Any suggestions other than the ordinary? write congress, pres. call, and otherwise really annoy the crap out of their office staff? cause half of em won't even hold town hall meetings any longer because they don't want to face constituants? So all 200 million of us should show up in Washington DC one day on a "we the people march?

Please explain how the Federal Reserve has sold us out. I don't quite get what it is you'd like to change from or to. How can the Fed make us socialist?

You know that the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, which is what the story relates to, are not the same, right?? The FDIC is funded by premiums paid by the member banks, no tax dollars are used so I don't understand what your beef is with them.

Do you think the government owns or controls the factories? What is it you'd like the factories to be retooled to do?

Thank you for your comments!! My local hometown bank was siezed and sold. They were given very little time and notice to come up with financing and were not allowed to amoritize the debt. Either one of those plans and the bank would have been able to recover. How do I know? My mother had 21.6% ownership of the bank and had even secured a personal loan as well as finding other investors to offset over half of the debt in the 6 weeks they were given by the FDIC.

How do you know what banks will be taking over these banks , so you know wich ones to invest in. What do you think of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. Because they gave Oboma 150,000,000 while he was running to be the president. I feel he will make sure they get what they need and their stock will be worth far more then what they are today. If you would look back on who gave presidents money while they were running and what company's stocks did, you'll see what I'm talking about. Oboma's just became their puppet.

Tom, with all due respect, I am glad you are a former regulator. I am certainly not going to act as a apologist for the current regulators, but they are dealing with a massive problem caused in no small part by bankers who really have never known what banking is about. Many are incompetent. We constantly read about what bankers have been doing, albeit after they have failed. There is a bank in the midwest which has has 90+% of its loans in California and Florida, soley for condominiums. The owners of the bank have taken out hefty dividends in recent years so I guess they are ok when the bank fails, which it will. Then there is the banker of a large regional bank who put 35% of the banks assets in Freddie Mac preferred stock, which was great until the stock took a dive, as virtually any stock can and will. Here is a banker who preaches diversification to customers, yet does just the opposite. Why would anyone put over 1/3 of your assets in one security? Is it arrogance, greed, stupidity? Maybe all of the above plus some other reasons.

Mark-to-market rule has been in place for years and many bankers are screaming that the rule is unfair because the market does not properly price the asset. I guess the market is good sometimes and not good other times. Mr. Thain, formerly of Merrill Lynch, sold most of ML's so called toxic assets (CDOs, etc) to a Texas private consortium for .17 on the dollar last year and he had to finance that as well--much to the disdain of many. The private consortium will probably make out very well in the long run because even those toxic securities will pay something probably in the 75-80% range but it will take time and effort.

Your idea about selling assets at market value is DOA in the current market place. Many banks have a high percentage of non-preforming loans and they have taken over properties in forfeiture proceedings , but they cannot sell the properties at what they consider to be a fair value because of the glut of properties on the market. Banks resist selling properties at prices less than the amount of the outstanding loan and they resist so called short sales and renegotiating loans for the same reasons. If you were correct, the banks would be willing to sell assets at a loss and defer the losses over 10 years. Your idea is almost totally within the control of the bankers themselves. They do have to concern themselves about the need for appropriate capital, however.

If anything, the regulators are looking the other way purposely on what many banks are doing or not doing. Many banks are not doing anything about the number of non-performing loans they have and the regulators are not forcing the issue. Everyone is hoping this will pass quickly, but it will not.

I must agree with you that there is a discrimination going on between big banks and small banks, but that does not take away from the fact that all banks are part of the problem. The bankers along with their cronies in Congress (on both sides of the aisle) are the ones who pushed for and obtained the laws exempting all these exotic securities to be exempt from the market place and regulation. Remember that SWAPS which many of the banks bought and AIG, among others, sold are nothing more than insurance policies, but they are exempt from insurance regulation by law and thus they have become almost worthless. While big banks bought alot of these now toxic securities, the small banks did the same, albeit on a samller basis.

The banks being closed have no one to blame but themselves. Remember they made the loans in the first place. Unfortunately, the real unfairness here is the fact that taxpayers are going to have to pay the piper, just like the S & L crisis that you may have been involved in.

Bill

BILL.....INCOMPETENT? LOOK WHY DONT WE STOP MAKING EXCUSES? THESE PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS!!!! OK!!!! LETS STOP WITH THE INCOMPETENCE ANGLE...THEY KNEW VERY WELL WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

PoohPooh,

Why do you and others have to turn everything into a political issue or a politcal science diatribe concerning capitalism and socialism. You pointedly note that Sen Dodd and Rep. Frank led the way for easing restrictions on loans which in turn became the sub-prime mess, and I agree with those assertions. (I am paraphrasing., not quoting.) Incredibly, you forgot to make reference, however, to the so-called high priest of deregulation, Sen. Phil Grham, Republican Senator from Texas , who peresonally wrote and negotiated in 1999 the amendment which repealed many of the restrictions in the Glass-Steagall Act which separated the investment idustry from the banking industry. Furthermore his law exempted derriatives, CDO's SWAPS, etc. from any regulation and from the transparency of the market place. He made SWAPS exempt from insurance regulation which is why SWAPS have become worthless and one of the root causes for the banking industry near-collapse because the people who developed and sold SWAPS did not and were not required to keep reserves to that the SWAPS could be paid off someday. To end the story on this issue, President Clinton signed the bill into law.

Ideology is the reason for where we are and, unfortunately, where we are likely to be. Talking about socialism v. capitalism and banking is a non-starter. People appear to not understand what is going on. To say we do not want socialism, but do not touch Medicare or Social Security as many have said during debates on health care reform is mind boggling. Medicare and social security are totally run government benefits. If that is not socialism, then what is? To argue against socialism and for capitalism and free markets or vice versa is fine, but what about all the subsidies we have. For example, our government not only limits the amount of sugar that can be imported but also subsidizes farmers who grow tobacco, a killer crop, along emmarkets are far and few between, if they exist at allprobl
Bring the discussion back to identifying the sand then trying to fix it. Leave the ideology in the drawer.

Bill