Friday, 18 October 2019

A Analysis

 If you haven't heard, we're giving out free, fully smart contracts as a 5% rebate to anyone who purchases any of our research packages above the introductory novice $50 level. This is not your Daddy's rebate! The rebate actually gets larger as DB goes down in price. For those who may be coming late to the party, we can offer a 5x long gold (or even a long gold, short DB) smart contract rebate as well. Of course, the bulk of our research targets banks and entities other than DB, but I thought we'd make DB the subject of the rebate to drive the point home. Below is an actual contract crafted off of the price of a single share of DB for about 2 weeks.

Veritaseum 5x Short DB Smart Contract

Click here to explore and subscribe to our research. You will have to be willing to fully identify yourself and comply to the terms or our program (in essence, promise not to use the package for anything other than our rebate) in order to qualify for the rebate. Once the subsciption is paid for, email us to get started.

Oh yeah, if you haven't heard...

An Analysis of Deutsche Bank's Likely Recapitalization - German Tax Payer Bailout or German Bank Depositor Bail-in?

Deutsche Bank is going to need some money, and it's going to need some quite soon. The next two or three articles that I write will focus on why there is such a need. In a concerted effort to reduce or potentially eliminated the risk of taxpayer-funded bail-outs of European banks, the EU implemented a new “bail-in” regime beginning on January 1, 2016. As such, rules which require banks and certain systemically significant market participants in EU member states will have to write-down, cancel, convert into equity or otherwise modify certain unsecured liabilities if such steps are required to recapitalize the institution. What is the most bountiful unsecured liabilities of a bank? Read more...

 

Our next article will continue to hammer home the liklhood that DB will have to recapitalize, and where they probably WONT'T be getting the money from, as well as the likelihood it will come from someone who really didn't plan on giving it up (Ahem, depositors/savers/checking account holders). For those who are not yet convinced, peruse these related items...

The research and knowledge subscription module "European Bank Contagion Assessment, Forensic Analysis & Valuation" contains a full report of a very large European Deutsche Bank counterparty that faces a full 27% downside from current levels. It appears as if no one suspects a clue. It also contains much, much more (including at least 3 to 5 suspect banks). We can break this apart a la carte, if requested.

As excerpted:

Susceptible Bank 1: Financial Modeling

 

Tuesday, 13 September 2016 12:14

These Handsets are Hot!

Samsung's Note 7 release has turned out to be an absolute fiasco. The latest incident is a Note 7 alleged to have exploded and set a Jeep on fire.

Nathan Dornacher claims the Galaxy Note 7 caused the fire

This looks and sounds bad, and apparently has (or will) cost the company billions in recall expenses, reparations and replacements. Reputation risk is no small deal either. Let's face it, this looks very bad. It feels bad for investors as well, with billions of dollars of market cap disappearing. As bad as it may look, keep in mind the media is giving a less then comprehensive view of the situation. I have found roughly 35 to 40 incidences of burning or exploding Notes. If one were to divide that by the approximate amount of Note 7s sold (2.5 million), it would be roughly .0000148, or just over a thousandth of a percent. The number is not even great enough to determine that there is a problem with the Note 7 in particular. Alas, due to the social and mainstream media exposure, it has not choice but to recall. The FAA has banned use on airplanes (despite the fact you'd have similar odds of the airplane itself crashing).   

Now, I'm sure many of you may disagree with my statisctical view of the situation, but if I'm wrong then iPhones are a risk that need to be recalled as well. I

've found just as many (possibly more) cases of iPhones catching aflame and exploding than that of the Note 7 with just a cursory search.

Untitled

The major difference between the Note 7 incidences and the iPhone incidences is that people were serverely injured in many of the iPhone occurences and Apple has (at least according to my cursory research) done very little to remedy this as compared to Samsungs respones. I would chalk this up to the Note 7 incidences getting much more exposure than the iPhone incidences. 

Short Samsung long LG Veritaseum contract
 
A damaged iPhone that caught fire and burned through a man's jeans after it was bent in an accident.A damaged iPhone that caught fire and burned through a man's jeans after it was bent in an accident.

EDMONTON — Twice in the last week, an Alberta family has been forced to flee for their lives after a charging cell phone burst into flames, part of a rare worldwide phenomenon in which smartphones occasionally transform into tiny Presto logs. In Rimbey, Alta., 16-year-old Josh Schultz woke up surrounded by flames after his iPhone combusted in the middle of the night. The family managed to get the blaze under control, but not before Schulz had suffered third-degree burns, and the house had been rendered temporarily uninhabitable.Three days later, an Edmonton fourplex was evacuated in the wee hours of the morning after a charging cell phone began shooting out flames.

She said his iPhone unexpectedly began to smoke and melt, causing first- and second-degree burns. NewsChannel 5 on Your Side has been following cases of exploding smart phones for months. While it's happened across the country, this is one of the first documented cases that's occurred in the St. Louis area. "We were panicking and freaking out. I'm like 'Oh my god, my son is on fire!'" said Michelle Terry of St. Peters.

If you do a search, you can find dozens more, particularly surrounding the iPhone 6/6s series. It remans to be seen if Apple will get the negative publcity backlash that Samsung has recieved, but for some reason I doubt so. The Samsung affair was a strong opportunity to short the stock/ADR. If you missed that, we can wait around to see if the company that avoided the mistakes that Apple made and that Samsung unwisely followed. What mistake is that, do you ask? They both opted to seal in their potentially highly reacgive Lithium batteries, case of form over function. Apple should have been able to take advantage of Samsung's problems, but the iPhone 7 is just so far behind the Note 7 in terms of capability, they simple stand very, very little chance. As a matter of fact, sans a recall it's quite likely that the Galaxy Note 7 would have trumped the iPhone 7 Plus.

Very recently, a compettor of both has announced a flagship device that likely puts the iPhone 7 plus to shame and gives the Note 7 a good run for its money. That company is LG.... and guess what? It has a removable battery and an all metal, aviation grade body. A removable battery design would have saved Samsung over $1.7B, since they could have sent out new batteries in instead of recalling all devices.
Even Apple afficiandos are underwhelmed by the progress of Apple tech relative to Samsung's. While most have said the Note 7 is the best thint since sliced bread, not having it doesn't do anyone any good, and then there's that exploding thing.
LG has come up with just the right device at just the right time. According to one reviewer
Similar to previous LG phones, the more I use it, the more I like it. Also, the longer I use the LG V20 with the Note 7 now returned to T-Mobile, the possibility that I go for the V20 rather than the Note 7 increases as well.
Another reviewer detailed what makes this device ideal for a growing minority, yet influential section, or the smart phone population - the media producers (in contrast to consumers):

Made for Multimedia

Unlike the G5 and its modular system of third-party hardware add-ons, the LG V20 comes with a built-in quad-DAC made by ESS. LG reps made a swipe at the disappearing headphone jacks on some competitors—like Apple’s rumored iPhone 7 and Motorola’s Moto Z saying that the DAC can be used with high-end headphones to enjoy higher fidelity music. ESS reps in San Francisco informed me that the DAC on the V20 supplies enough power to power high-end headphones that traditionally would require an additional power source. When you load the V20 with uncompressed audio files, plugging a pair of headphones into the smartphone will give you a more high fidelity listening experience with the built-in DAC. For comparison, the modular DAC on LG’s G5 costs roughly $199, but the accessory isn’t even available for sale to date for US customers.

LG also said during its keynote that for a limited time, the V20 will ship with earbuds from Bang & Olufsen.

Better Audio Production

Screen Shot 2016-09-07 at 12.12.34 AM.png

The V20 comes with three high fidelity microphones, which LG claims will record better sounding audio files and better videos. The microphones will help to reduce audio clipping in noisy environments, LG said during its presentation. This means that you can capture clip-free audio from concerts with studio quality-like recordings, according to an LG spokesperson. LG also included its Hi-Fi Audio capture app to allow you better control of your audio recording with more fine-tuned settings.

Below is a Veritaseum Smart Cotnract allowing you to swap Samsung equity exposure (on the Korea Stock Exchange) for LG equity (KS) at 3x leverage (using a digital multiplier). No broker, risk or legacy stock exchange needed. No counterparty or credit risk to deal with.

Short Samsung long LG Veritaseum contract

This is the 4th installment of our public service announcements on Deutsche Bank subsidiary, Xetra-Gold's gold note offerings. Since a lot has been covered already, it's advisable that you read the first 3 articles to catch up:

  1. Veritaseum Knowledge Exposes Frightening Counterparty Risk At Deutsche Bank for "Gold Investors"
  2. Is Deutsche Bank Prepping for Fraud Charges Against It's Gold Derivative Products?
  3. The Debate on the Potential of Fraudulent Actions At Deutsche Bank Subsidiary, Xetra-Gold

Now, that we have determined that Deutsche Bank subsidiary Xetra-Gold "may" not have been fraudulent, mainly because they stated in their prospectus things that contradict and befuddle the misleading things they stated in their marketing material, we are left to ponder, "Well, we know the offering was unethical, but was it illegal?" Unfortunately, I'm not a lawyer thus cannot accurately opine on such. Alas, I can speculate as a laymen. The Xetra-Gold derivatives were offered in the UK, as well as several other jurisdictions. Let's peruse the UK perspective via the FCA in the difference between clear and misleading financial advertising:

"Financial adverts and promotions can be misleading for many reasons, but there are some questions you can consider to help you spot and avoid misleading financial adverts, such as: ... Are there important points that are only shown in the small print?"

Hmm... Let's take a look at the Xetra-Gold advertisement, and cross reference it to it's prospectus:

DB Xetra-Gold false advertising test

You guys tell me, is this a blatant case of false advertising, or is it not? Let me know in the comment section below. It's not as if DB is totally innocent in these matters, for they just signed a consent order admitting the manipulation of gold prices. This goes deeper than many may care to admit. Deutsche bank seems to be dumping its gold exposure, and what better way to dump it than to sell it unsuspecting gold derivative note buyers. This is how it could be going down...

Deutsche Bank, through it's Xetra-Gold subsidiary, has a guaranteed, zero premium call option.

  1. DB/Xetra-Gold accepts money from investors who are told they are buying gold, from “an economic perspective”.
  2. DB/Xetra-Gold takes money that was supposed to buy gold (at least in the eyes of many investors) and does whatever they want with it (which could include buying gold) because gold delivery on demand is not guaranteed and the investors have been disclaimed against ownership of, and rights to, the gold underlying as well as price correlation, and failure to deliver.
  3. If the price of gold goes up, DB/Xetra-Gold can fail to deliver (as disclaimed) and keep the capital gains profits. They don't even have to match the price of the gold underlying. or return the initial investment.
  4. If the price of gold goes down, DB can deliver gold on demand and keep the spread from gold spot and the price originally charged for the gold notes.

This is good work, if you can get it, no? 

This is how a company like DB can have over 90% in profitable trading days, because they never had a chance of losing in the first place. The losses belong to their clients! This is speculation, of course (wink, wink). Now, legal eagles say that we can't scream fraud, because Deutsche clearly says they have the motivation to, and the ability to, rip you off in their prospectus (but not in their marketing materials).

DB

Which leads us to the end of "The Debate on the Potential of Fraudulent Actions At Deutsche Bank Subsidiary, Xetra-Gold", where John Titus (see his videos at the end of this article at the bottom) explained to me after I queried about misleading and contradictory marketing materials:

I asked, "If marketing materials are negatively contradicted by the prospectus then the marketing materials are fraudulent and misrepresentative, no?" He replied...

Misrepresentative, yes (accepting your definition of economic), and the marketing materials probably do in fact flout any number of laws against false advertising.
 
But fraudulent, no. The essence of fraud is to falsely induce someone by words or acts into doing something against his interests that he wouldn't have done but for the dishonesty. Courts consider the totality of the circumstances. So while you would undoubtedly tear the economic investment statement to shreds, you'd still be left with the many other statements from the prospectus that are true, and herein lies the problem.
 
The UK Fraud Act of 2006 is a criminal statute. So each element of the crime has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt (or whatever the English equivalent burden of proof is). The first element of fraud by false representation under the Act is "dishonestly makes a false representation." The problem posed by the prospectus is that it would preclude a finding that DB acted dishonestly beyond a reasonable doubt. I mean, you've got one false (but arguably vague) statement vs. several clear-cut disclaimers that are accurate. The totality of the statements are perhaps half false and half true, but dishonest beyond a reasonable doubt? Fuhgetaboutit. DB played the game with all of its cards face up. Yeah, they contradicted each other, but they were damn sure visible to investors, who can claim they were misled only in a subjective (personal) sense, not in an objective way (which is how a judge would look at it).
 
Now, if--in addition to the mktg mat's and the prospectus--you've got some Goldman-like behavior where DB took out massive insurance policies on the investments it sold and concealed them from the buyer, it's a totally different story."

Hmmm... On that note, let's take a look at whether DB has been a net buyer or net seller of gold exposure. Remember, Goldman, sold MBS structures to clients and then took big short positions betting against their own clients, reference "Goldman 'bet against securities it sold to clients'.

The subcommittee also released four internal Goldman Sachs emails. In one, says a subcommittee statement: "Goldman employees discussed the ups and downs of securities that were underwritten and sold by Goldman and tied to mortgages issued by Washington Mutual Bank's sub-prime lender, Long Beach Mortgage Company. Reporting the 'wipe-out' of one Long Beach security and the 'imminent' collapse of another as 'bad news' that would cost the firm $2.5m, a Goldman Sachs employee then reported the 'good news' – that the failure would bring the firm $5m from a bet it had placed against the very securities it had assembled and sold."

Goldman is fighting to clear its name after the $1bn fraud charges brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission last week, and wants the case settled in court.

The movie, "The Big Short" dramatized this rather well.

Well, guess what it looks like Deustche has been doing...

DB gold exposure expressed as VaRDeustche has been a net seller of foreign exchange risk, which includes (wait for it now, and guess....) gold! They probably were not cash sellers, but purchased swaps to reduce exposure, possibly along the parameters I mentioned above with the guaranteed, zero premium call option.

If you enjoy this free analysis, there's much more where this came from as we pick apart many other banks in our paid research and knowledge modules. WE just finished a true forensic valuation (very extensive, and detailed analysis) of a very large European bank that led to a huge short recommendation. Subscribe here and pass the word. Our bank analyses have performed very well in 2016, with Banco Popular and Banco Popular Milano doing roughly 40% to 80% in theoretical returns (contingent on how the positions were taken). We have done an excellent job historically as well, calling the fall of Bear Stearns, Lehman, Countrywide, GGP, etc. If you think the free stuff is intense, you should see the stuff that we sell!

We have forensically picked apart Deutsche Bank in a way that no other entity ever has, likely including Deutsche Bank itself. While we may not know all of its secrets, we likely now know more than almost everybody else. We will publish our findings to Veritaseum Knowledge clients early this week, but in the meantime we will put little teasers out to the public for the sake of conversation. "Why?", you may ask. Well, everybody already knows that Deutsche Bank is a basket case, but we are showing our clients that the real short opportunities and true systemic risks lie within DB's counterparties, whom have identified and are in the process of putting share price targets on. The first forensic report on the most proximal counterparty with an elevated share price is done, and the first counterparty share price target will be published to European Bank Contagion Assessment, Forensic Analysis & Valuation subscribers within 48 hours. There are several more to follow. In the meantime and in between time, let's discuss Deutsche in detail that you will find nowhere else on the web or on Wall Street.

Last week we illustrated what appears to be a slam dunk finding of Deutsche Bank fraud under the UK Fraud Act of 2006, reference "Veritaseum Knowledge Exposes Frightening Counterparty Risk At Deutsche Bank for "Gold Investors"". In said piece, we tracked down DB's alleged failure to deliver physical gold upon demand redemption of one of it's subsidiary's gold derivative instruments and superimposed it against DB's counterparty risk and blatant contradictions between it's marketing material (ie. website) and it's prospectus (which itself actually had material and confusing contradictions) - as excerpted:

  • ..."an investor is, from an economic point of view, invested in gold", but
    • "No correlation with the gold price", and 
    • and "The value of the Notes is a function of demand and supply regarding the Notes as such and not of the demand for and supply of gold", but
    • "For potential purchasers of the Notes the pricing may, apart from the gold price, also be determined by other factors (e.g., the creditworthiness of the Issuer, the evaluation of these risk factors or the liquidity of the Notes)." - keeping in mind that Deutsche Bank believes 
    • There's no movement in counterparty risks yearly, or cumulatively, due to collateralization (where said collateral is wide open to market forces and valuations) for instruments.
    • No control of genuineness or fineness of the physical Gold Neither the Issuer nor the Depositary Agent or any other agent of the Issuer will control the genuineness or fineness of the physical Gold held in custody on behalf of the Issuer by Clearstream Banking AG in its capacity as Depositary Agent.

Oh, there's more, for those of you who believed that line "an investor is, from an economic point of view, invested in gold". 

The purchasers of the Notes will only acquire the rights securitised by the Notes. The purchasers of the Notes will not acquire any title to, or security interests or beneficial ownership in, the physical Gold held in custody on behalf of the Issuer. An investment in the Notes does not constitute a purchase or other acquisition of Gold.

This comment excerpts the requirements of the UK Fraud Act of 2006, since the DB derivative issue was sold to UK investors. It clearly shows the material uncovered in our article can garner the label of fraud in the UK. There''s actually much more in the article if you click the aforereferenced link, but I believe many can get the message. So, where does this leave us? Well, it appears as if DB is prepping for a rash of fraud and litigation exposure. Looking at numbers buried deep within DB's more than 650 pages of financial reporting (just for the 2015 annual report), we find their disclosure of operational risk.

DB Operational risk 2015

'Profit and loss based operational losses increased by € 3.3 billion or 133 % compared to year-end 2014. The increase was predominantly driven by the event types “Clients, Products and Business Practices” and “Internal Fraud”, due to settlements reached and increased litigation reserves for unsettled cases. The increase in the event type “External Fraud” is caused by a provision for equity trading fraud.

As we drill down even further, we see even more damning information. From a frequency perspective. external fraud is the king. It happened more than any other type of operational loss, and for the year 2015, has almost matched the frequency of the previous 5 years combined. What is going on in a bank to cause such a dramatic uptick in fraud? 

To make matters worse, the clients, products and business practices losses (basically fraud, from our perspective) has almost doubled that of the previous 5 years - and that's just for the fiscal year 2015! The saga continues, and gets even darker. When looking at the distribution of actual losses, "Clients, Products & Business Practices" not only takes the lions share of the pie, but 2015 alone has matched the previous 5 years combined. What the hell is going on in this bank? More importantly, why is it getting so much worse?

DB Operational losses by event type 2015

 

This is how DB framed it:

"The above left pie chart “Frequency of Operational Losses” summarizes operational risk events which occurred in 2015 compared to the five-year period 2010-2014 in brackets based on the period in which a loss was first recognized for that event. For example, for a loss event that was first recognized in 2002 with an additional profit/loss event recognized in 2015, the frequency chart would not include the loss event, but the loss distribution chart would include the profit/loss recognized in the respective period. Frequencies are driven by the event type “External Fraud” with a frequency of 44 % of all observed loss events. The event types “Clients, Product and Business Practices” contribute 42 % of the events and “Execution, Delivery and Process Management” contribute 11 %. Others are stable at 2 %. The event type “Internal Fraud” has a low frequency, resulting in less than 1 % of the loss events in the period 2015. This is unchanged compared to 2010-2014. The above right pie chart “Distribution of Operational Losses” summarizes operational risk loss postings recognized in the profit/loss in 2015 compared to the five-year period 2010-2014. The event type “Clients, Product and Business Practices” dominates the operational loss distribution with a share of 63 % and is determined by outflows related to litigation, investigations and enforcement actions. “Internal Fraud” has the second highest share (23 %) which is related to regulatory events we have experienced in recent years. Finally, the event types “External Fraud” (8 %) and “Execution, Delivery and Process Management” (5 %) can be considered minor, compared to other event types."

What DB failed to point out was that although "Internal Fraud" consisted of just 1% of the occurrences, it represented 23% of the loss amount of 2015, which is ~10% more than the previous 5 years combined, which was in itself still significantly more expensive than all of the other categories. 

This bank is a  mess. As for the source of all of these numbers, let's display it in words so all can get a different perspective...

