Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Bank of America, bad for America


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Bank of America, bad for America Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Bank of America, bad for America - 10/19/2011 3:30:50 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/bofa-said-to-split-regulators-over-moving-merrill-derivatives-to-bank-unit.html

So BoA holds a lot of liabilities in derivatives in its Merril Lynch subsidiary. They do not have the assets to cover those liabilities and the people and institutions they owe all that money to want it. So BoA has started shifting these liabilities to the retail bank subsidiary. The problem is when the bankruptcy law got changed a few years ago derivative counterparties got moved to the front of the line in bankruptcies. So BoA could be forced, if this movement of liabilities is completed, to pay of the derivative counterparties with depositors money. Leaving the FDIC and eventually taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars in FDIC insured deposites.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Bank of America, bad for America - 10/19/2011 3:39:34 PM   
provfivetine


Posts: 410
Joined: 2/17/2011
Status: offline
Good Find.

The key-phrase here: "The Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. disagree over the transfers, which are being requested by counterparties, said the people, who asked to remain anonymous because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly. The Fed has signaled that it favors moving the derivatives to give relief to the bank holding company, while the FDIC, which would have to pay off depositors in the event of a bank failure, is objecting."

Not surprising to see the FED encouraging this. Let's just say that if all the kiddies at OWS knew about this, then they'd shift their protest down a couple of blocks to 33 Liberty Street.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Bank of America, bad for America - 10/19/2011 3:46:15 PM   
Iamsemisweet


Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline
Jesus.  Another unintended consequence of a knee jerk solution to a crisis.  In this case, the decision to virtually force B of A to buy Merrill Lynch. 

I am no fan of B of A but:
quote:

Congressional testimony by Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis, as well as internal emails released by the House Oversight Committee, indicate that Bank of America was threatened with the firings of the management and board of Bank of America as well as damaging the relationship between the bank and federal regulators, if Bank of America did not go through with the acquisition of Merrill Lynch.[/link]


[link=http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5A4F5W_PygQ]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5A4F5W_PygQ


So, when people demand that student loans be forgiven, or mortgage foreclosures stopped, or whatever the cause of the day is, they might do well to remember that there are always unintended consequences.  This is a great example of that. Now, if only the feds could figure that out.


_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to provfivetine)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Bank of America, bad for America - 10/19/2011 4:24:01 PM   
tj444


Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline
Hmmm, well, Warren Buffet invested 5 billion in b of a back in august... guess money just doesnt go as far as it once did...

I just wonder if this little maneouver is at Buffets behest.. he seems to like to use every angle to his advantage and then brag about it (like his low tax rate).. if this move causes the govt/FDIC to cover lost deposits, that imo makes buffet a hypocrite siphoning off $ from the taxpayers he claims pay too much as it is...

< Message edited by tj444 -- 10/19/2011 4:25:07 PM >


_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Bank of America, bad for America - 10/20/2011 4:28:08 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

Good Lord, people. Just stop with the nonsense here, please.

In the first place, the Federal Reserve Bank is not a "government agency" as compared to any proper government agency. It is a government chartered independent corporation, conducting business at the behest of and according to the mandates as set out by the US congress; Alan ("I was wrong, sorry!") Greenspan was brought on board by Reagan after tossing Volker overboard after doing the dirty work of eliminating 16% inflation, for express purpose of implementing his "free market" delusions (such description as he now readily admits) to the most crucial part of any economy, that of the financial industry. The Republican registered and Republican Presidential appointee Bernanke only continued Greenspan's mantra of "we will never take away the punch bowl, no matter how far things get out of hand (i.e., keep interest rates well below what all market and macroeconomic indications say it otherwise should be, even well into an obvious bubble), we can just fix it after it crashes, no worries."

So here we are, three years later ...


What is the big deal about the government foisting Merrill Lynch upon Bank of America? If you are saying that "the government shouldn't tell banks what other banks they have to buy; so can we have our 3 trillion dollars back now?" then I'm with you. Unfortunately, the latter event will never happen, so here we are. The US Treasury took on all of AIG's credit default swaps at 100 cents on the dollar, when prior to the bailout they were begging for 40 cents, being offered 20 cents, and Hank Paulson throwing money at ALL the largest banks as fast as he could get away with it, as smoke for benefiting his compatriots at Goldman, with various stipulations placed upon the 'lesser' banks. The government did NOT force B of A to buy the shyster loan origination no-doc sub-prime scammers Countrywide Mortgage. B of A made that move in full anticipation of the bailouts, buying that company precisely because they were so far under water, knowing full well the bonanza yet to come. All the government said was; "we are having to bail out ALL you dumbfucks, and since you were the biggest dumfuck of all, you get Merrill. Congratulations." One of the precious few good things the financial-oligarchy-disguised-as-US-financial-regulation ever did.

Have you ever heard Ken Lewis talk? Or even far worse, his predecessor Hugh McColl? Starting from NCNB, all those fuckheads ever knew or were ever able to figure out was; "we don't know much about how to run banks or any other business, but les' jus' keep buyin' all them uther banks an' we won't never have to  figger it out." I ran sound for their management meetings and seminars. Trust me on that one.

They deserve A LOT worse than Merrill; they were lucky to get away that easy, trust me.


Lastly:

Warren Buffet never "bragged" about his relatively low tax rate, he pointed it out for purpose of proposing that he and his compadres are vastly undercharged for the benefit obtained from this market system that all the rest of us are paying for. Are you really that fucking dense? Keep it up and I'll propose that we take Merrill off of B of A's hands and let YOU have it. Anyways, I'm sure it is conducive to mental health for some to have such a cavalier attitude towards bank CDO fraud, mortgage origination fraud, and foreclosure fraud to top it all off. Fuck everybody else, their house, their job, AND the horse they rode in on. Do they teach that stuff in those "feel better about myself" classes? BTW, buying shares when the price is low, trying to improve management and operations, etc. is pretty much a standard procedure for the few who know how to do it right. If some of those few vote Republican, then just par for the course, we should presume. But if someone is fantastically good at it and happens to vote for the "wrong" party ...  "Hypocrite!" Yeah, hardly original, but we get it, even if you don't.

In any case, people seem to miss the fact that the " Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act" is/was/always will be completely swamped by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Trading Act. This part of the article is truly hilarious;

"In 2009, the Fed granted Section 23A exemptions to the banking arms of Ally Financial Inc., HSBC Holdings Plc, Fifth Third Bancorp, ING Groep NV, General Electric Co., Northern Trust Corp., CIT Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., among others, according to letters posted on the Fed’s website."

Awww, isn't that so cute? The Fed acting and pretending so earnestly that they are actually independent of those whom they are supposed to regulate.

Isn't that right, provfivetine? The Fed just doing what Obama beats them into doing, right? Stay in school son, the real world would not suit you at all.




< Message edited by Edwynn -- 10/20/2011 5:29:00 AM >

(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 5
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Bank of America, bad for America Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078