newjerseynewsroom.com

Share this Twitter Myspace Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Slashdot Furl Yahoo Technorati Newsvine Facebook Export PDF Print E-mail

Good analysis. There is absolutely nothing positive giving the FDIC so much power. It has already been seizing solvent institutions citing liquidity pressure while helping selective ones such as Goldman Sachs and GMAC raise over $300 billion of TLGP bonds to fight the very same liquidity pressure. This new reform bill, unfortunately, essentially validates the unfair FDIC actions you mentioned that were similar to the AIG bailout. "Second, the FDIC did not acquit itself very well in its assisted sale of WaMu to JPMorgan. Senior bond holders were subordinated to uninsured depositors and counterparties even though these claimants were legally entitled to be treated 'equally and without preference.' The FDIC’s ability to (ignore standard bankruptcy procedures and) decide unilaterally which equal status creditors would receive 100 cents on the dollar and which would receive nothing likely spooked investors, whose analyses of maximum potential losses were shown to be premised on a legal stability that does not, in fact, exist in extrajudicial resolutions. Proponents of having new resolution authority outside of the bankruptcy code conveniently overlook the enormous losses incurred by senior unsecured creditors to WaMu and the contribution those losses had to the freeze in interbank lending." http://www.economics21.org/commentary/all-senators-should-watch-their-claims-about-ending-bailouts *imho*