Stock Market is Dying: Major Run On New York Banks

DriftingByTheStorm

Ouch.
Woke up late this morning.
S&P down 25 points : 1290ish
DOW down 230 points : 11590ish

and headed further down in days to come.
Goldman Sachs downgraded Citigroup to "Sell".

Unfortunately Citigroup is one of the MAJOR owners of the Federal Reserve.
It CAN'T go under or the country is FUCKED.

---

Money being pulled out of New York City banks

WMR's United Nations sources report that there has been a sudden rush in requests for foreign exchange wire transfer requests from New York City banks. The sudden demand for transferring funds abroad has resulted in a 24 to 48-hour processing delay due to the sheer volume of requests.

Foreign employees at the United Nations are transferring their money from accounts at the United Nations Federal Credit Union (UNFCU) and other New York City banks, both domestic and foreign-owned, and the move has been sudden.

There has been no explanation for the sudden wire transfer activity, although the rumor mill suggests fears of a sudden economic collapse and/or a U.S. and Israeli military attack on Iran, which could touch off a wider regional conflict.


Original Source was Wayne Madsen Report

---

Crazy shit yo.
Nothing good doing.

spiral out

Good to see you back drifting, i know all the stuff happening on my side of the pond and i like to keep up with whats going on over there for you guys too.

LikeAnOcean

Chicken little is back.

riffrandall

Where'd you get your information from? Seriously.

Citigroup is not a "major owner" of the Fed. The Fed is the government.
However, if anyone controls the stock market it is certainly Goldman Sachs.
Citigroup deserves to be downgraded to sell.

There is no "run" on major NYC banks this morning.

Sludge Factory

riffrandall wrote:

Where'd you get your information from? Seriously.

Citigroup is not a "major owner" of the Fed. The Fed is the government.
However, if anyone controls the stock market it is certainly Goldman Sachs.
Citigroup deserves to be downgraded to sell.

There is no "run" on major NYC banks this morning.

The Fed is most certainly NOT the government.

riffrandall

Sludge Factory wrote:

The Fed is most certainly NOT the government.

So you don't work in finance then, either.

DriftingByTheStorm

riffrandall wrote:

Where'd you get your information from? Seriously.

Citigroup is not a "major owner" of the Fed. The Fed is the government.
However, if anyone controls the stock market it is certainly Goldman Sachs.
Citigroup deserves to be downgraded to sell.

There is no "run" on major NYC banks this morning.

1. The "run" on NYC banks was from the 24th, i believe.
It was, as the article says, something that was relayed by a UN insider to Wayne Madsen Report. In other words, its both unconfirmed, and unconfirmable.

2. I get my information wherever i can find it.

3. If you think the Federal Reserve is the government, you may as well stop playing here, cause you are dead wrong.

Citigroup IS a major owner, and it was on record in the NY Times in the 1980s ... the last time a newspaper EVER ran a list of the SHAREHOLDERS in the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

The Federal Reserve was created by a secret meeting between Paul Warburg, a JP Morgan associate, a Rockefeller associate, Sen. Nelson Aldrich and a few others. IT WAS MADE FOR THE BANKERS, BY THE BANKERS.

IT IS A PRIVATE CORPORATION.
IT HAS SHARE HOLDERS.
THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE MAJOR BANKS.

You are just flat wrong.
Sorry.
:(

riffrandall

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

1. The "run" on NYC banks was from the 24th, i believe.
It was, as the article says, something that was relayed by a UN insider to Wayne Madsen Report. In other words, its both unconfirmed, and unconfirmable.

2. I get my information wherever i can find it.

3. If you think the Federal Reserve is the government, you may as well stop playing here, cause you are dead wrong.

Citigroup IS a major owner, and it was on record in the NY Times in the 1980s ... the last time a newspaper EVER ran a list of the SHAREHOLDERS in the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

The Federal Reserve was created by a secret meeting between Paul Warburg, a JP Morgan associate, a Rockefeller associate, Sen. Nelson Aldrich and a few others. IT WAS MADE FOR THE BANKERS, BY THE BANKERS.

IT IS A PRIVATE CORPORATION.
IT HAS SHARE HOLDERS.
THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE MAJOR BANKS.

You are just flat wrong.
Sorry.
:(

Don't be sorry. Be right.

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.
As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

DriftingByTheStorm

riffrandall wrote:

So you don't work in finance then, either.

Your acting like more of a brat than your namesake.
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html

Its a private cartel.

Read Creature From Jekyll Island and get back to us.

You are out of your league.

I bet you also don't realize that EVERY dollar in existence is a dollar of DEBT.

I bet you didn't realize that the National Debt is really the National Money Supply.

They are one and the same.

Every dollar printed = a dollar of Federal Debt.

IT IS A SCAM!

blackredyellow

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

...It was, as the article says, something that was relayed by a UN insider to Wayne Madsen Report. In other words, its both unconfirmed, and unconfirmable.

Well, that's convenient.

riffrandall

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Your acting like more of a brat than your namesake.
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html

Its a private cartel.

Read Creature From Jekyll Island and get back to us.

You are out of your league.

I bet you also don't realize that EVERY dollar in existence is a dollar of DEBT.

I bet you didn't realize that the National Debt is really the National Money Supply.

They are one and the same.

Every dollar printed = a dollar of Federal Debt.

IT IS A SCAM!

Oh! I am sorry. I didn't realize I was going up against conspiracy theorists who, when they say they get information wherever they can really mean that they take information as it suits them.

In that case, you better get your ten grand out of your 457- pronto.

DriftingByTheStorm

riffrandall wrote:

Don't be sorry. Be right.

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.
As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

Your critical thinking skills are lacking.
You are reading\posting propaganda.

Yes, the Federal Reserve was chartered by congress.
But it is PRIVATE.

Yes the congress COULD alter, abolish or limit the system.
But it does NOT do this.

The bottom paragraph is where the real untruth starts.
It IS run for profit. Massive profit. Would you not call interest on EVERY DOLLAR ever printed to be profit?

Just because the Fed is set up to put "control" in the hands of appointed\elected "officials" (nominated in most cases by the member banks themselves) does NOT mean that they aren't private corporations.

The are owned (shareholders are owners, regardless of the lies you spin) by private banks, and therefore are private.

The only difference is they are on some level accountable to congress.

However congress waives the bulk of their oversight.

In fact, the Fed has become nearly all powerful, and is still actively pursuinig MORE power. They want to consolidate power. Do you read the news?
Have you not heard about this? They are seeking to combine the authority of the SEC INTO THE FED.

DriftingByTheStorm

riffrandall wrote:

Oh! I am sorry. I didn't realize I was going up against conspiracy theorists who, when they say they get information wherever they can really mean that they take information as it suits them.

In that case, you better get your ten grand out of your 457- pronto.

give me some links that disprove the Fed as being private,
outside of a .gov, snopes, or yahoo answers.

The bulk of information seems to be against your assertion.

Congressman have testified on the floor of the house against your assertion.

Instead, you sit here and type out responses mostly based in rhetoric and personal opinion.

You didn't even source out that last page.
Although i have seen it several places.
Its bullshit.

Why do you so despereately want to believe that the Fed is an arm of the Government when it is generaly understood that is is NOT.

Mainstream sources will even tell you it is "QUAZI" Government institution.
The word "quazi" should tip you off that something is going on.

riffrandall

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Your critical thinking skills are lacking.
You are reading\posting propaganda.

Yes, the Federal Reserve was chartered by congress.
But it is PRIVATE.

Yes the congress COULD alter, abolish or limit the system.
But it does NOT do this.

The bottom paragraph is where the real untruth starts.
It IS run for profit. Massive profit. Would you not call interest on EVERY DOLLAR ever printed to be profit?

Just because the Fed is set up to put "control" in the hands of appointed\elected "officials" (nominated in most cases by the member banks themselves) does NOT mean that they aren't private corporations.

The are owned (shareholders are owners, regardless of the lies you spin) by private banks, and therefore are private.

The only difference is they are on some level accountable to congress.

However congress waives the bulk of their oversight.

In fact, the Fed has become nearly all powerful, and is still actively pursuinig MORE power. They want to consolidate power. Do you read the news?
Have you not heard about this? They are seeking to combine the authority of the SEC INTO THE FED.

Critical thinking skills meaning... what? That I don't agree with you? Or that I don't support unfounded (as you so said) and uncomfirmable panic attacks that there's a run on NYC banks.
Trust me when I tell you- there's no run. It's quarter end (or don't you look at the calendar) and there's always a huge backlog for money requests at that time.

Your original post said the stock market is dying because Citigroup was downgraded to sell. All I was saying was that the stock market won't die because the government will not let that happen. If you think the Fed is a private bank, fine, but the government will not let the Fed collapse. Got it?

Also if you think the SEC is not already controlled by the Fed... you are sorely mistaken. Go check out the FINRA website if you don't believe me.

riffrandall

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Congressman have testified on the floor of the house against your assertion.

Mainstream sources will even tell you it is "QUAZI" Government institution.
The word "quazi" should tip you off that something is going on.

Ohh.. well if CONGRESSMEN have testified against it, then it MUST be true!!

Also, it's "quasi." In the future, if you want to make a bona fide argument, start by not calling someone who you don't even know a "brat."

You didn't even get the joke about the 457. I hate it when smart snide remarks go unappreciated without a google search involved.

Sludge Factory

riffrandall wrote:

So you don't work in finance then, either.

One doesn't need to work in finance to understand the workings of the federal reserve. That's like saying if someone doesn't play basketball there is no way they will ever understand the game.

DriftingByTheStorm

riffrandall wrote:

Critical thinking skills meaning... what? That I don't agree with you? Or that I don't support unfounded (as you so said) and uncomfirmable panic attacks that there's a run on NYC banks.
Trust me when I tell you- there's no run. It's quarter end (or don't you look at the calendar) and there's always a huge backlog for money requests at that time.

Your original post said the stock market is dying because Citigroup was downgraded to sell. All I was saying was that the stock market won't die because the government will not let that happen. If you think the Fed is a private bank, fine, but the government will not let the Fed collapse. Got it?

Also if you think the SEC is not already controlled by the Fed... you are sorely mistaken. Go check out the FINRA website if you don't believe me.

My original post did not make a causal link between Citigroup and the market "dying". The market has been flopping like a dead fish for months.
CNBC IS making that link though, and saying that the major slide today was precipitated by the sell ratings. I have no reason to disagree with that.

I didn't follow open this morning, but assume that this was the major news moving the market. Maybe the Fed decision is moving it too. Who knows, not me.

As far as the government not letting the market die, you are mostly right.
I can't argue that. They will do everything in their power to manipulate backroom deals to keep the market propped up. Plunge protection team, hoorah!

Look, i agree with a lot of what you have said here,
but it doesn't mean that the situation is not severe, just because government will attempt to manipulate the market in to stability.

Do you not believe that valid market forces are capable of overpowering government subversion?

When you understand the extremely interconnected nature of the private banks to the actual Federal "Reserve", you realize how bad this can get.

Sure the government can do a "bail out", which just means guaranteeing or securing loans back to the member banks, written against the future prosperity of the American people themselves, but in the worlds eyes this is only as good as the faith they have in the American economy.

LETS NOT FORGET INFLATION.
You assertion, "the government will not let it happen" is based on the assumption that the DOLLAR can afford a further devaluation.

When home prices continue to drop, and foreclosures soar further, bank balance sheets will decline even more sharply.

The NON BORROWED reserves of the entire system are ALREADY "NEGATIVE".

What does that mean to you, my little financeer?

We are in a real bind.
We can sit here and speculate all day on where that leaves us.
But it ain't pretty.

Where do you see this going?
The slide is worsening after lunch, not getting better.
Down 27 and 241 (SP, DOW).

I see SP below 1200 by end of next month, not up.
How about you?

And what about housing?
Are you calling a bottom?

What does all this mean to you?
I see red lights flashing.
Sounds like you are seeing something totaly different.

The 457 joke was cute, but not very timely.
I never have and never will work for government.
And you were behaving like a brat.

Abuskedti

it will drop more tomorrow

puremagic

Did you see this announcement, a little cause and effect.

1. Have the dark pool trading created the supply and demand facade to keep oil prices high?

2. If the majority of oil is brought with U.S. dollars, an a barrel of oil is now over $135, why is the dollar still falling?

Just a Thought, some equity group(s) has to be buying huge, huge, quantities of oil and taking it off the open market. Maybe we'll see another Hunt Brothers' scandal.

====================
London Stock Exchange to create trading platform with Lehman Brothers

By David Jolly
June 26, 2008

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/26/business/lse.php


PARIS: London Stock Exchange Group said Thursday that it would create a new pan-European trading system in partnership with Lehman Brothers, as the bourse seeks to regain its leading role in the region.

The deal creates a platform for so-called "dark liquidity pool" trading. The LSE said the trading facility, to be named Baikal, would be open to other investors and was expected to begin operating in the first quarter of 2009. Lehman, which operates its own dark pool network, is bringing sophisticated trading technology and an established customer base to the table.

On Tuesday, the LSE was dealt a setback when a rival, NYSE Euronext, agreed to buy a 25 percent stake in the Qatar securities market, gaining a lead in the race to become a truly global stock exchange. Like other European bourses, the LSE is under pressure from shareholders to increase profits, putting it at odds with customers, whose interest is in reducing trading costs as trading volumes rise.

Dark liquidity pools are off-market trading networks where large orders can be executed anonymously, without divulging prices to public exchanges.
Off-market trading has always existed in the form of over-the-counter transactions, but the technology now exists to bring investors together electronically in anonymity. Dark liquidity in European equities is growing rapidly, according to the LSE, and currently accounts for around €12 billion, or nearly $19 billion, in daily trading value.

On traditional exchanges, buying a large block of shares typically causes the market price of a stock to rise substantially, while selling a large block causes it to fall. Big institutional investors, like hedge funds, have been seeking out new platforms to cut execution costs, especially as they increasingly use algorithmic trading, slicing orders into small chunks and trading rapidly according to computer programs.

Competition for new trading platforms was given support last year when the European Union enacted a set of regulations, known as the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, or Mifid, aimed at cutting trading costs and harmonizing financial regulation in all member states. Nonetheless, the traditional stock exchanges have been criticized for keeping costs high.

Michael Long, an analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods in London, said the tie-up between the London Stock Exchange and Lehman Brothers was an "understandable step" for the LSE, considering the competition in its core business from the rise of alternative trading platforms.

"It's an arena that is attracting a lot of new entrants," Long said. But he noted that success would be contingent on signing up more banks.

"If it remains exclusive to Lehman Brothers and LSE I think it looks unlikely to succeed," he said.

The Baikal project pits Lehman and the LSE against a host of competitors, including Nasdaq OMX, Instinet's Chi-X Europe unit, and Turquoise, a platform created by nine major banks, including BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs.

Chi-X has captured 10 percent to 15 percent of the daily trading volume in FTSE 100 companies since it went live last year, said Julia Streets, a spokeswoman. The advantage to investors is that it can cost as little as one-tenth as much as trading on the established exchanges at significantly greater speed, she said.

Turquoise will begin trading on a limited basis on Aug. 15, and is set for full operations on Sept. 5 with trading in 1,500 stocks, said Adrian Flook, a spokesman for Turquoise. Information on trading in 1,200 of those stocks will be reported to the market only by financial data and news providers, though not immediately. The other 300 - the most highly traded shares in Europe - will be reported immediately via the same route.

Clara Furse, chief executive of the London Stock Exchange, said in a statement: "Baikal provides an exciting opportunity for the market to transact certain types of business in European equities with the confidence of total pre-trade anonymity, alongside the efficient price formation of the electronic order books of exchanges, where the majority of equities across Europe are traded."

Furse will be chief executive of the venture, but the companies did not disclose other details of their governance plans. Baikal, named for a lake in southern Siberia, will be regulated by the British market watchdog, the Financial Services Authority. Baikal will offer trading access to securities across 14 European countries and at least 22 trading venues.

David Shrimpton, head of equity market development at the London Stock Exchange, said the LSE was hoping to bring other investors aboard as partners, and the response to the announcement had been "very positive."

He said "the market will decide" how many trading platforms can co-exist, but he noted it might be possible to support a large number. "You've got 50 broker dark pools in the U.S.," he added, "and they share about 10 percent of the market."

Abuskedti

The slow steady decline for all these hours today seems very unusual to me. Its as though something is happening systematically.

normally there are periods of steep drop - some increase.. you know... sporatic decline

but today.. it is just dropping slow and steady.. it is very weird.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

sooner the better