Podcasts about tbtf

Markus Ronner ist Mitglied der globalen UBS-Konzernleitung und dort zuständig für Regulierungsfragen. Und er hat viel zu tun, denn: Der Bundesrat möchte die Eigenkapital-Anforderungen an die UBS erhöhen. Das Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft (SIF) arbeitet in diesen Tagen an konkreten Vorschläge; im Mai soll die Vernehmlassung beginnen. Was sagt Markus Ronner zu den Plänen von Finanzministerin Karin Keller-Sutter? Würden höhere Eigenkapitalvorschriften tatsächlich zu höheren Kreditzinsen führen? Und zieht die UBS-Konzernleitung notfalls auch einen Wegzug ins Ausland in Betracht? www.fabiocanetg.ch Der Schweizer Wirtschaftspodcast mit den hochkarätigsten Gästen! Von Börsen und Bitcoin bis Kaufkraft und Zinsen: Fabio Canetg, Geldökonom und Journalist, diskutiert im Geldcast mit seinen Gästen aus Wirtschaft, Politik und Wissenschaft über deren Werdegang, über die aktuellsten Themen aus der Finanzwelt, über die Geldpolitik der Schweizerischen Nationalbank und über die Wirtschaftspolitik von Bundesrat und Parlament. Ein Podcast über Zentralbanken, Inflation, Schulden und Geld – verständlich und unterhaltsam für alle, die auf dem Laufenden bleiben wollen. Stichworte: UBS, Eigenkapital, Eigenmittel, Stammhaus, Stammhaus-Problematik, TBTF, Banken, Grossbanken, Markus Ronner, Sergio Ermotti, Karin Keller-Sutter, Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft, Daniela Stoffel.

Nach dem Credit-Suisse-Debakel vom März 2023 erarbeitet die Bundesverwaltung in diesen Tagen eine neue Bankenregulierung. An der ETH Zürich haben sich darum die führenden Bankexpertinnen und -experten über die nötigen Gesetzesanpassungen ausgetauscht. Welche Aspekte finden sie wichtig? | Ein beinahe unkontrollierter Kollaps einer international tätigen Grossbank: Das soll es in der Schweiz nie mehr geben. Auch darum wird in diesen Tagen eine neue Bankenregulierung erarbeitet. Im Geldcast Update sagen die führenden Bankexpertinnen und -experten, was dabei wichtig ist. www.fabiocanetg.ch Der Schweizer Wirtschaftspodcast mit den hochkarätigsten Gästen! Von Börsen und Bitcoin bis Kaufkraft und Zinsen: Fabio Canetg, Geldökonom und Journalist, diskutiert im Geldcast mit seinen Gästen aus Wirtschaft, Politik und Wissenschaft über deren Werdegang, über die aktuellsten Themen aus der Finanzwelt, über die Geldpolitik der Schweizerischen Nationalbank und über die Wirtschaftspolitik von Bundesrat und Parlament. Ein Podcast über Zentralbanken, Inflation, Schulden und Geld – verständlich und unterhaltsam für alle, die auf dem Laufenden bleiben wollen. Stichworte: Bankenregulierung, Banken, Credit Suisse, UBS, Public Liquidity Backstop, PLB, Einlagesicherung, Finanzmarktaufsicht, Finma, Schweizerische Nationalbank, Nationalbank, SNB.

Welcome to The Throw Big Throw Far Podcast, the show dedicated to the athletes and coaches who push the limits in the throwing world. Today, we're honored to have a true legend of the sport, AL FEUERBACH, joining us. Al set the shot put world record in 1973 and finished in the top 5 of both the 1972 and 1976 Olympics. In this episode, we'll explore his journey from a small town in Iowa to traveling the world in 2 different careers, his technique, training and the mindset behind his historic throws. Get ready for an unforgettable conversation with one of the all-time greats! ThrowerX Online Resources for Throwers and Coaches who want to get better MFAthletic - Everything Track and Field VELAASA Throwing and Lifting Shoes use code: tbtf15 - 15% off PORTA CIRCLE Train Anywhere use code: TBTF - 10% off RODHE SPORT No Safe Throws use code: TBTF - 5% off WALSHOT TRAIN TO WIN ThrowsPro Throwing Implements use code: TBTF - 5% off McThrows.com Dan McQuaid's Throwing Blog Follow ThrowerX and throwBIGthrowFAR on Instagram Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Has Throwtown Ramona become the CENTER of the DISCUS WORLD? Don Millican and Caleb Seal chat with Dan McQuaid and Joe Frontier about how they createdThrowTown Ramona, the Oklahoma Throws Series and the World Invitational, Last year the facility was home to Mykolas Alekna's World Record Discus Throw, the farthest women's discus performance in almost 40 years, loads of Olympic qualifying marks, area records and more. This year $48,000 in prize money will bring even more throwers from around the world to chase wind and big throws. How the idea was hatched and the how the facility has grown and will continue to evolve in the future. Listen Now! ThrowerX Online Resources for Throwers and Coaches who want to get better MFAthletic - Everything Track and Field VELAASA Throwing and Lifting Shoes use code: tbtf15 - 15% off PORTA CIRCLE Train Anywhere use code: TBTF - 10% off RODHE SPORT No Safe Throws use code: TBTF - 5% off on all products WALSHOT TRAIN TO WIN McThrows.com Dan McQuaid's Throwing Blog Follow ThrowerX and throwBIGthrowFAR on Instagram Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Join host Coach Joe Frontier on the Throw Big Throw FAR Podcast as he sits down with Coach John Newell from Kansas State University. In this episode, they dive into the art and science of developing elite throwers, explore the importance of technique and mindset, and share insights from years of coaching athletes at the highest NCAA levels to the top of the Olympic Podium. Whether you're an athlete, coach, a shot put, discus, hammer, or javelin enthusiast, this episode is packed with wisdom and inspiration to help you reach new distances. Tune in! ThrowerX Online Resources for Throwers and Coaches who want to get better MFAthletic - Everything Track and Field VELAASA Throwing and Lifting Shoes use code: tbtf15 - 15% off PORTA CIRCLE Train Anywhere use code: TBTF - 10% off RODHE SPORT No Safe Throws use code: TBTF - 5% off on all products WALSHOT TRAIN TO WIN McThrows.com Dan McQuaid's Throwing Blog Follow ThrowerX and throwBIGthrowFAR on Instagram Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

ThrowerX Online Resources for Throwers and Coaches who want to get better MFAthletic - Everything Track and Field VELAASA Throwing and Lifting Shoes use code: tbtf15 - 15% off PORTA CIRCLE Train Anywhere use code: TBTF - 10% off RODHE SPORT No Safe Throws use code: TBTF - 5% off on all products WALSHOT TRAIN TO WIN McThrows.com Dan McQuaid's Throwing Blog Follow ThrowerX and throwBIGthrowFAR on Instagram Welcome to the Throw Big Throw Far Podcast, where we dive deep into the world of track and field, especially the throws! Whether you're an athlete, coach, or fan, this is your go-to place for expert insights, tips, and stories from the world of shot put, discus, hammer, javelin, and more. . Chirstian Cantwell shares insights into his journey as an Olympic Medalist and World Champion shot putter and talks about his son Jackson Cantwell's historic sophomore HS throwing season. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

ThrowerX Online Resources for Throwers and Coaches who want to get better MFAthletic - Everything Track and Field VELAASA Throwing and Lifting Shoes use code: tbtf15 - 15% off PORTA CIRCLE Train Anywhere use code: TBTF - 10% off RODHE SPORT No Safe Throws use code: TBTF - 5% off on all products WALSHOT TRAIN TO WIN McThrows.com Dan McQuaid's Throwing Blog Follow ThrowerX and throwBIGthrowFAR on Instagram Welcome to the Throw Big Throw Far Podcast, where we dive deep into the world of track and field, especially the throws! Whether you're an athlete, coach, or fan, this is your go-to place for expert insights, tips, and stories from the world of shot put, discus, hammer, javelin, and more. . Today with the help of Dan McQuaid, I'm excited to welcome Dr. Kristof Kipp, Professor at Marquette University and a renowned expert in biomechanics. Dr. Kipp, a former thrower himself has been at the forefront of research into optimizing athletic performance, and today, we're diving into some groundbreaking data he's collected from none other than Mykolas Alekna's world-record discus throw. We'll explore how this data sheds light on the mechanics behind Alekna's incredible throw, the science of explosive power, what it takes to achieve world-class performances and just better throws if you're a college or high school thrower or throws coach. This is a conversation packed with knowledge, don't miss it. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

ThrowerX Online Resources for Throwers and Coaches who want to get better MFAthletic - Everything Track and Field VELAASA Throwing and Lifting Shoes use code: tbtf15 - 15% off PORTA CIRCLE Train Anywhere use code: TBTF - 10% off RODHE SPORT No Safe Throws use code: TBTF - 5% off on all products WALSHOT TRAIN TO WIN McThrows.com Dan McQuaid's Throwing Blog Follow ThrowerX and throwBIGthrowFAR on Instagram Roje Stona put together the best discus throw of his career on the biggest stage in the world, grabbing away the Olympic Gold Medal and the Olympic Record in the deepest global discus competition in history. Roje joins Coach Frontier on the show to share his story and insights into his historical performance, training, working with Coach John Newell and Ryan Crouser, hints at what the NFL has in store for his future, and much more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

ThrowerX Online Resources for Throwers and Coaches who want to get better MFAthletic - Everything Track and Field VELAASA Throwing and Lifting Shoes use code: tbtf15 - 15% off PORTA CIRCLE Train Anywhere use code: TBTF - 10% off RODHE SPORT No Safe Throws use code: TBTF - 5% off on all products WALSHOT TRAIN TO WIN McThrows.com Dan McQuaid's Throwing Blog Follow ThrowerX and throwBIGthrowFAR on Instagram John Smith, is a world renowned throws coach at Ole, with success at not only the college level, but also the world stage. In total, Smith has coached four Olympians who have made nine cumulative trips to the Games, 34 United States national champions, 15 NCAA Champions, 11 NCAA Runners-Up, 101 All-Americans and 97 conference champions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

ThrowerX Online Resources for Throwers and Coaches who want to get better MFAthletic - Everything Track and Field VELAASA Throwing and Lifting Shoes use code: tbtf15 - 15% off PORTA CIRCLE Train Anywhere use code: TBTF - 10% off RODHE SPORT No Safe Throws use code: TBTF - 5% off on all products WALSHOT TRAIN TO WIN McThrows.com Dan McQuaid's Throwing Blog Follow ThrowerX and throwBIGthrowFAR on Instagram Kara Winger, Dan McQuaid and Joe Frontier recap the women's javelin throw at the 2024 Paris Olympics. Haruka Kitaguchi (JAP) takes gold with a season best 65.80m, Jo-Ane van Dyk (RSA) silver, and Nikola Ogrodnikova (CZE) bronze in a competition that only saw the winner surpass the Olympic standard distance. Kara shares her insight on what it might take to get US javelin throwers to a level that will help them contend for medals. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

ThrowerX Online Resources for Throwers and Coaches who want to get better MFAthletic - Everything Track and Field VELAASA Throwing and Lifting Shoes use code: tbtf15 - 15% off PORTA CIRCLE Train Anywhere use code: TBTF - 10% off RODHE SPORT No Safe Throws use code: TBTF - 5% off on all products WALSHOT TRAIN TO WIN McThrows.com Dan McQuaid's Throwing Blog Follow ThrowerX and throwBIGthrowFAR on Instagram Kara Winger, Dan McQuaid and Joe Frontier recap the men's javelin throw at the 2024 Paris Olympics. Arshad Nadeem breaks the OLYMPIC JAVLIN RECORD and wins gold for Pakistan. Neeraj Chopra (IND) silver and Anderson Peters (GRD) Bronze. Jakob Vadlejch, Julius Yego, Julian Weber and Keshorn Walcott all throw far in one of the deepest olympic finals ever! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

ThrowerX Online Resources for Throwers and Coaches who want to get better MFAthletic - Everything Track and Field VELAASA Throwing and Lifting Shoes use code: tbtf15 - 15% off PORTA CIRCLE Train Anywhere use code: TBTF - 10% off RODHE SPORT No Safe Throws use code: TBTF - 5% off on all products WALSHOT TRAIN TO WIN McThrows.com Dan McQuaid's Throwing Blog Follow ThrowerX and throwBIGthrowFAR on Instagram Mo Saatara , Dan McQuaid and Joe Frontier recap the women's hammer throw at the 2024 Paris Olympics. Camryn Rogers (CAN) finds a throw in round 5 to take GOLD and back up her World Championship from 2023. Annette Echikunwoke (USA) takes home Silver. Jie Zhao (CHN) bronze. World Record holder and 3 Time Olympic Gold Medalist Anita Wlodarczyk nearly misses the podium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

ThrowerX Online Resources for Throwers and Coaches who want to get better MFAthletic - Everything Track and Field VELAASA Throwing and Lifting Shoes use code: tbtf15 - 15% off PORTA CIRCLE Train Anywhere use code: TBTF - 10% off RODHE SPORT No Safe Throws use code: TBTF - 5% off on all products WALSHOT TRAIN TO WIN McThrows.com Dan McQuaid's Throwing Blog Follow ThrowerX and throwBIGthrowFAR on Instagram Mo Saatara , Dan McQuaid and Joe Frontier recap the men's hammer throw at the 2024 Paris Olympics. ETHAN KATZBERG (CAN) dominates with a first round throw of 84.17m for GOLD. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

ThrowerX Online Resources for Throwers and Coaches who want to get better MFAthletic - Everything Track and Field VELAASA Throwing and Lifting Shoes use code: tbtf15 - 15% off PORTA CIRCLE Train Anywhere use code: TBTF - 10% off RODHE SPORT No Safe Throws use code: TBTF - 5% off on all products WALSHOT TRAIN TO WIN McThrows.com Dan McQuaid's Throwing Blog Follow ThrowerX and throwBIGthrowFAR on Instagram Vesteinn Hafsteinsson , Dan McQuaid and Joe Frontier recap the women's discus throw at the 2024 Paris Olympics. IVAL ALLMAN dominates the discus field to win her 2nd Olympic Gold Medal. Bin Feng and Sandra Elkasavic complete the podium. Are we witnessing the handoff of the title 'greatest women's discus thrower' from Sandra to Val? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

ThrowerX Online Resources for Throwers and Coaches who want to get better MFAthletic - Everything Track and Field VELAASA Throwing and Lifting Shoes use code: tbtf15 - 15% off PORTA CIRCLE Train Anywhere use code: TBTF - 10% off RODHE SPORT No Safe Throws use code: TBTF - 5% off on all products WALSHOT TRAIN TO WIN McThrows.com Dan McQuaid's Throwing Blog Follow ThrowerX and throwBIGthrowFAR on Instagram Vesteinn Hafsteinsson , Dan McQuaid and Joe Frontier recap the historic men's discus throw at the 2024 Paris Olympics. In the deepest field in Olympic history, Mykolas Alekna breaks his fathers olympic record only to have Roje Stona break that record and win gold. Matty Denny takes Bronze. Kristjan Ceh and Daniel Stahl throw big as well and just miss the podium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

ThrowerX Online Resources for Throwers and Coaches who want to get better MFAthletic - Everything Track and Field VELAASA Throwing and Lifting Shoes use code: tbtf15 - 15% off PORTA CIRCLE Train Anywhere use code: TBTF - 10% off RODHE SPORT No Safe Throws use code: TBTF - 5% off on all products WALSHOT TRAIN TO WIN McThrows.com Dan McQuaid's Throwing Blog Follow ThrowerX and throwBIGthrowFAR on Instagram 2024 PARIS OLYMPICS MEN'S SHOT PUT 22.90m Ryan Crouser USA 22.15m Joe Kovacs USA 22.15m Rajindra Campbell JAM 22.03m Payton Otterdahl USA 21.70m Leonardo Fabbri ITL 21.42m Chuk Enekwechi NIG 21.15m Jacko Gill NZL 20.88m Uziel Munoz MEX Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

ThrowerX Online Resources for Throwers and Coaches who want to get better MFAthletic - Everything Track and Field VELAASA Throwing and Lifting Shoes use code: tbtf15 - 15% off PORTA CIRCLE Train Anywhere use code: TBTF - 10% off RODHE SPORT No Safe Throws use code: TBTF - 5% off on all products WALSHOT TRAIN TO WIN McThrows.com Dan McQuaid's Throwing Blog Follow ThrowerX and throwBIGthrowFAR on Instagram Chase Jackson, Sarah Mitton, Yemisi Ogunleye, Raven Saunders, Jaida Ross, Lijao Gong have all thown the Shot Put over 20m who will step up and claim their spot on the Olympic Podium? Mackenzie Little has the hot hand in Javelin heading into these games and Haruka Kitaguchi took gold at last years World Championships and DL Final, who will prevail? Darrell Hill, Dan McQuaid and Host Joe Frontier have predictions and much more in this Olympic Games Preview Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

ThrowerX Online Resources for Throwers and Coaches who want to get better MFAthletic - Everything Track and Field VELAASA Throwing and Lifting Shoes use code: tbtf15 - 15% off PORTA CIRCLE Train Anywhere use code: TBTF - 10% off RODHE SPORT No Safe Throws use code: TBTF - 5% off on all products WALSHOT TRAIN TO WIN McThrows.com Dan McQuaid's Throwing Blog Follow ThrowerX and throwBIGthrowFAR on InstagramDarrell Hill, Dan McQuaid, and Joe Frontier preview the loaded men's discus field, which includes World Record Holder Mykolas Alekna, 2022 World Champion Kristjan Ceh, defending World and Olympic Champion Daniel Stahl as well as Matty Denny, Andrew Evans, and Sam Mattis. In the Javelin will a fresh off a Euro Champ Jakob Vadlejch dethrone Neeraj Chopra? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Markus Somm ist Verleger und Chefredaktor des rechtsliberalen Nebelspalters und einer der einflussreichsten Polit-Kommentatoren der Schweiz. Als einer von ganz wenigen Leuten kritisiert Somm den Nationalbank-Präsidenten Thomas Jordan für seine Rolle beim Credit-Suisse-Kollaps vor einem Jahr. Er sagt, Jordan hätte die Credit Suisse bereits im Herbst 2022 stärker unter Druck setzen müssen. Und auch Marlene Amstad, Präsidentin der Finanzmarktaufsicht (Finma), kommt nicht gut weg: Niemand nehme Amstad ernst, so Somm. Entsprechend tief sei die Glaubwürdigkeit der Finma. | Wir sprechen im Geldcast über die Studienjahre von Markus Somm als Linker, über sein journalistisches Schaffen heute und über die Frage: Wer hat beim Untergang der Credit Suisse versagt? | Stichworte: Credit Suisse, UBS, Thomas Jordan, Marlene Amstad, Finanzmarktaufsicht, Finma, Markus Somm, Nebelspalter, Banken.

"Traditional social media companies – our true communications networks – are held captive to advertising revenue, which is held captive to TBTF banks, which are held captive to government agencies. But what if that model could be disrupted? Disrupted in a way where content creators, and all the people making billions of posts, directly get compensated from other users?"In this Bitcoin Out Loud episode of THE Bitcoin Podcast, Walker reads Preston Pysh's latest piece for Bitcoin Magazine: How to Actually Get Free SpeechFollow Preston on Nostr: https://primal.net/prestonFollow Walker on Nostr: https://primal.net/walkerWhat is Nostr? How Does it Work? Why Does it Matter?*****Go to bitbox.swiss/walker and use promo code WALKER for 5% off the Bitbox02 Bitcoin-only hardware wallet.*****THE BITCOIN PODCAST LINKS:Listen on FOUNTAIN: https://www.fountain.fm/show/68gcLZFDRxOzgGeZmXq6Listen EVERYWHERE: https://pod.link/1694392423Walker on Nostr: https://primal.net/walkerNpub: npub1cj8znuztfqkvq89pl8hceph0svvvqk0qay6nydgk9uyq7fhpfsgsqwrz4uFOLLOW ON TWITTER:https://twitter.com/walkeramericahttps://twitter.com/titcoinpodcastWATCH ON YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/@walkeramericaWATCH ON RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/user/WalkerAmericaBITCOIN PODCAST WEBSITE: https://bitcoinpodcast.net

Pre-Show The PlanB indicator is flashing bull market (https://twitter.com/100trillionUSD/status/1722947159308259733?t=5tu5Eb_ilj387fA9ljWFAA&s=09) /s News Adopting Bitcoin Conference stats: 1100 attendees 350 Salvadoran Over 150 sessions El Salvador's Rating Raised by S&P on Local Debt Refinancing (https://archive.ph/Y0YUN) Remember that the downgrade was partially attributed to bitcoin (https://www.fitchratings.com/research/sovereigns/fitch-downgrades-el-salvador-long-term-idr-to-ccc-from-b-09-02-2022) but also focused on the country's reliance on short term debt financing Tourism, a major economic driver in El Salvador, plummeted during the 2020 pandemic (https://www.statista.com/statistics/816553/el-salvador-number-of-tourist-arrivals/) but has increased sharply 2023 numbers are also higher (https://elsalvadorinenglish.com/2023/07/13/milestone-achieved-el-salvadors-tourism-soars-with-1-6-million-visitors-in-2023/) driven by hosting international events such as Adopting Bitcoin and the

Kirk Spano returns to discuss Fed rhetoric and interest rates (3:00) Recent bank earnings, what it means for the financial sector (8:15) Options and retail investing (17:10) Charles Schwab absorbing TD Ameritrade a big deal nobody's talking about (23:40) Charting Bitcoin's course (31:15) Stock-picking strategy - different metrics for different sectors (45:30) and strong energy - and space - stocks (58:31).Show Notes:Kirk Spano on Seeking AlphaMargin of Safety InvestingDilution And M&A Coming To BanksHow To Avoid Losing Money Through The VolatilitySeeking Alpha Investing GroupsSeeking Alpha Premium and PRO

The phrase “too big to fail” conjures images of the 2007-08 financial crisis. But the notion that the collapse of certain financial institutions could torpedo the larger economy goes back much further. On today’s show, we’ll trace the roots and evolution of “too big to fail.” Plus: earnings reports from TBTF banks, new car prices and the rebranding of milk.

The phrase “too big to fail” conjures images of the 2007-08 financial crisis. But the notion that the collapse of certain financial institutions could torpedo the larger economy goes back much further. On today’s show, we’ll trace the roots and evolution of “too big to fail.” Plus: earnings reports from TBTF banks, new car prices and the rebranding of milk.

US Hammer thrower, Janee Kassanavoid joins Coach Frontier this week on the TBTF podcast. She shares her unique story with us. From Kansas State All-American to the #6 Hammer thrower in World History. WISTCA Freshman Championships - June 11 Dubuque Throws Fest - June 11 - throwBIGthrowFAR STORE www.velaasa.com CODE: tbtf15 - 15% OFF your Velaasa purchases www.everythingtrackandfield.com MFAthletic 25% implements through 4/23 www.porta-circle.com CODE: TBTF - 10% OFF on all circles www.rodhesport.com CODE: TBTF - 5% OFF on all products www.walshot.com TRAIN TO WIN www.powerliftusa.com Powerful Gym Solutions www.throwpro.com code: TBTF INSTAGRAM TWITTER YouTUBE

Welcome to Finance and Fury, the Furious Friday edition. This episode – be looking at the weird combination between socialism and billionaires that is emerging – especially focusing on why billionaires are increasingly becoming in favour of socialism? Or additional government controls over economic function Interesting development - Wouldn’t think that these two worlds would collide – the only time I could think of socialism being used in the same sentence is to take away the billionaires money – which is has been – but why would some billionaires be in favour of this? technically – if a country was truly socialist – they wouldn’t have any wealth – or would they? In this episode – try to puzzle this out further to make sense of it and to see why they might be in favour of it - To start with – look at the concept of Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor  This is a classical political-economic argument which states that in advanced capitalist societies – the more advanced the country the more there is wealth – the more governments can exist – and with larger governments comes the ability of additional policies – Hence – these state policies can assure that more resources flow to certain sectors of the economy - in the form of transfer payments One of the most commonly raised forms of criticism are build around the fact that the more political the economy becomes – the more it allows for the flow of resources to go towards certain large corporations This allows for the process of privatize profits and socialize losses - The argument has been raised and cited on many occasions. May have heard this from mostly individuals on the left – those But they take their anger out on the ‘rich’ – which is such a generic term – what is rich? We are all rich compared to someone living in the 3rd world – that is where movements like the occupy wall street movement was misdirected in their energy and efforts – they were pointed in the wrong direction – as their solutions would have caused more of the same – giving the government additional power over the economy – wanting redistribution to take from the top to give to the bottom The concept of socialism goes on large spectrums – All the way – Government controls all means of production – which has never worked well Part of the way – what most people might think of – is social policies – like social security In either case – governments need more authority – either to control all of the means of production – or to have the ability to tax or raise funds through deficits to fund their policies There are lots of criticisms of free market principles – but with Governments acting the way they do now – there is no free market – so calling a county capitalist when it has a socialist style monetary policy – where a semi-state or even private company in the case of the Fed control all of the money – isn’t truly a free market – I have plenty of criticisms of the current economic system – but I don’t blame the free market – I see that the free market got hijacked by the one entity that have greater control over it than the sum of individual choices in optimisation – that is Government – they create the rules in which the market has to operate – and the more rules – the less free But that is where people can use free-market rhetoric to go one of two ways – what is happening in a lot of politics is that it is being used to justify imposing greater economic risk upon the non-billionaire class – SME – through additional regulations – however – billionaires and large companies considered TBTF are being insulated from the rigours of the market by the political and economic advantages that such wealth affords These two things are not the same – and neither is technically free market This form of free market is socialism for the rich – where they have levels of state protection – that is part of why I believe that some of the billionaire class and politically powerful want to have a nanny state – But for the end result of when one is in trouble the taxpayer will bail them out – this is where the too big to fail scenarios of the past decade plus are a good example – seeing more of that now with the Fed buying back corporate debt off the market to further bail out the largest companies on earth – and over this time period whilst most individuals wealth and incomes have declines – select billionaires who have been the recipients of this have seen their wealth skyrocket   A lot of this comes back to the concept of Corporate welfare The term corporate welfare is widely used to describe the bestowal of favourable treatment to big business by the government The definition of corporate welfare is sometimes restricted to direct government subsidies of major corporations – this doesn’t include tax loopholes and other forms of regulatory trade decisions - which in practice could be worth much more than any direct subsidies – but are indirect due to policy decisions Subsidies considered excessive, unwarranted, wasteful, unfair, inefficient, or bought by lobbying are often called corporate welfare. The label of corporate welfare is often used to decry projects advertised as benefiting the general welfare that spend a disproportionate amount of funds on large corporations, and often in uncompetitive, or anti-competitive ways. For instance agricultural subsidies are usually portrayed as helping independent farmers stay afloat - However, the majority of income gained from commodity support programs actually goes to large agribusiness corporations - as they own a considerably larger percentage of production – the same thing happens in the EU with quotas of production for things like the fishing industry where one large company can get 90% of the quota where the remaining independents having to fight over the scraps In the US – estimates are that state and local governments provide $40–50 billion annually in economic development incentives to large companies which could be categorised as corporate welfare the Cato Institute estimated that the US Federal government allocated approximately US$92 billion in the 2006 federal budget toward programs that the authors considered to be corporate welfare - estimated that number to be US$100 billion in the 2012 federal budget – who knows that it is now Comparison – that $770 billion on social security – which is still a large amount of money – but I’m guess a lot of people didn’t realise that well over $150bn was provided as a form of social security to multi-billion-dollar companies Brings up important question – how did a lot of the largest companies get there? They provide good product yes – but along their climbs they have received a lot of government assistance – Examples – there are plenty – and too many to go through Tesla – Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and SpaceX together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support - data compiled by The Times as at 2015 underscores a common theme running through these emerging empires: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups – that investors and the market used to finance From subsidies at the national and state level, to federal tax credits for consumers buying electric cars and solar panels, to fuel efficiency standards that help bring millions in revenue for Tesla – selling carbon credits given to Tesla has helped them turn a small profit last quarter Amazon - growing rapidly in part to its aggressive strategy for getting subsidies and tax breaks - been getting about 20 subsidy packages a year since 2012 for its warehouses and data centres - $2.8 billion and countingas of December 2019 Amazon created an entire team just to seek out these subsidies, in a continuation of its strategy to work the tax code to its advantage—first by not collecting sales tax and offering an effective discount on every product, and more recently to lower the cost of building new shipping facilities I understand the benefit of trying to get economic development through additional employment by attracting Amazon to move to your city - If a city or state shells out millions of dollars to attract Amazon, the least it can do is ensure that the resulting jobs lift people out of poverty – average salary for the warehouse workers is about $30,000 per worker, barely above the $26,208 poverty line – 10% of employees are on food stamps This is another result from this form of socialism – if amazon is the only employer and not much competition – they don’t need to pay much in salaries But they also take up state resources with other tax payers need to covers - Bloomberg reported last year that emergency responders visit the Amazon warehouse in one County at least once a day for the month to attend to an injured worker The largesse bestowed on Amazon in Ohio is incredible. A deal for three Amazon data centres netted Amazon a 15-year exemption on property and sales taxes worth $77 million, a $4 million offset to payroll costs, and $1.4 million in cash I’m for not regulating over regulating companies – but I am also not for then making the playing field unfair through providing hand outs to the companies that you choose – But Billionaires who have benefited from this – as their companies at the top are the recipients of these hand outs – so the individuals who own these companies wealth also grows– they don’t directly get the money in the form of welfare – but they indirectly get wealthier from it An extreme example of billionaires benefiting from Governments assisting them in creating monopolies is Carlos Slim– billionaire in Mexico – failed business ventures in US – didn’t have the right politicians to help his ventures along unlike what he had in Mexico Important to point out that here I am not talking about rich – which could be the middle and upper middle class – not even against billionaires – but those that are wanting governments to have more power to help protect their monopolies and provide them corporate welfare – a lot of back scratching going on through lobbying – which is all part of a socialist state – people are still wealthy in socialism – those with political connections – as well as politicians themselves – it is you and I that get the poor end of the deal We don’t have the same political connections to game the system – and when the system is set up to a point large companies need big governments to grow to the point they have – they want to continue that - So they push for bigger governments – like socialism does Plus – even if the government plans to tax all of their wealth away – good luck – billionaires have access to many things that you and I don’t – such as mobility of ourselves and our money – look at the flight from NYC – if you are a billionaire – move your money elsewhere or live elsewhere – and have the best international accounting teams to help avoid paying any taxes – so billionaires can support all the tax payments in the world – cause they know they wont have to pay them – but the upper middle class will – Same with company taxes – large corporates get tax credits and can use complex accounting practices – through IP laws and R&D costs to conduct a tax shifting scheme through conduit and sink countries But again – the smaller or medium sized companies can’t operate in this way – even some larger companies can’t – but the new age of billionaires have different companies – especially in technology – which is borderless But there is more to this I think - Where I think this is all heading – with billionaires pushing for socialism and have the political power to direct changes – on top of informational influence – through platforms like Amazon, FB, Google – they are also in favour of concepts like UBI – so we will look at how if a more socialist state or things like MMT come to be – this will also benefit these large companies But in summary for this episode – I think that most of the billionaire class are in favour of calling for socialism due to it giving governments more control over the economy – and hence Not true socialism – but a socialism lite version to help create additional barriers to entry and help monopolies the markets further More political power – greater ability for lobbyist to influence policy at the state and federal levels – hence additional benefits for the company Thank you for listening to today's episode. If you want to get in contact you can do so here: http://financeandfury.com.au/contact/

Tune in TODAY on The Doctor Whisperer Show and welcome Mallory Tai Taylor, Founder & CEO of MTT Innovations! Mallory currently serves as Founder & CEO of MTT Innovations, where she consults for numerous government entities, non-profits, healthcare, and technology companies. Helping her clients create or capitalize on strategic initiatives that facilitate growth and opportunities. As Cofounder and former CEO of assessURhealth, Mallory was responsible for all revenue generation, execution of short & long-term strategic planning until the acquisition in December of 2019. As Chief Architect, she was key to developing assessURhealth's proprietary algorithm, custom integrations and oversaw the continued product development allowing for millions of lives to be screened and saved. Her business and health IT expertise allow her to engage with political and industry experts, including HHS and formerly the White House Business Council. Where she continues to advocate for mental health awareness. Her strategic direction at her former company saw her oversee and execute 5 acquisitions in an 8-month period with internal financing, paying off within 6 months. Mallory has been honored in numerous publications, including 2019 finalist for EY's Entrepreneur of the Year, a TBBJ Up & Comer honoree in 2014 & 2016 and Businesswoman of the Year Honoree in 2015, 2016 & 2017. On Business Observer's 40 Under 40 list in 2017. Mallory was also named Young Professional of the Year at TBTF's Industry Achievement Awards in 2014, was a finalist for Emerging Technology Leader of the Year in 2016, and a finalist for Technology Leader of the year in 2017. Mallory subsequently graduated summa cum laude from LSU with a B.A. in Political Science and is pursuing her Masters in International Business & Policy from Georgetown University. Thank you to our incredible sponsor TieTechnology for sponsoring the show! Contact: To send me a voice message, click here: https://anchor.fm/thedoctorwhisperer/message To send me an email, click here: 13thavenuemedia@gmail.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/thedoctorwhisperer/message

In this episode of The Daily Mastery Podcast, you'll learn how to begin your day in what Robin Sharma teaches in his proprietary method, The Tight Bubble of Total Focus Strategy (TBTF). Robin Sharma's highest level clients in IconX as well as those he is mentoring in his online program The Circle of Legends are saying that taking his advice to install their Tight Bubbles of Total Focus [TBTF] so they read the news selectively, avoid toxic people and insulate their positive focus is allowing them to thrive professional and personally as the world falls apart. So do whatever it takes to find time to create, stay productive and remain inspired right now. And find your personal sanctuary so you get great work done.

Welcome to Finance and Fury, the Say What Wednesday edition. This week the question comes from Mina. “I would love to get your view on Structured products like the ones being offered by sequoia. Is the risk worth the return?” Great question – thanks Mina - this episode is not investment advice – general nature - Structured products – A structured product – can also be referred to as a market-linked investment – they are a pre-packaged structured finance investment strategy based on an underlying asset This can be built around a range of assets – from a single security, a basket of securities, options, indices, commodities, debt issuance or foreign currencies – complex structure They are an investment product that is put together by a financial institution - usually by a bank or investment firm – pre-packaged exposure to one or more underlying assets typically contain an embedded over-the-counter derivative contract, such as an option or swap, and they are often blended with a bank deposit or government bond to provide capital guarantees Structured products are a fixed-term investment that typically lasts between 3 and 10 years – most of sequoias are 3 years With these investments - as the value of the basket of assets rises over the 3–10 year period - the probability of the target return rate being met once the investment reaches full maturity increases Massive range of different types of structured products – as they are designed to provide investors with a range of different pay-offs – Like most structured products – like managed funds - the payoffs depend on the performance of the underlying asset But have additional elements – some structured products aim to provide investors with capital protection - others seek to generate enhanced levels of income or growth through leveraged exposure to the underlying assets that make up the product – so the risks can be very small – or large depending on the type Two major categories of structured products - Structured deposits and structured investments Structured Deposits – can be thought of as a mixture of a savings account and an investment With these – the invested funds are protected and even if the value of the underlying stock market index falls - considered a lower-medium risk Structured Investments – more of a capital-at-risk accounts – but aim to provide a higher return than a Structured Deposit With this type of structured product there is the risk of losing money if the underlying assets fails to perform A few types of structured products include: Capital-guaranteed structured investments – blend a bank deposit with an option or a leveraged investment in the underlying asset ratio between the deposit and the risky asset may either be fixed or flexible - at maturity investors either receive their capital back or their capital plus a return depending on the performance of the underlying asset As with any derivative transaction, investors need to ensure that they fully understand all the costs and risks as well as how the returns are to be calculated. Are they a good investment option? They are complex investments – so you need to fully understand what you are getting yourself into Structured Products were subject to mis-selling scandals due to the sellers not fully understanding the product- one case with Lloyds Bank where it was claimed to have mislead their consumers with an impression of a highly likely return through Structured Products However - there is a chance you may not make any return at all What are the benefits - Structured Products can be good if you don’t want to risk all of your capital – Due to the structure – you can get ones that have the majority of your money set aside for protection Structured Products can offer a medium risk method of investing Major risk is that you lose on this investment if the counterparty or deposit taker becomes solvent. This is only if you invested in a Structured Deposit as Structured Investments are not protected in the same way Returns - Issuers normally pay returns on structured products once it reaches maturity – but can pay coupons (income) along the way Can be called a payoff - or returns – but the performance outcomes are contingent For example - if the underlying assets return "x," then the structured product pays out "y." Creates a situation where a structured products performance is closely related to traditional models of options pricing- known as being in the money or out of the money - although they may also contain other derivative categories such as swaps, forwards, and futures, as well as embedded features that include leveraged upside participation or downside buffers Looking at an example -Consider that CBA issues structured products in the form of a capital notes—each with a notional face value of $1,000 – structured product is actually a package that consists of two components: A zero-coupon bond and a call option on an underlying equity investments – like CBA shares or ETF that mimics the ASX. Call option gives the right but not obligation to buy the share investment in the future at a current price – so you win if the price goes up - and The maturity is three years. Although the pricing mechanisms that drive these values are complex, the underlying principle is fairly simple On the issue date, you pay the face amount of $1,000 to buy this product - This note is fully principal-protected, meaning you will get your $1,000 back at maturity no matter what happens to the underlying asset. This is accomplished via the zero-coupon bond accreting from its original issue discount to face value. For the performance component - the underlying asset is priced as a call option – this will have an intrinsic value at maturity in 3 years time - if its value on that date is higher than its value when issued – then you get more back in returns - if not - the option expires worthlessly and you get nothing in excess of your $1,000 return of principal The risks - there is a chance that your Structured Product investment may provide no return – minus any fees   They could even produce a loss when they mature - This could be due to inflation(negative real return) or unfortunate circumstances with your deposit taker. Your money is at the hands of your counterparty or deposit taker - if they become solvent, you lose your investment Counterparty risks with derivatives – can go bad – if this is with a firm that isn’t TBTF – i.e. a non-SIFI Also have higher costs – looking at some – sequoia – application fee of 1.1% to 2.2% and investment cost for the first 2 years of 8.6% for a lot of products   Look at some with sequoia - Many different types – go through some of these to look at how they work JB Global Booster Series 1 - been designed to offer flexibility by offering investors exposure the to the performance of the Australian share market as measured by the S&P/ASX 200 as well as a compulsory Loan under which Investors borrow 100% of the Investment Amount It is a three-year investment in a structured product that aims to provide investors with the potential to benefit from the growth of the S&P/ASX 200 Price Return Index – but also has a Capital Protection component on the scheduled Maturity Date It has a variable Participation Rate – so you can choose how much exposure you want - with the potential for a maximum of 150% Has Two Coupons of a minimum 3.60% and maximum 9% of the Issue Price of your Investment Amount paid at the end of the first 2 years, depending on the performance of the Reference Asset A final uncapped Coupon paid at the maturity of the investment, depending on the performance of the Reference Asset 100% borrowing at interest rates of 7.55% p.a -Interest is required to be prepaid each year annually in advance. At the end of Year 1 and Year 2, the amount of the Coupon will be set-off against the Prepaid Interest and you get paid the difference If the Coupon is greater than the Prepaid Interest, you will not be required to make a payment and will instead receive the net amount of the Coupon less the Prepaid Interest If not- some capital is taken out Downsides - Your return (including any Coupon) is affected by the performance of the Dispersion of Reference Basket and whether this is greater than the Hurdle at Maturity – this is with the option – if you finish out of the money - There is no guarantee that the Reference Basket will perform well. There will be no Performance Coupons payable if the Dispersion of the Reference Basket is below the Hurdle at Maturity. There is no guarantee that the Units will generate returns in excess of the Prepaid Interest and Fees, during the Investment Term. Additionally, in the event of an Investor requested Issuer Buy-Back or an Early Maturity Event you will not receive a refund of your Prepaid Interest or Fees. Gains (and losses) may be magnified by the use of a 100% Loan But this Loan is a limited recourse Loan, so you will never be required to pay more than the Prepaid Interest Amount and Fees at Commencement. Looking back – ASX200 investment – in the JB Global Income and Equity Booster Series 1 has matured on 30 June 2014 Delivered total returns to investors of approximately 21.08% during the Investment Term - The minimum Participation Rate for both Series is 0% which means investors have no exposure to the relevant Reference Asset. What did the ASX200 do over this period – Accumulated index went from 32,841 to 48,015 – total return of 46% over that period If you take the price purely – it has done okay – but if you had invested into those assets and received the dividend – done better – of course the opposite could have been true – if the markets went down Is the risk worth the return - Due to their structures – you can have smaller levels of risk – or larger levels – Due to most having a capital guarantee component – loss from volatility can be reduced – however – counter party risks are involved Aim would be to ensure you do not ‘put all your eggs in one basket’ If you wanted to invest this way – select investments that are diversified over different providers – but also that use different counterparties and time horizons – maturities When it comes to investing – I like things that have higher levels of simplicity – The more complex the structure – the more you might be buying something that may have hidden elements that can go wrong Unlike other structures – here you have additional layers of counter party risks Thank you for listening to today's episode. If you want to get in contact you can do so here: http://financeandfury.com.au/contact/

Welcome to Finance and Fury, the Furious Friday edition. In the last two Furious Friday episodes, I’ve talked about the regulation and de-regulations on the monetary and fiscal sides. Covered the Banking Act of 1933 and the Glass-Stegall section of this – then the financial de-regulations that occurred in 1986 and 1999 – some interesting events have played out since then What I didn’t cover is that there was a step taken back after GFC – to help undo some of the de-regulation a rule in the US that was designed to prevent banks that receive federal and taxpayer backing in the form of deposit insurance and other support from engaging in risky trading activities – called the Volcker rule but recently got watered down 3 weeks ago – might have something to do with loan products that banks are now offering due to business shut downs – interesting timing and connections which we will run through today   The Volcker Rule is a federal regulation that aimed to prohibit banks from conducting certain investment activities with their own accounts – also aimed to limit their involvement with hedge funds and private equity funds - called covered funds The Volcker Rule aims to protect bank customers by preventing banks from making certain types of speculative investments that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis Named after former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, the Volcker Rule is a section of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act The Volcker Rule prohibits banks from using their own accounts for short-term proprietary trading – Proprietary trading occurs when a trader trades stocks, bonds, currencies, commodities, their derivatives, or other financial instruments with the firm's own money, aka the nostro account, contrary to depositors' money, in order to make a profit for itself – so using the banks own assets to trade was barred also bars banks, or insured depository institutions, from acquiring or retaining ownership interests in hedge funds or private equity funds beyond a cap of 3% the rule aims to discourage banks from taking too much risk by barring them from using their own funds to make these types of investments to increase profits The Volcker Rule relies on the premise that these speculative trading activities do not benefit banks’ customers Still allows banks to continue normal activities - market-making, underwriting, hedging, trading government securities, engaging in insurance company activities, offering hedge funds and private equity funds, and acting as agents, brokers or custodians – all of this is allowed to generate profits But banks aren’t meant to engage in these activities if doing so would create a material conflict of interest, expose the institution to high-risk assets or trading strategies, or generate instability within the bank or within the overall U.S. financial system For instance = securitising their own lending and betting on this – or using their own funds to take too much risk on – as the banks own funds are meant to be protected with the TBTF legislation – take all the risk but bear none of the responsibility if it goes wrong Depending on their size, banks must meet varying levels of reporting requirements to disclose details of their covered trading activities to the government. Larger institutions must implement a program to ensure compliance with the new rules, and their programs are subject to independent testing and analysis. Smaller institutions are subject to lesser compliance and reporting requirements. Think of it as a Glass-Stegall lite version – limits some activity but not all – there are always loopholes – Doesn’t say anything about using depositors’ funds – which are on ‘loan’ to the banks – so technically not their own money which wouldn’t be considered proprietary trading Also - where those who were proprietary traders or derivative traders left to set up their own shop – still had access to banks capital on loan – was still ongoing with the regulation’s implementation – kept having delays 2017 - the IMFs top risk official said that regulations to prevent speculative bets are hard to enforce due to the ways around the regulations   Background to this rule and what has occurred over the past few years up until the end of June this year Origins date back to 2009 - Volcker proposed a piece of regulation in response to the ongoing financial crisis - due to the largest banks having accumulated large losses from their proprietary trading arms that could have sunk the rest of the bank if not bailed out Proposal aimed to prohibit banks from speculating in the markets using capital reserves and own assets December 2013 - five federal agencies approved the final regulations that make up the Volcker Rule—the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) went into effect on April 1, 2014 - banks needed full compliance by July 21, 2015 Since then – the Fed has set procedures for banks to request extended time to transition into full compliance for certain activities and investments. Skip forward to June 2017 - the Treasury – the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency - after conducting a review - said it recommends significant changes to the Volcker Rule said that it does not support its repeal and "supports the rule in principle" – i.e. the rule's limitations on proprietary trading - but recommended exempting banks from the Volcker Rule banks with less than $10 billion in assets Treasury also cited regulatory compliance burdens created by the rule and suggested simplifying and refining the definitions of proprietary trading and covered funds on top of softening the regulation to allow banks to more easily hedge their risks. Federal Reserve's Finance and Economics Discussion Series (FEDS) made a similar argument, saying that the Volcker Rule will reduce liquidity due to a reduction in banks' market-making activities Then - on May 30, 2018 - the Federal Reserve Board voted unanimously to push forward a proposal to loosen the restrictions around the Volcker Rule further – the goal according to Powell, is "...to replace overly complex and inefficient requirements with a more streamlined set of requirements” In August of 2019, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency voted to amend the Volcker Rule in an attempt to clarify what securities trading was and was not allowed by banks – wanted to redefine some terms The change would require the five regulatory agencies to sign off before going into effect, but is generally seen as a relaxation of the rule's previous restriction on banks using their own funds to trade securities – allowing proprietary trading for some activities The proposal would eliminate a 3% cap on ownership of a venture capital fund. It would also allow banks to invest in debt-based funds among other changes. So it has been watered down for years and wasn’t fully in force anyway – but now final nail in coffin as of June 25, 2020 the federal reserve relaxed part of the rules involving banks investing in venture capital and for derivative trading Federal Deposit Insurance Commission (FDIC) - loosened restrictions in the Volcker rule on bank capital requirements and the levels of investments that banks can make in private equity and similar funds the banks will not have to set aside as much cash for derivatives trades between different units of the same firm- remember that this requirement had been put in place in the original rule to make sure that if speculative derivative bets went wrong, banks wouldn't get wiped out. The loosening of those requirements could free up billions of dollars in capital for the industry to start betting again So after the past few years - the Fed, FDIC, OCC and other agencies eased the aspect of Volcker that restricts lenders from engaging in proprietary trading -- the practice of making market bets for themselves instead of on behalf of clients Under the existing rule, banks could make indirect investments into venture capital funds but faced restrictions on directly owning a fund - The rule change would also give banks more leeway to invest or sponsor credit funds that make loans, invest in debt securities, or extend credit. One implication of this rule change would be greater bank activity in the market for collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) - where banks were previously barred from involving themselves with CLO funds that included a debt component due to this being considered their own funds (or an asset) Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell called the proposed change "a simpler, clearer approach to implementing the rule [which] makes it easier for both banks and regulators to carry out the intent of the rule". Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard voted against the proposal, arguing that "several of the proposed changes will weaken core protections in the Volcker rule and enable banking firms again to engage in high-risk activities related to covered funds”   Why do this now? Only my speculation – no proof that this is occurring – but it lines up with billions being given out by banks that are government guaranteed as part of the US stimulus efforts. Look at the GFC – with Synthetic CDOs – take thousands of loans – put them in a security – then take that security and others – and put it in other securities – then write contracts on them – betting about price movements - bets on bets analogy – Those loans back in GFC had government guarantees – from Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac – gov lending So if banks wanted to bet on bad loans – with Volker it was hard – but what is happening in the economy right now in the US? The Paycheck Protection Program – part of the CARES act - designed to provide forgivable loans to businesses hurt by the coronavirus The Act authorizes the Treasury, working in large part through the Federal Reserve, to make loans and loan guarantees available to eligible businesses. Title I - $350 billion for small business loans. Title IV - appropriates another $500 billion to aid mid-sized and large businesses $850bn in total - creating another winner in banks – as banks are the ones who are lending these funds Quick side note - Banks that made the government-guaranteed PPP loans to small businesses are set to collect billions of dollars in fees directly from the Small Business Administration Through the end of June, more than $521 billion in PPP loans had been approved, according to the latest data from the SBA Not out of the kindness of banks hearts - The top 10 lenders will receive an estimated total of more than $3.8 billion in fees S&P Global Market Intelligence- JPMorgan Chase, which is the largest PPP lender after extending nearly $29 billion worth of the loans, is on track to make some $864 million in fees. Bank of America, the next biggest, will rake in an estimated $755 million in fees on its PPP loans Under Treasury Department rules, PPP lenders can charge processing fees between 1% and 5%, depending on the amount of the loan - 5% on loans of $350,000 or less - 1% on loans of $2 million and above Lenders are barred from collecting the fees from the small businesses applying for PPP loans; instead, the SBA will cover the costs But banks can't count the fees as revenue immediately—they have to wait until the loans are either forgiven or paid back by the company, which could take years – unless the company goes out of business While the revenue from PPP fees is a small portion of the overall revenue of big banks, the program does create new assets for them to securitise – again I don’t know that this is going on – but if profits can be made – and the legislation is now removed that limited banks doing this – why wouldn’t they? why not profit off these loans - through getting back into securitising and betting on these? PPP loans – banks are providing these – but know that a chunk of these are likely bad loans – and can be gambled on if securitized Estimates that 20% of small businesses in the US will cease to operate due to their lockdowns Know that the funds are guaranteed - Could be a large amount of companies that fail – but banks bets are covered What can go wrong? Involves similar hubris to the 2008 crash – as banks thought that mortgages are safe – nobody ever defaults on a mortgage and if they do, then it is only 1-2% - so the rest are safe So all of this could be nothing – but I wouldn’t be surprised if this creates another form of bubble over the next few years as these loans mature Thank you for listening to today's episode. If you want to get in contact you can do so here: http://financeandfury.com.au/contact/

Welcome to Finance and Fury, the Furious Friday edition. Does the Government need to solve economic problems? Do central banks solve economic problems? If so – how? These are honest question that do need to be thought about - there seems to be this growing thought through western societies that the answers to both are yes. That individuals are no longer capable of making their own decisions or choices in the economy – and it is up to a higher power But yet- if we are left to our own devices, would we solve the problems of the economy over time through our voluntary choices? Going to the extreme examples - If more money redistribution to the people from Governments, or increased government controls over the economy worked so well – then socialist states should rock People would be clamouring to get into these nations – not get out and go to nations with a freer market – which simply means greater freedom of choice when it comes to economic activity – The flight from socialist countries and the better quality of life in economically free counties has been the demonstrable trend over the past 100+ years – But whilst you can do a bit of digging and see this – socialist nations do sound great – having governments control the economy and provide everything to people does sound attractive to some people - might sound good but in reality when something goes wrong – there is no free economy left to solve it – no individuals to make voluntary transactions or start a business reliance on the government is all that is known or allowed – so to get out of any economic worries – more of the same is turned to – with increased gov spending or taking over control of more of the economy – which tends to compound the problem In western economies - Most economic problems as I see them stem from the trend of increasing regulation and additional controls over our lives that the Financial System plays – Even government regulation that is meant to do good can go wrong The very nature of the global financial system is moving down the trend of additional control over the economy No inflation? Drop interest rates. No GDP, increase government spending.   This episode will be a thought experiment – looking at the reversal of the trend – I’m just one man – who knows if these would work and make for a better economy – These are just my thoughts on reversing trends which have resulted in a fragile and skewed economy – probably missing many problems with these solutions – due to the orders of effects from actions – There are four major structural areas of the economy that need fixing through reversing trends over the past 100 years – falling to the fallacy of the intelligentsia of only having no external feedback loops for ideas – but it is fun to think about so here we go Separate commercial and investment banking Remove reliance on a Central banks fuelling a debt based economy – reforming central banks to remove inflation targeting as a monetary policy Reverse the trends in regulations and increase supply side thinking Enforce anti-competitive behaviours – i.e. monopolistic practices Big topic – so split this up into Monetary and Fiscal policy – first to points in this episode – last two next week   Separating commercial and investment banking – the interconnected nature of the financial system This used to be the way things worked – - where you have a bank you put money with and borrow from – and another that invests in speculative positions - talked about this in the episode “What has created a system where the share market can go down so quickly?” and a number of episodes in the past In summary – In the US – thing called the banking Act of 1933 – one part of this was the “Glass-Steagall” section of the act - forced the absolute separation of the productive banking from speculative banking Commercial banks were considered productive – Under this act in 1933 – introduced the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) – only on those commercial banking assets associated with the productive economy Created a system where speculative losses arising from investment banking to be suffered by the gambler Worked well for a while – then there came the first mass wave of deregulation – While Australia has previously not enacted specific Glass-Steagall legislation – we had Commonwealth regulations which effectively imposed many similar restrictions in place until the deregulation of banks commenced in the 1970s and 1980s These were minor to the major onset in the areas of Deregulations – Two major financial centres of London (UK) and New York (USA) London - 1986, the City of London announced the beginning of a new era of economic policy – known as the “Big Bang” deregulation - swept aside the separation of commercial deposit taking and investment banking in the UK the “Big Bang” set a precedent for similar financial de-regulation into the “Universal Banking” model in other parts of the western world – allowing investment banking to snuggle back up to commercial banking – but now with guarantees USA – In September 1987 – massive ramp up in speculation resulted in a collapse in most major share indices Within hours of this crash, international emergency meetings had been convened by Alan Greenspan introducing a “solution” - The creation of a new instrument – this was called a “Creative financial instruments” but otherwise known as “derivatives” today - Came up with the derivative instruments as a concept and further increased the risk to the financial system The USA Still had the problem of separation of commercial and investment banks – but by 1999 - Clinton found himself signing into law a treaty authored by then Treasury Secretary Larry Summers known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act – this removed the Glass-Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking in the US The new age of unregulated trading and creation of over-the-counter derivatives caused these strange financial instruments to grow from $60 trillion in 2000 to $600 trillion by 2008 – But around $1.2 quadrillion today at best guess The issue is that the deposit guarantee schemes were left in place – so if you an investment bank – you can team up with a commercial bank and take on an endless amount of risk – they are protected when the inevitable failures take place Beyond the obvious pitfalls – this Skewed the allocation of resources – more profitable to bet on derivatives and the financial markets than it is to lend under traditional means – So you can gamble – and if it fails – so what, you get bailed out – almost like covering the losses on your friend who has a gambling problem - So over the years – there has been an increase in the Interconnection of financial system and share markets – Deregulation of the Financial system – whilst regulation of every other business increased Seen the increase in speculative investments and products like synthetic CDOs or Derivatives Massively increased the risks – but under the TBTF legislation – the gains are privatised whilst the losses are socialised Solution – to reintroduce the separation of commercial and investment banks – aim to try to reduce the speculation using depositors funds and de-risk the financial system from collapsing in on itself separating deposits from all trading in securities and derivatives would remove the subsidy that deposits provide to such trading, which would also remove most, if not all, of the risks to deposits Under the Basel III regulations that are currently being put into place – they don’t actually do anything beyond providing more hybrids as Tier 2 capital for banks to bail in in the event of a collapse – and any derivate exposure of the banks is obligated to be repaid above the retention of deposits – as under these laws you are banks creditors – lending them money – Through De-risking means that Central Banks don’t need to control the economy as much through permanent QE or buying back defaulted assets from gambling - Moves onto the second point   Remove reliance on a Central banks fuelling a debt based economy – reforming central banks to remove inflation targeting as a monetary policy Some debt is needed – business loans – the commercial productive side to the economy - but when the very money is backed by debt – you get a problem – every dollar printed or introduced into a system is a debt – the US is pretty evident with this – look at any US bill and it has Federal Reserve Note on it Central banks roles used to be the bank of last resort – but boom busts made them position themselves as such Aim was to provide stability to banks in the case of bank runs – many historically occurred – but from the deposit insurance schemes and the end of the Benton woods system – no bank runs – why? No speculation within banks and depositors knew their funds were safe – even if a bank failed then they would be insured There is a fair amount of evidence that most boom bust cycles are due to unsustainable credit-driven booms followed by speculation that comes undone Going back before the banking act of 1933 – there was not much in the way of regulation on the financial industry – commercial and investment banks could be one in the same and there were massive levels of credit growth to fuel the speculation Austrian School and theory on debt deflation - Friedrich Hayekand Murray Rothbard - wrote America's Great Depression (1963) - their view - the key cause of the Depression was the expansion of the money supply in the 1920s, of which led to an unsustainable credit-driven boom Banks/Share traders – margin requirements were only 10% - Brokerage firms lend $9 for every $1 investor had deposited - When the market fell, brokers called in these loans, which could not be paid back.  In the Austrian view it was this inflation of the money supply that led to an unsustainable boom in both asset prices (stocks and bonds) and capital goods – Prior to this - Hans Sennholz - argued that most boom and bustsin the American economy - were generated by creating a boom through easy money and credit, which was soon followed by the inevitable bust. like in 1819–20, 1839–43, 1857–60, 1873–78, 1893–97, and 1920–21, But this was all under a different monetary system – currency had a backing – Gold – technically didn’t have an endless supply – could but it would destroy the economy with hyperinflation and then debt defaults from rising interest rates to combat this looking today – under the fiat system we have inflation targeting policy– which gives an unlimited expanse on monetary supply – and guarantees on deposits – and the intertwined nature of commercial and investment banks – all being fuelled by Central Banks through easy monetary policy deflationary pressures from debt immerge - Inflation only at 1.5%? Quick – Lower interest rates so people borrow more to buy property – pushing up housing prices – which isn’t measured in the inflation statistics (only the costs of construction goods is) Become a exponentially self-generating monster for speculation – provided “market confidence” with an influx of easy money – under the Fiat system Look at CBs today – inflation targets driving credit expansion – allows creation of artificial credit for asset pricing controls But how does this help the real economy? Which is you and i? how does it help small to medium businesses – which make up the lion share of employment and GDP output compared to companies with 200+ employees Credit expansion cannot increase the supply of real goods or increase the productive nature of an economy - merely brings about a rearrangement - diverts capital investment away from the free market/market conditions – how economic wealth is created – instead incentivise things like share buybacks - upswing lacks a solid base - It is not a real prosperity. It is illusory prosperity Instead – incentivises the pursuit of paths which it would not follow under normal conditions Debt Growth is not an increase in economic wealth, i.e. the accumulation of savings made available for productive investment – it has increased the price we pay for things – like property A lot of the growth we have seen arose because the credit expansion created the illusion of such an increase Savings plummeted due to lower rates (no incentive to save – look at interest rates today) – growth started to stagnate The effects in increased money supply create higher prices – does it mean you are wealthy? Only relative to another nation that doesn’t have the same money supply increases Example – the real value of goods goes nowhere – just the prices of things increase but your PP stays the same or declines in real terms Property is an example – if the median is earning $65k p.a. but properties cost $600k, compared to earning $25,500 p.a. but properties cost $100k, which would you prefer? – 3.8 multiple versus 9.2 – variation of over 2.4 times Solution – Change to monetary policy mandate for CBS – also ceasing the inflation targets – also need removing the incentives for commercial banks to lend based on low risk high collateral and back to productive Some alternative proposals I have seen based around changing the targets from inflation to the economy’s nominal income - is the money value of what the economy produces each year, including both the volume of goods and services (or real GDP), and changes in the prices of these goods and services (or inflation). Due to issues with the measurement of both – think it would end up back where we started – constant need to increase money supply to fuel both GDP and inflation As unless structural policies are changed -no amount of money supply can help GDP growth unless they are thinking along the same lines as MMT which theorises this Money supply – If it needs an inflation target – be it the increase in money supply – or better yet - If there is a measurement to follow as an indicator – interest rate band might be a better idea In a world with Lots of savings – low interest rates paid as more money can be lent out on mass Less savings – over time you get higher interest rates – incentivises savings and people start accumulating more All about incentivising demand for your cash – and at a more localised level between banks – every bank pays essentially the same interest rates – based around a homogenous system Allow for the creation of new banks – no the oligopoly system we have now – where banking is more of a cartel Money supply should be based around market demand – not artificial supply to meet a statistic Allow Interest rate movements may swing wildly based on demand for money – if cost of money goes to 10% - introduce additional money supply to get it down Need to ponder this point a lot more – but there are different options between interest rate equilibriums May make for a more volatile market – as expectations would change – major reasoning behind inflation targets is guiding expectations in the economy – but that is a game that can be rigged – doesn’t benefit the average individual but those with the deepest pockets already But a move towards traditional roles of CBs is needed IMO– to be lenders of last resort and provide a monetary base for economy to work off The Creations of money still occurs through fractional banking – But based around creation of money at the moment - Too much unproductive debt out there -   These are just a few structural changes – reducing the top down interventions into the markets Might just be wishful thinking – but the concept of more debt or more regulation to solve problems created by debt and regulation do sound crazy to me –but the issue is self interest – everyone has self interest – especially those in the current economic of central banking system – Power – attractor for some individuals – once they have high levels of power – would they want to give it up? When you can control the economy with just your very words – that is a lot of power – similar to legislative powers – look at Next week – Reverse the trends in regulations and increase supply side thinking Enforce anti-competitive behaviours – i.e. monopolistic practices Thank you for listening to today's episode. If you want to get in contact you can do so here: http://financeandfury.com.au/contact/

John Dugan, the chairman of Citigroup’s board of directors, says the future of banking turns on the industry’s pandemic performance. It will affect how regulators oversee them, how shareholders invest, and how the public feels about banks. The former Comptroller of the Currency doesn’t underestimate the challenges, but he is optimistic that banking will emerge from this crisis with its reputation enhanced.

Welcome to Finance and Fury. Today is a share market update. Don’t get tricked by the rebound in prices. We will be looking a bit into the pattern recognitions in relation to markets The market is low compared to 3 months ago – if looking at 10 years in the future – would be a bargain – but does this mean it is at the low point Look at major declines of the past – how they have compared – but also the repeating patterns they have Taken a massive battering initially – price declined by historic rates – almost came out of nowhere – Went through previous pandemics in the past – never been a decline like this – the markets always continued to grow – what is different – governments shutting the economy down – Going through a dead cat bounce – or seems to be – How the market works – The worst was priced in initially – markets are liquid – and they freak out Hits a low point – people enter the market But this all occurred As announcements of shut downs start – But then recovers – it seems counter intuitive – before the actual announcements started There has been little in the way of truly positive news News – Government bail outs and Central banks entering additional QE or debt buyouts for the Fed for large companies in the USA – but long term is this a good thing? New stimulus measures for spending but this all comes off the back of deficit spending – or debt – Spending on your and your children’s Credit cards – your futures- Might give some initial positive response but longer term – is a bad thing when compared to true economic growth void of the government or central banks taking control over the whole market On the fundamentals side – these governments will likely have a wide spread reach What is the share market – a speculative price instrument It doesn’t have too much with the fundamentals – but the perception of fundamental performance of the economy Examples – Lets look back to the GFC – Prices went from about 6,784 to 5,127 initially – about a 24.5% decline – pretty big But then they rebounded by 15.7% - going to 5,127 - before losing about 18.4% - going down to 4,840 These patterns – Have a very similar pattern to Fibonacci ratios i.e. 61.8%, 38.2% and 23.6% often find their application on stock charts. Whenever a stock moves either upward or downward sharply, it tends to retrace its path before the next move. The Fibonacci sequence is a series of numbers, where a number is found by adding up two numbers before it. Starting with 0 and 1, the sequence goes 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, and so on and so forth till infinity. If we divide any of the number in the series by the previous number; the ratio is always approximately 1.618. The ratio of one number divided by the next settles at .618, which is known as the golden ratio. In nature, this is the proportion of a perfect spiral, like that. Can look at plants or trees – or even an artichoke or a pinecone – the number of rings in each of the layers of plants are in order of the golden ratio – or even in a sea shell – is observable all around in nature if you are looking When I was younger – I get really into this – Forecasting Financial Markets – The psychology of successful investing – great book that details this – is a detailed ones – about 450 pages – and goes pretty in depth into complex topics – but anyone interested in the subject – well worth it The use of the Fibonacci retracement is subjective - traders may use this technical indicator in different ways traders are all watching and using the same levels or the same technical indicators, the price action may reflect that fact.  This goes into detail about the human psychology along with the self-fulfilling proficies of markets – once a repeatable pattern is known by investors – like the Fibonacci ratios – do traders then set their buying and selling conditions around this? And if they do, does this not create the market patterns that play out? Now – not exact – but rounding for the market numbers is taken into account – Fibonacci sequence sees ranges around the 62% mark – 40% mark and 23% mark- Looking at the GFC – had an initial loss of 24% - then a rebound in prices by 65% - then a drop by 20% but a rebound by about 34% - then a drip by 34% then a rebound by 26% - Looking at the most recent declines – we are now at about a 23% decline from peak – after an initial 32% decline – but had a 42% rebound in prices compared to the collapse (14% price gain from the low) Start to see the pattern? The numbers coming into the patterns of the market – Never in history has there been a massive drop in the share market like we have seen but then – all of the sudden the market just recovered and continues to climb without then taking another down turn There has always been a flow of the market going up and then back down – profit taking, to a self-fulling prophecy – who knows Why does this phenomenon occur? Could be any number of reasons – This week – the market may start to lose steam – or technically continue to gain in prices to the breaking point – There is obviously no way to be sure – but reading the tea leaves that at the charts – there may be two options One – the market starts to drop from here – there has been a large initial gain of about the 14% mark – in a matter of weeks – but more likely is number two – but no guarantee of this Or two – the rebound goes to about the 5,780 mark and then takes the next downturn – would take another 2 or so weeks – so be looking towards the end of this month (April) and then the market starts its retreat Working off the numbers – we are at about a 42% rebound – but due to the large initial drop – not unexpected for the market to continue over the next two or so weeks to continue pushing up in price to the 64% rebound point – at the 5,780 mark before taking the next plunge Honestly – it wouldn’t surprise me that over the next 18 months – with the way the Governments are handling this and requiring immediate intervention from Central banks – that this is a long drawn out decline – Will have rebounds along the way – but can be the dead cat bounce trap That is where there will be plenty of bad market news to come – These shut downs are going to wreck the economy in the long term – Go into it further on Friday – but when it comes to the share market – lets think about what it is made up of – The largest companies that are listed – But these don’t make up the whole economy – we do – All the mom and pop stores – so to speak – or smaller businesses out there that employ a large chunk of the population – They are who are getting affected by these shut downs – The larger companies – lets go through the top 20 in the ASX – These are what make up 60% of our market – remember this – most of out market is made up of 20 companies – looking at the ASX300 – 280 companies make up just over 40% - Health Care 10% 10.21 Financials and Real estate 23% 22.57 Materials, Industrials and Energy 16% 15.64 Consumer Staples or Discretionary 7% 6.98 Telecommunications 2% 2.46 Breakdown -   Looking at the fundamentals of spending – What are the industries that have been affected - Gyms and Fitness – down 96% Entertainment and venues – down 90% Travel – down 84% Public Transport – down 80% Cafes – down 42% These industries make up a fraction of the overall listed market – but – make up a massive amount of the whole economy Why I keep saying the ASX and all share markets come back to a more speculative side as opposed to fundamentals to the whole economy – which is currently being crushed by government policies Go into this further in Friday’s episode – but the ones that will come out on top in all of this are the large companies that are allowed to remain open in this period – Amazon, the banks who are protected from legislation from TBTF – along with a range of other industries But when it comes to each of the major industries – the spending on these has actually increased for the most part – Health Care – Pharmacies – up 18% Industrials and Real estate – Well home improvements up by around 14% Consumer staples – food delivery increased by about 59% - and spending at super markets hasn’t really dropped – if anything had a spike initially with all the hoarding of TP and other goods Financials may take a hit though – with credit applications being down around 35% and increasing financial distress Again – that is where the share market as an aggregate is hard to predict and price in – as it has become purely speculative in the modern era since Milton Freidman’s -Shareholder value theory came in Getting back into the share market – It still does have some base in expectations – expectations of pricing – prices and profit taking – For the larger institutions who are in the know – who have the ear of politicians – the same politicians who also miraculously sold off all their share holdings just before the market crash (as most politicians are exempt form insider trading due to holding public office) – they can utilise these known events to sell down – Thus creating a self fulfilling prophecy when it comes to market declines – then – but back in at a lower point and then sell once the gains reach a desired level – Whilst the economy is tanking – the companies that make up most of the ASX are likely to benefit longer term – as they are a protected class – but that doesn’t mean their prices wont go down from there – Again – the market is a speculative environment – News about the economy or pretty meaningless measurements to our every day lives like GDP will effect the market – that is the distinction to make – What is bad for us can sometimes be good for the market and vice versa Summary – As I said – no way to tell really which way the market will go – but at this stage – After such a quick rebound after such a large drop – the largest in history in such a short time frame – wouldn’t be out of the norm to expect another down turn from here – How low the market goes – again – is very subjective to the whims of the selling that are on mass – Wouldn’t put it past the market hitting the 4,400 mark – or about another 18% drop from here – then – having another smaller rebound before going into the 3,800 at the low point – but this is purely speculation – Would require a number of events to play out – but unlike previous crashes – the monetary policy has been at the forefront of this – which is also a little suspicious – almost as if the policy responses were already to go So hitting the sub 4,000 mark may be less of a probability when compared to previous historical crashes – but not outside of the norm in the grand scheme of things Thank you for listening to today's episode. If you want to get in contact you can do so here: http://financeandfury.com.au/contact/

Welcome to Finance and Fury, the Say What Wednesday edition. This week, two questions – both from John’s about banking system security  -   First John: I know you’ve spoken about this before, but would be interested to hear about if you think there could be liquidity problems with our banks here in Aus, ie a run on the banks like we have seen on TP etc and in Scotland etc during the GFC. Is our money safe in the banks, or in my case offset accounts with non bank lenders?    Second John:  Just a question I’m relation to bank savings. Do you think our savings ‘Australians’ is at risk of being confiscated if some banks were to collapse? I am aware there are Government Guarantees of up to $250k. But with huge stimulus packages in place and potential many more, would it be possible they wouldn’t be able to guarantee this?     Great questions – Run through –   Liquidity problems – bank runs –   Are your funds in banks safe? Offset accounts - Will the guarantees kick in?     Go into massive detail on a few episodes – a couple of them are called if you want to look them up – back in July 2019  The Cash Bill - stabilising the financial system for negative interest rates, Bail Ins and more, all at your expense  The Governments war on cash and personal freedom continues with the introduction of the Currency (Restrictions) Bill 2019  Financial Reset – Investments to avoid in a negative interest rate world    Human psychology on bank runs –   Recent example of how bank runs occurs – TP – people are worried that there wont be enough – so rush and horde goods – panic buying   But when the cash is yours – want to withdraw it from the bank   What is different now – online banking   Bank runs on cash – banks have other options – capital notes –   APRA has been ready for bank runs – legislated each bank issues billions in notes – fixed interest hybrids that act as capital requirements of tier 2 – based on lending   Then – banks can afford to lend more based on this and require less on deposits   Banks only lose money on the loans – deposits are a liability to them – pay you interest – well not anymore – or in negative rate environments – good deal for banks –  But bank runs might not be that bad – if they are – then can shut down people withdrawing funds, or limiting to an amount per day   The cash restriction bill can mitigate the cash economy and business/government no longer taking cash is having this effect to not be able to use cash    Are banks safe – Depends – may not collapse but may charge you interest to store money with them    Is your money safe in banks - other factors like bail ins and deposit schemes   According to an IMF paper titled “From Bail-out to Bail-in: Mandatory Debt Restructuring of Systemic Financial Institutions”:  The language is a bit obscure, but here are some points to note:  What was formerly called a “bankruptcy” is now a “resolution proceeding.”   bank’s insolvency is “resolved” by turning its liabilities into capital. Insolvent TBTF banks are to be “promptly recapitalized” with their “unsecured debt” so that they can go on with business as usual.  This power is statutory. Cyprus-style confiscations are to become the law. Some countries can – ours is a grey zone   A lot of the recommendations have come from the Financial Stability Board – Reformed in 2009 – Background for context  Chairs – Current – former partner of Carlyle Group – Last – 30 years at Goldman Sachs, Mario Draghi – ex Goldman  Current ECB president - member of the Group of Thirty founded by the Rockefeller Foundation. The Group of Thirty is a private group of lobbyists in the finance sector  FSB – recommended that banks raise a “buffer” of securities to be sacrificed before deposits in a bankruptcy   TBTF banks are required to keep a buffer equal to 16-20% of their risk-weighted assets in the form of equity or bonds convertible to equity in the event of insolvency - Called “contingent capital bonds”, or “bail-in bonds,”   fine print that the bondholders agree contractually (rather than being forced statutorily) that if certain conditions occur (notably the bank’s insolvency), the lender’s money will be turned into bank capital.  Just know that most banks alone aren’t able to do that much damage – but when the people working for banks get the authority and executive powers of Governments to socialise the financial system – bad outcome for us   This system is a socialist policy – not free market economics – technically closes to fascist system of Government and business merging/restricted, but without the central planning   Either way – Result – Recommendations for policy which incentivises risk taking, then privatises profits but socialises losses     the end game outlined in the IMF's post – their ideal world — one without cash and to change human behaviours financially to act as ‘homoeconomicus’ – the rational individual that the models require to work – by rational – what they think is the best decision to maximise utility – how most economics works – what would an economist do – most people aren’t economics and don’t do this – nor should they – hard to measure utility across individuals – different values  What behaviours are they trying to promote with negative rates and cash bans    if depositors have to pay the negative interest rate to keep their money with the bank = consumption and investments are more attractive – economic theory says that GDP should go up – jolt lending, demand, etc.   But if rates go lower = people borrow more, and have less cashflow due to paying debts = no consumption occurs  Negative rates then free up cashflow – as your principal repayments start to reduce – spend in economy   Banks don’t need depositors funds as much – savings rates are about 2.8% anyway – due to notes issued as replacements – ones that can be controlled through legislation – easier than stopping people doing a bank run  Just in case – still want to make sure that this reduces in chance of occurring – cash restriction bill   the central banks get greater control to influence your behaviour and economic outcomes.  For those who have faith in monetary policy and central banks, this is no problem - one year on from the banking royal commission, faith in our financial institutions — and the regulators who failed to police the banks' bad behaviour — isn't exactly at an all-time high  Creating a weird world where savers are penalised — and borrowers get paid — upside down    Bail in laws –   Offset account – as it is a deposit account – can be used as bail in provision –   Most people with loans would have much more in offsets than savings – or should at least –   But the catch is that all your deposits will likely to be with one ADI – and potentially above the $250k     But how good are government guarantees    Government Guarantees – May not actually help - You have a few problems there: A guarantee only applies to a bank going insolvent and collapsing— with not enough money left over for depositors. Bail-ins (if they are in fact legal) will just take your money to prevent that from happening. That is, the government guarantee won't cover a bail-in.  Guarantees are capped at $20B per ADI – stated in Financial System Legislation Amendment (Financial Claims Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2008   Activation of the EAFD 1.20 - A declaration outlines the total amount available to make payments to depositors of a declared ADI. For the first three years of the scheme (from 2008), the amount that can be appropriated for the purposes of meeting depositors’ entitlements is unlimited. After three years, the maximum that can be appropriated is $20 billion. The declaration must also outline the amount available for the administration costs for implementing the scheme up to a maximum of $100 million  RBA aware of this - in their “Depositor Protection in Australia” - “Payouts of deposits covered under the FCS [The Australian Government’s Financial Claims Scheme] are initially financed by the government through a standing appropriation of $20 billion per failed ADI [Authorized deposit-taking institutions]  Total size of deposit accounts totalled $2 trillion (Commonwealth Bank — $581 billion, ANZ — $467 billion, NAB— $407 billion and WESTPAC — $533billion). This includes savings, term deposits, chequing, debit card, transaction accounts, mortgage offset accounts, pensioner deeming accounts, retirement savings accounts etc… So only $80 billion (or 4%) out of this $2 trillion dollars is actually covered by the guarantee.  Question remains – once they activate it – where will the money come from?   If the gov is set on debt funding – can get more printed funds to cover the costs     Summary  Is our money safe in the banks, or in my case offset accounts with non bank lenders?  Bank runs may be hard now and if they start occurring – can be ceased quickly   The effects would be minimal compared to runs of the past with the new funding mechanisms of capital notes by the banks   Non-bank lenders  though - non-banks cannot accept deposits therefore they are not ADIs (authorised deposit taking institutions) - source their funds from elsewhere. These funds are wholesale funds usually from Australian Banks or overseas institutions – Falls under ASIC regulations now APRA – so non banks don’t have the same ‘safety nets’ as ADIs   Do you think our savings ‘Australians’ is at risk of being confiscated if some banks were to collapse?   First step of bail ins would be to use the capital notes to convert into shares (equity) – lowering prices of shares – or to write these off – so the holders of these notes would lose funds but banks would remain solvent   If this fails – may have to do Cyprus style bail ins for deposits – deposits/offset accounts are    Will the Gov be able to cover the deposit scheme?  Govs are printing more to spend isnt the issue – but the maximum amounts allowed under the legislation   Thank you for listening to today's episode. If you want to get in contact you can do so here: http://financeandfury.com.au/contact/

So we were told with the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act that too big to fail was now behind us. Except it isn’t. In fact, the conditions supporting bank bailouts have only gotten worse with the nation’s largest banks actually increasing in size and scope since 2008. TBTF, however, goes back farther than you might […]

Welcome to Finance and Fury, the Furious Friday edition Today is a Bonus episode on most recent series – Current events unfolding – Extinction Rebellion – Today focus more on the economy - Talk about How eco-warriors will collapse the economy – a self-fulfilling prophecy If you have friends who are protesting – share this episode - don’t mean to be offensive but they are being used as pawns – being manipulated by the industries/corporates who are going to profit from their activity Ironically - Serving the very people the same people were protesting against in the occupy movement – the elite banking groups - they are going to benefit from their eco-activism – while the overall economy struggles Art of War – Controlled opposition – gone through it but Environmental activism/societies originally funded by the Dutch Royals (Shell Oil), British Royals (BP), M Strong (Canadian Oil Billionaire), backed by Standard Oil (Rockefellers) – why would the oligarch’s band together to put themselves out of business? Control your opposition – you create a paper tiger to push the narrative in your direction Most have divested from oil and are in solar/wind and making a killing of tax-funded subsidies Sciences used for their purposes – like peak oil predictions in the late 50s – Marion Hubbert was a geologist paid by shell - world was running out of oil and would be empty – more oil now than ever – but created artificial scarcity at the time – prices for oil went up   Extinction rebellion – doesn’t have anything to do with climate change – not my words -   Co-founder – Extinction rebellion is not about the climate – it is about dismantling White European civilisations, ending the patriarchy and demolishing the heteronormativity (that heterosexual relationships are normal) What is it all about? The Founder – “we are going to force the Governments to act, and is they don’t, we will bring them down and create a democracy fit for purpose, and yes, some may die in the process”   The thing is – the demands are so extreme that we can’t achieve them – no more plane flights, be 100% renewable with 0 CO2 emissions by 2050 – well, we exhale out CO2 greater than the intake of breath – over 3bn tons of CO2 a year – estimate for us breathing Can’t be achieved – so it comes down to overthrowing governments and western civilisation Phycological effect from bombardment of the ‘day after tomorrow’ event predictions – Eco-anxiety – yet 100 years ago 500k people killed by weather-related events each year, today 20k p.a. = 96% reduction – yet more anxiety due to availability heuristics – more something is mentioned, we think that they are very common It is sad to see – people being be petrified by the fear of the end of the world – why have kids or do anything productive then? You put all energy into protesting for climate rather than building something yourself But the Science is settled – need 0 emissions by 2050 to avoid climate catastrophe - even though climate gate scandal shows that scientists are changing the data to hide cooling temperatures – let’s say the science is settled – then no need to fund climate scientists anymore? Would there be any disagreement at that suggestion – why is more money is needed – even though the science is settled   People protesting – Disrupting economic activity – putting the working class people out of work and business France and Holland are having protests for climate taxes and environmental regulation on agriculture Yet we have people protesting for the opposite – more taxes and regulations Hypocrisy – we are all hypocrites – but blocking roads to save people is killing people – making doctors late to work to save lives – few friends working in hospitals telling me about being understaffed and surgeons being late to perform emergency procedures When you see them with yoga mats next time – remember they are petroleum-based – like most plastics Economically – makes people late to work – blocks services, actually has the potential to kill people – emergency services Yet police are not allowed to just lay a few riot hoses/dogs onto them – so they have to stand by and protect the rights of those breaking the law – infringing on the rights of those paying the Newstart allowances of those protesting Also – major economic effects of having a criminal record – employer sees you have gone to court 11 times - remove their ability to earn income UBI is the only way they can make a living then – hence the calls for more Government – to solve their created problems   Beyond UBI – More Gov and Carbon policy creates another indirect method of extraction on the population – higher taxes via price increases of energy and goods/services Tax on carbon = higher prices to you and businesses, which is a higher price needed to be charged on goods and services due to pass on costs of higher input costs – has a flow-on effect, while a marginal increase at one level, has its own form of multiplier effect   Massive financial scam – also being pushed by the massive companies or billionaires to financially benefit from it Financial banks own the carbon trading mechanisms – Economist Craig Mellow “the combination of global warming and growing environmental consciousness is creating a potentially huge market in the trading of pollution emission credits” Blackrock Capital – the climate finance partnership – mobilising institutional investments – HSBC, JPMorgan Chase and Citi bank – going to make commissions and margins for trading carbon credits It will take around $6 trillion every year to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) - a universal call to action to end poverty and protect the planet.    Investment in sustainable, climate-resilient infrastructure is arguably the single best way to achieve the SDGs.  The lion’s share of this is needed in developing countries.  The Business Commission estimates a $12 trillion economic opportunity for the private sector over the next 10 to 15 years.   Blended finance taskforce - set up to mobilise private capital for the Sustainable Development Goals - 50 massive companies – Allianz, AXA, Citi, HSBC, JP, Rockefeller, - Profits to be had in climate-related sector Rothschild Australia and E3 launch carbon credit investment fund Are you aware that Rothschild's bought weather stations? Quote: "Evelyn de Rothschild and Lynn Forester de Rothschild said they are buying a majority stake in weather-data service Weather Central - investments into media and information." – Makes it hard to trust information when those presenting it benefit from a ‘global warming narrative’ Look at ABC (in USA) – published video of the Syrian/Turkish conflict showing a civilian city under heavy fire – turns out it was a video from Kentucky shooting rage – military demonstration in 2017 – constantly lying to push their owner’s narratives – pro war to pro global warming Prime example – look at the connectivity of this scam – same individuals go from banking, mining, science, mining and banking, government – jumping across all areas Megan Clark – Director of Rothschild Australia while being a VP with BHP between 2003 to 2008. 2009 – 2014 Chief executive of CSIRO (where climate evidence comes from) 2014 – non-exec director of Rio Tinto – Sustainability and remuneration committee from May 2016 – Why banks, science organisations, mining companies all lineup – all have something to gain from this   The form of the scam – What have these people been pushing - similar to the IMF – Carbon credits – latest fiscal monitor published on Friday calls on governments to introduce a carbon tax to "discourage carbon emissions from coal and other polluting fossil fuels". IMF says to limit global warming to 2°C or less, developed countries need to take action by introducing a carbon tax of $US75 a tonne in 2030. but IMF thinks that it would not be enough for Australia to meet its Paris emissions reduction targets Our economy is heavily reliant on coal-fired power – so even taxing a very coal reliant country won't hit our 45% pp reduction IMF's proposed carbon tax of $US75 by 2030 – hurt the average person massively – based on current levels = push up the price of coal by 263%, natural gas by 44%, 75% for electricity and 15% for petrol Fuel of $2 per litre and almost double electricity bills = yellow vest protests – but as ineffective due to militarised police capabilities But the IMF says that this would be more expensive and less effective in cutting emissions compared to taxing IMF says global warming has become a "clear and present threat" and actions from governments and business around the world to date are falling short Question – why is the IMF getting involved in climate change? Maybe have to benefit? What are other options? policies to reduce emissions such as direct government action and regulations But it admits that in fossil-fuel rich countries including Australia, that price would not be enough to meet the federal government's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 26–28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. "Governments will need to increase the price of carbon emissions to give people and firms incentives to reduce energy use and shift to clean energy sources." – Make energy more expensive – "Carbon taxes are the most powerful and efficient tools, but only if they are implemented in a fair and growth-friendly way. "Whereas a $25 a ton price would be more than enough for some countries (for example, China, India, and Russia) to meet their Paris Agreement pledges, in other cases (for example, Australia and Canada) even the $75 a ton carbon tax falls short," the IMF notes." – What? Yes we are PP large polluters – but tiny fraction of CO2 emissions – so massive hit to us for no real reduction in global CO2 Businesses such as BHP and energy companies want a carbon pricing – They say in order to give investment certainty – but they won’t cop the costs, pass on in pricing to you actual carbon prices worldwide average about $8 per ton, according to the OECD – So we pay $75 more Also- talks of policy - proposes using revenue generated by the tax in wealthy G20 nations to lower income taxes, “reduce fiscal deficits, or pay an equal dividend to the whole population” – But just a promise -   Summary – Protests are being used for the Blended Finance Taskforce to shut down the economy and siphon money Useful idiots being used by large companies to push their money-making agenda – crash the economy in the process Through economic distribution, sky rocking energy prices, costs of goods – we are currently not in a good sate for the economy The overall economy crashes while banks make billions from carbon credits – controlled opposition helping out TBTF – banks will get the bailouts and bail-ins – if system crashes banks won't really suffer long term But you and I will – so to all the people out there protesting - Instead of protecting - and study engineering, or something practical to help the problem of pollution – stop blocking traffic and busses which leads to more CO2, stop blocking trains – the cleanest form of mass transportation   Thanks for listening, if you want to get in contact you can here https://financeandfury.com.au/contact/ Resources:  Rothschild: www.freestatevoice.com.au/politics/item/768-rothschild-australia-behind-the-push-for-carbon-trading www.rothschild.com/gfa/our_clients/governments Are you aware that Rothschild's bought weather stations? An article from the respected Wall Street Journal: blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/01/31/rothschilds-buy-majority-stake-in-weather-central/

Hi everyone and welcome to Finance and Fury. If you missed last Monday’s episode on bank bail in laws, you might want to go back and catch up as this week’s episode follows on from that one. Today we’ll look at what to avoid holding as investment in the future, based around the updates to these laws. Knowing what investments can be taken by banks in the next financial collapse, to allow them to bail themselves out is a great place to start, as these are going to be pretty risky going forward. According to an IMF paper titled “From Bail-out to Bail-in: Mandatory Debt Restructuring of Systemic Financial Institutions”: Bail ins - a statutory power of a resolution to restructure the liabilities of a distressed financial institution by writing down its unsecured debt and/or converting it to equity The language is a bit obscure, but here are some points to note: What was formerly called a “bankruptcy” is now a “resolution proceeding.” Bank’s insolvency is “resolved” by turning its liabilities into capital. Insolvent ‘too-big-to-fail’ banks are to be “promptly recapitalized” with their “unsecured debt” so that they can go on with business as usual. “Unsecured debt” includes deposits, the largest class of unsecured debt of any bank. The insolvent bank is to be made solvent by turning our money into their equity – bank stock that could become worthless on the market or be tied up for years in resolution proceedings. This power is statutory. Cyprus-style confiscations are to become the law. Some countries can already take funds from depositors – Australia is a bit of a grey zone Rather than closing their doors - “zombie” banks are to be kept alive and open for business at all costs, and the costs are to be to borne by us at some point – even if you don’t hold bank shares, the market would go down A lot of the recommendations have come from the Financial Stability Board (FSB) – Reformed in 2009 Mario Draghi – ex Goldman Sachs Current ECB president - member of the ‘Group of Thirty’founded by the Rockefeller Foundation (the Group of Thirty is a private group of lobbyists in the finance sector) His son - Giacomo worked as an interest-rate derivativetrader at investment bank Morgan Stanley until 2017, a time overlapping with Draghi's presidency of the ECB Current Chair is a former partner of Carlyle Group, the last chair had 30 years’ experience at Goldman Sachs FSB – recommended that banks raise a “buffer” of securities to be sacrificed before deposits in a bankruptcy ‘Too-big-to-fail’ banks are required to keep a buffer equal to 16-20% of their risk-weighted assets in the form of equity or bonds convertible to equity in the event of insolvency - Called “contingent capital bonds”, or “bail-in bonds”, or “corporate notes”. The fine print that the bondholders agree contractually (rather than being forced statutorily) that if certain conditions occur (notably the bank’s insolvency), the lender’s money will be turned into bank capital. Just know that most banks alone aren’t able to do that much damage – but when the people working for banks get the authority and executive powers of Governments to socialise the losses and privatise the gains there is a bad outcome for us This system is a socialist policy – not free market economics – technically closest to fascist system of Government and business merging/restricted, but without the central planning Either way the result are recommendations for policy which incentivises risk taking, then privatises profits but socialises losses Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Act 2018 (“the Act”) creates a power of bail-in by Australia’s banks of customers’ deposits. The Act empowers APRA to bail in anything that is on the banks’ balance sheet that can be written off or converted Liability limited by a scheme, approved under Professional Standards Legislation Hybrid Securities – special high-interest bonds evidenced by instruments which by their terms can be written off or converted into potentially worthless shares in a crisis Interesting – there was a massive push from APRA to have banks provide funding for capital requirements from Corporate notes – CBA, WBC, NAB, etc. Hybrid Securities issued by banks; “a generic term used to describe a security that combines elements of debt securities and equity securities.” - securities issued by banks which permit the amounts secured by the security to be converted into shares or written off at the option of the bank in certain circumstances Under the Basel Accord, a bank’s capital consists of Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital which includes Hybrid Securities - they’ll be bailed in. The big issue with these securities is the risk of being wiped out – there’s no default; just through the stroke of a pen they can be written off. For retail investors in the tier 1 securities – they’re principally retail investors, some investing as little as $50,000 – these are very worrying. The comments of Graeme Thompson of APRA in an address on 10 May 1999 when he said: “… APRA will have powers under proposed Commonwealth legislation to mandate a transfer of assets and liabilities from a weak institution to a healthier one However, even 20% of risk-weighted assets may not be enough to prop up a megabank in a major derivatives collapse. Propping Up the Derivatives Casino: Don’t Count on the FDIC American banks have nearly $280 trillion of derivatives on their books, and they earn some of their biggest profits from trading in them. AUS Banks - $36 trillion in derivatives Kept inviolate and untouched in all this are the banks’ liabilities on their derivative bets, which represent by far the largest exposure of TBTF banks.  Both the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 and the Dodd Frank Act provide special protections for derivative counterparties, giving them the legal right to demand collateral to cover losses in the event of insolvency. They get first dibs, even before the secured deposits of state and local governments; and that first bite could consume the whole apple - Banks are much bigger now than back in 2008 (failure of Washington Mutual in 2008 $307bn was small compared with the $2.5trn at JPMorgan Chase, $2.2 trillion at Bank of America or the $1.9 trillion at Citigroup) Bail ins but also bail outs will still be likely not to cover the total amount Who holds these types of assets? Banks are specifically excluded as buyers of bail-in bonds, due to the “fear of contagion” Who holds these types of assets? Super funds were struggling with commitments made when returns were good, and getting those high returns now generally means taking on risk. It wouldn’t be the first time “public pension funds were some of the most frequently targeted suckers upon whom Wall Street dumped its fraud-riddled mortgage-backed securities in the pre-crash years.” Will deposits get taken? Can technically occur without a Government grab through negative interest rates – or real rates What happens in negative interest rate environment? Cash held outside of the banks becomes more valuable Think – If you have $100k sitting in the bank – at 1% rates - $101k in 12 months, but -1% = $99k in 12 months But if you have that cash under the mattress, it’s still $100k, minus inflation (which is still no different if it’s in the bank) What if a society was cashless and we entered this world of negative interest rates? Any cash in the bank would be taken from you The bank is allowed to convert its debt into equity for the purpose of increasing its capital requirements A bank can undergo a bail-in quickly through a resolution proceeding, which provides immediate relief to the bank. The obvious risk to bank depositors is the possibility of losing a portion of their deposits. However, depositors have the protection of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which insures each bank account for up to $250,000. (Banks are required to use only those deposits in excess of the $250,000 protection and there’s no way around it for these assets due to the legislation) As unsecured creditors, depositors and bondholders are subordinated to derivative claims. Derivatives are the investments that banks make among each other, which are supposed to be used to hedge their portfolios. However, the 25 largest banks hold more than $247 trillion in derivatives, which poses a tremendous amount of risk to the financial system – GDP is $20 trillion. To avoid a potential calamity, the Dodd-Frank Act gives preference to derivative claims. Deposits are now “just part of commercial banks’ capital structure.” What types of assets, instruments are these? Act update includes write-off and conversion powers in respect of “any other instrument”. Government has contended that is doesn’t include deposits – as deposits don’t include a write off provision, however saying “any other instrument” is unnecessary if only applied to instruments with conversion or write-off provisions Also, banks are able to change the terms and conditions of deposit accounts at any time and for any reason, including on directions from APRA to insert conversion or write-off provisions. This could be resolved by Government passing amendment - exclude deposits from a bail in. Something to watch out for – if banks start changing their T&As to include a write off or conversion provision – might be time to start digging holes in the backyard! (This is just a joke, not advice!) The central issue is the wording - “any other instrument” “Instrument” is not defined in the Act but a “financial instrument” is defined by Australian Accounting Standard AASB132 as “any contract that gives rise to a financial asset of one entity and a financial liability or equity instrument of another entity.” RBA confirmed - a deposit with an ADI bank comes under such a definition – it is a contract with terms and conditions as to the deposit being set by a bank, accepted by a depositor on making a deposit and creating a financial asset (a right of repayment) and a financial liability in the bank (the obligation to repay). Deposits are created by “instruments” and are governed by the terms and conditions of those instruments. But this can easily change, by their own admission, “leaving room for future changes to APRA’s prudential standards, including changes that might refer to instruments that are not currently considered capital under the prudential standards”. These provisions extend to “any other instrument” by sub-section (b) definition - other than “Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital” APRA already has a power to prohibit the repayment of deposits by ADIs, this verges on the writing off of those deposits. The Banking Act Section 11CA provides for this. They can also limit how much you can withdraw from your cash account every day. It is a relatively small step to then convert or write-off what the ADI has been prohibited from repaying or paying out. There are a number of unusual and concerning aspects to its introduction, passing and intentions. The issue could be resolved by the Government passing a simple amendment to the Act to explicitly exclude deposits Rather than reining in the massive and risky derivatives market, the new rules prioritize the payment of banks’ derivatives obligations to each other, ahead of everyone else. That includes not only depositors, public and private, but the pension funds that are the target market for the latest bail-in play, called “bail-in-able” bonds. That means they can be “bailed in” or confiscated to save the megabanks from derivative bets gone wrong – Last time was tax payers, now it is depositors Check super fund investment options – most look okay but if they have credit or corporate notes with the banks – if there are held and converted into shares work a fraction of the original value – this is a bad situation Holding large amount of cash in the bank, even in an offset account, this runs the risk of being bailed in by banks in the next financial collapse. Cash is no longer king, especially due to the intangible nature of currency and interest rates heading towards negative rates  

Here is what almost everyone is getting wrong and why it matters: In the run up to the mortgage meltdown, investment banks were described as taking foolish risks, buying loans that were likely or even guaranteed to fail. It's true, some investment banks that were not in on the grand scheme did exactly that and Lehman might have been one of them, Bear Stearns another. But for the TBTF banks it was a different story. They were not lending money nor buying mortgage loans. They were funding the origination of loans likely or guaranteed to fail with incoming investor money that was intended by the investors to buy good quality loans that were seasoned by some period of time in which payments were made by the borrower. They were purchasing loans the same way. And they were not buying derivatives, they were selling them. SO the entire “bailout” was a farce. There were no losses. Why does this matter?

TEMPORADA: 01 PROGRAMA: 001 INVITADO: CHENKIO(HARMONY TRANCE) PROMOCION: THE BIGGEST TRANCE FESTIVAL SET: CHENKIO(HARMONY TRANCE)

TEMPORADA: 01 PROGRAMA: 001 INVITADO: CHENKIO(HARMONY TRANCE) PROMOCION: THE BIGGEST TRANCE FESTIVAL SET: CHENKIO(HARMONY TRANCE)

TEMPORADA: 01 PROGRAMA: 001 INVITADO: CHENKIO(HARMONY TRANCE) PROMOCION: THE BIGGEST TRANCE FESTIVAL SET: CHENKIO(HARMONY TRANCE)

To Fail or Not to Fail? A Discussion of Banking's "Too Big to Fail" Problem

Heading into the Republican National Convention in July, Donald Trump’s campaign pushed for a measure in the GOP platform to break up the big banks. If Trump’s still up for it (which we can assume he’s not), Wells Fargo would make a pretty good subject for cleavage.Also, Facebook has unveiled a new plan to fight so-called “fake news.” But is this just an underhanded effort by mainstream news outlets to smear their independent rivals? ShadowProof’s Daniel Wright joins us to talk about it.And, it’s Friday. You know what time it is. At the end of the show, we’ll be analyzing the week’s worst takes, and throwing the week’s worst taker straight into the Garbage Can. And folks, it already stinks of used adult diapers and rain water. Stick around, you won’t wanna miss.

Heading into the Republican National Convention in July, Donald Trump’s campaign pushed for a measure in the GOP platform to break up the big banks. If Trump’s still up for it (which we can assume he’s not), Wells Fargo would make a pretty good subject for cleavage.Also, Facebook has unveiled a new plan to fight so-called “fake news.” But is this just an underhanded effort by mainstream news outlets to smear their independent rivals? ShadowProof’s Daniel Wright joins us to talk about it.And, it’s Friday. You know what time it is. At the end of the show, we’ll be analyzing the week’s worst takes, and throwing the week’s worst taker straight into the Garbage Can. And folks, it already stinks of used adult diapers and rain water. Stick around, you won’t wanna miss.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is demanding that the Department of Justice Inspector General launch an internal investigation into why the DOJ never prosecuted people who were accused of wrongdoing in the run up to the financial meltdown. One of the accused is Bill Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.Then, Wells Fargo could be cruisin’ for a bruisin’. Though the bank settled with the CFPB--for opening 2 million fake accounts, to pad performance numbers--the Justice Department said that it is looking into the matter. And it hasn’t taken criminal prosecution off the table.Finally, folks, Friday means it’s Garbage Can Day. If you’ve been frustrated by the Clinton campaign’s tendency to react with indignation to credible claims of unethical behavior, you might like this one.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is demanding that the Department of Justice Inspector General launch an internal investigation into why the DOJ never prosecuted people who were accused of wrongdoing in the run up to the financial meltdown. One of the accused is Bill Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.Then, Wells Fargo could be cruisin’ for a bruisin’. Though the bank settled with the CFPB--for opening 2 million fake accounts, to pad performance numbers--the Justice Department said that it is looking into the matter. And it hasn’t taken criminal prosecution off the table.Finally, folks, Friday means it’s Garbage Can Day. If you’ve been frustrated by the Clinton campaign’s tendency to react with indignation to credible claims of unethical behavior, you might like this one.

The White House issued a formal veto threat against recently-passed legislation that would allow the family of 9/11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for complicity in the attacks. Also, new reporting shows just active President Obama was in defending the CIA during its battle with the Senate investigators proving the agency’s use of torture. Then, Rachel Kurzius joins us to talk about Hillary Clinton’s collapse on Sunday, at the memorial service at Ground Zero. Is Clinton’s health now a legitimate campaign issue?Finally, the Federal Reserve proposes ways for Congress to strengthen oversight of the banking system. Recommendations included the revocation of special ownership privileges for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. We explain in the People’s Bulletin.

The White House issued a formal veto threat against recently-passed legislation that would allow the family of 9/11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for complicity in the attacks. Also, new reporting shows just active President Obama was in defending the CIA during its battle with the Senate investigators proving the agency’s use of torture. Then, Rachel Kurzius joins us to talk about Hillary Clinton’s collapse on Sunday, at the memorial service at Ground Zero. Is Clinton’s health now a legitimate campaign issue?Finally, the Federal Reserve proposes ways for Congress to strengthen oversight of the banking system. Recommendations included the revocation of special ownership privileges for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. We explain in the People’s Bulletin.

Following the failed coup attempt in Turkey, the US is dealing with some thorny foreign policy questions. The two Sams examine one posited by journalist Glenn Greenwald: Can Turkey drones the man they allege was behind in the coup, Fethullah Gulen, who lives in Pennsylvania?And, the DCist’s Rachel Kurzius is on the show to talk about domain-squatting and the 2016 election. Find out how you can get rich by purchasing political website addresses. Finally, the Two Sams hash through more of the reaction to the release of the 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report--on allegations of Saudi involvement in the attacks. Most of Washington wasn’t prepared for the Friday News Dump.

Following the failed coup attempt in Turkey, the US is dealing with some thorny foreign policy questions. The two Sams examine one posited by journalist Glenn Greenwald: Can Turkey drones the man they allege was behind in the coup, Fethullah Gulen, who lives in Pennsylvania?And, the DCist’s Rachel Kurzius is on the show to talk about domain-squatting and the 2016 election. Find out how you can get rich by purchasing political website addresses. Finally, the Two Sams hash through more of the reaction to the release of the 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report--on allegations of Saudi involvement in the attacks. Most of Washington wasn’t prepared for the Friday News Dump.

Charlotte Hays, IWF's Director of Cultural Programs, sits down with Rachel DiCarlo Currie to discuss the government phenomenon "Too Big To Fail (TBTF)". Five years ago, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act, a measure aimed at abolishing the de facto policy of letting certain financial institutions become and/or be treated as “too big to fail”. Has this law actually helped end the problem of TBTF or is it fueling it even more? Charlotte and Rachel answer this question and many more.

Responsible tourism holds a key role in the future of conserving the sensitive landscapes and endangered species we travel to experience. Jackie Magid, Director of The Bodhi Tree Foundation, is dedicated to mobilizing the travel community to engage in wildlife conservation and help communities and cultures around the globe toward preserving wildlife and habitats for future travelers to experience, while inspiring change in the areas they serve. TBTF's groundbreaking campaign, S.A.F.E. is geared toward galvanizing the travel industry to raise awareness of the plight of Africa's elephants by joining the traveller with working field organizations and projects around the world. Through partnerships between the travel industry, local destinations and hands on conservation projects, BodhiTree is pays it forward, bringing together adventure and experience, joining travelling and the traveler to make conservation happen.

Our guest today, Bill Frezza, is a Fellow in Technology and Entrepreneurship at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a contributing columnist for Forbes.com, the Huffington Post, and Bio-IT World. We will focus on an examination of the monetary and fiscal policy causes of the economic calamity that is poised to strike America. This calamity, in Bill's view, will be a massive (50%?) stock and bond market correction followed by another round of bank bailouts, hyperinflation, a breakdown of middle class entitlements, a wave of municipal bankruptcies, the collapse of many defined benefit pension plans (particularly in the underfunded public sector), followed by public disorder and political chaos similar to what we are witnessing in Greece. His view is that all boundaries between the TBTF banks, the Federal Reserve, and the US Treasury have broken down, driving the excess financialization of our economy to unsustainable levels.

Our guest today, Bill Frezza, is a Fellow in Technology and Entrepreneurship at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a contributing columnist for Forbes.com, the Huffington Post, and Bio-IT World. We will focus on an examination of the monetary and fiscal policy causes of the economic calamity that is poised to strike America. This calamity, in Bill's view, will be a massive (50%?) stock and bond market correction followed by another round of bank bailouts, hyperinflation, a breakdown of middle class entitlements, a wave of municipal bankruptcies, the collapse of many defined benefit pension plans (particularly in the underfunded public sector), followed by public disorder and political chaos similar to what we are witnessing in Greece. His view is that all boundaries between the TBTF banks, the Federal Reserve, and the US Treasury have broken down, driving the excess financialization of our economy to unsustainable levels.

Sam and Ivan talk about: * Ready for Baby / New Computer * Electoral College Update * RomneyShambles * High School Algebra / Too Big To Fail / Feedback

Justin's upcoming post about the Yelp review filtering system, the new version of Pluggio, looking forward to MicroConf, Freeman Dyson and his global warming heresy, a La Critique of RootBuzz, more thoughts on simulating the zombie apocalypse, island economics and the danger of extreme wealth inequality, TBTF banks and thoughts on the MF Global fiasco, Matt Tiabbi's coverage of Wall Street's endemic corruption and why William Black thinks the American JOBS Act will introduce fraud, $10 million loans for everyone, how Iran is reverse engineering a downed U.S. drone, why CENTCOM's Operation Earnest Voice will ultimately be turned inward like the NSA's Operation Stellar Wind and completing the AnyFu payout cycle.

"Just How Big Is the Too Big to Fail Problem?" examines the impact of recent changes in banking regulation since the financial crisis and suggests that it is uncertain if the changes will truly eliminate TBTF risk. According to the authors, the new resolution authority designed to allow troubled big banks to fail will, apart from other issues, "be incomplete and perhaps unworkable until there is more progress on the international coordination of bankruptcy regimes." Other provisions in Dodd-Frank, such as the Volcker rule, limit firms' activities and scale. "But it is difficult to evaluate the cost-benefit ratio since there is little evidence on either side. In a sense, it is not even easy to pinpoint the problem to which the Volcker Rule is the solution." The report also puts the U.S. "too big to fail" institutions into international comparison, pointing out that of the 50 biggest banks in the U.S., only seven are among the 50 largest in the world. The authors examine the question of whether limiting the size of U.S. banks may be put them at a competitive disadvantage globally.

Set list: 01. Broadcast, "I Found The F" CD Tender Buttons (Warp, 2005) 02. Cold War Kids, "Hang Me Up to Dry" CD Robbers & Cowards (Downtown, 2006) 03. Broadcast, "Evil is Coming" CD Tender Buttons (Warp, 2005) 04. Kevin Drew, "Tbtf" CD Spirit If (Arts & Crafts, 2007) 05. Vince Giordano And The Nighthawks, "Georgia On My Mind" CD Ghost World Soundtrack (Shanachie, 2001) 06. Cass McCombs, "That´s That" CD Dropping the Writ (Domino, 2007) 07. Broadcast, "Bit 35" CD Tender Buttons (Warp, 2005) 08. Broadcast, "Black Cat", CD Tender Buttons (Warp, 2005) 09. Via Audio, "Developing Active People", CD Saysomethingsaysomethingsaysomething (Sidecho, 2007) 10. Gravenhurst, "The Velvet Cell", CD Fires in Distant Buildings (Warp, 2005) 11. Feist, "My Moon My Man" CD The Reminder (Cherrytree/Interscope, 2007) 12. Broadcast, "Michael a Grammar" CD Tender Buttons (Warp, 2005) 13. Kaleidoscope (uk), "Heaven in the Back Row" LP White Faced Lady (Kaleidoscope, Recorded in 1970-71/Released 1991) Foto: Teatro Municipal - Rio de Janeiro Música introdução: Vince Giordano And The Nighthawks, "You're Just My Type" BG: Links: Rss feed 2.0: http://octopusmonosound.podomatic.com/rss2.xml www.broadcast.uk.net, www.coldwarkids.com, www.myspace.com/kevindrewspiritif, www.myspace.com/cassmccombs, www.myspace.com/viaaudio, www.gravenhurstmusic.com, www.listentofeist.com, http://hem.passagen.se/chla1014 (Kaleidoscope (uk))

Broken Social Scene Presents Kevin Drew on IndieFeed Indie Pop