Savings Account? Hardly: You're an unsecured creditor getting zippo interest

[Carl]

The problem is it doesn't matter what the truth is. What matters is what is accepted by the most people. Most people have faith in the dollar, and therefore it has value.

They have faith in the dollar, CREDIT IS NOT A DOLLAR!

Credit holds no legal status as a currency at all!

[Walter Mitty]

Then (if credit has no legal status) we cannot suffer a 1923 Wiemar style hyper inflation. A store has to accept FRN dollars,It does not have to accept your promise to pay FRN dollars. Unless they change the laws. So their game now is to declare depositors as equity holders. Taking the FDIC off the hook
and returning equity shares instead of FRN dollars.
It makes sense now why Bank of America was allowed to transfer their derivative liabilities to their commercial banking division. I wonder if any other banks followed suit? I bet they all did. But it has not been reported.
I wondered how they were going to save the "Dollar". Now instead of a depositor with FDIC insurance you are an equity partner. It will allow the banks to steal trillions and mark every ones account reimbursed if full. It gets the FDIC off the hook, they will not have to print trillions of FRN notes.
And those equity shares will probably have no voting rights and will be worth squat.

[Carl]

Sorry for jumping you govcheetos, you didn't deserve it...

Technically, they are not confiscating people's accounts, they are salvaging the accounts so the people can retain their ability to pay debt. In a credit currency based system, when the bank that facilitates the credit goes bankrupt, all credit that populated people's accounts ceases to exist as credit and transforms into the bank's debt. In the past when this occurred, the banks were closed, their assets ceased and auctioned off and the depositors normally lost everything.

Thanks to modern miracles in linguistics, the bank’s debt, which was formerly known as your bank account, is now, presto chango, Regulatory Capital! Regulatory Capital is a very thin veneer of bankster bullshit plastered over bankster debt, which gives it the appearance of being viable credit again. Then, this veneer of bullshit is applied to what used to be people’s bank accounts, thus giving them the appearance of containing funds that were never really there to begin with. And it is from these fantasy bank account funds that they shave the bank’s debt down to a more manageable amount, giving the bank the appearance of being solvent again. Of course, the people are out the amount shaved but at least they are getting something and the good part is, the bankster elite don’t have to pony up the capital to cover the insured amount.

They're reducing the bank's debt with what used to be your money while maintaining your debt at full value...

These fuktards are some sick demented individuals.

[mamboni]

If this is true, then events are proceeding into ominous rather briskly .... or SilverDocs are pulling a Sorcha Faal:

FDIC & Bank of England Create Resolution Authority for Unlimited Cyprus-Style “Bail-Ins” for TBTF Banks!

March 29, 2013 By The Doc 75 Comments




*BREAKING SD ALERT*


On Wednesday, SD broke the news that Canada had buried a provision for depositor bail-ins for systemically important banks deep inside its official 2013 budget, and stated that the Cypriot bail-in was not just a one-off event, but is in fact the new collapse template for the entire Western banking system.
We suspected that the same policy change had been made by the US & the UK, but was simply yet to be discovered, buried in the website of a Federal agency.


We suspected correctly…



In the introduction, the resolution informs readers that the FDIC and the Bank of England have been working together to formulate the new bail-in model for future bank failures:

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.

The resolution states that while the US would prefer large financial institutions be resolved through ordinary bankruptcy, depositor wealth confiscation will be pursued in the case of a systemically important institution (i.e. BOA, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, etc):


As demonstrated by the Title I requirement of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act), the U.S. would prefer that large financial organizations be resolvable through ordinary bankruptcy. However, the U.S. bankruptcy process may not be able to handle the failure of a systemic financial institution without significant disruption to the financial system.
The resolution authority states that shareholders would lose all value prior to depositor scalpings:

Under the strategies currently being developed by the U.S. and the U.K., the resolution authority could intervene at the top of the group. Culpable senior management of
the parent and operating businesses would be removed, and losses would be apportioned to shareholders and unsecured creditors. In all likelihood, shareholders would lose all value and unsecured creditors should thus expect that their claims would be written down to reflect any losses that shareholders did not cover.
Under both the U.S. and U.K. approaches, legal safeguards ensure that creditors recover no less than they would under insolvency.

The banksters plans for a bail-in resolution agency include investment banks and clearing houses as well as deposit bearing institutions!!!

The introduction of a statutory bail-in resolution tool (the power to writedown or convert into equity the liabilities of a failing firm) under the RRD is critical to implementing a whole group resolution of U.K. firms in a way that reduces the risks to financial stability. A bail-in tool would enable the U.K. authorities to recapitalize an institution by allocating losses to its shareholders and unsecured creditors, thereby avoiding the need to split or transfer operating entities. The provisions in the RRD that
enable the resolution authority to impose a temporary stay on the exercise of termination rights by counterparties in the event of a firm’s entry into resolution (in other words, preventing counterparties from terminating their contractual arrangements with a firm solely as a result of the firm’s entry into resolution) will be needed to ensure the bail-in is executed in an orderly manner.

The existing Banking Act does not cover nondeposit-taking financial firms, notably investment banks and financial market infrastructures (clearing houses in particular), the failure of which, in many cases, would also have significant financial stability consequences. The Banking Act also has limitations with regard to the application of resolution tools to financial holding companies. The U.K. is in the process of expanding the scope of the Banking Act to include these firms. This is expected to be achieved through the introduction of the U.K. Financial Services Bill, which is due to complete its passage through Parliament by the end of this year.

Exactly as played out with the Cyprus template, depositors will receive equity shares in the new, bailed-in institution:

The remaining claims of the debt holders will be converted, in part, into equity claims that will serve to capitalize the new operations. The debt holders may also receive convertible subordinated debt in the new operations. This debt would provide a cushion against further losses in the firm, as it can be converted into equity if needed. Any
remaining claims of the debt holders could be transferred to the new operations in the form of new unsecured debt.

Exactly as played out with the Cyprus template, depositor funds will be stolen in whatever quantities are required to keep the TBTF zombie bank afloat:

Once the recapitalization requirement has been determined, an announcement of the final terms of the bail-in would be made to the previous security holders.
This announcement would include full details of the write-down and/or conversion.
Debt securities would be cancelled or written down in order to return the firm to solvency by reducing the level of outstanding liabilities. The losses would be applied up the firm’s capital structure in a process that respects the existing creditor hierarchy underinsolvency law. The value of any loans from the parent to its operating subsidiaries would be written down in a manner that ensures that the subsidiaries remain solvent and viable.

For now (until the rules are changed when a greater need for funds arises, funds will only be stolen from depositors with more than the FDIC insured $100,000 in their account:

Insofar as a bail-in provides for continuity in operations and preserves value, losses to a deposit guarantee scheme in a bail-in should be much lower than in liquidation.
Insured depositors themselves would remain unaffected. Uninsured deposits would be treated in line with other similarly ranked liabilities in the resolution process, with the expectation that they might be written down.

In order for the resolution to work, the banksters state that the public must be convinced their deposits are safe, when in fact they are subject to bail-in confiscation:

Similarly, because the group remains solvent, retail or corporate depositors should not have an incentive to “run” from the firm under resolution insofar as their banking
arrangements, transacted at the operating company level, remain unaffected. In order to achieve this, the authorities recognize the need for effective communication to depositors, making it clear that their deposits will be protected.

0.1% interest on savings deposits with the now VERY REAL THREAT OF COMPLETE CONFISCATION in the US & UK doesn’t sound like such a great return to us.


The Fed appears to be making a calculated play to force savings out of the TBTF banks and into stocks and real estate, a move that is likely to backfire spectacularly.


GOT PHYZZ??

[mamboni]

The USA, UK and EU are Planning to take your Savings: A Whiff of Desperation in the Air?




***Please feel free to leave comments or ask questions at the bottom of the article. We will reply or will write a special article to answer your questions.***

Yes, they are planning to take your savings in the USA, the UK and the EU.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Co...otoblog600.jpg
Katia Christodoulou / EPA
A woman unsuccessfully attempts to withdraw from a Cypriot bank ATM in Greece on Sunday.

A recent paper by the Bank of England and the American Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) demonstrates that both governments have a plan to take your savings money in a financial crisis. Scarily enough, the paper was published in December 2012.

As recent events in Cyprus, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy have shown, an unthinkable financial crisis can actually emerge at any time - just like it did in 2008. The 2008 crisis required trillions of dollars (pounds, euros) to bail out broken banks.
So, you have to ask yourself: Could my government take my money out of my savings account?


The answer is almost every case is “Yes”. In the USA, the UK and the EU, not only is it possible, but the reality is that two of the governments have just recently discussed how they would take your money. As with almost all economic writing, it lacks clarity and appears bland, but when read and reread it several times, it is chilling.


The title of the paper is Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions.

A translation is necessary here. To an economist or banker the term “resolving” means “giving money to.” “Globally active” means a bank that has operations in more than just one country. The term “systemically important” is banker speak for “we think this bank is too big to fail and therefore we have to bail it out.” The term “financial institutions” refers to banks as well as large insurance companies such as Lloyd's of London or AIG in America.


The title of this paper is actually “In the event of another financial crisis like the one in 2008, we are going to take money from savers and tax payers and give it to the international banks which are holding us as financial hostages by being too big to fail.”

As an aside, this is also an indirect admission that the problems that caused the 2008 financial crisis have not been addressed.
Have a look at the following key paragraph, and then see the explanations below.


34. The U.K. has also given consideration to the recapitalization process in a scenario in which a G-SIFI’s liabilities do not include much debt issuance at the holding company or parent bank level but instead comprise insured retail deposits held in the operating subsidiaries. Under such a scenario, deposit guarantee schemes may be required to contribute to the recapitalization of the firm, as they may do under the Banking Act in the use of other resolution tools. The proposed RRD also permits such an approach because it allows deposit guarantee scheme funds to be used to support the use of resolution tools, including bail-in, provided that the amount contributed does not exceed what the deposit guarantee scheme would have as a claimant in liquidation if it had made a payout to the insured depositors. That is consistent with the contribution requirement that is already imposed on the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in the U.K. in the exercise of resolution powers10 and simulates the losses that would have been incurred by those deposit guarantee schemes during bank insolvency. But insofar as a bail-in provides for continuity in operations and preserves value, losses to a deposit guarantee scheme in a bail-in should be much lower than in liquidation. Insured depositors themselves would remain unaffected. Uninsured deposits would be treated in line with other similarly ranked liabilities in the resolution process, with the expectation that they might be written down.
(See the full document at: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/news/2012/nr156.pdf )


The abbreviation RRD refers to the European Union Recovery and Resolution Directive. In other words, the joint UK and USA paper actually has its roots in the large European Union, so the concepts in this paper could easily be applied to the other countries in the EU. (Hello France and Belgium and yes even Germany!!)


The following words are key to the intent of the authors: it allows deposit guarantee scheme funds to be used to support the use of resolution tools, including bail-in.This means that money that is intended to be given to depositors (savers) in the event of a bank failure can instead be given to the bank itself as a means of resolving the crisis.

In other words, depositors are told that the first 100,000 dollars (pounds, Euros) of their savings are guaranteed by a government program so that even if the bank fails, the depositor will get their money back up to the agreed limit.


Now, the new plan is to give that guaranteed money to the bank, rather than the depositor.


The theory behind this is explained in the second underlined section. These economists have the idea that if the bank is going to fail, why not give it the guaranteed money to the bank so it can continue operations, and small depositors will then not lose any money as the bank keeps going. They also appear to reason that larger depositors (more than 100,000) may lose money in the event, but that this plan will be cheaper overall.

On the surface, this accounting trick may sound reasonable, but the plan is deeply flawed.


First, it breaks the guarantee that you will get your money back if there is a bank failure. The bank gets it.


More importantly, it does not address what will happen after the deposit guaranteed money is given to the bank. The flaw is that if the public becomes aware of the money transfer – and they will – then the large depositors and bond holders will lose faith in the institution. They will quietly take out their money as soon as they can, and then the cycle starts over again.The outcome is that the bank will fail again. Only this time, the money that should have gone to the small time depositors from the FDIC is already gone – taken by the bank! So another bailout is needed. This is simply a wealth transfer from the government to the banks at the expense of the saver and taxpayer.


Behind all the laws, rules and economic jargon that no one can really understand, there are some real world facts that cannot be changed.


They are:


1. Most of the advanced Western democracies have crippling debt levels that they cannot fix through increased austerity, taxes or increased stimulus. They will need to find more money and they need it soon.


2. The governments and banks of the advanced democracies are run by persons who have a significant interest in maintaining the status quo which gives them their power and wealth.


3. When government and banks need more money, they will get it. They will change the laws to make this happen.


4. Savers have money, debtors do not.


5. Governments and banks have multiple ways of getting this money, either though taxes, fees, low interest rates or inflation or – most simply – just taking it as they are now discussing in this paper.


Conclusion

The belief that your money is safe in a bank due to the government guarantee on the first 100,000 is no longer a valid concept. Those that have the power (Banks and Governments) may need this money soon. If you have it, they will find a way of taking it.

This is economics as it is for the rest of us. Savers beware!

Posted by Honest Banker at 4:55 AM

http://www.economicsfortherestofus1....g-to-take.html

[vacuum]

Thanks for the relevant threads mamboni

[Walter Mitty]

That is what happens when the "Govt" and a Banking Cartel are in league with each other. You get a credit based monetary system
and are forced to use private corporate coupons for currency.

It's not "Your " "Money". It is their "Money".

And they can do any damn thing they want.

[Twisted Titan]

thats why when you make a deposit you are being DEPOSED of your funds meaning you give up temporary ckaim

your reciept is proof of the transaction.

but that dosent stop the bank from doing all sorts fuzzy stuff while its in their possesion

[govcheetos]

You can play with words all you want to legitimize your point of view but it won't change the fact that what you're espousing is BULLSHIT.

Whats bullshit is that most blindly accept this "point of view".

Apology accepted.

[zap]

Ok so all you geniuses help me ! I have quite a bit in the bank for knothead, should I just get it out and convert it all to gold ? I am not talking about a little bit, please real ideas only.