Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About moneyscam

  • Rank
    HPC Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

853 profile views
  1. He could have called their bluff by approving Savona knowing they couldn't alter the constitution whatever Savona proposed (even though there was no intention to propose euro exit). Then the coalition could have made made their case to the EU on relaxing fiscal compact rules etc via the normal govt to govt channels. Now he's made the case for Salvini that Italy is ultimately ruled in the interests of the EU and will give him the ammunition to actually do something about it by having the necessary majority to change the constitution together with di Maio at the next election. So it will prove to be quite counter-productive. While I agree with your second and third paragraphs, it would be a mistake to focus solely on the Euro issue which was not the main issue for voters. For M5S voters it was citizens income and corruption. For Lega it was flat tax and pension reforms. For both there was also immigration. The main issue with the EU was the restrictive EU fiscal compact which would hinder their domestic spending agenda. There are large domestic issues which Italians want to be dealt with by governments they elected, not blocked by establishment technocrats since the ouster of Berlusconi. Italians are fed up and it seems to me past the point of no return if the projections turn out to be correct.
  2. Indeed, whatever hope Mattarella had for stabilising the markets by appointing a caretaker government and reversing the BTP/bund yield spread rise since the M5S/Lega first proposed their contract has been blown out of the water today. The markets are rightly discounting already what you outlined above, the probability of euro exit has only been increased by Mattarella's action.
  3. Absolutely. If Mattarella had accepted the current M5S/Lega ticket, they would not have the majority necessary to alter the Italian constitution which is necessary to hold any sort of referendum on Euro or EU exit (despite neither of these being part of their proposed policy platform to Mattarella). Now, projections show that both M5S and Lega will gain votes and obtain bonus seats in an early election raising their majority from 54% to 69%. Ironically this is above the threshold needed to alter the constitution. https://www.corriere.it/cronache/18_maggio_28/lega-5-stelle-insieme-vincerebbero-90-per-cento-collegi-uninominali-81192fd4-62b0-11e8-bb5f-63b58f0e7bef.shtml link is in Italian but map shows how they would sweep the country I think Mattarella has been played by Salvini, Salvini could have proposed his deputy for example to be the Finance minister. He knew he would reject Savona forcing another election which will return M5S and Lega with an increased majority.
  4. http://www.corriere.it/elezioni-2018/risultati-politiche/senato.shtml#map Looking at the electoral map there is a clear north south split with centre right sweeping the north and 5 star the south. PD got wiped out and FI came second to Lega so no chance of centre left/right grand coalition. Centre right coalition is @37%, short of the 40% needed for a majority. I don't think 5 star after obtaining 32% of the vote can just say it will do no deals with anyone, they have to move from a protest movement to actually governing. Only combination I see satisfying 5 star ruling out established parties (PD, FI) is 5 star and Lega giving them about 350 seats in Camera with 316 needed for a majority. Final decision will rest on what coalition deals are presented and accepted by the President after the next few weeks of horse trading between the parties.
  5. All banks have to prepare "living wills" and have the people, systems and processes in place to manage a banking failure. It's the response of the regulators to GFC and the systemic risk of the banking system, As these rules have now been more or less finalised affected companies have to start implementing them so it's not unusual to see them hiring for this area. Long read but gives a detailed explanation here. http://www.cms-lawnow.com/-/media/files/regzone/reports/regzonepdfreports/livingwillsbr.pdf
  6. Sure, massive CB injections of liquidity have 'crowded out' supply of interbank lending needed but it still goes on. And we know that this liquidity is going to be withdrawn albeit gradually. So the point still stands, of the lending that is going on between banks there are no signs of any stress yet. That woman sounds a bit crackers to me.
  7. If interbank lending is freezing then you would expect to see Ted Spread and Libor-OIS spread to blow out. They haven't. http://www.macrotrends.net/1447/ted-spread-historical-chart Unfortunately you can't get a current Libor-OIS spread chart on web but the TED spread clearly shows there isn't a funding crisis as reflected in the spread between the credit risk of a bank and the credit risk of a US Treasury.
  8. Can't see any BOE rate rises this year while the economy remains relatively weak to prior years. Brexit uncertainty will continue to weigh and it doesn't look like there are any wage led inflationary pressures this year to make them move. Market rates like Gilts on the other hand will continue to key off global rates, namely US treasuries. I expect 10yr UST to hit 3%, not sure if we go much beyond that unless we see core CPI begin to rise. Wages jumped from 2.6 to 2.9% annual gain last payroll number release but this figure is volatile on month on month basis. Would like to see a few more months, if US wage inflation breaches 3.5% this year then 4% on 10yr UST is a realistic possibility this year. We're still a long way away from more 'normal' market rates of US 10ys @ 5to 6 % just to put where we are in perspective.
  9. I had to jump through some ridiculous hoops to prove how exactly my deposit was built up over the years and having to provide all the movements in the account up to that point. I can imagine if they say "yes we accept the source of your deposit was originally in crypto but please show us how exactly you accumulated this amount?" would not be impossible but would be a right pain in the ****.
  10. There are many articles about this. Better yet, some who have made some nice gains might find they can't use them once turned back into fiat. Bitcoin investors struggle to cash out new fortunes https://www.ft.com/content/40c64992-f606-11e7-88f7-5465a6ce1a00 google the headline if you can't access it straight away This is my main issue with cryptos, the banks and govt don't like competition and regulations are non existent. Regulations are coming, you can be sure of that. Anything that affects the legitimate fungibility of cryptos to real world assets would be a death blow to them for me if they choose to go that way.
  11. It's not quite a future, they have written a 1 yr covered call option with a strike of 50K to receive an option premium of 990K. It's a nice trade for the bitcoin holder if BTC prices continue to rise- at expiry the spot price will either be below, above or at the strike price. If above, say 70K, the call holder will exercise the option and pay 13.75m for BTC's now valued at (275*70) = 19.25m. Profit = 19.25-13.75-.99 = 5.01m The option writer will receive 19.25+.99= 20.24m banking the gain in difference of spot price between when he wrote the option and the option matured as well as receiving the option premium. If at maturity the spot price is below, say 30K, then the call holder will not exercise their option and it will expire worthless. Call buyer paid 990K and call writer receives 990K. Call writer gets his physical BTC back as well. For the call writer and holder of physical BTC, he is still in a good position. When he wrote the option the price of the BTC he placed at the clearing house was 16363.64 (4.5m/275) and now they are worth 30K. So he can sell the BTC at spot and bank a nice profit or he could write another option! He also received 990K in option premium. The above all assumes BTC price is above 16363 at time of expiry. The call buyer either believes spot BTC will be above strike by expiry, or they believe the spot price will trend higher thus increasing the value of the option which they can sell on at a profit assuming they don't get murdered by the theta (time decay of the option).
  12. I agree, where are you buying XRP in UK? Can you buy it without having to get BC first?
  13. No need to be sorry, happy to discuss this further. I originally replied to your post to challenge your claim that all euro trading would be effectively banned outside the EU. Clearing is a different thing entirely, trading is trading, clearing is a post trade event. However I will address your points on clearing one more time. I only mention LCH as worthy of discussion (I'm well aware of the other clearers) as we are talking primarily about the clearing of Euro denominated interest rate derivatives. The £747 billion of notional euro is almost all cleared by LCH. CME has almost no euro derivatives clearing in London, in fact they are closing down their CCP this year. Hardly anyone clears euro IRD's through Eurex apart from a few regional European banks who insist on it. Prior to clearing becoming mandatory, a dealer bank would just quote a price. Now they will quote it "LCH clear only" which pretty much forced all the smaller European banks to become members of LCH or use a clearing agent there anyway despite their preference for Eurex clearing. ICE are primarily a buy side clearer which is tiny compared to the dealer to dealer volume of the market that goes through LCH. LME is a metal exchange, I don't think they clear IRS as they are not an authorised CCP under ESMA to clear IRD's. Now, knowing LCH is the bulk of the derivatives clearing business and if I was thinking of how to quantify any potential loss of this business, I would look at them first. So when you only see 373m euro of revenues across all currencies I have to question a figure of £80 bn. Who are these firms doing multiples of the clearing business of LCH and if they exist we should easily be able to find their accounts and corroborate these figures. All your links show is a headline figure with no evidence to back it up. Those of us who work in the business naturally question these figures because they don't align with our experience. The 3 major IDB's (BGC, Tullett/ICAP and Tradition) match almost all of the pan european IRD trades and send them all to the clearers on the bank's behalf through Markitwire confirmation platform so we have good visibility of the volumes. These can also be checked at the trade repository's which breakdown by instrument, currency and clearing house. Can you tell me whose these firms are and any accounts that can be scrutinised to come up with this £80 bn figure? Now back to trading and specifically OTC trading. "You've not even mentioned the potential loss of passporting, which is for all Euro denominated trades leaving the City too." What does this actually mean because it doesn't make much sense. What does passporting have to with trading? How does Goldmans New York trade 5yr Euro IRS with Citibank London when it has no 'passport'? How does Nomura Tokyo trade 2yr Euro FRA with BNP Paris when it has no passport? How do Citibank Singapore and Mizuho Tokyo trade euro IRS with each other when they're not even in the EU territory? Derivatives OTC Trades are primarily (about 5% is exchange traded) private contracts between market participants than can and are traded anywhere in the world. That's why I challenged your original assertion that there is a proposal to ban euro denominated trading outside the EU, that it is actually enforceable, and that it makes little sense if you want the Euro to be a functioning global reserve currency or one to conduct international trade with. You have never directly addressed this original question because I don't think you actually know or understand how OTC trading works. You keep diverting to clearing which is a sideshow in terms of volumes and revenues to OTC trading. In more general terms, I actually agree with you that the City will permanently lose some business, this much is obvious. But I find some of the figures quoted like 80bn just from clearing to be bullsh.t, sorry.
  14. Passporting is an issue primarily for the US and Asian investment banks that use London as a hub for Europe. What is passporting? Passporting is when you have a regulated entity in say France and you want to open an office in Germany. Passporting allows you to open the office in Germany without going through the heavy regulatory checks as if you were setting up from scratch. There are still some checks but the process is much faster. Passporting also allows you to offer cross-border services from your home hub. Passporting will in theory no longer be available when Britain leaves the EU. However any UK based firm will still have the ability to open a EU territory fully capitalised subsidiary and carry on doing the majority of what they were doing from London. Obviously some jobs will move as the subsidiary will have to have some substance (trading, compliance, risk management) at the local level. It's not as simply as some people think for the foreign banks to just move wholesale out of London. There are 600 foreign banks in London and not Paris or Frankfurt for 2 main reasons. 1) English law and courts 2) Liquidity English law and their courts is the main reason the City is what it is. It is the most investor friendly and protecting in the world and the main draw of London. It cannot be overstated how important this is. This will be enhanced rather than diminished post Brexit. Liquidity is important for obvious reasons - Paris or Frankfurt simply are not large enough or developed enough to supplant London. They could but it would take them at least 2 decades. What's my angle? Will Brexit have some negative impact on the City? Of course it will. Will the UK lose 5% of GDP as a result? No, that is a clear exaggeration.
  15. There is only one clearer in London and that is LCH. It doesn't employ 83,000 people, I know because I work with them. Nor do they turnover £80 bn a year, more like 376m euro for 2016 in clearing fees across all currencies. http://www.lch.com/documents/731485/762550/2016_Group_Accounts_for_website.pdf/4d998b1e-9843-4104-93da-5e52e140e2c6 You then say "The financial and professional services industry in London, which includes clearing is worth £175bn. That's everything. Around 11% of the economy. It runs a £70bn trade surplus, and is the UK largest export. It's a significant tax take for the treasury as well, the largest tax paying sector at around 11.5% (City AM)." which is very true. But then you say "You can dismiss it if you like, but that's a sizeable chunk, some 40% of banking/trading done in the UK. It isn't minuscule, it's massive." - again, I am talking about trading, not clearing.- you have not made the case how trading will be affected by any decision of the EU.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.