First GM's CEO and Board of Directors are replaced with Obama followers, and now this might be happening for banks

This is a depressing story.

A congressional panel overseeing the U.S. financial rescue suggested that getting rid of top executives and liquidating problem banks may be a better way to solve the economic crisis.

The Congressional Oversight Panel, in a report released yesterday, also said the Treasury may be relying on too rosy an economic scenario to guide its $700 billion bailout, and declared that the success of the program after six months is “mixed.” Three of the group’s members disagreed with at least some of the findings.

“All successful efforts to address bank crises have involved the combination of moving aside failed management and getting control of the process of valuing bank balance sheets,” the panel, headed by Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Warren, said in its report.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has revamped the Troubled Asset Relief Program to focus on injecting capital into banks and removing up to $1 trillion in illiquid securities from their balance sheets via public-private investment partnerships. The government is also working to unfreeze credit markets through a Federal Reserve program that provides loans to investors in some asset-backed securities. . . . .

Labels: ,


Blogger Randy said...

So, basically, they should have handled these failures like the S&L failures?

And how many billions did it take them to realize that?

4/08/2009 4:11 PM  
Blogger Harry Schell said...

They have read their Marx and Lenin.

If you are to have control, you must purge those who might disagree with you. Ron Gettlefinger is still in place, of course.

If it was a move to oust incompetents so as to change directions in a positive way, why is Gettlefinger still in his job.

Indeed, why are Barney Frank, Chuckie Schumer and Chris Dodd still working?

4/08/2009 5:16 PM  
Blogger Dad29 said...

The problem with dumping those folks is what, exactly?

And the problem with liquidating those Banks is what, exactly?

If "the best and brightest" have managed to lose about $1Trillion in bank (and investment-bank) capital in the last 2 years, it may be time to re-evaluate the definition of that term.

It CERTAINLY is time to re-evaluate the services they have rendered.

4/08/2009 5:23 PM  
Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

I am off topic here, but I must press forward with my thoughts on this.

I normally respond to the topic at hand, but I feel as if though I must make mention of what bothers me before it makes it here as a post from Dr. Lott.

BHO is applying a 'stress test' to banks at the time of this, my post.

I calculate that there is a very high probability that banks will fail this so called test. To fail, will be to invite Government Control, even if TARP funds were not given to said banks. Said failure will be an excuse to control those Banks which fail the test.

There are historical patterns to this type of action. After all, it is for the good of the public...

Once the stage has been set, there is nothing left to do but to pursue one's goal of control, no?

I do so hope I am wrong.

4/09/2009 9:33 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home