I am having trouble verifying how the rules regarding capital requirements changed between 2002 and 2004 for financial institutions.
I am looking for an insider who could help me understand the requirements.
In particular, I want to understand how the 1/1/2002 Recourse Rule and the 2004 SEC regulation affecting broker dealers that are part of a CSE affected the ability of financial institutions to use leverage.
If you are an insider who knows this stuff or who knows an insider who knows this stuff and can speak to me, it would be much appreciated. All conversations and emails will be off the record if so desired.
My email is russroberts followed by the at sign, followed by gmail.com.
Share
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 15 comments }
I believe this is the audio from the actual SEC commission meeting where the rules where changed. I saw the actual video in a documentary which I forgot the name of. But the one lady on the commission is shown as opposing adopting the changes but is basically strong armed into agreeing with the men on the commission.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/audio/nat...
I've heard this, Muirgeo, thanks. It is part of the answer but it's not clear what part.
Yeah. We chicks just can't stand up for ourselves.
Russ is this for that paper you've posted about before?
If it is, given the range of topics you've posted questions about and requests for, this seems like an epic undertaking.
It's a bit of an epic. Will end up around 15,000 words or so.
Not at all. She was simply outnumbered as I remember. Many of the most principled politicians and bureaucrats are women. Brooksley Born is another who seemed principled but out numbered by the men in power.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/
I'm sure you've already come across this preliminary article suggesting the recourse rule was a factor of the crisis:
http://causesofthecrisis.blogspot.com/2009/09/t...
The footnote suggests more research is being done in this area but much is unknown yet:
[5] Viral V. Acharya and Matthew Richardson, “Causes of the Financial Crisis.” Critical Review 21(2-3): Table 1. (See http://www.criticalreview.com/crf/current_issue....)
[6] We won't know with any certainty, however, that bankers did buy these securities because of the Recourse Rule until somebody actually asks them, in confidence. This research is being undertaken by Wladimir Kraus of the University of Turin.
our friend Diane Feinstein is a very principled war profiteer.
Love you, Mmmmwwwaaahhhhh
I have seen this and I've read the details of the recourse rule. I'm trying to figure out which investments it applies to and which it doesn't apply to.
Everybody is a victim to you leftists.
Dear Russ: You have just asked the question – How much is a blue car? I am not sure if you wish the VW or the Bentley Azure Turbo? More to the point it was not just one rule change but a perfect storm involving rules changing the 1884 Irwin V Willar on enforceability of contracts, exempting derivatives from SEC and CFTC regulation, capital requirement promulgated by the BIS and valuation methodologies for assets. There was also a huge change in banking mentality. It was the change where they used to loan to hold for their portfolio and it evolved into loan to sell to a 3rd party. Since this is you blog you will have my web site information – please see you blog records and you will find information on my web site for the info on how to call me or email me directly. I'll be happy to be of assistance where we can.
“Many of the most principled politicians and bureaucrats are women.”
Spoken like a true bleeding heart nicey nice wussy liberal.
Yep, that what your message seems to be. And yet you're doing pretty good somehow.
It’s about time! And how about raising the amount of premiums that banks (and other insured savings institutions) have to pay for insured deposits, rather than ultimately being backed by the taxpayer!! And how about forcing a separation between the investment arms of banks and savings institutions, and the insured savings divisions. Ditto for charging investment houses and divisions higher premiums to be paid to the Pension Benefit and Guarantee Corp. that insures pensions and retirement plans. What about restoring reporting and examination requirements of these institiutions?
buy r4 dsi
It’s about time! And how about raising the amount of premiums that banks (and other insured savings institutions) have to pay for insured deposits, rather than ultimately being backed by the taxpayer!! And how about forcing a separation between the investment arms of banks and savings institutions, and the insured savings divisions. Ditto for charging investment houses and divisions higher premiums to be paid to the Pension Benefit and Guarantee Corp. that insures pensions and retirement plans. What about restoring reporting and examination requirements of these institiutions?
buy r4 dsi
Comments on this entry are closed.