I work for a company that provides tools to help banks engage in prop trading.

:(

I declare that I'm now not a "human being", and therefore not subject to any laws.

/oh, it only works if you're a giant banking corporation?

Nadie_AZ: That's it, I'm going to declare myself a Corporation. Who wants to buy shares of me? I promise nothing short of being to big to fail.

You sound fat.

Words fail me.

JP Morgan != Morgan Stanley.

Other than that, this is bull

Give it a little bit longer. Pretty soon people are going to figure out that there's no need to protest the government, not when you can simply start firebombing homes in the Hamptons.

Isn't the Vocker rule an FDIC policy? So... how would it be relevant to GS or JPM?

For clarification, here's my understanding of the purview of the FDIC, lifted from their website:

FDIC insurance covers all types of deposits received at an insured bank, including deposits in a checking account, negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) account, savings account, money market deposit account (MMDA) or time deposit such as a certificate of deposit (CD).

FDIC insurance covers depositors' accounts at each insured bank, dollar-for-dollar, including principal and any accrued interest through the date of the insured bank's closing, up to the insurance limit.

The FDIC does not insure money invested in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, life insurance policies, annuities or municipal securities, even if these investments are purchased at an insured bank.

The FDIC does not insure safe deposit boxes or their contents.

The FDIC does not insure U.S. Treasury bills, bonds or notes, but these investments are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

GS deals almost entirely in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds (and, apparently, mortgages). So, no, they wouldn't be the kind of bank the FDIC has the ability to regulate. We did actually put conditions on the bailout money, which is why they paid it all back so fast... remember that the FDIC's only enforcement power is to stop insuring things.

Problem A) taxation. Solution A) declare oneself to be a sovereign citizen.

Problem B) transportation. Solution B) Use public roads.

That is effectively what these banks are doing, yet when an individual employs that rationale they're locked up.

But we can't protest a worldwide economy held hostage by banks; they're job creators!

HotLonelyTeenageGirl: Give it a little bit longer. Pretty soon people are going to figure out that there's no need to protest the government, not when you can simply start firebombing homes in the Hamptons.

Your post gave me my first belly laugh of the day.

Not laughing at you, laughing with you. I only hope I'm there when the match is struck.

I Said: If you poor people would just do this too, you wouldn't be poor.

I would hazard that most poor already are not banks.

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Stop giving them your money. There is no other way.

2008 Problem: only banks are eligible for bailouts; JPM and GS solution: we're banks now. 2011 problem: banks subject to new Volcker rule forbidding prop trading. JPM and GS solution: we're not banks anymore

Wait, so you're telling me that government makes a rule, and businesses attempt to take advantage of that rule, and then government makes another rule, and businesses attempt to take advantage of that one?

Color me shocked.

I mean, that's what all this butthurt is about, businesses adapting to the regulatory climate set by government. Did anyone ever expect that they wouldn't?

The entire 2008 bank bailout was a blatant game of Calvinball. TARP was a bridge loan, the AIG bailout let the banks cover their immediate asset losses, and it all prevented a massive cascade of debt defaults... in the short term.

There is still a crushing amount of unpayable private debt out there, counted as full-value assets on the books of various lenders and financial institutions. Until they eat principal reductions, or workers start getting paid a lot more, this turbulence will continue.

The first step to fixing the problem will be admitting what the problem is in the first place - a lot of people took on debt they could never conceivably pay off, encouraged (and sometimes misled) by lenders and banks omitting-to-falsifying applicant information to get the built-to-fail loans approved, cooking numbers to somehow always show a profit no matter how toxic the debt really was, buttressed by overly complex credit "insurance" that was never actually intended to be paid in the event of the inevitable happening, because real estate always increases in price, right?

What a joke.

Stile4aly: JP Morgan != Morgan Stanley.

Other than that, this is bull

Was that a pun? 'Cause it was a good one. I think specifically it's a golden calf.

Like some people above, I am also no longer a human being, but a bank. You can send your deposits electronically, if you wish; EIP. I offer free* checking and low-interest** loans.

*Daily, monthly and yearly fees may apply for balances under $1,000,000.
**"Low" is a relative term. Rates subject to change at whim.

I think this is more deserving of the "Obvious" tag....

And you wonder why thousands are protesting....

Well duh. Once you finish farking the dumb slut, you leave the room. You don't hang around and help do the laundry.

/hint: we are the dumb slut.

Shocktopus: Well duh. Once you finish farking the dumb slut, you leave the room. You don't hang around and help do the laundry.

/hint: we are the dumb ignorant slut.

Guess I am a bank now bail me out!!!

Cybernetic: In other news, corporations alter their behavior in response to government regulations.

FTFY

Goldman, Morgan Stanley May Shed 'Bank' Status: Analyst

/it hasn't happened
//...yet
///"according to Susquehanna Financial Group analyst David Hilder." - who?

K.B.O. Winston: I don't like that we made corporations 'citizen,' but I could live with it if they had as much power over laws and tax codes as any other single citizen (and if Texas could execute them).

Ummm, you do know that generally, the government does have the power to dissolve a corporation, essentially executing it, right? That's like a Business 101 topic.

I'm one of the 1%, so I'm getting a kick...

PlatinumDragon The first step to fixing the problem will be admitting what the problem is in the first place - a lot of people took on debt they could never conceivably pay off, encouraged (and sometimes misled) by lenders and banks omitting-to-falsifying applicant information to get the built-to-fail loans approved, cooking numbers to somehow always show a profit no matter how toxic the debt really was, buttressed by overly complex credit "insurance" that was never actually intended to be paid in the event of the inevitable happening, because real estate always increases in price, right?

Yep, and now it's happening all over again with student loans, except the gamble was that any degree worth any price always resulted in profitable employment. Good times!

HotLonelyTeenageGirl: Give it a little bit longer. Pretty soon people are going to figure out that there's no need to protest the government, not when you can simply start firebombing homes in the Hamptons.

Seeing as how the Hamptons are basically a ghost town this time of year that could be easily done. But I would imagine most of these places are pretty well insured. It would though provide a local stimulus to builders and that crowd.

Some people here talk about living in an increasingly plutocratic police state like it's a bad thing...

Cybernetic: In other news, corporations alter their behavior in response to government regulations.

Strange how that works, isn't it?

The failed Assault Weapons Ban was a perfect example: Government said "You can't make guns with features X, Y, and Z". So the manufacturers kept making the same exact guns minus one of those minor cosmetic features. Didn't significantly effect the functionality of those guns, but all of a sudden people complain about manufacturers exploiting 'loopholes'. No, they just modified their products to conform to a stupid law.