kevindkeogh

The split happened prior to the Enron bankruptcy and was the result of a decade of litigation (Andersen consulting partners weren't happy with the profit-splitting with the audit partners).

pocketsmith (https://www.pocketsmith.com/) is a pretty good solution for this. I was a Mint user that was concerned about the privacy and also looking for a service that provided an API. I'm not 100% sure about the privacy, but they do provide an API for your own financial data.

Appears that something is going on with your SSL cert. Firefox is preventing me from opening the page with a SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN error.

Sure, but New York is not only for the property owners. I think it's good that we have a say in how our community develops.

Think of it this way, without New Yorkers, this building would be worthless.

This is subject to corporate charter/bylaws and, usually, the 20% rule.

It is correct. Not all banks in Muslim-majority countries are sharia-compliant.

I agree that the definition of solvency is wrapped up in the value of the assets, which can be difficult to assess. That's why I said "The Fed /believed/ that the value of AIGs assets were greater than its liabilities" [emphasis added]. That being said, I think we can agree this has very little to do with fractional reserve banking as a concept. To put it simply, you can only have insolvent banks in a fractional reserve system, but a fractional reserve system doesn't necessitate insolvency by any means.

I'll agree to the second critique re: the credit in a full-reserve banking case.

> After all, banks remained basically insolvent in this fractional reserve scheme.

This is incorrect. Bank solvency has to do with the assets of the bank, even in markets with commodity (e.g., gold) or representative money (e.g., gold-backed paper). The assets of a bank include loans, the liabilities are the money the bank owes to depositors. There is no reason a bank can't take a gold deposit and loan it out (thereby, "creating" gold).

The purpose of a central bank, at least in orthodox economics, is to loan to solvent banks that are nonetheless cash-poor. Imagine a mismanaged bank, that has loaned too much, and cannot meet the demands of depositors. If the loans + cash are more valuable than the deposits, the central bank will loan to the bank to meet their temporary cash shortage. [0]

This is essentially what happened in the case of AIG. The Fed believed that the value of AIGs assets were greater than its liabilities, and loaned them the money at a penalty rate. The Fed believed that AIG was _solvent_. There were a number of extenuating factors here that I'm glossing over, but that is the underlying point. The reason that Lehman was not saved was that the Fed had substantial reason to believe that the assets (primarily the sub-prime loans) were not worth more than the liabilities, and the Fed will not lend into hole. Lehman was _insolvent_.

Fractional reserve banking, by itself, does not suggest solvency or insolvency. Without fractional reserve banking, there cannot be credit. Sharia banking is an example of full-reserve banking, because interest is prohibited, so there is no incentive to loan. (There are ways Islamic banks get around these prohibitions).

[0] I would suggest looking at Bagehot (1873) for a full description of this idea.

Not in this case. You would need to have standing and a relevant claim to sue any person or firm. I would think it would pretty difficult to show sort of generalized claim about the injustices of the patent system. That is a political question, not a legal question.

I was, thank you for the clarification!

These two rates serve different purposes. The Fed Funds rate is the rate at which banks earn interest on money held there (so keeping it low encourages banks to not keep it there, raising it does the opposite).

LIBOR (and there are different LIBORs for different currencies and maturities, the main one is USD 3-month) is the rate that banks lend each other on an unsecured basis. Technically, each bank determined their own LIBOR based on how they see the market and what they believe they can borrow at (hence our problems).

The important thing about LIBOR is that many trillions in notional of derivatives use it as a reference, so changing it has very real impact for all market participants (including pension funds, etc.). Even floating rate loans are often based on LIBOR.

there is a lot of market infrastructure and jurisprudence that exists specifically for this problem. Trades can and are canceled as the situation demands[0].

[0] https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/endex/ICE_Endex_Trade_Canc...

This is fundamentally wrong. As Matt Levine said, "proper phrasing is 'DB supports $1.7trn of assets with an equity value equal to SnapChat's'" [1]

[1] https://twitter.com/matt_levine/status/742800372473946112

Edit: For a more complete analysis of DB's capital position, they have published Moody's report on their credit. [2] I don't see much in there that would suggest DB was insolvent, but they do seem to be having some difficulty reorganizing their business.

[2] https://www.db.com/ir/de/download/Moody_s_on_DB_26_May_2016....