1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Those HONEST Bankers...NOT!!

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by TinMan88, Nov 3, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TinMan88

    TinMan88 TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    979
    Reports are that the Feral Reserve approved Bank of America debt bomb to be put on the FDIC/Taxpayers. Derivitives have no place in depositor side banking. Read the report at:

    http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2011/11/bank-of-america-derivatives-timebomb.html

    It is short and to-the point.

    The suggested retail value of this speculative risk is seventyfive TRILLION Dollars.
     
  2. GBatch_25

    GBatch_25 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,339
    Location:
    Illinois
    TinMan 88:

    From the FDIC website:

    "Problem Banks - The FDIC creates reports on problem or troubled banks in the aggregate. We do not make the details of this list publicly available."

    My comment - they don't make it available for obvious reasons. They don't want to mislead people or scare them. Probably a good policy.

    Your source is anonymous, probably because he/she is either blogging phony info OR blogging about info they know may have been gathered in violation of law. FYI, BofA DID NOT appear on a troubled list as of July, assuming the list I found was accurate.

    I don't work for the government or the FDIC. I just don't think it's a good idea to post info from anonymous sources, especially info that is unverifiable. Sort of like gossiping.

    Gene Batchelar
    Wheaton, IL

    PS If you click "source" at the bottom of your source page, it takes you to another website. Try finding out who the owners /editors are. I get a "Page not found" message. Hmmmmmmm. Convenient,eh?

    Linking unverifiable info to the "Honesty" of bankers is questionable.
     
  3. TinMan88

    TinMan88 TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    979
    sseitz007, This has been reported in MSM & FAUX news at least a week ago. There has been a thread on this site when the story broke as well. I feel it is under reported and so put it up again. The last word I heard is that the head of FDIC was against it(livid) and Chairsatan Bernanke had not yet spoken as to the position of the Feral Reserve. I put up the link because it is brief and pretty clear. Also mentioned the breaking of rule-sec. 23, F.R. charter. At the heart of the controversy is BoA actually taking Merril Lynch product and MOVING it. (as if it were portable)

    I stand corrected about the link (if thats an issue)-however it is all over google. Multiple sources do exist.

    Perhaps you could explain how the fed buys our debt (treasurys) with money they print out of thin air? TM
     
  4. sliverbulletexpress

    sliverbulletexpress TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,645
    Faux news Tinman? That explains everything.
     
  5. GBatch_25

    GBatch_25 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,339
    Location:
    Illinois
    First off, I use my real name, Gene Batchelar, as David has requested. You may address me by my name.

    I have no idea what MSM is or FAUX, as far as news sources. If you believe they are credible sources for news, in the same vein as the blog link you posted, then keep getting your news from them. By citing them you have added to the mix of questionable sources, and therefore, the credibility of the content.

    All I am saying is that the sources you are posting are NOT regarded as credible sources. Using them as a basis to spread what might not be accurate, IMO, is comparable to gossip.

    Why, now, do you choose to point the thread to Fed policy ? Is that a diversionary tactic, so we forget about the posts you made ? OR, are you getting to your real issue ? I see no connection between the two completely different subjects.

    Gene Batchelar
    Wheaton, IL
     
  6. TinMan88

    TinMan88 TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    979
    silverbulletexpress, I used slang terms for BOTH sides of the news distribution machine.(in above post) That might be a clue as to my take on televised information outlets. I do have issues with both sides on occaision and have said so. Other people here have expressed that as well. And you? Is FOX above reproach?

    Gene. The thread is about Bankers. The Feral Reserve is about BANKS. Money is their product. They regulate Bank of America. It is a second question aside from the derivitives risk transfer. You may comment to- or forget about the topic. You asked as though the BoA risk transfer did not happen. I believe it did. Try the WSJ.TM
     
  7. GBatch_25

    GBatch_25 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,339
    Location:
    Illinois
    FYI, Tinman88, the FeDeral (not Feral) Reserve's PRIMARY responsibility is not the regulation of banks. It's primary rsponsibility is to oversee the monetary policy of the US. Furthermore, it does not regulate ALL banks. It does regulate all Nationally chartered banks and SOME state chartered banks.

    You can believe whatever you wish based on whatever sources you wish to read and digest. You might wish to stay away from the Kool Aid junkies who put out false / misleading / unverifiable info.

    It might be helpful to some of us if you could cite the specific article and date/author in the WSJ. I'd be interested in reading it.

    Gene Batchelar
    Wheaton, IL
     
  8. TinMan88

    TinMan88 TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    979
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/bofa-said-to-split-regulators-over-moving-merrill-derivatives-to-bank-unit.html
     
  9. TinMan88

    TinMan88 TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    979
    http://dailybail.com/home/holy-bailout-federal-reserve-now-backstopping-75-trillion-of.html
     
  10. TinMan88

    TinMan88 TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    979
    http://problembanklist.com/fdic-to-cover-losses-on-trillion-bank-of-america-derivative-bets-0419/
     
  11. TinMan88

    TinMan88 TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    979
    S.Quade
    says:
    October 22, 2011 at 6:38 am Quote:
    Anonymous says: October 21, 2011 at 9:45 pm Did I miss something. Like the THE PERSONS NAME WHO WROTE THIS! Guess not, just another someone. But hey its on the Internets so it has to be true.anonymous, -may as well be one too.
    Unquote

    Do your homework before making snide remarks and looking stupid. “…like the (sic) THE PERSONS (sic) NAME WHO WROTE THIS!” –

    IT’S RIGHT THERE IF YOU CARED TO LOOK INSTEAD OF INSINUATING WEBSITE ANONYMITY AND LACK OF CREDIBILITY. ONE THING’S FOR CERTAIN, THEY KNOW MORE THAN YOU.

    “Authors for Problem Bank List
    Problem Bank List provides news and reporting on the status of the FDIC’s Problem Bank List and information on troubled and failed banks. The site is edited and written by Bill Zielinski with other contributing writers. Our coverage attempts to bring light to the ongoing problems in the financial system and scrutiny to regulatory and legislative measures.
    Editor and Writer:
    Bill Zielinski
    Contributing Writers:
    Michael Zielinski
    Craig Stahl
    Problem Bank List Staff
    Contact Information:
    Problem
     
  12. TinMan88

    TinMan88 TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    979
    Problem Bank List Staff
    says:
    October 22, 2011 at 1:28 pm Yes, the number is an astonishing $75 trillion of gross derivatives, and this is just what Bank of America has. The other mega banks have equally astronomical numbers. You can see the numbers on the Comptroller of the Currency reports.
     
  13. Prettywood

    Prettywood Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    154
    Hey Tinboy......Go to bed...it's gettin' late! Good Night, Tim
     
  14. TinMan88

    TinMan88 TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    979
    Gene asked for some late night reading...
     
  15. GBatch_25

    GBatch_25 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,339
    Location:
    Illinois
    Wonder why the "About" Bill Zielinski leads to a page that has ZERO info on it. Just a curious thing if I'm writing about possible bank problems. HELLO. What are his qualifications? Who is he?

    I read the Bloomberg article and can see there may be an issue, however where is the WSJ article you cited? Sorry - dailyball and problembanklist are not, IMO, credible sources. And Bloomberg, while they have a name that's well known, their reporting is sometimes regarded as questionable.

    Also, interesting that the Bloomberg article says "The Fed has signaled that it favors moving the derivatives to give relief to the bank holding company,...". do you think the Fed may be trying to ease BoA's dilemma?

    You said in your first post "Derivitives [sic] have no place in depositor side banking." That may be your opinion, but IMO, the gov't forced the bank's hands by making them issue what were arguably bad loans; then, they had to find a way to lessen their risk. If the gov't hadn't forced the banks to issue those loans / mortgages, the banks wouldn't have needed to enter the derivative marketplace. You may think it wrong, but it is hardly dishonest if a bank is trying to lessen its risk.

    Looking forward to the WSJ article.

    Gene Batchelar
    Wheaton,IL
     
  16. TinMan88

    TinMan88 TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    979
    Gene, I'm sorry I have been unable to give you the inside line Ph# for the Feral Reserve New York branch. You seem to know chairsatan Bernanke personally, what are your qualifications?

    Yes I do think that the FeRal Reserve is trying to put the fix on for BoA- right on our backs. Does that not piss you off? AIG was really a hoot!

    You bring up an interesting point about the FeDeral Govt. forcing the banks to issue toxic loans. As you seem to be all answers today perhaps you could xplain why the banks did not use the courts to shove that crap right in Frank/Dodd's face? "Taking it to court" is a remedy used in these United States to settle an unfair law. Didn't happen. Was MBS that much fun to do?

    Your statement that "its hardly dishonest if a bank is trying to lessen it's risk" is a showstopper for me and should be featured in the trapshooters Hall of Shame. Screwing taxpayers with bailout rescue because of FRAUDULENT actions that they knew was WRONG is not an excuse. Its effed up and you know it.

    Respectfully, The TinMan
     
  17. otnot

    otnot Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,426
    SSSeitz007 you need to start to read Zerohedge.com. Tinman if you think BOFA is going to screw us wait until you see how much Goldmans Sachs has in Derivatives. More than all the rest of the TBTF banks combined.
     
  18. TinMan88

    TinMan88 TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    979
    Try this one:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/morgan-stanley-says-europes-pandoras-box-has-been-opened

    Just a small ripple on the waters of life...
     
  19. GBatch_25

    GBatch_25 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,339
    Location:
    Illinois
    TinMan88:
    Using cute little misspells (FeRal ect.) and trying to turn the argument around and or point fingers at me is NOT an answer to my questions / points. Redirecting a discussion usually means you have no more cogent arguments or factual data. Still waiting for the WSJ article or other authoritative data. Not blogs and / or Internet gossip.

    While I am at it, and since your problem seems to be directed at those evil banks, I perhaps should point out that BoA didn't have nearly the loan problems until they bought CountryWide.

    Whoa. When I said "its hardly dishonest if a bank is trying to lessen it's risk" and you disagree, you are showing your true colors. Kind of like the OWS guy who walked into a McD's and wanted free food. Honestly now, tell me that you never tried to minimize your own risk, whether it be financial or physical. Or that the company you may work for doesn't consider risk before making an investment. In fact, any business who doesn't assess the risk of an investment or expenditure will likely not be around long. Oh, and buying derivatives in the late '90s and early 00's was not illegal, as I understand it. As far as I know, it's still legal to buy them.

    Frank / Dodds (it's actually known as Dodd/Frank) wasn't passed until 2009/2010. I fail to see how a bank could sue the Government in the late '90s for a bill that hadn't yet been passed. Perhaps you can explain that to us all.

    Gene Batchelar
    Wheaton, IL
     
  20. TinMan88

    TinMan88 TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    979
    Gene, the whole point of the thread was that BoA moved Merril lynch debt exposure over to BoA and put taxpayers in the bight. I don't regard that as a benign move to "minimize risk". You and I both know the difference. As quoted in blumberg, the head of the FDIC called BS.

    Don't make me out as "free McDonalds". That is every bit as "mis directing" as you accuse me of. I don't find banks "evil" at all. They are just a business.- Breaking the law or sticking it to taxpayers to cover their wild bets is wrong. The SEC is not charging those circumventing the law and nothing was/is being done to correct the situation as it stands today. That message seems lost on you.

    The Frank/Dodd I was referring to is the oft quoted decision handed down supposedly forcing banks to issue loans to people who would not qualify under sound loan requirements. You quoted that as "the Government made them do it". You did not elaborate your opinion as to why, if the banks were co-erced into making liar loans by the fair housing act that they did not protect their solvency & their shareholders by "going to court. You dodged that Q. completely and I asked it because you seem to be a guy who could elaborate on that. Mortgage backed securitys/bundling became a shell game.

    Frankly, the concept of forcing lenders to "give" money to an unqualified party is so off the scale of wrong- it would have been a slam dunk to seek remedy in court -unless it was found to be lucrative to load the balance sheets with $#!* loans. Why did they risk it?

    You take the (UN)federal Reserve as legitimate- I do not. Not since 1913. Cute is the last thing I would call the FeRal Reserve.

    Gene, I sense an empasse here. Time will tell soon enough who has it right. the European debt bomb is unravelling even as we speak.

    Respectfully, The TinMan
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.