This haircut post is in 2 parts. It is lengthy. There are many, many external links. It will take you less time to read this two part post, then it took me to dig all this stuff up, organize and write it all up.
Share your thoughts, spread the post if you feel it should be read by others
Together we can get the real news out. Thanks for reading :)
“To the wood” refers to an extremely close to the skull haircut. Sometimes known as a “buzz cut” Or alternatively a shaved head. Either way, the head is largely or entirely devoid of hair!
Canadians with money in the banks will get their Cypriot haircut. It isn’t a matter of if. It is just a matter of when. The wording in the Orwellian named “Jobs Growth and Long-Term Prosperity: Economic Action Plan for Canada 2013”makes the planned haircut quite clear. This is Canada's "Budget" Plan
More accurately a plan for plunder
“The Government intends to implement a comprehensive risk management framework for Canada’s systemically important banks. (pertaining to Canada)
This framework will be consistent with reforms in other countries and key international standards, (globally speaking) such as the Financial Stability Board’s Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions,and will work alongside the existing Canadian regulatory capital regime.
The risk management framework will include the following elements: Systemically important banks will face a higher capital requirement, as determined by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions”
Bubbles, burst. Always.
Systemically Important Banks.... Which banks might those be in Canada?
Conveniently the SI (systemically important) banks were declared just after the plan for plunder appeared. The Canadian government designated those special banks, "systemically important", on March 26/13
Regulator declares Canada’s big banks ‘systemically important
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions said Tuesday that the “systemically important” designation stems from a framework issued by the Basel committee on banking oversight in October that set out guidelines for assessing domestic financial institutions.That seems alright? Right? Often times, most of the time, much is not as it seems
Under the new OSFI requirement, the Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, National Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Canada and Toronto-Dominion Bank will be subject an additional one per cent capital buffer for risk.
The banks will need to have a common equity tier 1 ratio of eight per cent as compared with seven per cent for smaller, less important financial institutions as of Jan. 1, 2016.
“The measures ... are designed to limit the likelihood that a major bank would encounter distress or failure that could negatively impact the Canadian economy or taxpayers,” OSFI head Julie Dickson said in a news release.
As is the case with this “to big to fail” designation. Nothing exists that is truly ‘to big to fail’.
This is an artificial designation, conjured up, to control the perception of and scare the Canadian people.
But why? Why would the Canadian government wish to control/frighten the people into believing this artificially contrived designation?
*Here is where I need to take a moment to remind you all, readers the world over.
What is going on in Canada is going on globally "Consistent with reforms in other countries and key international standards"
Now that we are clear on that........
Why are these reforms taking place?
The reforms are taking place as the justification to plunder your savings, your hard earned savings.
Yes, the claim is that the reforms are being done to prevent the likelihood of a bank encountering distress and failing. The claim is just that,a claim. We can all make many claims, none of them need be true.
That is the case here and now with the banking changes.
The failure is inevitable because of the global derivative bubble..... we will get to that later
And the plunder of your savings cannot stop this failure
HSBC has a derivative exposure of $4.321 Trilion dollars
The Government proposes to implement a – bail-in regime for systemically important banks. This regime will be designed to ensure that, in the unlikely event that a systemically important bank depletes its capital, the bank can be recapitalized and returned to viability through the very rapid conversion of certain bank liabilities into regulatory capital
A" bail in": Yes, that is exactly what happened in Cyprus.
“The very rapid conversion of certain bank liabilities into regulatory capital”What are bank liabilites?
Those, my friend, are the deposits that are yours and mine.
Our deposits, our savings, are liabilities to the banks. Our deposits have to be paid to us, on demand. Hence they are bank liabilities. Our governments are conspiring to convert our savings, our assets, into bank assets. They will in exchange issue us all worthless stocks.
This is not a sweet deal. This is not a necessary action. This is collusion of government and bankers to plunder the people on a global scale
So, why isn't the corporate media telling us about this?
The corporate media is falling all over themselves to use the term of “bail-out” with regard to the Cyprus situation. That is a half-truth. The banks in Cyprus were bailed-out, via a bail in.
Once you read this piece, entirely, you will understand the significance and absolute criminality of bailing out banks by employing a bail in. At least, I hope so?
Thomas Walkom at the Toronto Star covered this topic April 04/2013 and did his best to control the message. I will credit him for at least giving this government approved and aided theft some coverage..but it was not enough
Jim Flaherty’s Cyprus-style bank rescue plan: Walkom
“Be prepared. If you hold the wrong kind of bank accounts, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty may have your savings in his cross-hairs
Two weeks ago, Flaherty quietly served notice in his budget that Ottawa is preparing a new set of what it called bail-in rules that it could impose should one of the country’s big banks face collapse.
The new rules would allow federal regulators to seize unspecified bank liabilities — including, perhaps, the savings of uninsured depositors — and use them to prop up a faltering institution.”
“Including, perhaps” note the language being used? The language of obfuscation. Even though the sentence that follows makes it clear this is exactly what is being planned. A plan that was brought to fruition in Cyprus
"Which, as it turns out, is exactly what Cyprus’ government did to deal with its banking crisis.
On Tuesday, Flaherty’s spokesperson told one newspaper that insured deposits — eligible savings up to $100,000 — would be safe from any crisis-induced confiscation scheme.
On Wednesday, I asked another spokesperson if uninsured deposits — including savings over $100,000 and ineligible savings such as mutual funds — would be equally safe.
The answer eventually came back that it would be “premature” to respond to that question until Ottawa has a chance to consult with the banks and others.
That is, there was no answer"
Yes, Mr Walkom, that was an answer. Flaherty’s spokesperson told you that is it premature to say exactly what accounts will be targeted until Mr Flaherty takes his orders from the banks! (Highlighted)
Of course, Mr Walkom gets a paycheque and I don’t. So, he calls the obvious answer “no answer”
I won’t insult your intelligence with such nonsense
“So a bail-in would, at the stroke of a pen, transform some creditors into owners of a bank, which at that point no one might want to own”
This despite Mr Walkom telling you there was no answer? He then tells you this is exactly what happened in Cyprus!!.
Goldman Sachs Goldman Sachs has a derivative exposure of $44.192 Trillion dollars.
The Globe and Mail’s article: "Relax Canadians: no risk of Cyprus-like attack on bank deposits here" was more pathetic then Walkom's Toronto Star piece. Pay particular attention to the opening salvo!
“There is a lot of chatter among the gold bug crowd that investors should rush out and increase their stash of the yellow metal on their way to buying more canned food, guns, and ammo, lest they suffer a bank deposit haircut like the one being applied in Cyprus”
Ah, yes..... starting an article out with ridicule & killing the messenger.
That is a sure sign you are about to get hoodwinked!
Martin Mittelstaedt's @ G&M's pathetic claim of proof that you have nothing to fear?????
“U.S. banks (same statement applied to Canada’s banks?) have recently been stress tested and have topped up their capital ratios. you have nothing to worry about?”The absolute absurdity of the MM's contentions is beyond the pale!
To lie in the face of the obvious facts of this matter.
It would be laughable, if the resulting pain would not so dam devastating
-Cypriot banks had passed their ‘stress tests with flying colours. Not just once. But, twice!
-The Cypriot banks had also increased capitalization
Here OR Cached Pages Here
-In July 2010: A pan-EU regulator conducted "stress tests" of banks to gauge how they would fare if economic conditions worsened. Cyprus's two main banks passed easily, with a total of €572 million of surplus capital.
-In 2011, the European Banking Authority ordered more stress tests. Like the ones the previous year, they didn't contemplate losses on government bonds. The two Cypriot banks were again found to have plenty of capital to withstand a deteriorating economic environment.
-July 16, 2011: CYPRUS’ three main banks, Bank of Cyprus (BoC), Marfin Laiki and Hellenic Bank yesterday passed the EU-wide bank stress tests coordinated by the European Banking Authority (EBA) in collaboration with the European Central Bank (ECB).
Why is Martin Mittelstaedt lying? If I know this, is it possible that he does not?
I don't think so