Monday, June 10, 2013

Top 10 Reasons to Sign the Petition to Demand President Obama Resign

There are plenty of reasons to choose from.  Pick your own Top 10 Reasons to  Sign the Petition to Demand President Obama Resign

1. NSA wiretapping of all global citizens, including blanket orders on Americans.
2. Response to the embassy attacks in Benghazi, leading to the death of Ambassador Stevens.
3. AP wiretapping
4. Illegal invasion of Libya
5. Signing the Patriot Act
6. Signing the National Defense Authorization Act with indefinite detention of Americans
7. Bailing out the banks (TARP)
8. Continuing to keep industrial hemp illegal and listed as a Class 1 narcotic
9. Arresting prosecuting and torturing whistleblowers such as Bradley Manning
10.  Leading a covert drone war all across the world
11. Torturing and illegally holding Bradley Manning
12. Illegally arming the Syrian rebels who are known Al Qaeda
13. Arresting and violating the first amendment rights of Occupy protesters
14. Continuing to cover up for the atrocities of the past including 9/11 and the JFK assassination
15. Trans Pacific Partnership - Globilization continues from NAFTA to Asia Pacific




WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

We Demand President Obama Resign

President Richard Nixon resigned after wiretapping a handful of journalists, sparing the nation the ordeal of impeachment. We call on Obama to do the same. His administration vetted the NSA's surveillance of millions of Americans and seriously violated the Fourth Amendment. He confiscated the personal records of reporters, thus violating the First Amendment, and the IRS under his watch harassed political organizations opposed to his policies. Moreover, his administration has lied under oath to Congress. In addition to violating Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution by invading Libya, his administration engaged in torture and conducted a covert drone war. Due to the severity of these crimes, we call for the immediate resignation of Barack Obama.
Created: Jun 07, 2013

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Ivy Leagues Weigh in on Dodd Frank... Scary What They Support


I am just getting started on this topic but it sure looks as if the ivy league schools have already seen the Dodd Frank bill and are discussing it.  And from the looks of it, the Pepperdine Law Review has judged it in the favor! - expansion of the nation state over the control of global people and resources - FASCISM.  This is insane.  Dodd Frank was written by the banksters for the banksters and allows for a Cyprus style bail in.  We need Glass-Steagall, not Dodd Frank.


Putting the Reign Back in Sovereign

 Allison Christians
In its first term, the Obama administration enacted two pieces of legislation, each designed to protect an increasingly vulnerable income tax base, and each of which had the potential to set a new and unprecedented course for no less than the regulation of the global economy by the nation-state. The first, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), sought to end global tax evasion through tax havens. The second, a little-noticed two-page addendum to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), sought to end the contribution of American multinationals to corruption in governance by codifying the transparency principles of the global Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). Both of these reforms reasserted a role for the nation state in regulating people and resources. But neither has yet to fulfill its potential. First, each has raised difficult questions about what the state can and cannot do to enforce disclosure and compliance on a global basis; failing to answer these questions is impeding implementation and aggravating an already-flagging taxpayer morale. Second, neither is broad enough: FATCA should be truly reciprocal and EITI should expand beyond the extractive industries. By acknowledging and responding in a principled way to the obstacles that limit their effectiveness, a second Obama administration could take significant steps to bring each piece of legislation to its potential, while ensuring that its scope focuses on its intended target in each case. This article outlines how these proposals could be accomplished and makes the case that they should be attempted.

Why Dodd-Frank Must Be Stopped and Glass Steagall Must Be Reinstated

Dodd Frank is a Bankster Red Herring

Very few Americans understand a key fact of Dodd-Frank. Namely, Title II of the Act to establish an Orderly Liquidation Authority, vests the FDIC with the authority to conduct a Cyprus-style bail-in. The ostensible goal of the Dodd-Frank Act is “to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.  First of all it was written by Credit Suisse and other international and national banks.  Think about that for a second.  The organized criminal cartels that control our banking systems actually wrote the bil that is supposed to save the global economies from the systemic failures of the banks that they own.  The bill is supposed to curb their profits.  And they wrote it.  
So how would Dodd Frank enable a Cyprus style bail-in? Vis a vis a cross-border bank resolution.
Bail-in, in its simplest terms, is the inverse policy of what was done under Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Glass-Steagall Act and the 1933 Banking Act generally. In the event of a banktuptcy, under bail-in the bank survives, the depositors do not. 
Your money is to be considered an investment in the bank and therefore your deposits can be confiscated in the event of a liquidation, which would be performed according to the rules and guidance of the Orderly Liquidation Authority.

As is stated in an IMF review of the policy from April 2012, “The statutory bail-in power is intended to achieve a prompt recapitalization and restructuring of the distressed institution.” In the case of resolving a distressed globally active, systemically important, financial institution (GSIFI), bank creditors, specifically those whose assets exceed the FDIC insurance cap, will be subject to expropriation. This is not normal bankruptcy. Accounts and assets are seized and/or converted to stock under the resolution authority. The institution is prevented from failing. Values of securities are not written down through sale on the open market. And this is done to guarantee the continued operation of the financial institution and the “stability” of the financial system.

Restoring Proper Financial Regulation 

Glass-Steagall forces separation of commercial from investment banks, it ends Too Big To Fail, bars government bailouts, and will stop the onset of hyperinflation. 

On Friday Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Ia.) introduced Senate Bill 985 (#SB985) to reinstate Glass Steagall. While the full text of the Harkin bill has not yet been posted by the Library of Congress, the fact that there is now a Senate bill to reinstate full separation of commercial banking from all other brokerage and speculative activities is a dramatic development. The fight for Glass Steagall has now moved to a new level.

This comes at a very precise and fortunate time.  Earlier this year, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, introduced HR 129 to restore Glass-Steagall, saying, “The response of Congress to the 2008 financial crisis has been completely inadequate.”  Currently #HR129 – The Return to Prudent Banking Act– has 60 bipartisan co-sponsors in the House.  Four states have passed resolutions calling for reimplementation of Glass-Steagall, and a dozen other legislatures, including Virginia’s, are considering similar measures.


Specifically, the draft legislation has four components:

1. Commercial Banking institutions have one year to divest themselves of all non-commercial banking units, with no cross management or ownership between commercial and non-commercial units.

2. Commercial Banks are barred from using more than 2% of its capital for the creation, sale, or distribution of securities (certain bank-qualified securities are exempted)

3. Prevents Commercial Banks from loaning their commercial deposits into such vehicals as would support the creation and circulation of securities.

4. No securities of low or potentially low value can be placed by a bank into its insured commercial bank units. * Adds provision stating Glass-Steagall is the preeminant regulator of the banks, limiting banks from putting its depositors and shareholders at risk.

What is important about this legislation over all others is that there would be absolutely no room for loopholes.  There can be no accidental oversight or negligence.  Investment banking would be completely separated from commercial banking.   

This is NOT to be confused with the red herring that Obama supported earlier in his first term, known as the "Volcker rule" named after former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker .  That was a more complicated piece of legislation meant to stall real effective rules.  There is a reason for that.  Obama has received millions of dollars from investment banks, just like Romney, Bush, and all other presidential candidates.  The banks always hedge their bets and play both sides against the other.  DO NOT BE DECEIVED THIS TIME!

Additional Commentary
If you need more details on the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and why it is important to restore, watch this video.  Max Keiser is an excellent financial news reporter that does not hold back any punches for any banker fraud and conspiracy.


And in case you need still more reason to support restoring Glass-Steagall, hear what Elizabeth Warren has to say about it.  Remember she was warning us all of the impending doom from 2005-2008 as the housing bubble and financial crisis was bubbling.



If you want to know more about who was responsible for repealing Glass-Steagall, watch this video and look to Alan Greenspan.


Friday, June 7, 2013

Join the NSA, Spy on Americans. It's the New Cool Thing to Do.






As of this moment, Obama is making the case that the US government is not eavesdropping on phone calls. Specifically, he said "nobody is listening to your phone calls - they are just looking at phone numbers and duration of calls" and concluded that the NSA was only engaged in "modest encroachments." It was unclear if that clarification was meant to put to rest fears that Big Brother has made personal privacy a thing of the past. He further went on to add that the telephone surveillance program is fully vetted by Congress and supervised by the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). In other words: Obama is making the case that the NSA's Big Brother supervision is perfectly legal and not only that, there are checks and balances and neither the telephonic snooping nor the internet supervision is anything to be concerned about.  There is one problem: Obama is lying.
Back in April 2009, three months into the Obama regime, none other than the NSA admitted it has overstepped its legal boundaries. As the NYT reported: "The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews. "
Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.

The Justice Department, in response to inquiries from The New York Times, acknowledged Wednesday night that there had been problems with the N.S.A. surveillance operation, but said they had been resolved.

As part of a periodic review of the agency’s activities, the department “detected issues that raised concerns,” it said. Justice Department officials then “took comprehensive steps to correct the situation and bring the program into compliance” with the law and court orders, the statement said. It added that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. went to the national security court to seek a renewal of the surveillance program only after new safeguards were put in place.
The same Eric Holder who is currently being investigated for perjury before congress. As for "compliance" 4 years later it seems nothing has changed.
As for Obama's clear conscience:
The legal and operational problems surrounding the N.S.A.’s surveillance activities have come under scrutiny from the Obama administration, Congressional intelligence committees and a secret national security court, said the intelligence officials, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because N.S.A. activities are classified. Classified government briefings have been held in recent weeks in response to a brewing controversy that some officials worry could damage the credibility of legitimate intelligence-gathering efforts.
Well thank god the most transparent administration held classified briefings to discuss the biggest government espionage program ever conceived. One may have gotten ideas otherwise...
Finally, on Obama's pinky swear that it is only foreigners' emails and iMessages that are being intercepted, turns out he is lying here too:
In recent weeks, the eavesdropping agency notified members of the Congressional intelligence committees that it had encountered operational and legal problems in complying with the new wiretapping law, Congressional officials said.

Officials would not discuss details of the overcollection problem because it involves classified intelligence-gathering techniques. But the issue appears focused in part on technical problems in the N.S.A.’s ability at times to distinguish between communications inside the United States and those overseas as it uses its access to American telecommunications companies’ fiber-optic lines and its own spy satellites to intercept millions of calls and e-mail messages.
And so on.
In short: what difference does it make - it is only the stripping of the most fundamental privacy rights of US citizens! And how else can you build a totalitarian government if you don't give up some freedoms - good heavens, one can't ask the poor president to provide 100% security without experiencing some "inconvenience" and handing over a little privacy. Or a lot.
In the end, let's not forget what really matters: the NSA spying program is from the government, and it is here to help you.
* * *
Finally, here is Matt Damon explaining why he wouldn't work for the NSA:

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Are Bilderberg Attendees Planning a Fascist Global Government?


At the 1992 Bilderberg Group meeting, Henry Kissinger said:
“Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil….individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government.”

Aldous Huxley > Quotes > Quotable Quote

Aldous Huxley

“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.”


― Aldous HuxleyBrave New World






Will the real terrorist please stand up.



Read more here.

What is the Trilateral Commission? #NWO #TC #CFR


The Trilateral Commission (discussed below) is a similar group that “brings together global power brokers.” Founded by David Rockefeller, he’s also a leading Bilderberger and CFR Chairman Emeritus, organizations he continues to finance and support.
Their past and current members reflect their power:
– nearly all presidential candidates of both parties;
– leading senators and congressmen;
– key members of the fourth estate and their bosses; and
– top officials of the FBI, CIA, NSA, defense establishment, and other leading government agencies, including state, commerce, the judiciary and treasury.
For its part, “CFR has served as a virtual employment agency for the federal government under both Democrats and Republicans.” Whoever occupies the White House, “CFR’s power and agenda” have been unchanged since its 1921 founding.
It advocates a global superstate with America and other nations sacrificing their sovereignty to a central power. CFR founder Paul Warburg was a member of Roosevelt’s “brain trust.” In 1950, his son, James, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “We shall have world government whether or not you like it – by conquest or consent.”
Read the rest of the article here.

How is the Council on Foreign Relations Involved in G8, G20, and Bilderberg Meetings? #CFR #NWO



Secret Bilderberg Partners
In the US, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is dominant. One of its 1921 founders, Edward Mandell House, was Woodrow Wilson’s chief advisor and rumored at the time to be the nation’s real power from 1913 – 1921. On his watch, the Federal Reserve Act passed in December 1913 giving money creation power to bankers, and the 16th Amendment was ratified in February creating the federal income tax to provide a revenue stream to pay for government debt service.
From its beginnings, CFR was committed to “a one-world government based on a centralized global financing system….” Today, CFR has thousands of influential members (including important ones in the corporate media) but keeps a low public profile, especially regarding its real agenda.
Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called it a “front organization (for) the heart of the American Establishment.” It meets privately and only publishes what it wishes the public to know. Its members are only Americans.
Read the rest of the article here.

Move Over G8, and G20, Make Room for Bilderberg #NWO


Bilderberg Objectives
The Group’s grand design is for “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace, policed by one world army, and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Their “wish list” includes:
– “one international identify (observing) one set of universal values;”
– centralized control of world populations by “mind control;” in other words, controlling world public opinion;
– a New World Order with no middle class, only “rulers and servants (serfs),” and, of course, no democracy;
– “a zero-growth society” without prosperity or progress, only greater wealth and power for the rulers;
– manufactured crises and perpetual wars;
– absolute control of education to program the public mind and train those chosen for various roles;
– “centralized control of all foreign and domestic policies;” one size fits all globally;
– using the UN as a de facto world government imposing a UN tax on “world citizens;”
– expanding NAFTA and WTO globally;
– making NATO a world military;
– imposing a universal legal system; and
– a global “welfare state where obedient slaves will be rewarded and non-conformists targeted for extermination.”
Read the rest of the article here.

Shadow Banking and Financial Fraud: Massive Asset Inflation, Who Really Benefits? #NWO




Original article found here.

Have you ever wondered why when over 40 million Americans are on food stamps, millions of homes foreclosed and millions more unemployed, there is hardly any social unrest in the United States?
In the European Union, the economic situation is dire as well, but again there is hardly any social unrest. Sure there were demonstrations, but it is abundantly clear that the people in these countries have no idea as to the actual culprits who have caused them to suffer such poverty and hardship and why there have been no massive bail-outs for them.
There have been hundreds of thousands of articles published on the Global Financial Tsunami and many have pointed out the scams perpetrated by the banks and other financial institutions which resulted in movements such as “Occupy Wall Street”. But, such protests were not sustainable and were also largely unsupported by the very people who were affected by these financial scams.
Ask any debtor why he has not taken any action, and he would most likely say that he cannot really complain as he was in debt and could not pay off the debt and as such he must suffer the consequences, be it bankruptcy or foreclosures. This is the response of a typical brainwashed debtor!
Joe Six-Packs never even pondered that debtor-banks never had to suffer any consequences of their indebtedness as a result of their reckless speculations and other financial shenanigans! In fact, such banks were given freebies and back-stopped by the FED and other central banks. They were not allowed to fail, to be declared insolvent and liquidated. The banks were just Too Big To Fail and must be given a life-line.
That Joe Six-Packs have not started a revolution to throw out the power elites and shut down the Too Big To Fail Banks is because they are ignorant and do not understand the mechanics and the intricacies of banking in general and shadow banking in particular and how financial frauds have been perpetrated by these banks with the connivance of the FED and other central banks as well as the governing regimes. The judiciary willingly turned a blind-eye to these criminal activities.
So, I have decided to explain in as simple a language as I can muster in the hope that the Joe Six-Packs of the world would take action and put right the injustice that has been perpetrated by the global financial elites and reclaim their hard-earned money that was stolen from them.
Before explaining the reasons for the massive asset inflation engineered by the FED and other central banks, we must have some idea of banking and the securities / collaterals given to banks for the credit extended to borrowers (i.e. the Joe Six-Packs etc.)
Lesson 1
When a borrower takes out a loan, invariably he or she is required to provide collaterals in the form of a property, public quoted shares, government bonds etc. to secure the loan.
Usually, the bank will provide a loan in an amount equivalent to 80 per cent of the value of the security. So, if a house is worth US$100,000 or in Malaysia RM100,000, the bank would extend a loan of US$80,000 or RM80,000. The reason being, in a default the bank has a cushion of US$20,000 / RM20,000 to cover any fall in value of the house and or a lower price in a foreclosure sale. Thus, when there is a foreclosure there will always be more than enough money to cover the outstanding loan. Such a security is referred to as a “mortgage”.
In the case of shares of a company listed in a stock exchange e.g. shares in Citibank, Wal-Mart, General Motors, Sime Darby, MMC etc., the bank would extend a loan usually not exceeding 60 per cent of the value of the shares pledged to the bank. This is the rule of thumb. But, banks in different countries and jurisdictions have different rules and regulations governing such securities. But, for the purposes of this article we shall use the 80 per cent rule for mortgages and 60 per cent rule for shares. For simplicity sake, I will not refer to other types of securities offered.
These collaterals (mortgages etc.) were then packaged and repackaged and sold to investors as “Collateralised Debt Obligations” (CDOs etc.) and or re-hypothecated many times over (the technical jargon for using the securities to secure further loans) thereby compounding the exposure and risks should there be a default.
Lesson 2
What happens when there is a financial crisis?
Malaysians will recall that during the 1997/1998 Asian Financial Crisis, shares worth RM30 or more plummeted to less than RM1. But, price of houses did not suffer as much depreciation as the property bubble was confined to commercial properties.
During the Global Financial Tsunami, Citibank shares fell to less than US$5 from a peak of US$550 in early 2007. Citigroup’s market capital was US$147 Billion
on December 31, 2007, and on March 5, 2009, the market capital of Citigroup dropped to US$5 Billion, eroding over 96% of the companies’ value.
When the sub-prime bubble exploded, house prices fell by as much as 30 per cent or more resulting in the outstanding loan value exceeding the value of the mortgage.
This was a bloody disaster for the banks!
By banking regulations, the value of the security must be written down to the actual value i.e. in the case of Citibank shares to US$5. And, in the case of houses, it had to be written down to the actual depressed price e.g. from US$100,000 to US$60,000.
Borrowers could not repay their debts and in many cases refused to pay the debt because they have purchased a house which value has depreciated to the extent that it is less than the loaned sum! There were massive defaults and as such these loans must be declared as “Non-performing Loans” (NPLs).
And by accounting standards, NPLs must be written off. If and when these NPLs are written off, the banks would be insolvent and unless the banks’ shareholders pump in more money to increase the share capital sufficient to offset the losses, the banks cannot continue doing banking business. This is so basic.
The shareholders did not have the monies to increase the share capital and neither were they in any position to borrow any money to keep the banks afloat.
The global banks were starring at a bottomless black-hole!
Lesson 3
The FED and other central banks came to the rescue of the Too Big To Fail Banks (TBTF banks) by providing loans, guarantees etc. such as the TARP program, followed later by Quantitative Easing (QE).
Remember that the TBTF banks were not allowed to be bankrupted. But, the toxic “assets” (i.e. massive undervalued securities and NPLs) cannot remain on the balance sheet of the banks if marked-to-market. The world would know that the banks were insolvent. There has to be a cover-up.
How was the cover-up implemented?
Firstly, banks need not mark-to-market these toxic assets. This is outright fraud – what was worth e.g. US$5 was declared as US$300 in the case of shares. A house worth US$60,000 was declared to be worth US$100,000.
This cover-up bought the TBTF banks and the central banks time to implement the second fraud.
Bear in mind that the losses were in the US$ Trillions.
So, there was no way for the FED and other central banks to print digitally US$ Trillions in one swoop to bail out the banks. This would result in a massive devaluation of the fiat currency be it the US dollar, the Pound Sterling or the Euro and the consequential hyperinflation. All currencies would be toilet papers overnight.
So, like the thief in the night, the FED and the other central banks did so quietly and in “batches” for want of a better term.
The FED printed digital money (i.e. virtual money) via the computer and made simple book entries.
The FED and other central banks acting in concert bought the toxic assets from the bank at book value (i.e. at or close to the original price) thereby reducing the amount of toxic assets on the TBTF banks’ balance sheets. This has been going on since 2008/2009 and will continue for a long time to come, at least a decade from 2008. So, by reducing the amount of the toxic assets on the TBTF banks’ balance sheet, the amount of share capital as well as bank reserves would likewise be reduced. In fact, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Central Bank of central banks have allowed the TBTF banks till 2019 to comply fully the Basel III Accords relating to capital requirements.
Lesson 4
The third cover-up is more subtle.
This third cover-up is to do with the scam of artificially raising the value of the shares pledged to the TBTF banks.
You will remember that these shares, pledged as securities were shares quoted in the stock exchange such as the NYSE, the London Stock Exchange etc. The value have all plummeted and are worth a fraction of the value when first pledged to the banks as illustrated above in the case of Citibank shares.
Therefore, there is a need to jack up the value of the shares quoted in the stock market. This is common sense. If the value of Citibank shares remain at US$5, the bank would not be able to cover-up this glaring black-hole if these shares have not been sold to the FED or other central banks and remained on the balance sheet.
And in the case of the FED, sooner or later, even the common man on Main Street would realise that the FED has a lot of junk on its balance sheet.
Technically, in such a circumstance, the FED would be insolvent!
Bernanke’s infamous QEs were the solution. The new digital monies were applied to buy toxic assets of the TBTF banks (which in turn were converted into bank reserves) and US treasuries. The new monies were also diverted to the stock market to push up the value of the shares as well as to shore up the depressed housing market.
In the result, there was a rally in the market and the Dow rose to a record high, even higher than what was achieved in 2007 prior to the Global Financial Tsunami. Citibank shares rose by leaps and bounds as did other shares.
In technical jargon, this is “asset inflation” – the artificial rise in value of shares as a result of the FED’s digital monies being diverted to the stock market.
The net effect is that the “toxic shares” on the TBTF banks’ balance sheet also rose in value (albeit not to its original price) as well as those shares on the FED’s balance sheet. The losses of the banks were thereby reduced.
Lesson 5
Many have moaned and groaned that the FED ought to apply QE monies to Main Street and not to Wall Street.
To the FED, what is most important to the American economy and its superpower status is that the banking system must be protected and preserved as the foundation of the entire financial edifice is global confidence in the US$ fiat money. The US$ fiat toilet paper is the fuel that drives the US economy and is the most valuable US export, an export product that does not require any manufacturing or engineering skills or technology. All it needs is a printing press (or more appropriately a digital printing press).
The above explanation is at the most basic level as the above schemes and scams are merely to shore up the first tranche of the financial rubbish that have been dumped onto Main Street. We have not even addressed the problems of those toxic assets that have been packaged and re-packaged, re-hypothecated many times over in the Shadow Banking System. Suffice to say that if the FED cannot solve the problems at the most basic level, it would be futile to address the nuclear financial waste of the Shadow Banking System.
Final Comments
Please read the extract of the article below by Chris James in 2011 entitled, “Why Citigroup Will Not Go Back to Its 2007 Highs” carefully.
In 2007, Citigroup was over $550 per share on a split adjusted basis. Investors have eagerly watched Citigroup’s stock since the March 2009 lows for it to return to its all time highs. The thing is, no matter how soon the economic recovery is, Citigroup’s stock will not return to its all time highs in the near to long term future.
Following the economic crash of 2008, Citigroup had to do multiple secondary offerings of stock to keep the company from going bankrupt. A secondary offering is when a company sells new stock to the public, diluting current shareholders. One secondary offering after another, Citigroup shareholders saw their stakes in the company diluted over and over again. Although the secondary offerings were necessary to keep Citigroup alive through the economic recession, they did permanent damage to the share value of the company.
Citigroup’s market capital was 147 Billion on December 31, 2007, and it’s share price was $294.40 on a split adjusted basis. The market capital is a measure of the value of the company, based on the sum of all the outstanding shares of a company. On March 5, 2009, the market capital of Citigroup dropped to 5 Billion, eroding over 96% of the companies’ value. Now Citigroup’s market capital ranges from 110 Billion to 145 Billion, almost back to its 2007 highs. By market capital, Citigroup is worth nearly what it was in 2007, so why is the share price only a fraction of what it was?
To do this we have to go back to dilution. In 2007, Citigroup had 5 Billion outstanding shares, and before the 1:10 reverse stock split in May 2010, there were 29 Billion outstanding shares. In other words, Investors saw their shares diluted by over 80% from secondary offerings, and as of now, their shares are still diluted. The market capital of Citigroup nearly recovered, but the share price has not, and probably will not in the near to long term future. In order for the share price to return to 2007 levels, Citigroup would have to grow to a market capital of 1.5 Trillion dollars. 1.5 Trillion! That’s assuming over a thousand percent growth. Growth like that typically takes over a decade or more for banks.
Another way Citigroup could get its historic share price back for shareholders is to introduce stock buybacks. A stock buyback is the reverse of a secondary offering. A stock buyback is when the company buys back shares on the open market and cancels them, reducing the number of shares outstanding. This creates more value per share for investors. Currently Citigroup is still recovering from the financial crisis and does not have enough cash for a stock buyback program. Therefore, Citigroup investors may have to wait much longer than they thought they would to see 2007 highs in share price again.
The point of quoting this Article written in 2011 is that after four years Citibank has yet to return to the 2007 highs for investors. The same would apply to banks who were holding these shares as collaterals.
We are now in 2013 and Citibank has yet to return to the 2007 highs for its share price.
Therefore should we be surprised that Bernanke has stated that QE would continue to 2015?
But, of course there would be some tapering as over the years, the toxic assets would have been reduced and for some of these assets, the value would have recovered somewhat though not to the 2007 high. So, instead of purchasing US$85 billion toxic assets and treasuries per month, the FED may continue with QE 4 and 5 at reduced rates i.e. US$60 billion or whatever lesser amount.
The scam will continue, the fraud will continue and Main Street will continue to suffer unless Joe Six-Packs take some drastic action through collective action to expose the fraud and the scam and shut down the ponzi scheme.

Monday, June 3, 2013

Evidence that ALL Markets Are Rigged; Question is, Is there a Conspiracy?




Is EVERY Market Rigged?

European Union Launches Investigation Into Manipulation of Oil Prices Since 2002

CNN reports:
The European Commission raided the offices of Shell, BP and Norway’s Statoil this weekas part of an investigation into suspected attempts to manipulate global oil prices spanning more than a decade.
None of the companies have been accused of wrongdoing, but the controversy has brought back memories of the Libor rate-rigging scandal that rocked the financial world last year.
***
A review ordered by the British government last year in the wake of the Libor revelations cited “clear” parallels between the work of the oil-price-reporting agencies and Libor.
“[T]hey are both widely used benchmarks that are compiled by private organizations and that are subject to minimal regulation and oversight by regulatory authorities,” the review, led by former financial regulator Martin Wheatley, said in August . “To that extent they are also likely to be vulnerable to similar issues with regards to the motivation and opportunity for manipulation and distortion.”
***
In a report issued in October, the International Organization of Securities Commissions — an association of regulators — said the ability “to selectively report data on a voluntary basis creates an opportunity for manipulating the commodity market data” submitted to Platts and its competitors.
Responding to questions from IOSCO last year, French oil giant Total said the price-reporting agencies, or PRAs, sometimes “do not assure an accurate representation of the market and consequently deform the real price levels paid at every level of the price chain, including by the consumer.” But Total called Platts and its competitors “generally… conscientious and professional.”
***
“Even small distortions of assessed prices may have a huge impact on the prices of crude oil, refined oil products and biofuels purchases and sales, potentially harming final consumers,” the European Commission said this week.
USA Today notes:
The Commission … said, however, that its probe covers a wide range of oil products — crude oil, biofuels, and refined oil products, which include gasoline, heating oil, petrochemicals and others.
***
The EU said it has concerns that some companies may have tried to manipulate the pricing process by colluding to report distorted prices and by preventing other companies from submitting their own prices.
***
Unlike oil futures, which set prices for contracts, the data used in the MOC process is based on the physical sale and purchase of actual shipments of oil and oil products.
***
According to Statoil, the EU investigation stretches back to 2002, which is when Platts launched its MOC price system in Europe. The suspicion is that some companies may have provided inaccurate information to Platts to affect the oil products’ pricing, presumably for financial gain.
At issue is whether there was collusion to distort prices of crude, refined oil products and ethanol traded during Platts’ market-on-close (MOC) system – a daily half-hour “window” in which it sets prices.
But the European Commission also is examining whether companies were prevented from taking part in the price assessment process.
The Guardian writes:
The commission said the alleged price collusion, which may have been going on since 2002, could have had a “huge impact” on the price of petrol at the pumps “potentially harming final consumers”.
Lord Oakeshott, former Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said the alleged rigging of oil prices was “as serious as rigging Libor” – which led to banks being fined hundreds of millions of pounds.
He demanded to know why the UK authorities had not taken action earlier and said he would ask questions of the British regulator in Parliament. “Why have we had to wait for Brussels to find out if British oil giants are ripping off British consumers?” he said. “The price of energy ripples right through our economy and really matters to every business and families.”
***
Shadow energy and climate change secretary Caroline Flint said: “These are very concerning reports, which if true, suggest shocking behaviour in the oil market that should be dealt with strongly.
“When the allegations of price fixing in the gas market were made, Labour warned that opaque over-the-counter deals and relying on price reporting agencies left the market vulnerable to abuse.
“These latest allegations of price fixing in the oil market raise very similar questions. Consumers need to know that the prices they pay for their energy or petrol are fair, transparent and not being manipulated by traders.”
Shadow financial secretary to the Treasury Chris Leslie said: “If oil price fixing has taken place it would be a shocking scandal for our financial markets.
The Telegraph reports:
97 per cent of all we eat, drink, wear or build has spent some time in a diesel lorry,” said a spokesman for FairFuel UK, the lobbyists. “If it is proved, they have beengambling with the very oxygen of our economy.”
***
Platts – to determine the benchmark price – examines just trades in the final 30 minutes of the trading day. A group of half a dozen analysts gather round a trading screen and decide on the final price. As with much that goes on in the City, it is a surprisingly old-fashioned method, reliant on gentlemanly conduct. Critics say it leaves the market open to abuse, and the price can suddenly spike or fall in the final minutes of the day.
The New York Times notes of agencies like Platt and Argus Media:
Their influence is extensive. Total, the French oil giant, estimated last year that 75 to 80 percent of crude oil and refined product transactions were linked to the prices published by such agencies.
The Observer writes that manipulation of the oil markets has long been an open secret:
Robert Campbell, a former price reporter at another PRA, Argus – he is now a staffer at Thomson Reuters, which also competes with Platts and others on providing energy news and data – said this a few days ago in a little-noticed commentary: “The vulnerability of physical crude price assessments to manipulation is an open secret within the oil industry. The surprise is that it took regulators so long to open a formal probe.”
Reuters points out that the probe may be expanding to the U.S.:
In Washington, the chairman of the Senate energy committee asked the Justice Department to investigate whether alleged price manipulation has boosted fuel prices for U.S. consumers.
“Efforts to manipulate the European oil indices, if proven, may have already impacted U.S. consumers and businesses, because of the interrelationships among world oil markets and hedging practices,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.
Wyden also asked Justice to investigate whether oil market manipulation was taking place in the United States.
Not only are petroleum products a multi-trillion dollar market on their own, but manipulation of petroleum prices would effect virtually every market in the world.
For example, the Cato Institute notes how many industries use oil:
U.S. industries use petroleum to produce the synthetic fiber used in textile mills making carpeting and fabric from polyester and nylon. U.S. tire plants use petroleum to make synthetic rubber. Other U.S. industries use petroleum to produce plastic, drugs, detergent, deodorant, fertilizer, pesticides, paint, eyeglasses, heart valves, crayons, bubble gum and Vaseline.
The India Times explains that:
The price variation in crude oil impacts the sentiments and hence the volatility in stock markets all over the world. The rise in crude oil prices is not good for the global economy. Price rise in crude oil virtually impacts industries and businesses across the board. Higher crude oil prices mean higher energy prices, which can cause a ripple effect on virtually all business aspects that are dependent on energy (directly or indirectly).
The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco points out:
When gasoline prices increase, a larger share of households’ budgets is likely to be spent on it, which leaves less to spend on other goods and services. The same goes for businesses whose goods must be shipped from place to place or that use fuel as a major input (such as the airline industry). Higher oil prices tend to make production more expensive for businesses, just as they make it more expensive for households to do the things they normally do.
***
Oil price increases are generally thought to increase inflation and reduce economic growth.
***
Oil prices indirectly affect costs such as transportation, manufacturing, and heating. The increase in these costs can in turn affect the prices of a variety of goods and services, as producers may pass production costs on to consumers.
***
Oil price increases can also stifle the growth of the economy through their effect on the supply and demand for goods other than oil. Increases in oil prices can depress the supply of other goods because they increase the costs of producing them. In economics terminology, high oil prices can shift up the supply curve for the goods and services for which oil is an input.
High oil prices also can reduce demand for other goods because they reduce wealth, as well as induce uncertainty about the future (Sill 2007). One way to analyze the effects of higher oil prices is to think about the higher prices as a tax on consumers (Fernald and Trehan 2005).
The Post Carbon Institute notes (via OilPrice.com) that high oil prices raise food prices as well:
The connection between food and oil is systemic, and the prices of both food and fuel have risen and fallen more or less in tandem in recent years (figure 1). Modern agriculture uses oil products to fuel farm machinery, to transport other inputs to the farm, and to transport farm output to the ultimate consumer. Oil is often also used as input in agricultural chemicals. Oil price increases therefore put pressure on all these aspects of commercial food systems.
Figure 1: Evolution of food and fuel prices, 2000 to 2009
Sources: US Energy Information Administration and FAO.
Economists Nouriel Roubini and Setser note that all recessions after 1973 were associated with oil shocks.

Interest Rates Are Manipulated

Unless you live under a rock, you know about the Libor scandal.
For those just now emerging from a coma, here’s a recap:

Derivatives Are Manipulated

Indeed, many trillions of dollars of derivatives are being manipulated in the exact same same way that interest rates are fixed: through gamed self-reporting.

Gold and Silver Are Manipulated

The Guardian and Telegraph report that gold and silver prices are “fixed” in the same way as interest rates and derivatives – in daily conference calls by the powers-that-be.

Everything Can Be Manipulated through High-Frequency Trading

Traders with high-tech computers can manipulate stocks,  bonds, options, currencies and commodities. And see this.

Manipulating Numerous Markets In Myriad Ways

The big banks and other giants manipulate numerous markets in myriad ways, for example:
  • Engaging in mafia-style big-rigging fraud against local governments. See thisthis and this
  • Shaving money off of virtually every pension transaction they handled over the course of decades, stealing collectively billions of dollars from pensions worldwide. Details hereherehereherehere,herehereherehereherehere and here
  • Pledging the same mortgage multiple times to different buyers.  See thisthisthisthis and this.  This would be like selling your car, and collecting money from 10 different buyers for the same car
  • Pushing investments which they knew were terrible, and then betting against the same investments to make money for themselves. See thisthisthisthis and this
  • Engaging in unlawful “Wash Trades” to manipulate asset prices. See thisthis and this
  • Participating in various Ponzi schemes. See thisthis and this
  • Bribing and bullying ratings agencies to inflate ratings on their risky investments