[quote]In a move aimed at jump-starting bipartisan negotiations on Wall Street reform, Obama administration officials have signaled that they want Democr..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

White House scrutinizes (reads 'dumps') Senate bill's bank liquidation fund

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 02:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 594
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, April 18, 2010 7:42 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

In a move aimed at jump-starting bipartisan negotiations on Wall Street reform, Obama administration officials have signaled that they want Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd to remove a $50 billion bank liquidation fund from his financial regulation bill.

Republicans have pounced on the $50 billion provision, saying the legislation will lead to more government bailouts of large banks, effectively stalling progress on the bill.

"The ex-ante fund was not in our original proposal we announced almost a year ago, and we don't feel it is an essential part of final legislation," said one administration official late Friday. "The president will only sign a bill if it passes the test of putting an end to bailouts."

White House aides have vehemently denied for days the provision will spark more bailouts. Republican aides asserted the shift is a sign the White House fears the criticism is having an impact.

But Democratic officials suggested the move is really an attempt to challenge Republicans on whether they will still oppose the reform bill even after the controversial provision is removed. That would play into the White House's efforts to portray the GOP as defenders of the status quo on Wall Street.

Still, White House aides said the president is more focused on the larger issue of reform instead of any one provision.

"What is important is that we have a mechanism that allows us to wind down failing firms at no cost to the taxpayer," said White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage. "The Dodd bill does that, and we will work with Congress to make sure we achieve that objective."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/17/obama.wall.street/index.html?hp
t=T2


Sound familiar? Remember all the concessions made to get Republican votes for health insurance reform?

Woose! Wooses! Cowards!! How can they/he NOT get it that there will be no Republican votes, no matter WHAT they do!!! This is going the way of the health reform bill...we elected a wimp, simple as that...

It was "large financial institutions would provide the $50 billion, which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. would use to pay for dismantling giant failing firms". The BANKS would have put up the funds...this means, if there's another bailout, WE pay for it again!!! It was a TALKING POINT, you , now they'll just find another one!




"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 4:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh crap.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 7:43 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


So there really was a $50 billion bailout - excuse me "bank liquidation" - fund in the finance legislation until Pres. Obama asked for it to be removed?

See the explanation of the "Orderly Liquidation Authority" (Sec. 202) starting on page 111 and the "Orderly Liquidation Fund" starting on page 272 of the bill.
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/ChairmansMark31510AYO10306_xml
FinancialReformLegislationBill.pdf

The Secretary of the Authority can use the Fund to purchase obligations of companies in receivership to the Authority. Sounds kinda like when TARP bailout money was used to purchase toxic assets. I can see where folks might think they're pretty much both the same.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 8:02 AM

BYTEMITE


Jeez, Niki. I'm glad the provision is gone. It was probably less something proposed by someone with a serious interest in reform, and more an interest in giving another handout.

I mean, is there a reason for it? Did you want it or care about it, other than having heard something like "here they go, the White House is capitulating again?" Because that's not at all how I see what's going down.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 8:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer and Byte are ignoramuses.

Do either of you know how the FDIC works?

Federal Deposit INSURANCE Corporation

Banks kick into the insurance fund. The money is used to insure deposits. When a bank fails, it needs to be wound down in an orderly fashion aside from the insured deposits. Assets and liabilities need to be distributed. According to Sheila Bair, Chair of FDIC and the one who's been kicking butt, this money is basically a higher insurance premium, so that tax dollars do NOT have be used to wind down a failed bank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 8:53 AM

BYTEMITE


I don't, which is why I was confused.

Okay, so are you saying that the money is going to insure deposits from failing banks, or are you saying the money is going to the FDIC? Because that could potentially mean two different things.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 9:32 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Sig's right...from what I read, the BANKS contribute to the liquidation fund, so that WE don't have to bail them out if/when they fail. I found the pertinent language for some of it:
Quote:

There is established in the Treasury of the United States a separate fund to be known as the ‘‘Orderly Liquidation Fund’’, which shall be available to the Corporation to carry out the authorities contained in this title, for the cost of actions authorized by this title, including the orderly liquidation of covered financial companies, payment of administrative expenses, the payment of principal and interest by the Corporation on obligations issued under paragraph (9), and the exercise of the authorities of the Corporation under this title.

