Currency wars

Cleaver

Flight2quality wrote: »

As soon as MSE stops censoring bullion investment chat there will be a lot less alternative usernames on here.

Two points here. Firstly, as others have said, why not just spam under one username? Surely having one username to ramp silver gives you a slight venere of credibility rather than a load of usernames that are obviously you as well that therefore wipes out any credibility. No?

Secondly, MSE don't 'censor' bullion investment chat. We discuss the merits of various metal investment on here and the savings board and it doesn't get deleted. What does get deleted is blatant ramping and people responding to posts along the lines of "my husband has just died and left me £100,000. I don't want to risk it but I do want growth, what shall I do?" with "you should put it all in silver, this is risk free." And quite right too.

sabretoothtigger

I think alot of people were connected to LTCM but was he an actual backer of their strategy.
The banks take part in all sorts of schemes, the mistake is usually believing their own hype and worse still, buying it.

I dont see him listed as a partner, so I take it he is as culpable as a lawyer in a court case

The partners once had $1.9 billion of their own money invested in LTCM, all of which was wiped out.[27]
The fear was that there would be a chain reaction as the company liquidated its securities to cover its debt, leading to a drop in prices, which would force other companies to liquidate their own debt creating a vicious cycle.
The total losses were found to be $4.6 billion. The losses in the major investment categories were (ordered by magnitude):[18]
$1.6 bn in swaps
$1.3 bn in equity volatility
$430 mn in Russia and other emerging markets
$371 mn in directional trades in developed countries
$286 mn in equity pairs (such as VW, Shell)
$215 mn in yield curve arbitrage
$203 mn in S&P 500 stocks
$100 mn in junk bond arbitrage
no substantial losses in merger arbitrage

Merrill Lynch observed that mathematical risk models "may provide a greater sense of security than warranted; therefore, reliance on these models should be limited."

Thats still true now and they are still not learning

bendix

Travelman45 wrote: »

Sabretooth what do you think of Jim Rickards then? I think its a fantastic book, explains the situation very well. Going back to gold in some way is a very good solution the way he puts it. Only thing I dont like is he thinks if gold is revalued to catch up with all the units of fiat that have been created, then he say there could be 90% tax on private investors profits. This would just drive the private gold and silver markets underground and nothing would get reported.

Good book I recommend you order it, I could lend you mine if you lived close to S,London.

Wow . . your view is almost identical to that of Flight2quality who started this thread. Are you by any chance related?

Seriously. . . answer the question - why do you need to have two or more IDs? Don't you see how it completely makes you look desperate to get your message across, answer and contributing to your own threads.