The Basel 3 accords are essentially doing this. Basel and its previous incarnations are essentially non-binding guidelines established by an international agency for banks that domestic regulatory agencies in countries then enact. Even if they don't, banks follow these anyway because it's effectively an international standard.

Basel 2 (which we had prior to the GFC), had 2 tiers of capital that could be held. The actual shareholder stock capital that is rock solid (tier 1) and various loose definitions (including at the time AAA rated mortage backed securities) - tier 2. The last I heard, that 2nd tier has essentially been done away with and the overall capital requirements (%) required to be held, has been raised.

The problems though are:

1 - Unless you raise capital to stupendous levels (like seriously inhibiting bank lending), you wouldn't have anywhere near the buffer to prevent another 2008. The problem then was not insufficient capital. It's that the industry as a whole made a large judgement error in valuing mortgage backed securities.

2 - This also highlights the problem that breaking up the banks wouldn't solve the issue of groupthink because availability of credit and economic conditions are a universal thing. An analogy is the oil price. Even though the US is a major oil producer in it's own right, events like Iraq recently still heavily impact prices in the US because global prices don't change in a vacuum.

3 - As far Glass Steigel, even if investment and traditional banks were separate, operating in the same field, if credit dries up (say because a investment bank made a bad decision), that will still affect the traditional merchant banks.

All banks work through fractional lending. You take a deposit, keep a buffer for capital. You lend out the rest. Some returns back as a deposit, again you keep a buffer and lend out the rest. In bad economic conditions, regardless of whether caused by them or other players in the finance industry, some of their lenders default and there is potential for their entire capital buffer to collapse and the bank to default if the crisis is bad enough. Even if it's purely a merchant bank.

-

What splitting the banks probably would do is increase competition, and lower banking costs as well as salaries, which is generally a good thing and I would agree here that this is something that banks have lobbied heavily against (as well as things like the Consumer Protection Agency, for the same reason, margins). Having said that, there are a lot much more monopolistic companies with lower risk and much more stable margins (e.g. Wallmart).

Around 5:45 Julian says that free-form strategy games cannot guarantee that the player will always have something interesting to do, and that, in his view at least, you couldn't get away with that sort of game anymore today.

Paradox Interactive with their Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis and Victoria franchises are still up and running. Hearts of Iron 3, in particular, seems more popular than ever, after the release of the third add-on, "Their Finest Hour". And if anything, HOI3 is even more of a sandbox than the original XCOM.

Similarly, Bohemia Interactive's Arma series as a comparable counterpart in the field of first person shooters is gaining massive popularity as well, even though it incorporates extensive "downtimes" for players.

You can't churn out annual iterations and expect AAA-rate numbers of sold copies, but the community is still large enough to warrent a couple of these franchises.

>> ^rougy:

@bcglorf,
You're right that it has to be looked at more closely. If you find anything concrete, please feel free to share the link with me if you feel like it.
Regarding the "social spending" angle, I'm curious to know how much of that had to do with investing in some of the more trashy gizmos that Goldman et al had to offer.
We know that here in the states, a number of pension funds took a major hit when Wall Street tanked. They had invested heavily in the CDO scam (AAA rated). Wall Street was bailed out, they weren't.
I'm curious to know how much of Greece's damage was caused by similar investments.
I'm betting it was substantial.

P.S. - G.S. has been behind a lot of really dirty financial shit and they always seem to get away with it. A number of municipalities in the USA have suffered gravely thanks to G.S. They were basically looted. Matt Taibi wrote a great article about it in Rolling Stone, but I can't find the link just now. Worth a read if you feel like Googling for it.
This is worth a read, but I don't think it's the same article I was thinking of.


No love of GS here .

I find the worst part of it though is the bailing out of massive corps like them, while their CEO's and top dogs pocket billions in profits while the companies were taking the massive risks that led to the companies collapse. In my opinion it's criminal to not demand that the ridiculous profits made taking the risks aren't the funds being used to payoff the debts from those very same risks turning out poorly later on.

For the record, in America a very big part of the wealth that was lost wasn't just pocketed by the ultra-wealthy. There were also all the middle class chaps refinancing homes they couldn't afford every two years and pocketing $30k-$60k a year for doing nothing but holding onto a home for two years. Some of those folks put that money away and came out fine. Most however bought RV's, electronics, multiple vehicles to fill their three car garages, and any other toys they wanted. After all, they were earning $30k a year for doing virtually nothing and had the money to burn. Of course after they had burnt that money, their backs were up against the wall when they bought that last fateful home before the market dropped out and found themselves with a $750k mortgage for home now worth $200k and payments they could only make in a world were they sold their home next year for $900k. Again, not everyone was doing this, but the numbers were very high. Over the 15 or so years this madness was going on, the guys really milking it had burnt through almost a half million dollars each buying stuff they really didn't need and with a method that had left them indebted for that same half mill with no way to pay it off. With 10s of thousands of people all having run after this, the value of the bad decisions of even the middle class was utterly massive. It wasn't only Goldman Sachs laughing all the way to the bank with free money, they were just doing it at a bigger scale, taking their 10% cut off the excess of thousands of similarly greedy middle class folk.

@bcglorf,

You're right that it has to be looked at more closely. If you find anything concrete, please feel free to share the link with me if you feel like it.

Regarding the "social spending" angle, I'm curious to know how much of that had to do with investing in some of the more trashy gizmos that Goldman et al had to offer.

We know that here in the states, a number of pension funds took a major hit when Wall Street tanked. They had invested heavily in the CDO scam (AAA rated). Wall Street was bailed out, they weren't.

I'm curious to know how much of Greece's damage was caused by similar investments.

I'm betting it was substantial.



P.S. - G.S. has been behind a lot of really dirty financial shit and they always seem to get away with it. A number of municipalities in the USA have suffered gravely thanks to G.S. They were basically looted. Matt Taibi wrote a great article about it in Rolling Stone, but I can't find the link just now. Worth a read if you feel like Googling for it.

This is worth a read, but I don't think it's the same article I was thinking of.

"On Monday, we will issue separate releases concerning affected ratings in the funds, government-related entities, financial institutions, insurance, public finance, and structured finance sectors." S&P

That ought to be interesting. Though for the time being, funds and insurances won't start selling bonds en masse, simply for a lack of alternative AAA-rated assets.

Ah, well. The theatre continues ...