Modus Operandi
First, they would have to be granted a banking license. Secondly, they would have to be regulated the way a bank is regulated. In a less regulated market though it could happen. Large technology companies as those mentioned upto this stage of the article will likely be better served to own a bank holding company, or partner with one that can carry the regulatory and infrastructure burdens while allowing the tech firms to expand services through their existing channels without the unnecessary weight of additional regulatory expertise. This can be compared to companies either owning their own property or leasing from a specialized company that owns and manages properties. If ownership is in your capital structure interest, then do it, but if it isn’t, let someone else own it so you can put your capital into what you’re good at. If Nuon is a bank, we are sure Google already is.
Time to bring back Glass-Steagall
Isn’t Microsoft vested in the same “technologies”? Interesting to see that a LinkedIn Editor would leave them out of the whole scheme of things, especially following Microsoft’s acquisition of LinkedIn. Perhaps a way of making Amazon/Facebook/Google “too big to fail”??…smells to high hell!! Commercial banks are not supposed to be high-risk ventures; they are supposed to manage other people’s money very conservatively. It is with this understanding that the government agrees to pick up the tab should they fail. Investment banks, on the other hand, have traditionally managed rich people’s money — people who can take bigger risks in order to get bigger returns… oligarchic deep state writ large… what a disgrace…
