Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BigBearJohn

(11,410 posts)
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 04:16 AM Feb 2016

What 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

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What Would Actually Happen If We Broke Up the Banks? (Original Post) BigBearJohn Feb 2016 OP
It's only in the last ~20 years or so that banks have become too big to fail nationalize the fed Feb 2016 #1
Pretty easy to see where the problem lies madokie Feb 2016 #2
In fairness the 2008 mergers were ones of survival Trekologer Feb 2016 #6
All life on earth would perish ... mhatrw Feb 2016 #3
For the 99% it couldn't be any worse thsn what's happened to us so far. hobbit709 Feb 2016 #4
Goldman Sachs is only a "bank" in an extremely technical sense Recursion Feb 2016 #5

nationalize the fed

(2,169 posts)
1. It's only in the last ~20 years or so that banks have become too big to fail
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 04:32 AM
Feb 2016

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)
2. Pretty easy to see where the problem lies
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 04:52 AM
Feb 2016

I remember the mantra of we gotta get government off our backs. this is what that got us.

thanks

Trekologer

(997 posts)
6. In fairness the 2008 mergers were ones of survival
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 08:56 AM
Feb 2016

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.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
5. Goldman Sachs is only a "bank" in an extremely technical sense
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 08:10 AM
Feb 2016

They're basically the last remaining pure-proprietary IB.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What Would Actually Happe...