Signalpost

EU nterference

Just the other day Obama encouraged the nations all over the world to stabilize the financial system with government loans if neccesary. Now questions are being raised as to wether it is consistent with the rules of the EU to give this kind of support.

Banks in need

It is consistent with the EU rules to give money to banks in need, when the money are given as part of a general rescue or restructoring package. It is then ok to support banks that has suffered losses, but to the loss-suffering is a must. read more aboute the bank support packages all over EU

Passing bank supporting legislation

All over the world governments have been passing legislation that puts out a safetynet under the banking world, to ensure that customers do not pull out all their money.

The question of ideologies?

In many countries there has also been multiple discussions as to wether it is correst to support the banking world – seen from an ideology point of view. However many governments – especially liberal governments – have seen themselves in a situation where they had to act agianst their ideologies to secure the national economy. read more aboute the support to the banking system

For a couple of years now, everybody has been talking about the devastating implications of subprime, the credit crunch, the financial crisis – call it what you want. For a number of reasons, the current crisis could easily be compared to the great depression on the street in 1929 – which many have taken the opportunity to do. Not only because the current market turmoil is at a level that matches (or in some markets even outdoes) the chaotic levels we saw during the depression, but also because there is an interesting link combining the two crises, as the current crisis seems to be the end of the investment banking model that actually originated as a consequence of the 1929 crisis. The investment banking model worked well – very well – for many years, but we have now seen the end of it, which proofs that as soon as we end an era, we are also starting a new. Tomorrow’s investment bank & White Label Solutions

Long-term liquidity crisis?

The crisis keeps setting new lows, and governments and central banks are desperately fighting back with everything they’ve got. But what are the long-term effects of US government interventions?

There have been a lot of different opinions about how the US government have handled the financial crisis, and how they should handle it moving forward – both among economic experts, but also, as we saw with the rescue package bill, among themselves. Many believe the government has done the right thing by interfering in the financial markets, providing liquidity, helping packages, etc. etc. And of course it seems as a satisfactory solution when the market bounce right up in the minutes following the announcements, but what will the medium or long-term effects of this be? Spitting too much money out in the banks and in the financial system will obviously have consequences on a long-term basis, and will probably cause the end of a number of planned government projects and goals. On the environment side, take for example the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), a project which the US government set in motion with a goal of achieving a 15% rate of alternative energy by the year of 2020. Not only is it unsure how they will finance the project after pumping liquidity into the markets and potentially raising taxes, but the financial crisis have also set it’s marks on the alternative energy providers that the US would be working with in order to achieve this goal, such as Siemens and Danish company Vestas, both of which have previously (even before the crisis) had trouble with meeting clients’ demands. Long-term finacial liquidity crisis and the Liquidity Solutions