|
|
03-27-2010, 05:23 AM
|
#101
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp
So what are our congress critters doing.
|
Yeah, I don't know what the problem is that they're trying to fix here. I suppose there may have been instances where some wealthy people got fleeced, but I haven't heard this is some kind of major problem.**
With respect to the rest of the Dodd bill, I haven't seen much good reporting on it. Everyone is caught up in the Consumer Protection Board and whether the Fed's power will be expanded or curtailed. All side show issues as far as I'm concerned. Beyond that, I haven't seen much of what's in the bill. Hopefully some improvements, but who's to know.
** Timely Edit: There's a story in today's WSJ about how private placement investors are increasingly getting burned. Among the problems cited, the income and net worth requirements to be "accredited" were set in 1982 and haven't been adjusted for inflation. For what it's worth, I imagine doubling them from today's level will roughly return them in real terms to where they were in 1982.
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
|
|
|
|
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!
Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!
|
03-27-2010, 08:56 AM
|
#102
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
|
Here is a pretty comprehensive article talking about reform.
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
|
|
|
03-28-2010, 06:55 PM
|
#103
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,733
|
Great article.
I'm in agreement on this part.
Quote:
The deregulation of the last few decades has come in for a lot of blame for the current financial crisis. It deserves some blame, too. If Citigroup and Bank of America were still operating under the New Deal rules, they might not have flirted with bankruptcy. But take a minute to think about which firms had the biggest problems. They were the shadow banks: stand-alone investment banks like Lehman, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch; and other firms, like A.I.G., that were not banks at all. They were never fully covered by the New Deal regulation, and they were not the ones most affected by the deregulation.
The root of the crisis, then, came not so much from the laws that were changed. Finance evolved, and Washington did not keep up. So the creation of another quiet period probably cannot revolve around restoring old rules. It almost certainly depends on new rules, whether they are of the sweeping variety or the more nuanced.
|
|
|
|
03-28-2010, 07:29 PM
|
#104
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,142
|
Quote:
They were the shadow banks: stand-alone investment banks like Lehman, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch; and other firms, like A.I.G., that were not banks at all. They were never fully covered by the New Deal regulation, and they were not the ones most affected by the deregulation.
|
Hmmm. I have posted this before, but maybe it is worth repeating here. Perhaps the shadow banks were not the ones most affected by deregulation, but they got some pretty outrageous perks nevertheless.
In December of 2000, the Commodities Future Modernization Act created the Enron loophole, exempting electronic energy trading from regulation. It also exempted Credit Default Swaps from regulation, allowing the AIG Financial Products unit to operate essentially without regulation.
and
In January 2004, the SEC changed the Net Capital Rule to allow Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley to operate with unlimited leverage.
|
|
|
03-28-2010, 07:34 PM
|
#105
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp
I'm in agreement on this part.
|
But remember that "de-regulation" wasn't just about reversing existing rules, it was also about preventing new rules from being imposed on new businesses. It's all of a piece.
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
|
|
|
03-29-2010, 07:04 AM
|
#106
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
|
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
|
|
|
03-30-2010, 09:03 AM
|
#108
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Oregon Coast
Posts: 16,483
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good
But here's the question. If we define "normal" as pre-crisis normal, do we really want to return there? It seems like we should be aiming for less credit origination than we had during the last boom, even if that means slower near-term growth and a longer path toward full recovery.
|
I believe "normal" as defined in the post-WW2 economic boom was an unsustainable anomaly. I think it might be wise to assume slower real growth in the decades ahead given all the headwinds faced by the economy -- globalization pressuring wage growth, huge debts, massive underfunded public liabities, fiat money with the printing presses cranked up and the obvious need for higher taxes to climb out of the hole will all exert pressure. And while some of them may be surmountable by themselves, together I don't see how we can pretend it's 1955 any more.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)
|
|
|
03-30-2010, 09:16 AM
|
#109
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 37,931
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good
But here's the question. If we define "normal" as pre-crisis normal, do we really want to return there? It seems like we should be aiming for less credit origination than we had during the last boom, even if that means slower near-term growth and a longer path toward full recovery.
|
Hey - if we curb lending practices such that we don't have a repeat of the 2005-2007 housing bubble, then these companies won't make as much money as quickly! Yeah - right - we want to go right back to the housing bubble!
NOT!
Audrey
|
|
|
03-30-2010, 09:18 AM
|
#110
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29
I believe "normal" as defined in the post-WW2 economic boom was an unsustainable anomaly. I think it might be wise to assume slower real growth in the decades ahead given all the headwinds faced by the economy -- globalization pressuring wage growth, huge debts, massive underfunded public liabities, fiat money with the printing presses cranked up and the obvious need for higher taxes to climb out of the hole will all exert pressure. And while some of them may be surmountable by themselves, together I don't see how we can pretend it's 1955 any more.
|
Sounds a lot like Bill Gross' "new normal". It's hard to argue with. The one thing that gets you out of that box is explosive productivity . . . so far so good on that front.
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
|
|
|
03-31-2010, 09:01 AM
|
#111
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,629
|
Lots of good posts here. I'll just summarize my thoughts, which appear to be consistent with some other posts.
1. Bank panics are so destructive that it's worth trying to minimize them.
2. Regulation is never perfect, but this is a big enough deal that we should do a reasonable amount of smart regulating.
3. We figured out the principles of bank regulation in the 1930's - Capital requirements, insurance, discount window, gov't sponsored euthanasia. These things worked pretty well for traditional commercial banks.
4. Over the years, the banking system evovled, regulation should have evolved with it.
5. Instead, we got people in charge who believe that all regulation is always bad. They didn't change the regs to keep up with the changing system. They even reversed some good regs.
6. So we had a bigger crises than we should have.
Going forward, we need to apply the old regulatory principles to the new system.
Mankiw had a link to a nice study that said the old style bank panic was depositors physically walking into banks and closing checking a savings accounts. This crisis had big financial institutions (e.g. Fidelity) electronically failing to renew overnight repo agreements. Same old idea, but new wrapper.
|
|
|
03-31-2010, 09:54 AM
|
#112
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent
I'll just summarize my thoughts, which appear to be consistent with some other posts.
|
I think you summed it up quite nicely.
What I find interesting though is how little dissent this has garnered. I wonder if that reflects a true consensus. Or is it simply because the loyal opposition hasn't revved up the talking point machine yet.
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
|
|
|
03-31-2010, 10:10 AM
|
#113
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Oregon Coast
Posts: 16,483
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good
What I find interesting though is how little dissent this has garnered. I wonder if that reflects a true consensus. Or is it simply because the loyal opposition hasn't revved up the talking point machine yet.
|
Sometimes we all know we need to get from Point A to Point B.
But that point, the "dissent" usually involves disagreement about which route to take in order to get there.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)
|
|
|
03-31-2010, 10:21 AM
|
#114
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 37,931
|
It looks like Lehman committed outright fraud. This would already be covered under Sarbanes Oxley and can be prosecuted. Right now the SEC is looking into who else pulled this same "accounting trick".
In March of 2008, several months before the "collapse", the SEC was warned that Lehman's numbers couldn't be right. FT.com / Companies / Banks - Rival warned regulators over Lehman
If you put top people in the SEC who are willing to enforce the law, a lot of these shenanigans will be curtailed. If you put top people in the SEC who feel that "hands off" is the best approach and ignore warnings - well, then, no one is minding the store.
We still need to put in some sensible controls. But the above issue (effective enforcement of existing laws) also needs to be addressed.
Audrey
|
|
|
03-31-2010, 10:22 AM
|
#115
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Oregon Coast
Posts: 16,483
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1
We still need to put in some sensible controls. But the above issue (effective enforcement of existing laws) also needs to be addressed.
|
Agreed. New laws won't help if we can't even adequately enforce existing laws.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)
|
|
|
03-31-2010, 10:37 AM
|
#116
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 37,931
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29
Agreed. New laws won't help if we can't even adequately enforce existing laws.
|
Well, we still need new laws to (re-)segregate different (conflicting) kinds of financial activity IMO, but we also need to enforce existing ones.
Audrey
|
|
|
03-31-2010, 11:18 AM
|
#117
|
gone traveling
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,864
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good
I think you summed it up quite nicely.
What I find interesting though is how little dissent this has garnered. I wonder if that reflects a true consensus. Or is it simply because the loyal opposition hasn't revved up the talking point machine yet.
|
Agree, this was a good summary. I won't speculate on whether this represents a consensus. Maybe the "loyal opposition" (as you so nicely categorize) realizes the futility of trying to discuss meaningful solutions in the current political environment. Better to just let 'em keep digging...
|
|
|
03-31-2010, 11:19 AM
|
#118
|
gone traveling
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,864
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29
Agreed. New laws won't help if we can't even adequately enforce existing laws.
|
Ziggy, you sound like the NRA talking about gun control.
|
|
|
03-31-2010, 07:56 PM
|
#119
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,142
|
The devil himself is getting frostbite, hell is freezing over.
Did the Texas legislature actually get something right? This article in Slate (of all places) via The Big Picture.
The Lone Star Secret | The Big Money
The article claims that Texas' restrictions on cash-out refinancing were an important factor in avoiding the real-estate debacles of California, Florida, and others. Actually, Texas has only allowed home-improvement loans since 1998 (and I was impressed that the article pointed this out).
So what do you folks think? Is this a reasonable regulation for the federal government to impose?
|
|
|
03-31-2010, 08:20 PM
|
#120
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas: No Country for Old Men
Posts: 50,000
|
Interesting article. I really wasn't aware that once the Realtor's lobby finally lost the fight to legalize home equity loans, TX mortgage laws differed that much from the rest of the US.
IP, I wouldn't jump to any rash conclusion and give the legislature credit. I think this is nothing more than one of the rare instances when the law unintended consequences produced a positive result.
__________________
Numbers is hard
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Threads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
» Quick Links
|
|
|