d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Banking Failure
Prev11112131415Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 22,264
Joined: Aug 17 2021
Gold: 1,546.83
Warn: 30%
Mar 23 2023 09:38pm
Quote (bogie160 @ Mar 23 2023 08:35pm)
When everything melts down, you'll be left with a condo and a tenant that the courts / tribunals refuse to evict.


We the regular people cannot do much to prevent a total meltdown but we can at least try and protect ourselves and our immediate family. Besides, I am actually involved in activism on gab.com that encourages good people to band together and form their own communities.
Member
Posts: 9,693
Joined: Mar 2 2006
Gold: 1,590.00
Mar 24 2023 07:01am
Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ 24 Mar 2023 00:51)
Listened to a video explaining the hierarchy. The bonds that were wiped were specifically bonds that had a contingency that once the bank's assets fall below a certain percentage of their obligations they would be forfeit. Lots of investors ignored it, but turns out there's no shenanigans with letting the bond holders go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV0gpO1B6tU


CET1 never fell below 7% so the big argument is going to be whether what has transpired can be described as a "Contingency Event" required to wipe out the bondholders. That's why all those hedgefunds are placing their bets now.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Mar 24 2023 09:51am
Quote (bogie160 @ Mar 23 2023 10:35pm)
When everything melts down, you'll be left with a condo and a tenant that the courts / tribunals refuse to evict.


We need to fundamentally reorganize our laws around property and housing. It's clearly only working for the most massive property owners.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Mar 24 2023 10:07am
Quote (Malopox @ Mar 24 2023 08:01am)
CET1 never fell below 7% so the big argument is going to be whether what has transpired can be described as a "Contingency Event" required to wipe out the bondholders. That's why all those hedgefunds are placing their bets now.


There were other contingencies in the bonds that don't necessarily require the conditions to be met.

The purpose of the bonds was for them to be dropped in the event of a systemic risk to the business which has definitely been met

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Mar 24 2023 10:07am
Member
Posts: 9,693
Joined: Mar 2 2006
Gold: 1,590.00
Mar 24 2023 10:16am
Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ 24 Mar 2023 17:07)
There were other contingencies in the bonds that don't necessarily require the conditions to be met.

The purpose of the bonds was for them to be dropped in the event of a systemic risk to the business which has definitely been met


Systemic risk to the business - that statement doesnt make sense. You mean idiosyncratic risks to Credit Suisse?

AT1s are not designed to protect against systemic risk. This is the role of e.g. SRM mechanism in Europe or recently announced BTFP in the United States.

In short - my opinion - investors didn't read the fine print and got screwed as they were hungry for yield in a low interest environment thinking a GSIB cant go down after 2008. Something among the lines of what this guy is writing here:
https://www.ifre.com/story/3816115/should-have-known-better-the-write-down-of-credit-suisse-at1s-qx9xp6lznd

If I would put my own money - i would say hedge funds will get nothing out of the Swiss.
Member
Posts: 56,342
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 581,399.86
Mar 24 2023 11:06am
They had so much money (not theirs, their customers). They had no one looking for Loans, so instead they decided the best way to use the money was to invest, or in their case, go to the casino. Their board of directors (12?) had 1 person with banking credentials. They went to a casino with all of their money and bet it all. A professional typically bets 5%, and accepts that he may win or lose that 5%. W/E people might think about gambling there is a reason why the same people are still at the highest level - because they dont go broke. they win and lose, with the critical point being that they are able to lose and try again.

They put all of other peoples money on a coin toss and lost. And they will do it again somewhere else tomorrow.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 24 2023 11:06am
Member
Posts: 92,959
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Mar 24 2023 11:23am
Quote (ferdia @ Mar 24 2023 12:06pm)
They had so much money (not theirs, their customers). They had no one looking for Loans, so instead they decided the best way to use the money was to invest, or in their case, go to the casino. Their board of directors (12?) had 1 person with banking credentials. They went to a casino with all of their money and bet it all. A professional typically bets 5%, and accepts that he may win or lose that 5%. W/E people might think about gambling there is a reason why the same people are still at the highest level - because they dont go broke. they win and lose, with the critical point being that they are able to lose and try again.

They put all of other peoples money on a coin toss and lost. And they will do it again somewhere else tomorrow.


this is just banking. no bank holds a significant amount of the money saved with them. you dont make money holding money, you make it by lending it out for interest or investing it to gain a percent back.

this is an outrageously positive business model in the upswings of economy, no investing firm or bank was having issues in the post-2008 recovery or 2016-2020 bubble. it's once the economy takes a downturn that they can lose money, its nearly impossible in an upswing to lose money. all you have to do is throw a dart at a stock list, buy that, hold, sell. almost nothing went down for decades.

this is the same case with FTX and Sam Fried. he got massive investments, kept almost none of it, invested people's money into his own phony currency, and it all looked like a free money printer. then crypto crashed and people realized that FTX was just like a bank, and your money is their money only without a federal guarantee of cash. and class action lawsuits will see larger investors paid out first.
Member
Posts: 56,342
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 581,399.86
Mar 24 2023 11:25am
Quote (thesnipa @ Mar 24 2023 05:23pm)
this is just banking. no bank holds a significant amount of the money saved with them. you dont make money holding money, you make it by lending it out for interest or investing it to gain a percent back. - Completely agree

this is an outrageously positive business model in the upswings of economy, no investing firm or bank was having issues in the post-2008 recovery or 2016-2020 bubble. it's once the economy takes a downturn that they can lose money, its nearly impossible in an upswing to lose money. all you have to do is throw a dart at a stock list, buy that, hold, sell. almost nothing went down for decades. - completely agree

this is the same case with FTX and Sam Fried. he got massive investments, kept almost none of it, invested people's money into his own phony currency, and it all looked like a free money printer. then crypto crashed and people realized that FTX was just like a bank, and your money is their money only without a federal guarantee of cash. and class action lawsuits will see larger investors paid out first. - i dont know about this to comment


ultimately its a cycle that repeats itself over and over, Lending criteria gets looser and looser until it collapses, it gets ultra strict and the cycle then repeats itself.

I think it was the movie margin call, where it was highlighted that the Risk team was so small in a big bank. This is true for alot of banks, unfortunately. Alot of Risk is not even at board levels, and even then, they dont have the deciding vote, they just get to outline the risks and the Bank can just Risk Accept it or not.

All Bank's have to take risks every day. its all about defining the degree of acceptable risk.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 24 2023 11:29am
Member
Posts: 92,959
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Mar 24 2023 11:37am
Quote (ferdia @ Mar 24 2023 12:25pm)
ultimately its a cycle that repeats itself over and over, Lending criteria gets looser and looser until it collapses, it gets ultra strict and the cycle then repeats itself.

I think it was the movie margin call, where it was highlighted that the Risk team was so small in a big bank. This is true for alot of banks, unfortunately. Alot of Risk is not even at board levels, and even then, they dont have the deciding vote, they just get to outline the risks and the Bank can just Risk Accept it or not.

All Bank's have to take risks every day. its all about defining the degree of acceptable risk.


there's no reason to consider failing mortgages a "risk" to the bank.

many mortgages are sold off and repackaged as part of a bond. so soon after issuing the mortgage it's off your bank's books. the risk of default before you can unload it is negligible.

then in an economic upswing the risk of the packaging bond bank is low, a hefty % need to fail for the bond to go negative.

and in both cases IF the market crashes the US govt pays off your risk tab.

changes to risk management at a banking level wont happen until the US govt stops bailing out banks, or at least criminally prosecutes executives as part of a bailout package. neither seem likely at all.
Member
Posts: 56,342
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 581,399.86
Mar 24 2023 11:45am
I am not going to comment on the above. that does not mean i agree or disagree. just in case we have this discussion again! remember im not in the US.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 24 2023 11:45am
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev11112131415Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll