[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Blinded Identities [was Re: exporting signatures only/CAPI]
On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, William H. Geiger III wrote:
> In <Pine.SUN.3.94.961015211026.16787C-100000@polaris>, on 10/15/96 at 09:20 PM,
> Black Unicorn <[email protected]> said:
>
> >On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>
> >> In <Pine.SUN.3.94.961014035114.28315K-100000@polaris>, on 10/14/96 at 04:01 AM,
> >> Black Unicorn <[email protected]> said:
>
> >> >Banking is as much about confidence as any business can be. Anonymous or not, the
> >> >presence of funds which
> >> >infringe on regulations in one area or another are frightening to normal banking
> >> >customers.
> >>
> >> BULL!!!!
> >>
> >> There are only two things the banking customers care about:
> >>
> >> 1. Will my money be there in the morning?
> >>
> >> 2. What is my rate of return?
>
> >Both of these are affected by large scandals at banks.
>
> scandals=unwarranted media hype.
>
> True scandals of interest to the investment & banking community are
> along the lines of fraud, theft, embezzlement, poor or risky investment.
> Items that directly relate to 1 & 2. The S&L debacle in the US during
> thethththe80's is a good example.
>
> The rest is just crap to either:
>
> A: Sell more newspapers, and/or
>
> B: Increase government power.
Your point what that customers do not care. I gave examples showing they
clearly do care. The fact that disclosures of questionable banking l
practices cause customers to move their money is the active issue. While
these may result in A and B above, that is entirely irrelevant.
> >In the case of the first example, runs on banks are hardly unheard of in relation to
> >major and even somewhat minor revelations about the source of deposit funds where
> >that source is criminal. (Again, I cite Union Bank of Switzerland which saw a three
> >day run of almost $200 million after
> >disclosures about UBS accounts which were used for kidnapping randsom.
> >DeBeers was one depositor which explicitly attributed their account
> >closures to the news).
>
> >The rate of return is directly affected by costs to the bank. Legal costs (even in
> >Switzerland) of defending against government and private party discovery and
> >compelled disclosure are severe. Need I even discuss the cost to the "legitimate"
> >BCCI account holder?
>
> What about the cost to Switzerland's banking industry due to the fact
> that they nolonger uphold their investors anonyminity?? Their industry
> has lost Billions due to their cow-towing to US and other governments
> snooping into investors accounts. What "cost" does that have to the
account holders of their banks??
I'm not sure why this has anything to do with my assertion that anonymous
money, when connected to regulation infringing conduct, tends to repell
banking customers with "legitimate" sources, except perhaps that you felt
you had to do a little grandstanding. For the record I agree that
Switzerland's curtailing of banking secrecy has driven out some money, but
bear in mind that it has also brough a lot of money in. To state, by the
way, that Switzerland no longer upholds investor anonyminity (or depositor
anonyminity) is an innaccuracy and an oversimplification. This is not to
say that I like the trend, just pointing out that you have managed to skew
the facts.
> >And if customers are unconcerned about elements ther than #1 and #2,
> >why are such pains taken to invest in offshore institutions where the
> >costs (in sweat alone) can be higher?
>
> Because it is justified by avoiding government interference in their
financial activities which in the long run increases their rate of return
well above the added cost of doing so.
What connection might this have to the threat of increased regulation by
the banking authorities or the SBA due to large scale public disclosures
of questionable banking practices? The answer is left as an exercise to
the student.
> >> The rest of it is a bunch of Govenment & Media hype & bull shit!!
>
> >The above incidents are easily found with a quick trip to the library.
>
> <sigh> Why so I can re-read the unwarranted media & government attacks
on banking institutions because, god forbid, they actually took someone's
money without running them over the coals first. Dam those nasty banks
all to hell, they don't report every transaction of their investors to
every government that may be interested.
No, so you can verify that banks suffer losses following the disclosure of
questionable banking practices like randsom payoffs.
> >The bottom ne is that until anonyminity is not seen as some kind of
> >invariably criminal act with respect to banking, legitimate and
> >illegitimate money will be as like charged particles.
>
> No the bottom line is money is money. Their is no such thing as
"legitimate" or "illegitimate" money. Banks should not be forced to play
policemen, their job is processing money.
Where, by the way, did I indicated otherwise?
And, incidently, the terms legitimate and illegitimate money are related,
in my view, only to the presence of regulation, not the moral or ethical
standing of the funds themselves.
> Next time, get a CLUE.
Given the woeful lack of facts and misconceptions you expose in your own
knowledge, I think you might wish to reconsider your own position and then
revisit the above line.
> >Next time, stick to web consulting.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Who died an made you god of the banking industry?? Last time I looked
Walter Wriston was still alive and well. :) (Incase you are too clueless
to know who that is I am sure a trip to your local library should help.)
Walter Wriston [sic] is in much disfavor in the banking industry just now.
Attempts at name dropping aside, my invitation for you to do a bit more
research on banking and the actual nature of anonymous banking is renewed.
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
[email protected]