I took my assets to Frankly. While the law protects our assets at VIAC in case of CS bankruptcy, nothing would protect us from an elaborate fraud where those assets would be shown on paper but not really exist underneat. I really don’t trust CS for anything and had turned a blind eye until now because I really like VIAC but at this point, I really don’t want to have anything to do with CS.
I may be a bit of a paranoid one, but that is something I believe CS could be tempted to try to do, or may be already doing. Several very big problems would have to have occured, at CS, the agency/ies auditing them and the regulators, for it to happen, but I wouldn’t put the chance at 0.
My basic stance is “don’t do business with entities you don’t trust”. There are high chances VIAC users would recover all their assets in case of CS bankruptcy and I acknowledge that. I just don’t want them having anything to do with anything of mine if I can avoid it.
That sounds a bit too tinfoil-hat-esque 
I believe some people want to do as much money as possible, but they don’t need to break the main rules. They use the rules and maximize their profit.
In other words: falsify=bad. hedge/invest in risky stuff=“good”.
2 Likes
Not necessarily imho. There have been too greedy banks in the past. Historically, banks have not known to be the most ethically acting ventures. I think I don’t need to mention the despicably dirty details here.
And looking at Wirecard or Enron, I get the impression that our dear audit companies are doing a very poor job sometimes. These were epic fraud cases, and in case of Wirecard, even the media and politicians naively supported them. I actually know of someone working in audit that there are substantial cover-ups.
I can only hope for strong regulation and law enforcement, because I do not trust the finance industry.
1 Like
4 posts were merged into an existing topic: 3a solution from Finpension
Same here, abandoning the CS ship for a hopefully more waterproof one 
I don’t understand this panic. If the bank goes bust, the funds get transferred to another bank and possibly change name. 3a funds are not so critical, it’s not like you need to sell them continously. There might be some days where you can’t access it, but be sure they won’t disappear in thin air.
2 Likes
I agree, but Swisscanto seems to be as good as CSIF, and I got the choice, so why not? Also, I’d hate to have to deal with any administrative issues if CS goes bust. Lastly, I just don’t trust CS anymore, too many fuck-ups for my taste.
1 Like
For me, it’s not really about panic but trust, as johndoe has stated. CS isn’t an entity I want to do business with, not directly, nor indirectly. There are alternatives so I am using them.
1 Like
There could be a bail-in: customer accounts might be scalped, Cyprus-style.
Why? Is there a reason to believe they don’t have the matching assets?
1 Like
Bail-in would affect neither segregated assets such as funds nor privileged claims. I would certainly not want to hold a large amount of cash at CS but I’m not concerned about segregated assets.
The context of my reply is “if the bank goes bust”.
Latest news is pretty bad
1 Like
I haven’t followed it, what are the latest news?
17 posts were merged into an existing topic: HardturmstrasseBets
CS delays its annual report. That’s all I"ve heard.
I should really learn to use puts. Seems fun.
1 Like
Just saw by chance some headline in the NZZ that the US is putting its nose into CS, if I got that correctly…
1 Like
On twitter they are making it as big deal…like the next one that is going to fail (after SVB)
Some people (insiders I guess) have made millions with SVB yesterday with puts
2 Likes
Edit for the “still quite an upside” phrasing: indeed, if you are willing to bear the risk.
For the previous “unlimited upside” phrasing:
Nah, unlimited downside but limited upside. A stock can not go lower than 0. You can increase your upside by using more leverage but that increases the downside too and is limited by the amount of leverage you can acquire.
That’s one of the reasons why going long is so much easier than shorting. Shorting requires timing along with more risk management while going long “only” requires not needing the money for the duration of the investment (which, granted, also requires risk management and luck).
4 Likes