Jump to content
IGNORED

Bajden - jedno staro i očekivano presidency?


theanswer

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Peter Fan said:

Dje je i sta radi Sleepy Joe, danasnje izdanje:

Pomaže da se ublaži ono što je direktno omogućio nenadjebivi prethodnik, nije da nije bilo ljudi koji su na to upozoravali kao autor donjeg članka (preneo sam uvod i zaključak):

How Trump’s Deregulation Sowed The Seeds For Silicon Valley Bank’s Demise

Anyone who doubted how detrimental Trump administration policies would be should analyze the damage unfolding for those trampled by Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse. On May 24, 2018, Trump signed into law the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (the “Reform Act”). This was a regulatory relief bill for regional and community bill, which bank lobbyists and numerous politicians had fought hard for.

 

The argument at the time was that many of the provisions in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) were ‘one size fits all.’ Despite any proof, those lobbying for the EGRRCPA argued that capital, liquidity, and stress requirements for regional and community banks would be detrimental to the economy. In a number of Forbes columns, I argued that the weakening of bank regulations under Trump would be the seeds for the next financial crisis.

 

Thanks to Trump and his supporters this all changed. Some of the key changes that EGRRCPA made were:

  • Increasing the asset threshold for “systemically important financial institutions” or, “SIFIs,” from $50 billion to $250 billion.
  • Immediately exempting bank holding companies with less than $100 billion in assets from enhanced prudential standards imposed on SIFIs under Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act (including but not limited to resolution planning and enhanced liquidity and risk management requirements).
  • Exempting in 18 months bank holding companies with between $100 billion and $250 billion in assets from the enhanced prudential standards.
  • Limiting stress testing conducted by the Federal Reserve to banks and bank holding companies with $100 billion or more in assets.

Under Dodd-Frank’s Title I, any bank in the U.S. with an asset size of $50 billion or more could be designated as a domestically systemically important bank (D-SIB). This would then allow national bank regulators like the Federal Reserve to impose what are called enhanced prudential standards. These include rules about:

  • capital, which purpose is to sustain unexpected losses,
  • liquidity, including calculating the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) and liquidity stress tests, and
  • bank resolution plans, referred to as living wills.

 

A lot of the results of these supervisory exercises, as well as the capital and liquidity ratios, is made public. This type of financial and risk transparency is critical for investors, lenders, depositors, rating agencies, and numerous market participants.

 

Systemically Important Bank (SIB)

Just by EGRRCPA changing the asset size, banks like Silicon Valley Bank were no longer designated as systemically important. Only those $250 billion or larger would now receive the systemically important designation. EGRRCPA supporters ignored the fact that while a failing or failed bank may not destabilize the entire national banking system, it sure can destabilize a region. Just ask California how things are going now with the SVB management-caused chaos.

 

...

 

History Matters

It saddens me greatly that people ignore history. Every couple of years lenders and traders tell me that ‘this time, it will be different.’ The style of the movie may be different, but the ending is always the same. Every time bank regulations are eliminated or made lighter, banks proceed to take on more risks and reduce risk identification and measurements. They then implode. Pundits jump to point fingers, especially at bank regulators, who had been asked to do their job with one hand tied behind their back. And far worse yet, the ordinary, unsuspecting citizen who does not even work at a bank will lose her job. I sure hope that the Republicans and Democrats who gleefully sided with Trump in gutting prudent regulations will now pay the groceries and housing costs of all those people who will lose their jobs due to SVB’s mismanagement and greed.

 

 

Share & Enjoy

  • +1 1
  • Hvala 1
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Gojko & Stojko said:

Pomaže da se ublaži ono što je direktno omogućio nenadjebivi prethodnik,

Trumpova deregulacija i stetni ucinak iste nije sporan (kao recimo Bubba Clintonov "doprinos" glede Glass-Steagall Acta), ali to nije tema, i deplasirano je da se u trecoj godini Bidenovog mandata time bavimo. To je isto kao kad bi za rekordno nisku nezaposlenost dali priznanje Trumpu za sjecu poreza i uvodjenje dodatnih carina na uvoz kineske robe. 

No, poenta je da su regulatori, Treasury, kao i cijela administracija (takodje i centralna banka, ali oni su nominalno nezavisni pa ih izuzimam na ovom topiku) uhvaceni na spavanju, iako je politika podizanja kamata na snazi vec duze vrijeme.

