COLLARS POP, PANTIES DROP. AIIIIIIGHT!

 Reply

[www.reuters.com]

@ae38: You may be right. My info was definitely from pre-financial meltdown times (2005-2006). At that time GS paid out more $ in bonuses than any other firm. However, those bonuses could have been lower on a percentage basis. I may not have been clear, but I wasn't trying to be deceptive. I couldn't find an exact source on this, but this article kind of points to what I was referring:

[www.nytimes.com]

 Reply

The banks and govt officials [ex-bankers] can just say that secrecy is good for the banks and the economy but you want Pareene to substantiate why he thinks secrecy is bad? Give me an Fing break.

This is the same argument you used to validate private planes and ridiculously expensive offices, wardrobes, dinners, etc: Bankers know better and should be able to do whatever they want. Secrecy allows them to make pretend things are better when they really aren't and the people lending the money to them don't need to know where it goes because that might make them less confident in the system.

RIDICULOUS. People SHOULD be less confident in the system, it is flawed. Banks should NOT be representing that they are fine when they aren't... that is part of what got us into this mess.

I know you're biased because you work in the industry but give me a break... banks have new clients and it is the US taxpayers. limiting secrecy comes with the territory. you lose that right when you need a bailout.

If the banks refuse money from TARP because they are afraid of info going public then they CLEARLY have something to hide... and we shouldn't lend them money in the first place.

 Reply

Yeah I mean you not commenting is probably a pretty good idea.

Like, look, let me say it again: banks have customers. If banks say "this money went to X!" they're creating newspaper targets out of every single entity that borrows money from them. If banks have to disclose everybody they lend to, it makes it functionally impossible for them to operate while still holding government money on the balance sheet.

The risk is that then you have a customer flight to borrow from what are perceived to be "quality" banks who will immediate pay off the TARP money. That bilks the taxpayers out of everything they gave to what are perceived to be "bad" banks. The whole point or TARP is to prevent systemic pressure from fear-driven bank defaults! To accomplish the goals of the bailout, secrecy is a requirement.

I mean, fuck, this is an old debate even. Look at Obama's administration and the way they handled it. Don't take it from me, take it from hopey and the gang if you need to.

 Reply

There's a very cool gray tabby in my neighborhood named Mr. Clean, so I would agree.

 Reply

[gawker.com]

[gawker.com]

[gawker.com]

look how fucking wonderful i think he is because as everyone knows I NEVER WRITE ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT DEMOCRATS EVER

 Reply