• Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 months ago

    The bankruptcy scenario is correct but the first part isn’t: you don’t have X shares as collateral that you can liquidate. Instead, you have collateral to cover sum Y.

    As long as the collateral contract covers enough stock positions the bank won’t lose.

    That said all of this is assuming standard contracts. If y bank wrote “0% interest and instead 50% of the revenue growth of Twitter” then this would be an easy way to lose money.

    Haven’t heard of a stupid banker yet, though, so what would the chances be?

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Stupid? It was a masterstroke by them.

        They made a fortune, then governments had to throw more money at them or risk a complete economic crash.

        After the crash, people were poorer, and credit was cheap, so they came to banks for loans and financed everything more and more, handing even more to the financial sector.

        Houses temporarily crashed in price, but the poorest were too risky for banks to lend to, leading to houses being bought up en-mass by people who were already wealthy.

        Bankers in 2008 were greedy, yes. But certainly not stupid.