Live data from Hacker News

Why Is No One Asking SFB What Happened to the $3.3B He Borrowed?

nakedcapitalism.com

121–130 of 136 posts

Re: Why Is No One Asking SFB What Happened to the $3.3B He Borrowed?

#121
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds a lot like what banks do. They mostly lend out money they don't actually have, with the hope that the owners of the money they lend out don't notice.

The main difference is that banks enforce a low loan to value ratio and collateral. So a bank will give a 10k personal loan to someone who has 100k of stock and 500k of equity in their home. If that person doesn't pay back the loan the bank can sell some of that person's stock or put a lean on the person's house. With FTX no one was putting up collateral other than crypto.

[deleted]

Re: Why Is No One Asking SFB What Happened to the $3.3B He Borrowed?

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main difference is that banks enforce a low loan to value ratio and collateral. So a bank will give a 10k personal loan to someone who has 100k of stock and 500k of equity in their home. If that person doesn't pay back the loan the bank can sell some of that person's stock or put a lean on the person's house. With FTX no one was putting up collateral other than crypto.

In addition, banks don't precisely lend out "money they don't have." They lend out cash they don't have against outstanding loans that are rationally expected to be repaid. If those loans are bad and the bank conceals it, or if they misrepresent the amount of those loans, then that's fraud. (IANAL)

Money is literally an IOU.

Re: Why Is No One Asking SFB What Happened to the $3.3B He Borrowed?

#123
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://fair.org/home/us-medias-intellectual-no-fly-zone-on-... https://fair.org/?s=ukraine

looks like you complain that the media is not working for the rich and powerful, i.e. Putin?

They've been working for the rich and powerful just fine.

https://peoplesworld.org/article/pipeline-ploy-how-u-s-natur...

Re: Why Is No One Asking SFB What Happened to the $3.3B He Borrowed?

#124

Because the US government has been captured by Organized Crime. Look up the documentary Everything is a Rich Man's Trick. Then look into all the connections between the mafia and the presidents of the USA.

Highly recommend Wilful Blindness: How a Criminal Network of Narcos, Tycoons and CCP Agents Infiltrated the West by Sam Cooper. Canada-focused, and an excellent bit of journalism.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57427971-wilful-blindnes...

There are plenty of good investigations into corruption:

https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/135465.Best_Books_About_...

Re: Why Is No One Asking SFB What Happened to the $3.3B He Borrowed?

#125
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition, banks don't precisely lend out "money they don't have." They lend out cash they don't have against outstanding loans that are rationally expected to be repaid. If those loans are bad and the bank conceals it, or if they misrepresent the amount of those loans, then that's fraud. (IANAL)

> expected to be repaid In other words, they don't have the money. They just have an IOU, but that isn't money. What I deposited into the bank, that's money. And it's my money, not theirs.

If you believe that IOUs by definition aren't valuable, then stay away from treasury bonds.

If you're just drawing some kind of distinction between valuable things that aren't money and valuable things that are money then ok. I don't understand the point, but ok.

Re: Why Is No One Asking SFB What Happened to the $3.3B He Borrowed?

#126
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main difference is that banks enforce a low loan to value ratio and collateral. So a bank will give a 10k personal loan to someone who has 100k of stock and 500k of equity in their home. If that person doesn't pay back the loan the bank can sell some of that person's stock or put a lean on the person's house. With FTX no one was putting up collateral other than crypto.

Hmm, I got a car loan from a credit union that didn't even ask for my assets, only my credit report.

Did the credit union ask any questions related to the value of the car? Because a car might be considered an asset.

Re: Why Is No One Asking SFB What Happened to the $3.3B He Borrowed?

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition, banks don't precisely lend out "money they don't have." They lend out cash they don't have against outstanding loans that are rationally expected to be repaid. If those loans are bad and the bank conceals it, or if they misrepresent the amount of those loans, then that's fraud. (IANAL)

Money is literally an IOU.

Would you accept a handwritten IOU from me for your car or would you rather cash?

Re: Why Is No One Asking SFB What Happened to the $3.3B He Borrowed?

#128

Quoted post unavailable.

If you don't use up all of your budget for the year, it gets reduced for the next one. This is a major reason the defense spending in general doesn't go down. Nobody wants to have lesser budget, it impacts their promotions and mini political empires. Same is true in many large organizations, which is why mass layoffs and other forms of 'shock therapy' happen every once in a while, because the way the system is manage…

Yea man. Half of $3,500,000,000 US un-accounted for. Because nobody wants to have smaller budgets?...

Re: Why Is No One Asking SFB What Happened to the $3.3B He Borrowed?

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>Seems to me people have completely unrealistic expectations of how financial crimes play out. This will take years to unwind. I remember Bernie Madoffs case unwinding rather quickly once news broke. The elephant in the room that needs to be addressed is that SFB was the second largest doner to the democratic party where the DOJ is headed by an democratic appointee. This is a very bad look for justice and the democ…

SBF is toast and everybody knows it. Sure, hopefully they'll track down any crooked campaign contributions that might have been made. Unfortunately many traditionally-crooked campaign contributions are legal now.

My point wasn't if the donations themselves were crooked or not. It's that he was giving large sums of money to the party that is supposed to be investigating him. It's a huge conflict of interest.
Post reply on HN