Do you really believe that “Our banks operate almost entirely on a self-centered capitalist agenda. They are, for the most part, completely independent entities. They must follow government regulations but are otherwise free to operate as they wish.”?How, EXACTLY, is this comment productive - in any way???
You attack a portion of my post. I'm fine with that. IF I wrong I am very willing to learn.
But you don't go into any detail(s) whatsoever regarding how specifically I am wrong. Why not? Please use your words and be detailed on how exactly our banks do not operate to serve their own financial interests and are not mostly independent to serve those needs?
Regards,
Doug
We are doomed. too much money is “missing“This is more insane than keynesian economics.
ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zerowww.zerohedge.com
Do you really believe that “Our banks operate almost entirely on a self-centered capitalist agenda. They are, for the most part, completely independent entities. They must follow government regulations but are otherwise free to operate as they wish.”?
They are far from free. Maybe it should have been purple to denote sarcasm…
Just not so. A big part of the sub-prime loan mess was government forcing banks to make risky loans to the governments preferred people. This was forced by the uniparty, dems could say they got their voters homes and republicans got their money backers profits with a government backstop if it failed.OUR banks are free from being legally forced to do something.
Did they force them too, or did they negotiate them to the position, with all their poor-judgment leadership in place?Just not so. A big part of the sub-prime loan mess was government forcing banks to make risky loans to the governments preferred people. This was forced by the uniparty, dems could say they got their voters homes and republicans got their money backers profits with a government backstop if it failed.
Yup. Blanket deposit guarantee and unlimited bailout is coming. Rate cuts and QE. MMT crazies are firmly in control of the levers and all they know how to do is print.I think at the end of the day current leadership will simply print it's way out of this mess, think Germany 1923.
If by force you mean is there a specific law that says make bad loans, there is not that I know of. If by negotiate you mean regs with penalties combined with carrots on the other side, yes, I call that force. My banker friends call that force. And when the leftists told the dems they wanted it they too called it force…Did they force them too, or did they negotiate them to the position, with all their poor-judgment leadership in place?
So “no laws” vs “laws”, which is what L01 was pointing out upthread, the difference between us and them.If by force you mean is there a specific law that says make bad loans, there is not that I know of. If by negotiate you mean regs with penalties combined with carrots on the other side, yes, I call that force. My banker friends call that force. And when the leftists told the dems they wanted it they too called it force…
We are just debating semantics. As a farmer you should know just how much the government forces its edicts.So “no laws” vs “laws”, which is what L01 was pointing out upthread, the difference between us and them.
It’s a fine line, no doubt, and I’m sure it feels like force.
Just so I understand, you position is the 2008 subprime crisis was caused/driven by over-regulation?If by force you mean is there a specific law that says make bad loans, there is not that I know of. If by negotiate you mean regs with penalties combined with carrots on the other side, yes, I call that force. My banker friends call that force. And when the leftists told the dems they wanted it they too called it force…
It was a big part, the other part is the big money banks knew they could make the profits from the sub-prime loans and the government would back stop the losses just as they did.Just so I understand, you position is the 2008 subprime crisis was caused/driven by over-regulation?
I just wanted to see it actually written.It was a big part, the other part is the big money banks knew they could make the profits from the sub-prime loans and the government would back stop the losses just as they did.
Do you believe it was something else?
And this is the fast track path to hyperinflation. The thing that probably scares me more than anything else.Yup. Blanket deposit guarantee and unlimited bailout is coming. Rate cuts and QE. MMT crazies are firmly in control of the levers and all they know how to do is print.
Quick little primer for us mere mortals trying to follow along (maybe it's just me).
WHAT IS AN AT1 BOND?
AT1 bonds - a $275 billion sector also known as "contingent convertibles" or "CoCo" bonds - act as shock absorbers if a bank's capital levels fall below a certain threshold. They can be converted into equity or written off.
They make up part of the capital cushion that regulators require banks to hold to provide support in times of market turmoil.
They are the riskiest type of bond a bank can issue and so carry a higher coupon.
If AT1s are converted into equity, this supports a bank's balance sheet and helps it to stay afloat. They also pave the way for a "bail-in", or a way for banks to transfer risks to investors and away from taxpayers if they get into trouble.
WHAT HAPPENED TO CREDIT SUISSE AT1S?
AT1s rank higher than shares in the capital structure of a bank. If a bank runs into trouble, bondholders will rank above shareholders in terms of getting their money back.
In Switzerland, the bonds' terms state, however, that in a restructuring, the financial watchdog is under no obligation to adhere to the traditional capital structure, which is how bondholders lost out in the Credit Suisse situation.
-Reuters
ETA I assume AT1's or CoCo's would really only be in the portfolio of an aggressive investor, not your average retirement portfolio?