Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The prevalence of ponzi schemes?

Jump to new
M

mellifuous

Joined
8 July 2009
Posts
465
Reactions
0
mellifuous said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D8asfMtx1o&feature=PlayList&p=3DC05BEA558B9D28&index=0&playnext=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtvolnU6Zgc&feature=related

Shouldn't ASIC take more notice to ensure strong positive cash flow in particular entities, for example managed funds? What are the auditors responsibilities to ensure a particular level of cash flow before ringing alarm bells? What should be the liability of directors?
Click to expand...

That's nothing compared to the giant US ponzi scheme & the authorities there are actively encouraging it:)

Cheers
 
"... Ponzi schemes are very typical of most financial activity. Banks and the Social Security System are ponzi schemes. If the definition of a ponzi scheme is paying previous investors with the money gleaned from future investors then literally everything in the financial sector is a kind of ponzi scheme, so this thin line, or grey area between 'proper' ponzi schemes and 'ligitimate' ponzi schemes fools a lot of people..." Sam Vankin (economist)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IymklQKT-lc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B0GiYADisw

Yes, it seems to me that so many of these managed funds were no more than ponzi schemes. When I looked at the loans made by City's FMF, about 60% of the value of the fund were directed to loans not returning any money plus to debt.

How the auditors didn't put it down in 2007 is a big surprise to me.

I'd bet that all those similar managed funds really had cash flow problems (or debt) that was somehow masked.

I can't believe that the outcomes of Westpoint, MFS, FMF and the like are much of a surprise to those 'in the know'.
 
scheme.jpg


:banghead:

yep.. there is no end to creativity.
 
doctorj said:
How are banks ponzi schemes?
Click to expand...

In very simple terms.

1000 invest $100K into a bank.
Bank then lends 80% to mortgages.
1000 original investors walk in wanting their $100k

Worse still as happened in the US.
Mortgages are only worth 80% of the original deal.

OOOPPs
 
doctorj said:
Most banks I'm familiar with are doing a pretty good job at matching the tenor of their assets/liabilities.
Click to expand...

yep, they sure have -- especially when governments around the world had to step in to either buy them out or guarantee their deposits.

some ponzis are supported - that's what the grey line is all about - some are supported, others are not - sometimes the line is blurred.

without government intervention, the whole banking system could have collapsed into itself.

Banks are big time ponzi, so are governments.
 
mellifuous said:
Banks are big time ponzi, so are governments.
Click to expand...
But why?

They receive deposits and invest that money in the form of loans. If you use that definition, everything that involves a risk is a ponzi scheme.

Got an axe to grind?
 
doctorj said:
But why?

They receive deposits and invest that money in the form of loans. If you use that definition, everything that involves a risk is a ponzi scheme.

Got an axe to grind?
Click to expand...

Until it goes wrong and the balance of Creditors debtors and assets skews severely like it did for these guys.
Some pretty massive figures in here!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquired_or_bankrupt_banks_in_the_late_2000s_financial_crisis

We/Private business get in the Poo and we go bankrupt. If your big enough and the debt is big enough you have far more power than the little guy.
Many are bailed out with NO LIABILITY to repay!!

How'd those poor buggers who lost their homes like to be in the position to do that!
 
tech/a said:
Until it goes wrong and the balance of Creditors debtors and assets skews severely like it did for these guys.
Some pretty massive figures in here!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquired_or_bankrupt_banks_in_the_late_2000s_financial_crisis

We/Private business get in the Poo and we go bankrupt. If your big enough and the debt is big enough you have far more power than the little guy.
Many are bailed out with NO LIABILITY to repay!!

How'd those poor buggers who lost their homes like to be in the position to do that!
Click to expand...
We're not debating the merits (or lack there of) of their risk taking, but their fundamental business model.

Too many criticise banks without understanding how they work or what happened. I guess it's tall poppy syndrome or trendy or something.

Ponzi schemes require new money to pay returns to earlier investors. Banks pay their depositors returns through earned returns on their loans and the excess liquidity they deposit at other banks.

Just because some banks needed to be bailed out, doesn't make them all (or perhaps any of them) ponzi schemes. It's a non-sequitor
 
Ah contraire, banks have loaned out money to lenders to purchase landed asets (in the main), and if there's a rush on the banks, the banks cannot pay - they simply don't hold the reserves to pay all of their depositors out.

The banks cannot demand the money back from lenders in order to protect themselves, so they're in deep trouble.

In the ordinary course of business, the fact that they cannot pay out under total stress is not important. However, it is when everyone wants their money back at once.

It's really all about liquidity and cash contingencies. There is no way any bank is able to pay back all its creditors in any given short period, or at all.

I'd guess that at all times, all banks are illiquid.

However, if such circumstances don't rise to being 'ponzi' in your mind, then they don't.

My concern is never with banks, because I know that governments will always act to secure them, but businesses run on the same model are a different ball game and place investors money at substantial risk.
 
I'd guess that at all times, all banks are illiquid.
Click to expand...

Your post is well put mell.

Could it not then be argued that most banks could be classified as insolvent!
Certainly at times cash flow insolvency if not balance sheet insolvent (At times).
 
yes, I think so. However, without the trigger of a panic run by depositors, there is no problems because the flow of money in and out is well managed.

It's very different for entities like the First Mortgage Fund (my bad investment) whereby up to 60% of the fund was either non-payment loans (capitalised) or debt (bank facility (or so called 'co-investors')).

In the latter case, I think it was Ponzi after the market started to wain and negative publicity began to pop up here and there. Of course, with poor (to non-existent) cash flow, the entity become ponzi (in my view) as early as August 2007, but was allowed to continue on until being frozen on 3 March 2008.

During that period investors were permitted to invest and re-invest, while the manager deconsolidated the fund to protect itself - inside knowledge is always very, very helpful.

As the author of the first-quoted excerpt says, its a 'grey line' that's often blurred.
 
tech/a said:
Could it not then be argued that most banks could be classified as insolvent!
Certainly at times cash flow insolvency if not balance sheet insolvent (At times).
Click to expand...

No because insolvent is the inability to pay one's debts as they fall due.

So banks are not insolvent because they can cover their debts of their day to day business until they can't then they are insolvent. :p:

Very important diff :cool:

doctorj said:
Got an axe to grind?
Click to expand...
It would seem so.
 
tech/a said:
Could it not then be argued that most banks could be classified as insolvent!
Certainly at times cash flow insolvency if not balance sheet insolvent (At times).
Click to expand...

Don't forget that liquidity is also the big issue. Any company should always maintain a working liquidity of at least 1.2 to 1.5 times, anything less than this would/should ring alarm bells.
 
in the good times, who cares - when things go pear shaped, it's a whole different kettle of fish.

no axe to grind - that's already done.
 
mellifuous said:
in the good times, who cares - when things go pear shaped, it's a whole different kettle of fish.

no axe to grind - that's already done.
Click to expand...

But that is why your argument that all financial insto's are ponzi's is dumb. Thats the same for ALL business. They are all fine until ..... [insert whatever], they lose a big customer, they get flooded by a hurricane, the market changes. Its just silly.
 
Banks operate a unique model (not a ponzi scheme) that is required in todays society. Banks are heavily legislated and regulated in most countries, however that does not mean they cannot go bust.
 
Trembling Hand said:
But that is why your argument that all financial insto's are ponzi's is dumb. Thats the same for ALL business. They are all fine until ..... [insert whatever], they lose a big customer, they get flooded by a hurricane, the market changes. Its just silly.
Click to expand...

It's not my argument that 'all financial institutions are ponzi', it was the idea that they are 'ponzi-like'. Actually, I should have taken the quote from the videos. For some reason banks took prominence in the thread, which wasn't my intention.

Nevertheless, contrary to your belief, others have formed the view that :-

"... Ponzi schemes are very typical of most financial activity. Banks and the Social Security System are ponzi schemes. If the definition of a ponzi scheme is paying previous investors with the money gleaned from future investors then literally everything in the financial sector is a kind of ponzi scheme, so this thin line, or grey area between 'proper' ponzi schemes and 'ligitimate' ponzi schemes fools a lot of people. ..." Sam Vankin
 
Top