[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]FLU: Perhaps it’s naivete on my part, but, after reading the article, I didn’t detect anything untoward.
I was left with the sense that Treasury was concerned about possible dissemination of incorrect results (which could result in negative reaction) and wanted to have time to interface with the banks to make certain that those participating were correctly performing the assessment.
Of course, you can read that as “let’s get our stories straight”, or “let’s see how we can gin the news up so it’s positive”, but, given the hysteria exhibited by some in the blogosphere and punditocracy, I actually don’t blame them.
Several bloggers have been quoted (or mis-quoted) on this post, alleging all sorts of banking misdeeds and using “evidence” that was either twisted to suit the story or wrong (one example being a blogger who didn’t have the first clue as to basic accounting principles and was making idiotic allegations as a result).
Again, though, could be me being naive. [/quote]
Who knows. It’s difficult to tell with all these smoke and mirrors. It just seemed kinda odd that Geithner came out yesterday saying “all banks passed the stress test” and now he’s saying, don’t talk about it. Anyone know the exact details of what the stress test included? Anyone have a linky? Enquiring minds want to know the details.
