Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dzonga 2948 days ago
smaller banks also provide protection against 'too big to fail' syndrome. They won't over leverage risk.
2 comments

If they don't actually own the mortgages that they issue, and instead sell them on the credit markets, then neither big nor small banks overleverage risk.

As I understand it, it doesn't matter if they are Chase, or BECU - most banks don't actually own any of the mortgages they issue.

The problem in 2008 was the fraud, the irrational exuberance, and really dumb investments by the investment branches of a few investment banks. The retail arm of, say, Wells Fargo, which issued a whole bunch of shitty mortgages was fine.

Whether or not you think that investment branches of banks deserve to be bailed out is an exercise for the reader.

Not exactly. The savings and loans crises of the 80's was driven by a sector of traditionally small, community banks, fueled by deregulation.
Specifically, what you explained stoked the fire, but what poured gas on it and simultaneously kicked the embers about the room, was Rudolf Guiliani taking RICO to make his case against Mike Milken, actually first of all Mike's far more vulnerable brother was indicted, but that aside Guiliani forced Drexel to shut it's trading desks, which drained the market for the junk bonds which had allowed so many tiny thrifts to engorge themselves, and without any mark to market -the whole market consisting of Drexel making two ways all on it's lonesome (who else had a clue what was in those bonds?) - the multitude of vastly bloated regional S&L's couldn't post their accounts, and simultaneously all went belly up.

Not being funny, but Guiliani forced the whole mortgage banking business into insolvency to make a point that some still think was Vendetta. Whatever the case, Guiliani forced a vast capital market to halt, for no reason I've ever learned, and handed a four trillion dollar bill to the taxpayer, for kicks. No wonder Trump likes his advice.