Sign in with Twitter

Type the topic in any language to check out real time results of Who's Talking on Social Media Sites

Trending Topics: #McGuiSuaHistoria#CA14#DoritosRouletteLiveLANA EU TE AMO#BölücüMHP#ZeyrekileÇeyrek#HowToKeepYourGirlHappy#SarahsongsiOS8.4#SeOWhatsappAcabarJohn Noakes#LoopOff5H#MutlulukDenince#beingfemaleinnigeriaThe Last of Us 2#CoolForTheSummerIn1Day#leapsecond#HalseyMTV#Os1DVãoFazer5AnosEEu#lys2015#AppleMusic水の進化iOS 8.4#anime_eupho#三四郎ann0Rona FairheadYurttaSulh CihandaSulh#MutluBirYaşamİçinMisty Copeland#bnannKadri GürselSonny Gray#お前ら黒バス初見時誰が本命だったんだよBeyoncé Our PrideNigel Pearson#AskBobby下半期神ちゃん#smday#kurobasCall Of DutySırrı Süreyya ÖnderMurrayMo FarahAmber Alert#SigaSeuRumoQueEuTeSdvErsin Düzen#MagicMikeXXLLuke RidnourLionel Carole#ChasingMidnightQandAGrafite#RTが早かった先着5名は私のガチ勢#AnnoyYourPartnerIn5WordsFerhat Şenel#TeenWolfBouchardGundem YazarıLYS SONUÇLARI AÇIKLANDI#3SaatSonraÖlecekOlsamChile vs PeruJackson VromanWenatchee fireWimbledon 2015Euro to DollarApple MusicChris FarleyLyme DiseaseOlivia Munn4th of JulyPhil MickelsonGreeceDow Joneschrissy teigenTeen WolfRihannaChris ChristiePuerto RicoAmber RoseDonald TrumpMore

Most recent 19 results returned for keyword: JP Morgan (Search this on MAP) Farr Yacht Design : Congratulations to Mike Slade's Farr 100 "Leopard 3" for taking monohull line honors at this year's ...
Congratulations to Mike Slade's Farr 100 "Leopard 3" for taking monohull line honors at this year's J.P. Morgan Asset Management Round the Island Race.

1 hour ago - Via Google+ - View - G Dwayne Michel Clinton Bush Washington (deezyw143) : Dwayne Michael Washington 01/27/1983 ,in Sacramento California 3336 20th avenue 95820. Morning Roar...
Dwayne Michael Washington 01/27/1983 ,in Sacramento California 3336 20th avenue 95820.

Morning Roar: Big Banks Struggle With Federal Reserve’s “Stress Test”
Posted on March 12, 2015 by John Odermatt Posted in Current Events, Monetary Policy 1 Comment

Four big Wall Street banks struggled to pass the annual set of “stress tests” initiated by the Federal Reserve. This year’s test was intended to gauge whether banks would be able to continue lending during a period of severe economic stress.

Federal Reserve officials do not want the tests to be predictable, so the tests vary year to year. This is because the Fed believes banks should be planning for unforeseen risks. The Fed allows banks to make adjustments to plans prior to determining if a bank has passed or failed the round of stress tests.

The six largest firms had to weather a global market-shock situation that included corporate bankruptcies and an extreme drop in the price of certain “risky” securities. The market instability introduced during the testing was greater than in prior years, which produced higher losses for banks that are deeply involved in capital-market activities.

The Wall Street Journal reported on the struggles encountered by four of the biggest banks during the testing process:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley received the green light to return income to investors only after adjusting their initial requests to ensure capital buffers stayed above the minimums required by the Fed.

Bank of America Corp. got conditional approval to return capital to shareholders after the Fed found “certain weaknesses” in its ability to measure losses and revenue and in other internal controls. The bank can temporarily reward investors by boosting dividends or share buybacks, but it must submit a revised plan addressing its shortcomings by Sept. 30. If the Fed isn’t satisfied with the bank’s progress, it can freeze the capital distributions.

The Charlotte, N.C., bank said it would increase stock buybacks but hold dividends steady. It was the only lender among the six biggest U.S. banks to not raise that payout. Bank of America Chief Executive Brian Moynihan said the lender was “committed” to submitting a revised plan “in the time frame the Fed has established.”

There’s a lot to digest in this excerpt and I’m not going to pretend to be some kind of Wall Street or “stress test” expert. But there are a couple of red flags in these paragraphs that even a casual observer should notice.

If it isn’t clear to you by now that big banks do not answer to shareholders or customers, then you need to pull your head out of the sand. Wall Street answers to the Federal Reserve. The same private entity that bankrolls their operations dictates how they spend the money. Does anyone see a conflict of interest here?

The Federal Reserve is largely responsible for boom-bust cycles in the U.S. economy and therefore they are not qualified to perform a risk assessment on these firms. The Fed’s manipulation of interest rates encourages malinvestment, which leads to wasted capital and ultimately halts progress in society. The Fed is directly responsible for much of the risky behavior woven into the culture at our nation’s largest investment banks.

