A Bankster Calls For Glass-Steagall

[Rshermr]

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.

MBS's did not exist in large volume until they were bundled, which ocurred after the end of Glass Steagell. What did happen, and what you do not seem to want to admit (for obvious reasons) was that when commercial banks were given the ability to sell securities, and investment banks were able to sell mortgages, the banksters began were able to gamble - sell high risk products, which were made up of mortgages. And they were able to sell insurance products, derivatives, which were totally unregulated and generally with no actual value behind them.
You may know all this. But you want to push the con dogma, which is do not regulate the banksters, they will do great without regulation. But, history is not on your side. There is too much opportunity to make big bucks on securities, as compared to lower yields on mortgages.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

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

You sure about that?

To be clear, I meant a large scale failure of a number of banks regulated by the Glass Steagall act. Individual bank failures did happen, and always will. But nothing like the magnitude in 07 - 08.
But you keep pushing that tea party dogma, And don't be concerned about the truth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

MBS's did not exist in large volume until they were bundled, which ocurred after the end of Glass Steagell. What did happen, and what you do not seem to want to admit (for obvious reasons) was that when commercial banks were given the ability to sell securities, and investment banks were able to sell mortgages, the banksters began were able to gamble - sell high risk products, which were made up of mortgages. And they were able to sell insurance products, derivatives, which were totally unregulated and generally with no actual value behind them.
You may know all this. But you want to push the con dogma, which is do not regulate the banksters, they will do great without regulation. But, history is not on your side. There is too much opportunity to make big bucks on securities, as compared to lower yields on mortgages.

MBS's did not exist in large volume until they were bundled, which ocurred after the end of Glass Steagell.

They did exist in large volumes under Glass Steagall.

when commercial banks were given the ability to sell securities, and investment banks were able to sell mortgages

Investment banks bought and sold mortgages under Glass Steagall.

the banksters began were able to gamble - sell high risk products, which were made up of mortgages.

High risk products made up of mortgages? Like what?

And they were able to sell insurance products, derivatives, which were totally unregulated

Banks didn't get in trouble from selling derivatives. Many did get in trouble from buying mortgages.

and generally with no actual value behind them.

What does that mean?

But you want to push the con dogma, which is do not regulate the banksters,

Banks are one of the most heavily regulated industries around and look at the trouble they got into by writing mortgages.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

You sure about that?

To be clear, I meant a large scale failure of a number of banks regulated by the Glass Steagall act. Individual bank failures did happen, and always will. But nothing like the magnitude in 07 - 08.
But you keep pushing that tea party dogma, And don't be concerned about the truth.

Individual bank failures did happen, and always will. But nothing like the magnitude in 07 - 08.

The recent bank failures weren't due to investment banking.
Mortgages on residential and commercial real estate were to blame.

Keep pushing that progressive dogma, And don't be concerned about the truth.

 

[expat_panama]

...MBS's did not exist in large volume until they were bundled, which ocurred after the end of Glass Steagell...

Ah, it's all Clinton's fault for signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999.

NO!!!! That's impossible, everything's Bush's fault and Clinton didn't repeal the most restrictive sections --half of the entire Glass-Steagall Act. All that got repealed was brokerage/bank associations which was impossible to enforce anyway. The big stuff is still in affect:

Section 16, codified as paragraph seventh of section 24 of the National Bank Act, applied solely to national banks and Federal Reserve System members. It said two things: One, such banks could invest only in debt securities (no equities)-and only in such securities that were authorized by the Comptroller of the Currency, which is the supervisor of national banks. Securities authorized by the Comptroller were defined as "investment securities", and in practice the Comptroller restricted such securities to investment grade securities. Two, no such bank (national bank or Federal Reserve member bank) could (except for investment securities as defined above) deal in securities or stock for its own account, but could do so solely upon the order of and for the account of customers.

Section 21 applies to any institution that accepts "deposits". It prohibits any such institution from underwriting securities. ​

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

too stupid but perfectly liberal!!! Glass Steagall had nothing on earth to do with the housing crisis that caused the current liberal depression, a depression caused not by Glass but because most of the Federal governemnt was organized to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford!

Liberalism is the absence of thought!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

too stupid but perfectly liberal!!! Glass Steagall had nothing on earth to do with the housing crisis that caused the current liberal depression, a depression caused not by Glass but because most of the Federal governemnt was organized to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford!

Liberalism is the absence of thought!!

This imbecile is still regurgitating discredited Con-talking points?

Glass-Steagall and the Economic Crisis | Beat the Press

However, Mr. Frank said that in 2004, he became concerned about the growth in the market for subprime loans, those made to borrowers with weak credit. Those loans are often faulted for sparking a financial panic starting in 2007...Mr. Frank noted, as he has repeatedly over the past two years, that Democrats had little ability to do much about questionable mortgage lending practices or the structure of Fannie and Freddie. That’s because Republicans controlled the House of Representatives from 1995 until 2006. Democrats took over the House in 2007.

“I was late in recognizing the problem,” Mr. Frank said at a news conference Monday. “But it was when I was in the minority.”

Mr. Frank noted that in 2005, he voted in the House Financial Services Committee for a Republican-backed bill that would have imposed stricter regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

Mr. Frank later voted against that bill on the House floor after Republicans tacked on a provision barring some nonprofit community groups from receiving money from an affordable-housing fund contained in the bill.

The bill, however, was opposed by the White House and Senate Republicans as too weak, and died after passing the House. Lawmakers ultimately passed legislation to create a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie in mid-2008. But by then it was too late. Fannie and Freddie were placed under federal control in September 2008, a rescue that has cost taxpayers about $151 billion to date.

In an interview Monday, former Rep. Mike Oxley, a Republican who chaired the financial services panel from 2001 through 2006, said that bill was a lost opportunity to overhaul Fannie and Freddie.

Oxley noted that Rep. Frank helped deliver Democratic votes in favor of it. If the bill had been signed into law in 2005, Mr. Oxley noted that there would have been two years — 2006 and 2007 — during which the regulator could have tightened control over Fannie and Freddie.

“The new regulator would have had a chance to do some good,” Oxley said. “Frankly, we could have avoided a lot of the problems that developed…if that law had been on the books.”

Barney Frank: Don't Blame Me for Fannie, Freddie Problems - Developments - WSJ

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This imbecile is still regurgitating discredited Con-talking points?

of course if so the liberal would not be so afraid to say which talking is discredited and why. What does your fear tell you??

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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

You sure about that?

To be clear, I meant a large scale failure of a number of banks regulated by the Glass Steagall act. Individual bank failures did happen, and always will. But nothing like the magnitude in 07 - 08.
But you keep pushing that tea party dogma, And don't be concerned about the truth.

Individual bank failures did happen, and always will. But nothing like the magnitude in 07 - 08.

The recent bank failures weren't due to investment banking.
Mortgages on residential and commercial real estate were to blame.

Keep pushing that progressive dogma, And don't be concerned about the truth.

Credit default swap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brooksley Born - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Securitization, Deregulation, Economic Stability, and Financial Crisis ...
www.levyinstitute.org/files/download.php?file=wp_573_2.pdf...

Deregulation, the Financial Crisis, and Policy Implications ..... mortgages issued in 2006 and 2007 have performed much worse and non-FRMs are performing ...

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_573_2.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

too stupid but perfectly liberal!!! Glass Steagall had nothing on earth to do with the housing crisis that caused the current liberal depression, a depression caused not by Glass but because most of the Federal governemnt was organized to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford!

Liberalism is the absence of thought!!

Let's not tell him about Continental Illinois.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

too stupid but perfectly liberal!!! Glass Steagall had nothing on earth to do with the housing crisis that caused the current liberal depression, a depression caused not by Glass but because most of the Federal governemnt was organized to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford!

Liberalism is the absence of thought!!

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

too stupid but perfectly liberal!!! Glass Steagall had nothing on earth to do with the housing crisis that caused the current liberal depression, a depression caused not by Glass but because most of the Federal governemnt was organized to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford!

Liberalism is the absence of thought!!

This imbecile is still regurgitating discredited Con-talking points?

Glass-Steagall and the Economic Crisis | Beat the Press

However, Mr. Frank said that in 2004, he became concerned about the growth in the market for subprime loans, those made to borrowers with weak credit. Those loans are often faulted for sparking a financial panic starting in 2007...Mr. Frank noted, as he has repeatedly over the past two years, that Democrats had little ability to do much about questionable mortgage lending practices or the structure of Fannie and Freddie. That’s because Republicans controlled the House of Representatives from 1995 until 2006. Democrats took over the House in 2007.

“I was late in recognizing the problem,” Mr. Frank said at a news conference Monday. “But it was when I was in the minority.”

Mr. Frank noted that in 2005, he voted in the House Financial Services Committee for a Republican-backed bill that would have imposed stricter regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

Mr. Frank later voted against that bill on the House floor after Republicans tacked on a provision barring some nonprofit community groups from receiving money from an affordable-housing fund contained in the bill.

The bill, however, was opposed by the White House and Senate Republicans as too weak, and died after passing the House. Lawmakers ultimately passed legislation to create a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie in mid-2008. But by then it was too late. Fannie and Freddie were placed under federal control in September 2008, a rescue that has cost taxpayers about $151 billion to date.

In an interview Monday, former Rep. Mike Oxley, a Republican who chaired the financial services panel from 2001 through 2006, said that bill was a lost opportunity to overhaul Fannie and Freddie.

Oxley noted that Rep. Frank helped deliver Democratic votes in favor of it. If the bill had been signed into law in 2005, Mr. Oxley noted that there would have been two years — 2006 and 2007 — during which the regulator could have tightened control over Fannie and Freddie.

“The new regulator would have had a chance to do some good,” Oxley said. “Frankly, we could have avoided a lot of the problems that developed…if that law had been on the books.”

Barney Frank: Don't Blame Me for Fannie, Freddie Problems - Developments - WSJ

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

too stupid but perfectly liberal!!! Glass Steagall had nothing on earth to do with the housing crisis that caused the current liberal depression, a depression caused not by Glass but because most of the Federal governemnt was organized to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford!

Liberalism is the absence of thought!!

Let's not tell him about Continental Illinois.

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.

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

You sure about that?

To be clear, I meant a large scale failure of a number of banks regulated by the Glass Steagall act. Individual bank failures did happen, and always will. But nothing like the magnitude in 07 - 08.
But you keep pushing that tea party dogma, And don't be concerned about the truth.

Individual bank failures did happen, and always will. But nothing like the magnitude in 07 - 08.

The recent bank failures weren't due to investment banking.
Mortgages on residential and commercial real estate were to blame.

Keep pushing that progressive dogma, And don't be concerned about the truth.

Credit default swap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brooksley Born - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Securitization, Deregulation, Economic Stability, and Financial Crisis ...
www.levyinstitute.org/files/download.php?file=wp_573_2.pdf...

Deregulation, the Financial Crisis, and Policy Implications ..... mortgages issued in 2006 and 2007 have performed much worse and non-FRMs are performing ...

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_573_2.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

You sure about that?

To be clear, I meant a large scale failure of a number of banks regulated by the Glass Steagall act. Individual bank failures did happen, and always will. But nothing like the magnitude in 07 - 08.
But you keep pushing that tea party dogma, And don't be concerned about the truth.

Individual bank failures did happen, and always will. But nothing like the magnitude in 07 - 08.

The recent bank failures weren't due to investment banking.
Mortgages on residential and commercial real estate were to blame.

Keep pushing that progressive dogma, And don't be concerned about the truth.

Credit default swap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brooksley Born - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Securitization, Deregulation, Economic Stability, and Financial Crisis ...
www.levyinstitute.org/files/download.php?file=wp_573_2.pdf...

Deregulation, the Financial Crisis, and Policy Implications ..... mortgages issued in 2006 and 2007 have performed much worse and non-FRMs are performing ...

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_573_2.pdf

Yes, I know about CDS and Brooksley Born.
What would you like to know?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

too stupid but perfectly liberal!!! Glass Steagall had nothing on earth to do with the housing crisis that caused the current liberal depression, a depression caused not by Glass but because most of the Federal governemnt was organized to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford!

Liberalism is the absence of thought!!

Let's not tell him about Continental Illinois.

yes, or ask him exactly how Glass caused the housing collapse

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

too stupid but perfectly liberal!!! Glass Steagall had nothing on earth to do with the housing crisis that caused the current liberal depression, a depression caused not by Glass but because most of the Federal governemnt was organized to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford!

Liberalism is the absence of thought!!

Let's not tell him about Continental Illinois.

yes, or ask him exactly how Glass caused the housing collapse

It's obvious, under Glass Steagall, banks couldn't write mortgages.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Let's not tell him about Continental Illinois.

yes, or ask him exactly how Glass caused the housing collapse

It's obvious, under Glass Steagall, banks couldn't write mortgages.

too bad the Hive circle jerk is about something Dante never claimed

next

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[
too bad the Hive circle jerk is about something Dante never claimed

next

next??? tell us how Glass caused the current housing depression or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to keep your foot out of your mouth!!

 

[Rshermr]

[
too bad the Hive circle jerk is about something Dante never claimed

next

next??? tell us how Glass caused the current housing depression or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to keep your foot out of your mouth!!

Ed, showing you anything is impossible. You do not have an open mind. You are a con, pumping out the right wing dogma, full time.
Read the original article in this thread. Chances are the author, as a prior CEO of one of the 2 largest banking companies in the US, will know so much more than you that it would seem questionable that you are of the same specie. The answer is simple, and easy to find, should you want to. Which you do not.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You are a con, pumping out the right wing dogma, full time.

But dear so were our Founders? Did you ever read their Constitution?
If you don't like freedom from liberal government why don't you move to Cuba? Wouldn't you rather be among your own kind? Florida is 90 miles away but liberals prefer the liberal government of Cuba even when it produces 8% of what our economy produces. Go figure.

 

[B. Kidd]

You are a con, pumping out the right wing dogma, full time.

But dear so were our Founders? Did you ever read their Constitution?
If you don't like freedom from liberal government why don't you move to Cuba? Wouldn't you rather be among your own kind? Florida is 90 miles away but liberals prefer the liberal government of Cuba even when it produces 8% of what our economy produces. Go figure.

Am not a liberal.....just someone who loves the Country and does not trust the Government.

Cuban GDP grew 2.1% in the first half of 2012 (this year).
U.S. GDP grew 1.5% in the first half of this year.

Cuba had a 4 billion dollar trade surplus in 2011.
U.S. trade deficit at 48.7 billion in May 2012.

Are you a Patriot? (doubt it!)
Go figure.