Has Warren Been Bought By Big Banks?

T

tsuke

New member
th (4).jpg

https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/2017/06/20/has-warren-been-bought-by-big-banks/

Has Warren Been Bought By Big Banks?

The Republicans have started work on undoing the damage done to the banking industry by Dodd-Frank. Predictably Democrats like Elizabeth Warren have gone all out in defending this bill. It is one thing to support a bill in its inception without seeing its real world consequences. It is quite another to keep supporting it when the bill is put in practice. At this point we have to ask ourselves. Have Elizabeth Warren and the Democrats been bought by lobbyists from Giant banks?

Dodd- Frank

Dodd Frank has been disastrous for the financial industry. Elizabeth Warren and the Democrats say they support the bill because they feel that banks should be reined in from becoming too big to fail. Four banks went from controlling 11% of the banking industry to controlling nearly half after Dodd-Frank. Giant banks went from controlling 23% of the banking industry to controlling more than 60%.*

Dodd-Frank has decimated the small banks that Elizabeth Warren and the Democrats say they want to protect. Since Dodd-Frank 25% of small banks have closed. Bank of America controls more of the banking industry than all small banks COMBINED. Before Dodd-Frank hundreds of new banks were opening up. After Dodd-Frank only 3 new banks opened up. There used to be 14000 banks in America now there just a little more than 6000 and dwindling.*

Dodd-Frank has been hugely beneficial for the big banks. It has helped them clear away the competition and grab more of the market. They went from being too big to fail to too giant to fail. If Elizabeth Warren and Democrats were serious about the threat of banks that are too big to fail then they would join President Trump in the Republicans in finding a solution for it. The fact that they insist on supporting a bill that has had the empirical effects Dodd-Frank has had should raise suspicion on their motives. After all what better way to help big banks than by creating a loyal opposition.*

Follow The Money

In order to find out who the banking industry has purchased we just have to follow the money. In recent elections Democrats have been raising a lot more money than Republicans. Obama and Clinton both outraised and outspent Romney and Trump in their elections. The difference was glaring in the last election as Clinton spent more than twice President Trump did 1.4 billion to 600 million.

The raw numbers are not enough to go on of course. After all what if all 600 million of President Trumps warchest came from big banks but none of the 1.4 billion of Clinton did? In the last election wall street donated 48.5 million to Clinton and donated 19000 to President Trump. According to opensecrets.org Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America are among the top 10 donors of Clinton. These companies appear nowhere in the top donors of the Trump *campaign.*

Given all the money that the big banks are giving to Warren and the Democrats is it any wonder that they are protecting a law that allow giant banks to eliminate their competition?
 
exactly, all the talk of the GOP favoring corporate America is actually just the opposite now.
Warren, this a$$ clown in Georgia as the latest have nowhere to turn except accept money from rich people in hopes of buying power.

Lack of policy, love for this country and frankly common sense has caught up with them
 
what did cox say cashed then crash



Business Day
S.E.C. Concedes Oversight Flaws Fueled Collapse
By STEPHEN LABATONSEPT. 26, 2008

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a longtime proponent of deregulation, acknowledged on Friday that failures in a voluntary supervision program for Wall Street’s largest investment banks had contributed to the global financial crisis, and he abruptly shut the program down.
The S.E.C.’s oversight responsibilities will largely shift to the Federal Reserve, though the commission will continue to oversee the brokerage units of investment banks.
Also Friday, the S.E.C.’s inspector general released a report strongly criticizing the agency’s performance in monitoring Bear Stearns before it collapsed in March. Christopher Cox, the commission chairman, said he agreed that the oversight program was “fundamentally flawed from the beginning.”
“The last six months have made it abundantly clear that voluntary regulation does not work,” he said in a statement. The program “was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, because investment banks could opt in or out of supervision voluntarily. The fact that investment bank holding companies could withdraw from this voluntary supervision at their discretion diminished the perceived mandate” of the program, and “weakened its effectiveness,” he added.
 
My guess is all we will see from liberals in the coming elections is them trying to outspend the republicans, buy votes, buy air time.
and ultimately lose. Hillary spent enough money trying to beat Trump to end world hunger, and she is home knitting on the porch.

The crime is throwing good money after bad money, thinking the results will be different.
And soon my guess is even Democrat voters will follow the lead of most independents and get on board the trump train and lets sweep this liberal poison out of our lives for good.
 
evince said:
what did cox say cashed then crash



Business Day
S.E.C. Concedes Oversight Flaws Fueled Collapse
By STEPHEN LABATONSEPT. 26, 2008

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a longtime proponent of deregulation, acknowledged on Friday that failures in a voluntary supervision program for Wall Street’s largest investment banks had contributed to the global financial crisis, and he abruptly shut the program down.
The S.E.C.’s oversight responsibilities will largely shift to the Federal Reserve, though the commission will continue to oversee the brokerage units of investment banks.
Also Friday, the S.E.C.’s inspector general released a report strongly criticizing the agency’s performance in monitoring Bear Stearns before it collapsed in March. Christopher Cox, the commission chairman, said he agreed that the oversight program was “fundamentally flawed from the beginning.”
“The last six months have made it abundantly clear that voluntary regulation does not work,” he said in a statement. The program “was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, because investment banks could opt in or out of supervision voluntarily. The fact that investment bank holding companies could withdraw from this voluntary supervision at their discretion diminished the perceived mandate” of the program, and “weakened its effectiveness,” he added.
Click to expand...

your own assholes
 
Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank are the sole perpetrators of the recession brought on by the housing market debacle. Being in bed with the big banks caught up with the democrats, and low and behold they are still trying to blame someone else

that's why they lose seats in both houses and the presidency, America is awake baby
 
When Trump won it was like the skies opened up and God said BE HEALED America, go back to the top of the hill and let your light shine once again
 
Getin the ring said:
Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank are the sole perpetrators of the recession brought on by the housing market debacle. Being in bed with the big banks caught up with the democrats, and low and behold they are still trying to blame someone else

that's why they lose seats in both houses and the presidency, America is awake baby
Click to expand...

That's not the case. The Fed was the impetus for the meltdown by keeping rates too low. The Fed brought this on. The Fed also was responsible for the systematic risk caused by their prior actions in bailing out Wall St.
 
Business Day
S.E.C. Concedes Oversight Flaws Fueled Collapse
By STEPHEN LABATONSEPT. 26, 2008

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a longtime proponent of deregulation, acknowledged on Friday that failures in a voluntary supervision program for Wall Street’s largest investment banks had contributed to the global financial crisis, and he abruptly shut the program down.
The S.E.C.’s oversight responsibilities will largely shift to the Federal Reserve, though the commission will continue to oversee the brokerage units of investment banks.
Also Friday, the S.E.C.’s inspector general released a report strongly criticizing the agency’s performance in monitoring Bear Stearns before it collapsed in March. Christopher Cox, the commission chairman, said he agreed that the oversight program was “fundamentally flawed from the beginning.”
“The last six months have made it abundantly clear that voluntary regulation does not work,” he said in a statement. The program “was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, because investment banks could opt in or out of supervision voluntarily. The fact that investment bank holding companies could withdraw from this voluntary supervision at their discretion diminished the perceived mandate” of the program, and “weakened its effectiveness,” he added.
 
http://bankingjournal.aba.com/2016/03/why-bank-consolidation-in-the-u-s-will-lift-off-in-2016/



While there has been a long-term secular trend towards consolidation in the banking sector—with 4,810 fewer banks now than in 1994—looking ahead, consolidation will be driven anew by the confluence of higher fixed regulatory costs, the low-growth and resulting low-interest-rate environment and rapidly changing technological and financial innovation. Taken together, these forces have contributed to structurally lower profitability for the industry as a whole versus pre-crisis levels. Moreover, some banks will struggle to consistently earn their cost of capital.
The U.S. is unique among large developed countries in terms of the sheer number of banks. By way of contrast, Canada gets by with just six major banks. Although in terms of assets, the U.S. banking industry is modestly concentrated, with approximately 50 percent of assets held by the 10 largest commercial banks, it remains highly fragmented with more than 5,410 commercial banks and 860 savings institutions as of late 2015. The fragmented nature of the industry reflects historical policy choices, such as the lack of interstate branching up to 1994.
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, aside from failed bank deals, meaningful M&A transactions were few and far between, as banks nursed their balance sheets and stock prices back to health. Now that this is mostly accomplished, many are positioned to pursue long-sought strategic opportunities. The urge to merge is often meant to address key product or footprint gaps. The promise of greater efficiencies from scale has not always met reality, as bank efficiency ratios for even some of the largest banks remain stubbornly high (around 65 percent for the largest banks).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top