FDIC questions...specifically the last 4 years

I am just looking for broad sweeping info on any FDIC conspiracies that have come up in the last 4 years.

I have made a random connection to something I was researching and want to see if anyone has any info about anything going on with the FDIC. For those that don't know, FDIC is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation established by Congress during the Great Depression...

a reply to: Vasa Croe

This rabbit hole might help ..."Guns and Butter November 2, 2011
"Unpacking Mr. Global, Part One" with Catherine Austin Fitts. Derivatives exposure of Bank of America and the FDIC; corruption at the Department of Housing and Urban Development; prosecution of Hamilton Securities; Community Wizard; 9/11; collateral fraud. (This is the entire Part One which was truncated last week due to fundraising.)
Guns and Butter - November 2, 2011 at 1:00pm " 911blogger.com... Aside from Fitts I would say Micheal Hudson would be someone to track down .

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Michael Ruppert talked about FDIC insolvency and how that could happen, although I forget which documentary or book this was in. Important topic Vasa Croe.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Michael Ruppert talked about FDIC insolvency and how that could happen, although I forget which documentary or book this was in. Important topic Vasa Croe.

FDIC isn't insolvent but it's not designed or capable of being a general asset protection fund in the event of widespread bank collapses. It's an insurance program, but it can only handle one or a few banks going under at once. If we had a larger banking collapse it wouldn't be capable of doing anything. It's not meant to either, it's primarily there for the illusion of security.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Vasa Croe

This rabbit hole might help ..."Guns and Butter November 2, 2011
"Unpacking Mr. Global, Part One" with Catherine Austin Fitts. Derivatives exposure of Bank of America and the FDIC; corruption at the Department of Housing and Urban Development; prosecution of Hamilton Securities; Community Wizard; 9/11; collateral fraud. (This is the entire Part One which was truncated last week due to fundraising.)
Guns and Butter - November 2, 2011 at 1:00pm " 911blogger.com... Aside from Fitts I would say Micheal Hudson would be someone to track down .

Much appreciated..this is kind of what I'm looking for...names are what I really want to find to research...names and connections to those names.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Michael Ruppert talked about FDIC insolvency and how that could happen, although I forget which documentary or book this was in. Important topic Vasa Croe.

Yeah...this connection I'm looking at seems a bit off so that's why I'm asking for info without giving what I'm really looking at yet. I want to see thoughts outside of mine unbiased by my own thoughts.

I have a "feeling" there is something to this connection but really want to see if anyone else has researched the FDIC as far as any conspiracies at all and if any of the names that come up happen to have relation to what I am looking at.

Like I said though, this is specifically within the last 4 years give or take a few months depending on what the info links to.

On this topic, I am also curious if there is anywhere to find the info on what institutions the FDIC has been the recipient on and where either they merged it with another or where the assets went that they were responsible for.

The more I dig, the more power I realize these guys have. Their power isn't in being able to insure big banks, it appears it is more being able to be two different entities, a receiver and a deposit insurer. I would think those two things would create massive conflicts of interest.

The FDIC as receiver is functionally and legally separate from the FDIC acting in its corporate role as deposit insurer, and the FDIC as receiver has separate rights, duties, and obligations from those of the FDIC as insurer. Courts have long recognized these dual and separate capacities.

In 1991, to comply with legislation, the FDIC amended its failure resolution procedures to decrease the costs to the deposit insurance funds. The procedures require the FDIC to choose the resolution alternative that is least costly to the deposit insurance fund of all possible methods for resolving the failed institution. Bids are submitted to the FDIC where they are reviewed and the least cost determination is made.

A receivership is designed to market the assets of a failed institution, liquidate them, and distribute the proceeds to the institution's creditors. The FDIC as receiver succeeds to the rights, powers, and privileges of the institution and its stockholders, officers, and directors. The FDIC may collect all obligations and money due to the institution, preserve or liquidate its assets and property, and perform any other function of the institution consistent with its appointment.

A receiver also has the power to merge a failed institution with another insured depository institution and to transfer its assets and liabilities without the consent or approval of any other agency, court, or party with contractual rights. Furthermore, a receiver may form a new institution, such as a bridge bank, to take over the assets and liabilities of the failed institution, or it may sell or pledge the assets of the failed institution to the FDIC in its corporate capacity.

So essentially they can shut an institution down, take bids for the most economical option of disbursement for insured deposts, or just sign it all over to themselves and basically wipe the slate clean for the institution that went under....

IG's also were granted a lot more power just before Trump went in with the Inspector General Empowerment Act.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

...essentially they can shut an institution down, take bids for the most economical option of disbursement for insured deposits, or just sign it all over to themselves and basically wipe the slate clean for the institution that went under....

It definitely sounds like you're on to something here... you would think by being a "receiver" and a "deposit insurer" with the powers FDIC has, it would be an obvious no-no. Now I'm very intrigued... are you still looking further into this? Maybe worth its own new thread?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

This is a link to FDIC search over at solari ....solari.com...

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Vasa Croe

...essentially they can shut an institution down, take bids for the most economical option of disbursement for insured deposits, or just sign it all over to themselves and basically wipe the slate clean for the institution that went under....

It definitely sounds like you're on to something here... you would think by being a "receiver" and a "deposit insurer" with the powers FDIC has, it would be an obvious no-no. Now I'm very intrigued... are you still looking further into this? Maybe worth its own new thread?

Kind of digging into all of it as time permits, but feel free to start another thread if you think it's warranted.

It's an insurance program, but it can only handle one or a few banks going under at once.

It can handle more than just a few banks going under at once. Back in the 2008-2009 time frame, the FDIC was shutting down dozens upon dozens of banks at the height of the financial crisis.

Funding for the FDIC comes from fees collected from banks, particularly the big banks - Chase, Wells, etc. The big banks provide the bulk of the funding for the FDIC.

I have made a random connection to something I was researching and want to see if anyone has any info about anything going on with the FDIC.

All the FDIC does is really shut down failing banks, sell the good loan assets to the highest bidding bank, and dispose of the sub-standard loan assets.

The banks are heavily regulated, and the FDIC has good reason to target for shutdown those banks that are failing. The regulators know when a bank is struggling as they keep very, very close tabs on the financial health of these banks and so the FDIC has plenty of time to know when a bank might be on the verge of collapse.

So essentially they can shut an institution down, take bids for the most economical option of disbursement for insured deposts, or just sign it all over to themselves and basically wipe the slate clean for the institution that went under....

They don't shut down healthy banks that are profitable. When a bank gets shut down, the goal is to have a preferably local bank take over the deposits and the good loan assets. They try to make it a smooth transition, which is why most banks get shut down on a Friday late afternoon and then re-open on the weekend under the new bank name. They try to make it seamless. Bad loan assets get sold to the highest bidder, or placed out for collection.

There is some degree of horse trading that goes on between the FDIC and the bank that is taking over the failed bank. The bank making the takeover wants to negotiate to get the best deal for its shareholders, and avoid the risk of bad loan assets. At the same time, the FDIC wants to minimize losses as much as possible. So there is some give and take.