Comments by "seneca983" (@seneca983) on "The Plain Bagel" channel.

  1. ​ @ez4039 : "Goldman did them a favor extending credit when others wouldn’t." I think you misunderstood a bit. Goldman basically helped Greece to "cook the books" and pretend they had less debt than they actually had in order to meet the requirements to join the common currency.
    25
  2.  @mattbob1995  Is "Citron Research" some kind of reference? What exactly is it referring to? Life giving you lemons or something else?
    18
  3. "Its not the risky behavior that makes us upset, its the fact that they were subsequently bailed out." What hedge funds have been bailed out? If you mean they were bailed out by private actors rather than the government then I don't see a problem with that.
    16
  4. Have you seen Wallstreet Millennial's video on this subject? He considered investing in the Direxion Daily S&P 500 Bull 3X ETF. With historical data, it would even in the long run greatly outperform the SPY ETF despite volatility drag. It might be worse if only made a one-off investment and the timing was bad but with dollar-cost averaging you'd still be better of than with SPY. This got me thinking, would it be possible to make a leveraged ETF with long-term investing in mind? It could maybe contain stocks from multiple countries for better diversification and maybe weigh less volatile stocks more. Also, it might not need to fully rebalance daily to mitigate volatility drag.
    16
  5. That's basically how these particular bonds were structured. If they were senior to equity holders they wouldn't count as Tier 1 capital under Basel III rules. (Though I obviously haven't read the contracts for these specific bonds so I don't know if the Swiss regulator's decision falls within the stipulations of the contract.)
    11
  6.  @poisonpotato1  But conversely with dividends your ownership share of the company doesn't increase unless you reinvest the dividends you received by buying more shares of the same company. Theoretically for an individual investor, reinvesting the dividends into the same company is equivalent to a share buyback if the investor doesn't sell his shares. Also theoretically, receiving dividends and not reinvesting them is equivalent to a share buyback if the investor sells a portion of his shares that's equal as a percentage to the portion of the shares of the company that were bought back. So in both cases, the investor theoretically has the same option of getting cash or not getting cash (though in practice some investors are not active and will not consider those options). When things like taxes and trading costs are considered dividends and share buybacks may no longer be equivalent even for a more active investor who weighs the available options.
    10
  7.  @retiredrebel  "the English Royal Family had pirate origins" Which royal family are you talking about?
    9
  8.  @jcsjcs2  "A dividend is money in hand." Generally, one should expect dividends to cause the stock's price to fall by an amount roughly equal in size to the dividend. If that weren't the case there would be an arbitrage opportunity where you could buy stock right before the dividend ex date and sell it right after (or the opposite if the fall were bigger). If you really need cash in your hand you always have the option of selling. "And when I sell my shares at the higher price, I pay taxes as well." But if you're going to be holding on to the stock for a long time then it's better for you if the taxation gets delayed.
    8
  9.  @davidglad  "Stockholders getting paid ahead of ANY bondholders is unprecedented other than outright looting." No, these bonds are different. The contracts for these types of bonds contain stipulations that they can be wiped out or converted to stock based on certain events like the bank's core capital being eroded below certain limit or a decision by a regulator. They are not senior to equity holders. That's their whole purpose. Otherwise they wouldn't count as Tier 1 capital under Basel III rules.
    8
  10.  @danielcarrapa3632  I don't think that's right. There are different kinds of AT1 bonds. Some get converted to stock whereas some are just wiped out when the contingency criteria are met. From what I've read, the AT1 bonds issued by Credit Suisse were of the type that get wiped out.
    7
  11.   : Even if Goldman's primary purpose is to make money for its investors, we should be able to expect it to operate within certain ethical boundaries. Helping Greece defraud European institutions is at least a bit suspect.
    6
  12. In a certain sense, volatility drag is always negative. Let me explain. Assume that the value of the index moved continuously and that a leveraged ETF tied to that index were rebalanced at every infinitesimal moment meaning its price's logarithmic derivative were always 3 times that of the logarithmic derivative of the index's value. Such an ideal leveraged ETF would experience zero volatility drag. Its value growth would be raised to the 3rd power so if the index grew by a factor of 2 over some time period the value of the ETF would grow by a factor of 8. If the index grew by a factor of 10 over some period of time the ETF would grow by a factor of 1000. A real leveraged ETF that's balanced daily and not at each infinitesimal moment will always lag behind this kind of idealized ETF. The more the index moves between rebalancings the more the real leveraged ETF lags behind this ideal.
    6
  13.  @4CiiD3  "The least time you rebalance leverage, the least amount of volatility drag you will get." No, it's not how frequently you rebalance. Rather it's how much the price moves between rebalancings. The hypothetical ideal ETF rebalances at each infinitesimal moment so the price only moves an infinitesimal amount between rebalancings (assuming continuity which isn't realistic either) so there's no drag. "And when you say volatility drag is always negative... negative in what sense ?" I already explained that. The hypothetical ideal is that returns get raised to the 3rd power (with 3x leverage) if there's no volatility drag at all. Due to volatility drag, a real leveraged ETF will always lag behind this ideal. The less the index moves between rebalancings (i.e. the less there's day-to-day volatility if rebalancings happen daily) the closer the leveraged ETF will get to this ideal but it will never reach it. "Average return is still 3x index - costs no matter how you rebalance." It's (generally) not 3x over multiple days (assuming daily rebalancing).
    6
  14.  @DarthTrader707  It seems you didn't understand what I wrote. None of what you wrote about TQQQ contradicts what I wrote. "Since inception, TQQQ is up 147 times vs 8 times for the QQQ." Like I wrote, a hypothetical 3x leveraged ETF that is continuously rebalanced and suffers no volatility drag would raise the returns to a power of 3 (ignoring fees etc.). So in this case such ideal version would provide 8^3=512 returns. TQQQ will inevitably lag behind this ideal performance (in this case providing "only" 147 times returns) due to volatility drag. It can still greatly outperform the index if the volatility drag isn't too great.
    5
  15. That's good to hear.
    4
  16.  @NASSSSSER  You're the one making this (IMHO very overblown) claim of the US losing $7.5 trillion. If you want to argue for it, you should explain why or how the US would lose that much. That said, I can point to an academic paper which looks at the benefits (e.g. international seigniorage) the dollar's international role grants to the US. The result is that the benefits, while real, are fairly small compared to the size of the US economy. The paper is "Does the US dollar confer an exorbitant privilege?" by Robert N. McCauley.
    4
  17.  @NASSSSSER  "you should have asked how instead of refuting the claim without knowledge!" But I didn't do that without knowledge. Even if I didn't know your precise argument, I did already know that the benefit of the dollar's role on the US is much smaller than $7.5 trillion as detailed in the paper I cited in my previous comment. "they must pay with dollar currency, which forces all countries to keep huge amounts of dollar reserves" No, it doesn't. One of the advantages of the dollar is that it's very liquid. You can easily exchange other currencies for the dollar if you need to use dollars for payment. The reason why many central banks and other institutions hold dollar denominated reserves is completely different. And in any case, for most countries there isn't going to be a big change. The Saudis aren't going to want to receive their payment in e.g. Indian Rupees so most countries are still going to pay in dollars. And even if the dollar lost its reserve status, the lost benefit to the US isn't all that big as detailed in the paper I cited.
    4
  18. "Doesnt mean they know squat about finance and the stock market." On the other hand, at least Graham Stephan's investment advice seems to basically be "dollar cost average into low-cost index funds". I'd say it's good advice (though giving it doesn't require deep knowledge).
    4
  19.  @cliffsousa4184 : "They are also the ones who shorted MBS during 2008 recession." But this isn't actually harmful.
    4
  20.  @retiredrebel  At what point in history was the house of Windsor (previously known as the house of Sachsen-Coburg and Gotha) pirates?
    4
  21. They're not profitable for the capitalist class. Some individual capitalists may benefit if they have invested mostly in armament production or something. Most usually suffer losses, possibly enormous ones. The Rothschilds lost something like half of their fortune due to WWI.
    3
  22.  @cliffsousa4184 : Yeah, I agree selling bad CDOs and misleading investors (though credit raters share the guilt here as well). But the shorting part isn't harmful. In fact, the problem (at least in hindsight) was that people valued CDOs too highly. It would have been better if there had been more people shorting them.
    3
  23. That's not a good comparison. A government doesn't earn 100% of GDP as income and it usually doesn't have (sellable) assets as collateral for loans in contrast to, say, a family with a mortgage.
    3
  24. No, typically those assets are government bonds (though sometimes more "exotic" assets like corporate bonds are bought).
    3
  25. LMAO!
    3
  26. It's clearly a full scale invasion.
    3
  27. "Ukraine was about to join NATO." Not any time soon it wasn't. Maybe in the distant future.
    3
  28.  Luís Andrade  "dividends give you more flexibility" In theory, both options have the same flexibility for publicly traded stocks because an investor can always choose to buy/sell as much as he wants. "buy backs only happen when a company wants while dividends are the ones who happen regularly" Both dividends and buybacks have to be decided at the general meeting. Dividends are only regular if it's decided so. They don't happen any more automatically than buybacks. "A company consistently buying back its shares is a huge red flag" Why is it a huge red flag?
    3
  29.  @bultvidxxxix9973  "No, there will always be volatility drag. The reason is that you apply a linear factor to something that doesn't scale linearly." I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I only said a hypothetical ideal ETF that rebalances at every infinitesimal moment wouldn't experience volatility drag. In real life, that's not possible for various reasons (e.g. stock prices don't really move continuously.)
    3
  30.  Luís Andrade  "That's why dividends> buybacks" That doesn't make any sense. Debt-funded dividends should (in theory at least) be just as good or bad as debt-funded buybacks.
    3
  31.  @ProfAzimov  That may make more sense if there is a sufficiently profitable investment available but that's not always the case. Generally, it doesn't make sense for a business to invest ad infinitum. There are diminishing returns to investment and at some point the returns get too small.
    3
  32. "Banks are not restricted in credit creation by the amount of reserves they have" No, that's incorrect. They are restricted. In the US there's a 10% reserve requirement for banks which means that they can't more than 10x the deposits as their liabilities compared to the amount of reserves they have. If a bank is at that 10% limit and wants to make a new loan it needs to get new reserves from somewhere.
    3
  33.  @DaBlaccGhost  Those are certainly real and significant problems. However, the videos in question still both exaggerate the problem and give a too fast timeline.
    3
  34. What violation? "if Saudi Arabia abandons the ​​petrodollars, America will gradually lose 7.5$ Trillion" No, that's not the case.
    2
  35.  @apacheattackhelicopter8185  "And why does your article say that Russia defaulted for the first time since 1918? It has defaulted as recently as in 1998." What did the article say precisely? In any case, that year is probably given because it's the last time Russia defaulted on external debt. In 1998 Russia only defaulted on Rouble denominated debt but not on debt denominated in foreign currencies. Either the article failed to explain this fully or maybe you missed this detail.
    2
  36. "Besides making interest payments, is there any other problem with having say, 1 quadrillion in debt?" What do you mean "besides"? With that amount of debt and, say, 2% interest the payments would be almost 100% of the US economy.
    2
  37.  @nicholaspoulos7694  "I am asking for any other actual real problems I understand interest payments are a limiting factor in debt." Another problem is debt rollover. Debt eventually matures and the bondholders have to be paid the principal of the debt, not just the interest. Usually you have to issue new bonds to cover the maturing ones. If your ability pay is in doubt such rollover might become impossible because not enough investors dare to lend to you.
    2
  38.  @grimaffiliations3671  "The government has all of its debt denominated in its own currency, you cannot default on a currency you control." No, governments can and have defaulted on bonds denominated in their own currency. One example is Russia which defaulted on its Rouble denominated bonds (but not its foreign denominated bonds) in 1998. Government borrowing in its own currency does have the theoretical option of printing more money to avoid technically defaulting on its debt but often that would just be a worse option that a default.
    2
  39.  @schumanhuman  "In other words lending creates reserves" No, that's incorrect. It creates new deposit money but it doesn't create reserves.
    2
  40.  @schumanhuman  "inflation is negatively correlated with the total use of QE" Of course, because QE is used to fight disinflation/deflation. Similarly e.g. the use of antibiotics is positively correlated with bacterial infections but that doesn't mean that antibiotics don't help with those.
    2
  41. "Every is instrument that is volatile has volatility decay, non-leveraged ETFs have it too" No, the volatility drag is due to the daily rebalancing. Non-leveraged ETFs don't have to be rebalanced.
    2
  42.  @mariorossi7149  "If a index goes down by 10% and then goes up by 10%, it losts 1% of its value." That's just an artifact of the definition of percentage change, not a "real" phenomenon. If you multiply an index by a factor of 1.1 and then divide it by the same factor it'll end up where it was but a leveraged ETF following the index will lag behind.
    2
  43. You could make two arguments. 1) He probably knew (or should have known) that many of the WSB types of people are going to follow him if he doesn't explicitly warn against it or something. 2) The timing of the sale relative to when he has to report his stake makes it look like he wanted to mislead (in a broad/moral sense) investors as long as legally possible. I think one can at least make the argument that even if this isn't illegal it's a dick move.
    2
  44. If they caused a temporary dip in the stock price and then bought the dip (for more than just to cover any possible short position) that I think could very well fall under market manipulation.
    2
  45.  @grimaffiliations3671  OP didn't mention currency at all. He only talked about "monopoly on violence". Both Greece and Argentina retained the control of their police and armed forces.
    2
  46. What? Like an ETF where half of the content is cash and only half is stocks? What would be the point of that?
    2
  47. "if the s&p 500 crash by 63% it doesn‘t matter in what you are invested at all" I don't think that's true. I think what you're saying is that if S&P500 falls by that much then the world economy is in trouble and alternative investments would likely fall too. While that probably has some merit, you should still take into account that other investments can still fall by a different amount, possibly by a large margin.
    2
  48. Russia would still have been able to pay its debt by using the money it had been receiving from energy transactions but chose not to.
    2
  49.  @midlander8186  "The terms of the loan on which Russia "defaulted" required it to pay creditors in US dollars from a bank in New York City, specifically." I tried to search this info but I couldn't find such conditions stated anywhere. In any case, Russia only tried to pay it's foreign denominated bonds from its frozen forex reserves rather than from non-frozen funds and also stated that it wouldn't pay unless the forex reserves were unfrozen. "I believe Russia invited creditors to take payment in Russia in any currency" I'm under the impression that Russia only offered to pay them in roubles. Some of the Russian foreign denominated bonds have a clause that allows payment in roubles under certain circumstances but not all do.
    2
  50.  @trevors777  Sounds plausible.
    2
  51. You can avoid a lot of the volatility drag if you e.g. never rebalance downwards. For this, your leverage needs to be small enough that you don't need to rebalance downwards in a falling market to avoid a margin call. This will limit how much the leverage can boost your returns.
    2
  52. Typically any bond payments would be income for the central bank. This income from money creation is called "seigniorage" as another commenter above noted. Some of it is used to pay for the expenses that the central bank accrues in it's operations (such as salary for staff) but most is given to the treasury on some timescale. Sometimes it can also be used to increase the amount of forex reserves. However, in this case if the intention is to tighten then I'd guess the money is just destroyed.
    2
  53.  @martinbacik2724  Thanks.
    2
  54.  @inigomontoya4109  "if it's just being used to pay investors it's a waste of interest rate" I disagree. If the interest rate is low enough, it's not waste. As a comparison, suppose the company earned some money and then would have the option of paying dividends or keeping the money in a bank account earning the same (low) interest rate as that hypothetical debt. Would keeping the money in a bank account make sense? Paying the dividends would just as much be "waste of interest rate" as taking a loan (as we're assuming the interest rate would be the same). I say it doesn't make sense. If the interest rate is low enough then it makes more sense to pay dividends as the paltry rate of return is not worth it for the investors.
    2
  55. "Why would the Federal Reserve be tightening to reduce demand for goods even further?" Because then there are less dollars available to buy those goods.
    2
  56. To add to the answer Randeep Mann gave, Wikipedia says that Eurostat didn't include cross-currency swaps in debt statistics before 2008. When this changed in 2008 other countries did start to report their swaps (as Greece wasn't the only one to use these kinds of arrangements) but Greece didn't and claimed it didn't have such swaps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_government-debt_crisis#2010_revelations_and_IMF_bailout
    2
  57.  @dschaef91  OK, I read up on this a bit. I guess then it's the same as the square root of R squared?
    2
  58. Maybe he meant that the crown prince is a Master of Business Studies.
    2
  59. "the US is 50% of the economy" What does that even mean?
    2
  60.  @NapalmXD  Sure. Assume you invest $1000 of your own capital in an index and also take a $2000 loan for 3x leverage so your total leveraged position is $3000. If the index grows 2% in one day your total position becomes $3060. But now your leverage isn't 3x anymore so to rebalance you have to take $120 of additional debt. After that, your total position will be $3180 with $1060 of your own capital. Then the next day the index goes down by 1.9%. 1.9% of $3180 is $60.42 so your total position will be $3119.58. Now the leverage is slightly above 3x so to rebalance you have to sell $120.84 worth of stock to pay off that amount of debt. Your total position will then be $2998.74 with $999.58 of that being your own equity. So on the first day, you gained $60, and the second day you lost $60.42 for a net loss of $0.42. If you had just invested $1000 of your own money without leverage your gain on the first day would have been 20$ and your loss on the second day $19.38 for a net gain of $0.62. Does this clarify?
    2
  61.  @NapalmXD  Because the fund is designed to replicate the daily return of the index 3x (or some other ratio). For that, the leverage ratio has to be 3x at the beginning of the trading day. If the index has moved and the fund doesn't rebalance then the leverage ratio will be different and the fund will provide a different return than designed.
    2
  62.  @NapalmXD  If you mean an ETF that uses debt but never rebalances then one would over time become fairly pointless. Let's say you start a 2x leveraged ETF following the NASDAQ composite index in 1982 when the index is at 200. At the start 50% of the fund is debt and the other 50% is its own capital but the fund never rebalances. In 2020 the index reaches 10,000. Now (ignoring fees) the fund is composed only of 1% and 99% of its own capital. The leverage ratio has fallen to about 1.01 making the fund barely any different from a normal unleveraged ETF and thus fairly pointless. Or maybe you meant that the fund could rebalance and take on more debt if the index grows but are not specifying when or on what condition the fund would rebalance and how much. Then the question becomes too vague to answer. You're basically asking about ETFs using debt but don't specify anything about how they use debt. There just isn't enough info to answer your question unless you provide a bit more specifics.
    2
  63.  @craigcarlin2918  Tailing economists too.
    2
  64. If the intention is to tighten then they basically destroy it.
    1
  65.  @Rapture-2045  Yeah, the security is sold on the open market. Meant that the money they get from is destroyed if the intention is to tighten.
    1
  66. It's still free trade in the sense that actual tariffs are not allowed. That's still better than having 10 (or 13) fully independent countries.
    1
  67.  @PhilippBlum  "Well, the US Dollar dominance going to only 30 - 40% would be still a huge loss in power." But most of the other reserve currencies like the Euro, Pound Sterling, and Japanese Yen are those of US allies.
    1
  68. The Rothschilds are irrelevant. That family has a couple of billionaires but the world has many much wealthier billionaires.
    1
  69.  @deesmith6363  The Rothschilds are greatly diminished from their glory days. I think they lost about a half of their fortune in WWI.
    1
  70.  @deesmith6363  Of course a big fall in wealth doesn't completely stop them from financing someone or something but it does make them (nowadays) insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
    1
  71. When my neighbor spends his money, it's business as usual, but when I spend his money it's called theft. The hypocrisy!
    1
  72.  @HaloDude557  Though you should remember that some other leveraged ETF have probably underperformed the related index.
    1
  73.  @fl3669  Owning the money printing machine doesn't mean you won't default. While it gives you the technical capacity to always avoid default (in debt denominated in your own currency) the option of inflating away your debt by printing money is often a worse option than a straight up default. E.g. in 1998 defaulted on its debt denominated in roubles (but not those denominated in foreign currency).
    1
  74. "Quantitative Easing means handing out free money to business people/corporations" No, it doesn't.
    1
  75. "I don't know the exact specifics of what legally constitutes a pump and dump" I don't know either but in edge cases it probably involves the discretion of a regulator or a judge rather than being a rule that anyone could apply if they just knew the facts and the law.
    1
  76.  @grimaffiliations3671  "you don't issue new bonds to cover the maturing ones, you just give back the initial amount when your done paying interest on it." You need to get the money to pay the principal ("initial amount") from somewhere. Unless the government is running a surplus at least equal to the amount of maturing debt there needs to be at least some bond issuance (or some other form of borrowing) to cover what surplus cannot. "And the government doesn't need investors to "lend" to it" Yes it does.
    1
  77.  @grimaffiliations3671  "yeah, you get the initial amount from the bond buyer when they buy the bond. You just give it back when it matures." When the government receives the initial amount it isn't kept ready to be paid back when the debt matures. The money is (usually) spent on something. That's the point of borrowing. Thus when you pay back maturing debt you need some source of cash which is usually newly borrowed money. "Selling bonds is not done to finance the government" It is done to finance the government.
    1
  78.  @Full-of-bs  I disagree. Firstly, debt-to-GDP is still a fairly informative metric even if you think something else is better. Secondly, I'm not sure debt service is a better metric since interest rates can easily change, at least if the country has a lot of short-term debt or in general debt close to maturity needing to be rolled over soon.
    1
  79.  @Full-of-bs  "What’s your rationale that debt to GDP is a good ratio?" It's not perfect but it usually gives at least a rough idea of a country's financial position. It's also fairly unambiguous and readily available. "if Greece and the US have the same debt to GDP, but Greece’s debt has an interest rate 4X that of the US, then the similarity in the debt to GDP ratio is more misleading than informative" Possibly, though only if debt-to-GDP is also high, but debt service can be misleading as well. Debt service could be high in nominal terms due to high inflation or it might not be a big problem if (hypothetically) Greece was growing faster than the US. Also, there might be a possibility for the US rates to increase. "Interest rate changes would be taken into consideration when modeling debt service" Yes, you can do such modelling to take more factors into account (which could also include e.g. future pension obligations etc.). However, this can be far from simple. You'd have to do all kinds of decisions about what to include in models and how precisely to do it which requires a lot of judgment calls from the modeller. Most people can't necessarily easily find the results of such modellings. They can't easily judge how good choices the modeller made. They can't easily know if results between countries are comparable, etc. Still, doing this kind of thing can be well worth it if you're e.g. an institutional investor or something.
    1
  80.  @Full-of-bs  I don't know how useful EBITDA is in evaluating companies but I'd argue debt-to-GDP is not at all useless (though it does have its limitations). I'd argue that it makes sense for e.g. average American voter to be aware of the debt level and take that into account when deciding who to vote for (though they can also take into account that the US may be able to handle a bigger relative amount of debt than some other countries). I don't expect the US to go to a debt crisis or anything but the rising debt level probably means that in the coming decades there will either have to be some spending cuts or tax increases that affect the middle class.
    1
  81.  @schumanhuman  "today the new loan creates deposits" The part I quoted from your comment didn't say a loan creates deposits but rather it said it creates reserves which is incorrect. It does create deposits but not reserves.
    1
  82.  @schumanhuman  "It creates deposits then the overdraught at the central bank creates new reserves." It doesn't automatically create new reserves. If the bank was at the reserve requirement limit it must then acquire new reserves from somewhere (or face a penalty) and getting those reserves isn't free.
    1
  83.  @schumanhuman  "It has created new reserves at another bank where the loaned money is deposited ie the seller of the property" That doesn't create new reserves. If the deposits are transferred to another bank in a sale, as in your example, then the bank from which the deposits are transferred must transfer that much reserves to the receiving bank. For that it either needs to have enough reserves to do that or get more reserves from somewhere (which isn't free).
    1
  84.  @schumanhuman  I.e. no new reserves are created in the transaction and the total amount of reserves available limits loans in the aggregate.
    1
  85.  @schumanhuman  "But if the entire system is short of reserves the bank will sell bonds to the central bank" The central bank has no obligation to buy bonds. In the case of the US the Fed has a bond trader who buys or sells such that the lending rates between banks match the policy rate or in the case of QE they might just buy a certain amount of bonds they have decided on. "or borrow through the discount window, so the reserve requirement itself it has no real effect on aggregate lending." They may borrow through the discount window but this isn't free; it's actually on average more expensive than borrowing from other banks. Thus the reserve requirement (in combination with other central bank policies) does have an effect on aggregate lending.
    1
  86.  @schumanhuman  "Yes there is a fee, but as long as the margin is sufficient, the bank will lend. So in reality this has a negligible effect on total lending, it's a cost not an absolute restraint." The restraint doesn't have to be absolute to be very significant. But this does affect how much banks deem it worth to lend (and since these loans have to be overcollateralized the bank also needs to have enough bonds to cover it). That means that things like QE or QT can still have a large effect on lending. "I don't think there is any evidence that central banks which have no reserve requirements (Canada, Sweden) lend more, or are any more or less stable, than ones who do not." I'm not claiming they are less stable. I only used the example of reserve requirements because it makes the limits on lending (and how they are affected by QE/QT) more clear.
    1
  87.  @schumanhuman  "The country which has most deployed QE is of course Japan" How do you measure this? The US nearly doubled its monetary base in a short amount of time during the pandemic which to me would sound like larger amount of QE. My earlier comments were more about how the amount of base money can constrain bank lending from above so this is a slightly different thing. However, I still claim that QE is certainly not deflationary and can always raise at least inflation to any desired level. In the case of Japan the inflation expectations (which were also mentioned in this video) had fallen so low that a large QE was needed to boost inflation. But we saw that when Abe replaced the central bank governor (Shirakawa -> Kuroda) inflation in Japan was successfully boosted though maybe not enough.
    1
  88. "QE is essentially money-printing (which it is)" But you could also say that even normal monetary policy is money printing. After all that's what the central banks job, i.e. monetary policy, is, deciding how much money to print (or in some rarer cases, how much money to destroy).
    1
  89. 0:40 Omg, Norway...
    1
  90.  @Mike22313  I don't think nuclear waste processing is a very pressing issue. The volume of waste from nuclear plants is quite low and it can easily be kept in temporary storage for a long time.
    1
  91.  @Mike22313  Not by much. In the case of nuclear energy most of the cost is the capital cost of the nuclear plant. Other costs are much smaller.
    1
  92.  @Mike22313  Nuclear waste can sit in temporary storage for decades without much of an issue. This war will be long over before that, one way or another.
    1
  93. How do the internal (non-geographic) trade barries inside Canada compare to those inside the EU? Which ones are bigger?
    1
  94.  @mariorossi7149  A non-leveraged ETF doesn't have volatility drag. If the index it follows drops, say, from 100 to 90 and then rises back to 100 a normal ETF following that index will also bounce back to where it was (ignoring fees) but a leveraged ETF will not.
    1
  95.  @Alfram  Are you sure it's respectable? The bonds are probably inverse floater bonds.
    1
  96.  @pebbleman721  Maybe he should go short on stocks so he could have 120% of his position in bonds.
    1
  97. Richard, would you count yourself as a finfluencer?
    1
  98. "Tax the billionaires and people with over 100 million of assets." Those people are not very numerous so you're not going to raise much revenue that way. "Take the money out of the system." Taxes don't take money out of the system. The government spends it tax revenue. It doesn't destroy the money.
    1
  99.  @SS-ub5qz  None of that is destroying money. Tax money doesn't get destroyed. Government pays its bills with tax money. The money just gets transferred from taxpayers to e.g. government employees and other people and organizations that the government is paying. That's not destroying money.
    1
  100.  @grimaffiliations3671  "Not true, federal taxes actually do get destroyed by they IRS." No, what you are saying isn't true. Taxes do get put to the general funds that the government spends.
    1
  101.  @grimaffiliations3671  "They are deleted by the IRS" They are not deleted by the IRS.
    1
  102. "many other countries have greater gdp debt ratios" I think that's 8 countries. Does 8 count as "many"?
    1
  103. Haha!
    1
  104. Or Argentina.
    1
  105. 1:25 That image doesn't even look digital. It looks like it's on a physical piece of paper. Are you sure you weren't scammed?
    1
  106.  @evilsheepmaster1744  Lehman Brothers wasn't invincible.
    1
  107. In general I don't like the word "collapse" because it's so vague. What does it mean that the economy collapses? One interpretation would be that economic output falls all the way to zero. However, such an extreme situation basically never happens. Another interpretation would be that economic output falls a lot. But how much is "a lot". Almost no one who uses the word "collapse" specifies what they mean. IMHO they should either give a definition or use terms that have official definitions (e.g. "depression").
    1
  108.  @johnblomberg389  "but still he cashed out at the top and made a lot of money" But at the end of the video there's a statement by him saying that he's in financial hardship as well. He might still deserve anger or maybe even prosecution but it still seems incorrect to claim that he's well off at the expense of he's viewers; it seems he isn't well off unless he's lying.
    1
  109. Dectupling your capital in 10 years means almost 26% annual return. That sounds overly optimistic.
    1
  110.  @ToroMontana  Indeed. Medallion Fund has had an even higher yield but it doesn't accept funds from outside investors.
    1
  111. Deutche Bank?
    1
  112. "The U.S. prints money indirectly by creating debt. Debt is repaid from the existing monetary pool, which means in short that the newly created debt can never be repaid in full." None of that is true.
    1
  113.  @junkerzn7312  In the case of base money the Fed just decides (explicitly or implicitly) how much to create.
    1
  114.  @junkerzn7312  "how exactly do they add the newly created money to the money supply again?" Basically they buy something with the newly created money, usually short term government bonds (though it can be something else too). "it is deployed as debt that must be repayed with interest" No, it isn't.
    1
  115.  @l4m41987  I'd say even in a world war it would matter where your investments are. Some investments are going to lose more value than others. Note that if the S&P500 still retains 37% of its value it means that not everybody is dead.
    1
  116.  @midlander8186  "I saw the terms stated in a CNBC YouTube video. I don't know why they're so difficult to find" I tried searching for it again and watched a couple of CNBC videos but I could find mentions of such terms. "Russia offered to pay the loans in Russia, where the US of course could not freeze funds. If creditors could legally take payment in Russia, they could of course take payment in rubles and convert rubles immediately to most foreign currencies of their choice." It's not entirely clear that that would be possible. Russia has implemented capital controls to support the rouble exchange rate. Most people can't sell roubles, only buy them. Unless bondholders get some kind of exemption any receipts in roubles might be stuck inside Russia. However, I didn't try to check whether they would be affected by the capital controls.
    1
  117.  @midlander8186  "I'm sorry you've spent time searching through CNBC YouTube videos for the terms of the loan to Russia." No need to apologize. When I tried to search this YouTube brought up two videos which were about 2 min long (and after that the search results weren't from CNBC). The time spent on that wasn't that much.
    1
  118.  @paxdriver  "but they needed those funds given the fact it's the only access they have to usd and they're at war. That makes usd more valuable to then due to scarcity." Sure. I just wanted to point out that (to my understanding) they would have still had the technical capacity to pay in dollars or euros so in that sense it was still a choice at this point.
    1
  119.  @ryanm2051  "Charles Rebbel u can’t go bankrupt for your student loans...It is impossible to lose your principle. Sounds fool proof to me, especially with an 8% interest rate rn" One might not be able to get one's student loan discharged through bankruptcy but that doesn't make them risk-free to creditors. Borrowers might still simply default on their payments. Creditors may attempt to collect on the loans but if the borrowers simply don't have enough assets or income that might not work.
    1
  120.  @ad_astra468  Do you mean debtors or creditors "giving" their loans?
    1
  121. There's deposit insurance.
    1
  122. To me, it seems that Syriza did more market-oriented reform than New Democracy.
    1
  123.  @pledouth  Who should I listen to on 4chan? Is anonymous poster 9VDwh6j1 any good?
    1
  124. "Russia had the money however due to sanctions were not able to give the payment in US dollar." I think this isn't quite true. Russia's central bank has been locked out of the dollar and euro (and some other) forex reserves it held. However, Russia has still been receiving dollars and euros for its energy exports. Russia would still have had the capability to use those to pay its dollar and euro denominated debts but didn't want to pay if it could only use those funds.
    1
  125.  @nikolagenov8881  If you hypothetically start with 3x leverage but don't take any more debt if your investment appreciates in value, you get 3x gains compared to your original equity. This means your leverage ratio goes down when your investment appreciates in value. If you instead take more debt keeping the 3x leverage ratio you get bigger gains. If you can adjust your debt in infinitesimal increments always keeping the 3x ratio you would, in theory, get gains to the power of 3. In the real world, you can't update your debt level infinitely often so volatility drag will cause your gains to be lower. Additionally, you're also going to incur interest on debt, transaction costs, and other costs which are also a drag.
    1
  126.  @dschaef91  "The multiple R value from a regression..." Does that mean the same thing as "R squared"?
    1
  127.  @emailbenbenson  I'm quite sure no one will end up in jail over GME stock.
    1
  128.  @tiempo9855  The paragraph you quoted doesn't say lending isn't constrained by reserves and the amount of reserves clearly sets a hard upper limit on lending when there's a reserve requirement.
    1
  129.  @tysoncodes  The dollar peg was abandoned in 2005. Yes, the PBOC does still to some degree manage the Yuan exchange rate but it's against a basket of currencies rather than a single currency.
    1
  130.  @NapalmXD  Even if the ETF were to actually use loans the result would still be the same if it also rebalances daily.
    1
  131.  @NapalmXD  Well, what kind of rebalancing schedule are you thinking about?
    1
  132.  @steviewonder417  The claims weren't about demographics but more like about Chinese banks collapsing or something like that.
    1