| It turns out that leveraging your capital at a 40 to 1 ratio is a wee bit risky |
||
| Add Comment | ||
| Showing 1-6 of 6 comments | ||
| Refresh | ||
| Kuta
GOLD STANDARD FTW! |
||
| AliceBToklasLives
Wait, I thought the more capital you had, the less risk? |
||
| DrPainMD Keep YOUR money in a local credit union. Borrow OTHER PEOPLE'S money from the big, unstable banks (maybe when they collapse, your account will get lost in the shuffle). |
||
| Farnn
DrPainMD: Keep YOUR money in a local credit union. Borrow OTHER PEOPLE'S money from the big, unstable banks (maybe when they collapse, your account will get lost in the shuffle). Your account only gets lost in the shuffle when they owe you money. |
||
| Fark_Guy_Rob
If you are going to gamble, the smartest thing to do is gamble big. Leverage your capital at a 3-to-1 ratio: bet wrong, go bankrupt, bet right net 90k Leverage your capital at a 40-to-1 ratio: bet wrong, go bankrupt, bet right net 1.2 million dollars There have been quite a few successful investors (of various sorts) who have made LOTS of money after failing to miserably with their (and other people's money). When they fail, they dust themselves off and everyone else deals with the pain they've caused. When they win, they have a bunch of money and use that money to stack the deck in their favour. |
||
| Mitch Taylor's Bro Fark_Guy_Rob: If you are going to gamble, the smartest thing to do is gamble big. Leverage your capital at a 3-to-1 ratio: bet wrong, Leverage your capital at a 40-to-1 ratio: bet wrong, That's why nothing's changed. Why should banks invest responsibly when the only downside is bad press that the bankers don't read anyway? |
||
| Showing 1-6 of 6 comments | ||
| Refresh | ||
| This thread is closed to new comments. |
close