The Volcker Rule Is Great Public Policy!

yep and so do banks. what is your point?

 

The rules were suspended for the TBTF banks, but not for the rest of us. But we've been through this already

 

But the TBTF banks had trillions in assets, worth pennies on the dollar exchanged for cash at face value. Did the average American have his stock portfolio replaced with cash at purchase price after the TBTF banks crashed the stock market? Did they get reimbursed for tgeir underwater homes? Did the get to stay out of liquidation and foreclosure? **** no they didn't. The bankers not only got to keep their insolvent banks, instead of the liquidation they deserved, they got rewarded and the ****ers got to bonus themselves hundreds of millions since. The people got to suck donkey balls

 

the banks were sitting on several hundred trillion in interest rate swaps and other collateralized debt. The entire number of mortgages that went bust was less than $1 trillion. Think, don't parrot

That's why it was suspended for them and the FED gave them100% of face value for junk, trillion $ worth. Did Joe Average get 100% of the value of his home purchase price?

 

Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon thank you for your shilling. After all, they were just doing "God's work"

 

Problem not solved. This why we have the Volcker rule, to prevent banks from speculative investments. What happens when a large bank goes belly-up as in the great recession? Another bank has to eat the insolvent bank to save investors, and that bank is greatly weakened along with their customers accounts. How do you let customers decide? Sounds too simplistic, and won't work.

 

Where do they accumulate money to stay in business and make a profit? Banks today are required to have a large percentage of depositor funds in a holding account, but they also have to invest for profit, or else what is the point?

 

Hogwash. That rule simply eliminates competition for the TBTF banks.
The five largest US banks have $200 trilion in swaps and collateralized debt on their books and only show $10t in assets combined.
Suspending the travesty of Graham-Leech-Bliley is the answer. How many reps or dems are gonna promote that? Next to zero

 

Banks should not be investment houses.
Banks are for saving and lending

 

This stuff is over my head, and beyond my pay scale.

 

Graham leech blimey allowed the investment banks to mix their investing business with their commercial banks. Depositor cash is now used as collateral for risky investing. Ain't that a peach?

 

A rotten peach, but aren't banks required to maintain a large % of depositor funds in unattached accounts?

 

wrong of course!!Economists at the Federal Reserve, such as Ben Bernanke, have argued that the activities linked to the financial crisis were not prohibited (or, in most cases, even regulated) by the Glass–Steagall Act.[9][10][11]

 

yes they are ring fenced very carefully

 

too bad customers are free to want higher returns

 

so?? in most cases the assets overlap so the actual risk is $10 trillion

 

it would do nothing. Glass would not have prevented recession

 

so????????????????????????????

 

but it was not junk as it turned out, the Fed knew it all along, and the fed avoided a depression

 

Lots of banks, bank shareholders, and home owners went bankrupt.

 

Which homeowners got $1.3t per year for several years?

 

So what gov policies caused them to leverage up to hundreds of trillions and go bust when less than a few hundred billion in mortgages started underperforming?

Depositor money was most definitely used in the TBTF investment bank avtivities.
Not possible with Glass Steagall in place

 

Of course it was junk. Trillions in collateralized debt based on failed sub prime mortgages. The FED has never sold any of it into the open market

 

Glass would have prevented the activities that created the bubble in the first place.

 

Unattached?