 

I sad ponovo ide bailout, samo pod drugim imenenom. A kamo obavezni bank stress tests, kamo druge mjere, a ako vec nije to odradjeno na vrijeme, gdje su sad optuznice?

 

Kad imas dvije od tri najvece propasti banke u istoriji drzave trecoj godini svog mandata - you own it. 

Link to comment

Dakle, bailout koji se tako ne zove.

 

Ekonomisti (Wering, Nagel) popizdeli.

 

Moral hazard vise ne postoji sa ovim novim fondom.

 

Nikakva odogovrnost regulatora, jos jedno,.

Link to comment

A o racunovodjama i analiticarima da ne pricamo.

 

Cemu sluzi gain/los on AFS ako nema nikakvu informativnu vrednost i ako ce da uskoci FED uvek.

 

 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Peter Fan said:

Trumpova deregulacija i stetni ucinak iste nije sporan (kao recimo Bubba Clintonov "doprinos" glede Glass-Steagall Acta), ali to nije tema, i deplasirano je da se u trecoj godini Bidenovog mandata time bavimo. To je isto kao kad bi za rekordno nisku nezaposlenost dali priznanje Trumpu za sjecu poreza i uvodjenje dodatnih carina na uvoz kineske robe. 

No, poenta je da su regulatori, Treasury, kao i cijela administracija (takodje i centralna banka, ali oni su nominalno nezavisni pa ih izuzimam na ovom topiku) uhvaceni na spavanju, iako je politika podizanja kamata na snazi vec duze vrijeme.

 

I sad ponovo ide bailout, samo pod drugim imenenom. A kamo obavezni bank stress tests, kamo druge mjere, a ako vec nije to odradjeno na vrijeme, gdje su sad optuznice?

 

Kad imas dvije od tri najvece propasti banke u istoriji drzave trecoj godini svog mandata - you own it. 

Nije centralna banka uhvaćena na spavanju, ona radi ono što treba da radi, kao i ovdašnja centralna banka (suprotno uvreženim mišljenjima desničarskih krugova u US, Australija nije socijalistička zemlja, naprotiv, vrlo je slična US - ali za razliku od US gde je od 2001. bankrotiralo 651 finansijskih institucija, u Australiji nije nijedna - upravo zbog prudentne regulative). A što se tiče američke regulative, kad jednom nešto uprskaš onda ne ide lako da to promeniš, naročito u atmosferi republikanskog odbijanja svega što dolazi od Bajdena. I sasvim je na mestu podsećanje na uzroke ovoga što se sada dešava, u članku koji sam citirao ima link na Forbsov članak iz 2019. iste autorke, evo sad direktno (sa nekoliko pasusa direktno dole):

The Weakening Of Big Bank Regulations Under Trump Is The Seed For The Next Financial Crisis

...

In the Trump era of deregulation and weakening of supervision, I am also concerned that most big banks have not complied fully with the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s Principles for Effective Risk Data Aggregation and Risk Reporting (BCBS 239). Repeated surveys and quantitative impact studies show that if regulators or legislators were to call big banks, they would not be able to rapidly produce accurate enterprise wide credit, market, operational, and liquidity risk exposures. When we get into an economic or market downturn, knowing banks’ actual risk exposures will be even more important for bank regulators and banks’ risk management. It is precisely in a crisis, when asset prices are volatile and some employees may be fleeing out the door, that banks will struggle even more to give accurate risk exposures.

 

More specifically within many banks, more than ever, I see a significant disregard for auditors and compliance officers. They are treated  as pesky cost center. Many legislators and the media focus on Deutsche Bank’s disregard of and disrespect for compliance officers. The reality is that this is a widespread problem throughout the financial industry.

In the era of Trump, I have also seen a lot less focus on actually changing the risk taking culture in banks. I have been hearing for a decade that culture matters. Yet, no rules to change culture have come about.  Equally troubling is that banks are spending less money and time on training new and existing employees on risk and regulations. This is especially since not only is financial crisis amnesia setting in, almost the majority of people in Wall Street are under thirty years old. They were not around for the 2008 crisis. I have lived through the 1994 Latin, 1997 Asian, and 1998 Russian crisis. Chaos during a crisis spreads rapidly.

 

Lobbyists and quite a number of Republican politicians argue that regs are hurting the banks and the economy. Where are the data for that? With lending so high and earnings through the roof, especially with Trump’s tax reform. Our banks are in far better condition than continental European ones, I would argue that it is precisely because until recently bank and financial regulators kept pushing banks to implement necessary Basel III and Dodd-Frank Rules. If look at the widening income and net worth inequality of Americans, even worse for Hispanics and Africans, it is clear that millions of Americans are far from recovering from the crisis. One of the best things that we can do to help all Americans have a good standard of living is to reduce likelihood and impact of financial crises.

...

 

SaE

  • +1 1
Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Gojko & Stojko said:

Nije centralna banka uhvaćena na spavanju,

Itakako je uhvacena na spavanju, ali nisam to htio komentarisati na Bidenovoj temi.

 

54 minutes ago, Gojko & Stojko said:

ona radi ono što treba da radi, 

Pa rade, iako su to trebali daleko ranije poceti. Podsjeticu samo na "inflation is transitory" komentar koji je Powell izrekao  upravo pred regulatorima.

 

A kad kazem uhvaceni na spavanju, prije svega mislim na njega jer je koliko prije nedelju dana, isto pred regulatorima, rekao "higher for longer" glede podizanja kamatnih stopa, a ove nedelje je trebao biti u EU, pa naprasno otkazao putovanje, zbog krize bankarskog sistema. Mislim da je jasno da od "higher for longer" nema nista, i cak je vrlo moguce da ce morati smanjivati stope prije jeseni. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-reserve-rate-hikes-acclerate-jerome-powell/

 

Takodje, bukvalno dan prije nego je SVB potonuo, FED-ov nacelnik sektora za nadzor je ovo izjavio:

Even if the assets backing the claim are high quality, they cannot necessarily be immediately monetized, and operational risks are quite high. As we have seen all too often, depositors sometimes want or need their money immediately, especially in times of stress. This mismatch in value and liquidity is the recipe for a classic bank run. Issuers are not supervised by the Fed and lack capital and liquidity as a backstop. The banks we regulate, in contrast, are well protected from bank runs through a robust array of supervisory requirements.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/barr20230309a.htm

 

Znaci, rizik je bio poznat, ali nista po to pitanju nije bilo poduzeto. A isti nacelnik se bavio analizom klimatskih promjena na banke i bankarski sistem. I shit you not, evo ga ovdje (u sredini dokumenta):

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/barr20220907a.htm

 

 

 

54 minutes ago, Gojko & Stojko said:

A što se tiče američke regulative, kad jednom nešto uprskaš onda ne ide lako da to promeniš, naročito u atmosferi republikanskog odbijanja svega što dolazi od Bajdena. I 

Koju Bidenovu mjeru (kao predstavnika izvrsne vlasti, ne prijedlog zakona ili programa) u ovoj sferi je Kongres (bilo koji od dva doma) blokirao? 
 

Link to comment

A evo i iz decembra 2022 godine

 

Quote

Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Patrick Toomey, the outgoing Republican senator from Pennsylvania, announced on Friday a series of proposed reforms designed to make the Fed more transparent and accountable to Congress. Warren and Toomey have called on the 12 regional Reserve banks, which are considered quasi-official governmental organisations, to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, which requires federal agencies to respond to certain requests for records, and in turn comply with informational demands from Congress. Information related to monetary policy decisions, confidential supervisory matters and personnel files would be exempt from those requests. They also propose making the Fed’s inspector-general of the Fed, the central bank’s internal watchdog, a presidentially appointed position and subject to confirmation by the US Senate. Currently, the chair of the Fed’s board of governors appoints the inspector general

 

https://www.ft.com/content/53b83371-9ca4-45c6-87f8-626b009ab5b2

Link to comment

 

 

Vote Blue to save the planet, just keep voting Bluuueee...

 

Ako vas naprave na budalu, šibnite im jedan strongly worded emoji sa podignutom obrvom, a onda opet isto.

  • +1 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Peter Fan said:

to ne odgovara na moja pitanje


Najbolje i najjednostavnije objašnjenje ko, kako, kada i zašto:

 

 

 

Nisam znao da je čak 17 demokrata onda glasalo za ovo!

Link to comment
3 hours ago, dragance said:

 

Nisam znao da je čak 17 demokrata onda glasalo za ovo!

Ti SAD Demokrate dozivljavas kao andjelcice koji lice na kupidone, a ne kao politicare koji gledaju samo i jedino svoj interes i interes onih koji im daju pare. 

Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...