Comments on: Banking and finance roundup

By: MattS

MattS — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 04:45:31 +0000

“absent guarantees the State would protect them from the Fed”

As if any state government would be able to deliver on that guarantee if they were foolish enough to make it.

By: MattS

MattS — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:15:14 +0000

In reply to gasman. It's not state insurance and banking laws that are the problem, it's federal law.

By: CarLitGuy

CarLitGuy — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:26:03 +0000

Even if they had, there is no reason to suspect the the Federal Gov’t wouldn’t lean on the banks and insurers doing business with the growers, the same way they leaned on banks doing business with other “blacklisted” businesses. Bankers and Insurers are naturally risk averse – absent guarantees the State would protect them from the Fed, even the suggestion of potential Federal audit raises a healthy disinclination to do business with growers – the value of their accounts isn’t worth the hassle or the reputational damage.

By: gasman

gasman — Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:06:12 +0000

Re: California pot growers.

Is there any reason why California could not have made adjustments to state insurance laws and banking regulation to accommodate this new business? Was it merely a bone headed oversight that they failed to embrace a new, and taxable, industry?