Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Global financial system implosion begins

Fuck's sake - S&P explicitly cite austerity policies as a reason for downgrading a bunch of Eurozone problems and the Merkozy response is "Moar austerity!".

:facepalm:

Plus, the thieving fuckers are allowing the ECB to print money ... but instead of lending it directly to the countries that need it, they're lending it to the banks at 1% so that they can lend it to the Eurozone countries at much higher interest rates. It's so fucking transparent.

occupy-bankers.jpg
 
Ooh, this is interesting. Posting it here because several banks are in the frame for fraudulent activity.

The UK’s fraud investigator intends to confiscate shareholder dividends paid by companies convicted of criminal offences, after it won approval for a landmark court action.​

The Serious Fraud Office won a civil recovery order on Thursday against the principal shareholder of a company that had admitted corruption .​

Mabey Engineering Holding agreed to repay the £131,201 dividend it received from Mabey & Johnson, which built bridges in Iraq and admitted corruption and breaches of UN sanctions in 2009 . Two former Mabey & Johnson executives went to prison after the company reported their behaviour to the SFO. The agreement, approved by the High Court and seen by the Financial Times, marks the first time that the SFO has tried to recover proceeds of crime by targeting dividends paid in the UK.​

While the sum confiscated by the SFO is relatively small, lawyers warned that the precedent it set was potentially huge.​

“Under the existing proceeds of crime legislation, the SFO is actually able to do this, which is an alarming proposition for innocent third-party investors,” said Jonathan Fisher QC, a barrister specialising in financial crime. “Intellectually it’s unassailable but if it happened on a large scale it could undermine people’s pension funds.”​

Loads of assets out there just begging to be seized ...
 
Loads of assets out there just begging to be seized ...
You do know where the pension funds that reward people with 30 years of leisure after 30 years of work get their money from to fund the exercise, don't you? Be careful what you wish for ...
 
Yes, I do know, a) because I'm not stupid and b) because I read the article I posted.

I also know that those pension funds are paying out less than people have put in because of their outrageous management fees and general thievery and that their irresponsibility and mutual back-scratching has caused a fucking huge financial crisis that their customers are paying dearly for.

The crooks can repay the state and the state can bail out the pensioners.
 
I also know that those pension funds are paying out less than people have put in because of their outrageous management fees and general thievery
It's the sort of thing that would be nice if it were true, because then you could do something about it (reduce management fees, prevent thievery, etc.) Which is why the view is popular - the alternative is fairly terrifying, and terrified people aren't all that receptive to information which make them feel worse.

The trouble is, it's not supported by any facts. When you do the sums, pension funds pay out far more than people put in. Even if you use historical growth rates, theyneed to pay out about a trillion more than was ever put in. At zero growth or decline, it's up around £4 trillion. Managers are greedy. But not that greedy.
Pension obligations are government commitments but are not included in the government’s calculation of its indebtedness. ... To put the scale of this into perspective, we know that the Government Actuary’s Department estimates the present value of these unfunded pension liabilities at about £2.2 trillion, so even in the context of the official government debt the numbers are very large. ... Many economists believe that the appropriate discount rate should be the risk-free real interest rate ... Using these lower discount rates, derived from the government’s cost of borrowing, the unfunded pension liability is very much larger at about £4 trillion rather than £2.2 trillion. Even if one gives the government some benefit of the doubt and takes a discount rate as high as 2% over inflation the pension liability still amounts to £3.1 trillion which is almost a trillion pounds more than current estimates. This equates to an extra liability, expressed in today’s money, of £40,000 per family in the UK.

- The £1 trillion black hole – public sector pension liabilities, Economic Policy Centre, April 2010

The thievery is funded from the same place as the pension pay outs - new debt predicated on fantasy estimates of future growth which won't materialise, not contributions. So fixing thievery is necessary - but not sufficient.
The crooks can repay the state and the state can bail out the pensioners.
With what will a state with a debt/GDP ratio of 1000%, a source of income that sustained it for the last 20 years (North Sea oil and gas) declining at 25% per annum, an economy predicated on a global financial hub in a world with cratering global finances, an unfunded pension liability of £4 trillion, a cratering worker/non-worker employment demographic, an exploding demographic related old age medical cost bill, a portfolio of tax payer owned toxic debt with far more to come, an imminent credit derating pushing up its debt interest, and printing money to remain temporarily solvent - going to "bail out the pensioners"?
 
typical pro austerity 'look how high the debt is' shock propaganda - talking about capitalised pension liabilities in the absolute and detached from the future income streams that are available to fund them - and then for added shock value expressing this capitalised future amount as a cost per family 'today' in screaming tabloid style bollocks

utter dishonest & misleading crap from the EPC - goes nowhere near even attempting to explain what is going on, it's pro-austerity propaganda from a pro-austerity think tank

your also mixing up all kinds of things in your post (mixing up ymu's point about private sector pensions with your response which was about public sector pensions, mixing up growth rates with discount rates, also mixing up pension funding gaps with pension liabilities, your also conflating a reference to changes in the valuation of liabilities due to the chosen discount rates with what you call the difference between what was put in and what they need to pay out) in summary it comes across like you don't have a clue what you're talking about in relation to this

just because a pension scheme is an 'unfunded' one it doesn't mean it isn't 'funded' - of course its funded, just not in a separate ring fenced scheme - it's funded by future income/tax receipts. looking at the gross liabilities of these 'unfunded' schemes as a capitalised sum, discounted to present value, and then waving this figure about tells us nothing by itself, absolutely nothing. you have to at least do a similar thing with the future income streams that are used to fund those pensions (tax receipts etc..) and then talk about the gap between these two numbers for it to be of any meaningful value - or at least look at how much needs to be paid in total each year as a % of GDP in relation to those liabilities, which gives an idea about their ongoing affordability, rather than waving around a capitalised sum which represents cumulative future payments over decades & decades as if it was a liability due for payment in the here & now

talking about those capitalised absolute liabilities on their own gives no context, and as such is done for 'shock' value to to make a political case that they are unaffordable - rather than any kind of analytical insight
 
typical pro austerity 'look how high the debt is' shock propaganda - . . .

Huh? . . . looks to me to be a simple critique of using inflation + 3.5% (anyone knpow the assumed rate? 3%? ie same as for calculating the yield on linkers?) as a discount rate and re-doing the numbers with a more "conventional" one ie the rfr.
 
read the post if you're going to comment on it

the point is not about discount rates per se but about the politic tactic of talking about public pension liabilities in isolation from the future income streams that are available to meet them
 
read the post if you're going to comment on it

Er . . . back at you I'm afraid.

Was merely commenting on the EPC article that Falcon linked to ie what is the "correct" discount rate to use (without digressing into a discussion about the idiocy of assuming the curve is static over time)

Fully appreciate that it only analyses one side of the coin and would be very interested to see the npv calcs for the future income (not just the liability) streams.

Top-of-head on a "don't quote me" basis, seems to me the calcs are similar to that of pricing a structured mortgage-backed instrument (ie fairly regular income stream in but possibly with a capitalising element to model the increase in future liabilities).
 
Need higher inflation to outrun the debt (like we did with the WWII debt). Massive payrises in the public sector and the private sector mandated to return as much of GDP to wages as they did in the 1960s (65% then, 52% now) would have us out of the shit in no time, even if we didn't seize all those ill-gotten assets. But we should seize those ill-gotten assets anyway. Can't have these fuckers in a position to do it again.
 
Er . . . back at you I'm afraid.

Was merely commenting on the EPC article that Falcon linked to ie what is the "correct" discount rate to use (without digressing into a discussion about the idiocy of assuming the curve is static over time)

Fully appreciate that it only analyses one side of the coin and would be very interested to see the npv calcs for the future income (not just the liability) streams.

Top-of-head on a "don't quote me" basis, seems to me the calcs are similar to that of pricing a structured mortgage-backed instrument (ie fairly regular income stream in but possibly with a capitalising element to model the increase in future liabilities).

the whole point of the EPC article is to come up with big numbers so that people can then wave them around to imply that these things are unaffordable - see falcon's post for an example of the kind of thing it feeds

it's not only politically dishonest, it presents an analytically incorrect and ignorant view point of how these things work. And i don't believe for a minute that those behind this 'research' are ignorant of the mechanics of these things, instead they have chosen not to focus on the whole picture in order to tailor the research to suit the pre-determined political message

while the EPC may be technically correct in saying that using a more 'correct' lower discount rate will lead to a much higher overall liability figure for peniosn liabiliites - it conveniently fails to point out that since these pension liabilities are, despite their name, fully funded - then any increase in liabiliites as a result of using a lower discount rate will lead to an equal impact on the future income streams that fund those payments.

So while the net present value of the pension liability may go up to 4 trillion from 2.2 trillion - the net present value of the future income stream that funds those pensions will also rise from 2.2 trillion to 4 trillion - so in effect nothing has changed from a funding or affordability point of view, all that's happened is that two equal & opposite cash flows have been discounted to present value using a different discount rate (i.e. if pension payouts were £Xbn a year, then these are funded by an exact same amount of £xbn a year - so when it comes to working out the net present value of the payouts, any change in discount rate will have an equal & opposite impact on the net present value of the income streams that funds them). However a focus purely on the liability side by the EPC doesn't allow this side to be seen, and as such it can only be treated in a manner in which it is, as dishonest pro-austerity bullshit
 
. . . while the EPC may be technically correct in saying that using a more 'correct' lower discount rate will lead to a much higher overall liability figure for peniosn liabiliites - it conveniently fails to point out that since these pension liabilities are, despite their name, fully funded - then any increase in liabiliites as a result of using a lower discount rate will lead to an equal impact on the future income streams that fund those payments.
. . .

Appreciate that, just not sure (and, top-of-head would be surprised) if the cash flows are in fact equal and opposite given this countries demographic profile.

(fully appreciate all variants of (1+r)^n, bond structuring is something I have a more than passing familiarity with)
 
...
So while the net present value of the pension liability may go up to 4 trillion from 2.2 trillion - the net present value of the future income stream that funds those pensions will also rise from 2.2 trillion to 4 trillion
...
I'm just wondering where such an income stream might come from in a post peak everything world...
:confused:
 
the annual payments that the '4 trillion' represents, amount to something between roughly 1.2% to 1.8% of annual GDP (for at least the next 50 years or so)

Public-sector-pensions-bu-001.jpg


and the future income streams that will pay that 1.2% to 1.8% of GDP cost are tax receipts of the state

this is why, in answer to A dashing blade's last post, the cash flows in relation to the 'unfunded' public pension schemes (public sector and state pensions) are equal & opposite. As whatever is required to pay out is paid out from tax receipts (yes i know there's a deficit at the moment which requires borrowing to fund it, but this is not particularly material over the period talked about). It's not like a private sector defined benefit scheme where you have to rely on contributions and investment returns to fund payouts which could then result in a potential deficit/gap between liability and assets and inflows & outflows of the ringfenced scheme. In the case of the public sector 'unfunded' pension schemes, there is no gap, what is paid out is funded from tax receipts - so the future income stream that meets the pension liabilities is exactly the same as the future payments for those liabilities

Which brings us back to the initial point - if a change in the discount rate is applied to the future payments which increases the liability by 1.8 trillion - then that discount rate when applied to the future tax receipts that will pay those pensions, will also lead to an increase of 1.8 trillion in the value of the capitalised asset which represents those future tax receipts
 
. . .
this is why, in answer to A dashing blade's last post, the cash flows in relation to the 'unfunded' public pension schemes (public sector and state pensions) are equal & opposite. As whatever is required to pay out is paid out from tax receipts . . .

By that argument then, all state spending is "fully funded"?
 
it wouldn't be state spending if it wasn't, as they wouldn't be able to spend if it wasn't funded by something (either tax receipts or borrowing)

i jest a little, but in principal yes this is the point (and exaggerated one perhaps, but it shows the lunacy of the EPC approach)

yes it's not as clear cut as that when you bring in deficits & debt, but even for each year if you allocated the proportion of forecast deficit/total expenditure across all expenditure you could then get a rough approximation as to how each piece of expenditure is funded, split between tax receipts and borrowing, then you good realistically take the pension payments each year (say £xbn) and also the element of that which is funded by future tax income (£xbn minus deficit element) and then discount this net flow to get a realistic idea of any gap - as opposed to what the EPC did and purely look at the payments/liability side (and ignore the fact that the majority of these payments are funded from future tax take) so they could produce a shock gadzillions number to wave around
 
Are we dead yet?
Not quite. But the guy who made a billion dollars on his judgement of macroeconomics seems to have a view...
Billionaire investor George Soros has warned the global economic system could collapse and riots on the streets of America are on the way. The 81-year-old said he’d rather survive than stay rich as the world faces an ‘evil’ period and Europe fights a ‘descent into chaos and conflict’. He has backed the euro, bought $2billion in European bonds and insisted the economic climate is similar to the 1930s Great Depression...‘The situation is about as serious and difficult as I’ve experienced in my career. We are facing now a general retrenchment in the developed world.’...‘The best-case scenario is a deflationary environment,’ he told Newsweek. ‘The worst-case scenario is a collapse of the financial system.’...He supports the Occupy Wall Street movement and claims the response to potential unrest could be worse than the riots....‘It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order,’ Mr Soros told Newsweek.

Source: "There will be riots on the streets of America", George Soros
 
Just spotted this.

Absolutely incredible.
Bankers and their puppet politicians should be rounded up for organ harvesting.
Fucking vermin.
:mad:
 
Interesting piece as usual by Golem

d7d146da7f31069ffff8172ffffe904.jpg


Just to explain, the Labour Force Participation rate, which this chart shows declining, is the percentage of the whole work force (those of working age not in prison or the armed forces) who are ‘participating’ in the labour force. And ‘participating’ in the labour force DOESN’T mean being in work. It includes both those working and those LOOKING for work. So this chart says that the total of employed and unemployed is going down. Odd!

Odder by far is that this is happening while the actual over all population is going up.

Between beginning 2009 and end 2011 the civilian US workforce went down by 298 000. While over the same period the population went up by 5 845 000.

More people, smaller work force. And remember the work force is those of working age only. It excludes those who have reached retirement age.

These figures do two things. First as the New Millennium Newsletter points out the official figures indicate that the same official figures have been under-reporting the number of unemployed by a whopping 7 million. Which drops a bunker buster bomb on top of Mr Obama’s and Bloomberg’s Happyville fantasy. Adjust the official figures just so they agree with each other internally and US unemployment goes from 13 million unemployed to 20 Million! Or from 13% to 20%. This is what is called the U3 figure.

The wider measure of unemployment misery called U6 which includes those who are employed but only in part time work which does not cover their living costs and which they would like to exchange for a proper job – that measure – gets raised from 15% to 19.9%.

None of this is news. Many have written about this for years. But it shows how those who govern/manage us continue to intentionally mislead us and lie to us year after year.

I would like to add one more fairly obvious point. These figures unambiguously show that people of working age are simply dropping out of the workforce. They are not dying. Deaths are accounted for elsewhere in the figures. They are not joining the army nor going to prison. Those too are counted elsewhere. They are simply no longer trying to find work. And yet they still need to eat. So what is happening to them?

It is bad enough that rather than ask that question the government is simply happy to let those people quietly disappear and use their absence as a way of pretending unemployment is better than it actually is. But far worse it ignores completely what they are actually doing. America has millions of people who are either utterly destitute or they are making their living in the undeclared or criminal economy. As many as 7 million people. People who the government would like to simply flush away and pretend they never existed. Now it’s easy to say they are all drug pushers and pimps. And some are. But many were and still are, decent Americans who had jobs, children, homes and hopes and now have none of these things.

But the bankers. politicians and media don’t want to talk of them. The disappeared are just that – disappeared. And even those who have got one of the new jobs – what are we told of them? They have a job, they are not one of the unemployed. Hurray. They are probably hugely grateful. But do we hear of their lower salary? Or of their ‘flexible’ hours, meaning work whenever, no matter what havoc that plays with any attempt to be a good parent? Or of short contracts and zero benefits in a McJob which probably provides very little prospect of saving or a career pathway to something better.
 
I would like to add one more fairly obvious point. These figures unambiguously show that people of working age are simply dropping out of the workforce. They are not dying. Deaths are accounted for elsewhere in the figures. They are not joining the army nor going to prison. Those too are counted elsewhere. They are simply no longer trying to find work. And yet they still need to eat. So what is happening to them?

It is bad enough that rather than ask that question the government is simply happy to let those people quietly disappear and use their absence as a way of pretending unemployment is better than it actually is. But far worse it ignores completely what they are actually doing. America has millions of people who are either utterly destitute or they are making their living in the undeclared or criminal economy. As many as 7 million people.

I have to admit that if I lost my job tomorrow, I might not look for work. I might move back home and make meth or grow marijuana. I can't say I really approve of that industry, but it can be good money if you manage not to use your own product.

Some of those millions are moving in with family or floated by friends. A few others have become so disenchanted by the system that they're working somewhere "off the books" for cash.
 
Back
Top Bottom