• Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    No one has ever explained how bankers are losing. They say they’ve lost money. Yet the only details are Musk has to make payments and put up Tesla stock as collateral. That a no lose for the banks. They don’t care if Tesla stock crashes, they are making money from selling it.

    • CaptainPedantic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      4 months ago

      If Tesla’s stock crashes, then the value the banks could get from selling it is much lower.

      If Twitter and Tesla go bankrupt, the banks will have loaned out billions to own something worthless.

      At least I would assume that’s how it works.

      • Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        4 months ago

        The bankruptcy scenario is correct but the first part isn’t: you don’t have X shares as collateral that you can liquidate. Instead, you have collateral to cover sum Y.

        As long as the collateral contract covers enough stock positions the bank won’t lose.

        That said all of this is assuming standard contracts. If y bank wrote “0% interest and instead 50% of the revenue growth of Twitter” then this would be an easy way to lose money.

        Haven’t heard of a stupid banker yet, though, so what would the chances be?