[hueving]

No, it does not excuse the behavior of the banks. The point is that the regulatory behavior was bad, not that it wasn't punishing a real crime.

It would have been significantly better if they announced publicly that JPM was going to have it's growth restricted because of reason X. This would have acted as a deterrent to other banks, sent a message to the public that the banks were indeed being punished, and avoided the image of a secret governance process.

Everyone who reads these publications is well aware of the financial disaster so it doesn't need to be reiterated on every article because the knowledge is assumed.

[intended]

Disclosure is what happens all the time. I havent really heard of a recent or distant event where it was the norm to not disclose SEC actions. (barring some privacy clause or agreement reached via settlement)

Most likely, and I say this as an opinion, several of the banks they bought in 2008 were restricted from expanding until their house was in order.

These moves were, with 100% certainty, would have been announced and published at inception.

And no, the meaning of "financial disaster" is VERY different depending on which side of Fin services you stand on.

To many banks and bankers, the debacle is a failure of market participants - the cost of living in such exalted times. More regulation would only hamper future efficiency and delicious growth to shareholders.

For main street, this was a watershed moment where they saw that banks were a force unto themselves.

Their market niche so critical, that letting them continue more necessary than justice - overturning a basic tenet of American expectations (bad firms fail, merit rises).

"too big to fail", is the shadow of "too big to care".

Main street does not read Bloomberg or WSJ, so they tailor their articles to their audience's bias.

[intended]

Curious why this has been downvoted, I’d prefer understanding than assuming what the error was.