Comments on: Failure is the only success in stress test Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: phoenix1 Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:26:58 +0000 Keep Dreaming..

Maybe if we all click our heels together in our magical ruby slippers we can resurrect the american middle class from the destruction of the last ten years.

By: jason Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:17:31 +0000 LOL bank stress test…. What a joke. It’s amazing what the feds get away with.

By: Youri Carma Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:41:20 +0000 It got even worse today:

“The Fed said the tests conducted at major banks are aimed at ensuring the institutions have enough capital in reserve to continue to lend in potentially bleaker conditions, and are not a measure of banks’ current solvency.”

I repeat: “NOT a measure of banks’ current solvency.”

“U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced plans to cleanse toxic assets from banks’ balance sheets.”

I repeat: “PLANS to cleanse toxic assets”

FROM: U.S. sketches out bank tests, more capital needed by Mark Felsenthal and Karey Wutkowski – Washington (Reuters) ; 24 April 2009:  /idUSTRE53N5FZ20090425?sp=true

By: Richard Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:22:56 +0000 Bottom-line is that most of the big banks are insolvent(and have been for some time) and the only thing keeping them alive is creative accounting. Throwing money at it doesn’t help, much like a bank wouldn’t lend someone money to help pay off other bank debts without HUGE conditions – conditions that can’t possibly be met.

Also I think it’s worth mentioning that it is widely reported that this recession America is mired in began at the end of 2007… unfortunately no one reported that fact until Lehman went kaput. Those 9-10 months before Lehman the public was constantly bombarded with the ‘all is well’ chant from gov’t and media while (apparently) they knew we in recession already. How can anyone believe that the “results” of these stress tests will be at all different? It’s just a giant confidence scheme, one so big that no one wants to believe it.

Thanks for bringing the rest of the world down the toilets with you America.

By: JayB Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:12:13 +0000 Any whiff of nationalization will trigger an exodus of all but the least-trained personnel from a bank. Scratch said bank. Anyone who suggests something like this (the loudmouth media for one) doesn’t know what they are talking about. For the highly trained people who run today’s behemoth banks, there will be plenty of jobs in many industries. They WILL NOT take orders from peons, period.

By: bimbo Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:00:13 +0000 I’m sure that you, Mr.Saft, know more that you are stating actually about BANKING.Big banks CANNOT go underwater and HAVE to be rescued in whatsoever means.Mony is not a problem, the place where to drop the greenbacks is from the chopper

By: Thomas Jefferson Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:56:48 +0000 If we supposedly have a US Constitution, why are we conceding monetary regulation to the IMF, the WTO, and the private corporation known as the Federal Reserve. We broke up the JP Morgan, Chase, and Rockefeller monopolies in the Industrial Age, and yet here they are again consolidating wealth at the expense of the taxpayers. Now, instead of breaking them up, we are encouraging them to partake in the global economy. Can anyone really act surprised at this economic crisis? Everyone in Washington saw it coming, it’s just a sad fact that 95% of them are working for Wall Street and the other 5% get censored and demonized by the media. Unless we go to an isolationist model (obviously not many peoples’ favorite choice) it’s inevitable that we will get more of the same consolidation of wealth in the hands of a few oppressors, elimination of smaller (and actually solvent) banks, and eventually a global currency. We must vote yes for HR1207, and we must mandate that US Corporations do not employ non US Citizens. Otherwise nothing is going to change, and the wheels of the New World Order will keep on turning.

By: Anubis Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:02:02 +0000 The scope of greed mismanagement is far greater than we are willing to admit. The IMF’s bank loss forecasts are probably vastly underestimated due to the the general lack of transparency and due diligence in these institutions. I am unlikely to believe anything the government tells me good or bad. There is always an agenda.

When the house is crumbling one should inspect the foundation first to see if refurbishing it is worthwhile. The foundation of any thriving society is comprised of liberty, integrity, tolerance, thrift, education, responsibility and honest commerce both publicly and privately. In short a society should substantively exhibit a decent respect for the welfare of all generations present and future.

Perhaps we all should examine closely the foundation of our nation before we decide to repair what we have or build anew.

By: beezer Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:54:18 +0000 Private banks are not going to lend into a deepening recession. Their job is to preserve capital in such times, not actively solicit more losses. They’re pro-cyclical, in other words.

In contrast a National Bank can be counter-cyclical. If Citi is taken over, for example, the government immediately gains its infrastructure and 100,000 plus employees to help carry out the counter-cyclical lending and other financial support much of Main Street now needs.

With this experienced labor pool we don’t need to rely on one-size-fits all, hamhanded efforts by Treasury and the Fed to pump money aimlessly down the pipe.

Citi can lend aggressively to its existing clients while, as the national bank, work to funnel lendable funds to local banks (at low admin costs because the national bank is not interested in making a big profit just to touch the money), who will be responsible for the loans created.

Geithner has endorsed just such a plan for the world, by giving the IMF (an international policy bank) more money to lend counter-cyclically on a country by country basis. In an article at FT yesterday, Geithner showed how the new IMF has already received $80 billion in loan requests from several countries, including Mexico.

Systemic risk is now not such a threat. The trillion or so of toxic assets already removed from bank balance sheets has lessened that problem dramatically. But one or more of the big ones still are insolvent, either on a liquidity or a capital basis.

So take one down and nationalize it. Let the others stumble around until the economy recovers.

Go to Congress, get $500 billion to establish a National Bank to jump start the economy. Otherwise we’ll just end up paying $500 billion, or more, for several banks’ dodgy capital and bail out not Main Street, but bank creditors instead.

These creditors, by the way, in a real capitalist system are supposed to be the “cops” on management. They dropped the ball, and in a real capitalist system it’s their losses, not the taxpayers. Since when did we start insuring private capital investments?


By: sea scapes Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:34:11 +0000 I keep hoping to see reports about job creation in the media, and not seeing them. If unemployment continues to rise, of course banks will be stuck with piles of bad debt. Job creation was promised; where is it?