Rascally Geithner: “Shhh, Banks…Don’t mention the Stress Test….”

[Coronita]

So this is interesting… anyone want to speculate why Geitner doesn’t want any of the banks to talk about the “stress tests”… Maybe because these “stress tests” are a joke, and the more banks talk about what they entail, the more folks will realize what a joke they are???? Just speculating….

Meanwhile: caption this image

Geithner to Obama: “Repeat after me…I will not talk about the stress test, or else…”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Banks-asked-to-keep-quiet-on-rb-14899047.html?sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=TBD&ccode=TBD

Banks asked to keep quiet on stress tests
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Treasury Department is asking banks not to mention the regulatory “stress tests” as part of their first-quarter earnings results, according to a source familiar with government discussions.

Many of the top 19 U.S. banks who are undergoing regulatory stress tests have already completed internal versions of the examinations, which are designed to determine their capital needs under more adverse economic conditions.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[La Jolla Renter]

regardless of Geithner’s motive, where is the “transparency” Mr. Obama???

[La Jolla Renter]

regardless of Geithner’s motive, where is the “transparency” Mr. Obama???

[La Jolla Renter]

regardless of Geithner’s motive, where is the “transparency” Mr. Obama???

[La Jolla Renter]

regardless of Geithner’s motive, where is the “transparency” Mr. Obama???

[La Jolla Renter]

regardless of Geithner’s motive, where is the “transparency” Mr. Obama???

[DWCAP]

Captioning the Quote:

Geithner: “If I dont tell them how Fd up things are, maybe itll all go away!”

Obama “Ahhh, Hope…..”

[DWCAP]

Captioning the Quote:

Geithner: “If I dont tell them how Fd up things are, maybe itll all go away!”

Obama “Ahhh, Hope…..”

[DWCAP]

Captioning the Quote:

Geithner: “If I dont tell them how Fd up things are, maybe itll all go away!”

Obama “Ahhh, Hope…..”

[DWCAP]

Captioning the Quote:

Geithner: “If I dont tell them how Fd up things are, maybe itll all go away!”

Obama “Ahhh, Hope…..”

[Author]

Posts