|
Post by 3bid on Sept 10, 2016 13:56:13 GMT -5
5,300 Wells Fargo employees fired over 2 million phony accounts
by Matt Egan September 9, 2016 | CNNMoney
Everyone hates paying bank fees. But imagine paying fees on a ghost account you didn't even sign up for.
That's exactly what happened to Wells Fargo customers nationwide.
On Thursday, federal regulators said Wells Fargo (WFC) employees secretly created millions of unauthorized bank and credit card accounts -- without their customers knowing it -- since 2011.
The phony accounts earned the bank unwarranted fees and allowed Wells Fargo employees to boost their sales figures and make more money.
"Wells Fargo employees secretly opened unauthorized accounts to hit sales targets and receive bonuses," Richard Cordray, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, said in a statement.
Wells Fargo confirmed to CNNMoney that it had fired 5,300 employees over the last few years related to the shady behavior. Employees went so far as to create phony PIN numbers and fake email addresses to enroll customers in online banking services, the CFPB said.
The scope of the scandal is shocking. An analysis conducted by a consulting firm hired by Wells Fargo concluded that bank employees opened over 1.5 million deposit accounts that may not have been authorized.
The way it worked was that employees moved funds from customers' existing accounts into newly-created ones without their knowledge or consent, regulators say. The CFPB described this practice as "widespread." Customers were being charged for insufficient funds or overdraft fees -- because there wasn't enough money in their original accounts.
Additionally, Wells Fargo employees also submitted applications for 565,443 credit card accounts without their customers' knowledge or consent. Roughly 14,000 of those accounts incurred over $400,000 in fees, including annual fees, interest charges and overdraft-protection fees.
The CFPB said Wells Fargo will pay "full restitutions to all victims."
Wells Fargo is being slapped with the largest penalty since the CFPB was founded in 2011. The bank agreed to pay $185 million in fines, along with $5 million to refund customers.
"We regret and take responsibility for any instances where customers may have received a product that they did not request," Wells Fargo said in a statement.
Wells Fargo has the highest market valuation among any bank in America, worth just north of $250 billion. Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA), the investment firm run legendary investor Warren Buffett, is the company's biggest shareholder.
Of the total fines, $100 million will go toward the CFPB's Civil Penalty Fund, $35 million will go to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and another $50 million will be paid to the City and County of Los Angeles.
"One wonders whether (the CFPB) penalty of $100 million is enough," said David Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor and former director of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "It sounds like a big number, but for a bank the size of Wells Fargo, it isn't really."
Wells Fargo confirmed to CNNMoney that the 5,300 firings took place over several years. The bank listed 265,000 employees as of the end of 2015.
"At Wells Fargo, when we make mistakes, we are open about it, we take responsibility, and we take action," the bank said in a memo to employees on Thursday.
The CFPB declined to comment on when the investigation began and what sparked it, citing agency policy. "We don't comment on how we uncover these matters," a spokesman said.
As part of the settlement, Wells Fargo needs to make changes to its sales practices and internal oversight.
Customers are fuming. Brian Kennedy, a Maryland retiree, told CNNMoney he detected an unauthorized Wells Fargo account had been created in his name about a year ago. He asked Wells Fargo about it and the bank closed it, he said.
"I didn't sign up for any bloody checking account," Kennedy, who is 57 years old, told CNNMoney. "They lost me as a banking customer and I have warned family and friends."
"Consumers must be able to trust their banks," said Mike Feuer, the Los Angeles City Attorney who joined the settlement.
Feuer's office sued Wells Fargo in May 2015 over allegations of unauthorized accounts. After filing the suit, his office received more than 1,000 calls and emails from customers as well as current and former Wells Fargo employees about the allegations.
Wells Fargo declined to say when it hired a consulting firm to investigate the allegations. However, a person familiar with the matter told CNNMoney the bank launched the review after the L.A. lawsuit was filed.
Even though the Wells Fargo scandal took place nationally, the settlement with L.A. requires the bank to specifically alert all its California customers to review their accounts and shut down ones they don't recognize or want.
"How does a bank that is supposed to have robust internal controls permit the creation of over a half-million dummy accounts?" asked Vladeck. "If I were a Wells Fargo customer, and fortunately I am not, I'd think seriously about finding a new bank."
money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/investing/wells-fargo-created-phony-accounts-bank-fees/index.html
|
|
|
Post by 3bid on Sept 10, 2016 14:15:53 GMT -5
Wells Fargo customers livid over phantom accounts by Chris Isidore September 10, 2016 | CNN Money
Brian Kennedy was surprised when he logged onto the Wells Fargo website to pay his mortgage and discovered he had a checking account he never asked for.
And it had a negative balance of $60 for two months of fees and penalties.
Kennedy went to his local Wells Fargo branch to complain, and the account was promptly closed. But the bank charged him a $1 fee for the privilege. He reached into his pocket and handed the bank officer a dollar bill to close the account he never wanted.
"It really pissed me off," said Kennedy, a retiree in Westminster, Maryland. "They expect people to not be paying attention and hope you don't notice. I've got a high credit score and I want to keep it that way. As soon as rates drop enough I'm going to refinance out of their mortgage."
Wells Fargo (WFC) has agreed to pay $185 million in fines, and it fired 5,300 employees after admitting they had secretly set up more than 2 million unauthorized accounts to meet sales targets.
The $60 that Brian Kennedy was hit with was part of an estimated $2 million in improper fees cited by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Jeanne Young of South Amboy, New Jersey was also really angry at Wells Fargo. She was signed up for a credit card she never asked for. In response, she closed her Wells Fargo checking account and refinanced her mortgage away from the bank. Her fiance moved his IRA out of the bank.
"I was livid about the whole thing. I don't trust them. There's no doubt in my mind it was deliberate," said Young, who works for an insurance agent. She said she's concerned that having a credit card account opened and closed has dinged her credit score.
Janice Redding, a retiree from Greenville, South Carolina, said she assumed that the bank employee at her local branch had mistakenly hit the wrong button when a line of credit was opened in her name. She had asked about her credit card account just before she got a notice in the mail about the line of credit.
"I didn't think too much more about it," she said. "I called the 800-number, and I let the person there know I didn't appreciate it being done. He apologized to me."
Redding said she was concerned that someone might run up a large balance on the line of credit. "I don't have any money to start with," she said.
But unlike Kennedy and Young, she said she's not ready to leave Wells Fargo, even after her experience.
"I've been with them since 1990. I hate to say anything negative about them. They're my bank," she said.
money.cnn.com/2016/09/10/investing/wells-fargo-customers/index.html?iid=surge-story-summary
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 15, 2016 16:55:41 GMT -5
21 hours ago rett said:www.facebook.com/BenSwannRealityCheck/videos/1205025702895711/Reality Check: How Does Nobody Go To Jail In Wells Fargo Case After over 1.2 Million People Were Defrauded? And Why No Matter What Other Crimes The Bank Committed, They Have Been Granted Immunity!
