Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
Banks should not be allowed to speculate on the financial markets with immunity. The banks lobbied Congress to immunize trading in derivatives, which was codified in the provisions of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection act of 2005. This set the stage in the marketing of securitized mortgages traded as debt securities on the financial markets, which precipitated the economic crisis and necessitating the government bailout. The reason why the Congress should repeal the "safe harbor" provisions for derivatives is that, unlike their parent holding companies (e.g., Washington Mutual, Inc. vs. Washington Mutual Bank), banks are ineligible for bankruptcy reorganization. 11 U.S.C. § 109(b)(2). An insolvent bank gets taken over by the FDIC, which puts the risk of loss on the government, and, ultimately, the taxpayer. The exemption for derivative contracts acts like a government subsidy that favors big banks at greater risk and higher potential for consequential damage and loss. The question is whether this is a good thing. It is not, as the financial crisis and bailout attest, as well as the recent losses sustained by J.P. Morgan Chase, and the bankruptcy case of MF Global Funding. There needs to be a clear dividing line between banking that is federally insured, and market trading that is not. (This was the purpose of the Volcker Rule against proprietary trading by banking entities.) Banks should be in the business of lending and not gambling on the stock market.