The Derp
Gold Member
- Apr 12, 2017
- 9,620
- 661
- 205
- Banned
- #481
They don't pay the fines on revenue either.
And the fines they paid were less than 7% of their quarterly profits. And why did they pay the fines in the first place? Because they committed fraud during the mortgage bubble. So I guess in your world, fining banks for committing fraud is an attack on the banks. Which seems to be in line with your blame the victim mentality. I bet you also think rapists are the real victims of rape too, right? After all, if it's an unfair "attack on the banks" to fine them for committing fraud, then you must also think it's an unfair "attack on rapists" for sentencing them to jail. Unless you're now going to set a brand new standard for the thousandth time....
I wonder if that reduced the loans they could make?
Nope. Not at all. Not even a bit. The fines represented less than 7% of their quarterly profits. The banks had no issues with loans prior to the 2004 change to the net capital rule. So why would going back to that rule have any different effect? The banks didn't eliminate the net capital rule to increase lending, silly person. No, the banks removed that rule to increase purchases of risky securities and mortgages that they then spun around in the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets because banks got addicted to those profits.
Bush didn't "eliminate capitalization".
By allowing them to self-regulate, that is precisely what he did. But I suppose this is a step up for you, since you didn't even know this rule change happened until I told you it did.
A leverage ratio of 33 to 1 means a 3% capital requirement.
I thought you said he eliminated the requirement?
He did eliminate it because he replaced it with self-regulation...you know that, right? Self-regulation? It's the thing you all say business should be allowed to do. Obviously, it's stupid and doesn't work because business is inherently reckless, particularly so when one of their own sits in the White House and at Treasury. That 33-1 ratio was what the bank decided it wanted to have. It "self-regulated" itself to that leverage ratio.
Were you lying or just stupid?
The stupid one here is you because removing the net capital requirement in favor of self-regulation, is the same thing as removing the net capital requirement.