Legal Actions by the Counterparties since 2014 (that's right, this is just since 2014):

There are some incidents where Deutsche bank is defendant in various lawsuits by purchasers and counterparties who were involved in transactions relating to RMBS and their affiliates. Some of the counterparties who faced damages are:

  • Azora Bank Ltd :

Damage of US$61 million attributable to Deutsche bank

  • The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation:

They filed a lawsuit against Deutsche bank as receiver of

  • Colonial bank whose damage amount is around US$189 million

  • Franklin Bank S.S.B and Guaranty Bank; where the damage amount is almost US$901 million

  • Citizens National Bank and Strategic Capital Bank; aggregate loss is around US$66 million

  • The federal Home loan bank of San Francisco

  • Phoenix light SF Limited

  • Royal Park Investments

  • Residential Funding Company

  • Mass Mutual Life insurance company

  • The federal Home loan bank of Boston and The federal Home loan bank of Des Moines

  • RBMS Recovery Holdings 4, LLC

  • VP structured Products, LLC

  • Texas County & District Retirement system for 4 RMBS bonds underwritten by Deutsche Bank

  • Charles Schwab Corporation for purchasing countrywide- issued RMBS certificate

  • Trustee civil Litigation investors

  • Royal park Investments

  • The national credit Union Administration Board (NCUA) for investing in 121 RMBS trusts

  • Western and Southern life Insurance company and five related entities( collectively known as Western and Southern) for 18 RMBS trusts

  • Commerzbank AG for investments in 50 RMBS trusts

  • IKB (IKB International, S.A in Liquidation and IKB Deutsche Industriebank A.G.) for their collective investments in 37 RMBS trusts

To get the heavy dirt on many of the leading EU area banks, US tech companies, and real estate concerns (not to mention the latest in blockchain technology), subscribe to Veritaseum Knowledge - in depth, extremely detailed knowledge (vs information) not available anywhere else in the world.

Thursday, 25 August 2016 15:01

How Deutsche Bank Can Destroy Europe

How can Deutsche Bank destroy the EU? Capital fight and extreme, involuntary deleveraging. DB is closing nearly 200 German bank branches. Not a big deal, right? German bank's depositor base is 111% of German GDP. A run on German banks is literally a run on the German economy - the largest economy in Europe...

fredgraph 1

...not to mention a major (the major) funding source for DB's massive derivative positions.  

Current news events don't portend a positive outcome for Germany's largest bank either. Bloomberg reports: NordLB Boosts Shipping Provisions Five-Fold, Warns of High Loss

Norddeutsche Landesbank boosted provisions for bad loans nearly fivefold to 1 billion euros ($1.1 billion), as Germany’s biggest shipping lender prepares for its first full-year loss since 2009.

NordLB, controlled by the state of Lower Saxony, posted a loss of 406 million euros in the first half as it battles a prolonged slump in maritime markets, including eight years of crisis in the container segment. That compares with a profit of 290 million euros in the same period last year.

“The shipping crisis, which further intensified in the first half of the year, has necessitated impairments that were higher than planned,” Chief Executive Officer Gunter Dunkel said in a statement. The bank lowered its outlook for the year, now anticipating a “significant” loss. It had projected a “negative result” in the spring.

... NordLB’s pessimistic view highlights risks at other German banks, which hold roughly one-quarter of the about 400 billion euros in global shipping loans. Under pressure to unwind sour legacy maritime assets, banks including HSH Nordbank AG and Commerzbank AG are also trying to shrink their loan books.

 What does this have to do with Deutsche Bank? A lot! Because everybody wants to sell these assets that aren't considered very desirable, and all at the same time, we've made a bad situation worse - precisely when DB can't afford it.DB mass selling bad shiping loans

Then there's the issue of DB's somewhat questionable assumptions and characteristics in its financial reporting. Deutsche Bank addendums are quoted as saying:

"The credit risk on the securities purchased under resale agreements and securities borrowed designated under the fair value option is mitigated by the holding of collateral. The valuation of these instruments takes into account the credit enhancement in the form of the collateral received. As such there is no material movement during the year or cumulatively due to movements in counterparty credit risk on these instruments."

What???!!! So, the value of collateral doesn't move now? On planet Earth, not only does the value of collateral move, it tends to move in the exact same direction as the value of the loan, borrowing or underlying, often at an exaggerated pace in the beginning (it's markets are the first to know of turmoil). Reference my podcast interview with Max Keiser at the 2:40 marker. Want some more? Read this page from our EU banking report a couple of quarters ago...

For those who don't believe me, I made this call in early 2008 - twice. Once for Bear Stearns (Is this the Breaking of the Bear?) and once for Lehman Brothers (Is Lehman really a lemming in disguise? Thursday, February 21st, 2008 | Web chatter on Lehman Brothers Sunday, March 16th, 2008). Was I right? Of course, that was then and this is now, so the banks are better prepared, right? Of course. The graphic below was taken from our Banco Popular report (click here for more info), not from 8 years ago, but from a quarter ago - yes, 2016! Hey, there's more...

Banco Popular Research teaser3

Now, just imagine that Italy's Banco Popular is the entity that DB used to hedge it's exposure, and Banco Popular (obviously) can't pay up on every(any?)thing. DB's gross exposure become's DB's net exposure as DB's notion value and market value converge near instantaneously if (or when) market shoots off in one direction (you can likely guess what direction that would be for stakeholders, and this time around that includes depositors and bondholders, not just shareholders).

What does this all mean?  Well, we went through this in explicit detail and have identified no less than 6 (and we're still actively looking) financial institutions that may have passed the EBA stress tests, but have miserably failed our examination - and that's without adding in the bank contagion factor!

To partake in this knowledge, join Veritaseum University and purchase the interactive research asset called "European Bank Contagion Assessment, Forensic Analysis & Valuation".

What happens when you combine the world class analysis behind BoomBustBlog with bleeding edge tech behind Veritaseum's UltraCoin? Here's the answer...

On August 20th, 2014 I posted: Apple's Price Hits All-Time High On New Product Speculation, Take Your Positions Via UltraCoin, to wit:

Bloomberg reports: Apple Soars to Record Amid Optimism About Coming ProductsApple Soars to Record Amid Optimism About Coming Products

Apple Inc.’s stock soared to an all-time high, surpassing a 2012 record as investors look ahead to new products such as bigger-screen iPhones and a wristwatch-like device that may jump-start revenue growth.

Apple rose 1.4 percent to $100.53 yesterday, topping the split-adjusted record of $100.30 reached on Sept. 19, 2012, just before the iPhone 5 went on sale. The shares, which have advanced 25 percent this year, extended their gains today before the markets opened, trading as high as $100.98.

Here's my take on Apple back on that fateful iPhone 5 release date.

Here's my opinion at the iPhone 6 release date (go to the 15:16 marker)...

Now, back to Apple's Price Hits All-Time High On New Product Speculation, Take Your Positions Via UltraCoin...

This is what a bear (contrarian) trade on Apple looks like in UltraCoin...

AAPL short trade

To illustrate the flexibility of the UltraCoin trading system, I've presented a scenario where you can actually swap Apple returns for Google returns in lieu of simply going long Apple or short Apple.

AAPL for GOOG swap trade

You can also swap Apple returns for USD, EUR, GBP, or RMB - which is essentially shorting it in various currencies. If you are bullish on Apple, simple click the "switch" button, which will reverse the exposures.

Did it work? Well...

Apple Irrational exuberance You know what to do next...

Download the UltraCoin client here. Anyone who wants to try the system out with small trades of .01BTC can simple create them and email me to take the other side of the trade (I'll take the opposite side of any trade).

 

My Twitter Updates

From TweetDeck
ReggieMiddleton @rwfortunato Depending on how things go at the hearing, I may definitely take you up on that offer. Legal fees are… https://t.co/M8H78M0up8
Thursday, 22 August 2019 12:45
ReggieMiddleton @CryptoNana4MAGA @ArcadiaEconomic Thank you all. The court date has been moved to Monday, the 26th.
Thursday, 22 August 2019 04:43
ReggieMiddleton Our response to SEC allegations has been filed and is now public. While it may appear voluminous, it should be cons… https://t.co/f3SH6jTNpo
Tuesday, 20 August 2019 10:17
ReggieMiddleton Asia Surprises With Cuts in Global Race to Monetary Bottom: New Zealand, India, Thailand cut rates today, which cau… https://t.co/bdY8cZqYqZ
Wednesday, 07 August 2019 11:05
From TweetDeck
ReggieMiddleton @fortunekr75 @venmo We have our own internal USD token. We actually use our metal tokens as private currency for transactions.
Tuesday, 06 August 2019 14:41

Right add

Newsletter

Tell Us What You Think

Which forensic research are you most apt to buy?
Right add (2)

Contact

Veritaseum

1-718-407-4751

info@veritaseum.com