Showing posts with label Bankers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bankers. Show all posts

Monday, May 17, 2021

Turning Out the Light When the Bankers Leave Town - major banks are abandoning both New York and London

 



Spread the love

I have written before how a friend of mine who is very senior at one of the investment banks in New York called to see if I would go to dinner. I thought he was here in Florida to catch a breath of fresh air and relax outside of what use to be called the Big Apple, but is now only called the Arm-Pit of the World thanks to COVID.

I can attest that the major banks, despite what they are saying, are abandoning both New York and London. In Europe, the long-standing hatred between France and England spans countless generations. France is seeking to punish the English by denying them access to EU markets. This has led bankers to start to shift their top talent to the EU because once the nut-case Boris Johnson decided to destroy Britain to Build Back Better, taking instructions from Gates and Schwab, there is now no going back. I have stated at conferences there were meetings I had in the EU where I was not allowed to bring a Brit because it was assumed they are just biased.

The Financial Capital of the World is moving. It will eventually end up in China post-2032. We have the worst possible politicians systematically destroying the West all for this Great Reset.

Wednesday, April 21, 2021

Madoff is Dead – The Great NY Cover-UP

 


Bernie Madoff died on April 14, 2021, at the Federal Medical Center in the federal prison in Butner, North Carolina, of the US Bureau of Prisons. A cause of death was not released, but it was probably kidney failure.

In February 2020, Madoff had petitioned the courts for an early release from prison, stating that he had terminal kidney failure and his life expectancy was less than 18 months. But the US Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, probably the most corrupt in the nation, opposed, as always, saying that Madoff’s crime was “unprecedented in scope and magnitude” and is “sufficient reason” to deny Madoff’s request.

Madoff, the government claimed, was the mastermind behind a $20 billion Ponzi scheme — the largest financial fraud in history. Judge Denny Chin, who originally had imposed the sentence of 150 years, denied his request as expected from a New York judge calling his crime “one of the most egregious financial crimes of our time,” and one that continued to take “a staggering human toll.”

Madoff was arrested on December 11, 2008, for an alleged fraud of thousands of investors resulting in $20 billion dollars. Initially, there were some reports claiming it was $50 billion. The first strange thing was that Madoff almost immediately pleaded guilty three months later to fraud charges that were filed. That instantly ended the investigation whereby he could have put up a defense, demanding a trial, which would have dragged on for probably two years. The only reason to do so was clearly to protect other people. Most likely, his family was threatened.

While in prison, Madoff told the New York Times that the banks had to know. The New York Times wrote:

“They had to know,” Mr. Madoff said. “But the attitude was sort of, ‘If you’re doing something wrong, we don’t want to know.’ ”

There is a law that requires the bankers to “Know Your Client” so there is absolutely no way the bankers did not know what the scheme was. I had received a phone call from a journalist I think by the name of Isabel Ring. She asked me a question. Did I think that Republic National Bank was laundering money for the Russian oligarchs “as they were doing in Madoff’s accounts?” I responded that I had no idea. I assumed they were “parking” illegal trades for themselves in my accounts, but I had no idea who they were doing that for.

There were extensive errors in the accounts that the bankers were moving money around without my knowledge. There was one trade that was about a $500 million loss in US government bonds. I called to question the transaction. I was told it was an error, and it would be backed out on Monday. To me, they were parking losses in my accounts over weekends and using my funds for their margin. They would withhold all exculpatory evidence from the courts and me to prevent anyone from ever reviewing the case and what the prosecutors were protecting.

There was no journalist who would ever investigate the course or the prosecutors in New York City. They just print whatever the prosecutors tell them. That is where the fake news begins. Anyone in the industry knew that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Madoff to have pulled off a Ponzi scheme that was alleged at first to be $50 billion. Not only were the bankers complicit, but they were also most likely running their own scam using Bernie’s money. The ONLY reason he pled guilty was to protect others.

Threatening to kill you was the standard operating procedure for the bankers in New York.  I had tapes of phone calls that would have landed the bankers in prison if we had a real justice system. The prosecutors protected the bankers always. They wanted those tapes. Here is an excerpt of one.

 

Audio Player

 

 

Perhaps in Madoff’s case, they threatened his family to get him to plead to end any further investigation thereby protecting the bankers. In his case, his son Mark committed suicide and left a note to his father. Maybe now they have met and sorted things out up there.

Today, Madoff’s alleged victims are close to getting their money back. Irving Picard, the court-appointed trustee in the Madoff case, has recovered more than $14.4 billion of the $20 billion in stolen assets. Of that, $13.6 billion has been returned to investors so far. That includes the almost $850 million in cash advances to victims that were provided by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. The latest distribution in February 2021 gave each customer approximately 70% of their allowed claim amount unless it was previously fully satisfied. Most of the money Picard’s lawyers have collected came through settlements with former investors who withdrew more from Madoff’s firm than they deposited. Even though many of these investors claim to have known nothing of the Ponzi scheme, the trustee sued them for benefiting from it.

The definition of a Ponzi scheme is that there is no legitimate business. Charles Ponzi, the originator of the “Ponzi scheme,” was called the “duper extraordinaire” and “master and personification of the quick buck.”  Back in 1920, Ponzi was viewed as the shrewd miracle man of Boston’s Hanover Street district. Ponzi had promised his clients a 50% profit in 45 days. At times, the crowds that were fighting in line in front of his office had to be controlled by police. On busy days, it took 14 policemen to keep the crowds in order.

His famous scheme was to buy postal reply coupons in countries where foreign currencies had depreciated against the dollar. Under postal agreements, one could buy a reply coupon and send it to a friend, who in turn could take that coupon and redeem it for a U.S. postage equivalent on a fixed basis to pay for the “reply.” The scheme had its many critics who at least admitted that it was possible to profit in such a way, but they questioned whether or not one could make as much on the idea as Ponzi had claimed.

In essence, Ponzi was taking money from the second customer and handing it to the first, thereby creating satisfied customers to go around and honestly brag about how much they had made. Sooner or later, cash flow could not keep up with the payments and hence the scheme folded. In its wake, bank runs had been created and several of Boston’s trust companies had failed.

To this day, nobody actually knows when Madoff’s scheme started. No one has been able to prove when Madoff began his scheme and he himself has made contradictory claims about when the crime began. He told CNN Business in a 2013 interview that it all started in 1987, Later, he said the scheme began in 1992. Others try to claim he began as early as the 1960s which is absurd.

While the allegations were that he stole $50 to $65 billion, it came down to $20 billion in principal funds that were invested with him. He was not taking that money for himself but was taking funds from one client and paying out profits to another making it a Ponzi scheme because there was no actual business. He generated account statements telling investors that they earned returns worth a total of $65 billion, but those returns never existed.

The New York lawyers loved the case, for they have pocketed about $800 million in fees. The court-appointed receiver has charged almost $1 billion total in legal fees as of 2018. That was more than Madoff made for himself.

So far, the legal fees in New York City have been approaching $2 billion or 10% of the alleged missing funds. But there has been no word about the bankers. No charges were ever filed, as always, and there has been ZERO investigation into their role or if they allowed Madoff to run his scheme while they were running their own using his accounts.

GlennIt was Martin Glenn who was the judge in New York on M.F. Global bankruptcy. He was the first one to engage in FORCED LOANS by abandoning the rule of law to help the bankers by protecting them from losses taking client accounts to cover M.F. Global’s losses. That is no different from what we saw in Cyprus. He simply allowed the confiscation of client funds when in fact the rule of law should have been that the bankers were responsible and M.F. Global’s losses should have been reversed. Never should the client’s funds be taken for M.F. Global’s losses to the NY bankers.

This idea of taking money from depositors to protect the bankers is nothing new. In every case, the New York Judges in the Southern District of New York and the Second Circuit will ALWAYS protect the bankers. When I spoke to a New York lawyer and asked why bankers are never prosecuted, he simply replied: “You don’t shit where you eat!”

The Madoff case was the biggest cover-up in New York’s legal history. The lawyers have made nearly $2 billion and that does not count the fees lawyers on the opposite side charged the victims. NEVER will any journalist EVER dare to risk their career by ever reporting the truth. As for that journalist who called me, she never published the story.

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Interest Rates and the Great Global Crisis





