Skip to main content

Dodd Blows Up Wall Street

There are some people, not all of them bankers, who think that U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd, the head of the banking committee, should be pushing an apple cart on 5th Ave. in New York in the morning and selling pencils out of a tin cup in the evening.

“Sen. Christopher J. Dodd,” read the lede on the front page Hartford Courant story , “sent the already reeling shares of major US banks to nearly two decade lows Friday after he said that short term nationalization of some large banks might become necessary to lift them out of a mire of bad loans.”

The story was accompanied by a graphic showing the result of Dodd’s loose tongue, a perfect “V” the bottom of which tickled the bottom of the stock market floor one day after Dodd told Bloomberg News, “I don't welcome that [nationalization of the banks] at all, but I could see how it's possible it may happen. I think that's unfortunate, but it may come to that.”

Bloomberg did what Bloomberg does: It posted Dodd’s “concerns” electronically which, according to the Courant story, “immediately pushed down the shares of Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and other megabanks. Shares of Citigroup, parent of Citibank, hit a low of $1.61 within an hour of Bloomberg's report. It last closed below that level in November 1990.”

Someone at the Courant, apparently watching the nosedive, contacted the sweet tongued Dodd, who professed "surprise" that a mere word from the chairman of the U.S. banking committee could be so fatal to financial stocks. But some words that can kill do kill.

Those of us who live most of our lives in Connecticut -- rather than in the Alice in Wonderland beltway where Dodd spends most of his time, when he is not running for president -- know very well that words can kill, because we remember well when his comrade in the senate, the esteemed Harry Read, whispered that he had been in a private tete a tete with some unnamed insurance executive and heard from him that a major, major insurance company was on the ropes. This intelligence, part of the Democrat’s politics of fear, was designed to spook the Congress into backing an earlier much less expensive version of the current multi-trillion dollar rescue effort of the US economy.

Reid’s loose lips very nearly sank some Connecticut insurance companies.

Following Dodd’s killer words, the White House – under the advisement of former President Bill Clinton to talk up the economy now that the Democrats, deploying the politics of fear, got their multi-trillion rescue package passed through a politically divided and spooked congress – issued a quick statement averring that the administration remains committed to using public money to bail out but not take over banks.

Press secretary Robert Gibbs was trotted out to announce to a quickly assembled press conference, “The president believes that a privately held banking system regulated by the government is the correct way to go.”

The administration is not yet prepared, apparently, to paint the White House red.

Dodd's destructive chatter about nationalization, The American Bankers Association said following the senator's statement, was "impairing the financial sector and making the credit situation worse. Investors will remain on the sidelines if there is continued speculation that the government may step in and undercut their investment.”

The Dodd torpedo was launched only a short time after the senator attempted to declaw his critics by releasing partial information on his sweet-heart mortgage deal with the now defunct Countrywide, a lender that gave Dodd a deal he couldn’t refuse on his properties in East Haddam, CT and Washington DC.

In a follow-up news conference, Dodd noted that he had "hardly been friendly" to financial institution that had over the years contributed generously to his political campaigns. When he put the nationalization pistol to the head of Wall Street, the senator may have been over-compensating.

And Dodd has much to compensate for. The senator’s powerful banking committee created and now oversees the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a $700 billion dollar bailout of financial institutions impacted by the sub-mortgage meltdown. Dodd has said he personally turned what had been a four page draft into the 80-plus page TARP rescue plan.

According to Americans for Limited Government, the TARP plan, if fully implemented, “would cost $2.75 trillion: $1 trillion for the ‘public-private investment fund’; $1.1 trillion—$100 billion allocated and $1 trillion lent-printed from the Fed—for consumer and business lending; $600 billion for purchasing bad paper from Fannie and Freddie; and another $50 billion to give homes away to those facing foreclosure.”

A good portion of the $9 million dollars Dodd raised for his failed presidential run and successful Senate re-election campaign ($4,180,690) came from people involved in the Securities and Investment Banking ($1,278,241 ) and Real Estate and commercial banking ($900,000) sectors. From 2003 to 2008, Dodd also hauled in $316, 994 from Citigroup Inc. and $223,478 from A.I.G. He was close to the top of his class in receipts of campaign cash from commercial banks, which contributed $570,294 to his campaign.

Some may regard Dodd’s inadvisable talk about partial bank nationalization as evidence that the Dodd inspired TARP rescue plan is foundering.

Bankers certainly do.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Why is Dodd not in jail?
Anonymous said…
With $55,600, Albert Howard is the first person in U.S. history to receive a statewide New Hampshire Primary Recount.

Albert Howard is the creator of Operation "King of Islam" which seeks to ban the Quran and all mosques in North America, Europe and Canada.

"ABC World News" confirms our website prophecy shut down the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign.

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p