• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

    Originally posted by PlanB View Post
    Don't stop there. I like your other speech where you explain the fact that real "money" wasn't actually lent, it was all a mirage on spreadsheets on a database. There was no actual "money" being played with in the casino :juggle:

    The only real money at risk was the money deposited by investors which the banks (and rogues like Madoff's $65 billion) used to gamble with :smokin:
    As they say, a picture is worth more than 1000 words!

    The graph below shows how $100 can 'expand' into $1000 when the reserve requirement is just 10%. In reality, it could well be much lower than that, around 3%. In layman's terms, for every $100 a bank has in deposits, they can 'lend' $1000 (assuming a 10% reserve, much more at lower levels). The remaining $900 are whipped up out of thin air, all the bank does is make an entry on a database saying they are lending you a certain amount, they are not actually giving you any money as such.


    Another example could be a hall of mirrors, where you have mirrors on the walls, ceiling, etc. and they all reflect each other and each other's reflections. If you were to place a £1 coin on a table in the middle of such a hall, you'd see it turn into a lot of £1 coins as it gets reflected time and again on the mirrors, so you may think there's £1000 where there's just £1!

    The fractional reserve system works on the assumption that those who have made deposits, will not all wish to withdraw all their money at the same time, when that happens, you get a run on a bank, as was the case with Northern Rock in 2007.

    The banks apply interest and other charges to the money they 'lend', this is real money that goes back to their coffers.

    Lending money is just ONE type of business activity banks engage in, speculating in stocks, futures, commodities and a variety of other financial instruments is a significant source of income, in fact, for some banks, it is their main source of income.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

      What horrifies me most of your brilliant banking lessons was in your first post - ie - that banks will lend money in the full knowledge people will have to default, and then bet on that and make money from the falling market as well. It effectively should put them in a no lose situation, so to mess up like they did requires hugely more incompetence than the average member of the public realises.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

        Originally posted by jon1965 View Post
        Well PlanB if your debts were caused by handbags , shoes and Harrods what can I say...what is wrong with Shoezone , Primark and Adli?

        Shoesize = here = there they were gone!

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

          Primarni is great for some stuff.....

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

            Originally posted by Inca View Post
            Primarni is great for some stuff.....

            Until washed twice or less. like ASDA some underwear shreads after 3 washes!

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

              Originally posted by labman View Post
              What horrifies me most of your brilliant banking lessons was in your first post - ie - that banks will lend money in the full knowledge people will have to default, and then bet on that and make money from the falling market as well. It effectively should put them in a no lose situation, so to mess up like they did requires hugely more incompetence than the average member of the public realises.
              This was at the root of the global financial meltdown in 2008, brought about by sub-prime mortgages. Such mortgages were awarded to people who wouldn't qualify for a mainstream mortgage, due to poor credit history, insufficient or inconsistent income, etc. They started at a very low rate of interest for a fixed period (usually 2 years), after which the rate doubled or even trebled :scared: leaving the borrowers trapped, because they couldn't re-mortgage with a mainstream lender at 'prime' rates. They were designed in such a way that the chances of the borrowers defaulting on them were very high, but the lenders were not concerned by this because:
              1. They relied on rapidly increasing house prices, so even if the borrower wasn't able to sell as soon as they fell into difficulties, the lender could repossess and still make a profit; and
              2. The mortgages were sold on to other investors, relieving the original lender of their responsibility.

              Details about the investigation into Goldmans affairs can be seen here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/eco...lt_on_gol.html

              For what seemed like 20 solid minutes, Levin probably repeated the phrase "you sold an investment to someone and bet against it" two dozen times. Levin was trying to get at the central element of the SEC's fraud charge against Goldman: That it assembled a portfolio of investments without fully informing all sides -- to the SEC's satisfaction -- that Goldman took a short position against the portfolio.


              Blankfein tried a half-dozen times to explain to Levin: That's. Just. What. Investment. Banks. Do. He even resorted to something that sounded like a lesson out of Investment Banking 101: ""The act of selling something gives us the opposite position of the client."


              He tries to explain to Levin that Goldman may assemble and sell, let's say, an oil exploration IPO. Goldman may actually be negative on the oil business AND the exploration business and STILL market the IPO. That's just how business works.
              Says it all, doesn't it?

              Comment

              View our Terms and Conditions

              LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

              If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


              If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
              Working...
              X