While it is possible that some "trust-busting" will be necessary I don't think overt size is the problem now. Remember, the de-leveraging is for real. Financial institutions have fewer risks on their books (and, importantly, off their books) than before and they may have fallen in size below the threshold of what used to be considered too big to fail.
I will be publishing an article that touches on this tomorrow.
On Mar 22 02:04 PM John Lounsbury wrote:
> I have been waiting for your take on the banking situation. Thanks > for publishing at a most opportune time. > > My emotional side tells me that "trust busting" is needed. My logical > side tells me that super large financial structures are needed to > coordinate the global economy. I depend on those with a lifetime > experience in banking (especially international banking), such as > you, to lay out the pros and cons of various proposals.
-
While it is possible that some "trust-busting" will be necessary I don't think overt size is the problem now. Remember, the de-leveraging is for real. Financial institutions have fewer risks on their books (and, importantly, off their books) than before and they may have fallen in size below the threshold of what used to be considered too big to fail.
Mar 22 15:10 pm
|Rating:
+2
0
All Comments by William Armstrong »The Debate over Banking Reform [View article]
I will be publishing an article that touches on this tomorrow.
On Mar 22 02:04 PM John Lounsbury wrote:
> I have been waiting for your take on the banking situation. Thanks
> for publishing at a most opportune time.
>
> My emotional side tells me that "trust busting" is needed. My logical
> side tells me that super large financial structures are needed to
> coordinate the global economy. I depend on those with a lifetime
> experience in banking (especially international banking), such as
> you, to lay out the pros and cons of various proposals.