Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ucodegen
Participant[quote=DomoArigato]I’m not surprised that you are a supporter of one of the two major parties (Republican), because you are clearly clueless. JPM didn’t lend out that $390 billion. They just turned around and put it in Treasuries risk-free. Fractional-reserve lending has nothing to do with the massive bailouts the criminal banksters received.[/quote]
And you don’t belong to one or another of those two parties? We currently have a two party system here.. so there is not much choice beyond the two parties. I do wish the Independent party would field someone reasonable.You also forgot “reserve” in “fractional reserve” banking. Imagine if you are a bank and have 100mil in assets, you have to hold back a percentage.. ie 20% and can loan 80% (20% reserve). One way to do this is loan out the 80mil holding 20mil in safe securities, ie treasuries. The other approach is to use that 100mil as reserve and borrow 500mil to loan out. The 100mil becomes the reserve. The problem is that when things turn upside down, you are on heavy leverage. You now have 100mil in liquid assets in hand, 500mil in liabilities, but those loans are now sour and are worth lets say 250mil (probably less).
Your previous position was 100mil(reserve) +500mil(on held loans) – 500mil(obligations in the form of loans where you as a bank borrowed( for a net total of 100mil => meeting your reserve requirement of 20%.
Your current net position is 100mil(reserve) + 250mil(in held soured loans) – 500mil(obligations where you as a bank borrowed), for a net total of negative 150mil and not able to meet your reserve requirements. The net reserve you had, vaporized with the collapse of the housing ponzi.
To not default on the banks creditors, which may be someones (possibly DomArigato’s) bank account or retirement or pension.. something has to offset the diff and re-establish balance and reserve. 250mil has to come from somewhere. Remember that previously their net worth was 100mil. This is how the loans from the fed end up being bigger than the previous market cap which is ‘net’ related. The ‘re-established’ reserve HAS to be held in safe securities, ie treasuries or cash (looking at the current gold rush, might have been better to be in gold than treasuries – though unwinding a gold commodities position of that size could be problematic).
PS: The situation is even nastier than I showed above.. I am just oversimplifying to make it easier to diagram/explain. By the way, the only treasuries that are currently yielding 3% or more are 20 and 30 year. There is a risk in holding such treasuries when rates go back up. Current yields are 1Mo=0%, 3Mo=0.01%, 6Mo=0.02%, 1Yr=0.09%, 2Yr=0.20%, 3Yr=0.33%, 5Yr=0.94%, 7Yr=1.52%, 10Yr=2.19%, 20Yr=3.13%, 30Yr=3.54%
What also has to be remembered is that banks are having to deal with the state and fed meddling in established loan contracts.. ie. the foreclosure forbearance and changing terms for when a bank can foreclose. Additionally, there is a potential for bankruptcies to yet again change the terms. So as a bank, it may be safer to not loan the money out.
It seems that people want to borrow, but when things get tough, they want the banks to eat it. Unfortunately these people ignore that the money the banks lend out actually belongs to someone else.. maybe even the pension of the person borrowing the money.
Participant[quote=DomoArigato]I’m not surprised that you are a supporter of one of the two major parties (Republican), because you are clearly clueless. JPM didn’t lend out that $390 billion. They just turned around and put it in Treasuries risk-free. Fractional-reserve lending has nothing to do with the massive bailouts the criminal banksters received.[/quote]
And you don’t belong to one or another of those two parties? We currently have a two party system here.. so there is not much choice beyond the two parties. I do wish the Independent party would field someone reasonable.You also forgot “reserve” in “fractional reserve” banking. Imagine if you are a bank and have 100mil in assets, you have to hold back a percentage.. ie 20% and can loan 80% (20% reserve). One way to do this is loan out the 80mil holding 20mil in safe securities, ie treasuries. The other approach is to use that 100mil as reserve and borrow 500mil to loan out. The 100mil becomes the reserve. The problem is that when things turn upside down, you are on heavy leverage. You now have 100mil in liquid assets in hand, 500mil in liabilities, but those loans are now sour and are worth lets say 250mil (probably less).
Your previous position was 100mil(reserve) +500mil(on held loans) – 500mil(obligations in the form of loans where you as a bank borrowed( for a net total of 100mil => meeting your reserve requirement of 20%.
Your current net position is 100mil(reserve) + 250mil(in held soured loans) – 500mil(obligations where you as a bank borrowed), for a net total of negative 150mil and not able to meet your reserve requirements. The net reserve you had, vaporized with the collapse of the housing ponzi.
To not default on the banks creditors, which may be someones (possibly DomArigato’s) bank account or retirement or pension.. something has to offset the diff and re-establish balance and reserve. 250mil has to come from somewhere. Remember that previously their net worth was 100mil. This is how the loans from the fed end up being bigger than the previous market cap which is ‘net’ related. The ‘re-established’ reserve HAS to be held in safe securities, ie treasuries or cash (looking at the current gold rush, might have been better to be in gold than treasuries – though unwinding a gold commodities position of that size could be problematic).
PS: The situation is even nastier than I showed above.. I am just oversimplifying to make it easier to diagram/explain. By the way, the only treasuries that are currently yielding 3% or more are 20 and 30 year. There is a risk in holding such treasuries when rates go back up. Current yields are 1Mo=0%, 3Mo=0.01%, 6Mo=0.02%, 1Yr=0.09%, 2Yr=0.20%, 3Yr=0.33%, 5Yr=0.94%, 7Yr=1.52%, 10Yr=2.19%, 20Yr=3.13%, 30Yr=3.54%
What also has to be remembered is that banks are having to deal with the state and fed meddling in established loan contracts.. ie. the foreclosure forbearance and changing terms for when a bank can foreclose. Additionally, there is a potential for bankruptcies to yet again change the terms. So as a bank, it may be safer to not loan the money out.
It seems that people want to borrow, but when things get tough, they want the banks to eat it. Unfortunately these people ignore that the money the banks lend out actually belongs to someone else.. maybe even the pension of the person borrowing the money.
Participant[quote=DomoArigato][quote=ucodegen]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?[/quote]http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
[/quote]
But did you really read it? Quoting one of your statements:No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).
But quoting from the link you provided states:
Among the investigation’s key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. “No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president,” Sanders said.
There is nothing stating that there was a conspiracy of this current administration to pay of the bad bankers. AND if you read through your own reference and the GAO findings (From an audit of the Fed done because of Frank-Dodd legislation passed during this admin) you will find that many of the statements of Ron Paul may just be right.. effectively that the Federal Reserve is outside of governmental jurisdiction and that it may be running amok. I may be a Republican who may not like Obama being president as well as this current administration, but I am not going to pillory him for something he did not do.
[quote=DomoArigato]To put the size of the bailouts in perspective, JPM received a $390 billion bailout. That is almost 3 times their current market cap. Could you imagine if all homeowners received a bailout that equaled three times the cost of their house? There would be so many cries of socialism from the hypocrites in the criminal bankster class that you wouldn’t be able to hear yourself think.[/quote] Sounds like you don’t understand fractional reserve banking and how it might relate to market cap. Remember that for a bank to make a loan, it often has to borrow money itself. In some cases that money may be your own bank account. In order to pay you interest, it has to generate money from it somehow. It does this by lending the money out. When things went south, the money that the bank borrowed had to be paid back.. Basically the market cap is related to Assets – Liabilities (it is not pure assets). The Fed money was to help plump up the Assets because house values (or effectively the loans face value) dropped like a stone.
Participant[quote=DomoArigato][quote=ucodegen]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?[/quote]http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
[/quote]
But did you really read it? Quoting one of your statements:No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).
But quoting from the link you provided states:
Among the investigation’s key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. “No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president,” Sanders said.
There is nothing stating that there was a conspiracy of this current administration to pay of the bad bankers. AND if you read through your own reference and the GAO findings (From an audit of the Fed done because of Frank-Dodd legislation passed during this admin) you will find that many of the statements of Ron Paul may just be right.. effectively that the Federal Reserve is outside of governmental jurisdiction and that it may be running amok. I may be a Republican who may not like Obama being president as well as this current administration, but I am not going to pillory him for something he did not do.
[quote=DomoArigato]To put the size of the bailouts in perspective, JPM received a $390 billion bailout. That is almost 3 times their current market cap. Could you imagine if all homeowners received a bailout that equaled three times the cost of their house? There would be so many cries of socialism from the hypocrites in the criminal bankster class that you wouldn’t be able to hear yourself think.[/quote] Sounds like you don’t understand fractional reserve banking and how it might relate to market cap. Remember that for a bank to make a loan, it often has to borrow money itself. In some cases that money may be your own bank account. In order to pay you interest, it has to generate money from it somehow. It does this by lending the money out. When things went south, the money that the bank borrowed had to be paid back.. Basically the market cap is related to Assets – Liabilities (it is not pure assets). The Fed money was to help plump up the Assets because house values (or effectively the loans face value) dropped like a stone.
Participant[quote=DomoArigato][quote=ucodegen]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?[/quote]http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
[/quote]
But did you really read it? Quoting one of your statements:No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).
But quoting from the link you provided states:
Among the investigation’s key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. “No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president,” Sanders said.
There is nothing stating that there was a conspiracy of this current administration to pay of the bad bankers. AND if you read through your own reference and the GAO findings (From an audit of the Fed done because of Frank-Dodd legislation passed during this admin) you will find that many of the statements of Ron Paul may just be right.. effectively that the Federal Reserve is outside of governmental jurisdiction and that it may be running amok. I may be a Republican who may not like Obama being president as well as this current administration, but I am not going to pillory him for something he did not do.
[quote=DomoArigato]To put the size of the bailouts in perspective, JPM received a $390 billion bailout. That is almost 3 times their current market cap. Could you imagine if all homeowners received a bailout that equaled three times the cost of their house? There would be so many cries of socialism from the hypocrites in the criminal bankster class that you wouldn’t be able to hear yourself think.[/quote] Sounds like you don’t understand fractional reserve banking and how it might relate to market cap. Remember that for a bank to make a loan, it often has to borrow money itself. In some cases that money may be your own bank account. In order to pay you interest, it has to generate money from it somehow. It does this by lending the money out. When things went south, the money that the bank borrowed had to be paid back.. Basically the market cap is related to Assets – Liabilities (it is not pure assets). The Fed money was to help plump up the Assets because house values (or effectively the loans face value) dropped like a stone.
Participant[quote=DomoArigato][quote=ucodegen]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?[/quote]http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
[/quote]
But did you really read it? Quoting one of your statements:No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).
But quoting from the link you provided states:
Among the investigation’s key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. “No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president,” Sanders said.
There is nothing stating that there was a conspiracy of this current administration to pay of the bad bankers. AND if you read through your own reference and the GAO findings (From an audit of the Fed done because of Frank-Dodd legislation passed during this admin) you will find that many of the statements of Ron Paul may just be right.. effectively that the Federal Reserve is outside of governmental jurisdiction and that it may be running amok. I may be a Republican who may not like Obama being president as well as this current administration, but I am not going to pillory him for something he did not do.
[quote=DomoArigato]To put the size of the bailouts in perspective, JPM received a $390 billion bailout. That is almost 3 times their current market cap. Could you imagine if all homeowners received a bailout that equaled three times the cost of their house? There would be so many cries of socialism from the hypocrites in the criminal bankster class that you wouldn’t be able to hear yourself think.[/quote] Sounds like you don’t understand fractional reserve banking and how it might relate to market cap. Remember that for a bank to make a loan, it often has to borrow money itself. In some cases that money may be your own bank account. In order to pay you interest, it has to generate money from it somehow. It does this by lending the money out. When things went south, the money that the bank borrowed had to be paid back.. Basically the market cap is related to Assets – Liabilities (it is not pure assets). The Fed money was to help plump up the Assets because house values (or effectively the loans face value) dropped like a stone.
Participant[quote=DomoArigato][quote=ucodegen]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?[/quote]http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
[/quote]
But did you really read it? Quoting one of your statements:No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).
But quoting from the link you provided states:
Among the investigation’s key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. “No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president,” Sanders said.
There is nothing stating that there was a conspiracy of this current administration to pay of the bad bankers. AND if you read through your own reference and the GAO findings (From an audit of the Fed done because of Frank-Dodd legislation passed during this admin) you will find that many of the statements of Ron Paul may just be right.. effectively that the Federal Reserve is outside of governmental jurisdiction and that it may be running amok. I may be a Republican who may not like Obama being president as well as this current administration, but I am not going to pillory him for something he did not do.
[quote=DomoArigato]To put the size of the bailouts in perspective, JPM received a $390 billion bailout. That is almost 3 times their current market cap. Could you imagine if all homeowners received a bailout that equaled three times the cost of their house? There would be so many cries of socialism from the hypocrites in the criminal bankster class that you wouldn’t be able to hear yourself think.[/quote] Sounds like you don’t understand fractional reserve banking and how it might relate to market cap. Remember that for a bank to make a loan, it often has to borrow money itself. In some cases that money may be your own bank account. In order to pay you interest, it has to generate money from it somehow. It does this by lending the money out. When things went south, the money that the bank borrowed had to be paid back.. Basically the market cap is related to Assets – Liabilities (it is not pure assets). The Fed money was to help plump up the Assets because house values (or effectively the loans face value) dropped like a stone.
Participant[quote DomoArigato]Unfortunately, it didn’t cost them. The Fed gave the criminal banksters $16 trillion so they could cover their losses.
No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).[/quote]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?Participant[quote DomoArigato]Unfortunately, it didn’t cost them. The Fed gave the criminal banksters $16 trillion so they could cover their losses.
No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).[/quote]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?Participant[quote DomoArigato]Unfortunately, it didn’t cost them. The Fed gave the criminal banksters $16 trillion so they could cover their losses.
No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).[/quote]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?Participant[quote DomoArigato]Unfortunately, it didn’t cost them. The Fed gave the criminal banksters $16 trillion so they could cover their losses.
No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).[/quote]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?Participant[quote DomoArigato]Unfortunately, it didn’t cost them. The Fed gave the criminal banksters $16 trillion so they could cover their losses.
No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).[/quote]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?ParticipantSo I guess the people buying more than they can afford did not play into it? People trying to flip w/o knowing what they were doing didn’t play into the problem(Caseys of the world)? Real Estate agents who either inserted themselves into the middle of the transaction (straw buyer) to skim money didn’t play into the problem? Real Estate agents pushing the mantra “gotta buy now or be priced out forever” didn’t play into it? What about the main-stream-media’s culpability?
Geesh, I get real tired when I keep hearing that the banks were the main problem. They weren’t. They did screw up, but it also cost them. Their screw-up was that they didn’t appropriately price risk and themselves bought into the ‘RE always goes up‘ so they figured that if someone defaulted, they could get back what they loaned through foreclosure. Everyone seemed to forget that things could go upside-down. I don’t want a nanny state where the government decides how much risk I get to take. If I screw up, I pay the price. Most of those ‘home-renters’ didn’t want to, and they complain loudly that they are being taken advantage of by the banks when they have to. Don’t forget all of the ‘Jenny’ Realtor, he-who-must-not-be-named, Casey Serins, June Reyno(s) that we have covered here. How much have these people paid for what in some cases amounted to felony fraud? To them it was sure money (sounds like gambling because it was). Always read the mortgage contract, and Financial calculators are cheap. A few years ago, I picked up a HP-10bII Financial Calculator at Wallmart.. cheap. Remember one key thing. A bank has to loan money to make money. If the product does not sell, the banks will have to sweeten the deal. If you have to, go to another bank. If no bank will loan you at the terms you want, maybe there is a reason. I just had to remind a friend of that fact when they were complaining about banks wanting to charge so much. The conversation sort of went along the likes of:
Me: So you consider yourself a good risk? What does your risk profile look like?
