13 Burst results for "Don Frank"
Bloomberg Radio New York
"don frank" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Well and it's important to keep in mind Michael Barr already had a review underway looking at these requirements as part of the Basel 3N game which is basically globally looking at bank regulation post financial crisis essentially and then banks started failing so that's a great excuse to make those capital requirements even more strict evidently and I would say while he said that you know overall this is going to apply to the largest banks he said enhance capital rules should apply to banks with more than a hundred billion dollars in assets which is kind of that level that Silicon alley Valley bank and first republic and signature those are the size banks that we're talking about and what he would like to see change here well so we've got a few smart minds to help us walk through this and give you a sense of what might also follow katana here johnson is with us bloomberg's banking regulation reporter in washington and at world headquarters in new york herman chan bloomberg intelligence regional bank senior analyst great to have you both here katana i'll start with uh... this is interesting is it is this that the strongest response that we'll see from the fed i know that there are other other things that are that are being looked at but this seems to be the big one by far this is the song strongest response that we've from seen the fed following the fallout of those banks that failed earlier this year in large part of course we were expecting these capital reforms as a result of the basil endgame but as you mentioned this is uh... and not just an excuse but a good opportunity for the for the agency to really consider how strong can we make this regime how can we adopted in a way that's appropriate for the banks here in the u and how could it address certain issues that has come to light since since that uh... reforms those were were considered least ten years ago and of course capital requirements are just one part of that the fed's response doesn't necessarily and with this proposal today right that's right capital reforms are just one slice of the much larger pie we expect the fed to address issues other issues around capital particularly around those banks that are in the mid category -size a hundred billion dollars or more but also we expect them to address issues of liquidity in another iteration of of of a proposal that could come later this year we expect them to even address issues around banks culture and their attitudes by considering behavioral scientists something that bar said in public last month uh all told the fed really wants to make clear that they're responding well to this crisis in like tangible ways that affect all banks of all sizes by standardizing their approach around liquidity pardon me around capital but also by addressing things like liquidity and other issues as well herman chan uh would this prevents another s .v .b. the the changes michael that bar addressed earlier today what inherently would not uh address but the the critical factors that that caused the the failure of s .v .b. principally the failure was related to liquidity and and michael bar vice chair michael bar did mention in his speech that they they are looking to pursue further changes to regulation including how to regulate liquidity and that in effect would be the biggest uh factor that we think would shore up some of the the confidence issues that have faced the regional banks over the past few months what would the financial impact of this be though herman in theory you know you have higher regulatory compliance costs you have higher capital requirements doesn't all of that translate into not not so good profits are not as good yes that's right uh... i i think the upshot of all these changes regulation to on capital liquidity etc really is going to suppress financial returns for for the industry it's probably for the regional bank so you can think of the as lobbying uh... several potentially hundred basis points of return on equity for for the regional banks that are in that hundred of above a hundred billion dollars threshold that that are in focus today are we assuming that aside from the clawback legislation that targets executives of failed banks that there will be no legislation that moves the needle despite by all of the hearings in the hand -wringing on capitol hill it's not good if you ask the fed question that i feel that they would expect that not just the changes regulation but overall the ways in which their examiners would be being more scrupulous when addressing these issues as well as how they expect banks to sort of disclose certain risks maybe boost disclosures in a way that we have not yet seen that that also that might help to to bring about some reforms we were talking about i'm going back around on don frank that the f -d -i -c uh... insurance threshold needed to change none of that is going to be happening i wouldn't rule out the insurance threshold bit changing it's not that they're going to get blanket insurance to all companies but the all firms rather but the f -d -i -c separately is considering a proposal around two things one recouping the losses to the fund but then also finding a way to which is common but finding a way to sort of charge more to the biggest banks uh... to help with assessment fees overall that into the fund i think we'll have to wait and see i think it's a bit too early to say that just because this is the strongest we've seen so far that that may be you can put my skepticism on ice anytime you i need someone to do this well and it's important as it talking gets on the about the fd i see the fd i see and i believe the occ still has to sign off on michael bars plan rights are by no is means this immediately set in stone just because he's proposed it right that's exactly right yeah from what we understand uh... the agencies have yet to come to an agreement on exactly what the proposal say we understand that particular capital will come as this month or could come as soon as