the finance industry / wall street

Neither would any democrat-appointed judge, at least based on my quick research. There's just no basis that I know of for a lawsuit by private citizens forcing a rulemaking body to adopt rules. The statutes that they cite don't really apply.

http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202573450046&Gibson_Dunn__Crutchers_Scalia_Strikes_Again_in_DoddFrank_Rule_Challenge&slreturn=20130205101108

So Scalia's lawyer son Eugene wages war against Dodd Frank and the Commodities Futures T C and other regulatory bodies, and then later we will get to see more Hurting 2 posts that based on both longstanding financial rules as well as recent changes, there is nothing that can be done about egregious Wall Street behavior!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_03/dodd_franks_death_by_a_thousan043346.php

curmudgeon your beef is not with my posts, but with Article III of the Constitution as interpreted by Supreme court for the last 90 years or so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)#Standing_requirements

My main beef is not with longtime rules of standing that do allow corporations (with support from their lobbyists and lawyers) to prove harm and have standing, but with the regulatory agencies and the Justice Department and the Courts that give in to theories and ideas from the likes of Eugene Scalia as well as from neo-Dems like Robert Rubin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-its-time-to-tax-financial-transactions/2013/03/04/d496d738-8516-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html?hpid=z2

Dream dream dream

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-24/remember-that-83-billion-bank-subsidy-we-weren-t-kidding.html

Smells like entitlement to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/opinion/confirmation-questions-for-mary-jo-white.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130311

Those who want a get-tough approach with the financial industry will focus on her years as a top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, from 1993 to 2002. Those who want a Wall Street ally at the S.E.C. will focus on her work in the past 10 years as a corporate attorney, representing big banks and other major corporations.The public deserves more from the hearing than a foregone conclusion. Senators should press Ms. White to give specifics on how she would handle potential conflicts as well as her approach to the job

If she recuses herself from any matter concerning her former clients, what is left? As a defense attorney for the big banks, she knows where the bodies are buried. Is she able and willing to use that information? Her husband has been lobbying against the Dodd Frank regulations. Is she willing to spurn his arguments? Or is her nomination a most perverse expression of the "regulatory capture" that has rendered the SEC and other financial regulatory agencies toothless?

This should be of particular concern now that Attorney General Holder has publicly admitted that the Department of Justice considers big banks too big to jail. White, no doubt, has helped to construct that pernicious argument as a defense attorney over the last years. Is she willing to repudiate that posture in her new role?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/mary-jo-white-wall-street_b_2852265.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/mary-jo-white-faces-no-opposition-at-sec-confirmation-hearing/2013/03/12/812608ac-8b39-11e2-b63f-f53fb9f2fcb4_story.html

The hearing was a letdown for anyone expecting fireworks. Not a single senator voiced even slight opposition to President Obama’s pick to head the Securities and Exchange Commission, despite previous concerns by some about her ability to effectively police Wall Street.

I'm wondering if Hurting 2 will weigh in that no matter who is in charge of the SEC, because of the way existing laws and regulations are established, no one can ever do anything about Wall Street (other than dream about a fantasy Congress breaking up the big banks,giving Dodd-Franks teeth, and taxing certain transactions on Wall Street)

The pool of people who adequately understand the finance industry and securities regulation who have never worked at a firm that defends those banks is unfortunately very small.

So instead we get a soon to be confirmed SEC head who was a defense attorney for the big banks, and whose husband has been lobbying against the Dodd Frank regulations

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_03/keep_your_eye_on_doddfrank043695.php

the good and the bad re Dodd Frank implementation

The unexplained mystery is why Obama keeps going back to Wall Street for appointees to important regulatory positions when there are thousands of qualified people elsewhere who understand how Wall Street works and would be fearless in holding it accountable for its bad behavior.

(William D. Cohan, the author of "Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World," is a Bloomberg View columnist. He was formerly an investment banker at Lazard Freres, Merrill Lynch and JPMorgan Chase. Contact the writer at wdco✧✧✧@ya✧✧✧.c✧✧,)

http://articles.mcall.com/2013-03-19/opinion/mc-mary-jo-white-cohan-column-white-20130319_1_wall-street-debevoise-plimpton-llp-mary-schapiro/2

William Cohan is a former managing director at JPMorgan Chase.

Anyway, I'm genuinely curious to know who he means. Attorneys who understand wall street are usually attorneys who worked for the big firms that work for wall street. The exception might be plaintiffs' side securities lawyers, which could make for an interesting pool of candidates actually - they might have more of an aggressive attitude.

That could be what he means.

there are thousands of qualified people elsewhere who understand how Wall Street works and would be fearless in holding it accountable for its bad behavior.

No.

The inability of judges, plaintiff's attorneys and (lol) consumers to understand bank processes and procedures has become sort of darkly hilarious to me. Which brings forward the essential problem which is referred to elsewhere in this thread: the only people who sufficiently understand the industry to regulate it are insiders. The paradox of course is that more regulation intensifies this problem, as it creates both more consolidation within the industry (as only the largest players can afford the compliance measures demanded by institutions like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) and more internal complexity. Eventually a financial's institutions operations and risk management procedures become so byzantine that only a select group of specialists can possibly understand them.

a financial's institutions operations and risk management procedures become so byzantine that only a select group of specialists can possibly understand them.

I doubt this has happened to thrifts, so there is a viable alternative for putting one's money back into the financial stream without much exposure to credit default swaps or weird hedging strategies. It pays shit for interest, but punishing savers and forcing money into high risk positions has been Fed policy for decades now, so low risk, but modest, returns are no longer an option.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/technology/testing-a-new-class-of-speedy-computer.html?hp&_r=0

surprise in 'quantum computing goez commercial' article about lockheed martin:

“What we’re doing is a parallel development to the kind of computing we’ve had for the past 70 years,” said Vern Brownell, D-Wave’s chief executive.

Mr. Brownell, who joined D-Wave in 2009, was until 2000 the chief technical officer at Goldman Sachs. “In those days, we had 50,000 servers just doing simulations” to figure out trading strategies, he said. “I’m sure there is a lot more than that now, but we’ll be able to do that with one machine, for far less money.”

gonna be some quantum hypertrading going on up in this business eventually

The Senate report on JPMorgan Chase's multibillion-dollar trading loss documents incompetence and stupidity by the bank and its regulators.

New York Times summary

"I doubt this has happened to thrifts, so there is a viable alternative for putting one's money back into the financial stream without much exposure to credit default swaps or weird hedging strategies."

the big bets the banks took weren't with small saver funds, which are insured anyway. and most of the banks doing it weren't consumer banks but investment banks anyway (which got consumer bank status _after_ the crisis as part of the bailout).

people don't have checking/savings accounts with goldman and jpmorgan typically (and e.g. didn't with lehman).

citi and bank of america and etc. act terribly in different ways (more tied in the recent period to crappy loan origination schemes etc.)

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112720/president-obama-and-dodd-frank-why-wont-he-defend-it

If the Treasury Department or White House do not weigh in strongly and soon against House efforts to undermine Dodd-Frank derivative provisions, the limited gains in Dodd-Frank may begin to recede. If Wall Street proponents succeed in passing this wave of Dodd-Frank “fix it” bills, more will follow. Wall Street reform is a legacy issue for the president. Does he really want a derivative deregulation bill to reach his desk in the coming months?

regarding the quantum computing article,

“There’s no reason quantum computing shouldn’t be possible, but people talked about heavier-than-air flight for a long time before the Wright brothers solved the problem,” said Scott Aaronson, a professor of computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. D-Wave, he said, “has said things in the past that were just ridiculous, things that give you very little confidence.”

Aaronson writes an interesting blog with a lot on D-wave: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?s=d-wave

Book talk in the nation's capital:

Reality Check continues Public Citizen’s long history of important and in-depth research by documenting how decades of deregulation led directly to the Great Recession, from which the U.S. and global economies have yet to recover.

The book’s author, Taylor Lincoln — research director in Public Citizen’s Congress Watch group — will lead a discussion with several prominent officials who sought to stem the risks that resulted in the financial crisis, helped clean up the mess afterwards, and championed legislation intended to prevent another meltdown:

Neil Barofsky, former special inspector general of the TARP program and author of the New York Times best-seller Bailout.
Brooksley Born, the former chairperson of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission whose warnings about the threats posed by unregulated derivatives trading went unheeded.
Former U.S. Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), who championed the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The discussion is free to Public Citizen members and activists.

Space is limited — RSVP today.

Here are the details:

DAY: Wednesday, April 3
TIME: 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
VENUE: Public Citizen’s Dupont Circle Office
ADDRESS: 1600 20th St., NW (20th & Q Streets; kitty-corner from the north entrance of the Dupont Circle Metro)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/03/27/the-white-houses-dangerous-stance-on-too-big-to-fail/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/the-greatest-disappointme_b_2993049.html

More criticism of the White House re Wall Street, and yes Hurting 2 it does not acknowledge how hard it is to be tough on Wall Street given the existing laws in this country. But I still agree with it.

ok here's my Q of the day. I read this Krugman piece:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/08/babysitting_the_economy.html

it seems wrong to me, because it doesnt' account for the fact that "co-op scrips" have a fixed purchasing power (one hour of babysitting), while currency does not (and this is true with or without a fixed money supply, though in different ways/degrees). I would think that if you just allowed the value of the "scrips" to float, you would get people agreeing to babysit for less than the full hour value in times when scrips were scarce, and that would induce some scrips back into circulation. If I'm wrong can someone explain?

Hmmmmmmm. I dunno.

Meanwhile more folks are talking about what has happened and what could happen to Dodd/Frank and why:

http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/how-congress-and-courts-are-closing-dodd-frank

I would think that if you just allowed the value of the "scrips" to float, you would get people agreeing to babysit for less than the full hour value in times when scrips were scarce, and that would induce some scrips back into circulation. If I'm wrong can someone explain?

I don't think you're wrong. I think this is in fact what often happens in recessions driven by tight money, ie. deflation. It's just that it takes a long time and is usually accompanied by unemployment and economic stagnation, but eventually a kind of equilibrium would be regained.

The adjustment would be a bit quicker than irl in that large, long-term debts are not usually contracted in babysitting scrip.

senate confirms mary-jo white as sec-chair-

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/mary-jo-white-confirmed-sec-89753.html#ixzz2PyvYMxuh

The swift confirmation — which was done by unanimous consent on the first day of the Senate following a two-week recess — came as no surprise; White sailed through the Senate Banking Committee on a 21-1 vote last month.

Ohio Dem Sherrod Brown was the 1 vote against her in the committee vote.

I'm sure she will aggressively do the opposite of what her hubby has been lobbying for. Well, probably not.

On Thursday, several bills to pre-empt the regulation of derivatives will be the focus of a hearing in the House Financial Services Committee. The bills, which have already passed the Agriculture Committee, must be stopped if the world is to be made safe from reckless risk-taking by banks.

From a NY Times editorial today re Dodd/Frank.

And the NY Times is using "derivatives" in part as a shorthand here to stand for all that went wrong with them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/foreclosure-review-program-warren-brown_n_3062126.html

E. Warren and S. Brown grilling regulators makes me happy, even if some folks might say they're just showboating and not really accomplishing anything.

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/2013/04/mysterious-residents-one-hyde-park-london

feel like this is the thread to ask - anybody know more deets about the city of london corporation?

Not me.

New SEC head appoints new Enforcement unit director (we'll have to wait and see re this guy who has a similar background to his boss):

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/s-e-c-picks-ceresney-and-canellos-for-enforcement/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130423

Mr. Ceresney will inherit a unit that is on pace to file the lowest number of enforcement cases in a decade, according to S.E.C. figures provided to The New York Times.

Still, Mr. Ceresney faces his share of challenges. His appointment, which does not require Senate approval, could renew concerns about a revolving door that shuttles S.E.C. lawyers from the government to the private sector, and back again.

While at Debevoise, Mr. Ceresney represented a number of the nation’s largest banks, including JPMorgan Chase during an inquiry involving its foreclosure practices. Mr. Ceresney is expected to recuse himself from cases involving his former clients.

The S.E.C.’s caseload presents another test for Mr. Ceresney. In addition to the dwindling number of actions, the S.E.C. is unlikely to catch any breaks from the courts. The Supreme Court recently rejected the agency’s argument that it should have additional time before the statute of limitations in fraud cases expires.

The agency has run into resistance in the lower courts as well. Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Federal District Court, for example, has said the agency’s settlement with Citigroup “is neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate” in part because it did not include any admission of wrongdoing.

There was more text after that first quoted sentence, and before the rest of the quote there.

When a million isn’t enough: why top bankers are struggling to get by

Life is tough when you have to keep up with your peers and maintain that pricey private school and Hamptons lifestyle

http://dealbreaker.com/2013/04/lloyd-blankfein-explains-how-in-their-own-little-way-commodities-are-the-gay-people-of-asset-classes/

Why can’t bankers simply ditch the house in the Hamptons and put their children into state run educational establishments? Unfortunately, this seems easier said than done.

Basically confusing motivation with cause -- yeah that's a perfectly good explanation of why the do it, but not why they particularly need to

it's a cliche, but that almost seems like an onion article

article does offer some reasonable, if not completely original, insights into the kinds of people who go into finance in the first place and why they wind up trapped in that mentality

The vast majority of people (including most rich people) essentially live check to check, trapped in some form of mentality where they don't adequately save in the event that financial disaster occurs. And fuckit, you only live once, amirite?

Hard to feel sorry for bankers because hey, aren't they supposed to know better than to leverage themselves silly?

yeah, i am one of these people. i could have moved out of my parents house by now if i wasn't eating lunch in cafes and buying records probably.

The vast majority of people (including most rich people) essentially live check to check -dandydon

While that may be true for the rich folks cited in that article, I'm not so sure about "most rich people." But if you have factual data to back that up, I'd accept it.