New leaders in Greece, Italy are BANKERS

New leaders in Greece, Italy call for united front to combat debt crisis

Respected economic experts have stepped into the political vacuum created by the collapse of partisan governments in Athens and Rome, raising the hopes that they can build a broad coalition to combat the debt crisis.

November 15 2011
Non-partisan technocrats slated to take the reigns of power in Greece and Italy are seeking to consolidate their political support ahead of upcoming parliamentary confidence votes, while opposition continues to simmer in Athens and Rome over austerity measures aimed at reducing national debts and stabilizing the eurozone.

Mario Monti, nominated by Italian President Giorgio Napolitano to succeed Silvio Berlusconi as prime minister, said it was “premature” to discuss whether or not Italy would have to adopt further austerity measures to dig itself out from under 1.9 trillion euros ($ 2.6 trillion) of sovereign debt.

“Blood no, tears no, but maybe sacrifices,” said Monti, an economist and former EU official famous for pursuing trust-busting cases against Microsoft and General Electric during his tenure as Europe’s commissioner for competition.

Several members of Berlusconi’s conservative PDL party have said that Monti should only stay in power long enough to implement economic reforms. Monti, however, opposes any timeline imposed by parliament that would force his prospective government to dissolve before the 2013 national elections.

“If a date before (2013) is set, this haste would take away credibility from the government’s actions,” Monti said.

Monti, who is currently seeking support among Italy’s political parties, has not announced a deadline for the formation of a cabinet. President Napolitano said he hoped a new government would be approved by a vote of confidence this week.

Simmering opposition

Meanwhile, Greek Prime Minister Lucas Papademos called on members of his national unity coalition – made up of socialists, conservatives and nationalists – to sign a written pledge to implement the austerity measures demanded by Brussels in exchange for the latest rescue package.

But Antonis Samaras, leader of the conservative New Democracy party, has refused to sign the pledge, saying that he “agrees with the goals to cut government spending” but opposes “whatever stunts growth.”

Papademos, former vice president of the European Central Bank (ECB), came to power after former Greek prime minister George Papandreou resigned in the aftermath of an aborted call for a referendum on the latest EU rescue package. Papademos is scheduled to face a vote of confidence on Wednesday.

The so-called troika – the ECB, EU Commission, and International Monetary Fund (IMF) – are expected to visit Athens on Friday to assess whether or not Greece has met the conditions for the next tranche of 8 billion euros in bailout out money, which has been frozen since August. Greece currently has enough reserves to last until December 15.

Author: Spencer Kimball (AFP, AP, Reuters, dpa)
Editor: Mark Hallam Source

Max Keiser: Gold & silver stake for Wall St. zombie bankers!

Mario Monti

He is  a leading member of the Bilderberg Group.

Monti is also an international adviser to Goldman Sachs.

Lucas Papademos

He has served as Senior Economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in 1980.

Previously, he was Governor of the Bank of Greece from 1994 to 2002.

Was Vice President of the European Central Bank from 2002 to 2010.

Nothing like deliberately putting the Foxes in the Hen house.

Recent

US is lobbying nations to bring Cluster Bombs back “NO” would be my Answer

Canada: Stop Harper’s cruel crime bill

The Prison Industry in the United States Costs Taxpayers Billions

ICC to Probe NATO, NTC War Crimes in Libya War

The Libya American’s never saw on Television

The Iran you will never see on American Television

Published in: on November 15, 2011 at 9:43 am  Comments Off on New leaders in Greece, Italy are BANKERS  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

World Wide Occupy Wall Street Protests

Wall Street Tsunami: OWS grows in force Oct 22 2011

‘OWS ain’t a war zone’ – One marine vs 30 cops in NYC Oct 22 2011

If you don’t understand the Occupy Wall Street Movement check out this Video

Occupy Wall Street Spells It Out

Updated Photos: Occupy Vancouver – global movement

Photos at link below

Thousands participated in the Vancouver leg of the financial protests.

Video on the protest in Vancover

Video Occupy Toronto protesters settle in at St. James Park 

Occupy Montreal

Close to 3000 people have joined up to Occupy Montreal

Occupy Ottawa Confederation Park Ottawa

There are numerous other videos for Occupy Ottawa on youtube

‘Occupy’ protest takes root in downtown Edmonton

There are numerous other videos on Occupy Edmonton on youtube

Occupy Calgary

There are more Occupy Calgary Videos on youtube

Occupy Winnipeg Day 1

More Videos on Occupy Winnipeg on youtube

Occupy Regina

Occupy Quebec City Short video

Rome not so peaceful

Demonstrators march past a burning car in downtown Rome on October 15, 2011. Tens of thousands marched in Rome as part of a global day of protests inspired by the “Occupy Wall Street” and “Indignant” movements, with the Italian capital under a security lockdown.
Photograph by: ALBERTO PIZZOLI, AFP/Getty Images

RAW VIDEO – Italy – Riots in Rome – Italian Indignados Protest Turns Violent.

ITALY. Riots in Milan. Students Protest Turns Violent. Assaulted Goldman Sachs Office.

ROME: Protesters torched cars, smashed up banks and set fire to a military building in Rome on Saturday in the worst violence of worldwide demonstrations against corporate greed and government cutbacks.

Tens of thousands took to the streets of the Italian capital for a march that turned violent and equal numbers rallied in Madrid and Lisbon while WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange joined angry demonstrators in London.

The protests were inspired by the “Occupy Wall Street” movement in the United States and the “Indignants” in Spain, targeting 951 cities in 82 countries across the planet in Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas.

It was the biggest show of power yet by a movement born on May 15 when a rally in Madrid’s central Puerta del Sol square sparked a worldwide movement that focused anger over unemployment and opposition to the financial elite.

“I think it is very moving that the movement that was born here has extended throughout the world. It was about time for people to rise up,” said 24-year-old Carmen Martin as she marched towards Puerta del Sol.

In the Portuguese capital, where some 50,000 rallied, 25-year-old Mathieu Rego said: “We are victims of financial speculation and this austerity programme is going to ruin us. We have to change this rotten system.”

The protests received unexpected support from Italian central bank governor Mario Draghi, a former executive at Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs set to take over as president of the European Central Bank.

“Young people are right to be indignant,” Draghi was reported as saying on the sidelines of talks among G20 financial powers in Paris.

“They’re angry against the world of finance. I understand them,” he added, though expressing regrets at reports of violence.

More protests were staged in Amsterdam, Athens, Brussels, Geneva, Paris, Sarajevo and Zurich. Thousands also rallied across Canada and in New York and Washington, where they protested outside the White House and the US Treasury.

Scuffles broke out in London, where about 800 people rallied in the financial district by St Paul’s Cathedral, raising banners saying: “Strike back!” “No cuts!” and “Goldman Sachs is the work of the devil!”

Five people were arrested, three for assaulting police officers and two for public order offences, Scotland Yard said.

Three lines of police, and one line at the rear on horseback, blocked them from heading to the London Stock Exchange and pushed back against lead marchers, some wearing masks.

“One of the reasons why we support what is happening here in ‘Occupy London’ is because the banking system in London is the recipient of corrupt money,” Assange said from the steps of St Paul’s, flanked by bodyguards.


A protestor holds a placard on the steps of Saint Paul’s cathedral in central London on October 15, 2011.
Photograph by: AFP, Getty

Occupy London clashes: Fighting erupts at UK protest

Occupy IRELAND-Dame Street, Dublin. Day 3 -4-5-AND CONTINUE 15th of October OCCUPY WORLD 2011


Police arrested 24 protesters at a bank as thousands marched in New York, where the Occupy Wall Street movement that sparked the global demos began on September 17 with activists taking up residence in the heart of the Financial District.

In Miami, a city that rarely hosts mass demonstrations, at least 1,000 people marched downtown. The crowd included youth and retirees standing up against corporations, banks and war. No police could be seen as the group approached government buildings.

Over 10,000 Canadians blew bubbles, strummed guitars and chanted anti-corporate slogans at peaceful protests in cities across the country.

“I believe a revolution is happening,” said 30-year-old Annabell Chapa, who brought her one-year-old son Jaydn along in a stroller.

The European Union also became a target for anger as the eurozone debt crisis continues, with some 9,000 protesters marching to the EU’s headquarters in Brussels and rallying outside the ECB’s headquarters in Frankfurt.

In Rome, the march quickly degenerated into running street battles between groups of hooded protesters and riot police who fired tear gas and water jets into the crowd amid a security lockdown in the Italian capital.

“Today is only the beginning. We hope to move forward with a global movement. There are many of us and we want the same things,” said one protester, Andrea Muraro, a 24-year-old engineering student from Padua.

“Only One Solution: Revolution!” read a placard. One group carried a cardboard coffin with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s name on it.

Berlusconi later condemned the “incredible level of violence” at the march.

He said the clashes were “a very worrying signal for civil coexistence.”

Rome mayor Gianni Alemanno said “we’ve seen the worst of Europe today in Rome.”

Seventy people were injured in the clashes and treated by medics, including three in a serious condition, Italian news agency ANSA reported.

Backing from Italy’s main trade unions and student movements boosted the numbers at the protest in Rome — in contrast to most of the other rallies.

As the day began, around 500 people gathered in the heart of Hong Kong’s financial district to vent their anger. About 100 demonstrators in Tokyo also voiced fury at the Fukushima nuclear accident.

Another 600 demonstrators in Sydney set up camp outside Australia’s central bank, where the plight of refugees and Aboriginal Australians was added to the financial concerns. Source

Occupy Wall Street Spain

Occupy Tokyo 2011

Violence erupts as general strike shuts down Greece

Wall Street and Greek protests spread to Brussels

Wall Street/Washington Protesters an Inspiration to Behold

Recent

Pentagon Insider Says Green Light On Israel/USA To Strike Iran Within 2 Weeks

Jewish ‘Heroes’ Contest: “self-loving” Jew VS “self-destructive.

UN Member States Must Demand Action Against NATO War Crimes

We fabricated drug charges against innocent people to meet arrest quotas, former NYPD detective testifies

Published in: on October 16, 2011 at 9:23 am  Comments Off on World Wide Occupy Wall Street Protests  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Goldman Sachs profited from market crash

April 25 2010

A US Senate panel has revealed emails that show Goldman Sachs Group Inc profited massively by engaging in the sale of investments that were structured to fail.

Senators say the Wall Street giant investment bank bundled toxic mortgages into complex financial instruments. It then manipulated credit rating agencies to give excellent ratings to these products.

The head of the Senate panel, Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan claims that Goldman sold the toxic securities to its investors.

In some cases, the company bet against the financial products it sold to investors and profited at the expense of its clients.

Goldman’s executives are testifying in Washington this week. The firm denies any wrongdoings.

The Securities and Exchange Commission sued Goldman Sachs on April 16 for civil fraud lawsuit alleging the bank didn’t tell investors in a collateralized debt obligation that hedge-fund firm Paulson & Co. helped structure the deal and was planning to bet against it.

The e-mails were released by Levin prior to the Tuesday’s hearing on Capitol Hill.  Source

Goldman Sachs insists it made $1.2bn loss on sub-prime market

Emails released by Congress sub-committee imply Goldman bankers boasted about making ‘serious money’ on mortgage defaults

Goldman received $10bn of government bail-out money and converted to a commercial bank at the height of the crisis, giving it access to cheap Federal Reserve funds: “Goldman’s been singled out because clearly there’s something of a smoking gun here and they’re top of the heap.”On Saturday, the senate committee’s chairman, Carl Levin, a veteran Democratic lawmaker, struck a combative tone by releasing a collection of internal Goldman emails that, he said, showed Goldman made “a lot of money by betting against the mortgage market”, while millions of Americans were losing their homes to bailiffs.

For the entire story go HERE

Faced with a $1bn (£650m) fraud prosecution is peanuts considering they got $10 billion from US taxpayers.  They still made a $9 billion profit even if they loose the case.  Maybe they should pay back all they stole from taxpayers.

And if they didn’t make profit one of their friends certainly did.  So if Paulson and Co made a lot of money, why not others?

Maybe the rest of the profiteers just haven’t been found yet.

Related

Paulson and Co. made a $3.7 billion profit on collapse of subprime mortgage market

Recent

UK: AWOL soldier, Joe Glenton loses sentence appeal

Israel threatens Syria with war

Philippines: Arrests, Torture, and the Presidential Election

The 2nd Eyjafjallajökull volcano eruption in south Iceland

Arrest of Israeli officer leading organ trafficking ring

Experts fear human trafficking more widespread

Published in: on April 26, 2010 at 12:00 am  Comments Off on Goldman Sachs profited from market crash  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Paulson and Co. made a $3.7 billion profit on collapse of subprime mortgage market

The Firm Not Charged in Goldman Case Made Billions on Collapse

By Marisa Taylor

April 18 2010

WASHINGTON – New York hedge fund manager John Paulson was one of the first to predict the collapse of the subprime mortgage market – and to cash in on his knowledge.

By late 2005, he already had concluded that the subprime loans underlying high-yield bonds being sold worldwide would become worthless, even as some Wall Street firms were still ramping up their sale of related securities.

“We determined …that there was a complete mispricing of risk of mortgage securities,” Paulson testified at a congressional hearing in November 2008.

As a result, his firm, Paulson & Co., made a $3.7 billion profit by betting against the housing market as it nose dived in 2006 and 2007. On Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosed that $1 billion of those profits came in an insider deal in which Goldman Sachs allegedly let the company select subprime securities for a complicated offshore deal and then bet on their failure.

Paulson & Co., which was founded in 1994, manages funds that are open only to “qualified purchasers” – individual investors with $5 million in assets to invest or institutions with at least $25 million to invest. In 2004, the company registered with the SEC as an investment adviser.

The company was able to anticipate the losses because Paulson’s researchers looked at the underlying home loans, Paulson told Congress. Paulson realized they were comprised of risky mortgages – some of which were made with 100 percent financing.

Even worse, he testified, mortgages were given to borrowers who had a history of poor credit, had no verified income or whose appraisal that was typically inflated.

“It was that analysis that allowed us to buy protection on these securities, which resulted in large gains for our funds,” he said.

SEC officials said Friday that Paulson was not charged in the Goldman case because the company did not mislead investors.

In a statement, the company pointed to the SEC’s statements, saying, “Paulson is not the subject of this complaint, made no misrepresentations and is not the subject of any charges.”

The company declined to respond to questions.

Several media outlets reported Friday that former Paulson co-manager Paolo Pellegrini was cooperating with the investigation and provided the SEC with crucial information that led to the Goldman charges.

A spokeswoman for Pellegrini, who left to start his own fund, didn’t immediately comment. Source

Who was IKB, the German bank on the losing end of John Paulson’s Abacus bet?

Mike O’Rourke of BTIG explains, and points out why they’re pissed as hell about the bubble bursting.

One of the “victims” of this alleged fraud is IKB, a bank.  If any institution should know how to analyze credit, it’s a bank.  Even worse is that IKB is one of these serial carry-traders who purchased these types of instruments for the Structured Investment Vehicles and floated paper in the Asset Backed Commercial Paper market against them borrowing short and lending long (see chart).  Those are the institutions that truly put the system at risk.

Finally, in this scenario, the “independent” third party portfolio selection agent claimed to be unsure of the client’s intentions.  It should not matter what the related party’s views or intentions are, whether long or short.  The fact is the agent’s very job description is to be unbiased and independent.  Instead, just like the ratings agencies, the collateral managers saw the profits that loomed rather than performing the task at hand.  If ACA had simply performed its task of comprehensively and independently evaluating the underlying RMBS, the deal would not have happened.  It is hard to believe they did not know the intentions for the pool when the higher quality subprime RMBS were replaced.  In addition, if AAA ratings were not handed out to everyone who applied, this deal (like so many others) would not have been done.

The chart says it all.

Source

Related

John Paulson Should Be Kicked Out Of The Securities Industry For Life

John Paulson Needs A Good Lawyer

There is information on the Financial and housing collapse in the 2008 Archives. From September 2008 on.

Indexed List of all Stories in Archives

Recent

Philippines: Arrests, Torture, and the Presidential Election

War Veteran Jesse Huff Commits suicide outside VA Hospital

The 2nd Eyjafjallajökull volcano eruption in south Iceland

Arrest of Israeli officer leading organ trafficking ring

Experts fear human trafficking more widespread

ElBaradei: Gaza, world’s largest jail

US violates UN law by threatening Iran

Published in: on April 18, 2010 at 6:53 am  Comments Off on Paulson and Co. made a $3.7 billion profit on collapse of subprime mortgage market  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This Is One of the Biggest Wall Street Frauds Ever

By Porter Stansberry

February 26 2010

One of the best lessons I’ve learned over my career as an investment analyst is the myth of excellent management or “great execution” is really just that – a myth.

When I see companies in troubled industries reporting quarter after quarter of great results, while all of their peers are getting killed, I know a fraud is going on. I remember in the early 2000s, WorldCom kept reporting profits when all of the other long-distance carriers were getting killed. I knew it couldn’t last. And it didn’t. WorldCom’s accounting was revealed to be a fraud – the company was counting its network access costs as capital expenses. Once the real numbers came out, the company collapsed in what was the largest bankruptcy in American history at that point.

About three years ago, I saw Goldman Sachs reporting quarter after quarter of unbelievable results when all of the other investment banks were hurting. I spent a lot of time looking at its numbers – which didn’t make any sense. It reminded me of Enron. It kept reporting bigger and bigger profits, but lost more money every year in cash. And its debt balances kept growing.

I wrote a lot about this in The Digest, but I never officially recommended shorting Goldman in my newsletter because I literally couldn’t figure out how Goldman Sachs was doing it. I couldn’t find the smoking gun… but I knew a giant fraud would be discovered there, eventually.

In October 2008, I figured out part of the big secret: Goldman had insured all of its subprime exposure via AIG. This allowed it to book huge profits on its subprime investments long before they were actually paid off because the bonds were insured. Of course, it was all a sham – AIG didn’t have nearly enough money to pay off any of the insurance. (See the October issue of PSIA for more details.) A source close to the company even told me how big the exposure to AIG really was – $20 billion. That’s roughly 100% of the profit Goldman claimed in 2006 and 2007, at the height of the credit bubble. Goldman completely denied my report and claimed it had zero exposure to AIG.

As was subsequently revealed in the spring of 2009, my report was right on the money. Goldman had roughly $20 billion in exposure to AIG and received roughly $14 billion of money the federal government used to bail out AIG.

But I completely missed one big part of the story… And once this fact becomes common knowledge, it will probably mean jail time for several leading Goldman executives and the end of the firm. What did I miss? The entire Goldman-AIG relationship was a complete sham. Let me explain…

Goldman eventually admitted it had insured roughly $20 billion worth of subprime CDOs with AIG and had major exposure to the firm. But the New York Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs never revealed this critical fact: Goldman didn’t merely buy insurance on a bunch of random subprime CDOs. It actually bought insurance on special CDOs it had put together and sold to its own clients. In other words, Goldman knew more about these CDOs than anyone else. Goldman bought insurance on these CDOs because it knew they’d collapse.

This is tantamount to building a house, planting a bomb in it, selling it to an unsuspecting buyer, and buying $20 billion worth of life insurance on the homeowner – who you know is going to die!

These facts all came to light because of research done by the office of Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. These new documents will certainly lead to a full investigation of the Goldman-AIG dealings and the subsequent $180 billion bailout led by the New York Federal Reserve. My bet? Heads will roll. If you own Goldman Sachs, you’d better sell.
Source

No surprise there. Both AIG and Goldman Sachs rate right up there with all the bailed out companies.  They caused the Financial crisis and the taxpayer foots the bill and still no real investigation or audits have been done. Even the Fed refused to let auditors in.

Recent

Assassination latest act in nightmare without end

Rachel Corrie Gets Her Day in Court

Help Haiti Everybody Hurts Video

Published in: on February 28, 2010 at 5:39 am  Comments Off on This Is One of the Biggest Wall Street Frauds Ever  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

US Banks Will be Begging at the Tax Payers Door Again Soon

November 20 2008

By ERIC DASH and LOUISE STORY

For months, the nation’s largest banks have struggled to regain investors’ trust. In the center of the vortex is Citigroup, whose precipitous stock-market plunge accelerated on Thursday, sending shock waves through the financial world.

The shares slumped 26 percent Thursday; the bank has lost half its value in just four days. The chief executive, Vikram S. Pandit, will hold a meeting for senior managers Friday to update them on the bank’s condition.

Investors and analysts have long pressured the bank to consider ways to lift its stock price, including splitting the company or selling pieces. While a few also say the company should consider selling itself outright, there is no certainty that any change would happen soon. Senior executives say the company is financially strong and has ample financing options. Moreover, there are few buyers who would be willing to pay a price that Citigroup would want for its most valuable assets.

Citigroup executives are seeking to stabilize the stock price, but at this point they are not actively exploring selling or splitting up the company, according to two people with direct knowledge of the discussions.

The bank has posted four consecutive quarters of losses, caused by billions in write-downs. Nine of its investment funds have cratered this year. And now the bank could face a tsunami of new losses in its once-lucrative consumer loan business as the global economy weakens.

Within the bank’s Manhattan offices, television screens have stopped displaying the company’s stock price. Traders have begun making jokes comparing Citigroup to the Titanic.

But there is a wide gap between what Wall Street investors and Citigroup’s executives believe about the company’s financial condition. Senior executives feel that Mr. Pandit has followed through on plans to aggressively shrink the company and control costs. The bank has sold tens of billions of dollars’ worth of risky assets, improved its capital position and announced plans to eliminate 52,000 jobs by next June. “We are entering 2009 in a strong position, much stronger than we entered in 2008,” Mr. Pandit said in a speech to employees this week. “We will be a long-term winner in this industry.”

Yet as the drumbeat of bad news about the bank grows louder, investors remain unconvinced. Even a decision by Prince Walid bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, who bailed out Citicorp in the 1990s, to raise his stake to 5 percent Thursday failed to restore confidence in the bank. Two senior Citigroup executives said the bank had not approached him about raising his investment. The Saudi prince’s initial investment soared as Citigroup turned out record profits, only to evaporate over the last year.

“The earnings power is there,” said Charles Peabody, a financial services analyst at Portales Partners. “It’s a question of getting through the credit issues.”

Other big banks, like Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, also tumbled Thursday as the broad stock market sank again, wiping out more than a decade’s worth of gains. And Goldman Sachs, once the most sterling American investment bank, fell below the $53 price at which it went public in 1999.

Investors have long feared that the bad news for banks will get worse as the economy slows. But this latest rout in financial shares, which are now plumbing their lowest depths since the economic crisis broke out, reflects growing concern that banks like Citigroup will require vast sums of additional capital, possibly from the government, to cope with the pain to come.

Home mortgages, credit card loans, commercial real estate debt — all are likely to deteriorate further now that a recession is at hand. Banks that have already lost billions of dollars could lose billions more.

“All the danger signs are flashing red,” said Simon Johnson, a professor at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Much of the fear centers on the unknowable. It is unclear just how bad banks’ losses on consumer loans, credit cards and mortgages will be as the economy weakens. Commercial real estate loans are deteriorating, and it is unclear whether banks have sold the worst of their holdings. Then there are all the investments that lurk off of banks’ balance sheets, in the so-called shadow banking system. And a new uncertainty has leapt to the forefront as the automotive industry teeters, sending investors scrambling to calculate how much banks are exposed to these loans.

Several big banks hit record lows. Bank of America fell 13.86 percent to $11.25, JPMorgan slid 17.88 percent to $23.38 and Goldman Sachs slumped 5.76 percent to close at $52. Morgan Stanley neared a record low, closing down 10.24 percent at $9.20, while Wells Fargo fell 7.66 percent to $22.53.

In a bid to calm nerves, Citigroup officials are meeting with other large shareholders. Last week, Citigroup’s chairman, Winfried Bischoff, traveled to Dubai and met with Sheik Ahmed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the director of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, according to two executives briefed on the situation.

The renewed assault on financial stocks led the Financial Services Roundtable, an influential lobby group for the industry, to press regulators Thursday for another ban on short-selling, a strategy in which investors bet against declines in a share price.

The current rout appeared to have gained momentum after Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. announced last week that the government would abandon its original plan to purchase troubled bank assets. That sent prices of commercial mortgage bonds and other loans into a nosedive. Mr. Paulson also said the Treasury would let the incoming administration determine how to deploy the remaining $350 billion left in the program.

Yet investors have grown increasingly nervous about the appearance of a leadership vacuum in Washington as the financial markets burn, and some have begun saying that President-elect Barack Obama should move more rapidly to release a plan.

“We really need somebody to step in and show leadership,” said Wilbur L. Ross Jr., chairman of WL Ross and Company, an investment firm that has been looking for bargains in the banking sector. “Every day that’s wasted and that we stay in freefall is going to make the recession that much deeper and longer.”

That has workers in the financial industry bracing for more pain.

“Major financial institutions have been taking write-downs all year, and what do you do next? You lay people off, and that decreases your need for office space,” said Harold Bordwin of the real estate group at KPMG Corporate Finance. “It’s very scary.”

Source

They will be begging the tax payers, yet again to help them out.

They created their own mess and got handed a Bailout on a silver platter.

They lobbied the Government to give them the ability to, totally destroy the world financial markets.

They have accomplished that in living color. Their incompetence is obvious.

I see yet another Pity Party coming soon.

Are they really worth saving?

I wouldn’t invest in any one of them either. Seems they can’t be trusted.

Barack Obama should come up with a plan to fix what the Banks and The Bush Administration” created, should he?

Well now I think the Banks should be cleaning up their own dirty laundry.  They are after all responsible for the disastrous, financial crisis. All in the name of Greed and profiteering.

.

Published in: on November 21, 2008 at 9:27 am  Comments Off on US Banks Will be Begging at the Tax Payers Door Again Soon  
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

What bailed-out banks spend on lobbying

By Matt Kelley


WASHINGTON

Nineteen banks taking taxpayer money from the Treasury Department have spent $32.4 million lobbying the federal government during the first nine months of this year, their lobbying disclosure reports show.

Combined, the Treasury is investing in the banks $159 billion from the $700 billion financial rescue package approved by Congress last month. None of the banks has indicated it plans to stop lobbying.

Lobbying by the financial industry before and during the financial crisis has come under criticism from consumer groups, members of Congress and President-elect Barack Obama.

“It’s ridiculous that the perpetrators of this mess should be the people dictating to Congress how to get out of it,” says Kathleen Day of the non-profit Center for Responsible Lending.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., began drafting a bill to ban recipients of government help from lobbying with taxpayer funds after learning that insurance giant American International Group continued to lobby after it received $123 billion in government-backed loans. AIG suspended its lobbying Oct. 20, company spokesman Joe Norton says.

In a statement, Feinstein said “it would be unconscionable for these companies to misuse taxpayer dollars” on lobbying. Although federal law prohibits federal loan, grant or contract money from being used for lobbying, Feinstein wants to ensure that ban also applies to the investments, loan guarantees and other emergency help offered to financial firms, Feinstein spokesman Gil Duran said.

Financial industry lobbyist Scott Talbott says such restrictions are unnecessary.

“Washington is watching. The world is watching. Companies will be able to show how they’re using the money,” said Talbott, a senior vice president of the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade group that represents 21 large banks getting government investments. “Lobbyist money will come out of other income.”

Feinstein and others criticized AIG last month for sending executives on a $440,000 retreat after getting government help. AIG so far has spent $9.5 million on lobbying this year, records show.

Norton said AIG stopped working to influence legislation and regulations, but its lobbyists “continue to monitor policy and have general discussions” with lawmakers and regulators. He said AIG has no plans to fire its lobbyists or lobbying firms.

THE BALANCE OF INFLUENCE

Lobbying expenses for first 9 months of 2008
By banks receiving government help:

Company

Lobbying amount

Government investment

Merrill Lynch{*}

$4.6 million

$25 billion

Bank of America{*}

$4.7 million

$25 billion

Citigroup

$5.6 million

$25 billion

JPMorgan Chase

$5 million

$25 billion

Wells Fargo

$2 million

$25 billion

Goldman Sachs

$4.2 million

$10 billion

Morgan Stanley

$2.4 million

$10 billion

PNC Bank

$320,000

$7.7 billion

U.S. Bancorp

$290,000

$6.6 billion

Capital One

$920,000

$3.6 billion

* — Merrill Lynch is being taken over by Bank of America, and the merged bank will receive $25 billion

Sources: Lobbying disclosure reports, U.S. Senate Office of Public Records, Financial Services Roundtable

Source

Despite crisis, Merrill Lynch still lobbying

By Matt Kelley

WASHINGTON

Brokerage giant Merrill Lynch, a victim of the financial crisis, is merging with Bank of America and expects to share in the $25 billion the Treasury Department is spending to help the merged bank.

Despite its crumbling financial foundation and organizational upheaval, one thing at Merrill hasn’t changing: It has continued to lobby the federal government, including on the $700 billion financial rescue package that provided the money for the government investments in Merrill and other major banks.

President-elect Barack Obama and members of Congress have blamed lobbying by the financial industry in part for the current financial crisis. Last month, Obama said the crisis developed “when speculators gamed the system, regulators looked the other way, and lobbyists bought their way into our government.”

Jeff Peck, a lobbyist whose clients include Merrill Lynch, says financial companies will “take their lumps” before a skeptical Congress but have a right to lobby Washington policymakers.

Merrill Lynch hired the firm April 1 and paid it $160,000 through September to lobby Congress on a “blueprint for regulatory and mortgage reform,” the firm’s disclosure reports say. Merrill Lynch has spent $4.6 million in lobbying in the first nine months of the year, records show.

“When you have this kind of scrutiny and this kind of seismic change happening … everyone wants to make sure they’re part of the process that affects their business,” Peck said.

Bank of America also has no plans to quit lobbying, spokesman Scott Silvestri said.

“We continue to talk to Congress and regulators about issues of interest and concern to our company,” Silvestri said.

Lobbyists play a key role in keeping lawmakers and government decision-makers informed about how their decisions affect the lobbyists’ clients, says Scott Talbott of the Financial Services Roundtable, a group representing large banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions.

“Lobbyists provide information, and that role is more important than ever right now,” Talbott says. “You have a very complicated industry, and we’re trying to find the best solutions. … Now is not the time to be cutting back on information flow.”

Banks and other financial firms lobbied Congress for the financial rescue package, but the idea for direct government investment in financial institutions came from the Treasury Department. The American Bankers Association wrote to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson last week to complain that healthy banks without toxic debt on their books were being pressured to take part.

“This is not a program the banking industry sought,” wrote Ed Yingling, CEO of the bankers’ group. He said some banks are worried that being coerced into taking government money will make them appear to be financially weak and that the government may decide to restrict dividend payments to shareholders.

Unlike the banks, in which the government is buying minority stakes, the feds completely took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant home mortgage financing companies brought down by the foreclosure crisis.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent $14.3 million on lobbying before the government halted it in September after taking over the companies at a cost of as much as $200 billion.

Lobbying by Fannie and Freddie has been bipartisan. Freddie Mac’s internal lobbyists included Kirsten Johnson-Obey, the daughter-in-law of House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, D-Wis. Fannie Mae paid $115,000 in lobbying fees this year to a lobbying firm headed by Steve Farber, the co-chairman of the host committee for Democratic Party convention held in August in Denver.

On the Republican side, Freddie Mac paid $260,000 this year to Timmons & Co. — a lobbying firm founded by Bill Timmons, who worked in the Nixon and Ford administrations and was a top campaign aide or adviser to every presidential candidate since Richard Nixon.

Kathleen Day of the Center for Responsible Lending says financial companies’ clout should be on the decline because their mistakes led to the current crisis.

“It shouldn’t be the industry getting its way all the time,” Day said. “Look where that got us.”

Source

Published in: on November 8, 2008 at 6:38 am  Comments Off on What bailed-out banks spend on lobbying  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Throwdown: Bank of America vs. JPMorgan

By Morgan Housel

November 6, 2008

Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) and JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM).

They’re both huge. They’ll both be survivors. Both received a $25 billion investment from the Treasury. One picked up Countrywide when it looked ready to fail, the other picked up WaMu when it did fail. One bought Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER) before a pending disaster, the other bought Bear Stearns after a historic disaster.

I smell a fight brewin’. Let’s watch these two go head-to-head and crown the king of the megabanks.

A year to forget
JPMorgan has certainly fared better than B of A in the past year: Shares are down 13% and 56%, respectively. Even so, if you compare the two on a variety of different metrics, you’ll be hard-pressed to find a clear front-runner. Both companies are well capitalized — especially after Hank Paulson’s early Christmas gift — and have ample reserves to cover future losses, and both have kept nonperforming loans and net charge-offs at levels that shouldn’t keep you from losing too much sleep, which is about all you can ask for these days.

While the similarities abound, shareholders have to grapple with a huge wild card to assess the quality of these two: the impact of mammoth acquisitions made in the past year. Comparing past results seems irrelevant, since the B of A and JPMorgan of next year will be completely different beasts than the B of A and JPMorgan of this year.

Everything must go!
Both banks shocked the financial world with four monster deals this year: Countrywide, Bear Stearns, WaMu, and Merrill Lynch (pending). The deals are serious game-changers, since they give B of A and JPMorgan the chance to close the investment-banking gap with Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), and the real-estate gap with Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC) — especially in light of its pending Wachovia (NYSE: WB) acquisition.

