Congressional Panel: Fire Managers, Liquidate Banks
Tee hee:
A congressional panel overseeing the U.S. financial rescue suggested that getting rid of top executives and liquidating problem banks may be a better way to solve the economic crisis.
The Congressional Oversight Panel, in a report released yesterday, also said the Treasury may be relying on too rosy an economic scenario to guide its $700 billion bailout, and declared that the success of the program after six months is “mixed.” Three of the group’s members disagreed with at least some of the findings.
“All successful efforts to address bank crises have involved the combination of moving aside failed management and getting control of the process of valuing bank balance sheets,” the panel, headed by Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Warren, said in its report.
Here’s the actual report language:
The April oversight report for COP is entitled Assessing Treasury’s Strategy: Six Months of TARP. In this report, COP offers a preliminary look at Treasury’s strategy and offers a comparative analysis of previous efforts to combat banking crises in the past.
Over the last six months, Treasury has spent or committed $590.4 billion of the TARP funds. Treasury has also relied heavily on the use of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet which has expanded by more than $1.5 trillion (not including expected TALF loans) in conjunction with the financial stabilization activities it has undertaken beyond its monetary policy operations. This has allowed Treasury to leverage TARP funds well beyond the funds appropriated by Congress.
The total value of all direct spending, loans and guarantees provided to date in conjunction with the financial stability efforts (including those of the FDIC as well as the Treasury and the Federal Reserve) now exceeds $4 trillion. This report reviews in considerable detail specific criteria for evaluating the impact of these programs on financial markets.
PDF of the file is here and here
>
Further Sources:
Congressional Panel Suggests Firing Managers, Liquidating Banks
Robert Schmidt
Bloomberg, April 8 2009
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJJ_MkIv9VvA&
TARP Oversight Panel: Oust Executives, Liquidate Banks
DIANA GOLOBAY
April 8, 2009 11:56 AM CST
http://www.housingwire.com/2009/04/08/tarp-oversight-panel-oust-executives-liquidate-banks/
Lukewarm verdict on US financial rescue plan
Congressional panel warns that the US Treasury’s $700bn bail-out may prove inadequate.
James Quinn
08 Apr 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/5127240/Lukewarm-verdict-on-US-financial-rescue-plan.html
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
April 8th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Fire incompetents and liquidate their shit?
never happen
As an aside, not sure why you blew away the ‘toon.
Here is the homepage for it.
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/files/2009/03/trib-cartoon2.jpg
April 8th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Might add fraud trials to keep it from happening again.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Never going to happen. I am sick at heart over Barack’s sell-out to the banks.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
It’s easy to say ‘fire em all.’
The hard question is: Who will you hire to take their place? Anyone have clean hands and the necessary background? There’s plenty of talent jobless right now…and most of it with tainted resumes.
PS–I’m available if they’re hiring!
April 8th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
“A congressional panel overseeing the U.S. financial rescue suggested that getting rid of top executives and liquidating problem banks may be a better way to solve the economic crisis.”
What geniuses!! We were talking about this in September. And in the process they “only” blew another $4T. Good work….
I think we should get rid of the congressional panel and liquidate special interest groups as a better way to solve our national crisis.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Folks… read the report.
“While these estimates [Treasury, CBO, Blue Chip Economic Indicators] represent a consensus view of expected economic contraction and credit losses for 2009, critics of Treasury’s actions can point to prominent, and significantly more pessimistic, economic projections by economist Nouriel Roubini. Roubini, whose warnings of the collapse of the housing bubble proved prescient, forecasts an economic
contraction of 3.4 percent and total credit losses of $3.6 trillion, half of which would be borne by U.S. banks, in 2009.” (p. 14)
. . .
“Thus, disagreements over the true nature and severity of the economic downturn and expectations of credit losses are at the heart of debates over Treasury’s strategy and programs for addressing the financial crisis. While the Panel does not have a view on the accuracy of these economic projections, it does note that Treasury can better anchor its strategy by sharing the baseline economic projections for its current approach. Disclosure of these assumptions for growth and expected bank losses will make debate over contingency strategies, in the event that a course change becomes necessary down the road, more constructive.” (p. 14)
“Fn 30 See, e.g., Paul Krugman, The Market Mystique, New York Times (Mar. 26, 2009) (“Above all, the key promise of securitization – that it would make the financial system more robust by spreading risk more widely – turned out to be a lie. Banks used securitization to increase their risk, not reduce it, and in the process they made the economy more, not less, vulnerable to financial disruption.”); Robert Kuttner, Slouching Towards Solvency, American Prospect (Mar. 23, 2009) (online at http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=slouching_towards_solvency) (“At the heart of this entire mess is the system of securitization, which dates only to the 1970s. In principle, it usefully allowed banks to sell off loans and thereby replenish cash to make other loans. But in practice, the system turned into an unsupervised doomsday machine. Not only did the system invite lenders to relax underwriting standards because some sucker down the line was absorbing the risk . . . .” (p. 16)
. . .
“Even if the tests are adequate, regulators may lack the will to act on what they learn. In either
case, the stress tests would not produce the desired results. The Panel is interested in: (1) the extent to which the stress tests will rely on risk management models like Value At Risk (VAR), which some have identified as having contributed to risk management failures that fed the financial bubble; and (2) the extent to which the stress tests will be conducted, in the first instance, by the financial management teams of the financial firms themselves. The Panel needs additional information on the stress tests before it can offer further analysis.” (p. 18)
Read the report.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
And get rid of all the incompetent congressmen who ignored the direct warnings of economists like Robert Shiller and did nothing as this disaster materialized.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
rww @ 5:16
Last November, after the election, I didn’t have particularly high hopes for Obama’s performance. I did, however, harbor the hope that he would stand up to the banks.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
franklin411 @ 5:20
I say, fire the CEO of any company that gets a bailout. Someone at the company should have to pay some kind of a price.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
‘some sucker down the line was absorbing the risk’.
That just about sums it. No matter how you slice it, dice it, model it, compensate it, securitize it, or TARP it that single statement is the essence of the whole scheme. The suckers at the end of the line now are the taxpayers.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
DL
I agree.
I can assure you with 100% certainty that somebody
told the higher-ups something was amiss.
They were shown the door, post haste.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
IT HASN’T DONE ANYTHING FOR THE SAME REASONS OUTLINED IN MY INITIAL RESPONSE TO THE PAULSON PLAN ASSETS ARE INSOLVENT, NOT TEMPORARILY IMPAIRED
AS HOPED FOR TARP Is 6 Months Old, Little Evidence Of Success Elizabeth Warren, the TARP watchdog, has released her six month report card on the state of TARP. Yep, it’s been six months and we’re still mainly here and in one piece, so take a second to be glad for that.As was reported a few days ago, Warren’s report calls for the government to administer tough justice to the banks, arguing that there are four keys to the success of any banking system rescue, when looking throughout history.Transparency AssertivenessAccountability Clarity (as in, a full explanation of why and what the government’s doing with taxpayer money)
The other key point, which we’re really glad Warren made, is that Tim Geithner’s strategy only works if this is a temporary, liquidity problem, rather than something more profound. That’s key. Few others in government are acknowleding that crucial point.
April 8th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
WHy can’ they fire them and take’em over???
It s happened before, RTC style…
THere is plenty of talent on the street to run them. Probably the same people who WERE shown the door, post haste…
I think John Paulson and Ken Griffin could buy any of these banks… Come to think of it, maybe that’s what they will do with all their cash.
LOL- Making bank deposits to hedge fund/private equity vehicles, the circle is complete…
April 8th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
This reminds me of what happens when your PC freezes. You sit there hitting ctrl-alt-del and try to get the task manager but it some instances you end up hitting the reset button on the outside of the box.
We need to reset the financials and clear out any bad data, memory of the current disaster. Let real leaders lead and pull us out of the previous generations bad ideas.
April 8th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Reset buttons are red for a reason.
April 8th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Something bizarre in the bloomberg article though, it says three of the members dissented or issued a seperate findings. There are only 5 members. 5 frickin people can’t come up with an a report that they agree on? Two of them totally reject it, while the 3rd has to voice discrete warnings or caveats?
Perhaps the headline should read – Oversight panel just as “flictated” as as the rescue it is overseeing
April 8th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
It doesn’t take talent to fail at risk management. Any old monkey will do. Liquidation would reveal what and who is worth keeping, and what should be written off.
But really, only $4 trillion in loans and guarantees? I suppose they left off the $5+ trillion in liabilities guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie that are now the liabilities of the US, or as it were, of us.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
This false argument about they’re not being “enough talent” out there to replace these jackals does not compute with me. There are plenty of talented, competent, and HONEST people in the business who saw this coming that could step in and do the job well in a heartbeat. If I’m wrong and the criminals and jackals who are running the banks now are the “best & brightest” we have, we are truly, truly fucked.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
“Best yes-men and brightest ass-kissers” money can buy.
We’ve been fucked for awhile,
it was just a lousy lay.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=adEHS6CD6q4Q&refer=home
Roubini Says Bank Takeovers Deepened Financial Market Crisis
By Lynn Thomasson and Thomas R. Keene
April 8 (Bloomberg) — Bank takeovers worsened the financial crisis by making firms that were already too big even bigger, said Nouriel Roubini, the New York University professor who predicted the financial crisis.
“The institutions are insolvent,” Roubini said in a Bloomberg Radio interview. “You have to take them over and you have to split them up into three or four national banks, rather than having a humongous monster that is too big to fail.”
April 8th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
I voted for Obama and although I like most of his policies he’s basically a corporate stooge to the Banking Oligarchs which in many respects overrides all his positives.
US Banking oligarchy f*cked up yet O acquiesces
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/4/4/11126/52913/13#c13
April 8th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
They’ll keep doing anything and everything to save their few precious megabanks.
This is quite simply nothing more than massive concentration of risk, ensuring that the next bad roll of the dice is grossly amplified with catastrophic consequences for us all.
Diversification is for the little people, all-in is how the big boys play (and go …. bust!)
April 8th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
BAC = Bonuses Already in the Caymans?
Real Bonuses + Fictitious profits =Fraud
And we STILL don’t even know the TRUE extent of the problem. I guess this will SLOWLY start to emerge now that the Banks can mark to solvency again.
Real progress, hey?
April 8th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
William Black said the Bank Stress Tests will be a complete Sham it also looks like Dr. Doom calling Jim Cramer a Buffon last night and saying he is not a credble analyst is right on target see (http://bluelori.blogspot.com/2009/04/following-jim-cramers-advice-may-leave.html)
April 8th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
A small exert from Reggie Middleton on Bank stress testing:
http://boombustblog.com/Reggie-Middleton/907-More-on-Reggie-Middletons-Bank-Stress-Testing.html
The FDIC has released a document describing the stress test and the parameters used to assess the banks health under assumed base case and adverse case scenarios. Unfortunately, their adverse case scenarios are actually the base case scenarios. Look at the appendix of this document from the FDIC (I will save it if I were you to ensure that it doesn’t disappear when word gets out), and you will see an unemployment “adverse case” of 8.9% and a average baseline case of 8.4%. Well, the baseline case is already too optimistic. This is a fact, since I just pulled the government’s own numbers (see below) and unemployment for the month of March is currently 8.5%! Thus, you can see where the baseline assumptions are already too optimistic, without a doubt. If one were to look at the rate of increase of unemployment, it would not take much imagination to see the actual rate easily pierce the “adverse” case before the end of 2009 (we are near the adverse case alreay, and this is just the beginning of the 4th month of the year). If this were to be true, it would be safe to assume the stress tests to be a total farce, with realistic numbers showing banks to be in far worse conditions. Be aware that I am not using shadow stats, or numbers derived by basement bloggers, but the actual numbers released by our fair government.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
OT:
km4, think beyond ‘banking’, think ‘databasing’:
“…The Obama administration is “invoking government secrecy in defending the Bush administration’s wiretapping program” against a lawsuit brought by AT&T customers who claim “federal agents illegally intercepted their phone calls and gained access to their records.” Justice Department lawyers yesterday demanded dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against Bush officials, arguing that the information constitutes privileged “state secrets.” Moreover, the DOJ claims the Patriot Act bars lawsuits against “illegal government surveillance unless there is ‘willful disclosure’ of the illegally intercepted communications.” The SF Chronicle reports:
Disclosure of the information sought by the customers, “which concerns how the United States seeks to detect and prevent terrorist attacks, would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security,” Justice Department lawyers said in papers filed Friday in San Francisco.
Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a lawyer for the customers, said Monday the filing was disappointing in light of the Obama presidential campaign’s “unceasing criticism of Bush-era secrecy and promise for more transparency.”…
http://www.eff.org/
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/07/obama-doj-wiretapping-suit/
April 8th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
@ Mark E Hoffer
Yup…also see
When WILL Obama Speak to the Nation on Torture and Wiretapping?
http://bit.ly/UnsZ
April 8th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Mark E Hoffer @ 10:18
In general, I’m not supportive of the idea of “going after” ex-presidents, particularly if the issue stems from a disagreement with a public policy position taken by the ex-president. There would have to be an extreme abuse of power, and for personal gain, before I would think it a good idea to go after an ex-president (of either party).
As for the whole wiretapping issue, it’s a question of whether you fear the terrorists more than the government, or vice versa. Not a pleasant choice.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
While the topic is “fixing” the mess, here are some very cogent observations from Nassim Taleb.
“Ten Principles for a “Black Swan-proof” world.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5d5aa24e-23a4-11de-996a-00144feabdc0.html
Wise minds would heed his advice. Are any of them in a position in the government to do anything about it? Right now, it doesn’t look like it to me.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
@james hogan: Fantastic. Thanks for that. Sounds a lot like many of the comments here.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
DL,
this: “it’s a question of whether you fear the terrorists more than the government, or vice versa.”
is an interesting idea, so evocative of: Antifederalist No. 8 “THE POWER VESTED IN CONGRESS OF SENDING TROOPS FOR SUPPRESSING INSURRECTIONS WILL ALWAYS ENABLE THEM TO STIFLE THE FIRST STRUGGLES OF FREEDOM”
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp08.html
and, as always, the old favorite: Antifederalist No. 2 “WE HAVE BEEN TOLD OF PHANTOMS”
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp02.html
“There would have to be an extreme abuse of power”–extreme would be subjective, though do not PATRIOT Acts I & II, and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act(2006) count for anything?
April 8th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
james hogan,
from that ft link: 9. Citizens should not depend on financial assets or fallible “expert” advice for their retirement. Economic life should be definancialised. We should learn not to use markets as storehouses of value: they do not harbour the certainties that normal citizens require. Citizens should experience anxiety about their own businesses (which they control), not their investments (which they do not control).
right down the line of what Hayek was calling out in “Constitution of Liberty”–Employees are threat to Liberty.
also, aren’t ‘Consumers’, de facto, Dependent? ~70% of the US ‘Economy’ is “Consumer” driven, isn’t that a nice way of saying we’re a Nation of Slaves?
Past that, this: ” Economic life should be definancialised. ” is brilliant, Taleb, still, doesn’t get enough ‘play’..
April 8th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
km4,
“yet in his campaign championed the Constitution, the rights of citizens, transparency, and the Rule of Law.
Finally, in light of the fact that Obama is rapidly losing the trust of many in his politically necessary base over his silence on these issues.
When will President Obama address these issues before the American people?”
nice art.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Mark E Hoffer @ 10:59
I’m going to acknowledge your argument, since you took the trouble to write one. I don’t have an extensive comment at the moment.
I would admit that there is enormous potential for abuse of power by the government. But if they’re going to stop the terrorists, the government will have to do some things in secret. I don’t see any other way.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Fire em all, Let the failures happen, and let em know they’re getting off easy. Don’t tell me noones got the talent, and don’t say you have to take the good with the bad and get tainted goods, like it’s some sort of Iraqi Amnesty program. You could hire a sixth grader and get them to do better than the lot we’ve got. The fact that noone sane understands the complicated deals and agreements that have been so far upheld, means the engineers of this crisis are not capable of fixing it. It reinforces the fact that they didn’t see, or chose to ignore the writing on the walls, and only adds to the argument that they should be fired. That in doing so, the company, the shareholders, the country and even the world will be a better place without them.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
DL,
I hear you, though, it goes on like this:
“…The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 might well be described as one of history’s more spectacular euphemisms employed to gut a constitution, somewhat akin to Hitler’s “emergency act” in the wake of the Reichstag fire of 1933. It is better known as PATRIOT Act I. PATRIOT Act I became law six weeks after the fall of the Twin Towers and was followed by PATRIOT Act II in 2006. The two laws together diminish constitutional guarantees of free speech, freedom of association, freedom from illegal search, the right to habeas corpus, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and prohibition of the illegal seizure of private property. The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments in the Bill of Rights have all been discarded or abridged in the rush to make it easier to investigate, torture, and jail both foreigners and American citizens. The PATRIOT Act also incorporates the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of Oct. 17, 2001, which permits the freezing of assets and investigation of individuals suspected of being financial supporters of terrorism. “Suspected” is the key word, as there is no oversight or appeal in the process…”
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/04/06/goodbye-bill-of-rights/
April 8th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
And while we’re at it, I’d like to put a few words in about sports fans, organized athletics, and all that is anthropomorhic about the chimps in us. Alan Greenspan coined it right as the ill that afflicted us, Irrational Exhuberence.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Mark E Hoffer @ 11:42
If I lived on a farm in Iowa, I wouldn’t worry so much about the terrorists. But I live in the Washington, DC Metro area. They’re going to hit this place again sooner or later.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:40 am
DL,
you may care to remember ol’ Ben Franklin’s admonitions
“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
“To the haranguers of the populace among the ancients, succeed among the moderns your writers of political pamphlets and news-papers, and your coffee-house talkers.” – Reply to Coffee House Orators, April 9, 1767
“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately (attributed).” – At the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/ben-franklin-quotes-3.html
and one, other, in keeping w/ the Season:
“Moses lifting up his wand, and dividing the Red Sea, and Pharaoh in his chariot overwhelmed with the waters. This motto: ‘Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.’” – Proposed Seal of the United States, July, 1776
http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/ben-franklin-quotes-3.html
April 9th, 2009 at 5:43 am
@MEH and DL.
