Meet Elizabeth Warren chief of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

[Two Thumbs]

Jealousy is a bitch.

I think the point he was trying to make is that it's ANOTHER Harvard Professor, ANOTHER person that has no idea how to run something right b/c paydays rely on you not being wrong.

and honestly

How's all these professors working out?

Hard to make any progress when you've got a gaggle of hayseeds blocking every fucking thing they're trying to do... Not just "even if" it's the right thing, but "especially if" it's the right thing. The LAST thing they want is for things to improve and Obammy to get re-elected... Get real.

cracka please

The dems had the trifecta and made shit worse and still had to pass out bribes.

yall shot yourselves in the foot.

 

[Two Thumbs]

uhm

When did Alaska become "small"?

Did those filthy Canucks finally invade?

small population... lots of land.

I'm surprised you had to spell it out..

...oh, wait a minute...

...no I'm not.....

Did your mommy help you think that up?

 

[Dr Grump]

small population... lots of land.

I'm surprised you had to spell it out..

...oh, wait a minute...

...no I'm not.....

Did your mommy help you think that up?

Did yours help you think that up?

 

[Trajan]

yes shes smart, so was Romer and Summers and O something or other, I forgot.....apparently she wasn't smart enough to avoid having to pencil whip her own studies to get the outcome she wanted either.

so the short answer is more gov. from an agency with basically zero oversight? No, I don't think so. Was there not someone who was on the inside who could have fit the bill and at least had experience in the industry? Was Dodd Frank the answer or not?

I am appalled at how the financial industry has co-opted Washington. As far as I'm concerned, after fucking up so bad, Wall Street shouldn't be allowed within the beltway, let alone the corridors of power. The problem is that we've had Wall Street crawling all over Washington the past two decades, knocking down walls that helped create this mess under the guise that they knew best. So the fact that we have an academic with little industry experience is a good thing IMHO. My industry needs to get cleared out but that won't happen.

exactly. I am not arguing that reform doesn't need to occur, I am arguing that this isn't the way to go about it.

I don't know in this present environment can they wind back the clock? did glass- steagall really blow the top off? can it be efficacious to re-enact it? CAN we now,put the genie back in the bottle?

What the governments part in this? One of my critiques as to what I saw in the 20 minute video is not once did she even acknowledge that gov. to had a part to play in this, example- why is their thinking any more evolved now than it was in say 1995? Have they earned more? has this tragedy struck a note and are they willing to look at their own part in this?


As to warren; Her argument in the "2 income trap" was by and large that families were going broke because the bascis, 'homes', education health care ( she wasn't exactly honest on that point) via AND easy credit ( with-pits falls hello aren't there always) is responsible..... and ? hello no kidding and who has enacted medical coverage platforms and manages them? They are ostensibly just as bad delivary and financial vehicles (ala medicaid and medicare) as private care is. The housing issue? Hey who let the dogz out in a never ending search to put more people you and I both know don't have the risk profile nor the means into one?

For every action there is a reaction, what applies in physics applies in markets too, her ideological bent appears to zealous to me, and it all points one way, she spares no breath in castigating the 'banks', “Those same institutions don’t want to be part of the solution” ala Hamp et al, so how does that square, compared to say to the 75% of the mortgage market that Washington now owns?

At the end of the day there is a contradictory message going on here as well;
Dodd-frank will make it pay for the big boys to go along, The gov. will protect them from failure and excessive competition as long as they go along, great, that sounds like the political corporatist model that exists in say Europe? Where does that leave us?

Do we think that securities firms, insurers, hedge funds, finance companies, put under the warm embrace of nanny gov. will they ever be allowed to fail? Why is 50 Billion the benchmark? why not 45, or 10?

Moral hazard abounds and creating a one off 'protected' agency to make those decisions is not the answer.

Is Dodd Frank the answer? Probably not. Its a confusing mish-mash. Besides, the government doesn't get it. They are fighting the last war. The next crisis will be about something no one is concerned about with now.

 

[Bfgrn]

yes shes smart, so was Romer and Summers and O something or other, I forgot.....apparently she wasn't smart enough to avoid having to pencil whip her own studies to get the outcome she wanted either.

so the short answer is more gov. from an agency with basically zero oversight? No, I don't think so. Was there not someone who was on the inside who could have fit the bill and at least had experience in the industry? Was Dodd Frank the answer or not?

I am appalled at how the financial industry has co-opted Washington. As far as I'm concerned, after fucking up so bad, Wall Street shouldn't be allowed within the beltway, let alone the corridors of power. The problem is that we've had Wall Street crawling all over Washington the past two decades, knocking down walls that helped create this mess under the guise that they knew best. So the fact that we have an academic with little industry experience is a good thing IMHO. My industry needs to get cleared out but that won't happen.

exactly. I am not arguing that reform doesn't need to occur, I am arguing that this isn't the way to go about it.

I don't know in this present environment can they wind back the clock? did glass- steagall really blow the top off? can it be efficacious to re-enact it? CAN we now,put the genie back in the bottle?

What the governments part in this? One of my critiques as to what I saw in the 20 minute video is not once did she even acknowledge that gov. to had a part to play in this, example- why is their thinking any more evolved now than it was in say 1995? Have they earned more? has this tragedy struck a note and are they willing to look at their own part in this?


As to warren; Her argument in the "2 income trap" was by and large that families were going broke because the bascis, 'homes', education health care ( she wasn't exactly honest on that point) via AND easy credit ( with-pits falls hello aren't there always) is responsible..... and ? hello no kidding and who has enacted medical coverage platforms and manages them? They are ostensibly just as bad delivary and financial vehicles (ala medicaid and medicare) as private care is. The housing issue? Hey who let the dogz out in a never ending search to put more people you and I both know don't have the risk profile nor the means into one?

For every action there is a reaction, what applies in physics applies in markets too, her ideological bent appears to zealous to me, and it all points one way, she spares no breath in castigating the 'banks', “Those same institutions don’t want to be part of the solution” ala Hamp et al, so how does that square, compared to say to the 75% of the mortgage market that Washington now owns?

At the end of the day there is a contradictory message going on here as well;
Dodd-frank will make it pay for the big boys to go along, The gov. will protect them from failure and excessive competition as long as they go along, great, that sounds like the political corporatist model that exists in say Europe? Where does that leave us?

Do we think that securities firms, insurers, hedge funds, finance companies, put under the warm embrace of nanny gov. will they ever be allowed to fail? Why is 50 Billion the benchmark? why not 45, or 10?

Moral hazard abounds and creating a one off 'protected' agency to make those decisions is not the answer.

Is Dodd Frank the answer? Probably not. Its a confusing mish-mash. Besides, the government doesn't get it. They are fighting the last war. The next crisis will be about something no one is concerned about with now.

The wealthy and upper middle class 'don't have the risk profile nor the means into one?'

 

[Toro]

Do we think that securities firms, insurers, hedge funds, finance companies, put under the warm embrace of nanny gov. will they ever be allowed to fail? Why is 50 Billion the benchmark? why not 45, or 10?

Here's the thing, for at least the past two decades, there has been an implicit guarantee by the government to the banking system. This isn't new. There has been some tremendous work done out there showing how the banks' cost of capital - not just here but around the world - has fallen to almost the level of the government's cost of capital implying a guarantee by the government. The market long ago figured out that the global banking industry is backstopped by the government. So while governments spent the last two decades deregulating the financial system, allowing bankers to take more and more risk, they were implicitly and then explicitly backstopping the financial system. This is the absolute worst cocktail one could possibly imagine. If you are going to backstop the financial system, you MUST have significant controls over pricing. That's the trade-off. Broadly, deregulation is good. But deregulating supply which create incentives to misprice risk is a disaster waiting to happen. Telling bankers that they knew best what the capital requirements should be on their own business while those bankers get paid millions and millions of dollars annually based on near-term performance and the government backstops their losses is mind-boggling. I can guarantee that some time in the next 2, 5, 10, 20 years - I don't know when - we will have another financial crisis and the government will rush to the aid of the financial industry again. What an enormous transfer of wealth we have effectuated from the taxpayer to the well-healed. I laughed when I saw politicians demagogue in the after-math of the financial crisis, saying we will never bail out the banks, or that some bill will encourage more moral hazard so we shouldn't pass the bill. What a joke. It doesn't matter. The financial system owns both parties, and the economists who run things are convinced that we must have a back-stop. The financial industry pays out five times more to Washington lobbyists than the second biggest contributor. It has become a leviathan, and until that monster is slain, nothing will change.

So I don't mind someone like Elizabeth Warren coming in and bitch-slapping the banks.

 

[Trajan]

Do we think that securities firms, insurers, hedge funds, finance companies, put under the warm embrace of nanny gov. will they ever be allowed to fail? Why is 50 Billion the benchmark? why not 45, or 10?

Here's the thing, for at least the past two decades, there has been an implicit guarantee by the government to the banking system. This isn't new. There has been some tremendous work done out there showing how the banks' cost of capital - not just here but around the world - has fallen to almost the level of the government's cost of capital implying a guarantee by the government. The market long ago figured out that the global banking industry is backstopped by the government. So while governments spent the last two decades deregulating the financial system, allowing bankers to take more and more risk, they were implicitly and then explicitly backstopping the financial system.

I understand, which is why, apparently, why Dodd frank is a sham in this context.However since Dodd Frank encapsulated the creation of Warrens agency, how are we to parse this? Its a contradiction....

This is the absolute worst cocktail one could possibly imagine. If you are going to backstop the financial system, you MUST have significant controls over pricing. That's the trade-off. Broadly, deregulation is good. But deregulating supply which create incentives to misprice risk is a disaster waiting to happen.

again agreed, Q- why isn't moodys, dun and brad. and S&P being given the same grief?

Telling bankers that they knew best what the capital requirements should be on their own business while those bankers get paid millions and millions of dollars annually based on near-term performance and the government backstops their losses is mind-boggling. I can guarantee that some time in the next 2, 5, 10, 20 years - I don't know when - we will have another financial crisis and the government will rush to the aid of the financial industry again. What an enormous transfer of wealth we have effectuated from the taxpayer to the well-healed. I laughed when I saw politicians demagogue in the after-math of the financial crisis, saying we will never bail out the banks, or that some bill will encourage more moral hazard so we shouldn't pass the bill. What a joke. It doesn't matter. The financial system owns both parties, and the economists who run things are convinced that we must have a back-stop. The financial industry pays out five times more to Washington lobbyists than the second biggest contributor. It has become a leviathan, and until that monster is slain, nothing will change.

So I don't mind someone like Elizabeth Warren coming in and bitch-slapping the banks.

well I will look on in interest as she does so, but, how?

Forcing them to hand over 20 billion in 'housing fraud money".....forcing them to simply CC contracts? Come on....

I agree with over half what she SAYS, I agree with her on many salient points, my profit sharing account which I had to keep with the co. I worked for, lost 28% of its value between nov. 07 and summer 08, that represented years of compensation, gone, and when I got laid off in early 09 it was gone for good, I barely clawed back 4%...my wifes 401K is 80% dead money, I assume from an investment perspective you know the term, I agree with her, as part of the middle class footing that bill, I got screwed too and want redress.

HOWEVER, there will be no redress on an individual level. Its done.

What I don't hear is and my primary bitch is; government culpability and how she plans to deal with the nails they have driven in the system, whats up with TALF? How much ABS movement is there? They were supposed to be driving that to the tune of 200 billion dollars.Are the banks glomming it all? If so what were the contract provisions under which they got the money? Sue them, cut them off....

Its not enough to say we're going to bash the banks and draw blood, forcing them to hand over 20 billion in 'housing fraud money".....forcing them to simplify CC contracts? Come on....If she were to say, hey first things first the housing market has got to bottom F&F are going to be unwound as soon as possible and at the top of the list, I'd cheer, then, surface a plan to force the very being of economist to work, economics is managing scarcity, thats were it starts and thats what it in essence is, we have a scarcity of capital in the lower markets, whats up with TALF? How much ABS movement is there? thats the key, I'd love to hear how she plans in making that happen....and I'd love her to make me a believer...we'd all be better off.

 

[Toro]

Why Obama Should Fight Hard for Elizabeth Warren: Jonathan Alter - Bloomberg.com

 

[snjmom]

Maybe we write a law that states that in any financial institution the jeopardizes the entire economy and requires any loan from the government the executives will be subject to criminal charges and state pen time if any evidence of fraud or a lack of fiduciary duty, will be immediately nationalized and all stockholders wiped out.

That should keep investors from over-extending themselves in government backed enterprises. The truly ridiculous aspect of F & F was ever pretending they were privatized.

 

[sparky]

Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Quote: Originally Posted by Trajan
Do we think that securities firms, insurers, hedge funds, finance companies, put under the warm embrace of nanny gov. will they ever be allowed to fail? Why is 50 Billion the benchmark? why not 45, or 10?

Here's the thing, for at least the past two decades, there has been an implicit guarantee by the government to the banking system. This isn't new. There has been some tremendous work done out there showing how the banks' cost of capital - not just here but around the world - has fallen to almost the level of the government's cost of capital implying a guarantee by the government. The market long ago figured out that the global banking industry is backstopped by the government. So while governments spent the last two decades deregulating the financial system, allowing bankers to take more and more risk, they were implicitly and then explicitly backstopping the financial system.

I understand, which is why, apparently, why Dodd frank is a sham in this context.However since Dodd Frank encapsulated the creation of Warrens agency, how are we to parse this? Its a contradiction....

One has to consider Barney Frank & Chris Dodd's political stripes , especially if we were to ask any Mass or Conn resident. These two would easily be catagorized as limo libs.

Pursuant to that notion, the entire commish was basically a front for the banksters to skate

One might recall, there were many angry sorts who paid attention to the details...

Quote:

This is the absolute worst cocktail one could possibly imagine. If you are going to backstop the financial system, you MUST have significant controls over pricing. That's the trade-off. Broadly, deregulation is good. But deregulating supply which create incentives to misprice risk is a disaster waiting to happen

.
again agreed, Q- why isn't moodys, dun and brad. and S&P being given the same grief?

probably because bond raters aren't covered under the SEC

 

[Bfgrn]

Maybe we write a law that states that in any financial institution the jeopardizes the entire economy and requires any loan from the government the executives will be subject to criminal charges and state pen time if any evidence of fraud or a lack of fiduciary duty, will be immediately nationalized and all stockholders wiped out.

That should keep investors from over-extending themselves in government backed enterprises. The truly ridiculous aspect of F & F was ever pretending they were privatized.

Sounds like a plan, but forget prison. In China most of Wall Street would be executed. So they would be blessed to just have to donate their salaries and bonuses for the rest of their lives to the country. We will pay them minimum wage and they should be thankful...

 

[Trajan]

well, shes out.

* JULY 17, 2011, 3:25 P.M. ET

Obama to Bypass Warren, Tap Cordray to Head Consumer Agency

The Obama administration is expected to nominate former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a White House official, capping a months-long saga over who it would tap to run the new consumer agency

The move is likely to inflame supporters of Elizabeth Warren, the popular Harvard professor who has been helping set up the bureau as a special advisor to President Barack Obama. Ms. Warren, a longtime critic of the financial-services industry, pushed for the CFPB's creation and is said to have wanted the job herself.

In the end, White House officials concluded nominating Ms. Warren could hurt the fledgling bureau, given her unpopularity with many lawmakers, and wasn't a battle worth waging, these people said.

more at-

Obama to Bypass Warren, Tap Cordray to Head Consumer Agency - WSJ.com