COMMENT: I attended your 2016 WEC and I thought you would be wrong that interest rates would rise and the whole big bang thing. Rates have risen only in the US, the pension crisis is clearly unfolding, and states have been going bust. Now there is the Repo Crisis and I did buy the report. I will return to the WEC this year. I realize that you are able to forecast long-term trends that nobody else can even see.  Here in Australia, my God, it seems like the government has become occupied by Nazis who were also hunting money.
Good on ya!
PD
REPLY: Yes, most people have no idea that Hitler had passed similar laws that made it illegal to have a bank account outside the country. That prompted Switzerland to adopt its secrecy laws. Western governments are doing exactly as Hitler did. Oh yes, he killed a lot of Jews and others. But make no mistake about it, that was not just hatred. It was profitable. Hitler confiscated all their assets and then harvested even the gold in their teeth.
Just scan history and you will see a pattern. Henry VII created the Church of England but confiscated all the assets of the Catholic Church. Constantine the Great adopted Christianity as the major religion and then confiscated the assets of the pagan temples. The only leader who confiscated assets of the Church without pretending he was adopting another religion was Napoleon. The Spanish Inquisition persecuted people, including the Jews and Arabs. but that was also profitable for they confiscated their assets.
The rule of law in England at the time of the American Revolution had 240 felonies. The penalty was death so there too the king confiscated all your assets and threw your family out on the street. Just follow the money. Now they call it criminal to hide money from the government. It is money laundering to put cash in a safe deposit box — read the fine print — it can be confiscated. The criminal law is far too often used for the financial gain of the state.
As everyone knows, I turned out to be an institutional adviser. Consequently, the model that I developed had to be able to forecast the trend of all time levels. It was critical to be able to provide a reliable forecast out for 10 years when truly planning strategy for multinational corporations. That is why we had over $2.5 trillion under contract when the US national debt was just $6 trillion. We were by far the largest international adviser in the world.
The disparity in the rates between the USA and those in Japan and Europe are all part of the crisis in both liquidity as well as international banking. The vast majority of derivatives out there are interest rate related. Europe has a major major major problem. An uptick in interest rates will be devastating in so many ways. It will not only cause major losses for the ECB portfolio of bonds with over $12 trillion in negative-yielding bonds, but then you have the derivatives market.
On top of that, to make derivatives safer, after 2007 that insisted that they all had to go through a  central counter-party clearing house (CCP)  agent. As you can see, the 2018 annual report showed that Deutsche Bank also acts as a CCP to which it guarantees another 21.6 trillion Euros of exposure.
This experiment with negative interest rates has created a nightmare from which we are desperately afraid to wake up because it could be very real.

Thursday, October 24, 2019

Bail-In v Bailout of Banks in USA




QUESTION: Might you clarify this response you gave on one of your very recent blogs. You said bail-in may NOT be permitted on US soil. Did you mean that despite the laws written in the USA to allow it, you don’t think it is likely to happen to USA citizens banking in the USA?
OR were you only meaning in regards to overseas banks with locations within the USA would most likely not use bail-in.
OR because of all the EU money fleeing to USD/USA that the banks stable in the USA (for now) and thus no bail-in needed?
Do you think there would EVER be the case for a USA bank bail-in? Or is this just more conspiracy talk? For obvious reasons, this is of great concern to all of us as this USD repo madness, liquidity crisis and DB’s derivative contagion begins to spread throughout Europe into the next ECM turn in mid-January 2020.
Thank you in advance for your efforts and response to this question.
L
ANSWER: The bail-in laws were passed during the last crisis which was a popular response at that time because no bankers were ever punished for what they did in New York City. To the extent that FDIC exists, they would certainly honor that or it would be political suicide. However, the fine print is FDIC cover per person. Putting money at 5 different banks would seem to get around their limitations, but I would not count on that.
The gray area comes in two aspects.
  1. First, there are at any given time money from one bank which can be at another (REPO) which is also why there is a liquidity crisis
  2. Second, there are business accounts which exceed $100,000
The problem with a bail-in is that the ramifications would be far worse than the Great Depression. You would destroy businesses that would then be unable to make payroll and the unemployment would be massive – far greater than the 25% high of the Great Depression.
The BAIL-IN policy of Europe is a different animal altogether. This has nothing to do with bailing-out bankers. This stems from the refusal to consolidate debts. If banks failed in Southern Europe, then a bailout would mean money from the north could go to the south. This is the structural design. It is WHY Europe adopted the bail-in, quite different from the question of bankers’ conduct. Germany’s demand to join the Euro was that there would be no consolidation of debts. As I have said, the EU is like a family reunion with the cousin who is the drunk than people smile at, but would never lend him a dime. You can pretend it one happy family, but that is just the surface.
A bail-in would actually be devastating economically. It defeats the very idea of banking for if the burden is shifted to depositors to monitor banks when we have agencies who are supposed to do that, then why do we need governments or pay taxes?
Despite the laws, they were never thought threw and it is a huge difference between a regional bank and Goldman Sachs. The hatred was directed at the New York Banks – and rightly so. Because the federal court in New York City has protected the bankers, they have actually undermined the entire country by their stupid actions.

Monday, October 9, 2017

Why would anyone buy European bank stocks?





The European banking crisis is still brewing. The biggest problem rises from the rules that if a bank is in trouble, they just seize the bank and sell it for $1 and all the shareholders lose everything. This is having serious impacts on the European Banking System as a whole as I previously warned. The Italian bank Carige has had difficulty in trying to raise capital to meet requirements. If any bank cannot raise enough capital to meet the requirements, the European supervisory authorities can seize the bank in accordance with the new rules. Once again, the government solution is to make up rules that totally disregard the private reality. 
Why would anyone buy bank stocks in Europe today if the government can seize everything and shareholder get zero? Spain’s Banco Santander bought rival Banco Popular for €1. This is Brussels’s new system to rescue failing banks without burdening taxpayers or stressing markets. This was cheered around the world because the shareholders lost absolutely everything. The bank which was valued in the collapse at €1.6 billion was bought for €1. Why would anyone buy European bank stocks?

Monday, September 4, 2017

WHY are banks Too Big to Fail & Too Big To Jail



There is something much more sinister going on behind the curtain. I have warned that you really are taking you life in your hands doing business in New York City because NOBODY ever wins against the bankers no matter what they do. This begs the question about why are banks paying huge fines, yet nobody goes to jail, and there is never a trial while class action suits are summarily dismissed.
Back in 2003, Judge Milton Pollack dismissed two class action suits against Merrill Lynch for putting out bogue research during the DOT.COM Bubble after the investment bank plead guilty and paid huge fines. He wrote a 43 page decision protecting banks even when they produce intentional fake research.The judge said that investors were eager to take that risk and were to blame for their own losses. Similarly, another judge dismissed suits against Credit Suisse First Boston, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley.
So how are the banks paying huge fines but then nobody can sue them? An inside source coming from a lawyer who worked internally at a bank, explained that the New York Attorney General simply walks into his office and informs them they will hand over $1.2 billion in fines and he does not care about defenses of the rule of law. The bankers pay these fines because they cannot afford to go to trial and lose for then class action lawsuits from depositors and shareholders will bury the institution. So the judges are in on the scam and class actions are dismissed  and the government makes billions.
Who pays for all these fines? I was told they simply set aside an amount for what is called “protection” money just like dealing with the Mafia. The bankers raise fees to fund these so the consumer is the one paying for these huge fines not really even the shareholders. It is indeed organized crime at the government level.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Fund fees have been reduced to an almost nothing, with money managers taking just 20bp

Dying Shopping Malls and Wealth Managers


People talk about the changing environment. In the financial world around us, things are also changing dramatically. What use to be is no more. There are no real ticker-tape parades any more and future pits are closing opting for online trading. What is changing and why can we not see it? 
The internet has changed the way people shop around the world with the retail sector currently dominated by Amazon, accounting for almost 65% of online sales.   Amazon pasted Walmart (in market cap) back in 2015 and within the past two years has grown in value to be worth twice as much. Large department stores and the more traditional malls are closing but this is happening as retail spending continues to grow. Admittedly, online merchants have made it far easier, tap a button and our goods arrive at the doorstep the next day, but obviously at the expense of shop staff. The more comfortable we get with online retail the more intelligent we are shopping around and doing it ourselves. 
Is having the ease of service and renewed confidence a major influence upon why we are turning to index trackers and ETF’s rather than pay a money manager 2% to do it for us?
The ETF market has ballooned since the early 2000’s and is now worth approximately $2.5tn. With this “online” competition, the rumours are that the fees have been reduced to an almost nothing, with money managers taking just 20bp on the fund in the hope that they can make additional returns on the bid/offer spread. One of the problems we could face however, is that the derivative (ETF) becomes more liquid than the underlying. The relationship will work fine in an orderly market but will be tested in extremely or volatile conditions. The concern should be when will Market-Makers widen their spreads so just ensure you are not the last one to see the problems.

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Once they lent to government, that was the end of the Medici.

Bankers: Have They Ever Been Good?


medici-giovanni
QUESTION:
Mr. Armstrong:
I hope you are well. I ask you:
1. What were the contributions to the economy and international trade, of the great bankers of the modern history, such as, Medici, Fugger, Welser, Berenberg, Rothschild and Morgan?
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
J.E.M.V.
ANSWER:Their contribution was to facilitate the advancement of society by enabling the free movement of capital and thus the integration of commerce. Of course, people will immediately disagree with me by citing the Rothschilds who did lend to the governments of Europe. They were more of the exception rather than the rule.
The Medici were different. Raymond de Roover, who became a Professor of history at Brooklyn College, wrote “The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank,” which was first published in 1966. It remains the seminal work on this period. He had access to contracts and internal documents. A special clause was entered into the core contract of the Medici bank “to deal as little as possible with the court of the Duke of Burgundy and of other princes and lords, especially in granting credit and accommodating them with money, because it involves more risk than profit.” (id/ p 343)
Obviously, Raymond de Roover makes it clear that the Medici did not wish to lend to the princes of Europe, for there was no way to collect a debt from a sovereign. The contract continued by warning that “many merchants in this way fared badly…our fathers have always been wary of such involvements and stayed aloof, unless it was a matter of a small sum lent to make or to keep friends.” The Medici policy was “to preserve their wealth and credit rather than enrich themselves by risky ventures.”
Indeed, later generations ignored this command, and once they lent to government, that was the end of the Medici. The Fugger’s were the German bankers wiped out by the default of Spain, which was rather stupid since they had previously defaulted after wiping out the Italian bankers.
Banking has always furthered the economy and raised the standard of living for all. When the bankers get in bed with government, society is placed in a dangerous position.