Major Banks Say They Are Ready To Go Under.

Follow the source link. The title is exactly as it was printed and that is all. No enhancements or changes. Or maybe I should have changed it as I see fit? Then that would be the issue. Peace

Its grossly misleading because its from RT.

Its like me saying Im ready for when the SHTF, just because I am ready for it does not mean I have any inside information on when or how it could even happen.

Same case here.

Rt is no more a valid news source as CNN and MSNBC, or any other of the MSM.

Its all propaganda just from a different side.

This is not really news, IF anything its worst if the banks DONT have a plan for failure, this was all part of the bail out thing to prevent a horrible bank collapse.

The banks by law have to prepare for a collapse and have a plan to split them selfs up so as not to be "to big to fail"

But of course RT would spin a positive legislation so that it looks like its something its not.

Deny Ignorance, does not mean changing propaganda sources for another.

Originally posted by benrl

Follow the source link. The title is exactly as it was printed and that is all. No enhancements or changes. Or maybe I should have changed it as I see fit? Then that would be the issue. Peace

Its grossly misleading because its from RT.

Rt is no more a valid news source as CNN and MSNBC, or any other of the MSM.

Its all propaganda just from a different side.

This is not really news, IF anything its worst if the banks DONT have a plan for failure, this was all part of the bail out thing to prevent a horrible bank collapse.

The banks by law have to prepare for a collapse and have a plan to split them selfs up so as not to be "to big to fail"

But of course RT would spin a positive legislation so that it looks like its something its not.

Deny Ignorance, does not mean changing propaganda sources for another.

edit on 6-7-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)

Fine.

Then state THAT instead of blaming the messenger for what you don't agree with.

Thanks anyways.

Peace

reply to post by jude11


In your post you stated that you where not a finicnal expert you also stated this

If they are planning for a "Just in case" scenario" I'm not buying it. They have a "Let's get ready to do this thing" plan all mapped I believe.

I am not blaming you, merely explaining the situation to you.

By law the banks have to prepare, so your not buying that buy law they had to.

The entire plan was mandated by law, they had no choice in the matter.

The banks didn't go "oh crap we are failing lets make a plan"

It was the Gov going "you a-holes better have a plan"

See the difference? and RT of course is a propaganda outlet for Russia, so of course its going to be spun negatively.

Have you ever sat and watched RT for a day? its very interesting, but readily apparent its all propaganda.

Its actaully pretty entertaining, learn to watch all news with the same critical eye we watch the MSM here in the US and you will see its the same everywhere.

And somewhere in the middle the truth is, thats why we are all members of ATS isn't it?

Originally posted by II HAL II
When you rob a bank... you go to jail.

When a bank robs you... they get a bonus.

Ladies and gentlemen... the camel's back is almost broken, just one or two more straws to go.

edit on 6-7-2012 by II HAL II because: (no reason given)

The same banks donate millions to both democrat and republican party, and it payed off. They got billions of tax payer money in the bail outs.

Dreamworks animations has learned from the banks
www.npr.org...

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by jude11

 

In your post you stated that you where not a finicnal expert you also stated this

If they are planning for a "Just in case" scenario" I'm not buying it. They have a "Let's get ready to do this thing" plan all mapped I believe.

I am not blaming you, merely explaining the situation to you.

By law the banks have to prepare, so your not buying that buy law they had to.

The entire plan was mandated by law, they had no choice in the matter.

The banks didn't go "oh crap we are failing lets make a plan"

It was the Gov going "you a-holes better have a plan"

See the difference? and RT of course is a propaganda outlet for Russia, so of course its going to be spun negatively.

Have you ever sat and watched RT for a day? its very interesting, but readily apparent its all propaganda.

Its actaully pretty entertaining, learn to watch all news with the same critical eye we watch the MSM here in the US and you will see its the same everywhere.

And somewhere in the middle the truth is, thats why we are all members of ATS isn't it?

I agree wholeheartedly with the fact that we have a lot of propaganda out there as well as sensationalism on the important issues these days. And yes, many sources are guilty of it in order to gain more readers. From CNN to FOX to RT and even Alex Jones.

And that would be the reason I led off with not being a financial expert in this and was asking for input from more knowledgeable members.

And then like all good ATS'ers, I have my opinion after reading and looking between the lines. I came to the conclusion that I don't believe the article is as innocent as merely a 'Plan' for a just-in-case scenario. Not one bit.

I see it as trying to convince the sheep that the wolf isn't at the fence line even tho they can smell him preparing carrots and onions for the stew pot.

Just My opinion of course.

Peace

reply to post by jude11


Its just that they are so big, you need an un-install if they go under.

As far as the global economy goes and the American economy, what the world needs to do is to take that IMF money, 450 billion and build 90 trade hubs around the world. Spend 5 billion each. And its glory road from there on in job wise.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


C'mon now.
The only reason the bankster CEOs have to "climb the ladder" is to see if they are good little puppets who can be trusted to play the game while keeping their mouths shut. This is the reason for their fat cat pay checks. Once they're in their cushy lifestyles, dining in the best restaurants, and sleeping with the best call girls, it's terrifying for them to imagine themselves back in the sweat shops working their 80-100 hour per week jobs where they have to brown nose to people like you. You can dress a roach in a tux, but it's still a roach.

same amount of money as you do working for George Soros and the Communist Party of America to bash the banks on public forums.

Do you get paid in rubles or EURO's? Just curious how that works.

I don't have any respect for Soros either and how dare you suggest that I work for a snake with legs.

So, just because I happen to root for the little guy and bash an industry intent on keeping the illusion (fiat money) alive, you assume I'm a Communist? You can do better than that.

Banking CEOs, insurance companies, lobbyists, and politicians are all corrupt.
The ones in society who deserve to make fat paychecks are doctors, nurses, firefighters, EMTs, teachers, and anyone else who is actually doing the community a service.

Is it any wonder that the ones who get paid the most in society are the people who help sustain the illusion and keep people distracted? Celebrities, sports figures, politicians, actors/actresses, and the banksters. They're all paid to just keep us distracted and dumbed down. You mentioned chipping earlier, please volunteer yourself and your family first. Might as well practice what you preach.

In the meantime, the rest of us need to start doing our homework and find out how to take the steps that Iceland has taken to get to where they are now. We need to seek out and identify all the fraudulent documents that are floating around as well as the loopholes these rich roaches have at their disposal and figure out how we can get these loopholes to work for us. If a debt is created from fraudulent practices, then no debt exists whatsoever.

There seems to be a fundamentally flawed premise involved in these plans. That is, that other big financial institutions will buy the assets of a failing bank. Instead, it seems that when one of these "too big to fail" banks (like Lehman Brothers) gets into such serious trouble that it is about to fail, all the other big institutions are in serious trouble, too. The others aren't just sitting around itching to get their hands on yet more bad assets. They have their own similar bad assets they'd like to ditch.

Sounds more like a placebo to placate banking critics than genuine medicine.

Originally posted by jude11

Originally posted by SouthernForkway26

Major Banks Say They Are Ready To Go Under

Banks are required to give the government the tools to wind them down in a case of failure under provisions of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law designed to end the practice of bailing out “too big to fail” banks by the state. The act aims to secure the financial system from turmoil such as followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns in 2008.

Part of the new regulations. Theyre trying to say that they have a plan, and if something crazy happens and a big bank fails there's nothing to worry about. They have a plan for that. I doubt that they would be able to sell their assets to the willing buyers like they say they can. If one goes down, you can bet that the market is gonna be worried about the rest of them. Prices for these assets are likely to plummet before they are all sold, creating a snowball effect. It's all just more smoke and mirrors to try to keep faith that the market is stable and prepared.

Well it all sounds like a cluster **** coming and they're ready.

I'm still going to keep my money close at hand and out of the bank as much as possible. Can't help it. After these last few years I have no faith in anything these buggers have to say.

Peace

I'm sorry but if the banks fail, your money isn't going to be worth the paper it's printed on...

Jaden

Another engineered depression that will sort the people out and consolidate more power to the top. Great, time to farm my own land and gather a community of like minded people to avert ourselves from this system when it "recovers" in 10-15 years.

I can't believe how many on this thread would rather set their hair on fire than understand the article.

The Dodd Frank bill is an attempt to regulate some of the banking that got us all in trouble.

Part of that law says -- this too big to fail thing is BS. We want to see a plan so that the country doesn't have to bail your asses out again.

The banks complied with the regulation. Kinda like they have fire extinguishers or your car has a spare tire.

Would you rather it go down -- hey we're gonna fail tomorrow -- we need money right now.

This is how regulations are supposed to work.

Technically fiat money is insolvent – we are just told otherwise. Modern Money Mechanics is the Fed’s Manifesto which tries to prove otherwise and does a piss poor job. We are told by TPTB our ‘money’ derives [key word] [RED FLAG] value based on trust and supply. Which is beyond idiotic. All ‘money’ consists of are digits on a computer screen.

reply to post by jude11


Your thread got me to thinking...how solvent is my bank? I found this article from 2009. I found it to be helpful.

ratenerd.com...

Now its the same, the banks are crashing the economy to justify a further consolidation of power and control.

The main problem in the economy is too much leverage. We have way too many consumers and corporations with debt up to their ears.

Corruption is bad enough. Throw in stupidity with corruption and you have what we have today - a nation on the decline.

canada has great banks

Canada has a much stabler banking system than the United States. Yes, this is true. But they also have less home ownership. The U.S. had this entitlement philosophy that every Tom, Dick, and Harry that had a pulse deserved to own a $500,000 home. That didn't work out so well.

and RT of course is a propaganda outlet for Russia

Well, at least you admit that you are quoting from a Communist source.

They got billions of tax payer money in the bail outs.

Good grief. Bailouts? Still talking about bailouts? These big banks didn't need the money, and returned the TARP funds with interest in record time. It was only when Paulson and Bernanke put a guns to the heads of these banks to take TARP funds because of fear that the entire economy would collapse and the markets were in free fall.

You remember the panic of 2008, do you not? When the whole market was collapsing? TARP was a once in a lifetime event.

The banks never wanted the TARP funds, and didn't want the oversight and regulation that would be attached by taking such funds, which is why they paid back TARP as fast as they received it. Big banks repaid TARP years ago, yet the lefties still bring out bank "bailouts" years later. Good grief.

The only reason the bankster CEOs have to "climb the ladder" is to see if they are good little puppets who can be trusted to play the game while keeping their mouths shut. This is the reason for their fat cat pay checks.

Uh, no. You actually need a Harvard MBA or a Yale law degree to even be in the running. It's a heck of a lot more complicated than just bumping your head one day and deciding that you want to run a Fortune 500 banking institution. You don't exactly wake up one day and decide you are going to be CEO - It takes literally a lifetime of work, persistence, and sheer luck to rise through the ranks to that level. Few arrive at the coveted seat of CEO, and those that do arrive, don't usually stay very long.

Once they're in their cushy lifestyles, dining in the best restaurants, and sleeping with the best call girls, it's terrifying for them to imagine themselves back in the sweat shops working their 80-100 hour per week jobs where they have to brown nose to people like you.

Call girls? Give me a break. These are public figures under a tremendous amount of scrutiny. Alcoholism, and high divorce rates, maybe, but call girls?

Which big bank CEO exactly are you accusing of hiring call girls?

In today's era, even Eliot Spitzer, the former governor, couldn't get away with hiring a call girl without being caught. Give me a break.

Do you really think the Board of Directors is going to tolerate a CEO with that kind of bad judgment and poor ethics? Not likely. Too much is at stake.

Brown nose to me? Huh? Your idiocy and sheer stupidity aside, when you reach CEO levels, you move on to retirement, or other CEO jobs, or become Chairman of the Board. Few go back in the trenches.

I don't have any respect for Soros either and how dare you suggest that I work for a snake with legs.

This from someone that posts from a known Communist news source. Yep, now that's what we call credibility.

Banking CEOs, insurance companies, lobbyists, and politicians are all corrupt. The ones in society who deserve to make fat paychecks are doctors, nurses, firefighters, EMTs, teachers, and anyone else who is actually doing the community a service.

I can assure you that there are just as many corrupt doctors as there are politicians. Painting with a pretty big brush, aren't we? Are you sure you aren't making sweeping generalizations?

You're right. All bankers are evil. Those darn tellers and branch managers worship at the House of Satan on the weekends. Who are we kidding, right?

There are good and bad people in every walk of life. There are rich people that are evil, and rich people that are saints. There are poor people that are evil, and poor people that are saints. It's not the profession - It's the person.

So, before you start making wide, sweeping generalizations about whole industries and professions, let's use some sense of tact and objectivity, okay?

You mentioned chipping earlier, please volunteer yourself and your family first. Might as well practice what you preach.

No, you and your Commie news sources can go first. Enjoy.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by SouthernForkway26

Major Banks Say They Are Ready To Go Under

Banks are required to give the government the tools to wind them down in a case of failure under provisions of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law designed to end the practice of bailing out “too big to fail” banks by the state. The act aims to secure the financial system from turmoil such as followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns in 2008.

Part of the new regulations. Theyre trying to say that they have a plan, and if something crazy happens and a big bank fails there's nothing to worry about. They have a plan for that. I doubt that they would be able to sell their assets to the willing buyers like they say they can. If one goes down, you can bet that the market is gonna be worried about the rest of them. Prices for these assets are likely to plummet before they are all sold, creating a snowball effect. It's all just more smoke and mirrors to try to keep faith that the market is stable and prepared.

Absolutely agree. This is nothing more than gov requiring banks to have an "emergency plan", but all of those banks have simply made an obvious plan that wouldn't actually work.

The banks are placating regulators and gov with a scrap book of ramblings, so the regulators and gov can placate the public and say they have a plan.

The truth of the matter is that none of those plans can ever actually be used, because the vast majority of their plans would be pointless. Who is going to buy parts of a failed bank in a crashing market when bankers and traders are jumping from the roofs?

These plans do not take into account the size of the disaster should any of those banks collapse. They're written as though they're a small shop on the corner dealing with a flood. These banks have the capacity to crash the entire monetary system all over the world, and their contingency plans would be worthless in the face of that.

It doesn't mean a collapse is on the way either. We've seen several instances where the banking collapse should have happened already, and governments keep coming up with dastardly plans to give them more of your money. I expect this to continue to happen until the people say enough is enough.

Our governments are already in so much debt it almost doesn't matter if they continue to pump money into the pockets of the bankers forever. I'll bet most governments are having meetings quite regularly and saying to each other how they're shocked that the people are allowing it to continue. They must be stunned that the public has just bent over and taken it the way we have without a fight.

Now that the bankruptcy laws have been changed regarding hypothecation and rehypothecation these banks don't have a clue what will happen when their bubble bursts!

Who ever is holding the physical asset of a hypothecated paper gets to immediately seize that asset!

reply to post by CookieMonster09


WOW? You really drank all that koolaid too!

some banks are leveraged 2000 to one on interest rate swaps?
banks have been continually bailed out by Fannie and Freddie by dumping foreclosures onto the taxpayer...

clearly you don't have a grasp on what is going on in the banking industry from your sheeple like rant defending the banks


I think you need to get a grip and stop watching Faux news....

Originally posted by Detergent
There seems to be a fundamentally flawed premise involved in these plans. That is, that other big financial institutions will buy the assets of a failing bank. Instead, it seems that when one of these "too big to fail" banks (like Lehman Brothers) gets into such serious trouble that it is about to fail, all the other big institutions are in serious trouble, too. The others aren't just sitting around itching to get their hands on yet more bad assets. They have their own similar bad assets they'd like to ditch.

Sounds more like a placebo to placate banking critics than genuine medicine.

These banks actually don't own much of the stuff they claim because of the changes in the bankruptcy laws regarding their assets.. Now, the company; their bill collectors; their shareholders ... don't have a leg to stand on regarding hypothecation and rehypothecation of assets!

sreaves32.wordpress.com...

clearly you don't have a grasp on what is going on in the banking industry from your sheeple like rant defending the banks

Nonsense. Let's stick with facts, and not scaremongering.

Take JPMChase. In the first quarter of 2012, they earned $5.2 Billion in Net Income. That's just in one quarter. Wells Fargo earned $4.25 billion in Net Income in the same time frame. Bank of America earned $653 Million in Net Income in the first quarter of 2012. These are 3 of the mega-banks -- All are profitable, and all have significant assets and liquidity (cash on hand).

How about Assets? As an example, Bank of America has about $1.4 Trillion Dollars in Assets at year-end 2011, and another Trillion Dollars in Deposits on Hand. They earned $9.6 Billion last year in a down economy. Chase, Wells Fargo, etc. are in the same boat.

Consumer Mortgages are just one product set. These mega-banks have multiple streams of income from more than just Consumer Mortgages. They earns billions of dollars in a whole array of financial services: commercial lending, treasury services, merchant credit card processing, investment management, etc. They are big, diversified companies.

As we saw with Chase recently, even when it took a multi-billion dollar trading loss on speculative trades, it was just a drop in the bucket compared to their overall asset size and profitability.

So, before you begin ranting that these banks are unstable, let's use some real accounting metrics to measure their stability. Good grief.

“under a 2005 amendment to the bankruptcy laws, derivatives counterparties were given the advantage over other creditors of being able to immediately terminate their contracts and seize collateral at the time of bankruptcy.”

Your article on hypothecation is hooey. First, if one of these mega-banks were to fail, the FDIC would step in and decide how assets are divided and amongst which parties. Private parties with dibs on assets have to wait for the FDIC to make the decision on how these assets get divided. They cannot overrule the FDIC.

Secondly, Bear Stearns, Lehman, MF Global, and AIG were not banks under the jurisdiction of the FDIC, so the examples cited aren't even applicable to banks like Chase and Wells. The examples cited aren't even relevant to the conversation.

Originally posted by camaro68ss
The emergence plan was put in a bill back in 2010, i think, and the deadline was this month for the majority of the banks to submit there “brake up” plan if anything was to happen.

edit on 6-7-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

I've heard it referred to as the banks "living will". Interesting times as unfolding Keep informed, research (for yourself) and prepare for a little bit of a "crisis" before good, maybe geat things, happen for us.

Hello, I am a recent de-sheeple.

Can someone explain to me how a bank can fail? I mean other than out right theft?

Banks get money at a very low interest rate, sometimes 0 percent interest. Sometimes it's 1%. The money is free to them tho, they just have to pay interest on it. Then the bank loans that money out at varying interest rates, it's of course higher than the rate they pay.

How are they failing. Come on.

Let me state a metaphor. You have unlimited tomatoes. You sell them to me for 1 dollar. I sell them for 5 dollars. How would I go bankrupt? It makes no sense to me. Unless, you know where I'm going with this, I blow all my profit and can't afford to buy anymore tomatoes.

Sorry for the lame metaphor but comon! The banks have it made! They effed it up and they need to pay the consequences for it.

Banking is a business. It needs to be treated as such. It's not a nipple to suck the population dry so you can have two yachts.

It really really sucks for the common person that they got greedy.