“I’m in town & feel like hanging out but not up for going too far.” —
who wants to have cocktails with someone who isn’t up for going all the way.
Speaking of which….
does Lech want to tell everyone who he is drinking with this wkend?
“systemic risk generated in one part of a financial conglomerate can, as we have recently seen, infect the entire organization and destablize the U.S. financial system.”
Completely agree with this, hence why I think the Volcker Rule makes sense, subject to where the boundaries of permitted / not permitted activites are drawn.
I don’t see your point about ‘taxpayer subsidies’. Do you mean because some of the deposits are FDIC insured?
Or because the government affects the money supply?
In particular, DIBS, I would like to know if the taxpayers will get a payment as compensation for their subsidizing proprietary trading if it makes a lot of money, or if instead they will just be expected to fund a bailout if it goes badly.
It just occurred to me that the premise of our earlier discussion was flawed.
The Volcker Rule does not prohibit derivatives activities by banks. The Volcker Rule prohibits proprietary trading and investments in hedge funds and private equity funds. The Volcker Rule applies to banks and their affiliates (including those that are not insured depository institutions).
The “Lincoln Amendment” prohibits FDIC insured depository institutions from engaging in swaps / derivatives activities. These activities can still be carried out by nonbank affiliates.
Senator Bachus is complaining that banks and their affiliates are prohibited from proprietary trading – i.e., making speculative trades.
Banks and their affiliates benefit, directly and indirectly, from taxpayer subsidized funding. Also, systemic risk generated in one part of a financial conglomerate can, as we have recently seen, infect the entire organization and destablize the U.S. financial system.
So please tell us why Sen. Bauchus is correct that taxpayers should subsidize speculative trading and, notwithstanding very recent experience to the contrary, we should be satisfied that it does not present a risk to the U.S. financial system as a whole.
etson,
I believe I can. I’m working until the late afternoon and then going to a concert at 8. Any place that serves dinner is fine w/me.
“I’m in town & feel like hanging out but not up for going too far.” —
who wants to have cocktails with someone who isn’t up for going all the way.
Speaking of which….
does Lech want to tell everyone who he is drinking with this wkend?
“systemic risk generated in one part of a financial conglomerate can, as we have recently seen, infect the entire organization and destablize the U.S. financial system.”
Completely agree with this, hence why I think the Volcker Rule makes sense, subject to where the boundaries of permitted / not permitted activites are drawn.
I don’t see your point about ‘taxpayer subsidies’. Do you mean because some of the deposits are FDIC insured?
Or because the government affects the money supply?
In particular, DIBS, I would like to know if the taxpayers will get a payment as compensation for their subsidizing proprietary trading if it makes a lot of money, or if instead they will just be expected to fund a bailout if it goes badly.
“By blowfish on November 5, 2010 1:56 PM
actually, i could have contributed to everything in lech’s list except #9”
HA!
Etson, wish I could, but I’ve got this thing tomorrow night.
donatella,
National Grid will pay for the Gas Boiler,
if you convert.
the homeowner has to pay for the installation.
would probably pay for itself within
5 years. plus it’s less messy.
will def. consider.
Yes, because the actions of any one in a category automatically define all members of that category.
bxgrl,
that won’t work anymore.
This is supposed to be good news!
cheer up and I’ll even give you an
RNC pin at the next gathering,
I’ve got a couple of extra ones lying around. :o)
OK DIBS, back to the subject of the Volcker Rule.
It just occurred to me that the premise of our earlier discussion was flawed.
The Volcker Rule does not prohibit derivatives activities by banks. The Volcker Rule prohibits proprietary trading and investments in hedge funds and private equity funds. The Volcker Rule applies to banks and their affiliates (including those that are not insured depository institutions).
The “Lincoln Amendment” prohibits FDIC insured depository institutions from engaging in swaps / derivatives activities. These activities can still be carried out by nonbank affiliates.
Senator Bachus is complaining that banks and their affiliates are prohibited from proprietary trading – i.e., making speculative trades.
Banks and their affiliates benefit, directly and indirectly, from taxpayer subsidized funding. Also, systemic risk generated in one part of a financial conglomerate can, as we have recently seen, infect the entire organization and destablize the U.S. financial system.
So please tell us why Sen. Bauchus is correct that taxpayers should subsidize speculative trading and, notwithstanding very recent experience to the contrary, we should be satisfied that it does not present a risk to the U.S. financial system as a whole.