Bank deposits tax planned for bailout fund

[Midnight Man]

Now what will the few big savers do.. If you by some miracle you have $500k in a bank, would you not split it up and put $100k in four banks? Then it is all insured.

You can bet your shoes and socks there will be a clause in this system that will identify deposits not per account/institution, but per individual. You can also bet your shoes and socks that you will still pay the fee on all your deposits, even though (givem your example) you're only going to get 1/5th of the coverage.

 

[bordsilver]

For about the 10th time, Ben Bernanke did NOT, I repeat, did NOT "give" the OZ banks $4 Billion in 2008.

They LENT money to many banks OVERNIGHT at the normal OVERNIGHT interest rate, to balance their books. EVERY one of those advances were REPAID the following morning, and often RE BORROWED the next night

GEDDIT?

+1. Kris Sayce (or was it Dan?) confused accessing super-cheap money with "bailout" and ran with the story for way too long.

 

[Old Codger]

research,

PRIMARY DEALER CREDIT FACILITY

 

[bordsilver]

research,

PRIMARY DEALER CREDIT FACILITY

That's the first time I think I've heard that term.

 

[Old Codger]

I have mentioned this on multiple occasions in the past, and left a link.

Another interesting market is the 'Short Term Money Market', which all banks use every day. Their 'Float', (surplus money at the end of the day) goes there and is borrowed over night at interest.

No conspiracy, just normal banking practice.

 

[goldpelican]

So will this be a per deposit levy, or per annum? Probably 98% of the country is paid by direct deposit by their employers - so the government will be sticking their hand in your pocket even deeper with every pay.

Levy be buggered - it's a new payroll tax.

Only people not hit by this would be those nasty cash economy tax avoiders - hmm, better move to ban cash transactions over $1k to force them into the system...

 

[whinfell]

ABC reports at as:

The levy will start on January 1, 2016 and will be set at 0.05 per cent on deposits of up to $250,000.

which I interpret as applying to savings accounts, term deposits, etc, and not on deposits into current accounts. But I could be wrong :/

 

[Clawhammer]

So, in this the Govt has essentially admitted that it can't regulate the banks (i.e. audit their books to expose malfeasance...the cause of bank collapses).

So the natural question (to your federal member) is, when are you going to disband the Govt. regulator and return the balance as a tax cut?

 

[dagsgarrett]

We are so f@$%ed!!!!!

 

[Emanance]

If my bank thinks they are going to move this cost onto me by charging me a deposit fee on all deposits into my account, couldn't I just shut my account down, and legally have my payg wage paid in legal tender in a little yellow envelope like the old days?

 

[Slam]

The government guarantee won't mean squat when it all goes pear shape.

This levy ain't going to turn the tides if there is a massive bank run. This is just another tax grab from the useless pollies in canberra.

Slam

 

[nonrecourse]

Now what will the few big savers do.. If you by some miracle you have $500k in a bank, would you not split it up and put $100k in four banks? Then it is all insured.

Will this move frighten SMSF people from holding large sums of cash...You have to have it somewhere! Where will they put their super funds..I know RE and the share market....green shoots again.

TIC..Maybe it was a mistake to sell the Commonwealth Bank..When the government owned it and all the funds were insured ..

There is no such thing as a free lunch.. $250 Insurance in 2008, $100k Insurance in 2013 and ? Insurance WTSHTF.

Cyprus here we come, surely not, It couldnt happen here in Australia, could it?

Now I remember, Uncle Ben did give two of our banks $4.6 billion in 08..Maybe he will do it again.

Regards Errol 43

I really don't understand why you are asking what will savers do ? Isn't it obvious? You know our gubermint are a pack of thieving lying bustards who are fiscal stillborn pigmies no? And we know the banksters are their masters...Yes?

With the theft of depositors savings with non active accounts last year... Didn't you move your cash into bullion? Even with the gold price manipulation the Aus $ fiat collapse means your still ahead no?

If you'd listened to me over the last few years and invested in commercial property and stacked gold and silver bullion as your hedge you'd be laughing having walked away from the banksters and their scum sucking lackies your.... gubermint

Kind Regards
nonrecourse

 

[errol43]

For about the 10th time, Ben Bernanke did NOT, I repeat, did NOT "give" the OZ banks $4 Billion in 2008.

They LENT money to many banks OVERNIGHT at the normal OVERNIGHT interest rate, to balance their books. EVERY one of those advances were REPAID the following morning, and often RE BORROWED the next night

GEDDIT?

No I don't get it.

I refer to the post. Panic Breaks Out Over Aussie Banks = About Time It was posted on the 02.02.12 by rbaggio.

I know refer to post 6 from Systematic in which he gives a link to Ben Bernanke refuses to declare where the $2.1 trilion went. He said NO when asked which banks got it.

Until such time as he comes clean as to where the money went,I will continue to believe that the US did give $ to Westpac and the National.

OC I am sorry that you have ten times told me that Ben Benarke did not give Money to the OZ banks.. Now I have made it eleven times.

With that said I will try to not upset you as I do enjoy your contributions to the SS site.

Lets just say we beg to differ.

I hope we do agree on stacking Silver.

Regards Errol 43

 

[Shaddam IV]

Now what will the few big savers do.. If you by some miracle you have $500k in a bank, would you not split it up and put $100k in four banks? Then it is all insured.

Will this move frighten SMSF people from holding large sums of cash...You have to have it somewhere! Where will they put their super funds..I know RE and the share market....green shoots again.

TIC..Maybe it was a mistake to sell the Commonwealth Bank..When the government owned it and all the funds were insured ..

There is no such thing as a free lunch.. $250 Insurance in 2008, $100k Insurance in 2013 and ? Insurance WTSHTF.

Cyprus here we come, surely not, It couldnt happen here in Australia, could it?

Now I remember, Uncle Ben did give two of our banks $4.6 billion in 08..Maybe he will do it again.

Regards Errol 43

I really don't understand why you are asking what will savers do ? Isn't it obvious? You know our gubermint are a pack of thieving lying bustards who are fiscal stillborn pigmies no? And we know the banksters are their masters...Yes?

With the theft of depositors savings with non active accounts last year... Didn't you move your cash into bullion? Even with the gold price manipulation the Aus $ fiat collapse means your still ahead no?

If you'd listened to me over the last few years and invested in commercial property and stacked gold and silver bullion as your hedge you'd be laughing having walked away from the banksters and their scum sucking lackies your.... gubermint

Kind Regards
nonrecourse

He's back! Where have you been NR?

 

[boston]

You can bet your shoes and socks there will be a clause in this system that will identify deposits not per account/institution, but per individual. You can also bet your shoes and socks that you will still pay the fee on all your deposits, even though (givem your example) you're only going to get 1/5th of the coverage.

+1

 

[JulieW]

I'm with NR. This is precisely what has been talked about here for the last few years. Get out of the system as far as possible. Get real assets that can't be pilfered easily (though they'll work hard at stealing from everybody - stackers included) and keep as little exposed as possible.

I follow the adage 'trust in god but keep your powder dry'. If you act as your own bank, save and invest wisely in real things, avoid being sucked into the spendthrift, debt-ridden consumer culture that abounds and put as much as possible out of reach of the banksters and government thieves, then the coming conflagration should impact on you without too much fear and loathing visiting your house - and if things 'work out alright', then you'll be better off with the above approach anyhow imho.

 

[errol43]

Now what will the few big savers do.. If you by some miracle you have $500k in a bank, would you not split it up and put $100k in four banks? Then it is all insured.

Will this move frighten SMSF people from holding large sums of cash...You have to have it somewhere! Where will they put their super funds..I know RE and the share market....green shoots again.

TIC..Maybe it was a mistake to sell the Commonwealth Bank..When the government owned it and all the funds were insured ..

There is no such thing as a free lunch.. $250 Insurance in 2008, $100k Insurance in 2013 and ? Insurance WTSHTF.

Cyprus here we come, surely not, It couldnt happen here in Australia, could it?

Now I remember, Uncle Ben did give two of our banks $4.6 billion in 08..Maybe he will do it again.

Regards Errol 43

I really don't understand why you are asking what will savers do ? Isn't it obvious? You know our gubermint are a pack of thieving lying bustards who are fiscal stillborn pigmies no? And we know the banksters are their masters...Yes?

With the theft of depositors savings with non active accounts last year... Didn't you move your cash into bullion? Even with the gold price manipulation the Aus $ fiat collapse means your still ahead no?

If you'd listened to me over the last few years and invested in commercial property and stacked gold and silver bullion as your hedge you'd be laughing having walked away from the banksters and their scum sucking lackies your.... gubermint

Kind Regards
nonrecourse

He's back! Where have you been NR?

Of course its obvious but I just had to ask.

Regards Errol 43

 

[Pirocco]

For about the 10th time, Ben Bernanke did NOT, I repeat, did NOT "give" the OZ banks $4 Billion in 2008.

They LENT money to many banks OVERNIGHT at the normal OVERNIGHT interest rate, to balance their books. EVERY one of those advances were REPAID the following morning, and often RE BORROWED the next night

GEDDIT?

According to http://peoplestrustaustralia.blogspot.be/2013/04/australian-banks-in-secret-us-fed.html (NOT an official source)

National Australia Bank [ASX: NAB] borrowed USD$4.5 billion from the US Federal Reserve
Westpac Banking Corp [ASX: WBC] borrowed USD$1.09 billion in January of 2008 and 2009.
On December 20th 2007 Westpac had gotten a USD$90 million loan from the Federal Reserve under the TAF programme as you can see from the screenshot link:

Are you sure this case of the 2 OZ banks/$4 billion has been in 2008 the 'normal', and also the 'OVERNIGHT' interest rate?
You only know for sure whether it was a bailout or not, when you know the specific rates achieved by those specific banks. 'Achieved', because your 'normal' interest rate is actually a target rate (a range / window) set by the Fed, and the next morning it calculates the rate achieved by the borrowing banks, with the published achieved rate only being an average over all loans that night.
And back then in 2008, there was a special program set up by the Fed, called Primary Dealer Credit Facility:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Dealer_Credit_Facility

According to http://peoplestrustaustralia.blogspot.be/2013/04/australian-banks-in-secret-us-fed.html (NOT an official source)

National Australia Bank [ASX: NAB] borrowed USD$4.5 billion from the US Federal Reserve
Westpac Banking Corp [ASX: WBC] borrowed USD$1.09 billion in January of 2008 and 2009.

The linked table (a jpg picture) shows for Westpac a Dec 20 2007 to Jan 17 2008 term for the loan.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/reform_taf.htm

Under the program, the Federal Reserve auctioned 28-day loans, and, beginning in August 2008, 84-day loans, to depository institutions in generally sound financial condition. The TAF enabled the Federal Reserve to provide term funds to a broader range of counterparties and against a broader range of collateral than it could through open market operations. As a result, the TAF helped promote the distribution of liquidity when unsecured bank funding markets were under stress. It also provided access to term credit without the stigma that had been associated with use of the discount window.

So it wasn't then a 'normal overnight rate' loan paid back the next morning, but a TAF loan, paid back after X days.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/reform_taf.htm
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/files/taf.xls
There you find:
dec 20 2007 - jan 17 2008 / WESTPAC BKG CORP NY BR / 90,0 million / Interest rate 4,650
okt 9 2008 - jan 2 2009 / WESTPAC BKG CORP NY BR / 1.000,0 million / Interest rate 1,390
nov 6 2008 - jan 29 2009 / NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BK NY BR / 1.500,0 million / Interest rate 0,600
jan 29 2009 - apr 23 2009 / NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BK NY BR / 1.500,0 million / Interest rate 0,250
apr 23 2009 - jul 16 2009 / NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BK NY BR / 1.500,0 million / Interest rate 0,250

And thus, this contradicts about all you say here.
Yes, the loans have been paid back by the banks.
But not the next morning but after a month upto even 3 months (which was also the case here.
In the National Australia banks case, the 1,5 billion loan lasted 3 terms thus 3 x 84 = 252 days).
And the loans thus also weren't at an overnight rate (which is btw a 10 times lower rate so cheaper loans but they also only serve a single day) but at a TAF program rate, that was continually lowered (in these banks cases, from 4,65% to 0,25%).
If this wasn't a bail out, then lol, how do you define a bailout?
I define a bailout as a company/business/governments State whose bankruptcy was blocked with other peoples money (bank savers money, new money, both, upto even inflation based purchasing power loss.
Look at the US Federal Debt.
That's where the actual unpaid dollars, mathematically measured, end up, including those of these OZ banks.
Where did these OZ banks get the dollars to pay the TAF loans back + the interest rate?
From people that deposited dollars during the period of the loans?
People that produced cookies, bananas and shoes, to then set aside the earnings as to buy stuff later, and complete the exchange along the product known as money?
Those OZ banks could even have borrowed the dollars to pay back the Feds loans with loans from other banks (interbank, LIBOR rate based), so with dollars of deposit holders of other banks. It's a whole system spanning the globe, and it only fails (and the Fed then acts as last resort) when all banks run out of all depositors money, and have to refuse lending to other banks as to avoid their own legal bankruptcy. A phenomenon indicated by a sudden interbank intrest increase, the very reason that the Fed set up these TAF loans.


So, I'm not sure if you GEDDIT yourself.
You say you repeated this 10 times.
Did you actually check it 1 time?
Excuse me for the way I talk here to you, but by talking that very same way to others, you just deserve it.

What IS true in what you say, is that the loans have been paid back, mathematically then.
And that 'ozhouse' guy from http://peoplestrustaustralia.blogspot.be/2013/04/australian-banks-in-secret-us-fed.html is in a specific statement indeed wrong based on this element, since he just blindly adds the loans regardless their terms.

National Australia Bank [ASX: NAB] borrowed USD$4.5 billion from the US Federal Reserve and Westpac Banking Corp [ASX: WBC] borrowed USD$1.09 billion in January of 2008 and 2009.

These total figures aren't true, the actual biggest loans on a given moment were for Westpac 1 billion and for National Australia 1,5 billion, and seen from the macro economical viewpoint (marketwide), then the 5 loans for the 2 banks combine to a max seen total of 2,500 billion during the period nov 6 2008 - jan 2 2009.

I see people making this specific kind of 'error' (or misleading) over and over again. Ex that volume on a trading day in for ex silver, they sum up all the 5000 ounces of every traded contract over the day, to then compare it to a mine production of a year. While the same 5000 ounces, just like the same dollars in this Fed/OZ bank story, are traded multiple times.
Or another example, that GAO Fed audit document with that omg $16 trillion dollar! yell,
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gao-audit-exposes-feds-corruption-once-again
http://mikepiro.com/blog/gao-audit-fed’s-16-trillion-in-aid/

Not only did the Fed make "more than $1 trillion in loans out to a wide range of financial institutions during the financial crisis," but according to a new audit of the central bank by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), did a whole lot more.

They took a not term adjusted total as to claim that the Fed pumped 16 trillion in banks and companies.
That mikepiro.com article makes very clear the error: he claims that it was $16 trillion INSTEAD of $1 trillion, but that $1 trillion IS the term adjusted total of the $16 trillion.
To be more accurate, see GAO pdf:
http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf
Page 131, footnote under the table.
Page 133, term adjusted totals.
The not term adjusted total of $16,115 billion gives a term adjusted total of $1,139 billion.

So Zerohedge and all its copypasters over the web, none of them actually checking/understanding (or deliberately misleading in order to lure people into paying more for their coins/bars), spread wrong stories.
And you did here too.
The true part of your first sentence, is related to aboves 'error', it indeed wasn't $4 billion but "only" $2,5 billion, during the period nov 6 2008 - jan 2 2009, as a max occurring over a period.
That's worth pointing out, but instead, you went far ahead and claimed that the OZ bank loans were overnight with the next day everything paid back. You didnt mention that a same bank can 'extend' a loan, in the National Australia Bank's case 3 terms of 3 months.
Instead, you had to put an "I said it 10 times!" GEDDIT?.
I just didn't know. I checked it. Why didn't you?

 

[long88]

cash is dirty.. no one can trace it..

If my bank thinks they are going to move this cost onto me by charging me a deposit fee on all deposits into my account, couldn't I just shut my account down, and legally have my payg wage paid in legal tender in a little yellow envelope like the old days?

 

[Pirocco]

Now what will the few big savers do.. If you by some miracle you have $500k in a bank, would you not split it up and put $100k in four banks? Then it is all insured.

You can bet your shoes and socks there will be a clause in this system that will identify deposits not per account/institution, but per individual. You can also bet your shoes and socks that you will still pay the fee on all your deposits, even though (givem your example) you're only going to get 1/5th of the coverage.

The only reason they didn't have already done that is because they are afraid of our reaction.
So, first they want to 'prepare' us mentally, giving us the time to get used to the thought, giving us time to consider it normal and accept it, instead of reacting.
In some past, a savings account was 'guaranteed' upto its last penny.
Somewhat later, they made 200,000 of it.
Again somewhat later, they revised that to 100,000
Then again somewhat later, let's give our dear depositors a small scale example of our application.
Cyprus.
And this way it will continue.
Everytime a step further.
Everytime forcing peoples eventual actions more towards 'illegal' declaration.
Look at the cash transaction limits they imposed in recent years. These follow this same trend.
Look at how they pushed/forced all the longtime existing paperbased payments / transactions out leaving only electronical as a legal option.
It doesn't need a big brain to draw the future in this.
The question is, with all their nifty network-computerbased manipulation along millions of parameters (just check the Feds site lol) today, operating on a world scale, all of it geared towards disguising their theft, will they beat the decentralized actions of the many individuals from whom they try to steal?
See, it's not easy to beat them. It requires alot understanding/insight because they have wolves / lazy buddies sitting in the markets we go to in an attempt to avoid their theft.
The key to success is real speculators sharing the information/understanding/insight they learnt.
Without this, it's just a zero sum game for a continual decreasing remainder after the theft, and by the time we speculators win, they will be no price left. Start over. That's what they want / need from us, in order to get away with their theft.