eFinancialCareers

Send Print

Comments (14)

• Oldest first
• Latest first
• Comments 1 - 10 of 14

• Nationalization is not a bad thing if handled properly and after all; where is it written that the government can not be a competitor in the private sector?  Let them try running a bank and maybe they can turn a profit thereby lessening the need to tax its citizens! It of course would be wise that they operate in a prudent and secure a manner so as to not simply be the "last place" that people and businesses go to for a loan; that would simply downgrade the situation.  In fact, it might be better served if a nationalized bank leaned more towards the conservative side and sought to serve the high-end, stable, creditworthy clients thereby increasing the its potential to be profitable (and again, lessening the need to tax citizens).  The non-nationalized banks can continue to service anyone that walks through the door as they deem appropriate.
  
  I have no problem working for a nationalized bank as long as the compensation, environment, and conditions where acceptable and in-line with the private sector.

  JMW 26 Feb 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

• I am ALL IN FAVOR of nationalizing the banks to STOP WAISTING the taxpayers money.  It should be quite evident to anyone that the CEO'S in charge have absolutely no idea how to run them.

  dave 26 Feb 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

• I think it would require analysis both for short and long term effects.  Short term effect would hopefully result in a positive flow for the company to regain liquidity, long term should consist of renewed privatization of firm with caveat of enhanced and strict regulation to oversee and prevent future insolvancies.

  erictoro 26 Feb 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

• This would be the final nail in the coffin.  It would be Lehman on steroids.  The Ayn Rand crowd that dismantled the regulatory framework now wants full government control of capital allocation.  Let's face it investment bankers and structurers are great at putting together pitchbooks, but terrible at taking risks and making investments.  The track record speaks for itself.  Reinstitute Glass_Steigel and put the business of banking back in the hands of lending officers working for a reasonable salary and keep the deposit base safe.

  jbrook2 26 Feb 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

• I totally agree, roll back the clock to Glass Steigel days and let a bank function in a conservative manner. Back to performing good solid credit analysis. Clean house at Citi and B of A. Management has failed to perform their fiduciary responsibilities. Nationalizing has worked in Sweden as well as in other industires. Don't wait we need to act and act now.
  DB

  David 26 Feb 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

• this is exactly what Karl Marx said will eventually happen more than a century ago, and the chickens have come home to roost because we don't listen. Nationalisation is inevitable at this stage, at least in the US, but Risk management must never be undermined in all operations of Banks in the US. Remember, all Karl Marx did was to identify a risk and it was never mitigated.

  malwela 27 Feb 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

• I'm puzzled as to why people think that changing the ownership structure will be the cure... the economic's of this mess remain regardless of the ownership structure - all we're doing is transferring the burden to the broader tax paying base which is death by 1000 cuts rather than a fast, some would say humane death...
  
  Either way, a pure financial tsunami is required to clear away the industries cancerous entities and participants and allow those that have remained strong and resilient to come in and pick up the pieces and begin moving to a stage of rebuilding and prosperity.
  
  Greenspan would often refer to the principals of Creative Destruction and i can think of no better application of this theory than what is required in the US manufacturing sector, particularly the auto sector.  I have been a little surprised that Obama hasn't pushed harder for reforms given his huge mandate after the election - perhaps the power structure in Washington is tougher to crack open than he had hoped in the campaign.
  
  AXF

  Adam Ford 27 Feb 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

• If the government handling of IRAQ war i sanything to go by, or a yardstick to evalute performance then nationlization is not the right thing. the problem is not with managment nor is corruption an issue. we are right now in a transition phase from the protectionist  and regulated regime of 9/11 and before, to one of technologically enabled globally interlinked and multichannel financial world. what should then be the solution to the crises? think it over.

  drnasdaqer 02 Mar 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

• drnasdaqer:
  In Iraq, the US government took a traditionally public function (war) and privatized large chunks of it, via Halliburton, Blackwater, etc. Not sure what the implication might be for nationalizing banks, which is actually a move in the opposite direction - taking a traditionally private function and bringing it under public ownership. --Jon Jacobs, eFinancialCareers News staff.

  Jon Jacobs 02 Mar 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

• Communism leads to poverty, murder and chaos.  It will come, and all of the useful idiots (Lenin's term) stating that nationalization is "good for the economy" will smart for it.

  Adam 04 Mar 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator