Joshua Rosner, co-author of a book detailing Fannie Mae’s role in the housing crisis, said he sees parallels between the failed mortgage-finance giant and the strategies JPMorgan Chase & Co. uses to win government and investor confidence.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission opened an “informal inquiry” into Washington, D.C.’s finances after the city’s finance chief faced scrutiny for failing to disclose internal audits of his agency.
It isn’t every day that a reporter gets to sit in on a high-stakes policy meeting in New York’s financial district, but that’s exactly what I did on a balmy evening in late February at 60 Wall Street, the U.S. headquarters of Deutsche Bank AG.
When Congress overhauled the financial regulation system last year, it handed the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission the tough task of policing the bulk of the derivatives business. Then lawmakers refused to give the tiny agency extra money to hire staff or upgrade its computer systems.
Of all the new rules for Wall Street being considered by Congress, few have the potential impact of a derivatives plan that emerged from nowhere and, to the surprise of its authors, has so far survived the debate.
Nine of the biggest banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America Corp., are set to deliver plans this week for how their businesses could be unwound after a collapse as part of a U.S. government effort to show no financial firm is too big to fail.
Respectable opinion takes it for granted that you can’t have too much politics. The model citizen of a healthy democratic nation is above all “engaged” -- informed, with strongly held views that he or she advances at every opportunity. Less politics means a passive, apathetic electorate. More politics must be good.