#2008 bank crisis

[theculturedmarxist]

Warning signs of the instability of the global financial system abounded in the months leading up to the 2008 Lehman Brothers crash. Among these early signs were the astounding revelations about UBS, the world’s largest private bank, by Stephanie Gibaud, who was employee at the bank’s French division. Gibaud refused instructions given to her and other employees to delete all their company files. In doing so, she helped reveal a vast web of corruption and fraud linking UBS to a shadowy tax evasion scheme. More than 15 years later, Gibaud has endured harassment, professional ostracization, lawsuits, and threats. She joins The Chris Hedges Report to speak on her ordeal and the extent of corruption in the international banking system.

Chris Hedges:  Stephanie Gibaud in June, 2008, was ordered by one of her managers at the UBS Bank in Paris, to destroy all her computer files that related to customers with offshore accounts in Switzerland. The order came in the wake of the 2007 American banker, Bradley Birkenfeld’s disclosure of client information to the US Department of Justice, which suggested that UBS was facilitating massive tax evasion schemes for its American clients, which ultimately led to a penalty of $780 million. Swiss banks have long been havens for those seeking to avoid taxes. In 2014, for example, Credit Suisse, which would also plead guilty to sheltering money for its clients so they could avoid paying taxes, had to pay $2.6 billion in penalties.

Gibaud, however, was the only bank employee at UBS who refused to delete her files. She protested to UBS management and French regulators. Her documents would eventually help to identify 38,000 offshore bank accounts amounting to $12 billion. UBS responded by trying to fire her as part of a mass redundancy of 100 employees during the 2008 financial crisis. The French Ministry of Work intervened, but her life at UBS became excruciating. She suffered harassment and discrimination along with social and professional isolation. She endured constant anxiety and depression. UBS fired her finally in 2012. She was sued for defamation by the bank after writing her book, The Woman Who Knew Too Much, part of a series of lawsuits that plague her to this day.

She requested compensation totaling 3.5 million euros and the judge gave her 4,500 euros, which barely covered her legal fees. UBS was eventually forced to pay a record fine in 2019 of $4.9 billion, but Gibaud found herself financially ruined and blacklisted from the financial sector where she had spent her career. The French legal system does not compensate whistleblowers, unlike the US. The Commodities Future Trading Commission, for example, recently awarded an anonymous whistleblower around $200 million for providing information about Deutsche Bank’s manipulation of the LIBOR benchmark. Birkenfeld, who exposed UBS’s offshore accounts for American clients, was handed a check from the US Treasury for $104 million, minus taxes. Gibaud is currently battling in the French courts to become the first legally recognized whistleblower, which could pave the way for greater protection and compensation.

[nevermind-stop-forever]

Oh! The 2008 recession was really fucked up! The banks knew the whole time! And did nothing! Told no one!

[wack-ashimself]

2008 Financial crisis dumbed down.

Watched 'The Big Short' (again), and I wanted to sum it up for people who didn't get it (cuz I did NOT the first time around).

About 2 years-ish before this all went down, a super smart guy noticed inconsistencies in what the banks AND (eventually) the government claimed about subprime (another word for weaker credit) home loans. He noticed that the weakest that were most likely to default were packaged up so they seemed more appealing, but they were way worse than the government was rating them at (in the movie, rating approval standards and practices lady basically says if we do not give them good ratings, they'll <the banks> just go down the street to a competitor, which is NOT something you want said by a government sanctioned organization.) The banks & the raters were approving everyone cuz it made them money right then and there. Both the banks and the rating's agency which answered to the government. That means THREE different organizations set up the dominoes. Big banks, the ratings board, and the government for not keeping either in check. Maybe not knocked them down, but set them up.

The smart guy realized: the lower ones rated we will call them a C, were actually closer to E's, and thus, also brought down everything above them. AAA goes to A. AA to C. Etc. (something like that). Loss of rating, loss of money. But with the banks getting higher ratings, they would look like they had stronger assets. Thus more money. More to wager. And how did they inflate this? The casino. They took those low level packages, and took bets on if they would rise or fall. THEN they took bets on THAT bet. Seriously; it is as fucking stupid and crazy as it sounds. As the movie said, it's highly complex and hard to understand BECAUSE they want you to feel like they're the only ones who can operate/navigate it. They make it difficult so you have to come to them.

So smart guy (and a few others) convinced the banks to do the stupidest thing I have ever heard: the banks created this whole new thing for them in which they bet, HARD, that these super low level home mortgage packages would utterly fail (and some mid/top level. Because remember, if the bottom falls out, everything above is then lowered. So you can bet on all of it going down, which is what happened.) Like 25 to 1 odds. And it did take 2 years, but eventually, it did fall, and create new billionaires.

The movie exaggerated a lot, but some of the main themes are:

1-the bankers NEVER cared if they failed cuz they ALWAYS knew they were 'too big to fail' (to which I've always replied: Should have failed. And gone to the locals.)

2-the bankers were not SMART, just greedy and careless.

3-banks are casinos. I mean, the complexity yet stupidity of that whole betting scheme. And then creating a WHOLE NEW casino game without checking the odds? Geez. The House lost. Banks should not be able to gamble with YOUR livelihoods. Clearly, they have nothing to lose, but WE DO!

4-Banks do control the government. Probably the federal reserve too. That's never discussed.

5-Again, how much money was lost AND created from NOTHING but...bets? That is creating nothing.

6-The movie said a fact (I think) that fucks with my head. 2 of the younger ones just got good news about their bet. Cheering, dancing, etc. Brad Pitt's character gets PISSED, and tells them to stop it. He points how many lives are going to be ruined. Jobs lost. Homelessness. Then says 'Did you know for every 1% in the rise of unemployment, 40,000 people die?' WHAT!? Everything should be locally owned and controlled. Every business worker owned. FUCK that shit.

7-The government changed nothing to stop this from happening again. IMO-about to drop hard, same way, but with student loans and car loans. I know more people who have car loans than house loans...you think they learned? Fuck no. It's a casino, and they will never stop playing the game till we check if their games are rigged (they are.)

8-When this all started to fall apart, the shady thing banks did was take these worst of the worst low level packages, sell them off, THEN report the actual numbers they were rated at, fucking whoever just bought them. AND they initially refused payout on the MASSIVE bets they just lost until they could get the money.

I just...what bugged me was for how many people placing billions on the line, losing multi millions in losses in the 2 years till it actually occurred, why NONE of the banks looked into these people's backgrounds, histories, etc? Like, if a guy comes up to me and says 'I want to give you money for two years on a stupid ass bet', if that same guy got stupid rich predicting the market, HE FUCKING KNOWS SOMETHING. Intentional negligence.

Solid movie. A little showy in places it didn't need to be. But I think I just dumbed down banking for you, and we are dumb for allowing this to continue to exist. If we bailed them out, we own em'. That's it.

tl;dr: the banks acted LITERALLY like casinos, and lost big. So the USA government bailed them out and the banks KNEW it was going to happen which is why they could operate like a casino. And still do.

Update. 1-here's the best scene to sum up their scam part 1 (taking bets on their low levels rising/falling, and bets on THOSE bets). This is what started everything. The ratings technically did, but this made that 10x worse.

part 2 on how standards and practices rigged the ratings:

and finally part 3 explaining how it set up, and how to bet against the banks.

ps-fun note. I forgot a HUGE bombshell they GLOSS over practically. Absolutely NO LAWS saying you can't go work at a big bank after working in standard's and practices. In other words, you give them good ratings, they give you a couchy job 5 years later with a stupid big bonus. EVERYTHING IS CORRUPT! But it makes sense. If you run the country and have inside info, you can still operate in the stock market...it's a big circle jerk.

[transpondster]

Andy Kessler writing in today’s Wall Street Journal:  Silicon Valley Bank failed because there weren’t enough white men on the bank’s Board of Directors.

[maysshortmoviereviews]

Bank of Dave (2023)

🎬Based on the true-life experiences of Dave Fishwick. Telling the story of how a working class Burnley man and self-made millionaire fought to set up a community bank.

📝A truly uplifting, feel good and inspirational story which will leave you with a smile. Recommend watch especially during cold winter nights.

[paulthepoke]

Michael Douville & John Rubino: The World is about to change! Get Rich or Ignore at Your Peril!

The World is About to change! Pension Funds may not be able to honor their obligations.

Ecclesiastes 7:12 For the protection of wisdom is like the protection of money, and the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the life of him who has it. Proverbs 27:12 The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it. John Rubino’s newsletter can be accessed at rubino.substack.com. John is an American thought leader, former Wall Street Analyst, and…

[signode-blog]

The 2008 Market Crash: Causes, Impacts, and Lessons Learned

l. Introduction The 2008 market crash stands as one of the most significant financial upheavals in modern history, reshaping economies and livelihoods around the globe. Understanding the causes and impacts of this crisis is crucial for navigating future economic challenges. ll. Background of the 2008 Market Crash A. Economic conditions leading up to the crash Prior to 2008, the United States…

[crybabyzine-subtext]

"Too big to fail" is a concept that does not exist in nature.

[reasonsforhope]

Federal regulators on Tuesday [April 23, 2024] enacted a nationwide ban on new noncompete agreements, which keep millions of Americans — from minimum-wage earners to CEOs — from switching jobs within their industries.

The Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday afternoon voted 3-to-2 to approve the new rule, which will ban noncompetes for all workers when the regulations take effect in 120 days [So, the ban starts in early September, 2024!]. For senior executives, existing noncompetes can remain in force. For all other employees, existing noncompetes are not enforceable.

[That's right: if you're currently under a noncompete agreement, it's completely invalid as of September 2024! You're free!!]

The antitrust and consumer protection agency heard from thousands of people who said they had been harmed by noncompetes, illustrating how the agreements are "robbing people of their economic liberty," FTC Chair Lina Khan said. 

The FTC commissioners voted along party lines, with its two Republicans arguing the agency lacked the jurisdiction to enact the rule and that such moves should be made in Congress...

Why it matters

The new rule could impact tens of millions of workers, said Heidi Shierholz, a labor economist and president of the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank. 

"For nonunion workers, the only leverage they have is their ability to quit their job," Shierholz told CBS MoneyWatch. "Noncompetes don't just stop you from taking a job — they stop you from starting your own business."

Since proposing the new rule, the FTC has received more than 26,000 public comments on the regulations. The final rule adopted "would generally prevent most employers from using noncompete clauses," the FTC said in a statement.

The agency's action comes more than two years after President Biden directed the agency to "curtail the unfair use" of noncompetes, under which employees effectively sign away future work opportunities in their industry as a condition of keeping their current job. The president's executive order urged the FTC to target such labor restrictions and others that improperly constrain employees from seeking work.

"The freedom to change jobs is core to economic liberty and to a competitive, thriving economy," Khan said in a statement making the case for axing noncompetes. "Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand."

Real-life consequences

In laying out its rationale for banishing noncompetes from the labor landscape, the FTC offered real-life examples of how the agreements can hurt workers.

In one case, a single father earned about $11 an hour as a security guard for a Florida firm, but resigned a few weeks after taking the job when his child care fell through. Months later, he took a job as a security guard at a bank, making nearly $15 an hour. But the bank terminated his employment after receiving a letter from the man's prior employer stating he had signed a two-year noncompete.

In another example, a factory manager at a textile company saw his paycheck dry up after the 2008 financial crisis. A rival textile company offered him a better job and a big raise, but his noncompete blocked him from taking it, according to the FTC. A subsequent legal battle took three years, wiping out his savings. 

-via CBS Moneywatch, April 24, 2024

--

Note:

A lot of people think that noncompete agreements are only a white-collar issue, but they absolutely affect blue-collar workers too, as you can see from the security guard anecdote.

In fact, one in six food and service workers are bound by noncompete agreements. That's right - one in six food workers can't leave Burger King to work for Wendy's [hypothetical example], in the name of "trade secrets." (x, x, x)

Noncompete agreements also restrict workers in industries from tech and video games to neighborhood yoga studios. "The White House estimates that tens of millions of workers are subject to noncompete agreements, even in states like California where they're banned." (x, x, x)

The FTC estimates that the ban will lead to "the creation of 8,500 new businesses annually, an average annual pay increase of $524 for workers, lower health care costs, and as many as 29,000 more patents each year for the next decade." (x)

Clearer explanation of noncompete agreements below the cut.

Noncompete agreements can restrict workers from leaving for a better job or starting their own business.

Noncompetes often effectively coerce workers into staying in jobs they want to leave, and even force them to leave a profession or relocate.

Noncompetes can prevent workers from accepting higher-paying jobs, and even curtail the pay of workers not subject to them directly.

Of the more than 26,000 comments received by the FTC, more than 25,000 supported banning noncompetes. 

[coinatory]

Widespread Concerns Over Financial Security: Americans Uneasy About Banking System

Nearly half of Americans are nervous about the security of their money that they have put with banks, according to a recent Gallup study. 48% of American adults say they are worried about their finances, with 19% saying they are "very" anxious and 29% saying they are "moderately" worried. Meanwhile, 30% of people say they are "not too worried" and 20% say they are "not worried at all". These results come from a Gallup survey that was carried out between April 3 and 25, one month after Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank failed. After the poll was over, word spread that a third bank, First Republic, had failed. The 2008 financial crisis was the most recent time Gallup measured Americans' degree of concern about their money stored in banks or other financial institutions, and it has been related to the majority of bank failures

Read more on Widespread Concerns Over Financial Security: Americans Uneasy About Banking System

[underthewingsofthblackeagle]

         Central Banks and regulators raced to reassure markets and customers Monday, after one of the world's largest banks exited the global stage in a forced takeover. The details of the 3.2 billion dollar deal for USB and Credit Suisse rattled some investors. But regulators have sought to make one thing clear: The focus is on depositors and the health of the overall banking system.

[rjoent]

[theangryfeministwriter]

"kamala is a cop"

but you don’t understand! When she was a prosecutor, she pissed off California police unions when she didn’t push for the death penalty for a man convicted of killing a police officer. She chose to push non violent, first-time offenders into education programs instead of prison because she wanted “to create a system to decrease the likelihood that the revolving door will continue”. As Attorney General, she prosecuted for profit colleges, and banks following the 2008 crisis. In the face of Black Lives Matter, her office launched implicit bias training and she was proud of her work in reforming the criminal justice system of California. As senator, she shined when she questioned Brett Kavanaugh in his senate hearing. When you say “she was a cop” you simplify her impressive record as a prosecutor, attorney general, and senator into just “cop”. While there is valid criticism to her record as Attorney General in her response to Black Lives Matter, as well as her stance on Palestine, there is more nuance to Election 2024 than just “kamala is a cop” and “another time picking the lesser of two evils.” Kamala Harris is the obvious choice for 2024.