# Bank



## Dixie

http://viral.buzz/video-warning-signal-banks-cut-50000-jobs-q4-what-do-they-know-you-dont/

VIDEO: Warning Signal - Banks Cut 50,000 Jobs Q4. What Do They Know You Don't?
January 19, 2015 By Clark Holmes

FacebookTwitterEmailPrintMore

Last quarter the Fed's quantitative easing elixir came to an end. In anticipation and as a response, Wall Street banks cut 50,000 jobs, as well as bonuses and expense money, as perceived profit opportunities become more challenging.

The job cuts are rationalized over several issues, including lower trading and commodities revenues, currency risks, stubbornly low interest rates in the Q4, and a decline in servicing delinquent loans as troubled mortgages are cleared up.

The banks anticipate suffering their own profit withdrawal from the Fed's withdrawal of liquidity from the marketplace. What might that mean to main street?

Mike Mayo, CLSA investment group bank analyst, said, "Look, I think head count in the banking industry is likely to decline. And if this environment remains, headcount would get significantly reduced."

According to Mayo, bank revenues are the weakest since the Great Depression over eight decades ago.

This job reduction has run concurrently with the precipitous drop in oil prices in Q4 and spilling into the beginning of 2015.

Tim Quast, president or market analytics firm ModernIR, said, "I think there have been heavy potential and paper losses at this point. Clearly, nobody bet properly on oil. Nobody thought it was going below 50 a barrel."

Major banks have cut jobs at a record rate, including: Bank of America sliced 20,000 jobs; Citigroup cut 10,000; JPMorgan dropped 10,000. Goldman Sachs also let staff go, even though fourth quarter earnings beat estimates.

If major financial institutions see fit to jettison so many positions because the Fed has quit supplying liquidity into the markets from which Wall Street firms can no longer siphon off profit into their accounts, prospects for the average Jane or Joe seeking a safe place to earn a reasonable return on hard earned savings present even greater risks and challenges.

JPMorgan to cut 8,000 jobs
Los Angeles Times

*Not trying to be an alarmist but I am wondering if this information had anything to do with my visit?
I went to the bank on Friday and had to go inside because only one lane in the drive-thru was open.It looked like an ATM but it was in the wrong lane for the ATM. 
I went inside and noticed it had been remodeled. Now instead of four tellers, there were two live tellers and three ATM looking things with "live" tellers. You looked at them on a monitor. The bank manager assured me they could help me with anything I wanted to do and would make things easier for the customer. I asked if they could cash a check.....uh well, no, but they can do anything else. So, teller in a box will be taking care of customers from who knows what locations? The teller said no one had lost their jobs at this bank. I'm wondering how long until they do? 
Seems like the banks are doing a little of preparing themselves. Teller in a box can't get hurt and can work at different banks at one time. *


----------



## Grimm

I noticed my local credit union is down to the bank manager and 2 tellers. They cut hours rather than letting anyone go and no 'teller-in-a-box' has been set up yet. They did revamp the exterior ATMs to handle more banking needs though.


----------



## hiwall

Not just banks but oil companies - here it says between two companies they are laying off 14,000 well paid workers.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industri...ount-to-hit-15-results/?intcmp=marketfeatures


----------



## redhorse

I work for a bank on the mortgage end, and my husband is a diesel mechanic on the rigs. 

This is not good. Not good at all.


----------



## Hooch

did you all hear what the swiss did last week...maybe that should be another thread tho..

along with oil prices crashing, swiss depegging its cap from the euro..exposing more to deritivities, perhaps it just twanged the already great unwraveling a notch?? 

Interesting times...


----------



## readytogo

*Whatever goes up-must come down.*

Whatever goes up-must come down folks is the old standard and it never fails, banks are a business so new technology creates changes, people get layoff with the arrival of this technologies not only in banking but retail stores all over are eliminating positions, schools are going on line so teachers will be eliminated also in many large institutions and hotels the use of robots are in place to deliver your food, drinks or medicines, big companies like GM,Ford,Amazon have replace humans with robots in their assembly and shipping lines, we all remember the switch board operators of the good old days, gone. We also have to be realistic and logical and practical we have to change with the times or at least our children have to learn new trades and stay inform of what`s coming, like fields in the health,automotive,electronics,communication,data entry, transportation and many more that really need a human touch. We tend to pay attention to the now but not the future like the fiasco now with the oil industry everybody wants to be in it but soon the bottom will drop, boon towns will disappear just like the gold camps of the old west. Everybody forgets their history and nobody wants to save for the coming rainy day.


----------



## HardCider

It's deeper and worse than before. Now is a time for hard, in your possession assets, not money in a bank


----------



## goshengirl

HardCider said:


> Now is a time for hard, in your possession assets, not money in a bank


My gut feeling has been pinging on that idea for a few years. Just wish my husband felt the same way. I don't refer to our IRA as "IRA" - I refer to it as "money we will never see."


----------



## readytogo

*Corporate Greed and the American way of life.*

The economy is hard on everybody and I don`t know about gold or silver but I do know that corporate greed has a lot to do with many hardships and families going under, and many blame the government also but on the news lately there have been reports of high executive bonuses and companies layoff while making money and is not the government or Obama doing this.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-profits--big-layoffs--amex--ebay-to-cut-jobs-154221346.html


----------



## HardCider

goshengirl said:


> My gut feeling has been pinging on that idea for a few years. Just wish my husband felt the same way. I don't refer to our IRA as "IRA" - I refer to it as "money we will never see."


My wife and I have really been pulled in this direction hard for the last several years. We look at our land and infrastructure and anything that brings us toward self sufficiency as our 401K. We have "cashed out" of the present day banking system in favor of bought and payed for assets. We have got to a place where the soil, land, water and wildlife are stock. Where structures, seed, and livestock are hedge funds. And even if we are wrong, we could leave our boys with a better, healthier piece of land. We never really own it. We just want to be better stewards of it while we are here.


----------



## Marcus

Part of it has to do with companies trying to manage the expectations of their shareholders. As long as profits go up or at least appear to be sustainable, the big wigs are happy (since their pay and bonuses don't go down.)

But before anyone starts touting the 'recovery' or how well the economy is doing under our Dear Leader, as the MSM was doing in the run up to the State of the Mess Address, ask yourself one simple question, "What is the prime interest rate today?"

I point this out merely to show that we are in interesting times as the old Chinese curse mentions. Interest rates are still effectively zero so people who are seeking stable income *must* settle for large cap dividend stocks or higher risk bonds. Therefore they are assuming a considerable risk to their capital since we are at or close to all time highs in the S&P and interest rates are at historic lows. For the boomers and those of older generations, their entire lifestyle is at considerable risk when the stock market eventually falls and/or when interest rates go up and the face value of bonds drop.

I remember the last oil crash in the 80s here in Texas. Real estate markets became illiquid as too many sellers chased very few buyers. And those buyers learned to wait it out and let the valuations settle before committing any hard earned cash. It took years to recover. Add in where we are in the economic cycle, and I can foresee a very rough second half of 2015 and all of 2016.

When we finally return to 6% interest on quality bonds *and* several quarters of good economic expansion at that interest rate, then and only then will I believe we have finally escaped the effects of 2008.


----------



## hiwall

> When we finally return to 6% interest on quality bonds and several quarters of good economic expansion at that interest rate, then and only then will I believe we have finally escaped the effects of 2008.


If those rates ever came back how would we possibly pay the interest on our huge over eighteen trillion national debt. It just can not happen.


----------



## Marcus

hiwall said:


> If those rates ever came back how would we possibly pay the interest on our huge over eighteen trillion national debt. It just can not happen.


Ask Greece if it can't happen.


----------



## hiwall

Marcus said:


> Ask Greece if it can't happen.


But who would bail us out?


----------



## BillS

Dixie said:


> http://viral.buzz/video-warning-signal-banks-cut-50000-jobs-q4-what-do-they-know-you-dont/
> 
> Last quarter the Fed's quantitative easing elixir came to an end. [/B][/COLOR]


Regardless of what the news says, QE did not end. Not only does the government run a trillion dollar deficit that can't be funded except by printing money. But many more treasuries are being cashed in by foreign governments instead of being rolled over. The only way to fund that is by printing money.


----------



## Marcus

hiwall said:


> But who would bail us out?


My guess would be the Fed through QE∞.

Look at it this way:

The hole we're in financially is the accumulation of roughly 50 years of irresponsible spending and malfeasance at the federal level. Congress has consistently spent more money than has been taken in as revenue. Congress has also consistently put off the day of reckoning and will continue to do so until they are *forced* to act.

Additionally, Congress has raided the Social Security Trust Fund and replaced those monies with IOUs. If I recall correctly, Social Security just started paying out more money than it's taking in as taxes. As more and more Baby Boomers retire, the deficit in funding will rise dramatically.

And let us not forget those unfunded liabilities that amount to somewhere north of $75 Trillion. The exact amount depends on your time horizon. A lot of these programs are social type programs which are popular with the poor.

So what are the options?

Congress can raise taxes, which is hugely unpopular, in an effort to try to stop the bleeding. Taxes would have to roughly double just to make a decent effort to balance the budget and pay a little down on the national debt. *I highly doubt this will ever happen* given current political realities.

Congress can cut or freeze spending, which is also very unpopular, in an effort to slow down the bleeding. Again, I doubt this will happen.

The third choice is to default on our debt obligations. I don't see this as likely either since it would almost certainly cause a global depression with very severe consequences to government revenues. Remember too that we are in better shape than almost everyone else in the world including China.

To me, the likeliest scenario is we end up inflating away the debt almost by default. I say this since it is a hidden tax which makes it easier to swallow politically. It is somewhat likely that Social Security will either start means testing *or* skipping to an every other year cost of living adjustment.

I can't think of any other options, but I will keep an open mind if you have any.

I will only mention in passing how out of touch the Consumer Price Index is now that the government has removed huge sectors from the index. This causes the index to understate inflation by a considerable amount which lowers COLAs and the cost to the government.

So if we inflate away the debt, what will happen?

As interest rates rise, the value of older bonds will drop to compensate for current interest rates. So current bond holders will be poised to sell their current holdings if the bond duration (time to maturity) is more than a few months since they'd be at risk of substantial losses in capital if interest rates rise quickly.

This rush to flee lower yielding bonds would likely cause the bond market to become illiquid and lead to swift intervention. In the US, that's the Fed.

Roughly 35-40% of the $93 Trillion worldwide bond market are US bonds and any significant disruption of that market has grave economic consequences that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

BTW, the national debt is financed in 3 different time frames, roughly split into thirds. The first is short term (3-5 years), the second is medium term (10 years), and the last is long term (30 years.) The interest rates on those bonds are fixed; however, the current value of the bonds are not. Thus a 2% bond in a 6% interest rate environment will be heavily discounted so as to cause that 2% bond to yield 6%. That means it would lose roughly 2/3 of its face value depending on the duration. The longer duration bonds would lose the most value. This has to do with FV (future value) being discounted back to PV (present value.)


----------



## squerly

Expect some of the top banks to suffer greatly from the loans they made to oil companies. In many cases today, oil is selling for less than what it cost to pull out of the ground. The lack of demand is causing a "glut" and as such, oil prices are dropping to such a degree that oil companies are scrambling to stay alive. Thousands of people have already lost their jobs and more layoffs are to come. 

Oil companies will have to sell more and more oil at reduced prices to keep their cash flow going, and while this will work in the short term, the additional oil adds to the existing glut and the problem grows exponentially. 

Banks loan money on projects sometimes years before the first drop of oil is produced, (especially in fracking) and with oil selling for $45.00 (at the time of this post) they are in line for some huge losses as some of the smaller oil companies go belly-up. 

So expect some very bad times, and expect them very soon. Probably within the next 2-4 months.


----------



## BillS

The big banks are already on life support. They have a ton of toxic mortgages still on their books. None of them have been written down or written off. The law was changed so they didn't have to. The big banks make money by borrowing money from the Fed at almost 0 and then using that money to buy Treasury bonds. The next bank bailout will include bail-ins by depositors. I limit how much cash I keep in the bank for that reason.


----------



## Marcus

BillS said:


> The big banks are already on life support. They have a ton of toxic mortgages still on their books. None of them have been written down or written off. The law was changed so they didn't have to. The big banks make money by borrowing money from the Fed at almost 0 and then using that money to buy Treasury bonds. The next bank bailout will include bail-ins by depositors. I limit how much cash I keep in the bank for that reason.


The big banks also get .25% interest on all their excess reserves from the Fed. It's nothing but corporate welfare though I do understand the Fed's reasoning.

If something were to happen and the Fed wanted to entice banks to buy say US government bonds, all the Fed would have to do drop that interest and banks would flock to US government bonds. Since these bonds are Tier 1 assets and considered to be risk-free, banks would do this since it would also make it easier for them to pass stress tests.

And Bill is correct about the toxic mortgages. Before the law was changed, banks could only hold foreclosures for a very limited time (6 months if I recall correctly.) Now those mortgages can be held until the property is sold which allows banks to avoid immediate losses and allows them to wait until the housing market improves.


----------



## squerly

Marcus said:


> And Bill is correct about the toxic mortgages. Before the law was changed, banks could only hold foreclosures for a very limited time (6 months if I recall correctly.) Now those mortgages can be held until the property is sold which allows banks to avoid immediate losses and allows them to wait until the housing market improves.


I guess it depends on how you look at it but I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing. If holding a property for additional time turns the property from a loss to an asset then where's the problem?


----------



## Marcus

squerly said:


> I guess it depends on how you look at it but I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing. If holding a property for additional time turns the property from a loss to an asset then where's the problem?


Did these banks let the borrowers hold on to the property or did they kick them out? They kicked them out. So the borrowers didn't get to participate in the growth in value and lost whatever down payment was used.

I can see why the banks needed a *short term* solution to the problem. But 7 years on is no longer a short term solution. It puts banks in the real estate business while artificially supporting real estate prices. The coming oil bust will now lower real estate prices in all of the shale oil states. So how much longer should the banks get? When the house falls down from age?


----------



## squerly

Marcus said:


> Did these banks let the borrowers hold on to the property or did they kick them out? They kicked them out. So the borrowers didn't get to participate in the growth in value and lost whatever down payment was used.


But the agreement between the bank and the borrower was that the bank put up the money and the borrower make the payments. If the borrower fails to make the payments the bank remains the owner. Why should the bank allow the defaulting party to participate in the growth value of the property?

No disrespect meant, I'm just trying to follow your logic.


----------



## Marcus

squerly said:


> No disrespect meant, I'm just trying to follow your logic.


None taken. I was just pointing out that while banks might have lost 50% of their investment, the borrower lost 100% of theirs.

Now to your point.

Why should banks be allowed to continue to hold property and possibly lease it?
If the banks would have sold the foreclosures under the old law, prices would have dropped, in some areas by quite a bit. Then housing would have become more affordable for the masses. And of course, the banks would have eaten the losses. Some would have gone out of business, but inefficient businesses fail every day. Then the problem would have been solved through the free market. And then we could move forward.

Instead banking exercised their political muscle, got to put off the day of reckoning, and didn't pay the penalty for their own inefficiencies. The little guy was the only one who paid the price. Meanwhile banking became even more consolidated so that the next time it happens, it will be even worse.

We're going to see some more instability in real estate due to the oil slump probably in the summer or fall or next year at the latest. How long will the banks hold the foreclosures this time?

The point I'm probably failing to adequately make is we're nearly 7 years into the 'Housing Crisis.' Not all of the inventory has been sold. But guess what? A typical economic cycle is about 7 years so we'll be heading into the next recession with a bit of housing baggage from the last recession. That's not good which is why I'm asking how long before a short term solution becomes a permanent problem.


----------



## squerly

Marcus said:


> None taken. I was just pointing out that while banks might have lost 50% of their investment, the borrower lost 100% of theirs.


We don't know that the borrower lost any significant money at all. Low interest rates and 100% (sometimes 110%) financing put a lot of people into homes they had no business being in. Many of them did little more than just pay rent for the amount of time they were there. 


Marcus said:


> Now to your point.
> 
> Why should banks be allowed to continue to hold property and possibly lease it?
> If the banks would have sold the foreclosures under the old law, prices would have dropped, in some areas by quite a bit. Then housing would have become more affordable for the masses. And of course, the banks would have eaten the losses. Some would have gone out of business, but inefficient businesses fail every day. Then the problem would have been solved through the free market. And then we could move forward.


You're making a lot of assumptions Marcus, many of which I don't agree with. Be that as it may, you can rest assured I'm no fan of the banking industry. But I feel business should be the same for them, as it is for you, as it is for me. And if I end up with a repo'd house that I'm carrying the note on I don't want the government to drop by and tell me I have to liquidate it within a certain period of time. The bank owns this property, as they own all the repo'd cars and boats they were unfortunate enough to have loaned money on. And allowing them to hold the property while it reacquires value seems reasonable.

There is of course the caveat they maintain it in the same manner expected of any other owner in the subdivision, allowing for neighbors homes to maintain value.


----------



## Marcus

squerly said:


> We don't know that the borrower lost any significant money at all. Low interest rates and 100% (sometimes 110%) financing put a lot of people into homes they had no business being in. Many of them did little more than just pay rent for the amount of time they were there.


I won't disagree with you there, but those higher risk mortgages also carried higher interest rates so the rewards were greater.



> But I feel business should be the same for them, as it is for you, as it is for me.


Again I really don't disagree, but it also shouldn't be an opportunity for a bank to make money that you or I couldn't do.



> And if I end up with a repo'd house that I'm carrying the note on I don't want the government to drop by and tell me I have to liquidate it within a certain period of time. The bank owns this property, as they own all the repo'd cars and boats they were unfortunate enough to have loaned money on. And allowing them to hold the property while it reacquires value seems reasonable.
> 
> There is of course the caveat they maintain it in the same manner expected of any other owner in the subdivision, allowing for neighbors homes to maintain value.


If a single bank owed a single particular mortgage these days (like in the real old days,) I'd be somewhat surprised. Here is a recent thread on what actually happens to mortgages: http://www.preparedsociety.com/foru...-few-months-away-26086/index6.html#post369143

Someone has to administer the securities and it is usually a bigger bank. Of course the bank charges something for their trouble. Likewise, someone has to manage the properties that were foreclosed. Some of the big banks also have their own property management arms.

Meanwhile, the investors in mortgage backed securities may or may not (depending on which tranche they own) receive returns from the performing assets. Those in the higher tranches may only receive a return on their investment *when the foreclosures are sold.*

Now do you see why I think that the banks need to get rid of the foreclosures?

A significant portion of the investors are receiving no return on their investment while the bank still makes something for administering the security, and if the bank also has a property management arm, it is also making a return for the management of the foreclosed properties.


----------



## LastOutlaw

QE has not stopped it has been shifted to the banks rather than the Fed. Now you are on the hook for their bail-ins rather than the Gov bailing them out. When the banks need another bailout they will take your deposits and issue you worthless stock in the bank.


----------



## Hooch

so... with what happened today...will Greece bank runs start with soon to follow captiol controls soon?? 

Just a guess..any other thoughts??


----------



## LastOutlaw

Keep an eye on the Euro and what is happening in Greece. Their exit from the Euro will let other countries that are also suffering under austerity realize that it is also possible for them to leave. This could cause the Euro to collapse. This could cause a temporary surge in investments in the US dollar as investors look for another place to move their money but in the end also negatively affect our economy in the long run as all of our economies are tied to each other.
What you see in Europe eventually can happen here in the US as well.

-------------------------------------------------

http://rt.com/op-edge/232607-eu-people-support-greece/

'Greek 'revolution' woke up Europeans, spreads like wildfire'
Get short URL
Published time: February 16, 2015 11:59
Reuters / Alkis Konstantinidis

Reuters / Alkis Konstantinidis
230

Tags
Austerity, Bailout, Banking, Budget, Crisis, Currencies, EU, Economy, Europe, Finance, Greece, Politics

Public support for Greece across Europe is predictable as other countries are suffering just as much, says Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos, a former Greek ambassador. It's a message to EU leaders who have been distant from people they are supposed to serve.

RT: Are you surprised by the show of public support for Greece in many parts of Europe?

Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos: No, it was expected actually, because the other countries are suffering just as bad as we are particularly Portugal and Spain. So once we started this, let's put it 'revolution,' and we are waking up the European people, it caught like wildfire. So this is a good solid support of the European people and I hope that this message is getting across to the leaders of the EU who have been far away from the people who they are supposed to serve all these years.

RT: Do you see a growing disconnect between Brussels-led austerity policies, and public opinion in EU nations?

LC:&#8230;It is their interest that is at stake, because if they continue this intransigence and this hard-line, then Greece can also play hard-line and we would just refuse to cooperate. And this of course might lead to a possible departure of Greece from the eurozone with all the negative consequences that it will have for Europe more than it would have for Greece. For Greece it will have in the long-term beneficial results.

RT: Are you optimistic that a compromise can be reached at Monday's meeting?

LC: I don't think there are many chances for a compromise. What I presume might come out of the meeting is a sort of a text that nobody understands that will satisfy the EU, but might have no practical results because the Greek government is no way going back on what it promised to the Greek people. And I read in today's newspapers for example that most of the measures that have been taken by the previous regime are now being changed. For example, a draft law is going to [be passed] in the Parliament next week for the 13th [month-Ed.] salary for the pensioners. Also there is going to be 12,000 euro [annual salary- Ed.]for tax that will be included as a tax limit. And also the extreme tax that was put on property is going to be abolished also.

RT: If Greece does not receive the bridge loan it is asking for - what are the alternatives for the government?

LC: Essentially what will happen&#8230;is there will be a denunciation on the basis of international law of the loan agreement. And if you denounce the loan agreement, not unilaterally, on the basis of international law, [the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties], which in the articles 48 to 51 4: 50 anticipated cases where international agreement is null and void. You do that, you keep the €26 billion that they are asking and if you continue your recovery that way plus you nationalize the Bank of Greece then also you have funds. So this will get us through the year, this is one way of financing ourselves during that interim period if it goes as bad as that.
Political not financial consequences scare EU

Pro-government protesters in Athens' Syntagma Square ahead of the eurozone finance ministers' meeting in Brussels demanded that no more concessions are made, noted Aris Chatzistefanou, a journalist and filmmaker.

"The same message that PM Mr. Tsipras had Friday night when there was an emergency Cabinet meeting with many left-wing ministers saying that we have already made enough concessions in these negotiations and we should keep to our positions otherwise it will be seen as a total betrayal of what we said to the electorate before the election. When they talk about concessions, it's mainly three things: that they don't talk any more about cancelling the debt which was one of the promises that this party made to the electorate. The second is they have agreed to accept 70 percent of the memorandum that is the austerity package imposed in Greece by the IMF and ECB and the European Commission. And the third is that we should have a primary surplus. That practically means a kind of continuation of austerity&#8230;"

"&#8230;This year only we have to repay something around €22 billion and almost €6-7 billion of this amount is the interest that we have to repay. So by making at least a memorandum in repaying the debt there is enough money to keep the economy staying alive for a few more months until the solution is found.Don't forget that the same policy was applied even in Russia, in Argentina, Iceland, Ecuador and there was always a positive outcome for the economy. On the other hand, don't forget that apart from the Western financial centers that are threatening Greece with stopping the liquidity of the banking sector there are some other financial centers that can be trusted," Chatzistefanou said.

The main concern for Berlin now, he observed, is the political consequences of the Greek bailout talks in Brussels.

"There might be a domino effect if people in other European countries realize that this austerity imposed by Brussels and Berlin is not the only way out of the crisis&#8230; I think this is a big problem for Berlin at the moment. They are not afraid of the financial consequences. Don't forget that Greece is a very small economy, 2 percent of the eurozone. They are afraid of the political consequences," Chatzistefanou told RT.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.


----------



## Hooch

zero hedge has been putting out some good news on this as well..a few days ago bank runs in Greece were ramping up well...lots of other interesting news as well..


----------



## Hooch

bank runs in Greece are ramping up as an announced Bank Holiday for next monday will be imposed over there...


----------



## LincTex

LastOutlaw said:


> 'Greek 'revolution' woke up Europeans, spreads like wildfire'
> 
> .....then Greece can also play hard-line and we would just refuse to cooperate. And this of course might lead to a possible departure of Greece from the eurozone with all the negative consequences that it will have for Europe more than it would have for Greece. For Greece it will have in the long-term beneficial results.


I think he's smoking some good sh*t.

I can't possibly see any benefit other than a VERY short-lived euphoria of "FREDOM!!" (*which is misplaced... because it's Greece's own damn fault Greece got themselves into the horrible financial situation they are in because of how bad they are with money)

...followed soon after with "oh no..... what did we do?!?!?!"

The European Union is probably delighted to get this monkey off their back, but they sure lost a LOT of Euros in the process....


----------



## hiwall

If I got this Greece thing correct they have about 11 million citizens and they owe about 340 Billion in debt. They could Never pay that debt off- ever. At some point they just have to let things shake out and start from the bottom and re-build their own economy. What other possible answer is there? It is also the same answer for many many nations including the USA.


----------



## Marcus

Actually hiwall, I found it was closer to $317 billion Euros = $360 billion USD. Not that it really matters. Greece's GDP is $242 billion USD.
A quick comparison is very enlightening.

Georgia, the state, has a population of 10.1 million and a state debt of $14.3 billion ($97.5 billion counting all unfunded liabilities.) It has a GDP of $472 billion.

Ohio has a population of 11.6 million and a state debt of $16.9 billion ($240 billion counting all unfunded liabilities.) It has a GDP of $585 billion.

Is it any wonder that Greece is headed to the poorhouse?

I'll also point out that unfunded liabilities at the state level are one of the reasons companies are moving south.


----------



## LastOutlaw

In 2008 Iceland had a major crash of it's financial system. They threw all bankers responsible for this in jail and defaulted on their debt. They removed the connection of their monies to the EU. At this time you could buy a $300,000.00 home for $3000.00 in silver. By removing the peg to the Euro they were able to bring their currency back to value by 2011.
In January the Swiss unpegged the franc from the Euro. 
Greece has had financial problems long before they even joined the Euro mostly due to socialist actions.
When Greece wanted to join the Euro they had too much debt to join. Goldman Sachs stepped in and worked an under the table deal with the then president of Greece to loan Greece money to hide their debt so they could join the Euro.
( Wall St. Helped to Mask Debt Fueling Europe's Crisis  ) After Greece elected a new president this became obvious and their debts were out in the open.
Greece should have never been allowed to join the Euro at all.
There are a number of European countries that have debt that is very close to the Greek debt. ( Euro countries with the greatest debt to GDP ratio graph )
Much of the problems with the financial sector of the world is caused by the banks trying to pin it all together to keep control of as much money as possible.
Keep in mind that in 2008 when the US suffered the bubble burst of the housing market (also caused by banks) they said the banks were too big to fail. They then punished no one, in fact they have spent the last 6 years rewarding the same people who caused this mess by propping up the same banks and wall street by printing money and buying their own bonds with it. This only helps the bankers and Wall Street rob you and I of more of what we already don't have enough of. Food prices continue to rise but are not counted in the inflation rate any longer all the while they preach that the top 2% are gobbling up all the money as they continue to help them do just that.
The banks are now bigger than ever and even more 'too bigger to fail". Recently the government sent 200,000 survival bags to the banks. Why would they do that? Will bankers need to shelter in place at some point in the future?

Nothing has been done to actually remedy the financial problems of the world. The IMF, the EU, the FED has only doubled down and told us all they are fixing things when in fact all they are doing is gobbling up all the wealth of the free world as fast as they can. Other countries have been buying as much gold and silver as fast as they can as a hedge against this.
Meanwhile gold and silver prices are being manipulated using the stock market gld and slvr trading on paper.

Personally I think the best thing all countries could do is to dump the Euro and go back to their original monetary systems. The FED and IMF should be arrested and hung. In fact this should have been done in 2008 and we all would be in much better shape already today having worked our way out of the crisis much like Iceland did. 
This unpegging would be devastating for the bankers in the IMF and the FED.
That is why this has not been done.
I feel for the Europeans who are now going to suffer years and years of austerity under banker rule. We Americans are next.
Regardless of it being Europeans own fault by moving to a socialist system and promising everyone the world in benefits and retirements that are unsustainable. Now under austerity they have lost their retirements.
What was the good in that?
Now the PTB want to implement the same system here in the US?
Ridiculous!


----------



## hiwall

More banking troubles in Europe. Who would have thunk it? Well its only 8-1/2 billion dollars.



> Moments ago, Austrian ORF reported that there have been "spectacular developments" in the case of the Hypo Alpe Adria bad bank, also known as the Heta Asset Resolution, where an outside audit of Heta's balance sheet exposed a capital hole of up to 7.6 billion euros ($8.51 billion) which the government was not prepared to fill, the Austrian Financial Market Authority said.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...rrives-after-€76-billion-bad-bank-capital-hol


----------



## LastOutlaw

Good find Hiwall,
This paragraph is especially interesting:

"Of course, this being Austria, and the Creditanstalt, aka the bank which failed in 1931 under almost identical circumstances and set off the dominos that led to a global financial crisis which in turn bank fanned the flames of the Great Depression, also being Austrian, suddenly everyone is asking: "what just happened and what happens next?"

Keep an eye on the stock markets worldwide.
Also I would guess that all banks worldwide could be affected.


----------



## LastOutlaw

*Bonds Linked to Hypo Alpe-Adria-Bank Tumble*

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bonds-linked-to-hypo-alpe-adria-bank-tumble-1425296342
*Bonds Linked to Hypo Alpe-Adria-Bank Tumble*
Austria's banking regulator halts debt payments after revised valuation of bank's assets
By
Ben Edwards
Updated March 2, 2015 7:05 a.m. ET
0 COMMENTS

Bonds linked to nationalized Austrian lender Hypo Alpe-Adria-Bank International AG lost about a third of their value on Monday after the country's banking regulator halted payments on more than €11 billion euros ($12.3 billion) of debt.

The payment moratorium comes as regulators revised the valuation of the bank's assets, uncovering a financing gap that could need as much as €7.6 billion of extra capital to fill. Regulators now need to find a way of plugging that hole without a further drain on taxpayers. The government has already propped up the bank with €5.55 billion in capital and guarantees.
Untangling the Mess of Austrian Bank Hypo

Prices on bonds issued by Heta Asset Resolution AG-the 'bad bank' set up for Hypo's remaining assets-are quoted at below half of face value on Monday, reflecting concerns of steep losses. A €2 billion bond due January 2017, for instance, is quoted at around 43 cents on the euro in early trading, down almost 25 cents on Friday's close, according to Tradeweb.

"There will be a hit on bondholders and it may be substantial," said Roger Francis, a credit strategist at Mizuho International. Mr. Francis said bondholders could face losses of around 40% or more.

*Pacific Investment Management Co LLC *held around €170 million of the 2017 bonds at the end of January, the most held by any mutual fund manager, according to Thomson Reuters data.

Pimco wasn't immediately able to comment on its current holdings.

Mutual funds collectively own around €350 million of that particular bond issue, the Thomson Reuters data show. It is unclear who owns the remaining 82% of the bonds.

Write to Ben Edwards at [email protected]
----------------------------------------------
Who is Pacific Investment Company?????

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=907219

PIMCO - Pacific Investment Management Company LLC
PIMCO offers investment solutions used by millions of investors worldwide to manage risk and provide attractive returns.

840 Newport Center Drive
Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
United States

Pacific Investment Management Company LLC is a privately owned investment manager. It provides its services to corporate pension plans, foundations, endowments, public retirement plans, corporate treasury assets, governments, insurance companies, high net-worth investors, multi-employer retirement plans, financial institutions, intermediaries, retail investors and pooled investment vehicles, including both affiliated and unaffiliated U.S. and non-U.S. registered and unregistered funds, among others. The firm manages separate client-focused equity and fixed income portfolios. It also launches and manages equity, fixed income, and balanced mutual funds for its clients. The firm invests in the ...


----------

