This just keeps getting more and more surreal. Yesterday we heard that Geithner wanted Bair out of her FDIC post because she wasn’t a team player. Today we find out what specifically she wasn’t a team player on. First, the Citigroup takeover of Wachovia:
Fargo & Co. days after agreeing to back an initial deal with Citigroup. Geithner was concerned that allowing the Citigroup transaction to fail would inhibit other lenders from working with the FDIC on any subsequent rescues, the people said.
Wells Fargo offered about $15 billion for Wachovia, compared with Citigroup’s $2.2 billion deal to acquire Wachovia’s banking operations, and didn’t need any FDIC aid.
Yah. Like banks are going to refuse to take over their competitors for cents on the dollar because one deal fell through while the rest have worked. More to the point, Wells Fargo made a far better offer, for taxpayers and for Wachovia, since unlike Citi it wasn’t going to lay off nearly as many people and it didn’t need a subsidy.
Citigroup’s position weakened, with its shares losing as much as 65 percent after the failed Wachovia deal amid a collapse in investor confidence — precipitating another rescue attempt.
Again, Bair held out for concessions as the Fed and Treasury sought to shield Citigroup from losses in its holdings of toxic assets. Bair insisted on getting preferred shares for the FDIC in the New York-based bank. She also demanded that Citigroup agree to implement mortgage modifications according to a model developed by her agency.
At one point during a Nov. 23 Fed board meeting about the Citigroup rescue, Chairman Ben S. Bernanke stepped out to take a call from Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Returning a few moments later, Bernanke told his colleagues that the secretary was still locked in negotiations with Bair, whose demands were delaying the deal.
It’s hard to comment on this, because the cupidity and stupidity quotient is so high it’s turning into a black hole that sucks all reason out of the room.
First: This proves that Citi was not a good bank to buy Wachovia. You want strong banks to take over weak ones. Citi taking over a bank with impaired assets of its own would have been the lame helping the crippled and it would have still wound up needing a rescue.
Second: Bair held up the Citi deal (250 billion dollars of bailout) in an attempt to make sure that taxpayers got at least some collateral and to demand Citi helped ordinary people. That indicates Bair was doing her job, which is to protect ordinary people, not to give free money to corporations for nothing in return. The people not doing their jobs were Paulson and Geithner, who wanted to give money to a failed corporation without any meaningful protection for the taxpayer.
Geithner and Paulson: "Our job is to give banks as much money as they need to succeed, while leaving the same people in charge, and not asking for enough collateral so that taxpayers could ever recover their money".
Bair "my job is to help banks, but at the same time to protect taxpayers and try and help ordinary Americans"
What this proves to me is that Geithner’s personal judgment is awful. He was on the wrong side of all of these arguments, the side that said "just throw money at the problem and don’t demand any meaningful change, any meaningful taxpayer protection or any meaningful help for homeowners".
He was, simply, wrong. He wanted to do the wrong things.
Bair wanted to do the right things. Granted, she didn’t go as far as I’d like, but given she was in negotiation with "give away everything Hank and Tim", I don’t think she can be blamed for that.
Bair’s judgment, in every case listed, was better than Geithners. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Bair needs to become Treasury Secretary. Geithner, whose judgment is clearly awful, needs to be a second ranker, in charge of nothing but implementing the decisions of someone such as Bair, who actually has good judgment. His opinion should be solicited only so that his new boss knows what not to do.
Related posts:





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Zed? And Geithner is a tool. Sheila is the best thing to happen for homeowners in this whole fiasco.
Tell me why again a bank that needs hundreds of billions of the US tax payers to remain in business is buying up other banks in trouble and sponsoring the new Mets Stadium?
Can we see what’s in the CitiBank vaults- all the deals they have out there… CDOs, CDSs and derivatives?
OT: Word is out that Congress has agreed on bailout plan; no details are out yet.
What made the deal attractive to Wells Fargo was the tax loophole Paulson made up and which is against the law wherein Wells Fargo was going to stick the government with Wachovia’s losses by writing them off against its own taxes.
Geithner is the kind of guy who rises far in organizations and no one questions his/her competence until there is a crisis. If there is no crisis, he/she can have a long successful career without anyone being the wiser. But if there is a crisis, it rapidly becomes clear that he/she doesn’t have what it takes to deal with it. This describes not just Geithner, but Paulson, Bernanke, Rubin, and probably Summers for that matter.
Bair on the other hand saw the dangers back in 2003 and tried to do something about it then but couldn’t get any backing from industry or Administration for her efforts. And she has tried to come up with targeted plans that would get maximum bang for the buck in helping distressed homeowners.
This is not a good sign. Obama needs to stick with the people who know what they are doing and who were right on this, and that lets Geithner out.
Yeltsin II Rubinomics in action.
Here’s the Grey Lady’s take…
Rachel is announcing it too…!
But Kurgman luvs him some Geithner, so shouldn’t we all be groveling at his knees?
Yeah, I sort of figured that this would be the way it would go down from the beginning. I couldn’t understand all the Reid-Pelosi kabuki.
Now understood to be the definition of dicking out completely, the Bush Doctrine, was unknown to Sarah Palin, the candidate for Vice President of the United States.
He’s clueless but as Krugman noted he is openminded.
I couldn’t understand all the Reid-Pelosi kabuki.
Would ya wanna…? ;-)
Geithner: cluess, yet open minded. A winning combination.
Why is it that our Senators are so willing to throw stringless money at the white collar financial sector, but it’s pulling teeth to get a tiny fraction of that money to save millions of blue collar jobs IN THE MIDST OF A SERIOUS RECESSION/DEPRESSION???
Why is Barney blabbing about the method and manner of tactics…? ;-)
Ian, thanks for the post. Do you have any sense of who might be pushing this story? Is the Geithner camp hoping to make Bair look bad to get rid of her? Or is there an anti-Geithner camp trying to make him look bad? I’m just curious, because if it’s the former, then Geithner appears to have poor political judgment as well, since his complaints actually make Bair look really good to ordinary citizens who are already seriously peeved about the $700billion boondoggle.
Heh, Ian’s on it…!
Quick auto piece at the top. I’ll kick this one back to the top later. Thanks to everyone for alerting me of it.
With timing that couldn’t be better, those at Citi get their due. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer group of bankers.
‘PONZI SCHEME’ AT CITI
By PAUL THARP
December 4, 2008
A new Citigroup scandal is engulfing Robert Rubin and his former disciple Chuck Prince for their roles in an alleged Ponzi-style scheme that’s now choking world banking.
Director Rubin and ousted CEO Prince – and their lieutenants over the past five years – are named in a federal lawsuit for an alleged complex cover-up of toxic securities that spread across the globe, wiping out trillions of dollars in their destructive paths.
Investor-plaintiffs in the suit accuse Citi management of overseeing the repackaging of unmarketable collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that no one wanted – and then reselling them to Citi and hiding the poisonous exposure off the books in shell entities.
The lawsuit said that when the bottom fell out of the shaky assets in the past year, Citi’s stock collapsed, wiping out more than $122 billion of shareholder value.
However, Rubin and other top insiders were able to keep Citi shares afloat until they could cash out more than $150 million for themselves in “suspicious” stock sales “calculated to maximize the personal benefits from undisclosed inside information,” the lawsuit said.
The latest troubles for Rubin, Prince and others emerged in a 500-page investigation by Citigroup investors represented by law firm Kirby McInerney.
The probe was used to amend and add new details to a blanket investor lawsuit filed against Citigroup a year ago. The amended suit called the actions of Citi leaders “a quasi-Ponzi scheme” to hide troubles – and keep Citi stock afloat while insiders unloaded about 3 million shares between Jan. 1, 2004 and Feb. 22, 2008 for huge profits.
In addition to Citigroup, Rubin and Prince, the complaint names Vice Chairman Lewis Kaden, ex-CFO Sallie Krawcheck and her successor CFO Gary Crittenden.
Rubin cleared $30.6 million on his stock sales, while Prince got $26.5 million, former COO Robert Druskin got nearly $32 million and former Global Wealth Management unit chief Todd Thomson got $25.7 million, the suit said.
As I have watched this entire bailout fiasco Sheila has been the only one being creative while all the time being for the Homeowners in trouble. Thousand will have saved their homes because of her and before Obama and crew ever takes office. Barack would be a fool to let her go.
This smacks of the way Brooksley Born was treated by Rubin/Summers/Greenspan a decade ago.
