SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Road Walker who wrote (112003)4/2/2012 10:35:13 AM
From: RetiredNow  Respond to of 149317
 
That's heartening to see. I like it when the economy benefits the younger people. My kids will be out of college soon, so I hope they can get jobs that will help them earn their own way in life.

On another note, we have some serious reform to do at the SEC:

--------------


Why Are the Fed and SEC Keeping Wall Street’s Secrets?

By William D. Cohan Apr 1, 2012 6:01 PM ET

bloomberg.com

Getting what should be public information about major Wall Street firms can be maddeningly difficult.

Bloomberg News discovered this in its ultimately successful effort to get information on the $1.2 trillion in “secret loans” the Fed doled out during the financial crisis. And I’ve had no small experience of it myself.

About William D CohanWilliam D. Cohan is the author of the recently released "Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World" and the New York Times bestsellers "House of Cards" and "The Last Tycoons."
As I started each of my three books -- about Lazard Freres, Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) -- I submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the appropriate government agencies (the Securities Exchange Commission, the State Department and the Federal Reserve) to obtain whatever documents, memos and e-mails they had about these companies and their senior executives.

I was hoping to find, among other nuggets, details of enforcement actions, or settlements that were reached where the firms “neither admitted nor denied” guilt, or other documentary evidence of the coziness that has for too long existed between Wall Street and Washington.

Sadly, getting this information in anything like a timely basis -- say, before my books were finished and published -- has been nearly impossible. At first, when I asked the SEC about documents related to Lazard’s role in the Hartford-Mediobanca scandal starting in 1968 and ending in 1981, the agency told me it could not release the information. When I reminded the FOIA administrator that the SEC had already released the information, years before, to another journalist, the agency dug up the 40 boxes of unindexed, unorganized documents and invited me to a warehouse in Pennsylvania to take a look. After an hour or so, the clerk asked me if I was done with my review. (Eventually, I persuaded the SEC to ship the boxes -- at my expense -- to its office in Manhattan, where I spent months poring over them.)

Zilch, NadaBut that bit of beginner’s luck turned out to be a fluke. To this day, the SEC has given me nothing -- zilch, nada -- about Bear Stearns or Goldman Sachs. After the Lazard book was published, the State Department sent me a thin file that was, supposedly, what it had in its possession about Felix Rohatyn’s three years as the U.S. ambassador to France. I opened the envelope and discovered that most of the 10 or so pages had been redacted.

Last December, nearly nine months after my Goldman book was published, I received an official-looking package from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Slapped on the outside of the envelope was a bright orange sticker about keeping the contents -- a computer disk -- away from “magnets and electric motors” and, of course, the warning “Do Not X- Ray.” This, I suspected, was my long-awaited document file about Goldman’s dealings with the Federal Reserve in the days leading up to Sept. 22, 2008, when it, along with Morgan Stanley, had the good fortune to be allowed to become a bank holding company with lifesaving unlimited access to short-term funding.

I was hoping to discover how that whole thing went down at the time, and how Goldman and Morgan Stanley got the Fed’s blessing but Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. did not. Also I was interested in Goldman’s interactions with the Fed since that fateful moment. My hopes were raised further when I heard from people at the firm that Goldman had reviewed the contents of what was being sent to me and that its executives seemed worried about it.

Nothing NewNo such luck. On the disk was nothing more than a bunch of obscure -- but publicly available -- Federal Reserve documents about the details of Goldman’s assets and liabilities on a quarterly and annual basis, everything from the kinds of loans the firm had been making to the tenor of its derivatives book to whether the real-estate loans it owns were backed by commercial properties or residential properties.

The documents contained a bunch of detailed numbers (without explanation) about the kinds of risks Goldman was taking at a moment in time, thus prying open ever so slightly the firm’s black box.

For instance, who knew that at the end of December 2011 Goldman had $44.2 trillion in the notional amount of derivatives contracts on its books, about $1.3 trillion more than it did in 2010? Or that $36 trillion of that amount was for contracts of less than one year in tenor? Or that Goldman had $19 billion in insurance underwriting assets, up nearly 40 percent from the year before? Or that Goldman’s book of commercial and industrial loans was $7 billion at the end of 2011, up dramatically from the $829 million it held at the end of 2010? Or that the firm’s stash of mortgage-backed securities -- now $1.37 billion -- had nearly doubled what it had at the end of 2010?

Although I still have no idea how Goldman makes its money, I guess it is interesting to know that the government produces mind-numbing documents containing columns of numbers and then puts them on websites buried on the Internet.

But let’s not pretend that the Fed’s carefully scripted, and untimely, release of a disk of public information to me is even remotely the way FOIA is supposed to work. Where are the documents and e-mails about how Goldman was allowed by the Fed to become a bank holding company? Where are the documents from the SEC about Goldman? Where, for that matter, are the SEC documents related to the short-dated, out-of-the-money puts that investors spent millions of dollars buying in the last week of Bear Stearns’s existence? The SEC said it was investigating who bought and sold these puts, but it has never made the results of its investigation public despite my FOIA request.

If our government agencies continue to do everything in their considerable power to keep hidden information that belongs in the public realm, all the regulatory reform in the world won’t end the rot on Wall Street.



To: Road Walker who wrote (112003)4/2/2012 12:21:58 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 149317
 
Interesting. Rubiio sounds a little testy.

Haley, Rubio would turn down VP nod

By Steve Benen
-
Mon Apr 2, 2012 10:32 AM EDT

With the Republican establishment lining up behind Mitt Romney, and the general-election phase apparently getting underway in earnest, this is about the time we'd expect to see GOP officials signaling their willingness to join Romney's ticket. Virginia Gov. Bob "Mandatory Ultrasound" McDonnell (R), for example, has already talked up his availability, as have Romney's ostensible rivals.

Associated Press

Here's an image we apparently won't see at the Republican convention in Tampa.

It comes as something of a surprise, then, some of the names rumored for the VP short list are already saying they're not interested
. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R), for example, told ABC she would turn down a spot on Romney's ticket if it were offered.

Despite her stalwart campaigning on [Romney's] behalf, Haley claims she has no interest in being his running mate. If offered the vice presidential slot, Haley said she would not take it.

"I'd say, 'Thank you, but no,'" she said. "I made a promise to the people of this state. And I think that promise matters. And I intend to keep it."

Similarly, Ken Auletta talked to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) last week about possible vice presidential ambitions. After saying, "Yeah, I'm not going to do it," the senator added:

"I'm not going to be the vice-presidential nominee. If I say I'm not going to be it, obviously I'm not going to accept it."

Told that he hadn't said "I'm not going to accept it" before, Rubio replied, "Well, now you've got it straight for the story."

In other words, two of the more prominent names on the likely Republican short list have now said, publicly and on the record, that they not only aren't seeking the job, but would turn it down if the position were offered.

These two might very well decide to do the exact opposite if the invitation were no longer hypothetical -- I find it hard to believe Rubio meant what he said to Auletta -- but the comments don't reflect GOP confidence in Romney's chances. Right about now, Republicans should be clamoring to get on the list, not off it.