To use chat, please login.
Back to contacts

Tips and tricks!

xgavinc
Dec 02 2016 at 08:01
235 posts
snapdragon1970 posted:
Good point,some bigger losses we won't hear about,banks took a 130bn loss,next fear is if they lose pass porting rights.


Just barging in to this (saw 'bank' and had to comment) 😁

I think there should be no such thing as 'too big to fail', the account holders should be bailed out and the bank closed. This would provide new opportunities for small banks to compete with larger banks, stimulate new technologies, improve service, and all banks will start to take responsible action to prevent closure. There should be absolutely no reason why a positive balance in your account should not be there (limited daily withdrawal usually occurs), banks should not use client balances to make loans or place market risk on it, they should only use interest from credit, loans and fees to fund risk. - just my view.

For every loss there should be at least an equal and opposite profit.
snapdragon1970 (snapdragon1970)
Dec 02 2016 at 12:44
1944 posts
xgavinc posted:
snapdragon1970 posted:
Good point,some bigger losses we won't hear about,banks took a 130bn loss,next fear is if they lose pass porting rights.


Just barging in to this (saw 'bank' and had to comment) 😁

I think there should be no such thing as 'too big to fail', the account holders should be bailed out and the bank closed. This would provide new opportunities for small banks to compete with larger banks, stimulate new technologies, improve service, and all banks will start to take responsible action to prevent closure. There should be absolutely no reason why a positive balance in your account should not be there (limited daily withdrawal usually occurs), banks should not use client balances to make loans or place market risk on it, they should only use interest from credit, loans and fees to fund risk. - just my view.

Yeah that word 'bank' catches most peoples attention on here , totally agree.

"They mistook leverage with genius".
dkilmer (dkilmer)
Dec 02 2016 at 14:45
90 posts
Well, politically speaking, a bank should only be a service, but again, what kind of service asks you to let them 'hold' on to your money..... back in the day, all banks were seen as evil among the constitutionalist ,.... because they were. And they still are, but there is regulation that keeps them in check.
Limited daily withdrawal? nah man, it is your property, you should be fine to take what you want when you want it. if the bank or the bank system was to become unstable because of one dude withdrawing a billion bucks on one day, it is setup on fiat policy and primed to fail.

That being said, from a trading standpoint, I could care less what the banks do, or if a 'small' bank can actually compete with a 'large' bank.... it is a fractional reserve system built on fiat policy, what do you expect is going to happen.

Arn't we taught to trade what we see, not what we feel? I feel I know what is right and wrong, but who cares, right? I mean, I am not gonna cry about it. Instead, I focus on what is going on , or what could be speculated, and trade accordingly .

And I hate to break it to ya kiddo, but your balance BECOMES part of the fractional and therefore raises the reserve allotted to that bank . It has been that way in the US since 1913 and in the world since the 1950's .

Again, don't be upset, just learn more about it :)

Everything in the market is like a fart, if you have to force it, it is probably shit
togr (togr)
Dec 04 2016 at 09:55
4862 posts
xgavinc posted:
snapdragon1970 posted:
Good point,some bigger losses we won't hear about,banks took a 130bn loss,next fear is if they lose pass porting rights.


Just barging in to this (saw 'bank' and had to comment) 😁

I think there should be no such thing as 'too big to fail', the account holders should be bailed out and the bank closed. This would provide new opportunities for small banks to compete with larger banks, stimulate new technologies, improve service, and all banks will start to take responsible action to prevent closure. There should be absolutely no reason why a positive balance in your account should not be there (limited daily withdrawal usually occurs), banks should not use client balances to make loans or place market risk on it, they should only use interest from credit, loans and fees to fund risk. - just my view.


You know, in my country we dont have capitalism nor we have socialism. We have hybrid taking the worse from both systems.
Example?
Bank is risking too much lending to everyone making immense profit.
This profit is private - usually foreign owner.
When it comes to bankrupt as it cannot pay the loss government came and put billions into it to survive. It is not government money but money of the public.
So the loss is public.

martinkolbe (martinkolbe)
Dec 05 2016 at 14:40
35 posts
togr posted:
You know, in my country we dont have capitalism nor we have socialism. We have hybrid taking the worse from both systems.
Example?
Bank is risking too much lending to everyone making immense profit.
This profit is private - usually foreign owner.
When it comes to bankrupt as it cannot pay the loss government came and put billions into it to survive. It is not government money but money of the public.
So the loss is public.


Maybe a better solution could be not to completely recover or save it but just to compensate to some extent the deposits. You are right that in the end of day the people are losing as they fund the government. But I think it is again up to the person to decide how much and where to put the money.

martinkolbe (martinkolbe)
Dec 05 2016 at 14:42
35 posts
xgavinc posted:
banks should not use client balances to make loans or place market risk on it, they should only use interest from credit, loans and fees to fund risk. - just my view.


If this would be the ideal case, then the scale for the banks is smaller. Maybe their services would become more expensive?

xgavinc
Dec 05 2016 at 14:58
235 posts
martinkolbe posted:
xgavinc posted:
banks should not use client balances to make loans or place market risk on it, they should only use interest from credit, loans and fees to fund risk. - just my view.


If this would be the ideal case, then the scale for the banks is smaller. Maybe their services would become more expensive?


Smaller Banks = More Banks = More Jobs = More Competition = Lower Fees (Remember the days you walked into the bank and they greeted you by name? - 1 monthly fee for a basket of day to day services and per transaction for personalized services)

Large banks can have branches operate independently of the group (if the branch fails it doesn't take the whole bank down, the unprofitable branch closes) - no more 'too big to fail' as all failed branches would close before the deck of cards fall.

For every loss there should be at least an equal and opposite profit.
martinkolbe (martinkolbe)
Dec 05 2016 at 15:10
35 posts
xgavinc posted:
Smaller Banks = More Banks = More Jobs = More Competition = Lower Fees (Remember the days you walked into the bank and they greeted you by name? - 1 monthly fee for a basket of day to day services and per transaction for personalized services)


Seems like the model for local grocery stores where we have a big competition with a lot of players. However, the small banks don't have that economy of scale and may charge you more for the same service.
I would also add the psychological aspect - who you will trust more to put your money in? Maybe there should be a completely innovative banking model, could be interesting as technology is constantly evolving. We see what's going on with the bitcoin these days 😄 Maybe something new will emerge in terms of banking.

snapdragon1970 (snapdragon1970)
Dec 06 2016 at 11:53
1944 posts

This video takes a basic look at currency markets and some of the movers.

"They mistook leverage with genius".
lee42747 (lee42747)
Dec 07 2016 at 16:01
49 posts
@snapdragon1970 Thanks for sharing these videos. I hope to find time to watch them soon!

Please login to comment .