this month but we could see sort of a back -and -forth even internally before public the has an opportunity to win herman we only have about a minute left here as we wait the for big banks to start the earnings parade late late this week what will this mean for for specifically regional banking stocks that have were close to this year yeah uh... i i think a lot of animals questions will revolve around what to use it question was in terms of how will all these changes the capital equity really affect the earnings power and the returns of the regional banks and the larger regional banks will that are be swept under this but changes in regulation but we're also going to see potential questions on deposits and deposits that the remixing of deposits out of zero cost balances and the higher cost forms like CDs and also creeping deposit costs the cost of funding continues to rise so lots of headwinds not including just the changes in equity equity and capital but also from from the nuts and bolts banking and deposits for the industry The KRE chart is still pretty ugly Kaylee. Yeah. If you take a look on your terminal. Katanga Johnson, Herman Chan. Many thanks for being with us and a fascinating conversation with news coming out of the Fed with Kaylee Lines. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg. The New Deal created American infrastructure that unleashed new opportunity. Today we're doing it again with massive investment in modernizing our infrastructure to build for tomorrow. At Build America Mutual, protect we your municipal bond investments that help make it happen. Building a vibrant future for our communities and your portfolio. Invest in the future of America and ensure bonds. From New York, another update on Wall Street. In fact, records to London. UK businesses are feeling the effects
Bloomberg Radio New York
"don frank" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Of the Federal Reserve system, Richard clarida of pimco. There's been a lot of progress Don Frank and in particular for the large systemically important institutions with stress testing, liquidity, and all the rest. I think what this episode does reveal is that institutions may look small, they can get big as, you know, SVB, for example, tripled in size in a couple of years, and even institutions of that size as we saw over the weekend can be systemic. So I think the clear direction of travel is going to be that under existing statutes and laws, the fed has enormous flexibility in the way that it's supervises institutions on a case by case basis. And I think we're going to see that level of supervision in particular scrutiny of things like the hold of maturity portfolios being underwater and liquidity and the uninsured deposits are all going to be factors. And so the direction of travel is going to be tighter vision. Would you suggest our Central Bank will have to adapt to the political realities of Republicans hugely distrustful of the big accumulation of capital almost in a jacksonian way, how big will that umbrella extend out from the too big to fail? I think it's going to certainly extend into a number of the names that are in that 100 to 250. Remind you, that was actually by statute in 2018, the statute said that less Prudential scrutiny for banks under 250 billion. But again, the legislation given the fed a lot of autonomy within that on an individual bank basis. And
Bloomberg Radio New York
"don frank" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Of the Federal Reserve system, Richard clarida of pimco. There's been a lot of progress Don Frank and in particular for the large systemically important institutions with stress testing, liquidity, and all the rest. I think what this episode does reveal is that institutions may look small, they can get big as, you know, SVB, for example, tripled in size in a couple of years, and even institutions of that size as we saw over the weekend can be systemic. So I think the clear direction of travel is going to be that under existing statutes and laws, the fed has enormous flexibility in the way that it's supervises institutions on a case by case basis. And I think we're going to see that level of supervision in particular scrutiny of things like the hold of maturity portfolios being underwater and liquidity and uninsured deposits are all going to be factors in. So the director of travel is going to be tighter vision. Would you suggest our Central Bank will have to adapt to the political realities of Republicans hugely distrustful of the big accumulation of capital almost in a jacksonian way, how big will that umbrella extend out from the two big fails? I think it's going to certainly extend into a number of the names that are in that 100 to 250. Remind you, that was actually by statute in 2018, the statute said that less Prudential scrutiny for banks under 250 billion. But again, the legislation given the fed a lot of autonomy within that on an individual bank basis. And we're going
Bloomberg Radio New York
"don frank" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Of the Federal Reserve system, Richard clarida of pimco. There's been a lot of progress Don Frank and in particular for the large systemically important institutions with stress testing, liquidity, and all the rest. I think what this episode does reveal is that institutions may look small, they can get big as, you know, S and DB, for example, tripled in size in a couple of years, and even institutions of that size as we saw over the weekend can be systemic. So I think the clear direction of travel is going to be that under existing statutes and laws, the fed has enormous flexibility in the way that it's supervises institutions on a case by case basis. And I think we're going to see that level of supervision in particular scrutiny of things like the hold of maturity portfolios being underwater and liquidity and the uninsured deposits are all going to be factors in. So the direction of travel is going to be tighter vision. Would you suggest our Central Bank will have to adapt to the political realities of Republicans hugely distrustful of the big accumulation of capital almost in a jacksonian way, how big will that umbrella extend out from the two big fails? I think it's going to certainly extend into a number of the names that are in that 100 to 250. I'm remind you, that was actually by statute in 2018, the statute said that less Prudential scrutiny for banks under 250 billion. But again, the legislation give the fed a lot of autonomy within that on an individual bank basis. And
Bloomberg Radio New York
"don frank" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Of the Federal Reserve system, Richard clarida of pimco. There's been a lot of progress Don Frank and in particular for the large systemically important institutions with stress testing, liquidity, and all the rest. I think what this episode does reveal is that institutions may look small, they can get big as, you know, SVB, for example, tripled in size in a couple of years, and even institutions of that size as we saw over the weekend can be systemic. So I think the clear direction of travel is going to be that under existing statutes and laws, the fed has enormous flexibility in the way that it's supervises institutions on a case by case basis. And I think we're going to see that level of supervision in particular scrutiny of things like the hold of maturity portfolios being underwater and liquidity and the uninsured deposits are all going to be factors in. So the direction of travel is going to be tighter vision. Would you suggest our Central Bank will have to adapt to the political realities of Republicans hugely distrustful of the big accumulation of capital almost in a jacksonian way, how big will that umbrella extend out from the two big fails? I think it's going to certainly extend into a number of the names that are in that 100 to 250. Remind you, that was actually by statute in 2018, the statute said that less Prudential scrutiny for banks under 250 billion. But again, the legislation give the fed a lot of autonomy within that on an individual bank basis. And
Bloomberg Radio New York
"don frank" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"It shows how much attention there is on this stuff. And you know, of course, you'd call in the guy from the financial crisis to make sure that everything goes smoothly. Yeah, Eric, I also wonder if he's sort of zoom out and look at it from a macro level. Was there a bubble in venture capital after a decade of low interest rates that just popped? Is the golden age of the quote unquote founder over after this? I just got about. Wow, that's an excellent question. I think you can only call a bubble after it's actually happened and the dust settles and I don't think we're quite there yet. We're not there where we can look back and say it was a bubble. There's no question there was way too much liquidity. There probably still is. We said it the other day, Carol. Jay Powell secretly might be not glad, but boy, a bank collapsed sure does help to tighten financial conditions and make it easier to get a rain on inflation. No, it's a really good point, right? Because you've got to look at this all the big picture here. Probably not his preferred way to smiling you guys. All right, we gotta run Patrick New York, Mark. Markets and finance editor at Bloomberg business week, editor at large Eric schatzker, Bloomberg news and Joel Weber, our editor Bloomberg does this week. Folks, it's a finance takeover. It's the cover. It's a must read for the weekend. This is Bloomberg radio. Bloomberg radio on demand and in your podcast feed. And the latest edition of the Bloomberg surveillance podcast, a conversation with a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve system, Richard clarida of pimco. There's been a lot of progress Don Frank and in particular for the large systemically important institutions with stress testing, liquidity, and all the rest. I think what this episode does reveal is that institutions may look small, they can get big as you know, S&P, for example, tripled in size in a couple of years, and even institutions of that size as we saw over the weekend can be systemic. So I think the clear direction of travel is going to be that under existing statutes and laws, the fed has enormous flexibility in the way that it's supervises institutions on a case by case basis. And I think we're going to see that level of supervision in particular scrutiny of things like the hold of maturity portfolios being underwater and liquidity and the uninsured deposits are all going to be factors. And so the direction of travel is going to be tighter vision. Would you suggest our Central Bank will have to adapt to the political realities of Republicans hugely distrustful of the big accumulation of capital almost in a jacksonian way, how big will that umbrella extend out from the too big to fail? I think it's going to certainly extend into a number of the names that are in that 100 to 250. Remind you, that was actually by statute in 2018, the statute said that less Prudential scrutiny for banks under 250 billion. But again, the legislation given the fed a lot of autonomy within that on an individual bank basis. And we're going
Bloomberg Radio New York
"don frank" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Chairman of the Federal Reserve system, Richard clarida of pimco There's been a lot of progress Don Frank and in particular for the large systemically important institutions with stress testing, liquidity, and all the rest. I think what this episode does reveal is that institutions may look small, they can get big as you know, SVB, for example, tripled in size in a couple of years, and even institutions of that size as we saw over the weekend can be systemic. So I think the clear direction of travel is going to be that under existing statutes and laws, the fed has enormous flexibility in the way that it's supervises institutions on a case by case basis. And I think we're going to see that level of supervision in particular scrutiny of things like the hold of maturity portfolios being underwater and liquidity and the uninsured deposits are all going to be factors in. So the direction of travel is going to be tighter vision. Would you suggest our Central Bank will have to adapt to the political realities of Republicans hugely distrustful of the big accumulation of capital almost in a jacksonian way, how big will that umbrella extend out from the two big fails? I think it's going to certainly extend into a number of the names that are in that 100 to 250. Remind you, that was actually by statute in 2018, the statute said that less Prudential scrutiny for banks under 250 billion. But again, the legislation give the fed a lot of autonomy within that on an individual bank basis. And we're going to see
Bloomberg Radio New York
"don frank" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Here is the market is conducting a stress test on the fed. The Federal Reserve and other central banks I think at this stage should stop hiking and provide real reassurance that they are going to protect the financial system and deal with this problem. I think that's really what they need to focus on. That's what they are focusing on right now. That was David Kelly. The chief global strategist at JPMorgan asset management, equity futures at the moment, just about negative down a tenth of 1% on the S&P 500, no real drama here. Going into that ECB decision one hour and about 30 minutes away futures. On the NASDAQ positive by a third of 1% in the bond market two ten 30s, shaping up as follows the two year yield, which is where all the fireworks have been over the last week, up 5 basis points this morning. Still south of four, three 93 83 and just a quick sneak peek of what's developing over at Credit Suisse. Credit Suisse is positive by 21% after Tapping the Swiss national bank for 50 billion Swiss and first republic, a big name that we're watching over here on this side of the Atlantic. First republic come down about 24.5%. A little churning here, they're both waiting for news, but very different news. You know, you wonder what the timeline is on that. I wondered does the S and B or anyone there did they get out in front of the ECB? I just can't imagine that. With what? Decision. I had no idea. No idea. I just can't fathom. No, no, just something about Credit Suisse. How do you get in the way of the ECB with Credit Suisse crisis stuff? You've got to wait till the press conference. With the stock up 20% or so, I'm not sure what they can add at the moment. Yeah, well, it's better. Accomplished. I hope. No, I don't think we're anywhere near a mission accomplished. What we're going to do is continue here with a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve system Richard Clare is with us global economic adviser. At pimco, in student of his economic history, professor Clare, as somebody spoke of creative destruction this morning, and that reminded me of a guy named Hyman minsky, who long ago and far away had schumpeter as his doctoral adviser. And of course, Hyman minsky and the lore talks about a minsky moment or maybe talks about the efficacy of regulation. Let's bring over the cacophony of another time in Hyman minsky over to what Michael Barr at the fed needs to do. What is the best outcome of bank the new bank regulation and the lessons we're learning in this march? Well, I think that, you know, there's been a lot of progress Don Frank and in particular for the large systemically important institutions with stress testing, liquidity, and all the rest. I think what this episode does reveal is that institutions may look small, they can get big as, you know, SVB, for example, tripled in size in a couple of years, and even institutions of that size as we saw over the weekend can be systemic. So I think the clear direction of travel is going to be that under existing statutes and laws, the fed has enormous flexibility in the way that it's supervises institutions on a case by case basis. And I think we're going to see that level of supervision and particular scrutiny of things like the hold of maturity portfolios being underwater and liquidity and uninsured deposits are all going to be factors in. So the director of travel is going to be tighter vision. Would you suggest our Central Bank will have to adapt to the political realities of Republicans hugely distrustful of the big accumulation of capital almost in a jacksonian way, how big will that umbrella extend out from the two big to fails? I think it's going to certainly extend into a number of the names that are in that 100 to 250. Remind you, that was actually by statute in 2018, the statute said that less Prudential scrutiny for banks under 250 billion. But again, the legislation give the fed a lot of autonomy within that on an individual bank basis. And we're going to see that, I think, with tighter supervision. What we just saw though, a lot of people are putting the finger at the Federal Reserve and saying that they should have had more supervision of this bank and that this was a policy failure that is really interfered now with their ability to raise rates elsewhere. Do you think that that's fair? Do you think that this was a policy mistake? Or do you think that this is a direct result of rolling back that aspect of Dodd Frank in 2018? Well, I've looked into it a little bit again, you know, I'm no longer in that building or talking to those folks. The interesting thing, Lisa, is that the stress tests that were set up very successfully after Dodd Frank typically looked at scenarios with deep recessions, high unemployment, and falling interest rates. And SVP would have done great in that scenario. They didn't have a lot of direct exposure in lending or the like. But what they did have obviously is a lot of exposure in long duration treasuries and mortgages and particularly for something called a global market shock that looks into that. I've also seen some work that indicates, again, I can't judge, but that SVP would have passed the standard fed liquidity test. So clearly, I think they're going to be setting this up when I pre charge where they end up. But I think that is going to be reviewed and changed. That said, rich. And this is the point that Neil Dada made, and he's going to be on later in the show. He said, you know, the fed basically is hiked a lot. Why are they surprised by duration risk? And why is it being treated as a bug rather than a feature of the hiking program from your vantage point? Do you think that perhaps there has been a bit of complacency about the resilience of an economy that's so far hasn't broken, but now it's starting to show some more acute strains. I don't think I'd use the term complacency. What I would say is I broadly agree with Neil and the direction of travel. Look, when you raise rates, you invert the yield curve on a sustained basis, that is intended to tighten financial and credit conditions, and it is tightening financial and credit conditions. And so I hope nobody in the building thought that we could get to this point without there being a tightening and lending. Now, importantly, let me get this on the table. What the fed did Sunday Night was exactly the right move. It's essentially expanding the discount window authority to lend against good collateral, which has been in place since 1913. And that's an entirely appropriate thing for the fed to do to give institutions liquidity against their security portfolio. So I think that was right. But yes, I'm broadly in that camp that when you raise rates and you invert the curve, you're going to make lending more expensive and intermediaries are going to bear some of that burden. Absolutely. How much more likely is a hard landing in your view? A recession that does inflict some more pain today than say a week ago. It's certainly more likely. You know, I've been in the camp consistently since doing your show last fall that we more likely than not, we will see a recession with a rise in unemployment and some negative prints on GDP. Again, when you have a rate hike cycle of this magnitude and how quickly that is going to be the outcome. But yeah, has the odds of a hard landing gone up, they certainly have, I don't think that's my baseline for a hard landing, but sure, the odds have to have gone up somewhat. Richard, I just want to finish on this. This line that you often hear when central banks don't do something we expected them to do. And you hear things like, they might know something we don't know. Does the fed ever know something we don't know? Well, look, the short answer is yes, not often, and not to a great degree. I tell you one situation where we didn't know anything that people didn't know was about the coronavirus. And
The Doug Collins Podcast
"don frank" Discussed on The Doug Collins Podcast
"To. This is something that's been out there for a while, people is either fighting in the distance. It's been discussed by us in Washington for a long time. Go back for just a second if you would, give us sort of the foundations of what this is, what it may be intended to be, what it actually is, and how everybody listening to this podcast is affected by the CFPB. Okay. Well, everybody is affected. Everybody who basically gets out of mortgage, the lack of competition, we had actually one of our co plaintiffs in a lawsuit. People and people that we were representing in a lawsuit against the CFPB longtime back that raised some of the same grounds as the Supreme Court is now hearing the community bank, which had not had a default in decades because they knew everyone. It was the state national bank of big spring Texas said that they couldn't make mortgages because weight of the red tape. And this is basically Elizabeth Warren said that you basically should regulate loan products like coasters that the disclosure was not enough. You would need to give a loan has proved to be faulty. I mean, never mind how we've given the way people use it a type of loan. The government needed to ban it. And you needed the consumer financial protection bureau just like the consumer product safety commission. I think about her analogy, especially now that the Biden administration wants to ban gas stoves for their own good. So it's not really good to have the government interfering too much in the market for kitchen appliances or from mortgages, but also one of the things that Barney Frank Barney Frank and Chris Dodd when they were making Don Frank was they put in and unaccountable head of this agency that could not be removed by the president, except for malfeasance. So it was not an independent board like, say, the Securities and Exchange Commission, federal communications, board and where you had people of both parties. It was like a cabinet secretary, but it was one that served a fixed 6 year term that could potentially outlast the one of the presidential administration. And on top of that, it was not accountable to Congress either because it did not get its appropriations from Congress. It got its appropriations from the Federal Reserve, the money the Federal Reserve makes from selling from selling dollars. And this agency with no accountability would have just incredible reach not only of over consumers that get mortgages, but just for any small business that extends credit, including like, say, an orthodontist that spreads out payments because can't pay for their kids braces, all at once or a butcher who may, who made you that, you've got plans with buying out pay later, this CSV has jurisdiction over all of that and yet no accountability. Somewhat the accountability was fixed in a court case with when they ruled that the president does have removal power. And of course, Biden, even though he's now complaining about the CWB should be independent was fired as he had the right to do. President Trump's appointee on the first day on the first day in office and appointed an acting and then got confirmed Rohit Chopra, who's the head of it now. And that's something the next Republican administration is going to do, but as long as they don't, as they are shielded from congressional accountability, they lack with the appropriations they lack that pillar of accountability that so many other agencies have and the Congress can't use its power of the purse strings to exercise what and make them more in line with the voters wishes..
