General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat Would Actually Happen If We Broke Up the Banks?
Every year, the Financial Stability Board publishes a global list of "systemically important banks"; Bernie Sanders believes these banks should not exist. Were anything to go wrong at Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Wells Fargo or the like, it would be 2008 all over again, complete with government bailouts, a Tea Party resurgence and Occupy Everywheres. Breaking up these banks seems prudent.
But there'd be a funny side effect to Sanders getting his way on this: bank shareholders and clever bank employees would probably make fortunes.
First, an irony: in January 2015, a Goldman Sachs stock analyst published a note suggesting that rival JPMorgan Chase should split itself into either two or four publicly traded companies creating as much as "25 percent potential upside." JPMorgan's consumer banking, business banking, investment banking and asset-management divisions would all be worth more on their own, the argument goes. Well, if it's true for JPMorgan, it's probably true for Goldman Sachs as well. Goldman has an investment banking business, an asset-management business, a merchant banking business and a real-estate business. As standalone businesses, they might well be worth more than Goldman is worth now, and any current shareholder of Goldman would make a quick profit.
Because of a fairly sticky conglomerate discount, the stocks of companies with diversified holdings are worth less than the sum of their parts. We have seen this before. In 1982, the government broke up AT&T into a series of regional phone companies that, over the following decades, expanded, contracted, competed, innovated and mutated into an industry full of (rather large) companies worth far more than what AT&T would be worth today had the breakup never happened. While not every corporate spin-off would be so successful, this has largely been a reliable way of unlocking value within public companies. In a pecuniary way, bank shareholders should welcome a successful Sanders presidency.
Sanders has the right idea about shrinking banks. But he'll probably make a lot of rich people richer in the process, and he'll definitely have to find a way to deal with the hedge funds next.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/what-would-actually-happen-if-we-broke-up-the-banks-20160209#ixzz3zkcbohQV
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)Why have the American people allowed this to happen?
Big Banks: Now Even Too Bigger to Fail
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-04-19/big-banks-now-even-too-bigger-to-fail
This nation thrived with competition, regulation and de-centralization. All of that is gone.
Obama bailed out Banks on the backs of the middle class and no one cared
madokie
(51,076 posts)I remember the mantra of we gotta get government off our backs. this is what that got us.
thanks
Trekologer
(997 posts)Washington Mutual, Bear Sterns, Countrywide, Merrill Lynch, and Wachovia were all teetering on the edge of default (or had defaulted) when they were acquired by JPMorgan Chase, BoA, and Wells Fargo (Citigroup wasn't in a position to acquire anyone).
When a bank fails, regulators transfer the failed bank's deposits to a sound one. The size of those failures necessitated an already large bank to take over. Regulators could have probably split the assets further into multiple smaller banks but it would have taken time to do so and depositors likely wouldn't have access to their funds during that period.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)or so some would have us believe.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)They're basically the last remaining pure-proprietary IB.