Discussion for article #228114
Why don’t they just add “insufficiently deferential to men” along with their other criticisms of her?
Institutional change is hard, and yes, it is like steering the Titanic- exactly like that in fact.
4 Likes
It is clear that the “regulators” were only marginally interested in actual regulation and much more valued “the appearance of regulation.” Just like making sure there was enough wiggle room in the bank’s transactions to allow for doubt.
And, I’m sure the top “regulators” were also padding their own “resumes” so they could leave government and make lots o’ money working for those banks they supposedly “regulated.” Thus simultaneously closing and restarting the cycle of “regulatory capture.”
2 Likes
damm ya beat me too that very same conclusion.its like the sec and ratings agencies being to cozy with the banks to give objective or honest assesments on their business dealings all the while counting on a financially lucrative job outside of the govt in the same businesses they were regulateing…just like eric cantor
Here’s the granular detail on how Wall Street and their coddling “regulators” return to their pre-meltdown status quo ante. A process that, apparently, was baked into the whole rescue effort.
This just reinforces why I feel nausea whenever I see a photo of the smirking Lloyd Blankfein.
Self regulation of publicly traded companies is driven in part by government statues and regulations that allow them to reduce potential liability to the government for criminal activity. The Code of Conduct including the Conflicts of Interest Section would have been reviewed by the Fed and found adequate for this purpose. The polices and procedures would have applied company wide to maximize protection for the company related to criminal activity. The conflicts section would in fact provide guidance on conflicts of interest.
Would those polices and procedures be adequate to comply with the specific Fed regulations on conflicts of interest, it seems that every one agreed that they did not and that they would “not qualify as a firm-wide conflicts of interest policy as set out by the Fed’s guidance.”
Because of the reviewer’s expertise in a specific area I would have to assume that is why they were unaware of the Code of Conduct guidance in the first place since even her boss was surprised by its existence. Telling her about it in an email probably did not help either since both sides at that point just dug in and no one at that point wants to consider that they could be wrong. What this is really about is a miscommunication as to the meaning of no policy. To one there is a policy that applied but it was not adequate, to the other there was no policy because the policy was not designed as a firm-wide conflicts of interest policy. Both were correct, but compromise due to the prior criticism had become a dirty word.
2 Likes
Tim Geithner is the man who, as his very own Senate confirmation hearings as the sitting head of the NY Fed, assured his inquisitors that he was not, and never was, a regulator.
And what does Geithner do? Makes sure the criminal banks are made whole on our dime. Not for pennies on the dollar like every other bankruptcy, but 100 cents on the dollar.
In the wake of so-called “financial reform” the banks are bigger than ever. Too big to fail, too big to jail.
And still some take offense at considering Obama a corporatist.
Get ready for the double-heaves:
<img width=“533” height=“400” src=“http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/4f4153046bb3f7c86400001f/lloyd-blankfein-bill-clinton.png” /img>
No corporate cronyism here; move along now…