this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
289 points (82.5% liked)
Technology
59155 readers
2286 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No one has ever explained how bankers are losing. They say they've lost money. Yet the only details are Musk has to make payments and put up Tesla stock as collateral. That a no lose for the banks. They don't care if Tesla stock crashes, they are making money from selling it.
If Tesla's stock crashes, then the value the banks could get from selling it is much lower.
If Twitter and Tesla go bankrupt, the banks will have loaned out billions to own something worthless.
At least I would assume that's how it works.
The bankruptcy scenario is correct but the first part isn't: you don't have X shares as collateral that you can liquidate. Instead, you have collateral to cover sum Y.
As long as the collateral contract covers enough stock positions the bank won't lose.
That said all of this is assuming standard contracts. If y bank wrote "0% interest and instead 50% of the revenue growth of Twitter" then this would be an easy way to lose money.
Haven't heard of a stupid banker yet, though, so what would the chances be?
I mean, the 2008 housing market was done by greedy and stupid bankers.
Who also made massive profits.
Stupid? It was a masterstroke by them.
They made a fortune, then governments had to throw more money at them or risk a complete economic crash.
After the crash, people were poorer, and credit was cheap, so they came to banks for loans and financed everything more and more, handing even more to the financial sector.
Houses temporarily crashed in price, but the poorest were too risky for banks to lend to, leading to houses being bought up en-mass by people who were already wealthy.
Bankers in 2008 were greedy, yes. But certainly not stupid.
IMO they should not have been bailed out. For most people the economy has already failed and it should be allowed to crash fully so that it can be rebuilt and restructured in full. That might sound extreme but I don't see many other alternatives. Something has to be sacrificed for the sake of the vast majority of people and the real economy and I think it should be the financial sector.
I mean, I feel like the banks that failed still should have done some research on what they were putting their money into. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_acquired_or_bankrupted_during_the_Great_Recession
Ah! Thank you for the explanation
Careful there, bud, you're singing the siren song of bank bailouts.
The proletariat is still sore about the ones in 2008. They revealed plain the stratified economic system.
It's because when banks make loans, they sell of the debt, but nobody has wanted to buy the debt for Musk's loans. My understanding of this is essentially, if someone takes out a loan of $100 million, the bank will sell that debt to an investor for $101 million, and the investor will make back $102 million once the loan is paid off due to interest. But no investors are confident enough that Musk will pay back his loan so no one is ponying up the dough to buy it.
That's easy, just give him a AAA credit rating and call it a bond, some pension fund will buy it.
Take it a step further, bundle it with a bunch of other subprime loans and then pass it around like a hot potato.
I remember reading that the banks who loaned him the money haven't been able to sell off the debt.