History repeats itself, somewhat, and not in an interesting way.
Will we see Rubin in the clink re. 21? After all, they did get Martha Steward dead to rights.
exactly what i’ve been thinking… amazing. and too bad there isn’t a transcript of that bair/paulson negotiation – i would love to read that one.
Selise,
You might find this interview with Brooksley Born, 1997, interesting
http://tinyurl.com/6hdx4f
Also, via John Aravosis, tne current Newsweek on Stiglitz vs Summers/Geithner.
http://tinyurl.com/5pm5yt
the first link doesn’t work for me :(
would love to read it though because, while i’ve been reading congressional hearing transcripts from the ’90s, i don’t think i’ve read anything from else from born.
from your second link, i had no idea about this:
wow! when i have the time i will see if i can find that 1990 paper and put it on my timeline.
the rest is quite interesting also – although i don’t know it the writer, michael hirsh, is any good. on thing i think one bit is hirsh is over the top:
here’s what stiglitz wrote that caused the uproar (quoting from delong who was pissed off at stiglitz):
if stiglitz is such a jerk, surely something more substantive could be found to complain about? i mean, i have no idea what stiglitz was thinking when he wrote this – but it’s nuts for delong et al to think that us peons (as opposed to his AEA buddies) don’t wonder about this. especially when it happens again and again. anyway, the comments to delong’s post are a hoot – that’s about the time i stopped reading delong’s blog. i thought he was just hopeless.
ack. need sleep or something:
should be:
p.s. i hope you see my reply, as i would very much like to read your first link. also, any other info or reading suggestions you have – i’ve been trying to educate myself about our history of financial deregulation (especially the politics, who the players were, who was right and who was wrong). thanks very much!
selise,
here’s the Brooksley Born link…
http://www.derivativesstrategy…..0597qa.asp
With respect to the Treasury/IMF to Citi revolving door, see the NYT April 27, 2008
[for some reason, I can’t embed the NYT url]
selise — thanks for the link to your timeline. I didn’t realize you had compiled that. I look forward to working my way through it!
Thasyboulos — thanks for the Brooksley Born link, a fascinating read.
Could either one of you give us a bit more backgound on Born? I haven’t run across her name before. Thanks!
thanks! both links work for me now (maybe their server was down earlier?).
re the revolving door. that’s a good one, i may have to put it on my timeline. there are so many (and i’ve only begun to stratch at the surface), here is another one, more well known:
in 1995 rubin becomes sec of the treasury, less than 2 months later he asks congress to repeal glass-steagall. in july 1999 rubin retires from the treasury and in oct 1999 joins citigroup. in nov 1999 glass-steagall is repealed (which permitted citicorp & travelers groups merger to proceed).
how delong et al. could take such offense that this stuff is noticed is beyond me. maybe it’s only us dfh who are permitted to notice – not one of their own.
phred – in case Thrasyboulos doesn’t come back with better links…. wikipedia has a good entry for born. and here’s another interview i just found this morning: Legends in the Law, A Conversation With Brooksley Born
also a warning on the timeline – it’s a work in progress, i have a bunch of links and quotes i haven’t added yet and i still have lots of bills and some hearings to go through. it’s going to take awhile – but with all the conversation now about about obama’s economics team, i thought it might be a resource for others to use (and contribute to). for the brooksley born part of the story, i wrote a short summary (based on info in the timeline) and x-posted it as a diary at oxdown: Which Idiot Decided Not to Regulate Credit Default Swaps?.
last year i’d never heard of CDSs, CDOs, etc or many of the people. just trying to play catch up now.
Thanks selise! I really appreciate all of your effort to not just educate yourself, but the rest of us as well. You are a treasure!
Also, see The Woman Greenspan, Rubin & Summers Silenced
The Nation; 10/09/2008
tinyurl.com/3vtjzy
copy paste url. for some reason, I can’ get tynyurl to link in preview
Saw Sheila Bair being interviewed and she was very classy speaking of Geitner. She seemed pragmatic and empathetic. If she was fighting wall street cronyism, God bless her. And she had a Cassandra capacity to see how wrong-headed our ruling class was… one more time, no good deed goes unpunished? Patriarchal power prevails? Even amidst the mess? I pray she gets the appreciation and power she deserves and we desperately need.