Tiffany Heart {title|jhgjhg|}

As one particular banker of my acquaintance explained,Tiffany And Co, apropos the newest FSB funds charges for the largest banks,Tiffany Ring, I currently possess the t-shirts printed for my staff; they say ‘_,Tiffany Engagement Rings, Proudly a G-SIFI’. (Far be it from me, of course, to say what goes in the gap,Pandora Bracelet Sale, beyond that it is the name of a top tier bank.) The sentiment is interesting; it may be that the marketing advantage of being able to tell clients that you are a G-SIFI, with all the overtones of government support that has, is worth it for the extra capital.
Tony Jackson’s article in the FT on cash (behind a firewall, sadly) also helps put the current situation into perspective. Jackson throws away some pertinent remarks before coming to his main thrust:
Some of the proposals are problematic. OTC derivatives are to be forced onto exchanges. Can risk be reduced by putting into one particular place in this way? [Hint: the answer is not 'yes'.]
To be sure,Tiffany Nyc title,Tiffany Keys, collateral will be posted. But that means tying up liquidity. If we want a safe home for liquidity, are derivatives really the answer? Indeed,Tiffany Rings, will the likes of the OCC – which has resident examiners in the US financial institutions – put examiners into exchanges as well? [Well, the 'likes' of the OCC in this case are the CFTC and the SEC; it is they, in the US at least, who have authority over the exchanges. And to answer Jackson's question, just consider how likely it is that supervisors who are so hands off that they allow exchanges to self-certify their margin calculations (1 of the most crucial determinants of exchange safety) are be robust and intrusive supervisors.]
Jackson is wrong,######## Pandora Beads, though, about how to set funds levels. Here’s the key paragraph:
If countries are landed with banking sectors [that are] too big to rescue, the only prudent answer is to jack up capital requirements to the point where bank’s cost of money is set by the markets rather than the state.
The problem is that money levels are by now far above these levels. The market is a pretty tolerant mistress most of the time; she only becomes strict in a crisis, and even then not for that long. Remember Ms Market was perfectly happy with Lehman and Merrill; she even granted her favours to Bear Stearns,Tiffany Heart, the least well capitalized of the investment banks. If the market could be trusted to set money levels for banking institutions, we would not need Basel. But, um, it can’t. Can I get that t-shirt in black?

Posted in: Basel by David /