Re: Two WSJ articles related to bailouts, bank nationalization... (fwd)
Stray Dog
Reposted in the public interest to m.c.f-l
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:18:05 +0000
From: Stray Dog <sdog...@sdf.lonestar.org>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, alt.politics.economics, sci.econ,
misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Two WSJ articles related to bailouts, bank nationalization...
See at end.....
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Stray Dog wrote:
> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:59:59 +0000
> From: Stray Dog <sdog...@sdf.lonestar.org>
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, alt.politics.economics, sci.econ,
> misc.invest.stocks
> Subject: Two WSJ articles related to bailouts, bank nationalization...
>
>
>
> Today's WSJ, Jan 22.
>
> Front page: "Political Interference Seen in Bank Bailout Decisions"
>
> Much greater nitty-gritty detail than I've seen in all the other articles,
> and lots of complaints about transparency, Treasury (under Paulson) not
> answering questions, no justifications given for certain decisions, and one
> funny example where one bank used their bailout money in part to buy a Porshe
> for use by its executives and the word got out and the feds told the bank to
> get rid of it and when the WSJ called about that, the guy they talked to said
> "we're complying with the order."
>
> Kinda seemed to me like maybe half (order of magnitude) of the bank bailout
> money, at a minimum, isn't going to be effective.
>
>
> Second article: Page D1:
>
> "What if Uncle Sam Takes Over Your bank"
>
> Lots of useful questions and answers, brief history of prior nationalizations
> (eg. Sweden, France, and in the USA when the S&L crisis came and went, and
> generally considered a good result). Article says you shouldn't be too
> worried unless you might be looking for more complicated services.
>
> Article says about 8,000 banks, but that 314 institutions re-described
> themselves as banks for the purpose of becoming eligible for bailout money
> (sure seems to me more like getting their snouts in the trough).
>
>
> Another article (can't remember where I saw it), on this bank stuff said that
> banks have the option of withdrawing from the Fed system and going
> under state supervision by changing their charter. And, that quite a few have
> done this recently and some of you might want to think about whether your
> bank might have done it and whether that is in your best interests.
>
> I'll try to find out where I saw that.
>
Washington Post (jan 22, 2009, today), front page
title: "Regulatory System Allows Banks to Avoid Enforcement"
subtitle: "Firms can switch from U.S. to State Oversight"
First paragraph:
"At least 30 banks since 2000 have escaped federal regulatory action by walking
away from their federal regulators and moving under state supervision, taking
advantage of a long standing system that allows banks to choose between federal
and state oversight, according to a Washington Post review".