How well did the FCIC know who the hell they were interviewing during their investigation of the financial crisis?
One person they interviewed was "Yves Smith" and addressed said person during the interview as Ms. Smith.
The problem with this is that "Ms. Smith" is actually the pen name of of Susan Webber, the principal of Aurora Financial Advisors. This is not a major secret. Wikipedia has an entry that mentions her use of the pen name. Apparently the FCIC didn't have a clue.
What's troubling is that this suggests the FCIC probably didn't understand her real background and therefore did not have the proper framework to understand Webber's testimony. I bring this up not to cast aspersions on Webber, from what I can tell she appears to bring serious analysis to her blog and has no secret agenda.
But how can the FCIC work be taken seriously, when it failed to interview any economists who forecast the crisis and it appears that they conducted one interview with an individual whose financial background they were clueless about? It can be argued that logic should stand on its own regardless of who delivers the logic, however the FCIC investigation was also a fact finding mission and the facts delivered should be understood in terms of the background of the background of those delivering the facts.
Join us on our
Share this page with your friends
on your favorite social network: