Topic: Major Banks Admit Price Fixing... Hugh Penalties (Read 2130 times)

The banks do have to return that money.  The advantage gained is the financing is far cheaper then they would ever get normally and especially at that time of high risk, the money would not be there at all.  Lehmans found this when they turned down a lousy offer to buy them out, it was not a good price but thats tough luck as it was not a sellers market.
  Gov when it 'gives' money to banks is giving them nice terms but they do pay it back and with interest however at the same time inflation makes interest very favouable and it is a gift many of us will never see and we all know how badly banks can treat their customers who take loans, its not negotiated for comfort as they got


Theres a strong reason for this, lehmans failed and this meant actual losses occurred.  So not 100% return but less and because lehman was so central this was causing losses to funds declared to never lose funds, purely hard money funds that a global company might use for chequing every day, losing money wasnt an option on this just like your bank ac it isnt either.
   Their reaction was to withdraw all funding to markets, this turtling effect was destructive to business as many require overnight finance.

  If gov forced a 100% payback it was to show good confidence and that business could resume and to avoid this extreme caution.  Ultimately global markets outweigh every government [you cannot have trillions in debt and say otherwise really] so it was gun to their head though Bush could have had more guts, he doesnt want that mess on his record.  

This is just what is going to happen when that much power is concentrated among so few entities.

But why would they want to keep the price low?  Maybe so they could buy more of it?  I would think that they want a higher price so they can earn a profit.  I have heard this before but it never made sense to me.  Does anyone know why they would hold the price down (assuming they are, which I am not sure of).

I remember reading the chat logs of the whales playing with fiat currencies, it truly resembled a trollbox from any of the BTC exchanges.
Now we need the major whales to admit the current price fixing of Bitcoin keeping it this low for so long lol.

It depends on the Bank, if its a Central Bank that can be different than a private bank, while both are privately owned the Central Banks main objective is to control monetary policy, while some banks are just to hold deposits etc.
It's been a while but if I recall correctly there are a lot of regional banks in the US but only one Federal reserve that controls the whole system.
In my opinion the best bank is a credit union since it spreads its profits among its owners although for some convinences a balance in a traditonal bank account is better.
(As for money creation its been done a few times QE spending but I might have misunderstood your point on that.)

That is nothing for big banks,only jail can make them stop
and when people will  move away his money from big banks accounts
libor fraudwas much more bigger andwhat practicaly nothing

Banks perform an important role in all countries, democratic or not. Growth in credit provides an impetus to the economy. If people could not get credit, it would be impossible for a young man to buy a house, a new car, or take a vacation. All these purchases provide a stimulus to the economy and make it grow.

The bankers have an enormous influence on governments.  Example: US financial positions are mostly filled by former Goldam-Sachs execs.  When they were bailing out companies from the 2008 meltdown what company did they let fail?  Right!  Goldman's biggest competitor.  And when AIG went under, the government bailed them out and made them pay Goldman at 100%.  Who the f gets 100% in a bankruptcy?  And not to mention that Paulson (the guy in charge of bailouts) just came off of being the Goldman CEO.  Why is this significant? BECAUSE HE WAS IN CHARGE WHEN GOLDMAN WAS MAKING THE DERIVATIVES THAT HELPED CAUSE THE WHOLE MESS.  He knew the crap was going to hit the fan.  It almost seems like they planned it this way...

I could go on but it won't be good for my blood pressure so I will stop here.

I still don't understand the relationship between banks and governments in a democratic country

It seems they are not belong to the same owner, but they have some kind of cooperation. Now after financial crisis, bank's reputation drops dramatically, governments set more laws to regulate banks and constantly putting fines on them. But on the other hand, government still borrow from banks to stimulate economy, so they have some kind of dependency

Anyway, if they are not belong to the same owner, there will be lots of political conflicts. Currently government are focusing on AML/KYC part to tighten the money flow control, but it is just a matter of time before they eventually hit the most critical part: the money creation

I agree too, Bitcoin has the ability to put the bankers out of their job. But fiat is too much spread and Bitcoin needs to have a huge market cap to reach that point. Hopefully it can some day and I can say to my banker F**K O*F....

When there is criminal prosecution, that is when I will be sure that action is being taken.
Fines are just a small slap on the wrist.

It is just a few pennies in the bucket for them and it's off to the next profit generating scheme
Perhaps by charging higher fees to users since interest rates are so low right now they need to skim money from somewhere.
That and it is future bailout money after all they are too big to fail and are not being broken into smaller banks.

Can you please let me know..
Where is Bernie Maddoff?  and where are Mark Crappucino , pirate , tradefortress ?

Just to clarify ... when people talk about banks or governments printing money, they are referring to general money creation, and not the actual printing of notes on paper. At the height of U.S. QE, the Fed was printing $85 billion per month, but it not was not issuing 850 million $100 bills.

this the reason why they want to remove cash completely, they want to have full control on their dirty scam, printing is a thing on the past, now with all the electronic money, it's like no one is holding anything anymore

Theres no ammount of money you can fine on those that would have a decent impact on their business so they think about scamming twice next time, for they are the money makers themselves. They can just ask for money being printed to pay that fine.

Quite likely, entirely rapacious with no relation to cost....just because they can.

I hope that Bitcoin ore crypto in general will eat lots off power from those bankers!

That's probably a penalty for trying to get the money out earlier than what was agreed on by the relative in the initial contract?

A friend of mine just inherited about £240,000, mixed equity/gilts/trackers, left by an elderly relative in an HSBC administered fund account.
Returning about 2.1%. 
He wants to buy himself a small place to live and approached the bank about cashing it all in.
Fees for doing so?
~£60,000.