Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America will soon see a wave of bank mergers?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 451 posts

Re: America will soon see a wave of bank mergers?

#21

Post by mtlmtlmtlmtl »

wesapien wrote: post #16
cyclecount wrote: post #2

All of the rules put in place after 2008 are being ignored; the number of banks in the US pre-2008 financial crisis was about 31k. Now there are close to 3000. After this wave of mergers, there might be around 1000! And a few will be so large that they can make insane bets, betting on risky and novel new investment vehicles that will (maybe initially) pay off handsomely before ultimately failing dramatically. This wi…

You guys should be flipping cars when bank execs didn't get jail time for the financial crisis

Well America has plenty of outrage, but they're utterly divided and most that outrage just goes into poopooing the other side, instead of something productive like real demonstrations and protests with a real purpose. Instead we get outrage protests mainly designed for extremist groups to waste their time fighting eachother and playing at civil war.

Re: America will soon see a wave of bank mergers?

#22

Post by RandomLensman »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #6
cyclecount wrote: post #2

All of the rules put in place after 2008 are being ignored; the number of banks in the US pre-2008 financial crisis was about 31k. Now there are close to 3000. After this wave of mergers, there might be around 1000! And a few will be so large that they can make insane bets, betting on risky and novel new investment vehicles that will (maybe initially) pay off handsomely before ultimately failing dramatically. This wi…

Financial speculation is zero sum, isn't it? So the fewer banks there are the more each one gets exposed to both sides? Your bank provides services for a person who monopolises some commodity, you have billions to loan out; but all your millions of other customers are hit by the price of that commodity and all deposit less, wiping out any increase in deposits. Doesn't that mean unless they are specialised banks, that…

Why would financial speculation be zero sum (or how do you define financial speculation here)?

Re: America will soon see a wave of bank mergers?

#23

Post by mandmandam »

Mistletoe wrote: post #4
cyclecount wrote: post #2

All of the rules put in place after 2008 are being ignored; the number of banks in the US pre-2008 financial crisis was about 31k. Now there are close to 3000. After this wave of mergers, there might be around 1000! And a few will be so large that they can make insane bets, betting on risky and novel new investment vehicles that will (maybe initially) pay off handsomely before ultimately failing dramatically. This wi…

Am I too tinfoil hat to think the big 4 planned it like this all along? I guess one could ask why WOULDN’T they have meetings trying to engineer exactly what is happening?

Well, to accomplish something like that, they'd have to have hundreds of (past, present, and future) employees, dotted over dozens of institutions (media, regulatory and political).

They'd need the tacit permission of the other industries their owners are invested in.

And, they'd need tremendous amounts of capital. Plus a history of grand collusion and unethical behavior. And leverage against anyone that might call them out.

So... I've got nothing. I will say that failing to investigate this possibility seems naive; as would expecting a genuine investigation.

Re: America will soon see a wave of bank mergers?

#25

Post by govolckurself »

wesapien wrote: post #16
cyclecount wrote: post #2

All of the rules put in place after 2008 are being ignored; the number of banks in the US pre-2008 financial crisis was about 31k. Now there are close to 3000. After this wave of mergers, there might be around 1000! And a few will be so large that they can make insane bets, betting on risky and novel new investment vehicles that will (maybe initially) pay off handsomely before ultimately failing dramatically. This wi…

You guys should be flipping cars when bank execs didn't get jail time for the financial crisis

[dead]

Re: America will soon see a wave of bank mergers?

#26

Post by stcroixx »

wesapien wrote: post #16
cyclecount wrote: post #2

All of the rules put in place after 2008 are being ignored; the number of banks in the US pre-2008 financial crisis was about 31k. Now there are close to 3000. After this wave of mergers, there might be around 1000! And a few will be so large that they can make insane bets, betting on risky and novel new investment vehicles that will (maybe initially) pay off handsomely before ultimately failing dramatically. This wi…

You guys should be flipping cars when bank execs didn't get jail time for the financial crisis

That’s hardly effective and those cars belong to other citizens, who would just then hate you and never support your ‘cause’. Tantrums don’t get rewarded.

Re: America will soon see a wave of bank mergers?

#27

Post by govolckurself »

Mistletoe wrote: post #4
cyclecount wrote: post #2

All of the rules put in place after 2008 are being ignored; the number of banks in the US pre-2008 financial crisis was about 31k. Now there are close to 3000. After this wave of mergers, there might be around 1000! And a few will be so large that they can make insane bets, betting on risky and novel new investment vehicles that will (maybe initially) pay off handsomely before ultimately failing dramatically. This wi…

Am I too tinfoil hat to think the big 4 planned it like this all along? I guess one could ask why WOULDN’T they have meetings trying to engineer exactly what is happening?

[dead]

Re: America will soon see a wave of bank mergers?

#28

Post by nonethewiser »

passwordoops wrote: post #20

I've said it before, I'll say it again - "too big to fail" should be recast as "too big to exist" I'm not sure what the best solution is here, but making the big banks even bigger is not it. This is just going to make the banking system more concentrated and no concentrated market is good for anyone. Least of all because the past decade+ has set the precedent that the banks will be bailed out... If they're big enough

> This is just going to make the banking system more concentrated

More concentrated.

More highly regulated.

Closer to being absorbed by the state.

I'm not saying that's necessarily going to happen someday. But that is the direction it is (and has been) moving.

Re: America will soon see a wave of bank mergers?

#29

Post by brianmcc »

nonethewiser wrote: post #28
passwordoops wrote: post #20

I've said it before, I'll say it again - "too big to fail" should be recast as "too big to exist" I'm not sure what the best solution is here, but making the big banks even bigger is not it. This is just going to make the banking system more concentrated and no concentrated market is good for anyone. Least of all because the past decade+ has set the precedent that the banks will be bailed out... If they're big enough

> This is just going to make the banking system more concentrated More concentrated. More highly regulated. Closer to being absorbed by the state. I'm not saying that's necessarily going to happen someday. But that is the direction it is (and has been) moving.

Also closer to absorbing the state.

I'm not a tin foil hat person, but corporations growing larger than nation states just doesn't seem remotely far fetched. Which corporation will be first to sit at the UN table?

Re: America will soon see a wave of bank mergers?

#30

Post by chiefalchemist »

passwordoops wrote: post #20

I've said it before, I'll say it again - "too big to fail" should be recast as "too big to exist" I'm not sure what the best solution is here, but making the big banks even bigger is not it. This is just going to make the banking system more concentrated and no concentrated market is good for anyone. Least of all because the past decade+ has set the precedent that the banks will be bailed out... If they're big enough

Remember circa 2008 how "leader" after "leader" said that eight big banks was too few and that seven was a step in the wrong direction?

Remember that? Apparently, no one remembers. Or it was simply more political / leadership theatre of tell the proles one thing while doing the opposite. Perhaps both.

People complain about "the democracy" and they often falsely name names. It easy to blame a symptom when you don't understand the problem. And yet those same people are silent about the banks, power, cronie capitalism, etc.

Many are in denial. Others are able to control the narrative. In either case you can't solve root problems when you're not even willing to address them.

Post reply on HN