Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

moneyscam

Members
  • Posts

    850
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About moneyscam

  • Rank
    Newbie
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

1,064 profile views
  1. You assume wrong. I have never had multiple accounts and I haven't posted on here in 2 years because most but not all of the decent posters buggered off or were driven off years ago. I've posted here IIRC since 2009 almost exclusively on financial or market issues. Simply google housepricecrash.co.uk + moneyscam and you can check for yourself my old posts. Or name these so called other accounts and prove your assertion that I and they are one and the same. I've continued to lurk which is why I took issue with Zugswang who continually calls others 'stupid' or other derogatory names but when he is challenged on a particular assertion is nowhere to be seen. I don't recall ever having had any discussion with you so my comment wasn't particularly aimed at you or your discussion with Scepticus. I would concede maybe I should have said 'some of' or 'certain' posters so it was clearer who I was speaking about but then I though that was pretty obvious from the post.
  2. You mean a bit like the residential 'financial expert' Zugswang when he get's asked about his assertion that 'credit derivatives' are akin to creating money a few pages back on this thread? Don't bother or waste anymore of your time here mate, you're far too smart to waste your brain on the posters here.
  3. A credit derivative like a CDS is an insurance contract, not creating new money out of thin air. If I insure my gov or corporate debt position with a CDS and it pays out it comes from the existing capital of the insurance writer. If it doesn't pay out the premium I paid for it comes out of my existing capital. Credit derivatives at their peak in 2007 constituted less than 20% of the total derivatives market. Now they hardly exist. But people like you just like to look at the quadrillion 'notional' value not understanding that is not the money that is actually involved. The vast bulk of the derivatives complex is made up of interest rate swaps where the notional amount can be huge e,g 5 billion 5 year IRS but the actual gross cash flows are a tiny fraction of that and the actual net cash flow is a fraction of the gross. If I pay the fixed on an IRS annually @ 1 million cashflow and then receive the semi-annual floating cashflow of 1.1 million then the actual NET cash flow is only 100,000 in a given annual period. You should look in the mirror when calling others stupid, you haven't got a clue about the derivatives market, the fact that you think the entire derivatives complex is akin to sovereign or private bank credit creation demonstrates this. They are insurance contracts, pretty simple to understand but then you actually have to have some functional knowledge of how they actually work to comprehend this. Constantly bleating on as you do about them in relation to money or credit creation just makes you look 'stupid' to people who actually have worked with them on a day to day basis.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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 ****.
  13. 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.
  14. 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).
  15. I agree, where are you buying XRP in UK? Can you buy it without having to get BC first?
×
×
  • 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.