captainccs

Jamie Dimon Makes Best Case for Not Breaking Up Big Banks

How to say this in a language simple enough that even a bank executive can understand?

If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big and must be broken up.

Why is this so? Winding down failed banks is the same as dealing with huge storms, the storm sewer must be large enough to deal with the largest storm or even with a triple storm in the case of the perfect storm. Who or what is big enough to deal with the perfect storm? The government or rather. "We the People," or rather, "We the Taxpayers."

Insurance is based on the law of large numbers. A big insurance company can insure a large number of smaller companies but not a single huge company. When a huge company seeks insurance it will be served by several co-insurers backed by several re-insurers. You have to diversify the risk. If you cannot have a large enough private big bank insurer then the banks themselves need to become smaller to be safe, to have the risk diversified.

Dimon is just talking up his book, pay no attention to the self-serving banker. Too big to fail banks are semi-socialistic banks, profits are private while loses are public and that is NOT fair.

In Defense of Executive Pay Caps

Just let the damn banks fail. That cuts executive pay to the bone!

The Price of a Pound of Banking Flesh

Just let the damn banks fail. That cuts executive pay to the bone!

Avoiding the Pitfalls of Confirmation Bias

The article implies that First Marblehead crashed on its own, that it had nothing to do with the general financial meltdown. While FMC did do a couple of dumb things, neither of them can take credit for the meltdown.

OK, beware confirmation bias. Now give me a real example.

Kenneth Feinberg, Pay Warrior

Why does the gov not cut the pork in the bills it creates in Congress? That would save trillions not just a million or two.

Better yet, let failing banks fail and stay out of business.

It's all posturing and nonsense.

End the Fed!

Too Big to Fail: Greenspan Adds His Voice to the Break-Up Chorus

Yes, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big and needs to be broken up, like Standard Oil in 1911 and Ma Bell in 1974-82.

Bring on the trust busters!

Diana Farrell And The White House Theory Of Bank Size

The problem with excessive size is that large banks organized as a cartel, i.e. the Fed, can hold the taxpayers hostage. It's corporate socialism, the profits go to the bankers and the losses to "We The people."

It's time to call out the trust busters. Breaking up Ma Bell did wonders for communications. Breaking up mega-banks would do the same for the realm of finance.

Two Prominent Economists Admit Leverage Kills

Yes, let's listen to the Nobel Laureates who have brought us one of the biggest market crashes ever.

Maybe if they got out of their ivory towers and joined the hoi polloi on the streets they would understand why mark-to-market is not the solution, it is part of the problem. Mark to market had the unexpected consequence of making a bad situation worse.

The real problem is the backing of the Wall Street Robber Banks by the Fed. The real problem is having allowed them to become too big to fail. Had they realized they could fail they might have been more prudent in their lending. But since they operate in a risk-free world, the risk is all transfered to the tax payer via Fed and Treasury, they have no need to be prudent. That is the core problem to solve!

Bring out the trust busters!

The New Bull Market Fallacy

>>> ceterus paribus

If you are going to snow us with Latin, you might try getting the spelling right:

ceteris paribus

Five U.S. Banks Are Too Big to Exist

Too big to fail? Break them up!

And once broken up, close down the Fed.

Why I Sell Put Options (Part I)

Both A & B go down 5, you lose 10
The put seller loses 8

On Jul 20 07:34 PM mtd wrote:

> How this can go wrong:
>
> Stock A and B are trading at $10. You buy both at market. Stock A
> loses $5 and Stock B gains $10.
>
> Your portfolio gains/losses
> Stock A ($5)
> Stock B $10
> P&L $5
>
> If you had done this with selling puts @ $9 (say for a $1). Since
> Stock B took off, you would have never purchased it. Stock B on the
> other had has dropped and you have been forced to pay $9 for it.
>
>
> Your portfolio:
> Stock A ($4)
> Put premium $1
> P&L ($3)

The Looming McMansion Attack

Good grief, what a bunch of pessimists! :(

The BofA / Merrill Mess - A Misguided Mob Goes After the Wrong Guy

Don't ever forget that Ken Lewis has "empire building" blood in his veins. I can imagine him salivating at getting his hands on Merrill Lynch. Of course, the lack of transparency tripped him up like it tripped up the whole financial community.

I just wish they would let all these lousy banks fail. Why should the taxpayer bail them out? Nobody bails me out when I mess up.

Key Citi Exec Leaves for MasterCard: TARP Strikes Again

The right thing to do is to break up the banks that are too big to fail. Micro management of these behemoths is not the solution. Get out the trust busters!

The TARP Bank Execs Keep Flying High

>>>The guys that run the banks are terminally stupid.

Sorry, you got that backwards. Bankers are brilliant at exploiting taxpayers.

Taxpayers are terminally stupid to allow themselves to be exploited by bankers and politicians.