morph366

Warning: The Coming Credit Dislocation

Until last week the solution was to buy Australian dollars.
Now (as per Borat) not so much!

Meredith Whitney Ratings

The timing and forum for her announcement yesterday (CNBC guest for one hour) was designed to ensure that she maintains the "power to move markets".
Lots of the "head and shoulder" shorts were falling over each other yesterday to cover in the financials, but it remains to see how much real institutional buying moves into the banking sector

Banking Industry: How to Buy Friends and Alienate People

The quote provided from the ABA press release is indicative of an industry that not only has no shame but one that seems to have learnt nothing from the near meltdown last fall.
The banking sector is the tail wagging the global economy dog.

Goldman Sachs: Profit Dissonance

The PR folks at GS would be smart not to have this story appearing in too many places other than The Guardian.
One senses that there is a strong antipathy building towards GS not only amongst the "little people" that haven't given up in desperation (myself included) but even amongst the financial elite that envy their GS counterparts - who, for the time being, sit under a Washington halo.

Banking Crisis Not Yet Over

You say
"Over all the British have saved their banking system from collapse."

You may be just a bit premature as they say it's not over until the fat lady sings

Bank Stress Tests: Is Everybody Confused Yet?

The essence of really good spin is that the signal/noise ratio is calibrated to create the maximum ambiguity. Then the markets are tricked into believing that they have not, in fact, already discounted the news appropriately.

Whether they then go on to discount it appropriately is a different matter and can take a lot longer to manifest itself.

The big concern of course is whether those doing the spinning are as clever as they appear and whether they really know what's going on.

A Stress Test Shocker: BofA Needs $35 Billion

According to recent reports B of A may not need $35 billion of fresh capital. Confused?... that was the whole idea.

We Need to Make Banking Boring Again

One can certainly be sympathetic to the conclusion of your piece i.e. Separate out the casino from the public utility-type functions of a bank.
But the devil is in the details.

T

Why It's Time to Bring Back Investment Banking

Daniel
I'm afraid I have much less confidence than you that investment bankers have robust risk management tools (the whole methodology is deeply flawed and especially when you most need it not to be i.e. during a major liquidity crisis).
When you say "The question now is how we use the talent in the securities and derivatives groups to steer us out of this." - my big concern is that they don't steer us into yet another crisis.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

Why It's Time to Bring Back Investment Banking

You say "investment banks - through the nature of their structures and the personnel they employ - have a better grasp of how risks works, and how to fix risk-based problems when they go wrong"

How does that quote fit with what happened at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers?

Why the U.S. Prefers Quasi-Nationalization of Big Banks

Specifically in regard to some points
Re: IronPants question - I have no short positions at present in any major US bank.
Re: Airelon Trading - that was exactly the point being made
Re: minieconomics - I think you are tracing the more sinster aspects much further than I would want to go
Re gendakonomist - no by quasi-nationalization I meant a situation like that for Citigroup where the governments has a signifcant stake, can influence policy, but where it has avoided the full responsibility of cleaning up the balance sheet, replacing the current management and board and avoiding Citi from becoming a zombie bank for years to come -- this has absolutely nothing to do with fascism

Why the U.S. Prefers Quasi-Nationalization of Big Banks

Difficult to know how to respond to some of these comments. The article was intended to highlight the ambiguity - which has lead to such unfortunate matters as the Paulson, Bernanke, Lewis fiasco - of the current policy towards the banks. Why that hits such a raw nerve and should trigger such apoplexy from some of the commenters slightly baffles me.

'Ownership But Not Control' Is More Like Control Without Accountability

There are several reasons why "quasi-nationalization" has been chosen as the preferred route and the fact that Administration officials can intimidate current management, even making token replacements, without having to take on full control and responsibility is certainly one of them.

Another is that it avoids having to deal with the debt-holders and the third is that it prevents triggering lots of CDS contracts.
Seen in this light it is not surprising that the government is doing all it can to avoid putting those troubled banks into receivership. Only in the fullness of time will the error of this approach be confirmed.

Nobody Knows What Bank Stocks Are Really Worth

For a real "Through the Looking Glass" view on what bank stocks are really worth this posting from Paul Krugman entitled "Alice in Financeland" is worth a look:

krugman.blogs.nytimes..../

Banks No Longer in Crisis Mode

To coin your phrase "Top Bank Liquidity" may have returned, although I am personally not convinced, but if so it just makes the Fed's job harder.
Chairman Bernanke's problem is that if all is back to normal as you seem to be suggesting, he should already be thinking about draining some of that excess liquidity and raising rates. If he does so, and all is not back to normal, then the crisis could enter a new phase. If he doesn't start to remove the punchbowl, and all is back to normal, then the inflation vigilantes will begin selling Treasuries right in step with the hedgies who will be buying commodities and selling the dollar