Get ready AMERICA (and England)... here comes the "haircut"!!!!

FDIC & BANK OF ENGLAND CREATE RESOLUTION AUTHORITY FOR UNLIMITED CYPRUS-STYLE “BAIL-INS” FOR TBTF BANKS!

Well... we knew it was just a matter of time.... to all of those "that will never happen in America" people, you may want to read the linked article and reconsider your position. Again, due to comments made on my other threads regarding "haircuts", the sourced website is NOT trying to sell you anything, they are an alternative financial news site, and a very good one at that. Yes, they do sell gold and silver, but this article is not trying to sell you any. Take the information for what it is, or ignore it and keep trusting the banksters at you own peril.

some highlights...

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Bank of England—together with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Financial Services Authority— have been working to develop resolution strategies for the failure of globally active, systemically important, financial institutions (SIFIs or G-SIFIs) with significant operations on both sides of the Atlantic. The goal is to produce resolution strategies that could be implemented for the failure of one or more of the largest financial institutions with extensive activities in our respective jurisdictions. These resolution strategies should maintain systemically important operations and contain threats to financial stability. They should also assign losses to shareholders and unsecured creditors in the group, thereby avoiding the need for a bailout by taxpayers.

The joint US/UK resolution states that depositor haircuts are already legal in the UK thanks to the 2009 UK Banking Act:

In the U.K., the strategy has been developed on the basis of the powers provided by the U.K. Banking Act 2009 and in anticipation of the further powers that will be provided by the European Union Recovery and Resolution Directive and the domestic reforms that implement the recommendations of the U.K. Independent Commission on Banking. Such a strategy would involve the bail-in (write-down or conversion) of creditors at the top of the group in order to restore the whole group to solvency.

And that the legal authority has already been given in the US buried in Dodd-Frank:

It should be stressed that the application of such a strategy can be achieved only within a legislative framework that provides authorities with key resolution powers. The FSB Key Attributes have established a crucial framework for the implementation of an effective set of resolution powers and practices into national regimes. In the U.S., these powers had already become available under the Dodd-Frank Act. In the U.K., the additional powers needed to enhance the existing resolution framework established under the Banking Act 2009(the Banking Act) are expected to be fully provided by the European Commission’s proposals for a European Union Recovery and Resolution Directive (RRD) and through the domestic reforms that implement the recommendations of the U.K. Independent Commission on Banking (ICB), enhancing the existing resolution framework established under the Banking Act. The development of effective resolution strategies is being carried out in anticipation of such legislation. The unsecured debt holders can expect that their claims would be written down to reflect any losses that shareholders cannot cover, with some converted partly into equity in order to provide sufficient capital to return the sound businesses of the G-SIFI to private sector operation. Sound subsidiaries (domestic and foreign) would be kept open and operating, thereby limiting contagion effects and cross-border complications. In both countries, whether during execution of the resolution or thereafter, restructuring measures may be taken, especially in the parts of the business causing the distress, including shrinking those businesses, breaking them into smaller entities, and/or liquidating or closing certain operations.

So... now what?

edit* Sorry... forgot the link (thanks Des)

link to story

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


You know it, I know it, and we wonder why they want to take away our guns????

Most Americans are oblivious as to what is happening in the rest of the world though. They trust their government.

For the NWO to exist, one of the things they require is to do away with Nationalism. What does that mean? The United States gives up it's Sovereignty.

OH! The other thing? One religion for the world!! Hmmmmm, I wonder who will be God?

It sounds like the Iceland approach to banking troubles is to be implemented. With the amount of debt the governments are in they are no longer in a position to help out should a large financial institution mess up its books.

Buy silver

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

They should also assign losses to shareholders and unsecured creditors in the group, thereby avoiding the need for a bailout by taxpayers.

Unsecured means above the FDIC insured limit, right? Someone correct that if its wrong.

Well I know that the little plaque at the bank window the last time I looked, said deposits were insured up to 250k.

I sure as hell dont have over 250k sitting around collecting dust in a bank hard drive...

... do any of you?

If not, you have nothing to worry about.

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

You know it, I know it, and we wonder why they want to take away our guns????

Most Americans are oblivious as to what is happening in the rest of the world though. They trust their government.

For the NWO to exist, one of the things they require is to do away with Nationalism. What does that mean? The United States gives up it's Sovereignty.

OH! The other thing? One religion for the world!! Hmmmmm, I wonder who will be God?

EXACTLY RIGHT... I couldn't have said it better

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

They should also assign losses to shareholders and unsecured creditors in the group, thereby avoiding the need for a bailout by taxpayers.

Unsecured means below the the FDIC insured limit, right? Someone correct that if its wrong.

Well I know that the little plaque at the bank window the last time I looked, said deposits were insured up to 250k.

I sure as hell dont have over 250k sitting around collecting dust in a bank hard drive...

... do any of you?

If not, you have nothing to worry about.

The FDIC is a fraud. They have $30 Billion and a $100 Billion credit line... to insure $10 TRILLION in deposits. I wonder how that will work out

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

The FDIC is a fraud. They have $30 Billion and a $100 Billion credit line... to insure $10 TRILLION in deposits. I wonder how that will work out

So you are expecting a 100% thieving of all US deposits, by all banks, simultaneously? I find that highly unlikely as even being remotely possible.

Anyway, the point is, that the article says that UNSECURED deposits were what was at risk for being stolen, which I believe means money that is over the 250k insured limit. Which means that if you do NOT have over 250k in the bank, you are not at risk based on this specific development.

FDIC will apply in some circumstances but not all -- as OP indicated it is overleveraged. The following is my own post quoted from another related thread

The articles I connected to were frankly a bit beyond my ken and I have a fair grasp of economics and banking regulations. Basically they indicated that at the financial summit late last year this plan was hatched. It was followed up by newly released FDIC regulations, using the Lehman Brothers situation as precedent, will not actually pay out in the instance of an insurance failure (and the insurance for the FDIC is overleveraged) but will instead consider depositors to be unsecured creditors in the failed or failing institution. For Lehman that was 8 cents on the dollar in funds recovered for unsecured creditors. Those with derivative investments in the failed institution (so, less skin in the game in reality) take seniority over the actual depositors and get more money back in the event of both bank and insurance coverage failure. Yeah, it was over my head but my read was take the money out of the bank...

Source is CounterPunch -- new to me, author is attorney fwiw

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

The FDIC is a fraud. They have $30 Billion and a $100 Billion credit line... to insure $10 TRILLION in deposits. I wonder how that will work out

So you are expecting a 100% thieving of all US deposits, by all banks, simultaneously? I find that highly unlikely as even being remotely possible.

Anyway, the point is, that the article says that UNSECURED deposits were what was at risk for being stolen, which I believe means money that is over the 250k insured limit. Which means that if you do NOT have over 250k in the bank, you are not at risk based on this specific development.

So does that make it any less wrong? Where will they turn once they have plundered all of the rich people? You and I.

This happens in almost every decade (banks going under). Check to see if your bank is FDIC insured. Even if it is you better have some money tucked away while the bank is annexed by another and the doors get reopened.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

You know it, I know it, and we wonder why they want to take away our guns????

Most Americans are oblivious as to what is happening in the rest of the world though. They trust their government.

For the NWO to exist, one of the things they require is to do away with Nationalism. What does that mean? The United States gives up it's Sovereignty.

OH! The other thing? One religion for the world!! Hmmmmm, I wonder who will be God?

EXACTLY RIGHT... I couldn't have said it better

How about those of us, who are not "oblivious",
but don't believe there will be a NWO take over
of the United States with Obam'itler at the helm?

Originally posted by IntelRetard
This happens in almost every decade (banks going under). Check to see if your bank is FDIC insured. Even if it is you better have some money tucked away while the bank is annexed by another and the doors get reopened.

edit on 29-3-2013 by IntelRetard because: (no reason given)

I think this is all leading to a massive bank consolidation... eventually leading to one global megabank which will install a one world currency, probably digital

Not sure about the one world bank. History shows this happens all the time. This link shows the bank failures and the banks that assumed the accounts. Only list back to 2001.

Failed bank llist

Originally posted by IntelRetard
Not sure about the one world bank. History shows this happens all the time. This link shows the bank failures and the banks that asumed the accounts. Only list back to 2001.

Faile bank llist

edit on 29-3-2013 by IntelRetard because: (no reason given)

Sure banks have failed since the beginning of time, but the circumstances this time are much different, and the economic climate is much different. Back in the day, when a bank failed it was far more localized and easier to recover from because when one bank failed there were plenty of good banks to come in and take their assets and carry on. In today's debt laden world, there are no solvent banks, and they operate on illusion.

OptimusSubprime. Do you have a link to your OP...I would greatly appreciate it.....

Des

Originally posted by Destinyone
OptimusSubprime. Do you have a link to your OP...I would greatly appreciate it.....

Des

oops... that would help

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by IntelRetard
This happens in almost every decade (banks going under). Check to see if your bank is FDIC insured. Even if it is you better have some money tucked away while the bank is annexed by another and the doors get reopened.

edit on 29-3-2013 by IntelRetard because: (no reason given)

I think this is all leading to a massive bank consolidation... eventually leading to one global megabank which will install a one world currency, probably digital

I think the BRICS countries, allegedly soon to include Indonesia and Iran, have seen the global megabanker's writing on the wall and have prepared ahead of time to make the great escape. If the US/UN plans to stop BRICS from leaving the dollar all at the same time it will be a lot worse than a financial haircut for Americans ~ more like a full blown world war. HERE.

The US doesn't have the men, the material or the money to win what they've already started overseas, or defend our own borders, much less fight off a cacophony of invaders in the "homeland". If the American people don't know how thin the military is already stretched you can bet that at least China and Russia have a pretty good idea and they aren't happy about bending over for the dollar anymore and less so for a one size fits all global monetary system.

two cents ~

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by IntelRetard
This happens in almost every decade (banks going under). Check to see if your bank is FDIC insured. Even if it is you better have some money tucked away while the bank is annexed by another and the doors get reopened.

edit on 29-3-2013 by IntelRetard because: (no reason given)

I think this is all leading to a massive bank consolidation... eventually leading to one global megabank which will install a one world currency, probably digital

I think the BRICS countries, allegedly soon to include Indonesia and Iran, have seen the global megabanker's writing on the wall and have prepared ahead of time to make the great escape. If the US/UN plans to stop BRICS from leaving the dollar all at the same time it will be a lot worse than a financial haircut for Americans ~ more like a full blown world war. HERE.

The US doesn't have the men, the material or the money to win what they've already started overseas, or defend our own borders, much less fight off a cacophony of invaders in the "homeland". If the American people don't know how thin the military is already stretched you can bet that at least China and Russia have a pretty good idea and they aren't happy about bending over for the dollar anymore and less so for a one size fits all global monetary system.

two cents ~

You make some great points here. The BRICS nations are forming a bank right now to compete with the IMF... the writing is indeed on the wall

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

The FDIC is a fraud. They have $30 Billion and a $100 Billion credit line... to insure $10 TRILLION in deposits. I wonder how that will work out

So you are expecting a 100% thieving of all US deposits, by all banks, simultaneously? I find that highly unlikely as even being remotely possible.

Anyway, the point is, that the article says that UNSECURED deposits were what was at risk for being stolen, which I believe means money that is over the 250k insured limit. Which means that if you do NOT have over 250k in the bank, you are not at risk based on this specific development.

Ask the people of Cyprus if it's "remotely" possible. The ECB is talking about Italy and Spain being next also. If they take the money above $250K how much capital is left for your employer to employ you with then? After the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia the govt took everything and no one was left with anything. You should read about that because all this we're reading about now has been done before.