Comments on: Be happy that Stan Fischer worked at Citi A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: RayLopez Sat, 22 Feb 2014 04:01:30 +0000 LOL Felix ascribes to the “Great Man” theory of history, which is largely not true and anachronistic after-the-fact rationalizing. Does Felix really think that the Fed has influence over the economy? Another Fischer, Fischer Black, who won the Nobel in 1997, thought not. And the Fed has staff that does the hard work behind the scenes; the chair is largely a figurehead. As for voting, it’s been found that most of the players follow the lead of the head, that would be Yellen. I doubt therefore that nixing Fischer would be so bad, and, like the posters say before me, might send a message that rich fat cats from Citi are not to be rewarded.

By: BenMealey Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:31:44 +0000 Apropos of your comment in paragraph 4, “…it would be nice…” I was reminded of a Sam Rayburn quote:

“They may be just as intelligent as you say. But I’d feel a helluva lot better if just one of them had ever run for sheriff.” —Sam Rayburn to Lyndon Johnson, on advisers to President Kennedy

By: HRMNZ Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:52:24 +0000 Not being American, I have no strong view on whether Fischer should be Vice-Chair of the Fed, but…..there does seem to be too little by way of adverse consequences for those who presided over the system that went badly wrong. Perhaps if those who headed institutions such as the Fed, the SEC, or the BOE, the FSA through that period – and their political masters and private sector counterparts – did the modern equivalent of retreating to a monastery, having cast off worldly wealth, there might be a stronger sense of moral justice being served. Unfair to some no doubt, but probably rather less so than the innocents languishing now as long-term unemployed. There is too strong a sense of the great and good gliding effortlessly to the next well-paid or well-honoured position, and all too little sign of contrition. I recently heard one of the the leading policymakers through that period articulate, very eloquently and thoughtfulness, his case, in which there was little sense of regret, or recognition of mistaken judgements. He too was, apparently, an innocent victim of intractable global forces.

By: Eericsonjr Tue, 11 Feb 2014 21:16:29 +0000 Let’s say the man had all the money one could ever need by the time Citi recruited him in 2002. Let us further surmise that he is, indeed, a wise and far-seeing person.

If so, why would he work for CitiGroup, which anyone could see as of 1999 (i.e. even before it bought Associates First Captial) was among the most corrupt such corporations in the history of money?

Presume he did see this, and went in to fix it up: well, how did that go?

Presume he did not know this simple fact, and what are we left to conclude about his wisdom?

By: realist50 Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:20:35 +0000 Felix,
I agree with your premise, but do we know that Fischer actually was very involved with decision-making at Citigroup? Did he have actual management and P&L responsibility, or was he a well-known name brought on board to give speeches, make introductions, and generally serve as a rainmaker? I’m not asking these questions rhetorically – I truly don’t know what he actually did at Citi.

By: crocodilechuck Mon, 10 Feb 2014 20:39:11 +0000 Felix,

“Not to mention a relatively sophisticated understanding of what banks actually do, on a day-to-day basis”

Always fighting the wars in the rear view mirror. We thought that the problems in ’08 came out of the Shadow Banking Sector, n’est-ce pas? Better get him Gary Gorton’s paper on the repo markets:

Last, Citi: a revolving door for financial ‘regulators’ and the Fed, that blows up like Yellowstone every 10-12 years.