Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Takens Theorem
@takenstheorem
The confidential supervisory information discussed at the end of last week's roundup seems so strange to me... the extent to which it is codified seems almost shocking, am I wrong? Esp. for public entities -- members of the public are stakeholders and are not made privy to CSIs that have material relevance to their investments?
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Jack Miller
@jackm
It's supposed to protect the stakeholders and the bank from being "punished" by doing the right thing IMO there are still problems in the best case because the regulators and secrecy could make things way worse But in this case it's being twisted in bad faith to prevent transparency
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
