"No warning can save people determined to grow suddently rich" - Lord Overstone

  • 11 hours The FANG Stock Investors Should Avoid
  • 1 day Is This The Death Of The iPhone X?
  • 2 days Is London Still The Financial Capital Of The World?
  • 2 days Is Gold Staging A Comeback?
  • 2 days The $200 Million ‘Golden Parachute’ For Rupert Murdoch
  • 2 days Bitcoin’s Breakout Is Not As Bullish As it Seems
  • 2 days Farmers On Edge As Trade War Hits U.S. Grain Shipments
  • 2 days Is Silver Poised For A Massive Break Out?
  • 2 days Meet The Hedge Fund Billionaires Club
  • 3 days The Next Housing Crisis Could Be Right Around The Corner
  • 3 days Cartel's, Pirates And Corruption Cost Mexico $1.6 Billion Per Year
  • 3 days Africa’s Fastest Growing Economy
  • 3 days The Blockchain Boom Hits The Utilities Sector
  • 3 days Why Smart Money Is Selling Off Right Before The Bell
  • 3 days Tech Giants Rally Ahead Of Earnings Reports
  • 3 days Global Debt Hits 225% Of GDP
  • 4 days The World’s First Trillionaire Will Be A Space Miner
  • 4 days How Student Debt Could Cause The Next Real Estate Crisis
  • 4 days This $550 Billion Industry Is Betting On Bitcoin
  • 4 days One Commodity Set To Soar On Russian Sanctions
Is This The Death Of The iPhone X?

Is This The Death Of The iPhone X?

Apple’s stock has slipped more…

The FANG Stock Investors Should Avoid

The FANG Stock Investors Should Avoid

Thanks to a private data…

I Say, Let 'Em Crash

John Mauldin wrote a piece last week about Brown-Vitter, a piece of legislation making its way through Congress that has a "simple" approach to getting the government out of the bank-rescue business: for big banks (basically defined in the legislation as banks who use derivatives to structure customer deals), a massive capital buffer is demanded, which would effectively take big US banks out of the derivative business and greatly increase costs and decrease variety of derivative and other solutions (many bonds issued by corporate entities are coupled with a swap to the dealer, which would now be subject to a massive capital charge).

The appeal of the legislation is its simplicity. It simply destroys the business model of the largest banks.

Moreover, it doesn't solve the "too big to fail" problem. It merely changes the hurdle of how much bad stuff needs to happen, in order to cause a bank to fail in the first place and to require saving. It wouldn't cause the government to exit the position of writing puts on banks: it would merely move the strike prices of those puts.

I will say that in my interactions with Wall Street banks, I have not run across anyone who is concerned, at least not yet, that Brown-Vitter will actually become law. It is simply too blunt of an approach - akin to burning a town down in order to keep it from being flooded.

The cynic in me says that all of this legislation is designed mainly to produce big contributions from banks to the reelection campaigns of public officials. There is a much simpler way to get the government out of the too-big-to-fail business, which furthermore does not involve causing massive side effects in the derivatives and other markets. Congress could simply pass a rule that prohibits the government (including the Fed) from bailing out a private enterprise. Problem solved, subsidy ended.

The Fed already has the power to close down and wind down insolvent banks. Of all of the Fed's powers, this is the one that has been used most successfully over the years. It isn't the failure of a bank that is the problem, but the chaotic failure of a bank that is the problem. Task the Fed with reducing the chaos inherent in large bank failures, and let the chips otherwise fall where they may.

 

Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment