Talk:Bank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Finance, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Finance. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.


Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as High-importance on the assessment scale
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

"The terms bankrupt and "broke" are similarly derived from banca rotta, which refers to an out-of-business bank, having its bench physically broken." Oh yea? Sounds to me like an unfounded assertion. While the derivation of "bank" from "banca" is beyond dispute, the term "banca rotta" is an obvious and easy metaphor that does not require a physical basis. If it does have a physical basis, please let us have a citation.

re: the above--- From the New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition:

bank ORIGIN late 15th cent.(originally denoting a money dealer's table): from French banque or Italian banca, from medieval Latin banca, bancus, of Germanic origin; related to bank 1 and bench .

bankrupt ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from Italian banca rotta ‘broken bench,’ from banca (see bank 2 ) and rompere ‘to break.’ The change in the ending was due to association with Latin rupt- ‘broken.’ PubliusPresent 00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] immediate update

the economist rankings are year old in regards to the wrolds biggest banks, the new list for 2006 is here http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7141354 I think this page should be combined with Banking. Anyone opposed? Jfeckstein 04:31, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think Banking should be name of the subject. The two articles should be merged. SEWilco 19:12, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I would like to see something in this article about the U.S's dual banking system and the two charters: national and state. Some banks have N.A. or fsb after their names. Does this identify the charter they operate under? Fernkes 14:23, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rankings of banks is old and not very good

The rankings are old and not very accurate. A recent merger in Japan should make Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group the largest group.

Also there is a new bank in the top 10 now in most categories: http://www.Regions.com (http://www.regions.com/merger/merger.shtml) merged with http://www/Amsouth.com (http://www.amsouth.com/special/news_release20060525.asp) so regions is now in the top 10 and needs to be revised.

The problem is the data which is available, eg in the last edition of the Economist (18 May 2006) they used data from the end of 2004 [1] which I used to update our rankings. My understanding is that the delay is partly as a result of the need to ensure data is comparable, although this is becoming easier with the introduction of IFRS although US banks are still operating with US GAAP.
Although Regions will be a top 10 US bank when, and lets remember it isnt approved by shareholders yet, it is created, however even then it wont rank in the top 10 globally, it will in fact be some way off, eg taking the lowest placed in the current top 10, eg US$1110bn for BofA against the new Regions' assets of US$138bn.We also can change other money in other country
Incidentally what do people think about taking the US info off here into a new article in the format of Banks of the United Kingdom? This article is in danger of loosing a global view, and there is alot to say about the structure of the sector in the US, especially for those of us who are used to European banking. I'll quite happily do this later on. Ian3055 17:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The article on Barclays bank suggests that Barclays is ranked first by total assets ($1590 billion) - can anyone explain the discrepancy? Whatsoverthere 18:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rankings of banks: What is the currency?

The ranking of banks gives profits, but what currency are the numbers in?

  1. Citigroup 20 billion
  2. Bank of America 15 billion
  3. HSBC 10 billion
  4. Royal Bank of Scotland 8 billion
  5. Wells Fargo 7 billion
  6. JP Morgan Chase 7 billion
  7. UBS AG 6 billion
  8. Wachovia 5 billion
  9. Morgan Stanley 5 billion
 10. Merrill Lynch 4 billion
All in US$. Fixed. Owen× ☎ 01:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't use profits to measure bank size. Profit is a measure of financial performance. To measure size, you should look to the size of their total assets (i.e. what they own). Jason 12:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deposits

What kind of deposits are those 193 billion in Citigroup? Isn't it closer to 500 billion? Isn't the whole "Other Current Liabilities" at Yahoo ([2]) deposts? Compare with BAC ([3]). Here's their retail banking ([4]). Their 2003 10-K say "Total deposits 474,015" ([5]) (page 103).--Jerryseinfeld 22:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] OtherUses template

Please change the article to use Template:OtherUses instead of Template:otheruses it currently uses. The OtherUses template has information about the contents of the article.

{{OtherUses|info=information about the contents of the article}}

For a sample use of this template refer to the articles Alabama or Algiers--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuKot (talk • contribs) .

Note that that functionality is now at {{otheruses1}}. {{OtherUses}} redirects to {{otheruses}}, and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive

The article Grameen Bank is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. If you want to support the article, you can vote for it there.--Fenice 06:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


i do not find information on Treasury income or other types of bank incomes

[edit] Someone update this crap

Bunch of information on banks in us http://www2.fdic.gov/sod/sodSummary.asp?barItem=3 dont feel like updating, maybe ill do it tomorow...

I agree. Someone who works at a bank needs to fix this article! Unfortunately, I suspect they're all too busy making money with other people's money... --Coolcaesar 01:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re-arrange

I've rearranged the article a bit, so that it's a bit more themed and easier to digest. The Land 16:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expand Article

Could someone provide a section which describes how banks work? As I understand it, one of the fundamentals in the operation of a bank is that they borrow money (receive deposits) paying one level of interest and then lend that money (loans) at a higher level of interest, earning an income on the spread between the interest rates.

I was surprised to see that the term "spread" wasn't used even once in the article. Am I misguided in believing this is almost as widely used in banking cirles as the term "interest"? My own knowlege of bank operation is limited and spotty, otherwise I'd attempt this section myself.

--Jaxhere 14:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of "trading bank" as a term. Its used in New Zealand is it used anywhere else? It used to be an offical type of bank in NZ. Abeorch 12:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

At my bank, we would talk about "margin" rather than "spread". To me, spread sounds like a term from a money market team, rather than a lending team. But, whatever. And yes, in Australia we used to have a concept of a "trading bank" and a "savings bank", but these two concepts are gone.

