An explosive new report in Rolling Stone magazine exposes how the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission destroyed records of thousands of investigations, whitewashing the files of some of the nation’s largest banks and hedge funds, including AIG, Wells Fargo, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and top Wall Street broker Bernard Madoff. Last week, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said an agency whistleblower had sent him a letter detailing the unlawful destruction of records detailing more than 9,000 information investigations. We speak with Matt Taibbi, the political reporter for Rolling Stone magazine who broke this story in his latest article, "Is the SEC Covering Up Wall Street Crimes?" [includes rush transcript]
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Iceland's On-going Revolution
 |
| Wiki Image |
Daily Kos
An Italian radio program's story about Iceland’s on-going revolution is a stunning example of how little our media tells us about the rest of the world. Americans may remember that at the start of the 2008 financial crisis, Iceland literally went bankrupt. The reasons were mentioned only in passing, and since then, this little-known member of the European Union fell back into oblivion.
As one European country after another fails or risks failing, imperiling the Euro, with repercussions for the entire world, the last thing the powers that be want is for Iceland to become an example. Here's why:
Five years of a pure neo-liberal regime had made Iceland, (population 320 thousand, no army), one of the richest countries in the world. In 2003 all the country’s banks were privatized, and in an effort to attract foreign investors, they offered on-line banking whose minimal costs allowed them to offer relatively high rates of return. The accounts, called IceSave, attracted many English and Dutch small investors. But as investments grew, so did the banks’ foreign debt. In 2003 Iceland’s debt was equal to 200 times its GNP, but in 2007, it was 900 percent. The 2008 world financial crisis was the coup de grace. The three main Icelandic banks, Landbanki, Kapthing and Glitnir, went belly up and were nationalized, while the Kroner lost 85% of its value with respect to the Euro. At the end of the year Iceland declared bankruptcy.
Contrary to what could be expected, the crisis resulted in Icelanders recovering their sovereign rights, through a process of direct participatory democracy that eventually led to a new Constitution. But only after much pain.
Geir Haarde, the Prime Minister of a Social Democratic coalition government, negotiated a two million one hundred thousand dollar loan, to which the Nordic countries added another two and a half million. But the foreign financial community pressured Iceland to impose drastic measures. The FMI and the European Union wanted to take over its debt, claiming this was the only way for the country to pay back Holland and Great Britain, who had promised to reimburse their citizens.
Protests and riots continued, eventually forcing the government to resign. Elections were brought forward to April 2009, resulting in a left-wing coalition which condemned the neoliberal economic system, but immediately gave in to its demands that Iceland pay off a total of three and a half million Euros. This required each Icelandic citizen to pay 100 Euros a month (or about $130) for fifteen years, at 5.5% interest, to pay off a debt incurred by private parties vis a vis other private parties. It was the straw that broke the reindeer’s back.
Read Full Article
Proof Of Another Big US Bank Collapse? Investment Banks Rated "Buy" By Other Banks? What Does It Take For Investors To Learn?
- Asset-Backed Securities
- Bank Run
- Bear Market
- Bear Stearns
- Bloomberg News
- Bond
- China
- Counterparties
- Federal Reserve
- Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
- Freedom of Information Act
- Goldman Sachs
- goldman sachs
- Lehman
- Lehman Brothers
- Market Conditions
- Morgan Stanley
- New York Stock Exchange
- Real estate
- Reality
- Reggie Middleton
On February 10, 2008, I created an extensive blog post, explicitly labeling Morgan Stanley as "The Riskiest Bank on the Street!" To my knowledge, I was the only one to make such a blatant accusation. Of course, months later Morgan Stanley and all of its brethren started collapsing. Many attributed this to the overall market malaise, I didn't.
In September of 2008, 7 months after the first bearish report, I penned "As I said, the Riskiest Bank on the Street", which essentially compared my opinion, analysis and most importantly accuracy, to that of the Street's sell side, as excerpted...
For all of those who had/have a buy on Morgan Stanley, contact me for a special institutional subscription to the blog. I have said Morgan Stanley is a very strong short candidate (for about 9 months now).
Wall Street has said the following (from Zacks.com, ABR = average broker recommendation):
MORGAN STANLEY
(NYSE) $21.75
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The average broker recommended price for that period (and this period as well) was/is absolutely absurd, and has no grounding whatsoever in reality. This is what my report said in 2008:
Does this make you wonder why create posts such as Did Reggie Middleton, a Blogger at BoomBustBlog, Best Wall Streets Best of the Best? It should be blatantly apparent that anyone who follows Sell Side researh over that of BoomBustBlog is at best taking extreme risks with their capital, and more realitically headed for disaster and deserving every bit of it along the way. The telling portion of this tale is today's Bloomberg article ilustrating a fact which we suspected, but which no one really knew for sure except Wall Street banking insiders, and that was that MS took $107 in loans from the Fed during 2008. More than any other entity in the history of the Fed, more than all of the banks who had both larger balance sheets and asset basis' than MS, more than anybody. So, was I right? Was MS truly the The Riskiest Bank on the Street? We shall delve into the Bloomberg article, but first, a few more excerpts from the aforementioned blog post of January 2008:
Look at what I said in Reggie Middleton on Goldman Sachs Q3 2008 vs what the guys that most retail investors and family offices give their money says about Goldman Sachs...
Again, the average broker consensus is an absolute joke. Subscribers and long time readers know my price targets for Goldman were much more pessimistic. Who was right? I refer you to What Do Goldman Sachs and B.B. King Have in Common? The Thrill is Gone…:
As for the Street and mean analysist estimates, this is the verbage (that's verbage, not garbage) that accompanies these reports via hyperlink:
So, to recap, I have accurately called the fall or collapse Morgan Stanley (The Riskiest Bank on the Street and Reggie Middleton on the Street's Riskiest Bank - Update), Lehman Brothers (Is Lehman a Lying Lemming?), and Bear Stearns (Bear Fight - A most bearish view on Bear Stearns in a bear market and Is this the Breaking of the Bear's Back?), Goldman as well (Goldman Sachs Snapshot: Risk vs. Reward vs. Reputations on the Street and Reggie Middleton on Risk, Reward and Reputations on the Street: the Goldman Sachs Forensic Analysis) as well as very recently the French bank run (The French Government Creates A Bank Run…) and Wall Street's sell side opinion still regulalry runs diametrically opposed to mine. I pray thee tell me, who has truly earned their stripes through these rough times? I query, because I have recently picked out another potential failure and we shall see how serious this one is taken this time around. To refresh everyone's memory...
And in closing, for anyone who is interested...
We value Morgan Stanley at US$20.76 per share, 58% lower than the current market price – We have analyzed Morgan Stanley exposure toward the Level 3 assets and its exposure to unconsolidated VIEs. To value Morgan Stanley, we have used the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF), Price-to- adjusted book (P/BV) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) multiple methods. Based on our weighted average valuation, we arrive at a fair value of $20.76 which represents a downside of 57% from current levels of $48.25.
Look at graph below to determine who was closer to the truth, Reggie Middleton and his team, or Wall Street - all of Wall Street!
Does this make you wonder why create posts such as Did Reggie Middleton, a Blogger at BoomBustBlog, Best Wall Streets Best of the Best? It should be blatantly apparent that anyone who follows Sell Side researh over that of BoomBustBlog is at best taking extreme risks with their capital, and more realitically headed for disaster and deserving every bit of it along the way. The telling portion of this tale is today's Bloomberg article ilustrating a fact which we suspected, but which no one really knew for sure except Wall Street banking insiders, and that was that MS took $107 in loans from the Fed during 2008. More than any other entity in the history of the Fed, more than all of the banks who had both larger balance sheets and asset basis' than MS, more than anybody. So, was I right? Was MS truly the The Riskiest Bank on the Street? We shall delve into the Bloomberg article, but first, a few more excerpts from the aforementioned blog post of January 2008:
"Worsening macro and market conditions to restrict revenue growth – Financial services industry witnessing its toughest times in recent history faces a tough task of getting things back to normal. The deteriorating macro environment coupled with flagging confidence among investors/customers alike, things are more likely to get worse than better."
"as tests to its excessive exposure to the anemic capital reserves of its counterparties, namely monoline insurers and hedge funds."
Now, from Bloomberg: Morgan Stanley at Brink Got $107B From Fed:As markets convulsed in September 2008, Morgan Stanley (MS) Treasurer David Wong briefed the Federal Reserve on a “dark” scenario in which the U.S. firm would need at least $10 billion of emergency loans from the central bank.
It got 10 times darker by month’s end. Morgan Stanley borrowed $107.3 billion, the most of any bank, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News using information released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, related court orders and an act of Congress.
Morgan Stanley’s borrowing -- more than twice the amount all banks got from the Fed in the market squeeze that followed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- peaked after hedge funds pulled $128.1 billion from the firm in two weeks, documents released by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission show.
The first comprehensive examination of the Fed’s emergency lending reveals how close the New York-based bank came to running out of cash because of a run on its prime brokerage, the unit that finances hedge funds’ trades and holds their cash and securities. The Fed loans also show the degree to which Morgan Stanley and other banks depended on such brokerage accounts for funding, even though clients could close them on short notice.
“These were like hot-money deposits that could flee in an instant,” said Tanya Azarchs, a former Standard & Poor’s analyst who covered Morgan Stanley during the crisis and is now a consultant in Briarcliff Manor, New York. The firm “never thought that the hedge funds would get that spooked.”
Wow! Pretty damn prescient? Or just observant? I'll let you be the judge, but here's a hint: you don't have to be prescient to see any of this coming, and I'm no more special than any other Joe Schmoe on the Street - outside of being a lot less conflicted! Of course, it doesn't end there. Let's take a look at the Golden Boys from that same post back in September of 2008 ("As I said, the Riskiest Bank on the Street"):Look at what I said in Reggie Middleton on Goldman Sachs Q3 2008 vs what the guys that most retail investors and family offices give their money says about Goldman Sachs...
| GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (NYSE) -114.50 | ||
| Current ABR | 2.96 | |
| ABR (Last week) | 2.79 | |
| # of Recs in ABR | 12 | |
| Average Target Price: | $200.91 | |
| LT Growth Rate | 17.40% | |
GS’s considerable leverage provides a means (the lever) of high returns to shareholders when asset prices are appreciating but the same becomes a very material economic concern when the asset prices lose value. With low trading revenues, GS has little cushion to absorb write-downs on these assets, leading to erosion of equity. As of March, 2010, the GS’s investments portfolio amounted to $339 billion (nearly 566% of the tangible equity). Referencing my previous posts, “Can You Believe There Are Still Analysts Arguing How Undervalued Goldman Sachs Is? Those July 150 Puts Say Otherwise, Let’s Take a Look” and “When the Patina Fades… The Rise and Fall of Goldman Sachs???“, we can reminisce over the fact that Goldman BARELY earns its cost of capital on an economic basis, and that’s before considering the potential horrors which may (and probably do) lay on the balance sheet (for more on BS horror, referenceReggie Middleton vs Goldman Sachs, Round 2) .
Okay bloggers and bloggettes, this doesn't make any damn sense.Why would anyone not want to subscribe to truly independent research is beyond my reckoning. Mediocre independent research is better than top notch biased research any day. Just imagine what mediocre biased research will offer you. I know I may be a little biased on this topic because I may stand to gain from selling subscriptions, but let me make this very clear - I am an investor first and foremost. That is what I do all day, everyday. The blog always has, and probably always will, operate at a significant loss.The only reason I am bothering to make this post is because I am absolutely awed by the stickiness engendered by the sell side brokerage marketing machine. One would think that this site (or any independent research site) would be oversubscribed, if anything just because there is chance they may be trying to tell the truth. Okay, rant and rave is now offline... |
The Squid Is A Federally (Tax Payer) Insured Hedge Fund Paying Fat Bonuses That Can't Trade In Volatile Markets
Trade setups on the Squid coming up next for paying subscribers. This one will be tricky, for valuations tell an incomplete story which is the reason why I announced this one publicly. You simply cannot profit off of the ancillary Squid news.And in closing, for anyone who is interested...
Key highlights of my archived research from 2008 (before the crash) on the "Riskiest Investment Bank on the Street":
The Riskiest Bank on Wall Street – Morgan Stanley has US$74 billion of Level 3 assets, over 200% of its equity, which is the highest amongst its peers. Although the Level 3 assets have declined from the previous quarters owing to huge writedowns, the reclassification of assets from from Level 2 to level 3 category continues as the liquidity for the troubled mortgage paper drys up.Declining ABX index indicates troubled times are not over yet – Morgan Stanley used the performance of the ABX index as one of the benchmarks to writedown US$9.4 billion in 4Q 07. As this index continiues to witness downward trend, we believe that the asset writedown done so far, may not be sufficient.
Forensic Accounting of ABS Assets yields more woes - a security by security accounting of MSs ABS inventory shows at least 30% and probably 56% in additional losses coming down the pike, as well as tests to its excessive exposure to the anemic capital reserves of its counterparties, namely monoline insurers and hedge funds.
Losses from unconsolidated VIEs of $38 billion can wipe out almost half of the company’s total equity –Morgan Stanley has $20 billion of its unconsolidated VIEs assets in credit & real estate portfolio where the company expects a maximum loss ratio of 65%. Considering the worsening real estate markets, we believe that the company will incur huge losses on this portfolio. In addition, the company has $7 billion towards MBS & ABS portfolio and $10 billion of strucutured finance products.
Exposure toward Bond Insurers/private funds raises counterparty risk – The failure of bond insurers, on whose shoulders lie the rating of $2.4 trillion of bonds, raises a serious doubt about a systemic failure in the U.S. financial services industry. Morgan Stanley’s exposure of $3.6 billion toward the bond insurers may result in unforeseen losses for the company. The company has a counterparty credit risk exposure of $13.9 billion toward parties rated BBB and lower.
The riskiest bank on Wall Street – High exposure to Level 3 assets despite significant write-downs
Need to raise additional capital if current crisis worsens – Morgan Stanley raised $5 billion from China Investment Corp to maintain its capital ratios as it reported huge losses in 4Q 07. Going forward, as the credit market environment, the housing and real estate markets continues to crack, the company will likely report huge and may have to raise additional capital.Worsening macro and market conditions to restrict revenue growth – Financial services industry witnessing its toughest times in recent history faces a tough task of getting things back to normal. The deteriorating macro environment coupled with flagging confidence among investors/customers alike, things are more likely to get worse than better. Furthermore, the decline in structured product revenues, risk averse nature owing to recent turmoil and the less active M&A environment will exert pressure on the company’s revenue growth in the coming quarters.
We value Morgan Stanley at US$20.76 per share, 58% lower than the current market price – We have analyzed Morgan Stanley exposure toward the Level 3 assets and its exposure to unconsolidated VIEs. To value Morgan Stanley, we have used the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF), Price-to- adjusted book (P/BV) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) multiple methods. Based on our weighted average valuation, we arrive at a fair value of $20.76 which represents a downside of 57% from current levels of $48.25.
Click the read more link below to continue reading or download the richly formatted pdf version:
Morgan Stanley (287.96 kB 2008-02-11 12:49:56)Dollar Lays Anchor As QE3 Speculation Takes Over
Source: The Street
Why is the market anchored when there is such heavy speculation surrounding a market-defining event? It would stand to reason that the building expectations for a third quantitative easing program (QE3) would push the market into a strong trend. However, there is a difference between forecasts and positioning. While the call for another round of stimulus from the Federal Reserve may be growing; the masses are distinctly aware of what happens should the central bank leave market participants empty handed. Once again, we are witnessing the balance between probabilities and the influence different scenarios can have over the markets. In this case, while a large contingent of the market believes that the policy authority has little option aside from expanding its support; they realize that the positive impact on confidence and positioning is likely very limited. In contrast, the fallout from disappointing those that are growing dependent on outside support is so great that it would be taking a major risk to position against such a scenario.
Will Fed Chairman Bernanke use this forum to announce QE3 or not? That will be the question that keeps the dollar and underlying risk appetite frozen. Though, in the meantime, any headline that is remotely related to this upcoming event (or that can be interpreted as having some form of connection) can still generate a considerable level of volatility. Monday, St. Louis Fed President James Bullard was messing with the scales when he pulled back slightly from his hawkish bearing by saying he could back the FOMC to take action should growth weakened “substantially” and inflation began to turn to “deflation”. That said, he noted that he still expects stronger growth through the second half of 2011.
Euro Traders Too Distracted to Take Notice of ECB Buying
Traders are already discounting the efforts of the ECB and the deterioration of financial conditions is in the Euro Zone; so when there is something else out there that is stealing the financial headlines, it isn’t difficult for their attention to stray. That said, the possibility that the US will pursue further stimulus (potentially bolstering investor confidence and weighing the euro’s primary counterpart) makes for an understandable distraction. Yet, despite the diversion, we should not overlook the headlines this morning. The ECB reported that they had purchased another 14.3 billion euros in government bonds last week – suggesting the financial troubles are still severe. In other news, the Bundesbank’s August outlook rebuked calls for further accommodation for profligate EU members without a commensurate surrender of national fiscal sovereignty. In the upcoming session, we will gauge the economic ramifications of market troubles in PMI figures and investor confidence.
Swiss Franc Peg Murmurs Continue as SNB Remains Mum
A newspaper poll this weekend reported that 63 percent of Switzerland supports the SNB’s market operations aimed at restraining the franc’s dramatic rally and 27 percent even believed that the central bank should adopt a target. Speculation that this is exactly what the Swiss authority would do was sustained over the weekend; but skepticism is firmly planted. We may need a stark franc rally to force the SNB into action.
British Pound Hears BoE’s Broadbent Lower Growth Outlook, What about Weale?
We are seeing a slow transition for the pound from a passive/reactive currency to an independent driver. The change lies with monetary policy expectations. Interest rate expectations have turned mildly dovish recently; but we are still a long ways from seeing a bond purchasing program expansion being priced in. BoE’s Broadbent pushed this agenda forward Monday; but Hawkish-man Weale will have more influence here.
Canadian Dollar Readies for Potential Short-Term Volatility with Retail Sales
The Canadian dollar is looking at notable event risk in the coming session: the June retail sales figures. These figures are certainly market moving from a short-term perspective; but the lasting effect will be sidelined by the preoccupation with the United States’ troubles. However, as the economic counterpart to the US, an improvement in Canadian domestic growth could certainly help the loonie fortify its position.
Australian Dollar: One of the Few Currencies that Won’t be Manipulated?
Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan started the week for Aussie traders by saying policy officials were not considering intervening on exchange rates. If that is true, they would be one of the few. In effect, authorities don’t need to act to manipulate the markets because a sustained downturn in risk appetite will naturally weigh the currency lower. Add to that 12 month expectations for more than 150bps of cuts and they’re set.
Gold Surpasses $1,900 – QE3 Speculation Will Only Accelerate the Move to $1,200
Another benchmark has been surpassed in the unstoppable performance of Gold. The metal overtook the $1,900/oz figure just after the US close Monday. Uncertainty as to whether QE3 is adopted or not doesn’t necessarily sideline this safe haven. Should the program be adopted, the deterioration for the dollar would be bullish. Should it be passed, risk aversion could leverage its safety appeal.
Bailout Update - $1.5 Trillion Still Owed To Treasury, Fed
Source - PR Watch
A new study released today by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) shows that, despite rosy statements about the bailout's impending successful conclusion from federal government officials, $1.5 trillion of the $4.8 trillion in federal bailout funds are still outstanding.
The analysis, presented in charts and an online table and program profiles, is based entirely on government records. This comprehensive assessment of the bailout goes beyond the relatively small Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) program to look at the rest of the Treasury and Federal Reserve's multi-trillion dollar response to the financial crisis. It shows that while the TARP bailout of Wall Street (not including the bailout of the auto industry) amounted to $330 billion, the government also quietly spent $4.4 trillion more in efforts to stave off the collapse of the financial and mortgage lending sectors. The majority of these funds ($3.9 trillion) came from the Federal Reserve, which undertook the actions citing an obscure section of its charter.
"In order to understand the big picture on the bailout, you have to look beyond TARP and examine the trillions the Federal Reserve has disbursed to keep the big banks above water. $4.8 trillion went out the door to aid financial companies and repair the damage they caused to financial markets, and $1.5 trillion of that is still outstanding," said Mary Bottari, director of CMD's Real Economy Project.
TOTAL WALL STREET BAILOUT COST TABLE: You can click here to see our a full list of each bailout program, the amount of money disbursed and the amount of money outstanding in each program.
Most of the bailout funds were comprised of aid to banks – the peak outstanding amount was $2.2 trillion in January 2009 – which took place at the height of the financial crisis in the form of loans with below-market interest rates and for questionable collateral to banks directly from the Treasury and Federal Reserve.
This massive effort is in stark contrast to the mere $2 billion the Treasury has spent to directly help homeowners stay in their homes via the widely criticized Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP) program. With housing prices continuing to falter and the United States approaching 9.2 million foreclosure filings since the beginning of 2008, HAMP can be described as nothing less than an abject failure.
"The Federal Reserve and the Treasury have spent $1.6 trillion in a bank-shot to save the mortgage lending market by using the same financial companies that got us into this mess," said Conor Kenny, lead author of the study. "That's more than 800 times what they've spent directly to keep homeowners in their houses, and the banks have made money off the whole thing."
CMD's analysis also shows how the $4.8 trillion bailout of the financial sector dwarfs the $600 billion that the Federal Reserve spent on the much-hyped "Quantitative Easing 2" of 2010-2011 that was intended to help the broader economy – not just the financial sector – by lowering interest rates across the board and preventing deflation.
A new study released today by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) shows that, despite rosy statements about the bailout's impending successful conclusion from federal government officials, $1.5 trillion of the $4.8 trillion in federal bailout funds are still outstanding.
The analysis, presented in charts and an online table and program profiles, is based entirely on government records. This comprehensive assessment of the bailout goes beyond the relatively small Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) program to look at the rest of the Treasury and Federal Reserve's multi-trillion dollar response to the financial crisis. It shows that while the TARP bailout of Wall Street (not including the bailout of the auto industry) amounted to $330 billion, the government also quietly spent $4.4 trillion more in efforts to stave off the collapse of the financial and mortgage lending sectors. The majority of these funds ($3.9 trillion) came from the Federal Reserve, which undertook the actions citing an obscure section of its charter.
"In order to understand the big picture on the bailout, you have to look beyond TARP and examine the trillions the Federal Reserve has disbursed to keep the big banks above water. $4.8 trillion went out the door to aid financial companies and repair the damage they caused to financial markets, and $1.5 trillion of that is still outstanding," said Mary Bottari, director of CMD's Real Economy Project.
TOTAL WALL STREET BAILOUT COST TABLE: You can click here to see our a full list of each bailout program, the amount of money disbursed and the amount of money outstanding in each program.
Most of the bailout funds were comprised of aid to banks – the peak outstanding amount was $2.2 trillion in January 2009 – which took place at the height of the financial crisis in the form of loans with below-market interest rates and for questionable collateral to banks directly from the Treasury and Federal Reserve.
Mortgage-Backed Securities Purchases
CMD's study also shows how the government is continuing to prop up the same banks that caused the crisis in its attempt to help the housing market. The government's housing program – which peaked at $1.6 trillion outstanding in July 2010 – is aimed at keeping mortgage lending flowing by subsidizing deals Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac make with the banks. Treasury and the Federal Reserve's main approach has been to buy more than a trillion dollars worth of mortgage-backed securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that the two government-sponsored enterprises can continue to purchase and bundle mortgages from the banks, which they sell to Fannie and Freddie at a profit. The banks also benefit from the hundreds of billions in direct loans the government has made to Fannie and Freddie, which the GSEs then turn around and make in insurance pay-outs to banks for mortgages that have gone bad.This massive effort is in stark contrast to the mere $2 billion the Treasury has spent to directly help homeowners stay in their homes via the widely criticized Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP) program. With housing prices continuing to falter and the United States approaching 9.2 million foreclosure filings since the beginning of 2008, HAMP can be described as nothing less than an abject failure.
"The Federal Reserve and the Treasury have spent $1.6 trillion in a bank-shot to save the mortgage lending market by using the same financial companies that got us into this mess," said Conor Kenny, lead author of the study. "That's more than 800 times what they've spent directly to keep homeowners in their houses, and the banks have made money off the whole thing."
CMD's analysis also shows how the $4.8 trillion bailout of the financial sector dwarfs the $600 billion that the Federal Reserve spent on the much-hyped "Quantitative Easing 2" of 2010-2011 that was intended to help the broader economy – not just the financial sector – by lowering interest rates across the board and preventing deflation.
The Goldman Sachs Hearings: 7 Cantankerous Hours Securitized Into A 5 Minute Super Clip (Comedy)
Watch Video
Share90
Video - Goldman Hearings - The Video CDO
Sliced, Diced, Tranched and Securitized. This is highly entertaining.
---
Video: Part 2
We lied. There are actually two 5-minute clips.
Video - Goldman Hearings - The Video CDO
Sliced, Diced, Tranched and Securitized. This is highly entertaining.
---
Video: Part 2
We lied. There are actually two 5-minute clips.
9/11/11 - 7 Reasons To Brace For Impact
by Zen Gardner
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it's not looking good for this 10th anniversary of 9/11. All the indicators are there to tell us they need a massive distraction and excuse to take this idiotic war on terror to horrific new levels and even more Orwellian internal controls and crackdowns.
Why They'll Do It Now
1. The illusion is wearing thin and ratings show it.Obama's 'house of corporate banking thugs' administration is tanking in public perception. The matrix-generated veil of lies is disintegrating as economic realities hit home. His and congress' ratings are at record lows. His political opponents have even announced publicly to watch out for a false flag.
2. They've done it before at similar times.
Clinton did Waco then used it to justify Oklahoma City. Now there's an interesting precedent. Bush 2 was just a neocon nincompoop stooge, but his ratings were in the basement on 9/10 and soared on 9/11...another two-termer like the criminal Clinton shoed in by false flag catastrophe.
3. The demonization of all Americans as potential terrorists.
As we've seen with the Norway patsy repeat, the enemy is now arch-anythings. Arch conservatives, activists, Christians, militia, military vets, religious whack jobs, disgruntled taxpayers, people who don't want to get x-rayed or fondled by the TSA, people with guns, cars with Ron Paul stickers, children selling lemonade without a license...it's beyond wrong.
4. Martial law is just a click away.
Now, how would a leader (really cabal) in power possibly stay in power with an election he (the staged figurehead) appears bound to lose....WHILE the PTBs have this craving need to abolish the last vestiges of civil liberties in the name of "homeland security"? Got any ideas?
Now don't give Obummer one iota of credit for anything except being a perfect patsy and mind control subject. He's a 'keeper' in those categories...which is why they'll wanna "keep" him in.
Nothing's written in stone, but it sometimes gets close.
I will be shocked if there are elections next year. It's way too easy to find a way around them in this climate. They're gonna declare martial law, and..maybe..call for a constitutional convention which is as close to a political oxymoron as you'll ever get. It's got to look "democratic" after all. Ha.
Never mind "Homeland Security" antics, FEMA's activities and the militarization zones appearing around the country are a dead giveaway. This "global unrest" they're pointing to now as a precedent to prepare American police I'm not sure is organic at all. Yes, people are mad, but they're being instigated and herded into a form of expression that only spells more fascism worldwide.
5. 9/11 - Build on the emotional impact
Never before events promoting the 9/11 myth are being scheduled around the country. Bad sign. Who would do that? In Dallas for example a big event is scheduled for 9/10. Why this year? Are mainstream people really in the mood to celebrate death and destruction and war and more war while their worlds crumble about them? What are they rallying for? More Islamophobia, support for killing innocent Libyans, and then jack 'em up to endorse wars with Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran?
So wrong on so many levels. But they're already doing this in the mainstain media. It's a set up.
All this is fabricated by bastards behind the scenes who see the rest of us a dumb cattle. This is misdirection. Complete social engineering at its worst. But it works. We've been asphyxiated from truth, and the effects are setting in.
But see the "opportunity"? What if on that very day, while these limp attempts to arouse fading emotions are on display and heightened by a complicit media, there IS an event?!
Wham!
6. The Demonization of "Truthers" and an alternative media crackdown
OK, we've seen this coming for a long time. But just imagine who they'd blame an "event" on--especially in such an emotionally super-charged environment. Don't have to be a prophet to see the potential.
Norway set the stage. White man goes ape-shit with clear conscience...due to political views. Huh?
They've wanted to get a stronger handle on the internet and clamp down on truth-spreading websites and blogs for a long time. They just need an excuse. Wikileaks softened the ground on this in the public mind, as have other alternative media issues, but watch them run the gamut if something big does take place. They're trigger happy and getting their ducks in a row.
That's what they do. And the Truthers need to be demonized and silenced..they're getting too close now. The 9/11 Truth movement has gained monumental momentum....BECAUSE it's the Truth! And they know it.
7. Not A Reason--Just please be prepared--for anything.
I don't mean to bring on negative intentions and manifest anything by pointing out these possibilities....BUT...to be forewarned is to be forearmed. And if it's not now, it's soon.
Don't get hung up on the date or any details. I just think people should be prepared...and now....and I mean not only psychologically and spiritually, but practically. Where are you and your family gonna be on that day? Do you have a plan on where to meet loved ones in the case of calamity? Do you have food and water, protection, community?
These should all be in place now, but if you haven't done these things yet, DO! It gives peace of mind at the least.
"Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it."
In Love, Zen
See also Brace for Impact! The Movie
More samples of stuff from Zen to enjoy:
11 Occult Secrets Now In The Open
SUPERSIZED: Faces of Evil That Rule The World
Alternative Editor beforeitsnews.com
www.zengardner.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)