"living wills" of 5 banks fail to pass muster

[Jacque67 7,328]

I like the reference to the Gilded Age as being a time when everything worked just fine.

As an aside, the X-axis on that graph is abysmal, irrespective of what the data actually is.

Lol.

[OriZ 3,157]

I like the reference to the Gilded Age as being a time when everything worked just fine.

As an aside, the X-axis on that graph is abysmal, irrespective of what the data actually is.

Lets see you come up with a more accurate one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

[Rob L 3,811]

I like the reference to the Gilded Age as being a time when everything worked just fine.

As an aside, the X-axis on that graph is abysmal, irrespective of what the data actually is.

I don't know what you are being so negative for, the gilded age was awesome for me

[Jacque67 7,328]

Lets see you come up with a more accurate one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

ah...a fellow Twain scholar!

[Jacque67 7,328]

Cheat notes for ya homework.

http://www.shmoop.com/gilded-age/summary.html

[Jacque67 7,328]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/business/dealbook/living-wills-of-5-banks-fail-to-pass-muster.html

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Lets see you come up with a more accurate one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I do not perform on command.

I cannot dispute the data in the graph. In the absence of any link to where it comes from, I can neither confirm nor deny it is correct. However, it is my observation that the X-axis is wonky. The time period of "1900s" to "2000s" is far more compressed than "1800s" (though the graph appears to start before then - when?) to "1900s." This distorts the results, much like pulling or compressing a spring will do to its length.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

My mistake!

Edited April 14, 2016 by Harpa Timsah

[OriZ 3,157]

I do not perform on command.

I cannot dispute the data in the graph. In the absence of any link to where it comes from, I can neither confirm nor deny it is correct. However, it is my observation that the X-axis is wonky. The time period of "1900s" to "2000s" is far more compressed than "1800s" (though the graph appears to start before then - when?) to "1900s." This distorts the results, much like pulling or compressing a spring will do to its length.

It's called a logarithmic scale but obviously you don't know what that is. Anyway, everything in the chart is fine, and you can see that 1913 and 1929 are exactly where and how they should be. Now lets stick to substance instead of creating problems that don't even exist.

I'd like to add that some dated data points do not correspond to the scale of the x axis. 1932 appears to happen in about 1870.

Edit: Oh! they labelled it in the middle... looks odd. Okay, my mistake.

I was just going to say...no, it doesn't, would you like me to add vertical lines for you? lol but glad to see I don't need to.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Wow, you really are a condescending and insufferable little so-and-so. Yes, I know what a logarithmic scale is. There is no indication on this graph that it is one. In the absence of any information that it is, a lay observer will interpret such a graph as a linear scale. Is it not better to make clear what you are saying and be unassailable than appear that you don't really give enough of a toss to do so?

[Jacque67 7,328]

Lack of a good formal education, methinks...

The gilded age ...lol

[Jacque67 7,328]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/business/dealbook/shrunken-citigroup-illustrates-a-trend-in-big-us-banks.html?ref=todayspaper

Citibank illustrates trend in big banks

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/business/dealbook/shrunken-citigroup-illustrates-a-trend-in-big-us-banks.html?ref=todayspaper

Citibank illustrates trend in big banks

[OriZ 3,157]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/business/dealbook/shrunken-citigroup-illustrates-a-trend-in-big-us-banks.html?ref=todayspaper

Citibank illustrates trend in big banks

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/business/dealbook/shrunken-citigroup-illustrates-a-trend-in-big-us-banks.html?ref=todayspaper

Citibank illustrates trend in big banks

And still their stocks and CDS signal trouble ahead...

BTW, breaking up the big banks in the US will do nothing as long as banks in Europe and other places are not addressed. And they're all in bed together.

Here's the latest on DB!

http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silver-deutsche-bank-silver-settlement-gata-vindicated.aspx?article=8324796774H11690&redirect=false&contributor=Michael+Ballanger

[Jacque67 7,328]

And still their stocks and CDS signal trouble ahead...

BTW, breaking up the big banks in the US will do nothing as long as banks in Europe and other places are not addressed. And they're all in bed together.

Here's the latest on DB!

http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silver-deutsche-bank-silver-settlement-gata-vindicated.aspx?article=8324796774H11690&redirect=false&contributor=Michael+Ballanger

Yeah, so as I said I only see self interest on your part regards the grand scheme of things... And maybe that is wise as a single investor with little regard for the grand scheme of things.

Sure they are in bed together, but some kind of national level regulation should be attempted.

As someone, much wiser than me said, being cynical is a cheap retreat ( paraphrased)

[Jacque67 7,328]

Also, you advocated the break up of the big banks...but now you add that the banks in Europe must be broken up too??

Far too simplistic, and would cost a lot to enact ....a mere pipe dream .