VANCOUVER (Silver Gold Bull) -- Tuesday, the same morning we heard that one-quarter of Wall Street executives think that fraud is a necessary part of "doing business" in the financial sector, we heard of a second MF Global .
The U.S.'s so-called regulators are now reporting that somewhere around $220 million in customer funds is "missing" at a financial institution known as PFGBest, once again closing the barn door after all the cows have run off.
With at least one out of every four bankers at U.S. big banks surveyed thinking that stealing is part of their job descriptions, it's very important for people to realize how little protection there now is between these thieves and your bank accounts.
Based on the writing of a number of other individuals with more expertise in these markets, it is apparently an inherently fraudulent banking process known as
which is allowing the mass plundering of accounts at U.S. financial institutions.
Rehypothecation is a heinous practice permitted by the pretend-regulators of Western markets, where financial institutions are allowed to pledge their clients' funds as collateral to cover their own gambling debts. I say "inherently fraudulent" since few of the clients of these financial institutions would ever knowingly enter into contracts with these gambling addicts where their cash could be used to cover their bankers' gambling debts.
Instead, what is happening here is the rehypothecation clauses are being buried in the small print of these contracts and (obviously) never properly explained to these clients: seemingly textbook fraudulent misrepresentation. The only "advantage" to a client entering into such a contract is a slight reduction in fees, or slightly improved interest rate -- certainly not near enough to entice people into risking some near-100% loss insuring someone else's gambling debts.
So we have our "regulators" (i.e. the only protectors of our funds in the hands of these admitted thieves) giving these fraud factories the green light to enter into these inherently fraudulent contracts, putting any/all funds of these clients in permanent jeopardy.
Thus it's important to outline how this could happen with ordinary bank accounts.
First, it must be noted the media are referring to this as a "brokerage" problem. Understand that a brokerage is nothing but a legal "bookie," an entity that takes (and makes) bets, and which must hold the funds of its "customers" in order to do business. Apparently the principal difference now between a "legal" bookie and an "illegal" bookie is that an illegal bookie is much less likely to use his customers' funds to cover his own bad bets.
What people must also understand is that the world's biggest bookies, indeed, the biggest bookies in the history of the world are the big banks themselves (specifically U.S. big banks). Most of their gambling is done in their own, rigged casino: the $1.5 quadrillion derivatives market.
Note that you won't see that number quoted by the corporate media. As concern about the size of the bankers' mountain of bets grew, the bankers asked the Master Bookie -- the Bank for International Settlements, or BIS -- to change the "definition" of this market. Instantly the derivatives market shrunk to one-third its former size.
As many know, the BIS is known as "the central bank for central banks." What a smaller number of people know is that this is the world's
, an entity created just before World War II specifically to allow Western industrialists to continue to do a vast amount of business with Adolph Hitler. In other words, it's not exactly a reliable source for information.
So I choose to use the same numbers that the banksters previously used themselves, before they started getting defensive about the insane amounts of their gambling.
We are being led to believe by the media this problem is only a risk for all individuals with "brokerage" accounts, however as we piece together all the pieces of the puzzle (already revealed) this is what we see before us:
Our banking regulators knowingly allow financial institutions to engage in recklessly misleading (if not outright fraudulent) contracts with their clients, through the use of complex "small print" in their account contracts with clients.
The three largest U.S. "banks" by deposit -- J.P. Morgan Chase , Bank of America and Citigroup -- have made bets in their own rigged casino, which total well in excess of $100 trillion, an amount that completely dwarfs their total, combined deposits (and assets).
A large portion of those bets occur in the $60+ trillion credit default swap market. Pay-outs in these markets can (and do) exceed 300 times the amount of the original bet. It is bets in this market that "blew up" American International Group, requiring more than $150 billion in immediate government aid.
Following the Crash of 2008; these same banks mooched a package of handouts, tax-breaks and "guarantees" (i.e. future hand-outs) from the George W. Bush regime in excess of $15 trillion, the last time their gambling debts went bad on them. All of these banks have been allowed to dramatically increase the total amount of their gambling since then.
It would take only a minor change in the gambling contracts in which these bankers engage to allow their creditors to seize funds out of ordinary bank accounts.
The existing language for the bank accounts of these U.S. banks is possibly already so vague (and prejudicial to clients) that it would allow these banks to reinterpret the terms of these bank accounts and allow rehypothecation to be used to rob the holders of ordinary bank accounts, people who themselves make no "bets" in markets whatsoever. Alternately, customers could be blitzed with an offer for "new and improved" bank accounts, where terms allowing rehypothecation are slipped into the contract, with the banks knowing that the "regulators" will do nothing to warn account-holders of the gigantic risk they are taking.
The same media apologists who would scoff at this suggestion are the same shills who claimed "there could never be another MF Global". Meanwhile we have the biggest gambler of them all, J.P. Morgan, just confessing to having made
, which continue growing larger by the $billion.
When we add in the fact that the U.S.'s
mean that these banks are easily able to hide the level of their insolvency, the pretend-regulators apparently don't have the slightest idea of the level of risk to which account holders are being exposed. This is the charitable explanation for these facts. The alternative interpretation is that these "regulators" are direct accomplices of the criminal banking cabal.
I have consistently referred to the U.S. financial sector as a
for several years now, often drawing considerable criticism for supposedly hyperbolic rhetoric. Obviously I have been completely vindicated here.
One-quarter of these bankers are now confessed thieves. The pretend-regulators (notably the SEC and CFTC) on a daily basis rubber-stamp the banksters' acts of fraud (where they are caught red-handed), handing out totally trivial fines and not even requiring these thieves to admit their guilt.
If there are any substantive differences between how the U.S. financial sector is allowed to operate versus any generic definition of a "crime syndicate," it would be enlightening to hear what those (supposed) differences are.
Now these thieves are closer than ever to simply reaching into peoples' bank accounts and grabbing every dollar they can steal.
The principal reason why I and others have urged people to convert their banker-paper to
in the past was the 1,000-year track-record of these bankers' paper, fiat currencies always going to zero (through the bankers recklessly diluting these currencies via over-printing).
However, we can add to that a much more basic reason: every ounce of gold and silver which you purchase (and store in your own home "safe" or other secure location) is wealth which cannot be stolen by the banking crime syndicate. This is what commentators are really referring to when they speak of "counterparty risk": placing your future financial security in someone else's hands.
What the large financial institutions of the 21st century have taught us (through the cruel "lessons" of their serial crimes) is that there is no one in the world whom you can trust less with your money than a banker.
This article is commentary by an independent contributor, separate from TheStreet's regular news coverage.