Nassim Nicholas Taleb sagt,Banken sollen Dienstleister werden (wie Wasserversorger)
www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1853531,00.html
.....But how do you get beyond that besides widening your margins of risk?
Eliminating leverage. If you don't have leverage, you don't have that problem. We have a faulty risk management system that underestimated probabilities while giving people the illusion of understanding them. It gave people the illusion of comfort. If I give you a number, you're going to take more risk......
So what do we do now?
I cannot answer some questions. A lot of people are telling us what to do now. I just want to make sure it's not the same people who were flying the plane and crashing who are going to fly the plane again. We should ban banks from risk-taking because society is going to pay the price....
...They were gambling with other people's money.
That's the point, with society's money. Banks are gambling with society's money, funds are gambling with investors' money — it's one layer better. So we should have more risks taken by funds and less risk taken by banks, because banks have a severe agency problem....
But amid all this, your company is doing quite well.
The only important thing about it is that I protected my clients. I offer a protection package and it does work, but I don't want to be associated with trading too much. I believe finance is largely a scam, and I don't want to be associated with that profession. ...
So do you feel vindicated by this current crisis?
I feel angry. Very, very angry. I described the way it happened, I described the mistakes, and I see all these people explaining it backwards. Let me make another metaphor: you have a hundred people playing Russian roulette, and one of them killed themselves, and economists are theorizing that he killed himself because he held the gun in a certain way. You require something vastly more structural. Let's go back to roots. Let's do real things. Let's have more transparency, fewer complicated products we don't understand. Let's generate economic growth by old traditional ways, let's favor technology companies, let's not favor all this financial bulls---. Because it was a Ponzi scheme, I don't know any other way to call it.
So the big question on everybody's mind is, what happens now?
I try not to comment on current events directly. I think that we've got to progressively become a society where banks are deemed to be too precious for us, for our currency, to take too much risk. We need to have a banker who is just as responsible as someone working for the water company. Banks are going to become a utility. And banks probably will not have a lot on their balance sheet, and the risks taken will be borne by individuals like myself who have capital, and who know the risks, with their own money. Otherwise you're going to keep having a cycle that's deeper every time.
www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1853531,00.html
.....But how do you get beyond that besides widening your margins of risk?
Eliminating leverage. If you don't have leverage, you don't have that problem. We have a faulty risk management system that underestimated probabilities while giving people the illusion of understanding them. It gave people the illusion of comfort. If I give you a number, you're going to take more risk......
So what do we do now?
I cannot answer some questions. A lot of people are telling us what to do now. I just want to make sure it's not the same people who were flying the plane and crashing who are going to fly the plane again. We should ban banks from risk-taking because society is going to pay the price....
...They were gambling with other people's money.
That's the point, with society's money. Banks are gambling with society's money, funds are gambling with investors' money — it's one layer better. So we should have more risks taken by funds and less risk taken by banks, because banks have a severe agency problem....
But amid all this, your company is doing quite well.
The only important thing about it is that I protected my clients. I offer a protection package and it does work, but I don't want to be associated with trading too much. I believe finance is largely a scam, and I don't want to be associated with that profession. ...
So do you feel vindicated by this current crisis?
I feel angry. Very, very angry. I described the way it happened, I described the mistakes, and I see all these people explaining it backwards. Let me make another metaphor: you have a hundred people playing Russian roulette, and one of them killed themselves, and economists are theorizing that he killed himself because he held the gun in a certain way. You require something vastly more structural. Let's go back to roots. Let's do real things. Let's have more transparency, fewer complicated products we don't understand. Let's generate economic growth by old traditional ways, let's favor technology companies, let's not favor all this financial bulls---. Because it was a Ponzi scheme, I don't know any other way to call it.
So the big question on everybody's mind is, what happens now?
I try not to comment on current events directly. I think that we've got to progressively become a society where banks are deemed to be too precious for us, for our currency, to take too much risk. We need to have a banker who is just as responsible as someone working for the water company. Banks are going to become a utility. And banks probably will not have a lot on their balance sheet, and the risks taken will be borne by individuals like myself who have capital, and who know the risks, with their own money. Otherwise you're going to keep having a cycle that's deeper every time.