George Bailey, won't you please come home?
Here's a sad scene that's likely to be replayed a fair amount in the months ahead.
| Posted at 10:49 AM | Permalink |
|
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 6, 2008 10:49 AM.
The previous post in this blog was Feds sniffing around Intel.
The next post in this blog is More on that City of Portland collection agency contract.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (9)
"Secrecy is paramount to prevent a panic among the locals and a run on the bank. That could sink a bank and lead to runs on neighboring institutions"
Jack be nimble
Jack be quick,
Jack shut up!
Posted by Howard | June 6, 2008 10:59 AM
Is it just me, or is it unfair for the feds to print up billions to bail out Bear Stearns, while they sneak in and shut down a mom and pop operation fallen on hard times?
Posted by Jack Bog | June 6, 2008 11:09 AM
Mom and pops usually don't have access to K street.
Posted by KISS | June 6, 2008 11:56 AM
Sadly, the actions of the federal agencies seem to serve the same purpose. As noted in the article, the surreptitious actions to facilitate transfer to a new owner were done on a Friday were to prevent runs on other banks in the rural area. Although on a different scale, sounds very similar to facilitating the transfer of Bear Stearns.
Posted by Paul G | June 6, 2008 12:02 PM
My question is this -- what Staples, MN genius let them start writing liar loans on FL real estate? That person should go to jail.
Posted by dyspeptic | June 6, 2008 12:11 PM
"covering up to $100,000 per depositor in most cases" -- yeah, per depositor per institution across 9,800 institutions. Why quarrel with such minor details that might interfere with the subsidized (asset valuation guarantee) overnight transfer of a little fish to a big fish?
"rare window into a little-known government task force" -- like somehow someone never read even a fraction of the piles and piles of litigation surrounding the temporary Resolution Trust Corporation's activities a few short years ago. Rapid injection of brokered deposits, all guaranteed only up to 100,000 (cough), was the single most important factor contributing to ultimate bank failure.
It ain't the little folk's money that the FDIC is all worried abut, but most likely here as in the past the withdrawal of the brokered deposits obtained from folks gaming the per deposit per institution loophole.
See WSJ FDIC+Grows+Wary+of+Brokered+Deposits
By MICHAEL R. CRITTENDEN
May 17, 2008; Page B2
===
Remember: Keating Five?
Posted by pdxnag | June 6, 2008 12:20 PM
And they're going to keep it real quiet, just like they're doing on the war, so when it finally starts happening locally, it'll be a big surprise here too ... unless you read blogs, that is.
Posted by Samuel John Klein | June 6, 2008 8:34 PM
the Klein post is junk
remove
Posted by pdxnag | June 6, 2008 9:58 PM
Jack,
I don't think the FDIC's methods are very different from what the Federal Reserve did to broker the sale of Bear Stearns (BSC), except in scale.
The Federal Reserve is on the hook for up to $20 billion in bad BSC collateral (JP Morgan is on the hook for the first $10 billion).
Posted by Oh my | June 7, 2008 4:02 PM