What is Digg?23 Comments
- LargeStack, on 03/29/2009, -0/+11Go Canada!
- orangederange, on 03/28/2009, -1/+11Hi Financial Times. I submitted this story, and now following the link I get redirected to a "free" registration page. Gee Thanks a lot Financial Times ft.com.
- vsujohn2, on 03/29/2009, -0/+7Holy *****, Citigroup disappeared fast.
- disrupter, on 03/29/2009, -1/+7China is gonna buy everything :)
- PhilMoskowitz, on 03/29/2009, -0/+4Most stable banks in the world, because we don't ***** around.
- SilverBack101, on 03/29/2009, -0/+4I was surprised to see RBC jumping up so significantly! Glad they are my bank.
- Barackalypse, on 03/29/2009, -1/+5Far more interesting to me is the massive loss of capitalization since 2007, even in the face of mergers and acquisitions. In 2007 over half the chart has $100 billion or more in capitalization and 4 banks had more than $200 billion, in 2009, none have $200 billion and only 3 still have $100 billion.
- RiotHeart, on 03/29/2009, -3/+6I ***** hate bank of america
- BooLag, on 04/23/2009, -1/+3Judging by the way they treat their customers... it's clear that the feeling is mutual.
- inactive, on 03/31/2009, -0/+2Not surprising if you consider these two pieces of legislation and what the US banks and investment houses did:
The first is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999. It is an Act of the United States Congress which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up competition among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited a bank from offering investment, commercial banking, and insurance services (Glass-Steagall Act: Essentially, Commercial Banks were prohibited from engaging in the activities that caused the bank failures of the Great Depression. Contrast with Investment Banks which could offer these services). The central idea here was Commercial Banks could never go bust because of speculation. (e.g., speculation like in the derivatives market). Without Gramm-Leach-Bliley the Commercial Banks could never have made the derivative market contracts and investments that are the root cause of the current financial crisis. Investment Banks because of management greed and stupidity could go bust by over speculation but Commercial Banks couldn't. (By the way, a few Congressmen and Senators who opposed this legislation warned exactly what has happened would happen with passage of this legislation.)
The second is the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 or CFMA (H.R. 5660 and S.3283). This act was incorporated by reference into H.R. 4577, an omnibus spending bill. It was passed by the 106th United States Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton on December 21, 2000; the legislation thus became law as a part of H.R. 4577 - Public Law 106–554. This act essentially created the UNREGULATED energy futures market (real reason for high gasoline prices - energy futures market speculation) AND the UNREGULATED speculative derivatives market (e.g., Credit Default Swaps).
The Credit Default Swap (CDF) market then roughly doubled each year reaching a high of $62.2 Trillion at the end of 2007. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed Commercial Banks to begin issuing/trading CDFs just like Investment banks. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act prohibited any regulation of CDF deals.
The speculative bubble would have eventually burst but the bust was accelerated when gas hit $4.00 a gallon and people on the edge could no longer buy gas to get to work and make their house payment.
And now the "credit freeze up" is not because of toxic mortgages banks and investors hold but because of the estimated remaining $55 trillion in "bad paper", i.e., CDFs. Because there was no regulation of or reporting required for CDFs no one knows how much "bad paper" any bank or investment group holds. Put another way, why would an investor lend money to another bank/investment group if there was the possibility the other entity held too much in Madoff grade CDFs.
I believe other countries are anxious and ready to move away from the US/dollar and the move appears to be well under way. The US has lost credibility and trust. - cmansley, on 03/30/2009, -0/+2That was a very direct way of demonstrating the growing power of China. Simply look at the difference between 1999 and 2009. It is crazy. I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.
- Velly, on 03/30/2009, -0/+2Go the Aussies!
- Velly, on 03/30/2009, -1/+3I thought it was Hong Hong and Shanghai Banking.
- Ddraig, on 03/30/2009, -0/+1If you change the word false, to true it will work with no login required...
- Math, on 03/30/2009, -0/+1Australia, a country of 20 million people amazingly now has 4 banks in the top 20 (about the same as the USA), because of its much stricter banking regulations.
- badot, on 10/09/2009, -0/+1very direct way of demonstrating, nice
http://badotinside.blogspot.com - inactive, on 03/29/2009, -3/+4Those are not banks. Those are for all intents and purposes casinos where crazy bets were made with other people's money.
- GoldenPearl, on 03/29/2009, -0/+1I thought HSBC was Japanese.
I am dumb. - djwesty, on 03/31/2009, -0/+1I wouldn't say b/c of stricter banking regs...America has plenty of regulations too, its just that countries like Austrailia and Canada had regulations that forced moderation while America had regulations that encouraged excessive risk taking....its not the lack of regulation that destroyed the American banking system, its the stupidity of the regulations they had.
- childofprodigy, on 03/30/2009, -0/+1it's the end of the american century baby
- inactive, on 03/30/2009, -0/+0Banks produce nothing...I thought America owned that last institution.
- barnis, on 03/30/2009, -2/+1yes you are...
"Hong kong and Singapore Banking Corporation" Imperialism at its best - fabkebab, on 03/29/2009, -7/+2I think its a bit suspicious that all the chinese banks suddenly appear at the top one month, and werent there before - I suspect that its just because they suddenly started publishing numbers (where they hadnt before) along with the brazilian banks
I might be wrong - but thats the only explanation I would make for the sudden appearance
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is