Deutsche Bank toxic derivative losses

AG47

westernpromise wrote: »

Yes. As I said in #652, If you trade in a £5,000 car to buy a £5,050 car, have you got a £10,050 exposure to cars? Or a £50 exposure?

DB's 2018 accounts (https://www.db.com/ir/en/download/Deutsche_Bank_Annual_Report_2018.pdf - page 238/448) show Negative market values from derivative financial instruments 301,487 (in millions of euros). DB has net equity of $70 billion.

In comparison JPM's equivalent trading liabilities figure is $144 billion (https://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/investor-relations/document/audited-financial-statements-2018.pdf - page 5/152) and equity is $256 billion.

So DB has about $200 billion more trading liability than JPM and also about $200 billion less net equity.

So what? This is telling us nothing we don't already know, which is that DB isn't a very good bank. If their trading exposure was similar to JPM's so would their net equity position be.

Are you confusing notional with net? You are, aren't you?

I am not confusing anything, I am jut quoting the financial press.

Are you confused? You certainly should write to all the financial press and tell them where they are all going wrong when they talk about the 50 trillion derivative number.

The financial times and all the other financial press are all wrong and some member called western promise on MSE is correct.

That 50 trillion number just can't be correct because that's just too big, that is the number of cells in the human body.

Westernpromise is correct and he really should put the financial times stright for incorrect reporting:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

AG47

westernpromise wrote: »

Your fifty trillion was debunked long ago upthread. Absolutely nobody is interested in DB apart from you.

Still waiting for your explanation on the fifty trillion number being debunked????

Where did all the financial press get it wrong and you got it correct?

What number do you think is correct if not 50 Trillion?

westernpromise

Give me an example of who in the financial press agrees with you.

chucknorris

AG47 wrote: »

Still waiting for your explanation on the fifty trillion number being debunked????

Where did all the financial press get it wrong and you got it correct?

What number do you think is correct if not 50 Trillion?

Don't you really think that in reality, the thing that you are waiting on, is how you get out of your awful financial situation, for Christs sake what on Earth would anything else matter more than that?

At the end of the day, all that matters is your numbers, and how did you manage your finances.

AG47

westernpromise wrote: »

Give me an example of who in the financial press agrees with you.

Financial Times and all the others.

Everybody reports fifty trillion or thereabouts.

Just google Deutsche bank 50 trillion.

Yes it’s depends which currency you measure it in.

Why do you think they are all wrong?

Can you give one example who supports your theory that the 50 trillion is wrong?

Kentish_Dave

westernpromise wrote: »

Who cares? You've presented nothing in three years that suggests this is about to happen.

I work in the derivatives industry and I am comfortable that you don't have a clue. "50 trillion" my ar5e.

Let me put it like this. If you trade in a £5,000 car to buy a £5,050 car, have you got a £10,050 exposure to cars? Or a £50 exposure?

Why should I give any more of a monkey's about DB than about any other bank? What is it you think you know that the market has negligently not priced in?

I tried to explain net exposure, and collateralisation, but I don’t thing our poster wants to be educated.

As others have said, he seems to be on the edge of a total disaster in his life and has fixated on an external villain.

It’ll be a shame if DB does go down. I worked for them back in the ‘90s when they were just stepping into investment banking, and had some very good years there.

Mr Conspiracy theorist will of course take pleasure in tens of thousands losing their jobs, and then will have to look in the mirror and realise that it changes nothing about the mess he’s in.

westernpromise

AG47 wrote: »

Financial Times and all the others.

Everybody reports fifty trillion or thereabouts.

Just google Deutsche bank 50 trillion.

Yes it’s depends which currency you measure it in.

Why do you think they are all wrong?

Can you give one example who supports your theory that the 50 trillion is wrong?

Well, here's the Wall Street Journal on your "50 trillion":

In its 2015 annual report, Deutsche Bank said its exposure to derivatives was €41.940 trillion ($46.994 trillion). As a comparison, Germany’s gross domestic product was €3.032 trillion in 2015.

But that raw size can be misleading, since it covers the notional value of the derivatives. For instance, the notional value of an interest-rate swap—the amount from which the payments to each party are calculated—may be large but the actual derivative may cover only small interest payments for either party. That makes the risk to either side much smaller than the figures suggest.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-deutsche-bank-have-a-47-trillion-derivatives-problem-1475689629

So I'm afraid you have mistaken "notional" for "net". I guess it's an easy mistake to make: they both have an n and a t in them near the start of the word.

So the number that I say is correct is the one I gave above, quoted from their audited accounts, of 300-odd billion euros, a number > 100 times smaller than the one you prefer but do not understand. The WSJ and KPMG agree with me. You and a few loony conspiracist whack job sites agree with you.

As others have pointed out, maybe you need to focus a bit more on problems immediately to hand. I do admit that if you can't read a balance sheet or understand the difference between a notional and a net exposure there is a very good chance you'll end up with financial problems like those you clearly have.

GreatApe

chucknorris wrote: »

Don't you really think that in reality, the thing that you are waiting on, is how you get out of your awful financial situation, for Christs sake what on Earth would anything else matter more than that?

At the end of the day, all that matters is your numbers, and how did you manage your finances.

Well said

Some people hope everyone else crashes and burns so relatively they are higher up
I do feel sorry for such people but clearly its a bad life aim/hope
Better to try improve your lot or be happy with your lot than hope for this nonsense

AG47

westernpromise wrote: »

Well, here's the Wall Street Journal on your "50 trillion":

In its 2015 annual report, Deutsche Bank said its exposure to derivatives was €41.940 trillion ($46.994 trillion). As a comparison, Germany’s gross domestic product was €3.032 trillion in 2015.
.

Forgive me I was wrong to say the FT and Wall St journal disagrees with you because they say 50 trillion,

It’s actually $46.994 TRILLION at that current time in that particular currency.

Yes you were right to say that 50 trillion number is nonsense

Wow I can’t believe how how wrong I was and how correct you were for calling me out on it :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

A trillion here a trillion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money :T:T

antrobus

Why is this thread still going?

It has already been established that Deutsche Bank had no derivative losses, toxic or otherwise.

I'm not sure why the OP wants to remind everyone that almost everything they have posted has been utterly wrong. Nowt so queer etc.