I am crushing so hard on Liz Warren right now. She knows there won't be any justice in the HSBC case, so now she's taken to just publicly humiliating bank regulators on the national stage. In this latest installment, she wonders aloud what it takes to even hold a hearing to shut down a bank if the concerted, repeated, unapologetic laundering of $881 million for drug cartels and terrorists isn't enough. The regulator's stammering is hilarious and, even though Warren accomplishes nothing, this is just great TV. Enjoy:
Trending Content - Investment Banking Forum
| +355 | Evercore Intern Seizure | 54 | 7h |
| +67 | JPM M&A is Gone??? Purely Coverage Banking??? | 31 | 6h |
| +58 | Is DCM actually underrated ? | 24 | 17h |
| +50 | How do I understand vs. just memorizing? | 5 | 16h |
| +48 | Losing my personality in Banking | 9 | 17h |
| +47 | Are all Tech / TMT groups sweaty? | 38 | 13h |
| +42 | Associate & Above IB exits | 16 | 3d |
| +32 | Incoming IB Analyst: Best Ways to Prepare? | 10 | 9h |
| +27 | Which groups are ideal for laterals? | 12 | 11h |
| +24 | The good and bad with Wells Fargo | 1 | 17h |
Career Resources
lol thats pretty epic
Great post - with respect I would, however, disagree that 'Warren accomplishes nothing'. Her opinion holds weight - Obama recognized this in 2010 when she was tapped to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. While she may not get HSBC bankers jailed from this particular parlance, I think her tireless attempts against Wall Street will at the least keep bankers more aware their actions are closely monitored and at best begin a snow ball effect of public reaction.
She seems to be doing all one can
This is probably right. Multiple academic studies have shown that corporate insider trading decreases following periods of effective SEC intervention (e.g., the Galleon case), presumably because enforcement is making headlines and people become more risk averse. Warren probably has a smaller but similar effect -- smaller because there is no enforcement happening, similar because at least it's putting people on notice that they may be called out with a little sunshine in dark corners. I'd bet dollars to donuts that every money laundering banker in America is this very second trying to figure out how to further obscure their paper trail.
Speaking of drugs, this whole situation kind of reminds me of the drug wars in Miami in the 1970s where things got completely out of control. It was so bad that most of the police force supposedly trying to enforce the law was also corrupt and on drugs. At one point they had to call in the national guard to clean things up. Unfortunately, I doubt any kind of similar emergency response will happen here because there are no bodies piling up in the streets, and all of the crime is behind closed doors and invisible to most Americans. $881 million of money laundering? Pssh, ain't no thing.
Lol at the idea of Eric Holder being anything more than a totally corrupt scumbag. Forget HSBC, let's start by figuring out why the Justice Dept. sent thousands of assault weapons to drug cartels...Executive Privilege...the country's subjects cannot know...more Washington sociopaths. /rant
Oh now stop. You know Holder is never going to be held accountable.
I strongly dislike this woman, as well as all of those in DC. It's has turned into nothing more than bad reality TV where self-interested bad actors yell at each other, except in this case it actually has serious effects on my mood and life.
Ditto.
We live in a small world in finance where we can easily identify Warren's requests as improbable (or impossible), however most of the American people have no idea what the global repercussions are of terminating a financial institution - lack of liquity, lack of credit, bank employees losing jobs etc.. I personally think she's great and I admire her tenacity, and while our bubble allows us to point and laugh, populist rage might actually bring her comments to fruition and do more harm than good.
In the recent Frontline documentary, they interviewed one of the dudes in the government responsible for enforcing the law for banks and he said that they didn't give a harsher penalty to HSBC because it would have disrupted the financial system. Lizzy would argue that this is one of the big arguments against having SIFIs/TBTF banks.
Seems like she's asking great questions, but to the wrong people. If the institutions being questioned don't have the ability to conduct criminal investigations then the focus should be put on the DOJ rather than trying to get institutions that aren't accountable to "snitch" on the accountable party. All that's going to do is create friction between the institutions that may inhibit them even FURTHER from doing jobs they barely do now.
I wonder what teh precedent is for getting the people in charge at the DOJ on TV like this...
My guess is that if the DOJ was pressed hard, they would say that the laundering happened at smaller branch offices and getting any meaningful crimonial conviction at the executive level would be particularly hard....which raises a whole host of other issues.
Entertainig TV - thanks Eddie.
Couldn't agree more, Patrick.
I'm a registered republican but would probably vote for her for President. Oh and Holder has a many multi million dollar job waiting at hsbc...
Our first American Indian president!
lulz
This is a waste of time. They hit HSBC as hard as they could. That's their opinion on the matter. She should talk to Eric Holder, the one person who could have actually set things into motion. What a bunch of grandstanding bullshit. I have a background in politics and have the bright idea to try to make the leap into investment, so it is important I communicate with you good people, but this crap is what what inspired me to actually create an account...so we have a new pope, and the faux Native American is still tirelessly full of shit.
I actually despise her
She raises a lot of good points, but was clearly trying to say the right thing for soundbites. I would venture to say she probably knows more than she let on about the separation of power between the judicial, legislative, and executive branches.
Why would she expect someone in the Treasury department to comment on what they believe the judicial branch should have done?
Woah woah woah... do you mean to imply that Elizabeth Warren was... sensationalizing??! Surely not!
As I think more about this, it's this type of grandstanding bullshit that turns me off to politics. I would love for an honest debate instead of this passive aggressive manipulative bullshit.
Obumbles being impressed with someone is one of the greatest insults I can imagine. Fitting for the Native American liar Warren.
i ride with some of pocahantas' shit but she's so full of bullshit the rest (70%) of the time
Modi tenetur repellat nulla cumque labore beatae. Maxime sequi quis ut sapiente ipsum molestiae. Rerum commodi debitis atque natus eos ut.
Consectetur ipsum cum asperiores accusantium numquam. Sit qui voluptates mollitia soluta ea velit.
Iure illum est cupiditate numquam id magnam sit. Dolor non explicabo aspernatur consectetur. Aut quos quam eveniet. Accusamus aut est doloremque natus modi consequatur iste.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Provident facilis voluptas et vel. Dolor optio et eum. Aut beatae nulla dicta ut. Voluptas et consectetur omnis quam modi eos et. Laboriosam qui quis corporis repudiandae aspernatur. Ad id omnis voluptas tempore quo facere. Maxime voluptas rerum tempora debitis.
Id itaque nam quo voluptas labore. Nulla occaecati eaque dolor. Minima hic nesciunt porro fugit. Autem autem et et quos. Impedit autem laboriosam iusto repudiandae sit voluptatem sunt.