Fed President: Survival of the Fattest?


COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

EDITOR’S COMMENT: Apparently even some of the Federal Reserve Presidents see the writing on the wall. But with the NY FED having people like Jamie Dimon on the Board, you can hardly expect any action that wouldn’t be strictly for the banks, the public be damned. His point is simple: if we give in to the Banks we are submitting to a different, lower source of authority than that offered by our own Constitution. What we have is a game-changer. The bigger you get, regardless of how you achieved your size, the more government will give out outright in money and protection.

Slowly it appears there are some whose common sense and desire for a real solution to this crisis are making headway.  Their questions are being heard.  Their solutions are being discussed.  And both are being repeated with increasing volume.  
Perhaps legislators and regulators are waking up to the fact that they and their families are not immune from the ravages of this disaster.  Perhaps those in elected positions are realizing that the only way to stay there, is to side with their constituents against the behemoth pretender lender banks. Perhaps those in appointed positions are realizing that the polls say 85% of people in this country think we’re going in the wrong direction, that 54% say that Obama should not be reelected and that Congress has a 7% approval rating.  
Polls also say that the overwhelming majority of Americans support the Occupy Movement, support getting those in office out of office and support anything to get money out of politics.  The “take-away” message in all this?  Anyone holding any office, elected or otherwise, better hold on tight because unless they can show that they’re running against the behemoth pretender lender banks and against the status quo and that We the People believe them, they won’t be in office very long.

The Fattest or the Fittest?



ELIMINATING the benefits reaped by institutions that are too politically powerful and interconnected to fail has been an elusive goal in the aftermath of the credit crisis. Institutions most likely to receive assistance from the federal government if they become troubled — behemoths like Citigroup, Bank of America or Wells Fargo — have grown only larger in recent years. Efforts to pare down these banks have met well-financed resistance among policy makers.

Happily, though, reducing the perils of gargantuan institutions — and the threat to taxpayers — is an idea that seems to be taking hold in Washington. To be sure, the army arguing for change is far outgunned by the battalions of bankers and lobbyists working to maintain the status quo. But some combatants seeking reform believe they are making headway.

Richard W. Fisher, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, is one. In a speech last month he described, quite colorfully, the problems of these unwieldy institutions and the regulatory ethic “that coddles survival of the fattest rather than promoting survival of the fittest.” Bank regulators should follow the lead of the health authorities battling obesity rates among our population, he said, adding that he favored “an international accord that would break up these institutions into more manageable size.”

This is a banker talking, not a member of the Occupy Wall Street drum circle.

And yet, some have criticized Mr. Fisher for voicing these sensible views — a sign to him that the issue is gaining traction. In an interview last week, he said: “Judging from the anguished calls I received from lobbyists for the megabanks, the ‘attaboy’ calls I am getting from regional and community bankers and the requests for copies of the speech from senators on both sides of the aisle, it appears this is a hot topic.”

That Mr. Fisher has received encouragement from both conservatives and liberals on his views leads him to conclude that “this is an issue that can transcend bipartisan politics.”

Last week, Senator Sherrod Brown, the Ohio Democrat who leads the Senate Banking subcommittee on financial institutions and consumer protection, held a hearing on how to shield Main Street from what he calls megabank risk. In April 2010, he was a co-sponsor of the Safe Banking Act of 2010 with Ted Kaufman, the former Democratic senator from Delaware. The bill, which would break up some of the largest banks by requiring caps on institution size and leverage, ran into a buzz saw of opposition from the usual suspects.

But Mr. Brown soldiers on; he said in an interview on Thursday that he, too, believes the debate is changing. “We’re seeing sentiment grow on the Brown-Kaufman idea,” he said. “We are seeing some people who are pretty conservative here understanding the implicit subsidies these megabanks receive. Our goal is that senators understand this to the point of wanting to take action.”

He said he hoped his hearing would educate colleagues on the significant financial bounties received by big banks that are not allowed to fail, especially their lower borrowing costs — a result of investor belief that taxpayers will rescue them. This places these banks at an unfair advantage over their smaller competitors.

“Why should the Bank of America enjoy an advantage the Peoples Bank in Coldwater, Ohio, doesn’t get?” Mr. Brown asked. “The government’s got to pull away from this and level the playing field.”

10 Responses

  1. that sucking sound is the extraction…everywhere…

  2. breaking up the Bell System (thanks to Ralph Nader) and forcing divestiture of Western Electric was the nail in the coffin for the ecomonical communications systems we enjoyed for over 60 years. The Bell System charged the residential user aroiund $8.00 per month and the commercial/business user around $25.00 per month per line. This business model allowed the residential user to afford the service while the commercial user subsidized the costs of the infrastructure and improvements. Now take a look at what you’re paying for phone, cable, and internet. How’s that government interference working for you now??????? Ralph Nader sucks, AND he still sucks.

  3. No, dee—I don’t have Spitfire’s contact info—

  4. @carie

    Do you know how to contact Spitfire we are from the same state.

  5. @tony

    If you see this—can you please email me—I would like to ask you a question—thanks.: cariemac9@gmail.com

  6. This is a quote on the Aztec Foreclosure Corp website:

    “We have probed the earth, excavated it, burned it, ripped things from it, buried things in it… That does not fit my definition of a good tenant. If we were here on a month-to-month basis, we would have been evicted long ago.”

    – Rose E. Bird

    Think they have one thing on their minds? Sickening.


    Eviction – State of California
    The eviction process is initiated by serving the owners/trustors with a three-day Notice to Quit. All other occupants must be given a sixty-day Notice to Quit.
    After the 3/60 day period has expired and if the property is still occupied, a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer is filed. The summons and complaint are sent for service upon all defendants. The requisite personal or substitute service of process may take up to two weeks. In cases where service cannot be effectuated, application is made to the court for permission to serve by posting and mailing the summons and complaint to the property.

    Defendants have five days to answer the complaint after service, plus ten extra days if service was made by substitute service or posting and mailing. If the defendants do not respond timely, a default judgment is entered. If defendants file an answer and contest the action, a motion for summary judgment is filed and usually granted within two weeks. In those infrequent cases in which summary judgment is not granted, a trial date is requested. A judgment and writ for possession are submitted to the court within 48 hours of a trial, granting a motion for summary judgment or a default judgment is entered. The court is requested to forward the writ to the marshals for posting on the property. Processing of the writ and posting take approximately two weeks.

    The defendants have five days to vacate after posting of the writ. The marshal then returns to the property to physically remove the occupants. The servicer must arrange to have a representative present to take possession and secure the property. The majority of eviction cases that are former owner occupied are completed within 60 to 75 days.

  8. i believe he should be contacted by the people that are most involved in the bank problem and homeowners and let him know he is right.. also i do believe that the govt. downsized the phone company when they had a monopoly on that system and instructed them to break up the corp.s . i believe this is the logical way for starters. the officials in govt. must go unless they are pro people.. once again………… bob

  9. You can bet that if the Fed and the banks appear to be changing their MO, it is a move to appease the public because they have a new and improved way for the strategy to benefit them.

    Forgive me, I have lost my trust in these institutions. Their plan B’s always move into first position when their plan A’s phase out.
    That strategy satisfies the public’s appetite for justice until they get hungry again for the “appeteasers.” And the cycle starts all over again.

  10. Jamie Dimon and Chase – MORSERV, Inc. : Norwest Mortgage INC. – special Fannie/Freddie REMIC ‘Norwest Asset Securities Corp’ (1) Board Member always from Norwest Mortgage, Inc. on board. WHO is that member? Stephen D. Morrison Esq. Incorporator of NASCOR and.. CHAIRMAN MERS and what does New Jersey and NORSERV, Inc. and Norwest Mortgage INc., 343 Thornwall St, Edison NJ ‘Happy Together’ forever have to do with the Federal Reverve and this topic? Everything! Federal Reserve Oversight of MORSERV Inc., Norwest Mortgage, Inc., Norwest Asset Secuirities Corp, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, …. everything I mean when you include their nationwide network of RELS Title & Settlement Services (SPECIAL REAL ESTATE LAWYERS) a servicemark one in which the attorney’s are the ‘servicers’ of the current defaults before the court and are servicing the debt of the servicers who are the owner of the notes. FOOLED YOU the OCC and Federal Reserve did when they attach under Supremacy Clause all services of national banks federal exemptions – sanctions – they wont’ be prosecured when they are services of national banks and originate loans for Fannie/Freddie !!!!!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: