Financial Crisis

[cheeryble]

Not to be overly dramatic but I think this could be the turning point in to what will be the biggest change western civilisation has seen since WW2.

.....and I thought that was when I decided I could live without kippers and left for Thailand.

[mccw]

Not to be overly dramatic but I think this could be the turning point in to what will be the biggest change western civilisation has seen since WW2.

.....and I thought that was when I decided I could live without kippers and left for Thailand.

Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast

[yoshiwara]

BRICS meeting today to discuss setting up thier alternative world bank or IMF type oganisation. Between them apparently they have reserves of value 4.4 trillion US dollars. But the Russian only fancy putting 10bllion in , not exactly monumental. But stil,l a sign of the times - the rising powers attempting to strike out from under the western money masters control. They just don't really trust each another enough to get in bed together.

Any such an attempt a guaranteed failure.

only YOUR opinion

China and Brazil strike $30bn bilateral swap deal to reinforce economies

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/22/china-brazil-bilateral-swap-deal

Half-digested Guardian crap. Less reliant on the $US? That would be the Chinese Yuan presumably?

[Naam]

swap agreements of this kind have usually one party with a restricted
currency. it doesn't make sense if both parties have unrestricted and
fully convertible currencies.

[mccw]

Just thought I'd mention what I found today. CIMB Thai "prefered" 12 month deposit pays 3.3% , with interest paid monthly.

Min deposit 3 million bht

= roughly 100k py or 8300pm

Edited March 27, 2013 by mccw

[chiang mai]

Just thought I'd mention what I found today. CIMB Thai "prefered" 12 month deposit pays 3.3% , with interest paid monthly.

On new money only, minimum 500k baht.

[mccw]

Just thought I'd mention what I found today. CIMB Thai "prefered" 12 month deposit pays 3.3% , with interest paid monthly.

On new money only, minimum 500k baht.

O right. I am new to the bank and 3 mill was what I was told today was min to gain the "prefered" status

[chiang mai]

Just thought I'd mention what I found today. CIMB Thai "prefered" 12 month deposit pays 3.3% , with interest paid monthly.

On new money only, minimum 500k baht.

O right. I am new to the bank and 3 mill was what I was told today was min to gain the "prefered" status

That's correct, but then if you want the 3.3% deal (for which you must be a preffered member) you must use new funds.

[teletiger]

New funds? Take care. The Rouble train is due in. Sit back and "Jai yen yen".

Apparently currency controls aren't all they are cracked up to be.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-25/have-russians-already-quietly-withdrawn-all-their-cash-cyprus

Oh no.....Who's (uninsured/insured) funds could possibly be next?

Could/Would they possibly be bald faced enough to instigate a 100% haircut? (sic)

Everything in time.

Regards.

[midas]

the following documentary will chill anyone looking to invest their retirement savings.

A Betrayal of Trust

With Australia's population ageing, governments have made
it very clear: you had better save and plan for your own retirement. The
question is, how can you be sure the money you have to invest is in safe hands?

The story uncovered involves murder, suicide and the mass destruction of wealth.

In one case, Four Corners found a company that accepted investment funds, promising competitive returns, in a business that seemed like a winner. What the investors didn't know was that the
company's founder was removing millions of dollars from the company in fees
that he paid to himself. To many of the investors this looked like fraud, but
to their dismay no criminal charges have been pursued. The company went into
liquidation leaving them with nothing.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/03/04/3700673.htm

Edited March 27, 2013 by midas

[lannarebirth]

i agree that it is not good but would like to remind that in case of a bank going belly-up deposits which are not secured/guaranteed are always partially or even totally lost. that was always the case but most people are not aware of it.

All financial crisis' are created when risk becomes mispriced. The recent spate of government bailouts above and beyond customary guarantees created an atmosphere of apathy towards risk. IMO the Cyprus crisis is positive if it can get people and institutions to price risk more accurately. I wish these things didn't always come down to the 11th hour of a Sunday evening however because it creates urgency and disorder.

[midas]

i agree that it is not good but would like to remind that in case of a bank going belly-up deposits which are not secured/guaranteed are always partially or even totally lost. that was always the case but most people are not aware of it.

All financial crisis' are created when risk becomes mispriced. The recent spate of government bailouts above and beyond customary guarantees created an atmosphere of apathy towards risk. IMO the Cyprus crisis is positive if it can get people and institutions to price risk more accurately. I wish these things didn't always come down to the 11th hour of a Sunday evening however because it creates urgency and disorder.

How do you possibly attach a price to the risk of having your assets lost not through poor investment
decisions , but simply confiscated at the whim of the bank ?

Edited March 27, 2013 by midas

[lannarebirth]

i agree that it is not good but would like to remind that in case of a bank going belly-up deposits which are not secured/guaranteed are always partially or even totally lost. that was always the case but most people are not aware of it.

All financial crisis' are created when risk becomes mispriced. The recent spate of government bailouts above and beyond customary guarantees created an atmosphere of apathy towards risk. IMO the Cyprus crisis is positive if it can get people and institutions to price risk more accurately. I wish these things didn't always come down to the 11th hour of a Sunday evening however because it creates urgency and disorder.

How do you possibly attach a price to the risk of having your assets lost not through poor investment

decisions , but simply confiscated at the whim of the bank ?

But it is a poor investment decision. If you gave me $500,000 to hold for you, and I told you I can only guarantee the return of $250,000, would you either 1) require a greter return given the risk on that additional $250,000 or 2) invest that excess money in something carrying less risk?

[teletiger]

When capitalism works.....risk is never "mispriced". Hence the "meaning" of "capitalism". You thrive and survive in the cauldron or make up the event horizon. Everything else is stewed and spat out to be recycled. I should stop there......

Regards.

[midas]

i agree that it is not good but would like to remind that in case of a bank going belly-up deposits which are not secured/guaranteed are always partially or even totally lost. that was always the case but most people are not aware of it.

All financial crisis' are created when risk becomes mispriced. The recent spate of government bailouts above and beyond customary guarantees created an atmosphere of apathy towards risk. IMO the Cyprus crisis is positive if it can get people and institutions to price risk more accurately. I wish these things didn't always come down to the 11th hour of a Sunday evening however because it creates urgency and disorder.

How do you possibly attach a price to the risk of having your assets lost not through poor investment

decisions , but simply confiscated at the whim of the bank ?

But it is a poor investment decision. If you gave me $500,000 to hold for you, and I told you I can only guarantee the return of $250,000, would you either 1) require a greter return given the risk on that additional $250,000 or 2) invest that excess money in something carrying less risk?

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes here? I think you are referring to people who are deliberately seeking higher returns?

I'm talking about say for example an ordinary Cypriot married couple who have a long established business on the island and have kept over 100,000 on deposit in their bank for whatever reason-as a cash flow buffer or whatever or because they simply perceive the bank to be the safest place.

They chose the bank may be because their own parents had used the same bank and they didn't shop for higher interest because Cyprus was their home. What were they supposed to do?

Say to each other now we have over 100,000 in the bank we better quickly look for a safer place to put our money? Where, for Christ's sake?

There should be absolutely ZERO risk attached to this scenario-it's a deposit account ?

And if for some reason the bank was guilty of making some poor decisions ultimately you would expect the island’s politicians whose salaries are being paid by the locals to protect their interests -not be complicit in the theft?

Edited March 27, 2013 by midas

[mccw]

i agree that it is not good but would like to remind that in case of a bank going belly-up deposits which are not secured/guaranteed are always partially or even totally lost. that was always the case but most people are not aware of it.

All financial crisis' are created when risk becomes mispriced. The recent spate of government bailouts above and beyond customary guarantees created an atmosphere of apathy towards risk. IMO the Cyprus crisis is positive if it can get people and institutions to price risk more accurately. I wish these things didn't always come down to the 11th hour of a Sunday evening however because it creates urgency and disorder.

How do you possibly attach a price to the risk of having your assets lost not through poor investment

decisions , but simply confiscated at the whim of the bank ?

But it is a poor investment decision. If you gave me $500,000 to hold for you, and I told you I can only guarantee the return of $250,000, would you either 1) require a greter return given the risk on that additional $250,000 or 2) invest that excess money in something carrying less risk?

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes here? I think you are referring to people who are deliberately seeking higher returns?

I'm talking about say for example an ordinary Cypriot married couple who have a long established business on the island and have kept over 100,000 on deposit in their bank for whatever reason-as a cash flow buffer or whatever or because they simply perceive the bank to be the safest place.

They chose the bank may be because their own parents had used the same bank and they didn't shop for higher interest because Cyprus was their home. What were they supposed to do?

Say to each other now we have over 100,000 in the bank we better quickly look for a safer place to put our money? Where, for Christ's sake?

There should be absolutely ZERO risk attached to this scenario-it's a deposit account ?

And if for some reason the bank was guilty of making some poor decisions ultimately you would expect the islands politicians whose salaries are being paid by the locals to protect their interests -not be complicit in the theft?

I think the couple in your scenario should have been aware of the garranteed limit and walked down the street to open another savings account and so on.

Only the garranteed amount is what needs protecting in my opinion.

[cheeryble]

.

Edited March 27, 2013 by cheeryble

[lannarebirth]

All financial crisis' are created when risk becomes mispriced. The recent spate of government bailouts above and beyond customary guarantees created an atmosphere of apathy towards risk. IMO the Cyprus crisis is positive if it can get people and institutions to price risk more accurately. I wish these things didn't always come down to the 11th hour of a Sunday evening however because it creates urgency and disorder.

How do you possibly attach a price to the risk of having your assets lost not through poor investment

decisions , but simply confiscated at the whim of the bank ?

But it is a poor investment decision. If you gave me $500,000 to hold for you, and I told you I can only guarantee the return of $250,000, would you either 1) require a greter return given the risk on that additional $250,000 or 2) invest that excess money in something carrying less risk?

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes here? I think you are referring to people who are deliberately seeking higher returns?

I'm talking about say for example an ordinary Cypriot married couple who have a long established business on the island and have kept over 100,000 on deposit in their bank for whatever reason-as a cash flow buffer or whatever or because they simply perceive the bank to be the safest place.

They chose the bank may be because their own parents had used the same bank and they didn't shop for higher interest because Cyprus was their home. What were they supposed to do?

Say to each other now we have over 100,000 in the bank we better quickly look for a safer place to put our money? Where, for Christ's sake?

There should be absolutely ZERO risk attached to this scenario-it's a deposit account ?

And if for some reason the bank was guilty of making some poor decisions ultimately you would expect the island’s politicians whose salaries are being paid by the locals to protect their interests -not be complicit in the theft?

Actually midas, I don't agree with any of that. I will say it was handled very poorly however, for at least 2 reasons I can think of. Because the Euro financial authorities had backstopped prior failed banking systems, they were implying at least, that they would also backstop future bank failures in Eurozone countries. That they changed their policy so swiftly and over such a meager amount of money did not allow less sophisticated depositors to take alternative actions in their own interest. Secondly, apparently branches of Cypriot banks in other Euro cities remain open and depositors there are free to make withdrawls, even now. VERY poor execution of the scheme IMO.

[Naam]

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes here? I think you are referring to people who are deliberately seeking higher returns?

I'm talking about say for example an ordinary Cypriot married couple who have a long established business on the island and have kept over 100,000 on deposit in their bank for whatever reason-as a cash flow buffer or whatever or because they simply perceive the bank to be the safest place.

They chose the bank may be because their own parents had used the same bank and they didn't shop for higher interest because Cyprus was their home. What were they supposed to do?

Say to each other now we have over 100,000 in the bank we better quickly look for a safer place to put our money? Where, for Christ's sake?

There should be absolutely ZERO risk attached to this scenario-it's a deposit account ?

And if for some reason the bank was guilty of making some poor decisions ultimately you would expect the island’s politicians whose salaries are being paid by the locals to protect their interests -not be complicit in the theft?

that there should be ZERO risk attached is a logical demand but, especially in the case of Cyprus, not feasible because the country doesn't have the means to guarantee the deposits of a bloated banking system.

[midas]

i agree that it is not good but would like to remind that in case of a bank going belly-up deposits which are not secured/guaranteed are always partially or even totally lost. that was always the case but most people are not aware of it.

All financial crisis' are created when risk becomes mispriced. The recent spate of government bailouts above and beyond customary guarantees created an atmosphere of apathy towards risk. IMO the Cyprus crisis is positive if it can get people and institutions to price risk more accurately. I wish these things didn't always come down to the 11th hour of a Sunday evening however because it creates urgency and disorder.

How do you possibly attach a price to the risk of having your assets lost not through poor investment

decisions , but simply confiscated at the whim of the bank ?

But it is a poor investment decision. If you gave me $500,000 to hold for you, and I told you I can only guarantee the return of $250,000, would you either 1) require a greter return given the risk on that additional $250,000 or 2) invest that excess money in something carrying less risk?

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes here? I think you are referring to people who are deliberately seeking higher returns?

I'm talking about say for example an ordinary Cypriot married couple who have a long established business on the island and have kept over 100,000 on deposit in their bank for whatever reason-as a cash flow buffer or whatever or because they simply perceive the bank to be the safest place.

They chose the bank may be because their own parents had used the same bank and they didn't shop for higher interest because Cyprus was their home. What were they supposed to do?

Say to each other now we have over 100,000 in the bank we better quickly look for a safer place to put our money? Where, for Christ's sake?

There should be absolutely ZERO risk attached to this scenario-it's a deposit account ?

And if for some reason the bank was guilty of making some poor decisions ultimately you would expect the islands politicians whose salaries are being paid by the locals to protect their interests -not be complicit in the theft?

I think the couple in your scenario should have been aware of the garranteed limit and walked down the street to open another savings account and so on.

Only the garranteed amount is what needs protecting in my opinion.

The point is mccw there was an intention to hit the guaranteed amounts as well. Because they were

unsuccessful or pulled out at the last minute shouldn't make any difference?

they have shown their hand. They have shown what they are capable

of. We shouldn't treat it less seriously, just because it didn't happen in the end ?

Just like a criminal can still get a hefty sentence for attempting to commit a crime that

didn't materialise.

Are people going to wait around until the next time?

PIMCO's Mohammed El-Erian was on BBC world today, warning that this loss of faith in banks in itself

could lead to some very serious problems.

Edited March 28, 2013 by midas

[mccw]

i agree that it is not good but would like to remind that in case of a bank going belly-up deposits which are not secured/guaranteed are always partially or even totally lost. that was always the case but most people are not aware of it.

All financial crisis' are created when risk becomes mispriced. The recent spate of government bailouts above and beyond customary guarantees created an atmosphere of apathy towards risk. IMO the Cyprus crisis is positive if it can get people and institutions to price risk more accurately. I wish these things didn't always come down to the 11th hour of a Sunday evening however because it creates urgency and disorder.

How do you possibly attach a price to the risk of having your assets lost not through poor investment

decisions , but simply confiscated at the whim of the bank ?

But it is a poor investment decision. If you gave me $500,000 to hold for you, and I told you I can only guarantee the return of $250,000, would you either 1) require a greter return given the risk on that additional $250,000 or 2) invest that excess money in something carrying less risk?

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes here? I think you are referring to people who are deliberately seeking higher returns?

I'm talking about say for example an ordinary Cypriot married couple who have a long established business on the island and have kept over 100,000 on deposit in their bank for whatever reason-as a cash flow buffer or whatever or because they simply perceive the bank to be the safest place.

They chose the bank may be because their own parents had used the same bank and they didn't shop for higher interest because Cyprus was their home. What were they supposed to do?

Say to each other now we have over 100,000 in the bank we better quickly look for a safer place to put our money? Where, for Christ's sake?

There should be absolutely ZERO risk attached to this scenario-it's a deposit account ?

And if for some reason the bank was guilty of making some poor decisions ultimately you would expect the islands politicians whose salaries are being paid by the locals to protect their interests -not be complicit in the theft?

I think the couple in your scenario should have been aware of the garranteed limit and walked down the street to open another savings account and so on.

Only the garranteed amount is what needs protecting in my opinion.

The point is mccw there was an intention to hit the guaranteed amounts as well. Because they were

unsuccessful or pulled out at the last minute shouldn't make any difference?

they have shown their hand. They have shown what they are capable

of. We shouldn't treat it less seriously, just because it didn't happen in the end ?

Just like a criminal can still get a hefty sentence for attempting to commit a crime that

didn't materialise.

Are people going to wait around until the next time?

PIMCO's Mohammed El-Erian was on BBC world today, warning that this loss of faith in banks in itself

could lead to some very serious problems.

Yes your absolutely right Midas. Terrible error of judgement. They obviously lack any sense of justice or respect for laws or democracy. The way the EUro beaurocratic super state types trample of all our nation freedoms for years already. We should with draw from the EU and assert our soverieng democratic rights. However the democracy is actually present and the little people still confused - wanting to keep euro but not take the bail out conditions - why people are not putting two and two together and calling for independence , freedom ?!

[mccw]

If they are democratically wanting in The euro then they must take what they get. End of.

But the EU is spending millions of propaganda. Rigging elections; or trying to narrow debate and strong arm the parties to all follow the line at least of we must stick in Europe at all cost.

They already installed "technocrats" to administer many countries after all. Many of them ex Goldman <deleted> - so what does this tell us?

[midas]

i agree that it is not good but would like to remind that in case of a bank going belly-up deposits which are not secured/guaranteed are always partially or even totally lost. that was always the case but most people are not aware of it.

All financial crisis' are created when risk becomes mispriced. The recent spate of government bailouts above and beyond customary guarantees created an atmosphere of apathy towards risk. IMO the Cyprus crisis is positive if it can get people and institutions to price risk more accurately. I wish these things didn't always come down to the 11th hour of a Sunday evening however because it creates urgency and disorder.

You should be recieving about 46% interest to compensate for the risk of using a Cyprus bank!

" What happens when the account that you are receiving payment from being

the lowest run on the risk ladder yields the risk that exists at the top

of the ladder? Or, in other words, what happens if you get robbed and

misrepresented as to the true nature of the product that you purchased?

This is what happened in Cyprus, where they paid their depositors

savings account returns but made them assume front month put option

risks! "

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-03-28/eu-bank-depositors-your-mattress-starting-look-awfully-attractive-bank-risk-r

Edited March 28, 2013 by midas

[lannarebirth]

i agree that it is not good but would like to remind that in case of a bank going belly-up deposits which are not secured/guaranteed are always partially or even totally lost. that was always the case but most people are not aware of it.

All financial crisis' are created when risk becomes mispriced. The recent spate of government bailouts above and beyond customary guarantees created an atmosphere of apathy towards risk. IMO the Cyprus crisis is positive if it can get people and institutions to price risk more accurately. I wish these things didn't always come down to the 11th hour of a Sunday evening however because it creates urgency and disorder.

You should be recieving about 46% interest to compensate for the risk of using a Cyprus bank!

" What happens when the account that you are receiving payment from being

the lowest run on the risk ladder yields the risk that exists at the top

of the ladder? Or, in other words, what happens if you get robbed and

misrepresented as to the true nature of the product that you purchased?

This is what happened in Cyprus, where they paid their depositors

savings account returns but made them assume front month put option

risks! "

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-03-28/eu-bank-depositors-your-mattress-starting-look-awfully-attractive-bank-risk-r

Well, it's really no different than an Icelandic bank is it? Depositing co-parties have some obligation to themselves to do a bit of due diligence. If the banking system you have deposits in is several times the GDP of a nation then that should be a red flag to any would be depositor. Everyone has their own risk tolerance. I personally take risks I understand well with my own money, but I'm terribly risk averse when it comes to giving my money to some other entity to manage. I don't even make $AUD time deposits because of my perception it is a fast money market.

[mccw]

My wife's friend in the bank tells her today to be careful how much money she keeps in any single bank in Thailand now they have dropped the garrantee to 1 million bht!?

[Naam]

If they are democratically wanting in The euro then they must take what they get. End of.

But the EU is spending millions of propaganda. Rigging elections; or trying to narrow debate and strong arm the parties to all follow the line at least of we must stick in Europe at all cost.

They already installed "technocrats" to administer many countries after all. Many of them ex Goldman <deleted> - so what does this tell us?

it tells us something about your ridiculous assumptions and claims out of the thin Mr Nigel Farage

[Naam]

i agree that it is not good but would like to remind that in case of a bank going belly-up deposits which are not secured/guaranteed are always partially or even totally lost. that was always the case but most people are not aware of it.

All financial crisis' are created when risk becomes mispriced. The recent spate of government bailouts above and beyond customary guarantees created an atmosphere of apathy towards risk. IMO the Cyprus crisis is positive if it can get people and institutions to price risk more accurately. I wish these things didn't always come down to the 11th hour of a Sunday evening however because it creates urgency and disorder.

How do you possibly attach a price to the risk of having your assets lost not through poor investment

decisions , but simply confiscated at the whim of the bank ?

if a bank in Cyprus pays for your Pounds, €uros, Dollars 5-7% interest instead of the 0.25-1% you get in a bank in France, Germany, UK or the 0% you get in Switzerland or Singapore you have a solid basis for a risk assessment.

let me repeat and draw you attention to the fact that (not Cyprus banks) but the Cyprus government did less "confiscate" than what the Iceland government confiscated from depositors and a variety of other creditors and which you repeatedly cited and applauded in this forum.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Naam

[cheeryble]

Rigging elections; or trying to narrow debate and strong arm the parties to all follow the line at least of we must stick in Europe at all cost.

Two world wars, which put a little piffling financial upset into proportion, suggest this is a good idea.....

Conflict avoidance was a major reason for the EU, I can remember Edward Heath banging on about it.

Maybe that's changed, if you think so you better make a case for it.

Edited March 29, 2013 by cheeryble

[midas]

Rigging elections; or trying to narrow debate and strong arm the parties to all follow the line at least of we must stick in Europe at all cost.

Two world wars, which put a little piffling financial upset into proportion, suggest this is a good idea.....

Conflict avoidance was a major reason for the EU, I can remember Edward Heath banging on about it.

Maybe that's changed, if you think so you better make a case for it.

If you believe these people have any interest in conflict avoidance then you must believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden?

They certainly didn't go out of their way to avoid conflict in removing Gaddafi and they're using the same techniques in Syria

they are nothing less than thieving, lying, murdering criminal b**tards !

Edited March 29, 2013 by midas

[midas]

If they are democratically wanting in The euro then they must take what they get. End of.

But the EU is spending millions of propaganda. Rigging elections; or trying to narrow debate and strong arm the parties to all follow the line at least of we must stick in Europe at all cost.

They already installed "technocrats" to administer many countries after all. Many of them ex Goldman <deleted> - so what does this tell us?

it tells us something about your ridiculous assumptions and claims out of the thin Mr Nigel Farage

Nigel Farage reminds me of that long, very good speech of Jimmy Stewart in the movie “ Mr. Smith Goes to Washington “. He knew right from wrong and he knew that graft and corruption is wrong, no matter how slick the justification or how nice the suit. He ends by saying " Either I’m dead right, or I’m crazy!" Edited March 29, 2013 by midas