harvscorvette DIAMOND JEDI WARLORDThe answer lays within the very question asked. "Why No Matter What Other Crimes The Bank Committed, They Have Been Granted Immunity!" The Bank whether it be Wells Fargo, or JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs etc, does not indicate a human being thus we have gone about prosecuting all the wrong way. When we ask the question why the banks never goes to jail is because, the Banks are not real people, yet defined as persons under law as a corporation, thus it cannot be arrested or sentenced to prison. It becomes a who different matter when we set aside the name of the bank eg Wells Fargo(its fictious in nature needs humans to be its arms and legs, to think and carry out as it if was a real person) and START DIRECTLY NAMING individuals WITHIN the operation of the bank, Johnny Smith investigated as CEO of Wells Fargo Bank's operation was charged yesterday with knowing the scheme that 1.2 Million People were defrauded. Johnny Smith also named others co workers in working this scheme along with other different branches within Wells Fargo, who also participated in the scope of this fraud. The following names are...................................... the warrant for their arrest who followed the instructions of Johnny Smith CEO have been issued. This is how we start holding people operating within the banks, hedge funds, and government offices, naming them directly with the corruption and crimes they commit. When ONLY naming the Bank for fraud, very rarely will any real human being ever see prison time. When we name those within the Banks directly, that becomes a who different matter holding people accountable for the practices they have committed. All in my opinion Harv
|
|
|
Post by 3bid on Sept 16, 2016 10:53:12 GMT -5
Elizabeth Warren Opens Pandora’s Box With Midnight Letters to DOJ and FBI By Pam Martens and Russ Martens | Wall Street on Parade | September 15, 2016
While Elizabeth Warren attempted to deliver her keynote speech at the Democratic Convention in July, which included an unabashed endorsement of Hillary Clinton after Warren had failed to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders during the critical primary campaign, chants of “we trusted you” could be heard reverberating through the cavernous hall in Philadelphia.
Warren rose to fame challenging the corrupt practices on Wall Street. She was now aligned with a Presidential candidate who was using Wall Street’s ill-gotten gains from the customers they had fleeced to finance her path to the Oval Office. There is no doubt that this has caused significant cognitive dissonance among Warren’s constituents in Massachusetts’ – the landing site of the Pilgrims and one of the original 13 colonies.
This bit of background might help to explain why, with less than two months before the November 8 election – and Hillary Clinton running for a third Obama term, promising to continue in his footsteps – Elizabeth Warren issued two letters that draw a sharp focus on the failures of Obama’s Justice Department and FBI to prosecute the myriad criminal acts on Wall Street that led to the 2008 financial collapse. (Warren’s letters were embargoed until midnight last evening, promising a full run of the news cycle today.)
In a 20-page letter to the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Michael E. Horowitz, Senator Warren asked for an investigation into why the DOJ had failed to indict any of the Wall Street executives that had been referred to it for potential criminal prosecution by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC). In a separate letter, Warren asked FBI Director James Comey for his related files.
The FCIC released thousands of documents in March of this year, showing that it had made multiple criminal referrals to the DOJ. Warren wrote in her letter: This particular paragraph is a Pandora’s Box by a factor of $2.5 trillion. The two individuals Warren refers to who were “implicated twice” in the FCIC’s criminal referrals are Robert Rubin, the former Treasury Secretary in the administration of Bill Clinton, who in the lead up to the crash of Citigroup in 2008 served as Executive Committee Chair of Citigroup’s Board of Directors. (After advocating for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which allowed Citigroup to own both an insured depository bank, an investment bank and brokerage firm, Rubin went straight from his post as Treasury Secretary to the Board of Citigroup, where he collected $126 million in compensation over the next decade.)
The other individual whose name appears twice is Chuck Prince, Citigroup CEO during its implosion. A third Citigroup executive’s name appears as well on the list: Gary Crittenden, the Chief Financial Officer of Citigroup at the time of its crash.
One other individual’s name should have been on this list: Ben Bernanke, the Chair of the Federal Reserve who allowed the funneling of over $2.5 trillion in cumulative, secret loans to Citigroup during the crisis – despite the fact that it was insolvent and thus not legally eligible for the loans. Citigroup was the largest bailout recipient in the crisis, notwithstanding that its share price at one point reached 99 cents.
Sheila Bair, who was head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) during the crisis, confirms this point in her book, Bull by the Horns. Bair writes:
Congressional testimony should also be demanded from John Dugan, a former lobbyist for JPMorgan Chase and the American Bankers Association who became head of the OCC in 2005 and reigned there throughout the crisis. Dugan now heads the Financial Institutions Group at Covington & Burling, the same law firm from which Obama plucked his DOJ Attorney General Eric Holder and its head of the criminal division, Lanny Breuer.
Covington & Burling is the same law firm that fronted for Big Tobacco for four decades and was called out for its unsavory role in a famous Federal court decision.
If Senator Warren is genuinely serious about getting to the bottom of this failure to prosecute, she also needs to demand that the Federal Reserve turn over the details of those 84 secret meetings that Bernanke held during the financial crisis and New York Fed President Tim Geithner’s 29 meet and greets with Citigroup execs, including the one where Sandy Weill, creator of Citigroup, offered Geithner a job at Citigroup.
There is strong evidence that long before the public was fully aware of the teetering condition of Citigroup, the Fed was propping it up with outrageously inappropriate support. On August 20, 2007, more than a year before the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the Federal Reserve granted Citigroup an exemption that would allow it to funnel up to $25 billion from its FDIC insured depository bank, Citibank, to mortgage-backed securities speculators at its broker-dealer unit. The Federal Reserve notes in its waiver letter that the bank “is well capitalized.” (Federal Reserve Exemption to Citigroup to Loan to Its Broker-Dealer, August 20, 2007)
It’s long past the time for the U.S. Senate to stop conducting isolated, piecemeal investigations and undertake the type of in-depth hearings that the Senate held from 1929 to 1932 that led to the public’s understanding of the serial criminal activities on Wall Street that had produced the Great Depression and which led to the passage of the Glass-Steagall Act — legislation which protected this nation for 66 years until its repeal in 1999 during the Bill Clinton administration.
wallstreetonparade.com/2016/09/elizabeth-warren-opens-pandoras-box-with-midnight-letters-to-doj-and-fbi/
|
|
|
Post by 3bid on Sept 20, 2016 23:45:23 GMT -5
“Wicked Wig Bandit” robs 5 Denver metro banks in monthlong spree
By Kirk Mitchell | kmitchell@denverpost.com
PUBLISHED: September 20, 2016
A woman dubbed by the FBI as the “Wicked Wig Bandit” has robbed five banks over the past month in the Denver metro area.
“Wicked Wig of the West holds up five banks,” the news release by FBI spokeswoman Deborah Sherman says.
The FBI considers her an unlikely bank robber because she is a woman and statistics show that most bank heists are committed by men.
The woman with the sunglasses and the unflattering — sometimes lopsided — wig exclusively has targeted banks inside Safeway and Albertsons grocery stores.
She has hit one Chase bank, one First Bank and three Wells Fargo banks.
The wigged-out bandit demands money, threatening to use a gun. While she has yet to display a weapon, the FBI Safe Streets Task Force considers her armed and dangerous, Sherman says.
“After getting the loot, she usually runs out of the grocery store and escapes on foot,” she said.
Wells Fargo has upped the ante to find her.
The bank is offering up to a $5,000 reward, in addition to the $2,000 reward offered by Crime Stoppers, for any tips that lead to her identification and arrest.
“Please share the photos with the public,” Sherman said. “We need the public’s help to identify the Wicked Wig robber and the reward now stands at up to $7,000.”
The woman has hit the following banks: •First Bank at 2660 N. Federal Blvd. in Denver at 2:17 p.m. Aug. 23. •Wells Fargo Bank at 6460 E. Yale Ave. in Denver at 3:20 p.m. Sept. 7. •Wells Fargo Bank at 3900 Wadsworth Blvd., Wheat Ridge at 11:38 a.m. Sept. 12. •Wells Fargo Bank at 2150 S. Downing St., Denver, at 5:35 p.m. Sept. 16. •Chase Bank at 500 E. 120th St., Northglenn, at 4:25 p.m. Sept. 19.
......................
Daveatthedoor •
Free the Wig..The Wig is just liberating Wells Fargo funds. "Some people will rob you with a six-gun, some with a fountain-pen" or a password that lets corporate employees steal money from customers.The Wig isn't any different than Boss Hog that runs Wells-Fargo. Except her take is less.
www.denverpost.com/2016/09/20/wicked-wig-bandit-denver-metro-bank-robbery/
|
|
|
Post by vulcanized crawler on Sept 21, 2016 6:10:40 GMT -5
if warren were serious she sure would not have backed crooked hillary. she would have been on the bernie bandwagon. she is.... as are so many two faced politicians, a phony
|
|
|
Post by portrush on Sept 22, 2016 11:12:37 GMT -5
Why the Wells scandal matters so muchAaron KleinWednesday, September 21, 2016 Scandals in banking, finance, and housing rocked the world, causing a global financial meltdown and the Great Recession. While the economy and the financial sector eventually recovered, the fallout from the financial crisis kept the papers full of misdeeds and improper actions within finance. A certain numbness must have come over large sections of the public who could hardly muster shock anymore when this latest new scandal was uncovered at Wells Fargo. Yet yesterday’s hearing before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee achieved something that prior scandals had not. As Senator John Tester (D-MT) noted, Wells Fargo’s practices had “done something I’ve never seen in 10 years: You have united this committee — and not in a good way.” Why is this scandal different and why should we be more concerned about it? Because this improper action gets at the heart of the entire financial system: trust between consumers and banks. The core of the entire financial system is trust. Customers trust banks with their money. Banks trust that consumers will repay loans. Investors trust broker-dealers that they will provide them advice in their best interest and get the best price, not the brokers’ highest commission. Without trust, the entire financial system collapses. Financial crises occur, in part, because trust is suddenly lost. Fundamentally the private sector has to build and maintain trust, while the government can serve to enhance it. The government works to enforce this trust through a series of explicit government guarantees such as deposit insurance, laws and regulations to require proper action, and enforcement and oversight to ensure punishment and remuneration when laws and contracts are violated. The actions that Wells Fargo undertook violated this trust on the most basic levels. What Wells, America’s largest commercial bank by domestic assets, did was to open unauthorized bank, credit card, and other accounts for their customers on a massive scale. These accounts, which consumers did not authorize or even know about, then triggered various fees, which were charged to consumers. More than 5,000 Wells Fargo employees were involved in the operation, which was incentivized by offering bonuses and other pressure to Wells employees to create accounts. These activities went on for several years from 2011-2013, when they were first detected. It is unclear how long they continued, and even after yesterday’s hearing, it is unclear exactly when Wells CEO John Stumpf first knew about them, despite his having frequent direct access with the executive in charge of this program Carrie Tolstedt. When asked directly by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) whether Stumpf knew about the activities before they were reported in the L.A. Times in 2013, Stumpf said, “I don’t remember the exact timeframe. I can get back to you.” A low point in a hearing full of low points for the CEO. It is easier to understand what Wells Fargo did as compared to what was going on during the financial crisis with synthetic collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, and the tri-party repo system. That is one reason why members of Congress and the press are likely to continue pounding on this issue. It also raises the logical question: who else was doing this? Every American may be wondering: are there accounts that were opened in my name that I don’t know about? If so, how can I find out? You can start by requesting your free credit report through a provision that Congress required in the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, but be prepared for a shock as it is estimated that 1 in every 4 Americans have incorrect information on their credit report (I found out about several other ‘Aaron Klein’s in mine). This post-financial crisis scandal also raises the question, has anything really changed in banking and finance? One reason why it was important for financial regulation to be enacted into law after the financial crisis was to restore public trust and confidence in our markets. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 was designed to do just that and included new legal authority allowing financial regulators to ‘claw-back’ ill-gotten gains by executives. Yet the executive compensation rules implementing this authority have still not yet been finalized by the regulators, six years after the law was passed and more than five years after they were first proposed. Financial regulators could start by enforcing the law, finalizing those rules ASAP, and acting upon them aggressively. Criminal prosecutors also have a role to play in enforcing their legal authority, which is separate from the job of bank regulators. Enforcement of the full range of law is important as it relates to public trust. But beyond government action, the industry needs to act to restore trust. The fact that Wells Fargo has fired over 5,000 junior employees — but not a single senior manager — will not sit well with the American public, nor should it. It is simply untenable that Wells Fargo told investors that it has “strong recoupment and claw-back policies” in place, yet they have not publicly announced a single dollar of claw back from the over $100 million that Carrie Tolstedt is poised to receive as part of her retirement (yes she is still a Wells Fargo employee, not fired and poised to retire with full benefits). The financial services industry needs to convince the American public with deeds, not words, that they should be trusted. Trust is at the core of the financial system. To truly move beyond the financial crisis, that trust must be restored. www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2016/09/21/why-the-wells-scandal-matters-so-much/
|
|
|
Post by 3bid on Sept 22, 2016 17:56:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 22, 2016 19:28:46 GMT -5
144r DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD. Post by 144r on 30 minutes agoWells CEO Resigns From Fed Advisory Council As Pressure Mounts With Rep. Hensarling threatening that the Wells Fargo debacle is "only in its 3rd inning," it appears today's Labor Department probe was enough to push CEO Stumpf over the edge as pressure mounts for his head. Effective today, John Stumpf has resign his position as the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco’s appointee to the Fed’s Federal Advisory Council. www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-22/wells-ceo-resigns-fed-advisory-council-pressure-mounts
|
|
|
Post by 3bid on Sept 24, 2016 13:29:11 GMT -5
The Old Wall Street Trader Is Dead, Algo’s Now Rule The DayBy Michael McDonald - Sep 22, 2016
The classic Wall Street trader is dead. For decades, or even centuries, the professional investment markets were characterized by smart individuals buying and selling stocks, bonds, currencies, and commodities based on intuition, savvy valuation skills, and luck. Those days are gone. Trading on Wall Street today increasingly involves computers, algorithmic models, and big data. That is true not just in stocks, but across markets.
Many investors are aware that the old NYSE floor trading is a relic of a bygone era, but even at major banks, the people who work there are rarely traders themselves. Bloomberg recently profiled a story of a top currency analyst explaining that as recently as 2007, Goldman Sachs and other major firms traded in markets by having a skilled analyst shout trading directions whenever market moving information like Weekly Jobless Claims were announced. Those days are gone, and that top analyst Bloomberg profiled is today focused on using Big Data to help clients develop better currency trading algorithms.
This changing market structure has dramatic implications for everyone on Wall Street from traders and individual investors to those supporting Wall Street like accountants and attorneys.
Against this backdrop, individual investors need to decide how they want to move forward. There are only a few choices. In the commodities and energy space for instance, most individual investors are not going to have the capital or ability to deploy high speed trading algorithms. Instead, investors largely have to choose between using passive index funds like ETFs and paying for an advisory service or active mutual fund. Advisory services and active mutual funds face the same issue that traders at top Wall Street banks do of course, but they have the capital and capacity to build or buy their own algorithms and quantitative data models.
Dodd Frank has hastened the shift from people-driven trading to machine-driven trading by forcing proprietary trading out of Wall Street banks, though it was a trend that was becoming clear even before the Dodd Frank Act was enacted. For anyone involved with Wall Street – investors, advisors like attorneys, or even job seekers – it’s critical to understand these changes. Very few hedge funds are still picking investments on the basis of gut-feeling, intuition, or even a DCF model. Instead, the new Wall Street skillset includes Monte Carlo Simulation, GARCH models, and genetic algorithms.
Investors in all sectors should take this mindset to heart. While it is great if a company has a good story, investors need to look for other key criteria when making investment decisions these days. For instance, what do quantitative models say about the investment’s projected valuation versus its actual valuation? Are there any factors like a lack of liquidity that might distort the price temporarily and allow an attractive entry point? Is there long-term news about the firm that has not been adequately impounded into valuation yet? Is the company in a cyclical industry that will rise and fall predictably over time if an investor is patient?
All of these questions and more are considerations that should drive the new investment calculus. As successful hedge funds like Renaissance Technologies, AQR, and Bridgewater show, understanding the correlations that occur in markets and when those correlations will break down is perhaps the single most important driver of success over time. The classic Wall Street trader is dead. Long live the new Wall Street trader.
By Michael McDonald of Oilprice.comoilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Old-Wall-Street-Trader-Is-Dead-Algos-Now-Rule-The-Day.html
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 29, 2016 10:54:41 GMT -5
Starlight King of Diamonds Post by Starlight on 20 hours agowww.youtube.com/watch?v=OmqVW5v0wSw&feature=youtu.beI just received this in an email and have not seen this yet on our boards..!! This is shocking and could take away our freedom of speech to foreign countries to monitor the internet as they see fit or to remove websites whose content they do not endorse..!! For all those who want to use the internet to share the gospel of Salvation or to launch their own online business, this could prove to be disastrous..!! The changeover is scheduled just days from now..!! Yikes..!! portrush Administrator 18 hours ago seagull and Starlight like this The prevailing thought when viewing the long tail of such a decision is that it would indeed be disastrous. Control by a group such as the one proposed could severely limit free speech, curtail any/all religious websites, impose severe costs/penalties on retailing sites, machinate or dramatically limit research and much more. There's no doubt some regulation is in order. It would be fantastic if all pornographic material was segregated and protected from children, for example. But if not done by a country where freedom is regulated according to a Constitution similar to that the USA, assuring rights of expression, then it could quickly fall the way of mainstream media where the messaging is controlled and manipulated. My gut says Congress will have a midnight conversion/action on this now that they've halted Obama's quest to disallow lawsuits against foreign nations who may have been involved in terrorist activity against the USA and its citizens. At least I'm praying that way...I'm sure you'll join me in agreement. And where two or more.... pr
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 5, 2016 12:07:05 GMT -5
misterhandsome DIAMOND JEDI Post by misterhandsome on 2 hours agoI have heard many interviews over the years in whether it be Bill Holter or Kirby, etc. who say that the elites believe so long as they tell you ahead of time they can do whatever they want ... so is this sort like that, a head nod that many of these banks are not going to be around as we go through this "transition" or "crash" or whatever you want to call it? Like they are preparing you? (not rhetorical, it was just what I was thinking as I came across the article) www.markethingych.com/story/imf-says-a-third-of-banks-in-top-countries-are-too-weak-to-survive-2016-10-05Forget too-big-to-fail, new concern is that many banks are too-weak-to-survive Published: Oct 5, 2016 9:49 a.m. ET Firms with over $11 trillion in assets would remain troubled even if interest rates rise, IMF says in new report
|
|
|
Post by patrose on Oct 5, 2016 14:38:17 GMT -5
Found this interesting post 10/5/16 from our old pal "ZAP" Talks about NDA & Banks
Zap says Hi all Now that the Paris treaty is in effect, and the GCR/RV underway, the rumor mill has exploded with many gurus coming forward to give this news, dates, timings, what to expect and so on. most of the information is pretty accurate, so i do not have to dive into that side but one thing is missing.
As we all know, bankers at the high levels have one great skill honed over centuries. that is the art of stealing. they will steal given an opening to do so. one very insidious way worthy of their art, are the opportunities the rv itself is providing. let me explain.
When you go in to do the exchange, one of the things that the bankers will require of you is a strict nda (non disclosure). be careful. i said this before, and i will give it to you again. When you sign the nda, they have you by the short and curlies. why? Let’s examine this in more detail. When you exchange, the amounts are very large. besides the nda, the banker will require you to put the majority of the money into some term deposit of say 60 or 90 days or more.
When you give the bank such authority over your money (and you do) it becomes their money and they invest it internally and use it as their own because the conditions of a term deposit are such that you give them full power over your money so they can use it to make more money and provide you with some interest. this is normal.
Now, what are the banks good at doing? Stealing. when you put in any substantial deposit, if it goes to an interest bearing account, it becomes the bank’s money. if you create a non interest bearing custodial account, then the bank’s ability to steal the money is sharply curtailed.
In previous history, when people deposited large amounts in the tens of millions, or gold, the banks usually found innovative ways of keeping the money in their bank as long as possible, or forever. for example, ubs was famous for killing gold depositors. another trick they did was to do a deposit, give the fellow his deposit documents, then just before he left the bank, a banker would run to him just as he was leaving and say that he needed to stamp a document. the fellow would give him one of the deposit docs, the bankers would stamp or do a punch hole somewhere on the doc, and the fellow would leave.
When he came back to the bank to retrieve his deposit or use it, the bank would say he had invalid deposit documents because of the stamp or the punched out hole. he lost his money.
The creative ways of theft from murder to bank documents have been a hallmark of banks, but just as easy is their penchant of freezing the funds on deposit so you can not get them back, and running the depositor through various hoops from “stale dated” documents, to notary requirements that drag on and on, to compliance reviews that can last for months or years, or any number of ways they can legally hang on to your money for as long as possible. why do they do this? Because the longer they can hang on to your money, the more money they have on their balance sheet to play with and take to trade.
So, you have gone to exchange, signed the nda, and did up a term deposit, and started to use the little bit that the bank put into your chequing account and all is well, right? Well….down the road, you want to take some more out. so you wait for the term deposit to mature, and fully expect to use the funds from there. The time comes, you go to the bank fully expecting your term deposit to be released and you can use the money. then the bank says there is a small issue, and it should not take more than a day or two to clear up and you can use your money, and they ask you to sign a document…maybe an acknowledgement or waiver or something that you feel ok with to sign. then you come back a couple days later only to find that there are more issues, and the bank requires more time to release your money. you are now in the bank sequence of stall tactics that prevent you from using your money.
You see the play, and you get dissed. you go to a lawyer and retain him to help with retrieving your money. at this point you have just lost all your money because (guess what) you signed an nda, and you violated it by telling somebody…the lawyer. the bank laughs all the way to the bank (no pun).
There is one scenario that would work, so be careful. one dear sister took her dinar back from one of the groups because of the nda thing. so did a brother of mine that works with the chinese family. i am not telling you to do the same, i am just giving you examples you should be aware of, and the decisions made by others. my sister took her dinar to a bank that offered her services without an nda and she is happy with the structure. they did up a non-interest bearing custodial account for her usage.
|
|
|
Post by patrose on Oct 5, 2016 14:44:46 GMT -5
Sounds like what AH has been saying all these years "We will get paid when there is a safe banking system". Looks like its not quite there yet.
|
|
|
Post by 3bid on Oct 6, 2016 15:11:43 GMT -5
A New Snowden? FBI Arrests NSA Contractor
Brian Becker | Loud & Clear
The New York Times revealed that the FBI recently arrested an NSA contractor who appeared to be preparing to blow the whistle on surveillance activities. Did the U.S. government thwart another Edward Snowden-type situation? This comes on the heels of news that hundreds of millions of Yahoo email accounts have been scanned using a custom-made software program in order to comply with demands from the U.S government.
".... not until we get a government with people in it that are willing to hold the government responsible for all the crimes it's been committing... It's really a criminal government we have now. Until we get a government that is honest and democratic and follows the principles of the Constitution..."
sputniknews.com/services/blog_player/1046040533.html <--- audio interview
Also included:
Are we witnessing an unprecedented escalation in Syria? After the U.S. suspended communication with Russia earlier this week, military action against Damascus was back on the table at the White House yesterday. But is Obama likely to take such drastic measures? Brian is joined by Syrian journalist and political analyst Kevork Almassian and by political writer Diana Johnstone.
Finally, Loud & Clear producer Walter Smolarek discusses with Brian the IMF and World Bank annual meetings that begin in Washington, DC tomorrow. This year an atmosphere of gloom hangs over them. As opposition to globalization rises and nationalist sentiments increase, what will policy makers try to accomplish? [at 33:10]
sputniknews.com/radio_loud_and_clear/20161006/1046040691/new-snowden-fbi-arrests-nsa-contractor.html
|
|