the board as you know long before my arrival there had expressed concerns about the gsc's and i don't think anything has happened in the last 10 months would have reduced to those concerns. i guess i would just say that telling word and again there are in number of ways one can go but going for what would be critical is to distinguish a private role from a public role. if there is a real public role played by gsc's and that is why they were originally started, but when you're going to have a public role that is when guarantees, implicit or an explicit are going to be involved and that is when trying to implement a set of policies of those activities are going to have to be constrained and you are going to have to make sure that the entity is really functioning as a public entity under a certain obvious that have constraints. buy characterization of some of the gsc's over the last 10 years would be that nobody could tell where the public ended and the private began. >> what i would just end and that the fed there was an early sound of a risk and treasury especially when i was in treasu

the board as you know long before my arrival there had expressed concerns about the gsc's and i don'tink anything has happened in the last 10 months would have reduced to those concerns. i guess i would just say that telling word and again there are in number of ways one can go but going for what would be critical is to distinguish a private role from a public role. if there is a real public role played by gsc's and that is why they were originally started, but when you're going to have a public role that is when guarantees, implicit or an explicit are going to be involved and that is when trying to implement a set of policies of those activities are going to have to be constrained and you are going to have to make sure that the entity is really functioning as a public entity under a certain obvious that have constraints. buy characterization of some of the gsc's over the last 10 years would be that nobody could tell where the public ended and the private began. >> what i would just end and that the fed there was an early sound of a risk and treasury especially when i was in treasury

best historical pieces on how the government in many ways screwed up the housing market through the gscs, go to the website. it's a great report. committee on oversight and government report, housing policy in creating global financial crisis of '08, interesting reading. back to you. >> i will get it. thank you. general motors coming out of bankruptcy at lightning speed. an incredible feat conferring the size and complexity of the automaker. ceo fritz henderson detailing how the new gm will look. phil lebeau behind the wheel for us in detroit with more. >> far leader general motors is what we are going to be seeing now that it's out of bankruptcy. take a look at what the new general motors will consist of. we know about the four brands, chevy cadillac, gmc and buick. they are stripping down the management of this company. 350 u.s. or 35%, i should say, of the u.s. executives are going to be leading the company, stripping out management layers, potentially flattening up the company. the focus now, customers, cars and culture. all of that is great. ceo fritz henderson admits, doesn't matte

i mean, we have gone through a good example with the gscs of trying to do that and finding out why that doesn't work and it would be very simple if that agency that is just concerned about consumer protection can make everything so safe that it's not really good for the companies offering those products or for the consumers themselves. there's always going to be risk in this agency that defines what that is and i don't think you can eliminate that entirely. >> i think it's a really good question. i would say that i think it's not so much of a risk as long as the rules of the game are clear. so long as you have the one agency that's setting the rules and what it is that companies have to do. the fact that there would be multiple enforcers of those rules is less disconcerting because you would have clear standards and everyone would not what they are and you would essentially have this more cops on the beat analogy. and so that's why you could have state ags helping out and having the ftc helping out. you would just be getting more manpower but the rules would be clear. so really the succ

congress tried to separate these two intertwining associations with the gscs.when it was apparent the situation was unavoidable. congress brought the two regulatory functions under a single regulator and for good reason. we urge congress to support regulatory structure that does not separate safety and soundness from consumer protection. the authority proposed to be vested in the new agency is breathtaking in both its scope and its effect. it would cover many entities and persons who have little or no involvement in the activities leading to the current economic crisis. without any demonstrated need, many unsuspecting persons will be swept into a web of scrutiny and reporting requirements that yield little in the way of consumer protection. but much in the way of increased cost for consumers. attorneys, accountants, consumer reporting agency, auto dealers, title companies, among others, will find themselves subject to review with no evidence that they behaved unfairly. financial service providers will find it increasingly difficult to plan for risk as virtually