View Single Post
Old 03-31-2013, 06:47 PM   #178
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,520
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meck77 View Post
Ok fellas check out what the FDIC and Bank of England are up to. It appears what some of us suspected. Cyprus was only a test. See (*****) Below

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Bank of England—together with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Financial Services Authority— have been working to develop resolution strategies for the failure of globally active, systemically important, financial institutions (SIFIs or G-SIFIs) with significant operations on both sides of the Atlantic.
The goal is to produce resolution strategies that could be implemented for the failure of one or more of the largest financial institutions with extensive activities in our respective jurisdictions. These resolution strategies should maintain systemically important operations and contain threats to financial stability. (*****They should also assign losses to shareholders and unsecured creditors in the group, thereby avoiding the need for a bailout by taxpayers. ****)

Summary Here
http://www.silverdoctors.com/fdic-ba...or-tbtf-banks/

Actual FDIC Document with the quote I posted above.

http://www.fdic.gov/about/srac/2012/gsifi.pdf
The executive summary gives away the game when they call their strategy a "top down" approach.

Three guesses.

Here's another transparent passage. Notice they don't show concern that banks are too big to fail. This says it all:

The financial crisis that began in late 2007 highlighted the shortcomings of the arrangements for handling the failure of large financial institutions that were in place on either side of the Atlantic. Large banking organizations in both the U.S. and the U.K. had become highly leveraged and complex, with numerous and dispersed financial operations, extensive off-balance-sheet activities, and opaque financial statements. These institutions were managed as single entities, despite their subsidiaries being structured as separate and distinct legal entities. They were highly interconnected through their capital markets activities, interbank lending, payments, and off-balance-sheet arrangements.
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote