Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JustAnotherGen

(32,025 posts)
3. I can kind of answer
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 10:25 AM
Mar 2016

Last edited Tue Mar 8, 2016, 10:58 AM - Edit history (2)

Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo all absorbed failures – so they actually got a little bigger.

GS, MS and Citi are now a little bit smaller – and they should be.

All are better capitalized and prepared to save themselves now – they weren't in Q4 2008.

Check this out from March of Last year - it still holds true:

Fed Says 31 U.S. Banks Could Weather an Economic Storm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-05/fed-stress-tests-show-31-largest-banks-meet-capital-targets

If you go to the link - there's a good chart outlining their positions.

The Federal Reserve said all 31 big banks subjected to a stress test have sufficient capital to absorb losses during a sharp and prolonged economic downturn.

It’s the first time since the central bank started stress tests in 2009 that no firm fell below any of the main capital thresholds. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. surpassed the 8 percent minimum for total risk-based capital by 0.1 percentage point, potentially restricting its room to return capital to shareholders.

The annual tests, using hypothetical scenarios that are not forecasts, are the cornerstone of the Fed’s efforts to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis and to gauge the ability of banks to withstand economic turmoil.

The largest U.S.-based banks “continue to build their capital levels and to strengthen their ability to lend to households and businesses during a period marked by severe recession and financial market volatility,” the Fed said in a statement Thursday.


The global banks are my chief concern. That's why I'd like to see regulations on individuals and yes - even businesses (banks) if we were to re implement G.S. and hold foreign entities responsible. Example - a freight ship company operating in North Africa that shipped Iran sanctioned goods to Iran - might not ever operate in the US. However, if you are a US based business or citizen - you cannot export to that freight ship company or send them money for services.

They are on the BIS list. If they engaged in activities on behalf of ISIS or a Drug Kingpin - they would be on OFAC. We can't undo what has been done - but we can say -

There are other ways to fuck with America than blowing up bridges and if you do this - we won't do business with you as a country anymore. It will be forbidden.

And here's how this works if you are engaged in Import/Export Compliance - let's say an American citizen on the BIS list goes abroad and asks me to ship them something - I'm PERSONALLY liable - not my company. Let's hold senior managers in the banking industry to the same standards that every other person in other types of industry are. They aren't 'special' and ignorance shouldn't be allowed to be used as an excuse.

Crickets...... monicaangela Mar 2016 #1
That's a joke pdsimdars Mar 2016 #2
I can kind of answer JustAnotherGen Mar 2016 #3
Bingo Recursion Mar 2016 #5
Thanks for the post, JAG. Enjoyed reading. Hortensis Mar 2016 #14
Why do you insist on defending Wall Street Investment Banks? I don't really understand that. el_bryanto Mar 2016 #4
Yeah, why are you so intent on defending them? Recursion Mar 2016 #6
Good comeback. You really shut me down. nt el_bryanto Mar 2016 #7
Well you seem to oppose the government taking their money when they get into trouble Recursion Mar 2016 #8
You can't just make up stuff - well obviously you can. But that's total bullshit to suggest el_bryanto Mar 2016 #10
You are arguing against a program that involved the government taking money from banks Recursion Mar 2016 #12
Jesus - you'll say anything won't you? el_bryanto Mar 2016 #16
It cost the banks money and made the government money Recursion Mar 2016 #18
Whatever. I think it's clear who wants to hold Wall Street accountable, your deceptions el_bryanto Mar 2016 #22
neither of those two entities were the ones who paid for the bailout... islandmkl Mar 2016 #27
Here's what I think. I think you should say what you mean instead of playing passive aggressive Bluenorthwest Mar 2016 #11
I think the US Government took billions from the banks through TARP Recursion Mar 2016 #13
I think that last line is your entire reason for writing which is why you can't make a full and Bluenorthwest Mar 2016 #17
Sure, whatever Recursion Mar 2016 #28
It made me realize I no longer could answer. Hortensis Mar 2016 #15
You fail to understand my point. But that's ok. You have an agenda same as the OP has..... Bluenorthwest Mar 2016 #20
Did you know that Sen. Barney Frank was named Hortensis Mar 2016 #23
It's a HRC supporter backing a "I support Bernie but..." poster. delrem Mar 2016 #24
I will answer JustAnotherGen Mar 2016 #9
Wow, that's radical Recursion Mar 2016 #21
Great op. NCTraveler Mar 2016 #19
Dodd-Frank has no teeth. The fact she props it up tells me she has no intention to fix the banking. JRLeft Mar 2016 #25
So can you name the banks broken up under its auspices? Recursion Mar 2016 #26
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Who here can name the ban...»Reply #3