Lastly, if banks are having trouble with the Federal Reserve’s orchestrated stress test, then they are absolutely screwed when an actual catastrophic event occurs in the global economy. Who decided that it was a good idea to put the Fed in control of monitoring risk at investment banks? This is worse than the definition of insanity. Instead of repeating the same process and expecting different results, the entity responsible for creating poor results has been given more power. This makes insanity look desirable!

Check out these great episodes of the Lions of Liberty Podcast related to the Federal Reserve:

Lions of Liberty Podcast Ep. 21: G. Edward Griffin

Lions of Liberty Podcast Ep. 44 – Chris Rossini – Set Money Free

Lions of Liberty Podcast Ep. 70 – Seth Mason of Solidus.Center.

Liberty Links!

- The Washington Examiner reports on a bill in the Senate that would require online merchants to collect and remit sales taxes to the local authorities where the purchaser lives.

- RT reports France to keep 10,000 troops on streets as terror threat remains high.

- Ron Noyes at Ben Swann’s website reports Sen. Graham vows U.S. Military force against non-compliant congress.

- Real Clear Science reports that research shows no link between gun ownership and higher crime.

The Lions of Liberty are on Twitter, Facebook & Google+

Join our brand new Facebook Group: The Lions of Liberty Forum

Subscribe to our weekly digest!
Email Address

« Political Badger Investigates Objectivism, Net Neutrality
Lions of Liberty Podcast Ep. 87: “Rand Pauluses and Minuses” with Brian McWilliams »

“I love interviewers who know how to have a conversation, instead of ticking off a canned list of questions. Marc Clair of the Lions of Liberty podcast is a great example.” – Tom Woods

Sign Up For Our Weekly Digest!

Email Address :

Like Us On Facebook!

RSS Feed Widget
Popular Recent Posts!

Rand "Pauluses & Minuses" - Attack Ad on Clinton, Clarity on Gay Marriage, More on Abortion, Drug Laws
Ted Cruz Presidential Profile: The Good, The Bad, and The Liberty
Exposing Lincoln As A Tyrant Is Not Tantamount To Supporting The Confederacy
The Lions of Liberty Podcast Archive
Moring Roar: Police Raid Cannabis Oil Activist After Her Son Questioned Medical Pot Facts at School
Lions of Liberty Podcast Ep. 95: Rand Pauluses and Minuses - Presidential Announcement Edition!
Popular Posts All Time

Felony Friday: Should Felons Have Second Amendment Rights Restored Upon Release?
Kindergartner Suspended For Bubble Gun And Given Psych Evaluation
Privately Owned Prisons Suing States Over Lack Of Prisoners
Exposing Lincoln As A Tyrant Is Not Tantamount To Supporting The Confederacy
Felony Friday: In Ohio Secret Compartments In Cars Are A Felony
Legalized Pot Hurting Mexico Cartels & Infuriating DEA
Rand Paul in an Awkward Situation in Kentucky
Felony Friday: 21 Drone Pilots Face Racketeering Charges In Arizona
©2012- 2014 Lions of Liberty - Web Design:

Tommy John Studios | Southern California Photographer
Tommy John is a southern California wedding & portrait photographer.
1 hour ago - Via Reshared Post - View - Imoh Edet : Nigeria 2024 bond yield jumps 40 bps as funds switch to bills Nigeria's 10-year benchmark government...
Nigeria 2024 bond yield jumps 40 bps as funds switch to bills
Nigeria's 10-year benchmark government bond yield inched up 40 basis
points as domestic pension funds switched to short dated papers, traders
said on Tuesday. The 2024 bond, listed on the JP Morgan Government Bond
Index (GB-EM), rose to 14.74 percent, fr...
Nigeria 2024 bond yield jumps 40 bps as funds switch to bills

2 hours ago - Via Google+ - View - William Byrnes : JP Morgan $2 billion suit against employees who joined Morgan Stanley.
JP Morgan $2 billion suit against employees who joined Morgan Stanley. 
3 hours ago - Via Google+ - View - Last Word Media : Refocus on fund management sees JP Morgan hand £370m client book to Hargreaves
Refocus on fund management sees JP Morgan hand £370m client book to Hargreaves
8 hours ago - Via - View - Last Word Media : Refocus on fund management sees JP Morgan hand £370m client book to Hargreaves
Refocus on fund management sees JP Morgan hand £370m client book to Hargreaves
9 hours ago - Via - View - Finance and Economy : List of Top 10 Investment banks in the World: 1. J.P. Morgan & Co. 2. Bank of America Merrill Lynch...
List of Top 10 Investment banks in the World:

1. J.P. Morgan & Co.
2. Bank of America Merrill Lynch
3. Goldman Sachs
4. Morgan Stanley
5. Citigroup
6. Deutsche Bank
7. Credit Suisse
8. Barclays
9. Wells Fargo
10. UBS
Top 10 Investment Banks
Top 10 Investment Banks Worldwide on the basis of their assets. Top ten investment banks refer to the 10 leading banking institutions which finances major capital requirements of a business enterprise.
9 hours ago - Via Google+ - View - Elixir Investments : Daily Market Report | 29-Jun-2015 Equities Market – Following the 1.22% loss last week, the equity market...
Daily Market Report | 29-Jun-2015
Equities Market – 
Following the 1.22% loss last week, the equity market opened the week on a bullish note, rising by 1.20% to close the session at 33,249.19 points. Today’s gain which was spread across all sectorial indices cut the year-to-date loss of the benchmark index to 4.06%. The oil/gas index jumped by 2.87% on the back of gains in the likes of FO (5%), SEPLAT (2.66%) and OANDO (3.52%). The banking index rose by 1.44% as the market sort the likes of ETI (2.27%), ZENITHBANK (2.34%), GUARANTY (1.11%), UBA (2.04%) and DIAMONDBNK (2.44%). The industrial index was up 1.39% on the back of bids for the likes of DANGCEM (2.35%) and WAPCO (1%). The consumer goods index was slightly up by 0.18%, there was interest in the likes of GUINNESS (5%) and CADBURY (3.84%). Finally, the insurance index posted a gain of 0.37%.
Market breadth was positive as the session posted 30 gainers and 20 decliners. The top three gainers were FO (5%), GUINNESS (5%) and MAYBAKER (4.93%) while the top three losers were NEIMETH (-4.90%), ETRANZACT (-4.79%) and COSTAIN (4.55%). Market activity saw 351.51million shares worth N5.24billion traded.
The sudden push higher in today’s session is a bid of a surprise and it would be too soon to draw an inference from it. There remains macro challenges that simply cannot be ignored at this point in time.
Money Market & Fixed Income –
The average bond yield rose another 11bps today to close at 15.16% as investors appear to be reacting to the CBN’s move to further tighten control of FX flows, a move that increases the risk of Nigerian bonds being ejected from the JP Morgan Emerging Market Bond Index. As was the case last week, the sell pressure emanated from the short to mid-end of the yield curve.
The average T-Bill yield on the other hand closed down 1bp to 13.75% on mixed trading. The CBN set out to auction N30billion worth of 178-day OMO bills and received bids worth c.N31.91billion. There were no sales.
Foreign Currency – 
The Naira closed flat at N199/$.
12 hours ago - Via Google+ - View - John flness : This should be troubling and worrisome to all. The mega corporation mergers is getting out of hand and...
This should be troubling and worrisome to all. The mega corporation mergers is getting out of hand and the old Sherman's antitrust law is not being enforced. It hurts all American consumers and the American small business owner.
When the consumers choices are limited to one to only a few choices of service providers then the monopoly owner could take advantage of it (It is being done to us now if you would open your eyes and ears) by controlling the prices which means they can up the price anytime that want without any prior notice given to the American Public. Customer service will become non-existent. Consumer complaints will go into the trash bend. I have already experienced it first hand and I am sure many of my fellow citizens have also.
AT&T now owns yahoo and Direct TV. Below is the complete definition and explanation concerning the old Sherman's antitrust law and the web link to where I found this information.

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 et seq.), the first and most significant of the U.S. antitrust laws, was signed into law by President benjamin harrison and is named after its primary supporter, Ohio Senator john sherman.

The prevailing economic theory supporting antitrust laws in the United States is that the public is best served by free competition in trade and industry. When businesses fairly compete for the consumer's dollar, the quality of products and services increases while the prices decrease. However, many businesses would rather dictate the price, quantity, and quality of the goods that they produce, without having to compete for consumers. Some businesses have tried to eliminate competition through illegal means, such as fixing prices and assigning exclusive territories to different competitors within an industry. Antitrust laws seek to eliminate such illegal behavior and promote free and fair marketplace competition.

Until the late 1800s the federal government encouraged the growth of big business. By the end of the century, however, the emergence of powerful trusts began to threaten the U.S. business climate. Trusts were corporate holding companies that, by 1888, had consolidated a very large share of U.S. manufacturing and mining industries into nationwide monopolies. The trusts found that through consolidation they could charge monopoly prices and thus make excessive profits and large financial gains. Access to greater political power at state and national levels led to further economic benefits for the trusts, such as tariffs or discriminatory railroad rates or rebates. The most notorious of the trusts were the Sugar Trust, the Whisky Trust, the Cordage Trust, the Beef Trust, the Tobacco Trust, John D. Rockefeller's Oil Trust (Standard Oil of New Jersey), and J. P. Morgan's Steel Trust (U.S. Steel Corporation).

Consumers, workers, farmers, and other suppliers were directly hurt monetarily as a result of the monopolizations. Even more important, perhaps, was that the trusts fanned into renewed flame a traditional U.S. fear and hatred of unchecked power, whether political or economic, and particularly of monopolies that ended or threatened equal opportunity for all businesses. The public demanded legislative action, which prompted Congress, in 1890, to pass the Sherman Act. The act was followed by several other antitrust acts, including the clayton act of 1914 (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 12 et seq.), the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 41 et seq.), and the robinson-patman act of 1936 (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 13a, 13b, 21a). All of these acts attempt to prohibit anticompetitive practices and prevent unreasonable concentrations of economic power that stifle or weaken competition.

The Sherman Act made agreements "in restraint of trade" illegal. It also made it a crime to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize … any part of the trade or commerce." The purpose of the act was to maintain competition in business. However, enforcement of the act proved to be difficult. Congress had enacted the Sherman Act pursuant to its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, but this was only the second time that Congress relied on that power. Because Congress was somewhat uncertain of the reach of its legislative power, it framed the law in broad common-law concepts that lacked detail. For example, such key terms as monopoly and trust were not defined. In effect, Congress passed the problem of enforcing the law to the executive branch, and to the judicial branch, it gave the responsibility of interpreting the law. Still, the act was a far-reaching legislative departure from the predominant laissez-faire philosophy of the era.

Initial enforcement of the Sherman Act was halting, set back in part by the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1, 15 S. Ct. 249, 39 L. Ed. 325 (1895), that manufacturing was not interstate commerce. This problem was soon circumvented, and President theodore roosevelt promoted the antitrust cause, calling himself a "trustbuster." In 1914, Congress established the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to formalize rules for fair trade and to investigate and curtail unfair trade practices. As a result, a number of major cases were successfully brought in the first decade of the century, largely terminating trusts and basically transforming the face of U.S. industrial organization.

During the 1920s, enforcement efforts were more modest, and during much of the 1930s, the national recovery program of the new deal encouraged industrial collaboration rather than competition. During the late 1930s, an intensive enforcement of antitrust laws was undertaken. Since world war ii, antitrust enforcement has become increasingly institutionalized in the Antitrust Division of the justice department and in the Federal Trade Commission, which over time, was granted greater authority by Congress. Justice Department enforcement activities against cartels are particularly vigorous, and criminal sanctions are increasingly sought. In 1992, the Justice Department expanded its enforcement policy to cover foreign company conduct that harms U.S. exports.

Restraint of Trade
Section one of the Sherman Act provides that "[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations is hereby declared to be illegal." The broad language of this section has been slowly defined and narrowed through judicial decisions.

The courts have interpreted the act to forbid only unreasonable restraints of trade. The Supreme Court promulgated this flexible rule, called the Rule of Reason, in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 31 S. Ct. 502, 55 L. Ed. 619 (1911). Under the Rule of Reason, the courts will look to a number of factors in deciding whether the particular restraint of trade unreasonably restricts competition. Specifically, the court considers the makeup of the relevant industry, the defendants' positions within that industry, the ability of the defendants' competitors to respond to the challenged practice, and the defendants' purpose in adopting the restraint. This analysis forces courts to consider the pro-competitive effects of the restraint as well as its anticompetitive effects.

The Supreme Court has also declared certain categories of restraints to be illegal per se: that is, they are conclusively presumed to be unreasonable and therefore illegal. For those types of restraints, the court does not have to go any further in its analysis than to recognize the type of restraint, and the plaintiff does not have to show anything other than that the restraint occurred.

Restraints of trade can be classified as horizontal or vertical. A horizontal agreement is one involving direct competitors at the same level in a particular industry, and a vertical agreement involves participants who are not direct competitors because they are at different levels. Thus, a horizontal agreement can be among manufacturers or retailers or wholesalers, but it does not involve participants from across the different groups. A vertical agreement involves participants from one or more of the groups—for example, a manufacturer, a wholesaler, and a retailer. These distinctions become difficult to make in certain fact situations, but they can be significant in determining whether to apply a per se rule of illegality or the Rule of Reason. For example, horizontal market allocations are per se illegal, but vertical market allocations are subject to the rule-of-reason test.

Concerted Action
Section one of the Sherman Act prohibits concerted action, which requires more than a unilateral act by a person or business alone. The Supreme Court has stated that an organization may deal or refuse to deal with whomever it wants, as long as that organization is acting independently. But if a manufacturer and certain retailers agree that a manufacturer will only provide products to those retailers and not to others, then that is a concerted action that may violate the Sherman Act. A company and its employees are considered an individual entity for the purposes of this act. Likewise, a parent company and its wholly owned subsidiaries are considered an individual entity.

Evidence of a concerted action may be shown by an express or written agreement, or it may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. Conscious parallelism (similar patterns of conduct among competitors) is not sufficient in and of itself to imply a conspiracy. The courts have held that conspiracy requires an additional element such as complex actions that would benefit each competitor only if all of them acted in the same way.

Joint ventures, which are a form of business association among competitors designed to further a business purpose, such as sharing cost or reducing redundancy, are generally scrutinized under the Rule of Reason. But courts first look at the reason that the joint venture was established to determine whether its purpose was to fix prices or engage in some other unlawful activity. Congress passed the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 4301-06) to permit and encourage competitors to engage in joint ventures that promote research and development of new technologies. The Rule of Reason will apply to those types of joint ventures.

Price Fixing
The agreement to inhibit price competition by raising, depressing, fixing, or stabilizing prices is the most serious example of a per se violation under the Sherman Act. Under the act, it is immaterial whether the fixed prices are set at a maximum price, a minimum price, the actual cost, or the fair market price. It is also immaterial under the law whether the fixed price is reasonable.

All horizontal and vertical price-fixing agreements are illegal per se. Horizontal price-fixing agreements include agreements among sellers to establish maximum or minimum prices on certain goods or services. This can also include competitors' changing their prices simultaneously in some circumstances. Also significant is the fact that horizontal price-fixing agreements may be direct or indirect and still be illegal. Thus, a promotion or discount that is tied closely to price cannot be raised, depressed, fixed, or stabilized, without a Sherman Act violation. Vertical price-fixing agreements include situations where a wholesaler mandates the minimum or maximum price at which retailers may sell certain products.

Market Allocations
Market allocations are situations where competitors agree to not compete with each other in specific markets, by dividing up geographic areas, types of products, or types of customers. Market allocations are another form of price fixing. All horizontal market allocations are illegal per se. If there are only two computer manufacturers in the country and they enter into a market allocation agreement whereby manufacturer A will only sell to retailers east of the Mississippi and manufacturer B will only sell to retailers west of the Mississippi, they have created monopolies for themselves, a violation of the Sherman Act. Likewise, it is an illegal agreement that manufacturer A will only sell to retailers C and D and manufacturer B will only sell to retailers E and F.

Territorial and customer vertical market allocations are not per se illegal but are judged by the Rule of Reason. In 1985, the Justice Department announced that it would not challenge any restraints by a company that has less than 10 percent of the relevant market or whose vertical price index, a measure of the relevant market share, indicates that collusion and exclusion are not possible for that company in that market.

A boycott, or a concerted refusal to deal, occurs when two or more companies agree not to deal with a third party. These agreements may be clearly anticompetitive and may violate the Sherman Act because they can result in the elimination of competition or the reduction in the number of participants entering the market to compete with existing participants. Boycotts that are created by groups with market power and that are designed to eliminate a competitor or to force that competitor to agree to a group standard are per se illegal. Boycotts that are more cooperative in nature, designed to increase economic efficiency or make markets more competitive, are subject to the Rule of Reason. Generally, most courts have found that horizontal boycotts, but not vertical boycotts, are per se illegal.

Tying Arrangements
When a seller conditions the sale of one product on the purchase of another product, the seller has set up a tying arrangement, which calls for close legal scrutiny. This situation generally occurs with related products, such as a printer and paper. In that example, the seller only sells a certain printer (the tying product) to consumers if they agree to buy all their printer paper (the tied product) from that seller.

Tying arrangements are closely scrutinized because they exploit market power in one product to expand market power in another product. The result of tying arrangements is to reduce the choices for the buyer and exclude competitors. Such arrangements are per se illegal if the seller has considerable economic power in the tying product and affects a substantial amount of interstate commerce in the tied product. If the seller does not have economic power in the tying product market, the tying arrangement is judged by the Rule of Reason. A seller is considered to have economic power if it occupies a dominant position in the market, its product is advantaged over other competing products as a result of the tying, or a substantial number of consumers has accepted the tying arrangement (evidencing the seller's economic power in the market).

Section two of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolies, attempts to monopolize, or conspiracies to monopolize. A monopoly is a form of market structure where only one or very few companies dominate the total sales of a particular product or service. Economic theories show that monopolists will use their power to restrict production of goods and raise prices. The public suffers under a monopolistic market because it does not have the quantity of goods or the low prices that a competitive market could offer.

Although the language of the Sherman Act forbids all monopolies, the courts have held that the act only applies to those monopolies attained through abused or unfair power. Monopolies that have been created through efficient, competitive behavior are not illegal under the Sherman Act, as long as honest methods have been employed. In determining whether a particular situation that involves more than one company is a monopoly, the courts must determine whether the presence of monopoly power exists in the market. Monopoly power is defined as the ability to control price or to exclude competitors from the marketplace. The courts look to several criteria in determining market power but primarily focus on market share (the company's fractional share of the total relevant product and geographic market). A market share greater than 75 percent indicates monopoly power, a share less than 50 percent does not, and shares between 50 and 75 percent are inconclusive in and of themselves.

In focusing on market shares, courts will include not only products that are exactly the same but also those that may be substituted for the company's product based on price, quality, and adaptability for other purposes. For example, an oat-based, round-shaped breakfast cereal may be considered a substitutable product for a rice-based, square-shaped breakfast cereal, or possibly even a granola breakfast bar.

In addition to the product market, the geographic market is also important in determining market share. The relevant geographic market, the territory in which the firm sells its products or services, may be national, regional, or local in nature. Geographic market may be limited by transportation costs, the types of product or service, and the location of competitors.

Once sufficient monopoly power has been proved, the Sherman Act requires a showing that the company in question engaged in unfair conduct. The courts have differing opinions as to what constitutes unfair conduct. Some courts require the company to prove that it acquired its monopoly power passively or that the power was thrust upon them. Other courts consider it an unfair power if the monopoly power is used in conjunction with conduct designed to exclude competitors. Still other courts find an unfair power if the monopoly power is combined with some predatory practice, such as pricing below marginal costs.

Attempts to Monopolize Section two of the Sherman Act also prohibits attempts to monopolize. As with other behavior prohibited under the Sherman Act, courts have had a difficult time developing a standard that distinguishes unlawful attempts to monopolize from normal competitive behavior. The standard that the courts have developed requires a showing of specific intent to monopolize along with a dangerous probability of success. However, the courts have no uniform definition for the terms intent or success. Cases suggest that the more market power a company has acquired, the less flagrant its attempt to monopolize must be.

Conspiracies to Monopolize Conspiracies to monopolize are unlawful under section two of the Sherman Act. This offense is rarely charged alone, because a conspiracy to monopolize is also a combination in restraint of trade, which violates section one of the Sherman Act.

In accordance with traditional conspiracy law, conspirators to monopolize are liable for the acts of each co-conspirator, even their superiors and employees, if they are aware of and participate in the overall mission of the conspiracy. Conspirators who join in the conspiracy after it has already started are liable for every act during the course of the conspiracy, even those events that occurred before they joined.
Information borrowed from this web link below.
12 hours ago - Via Google+ - View - Gracjan Rotke : JP Morgan Chase Stockpiles Silver While Pushing For Ban On Cash
JP Morgan Chase Stockpiles Silver While Pushing For Ban On Cash
JP Morgan Chase Stockpiles Silver While Pushing For Ban On Cash
In a communication with JP Morgan Chase shareholders earlier this month Jamie Dimon, CEO of one of the world’s largest and most influential banks, said that a more volatile crisis than 2008 is comi...
14 hours ago - Via Google+ - View - Lonnie Przybysz : THE MONEY IN YOUR BANK ACCOUNT WAS STOLEN THIS MORNING 16 Nov, 2014 by Dave Hodges Print this article...

Nov, 2014
by Dave Hodges
Print this article
Font size -18+
CSS Offical-New-Logo2


The headline is not a mistake. Yes, you can still go to the ATM and withdraw funds. You can take small amounts of cash out of the bank without the IRS seizing everything you own. However, because of new rules that went into effect this morning, your bank deposits have no insurance and it is a matter of time until they are stolen right from under your nose.

The G20 Just Stole Your Bank Account

Can you find yourself in the picture?
Can you find yourself in the picture?

With the G-20 summit coming up this weekend in Brisbane, Australia, it might be worth wondering if you can have too much money in the bank, or, whether you should any money in the bank at all!

As of this morning all nations belonging to the G20 will immediately submit and pass legislation that will fulfill a new investment program. This new program creates a whole new paradigm and set of rules whereby banks will no longer recognize your deposits as money.

Russell Napier is declaring November 16th as “the day money dies,” and this constitutes today’s  Zero Hedge’s headline. According to Zero Hedge, Napier says the G-20 will announce “that bank deposits are just part of commercial banks’capital structure, and also that they are far from the most senior portion of that structure.” Pay close attention America this means that following a bank failure, “a bank deposit is no longer money in the way a banknote is.”

This G20 legislation will formally push down bank accounts through the capital structure to a position of being mere material capital risk in any ‘failing’ institution. In our last financial crisis, deposits were de facto guaranteed by the state, but beginning November 16th holders of large-scale deposits will be just another creditor fighting to regain their share of the assets of a failed bank,” according to Zero Hedge. And how much will your former money be worth when you come to make your claim? For reasons that will become apparent as you weave your way through this article and its conclusions, if you have $100,000 in a bank account, you will take home under $1200!  This is why for the past 18 months I have been telling the nation to not deposit your paycheck into the bank. The prudent thing to do is to only put enough money in the bank to pay your basic bills and do other things with the remainder of the money, such as pay off your mortgage or pay off your car loans. If you have not been doing this, then you are almost out of time for the banksters have recently practiced how to steal your bank account.


The Federal Reserve and the Bank of England Have Already Rehearsed the Theft of Your Bank Account

bank-holiday2The theft of the people’s money has already been rehearsed by the powers that be in the banking industry. Regulators from the United States and the United Kingdom got together in a war room to see how they will cope when the next big bank fails.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and the UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, on this past Monday (11/10), ran a joint exercise simulating how they would prop up a large bank (e.g. Bank of America) with operations in both countries that has landed itself in trouble. Also taking part in the “bank failure drill” was Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, and the heads of a large number of other regulators, in a meeting hosted by the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 


Your Bank Account Has No Protection

fdic protectionThe FDIC has only about $25 billion in its deposit insurance fund, which is mandated by law to keep a balance equivalent to only 1.15% of insured deposits.


If a banking collapse were to be on the near horizon, the banksters are not going to notify you because they would not want to incite a bank run. With only 1.15% of all deposits being insured by the FDIC, your money would be left vulnerable and only the elite would be warned as they quietly transfer their money to a safer haven, such as gold. How do I know this? Please read on.

Goldman Sachs Opened the Gates to Hell


Silver prices have dropped dramatically covering an aggregate period of 18 months. Panic selling dominated the market as investors and financial institutions could not dump their holdings of silver and gold fast enough. The market clearly shows signs of mass manipulation by the Globalists.  The globalists have been moving their fiat currency holdings to gold since the Spring of 2013. The price of gold was artificially manipulated by Goldman Sachs to drive down the price of gold in order to make it cheaper for the powers-that-be to purchase gold cheaply. You see, they know that very soon, there will no money left in the banks. You want proof? The best proof that the globalists are manipulating the price of gold comes from “Goldman Sachs (who), in the Spring of 2013, told their  that they recommend initiating a short COMEX gold position.”

 This has been going on for over 18 months!

goldman and plutocrats

Please remember that this is the same Goldman Sachs that shorted its stocks on 9/11. This is the same Goldman Sachs that placed put options on Transocean stock the morning of the Gulf oil explosion. This is the same Goldman Sachs that got caught shorting the housing market in advance of the housing bubble burst. Basically, when Goldman Sachs starts shorting anything, we should all become apprehensive particularly if our individual investments are anywhere in the neighborhood of the commodities being impacted by shorting. When Goldman Sachs begins to short anything, it is time to take your money and run for the hills. That time would be now.


Why Would Goldman Sachs Dramatically Drive the Price of Gold Down?


Beside trading and bartering, if the dollar and the Euro were to collapse tomorrow, what currency of exchange would the left standing? The obvious and simple answer would be primarily, gold, and secondarily, silver. Ask yourself this question, if you knew that paper monies all around the world were to collapse, what action would represent your best option? The obvious answer would be to dramatically drive down the price of gold and silver if one had the ability to do so, and then buy as much as gold as one possibly could. Goldman Sachs has the ability to do so by utilizing their ominous shorting strategy and it is precisely what they have done.


goldman sachs us treasuryAdditionally, your bank account has been collateralized against the derivatives debt. Hence, you had, in 2008, former CEO of Goldman Sachs and the Secretary of Treasury, Hank Paulson, telling a closed session of Congress that if they did not authorize the bailouts, there would be tanks in the street an ultimately, REVOLUTION! This was necessitated by the credit swap derivatives Ponzi scheme and the debacle that followed.

Further, the bankruptcy reform laws stemming from the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005, the credit swap derivatives counter-parties are given preference over all other creditors and customers of the bankrupt financial institution, including FDIC insured depositors.  This is why the G20 effectively stole your money this morning!

In the action taken by the G20 nations, this morning, your bank account is no longer considered to be money.  The bankers holding the bag on the credit swap derivatives will move to the head of the FDIC compensation line. Therefore, the regulations requiring that your money be insured by the FDIC are no longer in effect!  This devaluation of “money to something other than money gives what the experts call “super priority” in terms of the line of succession from which to collect bankruptcy monies.   TAKE YOUR MONEY OUT OF THE BANK! But do not do so until you read my next article because you could go to jail if you make a mistake.


To make matters worse, Bank of America has conspicuously co-mingled their credit swap derivatives debt with your savings account and as such they have every legal right use your money to cover their debt. The derivatives debt is conservatively estimated to be one quadrillion dollars which is about 16 times the entire GDP of the planet. Even before today, your money is as good as gone. Today’s action by the G20 only further cements this new reality that you, your labor your possessions are all slave capital to the banksters. Your value as a human being has been monitized.

To The Dumbed Down Sheep of America

We have recently discovered that JP Morgan is in the same exact boat as Bank of America as is Wells Fargo. Oh, they would never do that and steal your money, you say?  I have bad news for the uninformed sheep of this country, they already have done that very thing.

In the MF Global debacle, the reason that MF Global  customers lost their segregated account funds was because the MF Global debt load was caused primarily because of their credit swap derivatives debt which, under bankruptcy laws, gave derivatives claimants super-priority in the bankruptcy proceedings.  This is why Corzine and his fellow criminals did not go to prison as former Goldman Sachs executive, now the head of the Securities and Exchange CME gave Corzine, a former Goldman Sachs executive, a free pass on the theft of investors money at MF Global. This was a beta test.

As of this morning, every bank account in America became an MF Global. You are now playing in a game with no rules.

Some of the sheep might actually wake up when they lose their bank account.
Some of the sheep might actually wake up when they lose their bank account to the latest in banking conspiracies.


Remember, sheep of America, as you are driving to work tomorrow, you are doing so in order that to have the privilege to earn money and give it to Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase.


Working for Goldman Sachs.
Working for Goldman Sachs.

In short, you do not matter and as of this morning, your money is not really money and your bank account is no longer in your control.



Before this week is over, I will be revealing how you can save some of your money. It is too late to save all of your money as that ship sailed some time ago. However, it is still possible to save much more that the 1.1% that your government is going to give you as compensation. Did I mention that 401 k’s and your retirements are next?


Tags assigned to this article:
bail-insBank Failuresdave hodgesFDICg20 stealing banking depositsJanet Yellenthe common sense show
Check Our FeedVisit Us On FacebookVisit Us On Google PlusVisit Us On Twitter

Prepper Ad


Ready Made Resources



Before It's News®
Military and U.S. Agents Patrolling Texas Streets Asking Mysterious Questions
500+ Gay Pride Youth Burned Alive in Taiwan as Biblical-Scale Firestorm Spontaneously Ignites
One Of The World’s Top Universities Is Offering All Of Their Courses Online, To Anyone, For Free
Trump Shoots Up. Obama Birth Certificate Issue Looms Larger Day By Day (Video)
Gregory Mannarino Warning! Contagion, Financial Meltdown, Global Economic Collapse Now!
Have You Had Any Of These Symptoms, If So, Get To A Doctor Immediately
Russian Proxy Forces Bring Down An F-16 In a Beta Test for World War III
Prophecy: The Coming Tsunami of Judgment
Trey Gowdy Obliterates Hillary Clinton's Non Stop Lies, Perjury, and Destroying Evidence
"Jade" Military Software, "Helm" What You Need To Know
Legalizing Polygamy and Pedophilia
Obamacare’s Best Allies: The Courts and the Republicans – Dr. Ron Paul
Publish your news free at
Get This Widget


Dave Hodges-The Common Sense Show
Home - Dave Hodges - The Common Sense Show
The Common Sense Show features a wide variety of important topics that range from the loss of constitutional liberties, to the subsequent implementation of a police state under world governance, to exploring the limits of human potential. The primary purpose of The Common Sense Show is to provide Americans with the tools necessary to reclaim both our individual and national sovereignty.
14 hours ago - Via Google+ - View - Brentae Youngy : who INVENTED derivatives   BLYTHE DID   jp morgan and rothschils did  the elite did
who INVENTED derivatives   BLYTHE DID   jp morgan and rothschils did  the elite did
Watch the video: FINANCIAL CRISIS: Is Blythe Masters, JP Morgan responsible for this mess?
VSP Group, my partner program. Get connected!
15 hours ago - Via Google+ - View - Amanda “Morning Star” Free : #askELJames is possibly funnier than when JP Morgan tried to do the same over twitter. When are these...
#askELJames is possibly funnier than when JP Morgan tried to do the same over twitter.

When are these people going to learn?
20 hours ago - Via Google+ - View - Thomas Shepherd : 2015's JP Morgan Round The Island Race One day I'm going to take part in this!
2015's JP Morgan Round The Island Race
One day I'm going to take part in this!
2015's JP Morgan Round The Island Race
One day I'm going to take part in this!
1 day ago - Via Google+ - View - Set Sail Marine : Helena Lucas presents trophies at Round the Island Race prizegiving - Isobel Smith - - More than 15,000...
Helena Lucas presents trophies at Round the Island Race prizegiving - Isobel Smith - -
More than 15,000 sailors took part in this year’s event off the Isle of Wight

Hundreds of competitors gathered at the Island Sailing Club (ISC) in Cowes on Sunday to celebrate another successful J.P. Morgan Asset Management Round the Island Race.

Winners from the 84th edition were presented with their awards by Paralympic sailor Helena Lucas at the prizegiving event yesterday.

Related articles

Clipper Race fleet makes Round the Island debut

First-timer’s guide to the Round the Island Race

The team moved briskly through the presentation of trophies and salvers plus race partner prizes, with sailing secretary Chris Thomas co-ordinating proceedings on-stage with the rear commodore sailing and race PRO Mike Peskett.

Dave Atkinson, speaking on behalf of ISC’s Race Management team, commented that yesterday’s race provided a classic Round the Island Race day for the 120 volunteers and the 15,000 plus sailors taking part.

He said: “We were blessed with great weather and good winds. Whilst there were a number of racing incidents, these are not uncommon when you have this number of people out on the water.

“However, given the co-operation of all the agencies that work alongside us, everything was handled with the utmost professionalism and skill and also dealt with quickly throughout the day.”

All of the 1389 boats that finished were across the line before the scheduled 10pm cut off, with only 104 retirements and 11 OCS/DSQ out of the initial 1,584 entries.

Thousands of spectators in Cowes and around the Isle of Wight as well as on the mainland enjoyed great views of the action.

And those who couldn’t make it to the race were able to watch the day’s event for the first time via the RTI TV channel.

The new initiative launched by the ISC and J.P. Morgan Asset Management and some Race Partners, provided live commentary and footage of the starts interspersed with competitor interviews and weather information.

Next year’s J.P. Morgan Asset Management Round the Island Race will take place on Saturday July 2, 2016.

The post Helena Lucas presents trophies at Round the Island Race prizegiving appeared first on YBW.
- #Yacht #News
Helena Lucas presents trophies at Round the Island Race prizegiving

1 day ago - Via - View - J.P. Morgan Asset Management Round the Island Race :

Watch the video: Golden Roman Bowl Winner 'Whooper'
Giovanni Belgrano's beautifully restored Laurent Giles designed classic yacht Whooper won the Golden Roman Bowl for the second time, having also been victorious in 2004.
1 day ago - Via - View -