dcb

The Coming Consequences of Banking Fraud

May I ask what your level of education is? I dont think you understand what a real patriot is in this country. the founding fathers attempted to set up a system that prevented your way of thinking. A real American says, why are we wasting the resources of our country and the few, why are we causing harm to the economy, why are we in endless foreign wars that drain the capacity of our country. The real patriots understand from the founding fathers how impt it is in democracy to question you leaders. In fact they tried to set up a system so there would be no oligarchy. But the money has corrupted the system. The true patriot speaks out against the collapse of the empire. the true patriot sees beyond jingoism and the simple slogans of those who are attempting to loot the empire while it collapses. Unfortunately too many people in this country think like you and are brainwashed. That's why the criminals get way with their crimes. all the while wrapping themselves in an american flag. Unfortunately you havent realized the banksters don't think in terms of nation states. they can live anywhere. It's a shame the american people are so easily manipulated, over and over again!!

On Sep 09 11:40 AM Mrudula Shah wrote:

> The author vents his frustrations as if he is a pro-China anti-Western
> individual, going as far as chraging the likes of Tony Blair and
> Gordon Brown as pupets of banking ologarchs - an exageration of the
> opposite kind!!

The Coming Consequences of Banking Fraud

zero hedge has a bit of data on this


On Sep 10 07:42 AM Roger Knights wrote:

> "the US government, US Federal Reserve, Wall Street, the US Treasury,
> and the Exchange Stabilization Fund have all engaged in domestic
> and international financial and monetary transactions that have been
> kept secret from the world, and that will have severe and negative
> consequences in the not so distant future."
>
> It sounds as though the author has got wind of a Big Secret that
> he can't spell out because he can't back it up by outing his source.
> It's just occurred to me what this might be. (I first read it in
> a comment here on Seeking Alpha about three weeks ago, and I've posted
> it myself a couple of times here as a possibility.) Namely, that
> Asian central banks have secretly been offered the chance to buy
> Treasuries at a discount. This would explain what's otherwise inexplicable
> to me: why there is still strong demand for them.
>
> It's already been revealed that the Fed is engaged in a shell game
> with Agency bonds held by foreigners, buying them from them on the
> QT in exchange for their buying Treasuries. But this is mostly a
> PR gesture, and not something substantive that would shake the foundations
> if it came out. Without low interest rates in the US, real estate
> would collapse, followed by the banking system, followed by trade,
> followed by the government.
>
> Of course, I have no evidence that this trickery is occurring. But
> maybe a financial reporter would start asking his sources if they
> think such a thing might be happening. Given that necessity knows
> no law, it's a possibility.

The Coming Consequences of Banking Fraud

I can tell you that I have reaached the same conclusions as this man quite a while ago. I am also a trained scientist, an MD, and have finished 3/4 of an MBA (I left when I could clearly see the collapse, but my professors couldn't). When you run a blind box analysis, by that meaning plug in the data, and ignore the statements, it is the only real conclusion that fits the evidence. Otherwise you really have to strain.

The political leaders and oligarchs are shielded from harm if things collapse. So while the collase concersn them the only ral threat they face is civil unrest. Just look at how the heads of the banking insdustry made out. very few if any in jail, unlimited money via the fed to reflate assets, no effort to curb crazy bonus schemes. The folks in office that hold any position of standing know they will be given a cushy job by indistry when finished office, so they are shielded. Come on. just think about the role the fed and treasury played in ensuring AIG and Merrill got their bonuses. and goldman getting 100 cents on the dollar from AIG instead of having to take a haircut. If thise three things don't at least make you say something strange is going on here I don't know what will. Geiter, head of the NY FED before the crash, who didn't have banks do anything (raise capital, etc). How can this guy be treasury secretary. From what he did, and the outcome that happened it defies common sense. Hence he got the job because he gives the indistry what it wants and doesn't get in their way. Summers made it so derivates didn't need to have capital held against them (swaps, not insurance). So he played a huge role in this mess. How the hell did he get the job. he did have a 5mil/year hedge fund job for one day a week of work amd made millions inspeaking fees to wall street. He's safe and has been bought a paid for already. He also knows what rewards him if he plays ball. the list goes on and on and on. Just too many things don't add up any other way. What is Greensapn making now as a consultatant from the industry?

I have studies this crisis for over two years now. Mr. Kims conclusions were not the ones I first had. I startedto think about a cabal when i saw economic policies that made no sense to me, and when the very people who had a huge hand in the crisis we appointed to positions of power by Obama. The you have to start to add in the revolving door between the fed, treasury, and wall street. How about the "greatest" student of the great depression that doesn't understand the role of overleveraging in causing the crisis. how about the fact that we have hed 6 credit crisis since the 60's. but never lean from our mistakes. Then you have to start deciding who makes out from the leverage. thise that make money via leverage who have seen their incomes skyrocket, and the working man whose income depends on nominal GDP. His income has fallen.

I'm afraid the facts add up to exaclty what Mr. KIm says. You can believe it or not and that is your choice. I have a group of about 20 well educated readers who I think all now believe as myself and Mr. Kim do. I convinced them via shoving such an overhwelming amount of evidence at them there was no other choice. I can happily send you easily 200 legit articles that would lead to the same conclusion.

I am an American and jewish and in no way shape or form do I take Mr. Kims comments to be either anti american or jewish.

May I add that contrary to popular belief many folks saw this down the pipleine. those in power choose to ignore it. Why? because those in the oligarchy benefit to keep it running, and those with the power to keep in running are richly rewarded for doing so.




On Sep 09 12:28 PM Mrudula Shah wrote:

> It's equally stupid to think that the western democratic system and
> the political leaders and all major bank executives are out to get
> the ordinary citizens and drag the economy down!! Tell me how these
> oligarchs and political leaders benefit if the economy collapses!!
> No body, including each one of them, benefits!! I Do not think these
> guys are that stupid and are taking some stupid steps!! Stupid are
> those who believe those who say the world is about to collapse!!
> Also, I am not saying Mr. Kim is a Chinese - I am just saying he
> expresses Pro-China anti-Western thoughts!! It's clear to me that
> with Americans cutting down heavily on their consumption habits and
> moving towards more savings (because theyt may be concerned with
> their social security and medicare syastems health), the Chinese,
> Japanese and Korean economiies are hurting!!

BofA Makes SEC Charges on False Statements Go Away in a Hurry

Good to knw that reform lasted all of two minutes

BofA Makes SEC Charges on False Statements Go Away in a Hurry

The omly solution is unrest

An Angry Banker's Foreclosure Solution

As a form of protet all americans should stop paying their mortgage. Lets see what happens then. Our founding fathers fought a revolution on the orinciple of taxation without representation. Are you being represented by our government. If the answer is yes you are a banker, but other wise it is no. Are they going to throw everyone in jail. imagine 100 milllion americans with ruined credit ratings. well they can't make anymoney if they don't let us borrow. they can't do shit!!

An Angry Banker's Foreclosure Solution

I have a solution. give this money (our money) to the taxpayer instead of his greedy banke friends.
From A Former Goldman Managing Director: How You Finance Goldman Sachs’ Profits
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/30/2009 17:10 -0500

Alan Grayson Bank of America Bankruptcy Banks Ben Bernanke Bonuses Cash CEO Commercial Paper Compensation Comptroller of the Currency Credit Debt Derivatives Earnings FDIC FED Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System Goldman Sachs Jamie Dimon Lehman Brothers Liquidity Merrill Lynch Money Morgan Stanley New York Times Office of the Comptroller of the Currency SEC Speculation TARP Toxic assets Trade VaR


By Nomi Prins, via Mother Jones

July 28, 2009 -- This is perhaps the most important thing I learned over my years working on Wall Street, including as a managing director at Goldman Sachs: Numbers lie. In a normal time, the fact that the numbers generated by the nation's biggest banks can't be trusted might not matter very much to the rest of us. But since the record bank profits we're now hearing about are essentially created by massive federal funding, perhaps it behooves us to dig beneath their data. On July 27, 10 congressmen, led by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), did just that, writing a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke questioning the Fed's role in Goldman's rapid return to the top of Wall Street.

To understand this particular giveaway, look back to September 21, 2008. It was a frenzied night for Goldman Sachs and the only other remaining major investment bank, Morgan Stanley. Their three main competitors were gone. Bear Stearns had been taken over by JPMorgan Chase in March, 2008, Lehman Brothers had just declared bankruptcy due to lack of capital, and Bank of America had been pushed to acquire Merrill Lynch because the firm didn't have enough cash to survive on its own. Anxious to avoid a similar fate, hat in hand, they came to the Fed for access to desperately needed capital. All they had to do was become bank holding companies to get it. So, without so much as clearing the standard five-day antitrust waiting period for such a change, the Fed granted their wish.

Bank holding companies (which all the biggest financial firms now are) come under the regulatory purview of the Fed, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the FDIC. The capital they keep in reserve in case of emergency (like, say, toxic assets hemorrhaging on their books, or credit derivatives trades not being paid) is supposed to be greater than investment banks'. That's the trade-off. You get access to federal assistance, you pony up more capital, and you take less risk.

Goldman didn't like the last part. It makes most of its money speculating, or trading. So it asked the Fed to be exempt from what's called the Market Risk Rules that bank holding companies adhere to when computing their risk.

Keep in mind that by virtue of becoming a bank holding company, Goldman received a total of $63.6 billion in federal subsidies (that we know about—probably more if the Fed were ever forced to disclose its $7.6 trillion of borrower details). There was the $10 billion it got from TARP (which it repaid), the $12.9 billion it grabbed from AIG's spoils—even though Goldman had stated beforehand that it was protected from losses incurred by AIG's free fall, and if that were the case, would not have needed that money, let alone deserved it. Then, there's the $29.7 billion it's used so far out of the $35 billion it has available, backed by the FDIC's Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, and finally, there's the $11 billion available under the Fed's Commercial Paper Funding Facility.

Tactically, after bagging this bounty, Goldman asked the Fed, its new regulator, if it could use its old risk model to determine capital reserves. It wanted to use the model that its old investment bank regulator, the SEC, was fine with, called VaR, or value at risk. VaR pretty much allows banks to plug in their own parameters, and based on these, calculate how much risk they have, and thus how much capital they need to hold against it. VaR was the same lax SEC-approved risk model that investment banks such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers used, with the aforementioned results.

On February 5, 2009, the Fed granted Goldman's request. This meant that not only was Goldman getting big federal subsidies, but also that it could keep betting big without saving aside as much capital as the other banks. Using VaR gave Goldman more leeway to, well, accentuate the positive. Yes, Goldman is a more risk-prone firm now than it was before it got to play with our money.

Which brings us back to these recent quarterly earnings. Goldman posted record profits of $3.4 billion on revenues of $13.76 billion. More than 78 precent of those revenues came from its most risky division, the one that requires the most capital to operate, Trading and Principal Investments. Of those, the Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities (FICC) area within that division brought in a record $6.8 billion in revenues. That's the division, by the way, that I worked in and that Lloyd Blankfein managed on his way up the Goldman totem pole. (It's also the division that would stand to gain the most if Waxman's cap-and-trade bill passes.)

Since Goldman is trading big with our money, why not also use it to pay big bonuses? It's not like there are any strings attached. For the first half of 2009, Goldman set aside $11.4 billion for compensation—34 percent more than for the first half of 2008, keeping them on target for a record bonus year—even though they still owe the federal government $53.6 billion, a sum more than four times that bonus amount.

But capital is still key. Capital is the lifeblood that pumps through a financial organization. You can't trade without it. As of June 26, 2009, Goldman's total capital was $254 billion, but that included $191 billion in unsecured long-term borrowing (meaning money it had borrowed without putting up any collateral for it). On November 28, 2008 (4Q 2008), it had only $168 billion in unsecured long-term borrowing. Thus, its long-term unsecured debt jumped 14 percent. Though Goldman doesn't disclose exactly where all this debt comes from, given the $23 billion jump, we can only wonder whether some of it has come from government subsidies or the Fed's secret facilities.

Not only that, by virtue of how it's set up, most of Goldman's unsecured funding comes in through its parent company, Group Inc. (Think the top point of an umbrella with each spoke being a subsidiary.) This parent parcels that money out to Goldman's subsidiaries, some of which are regulated, some of which aren't. This means that even though Goldman is supposed to be regulated by the Fed and other agencies, it has unregulated elements receiving unsecured funding—just like before the crisis, but with more of our money involved.

As for JPMorgan Chase, its profit of $2.7 billion was up 36 percent for the second quarter of 2009 vs. the same quarter last year, but a lot of that also came from trading revenues, meaning its speculative endeavors are driving its profits. Over on the consumer side, the firm had to set aside nearly $30 billion in reserve for credit-related losses. Riding on its trading laurels, when its consumer business is still in deterioration mode, is not a recipe for stability, no matter how much cheering JPMorgan Chase's results got from Wall Street. Betting is betting.

Let's pause for some reflection: The bank "stars" made most of their money on speculation, got nearly $124 billion in government guarantees and subsidies between them over the past year and a half, yet saw continued losses in the credit products most affected by consumer credit problems. Both are setting aside top-dollar bonuses. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon mentioned that he's concerned about attracting talent, a translation for wanting to pay investment bankers big bucks—because, after all, they suffered so terribly last year, and he needs to stay competitive with his friends at Goldman. This doesn't add up to a really healthy scenario. It's more like bad déjà vu.

As a recent New York Times article (and many other publications in different words) said, "For the most part, the worst of the financial crisis seems to be over." Sure, the crisis may appear to be over because the major banks of Wall Street are speculating well with government subsidies. But that's a dangerous conclusion. It doesn't mean that finance firms could thrive without the artificial, public-funded assistance. And it certainly doesn't mean that consumers are any better off than they were before the crisis emerged. It's just that they didn't get the same generous subsidies.

Additional research by Clark Merrefield.

Article From Mother Jones, h/t amsterdamtrader

Paulson Owes Bank of America's Shareholders a Better Explanation

they are repaying tarp so get off their case (according to angry banker) . well lets look at the real costs to us:
By Dawn Kopecki and Catherine Dodge

July 20 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. taxpayers may be on the hook for as much as $23.7 trillion to bolster the economy and bail out financial companies, said Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The Treasury’s $700 billion bank-investment program represents a fraction of all federal support to resuscitate the U.S. financial system, including $6.8 trillion in aid offered by the Federal Reserve, Barofsky said in a report released today.

“TARP has evolved into a program of unprecedented scope, scale and complexity,” Barofsky said in testimony prepared for a hearing tomorrow before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said the U.S. has spent less than $2 trillion so far and that Barofsky’s estimates are flawed because they don’t take into account assets that back those programs or fees charged to recoup some costs shouldered by taxpayers.

“These estimates of potential exposures do not provide a useful framework for evaluating the potential cost of these programs,” Williams said. “This estimate includes programs at their hypothetical maximum size, and it was never likely that the programs would be maxed out at the same time.”

Barofsky’s estimates include $2.3 trillion in programs offered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., $7.4 trillion in TARP and other aid from the Treasury and $7.2 trillion in federal money for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, credit unions, Veterans Affairs and other federal programs.

Treasury’s Comment

Williams said the programs include escalating fee structures designed to make them “increasingly unattractive as financial markets normalize.” Dependence on these federal programs has begun to decline, as shown by $70 billion in TARP capital investments that has already been repaid, Williams said.

Barofsky offered criticism in a separate quarterly report of Treasury’s implementation of TARP, saying the department has “repeatedly failed to adopt recommendations” needed to provide transparency and fulfill the administration’s goal to implement TARP “with the highest degree of accountability.”

As a result, taxpayers don’t know how TARP recipients are using the money or the value of the investments, he said in the report.

‘Falling Short’

“This administration promised an ‘unprecedented level’ of accountability and oversight, but as this report reveals, they are falling far short of that promise,” Representative Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican on the oversight committee, said in a statement. “The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent.”

The Treasury has spent $441 billion of TARP funds so far and has allocated $202.1 billion more for other spending, according to Barofsky. In the nine months since Congress authorized TARP, Treasury has created 12 programs involving funds that may reach almost $3 trillion, he said.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner should press banks for more information on how they use the more than $200 billion the government has pumped into U.S. financial institutions, Barofsky said in a separate report.

The inspector general surveyed 360 banks that have received TARP capital, including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. The responses, which the inspector general said it didn’t verify independently, showed that 83 percent of banks used TARP money for lending, while 43 percent used funds to add to their capital cushion and 31 percent made new investments.

Barofsky said the TARP inspector general’s office has 35 ongoing criminal and civil investigations that include suspected accounting, securities and mortgage fraud; insider trading; and tax investigations related to the abuse of TARP programs.

Instead of just spouting your views, you should educate yourself before you actually put them to paper!!

When Things Got Tough, Hank Paulson Went Skiing

By Dawn Kopecki and Catherine Dodge

July 20 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. taxpayers may be on the hook for as much as $23.7 trillion to bolster the economy and bail out financial companies, said Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The Treasury’s $700 billion bank-investment program represents a fraction of all federal support to resuscitate the U.S. financial system, including $6.8 trillion in aid offered by the Federal Reserve, Barofsky said in a report released today.

“TARP has evolved into a program of unprecedented scope, scale and complexity,” Barofsky said in testimony prepared for a hearing tomorrow before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said the U.S. has spent less than $2 trillion so far and that Barofsky’s estimates are flawed because they don’t take into account assets that back those programs or fees charged to recoup some costs shouldered by taxpayers.

“These estimates of potential exposures do not provide a useful framework for evaluating the potential cost of these programs,” Williams said. “This estimate includes programs at their hypothetical maximum size, and it was never likely that the programs would be maxed out at the same time.”

Barofsky’s estimates include $2.3 trillion in programs offered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., $7.4 trillion in TARP and other aid from the Treasury and $7.2 trillion in federal money for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, credit unions, Veterans Affairs and other federal programs.

Treasury’s Comment

Williams said the programs include escalating fee structures designed to make them “increasingly unattractive as financial markets normalize.” Dependence on these federal programs has begun to decline, as shown by $70 billion in TARP capital investments that has already been repaid, Williams said.

Barofsky offered criticism in a separate quarterly report of Treasury’s implementation of TARP, saying the department has “repeatedly failed to adopt recommendations” needed to provide transparency and fulfill the administration’s goal to implement TARP “with the highest degree of accountability.”

As a result, taxpayers don’t know how TARP recipients are using the money or the value of the investments, he said in the report.

‘Falling Short’

“This administration promised an ‘unprecedented level’ of accountability and oversight, but as this report reveals, they are falling far short of that promise,” Representative Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican on the oversight committee, said in a statement. “The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent.”

The Treasury has spent $441 billion of TARP funds so far and has allocated $202.1 billion more for other spending, according to Barofsky. In the nine months since Congress authorized TARP, Treasury has created 12 programs involving funds that may reach almost $3 trillion, he said.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner should press banks for more information on how they use the more than $200 billion the government has pumped into U.S. financial institutions, Barofsky said in a separate report.

The inspector general surveyed 360 banks that have received TARP capital, including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. The responses, which the inspector general said it didn’t verify independently, showed that 83 percent of banks used TARP money for lending, while 43 percent used funds to add to their capital cushion and 31 percent made new investments.

Barofsky said the TARP inspector general’s office has 35 ongoing criminal and civil investigations that include suspected accounting, securities and mortgage fraud; insider trading; and tax investigations related to the abuse of TARP programs.

Paulson Owes Bank of America's Shareholders a Better Explanation

Peopl;e forget Lewis sent is own valuation expert to Merrill. The Merrill guy resigned instead of signing off on the reduced valuation that lewis made sure happen. With the lower valuation he then went to Paulson to site MAC at the last minute. It was a total con job to get more money from the fed in the first place. He thought he was so slick because now he can say fed forced him into it and cry wolf.

thay all are scumbags

Paulson Owes Bank of America's Shareholders a Better Explanation

seekingalpha.com/artic...

I guess they were too busy hitting the slopes

Paulson Owes Bank of America's Shareholders a Better Explanation

didn't you read. they were all of sking while this was going on.

Paulson Owes Bank of America's Shareholders a Better Explanation

Hey, angry banker.
In a prior post you were upset that people were mad at the banks. after all they were paying things back.

well try this link. they rigged the payback too. at 66 cents on the dollar. Better to steal from us. You'll peoole should just be put down like lame horses

seekingalpha.com/artic...

Did We Nationalize Banks, Or Did They Nationalize Us?

try this one angry banker. maybe you'll get it. but I guess congressman grayson is a fool too.
it's about paulson and his 700 million dollar conflict of interest

dailybail.com/home/ala...

Did We Nationalize Banks, Or Did They Nationalize Us?

Hey, angry banker. you want angry try this. this is me and there are hundreds of thousands of us, and I want millions!!!

dailybail.com/home/the...