Sunday, June 30, 2013

Gambling Banksters - How Many Warnings Do You Need?

from marketoracle.co.uk



Politics / BankstersJun 30, 2013 - 07:52 PM GMT
PoliticsIf you knew someone with a gambling problem, you probably would not give them your money to hold. If you knew that they had placed bets that were 30 to 70 times more than the amount of money they had, you would certainly consider them totally reckless. If you knew that the money they were holding and betting with was with borrowed money, other peoples’ money not their own, you would probably conclude that they are hopelessly addicted to money. Remember these thoughts as you continue to read this article.



Picture these scenarios: 

1. You go to buy groceries and when you use your credit or debit card the transaction is denied despite the fact you have money in your account. 

2. You are a public official, such as a school business administratorcounty treasurer, municipal finance managerpension fund administrator, or anyone who has responsibility for protecting public money. You try to access the money and the transaction is denied.

Under either scenario, you investigate why you cannot access money you know is in your account and you find out that the bank has failed and has been closed until further notice by the authorities. You also discover that the government will be confiscating part of your savings in order to “stabilize” the bank. 

So you think that “cannot happen here”? You think you are safe because the FDIC “protects” your money?  You placed your money into one of the big banks and believe it is safe because it has large vaults and is insured by the government. Perhaps you placed the public monies you are charged with into a large bank because they are properly “collateralized” and therefore you believe these funds are safe. If you truly believe any these previous statements, you really need to read the rest of this article because your money is at serious risk. 

So you think your money is safe? Let’s examine why that assumption could cost you all or part of your savings. Would you be surprised to learn that money sitting in everyday peoples’ savings accounts in Cyprus was confiscated in order to “stabilize” the banks? If you are surprised by this news, hopefully this article will provide you with an incentive to do some research. This article is filled with links to more information, and I encourage you to follow them. If you are aware of this bank confiscation, do not make the mistake of believing that it is an isolated event that “cannot happen here”. 

In a nutshell, what actually happened in Cyprus was that the banks were overleveraged and the size of the liabilities of the banks exceeded the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the entire country of Cyprus. Given the fact that the “bail outs” of the large banks in 2008 were so politically unpopular, the European “troika” imposed a “bail in”, where customers with savings accounts were to have some of their savings seized (read: stolen) in order to stabilize the banks. The losses to some accounts were as high as 60%. The banks were closed for 12 days, so people had no access to their money and once the banks reopened, they had only limited access to their money in order to protect the banks.

Was this plan by the “troika”, just a one-time event or was this something more? It turns out that this eventuality had actually been planned in advance in 2012 at the G20 Financial Stability Board in Basel Switzerland where the US FDIC and the Bank of England created a joint paper outlining a confiscation scheme. Under the FDIC/BOE joint paper, accounts of $250,000 or less could be seized by the failing bank and converted to stock equity as part of a “bail in” scheme. The stock would of course be essentially worthless because the bank has already failed. 

There is also a plan to confiscate savings in New Zealand if necessary to save the banks. Canada also has a confiscation plan in the wings should their banks falter. The European Union has just reached an agreement where shareholders and depositors will be tapped to “bail in” any bank in trouble. 

So you still think that this “cannot happen here” because the FDIC will protect your money? Consider that our largest banks have derivative contractswith a notional value of more than $700 trillion (think $700,000 BILLION!). The entire world GDP is only $70 trillion, therefore the liabilities of the big banks could not be covered by the entire GDP of the United States. Does this sound similar to what happened in Cyprus? Does this sound similar to the gambler at the beginning of this article? What is very important to keep in mind is that Cyprus is a small country and that much larger outside forces came in to “stabilize” the banks. If one (or more) of the large U.S. banks experiences a derivative failure, there is not enough money on the planet to “stabilize” them. 

These derivatives are really nothing more than “bets” placed by the banks, and when (not if) these “bets” start going bad, the banks will be on the hook for their value. You need to know that these derivative “bets” have been given super-priority status in case of a bank bankruptcy. What this means is that the holders of these derivative contracts will have first priority for payment and that you either as an individual or government entity will be placed at the back of line - as a bank creditor should a large bank fail. This means that you will probably get little or nothing back.  Most people do not understand that once you give a bank your money, the money legally is no longer yours. Under the law, you are an unsecured creditor to the bank and are treated as such in any bankruptcy proceeding. As an individual or as a public official, if you have money in one of the big banks, you have essentially given your money to that gambler and now you are a creditor to the gambler. 

This sort of loss has already happened with the MF Global collapse. While this was a futures trading company and not a bank, the blueprint for confiscations was tested here and with the Sentinel case the legal system upheld the customer losses. These trading accounts were supposed to be “segregated” accounts that belonged to the account holders, not MF Global. As an analogy, think of a “segregated” account as a safe deposit box at a bank, the contents belong to you, not the bank. Yet in the MF Global collapse, in this analogy it essentially gambled with the assets in the customers’ safe deposit boxes, and the legal system placed the creditors of the bank above the safe deposit box holders. 

Still think the FDIC will protect the derivative and account holders?  JP Morgan Chase has $1.1 trillion ($1,100 Billion!) in deposits and Bank of America also has over $1 trillion ($1000 Billion!). Again, remember that gambler, JP Morgan Chase has about $70 TRILLION in bets out there, but is holding only about $1 Trillion in deposits and another Trillion in assets. It has made bets with a value approximately 35 times all the money it has access to. Again, this is YOUR money they are betting with, not their money.  Bank of America also has about 30 times its assets in derivative bets. Citigroup and Wells Fargo each have over $900 billion each in deposits and also have many times their assets in derivative bets. Once these bets start going bad, there is no way the banks can cover them. The FDIC has only $33 billion available to insure deposits. That means that once any one of these banks fails, the FDIC has less than 3% of the money needed to cover the depositors. If any one of these big banks fails, these banks are so interconnected that it is also likely to bring down the other large banks. In fact both Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase have moved their riskiest derivatives from their uninsured trading houses to the FDIC insured subsidiaries, which are their retail banks, putting the funds in those accounts at a significantly increased risk.  Once even one of these biggest banks experiences a derivative meltdown, there is not enough money in the FDIC or probably even the U.S. Treasury to cover the losses. Still think Cyprus cannot happen to you? 

If you are a public official who has responsibility for protecting public money, you probably have that money deposited into an account with one of the largest banks. Do you still believe that money is safe? Are you doing your fiduciary duty to protect that money in the public interest? So as a government official in charge of finances, what are your options? 

One option is to start a public bank such as the Bank of North Dakota. First public banks do not gamble with derivatives and the Bank of North Dakota thrived during the crisis of 2008. Not only will you get the safety of the money for which you have responsibility for, but other advantages to this approach include: the ability to provide interest free or low interest loans for public infrastructure projects, the ability to create jobs, generate revenue, and build up the local community. This article clearly explains some of the huge advantages of financing your projects using a public bank.

Consider this - if you buy a home for $100,000, by the time you have paid the mortgage in full, the total cost will have been close to $300,000. Consider the absurdity of paying those who build the home and provide the raw materials $100,000, and paying the financiers $200,000 for money that was not even theirs. This makes little sense. The same principle applies if a state, county, or municipality wants to build a road, school, bridge, or other infrastructure. They need to go to Wall Street for financing at high interest rates. However they could form their own bank and finance the project at zero or near zero interest.  The projects would cost less than half and the finance costs would not be siphoned out of the community, impoverishing it, and ending up on Wall Street or in Cayman Island tax shelters. The finance costs would stay in the community. 

Think of the things that could be accomplished if you could eliminate debt service as a line item in your budget! The money deposited in the public bank would be safe and would serve the local community. You could use the public bank to refinance existing debt at zero or near zero percent interest. You could lower tax rates! This idea has such appeal that currently there are initiatives in 20 states to start public banks.

If you are a public official with a fiduciary responsibility to protect public funds and one of these large banks fails and you lose the public money, think of the consequences that will arise once the public becomes aware that you did not heed the warnings that Cyprus provided. Think of the consequences that will arise when the public becomes aware that you did not consider alternatives to the big vulnerable banks. It is time to bring home the money from Wall Street where it is at risk. If there is a derivative crash, try meeting your payroll with stock equity (in a failed bank).  The impact of not meeting a payroll will be both immediate and forceful. It is vital to get that money out of Wall Street BEFORE the next meltdown. 

To those public officials who are truly interested in serving their communities, this is your moment. This is your time to step up to the plate. Be bold, be innovative, and empower your communities. You owe this to your fellow citizens, your children and your future. Visit this website to learn more about the possibilities that public banking offers, to learn how to get started, and where to find help in implementation. You are not alone of you wish to make this happen. 

If you are an individual saver who wants to protect your money, you need to move your money out of the big banks because that is where it is most vulnerable. Move your money into local community banks or Credit Unions. This will help your local banks as well as your community by keeping the money local. It is also important to MOVE YOUR DEBT to these local banks as well. The way bank accounting works, a deposit is actually considered a liability to the bank, while a loan is an asset on its accounting ledger. (I know this sounds convoluted, but this is the way it is). By moving your debt to the local banks, you create assets for them as well as helping your local community. While there are no guarantees that a smaller bank could survive the crash of one or more of the bigger banks, very few of the small banks have gambled with the super-priority derivatives. This is huge advantage that at provides insulation from the large banks. 

So, consider yourself warned, money is not safe in the big banks. The MF Global losses, the Cyprus confiscations, the Sentinel case, the FDIC/BOE Joint Paper, the plans in the European Union, Canada, New Zealand, and Spain to raid private accounts, and finally the information in this article should be raising all sorts of red flags. HOW MANY WARNINGS DO YOU NEED? Personal accounts, as well as any school, municipal, county, and state funds that are deposited in any of the big banks are not safe. The plans for confiscation have already been developed, they have been approved, they are awaiting the next crisis. 

Ask your public official in charge of finance where they keep YOUR taxpayer money!

Ask them if they have researched the public banking option! Do not accept no for an answer, ask them why. If they say that you do not understand these things, tell them to explain it to you. 

After all, this is your money that you worked so hard for, so don’t let the big gamblers from Wall Street use YOUR personal or taxpayer money to cover THEIR losses. These big bankers are money addicts, they have no appreciation of how much work went into making that money. They do not care about you or your money, all they care about is their addiction. Don’t let public officials continue to put your taxpayer money at risk with these gamblers, just because this is how it has been done in the past.
By Rudy Avizius
Rudy Avizius is a retired school district administrator and a former Director of Technology who has been following economic and political news very carefully for the last 2 decades. He has recently become active in trying to make sure that the government spends taxpayer money wisely with long term benefits to the nation.
© 2013 Copyright Rudy Avizius - All Rights Reserved 

Bankster Bankruptcy Bail-Ins Are Retirement Accounts Next?

from marketoracle.co.uk




Stock-Markets / Credit Crisis 2013Jun 30, 2013 - 07:54 AM GMT
Stock-Markets
One of the biggest concerns of savvy investors since the ongoing crisis began in 2008 has been the safety and longevity of the various types of retirement accounts and systems. Throwing gasoline on the flames have been the decisions rendered by courts of ‘law’ regarding the treatment of customer money in the case of the bankruptcy of several brokerage firms, most notably, MFGlobal. The susceptibility of bank deposits has already been firmly established in prior issues of this column. To our alarm and dismay it appears, at least on the surface, as though few are doing anything to prepare for such an eventuality.

Our hope in authoring this collaborative piece is that it will cause more people to assess matters as circumstances pertain to them, and then take proper evasive action. If you still believe in the system and that it exists for your benefit and protection then you may stop reading now.
The bail-in concept actually began to be implemented here in the United States before anywhere else. When a federal appellate court gave its stamp of approval in the Sentinel case, it gave the green light to the theft of customer funds whether they be segregated in a brokerage account (but held in street name) or held as deposits in a traditional banking arrangement. The quiet and subtle change in status from depositors to unsecured creditors that took place back in 2010 has been well documented in this column. The fact that, since the publishing of that seminal work on 4/12/2013, Japan, Britain, and the EU have officially adopted the bail-in doctrine should be very alarming, yet it is nearly uncovered by the lapdog media.
The outrage over the theft of segregated money in the cases of Sentinel, MFGlobal, and PFGBest has been all but absent. Nobody seems to care that they’re fleeced. The Cypriots are looted over the course of several weeks and other than the cries of the people of Cyprus there is nary a whimper of protest. So, how safe is the $18 trillion in retirement assets in America? Well, after the latest ‘clean-out’ beta test (more on this later) it is probably a good portion less than $18 trillion.
The Sustainability of QE
Most thinking individuals will quickly come to the conclusion that quantitative easing (aka printing money from nothing to buy debt) or monetization is not sustainable in the long run. This creates an immediate problem because our economy and financial system are now addicted to these monthly liquidity injections. The economy and financial system are hooked on the bubbles QE produces. The bottom line is someone has to buy all those new Treasury bonds otherwise deficit spending goes away and an instant depression ensues. It is that simple: someone has to buy the bonds otherwise the economy buys the farm.
There is another problem with QE. Unlike retirement savings, QE is not capital. The work of von Mises and Rothbard, among others, clearly delineates the differences between capital and currency so we won’t expound on that topic here. QE is currency. It is anti capital. Basically QE destroys capital. When all the capital is gone, the economy is gone and in this case, so is the goose that lays the golden eggs for the banksters. And we can’t have that. There is still plenty of fleecing to be done. People are still lining up to take on more debt and pledge more of their future economic output to people who create the enslaving debt from thin air without breaking a sweat. Why should they work when you’re willing to do it for them? Who in their right mind would want to put an end to such a great racket prematurely?
It is this very unsustainable nature of QE that will cause the banksters to go hunting for other liquid sources of capital. There are two big ones in America: bank deposits and retirement savings.
Potential Mechanisms for Confiscation
Contrary to the popular undertone of most hucksters (even in the alternative media) who are constantly warning of ‘imminent financial/economic collapses’ and the theft of everything including the nickel between the couch cushions, it won’t necessarily work that way. We’ve got a distinct socialist trend going in America now and have had one for quite some time.
One likely eventuality is that the government, acting in its now accustomed role as the primary enforcement arm of the banking establishment, would ‘nationalize’ the retirement system. This would likely start with public pension plans and a mandate that these plans invest a minimum percentage of their portfolio in Treasury securities. The Thrift Savings Program (TSP) here in the US is already a major purchaser of Treasury securities for its ‘G’ Fund. Coercing other public pension plans to do the same is the next logical step although it is not without severe consequences. The actuarial models of nearly all pension funds are based on the idiotic notion that portfolios always produce a near 7% rate of return over the long run.
The last decade has put a huge dent in these models, which is one reason why many plans are now underfunded. Demographics and wage shifts are other major problems. We know, you have 101 reasons why your plan is the only one that is safe. We’ve heard them all. We also heard the 101 reasons why your house was the only one on the block that was immune from the housing crash and so forth. Regardless, nearly all plans are underfunded now, to varying degrees. If these plans were forced to take a significant position in Treasury bonds above what they already own, those actuarial models would become absolutely worthless. That is, unless interest rates adjust dramatically upward, which would cause a raft of other problems.
What the nationalization concept would mean for nearly all recipients of pension payments is an immediate and significant cut in their distribution. There are laws against that, right? There are also laws against stealing client money and we saw how well that worked out for the clients so we would suggest taking this possibility rather seriously.
The second potential mechanism is an outright bail-in where the funds are re-hypothecated (stolen) under the guise of some type of 2008-style crisis, whether it be manufactured or real. Under this type of eventuality, there would be the perceived need for recapitalization of the banking system either in its entirety or majority and the segregated monies in retirement accounts and bank deposits would be used to bail-in the system. The securities in those accounts could be sold to raise more funds to complete the bail-in. Obviously in this scenario the pensioner or IRA account owner would be left with little or nothing. At a minimum they’d get what was dubbed a ‘haircut’ when it was done in Cyprus.
Potential Timetables & Triggers
At current there is no timetable for any of this nor are we going to propose one. There is a smattering of information here and there, mostly from sources who are either dubious or compromised, however there is a certain tenor that we can establish from the actions of central banks, policy think tanks, and governments around the world that strongly suggests the eventual nationalization/confiscation is one of the next steps.
Our best projections regarding potential signposts are precisely the kinds of events we’ve seen over the past two weeks: massive volatility and sell-offs, particularly in the bond markets. Japan is a huge potential trigger. The BOJ is walking the razor’s edge with its Abenomics sham and one mistake and over they go and the rest of the globe with them. Increases in both the frequency and magnitude of central bank easing are another signpost. Stunts such as the Bank of Japan directing pension plans where to invest are another good signpost that it is well past time to begin planning.
The past few weeks have produced what we’re going to call a beta test of one of the potential takedown mechanisms. We’ve previously mentioned the addiction of western economies and their financial systems to QE stimulus. For months now market and economic spectators have been wondering aloud what would happen if and when all this QE stops. The mere mention of such an eventuality causes volatility. There is no possible way that the monetary ‘authorities’ don’t know this.
So in that context we present Ben Bernanke’s suggestion a few weeks back that QE may be ‘tapered’. Then the banksters stepped back and watched the fireworks. Predictably the world sold off. Stocks, bonds, and commodities all went down. It was a mini deleveraging event. Then the banksters stepped in and restored a bit of stability to the system before things really got out of hand.
That exercise demonstrated several things. First, it proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that nobody has any idea what any financial asset is actually ‘worth’. All we know is that they are worth more when there is QE than when there isn’t. We have a QE pumped market, which we already knew, but there have been some detractors that have been painting the picture of a bull market based on fundamentals. That is utter nonsense. Secondly, the shock to interest rates caused some major cracks in the financial fa├žade. Interbank rates in China skyrocketed and at least one bank allegedly hit the mat and had to be bailed out (CIBC). There were probably more. Keep in mind there are several hundred trillion dollars worth of derivatives tied to interest rates alone.
The trigger is obvious. The ‘end’ or even suggested end of QE causes a spike in interest rates, which wipes out a good portion of the world’s banks.  Essentially allowing what started after Bernanke’s speech to proceed unchecked and gain momentum. The bail-in is on. There aren’t nearly enough deposits or retirement savings to cover the derivatives market. The leverage is enormous and even the smallest of moves is going to cause problems. The banksters, including their spokesman, the little professor in DC, know all this.
Others might not be willing to say this, but we are. If we end up with a spike in interest rates because of the end (or threatened end) of QE with the banks of the world needing to be bailed in with your savings, then it was done intentionally. It was not an accident as will undoubtedly be reported. It wasn’t a ‘black swan’. They did their test the other week and saw the results. We are hostages to QE forever. Without it, the entire system perishes. And, as we pointed out earlier, even that isn’t enough. One way or another America’s retirement savings are on borrowed time. Sadly there are no other conclusions that really make sense given all that has already happened.
Conclusions
One thing we wonder at with amazement is the absolute unwillingness of most first world citizens to even consider making changes in their standard of living. A simple 20% cut in standard of living by Americans would provide a huge degree of flexibility with regards to weathering the storm that lies dead ahead, yet people won’t do it. They won’t even talk about it for the most part and your authors have seen this mentality on two continents. Standard of living is sacrosanct. The second thing that is truly amazing is the lengths people will go to in order to remain in denial. We cannot state strenuously enough that you ignore the events going on around you at your own extreme risk and peril.
We’ve gone out on a limb here, presenting what is basically a circumstantial case against central banks and governments when it comes to the matter of your retirement accounts. We’ve demonstrated the need for your capital to keep their Ponzi scheme going. We’ve demonstrated their willingness to swipe other types of assets with the full blessing of the judicial system. We don’t have whitepapers such as the FDIC/BOE and BIS position papers on bank deposits - yet. We have no inside information and don’t purport to have secret contacts with Dick Tracy watches as many others do. We’re merely presenting what has already taken place and the fact that the current paradigm is in great jeopardy unless your savings are separated from you and placed under their control to some degree or another. The world would be much better off if the paradigm just ended, however it won’t go quietly into that good night and neither should you. However, with information and knowledge come responsibility and a call to action. Posterity strongly suggests it. Freedom absolutely demands it.
Graham Mehl is a pseudonym. He currently works for a hedge fund and is responsible for economic forecasting and modeling. He has a graduate degree with honors from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania among his educational achievements. Prior to his current position, he served as an economic research associate for a G7 central bank.
Andy Sutton holds a MBA with Honors in Economics from Moravian College and is a member of Omicron Delta Epsilon International Honor Society in Economics. His firm, Sutton & Associates, LLC currently provides financial planning services to a growing book of clients using a conservative approach aimed at accumulating high quality, income producing assets while providing protection against a falling dollar. For more information visitwww.suttonfinance.net

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Louisianians to begin receiving payments after national mortgage foreclosure settlement

from  nola.com




foreclosures.jpg
Dual locks are on the front door of empty house in Homestead, Fla., to prevent entry into the foreclosed home. As a result of illegal foreclosure practices on the part of the country's five largest servicers, state attorney generals reached a settlement to provide payments to affected Americans in 49 states. (J Pat Carter / The Associated Press)
Lauren McGaughy, NOLA.com | The Times PicayuneBy Lauren McGaughy, NOLA.com | The Times Picayune 
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on June 25, 2013 at 3:13 PM, updated June 25, 2013 at 3:17 PM
Nearly 6,000 Louisianians could open their mailboxes Tuesday (June 25) and find a check for roughly $1,500, according to Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell. The checks are the result of a settlement between Caldwell and the country's five largest mortgage servicers for years of illegal foreclosure practices.
The five servicers -- Ally (formerly GMAC), Bank of America, Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo -- were found to have repeatedly engaged in improper foreclosures, such as signing often-inaccurate foreclosure documents without a notary public present. The settlement, reached in February 2012, is providing $1.5 million in payments to Americans affected by such foreclosures in 49 states.
"These payments will help offset some expenses the borrowers have experienced as a result of abusive foreclose practices by the five national mortgage servicers," Sanettria "Sam" Pleasant, director of the state Attorney General's Public Protection Division, said in an email statement Tuesday.
The checks will be distributed by the National Mortgage Settlement Administrator and will begin arriving Tuesday, the statement said. They will be distributed to the 5,953 individual Louisiana borrowers who submitted a valid payment claim for foreclosures made between Jan. 1, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2011.
The settlement represents the largest of its kind in U.S. history. Nationwide, it will provide $25 billion in payments to individual borrowers, signing states as well as the federal government. The payments to states will go to help finance consumer and foreclosure protection efforts.
The payments received by individual borrowers do not preclude them from seeking other means of restitution, the attorney general's statement said.
Borrowers with questions about their claim or payment should call the National Mortgage Settlement Administrator at 1.866.430.8358.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Listen: Irish Banksters Plot to Take the Public’s Money

from truthdig.com



Email this item EMAIL    Print this item PRINT    Share this item... SHARE

Posted on Jun 25, 2013
The Irish Independent
Tape recordings from inside the “doomed” Anglo Irish Bank reveal for the first time how the institution’s top executives lied to the government about the extent of their losses at the height of the financial crisis in 2008 in a scandal that drove the nation into austerity, Paul Williams reports at The Irish Independent.
The tapes, which come from the bank’s internal telephone system, show Anglo Irish senior manager John Bowe laughing and joking as he tells another senior manager, Peter Fitzgerald, how the bank was luring the Irish government into giving it billions of euros. Bowe was involved in negotiations with Ireland’s Central Bank at the time.
On June 23 of this year, Bowe said in a statement that he had not misled the Central Bank. Fitzgerald denied having any knowledge of an intent to mislead the authorities. The tapes seem to show that both lied.
At the time of the recordings, Anglo was days away from a complete meltdown. Bowe is heard describing how he initially asked the state for 7 billion euros ($9.2 billion), knowing full well that it would not be enough to save the bank.
“The plan was that once the State began the flow of money, it would be unable to stop,” notes Williams.
Bowe is heard saying: “… the reality is that actually we need more than that. But you know, the strategy here is you pull them in, you get them to write a big check and they have to keep, they have to support their money, you know.”
Fitzgerald: “Yeah … They’ve got skin in the game and that’s key.”
Bowe: “They have invested a lot. If they saw … the enormity of it up front, they might decide, they might decide they have a choice. You know what I mean? They might say the cost to the taxpayer is too high. But … if it doesn’t look too big at the outset, if it looks big, big enough to be important, but not too big that it kind of spoils everything … then I think you have a chance. So I think it can creep up.”
As a result of this situation, Ireland was forced into a brutal international loan repayment scheme that has left little to no money to fund public services.
Click here to hear the tapes.
—Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly.
Paul Williams at The Irish Independent:
Mr Bowe’s comments in the audio recording reveal that Anglo’s strategy was to lure the State in, leaving taxpayers with no choice but to continueto provide loans to “support their money”.
The recording also shows Mr Bowe and Mr Fitzgerald laughing as they say how there is no realistic chance of ever repaying the loans.
For the first time, taxpayers get an exclusive insight into the bankingshenanigans that cost Ireland our sovereignty.
Read more


Monday, June 24, 2013

Banksters can sleep easy again

from thelawyer.com