by Andy_S on Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:00 am
Nice, but what is new in this? There was an excellent piece in Vanity Fair some months back on the fall of Bear (the hack interviewed a lot of Bear and other sources). The final point was though, that the criminals (almost certainly hedge funds with short positions on Bear) remain unknown: Shorters are very, very difficult to catch, and it is uncertain if the SEC is up to the job, given current laws.
More broadly, is this the end of investment banks as we know them?
My understanding is that this crisis is the result of rules that allowed banks to do a lot of things IBs used to do - forcing IBs to take riskier and riskier positions. Nothing wrong with risk - but if you are an IB, you have no deposit base, pretty much all you have is leverage. If you are a bank you have a capital base, and you have a legal, fiduciary duty NOT to risk the capital base of your depositors. IBs could do what they did, as their investors, funds and high-wealth individuals, understood that they COULD lose. A bank depositor, OTOH, does not risk his capital, he puts it in a safe place where it will accumulate interest.
One thing I did agree strongly with in the piece is that there is a certain cosmic justice to this. The arrogance of the Street needed tempering. The best outcome of this crisis might be to bring us back to a more conservative financial system across the board, but particularly, at the top.
Services available:
Pies scoffed. Ales quaffed. Beds shat. Oiks irked. Chavs chinned. Thugs thumped. Sacks split. Arses goosed. Udders ogled. Canines consumed. Sheep shagged.Matrons outraged. Vicars enlightened. PM for rates.