If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BusinessWeek)   Nine of the largest banks outline their "living wills". More than 100 additional banks are required to submit plans by next December   (businessweek.com) divider line 18
    More: Interesting, meltdown, corporate structures, toxic assets, slideshow, mortgage securities, failed banks  
•       •       •

1192 clicks; posted to Business » on 11 Jul 2012 at 3:28 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



18 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-11 03:46:55 PM
Still no comments? I expected at least 1 person to have posted the "JUMP, YOU F**KERS!" poster by now.
 
2012-07-11 04:04:56 PM
Don't cry for me, JP Morgan...
 
2012-07-11 04:19:43 PM
1) Why should the banks have any say in the process? Does anyone else get to pick-and-choose their bankruptcy process?

2) They will still claim "too big to fail" and be rewarded for doing so

3) Just dismantle them now, while the economy is reasonable, thereby preventing potential shock down the road
 
2012-07-11 04:37:10 PM
I guess "Deploy the golden parachutes and fark everyone else" technically is a will.
 
2012-07-11 04:53:39 PM
photos.oldva.org

Would shoot 'too big to fail' companies into a thousand pieces.

/ok, Teddy only broke up select industries, but still . . . .
 
2012-07-11 05:41:03 PM
How can you tell that the relationship between the free market and government regulators is completely farked?

The one thing that even the most die hard laissez faire capitalist agrees government regulators should do (break up monopolies and 'too big to fail' businesses in order to promote competition and prevent catastrophic failures) is the one thing that government regulators don't have the balls to do.
 
2012-07-11 06:04:16 PM

Talondel: How can you tell that the relationship between the free market and government regulators is completely farked?

The one thing that even the most die hard laissez faire capitalist agrees government regulators should do (break up monopolies and 'too big to fail' businesses in order to promote competition and prevent catastrophic failures) is the one thing that government regulators don't have the balls to do.


QFT
 
2012-07-11 06:30:34 PM
Since I was a farked over Bank of America customer, please, allow me to write BofA's will, should when they fail.

To whom it may concern, if you are reading this, then that means that we have failed. Please, please, hold your applause for later, and get on with the business of dispensation. It is our sincere desire to be cremated. Yes, every building, branch and billboard with the BofA name/logo, should be burned to a crisp. Subsequently, the ashes should be dumped on the houses of senior BofA management (those that have survived customer assault). It is also our wish that any and all debts accrued by BofA be attached to any surviving management. Go after them, down to the director level.
 
2012-07-11 07:17:09 PM
injectionletale.e-monsite.com
 
2012-07-11 08:03:19 PM
Isn't this like letting a murderer choose his form of execution?

i22.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-11 08:06:20 PM
How about no.
When they die, they're simply, finally, permanently DEAD. You know, like people.
 
2012-07-11 08:27:06 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: How about no.
When they die, they're simply, finally, permanently DEAD. You know, like people.


People have wills and a probate process that addresses the disposition of their assets and the handling of their liabilities. So yeah, like people.
 
2012-07-11 08:51:17 PM
Any of you farking morons actually read TFA? Regulators are forcing banks to come up with worst case wind down scenarios to prevent the uncontrolled spiral we saw with lehman et al. This is a good thing that you should be applauding.

But nevermind, commence with your derp.
 
2012-07-11 09:05:49 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Any of you farking morons actually read TFA? Regulators are forcing banks to come up with worst case wind down scenarios to prevent the uncontrolled spiral we saw with lehman et al. This is a good thing that you should be applauding.

But nevermind, commence with your derp.


If we need a plan, we are too close to that now. It is the regulators job to steer us away from needing such a scenario. And since the FDIC will have to back the failed bank, maybe they should be the one making such plans. This is like asking a five year old how to handle the fact that we go through candy too quickly. If these banks can't be trusted enough to keep themselves afloat, why should we listen to them when they prove they can't be trusted?
 
2012-07-11 11:13:06 PM
This is a good start. Now, they need to outline a plan to claw back the money given to employees and shareholders in order to make their next failure revenue neutral for the US taxpayer.
 
2012-07-12 07:39:04 AM

scathing1: This is a good start. Now, they need to outline a plan to claw back the money given to employees and shareholders in order to make their next failure revenue neutral for the US taxpayer.


Well, for fully private financial institutions at least, TARP was revenue neutral or revenue positive for taxpayers. All the big banks paid back their tarp proceeds at a profit to the taxpayer- Goldman, Morgan stanley, JPM, bank of America, citibank, wells, etc. AIG will be close and will somewhat depend on what their stock does over the next year.

We did lose money on chrysler, however, and are almost certain to lose big on GM. And of course the huge losses on Fannie and Freddie will swamp all of that.
 
2012-07-12 07:44:45 AM

Gunny Walker: Debeo Summa Credo: Any of you farking morons actually read TFA? Regulators are forcing banks to come up with worst case wind down scenarios to prevent the uncontrolled spiral we saw with lehman et al. This is a good thing that you should be applauding.

But nevermind, commence with your derp.

If we need a plan, we are too close to that now. It is the regulators job to steer us away from needing such a scenario. And since the FDIC will have to back the failed bank, maybe they should be the one making such plans. This is like asking a five year old how to handle the fact that we go through candy too quickly. If these banks can't be trusted enough to keep themselves afloat, why should we listen to them when they prove they can't be trusted?


Of course these plans are subject to approval by regulators. It's a worthwhile process- regulators are saying "ok, smart guy, how would you wind yourself down in a crisis scenario" and making the banks provide plans. The regulator can then look at all the plans for all banks, get a better understanding of where the risks lay, and identify problem areas where all or some banks need to fix to be better prepared for such a scenario.

It isn't an absolute guarantee that nothing will go awry, (and there's no way to predict ahead of time 100% of what might go wrong), but it's a very worthwhile process IMO.
 
2012-07-12 08:29:26 AM
Do we know which banks?
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report