The Doug Collins Podcast
Have You Ever Heard of the CFPB? John Berlau Explains
"Go back for just a second if you would, give us sort of the foundations of what this is, what it may be intended to be, what it actually is, and how everybody listening to this podcast is affected by the CFPB. Okay. Well, everybody is affected. Everybody who basically gets out of mortgage, the lack of competition, we had actually one of our co plaintiffs in a lawsuit. People and people that we were representing in a lawsuit against the CFPB longtime back that raised some of the same grounds as the Supreme Court is now hearing the community bank, which had not had a default in decades because they knew everyone. It was the state national bank of big spring Texas said that they couldn't make mortgages because weight of the red tape. And this is basically Elizabeth Warren said that you basically should regulate loan products like coasters that the disclosure was not enough. You would need to give a loan has proved to be faulty. I mean, never mind how we've given the way people use it a type of loan. The government needed to ban it. And you needed the consumer financial protection bureau just like the consumer product safety commission. I think about her analogy, especially now that the Biden administration wants to ban gas stoves for their own good. So it's not really good to have the government interfering too much in the market for kitchen appliances or from mortgages, but also one of the things that Barney Frank Barney Frank and Chris Dodd when they were making Don Frank was they put in and unaccountable head of this agency that could not be removed by the president, except for malfeasance. So it was not an independent board like, say, the Securities and Exchange Commission, federal communications, board and where you had people of both parties. It was like a cabinet secretary, but it was one that served a fixed 6 year term that could potentially outlast the one of the presidential administration. And on top of that, it was not accountable to Congress either because it did not get its appropriations from Congress. It got its appropriations from the Federal Reserve, the money the Federal Reserve makes from selling from selling dollars.
The Dan Patrick Show
"don frank" Discussed on The Dan Patrick Show
"This stained sports history polling. Sure thing, Dan. 19 40, the first televised college basketball game was shown. Anybody wanted to take a guess where the two teams that played at Madison Square gardens, gardens back then. Fordham. Correct? In a non New York team, but in the oh. Not too much. NYU, no, outside of New York City, quite outside. I thought they had a double header. Oh, I gotta check that. I think it was a double header. I got four versus university of Pittsburgh. 1940 on TV. I think I think NYU and Georgetown played was a big Tuesday on ESPN. No, no, that was big Monday. Monday. Big Monday, big Monday. The violence must have crushed the hoyas. Yeah. 1987, chick her in 2000 career games for the LA Lakers as their broadcast are very popular broadcaster. 1999, Venus and Serena Williams became the first sisters to win WTA Tour events on the same day and John Madden replaced blank on Monday Night Football 2002. John Madden replaced blank. Dennis Miller on Monday Night Football. I actually really like Miller on the show. Tutankhamun. The offense is like the Tennessee valley authority. What? What are you talking about? Love the reference. It's just they kept overthinking Monday Night Football. They kept trying to make it what it once was, and you could never. It was magic that you put that group together and you had co sell in there and dandy Don, Frank Gifford, and they kept for years trying to bring in Tony kornheiser. And then bring in jaws and then bring in Dennis Miller and then I could just get a good get good games and get somebody who can call the action. Offense reminds me of Vasco da Gama. Lying in the DMV. America Vince bucci. Todd, what did you learn today? LeBron James is feared to be out several weeks with a foot injury. Yeah. Feared by ESPN to be out for a couple of weeks. See, no counter. Jalen Rose held Kobe under a hundred. Yeah. We've been looking at that all wrong. Yeah. Marv. Jalen said the power forward used to be powerful. Yeah. Pauly, she and the rose says, I'm famous. Todd would and I learned today. Jalen Rose grew up in Detroit played in Indiana, so of course he hated Michael Jordan. What'd you do everything it could to protect your family? Of course you would. That's why I recommend simply safe, home security, where's the music? Is it there? So claim a free indoor security camera plus 20% off with SimpliSafe and dot com. They're so no safe like SimpliSafe. Thanks for joining us. Our pleasure to serve you. Let's do it again tomorrow. This week, on the marketers report, Patricio spaniel Leto, global chief marketing officer, direct to consumer for Warner Brothers discovery, weighs in on building trust. Trust is a really hard thing to build in a really easy thing to destroy. And we have to be very respectful about that. Our partnership with iHeart has really helped us build that trust in that relationship with the on air talent. As the number one audio company, iHeartMedia gives you access to all. Every audience, live conversations, trusted influencers, and the data you need to grow. Go to iHeart results dot com for more.
ESPN FC
"don frank" Discussed on ESPN FC
"It was so quick that bransdale didn't even have time to dive. So ultimately, you know, he's not had the best of games, but he's done exactly what the club needed him to do. He saw the line whenever he could have taken the ball and filled in every code. And he steps up in the biggest moment, it's called the game, which basically scored the goal, which basically killed the game, so it was far from perfect, but it was more than enough today I'd say. I'm going to disagree. Done. With NATO in that I think Erling Haaland was actually excellent today. Right. Because the game called for something different today. A call for him to be banging in between the two center backs to fight for the long ball to be played to him and for him to be able to fight enough to hold on to it to then allow Manchester City to come out. If arsenal is going to pressure, you need to find that outlet and he was always willing to at the very least make it difficult for the center back. So by the end of the game, you see gabriele on the ground, complaining about a contact with erling hall. You see center bikes at our own comfortable with him, and he's able to always create that. If you keep feeding him the ball, he's going to fight for you. He's going to be more effective for you. And he's going to be more motivated to make those runs. You continue to feed him. This guy's going to be more effective, more efficient for you as a player. I thought it was a great bathroom around for and I think in the end he was in the head of the two and a half. And we talked about it yesterday. It's not really here to battle Southampton as he in teams like it's these big games and he stepped up again, but you think about some fruit from the arsenal center halves. The last two games have played two big powerful front lines. Brentford was Burma, but more so Ivan Toney, and they struggled defensively. Today was Ellen Holland and at times they struggled with that poem on an app physicality. So that's some food for thought for saliba and Gabrielle. Gabrielle, by the way, who got lucky on top shade as well, because he got completely emotional. He gets to take. He will say, well, I was putting him offside codswallop. He got lucky. He's trying to get wrong side. He's trying to get in a fight. You get in a fight. You got to be clever as I sent a half. There's no point in getting into a brawl with the Ivan Tony's in Ellen Holland of this world, because they're going to put you off your game. You've got to just take a bit of possessions that have been great old season, but recently they're getting found out. Don Frank? Yeah, I'm with the guys, you know, I think the more you serve him, the more it's going to be useful. And I think because I followed the game, you know, sometimes I see on this body language as you get frustrated. And the day is going to be really frustrating. It's going to change, you know, something to his behavior maybe to the atmosphere as well, because they don't use him enough for me. They should use him a lot more, you know, maybe for him to get the ball, but they go around him still like the Manchester City knows how to do. They don't use him enough. And at some point, I think the guy can get upset. So it's a tight situation for gradua and I think he will have to adjust a certain at some point, you know, the way they're going to use him or ignore him. That's the main concern that I have about Alan. But that third goal was so good, wasn't it? Everything happened so quickly, but for him, obviously it happens in a way that he's incomplete control of everything. Well, I want you to first touch, I thought, and a split second. That's gone. And then before you know it, he swiped that big right leg and butter and the con. Fantastic finish, as I say, he was in a similar position wins in chanco gave the ball away that Bernardo Silva should have found him. He got frustrated actually with that and the chance was gone. But said he will play around and probably not use him as much as we think because that's the way they play, but as long as he gets his goal or his goals as a striker is going to be happy. It was surprising that he actually took that first touch. I thought he was allowing that ball to come across his body so that he can hit it with his most comfortable left foot. He takes that first touch in a very tight area and I'm thinking Gabriela is going to clean them out. But he was so quick to react. And so then you go from why are you taking the first touch to this guy's world class world class Dutch, gets away from pressure, finishes to the fire post, game set match. I'm asking all three gentlemen away from the city at the same time. Does anyone still think arsenal are going to win the title?
Soulpods Podcast
"don frank" Discussed on Soulpods Podcast
"Fail again, we're going to bail them out again, essentially. I do not know. I'm not privy to that fact. I'm not totally sure if it's the same piece of lenses or legislation or not, but it all happened around the same time. I do. Can you tell me what it is? What it's called one more time. I'll look it up. This right here. But would I be searching to see if that if it said that we'll build them out again? Look up Dodd Frank. Don Frank. How you feeling Frank? Okay, the Dodd, Frank act summary. Here we go. Yeah, sure. Yeah, you keep going. And next up here, drop the veteran homeless rate by 50%. Wire. No other homeless, you didn't do anything for any other homeless anywhere else. Just veterans and even that is paltry. Considering having those numbers to the skyrocketed back up anyway. Yeah. Like Arthur more homeless veterans now than ever. I think so. I think so. And aren't 22 a day committing suicide? I think so. I think so, yeah. Yeah, this is not a thing. This is nothing burger already. Next up, oh, this is a good one. Reversed. Reversed. Bush era torture policies. No, he fucking dinged. Bush era torture policies and expanded Bush era torture policies. Don't you remember him saying we tortured some folks? You're a fucking idiot forever having the goal to type that out. Whoever the hell you are. I didn't take your name down. You're not important enough just based on this list of things. Okay. But seriously, you can not say something like that. You can not say that he reversed torture. No, he didn't. There was a public outcry about it, and they had to stop. And they haven't stopped. Remember, he kept saying he was going to close Guantanamo Bay? Yet, it's still open. Do this day. It sure is. So don't bring that shit here. Apparently, so everything that I'm reading about this, I guess it really, I guess it's spells out really concisely that if a. If a firm basically breaks any of these rules from this Dodd Frank from the Dodd Frank act, and they can prove that they did, they won't be eligible to receive a bailout from the government. However, if they can't prove that they were irresponsible with their funds and through. Essentially risking investing and other kind of dubious ways of making money that this firm goes bankrupt and that's going to cause and they can prove that they did so out of doing shady business, then they won't get a bailout. But if they can do it in a way like, let's say, buying up tons of properties, renovating them and then renting them as single home or predatory loans. Right. Which still exists, even though they're not supposed to because this law was supposed to stop shit like that from happening. Right, but you can't prove stuff when they're all in bed together. Right, right. That's how it works. The one thing it seems like this kind of does, which also just makes it more complicated, but it's just like, this looks like a face kind of thing to me. It's the Volcker Volcker rule. Basically makes it so like banks can't sponsor invest or own proprietary trading through hedge funds. Basically, so it just makes it so like you can't have a bank and run a hedge fund at the same time. Like you can't put money into a hedge fund. So you split up your partnership. So you fire a couple of people. They go over there and you have their business anyways. And so it doesn't matter. All of these are all surface who just like. Weren't going to look any deeper. This is all surface level bullshit that doesn't actually regulate a goddamn thing. No. From what I see what happens when your whole cabinet is picked by a Citibank email. Right. You are already beholden to these banks. That you're not regulating 14 years later and they just figure out how to play the game better. That's it. That's all that they did. They gave them a structure. How to play better. Until GameStop. Yeah. Until GameStop. Next up, $6 and 75 cents for your firm. That's what you saw would offer. Yeah. That's for sure. For sure. See, you got three hedge funds, two banks, and a private investing firm, $4 hard offer. Last one. We can't do better. The multi-billion dollar company, what are you talking about? Yeah, well, we're getting started. We're worth $7. So I want to give you more of our money. Next up here is another good one, I think. I began the process of normalizing relations with Cuba. And I did actually think that this was a good thing. It was long time. I guess that we started talking to Cuba again. And Trump shut that down automatically when he got in. This was one good thing that he definitely was doing for the international community. I thought, trying to bring Cuba back into the sphere. He was like, we could have gotten close to actually ending the embargo on them that's been going on for like 50, 60 years. Yeah. And actually really helping that country rise from the ashes of. What the world did to them. I even had somebody shoot back at me one day. About the embargo, like, oh, well, we're not blocking medicine or food. We're blocking parts for equipment for doctors. If you can't diagnose somebody, you can't prescribe them anything. So it doesn't fucking matter if we're walking the medicine or not. We're blocking the thing that you need to prescribe the medicine. Right. And I mean Fidel Castro wasn't a really a dad dude or anything like that, you know? Did talk to Cubans? I mean, so what's it called? I don't mean not a bad dude in the sense that after he came into power, he did some fucked up things. And I will say that. However, Cuba's government in the way that their country ran before he took over was really, really bad. Yeah, exactly. And he did take part as that revolutionary leader who did step forward and take back their country in that really real way. And because of his ideals, the west refused to work with him. So who the fuck else was he supposed to go to is a burgeoning country in a new leader? The way the way we look at him and it would be like if king George called George Washington like a murderer and a terrorist. Right. Totally. Totally. Of course not realizing the revolution that was actually happening. Right. And I think that I think that he's been villainized a lot, much like che Rivera has been boosted to this level of, oh my God, we got fucking his face on everything, right? When this dude just helped the United States take over his country. Basically all that it came down to, you know? We'd asked him, gave him all the guns and money that he needed. And now he's a socialist hero. But if