WHY America Needs to Break Up with Big Banks

(00:00.842)

Yep, been calling for it, calling for it for over two decades. Need to break up the too big to fail banks. And they weren’t always called too big to fail, but you know what I’m talking about right now. I want to share with you some of the bull excrement mission statements from some of these big investment firms. JP Morgan Chase, our integrity and reputation depend on our ability to do the right thing, even when it’s not the easy

No financial incentive or opportunity, regardless of the bottom line, justifies departure from our values. It’s Goldman Sachs. The talent and passion of our people are critical to our success. Together, we share a common set of values rooted in integrity and excellence. Merrill Lynch, the interests of our clients must come first. You see, it’s Bolexcrement.

because I know better and I know how these people treat their clients. And again, if you’re not aware, it’s not like the mainstream media really reports on any of this stuff. They really don’t. We do. And again, I used to do a hell of a lot more of it, quite frankly. I mean, when we originally started this program back in 2000, I used to spend a lot of time.

lot of time yelling and screaming about what was taking place and what these big firms were doing. you can actually go to our website at Watchdog on wallstreet .com and look at the archives of Wall Street fraud, all of the stories that I’ve covered over the years, stuff that would make your stomach turn coming from these very firms. There was a survey done of Wall Street insiders not too long ago, basically, you know, asking them questions.

23 % of the insiders said they had observed, this is working at these big firms, had observed or had firsthand knowledge of wrongdoing in the workplace. 24 % said they would engage in insider trading to make 10 million if they could get away with it. 26 % say they believed the compensation plans or bonus structures in place of their company incentivizes employees to compromise ethical standards or violate the law.

(02:25.934)

17 % said they expected their leaders were likely to look the other way if they suspected a top performer engaged in insider trading. 15 % doubted that their leadership upon learning of a top performer’s crime would report it to authorities. Last but not least, 28 % of respondents felt that the financial services industry does not put the interests of clients first. And again, I’d imagine they’re actually much worse.

than these actually numbers show. And again, the stories that we’ve covered over the years have proved that. We got into a point of time, again, we got LenaCon at the FTC and trying to go after various different tech companies and monopolies. We got these massive financial institutions that after being,

a major player. They weren’t the only ones involved. OK, by any stretch, you can’t put the blame just on the big banks for the Great Recession, can’t. But they most certainly played a huge hand in it. And they came out on the other side more powerful than they were when they went in. How does that make sense? How is that fair? I’ve also said it doesn’t make much sense to me.

for certain aspects of their business to be, again, certain aspects of their business, let me phrase it different way, certain aspects of their business, they’re true professions, need to be broken off. Maybe not, you want to break up the entire financial institution, how about the wealth managers? How about their so -called financial advisors? How about their analytics department? How about have that sold off separately?

not be a part of the grand scheme of things. You can’t serve two masters. And the CEO of one of these companies has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. Meaning what? They’re not gonna give a damn about their individual clients. It’s the shareholders that they care about and the stock price that they care about. And again, I’ve witnessed this happen in real time again and again and again.

(04:45.518)

And I’ve said this, I don’t understand for the life of me why anybody would be working with one of these firms, having them manage their money. Fine, you gotta have a checking account. Oop, gotta borrow money for a mortgage. I get all that. But you know, you’re just a number there. And they’re trying to sell you their stuff. Anyway, in 1947, okay, the US government sued the top 17 investment banks for violating

trust laws, collusion. The Justice Department and their suit alleged that the investment firms had created, and I quote, and integrated overall conspiracy and combination beginning in 1915 and in continuous operation thereafter by which they developed a system to eliminate competition and monopolize the cream of the business of investment banking. This story written by William Cohen wrote about

And the US argued that the top Wall Street investment banks, including Morgan Stanley, which was the lead defendant, and Goldman Sachs had crafted a type of cartel, which was able to set prices charged for their services, such as securities underwriting, mergers, and acquisitions. The firms colluded to essentially box out smaller banks. It was discovered that the big investment firms would strategically place their partners on their clients’ boards of directors. By doing this, it placed their firms at a very favorable position.

to win when and where business was coming from and how to win

We could only wish that this time 17. There were 17 investment banks involved in this case competing against one or that time. Okay. What do we have today? Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup Bank of America, Deutsche Bank. Some of those have even weakened. Deutsche Bank has weakened a large deal. Banks are much in orders of magnitude.

(06:51.566)

much more concentrated and powerful than they were back in 1947. 12 largest banks in the country control 70 % of the entire US banking industry. Size, concentration, revenue, and connections have placed these entities above all rules and laws. Again, I’ve cited this before. Again, that’s why nobody gets in any trouble. They’ll pay a fine.

They’ll pay a fine. The fines that are issued to these big firms are essentially parking tickets, parking tickets like they would hand out to UPS or FedEx. It’s part of a cost of doing business. was actually a Senate hearing. Eric Holder, attorney general, stated, when banks are considered too big to fail, it’s difficult to prosecute them. If we do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national Economy.

How is that fair? that essentially they’re above the law is what Eric Holder, the attorney general was saying. And I can go on and on down the list by the fact that once you are too big to fail, you can borrow money at rates lower than everyone else. Anyway, okay. Now again, part of Trump’s 2016 platform was just this what I’m talking about right now. Just this.

Okay, addressing the issue of too big to fail. I’d like to revisit that. Watchdog on wallstreet .com.