Your2ndPlace

Deposits are unsecured. If that's what this really was (along with the other 4 million I've seen come in like this in the last 36 hours), then it is reasonable to increase the "Total Deposits" number when the deposits hit.

If the L$4.2m was given as secured loans though -- secured against Ginko assets, like Nicholas said he was seeking -- then it is not reasonable to increase the "Total Deposits" number when it hits.

My belief is that those "deposits" are really secured loans, because I don't think that one person gave Ginko US$12,000, another US$4,000, and another US$700 over the last 36 hours -- in the middle of a bank run, now going on its third day when people are only allowed to withdraw $20-$40 a day -- without making making it a secured loan.

The reason the distinction really does matter and isn't just some meaningless numbers game is that the "Total Deposit" number on Ginko's website would be 188m rather than 192m right now (and probably a whole lot lower than that, b/c I seriously doubt the three times I've seen this happen were the only three times this has happened in the history of the company) if this had been done honestly/right.

That number is about the only piece of information they give the public, so it's pretty important that it not be based on lies. It should be a number that would, right now, tell people at a glance that L6m had been taken out of Ginko in the last 48 hours. Instead, the number actively hides that fact -- by making it look like there were deposits that didn't happen. And that, I'm arguing, is either fraud if they know what they're doing, or negligent if they don't.