<?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/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Counterparties: Unintended collateral</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/11/counterparties-unintended-collateral/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/11/counterparties-unintended-collateral/</link>
	<description>A slice of lime in the soda</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 14:44:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Auros</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/11/counterparties-unintended-collateral/comment-page-1/#comment-43054</link>
		<dc:creator>Auros</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:53:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=17475#comment-43054</guid>
		<description>So, wait, &quot;thousands of full-time jobs,&quot; across the entire financial industry?  _If_ Dodd-Frank really was going to be as effective at preventing a replay of 2008 for the next 60-70 years as Glass-Steagall was at preventing a replay of &#039;29, wouldn&#039;t that be worthwhile?  That&#039;s a big if, of course -- I suspect that a simpler regime would both cost less and be more effective.  But come on, how many trillions of GDP have been permanently lost?  The whole economy was sent into a nearly -10% annualized rate tailspin, and since then has limped along, never actually making up the gap between actual output and long-term potential, leaving millions of potentially-productive Americans on the sidelines.  Even TEN thousand new jobs, across the whole banking sector is significantly less than two per bank.  (There&#039;s something like 7,500 commercial banks in the US.)  We&#039;re probably talking much less than one new employee at small banks -- a few extra hours of work for the existing compliance officers -- a handful of new people at bigger city / regional banks, and a new medium size team for compliance at the behemoths.  This is supposed to be a big deal?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, wait, &#8220;thousands of full-time jobs,&#8221; across the entire financial industry?  _If_ Dodd-Frank really was going to be as effective at preventing a replay of 2008 for the next 60-70 years as Glass-Steagall was at preventing a replay of &#8217;29, wouldn&#8217;t that be worthwhile?  That&#8217;s a big if, of course &#8212; I suspect that a simpler regime would both cost less and be more effective.  But come on, how many trillions of GDP have been permanently lost?  The whole economy was sent into a nearly -10% annualized rate tailspin, and since then has limped along, never actually making up the gap between actual output and long-term potential, leaving millions of potentially-productive Americans on the sidelines.  Even TEN thousand new jobs, across the whole banking sector is significantly less than two per bank.  (There&#8217;s something like 7,500 commercial banks in the US.)  We&#8217;re probably talking much less than one new employee at small banks &#8212; a few extra hours of work for the existing compliance officers &#8212; a handful of new people at bigger city / regional banks, and a new medium size team for compliance at the behemoths.  This is supposed to be a big deal?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Auros</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/11/counterparties-unintended-collateral/comment-page-1/#comment-43039</link>
		<dc:creator>Auros</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:21:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=17475#comment-43039</guid>
		<description>So, wait, &quot;thousands of full-time jobs,&quot; across the entire financial industry?  _If_ Dodd-Frank really was going to be as effective at preventing a replay of 2008 for the next 60-70 years as Glass-Steagall was at preventing a replay of &#039;29, wouldn&#039;t that be worthwhile?  That&#039;s a big if, of course -- I suspect that a simpler regime would both cost less and be more effective.  But come on, how many trillions of GDP have been permanently lost?  The whole economy was sent into a nearly -10% annualized rate tailspin, and since then has limped along, never actually making up the gap between actual output and long-term potential, leaving millions of potentially-productive Americans on the sidelines.  Even TEN thousand new jobs, across the whole banking sector is significantly less than two per bank.  (There&#039;s something like 7,500 commercial banks in the US.)  We&#039;re probably talking much less than one new employee at small banks -- a few extra hours of work for the existing compliance officers -- a handful of new people at bigger city / regional banks, and a new medium size team for compliance at the behemoths.  This is supposed to be a big deal?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, wait, &#8220;thousands of full-time jobs,&#8221; across the entire financial industry?  _If_ Dodd-Frank really was going to be as effective at preventing a replay of 2008 for the next 60-70 years as Glass-Steagall was at preventing a replay of &#8217;29, wouldn&#8217;t that be worthwhile?  That&#8217;s a big if, of course &#8212; I suspect that a simpler regime would both cost less and be more effective.  But come on, how many trillions of GDP have been permanently lost?  The whole economy was sent into a nearly -10% annualized rate tailspin, and since then has limped along, never actually making up the gap between actual output and long-term potential, leaving millions of potentially-productive Americans on the sidelines.  Even TEN thousand new jobs, across the whole banking sector is significantly less than two per bank.  (There&#8217;s something like 7,500 commercial banks in the US.)  We&#8217;re probably talking much less than one new employee at small banks &#8212; a few extra hours of work for the existing compliance officers &#8212; a handful of new people at bigger city / regional banks, and a new medium size team for compliance at the behemoths.  This is supposed to be a big deal?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Auros</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/11/counterparties-unintended-collateral/comment-page-1/#comment-43038</link>
		<dc:creator>Auros</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:17:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=17475#comment-43038</guid>
		<description>So, tens of thousands of full-time jobs, across the entire financial industry?  _If_ Dodd-Frank really was going to be as effective at preventing a replay of 2008 for the next 60-70 years as Glass-Steagall was at preventing a replay of &#039;29, wouldn&#039;t that be worthwhile?  That&#039;s a big if, of course -- I suspect that a simpler regime would both cost less and be more effective.  But come on, how many trillions of GDP have been permanently lost?  The whole economy was sent into a nearly -10% annualized rate tailspin, and since then has limped along, never actually making up the gap between actual output and long-term potential, leaving millions of potentially-productive Americans on the sidelines.  Ten thousand new compliance offices across the whole banking sector is less than two per bank.  (There&#039;s something like 7,500 commercial banks in the US.)  So we&#039;re probably talking less than one new employee at small banks -- a few extra hours of work for the existing compliance officers -- a handful of new people at bigger city / regional banks, and a new medium size team for compliance at the behemoths.  This is supposed to be a big deal?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, tens of thousands of full-time jobs, across the entire financial industry?  _If_ Dodd-Frank really was going to be as effective at preventing a replay of 2008 for the next 60-70 years as Glass-Steagall was at preventing a replay of &#8217;29, wouldn&#8217;t that be worthwhile?  That&#8217;s a big if, of course &#8212; I suspect that a simpler regime would both cost less and be more effective.  But come on, how many trillions of GDP have been permanently lost?  The whole economy was sent into a nearly -10% annualized rate tailspin, and since then has limped along, never actually making up the gap between actual output and long-term potential, leaving millions of potentially-productive Americans on the sidelines.  Ten thousand new compliance offices across the whole banking sector is less than two per bank.  (There&#8217;s something like 7,500 commercial banks in the US.)  So we&#8217;re probably talking less than one new employee at small banks &#8212; a few extra hours of work for the existing compliance officers &#8212; a handful of new people at bigger city / regional banks, and a new medium size team for compliance at the behemoths.  This is supposed to be a big deal?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
