Weaver95: cman: Obviously the proper solution to this is to take all of their profit and give it to the poor.

or just reinstate Glass-Steagall.

even the most hard core GOP shill here on fark can't come up with a valid reason for not bringing back Glass-Steagall.

That's because they were all cheering it's demise.

The bank's "low-cost, core-heavy deposit base and branch network provides "cheap and stable funding," Miller wrote on Aug. 9.

"cheap and stable funding"

That's all a basic account-holder is to these people.

Weaver95: so why do our local shills refuse to discuss the issue? Even Rush Limbaugh avoids the subject

I do believe you've answered your own question.

Well, as long as the have anyone who tries to close their account arrested they should stay in the black.

Weaver95: Glass-Steagall



GLASS SEAGULL!!!

of course it is legit and legal otherwise the government would be all over them.

It is unclear how the Volcker rule, which proposes to ban banks with insured deposits from "high-risk," short-term trading with its own funds, will affect banks' financial results. David Hilder, analyst with Susquehanna International Group, said Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley may exit the banking business if compliance regulations of the Volcker rule are implemented.

If we can't gamble with your money we are leaving.

Weaver95: cman: Obviously the proper solution to this is to take all of their profit and give it to the poor.

or just reinstate Glass-Steagall.

even the most hard core GOP shill here on fark can't come up with a valid reason for not bringing back Glass-Steagall.

Can you articulate how glass steagall would have prevented the financial crisis? Commercial banks have been securitizing loans since the 1980s. What about glass steagall would have prevented Lehman or bear from buying securitized mortgage debt or AIG or the guarantors from insuring structured products?

Kanemano: It is unclear how the Volcker rule, which proposes to ban banks with insured deposits from "high-risk," short-term trading with its own funds, will affect banks' financial results. David Hilder, analyst with Susquehanna International Group, said Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley may exit the banking business if compliance regulations of the Volcker rule are implemented.

If we can't gamble with your money we are leaving.

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley only became banks in the 4th quarter of 2008, I believe so they could access the discount window. So any activities that got them into trouble took place before they were actual banks.

What would those numbers be if M2M wasn't suspended?

Actually, the numbers were pretty bad. That's why the market is going to tank. The only way the banks are hitting estimates is through accounting tricks, and Mr Market is beating them over the head for it.

Weaver95 - I'd be satisfied if you could just post a link to the previous discussion. It seems like I remember a lefty saying something about how reinstating G-S would not work the way it was written, but I really can't remember the context. Anyway, I'd like to read up on it beyond a wiki reference. No need to repost, if you can just point me to your old post.

Thanks!

\No snark intended, actually interested in the original extent of G-S and what it would mean if put in place today.

Weaver95: Debeo Summa Credo: Can you articulate how glass steagall would have prevented the financial crisis?

sure - but the last time we had this discussion you ignored every single one of my links, blew off my argument and then said I had nothing worth listening too.

so...I gotta say, i'm reluctant to go dig up all that data again since you're likely to just ignore all my work all over again.

Are you sure it was me, and the topic was glass steagall? I asked about this the other day, someone replied and I took issue with som of his points, but I don't think it was you. Maybe you responded after I left and I need to go back and find the thread.

Anyway, seems you had a discussion with someone on the topic which confuses me because upthread you complained that noone would discuss it with you.

Pumpernickel bread: What would those numbers be if M2M wasn't suspended?

M2M wasnt really suspended. The fasb changed some rules around after being berated by capuano, kanjorski, and bachus (sp?) in congress but the rules they passed didnt do much to change fair value accounting.

What us screwing up the banks results is m2m of their own liabilities. So when the quarter goes to shiat and their spreads blow out, the fair value of their own liabilities decline, which goes through earnings. Citi and JPM's gaap earnings both benefited by 2 billion his quarter due to this ridiculous accounting rule.

Weaver95: Debeo Summa Credo: Can you articulate how glass steagall would have prevented the financial crisis?

sure - but the last time we had this discussion you ignored every single one of my links, blew off my argument and then said I had nothing worth listening too.

so...I gotta say, i'm reluctant to go dig up all that data again since you're likely to just ignore all my work all over again.

I am actually curious out this too.
I thought G-S was primarily to prevent banks from risking the deposits of the banking side on speculative investments as a way to make sure that bank deposits were safe.

How did the repeal actually spur the use of CDOs, MBS, etc?

Shostie:
There was a time way back in the day when financial analysts actually did research on companies and made investment recommendations, rather than just being advertisers and shills for stuff.

.

when was that?

30 years ago, a friend of mine worked as an analyst. his viewpoint was that it was a bit of a game even then. talk to the company, they tell you what they expect, you "analyze" and parrot back the numbers, company does a bit better, everyone is happy.

Weaver95: ClavellBCMI: That's because they were all cheering it's demise.

actually, they don't discuss it - they all change the subject and avoid the discussion as much as possible.

nobody in this country - EXCEPT the bankers - objects to seeing Glass-Steagall reinstanted. everyone thinks its a great idea to have something like it back in place (save for the aforementioned bankers).

so why do our local shills refuse to discuss the issue? Even Rush Limbaugh avoids the subject, choosing instead to mock anyone who suggests that we bring sanity and responsiblity back to wall street.

Pre-insulting anyone who may disagree with you. I see you have moved past simple strawman arguments into just debasing counter arguments. Kudos.

But here are the general arguments against full repeal.

In the 80s there was a major shift away from banks into securities exchanges and money market accounts floating on stock portfolios. This caused a decrease in the capital banks had to provide loans to such items as small business ventures.

There are other ways to have the effects of Glass-Steagall without a full separation of investment and banking institutions, and especially not having the ripple effect of investment losses crashing the banks securities. One way would be to simply decrease the level of leveraging banks who invest in higher risk accounts can lend. I believe, if I remember, banks were leveraging mortgages up to 20 times capital. A simple modification to cut this off at 4 or 5 times capital would lessen the risk in a bubble crashing. The government could also limit which investment vehicles banks could dabble in. This was actually the Volker Rule. Another way to handle the union of banking and investment firms would be to not bail out those banks that fail in that regard, ie stop with the bullshiat too big to fail banks. This can mean a breakup of the major 3 banks into regional just like Ma Bell in the good old days.

So you can take your false dichotomy of either Glass-Steagall or all hell breaking loose and realize there are other options, hell a Democrat in Volker even gave one in 2010,

impaler: LOL @ subby. Wells Fargo only posted a $19.6 billion profit - they were expecting $20.2. Down 8% today on their terrible performance.

And what was their profit margin? Using absolute dollars is an idiotic way of showing performance.

MyRandomName: impaler: LOL @ subby. Wells Fargo only posted a $19.6 billion profit - they were expecting $20.2. Down 8% today on their terrible performance.

And what was their profit margin? Using absolute dollars is an idiotic way of showing performance.

Their profit margin was not bigger than last time, ergo they may as well have posted a loss.

And while it's true that absolute dollars is an idiotic way of showing performance, the investors don't care. All they care is that this month's bottom line has a bigger number than last month's, that this quarter's profit margin is bigger than last quarter's, and God help you if you come up even one cent short of breaking the record you *just* set because then your investors will dump your stock faster than you can fart after eating curry with beans and hot sauce, consequences be damned.

I'm well off, an entrepreneur and employed contractor - but despite saving as much as possible I feel like I'm one bad car accident or layoff from never being able to work again. Employment is always fickle.

If you're not independently wealthy, you're on a knife's edge.

/and cocaine

impaler: MyRandomName: impaler: LOL @ subby. Wells Fargo only posted a $19.6 billion profit - they were expecting $20.2. Down 8% today on their terrible performance.

And what was their profit margin? Using absolute dollars is an idiotic way of showing performance.

92%

Link (new window)

What's the difference here between "Gross Profit Margin" and Just plain old "Profit Margin"? (which sits at a pretty f*cking sweet 16.87%. Holy fark.)

DVA FTW, B$##&^ez!!!

Screw Citigroup. Never and I mean NEVER get a loan from these pieces of shiat. You'll be sorry if you do.

Of all the companies I've ever done business with, Wells Fargo is probably the only one I have any sense of loyalty to.

I banked with them for about six years now and I've had nothing but positive experiences. I got my mortgage with them, switched my checking/savings to them, opened a credit card with them, opened an IRA with them and bought investments through them. Every time I've had even a small problem with anything, their staff has been amazingly helpful. The guy involved with my mortgage/house closing was literally picking up the realtor's slack and did a lot to keep the closing date....far more than he needed to do. When my debit card was used fraudulently, and I explained my concerns, we sat down and came up with a wonderful plan involving many accounts and many cards that makes me feel much safer buying crap online again. There was even a problem with a 5K bank wire to another country that got screwed up and needed to be repeated (screwed up by the other institution) and WF ate the fees for the second transaction.

I know this is just my own experience and I know people say 'Wells Fargo Sucks!' but I love it. In six years, nothing but positive experiences.

tenpoundsofcheese: of course it is legit and legal otherwise they government would be all over the government to change the laws in their favor.

has anyone mentioned CU's yet?

/bank threads are the lame

Bonzo_1116: impaler: MyRandomName: impaler: LOL @ subby. Wells Fargo only posted a $19.6 billion profit - they were expecting $20.2. Down 8% today on their terrible performance.

And what was their profit margin? Using absolute dollars is an idiotic way of showing performance.

92%

Link (new window)

What's the difference here between "Gross Profit Margin" and Just plain old "Profit Margin"? (which sits at a pretty f*cking sweet 16.87%. Holy fark.)

Gross margin only accounts for Cost of Goods Sold and excludes all fixed costs not directly attributable to sales.

In banking, only interest expense on deposits and certain transaction costs are typically included, the vast majority of banks' expenses are fixed (e.g. wages, capital assets, occupancy.)

StopLurkListen: I'm well off, an entrepreneur and employed contractor - but despite saving as much as possible I feel like I'm one bad car accident or layoff from never being able to work again. Employment is always fickle.

If you're not independently wealthy, you're on a knife's edge.

And when you are dead, it doesn't matter.

Another Government Employee: StopLurkListen: I'm well off, an entrepreneur and employed contractor - but despite saving as much as possible I feel like I'm one bad car accident or layoff from never being able to work again. Employment is always fickle.

If you're not independently wealthy, you're on a knife's edge.

And when you are dead, it doesn't matter.

So, the answer to life is "just kill yourself, you're going to die anyway."