Comment: I know I'm going to invite the hate

(See in situ)


I know I'm going to invite the hate

but this actually sounds like a good idea. Make the shareholder and the bond holders bear the price of restructuring first is what the article said. So instead of there being zero liability as an account holder, shareholder, or bond holder, these individuals will actually bear the price of the banks actions. In other words, liability is no longer limited (that's what it sounds like to me anyways), which means the government is no longer going to protect the individual from loss. That sounds good to me because the government shouldn't be protecting the individual from loss if we are to expect the individual to make sounds decisions.

Additionally, if the shareholder and bond holders are suddenly liable, this would open the door for legal action to be taken against the banks and bank execs when the banks fail, which again means liability is increased, and the banks and bank execs will have to assume more accountability.

Now I don't know what the situation is like in Europe, and how their liability laws work, or if anyone was taken to task for the bank failures, but this is the kinds of laws that we need in the US, primarily scaling back on limited liability laws.