Report This Ad (full site)
Fark.com

Back To Business
   Nine of the largest banks outline their "living wills". More than 100 additional banks are required to submit plans by next December

11 Jul 2012 03:28 PM   |   1188 clicks   |   BusinessWeek
Add Comment
Showing 1-18 of 18 comments
Refresh
Atomic Spunk     
Still no comments? I expected at least 1 person to have posted the "JUMP, YOU F**KERS!" poster by now.

11 Jul 2012 03:46 PM
Reply
Arkanaut     
Don't cry for me, JP Morgan...

11 Jul 2012 04:04 PM
Reply
Lost Thought 00     
1) Why should the banks have any say in the process? Does anyone else get to pick-and-choose their bankruptcy process?

2) They will still claim "too big to fail" and be rewarded for doing so

3) Just dismantle them now, while the economy is reasonable, thereby preventing potential shock down the road

11 Jul 2012 04:19 PM
Reply
ha-ha-guy     
I guess "Deploy the golden parachutes and fark everyone else" technically is a will.

11 Jul 2012 04:37 PM
Reply
AliceBToklasLives     
photos.oldva.org

Would shoot 'too big to fail' companies into a thousand pieces.

/ok, Teddy only broke up select industries, but still . . . .

11 Jul 2012 04:53 PM
Reply
Talondel     
How can you tell that the relationship between the free market and government regulators is completely farked?

The one thing that even the most die hard laissez faire capitalist agrees government regulators should do (break up monopolies and 'too big to fail' businesses in order to promote competition and prevent catastrophic failures) is the one thing that government regulators don't have the balls to do.

11 Jul 2012 05:41 PM
Reply
Scipio     
Talondel: How can you tell that the relationship between the free market and government regulators is completely farked?

The one thing that even the most die hard laissez faire capitalist agrees government regulators should do (break up monopolies and 'too big to fail' businesses in order to promote competition and prevent catastrophic failures) is the one thing that government regulators don't have the balls to do.


QFT

11 Jul 2012 06:04 PM
Reply
hammettman    [TotalFark]  
Since I was a farked over Bank of America customer, please, allow me to write BofA's will, should when they fail.

To whom it may concern, if you are reading this, then that means that we have failed. Please, please, hold your applause for later, and get on with the business of dispensation. It is our sincere desire to be cremated. Yes, every building, branch and billboard with the BofA name/logo, should be burned to a crisp. Subsequently, the ashes should be dumped on the houses of senior BofA management (those that have survived customer assault). It is also our wish that any and all debts accrued by BofA be attached to any surviving management. Go after them, down to the director level.

11 Jul 2012 06:30 PM
Reply
janzee     
injectionletale.e-monsite.com

11 Jul 2012 07:17 PM
Reply
Gunny Walker    [TotalFark]  
Isn't this like letting a murderer choose his form of execution?

i22.photobucket.com

11 Jul 2012 08:03 PM
Reply
HotIgneous Intruder     
How about no.
When they die, they're simply, finally, permanently DEAD. You know, like people.

11 Jul 2012 08:06 PM
Reply
Atomic Spunk     
HotIgneous Intruder: How about no.
When they die, they're simply, finally, permanently DEAD. You know, like people.


People have wills and a probate process that addresses the disposition of their assets and the handling of their liabilities. So yeah, like people.

11 Jul 2012 08:27 PM
Reply
Debeo Summa Credo     
Any of you farking morons actually read TFA? Regulators are forcing banks to come up with worst case wind down scenarios to prevent the uncontrolled spiral we saw with lehman et al. This is a good thing that you should be applauding.

But nevermind, commence with your derp.

11 Jul 2012 08:51 PM
Reply
Gunny Walker    [TotalFark]  
Debeo Summa Credo: Any of you farking morons actually read TFA? Regulators are forcing banks to come up with worst case wind down scenarios to prevent the uncontrolled spiral we saw with lehman et al. This is a good thing that you should be applauding.

But nevermind, commence with your derp.


If we need a plan, we are too close to that now. It is the regulators job to steer us away from needing such a scenario. And since the FDIC will have to back the failed bank, maybe they should be the one making such plans. This is like asking a five year old how to handle the fact that we go through candy too quickly. If these banks can't be trusted enough to keep themselves afloat, why should we listen to them when they prove they can't be trusted?

11 Jul 2012 09:05 PM
Reply
scathing1     
This is a good start. Now, they need to outline a plan to claw back the money given to employees and shareholders in order to make their next failure revenue neutral for the US taxpayer.

11 Jul 2012 11:13 PM
Reply
Debeo Summa Credo     
scathing1: This is a good start. Now, they need to outline a plan to claw back the money given to employees and shareholders in order to make their next failure revenue neutral for the US taxpayer.

Well, for fully private financial institutions at least, TARP was revenue neutral or revenue positive for taxpayers. All the big banks paid back their tarp proceeds at a profit to the taxpayer- Goldman, Morgan stanley, JPM, bank of America, citibank, wells, etc. AIG will be close and will somewhat depend on what their stock does over the next year.

We did lose money on chrysler, however, and are almost certain to lose big on GM. And of course the huge losses on Fannie and Freddie will swamp all of that.

12 Jul 2012 07:39 AM
Reply
Debeo Summa Credo     
Gunny Walker: Debeo Summa Credo: Any of you farking morons actually read TFA? Regulators are forcing banks to come up with worst case wind down scenarios to prevent the uncontrolled spiral we saw with lehman et al. This is a good thing that you should be applauding.

But nevermind, commence with your derp.

If we need a plan, we are too close to that now. It is the regulators job to steer us away from needing such a scenario. And since the FDIC will have to back the failed bank, maybe they should be the one making such plans. This is like asking a five year old how to handle the fact that we go through candy too quickly. If these banks can't be trusted enough to keep themselves afloat, why should we listen to them when they prove they can't be trusted?


Of course these plans are subject to approval by regulators. It's a worthwhile process- regulators are saying "ok, smart guy, how would you wind yourself down in a crisis scenario" and making the banks provide plans. The regulator can then look at all the plans for all banks, get a better understanding of where the risks lay, and identify problem areas where all or some banks need to fix to be better prepared for such a scenario.

It isn't an absolute guarantee that nothing will go awry, (and there's no way to predict ahead of time 100% of what might go wrong), but it's a very worthwhile process IMO.

12 Jul 2012 07:44 AM
Reply
Nemo's Brother     
Do we know which banks?

12 Jul 2012 08:29 AM
Reply
Showing 1-18 of 18 comments
Refresh
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Business

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party