The Ticker

Jim Chanos On AIG, Or Why We Need Shorts

By Kirk Shinkle

Posted: March 24, 2009

Short-seller Jim Chanos warns on CNBC that the immediate response to the collapse and Bear Stearns was a push in Washington to loosen accounting standards, repeating his belief that the push to change mark-to-market rules are simply pleas to "bubble-wrap financial statements."

He writes in the WSJ (sub. req.) today:

We have a sorry history of the banking industry driving statutory and regulatory changes. Now banks want accounting fixes to mask their recklessness. Meanwhile, there has been no acknowledgment of culpability in what top management in these financial institutions did -- despite warnings -- to help bring about the crisis. Theirs is a record of lax risk management, flawed models, reckless lending, and excessively leveraged investment strategies. In the worst instances, they acted with moral indifference, knowing that what they were doing was flawed, but still willing to pocket the fees and accompanying bonuses.

Here's Chanos on CNBC:

 

These guys were the villains back when the bank stocks were sinking. But they're also the canary in the coalmine for spotting trouble early. It's worth remembering when the shorts get pilloried by the likes of the Daily Show.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart M - Th 11p / 10c
The Money Honey Bee
comedycentral.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Important Things w/ Demetri Martin Political Humor
Thank you for informing the American public

In order to stop these things from happening we need more realistic reporting on the regulations of the financial and banking industries. I've worked for several banking institutions. Our money is taken and used for investments but let us have a bounced check and we are penalized up to $40 per check. Are these CEOs and upper management to be held responsible for their bad business behavior? Is Congress responsible who fail to enact the laws for the governing of financial institutions? Just who is responsible? If it were a clerical employee, or a teller make a mistake in balancing their till wouldn't they be held accountable and terminated for incompetence. Why aren't some of upper management held accountable as well? Why do they still have their jobs when the lower echelon are being laid off as a result of bad fiscal management from the top? I'm bewildered.

The writing was on the wall with Enron during the Bush administration. Why wasn't anything done then? It appears to me to be planned and executed.

Jill of MA @ Mar 26, 2009 17:06:47 PM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

The Ticker

The Ticker

Kirk Shinkle is a senior editor at U.S. News. He writes daily about ups and downs in equity markets, sectors and stocks. Formerly, he covered business and economics on both coasts for Investor's Business Daily.

advertisement

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!