Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: THIS scares me: from Jonathon Turley's website [View all]OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)22. 90 billion > 75 trillion
Last edited Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:34 AM - Edit history (1)
Bloomberg reports that Bank of America (BAC) has shifted about $22 trillion worth of derivative obligations from Merrill Lynch and the BAC holding company to the FDIC insured retail deposit division. Along with this information came the revelation that the FDIC insured unit was already stuffed with $53 trillion worth of these potentially toxic obligations, making a total of $75 trillion.
You can ignore this, but it doesn't make you any more credible.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
59 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Bank Of America Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On U.S. Taxpayers With Federal Approval
OnyxCollie
Apr 2013
#2
I so appreciate you posting these links. I had read about this and it, too, is
snappyturtle
Apr 2013
#3
Meanwhile, Wikipedia says that "In nominal terms, the total 2011 GWP was around US$69.11 trillion."
Occulus
Apr 2013
#6
I'm starting to think that letting it all fall apart is the only possible path to a lasting remedy.
Occulus
Apr 2013
#9
If/when it happens I'm sure PBO will propose a policy to "protect" the VERY VERY VERY poor.....
forestpath
Apr 2013
#8
I'm reading the actual FDIC BOE plan and am a substantial portion of the way through it,
Benton D Struckcheon
Apr 2013
#12
Well, in the bank's view, the depositors are safe as they get stock in lieu of $$.
snappyturtle
Apr 2013
#15
I'm not addressing the article, I'm addressing the primary source, the actual plan.
Benton D Struckcheon
Apr 2013
#30
I was using the same source as you. Unfortunately, I used the term 'article'. nt
snappyturtle
Apr 2013
#37
Where does it "say from the beginning that depositers are unsecured creditors"?
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2013
#57
It's a post Cyprus interpretation of the document that doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny,
Benton D Struckcheon
Apr 2013
#32
You still have not acknowledged the difference between derivative notional and derivative value.
Lucky Luciano
Apr 2013
#38