I think it was Islandman who said that he does not believe

[Karl]

in too big to fail.

My question is, what is it he has observered or experienced that he would like to share?

...or put another way, why?

[Islandman]

I don't think it was me Karl, unless it was in a very specific context.

Sure there are cases of too big to fail. Or put another way, where the consequences of allowing failure greatly exceeds the consequences of preventing it.

[Rockman]

Always was troubled by that statement as it deviates from the norm,it raises questions about antitrust laws and its exceptions.A business that is too big to fail is simply too big.

Is their a law that caps the amount a bank can sell an asset from foreclosure?
Though the dynamics of the Finsac/JRF debacle seems tp be of an entirely different nature,I believe the answer to the question is a crucial start.

[Rockman]

s/b is there

[Islandman]

I agree 100% that if a company is so large that its failure will result in major macroeconomic problems, then it should be broken up.

In some cases though, like what happened recently in the US financial system and probably Jamaican banks in the 90s too, I get the feeling that the problem is not so much the size of any one company as it was the interdependencies between them that caused everything to fall like a stack of dominoes. Those are more problems of oversight and regulation than a too big to fail problem.

[Rockman]

Interestingly banks are exempted(I believe) from antitrust laws.
I am comvinced there is a law that prevents banks from making runaway profits from foreclosure assets as a deterrent to banks...

[Don1]

Banks generally at maximum, can only recover the outstanding loan balance from foreclosures. Recoveries beyond that go to other parties with an interest in the asset

[Karl]

I don't think it was me Karl, unless it was in a very specific context.

Sure there are cases of too big to fail. Or put another way, where the consequences of allowing failure greatly exceeds the consequences of preventing it.

If it was not you...no problem. I could not remember who it was (thought you were the person but as I made known was not sure)...and was too lazy to do "search".

I hope the person steps forward and let us know why that position.

Forgive me, boss.

[Karl]

Always was troubled by that statement as it deviates from the norm,it raises questions about antitrust laws and its exceptions.A business that is too big to fail is simply too big.

Is their a law that caps the amount a bank can sell an asset from foreclosure?
Though the dynamics of the Finsac/JRF debacle seems tp be of an entirely different nature,I believe the answer to the question is a crucial start.

Clearly FINSAC also had the underlying message that some companies (financial institution or financial institutions?) were considered too big to fail...and appropriate action(s) taken to ensure same.

...then there are the US institutions that were considered as being too big to fail by the Obama administration...