Izvlečki vikend branja nedavnih člankov 1.

Wall Street Journal

Obama’s Political Bank Run
The U.S. stages an election robbery and nearly triggers a panic.
The government threat to Deutsche Bank’s safety and soundness began on Sept. 15. That’s when the Journal reported that Justice was demanding an eye-watering $14 billion to resolve an investigation of the bank’s sale of mortgage-backed securities prior to the 2008 financial panic.
Deutsche Bank then had to acknowledge the size of this government stick-up as its stock price proceeded to drop more than 20% in a fortnight. The lack of exuberance among investors was entirely rational. Washington’s proposed withdrawal represented most of the bank’s market capitalization.
Why announce this giant robbery now? Well, on Friday morning the Financial Times* quoted two anonymous sources as saying Justice is seeking an “omnibus settlement” from Deutsche Bank, Barclays and Credit Suisse “to achieve maximum public impact by collecting an eye-catching sum in penalties” merely “weeks before the U.S. presidential election.”
The FT is often wrong, but we assume it didn’t make this up. And you don’t have to be a cynic to believe that this Administration would stage a bank raid that it could brag about to rev up voter enthusiasm among Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Democrats.
The problem is that the feds were creating the very systemic financial risk—aka “contagion”—that they claim to want to prevent. The public raid created so many doubts that major hedge funds began to flee Deutsche Bank amid uncertainty about its financial stability. The bank’s travails also called into question the strength of other European lenders, whose stock prices also fell.
www.wsj.com/articles...1475275928

*Sklic se nanaša na tale članek Financial Timesa:

US seeks pre-election settlement of bank mis-selling claims
DoJ aims for maximum impact with omnibus fine for Deutsche, Barclays and Credit Suisse
www.ft.com/content/d...bbef66f80e

Izvlečki vikend branja nedavnih člankov 2.

Wall Street Journal o teoriji panike kot vzroka za krizo oziroma logiki, da problem ni bil v sami veri na/o finančnih trgih ampak v tistih vernikih, ki so prvi nehali verovati. :-)

Deutsche Bank and the Unintended Consequence
How Dodd-Frank and other steps to redress the 2008 crisis are helping to foment the next panic.
A long acknowledged expert, Mr. Scott dispenses with the idea that the crisis flowed as the necessary result of a housing correction or bad mortgages, or because Lehman Brothers (which held such mortgages) was too connected to other banks such that they would fail if Lehman could not honor its debts.
The problem wasn’t connectedness, but contagion, more colloquially known as panic. Example: The Reserve Fund, a money-market fund, “broke the buck” because it held a small amount of Lehman IOUs. Yet the run quickly spread to other money-market funds that held no Lehman IOUs, only stopping when the money-fund industry was enfolded in a general government bailout of the financial system.
www.wsj.com/articles...1475275153

Financial Times ima ob postkriznem finančnem kobacanju veliko bolj tehtno poanto.

Deutsche Bank’s fine poses another form of moral hazard
Absence of executives from DoJ charge sheet is a real eye-opener
No one questions that shareholders should have responsibility for the conduct of an enterprise — especially one with the economic significance of a big financial institution. Those who both have rights of control and a share in the fruits should bear the costs when things go awry. But it is striking how through the post-crisis period almost all penalties have fallen on the investors, and indeed continue to do so. Just look at the furore about the proposed settlement between the DoJ and Deutsche Bank. Most bank fines have ranged from the annoying to the painful. In this case, the DoJ went further: the $14bn it was apparently demanding — a startling four-fifths of Deutsche’s market capitalisation — actually raised questions about the bank’s ability to pay.
Even so, the real eye-opener was not so much the number (which is anyway likely to be negotiated and much smaller) as the absence of any bank executives from the charge sheet. One might have thought that malfeasance requiring such a level of restitution would at least have resulted in staff being pursued because of what they had done.
...
The authorities claim that no bank is “too big to jail”. Their continuing reliance solely on escalating fines and settlements says otherwise. The gap between words and deeds is not only proving very costly for shareholders, as Deutsche’s investors are just the latest to discover. It gives the impression that bank capital can be seized as a form of tax, and that executives can buy their way out of their responsibilities to the law or to investors and customers. Nothing is more damaging to a recovery of public trust in banks.
www.ft.com/content/f...ada1d123b1

Poudarjeno seveda velja tudi za DežeLOVEnijo, v kateri sta BS in vlada RS pod vodstvom nekdanje nadzornice NKBM v Nacht und Nebel Aktion to isto in druge banke razglasila za mrhovino, lastnike in upnike razlastila ter vse skupaj zalila z davkoplačevalskimi milijardami. Člani uprav, nadzornih svetov, revizorskih hiš teh bank in odgovorni uslužbenci ustanove za nadzor bančnega sistema so bili doslej deležni nekaj zaslišanj in preiskav, medijskega ropota in občasne podpore iz visokih mednarodnih institucij.*
Kjer ni grešnika, tudi greha ni!

*www.imf.org/en/News/...vid-Lipton