Born came to suspect that Rubin was bluffing and there was no analysis.
Knight, now executive vice president and general counsel of the Nasdaq Stock Market, said he does not recall being asked for a legal analysis.
Why was Rubin so intent on protecting this “Dark Market,” as the Post calls it?
Another great nugget helps understand how off the tracks we really were in the couple of decades leading up to the bust—We had an unhinged radical running the economy for nearly twenty years:
Greenspan had an unusual take on market fraud, Born recounted: “He explained there wasn’t a need for a law against fraud because if a floor broker was committing fraud, the customer would figure it out and stop doing business with him.”
Even Steve Forbes or The Wall Street Journal editorial page would have a hard time arguing that line with a straight face.
Toward the end, the Post goes off the rails into feature land a bit too much here:
Sometimes this woman — whose mother always made her wear white gloves when they went downtown — doesn’t bother dyeing her hair, letting it go gray.“I go through phases,” she said one afternoon, smiling and drawing a thin, small finger across her head. “I was just looking in the mirror this morning and thinking, ‘Maybe it’s time.’ “
Um, who cares?
Still, it’s good the paper gave Born’s story the play it deserved.

"Born, who headed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, was a lawyer, unlike, say, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin."
Umm, Rubin was a lawyer too, champ.
It's also difficult to see how Born could honestly be described as having "quite a bit of distance from those [she] regulate[d]." She was a prominent and longtime financial services lawyer at Arnold & Porter, a large US law firm that frequently represented major financial institutions. In fact, she was the head of the derivatives practice at A&P for several years before being named CFTC chair. The only way Born could have been closer to the major derivatives players (which she later regulated) was if she had worked on a derivatives desk at an investment bank!
The Born-as-outsider narrative makes for a satisfying story, but it just isn't true. It's amazing how much journalists embellish (to put it charitably) virtually all events that relate to the financial crisis just so their stories can be wrapped up with a nice little bow.
#1 Posted by Nick, CJR on Tue 26 May 2009 at 09:09 PM
Good call, Nick.
My intent was that Rubin came from heading an investment bank and that Born came from a law firm, but you're right that Rubin has a law degree.
And I didn't know that Born headed the derivatives practice, so shame on me for jumping to the "outsider" conclusion.
Thanks for pointing these that out. I've posted a note in the story.
#2 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Tue 26 May 2009 at 09:48 PM
The WaPo article wasn't "the first ... since the crisis started ..." The Stanford Magazine did a major feature on Born back in their March/April edition ("Profit and Loss", http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2009/marapr/features/born.html ) A lot of duplicate material. I had to check to make sure I wasn't reading the same article.
#3 Posted by Benedict@Large, CJR on Thu 28 May 2009 at 12:43 AM
It will be useful for you. Look here!
">http://vipwindow.ru”> Пластиковые окна Петрозаводск
#4 Posted by lili, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 12:01 PM
Despite the commented correction, I find your article is generally quite accurate, based on a documentary on, I believe, Frontline on PBS with a telling of the events that led to the financial crisis. Ms. Born presented her findings, beliefs, and predictions to Alan Greenspan and others and was, almost laughed at and purposefully dismissed by them, as if they knew more. Mr. Greenspan has since recanted his beliefs as inaccurate (of course, since the markets collapsed). What I wonder is why doesn't she have Ben Bernanke's job for God's sake? As far as I know, these dirivatives are still unregulated! And, the banks are still too big to fail.
#5 Posted by Nancy Villecco, CJR on Fri 28 Sep 2012 at 11:35 AM