Better yet, all of these deals were made with companies that either had, or likely would have, failed. It only makes sense, then, that they were struck at fire-sale prices … which most were. Countrywide was bought for about $4 billion — one-third of its tangible book value at the time. JPMorgan paid no more than what Bear Stearns’ New York office building was valued at, and has the government backing some of Bear’s riskiest assets. WaMu was acquired from the FDIC for a token amount just five months after JPMorgan originally offered $8 per share.

The one exception to this bargain-bin rampage? Bank of America’s pending $50 billion acquisition of Merrill Lynch.

Whereas JPMorgan was practically handed Bear Stearns, B of A actually paid a premium to Merrill’s book value — and did it without any government help. Why’d it pay up? Your guess is as good as mine. You’d think a deal struck at a time when Merrill likely would have failed without a partner would have been done at terms B of A would be salivating over, yet Merrill Lynch appeared to come out with the bargaining power on this one.

Now — without comparing the differences between Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch — we have something material to distinguish B of A from JPMorgan: Merrill Lynch could easily end up being a $50-billion blunder for B of A, especially if the economy continues to upend the finance world as we know it. JPMorgan’s deal with Bear Stearns, on the other hand, will likely go down as “the deal of the century” even if Wall Street continues to flounder, simply because it paid so little for it. That fact alone shifts the probability of success in the coming years comfortably into JPMorgan’s corner.

The verdict
Two great banks. Two survivors in a hollowed-out industry. Two stocks that will likely look like bargains five or 10 years down the road when — dare I say it — the credit crunch could be long gone.

But since so much of B of A’s future is now hinged on the moot assumption that the $50 billion offered for Merrill will eventually bear fruit, I’d put the odds of big returns in the coming years leaning more toward JPMorgan Chase.

Source


A Crisis Made in the Oval Office

Economist explains how conservatives engineered financial free-fall

Wall Streeters are just Welfare Recipiants in Disguise

Stock Market, History,Causes and Affects


Published in: on November 6, 2008 at 8:58 pm  Comments Off on Throwdown: Bank of America vs. JPMorgan  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Goldman begins to cut 10% of staff

AP

November 06, 2008

Goldman Sachs Group Inc has begun notifying about 3,200 employees globally that they have lost their jobs, as the world’s biggest investment bank slashes expenses to ride out the financial crisis, a person familiar with the situation said.

The job cuts, which were first reported last month, are a reflection of the ongoing downturn in the credit and lending markets that triggered massive losses for banks around the world. Goldman Sachs had been considered the strongest investment bank on Wall Street, and earlier this year had expected its payrolls to expand.

Positions will be cut across Goldman’s offices globally and among various business lines, and will bring the company’s staffing to 2006 and 2007 levels, the person said yesterday. He spoke on condition of anonymity because the company hasn’t publicly disclosed details of the plan.

According to CapitalIQ, Goldman has more than 37,000 employees across its operations.

There also have been reports that Goldman’s army of bankers might see their bonuses cut in half this year.

Difficulties at the firm demonstrate that even the industry’s most powerful player is not immune to fallout from the unprecedented financial turmoil.

On Monday, Merrill Lynch analyst Guy Moszkowski predicted that Goldman would report a loss for the fourth quarter, its first since going public in 1999. The stock market’s

plunge has created a brutal atmosphere for some of Goldman’s once high-flying businesses, such as private equity and proprietary trading.


Source

Published in: on November 6, 2008 at 6:29 am  Comments Off on Goldman begins to cut 10% of staff  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Rescued bank to pay millions in bonuses

By Simon Bowers

November 1 2008

Royal Bank of Scotland, which is being bailed out with £20bn of taxpayers’ money, has signalled it is preparing to pay bonuses to thousands of staff despite government pledges to crack down on City pay.

The bank has set aside £1.79bn to cover “staff costs” – including discretionary bonuses – at its investment banking division for the first six months of the year alone. The same division caused a £5.9bn writedown that wiped out the bank’s profits for the same period.

The government had demanded that boardroom directors at RBS should not receive bonuses this year and the chief executive, Sir Fred Goodwin, is walking away without a pay-off. But below boardroom level, RBS and other groups are preparing to pay bonuses to investment bankers who continue to generate profits.

The disclosure drew fierce criticism from Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman.

“The government said they would attach strict conditions on bonuses and it is very clear they are doing nothing of the kind.

“The banks are just making complete monkeys of them.”

He suggested the government would not have agreed to bail out any standalone investment bank. RBS and others had become “entangled with casino-style investment banking operations”, he said.

Despite the continuing financial turmoil and widespread criticism of the bonus culture in the City, the bank is understood to believe the payments are defensible.

A source said: “I think everybody would expect [that those responsible for writedowns] would not get a bonus. But there are people who still made fairly substantial money in other product areas – you cannot just not pay them bonuses, they will just go elsewhere.” Asked about the likely bonus culture after taxpayer-funded bail-out, the source said: “If the government does end up becoming a shareholder, RBS is still a listed entity. It remains the board’s responsibility to ensure it is run commercially.”

Several US politicians have seized on an investigation by the Guardian last month which showed six Wall Street banks – Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers – had set aside $70bn (£42.5bn) in pay and bonuses for the first nine months of the year.

Five are in line to benefit from a $700bn US taxpayer bail-out. The sixth, Lehman Brothers, has collapsed – though not without securing considerable bonus payouts for staff in the US.

Henry Waxman, chairman of the House oversight committee, wrote to chief executives of America’s nine largest banks this week asking them to hand over information about their pay and bonus plans.

In his letter Waxman cites the Guardian report and says: “Some experts have suggested that a significant percentage of [bankers’ pay] could come in year-end bonuses and that the size of the bonuses will be significantly enhanced as a result of the infusion of taxpayer funds.”

Staff costs at RBS’s investment banking division include salaries already paid in the first six months of the year, national insurance and profit-sharing contributions as well as funds earmarked for end-of-year bonuses. The sum set aside is 20% lower than the equivalent figure for the first six months of 2007.

Banking sources privately acknowledge that the sight of these bonus accruals may provoke anger. They concede the industry’s pay and bonus regime is under unprecedented strain as it fails to reflect profitability, asset writedowns or share price declines.

Source

Not really surprised to see some of  the bailout money is going to those who were in part, responsible for the down fall of the banks in the first place.

Governments should be protecting the taxpayer, not the bonues to those who messed up in the first place.

Why should we be surprised by this? Typical Government blunders are to be expected.  Either they don’t think or they don’t care about their citizens, as much as they pretend too.  This crisis was created in the US, flaunted around the world and now this  total insult to the taxpayers. As usual the rich get richer and the poor get ripped off. I am still waiting to see if and what has been investigated and what the findings are. This could be a very fraudulent set of events put into motion by a scrupulous few.

Create a Crisis, Fear and Solution. This method is as American as War or Apple Pie. This method has been used on the American people more times then one could ever imagine. Seems now they are using it around the world. Will we ever know the truth? Probably not.

This is a very informative Video, one of my Visitors gave me a while back. Very interesting indeed and an excellent Video. Be sure to take the time to watch it. You will be very enlightened by the end of it.  Could a Crisis be created? For sure.

The Money Masters – How International Bankers Gained Control of America

A Crisis Made in the Oval Office

This is the first time in the history of the United States that the president has sought to provoke a financial panic to get legislation passed through Congress. While this has proven to be a successful political strategy – after the House of Representatives finally passed the bank bail-out plan today – it marks yet another low point in American politics.

It was incredibly irresponsible for George Bush to tell the American people on national television that the country could be facing another Great Depression. By contrast, when we actually were in the Great Depression, President Roosevelt said: “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.”

It was even more irresponsible for President Bush to seize on the decline in the stock market five days later as evidence that his bailout was needed for the economy. President Bush must surely understand, as all economists know, that the daily swings in the stock market are driven by mass psychology and have almost nothing to do with the underlying strength in the economy.

The scare tactics of President Bush, Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary, and Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, created sufficient panic, so that by the time of the first vote on the emergency package in Congress, much of the public believed that the defeat of the bail-out may actually have had serious consequences for the economy. Millions of people have changed their behaviour because of this fear, with many pulling money out of bank and money market accounts, and adjusting their financial plans in other ways.

This effort to promote panic is especially striking since the country’s dire economic situation is almost entirely the result of the Bush administration’s policy failures. First and foremost, the decision of Paulson and Bernanke (and previously Alan Greenspan) to ignore the housing bubble, allowed for the growth of an $8tn bubble, which is now collapsing.

It is the collapse of this bubble – which has already destroyed more than $4tn in housing wealth, and is likely to destroy another $4tn over the next year – that is at the root of the economy’s problems. While competent economists were warning of the bubble and the dire consequences of its collapse, the top officials in the Bush administration were celebrating the rise in homeownership rates.

The Bush administration made the crisis even worse by deregulating Wall Street. This led to the huge over-leveraging of financial institutions, which has vastly complicated the country’s economic policies. It is especially disturbing that Secretary Paulson personally profited from these policies, earning millions of dollars in compensation from Goldman Sachs during his years there as its chief executive.

The collapse of the housing bubble, while falling short of the magnitude of the Great Depression, is likely to lead to the worst recession since the second world war. Repairing the damage caused by this bubble will be a long and difficult process. Cleaning up the damage to the political system from President Bush’s unprecedented fear campaign may prove to be even more difficult.

Source

Published in: on October 8, 2008 at 8:55 am  Comments Off on A Crisis Made in the Oval Office  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FEDERAL RESERVE OWNERS AND HISTORY

March 2012 — Just added the First Audit of the Federal Reserve in 99 years. It is at the bottom of the page.

Seems the Federal Reserve is deep in a Fraud and Money Laundering Scam. This began in the George W Bush Era.

This may just be the tip of the iceberg.

Bush, Fed, Europe Banks in $15 Trillion Fraud, All Documented

FEDERAL RESERVE OWNERS


Here’s a look into who was involved in setting up the Federal Reserve in 1913.

* Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
* Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
* Israel Moses Sieff Banks of Italy
* Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Germany and Amsterdam
* Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
* Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
* Goldman Sachs Bank of New York
* Chase Manhattan Bank of New York (Controlled By the Rockefeller Family Tree)

Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. 1913 “When the President signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized….the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.”

A Bit of History

In August of 1929, the Fed began to tighten the money supply continually by buying more government bonds. At the same time, all the Wall Street giants of the era, including John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan divested from the stockmarket and put all their assets into cash and gold.

Soon thereafter, on October 24, 1929, the large brokerages all simultaneously called in their 24 hour “call-loans.” Brokers and investors were now forced to sell their stocks at any price they could get to cover these loans. The resulting market crash on “Black Thursday” was the beginning of the Great Depression.

The Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, Representative Louis T. Mc Fadden, accused the Fed and international bankers of premeditating the crash. “It was not accidental,” he declared, “it was a carefully contrived occurrence (created by international bankers) to bring about a condition of despair…so that they might emerge as rulers of us all.”

He went on to accuse European “statesmen and financiers” of creating the situation to facilitate the reacquisition of the massive amounts of gold which Europe had lost to the U.S. during WWI. In a 1999 interview, Nobel Prize winning economist and Stanford University Professor Milton Friedman stated: “The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression.”

US DECLAIRED bankruptcy

Because the government of the U.S. (a corporation) had paid its loans to the Fed with real money exchangeable for gold, it was now insolvent and could no longer retire its debt. It now had no choice but to file chapter 11. Under the Emergency Banking Act (March 9, 1933, 48 Stat.1, Public law 89-719) President Franklin Roosevelt effectively dissolved the United States Federal Government by declaring the entity bankrupt and insolvent.

June 5, 1933 Congress enacted HJR 192 which made all debts, public or private, no longer collectible in gold. Instead, all debts public or private were to be payable in un-backed Fed-created fiat currency. This new currency would now be legal tender in the U.S. for all debts public and private.

Henceforth, our United States Constitution would be continuously eroded due to the fact that our nation is now owned “lock stock and barrel,” by a private consortium of international bankers, contemptuous of any freedoms or sovereignties intended by our forefathers. This was all accomplished by design.

How the Gold was Stolen from America

Under orders of the creditor (the Federal Reserve System and its private owners) on April 5, 1933 President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Presidential order 6102, which required all Americans to deliver all gold coins, gold bullion, and gold certificates to their local Federal Reserve Bank on or before April 28, 1933.

Any violators would be fined up to $10,000, imprisoned up to ten years, or both for knowingly violating this order. This gold was then offered by the Fed owners to any foreign, non-U.S. citizen, at $35.00 per ounce. Over the entire previous 100 years, gold had remained at a stable value, increasing only from $18.93 per ounce to $20.69 per ounce.

Since then, every U.S. citizen (by virtue of their birth certificate) has become an asset of the government, pledged at a specific dollar amount to pay this debt through future taxation. Thus, every American citizen is in debt from birth (via future taxation), and is, for all practical purposes, property of the creditors, the privately owned Federal Reserve System.

Presently, the United States Government (which again, is completely owned and controlled by the international bankers) continues to forfeit its sovereignty by entering into international monetary and trade agreements which abolish almost all forms of trade tariffs that previously protected not only the value of American commercial productivity and workforce labor, but which were also a substantial source of revenue for the government.

The loss of this revenue, as well as the expanding deficits created by recent massive reduction in taxation for large corporations and the very wealthiest citizens, insures continued borrowing by the government. This self-perpetuating cycle of borrowing is made possible only by the ability of the government to guarantee repayment (of only the interest, never the principal) through future taxation on the earnings of every American citizen.

Due to our banking history of deception, fraud and counterfeiting, which only benefits the purported elite bankers and their underlings, the borrowed principal itself is being used to make the payments on our debt at interest, thus, it is mathematically impossible to pay off.

We are, therefore, obligated to continue this cycle of borrowing indefinitely, causing complete money slavery for life. The amount owed will expand endlessly, until our monthly payments exceed our income, we are bankrupt, and all we have acquired in this lifetime is pillaged from us. Or, until the privately owned Federal Reserve System is ended and all debts are terminated.

This IS WAY Custsy

BANKING SECRETS THAT BANKS DON’T WANT PUBLISHED

With debt termination/debt reconciliation, you’re out of credit card debt and unsecured loans quickly and easily, once and for all! Here, you will learn the the violations that occur in the issuance of credit cards and loans, plus a touch of the legalities employed in terminating your debts. After qualifying and receiving a telephone presentation, you’ll concur that this is the safest, fastest, most legal, lawful, honest and ethical way of getting out of debt there ever was.

Through extensive research and development by economists, bankers, bank auditors, CPA’s, attorneys, underwriters, authors, and database programmers, we have developed a state-of-the-art legal administrative remedy, designed to anticipate and overcome nearly every variation of creditor response.

The successful termination of your debt also includes all-inclusive Credit Clean-Up of the accounts enrolled. Utilizing these abundant resources, we can work toward the termination of your debt within 18 months, with a much lower monthly payment, ending with nothing negative on your credit report.

With the immeasurable assistance and response from consumers nationwide, combined with our passion to do whatever it takes to neutralize this iniquity, our highly effective, proprietary system, and network of highly capable attorneys, will never cease to improve. The laws described below are the foundation of this process.

Your debt termination relies on applying Federal Laws, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Billing Act, the Uniform Commercial Code, the Truth in Lending Act, and numerous other banking and lending laws – to overcome the following banking practices…

Banks bombard consumers with over 6 billion mail solicitations each year. Notwithstanding newspaper, radio, television, magazine, sporting event advertising and numerous other forms of marketing, the average working class, credit-worthy, American is exposed to over 75 loan solicitations per year.

These banking ads represent, in one way or another, that the bank will lend you money in exchange for repayment, plus interest. This absurd idea is completely contrary to what, in reality, transpires and what is actually intended. In actual fact, banks do not lend you any of their own, or their depositors money.

False advertising is an act of deliberately misleading a potential client about a product, service or a company by misrepresenting information or data in advertising or other promotional materials. False advertising is a type of fraud and is often, a crime.

To substantiate this premise, we will begin by examining the funding process of credit cards and loans. When you sign and remit a loan or credit card application, (say you are approved for $10,000.00) the commercial bank stamps the back of the application, as if it were a check, with the words: “Pay $10,000.00 to the order of…” which alters your application, transforming it into a promissory note.

Altering a signed document, after the fact with the intention of changing the document’s value, constitutes forgery and fraud. Forgery is the process of making or adapting objects or documents with the intent to deceive. Fraud is any crime or civil wrong perpetuated for personal gain that utilizes the practice of deception as its principal method.

In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another, to damage them – usually, to obtain property or services without compensation. This practice may also be referred to as “theft by deception,” “larceny by trick,” “larceny by fraud and deception” or something similar.

Having altered the original document, the (now) promissory note is deposited at the local Federal Reserve Bank as new money. Generally Accepted Accounting Principels (the publication governing corporate accounting practices) states: “Anything accepted by the bank as a deposit is considered as cash.” This new money represents a three to ten percent fraction of what the commercial bank may now create and do with as they please.

So, $100,000.00 to $330,000.00.00, minus the original $10,000.00 is now added to the commercial bank’s coffers. With this scheme they are taking your asset, depositing it, multiplying it and exchanging it for an alleged loan back to you. This may constitute deliberate theft by deception. In reality, of course, no loan exists.

At this point in the process, they have now transferred and deposited your note (asset) to the Federal Reserve Bank. This note will permanently reside and be concealed there. Since they’ve pilfered your promissory note, they owe it back to you. It is you, therefore, who is actually the creditor. This deceptive acquisition and concealment of such a potentially valuable asset amounts to fraudulent conveyance.

In legal jargon, the term “fraudulent conveyance” refers to the illegal transfer of property to another party in order to defer, hinder or defraud creditors. In order to be found guilty of fraudulent conveyance, it must be proven that the intention of transferring the property was to put it out of reach of a known creditor – in this case, you.

Once they have perpetrated this fraudulent conveyance, the creditor then establishes a demand deposit transaction account (checking account) in your name. $10,000.00 of these newly created/acquired funds are then deposited into this account. A debit card, or in this case, a credit card or paper check is then issued against these funds. Remember – it’s all just bookkeeping entries, because this money is backed by nothing.

Money laundering is the practice of engaging in financial transactions in order to conceal the identity, source and/or destination of money. Previously, the term “money laundering” was applied only to financial transactions related to otherwise criminal activity.

Today, its definition is often expanded by government regulators (such as the United States Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) to encompass any financial transactions which generate an asset or a value as the result of an illegal act, which may involve actions such as tax evasion or false accounting.

As a result, the illegal activity of money laundering is now recognized as routinely practiced by individuals, small or large businesses, corrupt officials, and members of organized crime (such as drug dealers, criminal organizations and possibly, the banking cartel).

Since receipt of your first “statement” from each of your creditors, they have perpetuated the notion of your indebtedness to them. These assertions did not disclose a remaining balance owed to you, as would your checking account. Mail fraud refers to any scheme which attempts to unlawfully obtain money or valuables in which the postal system is used at any point in the commission of a criminal offence.

When they claim you owe a delinquent payment, you are typically contacted via telephone, by their representative, requesting a payment. In some cases this constitutes wire fraud, which is the Federal crime of utilizing interstate wire communications to facilitate a fraudulent scheme.

Throughout the process of receiving monthly payment demands, you may have been threatened with late fees, increased interest rates, derogatory information being applied to your credit reports, telephone harassment and the threat of being “wrongfully” sued.

Extortion is a criminal offense which occurs when a person obtains money, behavior, or other goods and/or services from another by wrongfully threatening or inflicting harm to this person, their reputation, or property. Refraining from doing harm to someone in exchange for cooperation or compensation is extortion, sometimes euphemistically referred to as “protection”. This is a common practice of organized crime groups.

Blackmail is one kind of extortion – specifically, extortion by threatening to impugn another’s reputation (in this case) by publishing derogatory information about them, true or false, on credit reports. Even if it is not criminal to disseminate the information, demanding money or other consideration under threat of injury constitutes blackmail.

New money was brought into existence by the deposit of your agreement/promissory note. If you were to pay off the alleged loan, you would never receive your original deposit/asset back (the value of the promissory note). In essence, you have now paid the loan twice. Simultaneously, the banks are able to indefinitely hold and multiply the value of your note (by a factor of 10 to 33) and exponentially generate additional profits.

For an agreement or a contract to be valid, there must be valuable consideration given by all parties. Valuable consideration infers a negotiated exchange and legally reciprocal obligation. If no consideration is present, the contract is generally void and unenforceable.

The bank never explained to you what you have now learned. They did not divulge that they were not loaning anything. You were not informed that you were exchanging a promissory note (which has a real cash value) that was appropriated to fund the implicit loan.

You were led to assume that they were loaning you their own, or other people’s money, which we have established as false. They blatantly concealed this fact. If you were misinformed, according to contract law, the agreement is null and void due to “non-disclosure.”

Contract law states that when an agreement is made between two parties, each must be given full disclosure of what is transpiring. An agreement is not valid if either party conceals pertinent information.

Related Article

A Wee Family Tree up 1976 Really Interesting

A must to check out for sure. It is very enlightening as to who owns and controls what. They own and control even more today.

Related Articles

The owners of the Federal Reserve. Our ruling transatlantic elite? and how JFK challenged the Fed.

List of failed banks and banking writedowns

Any President that Would Dare Oppose The Federal Reserve Gets Assassinated: History Lesson & JP Morgan Buyout of Bear Stearns

Article Source

Somewhere in the trillionaires room of Heaven three old codgers are sitting around a table smoking cigars and chuckling over the J. P Morgan Chase & Company buyout of Bear Stearns for a paltry $2.00 a share. Not so much because the price had been over $130 a share a few weeks earlier but because the Federal Reserve Board put up $30 billion of the government’s money to guarantee the sale.

Yes, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, patriarchs of three of the most powerful family fortunes in history have waited nearly two centuries to see their dreams fulfilled. Perhaps such patience is why their families have remained successful by steadfastly maintaining the rules of the game as set down by their founders.

It was 248 years ago, in 1760 that Mayer Amschel Rothschild created the House of Rothschild that was to pave the way for international banking and control of the world’s resources on a scale unparalleled and somewhat mysterious to this date. He disbursed his five sons to set up banking operations throughout Europe and the various European empires.

“Give me control of a nation’s money
and I care not who makes the laws.”
Mayer Amschel Rothschild

In time the House of Rothschild was able to take control of the Bank of France and Bank of England and relentlessly pursued an effort over two centuries to control a national bank in the USA. By 1850 it was said the Rothschild family was worth over $6 billion and owned one half of the world’s wealth.

From oil (Shell) to diamonds (DeBeers) to gold (from 1919 until 2004 a Rothschild was permanent Chairman of the London Gold Fixing committee which met twice a day in the Rothschild offices in London) the Rothschild’s quietly accumulated a foothold in critical industries and commodities throughout the world.

A master at building impenetrable walls around his family assets the current value of the Rothschild holdings are estimated to be between $100 and $300 trillion, yes that is trillion dollars! Now for a point of reference the current United States National Debt is $9.4 trillion.

J. P. Morgan began as the New York agent for his father’s business in London in 1860 and by 1877 was floating $260 million in US Bonds to save the government from an economic collapse. In 1890 he inherited the business and in 1895 bought $200 million in US Bonds with gold to again save the US economy.

“If you have to ask how much it costs,
you can’t afford it.”
J. P. Morgan

By 1912 he controlled $22 billion and had started companies such as US Steel and General Electric while he owned several railroads. Morgan was also an American agent for the House of Rothschild in London and used the Rothschild resources to help people like John D. Rockefeller.

Rockefeller, who started Standard Oil in 1863 with the help of Morgan, grew his company into the largest oil company in the world and by 1916 Rockefeller was the first billionaire in American history. In 1909 he had set up the Rockefeller Foundation with $225 million and donated nearly a billion more dollars to various causes. The Rockefeller family fortune is estimated to be around $11 trillion today.

“The way to make money is to buy
when blood is running in the streets.”
John D. Rockefeller

So what did they have in common these extraordinary capitalists? They all were dedicated to owning a national bank in America so they could determine the fiscal policies of the nation and earn interest on the debt of the nation.

Rothschild agents in 1791 formed the First Bank of the United States but intense opposition to foreign ownership by President Jefferson and others helped kill it by 1811. A Second Bank of the United States was formed in 1816 once again by Rothschild agents and this time they secured a 20-year charter. However, President Andrew Jackson was also opposed to foreign ownership and withdrew the federal deposits in 1832 as part of his plan to kill the bank charter in 1836.

An attempt to assassinate Jackson in 1834 left him wounded but more determined than ever to stop the central bank. Thirty years later President Lincoln refused to pay international bankers extremely high interest rates during the Civil War and ordered the printing of government bonds. With the help of Russian Czar Alexander II who also blocked a similar national bank from being set up in Russia by the international bankers they were able to survive the economic squeeze.

Lincoln said, “The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe. Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.”

Both Lincoln and Alexander II were assassinated. In 1881 James Garfield became president and he was dedicated to restoring the right of the federal government to issue money like Lincoln did in the Civil War and he was also assassinated.

Finally along came 1913 and the US was again suffering from a weak economy and there was a threat of another costly war, a world war this time, and business tycoons J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller and E.H. Harriman were part of a group that got Woodrow Wilson to sign into law the Federal Reserve Act creating a network of 12 privately owned banks as part of a new Federal Reserve network.

One of the largest stockholders in the new Federal Reserve was the House of Rothschild through their direct and indirect holdings. A few years later it was disclosed that the Rothschilds also owned about 20% of J. P. Morgan. In time Morgan would merge with the Chase Manhattan Bank of the Rockefellers.

Years later John F. Kennedy opposed a private national bank and was assassinated in 1963 and Ronald Reagan opposed a private national bank and in 1981 an attempt was made to assassinate him. Coincidence or not the opposition to a privately owned national bank was a common characteristic.

Which brings us full circle to the present bailout of Bear Stearns by J.P. Morgan Chase & Company and we find the Rothschild, Morgan and Rockefeller families are all conveniently part of the same group benefiting from the bailout and the $30 billion guarantee by the Federal Reserve. This is the third time the J. P. Morgan Company has come to the rescue of the American banking system and economy.

John Perkins “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”Extended Interview 2008

Talks about Banks, Corporations, Free Trade,Wars, Toppling Governments, assassinations and numerous other things the US does to manipulate other countries.

How banks create money out of thin air

In Libya loans were interest free. Libya had no Debt. They instead had a surplus.Its no wonder the US/NATO countries wanted this example of good banking gone.

The Libya American’s never saw on Television

Related Articles

US Spending and Revenues 1902 to 2008

Who Benefited the most by J.F. Kennedy’s Death?

President John F.Kennedy, The Federal Reserve And Executive Order 11110

From September 2009

Federal Reserve rejects request for public Audit

First independent audit of the Federal Reserve in the Fed’s 99 year history.

By Alan Grayson

I think it’s fair to say that Congressman Ron Paul and I are the parents of the GAO’s audit of the Federal Reserve.

Anyway, one of our love children is a massive 251-page GAO report technocratically entitled “Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Policies and Processes for Managing Emergency Assistance.” It is almost as weighty as that 13-lb. baby born in Germany last week, named Jihad. It also is the first independent audit of the Federal Reserve in the Fed’s 99-year history.

It documents Wall Street bailouts by the Fed that dwarf the $700 billion TARP, and everything else you’ve heard about.

I wouldn’t want anyone to think that I’m dramatizing or amplifying what this GAO report says, so I’m just going to list some of my favorite parts, by page number.

Page 131 – The total lending for the Fed’s “broad-based emergency programs” was $16,115,000,000,000. That’s right, more than $16 trillion. The four largest recipients, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and Bank of America, received more than a trillion dollars each. The 5th largest recipient was Barclays PLC. The 8th was the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC. The 9th was Deutsche Bank AG. The 10th was UBS AG. These four institutions each got between a quarter of a trillion and a trillion dollars. None of them is an American bank.

Pages 133 & 137 – Some of these “broad-based emergency program” loans were long-term, and some were short-term. But the “term-adjusted borrowing” was equivalent to a total of $1,139,000,000,000 more than one year. That’s more than $1 trillion out the door. Lending for these programs in fact peaked at more than $1 trillion.

Pages 135 & 196 – Sixty percent of the $738 billion “Commercial Paper Funding Facility” went to the subsidiaries of foreign banks. 36% of the $71 billion Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility also went to subsidiaries of foreign banks.

Page 205 – Separate and apart from these “broad-based emergency program” loans were another $10,057,000,000,000 in “currency swaps.” In the “currency swaps,” the Fed handed dollars to foreign central banks, no strings attached, to fund bailouts in other countries. The Fed’s only “collateral” was a corresponding amount of foreign currency, which never left the Fed’s books (even to be deposited to earn interest), plus a promise to repay. But the Fed agreed to give back the foreign currency at the original exchange rate, even if the foreign currency appreciated in value during the period of the swap. These currency swaps and the “broad-based emergency program” loans, together, totaled more than $26 trillion. That’s almost $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. That’s an amount equal to more than seven years of federal spending — on the military, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt, and everything else. And around twice American’s total GNP.

Page 201 – Here again, these “swaps” were of varying length, but on Dec. 4, 2008, there were $588,000,000,000 outstanding. That’s almost $2,000 for every American. All sent to foreign countries. That’s more than twenty times as much as our foreign aid budget.

Page 129 – In October 2008, the Fed gave $60,000,000,000 to the Swiss National Bank with the specific understanding that the money would be used to bail out UBS, a Swiss bank. Not an American bank. A Swiss bank.

Pages 3 & 4 – In addition to the “broad-based programs,” and in addition to the “currency swaps,” there have been hundreds of billions of dollars in Fed loans called “assistance to individual institutions.” This has included Bear Stearns, AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, and “some primary dealers.” The Fed decided unilaterally who received this “assistance,” and who didn’t.

Pages 101 & 173 – You may have heard somewhere that these were riskless transactions, where the Fed always had enough collateral to avoid losses. Not true. The “Maiden Lane I” bailout fund was in the hole for almost two years.

Page 4 – You also may have heard somewhere that all this money was paid back. Not true. The GAO lists five Fed bailout programs that still have amounts outstanding, including $909,000,000,000 (just under a trillion dollars) for the Fed’s Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities Purchase Program alone. That’s almost $3,000 for every American.

Page 126 – In contemporaneous documents, the Fed apparently did not even take a stab at explaining why it helped some banks (like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley) and not others. After the fact, the Fed referred vaguely to “strains in the financial markets,” “transitional credit,” and the Fed’s all-time favorite rationale for everything it does, “increasing liquidity.”

81 different places in the GAO report – The Fed applied nothing even resembling a consistent policy toward valuing the assets that it acquired. Sometimes it asked its counterparty to take a “haircut” (discount), sometimes it didn’t. Having read the whole report, I see no rhyme or reason to those decisions, with billions upon billions of dollars at stake.

Page 2 – As massive as these enumerated Fed bailouts were, there were yet more. The GAO did not even endeavor to analyze the Fed’s discount window lending, or its single-tranche term repurchase agreements.

Pages 13 & 14 – And the Fed wasn’t the only one bailing out Wall Street, of course. On top of what the Fed did, there was the $700,000,000,000 TARP program authorized by Congress (which I voted against). The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) also provided a federal guarantee for $600,000,000,000 in bonds issued by Wall Street.

There is one thing that I’d like to add to this, which isn’t in the GAO’s report. All this is something new, very new. For the first 96 years of the Fed’s existence, the Fed’s primary market activities were to buy or sell U.S. Treasury bonds (to change the money supply), and to lend at the “discount window.” Neither of these activities permitted the Fed to play favorites. But the programs that the GAO audited are fundamentally different. They allowed the Fed to choose winners and losers.

So what does all this mean? Here are some short observations:

(1) In the case of TARP, at least The People’s representatives got a vote. In the case of the Fed’s bailouts, which were roughly 20 times as substantial, there was never any vote. Unelected functionaries, with all sorts of ties to Wall Street, handed out trillions of dollars to Wall Street. That’s now how a democracy should function, or even can function.

(2) The notion that this was all without risk, just because the Fed can keep printing money, is both laughable and cryable (if that were a word). Leaving aside the example of Germany’s hyperinflation in 1923, we have the more recent examples of Iceland (75% of GNP gone when the central bank took over three failed banks) and Ireland (100% of GNP gone when the central bank tried to rescue property firms).

(3) In the same way that American troops cannot act as police officers for the world, our central bank cannot act as piggy bank for the world. If the European Central Bank wants to bail out UBS, fine. But there is no reason why our money should be involved in that.

(4) For the Fed to pick and choose among aid recipients, and then pick and choose who takes a “haircut” and who doesn’t, is both corporate welfare and socialism. The Fed is a central bank, not a barber shop.

(5) The main, if not the sole, qualification for getting help from the Fed was to have lost huge amounts of money. The Fed bailouts rewarded failure, and penalized success. (If you don’t believe me, ask Jamie Dimon at JP Morgan.) The Fed helped the losers to squander and destroy even more capital.

(6) During all the time that the Fed was stuffing money into the pockets of failed banks, many Americans couldn’t borrow a dime for a home, a car, or anything else. If the Fed had extended $26 trillion in credit to the American people instead of Wall Street, would there be 24 million Americans today who can’t find a full-time job?

And here’s what bothers me most about all this: it can happen again. I’ve called the GAO report a bailout autopsy. But it’s an autopsy of the undead.

Feel free to take a look at it yourself, it’s right here.

Source

Ron Paul and what he went through to get this Audit done.