nationwide foreclosure moratorium!

[davelj]

[quote=gandalf]Bankers somehow ‘not responsible’ for a banking meltdown?[/quote]

Did someone say that somehow bankers were not responsible for the banking meltdown? Where did you read that?

What I said – if you’re referring to my comments – was that it’s difficult to assign individual bankers with blame – outside of the obvious villians – due to the complicated nature of the task. That’s a world apart from suggesting that they’re “not responsible.” They’re responsible, alright. It’s just very difficult to pin that responsibility down at the individual level outside of fairly obvious cases, which are the exception rather than the rule.

[quote=gandalf]
More important question:

Are owners, managers and employees of corporations so completely shielded from liability as to be ‘Not Responsible’ for the conduct of their firms?
[/quote]

Technically, senior officers and directors of banks are “personally and severally liable” for losses to the FDIC if their bank fails. The problem, of course, is that the FDIC has to prove criminal negligence, which is a difficult standard to prove. Having said that, during the S&L/banking crisis of the late-80s-early-90s, the FDIC sued officers and directors of 26% of the banks that failed. I think we’re going to see a LOT of law suits this time around as well. (The FDIC is just getting geared up for these suits right now.) The problem is that most of these folks who aren’t working at the top-20 banks – who TPTB won’t allow to fail – don’t have nearly enough net worth to plug the holes they’ve created. Not even close. But as a director of two banks, I’m quite aware that my net worth is on the line if something goes wrong. D&O insurance helps out a bit in this regard, but if a bank fails, the losses tend to dwarf the D&O amount by many multiples.

[Anonymous]

I just hope other people take the topic more seriously..

[Anonymous]

I just hope other people take the topic more seriously..

[Anonymous]

I just hope other people take the topic more seriously..

[Anonymous]

I just hope other people take the topic more seriously..

[Anonymous]

I just hope other people take the topic more seriously..

[gandalf]

I agree. The banks are principally responsible for a ‘banking meltdown’. The corporate directors and managing principals are responsible. It’s the letter of the law. And yet, for all intensive purposes, most of the people managing the financial services corporations at the epicenter of this disaster are going to emerge unscathed. They are not going to be held responsible for what happened, not in any practical sense. And there is something fundamentally wrong with that.

Yes, there will be FDIC lawsuits, another 25%, etc. Bloomberg reported on this the other day. Some may even succeed, resulting in a measure of forfeiture, ironically covered by insurance deducted as a business expense. There may even be criminal trials, but nothing of consequence. By and large, the results will be insignificant against the scale and backdrop of what happened, reckless banks and financial services corporations bringing our economy to the brink of collapse.

I could care less about ‘Deadbeat Joe’. He’s a fraction of the problem. I want to know when Wall Street is going to be held responsible for its reckless misconduct. That’s where the money went, and that’s what I want to know.

[gandalf]

I agree. The banks are principally responsible for a ‘banking meltdown’. The corporate directors and managing principals are responsible. It’s the letter of the law. And yet, for all intensive purposes, most of the people managing the financial services corporations at the epicenter of this disaster are going to emerge unscathed. They are not going to be held responsible for what happened, not in any practical sense. And there is something fundamentally wrong with that.

Yes, there will be FDIC lawsuits, another 25%, etc. Bloomberg reported on this the other day. Some may even succeed, resulting in a measure of forfeiture, ironically covered by insurance deducted as a business expense. There may even be criminal trials, but nothing of consequence. By and large, the results will be insignificant against the scale and backdrop of what happened, reckless banks and financial services corporations bringing our economy to the brink of collapse.

I could care less about ‘Deadbeat Joe’. He’s a fraction of the problem. I want to know when Wall Street is going to be held responsible for its reckless misconduct. That’s where the money went, and that’s what I want to know.

[gandalf]

I agree. The banks are principally responsible for a ‘banking meltdown’. The corporate directors and managing principals are responsible. It’s the letter of the law. And yet, for all intensive purposes, most of the people managing the financial services corporations at the epicenter of this disaster are going to emerge unscathed. They are not going to be held responsible for what happened, not in any practical sense. And there is something fundamentally wrong with that.

Yes, there will be FDIC lawsuits, another 25%, etc. Bloomberg reported on this the other day. Some may even succeed, resulting in a measure of forfeiture, ironically covered by insurance deducted as a business expense. There may even be criminal trials, but nothing of consequence. By and large, the results will be insignificant against the scale and backdrop of what happened, reckless banks and financial services corporations bringing our economy to the brink of collapse.

I could care less about ‘Deadbeat Joe’. He’s a fraction of the problem. I want to know when Wall Street is going to be held responsible for its reckless misconduct. That’s where the money went, and that’s what I want to know.

[gandalf]

I agree. The banks are principally responsible for a ‘banking meltdown’. The corporate directors and managing principals are responsible. It’s the letter of the law. And yet, for all intensive purposes, most of the people managing the financial services corporations at the epicenter of this disaster are going to emerge unscathed. They are not going to be held responsible for what happened, not in any practical sense. And there is something fundamentally wrong with that.

Yes, there will be FDIC lawsuits, another 25%, etc. Bloomberg reported on this the other day. Some may even succeed, resulting in a measure of forfeiture, ironically covered by insurance deducted as a business expense. There may even be criminal trials, but nothing of consequence. By and large, the results will be insignificant against the scale and backdrop of what happened, reckless banks and financial services corporations bringing our economy to the brink of collapse.

I could care less about ‘Deadbeat Joe’. He’s a fraction of the problem. I want to know when Wall Street is going to be held responsible for its reckless misconduct. That’s where the money went, and that’s what I want to know.

[gandalf]

I agree. The banks are principally responsible for a ‘banking meltdown’. The corporate directors and managing principals are responsible. It’s the letter of the law. And yet, for all intensive purposes, most of the people managing the financial services corporations at the epicenter of this disaster are going to emerge unscathed. They are not going to be held responsible for what happened, not in any practical sense. And there is something fundamentally wrong with that.

Yes, there will be FDIC lawsuits, another 25%, etc. Bloomberg reported on this the other day. Some may even succeed, resulting in a measure of forfeiture, ironically covered by insurance deducted as a business expense. There may even be criminal trials, but nothing of consequence. By and large, the results will be insignificant against the scale and backdrop of what happened, reckless banks and financial services corporations bringing our economy to the brink of collapse.

I could care less about ‘Deadbeat Joe’. He’s a fraction of the problem. I want to know when Wall Street is going to be held responsible for its reckless misconduct. That’s where the money went, and that’s what I want to know.

[davelj]

[quote=gandalf]I agree. The banks are principally responsible for a ‘banking meltdown’. The corporate directors and managing principals are responsible. It’s the letter of the law. And yet, for all intensive purposes, most of the people managing the financial services corporations at the epicenter of this disaster are going to emerge unscathed. They are not going to be held responsible for what happened, not in any practical sense. And there is something fundamentally wrong with that.[/quote]

True, unfortunately. There will be a few high-profile successful prosecutions and host of small-time folks will get nailed as well. But in the larger scheme of things, the majority of malcontents will walk away unscathed.

[quote=gandalf]
I could care less about ‘Deadbeat Joe’. He’s a fraction of the problem. I want to know when Wall Street is going to be held responsible for its reckless misconduct. That’s where the money went, and that’s what I want to know.[/quote]

While individual Deadbeat Joes are a tiny fraction of the problem, Deadbeat Joes as a group are a big part of the problem. They’re the source of a huge part of the SFR losses, after all. So, I care about both – the banking malcontents and the Deadbeat Joes. But of one thing I’m sure: neither will truly suffer much. It’s the nature of the game.

[davelj]

[quote=gandalf]I agree. The banks are principally responsible for a ‘banking meltdown’. The corporate directors and managing principals are responsible. It’s the letter of the law. And yet, for all intensive purposes, most of the people managing the financial services corporations at the epicenter of this disaster are going to emerge unscathed. They are not going to be held responsible for what happened, not in any practical sense. And there is something fundamentally wrong with that.[/quote]

True, unfortunately. There will be a few high-profile successful prosecutions and host of small-time folks will get nailed as well. But in the larger scheme of things, the majority of malcontents will walk away unscathed.

[quote=gandalf]
I could care less about ‘Deadbeat Joe’. He’s a fraction of the problem. I want to know when Wall Street is going to be held responsible for its reckless misconduct. That’s where the money went, and that’s what I want to know.[/quote]

While individual Deadbeat Joes are a tiny fraction of the problem, Deadbeat Joes as a group are a big part of the problem. They’re the source of a huge part of the SFR losses, after all. So, I care about both – the banking malcontents and the Deadbeat Joes. But of one thing I’m sure: neither will truly suffer much. It’s the nature of the game.

[davelj]

[quote=gandalf]I agree. The banks are principally responsible for a ‘banking meltdown’. The corporate directors and managing principals are responsible. It’s the letter of the law. And yet, for all intensive purposes, most of the people managing the financial services corporations at the epicenter of this disaster are going to emerge unscathed. They are not going to be held responsible for what happened, not in any practical sense. And there is something fundamentally wrong with that.[/quote]

True, unfortunately. There will be a few high-profile successful prosecutions and host of small-time folks will get nailed as well. But in the larger scheme of things, the majority of malcontents will walk away unscathed.

[quote=gandalf]
I could care less about ‘Deadbeat Joe’. He’s a fraction of the problem. I want to know when Wall Street is going to be held responsible for its reckless misconduct. That’s where the money went, and that’s what I want to know.[/quote]

While individual Deadbeat Joes are a tiny fraction of the problem, Deadbeat Joes as a group are a big part of the problem. They’re the source of a huge part of the SFR losses, after all. So, I care about both – the banking malcontents and the Deadbeat Joes. But of one thing I’m sure: neither will truly suffer much. It’s the nature of the game.

[davelj]

[quote=gandalf]I agree. The banks are principally responsible for a ‘banking meltdown’. The corporate directors and managing principals are responsible. It’s the letter of the law. And yet, for all intensive purposes, most of the people managing the financial services corporations at the epicenter of this disaster are going to emerge unscathed. They are not going to be held responsible for what happened, not in any practical sense. And there is something fundamentally wrong with that.[/quote]

True, unfortunately. There will be a few high-profile successful prosecutions and host of small-time folks will get nailed as well. But in the larger scheme of things, the majority of malcontents will walk away unscathed.

[quote=gandalf]
I could care less about ‘Deadbeat Joe’. He’s a fraction of the problem. I want to know when Wall Street is going to be held responsible for its reckless misconduct. That’s where the money went, and that’s what I want to know.[/quote]

While individual Deadbeat Joes are a tiny fraction of the problem, Deadbeat Joes as a group are a big part of the problem. They’re the source of a huge part of the SFR losses, after all. So, I care about both – the banking malcontents and the Deadbeat Joes. But of one thing I’m sure: neither will truly suffer much. It’s the nature of the game.

[Author]

Posts