(UPDATED) Please be smarter than the Freepers.
by Geekesque
   
Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:23:24 AM PDT

[See end of diary for clarification of why Bank Holding Company status matters]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/4/716470/-Please-be-smarter-than-the-Freepers.

PLEASE BE SMARTER THAN THE FREEPERS.

Really--that's a pretty low bar.

When we read extraordinary claims that President 
Obama is flagrantly violating the law, as claimed 
by an  egregious disgrace of a diary on the top 
of the Recommended List, we need to engage in 
critical thinking instead of letting our emotions 
take us for a fool's ride.

[THE DIARY IS AT 
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/4/716394/-Moyers-drops-bailout-bomb-on-Obama]

To be blunt:  that diary  would be a disgrace if 
it were posted at Redstate or Free Republic.  

Its place here speaks poorly of not only the 
author, but those who got taken in despite the 
fact that they should know better.

At least the loons at Red State don't publish 
obviously false stupidity in order to tear their 
own people down.  And we should hold ourselves to 
a much higher standard than that.  Bush is no 
longer President.
The sadly necessary demonstration of what is true 
and what is false below the fold.

Geekesque's diary :: ::

The diary, channeling the frustrated rantings of 
has-been regulator William K. Black, accuses the 
Obama administration of illegal conduct.

Black, who supported the presidential campaign of 
Barack Obama, excoriated both President Obama, 
and former President Bush, and their Treasury 
Secretaries Timothy Geithner and Hank Paulson, 
respectively, for deliberately and consciously 
violating the law. Specifically, the Prompt 
Corrective Action Law, passed after the savings 
and loan crisis, which mandates that severely 
undercapitalized banks be promptly put into 
receivership  (i.e., nationalized) (emphasis in 
original, believe it or not).

This is a lie.  Not a reasonable difference of 
opinion.  A lie.  A material misstatement.

Now, it is true that the diarist got this lie 
from Black himself, and may have been merely 
negligent in passing it on:

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, certainly in the 
financial sphere, I am. I think, first, the 
policies are substantively bad. Second, I think 
they completely lack integrity. Third, they 
violate the rule of law. This is being done just 
like Secretary Paulson did it. In violation of 
the law. We adopted a law after the Savings and 
Loan crisis, called the Prompt Corrective Action 
Law. And it requires them to close these 
institutions. And they're refusing to obey the 
law.

BILL MOYERS: In other words, they could have 
closed these banks without nationalizing them?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, you do a receivership. No 
one -- Ronald Reagan did receiverships. Nobody 
called it nationalization.

BILL MOYERS: And that's a law?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: That's the law.

BILL MOYERS: So, Paulson could have done this? Geithner could do this?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Not could. Was mandated-

BILL MOYERS: By the law.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: By the law.

Again, let me repeat.  This is a lie.  

And quite a lie it is.  It is a lie on at least two levels.

First, the Prompt Corrective Action ("PCA") law 
does not give the FDIC (or OCC or Federal 
Reserve) the ability to take over any Bank 
Holding Company ("BHC").  BHC's are regulated and 
governed by the Federal Reserve, pursuant to The 
Bank Holding Act of 1956. The PCA applies to 
insured depository institutions, i.e. the retail 
bank operation as opposed to the investment bank 
and bond trading desk.
Amongst the financial institutions that are thus not subject to the PCA are:

JP Morgan Chase
Citigroup
Bank of America
Wells Fargo
HSBC
Goldman Sachs
Morgan Stanley

And, of course, the PCA also does not apply to 
AIG, which is an insurance company and not 
involved in banking at all.  So, pretty much all 
of the really big players don't fall under the 
PCA in the first place.  Their commercial banking 
subsidiaries very well may, but your local Bank 
of America branch is not at the root of this 
crisis.  We can seize the banking units that 
aren't the problem, but we can't seize the 
banking units that are the problem.  (See the 
UPDATE regarding the horror show that could 
result from plucking a retail bank out of a 
conglomerate like Citi).  And we won't even get 
into the whole problem of international banks 
like Citi, CSFB, or UBS.

Second, the diary is a blatantly inaccurate 
because it states an impossibility.  What?  It 
claims that Obama is breaking the law by not 
nationalizing a bunch of banks, when the language 
of the statute explicitly gives the government 
considerable discretion in deciding whether to do 
. The PCA does not mandate that the FDIC take 
over any bank .

Incredibly, the diary in question actually links 
to and quotes the Prompt Corrective Action Act.

        TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 16 > § 1831o
        § 1831o. Prompt corrective action
        (d) Provisions applicable to all institutions
        (2) Management fees restricted
        An insured depository institution shall 
pay no management fee to any person having 
control of
        that institution if, after making the 
payment, the institution would be 
undercapitalized.
        SNIP
        (3) Conservatorship, receivership, or other action required
        (A) In general
        The appropriate Federal banking agency 
shall, not later than 90 days after an insured 
depository
        institution becomes critically undercapitalized-
        (i) appoint a receiver (or, with the 
concurrence of the Corporation, a conservator) for the
        institution;
        OR
        (ii) take such other action as the agency 
determines, with the concurrence of the 
Corporation,
        would better achieve the purpose of this 
section, after documenting why the action would 
better
        achieve that purpose.

We generally teach children what the word "or" 
means during grade school.  If you are told that 
you need to go left or right, that does not mean 
that you are mandated to go left.   It is 
dishonest to pretend otherwise.

And, let us not even get into the fact that there 
is no indication that the banking units that 
could be seized--the retail chartered banks--are 
poorly capitalized.  Rather, all indications are 
that it is the BHC's that got stuck with the 
toxic assets that are struggling on that end.

And, by the way, the FDIC has been seizing 
commercial banks, including Washington Mutual 
when it has determined it to be necessary.  But, 
for obvious reasons the FDIC has decided that 
trying to gobble up the entire banking system is 
neither legal nor wise.

In short, the claim that the Obama administration 
is breaking the law is a BALD FACED LIE.

It is not being an Obamabot or cultist to point 
this out.  It is being intelligent, rational, and 
objective.  It is the fools who automatically 
believed that Obama is a criminal because of a 
Daily Kos diary that are behaving irrationally.

UPDATE:  Big Tent Democrat misapprehends, or 
perhaps I have failed to explain, a crucial point.
Let's step back and take Bank of America as an 
example.  A great deal of its toxic garbage is 
concentrated not in its retail and consumer 
banking divisions, but in its investment banking 
and securities trading divisions, especially 
after the acquisition of Merrill Lynch.  In other 
words, its chartered depository bank is doing 
just fine and is no danger of missing 
capitalization requirements.  However, its other 
divisions are struggling under the weight of the 
toxic assets and could fail.  But, no one can 
touch those.
Or, let's take Citi as an example.  Per Time's excellent Justin Fox.

"The first striking thing there that Citi's U.S. 
banking operation just isn't all that big: J.P. 
Morgan Chase has $722 billion in U.S. deposits 
(and $287 billion outside the country). 
Washington Mutual, which was not deemed by 
regulators to be too big too fail, had $182 
billion in deposits, in the same territory as 
Citi's U.S. bank.

"The second is that if Citibank's overall 
business breaks down along domestic/foreign lines 
pretty much as deposits do (which probably isn't 
quite the case, but close enough), that gets you 
to $392 billion in assets and $365 billion in 
liabilities. That's the part of Citigroup that 
the FDIC has the authority to take over. I bet 
the FDIC could handle it, at least if it gets the 
new $500 billion credit line it wants from 
Congress. But this would leave an entity (or 
entities) with about $1.5 trillion in assets and 
$1.4 trillion in liabilities to be taken over by 
foreign governments or fail in pretty much the 
same unruly manner that Lehman Brothers did.

"To repeat: Citigroup has liabilities of $1.797 
trillion. The deposits that the FDIC has some 
responsibility for (up to $250,000 per depositor) 
add up to $241 billion. So we have this 
reasonably sensible system for winding down 
troubled banks, but when it comes to the most 
troubled big banking company in the country, said 
system only covers a fraction of the overall 
operation. Which leads to a couple of conclusions:

        "1. I get why the administration is so 
reluctant to take over Citi completely.

        "1. I don't get why we all (I'm including 
myself in this) thought it was okay to allow the 
creation and growth of gigantic financial 
companies for which we had absolutely no plan for 
winding down in case of trouble."
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to Mark Crispin Miller's 
"News From Underground" newsgroup.

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to 
[email protected] OR go to 
http://groups.google.com/group/newsfromunderground and click on the 
"Unsubscribe or change membership" link in the yellow bar at the top of the 
page, then click the "Unsubscribe" button on the next page. 

For more News From Underground, visit http://markcrispinmiller.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to