http://www.blackswantrading.com/file...sccc041709.pdf
Text of Full Speech: http://www.snb.ch/en/mmr/speeches/id...416_jpr.en.pdf

Wot Maggie Thatcher said "you can't beat the markets"

Let us hope Soros or Hedge funds do not get interested...

In 1992 Soros had a war chest estimated at £15 Billion to "break the Bank of England" - what would that be in today's money & how much does the Swiss central bank have to play with?

Marton

Positive surprise; from the Times

"DOZENS of UK councils are in line for an unexpected windfall of up to £200m from the receivers of one of the three collapsed Icelandic banks.
A creditors’ report from the administrators of Heritable Bank, part of Landsbanki, has revealed that savers can expect to get back at least 70p in the pound. "

Marton

Good news for taxpayers for once

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but how come it's a windfall? Surely they are only getting some monies they were due anyway?

Bank of America today follows New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Citigroup Inc. in posting first-quarter earnings that topped analysts’ estimates.

Wonder why UBS is still losing money; it was not clear to me in their first quarter results.

Marton

Anything to do with German or E. European investments?

UBS don't report full details until May but the preannouncement last week blamed continued losses on credit losses and continued writedowns of previously disclosed illiquid assets. Goldman's earnings were clearly driven by risk trading in it's fixed income, commodities and currency divisions. UBS has shackled risk taking in it's investment bank and so missed out on improved trading opportunities. Similarly JPM and Citi's results were investment banking driven. So UBS did not benefit from improved investment banking earnings in the way the others did. Even at Glodman revenues were down at the one area UBS has prioritised - asset management.

What isn't clear to me is to what extent the improved investment banking earnings at Goldman, Citi and JPM were due to more relaxed accounting practices recently introduced in the US in the mark to market valuation of their securities portfolios. We know UBS has been aggressive in taking write downs.

Carve it up boys?

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009...witzerland.htm

Ammann is essentially making the same argument that others like Willem Buiter make i.e. that large banks pose too much of a systemic risk and must be broken up as a policy remedy to prevent further crises.

Recent events have proven they should be broken up.

The problem is that the bankers will 'persuade' the politicians to allow them to regroup/takeover/get bigger; just as the banker-funded repeal of Sarbanes-Oxley occurred shortly before the crash this time around.

Time to call in the plunge protection team ( sound like somehting I need for the toilet) Goldman Sachs 666


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eben-e...anSachs666.com

Is the current stock market rebound based on fundamentals, or are more sinister forces at work? Tyler Durden, one of the best financial bloggers around, have found some circumstantial evidence that suggests the mysterious Plunge Protection Team (PPT) has recently been boosting the stock market. And some might say Goldman Sachs is running the show...

From itulip, this guy thinks the US banks have somewhat cooked the books:

Looks like Freddie Mac killed himself- guess some do have a conscience. Here's an alternative- living in the land of plenty: http://www.technicianonline.com/feat...ties-1.1647648

And now we can add Credit Suisse to list of banks whose improvement in earnings has been led by trading revenues in their investment banking units.

Just came across a Swiss based financial news site some may be interested in: www.thedailybell.com

They follow the Austrian economics school.

All this talk of the need to break up the big banks into a plethora of small banks is too one sided for my liking and a bit knee jerk. I can see how people can reach the conclusion that that too big to fail leads to systemic risk and more banks should mean more competition and more choice which should be better for the consumer but this misses some key issues:
1. The safest bank is a well capitalised bank not a big bank or a small bank.
2. Conversely, too much competition means low margins which can make small companies with small market share vulnerable. It also means an inability to grow nationally and to compete on the global stage. A lot of small banks doesn't necessarily make for a strong financial system. That's what's led to consolidation in the UK in the first place.
3. No government would see that it's in it's national interests to have it's financial system dominated by minnows. They would be susceptible to take over by mammoth foreign giants. The loss of control would be unacceptable. And there's no going back. The financial system is globalised and free access to foreigners is in many cases protected by legislation and international treaty. Most governments want to see home grown champions of world class stature dominating their home financial markets.

I think all this talk of break up is a red herring which detracts from the real issues here - what caused the risk of systemic failure in the first place - too much cheap leverage, too little capital, bad risk management, lack of transparency and integrated business models where consumer retail banks were nearly brought down by unacceptable levels of risk taking (relative to their capitalisation) in their investment banking arms. The structure of the banking system certainly needs to be reviewed but the answer isn't as simple as breaking up the cast into more players.

I do not know about this repeal; do you have more details, a link or?
So far as I know a repeal has been mooted/discussed since that Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in 2002 but nothing has actually happened?

Marton

No such luck. SOX is still around, for all the use it is - just has folks going through the motions.

The new UBS management want to write off legacy liabilities and blame those on the previous CEO/CFO. From next quarter onwards, the new CEO must show results.

SOX creates lucrative assignments for the consultants and service providers including IT.

For those of us working for "in-house" IT, it's a damned nuisance.