General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUncle Sam Needs YOU for a Bailout: 6 Reasons Another Big Banking Crisis Is Coming Our Way
http://www.alternet.org/economy/uncle-sam-needs-you-bailout-6-reasons-another-big-banking-crisis-coming-our-way***SNIP
1. Too big to fail
Thirty years of financial deregulation have seen unprecedented concentration of the financial sector. Before, financial firms were limited both in where they could do business and the types of business they could do. This prevented a big banking blowup in the U.S. for more than 50 years.
***SNIP
2. See no evil, hear no evil
While the financial system was consolidating, another threat was looming: the shadow banking system was being created. Another New Deal reform, the Investment Company Act of 1940, imposed heavy restrictions on investment companies, which were intended to protect investors from excessive risks, fraud and scams.
***SNIP
3. Calling in the cavalry, but giving them the wrong directions
Once the U.S. decided to deregulate the financial sector, and banks got bigger, it was inevitable that the government would be called in for a rescue. Most of us were aware that in 2008, the government stepped in to bail out big banks that were destabilized by Lehman Brothers collapse and by the bad derivatives bets entered into by AIG Financial Products. The world financial system was at the brink, we were told, and the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was necessary to save the system.
***SNIP
4. Creating financial weapons of mass destruction
The need to bail out AIG Financial Products in 2008 arose from huge losses in unregulated derivatives trading. We should have seen that coming, because derivatives had caused LTCM to fail back in 1998. In fact, plenty of people saw that derivatives were problematic. Warren Buffett called them financial weapons of destruction back in 2003.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)This is the closest they come:
the lack of a streamlined regulatory system means banks play regulatory arbitrage. Recently we saw this dynamic unfoldunsuccessfully in this case as Standard Chartered Bank used its press cronies to pressure Benjamin Lawsky, New Yorks Superintendent of Financial Services, to go easy on the bank for laundering money for Iranian clients and cooperate with other regulators the Fed, Justice and Treasury that favored a softer stance. Lawsky threatened to cancel the banks license to operate in New Yorka death sentence for any international bank. When he didnt back down, the bank agreed to a $340 million settlement. Lawskys firm stance improves the prospects for the pending federal probes.
Is there some hidden technical analysis that predicts a money problem? I would like to know. I have a lot of money in the markets.