mandingo Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 klasicno bankarstvo jeste investiciono. ako imas kamatnu stopu, moras da okrenes pare za procent vise. to nije glavni problem. na slobodnom trzistu, kad postoji velika potraznja za homeowner zajmovima, prirodno se dizu kamate i stvar je gotova. ovako su ljudi kupovali - prodavali kuce i stanove, dok je zabava trajala.... godinama. to nema veze sa bankarstvom, niti sa slobodnim trzistem. cak su na kraju banke dobili mrsni bailout. to je cena mesanja drzave u kreditnu industriju. tacno je da su mnoga govna sa wall streeta napunili parama, ali premisa da je to zbog nekog gs acta ili nicim izazvanom pohlepom (koja se, vidi cuda - nije manifestirala ranije) je smesna.
mandingo Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 Ne mogu ti reci nista o procesu, ali ako je Vlada Velike Britanije direktno pritisla merger Lloyds i HBOS 2019, sigurno postoji mehanizam i da dodje do razdvajanja banaka. ako ti ne znas kakav je taj mehanizam... ja znam 100 puta manje.
Budja Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 Nije rec samo o razdvajanju investicionog od komercijalnog bankarstva. To ne bi resilo problem. Statistika: 1985: 15,000 banaka 2015: 5,300 banaka Too-big-to-fail banks, instead of getting smaller, are pretty much taking over the financial universe. The largest five banks in the U.S. now control nearly 45 percent of the industry's total assets, according to an analysis from SNL Financial that comes amid an earnings season that has been generally positive for the largest institutions. I jos jedan bogus papir (prezentacija) iz 2007. Apsolutno nista o too big to fail, vec samo o probability to fail if big, sto je, je l da, zamena teza. http://are.berkeley.edu/~sberto/Banks07.pdf
Eraserhead Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 Economist pre par dana na temu GS: Bernie Sanders’s obsession with Glass-Steagall is misplaced A CENTRAL part of the Sanders economic plan is to break up big banks by reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act. Until its repeal in 1999 Glass-Steagall separated supposedly staid deposit-taking banks from riskier investment activities. Today, large “universal” banks like Citigroup and Bank of America both take in customer deposits and trade in risky global markets. Breaking up the banks has some merit as an idea; it is more realistic than many of Mr Sanders’s other proposals (see article). This week, Neel Kashkari, President of the Minneapolis Fed, said it was worth considering (among other policies). Nonetheless, a focus on Glass-Steagall—to the exclusion of other ideas for making banking safer—is misplaced. The root problem with banking is simple; that some banks are “too-big-to-fail”. The problem has two parts. First, the government feels obliged to bail out a large financial institution if it fails. Second, the probability of a bank failing is large enough to be worth worrying about. Glass-Steagall would address one part of the first problem, by moderately reducing the government’s incentive to bail out banks. One reason governments rescue banks at the height of a crisis is to protect the payments system. If a commercial bank goes into bankruptcy, depositors may not be able to access their funds to pay bills. This is catastrophic for the economy, as it causes spending to tank. Worse, panic over the solvency of one bank can easily spread to others. In March 1933, during the Great Depression, the federal government had to impose a nationwide bank “holiday”—ie, temporarily shut down the payments system—to stop a run on banks. Today deposit insurance protects customers even if their bank fails. But that does not protect the payments system. During the crisis in 2008 the British government thought it was two hours away from cash machines (ATMs) not working when Royal Bank of Scotland, a universal bank, failed. Separating banks’ investment functions from their commercial arms would ensure the arteries of the economy remain unclogged even when investment banks are suffering. This is one reason the British government has decided to “ring-fence” commercial banking from investment banking (a weaker form of the full break-up Mr Sanders wants). However, the “too-big-to-fail” problem would remain. First, the government will still want to bail out large investment banks if they fail, because they are so intertwined with credit markets. An investment-banking crash can cut off credit to the real economy. And although investment banks do not suffer runs from depositors, they can suffer runs from those who invest in their short-term debt, meaning panic spreads easily between institutions. That is why, in the crisis, the government bailed out Bear Stearns, an investment bank, and AIG, an insurance company. AIG did not have customer deposits, but it did owe billions of dollars to investment banks who may have failed had AIG gone bankrupt. Glass-Steagall does not make a crisis much less likely. America saw many financial collapses before Glass-Steagall was repealed. In the 1980s savings and loan crisis, supposedly boring institutions engaged in nothing more exotic than making mortgage loans failed en masse, costing the taxpayer upwards of $150 billion. Long-Term Capital Management, a small but highly indebted hedge fund, collapsed in 1998, imperiling the financial system (the New York Fed oversaw a private sector rescue). Internationally, many European banks were brought down by nothing more exotic than bad loans to real estate companies. Reinstating Glass-Steagall, then, would not prevent failures, and would not remove incentive of governments to intervene when failures happen. More important is making sure that banks fund themselves with enough capital from shareholders, rather than with debt. To his credit, Jeb Bush has called for this. Capital absorbs losses, because shares can fall in value; debt does not. More capital reduces the probability of bank failures. That, in turn, reduces the incentive for banks to grow; as the probability of failure shrinks, the advantage of being big—that the government will bail you out if you fail—diminishes too. That is important: some think the only reason banks get big in the first place is to exploit the government’s implicit guarantee. More capital is also a simple policy that makes banks more resilient to risks of any kind, rather than micro-managing what risks they can take. Glass-Steagall, in comparison, is a distraction.
mandingo Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 sta mislis, koja je najbolja regulacija ovih mega banks? njihovi shareholderi (njima je zabranjeno - williams act) ili ce se drzavna banka, fed u ovom slucaju, umesati da.... ne znam poveca ili smanji likvidnost?
Budja Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) Economist pre par dana na temu GS: U prevodu: More capital = Bigger banks = More concentrated banks = Higher systemic risk NIjedan kapital nije dovoljan ako krene run on bank. "More capital reduces bank failure". Reduces not eliminates. I ako se desi, opet smo jos u goroj poziciji. Prosto, trade off je da je bolje imati 100 banaka koje ce da propadnu kroz duzi niz godina (uz osiguranje depozita) nego 3 banke ukupno sa veeeeelikim kapitalom koje ce da vrse distorziju sistema i da takodje budu even bigger than too big to fail. Edited February 23, 2016 by Budja
Eraserhead Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 sta mislis, koja je najbolja regulacija ovih mega banks? njihovi shareholderi (njima je zabranjeno - williams act) ili ce se drzavna banka, fed u ovom slucaju, umesati da.... ne znam poveca ili smanji likvidnost? Ako si mene pitao, mogu ti reci da ne znam. Mislim da nemam znanja ni iskustva da ti kazem sta bi bilo najbolje. Ne mozemo svi bili Lazar Krstic. :D Mislim da znam dovoljno da diskutujem o temi, ali nemam odgovor na pitanje sta je najbolja opcija, a ne bi da upadam u ideoloske klopke i pricam da su samo regulacija ili samo deregulacija resenje. Ono sto znam jeste da banke nisu neprijatelj. One nisu zle ili bar nisu nista vise zle od politicara i drugih subjekata na sceni. One rade vazan posao bez kojeg bi ekonomija tesko funkcionisala. "More capital reduces bank failure". Reduces not eliminates. I ako se desi, opet smo jos u goroj poziciji. Prosto, trade off je da je bolje imati 100 banaka koje ce da propadnu kroz duzi niz godina (uz osiguranje depozita) nego 3 banke ukupno sa veeeeelikim kapitalom koje ce da vrse distorziju sistema i da takodje budu even bigger than too big to fail. Ja mislim da mi i nismo u poslu da eliminisemo rizik. On ce uvek postojati. Nama je realan cilj da pokusamo da ga smanjimo. Sa drugom recenicom se slazem s tim sto to nije GS.
Gandalf Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) More capital = Bigger banks = More concentrated banks = Higher systemic risk 100%. s tim da bi, pored razbijanja prevelikih (hvale vredno), Sanders koristio Fed da primora banke da pozajmljuju kako vlasti odgovara (hvale nevredno). to bi predstavljalo i formalno izbacivanje kroz prozor navodne nezavisnosti Feda. Edited February 23, 2016 by Gandalf
Budja Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 100%. s tim da bi, pored razbijanja prevelikih (hvale vredno), Sanders koristio Fed da primora banke da pozajmljuju kako vlasti odgovara (hvale nevredno). to bi predstavljalo i formalno izbacivanje kroz prozor navodne nezavisnosti Feda. +1 Samo sto ovo drugo nikad nece da se desi, a prvo je apsolutno nuzno.
Budja Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) Ja mislim da mi i nismo u poslu da eliminisemo rizik. On ce uvek postojati. Nama je realan cilj da pokusamo da ga smanjimo. Sa drugom recenicom se slazem s tim sto to nije GS. Klasican rizik bankrota se ne moze smanjiti, on se moze podeliti. Medjutim, sistemski rizik se i te kako moze smanjiti, jer on nastaje usled prelivanja na druge agente. Kada studije kazu da velike banke i veliki kapital smanjuju rizik bank failure (tj. veci rizik se prebacuje na shareholders a ne depozitante), time se apsolutno nista ne kaze o sistemskom riziku. Tj. EXPECTED LOSS = Probability x Loss. Smanjujes probability, ali loss od sistemskog rizika se jos vise proporcionalno uvecava. To ovaj clanak iz Economista uopste ne razmatra. Kao da je uzrok krize bilo to sto banke nisu bile dovoljno velike. Perverzni zakljucak. Edited February 23, 2016 by Budja
Budja Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 Huntsman praised Trump's "build here first" philosophy in terms of infrastructure, remarking that the U.S. should practice what it preaches abroad. He also embraced Trump's rhetoric on campaign finance reform and the influence of money in politics, remarking that the Manhattan real-estate mogul is "right about bringing aboard a new generation of the best and the brightest and wiping out the old Washington establishment and the old Washington culture."
mandingo Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 budjo, prekini da trolujes. :D da se vratimo na trenutak izborima i trumpu, specificno. dali je neko od amera primetio da trump uziva jednoglasnu podrsku kod alt right-a? onaj moron richard spencer se popalio kao mlad majmun. bas me zanima sta mu se mota po ludoj glavi... mozda misli da ce trump, kad zavrsi proterivanje muslimana i meksikanaca, poceti da deportira i jevreje, pocevsi sa ivankom pa sve do bila kristofa.
Gandalf Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) Huntsman praised Trump's "build here first" philosophy in terms of infrastructure, remarking that the U.S. should practice what it preaches abroad. He also embraced Trump's rhetoric on campaign finance reform and the influence of money in politics, remarking that the Manhattan real-estate mogul is "right about bringing aboard a new generation of the best and the brightest and wiping out the old Washington establishment and the old Washington culture." na prošlim izborima sam podržavao Hantsmena, i to svi u krugu prijatelja znaju. udaviće me ovim. Edited February 23, 2016 by Gandalf
Dimitrije Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 budjo, prekini da trolujes. :D da se vratimo na trenutak izborima i trumpu, specificno. dali je neko od amera primetio da trump uziva jednoglasnu podrsku kod alt right-a? onaj moron richard spencer se popalio kao mlad majmun. bas me zanima sta mu se mota po ludoj glavi... mozda misli da ce trump, kad zavrsi proterivanje muslimana i meksikanaca, poceti da deportira i jevreje, pocevsi sa ivankom pa sve do bila kristofa. Siri se Trampov uticaj kao sumski pozar.
Recommended Posts