Topic: Rise of the megabanks (Read 786 times)

Crazy graphics and definitely megabanks are out of control. I remember one day my long time Washington Mutual account turned into Chase and they took the signs down pretty quickly as well. I knew several people that lost jobs from WAMU and it just did not make any kind of sense.  If the megas keep going like this they will eat each other up and only one will remain, unless crypto saves us of course.

2016 Global Banking Crisis: Ratings agency Fitch says Major Chinese Banks In Deep Trouble, Moody’s Put Deutsche Bank On Review For Downgrades, and Canadian Bank Depositors Are Now At Risk Of Bail-Ins

Slower profits seen for China banks
RATING agency Fitch said yesterday that major Chinese banks are likely to show subdued earnings growth for 2015 amid margin compression and asset depreciation.

Net profit of China’s banking sector grew only 2.4 percent in 2015, a drop from the 9.6 percent year-on-year growth recorded in 2014, data from the China Banking Regulatory Commission showed.

Fitch said the financial statements of major banks — to be released next week — will confirm the slower profit growth. It is likely to decline further this year unless the authorities relax the minimum non-performing loans’ provisional requirement of 150 percent, which is weighing on the liquidity of the banks.

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/business/finance/Slower-profits-seen-for-China-banks/shdaily.shtml

Moody’s Put Deutsche Bank On Review For Downgrades
But it’s different this time…

May/June 2008 – S&P downgrades major US banks including Merrill, Lehman, and Morgan Stanley (all after the banks raised additional equity capital, sparking the bounce).

It’s not over yet.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-21/its-not-over-yet-moodys-put-deutsche-bank-review-downgrades

It’s Official: Canadian Bank Depositors Are Now At Risk Of Bail-Ins
The specific text:

Introducing a Bank Recapitalization “Bail-in” Regime

 

To protect Canadian taxpayers in the unlikely event of a large bank failure, the Government is proposing to implement a bail-in regime that would reinforce that bank shareholders and creditors are responsible for the bank’s risks—not taxpayers. This would allow authorities to convert eligible long-term debt of a failing systemically important bank into common shares to recapitalize the bank and allow it to remain open and operating. Such a measure is in line with international efforts to address the potential risks to the financial system and broader economy of institutions perceived as “too-big-to-fail”.

 

The Government is proposing to introduce framework legislation for the regime along with accompanying enhancements to Canada’s bank resolution toolkit. Regulations and guidelines setting out further features of the regime will follow. This will provide stakeholders with an additional opportunity to comment on elements of the proposed regime.

 

Bail-in Regime for Banks

 

Canada’s financial system performed well during the 2008 global financial crisis. Since that time, Canada has been an active participant in the G20’s financial sector reform agenda aimed at addressing the factors that contributed to the crisis. This includes international efforts to address the potential risks to the financial system and broader economy of institutions perceived as “too-big-to-fail”. Implementation of a bail-in regime for Canada’s domestic systemically important banks would strengthen our bank resolution toolkit so that it remains consistent with best practices of peer jurisdictions and international standards endorsed by the G20.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-22/its-official-canadian-bank-depositors-are-now-risk-bail-ins

Decade of Growth Poised to End for China Banks Stung by Bad Debt

… curb overcapacity in manufacturing, bad debt in China’s banking industry jumped 51 percent last year to 1.27 trillion yuan, data from the bank regulator show.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-23/decade-of-growth-poised-to-end-for-china-banks-stung-by-bad-debt
ANZ warns of bigger credit hit from resources exposure

SYDNEY, March 24 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group on Thursday said bad debt charges for the first half of 2016 could almost double due to a downturn in the resources sector, a problem analysts warn could snowball across the banking sector. A …
http://www.reuters.com/article/anz-bank-charge-idUSL3N16V4WP

they are not accepting bitcoin but they are accepting more the blockchain, they see advantages from the blockchain and not from bitcoin, which also need heavy regulation which is impossible to do correctly

You think that banks will accept Bitocin in the future? I wish you were right but I'm not so convinced.

Now more and more banks and institutions are accepting bitcoins as a mode of transactions and banks which will support bitcoins will take up the lead with other banks. So in order to get more rating and business, Bitcoin support is a must.

The issue was UK exchanges not being able to get banking from UK banks. Several start-ups tried and failed. They wouldn't have been wiring money to illegal places - the exchanges would have been based in the UK, subject to UK law and UK regulation, and in addition the UK govt said bitcoin was legal, it was an asset and could be traded. But the banks blocked the exchanges, because they are scared of BTC. I believe there are some moves to refer them to the Competition regulators for blocking legit trade.

Yes, Bitcoin is legal, and even if it was illegal, no government can stop blocks from being mined... But UK banks sometimes have to wire money to other places where legality might be challenged or at least activities related to Bitcoin might be question because of misendeavors by a few community members.

Banks will eventually be replaced. At least that's what we're all here aiming for. So it's fair that they see us as competition. What I cannot understand is why they don't take the profits before they fall, just like Fidor. So at least my second option remains, banks are simply not looking for money, which I find odd. Their loss, our gain. But yes, we do need banks like Fidor, for now As for supporting banks... No, I've had enough of that. Everyone I know that supported banks has either lost all his money or on the brink of losing it.

Bitcoin is legal in the UK- the govt has explicitly said so. So the UK banks are being difficult mainly because they fear bitcoin as competition, not for reasons of legality.

Like I said, as long as we have to pay taxes in fiat, we need banks. So support the bitcoin friendly ones!

The big companies feed on the weak in recessions and come out bigger and meaner when the dominoes have fallen. Watch the Oil industry right now as they will start picking each other off in the same manner well times are rough. Any attempt to stiffen the flow of money to a few companies usually ends up with them working around the rules.
Would think in a open market that there would be room for competition and new ways of banking but it seems to be locked up currently for them to get bigger.

I think this was possible due to some changes in a few laws since the mid 90s right?
Before that banks in the US where not allowed to merge with banks from other states I believe.
I found another great graphic regarding that.

So they're Bitcoin friendly when an exchange hires their service in order to transfer funds resulting from selling Bitcoin... I see Definitely a good way for them to have clients. If I owned a bank, I'd definitely be friendly with whoever can bring cash flow from legal businesses.

I assume banks rejecting to serve Bitcoin related services are afraid that Bitcoin is suddenly ruled to be illegal or aren't really looking for money (which is odd).

Yes, they really are bitcoin friendly. They are the only ones that will deal with the Exchanges - Kraken processes all it's European withdrawals through Fidor.

Part of the reason why good bitcoin exchanges haven't appeared in the UK is because the banks are refusing to deal with an business processing BTC. They figure if they block them, they'll die because it's too difficult to purchase BTC locally. And they're not entirely wrong about that.

Good to see that these guys have their bumps every now and then... But still, their growth is impressive. And we're the ones blindly fueling it. We must stop it by educating people in order to switch to Bitcoin, or a similar cryptocurrency in the future.

These guys fill their pockets with our money and then fade away, some without any repercussions to their acts. This has happened before, and it will happen again. Time to give people back what's already theirs.


Are they really Bitcoin friendly? Bank + Bitcoin in the same sentence doesn't even match.

That is properly scary.

I wonder, if the banks had remained the same size as in 2001, if we'd have had the financial crisis.

People need to take action - not just bitcoin, but support small credit-unions that are friendly to bitcoin. As long as taxes are paid in fiat, we need banks, but they might as well be bitcoin friendly banks.

I'll start by listing a bitcoin friendly bank in Europe: Fidor bank.

It would be great if others can chip in with bitcoin friendly banks in their area. Then we can all vote with our wallets.

basically this is turning even more centralized than ever

people are arguing about mining farm being centralized than you have that with fiat in the future only 1 bank will contorl everything, which is terrible

i hope the mining scene will not end like this in the future

Found today on http://www.bankingtech.com/460082/rise-of-the-megabanks/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rise-of-the-megabanks


To allow for an easier reading I cut it frame by frame: