RSN August 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Intro: "If you want to see a perfect example of how completely broken our regulatory system is, look no further than a speech that Daniel Gallagher, one of the S.E.C.'s commissioners, recently gave in Denver, Colorado. It's a speech whose full lunacy is hard to grasp without some background."

Matt Taibbi at Skylight Studio in New York, 10/27/10. (photo: Neilson Barnard/Getty Images)
Matt Taibbi at Skylight Studio in New York, 10/27/10. (photo: Neilson Barnard/Getty Images)



SEC: Prefers Whaling on Little Guys

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

31 May 12

 

f you want to see a perfect example of how completely broken our regulatory system is, look no further than a speech that Daniel Gallagher, one of the S.E.C.’s commissioners, recently gave in Denver, Colorado.

It’s a speech whose full lunacy is hard to grasp without some background.

It’s by now been well-established that the S.E.C.’s performance in policing Wall Street before, after, and during the crash has been comically inept. It would be putting it generously to say that the top cop on the financial services beat has demonstrated particular incompetence with regard to investigations of high-profile targets at powerhouse banks and financial companies. A less generous interpretation would be that the agency is simply too afraid, too unwilling, or too corrupt to take on the really dangerous animals in this particular jungle.

The S.E.C.’s failure to make even one case against a high-ranking executive involved in the mass frauds leading to the 2008 crash – compare this to the comparatively much smaller and less serious S&L crisis twenty years earlier, when the government made 1,100 criminal cases and sent 800 bank officials to jail – became so conspicuous that by the end of last year, the “No prosecutions of top figures” idea became an accepted meme in mainstream news media coverage of the economic crisis.

The S.E.C. in recent years has failed in almost every possible way a regulator can fail to police powerful criminals. Failure #1 was that it repeatedly fell down on the job even when alerted to problems at big companies well ahead of time by insiders. Six months before Lehman Brothers collapsed, setting off a chain reaction of losses that crippled the world economy, one of Lehman’s attorneys, Oliver Budde, contacted the S.E.C. to warn them that the firm had understated CEO Dick Fuld's income by more than $200 million; the agency blew him off. There were similar brush-offs of insiders with compelling information in cases involving Moody’s, Chase, and both of the major Ponzi scheme scandals, i.e. the Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford cases.

The S.E.C.’s attitude toward whistleblowers at powerhouse companies has not just been aloof or indifferent, it’s been downright hostile at times. Whistleblowers commonly report being treated as though they're the criminal. The most notorious example probably involved Peter Sivere, a compliance officer at Chase who years ago went to the S.E.C. to complain that Chase was withholding an incriminating email from the agency, which was investigating an illegal trading practice. When Sivere contacted the S.E.C. with the documents, he asked if he would be eligible for an award; they told him no, and he gave them the documents anyway. Subsequently, Sivere was fired by Chase because, in the words of Chase’s attorneys, Sivere had "sought payment from the SEC to provide documents and information to them.”

Sivere had to scratch his head and wonder how his bosses knew about the award request , until it dawned on him: the S.E.C. had ratted him out to Chase! It subsequently came out that the S.E.C. official who’d narked on Sivere was George Demos, who more recently was seen running for Congress in New York.

Since the S.E.C. couldn’t make cases even when insiders handed them to them, it followed that the agency fared even worse when asked to deduce problems by mere analysis and review, which brings us to failure #2: the agency was spectacularly inept at detecting marketplace problems that should have been obvious to anyone with access to a federal regulator’s investigatory tools. It came out after the crash, for instance, that the SEC repeatedly ignored warnings of excessive risk-taking at companies like Bear Stearns; they even censored an IG report to conceal, among other things, their history of non-action.

More notoriously, the SEC stood by and did nothing even after the FBI publicly warned that the incidence of so-called “liar’s loans” – mortgage applications in which income levels and other information were not verified – was “epidemic” and could cause an “economic crisis.” The SEC could have walked into any major mortgage lender’s office anytime in the five years prior to the 2008 crash and in one afternoon’s worth of interviews learned that fraud in the mortgage markets was out of control, but instead they allowed companies like Countrywide and Long Beach to proliferate and pump the economy full of millions of bad loans, nearly destroying the economy.

Failure #3 is that even after the fact, they have so far failed to make cases against even the most obvious targets, from the Deutsche Bank executives who knowingly sold billions in risky mortgages they knew were “pigs,” to the Lehman bankers who hid liabilities and cooked the books in the infamous “Repo 105” case, to the creeps at Barclays who, in what one Wall Street attorney I spoke to described as “the biggest bank robbery in the history of the world,” siphoned off billions of dollars from the rotting hulk of Lehman Brothers just before that company’s collapse. In that deal, executives at Lehman and Barclays essentially sold Lehman assets and operations to Barclays at fractions of their real cost – and some of the Lehman executives involved went to work for Barclays right after Lehman collapsed. Lehman’s creditors want Barclays to pay back over $11 billion.

Failure #4: one company after another was allowed to settle serious criminal charges without having to admit wrongdoing. Failure #5: in those settlements, the S.E.C.continually allowed companies to avoid having to disclose the exact nature of their crimes, which not only shielded those firms from litigation, but kept the general public, which might otherwise have been warned away from doing business with those firms, in the dark about crucial information. “Truth is confined to secretive, fearful whispers,” federal judge Jed Rakoff complained, talking about the settlements. Failure #6: companies have been allowed to settle cheap on the promise that they would never commit the same crimes again, only to do exactly that – and be allowed by the S.E.C. to get off with the same promise! The Times made a list of firms that got the “Just promise you’ll never do it again, again” treatment:

They read like a Wall Street who’s who: American International Group, Ameriprise, Bank of America, Bear Stearns, Columbia Management, Deutsche Asset Management, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Putnam Investments, Raymond James, RBC Dain Rauscher, UBS and Wells Fargo/Wachovia.

All of this is important background for the speech given in Denver on April 13 by S.E.C. commissioner Gallagher. The commissioner was trying to explain the S.E.C.’s thought process in how it decides to allocate its relatively meager resources. The key thing, Gallagher explained, was to make sure that when you send Enforcement staff on a case, you should make sure there’s actually crime there to fight:

It is critically important that our enforcement program be extremely efficient… Recognizing that it is unrealistic to imagine we will ever achieve a one-to-one correspondence between incidents of misfeasance and SEC Enforcement staff, we’d better plan to do everything we can to increase our hit-rate per investigation opened, and should commit our staff resources carefully, which is to say, consciously.

Sounds reasonable, although this does also sound a little odd; how is securing a good "hit rate" in finding crime a problem in an era where even an $11 billion robbery isn’t high enough in the in-box to warrant a criminal investigation? For most of the last ten years, you could walk into any major bank in America and find whole departments committed to the practice of writing false, robosigned affidavits. We’re not talking about crime that is hidden in a line item, or has to be deduced by checking and re-checking the numbers of dozens of accounts: we’re talking about groups of flesh-and-blood human beings, sitting there in plain view with huge stacks of folders on their desks, openly committing fraud and perjury. Walk in any direction in lower Manhattan with a badge, you're going to hit a fraud case whether you want to or not.

But fine, Gallagher’s point is taken: when you commit resources, you want to make sure you get hits. So what’s the solution? He goes on, cheerfully employing a jockish metaphor:

Experience teaches us, for example, that fraud tends to proliferate in smaller entities that may lack highly developed compliance programs. It also means thinking carefully about what we might, borrowing again from the world of sports, call “shot selection.” It can be tempting to tangle with prominent institutions. But chasing headlines and solving problems are two different things. The question is what will do most good – where our focus should be. And the record seems to suggest that we can do most to protect smaller, unsophisticated investors by focusing more attention on smaller entities...

Just so we’re clear about what we’re talking about here: the S.E.C., rather than go after serial violators like Bank of America and Chase, proposes that the best place to find crime is in small-cap companies, because that’s where fraud “proliferates.”

In the last year or so I’ve heard from several attorneys who represent smaller clients who tell me they’re flabbergasted, watching the S.E.C. give the Chases, Goldmans, and Citigroups free ride after free ride while their pockmarked little clients at fledgling public companies get served the whole regulatory meal for minor disclosure violations – even cases that simply involve bad paperwork, where money isn’t even stolen. If you’re a little tech startup and there’s a $100,000 problem in your books, you can expect the full Princess Bride torture machine treatment, with multiple agents assigned to your case, serious criminal penalties, asset seizures, etc.

Want an example of the S.E.C.’s idea of “shot selection”? Every year, a parade of itty-bitty failed public companies lets their paperwork lapse. Dead little companies sitting in the bureaucratic atmosphere doing nothing at all are a major threat to national security, of course, so the S.E.C. flies in to the rescue and feverishly revokes their registrations.

These actions are called “12(j) registration revocations,” and the beauty of them, from the S.E.C.’s point of view, is that it can list each one of those revocations as a separate enforcement action, when it goes before Congress at the end of every year to brag about all the good work it’s done.

Therefore toward the end of every calendar year, you’ll see a rush of these 12(j) revocations. In 2011, about one out of every six S.E.C. enforcement actions – 121 out of 735 – involved these delinquent filings. In the stats they submit to Congress, they list these cases right next to things like market manipulation, insider trading, and financial fraud. “The S.E.C. Enforcement staff takes 10 minutes and shoots a zombie company in the head and then has the guts to call it enforcement,” is how one attorney put it to me.

Just days after 60 Minutes ran its piece last year about the epidemic of unprosecuted fraud on Wall Street, the S.E.C. charged into action. Take a look at the dates on these two documents. While Chase’s "London Whale" was preparing to play billion-dollar faro with federally-insured money and MF Global was still struggling to find its "misplaced" $1.6 billion in customer money, the S.E.C. was gallantly taking on the likes of A.J. Ross Logistics, Inc., Status Game Corp., and Fightersoft Multimedia Corporation. And bragging to Congress about its conquests. It's as clear a case of juking the stats as you'll ever see.

Apparently, this is a better use of the S.E.C.’s time than giving in to the "temptation" of taking on prominent institutions. Anyway, if you want insight into why nothing’s been done to clean up Wall Street, look no further. Why tangle with Goldman and Chase, when you can take on a dead video game startup?

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+70 # DPM 2012-05-31 09:21
What should we expect when the SEC is full of bankers or banker wannabe's? Notice, also, that the Attorney General is cleaning up the fraud on Wall Street, too.
The only thing you can really believe about our government is that the 99% is in deep doo doo.
 
 
+39 # fredboy 2012-05-31 09:40
Yes, both the SEC and FTC are terrified of the big boys. Take, for example, gas prices...
 
 
+26 # paulrevere 2012-05-31 11:18
yup...unleaded, wholesale, has dropped from a high of $3.32/gal in late March 2012, to today's price of $2.72/gal. What have pump prices done in that interum?

Where are the consumer watchdogs? Where is the o administration? Where is Congress? Where is the DOJ?


And biggest of all...WHERE ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE???

Oh, I know...Butts, Bud, Balls n mindless consumer distractions buffered cleverly with various prescriptions, gmo's and mind numbing miracles of modern chemistry!!

Some things just ain't a changin'...
 
 
+10 # RLF 2012-06-01 06:06
If you expect Holder to prosecute anything which is not a small time whistle blower that embarrassed the administration. ..you may die holdering your breath!
 
 
+52 # MidwestTom 2012-05-31 10:55
John Corzine, ex- Goldman Sacks executive, ex-head of MFGlobal where he LOST $1.2 Billion of funds that they were not supposed to put at risk; who admitted in an email that he stole $200 million, is still a free man charged with nothing. Until the Justice department charges him we all should know that Obama is owned by Goldman Sacks.
 
 
+12 # HowardMH 2012-05-31 19:03
Tom, you are right on target and the real problem is the stupid people in the US that are just setting by and letting this happen. The big problem is by the time the Stupid People finally figure it out that they have been totally screwed by the rich and powerful and it will be to late to do anything about it.
 
 
+25 # isafakir 2012-05-31 11:18
best government money can buy
 
 
+21 # mdhome 2012-05-31 18:20
I am not sure we have the best gov that money can buy, BUT we do have a gov that has been bought.
 
 
+26 # Martintfre 2012-05-31 11:47
Dear Matt -
research the concept regulatory capture.

with out knowing the term directly the article describes it beautifully. In short regulations are made to curb some industry - in short order that regulated industry captures the the government regulation agency and now uses it as a source of protection from the government and lessor competitors.

In older parlance -- the foxes are now responsible for guarding the hen house.
 
 
+23 # Feral Dogz 2012-05-31 12:52
Martin, I have to agree with you on this. Unfortunately, "conservatives" have managed to convince you that they are not responsible for the concentration of wealth and power that created this situation.

Also, the phrase "curb some industry" casts a poor light on the concept of regulations intended to protect the public from criminal business practices. Obviously there is a need for regulation if we are to have a society that offers opportunity to all.
 
