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
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Who here can name the banks broken up under Frank Dodd as "too big to fail"? [View all]JustAnotherGen
(32,025 posts)3. I can kind of answer
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.
Its 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 Feds 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.
Its 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 Feds 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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
28 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Who here can name the banks broken up under Frank Dodd as "too big to fail"? [View all]
Recursion
Mar 2016
OP
Why do you insist on defending Wall Street Investment Banks? I don't really understand that.
el_bryanto
Mar 2016
#4
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
Whatever. I think it's clear who wants to hold Wall Street accountable, your deceptions
el_bryanto
Mar 2016
#22
Here's what I think. I think you should say what you mean instead of playing passive aggressive
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2016
#11
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
You fail to understand my point. But that's ok. You have an agenda same as the OP has.....
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2016
#20