Staatliche Stützungkäufe in den USA? - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[sittin bull inv]

Glaubt ihr daran,
das es so etwas gibt?

Hier aus einem anderen Thread:







#7 von crashisnear 20.12.00 15:54:47 3812393168
@destination

Die FED-Task-Force wird wohl über die Futures versuchen den Markt etwas "richten" (sieht man bereits jetzt am NASDAQ 100).

Das tolle heute in diesem unseren Ländle war, daß selbst GOLDMINEN verscherbelt wurden ... habe mich reichlich mit Homestake Mining eingedeckt und geniesse jetzt die + 10 % ...



#10 von destination 20.12.00 15:58:48 3812393215
@crashisnear: Die Fed-Task-Force??? Wie soll die Fed in den Futuremarkt eingreifen können????? Wenn die Fed eingreifen wollte, hätte sie das gestern tun können, indem sie etwas vorsichtiger mit
dem Wörtchen Rezession umgegangen wäre oder die Zinsen gesenkt hätte!


#13 von crashisnear 20.12.00 16:39:32 3812393697
@destination

Die FED-Task-Force ist eine "Einrichtung" von der FED 1987 gegründet, die nichts anderes zum Ziel hat als in solchen Fällen wie am Freitag den 13.Oktober 2000 (an diesen Tag kannst Du Dich
bestimmt noch erinnern ...) durch gezielte "Massnahmen" die Märkte nicht aus der "Rille" springen zu lassen. Solche Massnahmen könnte z.B. MASSIVES Kaufen von NASDAQ, bzw. S&P 500 Futures
zu sein . Die Abwicklung erfolgt über die BIGs in der Branche - Goldman Sachs, M. Stanley etc. Ob solche Stützen letztendlich (längerfristiger) greifen können steht auf anderem Blatt.



#15 von destination 20.12.00 16:45:05 3812393757
@crashisnear: Daß die Fed mit Futures handeln kann, ist mir neu....Woher hast Du diese Info??????


#16 von crashisnear 20.12.00 16:59:46 3812393897
@destination

Die Quelle für diese Informationen sind 2 Artikeln veröffentlicht in der New York Times in der 2. und der 3. Oktober Woche.

Laut Aussage von NYT handelt die FED nicht DIREKT an den Futures-Märkten sondern eben über die bereits erwähnten Adressen.


#17 von destination 20.12.00 19:16:28 3812395165
Wetten, daß dieser Schwachsinn und diese breitangelegte Marktmanipulation der Börsenschlampen und Luden (Investmentbanken) bald, sehr bald ein Ende findet???!


#20 von destination 20.12.00 22:06:27 3812396393
P.S. @crashisnear: Dieses Szenario hätte ich absolut NIEMALS für möglich gehalten.........ich entschuldige mich für meinen Angriff auf Dich vor Monaten, dachte damals, der spinnt.......und nun tritt
(jedenfalls kurzfristig) dieses Worst-Szenario ein. Da ich das nicht gewohnt bin, stehe ich für meine krasse Fehleinschätzung in diesem Jahr ein und erkenne es an, wenn jemand sich auf diese Sch....
eingestellt hat. Ob Glück, oder besserer Riecher oder beides, ist egal, das Ergebnis zählt.


#22 von Leghorn 20.12.00 22:18:12 3812396480
@ crashisnear
@ destination

Zum ersten Mal hat m.W. die Washington Post 1997 über
das Plunge Protection Team (PPT) berichtet.
Neben der FED und dem Treasury Department sind auch
die größten Brokerhäuser und Banken beteiligt.

mfg
Leghorn


Meinungen dazu?

Wann merkt man, das man staatliche Eingriffe am Markt hat?
In Asien gab es da ja richtige Meldungen drüber,
das der Staat am Aktienmarkt als Käufer auftritt.

Wieso habe ich vorher noch nie etwas über dieses Thema gehört?

Verbrät Alan gerade Fort Knox in Cisco?

Fragen über Fragen...


Sittin....

[j.r.Michels]

ja, eindeutig stutzungskäufe, von wem, weis keiner.

[fid]

In "Allan Greenspan- Die Macht der Worte" wird dazu ganz deutlich geschrieben. Auch gibt es ein neues Buch von Martin Mayer
"The FED: The Inside Story of How the World`s Most Powerful Financial
Institution Drives The Market"

From Jim Puplava...

"Alan Greenspan is considered the second most powerful man in the world and
the Fed is considered to be the world`s most powerful financial institution.
The Fed has entered into a new era. Technology has changed the financial
markets as we now have banks, investment firms and hedge funds as key
players in the world`s financial system. The game has changed and hardly
anyone understands how the rules of the game work. The links between Fed
decisions and market reactions are far more complicated than before. Very
few participants understand them. The Fed uses liquidity as its main weapon.
But it can`t control the outcome.

Join me today as I interview Martin Mayer. Mr. Mayer is one of the world`s
best financial journalists. He knows more about the banking system, and how
it works, than anyone else writing today. In his new book, "The FED," Mayer
explains why the old rules for Fed watchers are no longer operative and what
investors must know to understand the Fed today. This is MUST listening for
anyone who has money in today`s volatile markets."

Die Aktiemmärkte werden schon die ganze Zeit gestützt. Besonders aggressiv, wenn bestimmte psychologische Marken unterschritten werden und vor allem der Dow in Gefahr gerät. Problem: Bankentitel, Finanzkollaps. Dafür ist die FED offiziell angetreten.

Gruß
FID

[sittin bull inv]

Ist die Fed jetzt überhaupt staatlich oder nicht?

Von wem erhält sie ihre Gelder?


Kann sie nötigenfalls selber gedrucktes Geld
an der Börse investieren?


Was ist mit dem exorbitanten Geldmengenwachstum?


Ist die Fed vielleicht sogar eine Geldwaschanlage?


Warum ist der Dollar dann so hoch bewertet?

[sittin bull inv]

Mich qäulen folgende Fragen:

Was ist die Fed?
Wer steckt hinter der Fed?
Was kann die Fed?
Was kann sie nicht?


Bitte Unterstützung für sämtliche Artikel, die zum Thema
passen.

Ich werde die Verschuldungsmaschine durchforsten.

Hier, von gieristnichtgut entliehen:

Manipuliert der US-Notenbankchef den Goldpreis?

(meldet SPIEGEL Online am 6. Januar 2001 und fährt fort

Was haben US-Notenbankchef Alan Greenspan, die Bank für Internationalen Zahlungsausgleich (BIZ), führende globale Geldhäuser wie
Deutsche Bank und J. P. Morgan sowie der scheidende US-Finanzminister Larry Summers gemeinsam?

Diese Herren und diese Banken sind für einen der größten Skandale der Wirtschaftsgeschichte verantwortlich" - das behauptet zumindest
der US-Anwalt und Goldanalyst Reginald Howe. Der Berater des Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (Gata), einer Organisation, die sich dem
Kampf gegen die vermeintliche Goldmarktmanipulation verschrieben hat, reichte deshalb im Dezember Klage beim United States District
Court/District of Massachusetts in Boston ein. Howe beruft sich auf den Sherman Act der USA. Das Gesetz verbietet ausdrücklich das
"Fixing" von Preisen im grenzüberschreitenden Handel. "In betrügerischer Weise hat das Kartell den Preis für das Edelmetall über Jahre
auf ein künstlich niedriges Niveau gepresst", behauptet der Kläger. Das Okay für die Machenschaften sei aus dem Weißen Haus
gekommen.

Als Instrument der "Konspiration" macht Howe die BIZ in Basel aus. Dort pflegen die Chefs der wichtigsten Notenbanken enge Bande im
Stile eines Herrenclubs. Howe ist einer der wenigen freien Aktionäre der BIZ - die überwiegende Mehrheit halten die Zentralbanken - und
als Unruhestifter schon bekannt. Offiziell verweigert das Basler Institut - ebenso wie die Deutsche Bank - jeden substanziellen Kommentar,
die US-Notenbank ließ eine Anfrage zu der Klage unbeantwortet. Die Vorwürfe sind happig: "Minengesellschaften, ihre Arbeiter und
Eigentümer werden durch den niedrigen Goldpreis in den Ruin getrieben", sagt Howe. "In den Entwicklungsländern bleiben die
Schwachen auf der Strecke." Und, so paradox es zunächst klingt: Die Wall-Street-Banken strichen durch den angeblich manipulierten Preis
Milliarden ein. Tatsächlich hat das Edelmetall viel von seinem Glanz verloren. Bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg waren die Währungen der
mächtigsten Staaten an das Gold gebunden, nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg bis Anfang der siebziger Jahre beruhte das internationale
Währungssystem auf der Leitwährung US-Dollar, die in Gold konvertierbar war.

Zwar herrschen im Handel noch immer der Mythos des glitzernden Metalls und ebenso viel Emotion. Nach seinem Höhenflug Ende der
siebziger Jahre aber ist der Preis abgesackt. Seit Monaten gar klebt der Kurs im Bereich zwischen 260 und 300 Dollar je Unze. Das trifft vor
allem Produzenten wie Südafrika. Zum ersten Mal in ihrer Geschichte exportierte die Kap-Republik im vergangenen Jahr mehr Platin und
Palladium als Gold. Vor 20 Jahren noch führte der schimmernde Stoff unangefochten die Ausfuhrliste an. Damals erzielten die Händler
zeitweise über 800 Dollar pro Unze. Heute, so rechnet der Gata-Vorsitzende Bill Murphy, müsste der Goldpreis bei freiem Markt "über 600
Dollar pro Unze" liegen. Müsste. Denn die Finanzelite vertraut laut Kläger Howe und der Gata einer einfachen Gleichung: Nur ein tiefer
Goldpreis ist ein guter Goldpreis.

Ein anziehender Kurs gilt gemeinhin als letzte Warnung vor einer Geldentwertung in den USA. Und ein Höhenflug signalisiert einen
schwächelnden US-Dollar an den internationalen Finanzmärkten. Beides ist eine Horrorvision für Greenspan. Drängt der Kurs zu sehr
nach oben, so behaupten die Kritiker, wird Gold in New York und London, den wichtigsten Handelsplätzen, auf den Markt geworfen. "Die
Zentralbanken sind bereit, Gold in großen Mengen zu verleihen, falls der Preis steigt", bestätigte Greenspan im Juli 1998 vor dem
Bankenkomitee des US-Repräsentantenhauses. Für Howe ein klarer Fall: "Das Statement kommt der Erklärung gleich, dass der
Goldpreis kontrolliert wird." Mit der Ausleihe von Gold machten die großen Geldhäuser glänzende Gewinne. Allein die Deutsche Bank wies
Ende 1999 Geschäfte mit einem geschätzten Gegenwert von 5000 Tonnen Gold aus - 1500 Tonnen mehr als die offiziellen Reserven
Deutschlands. Morgan, Chase und die Citibank meldeten Ende Juni 2000 Zahlen, die einem Goldberg von 8461 Tonnen entsprächen.

Die Geschäfte folgen einem simplen Schema: Institute borgen Gold von den Zentralbanken zu einem äußerst niedrigen Zins. Der Vorteil
für die staatlichen Stellen: Aus den weitgehend nutzlosen Goldbergen wird zumindest ein kleiner Gewinn gezogen. Die Banken verkaufen
die geliehenen Barren. Mit den Erlösen erwerben sie Wertpapiere, deren Renditen den Leihzins weit übertreffen. Ein ebenso lukratives wie
riskantes Geschäft - und alles auf Pump. Bricht der Preis zu sehr nach oben aus, müssten Deutsche Bank, Goldman, Chase und Co.
bluten: Dann würde der Leihzins mit in die Höhe schießen. Und, schlimmer noch, die Rückkäufe am Markt wären nahezu unbezahlbar.
Denn die Zentralbanken verlangen irgendwann das von ihnen geborgte Gold wieder. Schon jetzt ist der "Gold carry trade" aus dem Ruder
gelaufen. Experten schätzen, dass die Geschäftsbanken den Zentralbanken bis zu 7000 Tonnen schulden. "Zu viel, um jemals
zurückbezahlt zu werden", warnen die Experten von Salomon Smith Barney, einer Bank der Citigroup.

Deshalb, folgert Howe, "haben Goldman, Chase und die Deutsche Bank in den vergangenen zwei Jahren regelmäßig jede sich
abzeichnende Goldrallye an der New Yorker Warenbörse Comex durch Massenverkäufe abgewürgt". Doch Howes Theorie ist umstritten.
"Auch einige meiner Kunden glauben an eine Konspiration", sagt Analyst Martin Murenbeeld, Herausgeber des "Gold-Monitor-Newsletter".
"Nach den mir vorliegenden Daten bin ich allerdings nicht von der Theorie überzeugt." Gold Fields Mineral Services, ein Londoner
Beratungsunternehmen, wirft Howe statistische Fehlinterpretationen vor. Die Verschwörungstheorie sei abwegig. Die Experten werten den
abgesackten Goldpreis vielmehr als Folge des starken Dollars und niedriger Inflationsraten. Zudem nutzten viele Zentralbanken jeden
noch so kleinen Kursanstieg, um das tote Kapital loszuwerden. Immerhin lagern in den Tresoren der staatlichen Institute und
internationalen Organisationen rund 33 000 Tonnen Gold. Wann es zum Schlagabtausch kommt, muss jetzt der zuständige Richter in
Boston entscheiden. Howe hofft, dann "die Machenschaften des Goldkartells vor Publikum aufzudecken". Greenspan und die Vertreter der
Hochfinanz müssten dann unter Eid aussagen.

Den Original-Text gibt`s unter http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/maerkte/0,1518,111068,00.ht…

[sittin bull inv]

Die Fed wird andauernd von allen erwähnt...

wissen wir wirklich, mit wem wir es zu tun haben?




#118 von helmut_kohl 30.03.01 17:32:08 3210506
@ schloss

Eine naive Frage zu den von der FED gekauften Treasuries. Muß der Staat USA nicht auch
an die FED Zinsen zahlen. Dass die FED die Papiere (während der Zinserhöhungsphase) gekauft
hat, bedeutet doch nicht, dass sie aus dem Verkehr gezogen worden sind. Immerhin ist
die FED ja auch keine staatliche Organisation sondern eine von den privaten Investmentbanken
initiierte Organisation.

Du bist sehr detailliert informiert. Die Feds sind private Banken. Das wissen die wenigsten. Sie zahlen den Anteilseignern (den Member
Banks) jaehrlich eine Art Dividende aus. Diese Dividende ist allerding eher symbolisch. Der allergroesste Teil der Gewinne (etwa 96%)
geht direkt zur Treasury (=Finanzminister)

[sittin bull inv]

#216 von future-investor 05.05.01 22:50:14 3458746
Hallo an alle!
Schöner Thread hier.Weil mich der Themenkomplex auch interessiert möchte ich mal einen aktuellen Artikel zum Thema Statistiken
reinstellen.

http://www.eirna.com/cgi-local/alert.pl#A1

zur Quelle möchte ich vorab sagen das ich mit La Rouche nichts am Hut habe,aber sein Insiderwissen schätze.

Statistiken als "Massenverblendungswaffen"...
Lyndon LaRouche erklärte am 26.4., die Bush-Administration und die Federal Reserve "sind nicht mehr in der Lage, die Wirtschafts- und
Finanzkrise weiter hinauszuschieben, deshalb versuchen sie alles in ihrer Macht Stehende, um die Wahrnehmung der Krise
hinauszuschieben". Mit allen möglichen Tricks vom Liquiditätspumpen bis zu massiv gefälschten Statistiken versuche man irgendwie
durch das 2. Quartal zu kommen.
US-Finanzminister Paul O`Neill bedient sich inzwischen der gleichen Taktik manipulierter Statistiken, für die schon sein Vorgänger Larry
Summers berüchtigt war. Die Financial Times schrieb am 28.4., die Bush-Administration verwende Wirtschaftsstatistiken als
"Massenverblendungswaffen".

So verkündete die US-Regierung am 25.4. überraschend einen Anstieg der Neuaufträge bei langlebigen Gütern im März um 3%
gegenüber Februar. Mit diesen "guten Zahlen" signalisierte man der Börse: "Das Schlimmste ist ausgestanden." Bei näherem Hinsehen
jedoch erweist sich, daß der Zuwachs allein auf den Anstieg der Aufträge des Pentagon um 62% für "langlebige Güter" wie Panzer,
Kriegsschiffe etc. zurückgeht. Nach Abzug der Rüstungsaufträge und der immer sehr schwankenden Zahl der Aufträge für Zivilflugzeuge
sind die Aufträge für langlebige Güter in Wirklichkeit um 1,8% gefallen und befinden sich auf dem niedrigsten Stand seit fast zwei Jahren.

Zwei Tage zuvor, am 27.4., hatte das US-Handelsministerium eine andere Werbekampagne zur "moralischen Aufrüstung" in Gang gesetzt,
als es für das Bruttoinlandsprodukt (BIP) im 1. Quartal 2001 einen jährlichen Anstieg um 2,0% vermeldete. Minister O`Neill sagte wörtlich:
"Es gibt nur noch gute Nachrichten!"

Bei genauerem Hinsehen steigt aber auch nach dieser BIP-Statistik - die man im übrigen wahrscheinlich in zwei Wochen nach unten
"korrigieren" wird - nur noch der vor allem kreditfinanzierte Verbrauch (+3,1%). Dies widerspricht aber dem sinkenden
Verbrauchervertrauen. Der am 24.4. veröffentlichte neueste Verbrauchervertrauens-Index des Conference Board zeigt einen dramatischen
Rückgang von 117 im März auf nur noch 109 im April. Die BIP-Zahlen des Handelsministeriums zeigen einen deutlichen Rückgang der
Kapitalinvestitionen der Unternehmen. Die Investitionen in Ausrüstung und Software sind im 1. Quartal 2001 um 2,1% gesunken. Die
Exporte schrumpften auf Jahresbasis um 6,2 Mrd.$, die Importe sogar um 43 Mrd.$.

[sittin bull inv]

Ich habs selbst schon mal gepostet:




...
Am besagten 13. November; als die Ungewißheit über den Ausgang der
Präsidentschaftswahl neben dem Aktiencrash noch eine Dollarkrise
heraufbeschwor, mußte wieder einmal die Federal Reserve mit ihrem
"Absturz-Verhinderungsteam" eingreifen.
Dieses "Absturz-Verhinderungsteam" setzt sich aus einer kleinen Gruppe von
Spitzenvertretern aus Regierung und Finanzwelt zusammen.
Neben Notenbankchef Alan Greenspan und Finanzminister Larry Summers
sind dies einige ausgewählte Wallstreet-Brokerhäuser .Wie Goldman Sachs
und Banken wie J.P Morgan und Citigroup, wo der ehemalige Finanzminister
Robert Rubin im Vorstand sitzt. Das Team geht jedesmal auf ähnliche Weise
vor, tat sich diesmal aber schwerer als sonst.
Die Fed intervenierte diskret mit einer Liquiditätsspritze - also dem
moderneren Äquivalent des Gelddruckens für das Bankensystem in der Form
eines 3,01 Mrd. Dollar Repo-Kredits mit 28tägiger Laufzeit.
Minuten später schoß sie weitere 2,71 Mrd. Dollar an Übernachtkrediten für
die Banken zu. Das reichte zunächst, um den Kursverfall am NASDAQ
aufzuhalten, aber noch nicht, um den NASDAQ wieder über die
psychologisch wichtige Marke von 3000 Punkten zu hieven.
Am folgenden Tag, Dienstag, den 14. November, schaltete das Team deshalb
noch einen Gang höher.
Gleich am frühen Morgen gab die Fed eine weitere Spritze von 2 Mrd. Dollar.
Zeitlich genau passend verkündete dann nur Minuten später das
"Marktorakel", Abby Joseph Cohen von Goldman Sachs, die Aktienmärkte
seien unterbewertet und müßten "um wenigstens 15% bis
Jahresende"steigen.
Schon seit dem Crash und der anschließenden Erholung der Börse im
Oktober 1987 spielt Abby Cohen diese ganz besondere Rolle. Jedesmal,
wenn den Märkten die Kernschmelze drohte, wurde sie losgeschickt, um eine
Markterholung zu "prognostizieren"

Die Wallstreet-Insider wissen genau: Wenn Frau Cohen einen Anstieg
"vorhersagt", dann sind Goldman Sachs und andere wichtige Finanzhäuser an
diesem Tag angewiesen, zu kaufen. Weil entsprechend viele Spekulanten
mitziehen, geht die "Vorhersage" dann auch in der Regel in Erfüllung.
Hinzu kommt noch die Hebelwirkung von Derivaten oder
Aktien-Termingeschäften auf die NASDAQ oder Dow Jones-Indices. Damit
können mit relativ kleinen Summen kurzfristig ganze Marktsegmente in die
Höhe getrieben werden. Am 14. November funktionierte es noch einmal,
innerhalb von Minuten nach der Intervention durch die Fed und Goldman
Sachs stieg der NASDAQ und schloß an diesem Tag deutlich über 3100
Punkten, was einem Anstieg von 5,7% entspricht.
Einmal mehr verhinderte das "Absturz-Verhinderungsteam" eine
ausgewachsene Systemkrise des Weltfinanzsystems mit einem raschen
Wertverfall des Dollars und den entsprechenden Folgewirkungen. Inzwischen
reichen aber die Maßnahmen der Fed nur noch, um diesen Prozeß jedesmal
nur um wenige Tage oder gar nur um Stunden aufschieben.

Ein Aktiencrash, bei dem Werte in der Größenordnung des gesamten
Bruttoinlandsprodukts der USA von 9000 Mrd. Dollar vernichtet werden, steht
ins Haus. Irgendwann wird keine "Absturzverhinderung" mehr möglich sein,
weil die Panik einfach zu groß sein wird.<<<

Quelle: http://www.eic-ag.com/investor_frame.htm

[sittin bull inv]

#287 von future-investor 25.05.01 08:48:44 3592361
DIE WAHRHEIT HINTER DER ZINSSENKUNG
(Schnellübersetzung)
>von John Crudele(New York Post)
>22.Mai 2001
>Eine Woche ist seit der letzten Zinssenkung durch die Fed
>vergangen, daher es ist an der Zeit Ihnen die Wahrheit zu
>sagen.
>Der Anstieg des DJI um überraschende 343 Punkte bzw. 3,15
>Prozent wurde in der Presse entweder als eine verspätete
>Reaktion auf die Zinssenkung um 0,5 Prozentpunkte oder
>alternativ als Freude über den unerwartet geringen
>Anstieg der Verbraucherpreise gewertet, der am Morgen vor
>der Rally bekanntgegeben wurde.
>Nun die Wahrheit: nichts von beiden ist richtig. Diese
>Erklärungen sind - im Klartext - lächerlich.
>Was ist nun wirklich passiert? Der Markt reagierte auf eine
>wenig verstandene und kaum Wahrnehmbare Handlung der Fed,
>die die Aktien "in den Hintern treten" sollte.
>Letzten Dienstag stellte die Fed fest, dass sich die
>Wirtschaft schlecht entwickelte, so dass die Zinsen um
>weitere 0.5 Prozent gesenkt werden müssten. Was die Fed
>höchstwahrscheinlich schockierte war, dass nach dem
>Zinsschritt am Dienstag nichts geschah. Alan Greenspan und
>seine Kohorten [dtsch vielleicht besser: Konsorten] müssen
>sich wirklich geärgert haben. Doch dann kam der Zauber,
>den alle vermissten. Mitten am Mittwochmorgen machte die
>Fed mit 11 Milliarden Dollar das, was als "Repos" bekannt
>ist.
>Genauer: Die Fed geht zu den Banken und kauft ihnen gegen
>Bargeld Staatsanleihen für 11 Milliarden Dollar ab. Nichts
>davon ist wirkliches Geld. Es fuhren keine Geldtransporter
>vor. Es ist nur ein Eintrag ins Hauptbuch [Buchgeld].
>Jedoch haben Banken durch diese Handlung eine Menge mehr
>Geld zum Verleihen und Investieren.
>Der Betrag von 11 Milliarden Dollar war viel höher als der
>vom Markt erwartete und binnen Minuten stiegen die AKtien-
>und Rentenmärkte.
>Heisst das, Wall Street denkt, die wirtschaftlichen
>Schwierigkeiten seien vorüber? Ganz und gar nicht.
>Die Klugen an der Wall Street lernten aus dieser Aktion,
>dass die Fed bereit ist, alles zu tun, um die Aktienmärkte
>zum Steigen zu bewegen. Die Fed mag Zauberkräfte besitzten
>oder nicht. Da jedoch einfache Zinssenkungen nicht länger
>ihren gewünschten Erfolg bringen, scheint Washington zum
>experimentieren bereit.
>Diese subtile "Repo"-Aktion der Fed wurde ganz
>offensichtlich von jenen nicht wahrgenommen, die gerne
>einfache Gründe für ihre Rallies haben.
>Die Entscheidung der Fed, die Märkte mit einer Infusion von
>Liquidität nach oben zu zwingen [Übersetzung hier sehr frei]
>ist umstritten. Puristen würden sagen, Greenspan und seine
>Gang sollen ihre schmutzigen Hände aus den freien US-Märkten
>lassen.
>Diese Bemerkung wird mir eine Menge zornige e-mails
>einbringen, aber ich sage, die Fed muss alles in ihrer
>Kraft stehende tun, um die Börsenkurse am sinken zu hindern.
>Das schliesst Interventionen durch den Kauf von Futures
>sowie Tricks wie das geschilderte "Repo"-Manöver mit ein.
>Trotz des Einbruchs des letzten Jahres sind die Kurse nach
>wie vor überbewertet. Und um die US-Wirtschaft ist es
>momentan so schlecht bestellt, dass wir weiter fallende
>Equities nicht zulassen können.
>Alan Greenspan tat letzten Mittwoch was er tun musste.
>Ausserdem war [die letzte Woche] eine jener Wochen, in
>denen Optionen auslaufen und der Markt meist sowieso eine
>Tendenz zum Steigen zeigt.
>Es gibt noch eine Sache, die Sie wissen müssen. Was die
>Fed tut steht im direkten Widerspruch zu dem, wie freie
>Märkte eigentlich funktionieren sollten, wahrscheinlich
>sogar im Widerspruch zur Charta der Fed - all das ist
>sehr gefährlich.
>Sie machen sich wahrscheinlich nur Gedanken über den
>gefährlichen Teil - hier also eine ERklärung:
>Aktien sind immer noch sehr teuer. Und die Wirkung von
>Zinssinkungen sind vernachlässigbar.
>Sollten Greenspan`s Versuche, die Blase wieder aufzublasen
>versagen - oder auch nur zu offensichtlich werden - , dann
>steht die Integrität unseres gesamten Geldsystems in Frage.
>Wahrscheinlich sollten Sie die Daumen drücken, dass es ihm
>gelingt.
>be
>Übersetzung: H.C.

[sittin bull inv]

Wer zahlt die Zeche, wenn Task-Force Anlagen in die Hose gehen?

[sittin bull inv]

Wie ich merke macht ihr euch überhaupt keine Sorgen darüber,
das der amerikanische Staat evtl. Millionen Aktien von "billigen"
Tech-Firmen besitzt.


Gibt es irgendwo Veröffentlichungsvorschriften?

[sittin bull inv]

Plunge Protection Team

By Brett D. Fromson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 23, 1997; Page H01
The Washington Post

It is 2 o`clock on a hypothetical Monday afternoon, and the Dow
Jones industrial average has plummeted 664 points, on top of a
847-point slide the previous week.

The chairman of the New York Stock Exchange has called the
White House chief of staff and asked permission to close the
world`s most important stock market. By law, only the president
can authorize a shutdown of U.S. financial markets.

In the Oval Office, the president confers with the members of
his Working Group on Financial Markets -- the secretary of the
treasury and the chairmen of the Federal Reserve Board, the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission.

The officials conclude that a presidential order to close the
NYSE would only add to the market`s panic, so they decide to
ride out the storm. The Working Group struggles to keep
financial markets open so that trading can continue. By the
closing bell, a modest rally is underway.

This is one of the nightmare scenarios that Washington`s top
financial policymakers have reviewed since Oct. 19, 1987, when
the Dow Jones industrial average dropped 508 points, or 22.6
percent, in the biggest one-day loss in history. Like defense
planners in the Cold War period, central bankers and financial
regulators have been thinking carefully about how they would
respond to the unthinkable.

An outline of the government`s plans emerges in interviews with
more than a dozen current and former officials who have
participated in meetings of the Working Group. The group,
established after the 1987 stock drop, is the government`s
high-level forum for discussion of financial policy.

Just last Tuesday afternoon, for example, Working Group
officials gathered in a conference room at the Treasury Building.
They discussed, among other topics, the risks of a stock market
decline in the wake of the Dow`s sudden surge past 7000,
according to sources familiar with the meeting. The officials
pondered whether prices in the stock market reflect a greater
appetite for risk-taking by investors. Some expressed concern
that the higher the stock market goes, the closer it could be to a
correction, according to the sources.

These quiet meetings of the Working Group are the financial
world`s equivalent of the war room. The officials gather
regularly to discuss options and review crisis scenarios because
they know that the government`s reaction to a crumbling stock
market would have a critical impact on investor confidence
around the world.

"The government has a real role to play to make a 1987-style
sudden market break less likely. That is an issue we all spent a
lot of time thinking about and planning for," said a former
government official who attended Working Group meetings.
"You go through lots of fire drills and scenarios. You make sure
you have thought ahead of time of what kind of information you
will need and what you have the legal authority to do."

In the event of a financial crisis, each federal agency with a seat
at the table of the Working Group has a confidential plan. At the
SEC, for example, the plan is called the "red book" because of
the color of its cover. It is officially known as the Executive
Directory for Market Contingencies. The major U.S. stock
markets have copies of the commission`s plan as well as the
CFTC`s.

Going to Plan A

The red book is intended to make sure that no matter what the
time of day, SEC officials can reach their opposite numbers at
other agencies of the U.S. government, with foreign
governments, at the various stock, bond and commodity futures
and options exchanges, as well as executives of the many
payment and settlement systems underlying the financial
markets.

"We all have everybody`s home and weekend numbers," said a
former Working Group staff member.

The Working Group`s main goal, officials say, would be to keep
the markets operating in the event of a sudden,
stomach-churning plunge in stock prices -- and to prevent a
panicky run on banks, brokerage firms and mutual funds.
Officials worry that if investors all tried to head for the exit at
the same time, there wouldn`t be enough room -- or in financial
terms, liquidity -- for them all to get through. In that event, the
smoothly running global financial machine would begin to lock
up.

This sort of liquidity crisis could imperil even healthy financial
institutions that are temporarily short of cash or tradable assets
such as U.S. Treasury securities. And worries about the
financial strength of a major trader could cascade and cause
other players to stop making payments to one another, in which
case the system would seize up like an engine without oil. Even
a temporary loss of liquidity would intensify financial pressure on
already stressed institutions. In the 1987 crash, government
officials worked feverishly -- and, ultimately, successfully -- to
avoid precisely that bleak scenario.

Officials say they are confident that the conditions that led to the
slide a decade ago are not present today. They cite low interest
rates and a healthy economy as key differences between now
and 1987. Officials also point to SEC-approved "circuit breakers"
that were introduced after 1987 to give investors timeouts to
calm down.

Under the SEC`s rules, a drop of 350 points in the Dow would
bring a 30-minute halt in NYSE trading. If the Dow declined
another 200 points, trading would cease for one hour. No
additional circuit breakers would operate that day, but a new set
would apply the next trading day.

Despite these precautions, today`s high stock market worries
officials such as Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who in a
speech in early December raised questions about "irrational
exuberance" in the markets. Because the market declined
following Greenspan`s speech, government officials have
become even more reluctant to comment on these issues for
fear of triggering the very event they wish to forestall, according
to policymakers.

A Brewing Concern

Greenspan had expressed similar thoughts a year ago at a
confidential meeting of the Working Group. Treasury Secretary
Robert E. Rubin and SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt Jr. also are
concerned about the stock market`s vulnerability, according to
sources familiar with their views.

The four principals of the group -- Rubin, Greenspan, Levitt and
CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Born -- meet every few months,
and senior staff get together more often to work on specific
agenda items.

In addition to the permanent members, the head of the
President`s National Economic Council, the chairman of his
Council of Economic Advisers, the comptroller of the currency
and the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank
frequently attend Working Group sessions.

The Working Group has studied a variety of possible threats to
the financial system that could ensue if stock prices go into free
fall. They include: a panicky flight by mutual fund shareholders;
chaos in the global payment, settlement and clearance systems;
and a breakdown in international coordination among central
banks, finance ministries and securities regulators, the sources
said.

As chairman of the Working Group, Rubin would have overall
responsibility for the U.S. response, but Greenspan probably
would be the government`s most important player.

"In a crisis, a lot of deference is paid to the Fed," a former
member of the Working Group said. "They are the only ones
with any money."

"The first and most important question for the central bank is
always, `Do you have credit problems?` " said E. Gerald
Corrigan, former president of the New York Federal Reserve
Bank and now an executive at Goldman Sachs & Co. "The
minute some bank or investment firm says, `Hey, maybe I`m not
going to get paid -- maybe I ought to wait before I transfer these
securities or make that payment,` then things get tricky. The
central bank has to sense that before it happens and take steps
to prevent it."

1987: A Case Study

The Fed`s reaction to the 1987 market slide, which Corrigan
helped oversee, is a case study in how to do it right. The Fed
kept the markets going by flooding the banking system with
reserves and stating publicly that it was ready to extend loans to
important financial institutions, if needed.

The Fed`s actions in October 1987 read like a financial war
story.

The morning after the 508-point drop on Black Monday, the
market began another sickening slide. Corrigan and other Fed
officials strongly discouraged New York Stock Exchange
Chairman John Phelan from requesting government permission
to close the market. Phelan was concerned that if the market
continued to erode, the capital of the NYSE member firms
would disappear. Corrigan feared a shutdown would cause more
panic.

"It was extraordinarily difficult around 11 o`clock," Corrigan
recalled. "The market was at one point down another 250 points,
and that`s when the debate with Phelan took place."

Simultaneously, Corrigan and other central bank officials spoke
privately with the big banks and urged them not to call loans they
had made to Wall Street houses, which were collateralized by
securities that could no longer be traded and whose value was in
question.

A final critical moment came that day when the Fed decided not
to shut down a subsidiary of the Continental Illinois Bank that
was the largest lender to the commodity futures and options
trading houses in Chicago. The subsidiary had run out of capital
to provide financing to that market.

"Closing it would have drained all the liquidity out of the futures
and options markets," said one former top Fed official involved in
the decision. Investors use stock futures and options to hedge
positions in the underlying stock market.

Recognizing the crucial role of banks if another financial crisis
should strike, the Office of the Comptroller recently conducted
an internal study of what damage a market decline would inflict
on U.S. banks. The OCC declined to discuss the study or its
conclusions.

At the SEC, one big worry is how to cope with an international
financial crisis that begins abroad but quickly rolls into U.S.
markets.

"We worry about a U.S. brokerage firm that is dealing with a
Japanese insurance company, where we don`t know how they
are run or regulated," a SEC source said. To improve its ability
to react in a crisis, the SEC and the Fed have begun joint
inspections with their British counterparts of U.S. and British
financial institutions with global reach.

The most drastic -- and probably unlikely -- move the SEC could
take in a crisis would be to propose a market shutdown to the
president. That would require a majority vote of the commission.
If a quorum couldn`t be mustered, the chairman could designate
himself "duty officer" and go to the president or his staff.

"Closing the market is, of course, the last thing the commission
wants to do," said a source familiar with the SEC`s planning.
"During a time when people are extremely worried about their
investments, you are cutting them off from taking any action. . . .
The philosophy of the commission is that markets should stay
open."

Just the Facts

Gathering accurate information would be the first order of
business for federal regulators.

"Intelligence gathering is critical," Corrigan said. "It depends on
the willingness of major market participants to volunteer
problems when they see them and to respond honestly to central
bank questions."

The SEC, CFTC and Treasury have market surveillance units.
They monitor not only the overall markets, but also the cash
positions of all the major stock and commodity brokerages and
large traders.

The regulators also are hooked into the "hoot-and-holler" system
used to notify participants in all financial markets of trading halts.
The hoot-and-holler system alerts traders and regulators when a
halt is coming.

Relying on Quick Action

In the event of a sharp market decline, the SEC and CFTC
would be in constant contact with brokerage and commodity
firms to spot early signs of financial failure. If they concluded
that a firm was going down, they would try to move customer
positions from that firm to solvent institutions.

At least this team of crisis managers already has been through
the Wall Street wars. Greenspan was Fed chairman in October
1987. Rubin has served as the co-head of investment bank
Goldman Sachs & Co. Levitt has been both a Wall Street
executive and president of the American Stock Exchange.

"I think the government is in good shape to handle a crisis," said
Scott Pardee, senior adviser to Yamaichi International
(America) Inc., a Japanese brokerage subsidiary, and former
senior vice president at the New York Fed. "A lot depends on
personal relationships. You have a number of seasoned people
who have gone through a number of crises. So if something
happens, things can be handled quickly on the phone without
having to introduce people to each other."

Consider what happened at 11:30 p.m. Dec. 5, when Greenspan
made his comments about irrational exuberance. Alton Harvey,
head of the SEC`s Market Watch unit, was called at home by
officials of Globex, a futures trading system owned by the
Chicago Mercantile Exchange. U.S. stock futures trading in
Asia had fallen to their 12-point limit, they said.

Harvey immediately alerted his direct superior as well as his
opposite number at the CFTC. More senior SEC and CFTC
officials were informed as well. But there wasn`t much to be
done until the morning. So Harvey went back to sleep.

REACTING TO A PLUNGE

After the market crashed on Oct. 29, 1929:

* The Federal Reserve provided loans and credit to financial
systems.

* President Hoover met with business, labor and farm
organizations to encourage capital spending and discourage
layoffs; he also promised higher tariffs.

* Federal income taxes were reduced by 1 percent by the end of
the year.

After the market dropped 22.6 percent on Oct. 19, 1987, the
Federal Reserve:

* Encouraged the New York Stock Exchange to stay open.

* Encouraged big commercial banks not to pull loans to major
Wall Street houses.

* Kept open a subsidiary of Continental Illinois Bank that was
the largest lender to the commodity trading houses in Chicago.

* Flooded the banking system with money to meet financial
obligations.

* Announced it was ready to extend loans to important financial
institutions.

What would happen today during a stock drop would depend on
the particulars. Here are current guidelines:

* If the Dow Jones industrial average falls 350 points within a
trading day, NYSE trading would be halted for 30 minutes.

* If the DJIA falls another 200 points that day, trading would
stop for one hour.

* If the market declines more than 550 points in a day, no further
restrictions would be applied.

SOURCE: The New York Stock Exchange, "The Crash and the
Aftermath" by Barrie A. Wigmore

© Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company

Back to the top


Quelle:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/black…

[sittin bull inv]

The Plunge Protection Team at it`s Finest


On Tuesday morning, the Nasdaq Composite Index - for many US investors a symbol of the technology-driven bull market -
lurched down almost 14 per cent. Yet by the close it had recovered to record a fall of less than 2 per cent on the day.

There is no question that "Something happened at around 1 p.m. our time (Tuesday) that pulled the stock market back from the
edge of the cliff." says John Crudele of the New York Post.

John Crudele`s article continued to state - "Traders say it was almost like divine intervention. One minute the Nasdaq was down
11 percent -- say it out loud, "Eleven percent in one day" -- and then it suddenly rallied several hundred points in the matter of an
hour."...

"Then, traders said, someone started buying large amounts of stock index futures contracts through two major brokerage firms --
Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch. These transactions are usually done on the QT so we don`t really know how many of these
contracts were purchased.... Because of the purely unselfish nature of what went on, traders are naturally suspicious. Hell, so
am I. "...

"I think some one or more persons saved the market today. There was a suspicious urge to buy stocks at an opportune time,"
says one trader. "Why drive the Dow up 350 points in a half hour? That`s never serious buying. That`s someone trying to establish
prices," he adds. " I`m especially suspicious when the market suddenly rebounds at nearly the very same moment that a member
of the Clinton administration -- economic advisor Gene Sperling -- is on TV telling investors not to worry."

" And there`s the obvious connection between Goldman Sachs and the administration, the Wall Street firm having given Robert
Rubin to the Clinton administration as its Treasury Secretary."

Gene Inger, editor of the Inger Letter commented regarding this week`s interventions "What does concern us, if that happened
(with Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch the rumored big players in the "save"), is why the next day you have the Chairman of the
Federal Reserve almost directly contradicting the intended results of a "plunge protection" intervention, by his remarks at today`s
White House Economic Conference. For ages there has been a connection between the ebb & flow of interest rates and the
market`s direction, although usually monetary policy and the money supply expansion or contraction are in harmony with the
direction of interest rates. Not so in this year`s environment as you know; and we suspect the Fed Chairman was thinking just
that when he made the remarks expressing a disconnect between rates and stock market direction."

Washington has had a secretive group called the Working Group on Financial Markets, made up of investment industry and
government people, that would be in just the right position to rescue the market. Many know them better as the "Plunge
Protection Team." In February 1997, the Washington Post did a piece on this team, just in case you don`t believe it exists.

Typically in a scenario such as this, it is likely that the Wall Street giants used the futures market to get the most bang for their
buck. Having virtually unlimited funds they could stabilize a falling stock market. This requires very little money down and is
much cheaper than just buying the actual stocks. However the risks are much greater as well... the market could keep falling.

The crash that took place earlier in the week also caused investors to fail meeting their margin calls and a lot of money vanished
into thin air. By mid day much, if not all, of the stocks bought on margin were blown out and taken away, what had to be really
frustrating though is watching the markets rally in just a few short hours afterwards. Even more frustrating to find out that the
averages were pushed back up with only a handful of stocks, while all the others were still suffering the aftermath.

The Plunge Protection Team was truly working at its finest, intervening at just the right moment. Stepping in with not worries or
concerns, risking their money as if they could create all the money in the world in order to sustain a position in the futures market
and reverse the trend. All in just a matter of hours.

Its nice to have someone who cares so much to front as much money as needed whenever the stock market tanks. Did someone
just say, "isn`t this an election year?"

CONCLUSION: THEY ARE LYING ABOUT THE STOCK MARKET AND U.S. ECONOMY-

The perpetuation of the Clinton myth of invincibility is dependent on the continued perception that the stock market and economy
are the strongest ever, and will remain so indefinitely. If the stock market and/or economy begin to crumble, support for Clinton
and Democratic Nominee, Al Gore will begin to crumble and a return to reality will commence. Hence, the Clinton team, the Fed,
and Wall Street (which is driven by raw, unadulterated greed) must perpetuate the facade of a strong stock market and economy.

They will continue to do this by lying about (or falsifying) virtually all economic/financial statistics and when necessary, massively
manipulating the stock, bond, currency, commodity (including gold) markets as MIA has described in previous newsletters. If (or
when) they lose control in the stock or financial markets they will lose control of everything.

The truth is, that about 85% of the stocks in the U.S. stock market are down and have been in a bear market downtrend since
April 3, 1998. The ensuing, widespread destruction of values has been masked by 50 to 75 big cap, blue chip stocks (i.e., GE,
MSFT, CSCO, INTC, MMM, IP, XON, CHV, IBM, etc.) and by incessant propaganda from Wall Street to Washington that we
have the strongest stock market and economy in U.S. history, that it will go on forever, and that only fools or Neanderthals would
be stupid enough to miss such an opportunity.

Driven by this deception, and by the greatest wave of greed in U.S. history, over half of the families in the U.S. have the lions
share of their savings, investments, and retirement funds in this huge speculative bubble. These people, deceived by the
Clinton/Wall Street promises of perpetual prosperity and wealth, will be wiped out, disillusioned, and extremely angry when the
markets finally implode.

A recession/depression will eventually arrive (as they always do). Historically they are preceded by stock market reversals which
take place 6 months before the recession hits. There is no question that at the heart of all of this is the debt pyramid. People are
no longer saving and they rely on stock price increases to do their saving for them. However there are more and more maverick
investors who are becoming contrarians and have begun to diversify in order to protect their wealth. I urge people reading this
article to consider strongly alternative investments for their portfolios.
For more information about a wealth preservation strategies call:
International Collector`s Associates at 1-800-525-9556


Quelle:http://www.mcalvany.com/specialreports/april/plunge.htm

[sittin bull inv]

Alan scheint heute mal wieder telefoniert zu haben.
Das er die Märkte trotzdem nicht von den gefährdeten
Marken wegbekommen kann, bedeutet wohl,
das der Markt selbst dem nicht traut.
Der Kampf zwischen Bullen und Bären wird trotzdem bald entschieden:

Und : Die Bären werden gewinnen!

[sittin bull inv]

Hier noch ein weiterer Bericht:

Anscheinend merkt der Markt Stützungskäufe nur,
wenn es durch große plötzliche Kurssprünge offensichtlich wird,
das die PPT eingegriffen hat.
In umsatzarmen Zeiten merkt man hingegen nichts.
Allerdings läßt wie zur Zeit das lange Ringen um wichtige
Chartmarken den Verdacht zu, das wieder "staatlich" in den Markt
eingegriffen wird.

Weiter bleibt die Frage offen, woher das Geld kommt,
wie groß die Transaktionen sind, wie lange solche durch Stützungskäufe erworbenen
Aktien bei der PPT bleiben, und wer für entstehende Verluste haftet.

Für Mitbeteiligung bei der Suche nach diesen X-Akten wäre ich sehr dankbar.

Hier der Artikel:

How Stocks Turned Back
From The Abyss
By John Crudelle
http://www.nypostonline.com/business/2250.htm
4-5-00



SOMETHING happened at around 1 p.m. our time
yesterday that pulled the stock market back from the
edge of the cliff.

Traders say it was almost like divine intervention. One
minute the Nasdaq was down 11 percent -- say it out
loud, "Eleven percent in one day" -- and then it suddenly
rallied several hundred points in the matter of an hour.

The Dow followed suit. Down 500 points around
mid-day, the blue chip index`s decline -- along with the
horrible showing of over-the-counter stocks -- was
destined to make yesterday`s market an unqualified
disaster for investors and the country.

Then, traders said, someone started buying large amounts
of stock index futures contracts through two major
brokerage firms -- Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch.
These transactions are usually done on the QT so we
don`t really know how many of these contracts were
purchased.

And unless the brokers tell, there is no way of knowing
which of their clients were making the purchases.
Goldman wouldn`t comment on this and Merrill did not
return a call for comment.

But traders said enough were bought to catch everyone`s
attention. In fact, the buyers seemed to want people to
know they had an appetite for stocks.

Then the market rebounded.

It didn`t go all the way back. At the end of the day the
Dow Jones index had still lost lost 56 points or half a
percent on the day. And the Nasdaq lost another 74
points, or the equivalent of a 1.77 percent drop.
Yesterday`s loss by over-the-counter stocks nearly put
the Nasdaq index back to ground zero for the year -- in
two days all but 2 percent of its gain for the year was
gone.

It was real nice of Goldman and Merrill to stick their
necks out like that. In fact, it was downright
uncharacteristic for Wall Street outfits to put the thought
of possible losses aside for the greater good.

Because of the purely unselfish nature of what went on,
traders are naturally suspicious. Hell, so am I.

"I think some one or more persons saved the market
today. There was a suspicious urge to buy stocks at an
opportune time," says one trader. "Why drive the Dow
up 350 points in a half hour? That`s never serious buying.
That`s someone trying to establish prices," he adds.

I`m especially suspicious when the market suddenly
rebounds at nearly the very same moment that a member
of the Clinton administration -- economic advisor Gene
Sperling -- is on TV telling investors not to worry.

And there`s the obvious connection between Goldman
Sachs and the administration, the Wall Street firm having
given Robert Rubin to the Clinton administration as its
Treasury Secretary.

Plus, what better way to make investors not worry than
by having the stock market recover a lot of the ground it
had just lost. That gesture almost makes a guy want to
buy some stock -- bottom fish, if you are into sporting
analogies.

I`m not saying that government intervention in a
collapsing market is wrong. In fact -- except for the
obvious contradictions with the free-market system -- it is
politically and socially a very right thing to do.

I`ve written about this before. And I`ve mentioned that
Washington has had a secretive group call the Working
Group on Financial Markets, made up of investment
industry and government people, that would be in just the
right position to rescue the market.

Informally the folks on Wall Street call this the "Plunge
Protection Team." In February 1997, the Washington
Post did a piece on this team, just in case you don`t
believe it exists.

And while I can`t swear that Goldman and Merrill are
captains of that team, they sure acted like it yesterday.

[sittin bull inv]

Kein einziger Treffer auf der Fed-Seite,
dafür dürfte mein Rechner jetzt gerade mit Echelon
ausspioniert werden, bestimmt steht in 10 Min. die CIA
vor der Tür, da ich versuche, an mehr Daten heranzukommen.

Erinnert doch ein wenig an die X-Akten!

[sittin bull inv]

Erklärt das woher das Geld für Aktienkäufe kam?

( Achtung Verschwörungstheorie ! )

#1 von golden-bear 13.08.01 09:39:59 4187101
The Mystery of the Disappearing SDR Certificates

James Turk


Copyright 2001 © by The Freemarket Gold & Money Report.

Here`s a mystery for you. It ranks high with any of the great thrillers solved by Sherlock Holmes, but this one is not fiction.

I have been arguing that the US Treasury and possibly the IMF have been selling gold, and that their actions have depressed the gold price. But if I am right, then why has the reported weight of the US
Gold Reserve and the gold stock of the IMF remained unchanged?

The easiest answer to this question is also the most unlikely. This low probability answer is that the US Gold Reserve and the gold stock of the IMF are not being accurately reported.

I dismiss this answer, almost completely but maybe not entirely because one never knows what could be happening. A deliberately reported inaccurate weight of gold would mean fraud, and I don`t see
that deception to be a highly probable outcome. No, I think there has to be another answer.

I touched upon the possible solution to this mystery earlier this year. I wrote (Letter No. 283, "Behind Closed Doors") that the portion of the US Gold Reserve stored at the depository in West Point, New
York had been swapped with gold owned by the Bundesbank, and that the gold in the German central bank had been sold. So far, nothing I have seen refutes this contention, and correspondence from
the Bundesbank has wrapped much of its gold policy in a cloak of confidentiality, adding credence to my conclusion. After all, if my supposition weren`t true, why not just disclose the facts to
convincingly refute it?

Be that as it may, there were some loose ends that in my mind needed to be tidied up in order to add more substance to my contention that much of the US Gold Reserve was swapped and then sold.
And first among those loose ends was the accounting. How were all of these gold transactions being accounted for? How could all of this gold be put into play even while the reported weight of the US
Gold Reserve and the gold stock of the IMF remained unchanged? And perhaps most importantly, why didn`t these transactions result in any apparent change on the balance sheet of the main
perpetrators of this scheme, the Federal Reserve and the Exchange Stabilization Fund? There has to be some kind of accounting trail, doesn`t there?

I`ve thought long and hard about these questions, but have been unable to answer them to my satisfaction - until now. And in this regard, I would like to thank David Walker, a tireless researcher who
has an uncanny ability to read between the lines of tedious and dull government reports to get at the truth. Dave`s terrific work provided me with the motivation to continue researching an area that until
recently had been largely unfruitful for me. And what is that area? A monetary instrument emitted by the International Monetary Fund called the SDR, an acronym for Special Drawing Rights a.k.a. `paper
gold`.

My intuitive sense for some time had been that SDR`s were the key necessary to unlock the door. By understanding the SDR, I expected that one could understand what was happening to the US Gold
Reserve as well as put together a consistent accounting and the legal framework for the gold transactions that I contend have been taking place. But even though I thought SDR`s would provide the
much sought after answer I was seeking, I was having trouble with a few things, mainly related to the accounting.

For example, SDRs are so-called "paper gold", so this financial asset has to have a corresponding liability just like any other `paper` money, right? But I couldn`t find who or what is actually liable for the
SDRs.

After digging away in the IMF archives, I found the following in an IMF accounting manual called the Manual on Monetary and Financial Statistics, in a section entitled "Definition of Financial Assets:
http://www.imf.org/external/indexlst.htm

"Monetary gold and SDRs issued by the IMF are financial assets for which there are no corresponding financial liabilities."

How about that? No wonder I couldn`t reconcile the accounting. Here`s a purely financial asset with no corresponding liability!?! SDR`s issued by the IMF are accounted in the same way that the IMF
accounts for its stock of gold. I thought that only tangible assets like gold, houses and land had no liabilities. I never dreamed that a financial asset would not have a corresponding liability, but after this
realization, one thing led to another and everything slowly but surely started falling into place.

In "Behind Closed Doors" I included the following quote from the transcript of the January 31st, 1995 FOMC meeting:

MR. TRUMAN. The legislation governing the objectives of the ESF was changed, I think for the most part in the mid- to late-1970s. The changes included the language that the government of the United
States and the International Monetary Fund have the obligation to promote orderly exchange rate arrangements leading to a stable system of exchange rates.

Since first reading this candid comment I have always been struck by it. Truman is relying upon this 1970`s legislation to provide the legal justification to use the ESF to bail-out Mexico. It therefore seemed
clear to me that if I could figure out what was implemented in the 1970`s, I could then come to more precisely understand how the US Gold Reserve was being put into play.

I had been unsuccessful, however, in trying to figure out what was the legislation to which Truman was referring. Well, I now think that he was referring at least in part to what is called the Second
Amendment of the IMF.

By way of background, when the gold crisis in the 1960`s was in full swing, the original IMF articles were amended. This First Amendment to the IMF created SDRs. Then here`s what the Second
Amendment did. http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/gold.htm

What changed under the Second Amendment to the Articles of Agreement of the IMF? The Second Amendment to the Articles of Agreement of the IMF, which came into effect in April 1978, eliminated the
use of gold as the common denominator of the par value system and as the basis of the value of the SDR. The Amendment also abolished the official price of gold and abrogated the obligatory uses of
gold in transactions between the IMF and its members… Under the Amendment, members undertook to collaborate with the IMF and other members with respect to reserve assets to promote better
international surveillance of international liquidity.

I draw your attention to the last sentence. I think this statement explains what Ted Truman was referring to. The term "international liquidity" is a euphemism I think that gives a carte blanche to do
whatever the various IMF members want to do, using assets that are at hand or whatever assets that they create out of thin air, to intervene and manipulate any market anyway they want under the
guise of "international liquidity" - which really means to let the banks create credit out of thin air for no other purpose but to keep the present system afloat so they can preserve their position of privilege
and keep lining their pockets.

The following quote is from the "User`s Guide to the SDR" published by the IMF. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/FT/usrgsdr/usersc01.htm#3

3. Improvements in the SDR after the Second Amendment: One of the major objectives of the Second Amendment of the Fund`s Articles of Agreement, which became effective on April 1, 1978, is to
make the SDR the principal reserve asset of the international monetary system. To this end, the Fund`s Executive Board has taken a number of decisions to improve the yield on the SDR and its liquidity
and usability. At the same time, certain obligations arising from participation have been eliminated.

"Improvements" to you and me may sound innocuous, but in reality these `improvements` have only one objective - to keep the present system afloat by providing more power to governments working
hand-in-hand with the banking cartel. So far I`m not sure of all the ways the SDR became more usable, nor have I yet discovered all the obligations that were eliminated when the Second Amendment
"improved" the SDR. But I have learned enough about the SDR to conclude why the accounting of the US Gold Reserve does not appear to have changed. This mystery can be solved by first solving a
second mystery, the case of the disappearing SDR Certificates.

To begin, it is necessary to provide some background information gleaned from more hours of studying arcane IMF accounting than I care to admit, but I`ll keep it simple. And the way to do that is to show
how `real gold` and Gold Certificates are accounted, because I have learned that `paper gold` and SDR Certificates are accounted essentially the same way.

The US Gold Reserve does double-duty. It sits in the vaults at Fort Knox and the other depositories, but the US Treasury has issued Gold Certificates against it. The Federal Reserve owns these Gold
Certificates, giving the Fed a claim to the 261.6 million ounces in the US Gold Reserve. Simple enough, and the same transaction is used for `paper gold` - the SDR`s - with just one small difference. The
US Treasury has transferred its SDR`s to the ESF, so the ESF and not the US Treasury issued the SDR Certificates now owned by the Federal Reserve.

Importantly, these SDR Certificates are being accounted for much the same way as the Gold Certificates. Both are carried at book value, which is much less than their market value. The Gold Certificates
are carried on the Federal Reserve`s books at $11,046 million, which doesn`t sound like much. However, when you consider that these Gold Certificates are being valued at only $42.22 per ounce, this
asset represents the entire 261.6 million ounces in the US Gold Reserve. And the SDR Certificates are being valued at - well, here is where it starts to get interesting. And here is where the mystery of
the disappearing SDR Certificates comes into play. Look at the decline in the SDR Certificates in the accompanying table.


Exchange Stabization Fund
Federal Reserve


(Assets)
(Liabilities)
(Assets)


(in millions)
(in millions)


SDR
SDR
SDR
SDR
Gold


Holdings
Certificates
Allocations
Certificates
Certificates

Dec-98
10,603
9,200
6,899
9,200
11,046

Mar-99
9,682
8,200
6,653
8,200
11,049

Jun-99
9,719
8,200
6,545
8,200
11,046

Sep-99
10,284
7,200
6,799
7,200
11,047

Dec-99
10,336
6,200
6,717
6,200
11,048

Mar-00
10,335
6,200
6,599
6,200
11,048

Jun-00
10,444
4,200
6,552
4,200
11,046

Sep-00
10,316
3,200
6,359
3,200
11,046

Dec-00
10,539
2,200
6,384
2,200
11,046

Mar-01
n/a
n/a
n/a
2,200
11,046


The above table presents the SDR assets and liabilities of the ESF and the Fed. Though recent figures for the ESF are not available, as of August 9th the Fed still owns only 2,200 million of SDR
Certificates, so presumably the SDR entries on the ESF balance sheet have not changed much since December 2000. To understand why the SDR Certificates are disappearing as well as where they
are going, more background information is necessary.

The US, like each IMF Member, owns SDR`s but is also responsible for the value of the SDR. Note #4 of the ESF`s financial statement for 1999 explains it thus: "Its [the SDR`s] value as a reserve asset
derives, essentially, from the commitments of participants to hold and accept SDR`s and to honor various obligations connected with its proper functioning as a reserve asset."

As of December 1998, the ESF owned 10,603 million SDR`s, but it had a liability for 6,899 million SDR`s. What does this liability represent? Here`s what Schedule B of the Articles of Agreement of the IMF
says: "…0.888671 gram of fine gold shall be equivalent to one special drawing right." That means 35 SDR`s equals one ounce of gold. So the US has the potential obligation as of December 2000 - if
required to make good on SDR`s issued - to pay to the IMF or its members 182.4 million ounces of gold, some 69.7% of the US Gold Reserve.

That huge liability is pretty scary, but it is only a potential liability. Who knows whether the US will ever be required to make good on it, or if it does, whether the US will default just like it defaulted in 1933
on its obligation to pay US government bonds in gold and in 1971 on its obligation to redeem 35 dollars for one ounce of gold. Those are problems to worry about in the future. Of more immediate concern
is the decline in the SDR Certificates. What is that all about? To answer this question and to solve this mystery of the disappearing SDR Certificates, we have to once again go back to basics.

Why are the SDR Certificates declining? The basic answer is quite simple. The SDR Certificates MUST BE reduced if the ESF intends to use its SDR`s for any purpose, such as market intervention or
swaps. In other words, the SDR Certificates are a claim against the SDR`s, so the SDR Certificate must be cancelled to remove any claims on the SDR before the SDR can be used by the ESF. But the
amount of SDR`s owned by the ESF hasn`t changed except briefly in early 1999, so it seems that the SDR`s are not being used for any purpose.

So what I think has happened is that the SDR Certificates are themselves being used by the ESF. Here`s what the IMF says about the use of SDR`s in swaps: "In accordance with Article XIX, Section
2(c), the Fund prescribes that...a participant, by agreement with another participant, may engage in an operation by which (a) one of the parties transfers [i.e., swaps] to the other party SDRs in
exchange for an equivalent amount of currency or another monetary asset, other than gold."

Thus, SDR`s cannot be swapped for gold, but there is no IMF regulation that prohibits the swapping of SDR Certificates for gold. So let`s take this observation to its logical conclusion, namely, that the
ESF and/or the Federal Reserve has been swapping SDR Certificates issued by the ESF for gold owned by the Bundesbank, and presumably other central banks as well because we noted above that
the Second Amendment states that "members undertook to collaborate with the IMF and other members" for the sake of international liquidity. So presumably, all IMF members are committed to undertake
any scheme that the US government may hatch.

This interpretation may also explain the strange response to Alan Greenspan by the Fed`s General Counsel, Virgil Mattingly, who has "no clear recollection of exactly" what he said during the January
31st, 1995 FOMC meeting, even though it seems most likely that the transcript accurately records him as saying "gold swaps". In his June 8, 2001 note to Greenspan, Mattingly states: "I can confirm that I
have no knowledge of any `gold swaps` by either the Federal Reserve or the ESF." Is Mattingly being truthful? Yes, I think so, at least in regard to the precise choice of terms used in his note.

Remember President Clinton`s exegesis on the definition of the word is? Lawyer Mattingly I think is playing the same game. By this line of thinking, neither the Federal Reserve nor the ESF do `gold
swaps`. Instead, these transactions are probably called "SDR Certificate Swaps" or some other similar term, although the FOMC participants may use the unofficial term "gold swaps" as a short-hand
moniker that is not only easier to say than the official name of the transaction, but also has the added advantage of clearly communicating the net result of the transaction.

There is another important piece of corroborating evidence that SDR Certificates are being used by the ESF to hide its gold transactions. When several months ago I first read the audited financial
statement of the ESF, I was struck by a peculiar phrase in footnote #4, which in addition to considerable explanatory text also provided a table of SDR purchases and sales during the year. The text
stated that these purchases and sales were "equivalent of SDR`s". Therefore, I concluded that if they were "equivalent of SDR`s", SDR`s were not actually being used in the transaction. But I wondered,
if they weren`t SDR`s, then what were they? We don`t know for sure what they are, but they are probably SDR Certificate transactions - not SDR`s, but only their "equivalent".

Let`s put the size of these transactions into perspective. As of December 2000, the ESF owned 10,539 million SDR`s, against which it has issued 2,200 million SDR Certificates. Therefore, 8,338 million
SDR`s are potentially `in play`, but we can refine this number given that it is the SDR Certificates and not the SDR`s that are important.

The ESF by law cannot issue more SDR Certificates than it has SDR`s. The largest amount of SDR Certificates outstanding was 10,168 million in December 1995, a significant date because I have
contended all along that government actions that have depressed the gold price began in 1996, which is the same year that the SDR Certificates began to decline. From this peak to the present, the SDR
Certificates have been reduced by 7,968 million. Given that there are 35 SDR per ounce of gold, this reduction in the SDR Certificate account equates to 227.7 million ounces, or 87% of the US Gold
Reserve. Does this mean that 87% of the US Gold Reserve has already been swapped? I don`t have the answer to that question, but I would like to make four important observations that do in fact
suggest that substantially all of the US Gold Reserve has been put into play.

First, note on the accompanying table the dates when the SDR Certificates began to decline rapidly. From 10,168 million in December 1995, the SDR Certificate account declined to 8,200 million by June
1999, or 19% over 3½ years. Now look at the decline beginning in the third quarter of 1999, which corresponds with the Washington Agreement signed in September of that year. In only 18 months the
SDR Certificate account declined by 73%. Was there a panic to get gold into the market after the Washington Agreement to keep the gold price from rising? This evidence sure does support that
conclusion.

Second, readers will recall how the US Treasury changed in September 2000 the classification of that portion of the US Gold Reserve in West Point to "Custodial Gold". It is interesting and probably
meaningful to note that this change occurred in the fiscal year ending September 30th in which there was a substantial decline in the SDR Certificates.

In "Behind Closed Doors" I speculated that the reason for this reclassification was that the Mint`s accountants or its new director realized that it was misleading to continue calling this swapped metal as
"Gold Bullion Reserve". This logic may also explain why more recently, the entire US Gold Reserve was reclassified as "Deep Storage Gold". If 87% of the US Gold Reserve has indeed been swapped, it
may have been too obvious an admission by the US Treasury to reclassify nearly the entire US Gold Reserve as "Custodial Gold". Therefore, to give some semblance of proper accounting while not
totally divulging the truth, the Treasury came up with the half-baked term "Deep Storage Gold". Further, it was my thinking that the Treasury, taking a lesson from lawyers Clinton and Mattingly, probably
defined this term in some obscure Treasury accounting manual.

What was a speculation on my part is now supported by a letter dated August 7, 2001, to Richard May from John P. Mitchell, Deputy Director of the US Mint. Mitchell states: "The gold in West Point was
not reclassified - it was renamed to better conform to our audited financial statements." Despite providing five pages of supporting material with his letter, Mitchell does not explain how this `renaming`
enables the Treasury to "better conform to [its] audited financial statements." The logical conclusion is that this better conformation arises because the strict application of prudent accounting principles no
longer allows the Treasury to use the term "US Gold Reserves" because more than half - and possibly 87% of it - has been swapped. Given that the Treasury does not want to use the more accurate
but alarming term "Custodial Gold", the US Gold Reserve has therefore instead become "Deep Storage Gold", allowing the Treasury to remain within the letter if not the spirit of the principle of full
disclosure.

The third observation takes the above changes and explains them in weights of gold. The 6,000 million drop in SDR Certificates from June 1999 to December 2000 represents 171.4 million ounces, or 28.6
million ounces (888.7 tonnes) per quarter. That`s a supply of about 3500 tonnes per year, which added to 2500 tonnes new mine production implies an annual demand of 6000 tonnes for the period of
time after the Washington Agreement. Is this number reasonable?

In my opinion it is reasonable. Noted gold analyst Frank Veneroso contends that annual gold demand has been running about 5000 tonnes, but this number reflects normal market conditions. After the
Washington Agreement and the price spike, the market was anything but normal. Even though fabrication demand fell during that period, investment and monetary demand for gold soared. So it is not
unreasonable to expect that more than 1000 tonnes of newly supplied gold from government dishoarding was needed in the months after the Washington Agreement to turn the price back from the +$320
level reached at that time.

The fourth and final observation relates to a point I made in the last newsletter. I noted how earmarked gold has been shipped from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at a rate of at least 40 tonnes
per month beginning in September 2000, while also stating this new "dishoarding from the NY Fed smacks of desperation". The above table confirms this conclusion.

The SDR Certificate account has not changed since the 4th quarter of 2000. With only 2,200 million remaining, the SDR Certificate account, while not depleted, is near rock bottom and one must ask how
much more gold the US government is willing to throw at the market? I don`t think the answer to that question is "all of it", so essentially there is no more US gold available for swapping. Consequently,
with these SDR Certificate swaps eliminated as a source of supply, another source of gold had to be located to fill the gap between supply and demand.

In the last newsletter I suggested that the IMF is this new source. That`s just a supposition on my part, but it seems logical that IMF gold is being shipped out of the FRB of NY. The quantities being shipped
are so large, the gold must be coming from a large hoard, and the IMF has, on paper at least, one of the world`s largest. But regardless of whose it is, this gold is being shipped at a rate greater than gold
is being mined each month in South Africa, the world`s largest producer. That volume of shipments smacks of desperation to get gold into the market, and the reason is clear. Because the SDR Certificate
swaps have ended, a new source of gold supply is needed to keep the gold price from exploding upward.

In conclusion, it is becoming very obvious that the US government has put itself in an incredible pickle. But we`ve seen this happen before.

In the 1960`s the US government dishoarded over 9000 tonnes of gold rather than admit that the dollar had been debased and was no longer worth only $35 per ounce. Now it appears that perhaps as
much as 7,000 tonnes (227.7 million ounces) has been swapped for essentially the same purpose - to intervene in the market to fight the truth, rather than admit that the dollar has again become very
debased relative to gold. ¤

August 14, 2001

[sittin bull inv]

Wo sind bloß die Beweise?