 
+8 # Feral Dogz 2012-05-31 12:55
Quoting Martintfre:
Dear Matt -
research the concept regulatory capture.

with out knowing the term directly the article describes it beautifully. In short regulations are made to curb some industry - in short order that regulated industry captures the the government regulation agency and now uses it as a source of protection from the government and lessor competitors.

In older parlance -- the foxes are now responsible for guarding the hen house.


Martin, I have to agree with you on this. Unfortunately, "conservatives" have managed to convince you that they are not responsible for the concentration of wealth and power that created this situation.

Also, the phrase "curb some industry" casts a poor light on the concept of regulations intended to protect the public from criminal business practices. Obviously there is a need for regulation if we are to have a society that offers opportunity to all.
 
 
+5 # Sholom B 2012-06-01 20:16
Martinfre & others,
Regulatory capture, rc for short, for sure! I'm just impressed you all don't seem as bitter about it as I am. After all, historians & journalists have been writing about it almost from the moment government industrial regulation got started in the late 19th century US-- initially vs. railroads--if not earlier. In fact, small-farmer backlash in the South & Southern Midwest against rc's neutering of railroad regulation helped spark a briefly powerful, national political party--the Populists--aime d at evening the political economic playing field...until the party was itself thrown into the tar baby; i.e, captured by the Democrats. BTW, this scenario & more was sometimes taught in public high schools back in the 1950s & 60s; e.g. in my middle-class, 35-in-a-room, honors US history survey course in 1961 Chicago. In fact, in the pre-WW1 Progressive era, rc's inevitability was often adduced, along with other evidence, to explain why reforming capitalism couldn't work.

Meanwhile, I guess it's nice to see hope is still alive, or is it that a sucker is born every minute. Hey, anyone want to bet on the Cubs taking the National League this year? How about the World Series in 5??
 
 
+27 # Tigre1 2012-05-31 11:50
Matt, baby, you're great, I love your work...here's the deal: Republicans and neo-confederate s (same-o) and all people who favor top-down rule have ONE principle...PRO TECT THE STRONG, ATTACK THE WEAK. Got it? they are motivated by a different motto and outlook and ethic than many of us grew up with. Think Robin Hood and the Lone Ranger...it was NEVER...protect the robber barons against the strikers, for instance, nor was it "steal from the poor, and deliver it to the rich..." Does anybody remember?

That is the guiding principle of the anti-human creeps. And may I end on what I think is the only real answer? Social Surgery, if I may coin a metaphor...as an example, think: guillotines...
 
 
+19 # fredboy 2012-05-31 11:50
PaulRevere: Most of the American people swallowed cup after cup of the fear and hatred dished out by politicos and media since 2000. Really sad to see once courageous and independent friends and even family members melt.
 
 
+7 # paulrevere 2012-05-31 12:01
It's kinda like those 'necks in the southern swamps rubbing the belly of a 15 foot allegator so it just snoozes on, oblivious to all that is going on around it...and then it becomes a bunch of pairs of cowboy boots.
 
 
+26 # Feral Dogz 2012-05-31 11:57
I'm glad to see Matt writing about the mis-direction of govt. oversight.

This is the main reason small business owners (and many of their employees) have voted for conservatives, wrongly believing that govt. is the problem. The real problem is the co-opting of govt. by big money.

The bureaucrats charged with defending the public interest ride the revolving door into cushy private sector jobs, so there's no incentive to reign in the 1%, especially when there are lots of little people to beat up on to justify the existence of regulatory agencies. This further helps the 1% by eliminating competition from up and coming businesses. It seems that this might be the only reason regulation still exists at all!

Its too bad that small business (middle class) people and the white working class seem incapable of accepting that "free market" capitalism is crony capitalism, and offers nothing for those who actually work for a living.
 
 
-2 # Martintfre 2012-06-01 21:38
//The real problem is the co-opting of govt. by big money. //
While truly money is one of the incentives,
It is but one of many reasons for co-opting government.
Some care not for money but do care to co-opt government simply for power over others - of course they will tell you it is for your best interest that they are in charge.

//Its too bad that small business (middle class) people and the white working class seem incapable of accepting that "free market" capitalism is crony capitalism,//

Why the racial slant?

Does that justify the false premise that follows?

Crony capitalism is not free market - crony capitalism is government playing favorites at others expense, fascism in more historical parlance - Crony unionism is equally guilty of manipulating government for their benefit. It is not an accident that the United unions office building is a few blocks away from and on the main street to and from the white house.
 
 
+4 # Feral Dogz 2012-05-31 12:36
Quoting Martintfre:
Dear Matt -
research the concept regulatory capture.

with out knowing the term directly the article describes it beautifully. In short regulations are made to curb some industry - in short order that regulated industry captures the the government regulation agency and now uses it as a source of protection from the government and lessor competitors.

In older parlance -- the foxes are now responsible for guarding the hen house.


Martin, I have to agree with you on this. Unfortunately, "conservatives" have managed to convince you that they are not responsible for the concentration of wealth and power that created this situation.

Also, the phrase "curb some industry" casts a poor light on the concept of regulations intended to protect the public from criminal business practices. Obviously there is a need for regulation if we are to have a society that offers opportunity to all.
 
 
-1 # Martintfre 2012-06-01 21:50
//the phrase "curb some industry" casts a poor light on the concept of regulations intended to protect the public from criminal business practices.//

True That.

Why is the question.

Just my bias, I suggest you concern you self more with results then intentions.


//Obviously there is a need for regulation if we are to have a society that offers opportunity to all.//
In a free market people can choose to deal because the price is right or choose not deal to because they price it too high, a free market is self regulating.

Government has a valid and limited role of protecting people from harming one another by keeping a consistent standard of laws that treat all the same. It is not the proper role of government to allow me to force my version of utopia on you.
 
 
+12 # Lulie 2012-05-31 13:39
I've moved from angry to scared.
 
 
+18 # Above God 2012-05-31 13:50
A small company that converts plastics to #6 heating oil called JBII is charged by the SEC for MISSTATING media credits. At the same time Corzine of MT Global gambles with 1000s of farmers and ranchers livihood and walks around free as a bird after "losing" $1.6 billion of customer's money. Obama and Holder are the cause of this ineptitude as they suck up to Wall Street and the banksters. To quote bank robber Willie Sutton, "That's where the money is".
 
 
+15 # pzznrd3@earthlink.net 2012-05-31 13:54
What is another name for those doing regulatory capture?

Answer: FASCISTS!

Let us all tell it like it is!
 
 
0 # Martintfre 2012-06-01 21:21
True Dat!
 
 
+2 # Citizen Mike 2012-05-31 13:59
WHALING with a harpoon? Or do you mean WAILING ON, a slang term for "beating up someone"? Sorry to be wailing (crying) about this but I am a proofreader,I spend all day looking for other people's mistakes like this one. If you wish us to have confidence in you as a news source, you must be more careful of your usage and vocabulary.
 
 
+5 # noitall 2012-05-31 16:47
Give it another few years of education fund cuts Mike, you'll be tearing your eyeballs out. People ar riting as good now as they gon to be ever. It not importent now to rite good or uz good gramer. We dont evun haf to no nothin nomor
 
 
+3 # mdhome 2012-05-31 18:30
I have seen so much poor grammar/spellin g, that I have given up on ever expecting to make a difference by bringing it to anyone s attention.
 
 
+4 # Majikman 2012-06-01 00:48
Wrongo-o, Citizen Mike. "Whale" as in to slam the bejeesus out of someone. Taibbi is correct.
I are an English major and I knows.
 
 
0 # SpyderJan 2012-06-01 06:08
Mike, I think in this context he is talking about the term "Whale" as it is used in Vegas. One how brings suitcases full of cash to the game.
 
 
+1 # Majikman 2012-06-01 06:40
Wrong, Citizen Mike. Taibbi is correct using "whaling" to assault..as in "Little Johnny wailed his eyes out after his dad whaled the tar out of him". As a proofreader, you need to upgrade your dictionary.
 
 
+1 # Feral Dogz 2012-06-01 09:48
whale 2
verb [ trans. ] informal
beat; hit : Dad came upstairs and whaled me | [ intrans. ] they whaled at the water with their paddles.
ORIGIN late 18th cent.: variant of wale .
 
 
-2 # Dean 2012-05-31 15:20
Mike, thank you! I searched all over this article in the hopes of finding a reference to whaling, and gave up until I saw your comment. Amazing that everyone missed this obvious typo!
 
 
+4 # photonracer 2012-05-31 21:03
Quoting Dean:
Mike, thank you! I searched all over this article in the hopes of finding a reference to whaling, and gave up until I saw your comment. Amazing that everyone missed this obvious typo!

Please check dictionary references and Mr. Tabibi is correct. Dictionary.com, Webster's etc. Not that amazing anymore.
 
 
+4 # dick 2012-05-31 15:48
Whail, I'll be doggone. There are still some new suckers being born again every minute who think regulators regulate. Their job is to PRETEND to regulate while the supposedly regulated WAIL that they're being "over-regulated ." It's like Obama calling Wall St. criminals "fat cats" as their total punishment for devastating economic terrorism. "Take THAT, you fat cats. Now come on over to the White House so we can LAUGH, eat, drink, & plan."
 
 
+5 # CandH 2012-05-31 15:56
William Black, former Deputy Director of FSLIC, outlines what it takes to ACTUALLY BE a Regulator, in his piece today entitled: "Career Limiting Gestures (CLG): Trying to Speak Truth to Congress." The most potent excerpts:

"Most regulators will not speak truth to power.  They are too afraid of the consequences because the politically powerful frequently seek to kill the honest messenger.  There is no greater service a regulator can do in these circumstances than have the integrity and courage to speak truth to power..."

[…]

"If someone has the money and the academic forum, I urge them to hold a conference now to honor Mr. Gray (former Chairman, FSLIC) and Ms. Born (former Chair, CFTC) for their service to the nation and the costs they bore for us by making their CLGs ("career limiting gestures.")  I urge a conference that takes seriously and investigates the questions of what works in regulation and how we can select regulatory leaders with the integrity to take vigorous actions to prevent or limit crises." http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/05/career-limiting-gestures-clg-trying-to-speak-truth-to-congress.html
 
 
+17 # noitall 2012-05-31 16:42
You gotta hand it to them. In the last 35 years they've sewed it up. They own the politicians that will bring the investigations, they own the courts that would act, they own the Supreme Court that would hear the appeals, they own the jails where they would be jailed (as if). They own the military that would give them the ultimate protection if the people got off their asses (as if). Any loose ends? If so they have the $$$ to correct the oversight. The have the money to control perception and they have the money and the might to control FEAR. Apparently the have sewn it up to the extent that our sons and daughters would turn their guns on their own families if ordered by their superiors. Kent state wasn't an accident and THAT was the age of "innocence". Today this persists in spite of what we know about recent history. We get what we deserve and we feel we deserve pro sports and game boys and that is enough.
 
 
0 # Howard T. Lewis III 2012-05-31 22:37
Matt, did you ever stop to think that they may be doing it on purpose? Cui bono? In any war, there are two opponents. In any mugging, there is a victim and the mugger. Who hired these wankers and who kept them? Our own circle jerker president of yore hired them and our lobotomy president kept them because he is psychopathicall y passive. This guy who hired them was a 9-11, Fukushima, DH oil well and HAARP and CIA director. Each of these acts is destroying his 'Grand Patrion's' economic competition.

Arrests are in order, but Eric'The Holder' Holder has his hands full 'holding the bag' for Bush41's 'Fast and Furious' retirement. See Daniel Hopsicker's book 'Barry and The Boys', and note who is sitting around the table in the cover picture, taken in a Mexico City night club in 1958. Congressional hearings fill in the details.
 
 
+3 # hammermann 2012-06-01 09:45
Another suburb article from Taibbi, the most important journo in America. For 2 years I thought I was hallucinating- how could not one paper repeat Taibbi's scoop about the $7.7 trillion of secret bank loans and guarantees? Finally Bloomberg did. Note, these guarantees that their valueless junk mortgage bonds can be still held on their books at 100% is the dynamite underlying our + wprld's financial system- it means all the big boys are actually BANKRUPT! But, don't worry the Gov will save them again. That will be when the Euro Crisis finally boils over + a 2008 tsunami sweeps over the world again. Be afraid.
 
 
+5 # wleming 2012-06-01 12:21
congratulations matt, you are doing what the new york times and wall street journal can't: lay the blame where it belongs at the feet of the greed heads on wall street. the media's pathetic record on situations like the regulatory federal failure, the cover ups and obfuscations, and all the rest of the crime spree make me want to run matt for president- since obama won't regulate the crooks either.
 
 
0 # Dave_s Not Here 2012-06-05 14:06
I hope you're watching your back, Matt. You're calling out some serious people with serious resources.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN