of the Soviets, the lost white sheeple who sacrificed truth at the altar of Cowardice.
      
      It took the Honorable President Barack H. Obama to send a final upper-cut to your chiny-chin-chin, and His Momma Said Knock You Out.
      
      She had Courage!, and it couldn’t come at a worse time!
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Sean C.
      March 18th, 2010 - 05:07
      
      Shove it up your well-traveled rectum, troll.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Bob Reed
      March 18th, 2010 - 06:09
      
      They tried to enforce them, as well as toughen them; but were treated to speeches by the oh-so-erudite Maxine Waters about, “the fine leadership of Mr. Franklin Raines”, as well as Barney Frank repeating endlessly that there was nothing wrong…
      
      But no, there had not been enough scrutiny, at the Fed or Treasury. We don’t need more of Obama’s crummy centralized planning, what we need are to have the current laws enforced.
      
      As to who imploded American financial might? That’s a long discussion for another thread-nice try at the accusation and attempted subject change away from the argument that you were losing though.
      
      And the “honorable” President Barack “Da Trooooof!” Obama? He didn’t look too truthful in his interview last night with Brett Baier. He looked small, intellectually, in character as well as in stature. He’s a petty, small man hoss, undeserving of the Presidency. But, as far as liars go, well there he is world class; and a corrupt narcissist, beyond anything we have seen in the White House although Nixon was a close second.
      
      He will go down as the worst president of the modern era. And, sorry of you don’t like all the close scrutiny of him, but, you know, it comes with the job.
      
      So keep on with your schoolyard taunts and “wingerz” rant, but you know as well as I that “Waterloo” is coming. Obama will fail, and America will be all the better for it.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
Sean C.
March 17th, 2010 - 19:01

Ha ha, pwn3d yet again! Thorgina, tell me how my ass states!

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Roland
March 20th, 2010 - 05:18

Genealogy: A hay stack full of needles. It’s the threads I need.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Jolynn Buecher
May 6th, 2010 - 13:50

Nice article you have got here. Will keep coming reading these good articles you are going to write. Maybe you want to check out the commodity brokerage website.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )