fed MALFEASANCE

quote>>Central banking tends to be profitable because a
proportion of assets can be funded[read-paid_for]by issuing currency notes,<<..not for govt

>>rather than interest-paying liabilities such as deposits.<<like govts do?

>>About half the RBA’s assets are funded by..issue of currency<<..a great lurk,..not proffitable for govt having to pay intrest on/bonds issued to the fed,..but printing money thats gotta be good for those running the fed...lol..[govt 1 percent kickback hardly reflects the what if;of govt doing its own issue..of its own currency..for free]

<<(the rest is funded from deposits/from banks and governments and from capital<<deposits get intrest[likely more that the mere one percent given to govt..lol

<<A less favourable characteristic of central banking..is that it carries a high degree of risk.<<..lol..issueing currency has risk..[what about the adbantage in having centralised/controle over ALL THE ISSUEING FEDS?]

>>..central banks are required to hold large amounts of
securities denominated in domestic and foreign currency in order to carry out their responsibilities<<currency swaps to tweak exchange rates..securities that turned in the billion proffit?..securities like that govts/bonds have to give to the vairious feds of the world to get its funds?

>>..which exposes them to market risk.>>>>yet they the worlds feds run the whole scam]by issuing/exchanging more[or]less currency as they chose!

<<This is the risk that interest/rates and-or exchange/rates will move in a way which will adversely affect the value of assets>>can easilly be controled by the feds SETTING INTREST RATES AS THEY CHOSE AT MEETINGS OF THE FED BOARDS..to whatever the market will bear..lol

>>Underlying earnings accrue from the fact that interest earnings on assets exceed interest payments on liabilities.This occurs because.a substantial proportion of liabilities is in the form of currency notes,>>lol well give govt back their notes..lol

>>on which no interest is payable.>>if you borrow them[rent them from the fed]lol

>>Liabilities in the form of capital also do not involve any interest payments.<<not if you own the feds

>>In contrast,virtually all the financial assets held earn interest.>>yeah govt bonds tend to pay intrest..lol

yeah because the feds upvalue its worth in devalued/fiat valuation,so the same assets cost ever more..lol

Yabby we are not talking about our RBA.The RBA is owned by the Govt but acts primarily as a independant body.They do however tend to over inflate our money.Our Banks are far more sound as a result of this more enlightened system.Our drawback is that we do borrow from this Global Reserve Banking system that depreciates our currency.

People generally do not want to hear negative things about Obama.He is engaging in the folly of Gordon Brown,borrowing more and using tax payer's money to bail out institutions that should be bankrupted.

extract from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/the-geithner-summers-plan_b_183499.html

the Geithner-Summers banking plan could potentially and unnecessarily transfer hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth from taxpayers to banks.The same basic arithmetic was later described by Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times(April 1)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/opinion/01stiglitz.html?scp=2&sq=stiglitz&st=cse

and by Peyton Young in the Financial Times (April 1).

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3e985de0-1ee7-11de-a748-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F3e985de0-1ee7-11de-a748-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ft.com%2Fsearch%3FqueryText%3Dpeyton%2Byoung%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26aje%3Dtrue%26dse%3D%26dsz%3D
In fact,the situation is even potentially more disastrous than we wrote.Insiders can easily game the system created by Geithner and Summers to cost up to a trillion dollars or more to the taxpayers.

Here's how.Consider a toxic asset held by Citibank with a face value of $1 million but with zero probability of any payout and therefore with a zero market value.

An outside bidder would not pay anything for such an asset.All of the previous articles consider the case of true outside bidders.

Suppose,however,that Citibank itself sets up a Citibank Public-Private Investment Fund(CPPIF)under the Geithner-Summers plan.

The CPPIF will bid the full face value of $1 million for the worthless asset,because it can borrow $850K from the FDIC,and get $75K from the Treasury,to make the purchase!Citibank will only have to put in $75K of the total.

Citibank thereby receives $1 million for the worthless asset,while the CPPIF ends up with an utterly worthless asset against $850K in debt to the FDIC.The CPPIF therefore quietly declares bankruptcy, while Citibank walks away with a cool $1 million.

Citibank's net profit on the transaction is $925K(remember that the bank invested $75K in the CPPIF)and the taxpayers lose $925K.

Since the total of toxic assets in the banking system exceeds $1 trillion,and perhaps reaches $2-3 trillion,the amount of potential rip-off in the Geithner-Summers plan is unconscionably large.

The earlier criticisms of the Geithner-Summers plan showed that even outside bidders generally have the incentive to bid far too much for the toxic assets,since they too get a free ride from the government loans.

But once we acknowledge the insider-bidding route,the potential to game the plan at the cost of the taxpayers becomes extraordinary.

plenty more links at articles
http://www.infowars.com/fed-said-to-order-banks-to-stay-mum-on-stress-test-results/
http://www.infowars.com/the-geithner-summers-plan-is-even-worse-than-thought/

from
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22396.htm

The committee agrees...

...Subsidization,carries the risk of distorting the market(by keeping assets artificially high and creating a constant drain on government resources...Subsidization tends to create hobbled banks that continue to languish...as wards of the state.

Liquidation,conservatorship and government subsidization;these are the three ways to fix the banking system....Geithner's plan is not a plan at all;.

"Treasury’s approach fails to acknowledge the depth of the current downturn and the degree to which the low valuation of troubled assets accurately reflects their worth.

The actions undertaken by Treasury,the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC are unprecedented.But if the economic crisis is deeper than anticipated,it is possible that Treasury will need to take very different actions in order to restore financial stability."

This is a crucial point;the toxic assets are not going to regain their value because their current market price--30 cents on the dollar for AAA mortgage-backed securities--accurately reflects the amount of risk they bear.

The market is right and Geithner is wrong;it's that simple.

No one can say with any certainty what they are really worth...So, why is Geithner being kept on at Treasury when his plan has already been thoroughly discredited...his only goal is to bailout the banks through underhanded means?

"The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States.....the finance industry has effectively captured our government....that more typically describes emerging markets,and is at the center of many emerging-market crises.

If the IMF's staff could speak freely about the U.S.,it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation recovery will fail unless we break...the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform.

if we are to prevent a true depression we're running out of time."(The Atlantic Monthly, May 2009, by Simon Johnson)

The banks have a stranglehold on the political process.

Many of their foot soldiers now occupy the highest offices in government.

..the silent coup that has taken place..do whatever needs to be done to purge the moneylenders from the seat of power and restore representative government...and time is running out.



* http://cop.senate.gov/reports/library/report-040709-cop.cfm
8 minute video summary of the COP report.

ok an interesting update on the whole imf /fed resreve g20 20 cfr scam
http://cuttingthroughthematrix.net/radio/Alan_Watt_CTTM_Live_on_RBN.html

not sure how long it will be up for
but he is worth hearing, pretty much anytime
has a web site [just google his name and cutting through the matrix
he also has written transcripts at the site

anyhow read or listen[or not]
its up to you

*People generally do not want to hear negative things about Obama.He is engaging in the folly of Gordon Brown,borrowing more and using tax payer's money to bail out institutions that should be bankrupted.*

Arjay, that is wonderful in theory, perhaps not so good in practise,
for good reasons. Obama, Geithner and Summers are clearly trying
to clear up the mess created by George and Dick. The hand they
were left is a pretty crook one.

When Lehman went broke, the global financial system came pretty
close to collapse. The problem is all those falling dominoes and
how things interact. The problem with banking is that if you close
down some of these major banks, everything stops.

How many companies or individuals could survive for a few months,
without access to their bank accounts? The reality is that the
whole economy would stop in its tracks. No food this week,
the bank is closed. How long would you last?

So Geithner and Summers are seeing the big picture here. As it it,
investors in crook banks have already lost their money, Citibank
was down to 1$ just a few days ago. The American Govt now effectively
owns alot of these banks, but nationalisation is not acceptable to
Americans, so they don't do it officially. Given that the Govt
will be paid profits from banking, that money might well be returned
to taxpayers, for everyday banking is still profitable.

Next point, right now it is impossible to value anything accurately.
What would your house be worth, if buyers had no access to bank
finance? 50 Grand cash perhaps? That is the problem with mark
to market accounting, as applies right now.

The core of all this goes back to politics, not banking. You need
regulators who want to enforce the rules, unlike Cox, George and
Dick. Secondly you need to get rid of jingle mail, where people
are not responsible for their debts, if house values fall.
Thirdly synthetic CDOs need some kind of regulation, or they
create a tzunami, as many have noted.