SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : John Pitera's Market Laboratory

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: The Ox who wrote (13707)2/21/2013 1:06:03 PM
From: bruwin3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) of 33421
 
Well said TO.

Back a few years ago when quite a few of the large US banks, and later others, drew their countries into one of the major financial crises of the century, it was largely due to what has since become known as "toxic assets".
Under normal circumstances with that c---p on their balance sheets they would have been eligible for bankruptcy due to Liabilities far exceeding Assets. To save them from that fate, under the 'heading' of "too large to fail", the country's bank, using the security of the country as "collateral", bought up that c---p and so reversed what would normally have been their inevitable demise.

Now where I have a problem with what occurred is due to two possible scenarios ...

1) One assumes that Highly paid banking executives who run big banks should surely know enough about their business to identify what is a "toxic", or very bad asset risk and what isn't. If they did, or do, know, then the question is why did they go along with the original process in the first place?
Did they do what they did out of ignorance and/or not knowing enough about what they were paid enormous salaries to know about?
If that was the case then those in positions of responsibility should all have been given the boot, IMO.

2) One assumes that Highly paid banking executives who run big banks should surely know enough about their business to identify what is a "toxic", or very bad asset risk and what isn't. If they did, or do, know, then the question is why did they go along with the original process in the first place?
Did they do what they did, knowing full well all about the nature of those bad assets, but connived, schemed, conspired to bundle up the c---p in as complicated a manner as possible in order to distribute it and so "rid themselves of the problem" by spreading it as far and as wide as possible.
If that was the case then those in positions of responsibility should all have been stripped of their own personal assets, to compensate others for their fraudulent activities, ... and then sent to goal, IMO.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext