Time Cover: New Sheriffs of Wall Street
Time magazine puts FDIC Chair Sheila Bair, SEC Chief Mary Schapiro and TARP Overseer Eliabeth Warren on the cover. What this means for the re-regulation of Wall Street is worth thinking about.
“Unlike many of the men they oversee, the new sheriffs of Wall Street never aspired to eight-figure compensation packages or corporate suites. Bair, Schapiro and Warren all made their careers far from Manhattan, taking on new jobs during pregnancies and outhustling the men around them. But it is their willingness to break ranks and challenge the status quo that makes these increasingly powerful women different from their predecessors. As Washington gets down to the hard work of putting laws into place that are designed to prevent another crisis, they are shaping the way government will protect investors and consumers for the next generation. Under financial regulatory reform, which all three women support, both the SEC and the FDIC stand to win powerful new authority to limit and dismantle offenders. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency, a proposed body now working its way through the Senate, is the brainchild of Warren and is envisioned as a bulwark against what she calls the “tricks and traps” that banks hide in credit-card agreements and mortgages.”
I have to mull over if this means anything from a contrary indicator perspective . . .
(Can anyone from Time inc get me a graphic of the cover? Its not on your website yet)
Hat tip Economist.com
>
Source:
The New Sheriffs of Wall Street
Michael Scherer
Time, May. 13, 2010
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1988953,00.html
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
May 13th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Contrary indicator. Elizabeth Warren is the only one of the three that’s been out there in MSM telling it like it is; about Congress, investment banks, TARP, etc.
May 13th, 2010 at 9:57 am
beat me to it mochoajr. The other two are worthless.
May 13th, 2010 at 10:23 am
Is this a piece about the new sheriffs in town, or about the gender of the new sheriffs in town? Who gives a shit what their gender is, and whether they outhustled the men they oversee, juggling pregnancies, etc.?
Truth is truth, whether spoken by one with a womb or not. Haven’t we gotten past this gender conflict nonsense?
May 13th, 2010 at 10:32 am
The lede is about gender and a changing of the guard. You know — man bashing. Timing is interesting in light of Elena Kagan set to become the third woman sitting on SCOTUS. But this is pretty weak content.
May 13th, 2010 at 10:43 am
@Curmudgeon: I think the point is none of these women seem to have interest in taking advantage of the regulator=>Wall Street career revolving door, and therefore won’t hesitate to get medieval on the Street’s collective ass. (Note: I agree that Warren is by far the best of the three, but maybe some of her spirit will rub off on the others.)
So it isn’t the fact that they squat to pee… What matters is that they’re not interested in that cushy job at Goldman, and frankly I think this SHOULD concern GS, et al. One of Wall Street’s aces lost a lot of it’s power.
May 13th, 2010 at 11:21 am
@Peter North, then why mention their “pregnancies” and “the men they oversee”, obviously pointing to their gender?
And how do we know they aren’t interested in a cushy job at Goldman? And does Time really believe Goldman, et al, wouldn’t co-opt these regulators? Unless, of course, the real implication of the story is that these women, because they are women, are incorruptible, unlike the men that play at this game. Which would be hogwash. History is replete with corrupted and corruptible women.
May 13th, 2010 at 11:37 am
I don’t know if there is any indicator there, but the women who ended up as heads of state in modern times (Ghandi, Meir, Thatcher, Merkel) were pretty tough minded. Three of them went through wars on their watch.
May 13th, 2010 at 11:56 am
@Curmudgeon: Life wouldn’t be worth living without corruptible women!
But seriously, RE the references to pregnancies, men they oversee, etc., I see what you are saying. Maybe the author is give feminism a little bump. It doesn’t offend me, but can see why it would tick off some dudes.
RE these ladies not being interested in cushy Wall Street jobs, I just kind of accepted the first line of the excerpt that Barry posted. I suppose just taking that at face value could prove foolish – only time will tell. Warren strikes me as a someone who enjoys going after predatory practices, and perhaps a bit of an idealist. My impression of her was congruent with the idea that these women had no Gordon Gekko aspirations, but again, I admit that could be a bad assumption.
Honestly, I skimmed the full article, but my comment was really what I took the point of the BR’s excerpt to be. And I still think one of the keys to fixing a perverted system is to get people in the right spots that won’t be tempted by the big bucks GS, et all might give them later. I don’t mind if those people happen to be women, but like you, I wouldn’t assume that something on our Y chromosomes makes all of us men inherently inferior to them either.
What’s important to me is that the stuff that needs fixing gets fixed.
And that our regulators have big tits. ;-)
May 13th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Marking their gender and selling them as tough broads is just for setting up their future portrayal… as den mothers by their champions and as witches by the financial lobby and related stooges.
I could tell you that men are comparatively better at one-off fixes and women at cleanup projects. But, I’m still trying to figure out if there’s a sugar-mama opportunity.
May 13th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
FreeExchange has an ominous post about the TIME cover (w/ photo).
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/05/press
May 13th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Thanks !
May 13th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
[...] (H/T Barry Ritholtz). [...]
May 13th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
I don’t care about their gender or where they came from. I’ll withhold judgement until I can see what SPECIFIC ACTIONS they take to protect the American consumer. This isn’t the first time we’ve been told there’s a new sheriff in town.
May 13th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Any idiot can make up rules to regulate Wall Street. The challenge is creating an environment in which business and markets can flourish while protecting the interests of everyone else through investigation and desire to enforce. Building and then maintaining confidence amongst all of the players could be the result. One would assume considerable expertise is needed to find that balance. Let’s hope this trio has it!
May 13th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
I take this as contrary. It means that the real opportunity for change has passed. America isn’t scared anymore, so it’s back to bread and circus. Obama had a chance coming into office to be a reformer, but by now it should be clear that he’s nothing but a nutless suckup to the banking trust. Why can’t we get Janet Tavakoli to head up the SEC?
May 13th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Curmudgeon, I wholeheartedly agree with you: the gender shouldn’t matter, and it isn’t what makes or breaks them at the job that they are hired to do. Stupid article. The one place that I think that it may benefit them is what we can delicately call the “Spitzer” effect: the chances that GS has tape of any of these ladies frequenting an escort service is very low. It’s one sexist generalization I will stand behind.
I adore Elizabeth Warren, and I think she is extremely effective at what she does. The other two ladies do not impress me, but considering the extraordinary distance that their respective regulatory agencies need to be raised off the floor, we perhaps might be expecting too much too soon. But I do not see the reformers’ ardor in their performance so far. I hope that they will prove me wrong.
The contrary indicator, BR, is that regulatory agencies are being feted on the front page of a fairly low-brow magazine. What are the chances that real reform is in the offing? When was the last time that somebody’s face on the front of Time struck fear in the hearts of the truly powerful? When you are really knocking heads, it generally isn’t a glossy event.
May 13th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
@Peter North, then why mention their “pregnancies” and “the men they oversee”, obviously pointing to their gender?
@Curmudgeon
You don’t think the pregnancies would be mentioned if they were men? I doubt that ;)
May 13th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Wow, I can’t believe nobody has drawn the comparison to the “Committee to Save the World” Time Cover. After all, that worked out just great, didn’t it? Didn’t it? Oh, wait…
~~~
BR: That is what the Economist link is there for — they show both covers
May 13th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Sadly, this is only about gender. Shelia Baird?……Are u f*%!ing kidding me? What more proof do I need?
William Black has probably done the most to explain what has happened and what to do about it. But, he has a cock……and, he’s white……….so, that rules him out.
Plus……isn’t Miss Warren only a member of an investigative committee? Not really part of any executive branch………..that I’m aware of (could be wrong) – we need her in one.
I agree w/ the sentiments expressed above………….She’s the only one out of the three that is actually worth her salt.
May 13th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Zzz…
Look magazine was for people who couldn’t read. Time and its brethren is for people who can’t think.
May 13th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
@Common Man:
But my wife went around telling people “we” were pregnant in those ominous days before the little bundles of joy arrived to completely obliterate my life:)
May 13th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Elizabeth Warren is the only one of those 3 who merits a cover or a story. Mary Schapiro is a failure.
May 13th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Sorry Guys, but I predict that women will occupy most positions of authority within 2 generations. You can see it coming in the schools. Women are excelling at all levels and in all categories. They are destined to return to their status as the center of the family, community; state. Look back in history, many so-called prehistoric cultures were maternal. It can’t be stopped. Its in our genes.
Guys, if you want to go where this big switch will occur last, head South. The “good old boy” and “God the Father” culture here will be the last to go. Come on down.
May 13th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Mary Schapiro is a former FINRA hack. She is totally corrupt.
May 13th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
That is a play on this Time cover, the Committee to Save the World.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19990215,00.html
May 13th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Warren is the real deal. She doesn’t equivocate or sell-out. Shapiro? Its a week and the “still don’t know” what caused the Thurs plunge? How does someone regulate something when they don’t understand how it works?
May 13th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
My own “Time magazine as a contrary indicator” is flashing red. The “committee to save the world” almost destroyed the world’s economy (Rubin and Summers still working on that). The “new sheriffs” will probably fare no better.
As others have commented, Elizabeth Warren is the real deal. But Washington will ABSOLUTELY NOT let her do the necessary regulating. Just like the “committee to save the world” shut down Brooksley Born about a decade ago, the powers that be will do the same to Warren.
Here’s to our captive government!
May 13th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
virtually most thinking people (imo) give elizabeth warren major kudos on her knowledge and ability to send the message.
when the senate had their hearings with carl levin and lloyd blankfein, elizabeth warren should have been doing the questioning. levin was overmatched, by a lot, but i would bet on elizabeth warren every day of the week over blankfein. but that’s why we can’t get it together. the other two females are not total losers and are in fact better than some others. are there better reps, you betcha.
today our hero, bernanke (caustic humor) decided that it isn’t really necessary to separate the brokerages ala glass steagall. it would hurt our competitive advantage he says. bs. so far our competitive advantage has buried us.
May 13th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Schapiro couldn’t find “financial malfeasance” if it was tatooed on her forehead and she was looking in the mirror. Her only claim to fame is getting millions of dollars in personal perks from FINRA, while she did NOTHING to police the industry. And after a year in SEC, what has she done to stop blatant front-running, insider trading, and the HFT cancer? Nothing.
Bair is “there” for what seems to be one and only purpose: to sell off assets of failed banks’ assets to the private equity funds run by ex-goldman execs. She’s made it possible for them to make billions in a matter of months, with full downside backstop from FDIC. “Greenspan put” now became “Bair Put.”
Warren- she seems to be smart and honest. But she’s not in the government, so she can only “bark”, but not “bite.” Unfortunately even if her persuasive testimonies in front of the House and Senate may change some of the elected representatives’ opinions on the matters of bailout and regulation, it will be OUTWEIGHED by the promise of $100K contribution by the next Wall St. lobbyist.
May 13th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
I wish we could clone Elizabeth Warren and replace every self-serving money-grubbing Senator with her…