You know that Money on your Bank Account? Well, it’s not Yours

By SUSANNE POSEL | OCCUPY CORPORATISM | AUGUST 24, 2012

In June of 2012, Eric Bloom, former chief executive, and Charles Mosely, head trader of Sentinel Management Group (SMG) were indicted for stealing $500 million in customer secured funds. Both Mosely and Bloom were accused of “exposing” customer segregated funds “to a portfolio of highly risky derivatives.”

These customer funds were used to “back up personal investments” which were part of “collateral for a loan from Bank of New York Mellon” (BNYM). This loan derived from stolen customer monies was “used to purchase millions of dollars worth of high-risk, illiquid securities, including collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, for a trading portfolio that benefited Sentinel’s officers, including Mosley, Bloom and certain Bloom family members.”

Fast forward to August 9th of 2012, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (CCA) rules that BNYM can be moved to first in line of creditors over the customers that had their funds stolen by SMG.

When a banking customer deposits their money into their bank account, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SPIC) are in place to protect the customer from fraud or theft. The ruling from the CCA means that these regulatory systems will not insure customer funds, investments, depositors and retirees who hold accounts in banks. In fact, the banking institution is now legally allowed to use those customer funds deposited as collateral, payment on debts for loans made, or free use on the stock market to purchase investments as the bank sees fit.

Fred Grede, SMG trustee, explained that brokers are no longer required to keep customer money separate from their own. “It does not bode well for the protection of customer funds.”

Since the ruling gives banks the right to co-mingle customer funds with their own, no crime can be committed for the use of customer deposited monies.
According to Walker Todd , former lawyer for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Cleveland: “Basically, there is a new 7th Circuit opinion saying that there is no reason to impose a constructive trust on a lender’s takings of customers’ funds from client commodity firms that were used (inappropriately) to secure the firms’ borrowings, as long as the lender can say that it did not know WITH CERTAINTY that customers’ funds were being repledged. Negligence and misappropriation (vs. knowing criminal intent) are now a sufficient excuse for letting the lender keep the money and go to the head of the line for distributions in bankruptcies of the client commodity firms.”

When a customer deposits money into a bank, the bank essentially issues a promise to have those funds available when the customer returns to withdraw the deposited amount. When the same customer withdraws funds from their account (whether checking or savings) the customer assumes that the bank has enough funds to cover their withdrawal; including the presumption that their monies are separate from the bank’s assets.

Now, those funds are up for grabs by the bank at their discretion without explanation to the customer – nor is the bank obligated to recoup the customer should they “lose” those funds due to bad loans, bankruptcy or stock market loss.

In Texas, Pamela Cobb, manager of Bank of America (BoA), stole an estimated $2 million from customer funds for personal use. Cobb had been taking customer segregated funds since 2002.

Customers have complained of fraudulent charges placed on their accounts that BoA cannot explain. When the customer brings these charges to the in-house fraud department, they are given the run-around until they acquiesce.

Other customers have had their private possessions stolen right out of their safety deposit box held at BoA. The safety deposit box was drilled into and the contents shipped to the BoA corporate holding center in South Carolina.

In 1992 to 2003, Citibank called their theft of customer funds “account sweeping” wherein they stole more than $14 million from customers nationally. Using computerized credit card processes to remove positive and negative balances from customers, the scheme included double payments or funds paid out on returned purchases that were then attributed back to the customer.

At Chase bank, an anonymous employee opened an account under a customer name (targeting an Alzheimer’s sufferer), complete with a personal debit card. An estimated $300 per day was withdrawn on the fraudulent account. When family representing the victim alerted Chase, they brushed them off with an internal investigation claim – even as the family sought legal action.

Banking fraud against the elderly has risen of late, since banks realize they can steal massive amounts of cash from their aging customers with little to no repercussions.

The recent ruling on SMG has given the banking industry the legal backing they have been lacking when stealing from their customers.

Our financial institutions have been planning for a financial collapse wherein the US government will not offer assistance. The resolution plans required by the Federal Reserve Bank, described schemes to have the major domestic banks remain afloat by selling off assets, finding alternative sources of funding, reducing risky measures that make a quick buck. These strategies were to be perfected with “no assumption of extraordinary support from the public sector.”

The mega-banks, through Wall Street, are also acquiring firearms, ammunition and control over private mercenary corporations like DynCorp and ‘Blackwater” as authorized by the Department of Defense (DoD) directive 3025.18 .

DynCorp is a military-based private mercenary contractor that provides (among other services) intelligence training and support, international security, contingency plans and operations. Ninety-six percent of their funding is based on annual revenues from the US federal government. The international branch of DynCorp has operated as a “police force” even assisting local law enforcement during Hurricane Katrina.

Named as investors for the amassing of gun and ammunition manufacturers are Citibank, BoA, Barclays and Deutsche Bank who are pouring money into Cerebus and Veritas Equity who have taken over private corporations involved in the controlling riot situations.

The Federal Reserve Bank, one of the heads of banking cartels, has their own police force which operates as a protective security for the Fed against the American public. As part of the Federal Reserve Act signed in 1913, the designation of a Federal Law Enforcement – special police officers that are exclusively regulated by authority of the Fed (whether in uniform or plain clothes. These specialized police officers (who train with Special Response Teams) can work in tandem with local law enforcement or US federal agencies. These officers are heavily armed with semi-automatic pistols, sub machine guns and assault rifles as well as body armor.

Of recent, when withdrawing cash from an ATM, the daily allotted amount has decreased with some banks, thereby forcing the customer to go into the branch and extract the difference with a teller. At this point, according to anonymous informants, the customer is taken into a backroom to be questioned as to why they want the cash, what they are purchasing with the cash, why they are not choosing to use a debit card or another form of digital trade to make the purchase. These questions are not only intrusive, they are illegal.

Some anonymous sources have said that banking representatives who conduct the integrations are directed to keep a record of customer responses on an online application that will be sent to the FBI in conjunction with Patriot Act mandates on tracking banking activity.

Customer funds are no longer secure, no longer backed by the FDIC or other insurance corporations, and banks are legally allowed to co-mingled customer money with other funds of the bank. The only safe place for your money is with you.

Now is the time to close your bank account.

U.S. to Sue Banks over Mortgage Scam

by Nelson D. Schwartz
New York Times
September 2, 2011

The federal agency that oversees the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is set to file suits against more than a dozen big banks, accusing them of misrepresenting the quality of mortgage securities they assembled and sold at the height of the housing bubble, and seeking billions of dollars in compensation.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency suits, which are expected to be filed in the coming days in federal court, are aimed at Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, among others, according to three individuals briefed on the matter.

The suits stem from subpoenas the finance agency issued to banks a year ago. If the case is not filed Friday, they said, it will come Tuesday, shortly before a deadline expires for the housing agency to file claims.

The suits will argue the banks, which assembled the mortgages and marketed them as securities to investors, failed to perform the due diligence required under securities law and missed evidence that borrowers’ incomes were inflated or falsified. When many borrowers were unable to pay their mortgages, the securities backed by the mortgages quickly lost value.

Fannie and Freddie lost more than $30 billion, in part as a result of the deals, losses that were borne mostly by taxpayers.

In July, the agency filed suit against UBS, another major mortgage securitizer, seeking to recover at least $900 million, and the individuals with knowledge of the case said the new litigation would be similar in scope.

Private holders of mortgage securities are already trying to force the big banks to buy back tens of billions in soured mortgage-backed bonds, but this federal effort is a new chapter in a huge legal fight that has alarmed investors in bank shares. In this case, rather than demanding that the banks buy back the original loans, the finance agency is seeking reimbursement for losses on the securities held by Fannie and Freddie.

The impending litigation underscores how almost exactly three years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the beginning of a financial crisis caused in large part by subprime lending, the legal fallout is mounting.

Read Full Article…

Wall Street Aristocracy Got $1.2 Trillion in Loans from Fed

Bloomberg
August 22, 2011

Citigroup Inc. (C) and Bank of America Corp. (BAC) were the reigning champions of finance in 2006 as home prices peaked, leading the 10 biggest U.S. banks and brokerage firms to their best year ever with $104 billion of profits.

