Identifying speculative trading? No problem according to Volcker.

[eridani]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/us-volcker-idUSTRE74385W20110505

Paul Volcker, former economic adviser to President Barack Obama, has no patience for banks that claim it will be hard for regulators to rein in their speculative trading.

The rule that bears Volcker's name is meant to prevent banks from making big bets on markets with more money, known as "proprietary trades." The law aims to force banks to instead focus on trading with clients.

Many banks fear that their client trading activity will look to regulators like bet-taking, an argument that Volcker says is disingenuous.

"Bankers know when they're doing a proprietary trade, I assure you," Volcker told Reuters in an interview at his office in Manhattan on Wednesday. "If they don't know, they shouldn't be in the business."

How can regulators tell if a trade is speculative?

"If there are big unhedged positions constantly, then it's proprietary trading," Volcker said. An unhedged position involves a bank taking risk and not offloading it through other securities or derivatives.

[westerebus]

1. How about we change the mandate of the DEA and ATF.

The SEC and CFTC are not up to the job. They have way too much vested interest in those they are supposed to regulate.

So lets get the DEA who are very good at tracking money and the ATF who never saw a regulation they could not enforce to move into investigating and regulating the banks and wall street and the hedge funds. They can use the self funding laws of confiscation of assets deemed to have been obtained by illegal means to expand their agency's budgets. More investigation leading to more arrests leading to more prosecutions leading to more self funding. That's called incentive.

If the banks, wall street and hedge funds are doing every thing legally then there is no problem.

The SEC and the CFTC can do drug investigations and apprehensions.

Seems reasonable to me. I'd rather used our limited resources in a productive way.

[Po_d Mainiac]

2. Add OTS, the 12 FRB's, and the FDIC

to the list of inept 'regulators/facilitators' with a huge dose of AWOL from DOJ.

K Street stills pays well. :grr:

[westerebus]

6. OTS, FRB, FDIC?

Who the hell is going to walk the dog?

Come to your senses man.

The pooch won't hunt but he will dump in the middle of the house.

Nuff said.

DOJ has their hands full.

You may infer what ever crosses your mind on that one. Your call.

[orangeapple]

3. so they can kick in the wrong

doors, shoot innocent people, and smuggle guns into Mexico?!?

[westerebus]

5. Not really.

It might eliminate some of that.

Now if the DEA/ATF kicked in the doors to ( put bank name here ); I'm sure they would have a reasonable explanation.

Like, we observed the transfer of large sums of money and the room was full of dopes who had no idea where it came from.

I'd defend that premise on grounds of association to endanger with willful disregard during a theft by means of coercion.

As for the guns to Mexico, they can buy them in Panama like the rest....ah...umm...never mind.

[notesdev]

4. Even easier

just get a list of whoever is feeding at the Fed's money trough, it'll match up with the speculators quite precisely, since that's ultimately the source of all this hot money