Moody's downgrades 15 of the world's biggest banks

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 3:38 AM GMT
    http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/234205-moodys-issues-broad-downgrades-on-big-banks

    Moody's Investors Service issued downgrades to 15 of the world's biggest banks Thursday, saying that they all had "significant exposure" to volatility and risk inherent in their global trading activities.

    Banks such as Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America were among the firms downgraded by the rating agency — a move that could require the banks to pony up billions in additional collateral to cover their derivatives transactions, and also make it more expensive for them to borrow.

    "All of the banks affected by today’s actions have significant exposure to the volatility and risk of outsized losses inherent to capital markets activities", said Greg Bauer, the firm's global banking managing director. "However, they also engage in other, often market leading business activities that are central to Moody’s assessment of their credit profiles. These activities can provide important ‘shock absorbers’ that mitigate the potential volatility of capital markets operations, but they also present unique risks and challenges."
    Moody's had announced earlier this year that it planned to review its rating rationale for global banks in the wake of the financial crisis, and had already downgraded two other banks before Thursday.

    The Swiss bank Credit Suisse was downgraded three notches by Moody's, while Morgan Stanley and UBS each saw their ratings drop two levels.

    As rumors of the downgrades spread among financial markets Thursday afternoon, stocks took a steep turn for the worse. The Dow Jones Industrial Average close the day down 250 points or nearly two percent, its second worst day of the year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 2:17 PM GMT


    lol @ SB.

    "Richard Shelby, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee and the one who proposed the changes to the Fed governance, voiced his reasons for why he felt the changes needed to be made: "It's an obvious conflict of interest […] It's basically a case where the banks are choosing or having a big voice in choosing their regulator. It's unheard of." Democratic Senator Jack Reed agreed, saying "The whole governance and operation of the Federal Reserve has to be reviewed and should be reviewed. I don't think we can just assume, you know, business as usual."[229]"

    ...from the version for dummies, which appears to be appropriate given your comment.
    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act[/url]


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 2:20 PM GMT
    meninlove said


    lol @ SB.

    "Richard Shelby, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee and the one who proposed the changes to the Fed governance, voiced his reasons for why he felt the changes needed to be made: "It's an obvious conflict of interest […] It's basically a case where the banks are choosing or having a big voice in choosing their regulator. It's unheard of." Democratic Senator Jack Reed agreed, saying "The whole governance and operation of the Federal Reserve has to be reviewed and should be reviewed. I don't think we can just assume, you know, business as usual."[229]"

    ...from the version for dummies, which appears to be appropriate given your comment.

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act[/url]

    Thank GAWD you didnt 'quote' sb..................... I didnt want to puke this early today!icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 2:33 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    lol @ SB.

    "Richard Shelby, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee and the one who proposed the changes to the Fed governance, voiced his reasons for why he felt the changes needed to be made: "It's an obvious conflict of interest […] It's basically a case where the banks are choosing or having a big voice in choosing their regulator. It's unheard of." Democratic Senator Jack Reed agreed, saying "The whole governance and operation of the Federal Reserve has to be reviewed and should be reviewed. I don't think we can just assume, you know, business as usual."[229]"

    ...from the version for dummies, which appears to be appropriate given your comment.
    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act[/url]




    "The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173) is a federal statute in the United States that was signed into law by President Barack Obama on July 21, 2010.[1] The Act implements financial regulatory reform sponsored by the Democratically controlled 111th United States Congress and the Obama administration. Passed as a response to the late-2000s recession, the Act brought the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United States since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression,[2][3][4] representing a significant change in the American financial regulatory environment affecting all Federal financial regulatory agencies and almost every aspect of the nation's financial services industry.[5][6] As with other major financial reforms, some legal and financial scholars on both sides of the political spectrum have criticized the law, arguing on the one hand that the reforms were insufficient to prevent another financial crisis or additional "bail outs" of financial institutions, and on the other hand that the reforms went too far and would unduly restrict the ability of banks and other financial institutions to make loans."

    While there are certainly some Republicans who supported the bill, the reality is that it's not accomplished what it set out to do - and it's not clear that it's made things better. The "too big to fail" banks have gotten even larger.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 2:54 PM GMT

    "While there are certainly some Republicans who supported the bill, the reality is that it's not accomplished what it set out to do - and it's not clear that it's made things better. The "too big to fail" banks have gotten even larger."

    Well now, there you go Riddler, some Democrats claimed it didn't go far enough, and agree with you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 3:07 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    "While there are certainly some Republicans who supported the bill, the reality is that it's not accomplished what it set out to do - and it's not clear that it's made things better. The "too big to fail" banks have gotten even larger."

    Well now, there you go Riddler, some Democrats claimed it didn't go far enough, and agree with you.


    Of course, there's also the issue that Republicans in the House and Senate have done their damnedest to ensure to the actual rule making is diluted so the law is defanged - as evident by the series of blow jobs the Republicans in the Senate gave Mr. Dimon last week.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 3:28 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    "While there are certainly some Republicans who supported the bill, the reality is that it's not accomplished what it set out to do - and it's not clear that it's made things better. The "too big to fail" banks have gotten even larger."

    Well now, there you go Riddler, some Democrats claimed it didn't go far enough, and agree with you.


    This was a policy initiated and pushed by Democrats. It failed - and frankly the way that many Democrats would have liked it to go would have made the situation far worse. I mean there are those like you who believe the lie that deregulation resulted in the financial crisis despite the evidence to the contrary.

    I'd note that the involvement of Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac has even increased in the mortgage markets.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 3:34 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    "While there are certainly some Republicans who supported the bill, the reality is that it's not accomplished what it set out to do - and it's not clear that it's made things better. The "too big to fail" banks have gotten even larger."

    Well now, there you go Riddler, some Democrats claimed it didn't go far enough, and agree with you.


    This was a policy initiated and pushed by Democrats. It failed - and frankly the way that many Democrats would have liked it to go would have made the situation far worse. I mean there are those like you who believe the lie that deregulation resulted in the financial crisis despite the evidence to the contrary.

    I'd note that the involvement of Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac has even increased in the mortgage markets.


    Wow. You never tire of the same debunked talking points.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 3:39 PM GMT


    riddler said, " I mean there are those like you who believe the lie that deregulation resulted in the financial crisis despite the evidence to the contrary. "

    LOL!

    Meanwhile our own Conservative leader's gov't is tightening borrowing rules etc.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 3:39 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    riddler78 said.. the reality is that it's not accomplished what it set out to do - and it's not clear that it's made things better. The "too big to fail" banks have gotten even larger.


    But it HAS accomplished what it set out to do, namely, generate thousands of pages of new regulations and generate thousands of new Federal government jobs for bureaucrats.



    I stand corrected - while conning others into believing the lie that the problem was a lack of regulation in the first place.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 3:43 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    riddler said, " I mean there are those like you who believe the lie that deregulation resulted in the financial crisis despite the evidence to the contrary. "

    LOL!

    Meanwhile our own Conservative leader's gov't is tightening borrowing rules etc.



    I think it would probably be a good thing if the CMHC were privatized. It's difficult to make the argument that anything regarding the CMHC represents some form of greater regulation while it's still backed by the Canadian government - which again highlights your lack of understanding of financial services.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 3:45 PM GMT
    Oh bull-tweed to you riddler. I don't bother using my brain in full gear with you, as you are entirely heartless and extremely conniving in your approach. I learned to stop doing that with you quite awhile back.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 3:53 PM GMT
    meninlove said Oh bull-tweed to you riddler. I don't bother using my brain in full gear with you, as you are entirely heartless and extremely conniving in your approach. I learned to stop doing that with you quite awhile back.

    Riddler almost always stays out of the mud and remains civil, but will respond when repeatedly provoked. What bothers many of you most about him is the combination of his facts, logic, and intelligence. When you make unsubstantiated and illogical comments or responses, he surgically opens up and dissects them, leaving your only responses in turn to be either blatantly illogical or ad hominem. And because many of you try and maintain a pretense of being logical and above the ad hominems, it further infuriates you all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 4:03 PM GMT


    " What bothers many of you most about him is the combination of his facts, logic, and intelligence."

    That, sir, is merely your personal opinion..you need to consider intent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 4:20 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    " What bothers many of you most about him is the combination of his facts, logic, and intelligence."

    That, sir, is merely your personal opinion..you need to consider intent.

    It is an opinion based on many posts on many topics. The intent is also clear. His intent is to promote his economic and political world view by providing information from many sources and actively participating in discussions defending those sources. The intent of others is to attempt to diminish him by providing irrelevant information and making unsubstantiated attacks on his knowledge, character, and in a few cases, his ethnicity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 4:23 PM GMT
    Nope, you missed. Dig deeper.

    " His intent is to promote his economic and political world view by providing information from many sources and actively participating in discussions defending those sources."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 4:29 PM GMT
    Like yourself, Socal, his position is polarized and extreme.

    A liberal without fiscal restraint is as bad as a conservative without social conscience.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 4:38 PM GMT
    meninlove said Like yourself, Socal, his position is polarized and extreme.

    A liberal without fiscal restraint is as bad as a conservative without social conscience.

    My position is not extreme. You confuse extreme opposition to Obama and policies with extreme distance. There are polls that show even when correcting for income differences and factoring out fixed costs of living to look at discretionary income, conservatives tend to be more generous with their own money than liberals.

    The justification for some supporting far left economic policies, supporting politicians like Obama who function based on divisiveness, is to create false characterizations of those on the other side, social conscience being one in particular.

    ADDED:

    Further commenting on your assertion that I am extreme, so must be the percentage of people who disapprove, even strongly disapprove of the Obama economic policies. So must be the greater than 70% of people who think that the country is on the wrong track.

    Further commenting on your innuendo about not having a social consciousness, many including myself, have advocated a safety net for those to get health care and cannot afford it. I have not opposed government assistance here. But I oppose government takeover of the entire industry. The extreme dishonesty is to label that position as lacking compassion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 5:50 PM GMT
    meninlove said Oh bull-tweed to you riddler. I don't bother using my brain in full gear with you, as you are entirely heartless and extremely conniving in your approach. I learned to stop doing that with you quite awhile back.


    There's never been any evidence you've used much of your brain to begin with so I can't say I noticed. I should note however that when it comes to social objectives I've done far more to further progress than many liberals who claim they have a social conscience but end up shafting the poor. But that's the case of markets in general over the not for profit approach that many liberals advocate for.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 6:02 PM GMT
    Both of you can spare me, and your knuckles, the pious hand-wringing you're presenting over your social concern.

    Your track histories belie your posts here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 6:03 PM GMT
    meninlove said Both of you can spare me, and your knuckles, the pious hand-wringing you're presenting over your social concern.

    You track histories belie your posts here.


    You're right - my track record is consistent in this regard. Your persistent ignorance on the basic issues and your inability to defend your own claims belie your own posts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 6:09 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said Both of you can spare me, and your knuckles, the pious hand-wringing you're presenting over your social concern.

    You track histories belie your posts here.


    You're right - my track record is consistent in this regard. Your persistent ignorance on the basic issues and your inability to defend your own claims belie your own posts.

    Add to that their incessant false and baseless comments against those who don't share the ideology.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 6:14 PM GMT


    Riddler you assume I live in a vaccuum. I don't. Some of your dingle-berry ideas I've discussed with profs IRL and they shot those ideas down so fast it was rather eye-opening, one of them being your scrap minimum wage joke of a concept.

    Dumbed down, it came to this: business can offer a wage of 2.00 an hour. No Canadian will take it so business will be able to bring in migrant workers from abroad. Like outsourcing to other countries, only bringing them here. The very right leaning economist I spoke with grinned at your chutzpah but thought your cry of think of the poor unemployed teens with no experience required to get a good job laughable. It was also suggested that these workers would require social assistance as the wage would not pay enough for subsistence. I then explained you wanted that chopped/reduced as well. icon_lol.gif


    Now I've about wasted enough time with you today, so good day.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2012 10:40 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    Riddler you assume I live in a vaccuum. I don't. Some of your dingle-berry ideas I've discussed with profs IRL and they shot those ideas down so fast it was rather eye-opening, one of them being your scrap minimum wage joke of a concept.

    Dumbed down, it came to this: business can offer a wage of 2.00 an hour. No Canadian will take it so business will be able to bring in migrant workers from abroad. Like outsourcing to other countries, only bringing them here. The very right leaning economist I spoke with grinned at your chutzpah but thought your cry of think of the poor unemployed teens with no experience required to get a good job laughable. It was also suggested that these workers would require social assistance as the wage would not pay enough for subsistence. I then explained you wanted that chopped/reduced as well. icon_lol.gif


    Now I've about wasted enough time with you today, so good day.


    I hadn't even noticed you replied to this thread considering your woeful ignorance of the CMHC. You've attempted to use some anonymous prof to justify your ideas when the fact is, again, 95% of jobs already pay above minimum wage. Why do you suppose that is?

    Let me dumb this down for you - because market pressures force wages to be higher. As for bringing migrant workers from abroad, you mean like they're doing in farming today in Canada because no one wants to do those jobs? Look at the demographics of those who actually earn minimum wage. Chutzpah? Try reality.

    Please do try to think before you write. Heck, some knowledge about regulations and financial services might also help though I notice what's particularly amusing is that when you were unable to rebut the fact that CMHC represents a government intervention itself you've resorted to ad hominem attacks and now you bring up minimum wage. Perhaps you should go back to trying to solve emotional problems where at least there are no right answers.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jun 25, 2012 2:11 AM GMT
    They SHOULD be downgraded.
    The greedy sons-a-bitches are STILL gambling with the nation's economy, by trading derivatives: the very thing that caused the George W. Bush Great Depression.