You're watching...
Raymond James chief investment strategist Jeff Saut weighs in on the NY Fed's involvement in the interest-rate scandal.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
I'm here markets now next hour but getting to one of the main questions.
In this interest rate rating scandalous we bring in Jeff sot -- chief investment strategist at Raymond James today's listening and like the rest of us and the question as.
The -- -- -- -- when he was head of the New York fed in writing miss now famous or infamous memo telling the British authorities about what he knew.
And dies or more that maybe should have dinner.
Could've been done what's your take Jeff.
My take is he did well what he was supposed to do there's a reason this called London Interbank offering rate it was up to the British authorities.
To investigate and try and fix the problem.
And I think the new -- New York Federal Reserve did what was at their means to do -- and I think he's done what was expected up because he said.
-- -- -- Our congress right and he's been taking a lot about a lot of heat but he's been certainly.
Question pretty aggressively about it this morning is some people there was report even about it in the Washington Post saying that he never.
And nobody at the New York Federal Reserve ever went to the British and said hey listen we riveted mission here from Barclays they've told us that they did something wrong.
You know in other words Geithner and company just what -- said in -- you really should think about changing this system the system is broken but they didn't bring the crime if you will to the -- and directly to the authorities.
It's.
Yet it's a mess it's been around for a long time I think the first admission was in April of 2008.
And it's gonna take a long time to sort it out there's other collateral damage here to -- you've got directors.
And officers' insurance rates that are gonna go up.
Because of this you've got air and omissions.
Problems there that that could bring suits by people that were affected with live morally mortgages so it's going to be a -- speaking of them.
Collateral damage or maybe the effects of all of this there have been.
There's been more and more talk our -- Charlie desperate -- talked about and on the Fox Business Network and reported that the talk is picking up in Washington DC.
A breaking up the banks sandy -- -- people make comments on another network this morning apparently he thinks now.
-- ironic I guess that the big bank should be broken up what do you make of that -- the return of Glass-Steagall -- the separation of banking businesses that might not be a long term effect of all of this are now.
Not think I think it could I think that the banks -- big kick the big cap banks.
Are being regulated out a lot of their profitable businesses.
It's one of the reasons that we have avoided the large cap banks for the past ten or twelve years I do think there are some opportunities in the smaller.
Community banks and some of the regional banks and our banking team feels the same -- -- You -- -- -- finally just tested expand on a little bits you're saying that banks just as a general rule make more sense is an investment.
If they were not these large supermarkets if they were broken up is that.
Is that what you're getting matter is that going too far that's exactly what I'm getting and that we do think you're gonna see a lot of consolidation.
In the smaller -- banks over the next five to ten years there's -- notion only 8000 banks in this country.
And our our our banking department thinks that's actually and consolidate down to below 5000 and a glass -- came back -- -- -- for it sounds like or some version of it.
Some version -- absolutely Jeff thank you very much and get analysis always we always like having on -- -- thanks -- --
