Click to enlarge
On April 1st, this blog broke the full story of how G20 Governments All Agreed To Cyprus-Style Theft Of Banks Deposits … In 2010.
In recent days, numerous alternate media outlets have reported that Federal Reserve board member Jeremy Stein has confirmed this at an IMF-sponsored conference.
From Anglo Far East:
Please find a review of some data from a recent speech by a central banker that reinforces the rapid approach of “bail-ins”.
Link to download PDF of Jeremy Stein speech
The speech by Federal Reserve Board Member Jeremy Stein at an IMF-sponsored conference focused on “too big to fail” (TBTF) banks and “systemically important financial institutions” (SIFIs).
Stein said: “First, and most obviously, one goal is to get to the point where all market participants understand with certainty that if a large SIFI were to fail, the losses would fall on its shareholders and creditors, and taxpayers would have no exposure.”
And from gold proponent Jim Sinclair:
Bail-in is coming faster then we know. For god’s sake protect yourself. Come to the Q&A.
Governor Jeremy C. Stein
At the “Rethinking Macro Policy II,” a conference sponsored by the International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C.
April 17, 2013“First, and most obviously, one goal is to get to the point where all market participants understand with certainty that if a large SIFI (Significantly Important Financial Institutions) were to fail, the losses would fall on its shareholders and creditors……”
It is worth reviewing this blog’s report of April 1st for the full details of the BIS-funded, FSB-directed plan to steal your bank deposits when our banks begin to go under.
To “enable authorities to resolve failing financial firms in an orderly manner without exposing the taxpayer to the risk of loss.”
Conveniently ignoring that bank deposit holders are taxpayers too.
Barnaby Is Right 
What is being discussed here is the transfer of debt to the public sector. So how does that work? Investors get the returns when their investments go well and the taxpayer picks up the bill when they go sour.
Talk of “too big to fail” and “systemically important financial institutions” scare the heck out of me as traditionally badly run businesses went broke and their CEOs and executive staff found it hard to get work thereafter. This is how it should play out if there is ‘accountability’ in the financial system.
The frightening aspect of what has been happening since the GFC is that the scumbag banking industry has enjoyed perpetuity rather than extinction for badly run organisations. I recall that Goldman Sachs and Lehman Bros were paying bonuses after they got government bailout rescue packages just after the GFC. Worse than that not one single person went to prison in the wake of the carnage.
There are truly worrying signs with what has transpired in recent times and one wonders if apathetic populations are ripe for the picking.
“What is being discussed here is the transfer of debt to the public sector”
Actually, what is being discussed here is a grand plan (courtesy of the BIS / FSB) not to transfer private debt to the public sector, but to use bank deposit holders’ money to “bail-in” the banks instead.
It won’t work, of course, as there is nowhere near enough in bank deposits to even come close to papering over the massive liabilities of the banks. It is just a clever, diabolical scheme to instantly impoverish anyone left in the Western world who still hasn’t been rendered impoverished by unemployment, debt (mortgage) servitude, etc.
Correct. That is what is being discussed.
You have previously correctly stated that the financial position of banks is tenuous and this is their Achilles Heel.
Confiscating bank deposits is morally wrong but then corruption has many faces. The irony is that ordinary people who have for the most part worked hard and saved are, as always, the lemmings who are taken for a ride. When will it ever be different.
Exactly right Mick.
Interestingly, it has always been the case that bank “creditors” (i.e., depositors) would lose their money if a bank went under. What I find appalling about the chronology of recent years is that, in the GFC, the government (taxpayer) bailout of banks, along with depositor guarantees, served the purpose of making people believe government would protect their savings in a crisis. Even though that is actually the opposite of how things were done in the past. Now, the new FSB-directed “bail-in” regime — under cover of government and mainstream media silence — means that the people have been lulled into a false sense of security that government will protect their savings, when the opposite (reversing policy, again) is now being prepared throughout the G20, with Cyprus as the test case.