Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumElizabeth Warren's First Senate Banking Committee Hearing
&feature=player_embeddedgateley
(62,683 posts)a BIG one from Elizabeth! Thank you, Massachusetts!
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)Senator Warren is now the Senior Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
gateley
(62,683 posts)mrmpa
(4,033 posts)It's just great to have her in the Senate. Massachusetts is where I was born. Now I'm in Pennsylvania and dealing with Senator Pat Toomey, my repug Represenative Tim Murphy and our disaster of a governor Tom Corbett. I wish I was in Massachusetts.
MarianJack
(10,237 posts)I believe that Ted Kennedy is looking down from Heaven with a huge smile to see you in his old seat in place of mr. teabagger brown!
PEACE!
ReRe
(10,597 posts).... She did not blink an eye or stutter once. But boy that first guy was chewing his tongue and couldn't hardly get a word out. On. The. Hot. Seat. That was thoroughly gratifying. I thought Joe was getting ready to touch her arm once. Thanks, midnight!
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Elizabeth Warren Embarrasses Hapless Bank Regulators At First Hearing
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/elizabeth-warren-bank-regulators_n_2688998.html
midnight
(26,624 posts)Warren questioned top regulators from the alphabet soup that is the nation's financial regulatory structure: the FDIC, SEC, OCC, CFPB, CFTC, Fed and Treasury.
Kennah
(14,299 posts)... but I suspect there are decades of conditioning that will need to be overcome.
As for Elizabeth Warren, I absolutely LOVE this woman! She rocks!
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)NYT - DealB%k
By JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG and BEN PROTESS
February 12, 2013
Washington is seeking help from an unlikely group in its effort to distribute billions of dollars to struggling homeowners in foreclosure: the same banks accused of abusing homeowners with shoddy foreclosure practices.
MORE
- Because if you can't trust a banker, who can you trust?
K&R
midnight
(26,624 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The Senator says, "I'm just concerned that too big to fail has become too big for trial."
"Too big for trial," that's a powerful tagline to hit the Goldman Sachs crowd with. It's a brilliant turn of phrase, though shamefully sad she even had to say it in this context.
JasonGWB
(21 posts)that would make a southern state blush so at some point in the future we will all need to get used to hearing Chair of the Banking Committee Elizabeth Warren.
Volaris
(10,274 posts)she should hang a plaque on her Senate Office door that says:
"Strike me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
Oh well, they did it to themselves this time, and I have NO sympathy for them.
GO LIZ!!!!!!!
meeshrox
(671 posts)Kennah
(14,299 posts)drynberg
(1,648 posts)She just kept re-focusing on the question: When was the last time you brought a bank to trial? Keep it up Ms. Warren!
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)iamelisabethparker
(14 posts)I LOVED the way Warren ripped these people to shreds. Wall Street will NOT be pleased. Also, I wrote an article about this http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/15/warren-senate-banking-committee-hearing/ & also transcribed the whole thing. Here's the transcript for anyone who wants it. I don't transcribe things that often, but this was SO worth it!
-- Cheers! Elisabeth
TRANSCRIPTION OF ELIZABETH WARREN'S FIRST SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE HEARING, FEBRUARY 14th, 2013
WARREN: I appreciate your all being here.
I want to ask a question about supervising big banks when they break the law. Including the mortgage foreclosures, but others as well. We all understand why settlements are important, that trials are expensive, that we cant dedicate huge resources to them. But we also understand that if a party is unwilling to go to trial either because theyre too timid or they lack resources that the consequence is that they have a lot less leverage in all the settlements that occur.
Now, I know there have been some landmark settlements, but we face some very special issues with big financial institutions. If they can break the law, and drag in billions in profits, and then turn around and settle paying out of those profits, they dont have much incentive to follow the law. Its also the case that each time theres a settlement, and not a trial, it means that we didnt have those days and days of testimony about what these financial institutions have been up to.
So, the question I really want to ask is about how tough you are and how much leverage you really have in these settlements. And what Id like to know is
tell me a little bit about the last few times youve taken the biggest financial institutions on Wall Street all the way to a trial.
[APPLAUSE BUT NO RESPONSE]
WARREN:
Anybody?
TOM CURRY: Um
WARREN: Tom Curry?
CURRY:
to offer
um
my perspective
WARREN: Sure.
CURRY: As bank supervisor
uh
we primarily view the tools that we have as
uh
mechanisms for correcting deficiencies? So, uh, the primary motive for our forceful actions is really to identify the problem, and then to demand solutions on an ongoing basis.
WARREN: And then you set a price for that sorry to interrupt, but I just want to move this along its effectively a settlement. What Im asking is when did you last take and I know you havent been there forever, so Im really asking about the SEC a large financial institution, a Wall Street bank, to trial?
CURRY: Uh
the institutions I supervise national banks and federal thrifts weve actually had a fair number of
uh
consent orders
uh
we do not have to bring people to
uh
aaaaa
trial
WARREN: I appreciate that you dont have to bring them to trial. My question is, when did you bring them to trial.
CURRY: We have not had to do it as a practical matter to meet our supervisory goals.
WARREN: Ms. Walter?
WALTER: Thank you Senator. As you know, among our remedies are penalties, but the penalties we can get are limited. We actually have asked for additional authority my predecessor did to raise penalties. And we truly believe that we had a very vigorous enforcement program. Wed look at theat distinction between what we can get if we go to trial and what wed get if we dont.
WARREN: I appreciate that, thats what everybody does. So, the question Im really asking is, can you identify when you last took the Wall Street banks to trial?
WALTER: I will have to get back to you with the specific information, but we do litigate. And we do have settlements that are that are either rejected by the Commission, or not put forward.
WARREN: Okay, weve got multiple people here. Anyone else want to tell me about the last time they took a Wall Street bank to trial? I just want a note on this: There are district attorneys and U.S. attorneys out there every day squeezing ordinary citizens sometimes on very thin grounds and taking them to trial in order to make an example, as they put it. Im really concerned that too big to fail has become too big for trial. It just seems wrong to me.
[APPLAUSE]
WARREN: If I can, Ill go quickly. Chairman Johnson, I have one more question Id like to ask, and thats a question about why the large banks are trading at below book value. We all understand that book value knows just what the assets are listed for, what the liabilities are, and that most big corporations trade well above book value. But many of the Wall Street banks right now are trading below book value, and I can only think of two reasons why that would be so. One would be because nobody believes that the banks books are honest. Or the second would be that nobody believes that the banks are really manageable. That is, they are too complex either for their own institutions to manage them, or for their regulators to manage them.
And so, the question I have is, what reassurance can you give that these large Wall Street banks that are trading for below book value, in fact, are adequately transparent and adequately managed? Governor Tarullo?
TARULLO: So theres certainly another reason I might add to your list, Senator Warren, which is
uh
investors skepticism as to whether a firm is gonna make a return on equity. That is, an excess of what the investor regards as the value of the individual parts. And so I think what you would hear analysts say is that in the wake of the crisis, there have been
uh
issues on just that point. Um
surrounding first, what the regulatory environments are going to be
uh
how much capitals gonna be required, what activities are gonna be restricted, and
Two, for some time theyreve been questions about
uh .. the franchise value of some of these institutions and
the crisis showed that some of the so-called synergies were not very synergistic at all, in fact there really wasnt
uh
the potential, at least on a sustainable basis, to make a lot of money.
And part of it is probably just the environment of economic uncertainty. I think that in some cases weve seen some
uh
effort to get rid of large amounts of assets at some of the large institutions. It is indirectly in response to just that point. I think it concluded that they are not in a position to have a viable, manageable, profitable franchise if theyve got all of the entities that they had before, so a couple of them as I say have actually reduced, or are in the process of reducing, their balance sheets.
The other thing I would note is youre absolutely right about the difference there. The difference is actually that the economy has been improving and that some of the
um
uh
firms have built up their capital. Youve seen that difference actually narrowing in a number of cases as they seem to have a better position in the view of the market from which to proceed in a more feasible fashion.
WARREN: I appreciate this, and apologize for going over. Thank you.
Trillo
(9,154 posts)Many of us do not care to watch videos, and do not watch TV, because we prefer to read, and can process the written word differently than the spoken word.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)stlsaxman
(9,236 posts)during her appearance at hearings.
She's too good. She is desperately needed there.
I fear that the old boys club will reprimand her for the lack of decorum shown here and keep her from other important hearings and/or committees.
PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS POST IN NO WAY DEMEANS SENATOR WARREN.