 |
Comments |
|
 | Monday, November 10, 2008 at 12:26:12 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Ryan
"Assets have increased from $4.8 billion, when Allison began his tenure as CEO, to $137 billion today."
I wonder if he's one of those "overpayed" CEOs. |
|
| Monday, November 10, 2008 at 13:20:28 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Ryan C
URL: http://ryantheegoist.blogspot.com/
I hope Mr. Allison explains his recent statement in support of the de-facto takeover of the banks by the federal government. Perhaps he is legally obligated to shut up about it, but I don't know how he can give an effective talk without mentioning it. I have respect for this man, and I hope he continues to be an ally of the truly right side in this situation but he is on very rocky ground. |
|
| Monday, November 10, 2008 at 13:40:25 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Jeff Montgomery
E-mail: jamontgom(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com/
No kidding, I wish it were closer. No doubt his recent statement will come up in some fashion. |
|
| Monday, November 10, 2008 at 13:43:12 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Ryan and everyone else --
(1) If you're going to raise the issue, then you'd better provide provide some context for people unfamiliar with it. (So, Ryan, that's an invitation to post the URL to the BB&T press release.)
(2) More generally, I really don't think the issue should be discussed publicly at this point. We have too little information to judge properly, and we know that the whole banking industry is being held at the point of a gun. Perhaps some discussion would be warranted after the lecture, i.e. after Mr. Allison has a chance to say more. Yet even that supposes that he's able to speak freely about the matter, meaning without suffering retaliation from regulators for frank comments. Still, I hope that he does get asked tough (but friendly) questions.
In any case, I am absolutely not willing to permit any kind of bashing of Mr. Allison in these comments, as I've seen elsewhere. I've only ever spoken to the man for about 90 seconds, but I'm deeply grateful for all that he's done to spread Objectivism over the past decade. So I'm going to moderate these comments far more heavily than I would otherwise.
In particular, I absolutely will not allow any *anonymous* criticism of Mr. Allison on this thread. Objectivists -- of all people -- should be prepared to *BE JUDGED* for their moral judgments. If you're not willing to stake your reputation on what you have to say, then to publish your opinions for all the world to see is cowardly and irresponsible. You won't be doing that on my property. (Standard handles that you use elsewhere, that your acquaintances and I know are yours, are fine; that's not the same as being anonymous.)
But really, I'd very much prefer this topic to simply die for the moment, and I might close it down at any moment if I see it going badly. |
|
| Monday, November 10, 2008 at 13:59:06 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Ryan C
URL: http://ryantheegoist.blogspot.com/
I thought I included the press release at the bottom. My apologies.
http://bbt.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=717
My intention was not to bash Allison in anyway. I'd never so quickly throw someone under the bus that has the character and principles of Mr. Allison. He's been one of the best advocates of reason and capitalism in our culture and I trust that his comments must be put into the context of what is going on around him. I just think that it warrants, at some point, a follow up. John Allison is a respectable man, and has earned the trust of many, including myself. |
|
| Monday, November 10, 2008 at 14:05:06 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Ryan -- I definitely didn't think you were bashing Allison, and my apologies if my comment read that way. I've just seen too many other people engage in that kind of hasty judgment of him, so I wanted to stop the discussion before it went in that direction. Like you, I hope that he says more in this lecture. |
|
| Monday, November 10, 2008 at 16:09:50 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: John Harris
E-mail: John.Harris00 at gmail.com
Well if I lived close enough, I'd go; so I'll ask if anyone knows if transcripts are made of these events. Anyone know?
John |
|
| Monday, November 10, 2008 at 16:45:35 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Doug
URL: http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com
Diana, your comment (ID #4) is well said. Thank you for that. |
|
| Friday, November 14, 2008 at 18:44:09 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Jason Head
That any Objectivist could read these values http://bbt.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=18&item=122, of a publicly traded company with a board of directors, and jump to harsh conclusions about the character of the man who instituted those values is mind-boggling to me. |
|
| Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 7:44:35 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Antigone
E-mail: antigone(at)gmail.com
This is a bit late but, I hope, helpful.
Here is how many of the financial institutions, including BB&T, were "encouraged" to participate in the "bailout." ("BR" is bank regulator, e.g., from FDIC or SEC; "BP" is bank president -- not of a private bank, but of a publicly traded one.)
BR: We would like you to accept this money and its conditions.
BP: But we're solvent and don't believe in such government programs.
BR: Yes, but the Treasury secretary, Federal Reserve, FDIC, and SEC are 'encouraging' banks such as yours to accept the money.
BP: All well and good, but we'll respectfully decline.
BR: If you don't accept the money, the FDIC auditors will be there tomorrow to audit you.
BP: But they just audited us last week.
BR: In these risky times, the government must reassure the public. [Government auditors can show up anytime and demand access to a bank's books. As an aside: this is clearly a warrantless search.]
BP: Well, that will be a hassle and waste of time, but so be it.
BR: This time they will find that your bank is undercapitalized, will have to report such to the proper government authorities -- all of which will undoubtedly be leaked to the markets and to the public.
BP: But how do you know that the government auditors will find problems? Just last week, they concluded that we were capitalized as required by the regulations. In fact, we're one of the most solvent financial institutions in the entire country. Depositors have been flocking to us from failed banks such as Wachovia.
BR: Things change. Auditors make mistakes. This time, they'll find problems.
BP: But if you do that, especially in this frenzied market, the rating agencies will drop us immediately to junk status, shareholders will sell at firesale prices, and there will be a run on the bank. Our shareholders will be wiped out, our employees will be unemployed, the people who could have gotten loans from us won't, and the company will be bankrupt.
BR: Maybe now you are sufficiently "encouraged" to accept our terms.
That is not fiction. That is what happened to BB&T and to many other financial firms. The CEO's of those companies saw what the federal government did to perfectly healthy companies such as Arthur Anderson -- and they did not want to suffer the same fate.
When the government coerces a man to choose between his values and his moral principles, you cannot judge his choice. "Morality ends where the point of a gun begins." |
|
| Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 8:11:25 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tonydonadio(at)optonline.net
Antigone: while I don't for a moment doubt the likelihood of your characterization, can you point to anyone who has stated this publicly? Did John Allison, in his lecture, say that this is in fact what happened? If so, I would like to read and publicize these statements. |
|
| Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 9:57:57 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Antigone
E-mail: antigone(at)gmail.com
Tony: One may obtain for free a video recording of Allison's talk by contacting: Genesis Reiswig, Assistant Vice President, BB&T, 200 West Second Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27101; Phone (336) 733-2391
There are public statements supporting my characterization. (You'll need to do the research yourself.) Please do not interpret the above as quoting Mr. Allison or as the basis for this characterization. After viewing the lecture, draw your own conclusions. For obvious reasons, I cannot reveal the sources. Suffice it to say that I witnessed this first hand and received reports from those at whom the guns were pointed -- both in the financial and other industries. |
|
| Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 10:17:08 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tonydonadio(at)optonline.net
Antigone: Thanks for the information. I'll certainly request a video copy of the lecture.
Unfortunately, though, the "obvious reasons" you cite assume the claim at issue: that the bank presidents were threatened. As I said, I would be very surprised if intimidation of the kind that you describe had not in fact been used; as you put it, I've already used my judgement on the matter. But there's a difference between that and having solid evidence to substantiate such a belief -- such as the public statements of witnesses who are willing to go on the record. That was why I asked if anyone has in fact done so. |
|
| Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 10:50:41 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Antigone
E-mail: antigone(at)gmail.com
Tony: Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing. The "obvious reasons" are that the victims are afraid of government retaliation if they speak publicly. In addition, since they all have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, are responsible for (in some cases) tens of thousands of employees, and must answer to a board of directors, they are (in most cases) contractually barred from speaking publicly about the government intimidation. (On second thought, perhaps that's not so "obvious.") |
|
| Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 15:23:51 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Ted Coxhead
E-mail: tedcoxhead(at)yahoo.co.uk
Antigone constructs a dialogue between a Bank President and a Bank Regulator. It may be that this dialogue took place between men like John Allison and regulators. We do not know. We do however know that Mr Allison has been a true and valued friend to Objectivism and so I for one would not want to pre-empt any judgement concerning him and the bail-out.
Antigone also writes: When the government coerces a man to choose between his values and his moral principles, you cannot judge his choice. This is true, but it is noteworthy that some bankers did not fully play the government's game. I have shares in Barclays Bank plc, the huge UK bank, and have been very impressed that their CEO, John Varley, did not take Her Majesty's shilling.
The "Daily Telegraph" Business section today reports that "Barclays was told by the Financial Services Authority over the week-end of October 11 to raise capital." Barclays took the decision to raise capital in the market, "so that it could be free to pursue its strategy of expansion abroad, Mr Varley argued.
To date Barclays has succesfully raised £7 billion pounds sterling from Middle Eastern investors and has not therefore been partially nationalized by the British government. I think that Barclays will reap huge rewards for this decision in the future.
I am not saying that this was an option for Mr Allison, I do not know, and I would absolutely give him the benefit of any doubt, (also he knows a shed load more than I do!). I am saying that in regard to Antigone's constructed dialogue, that there was at least one institution - and a massive one at that - which did not follow the script. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