The Geneva conventions also took centuries to eveolve and seconds to destroy. They were there for very good reasons and it should be remembered it works both ways. Pictures of US soldiers being treated similarly in some future war need to be seen in this context.
IMHO the terrorist win if we allow them to destroy the civil liberties which a defining feature of our civilisation. And their lack of it.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:06 am
yves smith unmasks the stress test charade. simply reprehensible
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/04/quelle-surprise-bank-stress-tests.html
April 9th, 2009 at 8:48 am
WFC is known for changing it’s accounting methods to push writedowns into the future.
exert from todays press release: WFC Exhibit 99.1
April 9th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Sorry. Left off the quote:
Cautionary Statement About Preliminary Results and Other Forward-Looking Information
In accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, we caution you that, whether or not expressly stated, all measures of first quarter 2009 financial results and condition contained in this news release, including revenue, net income, earnings per share, pre-tax pre-provision profit, net charge-offs, provision expense, net interest margin, efficiency ratio, mortgage originations and applications, loan commitments, various credit quality metrics, and tangible common equity ratio, are preliminary and reflect our expected first quarter 2009 financial results and condition as of the date of this news release. Actual reported first quarter 2009 financial results and condition may vary significantly from those expectations because of a number of factors, including additional or revised information, subsequent events, including credit downgrades, that may affect the fair value of assets at March 31, 2009, and changes in accounting standards or policies or in how those standards are applied. We also caution you that this news release contains additional forward-looking statements about the Company including expected second quarter 2009 mortgage originations and expected annual merger-related expense savings. For a discussion of factors that may adversely affect our financial results and condition and cause actual results to differ from expectations, refer to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and available on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov. Any factor described in this news release or in any report referred to in this news release could, by itself or together with one or more other factors, adversely affect the Company’s financial results and condition. The Company will provide additional discussion and analysis and other important information about its first quarter 2009 financial results and condition when it reports actual results on April 22, 2009.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:09 am
I thought this was a great read. Elizabeth Warren deserves praise for her brains and her b*lls. This report tries to educate ignorant politicians without speaking down to them and questions the wisdom of tactics without being directly accusatory. Probably the right way to navigate through D.C.
I did not find the “alternate views” to be compelling. It seemed a little bit like they were afraid to question Treasury because doing so might impact the confidence of the masses. Let’s pretend that we must be doing everything right because if we do not, people might realize it and lose confidence! Seems a little emblamatic of the last administration.
This is also worth a read:
Insolvency vs. Liquidity, or Austrians vs. Keynesians, http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff287.html. Seems like more and more people are questioning the liquidity vs solvency issue and the motivations of those portraying it as a liquidity issue.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
I am so fucking tired of this “who are you going to find to replace them” bullshit. For God’s sake. Is that a fucking joke? What kind of mental midget repeats this blathering manure over and over and over? Oh, CNBC dimwits and their mentally challenged guests. There are six billion people in this world. We can only find ten crooks to run the insolvent banks? If I have to listen to this hog wash one more time……..
These dumbasses, I mean CEOs, couldn’t begin to explain to you or me many of the businesses they are in. That is incompetence. And, therein lies the problem. Banking is supposed to be a 3-6-3 affair. Pay depositors 3%, lend at 6% and be on the course by 3pm. All of this other trash needs to be shut down.
If we can’t find someone capable of 3rd grade math skills needed to run a bank, we are really fucked.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
bdg,
that’s a nice point–if one explained, to 3rd graders, what there ‘banks’ were doing, they’d think you were making it up/they wouldn’t believe the BS..
kids have a remarkable ability to discern, it’s amazing that we, seemingly, regress as we grow older.
H Salmon,
re: E. Warren, I agree. Also, I think it’s telling, again, that there isn’t a “Women’s Rights” group within a thousand miles of her–giving any support, whatsoever.
and, re: rozeff, he’s a good thinker, his stuff is worthwhile..past that, it has always been an Insolvency issue, If those ‘banks’ had many ‘real assets’, their ‘liquidity’ problems would have taken care of themselves..