The Schumer-making-crashy-bank thing made me think...

[De Selby]

A bank that is performing well doesn't have people lining up in the streets to take their money based on truthful press releases; IndyMac had that because the bank was failing in such a way that the liabilities were going to eat the whole thing.

Actually, a bank that is performing well could very easily have people lining up in the streets to take their money if a high-ranking official gave an opinion that the bank was not stable and may fail.

Yes, but in that case, the opinion would not be truthful or it would be at least incorrect.

In this case, Schumer's opinion was neither untruthful, nor incorrect.

See the distinction?  I'm defending releasing truthful, accurate information about a bank's performance.  If the information is absolutely true and the implications drawn from it are accurate, the blame goes to the bank that made the bad business decisions, not the person who truthfully informed consumers.

By the logic you seem to be using here, the Justice Department, not Enron, screwed all the Enron retirees, since more of them would've had a chance to move stock before it went down to pennies if Enron had not been investigated.

[PremiumSauces]

Well, we already knew beyond a doubt that Schumer's IQ is somewhere between a sunflower and an amoeba , but this appears like a coordinated intentional attack, not just sheer negligence.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I guess my point is why are banks trying to keep their business failures a secret? Why doesn't the general public legally have the right to know why and which banks are failing?

Banks made very bad business decisions, and that needs to be kept secret from the general public? I think not! If they are afraid of a run on a bank, then the overpaid bank owners need to get their act together. They made very bad business decisions, and they feel that needs to be kept a secret so people won't suddenly pull their money out? Give me a break!

I hate supporting overpaid business owners who made bad business decisions, especially banks. They can lend out all their customers' money, lose it, and watch the FDIC cover their bad decisions will absolutely no risk. They get to keep their inflated salaries, and taxpayers foot the bill and inflation increases.

Deceiving customers and forcing them to keep money in a poorly run bank is not right. The heads of those banks need to suffer for their bad decisions, but that will never happen.

If you even think your bank sucks, pull out your money and put it into a better bank. Well run banks deserve your business; badly run banks do not.

IndyMac's troubles were no great secret, customers had every opportunity to learn about them.  I agree with you that it's a tragedy that the bank's depositors were deceived.  But it wasn't IndyMac who lied to depositors, it was Schumer who deliberately painted a false picture of the bank's solvency.  Schumer cherry picked negative information from a confidential investigation, stripped out all of the mitigating positive factors, then leaked that to the media along with heavily inflamed "ZOMG!!111 GIT YOUR MONEY OUT WHILE YOU STILL CAN" innuendos.