Attn Vikram Pandit and Ken Lewis: Your Services Are No Longer Required, Please Exit Stage Left
Started by alpine292
over 16 years ago
Posts: 2771
Member since: Jun 2008
Discussion about
Bair: Some Bank CEOs Will Be Fired Who will be the next CEO to get the ax? In an interview with Bloomberg television to be aired this weekend, FDIC chairman Sheila Bair says that some bank heads will lose their jobs in the coming months, as the government continues its efforts to stabilize the banking industry. From Bair's interview with Bloomberg: Management needs to be evaluated," Bair said... [more]
Bair: Some Bank CEOs Will Be Fired
Who will be the next CEO to get the ax? In an interview with Bloomberg television to be aired this weekend, FDIC chairman Sheila Bair says that some bank heads will lose their jobs in the coming months, as the government continues its efforts to stabilize the banking industry.
From Bair's interview with Bloomberg:
Management needs to be evaluated," Bair said today on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt," to be broadcast this weekend. "Have they been doing a good job? Are there people who can do a better job?
Speculation about which bank heads will be replaced comes on the heels of last week's stress test results.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/15/bair-some-bank-ceos-will_n_203944.html[less]
Response by se10024
over 16 years ago
Posts: 314
Member since: Apr 2009
bair needs to be fired first
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by pab77777
over 16 years ago
Posts: 15
Member since: May 2009
bair gave washington mutual to jpm/chase for free and stole any equity left for the shareholders. why were some banks given billions and other ones looted. I guess it's who you know. Lets see the job she gets after ripping off the banks. I bet she makes millions for her "work"
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by se10024
over 16 years ago
Posts: 314
Member since: Apr 2009
yes, while i don't agree with bernanke/geithner solutions i do believe they are genuinely trying to fix things. she's just on a power grab.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by aboutready
over 16 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007
the big boys are protected. they don't get reamed because they give huge amounts of money to politicians. they get money from us instead.
who'd want Vikram's job? i don't think he's been doing such an awful job with what he was given. Lewis, that's a different story.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by HarlemNWCP
over 16 years ago
Posts: 71
Member since: Feb 2009
se10024,
This is my understanding, which may be wrong.
JPM paid WaMu bondholders $2B for the assets, so owners of capital received something, albeit not much. At the same time JPM took a $30B writeoff for the assets. Sounds to me like the bondholders got a fair deal.
Bair got WaMu into the hands of a new owner without the FDIC deposit guarantee fund taking a hit. That is what she is statutorily mandated to do: find the least-cost solution for taxpayers. Only in "exceptional" circumstances should the FDIC be taking costlier paths. For instance, the FDIC was ready to have Wachovia taken over by Citi (subsidizing the Citi takeover would have strengthened Citi, a troubled bank itself, so a "systemic risk" exception to the least cost rule). Then, when WFC came in with an offer which again would have allowed the fund to avoid any cost, Wachovia was ripped out of Citi's hands, because the standard rule was so clear: preserve tax payers.
My impression is that Bair has been doing a pretty good job given a tough situation and divergent policy maker views and mandates.
aboutready, I agree that Pandit has done what he could have done: raised capital, divested assets at good prices, and ultimately curried favor with authorities. Citi shareholders have nothing to complain about. And since he took the job only in Dec 07, he cannot be blamed for the terrible risk management that caused the debacle.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by alpine292
over 16 years ago
Posts: 2771
Member since: Jun 2008
The FDIC is not meant to protect shareholders, but rather depositors.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by OTNYC
over 16 years ago
Posts: 547
Member since: Feb 2009
I gotta agree with the positive comments on Pandit - I don't think he's the wizard he was made out to be, and C definitely overpaid for him (Hedge Lane brought on at cost of $600M to secure Vik), but a majority of the systemic issues predated him and I don't know that anyone else would have done a better job inheriting what he did.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by aboutready
over 16 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007
that never sleeping stuff has got to wear on a guy, though.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by se10024
over 16 years ago
Posts: 314
Member since: Apr 2009
harlem: what exactly was her basis for seizing them? i believe they had 4b in cash and access to the window.
'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
bair needs to be fired first
bair gave washington mutual to jpm/chase for free and stole any equity left for the shareholders. why were some banks given billions and other ones looted. I guess it's who you know. Lets see the job she gets after ripping off the banks. I bet she makes millions for her "work"
yes, while i don't agree with bernanke/geithner solutions i do believe they are genuinely trying to fix things. she's just on a power grab.
the big boys are protected. they don't get reamed because they give huge amounts of money to politicians. they get money from us instead.
who'd want Vikram's job? i don't think he's been doing such an awful job with what he was given. Lewis, that's a different story.
se10024,
This is my understanding, which may be wrong.
JPM paid WaMu bondholders $2B for the assets, so owners of capital received something, albeit not much. At the same time JPM took a $30B writeoff for the assets. Sounds to me like the bondholders got a fair deal.
Bair got WaMu into the hands of a new owner without the FDIC deposit guarantee fund taking a hit. That is what she is statutorily mandated to do: find the least-cost solution for taxpayers. Only in "exceptional" circumstances should the FDIC be taking costlier paths. For instance, the FDIC was ready to have Wachovia taken over by Citi (subsidizing the Citi takeover would have strengthened Citi, a troubled bank itself, so a "systemic risk" exception to the least cost rule). Then, when WFC came in with an offer which again would have allowed the fund to avoid any cost, Wachovia was ripped out of Citi's hands, because the standard rule was so clear: preserve tax payers.
My impression is that Bair has been doing a pretty good job given a tough situation and divergent policy maker views and mandates.
aboutready, I agree that Pandit has done what he could have done: raised capital, divested assets at good prices, and ultimately curried favor with authorities. Citi shareholders have nothing to complain about. And since he took the job only in Dec 07, he cannot be blamed for the terrible risk management that caused the debacle.
The FDIC is not meant to protect shareholders, but rather depositors.
I gotta agree with the positive comments on Pandit - I don't think he's the wizard he was made out to be, and C definitely overpaid for him (Hedge Lane brought on at cost of $600M to secure Vik), but a majority of the systemic issues predated him and I don't know that anyone else would have done a better job inheriting what he did.
that never sleeping stuff has got to wear on a guy, though.
harlem: what exactly was her basis for seizing them? i believe they had 4b in cash and access to the window.