Deutsche Bank Quotes

The determined attempt to discredit Robert Mueller, the FBI and the Justice Department is an endeavor to protect the fervent saber rattlers themselves. You see, all this commotion kicked into overdrive once the Special Counsel sought information from Deutsche Bank.

In 2019, it was revealed that the main bank Epstein used was Deutsche Bank—the only bank that would lend to Trump after his bankruptcies, the same bank implicated in the Trump Russia scandal.15

Deutsche Bank has funded authoritarian states from Hitler’s Germany to Putin’s Russia, as well as lending to businesses like the Trump Organization that are suspected of helping autocrats and their cronies to launder their money.

We fought with those cocksuckers all the way down,” says one Deutsche Bank trader. And, all the way down, the debt collectors at Deutsche Bank sensed the bond traders at Morgan Stanley misunderstood their own trade. They weren’t lying; they genuinely failed to understand the nature of the subprime CDO.

Banks are allowed to loan $10 for every dollar they actually possess, which means that 90 per cent of all the money in our bank accounts is not covered by actual coins and notes.2 If all of the account holders at Barclays Bank suddenly demand their money, Barclays will promptly collapse (unless the government steps in to save it). The same is true of Lloyds, Deutsche Bank, Citibank, and all other banks in the world.

After meeting Kevin Wakeford, the former CEO of state-owned arms procurement agency, Armscor, I quickly learnt that all is not always as it appears. Kevin, a well-respected man in his day, worked with author Barry Sergeant on a book, The Assault on the Rand 34 where Sergeant documented Kevin’s findings regarding Deutsche Bank’s involvement in the devaluation – and subsequent collapse – of the South African rand in 2001.

In early July, Morgan Stanley received its first wake-up call. It came from Greg Lippmann and his bosses at Deutsche Bank, who, in a conference call, told Howie Hubler and his bosses that the $4 billion in credit default swaps Hubler had sold Deutsche Bank’s CDO desk six months earlier had moved in Deutsche Bank’s favor. Could Morgan Stanley please wire $1.2 billion to Deutsche Bank by the end of the day? Or, as Lippmann actually put it—according to someone who heard the exchange—Dude, you owe us one point two billion.

If all of the account holders at Barclays Bank suddenly demand their money, Barclays will promptly collapse (unless the government steps in to save it). The same is true of Lloyds, Deutsche Bank, Citibank, and all other banks in the world. It sounds like a giant Ponzi scheme, doesn’t it? But if it’s a fraud, then the entire modern economy is a fraud. The fact is, it’s not a deception, but rather a tribute to the amazing abilities of the human imagination. What enables banks – and the entire economy – to survive and flourish is our trust in the future. This trust is the sole backing for most of the money in the world.

Las leyes bancarias estadounidenses actuales permiten que el banco repita este ejercicio otras siete veces. El constructor tendría al final 10 millones de dólares en su cuenta, aunque el banco sigue sin tener más que 1 millón de dólares en su cámara acorazada. A los bancos se les permite prestar diez dólares por cada dólar que posean realmente, lo que significa que el 90 por ciento de todo el dinero de nuestras cuentas bancarias no está cubierto por monedas y billetes reales.2 Si todos los cuentacorrentistas del Barclays Bank pidieran de repente su dinero, el Barclays se hundiría de inmediato (a menos que el gobierno se decidiera a salvarlo). Lo mismo ocurre con el Lloyds, el Deutsche Bank, Citibank y todos los demás bancos del mundo. Esto se parece a un gigantesco sistema Ponzi, o piramidal, ¿no es verdad? Pero, si es un fraude, entonces toda la economía moderna es un fraude. El hecho es que no es un engaño, sino más bien un tributo a las asombrosas capacidades de la imaginación humana. Lo que permite que los bancos (y la economía entera) sobrevivan y prosperen es nuestra confianza en el futuro. Esta confianza es el único respaldo para la mayor parte del dinero del mundo.

To the untrained eye, the Wall Street people who rode from the Connecticut suburbs to Grand Central were an undifferentiated mass, but within that mass Danny noted many small and important distinctions. If they were on their BlackBerrys, they were probably hedge fund guys, checking their profits and losses in the Asian markets. If they slept on the train they were probably sell-side people—brokers, who had no skin in the game. Anyone carrying a briefcase or a bag was probably not employed on the sell side, as the only reason you’d carry a bag was to haul around brokerage research, and the brokers didn’t read their own reports—at least not in their spare time. Anyone carrying a copy of the New York Times was probably a lawyer or a back-office person or someone who worked in the financial markets without actually being in the markets. Their clothes told you a lot, too. The guys who ran money dressed as if they were going to a Yankees game. Their financial performance was supposed to be all that mattered about them, and so it caused suspicion if they dressed too well. If you saw a buy-side guy in a suit, it usually meant that he was in trouble, or scheduled to meet with someone who had given him money, or both. Beyond that, it was hard to tell much about a buy-side person from what he was wearing. The sell side, on the other hand, might as well have been wearing their business cards: The guy in the blazer and khakis was a broker at a second-tier firm; the guy in the three-thousand-dollar suit and the hair just so was an investment banker at J.P. Morgan or someplace like that. Danny could guess where people worked by where they sat on the train. The Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, and Merrill Lynch people, who were headed downtown, edged to the front—though when Danny thought about it, few Goldman people actually rode the train anymore. They all had private cars. Hedge fund guys such as himself worked uptown and so exited Grand Central to the north, where taxis appeared haphazardly and out of nowhere to meet them, like farm trout rising to corn kernels. The Lehman and Bear Stearns people used to head for the same exit as he did, but they were done. One reason why, on September 18, 2008, there weren’t nearly as many people on the northeast corner of Forty-seventh Street and Madison Avenue at 6:40 in the morning as there had been on September 18, 2007.

It was the German powerhouse Deutsche Bank AG, not my fictitious RhineBank, that financed the construction of the extermination camp at Auschwitz and the nearby factory that manufactured Zyklon B pellets. And it was Deutsche Bank that earned millions of Nazi reichsmarks through the Aryanization of Jewish-owned businesses. Deutsche Bank also incurred massive multibillion-dollar fines for helping rogue nations such as Iran and Syria evade US economic sanctions; for manipulating the London interbank lending rate; for selling toxic mortgage-backed securities to unwitting investors; and for laundering untold billions’ worth of tainted Russian assets through its so-called Russian Laundromat. In 2007 and 2008, Deutsche Bank extended an unsecured $1 billion line of credit to VTB Bank, a Kremlin-controlled lender that financed the Russian intelligence services and granted cover jobs to Russian intelligence officers operating abroad. Which meant that Germany’s biggest lender, knowingly or unknowingly, was a silent partner in Vladimir Putin’s war against the West and liberal democracy. Increasingly, that war is being waged by Putin’s wealthy cronies and by privately owned companies like the Wagner Group and the Internet Research Agency, the St. Petersburg troll factory that allegedly meddled in the 2016 US presidential election. The IRA was one of three

My gratitude goes as well to the other data scientists I pestered and to the institutions that collect and maintain their data: Karlyn Bowman, Daniel Cox (PRRI), Tamar Epner (Social Progress Index), Christopher Fariss, Chelsea Follett (HumanProgress), Andrew Gelman, Yair Ghitza, April Ingram (Science Heroes), Jill Janocha (Bureau of Labor Statistics), Gayle Kelch (US Fire Administration/FEMA), Alaina Kolosh (National Safety Council), Kalev Leetaru (Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone), Monty Marshall (Polity Project), Bruce Meyer, Branko Milanović (World Bank), Robert Muggah (Homicide Monitor), Pippa Norris (World Values Survey), Thomas Olshanski (US Fire Administration/FEMA), Amy Pearce (Science Heroes), Mark Perry, Therese Pettersson (Uppsala Conflict Data Program), Leandro Prados de la Escosura, Stephen Radelet, Auke Rijpma (OECD Clio Infra), Hannah Ritchie (Our World in Data), Seth Stephens-Davidowitz (Google Trends), James X. Sullivan, Sam Taub (Uppsala Conflict Data Program), Kyla Thomas, Jennifer Truman (Bureau of Justice Statistics), Jean Twenge, Bas van Leeuwen (OECD Clio Infra), Carlos Vilalta, Christian Welzel (World Values Survey), Justin Wolfers, and Billy Woodward (Science Heroes). David Deutsch, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, Kevin Kelly, John Mueller, Roslyn Pinker, Max Roser, and Bruce Schneier read a draft of the entire manuscript and offered invaluable advice.

there was Frankfurt's skyline, like apocalypse does Dallas. Your friendly neighborhood global banking headquarters - Deutsche Bank's logo of a blue square slit diagonally has always read to me like the desolate vagina of a war widow.

Economics is a notoriously complicated subject. To make things easier, let’s imagine a simple example. Samuel Greedy, a shrewd financier, founds a bank in El Dorado, California. A. A. Stone, an up-and-coming contractor in El Dorado, finishes his first big job, receiving payment in cash to the tune of $1 million. He deposits this sum in Mr Greedy’s bank. The bank now has $1 million in capital. In the meantime, Jane McDoughnut, an experienced but impecunious El Dorado chef, thinks she sees a business opportunity – there’s no really good bakery in her part of town. But she doesn’t have enough money of her own to buy a proper facility complete with industrial ovens, sinks, knives and pots. She goes to the bank, presents her business plan to Greedy, and persuades him that it’s a worthwhile investment. He issues her a $1 million loan, by crediting her account in the bank with that sum. McDoughnut now hires Stone, the contractor, to build and furnish her bakery. His price is $1,000,000. When she pays him, with a cheque drawn on her account, Stone deposits it in his account in the Greedy bank. So how much money does Stone have in his bank account? Right, $2 million. How much money, cash, is actually located in the bank’s safe? Yes, $1 million. It doesn’t stop there. As contractors are wont to do, two months into the job Stone informs McDoughnut that, due to unforeseen problems and expenses, the bill for constructing the bakery will actually be $2 million. Mrs McDoughnut is not pleased, but she can hardly stop the job in the middle. So she pays another visit to the bank, convinces Mr Greedy to give her an additional loan, and he puts another $1 million in her account. She transfers the money to the contractor’s account. How much money does Stone have in his account now? He’s got $3 million. But how much money is actually sitting in the bank? Still just $1 million. In fact, the same $1 million that’s been in the bank all along. Current US banking law permits the bank to repeat this exercise seven more times. The contractor would eventually have $10 million in his account, even though the bank still has but $1 million in its vaults. Banks are allowed to loan $10 for every dollar they actually possess, which means that 90 per cent of all the money in our bank accounts is not covered by actual coins and notes.2 If all of the account holders at Barclays Bank suddenly demand their money, Barclays will promptly collapse (unless the government steps in to save it). The same is true of Lloyds, Deutsche Bank, Citibank, and all other banks in the world. It sounds like a giant Ponzi scheme, doesn’t it? But if it’s a fraud, then the entire modern economy is a fraud. The fact is, it’s not a deception, but rather a tribute to the amazing abilities of the human imagination. What enables banks – and the entire economy – to survive and flourish is our trust in the future. This trust is the sole backing for most of the money in the world.

That month, the state announced a new tax, the Suhneleistung, or “atonement payment,” designed to tax Jews for the damages of the Kristallnacht pogroms that the Nazis had themselves instigated. The collection of this new payment was reported to have been administered by the Deutsche Bank.

Hitler’s government, the Deutsche Bank, and most of Germany’s large corporations regarded the absorption of Austria into the Reich as a test case for managing the emerging German empire in Eastern Europe. The theft of Jewish assets that had taken years in Germany was carried out in Austria in months.

Could Morgan Stanley please wire $1.2 billion to Deutsche Bank by the end of the day?

Los analistas de Wall Street criticaron durante años la estrategia de Costco de gastar tanto en su gente, en lugar de recortar gastos para aumentar los márgenes y contribuir a incrementar el valor de sus acciones.98 Wall Street preferiría que la empresa se centrara en lo QUE hace a expensas de POR QUÉ lo hace. Un analista del Deutsche Bank le dijo a la revista FORTUNE: «Costco sigue siendo una empresa a la que se le da mejor servir a un miembro del club y a un empleado que a un accionista».

Estados Unidos, 2013. Se lanza la película El lobo de Wall Street, con Leonardo DiCaprio como actor principal. Se basa en la autobiografía de un excorredor de bolsa Jordan Belfort, escrita después de salir de prisión. La película fue un éxito: con una inversión inicial cerca de los cien millones de dólares, recaudó más de cuatrocientos millones.24 Lo que todavía no se sabía durante el lanzamiento de la película es que al menos una parte de su financiamiento provino, probablemente, de transacciones fraudulentas de empresas de Wall Street y del distrito Manhattan: Goldman Sachs y quizás también JPMorgan Chase y Deutsche Bank.25 Entre 2009 y 2015, más de cuatro mil quinientos millones de dólares en fondos pertenecientes al Fondo de Desarrollo de Malasia fueron aparentemente malversados, escribe el Departamento de Justicia de Estados Unidos.26 Los dineros del fondo terminaron en manos privadas en vez de impulsar el desarrollo económico a largo plazo de Malasia. Según el citado Departamento de Justicia, el entonces director de Goldman Sachs, Tim Leissner, conspiró con autoridades de Malasia para lavar el dinero en Estados Unidos comprando «bienes raíces... de lujo en la ciudad de Nueva York y en otros lugares, y obras de arte y financiando importantes películas de Hollywood», incluida El Lobo de Wall Street.27 Además, a los auditores KPMG y Deloitte al menos se les investiga por negligencia grave.28 En suma, es como si el Chapo Guzmán hubiera legalizado parte de su dinero proveniente del narcotráfico a través de una película taquillera sobre el narcotráfico. El rol de Goldman Sachs durante el caso destaca en todo sentido. En 2010, el banco de inversión fue descrito por el periodista Matt Taibbi como «gran calamar vampiro envuelto alrededor del rostro de la humanidad, atascando incansablemente su embudo de sangre en cualquier cosa que huela a dinero».29 El caso de Malasia permite ver cuánta razón hay detrás de esa caricatura verbal: para poder abrir la puerta y entrar a trabajar para el Fondo Soberano de Malasia, Goldman Sachs pagó primero sobornos de mil seiscientos millones de dólares.30 Una vez en el negocio, las primeras comisiones recibidas por coordinar la suscripción de seis mil quinientos millones de dólares en bonos para el Fondo Soberano fueron de seiscientos millones de dólares.31 Los cuatro mil quinientos millones de dólares desaparecidos del Fondo Soberano fueron movidos con ayuda de Goldman Sachs, lo que incluyó el uso de vehículos corporativos registrados en territorios offshore. En 2020, Goldman Sachs Group acordó pagar dos mil novecientos millones de dólares a las autoridades de Estados Unidos y tres mil novecientos millones al Gobierno de Malasia por su rol en el escándalo.32 Quien piense que por un par de mil millones de dólares desviados y un escándalo de dimensiones internacionales una empresa debería salir del mercado, está equivocado. De hecho, las cosas podrían haber sido peores para el gigante financiero. Sus acuerdos extrajudiciales han reemplazado probables condenas que hubieran conllevado las pérdidas de clientes institucionales. Así se entiende que los costosos acuerdos extrajudiciales de Goldman Sachs hicieran subir el valor de sus acciones. Es «demasiado calamar para fallar», había sentenciado Te Economist

I don’t buy the idea that if you dangle cash in front of your high-performing employees, they try harder. High performers naturally want to succeed and will devote all resources toward doing so whether they have a bonus hanging in front of their nose or not. I love this quote from former chief executive of Deutsche Bank John Cryan: “I have no idea why I was offered a contract with a bonus in it because I promise you I will not work any harder or any less hard in any year, in any day because someone is going to pay me more or less.” Any executive worth her paycheck would say the same.

I love Greg,” said one of his bosses at Deutsche Bank. “I have nothing bad to say about him except that he’s a fucking whack job.

But the current investment banking model—whether applied in a standalone institution such as Goldman or in a broad financial conglomerate such as Deutsche Bank—is at the heart of the problems the finance sector poses for the real economy. Investment banks today engage in securities issuance, corporate advice and asset management; they make markets in equities and FICC, and trade in these markets on their own account. It is only necessary to list these functions to see that each of these activities conflicts with all the others. Each should be undertaken in distinct institutions. And with lower volumes of inter-bank trading, a diminished role for public equity markets and much more direct investment by asset managers the scale of most of these activities should be much reduced. Among all the actors in the finance sector today, only the asset manager, who typically earns a fee calculated as a percentage of funds under management, is rewarded for idleness. The profits of a segregated deposit-taking bank would similarly depend primarily on the scale of the deposit base, and secondarily on its success in making good loans. Dedicated channels of capital allocation have a more appropriate incentive structure than activities focused on trading and transactions. Whenever

France and Germany are, among the countries with large financial sectors, the ones where anti-market rhetoric is strongest. But they are also the countries that have done the least to implement substantive financial reform since the global financial crisis. The principal reason is the instinctive corporatism of both countries, which equates the national interest in financial services with the interests of large national financial services firms. Thus the voice of Deutsche Bank is transmitted as the voice of Germany, not just in domestic German policies but also (and especially) in German positions in international financial negotiations. Germany’s policy positions are also compromised by the local political links of its many regional and community banks (links that have positive as well as many negative aspects). In France the homogeneity of an elite that glides easily from boardroom to cabinet table and back reinforces the sense that its state and its national industrial champions are one. And since France and Germany are the two most influential members of the European Union, the corporate influence extends to the conference rooms of Brussels. Little

RoE is a seriously misleading measure of profitability. For businesses that are not very capital-intensive – such as asset management, or other professional service firms such as accountants – high returns on equity are achievable because the capital requirement is so small. Capital-intensive businesses – in the modern economy they are principally banks, utilities and resource companies – can achieve high returns on equity only through extreme leverage, as Deutsche Bank did.

John Cryan, the former chief financial officer of UBS, will replace Mr Jain. Mr Fitschen will not be replaced, meaning that from next year, Mr Cryan, a 54-year-old Briton, will be in sole charge. Following Brady Dougan at Credit Suisse and Peter Sands at Standard Chartered, Mr Jain and Mr Fitschen are the latest heads to roll at top banks, which since the financial crisis have been hit by tougher regulation, sluggish markets and conduct problems. The news comes just over a month after Deutsche unveiled a strategy designed to bolster shareholder returns, which were just 2.7 per cent in 2014 and have been hit by a slew of fines, including a $2.5bn penalty for Deutsche’s involvement in the Libor scandal.

Presently the Rothschilds control, among other things; Shell, BP, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, ABN Amro, Fortis, Unilever, IBM, World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund, ING, Federal Reserve, Bank of England, Arrow Fund Curacao, J.P Morgan and many other banks and influential organizations. The participation of the Rothschild dynasty in various competitive companies misleads even experts. A perfect example of this is when Henry Coston elaborately described the all out struggle between American Standard Oil (of the Rockefeller family) and British Royal Dutch-Shell for market leadership in 1920s France.[17] The struggle for control lasted into the late Fifties.[18] However, he essentially overlooked one important detail; that both oil giants belonged to the Rothschilds! Coston failed to understand that this sham of a fight served only one purpose: to bring in enormous profits while covering up the real power behind it.[19]

The Warburg family is the most important ally of the Rothschilds, and the history of this family is at least equally interesting. The book The Warburgs shows that the bloodline of this family dates back to the year 1001.[28] Whilst fleeing from the Muslims, they established themselves in Spain. There they were pursued by Fernando of Aragon and Isabella of Castile and moved to Lombardy. According to the annals of the city of Warburg, in 1559, Simon von Cassel was entitled to establish himself in this city in Westphalia, and he changed his surname to Warburg. The city register proves that he was a banker and a trader. The real banking tradition was beginning to take shape when three generations later Jacob Samuel Warburg immigrated to Altona in 1668. His grandson Markus Gumprich Warburg moved to Hamburg in 1774, where his two sons founded the well-known bank Warburg & Co. in 1798. With the passage of time, this bank did business throughout the entire world. By 1814, Warburg & Co had business relations with the Rothschilds in London. According to Joseph Wechsberg in his book The Merchant Bankers, the Warburgs regarded themselves equal to the Rothschild, Oppenheimer and Mendelsohn families.[29] These families regularly met in Paris, London and Berlin. It was an unwritten rule that these families let their descendants marry amongst themselves. The Warburgs married, just like the Rothschilds, within houses (bloodlines). That’s how this family got themselves involved with the prosperous banking family Gunzberg from St. Petersburg, with the Rosenbergs from Kiev, with the Oppenheims and Goldschmidts from Germany, with the Oppenheimers from South Africa and with the Schiffs from the United States.[30] The best-known Warburgs were Max Warburg (1867-1946), Paul Warburg (1868-1932) and Felix Warburg (1871-1937). Max Warburg served his apprenticeship with the Rothschilds in London, where he asserted himself as an expert in the field of international finances. Furthermore, he occupied himself intensively with politics and, since 1903, regularly met with the German minister of finance. Max Warburg advised, at the request of monarch Bernhard von Bülow, the German emperor on financial affairs. Additionally, he was head of the secret service. Five days after the armistice of November 11, 1918 he was delegated by the German government as a peace negotiator at a peace committee in Versailles. Max Warburg was also one of the directors of the Deutsche Reichsbank and had financial importances in the war between Japan and Russia and in the Moroccan crisis of 1911. Felix Warburg was familiarized with the diamond trade by his uncle, the well-known banker Oppenheim. He married Frieda Schiff and settled in New York. By marrying Schiff’s daughter he became partner at Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Paul Warburg became acquainted with the youngest daughter of banker Salomon Loeb, Nina. It didn’t take long before they married. Paul Warburg left Germany and also became a partner with Kuhn, Loeb & Co. in New York. During the First World War he was a member of the Federal Reserve Board, and in that position he had a controlling influence on the development of American financial policies. As a financial expert, he was often consulted by the government. The Warburgs invested millions of dollars in various projects which all served one purpose: one absolute world government. That’s how the war of Japan against Russia (1904-1905) was financed by the Warburgs bank Kuhn, Loeb & Co.[31] The purpose of this war was destroying the csardom. As said before, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, James P. Warburg said: “We shall have a world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government

The reason is clear from the market share numbers. In the 1999 Euromoney poll, almost 48 per cent of market share was held by banks outside the top ten; by the 2006 poll, that number had halved to about 24 per cent. These banks did not have a business large enough to justify spending the money needed to automate. In fact, the collective market share decline of smaller banks masked a shift in behaviour that was even worse news for the career prospects of the traders who worked in them. Increasingly, FX giants like Deutsche would give these banks access to systems like Autobahn or the equivalent. Their salespeople would simply quote the Deutsche Bank (or Citibank, UBS or Barclays) rate to their customers with a small spread to offset the credit risk. No need for expensive traders. In effect, the smaller banks had shifted from ‘manufacturing’ FX rates to being distributors to clients with whom they had a strong relationship based on regional expertise or history. ‘You guys just sucked us dry,’ complained an old friend and adversary at the time – he was in his late thirties, from a smaller bank, and we were at his ‘leaving-the-industry’ drinks. ‘But,’ he added resignedly, with a slightly drunken grin, ‘I guess that’s just that old whore Capitalism for you.’ He became a maths teacher.

The deals the government and Wall Street worked out that weekend to save the likes of AIG, Goldman, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch were unprecedented in their reach and political consequence, transforming America into a permanent oligarchical bailout state. This was, essentially, a formal merger of Wall Street and the U.S. government.

the Barclays dark pool and removing it from routing algorithms. Among those that disconnected were Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. and Investment Technology Group Inc., The Wall Street Journal previously reported. Barclays has also taken a senior trading executive, Bill White, head of the firm's Equities Electronic Trading operation who oversaw operations of the dark pool, off daily operations to focus on answering questions about the lawsuit, the Journal reported.

Vikas Nath is currently Director at Termdeal Limited which owns and runs restaurants across UK and Europe, notably Benares Restaurant & Bar in London - a Michelin-starred Indian restaurant. Prior to investing and operating hospitality businesses, Vikas Nath had a career in finance spanning 25 years across companies such as UBS, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank and HSBC.

Il leader leghista portava lo scompiglio, aizzava lo spread e pareva contento. Come se si stesse divertendo. Le sue dichiarazioni sempre più agguerrite e la sua banda di colonnelli antieuro hanno conti “nuato a causare danni alla reputazione italiana, già traballante, nei giorni successivi alla vittoria delle elezioni. E chi lo aiutava ad alzare la posta in palio, a rilanciare ancora? Naturalmente il suo fedele compare antieuro, Claudio Borghi, l’ex funzionario della Deutsche Bank di Milano che ormai si dava arie da profeta economico. Un membro della prima ora di quel gruppo di militanti antieuro che includeva Paolo Savona, Alberto Bagnai e in seconda battuta Francesca Donato e Antonio Maria Rinaldi.

McKinsey para analizar la factibilidad de adquirir nada menos que el Deutsche Bank, el banco más grande de Alemania.46 La operación, bautizada como Project Panther, permitiría crear una especie PayPal alemán. La fusión podría duplicar el valor bursátil de ambas empresas en su conjunto, según el pronóstico. El análisis del Project Panther concluyó solo a meses de distancia de la quiebra de Wirecard. «En retrospectiva, todo parece una broma estúpida», comentaron dos periodistas económicos del diario alemán FAZ en un libro dedicado al caso.47 Lo cierto es que la situación de Wirecard en 2019 daba, en efecto, espacio para megalomanías: mientras el Deutsche Bank mostraba miles de millones de euros en pérdidas, Wirecard todavía parecía ir flotando en la nube a nivel bursátil, escriben los periodistas. ¿Por qué pensar en llevar a cabo una adquisición cuando se estaba a punto de quebrar? La idea detrás de la adquisición del Deutsche Bank eran, probablemente, sus estados financieros, tan anchos como complejos, que podrían ser el escenario perfecto para tratar de hacer desaparecer miles de millones de euros inventados en los balances de Wirecard. Pero la operación no se llevó a cabo, todo lo contrario: en 2020, KPMG confirmó no poder verificar partes importantes de las utilidades de Wirecard,

After the 1980s, most banks refused to do business with him because he had defaulted on hundreds of millions of dollars in loans; only Deutsche Bank was willing to lend him funds. During the 1990s and early 2000s, his organization filed for bankruptcy six times. He used the bankruptcies and other techniques to avoid paying income taxes for almost eighteen years.

It was the German powerhouse Deutsche Bank AG, not my fictitious RhineBank, that financed the construction of the extermination camp at Auschwitz and the nearby factory that manufactured Zyklon B pellets. And it was Deutsche Bank that earned millions of Nazi reichsmarks through the Aryanization of Jewish-owned businesses. Deutsche Bank also incurred massive multibillion-dollar fines for helping rogue nations such as Iran and Syria evade US economic sanctions; for manipulating the London interbank lending rate; for selling toxic mortgage-backed securities to unwitting investors; and for laundering untold billions’ worth of tainted Russian assets through its so-called Russian Laundromat. In 2007 and 2008, Deutsche Bank extended an unsecured $1 billion line of credit to VTB Bank, a Kremlin-controlled lender that financed the Russian intelligence services and granted cover jobs to Russian intelligence officers operating abroad. Which meant that Germany’s biggest lender, knowingly or unknowingly, was a silent partner in Vladimir Putin’s war against the West and liberal democracy. Increasingly, that war is being waged by Putin’s wealthy cronies and by privately owned companies like the Wagner Group and the Internet Research Agency, the St. Petersburg troll factory that allegedly meddled in the 2016 US presidential election. The IRA was one of three Russian companies named in a sprawling indictment handed down by the Justice Department in February 2018 that detailed the scope and sophistication of the Russian interference. According to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, the Russian cyber operatives stole the identities of American citizens, posed as political and religious activists on social media, and used divisive issues such as race and immigration to inflame an already divided electorate—all in support of their preferred candidate, the reality television star and real estate developer Donald Trump. Russian operatives even traveled to the United States to gather intelligence. They focused their efforts on key battleground states and, remarkably, covertly coordinated with members of the Trump campaign in August 2016 to organize rallies in Florida. The Russian interference also included a hack of the Democratic National Committee that resulted in a politically devastating leak of thousands of emails that threw the Democratic convention in Philadelphia into turmoil. In his final report, released in redacted form in April 2019, Robert Mueller said that Moscow’s efforts were part of a “sweeping and systematic” campaign to assist Donald Trump and weaken his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. Mueller was unable to establish a chargeable criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, though the report noted that key witnesses used encrypted communications, engaged in obstructive behavior, gave false or misleading testimony, or chose not to testify at all. Perhaps most damning was the special counsel’s conclusion that the Trump campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from the information stolen and released through Russian efforts.

German powerhouse Deutsche Bank AG,

The Palestine laboratory can only thrive if enough nations believe in its underlying premise. It’s unsurprising that repressive regimes want to mimic Israeli repression, using Israeli technology to oppress their own unwanted or restive populations, but the Jewish state craves Western approval to fully realize its diplomatic and military potential. Aside from the US, Germany is arguably the greatest prize of all. Israel helped Germany rehabilitate its shattered image after World War II, while Berlin grants legitimacy to a country that brutally occupies the Palestinians (a nonpeople in the eyes of successive German governments). Germany purchasing increasing amounts of Israeli defense equipment is just one way it can atone for its historical guilt. When Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas visited Germany in August 2022 and spoke alongside Chancellor Olaf Scholz, he accused Israel of committing “fifty Holocausts” against his people. The German establishment expressed outrage over the comment but the hypocrisy was clear; the Palestinians are under endless occupation but it’s only they who have to apologize. Germany has taken its love affair with Israel to dangerous, even absurd heights. The Deutsche Welle media organization updated its code of conduct in 2022 and insisted that all employees, when speaking on behalf of the organization or even in a personal capacity, must “support the right of Israel to exist” or face punishment, likely dismissal.40 After the Israeli military shot dead Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in the West Bank city of Jenin in May 2022, German police banned a peaceful public vigil in Berlin because of what German authorities called an “immediate risk” of violence and anti-Semitic messaging. When protestors ignored this request and took to the streets to both commemorate Abu Akleh and Nakba Day, police arrested 170 people for expressing solidarity with Palestine. A Palestinian in Germany, Majed Abusalama, tweeted that he had been assaulted by the police. “I just left the hospital an hour ago with an arm sling to hold my shoulder after the German racist police almost dislocated my shoulder with their violent actions to us wearing Palestine Kuffiyas,” he wrote. “This is the new wave of anti-Palestinian everything in Berlin. Insane, right?” This followed years of anti-Palestinian incitement by the German political elite, from the German Parliament designating the BDS movement as anti-Semitic in 2019 to pressuring German institutions to refuse any space for pro-Palestinian voices, Jewish or Palestinian.41 The Palestinian intellectual Tariq Baconi gave a powerful speech in Berlin in May 2022 at a conference titled “Hijacking Memory: The Holocaust and the New Right.” He noted that “states like Germany have once again accepted Palestinians as collateral. Their oppression and colonization is a fair price to pay to allow Germany to atone for its past crimes.

The U.S. regulations declared that the corporate leaders of the Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, and four other large banks had been central to Nazi rule, and ordered them removed from their positions

By mid-1940, Aryanizations and punitive taxes had seized roughly four billion marks from German and Austrian Jews. This was equal to more than 75 percent of Germany’s annual investment in armament plants and military facilities on the eve of the war.33 It was about equal to the total assets of the Deutsche Bank

In the Middle East, Iran was trying to fill a power vacuum left by the demise of Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi dictatorship. To do that, it needed to keep its neighbor’s fledgling democracy unstable. What better way to accomplish that than by waging a relentless campaign of bloody violence? The hundreds of millions of dollars that Deutsche wired to Iranian banks provided vital funding for the sanctioned country to pay for its terrorism. Soon Iraq was being ripped apart by violence. Roadside bombs detonated all over the country, targeting the country’s fragile government and the U.S. military forces that were trying to keep the peace.

both cases, Deutsche steered very rich Russians into the Trump ventures, according to people who were involved in the deals—just a couple of years after American regulators had punished the bank for whisking Russian money into the U.S. financial system via Latvia.

Beyond that, I don’t buy the idea that if you dangle cash in front of your high-performing employees, they try harder. High performers naturally want to succeed and will devote all resources toward doing so whether they have a bonus hanging in front of their nose or not. I love this quote from former chief executive of Deutsche Bank John Cryan: “I have no idea why I was offered a contract with a bonus in it because I promise you I will not work any harder or any less hard in any year, in any day because someone is going to pay me more or less.” Any executive worth her paycheck would say the same.

Large-cap U.S. Stock S&P 500 Index Midcap U.S. Stock S&P Midcap 400 Index Small-cap U.S. Value stock Russell 2000 Value Index Non-U.S. Developed stock MSCI EAFE Index Non-U.S. Emerging stock MSCI Emerging Markets Index Real Estate Dow Jones U.S. Select REIT Index Natural Resources Goldman Sachs Natural Resources Index Commodities Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index U.S. Bonds Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index Inflation Protected Bonds Barclays Capital U.S. Treasury Inflation Note Index Non-U.S. Bonds Citibank WGBI Non-U.S. Dollar Index Cash 3-Month Treasury Bill

Eisman no tenía interés en escuchar los discursos de otras personas; no tenía interés en asistir a la mesa redonda y oír comentarios superficiales. Quería sesiones privadas con conocedores del mercado. Lippmann le había presentado a la gente del Deutsche Bank que vendía CDO a los inversores, y aquellos serviciales empleados del Deutsche Bank habían organizado reuniones de Eisman y sus socios con los intermediarios financieros del mercado de bonos: los prestadores hipotecarios, los bancos que empaquetaban los préstamos hipotecarios en bonos hipotecarios, los banqueros que reempaquetaban los bonos en CDO, y las agencias de calificación que bendecían cada etapa del proceso. Las únicas partes interesadas que faltaban en la conferencia eran los prestatarios últimos, los compradores de viviendas estadounidenses; pero en cierto sentido hasta ellos estaban presentes, sirviendo las bebidas, haciendo girar las ruletas y tirando los dados. «Las Vegas estaba en auge —decía Danny—. Y los propietarios de viviendas estaban en las jodidas mesas.» Un amigo de Danny regresó de una noche de juerga con la noticia de que había conocido a una stripper con cinco segundas hipotecas distintas.

To make yourself even more relatable, adjust your choice of words, your breadth and depth of vocabulary, and your expressions to suit your audience: focus on their fields of interest and choose metaphors from those domains. If they’re into golf and you want to talk about success, speak of hitting a hole in one. If they sail, a catastrophe becomes a shipwreck. One of my clients, a Deutsche Bank analyst, told me she couldn’t seem to establish a good relationship with her boss. She described him as rather brusque, almost militaristic in his demeanor, “and, in fact, he often uses battle language in our daily interactions.” That, to me, was just the clue we needed. I suggested adopting military analogies in which she would liken herself to a “loyal soldier” or a “good lieutenant,” and gradually increasing the use of military vocabulary in their conversations. Within a week, she told me that their interactions had significantly improved—he now seemed to regard her as “one of his people,” and someone he could count on. This was a high return on investment for just adding a few words to her vocabulary!