Should the Glass Steagall Act be brought back?

[Dad2three]

The CRA happened under Clinton. Then he appointed a lot of new Dems to manage it.

Then under Bush, this happened.

Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform

Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

Continue reading all the requests and rejections of regulating the GSE's and Democratic Responses.

17 ATTEMPTS to regulate GSE's

Got it, CRA had NOTHING to do with Bush's Subprime crisis


BANKSTER:

Bob Davis, executive vice president of the American Bankers Association, which lobbies Congress to streamline community reinvestment rules, said "it just isn't credible" to blame the law CRA for the crisis.

"Institutions that are subject to CRA - that is, banks and savings asociations - were largely not involved in subprime lending," Davis said. "The bulk of the loans came through a channel that was not subject to CRA."



Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register




WEIRD, YOU SAYING THE GOP CONGRESS IGNORED DUBYA'S 'WARNINGS'? LOL



Strong opposition by the Bush administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a vote on a bill that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


Oxley pulls Fannie, Freddie bill under heat from Bush - MarketWatch


Despite what appeared to be a broad consensus on GSE regulatory reform, efforts quickly stalled. A legislative markup scheduled for October 8, 2003, in the House of Representatives was halted because the Bush administration withdrew its support for the bill,



The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley (R), now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”

“What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”


STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers"


LOL

June 17, 2004


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.



LOL

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004




Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again. A million quotes cant change that.



Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s 2004

“
Mr. Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.“

The CRA did take part in the crash, because of GSE's.............You are spouting the Democratic response to their part in the crash..........

In other words, they Lied their asses off saying they didn't do it, which is the same as you are doing now.

Allowing the banks to merge, and use commercial assets was BS. It was voted for by Dems and Reps. It was signed by Clinton. Graham pushed it to the extreme for self serving measures.

IT ALLOWED SELF REGULATION IN THE MARKETS..................

And the rest is history.

At a minimum, the GLA should be repealed, but at a maximum the Glass Steagall act should be restored.

Myth 1

There has been no official bipartisan consensus on the causes of the financial crisis: An official government report was produced in April 2011 by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, led by Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and Ranking Member Tom Coburn (R-OK), titled Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse. The “Levin-Coburn Report,” a 639-page document, including 2,849 footnotes unanimously and unambiguously concluded that “the [2008] crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street.”


This myth got traction in January 2011, when after conducting over five hundred interviews and holding twelve days of hearings, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) failed to produce a unified report. The 545-page book the panel did publish, titled The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report: Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States, had three sections. The first part was a lengthy majority report endorsed by the six Democratic appointees. This was followed by two much shorter dissents. Reading the three parts together, it is clear that all ten commissioners agreed that the collapse of the U.S. housing bubble was the proximate cause of the crisis.


In addition, there was substantial consensus among nine of the commissioners. For these nine—including three of the four Republican appointees—the centerpiece of the consensus was that poor risk management at U.S. financial institutions was a chief contributor to the crisis. For example, all nine agreed that risk management failures at financial institutions led to insufficient capital and a reliance on short-term borrowing.


Toxic bankers, captive regulators: Everything you think about the housing market is wrong - Salon.com




The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession



Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.


The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession | The Long Goodbye



Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown



Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.




Some 6 percent of Fannie- and Freddie-sponsored loans made during that span were 90 days late at some point in their history, according to Fannie and Freddie’s regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. By contrast, the FHFA says, roughly 27 percent of loans that Wall Street folded into mortgage-backed investments were at least 90 days late at some point.



“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”



Fannie and Freddie, Cecala said in a telephone interview, didn’t start making a big move into riskier mortgages until the mortgage boom was already under way, and they were fighting to reclaim market share they’d lost to more aggressive Wall Street players. Even then, they were more cautious than Lehman Brothers and other investment banks.

Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast



No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)



1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom: The first thing to point out is that the both the subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, especially the private label securitization channel (PLS) market. The Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs, or Fannie and Freddie) were not behind them. The fly-by-night lending boom, slicing and dicing mortgage bonds, derivatives and CDOs, and all the other shadiness of the mortgage market in the 2000s were Wall Street creations, and they drove all those risky mortgages.

Here’s some data to back that up: “More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions… Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.”



Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture

 

[eagle1462010]

Got it, CRA had NOTHING to do with Bush's Subprime crisis


BANKSTER:

Bob Davis, executive vice president of the American Bankers Association, which lobbies Congress to streamline community reinvestment rules, said "it just isn't credible" to blame the law CRA for the crisis.

"Institutions that are subject to CRA - that is, banks and savings asociations - were largely not involved in subprime lending," Davis said. "The bulk of the loans came through a channel that was not subject to CRA."



Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register




WEIRD, YOU SAYING THE GOP CONGRESS IGNORED DUBYA'S 'WARNINGS'? LOL



Strong opposition by the Bush administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a vote on a bill that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


Oxley pulls Fannie, Freddie bill under heat from Bush - MarketWatch


Despite what appeared to be a broad consensus on GSE regulatory reform, efforts quickly stalled. A legislative markup scheduled for October 8, 2003, in the House of Representatives was halted because the Bush administration withdrew its support for the bill,



The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley (R), now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”

“What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”


STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers"


LOL

June 17, 2004


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.



LOL

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004




Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again. A million quotes cant change that.



Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s 2004

“
Mr. Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.“

The CRA did take part in the crash, because of GSE's.............You are spouting the Democratic response to their part in the crash..........

In other words, they Lied their asses off saying they didn't do it, which is the same as you are doing now.

Allowing the banks to merge, and use commercial assets was BS. It was voted for by Dems and Reps. It was signed by Clinton. Graham pushed it to the extreme for self serving measures.

IT ALLOWED SELF REGULATION IN THE MARKETS..................

And the rest is history.

At a minimum, the GLA should be repealed, but at a maximum the Glass Steagall act should be restored.

Myth 1

There has been no official bipartisan consensus on the causes of the financial crisis: An official government report was produced in April 2011 by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, led by Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and Ranking Member Tom Coburn (R-OK), titled Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse. The “Levin-Coburn Report,” a 639-page document, including 2,849 footnotes unanimously and unambiguously concluded that “the [2008] crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street.”


This myth got traction in January 2011, when after conducting over five hundred interviews and holding twelve days of hearings, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) failed to produce a unified report. The 545-page book the panel did publish, titled The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report: Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States, had three sections. The first part was a lengthy majority report endorsed by the six Democratic appointees. This was followed by two much shorter dissents. Reading the three parts together, it is clear that all ten commissioners agreed that the collapse of the U.S. housing bubble was the proximate cause of the crisis.


In addition, there was substantial consensus among nine of the commissioners. For these nine—including three of the four Republican appointees—the centerpiece of the consensus was that poor risk management at U.S. financial institutions was a chief contributor to the crisis. For example, all nine agreed that risk management failures at financial institutions led to insufficient capital and a reliance on short-term borrowing.


Toxic bankers, captive regulators: Everything you think about the housing market is wrong - Salon.com




The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession



Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.


The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession | The Long Goodbye



Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown



Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.




Some 6 percent of Fannie- and Freddie-sponsored loans made during that span were 90 days late at some point in their history, according to Fannie and Freddie’s regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. By contrast, the FHFA says, roughly 27 percent of loans that Wall Street folded into mortgage-backed investments were at least 90 days late at some point.



“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”



Fannie and Freddie, Cecala said in a telephone interview, didn’t start making a big move into riskier mortgages until the mortgage boom was already under way, and they were fighting to reclaim market share they’d lost to more aggressive Wall Street players. Even then, they were more cautious than Lehman Brothers and other investment banks.

Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast



No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)



1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom: The first thing to point out is that the both the subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, especially the private label securitization channel (PLS) market. The Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs, or Fannie and Freddie) were not behind them. The fly-by-night lending boom, slicing and dicing mortgage bonds, derivatives and CDOs, and all the other shadiness of the mortgage market in the 2000s were Wall Street creations, and they drove all those risky mortgages.

Here’s some data to back that up: “More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions… Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.”



Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture

And I can post other sources saying the opposite.

In the end, both sides fucked us. Get over your party hack data.

We should have never let them off the leash. And the leash needs to be restored.

I showed the vote on a key element of the crash, and the Dems voted for it just like the GOP.

 

[eagle1462010]

Interstate-Banking Bill Gets Final Approval in Congress - NYTimes.com

he Senate overwhelmingly approved and sent to the President for signing today a bill that would allow banks to operate branches across the nation.

The interstate banking bill has been the Clinton Administration's top legislative priority in banking this year, and Congressional approval of it represents a victory for the President and for big banks that want to set up branch networks nationwide. The bill would eliminate the remaining barriers to interstate banking in a dozen states and a requirement that banks operate separate subsidiaries in each state.

Passage, on a 94-to-4 vote, came after the Treasury Department agreed this morning to a procedure for pursuing negligent insiders at failed savings and loan institutions.

Another forgotten element. An element of the Glass Steagall Act.

Again, leading to larger banks and mergers.....a necessity to overturn to allow the mergers that happened later under waivers and the Graham Leahy Act.

Creating TOO BIG TO FAIL COMPANIES..............

Dems claim they didn't do any of this. Yet both sides did this.

Yep, this was done for the people, so they could use the same bank in another state. LOL

It was all part of the deal to remove all restrictions on the banks to allow them to bet Fiat Currency out the ass and crush the economy in the end.

Which is EXACTLY why the Glass Steagall Act should be brought back.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Glass Act was to prevent too big to fail.

Key elements.
Interstate banking law. Not allowing them to cross state lines, which forces them to be smaller.

Commercial banks separate from Investment banking. So they couldn't use Fiat Currency to drive the Markets to the moon............via Fractional Banking. Making loans with only a fraction of it in reserve. Turning 1 TRILLION in ASSETS into 10 TRILLION in LOANS.

Those that argue for this shit always talk about nominal values, or notional values. Saying big numbers scare you???????????? They always JUSTIFY their BS. They always JUSTIFY DERIVATIVES to the 1200 TRILLION created in both forms of it in a MATTER OF 6 YEARS.

Saying it helps the economy by improving the markets.......But the economy LAGS.........because the Markets are a fraud...........ponzi scheme...............based on loans with no dang real assets to back them up.

Which is why they need to be on a leash.

 

[Dad2three]

The CRA did take part in the crash, because of GSE's.............You are spouting the Democratic response to their part in the crash..........

In other words, they Lied their asses off saying they didn't do it, which is the same as you are doing now.

Allowing the banks to merge, and use commercial assets was BS. It was voted for by Dems and Reps. It was signed by Clinton. Graham pushed it to the extreme for self serving measures.

IT ALLOWED SELF REGULATION IN THE MARKETS..................

And the rest is history.

At a minimum, the GLA should be repealed, but at a maximum the Glass Steagall act should be restored.

Myth 1

There has been no official bipartisan consensus on the causes of the financial crisis: An official government report was produced in April 2011 by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, led by Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and Ranking Member Tom Coburn (R-OK), titled Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse. The “Levin-Coburn Report,” a 639-page document, including 2,849 footnotes unanimously and unambiguously concluded that “the [2008] crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street.”


This myth got traction in January 2011, when after conducting over five hundred interviews and holding twelve days of hearings, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) failed to produce a unified report. The 545-page book the panel did publish, titled The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report: Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States, had three sections. The first part was a lengthy majority report endorsed by the six Democratic appointees. This was followed by two much shorter dissents. Reading the three parts together, it is clear that all ten commissioners agreed that the collapse of the U.S. housing bubble was the proximate cause of the crisis.


In addition, there was substantial consensus among nine of the commissioners. For these nine—including three of the four Republican appointees—the centerpiece of the consensus was that poor risk management at U.S. financial institutions was a chief contributor to the crisis. For example, all nine agreed that risk management failures at financial institutions led to insufficient capital and a reliance on short-term borrowing.


Toxic bankers, captive regulators: Everything you think about the housing market is wrong - Salon.com




The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession



Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.


The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession | The Long Goodbye



Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown



Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.




Some 6 percent of Fannie- and Freddie-sponsored loans made during that span were 90 days late at some point in their history, according to Fannie and Freddie’s regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. By contrast, the FHFA says, roughly 27 percent of loans that Wall Street folded into mortgage-backed investments were at least 90 days late at some point.



“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”



Fannie and Freddie, Cecala said in a telephone interview, didn’t start making a big move into riskier mortgages until the mortgage boom was already under way, and they were fighting to reclaim market share they’d lost to more aggressive Wall Street players. Even then, they were more cautious than Lehman Brothers and other investment banks.

Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast



No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)



1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom: The first thing to point out is that the both the subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, especially the private label securitization channel (PLS) market. The Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs, or Fannie and Freddie) were not behind them. The fly-by-night lending boom, slicing and dicing mortgage bonds, derivatives and CDOs, and all the other shadiness of the mortgage market in the 2000s were Wall Street creations, and they drove all those risky mortgages.

Here’s some data to back that up: “More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions… Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.”



Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture

And I can post other sources saying the opposite.

In the end, both sides fucked us. Get over your party hack data.

We should have never let them off the leash. And the leash needs to be restored.

I showed the vote on a key element of the crash, and the Dems voted for it just like the GOP.

Got it, IGNORE who was in charge of the regulators and say you COULD post things saying the opposite????


Sorry YOU are such an ideologue Bubbba!



KEY ELEMENT? G/S HAD ZERO TO DO WITH DUBYA'S REGULATOR FAILURE!!!

 

[Dad2three]

Interstate-Banking Bill Gets Final Approval in Congress - NYTimes.com

he Senate overwhelmingly approved and sent to the President for signing today a bill that would allow banks to operate branches across the nation.

The interstate banking bill has been the Clinton Administration's top legislative priority in banking this year, and Congressional approval of it represents a victory for the President and for big banks that want to set up branch networks nationwide. The bill would eliminate the remaining barriers to interstate banking in a dozen states and a requirement that banks operate separate subsidiaries in each state.

Passage, on a 94-to-4 vote, came after the Treasury Department agreed this morning to a procedure for pursuing negligent insiders at failed savings and loan institutions.

Another forgotten element. An element of the Glass Steagall Act.

Again, leading to larger banks and mergers.....a necessity to overturn to allow the mergers that happened later under waivers and the Graham Leahy Act.

Creating TOO BIG TO FAIL COMPANIES..............

Dems claim they didn't do any of this. Yet both sides did this.

Yep, this was done for the people, so they could use the same bank in another state. LOL

It was all part of the deal to remove all restrictions on the banks to allow them to bet Fiat Currency out the ass and crush the economy in the end.

Which is EXACTLY why the Glass Steagall Act should be brought back.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists


There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.




We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

 

[eagle1462010]

How Too Big to Fail gets created........Allowed by Clinton, supported by both parties in the votes.

You can't absolve the Dems in this mess Dad, no matter how much BS you post.

 

[eagle1462010]

9 Wall Street Execs Who Cashed In on the Crisis | Mother Jones

9 Wall Street Execs Who Cashed In on the Crisis

All from the Too Big to Fail Crowd.

The mergers in my post before this one weren't allowed under the Glass Act.

 

[eagle1462010]

it-s-the-derivatives-stupid-[/B]why-fannie-freddie-aig-had-to-be-bailed-out/10265]It?s the Derivatives, Stupid! Why Fannie, Freddie, AIG had to be Bailed Out | Global Research

The Anatomy of a Bubble


Until recently, most people had never even heard of derivatives; but in terms of money traded, these investments represent the biggest financial market in the world. Derivatives are financial instruments that have no intrinsic value but derive their value from something else. Basically, they are just bets. You can “hedge your bet” that something you own will go up by placing a side bet that it will go down. “Hedge funds” hedge bets in the derivatives market. Bets can be placed on anything, from the price of tea in China to the movements of specific markets.

“The point everyone misses,” wrote economist Robert Chapman a decade ago, “is that buying derivatives is not investing. It is gambling, insurance and high stakes bookmaking. Derivatives create nothing.”1 They not only create nothing, but they serve to enrich non-producers at the expense of the people who do create real goods and services. In congressional hearings in the early 1990s, derivatives trading was challenged as being an illegal form of gambling. But the practice was legitimized by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who not only lent legal and regulatory support to the trade but actively promoted derivatives as a way to improve “risk management.” Partly, this was to boost the flagging profits of the banks; and at the larger banks and dealers, it worked. But the cost was an increase in risk to the financial system as a whole.2

Since then, derivative trades have grown exponentially, until now they are larger than the entire global economy. The Bank for International Settlements recently reported that total derivatives trades exceeded one quadrillion dollars – that’s 1,000 trillion dollars.3 How is that figure even possible? The gross domestic product of all the countries in the world is only about 60 trillion dollars. The answer is that gamblers can bet as much as they want. They can bet money they don’t have, and that is where the huge increase in risk comes in.

 

[eagle1462010]

Final post tonight, aka this morning.

Only FOOLS would allow BETS to a 1000 TRILLION dollars on the Markets.

The Global GDP is 60 TRILLION.

We are run by Fools.

And the Markets are nothing but the largest Ponzi Scheme in the history of the world.

Good Night.

 

[zeke]

Should the Glass Steagall Act be brought back?

Specifically, this...............

The Glass-Steagall Act Explained

2. Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking

As important as the FDIC’s creation was, the term Glass-Steagall usually refers to the set of rules that kept a savings-and-loan type bank from engaging in speculative, risky training with customers’ deposits. If a bank took deposits, it could not trade in anything other than government bonds; if it underwrote securities or engaged in market-making, it could not take deposits.

The motivation for this separation rested on alleged conflicts of interest. Glass and Steagall, as well as others, accused banks of partnering with affiliates which later sold securities to repay banks’ debts, or accepted loans from banks to buy securities. They also worried that banks engaged in risk-taking speculation, rather than investing in corporations to promote growth.

Five provisions of the Banking Act pertained to this separation:

Section 19: Federally chartered banks could not buy or sell securities, unless they were investment securities, government bonds or trades made on behalf of a customer.
Section 5(c): Glass-Steagall would also apply to state-chartered banks.
Section 20: Banks could not be affiliated with firms whose primary purpose was trading securities.
Section 21: If a bank did trade securities, it could not take deposits.
Section 32: Officers and directors of commercial banks (banks part of the Federal Reserve System) were barred from holding advisory positions in companies whose primary purpose was trading securities.

I guess everyone will figure out I hosed the poll question. I voted yes of course.

Abso-fucking-lutely!

I of course am the one vote against bringing back the Glass-Steagal Act.

I have asked this question hundreds of times, and I never get an answer.

Name ONE bank that if Glass-Steagall was still enforced, would have not crashed? And on what basis would you make the claim?

Countrywide? Nope.
IndyMac? Nope.
Bear Stearns? Nope.
Wachovia? Nope.
AIG? Nope.
Washington Mutual? Nope.

The vast vast majority of all the banks that crashed... none of them would have been affected by Glass-Steagall in any way.

So now, if you have a reason to bring back Glas Steagall, what is it?

And don't tell me it is to prevent another sub-prime melt down, because if so, then I want the name of the banks (not one), bank(S) that would have been 'saved' under Glass Steagall, and I want a specific provision of Glass Steagall, and how it applied to those banks, that would have stopped them from crash.

If you can provide me that evidence, I'll consider it.

What a crock of shit. Tell you what, I'll answer your "questions" when and if you can answer mine.

Why did the Republicans push so hard for so many years to repeal Glass Steagall? What was it that the Repubs wanting to eliminate this legislation wanted to do in the financial markets that they were being stopped from doing?

And what a strange coincidence that once the repeal took place, within just a few short years we had the biggest housing/financial collapse since the Great Depression. How is it that that happened AFTER the repeal of Glass Steagall? And had not happened since the legislation was enacted.

Give a plausible, honest answer to those questions and I'll answer yours. The two answers will tie together nicely. If you are honest.

 

[zeke]

Interstate-Banking Bill Gets Final Approval in Congress - NYTimes.com

he Senate overwhelmingly approved and sent to the President for signing today a bill that would allow banks to operate branches across the nation.

The interstate banking bill has been the Clinton Administration's top legislative priority in banking this year, and Congressional approval of it represents a victory for the President and for big banks that want to set up branch networks nationwide. The bill would eliminate the remaining barriers to interstate banking in a dozen states and a requirement that banks operate separate subsidiaries in each state.

Passage, on a 94-to-4 vote, came after the Treasury Department agreed this morning to a procedure for pursuing negligent insiders at failed savings and loan institutions.

Another forgotten element. An element of the Glass Steagall Act.

Again, leading to larger banks and mergers.....a necessity to overturn to allow the mergers that happened later under waivers and the Graham Leahy Act.

Creating TOO BIG TO FAIL COMPANIES..............

Dems claim they didn't do any of this. Yet both sides did this.

Yep, this was done for the people, so they could use the same bank in another state. LOL

It was all part of the deal to remove all restrictions on the banks to allow them to bet Fiat Currency out the ass and crush the economy in the end.

Which is EXACTLY why the Glass Steagall Act should be brought back.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists


There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.




We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

And where were those mortgage backed securities coming from you might ask. But you didn't.

Yea. commercial banks COULD participate in MBS trades. But many didn't until the returns being shown by some banks, brokers and investment houses started rolling in. And greed took over. They started buying mortgages packaged by lenders that should have never been in the market. There were more little mortgage brokers making shit loans and selling them off, that there was no way to fully realize how much bad debt was being made. Till it caved in. And you know where those brokers were getting their funding for these loans?
It was Wall Street. Not local, regional or even most national banks. It was investment houses on Wall street. Being able to participate in the housing markets for the first time.
Because Glass Steagall had been repealed.

Lots of mid size regional banks did not fail or even get in financial trouble. They did mortgage banking business the old fashioned Glass Stegall way. And never got in trouble.

Why you think that happened?

 

[Contumacious]

Got it, You'll hang onto discredited AEI talking points


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

Easy does it Vern.

Is it a FACT that the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.?


.

RIGHT WING GARBAGE. I'm shocked



George W. Bush was a major proponent of the kind of mortgages that banks had started making under the CRA. .

HUH?


Was George Bush a member of a community group like ACORN?


"So-called "community groups" like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion. The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA "protest" is issued by a "community group." This can cost banks great sums of money, and the "community groups" understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities."

.

 

[Andylusion]

Another forgotten element. An element of the Glass Steagall Act.

Again, leading to larger banks and mergers.....a necessity to overturn to allow the mergers that happened later under waivers and the Graham Leahy Act.

Creating TOO BIG TO FAIL COMPANIES..............

Dems claim they didn't do any of this. Yet both sides did this.

Yep, this was done for the people, so they could use the same bank in another state. LOL

It was all part of the deal to remove all restrictions on the banks to allow them to bet Fiat Currency out the ass and crush the economy in the end.

Which is EXACTLY why the Glass Steagall Act should be brought back.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists


There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.




We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

And where were those mortgage backed securities coming from you might ask. But you didn't.

Yea. commercial banks COULD participate in MBS trades. But many didn't until the returns being shown by some banks, brokers and investment houses started rolling in. And greed took over. They started buying mortgages packaged by lenders that should have never been in the market. There were more little mortgage brokers making shit loans and selling them off, that there was no way to fully realize how much bad debt was being made. Till it caved in. And you know where those brokers were getting their funding for these loans?
It was Wall Street. Not local, regional or even most national banks. It was investment houses on Wall street. Being able to participate in the housing markets for the first time.
Because Glass Steagall had been repealed.

Lots of mid size regional banks did not fail or even get in financial trouble. They did mortgage banking business the old fashioned Glass Stegall way. And never got in trouble.

Why you think that happened?

Again, what banks.... would have been prevented from failing.... under Glass Steagall?

Name the banks!

Most of the banks that failed WERE doing business the old fashioned Glass Steagall way, even after they repealed it. In fact, there were articles written wondering why more banks didn't merge.

Name the banks that would have been prevented from failing, and list why.

If you are so sure that Glass Steagall would have prevented the entire melt down, then you should be able to list all the banks that would have been saved and why.

The truth is, you can't. Why? Because there were very very few. The vast majority of banks would have not had to change a single thing if Glass Steagall had never been repealed.

 

[Andylusion]

Final post tonight, aka this morning.

Only FOOLS would allow BETS to a 1000 TRILLION dollars on the Markets.

The Global GDP is 60 TRILLION.

We are run by Fools.

And the Markets are nothing but the largest Ponzi Scheme in the history of the world.

Good Night.

Yeah, because we all know that everyone who gets involved in Ponzi schemes, ends up millionaires.

 

[Andylusion]

Should the Glass Steagall Act be brought back?

Specifically, this...............

The Glass-Steagall Act Explained

2. Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking

As important as the FDIC’s creation was, the term Glass-Steagall usually refers to the set of rules that kept a savings-and-loan type bank from engaging in speculative, risky training with customers’ deposits. If a bank took deposits, it could not trade in anything other than government bonds; if it underwrote securities or engaged in market-making, it could not take deposits.

The motivation for this separation rested on alleged conflicts of interest. Glass and Steagall, as well as others, accused banks of partnering with affiliates which later sold securities to repay banks’ debts, or accepted loans from banks to buy securities. They also worried that banks engaged in risk-taking speculation, rather than investing in corporations to promote growth.

Five provisions of the Banking Act pertained to this separation:

Section 19: Federally chartered banks could not buy or sell securities, unless they were investment securities, government bonds or trades made on behalf of a customer.
Section 5(c): Glass-Steagall would also apply to state-chartered banks.
Section 20: Banks could not be affiliated with firms whose primary purpose was trading securities.
Section 21: If a bank did trade securities, it could not take deposits.
Section 32: Officers and directors of commercial banks (banks part of the Federal Reserve System) were barred from holding advisory positions in companies whose primary purpose was trading securities.

Abso-fucking-lutely!

I of course am the one vote against bringing back the Glass-Steagal Act.

I have asked this question hundreds of times, and I never get an answer.

Name ONE bank that if Glass-Steagall was still enforced, would have not crashed? And on what basis would you make the claim?

Countrywide? Nope.
IndyMac? Nope.
Bear Stearns? Nope.
Wachovia? Nope.
AIG? Nope.
Washington Mutual? Nope.

The vast vast majority of all the banks that crashed... none of them would have been affected by Glass-Steagall in any way.

So now, if you have a reason to bring back Glas Steagall, what is it?

And don't tell me it is to prevent another sub-prime melt down, because if so, then I want the name of the banks (not one), bank(S) that would have been 'saved' under Glass Steagall, and I want a specific provision of Glass Steagall, and how it applied to those banks, that would have stopped them from crash.

If you can provide me that evidence, I'll consider it.

What a crock of shit. Tell you what, I'll answer your "questions" when and if you can answer mine.

Why did the Republicans push so hard for so many years to repeal Glass Steagall? What was it that the Repubs wanting to eliminate this legislation wanted to do in the financial markets that they were being stopped from doing?

And what a strange coincidence that once the repeal took place, within just a few short years we had the biggest housing/financial collapse since the Great Depression. How is it that that happened AFTER the repeal of Glass Steagall? And had not happened since the legislation was enacted.

Give a plausible, honest answer to those questions and I'll answer yours. The two answers will tie together nicely. If you are honest.

Let's review.

I'm asking you to name the banks that would have been prevented from failing by Glass Steagall.

You are asking why they repealed it.

Which is more important.... Whether or not the legislation would have been effective, or why they repealed it?

I would suggest that if the legislation would not have been effective, then it really doesn't matter why they repealed it.

 

[eagle1462010]

I of course am the one vote against bringing back the Glass-Steagal Act.

I have asked this question hundreds of times, and I never get an answer.

Name ONE bank that if Glass-Steagall was still enforced, would have not crashed? And on what basis would you make the claim?

Countrywide? Nope.
IndyMac? Nope.
Bear Stearns? Nope.
Wachovia? Nope.
AIG? Nope.
Washington Mutual? Nope.

The vast vast majority of all the banks that crashed... none of them would have been affected by Glass-Steagall in any way.

So now, if you have a reason to bring back Glas Steagall, what is it?

And don't tell me it is to prevent another sub-prime melt down, because if so, then I want the name of the banks (not one), bank(S) that would have been 'saved' under Glass Steagall, and I want a specific provision of Glass Steagall, and how it applied to those banks, that would have stopped them from crash.

If you can provide me that evidence, I'll consider it.

What a crock of shit. Tell you what, I'll answer your "questions" when and if you can answer mine.

Why did the Republicans push so hard for so many years to repeal Glass Steagall? What was it that the Repubs wanting to eliminate this legislation wanted to do in the financial markets that they were being stopped from doing?

And what a strange coincidence that once the repeal took place, within just a few short years we had the biggest housing/financial collapse since the Great Depression. How is it that that happened AFTER the repeal of Glass Steagall? And had not happened since the legislation was enacted.

Give a plausible, honest answer to those questions and I'll answer yours. The two answers will tie together nicely. If you are honest.

Let's review.

I'm asking you to name the banks that would have been prevented from failing by Glass Steagall.

You are asking why they repealed it.

Which is more important.... Whether or not the legislation would have been effective, or why they repealed it?

I would suggest that if the legislation would not have been effective, then it really doesn't matter why they repealed it.

Do you see post 107........Too big to fail mergers from other banks. I've already posted the 16.1 Trillion in back door loans from the Fed to the big boys involved in the mess.

They didn't fail because they were bailed out, mainly via back door loans. They were too big to fail because we allowed the mergers.

They were allowed to bet to the next universe because we allowed commercial and investment banking to merge.

You refuse to look at the real deal there. Those banks that didn't get into the ponzi scheme didn't fail. Why........They were playing by the rules of sound banking and NOT INVESTMENT.

Which is why your question is really a deflection.

 

[eagle1462010]

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists


There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.




We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

And where were those mortgage backed securities coming from you might ask. But you didn't.

Yea. commercial banks COULD participate in MBS trades. But many didn't until the returns being shown by some banks, brokers and investment houses started rolling in. And greed took over. They started buying mortgages packaged by lenders that should have never been in the market. There were more little mortgage brokers making shit loans and selling them off, that there was no way to fully realize how much bad debt was being made. Till it caved in. And you know where those brokers were getting their funding for these loans?
It was Wall Street. Not local, regional or even most national banks. It was investment houses on Wall street. Being able to participate in the housing markets for the first time.
Because Glass Steagall had been repealed.

Lots of mid size regional banks did not fail or even get in financial trouble. They did mortgage banking business the old fashioned Glass Stegall way. And never got in trouble.

Why you think that happened?

Again, what banks.... would have been prevented from failing.... under Glass Steagall?

Name the banks!

Most of the banks that failed WERE doing business the old fashioned Glass Steagall way, even after they repealed it. In fact, there were articles written wondering why more banks didn't merge.

Name the banks that would have been prevented from failing, and list why.

If you are so sure that Glass Steagall would have prevented the entire melt down, then you should be able to list all the banks that would have been saved and why.

The truth is, you can't. Why? Because there were very very few. The vast majority of banks would have not had to change a single thing if Glass Steagall had never been repealed.

The Few..........The Proud.............The Too Big to Fail...................

Banks Ranked by Number of Branches

shows how many branches the big boys have

The Big 4..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_(banking)

United States[edit]

In the United States, the "big four" banks hold 39% of all U.S. customer deposits (as of 2009), and consist of:[26][27]

JPMorgan Chase (headquartered in New York City, bank chartered in Columbus, Ohio)
Bank of America (headquartered and bank chartered in Charlotte)

Citigroup (headquartered in New York City, bank chartered in Sioux Falls, SD)

Wells Fargo (headquartered in San Francisco, bank chartered in Sioux Falls, SD)

From a purely retail banking perspective, U.S. Bancorp (headquarters in Minneapolis, MN/bank charter Cincinnati, Ohio) and PNC Financial Services (headquarters in Pittsburgh, PA/bank charter Wilmington, DE) both have significantly more branches than Citibank, the retail banking arm of Citigroup.[28] However, Citibank still has significantly more assets than U.S. Bancorp and PNC.[29]

 

[Indeependent]

Credit Default Swaps were, and are, the problem.

 

[TrainTime]

Again, what banks.... would have been prevented from failing.... under Glass Steagall?

Name the banks!

WTF is the matter with you? You continue chanting "NAME THE BANKS" when bank failures have little to do with the topic...ie should banks taking deposits be allowed to participate in leveraged high risk derivatives. I would tell you that several community bank "failures" happened that you never heard about because they were quietly acquired by the big chains for pennies on the dollar.

It's been made clear in this thread that Clinturd's CRA loans were the major culprit in the outcome of leveraged bets made by major banks and "insured" by AIG. This would have been illegal under the original GS. Of course banking lobbyists campaigned for years to get their restrictions lifted. But nobody had ever heard of MORTGAGES being bundled as financial instruments outside of the commercial banking community. Any of this getting through?

The crisis that we all felt came about because CREDIT dried up. Firms unable to finance projects in the pipeline and future had to pull back. Employers cut to the bone creating massive unemployment, which worsened the mortgage failures problem. Small business depending on normal economic activity failed by the bushel...dominoes fell and continued falling because the banks locked their vaults.

A total panic was avoided when Bush told his Treasury Secretary to bring these banker assholes into the WH and sign up for government loans at a stout rate to provide them with operating capital. None of them were allowed to leave until they signed. That's how a PRESIDENT deals with a crisis. The same bankers laughed all the way home after meeting with Dubya's replacement. Obozo did nothing about their treachery, and even hustled them for campaign contributions.

Nobody is saying a 1933 law should be put back on the books without accounting for the changes in the banking industry ie instant movement of funds around the world including cultures and currencies without western rules and regulations. From what I understand, Dodd/Frank, both enablers of the meltdown, is simply more bullshit the bankers bean counters have already found ways around.

A simple rule is all that's needed. A bank cannot accept deposits for checking and savings accounts and then BET that money in derivatives schemes. PERIOD.