Peaceful protest against the banksters

[MDK]

Since I have been reading this wonderful site I have found that we are fighting against powers that want to rip us off in any way possible, even if we have little money they want the very last pound of flesh and then some!

How about an organised protest and we won't take any more of this?

 

Let us organise a date to show the government what has happened to the ordinary person. They have baled out the banksters but the ordinary person is paying the ultimate price... some have even paid the ultimate and ended it all.

Why should they get away with big bonuses and fat salaries?

 

I hope CAG will think this is an okay thread

[cyclingoscar]

Hi,

 

Perhaps a starting point would be if we all tackled our MPs to raise the profile in Parliament. I would imagine that there is enough Caggers to blanket every single one? Then stage two over to your idea MDK.

[BankFodder]

We have no problem with this thread.

However, I'm sorry to be a wet blanket but the action you suggest won't work.

People will not respond to this kind of call to protest. We know. We ave been involved in it before. At best you get a few dozen people - if you are lucky, who make long expensive journeys - normally down to London - and noting comes of it.

Believe me.

 

The only thing that makes a difference is to come onto this site and to encourage people to sue their banks again and again and again.

This gets money back into people's pockets. It is intensely satisfying to force your bank to respond to you and to treat you like an ordinary person.

It generates good press so that there is lots of publicity which the banks don't like at all.

It creates pressure on the banks and it disrupts their normal activity. It is the only thing which eventually forces the regulatory authorities to take the action as it shows up their failure to take proper action and eventually embarasses them into trying to play catchup with the general public.

This Website started the National Bank Charges Campaign after discussions on a small Yahoo email group called BankChargesHell.

Had we not started the ball rolling, the banks would not have paid out almost threequarters of a million pounds to their customers and the bank would not then have eventually asked the OFT to take them to court.

 

The OFT would have continued to do more or less nothing. The FSA continues to do nothing to enforce the regulatory powers which they now have. And for the banks it would have been business as usual.In fact in a way the banks are returning to business as usual.

If you really want to make a stand, then make it here with us.

Every person you encourage to take direct legal action against their bank and who obtains a victory is worth 10 protest meetings.

[MDK]

Thanks Bankfodder.

I am extremely fed up with the banksters getting away with what they do and don't want to sit down and take it any longer!

As CAGgers seem to be very interested in fighting their corner and templates and letter writing seem to be what a lot have to do...

How about some template letters to send to MPs/FSA/OFT that we can send... to make it easier for people in that case?

[charlie*]

Take a look at

 

www.wikileak.com

 

This is how to destroy - we, the caggers have the power.

 

Also, suppose we ALL started threads on Twitter, FaceBook and the others calling for ALL banks to be nationalised....

 

Go here, READ AND JOIN

 

http://www.bendyson.com/Easy-Solution-T ... Crisis.pdf

 

It has to happen, it must happen. This global mess started in this country,

could we not start the ball rolling to reverse that?

 

charlie

Edited February 27, 2010 by charlie*
ommission

[diddydicky]

oh yes great- lets nationalise all the banks- george orwell would be proud of that

 

Err i think i prefer to deal with greedy capitalist bankers that you very much

[MDK]

oh yes great- lets nationalise all the banks- george orwell would be proud of that

 

Err i think i prefer to deal with greedy capitalist bankers that you very much

 

I think you will find RBS .. NatWest is about 80% owned by the government already!

 

sorry make that 84%

"The bank, which is 84% owned by the taxpayer"

and.....

"Govenment approves £1.3Bbn RBS bonuses"

http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2010/02/24/government-approves-13bn-rbs-bonuses/

 

nice to know that it is money well spent, considering....

 

credit card interest rates at new high....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8517738.stm

 

and that is with the BoE rate at record low!!!!

 

Nice for the banksters eh..............

Edited March 8, 2010 by MDK
To change bonus amount from million to BILLION

[straftat]

I think people should stop voting for career politicians and lawyers , parlament is full of them and they along with the judges and bankers are all of he same cloth.

 

What was that stat I read in the economist , 72% of all judges in this country are public school educated as compared to 8% for the general public

 

think about who you would like to represent you not who either Party machine puts up as your "choice" of candidate

[MDK]

These posts are from The Market Ticker, and for US banks, but I would not be surprised if the rest of the world's banks were also allowed to mark to myth instead of reality in order to keep the pretence up that all is well, but in the meantime the ordinary person suffers and has to pay massive interest rates and is hammered

............................................................

All You Need To Know About Bank Balance-Sheet Fraud - The Market Ticker

 

All You Need To Know About Bank Balance-Sheet Fraud

 

I am constantly amused by those people who claim there is some vast "conspiracy" in this country when it comes to banks, balance sheets, and fraudulent lending and accounting.

There is no conspiracy.

It is, in fact, "in your face" fraud.

The FDIC does us the courtesy of explaining it virtually every Friday night, right on their web page.

 

 

 

 

 

I am simply going to take last night's bank closures, which numbered four. One of them has no "deposit insurance fund" estimated loss available, because they didn't find someone to take the assets - they're just mailing checks. But the other three do.

• Waterford Bank, Germantown MD: $155.6 million in assets, $156.4 in insured deposits. They were "underwater" by $800,000, right? Wrong: Estimated loss, $51 million. That is, the assets of $155.6 million were overvalued by approximately 30% at the time of seizure.
  
• Bank of Illinois, Normal IL: $211.7 million in assets, $198.5 million in deposits. They were "underwater" by $13.2 million (which is why they were seized), right? Wrong: Estimated loss $53.7 million. That is, the the assets of $211.7 million were overvalued by more than 25% at the time of seizure.
  
• Sun American Bank, Boca Raton FL: $535.7 million in assets (so they claimed anyway), $443.5 million in total deposits. Heh, why did you seize them - they have more assets than liabilities? Oh wait: Estimated loss: $103.8 million, so the actual assets are worth $443.5 - $103.8, or $339.7 million. That is, the assets of $535.7 million were overvalued by a whopping 37% at the time of seizure.
  

This isn't new, by the way. In August of 2009 I went through Colonial Bank's failure based on BB&T's presentation to its shareholders on the "merger" - and gift it was given by the FDIC. It too showed that Colonial had been carrying assets on their books at a ridiculous 37% above where BB&T ultimately marked them as a whole.

Folks, your bank is being assessed deposit insurance premiums to pay for these losses. You are paying these losses through increased fees and interest expense on your credit cards and all other manner of borrowing.

You are paying for outrageous, pernicious and endemic balance sheet fraud.

There is no conspiracy. It is right under your nose. One of these three banks, based on their balance sheet, wasn't even underwater - it was "to the good" by nearly $100 million dollars.

The balance sheet was a flat, bald-faced lie.

You want to sit for this?

Why should you?

Now let's ask the inconvenient question:

Are the big banks - specifically, Citibank, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and JP Morgan - all similarly overvaluing

their

assets?

Why should we believe they are not? You can go through more than a year's worth of FDIC bank seizure information and in essentially every single case you will find that overvaluations of somewhere from 20-50% have in fact occurred, yet not one indictment for book-cooking has issued.

So let's be generous and assume that the "big banks" are over-valuing their assets by 25% - the lower end of the range of what the FDIC says is, through actual experience, what's going on, and add it all up.

Bank of America shows $2.25 trillion in assets.

Citibank shows $1.89 trillion in assets.

JP Morgan/Chase shows $2.04 trillion in assets.

And Wells Fargo shows $1.31 trillion in assets.

This totals $7.49 trillion smackers.

The FDIC's experience with seizing banks thus far suggests quite strongly that all four of these entities are lying about these valuations, and that were they to be seized the loss embedded in them (and for which you, the taxpayer would be responsible) is somewhere between $1.49 and $2.99 trillion dollars.

Incidentally, neither the FDIC or Treasury happens to have either $1.49 or $2.99 trillion laying around, and it is highly questionable if they could raise it, should that become necessary.

Now of course neither you or I can prove this is correct. However, we can look at the FDIC's own published bank closing statements, and derive from them a pattern stretching back more than a year now that has disclosed that in essentially each and every case the banks in question have overvalued their assets by anywhere from 20-40%, and that as of the day of the seizure such an overvaluation was in fact a continuing and ongoing practice.

Back in the beginning of 2009 we had people argue that "mark to market" was invalid - that in fact the market-based pricing losses that were being claimed were ridiculous and would never happen. One of the claimants was the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle, which said that the $300 million in mark-to-market losses would not actually happen - that the real loss was only going to be $12 million dollars.

FHLB Seattle recently filed suit against the bundlers of this trash, claiming, surprise-surprise, that the real loss is not $12 million, not $300 million, but $311 million - on that bundle of trash alone. In all they are seeking $2 billion in damages.

 

 

 

 

 

We have now learned, a year into this "experiment" with mark-to-model promulgated at gunpoint by Congress that:

1. The banks indeed have been lying about asset valuation and the proof comes in the form of the FDIC seizures, which in essentially case have documented massive and outrageous overvaluation of assets on bank balance sheets.
   
2. The claimed "mark to model" losses, which were tiny compared to the market-price losses, were in fact fictions, to the point that the poster child of the "mark to model" argument is now suing the purveyors of the instruments supposedly not to be marked to the market for losses that exceed what the market-based loss was back in March of 2009.
   

If you wish to argue that the economy and banking system are recovering their health, you must deal with this. If indeed large bank balance sheets are concealing a deficiency of somewhere between $1.5 and $3 trillion in losses not only will the economy and lending environment not recover it can't as the large banks all know the truth.

I believe this is why those very same banks are hoarding cash. I believe they know that at some point in the future - a point not under their control - the truth may come out and if it does an instantaneous run would occur - not just on their bank, but on all banks. Such an event could be defended against only with a huge cash hoard - a hoard that, if they lend out said cash, would not be available to them.

The Federal Reserve knows this too. I believe this is why there is nearly $1 trillion of "excess reserves" sitting at The Fed, up from nearly zero prior to the crisis - it is these large banks' "backstop" against a potential run should the truth of their balance sheets reach public conscience.

The political and regulatory bottom line is simple: As I have repeatedly maintained for nearly three years, we now have the facts from our own government agencies, most particularly the FDIC: The banks have been and still are cooking their books in a manner that intentionally overstates their asset valuations - an act that is exactly identical to that which brought down ENRON.

Something to think about on this fine weekend.

 

 

 

 

..........................................................................................

ADMISSION By FDIC: Massive Balance Sheet FRAUD - The Market Ticker

ADMISSION By FDIC: Massive Balance Sheet FRAUD

 

Remember this Ticker from a few days ago?

I am constantly amused by those people who claim there is some vast "conspiracy" in this country when it comes to banks, balance sheets, and fraudulent lending and accounting.

There is no conspiracy.

It is, in fact, "in your face" fraud.

Well, one of the people on the forum emailed The FDIC to ask about what I had alleged. This was their response:

That’s the value the bank had them on their books on their year-end financials, but the true value is much less

.

It is similar to someone in Las Vegas saying that their house is worth $300,000 because that’s what they paid for it three years ago, but the reality is, if they had to sell it in today’s market, they’d only get $250,000 for it. The FDIC has to sell assets in today’s market.

 

--db

Or tomorrow's market.

The simple fact of the matter is that there it is, right in front of you.

A raw admission that the banks are carrying these loans at dramatically above their actual value.

Yes, this means that essentially all balance sheets must now be considered fraudulent, and thus the valuations assigned by the market to them are also fraudulent.

Extending this to the stock market as a whole you now have a market that is intentionally overvalued as a direct and proximate consequence of fraud, permitted and endorsed by the government, of somewhere between 25-40%.

Now you know why the market rallied off the SPX 666 lows to where it is now. 1139 (where we are now) * .60 (a 40% haircut) = 683.40, or awfully close to that 666 bottom.

Of course this "valuation" expressed in the market can only be maintained for as long as the fraud is. If the ability to maintain that fraud is lost for any reason then values will instantly collapse back to reflect reality.

Edited March 9, 2010 by MDK

[diddydicky]

blimey, is it that time already :wink:

[MDK]

Some more bedtime reading...

 

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Geithner's Illegal Money-Laundering Scheme Exposed; Harry Markopolos Says “Don’t Trust Your Government”

 

 

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/03/iceland-rejects-icesave-does-no-mean-no.html

"It's of utmost importance that we don't over-interpret whatever message comes out of this. We want to be perfectly clear that a "no" vote does not mean we are refusing to pay," Finance Minister Steingrimur Sigfusson told reporters.

 

"We will honour our obligations. To maintain anything else is highly dangerous for the economy of this country."

 

and Mish in reply....

"I would suggest that overriding the will of 93% of the population is under-interpreting the message. But hey, to politicians everywhere, no does not mean no, it means whatever the politician wants it to mean.

 

What's highly dangerous is the attitude that the wishes of 93% of the people is irrelevant."

[MDK]

Oh following on from that last post Bankfodder... after the fiasco that was the WMD protrests and the above about 93% of the population against is... the people who are on the receiving end of this mess can least afford 'meetings' or gatherings... they will achieve not much.

But I am not a good template writer for a mailing to politicians etc, so if we had a protest one, we might be able to afford a stamp for a template letter if one was available? Or any better suggestions?

 

As for the FSA... you will really get me going on that one... they let me down big time!

[MDK]

Okay, that time of night again for me

 

This time some questions based on my life

 

Is it really worth paying into a pension unless you are a bankster and get free money?

Is it really worth saving any money for when you get old and need care? I think that you are much worse off if you have any money, you have to sell your house, can' t get into care, and you have to use any savings you have to pay for it. Why not spend now and not pay later!

I didn't spend much money, saved, I got penalised, made some losses, but they are not counted now with a limited time scale on which to claim the losses. BUT THE GAINS ARE NOT and they have changed the rules.

And the way they fiddle the inflation figures is a complete joke, they want massage the figures by various means to show it is not much.. oh take out volatile things like oil and food...oops sorry you need those things? Tough, they are too volatile, even though they keep going up and you need them to exist.

Let's take, other things like computers and flat screen TVs, washing machines... ah, yes... they have gone down in value by hedonic fiddling so therefore inflation is flat.

So pensions, benefits do NOT go up. Chuckle chuckle..

 

 

This is an UNFAIR SYSTEM

[diddydicky]

Okay, that time of night again for me

 

This time some questions based on my life

 

Is it really worth paying into a pension unless you are a bankster and get free money?

Is it really worth saving any money for when you get old and need care? I think that you are much worse off if you have any money, you have to sell your house, can' t get into care, and you have to use any savings you have to pay for it. Why not spend now and not pay later!

I didn't spend much money, saved, I got penalised, made some losses, but they are not counted now with a limited time scale on which to claim the losses. BUT THE GAINS ARE NOT and they have changed the rules.

And the way they fiddle the inflation figures is a complete joke, they want massage the figures by various means to show it is not much.. oh take out volatile things like oil and food...oops sorry you need those things? Tough, they are too volatile, even though they keep going up and you need them to exist.

Let's take, other things like computers and flat screen TVs, washing machines... ah, yes... they have gone down in value by hedonic fiddling so therefore inflation is flat.

So pensions, benefits do NOT go up. Chuckle chuckle..

 

 

This is an UNFAIR SYSTEM

 

SAVINGS UP TO 16000 OR 17000 PER PERSON ARE PROTECTED

 

there are ways to ensure the bas stewards dont get your hard earned dosh and house if you act early and smartly enough

[MDK]

diddydicky

I would suggest that this is not the case regarding protection.. it is a FOS, FSA sort of soooooothe the people into thinking they have protection type protection ... and look at the FOS threads to find out what junk it is! as for the FSA......

 

Interest rates are close to zero, and there is no real benefit from having money saved in ANY bank

It is NOT safe because the banks do not have enough money to pay you if too many people want their money out

The goverments do NOT have enough money to honour any protection

For example the FDIC is the US which is supposed to protect savings.... is broke... it has no money, it is trying to get banks to pay up fees from the next few years so it can stop gap current and increasing bank failures

 

If the bank pays you little for your money

 

TAKE IT OUT OF THE BANK, the governments cannot "protect" anything, it is a con because they have no money

 

look at all the money the Fed in trying to raise over the next year in the US......

 

IF you are lucky enough to have any savings, get it out of a bank as soon as you can, they are all broke and relying on the broke goverments to keep the [problem] going so people won't panic

I will get more data for you and confirm this

Edited March 11, 2010 by MDK

[diddydicky]

oops- i wish i hadnt replied now:D

 

night night sootie, night night!!

[MDK]

oops- i wish i hadnt replied now:D

 

night night sootie, night night!!

 

 

Reply away...

we need to get these banksters and governments back in line to be accountable to the people that voted them into their high paying positions that also gave them. ahem, other ahem benefits that we, the ordinary humble folks are not deemed entitled to!

[MDK]

UniCredit has alerted investors in a client note that Britain is at serious risk of a bond market and sterling debacle and faces even more intractable budget woes than Greece.

Britain's AAA-rating is highly at risk.

 

 

Europe's banks brace for UK debt crisis - Telegraph

[MDK]

Royal Bank of Scotland (84% owned by UK government), HSBC are against disclosure of the mess they made..

and a lot of others who issue credit cards to people in the UK.. but are hounding them for money even though they themselves make mistake after mistake!

 

the full article, well worth reading on how they are still trying to hide the truth.....

 

Fed Must Disclose Bank Bailout Records As Court Of Appeals Withholds Historic "Mark Pittman" Decision | zero hedge

 

The Clearing House Association, which processes payments among banks, joined the case and sided with the Fed. The group includes ABN Amro Bank NV, a unit of Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, Bank of America Corp., The Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Citigroup Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Holdings Plc, JPMorgan Chase & Co., US Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co.

[MDK]

US Government: On Its Way to Bankruptcy | Markets | Minyanville.com

[MDK]

UK Treasury Relases FOIA On Gordon Brown's 1998 Gold Sale, Catches Tony Blair Lying, Questions US Treasury's Good Delivery Standards

(from www.zerohedge.com)

 

 

 

One of the bigger stories in the UK over the past several days, has been the increasing pressure on Prime Minister Gordon Brown to justify his sale of 395 tons of gold in 17 auctions in the period from 1998 through 2002, when Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer, a role identical to the one Tim Geithner now performs in the US as Treasury Secretary. The issue is that in the abovementioned period, gold was trading at the rock bottom prices of the past two decades, and as such his rush to sell is estimated to have cost UK taxpayers £6 billion. One reason previously given to Parliament, to explain the transactions from Treasury ministers and Tony Blair was that the sale was made 'on the technical advice of the Bank of England.' Today the UK Treasury has released long-withheld FOIA documents which disprove this claim, and indicate that in fact the BOE was if not completely against selling the bullion then certainly waiting until the price improved. Furthermore, as the Daily Mail reports, "A source close to the Bank of England said last night: 'It was not our decision. It was their decision and we simply provided technical advice. Then it was up to them.'" Yet, in light of recent LBMA manipulation revelations by GATA, it was most likely the association itself and its member banks which pressed the then relatively new Chancellor to do something against the interest of his people, potentially with promises of further rank extension in the "public services" arena. So far, they have not disappointed.

As part of the FOIA, (Full document attached below) it becomes clear that Brown attempted at least 4 tried to persuade the BOE to proffer a joint proposal from the Treasury and the Bank Of England as pertains to English gold sales in the late 1998 period. And even as the FOIA submission is now making the round, there is still a critical redaction. To wit, from the Daily Mail:

 

 

Two days before Christmas 1998 - just a month before the sale was announced - a senior Treasury official wrote to the department's then permanent secretary Gus O'Donnell: 'The Chancellor is keen that officials at the Treasury and the Bank work together to produce a joint proposal. As I understand it the latest proposal is not a joint one.

 

'The Chancellor needs to know the status of the proposal, what the difficulties are in drawing up a joint proposal, how you think we can move forward in achieving a joint proposal.'

 

Three weeks later Mr Brown met the then Bank Governor Lord George for lunch to discuss the plan.

But the outcome of the talks is unclear because the Treasury has blacked out a key section of the only note referring to it.

 

Lord George offered only the most lukewarm endorsement of the decision at the time, telling MPs it was a 'perfectly reasonable portfolio decision'.

 

If he had refused to agree to the sale he would almost certainly have had to resign.

Surely, Gordon Brown, facing with some very daunting poll numbers ahead of upcoming elections, will now have even more explaining to do.

Yet what mostly caught our attention was Annex #29 to a Bank Of England paper from September 28, 1998, in which the following was said:

 

 

The US treasury sold gold in two spells, two auctions of 23 and 15 tonnes in 1975, which were not continued in 1976 as the IMF auctions were announced and the spot price fell; a larger programme of 491 tonnes during 1978-1979 as the gold price rose sharply. Indeed the second programme was extended three times as demand for gold continued to push up the spot price. The US Treasury used a multi-price auction system initially with open bids, but switched to closed bigs by the end because open bids were causing market disruption [can't have a transparent market now, can we]. The auctions in 1979 offered two grades of gold: 995 fine

and 900 fine.

It is not clear whether this was a market-driven switch, or whether it reflected the US Treasury's preference.

Now correct us if we are wrong, but (London) Good Delivery standards by the LBMA have called for 995 and higher fineness since time immemorial. How is it that the US Treasury decided to dilute the content of its gold dispositions precisely at the time when gold prices were surging. And, more relevantly, why? Recall that in the period January 1979 - January 1980 gold price/toz went from $240 to $850! Did the US, for whatever reason forced to sell into the run up, need to dilute gold holdings due to a massive shortage of physical? By doing so, did the UST force buyer to sign "big boy" letters fully acknowledging that they were getting less than Good Delivery gold? Was this 10% dilution merely the first step in what Adrian Douglas recently highlighted would be the transition of gold claims holders into general unsecured creditors? If a 4x run up in gold forced the US Treasury to enact a 10% real dilution in gold, what would happen if gold surged 40x? Would the fineness of the adjusted "good delivery" drop to 100 or lower? Forget the LBMA and the threat of physical dilution - a much more relevant question is just how much of the alleged US gold holdings of 8133.5 tonnes is actually real. Surely, the question of just how much gold is there below the HSBC building in New York's Bryant Park, and below the FRBNY has never been more relevant.

Full HM-Treasury FOIA.

[MDK]

With $2 Trillion In 3 Year Funding Needs By the PIIGS, The IMF Is Helpless To Do Anything But Sit Back And Watch | zero hedge

 

30 April 2010 14:12

 

Total PIIGS funding needs (defined as the sum of debt maturities and budget deficits) over the next 3 years amount to $2 trillion. Total PIIGS funding needs in 2010 alone amount to $600 billion. Total IMF bail out capacity: around $700 billion. Sorry - it simply does not compute.

 

Below is a table summarizing the funding needs of just the PIIGS.

On Tuesday all the PIIGS had essentially entered the unfundable zone as each's cost of funding surged, meaning the IMF would have to guarantee or bail them all out. We will certainly see this contagion again as the PIIGS now commence spending with unprecedented profligacy, knowing full well they will be bailed out when the time comes.

 

So just how equipped is the IMF to deal with this funding requirement?

 

From Bank Of America:

 

The IMF primarily funds itself through payments of quotas from member countries, which is based on the country’s relative size in the world economy. Currently, the amount of quotas totals SDR 217 billion, or $328 billion. The IMF additionally supplements quota subscriptions through two credit arrangements between the IMF and a group of member countries – New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB) and General Arrangements to Borrow (GAB). The NAB totals approximately $550 billion from 38 participants, recently expanded from $50 billion and 26 participants, and is used as a credit facility intended to backstop quota resources. The GAB enables the IMF to borrow from participant countries or their central banks under certain circumstances at market-related interest rates.

 

In reality, the amount the IMF has readily available for new lending is primarily determined by the one-year forward commitment capacity (though this figure is not a rigid maximum). The amount equals usable resources, including unused amounts under loan and note purchase agreements, plus projected loan repayments over the subsequent twelve months, less the resources that have already been committed under existing lending arrangements, less a prudential balance. Currently, the one-year forward capacity stands at SDR 165 billion, or $248 bilion.

 

In case you missed it, the top two countries on the hook to fund the World bailout are the US and Japan, the two countries caught in the greatest deflationary throes since the great depression. Coincidence, or willful dollar(yen)slaughter: you decide. The only solution for world bailout v2: raise the ceiling for the NAB from 500 billion to 5 trillion. That should do miracles for the deflation... But it probably won't.

 

But stepping back to look at the big picture, in one hand you have $2 trillion, in the other one third of that: which one is heavier? And why does the IMF lie each and every day when it says it can keep the situation under control. Again - it does not compute. Just keep rolling the Quanto CDS in, Goldman.

Edited May 1, 2010 by MDK

[royalscot]

FFS ...This is heavy S%@t.......

[MDK]

FFS ...This is heavy S%@t.......

 

this is why I am trying to show people that the banksters are ripping people off, the whole system is a con and we need to protest against it!

I have a very good chart of a comparison between bank of england rate and what banks are charging us the people that bailed them out of their mess. And the politicians are going along with this money lending, loan sharks of banksters.

I will try and post the chart

[MDK]

Just look at this!

The banksters are taking peoples savings (and giving them virtually no interest) and lending it out at stupid rates of interest and credit card at now at the highest in 12 years, despite Bank of England rate at historically low level!!!! :mad::mad::mad: