Thursday, November 17, 2011
$$$Bob Chapman has reported some potentially important news. Whether its timetable is soon or distant, nobody knows since the path traveled is an event driven scenario. He broke the story three weeks ago. He claims to have received the information directly from people at the top of the banking profession, but from the leading mid-sized banks. He does not have a line of information from the top major banks. These mid-sized executive bankers attend meetings directed by the USFed and they pass details to Chapman. He reports, "The big US banks are being told to clear safe secure storage, because they are getting ready to print a new currency. It is not the Amero. It is a new Dollar, probably different from what you have already. It is underway. It may not be in the printing stage yet, but the plans are there. The USFed is expecting, as is the USDept Treasury, that the USDollar is not going to be the reserve currency of the world in about a year and a half, maybe less." The report is not specific, but the blueprint is clear that a response is planned for the death or rejection of the USDollar. See the Chapman weblog (CLICK HERE).The Jackass reaction follows. Plans are being shared with mid-sized US banks, since they are subservient. They talk to mere mortals like Chapman since they too are mortals, ranking minions in the banking industry. A new USDollar is due to launch in 12 to 18 months, the American response to crisis. A very big devaluation comes in my opinion, complete with nasty price inflation in the domestic USEconomy. Built in will be considerable debt writedowns, perhaps directly applied, probably forceably to the foreign creditors with enormous resentment. Tremendous complications are involved, since the USDollar is used in global contracts and commerce, like trade settlement. The end of the USDollar is near. The beginning of the Third World Dollar is fast approaching. Its birth will be the final cold water in the face of Americans, all too sleepy for years, as they will awaken in horror. They will see their pensions, life savings, and more perhaps cut in half. Ramifications and impact will be broad, as a ticket to Third World will be issued and used without a choice. The initial devaluation might be 30% to 35%, but more loss is assured after time passes.
My forecast is for a follow-up devaluation of another 15% to 20% after a period of time, like six to nine months. The deficits are too great, for both trade and the government budget. The hemorrhage will deal crippling blows to the new USDollar, which will not be supported by the printing press any longer. If in effect, the new USD will not be readily accepted for trade, since it will be toxic, a true reflection of the horrendous fundamentals for the USEconomy and USGovt. If in effect, financing the USGovt debt will not be easy, since the printing press will be mothballed. The domestic US interest rates will rise past 10% quickly, matching the true rate of price inflation. The price of food will double quickly, gasoline too, and all utilities. The reckoning will result in total 50% USD devaluation down the road 2 or 3 years. The overall impact from birth of a new USDollar is its ticket to the Third World, a tourniquet on the US national neck. Some caution must be given concerning Bob Chapman. He is bold and intrepid, but half of his shocking calls have been nothing more than hot wind that passed to the desert hills. For three years, he has been warning of bank shutdowns and bank holidays. The Jackass has expected them eventually, but Chapman gave at least three such wrong calls. He has been alarmist at times, but his calls are surely contingency plans in the shadowy conference rooms where the elite meet and the security agencies map out logistics. At times Chapman seems to lack some comprehension of practical implications. But he does have some deep sources. The best approach for this information is to plan on it in the future, but that door might not open for some time. The timetable will be dictated by events, which are unquestionably turning more toward chaos and disorder.
Even though the reality of investing is often extremely disappointing or worse, the literature in the field is can be outstanding. There is no shortage of excellent books, or of journalistic and academic writing. In this article, we'll take a look at Peter Lynch's "One Up on Wall Street" and get an overview of the kind of timeless advice that he provides.
Market Timing and Daring to be Different
Lynch sums up issues on market timing beautifully. His basic idea is that, not only is it difficult to predict the markets, but small investors can be both pessimistic and optimistic at all the wrong times. Basically, it can be self-defeating to try to invest in good markets and get out of bad ones. That's not to imply that the small investor doesn't know what they're doing, but rather that accurate market timing, especially in the short run, is unlikely. The critical point is that you don't have to be able to predict the stock market to make money with it.
Some of the best and most successful professional traders have an uncanny ability to sniff out really good stocks, before they become trendy and overpriced. According to Lynch, this is because the risks of the stock market can be reduced by "proper play," just like the risks of stud poker.
What Lynch makes clear is that there are bad times to buy. This is not market timing, it is simply true that sometimes the market is dangerously high and at other times, way too low; for buyers, this can be appealingly low. Although, according to him, there is no absolute division between safe and rash places to invest, experts, or just ordinary, sensible people who take the trouble to find out, can find reliable signs of where they should be investing. When people are getting greedy, excessively risk-friendly, and are taking too many chances, the market should be avoided, or exposure to it at least reduced.
Nothing, says Lynch, is more dangerous than extremely overpriced stocks, and it is possible to know when this is the case. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the stocks of good companies; what is wrong is the way people invest. This can apply just as much to so-called professionals, as to the investor on the street. Likewise, for people who just do not have the time horizon for stocks, even buying blue chips would be too risky. Lynch stresses that it is important to remember that the market, like individual stocks, can move in the opposite direction of the fundamentals. If stocks, or more likely, too much of your money in them, are unsuitable for your needs and appetite for risk, don't even think about it. Diversification is the essence of sensible investing.
What Most Brokers Really Do and Don't
If you are a small investor, don't expect too much attention from the industry. Lynch warns that there's an unwritten rule in the industry that, the bigger the client, the more talking the portfolio manager has to do to please him. If you are a small fish, he may not bother much at all, just leaving the money at the mercy of the market.
It's an ugly reality that most brokers just do not have the guts to buy into unknown companies. Believe it or not, the average Wall Street professional isn't looking for reasons to buy exciting stocks, and when these companies rocket up, the broker will have all manner of excuses for not having bought.
How to Do It
Lynch explains that the next investment is never like the last one and yet we can't help readying ourselves for it anyway. The economy and markets evolve in a mixture of the unpredictable and the predictable. We cannot know how the future will unfold, but we can still invest prudently and make money. The significance of this simple fact cannot be overemphasized. The trick is to buy great companies, especially those that are undervalued and/or underappreciated. Alternatively, if you pick the right stock the market will take care of itself.
There are some common characteristics of companies that should be avoided like the plague. By using such methods as cash, debt, price to earnings ratios, profit margins, book value and dividends, you can get a pretty good idea about whether a company is worth buying into.
It's also a good idea to keep checking; after all, sooner or later every popular, fast-growing industry becomes a slow-growing industry. There is a tendency to think things will never change, and while you may always want to keep some stalwarts in your portfolio, these, too, need to be monitored.
Other Classic Blunders and Seriously Dangerous Delusions
Apart from all the above, Lynch teaches that there are many disastrous things that many people think, and do, again and again, but which can easily be avoided. You don't need to time the market to believe that if it's gone down so much already, it can't get much lower. By the same token, people who think they can always tell when a stock has hit the bottom, are themselves going to get hit.
In the same vein, do not believe that stocks always come back or that conservative stocks don't fluctuate much. Similarly, believing that when the stock goes up you're right, or when it's down, you're wrong, can cost you a lot of money.
The Bottom Line
Lynch summarizes his book with some succinct advice: It is inevitable that there will be sharp declines in the market that present buying opportunities. To come out ahead, you don't have to be right all the time. Nevertheless, trying to predict the market in the short term is impossible. Companies don't grow without good reason and fast growers won't stay that way forever. If you don't think you can beat the market, for whatever reason, buy a mutual fund and save both the work and the money; don't count on the industry to do a great job, on your behalf.
Al Korelin catches up with Bill Murphy, Chairman of Gata (Gold Anti Trust Action Committee) and discusses the events driving the recent markets volatility.
The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee was organized in the fall of 1998 to expose, oppose, and litigate against collusion to control the price and supply of gold and related financial instruments. The committee arose from essays by Bill Murphy, a financial commentator on the Internet (LeMetropoleCafe.com), and by Chris Powell, a newspaper editor in Connecticut.
To Learn more visit:
The Fed justified the previous round of quantitative easing "to promote a stronger pace of economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with its mandate" (full text). In effect, the Fed has been trying to increase inflation, operating at the macro level. But what does an increase in inflation mean at the micro level — specifically to your household?
Let's do some analysis of the Consumer Price Index, the best known measure of inflation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) divides all expenditures into eight categories and assigns a relative size to each. The pie chart below illustrates the components of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers, the CPI-U, which I'll refer to hereafter as the CPI.
The slices are listed in the order used by the BLS in their tables, not the relative size. The first three follow the traditional order of urgency: food, shelter, and clothing. Transportation comes before Medical Care, and Recreation precedes the lumped category of Education and Communication. Other Goods and Services refers to a bizarre grab-bag of odd fellows, including tobacco, cosmetics, financial services, and funeral expenses. For a complete breakdown and relative weights of all the subcategories of the eight categories, see the link to table 1 near the bottom of the BLS's monthly Consumer Price Index Summary.
The chart below shows the cumulative percent change in price for each of the eight categories since 2000.
Not surprisingly, Medical Care has been the fastest growing category. At the opposite end, Apparel has actually been deflating since 2000. The latest Apparel number is the first fractional nudge above zero in about nine years. Another unique feature of Apparel is the obvious seasonal volatility of the contour.
Transportation is the other category with high volatility — much more dramatic and irregular than the seasonality of Apparel. Transportation includes a wide range of subcategories. The volatility is largely driven by the Motor Fuel subcategory. For example, the spike in gasoline above $4-a-gallon in 2008 is readily apparent in the chart.
The Ominous Shadow Category of Energy
The BLS does not lump energy costs into an expenditure category, but it does include energy subcategories in Housing in addition to the fuel subcategory in Transportation. Also, energy costs are indirectly reflected in expenditure changes for goods and services across the CPI.
The BLS does track Energy as a separate aggregate index, which in recent years has been assigned a relative importance of 8.553 out of 100. In other words, Uncle Sam calculates inflation on the assumption that energy in one form or another constitutes about 8.55% of total expenditures, about half of which (4.53%) goes to transportation fuels — mostly gasoline. The next chart overlays the highly volatile Energy aggregate on top of the eight expenditure categories. We can immediately see the impact of energy costs on transportation.
The next chart will come as no surprise to families footing the bill for college tuition. Here I've separately plotted the College Tuition and Fees subcategory of the Education and Communication expenditure category. Note that the steady staircase in this cost matches the annual cost increases in late summer for each academic year.
Economists and policy makers (e.g., the Federal Reserve) pay close attention to Core Inflation, which is the overall inflation rate excluding Food and Energy. Now this is a somewhat peculiar metric in that one of the exclusions, Energy, is an aggregate that combines specific pieces of two consumption categories: 1) Transportation fuels and 2) Housing fuels, gas, and electricity. The other, Food, is the major part of the Food and Beverage category. I should explain that "beverage" for the BLS means alcoholic beverages. So coffee and Coca Colas are excluded from Core Inflation, but Budweiser and Jack Daniels aren't.
The next chart shows us the annualized rate of change (solid lines) and the cumulative change (dotted lines) in CPI and Core CPI since 2000.
Consumers, especially those who've managed expenses over several years, are most closely attuned to the top line.
Inflation and Your Household
The universal response is to moan over price increases and take delight when prices are cheaper. But in reality, households vary dramatically in the impact that inflation has upon them. When gasoline prices skyrocket, a two-earner suburban family with long car commutes suffers far more than the metro family with short subway commutes. And the pain is even more extreme for low income households whose grocery money shinks with gas prices rise. And remember, Uncle Sam excludes energy costs from Core Inflation.
Households with high medical costs are significantly more vulnerable than comparable households with low expenses in this category.
The BLS weights College Tuition and Fees at 1.493% of the total expenditures. But for households with college-bound children, the relentless growth of tuition and fees can cripple budgets. Often those costs get bundled into loans that saddle degree recipients with exorbitant debt burdens. Consider the following numbers from the CollegeBoard.com website:
- Public four-year colleges charge, on average, $8,244 per year in tuition and fees for in-state students. The average surcharge for full-time out-of-state students at these institutions is $12,526.
- Private nonprofit four-year colleges charge, on average, $28,500 per year in tuition and fees.
Of course, Mr. Bernanke would point out that, with a healthy dose of Core Inflation (extended of course to wages), those debt-burdened college grads will pay down the loans with inflated dollars.
Which brings us back to the Fed's efforts to manage the level of Core Inflation. At the macro level, Mr. Bernanke and his Federal Reserve team can doubtless make a theoretical argument for playing puppet master with inflation. But will their efforts — ZIRP and Quantitative Easing — achieve the desired goal?
The one thing we can be certain about is this: An increase in inflation will have a painful effect on lower income households, those on fixed incomes, those with higher ratios of transportation costs, and any household whose discretionary spending is more dream than reality.
The Hedge Fund Managers are heading for the hills this is a signal that something is about to happen , They are leaving because depression & WW III is coming that is why. When war comes Banks money is peoples money that is why they are trying to save their filthy money. Americans are not stupid they know what is happening. They are cowards. Americans are waking up.Justice is 'Just US'as says Gerald Celente on Wall St. mafia ,The EU's on the verge of clamping down on 'hedge funds', which are believed to have been at the root of the global downturn. But the U.S. is wary - it's home to many of the secretive, high-wealth funds .those darn hedge fund managers! They really pushed the margin way over the line!
Posted on 16 November 2011.
A Look At This Week’s Show:
-Is Italy too big to bail out? “Nothing is too big to bail if you’re willing to live with the consequences of inflation.”
-What if we have deflation? “Contrary to popular belief, 400 years of history shows us that gold does its best work during a deflation.”
-Political crises quagmire: Employ the poor at lower wages? Tax the rich? Or, stealthily inflate the middle-class out of existence? What would YOU do?
It wasn’t all that long ago that industry estimates were that the issuance of credit default swaps in Europe, CDS, were about $18 billion. At the same time on the street it was estimated that the exposure was $75 billion. We estimate $150 billion – this represented insurance on the holders of bonds issued by Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy. The Bank for International Settlements says that figure is now $518 billion. As we have noted before the big problem is counterparty risk. When CDS, credit default swaps, are triggered to default will the counterparties pay up? Even if writers are buying from one another someone has to get caught holding the bag and loose money. That is where the risk comes in.
We are seeing a change in tactics by Europe’s politicians as they head toward allowing euro zone members to leave the arrangement. The realization is that no matter what, the five weak nations cannot compete with the stronger euro zone countries. They want legislation for their exit and to allow them to remain in the European Union. They obviously know that if they all or in part leave the euro they’ll probably default as well, in whole or in part. The derivative writers contend if the owners of bonds agree to take a 50% loss on bonds then the insurance doesn’t take effect. Fitch, the rating service says yes it is a payable default. We will see who is correct. We agree with Fitch.
At least for the moment bond yields in Europe seem to be finding balance and the euro seems to want to do the same. Pressure is still being applied and yields will probably move up over the next six weeks and we could see the euro at $1.30. the French and Germans are exposing a smaller euro zone finally facing reality, although the euro was all they cared about in the first place. Excepting Germany, most bonds were lower.
Corbett Report Interview 408 – Bob Chapman
Gerald Celente : I got burned by MF Global said Gerald Celente , he lost six figures amount of money to the MF Global’s bankruptcy which went belly up because of the European sovereign debt crisis… Justice should b spelled Just US says Gerald Celente , MF Globals should be called mother F* Globals says Gerald Celente
While it will hardly come as a surprise to many, the bitter truth that bankers are to blame for much of the inexorable plunge that Europe faces (and for that matter the rest of the Western/Keynesian world) has once again been dragged front-and-center. In an interview on Australian TV, a former Unicredit senior banker, Jonathan Sugarman, discusses (along with no less than everyone's favorite roulette player - Nick Leeson) how rules are broken (not bent) and the 'rotten culture encourages excessive risk taking'. The former head of risk management resigned after being forced to break the law - specifically by dramatically under-reserving (or over-leveraging). These figures were not reported which means that, in Mr. Sugarman's words, he was "100 per cent certain that Unicredit broke the law while he was working there". The rot goes deeper though, as the interview describes, when he turned himself over to the regulators (blood-dripping knife in hand), they simply said "Fine, just don't do it again". Reflecting on the twenty years since Barings, Leeson remarks: “The weakness is in those risk management compliance and control areas. Always has been, still is and probably always will be”. Comforting?
And the story:
A former senior executive at Italy's largest bank says the European debt crisis is the result of a rotten culture that encourages excessive risk taking.
In his first interview since leaving the bank, the former head of risk management at the Dublin office of Italy's Unicredit bank, Jonathan Sugarman, told the ABC's Foreign Correspondent program that he was forced to resign after his chief executive consistently asked him to break the law.
In 2007, all the biggest banks in Europe had moved their headquarters to the Irish Financial Services Centre, lured by the lowest corporate tax rates in the English speaking world.
The New York Times dubbed Dublin the wild west of European finance.
Foreign banks found something else attractive about the place; it had developed a reputation for light-touch regulation.
Mr Sugarman was working for a German bank in Dublin when he was head hunted to run risk management at Unicredit's Dublin office.
The Italian bank had a $50 billion operation in Ireland.
Risk managers are required by law to keep assets and cash in reserve equivalent to 90 per cent of the bank's liabilities.
The rules are clear; the bank could, on occasion, drop to 89 per cent, but any lower than that and a report must be filed with the regulator.
But within months of his arrival, Mr Sugarman noticed that Unicredit Dublin was operating with cover of just 70 per cent, 20 times less than allowed.
For six weeks, his chief executive kept telling him not to worry.
But he was worried, so he resigned.
"We were breaking the law and it was my name on the reports day in day out," Mr Sugarman said.
"Under the eyes of the law, I'm the person responsible to make sure that we kept within our speed limit and we went way beyond our speed limit.
"And the law was very clear; I could face five years in prison for doing that and I just didn't want to go to prison."
Mr Sugarman says he was 100 per cent certain that Unicredit broke the law while he was working there.
"That is why I brought in this London-based IT company," he said.
"Whereas the permissible deviation was 1 per cent, they rang me up one evening, soon after they tied in to our systems, linked in to our systems, and said your breach is actually 40 per cent."
Twelve months after Jonathan Sugarman told the regulator that his bank in Dublin was running low on cash, the entire Irish banking system was on its knees begging for a bailout.
Five banks asked for 50 billion euros just to keep their doors open.
Last year, Irish MP David Norris raised the Unicredit matter in Ireland's parliament.
"This is a grossly serious matter and has been reported to the financial regulator," he said.
"A man has lost his job as a result - he honourably resigned - and the degree of breach was 40 times the accepted margin. This is a disaster."
Even after this, the regulator failed to act.
In a letter to the ABC, Ireland's central bank said it was still examining allegations first brought by Mr Sugarman four years ago.
"I left the bank's offices, I walked down to the regulator's office; I wasn't going to leave it to anyone to deliver it but myself, and nothing happens," Mr Sugarman said.
"That is like walking in to a police station with a knife with blood on it and say 'I've just killed someone' and you expect the police to say: 'Well, where's the body? Where's the person? What have you done?'
"And they just say: 'Fine, just don't do it again'. And that left me dumbfounded."
Unicredit posted a record third quarter loss overnight of $15 billion.
The Italian government's debt problems are weighing heavily on the country's biggest bank.
The one I'd particularly like to warn you about is Barrick Gold Corp. (NYSE: ABX). Barrick has actually done well recently, returning an average of more than 30% for the past several years. I think it's highly unlikely, however, it will come anywhere near repeating such a performance. In fact, you could even lose money by owning the stock going forward.
Barrick has a couple major strikes against it, including the likelihood of a massive slowdown in earnings growth. Although the company is on track to grow earnings 55% this year to $4.90 a share, from $3.28 a share in 2010, analysts project an annual growth rate of only 1.5% from 2012 through 2016. This is because capital costs for development projects are quickly mounting. One of the latest examples is a new mine near Pueblo Viejo in the Dominican Republic, where damage from heavy rains is likely to delay completion of the project for six months until mid-2012. Between repairs, clean-up and finishing off construction, costs for the Pueblo Viejo mine are now expected to be as high as $3.8 billion, 15% more than the $3.3 billion Barrick initially thought it would spend.
And that's certainly not the worst example. Estimated costs for another new mine to be completed in Pascua Lama, Chile, in 2013 have shot up nearly 39% from $3.6 billion to $5 billion. What's more, the earlier $3.6 billion price tag was an increase of about 20% from a prior estimate. According to management, the rising cost of the Pascua Lama project stems from an underestimate of how much structural steel and other materials were required to build the mine. A high-altitude location, harsh weather and strong winds are the reasons more building materials are needed, management says.
Barrick Gold Corp. has also upwardly revised its cost estimate for a third project, the construction of a mine in Cerro Casale, Chile, slated to get underway at the end of 2012. Costs for the project are now expected to reach $6 billion, 43% more than the prior estimate of $4.2 billion. Management says rising materials prices are a key factor in the ballooning price tag for the Cerro Casale mine.
Another obstacle for Barrick Gold Corp. is controversy over its mining practices and alleged human rights abuses, which may make it harder for the company to get the permits it needs to operate. For instance, a mine in Papua New Guinea has had a particularly difficult history because of claims by local leaders of alleged damage to the environment from improper disposal of mining waste. These leaders, along with Amnesty International and other human-rights groups also say they have documented cases of violence against Papua New Guinea locals by Barrick Gold security guards.
Risks to consider: In addition to the other issues I've raised, I believe gold prices are much more likely to fall off, or even nosedive, than climb in the long-term. This would obviously hinder the profitability of all gold producers, including Barrick Gold Corp.
Action to Take --> I'm generally bearish on gold, but I believe Barrick would be among those hit hardest by falling gold prices because of its high production costs, poor earnings growth prospects and alleged human rights violations.
In addition to a huge drop-off in earnings growth, analysts also project large declines in the growth of revenue, cash flow and dividends. Revenue, which climbed at a 19% pace for the past five years, is only expected to rise an average of 4% in each of the next five years. The annual rate of cash flow growth is projected to slow from 22.5% to 5.5%, and dividend growth is expected to decelerate from 13.5% to 7%.
But if you disagree with me and are bullish on gold and are even THINKING about buying Barrick Gold, then think again. It's near the top of my list of stocks to avoid. Those who do decide to buy shares are probably in for disappointment.
The first ever GAO(Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill(HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out. Ben Bernanke(pictured to the right), Alan Greenspan, and various other bankers vehemently opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history were posted on Senator Sander’s webpage earlier this morning.
What was revealed in the audit was startling:
$16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious - the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.
To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is "only" $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is "only" $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.
In late 2008, the TARP Bailout bill was passed and loans of $800 billion were given to failing banks and companies. That was a blatant lie considering the fact that Goldman Sachs alone received 814 billion dollars. As is turns out, the Federal Reserve donated $2.5 trillion to Citigroup, while Morgan Stanley received $2.04 trillion. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank, a German bank, split about a trillion and numerous other banks received hefty chunks of the $16 trillion.
"This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else." - Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
When you have conservative Republican stalwarts like Jim DeMint(R-SC) and Ron Paul(R-TX) as well as self identified Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders all fighting against the Federal Reserve, you know that it is no longer an issue of Right versus Left. When you have every single member of the Republican Party in Congress and progressive Congressmen like Dennis Kucinich sponsoring a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, you realize that the Federal Reserve is an entity onto itself, which has no oversight and no accountability.
Americans should be swelled with anger and outrage at the abysmal state of affairs when an unelected group of bankers can create money out of thin air and give it out to megabanks and supercorporations like Halloween candy. If the Federal Reserve and the bankers who control it believe that they can continue to devalue the savings of Americans and continue to destroy the US economy, they will have to face the realization that their trillion dollar printing presses will eventually plunder the world economy.
The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..
Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places
View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve(July 21st, 2011):
FULL PDF on GAO server: www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf