Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jim Rogers calls most big U.S. banks "bankrupt"
Reuters ^ | 2008-12-11 | Jonathan Stempel

Posted on 12/11/2008 6:03:58 PM PST by rabscuttle385

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Jim Rogers, one of the world's most prominent international investors, on Thursday called most of the largest U.S. banks "totally bankrupt," and said government efforts to fix the sector are wrongheaded.

Speaking by teleconference at the Reuters Investment Outlook 2009 Summit, the co-founder with George Soros of the Quantum Fund, said the government's $700 billion rescue package for the sector doesn't address how banks manage their balance sheets, and instead rewards weaker lenders with new capital.

Dozens of banks have won infusions from the Troubled Asset Relief Program created in early October, just after the Sept 15 bankruptcy filing by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc (LEHMQ.PK). Some of the funds are being used for acquisitions.

"Without giving specific names, most of the significant American banks, the larger banks, are bankrupt, totally bankrupt," said Rogers, who is now a private investor.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bailout; bailouthell; bailoutnation; bankinglist; bankruptcy; bernanke; fdic; federalhell; financelist; financialcrisis; govwatch; jimrogers; leh; lehmanbrothers; moneylist; panicof2008; paulson; socialism; soros; sorostm; tarp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last
To: PAR35

“Savings and mortgage provider ING Direct has reassured savers that their money is safe following this week’s €10bn (£7.8bn) injection of cash by the Dutch government.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/oct/25/savings-banks


“Bear Stearns reassured investors earlier this week that it was solvent, but speculation that Bear faced a liquidity crunch had some traders and hedge funds moving to limit their exposure to it.”


61 posted on 12/11/2008 9:53:10 PM PST by Sharrukin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Then why did you reask the same question I just answered?

The comment was so stupid, I wanted to confirm that was what you meant.

Everyone knows they can’t cover themselves in the event of a run.

With FDIC insurance, why should they have to cover 100% of their demand deposits?

It’s a silly idea.

What is, that banks are unsound?

Holding 100% of demand deposits as cash on hand.

Do you deny that they can’t cover their demand deposits?

Over what time frame? 24 hours, no they can't. So what?

Do you deny that bank runs deny a fraction of the depositors their money?

How large a fraction? What % of their money?

Really, this is not controversial stuff.

Really, it's a silly idea.

But you should run with it. I'm sure everyone will run to deposit their money with you, safely, to earn 0% interest.

62 posted on 12/11/2008 9:55:28 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (The enemy is in your heart, self respect robbed by self pity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

“The comment was so stupid, I wanted to confirm that was what you meant.”

What comment? That banks are unsound? You do realize that banks being unsound and whether or not I think we should require 100% coverage of deposits are two different issues, right? That’s why I explicitly said that I don’t consider this a moral issue, because I didn’t want anyone to infer that I have a moral problem with banks being unsound. My moral problems lie elsewhere, namely with the Federal Reserve System. As for individual banks, go on being unsound, if you like.

“It’s a silly idea.”

“What is, that banks are unsound?”

“Holding 100% of demand deposits as cash on hand.”

Please, stop pretending as if I said banks should be required to hold 100% of demand deposits in cash on hand. I said no such thing. If you were going to pretend that I did, why did you ask twice? Twice you asked if I think there should be 100% coverage, and twice I said i wouldn’t require it, in so many words.

All I said was that not doing so makes them unsound, which is absolutely true given what we’ve seen with real life bank runs. I propose other means of preventing bank runs and inflation, beyond concerns about fractional reserve banking.


63 posted on 12/11/2008 10:27:34 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
That banks are unsound?

Some are, some aren't.

Please, stop pretending as if I said banks should be required to hold 100% of demand deposits in cash on hand.

It shouldn't be required. But you think it might be a good idea. Because bank runs happen every day.

All I said was that not doing so makes them unsound,

You think that every bank that holds less than 100% of demand deposits as cash is unsound? How many banks ever need to redeem 100% of their demand deposits as cash? Say in the last year?

I propose other means of preventing bank runs and inflation, beyond concerns about fractional reserve banking.

Please share with the class.

64 posted on 12/11/2008 10:37:10 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (The enemy is in your heart, self respect robbed by self pity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: cherry
well...is he predicting the news or is he MAKING the news happen?......Soros his buddy has been known to try to sway markets, hasn't he?....Rogers is probably the same....

No way. It took over a year for his predictions to come true after his little-publicized advice on FoxNews' low-rated Saturday show. See graph below. Soros is different. He is destructive. He talked down the British Pound relentlessly, putting billions into shorting it lower and lower until it succumbed. He is a market terrorist. Rogers is a market maverick.


65 posted on 12/11/2008 10:41:04 PM PST by montag813 (www.FreepShop.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: mimaw

So this is the same Jim Rogers who told Fortune readers to “sell long-term government bonds short” today?

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0812/gallery.market_gurus.fortune/5.html


66 posted on 12/11/2008 10:59:33 PM PST by AmericanGirlRising (The cow is in the ditch. We know how it got there. Now help me get it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative
He is not a lefty. He is an obnoxious "I could give a damn if you like it... as a matter of fact, I HOPE it pisses you off" kind of guy. He is deliberately abrasive, outspoken, anti-government, libertine as well as libertarian, cynic who delights in making outlandish statements.

He is also right a great deal of the time, and on the other side of the gaggle of fools, charlatans. thieves, liars and idiots who form the financial/political power base in our culture...., but that is a redundancy, isn't it?

67 posted on 12/12/2008 2:22:11 AM PST by slnk_rules (http://mises.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
Kind of like commodities contracts, where if the price goes up you get less for your commodity, but if the price goes down the contract holder files bankruptcy?

That's a pretty good analogy. The CDS is basically an insurance contract on a bond issue. The buyer pays a premium to the seller. If the bond defaults, the seller has to pay off the loss. The CDS market is unregulated and there wasn't much attention paid to the soundness of the firms writing these contracts. Que higher than expected credit defaults and many of the counterparties who sold CDS get hit with huge expenses as they have to pay off all those bonds.

As in your commodity example, in extreme cases both sides get hit. The buyer doesn't get the loss coverage they paid for; the seller goes under. In the current market, firms that bought coverage are worried about the ability of their counterparties to pay; the sellers are worried about getting wiped out.

And it gets even more fun. There is no requirement to actually own the underlying bond to enter in to the swap agreement. So the only limit to how many CDS can be riding on a given bond is the number of firms who wanted to play. Combine that with no regulated market for these things and figuring out how much is tied up in CDS is kind of like trying to figure out how much money has been bet on a football game.
68 posted on 12/12/2008 3:40:49 AM PST by javachip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Both morally and financially............and ethically..........


69 posted on 12/12/2008 7:18:41 AM PST by Red Badger (Never has a man risen so far, so fast and is expected to do so much, for so many, with so little...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Morally bankrupt for years, fiscally bankrupt, many are.
70 posted on 12/12/2008 2:54:12 PM PST by org.whodat (Conservatives don't vote for Bailouts for Super-Rich Bankers! Republicans do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indcons
The underlying financial instruments, in many cases, are the overvalued mortgages that have lost their values.

Maybe and maybe not! But you can bank on the fact that they are 99.9% BS.

This a gift from deregulation are no regulation! No one should ever be able to sell bogus insurance no matter what you call it and no one should be able to buy insurance without an insurable interest. There is no value without risk!!

71 posted on 12/12/2008 3:01:44 PM PST by org.whodat (Conservatives don't vote for Bailouts for Super-Rich Bankers! Republicans do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sharrukin; utherdoul

Well, I have seen S&Ls with worse numbers.


72 posted on 12/12/2008 3:12:50 PM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

That’s the way it’s always been.

If a person thought they were getting a 100% guaranteed return on their savings and CD with full protection in all cases then that person would be a complete idiot.


73 posted on 12/12/2008 8:22:42 PM PST by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

What do you think an investment is?


74 posted on 12/12/2008 8:23:24 PM PST by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: javachip
"Que higher than expected credit defaults and many of the counterparties who sold CDS get hit with huge expenses as they have to pay off all those bonds."

There is a bone of contention on these credit defaults no?

As I understand it, if the parameter is breeched, say 5% of the bundled creditors default, the insurer takes possession of the tranch. He then pays the counterparty the full value of the tranch. Aha, but there is no value, or very little value since there is no market.

Who owes who what?

yitbos

75 posted on 12/13/2008 12:54:10 AM PST by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385; Texas Fossil; indcons

What Credit Default Swaps really are could not be said. They are insurance and if they were called ‘insurance’ they would be highly regulated.

And because they are loosely regulated there were/are no audits to show that reserves were adequate. This is why AIG was bailed out.

Wall Street got a little too clever wanting to avoid regulation, they called the insurance ‘swaps’.

And what do CDS insure? Mortage Based Securities or MBS. These were sold like bonds and the seller would offer CDS ‘insurance’ along with these bonds. Thus, the MBS seemed ‘safe’. And they were bought up like there is no tomorrow because of their high return rates.

When you figure accredited individuals, especially those sitting on cash after the dot com bust, could only get 2-3% on CDs, the ‘insured safety’ and high rate of return of MBS seemed a no-brainer.

But what buyers of MBS did not understand is that MBS was a sandwich of high risk borrowers (subprime) mixed in with low risk borrowers, and when the high risk went into default, the CDS were/are exposed as unfunded facades (worthless, scam).


76 posted on 12/13/2008 3:06:17 AM PST by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

“Speaking by teleconference at the Reuters Investment Outlook 2009 Summit, the co-founder with GEORGE SOROS of the Quantum Fund,”

Why does my knee jerk whenever I see the name George Soros?


77 posted on 12/13/2008 3:17:08 AM PST by this is my country
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

Most of the buyers of MBS/CDS were financial institutions. As holders of worthless securities these holders of MBS/CDS became insolvent.

Bernanke/Paulson’s first idea was to make a market for MBS (as long as there was a market for MBS there would be less risk to the CDS market). But making a market for MBS meant buying MBS at a price that was not mark-to-market, thereby leaving the Fed holding worthless securities without an equity stake.

Along comes a brilliant London financier to steer Bernanke/Paulson into taking equity stakes by ‘direct cash infusions’.

The mechanics of the ‘direct cash infusion’ scheme must have involved taking the worthless MBS off the failing bank balance sheet and substituting cash, but how then get equity? Must have been a condition of TARP to cancel the CDS contract. Participating banks had no choice, either TARP or bankruptcy. They could also opt to fight for CDS performance in court but they knew CDS was a scam.

Now which is scarier? A securities market gone bust or a government that doesn’t know what they’re doing with leveraged assets of trillions upon trillions of dollars?


78 posted on 12/13/2008 3:33:05 AM PST by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

Thanks for posting that quote- excellent!


79 posted on 12/13/2008 3:42:24 AM PST by ovrtaxt (It is better for civilization to be going down the drain than to be coming up it. ~Henry Allen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Same thing with Peter Schiff and a few others.

The one thing they admittedly missed is the current dollar bubble, due to massive deleveraging- everyone is looking for dollars to pay off debts, so the supply is short- for the moment.

It’s a good time to convert Federal Reserve Notes to hard assets.


80 posted on 12/13/2008 3:50:28 AM PST by ovrtaxt (It is better for civilization to be going down the drain than to be coming up it. ~Henry Allen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson