24%

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7336744.stm

The IMF estimates the losses from the credit crunch reaching as high as 945 bn dollars. That is four times as much than what the banks so far have publicly admitted in public to have written off. At least it is not as much than I would have estimated (1000-1500 bn dollars minimum).

But if the IMF got it right in it's calculation, their numbers mean that the worst is still to come.

One should set a tight time limit now and cast severe penalty onto every bank that after that still needs to admit further write-offs. One needs to know now who lost how much, and how big the damage really is. Any further delays by bank actors and any further attempts to hide their own level of commitment and responsibility for this mess is unacceptable and simply means that even more damage gets created.

Moral of the story: neither banks nor the selfregulation of the market is to be trusted. Both have failed, and very much so.

[SUBMAN1]

....Moral of the story: neither banks nor the selfregulation of the market is to be trusted. Both have failed, and very much so.More Communist propoganda.

There are several reasons for this, and self regulation and the market, nor the banks is to blame.

1. Gov't bail outs - if banks can rely on this, they will take greater risks in the name of profit. They should be allowed to fail.

2. An even greater reason - The real reason this is happening that goes beyond the above is the moral base of society is breaking up. Greed, and self satisfaction takes over when there is no care of your fellow man. No longer are your actions hindered in that it could hurt the borrower when the possibility of making more money exists - your morals base is gone.

3. The reason the moral base is gone? The move away from religion, which binds the moral fabric of society.

All of the above is happening, as a direct result of #3.

-S

[August]

1. Gov't bail outs - if banks can rely on this, they will take greater risks in the name of profit. They should be allowed to fail.

Bet you wouldn't say that if your life savings was in one of those failed banks...

[SUBMAN1]

1. Gov't bail outs - if banks can rely on this, they will take greater risks in the name of profit. They should be allowed to fail.
Bet you wouldn't say that if your life savings was in one of those failed banks...That is what FDIC insurance is. Bail me out, not the bank.

Besides, who was the last person that had $100K in the bank that you know of? I know of no one. It must be invested and outside of the banks hands.

-S

[Tchocky]

1. Gov't bail outs - if banks can rely on this, they will take greater risks in the name of profit. They should be allowed to fail.
Bet you wouldn't say that if your life savings was in one of those failed banks...
Kind of agreeing with both of you here. A failing bank can be devastating, but like SUBMAN said it's the banks fault.

Or at least it should be. The legislative dead air that led to this mess is the problem. It should not be so easy for so many banks to become so shaky. This is where governement regulation comes in, and no, that isn't communism.
Replace banks with another service and see what that line of thinking spews out.

Religion's fault? Don't make me laugh. I suppose the lack of religion caused the tulip crash in the 1630's. And the Great Depression. Right.

[SUBMAN1]

...Religion's fault? Don't make me laugh. I suppose the lack of religion caused the tulip crash in the 1630's. And the Great Depression. Right.I won't argue with you on it, but it is greed that put those banks in the situation that they are in. Morals are at play here. Both sides of the fence too. So yes, no moral compass has led to what has happened.

-S

[August]

Besides, who was the last person that had $100K in the bank that you know of? I know of no one. It must be invested and outside of the banks hands.

-S

My Rose for one. Investing outside of banks is great and all but remember there are no guarentees, not even for 100k which BTW is certainly not enough to retire on these days.