Kevins... please provide a link to this....she did go before Barney Frank to refute the provisions in the bill which would have allowed Treasury Department a seat alongside the FDIC in a bank closing to see if Treasury could give funds to forestall a seizure... Sheila was against that because she thought that that would incur moral hazard, and just let the bond holders survive intact without taking a hit... as it is now the bondholders get 100 % of the money back, while shareholders, and creditors, and the public takes the hit... she was advising that the bondholders share in the losses in a bank when it was seized... the FDIC would have played a secondary role in any bank seize, and she did not like that...The banking reform law followed her suggestion to not let Treasury intervene in an y bank closure, and it was stripped from the bill... so now, the FDIC is as it was, they have absolute power in any bank seizure...the problem with EAMU is that if they had a living will, as she suggested. the whole nightmare could have been avoided with WAMU, because they could have gotten more for those holding assets than Jamie did... The FDIC relied on Jamie to value those assets at fair value, but JPM wrote them down to negative good will... this how Jamie stripped the assets from WMI holdings.... Lodas
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
