Trillions in Off-Books "Assets"

…Are being held by three of the biggest banks who recently publicly opposed additional reporting requirements to considered by Congress that would affect enforcement of capitalization rules.

$7.4 trillion to be exact. Well, as exact as one can be with accounting one is dilligently trying to keep away from one’s official books.

Said Dimon in response to the proposed tightening…

Despite zero evidence that large U.S. banks are undercapitalized today, the proposed Basel III Endgame rule, if enacted, would unjustifiably and unnecessarily increase capital requirements by 20-25% for the largest banks.

Well sure, there’s zero evidence you are undercapitalized cuz you are hiding the full picture of your assets from regulators.





Thnx, truly fascinating. Yes, I am watching gape mouthed.

d fb


Not to worry. They will gladly reveal all, the moment they want another huge handout from the government.



Then seize their assets. Problem solved.

1 Like

That would be “COMMUNISM!!!” Remember the Swedish model, which was discussed in 2008? The government nationalizes failed banks, stabilizes them, then re-privatizes. In Shiny-land, the Swedish model was rejected out of hand, as it was deemed “big gummit SOCIALISM!!!”, and the government threw money at all the big banks, whether they needed it or not.

1 Like

The definition of a monopoly is SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM (your choice). Yet that is the objective of every for-profit business (to be the monopoly supplier).

Monopoly, yes. Big gummit monopoly, no. Because all the loot is supposed to go to the “JC”, not government. The government might use it for the benefit of everyone, not just the “JC”. That is what makes it COMMINISM!!!, a fate worse than death, we are told, by the “JCs”.



Which makes management “government” = SOCIALISTS. No different than the heads of other socialist govts. I.e. dicators.

David Kay Johnston discusses off the books executive pension funds in that ballpark being off the books as well. That was back around 2003 or 2005. His book is Perfectly Legal.

Why is it legal to have assets that you do not put on your balance sheet?

Theoretically in accounting?

Because the money does not belong to the corporations. It belongs to the executives. There is probably a legal framework but I do not know where or what to cite. It would not only fall under possibly a specific set of laws but under contract law.

Executives are not paid. Executives take capital.


Probably the same way it’s legal to have a lot of the money wealthy people make not be subject to taxes.