nahanah的部落格

The female parent of all corporate executive trades was force off in 1815, once London financier Nathan Rothschild led British investors to believe that the Duke of Wellington had lost to Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo. In a entity of hours, British management union prices plummeted. Rothschild, who had mortgage information, next swiftly bought up the total open market in government bonds, acquiring a controlling holding in England's financial obligation for pennies on the thump. Over the instruction of the 19th century, N. M. Rothschild would turn the large edge in the world, and the v brothers would come with to command most of the foreign-loan business organisation of Europe. "Let me part and ownership a nation's money," Rothschild boasted in 1838, "and I strictness not who writes its sacred text."

In the United States a century later, John Pierpont Morgan once again in use gossip and implication to write a fright that would redeploy the track of times of yore. The madness of 1907 was triggered by rumors that two chief sir joseph banks were almost to turn bankrupt. Later trace spikelike to the House of Morgan as the origin of the rumors. The public, basic cognitive process the rumors, proceeded to be paid them go real by adaptation a run on the phytologist. Morgan afterwards boldly stepped in to debar the madness by importing $100 a million in gold bars from his European sources. The public so became convinced that the pastoral required a central banking group to conclude proposed panics, overcoming noticeable legislative assembly protest to any instrument allowing the nation's business to be issued by a clannish interior financial organization controlled by Wall Street; and the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913. Morgan created the terms for the Act's passage, but it was Paul Warburg who force it off. An migrator from Germany, Warburg was a domestic partner of Kuhn, Loeb, the Rothschilds' leading American finance business activity since the Civil War. Elisha Garrison, an agent of Brown Brothers bankers, wrote in his 1931 tale Roosevelt, Wilson and the Federal Reserve Law that "Paul Warburg is the man who got the Federal Reserve Act together after the Aldrich Plan awakened such countrywide enmity and aversion. The whiz kid of some diplomacy was Baron Alfred Rothschild of London." Morgan, too, is now wide believed to have been Rothschild's causal agent in the United States.

Robert Owens, a author of the Federal Reserve Act, after that testified earlier Congress that the banking industry had conspired to concoct a progression of financial panics in directive to excite the race to call for "reforms" that served the interests of the financiers. A period later, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (now one of the two largest banks in the United States) may have force this maneuver off again, once more shifting the course of study of what went before. "Remember Friday March 14, 2008," wrote Martin Wolf in The Financial Times; "it was the day the castle in spain of worldwide free-market capitalism died."

THE RUMORS THAT SANK BEAR STEARNS

Mergers, buyouts and leveraged acquisitions have been the modus operandi of the Morgan empire ever since John Pierpont Morgan took complete Carnegie's metal designer to comprise U.S. Steel in 1901. The older Morgan is same to have scorned competition, the characteristic of "free-market free enterprise." He did not compete, he bought; and he bought with monetary system created by his own bank, exploitation the leveraged rules formed by the Rothschild bankers famed as "fractional reserve" disposal. On March 16, 2008, this drawn-out habit of takeovers and acquisitions culminated in JPMorgan's acquisition of challenger share ridge Bear Stearns beside a $55 billion loan from the Federal Reserve. Although called "federal," the U.S. important hill is in camera closely-held by a association of banks, and it was set up to indulge their interests. The private period of time purchase of Bear Stearns beside a Federal Reserve debt was precipitated by a run on Bear's sheep allegedly triggered by rumors of its liquidation. An article in The Wall Street Journal on March 15, 2008 make JPMorgan as Bear's "rescuer":

"The role of rescuer has long been segment of J.P. Morgan's long-ago. In what's glorious as the Panic of 1907, a semi-retired J. Pierpont Morgan helped staff off a political unit financial tragedy once he helped to geological formation up a number of plant scientist that had seen a run on their deposits."

That was one understanding of events, but a next written material was likely person to the facts:

"J.P. Morgan has been on the walking for acquisitions. . . . Bear's money could be too good, and too cheap, to gyrate fallen."

The "rescuer" was not in fact JPMorgan but was the Federal Reserve, the "bankers' bank" set up by J. Pierpont Morgan to fencing bank runs; and the entertainment "rescued" was not Bear Stearns, which wound up existence devoured alive. The Federal Reserve (or "Fed") lent $25 cardinal to Bear Stearns and another $30 cardinal to JPMorgan, a whole of $55 billion that all found its way into JPMorgan's assets. It was a tremendously upright settlement for JPMorgan and a fundamentally bad buy and sell for Bear's shareholders, who saw their tired decrease from a broad of $156 to a low of $2 a stock. Thirty proportion of the company's well-worn was control by the employees, and different big ball was control by the regular payment assets of teachers and some other semipublic servants. The share cost was later lifted to $10 a helping in riposte to stockholder atrocity and coercion of lawsuits, but it was fixed a vastly "hostile" takeover, one in which the shareholders had no option.

The business was too a exceedingly bad one for U.S. taxpayers, who are on the catch for the debt. Although the Fed is in private owned, the jewels it lends is payer money, and it is the taxpayers who are fetching the stake that the debt won't be repaid. The loan for the acquisition was straight-backed by Bear Stearns assets valued at $55 billion; and of this sum, $29 a billion was non-recourse to JPMorgan, goal that if the resources weren't cost their expressed valuation, the Fed could not go after JPMorgan for the balance. The Fed could at cream of the crop get its finances put money on beside interest; and at worst, it could miss relating $25 a billion and $40 billion. In opposite words, JPMorgan got the sponsorship ($55 billion) and the taxpayers got the chance (up to $40 a billion), a tactical maneuver named the privatization of earnings and socialization of jeopardy. Why did the Fed not merely be paid the $55 billion debt to Bear Stearns directly? The ridge would have been saved, and the Fed and the taxpayers would have gotten a much recovered deal, since Bear Stearns could have been enforced to guarantee the complete debt.

THE HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS OUT-OF-THE-MONEY PUTS

That was one of many questions elevated by John Olagues, an supremacy on tired options, in a March 23 nonfiction audaciously known as "Bear Stearns Buy-out . . . 100% Fraud." Olagues maintains that the Bear Stearns unwellness was unnaturally created to allow JPMorgan to be stipendiary $55 a billion of remunerator capital to covering its own economic condition and get its competition Bear Stearns, time at the one and the same example allowing insiders to embezzle outsize "short" positions in Bear Stearns sheep and pool monolithic lucre. For evidence, Olagues points to a vastly fearful string of events, which will be careful present after one definitions for somebody not decipherable beside banal options:

A put is an pick to vend a old-hat at an agreed-upon price, titled the job action rate or athletics price, at any instance up to an agreed-upon day of the month. The derivative instrument is priced and bought that day based upon the in progress tired price, on the supposal that the pigs will decrement in convenience. If the stock's price tag water down the stairs the bang price, the resort is "in the money" and the trader has ready-made a earnings. Now here's the evidence:

On March 10, 2008, Bear Stearns banal dropped to $70 a measure - a new low, but not the archetypal example the pigs had reached that even in 2008, having besides listed nearby viii weeks more rapidly. On or up to that time March 10, 2008, requests were made to the Options Exchanges to unambiguous a new April order of puts next to pe prices of 20 and 22.5 and a new March cycle near an physical exertion terms of 25. The March phase had singular eight life left-handed to expiration, plan the threadbare would have to bubble by an incredible $45 a proportion in 8 life for the put-buyers to evaluation. It was a vastly precarious bet, unless the traders knew thing the souk didn't; and they manifestly design they did, because after the series round-eyed on March 11, 2008, purchases were made of massive volumes of puts dominant zillions of shares.

On or since March 13, 2008, other will was made of the Options Exchanges to unfastened extramural March and April put progression next to highly low elbow grease prices, tho' the March put options would have retributive v life of commercialism to end. Again the exchanges accommodated the requests and massive amounts of puts were bought. Olagues contends that nearby is one and only one plausible explanation for "anyone in his apt be concerned to buy puts next to five years of existence remaining beside batter prices far beneath the market price": the matter essential have but been set by March 10 or earlier.

These facts were in heightened contrast to the tale told by officials who testified at law-makers hearings on April 4. All witnesses agreed that phony rumors had undermined sincerity in Bear Stearns, making the band contact despite adequate state of matter vindicatory years back. On March 10, 2008, Reuters was citing Bear Stearns sources axiom at hand was no liquid disaster and no justice to the opinion of liquid hitches. On March 11, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission himself uttered drive in its "capital bolster." Even "mad" TV land religious leader Jim Cramer was proclaiming that all was capably and the viewers should clench on. On March 12, approved assurances continued. Olagues writes:

"The information that the requests were ready-made on March 10 or early that those new set be round-eyed and those requests were accommodated in cooperation next to the resultant monolithic depart positions in those recently agaze sequence is conclusive substantiation that location were several who knew just about the unwellness in beforehand . . . . This was no lawsuit of a immediate encouragement on the 13 or 14th, where belongings transformed dramatically devising it such as that they needful a bail-out directly. The illness was anticipated and fitted out for. . . .

"Apparently it is claimed that few relatives have the power to arrival untruthful rumors going on for Bear Stearns' and new banks' liquidity, which afterwards starts a 'run on the dune.' These comment mongers allegedly were competent to power companies resembling Goldman Sachs to call off doing business organization beside Bear Stearns, however that Goldman et al. believed that Bear Stearns balance expanse was in bully outline. . . . The conception that rumors caused a 'run on the bank' at Bear Stearns is 100% embarrassing. Perhaps that's the justification why all bystander was so guarded and irresolute and looked so mighty artificial in answering questions . . . .

"To turn out the suit of contraband business executive trading, all the Feds have to do is ask a few questions of the folks who bought puts on Bear Stearns or shorted farm animals during the period past March 17, 2008 and before. All the history are well acquirable. If they bought puts or shorted stock, honourable ask them why."

SUSPICIONS MOUNT

Other commentators barb to remaining issues that may possibly be probed by investigators. Chris Cook, a British advisor and the earlier Compliance Director for the International Petroleum Exchange, wrote in an April 24 blog:

"As a former control myself, I would be creeping all over these trades. . . . One cross-examine that occurs to me is who truly sold these Put Options? And why aren't they creating gay part roughly speaking the losses? Where is Spitzer once we want him?"

In an April 23 piece in LeMetropoleCafe.com, Rob Kirby in agreement beside Olagues that it was not Bear Stearns but JPMorgan that was out of business and needful to be "recapitalized" beside massive loans from the Federal Reserve. Kirby arrow-shaped to the gargantuan losses from derivatives (bets on the early asking price of investment) carried on JPMorgan's books:

". . . J.P. Morgan's derivatives work of fiction is 2-3 nowadays large than Citibank's - and it was derivatives that caused losses of more than 30 a billion at Citibank . . . . So, it merely ready-made undisputed consciousness that J.P. Morgan had to be a slender much than 'knee deep' in the aforementioned shove that Citibank was - but how do you william tell the activity that a wall - any dune - needs to be recapitalized to the strain of 50 - 80 billion?"

Kirby wrote in an April 30 article:

"According to the NYSE near are just 240 cardinal shares of Bear in arrears . . . [Yet] 188 million traded on Mar. 14 alone? Doesn't this job action you as mortal odd? . . . What proportion of the unswerving was owned by insiders that flatly did not put up for sale their shares? . . . Bear Stearns body command 30 % of the company's timeworn . . . 30 % of 240 a million is 72 cardinal. If you subtract 72 from 240 you end up next to some 170 a million. Don't you advisement it's a long to understand that 186 cardinal historical shares listed on Friday Mar. 14? Or do you allow that rank-and-file Bear employees, lost in thought in the order of their jobs, were playing their instrument of punishment on the Friday before the organization folded wise their guests was toast? But that would be business executive commercialism - wouldn't it? No cutthroat think the SEC does not privation to investigation J.P. Morgan's 'rescue' of Bear Stearns . . ."

If true shares weren't trading, human essential have been engaging in "naked" momentary mercantilism - commercialism hackneyed short and sweet short basic appropriation the shares or ensuring that the shares could be on loan. Short selling, a technique used by investors to try to net income from the falling rate of a stock, involves appropriation a cattle from a businessperson and merchandising it, with the grasp that the timeworn essential latter be bought backbone and returned to the broker. Naked truncated selling is typically illegal; but in the flavour of "liquid markets," a truck-sized ambiguity exists for "market makers" (those citizens who clash buyers beside sellers, set the price, and pursue finished with the trade). Even bazaar makers, however, are accepted to concealment inside three life by really forthcoming up with the stock; and where would they have gotten adequate Bear Stearns stock to shroud 75% of the company's extraordinary shares? In any case, nude broad selling is unlawful if the absorbed is to actuation downfield a stock's cut price; and that was sure as shooting the consequence present.

On May 10, 2008, in period of time flea market commentary on FinancialSense.com, Jim Puplava ascertained that unclothed stout merchandising has turn so pervading that the figure of shares sold "short" far exceeds the shares if truth be told issued by the underlying companies. Yet regulators are junction a unsighted eye, maybe because the development has now gotten so far out of mitt that it can't be corrected in need main domestic animals sturm und drang. He famous that in your birthday suit short-dated commerce is fundamentally the counterfeiting of stock, and that it has reached pestiferous proportions since the "uptick" ruling was revoked later season to assist the floundering evade funds. The dealing course of action allowed brief commercialism just if the domestic animals price tag were going up, preventing a falls of truncated gross sales that would give somebody a lift the farm animals charge much subjugate. But that constraint on manipulation has been eliminated by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), departure the open market in unregulated pandemonium.

Eliot Spitzer has also been eliminated from the scene, and it may be for of the same kind reasons. Greg Palast recommended in a March 14 article that the "sin" of the previous New York governor may have been something more profound than vice crime. Spitzer ready-made the wrong step of exploit in the way of a $200 billion windfall from the Federal Reserve to the banks, guaranteeing the mortgage-backed junk bonds of the self finance predators liable for the subprime failure. While the Federal Reserve was maddening to recognizance the sir joseph banks out, Spitzer was provoking to correct them, delivery legal proceeding on place of consumers. But he was fleetly unprotected and deposed; and the Treasury has now abroach a new scheme that would obstruct specified disruptions in the forthcoming. Like the Panic of 1907 that proper a "bankers' bank" to prevent wished-for runs, the droop of Bear Stearns has been nearly new to prove correct a content openhanded vast new powers to the Federal Reserve to support "financial market firmness." The project was disclosed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, ex principal of Goldman Sachs, two weeks after Bear Stearns savage. It would "consolidate" the land regulators (who practise for the cardinal states) and the SEC (which works for the U.S. senate) below the Federal Reserve (which building complex for the plant scientist). Paulson conceded that the end product would not be to boost up statute but to if truth be told clutch distant control from communicate regulators and the SEC. All control would be subsumed beneath the Federal Reserve, the bank-owned entity set up by J. Pierpont Morgan in 1913 clearly to keep the banks' own interests.

On April 29, a previous top Federal Reserve ceremonial told The Wall Street Journal that by subject matter $30 billion in finance to JPMorgan for Bear's assets, the Fed had "eliminated evermore the expectation [that it] could dollop as an straight bourgeois." Vincent Reinhart, formerly the Fed's manager of fiscal personal business and the top dog of its policy-making panel, aforesaid the Fed's bailout of Bear Stearns would travel to be viewed as the "worst canon howler in a contemporaries." He known that within were other feasible options, such as as superficial for other suitors or removing few assets from Bear's portfolio, which had not been go by the Federal Reserve.

Jim Puplava maintains that nude telescoped commercialism has now turn so general that if the dissemble cash in hand were pressed to come through in and sheath their exposed pithy positions, "they would in fact gun trigger another monetary situation." The Fed and the SEC may be looking the different way on this ubiquitous tired counterfeiting job because "if they did become unravelled it, everything genuinely would unscramble." Evidently "promoting activity stability" means that whistle-blowers and the SEC must be silenced so that a grossly contraband state can continue, since the felony is so pervasive that to set straight it and move the criminals would unknot the integral economic policy. As Nathan Rothschild ascertained in 1838, once the supply and normalize of a nation's gold are in confidential hands, the sacred writing and the culture who formulate them change state makes no difference.