Banking Testimony – Treasury Secretary Mnuchin Discusses “Too Big” and 21st Century “Glass Steagall”

Sip slowly, this explainer was hard to write. There is a considerable amount of perplexed frustration following on the heels of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin testifying to the Senate Banking Committee earlier today and specifically saying:

02:20 Glass-Steagall? “we do not support a separation of banks from investment banks, we think that would have a very significant problem on the financial markets, on the economy, on liquidity; and we think that there is proper things that potentially we could look at around regulation, but we do not support a separation of banks and investment banks.”

That statement runs counter to the Trump administration’s prior policy statements outlining a preference for a reinstatement of some form of “Glass-Steagall” regulatory separation between commercial banking and investment banking.

In essence when combined with the totality of Mnuchin’s testimony before the committee, Mnuchin is saying the current “too big to fail” (‘too big to succeed’) issue has created a problem for lending liquidity. Specifically, if divisional separation is required – the banks best interests would naturally put the investment division ahead of commercial lending and the liquid capital within the overall economy would shrink.

I think we have a handle on what the administration is doing based on the executive orders signed and explained earlier. Bear with me…

Back in July 2010 when Dodd-Frank banking regulation was passed into law, there were approximately 12 to 17 banks who fell under the definition of “too big to fail”.

Meaning 12 to 17 financial institutions could individually negatively impact the economy, and were going to force another TARP-type bailout if they failed in the future. Dodd-Frank regulations were supposed to ensure financial security, and the elimination of risk via taxpayer bailouts, by placing mandatory minimums on how much secure capital was required to be held in order to operate “a bank”.

One large downside to Dodd-Frank was that in order to hold the required capital, all banks decreased lending to shore-up their liquid holdings and meet the regulatory minimums. Without the ability to borrow funds, small businesses have a hard time raising money to create business. Growth in the larger economy is hampered by the absence of capital.

Another downstream effect of banks needing to increase their liquid holdings was exponentially worse. Less liquid large banks needed to purchase and absorb the financial assets of more liquid large banks in order to meet the regulatory requirements.

In 2010 there were approximately twelve “too big to fail banks”, and that was seen as a risk within the economy, and more broad-based banking competition was needed to be more secure.

Unfortunately, because of Dodd-Frank by 2016 those twelve banks had merged into only four even bigger banks that were now even bigger risks; albeit supposedly more financially secure in their liquid holdings. This ‘less banks’ reality was opposite of the desired effect.

The four to six big banks (JP Morgan-Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, US BanCorp and Mellon) now control $9+ trillion (that’s “TRILLION). Their size is so enormous that small group now controls most of the U.S. financial market.

Because they control so much of the financial market, instituting a Glass-Steagall firewall between commercial and investment divisions (in addition to the Dodd-Frank liquid holding requirements), would mean the capability of small and mid-size businesses to get the loans needed to expand or even keep their operations running would stop.

2010’s “Too few, too big to fail” became 2016’s “EVEN FEWER, EVEN BIGGER to fail”.

That’s the underlying problem for a Glass-Steagall type of regulation now. The Democrats created Dodd-Frank which: #1 generated constraints on the economy (less lending), #2 made fewer banking options available (banks merged), #3 made top banks even bigger.

This problem is why President Trump and Secretary Mnuchin are working to create a parallel banking system of community and credit union banks that are external to Dodd Frank regulations and can act as the primary commercial banks for small to mid-sized businesses.

The goal of “Glass Steagall”, ie. Commercial division -vs- Investment division, is created by generating an entirely new system of banks under different regulation. The currently remaining ten U.S. “big banks” operate as “investment division banks” per se’, and the lesser regulated community banks/credit unions operate as would be the “Commercial Side”.

Instead of firewalling an individual bank internally within its organization, the Trump/Mnuchin plan looks to be firewalling the banking ‘system’ within the U.S. internally. Hope that makes sense.

Therein lies the fundamental breakdown in communication between Secretary Mnuchin and Senator Elizabeth Warren.

(Source: Click Here)

#Geopolitics #OSINT

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Archive
Search By Tags
No tags yet.
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square

S.D.G. | © 2017 by International Silver Dollar Association ~  www.ISDASilver.org

All Rights Reserved.  All Wrongs Reversed.

OPPORTUNITIES

COVENANTS & DISCLOSURES

MEMBERSHIP

Back to Top

ICFMS Logo Vertical_edited.png

IMPORTANT MESSAGE: ISDASilver.org is a website owned and operated by the International Silver Dollar Association an Ecclesiastical State Integrated Auxiliary Trust operating by rule of necessity as an Unincorporated Association (hereinafter, “ISDA”).  We are a Faith Based Organization qualified under Title 26 U.S. Code § 508c(1)a Non-Assumptive 28 U.S. Code § 1746 (1).  By accessing the website and any pages thereof, you agree to  the binding terms of use of all ISDA Policies & Agreements, as each may be amended from time to time.  ISDA is not a registered broker, dealer, investment adviser, investment manager or registered funding portal.  Any and all private offerings on this site are available without contravention of Rule 506(b) of Regulation D, as “safe harbor” under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and pursuant to the iCovestor Relationship & Royalty Sharing Covenant made in acquiescence at the time of any like kind exchange for any goods, services, and/or subscription made in the medium and measurement of silver in the form of U.S. Treasury Minted American Silver Eagle Coined money (Measured Digitally and/or Physically exchanged thereof as an Intentional Community Opportunity (-ies), a.k.a. “ICO” or "ICOs").

The information contained on this site is provided for informational purposes as a service to the public as part of the mission of the ISDA and does not constitute legal or tax advice.  Legal Information is not the same as Legal Advice.  Some of the information on this site and corresponding emails provide information about law designed to help users safely cope with their own Faith Based Organization needs.   The application of law varies depending on many circumstances. The laws of every state are in constant change, and although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer if you want professional assurance that this educational information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.

 

ISDA Website Entry & Use Agreement & Public Notice: CLICK HERE