Them: You know I am good for it.
Me: How much money do you have in the bank?
Them: silence
Me: From what I remember, it is about 2.5 Months of salary, and outstanding credit card balance is about 1 month of that. That means you are 1.5 months away from bankruptcy on a job loss in a bad economy and without an engineering background.
Them: I can always borrow from my 401K.
Me: If you lose your job, you have to pay the borrowed money back or risk at least a 10% fine plus any outstanding taxes.
–the discussion pretty well ended there, but it should give you an idea of the mentality that still exists.My sister and I also had to remind one of the family members that the loan officer is not being nice because he is a nice guy. They guy wanted to commission on the loan. It is a business deal and you have to remember it! Run the numbers.
PS: People didn’t pay much attention to Warren Buffet’s comments w/respect to BofA. He priced his warrants with a 6% return rate and $7.14/share strike price. Warren Buffet usually asks for a minimum 10% return like with Goldman Sachs. Warren is also not in the charity business when it comes to investments.
ParticipantSo I guess the people buying more than they can afford did not play into it? People trying to flip w/o knowing what they were doing didn’t play into the problem(Caseys of the world)? Real Estate agents who either inserted themselves into the middle of the transaction (straw buyer) to skim money didn’t play into the problem? Real Estate agents pushing the mantra “gotta buy now or be priced out forever” didn’t play into it? What about the main-stream-media’s culpability?
Geesh, I get real tired when I keep hearing that the banks were the main problem. They weren’t. They did screw up, but it also cost them. Their screw-up was that they didn’t appropriately price risk and themselves bought into the ‘RE always goes up‘ so they figured that if someone defaulted, they could get back what they loaned through foreclosure. Everyone seemed to forget that things could go upside-down. I don’t want a nanny state where the government decides how much risk I get to take. If I screw up, I pay the price. Most of those ‘home-renters’ didn’t want to, and they complain loudly that they are being taken advantage of by the banks when they have to. Don’t forget all of the ‘Jenny’ Realtor, he-who-must-not-be-named, Casey Serins, June Reyno(s) that we have covered here. How much have these people paid for what in some cases amounted to felony fraud? To them it was sure money (sounds like gambling because it was). Always read the mortgage contract, and Financial calculators are cheap. A few years ago, I picked up a HP-10bII Financial Calculator at Wallmart.. cheap. Remember one key thing. A bank has to loan money to make money. If the product does not sell, the banks will have to sweeten the deal. If you have to, go to another bank. If no bank will loan you at the terms you want, maybe there is a reason. I just had to remind a friend of that fact when they were complaining about banks wanting to charge so much. The conversation sort of went along the likes of:
Me: So you consider yourself a good risk? What does your risk profile look like?
Them: You know I am good for it.
Me: How much money do you have in the bank?
Them: silence
Me: From what I remember, it is about 2.5 Months of salary, and outstanding credit card balance is about 1 month of that. That means you are 1.5 months away from bankruptcy on a job loss in a bad economy and without an engineering background.
Them: I can always borrow from my 401K.
Me: If you lose your job, you have to pay the borrowed money back or risk at least a 10% fine plus any outstanding taxes.
–the discussion pretty well ended there, but it should give you an idea of the mentality that still exists.My sister and I also had to remind one of the family members that the loan officer is not being nice because he is a nice guy. They guy wanted to commission on the loan. It is a business deal and you have to remember it! Run the numbers.
PS: People didn’t pay much attention to Warren Buffet’s comments w/respect to BofA. He priced his warrants with a 6% return rate and $7.14/share strike price. Warren Buffet usually asks for a minimum 10% return like with Goldman Sachs. Warren is also not in the charity business when it comes to investments.
-
AuthorPosts
