I predict a massive financial case next 5 years
Discussion
macron said:
mickythefish said:
On a country level, how would I profit off the back of this, gold etc?
Confused how someone who calls themselves an "analyst" would even ask this. Analyse. 
k off from the discussion 
There are a lot of articles on the failing western society model, the question I have is how I make money off the back of it.
Seems like precious metals is why to go
https://www.ft.com/content/8aae5789-5eb2-45f8-98ba...
The tree of debt
Seems like precious metals is why to go
https://www.ft.com/content/8aae5789-5eb2-45f8-98ba...
The tree of debt
mickythefish said:
There are a lot of articles on the failing western society model, the question I have is how I make money off the back of it.
Seems like precious metals is why to go
https://www.ft.com/content/8aae5789-5eb2-45f8-98ba...
The tree of debt
So you are an analyst - financial?Seems like precious metals is why to go
https://www.ft.com/content/8aae5789-5eb2-45f8-98ba...
The tree of debt
What did you do in 2007 to mitigate the 2008 collapse?
Or during Covid?
OoopsVoss said:
Ken_Code said:
RSTurboPaul said:
The Great Taking seems to be saying that all shares will get hoovered up by Big Finance if there is a monster crash, regardless of if one thinks one owns them.
How is that possible?I tried to watch The Great Taking documentary, but find it somewhat baffling that a former hedge fund manager doesn't know what a bank is or does.
Some of what he is talking about is spinning up leverage and asset inflation, whilst that has massive impact on wealth inequality - I struggle to believe its a conspiracy of a few.
And if it is, surely its a tad subtle; so why would they swoop in and steal all the equity in a collapse? And if its not theft, but some form of asset collapse and hoover up; all of "Big Finance" are all acting in concert with Dodd Frank, Volcker, BASLE etc are just jokes?
Some of it is OK, but his conclusions are a bit at the fringe end. He's bought a farm, I bet he has a bunker; he's gone full prepper.
Ken_Code said:
Scootersp said:
It’s wrong. You can’t have your shares taken off you.
) not an expert in these things, but the legislation referred to in the video seems to be setting in place an order of priority when TSHTF, with the people who thought they owned things at the very bottom of the pile in terms of being a creditor (because they never really owned them and only had 'beneficial entitlement' or whatever the phrase used is?).The legislation quoted/referred to appears to be genuine and the explanation seems to make sense to a layman, so I guess my question is what gives confidence that ownership wouldn't be transferred as described in the video? And what is the legislation for?
Ken_Code said:
Scootersp said:
It’s wrong. You can’t have your shares taken off you.I can’t be certain on all the shares stuff.
But you can get bailed in on banks, so a shareholder in a bank that fails loses their money before a creditor.
I’m not sure how that’d work for say Apple shares.
Ie, if Apple becomes worth say £100 billion in a mega-crash, but owes £100 billion in debt for some reason, they’re screwed and the debt holder could just take Apple as collateral I’d assume.
Thus your share was/is worthless… but you’d still own it.
In ETFs and MMF and all these abstractions of shares/treasuries you could hold yourself, I’m sure it can all get quite woolly.
Ie, if they shutter funds to protect values, and the values plunge, then you’re locked in with worthless shares.
I think a lot of the worry here is that debt is fixed price but assets aren’t.
Even bonds/treasuries flap around in ‘value’ and if shtf they might never even be redeemable, or inflation might make them worthless.
The issue is fundamentally, banks etc lend out fixed price debt, and take variable value assets as collateral.
They can ultimately hoover up stuff in a big asset crash.
As I noted further up. Focus on your own lot.
But you can get bailed in on banks, so a shareholder in a bank that fails loses their money before a creditor.
I’m not sure how that’d work for say Apple shares.
Ie, if Apple becomes worth say £100 billion in a mega-crash, but owes £100 billion in debt for some reason, they’re screwed and the debt holder could just take Apple as collateral I’d assume.
Thus your share was/is worthless… but you’d still own it.
In ETFs and MMF and all these abstractions of shares/treasuries you could hold yourself, I’m sure it can all get quite woolly.
Ie, if they shutter funds to protect values, and the values plunge, then you’re locked in with worthless shares.
I think a lot of the worry here is that debt is fixed price but assets aren’t.
Even bonds/treasuries flap around in ‘value’ and if shtf they might never even be redeemable, or inflation might make them worthless.
The issue is fundamentally, banks etc lend out fixed price debt, and take variable value assets as collateral.
They can ultimately hoover up stuff in a big asset crash.
As I noted further up. Focus on your own lot.
Ken_Code said:
What I did to take advantage of the uncertain markets was get a series of investments banks to pay me to trade for them.
It’s worked out pretty well so far.
The money that they pay me that isn’t in property, cars or bikes is in Vaguard LifeStrategy100.
Good for you, we all have to look out for number 1 and family.It’s worked out pretty well so far.
The money that they pay me that isn’t in property, cars or bikes is in Vaguard LifeStrategy100.
Investment banks/trading is another interesting topic to me, it's obviously a stressful but lucrative job. No doubt there are good and bad traders but overall the sector seems to be one of success, profitability and people doing well out of it, you and colleagues don't get your bonuses without the company doing ok too and it tends to always be big numbers?
So what intrigues me is if all investment banks are doing ok with just relative levels of success where does this sectors (overall) huge net gains come from? Where is the source of the profits, if the sum of all trades (and everyone wins some and losses some) is net positive across the sector, then either someone is losing money to it, or more/much the created money from debt finds it's way to you than others?
Your winning trade is paid by who to you, so they've lost out, but it can't be a zero sum game can it, else there'd be a lot of unprofitable and ultimately bankrupt investment banks too?
I'm not saying your job is easy, I'm not bashing you or the sector but it's hard not to think about who is losing if you guys are (again in aggregate) always winning.
mikeiow said:
mickythefish said:
There are a lot of articles on the failing western society model, the question I have is how I make money off the back of it.
Seems like precious metals is why to go
https://www.ft.com/content/8aae5789-5eb2-45f8-98ba...
The tree of debt
So you are an analyst - financial?Seems like precious metals is why to go
https://www.ft.com/content/8aae5789-5eb2-45f8-98ba...
The tree of debt
What did you do in 2007 to mitigate the 2008 collapse?
Or during Covid?
Bought a house and a super ish car.
Never understood qe or printing and missed out on the biggest bull run in history.
Late 2019 when covid looked like really kicking off I bought a load of tins of stuff, (not bog role never saw that one coming) and even filled all my jerry cans with diesel. Was wrong on that one too plenty of fuel and mega cheap.
When the stock markets started crashing and the UK pumped xxxbillions in I knew not to buy until the US put in.
Made alot but sold too early and played about too much buying and selling.
mickythefish said:
On a country level, how would I profit off the back of this, gold etc?
How did you get to that conclusion?The financial crisis is ever present since people feel a crisis when seeing high debts, trillions of dollars in the US and the EU you see here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/274179/nationa...
There are many pages suggesting a ticking clock. But there is no law that says from xxxx Trillion a state crumbles.
From a certain level onward you see that it's just a number. And as long as people pay taxes no crisis is coming along.
War is the opportunity for a reset. For 2025 to 2026 is the prediction.
Scootersp said:
Good for you, we all have to look out for number 1 and family.
Investment banks/trading is another interesting topic to me, it's obviously a stressful but lucrative job. No doubt there are good and bad traders but overall the sector seems to be one of success, profitability and people doing well out of it, you and colleagues don't get your bonuses without the company doing ok too and it tends to always be big numbers?
So what intrigues me is if all investment banks are doing ok with just relative levels of success where does this sectors (overall) huge net gains come from? Where is the source of the profits, if the sum of all trades (and everyone wins some and losses some) is net positive across the sector, then either someone is losing money to it, or more/much the created money from debt finds it's way to you than others?
Your winning trade is paid by who to you, so they've lost out, but it can't be a zero sum game can it, else there'd be a lot of unprofitable and ultimately bankrupt investment banks too?
I'm not saying your job is easy, I'm not bashing you or the sector but it's hard not to think about who is losing if you guys are (again in aggregate) always winning.
As you say, t’s not a zero-sum game,.Investment banks/trading is another interesting topic to me, it's obviously a stressful but lucrative job. No doubt there are good and bad traders but overall the sector seems to be one of success, profitability and people doing well out of it, you and colleagues don't get your bonuses without the company doing ok too and it tends to always be big numbers?
