Tag Archives: G20

Australian Banks Demand Protection From Derivatives Losses Under Bail-In Plan

8 Aug

DeathStarFiring2

It has been well-documented by others that the Cyprus-style bank “bail-in” scheme that is presently being prepared right across the G20, is really all about derivatives — those “financial weapons of mass destruction” that were at the heart of the GFC in 2008 (see Derivatives Managed By Mega-Banks Threaten Your Bank Account).

To briefly summarise, a critical aspect of what the bail-in scheme is intended to do, is to prioritise the payment of banks’ derivatives obligations to each other, ahead of depositors. In other words, it is about stealing the public’s bank deposits, to pay out at least some of the big banks’ Death Star-massive — and toxic — derivatives positions.

Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism explains:

In the US, depositors have actually been put in a worse position than Cyprus deposit-holders, at least if they are at the big banks that play in the derivatives casino. The regulators have turned a blind eye as banks use their depositories to fund derivatives exposures. And as bad as that is, the depositors, unlike their Cypriot confreres, aren’t even senior creditors. Remember Lehman? When the investment bank failed, unsecured creditors (and remember, depositors are unsecured creditors) got eight cents on the dollar. One big reason was that derivatives counterparties require collateral for any exposures, meaning they are secured creditors. The 2005 bankruptcy reforms made derivatives counterparties senior to unsecured lenders.

Note carefully that last point about the “collateral” for derivatives exposures, which means that derivatives counterparties are deemed “secured” creditors, making them “senior” to unsecured “lenders”.

In layman’s terms, what all that means is that when banks take out a derivatives bet, the bank on the other side of that bet (the “counterparty”) requires some collateral to be put up. Thanks to deregulation of the financial system over the past couple of decades, banks have — unbeknown to the public — been putting up their customers deposits as collateral for their derivatives bets.

Now, because collateral (or “security”) has been put up for those derivatives bets (or “positions”), this means that those bets are considered “secured”. And in a bank “resolution” (ie, a “bail-in”), the secured creditor has seniority (ie, priority) over “unsecured” creditors (ie, depositors).

Got that?

The big banks are all counterparties to each other on their derivatives bets. They have pledged “collateral” — often, your deposits — as “security” on those derivatives bets. When a bank fails, and is “resolved” under the new, FSB-directed bail-in regime, payouts on those “secured” derivatives bets get priority over paying you back your deposit.

Here at barnabyisright.com, we have recently been looking at the documents going back and forth between the Australian Treasury and the Australian banks. And it is here that we find confirmation of what has been reported by Yves Smith and others.

In the Australian Financial Markets Association (AFMA) 11 January 2013 letter in reply to the Australian Treasury’s September 2012 consultation paper, Strengthening APRA’s Crisis Management Powers,” we see clearly that our banks consider the issue of how derivatives would be handled in a bank bail-in to be “critical”:

Legal certainty around the enforceability of the netting and collateral arrangements in connection with OTC derivatives is critical to the stability of the market.

AFMA, January 2013, page 14

AFMA, January 2013, page 14

In particular, what the banks are concerned with — so much so, they call it a “guiding principle” in their response to Treasury — is ensuring that the implementation of bail-ins in Australia will “include appropriate respect for…collateral rights”, with safeguards to protect their derivatives positions against “destruction of value”:

Governing our response to the Consultation Paper are three guiding principles:

Ensuring consistent treatment of transactional claims relating to derivatives and other financial instrument, including appropriate respect for netting and collateral rights, subject to safeguards to avoid destruction of value.

AFMA, January 2013, page 2

AFMA, January 2013, page 2

The international bankers (the Financial Stability Board) who are behind the G20-wide bank bail-in scheme, have sought to portray it as being designed to “resolve” failing banks, while at the same time, “protecting” bank depositors.

However, the truth is that the FSB bail-in scheme is really designed to ensure that the mega-banks — “systemically important financial institutions (SIFI)” — will receive priority for payout on their derivatives positions, in any “resolution” of a failing bank.

Because for the bankers, propping themselves and their compadres up is all that matters. What we call “theft”, they call “ensuring financial system stability”.

According to the RBA, our banking system holds $21.5 Trillion in “Off-Balance Sheet” derivatives exposures:

Screen shot 2013-07-10 at 6.24.32 PM

Over $15 Trillion of that is the “value” of derivatives betting on interest rates.

In the “bail-in” of an Australian bank, do you really think there would be anything left to pay you back your deposit, after the banks get “seniority” for payout on their “secured” derivative positions?

See also:

Australian Banks “Welcome” Cyprus-Style Bail-In Plan

IMF Tells Australian Lawmakers To “Prevent Premature Disclosure Of Sensitive Information” On Bank Bail-Ins

Australia Plans Cyprus-Style “Bail-In” Of Banks In 2013-14 Budget

Advertisements

IMF Tells Australian Lawmakers To “Prevent Premature Disclosure Of Sensitive Information” On Bank Bail-Ins

17 Jul

IMF_technote_Nov2012

IMF: Financial Safety Net and Crisis Management Framework, November 2012, page 4 (click to enlarge)

IMF: Financial Safety Net and Crisis Management Framework, November 2012, page 4 (click to enlarge)

IMF: Financial Safety Net and Crisis Management Framework, November 2012, page 5 (click to enlarge)

IMF: Financial Safety Net and Crisis Management Framework, November 2012, page 5 (click to enlarge)

 

Orwell would be impressed with this.

In a November 2012 Technical Note on the Financial Sector Program Update for Australia, as part of their Financial Safety Net and Crisis Management Framework, the IMF has advised that there is a problem (my bold emphasis added):

Past simulation exercises revealed the need for legislative changes to prevent premature disclosure of sensitive information. Australia’s securities disclosure regime requires, for the protection of investors, immediate and continuous disclosure of information that could reasonably be expected to have a material effect on the price or value of an ADI’s securities. There is a high probability that any resolution or crisis response measures will impact the price or value of an authorized deposit-taking institution’s (ADI’s) securities.

Poor coordination of compliance with the disclosure requirements, timing of resolution or crisis response actions, and the overall public communication strategy regarding these actions could pose risks to financial stability (e.g., through depositor runs) or thwart resolution actions (e.g., through the stripping of the ADI’s assets by insiders) or cause market disruptions. Legislative changes that reduce tension between investor protection and financial stability should be pursued.

“Reduce tension” between investor protection and financial stability?!

By making laws to “prevent premature disclosure of sensitive information”?!?!

In order to prevent bank runs, which would happen if investors were to find out that a Cyprus-style “resolution or crisis response measure” is in the offing for the bank that they have their money in?!?!!!!

Truly, moral relativism is one of The greatest evils of our time.

These people have no Conscience.

None.

UPDATE:

The Treasury department put this problem to the banks in their September 2012 Consultation Paper, with a proposal to suspend the continuous disclosure requirements:

Australian Treasury, Strengthening APRA’s Crisis Management Powers, September 2012, page 26 (click to enlarge)

Australian Treasury, Strengthening APRA’s Crisis Management Powers, September 2012, page 26 (click to enlarge)

Australian Treasury, Strengthening APRA's Crisis Management Powers, September 2012, page 29 (click to enlarge)

Australian Treasury, Strengthening APRA’s Crisis Management Powers, September 2012, page 29 (click to enlarge)

… and unsurprisingly, the banks have agreed to it:

AFMA, letter to Australian Treasury, January 2013, pp 7-8 (click to enlarge)

AFMA, letter to Australian Treasury, January 2013, pp 7-8 (click to enlarge)

Australian Banks “Welcome” Cyprus-Style Bail-In Plan

17 Jul
AFMA letter to Australian Treasury, 11 January 2013, page 5 (click to enlarge)

AFMA letter to Australian Treasury, 11 January 2013, page 5 (click to enlarge)

On 11 January 2013, the Australian Financial Markets Association (AFMA) responded to the Australian Treasury regarding the government’s Consultation Paper (September 2012) Strengthening APRA’s Crisis Management Powers.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

There is much of interest in AFMA’s letter.

But this (page 5) is arguably the “money quote” that should be of most interest to Aussies with savings in a bank:

“The FSB’s Key Attributes lays out its principles for executing a bail-in within resolution. We welcome the role of the bail-in tool for a resolution.”

The Australian Treasury’s consultation paper further evidences that the internationalist, Goldman-Sachs chaired, FSB-directed new regime for Cyprus-style bail-in of banks using depositors savings was endorsed by the G20:

Australian Treasury, Strengthening APRA's Crisis Management Powers, September 2012, page 4 (click to enlarge)

Australian Treasury, Strengthening APRA’s Crisis Management Powers, September 2012, page 4 (click to enlarge)

Treasury_StrengtheningAPRA_cover

… and that bail-in of Australian banks is an FSB requirement, one that will be enforced by APRA as Australia’s “resolution authority”, under new “robust statutory powers”:

Australian Treasury, Strengthening APRA's Crisis Management Powers, September 2012, page 5 (click to enlarge)

Australian Treasury, Strengthening APRA’s Crisis Management Powers, September 2012, page 5 (click to enlarge)

More to come.

See also:

Australia Plans Cyprus-Style “Bail-In” Of Banks In 2013-14 Budget

Timeline For “Bail-In” Of G20 Banking System

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

Australia Plans Cyprus-Style “Bail-In” Of Banks In 2013-14 Budget

10 Jul
page 134, Portfolio Budget Statements, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, Australian Government Budget 2013-14. CLICK TO ENLARGE

page 134, Portfolio Budget Statements, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, Australian Government Budget 2013-14.

I found it.

As predicted. Apologies it took so long.

Unsurprisingly, the evidence was fairly well buried. Naturally, the government does not want you to know what they are doing.

Just like the Canadian government did in March, and just as Europe, the USA and the UK have now done, the Australian government too is now beginning to make good on its 2010 G20 commitment to implement the Goldman Sachs-chaired, internationalist Financial Stability Board’s new regime for bailing out the banks using depositors’ money.

On page 134 of the Australian Government Budget 2013-14 Portfolio Budget Statements, under the section for the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, we find the first of APRA’s main strategic objectives for 2013-14.  It can be effectively summarised as “business as usual”.

Their second strategic objective for 2013-14, is to:

  • consolidate the prudential framework by enhancing prudential standards where appropriate, in line with the global reform initiatives endorsed by the G20 and overseen by the Financial Stability Board; [see image at top of this post]

Those “global reform initiatives endorsed by the G20” include the FSB plan to “bail-in” insolvent banks:

Click to enlarge

FSB: ‘Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions’, Annex III (click to enlarge)

In the waffle that follows, we find further that:

APRA will focus on implementing the new global bank liquidity framework in Australia…

page 134, Portfolio Budget Statements, APRA, Australian Government Budget 2013-14

page 134, Portfolio Budget Statements, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, Australian Government Budget 2013-14.

This is likely referring in particular to the Basel III International Framework For Liquidity Risk Measurement, Standards, and Monitoring.

When published in combination with the previously mentioned strategic objective to “consolidate the prudential framework… in line with the global reform initiatives endorsed by the G20 and overseen by the Financial Stability Board”, the implication is crystal clear.

“Global bank liquidity framework” is really just technocrat-ese for “global bankster plan to prop up insolvent banks using other people’s money, and so instantly impoverish everyone who still has any savings left”.

For further proof that what this all means is the Australian government planning to steal your money to “bail-in” so-called “systemically-important financial institutions” (SIFI’s) — under the orders of an unelected international body (of bankers and bureaucrats) you’ve never heard of; a body funded by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and chaired consecutively by Goldman Sachs alumni — then please study the detailed primary source evidence in this blog’s original breaking story published on April 1st –

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

That’s something else to thank our recently-deposed PM Julia Gillard for doing, without our knowledge or permission.

 

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.

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: