Suing Bank Execs

[TPS]

It's about time someone had the balls to do this. Way to go Sheila.

 

Bair

[OCinBuffalo]

It's about time someone had the balls to do this. Way to go Sheila.

 

Bair

“As a result, claims that directors and officers of many failed banks engaged in negligence lack credibility as such claims attempt to hold those directors and officers to an impossible standard of care,” Kaplan said.

 

Yeah, right they made the weather system, and then they complain when it's raining.

 

Of course then can't control for every up and down in the system. But that's not the point. They created the entire system itself, via whole lines of business that failed miserably.

[GG]

I thought that Bair would be above that. This is a useless exercise in that even if FDIC wins, the verdict will be paid by insurance companies not the execs. If she really wanted to get tough, she'd look into criminal charges... which are probably non-existent. So, let's take a headline grabbing road.

[OCinBuffalo]

I thought that Bair would be above that. This is a useless exercise in that even if FDIC wins, the verdict will be paid by insurance companies not the execs. If she really wanted to get tough, she'd look into criminal charges... which are probably non-existent. So, let's take a headline grabbing road.

To what purpose? Honestly, I don't understand. Why bother? What does headlines get her?

[GG]

To what purpose? Honestly, I don't understand. Why bother? What does headlines get her?

 

Who knows the motivation? Maybe it's to raid the insurance companies to bulk up the FDIC reserve fund.

[OCinBuffalo]

Who knows the motivation? Maybe it's to raid the insurance companies to bulk up the FDIC reserve fund.

Seriously? That's seems goofy to me. All that does is raise insurance rates and therefore take money away from any proposed expansion.

 

What would you say to having an Chief Executive Association, like the Bar Association, except one that was actually non-partisan politically, and a little more effective?

 

Just curious.

[DC Tom]

What would you say to having an Chief Executive Association, like the Bar Association, except one that was actually non-partisan politically, and a little more effective?

 

It's called "Having an MBA".

[ieatcrayonz]

It's about time someone had the balls to do this. Way to go Sheila.

 

Bair

I did not click the link because I am not interested in someone named Sheila who has balls.

[Nanker]

To what purpose? Honestly, I don't understand. Why bother? What does headlines get her?

 

 

Who knows the motivation? Maybe it's to raid the insurance companies to bulk up the FDIC reserve fund.

 

Perhaps she's posturing to become the next Secretary of the Treasury in the second term of President BO's administration.

[....lybob]

It's about time someone had the balls to do this. Way to go Sheila.

 

Bair

it's not about balls it's about blow back.

 

To what purpose? Honestly, I don't understand. Why bother? What does headlines get her?

 

I'll explain, Dems gave the Bankers about 80-90% of what they wanted but that wasn't enough- Republicans said we'll give you 100% of what you want so give us all your support - so the banks went from giving out money at about a 1 to 1 split to an 8 to 1 split in favor of Republicans, oops now the Dems in charge have no reason to give political cover and if there is one group that polls lower than congress it's the bankers- so expect the finance industry to start getting a little beat up, maybe not for the right reasons but deservingly so.

[TPS]

I thought that Bair would be above that. This is a useless exercise in that even if FDIC wins, the verdict will be paid by insurance companies not the execs. If she really wanted to get tough, she'd look into criminal charges... which are probably non-existent. So, let's take a headline grabbing road.

Wouldn't disagree with criminal charges. I think FDIC is going after funds any way it can, and in some way hoping to send a signal about "moral hazard" (a slightly weaker attempt than what Paulson did with Lehman...).

[Magox]

it's not about balls it's about blow back.

 

so the banks went from giving out money at about a 1 to 1 split to an 8 to 1 split in favor of Republicans, oops now the Dems in charge have no reason to give political cover and if there is one group that polls lower than congress it's the bankers- so expect the finance industry to start getting a little beat up, maybe not for the right reasons but deservingly so.

You are correct with this part of your analysis. Yes, it's not balls, it is populist payback. I am not one for populism, but in the real world, where most of us live, there has to be some sort of retribution that suffices the masses and this certainly fits the bill. I also believe that if you are receiving bail out money, then YES there should be pay restrictions. Of course, the major unintended consequence is that you lose talent to other banks and financial institutions, so it isn't as easy as what most people would think it to be.

 

As you pointed out they poll almost as bad as politicians, so it's not a bad matchup or move for them. The problem is that most populist crafted legislation or reactions aren't usually whats best for the country. The Wall Street Bill has a couple good things in it, but also has some very costly ones. As a result, we will see less lending, thinner profit margins (which means even less lending and hiring), restricted credit, and a number of people who will get laid off over the next 12-18 months. According to what I have been reading probably 80,000- 100,000 less banking jobs. The banks that will suffer the most are not the BIG ONES, but the community banks....