US Commercial banks alone own an unbelievable $202 trillion in derivatives.

[nutmeg]

$1.0 QUADRILLION

Is this lower or higher than last year?

A cursory glance tells me for JPM and GS the number has been higher. Neither of these two cos seem to be hanging in precarious balance.

 

[Landis82]

Quote from TGregg:

These notational flingers need to start a business. They can put pencil to paper and say "Gee, 300 million people in the US. If just 1% of them buy a 747 from me, I'll be rich!"

LOL!


These notional derivative numbers have been around for a long, long time . . . Yawn.

 

[Landis82]

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

The article I posted speaks exactly to the point you are complaining about.[/i]

With all due respect . . .

You've posted 22 TIMES this morning and we are not even two hours into the trading session . . . Tell me, do you TRADE at all or are you here to help generate web "activity" for ET?

 

[nutmeg]

An alternative way to measure the size of the derivatives market is to calculate the instruments' market value—which refers to how much they would be worth if the contracts had to be settled today. Gross market value of all outstanding derivatives was $14.5 trillion at the end of 2007, less than one-fortieth of the $596 trillion estimate. (That number shrinks to about $3.3 trillion once you take into account contracts that directly offset one another.)

http://www.slate.com/id/2202263/

I'm sure there are dozens of articles but here's one.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

The article I posted speaks exactly to the point you are complaining about.

Did you even read it?

Here's the pertinent section:

"Bear in mind, these are “notional” values of derivatives, not the amount of money “at risk” here. However, if even 1% [a conservative figure just for the sake of being conservative] of the $1 Quadrillion is actually at risk, you’re talking about $10 trillion in “at risk.”

Yes, I have read it...

Don't you think the authors of this piece are being just a wee bit disingenuous? They put the huge number in the title and then the explanation of the notional issue in a sort of an aside...

Moreover, the whole "conservative" 1% of the notional actually being at risk is a complete load of bollox. For example, mark-to-mkt value a short-dated par rate OIS swap is 0, regardless of the notional (it's also not very risky, 'cause it's so short). So if I am a bank and I have a $1trn notional swap like I described, it's risking EXACTLY 0. Now what percentage of $1trn is $0? All I 'm trying to say is that the 1% number is a completely random one and the authors' logic is flawed in a whole variety of ways.

This is exactly why I never listen to journalists that like to throw monster figures around... It's just sensationalist reporting.

EDIT: Thanks, nutmeg, for a much better piece of financial journalism...

 

[Landis82]

Quote from Martinghoul:

Yes, I have read it...

Don't you think the authors of this piece are being just a wee bit disingenuous?

This is exactly why I never listen to journalists that like to throw monster figures around... It's just sensationalist reporting.

Agreed 100%.
Extremely sensationalist.

And it is this "cut and paste" crap that litters ET and is sinking this website into "new" lows. The OP already has 22 posts this morning and it isn't even lunch time yet!

Think he does any TRADING???

 

[ByLoSellHi]

Quote from Landis82:

Agreed 100%.
Extremely sensationalist.

And it is this "cut and paste" crap that litters ET and is sinking this website into "new" lows. The OP already has 22 posts this morning and it isn't even lunch time yet!

Think he does any TRADING???

Wah Wah Landis is back!!!

The 7500 post wonder talking about conspiracy theories re Baron having bots posting on ET to generate traffic is back!!!

He's back, baby!!!!!

Missed you, Landis! You giant, post whoring CRYBABY!!!!!!

LOL

 

[Roman Candle]

Quote from Landis82:

Agreed 100%.
Extremely sensationalist.

And it is this "cut and paste" crap that litters ET and is sinking this website into "new" lows. The OP already has 22 posts this morning and it isn't even lunch time yet!

Think he does any TRADING???

Try and act a little more professional.

 

[Landis82]

Quote from Roman Candle:

Try and act a little more professional.

You mean Elitetrader really has nothing to do with trading the market . . . but instead is all about posting "cut and paste" articles that are purely sensationalistic in order to generate web "activity"?

And you talk about being professional?

Please.

 

[ByLoSellHi]

Quote from Landis82:

You mean Elitetrader really has nothing to do with trading the market . . . but instead is all about posting "cut and paste" articles that are purely sensationalistic in order to generate web "activity"?

And you talk about being professional?

Please.

Any yet you post another non-trading comment in the life of your supertrader career.

Schmuck.

Admit it - you're a bot programmed by Baron to generate traffic and ad revenue, aren't you?