4 ms·

you dont need to dismantle them actively. take away the protections they enjoy and watch the market eat them.

by nazgulnarsil 16y ago

carmelo5 16y ago
What exact protections are you talking about? The market is already rewarding the most efficient banks.
- nazgulnarsil 16y ago
  treating liabilities (demand deposits) as assets, using theoretical selling prices of assets to leverage. in this they are protected by legal tender laws and FDIC. banks basically get heavily subsidized insurance for their investment business at taxpayer expense.
  - carmelo5 16y ago
    Sorry, but that's highly misleading. Demand deposits are liabilities on the commercial bank's financial statements. The "cash" is an asset, which is owed to the depositor. That's very basic financial accounting. Banks pay for FDIC coverage, like you or I pay for car insurance.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      Government-supplied insurance is a bit different than private-sector-provided insurance, though. It's essentially the "public option" for banks.
    - nazgulnarsil 16y ago
      they absolutely do not pay an amount commensurate with the amount and risk insured. In a for profit insurance system the insuree is paying more than their expected liability, the banks pay much less than this and the taxpayer adopts the rest of the burden. also banks use demand deposits to back their loan liabilities. the only reason customers put up with such a thing is again FDIC.
      - carmelo7 16y ago
        That is absolutely untrue. Taxpayers do not pay for any FDIC insurance.
        capstone 16y ago
        In all fairness, those of you downvoting the parent need to address the following: The FDIC receives no Congressional appropriations – it is funded by premiums that banks and thrift institutions pay for deposit insurance coverage and from earnings on investments in U.S. Treasury securities. Source: http://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/symbol/index.html http://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/symbol/index.html I remember there being some talk about FDIC potentially needing to borrow from the Treasury during the financial crisis however as far as I know, it didn't happen.
        gojomo 16y ago
        That's a bit like the way Fannie and Freddie received no direct appropriations... before they collapsed. They had an implicit guarantee, which was worth just as much as cash, and wound up costing a lot. When people trust the FDIC, it's not based on the idea that they're an independent entity charging sufficient premiums to handle any eventuality. They're not; they predict they will be below their legally-required reserve level through 2017 and not hit their target reserve level until 2027 (with rosy economic assumptions): http://problembanklist.com/fdic-deposit-insurance-fund-to-remain-underfunded-until-0114/ http://problembanklist.com/fdic-deposit-insurance-fund-to-re... http://problembanklist.com/fdic-projects-losses-of-billion-on-failed-banks-insurance-fund-to-remain-underfunded-for-decades-0258/ http://problembanklist.com/fdic-projects-losses-of-billion-o... The FDIC only inspires confidence because of the understanding that if necessary the full resources of the government would back it.
        ZachPruckowski 16y ago
        Not so far, but if we ever let more than one of the TBTF banks go, then the FDIC will be taking out billions in loans at sub-market interest from the taxpayer.
loup-vaillant 16y ago
Are you thinking about things like patents and copyright? It may help, but it probably won't be sufficient: being big gives an influence that tend to feed on itself. Monopolies for instance, may last long.
- gphil 16y ago
  > ...being big gives an influence that tend to feed on itself. Monopolies for instance, may last long. This is exactly why I don't believe that unregulated markets will necessarily be competitive ones. My belief is that without a strong central government, monopolies engaging in anti-competitive behavior will make the market inefficient.
shareme 16y ago
there is one protection already taken away.. What do you think the amount of reserves banks have to have on had is now? Its the lowest its been 20 years...02% What does that mean? That means each bank bank, individually, has to have .02% cash reserves or by law it has to close until it gets cash from the Federal Reserve to bring it up to that total.. Translation: all it takes is some depositors pulling out $200,000k to make a statement to any bank branch and put in a credit union which by most state laws cannot enter into transactions that bet against the customer.. This has already happen in Wisconsin..after that vote to ban unions.. We have the power folks..will we exercise it or sit on our lazy asses?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  This has already happen in Wisconsin..after that vote to ban unions.. I'm pretty sure the vote you describe never occurred.

you dont need to dismantle them actively. take away the protections they enjoy and watch the market eat them.

carmelo5 16y ago

What exact protections are you talking about? The market is already rewarding the most efficient banks.

nazgulnarsil 16y ago
treating liabilities (demand deposits) as assets, using theoretical selling prices of assets to leverage. in this they are protected by legal tender laws and FDIC. banks basically get heavily subsidized insurance for their investment business at taxpayer expense.
- carmelo5 16y ago
  Sorry, but that's highly misleading. Demand deposits are liabilities on the commercial bank's financial statements. The "cash" is an asset, which is owed to the depositor. That's very basic financial accounting. Banks pay for FDIC coverage, like you or I pay for car insurance.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    Government-supplied insurance is a bit different than private-sector-provided insurance, though. It's essentially the "public option" for banks.
  - nazgulnarsil 16y ago
    they absolutely do not pay an amount commensurate with the amount and risk insured. In a for profit insurance system the insuree is paying more than their expected liability, the banks pay much less than this and the taxpayer adopts the rest of the burden. also banks use demand deposits to back their loan liabilities. the only reason customers put up with such a thing is again FDIC.
    - carmelo7 16y ago
      That is absolutely untrue. Taxpayers do not pay for any FDIC insurance.
      - capstone 16y ago
        In all fairness, those of you downvoting the parent need to address the following: The FDIC receives no Congressional appropriations – it is funded by premiums that banks and thrift institutions pay for deposit insurance coverage and from earnings on investments in U.S. Treasury securities. Source: http://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/symbol/index.html http://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/symbol/index.html I remember there being some talk about FDIC potentially needing to borrow from the Treasury during the financial crisis however as far as I know, it didn't happen.
        gojomo 16y ago
        That's a bit like the way Fannie and Freddie received no direct appropriations... before they collapsed. They had an implicit guarantee, which was worth just as much as cash, and wound up costing a lot. When people trust the FDIC, it's not based on the idea that they're an independent entity charging sufficient premiums to handle any eventuality. They're not; they predict they will be below their legally-required reserve level through 2017 and not hit their target reserve level until 2027 (with rosy economic assumptions): http://problembanklist.com/fdic-deposit-insurance-fund-to-remain-underfunded-until-0114/ http://problembanklist.com/fdic-deposit-insurance-fund-to-re... http://problembanklist.com/fdic-projects-losses-of-billion-on-failed-banks-insurance-fund-to-remain-underfunded-for-decades-0258/ http://problembanklist.com/fdic-projects-losses-of-billion-o... The FDIC only inspires confidence because of the understanding that if necessary the full resources of the government would back it.
      - ZachPruckowski 16y ago
        Not so far, but if we ever let more than one of the TBTF banks go, then the FDIC will be taking out billions in loans at sub-market interest from the taxpayer.

loup-vaillant 16y ago

Are you thinking about things like patents and copyright? It may help, but it probably won't be sufficient: being big gives an influence that tend to feed on itself. Monopolies for instance, may last long.

gphil 16y ago
> ...being big gives an influence that tend to feed on itself. Monopolies for instance, may last long. This is exactly why I don't believe that unregulated markets will necessarily be competitive ones. My belief is that without a strong central government, monopolies engaging in anti-competitive behavior will make the market inefficient.

shareme 16y ago

there is one protection already taken away.. What do you think the amount of reserves banks have to have on had is now? Its the lowest its been 20 years...02% What does that mean? That means each bank bank, individually, has to have .02% cash reserves or by law it has to close until it gets cash from the Federal Reserve to bring it up to that total.. Translation: all it takes is some depositors pulling out $200,000k to make a statement to any bank branch and put in a credit union which by most state laws cannot enter into transactions that bet against the customer.. This has already happen in Wisconsin..after that vote to ban unions.. We have the power folks..will we exercise it or sit on our lazy asses?

yummyfajitas 16y ago
This has already happen in Wisconsin..after that vote to ban unions.. I'm pretty sure the vote you describe never occurred.