|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Saturday, November 17 2012 @ 07:03 PM EST |
I know my terminology is a bit wonky, but basically we have capital *producers*
(the public, companies manufacturing goods, companies trading goods), capital
*consumers* (pension funds and the like), and capital *traders* (the banks).
Then simply forbid the traders from being consumers. They have to be just
intermediaries, either being like our building societies of old where they took
savings and made loans, or they can be like what I think the merchant banks were
- they made loans, securitised them, and sold them on.
But if you forbid traders from carrying securities on their balance sheet (of
course, they have to carry them on their "trading capital" sheet, like
a shop would carry its shelf goods on their trading capital sheet), then it
makes the risk far more transparent.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 03:17 AM EST |
The size of the shadow banking system, which
includes the
activities of money market funds, monoline
insurers and off- balance sheet
investment vehicles, “can
create systemic risks” and “amplify market reactions
when
market liquidity is scarce,” the Financial Stability Board
said in a
report, which utilized more data than last year’s
probe into the
sector.
“Appropriate monitoring and regulatory frameworks for the
shadow
banking system needs to be in place to mitigate the
build-up of risks,” the FSB
said in the report published on
its website.
Ben
Moshinsky and Jim Brunsden, Bloomberg
News /
Businessweek
---
Financial Stability Board Report - 45 pages
.pdf
'Global Shadow Banking Monitoring Report 2012'
http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/publications/r_121118
c.pdf [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
