2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

A few points:

1) Stress tests aren't annual. They're **** near quarterly at this point.
2) Capital requirements lessen chance of quick demise. Sorta like what happened to Wachovia which by all rights should have survived. If panic happens and nobody will lend you money short term, you have to have enough liquid capital to fund yourself in the meantime. By law. That's a big change and if you weren't aware of it that's cool but it should make you a little happier.

A financial crisis may happen, but it need not be on the level as this one. Only twice in the last 80 years has the govt had to step in so its not like this recent one was a run of the mill occurrence.

No, Wachovia should've died. I've seen a sizeable portion of the insides of that beast, and it was bloated and rotten. On top of that, most of the people in that company didn't really know how the foot bone connected to the leg bone.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

A financial crisis may happen, but it need not be on the level as this one. Only twice in the last 80 years has the govt had to step in so its not like this recent one was a run of the mill occurrence.

The reason it didn't happen for so long was because of Glass-Steagel. Look how long it took to happen once that was gone. As long as that's gone there is not enough insurance in the system to save it once it starts. Thank God the American Government will always be there to bail you out.

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Now who sounds like Trump and the Republicans? Scientists only say climate change is man-made because they're in on a scam to get research grants...



You haven't addressed any of the substance of what I and others have said either, so by your own implication that means you're nefariously ducking and have ceded the argument to me. Thanks, I accept your surrender.

Now see, that's called being a jerk. But rather than play that game I have forwarded your points to my childhood best friend who is also an Econ PhD, as he is much better able to answer them. Like Wu Tang Clan, he aint nuthin' to f-ck with, but he's a busy attorney, so please be patient for your impending beating.

(He's only Penn, though, so you know... lesser Ivy.)

Kep you're channeling Karl Rove now. You've made several statements that I've challenged, and now you're hiding behind "oh well you did it too". While we're waiting for your friend, tell me what questions you raised that I refused to answer? I've put mine down here for all to see. Kindly accept the challenge to do the same (again, while we're waiting for your friend )

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

And the regulations above won't stop something that happens suddenly and without warning. Annual stress tests are great, but the risk is that a sudden unpredictable event brings down a major player like Wells Fargo or BoA, which then brings down others like Goldman's, and everyone else in a long but extremely quick chain reaction. No stress test will stop that if the whole sector gets affected at once.

A few points:

1) Stress tests aren't annual. They're **** near quarterly at this point.
2) Capital requirements lessen chance of quick demise. Sorta like what happened to Wachovia which by all rights should have survived. If panic happens and nobody will lend you money short term, you have to have enough liquid capital to fund yourself in the meantime. By law. That's a big change and if you weren't aware of it that's cool but it should make you a little happier.

A financial crisis may happen, but it need not be on the level as this one. Only twice in the last 80 years has the govt had to step in so its not like this recent one was a run of the mill occurrence.

[unofan]

If they can sucker people like you into buying their books and reading their articles, why wouldn't they tell you that? You do know Trump is a billionaire, right? Even though he peddles similar untruths.

What I have noticed though is you haven't actually addressed what I brought up, so lets try again.

1) Do you, or do you not agree, that capital requirements are much stricter?
2) Do you, or do you not agree, that banks now have to regularly run a stress test on their operations and then subject those results to the scrutiny of the Treasury dept who has a documented history of pushing back on them?
3) Do you, or do you not agree, that the uncovered hedges of AIG are now outlawed?

These are but a few of the examples I could cite to show that things have indeed changed. There are others (limits on overdraft fees, Lizzy Warren created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) but lets start here. I don't care about you linking articles. Tell me where you are on these questions.

Yes
Yes
Don't know, but don't think it matters, so sure, I'll agree for the sake of argument. The next financial crisis won't be caused by the same thing as before anyway.

And the regulations above won't stop something that happens suddenly and without warning. Annual stress tests are great, but the risk is that a sudden unpredictable event brings down a major player like Wells Fargo or BoA, which then brings down others like Goldman's, and everyone else in a long but extremely quick chain reaction. No stress test will stop that if the whole sector gets affected at once.

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

If they can sucker people like you into buying their books and reading their articles, why wouldn't they tell you that?

Now who sounds like Trump and the Republicans? Scientists only say climate change is man-made because they're in on a scam to get research grants...

What I have noticed though is you haven't actually addressed what I brought up...

You haven't addressed any of the substance of what I and others have said either, so by your own implication that means you're nefariously ducking and have ceded the argument to me. Thanks, I accept your surrender.

Now see, that's called being a jerk. But rather than play that game I have forwarded your points to my childhood best friend who is also an Econ PhD, as he is much better able to answer them. Like Wu Tang Clan, he aint nuthin' to f-ck with, but he's a busy attorney, so please be patient for your impending beating.

(He's only Penn, though, so you know... lesser Ivy.)

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

The problem with this is there are plenty of economists who say the things I have been saying, and who say we're even more vulnerable than last time. So either you're a lot smarter and more knowledgeable than they are, or you're only seeing a small part of the elephant and that from a personally biased POV. This isn't you vs me, it's you vs them.

I absolutely admit to a prejudice against the institutions and the upper level management of the financial services sector. I am certainly much more likely to adopt and repeat statements made by their critics. But those criticisms are out there and they do seem to be coming from some very well-informed people who are well-placed to evaluate the industry. And obviously the financial institutions themselves, like any institution, will paint the rosiest possible picture in which they are actually the real heroes and victims of the piece.

When in doubt, ask, "cui bono"?

If they can sucker people like you into buying their books and reading their articles, why wouldn't they tell you that? You do know Trump is a billionaire, right? Even though he peddles similar untruths.

What I have noticed though is you haven't actually addressed what I brought up, so lets try again.

1) Do you, or do you not agree, that capital requirements are much stricter?
2) Do you, or do you not agree, that banks now have to regularly run a stress test on their operations and then subject those results to the scrutiny of the Treasury dept who has a documented history of pushing back on them?
3) Do you, or do you not agree, that the uncovered hedges of AIG are now outlawed?

These are but a few of the examples I could cite to show that things have indeed changed. There are others (limits on overdraft fees, Lizzy Warren created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) but lets start here. I don't care about you linking articles. Tell me where you are on these questions.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Because I'm in the industry is why I do know better than you. You don't spend collectively what had to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars and just blow that off as BS. I personally know the people who got canned who had nothing to do with this. At best you're misinformed and I'll leave it at that.

When you say nothings changed is when I think they've been handing out something stronger than joints at those Bernie Sanders rallies you've been going to. The capital requirements now are much, much more stringent. The stress testing is rigorous. How do I know this? Because I, unlike yourself, have to deal with it. The point of this isn't that it shouldn't be done. The point is its being done and it wasn't before new laws were passed, in this case Dodd-Frank. I'd also point out you can't take the opposite side of a hedge without collateral (AIG).

At this point Kep you've become a lefty version of a Trump voter. Anger over untrue statements and beliefs when some simple research to find out the truth would make you a lot happier.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ano...nks-2015-08-03

The prosecution rests.

No wonder you love the Hill so much.

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

At this point Kep you've become a lefty version of a Trump voter. Anger over untrue statements and beliefs when some simple research to find out the truth would make you a lot happier.

The problem with this is there are plenty of economists who say the things I have been saying, and who say we're even more vulnerable than last time. So either you're a lot smarter and more knowledgeable than they are, or you're only seeing a small part of the elephant and that from a personally biased POV. This isn't you vs me, it's you vs them.

I absolutely admit to a prejudice against the institutions and the upper level management of the financial services sector. I am certainly much more likely to adopt and repeat statements made by their critics. But those criticisms are out there and they do seem to be coming from some very well-informed people who are well-placed to evaluate the industry. And obviously the financial institutions themselves, like any institution, will paint the rosiest possible picture in which they are actually the real heroes and victims of the piece.

When in doubt, ask, "cui bono"?

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Yeah, this is why I think you're not a liberal. The penalties were BS and you should absolutely know that being in the industry. The one lesson that came out of this is BofA and Goldman should have been broken on the wheel, but instead they're bigger now. We are so f-cked if this happens again, because nothing has changed. This is a hostage situation.

Because I'm in the industry is why I do know better than you. You don't spend collectively what had to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars and just blow that off as BS. I personally know the people who got canned who had nothing to do with this. At best you're misinformed and I'll leave it at that.

When you say nothings changed is when I think they've been handing out something stronger than joints at those Bernie Sanders rallies you've been going to. The capital requirements now are much, much more stringent. The stress testing is rigorous. How do I know this? Because I, unlike yourself, have to deal with it. The point of this isn't that it shouldn't be done. The point is its being done and it wasn't before new laws were passed, in this case Dodd-Frank. I'd also point out you can't take the opposite side of a hedge without collateral (AIG).

At this point Kep you've become a lefty version of a Trump voter. Anger over untrue statements and beliefs when some simple research to find out the truth would make you a lot happier.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

All Hail The Big Short and all. Figured this is the place to put a couple commentaries, one on the book and the other provides a little more current background on the author himself.

The second article isn't about the author it's about one of the guys the author wrote about in his book (Michael Burry) who predicted the housing market collapse. Christian Bale plays him in the film.

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Which I have agreed with from day 1. Please dont equate me and Rover The Hill Lover

Fair point.

[Handyman]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

No one but the ones who mattered: the Justice Department.

This was a heist. We all agree the victims shouldn't have left the front door unlocked, but that does not in any way change the fact that the burglars should be in prison, and instead they walk down the street in broad daylight showing off the loot they stole, and the police and the mayor do nothing.

Which I have agreed with from day 1. Please dont equate me and Rover The Hill Lover

[Handyman]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

And the banks profited from it, and then got bailed out when their own house of cards collapsed. A single mortgage going under doesn't threaten the national economy, Goldman Sachs going under does. The former is the mistake of an ignorant rube, the latter was systematic fraud by supposed experts. Guess who deserves more culpability...

You owe the bank a thousand dollars, the bank owns you. You owe the bank 10,000,000, and you own the bank. The US government should not be in the position of letting any financial institution "own" it's economy in that way.

Rover is bastardizing what I am saying. I am closer to this than his opinion

[Handyman]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

I'm not exonerating anyone but believe that while predatory lenders can all die in a fire the ones they lent to need to go sit in a corner and feel shame. And yeah many college campuses put a stop to that practice (one I remember well from my days on one long ago) because of the very nature of taking advantage of dummies. While you think I'm being too lenient on those that over-extended, I think you're being far too lenient toward the gross malpractice of the lenders by trying to even remotely compare the complicity of both sides.

I am being too lenient by wanting them punished accordingly? Ok...