- 7,116
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2008
- 3,132
- 1,421
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
gov't gonna make it rain
- 2,660
- 738
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
This actually make senses, but it won't happen.
- 1,787
- 58
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2004
Ironic--- considering Wall Street helped get him elected AND the fact he voted FOR the bailout.
This fraud is not sincere.
This fraud is not sincere.
- 1,296
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
JP Morgan's prop trading accounted for 1% of revenue, while GS's accounted for 10% of revenue. Stop reading ZeroHedge, it'sdisgusting.
No doubt they will if this goes through. And so will MS.
So shouldn't we be targeting derivatives rather than prop desks?
My two irks with this plan.
1) How will commercials banks be able to hedge positions? Simply loan money and hope for principal and interest to be paid? I think not.
2) If this does go through, which I think it won't, watch spreads on equities skyrocket since several market movers will be gone.
I don't think this will go through, but the timing of this announcement is kinda suspect. It just says Obama is more about pop politics than actualpolitics.
- 4,974
- 83
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2002
al audi
Banned
- 29,810
- 4,562
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2009
his IP address has already been flagged by the gov't
- 1,103
- 63
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2004
whats with americans and our resistance to change.
people don't want healthcare reform
people don't want banking reform
smh... keeping things the same will only get you the same result.
people don't want healthcare reform
people don't want banking reform
smh... keeping things the same will only get you the same result.
- 2,522
- 12
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
as an occasional reader, what's your beef with ZH?
- 549
- 11
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
JP Morgan's prop trading accounted for 1% of revenue, while GS's accounted for 10% of revenue. Stop reading ZeroHedge, it's disgusting.
No doubt they will if this goes through. And so will MS.
So shouldn't we be targeting derivatives rather than prop desks?
My two irks with this plan.
1) How will commercials banks be able to hedge positions? Simply loan money and hope for principal and interest to be paid? I think not.
2) If this does go through, which I think it won't, watch spreads on equities skyrocket since several market movers will be gone.
I don't think this will go through, but the timing of this announcement is kinda suspect. It just says Obama is more about pop politics than actual politics.
So maybe I was wrong to include JPM but you can't tell me that GS didn't make most of it's revenue from trading...
Total Trading and Principal Investments
$ 34,373
Total net revenues
$ 45,173
Besides that, I don't trust financial statements because the government basically gave these banks the right to pull Enron style accounting tricks so whoknows what the real numbers are. All I know is that GS derives most of it's revenue from trading. THIS plan brought up by Obama, no matter what hispolitical reasons, will end that. Paul Volcker has been wanting to break these banks up and I know this plan allows him a chance to do so.
Goldman Sachs will definitely drop it's status to continue trading. They're SUPPOSE TO. Goldman Sachs SHOULD NOT be a commercial bank and I'msurprised it took the administration this long to do something about it.
As for commercial banks hedging positions? They're NOT SUPPOSE TO. Commercial banks are suppose to be flush with deposits from everyday people. You hedgeto lower your exposure to excessive risks, commercial banks are NOT suppose to be exposed to excessive risks. By doing so they create the problems that led tothis financial crisis.
Market makers will be gone but more will replace them. There's money in making markets and I don't see that void being there for long. Even if spreadsrise in the short term, there will be lower volatility and lower volumes on the stock exchanges, removing the current situation we have today. Sure it'sbad for traders but it's better in the long run. You can't have your cake and eat it, especially when most of the free world just took on huge taxresponsibilities preventing that cake from collapsing.
The timing is suspect but I hope they do this. The problem is banks are too big to fail, we need to make them smaller so that we don't have these sameproblems in 5-10 years.
As a side note, what's your beef with ZeroHedge? They're one of the few sources that provide good information.
- 617
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2006
This is exactly what's wrong.
The Fedz should not be bailing out private businesses. Nor should they be restricting them.
- 21,365
- 812
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2003
I have, I just assumed they were generously equipped high performance computers, but now it makes sense. I can imagine a time in the future whereartificial intelligence comes into play, in terms of trading.
Banks aren't really "private businesses". For example, if me and you don't like Bank of America, can we open up our own bank tocompete?
The Feds responsibility is to maintain the integrity of our banking industry. Which means they should bail out banks if it needs to be done to prevent adepression and they should be restricting them.
- 4,122
- 640
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
bring back the gold standard and the problems solved. they should have never bailed out the banks in the first place.
warmachine
Banned
- 543
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
didnt read it but Conservatives mad = me happy
- 4,404
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
The Wall Street fatalists blog that Doomsday is around the corner because the administration missed a prime opportunity for real financial regulation....thenwhen the President talks about instituting regulation Joe the Plumber (who imagines himself to be Carl Icahn) starts screaming bloody murder....
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
- 9,996
- 200
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
I don't see or know how this will affect me so I could not care less.
- 3,024
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2006
Originally Posted by XxHonchoxX
@ the Lamb.
- 7,122
- 1,149
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2003
man *##% wallstreet and all of those greedy !*@!+#+*!%+$+
- 36,415
- 11,199
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
Not really.. If you do that's good for the majority of Americans... In their eyes damned if you do damned if you don't.. But in realityfor this country we are damn if he doesn't.. So him doing (FINALLY) is appreciated.
- 1,298
- 15
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
market dropped 200 points today, thanks mr obama, there goes my apple shares
- 417
- 17
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2008
can someone knowledgeable explain how this will affect most of us, the average individuals?
- 1,784
- 137
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2004
Bro, I am the General Counsel of a multi-billion dollar private equity fund. Don't talk to me about not knowing what this means.
YOU sir, have no idea what something like this could mean. Bsically, Obama decided that banks shouldn't invest in certain things because he deems them toorisky. %$@ is the president of the US making determinations as to what is "too risky" for banks to invest in? The fund I work for has NEVER lostmoney for its investors, some of whom are the large banks noted in the article.
- 617
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2006
which fund . . . ?
And yes, the sycophantic populists will never admit their hero can do any wrong.
I've said it before, Obama is clueless. Up until recently, he was just a "community organizer." He thinks society is a chess board and theexecutive office gives him authority to move the pawns according to his ill defined, subjective view of "fairness."
Oh, BTW - why isn't he clamping down on GSE's?