Why don't the libs get mad about banking?

[Ausm]

Bush is but one man. Feel free to add one vote to the Republican vote total if it makes you feel better.

Doesn't change that a majority of Republicans voted against the bill.

Then again maybe it was just another case of Bush mind-controlling Democrats like when he got them to vote for the Iraq War

You Sir, take cognitive dissonance to a higher plateau....

 

[ccbadd]

Why would splitting banks up be the right thing to do looking at it economy wise?

Just noticed this today:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-20/why-should-taxpayers-give-big-banks-83-billion-a-year-.html

I didn't even realize what a deal the big banks are really getting.

 

[ccbadd]

Very well done.

If you would allow me to go OT a bit, I have a few questions I hope you would answer.

Do you think that anything has been done so far to prevent a similar catastrophe from happening again in the future? If so what has been done and how significant is it?

Would you agree that a ton of crimes were committed by the banksters, namely fraud, during this entire ordeal?

Would you agree that our current form of regulation is broken when a bank can make $1 billion in profit doing something wrong and then pay a $50 million dollar fine when caught (leaving $950M profit)?

Not sure how familiar you are with HFT but if you can answer, do you think that HFT has given the banks an unfair and illegal advantage especially in the area of "price discovery"? At the very least would you agree that thousands of orders are placed by HFT that the institutions placing them have no intentions on filling at the time the order is placed?

No I don't think anything has changed other than increasing the cash banks hold.

I would also agree with your second question. My ignorance is that I don't know how that portion is supposed to be regulated. I always thought the banks were required to maintain assets to cover their risks, I was wrong.

The third question, which I completely agree with, is sort of at the root of why I started this thread. It amazes me that they get away with it and our government is complicit.

I don't know anything about HFT, other than it is a method of securities trading based of computer algorithms. I believe that most forms of trading without actually purchasing something tends to be a net negative to the middle and lower class.

 

[Darwin333]

No I don't think anything has changed other than increasing the cash banks hold.

From what I understand, and this isn't my area so maybe LK can correct me, no one can truly look at their books and give an honest opinion of their position since they have so many positions that are off the books. Perhaps the regulators know but that wouldn't give me anymore or less hope regardless.

I would also agree with your second question. My ignorance is that I don't know how that portion is supposed to be regulated. I always thought the banks were required to maintain assets to cover their risks, I was wrong.

Even in the classical banking scenario where the bank keeps the loan to maturity they would have still been hit hard due to leverage. The assets they were holding (your house) lost a good deal of value which is compounded by leverage. What I find amazing is they can write what is effectively an insurance policy without showing that they can cover it. Hell, some of them had many times the banks worth in outstanding "insurance policies". Its a lot more complicated than that but that is the gist. Not to mention the fact that we are letting people write what is effectively an insurance policy against something that they have absolutely zero interest in. Its like letting your neighbor take out a fire insurance policy on your house. Your neighbor would then have a financial incentive to burn your house down which is why we don't allow crap like that.

The third question, which I completely agree with, is sort of at the root of why I started this thread. It amazes me that they get away with it and our government is complicit.

Like I keep saying, both sides of the aisle are bought and paid for by the banksters. This isn't a partisan issue in the least. Matter of fact, it is one issue that both sides should be able to come together on and be complete agreement about (at least about enforcing existing law). The parties have been very effective at diverting the peoples attention to irrelevant bullshit like abortion.

I don't know anything about HFT, other than it is a method of securities trading based of computer algorithms. I believe that most forms of trading without actually purchasing something tends to be a net negative to the middle and lower class.

It is a negative to everyone who isn't one of the uber-elite banks imo. They can literally use it to discover the max price you are willing to pay for a stock, buy it before you, and then sell it to you at your max price effectively shaving a few cents off of every stock they sell you. They do this by placing orders and in micro-seconds removing them (placing an order that you have no intention of filling/buying at the time you place the order is already against the rules and/or illegal) but you are absurdly slower so they see that you wanted it at that price. Then they increase the price by a dime (or whatever) and do it again, rinse and repeat until they get as close as they can to the max you are willing to pay.

Its kind of like someone being able to figure out exactly how much you are willing to pay on an ebay auction they are selling and then using another account to bid you to right below that amount while assuming no risk at all.