“These bankers should be shown for what they really are to the public: vulgar robbers, thieves in ties, pickpockets and obstinate kleptomaniacs:” Hugo Chavez
President Chavez created new national laws not unlike the U.S. Dodd-Frank supposed financial reform law that Barack Obama signed on July21, 2010. ( along with the supposed food safety law, and Obama-care that completes the tri-fecta of taking over banks, food companies and producers, and the complete U.S. health-care system)
The Chavez’ method of operation in stealing the total private sector wealth of private sector companies and taking over their total economy was done quickly and right out in the open, whereas Barack Obama’s plans have been quietly designed and signed into law beneath the radar of the public and many under-qualified members of Congress, who either do not see the stealth takeover of the private sector by the U.S. government, or are choosing to turn their backs on the very people who elected them into power by remaining silent. Make no mistake here, the Obama and Chavez doctrines run extremely parallel and are rooted in the Marxist ideology of Socialist wealth redistribution by a plutocracy that in the end ends up in an all-powerful Communist collective. First, let’s look at what Mr. Chavez has done in Venezuela.
Chavez’s government well knows ( in his own mind) that the dollar-blinded rich in Venezuela must be defeated politically. A democratic economy is essential, and as private ownership fails to meet the needs of the masses, the state is taking over and formulating alternative ways of managing production and distribution. The pricing system is being moderated and social priorities are replacing market manipulation. As the global banking crisis and its scandals grew, the Venezuelan government ensured effective regulation at home. Several small private banks were taken over following revelations of bank fraud. (No fair trial, no evidence needed, just revelations) In November the main shareholder of a group of four banks, Grupo Financiero Bolivar, Ricardo Fernandez, known as a Chavez supporter, was arrested. Two of the banks were nationalised, and two were closed. The Institute in Defence of People’s Access to Goods and Services took control of four food companies owned by Ricardo Fernandez, to make sure there were no supply disruptions. Subsequently, a further three banks were nationalised and, on 11 December, Venezuela’s Superintendency of Banks closed an eighth.
Chavez declared on 10 December. “I have ordered the takeover of tuna, fish, corn processing and rice companies, as well as [the bankers’] estates and cattle … this will become wealth for the people’. He added: ‘We are confronting these problems in a coordinated manner with the whole state, and we are taking over companies that were forming a kind of network …We cannot wait until tomorrow. At the first sign, [we take] immediate action and inexorably apply the established laws and procedures.” (Just like Liberal fake democrats in the U.S. created a slew of laws with no allowed input from Republicans or we the people, Chavez and company drew up and instituted their own laws)
The Venezuelan media takeover has played a central part in Chavez’ plans: In this battle the media is central, and on 23 January RCTV and five other cable channels were temporarily taken off the air for breaking transmission laws requiring them to televise government announcements. On 14 January the state expropriated the sugar mills ‘Casta’, in the state of Tachira and the ‘La Batalla’ agricultural mill in the state of Barinas, to turn them into social property. All of this was accomplished when Hugo Chavez was given permission to rule by decree, without any input from the National Assembly: Venezuelan lawmakers loyal to President Hugo Chavez Wednesday approved a measure granting the U.S.-baiting left-wing leader authority to rule by decree for the next 18 months. Informed Americans have now come to realize that Obama and company now effectively control the mainstream media, as shown by their refusal to report on Obama’s questionable past, radical associations, and college Marxist ideology such as is thoroughly documented right here. Now we shall look into what is going on in our banking sector, as we already have been made aware of the complete takeover of our healthcare system, 2 major auto companies, the government intervention into our agriculture sector enabled by the Food Safety Bill, all done in very much the same way Hugo Chavez has done in Venezuela, as shown above.
The FDIC closed 157 banks in 2010 and the current total for 2011 now stands at 90.
During trips to several small towns in our area during the past two years, my family has always ended up discussing the possible reasons as to why all of the banks now have new names. The only bank still under it’s original name is the Bank of America, along with two credit unions. Why is this? If a bank is closed, how is it that it reopens almost immediately under a new name, and just why is this happening at an alarmingly increasing rate today? I recently discovered the answers to those questions, and several other questions others may have concerning the massive numbers of bank closings since 2009, and it is pretty unsettling, to say the least.
How is the takeover of hundreds of U.S. Banks being engineered today?
In order to close a bank down, surely there must be strict laws in place to provide security against fraud to protect depositors, taxpayers who have to foot the bill under bank foreclosures under FDIC guidelines, and their investors right? Well it turns out there were protections put into place.. until the passage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform act came along and changed the rules. First in March of 2009, the federal government starting stress testing the largest banks in the U.S. (note that this was immediately started in Obama’s first year in office) Please see The Case for Stress-Testing Community Banks*. Since this was actually the start of this method of evaluating banks, and then authorizing the FDIC to close them down, it is important to understand the role of SCAP, for Supervisory Capital Assessment Program and the subsequent evolution of the Dodd-Frank bill that now allows the federal reserve and the U. S. government to shut down any FDIC insured bank in America at any time. (Just like Chavez did, with zero input from elected officials)
The SCAP was launched in March 2009 to stress the capital of the 19 largest banks. This was a supervisory exercise to determine the capital buffers sufficient to withstand losses and sustain lending in institutions the U.S. Government deemed “systemically significant,” or “too big to fail.” While it was unlikely the rest of the banking industry would tolerate a system‐wide stress test, Federal policy was essentially leaving the rest of the industry to market forces and the normal FDIC resolution process. ( but not for long as we shall see next)
The stress test focused on the level and composition of capital for two years into the future. The test was conducted under two macroeconomic scenarios for two years forward:
o Baseline scenario based on consensus expectations as of February 2009; and
o More adverse scenario assuming a deeper and longer‐term downturn
(Ironically, this “more adverse” scenario was very close to what the U.S. Experienced).
The original SCAP program set the stage for Dodd-Frank regulations that would allow these “stress tests”, ( that actually had no proven benefit what so ever) to be injected into financial law. This marked a turning point on the thinking and attitude of the SCAP and the role stress testing could play in the banking industry.
The value of stress testing was cemented as Congress crafted regulatory reform. To ensure stress
testing became part of the fabric of bank supervision, Congress memorialized it in the following ways:
1. Federal Reserve to provide at least three different sets of conditions for firms to stress test
2. Federal Reserve to do annual stress tests on bank holding companies over 50 billion in assets
and non‐bank financial firms under Federal Reserve supervision;
3. Above firms required to do their own semi‐annual stress test; and
4. All other banks with assets greater than 10 billion required to do annual stress test.
While the legislation establishes bright lines for the size of institutions which are required to perform stress testing, the entire financial services industry should be prepared for increased expectations as financial regulators become accustomed to seeing stress testing as part of the risk management framework and an important part of the supervisory process. Increasingly, bank management will find it difficult to demonstrate sufficient risk management processes without incorporating an element of stress testing.
Take note: Community Bank Performance 2009 & 2010
The pace of bank failures increased significantly in 2009, with 140 institutions being closed. As of October 1, 2010, 129 banks have closed in 2010. That has increased to a total of 247 bank closures during 2010, and 2011. As we see billions of dollars in losses putting a huge strain on the FDIC insurance fund, just who ends up taking over these ‘closed banks’ that end up reopened almost the very same day/week that they were shut down? End Part1 In Part 2, we see just who is taking over these FIDC mandated shuttered banks, who is left paying the bill for their past debt, and just who is raking in billions of dollars from these big government manipulated bank closures.