By 2008, the housing market’s collapse forced those companies to take more than six times as much, $669 billion, in emergency loans from the U.S. Federal Reserve. The loans dwarfed the $160 billion in public bailouts the top 10 got from the U.S. Treasury, yet until now the full amounts have remained secret.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s unprecedented effort to keep the economy from plunging into depression included lending banks and other companies as much as $1.2 trillion of public money, about the same amount U.S. homeowners currently owe on 6.5 million delinquent and foreclosed mortgages. The largest borrower, Morgan Stanley (MS), got as much as $107.3 billion, while Citigroup took $99.5 billion and Bank of America $91.4 billion, according to a Bloomberg News compilation of data obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, months of litigation and an act of Congress.

“These are all whopping numbers,” said Robert Litan, a former Justice Department official who in the 1990s served on a commission probing the causes of the savings and loan crisis. “You’re talking about the aristocracy of American finance going down the tubes without the federal money.”

(View the Bloomberg interactive graphic to chart the Fed’s financial bailout.)

Foreign Borrowers

It wasn’t just American finance. Almost half of the Fed’s top 30 borrowers, measured by peak balances, were European firms. They included Edinburgh-based Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, which took $84.5 billion, the most of any non-U.S. lender, and Zurich-based UBS AG (UBSN), which got $77.2 billion. Germany’s Hypo Real Estate Holding AG borrowed $28.7 billion, an average of $21 million for each of its 1,366 employees.

The largest borrowers also included Dexia SA (DEXB), Belgium’s biggest bank by assets, and Societe Generale SA, based in Paris, whose bond-insurance prices have surged in the past month as investors speculated that the spreading sovereign debt crisis in Europe might increase their chances of default.

The $1.2 trillion peak on Dec. 5, 2008 — the combined outstanding balance under the seven programs tallied by Bloomberg — was almost three times the size of the U.S. federal budget deficit that year and more than the total earnings of all federally insured banks in the U.S. for the decade through 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Peak Balance

The balance was more than 25 times the Fed’s pre-crisis lending peak of $46 billion on Sept. 12, 2001, the day after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon. Denominated in $1 bills, the $1.2 trillion would fill 539 Olympic-size swimming pools.

The Fed has said it had “no credit losses” on any of the emergency programs, and a report by Federal Reserve Bank of New York staffers in February said the central bank netted $13 billion in interest and fee income from the programs from August 2007 through December 2009.

“We designed our broad-based emergency programs to both effectively stem the crisis and minimize the financial risks to the U.S. taxpayer,” said James Clouse, deputy director of the Fed’s division of monetary affairs in Washington. “Nearly all of our emergency-lending programs have been closed. We have incurred no losses and expect no losses.”

While the 18-month U.S. recession that ended in June 2009 after a 5.1 percent contraction in gross domestic product was nowhere near the four-year, 27 percent decline between August 1929 and March 1933, banks and the economy remain stressed.

Odds of Recession

The odds of another recession have climbed during the past six months, according to five of nine economists on the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research, an academic panel that dates recessions.

Bank of America’s bond-insurance prices last week surged to a rate of $342,040 a year for coverage on $10 million of debt, above where Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEHMQ)’s bond insurance was priced at the start of the week before the firm collapsed. Citigroup’s shares are trading below the split-adjusted price of $28 that they hit on the day the bank’s Fed loans peaked in January 2009. The U.S. unemployment rate was at 9.1 percent in July, compared with 4.7 percent in November 2007, before the recession began.

Homeowners are more than 30 days past due on their mortgage payments on 4.38 million properties in the U.S., and 2.16 million more properties are in foreclosure, representing a combined $1.27 trillion of unpaid principal, estimates Jacksonville, Florida-based Lender Processing Services Inc.

Liquidity Requirements

“Why in hell does the Federal Reserve seem to be able to find the way to help these entities that are gigantic?” U.S. Representative Walter B. Jones, a Republican from North Carolina, said at a June 1 congressional hearing in Washington on Fed lending disclosure. “They get help when the average businessperson down in eastern North Carolina, and probably across America, they can’t even go to a bank they’ve been banking with for 15 or 20 years and get a loan.”

The sheer size of the Fed loans bolsters the case for minimum liquidity requirements that global regulators last year agreed to impose on banks for the first time, said Litan, now a vice president at the Kansas City, Missouri-based Kauffman Foundation, which supports entrepreneurship research. Liquidity refers to the daily funds a bank needs to operate, including cash to cover depositor withdrawals.

The rules, which mandate that banks keep enough cash and easily liquidated assets on hand to survive a 30-day crisis, don’t take effect until 2015. Another proposed requirement for lenders to keep “stable funding” for a one-year horizon was postponed until at least 2018 after banks showed they’d have to raise as much as $6 trillion in new long-term debt to comply.

‘Stark Illustration’

Regulators are “not going to go far enough to prevent this from happening again,” said Kenneth Rogoff, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund and now an economics professor at Harvard University.

Reforms undertaken since the crisis might not insulate U.S. markets and financial institutions from the sovereign budget and debt crises facing Greece, Ireland and Portugal, according to the U.S. Financial Stability Oversight Council, a 10-member body created by the Dodd-Frank Act and led by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

“The recent financial crisis provides a stark illustration of how quickly confidence can erode and financial contagion can spread,” the council said in its July 26 report.

21,000 Transactions

Any new rescues by the U.S. central bank would be governed by transparency laws adopted in 2010 that require the Fed to disclose borrowers after two years.

Fed officials argued for more than two years that releasing the identities of borrowers and the terms of their loans would stigmatize banks, damaging stock prices or leading to depositor runs. A group of the biggest commercial banks last year asked the U.S. Supreme Court to keep at least some Fed borrowings secret. In March, the high court declined to hear that appeal, and the central bank made an unprecedented release of records.

Data gleaned from 29,346 pages of documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and from other Fed databases of more than 21,000 transactions make clear for the first time how deeply the world’s largest banks depended on the U.S. central bank to stave off cash shortfalls. Even as the firms asserted in news releases or earnings calls that they had ample cash, they drew Fed funding in secret, avoiding the stigma of weakness.

Morgan Stanley Borrowing

Two weeks after Lehman’s bankruptcy in September 2008, Morgan Stanley countered concerns that it might be next to go by announcing it had “strong capital and liquidity positions.” The statement, in a Sept. 29, 2008, press release about a $9 billion investment from Tokyo-based Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc., said nothing about Morgan Stanley’s Fed loans.

That was the same day as the firm’s $107.3 billion peak in borrowing from the central bank, which was the source of almost all of Morgan Stanley’s available cash, according to the lending data and documents released more than two years later by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. The amount was almost three times the company’s total profits over the past decade, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Mark Lake, a spokesman for New York-based Morgan Stanley, said the crisis caused the industry to “fundamentally re- evaluate” the way it manages its cash.

“We have taken the lessons we learned from that period and applied them to our liquidity-management program to protect both our franchise and our clients going forward,” Lake said. He declined to say what changes the bank had made.

Acceptable Collateral

In most cases, the Fed demanded collateral for its loans — Treasuries or corporate bonds and mortgage bonds that could be seized and sold if the money wasn’t repaid. That meant the central bank’s main risk was that collateral pledged by banks that collapsed would be worth less than the amount borrowed.

As the crisis deepened, the Fed relaxed its standards for acceptable collateral. Typically, the central bank accepts only bonds with the highest credit grades, such as U.S. Treasuries. By late 2008, it was accepting “junk” bonds, those rated below investment grade. It even took stocks, which are first to get wiped out in a liquidation.

Morgan Stanley borrowed $61.3 billion from one Fed program in September 2008, pledging a total of $66.5 billion of collateral, according to Fed documents. Securities pledged included $21.5 billion of stocks, $6.68 billion of bonds with a junk credit rating and $19.5 billion of assets with an “unknown rating,” according to the documents. About 25 percent of the collateral was foreign-denominated.

‘Willingness to Lend’

“What you’re looking at is a willingness to lend against just about anything,” said Robert Eisenbeis, a former research director at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and now chief monetary economist in Atlanta for Sarasota, Florida-based Cumberland Advisors Inc.

The lack of private-market alternatives for lending shows how skeptical trading partners and depositors were about the value of the banks’ capital and collateral, Eisenbeis said.

“The markets were just plain shut,” said Tanya Azarchs, former head of bank research at Standard & Poor’s and now an independent consultant in Briarcliff Manor, New York. “If you needed liquidity, there was only one place to go.”

Even banks that survived the crisis without government capital injections tapped the Fed through programs that promised confidentiality. London-based Barclays Plc (BARC) borrowed $64.9 billion and Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank AG (DBK) got $66 billion. Sarah MacDonald, a spokeswoman for Barclays, and John Gallagher, a spokesman for Deutsche Bank, declined to comment.

Below-Market Rates

While the Fed’s last-resort lending programs generally charge above-market interest rates to deter routine borrowing, that practice sometimes flipped during the crisis. On Oct. 20, 2008, for example, the central bank agreed to make $113.3 billion of 28-day loans through its Term Auction Facility at a rate of 1.1 percent, according to a press release at the time.

The rate was less than a third of the 3.8 percent that banks were charging each other to make one-month loans on that day. Bank of America and Wachovia Corp. each got $15 billion of the 1.1 percent TAF loans, followed by Royal Bank of Scotland’s RBS Citizens NA unit with $10 billion, Fed data show.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), the New York-based lender that touted its “fortress balance sheet” at least 16 times in press releases and conference calls from October 2007 through February 2010, took as much as $48 billion in February 2009 from TAF. The facility, set up in December 2007, was a temporary alternative to the discount window, the central bank’s 97-year-old primary lending program to help banks in a cash squeeze.

‘Larger Than TARP’

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), which in 2007 was the most profitable securities firm in Wall Street history, borrowed $69 billion from the Fed on Dec. 31, 2008. Among the programs New York-based Goldman Sachs tapped after the Lehman bankruptcy was the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, or PDCF, designed to lend money to brokerage firms ineligible for the Fed’s bank-lending programs.

Michael Duvally, a spokesman for Goldman Sachs, declined to comment.

The Fed’s liquidity lifelines may increase the chances that banks engage in excessive risk-taking with borrowed money, Rogoff said. Such a phenomenon, known as moral hazard, occurs if banks assume the Fed will be there when they need it, he said. The size of bank borrowings “certainly shows the Fed bailout was in many ways much larger than TARP,” Rogoff said.

TARP is the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, a $700 billion bank-bailout fund that provided capital injections of $45 billion each to Citigroup and Bank of America, and $10 billion to Morgan Stanley. Because most of the Treasury’s investments were made in the form of preferred stock, they were considered riskier than the Fed’s loans, a type of senior debt.

Dodd-Frank Requirement

In December, in response to the Dodd-Frank Act, the Fed released 18 databases detailing its temporary emergency-lending programs.

Congress required the disclosure after the Fed rejected requests in 2008 from the late Bloomberg News reporter Mark Pittman and other media companies that sought details of its loans under the Freedom of Information Act. After fighting to keep the data secret, the central bank released unprecedented information about its discount window and other programs under court order in March 2011.

Bloomberg News combined Fed databases made available in December and July with the discount-window records released in March to produce daily totals for banks across all the programs, including the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility, Commercial Paper Funding Facility, discount window, PDCF, TAF, Term Securities Lending Facility and single-tranche open market operations. The programs supplied loans from August 2007 through April 2010.

Rolling Crisis

The result is a timeline illustrating how the credit crisis rolled from one bank to another as financial contagion spread.

Fed borrowings by Societe Generale (GLE), France’s second-biggest bank, peaked at $17.4 billion in May 2008, four months after the Paris-based lender announced a record 4.9 billion-euro ($7.2 billion) loss on unauthorized stock-index futures bets by former trader Jerome Kerviel.

Morgan Stanley’s top borrowing came four months later, after Lehman’s bankruptcy. Citigroup crested in January 2009, as did 43 other banks, the largest number of peak borrowings for any month during the crisis. Bank of America’s heaviest borrowings came two months after that.

Sixteen banks, including Plano, Texas-based Beal Financial Corp. and Jacksonville, Florida-based EverBank Financial Corp., didn’t hit their peaks until February or March 2010.

Using Subsidiaries

“At no point was there a material risk to the Fed or the taxpayer, as the loan required collateralization,” said Reshma Fernandes, a spokeswoman for EverBank, which borrowed as much as $250 million.

Banks maximized their borrowings by using subsidiaries to tap Fed programs at the same time. In March 2009, Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America drew $78 billion from one facility through two banking units and $11.8 billion more from two other programs through its broker-dealer, Bank of America Securities LLC.

Banks also shifted balances among Fed programs. Many preferred the TAF because it carried less of the stigma associated with the discount window, often seen as the last resort for lenders in distress, according to a January 2011 paper by researchers at the New York Fed.

After the Lehman bankruptcy, hedge funds began pulling their cash out of Morgan Stanley, fearing it might be the next to collapse, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission said in a January report, citing interviews with former Chief Executive Officer John Mack and then-Treasurer David Wong.

Borrowings Surge

Morgan Stanley’s borrowings from the PDCF surged to $61.3 billion on Sept. 29 from zero on Sept. 14. At the same time, its loans from the Term Securities Lending Facility, or TSLF, rose to $36 billion from $3.5 billion. Morgan Stanley treasury reports released by the FCIC show the firm had $99.8 billion of liquidity on Sept. 29, a figure that included Fed borrowings.

“The cash flow was all drying up,” said Roger Lister, a former Fed economist who’s now head of financial-institutions coverage at credit-rating firm DBRS Inc. in New York. “Did they have enough resources to cope with it? The answer would be yes, but they needed the Fed.”

While Morgan Stanley’s Fed demands were the most acute, Citigroup was the most chronic borrower among the largest U.S. banks. The New York-based company borrowed $10 million from the TAF on the program’s first day in December 2007 and had more than $25 billion outstanding under all programs by May 2008, according to Bloomberg data.

Tapping Six Programs

By Nov. 21, when Citigroup began talks with the government to get a $20 billion capital injection on top of the $25 billion received a month earlier, its Fed borrowings had doubled to about $50 billion.

Over the next two months the amount almost doubled again. On Jan. 20, as the stock sank below $3 for the first time in 16 years amid investor concerns that the lender’s capital cushion might be inadequate, Citigroup was tapping six Fed programs at once. Its total borrowings amounted to more than twice the federal Department of Education’s 2011 budget.

Citigroup was in debt to the Fed on seven out of every 10 days from August 2007 through April 2010, the most frequent U.S. borrower among the 100 biggest publicly traded firms by pre- crisis market valuation. On average, the bank had a daily balance at the Fed of almost $20 billion.

‘Help Motivate Others’

“Citibank basically was sustained by the Fed for a very long time,” said Richard Herring, a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia who has studied financial crises.

Jon Diat, a Citigroup spokesman, said the bank made use of programs that “achieved the goal of instilling confidence in the markets.”

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said in a letter to shareholders last year that his bank avoided many government programs. It did use TAF, Dimon said in the letter, “but this was done at the request of the Federal Reserve to help motivate others to use the system.”

The bank, the second-largest in the U.S. by assets, first tapped the TAF in May 2008, six months after the program debuted, and then zeroed out its borrowings in September 2008. The next month, it started using TAF again.

On Feb. 26, 2009, more than a year after TAF’s creation, JPMorgan’s borrowings under the program climbed to $48 billion. On that day, the overall TAF balance for all banks hit its peak, $493.2 billion. Two weeks later, the figure began declining.

“Our prior comment is accurate,” said Howard Opinsky, a spokesman for JPMorgan.

‘The Cheapest Source’

Herring, the University of Pennsylvania professor, said some banks may have used the program to maximize profits by borrowing “from the cheapest source, because this was supposed to be secret and never revealed.”

Whether banks needed the Fed’s money for survival or used it because it offered advantageous rates, the central bank’s lender-of-last-resort role amounts to a free insurance policy for banks guaranteeing the arrival of funds in a disaster, Herring said.

An IMF report last October said regulators should consider charging banks for the right to access central bank funds.

“The extent of official intervention is clear evidence that systemic liquidity risks were under-recognized and mispriced by both the private and public sectors,” the IMF said in a separate report in April.

Access to Fed backup support “leads you to subject yourself to greater risks,” Herring said. “If it’s not there, you’re not going to take the risks that would put you in trouble and require you to have access to that kind of funding.”

A Nova Ordem Mundial: As Oito Famílias

Por Dean Henderson
Tradução de Luis R. Miranda
03 de junho de 2011

Parte 1 de uma série de quatro

Os Quatro Cavaleiros do sistema bancário (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup e Wells Fargo) são proprietários dos Quatro Cavaleiros do petróleo (Exxon Mobil, Royal holandesa Shell, a BP Amoco e Chevron Texaco), juntamente com o Deutsche Bank , BNP, Barclays e outros gigantes europeus. Mas o seu monopólio sobre a economia mundial não pára por aí.

Segundo documentos apresentados à SEC, os Quatro Cavaleiros do sistema bancário estão entre os dez maiores acionistas de quase todas as corporações da Fortune 500. [1]

Então, quem são os accionistas dos bancos?

Esta informação é vigiada de perto. Minhas consultas com os reguladores bancários sobre os proprietários de ações dos 25 principais bancos dos EUA receberam status ao abrigo da Lei de Liberdade de Informação, antes de ser rejeitadas por razões de “segurança nacional”. Isto é bastante irônico, já que muitos dos accionistas dos bancos residem na Europa.

Um repositório importante para a riqueza da oligarquia mundial destes bancos é o U.S. Trust Corporation – fundada em 1853 e agora propriedade do Bank of America. Um dos curadores mais recentes e administrador honorário foi Walter Rothschild. Outros diretores foram Daniel Davison da JP Morgan Chase, Richard Tucker, Exxon Mobil, Daniel Rodrigues de Citigroup e Marshall Schwartz, do Morgan Stanley. [2]

JW McCallister, quem iníciou na indústria do petróleo na casa de Saud, escreveu no The Grim Reaper que as informações obtidas sobre os banqueiros árabes decreviam que 80% da Reserva Federal de Nova York, a agência mais poderosa do Fed, é controlada por oito famílias, quatro das quais vivem em EUA. São Goldman Sachs, Rockefeller, Lehman Loebs Kuhn de Nova York, os Rothschilds de Paris e Londres, Warburg, em Hamburgo, Lazards Paris, e os israelenses Moisés Seifs de Roma.

CPA Thomas D. Schauf corrobora McCallister, acrescentando que dez bancos controlam as doze agências da Reserva Federal. Os nomeados NM Rothschild em Londres, Rothschild Bank em Berlim, Warburg Bank of Hamburg Warburg Bank of Amesterdão, do Lehman Brothers em Nova York, Lazard Brothers de Paris, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Israel Moisés Seif Banco da Itália, o Goldman Sachs de Nova York e o Banco JP Morgan Chase em Nova York. Ele lista Schauf William Rockefeller, Paul Warburg Jacob Schiff e James Stillman como donos de grandes parcelas da Reserva Federal. [3] Schiff é um privilegiado dentro do Kuhn Loeb. O Stillman, privilegiados do Citigroup, juntou-se com o clã Rockefeller.

Eustace Mullins chegou a conclusões semelhantes em seu livro Os Segredos da Reserva Federal, que mostra gráficos de ligação da Reserva Federal e os bancos participantes com as famílias Rothschild, Warburg, Rockefeller e outras. [4]

O controle exercido pelas famílias de banqueiros sobre a economia global não pode ser exagerada e é um segredo bem guardado. Seu braço na mídia corporativa é rápido para desacreditar qualquer informação que expõe este cartel privado de bancos centrais como “teoria da conspiração”. Entretanto, os fatos estão provando isso.

A Casa de Morgan

A Reserva Federal, nasceu em 1913, mesmo ano em que J. Pierpont Morgan, um chefão do setor bancário dos EUA morreu e quando a Fundação Rockefeller foi formada. A Casa de Morgan presidida finanças americanas a na esquina de Wall Street e Broad Street, como o banco central dos EUA desde 1838, quando George Peabody a fundou em Londres.

Peabody era um parceiro de negócios de Rothschild. Em 1952, Eustace Mullins apresentou a hipótese de que Morgan não era mais do que um agente de Rothschild. Mullins escreveu que os Rothschild, “… preferiram trabalhar no anonimato nos EUA por trás da fachada de JP Morgan & Company. ” [5]

O autor Gabriel Kolko disse, “as actividades de Morgan entre 1895-1896 na venda de títulos do Tesouro dos U.S. na Europa é baseada em uma aliança com a Casa de Rothschild. “[6]

Os tentáculos do Morgan se espalharam rapidamente pelo mundo. Morgan Grenfell estava operando em Londres. Morgan Cerulean et Paris. Os primos de Rothschild Lambert & Company criou Drexel, na Filadélfia.

A Casa de Morgan assiste aos Astor, DuPont, Guggenheim, Vanderbilt e Rockefeller. Esta casa financiou o lançamento do AT & T, General Motors, General Electric e DuPont bem como o banco Rothschild e Baring com sede em Londres. Morgan tornou-se parte da estrutura de poder em muitos países.

Em 1890, a Casa de Morgan fez empréstimos ao banco central do Egito, financiou a construção das ferrovias russas, as obrigações dos governos estaduais brasileiros bem como na Argentina com projetos de obras públicas. Uma recessão em 1893 aumentou o poder de Morgan. Naquele ano, Morgan salvou o governo dos EUA de uma corrida bancária (a bank run), formando uma união para fortalecer as reservas do governo, com um carregamento de US $ 62 milhões em ouro de Rothschild. [7]

Morgan era a força motriz por trás da expansão ocidental nos EUA, o financiamento e controle de acordos através de votos de confiança. Em 1879, Morgan financiou a New York Ferrovia Central a uma taxa preferencial para o envio do monopólio da Standard Oil, cimentando a relação entre Rockefeller e Morgan.

A Casa de Morgan, em seguida, veio sob o controle dos Rothschild e Rockefeller. A manchete do New York Herald, afirmou: “Os reis do trem são um Trust gigantesco.” J. Pierpont Morgan, disse alegremente certa vez: “A competição é um pecado”. “Pense sobre isso.” Toda a competição do tráfego ferroviário ao oeste de São Luís estava nas mãos de trinta homens. [8]

Morgan e o banqueiro de Edward Harriman, Kuhn Loeb detinha o monopólio do transporte ferroviário, enquanto as dinastias bancárias de Lehman, Goldman Sachs, Lazard se juntaram com Rockefeller para monopolizar o controle da base industrial dos EUA. [9]

Em 1903, o Banker’s Trust foi fundado por oito famílias. Benjamin Strong, foi o primeiro governador da Reserva Federal de Nova York. A criação da Reserva Federal em 1913 fundiu o poder das oito famílias com a força militar e da diplomacia do governo dos EUA. Se seus empréstimos estrangeiros não eram pagos, os oligarcas podiam enviar o exercito americano para cobrar as dívidas. Morgan, Chase e Citibank formaram um sindicato de empréstimos internacionais.

A Casa de Morgan era aconchegante com a Câmara Britânica de Windsor e a Câmara Italiana de Sabóia. Os Kuhn Loebs, Warburg, Lehman, Lazards, Israel Moisés Seifs e Goldman Sachs também tem laços estreitos com a realeza européia. Em 1895, Morgan controlava o fluxo de ouro dentro e fora dos EUA. A primeira onda de fusões da América estava na sua infância e estava sendo promovida pelos banqueiros. Em 1897, ocorreram sessenta e nove fusões industriais. Em 1899 ocorreram 1200. Em 1904, John Moody – fundador da Moody’s Investor Services – disse que era impossível falar dos interesses de Rockefeller e os interesses de Morgan separadamente. [10]

A desconfiança pública sobre as fusões começou a surgir. Muitos foram considerados traidores que trabalham para as antigas potências europeias. Standard Oil de Rockefeller, U.S. Steel do Andrew Carnegie e as ferrovias do Edward Harriman foram financiados por meio do banqueiro Jacob Schiff de Kuhn Loeb, que trabalhou em estreita colaboração com os Rothschilds da Europa.

Vários países ocidentais proibiram a entrada dos banqueiros. O pregador populista William Jennings Bryan foi três vezes candidato democrata para presidente desde 1896 -1908. O tema central de sua campanha foi que a América estava caindo em uma armadilha, que incluía “servidão financeira para a capital britânica”. Teddy Roosevelt derrotou Bryan em 1908, mas foi forçado a promulgar a Lei Sherman Anti-Trust. Em seguida, Roosevelt começou sua perseguição da U.S. Standard Oil Trust.

Em 1912, foram realizadas as audiências Pujol para analisar a concentração de poder em Wall Street. Naquele mesmo ano, a Sra. Edward Harriman vendeu suas ações da Guaranty Trust Bank de Nova York para o JP Morgan, Morgan Guaranty Trust foi então criado. O juiz Louis Brandeis, convenceu o presidente Woodrow Wilson para exigir o fim das associações entre os diretores de bancos. Em 1914, foi aprovada a Lei Clayton Anti-Trust.

Jack Morgan – filho e sucessor de J. Pierpont – respondeu ao chamado de seus clientes do Morgan Remington e Winchester para aumentar a produção de armas. Ele argumentou que os EUA precisava entrar na Primeira Guerra Mundial. Picado pela Fundação Carnegie e outros frentes oligárquicos, Woodrow Wilson aceitou a sugestão. Como Charles Tansill escreveu em “América vai para a guerra“, “Muito antes do início do conflito, a empresa francesa de Rothschild Freres contactou Morgan & Company em Nova York para pedir emprestado $ 100 milhões, uma parte substancial do que viria a ser utilizado em EUA para pagar as compras francesas de produtos americanos. ”

A Casa de Morgan financiou a metade da intervenção dos EUA na guerra, em quanto ele recebia comissões para permitir a participação de empreiteiros, como a General Electric, DuPont, US Steel, Kennecott y ASARCO. Todos eram clientes do Morgan. Morgan também financiou a guerra da Grã-Bretanha contra os Boers na África do Sul e a Guerra Franco-Prussiana. A Conferência de Paz de Paris de 1919 foi liderada por Morgan, que liderou o esforço conjunto para a reconstrução da Alemanha e os aliados. [11]
Em 1930, ressurgiu o populismo nos Estados Unidos depois que Goldman Sachs, Lehman e outros beneficiaram-se da crise de 1929. [12] O presidente do Comitê Bancário do Congresso, Louis McFadden (D-NY) disse sobre a Grande Depressão “, foi um acidente. Foi uma ocorrência cuidadosamente criada artificialmente … Os banqueiros internacionais buscaram criar um estado de desespero para emergir como os nossos dirigentes e proprietários. ”
O senador Gerald Nye (D-ND) presidiu uma investigação em 1936. Nye concluiu que a Casa de Morgan tinha levado EUA a participar na Primeira Guerra Mundial para proteger o crédito, os empréstimos e criar uma indústria de armamento. Nye mais tarde produziu um documento intitulado “A Próxima Guerra”, que cinicamente se refere ao” velho truque para enganar a deusa da democracia “, através do qual o Japão poderia ser usado para atrair EUA a II Guerra Mundial.

Em 1937, o Secretário do Interior, Harold Ickes alertou sobre a influência de “60 famílias americanas.” O historiador Ferdinand Lundberg mais tarde escreveu um livro com o mesmo título. Na Suprema Corte, William O. Douglas relatou: “A influência do Morgan … como a mais perniciosa, no presente na indústria e finanças.”

Jack Morgan respondeu levando os EUA para a II Guerra Mundial. Morgan tinha relações próximas com a família Iwasaki e Dan – os dois clãs mais ricos do Japão – que são donos da Mitsubishi e Mitsui, respectivamente, porque estas empresas surgiram de acordos no século XVII. Quando o Japão invadiu Manchúria, matando camponeses chineses em Nanquim, Morgan minimizou o incidente. Morgan também tinha uma relação estreita com o fascista italiano Benito Mussolini, enquanto a Alemanha nazista, em quanto o alemão nazi Dr. Hjalmar Schacht era um link do Banco Morgan durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial. Após a guerra Hjalmar se encontrou com um representantes de Morgan Schacht no Banco de Compensações Internacionais (Bank of International Setlements ou BIS) na Basiléia, Suíça. [13]

A Casa dos Rockefeller

O BIS é o banco mais poderoso do mundo, um banco central global das oito famílias que controla os bancos centrais privados da maioria dos países ocidentais, incluindo países em desenvolvimento. O primeiro presidente do BIS foi o banqueiro de Rockefeller McGarrah Gates, um funcionário do Chase Manhattan e da Reserva Federal. McGarrah era o avô do ex-diretor da CIA, Richard Helms. O Rockefeller, como Morgan, tinha laços estreitos com Londres. David Icke escreve em The Children of the Matrix, que o Rockefeller e o Morgan eram apenas “mensageiros” dos Rothschilds na Europa. [14]

O BIS é propriedade da Reserva Federal, o Banco da Inglaterra, Banco da Itália, Banco do Canadá, Banco Nacional da Suíça, Nederlandsche Bank, do Bundesbank e do Banco da França.

O historiador Carroll Quigley escreveu em seu livro Tragedia e Esperanca (Tragedy and Hope), que o BIS foi parte de um plano “para criar um sistema mundial de controle financeiro em mãos privadas capazes de dominar o sistema político de cada país e a economia mundial juntos … para ser controlado pelos bancos centrais de maneira feudal e em conjunto por acordos secretos “.

O governo dos EUA tinha uma desconfiança histórica do BIS, mas o seu lobby para desmantelá-lo não teve efeito em 1944, durante a reunião Bretton Woods, após a Segunda Guerra Mundial. Em vez disso, o poder das oito famílias aumentou com a criação, também em Bretton Woods, do FMI e o Banco Mundial. A Reserva Federal tomou medidas contra o BIS somente em setembro de 1994. [15]

O BIS mantém pelo menos 10% das reservas monetárias de pelo menos 80 dos bancos centrais do mundo, o FMI e outras instituições multilaterais. Serve como agente fiscal de acordos internacionais, coleta informações sobre a economia mundial e serve como um emprestador de última instância para evitar o colapso financeiro global.

O BPI promove um programa do capitalismo monopolista e fascismo. Este banco deu um empréstimo à Hungria em 1990, para garantir a privatização da economia daquele país. Serviu como um canal para o financiamento das Oito Famílias, que por sua vez financiaram o Adolf Hitler, dirigidas por J. Henrique Schroeder e Mendelsohn Warburg Bank de Amesterdão. Muitos pesquisadores afirmam que o BIS é a cabeça do gerenciamento de dinheiro proveniente da venda de drogas em todo o mundo. [16]

Não é por acaso que o BIS está baseado na Suíça, esconderijo favorito para a riqueza da aristocracia e a sede mundial da P-2 Maçônica Italiana, Alpine Lodge, bem como a Nazista International. Outras instituições que são controladas pelas Oito Famílias são o Fórum Econômico Mundial, a Conferência Monetária Internacional e a Organização Mundial do Comércio.

Bretton Woods foi uma bênção para as Oito Damílias. O FMI e o Banco Mundial foram o foco desta “nova ordem mundial”. Em 1944, os primeiros títulos do Banco Mundial foram acolhidos pela Morgan Stanley e First Boston. A família Lazard francesa tornou-se mais envolvida no interesse da Casa de Morgan. Lazard Freres, o maior banco de investimentos em França, é propriedade da Lazard e as famílias David-Weill, descendentes do banqueiro genovês representado por Michelle Davive. Um presidente e CEO do Citigroup foi Sanford Weill.

Em 1968, Morgan Guaranty lançou o Euro-Clear, um banco de compensação em Bruxelas, para os valores de eurodólares. Foi o primeiro banco automatizado do seu tipo. Alguns chamaram o Euro-Clear “The Beast” ou a Besta. Bruxelas é a sede do novo Banco Central Europeu e a NATO. Em 1973, funcionarios de Morgan reuniram-se ilegalmente e secretamente nas Bermudas para ressuscitar a antiga Casa de Morgan, 20 anos antes da revogação da Lei Glass Steagall. Morgan e Rockefeller apoiaram financeiramente a Merrill Lynch, fazendo com que este banco ficasse dentro dos 5 grandes bancos de investimento dos EUA. Merrill é agora parte do Bank of America.

John D. Rockefeller usou sua riqueza do petróleo para comprar Equitable Trust, que tinha engolido os grandes bancos e corporações em 1920. A Grande Depressão ajudou a consolidar o poder de Rockefeller. Seu Chase Manhattan Bank fundiu com Kuhn Loeb Bank para formar Chase Manhattan, consolidando uma relação de família que tinha existido por um longo tempo. A Kuhn, Loeb tem financiado – com Rothschild – o Rockefeller para torna-lo o rei do petróleo. National City Bank de Cleveland, deu a John D. o dinheiro necessário para embarcar em sua monopolização da indústria do petróleo no EUA. O banco foi identificado em audiências no Congresso como um dos três bancos de propriedade do Rothschilds em EUA durante a década de 1870, quando se juntou com Rockefeller na Standard Oil de Nova York. [17]

Um membro do Rockefeller e a Standard Oil foi Edward Harkness, cuja família chegou a controlar o Chemical Bank. Outro foi James Stillman, cuja família controla Manufacturers Hanover Trust. Os dois bancos se uniram sob a égide do JP Morgan Chase. Duas das filhas de James Stillman casaram com dois dos filhos de William Rockefeller. As duas famílias controlam uma grande parte do Citigroup. [18]
No negócio de seguros, o Rockefeller controla Metropolitan Life, a Equitable Life, de Prudential e New York Life. Os bancos de Rockefeller controlam 25% de todos os ativos dos 50 maiores bancos comerciais dos EUA e 30% de todos os ativos das 50 maiores empresas de seguros. [19] As companhias de seguro, a primeira nos EUA, foi lançada pelos maçons através de seus Woodman da América, que desempenham um papel fundamental na lavagem de dinheiro do comércio de drogas nas Bermudas.

As empresas controladas por Rockefeller são a Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, BP Amoco, Marathon Oil, Freeport McMoran, Quaker Oats, Asarco, United, Delta, Northwest, a ITT, a International Harvester, a Xerox, a Boeing, a Westinghouse, a Hewlett-Packard, a Honeywell, International Paper, Pfizer, Motorola, Monsanto, Union Carbide e General Foods.

A Fundação Rockefeller tem estreitos laços financeiros com as Fundações Ford e Carnegie. Outras iniciativas filantrópicas da família sao o Rockefeller Brothers Fund, o Instituto Rockefeller de Pesquisa Médica, do Conselho Geral da Educação, a Universidade Rockefeller e da Universidade de Chicago, que produziu um fluxo constante de economistas de direita como apologistas do capital internacional, incluindo Milton Friedman.

A família é dona do 30 Rockefeller Plaza, onde a árvore de Natal nacional é acesa todos os anos, e o Rockefeller Center. David Rockefeller foi fundamental na construção das torres do World Trade Center. A casa principal da família Rockefeller é um imenso complexo no estado de Nova York, conhecido como Pocantico Hills. Eles também possuem um dúplex de 32 quartos, na Avenida 5 ª, em Manhattan, uma mansão em Washington, DC, Rancho Monte Sacro na Venezuela, plantações de café no Equador, várias fazendas no Brasil, uma propriedade imensa em Seal Harbor, Maine, resorts no Caribe, Havaí e Porto Rico. [20]

As famílias Dulles e Rockefeller são primos. Allen Dulles, quem criou a CIA com a ajuda dos nazistas, encobriu o assassinato de Kennedy durante a investigação da Comissão Warren e concordou com a Irmandade Muçulmana para executar assassinatos com ‘patsies’ que foram submetidos a lavagem de cérebro. [21]

O Irmão John Foster Dulles, presidiu a falsa Confiança de Goldman Sachs antes do crash da bolsa em 1929 e ajudou o seu irmão para derrubar governos no Irão e na Guatemala. Ambos eram membros da Skull & Bones, privilegiados do Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), e maçons grau 33 (o maior de todos). [22]

Os Rockefellers foram fundamentais na formação da política de despovoamento do Clube de Roma, em sua propriedade em Bellagio, Itália. Eles criaram a Comissão Trilateral na sua fazenda em Pocantico Hills. A família é um dos principais financiadores do movimento eugênico que levou ao poder a Hitler, a clonagem humana e a obsessão com o DNA na comunidade científica de EUA.

John Rockefeller Jr., dirigiu o Conselho da População até sua morte. [23] Seu filho homônimo é um senador da Virgínia Ocidental. O irmão Winthrop Rockefeller foi vice-governador do Arkansas e continua a ser o homem mais poderoso do estado. Em outubro de 1975, em entrevista com a revista Playboy, o vice-presidente Nelson Rockefeller, que também foi governador de Nova York, articulou uma visão paternalista da sua família: “Sou um grande crente no planejamento econômico, social, político, e militar do mundo inteiro. ”

Mas de todos os irmãos Rockefeller, David, fundador da Comissão Trilateral (TC), e presidente do Chase Manhattan, foi quem levou a agenda fascista da família em uma escala global. Ele defendeu o xá do Irã, o regime do apartheid sul-Africano e a junta militar de Pinochet no Chile. Ele foi o maior financiador do CFR, CT, e (durante a Guerra do Vietnã), o Comitê para uma Paz Efetiva e duradoura na Ásia- um contrato de bonança para aqueles que fizeram uma vida fora do conflito.

Nixon pediu-lhe para ser secretário do Tesouro, mas Rockefeller recusou a oferta de emprego sabendo que seu poder era muito maior. O autor Gary Allen escreveu no arquivo de Rockefeller, que em 1973, “David Rockefeller se reuniu com 27 chefes de estado, incluindo os chefes da Rússia e da China comunista”.

Após o golpe contra o primeiro ministro australiano Gough Whitlam em 1975, (realizado pela CIA e o Nugan Hand Bank, o seu lacaio na Coroa britânica, Malcolm Fraser, visitou os EUA, onde conheceu o presidente Gerald Ford, depois de conferenciar com David Rockefeller [24].

Na próxima semana: Parte II: Os maçons e o Banco dos Estados Unidos

Fontes de informação:

[1] 10K Filings of Fortune 500 Corporations to SEC. 3-91

[2] 10K Filing of US Trust Corporation to SEC. 6-28-95

[3] “The Federal Reserve ‘Fed Up’. Thomas Schauf. www.davidicke.com 1-02

[4] The Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Eustace Mullins. Bankers Research Institute. Staunton, VA. 1983. p.179

[5] Ibid. p.53

[6] The Triumph of Conservatism. Gabriel Kolko. MacMillan and Company New York. 1963. p.142

[7] Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History that Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons and the Great Pyramids. Jim Marrs. HarperCollins Publishers.New York. 2000. p.57

[8] The House of Morgan. Ron Chernow. Atlantic Monthly Press NewYork 1990

[9] Marrs. p.57

[10] Democracy for the Few. Michael Parenti. St. Martin’s Press. New York. 1977. p.178

[11] Chernow

[12] The Great Crash of 1929. John Kenneth Galbraith. Houghton, Mifflin Company. Boston. 1979. p.148

[13] Chernow

[14] Children of the Matrix. David Icke. Bridge of Love. Scottsdale, AZ. 2000

[15] The Confidence Game: How Un-Elected Central Bankers are Governing the Changed World Economy. Steven Solomon. Simon & Schuster. New York. 1995. p.112

[16] Marrs. p.180

[17] Ibid. p.45

[18] The Money Lenders: The People and Politics of the World Banking Crisis. Anthony Sampson. Penguin Books. New York. 1981

[19] The Rockefeller File. Gary Allen. ’76 Press. Seal Beach, CA. 1977

[20] Ibid

[21] Dope Inc.: The Book That Drove Kissinger Crazy. Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. Washington, DC. 1992

[22] Marrs.

[23] The Rockefeller Syndrome. Ferdinand Lundberg. Lyle Stuart Inc. Secaucus, NJ. 1975. p.296

[24] Marrs. p.53

The Federal Reserve Cartel: The Eight Families

by Dean Henderson
June 1, 2011

Part 1 of a four-part series

The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo) own the Four Horsemen of Oil (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP Amoco and Chevron Texaco); in tandem with Deutsche Bank, BNP, Barclays and other European old money behemoths.  But their monopoly over the global economy does not end at the edge of the oil patch. 

 According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation.[1]

 So who then are the stockholders in these money center banks? 

 This information is guarded much more closely.  My queries to bank regulatory agencies regarding stock ownership in the top 25 US bank holding companies were given Freedom of Information Act status, before being denied on “national security” grounds.  This is rather ironic, since many of the bank’s stockholders reside in Europe.

 One important repository for the wealth of the global oligarchy that owns these bank holding companies is US Trust Corporation – founded in 1853 and now owned by Bank of America.  A recent US Trust Corporate Director and Honorary Trustee was Walter Rothschild.  Other directors included Daniel Davison of JP Morgan Chase, Richard Tucker of Exxon Mobil, Daniel Roberts of Citigroup and Marshall Schwartz of Morgan Stanley. [2]

 J. W. McCallister, an oil industry insider with House of Saud connections, wrote in The Grim Reaper that information he acquired from Saudi bankers cited 80% ownership of the New York Federal Reserve Bank- by far the most powerful Fed branch- by just eight families, four of which reside in the US.  They are the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.

 CPA Thomas D. Schauf corroborates McCallister’s claims, adding that ten banks control all twelve Federal Reserve Bank branches.  He names N.M. Rothschild of London, Rothschild Bank of Berlin, Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Warburg Bank of Amsterdam, Lehman Brothers of New York, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy, Goldman Sachs of New York and JP Morgan Chase Bank of New York.  Schauf lists William Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff and James Stillman as individuals who own large shares of the Fed. [3]  The Schiffs are insiders at Kuhn Loeb.  The Stillmans are Citigroup insiders, who married into the Rockefeller clan at the turn of the century.

 Eustace Mullins came to the same conclusions in his book The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, in which he displays charts connecting the Fed and its member banks to the families of Rothschild, Warburg, Rockefeller and the others. [4] 

 The control that these banking families exert over the global economy cannot be overstated and is quite intentionally shrouded in secrecy.  Their corporate media arm is quick to discredit any information exposing this private central banking cartel as “conspiracy theory”.  Yet the facts remain.

 The House of Morgan

 The Federal Reserve Bank was born in 1913, the same year US banking scion J. Pierpont Morgan died and the Rockefeller Foundation was formed.  The House of Morgan presided over American finance from the corner of Wall Street and Broad, acting as quasi-US central bank since 1838, when George Peabody founded it in London. 

 Peabody was a business associate of the Rothschilds.  In 1952 Fed researcher Eustace Mullins put forth the supposition that the Morgans were nothing more than Rothschild agents.  Mullins wrote that the Rothschilds, “…preferred to operate anonymously in the US behind the facade of J.P. Morgan & Company”. [5] 

 Author Gabriel Kolko stated, “Morgan’s activities in 1895-1896 in selling US gold bonds in Europe were based on an alliance with the House of Rothschild.” [6]

 The Morgan financial octopus wrapped its tentacles quickly around the globe.  Morgan Grenfell operated in London.  Morgan et Ceruled Paris.  The Rothschild’s Lambert cousins set up Drexel & Company in Philadelphia. 

 The House of Morgan catered to the Astors, DuPonts, Guggenheims, Vanderbilts and Rockefellers.  It financed the launch of AT&T, General Motors, General Electric and DuPont.  Like the London-based Rothschild and Barings banks, Morgan became part of the power structure in many countries.

 By 1890 the House of Morgan was lending to Egypt’s central bank, financing Russian railroads, floating Brazilian provincial government bonds and funding Argentine public works projects.  A recession in 1893 enhanced Morgan’s power.  That year Morgan saved the US government from a bank panic, forming a syndicate to prop up government reserves with a shipment of $62 million worth of Rothschild gold. [7]

 Morgan was the driving force behind Western expansion in the US, financing and controlling West-bound railroads through voting trusts.  In 1879 Cornelius Vanderbilt’s Morgan-financed New York Central Railroad gave preferential shipping rates to John D. Rockefeller’s budding Standard Oil monopoly, cementing the Rockefeller/Morgan relationship. 

 The House of Morgan now fell under Rothschild and Rockefeller family control.  A New York Herald headline read, “Railroad Kings Form Gigantic Trust”.  J. Pierpont Morgan, who once stated, “Competition is a sin”, now opined gleefully, “Think of it.  All competing railroad traffic west of St. Louis placed in the control of about thirty men.”[8]

 Morgan and Edward Harriman’s banker Kuhn Loeb held a monopoly over the railroads, while banking dynasties Lehman, Goldman Sachs and Lazard joined the Rockefellers in controlling the US industrial base. [9] 

 In 1903 Banker’s Trust was set up by the Eight Families.  Benjamin Strong of Banker’s Trust was the first Governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.  The 1913 creation of the Fed fused the power of the Eight Families to the military and diplomatic might of the US government.  If their overseas loans went unpaid, the oligarchs could now deploy US Marines to collect the debts.  Morgan, Chase and Citibank formed an international lending syndicate.

 The House of Morgan was cozy with the British House of Windsor and the Italian House of Savoy.  The Kuhn Loebs, Warburgs, Lehmans, Lazards, Israel Moses Seifs and Goldman Sachs also had close ties to European royalty.  By 1895 Morgan controlled the flow of gold in and out of the US.  The first American wave of mergers was in its infancy and was being promoted by the bankers.  In 1897 there were sixty-nine industrial mergers.  By 1899 there were twelve-hundred.  In 1904 John Moody – founder of Moody’s Investor Services – said it was impossible to talk of Rockefeller and Morgan interests as separate. [10] 

 Public distrust of the combine spread.  Many considered them traitors working for European old money.  Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, Andrew Carnegie’s US Steel and Edward Harriman’s railroads were all financed by banker Jacob Schiff at Kuhn Loeb, who worked closely with the European Rothschilds.

 Several Western states banned the bankers.  Populist preacher William Jennings Bryan was thrice the Democratic nominee for President from 1896 -1908.  The central theme of his anti-imperialist campaign was that America was falling into a trap of “financial servitude to British capital”.  Teddy Roosevelt defeated Bryan in 1908, but was forced by this spreading populist wildfire to enact the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.  He then went after the Standard Oil Trust.

 In 1912 the Pujo hearings were held, addressing concentration of power on Wall Street.  That same year Mrs. Edward Harriman sold her substantial shares in New York’s Guaranty Trust Bank to J.P. Morgan, creating Morgan Guaranty Trust.  Judge Louis Brandeis convinced President Woodrow Wilson to call for an end to interlocking board directorates.  In 1914 the Clayton Anti-Trust Act was passed.

 Jack Morgan – J. Pierpont’s son and successor – responded by calling on Morgan clients Remington and Winchester to increase arms production.  He argued that the US needed to enter WWI.  Goaded by the Carnegie Foundation and other oligarchy fronts, Wilson accommodated.  As Charles Tansill wrote in America Goes to War, “Even before the clash of arms, the French firm of Rothschild Freres cabled to Morgan & Company in New York suggesting the flotation of a loan of $100 million, a substantial part of which was to be left in the US to pay for French purchases of American goods.”

 The House of Morgan financed half the US war effort, while receiving commissions for lining up contractors like GE, Du Pont, US Steel, Kennecott and ASARCO.  All were Morgan clients.  Morgan also financed the British Boer War in South Africa and the Franco-Prussian War.  The 1919 Paris Peace Conference was presided over by Morgan, which led both German and Allied reconstruction efforts. [11]

 In the 1930’s populism resurfaced in America after Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bank and others profited from the Crash of 1929. [12]  House Banking Committee Chairman Louis McFadden (D-NY) said of the Great Depression, “It was no accident.  It was a carefully contrived occurrence…The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as rulers of us all”.

 Sen. Gerald Nye (D-ND) chaired a munitions investigation in 1936.  Nye concluded that the House of Morgan had plunged the US into WWI to protect loans and create a booming arms industry.  Nye later produced a document titled The Next War, which cynically referred to “the old goddess of democracy trick”, through which Japan could be used to lure the US into WWII. 

 In 1937 Interior Secretary Harold Ickes warned of the influence of “America’s 60 Families”.  Historian Ferdinand Lundberg later penned a book of the exact same title.  Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas decried, “Morgan influence…the most pernicious one in industry and finance today.”

 Jack Morgan responded by nudging the US towards WWII.  Morgan had close relations with the Iwasaki and Dan families – Japan’s two wealthiest clans – who have owned Mitsubishi and Mitsui, respectively, since the companies emerged from 17th Century shogunates.  When Japan invaded Manchuria, slaughtering Chinese peasants at Nanking, Morgan downplayed the incident.  Morgan also had close relations with Italian fascist Benito Mussolini, while German Nazi Dr. Hjalmer Schacht was a Morgan Bank liaison during WWII.  After the war Morgan representatives met with Schacht at the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland. [13]

 The House of Rockefeller

 BIS is the most powerful bank in the world, a global central bank for the Eight Families who control the private central banks of almost all Western and developing nations. The first President of BIS was Rockefeller banker Gates McGarrah- an official at Chase Manhattan and the Federal Reserve.  McGarrah was the grandfather of former CIA director Richard Helms.  The Rockefellers- like the Morgans- had close ties to London. David Icke writes in Children of the Matrix, that the Rockefellers and Morgans were just “gofers” for the European Rothschilds. [14]

 BIS is owned by the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, Bank of Italy, Bank of Canada, Swiss National Bank, Nederlandsche Bank,Bundesbank and Bank of France. 

 Historian Carroll Quigley wrote in his epic book Tragedy and Hope that BIS was part of a plan, “to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole…to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements.”

 The US government had a historical distrust of BIS, lobbying unsuccessfully for its demise at the 1944 post-WWII Bretton Woods Conference.  Instead the Eight Families’ power was exacerbated, with the Bretton Woods creation of the IMF and the World Bank.  The US Federal Reserve only took shares in BIS in September 1994. [15] 

 BIS holds at least 10% of monetary reserves for at least 80 of the world’s central banks, the IMF and other multilateral institutions.  It serves as financial agent for international agreements, collects information on the global economy and serves as lender of last resort to prevent global financial collapse.

 BIS promotes an agenda of monopoly capitalist fascism.  It gave a bridge loan to Hungary in the 1990’s to ensure privatization of that country’s economy.  It served as conduit for Eight Families funding of Adolf Hitler- led by the Warburg’s J. Henry Schroeder and Mendelsohn Bank of Amsterdam.  Many researchers assert that BIS is at the nadir of global drug money laundering. [16] 

 It is no coincidence that BIS is headquartered in Switzerland, favorite hiding place for the wealth of the global aristocracy and headquarters for the P-2 Italian Freemason’s Alpina Lodge and Nazi International.  Other institutions which the Eight Families control include the World Economic Forum, the International Monetary Conference and the World Trade Organization.

 Bretton Woods was a boon to the Eight Families.  The IMF and World Bank were central to this “new world order”.  In 1944 the first World Bank bonds were floated by Morgan Stanley and First Boston.  The French Lazard family became more involved in House of Morgan interests.  Lazard Freres- France’s biggest investment bank- is owned by the Lazard and David-Weill families- old Genoese banking scions represented by Michelle Davive.  A recent Chairman and CEO of Citigroup was Sanford Weill.

 In 1968 Morgan Guaranty launched Euro-Clear, a Brussels-based bank clearing system for Eurodollar securities.  It was the first such automated endeavor.  Some took to calling Euro-Clear “The Beast”.  Brussels serves as headquarters for the new European Central Bank and for NATO.  In 1973 Morgan officials met secretly in Bermuda to illegally resurrect the old House of Morgan, twenty years before Glass Steagal Act was repealed.  Morgan and the Rockefellers provided the financial backing for Merrill Lynch, boosting it into the Big 5 of US investment banking.  Merrill is now part of Bank of America.

 John D. Rockefeller used his oil wealth to acquire Equitable Trust, which had gobbled up several large banks and corporations by the 1920’s.  The Great Depression helped consolidate Rockefeller’s power.  His Chase Bank merged with Kuhn Loeb’s Manhattan Bank to form Chase Manhattan, cementing a long-time family relationship.  The Kuhn-Loeb’s had financed – along with Rothschilds – Rockefeller’s quest to become king of the oil patch.  National City Bank of Cleveland provided John D. with the money needed to embark upon his monopolization of the US oil industry.  The bank was identified in Congressional hearings as being one of three Rothschild-owned banks in the US during the 1870’s, when Rockefeller first incorporated as Standard Oil of Ohio. [17]

 One Rockefeller Standard Oil partner was Edward Harkness, whose family came to control Chemical Bank.  Another was James Stillman, whose family controlled Manufacturers Hanover Trust.  Both banks have merged under the JP Morgan Chase umbrella.  Two of James Stillman’s daughters married two of William Rockefeller’s sons.  The two families control a big chunk of Citigroup as well. [18]

 In the insurance business, the Rockefellers control Metropolitan Life, Equitable Life, Prudential and New York Life.  Rockefeller banks control 25% of all assets of the 50 largest US commercial banks and 30% of all assets of the 50 largest insurance companies. [19]  Insurance companies- the first in the US was launched by Freemasons through their Woodman’s of America- play a key role in the Bermuda drug money shuffle.

 Companies under Rockefeller control include Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, BP Amoco, Marathon Oil, Freeport McMoran, Quaker Oats, ASARCO, United, Delta, Northwest, ITT, International Harvester, Xerox, Boeing, Westinghouse, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, International Paper, Pfizer, Motorola, Monsanto, Union Carbide and General Foods.

 The Rockefeller Foundation has close financial ties to both Ford and Carnegie Foundations.  Other family philanthropic endeavors include Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, General Education Board, Rockefeller University and the University of Chicago- which churns out a steady stream of far right economists as apologists for international capital, including Milton Friedman.

 The family owns 30 Rockefeller Plaza, where the national Christmas tree is lighted every year, and Rockefeller Center.  David Rockefeller was instrumental in the construction of the World Trade Center towers.  The main Rockefeller family home is a hulking complex in upstate New York known as Pocantico Hills.  They also own a 32-room 5th Avenue duplex in Manhattan, a mansion in Washington, DC, Monte Sacro Ranch in Venezuela, coffee plantations in Ecuador, several farms in Brazil, an estate at Seal Harbor, Maine and resorts in the Caribbean, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. [20]

 The Dulles and Rockefeller families are cousins.  Allen Dulles created the CIA, assisted the Nazis, covered up the Kennedy hit from his Warren Commission perch and struck a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood to create mind-controlled assassins. [21] 

 Brother John Foster Dulles presided over the phony Goldman Sachs trusts before the 1929 stock market crash and helped his brother overthrow governments in Iran and Guatemala.  Both were Skull & Bones, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) insiders and 33rd Degree Masons. [22]

 The Rockefellers were instrumental in forming the depopulation-oriented Club of Rome at their family estate in Bellagio, Italy.  Their Pocantico Hills estate gave birth to the Trilateral Commission.  The family is a major funder of the eugenics movement which spawned Hitler, human cloning and the current DNA obsession in US scientific circles.

 John Rockefeller Jr. headed the Population Council until his death. [23]  His namesake son is a Senator from West Virginia.  Brother Winthrop Rockefeller was Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas and remains the most powerful man in that state.  In an October 1975 interview with Playboy magazine, Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller- who was also Governor of New York- articulated his family’s patronizing worldview, “I am a great believer in planning- economic, social, political, military, total world planning.”

 But of all the Rockefeller brothers, it is Trilateral Commission (TC) founder and Chase Manhattan Chairman David who has spearheaded the family’s fascist agenda on a global scale.  He defended the Shah of Iran, the South African apartheid regime and the Chilean Pinochet junta.  He was the biggest financier of the CFR, the TC and (during the Vietnam War) the Committee for an Effective and Durable Peace in Asia- a contract bonanza for those who made their living off the conflict.

 Nixon asked him to be Secretary of Treasury, but Rockefeller declined the job, knowing his power was much greater at the helm of the Chase.  Author Gary Allen writes in The Rockefeller File that in 1973, “David Rockefeller met with twenty-seven heads of state, including the rulers of Russia and Red China.” 

 Following the 1975 Nugan Hand Bank/CIA coup against Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, his British Crown-appointed successor Malcolm Fraser sped to the US, where he met with President Gerald Ford after conferring with David Rockefeller. [24]

 Next Week: Part II: Freemasons & The Bank of the United States

 [1] 10K Filings of Fortune 500 Corporations to SEC. 3-91

[2] 10K Filing of US Trust Corporation to SEC. 6-28-95

[3] “The Federal Reserve ‘Fed Up’. Thomas Schauf. www.davidicke.com 1-02

[4] The Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Eustace Mullins. Bankers Research Institute. Staunton, VA. 1983. p.179

[5] Ibid. p.53

[6] The Triumph of Conservatism. Gabriel Kolko. MacMillan and Company New York. 1963. p.142

[7] Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History that Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons and the Great Pyramids. Jim Marrs. HarperCollins Publishers.New York. 2000. p.57

[8] The House of Morgan. Ron Chernow. Atlantic Monthly Press NewYork 1990

[9] Marrs. p.57

[10] Democracy for the Few. Michael Parenti. St. Martin’s Press. New York. 1977. p.178

[11] Chernow

[12] The Great Crash of 1929. John Kenneth Galbraith. Houghton, Mifflin Company. Boston. 1979. p.148

[13] Chernow

[14] Children of the Matrix. David Icke. Bridge of Love. Scottsdale, AZ. 2000

[15] The Confidence Game: How Un-Elected Central Bankers are Governing the Changed World Economy. Steven Solomon. Simon & Schuster. New York. 1995. p.112

[16] Marrs. p.180

[17] Ibid. p.45

[18] The Money Lenders: The People and Politics of the World Banking Crisis. Anthony Sampson. Penguin Books. New York. 1981

[19] The Rockefeller File. Gary Allen. ’76 Press. Seal Beach, CA. 1977

[20] Ibid

[21] Dope Inc.: The Book That Drove Kissinger Crazy. Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. Washington, DC. 1992

[22] Marrs.

[23] The Rockefeller Syndrome. Ferdinand Lundberg. Lyle Stuart Inc. Secaucus, NJ. 1975. p.296

[24] Marrs. p.53

 Dean Henderson is the author of Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network and The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries.  His Left Hook blog is athttp://www.deanhenderson.wordpress.com