Politics is banned on METAR. But it’s hard to follow the rules when President Trump himself meddles in the economy every day. Now he has brought politics into banking.
The White House is preparing an executive order that would fine banks for dropping customers for political reasons.
The order directs regulators to investigate potential violations of credit, antitrust, and consumer protection laws by financial institutions.
Banks have been updating policies and meeting with officials, and say their decisions are based on legal, regulatory, and financial risks.
…
Conservatives for years have accused banks of denying them services on political or religious grounds, and cryptocurrency companies have said they were shut out of banking services under the Biden administration.
Banks, for their part, have said their decisions are driven by legal, regulatory or financial risks, including those stemming from the U.S.’s antimoney-laundering laws. They have blamed regulatory pressure for prior decisions to largely steer clear of the crypto industry…
Under Trump, banking regulators have said they would stop assessing banks for what is called the reputational risk posed by their customers—a practice that banks have cited for their decisions to avoid certain customers or industries… [end quote]
Banks are already regulated tightly with many rules. It’s ironic that the new regulation will contradict some of the existing regulations.
This is also a way for Trump to put the screws on any bank that displeases him for any reason. Similar to the way he blackmailed legal firms that worked against him in the past, Trump could order regulators to investigate potential violations of credit, antitrust, and consumer protection laws by financial institutions unless they paid him off or otherwise acted against their own risk evaluations. Just the threat of an investigation would put immense pressure on a bank.
Does bankrupting multiple businesses count as a political reason? How about being a corrupt dirt bag?
Good God, I’ve never met an “alpha male” so adept at playing the victim and whining incessantly. Maybe it’s just the playbook for our Extortionist 'n Cheat.
I get we’re not supposed to discuss politics, but come on…all this crazy stuff has definite macro impacts.
If banks can’t make legitimate judgement calls on who they do business with, seems like we’ll see a lot more risk in the financial sector.
So what? Can’t a company choose who they do business with? I mean, bakers can choose to not do business with LGTBQ customers, right?
PS - Farage is a dirt bag.
As for Melania and Barron, I wouldn’t do business with them either. Imagine a simple misunderstanding turning into a call for violence against your business…with TFG rage posting for his supporters to turn up because “It Will Be Wild!” Geesh, no thanks.
Nothing new. All of this are promised before the elections. I have already modeled that both $BAC, $JPM going to do multi-billion $$$ settlement with the administration and multi-100 million $$$ settlement personally with Trump.
Watch out, they are coming for $SBUX, $MCD for stating customers cannot bring arms into their stores are denying services to customers because they are following second amendment.
So…you must be very upset that Columbia and Harvard have been targeted. All the law firms?
Politics has very little to do with it. Farage was denied because he’s a xenophobic racist. Others are denied because they’re corrupt and/or morally depraved. They use their politics as a shield for why they’re being singled out, but it’s not political.
When a company decides not to be involved in an industry, they are not discriminating any one individual. Yes, the business has the right not to be associated with certain industries because of higher risks associated with them.
Today, Crypto is arguing that their customers were criminal should not stop them from getting banking services. Crypto firms may not have to comply with money-laundering but banks have to. Why would a bank accept such crypto firms as customers?
It is not the economic reason, legal, logic that is driving, a giant ego, as big as a black hole, is trying to extract vengeance and money from anything, anyone perceived to have crossed its path.
But, hey we have separation of executive, legislative and courts. A very strong system to protect these abuses.
I agree. When it comes to money, businesses (and especially banks) are agnostic. You’re either a good banking prospect/customer, or you aren’t. I think they value solvency over politics. That’s also why FOX Business isn’t too bad, because they don’t mess around when it comes to money. Where FOX News is a disaster.
According to the article on bubblevision’s site, one of the banks in question is JPM. Wouldn’t it be amusing if, after repeatedly evading any accountability for JPM’s illegal activities, Dimon is in the dock for the bank deciding that his nibs is a bad credit risk?
Whenever anyone called out #43 for his invented wars abroad, and police state tactics in the US, he would start bawling “we were victims on 9/11”. His nibs learned, and now plays the victim card constantly.
Some 20-odd years ago, another poster on this board took issue with my describing the US as “a big, heavily armed, aggressive, banana republic”. I stand by my assessment.
It is simpler than that. The banks likely did not want to get caught up in one of his money laundering rackets
We seem to be entering the inversion that I expected on the last go around, when I went cash heavy.
It’s probably only a matter of time, before the “JCs” all figure out that all they need to do is kiss his nibs’ rear, and hand him a big check, and they can make profits like never before.
A year ago, there was chatter about such a transaction with big oil. Since then, we have heard the rhetoric about “energy dominance”,seen regs on drilling pushed aside, seen vehicle fuel economy regs be made unenforceable, seen EV incentives repealed, seen purchase of US oil and gas become a regular ask in “arty” trade negotiations. What’s next? Outlaw everything smaller than a 5000lb SUV as “unsafe” to increase demand for gasoline even more?
Does a bank want a waiver from banking regulation? Finance whatever his nibs wants financed.
Skydance wanted the FCC to sign off on it’s buyout of Paramount, and the Paramount honchos wanted to pocket their huge “change of control” payouts, so they agreed to a political commissar to oversee CBS “news”. I wonder if the political commissar is on site now. I flipped over to CBS for the national news tonight, and their big story they were teasing was, words to the effect “in spite of appearances, violent crime in the US is down”. I laffed, shook my head, and turned back to NBC, where there was no mention of “violent crime” being “down”.
Did she reveal that her husband had defaulted on so many loans most banks were unwilling to work with him even before he became president?
Did she also reveal that a judge found her husband had participated in a years long scheme to defraud banks?
I mean, we all know bankers as a group are incredibly liberal, but hold out the idea for a moment that maybe, just maybe, they just don’t like doing business with the guy.
Actually, the claim originates from early 2021. Why any bank might want to deny a relationship for her and her son, “in the weeks following the Trumps leaving the White House in early 2021” is a mystery.