HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Video & Multimedia (Forum) » Elizabeth Warren's First ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:04 PM

Elizabeth Warren's First Senate Banking Committee Hearing

&feature=player_embedded

22 replies, 2489 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Elizabeth Warren's First Senate Banking Committee Hearing (Original post)
midnight Feb 2013 OP
gateley Feb 2013 #1
mrmpa Feb 2013 #9
gateley Feb 2013 #10
mrmpa Feb 2013 #13
MarianJack Feb 2013 #2
ReRe Feb 2013 #3
Tx4obama Feb 2013 #4
midnight Feb 2013 #8
Kennah Feb 2013 #14
DeSwiss Feb 2013 #5
midnight Feb 2013 #6
another_liberal Feb 2013 #7
JasonGWB Feb 2013 #11
Volaris Feb 2013 #12
meeshrox Feb 2013 #16
Kennah Feb 2013 #15
drynberg Feb 2013 #17
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #18
iamelisabethparker Feb 2013 #19
Trillo Feb 2013 #21
limpyhobbler Feb 2013 #20
stlsaxman Feb 2013 #22

Response to midnight (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:17 PM

1. Most Junior Senators don't make much of a splash, but I'm expecting

a BIG one from Elizabeth! Thank you, Massachusetts!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gateley (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:00 AM

9. With John Kerry's resignation from the Senate.............

Senator Warren is now the Senior Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:46 AM

10. You're right! D'oh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gateley (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:25 AM

13. It happened so fast...............

It's just great to have her in the Senate. Massachusetts is where I was born. Now I'm in Pennsylvania and dealing with Senator Pat Toomey, my repug Represenative Tim Murphy and our disaster of a governor Tom Corbett. I wish I was in Massachusetts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:17 PM

2. Thank you, Senator Warren!

I believe that Ted Kennedy is looking down from Heaven with a huge smile to see you in his old seat in place of mr. teabagger brown!

PEACE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:35 PM

3. Bbwwwaaaaaaaahhh

.... She did not blink an eye or stutter once. But boy that first guy was chewing his tongue and couldn't hardly get a word out. On. The. Hot. Seat. That was thoroughly gratifying. I thought Joe was getting ready to touch her arm once. Thanks, midnight!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:36 PM

4. Related ARTICLE on the link below


Elizabeth Warren Embarrasses Hapless Bank Regulators At First Hearing
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/elizabeth-warren-bank-regulators_n_2688998.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:15 PM

8. Did not realize we had so many asleep agencies....

Warren questioned top regulators from the alphabet soup that is the nation's financial regulatory structure: the FDIC, SEC, OCC, CFPB, CFTC, Fed and Treasury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:00 AM

14. Not to sound like I'm defending the lazy regulators ...

... but I suspect there are decades of conditioning that will need to be overcome.

As for Elizabeth Warren, I absolutely LOVE this woman! She rocks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:44 PM

5. Meanwhile, back at the ranch.....

Big Banks Are Told to Review Their Own Foreclosures

NYT - DealB%k
By JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG and BEN PROTESS
February 12, 2013

Washington is seeking help from an unlikely group in its effort to distribute billions of dollars to struggling homeowners in foreclosure: the same banks accused of abusing homeowners with shoddy foreclosure practices.

MORE


- Because if you can't trust a banker, who can you trust?

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:13 PM

6. Very discouraging article, but I really like some of the comments from the readers...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:13 PM

7. "Too big for trial . . ."

The Senator says, "I'm just concerned that too big to fail has become too big for trial."

"Too big for trial," that's a powerful tagline to hit the Goldman Sachs crowd with. It's a brilliant turn of phrase, though shamefully sad she even had to say it in this context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:47 AM

11. My state has a tendency to back the incumbent...

that would make a southern state blush so at some point in the future we will all need to get used to hearing Chair of the Banking Committee Elizabeth Warren.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:48 AM

12. The dammned fools should have just let her run the CFPB...

she should hang a plaque on her Senate Office door that says:

"Strike me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."

Oh well, they did it to themselves this time, and I have NO sympathy for them.

GO LIZ!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Volaris (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:47 AM

16. Yes, indeed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:07 AM

15. Imagine the bullshit the RW will say when she runs for President. It's going to be glorious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:53 AM

17. LOVED SEN. WARREN'S CUT TO THE CHASE

She just kept re-focusing on the question: When was the last time you brought a bank to trial? Keep it up Ms. Warren!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:57 AM

18. I just orgasmed watching that.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:59 PM

19. Loved it! FWIW, here's my transcript if you want it.

I LOVED the way Warren ripped these people to shreds. Wall Street will NOT be pleased. Also, I wrote an article about this http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/15/warren-senate-banking-committee-hearing/ & also transcribed the whole thing. Here's the transcript for anyone who wants it. I don't transcribe things that often, but this was SO worth it!
-- Cheers! Elisabeth

TRANSCRIPTION OF ELIZABETH WARREN'S FIRST SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE HEARING, FEBRUARY 14th, 2013

WARREN: I appreciate your all being here.

I want to ask a question about supervising big banks when they break the law. Including the mortgage foreclosures, but others as well. We all understand why settlements are important, that trials are expensive, that we can’t dedicate huge resources to them. But we also understand that if a party is unwilling to go to trial — either because they’re too timid or they lack resources — that the consequence is that they have a lot less leverage in all the settlements that occur.

Now, I know there have been some landmark settlements, but we face some very special issues with big financial institutions. If they can break the law, and drag in billions in profits, and then turn around and settle paying out of those profits, they don’t have much incentive to follow the law. It’s also the case that each time there’s a settlement, and not a trial, it means that we didn’t have those days and days of testimony about what these financial institutions have been up to.

So, the question I really want to ask is about how tough you are and how much leverage you really have in these settlements. And what I’d like to know is … tell me a little bit about the last few times you’ve taken the biggest financial institutions on Wall Street all the way to a trial.



WARREN: … Anybody?

TOM CURRY: Um …

WARREN: Tom Curry?

CURRY: … to offer … um … my perspective …

WARREN: Sure.

CURRY: As bank supervisor … uh … we primarily view the tools that we have as … uh … mechanisms for correcting deficiencies? So, uh, the primary motive for our forceful actions is really to identify the problem, and then to demand solutions on an ongoing basis.

WARREN: And then you set a price for that — sorry to interrupt, but I just want to move this along — it’s effectively a settlement. What I’m asking is when did you last take — and I know you haven’t been there forever, so I’m really asking about the SEC — a large financial institution, a Wall Street bank, to trial?

CURRY: Uh … the institutions I supervise — national banks and federal thrifts — we’ve actually had a fair number of … uh … consent orders … uh … we do not have to bring people to … uh … aaaaa … trial …

WARREN: I appreciate that you don’t have to bring them to trial. My question is, when did you bring them to trial.

CURRY: We have not had to do it as a practical matter to meet our supervisory goals.

WARREN: Ms. Walter?

WALTER: Thank you Senator. As you know, among our remedies are penalties, but the penalties we can get are limited. We actually have asked for additional authority — my predecessor did — to raise penalties. And we truly believe that we had a very vigorous enforcement program. We’d look at theat distinction between what we can get if we go to trial and what we’d get if we don’t.

WARREN: I appreciate that, that’s what everybody does. So, the question I’m really asking is, can you identify when you last took the Wall Street banks to trial?

WALTER: I will have to get back to you with the specific information, but we do litigate. And we do have settlements that are — that are — either rejected by the Commission, or not put forward.

WARREN: Okay, we’ve got multiple people here. Anyone else want to tell me about the last time they took a Wall Street bank to trial? I just want a note on this: There are district attorneys and U.S. attorneys out there every day squeezing ordinary citizens — sometimes on very thin grounds — and taking them to trial in order to make an example, as they put it. I’m really concerned that ‘too big to fail’ has become ‘too big for trial.’ It just seems wrong to me.



WARREN: If I can, I’ll go quickly. Chairman Johnson, I have one more question I’d like to ask, and that’s a question about why the large banks are trading at below book value. We all understand that book value knows just what the assets are listed for, what the liabilities are, and that most big corporations trade well above book value. But many of the Wall Street banks right now are trading below book value, and I can only think of two reasons why that would be so. One would be because nobody believes that the banks’ books are honest. Or the second would be that nobody believes that the banks are really manageable. That is, they are too complex either for their own institutions to manage them, or for their regulators to manage them.

And so, the question I have is, what reassurance can you give that these large Wall Street banks that are trading for below book value, in fact, are adequately transparent and adequately managed? Governor Tarullo?

TARULLO: So there’s certainly another reason I might add to your list, Senator Warren, which is … uh … investors’ skepticism as to whether a firm is gonna make a return on equity. That is, an excess of what the investor regards as the value of the individual parts. And so I think what you would hear analysts say is that in the wake of the crisis, there have been … uh … issues on just that point. Um … surrounding first, what the regulatory environments are going to be … uh … how much capital’s gonna be required, what activities are gonna be restricted, and … Two, for some time they’re’ve been questions about … uh .. the franchise value of some of these institutions and … the crisis showed that some of the so-called synergies were not very synergistic at all, in fact there really wasn’t … uh … the potential, at least on a sustainable basis, to make a lot of money.

And part of it is probably just the environment of economic uncertainty. I think that in some cases we’ve seen some … uh … effort to get rid of large amounts of assets at some of the large institutions. It is indirectly in response to just that point. I think it concluded that they are not in a position to have a viable, manageable, profitable franchise if they’ve got all of the entities that they had before, so a couple of them — as I say — have actually reduced, or are in the process of reducing, their balance sheets.

The other thing I would note is you’re absolutely right about the difference there. The difference is actually that the economy has been improving and that some of the … um … uh … firms have built up their capital. You’ve seen that difference actually narrowing in a number of cases as they seem to have a better position in the view of the market from which to proceed in a more feasible fashion.

WARREN: I appreciate this, and apologize for going over. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iamelisabethparker (Reply #19)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:20 AM

21. Thank you for posting a transcript.

Many of us do not care to watch videos, and do not watch TV, because we prefer to read, and can process the written word differently than the spoken word.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:12 PM

20. brilliant! thanks for posting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:38 AM

22. I would most sincerly hope that Senator Warren will talk to "her people" about holding applause

during her appearance at hearings.

She's too good. She is desperately needed there.

I fear that the old boys club will reprimand her for the lack of decorum shown here and keep her from other important hearings and/or committees.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS POST IN NO WAY DEMEANS SENATOR WARREN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread