No banks are safe (bail ins, FDIC limits, systemic risks)

[pmbug]

EU set for more Cyprus-style bail-ins for troubled banks

European finance ministers have reached the basis of an agreement to wind down failing banks and share the costs, Eurogroup President Jeroen Dijsselbloem told CNBC following a 16-hour marathon negotiating session in Brussels.

The agreement is expected to begin with a Cyprus-style "bail-in" process in which major depositors in failing banks are tapped first in an effort to support the lender.

Then, if more cash is needed, national resolution funds would be used. And if further funds are needed, these would be pooled from across the region over the next five to 10 years, forming the basis of a common fund.
...

More: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101263206

Inspires confidence, doesn't it?

 

[pmbug]

Much of the Western world will require defaults, a savings tax and higher inflation to clear the way for recovery as debt levels reach a 200-year high, according to a new report by the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF working paper said debt burdens in developed nations have become extreme by any historical measure and will require a wave of haircuts, either negotiated 1930s-style write-offs or the standard mix of measures used by the IMF in its “toolkit” for emerging market blow-ups.

“The size of the problem suggests that restructurings will be needed, for example, in the periphery of Europe, far beyond anything discussed in public to this point,” said the paper, by Harvard professors Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff.

The paper said policy elites in the West are still clinging to the illusion that rich countries are different from poorer regions and can therefore chip away at their debts with a blend of austerity cuts, growth, and tinkering (“forbearance”).

The presumption is that advanced economies “do not resort to such gimmicks” such as debt restructuring and repression, which would “give up hard-earned credibility” and throw the economy into a “vicious circle”.

But the paper says this mantra borders on “collective amnesia” of European and US history, and is built on “overly optimistic” assumptions that risk doing far more damage to credibility in the end. It is causing the crisis to drag on, blocking a lasting solution. “This denial has led to policies that in some cases risk exacerbating the final costs,” it said.
...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...te-offs-as-Wests-debt-hits-200-year-high.html

Apparently the IMF is not a fan of Krugman.

 

[rblong2us]

not so good that we can agree with the IMF though )-:

Why are they so different from Krugman ?

 

[pmbug]

My comment above was off the mark. It's not the IMF. The IMF just published the paper, but it's not necessarily an editorial comment by them (they include a disclaimer in the .PDF to that effect). The paper is the work of Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff - two guys most economists should recognize (of "This time is different" fame).

 

[pmbug]

Hong Kong’s banking regulator has demanded far-reaching powers to prop up or shut down failing banks, such as the ability to suspend normal creditor rights, as it plays catch-up with western regulators trying prevent a future Lehman Brothers.The Hong Kong Monetary Authority made the calls in the first public consultation from an Asian regulator on a so-called resolution and recovery regime, which is meant to make financial institutions easier to break up and sell off in a crisis.
...
The regulator signalled that it would push for legislation allowing it to “bail in” bank bondholders and lenders, by enforcing writedowns on the value of bank debt or converting it to equity.

“The consultation paper is clear that bail-in and other powers will be needed and that these will be sought in new legislation next year,” said Royce Miller, a partner at Freshfields in Hong Kong.

“Even though Hong Kong regulators are waiting for greater global consensus on bail-in and some other issues, it is clear that they won’t wait much longer and that they are aiming to make decisions on these issues during 2014.”

Bail-in powers over senior bonds have proved controversial elsewhere, with investors and analysts in other markets saying they could increase the costs to banks and affect their access to senior funding. The UK, US and Switzerland have all indicated they will use bail-in powers.
...

More: http://bambooinnovator.com/2014/01/08/hong-kong-banking-watchdog-seeks-bail-in-powers/

 

[Unobtanium]

Time for my Ricky Ricardo impersonation:
Can someone es-splain to me why it is that banks need bailouts and bail ins?

Banks have the power to create money from nothing when they write a loan, and also to repossess the hard assets if the loanee defaults. It is a win-win situation for banks.

So WTF is it that they are doing so ineptly that requires bailouts? Or are bailouts just a lame excuse to extract even more money from the general public into their greedy coffers?

 

[pmbug]

Well, a large portion of those "hard assets" are actually paper assets at another bank. When a bank goes "poof", so do all their "hard assets".

 

[bushi]

Banks have the power to create money from nothing when they write a loan, and also to repossess the hard assets if the loanee defaults. It is a win-win situation for banks.
...
So WTF is it that they are doing so ineptly that requires bailouts?...

Those who live by the balance sheet, die by the balance sheet. Yes they can create moneys out of nothing, but they have to book it all according to the rules (lax as they are, and as unenforced by the regulators as they are, but still). So let's say (not so) hypothetical scenario: the bank is leveraged to the hilt, cannot possibly create any single dime more, without posting some more of the (fractional reserve) backing. Has all these mortgages, given for 110% of value of the house, that has been 50% overpriced in the first place. Suppose now the mortgage owner goes under, house gets repossessed. But the bank cannot post "a house"on its balance sheet, in place of the former, now liquidated mortgage. So they can do two things: normally, sell the house into the market for its current going price, and book huge losses (remember, they can perhaps recover 60% of the original mortgage they have booked for the original borrower- which is a big, red ink bleeding hole in their balance sheet now, rather than income producing, nice and steady monthly repayments). Or two, "Mark to market" the current value of the house on the open market, as their asset, and keep it. Problem is the same, if they mark it to market, they have to book it as it's current market value, which blows holes the size of a school bus their balance sheets.

Luckily, thanks to our friends in the Fed, who keep the rules the game, they changed that. Because banks would be STILL insolvent, if they marked all this insanely priced (originally) shit to its current market value , well, Benny & Co. Have allowed them to "Mark to model", which means in short, "Mark to unicorn", or "Mark to a fantasy", i.e., if the house was mortgaged for say 1mil, went under, and cannot possibly be sold for anything more than 250k, the bank is still allowed to keep it on the books as a 1 mil asset (clear nonsense and accounting fraud, but hey who cares)
Now of course banks are not in the business of keeping inventories full of decaying houses, so they can either a) sell the house, get the money they can for it, BOOK the fecking loss -or b) not sell it, stay "solvent" on paper, but then, how to make a living from making loans, if they have NO new money to borrow against?
Fortunately, there's Benny & Co. to the rescue again, with QEs and duck knows what other fraudulent machinations, to keep these mofos whole. So they stuff banks with cheap money from the Fed, to keep them afloat, even when the banks are starving for capital otherwise.

Sometimes I think I would be better off not knowing all that shit, it is infuriating.



Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[DCFusor]

Sometimes I think I would be better off not knowing all that shit, it is infuriating.

Yup. It's fairly depressing how the worst scum control so much. I believe I posted recently on another thread that the big indicator that things are actually almost OK again will be some big bank asking for that FASB ruling to go back to "mark to market". The first bank that actually has a decent balance sheet will perceive it to be a competitive advantage, and will (and has the money) to make a lotta noise there.

Instead, crickets.

 

[Unbeatable]

Even though Hong Kong regulators are waiting for greater global consensus on bail-in and some other issues, it is clear that they won’t wait much longer and that they are aiming to make decisions on these issues during 2014.”

That & the new IMF paper you quoted as well PMBug show that the writing has to be on the wall. The bank bail-ins are coming.

Global consensus is hard to clear up for something this big and inter-connected, but the fact that a major financial centre like Hong Kong is saying listen we can't wait much longer says a lot.

I think paying close attention to Hong Kong and the decisions they make, should give us a clue as to when/how imminent the bail-ins are.

 

[ancona]

I foresee a huge bail-inn coming our way, but I also see it backfiring on them. Outright theft of our money will have grave implications for these banks, as people will quickly realize they've been completely screwed over by the bankers and indeed, their own congress-critters. A bail-in will NOT go over well in the US at all. Buildings will burn and bankers will die, you can count on it.

 

[rblong2us]

If its sold as a one-off charge to fix a broken system it would be hard to get too distressed, as the alternative is that their fiat money fails and a new money system must be created ............

Cant imagine what effect the realisation among the masses that a bail in is heading their way will have on ... err ... real money (-;

Sadly though 'the masses' generally dont have enough in a bank to worry and their gov will guarantee the first £$xxx k

 

[pmbug]

... and their gov will guarantee the first £$xxx k

I'm not so sure that FDIC (or foreign equivalents) will be able to make good on their guarantees. Last I knew, (a few years ago when banks were failing every week) the FDIC was essentially insolvent. If the dominoes fall, they aren't going to be able to backstop all the banks at once. It's quite likely that the current threshold guarantee of $250K here in the States won't stand.

 

[rblong2us]

Think the FDIC has been insolvent for a while now but its not likely the feds would allow it to fail. As long as they can print they can guarantee bank deposits.

The test might be in the eurozone where ze germans are not yet fully on board with the programme. My instinct is that they will fall in line when the situation becomes dire for them.

 

[pmbug]

... the big indicator that things are actually almost OK again will be some big bank asking for that FASB ruling to go back to "mark to market". The first bank that actually has a decent balance sheet will perceive it to be a competitive advantage, and will (and has the money) to make a lotta noise there.

Instead, crickets.

We're not quite there yet, but I found this interesting:

Global banking regulators agreed on Sunday to ease the way a new rule, meant to rein in risky balance sheets from 2018, is compiled to try to avoid crimping financing for the world's economy.

Sunday's decisions were the latest sign of how regulators have become more willing to accommodate banks as the focus switches to helping economies recover.

The relief to lenders may, however, be temporary as the regulators signaled there is still no agreement on the final level of the new leverage ratio, which measures how much capital a bank must hold against its loans and other assets.

The ratio was initially set at 3 percent of capital but supervisors from the United States, Britain and elsewhere are pushing for a higher proportion, a person familiar with the debate said.

The ratio acts as a backstop to a lender's core risk-weighted capital requirements. A ratio of 3 percent means a bank must hold capital equivalent to 3 percent of its total assets.

The rule is part of the Basel III accord endorsed by world leaders in response to the 2007-09 financial crisis that left taxpayers rescuing undercapitalized lenders.
...

More: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/12/us-basel-banks-idUSBREA0B0IX20140112

Sounds like the west is feeling confident in their banks if they are ready to accept higher capital requirements, right?

Not so fast...

...
As first reported by Reuters last month, when banks tot up their assets, they can now include derivatives on a net rather than the much bigger gross basis so they don't have an incentive to ditch some types of assets, such as loans to companies, to avoid hitting the ratio's ceiling.
...

 

[BigJim]

Think the FDIC has been insolvent for a while now but its not likely the feds would allow it to fail. As long as they can print they can guarantee bank deposits.

I agree. The FDIC can guarantee deposits but on what time frame ?

$100,000.00 in an account, FDIC pays back $500.00 a month ????

CONTROL !!!

 

[bushi]

I agree. The FDIC can guarantee deposits but on what time frame ?

$100,000.00 in an account, FDIC pays back $500.00 a month ????

yep, Cyprus all over again. "you have your money in the bank, no worries, it is only that you are allowed to withdraw 300 a week max, and your credit card won't work abroad, and this & that & the other".

Jeez, one would think that Communism has died in 1989 - but isn't it a "brilliant" way of "leveling the playing field"? :rotflmbo:

 

[ancona]

If the banks here ever start hemorrhaging like they did in Cyprus it's game over. Capital controls only have a measurable effect if there is actually money left in the system to control. In addition, these controls leave the elite largely unaffected, primarily hammering those who can least afford to be denied access to their resources such as small business and the poor.

 

[pmbug]

Infamously saddled with a public debt that is running at an eye-watering 214 per cent of GDP, the Japanese government is planning to raid dormant private bank accounts to boost its bottom line.

The ruling Liberal Democratic Party and its main ally in government, New Komeito, are planning to submit a bill to allow the government to access bank accounts that have not been touched for 10 years or more. The funds would be used for welfare and education projects.

Accounts holding some 85 billion yen (HK$6.3 billion) are classified as dormant each year, with depositors who are notified of the situation reclaiming about 35 billion yen.The new legislation would therefore free up about 50 billion yen each year.
...

http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/artic...-raid-dormant-bank-accounts-raise-new-revenue

 

[pmbug]

European Central Bank Executive Board member Benoit Coeure said on Wednesday that the proposed mechanism to deal with bank failures must be implemented earlier than planned.

In a speech delivered in Brussels, Coeure said the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) should allow for lean decision-making during emergencies. He also sought "robust and common" resolution financing arrangements.

"In this regard, the period of ten years for moving towards a genuinely common Single Resolution Fund (SRF) is too long and should be shortened, possibly to five years," Coeure said.

"Also, adequate common backstop arrangements need to be established, both for the transition period and the steady state, to guarantee the credibility of the SRF and avoid a persistent or re-emergent sovereign-bank nexus."

He also said that it should be solely the supervisor's job to decide whether a bank is failing or likely to fail.
...

http://www.rttnews.com/2255125/ecb-...-of-bank-resolution-mechanism.aspx?type=eueco

Must? Does he know something we don't? ...

 

[Unbeatable]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...ontinue-hsbc-restricts-large-cash-withdrawals

Bank-Run Fears Continue; HSBC Restricts Large Cash Withdrawals

HSBC is imposing restrictions on large cash withdrawals raising a number of red flags. The BBC reports that some HSBC customers have been prevented from withdrawing large amounts of cash because they could not provide evidence of why they wanted it. HSBC admitted it has not informed customers of the change in policy, which was implemented in November

HSBC's reasoning doesn't sound bad. But it is surprising they would change their policy without being required to and not inform the public about it, especially because as ZH explains it's also coming at a time they've been shown to have a serious capital shortfall because of stuff in China. Hmm...

 

[rblong2us]

This has been a general approach in the UK for several years.

Banks are obliged to notify HMRC of cash transactions above about £2k ( I dont know the exact amount ) and a reason for the transaction. This includes cash payments into your bank.
You could always write cheques for whatever your balance will cover and they will happily do bankers draft thingies if you are buying a vehicle or something that requires certainty of payment at the moment of transaction.

Banks here do not generally carry large amounts of cash in anticapion of big number withdrawals so they require notice (and reason ) if cash is required.
I dont think this means there is a shortage of cash but it certainly does not encourage its use for larger transactions.

Its rather typical of ZH to use this kind of information in an attempt to promote concern in an unrelated situation .....

 

[Unbeatable]

This has been a general approach in the UK for several years.

Banks are obliged to notify HMRC of cash transactions above about £2k ( I dont know the exact amount ) and a reason for the transaction. This includes cash payments into your bank.
You could always write cheques for whatever your balance will cover and they will happily do bankers draft thingies if you are buying a vehicle or something that requires certainty of payment at the moment of transaction.

Banks here do not generally carry large amounts of cash in anticapion of big number withdrawals so they require notice (and reason ) if cash is required.
I dont think this means there is a shortage of cash but it certainly does not encourage its use for larger transactions.

Its rather typical of ZH to use this kind of information in an attempt to promote concern in an unrelated situation .....

That's generally been my experience too that >2k cash can be an issue.

But ZH did get the story from the BBC who surprisingly seem to be treating it in same sort of way

HSBC imposes restrictions on large cash withdrawals

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25861717

Money Box asked other banks what their policy is on large cash withdrawals. They all said they reserved the right to ask questions about large cash withdrawals. But none of them said they would require evidence of what the money was being used for before paying out.

So looks like it was only HSBC who started the evidence thing, they seem to have said they're reversing it now, will have to wait and see...

 

[ancona]

The entire point of the article is that indeed these are "demand deposits" and one should never have to justify to the bank, government or anyone else for that matter, what they want their own money for. If they want to require some minimal amount of pre-notice so they can have cash on hand then so be it, but if I have saved up a hundred thousand dollars, and want to have eighty thousand dollars in cash, it's none of their fucking business what it is for. I've earned this money, it's mine and now I want it back, that's why motherfuckers!

This is just another in a long line of examples over the recent years of the worlds governments trying to demonize cash and move to paperless money. If they make us look like criminals for having cash, and if they go all paperless, then taxes can be extracted far more easily than if reporting is by the "honor system" so to speak.

 

[rblong2us]

yeah, its a bit odd that the Beeb ran it as a scare but they seem to be shifting just a little ......

I thoroughly enjoyed listening to this weeks 'Book of ther Week' - all about Gold
and written by someone who seems to 'get it '. In last nights episode he talked about the gold shifting east and closed with the thought that gold can be relied on when paper fails.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qftk/episodes/player

And yes Ancona, I agree its more about getting us to run cashless than a shortage of linen and ink.

 

[mmerlinn]

I thoroughly enjoyed listening to this weeks 'Book of ther Week' - all about Gold
and written by someone who seems to 'get it '. In last nights episode he talked about the gold shifting east and closed with the thought that gold can be relied on when paper fails.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qftk/episodes/player

I tried your link, but I can't find any way to listen to it, although from the hype on the page it seems like something worth listening to.

 

[rblong2us]

I tried your link, but I can't find any way to listen to it, although from the hype on the page it seems like something worth listening to.

hey mmerlin, Im not much use when it comes to computer button poking :flail:
all I can say is that it works for me ............

Perhaps the individual links to the 5 episodes will work better -

Episode 1 was fascinating as he described going down as deep as it gets, at 42 ft per second ! and how theres a whole underworld of thieves who live down the mines and extract and sometimes even refine and smelt in disused parts of the mines. ( only 2 days left to listen )
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03kpnjq

Episode 2 described how a relatively small army of conquistadors managed to control a vast army of Inca ( or was it Aztec ? ) by capturing their god/king and how he offered them gold ( which they saw only as decorative ) in exchange for his freedom ....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03kqdzw

Episode 3 was about Nixon closing the gold window and its effects
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03ktz05

4. China currently mines more gold than any country, and everyone wants a part of it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03ktz05

5- Even in the 21st century, gold-dealing remains an archaic practice.( 6 days left to listen) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03kv6kz

All really interesting and a lot of facts I didnt know.

 

[Unbeatable]

This seems like a genuine glitch, I think Lloyds is busy changing over some of their accounts at the moment, and these kind of things do happen periodically here but still...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...arge-withdrawals-now-lloyds-atms-stop-working

Sky reports that customers of Lloyds and TSB, as well as those with Halifax, have reported difficulties paying for goods in shops and getting money out of ATMs.

All three banks are under the Lloyds Banking Group which said: "We are aware that some customers are unable to use their debit cards either to make purchases or to withdraw money from ATMs. "We are working hard to resolve this as swiftly as possible and apologise for any inconvenience caused."

Helen Needham ‏said: "#lloyds bank having problems with there card service... Can't pay for anything or get money out!"

Another Twitter user wrote: "This problem is also affecting Halifax debit cards as I found out trying to pay for lunch with my wife!"

And Jane Lucy Jones tweeted Halifax, saying: "Why can't I get any money out of any cashpoints, what is going on?

 

[pmbug]

Bird in the hand, folks. Bird in the hand.

 

[Unbeatable]

http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/01/china-halts-bank-cash-transfers/

China halts bank cash transfers

In short, there will be a three-day suspension of domestic renminbi transfers. There will also be a suspension, spanning nine calendar days, of conversions of renminbi to foreign currency.

The specific reason given—“system maintenance” at the central bank—is preposterous. It is not credible that during the highest usage period in the year—the weeklong Lunar New Year holiday beginning January 31—the central bank would schedule an upgrade and shut down cash transfers

Um maybe I missed something, first I heard about this, but maybe I have not been paying attention or it's not true, or it's related to something else that's over-hyped?

 

[Unbeatable]

Banks are evidently scrambling for cash. They have, in the past, resorted to desperate maneuvers at the ends of calendar quarters to meet regulatory requirements. The current crunch is even more alarming because it cannot be occurring for quarter-end reasons.

Something is very wrong in China at the moment. Banks’ apparent need to conserve cash, coming just weeks after the last incident, looks ominous.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2014/01/26/china-halts-bank-cash-transfers-2/

 

[mmerlinn]

hey mmerlin, Im not much use when it comes to computer button poking :flail:
all I can say is that it works for me ............

Perhaps the individual links to the 5 episodes will work better -

I had tried all of them before I wrote the last post. For some reason can't listen to any of them.

 

[Unbeatable]

Apparently the above China story I quoted is fake...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-26/no-there-no-stoppage-cash-transfers-china

Some of the responses in the comments section are still not sure though, as it seems the first reply saying 'and now ZH was spoofed' was apparently removed.

Who knows maybe this is the big one. Global bank holiday coming in 5,4,3,2,1...

 

[pmbug]

People are certainly getting very nervous. Everyone seems to be waiting for the other shoe to drop.

 

[pmbug]

Looks like the markets are getting spooked:

Earlier this week 30-day/4-wk T-Bills were auctioned off a 0% rate. Intra-day, after the auction, the rate went negative. Negative short term rates were last observed in 2008, before the Lehman/AIG/Goldman collapse occurred. Of course, Lehman was allowed to implode and Goldman, who's ex-CEO was the Treasury Secretary, was bailed out. AIG was the beneficiary of that bailout because Goldman had impaled itself on AIG nuclear waste.

The point here is that negative T-bill rates only occur when very big investors are concerned about the return OF their money and not the return on their money. Think about what a negative T-bill rate means. It means that someone is paying more for the T-bill than they get in return when it matures a few weeks later. Why would someone do that? It's the "safest" place to park large sums of cash.

A big institutional fund or very wealthy investor pays for a T-bill because they they see something which indicates that the risk of the Government defaulting in the next four weeks is less than the risk of parking that money in a bank or a money market fund. We're talking millions and tens of millions in short term money. Bank deposits are insured only up to a small amount. After 2008, it has been decided that money market funds will no longer be bailed out by the Government/Fed.

In other words, big big investors with cash that needs to be parked are seeing something that gives them concern about the financial system. The negative rates on T-bills means that whatever was spooking big money in 2008 is spooking it again. My best guess right now is that there is massive risk of derivatives default. This would be the derivatives that blew up the system in 2008 but that the Fed/Government quickly monetized. The problem was never fixed, contrary to Obama's recent end zone dance on the safety of the banking system.
...

More: http://truthingold.blogspot.com/2014/01/something-ominous-may-be-coming-at-us.html

These credit/currency related crises that we have experienced since 2008 all have produced the same thing after the market begins to sift through the details - a DEFLATIONARY reaction.

By that I mean a rush into the relative safety of US Treasuries out of equities. The result is a drop in interest rates as investors seek return OF capital and not necessarily return ON capital.

In the process, the Japanese Yen has tended to be the recipient of inflows. I am still unclear as to why anyone would regard the Yen as a safe haven currency but I suspect it might have more to do with Yen carry trades being unwound which puts upward pressure on the funding currency as those trades are reversed.

...

... This late session recovery in the US Dollar and further downward movement in equities is actually bringing deflation fears back to traders' minds and as those fears strengthen ( at least for this immediate moment) gold is fading lower along with silver and copper and the other metals.

http://traderdannorcini.blogspot.com/2014/01/market-response-to-emerging-market.html

Sounds like the Fed is going to have justification for MOAR QE, since it appears that the banking system hasn't quite got all their bail-in mechanisms in place yet. Or maybe we are approaching the event horizon for the great bail-in.

 

[Unbeatable]

If there was going to be a mass bail-in/wealth tax that needed to be orchestrated on a global scale, where would those decisions be finalised?

I think they would have to be finalised somewhere like Davos.
I also think once they were finalised that they would have to happen pretty quickly otherwise the news would leak out.

So even though the Chinese news story was apparently not as serious as reported, and I don't think they're planning to do anything this year, this weekend is still 'on my radar.'

 

[Unbeatable]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-28/russian-bank-halts-all-cash-withdrawals

Via Bloomberg,

Lender has introduced complete ban on cash withdrawals until end of week, news agency reports, citing unidentified person in call center.

Bank spokeswoman declined to comment by phone

My Bank is top 200 lender by assets: Prime

My Bank is only in top 200 in Russia so it may not mean much really, I didn't even know there were 200+ banks in any country, I think UK has less than 20-50 total, but not sure.

 

[pmbug]

If there was going to be a mass bail-in/wealth tax that needed to be orchestrated on a global scale, where would those decisions be finalised?
...

I think a lot of the strategic stuff (basic frameworks, goals) is likely hashed out in forums like Davos and the G-8/G-20, hence the water testing in Cyprus while nations get their bail in frameworks legalized, but I suspect that crisis management happens over the phone or conference calls.

 

[ancona]

I'm actually starting to get a little bit nervous about this bail-in idea. Besides my personal pile, my firm has all of our operating cash in a couple of accounts that would be subject to this taking.

Opening fifteen or twenty 100K accounts is unfeasible, and even if we did, "they" would probably rule that it doesn't matter because we're a single entity and not entitled to protection under the hundred thousand dollar "per account" threshold.

These4 are some truly sick bastards coming up with this shit. I predict heads on a stick if this comes to fruition here, since there are far too many folks with guns and far too many people with little to lose by taking definitive action.

 

[DCFusor]

ancona, I think you "mis-underestmate" how slick they'd be at this.
No point stealing from the "just getting by" poor, who have "nothing to lose." We already have a ton of those, and they're not taking up arms as is, screwed as they already are.

How many people with "nothing to lose" - even after having their money stolen, do you know who have "fieldcraft" in the sniper sense, and are in good shape physically, enough to do what you suggest? For example, you have a kid - would you die in the attempt to make a marginal difference (at best), and leave her fatherless? To make a real noticeable difference, it's hundreds that would have to be taken out, at a minimum. I don't see that happening, and I see zero chance of organization that would make that possible due to NSA snooping - that's what it's for, after all - should be obvious. The actions they are taking are those of a government afraid of just that, not one afraid of foreign powers and invasion - that should be obvious to anyone who can analyze what's going on, what's been revealed that there is no doubt about.

We'd still be a colony of England had they had what the NSA/FBI/3 letter others have now, and are using now to ID malcontents who might actually be a threat. We cannot hang together, so we are doomed to hang separately, as one of the founders said.

Do you think they'll target SEALs and snipers/rangers? Kinda doubt most of them have a ton of dough. And of course, they won't target themselves, who do have most of the money.

In other words, I think you're an optimist, though I'm glad there are still some out there!