Author: Alicia

FDIC Vice-Chairman Thomas Hoenig again called for “separating commercial banking, and its inherent safety net, from broker-dealer and proprietary trading activities,” in a speech to the Institute of International Bankers annual conference in Washington March 2. His speech included a warning on the current status of leveraged loans and derivatives in the U.S. banking system, and a plug for the Glass-Steagall Act.

On junk bonds’ cousins, the “leveraged loans,” Hoenig said that the FDIC’s extensive national review of assets of large banks, known as the Shared National Credit Review, showed very large issuance of leveraged loans in 2014: to an $800 billion bubble from just $280 billion one year earlier. Leveraged loans were “highly criticized” in the review: “Examiners noted excessive leverage against gaps in borrower repayment capacity, questionable evaluations”, etc., “weak underwriting and deficiencies in risk management.” He concluded, “This portfolio has systemic implications, whether held in the originating bank or [securitized].”

Derivatives are a still more serious matter. Hoenig said that

“In recent years commercial banking firms in the United States have been allowed to simultaneously own commodities, trade commodities and their derivatives, and own and control transportation and warehousing of these commodities.”

Citing the dangers, he said that

“the United States has insisted historically that banking remain separate from commerce.”

“The precursor to this conflict [of interest],” he noted, “was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in the late 1990s, which permitted commercial banks to significantly expand their presence in trading derivatives and related contracts.”

Citing the notional value of derivatives contracts at the five most-exposed U.S. banking organizations at roughly $300 trillion, Hoenig says that this corresponds to $4 trillion of unstated assets [“value at risk”] on their balance sheets using international accounting rules.

“Also, among these derivatives contracts are more than $25 trillion of notional amounts of uncleared credit default swaps, equity derivatives, and commodity derivatives, which hold the highest risk to these banks. Derivatives activities conducted in the insured bank at lower costs have proven to be quite profitable, which explains why bank managers are so adamant that they stay there” — referring to the strong-arming and bribing of Congress in December.

“Subsidizing such derivative activity with its unbridled leverage should end,” Hoenig concludes.

FDIC Vice-Chairman Thomas Hoenig again called for “separating commercial banking, and its inherent safety net, from broker-dealer and proprietary trading activities,” in a speech to the Institute of International Bankers annual conference in Washington March 2. His speech included a warning on the current status of leveraged loans and derivatives in the U.S. banking system, and a plug for the Glass-Steagall Act.

On junk bonds’ cousins, the “leveraged loans,” Hoenig said that the FDIC’s extensive national review of assets of large banks, known as the Shared National Credit Review, showed very large issuance of leveraged loans in 2014: to an $800 billion bubble from just $280 billion one year earlier. Leveraged loans were “highly criticized” in the review: “Examiners noted excessive leverage against gaps in borrower repayment capacity, questionable evaluations”, etc., “weak underwriting and deficiencies in risk management.” He concluded, “This portfolio has systemic implications, whether held in the originating bank or [securitized].”

Derivatives are a still more serious matter. Hoenig said that

“In recent years commercial banking firms in the United States have been allowed to simultaneously own commodities, trade commodities and their derivatives, and own and control transportation and warehousing of these commodities.”

Citing the dangers, he said that

“the United States has insisted historically that banking remain separate from commerce.”

“The precursor to this conflict [of interest],” he noted, “was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in the late 1990s, which permitted commercial banks to significantly expand their presence in trading derivatives and related contracts.”

Citing the notional value of derivatives contracts at the five most-exposed U.S. banking organizations at roughly $300 trillion, Hoenig says that this corresponds to $4 trillion of unstated assets [“value at risk”] on their balance sheets using international accounting rules.

“Also, among these derivatives contracts are more than $25 trillion of notional amounts of uncleared credit default swaps, equity derivatives, and commodity derivatives, which hold the highest risk to these banks. Derivatives activities conducted in the insured bank at lower costs have proven to be quite profitable, which explains why bank managers are so adamant that they stay there” — referring to the strong-arming and bribing of Congress in December.

“Subsidizing such derivative activity with its unbridled leverage should end,” Hoenig concludes.

FDIC Vice-Chairman Thomas Hoenig again called for “separating commercial banking, and its inherent safety net, from broker-dealer and proprietary trading activities,” in a speech to the Institute of International Bankers annual conference in Washington March 2. His speech included a warning on the current status of leveraged loans and derivatives in the U.S. banking system, and a plug for the Glass-Steagall Act.

On junk bonds’ cousins, the “leveraged loans,” Hoenig said that the FDIC’s extensive national review of assets of large banks, known as the Shared National Credit Review, showed very large issuance of leveraged loans in 2014: to an $800 billion bubble from just $280 billion one year earlier. Leveraged loans were “highly criticized” in the review: “Examiners noted excessive leverage against gaps in borrower repayment capacity, questionable evaluations”, etc., “weak underwriting and deficiencies in risk management.” He concluded, “This portfolio has systemic implications, whether held in the originating bank or [securitized].”

Derivatives are a still more serious matter. Hoenig said that

“In recent years commercial banking firms in the United States have been allowed to simultaneously own commodities, trade commodities and their derivatives, and own and control transportation and warehousing of these commodities.”

Citing the dangers, he said that

“the United States has insisted historically that banking remain separate from commerce.”

“The precursor to this conflict [of interest],” he noted, “was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in the late 1990s, which permitted commercial banks to significantly expand their presence in trading derivatives and related contracts.”

Citing the notional value of derivatives contracts at the five most-exposed U.S. banking organizations at roughly $300 trillion, Hoenig says that this corresponds to $4 trillion of unstated assets [“value at risk”] on their balance sheets using international accounting rules.

“Also, among these derivatives contracts are more than $25 trillion of notional amounts of uncleared credit default swaps, equity derivatives, and commodity derivatives, which hold the highest risk to these banks. Derivatives activities conducted in the insured bank at lower costs have proven to be quite profitable, which explains why bank managers are so adamant that they stay there” — referring to the strong-arming and bribing of Congress in December.

“Subsidizing such derivative activity with its unbridled leverage should end,” Hoenig concludes.

In her March 1 speech opening the 133rd Ordinary Session of the National Congress, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner pointed to the enormous global speculative debt bubble which sits atop the world economy, whose growth was fueled by the insane bank bailout policies that followed the 2008 financial crash.

For example, she said, in 2014, global debt grew by 286%, relative to GDP, according to a report by the McKinsey firm. What does that mean?

“The world owes almost three times what it produces in goods and services,” she said.

In 2014, she observed,

“many international leaders, presidents, heads of multilateral credit agencies and many others said that 2014 would see the end of the crisis that began with the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008. But that didn’t happen. On the contrary, nations’ indebtedness grew… we were told, that the 2008 crisis was only related to the United States, because of its [subprime] mortgages and the collapse of its banks, and that this would be resolved by bailing out those banks. But it didn’t happen that way.”

Instead, Fernandez pointed out,

“the financial crisis began to spread like an oil spill across Europe. The financial bailout has become permanent since 2008. But just as we said at every meeting of the G20, those bailout [funds] that were injected into the banks, instead of going to the real economy to once again produce goods and services and create jobs, and thus overcome the crisis, instead went into the shadow banking sector for new derivatives—fundamentally they went to tax havens.”

Take the example of HSBC—the British Empire’s premier drug bank—the Argentine President said, speaking of banking criminals. It “had billions of Argentine dollars which fled the country through tax evasion,” she noted, adding, as was recently reported by Argentine investigators, that the fire that occurred a year ago at the Iron Mountain company’s depository in Buenos Aires—Iron Mountain is a multinational that stores sensitive records of banks and companies—was set intentionally and
“destroyed the documentation which precisely proved the fraud that had been committed against the State.”

To be very specific: lost at Iron Mountain were 22,000 boxes of HSBC files, along with those of several other foreign banks.

In her March 1 speech opening the 133rd Ordinary Session of the National Congress, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner pointed to the enormous global speculative debt bubble which sits atop the world economy, whose growth was fueled by the insane bank bailout policies that followed the 2008 financial crash.

For example, she said, in 2014, global debt grew by 286%, relative to GDP, according to a report by the McKinsey firm. What does that mean?

“The world owes almost three times what it produces in goods and services,” she said.

In 2014, she observed,

“many international leaders, presidents, heads of multilateral credit agencies and many others said that 2014 would see the end of the crisis that began with the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008. But that didn’t happen. On the contrary, nations’ indebtedness grew… we were told, that the 2008 crisis was only related to the United States, because of its [subprime] mortgages and the collapse of its banks, and that this would be resolved by bailing out those banks. But it didn’t happen that way.”

Instead, Fernandez pointed out,

“the financial crisis began to spread like an oil spill across Europe. The financial bailout has become permanent since 2008. But just as we said at every meeting of the G20, those bailout [funds] that were injected into the banks, instead of going to the real economy to once again produce goods and services and create jobs, and thus overcome the crisis, instead went into the shadow banking sector for new derivatives—fundamentally they went to tax havens.”

Take the example of HSBC—the British Empire’s premier drug bank—the Argentine President said, speaking of banking criminals. It “had billions of Argentine dollars which fled the country through tax evasion,” she noted, adding, as was recently reported by Argentine investigators, that the fire that occurred a year ago at the Iron Mountain company’s depository in Buenos Aires—Iron Mountain is a multinational that stores sensitive records of banks and companies—was set intentionally and
“destroyed the documentation which precisely proved the fraud that had been committed against the State.”

To be very specific: lost at Iron Mountain were 22,000 boxes of HSBC files, along with those of several other foreign banks.

U.S. economist Lyndon LaRouche decried today the fraudulent effort to frame up Russian President Vladimir Putin for the murder of liberal Russian politician Boris Nemtsov on the night of Feb 27-28. In fact, LaRouche insisted that the Nemtsov murder was nothing but a provocation directed against Putin, as he had said from the first moment it became known. The evidence is conclusive, and the stakes are life or death: peace or war. Given these circumstances, Obama’s endorsement of this frameup in a Reuters interview yesterday, merits his immediate removal from office as a last-ditch defense of the United States.

First, on the Nemtsov murder, there is no sane way to claim that Nemtsov represented any threat whatsoever to Putin with the latter’s 87% popularity rating. Who can deny that Nemtsov was thoroughly discredited by his role in the Yeltsin administration when Western speculators destroyed Russia, or that his support was minuscule when he was killed?

The prominent French economist and Russia expert Jacques Sapir posted an analysis today titled, “Who Framed Vladimir Putin?” It shows, on the one hand, that Nemtsov’s killing was a professional murder, like a contract murder, but, on the other hand, that it was staged in the open air, virtually under the windows of the Kremlin, in such a way as to greatly increase the risk to the killers and to the whole operation,— in order to frame Vladimir Putin.

Among other considerations, Sapir notes that the shooting from behind implies that one has perfectly identified the target, and the modus operandi implies an expertise only compatible with a contract murder; the risk of missing or inflicting non-lethal wounds is high. Note the large number of shots, eight or more, the lack of a coup-de-grace shot, and the fact that Nemtsov’s companion was unharmed.

“From this point of view one wonders why not wait till Nemtsov returned home? The classic type of contract killing occurs in a spot where one is sure to find the victim: the stairwell of the apartment building, or as the victim exits a restaurant. The very choice of crime-scene could indicate a demonstrative intention, such as to implicate Putin in the murder. In any case, it is evident that the assassins took risks that seem to indicate a political intention. All this makes one think of a set-up, a staging.

“Why would these people kill Nemtsov more or less directly under the windows of the Kremlin?”

This point made by Sapir is confirmed by the dispatch from Moscow of an unnamed, but credible correspondent of former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union Jack Matlock, who wrote similarly,

“The Kremlin Walls and the Bekhlimishevskaya Tower frame the scene with St. Basil’s to the right. It is simply difficult to imagine a location that could include more symbols of the Russian state. It looks like a frame-up.”

Sapir continues,

“How would these people have gathered knowledge about Nemtsov’s behaviour after he left the restaurant with a girl on his arm? Again, a killing at Nemtsov’s home would have made much more sense. And, if the girl is linked to the killing (even not directly and not in the intent), that would have necessitated deep connections in Ukraine.”

(Do these have any connection to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s connections to Ukrainian Nazis, one might ask?)

Sapir totally discredits the notion that this could have been a murder directed by Putin, writing:

“The media, in France and in countries of the West, have put forth the idea of a murder commanded by the Kremlin, or by movements close to Kremlin. We will say right now that the first hypothesis is not coherent with the crime scene. Further, it is hard to see what interest the Russian government would have to have one of the opposition killed, certainly a well-known opponent, but one who had fallen into the political background. When Vladimir Peskov, spokesman for President Putin, said that Nemtsov did not represent any danger nor any threat for power, it was perfectly true. And supposing the murder of Nemtsov was an attempt to frighten the others in opposition, it would have been a lot simpler to hit him at home. The idea of an involvement direct or indirect of the Russian government thus appears highly improbable.”

After equally discrediting the notion that Nemtsov was killed by right-wing Russian nationalists, Sapir says,

“Vladimir Putin and the Russian government have immediately advanced the hypothesis of a provocation. It is easy to see the appeal for them of this hypothesis. But one must have the honesty to say that’s what it is. Putin is actually the target of a deep and widespread hate campaign in the Western media. The killing of someone supposed to be an opponent is just something journalists could not resist. They moved on accusing him of all sins on the earth. The fact that Nemtsov was strongly linked to policies which failed in the 90s, and led Russia to the brink of collapse has been forgotten. The fact that Nemtsov has chosen to advise Orange Revolution Ukrainian governments since 2004 has been forgotten. A lot of people, and not just in Russia, could want to see Nemtsov dead. But all this has been forgotten and the rallying word is now ‘Putin is a killer,’ or ‘Putin has inspired Nemtsov’s killer.’ It is just a shame, a dirty shame. But this is consistent with the war Western media are waging against Russia and Putin.”

Now, Obama has put himself in the middle of this frameup with a March 2 statement to Reuters which characterized Nemtsov’s murder as

“an indication of a climate at least inside of Russia in which civil society, independent journalists, people trying to communicate on the Internet, have felt increasingly threatened, constrained. And increasingly the only information that the Russian public is able to get is through state-controlled media outlets.”

“This means Obama has to go,” LaRouche said.

U.S. economist Lyndon LaRouche decried today the fraudulent effort to frame up Russian President Vladimir Putin for the murder of liberal Russian politician Boris Nemtsov on the night of Feb 27-28. In fact, LaRouche insisted that the Nemtsov murder was nothing but a provocation directed against Putin, as he had said from the first moment it became known. The evidence is conclusive, and the stakes are life or death: peace or war. Given these circumstances, Obama’s endorsement of this frameup in a Reuters interview yesterday, merits his immediate removal from office as a last-ditch defense of the United States.

First, on the Nemtsov murder, there is no sane way to claim that Nemtsov represented any threat whatsoever to Putin with the latter’s 87% popularity rating. Who can deny that Nemtsov was thoroughly discredited by his role in the Yeltsin administration when Western speculators destroyed Russia, or that his support was minuscule when he was killed?

The prominent French economist and Russia expert Jacques Sapir posted an analysis today titled, “Who Framed Vladimir Putin?” It shows, on the one hand, that Nemtsov’s killing was a professional murder, like a contract murder, but, on the other hand, that it was staged in the open air, virtually under the windows of the Kremlin, in such a way as to greatly increase the risk to the killers and to the whole operation,— in order to frame Vladimir Putin.

Among other considerations, Sapir notes that the shooting from behind implies that one has perfectly identified the target, and the modus operandi implies an expertise only compatible with a contract murder; the risk of missing or inflicting non-lethal wounds is high. Note the large number of shots, eight or more, the lack of a coup-de-grace shot, and the fact that Nemtsov’s companion was unharmed.

“From this point of view one wonders why not wait till Nemtsov returned home? The classic type of contract killing occurs in a spot where one is sure to find the victim: the stairwell of the apartment building, or as the victim exits a restaurant. The very choice of crime-scene could indicate a demonstrative intention, such as to implicate Putin in the murder. In any case, it is evident that the assassins took risks that seem to indicate a political intention. All this makes one think of a set-up, a staging.

“Why would these people kill Nemtsov more or less directly under the windows of the Kremlin?”

This point made by Sapir is confirmed by the dispatch from Moscow of an unnamed, but credible correspondent of former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union Jack Matlock, who wrote similarly,

“The Kremlin Walls and the Bekhlimishevskaya Tower frame the scene with St. Basil’s to the right. It is simply difficult to imagine a location that could include more symbols of the Russian state. It looks like a frame-up.”

Sapir continues,

“How would these people have gathered knowledge about Nemtsov’s behaviour after he left the restaurant with a girl on his arm? Again, a killing at Nemtsov’s home would have made much more sense. And, if the girl is linked to the killing (even not directly and not in the intent), that would have necessitated deep connections in Ukraine.”

(Do these have any connection to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s connections to Ukrainian Nazis, one might ask?)

Sapir totally discredits the notion that this could have been a murder directed by Putin, writing:

“The media, in France and in countries of the West, have put forth the idea of a murder commanded by the Kremlin, or by movements close to Kremlin. We will say right now that the first hypothesis is not coherent with the crime scene. Further, it is hard to see what interest the Russian government would have to have one of the opposition killed, certainly a well-known opponent, but one who had fallen into the political background. When Vladimir Peskov, spokesman for President Putin, said that Nemtsov did not represent any danger nor any threat for power, it was perfectly true. And supposing the murder of Nemtsov was an attempt to frighten the others in opposition, it would have been a lot simpler to hit him at home. The idea of an involvement direct or indirect of the Russian government thus appears highly improbable.”

After equally discrediting the notion that Nemtsov was killed by right-wing Russian nationalists, Sapir says,

“Vladimir Putin and the Russian government have immediately advanced the hypothesis of a provocation. It is easy to see the appeal for them of this hypothesis. But one must have the honesty to say that’s what it is. Putin is actually the target of a deep and widespread hate campaign in the Western media. The killing of someone supposed to be an opponent is just something journalists could not resist. They moved on accusing him of all sins on the earth. The fact that Nemtsov was strongly linked to policies which failed in the 90s, and led Russia to the brink of collapse has been forgotten. The fact that Nemtsov has chosen to advise Orange Revolution Ukrainian governments since 2004 has been forgotten. A lot of people, and not just in Russia, could want to see Nemtsov dead. But all this has been forgotten and the rallying word is now ‘Putin is a killer,’ or ‘Putin has inspired Nemtsov’s killer.’ It is just a shame, a dirty shame. But this is consistent with the war Western media are waging against Russia and Putin.”

Now, Obama has put himself in the middle of this frameup with a March 2 statement to Reuters which characterized Nemtsov’s murder as

“an indication of a climate at least inside of Russia in which civil society, independent journalists, people trying to communicate on the Internet, have felt increasingly threatened, constrained. And increasingly the only information that the Russian public is able to get is through state-controlled media outlets.”

“This means Obama has to go,” LaRouche said.

U.S. economist Lyndon LaRouche decried today the fraudulent effort to frame up Russian President Vladimir Putin for the murder of liberal Russian politician Boris Nemtsov on the night of Feb 27-28. In fact, LaRouche insisted that the Nemtsov murder was nothing but a provocation directed against Putin, as he had said from the first moment it became known. The evidence is conclusive, and the stakes are life or death: peace or war. Given these circumstances, Obama’s endorsement of this frameup in a Reuters interview yesterday, merits his immediate removal from office as a last-ditch defense of the United States.

First, on the Nemtsov murder, there is no sane way to claim that Nemtsov represented any threat whatsoever to Putin with the latter’s 87% popularity rating. Who can deny that Nemtsov was thoroughly discredited by his role in the Yeltsin administration when Western speculators destroyed Russia, or that his support was minuscule when he was killed?

The prominent French economist and Russia expert Jacques Sapir posted an analysis today titled, “Who Framed Vladimir Putin?” It shows, on the one hand, that Nemtsov’s killing was a professional murder, like a contract murder, but, on the other hand, that it was staged in the open air, virtually under the windows of the Kremlin, in such a way as to greatly increase the risk to the killers and to the whole operation,— in order to frame Vladimir Putin.

Among other considerations, Sapir notes that the shooting from behind implies that one has perfectly identified the target, and the modus operandi implies an expertise only compatible with a contract murder; the risk of missing or inflicting non-lethal wounds is high. Note the large number of shots, eight or more, the lack of a coup-de-grace shot, and the fact that Nemtsov’s companion was unharmed.

“From this point of view one wonders why not wait till Nemtsov returned home? The classic type of contract killing occurs in a spot where one is sure to find the victim: the stairwell of the apartment building, or as the victim exits a restaurant. The very choice of crime-scene could indicate a demonstrative intention, such as to implicate Putin in the murder. In any case, it is evident that the assassins took risks that seem to indicate a political intention. All this makes one think of a set-up, a staging.

“Why would these people kill Nemtsov more or less directly under the windows of the Kremlin?”

This point made by Sapir is confirmed by the dispatch from Moscow of an unnamed, but credible correspondent of former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union Jack Matlock, who wrote similarly,

“The Kremlin Walls and the Bekhlimishevskaya Tower frame the scene with St. Basil’s to the right. It is simply difficult to imagine a location that could include more symbols of the Russian state. It looks like a frame-up.”

Sapir continues,

“How would these people have gathered knowledge about Nemtsov’s behaviour after he left the restaurant with a girl on his arm? Again, a killing at Nemtsov’s home would have made much more sense. And, if the girl is linked to the killing (even not directly and not in the intent), that would have necessitated deep connections in Ukraine.”

(Do these have any connection to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s connections to Ukrainian Nazis, one might ask?)

Sapir totally discredits the notion that this could have been a murder directed by Putin, writing:

“The media, in France and in countries of the West, have put forth the idea of a murder commanded by the Kremlin, or by movements close to Kremlin. We will say right now that the first hypothesis is not coherent with the crime scene. Further, it is hard to see what interest the Russian government would have to have one of the opposition killed, certainly a well-known opponent, but one who had fallen into the political background. When Vladimir Peskov, spokesman for President Putin, said that Nemtsov did not represent any danger nor any threat for power, it was perfectly true. And supposing the murder of Nemtsov was an attempt to frighten the others in opposition, it would have been a lot simpler to hit him at home. The idea of an involvement direct or indirect of the Russian government thus appears highly improbable.”

After equally discrediting the notion that Nemtsov was killed by right-wing Russian nationalists, Sapir says,

“Vladimir Putin and the Russian government have immediately advanced the hypothesis of a provocation. It is easy to see the appeal for them of this hypothesis. But one must have the honesty to say that’s what it is. Putin is actually the target of a deep and widespread hate campaign in the Western media. The killing of someone supposed to be an opponent is just something journalists could not resist. They moved on accusing him of all sins on the earth. The fact that Nemtsov was strongly linked to policies which failed in the 90s, and led Russia to the brink of collapse has been forgotten. The fact that Nemtsov has chosen to advise Orange Revolution Ukrainian governments since 2004 has been forgotten. A lot of people, and not just in Russia, could want to see Nemtsov dead. But all this has been forgotten and the rallying word is now ‘Putin is a killer,’ or ‘Putin has inspired Nemtsov’s killer.’ It is just a shame, a dirty shame. But this is consistent with the war Western media are waging against Russia and Putin.”

Now, Obama has put himself in the middle of this frameup with a March 2 statement to Reuters which characterized Nemtsov’s murder as

“an indication of a climate at least inside of Russia in which civil society, independent journalists, people trying to communicate on the Internet, have felt increasingly threatened, constrained. And increasingly the only information that the Russian public is able to get is through state-controlled media outlets.”

“This means Obama has to go,” LaRouche said.

Tune in Tuesday afternoon at 12:30 for a live, on the ground report from Manhattan outside of HBSC Bank as we celebrate the end of imperial money and drug laundering institutions like this one in a future shaped by the new BRICS paradigm.