Global Articles on what is going on...posted daily

[sandi66]

www.webofdebt.com/articles/breakup_banks.php



FORECLOSUREGATE:
TIME TO BREAK UP THE TOO-BIG-TO-FAIL BANKS?


Ellen Brown



October 15th, 2010




Looming losses from the mortgage scandal dubbed “foreclosuregate” may qualify as the sort of systemic risk that, under the new financial reform bill, warrants the breakup of the too-big-to-fail banks. The Kanjorski amendment allows federal regulators to pre-emptively break up large financial institutions that—for any reason—pose a threat to U.S. financial or economic stability.





Although downplayed by most media accounts and popular financial analysts, crippling bank losses from foreclosure flaws appear to be imminent and unavoidable. The defects prompting the “RoboSigning Scandal” are not mere technicalities but are inherent to the securitization process. They cannot be cured. This deep-seated fraud is already explicitly outlined in publicly available lawsuits.



There is, however, no need to panic, no need for TARP II, and no need for legislation to further conceal the fraud and push the inevitable failure of the too-big-to-fail banks into the future.



Federal regulators now have the tools to take control and set things right. The Wall Street giants escaped the Volcker Rule, which would have limited their size, and the Brown-Kaufman amendment, which would have broken up the largest six banks outright; but the financial reform bill has us covered. The Kanjorski amendment—which slipped past lobbyists largely unnoticed—allows federal regulators to preemptively break up large financial institutions that pose a threat to U.S. financial or economic stability.

Rep. Grayson’s Call for a Moratorium
The new Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) probably didn’t expect to have its authority called on quite so soon, but Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) has just put the amendment to the test. On October 7, in a letter addressed to Timothy Geithner, Shiela Bair, Ben Bernanke, Mary Schapiro, John Walsh (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), Gary Gensler, Ed DeMarco, and Debbie Matz (National Credit Union Administration), he asked for an emergency task force on foreclosure fraud. He said:



The liability here for the major banks is potentially enormous, and can lead to a systemic risk. Fortunately, the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation includes a resolution process for these banks. More importantly, these foreclosures are devastating neighborhoods, families, and cities all over the country. Each foreclosure costs tens of thousands of dollars to a municipality, lowers property values, and makes bank failures more likely.



Grayson sought a foreclosure moratorium on all mortgages originated and securitized between 2005-2008, until such time as the FSOC task force was able to understand and mitigate the systemic risk posed by the foreclosure fraud crisis. But on Sunday, White House adviser David Axelrod downplayed the need for a national foreclosure moratorium, saying the Administration was pressing lenders to accelerate their reviews of foreclosures to determine which ones have flawed documentation. “Our hope is this moves rapidly and that this gets unwound very, very quickly,” he said.



According to Brian Moynihan, chief executive of Bank of America, “The amount of work required is a matter of a few weeks. A few weeks we'll be through the process of double checking the pieces of paper we need to double check."



“Absurd,” say critics such as Max Gardner III of Shelby, North Carolina. Gardner is considered one of the country’s top consumer bankruptcy attorneys. "This is not an oops. This is not a technical problem. This is not even sloppiness," he says. The problem is endemic, and its effects will be felt for years.



Rep. Grayson makes similar allegations. He writes:

The banks didn’t keep good records, and there is good reason to believe in many if not virtually all cases during this period, failed to transfer the notes, which is the borrower IOUs in accordance with the requirements of their own pooling and servicing agreements. As a result, the notes may be put out of eligibility for the trust under New York law, which governs these securitizations. Potential cures for the note may, according to certain legal experts, be contrary to IRS rules governing REMICs. As a result, loan servicers and trusts simply lack standing to foreclose. The remedy has been foreclosure fraud, including the widespread fabrication of documents.



There are now trillions of dollars of securitizations of these loans in the hands of investors. The trusts holding these loans are in a legal gray area, as the mortgage titles were never officially transferred to the trusts. The result of this is foreclosure fraud on a massive scale, including foreclosures on people without mortgages or who are on time with their payments. [Emphasis added.]

Why Wasn’t It Done Right in the First Place?
That raises the question, why were the notes not assigned? Grayson says the banks were not interested in repayment; they were just churning loans as fast as they could in order to generate fees.



Financial blogger Karl Denninger says, “I believe a big part of why it was not done is that if it had been done the original paperwork would have been available to the trustee and ultimately the MBS owners, who would have immediately discovered that the representations and warranties as to the quality of the conveyed paper were being wantonly violated.” He says, “You can’t audit what you don’t have.”



Both are probably right, yet these explanations seem insufficient. If it were just a matter of negligence or covering up dubious collateral, surely some of the assignments by some of the banks would have been done properly. Why would they all be defective?



The reason the mortgage notes were never assigned may be that there was no party legally capable of accepting the assignments.



Securitization was originally set up as a tax dodge; and to qualify for the tax exemption, the conduits between the original lender and the investors could own nothing. The conduits are “special purpose vehicles” set up by the banks, a form of Mortgage Backed Security called REMICs (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits). They hold commercial and residential mortgages in trust for the investors.



They don’t own them; they are just trustees.



The problem was nailed in a class action lawsuit recently filed in Kentucky, titled Foster v. MERS, GMAC, et al. (USDC, Western District of Kentucky). The suit claims that MERS and the banks violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a law originally passed to pursue organized crime. Bloomberg quotes Heather Boone McKeever, a Lexington, Ky.-based lawyer for the homeowners, who said in a phone interview, “RICO comes in because the fraud didn’t just happen piecemeal. This is organized crime by people in suits, but it is still organized crime. They created a very thorough plan.”



The complaint alleges:

53. The “Trusts” coming to Court are actually Mortgage Backed Securities (“MBS”). The Servicers, like GMAC, are merely administrative entities which collect the mortgage payments and escrow funds. The MBS have signed themselves up under oath with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC,”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS,”) as mortgage asset “pass through” entities wherein they can never own the mortgage loan assets in the MBS.



This allows them to qualify as a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (“REMIC”) rather than an ordinary Real Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”). As long as the MBS is a qualified REMIC, no income tax will be charged to the MBS. For purposes of this action, “Trust” and MBS are interchangeable. . . .



56. REMICS were newly invented in 1987 as a tax avoidance measure by Investment Banks. To file as a REMIC, and in order to avoid one hundred percent (100%) taxation by the IRS and the Kentucky Revenue Cabinet, an MBS REMIC could not engage in any prohibited action. The “Trustee” can not own the assets of the REMIC. A REMIC Trustee could never claim it owned a mortgage loan. Hence, it can never be the owner of a mortgage loan.



57. Additionally, and important to the issues presented with this particular action, is the fact that in order to keep its tax status and to fund the “Trust” and legally collect money from investors, who bought into the REMIC, the “Trustee” or the more properly named, Custodian of the REMIC, had to have possession of ALL the original blue ink Promissory Notes and original allonges and assignments of the Notes, showing a complete paper chain of title.



58. Most importantly for this action, the “Trustee”/Custodian MUST have the mortgages recorded in the investors name as the beneficiaries of a MBS in the year the MBS “closed.” [Emphasis added.]



Only the beneficiaries—the investors who advanced the funds—can claim ownership. And the mortgages had to have been recorded in the name of the beneficiaries the year the MBS closed. The problem is, who ARE the beneficiaries who advanced the funds? In the securitization market, they come and go. Properties get sold and resold daily. They can be sliced up and sold to multiple investors at the same time. Which investors could be said to have put up the money for a particular home that goes into foreclosure? MBS are divided into “tranches” according to level of risk, typically from AAA to BBB. The BBB investors take the first losses, on up to the AAAs. But when the REMIC is set up, no one knows which homes will default first. The losses are taken collectively by the pool as they hit; the BBBs simply don’t get paid. But the “pool” is the trust; and to qualify as a REMIC trust, it can own nothing.



The lenders were trying to have it both ways; and to conceal what was going on, they dropped an electronic curtain over their sleight of hand, called Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems or “MERS.” MERS is simply an electronic data base. On its website and in assorted court pleadings, it too declares that it owns nothing. It was set up that way so that it would be “bankruptcy-remote,” something required by the credit rating agencies in order to turn the mortgages passing through it into highly rated securities that could be sold to investors. According to the MERS website, it was also set up that way to save on recording fees, which means dodging state statutes requiring a fee to be paid to establish a formal record each time title changes hands.



The arrangement satisfied the ratings agencies, but it has not satisfied the courts. Real estate law dating back hundreds of years requires that to foreclose on real property, the foreclosing party must produce signed documentation establishing a chain of title to the property; and that has not been done.



Increasingly, judges are holding that if MERS owns nothing, it cannot foreclose, and it cannot convey title by assignment so that the trustee for the investors can foreclose. MERS breaks the chain of title so that no one has standing to foreclose.



Sixty-two million mortgages are now held in the name of MERS, a ploy that the banks have realized won’t work; so Plan B has been to try to fabricate documents to cure the defect.



Enter the RoboSigners, a small group of people signing thousands of documents a month, admittedly without knowing what was in them.



Interestingly, it wasn’t just one bank engaging in this pattern of coverup and fraud but many banks, suggesting the sort of “organized crime” that would qualify under the RICO statute.

However, that ploy won’t work either, because it’s too late to assign properties to trusts that have already been set up without violating the tax code for REMICs, and the trusts themselves aren’t allowed to own anything under the tax code. If the trusts violate the tax laws, the banks setting them up will owe millions of dollars in back taxes. Whether the banks are out the real estate or the taxes, they could well be looking at insolvency, posing the sort of serious systemic risk that would bring them under the purview of the new Financial Stability Oversight Council.

No need for disaster
As comedian Jon Stewart said in an insightful segment called “Foreclosure Crisis” on October 7, "We're back to square one." While we’re working it all out, an extended foreclosure moratorium probably is in the works. But this needn’t be the economic disaster that some are predicting – not if the FSOC is allowed to do its job. We’ve been here before, and not just in 2008.



In 1934, Congress enacted the Frazier–Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act to enable the nation’s debt-ridden farmers to scale down their mortgages. The act delayed foreclosure of a bankrupt farmer's property for five years, during which time the farmer made rental payments. The farmer could then buy back the property at its currently appraised value over six years at 1 percent interest, or remain in possession as a paying tenant. Interestingly, according to Marian McKenna in Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War (2002), “The federal government was empowered to buy up farm mortgages and issue non-interest-bearing treasury notes in exchange.” Non-interest-bearing treasury notes are what President Lincoln issued during the Civil War, when they were called “Greenbacks.”



The 1934 Act was subsequently challenged by secured creditors as violating the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee of just compensation, a fundamental right of mortgage holders. (Note that this would probably not be a valid challenge today, since there don’t seem to be legitimate mortgage holders in these securitization cases. There are just investors with unsecured claims for relief in equity for money damages.) The Supreme Court voided the 1934 Act, and Congress responded with the "Farm Mortgage Moratorium Act" in 1935. The terms were modified, limiting the moratorium to a three-year period, and the revision gave secured creditors the opportunity to force a public sale, with the proviso that the farmer could redeem the property by paying the sale amount. The act was renewed four times until 1949, when it expired. During the 15 years the act was in place, farm prices stabilized and the economy took off, retooling it for its role as a global industrial power during the remainder of the century.



We’ve come full circle again. We didn’t get it right in 2008, but with the newly empowered Financial Stability Oversight Council, we already have the ready-made vehicle to avoid another taxpayer bailout, and to put too-big-to-fail behind us as well.

[sandi66]

Allegation: Goldman Sachs EMBEZZLEMENT? The Market Ticker ® - Commentary on The Capital Markets Posted 2010-10-16 13:54
by Karl Denninger
in Foreclosuregate Allegation: Goldman Sachs EMBEZZLEMENT?

This is an amazing thing.... if true, may God help the big banks involved, because nobody else is going to......

Scroll down on this link for comments from others.

market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=169376



ty Chas

[sandi66]

Fed Economist Says It Should Build Up Capital


October 16, 2010, 6:20 PM ET



By Jon Hilsenrath and Mark Whitehouse
A senior Federal Reserve economist says the Fed should be setting aside more of its immense profits as a safeguard against future potential losses.

“The Fed is earning and turning over to the Treasury an enormous amount,” James McAndews, co-head of research at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said during a panel discussion at the Boston Fed’s monetary policy conference. “There is a case that of these extraordinary earnings today, some portion of those could be set aside.”

The Fed’s holdings have expanded from about $900 billion before the financial crisis to more than $2.3 trillion today. For now, the Fed is raking in profits on those holdings, which consists largely of Treasury bonds and mortgage backed securities. It turns the bulk of its profits over to the U.S. Treasury.

Through Oct. 13, the Fed had handed $60 billion in profits to the Treasury, up from $27 billion during the same stretch last year, according to Louis Crandall, an economist with Wrightson ICAP LLC, a securities firm.

However the Fed could easily one day turn losses. Say, for instance, inflation starts rising and the Fed needs to sell some of its immense portfolio of bonds to push interest rates up in order to counter inflation. It could lose money on the bonds it sells. It also pays interest to banks for reserves that they keep with the Fed. If interest rates move higher, the Fed’s interest outlays on these reserve could rise too.

Some Fed officials say they aren’t worried about this – including Mr. McAndrew’s, boss, William Dudley, the New York Fed president. Big losses wouldn’t be the same catastrophe for the Fed that they are for commercial banks. That’s because unlike commercial banks, the Fed can print its own money. It doesn’t have to worry about running short of funds the way commercial banks do.

“It is true that the larger the size of the balance sheet, the more likely it is that the Fed would ultimately sell assets back into the market, potentially at prices that could result in losses,” Mr. Dudley said in a recent speech. “Although some fear that such losses could compromise the Federal Reserve’s independence, there is no reason why this should be the case, providing we stick closely to our mandate at all times.”

Still, some economists counter that the Fed could use a bigger buffer against potential losses, if for no other reason to avoid bad appearances in the future. Its total capital, at $57 billion, is just 1.1% of total assets. If it runs through all of its capital, that wouldn’t look very good for the central bank, even though it can print all of the money it wants.

Marvin Goodfriend, an economist at Carnegie Mellon’s Tepper School of Business, noted another complication at the Boston Fed panel. Say the Fed has to push up the interest rate it pays on bank reserves to fight inflation and at the same time it is running big losses because its older bonds don’t pay much interest. It could be in the unusual position of printing money to cover its costs at the same time that it is trying to tame inflation.

Mr.Goodfriend the Fed should get a capital transfer from the U.S. Treasury. Laurence Meyer, of Macroeconomic Advisers, shot back, “absolutely not.” Mr. McAndrews said retaining more of its present profits would be a “good risk management approach,” which would ensure it has a bigger buffer for a rainy day in the future.



blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/10/16/fed-economist-says-it-should-build-up-capital/


ty nalmann

[sandi66]

www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all


F.B.I. Struggles to Handle Financial Fraud Cases


By ERIC LICHTBLAU, DAVID JOHNSTON and RON NIXON


Published: October 18, 2008


WASHINGTON — The Federal Bureau of Investigation is struggling to find enough agents and resources to investigate criminal wrongdoing tied to the country’s economic crisis, according to current and former bureau officials.




Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times
Robert S. Mueller III, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, speaking before a House subcommittee in April.

Multimedia
Graphic
Cuts at the Bureau
The bureau slashed its criminal investigative work force to expand its national security role after the Sept. 11 attacks, shifting more than 1,800 agents, or nearly one-third of all agents in criminal programs, to terrorism and intelligence duties. Current and former officials say the cutbacks have left the bureau seriously exposed in investigating areas like white-collar crime, which has taken on urgent importance in recent weeks because of the nation’s economic woes.

The pressure on the F.B.I. has recently increased with the disclosure of criminal investigations into some of the largest players in the financial collapse, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The F.B.I. is planning to double the number of agents working financial crimes by reassigning several hundred agents amid a mood of national alarm. But some people inside and out of the Justice Department wonder where the agents will come from and whether they will be enough.

So depleted are the ranks of the F.B.I.’s white-collar investigators that executives in the private sector say they have had difficulty attracting the bureau’s attention in cases involving possible frauds of millions of dollars.

Since 2004, F.B.I. officials have warned that mortgage fraud posed a looming threat, and the bureau has repeatedly asked the Bush administration for more money to replenish the ranks of agents handling nonterrorism investigations, according to records and interviews. But each year, the requests have been denied, with no new agents approved for financial crimes, as policy makers focused on counterterrorism.

According to previously undisclosed internal F.B.I. data, the cutbacks have been particularly severe in staffing for investigations into white-collar crimes like mortgage fraud, with a loss of 625 agents, or 36 percent of its 2001 levels.

Over all, the number of criminal cases that the F.B.I. has brought to federal prosecutors — including a wide range of crimes like drug trafficking and violent crime — dropped 26 percent in the last seven years, going from 11,029 cases to 8,187, Justice Department data showed.

“Clearly, we have felt the effects of moving resources from criminal investigations to national security,” said John Miller, an assistant director at the F.B.I. “In white-collar crime, while we initiated fewer cases over all, we targeted the areas where we could have the biggest impact. We focused on multimillion-dollar corporate fraud, where we could make arrests but also recover money for the fraud victims.”

But Justice Department data, which include cases from other agencies, like the Secret Service and Postal Service, illustrate the impact. Prosecutions of frauds against financial institutions dropped 48 percent from 2000 to 2007, insurance fraud cases plummeted 75 percent, and securities fraud cases dropped 17 percent.

Statistics from a research group at Syracuse University, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, using somewhat different methodology and looking only at the F.B.I., show an even steeper decline of nearly 50 percent in overall white-collar crime prosecutions in the same period.

In addition to the investigations into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the F.B.I. is carrying out investigations of American International Group and Lehman Brothers, and it has opened more than 1,500 other mortgage-related investigations. Some F.B.I. officials worry privately that the trillion-dollar federal bailout of the financial industry may itself become a problem because it contains inadequate controls to deter fraud.

No one has suggested that a quicker response would have averted the mortgage meltdown, but some officials said a faster reaction might have deterred more of the early schemes that seized on loose federal lending regulations.

“They were very late to the game,” Representative Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat who has quarreled with the F.B.I. over its financing priorities, said of the bureau’s response to the mortgage crisis. “They were not on top of this, and they’re just now starting to really do something.”

Republicans and Democrats in Congress are pushing for a more aggressive response by the F.B.I. Representatives Mark S. Kirk, an Illinois Republican who sits on the House appropriations committee, and Chris P. Carney, a Pennsylvania Democrat, called on Congress to triple the F.B.I.’s financing for financial crimes investigations.

“To fix our system and prevent a repeat of the events we now see,” they wrote in a letter this month to Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, “we have got to set an example by bringing the full might of federal law enforcement against the people who illegally profited or destroyed companies at the expense of our country.”

In public, Mr. Mueller has said that the bureau is doing more with less, when it comes to criminal prosecutions. And Justice Department officials have repeatedly asserted the administration’s commitment to fight violent and white-collar crime even as they have not provided the bureau additional resources.

But current and former officials say Mr. Mueller has lost a behind-the-scenes battle with the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget to replenish the criminal ranks.

Interviews and internal records show that F.B.I. officials realized the growing danger posed by financial fraud in the housing market beginning in 2003 and 2004 but were rebuffed by the Justice Department and the budget office in their efforts to acquire more resources.

“The administration’s top priority since the 9/11 attacks has been counterterrorism,” Peter Carr, a Justice Department spokesman, said. “In part, that’s reflected by a significant investment of resources at the F.B.I. to answer the call from Congress and the American public to become a domestic intelligence agency in addition to a law enforcement agency.”

From 2001 to 2007, the F.B.I. sought an increase of more than 1,100 agents for criminal investigations apart from national security.

Instead, it suffered a decrease of 132 agents, according to internal F.B.I. figures obtained by The New York Times. During these years, the bureau asked for an increase of $800 million, but received only $50 million more. In the 2007 budget cycle, the F.B.I. obtained money for a total of one new agent for criminal investigations.

In 2004, one senior F.B.I. official, Chris Swecker, warned publicly that a flood of fraudulent mortgage deals had the potential to become “an epidemic.” Yet the next year, as public warnings about fraud in the subprime lending markets began to approach their height, the F.B.I. had the equivalent of only 15 full-time agents devoted to mortgage fraud out of a total of some 13,000 agents in the bureau.

That number has grown to 177 agents, who have opened 1,522 cases. But the staffing level is still hundreds of agents below the levels seen in the 1980s during the savings and loan crisis.

F.B.I. officials said they had had no choice but to make the cuts in the criminal division, which they said were necessary to expand the bureau’s national security effort, particularly in the wake of criticism of the bureau’s performance in failing to detect the Sept. 11 plot.

In white-collar crime, they said the bureau has given up only lower-level cases of marginal significance that might have never been prosecuted anyway. They say they have focused the available criminal resources on public corruption and other difficult crime issues in which the F.B.I. can make a unique contribution.

“We only had a finite number of white-collar crime agents available to address the threat that mortgage fraud posed,” said Joseph Ford, who retired from the F.B.I. this year and once served as its chief financial officer.

The Justice Department is relying more than ever on the state and local authorities to pick up the slack through joint task forces. And private investigators say that companies victimized by fraud are turning to them in increasing numbers because they are unable to attract much attention from the F.B.I. anymore.

In some instances, private investigative and accounting firms are now collecting evidence, taking witness statements and even testifying before grand juries, in effect preparing courtroom-ready prosecutions they can take to the F.B.I. or local authorities.

“Anytime you bring to the F.B.I. a case that is thoroughly investigated and reduce the amount of work for investigators, the likelihood is that they will take the case and present it for prosecution,” said Alton Sizemore, a former F.B.I. agent who is a fraud examiner for Forensic Strategic Solutions in Birmingham, Ala.

One American company facing extortion demands last year from a computer hacker used private investigators from the Kroll firm to do much of the legwork in the case as the F.B.I. monitored and directed the situation behind the scenes, said Daniel Karson, executive managing director for Kroll. The private investigators even went undercover and set up a sting operation that led them to Germany, where the authorities made an arrest.

Mr. Karson said the F.B.I. no longer had the resources to take on such lower-level cases by itself. “When you come in with a garden variety, plain vanilla crime, you may have to stand in the queue,” he said.

Some critics question whether the shift indicates not just a lack of resources, but a lack of interest by the Bush administration.

After the collapse of Enron in 2002, the Justice Department moved aggressively against corporate fraud — too aggressively, in the view of some people within the administration. It set up a national task force to tackle the problem, garnered hundreds of convictions at companies like WorldCom, Adelphia and Enron, and forced the closure of Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm, for its role in the Enron collapse.

But several former law enforcement officials said in interviews that senior administration officials, particularly at the White House and the Treasury Department, had made clear to them that they were concerned the Justice Department and the F.B.I. were taking an antibusiness attitude that could chill corporate risk taking.

Justice Department officials said political pressures had never influenced the way prosecutors approached corporate cases. But the department’s approach has become noticeably more tempered in the last several years.

This spring and summer, as public concerns about the subprime mortgage crisis were growing, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey rejected repeated calls for the creation of a national task force like the one used after the Enron collapse. The attorney general likened the problem to “white-collar street-crime” that could best be handled by individual United States attorneys’ offices.

In the last four years, the Justice Department has scored fewer of the big-name prosecutions that marked President Bush’s first term in office. Even when investigations have pointed to corporate wrongdoing, the Justice Department has agreed, in dozens of cases in the last four years, to “deferred prosecutions" that allowed companies to pay fines in order to avoid criminal prosecution.

Paul J. McNulty, who served as deputy attorney general under Alberto R. Gonzales, said the complexity of white-collar investigations and the shortage of investigators had driven a decline in high-profile cases.

“There’s no question that the department has been stretched thin when it comes to resources generally, and that has affected white-collar enforcement in a variety of areas,” Mr. McNulty said in an interview.

“What happened is that the first years after the Enron collapse, there were some very high profile, noticeable cases — the low-hanging fruit — that gave Justice the opportunity to rack up some very big wins,” he said. “Those cases played themselves out and it became tougher to find those big cases.”



ty joye

[sandi66]

Iraq's Allawi charges Iran destabilizing Mideast
(AP) – 1 day ago

BAGHDAD (AP) — The leader of the Iraqi bloc that came first in elections accused Iran on Sunday of trying to destabilize Iraq and manipulate the political process as he jeered at rival politicians seeking Tehran's blessing for forming the next government.

Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite, narrowly won the most seats in the March 7 vote with strong Sunni backing but did not get nearly enough to control the government outright. That allowed his chief rival, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to sideline the Iraqiya political party that Allawi heads by forming a Shiite-dominated alliance similar to the current government and close to Iran.

"I won't be begging Iran to agree upon my nomination," Allawi told the al-Arabiya satellite TV channel.

He added that Iran should get out of Iraqi politics and "not impose or support one faction over the other."

Allawi's remarks were a clear jab at al-Maliki, who heads to Iran on Monday as he scrambles for enough Shiite support to keep his job. There were also new indications that al-Maliki's efforts to enlist Sunni allies in the region are falling short. The king of neighboring Jordan pointedly avoided endorsing the Iraqi prime minister for a second term in a statement Sunday.

The developments injected new doubt that Iraq's political mess will be resolved any time soon. It has been more than seven months since parliamentary elections that failed to produce a clear winner and the country is still without a government.

Allawi has threatened to boycott the next government if al-Maliki remains in office, although U.S. diplomats are trying to broker a detente that would give the Iraqiya leader some power and key ministry jobs if he backs down.

Al-Maliki recently clinched support from hardline Shiite political parties close to Iran. With that, and assuming he is backed as expected by a key Kurdish coalition, he will have enough allies to remain in office.

In a second television interviews aired Sunday, Allawi accused Iran of fomenting unrest in Iraq, Lebanon and among Palestinians. He said Mideast nations are "falling victim to ... terrorists who are definitely Iran-financed."

"We know that unfortunately, Iran is trying to wreak havoc on the region," Allawi said. "And definitely in Iraq, I can say categorically that Iran is trying even to bring about change to the political process according to their wishes and requirements," he told CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS."

Al-Maliki will meet Monday with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

But the prime minister dearly wants support from Sunnis too — in part because of strong pressure from the United States to foster a new government that represents all Iraq's major political factions. He will visit Turkey and Egypt next week.

But his trip Sunday to Amman fell flat after Jordan's King Abdullah II withheld public endorsement for al-Maliki's bid for a second term in office.

A royal palace statement said Abdullah told al-Maliki in a closed-door session that it was "necessary to form a government that would reflect the aspirations of the Iraqi people and would effectively build a better future for them."

But Abdullah clearly sought to remain neutral, emphasizing to al-Maliki that it was up to Iraqis to pick their government.

"Jordan supports anything that would lead to achieving reconciliation between the Iraqi people and would consolidate their national unity," Abdullah added, according to the statement.

Arab states have been deeply concerned about the influence of Shiite power Iran in Iraq and across the Middle East. Jordan's ruler has been a particularly vocal critic of the Shiite-led government in Baghdad. In 2004, Abdullah warned about the emergence of a "Shiite crescent" including Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon.

Ahmadinejad called the Jordanian king last Tuesday. The state media said discussions focused on Iraq and other regional matters, but did not elaborate. Government officials declined to say if Ahmadinejad asked Abdullah to support al-Maliki.

In other developments, a brazen midday heist on three jewelry stores and at least four bombings in Baghdad left nine Iraqis dead and 13 injured in a fresh round of brutal crime that has swept the Iraqi capital over the past year as political violence has ebbed. Iraqi authorities have frequently blamed insurgents for the devastation, saying they are hard up for cash and have turned to crime to raise money for other types of attacks.

www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iopi8iKBf3cuL1J5NWgxQnCjv6yw?docId=b4fca3fd64a34eb4bcd3f5f2e49d94f3

[sandi66]

(vids) Oct 16, Max Keiser: LATVIA, NEO-FEUDALISM, and the SWEDISH BANKER PARASITES

Posted By: hobie <Send E-Mail>
Date: Monday, 18-Oct-2010 13:52:52 Hi, Folks -

Thanks to ever-faithful Reader WayneB for the pointer to this.

On Max Keiser's "On The Edge" show, Oct 16, Dr. Thom Hartman, who had been an adviser to Dennis Kucinich, tells about the disastrous financial situation in Latvia and the other Baltics and how it came to be that way, as, he says, Germany and Sweden seek to replace Communism with Feudalism:

Part 1 of 2:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj4crMCg-XY



Part 2 of 2:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJhsfPGL6To



--hobie



www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=185236

[sandi66]

Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Ministry of Civil Aviation


Air Service Agreement between India and Iraq Modified
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15:26 IST
Civil Aviation consultations were held between India and Iraq on 18-19 October 2010 to discuss matters relating to operation of air services between their respective territories. The Indian delegation was led by Mr Prashant Sukul, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, and the Iraqi side was led by Mr Ali.K.Ibrahim Director Air Traffic Services.

Now both sides can designate multiple airlines for operations between the countries. Earlier there was provision for only one airline from each side. The designated airlines of each side shall be entitled to operate upto a total of 12 frequencies per week in each direction, with any type of aircraft not exceeding the capacity of 250 seats. Earlier entitlements were restricted to 2 services per week.

The designated airlines of India are now entitled to operate to Baghdad, Basrah, Al Najaf and one more point to be specified later. Reciprocally the designated airlines of Iraq can operate to Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad and one more point to be specified later. Earlier only one point of call was available for each side.

Since the existing Air Services Agreement (ASA) was signed in 1955, the two sides agreed that it needs to be updated and modernised. Therefore the two sides exchanged their respective draft texts of Air Services Agreement to be finalised at a later stage. Pending finalisation of a new ASA it was agreed that the existing agreement shall be modified to incorporate therein new Articles on Safety, Aviation Security and Cooperative Marketing Arrangements (code share).

The delegation of Iraq expressed interest in technical cooperation and training of their technical personnel to be conducted at the facilities available in India. The Indian side welcomed the proposal. It was agreed that the next meeting would be held within six months to finalise the pending issues.


***




pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=66428

[sandi66]

Geithner Weak Dollar Seen as U.S. Recovery Route Versus BRICs

By Ian Katz and Simon Kennedy -

Oct 19, 2010 4:27 AM ET

For U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, a weaker dollar may now be in the national interest.

The dollar has dropped more than 7 percent since Aug. 27, when Chairman Ben S. Bernanke signaled the Federal Reserve is prepared to ease monetary policy. Where once such a decline may have been met with resistance from the U.S., Geithner may now be tolerating it as a way of bolstering the recovery.

Companies from Costco Wholesale Corp. to Deere & Co. have credited the weaker dollar for giving their earnings a boost, and the currency’s slide has helped propel the Dow Jones Industrial Average above 11,000 for the first time since May. Higher stock prices in turn are bolstering consumer and business confidence. The danger is that the decline gets out of hand, fueling increases in the cost of living over the long term and prompting investors to avoid U.S debt.

“In an era where deflation pressures appear to be the greatest risk, growth is below trend and the U.S. wants to boost exports, why would they not want” a weaker dollar, Jim O’Neill, chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management in London, said in an interview. “The answer is when it becomes a problem for financial markets. Until then it’s a straightforward strategy.”

The U.S. currency is slipping in reaction to a decline in interest rates that’s making U.S. assets less attractive to overseas investors. The yield on the two-year Treasury note touched 0.3508 percent yesterday, the least since reaching a record low 0.3270 percent on Oct. 12.

Dollar Index

The Dollar Index, used by IntercontinentalExchange Inc. to track the greenback against six currencies including the euro, yen and pound, has dropped about 7 percent since Aug. 27, when Bernanke said the Fed “will do all that it can” to ensure a continuation of the economic recovery.

The index gained 0.4 percent today to 77.275 as of 9:08 a.m. in London. The gauge, which began in 1967, is still close to its low reached in April 2008.

The dollar is trading near parity against its Australian counterpart for the first time since 1983, and is close to its weakest versus the yen in 15 years.

Geithner said yesterday that the U.S. will preserve confidence in a “strong dollar.” Speaking at an event in Palo Alto, California, he said the U.S. “will not engage” in currency devaluation.

Weaker Dollar

A weaker dollar can help the economy by making U.S. products less expensive in overseas markets and by boosting the overseas earnings of U.S. companies in dollar terms. As the cost of imports rises, American consumers switch to U.S.-made goods, and domestic producers face less competition from abroad.

“The dollar is going to go down,” Martin Feldstein, a Harvard University professor who was chief economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan, said Oct. 7 in a Bloomberg Television interview on “Surveillance Midday” with Tom Keene. “It will cause Americans to shift from imported goods into domestic services. All of that will strengthen the economy.”

The trade gap widened 8.8 percent in August to $46.3 billion. Imports from China climbed to a record $35.3 billion in August, pushing the trade shortfall with the Asian nation to $28 billion, the highest since comparable data began in 1992.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has jumped 13 percent since Bernanke’s speech on prospects that economic growth will be spurred by a resumption of large-scale asset purchases by the Fed and exporters’ earnings will benefit from a weaker dollar.

Overseas Sales

Companies in the S&P 500 that get more than half of their revenue internationally have returned about 5.1 percentage points more than those whose sales comes mostly from the U.S. since the start of September, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

A weaker dollar is “a positive for equities as long as it’s not viewed as a collapse of the dollar,” said Paul Zemsky, the New York-based head of asset allocation for ING Investment Management, which oversees $550 billion.

Matt McCormick, portfolio manager at Cincinnati-based Bahl & Gaynor Inc., which manages $2.9 billion, said the dollar’s weakness is benefiting companies he owns with “significant” overseas revenue, including McDonald’s Corp., Procter & Gamble Co., Intel Corp. and Qualcomm Inc.

“A low dollar will be with us for longer than most people expect,” he said.

Currency ‘Tailwinds’

Issaquah, Washington-based Costco, the largest U.S. warehouse club chain, is benefiting from foreign-exchange “tailwinds,” Chief Financial Officer Richard Galanti said Oct. 6. He said the dollar’s decline in many of the countries where the company operates increased sales by about $1.6 billion over the course of its fiscal year.

Moline, Illinois-based Deere, the world’s largest farm equipment maker, said in August that net sales of worldwide equipment operations rose 6 percent in the nine months ended July 31 from a year earlier, including a favorable currency translation of 3 percent.

Lawson Software Inc., a St. Paul, Minnesota-based provider of business-management software to Safeway Inc. and the Mayo Clinic, said appreciation of the euro on the quarter ended Aug. 31 boosted sales above its projections.

The economic benefits of a weaker currency give Geithner reason to downplay the “strong dollar” policy first articulated in about 1995, when he was deputy assistant Treasury secretary under Robert Rubin, who served as the Treasury secretary from 1995 to 1999.

‘Free Market’

“Geithner’s comments recently have been not exactly dollar-supportive,” said Barry Knapp, chief U.S. equity strategist at Barclays Plc in New York. “Typically what happens is that the Treasury either says we support a strong dollar or we think a free market should decide where the dollar goes, and that means we don’t mind if it goes down.”

That doesn’t mean the administration is actively trying to drive down the currency, which investors might interpret as a U.S. effort to devalue its way out of debt, said Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.

Even if the U.S. is not trying to push the dollar higher, “you can’t say that that amounts to having an active policy to drive down the dollar,” he said.

Geithner this month blamed China’s policy of limiting gains in the yuan for contributing to a “damaging dynamic” of capital controls and currency-market interventions by emerging economies.

“It is very important to see more progress by the major emerging economies to more flexible, more market-oriented exchange-rate systems,” he said Oct. 6.

‘Significantly Undervalued’

Geithner went further in comments yesterday, saying the yuan is “significantly undervalued, more so than is true of any major, significant emerging-market currency.”

A weaker dollar may be a relief for the U.S. economy, with an unemployment rate that is forecast to exceed 9 percent through next year, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey of economists.

In his State of the Union address in January, President Barack Obama said U.S. jobs will depend in part on the country’s ability to boost overseas sales. Meeting his target would mean exports reaching $3.14 trillion by 2015 from $1.57 trillion in 2009, according to the White House.

As long as the decline is “orderly, not negatively impacting U.S. asset prices -- Geithner is quite happy with the depreciation in the currency,” said David Gilmore, a partner at Foreign Exchange Analytics in Essex, Connecticut.

Yuan Gains

Still, developing nations may not cooperate as they seek to protect their own exports and curb inflows of capital that threaten to lift their currencies.

China, the second-largest trading partner for the U.S. after Canada, has limited gains in the yuan to 2.7 percent since it dropped its peg to the dollar in June.

“We are committed to a more flexible exchange regime,” Yi Gang, Deputy Governor of the People’s Bank of China, said on Oct. 9 during a meeting of the International Monetary Fund in Washington. “But the approach is probably a gradual one.”

Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega, who has spoken of a “currency war,” yesterday said the country will increase a tax on foreigners’ investments in fixed-income securities to 6 percent from 4 percent. The tax on foreign investors’ margin deposits for futures markets will climb to 6 percent from 0.38 percent, Mantega told reporters in Sao Paulo.

G-20 Frictions

India’s central bank may intervene in currency markets if the rupee appreciates past 43 against the dollar, a finance ministry official with knowledge of the matter said Oct. 18. The rupee has climbed 3.3 percent in the last month to 44.36 per dollar yesterday.

Frictions may fester this week as Geithner and Bernanke meet with counterparts from the Group of 20 developed and emerging nations Oct. 22-23 in South Korea to craft an agenda for a Seoul summit of leaders next month.

“Each of these central banks and Treasury departments recognizes there is a competitive beggar-thy-neighbor devaluation game going on and that’s something you don’t want to be left behind in,” said Stephen King, chief economist at HSBC Holdings Plc in London.



www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-19/geithner-weak-dollar-policy-seen-as-path-to-recovery-in-contest-with-brics.html

[sandi66]

Pentagon locked down after 'possible shots fired'
The Associated Press •



Published October 19, 2010



WASHINGTON – Pentagon entrances were locked down early Tuesday after a report of possible shots fired near the building.

Major Chris Perrine, a Pentagon spokesman, says a civilian reported he may have heard shots at about 5 a.m. EDT on the south side of the massive Defense Department headquarters.

Perrine says police authorities did a sweep of the area and didn't find anything.

The roads and pedestrian entrances leading to the Pentagon were reopened a little after 5:30.

www.theolympian.com/2010/10/19/1408580/pentagon-locked-down-after-possible.html

[sandi66]

Strategic Defence and Security Review
Tuesday, October 19, 2010

On what may be the most important day for UK defence in 12 years, David Cameron has announced the results of the SDSR

Read the full speech here

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the Strategic Defence and Security Review.

There are four things to say upfront.

First, this is not simply a cost-saving exercise to get to grips with the biggest budget deficit in post-war history it is about taking the right decisions to protect our national security in the years ahead.

But the two are not separate.

Our National Security depends on our economic strength and vice versa.

As our national security is a priority so defence and security budgets will contribute to deficit reduction on a lower scale than most other departments.

Over four years the defence budget will rise in cash terms and fall by only 8 per cent.

And it will meet the NATO 2 per cent of GDP target for defence spending throughout the next four years.

But this Government has inherited a £38 billion black hole in the future defence plans bigger than the entire annual defence budget of £33 billion.

Sorting this out is not just vital for tackling the deficit but vital to protecting our national security.

Second, this Review is about how we project power and influence in a rapidly changing world.

We are the sixth largest economy in the world.
Even after this Review we expect to continue with the fourth largest military budget in the world.

We have a unique network of alliances and relationships with the United States as a member of the EU and NATO and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
We have one of the biggest aid programmes in the world one of the biggest networks of Embassies a time zone that allows us to trade with Asia in the morning and the Americas in the evening and a language that is spoken across the globe.

Our national interest requires our full and active engagement in world affairs.

It requires our economy to compete with the strongest and the best.

And it requires too that we stand up for the values we believe in.

Britain has punched above its weight in the world.

And we should have no less ambition for our country in the decades to come.

But we need to be more thoughtful, more strategic and more co-ordinated in the way we advance our interests and protect our national security.

That is what this Review sets out to achieve.
Third, I want to be clear there is no cut whatsoever in the support for our forces in Afghanistan.

The funding for our operations in Afghanistan comes not from the budget of the Ministry of Defence but instead from the Treasury Special Reserve.

So the changes to the Ministry of Defence that result from today's Review will not affect this funding.

Furthermore, every time the Chiefs have advised me that a particular change might have implications for our operations in Afghanistan either now or in the years to come I have heeded that advice.

In fact we have been and will be providing more for our brave forces in Afghanistan more equipment to counter the threat from IEDs more training and training equipment more protected vehicles – like the warthog heavy protection vehicle which will be out there by the end of the year more surveillance capability, including unmanned aircraft systems and crucially, at last, the right level of helicopter capability.

Fourth, this Review has been very different from those before it.

It has looked at all elements of national security, home and abroad, together, not just defence on its own.

It's been led from the top with all the relevant people around the table and it will be repeated every five years.

A step change
Mr Speaker, this Review sets out a step change in the way we protect this country's security interests.

From a Ministry of Defence that is too big, too inefficient and too over-spent to a Department that is smaller, smarter, and more responsible in its spending.

From a strategy over-reliant on military intervention to a higher priority for conflict prevention.

From concentrating on conventional threats to a new focus on unconventional threats.
And from armed forces that are overstretched, under-equipped and deployed too often without appropriate planning to the most professional and most flexible modern forces in the world, fully equipped for the challenges of the future.
Mr Speaker, let me take each in turn.

Ministry of Defence
First, the MOD.

Even though the MOD will get real growth in its budget next year the Department will face some significant challenges.

So the MOD will cut its Estate, dispose of unnecessary assets, renegotiate contracts with industry.

…and cut its management overheads, including reducing civilian numbers in the MOD by 25,000 by 2015.

We will also adjust and simplify civilian and military allowances.

The new operational allowance stays but there will be difficult decisions, although these will be made easier by the return of the army from Germany.

Taken together, all these changes in the MOD will save £4.7 billion over the Spending review period.

Getting to grips with procurement is vital.

Take the Nimrod programme for example.
It has cost the British taxpayer over £3bn.
The number of aircraft to be procured has fallen from 21 to 9.

The cost per aircraft has increased by over 200 per cent and it's over 8 years late.

Today we are cancelling it.

Conflict prevention
Second, from military intervention to conflict prevention.

Mr Speaker, Iraq and Afghanistan have shown the immense financial and human costs of large scale military interventions.

While we must retain the ability to undertake such operations we must also get better at treating the causes of instability, not just dealing with the consequences.

When we fail to prevent conflict and have to resort to military intervention, the costs are always far higher.

We will expand our capability to deploy military and civilian teams to support stabilisation efforts and build capacity in other states.
And we will double our investment in aid for fragile and unstable countries so by 2015 just under a third of the budget of the Department for International Development will be spent on conflict prevention.

Unconventional threats
Third, we need to focus more of our resources
not on the conventional threats of the past but on the unconventional threats of the future.
Over the next four years, we will invest over half a billion pounds of new money in a national cyber security programme.

This will significantly enhance our ability to detect and defend against cyber attacks and fix shortfalls in the critical cyber infrastructure on which the whole country now depends.

We will continue to prioritise tackling the terrorist threat both from Al Qaeda and its affiliates and from dissident republicans in Northern Ireland.

Although efficiencies will need to be made we are giving priority to continuing investment in our world-class intelligence agencies.

And we will sharpen our readiness to act on civil emergencies, energy security, organised crime, counter proliferation and border security.

Armed Forces
Fourth, from armed forces that are over-stretched and under-equipped we need to move to the most professional and most flexible modern forces in the world.

Mr Speaker, we inherited an Army with scores of tanks in Germany but that was until recently forced to face the deadly threat of improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan in Land Rovers designed for Northern Ireland.

We have a Royal Air Force hampered in its efforts to support our forces overseas because of an ageing strategic airlift fleet and a Royal Navy locked into a cycle of ever smaller numbers of ever more expensive ships.

Mr Speaker, we can not go on like this.

The White Paper we have published today sets out a clear vision for the future structure of our Armed Forces.

The precise budgets will be agreed in future spending reviews.

My own strong view is that this structure will require year on year real-terms growth in the defence budget in the years beyond 2015.

Between now and then the Government is committed to the vision of 2020 set out in this Review and will make decisions accordingly.

We are also absolutely determined that the MOD will become much more commercially hard headed in future and adopt a much more aggressive drive for efficiencies.

The transition from the mess we inherited to that coherent future force will be a difficult process, especially in the current economic conditions.

But we are determined to take the necessary steps.

Our ground forces will continue to have a vital operational role so we will retain a large well-equipped Army, numbering around 95,500 by 2015 that is 7,000 less than today.

We will continue to be one of very few countries able to deploy a self-sustaining properly equipped Brigade-sized force anywhere around the world and sustain it indefinitely if needs be.

And we will be able to put 30,000 into the field for a major, one off operation.

In terms of the return from Germany half our personnel should be back by 2015 and the remainder by 2020.

And tanks and heavy artillery numbers will be reduced by around 40%.

But the introduction of 12 new heavy lift Chinook helicopters new protected mobility vehicles and enhanced communications equipment will make the Army more mobile, more flexible and better equipped to face future threats than ever before.

We will also review the structure of our Reserve forces to ensure we make the most efficient use of their skills, experience and outstanding capabilities.

This will be chaired by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, General Houghton with my Honorable Friend the Member for Canterbury who serves in the Reserves acting as his deputy.

Mr Speaker, the Royal Navy will be similarly equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.

We are procuring a fleet of the most capable nuclear powered hunter-killer astute class submarines anywhere in the world.

Able to operate in secret across the world's oceans these submarines will also feed vital strategic intelligence back to the UK and to our military forces across the world.

We will complete the production of six Type 45 destroyers one of the most effective multi-role destroyers in the world.

But we will also start a new programme to develop less expensive, more flexible, modern frigates.

Total naval manpower will reduce to around 30,000 by 2015.

And by 2020 the total number of frigates and destroyers will reduce from 23 to 19 but the fleet as a whole will be better able to take on today's tasks from tackling drug trafficking and piracy to counter-terrorism.

Mr Speaker, the Royal Air Force will also need to take some tough measures in the coming years to ensure a strong future.

We have decided to retire the Harrier which has served this country so well for 40 years.

The Harrier is a remarkably flexible aircraft but the military advice is that we should sustain the Tornado fleet as that aircraft is more capable and better able to sustain operations in Afghanistan.

RAF manpower will also reduce to around 33,000 by 2015.

Inevitably this will mean changes in the way in which some RAF bases are used but some are likely to be required by the Army as forces return from Germany.

We owe it to communities up and down the country who have supported our armed forces for many years to engage with them before final decisions are taken.

Mr Speaker, by the 2020s, the Royal Air Force will be based around a fleet of two of the most capable fighter jets anywhere in the world a modernised Typhoon fleet fully capable of air-to-air and air-to-ground missions; and the Joint Strike Fighter, the world's most advanced multi-role combat jet.

This fleet will be complemented by a growing fleet of Unmanned Air Vehicles

And the A400M transport aircraft together with the existing fleet of C17 aircraft and the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft will allow us to fly our forces wherever they are needed in the world.

Prepared for the unexpected
Mr Speaker, as we refocus our resources on the most likely threats to our security so we will remain vigilant against all possible threats and retain the capability to react to the unexpected.
So as we cut back on tanks and heavy artillery we will retain the ability to regenerate those capabilities if needs be.

And while in the short term the ability to deploy airpower from the sea is unlikely to be essential over the longer term, we cannot assume that bases for land-based aircraft will always be available when and where we need them.

So we will ensure the UK has carrier strike capability for the future.

Mr Speaker, this is another area where the last Government got it badly wrong.

There's only one thing worse than spending money you don't have.

And that's buying the wrong things with it – and doing so in the wrong way.

The carriers they ordered are unable to work effectively with our key defence partners, the United States or France.

They had failed to plan so carriers and planes would arrive at the same time.

They ordered the more expensive, less capable version of the Joint Strike Fighter to fly off the carriers.

And they signed contracts so we were left in a situation where even cancelling the second carrier would cost more than to build it.

I have this in written confirmation from BAE systems.

That is the legacy we inherited.

An appalling legacy the British people have every right to be angry about.

But I say to them today – this Government will act in the national interest.

We would not have started from here but the right decisions are now being made in the right way and for the right reasons.

Mr Speaker, it will take time to rectify these mistakes but this is how we will do so.

We will build both carriers, but hold one in extended readiness.

We will fit the "cats and traps" – the catapults and arrestor gear to the operational carrier.

This will allow our allies to operate from our operational carrier and allow us to buy the carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter which is more capable, less expensive, has a longer range and carries more weapons.

We will also aim to bring the planes and carriers in at the same time.

Finally, Mr Speaker, we can not dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge.

So we will retain and renew the ultimate insurance policy – our independent nuclear deterrent, which guards this country round the clock every day of the year.

We have completed a value for money review of our future deterrent plans.

As a result we can:
…extend the life of the Vanguard class so that the first replacement submarine is not required until 2028;

…reduce the number of operational launch tubes on those new submarines from 12 to eight…

…reduce the number of warheads on our submarine at sea from 48 to 40…..

…and reduce our stockpile of operational warheads from less than 160 to fewer than 120.

The next phase of the programme to renew our deterrent will start by the end of this year.

But as a result of the changes to the programme, the decision to start construction of the new submarines need not now be taken until around 2016.

We will save around £1.2 billion and defer a further £2 billion of spending from the next ten years.

So yes, Mr Speaker, we will save money.
But we will retain and renew a credible, continuous and effective minimum nuclear deterrent that will stand constant guard over this nation's security.

Finally, Mr Speaker, the immense contribution of our highly professional Special Forces is necessarily largely unreported but their immense capability is recognised all across the world.

We are significantly increasing our investment in our Special Forces to ensure they remain at the leading edge of operational capability prepared to meet current and future threats, and maintaining their unique and specialist role.

This enhanced capability will allow them to remain at "extremely high readiness" for emergency operations through enhanced logistics, medical support and greater intelligence capability to support their operations.

Conclusion
Mr Speaker, we were left a situation where we had a budget £38 billion overspent armed forces at war, overstretched, under-equipped and ill-prepared for the challenges of the future.
And the biggest budget deficit in post-war history.

Mr Speaker, I believe we have begun to deal with all these things sorting out the legacy and fitting Britain's defences for the future.
And I commend this statement to the House.

www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=14976

[sandi66]

Judge Gives Final Signoff on Citigroup-SEC Deal

October 19, 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge has given final approval to a $75 million settlement between Citigroup Inc and the Securities and Exchange Commission over the bank's failure to disclose losses on subprime mortgages.

Judge Ellen Huvelle had demanded that the initial settlement proposal be adjusted to ensure the bank maintains proper disclosure practices in the future. She signed the final judgment on October 8, and it was released in the court docket on Tuesday.

abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11917500

[sandi66]

Judge Gives Final Signoff on Citigroup-SEC Deal

October 19, 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge has given final approval to a $75 million settlement between Citigroup Inc and the Securities and Exchange Commission over the bank's failure to disclose losses on subprime mortgages.

Judge Ellen Huvelle had demanded that the initial settlement proposal be adjusted to ensure the bank maintains proper disclosure practices in the future. She signed the final judgment on October 8, and it was released in the court docket on Tuesday.

abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11917500







Citigroup posts $2.2b profit, tops expectations

2010-10-19 08:10

NEW YORK - Citigroup Inc reported a third consecutive quarterly profit on Monday, slightly beating expectations, as losses slowed and the bank set aside less money to cover bad loans.

But Citigroup had trouble generating new business during the quarter as low trading volumes cut into its securities and banking operations. Revenue rose slightly from a year earlier but were the lowest of any quarter this year at $20.7 billion.

"Earnings are OK and revenues are light, but the key will be their comments on foreclosures," said Michael Holland of Holland &Co in New York.

The bank's shares were up 1.8 percent at $4.02 in premarket trading after closing at $3.95 on Friday.

The third-largest US bank by assets posted a third-quarter profit of $2.2 billion, or 7 cents per share, compared with a year-earlier loss to shareholders of $3.2 billion, or 27 cents per share.

Analysts on average had expected a profit of 6 cents a share, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.

On an ongoing basis, excluding an $800 million pre-tax loss on the sale of its student lending operations, Citigroup earned $2.6 billion, or 8 cents per share.

Citigroup, which is still 12 percent owned by the US government, has recovered from the worst of the losses that forced it to take three bailouts in 2008 and 2009. But like its rivals, it has struggled to make new loans this year.



english.eastday.com/e/101019/u1a5501077.html

[sandi66]

Analysts Ratings: Bank of America Corp (NYSE: BAC) to Hire 1,000 New Small Business Bankers

October 19th, 2010

Bank of America Corp (NYSE: BAC) will hire 1,000 new small business bankers by 2012, the company announced last Thursday.

The Charlotte-based bank said that the move is part of its ongoing commitment to increase support for small businesses. The bank said that it will hire new employees in Dallas, Los Angeles, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. initially and focus on companies with less than $3 million in annual revenue. The bank plans to work with local business owners by having bankers learn about companies and spend time at the local businesses.

“Our small business bankers will live and work in the communities they serve, making them uniquely qualified to work with these businesses and provide the best combination of financial services to help them grow,” said Bank of America Corp (NYSE: BAC) CEO Brian Moynihan in a speech at a Chief Executive Club of Boston luncheon.

The new wave of bankers is expected to help small businesses on issues ranging from cash management, to regular payroll to setting up retirement plans.

“Credit will be part of the solution set that we have for our small business owners,” said Bank of America Corp (NYSE: BAC) small business lending head Kerrie Campbell. “It is very relationship focused.”

Bank of America Corporation is a bank holding company, and a financial holding company. The Company is a financial institution, serving individual consumers, small and middle market businesses, large corporations and governments with a range of banking, investing, asset management and other financial and risk management products and services. Through its banking subsidiaries (the Banks) and various nonbanking subsidiaries throughout the United States and in selected international markets, it provides a range of banking and nonbanking financial services and products through six business segments: Deposits, Global Card Services, Home Loans & Insurance, Global Commercial Banking, Global Banking & Markets, Global Wealth & Investment Management, with the remaining operations recorded in All Other.

Shares of Bank of America Corp (NYSE: BAC) traded up 3.01% during mid-day trading on Monday.

www.americanbankingnews.com/2010/10/19/bank-of-america-corp-nyse-bac-to-hire-1000-new-small-business-bankers/

[sandi66]

Gov't to offer settlement with Indian farmers


Oct 19, 11:57 AM (ET)

By MARY CLARE JALONICK


WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge will consider a government offer to settle with American Indian farmers who say the Agriculture Department discriminated against them for decades.

The two sides are meeting in U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan's courtroom Tuesday afternoon to discuss a proposed deal. The government and the plaintiffs both declined to disclose the terms of the would-be settlement ahead of hearing.

The lawsuit filed in 1999 contends Indian farmers and ranchers lost about $500 million because they were denied USDA loans. The government settled a similar lawsuit filed by black farmers more than a decade ago.

American Indian farmers have said that local USDA officials tried to squeeze them out of business by denying them loans that instead went to their white neighbors.



apnews.myway.com/article/20101019/D9IURVUO0.html

[sandi66]

Credit Union Executive Will Chair Electronic Payments Trade Association
Posted on 10/19/10 at 1:26pm



FAIRFAX, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

The Electronic Funds Transfer Association, a trade group comprised of organizations involved in debit, credit, ATMs, online and other forms of electronic payments and processing today announced the election of James Hanisch of CO-OP Financial Services as its chairman for a two-year term.

Hanisch is currently an executive vice president with CO-OP Financial Services, a Rancho Cucamonga, CA.-based electronic payment and ATM network serving credit unions.

The Association also elected Wayne Malone, chairman and chief executive officer at Citishare Corporation as vice chairman. Sandra Hartfield, a consultant with Linq3 Technologies, and Lynne Barr, a partner in the law firm of Goodwin Procter, LLP were re-elected treasurer and secretary of the Board respectively.

“Jim's extensive experience with credit, debit, online banking and payments processing will be particularly important in navigating the significant legislative and regulatory challenges the electronic payments industry is facing,” said Kurt Helwig, president and CEO of the Association.

“It is a great honor to be elected chairman,” said Hanisch. “For 33 years EFTA has fulfilled a critical industry role in shaping legislative and regulatory issues surrounding electronic payments. EFTA has always been most relevant during times of legislative and regulatory change. I look forward to working with Kurt and the Board to address these opportunities.”

Hanisch succeeds Ray Crosier formerly of Online Resources Corporation. “During his tenure Ray tackled tough issues like the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform Act, interchange legislation, and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” said Helwig. “His guidance helped inform the debate over financial regulatory reform.”

About the Electronic Funds Transfer Association

The Electronic Funds Transfer Association (www.efta.org) is the nation's leading inter-industry trade association dedicated to the advancement of electronic payment systems and commerce.

Its mission is to objectively advance electronic payments and ecommerce, inform the public and private sectors and keep EFTA stakeholders apprised of the business impacts of payments related legislative and regulatory initiatives.

Working often with Congress and a variety of federal agencies it provides critical intervention services on issues of legislative and regulatory importance to its members.

EFTA members include financial institutions, ATM networks, owners, processors, and manufacturers, card companies, online payment providers, prepaid and mobile payments providers, and technology-management companies.

About CO-OP Financial Services

CO-OP connects credit union members to their accounts through network services, payment processing, e-commerce, CO-OP Shared Branching and call center services. With a total of 3,000 credit union members, 30 million cardholders, 28,000 surcharge-free ATMs, 4,000 shared branch locations and 160 million-plus monthly transactions, CO-OP Financial Services is the nation's largest credit union service organization, offering the tools, counsel and leadership to help credit unions prosper. To learn more, visit www.co-opfs.org. Follow CO-OP on Twitter at: twitter.com/COOPFS and keep up with industry issues via the CO-OP Insight Vault blog at: co-opinsightvault.com.



www.benzinga.com/press-releases/10/10/b533111/credit-union-executive-will-chair-electronic-payments-trade-association

[sandi66]

Government settles lawsuit with Native American farmersBy Tom Cohen, CNN


October 19, 2010 4:51 p.m. EDT

Washington (CNN) -- The government will provide $680 million in compensation to settle a class-action lawsuit by Native American farmers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture under a proposed agreement announced Tuesday.

Under the agreement, which requires federal court approval, Native Americans can file claims for discrimination that allegedly occurred in the period from 1981 to 1999, according to statements by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Attorney General Eric Holder.

"Today's settlement can never undo wrongs that Native Americans may have experienced in past decades, but combined with the actions we at USDA are taking to address such wrongs, the settlement will provide some measure of relief to those alleging discrimination," Vilsack said in his statement.

Under the agreement, the $680 million will compensate eligible members of the class-action suits with valid claims, the statements said. The agreement has two payment tracks: One provides $50,000 to those who provide substantial evidence of discrimination to an impartial adjudicator, and the other pays up to $225,000 to those who can show economic losses caused by discrimination.

"Actual monetary awards are subject to reduction based on the amount of available funding and the number of meritorious claims," the statements said.

The settlement also includes provisions for debt relief and other assistance for Native American farmers.

In a White House statement, President Obama called the agreement "an important step forward in remedying USDA's unfortunate civil rights history." The lawsuit alleged discrimination against Native Americans regarding their access to and participation in the Agriculture Department's farm loan programs, according to the statement.

The lawsuit is Marilyn Keepseagle et al. v. Vilsack (Civil Action No. 99-3119).

www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/19/lawsuit.native.farmers/index.html

[sandi66]

Italian court keeps block on Vatican Bank funds


October 20, 2010, 5:33 AM ET



Oct 20 (Reuters) - An Italian court has rejected a request by the Vatican Bank to lift a block on 23 million euros of funds frozen in Italian banks in an investigation into suspected money laundering, judicial sources said on Wednesday.

Last month, Rome magistrates put the two top officials of the bank, formally known as the Institute for Works of Religion (IOR) under investigation and froze 23 million euros of its funds in two Italian banks over suspicions of money laundering.

The bank has denied any wrongdoing.



www.reuters.com/article/idUSRMEKLE64R20101020

[sandi66]

* Annonymous Tidbit: DDT Member (Bank Info)

October 20th, 2010 11:18 am ·

Not sure where or if this is worth posting, but I found this interesting. Recently, we were in a First Citizens Bank in Cary, NC and purchased Iraqi Dinar through them. That was not so much the interesting part to me as the fact that they will buy it as well. I have heard of ‘Dinar Vendors’ buying and selling, but this is the first of bank I have heard of that will buy it. Now the rate is typical, below their selling price, but was still interesting.

theiraqidinar.com/2010/10/20/annonymous-tidbit-ddt-member-bank-info/


ty Gman

[sandi66]

The latest on the Dinar – October 20 2010

Here’s the summary:



Dinar enthusiasts the world round are hopeful to see the GOI (Government of Iraq) formed soon.

The same “gurus” that prematurely announced “It is done!” months ago are still doing the same thing this week, and they will do it again next week as well.

However, just because a few clowns are wrong every week doesn’t mean we’re giving up hope! I have some news coming soon that is very encouraging, and I remain positive on my investment.

The mods at DinarVets.com continue to be awesome. The members continue to be the most helpful on the internet. The Dinar News Network continues to be the #1 spot for information and Dinar Discussion… stats don’t lie. If you’re not a member of the forum, join here for free.

There has been no RV yet, nor has there been any serious talk of a LOP – we’re still in a holding pattern. This is not a bad thing! It gives us more time to prepare. A great resource for you is the Cash In Guide I wrote a couple months back – you can get it for free here.

And now for the Dinar News!
Nuri al-Maliki is touring the country, claiming the GOI should emerge soon if God allows. (link)

The amazing thing about Nuri al-Maliki is that despite a so-called defeat back in March… he still actually has a chance to become the next Prime Minister. The National Alliance and Kurdish Blocs could play a pivotal role in this, we are keeping our eyes peeled for meaningful developments. (link)

I don’t even know what to think of this one yet, but I think it’s important to point out this amazing translation. It’s important because we all need to take a minute once in a while and step back… realize there is more going on than we can absorb in a day or even a week… and also realize that a fruit has as much chance at a headline as a political leader in Iraq. According to this article, Watermelon is significant to Iraqi news. (link)

(That same fruit might have as much chance at forming a government, now that I think about it… )



Read more: dinarspeculation.com/2010/10/20/the-latest-on-the-dinar-october-20-2010/#ixzz12vC0Bh2W

dinarspeculation.com/2010/10/20/the-latest-on-the-dinar-october-20-2010/

[sandi66]

Oz Economics
.

How important is this issue worldwide? Having private banks create money is the root cause of all world poverty, hunger, disease and misery. And until we fix it, we will never be able to make a dent in these other issues.

We can fix this. We can fix it in a matter of months -- a year at most. We can make our government the most financially sound in the world -- nearly overnight. The government can loan out all the money any state needs to build roads or schools or hospitals – interest free. Approximately half of a state’s infrastructure cost is from interest on borrowed money! When the money is repaid by the states it will all come back to the federal government, preventing inflation. All we have to do is to take back the power to control the quantity of money and put that power into the hands of the federal officials closest to the voting public -- namely the Congress of the United States.

Some say, “Well, those crooks in Congress will create too much money once they get the money power.” But Congress now “creates” all the money it wants! It just creates it as DEBT, which never gets paid back, and which we the people have to continually pay interest on. Instead of creating bonds -- or debt -- the government could and should be creating DOLLARS, interest-free.

More money for people.

Others will say Congress isn’t responsive to the people as it is.

Well of course not. Politicians are responsive to those with the power. Right now, the banks have the power. We have to take back the ultimate power of any nation – the power over its money. With the power of banks diminished, politicians will become responsive to the voters once again.

Do you know that only one zip code in this country provides nearly half of all the lobbying money to Congress? Guess what that zip code is? It’s 10028, the upper east side of Manhattan – the Golden Ghetto. That’s where the Mayor of New York lives. That’s where the Wall Street bankers live. They control the money, they control Congress.

Some will say that these solutions are something radical like socialism or worse. They are not. This is the most basic historic struggle for human freedom running back to the beginnings of time.

If we value the Founding Father’s dream of freedom -- an escape from serfdom by political self-determination --we have to conclude that creating our money is too important a function to be put into private hands. History has shown time and time again that that leads to nothing but plutocracy – rule by the rich – and ultimately slavery.

This privately-owned debt-money system has gotten so far out of control at this point that probably only a Biblical Jubilee year will save civilization from collapse.

Imagine in your own world. What if tomorrow you were told that all your mortgage debt and credit card debt was cancelled. That would certainly be more money for people, less money for banks. After the Jubilee, then we could take the money power away from the banks and change the Constitution to put it permanently into the hands of Congress.

But what about the banks? They are already failing? Let them fail. Government can issue it’s own money and credit. We don’t need their hyper-expensive compounding interest system. Banks or banking won’t go away. Everyone will still need loans and checking accounts. Some one will step in and provide those services. You’ll still go down to your corner bank to deposit your check. Your bank will still be there. Only the guts – the bank’s accounting system – the part you never see anyway – will change.

Jesus chased the moneychangers from the temple in his day. We should certainly do the same in our day.

Is that fair? Come on, big banks already own every large building in every city in the world. That should be sufficient! Let the people of the world have some money for a change. Give us some incentive to build a better world.

There is hope, especially here in America. History has shown that America has fought to create it’s own money for the last 300 years. In fact, in no other nation on earth has the population fought for it as successfully and with such determination over the centuries as America. All we need in the face of this oncoming first depression of the 21st century is a little education. We can make this the new civil rights movement – the new human rights movement. The big bankers now stand more exposed than ever before. Let’s use history to guide our path today.

This hasn’t been an issue since the time L. Frank Baum wrote the Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Why? Because after the William Jennings Bryan era, the bankers learned that in order to put the lid on this issue they had to buy up the nation’s press. And they did. But this won’t work in the Internet age. Television commentators are now asking just what is the Federal Reserve and where does their money come from? The answer is they make the money up out of thin air and then have the audacity to loan it to us. The interest that the government has to pay is where our income taxes go. That was the deal the Fed made with the government when the Federal Reserve Act was rammed through Congress on Dec. 23, 1913.

And what about the principal? The principle is never repaid, but the interest just keeps compounding. And it’s that interest that’s killing us. We’ll never be able to repay it. No nation ever has been able to do so – except for President Jackson in 1836.

www.secretofoz.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60&Itemid=77

ty DiamondShare

[sandi66]

Canada backs U.S. push for G20 deal on economic rebalancing


Globe and Mail Update

Published Friday, Oct. 22, 2010 5:22AM EDT
Last updated Friday, Oct. 22, 2010 6:28AM EDT


Canada is siding with Washington as U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner pushes a reluctant G20 to strike a deal this weekend to narrow the financial gap between nations with big surpluses and those who are deep in debt.

The large scale current account surpluses – particularly China’s – are at the heart of U.S. concern over exchange rates and general concern that the world economy may turn to protectionist trade policies.



Following a day of negotiations at the officials level, finance ministers and central bank governors began talks Friday that will be dominated by concern over exchange rates.

“I think we’re all agreed on the direction,” Canada’s Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told reporters Friday in advance of the G20 talks. Earlier in the day, Mr. Flaherty held one-on-one meetings with his counterparts from China, India and South Korea.

“No one wants to be confrontational here,” he said. “No one wants to walk away from here without an agreement on an action plan, so that’s what we’re trying to do.”

Mr. Geithner’s proposal to focus on current accounts which is the difference between the value of exports and the value of imports as well as the difference between national savings and investment – is far from a done deal. In fact, it is just one of several floating around inside the room. Japan’s finance minister has already questioned the move, describing specific targets as unrealistic.

In a letter to the G20 colleagues dated Oct. 20, Mr. Geithner proposes a way forward that could lead to a final deal Saturday, rather than waiting for the Nov. 11-12 gathering of G20 leaders in Seoul.

“I know that some of you will want to reserve any substantive agreement until the November Leaders' Summit, but I think we should take advantage of the presence of the central bank governors to try to reach agreement on the broad elements this weekend, and put those in a report to our Leaders,” writes Mr. Geithner in the letter.

The three measures proposed by the U.S. in the letter, which was summarized by a senior Canadian finance official and later posted in its entirety by Reuters, include:

A commitment by G20 countries to reduce external imbalances below a specific share of GDP over the next few years, with exceptions for large exporters of raw materials. That means deficit nations should increase their savings and surplus nations should adopt policies and exchange rates that encourage domestic consumption.
A pledge to refrain from exchange rate policies designed to achieve competitive advantage by weakening their currency or preventing appreciation of an undervalued currency.
Allow the International Monetary fund to take on a special role as a monitor of these commitments and to publish semi-annual reports


"With progress on these fronts, we should reach final agreement on an ambitious package of reforms to strengthen IMF's financial resources and its financial tools, and to reform the governance structure to increase the voice and representation of dynamic emerging economies,” writes Mr. Geithner.



www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canada-backs-us-push-for-g20-deal-on-economic-rebalancing/article1768285/

[sandi66]

Stocks poised for mixed open
October 22, 2010: 7:10 AM ET






NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- U.S. stocks were set to stall at the market's open, as currency tensions at a summit of the world's major economies gave investors cold feet.

Dow Jones industrial average (INDU), S&P 500 (SPX) and Nasdaq (COMP) futures were mixed on either side of breakeven ahead of the opening bell Friday. Futures measure current index values against perceived future performance.



Stocks were coming off gains Thursday, as investors balanced strong earnings with heightened speculation that the Fed's next round of asset-buying won't be as dramatic as anticipated.

The two-day Group of 20 finance and central bank meeting kicked off Friday in South Korea, and tensions about currency were brewing.

In a letter to the G-20 nations, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner urged some developing countries to stop keeping their currencies artificially low, and cap their surpluses or deficits to rebalance the world economy.

U.S. officials have been pushing China to allow its currency, the yuan, to rise against the dollar and level the international export playing field.

What exactly is a currency war, anyway?
Companies: After Friday's market close, Amazon (AMZN, Fortune 500) posted a 39% jump in sales and third-quarter earnings per share of 51 cents -- topping the 48 cents expected by analysts. But the stock fell 3% in premarket trading Friday.

Shares of AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) rose 0.3% in premarket trading, after reports said the insurance giant sold its Asian life unit for $17.8 billion in a share offering.

AIG has said that it considers the sale of AIA -- one of it's crown jewels -- to be a crucial component of its effort to repay the bailout it took from the U.S. government.

KeyCorp shares rose 2.5% after the the Ohio bank announced its third-quarter income rose to $163 million, after posting a $422 million loss in the same quarter last year.

Honeywell (HON, Fortune 500), Schlumberger (SLB) and Verizon (VZ, Fortune 500) were all reporting results before the opening bell.

World markets: European stocks slipped in midday trading. Britain's FTSE 100 fell 0.3%. Both the DAX in Germany and France's CAC 40 were trading around the breakeven point.

Asian markets ended the session mixed. The Shanghai Composite fell 0.3%, while the Hang Seng in Hong Kong fell 0.6%. Japan's Nikkei rose 0.5%.

Currencies and commodities: The dollar rose against the euro and the British pound, but fell against the Japanese yen.

Oil for December delivery rose 48 cents to $81.04 a barrel.

Gold futures for December delivery fell $5.60 to $1,320 an ounce.

Bonds: The price on the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury rose, pushing the yield down to 2.53%.



money.cnn.com/2010/10/22/markets/premarkets/

[sandi66]

CME Group Begins Clearing OTC Interest Rate Swaps
10 22, 2010



CHICAGO, CME Group, the world’s leading and most diverse derivatives marketplace, announced today that it has begun clearing over-the-counter (OTC) interest rate swaps through CME Clearing.
In conjunction with a group of premier swap dealers, clearing firms, and buy-side market participants, CME Group has developed a new clearing solution for OTC interest rate swaps. The buy-side participants are BlackRock, Citadel, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and PIMCO. The sell-side participants are BofA Merrill Lynch, Barclays Capital, Citi, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Nomura and UBS.
“CME Group’s new interest rate swap clearing solution will provide our global customers with the best of both worlds by preserving key components of OTC market trade execution while adding the security of futures-style central counterparty clearing,” said Laurent Paulhac, CME Group’s Managing Director of OTC Products and Services. “By working closely with both the buy- and sell-side, we were able to gain significant input into the needs of the overall marketplace, both in terms of functionality and mitigating systemic risk in creating this cleared-only solution for interest rates swaps.”
CME Group’s cleared interest rate swaps will be an open access solution that provides market participants with the flexibility of the OTC market without having to change their execution processes. The new service will build on the strength of CME Group’s market leading interest rate products business. In addition, it will maintain affirmation platforms and product economics of bilateral OTC contracts; provide the risk management and legal safeguards of CME Clearing to protect customer funds; and give operational flexibility of an open access solution that integrates into existing OTC infrastructure and extends across asset classes; with an anticipated goal of offering capital efficiencies via cross margining of OTC products with benchmark futures.
For additional information, visit: www.cmegroup.com/irs.
As the world’s leading and most diverse derivatives marketplace, CME Group (www.cmegroup.com) is where the world comes to manage risk. CME Group exchanges offer the widest range of global benchmark products across all major asset classes, including futures and options based on interest rates, equity indexes, foreign exchange, energy, agricultural commodities, metals, weather and real estate. CME Group brings buyers and sellers together through its CME Globex® electronic trading platform and its trading facilities in New York and Chicago. CME Group also operates CME Clearing, one of the largest central counterparty clearing services in the world, which provides clearing and settlement services for exchange-traded contracts, as well as for over-the-counter derivatives transactions through CME ClearPort®. These products and services ensure that businesses everywhere can substantially mitigate counterparty credit risk in both listed and over-the-counter derivatives markets.
The Globe logo, CME, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CME Group, Globex, E-mini and CME ClearPort are trademarks of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. CBOT and Chicago Board of Trade are trademarks of the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago. NYMEX and New York Mercantile Exchange are trademarks of New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. COMEX is a trademark of Commodity Exchange, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Further information about CME Group (Nasdaq: CME) and its products can be found at www.cmegroup.com.
CME-G
SOURCE CME Group



www.vadvert.co.uk/business/3396-cme-group-begins-clearing-otc-interest-rate-swaps.html

[sandi66]

The impact of regulation on the global OTC market
Source: FX Week | 22 Oct 2010

Three web seminars – in Hong Kong, London and New York – exploring key changes in international OTC derivatives regulation from a regional perspective



The editors of Risk magazine and FX Week, in association with Icap, are pleased to announce a unique online video forum in Hong Kong, London and New York that addresses The Impact of Regulation on the Global OTC Market.

The forum brought together leading industry figures from the world's major financial centres in three separate online live video events discussing the key issues from a regional perspective. This is a rare opportunity to gain a truly global perspective on an important range of topics with the potential to affect all OTC market participants.

All three exclusive forum events were broadcast live on 19 October 2010 at 3pm local time.

Issues addressed include:
1. A view on the macro-economic financial position from a prudential perspective
2. Regulatory arbitrage - how likely is it and how can it be prevented and/or managed?
3. Identification of the inherent operational risks associated with using a one-stop clearing house system
4. Settlement risk - what is being done to tackle it?
5. Exploring the implications of algorithmic/automated trading
6. How will OTC derivatives regulation being drawn up in the US and EU affect foreign exchange?
7. Does the FX derivatives market need central clearing?

Registration to view the archived version of these forums is FREE.

Hong Kong speakers:
Moderator: Duncan Wood, European editor, Risk magazine
Gerrard Katz, head of FX trading, Standard Chartered Bank
Keith Noyes, regional director, Asia Pacific, International Swaps and Derivatives Association
Chin-Chong Liew, partner,Linklaters

London speakers:
Moderator: Nick Sawyer, editor, Risk magazine
Hubert de Lambilly, global gead FX trading, BNP Paribas
Luc Riedweg, head of market and financial stability research division, financial stability directorate, Banque de France
Anthony Belchambers, chief executive officer, Futures and Options Association
John Wilson, managing director & global head, OTC clearing, RBS Global Banking & Markets
Mark Yallop, group chief operating officer, Icap

New York speakers:
Moderator: Mark Pengelly, US editor, Risk magazine
Micah Green, partner, Patton Boggs
Joe Norena, global COO, foreign exchange and metals, global markets, HSBC Bank
David Rutter, deputy chief executive officer, Icap Electronic Broking
Atanas Goranov, CFA, FRM, managing director, derivatives risk officer investments, Guardian Life



www.fxweek.com/fx-week/news/1810013/impact-regulation-global-otc-market

[sandi66]

The Republic of the United States

the Republic of the united States of America
www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/

ty nalmann

[sandi66]

The Republic has been Restored

Tim Turner Speaks @ about 25 minutes
www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/downloads/calls/republic/public/10-20-2010-Public-RepublicCall.mp3

Subject: Recall the "The Star-Spangled Banner"?


"The Star-Spangled Banner" is the national anthem of the United States of America. The lyrics come from "Defence of Fort McHenry",[1] a poem written in 1814 by the 35-year-old lawyer and amateur poet, Francis Scott Key, after witnessing the bombardment of Fort McHenry by the British Royal Navy ships in Chesapeake Bay during the Battle of Fort McHenry in the War of 1812.

The Opening of the following MP3 recalls this Powerful Story:
www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/downloads/calls/republic/public/10-20-2010-Public-RepublicCall.mp3

Open Republic Call Recorded with "Tim Turner"

Copy of recording of the below open Republic call for your download: Feel free to forward to anyone.

Found @ nesaranews.blogspot.com/

[sandi66]

noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601010&sid=a7VLszHe.5Ww


IMF Says G-20 Agreed on ‘Biggest Reform Ever’ (Update1)



By Rebecca Christie and Rainer Buergin


Oct. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Group of 20 nations agreed on an overhaul of the International Monetary Fund that gives a larger voice to emerging market nations, IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn said.

More than 6 percent of voting rights will be reallocated to underrepresented emerging-market nations and Europe will give up two board seats in the “biggest reform ever in the governance of the institution,” Strauss-Kahn told reporters today in Gyeongju, South Korea. The G-20 also agreed on the structure for a “financial safety net” to stop nascent financial crises before they speed out of control, he said.

The IMF’s board may approve the package in the first week in November, and it will probably take a year for the changes to be put in place, Strauss-Kahn said. The package includes a shift in the composition of the IMF’s executive board and the fund’s 10 biggest shareholders.

Strauss-Kahn called the deal a “historical agreement” as the Washington-based lender takes on a larger role in monitoring the world’s economies, currencies and capital flows. South Korea, the host of this weekend’s meeting of G-20 financial chiefs, proposed the safety net.

G-20 officials also prepared an agreement to avoid competitive devaluations and give the IMF greater sway in assessing economic imbalances among nations.

All-Elected Board
The IMF will move to an all-elected executive board of directors and Europe will give up two seats. Earlier today, a G- 20 official said that the Group of Seven, Brazil, Russia, India and China settled on the plan after a disagreement between the U.S. and Europe over how to increase the role of emerging-market countries on the fund’s board.

Group of 20 leaders pledged last year to increase the voting power of China and others and planned to settle on details before G-20 leaders meet in Seoul in November. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has cited this plan in his campaign for China to allow its currency, the yuan, to appreciate against the dollar.

Strauss-Kahn said the changes will give the IMF a “totally legitimate board.” European nations will be able to take advantage of the implementation period to work out exactly how the shift in board seats will take place, he said.

After the changes take effect, the fund’s 10 biggest shareholders will comprise the U.S., Japan, four major European economies and Brazil, Russia, India and China.


To contact the reporters on this story: Rebecca Christie in Gyeongju, South Korea at [e-mail]; Rainer Buergin in Gyeongju, South Korea at [e-mail]
To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Fraher at [e-mail]

Last Updated: October 23, 2010 02:54 EDT

[sandi66]

Major dots being connected.. are you reading?
« Thread Started Today at 10:42am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this started in the middle of the nite...and so far 3 news stories.. we need the new banking sytem and that was supposed to been done 2 weeks ago...and it was't and they were going to wait till the g-20 in nov 14 to do it.. read and notice there is a fire lit under thir ass.. and turned on HIGH.....CONNECT YOUR DOTS....-----

G20 inks economic pact, strikes IMF reform deal

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101023/ts_nm/us_g20

Group of 20 vows to avoid currency devaluations
By KELLY OLSEN, AP Business Writer Kelly Olsen, Ap Business Writer – 47 mins ago
GYEONGJU, South Korea – The world's leading advanced and emerging countries vowed Saturday to avoid potentially debilitating currency devaluations, aiming to quell trade tensions that could threaten the global economy.

The Group of 20 also said it will pursue policies to reduce trade and current account imbalances, and agreed to give developing nations more say at the International Monetary Fund, part of what it described as an ambitious set of proposals to reform IMF governance.

The grouping, which accounts for about 85 percent of the global economy, said in a statement that it will "move towards more market determined exchange rate systems" and "refrain from competitive devaluation of currencies."

The agreement comes amid fears that nations were on the verge of a "currency war" in which they would devalue currencies to gain an export advantage over competitors — causing a rise in protectionism and damaging the global economy.

"Our cooperation is essential," the statement said. "We are all committed to play our part in achieving strong, sustainable and balanced growth in a collaborative and coordinated way."

The agreement, which includes no specific numerical commitments, appeared to be a step forward from a similar meeting two weeks ago in Washington when finance officials failed to resolve differences.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner praised the results, calling them part of necessary changes in how the global economy operates.

"If the world economy is going to be able to grow at a strong, sustainable pace in the future, if we're going to be successful in building a more stable global financial system, and if we're going to be able to continue to expand opportunities for trade and preserve an open trading system, then we need to work to achieve more balance in the pattern of global growth as we recover from the crisis," he told reporters.

Geithner had pushed in a letter to G-20 members for a commitment to policies that would reduce current account and trade imbalances "below a specified share" of gross domestic product "over the next few years."

But the G-20 statement said that large imbalances — such as China's vast trade surplus with the rest of the world — would be "assessed against indicative guidelines to be agreed." Geithner's proposal had drawn resistance from export-reliant countries such as Japan.

Geithner, however, said Saturday that the U.S. was not pushing for any specific quantitative targets and that the country's stance found substantial support within the G-20.



Map snapshot
Japanese Finance Minister Yoshihiko Noda, who on Friday called the idea of any specific targets "unrealistic," urged a cautious approach to any specific numbers, though he expressed support for "guidelines."

"There are many perspectives on the current account issue," he said. "Every country has a different situation when it comes to surpluses and deficits. So we need to study this carefully."

Nations in Asia and other regions have been trying to limit the strength of their currencies amid a sustained weakness of the U.S. dollar out of fear their exports will become less competitive in world markets. At the same time, China's currency has been effectively pegged to the dollar, provoking an outcry that it is being kept artificially low and giving China's exporters an unfair advantage.

A shift for Asian nations to become less reliant on exports for growth is seen as one of the adjustments that countries should make in the wake of last year's downturn to ensure more stability in the global economy and markets. Stronger currencies, meanwhile, would make imported goods cheaper and boost domestic spending as a contributor to economic growth.

The G-20, which has been around since 1999 and includes both rich and emerging countries, assumed the role of global economic leader following the financial crisis. The Group of Seven advanced nations faced criticism that it was too narrow a forum and failed to represent the voices of China and other fast-growing countries such as India.

Since the crisis, the G-20 has pursued major reforms to the global economy and financial system, such as attempting to coordinate economic and interest rate policies to spur growth and forge stricter regulation of banks and other financial institutions seen as responsible for the meltdown.

The meetings come ahead of a G-20 summit in Seoul set for Nov. 11-12 when leaders will consider the agreements reached by the finance officials as well as other proposals for strengthening the global economy.

Regarding the IMF, the G-20 called for greater representation for emerging countries on its executive board by reducing European seats by two and shifting more voting power to developing and underrepresented countries.

"It is a milestone in reforming global governance," said Olli Rehn, economic and monetary affairs commissioner of the European Union, which also belongs to the G-20. "Today we have been rebalancing global growth and rebalancing political influence in global governance."

___

Associated Press writers Kwang-tae Kim and Tomoko A. Hosaka contributed to this report.


news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_world_economy_g20

tramp2.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=14659

ty tramp

[sandi66]

City fears new Bank of England powers will hit democracy
The increasing powers of the Bank of England are being called into question amid fears that its looming regulatory remit could lead to a "democratic deficit" in the way the City of London is governed.

By Harry Wilson and Malcolm Moore
Published: 8:40PM BST 23 Oct 2010



A number of senior bankers, including John Varley, outgoing chief executive of Barclays, have written to the Treasury to express concerns about the planned reform of UK financial regulation, as part of the consultation before the splitting up of the Financial Services Authority.

At the same time, the five members of the Independent Commission on Banking (IBC) have also written to George Osborne, the Chancellor, to "emphasise the importance of promotion of competition through the financial regulatory framework".

The IBC, chaired by Sir John Vickers, believes the new Consumer Protection and Markets Authority – rather than the BoE – should have a "primary duty to promote effective competition".

Many of the concerns expressed by senior bankers to the Treasury centre on the handing of sweeping new powers to the Bank of England, which will oversee the new Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) that will take over the FSA's responsibility for overseeing the UK's banking system.

"As currently constructed there is a distinct lack of independent oversight of the PRA, which we find worrying. It is surely right that elected officials retain a key role in the oversight of the financial system," said one source at a major UK bank.

There have been repeated warnings since the Government first announced the disbandment of the FSA about an "accountability gap" created by the changes, as well as the concentration of power it will create at the Bank of England.

Andrew Tyrie MP, chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, has spoken repeatedly of his fears over the implication of handing so much power to one organisation. Under the proposed changes, the PRA will report to the Bank of England and while it will have independent directors on its board they will have no say in its running. By contrast, the FSA has an appeals process, enabling regulated businesses to challenge its decisions, something they will be unable to do under the new structure. Not all banks are understood to be concerned with the changes, and a source at one said they accepted the new structure and would look to work closely with the authorities on how best to implement the changes.

The British Bankers' Association (BBA), the main trade body of the UK banking industry, last week warned of the "potential for significant damage to the UK's reputation for the maintenance of a stable, competitive regime" if more was not done to make the PRA more accountable.

Meanwhile, George Osborne, speaking at the G20 meeting in South Korea, defended legislation which will reap £2.5bn from the UK's largest banks.



www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8083092/City-fears-new-Bank-of-England-powers-will-hit-democracy.html

[sandi66]

IMF becomes new global currency watchdog; China gains seats
October 23rd, 2010 2:47 pm ET
The Group of 20 decided early this morning to give the IMF new powers and to rebalance the voting rights among its members. Europe will give up two of its six seats while the BRIC countries get more voting power.

Timothy Geithner, US Treasury Secretary, has lobbied hard and furious to change the voting balance within the International Monetary Fund and has convinced Europe to give up two seats in favor of emerging economies.

Mr. Geithner’s goal has been to find a way for China to allow its yuan-renminbi to strengthen versus the dollar to offset the trade imbalance between the two largest world economies.

The second goal was to find a methodology to adjust the existing imbalance between producing and exporting economies (the east) versus the consuming countries (the west).

During the late night and early morning marathon meeting between the G20 members, the US found a way to achieve those goals and the common denominator was a new role for the IMF.

What does this really mean for the immediate and distant future?

The IMF has been granted the power of overseeing international currency exchange rates and global trade imbalances. The new commission will be approved by the IMF early November and is expected to be fully operational mid 2011.

The mandate for the IMF will be to instruct members to adjust the value of its legacy currency proportionately to its input or output in order to create a balance between currency markets and trade markets within the global economy.

Due to the new role of the IMF, which is unprecedented and the largest structural change made since its 1945 inception, the global economic picture will no longer be a reflection of continental economic activity but rather an artificial balance of import/export activity or production/consumption models.

The immediate impact will be that large exporters will be mandated to strengthen their currency to rebalance their trade balance sheet in favor of importing countries who will devalue its currencies to strike the imposed balance.

The future impact paints a slightly different picture when one looks at the positive impact on China and the US may end up regretting their decision.

The new rules will entice China to turn its economic model around even faster than they had in mind. The Chinese will transform its export driven economy, currently at 80%, into a sustainable model of 50% self-consumption and 50% export activity.

That turnaround will get China faster to its ultimate destiny: to become the world’s largest economic engine.

This will also result in the yuan-renminbi becoming very convertible as a trading currency in the global environment and will lead to the Chinese currency also becoming a preferred reserve currency.

In the short-term, Mr. Geithner may have gotten his wish to rectify the trade and currency imbalance, but the US, Europe and Japan have all shown their cards on the table.

Note that the Chinese delegation did not object to the IMF taking on the role of new trade and currency watchdog. China now has an open playing field and more seats on the IMF board.



www.examiner.com/international-trade-in-national/imf-becomes-new-global-currency-watchdog-china-gains-seats