OWS: FDIC To Cover Losses On $75 Trillion Bank of America Derivative Bets

[piasabird]

Bush administration did not run any banks.

 

[airdata]

BOA $75,000,000,000,000
Chase : $79,000,000,000,000

seriously... the guy you can see in the youtube video has it right.

"Shit is fucked up, and bullshit."

 

[airdata]

Bush administration did not run any banks.

At this stage in the game if you're pointing any fingers at single administrations, you clearly don't get it.

These central banks make the rules. Let's just look at the bush family to break this down. Tell me the probability of the following scenario playing out, ok.

Rich man gets caught supporting EVIL nazis during WW2. His son goes on too be spook master head of the cia, vice president, and then president. Then his son leads an average life of dodging the draft, drunk driving, and doing cocaine and grows up to be president.

Tell me the odds of that playing out with no external influences.

 

[Ausm]

Only the government screws the taxpayer.

LMAO

 

[airdata]

Most anti-occupy people can't even register the idea of $75,000,000,000,000 or that all of the banks have has effectively been wagered on random events around the world.

 

[Anarchist420]

This is why the Federal government sucks ass. It's not the banks' fault that they're so rich because Congress chartered all of these quasi private entities and all of the regulations they lobby for.

Shit like this is exactly why I think the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation should be abolished--it's like something straight out of the Whigs' 1832 national convention and something that got smashed by Andrew Jackson and later got a kick in the balls from the Tyler Admin.

Dr. Paul has said that it's corporate welfare for years, and now it's more clear than ever before that he's right. FDIC aren't even required to pay depositors if banks fail anyway.

It was stupid as shit to repeal the wall between commercial and investment banks but then keep the FDIC. The banks advertise they're FDIC insured and being able to do that prevents them from having to say, "your deposits are not guaranteed".

All of that is why I favor having the states make fractional reserve banking illegal and why I favor having the federal government collect its revenues exclusively in gold.

It pisses me off to no end that depositors don't have any fucking rights. Obama and congress belong in jail for granting the banks all of the regulations they lobby for and special priveleges.

 

[Zebo]

This is why the Federal government sucks ass. It's not the banks' fault that they're so rich because Congress chartered all of these quasi private entities and all of the regulations they lobby for.

Shit like this is exactly why I think the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation should be abolished--it's like something straight out of the Whigs' 1832 national convention and something that got smashed by Andrew Jackson and later got a kick in the balls from the Tyler Admin.

Dr. Paul has said that it's corporate welfare for years, and now it's more clear than ever before that he's right. FDIC aren't even required to pay depositors if banks fail anyway.

It was stupid as shit to repeal the wall between commercial and investment banks but then keep the FDIC. The banks advertise they're FDIC insured and being able to do that prevents them from having to say, "your deposits are not guaranteed".

All of that is why I favor having the states make fractional reserve banking illegal and why I favor having the federal government collect its revenues exclusively in gold.

It pisses me off to no end that depositors don't have any fucking rights. Obama and congress belong in jail for granting the banks all of the regulations they lobby for and special priveleges.

As long as rule of law is applied stuff works just fine. Problem is rarefied air of billionaire bankers working for the TBTF banks it's not. Felonies get fines, which just amount to a calculated risk and are done habitually - This is an example or this http://sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-214.htm or this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs

Rather than prison and taking everything these corp officers have like would happen to me or you or Bernie Maddoff who was a lone ranger outside the click. We have rights. They are just not enforced unless you sue and even then not criminally.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

How does it not make sense? It's straightforward. BofA made $75T worth of risky derivative bets and is pushing for the FDIC to insure them.

Makes it sound like a $75T bailout which its not even close.

 

[JS80]

This thread pretty much sums up how small the brains of typical loliberals are.

 

[Ausm]

This thread pretty much sums up how small the brains of typical loliberals are.

Damn what an exceptional analogy

 

[airdata]

This is what 1 trillion dollars looks like.

Multiply that by 75 for BOA and 79 for chase and... you have a clear example of why our system is broken.

 

[LegendKiller]

later

 

[wetech]

Well, gentlemen, if all of this were as well conceived & managed as you claim, then 2008 wouldn't have been the big deal that it was, where risk mitigation turned into the reality of systemic risk & near collapse. The whole proposition called for enormous amounts of liquidity that simply weren't available. Even if my positions actually balanced out, I'd have to both pay and receive enormous sums in cash & collateral to achieve those ends.

We really don't know at this point what kind of derivatives are involved, but if the FDIC isn't happy, it means they think the deal compromises their ability to do their job, to protect depositors' interests, something they've done admirably well for decades.

While it's an assumption, it seems highly unlikely that BOA would even bother doing this if those "assets" didn't pose substantial (enormous?) risk to the parent corp in their present location. They know things about their own positions that they're not telling, and that the FRB isn't telling, which would lead any reasonable outsider to view the whole affair with a great deal of skepticism.

They moved the derivatives to the other entity because it carries a higher credit rating after the recent downgrade. The counterparties on the other side of the deals would require more collateral from the lower-rated BOA entity. It was done in order to keep more cash within BOA.

 

[wetech]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...-moving-merrill-derivatives-to-bank-unit.html

Pretty much the same information. Thanks to successfully lobbying (and probably paying the right guys), the central exchange that would have been created to track these types of derivatives was never created. So you only get to know what they want to tell you about it.

The exchanges have been around for quite some time. There's the London Clearing House (LCH) and CME for interest rate swaps and Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) for CDS. Banks are required to clear around 90% of new trades with a central clearing house as well as a certain % of historical population each month. These requirements become higher as time goes on.

 

[JS80]

later

lol why do you bother? You can explain all you want, people will see only what they want to see. $75 trillion gagillion bagillion dollers! OMGz!

 

[airdata]

This thread pretty much sums up how small the brains of typical loliberals are.

It's funny you should make such a statement with nothing else in your post. No reference to what you're talking about. No stance of your own...

Carry on. Informed people know by now that when a person even says 'liberals' you can probably just ignore them. These are the same people that say things like " Those damned blacks!". Same mindset.

 

[halik]

This is what 1 trillion dollars looks like.

Multiply that by 75 for BOA and 79 for chase and... you have a clear example of why our system is broken.

Take a break from bongos and learn about OTC swaps before going off on something you clearly have no clue about. It's people like you, and that guy that's protesting naked short selling, having learned about it 2 days prior from a passerby, that makes OWS people hard to take seriously.