Tag Archives: cyprus

But The Sheep Don’t Scatter: Banks Say “Sophisticated” Customers Have “Less Stable” Deposits

10 Jul

BO2BkpACcAALj3y

Here is a shining example of bankers’ true attitude towards depositors.

In the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) document titled ‘Implementing Basel III Liquidity Reforms In Australia’ (pdf here), the very important topic of “cash outflows” or “deposit run-off” is discussed at length.

Unsophisticated common people like you and me call it a “bank run”.

In the section titled ‘Other matters raised in submissions’, we learn that bankers consider the deposits of “financially sophisticated” customers to be “less stable” (my emphasis added):

4.2.1 Cash outflows

Retail and qualifying small and medium enterprises (SME) deposit run-off

Within the LCR [Liquidity Coverage Ratio], retail deposit balances are classified as either ‘stable’ or ‘less stable’. Stable deposit balances are those that are considered to have the lowest propensity to be withdrawn during times of stress…

Comments received

Submissions [from banks] suggested including client relationship characteristics, such as the term of a relationship, the number of products and the use of a relationship manager, to assist categorisation of the deposit. They also proposed that dormant accounts be classified as stable due to their expected inactivity in a stress event and that self-managed super fund (SMSF) deposits be eligible to be classified as stable deposits as the trustee overseeing the SMSF deposit account is not necessarily a financially sophisticated individual.

APRA - Implementing Basel III Liquidity Reforms in Australia, page 17

APRA – Implementing Basel III Liquidity Reforms in Australia, page 17

In other words, “financially sophisticated” people won’t be stupid enough to keep their money in the bank if a crisis looms on the horizon. Their deposits are “less stable”.

People who are “not necessarily financially sophisticated” will leave their money in the bank. Their deposits are “stable”.

Somewhat amusingly (to this blogger), the bankers want to classify the deposits of Self-Managed Super Fund trustees in the same “stable” category as “dormant” accounts. They consider SMSF trustees to be idiots — “not necessarily financially sophisticated individuals” — who won’t try to withdraw their money.

Under the new FSB-directed global regime agreed to by the G20 in 2010 — now being implemented by Australia, Canada, Europe, the UK and USA — just as in Cyprus, all “unsophisticated” bank depositors will get screwed overnight.

Or more likely, over weekend.

It is also worth noting the bankers’ views on internet access to bank accounts in a “crisis” (ie, possible bank run scenario):

A number of submissions objected to the inclusion of internet access as a criterion in the less stable deposit scorecard. These submissions argued that means of access was not a strong indicator of withdrawal propensity and it should be removed from the scorecard; instead, greater emphasis should be placed on deposit size as this was more consistent with ADI experience.

APRA: Implementing Basel III Liquidity Reforms in Australia

APRA: Implementing Basel III Liquidity Reforms in Australia, page 17

In other words, the banks are confident that your having internet access does not necessarily mean that you are more likely to get your money out in a crisis. Given the number of times our banks have mysteriously suffered from internet banking “outages” in recent years, I’m not surprised. It’s called “economic shock testing” (see Electro-Physics: The Theory Of Economic Warfare).

Do not be deceived by the smokescreen of the “government guarantee” for depositors.

As we have seen in The Bank Deposits Guarantee Is No Guarantee At All, Australia’s so-called “guarantee” for deposits up to $250,000 only provides for up to $20 billion in Federal (borrowed) money per bank — less than 1/10th of the amount that each of the Big Four has in (electronic) obligations to bank account depositors (ie, “creditors”).

Or should I say, it “only promises to provide for up to $20 billion…”.

There is no money actually set aside to “guarantee” any depositors.

As confirmed in the APRA document, page 15:

Fully guaranteed retail deposits

The revised Basel III liquidity framework includes an additional retail deposit category for deposits that are fully insured under a pre-funded deposit insurance scheme. The deposit insurance scheme in Australia, the Financial Claims Scheme (FCS), is not pre-funded and, as such, this category is not relevant for domestic deposits.

APRA, 'Implementing Basel III Liquidity Reforms In Australia'

APRA, ‘Implementing Basel III Liquidity Reforms In Australia’

You have been warned.

Australian banks not only have ten times more in deposit obligations than the government has guaranteed promised to provide as insurance for each bank’s eligible deposits.

As of March 2013, the banks also have a new record $21.5 Trillion in Off-Balance Sheet “business” that is mostly derivatives; an increase of $2.5 Trillion in the March quarter alone, including a $2.2 Trillion increase in Interest Rate derivative contracts:

Screen shot 2013-07-10 at 6.24.32 PM

In the APRA document on implementing the Basel III bank liquidity reforms, we learn that the “cash outflow rate” for derivatives positions will be rated at 100 per cent of their measured value:

Additional derivatives risks

The revised framework includes a number of additional collateral outflow categories designed to ensure that risks associated with derivative positions are correctly captured in the LCR. The cash outflow rate for these categories is 100 per cent of the measured value.

APRA: Implementing Basel III Bank Liquidity Reforms, page 16

APRA: Implementing Basel III Liquidity Reforms In Australia, page 16

… while derivatives that are (supposedly) “secured” by so-called “High Quality Liquid Assets” — limited to cash; central bank reserves that “can be drawn down in times of stress”; and “marketable securities representing claims on or claims guaranteed by sovereigns, quasi-sovereigns, central banks and multilateral development banks, that have undoubted liquidity, even during stressed market conditions, and that are assigned a zero risk-weight under the Basel II standardised approach to credit risk” — these will have a cash outflow rate deemed to be zero per cent:

Derivatives secured by HQLA

The revised framework has clarified that where a derivative cash flow is secured with HQLA1, a cash outflow rate of zero per cent is to be applied.

APRA: Implementing Basel III Bank Liquidity Reforms, page 16

APRA: Implementing Basel III Liquidity Reforms In Australia, page 16

Remember that the cash outflow rate is determined by the perceived risk of it actually “flowing out”.

In the case of the form of “liquidity” known as “deposits”, APRA says (page 16) that “Stable deposit balances are those that are considered to have the lowest propensity to be withdrawn during times of stress and, hence, receive a low three or five per cent cash outflow rate. Less stable deposits are considered to have a higher propensity to be withdrawn and as a result, depending on deposit characteristics, receive a 10 per cent or higher cash outflow rate.”

So, in an actual crisis situation, just how much of the banks’ $21.5 Trillion in Off-Balance Sheet “business” will have a “cash outflow rate” of 100 per cent, and how much will have a cash outflow rate of zero per cent?

Who knows.

But one thing I do know.

I’d not want to have any of my money in a bank on the day — make that, the weekend — when we all find out.

Advertisements

EU Confirms Plan For Cyprus-Style Theft of Bank Deposits

6 Jul

As warned here repeatedly…

G20 Governments All Agreed To Cyprus-Style Theft Of Bank Deposits… In 2010

Federal Reserve Governor Confirms – Bank Depositors Will Be Cyprused

Growing Political Deception On Bank Deposits Theft

The Bankers’ Net Is Closing

Federal Reserve Says Bank Bail-Ins Coming To The USA

… the internationalist banksters’ plan to set up a global regime for “resolution” of failing banks, wherein governments will give themselves free reign to “bail-in” the banks using depositors’ savings, is now slowly but surely being enacted by governments worldwide.

From The Telegraph (UK):

EU makes bank creditors bear losses as Cyprus bail-in becomes blue-print for rescues

New European Union “bail-in” rules to impose the losses of failed banks on shareholders, bondholders and some large depositors were agreed early this morning by Europe’s finance ministers.

…Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the chairman of the Eurogroup of finance ministers, hailed the agreement as a major step towards a “banking union” and away from state funded aid to recapitalise or bailout troubled banks across Europe.

…Greg Clark, the financial secretary to the Treasury, declared that Britain was happy with the new rules after securing concessions allowing governments flexibility on how to tailor bank “resolution” to national circumstances and existing British arrangements on banking levies.

…Under the deal, after 2018 bank shareholders will be first in line for assuming the losses of a failed bank before bondholders and certain large depositors. Insured deposits under £85,000 (€100,000) are exempt and, with specific exemptions, uninsured deposits of individuals and small companies are given preferred status in the bail-in pecking order for taking losses.

It is most important to recall what we have shown previously.

Do not be fooled into believing that, because Australia’s government has “guaranteed” (ie, insured) bank deposits up to $250,000, that this means your savings are safe, and that a failing Aussie bank will not be “bailed-in” using your money.

The government’s “guarantee” is limited, to just $20 billion per failed bank.

That’s less than one-tenth of the total amount of customer deposits — digital bookkeeping entries — actually “held” by Australian banks.

(see The Bank Deposits Guarantee Is No Guarantee At All )

To the best of my knowledge, Australia’s politicians have not yet begun to legislate the new, FSB-mandated and G20-agreed bank “bail-in” regime here.

But when they do, your savings will be exposed to confiscation.

Just as intended:

Earlier on Monday, Bank of England Deputy Governor Paul Tucker said the EU law on bank recovery and resolution would be a milestone towards a global system.

Federal Reserve Says Bank Bail-Ins Coming To The USA

26 Jun
Click to enlarge

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.

Growing Political Deception On Bank Deposits Theft

4 Jun

Truth-Lies

On All Fool’s Day 2013, this blog published the exposé — since cross-posted on globalresearch.ca — that G20 Governments All Agreed to Cyprus-Style Theft Of Bank Deposits In 2010.

It is telling to observe how politicians (and the media) worldwide are using the deceitful art of sophistry to obscure this truth.

As they all begin to pass the necessary legislation to enact what they have already agreed to — in secret, without providing clear and transparent advice to the public — they are seeking to subtly imply that these measures are needed as a result of what happened in Cyprus.

When the truth is, little Cyprus was just the first test case for implementing the Goldman Sachs-headed internationalist Financial Stability Board’s new bank “bail-in” regime, agreed to by all G20 Prime Ministers and Presidents nearly 3 years ago.

Ponder carefully the emphasised passage in the following Reuter’s news story:

EU draft bank rescue law would not shield big deposits

(Reuters) – A draft law that a group of European Union lawmakers voted for on Monday would shield small depositors from losing their savings in future bank rescues, but customers with more than 100,000 euros in savings when a bank failed could suffer losses.

A group of lawmakers in the European Parliament’s economics committee overwhelmingly voted that, from 2016, large depositors in the EU might suffer losses if a bank gets into serious trouble. The plan was similar to a deal in Cyprus, where wealthy depositors at two banks took hits to save the country from bankruptcy.

Under the EU proposal, a bank would dip into large deposits of over 100,000 euros once it had exhausted other avenues such as shareholders and bondholders. But deposits under 100,000 euros would be spared.

“The case in Cyprus showed how important it is to have clear procedures for making shareholders, bondholders and ultimately depositors foot the bill,” a press release from the committee said after the vote.

See what I mean? The Cyprus “bail-in” test case, deceitfully used as an example of why governments supposedly need to pass legislation for “similar” actions in their own countries … legislation that they already agreed to pass anyway, nearly 3 years ago.

EU finance ministers agreed last week that large, uninsured depositors should be subject to losses but some countries may still seek some flexibility on how they wind down their banks.

The “finance ministers” agreed, “last week”?

This is a deception.

As shown previously, the Prime Ministers and Presidents of the G20 nations all agreed to the policy framework laid down by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) at the Seoul G20 Summit, way back in 2010.

A framework that explicitly includes “bail-in” of banks, using the deposits (i.e, savings) of bank “creditors”:

“Carry out bail-in within resolution as a means to achieve or help achieve continuity of essential functions…”

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

There is something else that is very important to note.

The FSB, politicians, bankers, and bureaucrats all want you to believe that these new procedures might only place at some risk the savings of so-called “large” or “big” depositors.

This is untrue.

The FSB-recommended “powers” for the G20 nations’ new bank “resolution authorities” exhibit Orwellian deception and moral relativism at their finest. Embedded within their recommended “Safeguards”, is a caveat allowing those “resolution authorities” to act with impunity when it comes to the theft of depositors’ money:

“Resolution powers should be exercised in a way that respects the hierarchy of claims while providing flexibility to depart from the general principle of equal (pari passu) treatment of creditors of the same class…”

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

In other words, whether you have more than (say) 100,000 Euro/Dollars/Pounds deposited in a bank, or less, it is recommended (by Goldman Sachs’ FSB) that G20 governments legislate powers enabling their “resolution authorities” the “flexibility” to treat you any way they see fit.

“Equal treatment” is only a “general principle” to these people.

You may be wondering, if G20 governments all agreed to this way back in 2010, then why are we only now seeing nations from Canada to Europe beginning to draft and pass bank “bail-in” legislation, behind a smokescreen of lies and deceit?

As can be seen from the FSB press release of November 2011:

“Implementation of these measures will begin from 2012. Full implementation is targeted for 2019.”

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Some nations’ politicians are simply moving faster than others, in the coordinated drive towards the ultimate goal of stealing your savings, in order to “bail-in” so-called “systemically important” banks:

Earlier on Monday, Bank of England Deputy Governor Paul Tucker said the EU law on bank recovery and resolution would be a milestone towards a global system.

Federal Reserve Governor Confirms – Bank Depositors Will Be Cyprused

20 Apr

Recently your humble blogger pointed out the original source documents proving that G20 Governments ALL Agreed To Cyprus-Style Theft Of Bank Deposits … In 2010.

Today, we draw your attention to a speech from Governor Jeremy C Stein of the Federal Reserve Bank just 3 days ago, confirming that US bank depositors will be Cyprused:

I will focus my remarks today on the ongoing regulatory challenges associated with large, systemically important financial institutions, or SIFIs. In part, this focus amounts to asking a question that seems to be on everyone’s mind these days: Where do we stand with respect to fixing the problem of “too big to fail” (TBTF)? Are we making satisfactory progress, or it is time to think about further measures?

I should note at the outset that solving the TBTF problem has two distinct aspects. 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.

Errr … as we keep saying, creditors of banks (ie, the depositors) ARE taxpayers.

…if .. a SIFI does fail, the orderly liquidation authority (OLA) in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act now offers a mechanism for recapitalizing and restructuring the institution by imposing losses on shareholders and creditors.

Mohamed El-Erian was right.

Cash out while you still can.

Infographic: Cyprus Bank Deposits Confiscation

5 Apr

With thanks to “Oto”, creator of the superb demonocracy.info, comes this infographic on Cyprus:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Do check out the higher resolution version – with even more info – at demonocracy.info

G20 Governments All Agreed To Cyprus-Style Theft Of Bank Deposits … In 2010

1 Apr
FSB - G-SIFI, Nov 4, 2011 (click to enlarge)

FSB – G-SIFI, Nov 4, 2011 (click to enlarge)

November 11-12, 2010.

Armistice Day.

That is when all the major governments of the G20 first agreed to implement the new, Cyprus-style “bail-in” regime, at the direction of the internationalist Financial Stability Board under its new, GFC-enabled “broadened mandate”

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

The pretext?

Financial stability, of course.

“Addressing the ‘too-big-to-fail’ problem”.

With a “new international standard”.

Specifically, “to enable authorities to resolve failing financial firms in an orderly manner without exposing the taxpayer to the risk of loss.”

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

One cannot help but laugh at the Orwellian doublespeak slogans used by the architects of this new regime.

To address the problem of “systemically important” banks, “without exposing the taxpayer to the risk of loss,” our puppet politicians have agreed to confiscate … the savings of taxpayers.

Yes, today is All Fools’ Day. And no, you can’t make this $h!t up.

You may be thinking that this excerpt from an FSB press release does not prove that the G20 have specifically agreed to confiscation of bank deposits. And you would be correct.

As with all such schemes, it is not intended that the public will easily discover what has been planned. You have to wade carefully through all the verbose (and deliberately obtuse) technocrat-ese, and cross-reference the supporting documents (and their annexes), in order to discover just what our G20 attendee politicians – geniuses like “World’s Greatest Treasurer” Wayne Swan – have actually signed up to.

And to find the smoking gun.

One with the word B A I L – I N stamped clearly on its barrel.

cartoon_stickup-cyprus-bank_robbery_of_the_cypriot_people

First, in the FSB press release of 4 Nov 2011 we are told that the G20 allegedly “asked the FSB to develop a policy framework to address the systemic and moral hazard risks associated with systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs).”

Next, in Seoul 2010, “G20 leaders endorsed this framework and the timelines and processes for its implementation.”

That framework is set out in the FSB’s “Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions” (pdf).

In the preamble of that document, we learn that one of the objectives is to make it possible for “unsecured and uninsured creditors to absorb losses.”  Meaning, if your savings are not covered by some form of government guarantee or federal insurance (for all that is worth) – or if, as in Australia, the government bank deposits guarantee is limited to an amount significantly less than (ie, 1/10th) the total of actual bank deposits held by the public – then your bank account can be made to “absorb losses”. And as we will see shortly, this can be done entirely without your consent –

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

In the sub-points of the preamble, we see that G20 governments are expected to “have in place a recovery and resolution plan (“RRP”) … containing all elements set out in Annex III.”

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Each jurisdiction is required to set up a “Resolution authority”, which is to be “responsible for exercising the resolution powers over firms…”

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

The Resolution authority’s powers are most interesting. For example, we can all applaud the idea that such an authority could (not that they actually would) “claw-back” bankers’ bonuses –

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

What is of serious concern though, is its power to “transfer or sell assets and liabilities, legal rights and obligations, including deposit liabilities and ownership in shares, to a solvent third party,”without consent

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

This is confirmed in Key Attribute 3.3, where it is clearly stated that any transfer of a bank’s assets or liabilities (ie, deposits) by the authority “should not require the consent of any interested party or creditor to be valid”, and, that any such action will not be deemed a “default” of the bank’s legal obligations –

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Now if you are still sceptical that all this means the G20 have specifically agreed to a new regime that might include provisions for a Cyprus-style “bail-in” using depositors’ savings, then perhaps it is because you – like me – would be looking for this exact phrase in order to be fully convinced.

Yes, it is there. 

Lucky number (ix) in the “powers” (page 7-8) of the Resolution authority that each of the G20 governments agreed to establish, back in 2010 –

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Note that not only can the Resolution authority use a “bail-in” to support “continuity of essential functions” of a failing bank; it can also do so in order to finance the setting up of a new third party or “bridge” institution, into which the failed (“non-viable”) bank’s assets or liabilities (ie, your savings) can be transferred. Not so you can get your money back, but for the purpose of “capitalising” the new institution.

At that other elite lucky number (xi), we see another power; to shut banks, suspend payments to customers (except for payments to “central counterparties”, ie, to central banks, quelle surprise), and impose a “stay” on actions by creditors (eg, deposit holders) to “collect money”

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

You may have noticed that the “bail-in” power at (ix) referenced Key Attribute 3.5. There, we see that the power to carry out a bail-in “should” (how comforting) be performed “in a manner that respects the hierarchy of claims in liquidation.” This no doubt will reassure the more gullible reader that there is nothing nefarious in this plan; that it is clearly intended that the traditional hierarchy of claims in a bank insolvency would be respected

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

So, what exactly is the “hierarchy of claims” under this new FSB-dictated regime? Again we have to refer to another section (Key Attribute 5.1) to find the answer.  Which does indeed appear to support the traditional hierarchy of claims. Except for this stunning caveat –

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

It is worth repeating –

“Resolution powers should be exercised in a way that respects the hierarchy of claims while providing flexibility to depart from the general principle of equal (pari passu) treatment of creditors of the same class…”

Moral relativism at its finest.

This is what has happened in Cyprus. While the final details are still evolving as to exactly how much Cypriot depositors holding more, or less, than €100k will have stolen from them, what is clear is that this FSB template for bail-ins in G20 nations or “jurisdictions” (EU), is the one being followed.

What is also clear, especially in light of recent revelations that Canada has expressly identified “bail-in” procedures in their 2013 Budget, is that all Western governments have, unbeknown to their citizens and without their consent, agreed to the imposition of the same new regime for managing insolvent banks.

A regime devised, and dictated by, an unelected central body.

Feel free to check these documents for yourself, here (pdf) and here (pdf).

Are you wondering who and what is the Financial Stability Board?

According to their website:

The FSB has been established to coordinate at the international level the work of national financial authorities and international standard setting bodies and to develop and promote the implementation of effective regulatory, supervisory and other financial sector policies. It brings together national authorities responsible for financial stability in significant international financial centres, international financial institutions, sector-specific international groupings of regulators and supervisors, and committees of central bank experts.

A list of institutions represented on the FSB can be found here .

The FSB is chaired by Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of Canada. Its Secretariat is located in Basel, Switzerland, and hosted by the Bank for International Settlements.

Got that?

A kind of “super regulator”. Chaired currently by a Goldman Sachs man. With membership comprising the central bankers, treasury department heads, and prudential regulators of 24 nations, along with the IMF, World Bank, and a cavalcade of others.

Including – and “hosted by” – the central bank of central banks.

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

According to its Articles of Association, the FSB is also funded by the BIS –

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

According to its updated Charter (pdf), the FSB received its original mandate from the central bankers and Finance Ministers of the G7 nations in 1999.

It then received a “broadened mandate” from the “Heads of State and Government of the Group of Twenty” at a meeting in London on April 2, 2009 –

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

At the same meeting, another now-infamous Goldman Sachs alumnus and current President of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, was appointed Chairman of the FSB

FSB - History (click to enlarge)

FSB – History (click to enlarge)

So… the hapless G20 heads of government, panicking in the midst of the GFC, gave the fonts of central banking wisdom at the FSB a “broadened mandate”, and “asked” them “to develop a policy framework to address the systemic and and moral hazard risks associated with systemically important financial institutions”, did they?

And under the consecutive chairmanships of Goldman Sachs men, these unelected bankers and bureaucrats – not one of whom warned of the approaching GFC – devised this “bail-in” policy for the whole of the G20, to solve the problem of Too-Big-To-Fail banks?

As the Machiavellian-minded so often say:

“Never let a good crisis go to waste”

See also:

Imagine A World With No Banks

The People’s NWO: Every Man His Own Central Banker

%d bloggers like this: