11–20 of 36 posts
Why should I care when credit unions have always treated me better? Banks don’t need to exist in a world where credit unions work. Credit unions need to be more directly tied to “left wing thought” in general. Most Bernie types hardly even talk about the role that banks (even public banks like this one) play in screwing the little person over beyond meme stuff like housing which isn’t even in their control.
Why should I care when credit unions have always treated me better? Banks don’t need to exist in a world where credit unions work. Credit unions need to be more directly tied to “left wing thought” in general. Most Bernie types hardly even talk about the role that banks (even public banks like this one) play in screwing the little person over beyond meme stuff like housing which isn’t even in their control.
Why should I care when credit unions have always treated me better? Banks don’t need to exist in a world where credit unions work. Credit unions need to be more directly tied to “left wing thought” in general. Most Bernie types hardly even talk about the role that banks (even public banks like this one) play in screwing the little person over beyond meme stuff like housing which isn’t even in their control.
How is BND screwing the little person?
Nice to see this posted. Understated in this is that BND also helped North Dakota avoid the worst of the mortgage crisis, and that the student loan program (combined with decent state universities) make education more affordable. As far as banks go, BND is a gem.
When I was in college, I took a number of Econ courses, and I still remember the Macro Econ professor talk about banks failing. This was in the mid 90's. He flat out said that a bank failing is something that just doesn't happen anymore. He pretty much said, you'll never see it happen. This is before they repealed the Glass-Steagall act. I still remember the mortgage crisis unfold in disbelief that they didn't see it…
A lot of British banks needed bailing out, but but building societies (mutuals owned by customers, traditionally mortgage lenders but mostly full service retail banks) were fine, but big banks and at least two former building societies that had demutualised were not.
From that point of view it sounds as though Bank of North Dakota sounds like another example of different ownership structures enabling greater stability than shareholder owned big banks do.
Why should I care when credit unions have always treated me better? Banks don’t need to exist in a world where credit unions work. Credit unions need to be more directly tied to “left wing thought” in general. Most Bernie types hardly even talk about the role that banks (even public banks like this one) play in screwing the little person over beyond meme stuff like housing which isn’t even in their control.
Part of what BND does is BND provide services to other local consumer banks who provide more consumer oriented services.
Can anyone who has a real world hands on experiential understanding of the banking system explain to me what exactly bank “capital” is? I’m well aware reserve requirements aren’t a thing anymore and that bank capital is different. I would find it rather amusing if other banks’ liabilities can somehow be defined as a bank’s capital, because it would mean bank capitalization in aggregate is really just banks expanding…
What you are probably more curious about is regulatory capital. That unfortunately is very complex. Each regulator will have different formulas for how to calculate that (some of which are informed by state or national law or even international treaty).
Regulators generally are pretty hyper focused on contagion risk when it comes to nested balance sheets. Though obviously there are cases where new financial instruments or changed regulatory regimes leave the regulators flat footed (see 2008) it’s reasonably rare in first world western style economies.
Nice to see this posted. Understated in this is that BND also helped North Dakota avoid the worst of the mortgage crisis, and that the student loan program (combined with decent state universities) make education more affordable. As far as banks go, BND is a gem.
When I was in college, I took a number of Econ courses, and I still remember the Macro Econ professor talk about banks failing. This was in the mid 90's. He flat out said that a bank failing is something that just doesn't happen anymore. He pretty much said, you'll never see it happen. This is before they repealed the Glass-Steagall act. I still remember the mortgage crisis unfold in disbelief that they didn't see it…
Why should I care when credit unions have always treated me better? Banks don’t need to exist in a world where credit unions work. Credit unions need to be more directly tied to “left wing thought” in general. Most Bernie types hardly even talk about the role that banks (even public banks like this one) play in screwing the little person over beyond meme stuff like housing which isn’t even in their control.
Can anyone who has a real world hands on experiential understanding of the banking system explain to me what exactly bank “capital” is? I’m well aware reserve requirements aren’t a thing anymore and that bank capital is different. I would find it rather amusing if other banks’ liabilities can somehow be defined as a bank’s capital, because it would mean bank capitalization in aggregate is really just banks expanding…
Uhh, where did you hear this?
How is BND's success influenced by the very small size of its assets held relative to other banks? The BNY would have assets comparable to those of a major commercial bank.
BND is interesting because it’s literally North Dakota, the states, banker. BNY governmental association is long gone in comparison.