Tag Archives: IMF

IMF Calls For 10% “Tax” On All EU Households With “Positive Wealth”

20 Oct
Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Still on hiatus, but had to share this.

From the International Monetary Fund (IMF) October 2013 Fiscal Monitor: Taxing Times, page 49 (my bold added):

Box 6. A One-Off Capital Levy?

The sharp deterioration of the public finances in many countries has revived interest in a “capital levy”— a one-off tax on private wealth—as an exceptional measure to restore debt sustainability. The appeal is that such a tax, if it is implemented before avoidance is possible and there is a belief that it will never be repeated, does not distort behavior (and may be seen by some as fair) …

Yes, no doubt “some” of those who have enjoyed the benefits of debt-financed “prosperity” would see a raid on households with real savings as “fair”.

… There is a surprisingly large amount of experience to draw on, as such levies were widely adopted in Europe after World War I and in Germany and Japan after World War II…

We’ve done it before. Why not do it again?

… Reviewed in Eichengreen (1990), this experience suggests that more notable than any loss of credibility was a simple failure to achieve debt reduction, largely because the delay in introduction gave space for extensive avoidance and capital flight

Hurry up. Take the prudent savers’ money, before they find out what we’re planning.

… The tax rates needed to bring down public debt to precrisis levels, moreover, are sizable: reducing debt ratios to end-2007 levels would require (for a sample of 15 euro area countries) a tax rate of about 10 percent on households with positive net wealth.

And there are still some — usually those pillorying excessive private debt — who argue that the level of public debt does not matter.

Some excellent commentary on this IMF document from John Ward at The Slog here.

In other news, it appears the USA has begun to introduce capital controls. From Sovereign Man, October 16:

The path to tyranny is almost always paved with good intentions.

And so, enter stage left, the innocuously named Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

These government agencies with the catchy, high-sounding names are always the most dangerous. After all, it was the ‘Committee for Public Safety’ that was responsible for wanton genocide during the post revolution Reign of Terror in France.

Recently, the CFPB ‘encouraged’ retail banks in the Land of the Free to ‘help’ their customers regarding international wire transfers. And by ‘help’, they mean prohibit.

Of course it’s all for ‘consumer protection’.. So under the guise of safety and security, several banks will curtail retail customers’ abilities to send international wire transfers.

Chase, for example, will start to limit cash withdrawals and ban business customers from sending international wire transfers from November 17 onward.

And starting October 20th, HSBC USA’s Premier clients will have to wait a minimum of five days before transferring funds to their OWN international accounts!

This is the very nature of capital controls– restricting the free flow of capital across borders until it is trapped inside the country and forcibly denominated in a rapidly devaluing currency.

Moral of the above: If your government knows you have it, they will take it.

IMF Admits Usury Is The Root Problem Of The Global Financial System

6 Sep


There is much of interest in the IMF’s Financial System Stability Assessment of Australia, published in November 2012.  The following line in particular caught my eye, and is worthy of comment. The context is the IMF’s consideration of what are the “key risks” to our banking system (page 10-11):

Pressure on the net interest margin, which accounts for almost two-thirds of operating income, has the potential to encourage more risk-taking by banks in order to preserve profitability.

Thoughtful readers will observe that this statement unintentionally lends direct support to a fundamental argument your humble blogger has made — that usury is the root problem of the global monetary system, and that fractional reserve banking (or endogenous money creation) is only a secondary problem.

Consider again the conclusion to my recent post, IMF Economist Says Banks’ Key Function Is To CREATE Money:

As we have oft-repeated here at barnabyisright.com, while this power to “create money” ex nihilo (out of nothing) is a key problem, it is not THE root problem.

The power to create “money” (in the form of debt) out of nothing, simply gives banks leverage.

What they leverage, is Usury.

The “net interest income” — that is, the difference (or “spread” or “margin”) between the interest % they give on deposits, and the interest % they take on loans — is the heart of the banks’ profit (and power) business model.

The power to create more and more money (“credit”), simply allows them to magnify (or leverage) their “returns” (profits) on that difference between usury paid, and usury taken.

It deeply saddens your humble blogger that there are so many highly intelligent (far moreso than I), sincere, well-meaning, altruistic men and women in the world who are keenly interested in reforming the financial system for the betterment of humanity … and yet, almost none have yet recognised that usury is the root problem.

The IMF has directly admitted that the root of banks’ profit-making model is net interest income, and that pressure on the “margin” between what they charge in interest for loans, and must offer in interest on deposits, “has the potential to encourage more risk-taking by banks in order to preserve profitability”.

What exactly is meant by “more risk-taking”?

In the footnote (3) to the IMF’s comment, we are told that:

“Riskier activities could include, for example, loosening underwriting standards or expanding too quickly into new business or geographic regions.”

In other words, making it easier for more people to borrow more debt.

Using the leverage of increased fractional reserve / endogenous money creation.

Barnaby Is Right … is right.

See also:

Looking For A Root

A Tale Of Usury, Explosions, And A Used Car Salesman

A History Of The Legal Case Against Usury

An Historical Warning For Proponents Of A Modern Debt Jubilee

Treasury Ignores Housing Sector In Structural Budget Comparison With Ireland

6 Aug


The Australian Treasury’s recent update to its working paper Estimating The Structural Budget Balance Of The Australian Government, makes for interesting reading.

Interesting, in that it provides all the reason needed to put a broom through the entire department.

Why so?

Treasury points to an analysis which shows that the IMF has repeatedly over-estimated Ireland’s true structural budget position, and calls it a “cautionary tale” for Australia:

Box 2: Ireland’s structural budget balance

Changing estimates of Ireland’s structural budget balance provide a cautionary tale, highlighting the difficulty of estimating structural budget balances in real time.

Since the onset of the GFC, the IMF’s estimates of Ireland’s pre-crisis structural budget balance have been revised down significantly. While the IMF initially estimated that Ireland had been close to structural budget balance in 2007, its latest (April 2013) estimate now suggests a structural deficit of around 8½ per cent of potential GDP in 2007 (Chart A).

Australian Treasury, "Estimate The Structural Budget Balance", May 2013, page 10

Australian Treasury, “Estimating The Structural Budget Balance Of The Australian Government”, May 2013, page 10

The authors then promptly ignore the striking similarities between Australia’s structural position now, and Ireland’s pre-GFC:

While part of the revision to the IMF’s pre-crisis estimates of the structural budget balance is due to a lower estimate of potential GDP, the main reason for the change is that these estimates failed to capture the dependence of the fiscal position on an unsustainable boom in the housing sector (Kanda 2010). With residential investment and house prices soaring, property-based taxes grew at a pace well above GDP growth. Failure to recognise at the time that the bulk of these revenues were cyclical led to significant tax cuts and expenditure increases, which created a large structural hole in Ireland’s public finances.

Alas, the ivory-towered Treasury wonks fail to see that this is not just Ireland … this is Australia they are talking about.

They are too busy obsessing over the process of estimating the structural budget balance, to notice the stark similarity in what has actually happened out here in the real economy.

Indeed, it is clear from the paragraph preceding all of this, that the only lesson they have learned from the “international experience”, is not to over-rely on “point estimates” in making their calculations:

The key point to draw from the analysis is not the specific year in which the [Australian] budget returns to structural surplus, but the steady improvement over time. Indeed, international experience has illustrated the difficulties in disentangling temporary and permanent economic influences on the budget, which cautions against overreliance on point estimates of the structural budget balance (see Box 2).

Australian Treasury, Estimating The Structural Budget Balance, May 2013, page 9

Australian Treasury, “Estimating The Structural Budget Balance Of The Australian Government”, May 2013, page 9

Australian Treasury, "Estimating The Structural Budget Balance For Australia", May 2013, page 10

Australian Treasury, “Estimating The Structural Budget Balance For Australia”, May 2013, Box 2, page 10

Er … no.

The “international experience” does not caution against “overreliance on point estimates”.

It cautions against allowing “an unsustainable boom in the housing sector … with residential investment and house prices soaring”.

It cautions against government fiscal policy that relies on “property-based taxes” growing “at a pace well above GDP growth”.

It cautions against “failing to recognise at the time that the bulk of these revenues were cyclical”.

It cautions against “significant tax cuts and expenditure increases” creating “a large structural hole in Australia’s public finances”.

It also cautions against something else.

Allowing technical wonks, with no real world business experience, no commonsense, and no wisdom, to be employed in what is arguably the most important department in the Australian Government.

Is it any surprise that Treasury cannot get any of its budget estimates and projections within a bulls roar of reality?

Their over-educated eggheads cannot see the forest for the trees.

Here is another striking similarity with Ireland, that Treasury doubtless has not noticed either.

When you add the public debt of Australia’s state governments to the federal government debt, Australia’s total public debt position is now worse than Ireland pre-GFC:

Screen shot 2013-08-05 at 7.39.04 PM

Screen shot 2013-08-05 at 7.37.30 PM

And with Australia’s banking system being the most exposed to residential mortgages in the world…


… now you know why Moody’s has warned of an Australian banking system collapse:

The continued strong expansion in real estate loans—at least relative to other lending segments—has raised some eyebrows. The Australian banking sector has the highest exposure to residential mortgages in the world… The high degree of exposure to the domestic mortgage market raises many concerns. Recent experience has shown that house prices can fall significantly and trigger serious banking meltdowns. But what are the chances of a similar housing collapse in Australia? Many international analysts think the chances of an antipodean housing bust are quite high—it would take a bold economist who has been in a decade-long coma to declare that an Australian housing correction was impossible. When trends in Australian house prices are compared globally, the signs look worrying. House prices have increased for longer and faster than in many of the markets where prices cratered during the Great Recession.

With even our panglossian Labor government now predicting rising unemployment, does all this sound rather like Ireland to you?

Can you see the forest … or only the trees?

See also:

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

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

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

Government’s Hand To Dip Right Into Your Bank Account

1 Aug


No surprises here for regular readers.

From today’s Australian Financial Review:

The federal government will prop up the budget bottom line with a new levy on banks that will be badged as providing insurance in case future bailouts are needed.

The Australian Financial Review has learned that the government’s economic statement, set to be released Friday, will contain a deposit insurance levy as recommended by the Council of Financial Regulators, which will raise funds to underwrite any Australian bank should it need assistance in the future.

The proposed levy would be between 0.05 per cent and 0.1 per cent. Presently, the government guarantees deposits up to $250,000 without charging the banks.

Actually, the AFR has it wrong. Or at least, incomplete.

Yes, the Council of Financial Regulators may have “recommended” this.

But the real shot-callers, are the banksters at the IMF and the Financial Stability Board.

Recently, we saw that the IMF criticised the 2007 Rudd Government’s deposits guarantee scheme, introduced in a panic in response to the GFC. They said that, because of the “extreme concentration” in the Australian banking system, the Rudd scheme “increased moral hazard greatly”:

Australia: Financial Safety Net and Crisis Management Framework. Source: IMF (click to enlarge)

Australia: Financial Safety Net and Crisis Management Framework. Source: IMF (click to enlarge)

The IMF’s suggested solution to this “moral hazard” problem, was to make the banks pay “premiums” towards a “reserve fund” that could be used to support payouts under a depositor guarantee.

However, the IMF also noted that even if a requirement for premium contributions was established, Australia’s banking system is so highly concentrated that “it may be difficult to establish a fund of sufficient size that the deposit guarantee would seem credible” –

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

So what we have now, is the Rudd Government doing what the IMF says — introducing a “premium” levy on the banks — to (supposedly) establish a “reserve fund” for the deposits guarantee scheme.

But according to the AFR’s “source”, what the ALP will actually use this fee for, is to fill some of their ever-growing budget black hole:

A senior source said the levy would build up funds “over time” and would take several years to reach the billions. He said it would raise less than $1 billion over the forward estimates but build over the outer years.

The revenue raised by the levy will also be added to the budget bottom line, helping the government offset a forecast plunge in revenues since the May budget and meet its target of returning to surplus in 2016-17.

“It won’t fix the surplus problem in itself but it will help,’’ the source said.

The source said while the money collected would count as revenue, should the fund ever be drawn upon it would count as expenditure.

What we have here, then, is a supposed “fix” to the deposits guarantee scheme.

A “fix” that even the IMF says is not “credible”, because of the “extreme concentration” in our banking sector.

A “fix” that means the banks will now take more money off you (fees), to pay the new levy.

A “fix” that the government will really use for political purposes — to make its ever-deteriorating budget numbers look better.

How long will it be until we get our first bank bail-in, I wonder?

Related info here:

IMF Says Rudd’s Depositor Guarantee Scheme “Increases Moral Hazard Greatly”

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

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

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

Moodys Warns Of Australian Banking Collapse



As I was saying (a week ago). This from the ABC –

Finance Minister Penny Wong would not comment on the reports but says a levy is something the Government has been looking into.

The IMF and the RBA have put a view to the Government for a need for a fund to cover deposit protection,” she said.

Treasurer Chris Bowen is meeting with representatives from the Australian Banking Association in Sydney this afternoon to further consult on a possible deposit-protection levy.

Mr Bowen pointed to a report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which he says highlights a gap in Australia’s public policy when it comes to “provisioning for any potential bank or deposit-taking institution failure”.

As expected.

The government will point to the IMF’s report, as justification for their action.

Conveniently neglecting to mention, of course, that the IMF also indicated that the real problem is the “extreme concentration” in our banking sector, and because of that, establishing a reserve fund is not a credible solution to the problem of convincing depositors (ie, deceiving them into believing) that their deposits are protected.


Reports that the “levy” will raise $733 million; banks to pass on the cost to customers; the money supposedly “quarantined” but the government will add the number to its Budget bottom line anyway, “for accounting purposes” (from the Guardian):

A new levy on Australia’s banks will raise $733m, adding to a tobacco tax rise worth $5.3bn to be unveiled in the Rudd government’s looming economic statement.

The government will create a financial stability fund recommended by the International Monetary Fund, the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Council of Financial Regulators, paid for by the levy on the banks.

The fund is designed as insurance in the event that a big Australian bank requires a bailout owing to global instability.

Er … owing to “global” instability?

We’ve plenty of internal instability to worry about. Just ask Moodys ratings agency.

The levy will be collected by the banking regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, and deposited into a fund administered by a government agency. The money will be quarantined but, for accounting purposes, will go to the bottom line. The measure will help the government meet its surplus target for 2016-17.

The levy is not expected to take effect until January 2016. The government envisages imposing a notional 5 basis points levy on deposits of up to $250,000 for each account holder at every bank, mutual bank or credit union.

Banks are expected to pass the cost of the levy to their customers.

Which just goes to prove what a complete, total deceit a government budget really is.

A mass of shoddy “forecasts” and “projections”, cunning “revisions” and dishonest accounting tricks, all designed to make the government of the day look good .. for one day .. in May .. when they announce it.

IMF Says Rudd’s Depositor Guarantee Scheme “Increases Moral Hazard Greatly”

25 Jul

It’s yet another Rudd Labor disaster, just waiting to happen.

According to the IMF’s November 2012 technical note, Australia: Financial Safety Net and Crisis Management Framework, page 26, not only is there an “extreme concentration” in our banking system; the Financial Claims Scheme (FCS) introduced by the Rudd Government in 2008 “increases moral hazard greatly” –

Australia: Financial Safety Net and Crisis Management Framework. Source: IMF (click to enlarge)

Australia: Financial Safety Net and Crisis Management Framework. Source: IMF (click to enlarge)

Why so?

The IMF says that, unlike “most” similar schemes elsewhere, the Rudd scheme does not require the banks to make any contributions towards pre-funding of the guarantee. The responsibility for funding it, falls on the government. Meaning, the taxpayer.

Indeed, the IMF points out that the government may need to increase the public debt limit above the present $300 billion ceiling, if payouts under the scheme became necessary –

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

The IMF’s suggested solution to this “moral hazard” problem, is to make the banks pay “premiums” towards a “reserve fund” that could be used to support payouts under a depositor guarantee. However, the IMF also notes that even if a requirement for premium contributions was established, Australia’s banking system is so highly concentrated that “it may be difficult to establish a fund of sufficient size that the deposit guarantee would seem credible”

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

When you pause to carefully think this through, merely forcing the banks to pay a premium contribution towards a depositor claims reserve fund is really a rather ridiculous non-solution to the highlighted problem of moral hazard. It is analogous to charging an insurance premium for a policy that promises to pay for the ticket if the banker gets caught speeding –


We have recently seen the evidence in the Portfolio Budget Statements (page 134) for Budget 2013-14 that the government is now well-advanced in preparations for a Cyprus-style “bail-in” of our banks.

We have also seen the recent warning by Moodys ratings agency that our banking system has the world’s highest exposure to mortgages, and so is vulnerable to collapse if house prices fall.

Combine this with the IMF’s warning about Rudd Labor’s rushed and bungled depositor guarantee scheme that “increases moral hazard greatly”, and it is increasingly clear that I will soon have to redraft the debt trajectory chart on the masthead of this blog.

It only goes up to $300 billion.

See also:

The Bank Deposits Guarantee Is No Guarantee At All

Warning Of Global Systemic Crisis 2.0 In Second Half 2013

20 Jul


There are many who take careful notice of the GlobalEurope Anticipation Bulletin (GEAB). I too, have often found it interesting, and insightful.

The latest GEAB is certainly worth reading, and heeding. But not for the obvious, headline reason.

It may be flagging in advance a “reform” agenda, to be triggered as a response to a new, bigger crisis. A reform that some, including myself, have long expected (excerpt-only below):

A situation which is now out of control

The illusions which have still blinded the last remaining optimists are in the process of dissipating. In previous GEAB issues we have already laid out the world economy’s grim picture. Since then the situation has got worse. The Chinese economy confirms its slowdown (1) as well as Australia (2), emerging countries’ currencies are disconnecting (3), bond interest rates are rising, UK salaries are continuing to fall (4), riots are affecting Turkey and even peaceful Sweden (5), the Eurozone is still in recession (6), the news filtering out of the United States is no longer cheerful (7)…

Nervousness is now clearly palpable on all financial markets where the question is no longer knowing when the next record will be but succeeding in getting out soon enough before the stampede. The Nikkei has fallen more than 20% in three weeks during which there have been three sessions with losses exceeding 5%. So, the contagion has now reached the “standard” indices such as the stock exchanges, interest rates, and currency exchange rates… the last bastions still controlled by the central banks and, therefore, totally distorted as our team has repeatedly explained.

In Japan this situation is the result of the over-the-top sized quantitative easing programme undertaken by the central bank. The Yen’s fall has brought about strong inflation in the price of imported goods (particularly oil). The huge swings in the Japanese stock exchange and currency is destabilising the whole of global finance. But the implementation of the Bank of Japan’s programme is so new that its effects are still much less pronounced than those of the Fed’s quantitative easing. It’s primarily the Fed which is responsible for all the current bubbles: real estate in the United States (8), stock exchange record highs, bubbles in and destabilisation of emerging countries (9), etc.

It’s also thanks to it, or rather because of it, that the virtual economy has got going again with even greater intensity and that the necessary balancing hasn’t taken place. The same methods are producing the same effects (10), an increased virtualisation of the economy is leading us to a second crisis in five years, for which the United States is once again responsible. The central banks can’t hold the global economy together indefinitely; at the moment they are losing control.

A second US crisis

If the months of April-May, with a great deal of media hype, seem to agree with the US-UK-Japanese method of monetary easing (to put it mildly) against the Euroland method of reasoned austerity, for several weeks now the champions of all-finance have had a little more difficulty in claiming victory. The IMF, terrified by the global impact of the economic slowdown in Europe, doesn’t know what else to come up with to force Europeans to continue spending and make deficits explode again: even empty boutique World must continue to give the impression that it’s still in business, and Europe isn’t playing the game.

But the toxic effects of central bank operations in Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom now demolish the argument (or rather propaganda) touting the success of the “other method”, supposed to allow recovery in Japan, the US and the United Kingdom (incidentally, the latter has never even been mentioned).

The currently developing second crisis could have been avoided if the world had taken note that the United States, structurally incapable of reforming itself, was unable to implement other methods than those which had led to the 2008 crisis. Like the irresponsible “too big to fail” banks, the “systemically” irresponsible countries should have been placed under supervision from 2009 as suggested from the GEAB n° 28 (October 2008). Unfortunately the institutions of global governance have proved to be completely ineffective and powerless in managing the crisis. Only regional good sense has been able to put it in place; the international arena producing nothing, everyone began to settle their problems in their part of the world.

The other crucial reform advocated (11) since 2009 by the LEAP/E2020 team focused on taking a completely new look at the international monetary system. In 40 years of US trade imbalances and the volatility of its currency, the dollar as the pillar of the international monetary system has been the carrier of all the United States’ colds to the rest of the world, and this destabilising pillar is now at the heart of the global problem because the United States is no longer suffering from a cold but bubonic plague.

Absent having reformed the international monetary system in 2009, a second crisis is coming. With it comes a new window of opportunity to reform the international monetary system at the G20 in September (12) and one almost hopes that the shock happens by then to force an agreement on this subject, otherwise the summit risks taking place too soon to gain everyone’s support.


(1) Source: The New York Times, 08/06/2013.

(2) Source: The Sydney Morning Herald, 05/06/2013. Read also Mish’s Global Economic, 10/06/2013.

(3) Source: CNBC, 12/06/2013.

(4) Source: The Guardian, 12/06/2013.

(5) Read Sweden’s riots, a blazing surprise, The Economist, 01/06/2013.

(6) Source: BBC News, 06/06/2013.

(7) Read Economic dominos falling one by one, MarketWatch, 12/06/2013.

(8) A bubble in current market conditions; normally this would be considered a thrill. Market Oracle, 10/06/2013.

(9) On the consequences of worldwide QE in India: Reuters, 13/06/2013.

(10) The return of financial products at the origin of the 2008 crisis is not insignificant. Source : Le Monde, 11/06/2013.

(11) Cf. GEAB n°29, November 2008.

(12) Source: Ria Novosti, 14/06/2013.


September 2013.

That would be convenient timing.

Since we have now seen the irrefutable evidence that, as agreed at Seoul in 2010, the G20 nations — in particular, the EU, UK, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand — are all now well advanced in their preparations to implement a Cyprus-style “bail-in” of banks.

See Timeline For “Bail-In” Of G20 Banking System.

I’ve said it before, and will again.

Any “new” monetary system that is suggested by the usual suspects — the internationalist IMF, World Bank, FSB, etc, which are all little more than elitist bankster covens — is NOT the new monetary system we should want.

Because it would only ever be, as now, their system. Of their design. For their benefit.

What the world needs is something very different to anything that the bankers would ever promote –

Imagine A World With No Banks

“Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”

– Napoleon, 1815

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

17 Jul


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.



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)

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.

The Bankers’ Net Is Closing

25 Jun


MacroBusiness’ chief economist Leith van Onselen, aka Unconventional Economist, has today posted a video clip from CNBC featuring one Stephen Cecchetti, economic advisor to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). The context of the interview is the recent annual report from the BIS warning against continued “stimulus” by the world’s central banks (my bold emphasis added):

“What we are saying is not that there needs to be immediate austerity, but that the trajectories, the long run health of the balance sheets of the governments in many of the advanced industrialised economies is pretty bad at this point; that with aging populations and with commitments that have been made to the elderly for pension and health care, that the debt that’s created by governments is going to skyrocket, and before it does that they need to implement reforms. Now what this means is that you have to worry about the long run…”

Note the use of the term “trajectories”. This is precisely the description that has been used by our own Barnaby Joyce in making the same warning, since late 2009.

However, that is not the primary point I wish to make here.

What most captured my attention on reading the Unconventional Economists’ post, was the title he chose.

“Are central banks living on borrowed time?”

Presumably this is referring to the BIS’s warning that central banks cannot continue “printing” monetary “stimulus”. But I see a deeper, if unintended truth in that title. I suggest that it might be interpreted literally.

It would not surprise this blogger in the least to see a global scenario begin to play out at some point in the not-too-distant future, one somewhat similar to the following abbreviated plot line:

1. GFC 2.0 — stock markets crash, global credit “squeeze”, economic collapse, mass bank failures.

2. Attempted “bail-in” to “save” banks using account holders’ deposits; proves insufficient, governments “have” to assist anyway.

3. Government balance sheets continue to explode with unsustainable debt; those (like Australia) not yet underwater are now drawn into the maelstrom.

4. Austerity measures plus unemployment lead to social chaos, war/s, etc.

5. Central banks increasingly blamed for (a) failing to foresee trouble, (b) poor interest rate settings leading to high debt levels, thus causing the crisis, and (c) excessive money “printing” in failed attempts to restore the economy.

6. Growing calls for Public Central Banking; (ie) the end of fractional reserve banking, and of “independent” central banks.

7. Under the “guidance” of a Grand Plan designed by a “neutral”, global body — the BIS, IMF, etc — national governments take over control of the money supply in their country — or region.

8. The BIS, IMF etc establish a new “global reserve currency”, that each national / regional currency must be linked to — for “financial stability”.

This scenario is not so far-fetched as some may imagine.

Already there are increasing numbers of “experts” and other august entities arguing for point #6. Perhaps the most prominent example being the IMF’s 2012 paper, “The Chicago Plan Revisited”:

IMF’s epic plan to conjure away debt and dethrone bankers

One could slash private debt by 100pc of GDP, boost growth, stabilize prices, and dethrone bankers all at the same time. It could be done cleanly and painlessly, by legislative command, far more quickly than anybody imagined.

The conjuring trick is to replace our system of private bank-created money — roughly 97pc of the money supply — with state-created money.

We return to the historical norm, before Charles II placed control of the money supply in private hands with the English Free Coinage Act of 1666.

Specifically, it means an assault on “fractional reserve banking”. If lenders are forced to put up 100pc reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exorbitant privilege of creating money out of thin air.

The nation regains sovereign control over the money supply.

And if the sovereign has lost (or loses) control over itself, due to that sovereign debt “trajectory”?

The real question we might ask ourselves is, “Who or what would really control the ‘money’ supply then?”

For my part, the long history of predatory incursions on national sovereignty by the IMF in particular, is reason sufficient to vigorously oppose any idea or suggestion that comes from within their ranks.

Or the BIS ranks.

Remember, it is thanks to the Financial Stability Board (FSB) — an entity under the auspices of the BIS — that the G20 Governments All Agreed To Cyprus-Style Theft of Bank Deposits … In 2010.

The speed with which the FSB co-opted the agreement of the world’s politicians, granting the FSB the power to design a new regulatory system for achieving “financial stability” — in April 2009, mere months after ‘Peak Fear’ in October 2008 — should cause any critically-thinking person to wonder whether this has come about entirely by “unforeseen” accident, or by design.


With thanks to reader Kevin Moore, the following clip offers some insight into why supposedly “neutral”, harmless, above-politics, centralised global bodies such as the IMF, BIS, World Bank et al, should never be trusted –


MacroBusiness contributor Greg McKenna, aka Deus Forex Machina, says that central bankers appear to be coordinating their language, and potentially causing increased negative sentiment, in the midst of the present global stock market falls (my bold emphasis added) –

Central banks want stocks lower

“With so many Fed Governors talking this week I thought we would get soothing words from them so as to not spook the market any further than it had already been but in the release from the BIS over the weekend, in the statement from the PBOC yesterday and in comments from two senior Fed Governors overnight I see almost the exact opposite to what I had expected.

Clearly there is a global central bank compact that has emerged which says that stock and property market bubbles are not the way to get a sustainable cure to the economic woes of the globe…”

Could it simply be that certain people now want the markets (thus, economies) to crash?

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.


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: