Glass-Steagal Lite

US set to adopt Volcker rule to curb banks' risky trading

Reform prohibits banks from betting on financial markets with their own money and aims at preventing the bailouts of large investment banks that happened during the financial crisis.

US regulators are due on Tuesday to approve a rule to rein in risky trading by banks, a crucial part of their efforts to reform Wall Street and prevent another costly taxpayer bailout.


http://www.theguardian.com/business/...-risky-trading

At least it's a move in the right direction. Here's another, recent article on the subject:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...emed-weak.html

Good start for sure..it's implementation should be preceeded by some felony charges, I think.

All it will take to fail is to have more than 1 DEM to support it on the floor.
That will wind up the wing nuts.

A secret ballot might be interesting--with votes revealed AFTER they are counted.

Forbes isn't too optimistic.


The Volcker Rule Will Not Work

Most of what we heard during the 40 months the Volcker Rule was being
written by the regulators came from the incredibly effective Wall Street
lobbying machine. Articles appeared in all of the major financial publications
saying the Volcker Rule would destroy banking as we know it. The underlying
arguments were always that Wall Street wasn’t really responsible for the
financial meltdown, that if there had been some minor problems the banks
had already fixed them, and therefore no major structural changes were
needed.The regulators were hearing the same things—in spades. A study by
Duke Law Professor Kim Krawiec demonstrated how lopsided the lobbying on the Volcker Rule was. She found that, between July 26, 2010 and July 7, 2011, 93.6 percent of the meetings with commissioners and staff of the five
regulators charged with writing the rule were with financial institutions, law
firms representing financial institutions, or financial institution trade
associations, lobbyists, or policy advisors. Only 3.2 percent represented labor or public interest groups; another 3.2 percent came from congressional staff members.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedkaufm...will-not-work/


Another article:


The Volcker Rule could be a major contribution to financial stability. Or it could still flop. The devil now is in the details of implementation and compliance – and how much of this becomes public information and with what time lag.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ule-work/?_r=0


And another:


So will the Volcker Rule work? In the short run, it’s very likely to succeed.
Unless there is constant public and Congressional pressure and persistent
vigilance on the part of regulators to adapt and enforce the rule, it is unlikely
to be remain successful in the long-run.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelb...ker-rule-work/

I think the felony charges should include the ones that pressured the banks to make the loans.
The fault runs far and deep. Just another cause and effect of social engineering by the government.

...Articles appeared in all of the major financial publications saying the Volcker Rule would destroy banking as we know it. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Good.

Good. Originally Posted by Submodo

Would be, except that's "propaganda" coming from the banks, according to the article's author.

At least it's a move in the right direction. Here's another, recent article on the subject:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Agreed.

I think the felony charges should include the ones that pressured the banks to make the loans.
The fault runs far and deep. Just another cause and effect of social engineering by the government. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

2dogs likes to blame the government but ignores the fact that big banking is what is running the government. Big banking has gotten away with privatizing profits and stiffing the public with their losses. They made those 'loans' because they could bundle them to unsuspecting third parties.

They made those 'loans' because they could bundle them to unsuspecting third parties. Originally Posted by WTF

wrong... ok wrong again. .the "again" is superfluous but some readers may be unaware that wrong is a given when you type

they bundled the loans because they didn't want to be stuck with them.. they made the loans initially because they were forced to

then yes they needed enough loans to package them as safe investments, turning a sows ear into a silk purse for them..so they aren't blameless but it didn't start as you indicate

Big banking has gotten away with privatizing profits and stiffing the public with their losses. They made those 'loans' because they could bundle them to unsuspecting third parties. Originally Posted by WTF

Name one big bank that wound up "stiffing the public with their losses". In Oct. 2008 Hank Paulson forced 9 big banks to sell non-voting preferred stock to the US Treasury. Those banks ultimately paid back all of the money invested and the Treasury earned a profit.

Who are the "unsuspecting third parties" who bought the bundled loans? Do you think the people who manage your pension fund are just poor l'il widows and orphans? Are they as stupid as you are? Or are they supposed to be trained in finance and have a fiduciary duty to exercise care in how they invest?

wrong... ok wrong again. .the "again" is superfluous but some readers may be unaware that wrong is a given when you type... Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Yep, you've got WTFuckhead's number right! Over 14,000 stupid comments and counting!

You two dumb fucks evidently do not understand the game. They made 'bad' loans because they could bundle them and sell them as AAA. The fucking game was rigged all the way down to the rating agency's. Nobody wanted to upset the apple cart including Bush....that was how the economy was made to look good.

lustladyboy, have you read The Big Short? Do you understand how some of these banks made loans, bundled and sold them to unsuspecting investors as AAA and the shorted those bets. These banks made a huge profit on these loans because AIG was the one insuring them. Instead of AIG going bankrupt like it should have...the taxpayers stepped in and paid banks like Goldman, when in fact they should have put people from these firms in jail. Is that the kind of shit you are defending? Just because the AIG bailout was repaid....does not mean that these bankers you are defending are savy investors as you claim, they were/are common crooks.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...t-plus-profit/


Still, the New York Times editorial board and critics of the bailout point out that amount doesn’t take into account tax breaks the company got as part of the deal. Former members of an oversight panel said in March that a special tax exemption offered by the Treasury in 2008 amounted to a "stealth bailout."

It allowed AIG to count net operating losses against future tax bills, which "some estimate has contributed to $17.7 billion in profits for the company," according to the group of former oversight panelists, including chair Elizabeth Warren, now a Democratic senator from Massachusetts.

So, have the government’s loans been repaid, with a "positive return" of $22 billion for taxpayers? Yes. Was the entire U.S. bailout of AIG, including special tax provisions, that profitable? No.

Yep, you've got WTFuckhead's number right! Over 14,000 stupid comments and counting!

Originally Posted by lustylad

You ever make it down to Houston, look me up and you can count on one upside your pea brain ladyboy.

nothing you posted addressed anything I said.....just more papering over

whoops