• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The $2 billion UBS Incident

DaveFagan

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/15-8

The $2 Billion UBS loss

Does this infer a need for regulation?
Was he a rogue trader?
Is current banking unstable?
Are these the people we bailed out?
Are they actually organized white collar crime?
 
Last edited:
i'd like to know more about how one trader had unauthorized access to that kind of money. as well as the details of the trade.
 
Does it matter how it was done? It wasn't supposed to be possible, this is the new era of responsible banking with multiple safeguards in place.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Does it matter how it was done? It wasn't supposed to be possible, this is the new era of responsible banking with multiple safeguards in place.
Click to expand...

No we need to deregulate banks because that's good for the economy. Think about it, if stronger regulations were in place to prevent this, this poor trader might not have been able to run off with $2 billion! Think of how much economic activity he stimulated with his lavish lifestyle. Why do you hate capitalism and freedom? :(
 
Deuce said:
No we need to deregulate banks because that's good for the economy. Think about it, if stronger regulations were in place to prevent this, this poor trader might not have been able to run off with $2 billion! Think of how much economic activity he stimulated with his lavish lifestyle. Why do you hate capitalism and freedom? :(
Click to expand...

lol

the odd part to me is that everything i'm reading states that he didn't even have a car.

the good news is that this guy has a bright future at AIG or Goldman. and possibly as a future secretary of the treasury.

Bernanke can print 2 billion dollars by 9 AM. this trader isn't even in the big leagues.
 
washunut said:
did this happen in the US? If not what are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I believe the data indicate that over half of the stimulus monies were loans to foreign banks, because international linkage would have taken all the banks down withour intervention.
 
LOL, I like how the article tries to blame this for tipping the EU over the edge. The fix is easy. The desire is not there.
 
DaveFagan said:
I believe the data indicate that over half of the stimulus monies were loans to foreign banks, because international linkage would have taken all the banks down withour intervention.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I did not think that any TARP money went to foreign banks. There was a lot of interbank stuff that the Fed did which you are correct did help those banks over the 2008-2009 crisis.

All I was trying to say is that the new regs from Dodd-Frank will not have an impact of what a UBS employee in London did.
 
washunut said:
I could be wrong but I did not think that any TARP money went to foreign banks.
Click to expand...

For example, billions of dollars in bailout money actually ended up in large banks in France, Germany, among other nations (in connection with the rescue of American International Group) -- an inevitable result given that company's extensive foreign operations. However, the U.S. government bore the entire $70-billion risk. Indeed, the U.S. share for this single rescue exceeded the size of France's entire $35-billion capital injection program and was nearly half the size of Germany's $133-billion program.

TARP bailout disproportionately benefited foreign banks: Government Panel - International Business Times

U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s two-year fight to shield crisis-squeezed banks from the stigma of revealing their public loans protected a lender to local governments in Belgium, a Japanese fishing-cooperative financier and a company part-owned by the Central Bank of Libya.

Dexia SA (DEXB), based in Brussels and Paris, borrowed as much as $33.5 billion through its New York branch from the Fed’s “discount window” lending program, according to Fed documents released yesterday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Dublin-based Depfa Bank Plc, taken over in 2007 by a German real-estate lender later seized by the German government, drew $24.5 billion.

The biggest borrowers from the 97-year-old discount window as the program reached its crisis-era peak were foreign banks, accounting for at least 70 percent of the $110.7 billion borrowed during the week in October 2008 when use of the program surged to a record. The disclosures may stoke a reexamination of the risks posed to U.S. taxpayers by the central bank’s role in global financial markets.


TARP went to foreign banks… | PoliPundit.com
 
1Perry said:
For example, billions of dollars in bailout money actually ended up in large banks in France, Germany, among other nations (in connection with the rescue of American International Group) -- an inevitable result given that company's extensive foreign operations. However, the U.S. government bore the entire $70-billion risk. Indeed, the U.S. share for this single rescue exceeded the size of France's entire $35-billion capital injection program and was nearly half the size of Germany's $133-billion program.

TARP bailout disproportionately benefited foreign banks: Government Panel - International Business Times

U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s two-year fight to shield crisis-squeezed banks from the stigma of revealing their public loans protected a lender to local governments in Belgium, a Japanese fishing-cooperative financier and a company part-owned by the Central Bank of Libya.

Dexia SA (DEXB), based in Brussels and Paris, borrowed as much as $33.5 billion through its New York branch from the Fed’s “discount window” lending program, according to Fed documents released yesterday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Dublin-based Depfa Bank Plc, taken over in 2007 by a German real-estate lender later seized by the German government, drew $24.5 billion.

The biggest borrowers from the 97-year-old discount window as the program reached its crisis-era peak were foreign banks, accounting for at least 70 percent of the $110.7 billion borrowed during the week in October 2008 when use of the program surged to a record. The disclosures may stoke a reexamination of the risks posed to U.S. taxpayers by the central bank’s role in global financial markets.


TARP went to foreign banks… | PoliPundit.com
Click to expand...

I did say that the Fed provided monies to foreign banks, just not sure about TARP. TARP did bail out AIG and other institutions that have foreign subs, so you are correct money could have flowed there. Not sure how much of any money has not yet been repaid.
 
washunut said:
I did say that the Fed provided monies to foreign banks, just not sure about TARP. TARP did bail out AIG and other institutions that have foreign subs, so you are correct money could have flowed there. Not sure how much of any money has not yet been repaid.
Click to expand...

Both of those articles are about TARP. Nobody really knows what has been repaid and what hasn't.
 
washunut said:
I could be wrong but I did not think that any TARP money went to foreign banks. There was a lot of interbank stuff that the Fed did which you are correct did help those banks over the 2008-2009 crisis.

All I was trying to say is that the new regs from Dodd-Frank will not have an impact of what a UBS employee in London did.
Click to expand...

The interlinkage with foreign banks is the real reason I posted this material. They can manipulate as an organized group, as well. International bankers may control many US banks through the Reserve system. The biggest banks are old quiet banks.
Lessons learned is why they are quiet.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Does it matter how it was done? It wasn't supposed to be possible, this is the new era of responsible banking with multiple safeguards in place.
Click to expand...
That's what they said after the Great Depression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom