It is amazing to listen to Bernanke explain to the government of the USA how they should be dumping more AMERICAN TAXPAYER ASSETS into already failing institutions without the benefit of regulation. Where does he get off?
The 'definivative' change that needs to occur, Bernanke didn't even address and that was how 'Mark the Market' continues to FORCE foreclosure on properties. If there is to be a 'consumer directed' administration that keeps people from defaulting and stops foreclosure, "Mark the Market' has to be stopped. The objection of this practice has been in contention over six months now. (click here)
...Bernanke said. “AIG exploited a huge gap in the regulatory system, there was no oversight of the financial-products division, this was a hedge fund basically that was attached to a large and stable insurance company.”...
Every company/bank borrowing from 'The Central Bank' should be required BY LAW and ENFORCED with heavy penalities including prison, to report and give full disclosure of any and all borrowing the institution has conducted with 'The Central Bank' AND otherwise.
The 'fitness' of the bank should be known to its customers. Should customers be allowed to participate in 'irregular' banking practices or not? Should consumers be allowed to place their monies with institutions they 'consent?' In other words, if a Dick Cheney wants to make money at the cost of every other 'solidly invested' institution than he should be allowed to do that with full recognition that he could loss his shirt the next day.
OR.
Should those practices simply be regulated out of existance and provide an 'honest' and 'respectable' market place for consumers so they don't have a worry in wondering if they will have money to pay the mortgage?
I think its high time to regulate the banks AGAIN, both domestic and those from foreign associations, to provide a 'level playing field' for all banks while protecting consumers. The word consumer takes on all meanings even if the consumer is the USA government.
Basically, in the recent 'financial environment' anyone banking with any institution, other than JP Morgan, was banking with risk taking incompetents.
The 'size' of JP Morgan alone and its ability to 'weather the storm' placed it in an advantageous position and its CEO is basically coated in gold today. Make no mistake, although JP Morgan is the only 'intact' entity from the 'Bush Fiscal Bungling,' it lost value when one would expect its assets to be viewed as more valuable. That just goes to PROVE that no matter the CEO, no matter the heartiness of the institution, the 'market place' can have profound impact on even the best and most stable of banking institutions. So, why then allow exploitation of 'choosing' to play by the rules rather than simply setting standards that uphold the integrity of stable institutions such as JP Morgan?
Banks are inherently 'at risk' because of the 'nature of their business' in providing monies in the way of loans. Why allow their 'risk' to be greater in a 'free for all' market system rather than one that stabilizes the environment at which they provide services? Obviously, the majority of CEOs cannot be trusted with the 'best interest' of the public and the USA Treasury, so why allow it?
U.S. senator wants Fed to name loan recipients (click here)
Tue Mar 3, 2009 4:49pm GMT
WASHINGTON, March 3 (Reuters) - A U.S. senator berated Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Tuesday for refusing to name banks that borrow from the central bank, and said he would introduce legislation requiring public disclosure.
In a testy exchange at a hearing before the Senate Budget Committee, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who usually votes with the Democrats, said he found it "unacceptable" that the central bank risked taxpayer money without detailing where the funds went.
"My question to you is, will you tell the American people to whom you lent $2.2 trillion of their dollars?" Sanders asked, referring to the size of the Fed's balance sheet.
Bernanke responded that the Fed explains the various lending programs on its website, and details the terms and collateral requirements.
When Sanders pressed on whether he would name the firms that borrowed from the Fed, the central bank chairman replied, "No," and started to say that doing so risked stigmatizing banks and discouraging them from borrowing from the central bank.
"Isn't that too bad," Sanders interrupted, cutting off Bernanke's answer. "They took the money but they don't want to be public about the fact that they received it."...
I also don't believe in 'inhibiting' this type of responsible banking practice either. JP Morgan was positioned for any possible scenario and it did remarkably well.
I believe in 'community leadership' and far more liberal government policies with insitutions that have a proven track record of sustainable growth and contribution to the well being of the USA and its citizens.
The 'functionality' and 'agility' of JP Morgan should be rewarded with 'federal certifications' that can be displayed in their banks and offices recognizing leadership and accountability with a record of success. For an institution that rises above the fodder, there should an 'exemption' process to allow greater fluidity in its direction. Otherwise, regulation HAS to be the methodology of the day.
STOCKS NEWS US-JPMorgan made profits with OTC derivatives: BBG (click here)
Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:28pm GMT
0725 ET 03 March 2009
JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N) generated $5 billion in profits during a turbulent year for Wall Street and financial stocks by trading over-the-counter fixed-income derivatives, according to a Bloomberg report, which cited two people with knowledge of the results.
As of Sept. 30, Bloomberg wrote, JPMorgan held $87.7 trillion worth of outstanding OTC contracts, more than the next two banks-- Bank of America (BAC.N) and Citigroup (C.N)-- combined.
JPMorgan hasn't disclosed earnings for its interest-rate swap, municipal bond and foreign exchange derivatives group, the agency reported, adding that the division was among JPMorgan's most profitable. [ID:nBNG470183]
Shares of JPMorgan rose 2.6 percent to $21.70 in premarket trade....
The 'definivative' change that needs to occur, Bernanke didn't even address and that was how 'Mark the Market' continues to FORCE foreclosure on properties. If there is to be a 'consumer directed' administration that keeps people from defaulting and stops foreclosure, "Mark the Market' has to be stopped. The objection of this practice has been in contention over six months now. (click here)
...Bernanke said. “AIG exploited a huge gap in the regulatory system, there was no oversight of the financial-products division, this was a hedge fund basically that was attached to a large and stable insurance company.”...
Every company/bank borrowing from 'The Central Bank' should be required BY LAW and ENFORCED with heavy penalities including prison, to report and give full disclosure of any and all borrowing the institution has conducted with 'The Central Bank' AND otherwise.
The 'fitness' of the bank should be known to its customers. Should customers be allowed to participate in 'irregular' banking practices or not? Should consumers be allowed to place their monies with institutions they 'consent?' In other words, if a Dick Cheney wants to make money at the cost of every other 'solidly invested' institution than he should be allowed to do that with full recognition that he could loss his shirt the next day.
OR.
Should those practices simply be regulated out of existance and provide an 'honest' and 'respectable' market place for consumers so they don't have a worry in wondering if they will have money to pay the mortgage?
I think its high time to regulate the banks AGAIN, both domestic and those from foreign associations, to provide a 'level playing field' for all banks while protecting consumers. The word consumer takes on all meanings even if the consumer is the USA government.
Basically, in the recent 'financial environment' anyone banking with any institution, other than JP Morgan, was banking with risk taking incompetents.
The 'size' of JP Morgan alone and its ability to 'weather the storm' placed it in an advantageous position and its CEO is basically coated in gold today. Make no mistake, although JP Morgan is the only 'intact' entity from the 'Bush Fiscal Bungling,' it lost value when one would expect its assets to be viewed as more valuable. That just goes to PROVE that no matter the CEO, no matter the heartiness of the institution, the 'market place' can have profound impact on even the best and most stable of banking institutions. So, why then allow exploitation of 'choosing' to play by the rules rather than simply setting standards that uphold the integrity of stable institutions such as JP Morgan?
Banks are inherently 'at risk' because of the 'nature of their business' in providing monies in the way of loans. Why allow their 'risk' to be greater in a 'free for all' market system rather than one that stabilizes the environment at which they provide services? Obviously, the majority of CEOs cannot be trusted with the 'best interest' of the public and the USA Treasury, so why allow it?
U.S. senator wants Fed to name loan recipients (click here)
Tue Mar 3, 2009 4:49pm GMT
WASHINGTON, March 3 (Reuters) - A U.S. senator berated Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Tuesday for refusing to name banks that borrow from the central bank, and said he would introduce legislation requiring public disclosure.
In a testy exchange at a hearing before the Senate Budget Committee, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who usually votes with the Democrats, said he found it "unacceptable" that the central bank risked taxpayer money without detailing where the funds went.
"My question to you is, will you tell the American people to whom you lent $2.2 trillion of their dollars?" Sanders asked, referring to the size of the Fed's balance sheet.
Bernanke responded that the Fed explains the various lending programs on its website, and details the terms and collateral requirements.
When Sanders pressed on whether he would name the firms that borrowed from the Fed, the central bank chairman replied, "No," and started to say that doing so risked stigmatizing banks and discouraging them from borrowing from the central bank.
"Isn't that too bad," Sanders interrupted, cutting off Bernanke's answer. "They took the money but they don't want to be public about the fact that they received it."...
I also don't believe in 'inhibiting' this type of responsible banking practice either. JP Morgan was positioned for any possible scenario and it did remarkably well.
I believe in 'community leadership' and far more liberal government policies with insitutions that have a proven track record of sustainable growth and contribution to the well being of the USA and its citizens.
The 'functionality' and 'agility' of JP Morgan should be rewarded with 'federal certifications' that can be displayed in their banks and offices recognizing leadership and accountability with a record of success. For an institution that rises above the fodder, there should an 'exemption' process to allow greater fluidity in its direction. Otherwise, regulation HAS to be the methodology of the day.
STOCKS NEWS US-JPMorgan made profits with OTC derivatives: BBG (click here)
Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:28pm GMT
0725 ET 03 March 2009
JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N) generated $5 billion in profits during a turbulent year for Wall Street and financial stocks by trading over-the-counter fixed-income derivatives, according to a Bloomberg report, which cited two people with knowledge of the results.
As of Sept. 30, Bloomberg wrote, JPMorgan held $87.7 trillion worth of outstanding OTC contracts, more than the next two banks-- Bank of America (BAC.N) and Citigroup (C.N)-- combined.
JPMorgan hasn't disclosed earnings for its interest-rate swap, municipal bond and foreign exchange derivatives group, the agency reported, adding that the division was among JPMorgan's most profitable. [ID:nBNG470183]
Shares of JPMorgan rose 2.6 percent to $21.70 in premarket trade....
