Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: Senator Renews Call To Break Up Banks That Are ‘Surely Still Too Big To Fail’

  1. #21
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Senator Renews Call To Break Up Banks That Are ‘Surely Still Too Big To Fail’

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Break up the too-big, too-dangerous banks

    WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) March 01, 2013— "There’s not much that the far left and the far right can agree on, but here’s one thing that both accept: The biggest banks are still too big and too dangerous.

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Senator Renews Call To Break Up Banks That Are ‘Surely Still Too Big To Fail’

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Why? Do you think it would have made a difference to (say) Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers? What about Countrywide, Washington Mutual, Wachovia? The first two were pure investment banks. The last three were commercial lenders that managed to mismanage themselves to destruction without going into investment banking.
    No it would not have made a difference to every case. What my concern is that FDIC insured savings will be used by banks as investments, so if your bank dabbles in commercial and investment banking like JPMorgan Chase and uses your personal savings to fund investment banking if those investments go under then so does your money, which being FDIC insured is bailed out to the tune of 100,000 which would mean the bank gets a bailout as well.

    Also in my opinion, and I am willing to hear dissenting opinions, if there is a corporation be it a bank or any other kind of company that is so large that if it were to fail it would have a national economic impact to require government money to avoid further economic disaster, then it needs to be broken up now. The Glass-Steagall Act would have a double effect of separating personal savings from investment banking as well as breaking up banks that may be too big to fail based on their sheer size.

  3. #23
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,736

    Re: Senator Renews Call To Break Up Banks That Are ‘Surely Still Too Big To Fail’

    Yeah....government is more of a solution...but they created this problem.

    Investment banks were hurting, meaning they werent giving credit. Commercial banks were beginning to hurt but were fine with federal deposit backing. The problem was the Fed could not help the investment banks, they had no legal method. So they put commercial and investment banks together through mergers or aquisitions and then gave them capital under federal deposit rules. The government endorsed and encouraged these mergers even if the companies did not want them because in some cases there were some toxic assets on the books---thats part of what the capital was meant to clear.

    So now the banks that were too big to fail are even BIGGER than they were before. The lack of competition is not healthy, too few players are controlling too much of the pie. I suspect the only way back out is to bring back Glass Steagel, stiffen up CDS and Derivative legislation (one of the few regulatory actions I favor), and maybe consider forbidding co-mingling depository fed funds with investment sectors of that same bank---sending the signal that the fed wont cover investment losses.

  4. #24
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,091

    Re: Senator Renews Call To Break Up Banks That Are ‘Surely Still Too Big To Fail’

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Democratic Senator Renews Call To Break Up Banks That Are ‘Surely Still Too Big To Fail’

    Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) took the Senate floor today to argue against Wall Street mega-banks that have been deemed “too big to fail” and thus receive the implicit backing of the federal government, arguing that lawmakers should act immediately to break up the big banks that now have assets worth more than three-fifths of the American economy.

    Between Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren, I sure hope we can get some traction on moving this along. Whining that we can't do anything about a bank that is too big to fail is basically saying that they are guaranteed backed with future taxpayer bailouts no matter how they perform their business.
    i agree with this. too big to fail is too big to exist.

  5. #25
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,277

    Re: Senator Renews Call To Break Up Banks That Are ‘Surely Still Too Big To Fail’

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Democratic Senator Renews Call To Break Up Banks That Are ‘Surely Still Too Big To Fail’

    Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) took the Senate floor today to argue against Wall Street mega-banks that have been deemed “too big to fail” and thus receive the implicit backing of the federal government, arguing that lawmakers should act immediately to break up the big banks that now have assets worth more than three-fifths of the American economy.

    Between Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren, I sure hope we can get some traction on moving this along. Whining that we can't do anything about a bank that is too big to fail is basically saying that they are guaranteed backed with future taxpayer bailouts no matter how they perform their business.
    Lol...nonsense. " The Whole Too Big To Fail " narrative only stands if you blame the banks for the sub-prime crisis. It's a Media backed nonsensical term that doesn't take into account the actions of the Federal Govt in the 90's and the Congress in the mid 2000's.


    Too Big to Fail (Cue dramatic music) Da da duuuuuhhhhh....


    Start with Carter's Community Reinvestment Act. Prior to 1989 it was just a law that tried to force banks into compliance but had no real enforcement powers. Enter in the 1989 Bush 41 Act ( Financial Institution Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act ) that increased regulatory power on banks by reinforcing the CRA.

    FDIC: FDIC Law, Regulations, Related Acts - Miscellaneous Statutes and Regulations
    "It required the agencies to issue Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) ratings publicly and do written performance evaluations using facts and data to support the agencies' conclusions. It also required a four-tiered CRA examination rating system with performance levels of "Outstanding," "Satisfactory," "Needs to Improve," or "Substantial Noncompliance."[4] These rules increased pressure on banks to make mortgage home loans to inner-city and rural areas"

    In 1992 The Boston Federal Reserve released a Compliance Manual that was distributed the lenders. It was called " Closing the Gap " A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending " In 1992 The Boston Federal Reserve released a Compliance Manual that was distributed the lenders.
    http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/closi...p/closingt.pdf

    " Even the most determined lending institution will have difficulty cultivating business from minority customers if its under writing standards contain arbitrary or unreasonable measures of creditworthiness.

    Consistency in evaluating loan applications is also critical to ensuring fair treatment. Since man mortgage applicants who are approved do not meet every underwriting guideline, lending policies should have mechanisms that define and monitor the use of compensating factors to ensure that they are applied consistently, without regard to race or ethnicity.

    The Board of Directors should establish a policy to detect and eliminate biases in underwriting standards and practices. As part of this policy, management should be directed to review existing underwriting standards and practices to ensure that they are valid predictors of risk.

    Special care should be taken to ensure that standards are appropriate to the economic culture of urban, lower–income, and nontraditional
    consumers. The Board should require management to define acceptable compensating factors and to monitor their use by loan production staff.

    The Board may also wish to establish a written policy on equal opportunity lending, in which its underwriting guidelines are explained.

    This policy can describe the institution’s commitment to the community and to minority and lower–income consumers and explain how its products can meet home buyers’ needs.

    Management should review both underwriting standards and practices.(See also the sections on Second Review Policies and Testing Fairness in Lending Practices.)
    Underwriting Standards "

    The study was critiqued as poorly written and researched with questionable data, but ultimately was the initiative for new laws and regulations created in the 90's that forced the lowering of underwriter standards on Home Mortgage loans and on loans the GSE's could purchase. It also warned of possible civil legal action if these new standards were not followed.

    In 1992 an Affordable Housing Mandate was put on Fannie and Freddie ( in Title XIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 ) which was enforced through HUD ( Housing Urban Development ) regulations by placing them under a Quota System which started at 30% , then 40% and 50% under Clinton and then 55% under Bush. That's out of their total share's of Mortgage Debt Purchased an increasing mandated percentage HAD to be low quality mortgages ( LMI ) and in 2000 the HUD director Andrew Cuomo pledged 2 trillion dollars to of "affordable mortgages".
    http://www.huduser.org/Publications/PDF/gse.pdf

    The 1994 National Home ownership Strategy, published at the request of President Clinton.......

    - HUD, "Partners in the American Dream", May 1995

    “In 1994, at the President’s request, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began work to develop a National Homeownership Strategy with the goal of lifting the overall homeownership rate to 67.5 percent by the end of the year 2000. While the most tangible goal of the National Homeownership Strategy was to raise the overall homeownership rate, in presenting the strategy HUD pointed explicitly to declines in homeownership rates among low-income, young, and minority households as motivation for these efforts.” - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research website

    "At the request of President Clinton, HUD is working with dozens of national leaders in government and the housing industry to implement the National Homeownership Strategy, an unprecedented public-private partnership to increase homeownership to a record-high level over the next 6 years.” - Urban Policy Brief Number 2, August 1995

    “Federal institutions, policies, and programs alone cannot meet President Clinton's goal of record-high levels of homeownership within the next 6 years. HUD has forged a nationwide partnership that will draw on the resources and creativity of lenders, builders, real estate professionals, community-based nonprofit organizations, consumer groups, State and local governments and housing finance agencies, and many others in a cooperative, multifaceted campaign to create ownership opportunities” - The National Homeownership Strategy

    Some of the strategy's outline in the Home OwnerShip Strategy..

    Action 11: Removing Barriers to Mortgage Financing for Starter Homes
    Action 29: Alternative Approaches to Homebuying Transactions
    Action 35: Home Mortgage Loan-to-Value Flexibility
    Action 36: Subsidies to Reduce Downpayment and Mortgage Costs
    Action 44: Flexible Mortgage Underwriting Criteria
    Action 45: Public-Private Leveraging for Affordable Home Financing


    From a 2000 Fannie Mae Foundation Report

    "Countrywide tends to follow the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted under GSE and FHA guidelines. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tend to give their best lenders access to the most flexible underwriting criteria, Countrywide benefits from its status as one of the largest originators of mortgage loans and one of the largest participants in the GSE programs. …
    When necessary—in cases where applicants have no established credit history, for example—Countrywide uses nontraditional credit, a practice now accepted by the GSEs
    ."

    HUD in 2004:
    "Over the past ten years, there has been a ‘revolution in affordable lending’ that has extended home ownership opportunities to historically underserved households. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been a substantial part of this ‘revolution in affordable lending’. During the mid-to-late 1990s, they added flexibility to their underwriting guidelines, introduced new low-downpayment products, and worked to expand the use of automated underwriting in evaluating the creditworthiness of loan applicants. HMDA data suggest that the industry and GSE initiatives are increasing the flow of credit to underserved borrowers. Between 1993 and 2003, conventional loans to low income and minority families increased at much faster rates than loans to upper-income and non-minority families."


    Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    In 1994 the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act tied a Banks CRA ratings into whether or not a Bank could acquire new acquisition's.
    The New Democratic Party Slogan :

    " Return to Power By Any Means Necessary "

  6. #26
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,277

    Re: Senator Renews Call To Break Up Banks That Are ‘Surely Still Too Big To Fail’

    Cont...........

    The Bush Blame and the Bank Blame is just the left partisan rhetoric to pull all the focus off of their party's massive documented influence..


    2003 NY Times article.....

    The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

    Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

    The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

    The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. "


    Key Democrats rejected..

    ”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

    Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

    ”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

    Clinton from 1993 to 1998 replaced the Top Executive's at Fannie and Freddie, including Franklin Raines who for years misreported Fannie's earnings to maintain his target numbers. His bonus was based off of his target numbers....

    The House Financial Services Committee began debate on September 11, 2003 and held multiple hearings over the next several weeks. In supporting the bills, Republicans focused on GSE’s potential impact on the broader financial system. Democrats focused solely on the mortgage lending targets, stating there was no risk to the broader financial system because the federal government would bail out the GSEs if necessary.


    Sen. Charles Schumer (D, NY): “And my worry is that we’re using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie’s mission.”

    Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): “nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn’t broke… In fact, the GSEs (Fannie, Freddie) have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission – a mission that has seen innovation flourish, from desktop underwriting (no formal analysis) to 100% loans (no collateral).”


    Rep. Maxine Waters (D, CA), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez: “Secretary Martinez, if it ain’t broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs ever missed their housing goals?”


    On March 31, 2004, the day before the Senate Banking Committee was scheduled to begin debating GSE regulations, Franklin Raines had Fannie Mae run the following advertisement on national television. Featuring a worried looking Hispanic couple, a man said, “Uh-oh.”

    Woman: “What?”

    Man: “It looks like Congress is talking about new regulations for Fannie Mae.”

    Woman: “Will that keep us from getting that lower mortgage rate?”

    Man: “Some economists say rates may go up.”

    Woman: “But that could mean we won’t be able to afford the new house.

    Man: “I know.”

    Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): “I don’t want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) and OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision). I want to load the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.”



    Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): “I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.”

    Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY): To OFHEO head, Armando Falcon, “The question that represents is the confidence that your agency has with regard to regulating these GSEs… Why should I have confidence; why should anyone have confidence in you as a regulator at this point?”

    Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY): “I’m just pissed of at OFHEO (the regulator), because if it wasn’t for you I don’t think that we’d be here in the first place…you’ve given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they’ve done a tremendous job.

    Barney Frank (D-MA): “I worry about increasing the capital requirements…I’d like to get Fannie and Freddie more deeply into helping low income housing and possibly moving into something that’s more explicitly a subsidy (taxpayer money used as principle in subprime mortgages). My concern is that this would not what would be a regulator’s or Treasury’s idea of what would be the best way of promoting safety and soundness… “

    Barney Frank (D-MA) even went so far as to suggest the issue of Fannie Mae regulation should rest in the hands of Fannie’s CEO:

    Barney Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated? Mr. Raines?

    Franklin Raines: No, sir.

    Barney Frank: Mr. Gould?

    George Gould: No, sir. . . .

    Barney Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .

    From a 1999 NY Times Article....

    “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”

    A HUD release after raising their Quota to 50% in 2000

    " Because the GSEs have a funding advantage over other market participants, they have the ability to under price their competitors and increase their market share. This advantage, as has been the case in the prime market, could allow the GSEs to eventually play a significant role in the subprime market. As the GSEs become more comfortable with subprime lending, the line between what today is considered a subprime loan versus a prime loan will likely deteriorate, making expansion by the GSEs look more like an increase in the prime market. Since . . . one could define a prime loan as one that the GSEs will purchase, the difference between the prime and subprime markets will become less clear. This melding of markets could occur even if many of the underlying characteristics of subprime borrowers and the market's (i.e., non-GSE participants) evaluation of the risks posed by these borrowers remain unchanged."


    A HUD release from 2004...

    Over the past ten years, there has been a ‘revolution in affordable lending’ that has extended homeownership opportunities to historically underserved households. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been a substantial part of this ‘revolution in affordable lending.' During the mid-to-late 1990s, they added flexibility to their underwriting guidelines, introduced new low-downpayment products, and worked to expand the use of automated underwriting in evaluating the creditworthiness of loan applicants. HMDA data suggest that the industry and GSE initiatives are increasing the flow of credit to underserved borrowers. Between 1993 and 2003, conventional loans to low income and minority families increased at much faster rates than loans to upper-income and non-minority families."

    Republicans in 2005 and their attempt to gain control of the out of control GSE's working under a HUD mandate..

    Sponsor Chuck Hagel

    1/26/2005--Introduced.
    Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish:

    (1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank
    Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and

    (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board. Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting:

    (1) assessment authority;
    (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets;
    (3) minimum and critical capital levels;
    (4) risk-based capital test;
    (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises;
    (6) enforcement actions and penalties;
    (7) golden parachutes; and
    (8) reporting.

    Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation. Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements.
    Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.

    Writen by the House Republican Conference "

    It lacked the Senate votes and needed 5 Democrats to join the 55 Republican Senators voting for it. No Democrat crossed over..
    The New Democratic Party Slogan :

    " Return to Power By Any Means Necessary "

  7. #27
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    35,018

    Re: Senator Renews Call To Break Up Banks That Are ‘Surely Still Too Big To Fail’

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I think it's sweet (a little sad, but sweet) that you honestly think that either of those two individuals are interested in a vibrant banking sector made up of many competing entities, vice a few big players that are closely "regulated" and donate "regularly" to the "regulators".


    So much for Dodd-Frank saving us all from Too Big To Fail, eh? Gosh, if I were a cynical fellow I might suspect that was never the intent.
    I find it just sad that you refuse to acknowledge good news when you hear it simply because it wasn't brought to by someone with an R next to their name.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  8. #28
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: Senator Renews Call To Break Up Banks That Are ‘Surely Still Too Big To Fail’

    I didn't remember what that happened but when I was young and ambitious, there were no Interstate Banks and when they changed that law I was horrified. I thought, what if a few banks take over everything (and become to big to control or fail). Predictive Paranoia.


    Quote Originally Posted by fmw View Post
    That would be Congress. Prior to legislation in the 1980's, interstate banking was illegal.

  9. #29
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: Senator Renews Call To Break Up Banks That Are ‘Surely Still Too Big To Fail’

    Just FYI FDIC Insurance is $250K per account per bank.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    No it would not have made a difference to every case. What my concern is that FDIC insured savings will be used by banks as investments, so if your bank dabbles in commercial and investment banking like JPMorgan Chase and uses your personal savings to fund investment banking if those investments go under then so does your money, which being FDIC insured is bailed out to the tune of 100,000 which would mean the bank gets a bailout as well.

    Also in my opinion, and I am willing to hear dissenting opinions, if there is a corporation be it a bank or any other kind of company that is so large that if it were to fail it would have a national economic impact to require government money to avoid further economic disaster, then it needs to be broken up now. The Glass-Steagall Act would have a double effect of separating personal savings from investment banking as well as breaking up banks that may be too big to fail based on their sheer size.

  10. #30
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: Senator Renews Call To Break Up Banks That Are ‘Surely Still Too Big To Fail’

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    Just FYI FDIC Insurance is $250K per account per bank.
    Actually, it's $250K per institution, not account...
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •