Kiss Those Euros GoodbyeAs of today, all of the puzzle pieces for an Irish government cum ECB via Germany confiscation of Irish bank depositor money is in place. The first piece, Irish bank insolvency was clearly identified and articulated in "If I Provide Proof That The Entire Irish Banking System Is A Sham, Does It Set Up A Much Needed System Reboot? Let's Go For It... I drove the point home even further as the Irish PTB start to admit that their banks need to be recapitalized, in "The Beginning Of The Great Irish Unwind?!?!?!". The second piece of the puzzle is the political will to actually sacrifice bank depositors, clearly illustrated in "As Forewarned, The Irish Savers Have Just Been "Cyprus'd", And There's MUCH MORE "Cyprusing" To Come". Now as of today, we have the final piece, the legal mechanism - which allegedly is just being debated but in reality is already in place. The template has already been established with Cyprus, ala "EU Bank Depositors: Your Mattress Is Starting To Look Awfully Attractive - Bank Risk, Reward & Compensation".

The Irish are about to see their deposits above the 100k euro insured limit hit risk heretofore unseen. You see, weeks after my many warnings of Irishmen and women at financial risk, the Irish presidency of the European Council put forth a proposal to do just what I warned of ahead a key meeting of finance ministers next week. Whats of even more importance is the fact that, as in Cyprus, EU states have NOT ruled out the possibility of confiscating bank deposits below the EU insured limit of 100k euro. This means that there is far from a AAA credit covering your deposits. It almost happened a month or so ago, and nobody wants to rule put the potential of it happening again. Now, on to the news piece that has confirmed my many warnings, the last piece of the puzzle - from the Irish Times: Bank deposits of over €100,000 may be at risk...

Deposits of over €100,000 are likely to be hit in the event of future European bank collapses, according to a proposal put forward by the Irish presidency of the European Council ahead of a key meeting of finance ministers next week.

Discussions on the controversial bank resolution regime, which is likely to see savers with deposits over €100,000 “bailed in” as part of future bank wind-downs, are due to intensify this week in Brussels, ahead of Tuesday’s meeting, which will be chaired by Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan.

Under a compromise text proposed by the Irish presidency, uninsured deposits of over €100,000 would be bailed in in the event that a bank is resolved, but depositors would rank higher than other creditors in the event of a wind-down. In this scenario – known as “deposit preference” – depositors would rank at the very end of the process, with other creditors first absorbing losses.

"In this scenario – known as “deposit preference” – depositors would rank at the very end of the process, with other creditors first absorbing losses." Absolute non-sense. Simply smoke and mirrors for those who don't know any better. The only reason for there to be a wind-down in the first place is that there is no equity left in the bank. With gearing in the European banking model what it is, and the dearth of transparent (non-fraudulent) reporting what it is (see If I Provide Proof That The Entire Irish Banking System Is A Sham, Does It Set Up A Much Needed System Reboot? Let's Go For It...), the chances of there being any recovery is somewhere between zilch and nil, give or take a euro or two - reference LGD 100+: What's the Possibility of Certain European Banks Having a Loss Given Default Approaching 100%? and The Anatomy of a Serial European Banking Collapse to realize that once a counter party driven bank run starts, there may be less than nothing to divy up in the end. Lehman Brothers' US creditors received roughly 10 to 40 cents on the dollar, but after 5 years of wrangling, the European International arm was full repaid. Hey, do you feel lucky with your life savings? Even if you do feel lucky, you'll still need 5 years to spare and a ton of cash for legal fees.

However, some member states have not ruled out the possibility that insured deposits, i.e. deposits under €100,000, would be forced to bear losses in the event of a bank collapse even though these deposits would be likely to be protected by the deposit guarantee scheme.

As stated earlier, this ain't AAA coverage!

This year Jeroen Dijsselbloem, head of the group of 17 euro zone finance ministers, said that losses on bondholders and depositors could form part of future bank bailouts as euro zone officials seek to move the burden of bailouts away from taxpayers – as was the case in the Irish bailout – and on to private investors.

The European Commission argues that this switch from so-called “bailouts” to “bail-ins” would result in an allocation of losses that would not be worse than the losses that shareholders and creditors would have suffered in regular insolvency proceedings that apply to other private companies.

Ahem, that non-sense only works on the uneducated and/or the unassuming. The major difference is that creditors that would be subject to regular dissolution proceedings AND that are unsecured, would demand considerably higher rates of return. A borderline solvent bank whose officers AND regulators admit publicly is in need of additional capital infusions after receiving three thus far, and 96% losses in its publicly traded equity, would have to borrow money at 18%, not 2% - and that's being generous. See the bank deposit rate calculator below.

While the inclusion of large savers in future bank bailouts is now widely accepted, significant differences still remain between member states.

While the new rules governing bank resolution were first intended to come into place in 2018, since the Cypriot bailout there have been calls from senior EU figures such as European Central Bank president Mario Draghi and EU economics affairs commissioner Olli Rehn to introduce the new regime as early as 2015.

The Irish presidency of the European Council is hoping to reach a common position by the end of next month.

The little app below calculates what return you should expect to receive to take on the risk of a potential 40% haircut. The second tab offers what recent Cyprus bank rates were. Do you see a disparity???

 Other hard hitting pieces on the resurgent EU banking crisis

 

Published in BoomBustBlog

Who Do Your Believe Reggie Middleton or Central Bank of Ireland

I have spent two week warning Ireland and the world about the Irish banking system, with a summation available in the aptly titled post, If I Provide Proof That The Entire Irish Banking System Is A Sham, Does It Set Up A Much Needed System Reboot? Let's Go For It...Yesterday, the Irish media STARTS to come clean, although they are still not as explicit as the Irish Sun article which put my researched facts front and center...

 Click to enlarge...

 

SUN-SUN-PAGES-NEWS-MONEY-6066 copy copySUN-SUN-PAGES-NEWS-MONEY-6066 copy copy

 

From the Irish Times

Yesterday, at the press briefing to discuss the Central Bank’s 2012 annual report, Honohan matter-of-factly told us that the Irish banks would need more funding before 2019 due to changes in capital reporting requirements imposed by the new Basel III accord.

The transition period for these changes to be implemented by banks in the EU is January 2019.

There were more than a few eyebrows raised at this frank admission.

Honohan’s statement is in stark contrast to those of the various Irish-owned banks –AIB, Bank of Ireland and Permanent TSB. In public at least, the banks have maintained that they are adequately capitalised and that they do not envisage having to raise additional capital to bolster their ratios.

From the Independent:

Mr Honohan said the Central Bank was still working towards carrying out stress tests on the banks at the latter part of the year. By 2019, the banks will need more capital under international regulations.

"In an ideal situation, that capital will come from private investors, as is happening all over Europe, all over the world, where bank capital is being pushed up through the market system," he said.

From private investors? Yeah, right! As said private investors are hoodwinked, just like those poor muppets in the US - reference What Should The US Do If One Of The Biggest Irish Banks Blatantly Defrauded US Investors:

The Bank of Ireland

In the 2008 Annual Accounts (Irish version of Annual Report) of Bank of Ireland (see attached, page 178) it states the bank gave a first floating charge in favor of the Central Bank of Ireland (an arm of the European Central Bank) and the Financial Services Authority of Ireland over the Banks ‘right, title, interest, benefit, present and future, in and to certain segregated securities listed in an Eligible Securities schedule.’

Fact: The BoI 2008 Irish accounts (~annual report) refer to the charges in their Disclosure Section (see attached page from 2008 accounts) where they describe the charge as being over ‘certain segregated securities.’

Of paramount importance for US investors and regulators, there is an absolute omission of this information in the Bank of Ireland SEC 20F returns for 2008.

image006

From the Irish Examiner:

However, banks would need capital over the medium term to comply with Basel III capital requirements by 2019. It is hoped the banks will be able to raise this from private investors, he added. He hoped Ireland would not need the help of the ECB’s outright monetary transaction programme when it exits the bailout programme. However, if it met certain criteria, then it would be able to use the facility. 

But private investors have done so well in the Irish banks, particularly considering their pristine disclosure policies, right??? Again, reference What Should The US Do If One Of The Biggest Irish Banks Blatantly Defrauded US Investors:

The Bank of Ireland 2008 Irish Annual Accounts refer to the charges in their Disclosure Section (see attached page from 2008 accounts) where they describe the charge as being over ‘certain segregated securities,’ but no mention of ‘right, title, interest, benefit, present and future, in and to certain segregated securities listed in an EligibleSecurities schedule.’

There is also no mention of any information related to this floating charge in the Bank of Ireland SEC 20F returns for 2008.

It appears that this floating charge was not disclosed at the time of the stress testing of the bank conducted by the European Banking Authority.

It is possible that I may have overlooked such, and because of that possibility I have made the SEC 20F available for all who want to check over my work. Here is the UBI 2008 accounts and here is the SEC 20f-2008 for the Bank of Ireland.

Now of course, to constitute fraud there has to be a loss on the part of the one being defrauded or a gain on the part of the one being defrauded - at least according to Wikipedia. Otherwise, it would be a hoax. That's the Irish banking system, and not this bank in particular. So...

image003image003

If you believe that the information above actually identifies a gross misrepresentation of fact, omission or outright fraud, simply contact the SEC and let them know that Reggie Middleton suggested they look into it. You can actually use this form to convey my message

Remember, extreme wealth concentrates, so you don't have to... Coming from a "Cyprus'd" bank near you!

Subscribers, can download ALL documents supporting shenanigans by these banks (click here to subscribe):

Published in BoomBustBlog

I was recently alerted to an article in Business Insider regarding a Twitter battle between Nasim Taleb and fellow academics, analysts and financial journalists. What caught my attention was:

  1. Taleb called out the academics for charlatans, which I felt was quite bold.
  2. Two, I agree with him
  3. One of the academics, who presided over the US bubble at the Fed AND the Irish banking bubble at the Central Bank of Ireland is also the guy whose proclamations are the antithesis of my recent Irish banking research, see 
    1. As Forewarned, The Irish Savers Have Just Been "Cyprus'd", And There's MUCH MORE "Cyprusing" To Come
    2. What Should The US Do If One Of The Biggest Banks In Ireland Blatantly Defrauded US Investors?
    3. If I Provide Proof That The Entire Irish Banking System Is A Sham, Does It Set Up A Much Needed System Reboot? Let's Go For It...

I attempted to join the conversation, albeit a little late. See below...

As you can see, nobody wanted to chat with me, so the following day (this morning), I decided to force the issue with a barage of facts. You know how facts tend to get in the way of a good Twitter flame war, don't you?

If media pundits and government/Central Bank consultants were gauged (and paid) based upon thier track records and successes, methinks this would be a better world to live in.

Well, I haven't heard back from the man thus far, so....

Published in BoomBustBlog

Last week I shocked many with several revelations in the post What Should The US Do If One Of The Biggest Banks In Ireland Blatantly Defrauded US Investors? Well, there's more to the Bank of Ireland story than evades the eye.

image003

 In relation to BoI; the CEO Richie Boucher in the Irish High Court on 5th of October 2012 swore on affidavit that BoI had assets of €155 billion. 

BoI Boucher1-1

His statement appears to ignore the existence of the charges that were clearly delineated and illustrated in my previous post - What Should The US Do If One Of The Biggest Banks In Ireland Blatantly Defrauded US Investors?
Below is a sworn copy of the affidavit for Richie Boucher, the CEO of Bank of Ireland. This relates to reducing the Banks Regulatory capital by almost 4 Billion Euro which was shared amongst its preferential shareholders – at the expense of the common shareholders.

You will see he states that the bank has assets of almost 155 Billion Euro. The bank reported losses of 2.1 Billion euro last week.

BoI Boucher2

Although he states that the bank has assets of almost 155 Billion Euro, it recently reported losses of 2.1 Billion euro, which of course materially reduces capital. This loss had to be visible from within the bank for Citibank (amongst other analysts) had bearish views on the company. I doubt Citi knew something that the bank management didn't!

This bid to raise capital for dividend distribution in the face of apparent and expected losses (Citibank had a bearish outlook on the bank’s operations, as did the CEO himself) appears to fly in the face of prudent operation designed to keep the bank as an ongoing concern. Further investigation supports reason to question this action.

Citi analyst on BoI-144

The institutional bank investor Wilbur Ross bought preferred shares of BoI, and benefitted from a windfall payout as BoI successfully petitioned to reduce its regulatory share capital amongst current and impending losses that it was confident it would be taking.

 Wibur ross butphoto-145

Wilbur Ross, et. al. made off like bandits, with the Bank of Ireland common people shareholders left holding the bag with millions in losses. We calculate Mr. Ross pocketed over $600 million dollars for this 5 month or so trade - and with relatively very little out of pocket expense or risk. He still owns the preference shares, after all - and still got the cash as well! Touche' mister Ross, Touche'. As for the common shareholders nursing that 2.1 billion euro (roughly 4.5B dollar) losse, I say the same to you that the big US bankers said to their clients during the 2008 debacle - Muppets! See Goldman's take on Muppetology to get a firmer grasp on what I mean and how the US banks consider nearly all taxpayers muppets.

image003

I calculate the Bank of Ireland taking even more aggressive losses in the future. Why? Failure to mark to market means Irish banks are carrying loans whose true saleable value are roughly 27% of book value. This literally means insolvency for many – and that’s without the recognition of the various charge issues illustrated within. I have documentation to back this up as well and will delve into it in a future post. In the meantime, review my previous posts on the topic or subscribe to download some of the speficic charge documents contained in the posts herein.

 Other hard hitting pieces on the resurgent EU banking crisis

 

Published in BoomBustBlog

This is likely to be the biggest financial story of the month, a story that's bigger than Cyprus, and a story that you're not going to see in American mainstream media - not by a long shot. Let's take this from the top, for BoomBustBloggers were warned weeks in advanced. On Wednesday, 27 March 2013 I published EU Bank Depositors: Your Mattress Is Starting To Look Awfully Attractive - Bank Risk, Reward & Compensation wherein I explained that the situation of extreme loss faced by Cyprus bank depositors, savers and bondholders will not be a unique story - as excerpted:

The deposit accounts that you were getting just a few hundred basis points for have developed:

    1. Liquidity risks: The capital controls that weren't supposed to happen (see No Capital Controls In The EMU? Liar Liar Pants On Fire), happened! See Cyprus Banks Set To Reopen, To Serve As Glorified ATMs With A €300 Cash Withdrawal Limit
    2. Credit risks: Your so-called safe investments will suffer up to a 40% haircut! Mainstream Media Says Cyprus Salvaged By EU Deal, I Say Cyprus Is Sacrificed By Said Deal - Thrown Into Depression
    3. and Market risks: Demand depositors have forcibly purchased highly speculative synthetic call options with their haircuts that are unlikely to compensate anyone for anything!

The little app below calculates what return you should expect to receive to take on the risk of a potential 40% haircut. The second tab offers what recent Cyprus bank rates were. Do you see a disparity???

It's not just Cyprus either. The problems that plagued Cyprus banks plague banks in much larger nations within, and around the EU. From Ovebanked, Underfunded, and Overly Optimistic: The New Face of Sovereign Europe you see institutions that are literally too big to be handled safely...

The Banks Are Bigger Than Many of the Sovereigns

image015.png

 Now, the "Overbanked" article was posted back in 2010. That's right, I warned about the two Irish banks listed in the chart above THREE YEARS ago, You've had plenty of time to mover your money out! Speaking of those Irish banks, I warned the Irish again a few weeks ago as well - with specificity - in Global Banking Crisis - How & Why YOU Will Get "Cyprus'd" As This Bank Scrambled For Capital!!! Here, I focused on Anglo Irish, already nationalized and being wound down. I warned that there will be unhappy returns, if there would be any, just like Cyprus - as excerpted:

First Off Let's Make Bank Collapse Real...

To begin with, let's make this Cyprus thing real, by showing a live example of what happens when to a real small business that had the gall to bank with Laikie Bank, from the Bitcoin forum I excerpt a post that puts things into perspective, re: bank account confiscation:

Later that weekend in the Irish media... As If On Cue, BoomBustBlog Shenanigan Research Gets Real In Ireland

Anglo Irish Bank/IBRC bondholders will actually get some of their money back!

April Fools!!!

As if on cue, a day after my expose on Anglo Irish Bank and its shenanigans (see Global Banking Crisis - How & Why YOU Will Get "Cyprus'd" As This Bank Scrambled For Capital!!!), The Irish Business Post announces senior bondholders will get wiped out. That's right, a 100% loss! Zilch! Zero! Nada! Now, that's investing. That's getting "Cyprus'd", plus some!!! From Businesspost.ie: IBRC senior bondholders to be burned

anglobondwipeout copy

Of course, the story doesn't end with the bondholders. Exactly as anticipated in the articles mentioned above, and as published in the Irish mainstream media over the weekend...

irish pension haircuts copy copy

As you can see, this is actually MUCH WORSE than the deal the Cypriots got. These Irish pensioners are facing a total wipeout - 100% LOSS!!!

If you're not disenfranchised, yet, hold on... It get's worse, much worse. The Irish Examiner published this today... 

ECB gags State on IBRC liquidation

The ECB has gagged the Government from releasing any information in relation to the liquidation of the former Anglo Irish bank, IBRC. A senior official in the Department of Finance told the Irish Examiner they were under strict instructions from the ECB not to release any details to the public. “What they [ECB] have said from an early stage is that if there is any release, at all, then all negotiations are off. They do not want to discuss this in any forum, other than that of a member state and the ECB council,” he said.  The department has received about 16 freedom of information requests in relation to the IBRC liquidation and is now considering adopting a policy position that would allow it to refuse all applications for the release of information. 

Sinn Féin finance spokesman Pearse Doherty said the decision to liquidate IBRC was one of the biggest ever made by the State and he was concerned certain firms may have used insider information to secure payments. “The minister has refused several requests from me for information pertaining to the weeks and months before the event, specifically concerning whether certain sources in the know used confidential information to fast-track invoices in anticipation of liquidation.

So there you have it. Unless you've been hearing a lot about Irish bank collapse lately, it seems if you don't hear it from Reggie Middleton and BoomBustBlog, you're probably not going to hear it at all - so says the powers that be.  

It's not just Anglo Irish Bank, either. I've warned about several other Irish banks. Here's another one I feel likely to give Irish savers a nasty surprise...

You see, the banks can get away with this fleecing because the common person doesn't get a hold of my information and analysis very often, at least not until it's too late. But...... Guess what happened in the Irish mainstream media over the weekend, in the Irish Sun, the most popular rag on the most popular day....

SUN-SUN-PAGES-NEWS-MONEY-6066 copy copy

Subscribers, can download ALL documents supporting shenanigans by these banks (click here to subscribe):

For my US readers who feel this has very little to do with them, I query...

What Should The US Do If One Of The Biggest Banks In Ireland Blatantly Defrauded US Investors?

fraud

For my UK readers who may be a little on the apathetic side...

I Illustrate How The Irish Banking Cancer Spreads To The UK Taxpayer And Metastasizes Through US Markets!

The app below allows the UK Taxpayer to calculate for themselves exactly what their individual contribution (pro rata) is to the government bailout of RBS.

I've taken the liberty of pre-populating the input fields for you, but if you don't agree with the numbers then by all means insert your own!

Other hard hitting pieces on the resurgent EU banking crisis

Published in BoomBustBlog

fraudSince I'm not a securities attorney, let's get a basic understanding of where I'm basing my allegation - after all, I could definitely be wrong as a layman. From Wikipedia:

Securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a deceptive practice in the stock or commodities markets that induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information, frequently resulting in losses, in violation of securities laws.[1] Offers of risky investment opportunities to unsophisticated investors who are unable to evaluate risk adequately and cannot afford loss of capital is a central problem.[2][3]

Securities fraud can also include outright theft from investors (embezzlement by stockbrokers), stock manipulation, misstatements on a public company's financial reports, and lying to corporate auditors.

Characteristics of victims and perpetrators

Any investor can become a victim, but persons aged fifty years or older are most often victimized, whether as direct purchasers in securities or indirect purchasers through pension funds. Not only do investors lose but so can creditors, taxing authorities, and employees.

Potential perpetrators of securities fraud within a publicly traded firm include any dishonest official within the company who has access to the payroll or financial reports that can be manipulated to:

    1. overstate assets
    2. overstate revenues
    3. understate costs
    4. understate liabilities

Enron Corporation[27] exemplifies all four tendencies, and its failure demonstrates the extreme dangers of a culture of corruption within a publicly traded corporation. The rarity of such spectacular failures of a corporation from securities fraud attests to the general reliability of most executives and boards of large corporations.

So, with that layman's understanding of what securities fraud is (along with my emphasis added), let's move on. 

The Bank of Ireland

In the 2008 Annual Accounts (Irish version of Annual Report) of Bank of Ireland (see attached, page 178) it states the bank gave a first floating charge in favor of the Central Bank of Ireland (an arm of the European Central Bank) and the Financial Services Authority of Ireland over the Banks ‘right, title, interest, benefit, present and future, in and to certain segregated securities listed in an Eligible Securities schedule.’

Fact: The BoI 2008 Irish accounts (~annual report) refer to the charges in their Disclosure Section (see attached page from 2008 accounts) where they describe the charge as being over ‘certain segregated securities.’

Of paramount importance for US investors and regulators, there is an absolute omission of this information in the Bank of Ireland SEC 20F returns for 2008.

image006

Other Discrepancies In Disclosure

The Bank of Ireland 2008 Irish Annual Accounts refer to the charges in their Disclosure Section (see attached page from 2008 accounts) where they describe the charge as being over ‘certain segregated securities,’ but no mention of ‘right, title, interest, benefit, present and future, in and to certain segregated securities listed in an EligibleSecurities schedule.’

There is also no mention of any information related to this floating charge in the Bank of Ireland SEC 20F returns for 2008.

It appears that this floating charge was not disclosed at the time of the stress testing of the bank conducted by the European Banking Authority.

It is possible that I may have overlooked such, and because of that possibility I have made the SEC 20F available for all who want to check over my work. Here is the UBI 2008 accounts and here is the SEC 20f-2008 for the Bank of Ireland.

Now of course, to constitute fraud there has to be a loss on the part of the one being defrauded or a gain on the part of the one being defrauded - at least according to Wikipedia. Otherwise, it would be a hoax. That's the Irish banking system, and not this bank in particular. So...

image003

If you believe that the information above actually identifies a gross misrepresentation of fact, omission or outright fraud, simply contact the SEC and let them know that Reggie Middleton suggested they look into it. You can actually use this form to convey my message

Remember, extreme wealth concentrates, so you don't have to... Coming from a "Cyprus'd" bank near you!

Other hard hitting pieces on the resurgent EU banking crisis

 

Published in BoomBustBlog

Entering my third week of publicizing my research into what I see as the potential collapse of the Irish banking system, it is about time to bring the series to a close. Before I do, though, there are a couple of loose ends that need tightening up. One is the assertion that the points that I have made are sensationalist. Anyone who has objectively read the articles I put forth cannot be objective themselves and come to a "sensationalist" conclusion. Secondly, there appears to be some who believe the many charges that I proffered as evidence are not actually evidence of a potentially nefarious plot to collude or misrepresent. Well, I believe the case of misrepresentation was made beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt in Are You About To Get Cyprus'd in Ireland… 

For those of you who actually think it's acceptable for large, international banks to have to mortgage their entire balance sheets, or the vast amount of their securities and liquid asset holdings to essentially obtain access to what essentially is a cross-border, real time checking account (Target 2), I have this fabulous bridge to sell you in Brooklyn... Real cheap! 

Let's examine the argument that the multiple charges were entered by various large banks for the legitimate purpose of facilitating access to Target 2, and not an emergency dash for liquidity funding from the ECB.

First, as excerpted from Wikipedia, a description of how Target 2 operates in terms of collateral:

Liquidity management in TARGET2

The availability and cost of liquidity are two crucial issues for the smooth processing of payments in RTGS systems.

The cost or liquidity is the pertinent issue here. The liquidity "allegedly" sought by the Irish banks is EXTREMELY expensive for it calls for them to leverage/encumber/pledge practically their entire tradable balance sheet. Contrast this with the US Fedwire, were reserves are put up. Yes, reserves, not ALL of central bank lending-eligible securities AND the liquid payment accounts. One cannot practically classify the Irish set-up as a reserve since it is practically everything that the bank has sans plant, equipment and nigh worthless goodwill. Fedwire is the largest system of it's type in existence, yet it requires less collateralization than it's smaller brethren in Europe, Target 2? Either everybody in Europe knows you can't trust European banks or Ireland was given a back door bailout through the Target 2 collateralization system. No matter which way you look at it (both are probably true), it's not positive! Now, back to the Wikipedia write up on Target 2...

In TARGET2, liquidity can be managed very flexibly and is available at low cost since fully remunerated minimum reserves – which credit institutions are required to hold with their central bank – can be used in full for settlement purposes during the day. The averaging provisions applied to minimum reserves allow banks to be flexible in their end-of-day liquidity management. The overnight lending and deposit facilities also allow for continuous lliquidity management decisions. The Eurosystem provides intraday credit. This credit must be fully collateralised and no interest is charged. However, all Eurosystem credit must be fully collateralised, i.e. secured by other assets.

So, now that we've established that the Irish banks have applied for, and received credit in exchange for pledging practically their entire securities and liquid assets portfolio, it is in no way debatable that these banks a) were (and are still, currently) leveraged to the max and b) tied up all of their assets with a pledge of collateralization to (allegedly) back up participation in this payment system. Back to Wikipedia... 

The range of eligible collateral is very wide.

This is to be read as the quality, saleability and marketability of much of the collateral varies greatly - with much of it being worth considerably less than the claim against which it was pledged...

Assets eligible for monetary policy purposes are also eligible for intraday credit. Under Eurosystem rules, credit can only be granted by the national central bank of the Member State where the participant is established... 

Now let's drill down into how Irish banks, in particular, access Target 2 liquidity as compared to their international brethren. On April 3rd I posted The Unique, Peculiar & Unusual Method Irish Banks Used To Say "We're Insolvent"!!! whose excerpt I present below:

A reader posted the following in reference to Are You About To Get Cyprus'd in Ireland? When A Single Word's Worth Billions Of Euros... As a refresher, this is the graphical  arrangement of the interconnected dealings between the ECB and the Irish banks... 
image002

I suspect what you are looking at Reggie is not really an issue for the bank's capital. It looks to me like the ECB is securing itself against the risk that a bank won't voluntarily return a mistaken or fraudulent transfer of funds via Target2. I think in order to participate in Target2, the bank has to contractually give the ECB the right to seize and sell its assets, if that's what it takes to retrieve a mistaken or fraudulent transfer of funds.

This is what reserves are for. By definition, reserves are supposed to be a fractional amount of an entity's holdings to secure against a loss. These Irish banks aren't putting up fractional reserves, they're putting up their entire business. Imagine if you went to a bank to apply for a checking account with real time clearing and a condition of you getting said account was for your to mortgage your house, all of your stocks and bonds, and any other bank accounts. Sounds a bit fishy when put that way, doesn't it?

An amount of readily marketable assets are put up as collateral against the risk described above. If a bank has to put its entire business (after all, a bank's business is money and securities, so these banks put up all of their money and securities) up as a reserve just to essentially participate in a payment system, then it most assuredly...

Tells you something about the level of trust among Europeans. You might want to check other Eurozone banks with US listings and see if all of them don't have this exact same charge filed with the SEC. My guess is they all do.  

Um, no they don't. That was the basis of my claim of misrepresentation and potential fraud. See

At first I thought it might be related to the refinancing and emergency liquidity assistance loans AIB has outstanding from the Irish central bank. Collateral is pledged for those which the ICB could sell if it decides not to roll over the funding and AIB doesn't repay. But the reference to Target2 would make no sense if this were about collateral posted to the ICB.

That said AIB is indeed still a mess for a lot of other reasons.

Actually, AIB is a mess for this reason AND many other reasons as well. The inclusion of charges for the purposes of Target 2 is likely a sham. The Irish banks were dead broke, and without a printing press to manufacture funny munny like we do here in the states. They were fresh out of eligible collateral to pledge to the ECB for more emergency loans. Here's evidence that the Irish charge system was not only unique, but not necessary for the purposes of using Target 2 as an excuse to access emergency funding.

image016
As you can see, Ireland is unique among ALL countries in the EMU in that it, and only it, uses charges to secure access funding. But of course it's just a coincidence, right?!
Okay, let's suppose I'm full of sh1t and have made all of this up as some sort of conspiracy theory. After, it's all just circumstantial evidence, right (albeit an awful lot of it). The charges that I presented in my various articles (see the reference list below) did say that they were for the purposes of Target 2 and we all know banks would never, ever, ever lie, right? Ha! That's funny, even when I just type it! 
Below, please find an all-encompassing charge document from the Bank of Scotland (Ireland) in favor to the Irish Central Bank. The annotations are self explanatory, and keep in mind the amount secured (practically everything) and the amount pledged (practically everything). After you finish reading through the document, let me know in the comment section below if you can determine why the charge was issued...

image026image027image028

So, here we have a comprehensive charge, all-inclusive, not referencing Target 2 in any way whatsoever, filed on the exact same date as EVERY major bank in Ireland - during the middle of the biggest banking crisis Ireland has ever had. Oh, and by the way... this charge or any reference hereto, is nowhere to be found in the company's reporting to its regulators and/or investors - at least as far as I could determine. Hmmmm... Of course, these banks are healthy. Nothing to see here, move on and continue with your daily dose of state-sanctioned, mainstream media piped, independent thought numbing disinformation and propaganda.

Remember, extreme wealth concentrates, so you don't have to... Coming from a "Cyprus'd" bank near you!

Other hard hitting pieces on the resurgent EU banking crisis

Published in BoomBustBlog

Late last week I posted Allegations Of Big Irish Banks Operating Without A License wherein a reader detailed his detailing with AIB and alleged illegal (under Irish law) dealings with the bank. In the article, I asked for comments or criticism since that matter is outside of our expertise and wasn't confirmed. I received several emails on the topic rather quickly. Below is one of the more interesting ones. I find it amazing that AIB is aware of information like this floating around and has not responded with a rebuttal. If the information is accurate, it literally shames the Irish banking regulatory body and press. If it is inaccurate, then AIB should simply issue clarification. 

Hi Reggie,

Attached and below a email from Aib Kathleen Clifford she is the assistant to Aib’s risk director.

The licence has correct company number but Aib Limited was restructured into Aib plc 1982 and doesn’t have any Government or Central Bank stamp?

Below are some the Irish criminal laws breached by AIB plc

Also their ability to trade outside Ireland is dependent on them having a Ratified Irish licence therefore their USA and Eu operations may not be legal.

False claims in performances 
False representation 
Misrepresentation to Central Bank
Fraudulent application or use 
Concealing facts disclosed by documents
Suppression of documents 
False statements to shareholders
Falsification of Financial records 
Liability of officers in respect to financial records 
Furnishing false information 
Operating a Financial institution with out a valid Banking Licence

Everyone a criminal offence.


AIB Banking Licence

 

 

 

Published in BoomBustBlog

US retail investors and financial media tend to be a little... well... US-centric. They tend to ignore a lot of international happenings even though these events can, and often do, have a direct impact on the immediate US financial situation. I have ranted, raved, preached and prognosticated on the interconnectedness, and the inherent risks therein, of the global banking system. From my highly analytical ravings on Bear Stearns (pre-bust Is this the Breaking of the Bear?) to my more free form rants on Lehman (pre-bust Is Lehman really a lemming in disguise?), I think I have proven that being the lone voice in the investment wilderness is not necessarily an indicator of that voice being wrong. See Who is Reggie Middleton? for more on that topic. For now, let's continue where we left off in "Ireland, You May Very Well Be Bust & I Make No Apologies For What I'm About To Show You" wherein I'm about to clearly demonstrate how contagion easily traipsed through geographic borders from Ireland to the UK to the US, and how this big bank seemingly omitted the evidence of such.

Note to professional and institutional subscribers:  Please download the supporting documents for this report from BoomBustBlog’s subscription archive and depository -  Ulster Bank/RBS Supporting Charge Documents. This file contains several hundred pages of documentation to support the assertions and allegations contained in this report (click here to subscribe).

Ulster Bank Limited
Founded BelfastUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1836) as the Ulster Banking Company
Headquarters Dublin, Republic of Ireland
Website www.ulsterbank.ie for RoI orwww.ulsterbank.com for NI

Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd, has charges registered (see Supporting Charge Documents) with the Irish Companies Registration Office (CRO). The bank gave a first floating charge in favour of the Central Bank of Ireland (an arm of the European Central Bank) and the Financial Services Authority of Ireland encompassing “all its right, title, interest and benefit, present and future, in and to each of the securities of such a class or description as may from time to time be designated by the European Central Bank as eligible for sale and/or purchase, as the case may be, by the Bank under its standard form for the time being of Master Repurchase Agreement, which specification may be made by reference to particular classes of repurchase transactions, and which are included in the schedule of Eligible Securities provided to the Bank from time to time.”.

These charges were registered with the CRO on 15th February 2008, yet there is no mention whatsoever of these charges in the Banks 2008 Annual Accounts (see attached). 

Ulster Bank is a 100% Owned Subsidiary of the UK (now taxpayer owned) Institution - The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS)

This affects US investors as well and this piece should be well read by anyone in the US, UK or Ireland who has lost money investing in RBS/Ulster Bank Group.

rbs share price history

In 2008, RBS traded ADR’s in the U.S. under the symbol .NYSE:RBS. These ADR’s were traded OTC. This gives the SEC jurisdiction over the companies US securities. 

What happened behind closed doors?

Ulster Bank gave a first floating charge in favor of the Central Bank of Ireland (an arm of the European Central Bank) and the Financial Services Authority of Ireland. U.S. investors would have had to rely on the contents of The Royal Bank of Scotland's 2008 Annual Accounts which apparently (in my opinion) concealed the existence of the CRO registered charges to the Bank of Ireland.

Ulster Bank RBS charge doc 2 Page 1Ulster Bank RBS charge doc 2 Page 1 copyUlster Bank RBS charge doc Page 1Ulster Bank RBS charge Doc to Pfizer International Bank Page 1

I also attach charge documents that Ulster Bank entered into with Pfizer International Bank. I cannot find these charges in any disclosures.

If you look at the attached charge documents from Ulster Bank to the Central Bank you will see that the wording is different when compared to the charge documents of the other Irish Banks. It specifically states that a first floating charge was created by the Deed of Floating Charge over Eligible Securities for Liabilities Arising in Target2-Ireland. Having said that I can see no mention of these charges in the Annual Accounts for 2008. On page 72 (28) of the Annual Accounts it gives the only details that I can find of charges registered. It states that A registered charge exists over the assets of the Group, securing all borrowings and other obligations in whatever form that relate to the Group's use of the Euroclear system, that are outstanding to Morgan Guaranty Brussels and to any other office of Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York. This looks as if it could be a double encumbrance of certain assets for the charge to the Central Bank of Ireland features very similar, all-encompassing language for Ulster Bank, which is a fully owned subsidiary of RBS. Although I'm not an international banking attorney, my layman's eye sees double counting of collateral barring a clause that somehow excludes that covered by the charge over Ulster Bank.

There are also two charge documents for Ulster Bank to Pfizer International Bank. One is for 2009 and the other for 2010. I can see no mention of these in the 2009 and 2010 Annual Accounts.

These charge documents are also not apparent in the recent bank ‘stress testing’ conducted by the European Banking Authority, at least not in the summary results that the EBA have made available, reference RBS Stress Test.

I cannot see how the charge documents are disclosed in the RBS annual accounts (annual report). I see it mentions that the Bank provides collateral in the form of securities in repurchase agreements (footnote page 41). On page 60 it states the Group engages in securitization transactions of its residential loans which are generally transferred to a special purpose entity. This likely relates to the cashflows and not the principal. The charge documents relate to the principal (the actual loan). The registered charge (page 72) exists over the assets of the Group, securing all borrowings and other obligations whatsoever that relate to the Group's use of the Euroclear system (privately owned by J.P.Morgan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroclear).

The charge documents are not covered in the Ulster Bank Annual Accounts or the SEC Group RBS Annual Report. I think that this is a serious misrepresentation of the Accounts/Annual Report. The charge is a floating charge over Secured Obligations (Repo Agreements) which means all present and future liabilities of Ulster Bank (100% owned by RBS). As stated Target2 is only a payment system. The true reasons for the charge increasingly appear to be that of emergency funding, for it also appears as if Ulster Bank was bust. This information should have been included in the SEC Group RBS Annual Report, especially when ADR's were being traded.

RBS Stress Tests

The afore-linked copy of the RBS Stress Test results do not make it possible to determine whether the charge documents were included in the Stress Test, however it is worth pointing out that the charges do not appear in the annual accounts, so one could assume that they were not included in the stress test. The information is based on data supplied by each bank, via its respective national supervisor. Accuracy of this data is primarily the responsibility of the participating bank and national supervisor. This information has been provided to the EBA in accordance with Article 35 of EU Regulation 1093/2010. The EBA bears no responsibility for errors/discrepancies that may arise in the tables.

A Short Traipse Through Recent History & The Expense That Ultimately Befalls The UK Taxpayer

In 2007 Ireland had significant cross border exposure to UK and US banks through derivatives and property products. As I warned in 2007, the real estate bubble in the the US/UK popped in 2008, sending pathogenic contagion straight through the Irish banking system. The entire banking system started collapsing. On February 15, 2008, Ireland took extraordinary measures (which we will explore in depth a little later on) to mitigate said collapse, measures that many a layperson would deem misleading, if not fraudulent. RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland, one of the largest financial institutions in the countries of Ireland and the UK) was effectively nationalized by the UK and a bad bank was formed to purchase bad debt/products from the Zombie Irish banks in exchange for government bonds, backed by a country that just simply couldn't afford it.

It was the UK taxpayer that footed the bill for this nationalization - as per Wikipedia:

The bonus payments paid to RBS staff subsequent to the 2008 United Kingdom bank rescue package have led to controversy. Staff bonuses were nearly £1 billion in 2010, even though RBS reported losses of £1.1 billion for 2010. More than 100 senior bank executives were paid in excess of £1 million each in bonuses. Consequently, former CEO Fred Goodwin was stripped of his knighthood in mid-January, and newly appointed CEO Stephen Hester renounced his £1 million bonus after complaints over the bank’s performance.

82 percent of RBS' shares are now owned by the UK government, which bought RBS stock for £42 billion, representing 50 pence per share. In 2011, the shares were worth 19 pence, representing a taxpayer book loss of £26 billion ($40B). Historically, the RBS stock price went from a high of over 700 pence in early 2007 (taking into account a 3 for 1 stock split that took place later that year) to around 20 pence in late 2011.

... the UK Government (HM Treasury), as of 31 March 2012, holds and manages an 82% stake through UK Financial Investments Limited(UKFI), whose voting rights are limited to 75% in order for the bank to retain its listing on the London Stock Exchange. In addition to its primary share listing on the LSE, the company is also listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The group is based in Edinburgh, Scotland. In 2009, after the financial collapse, it was briefly the world's largest company by both assets (£1.9 trillion) and liabilities (£1.8 trillion).  In 2012, the UK government announced plans to bid for the rest of the RBS shares that it did not own, as it felt that "while the taxpayer owns over 82pc of the bank following a bailout in 2008, they bear 100pc of the bank's huge liability risks".

Part and parcel of the RBS problems was its purchase of Ulster Bank and its exposure to the Irish lending issues!

The app below allows the UK Taxpayer to calculate for themselves exactly what their individual contribution (pro rata) is to the government bailout of RBS.

I've taken the liberty of pre-populating the input fields for you, but if you don't agree with the numbers then by all means insert your own!

Following my warning in February of 2008, Lehman filed bankruptcy in September sending an additional set of contagion shock through Ireland and its banking system, causing Ireland to issues bonds and further indebt itself to save its Zombie banks – again! This time through blanket bank guarantees backed by the full faith of the government.

In September of 2010, a large swath of said government guarantees for the banks were about to expire. Reference this excerpt from the book “Zombie Banks: How Broken Banks and Debtor Nations Are Crippling the Global Economy”:

In September 2010, some of Ireland's government guarantees for bank debts were about to expire, which put U.S. Treasury officials on edge. If the guarantee wasn't renewed, the banks would likely default on their bonds, triggering the next event in line: a slew of credit default swap (CDS) contracts on Irish banks' debt. U.S. Treasury officials had reason to worry - the names backing those contracts were the largest U .S. banks, and they could end up paying billions in case of default. Any more weight on U.S. banks could be a tipping point to collapse. Treasury officials made inquiries to their counterparts at the Irish finance ministry asking about the course of action the country was planning to take and indicated their concern about possible default and its CDS repercussions. A year after having issued blanket guarantees on the banks' liabilities the Irish government once again didn't dare let the bank fail. Instead it ended up asking for financial assistance from the European Union (EU) and the International Monetary Fund (IIMF): the country had been pushed to the brink of collapse.

image002

Litigation

201294 r01o 09CV00300 Page 01rbs litigation

Indications of capital shortfalls in the Ulster Bank arrangement:

RBS had paid a total of €9.13 billion to Ulster Bank in capital contributions, in order to safeguard the bank’s capital reserves after writing off billions in impaired loans to Irish borrowers. http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/british-banks-bailed-ireland-out-e16bn-762258-Jan2013/24th Feb. 2012

ULSTER BANK’S parent company, Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), injected as much as £4 billion (€4.7 billion) into Ulster Bank last year, bringing its total investment in its Irish subsidiary to £10 billion (€11.8 billion) since 2008.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/financial-services/rbs-chief-insists-11-8bn-injected-into-ulster-bank-was-too-much-1.469092

If you have believe that the information above actually identifies a gross misrepresentation of fact, omission or outright fraud, simply contact the SEC and let them know that Reggie Middleton suggested they look into it. You can actually use this form to convey my message

Those of you in Ireland who may not want to get "Cyprus'd", ie. have your bank accounts fund another bailout, should contact the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. Click this link, and tell them Reggie from NYC sent 'ya. Seriously! The reason why Irish banks haven't been reformed was because not enough light has been shown on the activities. See a valid attempt at such here. This is the time, for the tea leaves foretell the next bank collapse & bailout will be funded directly out of your bank accounts, reference Ireland, You May Very Well Be Bust & I Make No Apologies For What I'm About To Show You for those who don't believe me. See Global Banking Crisis - How & Why YOU Will Get "Cyprus'd" for an example of a bank statement of a Cypriot who didn't take the regulation of his bank seriously!!!

 And for those blokes in the UK, I suggest you drop a note to the Financial Conduct Authority. You can This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. sent you. This was excerpted from their website (emphasis added):

We intervene when firms:

    • treat consumers unfairly
    • behave in ways that risk the integrity of the market

We supervise firms differently depending on their size and the nature of their business. This includes:

    • continuous conduct assessment for large firms and regular assessment for smaller firms
    • monitoring products and other issues to ensure firms play fair and don’t compromise consumer interests
    • responding quickly and decisively to events or problems that threaten the integrity of the industry
    • ensuring firms compensate consumers when necessary

Well, straight from the horse's mouth. Have at 'em. They should do the right thing, and EU media should pick up on this as well. You don''t want your 2,000+ pound/euro bank bailout investment to be handled solely by a blogger from NYC, do you???!!!

For paid subscribers, I've posted another potentially "Cyprus'd" EU bank with shortable US/LSE traded shares/options for subscribers, reference EU Bank Capital Confusion, Part 2 - Malarkey (you may subscribe here). Over the next 36 hours or so, I will be releasing an even bigger scandal that is even more far reaching. Stay tuned!!!

 Other hard hitting pieces on the resurgent EU banking crisis

Published in BoomBustBlog

In reference to Are You About To Get Cyprus'd in Ireland? When A Single Word's Worth Billions Of Euros... and Oh No! Is It Possible? A 3rd Irish Bank With Hidden Charges Not Revealed In Its Annual Reports? I bring you this letter presented by one of my readers...

Irish bank investogation by Irish police

The Irish authorities have officially indicated that they are looking into the matter. Could this be the reason why Ireland's top bregulator stepped down so quickly that he forgot to take his bonus?

If you have believe that the information below actually identifies a gross misrepresentation of fact, omission or outright fraud, simply contact the SEC and let them know that Reggie Middleton suggested they look into it. You can actually use this form to convey my messageFor paid subcribers, I've posted another potentially "Cyprus'd" EU bank with shortable US/LSE traded shares/options for subscribers, reference EU Bank Capital Confusion, Part 2 - Malarkey (you may subscribe here). Over the next 36 hours or so, I will be releasing an even bigger scandal that is even more far reaching. Stay tuned!!!

Published in BoomBustBlog