Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (89287)	4/20/2012 1:26:36 AM
From: RJA_	1 Recommendation Respond to of 217556

And the interesting, odd, and incredibly dangerous things about derivatives include: 1. All of the banks you mention have deposits insured by the FDIC. 2. Per the latest bankruptcy law changes in the US, apparently the payoff of derivatives comes ahead of the payoff of liability to savers... yet the FDIC is on the hook for savers... (see MFGlobal). 3. And the FDIC which is based on small insurance premiums paid by banks has no where near the funds to satisfy the derivatives liability of these institutions.... 4. So when there is a crash, the FDIC may well be taken out (unless totally rescued by the Fed). And what does that mean for depositors in all the other institutions, and for "confidence", on which the system runs? 5. The FDIC has protested the large banks placing derivatives in an institution insured by them, but the Fed is in control of this (thanks I think to Dodd-Frank) and they somehow like the idea. 6. Oh, wait, the Fed is owned by the large banks (literally, they are the shareholders of the Fed, a private CB)... so, natch, the plebes have to cover the losses... 2008 wash, rinse, repeat... only possibly worse. Could this be designed in a worse way? It would be a challenge I think.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (89287)	4/20/2012 4:40:51 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217556

Derivatives as insurance. I want to build a GSM network in Iran. You're supplier of equipment and I need credit to launch. You agree to sell and give me a credit line of say $70 million. You only gave credit to me because your bank agreed to insure that debit for a fee and sold a derivative contract. If I don't pay TJ, bank pays TJ. Bank seats quietly. Does not need do anything. My network is launched I start paying back TJ. I need to tap the credit line for more money to expand it and that'll work the same way above. As you can see the derivative mechanism allows for real things to exist. That tower of money cannot be destroyed at once. And here is how: Say when debt comes due I don't pay TJ. TJ does not only go to the bank as ask for his money. Immediately it tight the screws on my tomatoes: pulls out tech support engineers and stop supplying spares and upgrades for my network. I know that, and that makes me keep paying TJ as agreed on contract and TJ as an experienced supplier knows the ins and outs of such deals. And it was on this belief that bank isnured TJ's credit to Elmat.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (89287)	4/20/2012 8:47:50 AM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217556

TRading most all from the short bias , look at what we've seen so far this earnings after pushing the market up , almost everything that's reported including IBM have fallen and GS recently couldnt get over $119 , so the money now has been made shorting everything in sight , and winning . Now the Squid facing another Insider trading probe Goldman Sachs facing a new insider trading probe finance.yahoo.com

To: TobagoJack who wrote (89287)	4/20/2012 11:16:25 AM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217556

China Official: IMF Funding Issue Result Likely This Afternoon --Official says IMF funding issue to be resolved this afternoon --Chinese contribution key to reaching $400 billion target --Higher lending capacity to help IMF lend to troubled euro zone states By Aaron Back and Todd Buell

To: TobagoJack who wrote (89287)	4/21/2012 12:26:34 PM
From: Canuck Dave	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217556

So how far will the Fed go to keep any losing bets "continuous and liquid"? Apparently, our good squidbilly friends at GS are the biggest contributors to both Obama and Romney. "The beat goes on." CD

To: TobagoJack who wrote (89287)	4/21/2012 12:31:48 PM
From: dvdw©	Respond to of 217556

Thanks for that post....Pensinger described this phenomena over 5 years ago its a true shame he's not positing his incite for anyone to see... This codifies the circumstances inherent in your contribution. To this end Pensinger writes; Look, if F. A. von Hayek's Everettian notion, the “time-shapes of total capital stock”, is correct -- and it almost certainly is from all but the most myopic of Newtonian perspectives -- then there also are the time-shapes of total supersystem-system-subsystem risk and exchange-value over total capital stock. Description of each and all of these would require a linear-time independent (and “transcendental” in the N. H. Abel sense) quantum wave equation -- and domain decomposition of the supersystem-system-subsystem composite would require topologically active quantal operator-time as fundamental enabler of the quantum potential in the relative-state of the time-shapes of total capital stock. Von Hayek time-shapes here replace the idea of multiple universes falsely attributed to Hugh Everett's paradigm-bursting notion, “relative-state”. This means there are different “phases” (e.g., in simile to solid, liquid, gas, supersolid, superconductor, et cetera) of capital, risk, and exchange-value, that these three -- like massenergy -- cannot actually be created or destroyed, only undergo phase changes or be transferred through supersystem-system-subsystem composite by topological operations of temporal curl. Derivatives (a subliminal projective-identification parody of fiber-bundle arithmetics and a regressed inversion of the domain decomposition methods in numerical analysis, i.e., calculus), for instance, not only concentrate and transfer risk from subsystem to system to supersystem, they do so by changing the phase of exchange-value from, say, “solid” to “liquid” (which change is presently viewed by economists working exclusively with passive, referential linear-time as “creation of liquidity”). But the volume and supersystemic concentration of derivative liquidity is not the only thing about derivatives bound to drown central bank initiatives at exchange-value phase change (e.g., “printing” of fiat money); there is also the base-state “holding time” factor and the velocity, acceleration, and time rate of change of acceleration of the liquidity “created” by phase-change operations (enabled by 3-fold temporal curl's topological transforms over von Hayek total capital stock on a Lukasiewiczian m-logically-valued referencing Hilbert space). Liquidity is presently looked at primarily in terms of types and volumes, the dynamical aspects being very much relatively neglected. Even in a 1T2-valued logical framework (as is our current nonsystem monetary system -- no authentic supersystem-system-subsystem composite) there are at least Cartesian vertical and horizontal boundary value problems, transfer rates, rates of such rates, and rates of rates of such rates relatively neglected, these nested rates determining various topological properties of the composite.