A Bankster Calls For Glass-Steagall

[EdwardBaiamonte]

unless basic economic restructuring occurs.

let me guess, liberal communist restructuring???? Do you want the Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or Castro version or do you have a new version that won't start off killing so many millions?


.

Nope.

Just something akin to Glass-Steagall brought back.
That's all for a start (u 'commie-under every-bed drama queen', u)........

right!!! Barry had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders and you think we're looking under our beds????

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow???

 

[expat_panama]

...something akin to Glass-Steagall brought back...

There were a number of Glass-Steagall bank acts, and most are still in effect. One was changed and before wanting something back, we need to actually look at it:

The Glass-Steagall Act consisted of four provisions to address the conflicts of interest that the Congress concluded had helped trigger the 1929 crash:[1]

Section 16 restricted commercial national banks from engaging in most investment banking activities;
Section 21 prohibited investment banks from engaging in any commercial banking activities;
Section 20 prohibited any Federal Reserve-member bank from affiliating with an investment bank or other company “engaged principally” in securities trading;
Section 32 prohibited individuals from serving simultaneously with a commercial bank and an investment bank as a director, officer, employee, or principal.

Glass-Steagall Act - SourceWatch

I don't see our needing any any of that brought back, but just what is it that you believe we need now?

 

[Sallow]

Absolutely..

Glass-Steagall should be brought back. There should be a strict line between the financial and banking industries.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Absolutely..

Glass-Steagall should be brought back. There should be a strict line between the financial and banking industries.

Yes! Because that will stop banks from writing bad mortgages. Wait, what?

 

[Sallow]

Absolutely..

Glass-Steagall should be brought back. There should be a strict line between the financial and banking industries.

Yes! Because that will stop banks from writing bad mortgages. Wait, what?

Due diligence will keep banks from writing bad mortgages.

Something notably absent when financial institutions like Goldman Sachs were looking for volume to stuff into derivatives and brand new loan agencies with unlicensed agents were making all sorts of bad loans that had nothing to do with traditional banks.

But you knew that..right?

Sadek says he was dealt a jack, then an ace. Blackjack. He would make payroll. Quick Loan Funding, based in Costa Mesa, California, would survive and, for a while, prosper as one of 1,300 mortgage lenders in the state vying to satisfy Wall Street's thirst for subprime debt.

As home prices rose and hunger for high-yield investments grew, Sadek found his niche pushing mortgages to borrowers with poor credit. Such subprime home loans grew to $600 billion, or 21 percent, of all U.S. mortgages last year from $160 billion, or 7 percent, in 2001, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, an industry newsletter. Banks drove that growth because they could bundle subprime loans into securities, parts of which paid interest as much as 3 percentage points higher than 10-year Treasury notes.
`Deal With Devil' Funded Carrera Crash Before Bust (Update3) - Bloomberg

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Absolutely..

Glass-Steagall should be brought back. There should be a strict line between the financial and banking industries.

Yes! Because that will stop banks from writing bad mortgages. Wait, what?

Due diligence will keep banks from writing bad mortgages.

Something notably absent when financial institutions like Goldman Sachs were looking for volume to stuff into derivatives and brand new loan agencies with unlicensed agents were making all sorts of bad loans that had nothing to do with traditional banks.

But you knew that..right?

Sadek says he was dealt a jack, then an ace. Blackjack. He would make payroll. Quick Loan Funding, based in Costa Mesa, California, would survive and, for a while, prosper as one of 1,300 mortgage lenders in the state vying to satisfy Wall Street's thirst for subprime debt.

As home prices rose and hunger for high-yield investments grew, Sadek found his niche pushing mortgages to borrowers with poor credit. Such subprime home loans grew to $600 billion, or 21 percent, of all U.S. mortgages last year from $160 billion, or 7 percent, in 2001, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, an industry newsletter. Banks drove that growth because they could bundle subprime loans into securities, parts of which paid interest as much as 3 percentage points higher than 10-year Treasury notes.
`Deal With Devil' Funded Carrera Crash Before Bust (Update3) - Bloomberg

Due diligence is great. Of course that wasn't change by Glass-Steagall or the partial repeal.

unlicensed agents were making all sorts of bad loans that had nothing to do with traditional banks.

Sounds like Glass-Steagall wouldn't have changed that.

 

[Sallow]

Yes! Because that will stop banks from writing bad mortgages. Wait, what?

Due diligence will keep banks from writing bad mortgages.

Something notably absent when financial institutions like Goldman Sachs were looking for volume to stuff into derivatives and brand new loan agencies with unlicensed agents were making all sorts of bad loans that had nothing to do with traditional banks.

But you knew that..right?

Sadek says he was dealt a jack, then an ace. Blackjack. He would make payroll. Quick Loan Funding, based in Costa Mesa, California, would survive and, for a while, prosper as one of 1,300 mortgage lenders in the state vying to satisfy Wall Street's thirst for subprime debt.

As home prices rose and hunger for high-yield investments grew, Sadek found his niche pushing mortgages to borrowers with poor credit. Such subprime home loans grew to $600 billion, or 21 percent, of all U.S. mortgages last year from $160 billion, or 7 percent, in 2001, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, an industry newsletter. Banks drove that growth because they could bundle subprime loans into securities, parts of which paid interest as much as 3 percentage points higher than 10-year Treasury notes.
`Deal With Devil' Funded Carrera Crash Before Bust (Update3) - Bloomberg

Due diligence is great. Of course that wasn't change by Glass-Steagall or the partial repeal.

unlicensed agents were making all sorts of bad loans that had nothing to do with traditional banks.

Sounds like Glass-Steagall wouldn't have changed that.

Sure it would.

Goldman Sachs or any of the other financial firms would not have been underwriting these loans.

Goldman Sachs underwrites and originates a range of debt instruments, including investment-grade and high-yield debt, bank loans and bridge loans, and emerging and growth market debt, which may be issued by, among others, corporate, sovereign, municipal and agency issuers. In addition, it underwrites and originates structured securities, which include mortgage-related securities and other asset-backed securities.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) Company Profile | Reuters.com

Seriously? Do you know the difference between savings and investment?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Due diligence will keep banks from writing bad mortgages.

Something notably absent when financial institutions like Goldman Sachs were looking for volume to stuff into derivatives and brand new loan agencies with unlicensed agents were making all sorts of bad loans that had nothing to do with traditional banks.

But you knew that..right?

Due diligence is great. Of course that wasn't change by Glass-Steagall or the partial repeal.

unlicensed agents were making all sorts of bad loans that had nothing to do with traditional banks.

Sounds like Glass-Steagall wouldn't have changed that.

Sure it would.

Goldman Sachs or any of the other financial firms would not have been underwriting these loans.

Goldman Sachs underwrites and originates a range of debt instruments, including investment-grade and high-yield debt, bank loans and bridge loans, and emerging and growth market debt, which may be issued by, among others, corporate, sovereign, municipal and agency issuers. In addition, it underwrites and originates structured securities, which include mortgage-related securities and other asset-backed securities.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) Company Profile | Reuters.com

Seriously? Do you know the difference between savings and investment?

Goldman Sachs couldn't write bad mortgages under Glass-Steagall?
Countrywide?
What about Bank of America?
Could they write bad mortgages?

Seriously, just what do you think the crisis was about?

 

[Sallow]

Due diligence is great. Of course that wasn't change by Glass-Steagall or the partial repeal.

unlicensed agents were making all sorts of bad loans that had nothing to do with traditional banks.

Sounds like Glass-Steagall wouldn't have changed that.

Sure it would.

Goldman Sachs or any of the other financial firms would not have been underwriting these loans.

Goldman Sachs underwrites and originates a range of debt instruments, including investment-grade and high-yield debt, bank loans and bridge loans, and emerging and growth market debt, which may be issued by, among others, corporate, sovereign, municipal and agency issuers. In addition, it underwrites and originates structured securities, which include mortgage-related securities and other asset-backed securities.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) Company Profile | Reuters.com

Seriously? Do you know the difference between savings and investment?

Goldman Sachs couldn't write bad mortgages under Glass-Steagall?
Countrywide?
What about Bank of America?
Could they write bad mortgages?

Seriously, just what do you think the crisis was about?

It's amazing you come up with this crap in the face of reality.

It would have been a great deal more difficult for savings banks to become involved in the sort of nonsense that caused the financial collapse had Glass-Steagall been in place.

It's not an easy thing to understand..but there's a really good film on the topic. You might want to check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_Big_to_Fail_(film)

Or you could get the book.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure it would.

Goldman Sachs or any of the other financial firms would not have been underwriting these loans.


Seriously? Do you know the difference between savings and investment?

Goldman Sachs couldn't write bad mortgages under Glass-Steagall?
Countrywide?
What about Bank of America?
Could they write bad mortgages?

Seriously, just what do you think the crisis was about?

It's amazing you come up with this crap in the face of reality.

It would have been a great deal more difficult for savings banks to become involved in the sort of nonsense that caused the financial collapse had Glass-Steagall been in place.

It's not an easy thing to understand..but there's a really good film on the topic. You might want to check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_Big_to_Fail_(film)

Or you could get the book.

It would have been a great deal more difficult for savings banks to become involved in the sort of nonsense that caused the financial collapse had Glass-Steagall been in place.

Savings banks got in trouble because they wrote, or bought, bad mortgages.
They didn't get into trouble because they could suddenly underwrite securities.
You could do some research, but it would conflict with your ignorance of the topic.

 

[B. Kidd]

...something akin to Glass-Steagall brought back...

There were a number of Glass-Steagall bank acts, and most are still in effect. One was changed and before wanting something back, we need to actually look at it:

The Glass-Steagall Act consisted of four provisions to address the conflicts of interest that the Congress concluded had helped trigger the 1929 crash:[1]

Section 16 restricted commercial national banks from engaging in most investment banking activities;
Section 21 prohibited investment banks from engaging in any commercial banking activities;
Section 20 prohibited any Federal Reserve-member bank from affiliating with an investment bank or other company “engaged principally” in securities trading;
Section 32 prohibited individuals from serving simultaneously with a commercial bank and an investment bank as a director, officer, employee, or principal.

Glass-Steagall Act - SourceWatch

I don't see our needing any any of that brought back, but just what is it that you believe we need now?

For starters, putting an effective 'firewall' back up between commercial and investment banks. It came down with the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Glass-Steagall worked for 70 years and kept the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle in place.
My link below keeps it simple and understandable, so what is it that confuses you? The fact that ending that 'firewall' failed? (as calling you stupid serves no purpose...).

The Repeal Of The Glass Steagall Act And Its Contribution To The 2008/2009 Economic Crisis

 

[Truthmatters]

Only partisan idiots deny that

 

[Truthmatters]

SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.




The Bush SEC held back the broker rules for 8 years so the banks could do whatever they wanted

 

[B. Kidd]

SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.




The Bush SEC held back the broker rules for 8 years so the banks could do whatever they wanted

Clinton came before Bush, Bush sat on his hands and now we have Barry vs. Mitt. Hell, we do not even have a real choice this election, again!
Plutocracy rules, and neither party has most of our interests in mind.
We've become a leaderless nation of hopeful soon-to-be serfs with no real leaders in sight, with an equally despicable Congress.
This is as non-partisan as one can be!!!

 

[Truthmatters]

The republicans deregulate and every time they do the people get fucked

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...something akin to Glass-Steagall brought back...

