Daily Archives: March 12, 2013

Cayman Islands Monetary Authority revokes HSBC Mexico licence

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority has officially revoked the banking license of HSBC S.A. (Cayman Islands Branch).

In a press release dated Friday, 1 March, the authority said that since last July the said bank had been under investigation to establish whether they had breached any local laws and regulations.

“In the Decision notice of 27 February, the CIMA revoked the Category B Banking license.

Read on.

Abbot and Costello Tell the Truth Their Way on America’s Unemployment Rate

Subject: Abbot and Costello tells the truth their way

So how can over 873,000 people come off of the unemployment rolls when there were only a little over 114,000 jobs created? Below is a transcript of how Abbott and Costello would have explained it!

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. These are terrible times. It’s 7.8%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that’s 14.7%.

COSTELLO: You just said 7.8%.

ABBOTT: 7.8% are unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right, 7.8% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 14.7%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 14.7% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 7.8%.

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 7.8% or 14.7%?

ABBOTT: 7.8% are unemployed. 14.7% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, Congress said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how they get it to 7.8%. Otherwise it would be 14.7%. Our government doesn’t want you to read about a 14.7% unemployment rate.

COSTELLO: That would be tough on those running for reelection.

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like an Economist.

COSTELLO: I don’t even know what I just said!

ABBOTT: Oh, now you’re thinking like Congress!

Check out the Albert and Costello video.

High Rents Make Housing Unaffordable for Many in Vermont

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 11, 2013
CONTACT: Erhard Mahnke, 802.233.2902, erhardm@burlingtontelecom.net
Jenny Montagne, 802.660.9484, jenny.vahc@gmail.com

High Rents Make Housing Unaffordable for Many in Vermont

Vermont Rents Out of Reach for Working Families

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Renters in Vermont need to earn $18.53 per hour in order to afford a basic apartment here, according to a report released today that compares the cost of rental housing with what renters can really afford. This works out to an annual income of $38,541.

Read on.

JPMorgan Exits Aussie Rates Panel In Libor’s Wake

Banking giant JPMorgan Chase (JPM) is pulling out of the group that sets Australia’s interbank lending rates, as it and other institutions rethink that business in the wake of the Libor rate rigging scandal.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/business/030813-647316-jp-morgan-chase-ubs-leave-bbsw-panel.htm#ixzz2NIdhJQRl
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

 
And why would JP Morgan Chase pull out of group that sets Australia’s interbank lending rates? Maybe because the investigation into UBS manipulating theAustralian bill swap rate:
 

Traders at investment bank UBS attempted to manipulate Australia’s key financial market benchmark, the bank bill swap rate, according to the bank’s own investigation.

An administrative proceeding from the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission against UBS and its Japanese subsidiary, agreed to by the bank in December, reveals that UBS traders gamed not just the global Libor rate but other benchmarks, including Australia’s.

“Through its internal investigation, UBS identified evidence of similar misconduct [to Libor manipulation] involving submissions for at least the Hong Kong Interbank Offered Rate, the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate, the Singapore Swap Offer Rate and the Australian Bank Bill Swap Rate,” the Commodity Futures Trading Commission found.

A UBS spokeswoman said the bank could not comment at this stage. Moreover, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission undertaking specifically prevents banks involved from commenting further on the 74-page report. The reference to the Australian bank bill swap rate is contained in a footnote.

It is unclear what the sanctions will be for UBS in Australia, if any. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission declined to comment. In July, it said it was “monitoring the situation but was not in a position to elaborate”.

The identification of UBS confirms an Australian Financial Review investigation last July into attempts to manipulate the bank bill swap rate.

Read on.

Link

FDIC Secretly Settling Bank Cases For Years With ‘No Press Release’ Clause: Report

FDIC Secretly Settling Bank Cases For Years With ‘No Press Release’ Clause: Report

Three years ago, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. collected $54 million from Deutsche Bank in a settlement over unsound loans that contributed to a spectacular California bank failure.

The deal might have made big headlines, given that the bad loans contributed to the largest payout in FDIC history, $13 billion. But the government cut a deal with the bank’s lawyers to keep it quiet: a “no press release” clause that required the FDIC never to mention the deal “except in response to a specific inquiry.”

The FDIC has handled scores of settlements the same way since the mortgage meltdown, a major policy shift from previous crises, when the FDIC trumpeted punitive actions against banks as a deterrent to others.

The largest U.S. bank failures

Since 2007, 471 U.S. banks have failed, nearly depleting the FDIC deposit-insurance fund with $92.5 billion in losses. Rather than sue, the agency has typically preferred to settle for a fraction of the losses while helping the banks avoid bad press.

Link

Legal issues tied to mortgages strike BofA hard

Legal issues tied to mortgages strike BofA hard

Credit and mortgage-related legal battles ended up costing Bank of America ($12.15 0.08%) a whopping $42 billion, according to a new Forbes article.

The world knows BofA ended up under the gun after acquiring subprime lender Countrywide more than four years ago.  Paying for related litigation and settlements has cost the lender billions of dollars since then, and the litigation stream continues to run till this day.