Republicans so worried about the debt, yet they cause most of it.

[The Derp]

You know that they frack for oil, don't you?
You know that fracking involves drilling, don't you?

I think it's pretty obvious Obama was referring to oil when he talked about drilling, not natural gas.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You think 20,000 pages are an encouragement instead of an attack? DURR.

You made a claim that Dodd-Frank attacked banks, then small banks, then small businesses, then medium and small banks, then all business. I asked you to give just one example from Dodd-Frank that did what you claimed and you couldn't even come up with one thing. One passage. One part. You fell back on that which you already knew: the banks were fined for their fraud (Was Dodd-Frank actually responsible for the fines, or were those done outside Dodd-Frank?), and the net capital rule which protects banks.

Take your pick

Actually no, lazybones. It's on you to do the work to find something in that bill that supports your premise. Just posting the bill itself does not do that. If you're resorting to this deflection, then what's obvious is that you don't know anything about the bill, and are just repeating something you were told, ultimately not thinking for yourself. You made the claim, you back it up. It actually requires you to read the bill and understand it. I am not so sure you're up to it. I think you lack the effort and skill.

The argument that onerous regulations are a larger burden for small banks than for the largest banks has probably been around since before my grandparents were born.

Right, but what those "onerous regulations" are, you can't say because you don't know. When asked to cite even one example, you can't. Instead dumbly putting the link up to the bill itself -a bill you haven't read and will never read- in a true act of laziness and expect others to do the work for you. That's because you're an entitled brat whose parents did a shit job raising you. You say this is conventional wisdom, but you don't ask why it is conventional wisdom. When drilling down into that, we come to find out that your "conventional wisdom" is really just a bunch of bullshit you accepted without question. Which doesn't make it wisdom, but rather dogma.

You made a claim that Dodd-Frank attacked banks, then small banks,

All banks. Obviously.

It's on you to do the work to find something in that bill that supports your premise.

Living will. Volcker Rule.

You say this is conventional wisdom, but you don't ask why it is conventional wisdom.

Because it's an obvious truth that everyone understands. Except idiots like you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You know that they frack for oil, don't you?
You know that fracking involves drilling, don't you?

I think it's pretty obvious Obama was referring to oil when he talked about drilling, not natural gas.

He said we couldn't drill our way to lower prices.
Frackers in the Eagle Ford and Bakken proved he was wrong.

 

[The Derp]

nahhh ---- I live only to educate idiots like you. My goal is to draw you out into the sunshine so you can see the light.

In order to educate someone, you first have to know what you're talking about. You don't.

 

[The Derp]

He said we couldn't drill our way to lower prices.
Frackers in the Eagle Ford and Bakken proved he was wrong.

And he was talking about oil, not fracking. But that doesn't stop you from pretending otherwise just so you can save face on a message board.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He said we couldn't drill our way to lower prices.
Frackers in the Eagle Ford and Bakken proved he was wrong.

And he was talking about oil, not fracking. But that doesn't stop you from pretending otherwise just so you can save face on a message board.

And he was talking about oil, not fracking.

Oil from the Eagle Ford and Bakken didn't increase US oil production?
If that's your claim, where did our increased oil production come from?

 

[The Derp]

All banks. Obviously.

But you can't say how, because you haven't bothered to actually read Dodd-Frank, relying instead on what others spoon-feed you, proving you don't think for yourself and are just repeating what you're told and accepting it without question. So you say "all banks", yet you don't say how. Because you don't know. Because you don't know enough about it. Because you're too lazy to find out. Because your parents did a shit job raising you.

Living will. Volcker Rule.

How are those "attacks on the banks"? Now you're just spitting out random things in the hopes something will stick. How does the Volcker Rule "attack the banks"? And how is a "living will" an "attack on the banks"? Explain that one. If you can...which I doubt. Like I said, I think you're just pretending to be more informed on this subject than you actually are. What's sad is that the more detail I ask for, the less detail you provide. Which means only one thing; you're making this shit up as you go.

Because it's an obvious truth that everyone understands. Except idiots like you.

It's not what "everyone understands" because you don't even understand it. You're just repeating what others say to you and blindly accepting it, which makes you a zealot and what you believe dogma.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All banks. Obviously.

But you can't say how, because you haven't bothered to actually read Dodd-Frank, relying instead on what others spoon-feed you, proving you don't think for yourself and are just repeating what you're told and accepting it without question. So you say "all banks", yet you don't say how. Because you don't know. Because you don't know enough about it. Because you're too lazy to find out. Because your parents did a shit job raising you.

Living will. Volcker Rule.

How are those "attacks on the banks"? Now you're just spitting out random things in the hopes something will stick. How does the Volcker Rule "attack the banks"? And how is a "living will" an "attack on the banks"? Explain that one. If you can...which I doubt. Like I said, I think you're just pretending to be more informed on this subject than you actually are. What's sad is that the more detail I ask for, the less detail you provide. Which means only one thing; you're making this shit up as you go.

Because it's an obvious truth that everyone understands. Except idiots like you.

It's not what "everyone understands" because you don't even understand it. You're just repeating what others say to you and blindly accepting it, which makes you a zealot and what you believe dogma.

But you can't say how, because you haven't bothered to actually read Dodd-Frank

Right, I can't say how over 20,000 pages of regulations place a burden on all banks, because I haven't read over 20,000 pages of regulations. DURR.

How are those "attacks on the banks"?

Tens of thousands of man hours to draw up a living will. Sounds easy. And cheap.
Restrictions on profitable trading activities.

Not attacks at all. DURR.

It's not what "everyone understands" because you don't even understand it.

You don't understand that onerous regulations are more burdensome on small firms than on large firms?
You are dim.

 

[The Derp]

I didn't say it was a bad thing.

WAIT A SECOND! You said it was "an attack on the banks". Now you're saying it's not a bad thing, therefore not an attack on the banks. So you can't even keep your thoughts straight from post-to-post. So it seems to me that this particular goalpost shift was to cover for the fact that you got out over your skis when you accused Dodd-Frank of attacking the banks, and of requiring a capital amount an attack as well. You're all over the place. Sloppy, sloppy work. The fact that you cannot even put in the minimal effort to have a consistent, informed position on this just goes to show the hollow, lazy emptiness of Conservatism overall.

Cool story bro.

So let me get this straight, you now don't believe that banks inflated a derivatives bubble in order to achieve profits?! Is that your new position now?

Those are securities they were selling. You said they increased leverage to buy securities.
Were you lying or just wrong?.

No, you just don't understand this subject because you're an idiot or a sophist. I'm not sure which.

They bought and sold securities. They over-leveraged themselves to buy the securities that they then repackaged, insured, and sold back into the market. They needed to have lower capital requirements in order to purchase those securities. That's how the derivatives bubble went from a little over $200T in 2004, to over $600T by 2006. What do you think is the reason that happened?

If every bank had to hold every loan to maturity, they would lend less.

But that's not what anyone's requiring, so this is a straw man on your part. So here's how banks can solve for this problem; spend less in the derivatives markets and lend more. The end. But what we're finding is that some banks simply cannot be profitable unless they gamble in the securities markets. At least, that seems to be what you are saying. And I'm saying if a bank can't be profitable unless they gamble in risky markets, then the bank needs to be broken up because it poses a risk to the financial system. We just went through this shit from 2004-7. Is your short-term memory really that bad?

Nice non-sequitur. DURR.

But that's what you're arguing for! You're saying that unless banks can play in those markets they cannot sustain. And I'm telling you too fucking bad. If these banks cannot make a profit without taking a trip to the casino, then they deserve to fucking die.

If only you had proof. Perhaps finding the actual published rule? Naaaaah

Actually, I'll post the fucking rule itself:

SUMMARY: We are adopting rule amendments under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that establish a voluntary, alternative method of computing deductions to net capital for certain broker-dealers. This alternative method permits a broker-dealer to use mathematical models to calculate net capital requirements for market and derivatives-related credit risk.​

So now, the self-regulation is right there in black and white for you.

 

[The Derp]

Whatever the "natural rate" of takeovers or mergers happens to be, adding layer upon layer of additional and expensive regulations will result in a higher rate.

So just like I thought, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You offer no proof. You offer no support. Just your word. Why the fuck should I take your word for it? What was the rate of mergers pre-Dodd-Frank vs. post-Dodd-Frank? You don't know. So since you don't know that how can you say it is faster? Again, this is just you being a dogmatic zealot and egomaniac. Going to the furthest lengths to avoid admitting you're wrong on a fucking message board. I mean, really...to be so consumed with your self-image that you have to go to these lengths to protect your ego on an anonymous message board shows the depravity and laziness that all Conservatives have.

Not at all, not even a little.

Well, your original position was that Dodd-Frank caused bank mergers. Then when it was pointed out that bank mergers had been happening for decades prior to Dodd-Frank, you moved your argument to one that Dodd-Frank sped up the mergers. But when pressed for details on that rate, you clam up and don't have an answer. Why? Because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Banks have been taken over and merged like a mother fucker for decades.
I know because liberals have been whining about it for decades.

No, you didn't know that. Not until I told you about it, using my own experience with Bank Boston - then Fleet - then BoA as the example. Your original position was that Dodd-Frank caused mergers to happen. Then it was Dodd-Frank sped up mergers. What's your next position going to be? I can only guess at this point.

I said it was uniform? Cool! Just give me the post number.

Yes, you asserted it was uniform. Then you walked that back as you realized your statement was too broad and vague. It's OK. You've done it dozens of times already this thread. I'm expecting you to change your position post to post now and am genuinely surprised when you don't.

Why name a single one when Dodd-Frank is over 20,000 pages.
Add the Volcker rule to that pile while you're at it. Basel III, Stress Tests, and wait.....there's more!

Why name a single one? Because that way, we know that you know what you're talking about. And how was the Volcker Rule an "attack on the banks"? Please explain that one. Attack on the banks in the sense of what? Like, you're saying just by virtue of its name it's an attack on the banks. But we already know that you don't know anything in Dodd-Frank that attacks the banks. You even admitted as such. You're just making this shit up as you go, aren't you?

A plain vanilla bank, simply taking in deposits and writing mortgages will lend less (that means write fewer mortgages) at a 10% capital requirement level than they did at an 8% capital requirement level.
Want them to write even fewer? Make the requirement 12%.

Again, you're working from the assumption that the banks were doing just lending. They weren't, as has been pointed out to you time and again. There is no such thing as a "vanilla bank" in the context of TBTF, who dominate market share. The net capital requirement doesn't matter because prior to self-regulation, the net capital rule didn't hinder lending at all. The only reason it would do that today is if a bank was leveraging itself to gamble in the casinos. If it doesn't, then all the money it used to gamble in the casinos can be used instead for lending. But again, you are working from the mistaken assumption that all banks do only lending. But you and I both know that's not true. So why continue the lie?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't say it was a bad thing.

WAIT A SECOND! You said it was "an attack on the banks". Now you're saying it's not a bad thing, therefore not an attack on the banks. So you can't even keep your thoughts straight from post-to-post. So it seems to me that this particular goalpost shift was to cover for the fact that you got out over your skis when you accused Dodd-Frank of attacking the banks, and of requiring a capital amount an attack as well. You're all over the place. Sloppy, sloppy work. The fact that you cannot even put in the minimal effort to have a consistent, informed position on this just goes to show the hollow, lazy emptiness of Conservatism overall.

Cool story bro.

So let me get this straight, you now don't believe that banks inflated a derivatives bubble in order to achieve profits?! Is that your new position now?

Those are securities they were selling. You said they increased leverage to buy securities.
Were you lying or just wrong?.

No, you just don't understand this subject because you're an idiot or a sophist. I'm not sure which.

They bought and sold securities. They over-leveraged themselves to buy the securities that they then repackaged, insured, and sold back into the market. They needed to have lower capital requirements in order to purchase those securities. That's how the derivatives bubble went from a little over $200T in 2004, to over $600T by 2006. What do you think is the reason that happened?

If every bank had to hold every loan to maturity, they would lend less.

But that's not what anyone's requiring, so this is a straw man on your part. So here's how banks can solve for this problem; spend less in the derivatives markets and lend more. The end. But what we're finding is that some banks simply cannot be profitable unless they gamble in the securities markets. At least, that seems to be what you are saying. And I'm saying if a bank can't be profitable unless they gamble in risky markets, then the bank needs to be broken up because it poses a risk to the financial system. We just went through this shit from 2004-7. Is your short-term memory really that bad?

Nice non-sequitur. DURR.

But that's what you're arguing for! You're saying that unless banks can play in those markets they cannot sustain. And I'm telling you too fucking bad. If these banks cannot make a profit without taking a trip to the casino, then they deserve to fucking die.

If only you had proof. Perhaps finding the actual published rule? Naaaaah

Actually, I'll post the fucking rule itself:

SUMMARY: We are adopting rule amendments under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that establish a voluntary, alternative method of computing deductions to net capital for certain broker-dealers. This alternative method permits a broker-dealer to use mathematical models to calculate net capital requirements for market and derivatives-related credit risk.​

So now, the self-regulation is right there in black and white for you.

WAIT A SECOND! You said it was "an attack on the banks". Now you're saying it's not a bad thing

Borrowing from the Discount Window isn't a bad thing.
Try to keep your moronic claims straight.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't say it was a bad thing.

WAIT A SECOND! You said it was "an attack on the banks". Now you're saying it's not a bad thing, therefore not an attack on the banks. So you can't even keep your thoughts straight from post-to-post. So it seems to me that this particular goalpost shift was to cover for the fact that you got out over your skis when you accused Dodd-Frank of attacking the banks, and of requiring a capital amount an attack as well. You're all over the place. Sloppy, sloppy work. The fact that you cannot even put in the minimal effort to have a consistent, informed position on this just goes to show the hollow, lazy emptiness of Conservatism overall.

Cool story bro.

So let me get this straight, you now don't believe that banks inflated a derivatives bubble in order to achieve profits?! Is that your new position now?

Those are securities they were selling. You said they increased leverage to buy securities.
Were you lying or just wrong?.

No, you just don't understand this subject because you're an idiot or a sophist. I'm not sure which.

They bought and sold securities. They over-leveraged themselves to buy the securities that they then repackaged, insured, and sold back into the market. They needed to have lower capital requirements in order to purchase those securities. That's how the derivatives bubble went from a little over $200T in 2004, to over $600T by 2006. What do you think is the reason that happened?

If every bank had to hold every loan to maturity, they would lend less.

But that's not what anyone's requiring, so this is a straw man on your part. So here's how banks can solve for this problem; spend less in the derivatives markets and lend more. The end. But what we're finding is that some banks simply cannot be profitable unless they gamble in the securities markets. At least, that seems to be what you are saying. And I'm saying if a bank can't be profitable unless they gamble in risky markets, then the bank needs to be broken up because it poses a risk to the financial system. We just went through this shit from 2004-7. Is your short-term memory really that bad?

Nice non-sequitur. DURR.

But that's what you're arguing for! You're saying that unless banks can play in those markets they cannot sustain. And I'm telling you too fucking bad. If these banks cannot make a profit without taking a trip to the casino, then they deserve to fucking die.

If only you had proof. Perhaps finding the actual published rule? Naaaaah

Actually, I'll post the fucking rule itself:

SUMMARY: We are adopting rule amendments under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that establish a voluntary, alternative method of computing deductions to net capital for certain broker-dealers. This alternative method permits a broker-dealer to use mathematical models to calculate net capital requirements for market and derivatives-related credit risk.​

So now, the self-regulation is right there in black and white for you.

So let me get this straight, you now don't believe that banks inflated a derivatives bubble

What's a "derivatives bubble"?
Any facts to back up your invention?

They bought and sold securities. They over-leveraged themselves to buy the securities that they then repackaged, insured, and sold back into the market.

They need leverage to create loans or to buy and hold securities.
They don't need leverage to buy and then sell something.

That's how the derivatives bubble went from a little over $200T in 2004, to over $600T by 2006.

Why are you conflating MBS with derivatives? Is it because you're clueless?

 

[The Derp]

Lower requirements allow more loans. You've loosened the previous restriction on the size of their loan book..

You know what else allows more loans? Less gambling. If these banks can only be profitable if they gamble, then they should be broken the fuck up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't say it was a bad thing.

WAIT A SECOND! You said it was "an attack on the banks". Now you're saying it's not a bad thing, therefore not an attack on the banks. So you can't even keep your thoughts straight from post-to-post. So it seems to me that this particular goalpost shift was to cover for the fact that you got out over your skis when you accused Dodd-Frank of attacking the banks, and of requiring a capital amount an attack as well. You're all over the place. Sloppy, sloppy work. The fact that you cannot even put in the minimal effort to have a consistent, informed position on this just goes to show the hollow, lazy emptiness of Conservatism overall.

Cool story bro.

So let me get this straight, you now don't believe that banks inflated a derivatives bubble in order to achieve profits?! Is that your new position now?

Those are securities they were selling. You said they increased leverage to buy securities.
Were you lying or just wrong?.

No, you just don't understand this subject because you're an idiot or a sophist. I'm not sure which.

They bought and sold securities. They over-leveraged themselves to buy the securities that they then repackaged, insured, and sold back into the market. They needed to have lower capital requirements in order to purchase those securities. That's how the derivatives bubble went from a little over $200T in 2004, to over $600T by 2006. What do you think is the reason that happened?

If every bank had to hold every loan to maturity, they would lend less.

But that's not what anyone's requiring, so this is a straw man on your part. So here's how banks can solve for this problem; spend less in the derivatives markets and lend more. The end. But what we're finding is that some banks simply cannot be profitable unless they gamble in the securities markets. At least, that seems to be what you are saying. And I'm saying if a bank can't be profitable unless they gamble in risky markets, then the bank needs to be broken up because it poses a risk to the financial system. We just went through this shit from 2004-7. Is your short-term memory really that bad?

Nice non-sequitur. DURR.

But that's what you're arguing for! You're saying that unless banks can play in those markets they cannot sustain. And I'm telling you too fucking bad. If these banks cannot make a profit without taking a trip to the casino, then they deserve to fucking die.

If only you had proof. Perhaps finding the actual published rule? Naaaaah

Actually, I'll post the fucking rule itself:

SUMMARY: We are adopting rule amendments under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that establish a voluntary, alternative method of computing deductions to net capital for certain broker-dealers. This alternative method permits a broker-dealer to use mathematical models to calculate net capital requirements for market and derivatives-related credit risk.​

So now, the self-regulation is right there in black and white for you.

If every bank had to hold every loan to maturity, they would lend less.

But that's not what anyone's requiring, so this is a straw man on your part.

You were whining about banks securitizing loans and selling them.
If they don't do that, the alternative is to hold them until maturity.
Make up your mind.

spend less in the derivatives markets and lend more.

Spend less money on derivatives? Do you know how any of these derivatives work?
It sounds like you don't have a clue.

And I'm saying if a bank can't be profitable unless they gamble in risky markets,

Which risky markets? Be specific.

But that's what you're arguing for! You're saying that unless banks can play in those markets they cannot sustain.

I didn't say that at all.
When you get a chance, list any banks that got in trouble because they bought a credit default swap.

SUMMARY: We are adopting rule amendments under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that establish a voluntary, alternative method of computing deductions to net capital for certain broker-dealers.

So you were whining all this time about broker-dealers and you thought you were making a point about the banks?

Hilarious!

 

[The Derp]

You said that capital requirements were eliminated. You just can't prove it.

Oh, I did do that already...by posting the SEC rule change from 2004:

We are adopting rule amendments under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that establish a voluntary, alternative method of computing deductions to net capital for certain broker-dealers. This alternative method permits a broker-dealer to use mathematical models to calculate net capital requirements for market and derivatives-related credit risk.​

Self-regulation right there.

Apache Corporation had revenue of $12.8 billion in 2014 and $6.5 billion in 2015.
Apache Corporation had a loss of $5.1 billion in 2014 and a loss of $12 billion in 2015.
You think they have a revenue problem?
Which year depleted their capital more?

Yes, they have a revenue problem, clearly. How any of that relates to Dodd-Frank, you don't know because you don't know anything about Dodd-Frank beyond what you've gleaned from your fellow right-wing morons on this message board.

Because you still can't do simple math.
BofA's loan book was $917 billion at the end of June 2017.
What happens if the requirement on that book goes from 8% to 10% to 12% to 15%?
What happens when a "Stress Test" requires even more?

Well then by golly, BoA is going to have to do less gambling if lending is truly their concern! But you seem to be telling me that BoA cannot be profitable unless they gamble. In which case, the bank should be broken up.

With a loan book of $917 billion. That means they loaned $917 billion.
If they did that with an 8% capital requirement and the requirement goes to 10% then 12% then 15%, what happens to their loan book? Do the math.

Again, they can solve this problem very easily by ceasing with the gambling. It's not very difficult. They did it before 2004 with no issue.

Banks writing crappy mortgages and losing a bunch of money when homeowners stopped paying..

They didn't lose money when the homeowners stopped paying, they lost money when the assets those loans backed went toxic. The banks weren't making money off the loans, they were making money off the gambling on the securities those loans backed. So this post of yours shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the causes of the Financial Collapse. It wasn't simply about people not paying back loans...that stuff happens all the time. It was about creating garbage loans to back securities that these banks were gambling on because they got addicted to those short-term, instant gratification profits and their business focus became centered on those financial products.

Why would I pretend that? Your straw man has nothing to do with my posts on this thread.

The derivatives market tripled in size between 2004-6. Why do you think that is?

 

[The Derp]

Borrowing from the Discount Window isn't a bad thing.
Try to keep your moronic claims straight.

Why isn't that borrowing a bad thing, yet the government borrowing to pay its debts is?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whatever the "natural rate" of takeovers or mergers happens to be, adding layer upon layer of additional and expensive regulations will result in a higher rate.

So just like I thought, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You offer no proof. You offer no support. Just your word. Why the fuck should I take your word for it? What was the rate of mergers pre-Dodd-Frank vs. post-Dodd-Frank? You don't know. So since you don't know that how can you say it is faster? Again, this is just you being a dogmatic zealot and egomaniac. Going to the furthest lengths to avoid admitting you're wrong on a fucking message board. I mean, really...to be so consumed with your self-image that you have to go to these lengths to protect your ego on an anonymous message board shows the depravity and laziness that all Conservatives have.

Not at all, not even a little.

Well, your original position was that Dodd-Frank caused bank mergers. Then when it was pointed out that bank mergers had been happening for decades prior to Dodd-Frank, you moved your argument to one that Dodd-Frank sped up the mergers. But when pressed for details on that rate, you clam up and don't have an answer. Why? Because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Banks have been taken over and merged like a mother fucker for decades.
I know because liberals have been whining about it for decades.

No, you didn't know that. Not until I told you about it, using my own experience with Bank Boston - then Fleet - then BoA as the example. Your original position was that Dodd-Frank caused mergers to happen. Then it was Dodd-Frank sped up mergers. What's your next position going to be? I can only guess at this point.

I said it was uniform? Cool! Just give me the post number.

Yes, you asserted it was uniform. Then you walked that back as you realized your statement was too broad and vague. It's OK. You've done it dozens of times already this thread. I'm expecting you to change your position post to post now and am genuinely surprised when you don't.

Why name a single one when Dodd-Frank is over 20,000 pages.
Add the Volcker rule to that pile while you're at it. Basel III, Stress Tests, and wait.....there's more!

Why name a single one? Because that way, we know that you know what you're talking about. And how was the Volcker Rule an "attack on the banks"? Please explain that one. Attack on the banks in the sense of what? Like, you're saying just by virtue of its name it's an attack on the banks. But we already know that you don't know anything in Dodd-Frank that attacks the banks. You even admitted as such. You're just making this shit up as you go, aren't you?

A plain vanilla bank, simply taking in deposits and writing mortgages will lend less (that means write fewer mortgages) at a 10% capital requirement level than they did at an 8% capital requirement level.
Want them to write even fewer? Make the requirement 12%.

Again, you're working from the assumption that the banks were doing just lending. They weren't, as has been pointed out to you time and again. There is no such thing as a "vanilla bank" in the context of TBTF, who dominate market share. The net capital requirement doesn't matter because prior to self-regulation, the net capital rule didn't hinder lending at all. The only reason it would do that today is if a bank was leveraging itself to gamble in the casinos. If it doesn't, then all the money it used to gamble in the casinos can be used instead for lending. But again, you are working from the mistaken assumption that all banks do only lending. But you and I both know that's not true. So why continue the lie?

So just like I thought, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You offer no proof.

The biggest banks got bigger.
More small banks were merged or taken over. Liberals have been whining about this since the crash.

No, you didn't know that.

I do know that.
Obama got his start here in Chicago by pressuring banks to make more loans to unqualified borrowers in return for not protesting their purchases/mergers with smaller banks. It's kind of a big part of the CRA.

Again, you're working from the assumption that the banks were doing just lending.

Are you pretending that a bank which just lends is not impacted by increased capital requirements?

There is no such thing as a "vanilla bank" in the context of TBTF

We're talking about capital requirements, not TBTF.

The net capital requirement doesn't matter because prior to self-regulation, the net capital rule didn't hinder lending at all.

OMG! You're such a moron.

But again, you are working from the mistaken assumption that all banks do only lending.

Why do you lie so much?

 

[The Derp]

What's a "derivatives bubble"?

Going from $200T in derivatives to $600T in three years is a bubble. Do you not know how to read a chart?

hey need leverage to create loans or to buy and hold securities.
They don't need leverage to buy and then sell something.

Yes, they need the leverage to buy. You just said they did in the first sentence, then you contradicted that in the second sentence. The period between when the bank buys the security and when they sell it is the period they are holding it for, right!? So....are you being deliberately obtuse or is this just an act of sophistry?

Why are you conflating MBS with derivatives? Is it because you're clueless?

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[The Derp]

So you were whining all this time about broker-dealers and you thought you were making a point about the banks?

Who do you think the broker-dealers were, jackass?! They were the investment units in those banks. For fuck's sake, you're getting dumber as this thread continues.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You said that capital requirements were eliminated. You just can't prove it.

Oh, I did do that already...by posting the SEC rule change from 2004:

We are adopting rule amendments under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that establish a voluntary, alternative method of computing deductions to net capital for certain broker-dealers. This alternative method permits a broker-dealer to use mathematical models to calculate net capital requirements for market and derivatives-related credit risk.​

Self-regulation right there.

Apache Corporation had revenue of $12.8 billion in 2014 and $6.5 billion in 2015.
Apache Corporation had a loss of $5.1 billion in 2014 and a loss of $12 billion in 2015.
You think they have a revenue problem?
Which year depleted their capital more?

Yes, they have a revenue problem, clearly. How any of that relates to Dodd-Frank, you don't know because you don't know anything about Dodd-Frank beyond what you've gleaned from your fellow right-wing morons on this message board.

Because you still can't do simple math.
BofA's loan book was $917 billion at the end of June 2017.
What happens if the requirement on that book goes from 8% to 10% to 12% to 15%?
What happens when a "Stress Test" requires even more?

Well then by golly, BoA is going to have to do less gambling if lending is truly their concern! But you seem to be telling me that BoA cannot be profitable unless they gamble. In which case, the bank should be broken up.

With a loan book of $917 billion. That means they loaned $917 billion.
If they did that with an 8% capital requirement and the requirement goes to 10% then 12% then 15%, what happens to their loan book? Do the math.

Again, they can solve this problem very easily by ceasing with the gambling. It's not very difficult. They did it before 2004 with no issue.

Banks writing crappy mortgages and losing a bunch of money when homeowners stopped paying..

They didn't lose money when the homeowners stopped paying, they lost money when the assets those loans backed went toxic. The banks weren't making money off the loans, they were making money off the gambling on the securities those loans backed. So this post of yours shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the causes of the Financial Collapse. It wasn't simply about people not paying back loans...that stuff happens all the time. It was about creating garbage loans to back securities that these banks were gambling on because they got addicted to those short-term, instant gratification profits and their business focus became centered on those financial products.

Why would I pretend that? Your straw man has nothing to do with my posts on this thread.

The derivatives market tripled in size between 2004-6. Why do you think that is?

Oh, I did do that already...by posting the SEC rule change from 2004:

The SEC doesn't set capital requirements for banks. Idiot.

Yes, they have a revenue problem, clearly. How any of that relates to Dodd-Frank

It has nothing to do with Dodd-Frank, it has to do with the Accounting 101 class you failed.
And the fact that you don't know that capital and revenue are different.

Well then by golly, BoA is going to have to do less gambling if lending is truly their concern!

And less lending, if you double their capital requirement. DURR.

They didn't lose money when the homeowners stopped paying,

They did. A lot.

they lost money when the assets those loans backed went toxic.

They lost money on the asset too? I wonder how that impacts their capital position?

The derivatives market tripled in size between 2004-6. Why do you think that is?

Lots of derivative trading. No exchange clearing. No netting.