Koffiekamer« Terug naar discussie overzicht

1. [verwijderd] 14 januari 2009 10:22

   auteur info

   •    [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   •    Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   Toch even een voetnoot bij dit verhaal. Inmiddels blijkt dat dat bedrag van 50 miljard schade, zoals dat in eerste instantie is becijferd, niet alleen bestaat uit inleg/investeringen sec door Madoffs clientele. Bijna al zijn klanten die aan de bel hebben getrokken hebben gemakshalve in de 'schade' die ze geleden hebben ook de verwachte cq voorgespiegelde rendementen meegerekend.
   De investeringencomponent is lager.
   
   C®
2. voda 14 januari 2009 21:48

   auteur info

   •    voda

     Lid sinds: 02 dec 2005

     Laatste bezoek: 07 jan 2025

   •    Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 91158

     Gegeven: 22488

   •    Aantal posts: 380.445

   Bernard Madoff Remains Free As Judge Upholds Bail (Update1)
   Email | Print | A A A
   
   By [bn:PRSN=1] David Glovin [], [bn:PRSN=1] Erik Larson [] and [bn:PRSN=1] Patricia Hurtado []
   
   Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Bernard Madoff, the accused mastermind of the largest Ponzi scheme in history, will remain free on bail after a second federal judge refused a government request to jail him.
   
   Madoff, who appeared today at a hearing in Manhattan federal court, will return to his multi-million dollar Manhattan apartment as prosecutors probe a fraud that they said cost investors $50 billion.
   
   The ruling by U.S. District Judge Lawrence McKenna upholding Madoff’s bail comes about a month after he was arrested on a securities fraud charge for allegedly bilking investors. Madoff, 70, confessed that he used new money to pay old investors, the government said. Madoff faces as much as 20 years in prison if convicted. He hasn’t formally responded to the charges.
   
   Prosecutors last week asked that Madoff’s bail be revoked after he transferred $1 million in jewelry to family members. On Jan. 12, a magistrate judge in Manhattan allowed Madoff to remain free, prompting an appeal. Prosecutors may renew their request to jail Madoff as new developments in the case unfold.
   
   The ruling may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan.
   
   The case is U.S. v. Madoff, 08-mag-2735, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
   
   To contact the reporters on this story: David Glovin in New York federal court at dglovin@bloomberg.net; Erik Larson in New York federal court at elarson4@bloomberg.net; Patricia Hurtado in New York federal court at pathurtado@bloomberg.net.
   
   Last Updated: January 14, 2009 15:25 EST
3. [verwijderd] 14 januari 2009 22:59

   auteur info

   •    [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   •    Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   die Madoff, klein bier denk ik dan maar.

   Bijlage:
4. voda 15 januari 2009 19:17

   auteur info

   •    voda

     Lid sinds: 02 dec 2005

     Laatste bezoek: 07 jan 2025

   •    Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 91158

     Gegeven: 22488

   •    Aantal posts: 380.445

   HSBC, UBS May Be Liable on Madoff as Fund Custodians
   
   www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601...
5. [verwijderd] 18 januari 2009 19:49

   auteur info

   •    [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   •    Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   Florida fund manager 'missing'
   
   An American fund manager responsible for millions of dollars of investors' money has been reported missing by his wife in Florida.
   
   Police said they were searching for Arthur Nadel, 75, and investigating his investment company in Sarasota after clients complained of missing funds.
   
   Police described it as "a very significant amount of money".
   
   US investors have been hit by plunging values in some hedge funds, and concerns about a major alleged fraud.
   
   Victims
   
   Sarasota police said Mr Nadel was reported missing after he had sounded "distraught" in a phone call to his family on Wednesday.
   
   Police also said at least five investors began calling on Friday about their money.
   
   "It was brought to our attention that there has been a very significant number of victims with a very significant amount of money that has disappeared. Allegedly it's hundreds of millions of dollars," Sarasota Police Captain Bill Spitler said.
   
   Mr Nadel's disappearance comes weeks after the the arrest of Bernard Madoff, 70, a former chairman of the Nasdaq stock market.
   
   There is no suggestion the two were connected in any way.
   
   But Mr Madoff's arrest, charged with masterminding what may be the largest investor fraud ever committed by a single person, has sent shock waves through the investment community.
   
   In another unrelated case, businessman Marcus Schrenker apparently tried to fake his own death this week because of mounting financial problems.
   
   He has been charged by US federal authorities.
   
6. voda 21 januari 2009 20:32

   auteur info

   •    voda

     Lid sinds: 02 dec 2005

     Laatste bezoek: 07 jan 2025

   •    Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 91158

     Gegeven: 22488

   •    Aantal posts: 380.445

   Madoff Scandal May Lead to New Rules on Adviser Accountability
   
   
   By Jeff Plungis
   
   Jan. 21 (Bloomberg) -- The Bernard Madoff scandal has intensified efforts to hold investment advisers more accountable for their clients’ interests, as the Obama administration considers an overhaul of financial regulation.
   
   Madoff was an investment adviser with a fiduciary duty to act on behalf of his clients and a broker-dealer, subject to oversight by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
   
   None of it mattered. Madoff allegedly betrayed his clients’ trust, and regulators didn’t catch what prosecutors describe as the largest Ponzi scheme in history. In a speech last month, then President-elect Barack Obama said the scandal shows “how badly reform is needed.”
   
   Investment advisers and brokers are squaring off as Washington turns its attention to rewriting regulations. Financial planners are pushing for greater accountability by making more advisers fiduciaries. Wall Street brokerages are seeking to preserve a growing business of offering advice without subjecting their employees to a new layer of regulation.
   
   “It’s not just an industry spat,” said Barbara Roper, director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America. “If we’re going to reform financial regulation, it makes sense to develop a common-sense, pro-investor approach.”
   
   Some brokerages have marketed their professionals as advisers without following the requirements of the 1940 Investment Advisers Act, Roper said. The problem is that average investors aren’t able to distinguish between a broker earning income from commissions on products from someone who doesn’t have a monetary interest in the financial decision, she said.
   
   Making Money
   
   Underscoring the debate are two very different ways of making money. Financial planners typically are paid a fee, usually a fixed percentage of managed assets, to watch over a client’s money. Brokerages make most of their money from charges for buying and selling customers’ securities. They also profit when customers buy the firm’s own offerings.
   
   Adviser groups like the Financial Planning Association and the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors have teamed up to make sure any new post-Madoff rules have a “consumer-first” focus.
   
   The Securities and Exchange Commission has allowed brokerages to offer limited advice on fee-based accounts, as long as the information was a part of its business of buying and selling securities. There were approximately 1 million fee-based brokerage accounts worth $300 billion as of May, 2007, the agency estimates.
   
   ‘Merrill Rule’
   
   Merrill Lynch & Co., the largest U.S. brokerage, was one of the first firms to offer the accounts. The SEC regulation that governs them is known informally as “The Merrill Lynch Rule.” The firm employs both brokers who buy and sell securities and financial planners. “The firm’s advisers are in compliance with the relevant regulatory requirements,” said Mark Herr, spokesman for New York-based Merrill Lynch.
   
   The average registered investment-adviser firm, typically made up of between one and 10 employees, manages $200 million to $250 million in assets, according to an October report from Citigroup Global Markets. Industry wide, there is about $2.4 trillion under management by 10,000 to 15,000 advisers, the report said.
   
   Michael Muhm, a small-business owner in Colleyville, Texas, said he found himself questioning his TD Ameritrade broker after having lost access to more than $150,000 in Reserve Management Corp.’s Yield Plus Fund. Yield Plus accounts were put on hold when financial markets seized in September until a distribution worth 69 percent of account balances went out Dec. 30.
   
   ‘Snake Oil’
   
   Muhm said that when he complained about the broker’s recommendation of Yield Plus as a liquid, safe place for cash -- reading a transcript of the call to a company representative -- he was told it was his word against the broker’s.
   
   “They should have a fiduciary responsibility to give you information that is accurate, unbiased and true, because if they’re not, they’re snake-oil salesmen,” Muhm said.
   
   Kim Hillyer, a spokeswoman for TD Ameritrade, declined to comment, citing company policy of not responding to individual customers in the media.
   
   The Financial Planning Association won a 2007 legal challenge to the SEC’s decision to exempt fee-based brokerage accounts from rules followed by other investment advisers, such as a requirement that they must act in the investors’ best interest. The SEC enacted a temporary rule enabling the accounts to continue through 2009.
   
   The accounts offer investors a choice, price certainty and “access to a wide range of services that are typically not available through an investment advisory account,” Merrill Lynch Vice Chairman Robert McCann wrote to the SEC in July 2007.
   
   Well Regulated
   
   The securities industry argues that brokerage accounts are well regulated. Brokers must meet a legal “suitability standard” for investment advice, and their conduct is subject to enforcement by both the SEC and Finra. Problems with investment advisers must be settled after-the-fact, in court, they say.
   
   The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association would like “more consistency” in the regulation of broker- dealers and investment advisers, said Travis Larson, Washington- based spokesman for the group.
   
   “The Madoff scandal has put the spotlight on these different business models, and the debate in Congress is likely just beginning,” Larson said.
   
   The financial planner organizations think a new watchdog may emerge in Washington. It may be a private-industry body such as Finra, or it may be Finra itself. A professional standards board or stepped-up oversight by state agencies are also possibilities.
   
   “The fear is any standard of regulation would be lower,” said Marilyn Capelli Dimitroff, chairwoman of the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. “If you provide any kind of financial advice, you should put the client’s interest first.”
   
   To contact the reporter on this story: Jeff Plungis in Washington at jplungis@bloomberg.net.
   
   Last Updated: January 21, 2009 00:01 EST
7. voda 22 januari 2009 20:02

   auteur info

   •    voda

     Lid sinds: 02 dec 2005

     Laatste bezoek: 07 jan 2025

   •    Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 91158

     Gegeven: 22488

   •    Aantal posts: 380.445

   Volgens weekblad Privé is zelfs onze Koninklijke familie niet ontsnapt aan de wereldwijde financiële crisis. De Oranjes zouden onlangs een aanzienlijk deel van hun vermogen hebben verloren op Wall Street. De vorstin en haar zoons hebben naar verluidt een behoorlijk aantal miljoenen toevertrouwd aan Bernard Madoff, de zeer gerespecteerde beursgoeroe die eind vorig jaar werd gearresteerd in verband met één van de grootste beursschandalen ooit. Naar schatting heeft deze man, die ooit voorzitter was van de Nasdaq, ruim 50 miljard dollar later verdwijnen. Hiermee is volgens de bron in Privé ook een groot gedeelte van het familiekapitaal van de Oranjes verdampt. Naar schatting zou de familie tussen de 20 en 60 miljoen euro hebben verloren aan de piramidespel-praktijken van Bernie Madoff.
   
   Koningin Beatrix is 'geschokt en ontdaan', schrijft het weekblad. Prins Willem Alexander reageerde slechts met een summier 'oh' op het drama, maar broer Friso, die ook wel als 'zakenprins' te boek staat, zou het verlies minder luchtig hebben opgevat. Gespeculeerd wordt dat dit komt doordat Friso een aantal jaar geleden al eens eerder heeft mis gegokt op de beurs.
   
   Een schrale troost is het feit dat onze Koninklijk familie niet de enige vooraanstaande wereldburgers zijn die met de beursfraudeur het schip in zijn gegaan. Ook Steven Spielberg, Kevin Bacon en zijn vrouw Kyra Sedgwick, L'Oréal-erfgename Liliane Bettancourt en Nobelprijswinnaar Elie Wiesel zouden door dezelfde oplichter zijn gedupeerd.
   
   FOTO'S: PETER SMULDERS
   
   

   Bijlage:
8. voda 22 januari 2009 20:15

   auteur info

   •    voda

     Lid sinds: 02 dec 2005

     Laatste bezoek: 07 jan 2025

   •    Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 91158

     Gegeven: 22488

   •    Aantal posts: 380.445

   www.fd.nl/artikel/10801183/snapshots-...
9. voda 22 januari 2009 20:17

   auteur info

   •    voda

     Lid sinds: 02 dec 2005

     Laatste bezoek: 07 jan 2025

   •    Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 91158

     Gegeven: 22488

   •    Aantal posts: 380.445

   Onderzoeker naïviteit tuint in Madoff
   20 januari 2009, 14:49 uur | FD.nl
   5Door: Franka Rolvink
   Een psycholoog die onderzoek doet naar de goedgelovigheid van mensen en zelf 30% van zijn pensioengeld in Madoff stopt. Het lijkt een broodje aap verhaal.
   
   www.fd.nl/artikel/10888490/onderzoeke...
10. [verwijderd] 25 januari 2009 10:18

    auteur info

    •    [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    Bernie Madoff showed us how it was done: you induce many investors to invest their money, promising steady above-market returns; and you deliver – at least on paper. When your clients check their accounts, they see that their investments have indeed increased by the promised amount. Anyone who opts to pull out of the game is paid promptly and in full. You can afford to pay because most players stay in, and new players are constantly coming in to replace those who drop out. The players who drop out are simply paid with the money coming in from new recruits. The scheme works until the market turns and many players want their money back at once. Then it’s game over: you have to admit that you don’t have the funds, and you are probably looking at jail time.
    
    A Ponzi scheme is a form of pyramid scheme in which earlier investors are paid with the money of later investors rather than from real profits. The perpetuation of the scheme requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors in order to keep it going. Charles Ponzi was an engaging Boston ex-convict who defrauded investors out of $6 million in the 1920s by promising them a 400 percent return on redeemed postal reply coupons. When he finally could not pay, the scam earned him ten years in jail; and Bernie Madoff is likely to wind up there as well.
    
    Most people are not involved in illegal Ponzi schemes, but we do keep our money in accounts that are tallied on computer screens rather than in stacks of coins or paper bills. How do we know that when we demand our money from our bank or broker that the funds will be there? The fact that banks are subject to “runs” (recall Northern Rock, Indymac and Washington Mutual) suggests that all may not be as it seems on our online screens. Banks themselves are involved in a sort of Ponzi scheme, one that has been perpetuated for hundreds of years. What distinguishes the legal scheme known as “fractional reserve” lending from the illegal schemes of Bernie Madoff and his ilk is that the bankers’ scheme is protected by government charter and backstopped with government funds. At last count, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury had committed $8.5 trillion to bailing out the banks from their follies.1 By comparison, M2, the largest measure of the money supply now reported by the Federal Reserve, was just under $8 trillion in December 2008.2 The sheer size of the bailout efforts indicates that the banking scheme has reached its mathematical limits and needs to be superseded by something more sustainable.
    
    Penetrating the Bankers’ Ponzi Scheme
    What fractional reserve lending is and how it works is summed up in Wikipedia as follows:
    
    “Fractional-reserve banking is the banking practice in which banks keep only a fraction of their deposits in reserve (as cash and other liquid assets) with the choice of lending out the remainder, while maintaining the simultaneous obligation to redeem all deposits immediately upon demand. This practice is universal in modern banking. . . .The nature of fractional-reserve banking is that there is only a fraction of cash reserves available at the bank needed to repay all of the demand deposits and banknotes issued. . . . When Fractional-reserve banking works, it works because:
    
    “1. Over any typical period of time, redemption demands are largely or wholly offset by new deposits or issues of notes. The bank thus needs only to satisfy the excess amount of redemptions.
    
    “2. Only a minority of people will actually choose to withdraw their demand deposits or present their notes for payment at any given time.
    
    “3. People usually keep their funds in the bank for a prolonged period of time.
    
    “4. There are usually enough cash reserves in the bank to handle net redemptions.
    
    “If the net redemption demands are unusually large, the bank will run low on reserves and will be forced to raise new funds from additional borrowings (e.g. by borrowing from the money market or using lines of credit held with other banks), and/or sell assets, to avoid running out of reserves and defaulting on its obligations. If creditors are afraid that the bank is running out of cash, they have an incentive to redeem their deposits as soon as possible, triggering a bank run.”
    
    Like in other Ponzi schemes, bank runs result because the bank does not actually have the funds necessary to meet all its obligations. Peter’s money has been lent to Paul, with the interest income going to the bank. As Elgin Groseclose, Director of the Institute for International Monetary Research, wryly observed in 1934:
    
    “A warehouseman, taking goods deposited with him and devoting them to his own profit, either by use or by loan to another, is guilty of a tort, a conversion of goods for which he is liable in civil, if not in criminal, law. By a casuistry which is now elevated into an economic principle, but which has no defenders outside the realm of banking, a warehouseman who deals in money is subject to a diviner law: the banker is free to use for his private interest and profit the money left in trust. . . . He may even go further. He may create fictitious deposits on his books, which shall rank equally and ratably with actual deposits in any division of assets in case of liquidation.”3
    
    How did the perpetrators of this scheme come to acquire government protection for what might otherwise have landed them in jail? A short history of the evolution of modern-day banking may be instructive.
    
    The Evolution of a Government-Sanctioned Ponzi Scheme
    What came to be known as fractional reserve lending dates back to the seventeenth century, when trade was conducted primarily in gold and silver coins. How it evolved was described by the Chicago Federal Reserve in a revealing booklet called “Modern Money Mechanics” like this:
    
    “It started with goldsmiths. As early bankers, they initially provided safekeeping services, making a profit from vault storage fees for gold and coins deposited with them. People would redeem their "deposit receipts" whenever they needed gold or coins to purchase something, and physically take the gold or coins to the seller who, in turn, would deposit them for safekeeping, often with the same banker. Everyone soon found that it was a lot easier simply to use the deposit receipts directly as a means of payment. These receipts, which became known as notes, were acceptable as money since whoever held them could go to the banker and exchange them for metallic money.
    
    “Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment.
    
    “Transaction deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the borrowers in turn could ‘spend’ by writing checks, thereby ‘printing’ their own money.”
    
    If a landlord had rented the same house to five people at one time and pocketed the money, he would quickly have been jailed for fraud. But the bankers had devised a system in which they traded, not things of value, but paper receipts for them.
11. [verwijderd] 25 januari 2009 10:19

    auteur info

    •    [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    deel2: It was called “fractional reserve” lending because the gold held in reserve was a mere fraction of the banknotes it supported. The scheme worked as long as only a few people came for their gold at one time; but investors would periodically get suspicious and all demand their gold back at once. There would then be a run on the bank and it would have to close its doors. This cycle of booms and busts went on throughout the nineteenth century, culminating in a particularly bad bank panic in 1907. The public became convinced that the country needed a central banking system to stop future panics, overcoming strong congressional opposition to any bill allowing the nation’s money to be issued by a private central bank controlled by Wall Street. The Federal Reserve Act creating such a “bankers’ bank” was passed in 1913. Robert Owens, a co-author of the Act, later testified before Congress that the banking industry had conspired to create a series of financial panics in order to rouse the people to demand “reforms” that served the interests of the financiers.4
    
    Despite this powerful official backstop, however, the greatest bank run in history occurred only twenty years later, in 1933. President Roosevelt then took the dollar off the gold standard domestically, and Federal Reserve officials resolved to prevent further bank runs after that by flooding the banking system with “liquidity” (money created as debt to banks) whenever the banking Ponzi scheme came up short.
    
    “Too Big to Fail”: The Government Provides the Ultimate Backstop
    When these steps too proved insufficient to keep the banking scheme going, the government itself stepped up to the plate, providing bailout money directly from the taxpayers. The concept that some banks were “too big to fail” came in at the end of the 1980s, when the Savings and Loans collapsed and Citibank lost 50 percent of its share price. Negotiations were conducted behind closed doors, and “too big to fail” became standard policy. Bank risk was effectively nationalized: banks were now protected by the government from loss regardless of risk-taking or bad management.
    
    There are limits, however, to the amount of support even the government’s deep pocket can provide. In the past two decades, the bankers’ lending scheme has been kept going by an even more speculative scheme known as “derivatives.” This is a complex subject that has been explored in other articles, but the bottom line is that more dollars are now owed in the derivatives casino than exist on the planet. (See Ellen Brown, “It’s the Derivatives, Stupid!” and “Credit Default Swaps: Derivative Disaster Du Jour,” www.webofdebt.com/articles.) Attempting to fill the derivatives black hole with taxpayer money must inevitably be at the expense of other essential programs, such as Social Security and Medicare.
    
    Interestingly, Social Security and Medicare themselves are in some sense Ponzi schemes, since earlier retirees collect their benefits from the contributions of later workers. These programs, too, may soon be facing bankruptcy, in this case because their mathematical models failed to account for a huge wave of Baby Boomers who would linger longer than previous generations and demand expensive drugs and care through their senior years, and because the fund money has have been drawn on by the government for other purposes. The question here is, should the government be backstopping private banks that have mismanaged their investment portfolios at the expense of workers contractually entitled to a decent retirement from a fund they have paid into all their working lives? The answer, of course, is no; but there may be a way that the government could do both. If it were to nationalize the banking system completely – if the government were to assume not just the banks’ losses but their profits, oversight and control – it might have the funds both to maintain Social Security and Medicare and to provide a sustainable credit mechanism for the whole economy.
    
    Replacing Private with Public Credit
    Readily available credit has made America “the land of opportunity” ever since the days of the American colonists. What has transformed this credit system into a Ponzi scheme that must continually be propped up with bailout money is that the credit power has been turned over to private parties who always require more money back than they create in the first place. Benjamin Franklin reportedly explained this defect in the eighteenth century. When the directors of the Bank of England asked what was responsible for the booming economy of the young colonies, Franklin explained that the colonial governments issued their own money, which they both lent and spent into the economy:
    
    “In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called ‘Colonial Scrip.’ We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one. You see, a legitimate government can both spend and lend money into circulation, while banks can only lend significant amounts of their promissory bank notes, for they can neither give away nor spend but a tiny fraction of the money the people need. Thus, when your bankers here in England place money in circulation, there is always a debt principal to be returned and usury to be paid. The result is that you have always too little credit in circulation to give the workers full employment. You do not have too many workers, you have too little money in circulation, and that which circulates, all bears the endless burden of unpayable debt and usury.”
    
    In an article titled “A Monetary System for the New Millennium,” Canadian money reform advocate Roger Langrick explains his concept in contemporary terms. He begins by illustrating the mathematical impossibility inherent in a system of bank-created money lent at interest:
    
    “[I]magine the first bank which prints and lends out $100. For its efforts it asks for the borrower to return $110 in one year; that is it asks for 10% interest. Unwittingly, or maybe wittingly, the bank has created a mathematically impossible situation. The only way in which the borrower can return 110 of the bank’s notes is if the bank prints, and lends, $10 more at 10% interest . . . . The result of creating 100 and demanding 110 in return, is that the collective borrowers of a nation are forever chasing a phantom which can never be caught; the mythical $10 that were never created. The debt in fact is unrepayable. Each time $100 is created for the nation, the nation’s overall indebtedness to the system is increased by $110. The only solution at present is increased borrowing to cover the principal plus the interest of what has been borrowed.”
    
