The Advantage Of Inaction

Author:
Publish date:
Updated on

Unsurprisingly, The Beard wants nothing to do with lending to big auto. Who does? (No one we hope). Still, its surprising to see someone with some backbone out there. To wit:

While the Fed has used emergency-lending authority over the past year to aid financial firms, short-term debt markets and mutual funds, those decisions were aimed at financial stability and the broader economy, Bernanke said. By contrast, Congress is "best suited" to determine whether to assist a specific U.S. industry, he said.
"Even if the companies have sufficient collateral, lending to an auto manufacturing company would represent a marked departure from that policy, and would take us into distinctly new realms of policymaking," Bernanke said. "In particular, it would raise the question as to whether the Federal Reserve should be involved in industrial policy, which has traditionally been outside the range of our responsibilities."

Finally, Herr Professor begins to sound suited to the task (by doing nothing and making noise about it).
Fed Opposes Auto Aid Without Congressional Action [Bloomberg]

Related

The Art Of The Farewell

Not everyone gets to write a New York Times Op-Ed when they quit their job, however disaffected. It’s also easier to quit a job after twelve years of cashing investment banking paychecks. No matter how “morally bankrupt” Goldman Sachs is, Greg Smith isn’t giving his bonuses back. Unlike Smith, who quit his job on his own terms and got to publish most of his resume in the Times, most of corporate America isn’t as lucky – and almost everyone in corporate America really wants to quit their job. So what are you supposed to do if you can’t get any above-the-fold space in a major newspaper? You have to burn bridges the old fashioned way – by writing a farewell email.

Banks May Have Trouble Taking Full Advantage Of JOBS Act's New Opportunities For Deceiving Clients

My time in the financial industry entirely postdated the global research settlement, which means that I have a different view of sell-side research from some of the olds. As far as I can make out, there are people who think that investment bank research was once a demonic scheme in which research analysts - larger-than-life figures whose recommendations were irresistible to the retail investors who in this vision bought all of every pre-2003 stock offering - swindled those besotted retail investors into buying crap stocks at inflated prices so that the banks could get gigantic investment banking fees. Whereas I always thought that investment bank research was a sort of cute endeavor of unclear commercial purpose, taken skeptically by the institutional investors who buy most of every post-2003 offering, made fun of by bankers, and conducted by people whom we never saw because, among other things, our network was set up to prevent them from emailing us and vice versa. Perhaps before the settlement giants roamed the halls of research divisions, defrauding investors with abandon, but once their email was cut off from the bankers' email they retreated into mousy irrelevance? Unclear. In any case THEY'RE BACK BABY, sort of: