All these plans do is force banks to pave the way for the federal government to nationalize their assets without notice.
logis on August 10, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Capital ratios are up substantially since the crisis, and leverage down. A lot of banks are complaining that the requirements are too high, in fact. I think if we wanted to nationalize the banks, we could have done that in 2009. It would have been pretty easy, since most of them had to take whatever terms Bernanke/Geithner/Obama imposed or do a Lehman Brothers.
urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 5:35 PM

I have no way of guessing what your personal plans are, but you and I are most definitely not the “we” I was talking about.

Of course a nationalization like you’re describing could not have happened in 2009, or today, because the banks that actually HAD all those creamy delicious assets wouldn’t have agreed to any “terms.” Obviously the government has no use for insolvent banks, and all the solvent banks want to KEEP those assets, and use them to beat the pants off all their government-drone-controlled competitors.

Whenever one of these “fundamental transformations” finally occurs, consent is never an issue. All that matters is the speed at which assets can be confiscated by a bunch of thugs how have no real clue what to do with those assets. And that is the only thing these “emergency plans” are designed to affect.

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/08/pic-of-day-dont-mistake-slogans-for.html

God Bless America!

Everyone needs to understand that the ultimate goal is the control and nationalization of the banking industry.

Pay attention, please. They will kill community banks as fast as they can.

Proverbs 29:18 “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

Meanwhile, since the doj won’t bust goldman, obamacommie now has his hand stuck out waiting for that donation.

Of course properly collateralized banks don’t need a default plan. That doesn’t make the tiniest bit of sense. And nothing about these “emergency plans” help the banks weather any financial crisis. In fact, just the opposite.

All these plans do is force banks to pave the way for the federal government to nationalize their assets without notice.

logis on August 10, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Capital ratios are up substantially since the crisis, and leverage down. A lot of banks are complaining that the requirements are too high, in fact.

I think if we wanted to nationalize the banks, we could have done that in 2009. It would have been pretty easy, since most of them had to take whatever terms Bernanke/Geithner/Obama imposed or do a Lehman Brothers.

What’s the federal government’s emergency plan? Default?
RBMN on August 10, 2012 at 4:46 PM

What do you think this is all about? This IS the federal government’s emergency plan.

Of course properly collateralized banks don’t need a default plan. That doesn’t make the tiniest bit of sense. And nothing about these “emergency plans” help the banks weather any financial crisis. In fact, just the opposite.

All these plans do is force banks to pave the way for the federal government to nationalize their assets without notice.

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/08/toon-of-day-reids-source.html

M2RB: Cheap Trick

Take your own advice…you think their is only “traditional” banks that make loans? Have checking accounts? Are involved in mortgages? Really, that’s the limit of your expertise…this is where the “tee hee” comes in as people snicker at your faux arrogance.

right2bright on August 10, 2012 at 5:03 PM

I realize that. In fact, a large percentage of the loans were in the run-up to the crisis were originated by non-bank mortgage companies (which were not subject to CRA and other pressure,but that’s another argument).

But you know what? Not a single one of them was originated by Goldman.

Even more exciting up-and-coming financial regulation: Big banks now required to produce emergency plans big mattresses

FIFY

Erika may have gotten the part about Goldman Sachs making subprime (or any) mortgages wrong. But they were BIG players in the subprime-mortgage-backed securities market.

Bitter Clinger on August 10, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Very different things. For one thing, the was no federal pressure to get involved in that market. Banks were crawling all over each other to get into the MBS market because they believed their own BS (“we’ve eliminated risk”). They thought it was free money.

If Erika doesn’t recognize that, she’s too ill-informed to be taken seriously on this issue.

The last two major investment banks in the US have changed their status to become bank holding companies, allowing them to take deposits from investors.
The changes should enable Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to raise more funds by opening commercial banks.

You are welcome, the education is free…take it and consider it a gift…

right2bright on August 10, 2012 at 5:07 PM

but they haven’t done it yet, have they? And they certainly hadn’t done it before the sub-prime debacle.

And when are these quotes from? I think Goldman — along with a lot of other institutions, like GM’s credit division and GE Capital — made that switch in ’08 or early ’09, so they could get access to the Fed’s credit window during the crisis.

Nah, GS never heard of mortgages.

BobMbx on August 10, 2012 at 4:59 PM

You’re clearly no more informed than EJ.

Goldman was under investigation for creating and selling “synthetic” mortgage-backed derivatives which tracked the performance of mortgages originated and other institutions and individuals. The neither originated the mortgages that the derivatives were based on and in many cases never even held the securities that were actually created from the mortgages — they ran a little casino and allegedly stacked the deck without telling some of the players. They settled a civil case with the SEC for $550 million in one instance, but the standard of proof is higher for a criminal complaint, hence the Justice Dpartment not pulling the trigger.

Goldman is an investment bank. It does not make mortgage loans. Period. Nor can you open a checking account at your friendly neighborhood Goldman location.

You clearly have a much greater command of buzzwords (“rent-seeker”)than the banking industry.

Try again.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Erika may have gotten the part about Goldman Sachs making subprime (or any) mortgages wrong. But they were BIG players in the subprime-mortgage-backed securities market.

Try again.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 4:55 PM

The last two major investment banks in the US have changed their status to become bank holding companies, allowing them to take deposits from investors.
The changes should enable Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to raise more funds by opening commercial banks.

And today the Wall Street Journal reported Goldman could soon become an Internet banking start-up.

You are welcome, the education is free…take it and consider it a gift…

I’m surprised Obama hasn’t pressured Bernanke to launch QE3, as a matter of fact. While it would make gas prices fly to the moon, it would probably also help slow down the pace of job losses for a little bit longer.

Doomberg on August 10, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Probably because a spike in gas prices could harm him far more politically than any fluctuations in job losses between now and November.

Try again.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Take your own advice…you think their is only “traditional” banks that make loans? Have checking accounts? Are involved in mortgages? Really, that’s the limit of your expertise…this is where the “tee hee” comes in as people snicker at your faux arrogance.

I would bet no single person could name all of the gov. restrictions that are placed on a bank. I would be not one person knows of the fees & licensing a bank has to have, I would bet no one single person knows all of the regulations imposed on them.
Anytime you have something so complex that even a highly trained, educated professional cannot explain, define, understand, the complexity was caused by the government…and guess who pays for that?

Goldman is an investment bank. It does not make mortgage loans. Period. Nor can you open a checking account at your friendly neighborhood Goldman location.

You clearly have a much greater command of buzzwords (“rent-seeker”)than the banking industry.

Try again.

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Nah, GS never heard of mortgages.

I don’t think anyone has a problem with banks having a contingency plan on too big to fail…on the surface, I agree with this, but I wonder if the devil is in the details.

You just wonder what strings are attached to this by the current administration…the last thing we want is nationalized banks.

And, Goldman Sachs, a liberal leaning bank where Corzine came from, but still we don’t have the facts to know who to blame on the last collapse, and it is the current administration that was blaming banks and subprime loans…if you recall the red lining threats and the Community re investment act and the shenanigans at Freddy and Fanny and all the money that liberal politicians ran away with while making more and more mortgage loans has NOT yet been punished, or put to an end.

The first thing to find out is the truth about what happened, before you can cast any blame.

“Wait a moment… somebody remind me why banks like Goldman thought it would be a good idea to get into the business of making subprime loans again?”

Here you go, Erika…

“At President Clinton’s direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity.”

Wait a moment… somebody remind me why banks like Goldman thought it would be a good idea to get into the business of making subprime loans again?

Goldman is an investment bank. It does not make mortgage loans. Period. Nor can you open a checking account at your friendly neighborhood Goldman location.

You clearly have a much greater command of buzzwords (“rent-seeker”)than the banking industry.

Try again.