Re. :
Part 2: Anti-Debt for Donald Trump!
Part 1. How to dismiss accusations of Trump!
This is part 3 of arguments in favor of Donald Trump against accusing his business practices. Just to show I am against using truth only when it's required.
Now, just a few weeks before U.S. elections, a lot of new details about Trump's businesses have been revealed to average Joe & Jane. But do Democrats really want to tell the country all the truth? And does the public want to hear that truth?
The press tells:
"... Epic financial malfeasance, likely criminal tax avoidance on a massive scale, probable bank fraud, opulent living at taxpayer expense, unethical self-dealing and wild recklessness more becoming a buffoonish French aristocrat or drunken sailor than a prudent businessman. Donald Trump’s approach to business and tax compliance appears to have been the same as his approach to politics: tell outrageous lies, play the government and creditors for fools, steal everything not nailed down today, ... and already be onto the next con before anyone can catch him on the last one."
The full truth is that that picture just describes a result of so called "natural" evolution of business! The picture in which Donald Trump appears just as a typical businessman for today's era of fatal end of traditional demand niches together with ethics of wealthy pre-crisis existence. It does not say Donald Trump is the worst possible businessman and politician, as democrats try to present him. Rather, he is a typical smart American of today.
In 2016, in his interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," "Trump defended his use of bankruptcy laws in business dealings. The GOP nominee, who has been through four corporate bankruptcies, said he has "used brilliantly the laws of this country" in the business world, but never in his personal life. He said his history of bankruptcies is not unique within the business community."
It might be not the case in previous centuries, but today he is quite successfully trying to find out some creative ways for escaping current economic deadloacks. To prevent your possible arguing about the word "successfully", let me only to mention that the space of really successful business decisions nowadays shrinks very quickly. And my personal case shows just that. (Just be grateful to me for my not extending this post towards discussing the question weather FAIR or DECENT ways of becoming rich EVER existed :-) To the best of my knowledge the latter topic is still considered the biggest secret of all the times, - although the business in general, as industry, have always been rather opaque for outsiders.
MotherJones says: "Jason Greenblatt, who was then the Trump Organization’s top lawyer, declined to explain to the Times the reason for the Chicago Unit Acquisition deal: “It’s really personal corporate trade secrets, if you will,” he said. “Neither newsworthy or frankly anybody’s business.”
After
all, one of the biggest dificulties for Donald Trump about
refinancing his debt appeared problems of his biggest creditor
Deutsche
Bank (DB),
- defenetely not because of Trump's guilt. More than likely, if the
one of the biggest European banking giants was OK, there would be no
Trump's financial difficulties that currently are the main reason to
vote against him. What
kind of problems? Formally,
a huge number of toxic mortgage-based investments in DB's porfolio,
derivatives
(well, it wasn't the only problem of DB, but definitely the most
widely discussed by media one, which ultimately inflated DB's shares
dramatically). However, further exploration of that problem can
result in pointing back
to Democrats,
its ex-government, and ... the nature of business per se.
Known in the media the "Oracle Of Omaha", Warren Buffett had condemned derivative contracts as early as 2003, describing them as "Time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system" (source).
It's interesting, however, that even in October 2008, at the time when "he told Charlie Rose in an hour-long televised interview that such derivatives were nothing short of "financial weapons of mass destruction," saying, "They destroyed AIG. They certainly contributed to the destruction of Bear Sterns and Lehman", "Buffett's holding company not only had multi-billion dollar positions in derivative contracts but was the largest single shareholder in one of the principal enablers of the proliferation of subprime mortgage derivatives". In particular, the Oracle turned out to be one of America's largest sellers of derivative contracts. He sold more than $2.5 billion worth of credit default swaps in 2008—the same notorious derivative contracts that had brought AIG to its knees—and more than $6.7 billion worth of another type of derivatives ..."
Well, that says a lot about psychology and way of doing business of a typical American business elite, both in Republican and Democrats' camps. "Since Warren Buffett’s initial warning in 2002 , 13 years ago, he has been remarkably quiet on the real and growing threat to global markets and the global financial system. Despite the fact that the scale of the risk today is of an order of magnitude greater now than it was then" (source).
Ultimately, "In the first nine months of 2008 alone, Berkshire's losses from these derivative amounted to $2.2 billion". Compare it with Trump's potential(!) debt of a half of $Billion, if any.
According to the press of 2016, the Deutsche Bank appeared in possession of questionable "garbage" derivatives for astronomic sum of almost $50 Trillions. If public did not know about that fact, ratings for the bank wouldn't be slashed to critically low positions. And, presumably, it would be able keep loaning Mr Trump as it did before.
I am not in a position to judge behaviour of DB's CEOs. With German punctuality, they just did what American politicians, - and mainstream media!, - considered a right thing to do. At that time!
"For more than a decade, ... One prominent financial figure, whose views held the greatest sway in debates about the regulation and use of derivatives .... the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has fiercely objected whenever derivatives have come under scrutiny in Congress or on Wall Street. “What we have found over the years in the marketplace is that derivatives have been an extraordinarily useful vehicle to transfer risk ..." (source).
"And when Mr. Greenspan began to hear of a housing bubble, he dismissed the threat. Wall Street was using derivatives, he said in a 2004 speech, to share risks with other firms."
In fact, this vision of derivarives as the "Magic Super Insurance Against Everything" (C) Beloy, seems appeared a key point of official policy of the Fed:
"Later that year, at a Congressional hearing on the merger boom, he argued that Wall Street had tamed risk. “Aren’t you concerned with such a growing concentration of wealth that if one of these huge institutions fails that it will have a horrendous impact on the national and global economy?” asked Representative Bernard Sanders, an independent from Vermont.
“No, I’m not,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “I believe that the general growth in large institutions have occurred in the context of an underlying structure of markets in which many of the larger risks are dramatically — I should say, fully — hedged.”
Then he added the point that I consider the key for my BMoney, based on the trust:
“In a market system based on trust, reputation has a significant economic value”, Mr. Greenspan told the audience." ---- I am sorry if current U.S. President does not realize that!
"The House overwhelmingly passed the bill that kept derivatives clear of C.F.T.C. oversight. The Senate passed it. President Clinton signed it into law."
And, by the way, DB earned a lot on derivatives then. Unfortunately, "Looking back ten years, its shares have lost around 75% of their value. Over 20 years, they've lost 85%".
"Shared risk has since evolved from a source of comfort into a virus. As the housing crisis grew and mortgages went bad, derivatives actually magnified the downturn."
"If Mr. Greenspan had acted differently during his tenure as Federal Reserve chairman from 1987 to 2006, many economists say, the current crisis might have been averted or muted." That is what media said about the same crisis, in triggering of which Donald Trump later sued DB, unabled to deal with its financial consequences on his own.
“Clearly, derivatives are a centerpiece of the crisis, and he (Greenspan) was the leading proponent of the deregulation of derivatives,” said Frank Partnoy, a law professor at the University of San Diego and an expert on financial regulation. ... On a grander scale, such contracts allow financial services firms and corporations to take more complex risks that they might otherwise avoid — for example, issuing more mortgages or corporate debt.
So, what's the degree of real guilt for both DB and Donald Trump in their current financial issues?
Only
in October 2008,
"Alan
Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, said at
congressional hearings that he was partially mistaken in supporting
deregulation of derivatives and that there
were serious problems with the credit default swap
market." Greenspan said: "I have found a flaw
in
the model of how I perceived the world to work for 40 years"
(source).
“Risk management can never achieve perfection,” he wrote.
Thus, the Complexity of derivatives , - similar to the one discussed in part 2 (Anti-Debt for Donald Trump!) - was just first reason for current DB's problems: "When the credit default market began back in the mid-1990s, the transactions were simpler, more transparent affairs." (source).
Another, more serious one, was a reluctance to pay debts:
"But what they didn’t factor in was the risk that the sellers of this protection wouldn’t pay ... That’s what we’re seeing now.” (source).
Conceptually, this failure of THOUSANDS international businessess, most of which were (or originated) on American land, is very similar to Trump's situation:
Debtors just DID NOT PAY!
***
But how the truth about financial problems of Deutsche Bank became known to the public? Well, obviously it wasn't due to participating its CEOs in presidential elections :-) as it was in Trump's case, but very similar to the nature of his reasons for such undesirable publicity.
There was a conflict DB with Mario Draghi, ECB about european version of QE. DB demanded end of that program. Mattio Renson, then Premier Minister of Italy, asking Angela Merkel for money, got the answer: No "bail-out" for your banks, - only "bail-in" (loans are covered on expense of owners/shareholders of the banks). "Which was tantamount to bank robbery of the savers ...". Angree Mattio told Angela to look at yourself, Germany, as on the balance of her DB there were derivatives for 70(?) Trillions US$. In particular,
"Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi Slams Deutsche Bank As Europe’s Most Insolvent Bank":
"As Reuters adds, speaking at a joint news conference with Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, Renzi said today other European banks had much bigger problems than their Italian counterparts. ... When faced with stiff resistance from the Germans, Renzi decided to call a spade a spade when, as Reuters reports, he said that the difficulties facing Italian banks over their bad loans are miniscule by comparison with the problems some European banks face over their derivatives. One look at the two last charts here and it becomes clear just who he was referring to – the DB."
That sensation cost DB a lot of money. Mario then applied for help to his friends in Goldman Sachs ...
Was DB a really the biggest derivatives holder? Nope. The biggest banks of Wall Street were, including the Goldman Sachs:
"Which banks have the most derivatives? JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citibank account for some 90% of $203 trillion in derivative holdings out of all 1,357 insured U.S. commercial banks according to a report by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) which oversees banks." (2018) (source).
Although they (more than likely) are shareholders of the Fed, - just like Barclays and DB itself, - the scandal (and its financial consequences) hit DB only ...
Conceptually, the story is very similar to Trump's one, isn't it?
When truth is required to destroy somebody's competitor, it is "switched on". When the truth is not required (most of the time, in all other cases) it's simply "switched off" ...
But the main problem is:
"Deutsche Bank is the most important domino in European's very shaky financial system. Loss of confidence in financial institutions can happen in hours, and once it’s gone, there’s virtually no way (other than a bailout) to get it back."
"When Lehman failed, it nearly took down the entire financial system with it. Deutsche Bank is of similar scale and importance (you might argue it’s actually more substantial, though I think at that point it’s basically irrelevant - if you’re big enough to bring down the entire financial system, then you’re large enough. "
P.S.
"Deutsche Bank was one of Donald Trump’s biggest lenders", integral part and shareholder (like Barclays bank) of just One Global Banking System (with the Fed at the top), to which Swiss and British bankers have SHIFTED Infinite Debt of Barclays bank.
Donald Trump can fail to paying his debts, as
"Deutsche Bank created over the years a whopping $53.5 trillion (€48 trillion) book of derivatives contracts", due to (American) Fed misinformation about its essense,
its stocks are down 84 percent, AND ...
"When Deutsche Bank Collapse will happen, at least in the same way that Lehman failed, then every other financial institution will face the same questions and economic collapse will hit the world. One thing is for sure: If Deutsche Bank collapses, it will cause the entire EU to implode!
And if this happens, prepare for economic collapse, the likes of which this world has never seen." (source).
existence of Barclays' Infinite Debt may trigger unprecedented
Global Financial Collapse,
since which all debts to banks will remain
ANNULED!
So will the wealth of the
RICHEST 1%
including Donald Trump!
By its silence, the wealth status of rich and poor
is already set by Barclays CEOs to be
REVERSED!
This post, as everything else in this life, is an
URGENT
two-edged "thing", capable both to
DESTROY AND REBORN THIS WORLD,
depending on how it is used by media and
The President of the U.S.A.
No comments:
Post a Comment