# Financial Fraud and the Global Derivative Casino



## onq (2 Oct 2010)

From 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21245


Financial Fraud and the Global Derivative Casino
 Not one banker, regulator or central banker has been prosecuted

by  Matthias  Chang

  [broken link removed]           Global Research, September 29, 2010
Future Fast Forward 

[broken link removed] _Email this article to a friend_
 [broken link removed] _Print this article_

    0diggsdigg 
 [broken link removed] 
*Basel  Accords III is another crude endeavour by BIS and Global Too Big To  Fail Banks to cover up their scams and shore up the global derivative  casino.*

*Part 1 - The Mechanics of the Derivative Scam*

The  fact that common folks in the US and other developed countries have not  come out in arms to lynch the central bankers and their accomplices in  Wall Street and other banking centres is an indication how effective the  financial elites have been able to hoodwink and confuse the masses. 
*
$Trillions have been wiped out *but  hardly anyone of substance has demanded criminal prosecutions. Fraud,  massive frauds have been committed by top bankers, lawyers, accountants,  regulators and politicians of all hues but none had to pay for their  crimes.

But, the guy who robs the corner shop down the road for a  couple of bucks is incarcerated for five years or more, buggered and  abused in prison. There is no pity for such a scumbag, no matter what  are the circumstances that drove him to commit the crime.

The  Bernankes, the Geithners, the Paulsons, the Larry Summers and their pals  in Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Bear Sterns,  Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and their European counterparts  are given blanket immunity and allowed to continue the rape and plunder  of the global economy. I believe that unless progressive financial  analysts and commentators simplify their analysis and commentaries so  that more people will understand how the frauds have been committed, the  status quo would remain and the plunder would continue.

This  article is an attempt on my part to explain the massive banking fraud in  simple terms and I hope that I have succeeded in doing so.

*SOME BASIC CONCEPTS*

Banking business is a very lucrative business and the manager of your local bank works hard to provide a service and earn _*decent profits*_  for his employers. I have spent over 20 years in my 34 years as a  lawyer training bankers in their day-to-day operations and found them to  be professional and trustworthy. Very rarely does a branch suffer  losses. I would put it as high as 98% of branches deliver a steady  stream of profits to Headquarters. The network of branches provides an  effective _*payment system*_ for commerce and for our daily  needs. I have no quarrels with the main street banks, notwithstanding  that it is based on fractional reserve banking. 

The purpose of  this article is to expose the fraud committed by financial elites at  Headquarters and the Too Big To Fail Banks abusing the loopholes in the  system with the connivance of central bankers and regulators. 

So, to understand the _*loopholes*_ in the system, you must understand how the banking system works, specifically the _*fractional reserve banking system*_ practice by all banks throughout the world.

This is best done by understanding some key terminology. Please be patient.


1.0      Bank’s Capital

1.01    A bank is required by law to _*maintain a minimum amount of capital.*_ In layman’s term, there must be sufficient “assets” to offset liabilities.

1.02     You will note that the word asset is in inverted commas i.e. “Assets”  because in the banking business, what constitutes “assets” differs from  your ordinary business. 

1.03    The financial health and strength of a bank depends on the *Capital / asset ratio* and is referenced as a percentage. 

1.04    In 1988, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland established a universal standard (*Basel I*) for the capital /asset ratio. It was stipulated that *total capital must be at least 8% of total risk-weighted assets.*

*Please  fix this in your mind, that way, way back in 1988 the ratio was fixed  at 8%, as you would not be able to appreciate how the fraud was  perpetrated. *


2.0      Risk-Weighted Assets  

2.01     Please recall that in the preceding paragraph I referred to “assets”  because in banking terms, “assets” are treated not in accordance with  the layman’s understanding of the term. 

2.02    *This is  one of the reasons for the public and so many analysts’ confusion and  misunderstanding about fractional reserve banking. This is also how  banksters commit the fraud. More of this later.*

2.03    So how are bank’s “assets” treated and or classified?

To understand, you must bear in mind that the purpose of the classification of the bank’s assets is _*for the purpose of determining the capital ratio (How Basel I and the subsequent Basel Accord II and III arrived at the ratio). *_

2.04    Not all assets of a bank are treated the same.

Why?

2.05    The bankers came up with the clever idea of classifying “assets” by the concept of “risks”. Hence, the term _*Risk-weighted assets!*_

In the result, if the “asset” has less risk, less capital reserves will be required.  

2.06    Let me explain.  Please see table 1 below as an example. 


[broken link removed]


2.07     You will notice straight away that loans are classified as “assets” for  bank accounting purposes and this is never understood by the layman who  considers “assets” as comprising cash, savings, properties (houses,  factories), shares and or govt. securities. This is another reason for  the confusion when reference is made to a bank’s assets.

2.08     It follows from the table that “O risks” will not require capital  reserves and that “assets” which has high risks will attract higher  capital reserves. Under the Basel Accords, common equity constitutes the  highest / best form of loss absorbing capital. 

2.09    Further confusion is created for the layman when Basel Accords have two categories of capital.


3.0    Tier 1 and Tier 2 Capital

3.01    Tier 1 capital refers to the book value of the bank’s stock and retained earnings.  *Tier 1 capital must be at least 4% of total risk-weighted assets. *Tier  2 capital is loan-loss reserves (money set aside in the event of loans  defaulting and the bank suffers a loss) and subordinated debts. [1] 

3.02    Therefore, total capital is the sum total of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital as defined by the Basel Accords. *Total capital must be at least 8% of total risk-weighted assets.*  Please see sub-paragraph 1.04 above and keep this in mind at all times.

The table 2 below is a simple illustration [2]


[broken link removed]


From the table above we can calculate the capital reserves that are required to be maintained by the bank.

3.03     0 x $40 million plus 0 x $80 million plus 0.2 x $100 million plus 0.5 x  $200 million plus 1.0 x $300 million plus 1.0 x $80 million = $500  million 

The risk-weighted assets’ value is $500 million because  we only took into account the last four categories of assets as they  have been assigned a risk factor greater than zero (0). 

_*Therefore, the bank must have Tier 1 capital of at least 4% of $500 million = $20 million (see sub-paragraph 3.01).*_

_*Therefore, the bank must have total capital of at least 8% of $500 million = $40 million (see sub-paragraph 3.02). *_

3.04     I want you to take a closer look at Table 1 again. What conclusions can  you draw from the risks assigned to the “assets”? It is so obvious, it  is staring at your face.

a)    Government securities are as good  as cash and treated as “0 Risk”, meaning that there can be no risk of  sovereign defaults – zero risk. I did not say it. Basel Accord I  assigned zero risk. It is not even a “black swan” event.  But, we have  seen in the last few months, the threat of sovereign risks from PIIGS  countries (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece & Spain) and of course  the UK and the mighty USA. In fact in 1971, the US was in default and  that was why Nixon took the US off the gold standard under the Bretton  Woods system.

And of course, loans to fellow bankers are hardly  any risk at all, but  under the Basel Accord I, the assigned risk factor  is a mere 0.5. The banks would not want to be perceived as bias. 

b)    Commercial loans are more risky than mortgages (housing loans secured by the value of the property).


4.0      Ratings by Rating Agencies - Moodys, S & P, Fitch etc. 

4.01     The rating agencies also assign risks to all sorts of financial  products, institutions etc. The ratings range from AAA (the very best)  to Junk status! Government securities are rated AAA which denotes zero  risk as in the Basel Accord I. 

4.02    I am sure most of you can  anticipate the con perpetrated by the banks, the rating agencies, the  regulators and the central bankers. The starting point of the derivative  scams is here, especially credit derivatives. Why?

4.03    The  declared purpose of ratings is to enable investors to determine the  price of their investments which they are willing to pay – the more  risky the investment, the higher would be the returns demanded and  vice-versa. And bearing in mind that government securities are rated  AAA, any entity or product that has been rated AAA is deemed to carry  zero risks. This must be so, as the Basel Accord I assigned government  securities with Zero risks and the rating agencies’ triple A rating for  government securities carry the same connotation. Therefore, any entity  or product that carries an AAA rating is held out to be as good as  government securities. 

4.04    From the standpoint of the  bankers and their accomplices in the regulatory agencies, the central  banks etc. “assets” that can be rated AAA (zero risk) will be exempted  from the need to have any capital reserve. Even, if a minimum risk  factor is imposed on such AAA rated securities etc. the banksters still  benefit in that they will only need to set aside minimum capital  reserves. _*Herein lies the seed of the bankers’ devious schemes.*_

Before  we proceed further, it must be obvious to all of you that the whole  system of fractional reserve banking is an inverted pyramid scheme with a  small capital base supporting a huge “asset” base as illustrated in  Table 1 and 2.


*Part 2 - THE BANKER’S DEVIOUS MIND*


You  must now put on your thinking cap and begin to think like a Goldman  Sachs or JP Morgan banking executive if you want to understand how the  con has been played. 

Just pause and think about this issue.  Table 2 is an illustration in the $millions. Extrapolate Table 2 in the  $trillions and you will immediately see why banksters are working  overtime to come up with schemes that will reduce their need to set  aside capital reserves. To the banksters, what is important is not the  need to protect their customers and depositors – the people who place  their hard-earned monies in their banks, but how to minimise the need to  set aside capital reserves, for each dollar set aside is a dollar *not earning compound interest / profits. *

_*If  “loan assets” are in the trillions, capital reserves will be in the  billions, money idling and not earning interests and generating profits!*_

I  have stated earlier, banking is a lucrative business. And one of the  most lucrative aspects of banking is mortgage finance – loans to buy a  house. These loans invariably cover a period of 20 to 30 years. This  means that a bank has literally a lifetime of a steady stream of  profits, as a result of compound interests charged for these loans.  Additionally, these loans are “monies” / debts created out of thin air.  This issue will be addressed in my next article. But you get my drift. 

But  in the last two decades, the banks got greedy, very greedy and  reckless. The investment bankers are the worst of the lot - financial  rapists, who only look out for themselves, getting multi-billion dollar  bonuses!  

Recap:  From Table 1 above, loans are treated as  “assets” and they carry risks. Such risks are rated from 0 to 1. If  there are risks, capital must be set aside to meet potential losses.

Let’s  assume that you are the CEO of Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan, and you have  a bunch of whiz kids and rocket scientists. What would you ask them to  do in such a situation?

I want you to step back and think deeply for a while and experience the ecstasy of the *Eureka Moment*, the self realization of how the scam was invented.


5.0       BISTRO

5.01     Not many people know that BISTRO is the name of the scheme created by  the whiz kids of JP Morgan in the 1990s to circumvent the capital/asset  ratio of Basel I. 

5.02    When a borrower defaults in paying a loan, the loan is categorised as a *Non-performing loan.* There is always a risk of a borrower not paying his loan. In banking terminology, this is called the *Default Risk. *

5.03     Bearing in mind that loans generate a stream of interest payments as  well as default risks, how would you as a banker come up with a neat  solution of “having the cake and eat it as well” if I may be allowed to  borrow the expression – i.e. have the revenue stream and profit, but  without the risk of default?  This was the $trillion question and  challenge faced by greedy bankers in the 1990s.

5.04    Put it in another way – the challenge was to earn substantial income and profits and “unload” the risks!

5.05     Can the risks be distributed and dissipated thereby circumventing the  need to comply with Basel I capital/asset ratio? How?

5.06    The answer was to _*package the default risk and trade them as securities.*_  The scheme to implement this audacious “financial engineering” was  named BISTRO by the devious minds in JP Morgan headed by Peter Hancock.  Though Hancock’s team was not the first to come up with the idea, it has  been conceded by the industry that they were the first to do it in a  big way, turning credit derivatives into the global casino as we know it  today.

5.07    The essence of the scheme was to find an entity  that was willing to assume the risk for a fee – form of insurance. If  there is no default, the entity would earn a stream of “premiums” or  fees for assuming the risk of default. The bank (originator of the loan)  would be protected and its profits would be the stream of interest  payments less the fee paid for the protection. The bank was the  protection buyer and the entity the protection seller. 

Recall the infamous hanky panky between A.I.G and Goldman Sachs. 

5.08     The first major deal was between JP Morgan and the European Bank for  Reconstruction and Development covering a $4.8 billion credit line given  to Exxon by the bank. JP Morgan was in cloud nine. A default risk was  successfully sold, and the risk was “dispersed”. 

5.09    The name given to this specific transaction was *Credit Default Swap (CDS)! *

5.10     The regulators were also impressed by the logic of the scheme and by  1996, the Fed was sufficiently confident of the scheme that it issued a  statement  that *banks be allowed to reduce capital reserves by using credit derivatives.*

5.11     Please note that the CDS was just one of several credit derivative  products that were being promoted in the 1990s. You will notice that the  products are not called “debt” derivatives but “credit” derivatives.  But this simple terminology has pulled the wool over the eyes of so  many. A loan is a debt due from a borrower, and is also a credit  extended by the lender. 

5.12    Think about it. Why not a “debt  derivative”? Why not call the swap “Debt Default Swap (DDS) instead of  CDS?  It is sound marketing strategy and or propaganda to promote a name  which has a positive connotation. Debt has a negative connotation, even  though it conveys more accurately the nature of the transaction. It is  obvious that the terminology is a way of shielding the fact that the  banker has not much faith in the borrower that it requires a insurance  against a default by the borrower of the credit facility,  notwithstanding that the borrower would have provided collateral to  secure the loan / credit facility. In this case it was the mighty Exxon!

5.13     Thinking through logically. Exxon is rated AAA, yet JP Morgan was  insecure and needed protection against default. Should not the rating  agencies, given the circumstances downgraded Exxon from AAA (zero risk  or minimum risk)? _*Calling it a “credit derivative” camouflages the  inherent heightened risks of default for such a credit facility. No one  is complaining as everyone in the overall scheme of things gets to  retain their respective AAA ratings!*_

5.14    Before  proceeding further, I just like to give a short explanation about the  term “derivative”. Let us examine the transaction referred in  sub-paragraph 5.08.

The principal transaction is the credit  facility extended by JP Morgan to Exxon. The need for protection against  a default gave rise to another transaction *which is derived*  from the principal transaction. Therefore, any financial transaction  which is derived from another principal transaction will be a  derivative.

It follows that credit derivatives such as CDS are  “credit transactions” which is derived from or dependent on another  principal credit transaction such as a loan.


6.0      Packaging & Securitisation of Loans 

6.01    In the beginning of the development of credit derivatives, you will notice that while *the risk was transferred / distributed*  to a protection seller such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and  Development, the loan or credit facility still remained on the bank’s  balance sheet. Having a CDS may reduce the risk factor assigned to a  particular “loan asset” but, the bank has still to comply with the Basel  Accord I capital / asset ratio.

6.02    The logical deduction  from the above is that if the loans are no longer on the bank’s balance  sheet, there would be no need to maintain the requisite capital / asset  ratio. This means that the banks will have less exposure to defaults  either because the risk has been transferred to a protection seller and  or the “loan asset” was disposed to investors.

6.03    Selling  individually loan assets would be cumbersome, time consuming and would  not be market friendly. The logical progression would be to sell the  loan assets in bundles, which would provide a larger stream of revenue  by way of interest payments.  But, there is an inherent problem in  bundling loan assets, as different types of loans have different  risk-factors as well as borrowers have different credit ratings as to  their ability to repay the loans. The bankers came up with the idea to  bundle low risk loans with some high risk loans so that even if some of  the high risk loans were to default, the profit from the low risk loans  would be sufficient to cover the defaults. The idea took off.

6.04     There was another variation. When banks issue securities such as bonds,  they could “latch” the bundle of loan assets to the security such that  the mortgage payments (cash flow) would go to pay the bondholders (the  purchasers of the bonds). In market terminology, such securities were  referred to as *Mortgage-backed securities.* This idea made the trading of such securities more acceptable and profitable.

6.05     From the banks’ point of view, there is never ever enough of money to  be made. Financial engineering must be employed to churn out more  revenue and profits and of course more bonuses. The financial engineers  came up with the idea of slicing the aforesaid securities into* tranches.*

6.06     Each tranche would have different levels of risk and returns – there  were three tranches. The “junior tranche” consists of the highest risks  and pays out the highest returns. The “mezzanine tranche” consists of  moderate risks and moderate returns. The “senior tranche” has the lowest  risks and lowest returns. This gave investors the option to take up  whichever tranche that they fancy. The speculative-minded would go for  the junior tranche while the conservative investor would opt for the  senior tranche preferring safety to high returns. In this way, loan  assets were removed from the bank’s balance sheet. To attract investors,  the rating agencies (for enormous fees) colluded and connived in giving  top ratings for these financial products. And as they say, the rest is  history.


7.0       Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) 

7.01     When the global derivative casino took off, the Too Big To Fail Banks  became more greedy. The protection sellers (sellers of CDS) were making  too much easy money for insuring default risks. So these banks decided  to insure themselves. They created Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) that  would sell CDS to cover the banks’ loan assets. It was like taking money  from the left pocket and putting into the right pocket and getting away  with it and more importantly effectively circumventing Basel I capital /  asset ratio. The SPVs soon realise they could make additional profits  by selling the CDS to investors, hedge funds and pension funds chasing  for higher returns. In the result, the ultimate protection sellers were  the global investors.

But no one ever queried whether in the  event of a major default this last line of protection sellers from all  over the world have the means to cover the defaults. *If AIG did  not have the requisite financial means to cover the CDS of Goldman Sachs  and the other Too Big To Fail Banks, how in the world can these  investors pay up? It was a Ponzi scheme pure and simple!*

7.02     Eventually, the CDS became meaningless. They were no longer used for  insuring defaults but became an instrument for gambling, with Goldman  Sachs leading the way. This was done when Goldman Sachs having unloaded  the mortgage-backed securities as well as through their own SPVs, their  own CDS, they would then buy CDS from some other protection sellers  betting that these so-called investments would turn bad. In simple  terms, these fraudulent bankers created toxic “loan assets”, bundled  them, insured them and off-loaded to greedy investors and then kicked  them when they were down by betting against them.

7.03    Can the  FED, the US treasury, the central bankers or anyone really tell with  confidence that this banking / derivative cesspool can be cleaned up and  that the $trillions of toxic waste can be de-leveraged? I will bet my  bottom dollar that the FED’s second round of quantitative easing (the  purchase of the toxic assets from the global banks) can erase the  problem. There is just too much of this mess to be resolved through  QEII.

_*That is why I can say with confidence in all my articles that the Too Big To Fail Global Banks are all insolvent.*_


*THE CENTRAL BANKS’ COVER UP*

The  Bank of International Settlements (BIS) is often referred to as the  Central Bank of all the Central Banks, and is up to its eyeballs in  covering up the financial crime of the century.

I want you to recap on *Basel I*,  specifically Table 1 above and the Tier 1 capital of 4% and total  capital of 8% of the risk-weighted loan-assets in sub-paragraphs 2.06  and 3.01 above. This was stipulated way back in *1988**.*

Then BIS issued *Basel II.*

Now fast-forward to *Basel III which was announced recently.*

Please read the following passages from the Press Statement of the BIS introducing Basel III. We quote:

_*“At  its 12 September 2010 meeting, the Group of Governors and Heads of  Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking  Supervision, announced a **substantial strengthening of existing capital requirements and fully endorsed the agreements it reached on 26 July 2010…**”*_

My $Trillion dollar query is this – Why is there a need now for “SUBSTANTIAL STRENGTHENING” of existing capital requirements?

I  have shown in the above analysis how the Big Banks used devious means  to reduce SUBSTANTIALLY the capital requirements, and all of these  devious means were condoned and approved by the BIS and other central  banks.

_*Tier 1 capital was fixed at 4% and total capital fixed at 8% of total risk-weighted assets in 1988.*_

In the same Press Statement, the BIS stipulated that:

_*The Committee’s package of reforms will **increase  the minimum common equity requirement from 2% to 4.5%. In addition,  banks will be required to hold a capital conservation buffer of 2.5% to  withstand future periods of stress bringing the total common equity  requirement to 7%.”*_

BIS went on to state that by  January 1, 2013 banks will be required to meet the following new minimum  requirements in relation to risk-weighted assets (RWA):         

-    3.5% Common equity/RWA
-    4.5% Tier 1 capital/RWA, and
-    8.0% total capital/RWA

After  22 years, we are back to square one again. Back to Basel I  requirements.  Not that even this requirement (Basel III) will be  sufficient. In any event, its implementation will be delayed. Final  compliance would not take place until 2019.

$Trillions have been  spent to bail out these corrupt bankers. But hardly any monies have been  spent to resolve the massive unemployment in the USA. It has been  reported that over 45 million Americans are on food stamps and one in  seven are unemployed.

But not one banker, regulator or central banker has been prosecuted.

In  the past two years, you may be excused for your ignorance. After  reading this article, there can be no more excuses for not taking  actions against these financial rapists. And if you don’t, you deserve  to be raped and plundered! I offer no apologies for my bluntness! 



*End Notes*

[1]  A Subordinated debt is a debt which ranks (stand in line) in a case of  insolvency/liquidation after payment to depositors and other creditors.

[2] Source: William F. Hummel, Money - What It Is, How It Works



_Matthias  Chang is a frequent contributor to Global Research. __Global Research Articles by Matthias  Chang_

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole  responsibility of the author and do not  necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.  The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the  author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be  responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements  contained in this article.



The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community  internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed.  For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com 

[broken link removed] contains copyrighted material the use of which has not  always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such  material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an  effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social  issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who  have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational  purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair  use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Matthias Chang, Future Fast Forward, 2010 

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21245


----------



## Chris (4 Oct 2010)

A very good and concise article. The one thing the author should have included though is a quick review of how fraudulent fractional reserve banking is in its fundamentals. 
He also doesn't state that while central banks are legally claimed to be "private", their control and monetary policies are dictated by governments and any profits go to governments. It is ultimately governments that are the main fraudsters by making the money issued by their fully controlled central banks legal tender.
If you're interested in more details about the fraud that is fractional reserve banking take a look at the following books by Rothbard:
http://mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf
http://mises.org/mysteryofbanking/mysteryofbanking.pdf


----------



## onq (9 Oct 2010)

I am interested in learning all I can about thsi field Chris and thanks for the correction and the references.
Right now all I'm doing is parrotting the words of others - I'd like to understand more and contribute to the debate.
While I accept your comments, the facts seem to imply that the central banks are only mouthpieces for agreed policies between Wall Street and the backers of teh government - most of whom happen to benefit from Wall Street!



ONQ.


----------



## Chris (9 Oct 2010)

onq said:


> I am interested in learning all I can about thsi field Chris and thanks for the correction and the references.
> Right now all I'm doing is parrotting the words of others - I'd like to understand more and contribute to the debate.
> While I accept your comments, the facts seem to imply that the central banks are only mouthpieces for agreed policies between Wall Street and the backers of teh government - most of whom happen to benefit from Wall Street!
> 
> ...



You're on the right track about the influence of bankers. That is why our economic system is crony-capitalism, i.e. politicians doing things in the interest of certain industries. 
The most important thing you can do is to not heed too much attention to what "analysts" and "commentators" from any bank or government in the world has to say about monetary and fiscal policy; they are biased beyond doubt. Economics is fascinating but so easily warped by governments and their banking cronies, and unfortunately the public is too trusting and unknowing when it comes to economics. 
The best book to get you started with a foundation of economics is "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlitt; it will pull some of the government wool from over your eyes.


----------



## onq (9 Oct 2010)

Thanks Chris.

ONQ.


----------

