© Copyright 2007-2024 iBankCoin All rights reserved under penalty of bodily harm. DISCLAIMER: This is a personal web site, reflecting the opinions of its author(s). It is not a production of my employer, and it is unaffiliated with any FINRA broker/dealer. Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of anyone other than myself. The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only, and are not investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities. DATA INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO THE USERS "AS IS." NEITHER iBankCoin, NOR ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY THIRD PARTY DATA PROVIDER MAKE ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND REGARDING THE DATA INFORMATION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE. Privacy Policy
DAMN!
that article is misleading. it is of course the peak one-instant amount of lending that was the most at risk, as if they lent to GS 8 days in a row overnight, $10b each night, they never had $80B at risk with Goldman, they had $10B max.
cumulative total is completely not relevant. if you lent me $100 bucks and I handed it back to you 2 seconds later and we just sat and did this, 30 times a minute, for an hour, you’d have lent me $180k.
Did you risk $180k in doing this? Of course not.
check is back to explain it all away. nothing to see here ever. the fed is a distinguished institution of impeccable reputation. move along.
just admit it check. you are the clams house slave. take it one word at a time. “house…”
I can’t see how the logic I presented above is arguable.
Did you risk $180k in doing the action I described above? Or $100? How much of your money could I have defaulted on (i.e., jumped up and ran away with)?
Checks right, the article itself points out the difference. It would be better to tally up all the revenue the banks raised by rolling cheep funding into expiring treasuries, then print that number, than the transactions.
Not saying that it’s fair, but $29 trillion is silly, like saying a guy with a $50,000 a year paycheck will be a millionaire after 20 years on the job.
so what then cain? check always makes it real simple. there is no one behind the curtain the put is a myth and assets should collapse right?
It’s never straight forward like that. You can say we have had currency destruction and be right, but you should be right by being realistic. $29 trillion is a meaningless figure; no way the economy would survive that level of inflation.
It’s like Cramer’s $10 trillion euro loss number. Is the EU going to get hit heavy? Yeah, probably. Does that make Cramer right? No, $10 trillion is fucking stupid.
It is that simple… the peak lending IS the most the Fed risked. Well peak lending + any previous defaults (were there any defaults on this operation, or was it profitable for the Fed?)
This is a nonsense piece and ought to be laughed off the planet.
Since when has turn over been the metric to measure lending?
So buy that score Citi has mostly lent 100 trillion by 1925.