So what intrigues me is if all investment banks are doing ok with just relative levels of success where does this sectors (overall) huge net gains come from? Where is the source of the profits, if the sum of all trades (and everyone wins some and losses some) is net positive across the sector, then either someone is losing money to it, or more/much the created money from debt finds it's way to you than others?
Your winning trade is paid by who to you, so they've lost out, but it can't be a zero sum game can it, else there'd be a lot of unprofitable and ultimately bankrupt investment banks too?
I'm not saying your job is easy, I'm not bashing you or the sector but it's hard not to think about who is losing if you guys are (again in aggregate) always winning.
Banks don’t (generally) make money by trading in the markets. We are selling services to companies. Offering loans, issuing bonds, and hedging their risks.
An options trader may be buying calls on bonds from someone who owns the bond, and then selling those options on to someone who wants to speculate on the price moving higher. They take a small spread between the two prices, which is where they make their money.
The reason traders need to be bright and good with numbers is that the two sides of the deal rarely happen at the same time, or exactly match in economics (they may buy an option on a 10y govt bond and sell an option on a 9y one) and so they need to know how much they need to charge for the resultant risk.
They do this in interest rates, inflation, commodities, FX, equities etc, with each trader generally trading only one specific type of product or currency.
We also sell investor products, packaging (for example) equities in with debt to produce a note that will pay you any increase in the FTSE, but guarantee to return your initial investment if the FTSE falls.
Running risk in trading books nowadays costs a lot of money. The bank must set aside capital against that risk, meaning that they can’t then use it for something productive.
Ken_Code said:
Banks don’t (generally) make money by trading in the markets. We are selling services to companies. Offering loans, issuing bonds, and hedging their risks.
An options trader may be buying calls on bonds from someone who owns the bond, and then selling those options on to someone who wants to speculate on the price moving higher. They take a small spread between the two prices, which is where they make their money.
The reason traders need to be bright and good with numbers is that the two sides of the deal rarely happen at the same time, or exactly match in economics (they may buy an option on a 10y govt bond and sell an option on a 9y one) and so they need to know how much they need to charge for the resultant risk.
They do this in interest rates, inflation, commodities, FX, equities etc, with each trader generally trading only one specific type of product or currency.
We also sell investor products, packaging (for example) equities in with debt to produce a note that will pay you any increase in the FTSE, but guarantee to return your initial investment if the FTSE falls.
Running risk in trading books nowadays costs a lot of money. The bank must set aside capital against that risk, meaning that they can’t then use it for something productive.
Sometimes I think life would be a lot easier and 'crises' avoided if we just used shiny pebbles, cowrie shells etc for money...!An options trader may be buying calls on bonds from someone who owns the bond, and then selling those options on to someone who wants to speculate on the price moving higher. They take a small spread between the two prices, which is where they make their money.
The reason traders need to be bright and good with numbers is that the two sides of the deal rarely happen at the same time, or exactly match in economics (they may buy an option on a 10y govt bond and sell an option on a 9y one) and so they need to know how much they need to charge for the resultant risk.
They do this in interest rates, inflation, commodities, FX, equities etc, with each trader generally trading only one specific type of product or currency.
We also sell investor products, packaging (for example) equities in with debt to produce a note that will pay you any increase in the FTSE, but guarantee to return your initial investment if the FTSE falls.
Running risk in trading books nowadays costs a lot of money. The bank must set aside capital against that risk, meaning that they can’t then use it for something productive.
NickZ24 said:
How did you get to that conclusion?
The financial crisis is ever present since people feel a crisis when seeing high debts, trillions of dollars in the US and the EU you see here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/274179/nationa...
There are many pages suggesting a ticking clock. But there is no law that says from xxxx Trillion a state crumbles.
From a certain level onward you see that it's just a number. And as long as people pay taxes no crisis is coming along.
War is the opportunity for a reset. For 2025 to 2026 is the prediction.
You'd like to think there could be a better "opportunity" than war!!The financial crisis is ever present since people feel a crisis when seeing high debts, trillions of dollars in the US and the EU you see here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/274179/nationa...
There are many pages suggesting a ticking clock. But there is no law that says from xxxx Trillion a state crumbles.
From a certain level onward you see that it's just a number. And as long as people pay taxes no crisis is coming along.
War is the opportunity for a reset. For 2025 to 2026 is the prediction.
There are no/few true economic laws at all are there? else we could follow them and avoid crises? There seem to be economic camps which it's perfectly legitimate to be in (keynesian etc), so no one right way, there are theories/indicators and I read that once you go over a certain debt to GDP ratio (and it used to be stated as around 100%) then more debt didn't create enough economic activity to arrest the cycle a sort of tipping point/event horizon. But then look at Japan's now.
It all seems to be mainly confidence (TINA) based, and also that any 'solution' would create bigger short term problems? ie it's easier for most people if the status quo persists, but gradually there seems to be a pinch on the lower classes where inflation is felt most, US homeless issues, worldwide economic migrants, widespread petty crime/shoplifting increasing, councils broke, slower NHS service just a bit of general social decline.
The paradox, would seem to be there is no easy solution at the moment, but the cause of problems seemingly can't even be slowed (on the contrary) so it's set to continue to make the issue bigger, making the solutions even harder and consequences worse as time goes on? A sort of catch22 doom loop......but one that could go on for years/decades?
The debt repayments as a percentage of GDP are also now rising, talk of the US debt burden approaching (apparently now surpassed) the defense budget
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-debt-interest...
"On average, the U.S. spent more than $2 billion per day on interest costs last year (2023). Going further, the U.S. government is projected to spend a historic $12.4 trillion on interest payments over the next decade, averaging about $37,100 per American.
Exacerbating matters is that the U.S. is running a steep deficit, which stood at $1.1 trillion for the first six months of fiscal 2024. This has accelerated due to the 43% increase in debt servicing costs along with a $31 billion dollar increase in defense spending from a year earlier. Additionally, a $30 billion increase in funding for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in light of the regional banking crisis last year was a major contributor to the deficit increase.
Overall, the CBO forecasts that roughly 75% of the federal deficit’s increase will be due to interest costs by 2034."
So unsustainable in any logical sense but can't stop it now as the consequences will be severe? but no real plan/ability to turn this around?
Simpo Two said:
Sometimes I think life would be a lot easier and 'crises' avoided if we just used shiny pebbles, cowrie shells etc for money...!
It’d all get complicated again when people wanted to put the shiniest shells in safe hands and the holder realised that he was unlikely to be asked to give them all back at once so could lend them out.And then some bright spark would realise that rather than having to go and collect the shells when they want to buy something they could just give the seller the shell deposit receipt instead…
Ken_Code said:
They do this in interest rates, inflation, commodities, FX, equities etc, with each trader generally trading only one specific type of product or currency.
Thanks I have direct experience re FX hedging and essentially I can see we get a protection service from the bank/company concerned. "IF" we could find someone who wanted the reverse AND we could trust each other we wouldn't need the middle man taking a cut from us both but that's massively impractical! I spose there are many companies needing these products and not many able to provide them so the profit figures become large/focussed in these few companies. Those transaction fees and fx % margins on everything soon add up I spose!
Scootersp said:
Thanks I have direct experience re FX hedging and essentially I can see we get a protection service from the bank/company concerned. "IF" we could find someone who wanted the reverse AND we could trust each other we wouldn't need the middle man taking a cut from us both but that's massively impractical!
I spose there are many companies needing these products and not many able to provide them so the profit figures become large/focussed in these few companies. Those transaction fees and fx % margins on everything soon add up I spose!
Yes, if companies could face each other directly they could save some money.I spose there are many companies needing these products and not many able to provide them so the profit figures become large/focussed in these few companies. Those transaction fees and fx % margins on everything soon add up I spose!
The reason it doesn’t happen often is that it’d be hard to find someone with exactly the opposite interest at the right time and that banks charge an incredibly small spread, so the savings are small.
In interest rates the “lending” and “borrowing” levels are typically a half of a hundredth of a percent apart, so the two-way price might be 4.8825% - 4.8875%.
Scootersp said:
You'd like to think there could be a better "opportunity" than war!!
Crisis is needed to keep people away from the issues each and every government has. Smokescreens if you will.
Many countries tried to reset, by changing their currency.
It does not work as well as a reset when everything is clobbered to pieces.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff