Tag Archives: banksters

Bankers’ Chief – Carbon Price Is “Essentially Creating A New Market”

16 Jul

From news.com.au (emphasis added) –

Revealed: The real winners of Gillard’s carbon price plan

Big banks, accountants and lawyers are among the big winners to cash in on the carbon plan, as companies wrestle with reporting requirements arising from the tax.

Banks will be involved in trading carbon permits when emissions trading starts in 2015, and will develop new products to help polluters reduce their carbon exposure.

Australian Bankers’ Association chief executive Steven Munchenberg said the Government’s carbon price was “essentially creating a new market“.

“We would therefore expect to see a range of instruments developed to help companies manage their carbon exposure,” he said.

Indeed.

There you have it.

Straight from the Australian Bankers parasites’ mouthpiece.

The grand Scheme scam to “price carbon” is “essentially” – meaning “in essence” – the creation of a new market.

A bankers’ paradise.

The key thing that bankers’ want – an underlying “market” of carbon permits, on top of which they can then create a whole new carbon “securities” (ie, “derivatives”) casino – is actually built into the Government’s Scheme scam from Day 1 –

Table 6 Compliance

Carbon permits

The domestic unit for compliance with the carbon pricing mechanism will be the ‘carbon permit’.

Each carbon permit will correspond to one tonne of greenhouse gas emissions.

The creation of equitable interests in carbon permits will be permitted, as will taking security over them.

Confirmed.

The carbon permits can be used as the basis for bankers to create other, new financial “securities”.

Carbon derivatives, in other words. Derivatives (or “securities”) are the toxic financial “products” that were at the heart of the GFC.

It’s worth noting that the above article is wrong in one very important detail.

Like all mainstream media, this story incorrectly reports that –

Banks will be involved in trading carbon permits when emissions trading starts in 2015…

Au contraire!

As I detailed in “Our Bankers’ Casino Royale – ‘Carbon Permits’ Really Means ‘A Licence To Print'”, banks will be able to benefit from fees and commissions from trading in carbon permits, right from the beginning. Even during the so-called “fixed price period”.

How’s that?

Because … it is only “purchased permits” that are not tradeable in the first 3 years.

“Freely allocated permits“, on the other hand, are tradable.

As with the now-notorious European ETS scheme, many of our so-called “500 biggest polluters” – 201 of whom may not even exist – will receive lots of “free permits”.  To “assist” and/or “protect” our “trade-exposed” industries, you see.

And those “freely allocated” permits are tradable:

Scheme architecture

Table 1: Starting price and fixed price period

Permits freely allocated may be either surrendered or traded until the true-up date for the compliance year in which they were issued. They cannot be banked for use in a future compliance year.

What’s more, Brown-Gillard’s grand design also allows “polluters” to sell their “freely allocated” permits back to the Government.

That’s right.

Lucky “polluters” will get lots of free permits, which they can either “surrender” back again to “pay” for their “excess” emissions – which they report themselves(!). Or, trade their free permits (for profit). Or, sell their free permits back to the Government … who will use your money to buy those free permits back again:

Buy‑back of freely allocated permits

The holders of freely allocated permits will be able to sell them to the Government from 1 September of the compliance year in which they were issued until 1 February of the following compliance year.

Moreover, the Government is not only “essentially creating a new market” for banks to profit from fees on the simple trade in the carbon permits themselves.

And create their new galactic-scale carbon “derivatives” market, leveraged on top of the simple trade in permits.

The news gets even better for the bankers.

Because the Government’s scheme scam will also set up an “advance auction” system, during the so-called “fixed price period”, where carbon permits valid for the later “flexible price” system can be purchased in advance.

Which is essentially nothing less than a Futures trading system for the bankers and speculators to exploit:

Auctions of permits

The Government will advance auction future vintage permits. There will be advance auctions of flexible price permits in the fixed price period.

It’s easy to see why the banksters’ are pleased right now.

The Government’s scheme allows them to:

1. Begin creating and trading in carbon “securities” (ie, derivatives of carbon permits) from Day 1.

2. Earn fees and commissions from trade in “freely allocated” permits during the “fixed price” period.

3. Earn fees and commissions from Futures trading in the “advance auctions” of “flexible price” permits during the “fixed price” period.

4. Create other derivatives products on top of the Futures trade in advance auctions of permits.

And all this before the all-singing, all-dancing “free market” scheme kicks in three years later.

Any suggestion that this is somehow not a mechanism designed to allow banksters’ to begin creating the Australian arm of their new global derivatives monster – the true goal of the push for global “emissions trading” – is simply a blatant lie.

There is nothing in the Government’s scheme that prevents the banksters from doing everything they have wanted, from the moment the scheme begins.

In fact, as anyone can easily see from a careful reading of the Government’s own documentation, it is perfectly clear that the scheme is purposefully designed to grant the banksters’ free reign. All hidden behind the curtain of the misleading and deceptive name of “tax” or “fixed price ETS”.

Prior to the announcement of the Government’s “carbon pricing mechanism”, I argued extensively – including with Opposition Climate Action spokesman Greg Hunt MP – that the scheme is simply “the bankers’ CPRS by another name”.

Now that the scheme details have been announced, almost every passing day reveals new confirmations that I was right.

The strongest argument for my position comes from the Government’s own official documents.

But it is certainly nice to see the head of the Australian Bankers Association come out within days, and tacitly confirm the truth as well.

I rest my case?

Tags: , , , , , ,

It Begins – Opposition Takes Up The Fight Against The Bankster Class

15 Jul

At last, dear reader.

It begins.

The Opposition beginning to highlight the real purpose behind the global push for trading “hot air”.

The enrichment … and further empowerment … of the global bankster class –

Note that well:

But one of the things that I really want to draw people’s attention to today is the fact that we are learning more and more about just how much money is going to go overseas under this tax. It was obvious on Sunday that in 2020 more than $3 billion was going to go overseas to foreign carbon traders to meet the Government’s emissions abatement targets but if you go out just 40 years to 2050, no less than $57 billion of Australian money is going to go overseas to line the pockets of foreign carbon traders. Within a relatively short time, more than one per cent of Australia’s GDP is going to go overseas to line the pockets of foreign carbon traders. Now, all of us want to help the environment but a get-rich-quick scheme for foreign carbon traders is not the kind of environmental assistance that Australians want. So, I just think that as each day goes past and more details of the Government’s carbon tax package become apparent the less the Australian public like it.

I hope that readers will forgive me a little moment of fantasy. A small, petty indulgence.

In my imagining the teensy possibility that my discussion with Senator Joyce just 2 weeks ago may have just a weensy bit of influence on this small shift of emphasis, in the campaign against the carbon “X” scheme scam.

I met Senator Joyce for the first time on July 1, at the Martin Place No Carbon Tax rally. Despite the pressures of so many wishing to speak with him – as you can imagine – he was gracious enough to make time available to speak with me about several concerns.

The chief of those concerns relates to my view that regular readers will be familiar with.

That is, my firm view – now confirmed by the evidence of the final package – that this carbon “X” scam is and always has been a scam designed solely to benefit bankers, from Day 1.

And therefore, it has also been my view that there is great opportunity for the Opposition to take advantage of Julia’s recent to-ing and fro-ing over whether the scheme is really a “tax”, “like a tax”, or … “an emissions trading scheme”.

How?

By emphasising the simple, demonstrable fact that an ETS only benefits the banksters, and speculators.

And further, that emissions trading has been shown to have zero impact on reducing actual emissions of CO2 –

Why do I believe it is so important to emphasise the bankster connection?

The reason is this.

While calling the scheme a “tax” has been very effective to date, in appealing to those of a conservative mindset – who in my view are generally predisposed to an ideology of lower taxes – I do not believe it is the most effective strategy for appealing to those of a more so-called “progressive” mindset.

It is my experience that “progressives” are not necessarily predisposed against bigger taxes – provided they can be convinced that it is in “a good cause”.

That is exactly how The Final Solution to global warming – the Great Global Carbon Trading Scam – has been sold to those of a “progressive” bent.

That it is “a tax” … or “like a tax” … that is “the best way” to “save the planet”.

A Robin Hood scheme, that takes from the rich, and gives to the poor, saving the planet in the process.

And so-called “progressives” have lapped this lie up.

It is also my experience that, in Australia at least, pretty much everyone … hates banks.

And it is my observation that so-called “progressives” are often their most fervent opponents.

In my discussion with Senator Joyce, I put this argument forward, and whilst congratulating him on his own frequent mentions of “bankers making fees and commissions from pushing bits of paper around”, impressed on Senator Joyce my view that the Coalition should raise the emphasis on the role of banksters in the Government’s planned scheme.

I explained my view that the polls clearly show those of a “conservative” bent are now very firmly against this scheme, irrespective of what title is given.

And that I firmly believe a significant raising of emphasis on the galactic-scale profit-making opportunity that the Scheme scam represents for global banksters – who are driving the push for global “hot air” trading – may be the best way to now begin appealing to “progressives” and the “undecided”. Using a touchstone for nearly all Aussies, conservative or progressive.

Hatred of banks.

I also suggested my view to Senator Joyce, that the Opposition should begin to do so only after a suitable interlude from the day of our discussion, being the day after Julia’s first backflip on what this scheme really is, a “tax” or an “ETS” .

An interlude of a week or two.

And here we are.

Exactly 2 weeks later.

Pure coincidence, I am sure.

But I do trust readers will understand my choosing to enjoy a little moment of vanity indulgence, on seeing the above statements by Tony Abbott yesterday 😉

Please do spread the word, to all you know.

That our Green-Labor-Independent government’s scheme, is nothing more than a global bankster scam.

As I am confident that one former Goldman Sachs Australia chairman (and “confidential” beneficiary of their deep pockets), Malcolm Turnbull MP well knows.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I Was Right – Our Banks Begin Preparing Carbon Derivatives Market

14 Jul

It did not take long. Just 3 days.

From Business Spectator (emphasis added):

Australian banks are eyeing opportunities to cash in on the proposed carbon tax by developing new financial products and services that capitalise on a market seen to be worth billions of dollars annually, according to a report by the Australian Financial Review.

Australian financial firms that have experience in European carbon markets, such as Macquarie Group Ltd, Westpac Banking Corp Ltd and ANZ Banking Group Ltd are particularly keen to establish their presence in the Australian market.

The initial three-year fixed carbon tax period from 2012 will serve as time to prepare for the release of ETS permits by 2015, when opportunities will really open up for banks to capitalise on the carbon market.

ANZ’s head of energy trading said the value of the derivatives carbon market would dwarf the $10 billion initially raised by the government, according to the AFR.

I was right.

On Carbon Sunday, I dissected the Government’s newly-announced “carbon pricing mechanism” (see “Our Bankers’ Casino Royale – ‘Carbon Permits’ Really Means ‘A Licence To Print'” ).

Here’s a couple of quotes from that article. The first is in reference to the “initial fixed price period” that the Government would have you believe is “like a tax”:

I was right.

The carbon permits will have no expiry date.

They are an artificial construct – “an electronic entry” – that is deemed by government decree to be a new “financial product”.

Moreover, note carefully the sentence I have bold underlined.

The “creation of equitable interests”, and “taking security over them”, simply means this.  The carbon permits can be used as the basis for bankers to create other, new financial “securities”.

Carbon derivatives, in other words.

Derivatives (or “securities”) are the toxic, wholly-artificial financial “products” that were at the heart of the GFC.  The same bankster-designed “widgets” that the world’s most famous investor, Warren Buffet, spoke of as “a mega-catastrophic risk”, “financial weapons of mass destruction”, and a “time bomb”.

You can stop reading this piece right now if you like.

Because from that Table 6 alone, you now have conclusive proof that this is nothing whatsoever to do with the climate.

It is all – and only – about global bankster profits. At the direct expense of the common people of planet earth.

Note well. The banks do not have to wait until the “flexible price period” commences after 3 years, to begin creating their “securities” (ie, derivatives), based on the notion of the underlying “value” of the “fixed price” carbon permits.

The Government’s scheme allows this from Day 1. Naturally. Because that is what the banksters – and their “leading economist” shills – are all salivating over. A government-decreed excuse, to create a whole new kind of “derivatives” market.  It is the whole point of the scheme.

In specific reference to the “flexible price period” to follow three years later, I wrote this:

Now, why have I bold underlined “borrowing“?

And why have I bold underlined “advance auctions of flexible price permits…”?

Because these are the key words from the “banking and borrowing” section. The words that tell you all you need to know.

That this SCAM is nothing whatsoever to do with the global climate.

And that it is 100% about creating a new, global, CO2 derivatives-trading market for the banksters.

The world’s biggest-ever financial cesspool.

Of toxic, intrinsically-worthless, humanity-raping financial “instruments” called derivatives.

Non-existent, digital “widgets”.

That can be borrowed from the future – ie, before these artificial carbon “widgets” are even issued – and leveraged by scum-of-the-earth banksters.

And then, traded by these parasites at multiples of hundreds and thousands of times more than the underlying, artificially-created “value” of the carbon permit.

Furthermore, the “advance auctions of flexible price permits in the fixed price period” proves beyond all shadow of doubt, that I was right.

That this “carbon pricing mechanism” is the bankers’ CPRS by another name. From Day 1.

Why does it prove it?

The advance auctions of flexible price permits “in the fixed price period” means this.

From Day 1, the government is effectively allowing the setting up of a futures trading market, for Australian CO2 permits.

Futures trading of nothing. Before the nothing is even created.

The banksters’ wet dream.

Australia – you have been monumentally conned.

The Green-Labor-Independent Alliance’s plan to “save the planet”, is a gigantic scam.

It is the bankers’ Casino Royale.

Where “carbon permits” really means, “A Licence to Print”.

Thank you, Australian Financial Review and Business Spectator.

For confirming that I was right.

Oh … just one more thing.

To help give you some idea – a picture in your mind – of how gigantic the new (government-rigged) “market” for the banksters’ carbon derivatives can become, take a look at the following chart, sourced from the RBA’s Statistics data.

It shows the size of our banks’ current holdings of Off-Balance Sheet derivatives bets, on the future of Interest Rates, and Foreign Exchange Rates:

Click to enlarge

Yes, that’s $3.98 Trillion in Foreign Exchange derivatives bets. And a whopping $11.68 Trillion in Interest Rate derivatives bets. Off-Balance Sheet. At March 2011.

Here’s another chart – also sourced from RBA data – showing our banks’ current On-Balance Sheet “Assets” (66% of which are actually loans) – the blue line – compared to their total Off-Balance Sheet “Business” (ie, derivatives) – the red line:

Click to enlarge

Yes, that’s $2.68 Trillion in “Assets” (mostly loans). Compared to … $16.8 Trillion in Off-Balance Sheet derivatives gambling. Mostly on Interest Rates, and Foreign Exchange rates.

Just try to imagine the size of the brand new carbon dioxide “hot air” derivatives market casino that our banksters’ will create, in the form of leveraged bets on the underlying so-called “value” of carbon permits.

It is Armageddon waiting to happen.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Our Bankers’ Casino Royale – “Carbon Permits” Really Means “A Licence To Print”

11 Jul

I was right.

It is a scam.

A huge scam.

A clever, complicated scam.

But a scam, nonetheless.

In previous articles, I identified the two key details of the Green-Labor Alliance’s proposed “carbon pricing” scheme. The only two details that matter. Because they are the two key details which confirm whether this really is “a tax” / “like a tax”. Or, whether this is just a European ETS-imitating scheme scam:

Will the carbon permits:

(1) have an unlimited expiry date?

(2) be bankable from the commencement of the scheme?

If you’ve not read the previous articles I’ve posted about this – including my online brawl with Opposition Climate Action Onanist Greg Hunt MP about it – then you may wish to recap by reading this, this, and especially, this.

Now, if you just want the quick answers to those 2 key questions, then here’s the 30 second summary. All you need to know. Without bothering to check and understand the detail for yourself.

1. YES, carbon permits will have an unlimited expiry date.

2. NO, carbon permits issued during the “fixed price period” can not be banked. Although there will be unlimited banking after 3 years, when the “flexible price” period begins.

BUT … and (like Gillard’s) it’s a very big but … all “freely allocated” carbon permits can be traded. And – here’s the real biggie, ladies and gentlemen – from Day 1 the Government will allow securitisation of carbon permits (the creation of carbon derivatives, in other words). AND, the Government will set up an “auction” system in advance of the “flexible price period” – an advance-auction system that effectively creates a carbon Futures trading market, allowing banksters (and the lucky 500 “polluters”) to speculate gamble on the future price of the “flexible price” permits, that will replace the “fixed price” permits after 3 years.

I was right.

It is NOT a “tax”.

From Day 1, it operates as an ETS by stealth.

It is the bankers’ CPRS by another name.

And what “carbon permits” really means, is “permitted to profit”.

Or perhaps more accurately … A Licence To Print.

Want to know more? To see the proof with your own eyes … and understand it too?

Ok. Let’s get into the details.

Now that GilBrown’s Grand Design has finally been released, let’s take a look at the Government’s freshly-minted cleanenergyfuture.gov.au website. There we can see exactly what they have to say about those two key details that I identified previously.

Note that the answers are buried in the fine print.  Naturally.  You have to read the Appendices.

In this case, the “devil in the detail” is hidden in Appendix A.

First, let us look for the answer to my point #1 – Will there be unlimited expiry dates for carbon permits?

We find the answer in Appendix A, Table 6  (emphasis added):

Table 6 Compliance

Carbon permits

The domestic unit for compliance with the carbon pricing mechanism will be the ‘carbon permit’.

Each carbon permit will correspond to one tonne of greenhouse gas emissions.

The creation of equitable interests in carbon permits will be permitted, as will taking security over them.

In addition, carbon permits will:

* be personal property;

* be regulated as financial products;

* be transferable (other than those issued under the fixed price or any price ceiling arrangements);

* have a unique identification number and will be marked with the first year in which they can be validly surrendered (‘vintage year’);

* not have an expiry date; and

* be represented by an electronic entry in Australia’s National Registry of Emissions Units.

I was right.

The carbon permits will have no expiry date.

They are an artificial construct – “an electronic entry” – that is deemed by government decree to be a new “financial product”.

And, they are a personal property right (see first asterisk) of the holder of the permit. Exactly as I argued with that onanist shill for the green cargo cult, Greg Hunt MP.

Moreover, note carefully the sentence I have bold underlined.

The “creation of equitable interests”, and “taking security over them”, simply means this.  The carbon permits can be used as the basis for bankers to create other, new financial “securities”.

Carbon derivatives, in other words.

Derivatives (or “securities”) are the toxic, wholly-artificial financial “products” that were at the heart of the GFC.  The same bankster-designed “widgets” that the world’s most famous investor, Warren Buffet, spoke of as “a mega-catastrophic risk”, “financial weapons of mass destruction”, and a “time bomb”.

You can stop reading this piece right now if you like.

Because from that Table 6 alone, you now have conclusive proof that this is nothing whatsoever to do with the climate.

It is all – and only – about global bankster profits. At the direct expense of the common people of planet earth.

Now, what about my point #2. The key question of whether there will be unlimited banking of permits.

That is covered in Appendix A as well.  But we must take a bit of a journey here, as it’s a little more complicated to get to the bottom of this one.

If you are interested to understand how this scam really works more fully, then do bear with me here (emphasis added):

Scheme architecture

Table 1: Starting price and fixed price period

Fixed price period

The carbon pricing mechanism will commence on 1 July 2012. There will be a three year fixed price period.

The fixed price

The carbon price will start at $23.00 per tonne in 2012‑13 and will be $24.15 in 2013‑14 and $25.40 in 2014‑15.

The prices in the second and third year reflect a 2.5 per cent rise in real terms allowing for 2.5 per cent inflation per year (the midpoint of the Reserve Bank of Australia’s target range).

Blah blah blah. We already knew all that. These details were leaked in advance, in typical Green-Labor fashion.

Let’s get to the nitty gritty. The characteristics of the carbon “permits” themselves, and what you can (and cannot) do with them.

Especially during the initial 3 year, so-called “fixed price period”.  The period in which the government (and Opposition) have been telling you that this scheme scam “is a tax” or “will operate like a tax” (depending on what day it is):

Fixed price permits

Liable entities will be able to purchase permits from the Government at the fixed price, up to the number of their emissions for the compliance year.

Any permits purchased at the fixed price will be automatically surrendered and cannot be traded or banked for future use.

Ok.

So, the lucky 500 “polluters” can not trade, or bank, any permits that are purchased at the fixed price.

Now, that appears to eliminate point #2 of those key points that I identified, doesn’t it? The question of unlimited banking of permits.

But does it really?

Hold your horses, dear reader. There’s more to it than that.

Let us peel back the multiple layers of deception.

Yes, permits that are purchased can not be banked.

But what about permits that are handed out for free?

Permits freely allocated may be either surrendered or traded until the true-up date for the compliance year in which they were issued. They cannot be banked for use in a future compliance year.

Right.

So, just like “purchased” permits, “freely allocated” permits also can not be banked during the “fixed price period”. (However, all permits will have unlimited banking after 3 years, when the “flexible price period” begins – see Appendix A, Table 3)

But note this well.

Freely allocated permits can be traded “until the true-up date for the compliance year in which they were issued”.

In other words, with respect to “freely allocated” permits in particular – which will be handed out to “trade exposed” industries rent-seekers – this IS an emissions trading scheme.

It’s right there.  In black and white.

I was right.

“The Carbon Tax Is Not A “Tax” … It Is The Bankers’ CPRS By Another Name”.

Now, did you notice that other little word back there?

“surrendered”?

What happens when “freely allocated” permits are “surrendered”?

Is that just a case of handing back something that you got for free?

Or … is there another profit-making opportunity for our lucky “polluters” there too?

That is, a profit-making opportunity over-and-above the profit-making opportunity they have been granted, to simply jack up their prices and use the “cost” of permits as an excuse – whether they actually paid for all their “permits” or not. Just like the lucky “polluters” have done in the European scheme scam (from Green-Left Weekly May 1, 2011):

The first phase of the ETS ran from 2005 to 2007. It made no dent in emissions. But power companies made about 19 billion euros by charging customers for the “cost” of permits they were given for free. Manufacturers made about 14 billion euros in windfall profits with the same trick.

So, let’s take a look shall we, and see if there might be yet another profit-making opportunity for our hand-picked lucky 500 “polluters”, on all those “freely allocated” carbon permits (emphasis added):

Buy‑back of freely allocated permits

The holders of freely allocated permits will be able to sell them to the Government from 1 September of the compliance year in which they were issued until 1 February of the following compliance year.

Got that?

You get some-thing for nothing.

You increase your costs to customers, using the government-decreed “price” of that “some-thing” as your excuse – a windfall profit.

And then, you either trade that free “some-thing” to someone else, or, you sell it back to the government – for another windfall profit.

Brilliant!

Now that’s what I would call “transitional assistance” too, if I were one of those lucky 500 “big polluters”.

Money for nothing.

How much will you get paid for selling back your free permits … you lucky big “polluter” you?

The price paid by the Government will be equal to the price of the fixed price permits for that year, discounted to 15 June of the compliance year by the latest available Reserve Bank of Australia index of the BBB corporate bond rate, so that the buy‑back price reflects the present market value of the permit.

From 15 June onwards, the price paid will be equal to the fixed‑price permits for that vintage.

What does that mean?

It’s very simple.

Those lucky “polluters” receiving “freely allocated” permits (to profit), can either:

(a) trade them (as we saw earlier), OR

(b) sell them back (ie, “surrender” them) to the Government.

If they can’t pull a big enough profit from trading their free permits … the fall-back plan is to resell them to the Government.

Now, who do you think is going to benefit the most from all the transactions of these carbon permits?

Who is going to make money for nothing via fees and commissions, each time a “freely allocated” permit is traded, or bought from/sold back to the government?

Banksters.

The same despicable scum, the parasites who created the GFC, and have been driving the global push for CO2 emissions trading from Day 1.

Our government’s scheme scam will achieve exactly the same result as the benchmark European ETS.

Huge profits for a few.

Raped wallets for the many.

And absolutely bugger-all impact on global CO2 “emissions reduction” –

Want more?

There IS more.

Is there anything interesting to note about the subsequent “Flexible Price Architecture” (ETS)?

That wonderful “market-based” scheme scam that comes after the so-called “fixed price period” (in which trading of freely allocated permits can happen anyway, meaning it is an ETS from Day 1)?

The final destination of the scheme scam that Gillard spoke of in these words just days ago – “I have always been determined to create an emissions trading scheme … for our nation’s future”.

Is there anything about the detail of the “flexible price architecture” that might give us further evidence – if any were needed – that this really is the bankers’ CPRS by another name?

Indeed there is.

Take a look at Appendix A, Table 3 (emphasis added):

Table 3: Flexible price architecture

Price ceiling

A price ceiling will apply for the first three years of the flexible price period.

The price ceiling will be set in regulations by 31 May 2014 at $20 above the expected international price for 2015‑16 and will rise by 5 per cent in real terms each year.

If the world is on a 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) trajectory or higher, this will be reflected in international prices and the price ceiling will automatically be $20 above this price. The level of the international price will be examined closer to the point of transition to a flexible price period to ensure that the price ceiling reflects a $20 margin above its expected level.

In other words, our Green-Labor Alliance would (if still in power) not only allow, but indeed, “ensure”, that the CO2 price in Australia could be traded at a $20 per tonne premium to the international price.

Economic planking indeed.

And, a Paradise Now bonus for banksters.

Because this detail tells us that this is a scam whereby the government will “ensure” that there is “flexibility” for the banksters’ – market manipulators extraordinaire – to use the many dodgy means at their disposal to push the Australian CO2 trading price up, by as much as $20 more than the international market price.

In other words, if the international market price for CO2 permits (again) fell to near-zero – let’s say, $0.10 – then our Green-Labor Alliance would still happily allow our nation to suffer under a $20.10 price for CO2 permits, and the flow-on effects of that to the prices on everything.

Insanity.

But there’s more:

Price floor

A price floor will apply for the first three years of the flexible price period.

The price floor will start at $15 and rise at 4 per cent in real terms each year.

Also highly significant.

And insane.

If still in power, our Green-Labor Alliance would force the so-called “free market” price to be at least $15 per tonne. And, they would force that price to rise at a rate of 4% per annum.

Ummmmm … hello?!

That’s NOT a “free market” mechanism.

That is quite simply, a Communist-style command-economy.  Wearing a very thin veil of “free market” respectability (if you’re idiot enough to believe it, that is).

But here’s the part I really love, dear reader.

The part that – once again – confirms that this is a bankers’ CPRS by another name.

Banking and borrowing

Unlimited banking of permits will be allowed in the flexible price period.

There will be limited borrowing of permits such that, in any particular compliance year, a liable entity can surrender permits from the following vintage year to discharge up to 5 per cent of their liability.

Auctions of permits

Permits will be allocated by auctioning, taking into account transitional assistance provisions for key sectors.

The policies, procedures and rules for auctioning will be set out in a legislative instrument.

The Government will advance auction future vintage permits. There will be advance auctions of flexible price permits in the fixed price period.

Note that bit about “transitional assistance provisions” for “key sectors”. That’s Orwellian doublespeak for “freely allocated permits” for “big ‘polluters’ with the best lobbyists”.

If you are a “polluter” in need of “transitional assistance” – meaning, everyone – then you will get lots and lots of freely-allocated permits. To help you “transition” (wink wink, nudge nudge).

Now, why have I bold underlined “borrowing“?

And why have I bold underlined “advance auctions of flexible price permits…”?

Because these are the key words from the “banking and borrowing” section. The words that tell you all you need to know.

That this SCAM is nothing whatsoever to do with the global climate.

And that it is 100% about creating a new, global, CO2 derivatives-trading market for the banksters.

The world’s biggest-ever financial cesspool.

Of toxic, intrinsically-worthless, humanity-raping financial “instruments” called derivatives.

Non-existent, digital “widgets”.

That can be borrowed from the future – ie, before these artificial carbon “widgets” are even issued – and leveraged by scum-of-the-earth banksters.

And then, traded by these parasites at multiples of hundreds and thousands of times more than the underlying, artificially-created “value” of the carbon permit.

Furthermore, the “advance auctions of flexible price permits in the fixed price period” proves beyond all shadow of doubt, that I was right.

That this “carbon pricing mechanism” is the bankers’ CPRS by another name. From Day 1.

Why does it prove it?

The advance auctions of flexible price permits “in the fixed price period” means this.

From Day 1, the government is effectively allowing the setting up of a futures trading market, for Australian CO2 permits.

Futures trading of nothing. Before the nothing is even created.

The banksters’ wet dream.

Australia – you have been monumentally conned.

The Green-Labor-Independent Alliance’s plan to “save the planet”, is a gigantic scam.

It is the bankers’ Casino Royale.

Where “carbon permits” really means, “A Licence to Print”.

UPDATE:

Stock broker and licensed securities and derivatives dealer Andy Semple recognises the same point that I did above – that this is not a “free market” mechanism at all, but a Soviet-style command-and-control scheme. He has deconstructed the Government’s carbon trading scam, from a trader’s perspective. A must read –

The Clayton’s Emissions Market – “The Market You Have When You’re Not Having A Market”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Gillard: “I Have Always Been Determined To Create An *Emissions Trading Scheme*”

1 Jul

Three days ago, I wrote an article arguing by reference to the Government’s official documentation, that the Green-Labor-Independent Alliance is not proposing a “tax”, but an emissions trading scheme with a fixed price start –

“The Carbon Tax is Not A ‘Tax’ … It Is The Bankster’s CPRS By Another Name”.

Two days ago, prompted by a reader, I wrote a detailed email to the Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Mr Greg Hunt MP, arguing the same point –

“Letter To Greg Hunt MP”.

Yesterday, I engaged in multiple correspondences with Mr Hunt, continuing to present the same irrefutable point; that the Government’s proposed “pricing carbon” scheme is not a tax, but is, and always has been, planned and intended to be an emissions trading scheme with an initial and temporary “fixed price” period –

“Letter To Greg Hunt MP” – Updates 2, 3, 4, 5.

In one of these correspondences, Mr Hunt stated the following (emphasis added):

Thur 30/6, 10:30pm –

I respect your views but the Prime Minister herself has said that it operates like a tax.

As has the Treasurer.

Cheers,

greg

I will leave it to those interested to read my detailed critical response to Mr Hunt’s statement.

Remarkably however, just a few short hours later the following was being widely reported in the mainstream media (please note carefully my bold emphasis added):

By Malcolm Farr, National Political Editor | From: news.com.au | June 30, 2011 2:38PM

Prime Minister Julia Gillard today said the imposition of a fixed price on carbon pollution will last for the minimum possible of three years before being replaced by whatever the market decides.

The decision will be a bid to take the “tax” out of the Opposition’s highly effective “carbon tax” attacks as quickly as possible.

“What (Opposition Leader) Tony Abbott likes to refer to as a carbon tax, a fixed price period for an emissions trading scheme, is a period I believe should be as short  as possible,” Ms Gillard said in Darwin.

“I’ve always been determined to create an emissions trading scheme, and I’ve always been determined that the fixed price period would be as short as possible and we would get to that emissions trading scheme.”

She said her aim “has always been to have an emissions trading scheme“.

“That’s an aim I share with (former Liberal Prime Minister) John Howard and (current Liberal front bencher) Malcolm Turnbull – an emissions trading scheme for our nation’s future,” said the Prime Minister.

And then there was this, from the ABC (emphasis added):

Jeremy Thompson, On Thursday 30 June 2011, 16:55 EST

Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she is determined to introduce an emissions trading scheme as soon as possible, amid reports the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee has agreed the transition from a carbon tax to an ETS will take three years.

It is understood the Government, Greens and independents agreed to transition from the carbon tax to an ETS in 2015 – at the early end of the stated aim of three to five years.

The Government wanted to go directly to an ETS, but the minority nature of the Parliament meant the Greens were able to insist on an initial fixed carbon tax.

“I’ve always been determined to create an emissions trading scheme and I’ve always been determined that the fixed-price period would be as short as possible and we would get to that emissions trading scheme,” Ms Gillard told reporters in Darwin.

She sought to change the nature of the rhetoric, rejecting the term “carbon tax” as a description used by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

I’m tempted to end this piece right now, with a triumphant “I rest my case”.

Sadly, there will doubtless be those who are to a greater or lesser degree incapable of critical thinking, who may dismiss Gillard’s remarks as not supporting my argument.

For one reason.

They no longer trust anything she says.

It is not necessary to believe that she is telling the truth now.

It is only necessary to critically examine the facts.

And the facts are these*.

The Rudd-Gillard government has always officially (ie, in written documentation) referred to their “carbon pricing” proposal as an “emissions trading scheme”.

Always.

Never as a “carbon tax“.

If those who oppose the introduction of a carbon “tax” wish to succeed in preventing it, they need to start using their brains.

It is better for everyone in the community to clearly understand that it IS an emissions trading scheme.

We should all encourage and applaud Gillard and Co in their new “bid to take the “tax” out of the Opposition’s highly effective “carbon tax” attacks”.

Why?

Because the people we need to convince are not those who already oppose the carbon “X”.

The people we need to convince – the people we need on our side against the carbon “X” – are the lefties, green cargo-culters, and others like them who go along with most every popular delusion, and are too thick to critically think for themselves.

Now believe it or not, those of us who understand the grave threat of a carbon “X” actually do share one very important thing in common with the lefties, et al.

We all – broadly speaking – HATE BANKERS.

It is vital for “righties” to understand, that “lefties” generally think that taxes aren’t such a bad thing – especially if the wise and compassionate, caring Big Government is going to “save the planet” by taxing “only” those big bad “polluters”.

But … if just once these poor deluded fools could glimpse the reality – that the governments plan is NOT a wise and benevolent Robin Hood “tax” as they imagine, but is in truth, nothing more than a grandiose scheme that is designed by, and for, the benefit of BANKERS – then we have a chance.

Then, there is hope that we can all become one.

“Leftard” and “Rightard” alike.

United in opposition  … to the banksters’ ETS.

So I say … Go for it JuLiar!

You’re on the right track now 😉

Tell it like it is.

Keep telling the world that it ‘aint no “tax”.

Keep telling us all that it is what you have “always been determined to create”.

“An emissions trading scheme for our nation’s future“

And We The People will drive home the patently obvious “bankster” connection in this grand scam for you.

________

* The Facts

References:

Garnaut Review 2011, Chapter 5 (emphasis added):

In implementing an emissions trading scheme with a fixed-price start, there are two sets of decisions to be made: the starting price and how much the price will rise in each subsequent year; and the timing, conditions and manner of transition to emissions trading with a price that is set by market exchange.

*******

Government’s climatechange.gov.au website (emphasis added):

Multi-Party Climate Change Committee

Broad architecture of the carbon price mechanism

A carbon price mechanism could commence with a fixed price (through the issuance of fixed price units within an emissions trading scheme) before converting to a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme…

*******

Government’s climatechange.gov.au website (emphasis added):

Publications

CPRS White Paper:

Policy position 8.1

Each permit will have a unique identification number and will be marked with the first year in which it can validly be surrendered (its ‘vintage’). It will not have an expiry date.

…

8.4.1 Banking

Banking allows permits to be saved for use in future years. With unlimited banking, permits would not have an expiry date—once issued, they could be used for compliance at any future time.

… the advantages of banking are greatest if banking is continuous. For these reasons, the Government will allow unlimited banking from Scheme commencement.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Be There!!

30 Jun

Click to enlarge

Tags: , , , , , ,

It’s Astounding! The World Bank’s New Treasurer Is Former Lehman Bros’ Global Head Of Risk Management

30 Jun

“It’s astounding;
Time is fleeting;
Madness takes its toll.
But listen closely…”

You really can’t make this stuff up.

Remember Lehman Brothers?

The Wall Street bank whose collapse in September 2008 sparked the global meltdown known as the Global Financial Crisis?

It seems that putting the whole world inside a real-life Rocky Horror Show through your galactic incompetence, corruption, and/or “voyeuristic intention”, is just the kind of stellar accomplishment to earn you the attention – and the anointing – of the premier banksters on the planet:

World Bank Appoints Madelyn Antoncic as Treasurer

Press Release No: 2011/564/EXT

Brings “record of leadership, innovation, and integrity,” Zoellick says

WASHINGTON, June 23, 2011 — The World Bank today appointed Madelyn Antoncic as its new Vice President and Treasurer, hiring an experienced senior executive from the financial industry who has been active in the regulatory and policy debate.

“Known for her forthrightness, I am delighted Madelyn is taking up this important role,” said World Bank Group President Robert B. Zoellick. “She brings to the Bank an extensive background in the financial industry and a demonstrated record of leadership, innovation, and integrity.”

As Treasurer, Antoncic will be responsible for maintaining the World Bank’s high standing in financial markets and for managing an extensive client advisory, transaction, and asset management business. She will be responsible for leading seven Treasury business lines: the Capital Markets Department; Investment Management Department; Pension & Endowments; Quantitative Risk Analytics; Treasury Operations Department; Banking & Debt Management, and Sovereign Investment Partnerships.

Biographical details:

Antoncic began her career as an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York where she carried out research on economic and money market conditions as well as on finance. In 1985, she began 12 years at Goldman Sachs in various posts, including as head of market risk management, special assistant to the co-vice chairmen and more than seven years trading structured products. She then had a 2-year stint at Barclays Capital as the Americas’ Head of Market Risk Management and Treasurer.

After leaving Barclays in 1999, Antoncic joined Lehman Brothers as Global Head of Risk Policy and subsequently Global Head of Market Risk Management; from 2002-2007, she served as Chief Risk Officer. In 2007, she was moved to an externally focused role as Global Head of Financial Markets Policy Relations. After the Lehman bankruptcy, Antoncic agreed to stay on for a year as Managing Director and Senior Advisor at the Lehman Estate to help maximize the value to Lehman creditors.

Since 2007, Antoncic has been active in the regulatory and policy debate, working with industry groups advising senior policy makers on regulatory reform and systemic risk issues. She was a policy member of the Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group (CRMPG) III and a member of the Institute of International Finance (IIF) Committee on Market Best Practices.

A U.S. national, Antoncic holds a Ph.D. in Economics and Finance from New York University.

Contacts:

David Theis: 202-458-8626

Broadcast— Natalia Cieslik: 202-458-9369

Did the World Bank also interview Bernie Madoff for the job?

Or did his prison sentence, and his little Ponzi scheme’s abject failure to shaft billions of ordinary people (he only screwed thousands … of wealthy people), preclude him from being in the running?

And on that truly inspirational note – Happy End of Financial Year to you all!

Sing along everyone …

RiffRaff:
It’s astounding;
Time is fleeting;
Madness takes its toll.
But listen closely…

Magenta:
Not for very much longer.

RiffRaff:
I’ve got to keep control.

I remember doing the time-warp
Drinking those moments when
The Blackness would hit me

Magenta:
And the void would be calling…

Transylvanians:
Let’s do the time-warp again.
Let’s do the time-warp again.

Narrator:
It’s just a jump to the left.

All:
And then a step to the right.

Narrator:
Put your hands on your hips.

All:
You bring your knees in tight.
But it’s the pelvic thrust
That really drives you insane.
Let’s do the time-warp again.
Let’s do the time-warp again.

Magenta:
It’s so dreamy, oh fantasy free me.
So you can’t see me, no, not at all.
In another dimension, with
voyeuristic intention,
Well secluded, I see all.

RiffRaff:
With a bit of a mind flip

Magenta:
You’re into the time slip.

RiffRaff:
And nothing can ever be the same.

Magenta:
You’re spaced out on sensation.

RiffRaff:
Like you’re under sedation.

All:
Let’s do the time-warp again.
Let’s do the time-warp again.

Columbia:
Well I was walking down the street
just a-having a think
When a snake of a guy gave me an
evil wink.
He shook-a me up, he took me by surprise.
He had a pickup truck, and the
devil’s eyes.
He stared at me and I felt a change.
Time meant nothing, never would again.

All:
Let’s do the time-warp again.
Let’s do the time-warp again.

Narrator:
It’s just a jump to the left.

All:
And then a step to the right.

Narrator:
Put your hands on your hips.

All:
You bring your knees in tight.
But it’s the pelvic thrust
That really drives you insane.
Let’s do the time-warp again.
Let’s do the time-warp again.

Think about it.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Letter to Greg Hunt MP

29 Jun

* Shortcuts to Update 2 , Update 3 , Update 4 , and Update 5 below.

Prompted by a reader, this afternoon the following email sent to the Federal Opposition’s Shadow Environment Minister, Greg Hunt MP.

Cc’d to Senator Barnaby Joyce.

*****************************

Subject:  Why Are You Calling It A “Tax”, When It Is NOT?

Dear Mr Hunt,

I am writing to you pursuant to a recent communication between yourself and a follower of my Twitter feed – @BarnabyisRight and blog BarnabyIsRight.com

I understand that this lady questioned you concerning my recent article, which affirms that the “carbon tax” is NOT a tax, but rather, an “emissions trading scheme with an initial fixed price period”.  Exactly as per the Rudd Government’s proposed CPRS.

I also understand that your response contradicted this, instead arguing that “In fact the tax will actually morph into a tradeable right after 3 years”.

Mr Hunt, you are wrong. And I firmly believe that both yourself, and the Federal Opposition more broadly, are guilty of doing the electorate a grave disservice by continuing to falsely attach the moniker “tax” to the government’s proposed scheme.

In proof of this, I refer you to the following quotations and links. They are all from this blog article that I published recently, which has attracted considerable attention. The lady in question advises me that she did not feel comfortable sending you a link to the article, given that it contains some “florid” descriptors.

All but one of these quotes and links are from the government’s own handpicked sources.

I would ask that you please respond to my email, by specific reference to these evidences –

Julian Turecek of Cleantech Ventures, writing for MacroBusiness in May 2011 (emphasis added):

The current government has not yet give its policy a formal name. So the Opposition has obliged* and chosen one for them: a carbon tax.

Now this has got a lot of people, mainly tax advisers and accountants, barking up the wrong tree. It’s not actually a tax…

The current proposal is not a tax, but a fixed price emissions trading scheme. This is exactly the same as the CPRS, which also had a fixed price at the start.

[* Please think back carefully. When Gillard announced that she would introduce a “price on carbUon” after all, she and the government initially denied the Opposition’s “great big new tax” claim. But they have since allowed, and encouraged, this false meme to become entrenched into the public psyche. I believe that is because calling it a “tax” sounds more simple and less threatening, and most importantly, it does not so clearly highlight the banker-driven “trading” aspect than if they had instead called it what it is, and always was ultimately intended to be right from the beginning … an Emissions Trading Scheme.]

Garnaut Review, Chapter 5 (emphasis added):

In implementing an emissions trading scheme with a fixed-price start, there are two sets of decisions to be made: the starting price and how much the price will rise in each subsequent year; and the timing, conditions and manner of transition to emissions trading with a price that is set by market exchange.

The government’s own climate change website on the topic (emphasis added):

Broad architecture of the carbon price mechanism

A carbon price mechanism could commence with a fixed price (through the issuance of fixed price units within an emissions trading scheme) before converting to a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme…

Note very carefully what it says under Transition Arrangements (emphasis added):

Transition Arrangements

At the end of the fixed price period, the clear intent would be that the scheme convert to a flexible price cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme. In relation to the transition to a flexible price, it would be important to design the arrangements so as to promote business certainty and a smooth transition from the fixed to flexible price.

Ross Garnaut also reiterates the importance of the initial design promoting a “smooth transition” to a fully-floating price ETS, in his final Garnaut Review:

Investors need clarity about when and the conditions under which the transition to a floating price will occur. To support a smooth transition, the necessary institutions and supporting infrastructure should be established from the beginning of the scheme. It is important to specify rules for the scheme as soon as possible, including arrangements for auctioning permits and for acceptance of offsets and international permits.

Mr Hunt, this is where we come to the critical matter pertaining to whether there is any remotely possible justification for calling the government’s proposed “pricing mechanism”, a “tax”.

How exactly do you design a scheme to promote a “smooth transition”?

By giving those initial “fixed price” permits an expiry date that is far enough away to ensure that they can be traded when the emissions trading scheme transitions to a “floating” price. In this way, the “property rights” of those forced to purchase the initial “fixed” (and rising over “3-5 years”) price permits are safeguarded (ie, thus, “business certainty”) – they can “bank” their permits and trade them later, when the transition to a floating price occurs.

Of course, an even simpler way would be to give these permits to “pollute” an unlimited expiry date.

Which is exactly what the government’s official Policy position was under the original Rudd-Garnaut CPRS White Paper.  Which the Gillard-Garnaut “carbon pricing” mechanism aims to replicate – because that is what the bankers want (emphasis added):

Policy position 8.1

Each permit will have a unique identification number and will be marked with the first year in which it can validly be surrendered (its ‘vintage’). It will not have an expiry date.

…

8.4.1 Banking

Banking allows permits to be saved for use in future years. With unlimited banking, permits would not have an expiry date—once issued, they could be used for compliance at any future time.

… the advantages of banking are greatest if banking is continuous. For these reasons, the Government will allow unlimited banking from Scheme commencement.

Mr Hunt, in calling this a “tax”, you are misleading the Australian public.

You are focussing (diverting?) attention on to the quite unimportant details of the initial “fixed price” period, and failing to draw attention to the true end game. The Big Picture.

The Government’s plan has never changed.  They have always been pursuing a CPRS – an emissions trading scheme – with an initial fixed price period.

I should also mention that I am fully aware of the key role played by your colleague Mr Turnbull, going back to 2004 and his entry into Parliament, in the banker-driven push to include Australia in a global CO2-derivatives trading market (casino).

I am especially aware of the fact that Mr Turnbull is effectively “owned” by international bankers and CO2-trading pushers, Goldman Sachs, by virtue of their “confidential settlement” on Mr Turnbull’s behalf, to keep him out of court when Opposition Leader, in the 1/2 billion dollar HIH lawsuit in which Mr Turnbull was a named defendant.  I have documented this fact on my blog as well.

This is a matter of clear conflict-of-interest / corruption of our democratic processes. One that, some day, will become widespread public knowledge. I would suggest to you that it would be very wise – for numerous reasons – for the Federal Opposition to ensure that the matter of Mr Turnbull’s highly dubious associations and obligations does indeed become widely known.

Sooner, rather than later.

I (and the rapidly growing readership of my blog and Twitter feed) look forward with considerable interest to your responses on these matters.

Sincerely,

*********

Barnabyisright.com

UPDATE:

I should mention, it is my view that the above was a complete waste of my time.

For lots of reasons.

Apart from anything else, has anyone ever seen a politician admit that they are/were wrong about a critical issue? And then, do something proactive about correcting their error?

UPDATE 2:

Mr Hunt responds (Wed 29/6, 5:42pm)-

I respect your views ******** but respectfully disagree.

A tax is a fixed price with floating volume.

That is what is being created.

After three years – five years it will then turn into a tradeable floating price and fixed volume system.

Cheers,

greg

My subsequent response to Mr Hunt (Wed 29/6, 6:42pm) –

(cc’d to Senator Barnaby Joyce … I note that Mr Hunt did not cc Senator Joyce with his response)

**********************************

Dear Mr Hunt,

Thank you for your prompt response.

You have stated that – “A tax is a fixed price with floating volume. That is what is being created.”

This is a wholly unsatisfactory response to the concerns raised at length in my previous communication.

It is not a question of our holding differing views or interpretations, Mr Hunt. It is a simple question of very clear facts and evidence, which you appear to be wilfully ignoring.

Your response is misleading and deceptive by omission.

With respect, your response suggests either a culpable ignorance, or complicity, on your part.

Your statement wilfully ignores the perfectly clear statements of the CPRS White Paper, the Garnaut Review 2011, and the government’s climate change website description of the “Broad Architecture” of the proposed “mechanism” for “pricing carbon” that I have quoted and referenced for your due consideration.

It also ignores, most importantly, the key point detailed in and evidenced by the government’s sources in my previous communication.

Mr Hunt, that key point is this.

The government’s openly professed intention, and the Garnaut Review’s consistent recommendation, is to issue carbon permits at a fixed price only for a temporary initial period, with said permits having the following key characteristics, specifically in order to “smooth the transition” to the ultimately intended fully-floating cap-and-trade scheme:

(a) Unlimited expiry date;
(b) Unlimited bankability, from Scheme commencement.

The implications of these parameters – stated previously as formal Policy Positions by Prof Garnaut and the ALP – are perfectly clear:

1. A “polluter” forced to purchase the initial “fixed price” carbon permits will be empowered to “bank” said permits, “from Scheme commencement”.

2. Due to their unlimited expiration date, the “polluters” will be enabled to trade said permits, after the temporary initial period has passed.

3. The “price” of carbon permits issued during the temporary, initial “fixed price” period, will be legislated to rise incrementally over that interim period.

Thus, it is patently obvious to any thinking person, that “polluters” forced to purchase carbon permits at (eg) the Year 1 “fixed price”, having been enabled to “bank” said permits, will be able to on-sell them after the temporary initial “fixed price” period trading restriction has passed, at the then going market rate.

Furthermore, as the price of permits will have been forced to rise by government decree during the initial period, this means that, absent a collapse in the market price upon the “floating” of the Australian carbon permit market, “polluters” will be granted opportunity to profit from the sale of carbon permits that they were forced to purchase – at lower prices – during the initial temporary period!

Indeed, those “polluters” who will be granted “free” permits will effectively be granted a free profit-making opportunity, directly arising from the nature of the proposed “initial fixed price” carbon pricing mechanism.

Mr Hunt, it is specious, an insult to intelligence, and clear cause for questioning your own integrity and motives in this matter, for you to suggest that a scheme such as that proposed – one which will guarantee an enhanced profit-making opportunity for at least some so-called “polluters (as described above) – could by any logic or rational measure be deemed a “tax”!

Sadly, I am confident that there is little to be gained in my extending on this point, by defining what a “tax” actually is, by way of reference to any external authoritative source/s.

Mr Hunt, it is also both insulting, and revealing, that you have pointedly failed to address in any way the arguably far graver matter raised in my earlier communication to you, vis-a-vis the conflict-of-interest / corruption of democracy evidenced by your colleague Mr Turnbull’s associations and manifest obligations to international bankers and CO2-trading pushers, Goldman Sachs.

Therefore, I am now directly requesting your comment on that specific matter, and refer your particular attention to the publicly available evidences linked in my previous communication to you.

Once again, despite the wholly unsatisfactory (and revealing) nature of your limited response, I do thank you for at least having taken the time to respond promptly to my and my readers’ concerns.

Sincerely,

******************

Barnabyisright.com

UPDATE 3:

Mr Hunt responds again (Thur 30/6, 10:30pm) –

I respect your views but the Prime Minister herself has said that it operates like a tax.

As has the Treasurer.

Cheers,

greg

My subsequent response to Mr Hunt (Thur 30/6, 11:14pm) –

(cc’d to Senator Barnaby Joyce … I note that, once again, Mr Hunt did not cc Senator Joyce with his response)

**********************************

Dear Mr Hunt,

Thank you again for your prompt response.

It is wholly unsatisfactory – and once again, thoroughly misleading and deceptive – for you to downplay / brush off the detailed concerns that I and my readers have raised, and/or for you to ignore the numerous government-published official documents that I/we have referenced, by merely stating that “the Prime Minister herself has said that it operates like a tax. As has the Treasurer“.

The citizens of Australia all know that the PM lies. As does the Treasurer.

The issue at hand, however, is your and your colleagues’ continued complicity in doing the same on this particular issue.

I refer your attention to the specifically stated concern that was first raised with you in my prior communication – which abundantly clear from the Subject description in these communiques:

Why are you calling it a “tax”, when it is NOT?

“I firmly believe that both yourself, and the Federal Opposition more broadly, are guilty of doing the electorate a grave disservice by continuing to falsely attach the moniker “tax” to the government’s proposed scheme.”

Mr Hunt, the concern raised directly references your and your Federal Opposition colleagues’ misleading and deceptive descriptions of the proposed policy.

Whether or not the PM – or indeed any other politician, media commentator, or individual – employs the use of the same misleading and deceptive description, does not exonerate either yourself or your Federal Opposition colleagues, for your continued use of the same.

I should not need to remind you, Mr Hunt, that both you and your Federal Opposition colleagues are elected representatives of the citizens of this nation.  You are being paid via our taxes, to represent our expressed interests, and properly and thoroughly heed our concerns.

You have failed to do so. Despite now repeated specific and detailed requests.

It is my and my readers’ expressed interest and concern, that both the Federal Opposition generally, and yourself as the responsible Shadow Climate Change portfolio spokesperson particularly, should:

(1) Formally and publicly correct the misleading and deceptive description of the government’s proposed “carbon pricing” policy; and

(2) Henceforth discontinue referring to the policy as a “carbon tax“, and instead refer to the proposed policy exclusively by way of the specific description consistently published by the Federal Government in its public policy documentation, as displayed on its climatechange.gov website and in the 2011 Garnaut Review.

I am now directly asking you, Mr Hunt, on behalf of myself and my readers, whether or not you will undertake to both heed, and act upon, this specific request from your electors.

I also note that, once again, that you have pointedly failed to respond in any way to my direct and specific request for comment on the directly associated matter of your colleague Mr Turnbull’s associations and manifest obligations to international bankers and CO2-trading pushers, Goldman Sachs. I would repeat this request by direct quotation from my previous correspondence:

Mr Hunt, it is also both insulting, and revealing, that you have pointedly failed to address in any way the arguably far graver matter raised in my earlier communication to you, vis-a-vis the conflict-of-interest / corruption of democracy evidenced by your colleague Mr Turnbull’s associations and manifest obligations to international bankers and CO2-trading pushers, Goldman Sachs.

Therefore, I am now directly requesting your comment on that specific matter, and refer your particular attention to the publicly available evidences linked in my previous communication to you.

Thank you in advance, for your choice to finally and directly address – and act upon – the specifically stated and repeated substance of my and my readers’ concerns.

Sincerely,

***************

Barnabyisright.com

UPDATE 4:

Mr Hunt responds again (Thur 30/6, 12:03pm) –

Many thanks and I respect your views but think and believe that this is a tax ands in fact the country believes it.

Cheers,

greg

My subsequent response to Mr Hunt (Thur 30/6, 1:10pm) –

**********************************

Dear Mr Hunt,

Thank you once again for responding so promptly.

Your response to my and my readers’ concerns – and direct and specific requests – continues to be appalling unsatisfactory.

Indeed, in your continuing to ignore the specific points of reference and direct requests that have been made repeatedly to you, your communications to me on these matters represent a wilful dereliction of your Parliamentary responsibilities to the citizens of this nation, to whom you directly owe your position, title, income, and power of influence.

Mr Hunt, in your latest response to me you have once again ignored all of the evidences and information that have been repeatedly submitted to you, and instead resorted to argumentum ad populum –

I … think and believe that this is a tax ands in fact the country believes it.

Argumentum ad populum is authoritatively recognised as being a fallacious argument. Your resorting to it as a singular response to the evidences presented to you, as direct quotations from the government-published official documentation on this issue, represents a (further) wilful act of misleading and deceptive conduct.

As you have once again failed to respond to any of the specific matters that I have references, I will now again repeat my previous requests to you below:

Item 1.

It is my and my readers’ expressed interest and concern, that both the Federal Opposition generally, and yourself as the responsible Shadow Climate Change portfolio spokesperson particularly, should:

(1) Formally and publicly correct the misleading and deceptive description of the government’s proposed “carbon pricing” policy; and

(2) Henceforth discontinue referring to the policy as a “carbon tax”, and instead refer to the proposed policy exclusively by way of the specific description consistently published by the Federal Government in its public policy documentation, as displayed on its climatechange.gov website and in the 2011 Garnaut Review.

I am now directly asking you, Mr Hunt, on behalf of myself and my readers, whether or not you will undertake to both heed, and act upon, this specific request from your electors.

Item 2.

Mr Hunt, it is also both insulting, and revealing, that you have pointedly failed to address in any way the arguably far graver matter raised in my earlier communication to you, vis-a-vis the conflict-of-interest / corruption of democracy evidenced by your colleague Mr Turnbull’s associations and manifest obligations to international bankers and CO2-trading pushers, Goldman Sachs.

Therefore, I am now directly requesting your comment on that specific matter, and refer your particular attention to the publicly available evidences linked in my previous communication to you.

In closing, I would ask you to please explain for the benefit of myself and my readers, exactly how it is that a scheme which proposes to grant a selected subset of the total population a new “property right” (a “carbon permit”) – a property right that has an initially fixed and then subsequently a tradeable monetary value – in exchange for a government-mandated surcharge / levy / fee for the acquisition of that same property right – can be plausibly deemed a “tax”.

My readers and I look forward to receiving your direct, relevant, on-topic response to each of the aforementioned matters.

Sincerely,

*********
Barnabyisright.com

UPDATE 5:

Mr Hunt responds again (Thur 30/6, 1:24pm) –

Hi ************,

I receive over 300 emails a day- really…and I have endeavoured to be both fast and respectful.

I have to say that you are the first person I have encountered who does not accept that the levying of a fixed rate figure on the production of a floating volume of emissions is not a tax.

This is the economic definition of a tax.

You do not have to accept this of course.  But I also accept that nothing I say will change your opinion and while I disagree with that I stand for your freedom to take a different view yourself.

Regards,
greg

My subsequent response to Mr Hunt (Thur 30/6, 2:13pm ) –

**********************************

Dear Mr Hunt,

I do thank you once again for your promptness in responding to my and my readers’ concerns.

Your statement of definition in your most recent communique is, once again, misleading and deceptive, by reason of its representing (1) a blatant “red herring” fallacy, and (2) a blatant “straw man” fallacy:

(1) “you are the first person I have encountered who does not accept that” –

Mr Hunt, this is a red herring fallacy. Whether I am, or am not, “the first person you have encountered who does not accept that” the government’s proposed scheme is not a “tax”, is irrelevant to the facts and evidence as have been demonstrated to you by way of reference to the government’s official documentation.

(2) “the levying of a fixed rate figure on the production of a floating volume of emissions is … the economic definition of a tax” –

Mr Hunt, your statement is factually untrue.

This is not the economic definition of a “tax”.

A “tax” is typically described as follows: “A fee charged (“levied”) by a government on a product, income, or activity… The purpose of taxation is to finance government expenditure”

Furthermore, the “definition” that you have stated is irrelevant, and constitutes a blatant “straw man” fallacy.

I have repeatedly drawn your specific attention to the definition of the government’s proposed scheme, as published on its official climatechange.gov website, and in the 2011 Garnaut Review.

The only definition that is relevant to the matter, is the government’s definition as published in its official documentation. And it is manifest that this does not in any way, shape, or form, define the proposed scheme as a “tax”.  Instead, it clearly and repeatedly identifies the proposed scheme as being “an emissions trading scheme with an initial fixed price period”.

Mr Hunt, your continued obfuscation, resorting to rhetorical fallacies, and above all, your refusal to directly respond to each of the points of reference and concern, and also to the direct requests that I have repeatedly submitted to you, only further evidences that you are persisting in acting in a thoroughly misleading and deceptive manner.

This is wholly unacceptable for any law-abiding citizen in right community standing, and the more especially for an elected representative of the citizens of this nation.

So much so, that I am now considering the option of enlisting the support of the several barristers and lawyers within my blog readership and Twitter following, in the potential pursuit of legal redress against you and/or your Federal Opposition colleagues, pertaining directly to the matters I have repeatedly detailed to you.

I now repeat – again – my previous, itemised requests for your direct response and action.

Sincerely,

***************
Barnabyisright.com

UPDATE 5A:

Correction – I inadvertently neglected to cc Senator Joyce on the last two (2) of my responses above (at Updates 4 and 5). Post edited to remove references.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

RBA Says Our Banks Are Stuffed … In Other Words

29 Jun

Yesterday, RBA Assistant Governor Guy Debelle indulged in some MOPE.

Management Of Perceptions Economics.

Lies, deceit, and propaganda, in other words.

But for those with an ear to hear, and an inclination to check the “authorities'” claims, what he really did – unintentionally – was to give us a heads up.

That our Too Big To Fail banks (TBTF) are going to get bailed out, sooner rather than later.

Go grab a modest quantity of your favourite beverage, and settle in.  You are about to learn – in detail – why we cannot trust a word the banksters say.

Ready?

Now as expected, the mainstream press all lazily parrotted the “everything’s fine, move along, nothing to see here” headline that Mr Debelle wanted. Here’s a good example, from the nations’ “premier” newspaper:

Australian banks safeguarded from Greek debt crisis, says Guy Debelle

Our standards are more rigorous here at Barnaby Is Right.

Let’s critically examine what Mr Debelle actually had to say in his official Address to Conference on Systemic Risk, Basel III, Financial Stability and Regulation (emphasis added):

Today I am going to talk about a few interrelated issues concerning the banking system: collateral, funding and liquidity.

The financial crisis brought into sharp relief the liabilities side of a financial institution’s balance sheet, that is, the funding structure. This had previously been somewhat neglected, but the fates of Northern Rock, Bear and Lehmans were clearly affected by the nature of their funding. While their funding structure played a significant part in the downfall of those institutions, I would argue the ultimate concern was about the quality of their assets. The funding problems were symptomatic of concerns about asset quality.

The solvency of any bank first and foremost is a function of the quality and value of its assets. This is, of course, true of any entity, but it is particularly true for banks because of the implications asset quality has for liquidity and because of the leveraged nature of financial institutions.

The crux of my argument today is this: if I am a creditor of a bank, my due diligence should be spent mostly on assessing the asset side of the bank’s balance sheet in determining whether or not I will get repaid in full.

Exactly.

Now, in the classic British political satire Yes Minister, master of obfuscation and manipulation Sir Humphrey Appleby said that it is always best to “dispose of the difficult bit in the title; it does less harm there than in the text.”

And by beginning his speech with this quite correct and valid talk of asset quality – and then not examining those “assets” in any detail – this is the clever game that Mr Debelle has played here.

No doubt he expected that no one would actually bother to check the banks’ asset quality.  They’d just take it on presumption, and Mr Debelle’s inference, that they’re fine.  And indeed, none in the mainstream press have bothered to check.

So let us do just that, shall we? Let us assess our Australian banks’ all-important “asset quality”.

Just two days ago ( “Our Banks Racing Towards A ‘Bigger Armageddon'” ), we saw that our banks held a combined $2.68 Trillion in On-Balance Sheet “Assets” at March 2011. So $2.68 Trillion is the claimed “value” of their Assets.

Now, about Mr Debelle’s “ultimate concern”.  The all-important “quality” of those Assets.

What exactly are these bank “Assets”?

$1.76 Trillion (65.56%) of these “assets” are actually loans.

That’s right – your loan is considered the bank’s “Asset”. They own you, as their debt slave.

$1.018 Trillion (57.84%) of those loans, are Residential loans.

That’s right – fully 38% of our banks’ Total “Assets” is the notional value of their loans given as mortgages.

Here’s a chart sourced from the RBA’s own data, showing the % breakdown of our banks so-called “Assets”:

Click to enlarge

Now, in light of the recent housing-triggered banking and debt crises in the USA, UK, Ireland, Spain, and many other nations throughout the Western world; and in light of the fact that our property market is widely considered “the most overvalued in the world”; and in light of the fact that our property market has recently suffered its biggest quarterly fall in 12 years; and in light of the fact that arrears on mortgage payments have spiked to a record high, in the same quarter as house prices had a record fall … do you really think that having over 65% of your “Assets” in the form of loans, with 38% in the form of home loans, could be considered as high “asset quality”?

In light of the fact that business failures have risen 25%, with more than 10,000 going under in 2010; and in light of the fact that a leading Australian businessman has said that Eastern Australia is in “deep recession” and NSW and Victorian manufacturing is “stuffed”; and in light of the fact that the only Australian economist to predict the GFC has recently said that we will “almost certainly” be in recession in the second half of 2011 … do you really think that having 24% of your “Assets” in the form of commercial (business) loans, and 4% in the form of personal loans, could be considered as high “asset quality”?

In other words, do you really think that having over 65% of your Total “Assets” in the form of loans to households and businesses, who are all increasingly vulnerable to (eg) cost-of-living pressures, loss of employment, house price falls, and/or a recession, could be considered as having high “asset quality”?

Don’t answer that yet.

There’s more to consider.

Our banks presently hold a staggering $16.83 Trillion in Off-Balance Sheet “Business”.  That’s around 15 times the value of Australia’s entire annual GDP.  And most of that Off-Balance Sheet Business, is in derivatives. The exotic financial instruments at the very heart of the GFC.  These are the instruments of intergalactic-scale gambling that the world’s most famous investor, Warren Buffet, famously called “a mega-catastrophic risk”, “financial weapons of mass destruction”, and a “time bomb”.

(They are also the reason why it is the banking industry that is pushing so hard for a CO2 trading scheme. Because for banks, it means trading in a juicy new mega-market casino, with a whole new type of “derivative” – carbon permits).

Here’s a chart of our banks’ On-Balance Sheet “Assets” (blue line), compared to their Off-Balance Sheet derivatives “Business” (red line):

Click to enlarge

But wait, there’s still more!

Just 6 days ago, we saw the global head of HSBC’s foreign exchange division warn of “a bigger Armageddon out there”, in foreign exchange markets.

And just 5 days ago, we saw a warning given by Fitch Ratings that Australia’s banks are the “most vulnerable” to Europe’s debt crisis, due to their heavy reliance on wholesale funding from abroad.

In other words, whether it be Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Belgium, or any of the other massively indebted EU nations embroiled in a debt crisis, when one (or more) of them finally does go under – an inevitability – our “safe as houses” banks will go under with them:

Now, yesterday Mr Debelle contradicted the HSBC and Fitch Ratings’ warnings. While admitting that Australian banks’ reliance on funding from overseas does represent a foreign exchange risk, he argued that there is nothing to worry about.

Why? Because, quoth he, our banks’ foreign currency exposures are “fully hedged” into Australian dollars (emphasis added):

If a liquidity issue were to arise around this funding, it is of critical importance that the foreign-currency denominated funding is fully hedged into Australian dollars, which indeed it is.

Now, that critical claim is one we should all take with a crate of salt.

Here’s why.

In supposed proof of his claim that our banks’ foreign exchange exposure is “fully hedged” into Australian dollars, Mr Debelle referred (in his speech’s footnote #9) to a paper that appeared in the RBA Bulletin, December 2009.

Doubtless no one in attendance bothered to check that old paper. Certainly, not a single journalist who reported on Mr Debelle’s comments in the mainstream press bothered to check first, and then report the truth.

But I did.

In that old paper, we see that the authors did claim that our banks had their foreign exchange exposure fully hedged.

Well … sort of.

Here is what they actually wrote.  Note carefully the all-important weasel words (my emphasis added):

Summary

The 2009 survey of foreign currency exposure indicates that Australian institutions remain well hedged against the risk of sharp movements in the exchange rate. Australia’s foreign currency debt liabilities are essentially fully hedged into Australian dollars using derivative instruments…

Hardly a categoric affirmation.

And here’s the really crucial point. Mr Debelle’s referencing this paper in support of his claim is a nonsense – and thus, suspicious – simply because the data in that old paper is (obviously) now completely out-of-date!

Mr Debelle must know this.  Because the RBA publishes its own statistical data for our banks’ derivatives exposure – and their most recent data is current to 31 March 2011.

Moreover, the data used in that old paper was sourced via an ABS survey – that is, it relied on the banks honestly reporting their true positions (!?!).  And, the data was only current to 31 March 2009 – more than two years ago.

At that time, the banks’ admitted to holding a notional value of foreign exchange derivatives positions, allegedly for “hedging” purposes, totalling gross $2.802 Trillion:

Table 2: Residents’ Gross Outstanding Foreign Exchange Derivative Positions By counterparty, notional value, A$ billion, as at 31 March 2009(a)
Counterparty Long foreign currency/short AUD positions Short foreign currency/long AUD positions Net positions
(a) Positive values represent derivative positions under which the holder will receive foreign currency in exchange for Australian dollars at a predetermined exchange rate (that is, a long foreign currency/short AUD position). Negative values represent derivative positions under which the holder will receive Australian dollars in exchange for foreign currency at a predetermined exchange rate (that is, a short foreign currency/long AUD position).
Source: ABS
Resident 554 −554 0
Non-resident 991 −703 288
Total 1,545 −1,257 288

As you can see, the breakdown of our banks’ foreign exchange derivatives “positions” at March 2009, was Long foreign currency $1.545 Trillion, and Short foreign currency $1.257 Trillion.  For a net Long position of $288 Billion.

And the counterparty to that $288 Billion Long “position” (ie, gamble) was … “Non-resident”.

Now, a few important points to consider.

Firstly, these 2 year old figures did not represent solid proof of a “fully hedged” foreign exchange position.  And it certainly is not proof of that claim being true now, 27 months later, in June 2011!  Instead, what it represented was a $288 Billion Long foreign currency position, at 31 March 2009. A net $288 Billion bet that foreign currencies would improve in value, compared to the Aussie Dollar.

Secondly, why do you think Mr Debelle would seek to reassure us that our banks’ foreign exchange risk is “fully hedged”, and back his claim by reference (in the footnotes) to a 2 year old, redundant paper – just 4 days after Fitch Ratings warned of the vulnerability of our banks to foreign exchange volatility, and 5 days after the global head of HSBC foreign exchange warned of “a bigger Armageddon out there” in foreign exchange markets?

[Hint: These days it’s euphemistically – and deceitfully – called “spin”, or a “smokescreen”]

Thirdly – and perhaps most importantly – as we saw just 2 days ago, at 31 March 2011 our banks’ gross foreign exchange derivatives position has grown (blown?) from the claimed $2.80 Trillion … to $3.98 Trillion:

Click to enlarge

Let us not even bother going into the huge question marks over this.

Including very basic questions.  Such as, why did the banks report a $2.80 Trillion FX derivatives exposure to the ABS survey … when the RBA’s own statistics report that they had a $3.58 Trillion exposure at that date (see highlight in chart above). Or, the basic question of why did Mr Debelle fail to reference the current, and much larger, foreign exchange derivatives exposure of our banks.

And let us not bother going into the even bigger questions (and dire implications) over our banks’ $11.68 Trillion exposure to Interest Rate derivatives – that’s the going-parabolic blue line on the above chart.

We’ve seen more than enough to know that Mr Debelle’s belated assurances about our banks are a sham.

It is my view that Fitch Ratings’ and HSBC’s warnings are most likely closer to the real truth.

And the reality of our banks’ extreme vulnerability, due to their off-shore funding reliance, their truly staggering derivatives exposure, and perhaps above all, their poor “asset” quality, is the real reason why Mr Debelle gave the speech that he gave yesterday.

Whether he meant to or not, the simple message for the wise and prudent to take away from (the inconsistencies, lies, and deceptions in) his speech is this.

He is essentially saying, “Don’t worry folks … our banks are going to fail … but the RBA can just print money to bail them out”.

Don’t believe that printing money is what Mr Debelle was saying?

Here it is in his own words:

As I discussed earlier, an Australian dollar liquidity issue can be addressed by the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank can meet a temporary liquidity shortfall by lending Australian dollars against the stressed bank’s assets denominated in Australian dollars.

Where does the RBA get its dollars from, in order to “lend” support to our soon-to-be-insolvent, imploding banks?

It creates them. Out of thin air.

Click click on the mouse button. Tap tap on the keyboard.

Just like all “independent” central banks.

And then lends those dollars, at interest.

As we have seen previously ( “Our Banking System Operates With Zero Reserves” ), thanks to the way our banking system is designed, printing more money is the only thing that the RBA can do in response to a bank insolvency crisis.

And as we also saw previously, that is exactly what they did do, in the GFC.

Welcome to the Grand Opening of our Zimbabwe Experience, dear reader.

Brought to you by your friendly “independent” RBA banksters, and their Big Four cronies.

A final thought.

It is particularly interesting that Mr Debelle was effectively reassuring everyone that the RBA is able to provide “liquidity support” (ie, money) for our banks in the event of their running into trouble with their wholesale funding from abroad.

What he did not mention, is that our government – that is, we the taxpayers – has provided both explicit and implicit support for the banks through the Government Guarantee Scheme For Large Deposits And Wholesale Funding.

(Indeed, when Moody’s recently downgraded the credit rating of our Big Four banks, they made it quite clear that if these taxpayer guarantees were not there, our banks’ credit ratings would be slashed by at least another two ‘notches’)

So, if Mr Debelle is arguing/reassuring that the RBA is able to provide liquidity support for our banking system, then why is the Australian taxpayer on the hook to backstop the banks?

And why did Mr Debelle not mention this very important fact in his speech?

SNAFU.

As with anything involving the “unholy alliance of politicians and bankers versus ordinary people”, everything about this stinks to high heaven.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

“There’s An Unholy Alliance Of Politicians And Bankers Versus Ordinary People”

28 Jun

Oh for independent politicians like Nigel Farage here in Australia:

One could almost be forgiven for thinking that Mr Farage was talking about Australian politicians like Malcolm Turnbull being in bed with banksters like Goldman Sachs, in seeking to impose a CO2 trading scam  – deceitfully relabelled as a “carbon tax“ – on our little nation.

Or, that he was talking about the recent Open Letter written by 13 “eminent” economists in support of our Green-Labor-“Independent” Alliance’s plan for “pricing carbon” – at least 77% of whom are directly employed by or connected with the bankstering sector.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started