_w_

I've got this feeling you're barking up the wrong tree.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-08/japan-s-gold-exports-most-since-1985-as-individuals-sell-jewelry-bars.html

All that money in your wallet doing nothing. Very inefficient. I think I'll take it and use it to bet on a horse race. If I lose I won't give your money back and you'll be liable for my losses. You can then call me a Master of the Universe for being so efficient. I'll first have to pay the government to make it legal though. All perfectly normal...

What a civilised person you are.

Is it enough to service the lifetime student debts? This is all that matters.

No loophole. Even when segregated it can be used by the broker. The rules are clear, it is a legalised form of theft.

Not a loophole though, this is exactly what happened with L:ehman. Part of the system they have legislated for themselves.

Too much management flip flopping in the face of economic uncertainty.

1. Your broker uses your funds and assets to pledge as collateral for loans to finance their own bets. 2. Your funds and collateral are then used by the bank that lent the borker money as collateral for borrowings of their own. The end result is that your assets guarantee a daisy chain of bets by numerous instituations and are therefore as safe as the lowest quality bet in the daisy chain. Any of the bets in the chain goes wrong and you can kiss your assets goodbye. I think the original article mentions that.

I know. And I don't really like the tone of his post, there's a hint of arrogance that really doesn't belong there. He also fails to address the specific issue of re-hypothetication as far as I can understand. UK regulations authorise banks and similar outfits to play with client funds. We may be the only country in the world that does that. No wonder London has so many finance organisations, it's certainly not the weather that attracts them here.

Interactive Brokers rebuttal, picked from a ZH comment on this topic. Close to home as I used IB.

Totally out of control. This is what happens when governments are on these guys' payroll. Logic would suggest that this can only end with the complete self-destruction of the financial system, they just can't seem to help it. Multiple pledging of collateral FFS. The UK is again at the center of this scam, no surprise there.

+1 Great writer.

Priceless from M Pettis. What he says about China applies to most of the world today. I think his fopcus on China commands economy leads him to misinterpret the root cause of the problem: not one of communism vs. capitalism but one of government controlled banks whether the government is a totalitarian one or one controlled by the banks themselves. It joins lots of dots. http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2011/10/michael-pettis-talks-china.html

The principle of a free insurance at the expense of renters is wrong no matter what. The excercise aims to bring an illusion of fairness to what is inherently unfair. Let homeowners buy their own unlimited mortgage insurance if they can afford to pay for it rather than have someone else pay for it, such insurance would probably cost as much as the mortgage repayments. Otherwise the bank should take back the home in case of default and put it back on the market. That would not be good for the ponzi however, as the government well knows.

Exchange subsidised insurance for a share of the inflation 'profit'. Another way to preserve this wholly unfair subsidy to maintain the ponzi. Disgraceful. ' Nothing less than what would expect from this corrupt government (and for the compulsive ideologues the previous ones were identical to this one, just not so quick to be so fully corrupt.)

I'm thinking risk-on risk off (dollar down, risk assets up) plus the laws of 'monetary physics' that prevail in the long run: the more dollars in circulation the cheaper they are. The Fed is on the same side of the fence as S&P in this instance IMO. S&P is currently working for commercial/clearing banks. They wouldn't hesitate to provoke a meltdown as they would come out ahead and possibly better off in such instance.

True but it is highly unlikely since no one wins from this. That would only happen as a result of a bluff gone wrong and even then, Ben* would come up with a quadrillion dollars if it reached that stage and that would be the end of that. * Ben is a disturbed man. He would not just stand by if everything collapsed.

You mean this? Posturing puppets don't seem to be much of a threat.

It would cause a panic that would force, one hopes, large scale printing by the ECB to stop a defaltionary meltdown ala 2008. The ECB printing would allow the US and UK to print even more than they already do without risking a USD or more likely STG currency crisis. More ECB printing allows 'more more' UK and Fed printing. Banks see their bad loans (most of their books) devalued and carry on on their merry bonused way to dynastic happiness.

It's an attempt to undermine it.

We need to scrap corporate benefit suckers.

Timed for maximum impact, with the cherry on the cake in the form of a negative watch on EFSF half a day later, the expected 'coup de grace'. It is absolutely stunning that the market didn't fall off a cliff.

Spit on their graves and enslave their descendents.Democrcacy seeking leftie scum can't be allowed to reproduce.