(2) PROCEEDS.—Amounts received by the Corporation, including assessments received under sub section (o), proceeds of obligations issued under paragraph (9), interest and other earnings from in vestments, and repayments to the Corporation by covered financial companies, shall be deposited into the Fund.

Geezer has the page number right, in that it's 272. Page 111 is about the Orderly Liquidation Authority Panel and how it's set up.

The pertinent thing, however, is whether the banks contribute to it or the FDIC sets it aside (in which case, I think that means WE're setting it aside). It's a helluva long document, so if anyone else has the time to search through it and see WHO contributes the funds, that would be great. I've spent as much time on it as I'm willing. I did find this on FactCheck:
Quote:

Fact Check: Big Banks and risky financial institutions, not taxpayers, are on the hook for failures. The fund is paid for entirely by large, risky financial corporations, not taxpayers. It is meant to protect taxpayers and require risky financial companies to pay the costs of their own failure. That’s why the banking industry opposes what is essentially a tax on their reckless gambling.

Fact Check: The fund will never be used to bail out a company. The only way the $50 billion Orderly Liquation Fund can be accessed is during the process of orderly liquidation. Thanks to the addition of Senator Shelby’s own provision in the bill (see p. 54 of Manager’s Amendment), any company entering liquidation must be liquidated and wiped out.

http://ourfinancialsecurity.org/2010/04/fact-check-big-banks-must-pay-
up
/#

Izzat good enough for you? If not, you'll have to search for yourself. Byte, I didn’t “hear” something...I look around for news of interest from several places. There are articles on its removal, which I from CNN. CNN and BBC are where I usually start, then search further for a more detailed article or confirmation...usually one of those two is detailed and written well enough, once I’ve checked it out I use them. Thanx for the snark.

I'm not Crappy. I try to do my best to post information I can back up by having checked them out and validatedthem, always —- in this case I made up my OWN mind the reasons for removing it, tho’ they were noted I believe. It just sickened me that this is starting out just the same as the health care reform...compromise, compromise, compromise...



"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 10:08 AM

BYTEMITE


That wasn't a snark, I was honestly confused. I couldn't see where the article you provided suggested anything about the Obama administration capitulating, the opposite, actually. And when something was said about 50 big figures going to a federal commission, not knowing that the commission stands for or does, I thought "pork barrel." And I saw your reaction, and I couldn't understand the strength of it, or even where it was coming from, and I thought, well, there's something here I'm missing. Maybe she's read something I haven't.

So I said that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 11:39 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Federal Deposit INSURANCE Corporation

Banks kick into the insurance fund. The money is used to insure deposits. When a bank fails, it needs to be wound down in an orderly fashion aside from the insured deposits.



But the Orderly Liquidation Fund is, or would have been, a separate fund from the FDIC fund you described above.

"There is established in the Treasury of the United States a separate fund to be known as the ‘‘Orderly Liquidation Fund’’, which shall be available to the Corporation to carry out the authorities contained in this title, for the
cost of actions authorized by this title, including the orderly liquidation of covered financial companies, payment of administrative expenses, the payment of principal and interest by the Corporation on obligations issued under paragraph (9), and the exercise of the authorities of the Corporation under this title."

Pages 277 and 278 show that there is to be strict separation of the "Orderly Liquidation Fund" and the FDIC's regular Deposit Insurance Fund.

So if this money wasn't for deposit unsurance, what did the Orderly Liquidation Authority need $50billion for?


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 11:51 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


My sincere apologies, Byte. I took it as asking if I just heard something off the cuff and got pissed about it. I looked up several articles on the subject, and when I realized the Repubs use it to say "see, there's more bailouts coming!", the Dems will cave even tho' it wasn't true. "Death Panels" all over again. That's where my strong feelings come from; they sold out the public option and SO much more just to get health insurance reform passed, and I can see it starting all over again.

JUST when I thought they'd begun to grow some balls...and I blame Obama, first and foremost. He seems incapable of grasping that no matter what he does, there will be NO Republican votes. So instead of going straight to reconciliation (which they should have done LONG ago on health reform), he starts selling pieces off to buy a nonexistent quantity. I'm FURIOUS about it!

Sig answered your question, Geezer. The FDIC already insures DEPOSITS, so that's covered. Remember, the plan in the financial reform is to LET banks fail, rather than bail them out in future because they're "too big to fail". So the FDIC covers the deposits, while the fund was to do what Sig said:
Quote:

When a bank fails, it needs to be wound down in an orderly fashion aside from the insured deposits. Assets and liabilities need to be distributed. According to Sheila Bair, Chair of FDIC and the one who's been kicking butt, this money is basically a higher insurance premium, so that tax dollars do NOT have be used to wind down a failed bank.
I don't know what the tab would be, but if you added up all the banks, I imagine it might be a pretty hefty figure.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 1:26 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Yup, the way I heard it explained, it was a fund to be set aside from monies taken in by the various banks, so that IN THE EVENT THEY GOT INTO SERIOUS TROUBLE AGAIN THROUGH TAKING UNNECESSARY RISKS AND BYPASSING REGULATIONS THROUGH LOOPHOLES, the taxpayers wouldn't be left holding the bill. The "bailout fund" would be used to secure their assets while the bank was then put into receivership and its assets sold off and the bank was then wound down and shut down for good.

In other words, "too big to fail" would no longer apply, and ANY bank could be allowed to fail, and the funds for "failing" that bank would come from a pool set aside from ALL banks (or at least, from banks once they reached a certain size, large enough that they could have a severe impact on the overall economy if they went down).

The idea was that banks would have to watch each others' backs, at least a little bit.

I'm sure it's all a horrible idea, that industries should ever have to be responsible for their own bad actions. At least, that's what the Republicans seem to be saying...




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 5:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA



I don't see it working.

I trusted in the FSLIC - I had my life savings, pitiful that they were, in Old Court Savings and Loan...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Court_Savings_and_Loans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Savings_and_Loan_Insurance_Corpor
ation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis

And I learned the hard way just what electronic or on-paper "money" is worth when it's in someone elses possession and they slam the doors in your face.

Never, EVER again will I make that mistake, especially when the FDIC is even more insolvent than the FSLIC ever was - never again will some institution be able to slam it's doors in my face and leave me destitute cause I was fool enough to trust in the promises of a Bank or Government.

Really, given their behavior over the past fourty freakin years, why the hell would anyone in their right mind trust either one ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 20, 2010 2:14 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
"When a bank fails, it needs to be wound down in an orderly fashion aside from the insured deposits. Assets and liabilities need to be distributed. According to Sheila Bair, Chair of FDIC and the one who's been kicking butt, this money is basically a higher insurance premium, so that tax dollars do NOT have be used to wind down a failed bank."I don't know what the tab would be, but if you added up all the banks, I imagine it might be a pretty hefty figure.



Considering that the operating appropriation for the entire Treasury Department is around $12 billion, I'm wondering how just winding down institutions could cost so much. However, if the Government was also buying up obligations and assets (kind'a like a bailout) for later resale, then maybe the amount's about right. Also remember that the liquidation fund wasn't just a one-time $50 billion, but that the fund was capped at $50 billion with provision to collect more as it was spent. So it was effectively bottomless.

As for the Fund coming from an assessment on financial institutions - who actually ends up paying for that? It'd have to be the customers. Some might be rich investors, but some are also retirement plans, etc.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts
White Woman Gets Murdered, Race Baiters Most Affected
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:40 - 20 posts
Alex Jones makes himself look an even bigger Dickhead than Piers Morgan on live TV (and that takes some doing, I can tell you).
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:29 - 81 posts
Hollywood exposes themselves as the phony whores they are
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:02 - 46 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL