Wednesday, 27 January 2016

Money in the bank?.......................from Rico

The expression "that's money in the bank" has taken an entirely new and different meaning today. Whose money it is has changed.
- Bear with me a moment. I promise not to rant about Glass-Steagall or Frank-Dodd.
In only a couple decades 37 US banks became 4 banks. "Too big to fail" (TBTF) banks.
- And so far, seemingly "too big to prosecute" (TBTP) banks.
Elimination of competition has allowed the concentration of bad decisions, and for an extraordinary level of arrogance.
- Freedom from the consequences of stupidity, or unethical and illegal activities, tends to do that, you know.
While the hubris remains, there has been no such immunity from really bad banking decisions or from their concentrated gambling addiction [read: synthetic derivatives], however.
Remember 2008 crisis?
- Taxpayer-funded "bail outs" were a one-off solution to a massive banking failure (which was 'sold' as a "liquidity" problem at the time and not as the "solvency" problem it actually was), but politically cannot be repeated.
This is why the US banking laws have since been quietly 'changed' to reflect depositor's money as now being owned by the bank at the point of deposit, and no longer owned by the depositor (who is considered to have made an 'unsecured loan' to said bank).
- As 'unsecured creditors' all depositors have quietly, and largely without their knowledge, been 'moved' to the very end of the line of claimants the next time a bank fails. Their erstwhile money (the bank's money) can, and will, be used to "bail in" the bank.
So what?
- This what. In a banking failure the 'depositors' won't ever see that money again when the big casino goes el busto, but most consequences will
again be dodged by the banks (think Cyprus, the beta template for this solution).
Haircuts for thee, but not for me. The bank never takes the haircut.

No comments: