mercoledì 29 marzo 2017

Central bank racket: 1% percent rule' that suppresses gold

'1% percent rule' that suppresses gold is a central bank racket, Turk tells KWN

Section: 9:30a SST Tuesday, March 27, 2017
http://www.gata.org/node/17272

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

Interviewed by King World News today, GoldMoney founder and GATA consultant James Turk discusses the algorithmic "black box" trading in gold that usually prevents the price from rising more than 1 percent in a day -- the "1-percent rule" long identified by futures trader James McShirley in GATA Chairman Bill Murphy's daily "Midas" commentaries at LeMetropoleCafe.com.
Turk says: "The gold market is rigged, but not by the profit-seeking high-frequency traders who focus their trading on shares. The gold market is rigged by entities seeking to cap the gold price. They are not seeking profit, and there is only one possibility of who falls into that group. Only central banks don't care about making a trading profit. They don't care if they end up losing money, because if they do, they just print more money to cover their losses. Central banks only have one objective. They want their currencies to look good relative to gold."
Turk's comments are posted at KWN here:
http://kingworldnews.com/gold-silver-surge-as-traders-brace-for-market-s...

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.
CPowell@GATA.org

U.S. House committee approves bill to increase scrutiny of Fed

Mar 28, 2017 | 1:21pm EDT

U.S. House committee approves bill to increase scrutiny of Fed

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-congress-idUSKBN16Z2GJ

A Republican-controlled committee of lawmakers approved a bill on Tuesday to allow a congressional audit of Federal Reserve monetary policy, a proposal Fed policymakers have opposed and which faces an uncertain path to final approval.
Democrats uniformly spoke against the proposal during a meeting of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, suggesting the bill would face stronger resistance than in the past.
"We should not in any way hinder their independence," said Representative Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, echoing the sentiment of Fed policymakers who say they could come under political pressure to avoid making unpopular decisions such as raising interest rates to slow growth and control inflation.
The next step for the bill would be a floor vote by the entire House, where Republicans hold a solid majority.
Republican President Donald Trump expressed support for audits of the U.S. central bank during his election campaign, but it remained unclear whether the White House would back the proposal.
Republicans proposed numerous bills during the Obama administration to open the Fed up to deeper scrutiny, arguing the added transparency would ensure the Fed was accountable and free of outside influence.
Currently, the Fed publishes detailed audits of its finances but it keeps the inner workings of its monetary policy deliberations secret, publishing transcripts of policy meetings only with a five-year lag.
The proposal approved on Tuesday would "put an end to that reign of secrecy," said Representative Thomas Massie, the Kentucky Republican who submitted the bill.
The House has already passed versions of the bill twice, with dozens of Democrats joining nearly unanimous Republican support in 2012 and 2014. Those versions of the legislation died in the Senate.
Republicans control both houses of Congress but only have a narrow majority in the Senate.
Representative Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts was among Democrats who voted in favor of similar legislation in 2012 and 2014 but came out against the current proposal, saying it could lead to political interference at the Fed.
Lynch said he hoped a compromise could be found that increased transparency at the Fed, such as by requiring it to publish transcripts of policy meetings two years after they take place.
(Reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Andrew Hay)

Democracy In Action Compares MMT, AMI & Public Banking

giovedì 23 marzo 2017

Libor Mastermind Deserves a Lot of Company in Prison

Libor Mastermind Tom Hayes Deserves a Lot of Company in Prison

David Enrich’s The Spider Network makes him seem borderline sympathetic.
Photo illustration: Nejc Prah; Photographer: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg; Getty Images
For anyone burning to see financial wrongdoers put behind bars, Tom Hayes might seem like an ideal white-collar villain. As a superstar derivatives trader at a series of investment banks in London and Tokyo, Hayes masterminded a conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark interest rate that underlies hundreds of trillions of dollars’ worth of loans. British prosecutors—armed with gigabytes of evidence showing Hayes caught in the act, plus his own taped confessions—put him on trial in 2015; he’s now serving an 11-year sentence. It was an epic downfall, and David Enrich, an editor at the Wall Street Journal, recounts it well in The Spider Network: The Wild Story of a Math Genius, a Gang of Backstabbing Bankers, and One of the Greatest Scams in Financial History (HarperCollins, $29.99). One thing readers won’t get out of this exhaustively reported tale, however, is schadenfreude.
In Enrich’s telling, Hayes is more of a pitiable figure than a master fiend. He certainly never looked the part of a smooth operator: Carelessly dressed and shabbily groomed, Hayes had difficulty interacting with people, preferring the cold logic of spreadsheets. He didn’t party or jet-set like a typical overpaid banker, opting for juice or hot chocolate on the occasions he was forced to socialize outside of work. More substantially, Hayes wasn’t a top executive, and when he acted to rig the interest rate in question—the London interbank offered rate, aka Libor—he often did so with the knowledge of his bosses. The reason Hayes is in jail and his superiors aren’t seems to have more to do with his personality, and maybe his mild case of autism, than the severity of his crimes.
Don’t get me wrong—as Enrich makes clear, those crimes were pretty severe. Libor is a set of numbers, published every business day, that reflects what London banks charge each other to borrow money. A handy barometer of risk, it’s baked into a vast range of financial instruments, including complicated derivatives contracts as well as more mundane mortgages, car loans, and credit cards. Hayes colluded to nudge Libor higher or lower to benefit his trading positions; when he did, he made ordinary people’s interest payments go up and deprived municipalities and businesses of income. What sticks in the mind after reading The Spider Network is not that Hayes doesn’t belong in jail, but that he deserves a lot of company.
Enrich opens his book with an annotated cast of 80 characters from 16 organizations. It’s overwhelming, but it’s necessary to demonstrate just how many people were involved in the Libor scheme, which went on for longer than a decade and was a more-than-open secret. Enrich describes it as a “systemic racket.” It was common for traders at banks in London and other financial capitals to give hints, if not explicit instructions, to colleagues in charge of managing Libor. The industry’s meek self-monitor, the British Bankers’ Association, ignored all signs that the benchmark was skewed on the regular. When the 2008 financial crisis hit and a few academics, journalists, and regulators at the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission caught on, the banks were so obviously guilty of abusing Libor that one of them, UBS Group AG, decided the best way to wind up with a survivable penalty was to offer to the government its most prominent offender: Hayes. (He also distorted Libor at Citigroup Inc., where he worked from 2009 to 2010.)
Why was he singled out? Few people were better at reading numbers than Hayes, whom Enrich describes as “by all accounts one of the best at his craft on the planet,” but it’s hard to imagine anyone reading people much worse. Never a popular guy on the trading floor, he earned nicknames such as Rain Man and Kid Asperger—armchair diagnoses of a condition that a psychologist would confirm at Hayes’s trial. Hayes missed social cues that might have led him to temper his Libor manipulation, making it no more detectable than anyone else’s. But he was so unpleasant to deal with—he abused underlings and avoided videoconferencing software because he disliked eye contact—that he conducted most of his work over instant message, creating a damning trove of evidence.
Ultimately, Hayes botched his interactions with U.S. and U.K. regulators as they closed in. He copped to his role in the conspiracy and then entered a plea of not guilty, incapable of understanding who his allies and enemies were. Even then, the jury needed a week to deliberate Hayes’s guilt. He wasn’t the perfect banker to punish. He was just the one they were given.

Price Manipulation: The Biggest Financial Crime in History

Gold and Silver Price Manipulation: The Biggest Financial Crime in History


 -- Published: Wednesday, 15 March 2017
By Stewart Dougherty

According to the mainstream financial media (MFM), the biggest financial frauds in history are the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme, with roughly $20 billion in net investor losses, and the Bank State rigging of LIBOR, which resulted in 16 guilty banks paying $35 billion in fines, which supposedly equated to their theft.

The MFM have conveniently ignored a far larger financial crime that has been perpetrated for 37 years and counting, and that has netted its orchestrators more than $1,000,000,000,000.00 ($1 trillion) in stolen profits. This crime is so powerful that it can produce fraudulent proceeds of $1+ billion on demand and in minutes, making it unique in the annals of theft. It is a crime that has been committed literally thousands of times since 1980, and that is now being committed in the most blatant and brazen manner ever. This crime is already 285 times bigger than the LIBOR scandal, and 500 times bigger than Madoff’s swindle. It is, in fact, the largest, most destructive financial crime in history.

The crime is the Deep State’s manipulation of the gold and silver markets. It has been and continues to be the perfect crime, because given the Deep State’s capture and control of regulators, prosecutors and legislators, it is never investigated or prosecuted and its plunder therefore comes risk free.

It is impossible that the corrupt, complicit, Deep State-owned and -operated MFM do not know these facts. The reality is that they deliberately fail to break the story, in order to cover up the crime being perpetrated by their masters, the Deep State looters.

As this immensely profitable fraud has been perpetrated, the MFM have bombarded the populace with a propaganda campaign that smears and mischaracterizes gold. Rising precious metals prices are always presented as being ominous, negative and inimical to the people, while declining prices are consistently placed in a favorable light. This propaganda has been carefully crafted and timed so that when massive, coordinated price attacks occur, market observers actually view them as positive market developments and move on, in the belief that all is well and there is nothing to see.

Whenever true prices start to exert themselves, the MFM go into overdrive to demonize and discredit gold. Truly disgracing themselves, which is increasingly difficult for them to do given the depths to which their fake financial journalism has plunged, they have actually published articles calling gold a “Pet Rock,” and in another instance, a “Ponzi scheme.” By the latter’s idiotic logic, all natural elements and tangible goods are Ponzi schemes, too. If you listen to them, milk and eggs are criminal conspiracies. They know it’s absurd, but they throw the spaghetti against the wall anyhow, to flog the agenda and please their Deep State owners.

Last week, Bloomberg Magazine ran a cover story about a two-bit nobody smuggling meaningless quantities of gold as if this were the gravest threat to humanity in the 21st Century. It was yet another effort to make the gold market look seedy, shady and dirty. The lengths to which they go in order to slam precious metals prove that this is a very important Deep State agenda. And it is, because its purpose is to deflect attention away from the Deep State’s unprecedented financial criminality.

In the late 1970s, oil barons Bunker and Lamar Hunt became interested in the favorable fundamentals of silver. They steadily bought the metal, ramping up its price. The Bank State went short against the Hunts, in size. But buying demand persisted, and by January, 1980, silver had reached a record $49.45 per ounce ($147.68 in today’s dollars) and the Bank State was choking on massive paper losses.

The Bank State did what it always does when the chips are down: it lied, cheated and stole. First, it ordered the MFM to character assassinate the Hunts by labeling them greedy profiteers who were attempting to corner the silver market at what would be an exorbitant cost to society. Which was a deliberate lie. Later evidence proved that the Hunts bought silver based upon extensive quantitative analysis that showed it to be significantly undervalued, just as others throughout history have been attracted to undervalued assets. There was no evidence at all that the Hunts were trying to corner the silver market. But the media onslaught overwhelmed the truth, and set the stage for Act 2.

In Act 2, the Bank State ordered its’ captured, bribed CFTC regulators to change silver futures rules so as to force the Hunts to liquidate their positions. Predictably, silver’s price plunged from $49.45 to $10.80 between January and March, 1980, as a result of the out-of-the-blue, “liquidation only” CFTC mandate. This wiped out the Hunts and bailed out the Bank State of its massive losses, which, of course, was the corrupt point of the exercise.

In the process, the Bank State saw first-hand the enormous profit potential inherent in precious metals price manipulation. And it raced to invent a new form of alchemy that would enable it to make those potential profits go exponential: the transmutation of printed paper and costless, ethereal computer digits into what they would say were the equivalent of physical gold and silver. Honest precious metals price discovery died when the Hunts were cheated and fake gold and silver were invented. The precious metals futures market has been an organized crime scene ever since.

Prior to the Deep State’s successful overthrow and corruption of the metals market, gold and silver reached 1980 highs of $850 and $49.45, respectively. We regard those as legitimate prices that actually would have been exceeded if the free market had prevailed. Fundamental forces were enormously bullish for metals at that time, and have been so ever since.

Using the U.S. government’s inflation statistics, which are deliberately understated and therefore conservative, today’s prices would be $2,510.55 for gold and $147.68 for silver. Therefore, current fake gold and silver prices are roughly $1,300.00 and $130.00 per troy ounce beneath their 1980 inflation adjusted highs, respectively. This is extraordinary given the radical deterioration of monetary, financial, fiscal, economic and geopolitical conditions since 1980. Prices should now be far above the 1980 inflation-adjusted highs, not far below them.

With 5.8 billion ounces of owned physical gold in the world, the $1,300 per ounce price oppression results in an aggregate gold market undervaluation of $7.54 trillion. And with 20.5 billion ounces of owned physical silver in the forms of jewelry, silverware, coins, bars and rounds, the $130 per ounce price oppression amounts to an additional market undervaluation of $2.67 trillion. Combined, this totals $10.21 trillion that has been stolen from the owners of gold and silver worldwide as a result of the Deep State’s price manipulation fraud. This $10.21 trillion amount is an absolute minimum, because for dozens of objective, quantifiable reasons, gold and silver prices should exceed their 1980 inflation adjusted highs by at least two and up to four times. Therefore, the true cost to the global owners of gold and silver is actually in the range of $20 to $40 trillion. The people have paid a staggering price for the Deep State’s precious metals crime spree, as there is no fraud in history whose financial impact even comes close to this. Yet the corrupt MFM doesn’t say a word.

From 2009 through 2013, former Goldman Sachs partner Gary Gensler, protégé of (among others) Robert Rubin (former U.S. Treasury Secretary and now Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, the embodiment and epitome of the Deep State) and Larry Summers (also a former U.S. Treasury Secretary (put there by his mentor, Robert Rubin), Group of 30 member and a leading Deep State cash elimination mouthpiece), was the Chairman of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). During virtually his entire tenure, the CFTC conducted a so-called investigation into silver market price manipulation. In 2013, the CFTC closed the investigation, saying it had not found any improprieties whatsoever, not even one. According to them, the silver market was squeaky clean.

In 2016, completely without any CFTC involvement, Deutsche Bank admitted that it and numerous other major, international, SIFI (Significantly Important Financial Institution, aka, Too Big to Fail) banks had massively manipulated the silver market for years, including during the entire duration of the CFTC’s fake investigation. A few days later, Deutsche Bank admitted that it and numerous other SIFI banks had also rigged the gold market.

Gensler left the CFTC in early 2014, and went to work for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. In 2015, he was named Chief Financial Officer of her campaign. A Clinton victory was fully expected, and it was understood that Clinton would name Gensler Secretary of the Treasury. (Now do you see how this works?) In that role, he would have been far more helpful to the Deep State than he was in his CFTC role of protecting their $1 trillion precious metals fraud from being exposed or interfered with. In the Treasury Secretary position, the top marching order from his Deep State masters would have been simple and clear: get cash eliminated once and for all, and we will make you richer than you can ever imagine. He would have been all over it.

Cash elimination is the Deep State’s upcoming, Main Event. They will steal far more by eliminating cash than they have stolen to date by all their other frauds, combined.  While the rigging of the precious metals markets is currently the largest financial crime in history, it will be left in the dust when they come to steal the dollars, Euros and other fiat currencies that they are working to corral in their monetary prisons. They lurch from one record to another, on the bent and hurting backs of the people.

Trump’s victory threatens to slow down the implementation of their cash elimination agenda, and this is why they are incensed, and will do literally anything to get rid of him. Trump is brave, and in extreme danger the 86,400 seconds of every day. There have never in history been richer, greedier, or more power-hungry character assassins than the Deep State elite. The silver lining is that their evil is now so cancerous and metastasized that it has driven them completely insane, and the insane have a way of destroying themselves before they can destroy the rest of us.   

Implications: We know for an absolute fact that precious metals prices are manipulated. (The evidence is absolutely overwhelming, and we would like to offer special thanks to GATA (and now Deutsche Bank) for proving it without a shadow of doubt over many years’ worth of tireless work.) Current prices of gold and silver are therefore fake, and in our view, far below what they would be in an honest market. When the Deep State Crime Syndicate loses control over prices, which could result from any one of a large number of likely developments, true prices will be re-established, a process that was occurring in 1980 and again in 2011 before being sabotaged both times. As fake prices are crushed and honest ones return, a global “herd” buying phenomenon could develop, as has happened in the past. This would lead to significant shortages of available physical metals and a meaningful increase in premiums. History has been clear that when it comes to precious metals, it is always best to buy in halcyon times, particularly if one can do so at a good price.  We are not registered investment advisors, and are not providing financial advice. We are simply sharing with you our thoughts, which are born of extensive, independent research. Thank you for taking the time to read this article, good luck and all the best to you.

Stewart Dougherty
March 14, 2017 

martedì 14 marzo 2017

Whitewashing the 'no-debt status' of United States Notes at the US Treasury

"United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971."

Here:  https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

venerdì 10 marzo 2017

Deep State financing: The Exchange (De)Stabilization Fund (ESF)


“The important thing to know about an assassination or an attempted assassination is not who fired the shot, but who paid for the bullet” ~ Eric Ambler
The Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) is a fund managed by the New York Federal Reserve and its member banks acting as agents for the US Secretary of the Treasury. The fund is free of Congressional oversight, with broad authority to intervene in currency, securities, and commodities markets.
The fund was created by the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. The act required that all gold and gold certificates held by the Federal Reserve be surrendered and vested in the sole title of the US Treasury. A 1970 amendment to the act allows the Secretary of the Treasury, with authorization of the President, to use ESF funds to “deal in gold, foreign exchange, and other instruments of credit and securities.”
Long-time Solari Report subscribers are used to hearing me describe the ESF as the “mother of all slush funds.” My favorite reference is at hand, from Christopher Simpson’s excellent book Blowback: America’s Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War:
“The trail of this tainted money dates back to 1941, when the War Powers Act authorized the U.S.Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund to serve as a holding pool for captured Nazi valuables— currency, gold, precious metals, and even stocks and bonds— seized as the Germans or other Axis governments attempted to smuggle them out of Europe. The captured wealth, which eventually totaled tens of millions of dollars, included substantial amounts of blood money that the Nazis had pillaged from their victims. Indeed, it was precisely this type of criminal booty that overeager Nazis had most frequently attempted to export from Europe.”
“The Exchange Stabilization Fund was authorized to safeguard the portion of the Nazi hoard that had been uncovered and confiscated by the United States in the Safehaven program, which sought to interdict the German smuggling efforts. The official purpose of the fund was to serve as a hedge against inflation and as a bankers’ tool to dampen the effects of currency speculation in the fragile economies of postwar Europe and Latin America.”
In reality, this pool of money became a secret source of financing for U.S. clandestine operations in the early days of the CIA. The first known payments from the Exchange Stabilization accounts for covert work were made during the hotly contested Italian election. The CIA withdrew about $10 million from the fund in late 1947, laundered it through a myriad of bank accounts, then used that money to finance sensitive Italian operations. This was the “black currency” that Cardinal Spellman asserted was given to the Vatican for anti-Communist agitation.”
This coming week, I will be in Toronto to attend the convention of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) and visit with Rob Kirby of Kirby Analytics. Rob will join me to discuss the Exchange Stabilization Fund and its role at the intersection of the hidden system of finance, the black budget, and the financial markets. Rob had a successful career in the fixed income and derivatives markets working for global and Canadian financial institutions before starting Kirby Analytics. He is one of the most popular on line commentators today on the financial markets. Rob is particularly knowledgeable about Exchange ESF role in the precious metals markets. As we will discuss, following the gold price suppression and other manipulations in the gold market invariably leads investors to want to learn more about the ESF.
For Let’s Go to the Movies, Rob and I will discuss Eric deCarbonnel’s video briefing, “The ESF and its History.”
As always, there is a lot to discuss on the latest developments in the financial markets and geopolitics to in Money & Markets. Please make sure to post or e-mail your questions for Ask Catherine.
Talk to you Thursday!
Catherine Austin Fitts

Just a Taste! - The Exchange Stabilization Fund with Rob Kirby

 
 
Just a Taste: The Exchange Stabilization Fund with Rob Kirby
Watch the Video

‘Open the ECB’s Black Box’ say Varoufakis and De Masi


Greece’s economy suffered a new blow, contracting by 1.2% at the end of 2016, according to revised figures released earlier this week. The figures, published by the Greek statistics agency, Elstat, show it was the worst quarter since the summer of 2015, when the European Central Bank closed the Greek banks. The dramatic bank closures were viewed by many as part of the ‘Troika’ campaign to force Greece into a third bailout, complete with new austerity measures. But was closure process legal and within the ECB’s charter and mandate? ECB President Mario Draghi wasn’t sure; Draghi commissioned an independent legal opinion on this issue. Now, Yanis Varoufakis, former Greek Minister of Finance, and Fabio De Masi, a German, Die Linke MEP, have launched a public campaign demanding the immediate publication of Draghi’s legal opinion. EURACTIV’s Brian Maguire spoke with Varoufakis and De Masi about ECB transparency, the limitations of its mandate, and reform of the eurozone after the Treaty of Rome 60th anniversary celebrations this month.

What poor people really do with cash handouts

Think you know how the poor would spend the money you give them?

This article is published in collaboration with Quartz.
An employee counts Indian rupee currency notes inside a private money exchange office in New Delhi July 5, 2013. India's central bank was seen selling dollars via state-run banks on Friday as the rupee approached its record low of 60.76 seen on June 26, four dealers said. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi (INDIA - Tags: BUSINESS) - RTX11DCR

New data explores what poor people really do with cash handouts.

REUTERS/Adnan Abidi (INDIA - Tags: BUSINESS) - RTX11DCR
It is increasingly common for governments to give poor people money. Rather than grant services or particular goods to those in poverty, such as food or housing, governments have found that it is more effective and efficient to simply hand out cash. In some cases, these cash transfers are conditional on doing something the government deems good, like sending your children to school or getting vaccinated. In other cases, they’re entirely unconditional.
For decades, policymakers have been concerned that poor people will waste free money by using it on cigarettes and alcohol. A report on the perception of stakeholders in Kenya about such programs found a “widespread belief that cash transfers would either be abused or misdirected in alcohol consumption and other non-essential forms of consumption.”
The opposite is true.
A recently published research paper (paywall) by David Evans of the World Bank and Anna Popova of Stanford University shows that giving money to the poor has a negative effect on the consumption of tobacco and alcohol. Evans and Popova’s research is based on an examination of nineteen studies that assess the impact of cash transfers on expenditures of tobacco and alcohol. Not one of the 19 studies found that cash grants increase tobacco and alcohol consumption and many of them found that it leads to a reduction.
In addition to looking at results from individual studies, the researchers also conducted a meta-analysis—a statistical technique for combining the results from across studies—to find the overall effect on tobacco and alcohol consumption of receiving cash. Their meta-analysis found that the overall effect was slightly negative.
Why on earth would this be? Evans and Popova highlight several possibilities.
One, the cash transfers may change a poor household’s economic calculus. Before receiving the cash, any spending on education or health might have seemed futile, but afterwards, parents might decide that a serious investment in their children’s school was sensible. To make this happen, it might mean cutting back on booze and smoking.
Two, there’s what economists call the “The Flypaper Effect.” Behavioral economics research shows that when money is given for a specific purpose, people and organizations do tend to use it for that purpose, even when there is no one forcing them. In the case of cash transfers, households are generally told to use the money for family welfare.
Lastly, cash transfers are usually made to women. When women rule over household income, it’s more likely to be used on food and children’s health, studies find.
Regardless of why, the idea that poor people will use any cash they get for cigarettes and alcohol has been laid to waste.

giovedì 9 marzo 2017

The Finance Curse


For many years, we’ve been told that finance is good and more finance is better. But it doesn’t seem everyone in the UK is sharing the benefits. On this program, we ask a very simple question – can a country suffer from a finance curse?
Host Ross Ashcroft is joined by City veteran David Buik and the man who coined the term Quantitative Easing, International Banking and Finance Professor Richard Werner.

The SEC is really cracking down on made-up earnings numbers ?

The SEC is cracking down on made-up earnings numbers.
We crunched the numbers — it hasn't helped

Months after the SEC turned its focus to unaudited numbers in financial disclosures, their use is unabated.

Mar 8, 2017, 6:00 a.m.

In 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission increased its scrutiny of companies whose financial results use unaudited numbers that can make their performance look better while making them difficult to evaluate, potentially misleading investors.
The SEC issued new guidance on the use of so-called non-GAAP metrics, the home-made numbers that don’t conform to generally accepted accounting principles, in May. It created a task force to study them. And it began sending letters to, and demanding explanations from, hundreds of publicly traded companies — including well-known, widely held companies such as ConocoPhillips, Tesla and Berkshire Hathaway — it felt weren’t giving investors enough clear information about their performance.
Based on a MarketWatch analysis of new data, the SEC’s smackdown hasn’t done much good.

The number of S&P 500 companies reporting non-GAAP EPS metrics has stayed about the same since May

* Refers to companies that did not have earnings metrics recorded for the quarter described. This could be because of an acquisition, merger or a company being delisted.
Source: Audit Analytics
At the end of the first (March) quarter in 2016, 359 companies — more than 71% — in the S&P 500 had reported at least one non-GAAP earnings per share number, according to a MarketWatch analysis of data provided by Audit Analytics.
(Some companies report several, arguing that each one tells a vital story about their performance. For more on how these numbers create confusion, revisit our story on the misery earnings season can bring and our first-quarter graphic.)
By the end of the second quarter, after the SEC started sending comment letters to companies, that percentage remained the same. And it remained that way, at just under 72%, at the end of the third quarter, even after six months of comment letters from the SEC.
All told, about 71% of S&P 500 companies used non-GAAP EPS metrics in their earnings reports — numbers that often make it harder for investors to see a clear, consistent picture of the performance of the companies in which they invest.
The SEC’s pushback on these numbers seemingly hasn’t stemmed their use among large, widely held companies, our analysis found: It’s held steady — or, in some cases, even increased.

Even after SEC warnings, more companies added non-GAAP metrics than removed them

Source: Audit Analytics
Between the first and second quarters, when the SEC made it known that it planned to watch the use of non-GAAP figures closely, more companies removed at least one such metric from their earnings report then added them, according to our analysis.
Kellogg Co., for example, gave investors four non-GAAP EPS metrics in the first quarter, but only two in the second and third quarters. Its first-quarter numbers included EPS figures that excluded restructuring charges, foreign exchange movements and the company's Venezuela operation, which had been hurt by currency controls.
But from the second quarter to the third, more companies added one or two more non-GAAP EPS metrics than reduced their use.
At the end of Q3, 26 S&P 500 companies reported two such numbers, up from 19 in Q1 — meaning that the number increased since the SEC increased its scrutiny and began reaching out to companies about their use of those numbers.
The new data also allowed us to study the use of non-GAAP metrics in various sectors more closely.
The Health Care and Information Technology sectors are the most prolific users of non-GAAP EPS metrics, with approximately 84% of companies using the alternative EPS numbers. Financial Services companies use non-GAAP metrics the least, at 46% or — less than half of those in the S&P 500.
The SEC did not respond to a request for comment. "After more than two quarters of SEC efforts, some companies still present non-GAAP metrics in a way that does not fully conform to the May 2016 Interpretations," said Olga Usvyatsky, vice president of research for Audit Analytics.
Ciara Linnane, Tomi Kilgore and David Marino-Nachison contributed to this article.

Search all S&P 500 companies

Search by company name to see how each company’s GAAP and non-GAAP EPS compared during the 2016 3rd quarter. You can also go to the company’s 1st and 2nd Q earnings release and see how each company referred to its non-GAAP EPS number. In the case that a company reported more than one non-GAAP EPS metric, all non-GAAP EPS metrics will be displayed in that company’s row.

Q3Q2Q1
Company
GAAP
Non-GAAP
Spread
Filing
Filing
Metric name
3M CO (MMM)
2.15
-
-
-
-
-
ABBOTT LABORATORIES (ABT)
0.83


Adjusted Diluted EPS from Continuing Operations
ADOBE SYSTEMS INC (ADBE)
0.10


Non-GAAP diluted net income per share
ADT Corp (ADT)


-
-

ADVANCE AUTO PARTS INC (AAP)
0.20


Adjusted EPS
AES CORP (AES)
0.06


Adjusted EPS
AETNA INC /PA/ (AET)
0.37


operating earnings per share
AFFILIATED MANAGERS GROUP, INC. (AMG)
1.02


Economic earning per share
AFLAC INC (AFL)
0.29


Operating Diluted EPS
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC (A)
0.21


Non-GAAP net income diluted EPS
Showing 1 to 10 of 526 rows
*Spread is the difference between non-GAAP EPS and GAAP EPS.
Source: Audit Analytics

Methodology

Non-GAAP earnings data were provided to MarketWatch by Audit Analytics, which obtained it from company filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Quarters are defined by the three months following the calendar quarter for which the company filed their earnings report. The first quarter represents company filings made between April 1 and June 30, the second quarter between July 1 and Sept. 30 and the third quarter between October 1 and Dec. 31.
A company may report more than one GAAP EPS metric. These include preliminary EPS metrics such as basic EPS, which is the amount of profit or loss per share available to common shareholders, or EPS from continuing operations, which does not account for the impact of discontinued operations.
A company's "bottom line" EPS is the fully diluted earnings per share calculated as if all convertible securities were exercised. Our analysis does not reflect all of the GAAP EPS metrics a company may have reported: If a company reported a non-GAAP EPS metric, we have reported the company’s corresponding GAAP metric, which may be a preliminary EPS number. If a company did not report a non-GAAP EPS metric, the GAAP EPS reported is the company's bottom-line EPS based on what the company tagged as such when reporting results to the SEC. If you believe you have spotted an error in the data, email Katie Marriner.

lunedì 6 marzo 2017

Talent follows the cash into transaction banking



Talent follows the cash into transaction banking

Managing company money has quietly become a major driver of revenue

Often obscured by the more glamorous cut and thrust of M&A advisory and equity trading, transaction banking has become the place where investment and corporate banks are increasingly pinning their hopes for the future.
The business of managing cash for companies and providing trade finance has been the biggest driver of revenues for global banks since 2011, when it overtook banks’ equities and fixed income divisions, according to data compiled for the FT by Coalition, the industry monitor.
In 2016, banks made $209bn from transaction banking, compared with the $172bn made by their trading arms, according to the data, which cover global, regional and local banks. This is almost three times the $77bn that banks made from advising clients on M&A and helping them raise finance. Transaction services also eclipsed lending revenues for every year since 2011.
“There’s no question, it is becoming more relevant to the future of Citi, as well as in my view for the [future of the] industry,” says Naveed Sultan, global head of treasury and trade solutions at the US bank, whose business boasts revenues of more than $8bn a year across almost 100 countries.

 https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fa140cfe2-01b8-11e7-ace0-1ce02ef0def9?source=next&fit=scale-down&width=600

Investment in transaction services is at odds with cutbacks in markets and investment banking. Even at Deutsche Bank, where billions of euros of costs and 9,000 jobs are being cut, €1bn has been earmarked for investment in its global transaction banking division.
“At JPMorgan we are number one in investment banking, we are number one in FICC (fixed income, currencies and commodities), we are number two or three in equities,” says Takis Georgakopoulos, the bank’s global head of treasury services. “The place where we see a lot more upside is the treasury services business.”
Talent is following the money. “I’ve been in transaction banking about 15 years and I’d say we’re at a peak when I get a lot of pretty senior investment banking people who are saying they want to move in,” says Ather Williams, head of global transaction services at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
“I [recently] had three senior investment bankers come and say to me ‘what can I do in your world?’”
Bankers are also attracted by the stability of transaction banking, which gives some respite from the volatility of earnings in investment banking and trading.
Coalition data show that the revenue difference between the worst and best years for transaction banking was 11 per cent. For fixed income and equities, the worst year was 23 per cent below its peak. Investment banking’s worst year was 19 per cent below its high.
At Citi, Mr Sultan says his division has just recorded its 12th consecutive quarter of revenue and profit growth, even though low interest rates have made parts of the business more challenging.
It is not just traders turning to the sector. Banks are also recruiting from tech groups such as Google, attracted by the opportunity to solve the complex problem of safely moving trillions around the world. Mr Sultan even goes as far as to describe his division as a “fintech within Citi”.



https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fa02e43a0-01b8-11e7-ace0-1ce02ef0def9?source=next&fit=scale-down&width=600 Providing transaction services is not without its issues, however. A report by Boston Consulting Group lists a litany of challenges, not least competition from actual fintech companies that enable corporate clients to be more “bank agnostic” and shop around for some services. Low interest rates are a continued drain on European groups because transaction banks are saddled with low-yielding client deposits. Know Your Customer regulations and other compliance initiatives are loading costs on banks.
“In the cash management piece the cost/income ratio is absolutely not good,” says Stefan Dab, head of BCG’s transaction banking practice, referring to an industry measure of profitability. “A lot of the players, especially the Europeans, are subscale.”
Cash management accounted for about 85 per cent of transaction banking revenues in 2016, according to Coalition.
Mr Dab says banks stay in cash management because “you can’t really afford to rely on someone else to do it” as it’s “so core to the (client) relationship”.
“It’s also something which is capital light . . . at some point interest rates will rise again,” he adds.
In the US, interest rates have begun to increase — and the effects have been immediate. “We are already starting to see that flowing through P&L,” says Citi’s Mr Sultan, who has been preparing the business to take “maximum benefit” from rate rises.

https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2F9ca6e0fc-01b8-11e7-ace0-1ce02ef0def9?source=next&fit=scale-down&width=600
Analysts share some of the enthusiasm. Brian Foran, partner at Autonomous, an equity research firm, says conversations with clients about transaction banking by US institutions have been “positive” given the rise in rates.
“Market share is shifting as global competitors such as Standard Chartered, Deutsche and RBS pull back,” he says, although adds that there was some caution around trade finance given the new US administration’s protectionist comments.
JPMorgan’s Mr Georgakopoulos says global trade flows will increase in the longer term regardless of how US politics plays out. He cites higher trade flows, and rising interest rates, as two reasons for future growth in the business. The third is “our market share with our target clients outside the US remains low, we see that as a very big opportunity for growth”.
Mr Georgakopoulos hopes to benefit from providing services to US multinationals growing in Asia as well as to “Chinese [companies] as they expand all over the world”.
Asia’s expected emergence as the biggest transaction banking market is one of the reasons BCG’s Mr Dab expects continued growth.
But few industry stalwarts are predicting fireworks — and that would be out of character anyway for a sector where stability has been part of the attraction.
BofA’s Mr Williams says the market will grow by a few percentage points more than economic growth. Transaction services has taken the crown from trading and investment banking in terms of size but, for some of the industry’s more risk-loving bankers at least, it has a way to go on the excitement front.

Read next
Inside Business Patrick Jenkins
Developments in Italy and US call into question bank resolution efforts

The orwellian whistle blowers: banks hiding losses, not profits ! Sure...


Bank Whistle Blowers May Get Their Day In Court After All

https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2017/03/06/bank-whistle-blowers-may-get-their-day-in-court-after-all/



I write, consult and lecture on white collar crime situations
To summarize, the financial crisis was caused by; 1) individuals who wanted to own a home, 2) banks who wanted to loan the money for fees 3) the creation of mortgage-backed securities as a mechanism for allowing banks to unload the mortgages they created, 4) rating agencies who ignored the real value of the underlying mortgages that were bundled into securities and 5) Wall Street who peddled those bundles of over-rated securities unto investors.   Then one day we all woke up and realized that it was all a fraud.
Now a pair of whistleblowers may be about to get their day in court to prove how their banks (Wachovia purchased World Savings in 2006, then Wells Fargo bought Wachovia in 2008) hid billions of dollars in bad loans in off-balance sheet entities while, at the same time, stating that they were financially sound.  According to claims made by Robert Kraus, Wachovia created a “Black Box” of off-balance-sheet entities to hide billions of dollars in worthless loans while borrowing, being forced to borrow through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, from the Federal Reserve Bank’s discount window during the  2007 / 2008 financial crisis.  Wells Fargo, like other major banks, repaid $25 billion in December 2009.

Shutterstock

Bishop's initial claim concerned allegations of improper lending practices at Golden West, a subsidiary of World Saving).   While unrelated, their cases have been joined in this whistleblower lawsuit to portray a culture of fraud and deceit that was the overriding contributing factor to the financial collapse.
Their claim was that the deception started before the Wells Fargo purchase of the banks but the coverup of the bad mortgages in the Black Box continued until at least 2011.  The difference between what Wells Fargo paid at the low rate and the higher interest rate they should have paid would be due back to the tax payers.  For their role as whistleblowers, Bishop and Kraus stand to get a percentage of that amount should they prevail.
This lawsuit, filed under the U.S. False Claims Act, was initially filed in 2011 in the Eastern District of New York, but that district court dismissed it because the claims did not reference any regulations or statutes that specifically conditioned payment by the government on compliance with bank lending laws.  On appeal, the 2nd Circuit affirmed the dismissal in May 2016  on the same technical grounds.  Wells Fargo’s argument was based on another 2nd Circuit case, Mikes v. Straus, which  adopted a more narrow definition of a false claim, which differed from other federal courts in the country.  It worked!  Then a month after the 2nd Circuit decision, the Supreme Court ruled on another case that broadened the definition of a false claim eliminating the requirement of specific labels on laws requiring notice that payment, loan, was based on honesty.  Imagine that.   Last week SCOTUS ruled to send the whistleblower case back to the 2nd Circuit, which will most likely send it back to the district court for a trial.

In a bizarre twist, Kraus fell behind on his mortgage payment in 2015 to his lender … Wells Fargo, and barely kept his home out of foreclosure.  The life of a whistleblower is not what many may believe.  It is always a tough battle and they have the scars to prove it.
We have so few trials these days but if this were make it, it would provide some insights into not only the Black Box entities but also whether or not Wells Fargo purposely hid assets from the Fed when it borrowed money.  What would also be interesting is how a jury would react to the case concerning the actions at the center of the financial crisis.  As Joel Androphy and Zenobia BivensBerg & Androphy, lead attorneys representing the men, told me,  “If the 12 jurors who will hear this case applied for a home loan, but omitted from their financial statements a delinquent $10,000 car loan, much smaller in scale than the billions of toxic loans withheld from regulatory review, they would face federal indictments and jail time.”
Their analogy seems reasonable.   I covered a story of Jamila Davis, a low-level mortgage fraudster who made up mortgage documents that she presented to Lehman.   Lehman, with their superior due diligence at the time, approved her loans.  When she went to trial, bank executives testified against her, some of them in exchange for immunity.  That was in 2008.  Davis was found guilty and sentenced to 12 years in prison … she’s still there.  This whistleblower case is not about people going to prison, but perhaps it should be.

It is also interesting what role the Fed had in doing their own due diligence on their customer. Wachovia and Wells Fargo, who portrayed themselves as sound banks at the time they asked for money.  Did the government just take their word, or did they ask any questions.
If Bernie Madoff knew that the Fed was so easy about handing out money he might still be in business.
------
You can contact Walt at walt.pavlo@500pearlstreet.com to tell him how much he was able to misunderstand the banking business or to propose him for the Nobel Surpize in Economics... Ha, ha ha. Morons.

IMF Declares War Against Tunisia

IMF Stranglehold Pushing Tunisia to the Brink

The International Monetary Fund is pushing Tunisia to the brink of economic and political disaster with its refusal to release urgently needed funds at a time when the country most needs international support.
The Tunisian government has said that the IMF has suspended payments on its four-year $2.8-billion loan to Tunisia, which is scheduled to run until May 2020. The IMF’s action is designed to pressure the government into mass dismissals in the public sector, along with sales of government assets and possible cuts to pensions.

Sharan Burrow, ITUC General Secretary, said: “The IMF is pushing Tunisia to the brink, with potentially devastating effects on the economy and the democratic system which, almost alone in the region, has been built by the people following the end of the dictatorship in 2011. The consequences of this for Tunisia and its neighbours would be catastrophic.

Tunisia is in the middle of constitutional and institutional reform, with unprecedented changes to the tax system, much greater transparency and measures to protect the environment. These reforms, along with planned and just changes in the public sector, need enough time to develop and take root. Ideological diktats like this from the IMF will throw thousands into poverty, and destroy the progress that has been made and that Tunisians are determined to extend. A deepening economic crisis would lead to a resurgence of fundamentalism and increase the risk of terrorist attacks both in Tunisia and in nearby countries.”
For more information, please contact the ITUC Press Department on +32 2 224 02 10

Post in evidenza

The Great Taking - The Movie

David Webb exposes the system Central Bankers have in place to take everything from everyone Webb takes us on a 50-year journey of how the C...