Gasparino: Break Up the Big Banks
Chris Stirewalt and Charlie Gasparino discuss the latest on wall street
- Duration 7:32
- Date Dec 23, 2011
Chris Stirewalt and Charlie Gasparino discuss the latest on wall street
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
The mega banks don't want to change and most of Washington with the Obama White House leaving the act -- the power and access to campaign cash that the current setup gives them.
That was Charlie Gasparino writing this week in the New York Post it was a fantastic column about the politics of big banks and why they're not lending money.
And instead of just reading it instead of just reading an Internet as you like to do now you may hear it from the man himself Charlie Gasparino senior correspondent for the Fox Business Network friend of power play.
Merry Christmas and welcome back.
Christmas thanks for have made as you can -- -- shape this morning.
It just came back in the water and -- right now he may be talking he's probably dropping.
-- words -- we really haven't.
But hopefully we'll get that rectified.
Very shortly and we'll hear from him.
OK so what we're doing that well Charlie's getting his I have these big stopper I'm getting my fixed -- let's talk about what people are.
I hear I hear Charlie Gasparino Internet you can it is a Christmas miracle Charlie are you there a voice from god that -- -- from beyond the Internet joins us Charlie Gasparino Charlie I loved loved loved your column it was so good.
And by the way I should I should point out -- if you're not reading Charlie.
In your in your in the politics if you're not reading Charlie you're missing out on the easiest way to get a cheat -- essentially.
On what you need to know about a business in the economy so so there's that so state your premise forest in this.
Listen you know there are there are that that's the six big banks you know we can lamb how Wells Fargo JPMorgan Citigroup.
Go down the list six of the big ones control sixty or more percent of all the financial assets out there you have such a massive.
Sort of concentration of financial assets deposits.
Among six major players so what happens to those six major plays well they have -- on the these new rules that are being propagated Dodd-Frank.
That's a three day -- -- hold a lot of capital on their books because we don't want a repeat of the financial crisis well guess what.
Because of that they are not lending their lending may -- to the -- of the world.
But they are not lending to small businesses what you talk to anybody owns a small -- and I'm not talking about the guy that -- want guys don't companies employ people here in the US so much for horse.
They can't get enough access to capital to grow they they tell me this all the time.
And one of the major reasons is that you have banks that are so.
If there's so over regulated and by the way I'm not against the regulation and big banks need to hold capital right we don't want a repeat of 2008 but.
You know if they're not lending there's a problem here so my point simply is this these banks have to get smaller now -- do you make them smaller.
When -- more obviously they hold less capital they're not too big to fail you can let them fail -- taking risk which you know lending people money is about -- risk.
But it would lending GE money is not about taking risk and that's -- -- sort of odd figure G -- -- access to all the money it wants but guess what.
There are hiring here -- -- in China.
And my point is we have to figure out a way to break up these banks you know remember what happened in 99 the united got -- of Glass-Steagall which separated commercial and investment banking.
You -- the creation of Citigroup because that you -- an investment bank.
That the trading and brokerage and all this other stuff stuff that investment banks do.
You know when you wanna go to broker that said that that was at the Solomon Smith Barney unit of Citigroup Citigroup -- you add the other stuff get a commercial banking stuff 1989.
They got rid of the rule that separated that he created Citigroup.
One weighs in May -- to reinstitute Glass-Steagall where firms have been separated out.
The commercial banking aspect from their investment banking might be -- -- would have to spit out Merrill Lynch now what does that do for being -- -- they get money.
Maybe to pay off some of those massive liabilities -- old.
That's one of the problems -- -- stock is qualified -- this week from Chicago and maybe they can start lending again when they're smaller they're more nimble less regulation example let's capital.
It seems complicit it's it's easier said than done don't get -- -- spinning stuff out and you know changing the nature of the financial the way these banks work is it is difficult stuff.
But you know we have to do something about this outside Huntsman has as -- -- up.
They're doing stuff like that in it in overseas in the UK.
And I'll tell you I think if if he I mean Barack Obama is not gonna do this I mean I think you know I think one thing that this administration loves is that big banks' capital.
Basically input and indeed -- housed in these big banks shaken down for campaign contributions.
And then he basically knows that.
They're not lending to small businesses but guess who went to small businesses in -- in -- in the economic world to Barack Obama well it's the federal government that's quite excellent as.
That's the sort of that's the sort of game plan he wants I think if if Romney or you know I don't becomes turbulent the president but if -- -- get elected president.
Is going to be enough people that are gonna tell -- about this and I think you could see.
Something where banks get broken up and because you know the bottom line is this we we we might we might get you know I don't -- Michael -- okay.
It but I think we have a structural issue here as well I mean I don't think it's gonna go down much below 8%.
And it unless you get sort of lending because you know big corporations.
We could see positive GDP growth because corporations -- lay people off and get efficiencies right the problem is we don't have enough -- employment growth.
And one way to do that is taking -- businesses got to be able to grow small businesses that's the engine of the economy.
-- -- -- Charlie there is there it is and you don't even after reading now you've just heard it from Charlie who is according to you Internet the worst celebrity marks an -- York but the finance -- writer on the intersection between political power -- -- and money and move on Wall Street Charlie Merry Christmas we thank you so much for being my.
Okay Internet first I want to tell you what you had to say about the insert.
To Ron Paul what what Ron Paul people like to be called.
And that was at war and it NV's says.
Brokaw so Brokaw that could be the new thing seems little farfetched.
And Jake says Ron Paul maniacs so that there you have that Internet.
And I -- to tell you how grateful I am for all of your indulgence this year folks I was so happy to have the chance to talk to you every day it matters a great deal to me you've been wonderful audience you've been encouraging.
You've been helpful and everybody here at Fox News has been so supportive of our little show.
Back here in studio three.
And -- the whole crew who -- helps the tiny daily miracle that is power play you have my deepest affection.
And deepest admiration.
When I join you next Internet.
I will be out in Des Moines, Iowa on the first day of January as we prepare to see if Iowans get to caucus and on the third it will be fantastic I promise you that much it will probably also be cold but that's okay.
And I dare not leave you for the year.
Without one more word.
From our friend -- It's.
So now that he's up there I think he'll get the scrutiny that had been never sent his -- either by the media or by opponents who -- would you waste.
Here ammunition and so many that you think can't win when you can spend it on Gingrich.
Who might actually have a chance and that's why so many can we spent I think now that he is.
Somebody who could win Iowa I think he's gonna get the scrutiny he's got a lot of stuff in his response he's never had to explain he's gonna have to explain.