Are banks really too big?

The linked video is an interesting and controversial one.

Interesting presentation, but he provided no real solutions to bring to lawmakers. Maybe it was the way he made it sound, but telling a company you are too big or too powerful seems socialist in nature, assuming they have not broken any anti-trust laws (which none of these banks currently have).

Competition is still alive and well right now in the financial marketplace. He claims that the banks have gotten bigger due to risk-taking, but in reality, the ability to purchase cheaper, undervalued assets has contributed to higher earnings. In conjunction, the Fed's maintenance of all-time low interest rates allows them to borrow for cheaper than they can lend, in a sensible way.

If people want to support the breakup of Goldman, then why not other large corporations such as Walmart? Also, this seems to become a slippery slope. Who decides or distinguishes what banks or corporations are too big to fail?

Goldman actually sold off one of its key trading divisions to KKR not long ago. I suspect other banks will follow.

The speaker was dead on about the poor compensation structure, however. It's not necessarily the size of the bonuses, as how they are obtained (i.e. reward for risk). If employees of any corporation are properly compensated with decisions that favor long-term sustainability and growth of the organization, then reward amounts and bonuses are not going to be a major issue in the future.

I'll step off the soapbox now.