How many banks...
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:56:15 -0400, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:54:29 -0400, HK wrote:
Larry wrote:
JR North wrote in
:
What's this got to do with boating?
JR
Boats take vast sums of money to buy, or just sit there rotting
away at the $600/month marina slip. In order to HAVE boats, some
boaters have invested vast sums of money in securities with
various, previously-stable, banking institutions now on the verge
of collapse.
The solvency of the bank the "Boat Fund" is stored in is VERY
on-topic to a discussion about boat....unless you're Donald Trump
and sold your little house in Florida for $95,000,000 this
morning to one of the Russian billionaires. Don wanted
$120,000,000 but had to take less to dump it.
By the way, the REAL ESTATE TAXES on Don's old house was quoted
on the radio at $16,830,000 PER YEAR....as of 2006. A "small tax
increase" could put the Russian's property taxes above the GDP of
several small African countries!
I think he screwed up....
We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions.
Harry, you are so full crap sometimes.
Honest to pete - do you even realise how stupid that statement is?
Or improbable?
Really? Please explain the "stupidity" or "improbability."
Be as specific as you can.
Thanks.
I can be as specific as you want, but if you have ANY major liquid
assets in a non-US based bank, you automatically fall under
anti-terrorism quidelines for the movement of said funds and/or
interest in said funds that you claim every year on your tax return.
Assuming you file one that is.
I'd be very curious as to what "non-US" bank you think is financially
sound where you don't get killed in exchange rates in moving "liguid"
assets around to make more money.
Which is the whole point of having liquid assets - to make more liguid
assets.
And I'm already tired of this discussion.
Sometimes Harry, words just can't define how stupid you sound.
You're a bit quick jumping to conclusions about facts you don't have.
Your assumption is that because we don't put most of our liquid eggs
in U.S. financial institutions, we must be putting them in foreign
financial institutions. That assumption is...wrong.
If it isn't a US financial institution it has to be a foreign financial
institution. Unless your definition of a financial institution is
different than 99.99999999% of the rest of the world.
WAFA's spin - coming soon...
|