Banks Win! Banks Win! (New Year, Same Old Story)

[busigator96]

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/banks-win-banks-win-same-old-story-165729454.html

It’s a new year but the same old story when it comes to regulators’ efforts to rein in the banks: The banks always win.

Over the weekend, global regulators agreed to substantially ease the new Basel III regulations and delay their full implementation by four years. The global liquidity standards were designed to ensure banks had sufficient capital on hand to survive another Lehman-like crisis, as well as require that capital be high-quality and liquid. There was a lot of fanfare from regulators when the regulations were first announced in 2010 -- and a lot of gnashing of teeth from investors about how they would “cripple” the industry and potentially hurt economic growth.

[CHFG8R]

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/banks-win-banks-win-same-old-story-165729454.html

It’s a new year but the same old story when it comes to regulators’ efforts to rein in the banks: The banks always win.

Over the weekend, global regulators agreed to substantially ease the new Basel III regulations and delay their full implementation by four years. The global liquidity standards were designed to ensure banks had sufficient capital on hand to survive another Lehman-like crisis, as well as require that capital be high-quality and liquid. There was a lot of fanfare from regulators when the regulations were first announced in 2010 -- and a lot of gnashing of teeth from investors about how they would “cripple” the industry and potentially hurt economic growth.

Of course they do. Tell me, how do you think a legislator from, say Deland Florida, with no experience in banking can write (or contritute to the writting) banking legislation?

Answer: They utilize their economic advisors.

And where do you think those economic advisors come from?

Answer: Most are former employees of Goldman, Chase, etc. . . . . .

And that's both sides of the isle. I truly had to laugh when some on this board suggested that Obama was somehow less cozy with the banks than Romney. What a joke. If you count the last two elections, Obama is up nearly 20 million vs. Rs in contributions from big banks. And who killed Glass Stegal? Oh yeah, that was Clinton.

The biggest laugh, though, comes when Obama gets into "talk tough" mode re. the big banks. :laugh:

[G8trGr8t]

the EU refused to print to fill the banks up so those are the ones that couldn't pass the Basel III tests. The US banks are full because Ben printed and gave them money for nothing. EU Central Bank told Ben and 0 to f off, they weren't going to abide by those rules because the only way they could do it was to print and Germany and some scandanavian countries refused to agree to print. EU called 0's bluff and dared them to enforce the standards, it would have crushed the EU banks, and therefore the US economy so O said nevermind, we were just kidding. when all those $$$ get into circulation, $ depreciation is going to hit. EU banks remain at danger of collapse but they didn't debase their currency.

[gator996]

The EU banks that couldn't pass the basel tests are the ones filled up worthless paper securities.

The fight is over what assets can be considered like cash, easily "liquifiable" for the LCR.



Banks Win 4-Year Delay as Basel Liquidity Rule Loosened

By Jim Brunsden, Giles Broom & Ben Moshinsky - Jan 7, 2013 11:23 AM ET

Banks won the delay to fully meet the so-called liquidity coverage ratio, or LCR, following a deal struck by regulatory chiefs meeting yesterday in Basel, Switzerland. They’ll be able to pick from a longer list of approved assets including equities and securitized mortgage debt as they seek to build up buffers of liquidity for use in a financial crisis.

Bank shares soared after the decision to overhaul the proposed ratio, which top officials such as European Central Bank President Mario Draghi argued would choke interbank lending and make it harder for authorities to implement monetary policies. Lenders have warned that the measure might force them to cut back loans to businesses and households.

Lenders gained “some very significant concessions” in the LCR’s design, said Richard Reid, a research fellow for finance and regulation at the University of Dundee in Scotland, said in an e-mail. “No doubt we will see flexibility in the implementation of other regulatory measures as we go through 2013.”

[gator996]

Of course they do. Tell me, how do you think a legislator from, say Deland Florida, with no experience in banking can write (or contritute to the writting) banking legislation?

Answer: They utilize their economic advisors.

And where do you think those economic advisors come from?

Answer: Most are former employees of Goldman, Chase, etc. . . . . .

And that's both sides of the isle. I truly had to laugh when some on this board suggested that Obama was somehow less cozy with the banks than Romney. What a joke. If you count the last two elections, Obama is up nearly 20 million vs. Rs in contributions from big banks. And who killed Glass Stegal? Oh yeah, that was Clinton.

The biggest laugh, though, comes when Obama gets into "talk tough" mode re. the big banks. :laugh:


What your are saying is true...but doesn't apply in this case.
The Basel cmte. isn't a group of politicians...its bankers & economists.


http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/wall-street-funds-down-from-obamas.html

Wall Street Funds Down From Obama's Inaugural Run
By Reid Davenport on October 25, 2012 12:58 PM

In the 2008 presidential campiagn, then-democratic nominee Barack Obama was raising campaign funds at unprecedented rates. The securities and investment industry proved to be a major source of those funds. At this point in the election cycle, the industry had contributed $14.5 million to the future president.

Wall Street has been less generous to Obama this time around. According to Center for Responsive Politics data, the industry has contributed only $5.5 million (the figure doesn't include the first three months of the cycle's first year, unlike the 2008 number).

Republican challenger Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has received more than three times that amount, at $18.3 million. The securities and investment industry is second to only retired persons -- which is No. 1 for both the nominees -- in donating to Romney.

While in 2008, Goldman Sachs was Obama's second highest contributor and securities and investment his fourth highest industry, Goldman has plunged to 53rd currently and the industry ranks ninth for him this cycle.

[gregthegator]

Let's set THE record straight..

""And who killed Glass Stegal? Oh yeah, that was Clinton.""

Not true...it WAS 100% bi-partisan...proposed by THE pugs...

but since BOTH parties are ACTUALLY controlled the banks...then & now...

fingerpointing is TOTALLY worthless...and also shows HOW clueless ANY poster who does so...REALLY is...

[CHFG8R]

Let's set THE record straight..

""And who killed Glass Stegal? Oh yeah, that was Clinton.""

Not true...it WAS 100% bi-partisan...proposed by THE pugs...

but since BOTH parties are ACTUALLY controlled the banks...then & now...

fingerpointing is TOTALLY worthless...and also shows HOW clueless ANY poster who does so...REALLY is...

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but that's my major point. The politicians, frankly, wouldn't know how to regulate the banks even if they wanted to. Like most of us, they don't even understand the unique language of that industry and, thus, are dependent on advisors who come directly from those they are supposed to oversee.

Talk about having the system "gamed." The big banks have the system gamed completely and there really is no way to change it.

[gator996]

Hell, even the math alone helps them game the system...

There's so much "black box" bullcrap floating around on the street its amazing...


What SEC regulator on a $100,000 a year salary telling the phd math guy from MIT by way of russia that his math doesn't work?