Its not a matter of whether it has happened before its a matter of whether the fed has the AUTHORITY to do so, they clearly do. Otherwise you are arguing regulators cant act on new scenarios ever, then happens when a regulatory body is in its day 1, they are not supposed to do anything
You don't know what you're talking about. Save the comment about bound genitals, evidently. :eek: :eek:
I disagree that they clearly have the authority. To me, and many others, that is clearly a gray area here; you are basically arguing that the Fed has carte blanche authority. That can't be the case, for it would mean an actual nationalization. Even with a take over of a insolvent bank, the Fed and FDIC has rules in place for what capital levels have to be etcetera. And my understanding is that since the banks were forced/coerced to accept capital -- some did not ask or want it -- and the emergency agreement, that document is worthless -- trust me this will go to the Supreme Court; you cant put a gun to somebody's head and say sign this or we take your bank, for no actual reason (and BOA was solvent at the time) -- and then force you to take over this or that insolvent bank and we can make you because you signed this emergency document -- any more than they can take your house that way. It was a total overreach at a minimum. Abuse of power in my opinion. This was Putinesque, to be honest.
Ditto. And even if they cite the emergency powers (by fiat), it was a total coercion on BOA. Paulson told them sign or we'll fuck you and raise your capital level requirements. BEst argument you have for supporting the Fed's action is force majeuer. Catastrophic acts were forcing the FEd to do this. But I still don't see the systemic risk with ML any more than with Bear or Lehman. JPM was not FORCED to take Bear. They worked out a deal and went through with it. I do with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae with foreign governments holding quasi-Treasuries.
The ones I truly feel sorry for are BOA small shareholders, people with IRAs, 401ks, company stock. The government literally forced them to take huge losses so ML shareholders wouldn't be totally wiped out or get a worse price from another buyer. Bizarre. Absolutely fucking bizarre.
ala David Carradine...the hong kong fuey testicle hold.. "On June 4, 2009, Carradine was found dead in his room at the Swissôtel Nai Lert Park Hotel on Wireless Road, near Sukhumvit, in central Bangkok, Thailand.[4][5] A police official said Carradine was found hanging by a rope in the room's closet,[17][18] and the Bangkok Post reported that his body was found curled up in the wardrobe with a shoelace tied around his genitals and neck.[19] The same officer said: "Under these circumstances we cannot be sure that he committed suicide but he may have died from masturbation."[
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/enforcement/20090323b.htm Tell that to G. Craig Chupik a former vice president, loan officer of PlainsCapital Bank who agreed to be banned from banking and pay fees after doing unsound banking practices. You can see on the fed page that tons of people 'agree' and consent to fed demands, I'm told that is because the fed can initiate criminal prosecutions against those people and courts usually rely on the REGULATOR to determine who is right. So if this goes to the Supreme Court(which is doubtful), they will look at the fed authority(in this case they did not even use anything, there was no guns involved, simply an agreement through pressure) and will have to rely on the fed judgement, that is because they dont know how to analyze banking and whats correct or not I dont expect to convience you though, your just one more fed basher who will go into a grave swearing that without a fed world peace would prevail