Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

lquadland10 (< 20)

Bac

Recs

16

November 29, 2011 – Comments (4) | RELATED TICKERS: BAC , GS , JPM

Will they survive. Well yes. They have

BoA Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On Taxpayers, Super Committee Looks Away. Seize BoA Now.

Yep now we that tax payer is now on the hook for another 75 Trillion.   

 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/BoA-Dumps-75-Trillion-In-by-Ralph-Lopez-111108-355.html

The rats are jumping ship. Frank is the Newest One. Yea. Now do we really know what the other banks have done. 

On another note. You go Pakistan. I understand that the closing of the Country will affect the Drug trade our CIA are doing. But if you get real tired of the Banker Gangsters just aim the Nukes at us. That might tone us down. Just leave my good men and women warriors who are doing good in Afghanistan alone. In fact I fully expect to see more bombings in Iran. Now that is a bold statement. However notice how there are more explosions in Iran. Yep. Got to love it. Now the Minor Back Stabbing is going to change into Medium Back Stabbing. Know those Mosquitoes that The Gates Foundation released? Is going to also get the Elites and their Children.Yep it is going to get even more interesting now. Do you really think that one set of Elites won't wipe out the other set of Elites just like they tried during the last Crusades a Thousand years ago? Giggling. Oh yes remember your family history. The only difference is there will be no safe haven for you to run. Do you really think the food supply that you are now transforming with human genes will not affect you or your family when the stakes are the Control of the world is at stake? The underground bunkers you have built are not even safe from each other. Giggling. Has the food you supplied to these places safe? Have they been compromised? It has been.

Oh and by the way if Central Banks are still buying gold and silver then why are the news people saying not to buy it. Only the foolish wont buy it.Do you still see your money in the banks you Elites then will you get it back? Nope. The other Elites will keep it. Oh well life is good. Be safe and well my fools. 

4 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 29, 2011 at 6:35 AM, BetterThanGold (24.26) wrote:

i just want to know if they(BOA)  will survive

Report this comment
#2) On November 29, 2011 at 8:18 AM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

I hope not. The bank can not make it with out the trading desk of what they took over. Then again the FED just might let BOA fail to freak the people out. Teach them a lesson like they did with the other bank that started the domino effect and then Tarp.

Report this comment
#3) On November 29, 2011 at 8:06 PM, rd80 (99.13) wrote:

Hi lq,

I wouldn't worry too much about the article at the link you provided. The author fails to make several key connections.  It looks to me like OpEdNews piece is takeaway of the most sensational parts of a SeekingAlpha piece, whice is a takeaway and extrapolation of the most sensational parts of a Bloomberg article - which explains the situation pretty well.

FIrst, and most importantly, taxpayers are NOT on the hook for the $75 trillion of derivatives.  Bank deposits up to (I think still) $250k are insured by the FDIC and FDIC has implicit and almost certain loan backstops from Treasury.  Any losses by FDIC are required by law to be repaid by deposit insurance premiums from the banks, i.e. banks - even ones not involved in the situation - would be required to repay any taxpayer dollars used. 

Since the derivatives aren't deposits, there is no taxpayer backstop for them and I doubt there would be political will for a bailout of even a tiny fraction of $75 trillion if it came to that.

The Bloomberg article puts BAC total deposit accounts at just over a trillion and it's doubtful that full total is insured.

Second, we don't know what these derivatives are.  Just because something has the term 'derivative' in its name doesn't mean it's toxic.

Next.  Although the number is pretty mind boggling, it doesn't seem to be unusual.  The Bloomberg article contains this comparison:

That compares with JPMorgan’s deposit-taking entity, JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, which contained 99 percent of the New York-based firm’s $79 trillion of notional derivatives,...

@BTG - BAC survives, but the market is pricing in a high probability of a large capital raise.  IMHO, the discount more than covers a dilutive stock issue - but, I'm not confident enough about that opinion to risk money or even CAPS points on it.

Fool on, Russ

Report this comment
#4) On November 30, 2011 at 12:16 AM, davejh23 (< 20) wrote:

"Second, we don't know what these derivatives are.  Just because something has the term 'derivative' in its name doesn't mean it's toxic."

It's probably pretty safe to say that most "derivatives" are toxic considering that the derivatives market is estimated to be 10+ times global GDP...most of which could easily be deemed entirely worthless (probably causing every major bank to fail) under any number of circumstances.  If banks are taking excessive risks because they think they're covered by derivative hedges (CDS, etc...), then those derivatives are certainly toxic by any measure.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement