Volcker rule strengthened thangod 12/9/13

Dot Com

Nullius in verba
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
52,842
Reaction score
7,862
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, NoVA
thangoodness. Those people's orgy of greed is what helped crater the economy in 2008. Well Wall St fluffers? What say you?

U.S. regulators seek to curb Wall St. trades with Volcker rule | Reuters
"What we have on paper now is a fairly aggressive regulatory posture from the banking agencies, but it remains to be seen how aggressively it will be implemented and enforced," said Kevin Petrasic, a regulatory lawyer at Paul Hastings in Washington.

Better Markets, an often vocal pressure group critical of large banks, reacted positively to the final rule, calling it a "major defeat for Wall Street".
 
Last edited:

Sallow

The Big Bad Wolf.
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
56,532
Reaction score
6,240
Points
1,840
Location
New York City
It's not Glass Steagall, but much better than what was there before it.
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
Regulation doesn't make a damned bit of difference when the federal reserve is the root cause of economic downturns via monetary stimulation and artificially held interest rates boosting M2.

Money is cheap and when the interest rates go up, nothing will stop another downturn. Although, it will be interesting to see just how low we can go when it comes to "downturn" at this point.
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
In the final wording, banks could still engage in market making and take on positions to help clients trade, but their inventories should not exceed "the reasonably expected near-term demands of customers", the regulators said.

The regulators also seek to put an end to portfolio hedging, a practice in which banks entered all kinds of trades that were supposed to hedge risk elsewhere in the business but that could be used as veiled speculation.

"The rule would prohibit 'macro-hedging' that has caused large speculative losses at institutions in the past," Martin Gruenberg, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC), said in a statement.
This new regulation only helps banks and will do nothing to spare individual market actors from losing their ass when the federal reserve finally yanks the rug out again. This is literally a "we're going to help banks hedge so they will be padded the next time we fuck shit up."


Thank goodness, right?

:lmao:

LOLberals are completely economically inept.
 
OP
Dot Com

Dot Com

Nullius in verba
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
52,842
Reaction score
7,862
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, NoVA
^ ummm..... maybe in Randianworld higher reserve capital req'ts are a bad thing. :tinfoil:

Forcing them to keep adequete reserves to cover their zany bets is a good thing in grown-up world.
 
Last edited:

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,039
Reaction score
16,438
Points
2,165
We don't need nutty Randian or van Mises silliness here.
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
^ ummm..... maybe in Randianworld higher reserve capital req'ts are a bad thing. :tinfoil:

Forcing them to keep adequete reserves to cover their zany bets is a good thing in grown-up world.
That's not what this does at all.

:lmao:

Like I said before.
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
Actually, nubskull, I both quoted and made statements regarding the OP. Something you haven't managed to do in the two posts you laid down here.

Are you fuckin' stupid? Dont ansewer that. It's rhetorical.
 
OP
Dot Com

Dot Com

Nullius in verba
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
52,842
Reaction score
7,862
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, NoVA
^ ummm..... maybe in Randianworld higher reserve capital req'ts are a bad thing. :tinfoil:

Forcing them to keep adequete reserves to cover their zany bets is a good thing in grown-up world.
That's not what this does at all.

:lmao:

Like I said before.
oh. You're right. This is simply another part of it:

The final rule includes strictly defined carve-outs for trades executed to serve clients' interests or to protect against market risks, and forces banks to show regulators that they are not trying to pass off speculative bets as legitimate trades.

In the final wording, banks could still engage in market making and take on positions to help clients trade, but their inventories should not exceed "the reasonably expected near-term demands of customers", the regulators said.
 
Last edited:

Kimura

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
1,497
Reaction score
92
Points
83
Location
Bassano del Grappa
^ ummm..... maybe in Randianworld higher reserve capital req'ts are a bad thing. :tinfoil:

Forcing them to keep adequete reserves to cover their zany bets is a good thing in grown-up world.
That's not what this does at all.

:lmao:

Like I said before.
oh. You're right. This is simply another part of it:

The final rule includes strictly defined carve-outs for trades executed to serve clients' interests or to protect against market risks, and forces banks to show regulators that they are not trying to pass off speculative bets as legitimate trades.

In the final wording, banks could still engage in market making and take on positions to help clients trade, but their inventories should not exceed "the reasonably expected near-term demands of customers", the regulators said.
I've tried explaining monetary operations to TakeAStepBack seventeen times in total. I've come to realize it's a pointless endeavor. :eusa_shifty:

Back to the op. I really would like to see Glass-Steagall brought back into the picture. We also need to deal with control fraud, which is one of the bigger problems on Wall Street.
 
OP
Dot Com

Dot Com

Nullius in verba
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
52,842
Reaction score
7,862
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, NoVA
^
yes, TakeAStepBack reminds me of another bloviating poster of the past who shall remain unnamed ;)
 

Kimura

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
1,497
Reaction score
92
Points
83
Location
Bassano del Grappa
Regulation doesn't make a damned bit of difference when the federal reserve is the root cause of economic downturns via monetary stimulation and artificially held interest rates boosting M2.

Money is cheap and when the interest rates go up, nothing will stop another downturn. Although, it will be interesting to see just how low we can go when it comes to "downturn" at this point.
Again, for the 5,567th time, the FED controls the interest rate all along the term structure. They will allow for some variations between the IOR rate and discount rate. There's no such this as "artificial interest rates" under a fiat monetary system. The natural rate of interest is actually zero when we think about it. We're no longer on a gold standard, amigo.

For the 3rd time, QE isn't inflationary expansion, it's an asset swap with zero increases in net financial assets. I've explained this to you in painstaking detail, yet you continue repeating these absurd things which have ZERO basis in reality.
 
Last edited:

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
And yet, the Volcker rule has nothing to do with higher reserve capital reqs. Nothing.


And I do not need any explanation on how monetary policy works in the US. Especially not from someone who attempts sophistry and deceit to try and circunvent economic law.

:lmao:
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
Regulation doesn't make a damned bit of difference when the federal reserve is the root cause of economic downturns via monetary stimulation and artificially held interest rates boosting M2.

Money is cheap and when the interest rates go up, nothing will stop another downturn. Although, it will be interesting to see just how low we can go when it comes to "downturn" at this point.
Again, for the 5,567th time, the FED controls the interest rate all along the term structure. They will allow for some variations between the IOR rate and discount rate.

For the 3rd time, QE isn't inflationary expansion, it's an asset swap with zero increases in net financial assets. I've explained this to you painstaking detail, yet you continue repeating these absurd things which have ZERO basis in reality.
I do not need your fucking explanation, Dullard. I know how it works. Your attempt to act as though the federal reserve isn't touching the monetary base by making purchases out of thin air, is deceitful. We've been over this and no matter how many times you attempt to avoid the issue of the federal reserves balance sheet when buyiing shit out of thin air, will not change what it really is.

So please, spare the game of repeater. I do not have any use for the bullshit you present.
 
OP
Dot Com

Dot Com

Nullius in verba
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
52,842
Reaction score
7,862
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, NoVA
Regulation doesn't make a damned bit of difference when the federal reserve is the root cause of economic downturns via monetary stimulation and artificially held interest rates boosting M2.

Money is cheap and when the interest rates go up, nothing will stop another downturn. Although, it will be interesting to see just how low we can go when it comes to "downturn" at this point.
Again, for the 5,567th time, the FED controls the interest rate all along the term structure. They will allow for some variations between the IOR rate and discount rate.

For the 3rd time, QE isn't inflationary expansion, it's an asset swap with zero increases in net financial assets. I've explained this to you painstaking detail, yet you continue repeating these absurd things which have ZERO basis in reality.
I agree :rofl: Why does TakeAStepBack think he's USMB's rw economist :dunno:

As to the OP, its better than what we used to have. Wonder if Repubs blocked it every step of the way :eusa_whistle:
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
Was i the moron that claimed the Volcker Rule means higher capital reserves?

Moron.

:lmao:
 

Kimura

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
1,497
Reaction score
92
Points
83
Location
Bassano del Grappa
Regulation doesn't make a damned bit of difference when the federal reserve is the root cause of economic downturns via monetary stimulation and artificially held interest rates boosting M2.

Money is cheap and when the interest rates go up, nothing will stop another downturn. Although, it will be interesting to see just how low we can go when it comes to "downturn" at this point.
Again, for the 5,567th time, the FED controls the interest rate all along the term structure. They will allow for some variations between the IOR rate and discount rate.

For the 3rd time, QE isn't inflationary expansion, it's an asset swap with zero increases in net financial assets. I've explained this to you painstaking detail, yet you continue repeating these absurd things which have ZERO basis in reality.
I do not need your fucking explanation, Dullard. I know how it works. Your attempt to act as though the federal reserve isn't touching the monetary base by making purchases out of thin air, is deceitful. We've been over this and no matter how many times you attempt to avoid the issue of the federal reserves balance sheet when buyiing shit out of thin air, will not change what it really is.

So please, spare the game of repeater. I do not have any use for the bullshit you present.
You don't have a clue. The fact you refer into an increase in the money supply as inflationary is telling.

Secondly, the FED can INDEFINITELY continue to expand its balance sheet if it so chooses.

With a fixed exchange/convertible currency, base $$$$ doesn’t include government sector securities as obligations that are claims on government reserves (gold, fx,) which are part of aggregate national savings.

On the other hand, with our floating exchange rate/non-convertible fiat, US Treasury Securities (held outside of the government sector) are considered an addition to base $$$$, as the notion of a decrease in government reserves (gold, fx,) cannot be applied to a non-convertible, fiat currency.

We can define base $$$$ as money in circulation and balances in Federal Reserve accounts. And these balances at the FED comprise bank reserves accounts and Treasuries (dollar deposits). We can also include government sector guaranteed debt as well.

Base $$$$ can be defined as the total net financial assets of the non-government sector. As I explained, this is why QE is little more than asset swap and accounting adjustment. It’s a tax of sorts which removes income from the economy.
 
Last edited:

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
:lmao:

Expect this as my response to you going forward. Nothing else needs to be said. You're fuckin' drunk on central planning stupidity.


:lmao:
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top