There were a number of Glass-Steagall bank acts, and most are still in effect. One was changed and before wanting something back, we need to actually look at it:

The Glass-Steagall Act consisted of four provisions to address the conflicts of interest that the Congress concluded had helped trigger the 1929 crash:[1]

Section 16 restricted commercial national banks from engaging in most investment banking activities;
Section 21 prohibited investment banks from engaging in any commercial banking activities;
Section 20 prohibited any Federal Reserve-member bank from affiliating with an investment bank or other company “engaged principally” in securities trading;
Section 32 prohibited individuals from serving simultaneously with a commercial bank and an investment bank as a director, officer, employee, or principal.

Glass-Steagall Act - SourceWatch

I don't see our needing any any of that brought back, but just what is it that you believe we need now?

For starters, putting an effective 'firewall' back up between commercial and investment banks. It came down with the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Glass-Steagall worked for 70 years and kept the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle in place.
My link below keeps it simple and understandable, so what is it that confuses you? The fact that ending that 'firewall' failed? (as calling you stupid serves no purpose...).

The Repeal Of The Glass Steagall Act And Its Contribution To The 2008/2009 Economic Crisis

For starters, putting an effective 'firewall' back up between commercial and investment banks.

Why?

“Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses.”


Despite the strong case for keeping the Glass-Steagall Act, the banks continued to lobby, and the Act was repealed. What happened? Surprise; the government was required to pay large sums to keep our depository institutions from collapsing.

Which bank(s) would have collapsed from securities losses?

 

[B. Kidd]

Due diligence is great. Of course that wasn't change by Glass-Steagall or the partial repeal.

unlicensed agents were making all sorts of bad loans that had nothing to do with traditional banks.

Sounds like Glass-Steagall wouldn't have changed that.

Sure it would.

Goldman Sachs or any of the other financial firms would not have been underwriting these loans.

Goldman Sachs underwrites and originates a range of debt instruments, including investment-grade and high-yield debt, bank loans and bridge loans, and emerging and growth market debt, which may be issued by, among others, corporate, sovereign, municipal and agency issuers. In addition, it underwrites and originates structured securities, which include mortgage-related securities and other asset-backed securities.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) Company Profile | Reuters.com

Seriously? Do you know the difference between savings and investment?

Goldman Sachs couldn't write bad mortgages under Glass-Steagall?
Countrywide?
What about Bank of America?
Could they write bad mortgages?

Seriously, just what do you think the crisis was about?

Dear Schlubb,
The crisis was about the 'end-user' being a false one, namely the taxpayers, who had to bail out banks, as in too big to fail.
It must be nice to take other peoples' money to invest in your own concerns, involving no risk to ones' self. That's what organized crime used to do. The major banks just perfected this modus operandi, and repealing Glass-Steagall gave them the opportunity.

 

[B. Kidd]

The republicans deregulate and every time they do the people get fucked

MEMO TO TM:

Clinton got da' ball rolling...............

 

[Truthmatters]

Holding back the Broker rules allowed the banks to hire and train whomever they wanted as a securities broker.


In the past the brokers had a have a lisense to be a broker and would have had it revoked if they sold tampered up securities.


no broker rules meant no one to make sure the securities were on the up and up.

it allowed the banks to roll in the bad loans and sell them as AAA

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure it would.

Goldman Sachs or any of the other financial firms would not have been underwriting these loans.


Seriously? Do you know the difference between savings and investment?

Goldman Sachs couldn't write bad mortgages under Glass-Steagall?
Countrywide?
What about Bank of America?
Could they write bad mortgages?

Seriously, just what do you think the crisis was about?

Dear Schlubb,
The crisis was about the 'end-user' being a false one, namely the taxpayers, who had to bail out banks, as in too big to fail.
It must be nice to take other peoples' money to invest in your own concerns, involving no risk to ones' self. That's what organized crime used to do. The major banks just perfected this modus operandi, and repealing Glass-Steagall gave them the opportunity.

It must be nice to take other peoples' money to invest in your own concerns, involving no risk to ones' self.

Banks, their shareholders and their employees lost tens of billions of dollars during the crisis!
"No risk to ones' self"? LOL!