It's a con alright. Didn't the FDIC recently say there's not enough institutional assets overall to cover deposits and there could be bail-ins? If the general public caught wind of the musical chairs grift the system would blow over like a paper tiger that it is.
It’s amazing how many times I’ve noticed what Greg has said *first in his videos and newsletters quickly spreading. Greg deserves more credit for his originality!!! Thank you Greg!!
$162 billion. Yes billion in uninsured deposits. Bank CEO sold his stocks in the bank 2 weeks ago. Hope there is a claw back on that money and pay unsecured creditors. Uninsured depositors are now unsecured creditors Going to be sleepless nights for that banks’ board of directors. Will possible be held liable and personal assets at risk.
I’m going to be talking about “bail-outs” and “bail-ins” with regard to any financial crisis that might occur in the future.
But before I launch into this discussion, I should perhaps reword the last part of what I just said, because, to my way of thinking, another financial crisis is going to occur. It’s just a matter of time.
Financial crises occur intermittently, not perhaps on a regular basis, but every once in a while.
To think otherwise, to think that there won’t ever be another financial crisis, is simply unrealistic. In fact, I would go so far as to say it’s somewhat delusionary. At least, it could be said that believing there won’t be another financial crisis is probably crazier than believing there will be. Financial crises have happened in the past and they will continue to happen in the future.
The question then becomes, when will there be another financial crisis? Who knows. Timings are always tricky. I think it’s going to be soon.
Anyway … back to the matter at hand.
“bail-outs”
During in the financial crisis of 2007 / 2008, there were “bail outs” for the banks.
The “the too big to fail banks”, or the Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs), to give them their official title, were deemed too large, too important and also too interconnected that their failure would be disastrous to the wider economy. Accordingly, they were given financial aid by the Government to ensure that they didn’t fail.
By definition, a bank failure occurs when the value of a bank’s assets falls below the market value of the banks liabilities – the obligations it has to creditors and depositors. So essentially, it then be seen as an equation involving bank’s assets and the banks liabilities.
As a side note, in accord with this definition, Evergrande in China is a failing institution. It has failed to meet its obligations to its creditors and its market value is falling fast. Although it is not a bank, it could probably be categorised as a Systemically Important Financial Institution - It’s large, important and interconnected. The Chinese Government has stepped in, but whether any assistance they give turns out to be effective, remains to be seen.
Back to bail-outs … This a snapshot of the US. Following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, financial systems began to seize up. Hank Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury and Ben Bernanke, FED chairman went to Congress with a proposal to save any other financial institutions from failing and also to save the financial system as a whole.
I’m just going to reel off a few stats. So, starting from the smallest.
Bear Stearns $30 Billion
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac $187 Billion
TARP $700 Billion – Troubled Asset Relief Programme - this was the purchasing of toxic assets.
General Motors was to receive $80 Billion of this.
With regard to Britain … the government instituted a range of measures, the Bank Recapitalisation Fund, Special Liquidity Schemes, underwriting interbank lending to ensure liquidty, buying shares in banks, nationalising a bank … whatever things they did, whatever terms they used .. they basically gave the banks a total of £500 billion.
There’s much that can be said about the “bail outs” for the banks – about the anger in the general public with the banks for being responsible for creating the crisis in the first place and then their getting bailed out. Something could be said about the Governments creating moral hazard – privatising profit and socialising risk etc, but I’m not going to go launch into a rant here because “bail-ins” are the main focus of this article.
“bail-ins”
In the next financial crisis, there could well be “bail-ins”. This means that instead of the government giving the banks money with “bail-outs”, the money required to support failing banks will come out of the personal accounts people have in banks.
Apparently a bank has the legal right to convert the cash in customers deposit accounts into shares for the institution. What this means is that the money that is held in your accounts goes towards capitalising a failing bank. So basically, all your holdings in a bank are at risk. If your bank gets into financial trouble in the next crisis, you are going to be the ones that they turn to rather than the governments.
If you think this won’t happen, you might want to think again. This has already happened in Cyprus and elsewhere besides. Precedents have been set.
There is supposed to be insurance, or some kind of guarantee up to a certain amount, for money that is deposited in banks, but if the banks get into serious trouble, I wonder how the governments will fare. The governments struggled in the last crisis. The next one is likely to be far worse. The Governments could find themselves in difficulty.
As some of you might have already guessed, I’m not too enamoured of the banks. Suffice to say that I don’t trust them. And I don’t trust the governments either. Nor for the matter, the financial regulators.
Anyway, I agree with Lynette Zang when she says, the insurance schemes are little more than ways to make you maintain trust in the institutions. Trust is an important issue when it comes to the functioning of economies.
Caveat
I just wish to say, I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject of “bail-ins”. This video is more of a pointer, drawing your attention to the issue rather than being anything in-depth.
I have to confess, I haven’t paid “bail-ins” much mind because I only keep the bare minimum of money in my bank accounts at any one time. I have funds sufficient to cover any bills that need paying by direct debit, or whatever and that’s it. So, a “bail-in” won’t affect me in the slightest.
At this juncture, I want to make it absolutely clear, I’m not necessarily advising you to do the same as me. I’m merely telling you what I do. And I’m also expressing opinions based on what I have learnt over the years. Be aware that what I have said does not amount to financial advice. Please don’t do anything based on what I say without having done some research of your own and then carefully considering things. You need to do you own due diligence.
That said, I would recommend you looking at videos on YouTube by Lynette Zang regarding “bail-ins”. She is certainly a lot more knowledgeable that me about this stuff. The only thing I would say is that she might slant things towards the US so …
“bail-outs” or “bail-ins”
Be advised, in either case, be it “bail outs”, or “bail-ins”, it is the ordinary person on the street that tends to pay.
How so?
In the case of the “bail outs” Governments forced the banks to take money. But, you ended up paying for this measure via taxation. You therefore paid, albeit in an indirect manner.
With the “bail-ins” they will just take money directly from your accounts. “Take” is of course a euphemism. What I actually mean is “steal”. But that’s just the way I view it. Perhaps I’m being cranky.
Anyway, so far as I can see, the only real difference is that, with regard to “bail outs” the cost was spread over the whole tax paying populace, whereas with regard to “bail-ins” the cost will be met by those people whose banks happen to fail.
Either way, you will probably pay.
Banksters
In all honesty, finding out about “bail-ins” came as no real surprise to me.
By that stage, I had long been aware of the “Fractional Reserve Banking” scam ... sorry, I mean system.
I refer you to an earlier video I made, entitled, “Fractional Reserve Banking” so that you can get a better understanding of this topic.
So, as far as I was concerned, “bail-ins” were just another crooked banking practice.
Banks screw people over every which way. Excuse my language but there’s no better way of putting it.
There are good reason that bankers are called “banksters” in the alternative community
Much as I don’t like them, I have to admit that I find myself admiring them to some extent – even if it is rather grouchily.
You have to give them credit (pardon the pun) for the way they have managed to cheat people so effectively over all these years. It’s a very clever con and they’ve managed to keep it going continuously for a long time. And what is more, it’s all entirely legal. It comes within the bounds of the law. Given that all this is entirely legal, this should perhaps make you call in question the laws of the land. It certainly makes me question the law makers, as well as legislation that’s introduced by them.
Although finding out about “bail-ins” didn’t surprise me, I do still shake my head in astonishment occasionally. I find it quite incredible that they are able to make such massive amounts of money from the “Fractional Reserve Banking” system and then … if they start to get into financial difficulty, they simply steal from people’s accounts.
There are two more points I wish to make before I finish …
There was a lot of anger in the public about the “bail-outs”. I wonder how the people will react with “bail-ins” take place. Bankers might well be lynched – a banker might well be hanging from every lamppost in the high street of every town.
Finally, I would just like to say if anyone does any research on this and they happen to find any evidence which goes against what I have put forward here in this article, then I would very much appreciate it they were to tell me in the comments and I can then re-evaluate things. Until then … I’m sticking to my position.
Wise up and rise up
For anyone who’s interested, I have a channel on Bitchute called “the Alt Economist”.
Dont worry they rolled out cramer to tell the masses the other banks are safe!
Claiming “mortgage backed securities” AGAIN? Jeeeeze Public will believe all this smack
It's a con alright. Didn't the FDIC recently say there's not enough institutional assets overall to cover deposits and there could be bail-ins? If the general public caught wind of the musical chairs grift the system would blow over like a paper tiger that it is.
https://theodoreatkinson.substack.com/p/whats-a-bank-run-and-should-we-be
It’s amazing how many times I’ve noticed what Greg has said *first in his videos and newsletters quickly spreading. Greg deserves more credit for his originality!!! Thank you Greg!!
As you said Big Banks are licking their chops while taxpayers left holding the bag 💼 same old story same old song and dance my friend
Isn’t it ironic that it only took $800 billion to bailout the banks last time (which is a lot) see Hank Paulson on his knees in front of Pelosi.....
Now that amount would not even support the reverse repo market for 1 day.
$162 billion. Yes billion in uninsured deposits. Bank CEO sold his stocks in the bank 2 weeks ago. Hope there is a claw back on that money and pay unsecured creditors. Uninsured depositors are now unsecured creditors Going to be sleepless nights for that banks’ board of directors. Will possible be held liable and personal assets at risk.
No jail time unless you’re Jessie James
Attention K Mart shoppers....there is a blue light special in aisle 3!!!!! Don't delay because when the blue light goes off...all your money is gone!
When was there confidence in the banks
stay close gm lol
I’m going to be talking about “bail-outs” and “bail-ins” with regard to any financial crisis that might occur in the future.
But before I launch into this discussion, I should perhaps reword the last part of what I just said, because, to my way of thinking, another financial crisis is going to occur. It’s just a matter of time.
Financial crises occur intermittently, not perhaps on a regular basis, but every once in a while.
To think otherwise, to think that there won’t ever be another financial crisis, is simply unrealistic. In fact, I would go so far as to say it’s somewhat delusionary. At least, it could be said that believing there won’t be another financial crisis is probably crazier than believing there will be. Financial crises have happened in the past and they will continue to happen in the future.
The question then becomes, when will there be another financial crisis? Who knows. Timings are always tricky. I think it’s going to be soon.
Anyway … back to the matter at hand.
“bail-outs”
During in the financial crisis of 2007 / 2008, there were “bail outs” for the banks.
The “the too big to fail banks”, or the Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs), to give them their official title, were deemed too large, too important and also too interconnected that their failure would be disastrous to the wider economy. Accordingly, they were given financial aid by the Government to ensure that they didn’t fail.
By definition, a bank failure occurs when the value of a bank’s assets falls below the market value of the banks liabilities – the obligations it has to creditors and depositors. So essentially, it then be seen as an equation involving bank’s assets and the banks liabilities.
As a side note, in accord with this definition, Evergrande in China is a failing institution. It has failed to meet its obligations to its creditors and its market value is falling fast. Although it is not a bank, it could probably be categorised as a Systemically Important Financial Institution - It’s large, important and interconnected. The Chinese Government has stepped in, but whether any assistance they give turns out to be effective, remains to be seen.
Back to bail-outs … This a snapshot of the US. Following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, financial systems began to seize up. Hank Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury and Ben Bernanke, FED chairman went to Congress with a proposal to save any other financial institutions from failing and also to save the financial system as a whole.
I’m just going to reel off a few stats. So, starting from the smallest.
Bear Stearns $30 Billion
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac $187 Billion
TARP $700 Billion – Troubled Asset Relief Programme - this was the purchasing of toxic assets.
General Motors was to receive $80 Billion of this.
With regard to Britain … the government instituted a range of measures, the Bank Recapitalisation Fund, Special Liquidity Schemes, underwriting interbank lending to ensure liquidty, buying shares in banks, nationalising a bank … whatever things they did, whatever terms they used .. they basically gave the banks a total of £500 billion.
There’s much that can be said about the “bail outs” for the banks – about the anger in the general public with the banks for being responsible for creating the crisis in the first place and then their getting bailed out. Something could be said about the Governments creating moral hazard – privatising profit and socialising risk etc, but I’m not going to go launch into a rant here because “bail-ins” are the main focus of this article.
“bail-ins”
In the next financial crisis, there could well be “bail-ins”. This means that instead of the government giving the banks money with “bail-outs”, the money required to support failing banks will come out of the personal accounts people have in banks.
Apparently a bank has the legal right to convert the cash in customers deposit accounts into shares for the institution. What this means is that the money that is held in your accounts goes towards capitalising a failing bank. So basically, all your holdings in a bank are at risk. If your bank gets into financial trouble in the next crisis, you are going to be the ones that they turn to rather than the governments.
If you think this won’t happen, you might want to think again. This has already happened in Cyprus and elsewhere besides. Precedents have been set.
There is supposed to be insurance, or some kind of guarantee up to a certain amount, for money that is deposited in banks, but if the banks get into serious trouble, I wonder how the governments will fare. The governments struggled in the last crisis. The next one is likely to be far worse. The Governments could find themselves in difficulty.
As some of you might have already guessed, I’m not too enamoured of the banks. Suffice to say that I don’t trust them. And I don’t trust the governments either. Nor for the matter, the financial regulators.
Anyway, I agree with Lynette Zang when she says, the insurance schemes are little more than ways to make you maintain trust in the institutions. Trust is an important issue when it comes to the functioning of economies.
Caveat
I just wish to say, I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject of “bail-ins”. This video is more of a pointer, drawing your attention to the issue rather than being anything in-depth.
I have to confess, I haven’t paid “bail-ins” much mind because I only keep the bare minimum of money in my bank accounts at any one time. I have funds sufficient to cover any bills that need paying by direct debit, or whatever and that’s it. So, a “bail-in” won’t affect me in the slightest.
At this juncture, I want to make it absolutely clear, I’m not necessarily advising you to do the same as me. I’m merely telling you what I do. And I’m also expressing opinions based on what I have learnt over the years. Be aware that what I have said does not amount to financial advice. Please don’t do anything based on what I say without having done some research of your own and then carefully considering things. You need to do you own due diligence.
That said, I would recommend you looking at videos on YouTube by Lynette Zang regarding “bail-ins”. She is certainly a lot more knowledgeable that me about this stuff. The only thing I would say is that she might slant things towards the US so …
“bail-outs” or “bail-ins”
Be advised, in either case, be it “bail outs”, or “bail-ins”, it is the ordinary person on the street that tends to pay.
How so?
In the case of the “bail outs” Governments forced the banks to take money. But, you ended up paying for this measure via taxation. You therefore paid, albeit in an indirect manner.
With the “bail-ins” they will just take money directly from your accounts. “Take” is of course a euphemism. What I actually mean is “steal”. But that’s just the way I view it. Perhaps I’m being cranky.
Anyway, so far as I can see, the only real difference is that, with regard to “bail outs” the cost was spread over the whole tax paying populace, whereas with regard to “bail-ins” the cost will be met by those people whose banks happen to fail.
Either way, you will probably pay.
Banksters
In all honesty, finding out about “bail-ins” came as no real surprise to me.
By that stage, I had long been aware of the “Fractional Reserve Banking” scam ... sorry, I mean system.
I refer you to an earlier video I made, entitled, “Fractional Reserve Banking” so that you can get a better understanding of this topic.
So, as far as I was concerned, “bail-ins” were just another crooked banking practice.
Banks screw people over every which way. Excuse my language but there’s no better way of putting it.
There are good reason that bankers are called “banksters” in the alternative community
Much as I don’t like them, I have to admit that I find myself admiring them to some extent – even if it is rather grouchily.
You have to give them credit (pardon the pun) for the way they have managed to cheat people so effectively over all these years. It’s a very clever con and they’ve managed to keep it going continuously for a long time. And what is more, it’s all entirely legal. It comes within the bounds of the law. Given that all this is entirely legal, this should perhaps make you call in question the laws of the land. It certainly makes me question the law makers, as well as legislation that’s introduced by them.
Although finding out about “bail-ins” didn’t surprise me, I do still shake my head in astonishment occasionally. I find it quite incredible that they are able to make such massive amounts of money from the “Fractional Reserve Banking” system and then … if they start to get into financial difficulty, they simply steal from people’s accounts.
There are two more points I wish to make before I finish …
There was a lot of anger in the public about the “bail-outs”. I wonder how the people will react with “bail-ins” take place. Bankers might well be lynched – a banker might well be hanging from every lamppost in the high street of every town.
Finally, I would just like to say if anyone does any research on this and they happen to find any evidence which goes against what I have put forward here in this article, then I would very much appreciate it they were to tell me in the comments and I can then re-evaluate things. Until then … I’m sticking to my position.
Wise up and rise up
For anyone who’s interested, I have a channel on Bitchute called “the Alt Economist”.
So what’s the answer.? Tar and feather??? 😉
USDC problems !!!
De pegging .
SVB apparently hold 25% or more of circle supply .
Market watch won't let me in...what do I do?
Until something breaks. Fed pause or pivot?
The Dominos are starting to fall...
https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/usdc-stablecoin-breaks-peg-circle-admits-billions-stuck-svb
Got Gold?
Gold is up over 500% in the last 20 years and gold is up over 4000% in the last 50 years!