Why we need a RC into the Banking Industry?

E

errol43

New Member
Silver Stacker
IMO we indeed need a Royal Commission into banking in Australia. Why?

During the GFC of 2007/8 the RBA borrowed US$53 Billion whilst NAB borrowed US$1 billion...MSM did not report this..

However the problem with Derivative trading is much worse today as the Casino rolls on.

Off the book Derivatives in Australia is currently at $32TRILLION. Do they show them in their balance sheets.

In the USA Risk based Capital for the 4 major banks are as follows .
JP Morgan 209%
Bank of America 85%
Citi Bank 166%
Goldman Sachs 516%
These figures come from the latest Keiser Report

If these figures are currently used in the Great Casino then it wont be long before all the banks will collapse if another financial collapse comes.

Google up Derivatives in Australian banks and you will be schocked at what is really going on.

Derivatives should be restricted to Commercial banks.

Seems like GOLDMAN SACHS must be getting desperate as they are now taking deposits from everyone

Regards Errol 43
 
Wrong topic to bring up...No interest?

Lets talk super, education, health, refugees, security, jobs etc. etc.

No mention of the F35's? What will the cost be for one plane? Last call I heard was $185 million each. India has just signed a $2billion deal for 24x Sukhoi 35 fighter planes...Less than half price. :) We could reduce our F35 order by 10 and have more dollars to spend on health and education.

Maybe our PM can use derivatives to bring the cost of the subs back to half price?

If it is OK for the banks to deal in derivatives then maybe there should be a law to make sure that such transactions are on their balance sheets?

Regards Errol 43
 
errol43 said:
Maybe our PM can use derivatives to bring the cost of the subs back to half price?
Click to expand...
The real trick is that the choice of subs opens us up for a huge escalation in costs because the government is already talking about switching them to nuclear. This may have been the plan all along. A nuclear fleet of of subs would be incredibly more expensive to maintain (ignoring construction costs). It wouldn't be surprising the hear figures of hundreds of billions of dollars.
Coalition plans nuclear-powered submarine fleet over long term

Some of Australia's new submarines could be nuclear-powered by the time they enter service, making them much more potent against the huge Chinese navy.

One of the reasons French ship builder Direction des Constructions -Navales Ser-vices, also known as DCNS, won the $50 billion contract was its ability to switch easily to a nuclear version of the submarines being designed for the Royal Australian Navy.

That is because the Australian diesel-powered Shortfin Barracuda will be a shorter, lighter version of a nuclear submarine already being manufactured by DCNS in Cherbourg on the English Channel.

Cabinet ministers and defence officials have already discussed the possibility of switching from diesel engines to nuclear power part-way through the construction contract, political, government and industry sources say.

More: http://www.afr.com/business/manufac...ubmarine-fleet-over-long-term-20160429-goieal
Click to expand...
 
SilverPete said:
errol43 said:
Maybe our PM can use derivatives to bring the cost of the subs back to half price?
Click to expand...
The real trick is that the choice of subs opens us up for a huge escalation in costs because the government is already talking about switching them to nuclear. This may have been the plan all along. A nuclear fleet of of subs would be incredibly more expensive to maintain (ignoring construction costs). It wouldn't be surprising the hear figures of hundreds of billions of dollars.
Coalition plans nuclear-powered submarine fleet over long term

Some of Australia's new submarines could be nuclear-powered by the time they enter service, making them much more potent against the huge Chinese navy.

One of the reasons French ship builder Direction des Constructions -Navales Ser-vices, also known as DCNS, won the $50 billion contract was its ability to switch easily to a nuclear version of the submarines being designed for the Royal Australian Navy.

That is because the Australian diesel-powered Shortfin Barracuda will be a shorter, lighter version of a nuclear submarine already being manufactured by DCNS in Cherbourg on the English Channel.

Cabinet ministers and defence officials have already discussed the possibility of switching from diesel engines to nuclear power part-way through the construction contract, political, government and industry sources say.

More: http://www.afr.com/business/manufac...ubmarine-fleet-over-long-term-20160429-goieal
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So according to the AFR, one of the main reasons for going nuclear on the subs is to make them more potent against the huge Chinese Navy.

On the other hand, you have a bunch of nufties telling us there's nothing to worry about in allowing the Chinese to buy up all our land ..... and if/when we need it back, we'll just nationalise it. Nope, can't see any problem there.

Back on topic - I would be more than happy to sign a petition for a royal commission on the banks!
 
FullMetalFever said:
SilverPete said:
errol43 said:
Maybe our PM can use derivatives to bring the cost of the subs back to half price?
Click to expand...
The real trick is that the choice of subs opens us up for a huge escalation in costs because the government is already talking about switching them to nuclear. This may have been the plan all along ... It wouldn't be surprising the hear figures of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Coalition plans nuclear-powered submarine fleet over long term

Some of Australia's new submarines could be nuclear-powered by the time they enter service, making them much more potent against the huge Chinese navy.
Click to expand...

So according to the AFR, one of the main reasons for going nuclear on the subs is to make them more potent against the huge Chinese Navy.

On the other hand, you have a bunch of nufties telling us there's nothing to worry about in allowing the Chinese to buy up all our land ..... and if/when we need it back, we'll just nationalise it. Nope, can't see any problem there...
Click to expand...
Actually, that's an important point!! In the past, massive military spending was necessary to protect a nation's lands from invasion by a foreign power, but now we are saying it's fine to just selling it off (no military invasion necessary) so what's the point of the big military spend?
 
We need our agencies like ASIC and the Banking Ombudsman to do their jobs ... rather than turn a blind eye to problems they are made aware of ....
 
SilverPete said:
Actually, that's an important point!! In the past, massive military spending was necessary to protect a nation's lands from invasion by a foreign power, but now we are saying it's fine to just selling it off (no military invasion necessary) so what's the point of the big military spend?
Click to expand...

To protect the interests of the new owners and to ensure the subjugated population do not rise in revolt?
 
errol43 said:
Wrong topic to bring up...No interest?
Click to expand...
Too depressing. I do agree we need one, but I have no belief that one will occur, or if it does happen, I have no belief it will be legit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top