FDIC Continues To Be Fraudulent !

[Monk-Eye]

" FDIC Continues To Be Fraudulent ! "

" FDIC Underwriting Must Stipulate No Payout When Commercial Deposits Are Used For Investment Banking "

Motivated by the 1929 stock market crash , FDIC was established in 1933 by Glass-Seagall Act , with a caveat that commercial and investment banking be separated .

In 1999 the Gram-Leach-Bliley Act repealed Glass-Steagall and allowed banks to manage both commercial and investment banking and insurance commodities .

Now commercial bank deposits receive paltry interest , while consolidated banks are applying commercial deposits as investment risk capital , under a fraudulent premise that underwriting lawfully obligates FDIC to compensate commercial depositors up to $250,000 , irrespective of any product an investment bank may undertake .

Whether consolidated banks are able to manage commercial deposits and risk capital portfolios and insurance portfolios , the application of commercial deposits as risk capital must violate the underwriting of FDIC and FDIC should not be paying for losses by commercial depositors .


* Weights And Measures A Leech And Captain Mutiny *

Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub. L. 106–102 (text) (PDF), 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies, and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company. With the passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. Furthermore, it failed to give to the SEC or any other financial regulatory agency the authority to regulate large investment bank holding companies.[1] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.[2]


* FDIC Legitimate Underwriting Requires Acceptable Risk *

Glass–Steagall legislation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Glass–Steagall legislation describes four provisions of the United States Banking Act of 1933 separating commercial and investment banking.[1]

The separation of commercial and investment banking prevented securities firms and investment banks from taking deposits, and commercial Federal Reserve member banks from:

• dealing in non-governmental securities for customers,
• investing in non-investment grade securities for themselves,
• underwriting or distributing non-governmental securities,
• affiliating (or sharing employees) with companies involved in such activities.

Starting in the early 1960s, federal banking regulators' interpretations of the Act permitted commercial banks, and especially commercial bank affiliates, to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities.[3] Congressional efforts to "repeal the Glass–Steagall Act", referring to those four provisions (and then usually to only the two provisions that restricted affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms),[4] culminated in the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), which repealed the two provisions restricting affiliations between banks and securities firms.[5]


* Shysters Promising Compensation They Are Not Obligated To Compensate *

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To qualify for deposit insurance, member banks must follow certain liquidity and reserve requirements. Banks are classified in five groups according to their risk-based capital ratio:

• Well capitalized: 10% or higher
• Adequately capitalized: 8% or higher
• Undercapitalized: less than 8%
• Significantly undercapitalized: less than 6%
• Critically undercapitalized: less than 2%

When a bank becomes undercapitalized, the institution's primary regulator issues a warning to the bank. When the number drops below 6%, the primary regulator can change management and force the bank to take other corrective action. When the bank becomes critically undercapitalized the chartering authority closes the institution and appoints the FDIC as receiver of the bank.

The FDIC faced its greatest challenge from the 2007–2008 financial crisis. Although most failures were resolved through merger or acquisition, the FDIC's insurance fund was exhausted by late 2009.

 

[1srelluc]

Yellen picking "winners and losers" has raised the ire of small banks that will see their FDIC premiums go up and who will have to pass it on to their customers with higher fees.

Make no mistake, the dems are going for centralized banking and they can do it without congressional approval.

The hell of it is we have at least two more years of this shit.

 

[Moonglow]

Yellen picking "winners and losers" has raised the ire of small banks that will see their FDIC premiums go up and who will have to pass it on to their customers with higher fees.

Make no mistake, the dems are going for centralized banking and they can do it without congressional approval.

The hell of it is we have at least two more years of this shit.

picking "winners and losers" has raised the ire of small banks

Hey Bub, they have been doing that since before the turn of the nineteenth century in the USA...

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Banksters And Government Malfeasance Of Office "

* No Authorization Given For Use Of Funds With Fraudulent Promises Of Compensation *

Yellen picking "winners and losers" has raised the ire of small banks that will see their FDIC premiums go up and who will have to pass it on to their customers with higher fees.
Make no mistake, the dems are going for centralized banking and they can do it without congressional approval.
The hell of it is we have at least two more years of this shit.

Not sure what your statements have to do with the unlawful payment by FDIC to commercial depositors , who were duped into believing that FDIC is obligated to pay for their losses , when use of those deposits by consolidated bank in investment bank risk capital violates FDIC underwriting .

The basic premise for FDIC is that commercial deposits are not subject to significant risk capital investments and , if the commercial deposits are used in that manner then FDIC does not owe a damned cent to the commercial deposit holders .

Individuals understand that moneys invested into the stock market involve significant risk , and none misconstrues to put their commercial deposits in the stock market for safe keeping .

So why are banks allowed to help themselves to commercial deposits , without explicit knowledge or authorization by commercial depositors , to then apply those deposits as investment risk capital , with a fraudulent presumption for an FDIC safety net should the commercial deposits be lost due to failed capital risk investments ?

 

[1srelluc]

" Banksters And Government Malfeasance Of Office "

* No Authorization Given For Use Of Funds With Fraudulent Promises Of Compensation *

Not sure what your statements have to do with the unlawful payment by FDIC to commercial depositors , who were duped into believing that FDIC is obligated to pay for their losses , when use of those deposits by consolidated bank in investment bank risk capital violates FDIC underwriting .

The basic premise for FDIC is that commercial deposits are not subject to significant risk capital investments and , if the commercial deposits are used in that manner then FDIC does not owe a damned cent to the commercial deposit holders .

Individuals understand that moneys invested into the stock market involve significant risk , and none misconstrues to put their commercial deposits in the stock market for safe keeping .

So why are banks allowed to help themselves to commercial deposits , without explicit knowledge or authorization by commercial depositors , to then apply those deposits as investment risk capital , with a fraudulent presumption for an FDIC safety net should the commercial deposits be lost due to failed capital risk investments ?

Looks like (for some) because Yellen says so.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Authorization For Use Of Holdings Held For Safety As Being Better Than At A Home "

* Nomian Public Policy Phenomenology With Staged Caricature Pseudonyms *

Looks like (for some) because Yellen says so.

What are the current FDIC net holdings ?

" FDIC is committed to financial compensation until FDIC is no longer capable of providing financial compensation . " is a politically muted statement .

" FDIC is committed to financial compensation of commercial deposits , where consolidated banking does not use commercial deposits as investment risk capital , as per the following commodities requirements: " should be a politically vocal statement .

Try finding a phone number to leave word with an individual dumbfounded by echoes of themselves yelling within a dumb bell .

 

[Oddball]

" FDIC Continues To Be Fraudulent ! "

" FDIC Underwriting Must Stipulate No Payout When Commercial Deposits Are Used For Investment Banking "

Motivated by the 1929 stock market crash , FDIC was established in 1933 by Glass-Seagall Act , with a caveat that commercial and investment banking be separated .

In 1999 the Gram-Leach-Bliley Act repealed Glass-Steagall and allowed banks to manage both commercial and investment banking and insurance commodities .

Now commercial bank deposits receive paltry interest , while consolidated banks are applying commercial deposits as investment risk capital , under a fraudulent premise that underwriting lawfully obligates FDIC to compensate commercial depositors up to $250,000 , irrespective of any product an investment bank may undertake .

Whether consolidated banks are able to manage commercial deposits and risk capital portfolios and insurance portfolios , the application of commercial deposits as risk capital must violate the underwriting of FDIC and FDIC should not be paying for losses by commercial depositors .


* Weights And Measures A Leech And Captain Mutiny *

Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub. L. 106–102 (text) (PDF), 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies, and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company. With the passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. Furthermore, it failed to give to the SEC or any other financial regulatory agency the authority to regulate large investment bank holding companies.[1] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.[2]


* FDIC Legitimate Underwriting Requires Acceptable Risk *

Glass–Steagall legislation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Glass–Steagall legislation describes four provisions of the United States Banking Act of 1933 separating commercial and investment banking.[1]

The separation of commercial and investment banking prevented securities firms and investment banks from taking deposits, and commercial Federal Reserve member banks from:

• dealing in non-governmental securities for customers,
• investing in non-investment grade securities for themselves,
• underwriting or distributing non-governmental securities,
• affiliating (or sharing employees) with companies involved in such activities.

Starting in the early 1960s, federal banking regulators' interpretations of the Act permitted commercial banks, and especially commercial bank affiliates, to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities.[3] Congressional efforts to "repeal the Glass–Steagall Act", referring to those four provisions (and then usually to only the two provisions that restricted affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms),[4] culminated in the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), which repealed the two provisions restricting affiliations between banks and securities firms.[5]


* Shysters Promising Compensation They Are Not Obligated To Compensate *

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To qualify for deposit insurance, member banks must follow certain liquidity and reserve requirements. Banks are classified in five groups according to their risk-based capital ratio:

• Well capitalized: 10% or higher
• Adequately capitalized: 8% or higher
• Undercapitalized: less than 8%
• Significantly undercapitalized: less than 6%
• Critically undercapitalized: less than 2%

When a bank becomes undercapitalized, the institution's primary regulator issues a warning to the bank. When the number drops below 6%, the primary regulator can change management and force the bank to take other corrective action. When the bank becomes critically undercapitalized the chartering authority closes the institution and appoints the FDIC as receiver of the bank.

The FDIC faced its greatest challenge from the 2007–2008 financial crisis. Although most failures were resolved through merger or acquisition, the FDIC's insurance fund was exhausted by late 2009.

Since when does the law mean bupkis to the ruling class left?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Fee Press Officiate Expertise Buy Wing It Cabals "

* Up Down Left Right Forward Backward Bijection Injection Surjection Projections *

Since when does the law mean bupkis to the ruling class left?

Informed consent is self explanatory .

The finance rules are created by bureaucrats and capitalists to facilitate state capitalism , while legitimate state interests through public policy are bound with and limited by requirements for safety and security .

FDIC should be made to remain solvent for public safety and security through public policy that limits the use of commercial deposits as risk capital for investments by consolidated banks .


* Use Caution For Wikipedia Bias When Indulging Any Notion Of Real Politic *

State capitalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Realpolitik - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org