Icahn Vs. Fink: Wall Street Legends Clash Over "Dangerous" ETFs

Tyler Durden's picture

In the interest of not burying the lead, so to speak, we'll begin with a clip from this week's Delivering Alpha conference.

In it, Carl Icahn essentially rehashes everything we've said over the past several months about the systemic risk posed by phantom ETF liquidity. He then proceeds to explain to Larry Fink how BlackRock is a part of the problem, calling the firm "a dangerous company", before opining that Fink and Janet Yellen are "pushing the damn thing off a cliff." Needless to say, Fink did not agree with Icahn's assessment. Here are the fireworks:

For those interested to know more, below is the complete Zero Hegde guide to phantom ETF liquidity and a discussion of how it has set the stage for a bond market meltdown.

*  *  *

Two months ago, in “ETF Issuers Quietly Prepare For Meltdown With Billions In Emergency Liquidity,” we outlined the rather disconcerting circumstances that have led some large fund managers to quietly line up emergency liquidity facilities that can be tapped in the event of a sudden retail exodus from bond funds. 

"The biggest providers of exchange-traded funds, which have been funneling billions of investor dollars into some little-traded corners of the bond market, are bolstering bank credit lines for cash to tap in the event of a market meltdown. Vanguard Group, Guggenheim Investments and First Trust are among U.S. fund companies that have lined up new bank guarantees or expanded ones they already had, recent company filings show," Reuters reported at the time, in a story we suspect did not get the attention it deserved. 

At a base level, these precautionary measures are the result of the interplay between central bank policy and the unintended consequences of the post-crisis regulatory regime. ZIRP creates a hunt a for yield and simultaneously incentivizes companies (especially cash strapped companies) to tap the bond market while borrowing costs remain artificially suppressed. Clearly, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The longer rates on risk free assets remain near, at, or even below zero, the more demand there is for new corporate issuance (the rationale being that at least corporate credit offers some semblance of yield). More demand means rates on corporate credit are driven still lower, and once yields on high grade issues get close to the lower limit, yield-starved investors are then herded into HY.

All of this supply in the primary market comes at a time when liquidity in the secondary market for corporate credit is non-existent thanks to the shrinking dealer books that resulted from the government’s (maybe) well-meaning attempt to crack down on prop trading. The result: a crowded theatre with a tiny exit.

This situation has been exacerbated by the proliferation of bond ETFs which have allowed retail investors to pile into corners of the fixed income world where they might not belong. 

All of the above can be summarized as follows.

"MF assets too large versus dealer inventories" (via Citi)...

... clear evidence of "structural damage in corporate bond trading liquidity" (via JP Morgan)...

... and the rapid growth of bond funds in the post-crisis world (via BIS)...

So given the above, the question is this: if something were to spook the market - a rate hike cycle for instance, or an October revolver raid on HY energy names, or an exogenous geopolitical shock - causing an exodus from these funds, what would happen to prices if fund managers were suddenly forced to transact in size in an illiquid secondary market in order to meet redemptions?

"Nothing good", is the answer. 

The solution is to avoid selling the underlying bonds - even when investors are selling their shares in the funds.

But how is this possible? 

To a certain extent, outflows in one fund can be offset by inflows to another. These "diversifiable flows" are one happy byproduct of the great ETF proliferation. Here's a refresher on how this works courtesy of Barclays.

*  *  *

Portfolio Products Replace Dealer Inventory

While diversifiable flows limit the risks to portfolio managers in principle, the reality of the high yield market is more complicated. Managers have specific views on tenor, callability, sectors, covenants, and, most importantly, individual credits, such that actually finding buyers for specific bonds can be quite difficult. In the pre-crisis period, dealers ran large inventories that effectively facilitated the netting of flows across funds (Figure 1). A fund with an outflow would sell bonds into the dealer community, and funds with outflows would buy bonds out of the dealer inventory. When inventory is large, the fact that the specific bonds bought and sold did not match was largely irrelevant. Funds with outflows could sell the bonds of their choice, and the funds with inflows could pick investments from the large variety of inventory held by dealers.

The matching problem has become more acute as dealer inventories have declined. Even funds can net flows in principle, dealers are much less willing to warehouse bonds, and are much more likely to buy only when they believe they can quickly offload the risk. Under this scenario, the fact that flows can theoretically be netted is of little practical use to fund managers – actually netting individual bonds is extremely difficult, particularly in the short time frame required by funds offering daily liquidity to end investors.

This is where portfolio products come in. Investors can use portfolio products to fund outflows/invest inflows immediately and execute the necessary single-name bond trades over time as liquidity in the underlying bond market allows (Figure 2). In this scenario, funds with inflows and outflows simply exchange portfolio products, sidestepping the immediate need to trade single-name corporate bonds.

*  *  *

Ok great, so ETFs provide a kind of "phantom" liquidity if you will. There are two problems with this:

  • It only works when flows are diversifiable. Once flows become unidirectional, it all goes out the window.
  • It makes the underlying markets even more illiquid.

Here's how we put it last month in "How Fund Managers Use ETF Phantom Liquidity To Avert A Meltdown":

In other words, if I'm a fund manager, the idea that ETFs provide liquidity rests on the assumption that when I experience outflows, someone else will be experiencing inflows and thus I can sell ETFs and avoid offloading my bonds into an illiquid corporate credit market. Put another way: I am depending on new money coming into the market to fund redemptions from previous investors who are exiting the market, all so that I can avoid liquidating assets that are declining in value and that I believe will be difficult to sell. There's a term for that kind of business. It's called a ponzi scheme and just like all other ponzi schemes, when the new money dries up (so, for example, when HY bond ETF flows are all headed in the wrong direction), the only way to meet redemptions is to get what I can for the assets I have and when the market for those assets is thin (as the secondary market for corporate credit most certainly is), I may incur substantial losses. 


Note also that the more often ETFs are used as a way of avoiding the underlying bond market, the more illiquid that market becomes, making the situation still more precarious in the event of a panic.

So what is a fund manager to do? 

This is where we come full circle to the emergency liquidity lines mentioned at the outset. In order to avoid tapping the underlying illiquid bond market in a situation where flows are unidirectional, fund managers may instead pay out redemptions in borrowed cash. 

This is, to quote Citi's Matt King, "creative destruction destroyed."

Only worse.

That is, this represents the willful delay of a long overdue episode of creative destruction layered atop another delay of the much needed Schumpeterian endgame. Stripping out the metaphysics and philosophy references, that can be translated as follows: this strategy is yet another example of delaying the inevitable. If fund managers are forced to tap these liquidity lines it likely means investors have found a reason to sell en masse and if that reason turns out to be something that permanently impairs the value of the underlying bonds (as opposed to a transitory, irrational panic) then all the funds are doing by borrowing to meet redemptions is employing leverage to stave off the recognition of losses, which is ironically the same thing (in principle anyway) that the companies whose bonds they’re holding have done to stay in business. It’s a delay-and-pray scheme designed to avoid selling the debt of companies whose similar delay-and-pray schemes have run their course. 

In closing, it's important to note that no fund manager in the world will be able to line up enough emergency liquidity protection to avoid tapping the corporate credit market in the event of panic selling in the increasingly crowded market for bond funds. 

In other words, when the exodus comes, the illiquidity that's been chasing markets for the better part of seven years will finally catch up, and at that point, all bets are officially off.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Pinto Currency's picture

There's a dangerous Federal Reserve central bank run by some captive and flunky central planners.

The monetary system is imploding - ETFs pale in comparison.

nope-1004's picture

ETF's were incorporated by the big financial institutions to steer sectors.  Not provide exposure for customers, that's complete BS Larry.  Knowing that, how can the mining sector ever expect to be free?  ETF's are a way to control market movements in certain sectors.  Every new ETF launched by banks over the last 10 years has been to increase control, provide less transparency, and obfuscate real price movements.

The practice has been exactly opposite to Bernocchio's "more transparent Fed" policy.

They lie.


TruthInSunshine's picture

ZH is ultimate contra-fade.

If ZH is bearish (always), buy equities with both hands and feet.

If ZH is bullish (never), sell SELL equities fast as you can.

And buy silver even at $50/ounce, gold @ $5,000, and China and Russia are the new economic and military superpowers.

Amish FinEng's picture

What about bitcon? You forgot the sweetheart darling of TheZeroHedge.

aVileRat's picture

Starting to think every ZH article needs to come with an irony, sarcasm or truthiness tag.

Bitcoin was and is a story in asset class investors search for a stabilized form of wealth safety since Gold & commodities have failed the Giffen Good test since 2010. Playing ZH or any sort of event driven news site is just asking to be smoked. Read the context, understand the research and agree to disagree. If you read every ZH article for a trade tip, unless it specifically is a trade event at a macro level.... you would be better served by using NY Post for stock tips. At least you have a whole month to fade an article.

And yes, St. Larry is on the wrong side of history on this trade. Which is ironic given the large amount of money Blackrock made on the USSR collapse, one would think the Blackrock would be rock hard at the prospect of a liquidity fueled market crash. Carl (or Brett, hey bro!) have seen the caustic damage of 87, 2001, 2010 and 2013. You can't wallpaper over a zero bid or DNS of an order stack, which is why a CDS overlay (which Carl has said is his current long-tail hedge) is the proper trade in a 2-sigma event like a sudden market shortage.

Reloading the Bazooka for that healthy correction is job one for Fed. Which makes any argument that Fed Yellen is data dependant on ROE a moot point. Should PortoRico (sic) daisy chain into a larger issue, like it is expected to become, TARP will not be enough to restore the liquidity mechanism.



AGuy's picture

LOL! Funny video I seen in weeks! Fink total danced around the issue and did not provide a single arguement against Icahn's point.



DetectiveStern's picture

I fucking hate Blackrock. Well mostly the pricks in London that work for them.

sgt_doom's picture

There may indeed be multiple reasons to dislike Blackrock:

Preamble:  When I first read in the international news that both the Thai air traffic control and Vietnam’s air traffic control had both picked up faint radio transmissions of two pilots calling in a Mayday, stating that their “cockpit was disintegrating” – transmission in the vicinity where Malaysia Airlines MH370 was supposed to be, I beban looking into what could have caused such a horrendous event? 


Good-bye, Mr. Chips! 

(Or, why that missing Malaysia Airlines MH370 is a really, really big deal --- besides the murder of 239 souls aboard.) 

Onboard flight MH370 were twenty employees of Freescale Semiconductor, a major microchip producer, owner of major fabrication facilities (referred to as foundries in the industry). 

Back in 2012, some researchers at an institute connected with Cambridge University discovered a backdoor, at the hardware level, in the Actel/Microsemi chip used for military purposes, designed and manufactured by the Microsemi Corporation. What the authors didn’t mention in their highly technical paper was that these chips are also to be found in ARINC avionics (ACARS: Aircraft Communications and Addressing Reporting System, formerly known as ARINC Communications and Addressing Report System --- plus other avionics communications systems), transponders and the black boxes (flight data recorders, cockpit voice recorders, crash recorders, etc.). And the 777’s fly-by-wire ARINC system’s network controller and databus connects to the ACARS, satellite uplink, transponders and black boxes. 

Microsemi chips are produced at Freescale foundries (outsouced by TMC-Taiwan), as well as Freescale chips are also to be found in ARINC avionics, transponders along with a wide range of other industry applications.  (The Microsemi chips are FPGAs, or Field Programmable Gate Arrays, a customizable chip which can be programmed at the hardware level, after leaving the factory.) 

It is important to note that the owners of Freescale Semiconductors are the Blackstone Group, the major private equity/leveraged buyout (PE/LBO) firm, and the majority owner, and the Carlyle Group, another PE/LBO firm and a minority owner. 

It is also important to note that ARINC (designer and manufacturer of major avionics systems (fly-by-wire) aboard Boeing and Airbus jets was until recently owned by the Carlyle Group, and a portion of ARINC still is, as they moved ARINC’s DoD division over to Booz Allen, the major government intelligence contractor (where Edward Snowden last worked in America), and also owned by the Carlyle Group. 

Malaysia Airlines, which may have figured into it, was at that time partially owned by the hedge fund of Lord Jacob Rothschild, long an advisor to the aforementioned Blackstone Group. 

The previously mentioned Microsemi Corporation, whose chips are backdoored, or compromised, is managed by James Peterson, CEO and board member. Peterson is the son of Peter G. Peterson, founding member of the Blackstone Group. 

Both the process of chipping (purposely introducing defects into chips for cryptographic penetration) and backdoors in chips, dates back to the late 1960s. 

The first major successful operation involving backdoored chips was supposed to have occurred in the 1980s, when an American industrial controls computer system (SCADA) was sold illegally through a Swiss firm to the Soviets, and resulted in a series of major explosions at their northern Baltic Sea naval installation (chips set to control maximum temperatures of fuels did the opposite). 

(At least four of the seven Freescale chip fabrication engineers aboard the MH370 flight had written papers during college or grad school on hardware malware or FPGA Trojans.) 

When a group is seeking to compromise, and therefore control, both the Internet and a wide spectrum of computer hardware applications (communications, transportation, industrial, financial, etc.) the process of chip access is crucial, and to do that covertly it must be done at the chip fabrication point. 

Hence the use of, and subsequent disposal (murder), of those Freescale Semiconductor engineers aboard flight MH370. 

It is also important to mention the universality of ARINC systems or ARINC-specification systems: onboard the Inmarsat satellites, used in communication with the satellites, air-to-ground and ground-to-air, earth station systems and terminals (VSAT, etc.), air traffic control systems, and on and on! 

Below is the Youtube link to a video from a SAIConference, the expert from University College London (who spent years with the GCHQ), explains in general how to hack into a Boeing 777, but then ends with his opinion that it wasn’t hacked into --- unfortunately, he refrains from mentioning who the systems are designed and manufactured by, and also their ownership! 

(And by the way, just how many Microsemi FPGAs are onboard the Boeing 777’s systems? 1,000!) 

Very crucial data . . . 


Suggested reading: 

Breakthrough silicon scanning discovers backdoor in military chip (DRAFT of 05 March 2012): 




The Blackstone Group was founded by David Rockefeller protégé, Peter G. Peterson with Rockefeller family money, who was expelled from MIT for cheating, and then taken under the wing of Rockefeller, who would be paramount in getting Peterson appointed to various positions, both private sector and political. 

Blackstone’s co-founder was Stephen Schwarzman, who belonged to Skull & Bones at Yale, and was endorsed for that elite fraternity by George W. Bush.  (Interesting to note that the origin of the Walker-Bush family money originates from the Rockefeller-owned company, Buckeye Steel Castings Company of Ohio.) 

The majority stock holder in Microsemi is BlackRock, which was spun off from the Blackstone Group.  Microsemi’s financial reporting agent is Rockefeller & Co.  (Blackrock is the largest asset manager, or hedge fund, in existence, and is one of the Big Four, the four major investment firms which comprise the majority stock owners of the majority of major corporations in America and Europe:  State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock and FMR or Fidelity.) 


The Carlyle Group was founded with Mellon family money by Frank Carlucci, a retired CIA employee who was with the agency when President Kennedy was assassinated.  The co-founder was David Rubenstein, the nephew of Jacob Rubenstein, who would later change his name when he became mobbed up to Jack Ruby, the murderer of alleged presidential assassin, Lee Oswald. 

The Transfer Agent for Freescale Semiconductor is Mellon Investor Services, while their financial trustee is Bank of NY Mellon. 











ARINC DirectSMSigns Agreement with Honeywell to ProvideInmarsat GX Aviation Ka-band Service and Custom Applications to the Business Aviation Industry.



ARINC also provides engineering services such as systems engineering, acquisition and program management, operational support, and life-cycle support for defense aviation systems, with offices located at every U.S. Air Force base.











There are currently two primary service providers of ground networks in the world (ARINC and SITA), although specific countries have implemented their own network with the help of either ARINC or SITA. Until recently, each area of the world was supported by a single service provider. This is changing, and both ARINC and SITA are competing and installing networks that cover the same regions 


The ARINC 629 is the main mission critical nervous system of the plane, however, and for good reason as it is quite ingenious. A single twisted pair of wires up to 100 meters long can connect up to 120 LRUs. This simplifies plane wiring by using a single communications bus or wire. If you’re familiar with a typical office wired LAN, there is a cable going to each computer or device on the LAN from a router – lots of wires. The bus is two-way, and any LRU could talk to any other if they know the language, and every LRU can listen to all of the conversations. Connected LRUs politely wait their turn to talk following a set timing protocol. There is no central point of failure as there can be with a router. If one LRU goes down, the others can still talk. Except for redundant control timers to allow each LRU to decide when it’s time to talk, there is no control, and it is robust to failure. 


ARINC 717 digital flight data acquisition unit (DFDAU) 





Amish FinEng's picture

Buy bitcon's they'll never figure out you own them!

Bendromeda Strain's picture

I'll give you a green if only because - as rabbit hole dives go, that was Acapulco, baby.

You covered a lot of ground that would be better in a different format, jus' sayin...

Stanley Kubrick's picture

It's nothing more than a complex twist on old-school 'check kiting'.

It's cool though, bro  (as long as the TBTF are in on it).

If it was you & me, we'd be killin' time (doing 10-20).

KnuckleDragger-X's picture

It's battle of the financial axe murderers, though this time I tend to agree with Icahn (flinch and gag). Bonds are in a minefield and one wrong step by anybody will blow it all up. The one thing I like is using borrowed money to support the disaster during a bond panic since that'll make sure more idiots are trapped in the blast zone......

disabledvet's picture




CheapBastard's picture

I'm waiting for Trump v Hitlary; an epic battle will ensue!

AGuy's picture

"I'm waiting for Trump v Hitlary; an epic battle will ensue!"

Trump is best friends with Bill and Hilary. Trump even donated more tha $100K to Hilary's campaign. This is Kang vs Kodos in real life.


Consuelo's picture


Fink.   Icahn.  Yellen.    

3-card Monty, or 3-card schmendrick...?



SmilinJoeFizzion's picture

If I had 1/100 the money of either of them I'd be knee deep in snatch and blow 24/7. Not agruing ETF's on some Wall St forum. Greed is a sickness

DebtTheNewEquity's picture

And talking about snatch and blow is totally healthy... who needs a long and prosperous career doing something you love anyway. 

BurningFuld's picture

Personally I would like to be at least waste deep in snatch.

Apocalicious's picture

And that's exactly why you'll never get to 1/100th the money of either of them.

DebtTheNewEquity's picture

Mr. Fink looked a little stumped.  Hoorah for Icahn... that jerkoff Zhedgers don't like him is all the better; so he likes to invest and make money.  Envy.

Loucleve's picture

so leave asshat.  media matters is paying minimum wage.  or maybe pizza delivery?

Blankenstein's picture

So you think buying companies with borrowed money (available only to a select few) and raiding them of their assets is investing?  Seems to me the real jerkoffs are Icons's bootlickers.  


How to Ruin a Company


"The first of the money men descended on Simplicity Pattern Co. in the autumn of 1979.

 By the time they were finished a decade later, a company that once had $100 million in the bank was more than $100 million in the hole."


"In that decade, the money men:

-- Bought and sold the company four times and made tens of millions of dollars running up the price of Simplicity stock in threatened and actual takeovers.

-- Drained $100 million that Simplicity had in its bank account and investment portfolio.

-- Raided the company's pension funds on two occasions.

-- Issued bonds and borrowed from banks, sending the company's debt soaring from almost nothing to $100 million.

-- Sold off properties to raise badly needed cash after they had depleted the company's $100 million cushion.

-- Created so much debt that Simplicity could no longer generate enough cash to make interest payments.

The scorecard read: Investors Posner and Icahn: $25 million. Simplicity, its employees and customers: reduced earnings and higher pattern prices."



Screwing Gulf + Western with Ivan Boesky

"Conspicuous by his absence [in federal prosecutions following the corporate raider saga of the 1980s] was the once formidable raider Carl Icahn, who figured so prominently in the Gulf + Western manipulation charges and who had been included in Boesky’s initial proffer to the government."


Killing TWA

"But soon enough, the party was over. “It became more and more apparent that Carl was not interested in growing the airline but in using TWA as a financial vehicle to acquire wealth for himself,” [former TWA pilot Jeff] Darnall says."



asfffasfff's picture
asfffasfff (not verified) Jul 16, 2015 12:40 PM

jews in their element



ZippyBananaPants's picture

Both of them can lick my semi-hairy ball sack

Blankenstein's picture


Fink's ventures are dangerous to investors:


"Along with Lew Ranieri, of Salomon Brothers, he would be credited with developing the multi-trillion-dollar debt-securitization market that transformed the face of finance. By 2008 this market—of mortgages, and car and credit-card loans, purchased from banks, sliced into pieces, repackaged, and sold to thousands of investors—would help bring the economy to its knees. "

"And then, in the second quarter of 1986, his department lost $100 million. His traders had taken a huge position in the market based on Fink’s prediction that interest rates would rise. When rates suddenly dropped, not only were those trades wiped out but so were the hedges designed to offset them."

"But BlackRock’s most public and costly mistake—for its clients, at least—was its purchase of the iconic Manhattan housing complex Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, a $5.4 billion deal that went into default in early January."

"Shortly after the default, BlackRock and Tishman walked away from the deal, handing the property over to their creditors, in what was widely perceived as an acknowledgment that they would never recoup their investment. Today, the investors who bought equity in the deal have also lost their money, including major BlackRock clients—most notably the $200 billion California Pension and Retirement System (calpers), the nation’s largest pension fund, which effectively lost $500 million"



Loucleve's picture

Fink is a hypocrite.

In the FT this week, he called out the Chinese government for manipulating their markets.  Untrustworthy, lost credibility.

So Larry, how about OUR markets you miserable piece of slime?  how about our credibility?  Its gone, thats what.

yogibear's picture

LOL, Fink was shocked. Caught off-guard.

q99x2's picture

Financial perverts shouldn't be allowed to speak.

RaceToTheBottom's picture

They should only be allowed to speak two words in the following phrases:


Not Guilty

wedderburn's picture

when does this all hit the fan?

wedderburn's picture

when does this all hit the fan?

BeaverCream's picture

Sadducees?  So sad you see.

Fuku Ben's picture

There's always X vs. Y. Just like we saw with the last financial bailout and just like we'll see in the next pending financial calamity that keeps repeating in these negotiations seems endless. They always vie for who will come out on top. It's like the constant position battle between male and female, black and white in chess, red and blue politics, etc. Instead of the constant back and forth hasn't anyone considered larger benefits of joining forces. Or even then will it be the struggle for power to be at the top?

Sure it currently is always about power and energy and who will control it. An unfortunate fact in this alleged 3 dimensional realm as it exists. I say alleged because there have been publications saying it is an illusion. So in 3D if there's an X & Y where is the Z? In these 2 sided scenarios any transgression across boundaries is perceived as a foray into forbidden territory. Even the most kind gesture across the boundaries, even by an outside party, is immediately seen as a potential threat to either side or both. And both sides instead of stepping back and reassessing and seeing a mutual benefit quite often escalate causing potentially endless discord.

I won't even go into the concepts relating to those that could live in different realms, multi-dimensional or extradimensional realities. So to keep things simple let's take a movie as a short simplified example. The Creature From the Black Lagoon. Man and a web footed creature from the black lagoon. Which, through the mutual curiosity of both the female swimmer and the creature wanting to learn more, quickly escalated into hostilities on both sides. Neither side learning anything beneficial from the other for the benefit of both. In the case of this movie at least it ended with mutual retreat but with the creature injured, at least hopefully living. In this world everything has turned into one endless battle. Is this what we're living for? It certainly doesn't seem to be advancing man towards anything but his own assured self destruction. What ever happened to the desire to explore? Is it only ever driven by power and avarice?

Has the unwillingness of any involved parties to step outside the endless battles and join forces clouded their judgement? Does any party or parties have an interest in change? Is the unwillingness to change the a result of fear? Fear of the end or the unknown. Fear of what's on the other side. What Shakespeare called undiscover'd country.

As I mentioned before those parties with the greatest vested interest in a paradigm will always have the most to lose. Unless they are a visionary or can find one that makes them realize they may also have the most resources to ensure they have the most to gain. And if there were more than enough to gain for all then a paradigm change really would be immaterial in the grand scheme of things. This post is already too long so I won't get into plane waves or the refraction of light in crystals as examples.

However, consider this. I recall reading a post from someone some time ago that included a proposed scenario that could have resulted in an uncontrolled catestrophic financial paradigm change. If they moved forward they most assuredly would have been stopped. But could that someone also have the ability to provide a solution with equivalent or even further reaching impact for positive changes for everyone? Maybe. Keep in mind that same post I read was already proposed and allowed to be implemented over 100 years ago. Although the person that implemented it 100+ years ago was obviously controlled and had their limits set so they didn't upset the apple cart at the time. What would a modern day visionary leader do? Maintain the status quo or seek an effective paradigm change to benefit everyone? Can anyone they know think outside the box today and avoid the global calamity ahead?

GRDguy's picture

With apologies to the cartoon strip; "The King Is A Fink."

damicol's picture

Ahh I found the misconception in your argument.

When the liquidity is drying up and all the banks who provide it  are loaded with with worthless EFT funds as collateral, they will simply walk over to the Eccles Bldg with armfuls of this dross and  and drop them into serried rows of wheelie bins especially provided for that purpose and leave a note with their estimated valuation at the desk so that the Fed can supply them with $2 on the cent of fresh funds.


Amish FinEng's picture

"I know the financial markets were created to provide capital for legitimate businesses, but since I'm a chosenite I will pervert this system as a speculator to show the world my exquisite splendor".

Calling all long guns to the hills of Bedford. Camo: green.

damicol's picture

Its like looking at two smegma covered cocks accusing each other of stinking too much.

 And that they should be the chosen one to fuck you