A one-paragraph press release from CIBC speaks volumes about now-disgraced former N.Y. Governor (and Attorney General) Eliot Spitzer.

CIBC says vaguel that it has "reached an amicable solution" with "former employee" Paul Flynn.

In addition, CIBC says it is "sympathetic to the difficulties" he experienced over the past five years, though it doesn't give details of what Flynn is getting.

Who was Paul Flynn? Well, to make a long story short, he was one of the few folks Spitzer charged in his market-timing mutual fund probe -- a probe that gave him tons of headlines, a bunch of settlements, and a ticket to a national platform that helped him easily win the governor's seat.

What he didn't have, though, were convictions. The primary defendant, Bank of America's Ted Sihpol. beat the charges, as did Flynn. In fact, chances were good that, if you didn't cave to Spitzer's intimidation and actually made him take you to court, you won. Spitzer, in fact, caved before bringing Flynn to trial. And civil charges the SEC brought were dismissed, too.

In the end, Flynn was one of those folks who remind us of former Labor Secretary Raymond Donovan, who famously asked, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

Flynn is on that path. His old nemesis from New York is another story...

Indian stocks, at least the ones that trade here in the U.S., largely shrugged off the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Surprisingly, so have commodities -- and that should tell you how inefficient the markets have been lately. Don't underestimate the impact and future risk the attacks represent.

One would expect the "right" trade on the India attacks to be two-fold: long gold, short oil. Oil should suffer because the attacks should impair growth in India -- one of the countries that received the most blame (or credit) for the run up in crude prices earlier this year. Remember the pitch? Demand from India (and China) accounted for the rise. If the Indian economy is indeed hurt by these attacks, that dampens demand even more.

Gold gets more attractive if you think that the terror attacks are sign of things to come (or a reminder of the real security risks this world faces). Gold is a safety play. It is real. It is valuable. It doesn't disappear like paper capital.

The trade in both gold and oil have been muted somewhat by the recent rise in the dollar and the fear of deflation here in the U.S. But gold could shoot up and oil collapse if the attacks are followed up by others or if they spark more tension between India and Pakistan. Remember: the early read on this is that the attacks were carried out by Islamic terrorists hitting Western, Hindu and Jewish targets. And the recent talk that it was perpetrated by what Indian officials will call only "foreigners" suggests India's government strongly suspects Pakistani involvement.

The markets have always (ignorantly) discounted the tension in that region. There is a real chance that these same tensions come front and center now, with the uncertainty of the new Obama administration's response to the conflict thrown into the mix for good measure. Look for gold and oil prices to be the proxy of how this conflict progresses.

The U.K. has decided to put a representative of the government on the boards of banks it bails out. That runs counter to the U.S. where Paulson has purchased preferred stock with no voting rights and instead relies on a bully pulpit to make banks toe the line on issues like executive compensation.

Now, the free marketeer in me says the U.S. should stay out of the boardrooms.

But...

The free marketeer lost the minute these companies received government funding. So, since the money is invested, and it belongs to us, the taxpaying public, would it be the worst thing in the world to have a seat at the table?

Take Citigroup as Exhibit A. The government has saved the company from ruin, and, if the money spent on preferred stock had instead been spent on common stock, the U.S. could have bought out the company entirely. Yet no one is representing the taxpayers' interest among the directors. Seems potentially problematic.

Of course, having someone there is equally problematic. The government board member would come with an agenda, and that agenda may change with the whims of Congress and the new administration. And, the government hasn't proven that it's the best steward of capital.

Still, it's worth asking who's minding our money at these banks.

Stock soared as word leaked out that President-Elect Barack Obama was planning to nominate New York Fed boss Tim Geithner as Treasury secretary. Why? Well, here are a few surmises:

- Status Quo We Can Believe In. Traders fear uncertainty, and a transfer of power to a new person, new party and new philosophy has contributed to the year's selloff. But Geithner's recent work is well-known on Wall Street, as an architect of the Bear Stearns sale, the Lehman collapse, and the AIG rescue. You may love him or you may hate him, but you certainly know him.

- Acela Diplomat. This is a man who easily navigates the Amtrak corridor between New York and D.C. Wall Street folks know him, but so does the D.C. crowd. He is a long-time government hand, which should build a skillset sorely missing by Henry Paulson. Hank was creative, but he was tone-deaf to the political theater.

- An Unusual Suspect. Though he's a political animal, he doesn't come with all the baggage that a Lindsey or a Reich or even a Rubin would bring.

One last point: The rally did come on the Geithner news, but don't take it as a ringing endorsement. This is a heavily shorted market, and the rare bit of certainty from the incoming Obama camp was enough to force the prudent shorts to cover. The market's long-term report card on Mr. Treasury Secretary Geithner is yet to come.

One of the big lessons we've learned during the current financial crisis is that it's darn hard to know when there's a run on a bank. In England, it was pretty clear when Northern Rock was in trouble, because we saw lines twisting around blocks.

But so many folks here bank electronically that it makes seeing a run on the bank tough. Wachovia execs were shocked to see all the deposit outflows on the Friday before the bank needed its own rescue.

That has contributed to the nervousness over many of these bank stocks, Citi front and center. In the good ol' days, you could stand outside a branch and watch capital flee. Now, it's guesswork, rumor and scuttlebutt, all of which typically feeds on each other. A bank could be undergoing a run and no one outside of that bank sees it.

And that remains a scary proposition for anyone investing in bank stocks nowadays.