The Derrivatives time bomb will ignite when Greece defaults!

HarryDentJr

If someone foolishly kept lending to a business that was year after year making a bigger loss every year, then that would be one very foolish lender.

What do they do? Well for the last few years this foolish lender just keeps increasing the amount they lend, maybe hoping they get some boost and the debtor could start to pay them back?

But no the debt keeps going up, until the debtor is relying on new larger loans to live on, eventually they cant even pay the interest, and there is no way they can keep paying out their expenses for their business. They have to cut back on all their outgoings ( austerity) they keep putting off the date the interest is due, but after being postponed many times they still cant afford to even pay the interest payment that they are so late with.

The even larger problem is that this business, (Greece) is only one of many, others are in similar situations and cant pay back either. Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland will all want to default when Greece eventually does.

The debts have all been repackaged and sold into the derivative time bomb, that will collapse the entire world monetary system.

If this were true then there would be record number of bankers killing themselves? Oh wait a sec, there are record numbers of bankers ending up dead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BobQ

Which bankers have died this year?
How many died last year?
And the year before?

HarryDentJr

Well today the number 2 top guy in JPMorgan was found dead, Jimmy Lee. I think last year it was over 30 bankers and those involved in the London Whale and derivatives time bomb who were found dead in mysterious circumstances. The most bizarre one last year was the banker who shot himself several times with a nail gun, and latter one more time in the head. Then there was the banker last year who slit his own throat but then hid the blade before he finally died. Seem like banking at the time of the derivatives time bomb is the most dangerous job statistically.

Todays latest Jimmy Lee, the vice chairman of JPMorgan Chase was found dead this morning. He was 62. His body was found on the anniversary of Gods very own banker who also died mysteriously.

The discovery of the body of Roberto Calvi dangling from scaffolding beneath Blackfriars Bridge by a passer-by on the morning of 18 June 1982 had all the hallmarks of a Hollywood thriller. The discovery of the body of Roberto Calvi dangling from scaffolding beneath Blackfriars Bridge by a passer-by on the morning of 18 June 1982 had all the hallmarks of a Hollywood thriller.





Nicknamed ‘God’s banker’, Calvi was the chairman of Italian bank Banco Ambrosiano, in which the Vatican bank was a major shareholder. But the bank had been engaged in some very unholy activities, and by 1982, it was on the verge of collapse. The bank was £800m in the red, and owed money to the Sicilian !!!!! among others.



Calvi was “a brilliant financier”, The Independent wrote in 2005. “And though shy and socially gauche, he combined a lightening accountant’s brain with recklessness in a very Italian fashion”.

It was while in custody for illegal foreign currency dealings that Calvi tried to kill himself by slashing his wrists and taking an overdose. But he lived to be released on appeal, and on 11 June, a week before his death, he fled to London, taking with him a briefcase stuffed with incriminating documents.

Clearly not wanting to be found, he shaved off his moustache and checked into a nondescript £40-a-night hotel in Chelsea. Meanwhile, back in Italy, his secretary threw herself from a fourth-floor window. In her suicide note, she blamed Calvi for the bank’s demise, and Calvi was relieved of his duties as chairman.

The next day, Roberto Calvi was found dead. Bricks from a nearby building site had been stuffed into his clothes, but apart from that, nothing else suggested anything other than suicide. He still wore his luxury Patek Philippe watch and was carrying around £10,000 in various currencies.

The first London inquest into his death returned a verdict of suicide. The second returned an open verdict, raising a number of eyebrows back in Italy. Calvi’s widow and children hired a private investigator, whose findings suggested a !!!!! murder.

This conclusion appeared to be confirmed on the 30th anniversary of Calvi’s death in 2012, when a suspect, Francesco ‘Frankie the Strangler’ Di Carlo, although denying his involvement, claimed he had been contacted to make ‘the hit’. The case continues.

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

Which bankers have died this year?
How many died last year?
And the year before?

What we need is a Dead Bankers Index.:)

But otherwise it does seem that there are People On The Internet who keep track of this sort of thing. For example; http://www.michaeltyler.co.uk/list-of-dead-bankers-2015-conspiracy-update/

Eight bankers have died so far in 2015. Three seem to have died in train crashes. One got killed sking when he slammed into a tree. One got shot by his son. One died from a heart attack. One definite suicide, and one possible suicide. Although the definition of 'banker' seems to a bit flexible. At least one was an ex-banker, and another was an AIG executive, which is an insurance company, not a bank.

I have no idea how this compares to the number of (say) hairdressers who have died so far in 2015.:)

purch

We know you don't know what a derivative is, but at least try to spell the word correctly dumbass !!!

mystic_trev

purch wrote: »

We know you don't know what a derivative is, but at least try to spell the word correctly dumbass !!!

