Bloomberg reports: Dodd-Frank’s Tentacles Go Deep. They Won’t Be Cut Fast or Easily. It took seven years to put these regulations in place. Is it rational to think they can be removed in less than 4? If not, then the financial's rally may be a tad bit premature and overdone.

 

Published in BoomBustBlog

wall street conflict of interest 640x964Donald Trump is ensuring that financial professionals are no longer legally obligated to put their client’s best interests first by eliminating the Department of Labor's Fiduciary Rule that was to come into effect this April, enacted by the Obama administration. 

Published in BoomBustBlog

Continuing the conversation of whether it's time to short America, we investigate the administration's plans for protectionism and a tax holiday for corporate capital repatriation. The first question that needs to be asked is, "Who benefits from this, and why do they want it done?"

thumb Trump economic netowrk

Published in BoomBustBlog

So, the stock market, bond market and real estate markets are all at all-time highs. Everything is Awesome! You know better than that. You see, when the bond market wakes up (that has happened already, btw), the resultant higher rates will drag the rest of Wonderland back into reality. Where do you think those steadily increasing EPS counts have been coming from? The cheapest credit every simply tempts management to do some of the dumbest things every....

thumb Bonds fuel stock buybacks4

Published in BoomBustBlog

My last post on the topic of disintermediation during a paradigm shift was Wall Street Should Be First To Invest In Reggie Middleton's UltraCoin, Much Of It Won't Be Here In 10 Years! I clearly illustrated the potential for growth of Bitcoin related companies and cited statistics for the transformation of the financial industry as we know it today.

This post introduces long form research from the analysts at Veritaseum, the same team that brought you the hard hitting BoomBustBlog research. The first page of the report says it all - "Stress Test on Banks’ Earnings Facing the Veritaseum UltraCoin Value Transaction Platform".

research report cover

Excerpts from deeper into the report...

research report 2research report 3

And of course the inevitable... What happens when a less expensive product is introduced into the market with similar or superior attributes? Margin Compression! We analyzed three big Wall Street banks, starting with the "Riskiest Bank on the Street" (time permitting, reference our hard hitting, prescient research from early 2008).

Veritaseum research report on Morgan Stanley Margin Compression

I invite all to download the free Veritasuem Research Report for July 2014. I also invite all to meet me for the soft beta launch of Veritaseum's UltraCoin Value Trading Platform in my suite at the Drake Hotel in downtown Chicago, the evening of Saturday July 19th (this is also the weekend of The North American Bitcoin Conference in Chicago, where I will be speaking on the topic of money center bank disintermediation.

You will get to touch, play with and trade value via UltraCoin. Below is a screenshot of UltraCoin running on a Mac. I will also be taking applications for large scale beta testers and entities who wish to have customized value trading solutions created for them.

Screen Shot 2014-06-26 at 11.05.24 

 
Published in BoomBustBlog

thumb Slide7

Let's quote some of the last lines of my last article on Bitcoin: "Witness the drivel that comes out of the the analyst's reports (and yes, I thoroughly ridiculed each one):

  1. Theres' Something Fishy In The House Of Morgan, Pt. 2: Bitcoin Fear, Envy & Loathing
  2. Does the Mainstream Media Assist Wall Street In Hypocritical Hypothesis For Fear Of The Next Paradigm Shift?"

You see, first JP Morgan threw baseless fear tactics, then Citibank jumped into the fray. Well, guess whose next? Goldman Sachs, of course. Everybody's favorite fair game player. As excerpted from Business Insider today:

"Dominic Wilson and Jose Ursua of the firm's markets research division are first up. They argue that Bitcoin fails to meet both basic criteria of a viable currency: while there remains an outside chance for widespread acceptance as a medium of exchange, as a stable source of value, it has so far failed. That undermines the premise that Bitcoin could serve as a way of short-circuiting exchange rates in inflation-prone countries."

 And Reggie, Chief of Bullshit Patrol & Related Crimes Division chimes in with a Google search on promintent "failed" currency processors:

Bitpay user growth google searchcoinbase user growth google search

But wait a minute! Goldman's business business is growing at a fraction of this pace, and actually negative in some areas. So, if Bitcoin as a currency and payment system is a failure, what the hell is Goldmam? Of course, Business Insider goes on to report...

For most users what matters is not the comparison with other currencies, but a comparison with the volatility of the currency that they hold (dollars in the US for instance) in terms of the things that they need to buy. The volatility of consumer prices (in dollars) has been even lower than FX rates, even if measured over a period including the 1970s. Put simply, if you hold cash today in most developed countries, you know within a few percentage points what you will be able to buy with it a day, a week or a year from now.  

This is Bullshit! Say it to the more mathematically challenged, my bonus hungry friends. Let's run the math using theusinflationcalculator.com:

Dollar as a store of value

As you can see, if you measure things from the '70s as the esteemed, erstwhile Wall Street aficiaondo from Goldman recommended, then you would have less than 17% of your buying power left. Yes, bitcoin is volatile, but its volatility stems from the price going up and down, while the USD has primarily just went down. You know that saying about the frog in the slowly heated boiling pot of water, right?

In addition, both of the largest Bitcoin payment processors absorb the exchange rate volatility for their customers, or did the best of breed Goldman analysts somehow overlook this pertinent fact?

 

Eliminate the bitcoin volatility risk with BitPay's guaranteed exchange rates. ... Import your BitPay sales into QuickBooks, to report and reconcile your bitcoin  ...

 

In addition, there are cutting edge products being introduced by tall, handsome, charsimatic and highly intelligent entrepeneurs who have a long track record of out gunning Goldman et. al. that allow anyone to hedge Bitcoin volatlity against any prominent fiat currency.

Back to those Goldman guys...

Wilson and Ursua include this graph showing volatility of Bitcoin versus the Argentine peso, the yen, the euro, the pound, and U.S. inflation. It's not even close. 

bitcoin volaitlity

But wait a minute! If the largest payment processors absorb the volatility and market risk of their customers, then Goldman must assuredly be referring to the currencies above from an investment perspective, no?

Yes! Bitcoin is truly volatile, indeed, but the guy at Goldman are cheating, hoping that the rest of us don't know our finance and/or basic common sense. You see, they are looking at just one side of the equation - the side that favors fiat currencies and disfavors bitcoin. You see, risk is the price of reward. For every reward you seek, you pay a price in risk. The goal, as a smart investor, is to pay little risk for much reward. Goldman is trying to make it appear as if you are paying nothing but risk for bitcoin and getting little reward in return. Let's see how that pans out when someone who knows what they're doing chimes in. From the BoomBustBlogresearch report File Icon Digital Currencies' Risks, Rewards & Returns - An Into Into Bitcoin Investing For Longer Term Horizons:

Bitcoin risk adjusted returns

You see, with high volatility (aka, risk), it's hard to earn your cost of capital, not to menton surpass it. Isn't that right, employess of Goldman Sachs? Let me jog your collective memories, as excerpted from the BoomBustBlog post on When the Patina Fades… The Rise and Fall of Goldman Sachs???

GS return on equity has declined substantially due to deleverage and is only marginally higher than its current cost of capital. With ROE down to c12% from c20% during pre-crisis levels, there is no way a stock with high beta as GS could justify adequate returns to cover the inherent risk. For GS to trade back at 200 it has to increase its leverage back to pre-crisis levels to assume ROE of 20%. And for that GS has to either increase its leverage back to 25x. With curbs on banks leverage this seems highly unlikely. Without any increase in leverage and ROE, the stock would only marginally cover returns to shareholders given that ROE is c12%. Even based on consensus estimates the stock should trade at about where it is trading right now, leaving no upside potential. Using BoomBustBlog estimates, the valuation drops considerably since we take into consideration a decrease in trading revenue or an increase in the cost of funding in combination with a limitation of leverage due to the impending global regulation coming down the pike.

gs_roe.jpg

 

 Now that we see how hard it is to truly produce Alpha, I query thee... What do you think would happen if a financial maverick, an out of the box thinker who's different from all of those other guys, got a seed round of funding for the most disruptive product to hit the finance world since the printing press? What if that seed round was for $8 million dollars, with a preferred A series coming right behind it? What would such a cash flush company do, being one of the most cash flush Bitcoin companies in the world? Hmmmnnn!!!

Speakin' of Goldman Sachs...

I anticipate being in the market very soon for (I'm not thier yet, but hopefully very soon):

CTO - Chief Technology Officer

COO - Chief Opertating Officer

General Counsel

CMO - Chief Marketing Officer 

CFO - Chief Financial Officer

As well as skilled Java and Blockchain developers.

Hit me via reggie at ultra-coin.com if you have an interest in coming on board.

Published in BoomBustBlog

Citibank

About two weeks ago I answered what was at the time one of the most amateurish reports coming out of the bit money center banks in some time in Theres' Something Fishy In The House Of Morgan, Pt. 2: Bitcoin Fear, Envy & Loathing. Well, it appears that there's a contest for the hypocritical hypothesis and Citibank intends to go for the gold, likely toppling JP Morgan's lead. In a nutshell, we have a gaggle of US based banks that have exhibited horrendous risk management, business judgement and trading/investment acumen nearly topple the global financial system, demand (as in ransom money) trillions of dollars of welfare (which they recieved and are still recieving) from the US taxpayer, and still pay out billions of dollars in bonuses and salaried compensation - all the while the US dollar is still safe and sound as the worlds deepest, most liquid currency market not to mention still being the world's reserve currency.

Now, a much, much, much smaller Bitcoin exchange fails after flashing obvious warning signs for months and does not require bailing out by the tax payer or the Federal Reserve (how can I emphasize how big a plus this is for Bitcoin), and bitcoin dips in price for a single evening - rebounding nigh immediately! Citibank and JP Morgan's incompetence through the entire world into a near depression - and that's with globally collaborative ZIRP, trillion's of dollars of bailouts and the clandestive changing of accounting rules and the morphing if simple  math to make it look like the insolvent were really not so.

Re: Mt. Gox failure -  Would Mt. Gox still be in business today, like JPM and Citi if the Federal Reserve dropped rates to a negative level, FASB authorized the changing of accounting standards to minimize Gox's liabilities and no one at the exchange was held liable for what appeared to be outright fraud, as claimed by the SEC? would there be analysts in Mt. Gox writing silly papers overflowing with hypocritical hypothesis about how XYZ the dollar was dead because a US bank went bust? Probably!

Remember, I turned JP Morgan's alleged research upside down in Theres' Something Fishy In The House Of Morgan, Pt. 2: Bitcoin Fear, Envy & Loathing, to wit:

I've worked hard to establish a strong reputation - not only in terms of competence but in terms of integrity. For those who don't know of me, you canview my media apearances and calls as well as my Wikipedia page. You see, my mommy and daddy raised me to appreciate both aspects of success - not only one. With that in mind I'd like to address the recent report from JP Morgan slamming Bitcoin. Just so most know my viewpoint, the typical Bitcoin enthusiast and entrepeneur is primarily technologist leaning, thus may or may not see all of the aspects of the financial side of this new... "thing". In addition, and because of that, the financial guys often get away with some outrageous bullshit that they'd never even try under different circumstances. Let's apply this perspective to JPM's latest FX strategic outlook report, "The Audacity of Bitcoin". I will refute this report, point by point, and in the process make the managing director whose name is on the report look downright ignorant and uneducated. This is not a personal attack or an attempt at sleight (hey, he may be a downright stand-up guy), I am simply calling it as I see it.

Before we get to the report though, I want to address the foolishness of following these "reports" from the big name brand money center banks.

Mainstream media entities such as the Wall Street Journal and Business Insider take the conflicted interest ridden drivel from these investment banks as actual legitimate analysis and actually base their reporting on it. That really gives me pause! Now on to addressing what Citibank claims as espoused through Business Insider, and I quote:

In a new note, Citi currency strategist — and the bank's defacto Bitcoin analyst — Steven Englander basically asks: What's the point of Bitcoin now?

Many of his comments echo our take in the week leading up to Gox's shutdown about how huge a setback this was not only for mainstream Bitcoin adoption, but also for the central tenets that got Bitcoin off the ground in the first place.

But for Englander, the technical glitch that hit not only Gox but other exchanges "seems to have been known for years without the Bitcoin developers instituting a complete fix,"... "So one question is whether the decentralized structure, which is the attraction to many, makes it too cumbersome to enact essential fixes."

"Bitcoin transactions [were] thought to be impregnable and turned out not to be," said Englander. "Earlier security questions had centered around everything except the possibility that there might be a fraudulent transactions record. The imperviousness to fraud was one the big attractions of Bitcoin and the surprise exploitation of a known defect is a setback. Now it looks like just another payments system that has to worry about fraud."

Where am I to start with this? Long story short, this is plain old simple ignorance! Bitcoin is open source software. That is why you get it for free! It's not as if the core Bitcoin development team ran a company and Mt. Gox bought a commercial software package from them with a warranty and represenations. Mt. Gox relied on an open sourced code base and refused to both contribute back to the community and even keep abreast of what was going on in the community. The end result? A problem that was recognized and solved 3 years ago went unseen by Mt. Gox until they were bled of hundreds of million of dollars worth of bitcoin.  JPM acts as if it is the open source communty's responsibility to instruct Mt. Gox on how to write and maintain software when in actuality it was Mt. Gox's responsibility to give back to and monitor the open source community!!! Notice how entities that were paying attention and playing by the open source communities rules were unscathed by this so-called "defect". If I say there is a hole in the ground and I send out a report that there is a hole in the ground, but you don't read that report and continue to walk until you fall into the hole - all the while knowing you gained access to the ground for free, are you going to blame the ground for being imperfect or yourself for ignoring the community that gave you free access when the warned you about the hole and even gave you instructions on how to avoid the hole?

"Bitcoin's market cap on paper by far exceeds that of the competition and that are many Bitcoin holders heavily invested in Bitcoin, so it has a first mover advantage. However as a store of value, its only value is reputational, and recent developments have shaken that reputation."

Go to 1:25 in this video for an answer to the statement above...

 

Business insider goes on to warn of the following risk: "That big banks themselves co-opt the still-relevant technological developments embedded in Bitcoin and junk all the bad parts". Actually, the banks will implement bad parts and junk all the good parts. You see, this is all relative. In general, what's good for you and me is generally bad for the banks, and vice versa. Why do Citibank and JP Morgan harp on the pitfalls of decentralization? It's because the banks are the guys with the centralized servers!!! If you eliminate the need for centralized servers you eliminate the need for banks! 

Why harp on the dangers of peer to peer? Because bank branches will disappear in a heartbeat, as will centralized exchanges and the ability to pack in massive fees and charges unbenknownst to the client, the same fees and charges that fund those oh so many decimillionaire annual bonuses. It means a paycut for Wall Street and Wall Street is known to be vociferous in its attempts to avoid paycuts.

Reference UltraCoin: The Future of Money!!! for a long list of reasons why the banks fear and loathe Bitcoin, and by extension, UltraCoin!

Published in BoomBustBlog

Citibank

About two weeks ago I answered what was at the time one of the most amateurish reports coming out of the bit money center banks in some time in Theres' Something Fishy In The House Of Morgan, Pt. 2: Bitcoin Fear, Envy & Loathing. Well, it appears that there's a contest for the hypocritical hypothesis and Citibank intends to go for the gold, likely toppling JP Morgan's lead. In a nutshell, we have a gaggle of US based banks that have exhibited horrendous risk management, business judgement and trading/investment acumen nearly topple the global financial system, demand (as in ransom money) trillions of dollars of welfare (which they recieved and are still recieving) from the US taxpayer, and still pay out billions of dollars in bonuses and salaried compensation - all the while the US dollar is still safe and sound as the worlds deepest, most liquid currency market not to mention still being the world's reserve currency.

Now, a much, much, much smaller Bitcoin exchange fails after flashing obvious warning signs for months and does not require bailing out by the tax payer or the Federal Reserve (how can I emphasize how big a plus this is for Bitcoin), and bitcoin dips in price for a single evening - rebounding nigh immediately! Citibank and JP Morgan's incompetence through the entire world into a near depression - and that's with globally collaborative ZIRP, trillion's of dollars of bailouts and the clandestive changing of accounting rules and the morphing if simple  math to make it look like the insolvent were really not so.

Re: Mt. Gox failure -  Would Mt. Gox still be in business today, like JPM and Citi if the Federal Reserve dropped rates to a negative level, FASB authorized the changing of accounting standards to minimize Gox's liabilities and no one at the exchange was held liable for what appeared to be outright fraud, as claimed by the SEC? would there be analysts in Mt. Gox writing silly papers overflowing with hypocritical hypothesis about how XYZ the dollar was dead because a US bank went bust? Probably!

Remember, I turned JP Morgan's alleged research upside down in Theres' Something Fishy In The House Of Morgan, Pt. 2: Bitcoin Fear, Envy & Loathing, to wit:

I've worked hard to establish a strong reputation - not only in terms of competence but in terms of integrity. For those who don't know of me, you canview my media apearances and calls as well as my Wikipedia page. You see, my mommy and daddy raised me to appreciate both aspects of success - not only one. With that in mind I'd like to address the recent report from JP Morgan slamming Bitcoin. Just so most know my viewpoint, the typical Bitcoin enthusiast and entrepeneur is primarily technologist leaning, thus may or may not see all of the aspects of the financial side of this new... "thing". In addition, and because of that, the financial guys often get away with some outrageous bullshit that they'd never even try under different circumstances. Let's apply this perspective to JPM's latest FX strategic outlook report, "The Audacity of Bitcoin". I will refute this report, point by point, and in the process make the managing director whose name is on the report look downright ignorant and uneducated. This is not a personal attack or an attempt at sleight (hey, he may be a downright stand-up guy), I am simply calling it as I see it.

Before we get to the report though, I want to address the foolishness of following these "reports" from the big name brand money center banks.

Mainstream media entities such as the Wall Street Journal and Business Insider take the conflicted interest ridden drivel from these investment banks as actual legitimate analysis and actually base their reporting on it. That really gives me pause! Now on to addressing what Citibank claims as espoused through Business Insider, and I quote:

In a new note, Citi currency strategist — and the bank's defacto Bitcoin analyst — Steven Englander basically asks: What's the point of Bitcoin now?

Many of his comments echo our take in the week leading up to Gox's shutdown about how huge a setback this was not only for mainstream Bitcoin adoption, but also for the central tenets that got Bitcoin off the ground in the first place.

But for Englander, the technical glitch that hit not only Gox but other exchanges "seems to have been known for years without the Bitcoin developers instituting a complete fix,"... "So one question is whether the decentralized structure, which is the attraction to many, makes it too cumbersome to enact essential fixes."

"Bitcoin transactions [were] thought to be impregnable and turned out not to be," said Englander. "Earlier security questions had centered around everything except the possibility that there might be a fraudulent transactions record. The imperviousness to fraud was one the big attractions of Bitcoin and the surprise exploitation of a known defect is a setback. Now it looks like just another payments system that has to worry about fraud."

Where am I to start with this? Long story short, this is plain old simple ignorance! Bitcoin is open source software. That is why you get it for free! It's not as if the core Bitcoin development team ran a company and Mt. Gox bought a commercial software package from them with a warranty and represenations. Mt. Gox relied on an open sourced code base and refused to both contribute back to the community and even keep abreast of what was going on in the community. The end result? A problem that was recognized and solved 3 years ago went unseen by Mt. Gox until they were bled of hundreds of million of dollars worth of bitcoin.  JPM acts as if it is the open source communty's responsibility to instruct Mt. Gox on how to write and maintain software when in actuality it was Mt. Gox's responsibility to give back to and monitor the open source community!!! Notice how entities that were paying attention and playing by the open source communities rules were unscathed by this so-called "defect". If I say there is a hole in the ground and I send out a report that there is a hole in the ground, but you don't read that report and continue to walk until you fall into the hole - all the while knowing you gained access to the ground for free, are you going to blame the ground for being imperfect or yourself for ignoring the community that gave you free access when the warned you about the hole and even gave you instructions on how to avoid the hole?

"Bitcoin's market cap on paper by far exceeds that of the competition and that are many Bitcoin holders heavily invested in Bitcoin, so it has a first mover advantage. However as a store of value, its only value is reputational, and recent developments have shaken that reputation."

Go to 1:25 in this video for an answer to the statement above...

 

Business insider goes on to warn of the following risk: "That big banks themselves co-opt the still-relevant technological developments embedded in Bitcoin and junk all the bad parts". Actually, the banks will implement bad parts and junk all the good parts. You see, this is all relative. In general, what's good for you and me is generally bad for the banks, and vice versa. Why do Citibank and JP Morgan harp on the pitfalls of decentralization? It's because the banks are the guys with the centralized servers!!! If you eliminate the need for centralized servers you eliminate the need for banks! 

Why harp on the dangers of peer to peer? Because bank branches will disappear in a heartbeat, as will centralized exchanges and the ability to pack in massive fees and charges unbenknownst to the client, the same fees and charges that fund those oh so many decimillionaire annual bonuses. It means a paycut for Wall Street and Wall Street is known to be vociferous in its attempts to avoid paycuts.

Reference UltraCoin: The Future of Money!!! for a long list of reasons why the banks fear and loathe Bitcoin, and by extension, UltraCoin!

Published in BoomBustBlog

Bloomberg reports Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, Britain’s biggest government-owned lender, is on track for its largest pretax loss since 2008 after setting aside 3.1 billion pounds more ($5.1 billion) for legal and compensation claims. We will delve into this report in detail, but first a little background so we're all viewing 20/20.

I've been spending a lot of time rebuilding the banking system as software over a cryptocurrency framework. Basically, I'm building a more efficient, more "Trustworthy" financial system. Many are doubtful of these endeavors. I say, don't underestimate the effort. For one, a more efficient, more trustworthy system is sorely needed. Here we are, 7 years after the start of the great financial trainwreck that I'm known for predicting, and I'm still at it doing the same thing to the same industry. This is only possible when there's a structural problem in the industry. A problem that rapid advancements in technology are ripe to solve.

On Thursday, 11 April 2013 I penned, I Illustrate How The Irish Banking Cancer Spreads To The UK Taxpayer And Metastasizes Through US Markets! wherein I clearly illustrated that RBS is materially understating its liabilities AND even went so far as to include links to the SEC and the UK banking regulator so that US/UK taxpayers and investors can notify our erstwhile regulator(s) to the potential of financial shenanigans. The root of the problem is that RBS has materially under-reported its liabilities (in my oh so humble opinion.) Those that stress tested RBS (the same erstwhile professionals that allowed the Irish banks to pass their stress tests 3 months before they started collapsing) apparently overlooked humongous swaths of liabilities. 

The amount of evidence that I produced to back my claims was prodigous...

What happened behind closed doors?

Ulster Bank gave a first floating charge in favor of the Central Bank of Ireland (an arm of the European Central Bank) and the Financial Services Authority of Ireland. U.S. investors would have had to rely on the contents of The Royal Bank of Scotland's 2008 Annual Accounts which apparently (in my opinion) concealed the existence of the CRO registered charges to the Bank of Ireland.

Ulster Bank RBS charge doc 2 Page 1

Now, back to the Bloomberg article...

The provision includes 1.9 billion pounds for lawsuits and fines tied mostly to the sale of $91 billion of mortgage-backed securities from 2005 to 2007, the lender said yesterday. It follows agreements Deutsche Bank AG, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and UBS AG (UBSN) struck with U.S. regulators to settle claims they didn’t provide adequate disclosure about mortgage-backed debt sold in the housing bubble that preceded the 2008 financial crisis.

Are they referring to claims similar to the ones I made that RBS  bought Ulster Bank full of unrecognized mortgage crap, levered up off it and hid the debt? I strongly suggest my readers brush up on how The Irish Banking Cancer Spreads to the UK.

More than five years after giving RBS the biggest bank bailout in history, the government still hasn’t been able to cut its 80 percent stake.

... “When the crisis broke, the bank was involved in a number of different businesses in multiple countries that have subsequently faced heavy scrutiny by customers and regulators,” McEwan, 56, said in yesterday’s statement. “The scale of the bad decisions during that period means that some problems are still just emerging.”

... The charges led the bank to cut its forecast for its core Tier 1 capital ratio, a measure of financial strength. RBS expects the ratio will be about 11 percent at the end of 2013, or as much as 8.5 percent under the latest rules set by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. That’s down from the company’s estimate of 11.6 percent and 9.1 percent in November.

“Fronting up to our past mistakes is very expensive, but RBS is a much stronger bank that can deal with these costs on its own while running a good capital position,” McEwan said on the call. “Dealing with these litigation and conduct issues is essential if we are to move the bank forward.”

Well, I still haven't noticed them come clean on the Ulster Bank charge issue. If they really are going to "Front[ing] up... past mistakes" then they really need to address this, no? If the Ulster Bank charges are included in the Basel capitalization guidelines, then RBS needs a bailout, and needs one Now! It doesn't end their though. On Monday, 20 May 2013 I queried Who is RBS? Royal BS... or the Royal Bank of Scotland, to wit:

"An independent Scotland would have an exceptionally large banking sector compared to the size of its economy - with banking assets of more than 1250 percent of Scottish [gross domestic product] - making it more vulnerable to financial shocks and the volatility of the sector," the Treasury report said on Monday.

The report pointed out Scotland's banking exposure would dwarf that of Iceland and Cyprus, two countries that faced severe banking collapses in recent years. Iceland's banks, for example, had assets equivalent to 880 per cent of GDP, while Cyprus, which faced a banking crisis in March, had total banking assets of around 700 per cent of GDP.

The report as cited by the article then goes on to make more direct comparisons to Cyprus, not unlike I did two months ago, but with Ireland (see As Forewarned, The Irish Savers Have Just Been "Cyprus'd", And There's MUCH MORE "Cyprusing" To Come). 

"At the end of September 2012, the two largest banks – the Cyprus Popular Bank and Bank of Cyprus – had assets in the region of 210 per cent and 175 per cent of Cyprus's GDP respectively."

"It is worth noting that, if Scotland became independent, its banking sector would be similarly concentrated (with two large players, Bank of Scotland and Royal Bank of Scotland and a number of smaller firms), and that an independent Scotland's domestic banking sector would be likely to be significantly larger than that of Cyprus (assuming no change to firms' domicile arrangements)."

I penned, I Illustrate How The Irish Banking Cancer Spreads To The UK Taxpayer And Metastasizes Through US Markets! wherein I clearly illustrated that RBS is materially understating its liabilities AND even went so far as to include links to the SEC and the UK banking regulator so that US/UK taxpayers and investors can notify our erstwhile regulator(s) to the potential of financial shenanigans. The root of the problem is that RBS has materially under-reported its liabilities (in my oh so humble opinion.) Those that stress tested RBS (the same erstwhile professionals that allowed the Irish banks to pass their stress tests 3 months before they started collapsing) apparently overlooked humongous swaths of liabilities. The charge documents referred to in the aforelinked article are definitively not apparent in the recent bank stress testing’ conducted by the European Banking Authority, at least not in the summary results that the EBA have made available. For those who are still skeptical, I beg thee reference the RBS Stress Test download.

To think, there are actually many who query as to why I seek to make a more efficient financial system...

With the latest advances in technology, I can literally replace large swaths of bank functions with software. Software that doesn't lie, cheat, steal, or screw you for a bonus! Zero Trust software...

page-0page-1page-2page-3page-4page-5

If the RBS/Ulster Bank mortgage-backed secutities would have been traded through UltraCoin, rehyppthecation, double-spending, over-leverage, and thrice pledged assets would have been a thing of the past. These contracts are overollateralized (200%) and use no leverage, yet still hold the promise of significant return, not to mention a mere fraction of the cost of the big bank stuff. Will the dawn of this technology herald the end of fractional reserve banking as we know it?

Let it be known, Wall Street banks' profit margin IS my business model!!!

Published in BoomBustBlog

This is a video follow-up to the post I did a couple of weeks ago after the Apple earnings announcement titled "Again, The Sell Side Analysts (Even The Rock Star Analysts) Don't Seem To Understand The Mobile Computing Wars".

Initially, I was going to go the PC (as in politically correct) route and treat Mr. Munster with kids gloves, but we're all adults here and I want everyone to realize that this is not a form of character assassination, a personal or professional attack, libel, slander or even my just being rude. Gene Munster is a professional, and a seemingly intelligent one at that. It's just that he is wrong, dead wrong, and has been wrong for some time. Despite his extreme inaccuracies regarding Apple and its share price, he is the go to guy for the financial press and mainstream media, not to mention the Apple-centric blogosphere for all things Apple investment related - despite his being wrong as hell. 

First reference this quick 3 minute video..

Now reference the following graphic illustrating a search on Mr. Munster's Apple price targets...

Munster in the media Apple 1000 and beyond

Click here to subscribe or purchase this update. Paid subscribers click here: File Icon Apple 4Q2013 preliminary update. As we wait for my elfin magicians and presdigitation analysts to finsih up on the updated valuation numbers, I'm quite comfortable in recommending subscribers adhere to the latest set of valuation numbers proffered in the last Apple update. 

Subscribers, download the Q3 2013 valuation reports (click here to subscribe).

The update from two months ago is also of value for those who haven't read it. It turns out that it was quite prescienct!

See also:

What Sell Side Wall Street Doesn't Understand About Apple - It's Not The Leader Of The Post PC World!!!

 The short call - October 2012, the month of Apple's all-time high and my call to subscribers to short the stock:  Deconstructing The Most Accurate Apple Analysis Ever Made - Share Price, Market Share, Strategy and All

Published in BoomBustBlog
Page 1 of 51