<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Too Complex to Manage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/too-complex-to-manage/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/too-complex-to-manage/</link>
	<description>taking the most charitable view of those who disagree</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:00:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.32</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: peterdub</title>
		<link>http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/too-complex-to-manage/#comment-300832</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[peterdub]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Dec 2013 08:45:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/?p=2409#comment-300832</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[He makes some good points, and he knows what he&#039;s talking about. Some of his points: 

a) banks should be more clear about what they do. Why hasn&#039;t this happened already? Banks still get away with being black boxes. That was the easiest reform of all. 

b) megabanks enjoy no economies of scope. Housing an investment bank and a retail bank in the same bank is like merging Tiffany&#039;s and Wal-mart because they&#039;re both retailers. 

c) in an investment bank housed within a deposit institutional, the cheap deposit base will ultimately be used to fund the investment bank&#039;s worst assets. Citigroup is the best example of this. 

d) structural reforms (splitting investment and deposit banking) is the only real solution; the regulations are too complex to ever be enforced or understood. &quot;Basel III is nonsense.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He makes some good points, and he knows what he&#8217;s talking about. Some of his points: </p>
<p>a) banks should be more clear about what they do. Why hasn&#8217;t this happened already? Banks still get away with being black boxes. That was the easiest reform of all. </p>
<p>b) megabanks enjoy no economies of scope. Housing an investment bank and a retail bank in the same bank is like merging Tiffany&#8217;s and Wal-mart because they&#8217;re both retailers. </p>
<p>c) in an investment bank housed within a deposit institutional, the cheap deposit base will ultimately be used to fund the investment bank&#8217;s worst assets. Citigroup is the best example of this. </p>
<p>d) structural reforms (splitting investment and deposit banking) is the only real solution; the regulations are too complex to ever be enforced or understood. &#8220;Basel III is nonsense.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chris mahoney</title>
		<link>http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/too-complex-to-manage/#comment-300271</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[chris mahoney]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Dec 2013 01:30:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/?p=2409#comment-300271</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Prince&#039;s CDOs, Dimon&#039;s whale, Lewis&#039;s mortgages, O&#039;Neill, Cayne, Fuld…the evidence is pretty concussive that bank CEOs don&#039;t know their exposures]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Prince&#8217;s CDOs, Dimon&#8217;s whale, Lewis&#8217;s mortgages, O&#8217;Neill, Cayne, Fuld…the evidence is pretty concussive that bank CEOs don&#8217;t know their exposures</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
