Bank Stress Test Results LEAKED!!!

reply to post by grey580


I am not sure if the leaked stress test are true or not, however, bank of america and goldman are fine. Luckily for BOA it bought Merrill nad countrywide. These companies will help offset any loses they have. By the end of the year BOA will post profits anywhere from 10-25 billion.

reply to post by Realtruth


Too right!!!!!!!!
If any gambling is to be done with my money, I would prefer to do it myself.
When TSHTF and the money we kept in the bank is "gone" it will allready be too late.
Any money you have stuffed under your pillow, or burried somewhere will be deemed worthless.
Invest now in tangible goods is the best advice ever......................
Supplies, land etc.............
invest your time now in educating yourself to be more self-sustaining and you may stand a chance............................

Originally posted by bartholomeo
Banks have always been able to lend 10 times more money than what they actually have, so if bank of america only has 10 million dollars in cash they are able to lend 100 million in loans with the corresponding interest to each loan.

Actually, that is not entirely true. The 1/10 rule was not in place until the banks caused the Great Depression. And when it was implimented, they almost immediately pulled a lawyerly way of prevaricating and deceiving, to further their robbery. What they do is put the $1 in the vault, and try to loan out $9. Then they would 'technically' still have the 1/10. But they are loaning out money that they are 'creating'. Before the GDepression, they loaned out with no reguard to having any deposits at all. And I believe they managed to loan out about 9 times what they had in deposits. So with this new rule imposed by their 'employees' in the government, they appeared regulated, but in fact there was almost zero difference made in the way they previously ran their counterfeiting operation. A bank typically 'made' 1200%, and paid out 2 or 3% to depositors. I propose that any bankster running this counterfeiting operation and still declaring bankruptcy should be drawn, hung, and quartered, featured on cable tv. Not too politically correct, but neither is a scam empowered by our Federal owners. Not legal, but very doable, and practical. We are currently a lawless country. Just ask any lawyer, judge, bureaurat, or cop. The law only applies to us slaves.l

reply to post by Where2Hide2006


The stress test was manipulative propaganda. They knew the numbers! It was to stall the Inevitable.

I agree that leaking the stress test may have been intentional. Since we cant bail out the banks there is only one solution. Globalize the monetary system, as The G20 is pushing for.

A credit system with no cash currency. We will devalue all currencies and create new trade agreements. It’s a major player in the NWO.

I thought it was odd today seeing 2 huge military trucks in town. I had to make sure none were parked at the banks and stores. Not yet anyways.

It may not be useful transferring your money to the bank of mattress if we swap for credits.

I’m thinking now is the time to invest solely in long term food storage and ammo and maybe a little silver and gold to bribe the Security forces.

I knew the stress tests would not be good, as most of us assumed. They either want panic and blood on the streets or they dont. I havent got that one figured out yet.

By looking at wall street today,, I think we are in for a rude awakening. BOA showed a profit in the first quarter, yet everyone sold due to retail and commercial concerns.

Either Volcker or Obama will soon come out with the truth. they cant hide it any longer.

I also saw a new mall going up today, thinking are these guys nuts!! Most malls around here are vacant. Things I have never seen before.

The Bank of america's in my town closed all their drive through windows. Has any other states noticed this. They say the reason is costomer service. RIGHT.

reply to post by Maxmars






All the money being pumped in to the system is just playing Casino and the chips are about to fall.

reply to post by tide88


I must tell you that the purchases of Merrill nad countrywide will be Bank of Americas worse move yet. It will cause them to fail.

reply to post by JacKatMtn


The Treasury is lying, as they did in the past. It's actually worse than we think!

Originally posted by wonderworld
reply to post by tide88

 

I must tell you that the purchases of Merrill nad countrywide will be Bank of Americas worse move yet. It will cause them to fail.

Really. Fixed income investing is the only way banks are making money right now. If anything it will keep BOA afloat. Why do you say it was a bad move.. All the banks that have reported have had record fixed income investing profits.

reply to post by wonderworld

agree that leaking the stress test may have been intentional

If they were going to leak the stress test they sure as hell wouldnt use Hal Turner to do it, they would have used an anonymous source at the treasury department or one of the banks. I would be willing to bet the banks are in better shape then you think.

reply to post by tide88


Ahem, Karl Denninger (aka "Genesis) does not share your sentiment...

tickerforum.org...

I wouldn't by any stretch of the imagination call this situation "good," but there is one cause for optimism to bear in mind. Japan's major banks have all been technically insolvent for almost 20 years in the same way, and they have managed to limp on, with the help of MSM coverups, government injections, and bending of the rules. I'm not by any means saying Japan is in good shape, but during all this time of technical insolvency, the trains have managed to run on time and nobody in that nation of 140 million has starved to death.

"Technical" insovency is just that: technical. As long as we all agree to look the other way, the situation can sort of hang there in limbo indefinitely. Again, I'm not saying this is a "good" thing -- merely pointing out that society can certainly grind wearily on for quite sometimes without total collapse under these circumstances.

reply to post by wonderworld



You Said:

"

"By looking at wall street today,, I think we are in for a rude awakening. BOA showed a profit in the first quarter, yet everyone sold due to retail and commercial concerns.

Either Volcker or Obama will soon come out with the truth. they cant hide it any longer..."

"


Obama has 'advantageously' put Volcker in complete charge of
'Simplifying the Tax Code' (something which a number of previous Presidents promised to address!...but never did anything about)

so Volcker will be unavailable for the credit/bank/derivatives crisis,
and any remedies he might think of.


[edit on 20-4-2009 by St Udio]

Originally posted by flyboyscott68
I think he is spot on with this. The total diriveative market is 1.5 QUADRILLION. He is right. The banks are insolvent. He might be off a little in the exact numbers, but, he is right. They are already gone.

The banks are insolvent if they have to pay off the derivatives. That is not a foregone conclusion. If anything evidence exists that the goverment will rig the game to prevent the derivatives from causing further damage. The stress test will tell them just what they have to do to keep that from happening. Banks solvency is a very objective calculation at this point. Safe to say thoughif indeed a couple of large financial institutions go bankrupt, chances are good that most all of them will as well. God help those who have bought annuities if this happens.

reply to post by pluckynoonez


Just because they lied about the availability of those tests doesnt mean that Hal Turner has the results. Also it is possible that the full results are not yet available. The head of the banks would know the progress of those stress tests even if they were not completed.

President Barack Obama is scheduled to get a progress report on the tests today during a meeting with his economic team.

April 10th Bloomberg

You dont give a PROGRESS REPORT if the test are completed. If they were complete the article would state the President Obama is sheduled to get the results of the stress test today (april 10th.) Also from the same article :

“It is premature for banks to talk about the stress tests,” Talbott said yesterday. “They aren’t finalized yet and there is no framework to evaluate the results

So tell me, Plucky, where the treasury is lying and why GENISIS left those quotes out of his article. Looks to me like the treasury didnt lie about anything, but Derringer sure did!

[edit on 20-4-2009 by tide88]

[edit on 20-4-2009 by tide88]

reply to post by pluckynoonez


Derringer is an idiot. Like his article Economic Professor Advocates Theft. In this article he claims this idea come from the professor himself. Well, actually that is a lie. It was an idea that one of his students came up with.

At one of my recent Harvard seminars, a graduate student proposed a clever scheme to do exactly that. (I will let the student remain anonymous. In case he ever wants to pursue a career as a central banker, having his name associated with this idea probably won’t help.

NYTIMES

I love how your buddy derringer likes to leave out the important parts of the article. Like who the idea originated from. Looks like Derringer is the liar to me.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by tide88]

The stress tests are supposed to come out in May. So we'll know then. Probably. If they're so bad they refuse to disclose the results to the public, I think you'd cause as much panic as if you actually told them the truth, so I doubt they'll try to hide them.

Whether this "leak" is valid or bogus, only time will tell, but in public relations there is a technique when you have to break bad news to people called "telling the truth slowly," but it usually begins with rumors. They float the rumor and see if it raises any eyebrows so they can plot their strategy. If it seems to be causing great concern, they take longer and let it come out in drips; if not the full truth comes out rather quickly. And of course there are degrees of concern.

But they usually do this through outlets that have established credibility.

I'm not sure the numbers in that report are really alarming. I'm not sure what they mean by "risk-based capital." I mean what exactly is, "total credit exposure to derivatives" as a "percent of its risk-based capital?" Could some financial guy explain this? I actually know a lot about finance for a layman; I'm a regular investor and I've made good money in stocks. But I know enough not to pretend I know what's being said when I don't.

I think some people in this thread have assumed those numbers are alarming. Are they?

From Hal Turner..noted white supremacist and anti-semite. That's some real reliable sourcing there jeez

reply to post by Gregarious


Well, I don`t know of any laws from the government that actually regulate the fed or the banks. I doubt there is any since the fed is a separate body from the government or from the U.S. for that matter. But they do have some dicipline (the must) withing their own doings and the way they operate business ofcourse, and one of them is to keep the lending within its own limits, so they dont get busted when people take out the money from the bank and leave them dry, so those limits are what you mentioned above 1 to 9 ratio, and wouldn`t surprise me if some of them went above that and lent 1 to 10, but yes generally they would try to keep the ratio down so as to lower the risk of bankrupcy, specially in hard times like these.

Now, there are those evil individuals that run these banks that have the adrenaline rush of becoming super rich before they die, and they dont care if they leave everybody else pennyless, usually these people have an ambition with a little more spice than those who just settle with making money while they are asleep, or in a vacaion in bermuda with a different lady every single night, no, these individuals want more than that, they been there and done that, and had that; these guys want to control cities, the government to beg them for milk from their breasts, to them it doesnt really matter what the law or the constitution of any country says, the citizens can be cannibals or beasts, giants or midgets as long as they borrow money and pay back with interest, it`s all going according to plan.

Unfortunately the mules are the people. Unfortunatley we all have a number. That number is the security on any loan the government borrows from these national banks which have their origins in europe. That number is the social security number, which means we are the collateral that insures the borrowed money to be payed back with the fruits of our labor in case the government can`t pay for it itself.

Example: Government asks to borrow 1 trillion from the fed or any bank in europe, the fed is going to ask, do you have any assests or gold in case you can`t pay back because our lenders are private lenders that need to know their money will be payed back in full and if not, to a least get it back in some type of asset. The government will say well we can secure the loan by putting taxes on the people of the country since the reason why we are borrowing this money is for the better of the country the citizens should all chip in with something to help out pay the loan. The fed will ask how do we know everybody is paying their taxes because we can have some that can jump through the hoops and not pay any taxes at all thereby jeopardizing the security of the loan. Government says well I will give you information on every single individual that is born in this country and you will personally have the authority to track them down and pay you those taxes, when they are born they will be given a name from their parents, a number will be assigned to them, and you will have all the info on their financial transactions so they can pay the corresponding percentage of taxes according to their income. The fed will say ok so the loan will be secured by you giving me the authority to charge them taxes even if they refuse (IRS) and by making them work for money only if they have that number so we can deduct the taxes from their income, not only that but that number will have to be used on most every single institution in their life, so as to prevent they cannot deattach themselves from the number and therefore we can track their activities thougouth their lives. The fed will say as long as the minimum payment is made yearly on the loan together with the interest everything will be ok, even if you can only make payments covering the interest it is still ok because in 100 years the interest alone would have almost payed the trillion dollars borrowed in the first place.

Now the fed is not really interested in how much the loan is and how many people live in the country which is taking the loan so as to calculate how much every person would be able to pay in taxes througout their lifetime, as long as the person lives up to 60 years old and makes at least 600 thousand in their lifetime, the interest on the loan would always be payed in time.

Its big business and the money is transfered to them, and taken from us.

reply to post by tide88


Well I'm no banker and dont claim to know how the banking system works, but neither do the banks these days.

First of all fixed income investing in Merrill and Countrywide was a terrible mistake. They were acquired at a time in history that nothing had a solid value and still doesn’t. Merrill Lynch’s numbers were inflated when it was sold. The same with Countrywide.

I don’t believe one word that Lewis says. One good first quarter report doesn’t make up for the last 3 quarters of losses last year. Every new high we see is still an under performer. As a matter of fact I recently spoke to a representative at Countrywide and was told the sub-prime and prime mortgage defaults are far from over.

After the Credit Card bubble bursts there will be more prime borrowers defaulting. We also have the commercial paper bubble bursting. I’m upset with Paulson for not admitting how much BOA received. If the truth was known, at the time they would be bankrupt.

The golden parachutes handed out to Merrill employees of billions of dollars is not a sound fixed income investment. This causes other problems for Lewis.

My first assumption was they bought up these companies to become too big to fail. BOA shares got dumped on today. If the short sellers don’t take them down they will fall on their own. That is capitalism.

I am an optimistic person but not when it comes to the viability of our financial institutions. The only one I see currently viable is HSBC but haven’t checked lately.

There are too many negative factors to include, with Countrywide, low interest rates, loan to value ratios, etc. They have hardened their lending standard, which is good but less qualify to keep up with 2006-2007 levels. The leveraging is all but gone.

reply to post by tide88


I don’t think the significance was if it was or wasn’t intentionally leaked. The facts still remain.

BOA wouldn’t have needed a bailout if they were doing so well. It’s a combination of both Main Street and Wall Street being viable.

I find it odd that Citi’s shares dropped to under a buck, then miraculously say they don’t need any bailout money.

It’s not just our banks. It’s a global banking problem. You will see in 2010 what I’m guessing will, in fact happen. Maybe sooner.

I would love to snap my fingers and put an end to this crisis. It’s not that easy. I hope we don’t end up with hyperinflation, as a result.

Obama, Volcker, and Timmy Geitner aren’t nervous for the heck of it.

Ben Bernanke has nothing to worry about. He’s been meeting with the G20 before Bush even knew who they were. He has all the answers.