Money: Difference between revisions

4 bytes added ,  4 December 2019
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 28: Line 28:


===But what about [[client money]]?===
===But what about [[client money]]?===
We have much to say about [[Client money|client money elsewhere]]. But the [[beneficiary]] of [[client money]] protection has no [[credit risk]] to the person offering [[client money]] protection because that person never holds the cash in question. It is instead placed on deposit with a third party [[bank]].  The client ''does'' have full credit risk to that third party bank. This tends to surprise those clients who have the dim impression that [[client money]] protection is some kind of amulet a; patronus charm; a magical cloak of mithril, protecting their little pot of money against all machinations of the succubi and incubi who infest their dreams.  
We have much to say about [[Client money|client money elsewhere]]. But the [[beneficiary]] of [[client money]] protection has no [[credit risk]] to the person offering [[client money]] protection because that person never holds the cash in question. It is instead placed on deposit with a third party [[bank]].  The client ''does'' have full credit risk to that third party bank. This tends to surprise those clients who have the dim impression that [[client money]] protection is some kind of amulet a; patronus charm; a magical cloak of [[mithril]], protecting their little pot of money against all machinations of the succubi and incubi who infest their dreams.  


Why no, good sir: it merely ''changes'' the banshee to whose freakish conspiracies your little pot of money is exposed, ideally just to a ''less'' nasty,<ref>I.e., better [[Capital Adequacy Directive|capitalised]] and prudentially regulated, but don’t tell the Extinction Rebellion that: nastiness is in the eye of the beholder of course.</ref> more ''banky'' type of hobgoblin or foul fiend.
Why no, good sir: it merely ''changes'' the banshee to whose freakish conspiracies your little pot of money is exposed, ideally just to a ''less'' nasty,<ref>I.e., better [[Capital Adequacy Directive|capitalised]] and prudentially regulated, but don’t tell the Extinction Rebellion that: nastiness is in the eye of the beholder of course.</ref> more ''banky'' type of hobgoblin or foul fiend.