Another completely different approach that I have thought of is: instead of requesting a wire transfer in the first place, fly to Chicago and pick up a check on the spot, and immediately take it to *their* bank and have it stamped "accepted"/certified. At that point the money is withdrawn from their account in an irreversible way, as far as I know.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Evidence that Re-hyopthecation caused MF Global failure
- Thread starter western
- Start date
Another article about how re-hypo caused MF failure.
Interesting to note that canadian customers of MF have already gotten all their money back.
Wonder why? Cause its illegal to re-hypo assets in that country.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mf-g...by-a-little-thing-called-regulation-t-2011-12
Interesting to note that canadian customers of MF have already gotten all their money back.
Wonder why? Cause its illegal to re-hypo assets in that country.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mf-g...by-a-little-thing-called-regulation-t-2011-12
Quote from western:
Another article about how re-hypo caused MF failure.
Interesting to note that canadian customers of MF have already gotten all their money back.
Wonder why? Cause its illegal to re-hypo assets in that country.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mf-g...by-a-little-thing-called-regulation-t-2011-12
No, I don't believe that is the reason at all. The reason was because there was plenty of funds in the US and it would take longer to try to take customer funds from abroad as the wire system would not be immediate
I'm yet to find any 'evidence' that hypothecation was the reason for MF failure
Quote from Daal:
No, I don't believe that is the reason at all. The reason was because there was plenty of funds in the US and it would take longer to try to take customer funds from abroad as the wire system would not be immediate
I'm yet to find any 'evidence' that hypothecation was the reason for MF failure
Or maybe because MF knew it could never get funds out of canadian custodial accounts because of firmer regulations.
Bottom line, financial laws regarding customers accounts are too lax in the US.
Quote from western:
Or maybe because MF knew it could never get funds out of canadian custodial accounts because of firmer regulations.
Bottom line, financial laws regarding customers accounts are too lax in the US.
Also in Canada there is one million dollars insurance per account that is not limited to stocks, but also includes futures.
As I recall, from news reports, this fund provided an advance to the Canadian trustee that facilitated the prompt return of all funds.
But, as you note, there were no indications that anything was missing in the Canadian operations.
Quote from western:
Bottom line, financial laws regarding customers accounts are too lax in the US.
and nobody is fixing it. Republicans still have "deregulate" as their rallying cry and Obama put Goldman Sachs in as his cabinet.. Better to learn tricks so they can't take your money than to count on anybody in the US fixing anything...
Quote from western:
Bottom line, financial laws regarding customers accounts are too lax in the US.
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2011/12/14/799831/cme-group-plays-old-school-chicago-politics/
And from this analysis it's looking like it was the weekly margin call for MF that did them in.
Somewhere on net...
So when a bank goes bankrupt, BEFORE even the most senior bond holders, the repo lenders and derivatives traders can remove, or keep all the assets pledged to them.
http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2011/12/plan-b-how-to-loot-nations-and-their-banks-legally/
The special bankruptcy treatment given repos and derivatives means that repo lenders and parties to derivative contracts can keep the collateral if their trading partner becomes insolvent. This exempts them from the âautomatic stayâ rule in bankruptcy, which prohibits most creditors from trying to collect ahead of others.
Or as the official report from the US Financial Crisis Inquirey Commission said,
under a 2005 amendment to the bankruptcy laws, derivatives counterparties were given the advantage over other creditors of being able to immediately terminate their contracts and seize collateral at the time of bankruptcy.
This includes RE_HYPOTHECATED assets.
So when a bank goes bankrupt, BEFORE even the most senior bond holders, the repo lenders and derivatives traders can remove, or keep all the assets pledged to them.
http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2011/12/plan-b-how-to-loot-nations-and-their-banks-legally/
The special bankruptcy treatment given repos and derivatives means that repo lenders and parties to derivative contracts can keep the collateral if their trading partner becomes insolvent. This exempts them from the âautomatic stayâ rule in bankruptcy, which prohibits most creditors from trying to collect ahead of others.
Or as the official report from the US Financial Crisis Inquirey Commission said,
under a 2005 amendment to the bankruptcy laws, derivatives counterparties were given the advantage over other creditors of being able to immediately terminate their contracts and seize collateral at the time of bankruptcy.
This includes RE_HYPOTHECATED assets.