A Bankster Calls For Glass-Steagall

[B. Kidd]

Is Sandy Weill Right? - Seeking Alpha

 

[Billo_Really]

Is Sandy Weill Right? - Seeking Alpha

This country cannot get back on track without it!

 

[B. Kidd]

Is Sandy Weill Right? - Seeking Alpha

This country cannot get back on track without it!

Wouldn't be a cure-all, but at least it would get us moving in the right direction.

 

[Widdekind]

"Bust the banks" smacks of anti-monopoly legislation in the early 1900s. Invoking government, into markets, is dangerous. Private market forces already, and alone, may "restructure" big banks. Invoking government, to "attack" big, successful, (bank) businesses, is not Libertarian. Inexpertly, the Public could FDIC insure personal deposits, only; and, so, perhaps require that "safe" personal deposits be backed by "safe" collateral (vault cash, reserves, safe loans). Meanwhile, what does government know, that "activist investors", with their own money involved, do not? Investors themselves may restructure banks, without need of Public action.

Weill now suggests that the best way to make money as a bank is as a "pure-play company" that can operate consumer and proprietary units without fear of running afoul of new regulations... that might improve bank valuations. The three largest U.S. diversified banks with both commercial and investment banking operations trade well below their peers that lack these operations.

investors in these companies surely would benefit from splitting their operations... combined commercial banks/investment companies need to listen actively to their investors and take action to avoid being targeted by activist investors who will force the changes necessary to build shareholder value.

Morgan Stanley is trading at less than half of its liquidation value and could double if broken up... The shares are trading on a price-to-book ratio of 0.4 x - about 70% below the industry average of 1.3 x... They should consider restructuring their capital in ways that can be better appreciated by the market, giving their investors the enhanced performance they seek.

 

[B. Kidd]

"Bust the banks" smacks of anti-monopoly legislation in the early 1900s. Invoking government, into markets, is dangerous. Private market forces already, and alone, may "restructure" big banks. Invoking government, to "attack" big, successful, (bank) businesses, is not Libertarian. Inexpertly, the Public could FDIC insure personal deposits, only; and, so, perhaps require that "safe" personal deposits be backed by "safe" collateral (vault cash, reserves, safe loans). Meanwhile, what does government know, that "activist investors", with their own money involved, do not? Investors themselves may restructure banks, without need of Public action.

Weill now suggests that the best way to make money as a bank is as a "pure-play company" that can operate consumer and proprietary units without fear of running afoul of new regulations... that might improve bank valuations. The three largest U.S. diversified banks with both commercial and investment banking operations trade well below their peers that lack these operations.

investors in these companies surely would benefit from splitting their operations... combined commercial banks/investment companies need to listen actively to their investors and take action to avoid being targeted by activist investors who will force the changes necessary to build shareholder value.

Morgan Stanley is trading at less than half of its liquidation value and could double if broken up... The shares are trading on a price-to-book ratio of 0.4 x - about 70% below the industry average of 1.3 x... They should consider restructuring their capital in ways that can be better appreciated by the market, giving their investors the enhanced performance they seek.

Hell, even casinos have 'house rules'. Why? To protect 'the house'! Banks aren't protecting their own 'houses'.
Just ask Jeff Dimon.............
(At least casinos know what the left hand is doin' as the right hand deals da' cards.......)
Also, tell me wunderkind, when was the last time taxpayers' had to bail out a casinos' zombie books?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sandy Weill joins Alan Greenspan under the Wheels of the Crowded Conservative Bus

Is Sandy Weill Right? - Seeking Alpha

and as the right wing throws this piece-o-shit under the proverbial bus (must be clogged under there?): Who is Sandy Weill

reason #1 to break the banks up: "Bankers say being big has many benefits" - yeah, these people led us over the cliff a few years ago.

The former Citigroup Inc CEO, who was in many ways the architect of the "too big to fail" giant bank system, dropped a bombshell on Wall Street on Wednesday by proposing that universal banks should be broken up because they are too big and complex to manage. [ID: nL2E8IP6F1]

The Citigroup CEO Who Broke Glass-Steagall Wants It Back | Crooks and Liars

as with Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, the right wing will dispose of Weill as a traitor to ideology. It's more Conservative claptrap of Ideology over National good.
---

[youtube]bAH-o7oEiyY[/youtube]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Bust the banks" smacks of anti-monopoly legislation in the early 1900s. Invoking government, into markets, is dangerous. Private market forces already, and alone, may "restructure" big banks. Invoking government, to "attack" big, successful, (bank) businesses, is not Libertarian...

Libertarians today value ideological purity over national unity, and what is good for the people, versus what is good for the so-called free market

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Bust the banks" smacks of anti-monopoly legislation in the early 1900s. Invoking government, into markets, is dangerous. Private market forces already, and alone, may "restructure" big banks. Invoking government, to "attack" big, successful, (bank) businesses, is not Libertarian...

Libertarians today value ideological purity over national unity, and what is good for the people, versus what is good for the so-called free market

its very simple, you deregulate the banks and let the free market take care of everything. Is anyone buying those MBS's today? Is Jefferson County buying those deriviatives anymore?

When you have government regulation consumers assume everything is safe because the government regulators have your back. As soon as the regulators are stupid or corrupt the entire nation is doomed. But, when there is no government regulation everyone must be assured individually or there is no business for the banks!!
Any damage or fraud or corruption is localized and the nation merely moves on.

 

[emilynghiem]

Is Sandy Weill Right? - Seeking Alpha

I would seek the same effect and end by requiring ALL corporations, all institutions registered with the state, to uphold the same Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment (and perhaps the Code of Ethics for Govt Service) required of govt to prevent from oppressing grievances and due process of people affected by collective authority/resources/influence.

as long as there is adequate check on corporations as with govt, then abuses and conflics of interests can be resolved. currently even our legal and judicial system needs to undergo reform because it has been corrupted by conflicts of interests obstructing due process.

 

[B. Kidd]

"Bust the banks" smacks of anti-monopoly legislation in the early 1900s. Invoking government, into markets, is dangerous. Private market forces already, and alone, may "restructure" big banks. Invoking government, to "attack" big, successful, (bank) businesses, is not Libertarian...

Libertarians today value ideological purity over national unity, and what is good for the people, versus what is good for the so-called free market

its very simple, you deregulate the banks and let the free market take care of everything. Is anyone buying those MBS's today? Is Jefferson County buying those deriviatives anymore?

When you have government regulation consumers assume everything is safe because the government regulators have your back. As soon as the regulators are stupid or corrupt the entire nation is doomed. But, when there is no government regulation everyone must be assured individually or there is no business for the banks!!
Any damage or fraud or corruption is localized and the nation merely moves on.

If 'gaming commissions' did not exist, I'm sure less people would be flocking to casinos'.
There is a balance to be achieved. When THAT balance (gov't regulation vs. private sector) tilts too far in either direction, then the people (taxpayers or players) lose, both ways.
And if the people/consumers lose too much, they'll just go someplace else or figure something else out.
Banks currently have little loan business, as most consumers are in the foreclosure department. One must have assets to take out a loan, and 40% of the middle class wealth has been wiped out and they are spent. Why do you think banks are sitting on so much cash, alot of it fiat?
And you are calling for NO Gov't regulation after all has been spent and done?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If 'gaming commissions' did not exist, I'm sure less people would be flocking to casinos'.

you've got it backwards. If the industry was corrupt or planes crashed who would buy the product? Freedom works. Liberal regulation breeds sloth!

 

[Dot Com]

"Bust the banks" smacks of anti-monopoly legislation in the early 1900s. Invoking government, into markets, is dangerous. Private market forces already, and alone, may "restructure" big banks. Invoking government, to "attack" big, successful, (bank) businesses, is not Libertarian. Inexpertly, the Public could FDIC insure personal deposits, only; and, so, perhaps require that "safe" personal deposits be backed by "safe" collateral (vault cash, reserves, safe loans). Meanwhile, what does government know, that "activist investors", with their own money involved, do not? Investors themselves may restructure banks, without need of Public action.

Weill now suggests that the best way to make money as a bank is as a "pure-play company" that can operate consumer and proprietary units without fear of running afoul of new regulations... that might improve bank valuations. The three largest U.S. diversified banks with both commercial and investment banking operations trade well below their peers that lack these operations.

investors in these companies surely would benefit from splitting their operations... combined commercial banks/investment companies need to listen actively to their investors and take action to avoid being targeted by activist investors who will force the changes necessary to build shareholder value.

Morgan Stanley is trading at less than half of its liquidation value and could double if broken up... The shares are trading on a price-to-book ratio of 0.4 x - about 70% below the industry average of 1.3 x... They should consider restructuring their capital in ways that can be better appreciated by the market, giving their investors the enhanced performance they seek.

the way things are now, w/ all that concentrated power, they own the senate. See here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/stock-market/235219-global-bankers-legalized-crime.html

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And you are calling for NO Gov't regulation after all has been spent and done?

yes government regulation with Fan Fred CRA FHA Fed etc got people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford. THe USSR taught us that regulation is the problem. China just deregulated and they are getting rich rather than slowly starving to death. NOtice how the easiest things will be way over a liberal's head

 

[barry1960]

"Bust the banks" smacks of anti-monopoly legislation in the early 1900s. Invoking government, into markets, is dangerous. Private market forces already, and alone, may "restructure" big banks. Invoking government, to "attack" big, successful, (bank) businesses, is not Libertarian...

Libertarians today value ideological purity over national unity, and what is good for the people, versus what is good for the so-called free market

its very simple, you deregulate the banks and let the free market take care of everything. Is anyone buying those MBS's today? Is Jefferson County buying those deriviatives anymore?

When you have government regulation consumers assume everything is safe because the government regulators have your back. As soon as the regulators are stupid or corrupt the entire nation is doomed. But, when there is no government regulation everyone must be assured individually or there is no business for the banks!!
Any damage or fraud or corruption is localized and the nation merely moves on.

I can understand an argument regarding the degree of regulation, but a complete removal? Everything them becomes caveat emptor. Why should such a lack of regulation localize corruption? This is too perfectly stupid.

 

[Rshermr]

"Bust the banks" smacks of anti-monopoly legislation in the early 1900s. Invoking government, into markets, is dangerous. Private market forces already, and alone, may "restructure" big banks. Invoking government, to "attack" big, successful, (bank) businesses, is not Libertarian. Inexpertly, the Public could FDIC insure personal deposits, only; and, so, perhaps require that "safe" personal deposits be backed by "safe" collateral (vault cash, reserves, safe loans). Meanwhile, what does government know, that "activist investors", with their own money involved, do not? Investors themselves may restructure banks, without need of Public action.

Weill now suggests that the best way to make money as a bank is as a "pure-play company" that can operate consumer and proprietary units without fear of running afoul of new regulations... that might improve bank valuations. The three largest U.S. diversified banks with both commercial and investment banking operations trade well below their peers that lack these operations.

investors in these companies surely would benefit from splitting their operations... combined commercial banks/investment companies need to listen actively to their investors and take action to avoid being targeted by activist investors who will force the changes necessary to build shareholder value.

Morgan Stanley is trading at less than half of its liquidation value and could double if broken up... The shares are trading on a price-to-book ratio of 0.4 x - about 70% below the industry average of 1.3 x... They should consider restructuring their capital in ways that can be better appreciated by the market, giving their investors the enhanced performance they seek.

Wow, now there is a surprise. Widdle goes with the tea party and con line. Don't regulate the banks.
Maybe if you just once cared about other than the dogma that the right pumps out, someone would actually take you seriously. Banks pay the politicians, especially repubs, and repubs say don't interfere with the banks.

Think about it for a moment, Widdle. You have banks making home loans, and selling securities. How did that work in 07 and 08? Why, the greatest economic depression since 1929. But from the 30's when Glass Steagall became law, until it was eliminated in 99, we had no bank failures of major proportion. Get rid of Glass Steagall, and what do we get? 7 years later we get a colapse of major proportion. The bankers want no regulation. The repubs want no regulation. And some dems, also well paid by banks, want no regulation. And Widdle wants no regulation. Try stepping away from the con dogma, and spend some time in the real world.

 

[Rshermr]

"Bust the banks" smacks of anti-monopoly legislation in the early 1900s. Invoking government, into markets, is dangerous. Private market forces already, and alone, may "restructure" big banks. Invoking government, to "attack" big, successful, (bank) businesses, is not Libertarian...

Libertarians today value ideological purity over national unity, and what is good for the people, versus what is good for the so-called free market

its very simple, you deregulate the banks and let the free market take care of everything. Is anyone buying those MBS's today? Is Jefferson County buying those deriviatives anymore?

When you have government regulation consumers assume everything is safe because the government regulators have your back. As soon as the regulators are stupid or corrupt the entire nation is doomed. But, when there is no government regulation everyone must be assured individually or there is no business for the banks!!
Any damage or fraud or corruption is localized and the nation merely moves on.

And another con spouts the dogma. Let the banks alone. They will take care of the their own problems. Don.t look at 07 and 08. So what if we had no major failures of banks during the 70 years of Glass Steagall. So what if it only took 7 years after eliminating Glass Steaagall for the economy to crash. Just trust the cons, who get their pay checks from the banks, cause they would not lead you astray.
Jesus, Ed, get a grip. Try the real world for a change, instead of constantly lining up with the tea party dogma. You would be shocked at what an open mind can do for you.

 

[Rshermr]

And you are calling for NO Gov't regulation after all has been spent and done?

yes government regulation with Fan Fred CRA FHA Fed etc got people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford. THe USSR taught us that regulation is the problem. China just deregulated and they are getting rich rather than slowly starving to death. NOtice how the easiest things will be way over a liberal's head

Ed always lines up with the con line. Never anything original. He could simply type his name, and I would fully know what he would say. Just because banks were regulated after the crash of 29, and we had no major bank failures for over 70 years, then we remove regulation, and the banks bring us to the brink of a recession, we should consider regulating them again?? Of course not, ed says, because that is not the con dogma that he spouts. Get a grip, ed. Try the real world for a change.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is Sandy Weill Right? - Seeking Alpha

Banks could write bad mortgages under Glass-Steagall.

 

[Rshermr]

Is Sandy Weill Right? - Seeking Alpha

Banks could write bad mortgages under Glass-Steagall.

Yes, they could. And did, in some cases. But they did not make and sell mortgage backed securities, they did not manufacture and sell derivatives. They could not count on these instruments to keep them going if a bunch of mortgages failed.
So, again, they did not have a major bank failure when Glass Steagall was in place. They did, when they were allowed to gamble with their customers equity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is Sandy Weill Right? - Seeking Alpha

Banks could write bad mortgages under Glass-Steagall.

Yes, they could. And did, in some cases. But they did not make and sell mortgage backed securities, they did not manufacture and sell derivatives. They could not count on these instruments to keep them going if a bunch of mortgages failed.
So, again, they did not have a major bank failure when Glass Steagall was in place. They did, when they were allowed to gamble with their customers equity.

But they did not make and sell mortgage backed securities

MBS existed for decades under Glass Steagall.

So, again, they did not have a major bank failure when Glass Steagall was in place.

You sure about that?

They did, when they were allowed to gamble with their customers equity.

Banks didn't fail because of derivatives, they failed because of mortgages.