Bankruptcies rising. Fed answer? More debt.

[AzogtheDefiler]

No, he made things even worse. He made "Too Big To Fail" institutionalized with Dodd/Frank. He made the bankers feel secure that no matter what they do, they will get away with it when he failed to prosecute even one (unlike the promises he made).

Ben Bernanke failed in epic proportions and then Obama renominated him. How does one do that?

I just stated what he did.

You believe it made things worse. In some ways it did. In other ways things got better.

A lot of Frank/Dodd has been repealed. Including not bailing big business and banks out.

No true. I'll not continue until you post something that backs this up.

Here you go:

Trump signs the biggest rollback of bank rules since the financial crisis

All but the largest banks are affected by this. The largest banks still have to follow Frank/Dodd.

That does nothing about institutionalizing Too Big to Fail.

The damage had already been done. A large portion of smaller banks had already been gobbled up by the bigger banks. Nothing was done to simply allow banks to fail if they fail.

That is new legislation that removed a lot of the Frank/Dodd legislation. It didn't remove it for the big banks. So small and medium size banks will become risky because they don't have to follow the same rules big banks have to follow.

No it doesn't do anything about too big to fail. Do you really think that any republican is going to allow anything to be done about that? That legislation was written and signed in 2018. By the republican controlled congress and trump signing it.

Even if democrats tried to fix the problem of too big to fail, the republicans in the senate will filibuster it so it will die in the senate. The only way we will get any meaningful rules for big banks and wall street is to have a very different congress and president from what we have now.

That is not exactly what happened. They did this so that smaller banks could survive as their profits were choked by over regulation and hiring of compliance officers and such.

 

[pknopp]

I just stated what he did.

You believe it made things worse. In some ways it did. In other ways things got better.

A lot of Frank/Dodd has been repealed. Including not bailing big business and banks out.

No true. I'll not continue until you post something that backs this up.

Here you go:

Trump signs the biggest rollback of bank rules since the financial crisis

All but the largest banks are affected by this. The largest banks still have to follow Frank/Dodd.

That does nothing about institutionalizing Too Big to Fail.

The damage had already been done. A large portion of smaller banks had already been gobbled up by the bigger banks. Nothing was done to simply allow banks to fail if they fail.

That is new legislation that removed a lot of the Frank/Dodd legislation. It didn't remove it for the big banks. So small and medium size banks will become risky because they don't have to follow the same rules big banks have to follow.

No it doesn't do anything about too big to fail. Do you really think that any republican is going to allow anything to be done about that? That legislation was written and signed in 2018. By the republican controlled congress and trump signing it.

Even if democrats tried to fix the problem of too big to fail, the republicans in the senate will filibuster it so it will die in the senate. The only way we will get any meaningful rules for big banks and wall street is to have a very different congress and president from what we have now.

That is not exactly what happened. They did this so that smaller banks could survive as their profits were choked by over regulation and hiring of compliance officers and such.

Most small banks had long ago been taken over by the big banks only making "Too Big To Fail" and even larger problem.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

No true. I'll not continue until you post something that backs this up.

Here you go:

Trump signs the biggest rollback of bank rules since the financial crisis

All but the largest banks are affected by this. The largest banks still have to follow Frank/Dodd.

That does nothing about institutionalizing Too Big to Fail.

The damage had already been done. A large portion of smaller banks had already been gobbled up by the bigger banks. Nothing was done to simply allow banks to fail if they fail.

That is new legislation that removed a lot of the Frank/Dodd legislation. It didn't remove it for the big banks. So small and medium size banks will become risky because they don't have to follow the same rules big banks have to follow.

No it doesn't do anything about too big to fail. Do you really think that any republican is going to allow anything to be done about that? That legislation was written and signed in 2018. By the republican controlled congress and trump signing it.

Even if democrats tried to fix the problem of too big to fail, the republicans in the senate will filibuster it so it will die in the senate. The only way we will get any meaningful rules for big banks and wall street is to have a very different congress and president from what we have now.

That is not exactly what happened. They did this so that smaller banks could survive as their profits were choked by over regulation and hiring of compliance officers and such.

Most small banks had long ago been taken over by the big banks only making "Too Big To Fail" and even larger problem.

Many but not quite most.

 

[pknopp]

Here you go:

Trump signs the biggest rollback of bank rules since the financial crisis

All but the largest banks are affected by this. The largest banks still have to follow Frank/Dodd.

That does nothing about institutionalizing Too Big to Fail.

The damage had already been done. A large portion of smaller banks had already been gobbled up by the bigger banks. Nothing was done to simply allow banks to fail if they fail.

That is new legislation that removed a lot of the Frank/Dodd legislation. It didn't remove it for the big banks. So small and medium size banks will become risky because they don't have to follow the same rules big banks have to follow.

No it doesn't do anything about too big to fail. Do you really think that any republican is going to allow anything to be done about that? That legislation was written and signed in 2018. By the republican controlled congress and trump signing it.

Even if democrats tried to fix the problem of too big to fail, the republicans in the senate will filibuster it so it will die in the senate. The only way we will get any meaningful rules for big banks and wall street is to have a very different congress and president from what we have now.

That is not exactly what happened. They did this so that smaller banks could survive as their profits were choked by over regulation and hiring of compliance officers and such.

Most small banks had long ago been taken over by the big banks only making "Too Big To Fail" and even larger problem.

Many but not quite most.

In the end Dodd/Frank made the problem worse rather than fix the problem. That's the point.

 

[NightFox]

Then we read that the Fed is considering that the solution to debt getting out of control is loosening banks ability to create more debt.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn. It isn’t clear when they might make a decision.

Fed Considers New Tool for a Downturn

I could be wrong but I suspect you're reading of this is backwards since the idea of the Countercyclical capital buffer would be to force banks with $250 billion or more in assets to hold more capital during up cycle times (like now), so that they'll have more capital to absorb losses (and lend) during the down cycle. I think what the Fed is considering here is raising capital requirements via the CCCB (i.e. tightening) in anticipation of a downturn.

Yes that is what we required of the banks. Now the Fed is considering loosening those requirements. Allowing more debt because we are already so far in debt it's starting to drag things down.

Like I said I think you might be reading this wrong, if I'm not mistaken the CCCB has never been used (since it was approved in 2016) so there is no way to loosen using that tool (right now), I think the idea the fed is kicking around is to use it to tighten lending so that the banks have a capital buffer during the next downturn.

It hasn't been used. It states that right in the article. The drag of all our debt is what is going to cause the downturn and the Fed wants banks to add to that debt in a downturn.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn.

Sorry, the WSJ article you linked is behind a paywall so I didn't read it. While I don't disagree that the accumulation of debt will be the primary driver of the next cyclical downturn, you've got it backwards with respect to the idea being kicked around right now, it isn't to add to the current rate of debt creation (quite the opposite actually) it's to raise capital requirements on the large banks so that there will capital available to the banks for lending IN A DOWNTURN pursuant to shortening/mitigating said downturn.

 

[pknopp]

Then we read that the Fed is considering that the solution to debt getting out of control is loosening banks ability to create more debt.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn. It isn’t clear when they might make a decision.

Fed Considers New Tool for a Downturn

I could be wrong but I suspect you're reading of this is backwards since the idea of the Countercyclical capital buffer would be to force banks with $250 billion or more in assets to hold more capital during up cycle times (like now), so that they'll have more capital to absorb losses (and lend) during the down cycle. I think what the Fed is considering here is raising capital requirements via the CCCB (i.e. tightening) in anticipation of a downturn.

Yes that is what we required of the banks. Now the Fed is considering loosening those requirements. Allowing more debt because we are already so far in debt it's starting to drag things down.

Like I said I think you might be reading this wrong, if I'm not mistaken the CCCB has never been used (since it was approved in 2016) so there is no way to loosen using that tool (right now), I think the idea the fed is kicking around is to use it to tighten lending so that the banks have a capital buffer during the next downturn.

It hasn't been used. It states that right in the article. The drag of all our debt is what is going to cause the downturn and the Fed wants banks to add to that debt in a downturn.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn.

Sorry, the WSJ article you linked is behind a paywall so I didn't read it. While I don't disagree that the accumulation of debt will be the primary driver of the next cyclical downturn, you've got it backwards with respect to the idea being kicked around right now, it isn't to add to the current rate of debt creation (quite the opposite actually) it's to raise capital requirements on the large banks so that there will capital available to the banks for lending IN A DOWNTURN pursuant to shortening/mitigating said downturn.

A downturn means less people are borrowing. Why do you need increased funds when people are not borrowing?

 

[NightFox]

I could be wrong but I suspect you're reading of this is backwards since the idea of the Countercyclical capital buffer would be to force banks with $250 billion or more in assets to hold more capital during up cycle times (like now), so that they'll have more capital to absorb losses (and lend) during the down cycle. I think what the Fed is considering here is raising capital requirements via the CCCB (i.e. tightening) in anticipation of a downturn.

Yes that is what we required of the banks. Now the Fed is considering loosening those requirements. Allowing more debt because we are already so far in debt it's starting to drag things down.

Like I said I think you might be reading this wrong, if I'm not mistaken the CCCB has never been used (since it was approved in 2016) so there is no way to loosen using that tool (right now), I think the idea the fed is kicking around is to use it to tighten lending so that the banks have a capital buffer during the next downturn.

It hasn't been used. It states that right in the article. The drag of all our debt is what is going to cause the downturn and the Fed wants banks to add to that debt in a downturn.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn.

Sorry, the WSJ article you linked is behind a paywall so I didn't read it. While I don't disagree that the accumulation of debt will be the primary driver of the next cyclical downturn, you've got it backwards with respect to the idea being kicked around right now, it isn't to add to the current rate of debt creation (quite the opposite actually) it's to raise capital requirements on the large banks so that there will capital available to the banks for lending IN A DOWNTURN pursuant to shortening/mitigating said downturn.

A downturn means less people are borrowing. Why do you need increased funds when people are not borrowing?

Actually the primary issue during downturns is the lack of available credit (which is why the fed cuts rates during downturns; to stimulate credit creation), you also have to consider that the CCCB seeks to provide the banks with a capital buffer to absorb losses for loans that go bad during a downturn (so we don't end up having to bail them out again).

 

[pknopp]

Yes that is what we required of the banks. Now the Fed is considering loosening those requirements. Allowing more debt because we are already so far in debt it's starting to drag things down.

Like I said I think you might be reading this wrong, if I'm not mistaken the CCCB has never been used (since it was approved in 2016) so there is no way to loosen using that tool (right now), I think the idea the fed is kicking around is to use it to tighten lending so that the banks have a capital buffer during the next downturn.

It hasn't been used. It states that right in the article. The drag of all our debt is what is going to cause the downturn and the Fed wants banks to add to that debt in a downturn.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn.

Sorry, the WSJ article you linked is behind a paywall so I didn't read it. While I don't disagree that the accumulation of debt will be the primary driver of the next cyclical downturn, you've got it backwards with respect to the idea being kicked around right now, it isn't to add to the current rate of debt creation (quite the opposite actually) it's to raise capital requirements on the large banks so that there will capital available to the banks for lending IN A DOWNTURN pursuant to shortening/mitigating said downturn.

A downturn means less people are borrowing. Why do you need increased funds when people are not borrowing?

Actually the primary issue during downturns is the lack of available credit (which is why the fed cuts rates during downturns; to stimulate credit creation), you also have to consider that the CCCB seeks to provide the banks with a capital buffer to absorb losses for loans that go bad during a downturn (so we don't end up having to bail them out again).

B.S. People don't borrow when things are bad. Nobody that wanted money that qualified for the money had any problem getting it in the last recession. That was simply a lie.

 

[NightFox]

Like I said I think you might be reading this wrong, if I'm not mistaken the CCCB has never been used (since it was approved in 2016) so there is no way to loosen using that tool (right now), I think the idea the fed is kicking around is to use it to tighten lending so that the banks have a capital buffer during the next downturn.

It hasn't been used. It states that right in the article. The drag of all our debt is what is going to cause the downturn and the Fed wants banks to add to that debt in a downturn.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn.

Sorry, the WSJ article you linked is behind a paywall so I didn't read it. While I don't disagree that the accumulation of debt will be the primary driver of the next cyclical downturn, you've got it backwards with respect to the idea being kicked around right now, it isn't to add to the current rate of debt creation (quite the opposite actually) it's to raise capital requirements on the large banks so that there will capital available to the banks for lending IN A DOWNTURN pursuant to shortening/mitigating said downturn.

A downturn means less people are borrowing. Why do you need increased funds when people are not borrowing?

Actually the primary issue during downturns is the lack of available credit (which is why the fed cuts rates during downturns; to stimulate credit creation), you also have to consider that the CCCB seeks to provide the banks with a capital buffer to absorb losses for loans that go bad during a downturn (so we don't end up having to bail them out again).

B.S. People don't borrow when things are bad. Nobody that wanted money that qualified for the money had any problem getting it in the last recession. That was simply a lie.

Er...ummmm… I think you might need to some homework with respect to the particulars of how the business cycle works and the effects of credit disruption which is the primary cause of downturns.

Why do you think the Treasury directly injected capital into all the major banks via preferred share acquisition during the last recession if not to encourage them to lend it out and unfreeze the credit markets?

 

[pknopp]

It hasn't been used. It states that right in the article. The drag of all our debt is what is going to cause the downturn and the Fed wants banks to add to that debt in a downturn.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn.

Sorry, the WSJ article you linked is behind a paywall so I didn't read it. While I don't disagree that the accumulation of debt will be the primary driver of the next cyclical downturn, you've got it backwards with respect to the idea being kicked around right now, it isn't to add to the current rate of debt creation (quite the opposite actually) it's to raise capital requirements on the large banks so that there will capital available to the banks for lending IN A DOWNTURN pursuant to shortening/mitigating said downturn.

A downturn means less people are borrowing. Why do you need increased funds when people are not borrowing?

Actually the primary issue during downturns is the lack of available credit (which is why the fed cuts rates during downturns; to stimulate credit creation), you also have to consider that the CCCB seeks to provide the banks with a capital buffer to absorb losses for loans that go bad during a downturn (so we don't end up having to bail them out again).

B.S. People don't borrow when things are bad. Nobody that wanted money that qualified for the money had any problem getting it in the last recession. That was simply a lie.

Er...ummmm… I think you might need to some homework with respect to the particulars of how the business cycle works and the effects of credit disruption which is the primary cause of downturns.

The last recession was caused by corruption.

Why do you think the Treasury directly injected capital into all the major banks via preferred share acquisition during the last recession if not to encourage them to lend it out and unfreeze the credit markets?

Because Wall Street runs things and they were not going to sit back and allow the economy to come back in a natural progression.

 

[NightFox]

Sorry, the WSJ article you linked is behind a paywall so I didn't read it. While I don't disagree that the accumulation of debt will be the primary driver of the next cyclical downturn, you've got it backwards with respect to the idea being kicked around right now, it isn't to add to the current rate of debt creation (quite the opposite actually) it's to raise capital requirements on the large banks so that there will capital available to the banks for lending IN A DOWNTURN pursuant to shortening/mitigating said downturn.

A downturn means less people are borrowing. Why do you need increased funds when people are not borrowing?

Actually the primary issue during downturns is the lack of available credit (which is why the fed cuts rates during downturns; to stimulate credit creation), you also have to consider that the CCCB seeks to provide the banks with a capital buffer to absorb losses for loans that go bad during a downturn (so we don't end up having to bail them out again).

B.S. People don't borrow when things are bad. Nobody that wanted money that qualified for the money had any problem getting it in the last recession. That was simply a lie.

Er...ummmm… I think you might need to some homework with respect to the particulars of how the business cycle works and the effects of credit disruption which is the primary cause of downturns.

The last recession was caused by corruption.

Why do you think the Treasury directly injected capital into all the major banks via preferred share acquisition during the last recession if not to encourage them to lend it out and unfreeze the credit markets?

Because Wall Street runs things and they were not going to sit back and allow the economy to come back in a natural progression.

K, whatever you say...….

Have a good one.

 

[Blues Man]

Banks have no obligation to make people more fiscally responsible

 

[pknopp]

Banks have no obligation to make people more fiscally responsible

The people should have had no responsibility to have bailed them out.

 

[Blues Man]

Banks have no obligation to make people more fiscally responsible

The people should have had no responsibility to have bailed them out.

The people voted for the politicians that bailed out the banks

We get the politicians we deserve

 

[pknopp]

Banks have no obligation to make people more fiscally responsible

The people should have had no responsibility to have bailed them out.

The people voted for the politicians that bailed out the banks

We get the politicians we deserve

A large number were thrown out or left on their own as the writing was on the wall.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Banks have no obligation to make people more fiscally responsible

The people should have had no responsibility to have bailed them out.

Exactly!
The people would have been much better off if 30% of banks had failed.....like in the Great Depression....wait, what?

 

[pknopp]

Banks have no obligation to make people more fiscally responsible

The people should have had no responsibility to have bailed them out.

Exactly!
The people would have been much better off if 30% of banks had failed.....like in the Great Depression....wait, what?

Voids are always filled.

 

[BrokeLoser]

So the news out today is that bankruptcies are on the rise. Debt is getting out of control once again.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/bankruptcy-filings-rising-across-the-country-and-it-could-get-worse/

Then we read that the Fed is considering that the solution to debt getting out of control is loosening banks ability to create more debt.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn. It isn’t clear when they might make a decision.

Fed Considers New Tool for a Downturn

Bankruptcies on the rise in the Kenyans economy?
This is Obama’s economy...right?

 

[pknopp]

So the news out today is that bankruptcies are on the rise. Debt is getting out of control once again.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/bankruptcy-filings-rising-across-the-country-and-it-could-get-worse/

Then we read that the Fed is considering that the solution to debt getting out of control is loosening banks ability to create more debt.

Now, some Fed officials are debating whether it is time to use the tool, which could provide banks with additional lending firepower in a subsequent downturn. It isn’t clear when they might make a decision.

Fed Considers New Tool for a Downturn

Bankruptcies on the rise in the Kenyans economy?
This is Obama’s economy...right?

Both Obama and Trump are/were taking us down the same path.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Banks have no obligation to make people more fiscally responsible

The people should have had no responsibility to have bailed them out.

Exactly!
The people would have been much better off if 30% of banks had failed.....like in the Great Depression....wait, what?

Voids are always filled.

In the meantime, the bailout changes from TARP to FDIC.