Comments on: Adventures with FDIC secrecy, cont.

By: Anon1965

Anon1965 — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 04:21:15 +0000

Felix,
Smug? Above the law? You should take the time to read carefully all of the correspondence between Mr. Carollo and the FDIC, and also to consider the immense amount of travel that is part of the FDIC’s job. I’m an FDIC employee of some 23 years, and I have no problem with the agency divulging my travel records (they’ve already divulged my salary, by the way), and I don’t think the agency itself is essentially averse to giving Mr. Carollo the information he wants. What they are understandably averse to is spending thousands of dollars to comply with a single FOIA request. You will see in the correspondence that Mr. Carollo has not been helpful to his own cause–assuming his cause is not more about building up his journalistic persona than it is about getting the information he seeks. The FDIC’s response to his request regarding ALL travel records is that it cannot fulfill so general of a request. The correspondence shows that the agency has, in fact, conferred with the FDIC’s Division of Finance as to how it might meet Mr. Carollo’s request, and learned that it would be very costly and time consuming. Yet Mr. Carollo has been unbending in what he wants and how he wants it. He might be surprised at what he could accomplish by just being a little more flexible.

By: BostonBlue

BostonBlue — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:58:25 +0000

I should have read the FDIC letter… the FDIC Chairman does not personally shut down banks. So they should be disclosing this. My bad.

By: BostonBlue

BostonBlue — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:55:13 +0000

One plausible explanation: revealing FDIC travel records could reveal where FDIC examiners are spending a disproportional amount of time — and hence what banks might be most likely to be taken over by the FDIC. If there are a large number of trips to a particular city with a bank rumored to be in trouble, it could indicate the FDIC is about to take action.

One example: when the FDIC took over a number of banks in Puerto Rico, the whole island was on the lookout for FDIC personnel to figure out what banks were failing and when that was likely to happen. Apparently the cover story — I believe it was a dentist’s convention?? — was seen through rather quickly.

In this case, revealing the FDIC’s travel records could allow stock analysts to short stocks of banks that are about to be taken over. Put it this way: would a hedge fund be interested in buying the travel records of the FDIC’s examiners? You bet they would. So it would therefore be dangerous to disclose this information.

Unfortunately, you may need to rely on the FDIC’s Inspector General (or equivalent) to enforce the travel policies.

By: samadamsthedog

samadamsthedog — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 02:46:56 +0000

Journalistic credentials have nothing to do with responses to the FOIA. i am only a dog (so i am not an expert), but i am not aware that the FOIA makes any special provision for journalists, “legitimate” or not.

On the other hand, getting media coverage could certainly affect the outcome. In fact, illegitimate might be better: it takes one to know one, and that would be a good way to get the bastards….

By: FifthDecade

FifthDecade — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 23:29:10 +0000

This is a worrying trend in US politics; the refusal by anyone with a Republican bent in any position of power disobeying the law to spite the Administration. Why do I blame the GOP? They’re the ones with all the hostility, the harsh words, the brinkmanship, and all the Bush appointees.

Do they think they are above the law? Of course they do.

By: CambridgeChuck

CambridgeChuck — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:56:42 +0000

Now where would we find such a well-placed person?

By: TWAndrews

TWAndrews — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:45:58 +0000

ThomsonReuters is an established mainstream news outlet, right?