[MRR]

Gegen Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts starteten die Banken, die durch Rothschild kontrolliert waren, eine große Kampagne, um die reiche US Wirtschaft unter ihre Kontrolle zu bekommen. Die europäischen Rothschilds finanzierten die eben erwähnte J.P. Morgan & Co. Bank, die Bank von Khun Loeb & Co, John D. Rockefellers Standard Oil Co., Edward Harrimans Eisenbahn und Andrew Carnegie`s Stahlwerke. Diese Verbindung war sicherlich mehr als nur ein Standbein in der USWirtschaft. Um 1900 sandten die Rothschilds einen anderen Agenten in die USA, PAUL WARBURG, um mit der »Khun Loeb & Co. Bank« zusammenzuarbeiten. Merken Sie sich diesen »Rothschild-Agenten« sehr gut, er wird noch viele Organisationen miteinander vernetzen! JACOB SCHIFF und PAUL WARBURG starteten eine Kampagne für die Errichtung der »FEDERAL RESERVE BANK« als fest installierte private Zentralbank in Amerika. Jacob Schiff ließ die New Yorker Handelskammer bei einer Rede 1907 wissen:

»Wenn wir keine Zentralbank mit einer ausreichenden Kontrolle über die Kreditbeschaffung bekommen, dann wird dieses Land die schärfste und tiefgreifendste Geldpanik seiner Geschichte erleben.« (»Die Absteiger«, Des Griffin).

Gesagt, getan, stürzten sie daraufhin die USA in eine Währungskrise, deren daraus resultierende Panik am Kapitalmarkt das Leben zehntausender Menschen im ganzen Land ruinierte. Die Panik an der New Yorker Börse brachte den Rothschilds neben mehreren Milliarden US-Dollar auch den gewünschten Erfolg. Schlau ausgedacht, benutzte man die Panik als Argument, nun endlich eine Zentralbank zu errichten, um Vorfälle wie diesen zu vermeiden. Paul Warburg sagte dann dem Bank- und Währungskomitee:

»Das erste, was mir auf die Panik hin in den Kopf kam, ist, daß wir eine nationale Clearing-Bank (Zentralbank) brauchen ... « (»Die Insider«, Gary Allen).

Die endgültige Version des Beschlusses, das »FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM« (die private Zentralbank Amerikas) einzuführen, entstand auf einem Privatgrundstück J.P. Morgans, auf Jekyll Island, Georgia. Die Anwesenden des Treffens waren den Recherchen von Herbert G. Dorsey zufolge: A. Piatt Andrew, Senator Nelson Aldrich, Frank Vanderlip, (Präsident der Khun Loeb & Co); Henry Davidson, (Senior Partner der J.R Morgan Bank), Charles Norton, (Präsident von Morgans First National Bank), Paul Warburg und Benjamin Strong, (Präsident von Morgans Bankers Trust Co).

Die Einführung der »Federal Reserve« 1913 ermöglichte nun den internationalen Bankiers, ihre finanzielle Macht in den USA sehr zu festigen. PAUL WARBURG wurde der erste Vorsitzende der »New York Federal Reserve Bank«.

Dem »Federal Reserve« Beschluß folgte der 16. Zusatzartikel der amerikanischen Verfassung, der es nun dem Kongreß ermöglichte, das persönliche Einkommen der US-Bürger zu besteuern. Das war die Konsequenz, nachdem die US-Regierung nun kein eigenes Geld mehr drucken durfte, um ihre Operationen zu finanzieren.

Dies war das erste mal in der Geschichte seit der Gründung der USA, daß das Volk Einkommenssteuer bezahlen mußte.

Die wichtigsten Aktienbesitzer der »FEDERAL RESERVE« (der Fed) waren:

1. Rothschild Banken aus London und Paris

2. Lazard Brothers Bank aus Paris

3. Israel Moses Seif Bank aus Italien

4. Warburg Bank aus Amsterdam und Hamburg

5. Lehmann Bank aus New York

6. Khun Loeb Bank aus New York

7. Rockefellers Chase Manhattan Bank aus New York. Goldman Sachs Bank aus New York

Kongreßmitglied CHARLES LINDBERGH beschrieb schon damals die neu entstandene Federal Reserve Bank als die »unsichtbare Regierung«, durch ihre Geldmacht.

Wie funktioniert die »Federal Reserve Bank« eigentlich?

Das »Komitee des offenen Marktes« der Fed produziert »Federal Reserve Noten« (Dollar-Scheine). Diese Noten werden dann für Obligationen (Schuldverschreibungen) der US-Regierung verliehen, die der Fed als Sicherheit dienen. Diese Obligationen werden durch die zwölf Fed-Banken gehalten, die wiederum die jährlichen Zinsen darauf beziehen.

Entsprechende Aumerkung zur heutigen Situation:

1982 nannte das US-Finanzamt den Schuldbetrag von rund $1,070,241,000,000. Die Fed sammelte also rund $ 115,800,000,000 Zinsen in nur einem Jahr von den amerikanischen Steuerzahlern ein. Dieses Zinskapital geht ganz allein in die Taschen der Fed, und damit zu den internationalen privaten Bankiers.

1992 waren die Obligationen, die durch die Fed gehalten werden, bei rund $ 5,000,000,000,000. und die Zinszahlungen der Steuerzahler steigen ständig. Und dieses ganze Vermögen hat die Fed erschaffen, indem sie der US-Regierung Geld verleiht und dafür hohe Zinsen kassiert, das die Fed an und für sich nur Farb- und Druckgebühren kostet. Das ist mit der größte Schwindel in der Geschichte der USA und kaum einem fällt es auf Dazu kommt, daß die Fed, durch die Obligationen der USRegierung das Pfandrecht, staatlich und privat, auf den Grundbesitz der gesamten Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika hat. Zahllose Gerichtsverfahren waren bisher ohne Wirkung, um das »Federal Reserve«-Gesetz rückgängig zu machen. Es gibt auch rechtlich keinen Weg für die Bürger, das Geld zurückzubekommen, da die Fed, keine Abteilung der US-Regierung, sondern eine private Einrichtung ist. Angeblich ist die Fed, verfassungsrechtlich nicht erlaubt und damit gar nicht existenzberechtigt. Neun US-Staaten haben deshalb bereits »Staatsverfahren« laufen, um die Fed aufzuheben.

Quelle beachten :O

http://www.vho.org/D/Geheim1/16g.htm

[=>AlterSchwede]

Das kennen wir schon.

Viele Interessengruppen sind derweil im Internet, insbesondere auch in Internetforen tätig.
Vermutlich gehen sie davon aus, mit ihrerer Propaganda dem Globalen Finanzsystem genau jetzt größeren Schaden zufügen zu können, um von einem eventuellen Umsturz beim erhofften Scheitern des Kapitalismus zu profitieren.

Bezüglich irgendwelchen Verschwörungstheorien sollte man nicht unbedingt LaRouche (PolitSekte) Glauben schenken, genauso wenig vertrauenswürdig sind NYPost und Co !

@MRR
Solche Therien, wie diese unter dem angegebenen Link lassen einem die Haare zu Berge stehen:

"Hohle-Erde-Theorie"
"Philadelphia-Experiment"
"Nazis besaßen UFOs mit Todesstrahlen"
"Verstehen Sie nun, warum das Thema der UFOs in den Massenmedien, besonders in Deutschland, als Humbug abgetan wird? Nach diesem deutschen Background ist klar, daß die von den Illuminati durch die zionistisch-anglo-amerikanische Lobby kontrollierte Medien- und Nachrichtenwelt keine Kosten scheut, den deutschen Bürger vom Nachforschen auf diesem Gebiet abzuhalten.

Es stellt sich hier die Frage, woher die deutschen Geheimgesellschaften Thule und Vril das Wissen für den Bau dieser Flugkörper hatte? Ebenso das Wissen für die Gentechnologie, in der die Deutschen wiederum anderen Nationen um Längen voraus waren?

Nach Aussagen von Herbert G. Dorsey und anderen Forschern soll neben den Bauplänen der Vril-Gesellschaft, durch den telepathischen Kontakt mit den Außerirdischen, der intakte Antrieb einer im Jahre 1936 im Schwarzwald abgestürzten nichtirdischen Untertasse den Deutschen eine große Hilfe gewesen sein. Hierzu gibt es jedoch so gut wie keine Beweise, von noch lebenden Augenzeugen ganz zu schweigen."

Was soll das ? Geschickte Propaganda, um Allmachtsfantasien der heutigen Neo-Nazis anzuregen...

AS..

[=>AlterSchwede]

Ach ja, das noch: Die moderne Untermauerung der Arier-Hypothese.
Das ich nicht lache.
Außerirdische waren Ur-Arier, die jetzt in der hohlen Erde hausen und Hitler damals exklusiv mit High-Tech versorgten.
Sehr amüsant.

[BlueMod [Mod]]

? Häh???


Gibt es denn nun das PPT oder nicht?


das da unseriöse Quellen mit bei sind läßt sich in Internetzeiten wohl nicht verhindern...

Und offiziell gibt es sie wie schon erwähnt nicht...

[German2]

das PPT gibt es und das zurecht. Ein Crash wäre fatal und würde die Altersvorsorge in den USA vernichten. Daran ist keiner interessiert. Ein Crash ist oft irrational und entwickelt eine Eigendynamik. Außerdem schadet er der Realwirtschaft. Deshalb muss ein Crash verhindert bzw. abgebremst werden.

Es geht nicht um fallende oder steigende Kurse ,sondern um die Geschwindigkeit eines Abfalls der Kurse.

[BlueMod [Mod]]

es wäre schon ein Witz wenn ausgerechnet die
Marktgläubigen Amerikaner diesen sozialistischen Ansatz
hätten...

[investival]

@BlueMod,

wenn`s denn (vermeintlich) hilft, ist den Amis NICHTS tabu...

Mal sehen, ob sie darüber hinaus an ihre Hausaufgaben denken. Ohne die gibt`s - PPT hin oder her - jedenfalls keine guten Vertrauensnoten mehr...

investival