A simple answer to this questions would be: yes, indeed! But wait, there’s a bit more to say about that. When the financial crisis taught us something then it’s the fact that banks are not save and thus our money is not save. The fact that we now print money on a large scale to secure these funds does not make a difference. We have to trust our money to banks and they seem not to handle it carefully – but that’s what they are supposed to do. I’m no anti capitalist by any means but there’s really some truth to that. And in my opinion, this has to change quickly. The problem is that politicians around the world did not learn anything from the crisis and they still trust billions of dollars to people that have already proven that they are not capable of managing risks and treat money carefully.
Here’s what happens: The fundamental flaw is that a bank needs to make as much profit as possible. Their business is not to get funding and equity to finance their investments. They take money from us and try to make the most out of it. Well, this is generally a good thing but the problem is that nobody restricts the risks that are allowed. It’s obvious that when you want to earn a high yield you have to take risks. That’s how our markets work. That’s also not a generally bad thing. But when banks are allowed to invest our money with very high risk it’s obvious that they fulfill shareholder requirements best and have very good anually figures. But all they do is playing roulette. And the bad news is that they are on a freeroll: they can risk all they got (like betting on one number on a roulette table) and if they win, great – more money to managers and shareholders. And if they lose they might be in trouble and need some governmental help. That’s what it’s all about. Easy money, isn’t it?