I'm a bit surprised on how scant the information is on Basel II... and the article even refers to fractional reserve banking as if it were somehow still being used...

Jason 12:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have heard that banks don't actually give the money that people deposit as loans. It that were so, how come corporations, businesses and individuals can all be in debt at the same time? I am told that banks actually create the money they lend out in exchange for the promise of borrowers to pay that money back. Can anyone elaborate on this? I learned this from the doccumentary "money as debt". It can be seen here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&q=money&total=176378&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 It is a very complex subject area but if anyone knows how it works it would be good to know.

Not much information on the internal workings of a bank: The treasury, finance, payments, accounting, regulatory reporting, relationship to central banks, relevance of IT, ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.157.68 (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banking accounting practices

What's missing from this entry is a section (or link to a section) on general accounting practices used by banks. There's the GAPP articles, and various accounting articles, but I'd be interested in how banks set up their data processing and database systems to handle these things, as well as any regulations or practices that apply specifically to banks. I doubt banks use a typical general ledger system. There must be more to it than that. Anyone think this is a good idea?

[edit] Language?

Am I the only one that feels that the language of this article is not very good? I'm talking about writing problems and grammar issues. For example:

"A bank is an institution that provides financial service," - this should be services

"There are also financial institutions that provide certain banking services without meeting the legal definition of a bank, a so called non-banking financial company." - two problems: "also financial institutions" sounds awkward to me; also the agreement is wrong in the last clause (singular-plural).

"derived from German language" - this doesn't sound right either.

There are some other examples; maybe a native speaker with good writing skills should edit this article.

Elekmathe 13:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] licence

Changed to reflect the American spelling. I know America isn't the boss of the world but 70% of english speakers are american so I think the american spelling should go here...

Wikipedia policy is to maintain differences in spelling as they are written therefore I have reverted. Ian3055 22:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Central Bank

It seems to me that this entry is about depository institutions, not about central banks, so the brief discussion on Andrew Jackson's opinion of the US Central Bank should be axed. The author of that section didn't get the reasoning behind Jackson's opinion correct, anyway, and doesn't seem to understand the difference between a depository institution and a central bank. Yikes. PubliusPresent 00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a dictionary

I agree with the previous deletion of the huge two paragraphs explaining the whole ethymology behind the word "bank". I don't think it's "stale vandalism". Any thoughts on this? -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 17:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


This whole article is a laugh, obviously written by someone with very little knowledge and understanding of banking. The comment about how banks now generate most non-interest income via overdraft charges is the best. I've been in corporate banking for 20+ years, but as one writer stated, I don't have time to straighten this article out as I am out making money off your funds.

[edit] "A bank is a..." - first line review?

Surely the initial phrase: "A bank is a business that provides banking services for profit." is a little self-explanatory? I mean, a "fisherman" is someone who carries out fishing duties?

How about "...that provide financial services for profit"? Wouldn't that make more sense? --leopheard 16:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Make the change. You don't need permission. //BankingBum 16:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC) $$

[edit] Income from loans/Creating money...

where is the information about banks basically 'creating' money when someone gets a loan? instead of having the actual reserves in the vault, the banks make you sign your car etc. as collateral, then CREATE the debt/loan using only the promise that you will pay it back... Its an IOU scam that every sucker in the world is part of!... Also what about the, I think, INCREDIBLY important fact that those who control the international banks control the way society develops, as THEY have the power to not supply loans to any sector, industry they don't want... Is there anything in wikipedia about economic debt, and how if everyone paid of their loans and never took out another one, there would be NO MORE MONEY...?

Just Curious

16:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is indeed factual information, go ahead and add a paragraph or two - just be sure to cite your sources. Of course you never will because it is not accurate at all. Either you don't have a tinkle of knowledge as to how fractional banking works, or you are woefully uninformed. 206.169.172.212 23:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Paul Grignon's 47-minute animated presentation of Money as Debt tells in very simple and effective graphic terms what money is and how it is being created. Caution: Do not go to Google Video and search for "Money as Debt", and most certainly do not watch it for free, because this would violate ZILLIONS of copyright laws. Also, put The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin on your summer reading list. N0 D1C4 00:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public perceptions of banks neutrality

The section on public perceptions of banks discusses only negative perceptions:

  • Mentions Andrew Jackson, not James Madison
  • Neutrality: "Currently, many people consider that various banking policies take advantage of customers"
  • Neutrality: "In response to the perceived greed and socially-irresponsible all-for-the-profit attitude of banks,..."

[edit] National Banking

That the article mentions neither national banking, nor public credit, severely hurts the credibility of the article. The current debacle of banks loaning money that they don't have can be complemented by showing that the government, the people, and the banks, would not lose out were they to nationalize.

Suggestions:

Bhanafee 07:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Banking

That the article mentions neither national banking, nor public credit, greatly hurts the credibility of the article. The current debacle of banks loaning money that they do not have can be complemented by showing that the government, the people, and the banks can all greatly benefit by nationalization. Putting the banks under bankruptcy proceedings, reorganizing them, and protecting them is necessary. The world governments, economies, and financial systems all require a system of public credit. The reason for that is there is no other way by which reliable investment in fundamentals, such as food production, can occur. 74.195.25.78 (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Edits

I've done some minor editing, just to clean up the grammar here and there. I just thought I'd post here to say "hi". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegas949 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] category renaming

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 17:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)