This is developping in an interesting thread, all name calling aside.
Perhaps someone can tell me who the architect was of the free currency trade.
Perhaps someone can tell me who is the idiot who after the LTCM debacle did not enforce rigid controls of the derivatives.
Perhaps somone can tell me why it is that the FED still thinks that increasing the interest rate will slow down the economy and lowering the interest rate will speed it up.
This is just my opinion but it lies at the root of all evil.
Free currency rate: Japanese housewives borrow at 1% and then put it in the Bank somewhere else at a higher rate ("carry trade") Now the banks in that country have a lot of money available so they start lending to every Tom, Dick and Harry and Joe Six pack to boot.
"Oh, lets cover ourselves with derivatives."
These derivatives have also "price discovery" where the cheapest available gets all the business. Never mind that when suddenly the risks go up (because of Joe Six pack devaulting) they cannot cover.
Then the Fed comes in and says "we have to stimulate the economy, let's lower the interest rates". Yeah right, Japanese housewives think "Oh, things are not going well, we getting less, lets pull the money out before it goes sour".
Suddenly we have an outflow of a lot of money, i.e. every Japanese housewife is trying to sell US dollars so the US dollar goes down. Imports in the US shoot up: "oh things are not good, lets drop the rates a bit more and stimulate the economy a bit".
More will default and the vicous circle is set in motion. Banks are normally only having a trading department to show their customers that that are trading, not because the traders at a bank have a clue what they are doing, no sir. So they'll need to use the money for the loan defaulters: "let's close the trading department down, not many Pop and Mom's seem to be interested these days anyway."
So the trading morons and the banks dump all their positions at one go, no nice easing out, "the boss said to get out and they are closing down our dept so why should we care, lets give them some real losses, the a$$h&@!*^s"
Now the market gets volatile. Funds say "oh the market is too volatile, lets go in cash, its safer".
Well, more shares are being traded by funds (together with the by banks who have now gone out of it creating the initial volatlity) and less than by Pop and Mom so who is taking the other side? What happens if there are more sellers than buyers?
And a recent survey is that the funds have only half gone in cash and want to go an extra $$$$$$ Billion into cash. Who is going to buy? Pop and Mom who these days seem to be more content to put the money in a funds and let the fundsa manage it for them?
I hope they start with bringing back the 30% deposit for any, and I mean any, loan and enforce the compliance by the lenders.
Secondly they'll need to bring these derivatives under control - seems every man and his dog are selling these things but imho there is no collateral for them.
And let's not forget all these hyped up future results and that evry man and his dog just took for facevalue. Same thing as when the dot com bubble burst, this time it is the derivatives and carry trade bubble having its impact.
So thirdly we will find that the IPO's will no longer having many goats jumping on the bandwagon and that hyped up companies will have a tough time (and hopefully go under).
Rest will only return once there are no more sellers (or buyers) left and the price discovery process has returned all the inlafted stuff to realistic levels.
Some bleak times ahead and money under the matress is no good either but the brainchilds at the funds have not worked that out yet. "safer in cash", yeah right. No good as my great grandfather having a chest full of 50 000 Deutschmark bills discovered. And he thought he had made a killing and had it safely in cash at home....
M