Time to hide your savings under the mattress.

[CultureCitizen]

its exposure to derivatives is US$70 trillion,

dear, as a total uncultured illiterate parrot you have no idea what that means. In fact, banks manage risks by taking positions on both sides so no matter which way things turn they at worst break even. For example they might buy bonds and stocks knowing that if one goes up the other will go down.

Do you understand this at all?

Yes , I understand, but those assets are so convoluted that not even the banks can be sure of what's inside them . It is a risk. Specially at the rate by which those "assets" have been growing in the last 5 years. We'll see. Current oil prices might show if the current position of the banks is as firmly stablished as you claim.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

its exposure to derivatives is US$70 trillion,

dear, as a total uncultured illiterate parrot you have no idea what that means. In fact, banks manage risks by taking positions on both sides so no matter which way things turn they at worst break even. For example they might buy bonds and stocks knowing that if one goes up the other will go down.

Do you understand this at all?

Yes , I understand, but those assets are so convoluted that not even the banks can be sure of what's inside them . It is a risk. Specially at the rate by which those "assets" have been growing in the last 5 years. We'll see. Current oil prices might show if the current position of the banks is as firmly stablished as you claim.

dear so far the only risk we have seen is from a housing bubble blown up with dollars from the liberal's printing press.

 

[FA_Q2]

Edward,

According to the article below, there is an excesive leverage on the banking system..

you start out by being an uncultured liberal illiterate. No one knows what excessive leverage is? Every business and bank and most people are in debt. There is no measure of what too much is.
IF some banks what to earn big returns for their shareholders through lots of debt they should be free to do it.

Of course, they can take all the risk they please and when the system explodes because there is no actual assets involved the government sill simply come in and pay them anyway so we don't go into depression. And you are still confused why bailouts are a bad thing and should not have happened?

Wow.

 

[FA_Q2]

those institutions are going to be bailed out if anything major occurs again

no idea why you say that when many were not bailed out last time and the interest it doing it again will be far less.

Do you understand?

The big ones were and now bailouts are enshrined directly in law.

They will do it again because of the same exact reasons that they did it last time. To avoid that scary depression you were rambling about.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The big ones were and now bailouts are enshrined directly in law.

They will do it again because of the same exact reasons that they did it last time. To avoid that scary depression you were rambling about.

of course thats too stupid given that 1) Dodd-Frank was designed to provide for the orderly bankruptcy of insolvent banks, 2) the country is in no mood to bail them out again, 3) and that the huge failed banks like Merryl Lynch WaMu, Bear Sterns, Lehman etc send a constant message that those who survive had better be much more conservative and careful.

Isn't thinking fun?