    The better solution, says Langrick, is to allow the government to issue enough new debt-free dollars to cover the interest charges not created by the banks as loans:
    
    “Instead of taxes, government would be empowered to create money for its own expenses up to the balance of the debt shortfall. Thus, if the banking industry created $100 in a year, the government would create $10 which it would use for its own expenses. Abraham Lincoln used this successfully when he created $500 million of ‘greenbacks’ to fight the Civil War.”
    
    
12. [verwijderd] 25 januari 2009 10:21

    auteur info

    •    [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    deel3: National Credit from a Truly National Banking System
    In Langrick’s example, a private banking industry pockets the interest, which must be replaced every year by a 10 percent issue of new Greenbacks; but there is another possibility. The loans could be advanced by the government itself. The interest would then return to the government and could be spent back into the economy in a circular flow, without the need to continually issue more money to cover the interest shortfall.
    
    The fractional reserve Ponzi scheme is bankrupt, and the banks engaged in it, rather than being bailed out by its victims, need to be put into a bankruptcy reorganization under the FDIC. The FDIC then has the recognized option of wiping their books clean and taking the banks’ stock in return for getting them up and running again. This would make them truly “national” banks, which could dispense “the full faith and credit of the United States” as a public utility. A truly national banking system could revive the economy with the sort of money only governments can issue – debt-free legal tender. The money would be debt-free to the government, while for the private sector, it would be freely available for borrowing at a modest interest by qualified applicants. A government-owned bank would not need to rob from Peter to advance credit to Paul. “Credit” is just an accounting tool – an advance against future profits, or the “monetization” (turning into cash) of the borrower’s promise to repay. As British commentator Ron Morrison observed in a provocative 2004 article titled “Keynes Without Debt”:
    
    “[Today] bank credit supplies virtually all our everyday means of exchange, and this brings into sharp focus the simple fact that modern money is no longer constrained by outmoded intrinsic values. It is pure fiat [enforced by law] and simply a glorified accounting system. . . . Modern monetary reform is about displacing the current economic paradigm of ‘what can be afforded’ with ‘what we have the capacity to undertake.’”5
    
    The objection to government-issued money has always been that it would be inflationary, but today some “reflating” of the economy could be a good thing. Just in the last year, more than $7 trillion in purchasing power has disappeared from the money supply, including wealth destruction in real estate, stocks, mutual fund shares, life insurance and pension fund reserves.6 Money is evaporating because old loans are defaulting and new loans are not being made to replace them.
    
    Fortunately, as Martin Wolf noted in the December 16 Financial Times, “Curing deflation is child’s play in a ‘fiat money’ – a man-made money – system.” The central banks just need to get money flowing into the economy again. Among other ways they could do this, says Wolf, is that “they might finance the government on any scale they think necessary.”7
    
    Rather than throwing money at a failed private banking system, public credit could be redirected into infrastructure and other projects that would get the wheels of production turning again. The Ponzi scheme in which debt is just shuffled around, borrowing from one player to pay another without actually producing anything of real value, could be replaced by a system in which the national credit card became an engine for true productivity and growth. Increased “demand” (money) would come from earned wages and salaries that would increase “supply” (goods and services) rather than merely servicing a perpetually increasing debt. When supply keeps up with demand, the money supply can be increased without inflating prices. In this way the paradigm of “what we can afford” could indeed be superseded by “what we have the capacity to undertake.”
    
    Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her earlier books focused on the pharmaceutical cartel that gets its power from “the money trust.” Her eleven books include Forbidden Medicine, Nature’s Pharmacy (co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker), and The Key to Ultimate Health (co-authored with Dr. Richard Hansen). Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com.
    
    THE WALL STREET PONZI SCHEME CALLED FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING
    Ellen Brown, December 29th, 2008
    www.webofdebt.com/articles/ponzi.php
    
    
13. voda 27 januari 2009 17:17

    auteur info

    •    voda

      Lid sinds: 02 dec 2005

      Laatste bezoek: 07 jan 2025

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 91158

      Gegeven: 22488

    •    Aantal posts: 380.445

    Madoff-slachtoffers klagen Banco Santander aan
    FRAUDE VS
    
    MIAMI (ANP) - Slachtoffers van het piramidespel van
    superzwendelaar Bernard Madoff hebben de Spaanse bank Banco
    Santander aangeklaagd. De gedupeerde beleggers beschuldigen de
    bank en zijn dochteronderneming Optimal Investment Services van
    grove nalatigheid bij beleggingen in de fondsen van Madoff.
    
    ,,Ondanks de aanzienlijke provisies die de beleggers moesten
    betalen en de herhaalde beloftes dat Optimal Investment zijn
    managers met zorg zou uitzoeken, ging al het geld verloren in
    het piramidespel van Madoff'', aldus de Spaanse advocaten die de
    zaak dinsdag aanspanden bij de rechtbank van Miami.
    
    De advocaten hopen een wereldwijde schikking met Banco
    Santander te kunnen treffen. De Spaanse bank gaf eerder al toe
    dat zijn klanten wellicht ruim 2,3 miljard dollar hebben
    verloren door de zwendel van Madoff. De bank wilde dinsdag niet
    reageren op de aanklacht. De totale schade van de fraude van
    Madoff zou wereldwijd 50 miljard dollar bedragen.
    
    ((ANP Redactie Economie, email economie(at)anp.nl, +31 20
    504 5999))
    
14. voda 27 januari 2009 21:20

    auteur info

    •    voda

      Lid sinds: 02 dec 2005

      Laatste bezoek: 07 jan 2025

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 91158

      Gegeven: 22488

    •    Aantal posts: 380.445

    Wat een mooi gebaar van de bank zeg.....
    
    Banco Santander wil Madoff-slachtoffers compenseren
    N i e u w bericht, vervangt: Madoff-slachtoffers klagen
    Banco Santander aan
    
    MADRID (ANP) - De Spaanse bank Banco Santander wil de
    slachtoffers van het piramidespel van superzwendelaar Bernard
    Madoff compenseren. Dat maakte de Spaanse bank dinsdag bekend.
    
    De slachtoffers krijgen hun inleg terug via preferente
    aandelen in Santander. In totaal gaat het om 1,38 miljard dollar
    aan preferente aandelen. Het compensatieplan zou de bank in
    totaal ongeveer 500 miljoen euro kosten.
    
    Eerder op de dag maakten Spaanse advocaten van de
    slachtoffers bekend de bank en zijn dochteronderneming Optimal
    Investment Services bij de rechtbank in Miami aan te klagen
    wegens grove nalatigheid bij beleggingen in de fondsen van
    Madoff.
    
    Santander gaf onlangs al toe dat zijn klanten wellicht ruim
    2,3 miljard dollar hebben verloren door de zwendel van Madoff.
    Santander is de bank wiens klanten het zwaarst werden getroffen
    door de Madoff-fraude. De totale schade zou wereldwijd 50
    miljard dollar bedragen.
    
    In deze regeling worden alleen de private beleggers
    gecompenseerd. De regeling geldt niet voor institutionele
    beleggers.
    
    ((ANP Redactie Economie, email economie(at)anp.nl, +31 20
    504 5999))
    
15. voda 28 januari 2009 16:30

    auteur info

    •    voda

      Lid sinds: 02 dec 2005

      Laatste bezoek: 07 jan 2025

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 91158

      Gegeven: 22488

    •    Aantal posts: 380.445

    Santander verwacht lagere winst door Madoff
    MADRID (ANP) - Banco Santander, de grootste bank van Spanje,
    verwacht over heel 2008 een nettowinst te boeken van 8,87
    miljard euro. Een jaar eerder bedroeg de winst nog meer dan 9
    miljard euro. Dat maakte Santander woensdag bekend.
    
    De winstdaling hangt samen met een voorziening van 500
    miljoen euro die Santander trof om slachtoffers van de
    Amerikaanse superzwendelaar Bernard Madoff te compenseren. Zij
    hadden via Santander in fondsen van Madoff belegd. De
    gedupeerden krijgen hun inleg terug via preferente aandelen in
    Santander. In totaal gaat het om 1,38 miljard euro aan aandelen.
    De regeling geldt alleen voor private beleggers.
    
    Santander komt op 5 februari met definitieve cijfers over
    2008. Op de beurs in Madrid stond het aandeel woensdag ruim 8
    procent hoger.
    
    ((ANP Redactie Economie, email economie(at)anp.nl, +31 20
    504 5999))
    
16. voda 28 januari 2009 17:26

    auteur info

    •    voda

      Lid sinds: 02 dec 2005

      Laatste bezoek: 07 jan 2025

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 91158

      Gegeven: 22488

    •    Aantal posts: 380.445

    Weer die Madoff....
    
    Miljardenverlies voor Wells Fargo en Wachovia
    SAN FRANCISCO (ANP) - De Amerikaanse bank Wells Fargo heeft
    in het vierde kwartaal van vorig jaar een nettoverlies van 2,6
    miljard dollar geboekt. Het eerste kwartaalverlies sinds 2001
    kwam vooral door de aanleg van extra voorzieningen voor slechte
    leningen, zo maakte de bank woensdag bekend.
    
    Wells Fargo reserveerde in de laatse drie maanden van het
    jaar 5,6 miljard dollar om de verliezen op slechte leningen op
    te vangen. Ook stopte het 294 miljoen dollar in een voorziening
    voor de schadeloosstelling van slachtoffers van het piramidespel
    van Bernard Madoff.
    
    De eind vorig jaar door Wells Fargo overgenomen bank
    Wachovia noteerde over de laatste drie maanden van vorig jaar
    een nettoverlies van 11,2 miljard dollar. Wachovia, dat vorig
    jaar bijna ten onder ging aan de financiële crisis, moest
    miljarden afschrijven op slechte beleggingen.
    
    ((ANP Redactie Economie, email economie(at)anp.nl, +31 20
    504 5999))
    
17. [verwijderd] 3 februari 2009 23:21

    auteur info

    •    [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    www.tijd.be/nieuws/economie-financien...
    'Madoff maakte 3 miljoen slachtoffers'
    Bernard Madoff
    (tijd) - Dat zei Javier Cremades van het advocatenkantoor Cremades&Calvo Sotelo tijdens een persconferentie in Madrid. Deze gegevens zijn gebaseerd op een wereldwijde rondvraag bij 30 advocatenkantoren, die de gedupeerden vertegenwoordigen.
    
    Cremades&Calvo Sotelo verdedigt de belangen van Spanjaarden die via het investeringsfonds Optimal van Santander verliezen leden. Zij waren voor 2,3 miljard euro blootgesteld en startten reeds rechtszaken op tegen de Spaanse bank. Santander stelde een minnelijke schikking voor en is bereid zijn klanten voor 1,38 miljard euro te vergoeden.
    
    Bernard Madoff wordt ervan beschuldigd een frauduleus piramidesysteem te hebben opgezet, waarbij hij zijn klanten voor 50 miljard dollar oplichtte.
    
    
18. voda 4 februari 2009 21:23

    auteur info

    •    voda

      Lid sinds: 02 dec 2005

      Laatste bezoek: 07 jan 2025

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 91158

      Gegeven: 22488

    •    Aantal posts: 380.445

    'SEC heeft ernstig gefaald in Madoff-fraudezaak'
    FRAUDE VS
    
    WASHINGTON (ANP) - De Amerikaanse beurstoezichthouder
    Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) heeft ernstig gefaald in
    de megafraude door de superzwendelaar Bernard Madoff. Dat
    verklaarde voormalig fondsbeheerder Harry Markopolos woensdag
    voor het Amerikaanse Congres. De schade door de fraude van
    Madoff wordt geschat op 50 miljard dollar.
    
    Volgens Markopolos waarschuwde hij de SEC al in 2000 voor de
    megafraude die Madoff pleegde via een piramidespelachtige
    zwendel, maar werd daar vervolgens niets mee gedaan door de
    beurswaakhond. Ook in de jaren daarop kwam hij herhaaldelijk met
    bewijzen voor de oplichting door Madoff, zonder dat de SEC daar
    gevolg aan gaf, aldus Markopolos.
    
    Markopolos is van mening dat het personeel van de SEC dat
    fraude moet opsporen, onvoldoende ervaring heeft om de
    waarschuwingstekens te herkennen. Hij noemde de SEC-werknemers
    ,,te traag, te jong en te laag opgeleid''. Ook vindt Markopolos
    dat de SEC veel te nauw is verbonden met de bankensector op Wall
    Street en angst heeft om grote bedrijven zoals dat van Madoff
    aan te pakken.
    
    De voormalige fondsbeheerder was jarenlang een concurrent
    van Madoff. Markopolos ging de activiteiten van Madoff nader
    bestuderen om te zien hoe hij constant zulke hoge rendementen
    kon uitkeren. Dat onderzoek overtuigde hem dat Madoff de boel
    oplichtte. Markopolos is nu een fraude-expert.
    
    ((ANP Redactie Economie, email economie(at)anp.nl, +31 20
    504 5999))
    
19. voda 4 februari 2009 21:30

    auteur info

    •    voda

      Lid sinds: 02 dec 2005

      Laatste bezoek: 07 jan 2025

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 91158

      Gegeven: 22488

    •    Aantal posts: 380.445

    Zie ook:
    
    www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601...
20. [verwijderd] 5 februari 2009 11:03

    auteur info

    •    [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    quote:

    voda schreef:

    'SEC heeft ernstig gefaald in Madoff-fraudezaak'
    FRAUDE VS
    
    WASHINGTON (ANP) - De Amerikaanse beurstoezichthouder
    Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) heeft ernstig gefaald in
    de megafraude door de superzwendelaar Bernard Madoff. Dat
    verklaarde voormalig fondsbeheerder Harry Markopolos woensdag
    voor het Amerikaanse Congres.
    

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw_Tgu0txS0