Perhaps he's got a stutter? :rotfl:

Chanes

How strange, I have lost count of the end of world / economy/ virus/ apocalypse items. I have now reached the conclusion the only reason people keep posting them is that eventually (!) they may be right. The single biggest oddity about that is what sense of satisfaction would they get as the world unravelled around them.

kaya

A very good friend was a finance director for Bear Sterns before they went under and he explained a derivative in very simple terms to me. As a banker who's job it is to buy and sell shares on behalf of investors he is exempt from paying tax on any that he buys and sells for very obvious reasons. If Douglas wanted to buy £10,000,000 of shares in a company bear sterns would facilitate the transaction for him, bears would buy the£10,000,000 of shares on his behalf under his instruction and issue him with a sort of promisary note for the shares, if his tax liability on that purchase was say 40% bears would charge him a 20% fee to hold the shares on his behalf and he would avoid paying any duty on the purchase as he never actually physically owned them (all he had was a promisary note) , this was a derivitive of the shares. so the buyer avoids 50% of his tax liability , bears earn a fee of 50% of his tax liability for facilitating the transaction but doesn't pay any tax on them as they are exempt (they don't own the shares they merely hold them for him) and the taxpayer gets nothing at all. He would regularly tell me how he had sidestepped paying tens of millions of pounds to the uk government on a weekly basis in tax and it was apparently all perfectly above board and legal and happening on a daily basis. He also regularly claimed thousands of pounds back from bears in expenses for taking clients out on the town and showing them a good time , apparently the chinese investors were partial to prostitutes and cocaine and he would regularly clock up a few thousand pounds on a single night out. His redundancy package was a very high six figure number. Can't comment on the end of the world or mysterious bankers dying im afraid
excuse the spelling and grammer but im in a can't be bothered frame of mind

Generali

kaya wrote: »

A very good friend was a finance director for Bear Sterns before they went under and he explained a derivative in very simple terms to me. As a banker who's job it is to buy and sell shares on behalf of investors he is exempt from paying tax on any that he buys and sells for very obvious reasons. If Douglas wanted to buy £10,000,000 of shares in a company bear sterns would facilitate the transaction for him, bears would buy the£10,000,000 of shares on his behalf under his instruction and issue him with a sort of promisary note for the shares, if his tax liability on that purchase was say 40% bears would charge him a 20% fee to hold the shares on his behalf and he would avoid paying any duty on the purchase as he never actually physically owned them (all he had was a promisary note) , this was a derivitive of the shares. so the buyer avoids 50% of his tax liability , bears earn a fee of 50% of his tax liability for facilitating the transaction but doesn't pay any tax on them as they are exempt (they don't own the shares they merely hold them for him) and the taxpayer gets nothing at all. He would regularly tell me how he had sidestepped paying tens of millions of pounds to the uk government on a weekly basis in tax and it was apparently all perfectly above board and legal and happening on a daily basis. He also regularly claimed thousands of pounds back from bears in expenses for taking clients out on the town and showing them a good time , apparently the chinese investors were partial to prostitutes and cocaine and he would regularly clock up a few thousand pounds on a single night out. His redundancy package was a very high six figure number. Can't comment on the end of the world or mysterious bankers dying im afraid
excuse the spelling and grammer but im in a can't be bothered frame of mind

The numbers are rubbish. The best you can hope to save in a normal derivative transaction (e.g. a CFD) is the stamp duty. On a £10,000,000 transaction that would be £50,000.

Someone who is rich enough to be buying single names in £10,000,000 parcels (net worth of £1,000,000,000+) I would expect to be paying something like 0.02-0.03% in commission on the LSE main board so Bear Stearns would charge something like £2-3,000 for the transaction.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

The numbers are rubbish. .....

I'm of the same opinion. I think the Bloke Down The Pub has been telling whoppers again.

Bear Sterns would facilitate the transaction for him, Bears would buy the £10,000,000 of shares on his behalf under his instruction and issue him with a sort of promisary note for the shares

A quick Google confirms that something like 60% of the total value of UK shares are held in nominee accounts, where a corporate body (such as Bear Sterns) has bought the shares under someone else's instruction and issues their client with a 'sort of promissory note' to confirm their holding.

This sort of thing makes no difference to HMRC, who will insist that tax is paid on the basis of beneficial ownership of an asset.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

I'm of the same opinion. I think the Bloke Down The Pub has been telling whoppers again.

Bear Sterns would facilitate the transaction for him, Bears would buy the £10,000,000 of shares on his behalf under his instruction and issue him with a sort of promisary note for the shares

A quick Google confirms that something like 60% of the total value of UK shares are held in nominee accounts, where a corporate body (such as Bear Sterns) has bought the shares under someone else's instruction and issues their client with a 'sort of promissory note' to confirm their holding.

This sort of thing makes no difference to HMRC, who will insist that tax is paid on the basis of beneficial ownership of an asset.

Most of our clients' assets are held in nominee names, unless they specifically request otherwise and are investing a lot of money (£10,000,000 wouldn't cut it). I work for one of the largest holders of assets in Australia.