One of the immediate fallouts from the big budget cut of the GAO was that we lost the New York office. I lost the people up there who helped do a lot of this work. I always gave them two directions: one, we want to be focusing on where the assets are—the big markets—and two, we want to focus on where the risk is. And that’s the way this derivatives report came about. It was growing rapidly, lot of exposure and big risk that no one was looking at.
TA: What do you think about how the press covers regulation?
JB: I think over the years the press, with a couple of key exceptions, the finance press is heavily influenced by industry. They take their side. To write their stories, financial reporters need to develop and maintain knowledgeable sources willing to speak on the record. These sources almost all come from the industry and naturally present the industry’s point of view. It is much more difficult for reporters to find informed, unbiased analysts willing to speak on the record. There is usually nothing in it for them to do so.
TA: Is the press more or less influenced than the regulators? Regulators from the last couple of administrations have identified with the industry and come from the industry…
JB: And this administration, too.
You get Larry Summers. You get Gary Gensler, who is actually the one who actively put in the deregulatory measure (Gensler, along with Phil Gramm, pushed the infamous Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which prevented the regulation of derivatives, most crucially the credit-default swaps that helped create the financial crisis). Then you’ve got their understudies. You’ve got Geithner. And then to take Geithner’s place at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York you get (William C.) Dudley. Well, Dudley is a former chief economist at Goldman Sachs.
President Obama needs to get away from this Wall Street-captured stuff.
TA: If the press identifies too much with the industry, what stories should it be doing now? What’s it missing?
JB: I think they’re concentrating too much on the proposals du jour without understanding or pointing out the fact that no one really understands what caused this financial collapse in this country and this incredible loss of wealth and this pain. And until you understand those causes you’re not going to be able to craft the correct solution.
But I don’t think the press can get at it. Unless you can get some examiner at Citigroup to talk on the record about “My God, we knew this place was a disaster, but Comptroller Dugan wouldn’t let us do anything about it.
TA: Which is unlikely.
JB: Extremely unlikely.
TA: Inside these agencies are people afraid to speak out?
JB: Oh, sure. You can pay a big price.
TA: How optimistic are you that the necessary reforms will be made?
JB: I think the same thing that happened (back in 1994), is going to be the same thing that’s going to happen now. The industry is already fighting back against anything really meaningful, but they’ll—as they did back then—they’ll form a study group and come up with some marginal stuff that won’t impinge upon their fees and upon their profitability. And that will be it.
TA: What should we be doing?
JB: This should never happen again—and it could have been prevented, actually. Congress should set up an independent investigative committee. Independent of members of Congress, and Wall Street, the administration, and the prior administration.
The commission I think ought to be created, ought to have subpoena power and available to them all the bank examination reports going back eight years for each of these large institutions that failed. They need to look at these examination reports. What was missed? Maybe it wasn’t missed. Maybe the examiners made recommendations up the line but they weren’t followed.
Let’s get to the bottom of this. What happened and why it happened? And let’s start identifying the failures) in corporate governance and why they occurred, the failures in risk management, and the regulatory failures and why they occurred.
TA: Well, what do you think happened?
JB: I think there are four main factors:

Wow. Great interview. Let's take up a collection and send Bothwell on some kind of lecture tour. I'm only half kidding.
#1 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Wed 15 Jul 2009 at 03:00 PM
Thanks for the positive comment Edward. I always said I prefer quality over quantity. It's not a bad idea either. Move over Al Gore, I am ginning up my own Powerpoint presentation on the rape of the U.S. taxpayer by Wall Street titans, And there is a lot more to tell...e.g. the FDIC guaranteeing Goldman Sachs' bonds and the bulk of the AIG assistance going directly to Goldman to make them whole on their swap positions. And them scoring record profits and record bonuses to boot! I wonder how that happened? But I guess that can be considered legitimate pay-for-performance. Afterall, it's not everyone who can get the U.S. taxpayers to absorb what otherwise would have been billions in losses for them. And Ryan even left my remarks about the GSEs (privatize or liquidate asap) on the cutting room floor!
#2 Posted by James Bothwell, CJR on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 06:56 PM
I did indeed have to leave it on the cutting-room floor, alas.
Jim had so much good stuff to say that not everything could make it!
#3 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 08:25 PM
Mr. Bothwell, I am a friend of Alex's from Bucknell and she sent me the link... I want to thank you for your candid and honest interview. It was an absolutely fascinating read and very educational for a young finance professional like myself. I wish they would get you on a CNBC documentary or something! Thanks for your hard work and hopefully people will learn from your honest assessment of the current system!
#4 Posted by Kieren Detweiler, CJR on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 02:02 PM
This is fantastic reporting. However, it's 2009...15 years later, as you note. How come it took so long to go back and review this critical area aka derivatices? This is historical reportage at this stage. Yet, it does qualify as "investigative," to be sure.
#5 Posted by Gregman2, CJR on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 05:17 PM
This is fantastic reporting. However, it's 2009...15 years later, as you note. How come it took so long to go back and review this critical area aka derivatices? This is historical reportage at this stage. Yet, it does qualify as "investigative," to be sure.
#6 Posted by Gregman2, CJR on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 05:18 PM
Thank you, thank you for such an insightful article/s! I was looking for information on derivatives and found the March 2009 article which led me to the GAO study and then found this article. Trying to be an educated American citizen is hard with a press that fails us so dramatically - thank you CJR for being there! I'm a history teacher and always looking for ways to expand my understanding on a number of topics and I'm going to share your articles with others. Congratulations on great investigative journalism. I feel letters to my Congressmen coming on!
#7 Posted by Linda Morse, CJR on Thu 23 Jul 2009 at 08:34 AM
Bothwell was part of the problem, he did not push more necesary Regulation. he warned regulation would push companies overseasm, Thus he was in league wiht Clinton and Morons.
#8 Posted by nick, CJR on Tue 27 Oct 2009 at 09:52 PM
Nick you are obviously a pathetic braindead bag of garbage. I've read over a hundred comments on the work of Bothwell and they range from excellent work to why can't we have this guy as president. Get a life.
#9 Posted by David Reynolds, CJR on Tue 29 Jun 2010 at 03:47 PM
Thanks for the support David. President? Maybe Treasury Secretary or Comptroller of the Currency is a better fit.
#10 Posted by James Bothwell, CJR on Fri 9 Jul 2010 at 02:38 PM
Please continue to be a beacon of light. Thank you for time and efforts to protect the taxpayer.
#11 Posted by laura london, CJR on Sun 2 Sep 2012 at 02:20 PM