Article

2010-01-21 Economy

Obama plan to limit the size of banks - report

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2010-01-21 05:28|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 Much of the problem could have been avoided if (at least) the last three administrations had just enforced the laws.

Posted by Glenmore 2010-01-21 07:43|| 2010-01-21 07:43|| Front Page Top

#2 ...and not encouraged lenders to make sub-prime mortgages.

Posted by Parabellum 2010-01-21 08:40|| http://sidemeat.wordpress.com/ 2010-01-21 08:40|| Front Page Top

#3 Keep the gov't out of business.

In 1911, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that John D. Rockefeller's evil, money making Standard Oil must be dissolved and split into 34 companies. Two of these companies were Jersey Standard ("Standard Oil Company of New Jersey"), which eventually became Exxon, and Socony ("Standard Oil Company of New York"), which eventually became Mobil. Rockefeller retained a piece of each Standard Oil spin-off company and quietly made billions more from each of them.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-01-21 08:41|| 2010-01-21 08:41|| Front Page Top

#4 Just raise reserve ratios when M4 increases...

Over-lowering reserve s a systematic problem that just means large number of small banks will go bust (for exactly the same loss, but with less economies of scale).

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2010-01-21 09:35|| 2010-01-21 09:35|| Front Page Top

#5 So the Fed is not too big?

Posted by 3dc 2010-01-21 09:58|| 2010-01-21 09:58|| Front Page Top

#6 Mr Obama earlier this month proposed a tax on big banks and warned the banking industry not to block or water down his planned regulatory reforms.

Warned? Mr. Obama who's political coat tails have to be measured in nanometers, it going to get Congresscritter, the majority of whom are Donks with target on their back this 2010, to ignore their one solid source of campaign reelection funds. Yep, that's a plan.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-01-21 10:04|| 2010-01-21 10:04|| Front Page Top

#7 After wasting an entire year pushing cap-&-trade and health care, the failed Obama administration finally turns to a really pressing issue. Whether they'll do anything useful is still in question. Meanwhile those who were unemployed on Election Day 2008 are, for the most part, still without work.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-01-21 10:17|| 2010-01-21 10:17|| Front Page Top

#8 Whether they'll do anything useful is still in question.

No it isn't.

Posted by AzCat 2010-01-21 11:10|| 2010-01-21 11:10|| Front Page Top

#9 > Whether they'll do anything useful is still in question.

Smaller banks have higher fixed and regulatory costs, so no it won't help (quite the opposite).

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2010-01-21 11:28|| 2010-01-21 11:28|| Front Page Top

#10 Risk taking is what makes institutions thrive. Excessive and stupid risk-taking is what got us into this fix. Moderation in all things is a worthwhile principle. The famed June 2003 photo of the Chairman of the Office of Thrift Supervision taking a chainsaw to a stack of federal regulations was a sign the government was jumping the shark. Banks are mere utilities like electric & water companies & should be regulated accordingly.
They'll come up with new instruments that skirt the regs. It's happened over and over again. This line of reasoning is almost a tautology. There was no reason to have laws against fraud until someone invented fraud. It is now illegal to take out a life insurance policy on someone without their permission. Guess why? Legislatures meet periodically, and are capable (if often not willing) to deal with scams and other cunning evasions as they surface. On the executive side, for every Alan Greenspan, there's a Paul Volcker, for every Larry Summers, there's a Brooksley Born.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-01-21 12:04|| 2010-01-21 12:04|| Front Page Top

#11 BP why should smaller banks have higher regulatory costs?

Posted by AlanC 2010-01-21 12:05|| 2010-01-21 12:05|| Front Page Top

#12 I just caught a bit of The Once's speach. He sad taxpayers were forced to bail out the financial institutions. He got that right, but we all no that it was Congress doing the forcing.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2010-01-21 12:10|| 2010-01-21 12:10|| Front Page Top

#13 If the 0 runs true to form, whatever regulations are carried out will have minimal if any effect on the real ailments & will serve only to paper over the cracks in the walls and assuage (or distract) the public outrage. Perhaps a financial aftershock will yet occur to bring the whole system down.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-01-21 12:43|| 2010-01-21 12:43|| Front Page Top

#14 In large part, the problem is individuals (traders) within the banks risking other peoples (stock holders and depositors) money for their own personal gain (very large bonuses).

Banning retail banks from proprietary trading is really the only solution.

Posted by phil_b 2010-01-21 13:21|| 2010-01-21 13:21|| Front Page Top

#15 There's one huge overlooked problem, and that's Obama, who doesn't know how to run any profitible company, Especially Big Banks.
If you think that's not true, look NARD at the United States Government. (Wincing is permitted)

Posted by Redneck Jim 2010-01-21 14:19|| 2010-01-21 14:19|| Front Page Top

#16 HARD Dammit.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2010-01-21 14:21|| 2010-01-21 14:21|| Front Page Top

#17 AlanC: small banks have much higher regulatory costs a percentage of their overall expenses. overall gross costs are probably lower but for the big banks, it is a marginally larger slice of a much much bigger pie

Posted by abu do you love 2010-01-21 14:29|| 2010-01-21 14:29|| Front Page Top

#18 So, do his 2008 donors get off easy with this, or do they get hammered, too? Oblahblah got a nice chunk of change from those chumps.

If they don't get special consideration....how's that hopeychangey stuff working out for youse guys on Wall Street??? ;)

Posted by Cornsilk Blondie 2010-01-21 16:57|| 2010-01-21 16:57|| Front Page Top

#19 BP why should smaller banks have higher regulatory costs? Because they don't have enough money for pay-offs?

Posted by Deacon Blues 2010-01-21 19:20|| 2010-01-21 19:20|| Front Page Top

23:55 lex
23:50 trailing wife
23:48 trailing wife
23:47 Sherry
23:43 Sherry
23:43 Cyber Sarge
23:41 trailing wife
23:38 trailing wife
23:29 Cornsilk Blondie
23:16 JosephMendiola
23:10 JosephMendiola
23:04 crosspatch
23:04 JosephMendiola
23:00 JosephMendiola
22:37 Chereting Snetch4156
22:35 CrazyFool
22:30 49 Pan
22:25 Barbara Skolaut
22:23 49 Pan
22:15 tu3031
22:14 SteveS
22:11 SteveS
22:09 Chuck Simmins
22:07 Chuck Simmins