Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Who is right on Wall Street?
Bernie Sander's is right, we should reinstate Glass Steagall 17 94.44%
Hillary Clinton is right, we shouldn't reinstate Glass Steagall, opting for other reforms 1 5.56%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-13-2015, 11:54 AM
 
34,274 posts, read 19,312,630 times
Reputation: 17256

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
I'm not a Leftist, so I wouldn't vote for either Hillary or Sanders. However I have read that even at the time it was passed, Glass-Steagall was considered by many to be "too extreme." and even Glass himself is reported to have favored its repeal not long after it was passed, believing it was an overreaction. Some argued that the GSA restrictions actually made the banking industry riskier, rather than safer.
Glass was concerned about section 16. History has shown that his concern was unwarranted. The rest is opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-13-2015, 12:59 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
11,998 posts, read 12,893,138 times
Reputation: 8365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockside View Post
I don't know how to take the OP seriously. I worked many years for the Wall St firm y'all love to hate. Even before she ran for senator in NY we'd see her coming and going, after she was elected we'd see her weekly.

There isn't a chance in hell of serious Wall St reform from Hillary. It isn't that Wall St owns Hillary, they love each other. The majority of Wall St execs are ivy league grads and they're all heavy-duty Democrats. They understand her, she understands them. When she rips on Wall St it's all wink-wink-nod-nod, and everyone gets she has to throw red meat to the masses.

Any "reform" written by Hillary will be drafted by the big firms on Wall St and will be done to benefit Wall St, especially the bigger firms.

Don't believe me, no problem, but check out the left-leaning Salon...they get it.

Wall Street owns the Clintons: Why Hillary can’t outrun her husband’s presidency - Salon.com
Yeah-which is why I really don't care what Hillary says on the matter. At the end of the day, she owes them; Bernie doesn't.


I really don't know how anyone can believe a word she says, especially when it comes to Wall St corruption.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2015, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
7,734 posts, read 5,482,044 times
Reputation: 5968
Its worth noting, I haven't decided who I am going to vote for yet. I was just curious how the other democrats on CD felt about one of the differences between the candidates. The consensus I am getting is you guys believe that yes the re implementation of Glass Steagall should happen because it reduces the chances of Federally insured commercial banks from taking on too much risk through their investment banks creating a bubble popping financial crisis? Breaking up the largest finianical institutions is the move that should be made.
Hillary's response:
Quote:
Five years ago, President Obama and Congress enacted the landmark Dodd-Frank Act to address the causes of the financial crisis.
Yet even as it works to protect us from a repeat of the crash, Republicans in Congress are assaulting Dodd-Frank at every turn—working to restore the same failed “light touch” approach to Wall Street that helped devastate our economy. They have slipped deregulatory provisions into must-pass bills.[viii] They have tried to hamstring the government’s authority to regulate some of our largest and riskiest financial firms.[ix] They have committed to defunding and defanging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency dedicated solely to protecting everyday Americans from unfair and deceptive financial practices.[x] And they are poised to continue these damaging efforts by pushing more of their deregulatory agenda in the upcoming budget and debt ceiling negotiations.
While Republicans profess to support small community banks, they insist on using “community banking” reform as a Trojan Horse for their attempts to roll back tough rules for the biggest banks. Clinton rejects these efforts and has instead called for commonsense reforms to unleash the potential of community banks—a backbone of lending to small farms, small businesses, and everyday American families
--Clinton

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brief...r-main-street/

There are about 10 suggests on how they would go about reducing risk and I think it is worth reading.

Quote:
Tackling dangerous risk-taking in the financial sector starts with imposing tougher constraints on the biggest banks. But it also requires constraining risk beyond banks. In fact, the crisis itself demonstrated that serious risks could emerge from institutions and activities in the so-called “shadow banking” system, which often receives little prudential oversight at all. That’s why Clinton would implement a comprehensive plan to tackle excessive risk wherever it appears.
  • Impose a “risk fee” on the largest financial institutions. Dodd-Frank’s reforms and higher capital requirements on the largest banks are already helping address the problem of “Too Big to Fail.” But we need to go further to deal with the risk posed by size, leverage, and unstable short-term funding strategies.
    Clinton would charge a graduated risk fee every year on the liabilities of banks with more than $50 billion in assets and other financial institutions that are designated by regulators for enhanced oversight. The fee rate would scale higher for firms with greater amounts of debt and riskier, short-term forms of debt—meaning that, as firms get bigger and riskier, the fee rate they face would grow in size. The fee would therefore discourage large financial institutions from relying on excessive leverage and the kinds of “hot” short-term money that proved particularly damaging during the crisis.[xii] Moreover, the strength of this deterrent would grow for firms with larger amounts of debt. The risk fee would not be applied to insured deposits and would therefore have no impact on traditional banking activities funded by insured deposits and equity capital.[xiii] In implementing the risk fee, Clinton would also call on regulators to impose higher capital requirements if she determines that such a step is a necessary complement to the fee.
  • Require firms that are too large and too risky to be managed effectively to reorganize, downsize, or break apart. The complexity and scope of many of the largest financial institutions can create risks for our economy by increasing both the likelihood that firms will fail and the economic damage that such failures can cause.[xiv] That’s why, as President, Clinton would pursue legislation that enhances regulators’ authorities under Dodd-Frank to ensure that no financial institution is too large and too risky to manage. Large financial firms would need to demonstrate to regulators that they can be managed effectively, with appropriate accountability across all of their activities. If firms can’t be managed effectively, regulators would have the explicit statutory authorization to require that they reorganize, downsize, or break apart. And Clinton would appoint regulators who would use both these new authorities and the substantial authorities they already have to hold firms accountable.
  • Strengthen oversight of the “shadow banking” system to reduce risk. Limiting excessive risk-taking by the largest banks is necessary to keep the system safe—but it’s not sufficient. As the failures of firms like Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and AIG made clear—and as economists from Paul Krugman to Ben Bernanke have cautioned—dangerous financial risks can lurk outside of regulated banks—in less regulated or even unregulated entities.[xv] By one measure, the so-called “shadow banking” sector—which includes certain activities of hedge funds, investment banks, and other non-bank financial companies—makes up a quarter of the global financial system.[xvi] Nonbank lenders originated 40 percent of new mortgages by dollar volume in 2014, compared to 12 percent in 2010.[xvii] And the IMF recently warned that “risks are elevated” in the United States’ non-bank financial system.[xviii] Clinton believes we need more transparency in the shadow banking sector, a better understanding of the risks it poses, and stronger tools to tackle those risks. Specifically, she would:
    • Impose, in coordination with other major international financial centers, margin and collateral requirements on repurchase agreements and other securities financing transactions—risky forms of short-term borrowing that played a key role in the onset of the financial crisis—in order to limit the build-up of excessive leverage in the shadow banking system[xix];
    • Enhance public disclosure requirements for repurchase agreements, so that both regulators and market participants can more fully understand the risks associated with these activities[xx];
    • Strengthen leverage restrictions and liquidity requirements for broker-dealers, which played a key role in the recent crisis[xxi];
    • Enhance regulatory reporting requirements for hedge funds and private equity firms—improving upon Dodd-Frank’s “Form PF” so that it more fully captures the risk exposures of these private investment funds[xxii];
    • Review recent regulatory changes to the money market fund industry, which suffered a massive and destabilizing run after the failure of Lehman Brothers that was quelled only by a taxpayer guarantee,[xxiii] to ensure that the new rules are adequately addressing the risks that money market funds pose to their investors and the economy[xxiv];
    • Enhance transparency requirements and disclosure for exchange-traded products so that underlying liquidity, leverage, and market risks can be assessed;
    • Strengthen the tools and authorities of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to tackle risks in the shadow banking system—wherever those activities may migrate or emerge.[xxv]
  • Impose a high-frequency trading tax and reform the rules that govern our stock markets. The growth of high-frequency trading (HFT) has unnecessarily burdened our markets and enabled unfair and abusive trading strategies that often capitalize on a “two-tiered” market structure with obsolete rules. That’s why Clinton would impose a tax targeted specifically at harmful HFT. In particular, the tax would hit HFT strategies involving excessive levels of order cancellations, which make our markets less stable and less fair.
    Clinton would also reform our stock market rules to ensure equal access to markets and information, increase transparency, and minimize conflicts of interest. Over the last decade, equity markets have become less transparent—often serving the interests of high-frequency traders and “dark pool” operators at the expense of the investing public. Clinton is calling on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to pursue reforms that ensure that these markets are putting the interests of the investing public and corporate issuers before those of high-frequency traders and financial firms.
  • Create compensation rules to curb behavior that puts our financial system at risk. Clinton believes that compensation arrangements at large financial institutions must discourage the types of excessive risk-taking that can threaten the stability of our economy. She would enforce Dodd-Frank to require that a large bank’s senior management and material risk-takers defer a meaningful portion of their annual compensation to future years, such that they would lose some or all of that compensation if the bank suffers losses that threaten its financial health. The rule would apply beyond insured banks to include systemically important non-bank financial firms.[xxvi]
  • Strengthen the Volcker Rule to reduce risk. The Dodd-Frank Act’s Volcker Rule put into practice a straightforward and common-sense principle: banks shouldn’t be allowed to make risky and speculative trading bets with taxpayer-backed money. But, as ultimately enacted by Congress, the Volcker Rule’s prohibition on these risky trading activities contained a damaging loophole: it allowed firms to invest up to three percent of their capital in hedge funds that can themselves make risky trading bets.[xxvii] This loophole allows the largest institutions to risk billions on exactly the types of speculative trading activities that the Volcker Rule is meant to prohibit. Moreover, banks are already structuring their activities to avoid the Volcker Rule’s restrictions. Clinton would close the Volcker Rule’s hedge fund loophole. She would fully enforce the Volcker Rule, in a manner that stays true to its underlying goals—ensuring that banks can’t avoid its prohibitions on risky activities by using evasive business structures. And she would reinstate the “swaps push-out” rule for banks’ derivatives trading, which was repealed at the behest of the banking lobby in last year’s budget deal.[xxviii]
  • Enhance transparency in the banking system. Transparency in the financial system can reduce the build-up of risk during periods of stability and diminish “contagion” effects during periods of crisis. But the SEC’s guidance for banking organization disclosure has not been materially updated in decades, and therefore does not properly account for the complexities of modern banking.[xxix] Clinton would ask the SEC, Treasury Department, and the three federal banking agencies to coordinate to enhance and simplify public disclosure requirements for the banking industry. The largest firms should have to disclose much more information to the market. And the smallest banks should be relieved of the heavy regulatory burden of excess paperwork cataloguing activities that they do not engage in at a meaningful level.[xxx]
  • Enhance international cooperation to curb excessive risk-taking. Clinton understands that strengthening constraints on excessive risk-taking within our own borders is not enough: as home to the world’s strongest and most sophisticated financial markets, we need to push for strong financial regulations in major financial centers around the world—leveling the playing field for U.S. firms and safeguarding global stability. For example, Clinton’s administration would fight for stronger global capital requirements and tougher margin and collateral requirements for securities financing and derivatives transactions. Clinton would also work to put in place tough global rules for winding down large and internationally active financial institutions when their failure poses a risk to the global financial system. As a former secretary of state, Clinton has the know-how to work with international partners to make progress on critical economic issues. As president, she would deploy that know-how to make the international financial system stronger and more secure.
  • Bolster the financial system’s defenses against the threat of cyber attacks. In recent years, major cyber attacks have compromised the personal and financial information of millions of consumers.[xxxi] But Clinton understands that lapses in cyber security don’t only affect consumers—they also have the potential to threaten the stability of the financial system and the economy as a whole. That’s why Clinton would encourage regulators to consider cyber-preparedness as a significant part of their assessments of financial institutions. She would also seek to strengthen the sharing of timely cyber threat information between the government and the private sector,[xxxii] promote the integration of better security practices into agreements with third-party vendors,[xxxiii] and focus on rapid detection and response to limit the damage of breaches that do occur.[xxxiv]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2015, 02:13 PM
 
4,739 posts, read 10,406,854 times
Reputation: 4186
What Clinton gets from Wall Street is lots and lots of cash...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2015, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
7,734 posts, read 5,482,044 times
Reputation: 5968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockside View Post
Any "reform" written by Hillary will be drafted by the big firms on Wall St and will be done to benefit Wall St, especially the bigger firms.
This is definitely a big possibility. A huge complaint of Dodd-Frank is that there are some indicators that the increased banking regulation disproportionately effects the community banks around the country, because the large institutions more easily cope. Consolidation in the community bank industry has long been occuring before Dodd-Frank was enacted but rates have increased quite substantially.

Does anyone have any opinions on state's being allowed to create their own public banks?

The Bank of North Dakota has proved to be extremely successful supporting the overall community bank ecosystem in ND.

The Case for a State-Owned Bank

In my opinion, if we are talking realistically, the big 6 are not going to be broken up anytime soon. Instead, Dodd-Frank should be reworked so that it is much more friendly and less regulatory towards small community banks along with strengthening risk controls on the institutions that actually do pose a risk to upending the economy again. Will this happen? Probably not, so much misinformation goes out sometimes, like the community banking industry opposing the Volcker Act even though it doesn't apply to Banks with less than $10B in assets, the very definition of a "community" bank.

Here's what's going on with the Dodd-Frank Act

^Interesting data about consolidations throughout all types of banks.

In my opinion, due to population growth and technological advancement, it is throwing a lot of smaller companies economies of scale off so much so that the people making the real decisions see more value in merging with a competitor. Doubling the revenue, while only having one expense sheet. We are seeing it nearly every industry. Profits go up, while thousands get laid off.

Quote:
"Essentially, we’re getting bigger and bigger companies that need global proportions to survive and prosper," said Steven Davidoff Solomon, a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law. "In a number of markets, you’re going from four players to three, possibly three players to two. And companies are trying to get dominant positions in the market before they themselves are acquired."
What's Behind the Corporate Mega Mergers
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2015, 09:48 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,670,896 times
Reputation: 14737
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedirtypirate View Post
For those who support Sanders, what is your opinion on the fact that the major banks are losing their market share?


Commercial banks' concentration of marketshare of deposits is a relatively minor issue. The fact that reserve requirements are so low that banks barely even care about attracting deposits anymore, well, maybe that's an issue.

What the issue between Hillary vs. Bernie comes down to, is really one of vigilance. Regardless of whether the topic is mortgages, derivatives, taxation, Fed policy, commercial bank regulation, etc., you can generally count on Bernie to side with the vast majority of American wage-earners who do not have any wealth to speak of.

When it comes to Hillary, she is obviously a supporter of ensuring the status quo. She will whittle down her statements into something meaningless like, "I would consider [vague proposal] if [vague condition] were met." Nobody really trusts her to take a holistic approach to finance that benefits the American people.

Last edited by le roi; 12-14-2015 at 09:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:56 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top