- Money Morning Australia

More on the Aussie Banking Bailouts

Written on 06 December 2010 by Kris Sayce

You’ll recall on Friday your editor bashed out emails to the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), and the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX).

We wanted to know when they knew about National Australia Bank [ASX: NAB] and Westpac [ASX: WBC] taking emergency loans from the US Federal Reserve.

After all, you’d think it would be something all three regulators would be keen to know.

And ASX listing rule 3.1 states:

“3.1 Once an entity is or becomes aware of any information concerning it that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of the entity’s securities, the entity must immediately tell ASX that information.”

It seems pretty clear cut doesn’t it?

Only an unreasonable person would think that a major bank receiving a liquidity injection from a foreign central bank is not newsworthy.

Think about it this way.  If a small listed mining company has liquidity problems, and they need to raise more cash or increase a loan facility with a bank, the directors of that company know they immediately need to halt trading in the shares and release a statement to the market.

So why the special treatment for the banks?

I mean, when the NAB announced a $3 billion share placement on 10th November 2008 the company immediately requested a trading halt.

Yet when the NAB borrowed $1.5 billion from the US Fed just a few days before on 6th November there was nothing but the sound of crickets.

You can see that from the ASX announcements below.  The red arrow indicates where the NAB disclosure should be:

Source: Australian Securities Exchange

Of course, as with anything, there’s always a get-out clause.  Although even in this circumstance we can’t see that all three criteria apply that would allow the NAB not to disclose the secret loans.

ASX Listing Rule 3.1A states:

“3.1A Listing rule 3.1 does not apply to particular information while all of the following are satisfied.

“3.1A.1 A reasonable person would not expect the information to be disclosed.

“3.1A.2 The information is confidential and ASX has not formed the view that the information has ceased to be confidential.

“3.1A.3 One or more of the following applies: It would be a breach of a law to disclose the information; The information concerns an incomplete proposal or negotiation; The information comprises matters of supposition or is insufficiently definite to warrant disclosure; The information is generated for the internal management purposes of the entity; The information is a trade secret.”

Look, your editor is no expert at deciphering legal talk.  But as far as we can figure in order for the information to not be disclosed to the market it has to satisfy 3.1A.1, 3.1A.2 plus one reason from 3.1A.3.

Even before you get into the more complex reasons, 3.1A.1 is unsurpassable.  A reasonable person would expect the information to be disclosed.

But it’s amazing how the mainstream press continues to be silent on this bombshell of a story.  Perhaps they take the same view as some of the readers who have contacted us to say the fact NAB and Westpac took money from the Fed isn’t surprising at all.

That credit markets had seized up and they were merely taking cash to tide them over.  A bit like a payday loan we suppose.

The other argument is that well, every other bank was doing it so what’s the big deal?  And Aussie banks came through the financial meltdown unscathed.

Believe me, it’s a big deal.  When your main business is looking after money for people and you’re faced with a situation where if you can’t get an emergency loan then you won’t be able to honour requests for depositors to withdraw their cash, that’s a big deal.

And that’s exactly what happened.  Because banks are so leveraged, their balance sheet is hugely impacted even by small falls in asset prices or by increases in cash withdrawals.

For example, we’re curious to know why NAB’s ‘cash and liquid assets‘ position fell from $20 billion at the end of December 2008 to just $10.7 billion at the end of January 2009.

Is it just a coincidence that it covers the same period when NAB needed emergency loans from the US Federal Reserve?  And possibly emergency loans from the Reserve Bank of Australia?

That’s right, as the Australian Financial Review (AFR) reported on Friday:

“The RBA has not disclosed which Australian banks took the money.”

We’ll have a guess… Each of the Four Pillars, and probably the smaller players too.  You don’t need to be a central bank insider to figure that one out

The truth is, I don’t know.  Maybe it’s a coincidence that NAB’s cash position halved.  But there doesn’t appear to be any precedent for it in previous years apart from the December 2004 to January 2005 period which was the year following the NAB currency trading debacle.

All I know is, there’s more to the story than has currently been revealed.  Whether the full extent will ever be revealed of what the banks, central banks and government did during period is unknown.

But we were amused to read Westpac CEO Gail Kelly’s submission to the “Senate Economics Committee Inquiry into Competition within the Australian banking sector”.

Ms. Kelly’s submission was released on the same day the Federal Reserve revealed how Westpac had borrowed over USD$1 billion from the Fed in 2007 and 2008.

The submission sticks two fingers up at the truth by opening with:

“Australia has a strong, reliable and resilient banking system, with all of its participants contributing to that strength in their own way.”

So strong that two of the banks needed over USD$5 billion of emergency loans from 2007 to 2009, and other unnamed banks needed some of the USD$53 billion the RBA borrowed from the Fed on their behalf.  But anyway, Ms. Kelly continues…

“In fact our banking system truly showed its worth through the crisis.  The crisis remind the nation, and the world, how important it is to have a safe and strong banking system.”

So safe and strong that two of the banks needed over USD$5 billion of emergency loans from 2007 to 2009, and other unnamed banks needed some of the USD$53 billion the RBA borrowed from the Fed on their behalf.  And on she goes…

“As the crisis unfolded, Australian banks moved to reduce their reliance on wholesale funding (both domestic and offshore), not just because the crisis had made that funding scarcer and more expensive, but also to achieve a better balance between wholesale funding and customer deposits in the overall bank funding mix.”

That’s right, Westpac reduced “their reliance on wholesale funding” by sidestepping the wholesaler and going straight to the manufacturer – the US Federal Reserve.

What the release of data from the Federal Reserve reveals is that the Australian banking sector didn’t avoid the worse of the financial meltdown at all.  In fact it participated in exactly the same way as most other banks around the world…

It took taxpayer dollars and received central bank bail outs.  That’s something we’ve pointed out all along.  Although even we hadn’t figured on the fact that Aussie banks had gone cap-in-hand to the Federal Reserve, both directly and indirectly.

We’ll keep following up on this, as our guess is there are many more bombshells to come.  As for how we’ve gotten on so far with responses from APRA, the RBA and ASX, read on…

The first reply came from the RBA saying:

“The Bank does not comment on commercial institutions’ business dealings or transactions.”

And that was it.  Nothing more.

The RBA simply doesn’t comment.

Perhaps that’s because the RBA knows much more than it’s letting on.  Such as the revelation that the RBA itself borrowed USD$53 billion from the US Federal Reserve.  That surely makes it a taxpayer issue rather than a commercial issue.

As for the other agencies, nothing yet.  But we’re sure they’re working on it!

And I’ll keep you posted as more info comes to hand.


Kris Sayce
For Money Morning Australia

Leave a Comment

Letters will be edited for clarity, punctuation, spelling and length. Abusive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not post all comments.

If you would prefer to email the editor, you can do so by sending an email to moneymorning@moneymorning.com.au

73 Comments For This Post

  1. Ben Says:

    Kris – normally I think you’ve got some pretty interesting view points but I think you’re analysis isn’t as sound this time for two reasons:

    a) whilst these amounts are at face value large, and yes it’s true that banks are highly leveraged, these numbers are relatively miniscule compared to capital or funding requirements… somewhere in the order of 3% for capital. I think your view would be newsworthy if we were talking about 25%.

    b) you haven’t tackled the alternative explanation that the nab saw a commercial opportunity to grab some cash cheap and fatten their margins. There’s a risk here – of reducing confidence – but one they obviously thought worth taking…

  2. JB Says:

    Anybody bought any silver today?
    it’s now over $1000 per kg.
    anybody whose bought at under $1000 /kg will be regarded as geniuses shortly…


  3. michael francis Says:


    With NAB unable to pay its foreign interest bill forcing them to raid their customer deposit accounts to make ends meet, silver might soon double.

  4. UnSpin Says:

    This is gold Kris. Nothing’ll change though. But hey, it’ll be fun watching them mangle the legal system even further to try and justify their actions.

    As you say, things are only as valuable as people perceive them to me. Governance and the law is no different.

  5. meandring40 Says:

    This story is starting to seep out to the fringes of the mainstream so I’ll be interested to see whether it’s got legs..

  6. michael francis Says:


    Maybe we should withdraw our deposits before it’s too late.
    If this story does get legs there could be a run on the banks.

  7. cb Says:

    MF @ 3 – and if silver gets remonetised in places like Mexico and China, silver could easily tripple in very short order. Chapman discusses the topic here:

    Bob Chapman on Goldseek Radio 03 Dec 2010

  8. Peter Fraser Says:

    Tomorrow is the 7th December – Nick has promised us all a big bank run tomorrow.

    It will happen tomorrow he said.

    It will be interesting…

    Perhaps it is already too late to withdraw your money.

  9. Peter Fraser Says:

    Whoops – I can’t link to any of those bank run articles.

    I wonder ….

  10. cb Says:

    State of the play, probably linked a few days back already, but here it is again:

    Bob Chapman Friday Economic Report: Fed Wealth Grows While Others Drown In Debt

  11. cb Says:

    Disastrous power play. The expected outcome of the AGW hysteria: “Your power bills will double in five years”. This is what PF refers to as “a few dollars extra” on your electricity bill.

    “The missing links are the publication of an energy white paper by the Gillard government (so that energy suppliers can know exactly where the decarbonisation program is headed over 20 years) and a commitment to at least a $30 per tonne carbon price – less than this is not enough to make gas viable against coal.

    The carbon charge will feed in to the supply chain as a 25 per cent increase in end-user prices, helping to double the power bill by mid-decade (when added to much higher network charges, the renewable energy target, solar feed-in tariffs, the roll-out of smart meters and higher energy retailer costs.)

    Getting Gillard to move her lips to say “Your power bills will double in five years” is the really hard part of this deal, harder still today as she contemplates the smoking ruins of ALP government in Victoria and awaits an even bigger disaster in NSW on 26 March.”


    Hey, PF, I think I have a fourth bridge to sell you. Interested?
    Oh, it is not gullibility that makes you say such daft things?
    But then what is it?

  12. Peter Fraser Says:

    cb – thanks but no thanks – you seem to have burnt all of your bridges.

  13. Beauner Says:

    “But this is Australia – we’re different!”

    “Aussie – Oi, Aussie – Oi, Aussie!!!!”

  14. cb Says:

    Not the ones I have to sell you, PF. As for the rest, I have no desire to cross to wherever you are. Would rather be dead. You can quote me on that in your report to the Chief Constable of the Thought Police.

  15. Peter Fraser Says:

    cb – I doubt that you have anything to sell me that I have any interest in.


  16. cb Says:

    I realised that after a while, PF. Hence the daftness and the twaddle are not due to gullibility. Do mention in your report that your lack of progress here has not been due to lack of trying. And you can quote me on that one, too.

  17. J.C. Says:

    “That’s right, Westpac reduced “their reliance on wholesale funding” by sidestepping the wholesaler and going straight to the manufacturer – the US Federal Reserve.”

    — Priceless. It sounds like a drug dealer going direct to the source. No doubt the product is cut (via fractional reserve banking).

  18. gutfeeling Says:

    cb & PF – guys I think you need to take some of your squabbling offline, or limit it to arguments directly about the posted article. It wastes time for everyone else looking for relevant comments to the articles amongst your posts.

    And you know what they say about arguing on the Internet.

  19. Beauner Says:

    Wastes time?

    Man, if you have time to spend reading this blog – you have plenty of time to waste! :D

  20. Peter Fraser Says:

    gutfeeling – yep – point taken. My apologies for that.

  21. J.C. Says:

    I think that Kris Sayce would be diametrically opposed to gagging the idea of free speech. Personally, you have to use your own “filters” to sift through what is relevant to you. That’s why I will focus most on what Kris says and comment if I feel I have something relevant to say. Pissing matches are the last thing on my mind.

  22. michael francis Says:

    If the current ‘Crash JP Morgan Buy Silver’ campaign suceeds, which is certainly possible judging by the recent gain in momentum,
    I wonder what the contagion will be from that one.

  23. cb Says:

    Gutfeeling – Why would you want to see discussion limited to the topic of the day? Climate change and trust in the establishment figures and stories have all been covered by the Editor at various times. Following such a restrictive rule or policy would probably kill most conversation. Besides, all of these topics are connected. They all relate back to questions about our freedoms, the increasing bureaucratic control of every facet of our lives, taxes, and our standards of living. Which of these topics do you want to see excluded on any particular day?

  24. cb Says:

    MF – Yes, I was thinking about that one, too. A plausible candidate I was thinking of would have been crashing Goldman Sachs, and the other banks, one by one. The key would be to identify the vulnerability of each one, and then put them out of business by a billion bites.

    However, the Assange projects is already in a place where the shutting down of entire sections of the internet can be justified. Terrorism, like the unseen wars in 1984, can, and probably will be, used as an excuse to control and disarm dissent and protest on every front.

  25. cb Says:

    You see Gutfeeling, PF is all too ready to oblige. Anything to shut down conversation and the free sharing of information and ideas.
    He is all for it.

  26. cb Says:

    MF & All – just on that topic:

    Webster Tarpley: The Hidden Agenda Behind WikiLeaks – Alex Jones Tv

  27. J.C. Says:

    Kris is right though. The fact that this isn’t mainstream news in Australia shows just how brain-dead and apathetic the media and the public have become. For our leaders and bankers, it’s a good litmus test of how their spin stands up. It appears that they’re winning.

  28. cb Says:

    Actually, listening to this clip of Tarpley on Alex Jones, it is a good, representative sample of Jones’s work and style. For example, he explains how mega rich individuals and their corporations control politics and use the coercive power of government to consolidate their grip on power and the markets. Also, the concept of controlled opposition, and the provision of hogwash, false political maps to the sheeple so that they cannot figure out the real game.

  29. cb Says:

    JC – Unfortunately, that is correct. However, the truth is not entirely hidden and the flame is kept alive. As to whether a flock of sheep will ever take over from the farmer and his dogs …. well, putting it that way, does not sound very hopeful, doest it?

  30. cb Says:

    Incidentally, Australia and New Zealand also get a mention by Tarpley in the 3rd or 4th clip of that interview. Tarpley makes the point that Wikileaks is not targeted at us, or anyone not on the CIA hitlist. Very interesting. Tarpley is an old fox, and usually onto the games played in Washington.

  31. JB Says:

    gutfeeling @ 18:
    just skip past it if you dont like it.
    personally i have found cb and pf’s differences quite thought provoking on their various topics of contention.
    a classic case of think-for-yourself vs mainstream-media

  32. cb Says:

    The metals keep refusing to correct. All is not well in finance world.

  33. cb Says:

    Just watching the Midday Report. Big Bru-haha about Assange. Very interesting in light of what Tarpley has been saying about him. Among other things, Tarpley makes the point that Assange is likely to end up under the bus if Soros should need that to boost Assange’s credibility, given that Assange is increasingly being accused in the alternative media of being an establishment plant and the leaks as false flag attacks, furnishing reasons for shutting down alternative media with pull.

  34. Peter Fraser Says:

    Actually cb I really don’t think Assange is playing the game for anyone at all. I can’t fathom his motives, because he would have known the likely consequences, so IMHO he is either idealistic and quite brave, or rather stupid, and he doesn’t come across as the latter.

    I think you are reaching one conspiracy theory too many and just confusing the real issue.

    I did hesitate to say this, because if I make a statement like that, you ultra contrarians immediately take that as evidence that your way out conspiracy theory is correct, so how you take this will be interesting in my view.

  35. Sandra Says:

    cb at 32:
    i think the metals ARE in fact “correcting” … correcting for all the fiat currency that has been created out of thin air.

    Even if money printing stopped right now – which of course it wont – i think that the accounting that gold and silver still has to do wrt all that currency out there would see gold rising to around $7000/oz and silver $500/oz

  36. cb Says:

    Yes, PF. Good to see I have become so predictable. This is a very complex game, and it is being played for very high stakes. But it is very interesting to see your take on the matter. And you are right, your take on things is one of the barometers I monitor for evaluating information and sources. One amongst many. Overall, Assange keeps smelling more and more fishy. And even though he might be a Soros lackey, he is too stupid to realise the mortal danger he is in. Or maybe he is too arrogant and reckless to care. Who knows what goes through his mind. But if he is genuine, then one day he is going to do a massive double cross.

    We will see if that is going to happen. But until he leaks something really damaging to Soros and the Rothschilds, or Israel, something that these criminals would not want the world to know, he remains under a cloud of suspicion in my books, and that cloud just keeps growing darker.

  37. cb Says:

    lol, Sandra, but you are correct, of course. I am losing perspective. :-)

  38. Sandra Says:

    i havent seen Puntpal about lately.
    i’m sure he must be quite upbeat about the property market now.
    i wonder what he’s investing in nowdays?
    i know he wasnt exactly impressed with gold earlier this year – believing it to be in a bubble.

    i wonder if he’s had a rethink about that lol

  39. Peter Fraser Says:

    cb @ 36 – then I have given him the kiss of death.

    There is no safe house for Julian now.

  40. Peter Fraser Says:

    Sandra I think PuntPal still reads this blog.

  41. Drew Says:

    Sandra, others – I still can’t get my head around gold. How is it possible to value it when there’s no income? I understand it’s supposed to be an inflation hedge. So is one way to value it to determine how far ahead/behind inflation it is?
    If so, judging by this graph, it looks over-valued.


    Your thoughts?

  42. cb Says:

    PF – We do not know for sure, but for the time being Assange is being protected. Sure, there will be circus around him and it will be all high profile and made to look like he is in a lot of trouble. Nothing will increase his credibility like it. But the higher the stakes get, the more the risk that he ends up under a bus. As the saying goes, you lie with dogs, you get flees. Par for the course.

  43. cb Says:

    Drew, before I look at the chart, it would be most productive to think along these lines, instead: Forget about gold for a minute. Think of pearls, instead. How would you find out what the value of a pearl is?

  44. Drew Says:

    Not sure cb – I’d have the same issue.

  45. dc Says:

    Call me crazy, but I see striking similarities to the “pump and dump” of the 1980’s on that gold chart. But perhaps I am looking at it wrong.

    I’m no expert, but in the short term, couldn’t you reduce the risk of market manipulation by running an EFT trade with a tight trailing stop-loss, as the physical stuff will be much harder to liquidate in such an event? … just in case

  46. Sandra Says:

    dc at 45
    You could do that, but when physical gold decouples from the paper price – which it will – and goes to the moon – u’re left stranded

  47. JB Says:

    have a look at this

  48. cb Says:

    Good point, Sandra. Plus, not only stranded, but also screwed, because when it turns out that the ETFs don’t have the metals, their prices are going to collapse and they will go into liquidation, with shareholders/investors losing ALL of their money. It is important to observe this motto in an age of fakes: Hold physical, avoid paper. Simple.

  49. cb Says:

    DC – As a direct response, Bob Chapman’s advice comes to mind:
    Those who are putting their money into the ETFs, instead of actual, physical metal, one day will have their heads handed to them. You can ask him by email. He answers every one of them.

  50. cb Says:

    Drew. Then think of your car, or a stamp collection, or an unused exercise machine you might have lying about, collecting dust? None of these things earn you interest, so how would you find out what they are worth? Think very practical. What would you do to find out?

  51. Peter Fraser Says:

    JB @ 47 – thanks for the link. Yes I’m aware that not all scientists are on the bandwagon, but I also know that Russia and China probably have the most to gain from denying the problem, so wouldn’t the contrarian in you identify that.

    I’m really not a big tree hugger, but as I don’t support cb’s theory that there is no problem, something that he simply cannot prove, then I get treated as though I was a rabid enviromentalist.

    It is a case of “they don’t like my questions – I don’t comply with the cb and Nick line of thought”

    Look the world is full of bullshit, and I go knee deep in it, but I’m not prepared to scuba dive in it like the others here.


  52. Drew Says:

    cb @50 – I would check what they are worth by seeing what similar items are selling for (on ebay for example).

    Now I could do the same for gold, but that would only tell me what people are currently paying, and not whether that amount is over or undervalued compared to its intrinsic value.

  53. cb Says:

    Good link, JB. Alas, PF, in the name of balance and reason, lives on the institutionally sanctioned BS propaganda and is prepared to bring out any number of spurious and ridiculous reasons for defending that propaganda to death. The latest line is telling: Chinese and Russian scientists dispute the AGW hypothesis because their countries have the most to lose if prevention policies are implemented. What does not cross his enslaved mind is the thoght that these countries, being so exposed to severe winters and the cold seasons already, also have the most to lose if AGW was in fact correct. C’mon PF, you not only dive in this bullshit, but literally breath it and live on it.

  54. Peter Fraser Says:

    cb – I’m sure that within your own mind you are capable of seeing through all of the bullshit.

    May I suggest that next time you wipe your diving mask.

  55. thedon Says:

    Making mountains out of molehills Kris.

    Just look at the profits of the Australian banks over the last 4 years and tell me they were not doing what would have been expected of them.

    Anyone would have a grab at the cheap cash if it was offered, especially if you look at what was happening around the world at that time, why do you think uncleSam was throwing the money around.

    Even if you think you are healthy it is prudent to get inoculated, otherwise you might be blamed if others pick something up.

    It is OK to hate our banks, one reason alone is that they took their long suffering depositors for granted for so many years, have now turned on their borrowers and redicovered deposits.

    Problem with your article is you sound almost jealous of Australias banking reputation, might have been in England too long.

    What is your point Kris.

  56. Peter Fraser Says:

    cb @ 53 – I think that you just accidentally agreed with me – a financial freudian slip perhaps?

  57. cb Says:

    Drew – Quite right. Anything is worth only what other people will pay for it. Period.

    As for all this talk about intrinsic value, you can just ignore it. Forget it. Don’t even try thinking in those terms. The question you are interested in, rather, is this: How much will this or that thing be selling for down the track, say, in 5 or 10 years from now? Will its price go up, or will it be more likely to go down in this and the likely market, going forward? That’s it.

    Who the hack knows what intrinsic value is? Life is claimed to be intrinsically valuable and things like love, pleasure and enjoyment. Everything else is only valuable instrumentally, as a means to something else. This is the classical definition of “intrinsic value” in philosophical circles, and it is always in contrast to the notion of ‘instrumental value’. The distinction is best understood as being between something that is valuable in and by itselv, as opposed to it being valuable as a means to something else, something other than itself. So, the concept in the case of gold and silver, would suggest that these metals are not intrinsically valuable, but only instrumentally valuable as means to other things.

    Same as with money in general. You do not value money for its own sake, unless suffering of a condition. You value money as a means of obtaining other things with it. Same with gold. No different at all. Except that gold is real money, and payment in full, whereas paper and digital money is merely a promise to pay at a later time, when you want to exchange those papers and digits for something more concrete and useful, such as a house, a car, a trip, a bottle of wine.

    Anyhow, the long and short of it is that, as a saver and investor, you want to know whether the price people will be prepared to pay is likely to be higher or lower than what you are going to pay now for your coin or bar of gold or silver. If you think of it along these lines, then you will be searching in the right direction. At least you have a fix on magnetic, if not the true, North.

  58. cb Says:

    PF – Not so. You are starting to see things now. Too much institutional BS. You need to get out a little and start thinking for yourself more.

  59. Beauner Says:

    Hey! I like Scuba diving!! :D

  60. cb Says:

    hahahaaaa, Beauner, quite so. ROFL.

  61. Drew Says:

    Thanks cb.

    Yep, I agree with you about intrinsic value and your comment that:

    “you want to know whether the price people will be prepared to pay is likely to be higher or lower than what you are going to pay now

    But with gold, how are you making that determination? Is it just a feeling? How is it possible to make an educated guess about how high it is likely to go, without being overdone or, dare I say, a bubble?

    I’ll check out the link you posted under the latest article – I’m a massive Schiff fan.

  62. Peter Fraser Says:

    cb @ 57 – incorrect, I’ve always been a free thinker, it’s just that I don’t choke on the BS they way deep BS divers like you do.

  63. Peter Fraser Says:

    Drew @ 60 – it depends on the severity of the circumstances. In a war zone the value of gold will go sky high, but if you are left with the last two loaves of bread in the world as the only source of food, the bread will be worth more than gold.

    Think North Korea and the war zone seems possible, escalate that and the other scenario is also possible.

    Have you got a crystal ball?

  64. cb Says:

    PF – Whatever. From where I stand, you have a poisoned mind, where Up is Down, and Down is Up. Perhaps little wonder that you should think the same about me. Time will settle who had it right.

  65. Peter Fraser Says:

    cb – is there any chance that you will lay off the constant personal digs. It’s not as though you do them well.

    It’s a habit that you have picked up from Nick who does exactly the same thing when he is around, and then cries foul when I take a shot back.

    FWIW I don’t think the same about you, you are ok when you don’t have your head up your constant conspiracy @rse.

  66. cb Says:

    PF – Two points:

    1. The latest round of mudslinging started when you got down into the gutter in your comment to Sandra about you only being knee deep in BS, whereas the likes of me are swimming in it. So, if you want to have a go at someone about it, have a look in the mirror.

    2. You carray on like a turkey, always belittling those of us who are not satisfied with official statistics, stories and explanations in our search for truth and a better understanding. You make it out as if we were some lunatics always looking for a conspiracy. This is disingenous spin on your part, and I was meaning to point it out for a while to you in so many words, so that you can understand.

    What we are doing is what any reasonable person does: We set out to search for the truth, the truth of the matter concerning any of the given topics or subjects. But when our rational minds find official explanations and pronouncements to be unsatisfactory, we go beyond those official explanations and stories, and unfortunately, what we find when we do that, are signs and evidence of conspiracy, conspiracy to hide the truth, conspiracy to fool and mislead, conspiracy to defraud and scam people out of their hard earned savings.

    So, the difference between us is not the way you are making it out. The difference at this very starting level is that you stop and are happy with whatever is being dished up by the spinmedia, while some of us find what they are offering to fall short of the full story, so we keep on digging further. It is unfortunate and regrettable that what we often find is a conspiracy of some sort to shorten the little guys by priviledged insiders and their many hangers on. So, get it right, and if you can help it, stop your spinning and twisting.

  67. dc Says:

    cb @ 28 – it is ironic that both Jones and Tarpley have been accused of being controlled opposition, yet they are having an in-depth discussion about how controlled opposition works.

    Are they in fact controlled opposition themselves?

    Don’t discount that possibility. Look for the possibility that they have their own agenda, look at which direction they are taking the WikiLeaks story. Does is serve any purpose? Does it reveal anything about the motives of Jones and Tarpley? Not saying it does in this case, but these are questions you should always ask.

  68. Peter Fraser Says:

    cb – ok we will keep it game on then.

    Suit yourself.

  69. cb Says:

    Yes, DC, I always do. Always on the lookout for BS. Anything that does not add up, I double and tripple check. For example, I used to find Max Keiser compelling. Until he started shovelling the AGW theory, which did not, and does not make sense. It does not add up and scam is writtten all over it from top to bottom. Similarly with Assange. When he made his first splash, I thought he was a real rebel and a man of his own. But slowly, more and more things are not adding up to the full quid, so I am watching him, and very closely. Same with Alex Jones, and Brother Nathanael. They all have their idiosyncracies and little interests and agendas which I do not share or buy into.

    I try to construct a coherent story, always, and any anomalies need to be investigated. If there are too many anomalies for my picture or theory, then the whole theory needs to be resvised. That is how theories, knowledge and understanding are supposed to evelove and advance. That’s the theory of it, anyhow. In the end, the best that we can do, is the best that we can do.

  70. cb Says:

    PF – That is not what I suggested. Not sure what you mean, in fact. You may and may not have noticed that I tend to be what in game theory is described as a reciprocator. If you are nice to me, I will make a point of returning the compliment. If you kick me in the shin, expect to cop one, or two. Simple. Even though it does not always work, that’s how I tend to be. You belittle what I say, and if I find that unreasonable or unfair, then you will get it back in kind. Rather predictable, so the choice is yours.

  71. Peter Fraser Says:

    your not a reciprocator.

  72. cb Says:

    No, of course not. Not in your view, anyhow. In your view I am a nutcase, a conspiracy nut who will ignore everything in MSM and will only go for sinister, conspiracy theory explanations for everything. What else? Ah, yes, in your view I am also an anti-semite, a Jew-hater, and an extreme right wing racist.

    Well, guess what. I have looked into the mirror and I am satisfied that I am none of those things. Perhaps it is time that you took a good hard look at yourself and find out who YOU are, making these vile accusations against me.

  73. dc Says:

    I wondered if Tarpley and Jones were trying to spin the WikiLeaks in a way that further obfuscates the true source of WikiLeaks. I smell a rat, but I could be wrong. If I had more time I’d dig further into it.

    Tarpley also mentioned MK Ultra. I have read about MK Ultra, which is supposedly a mind control technique that uses various techniques of controlled trauma to make people behave in a certain way and take on multiple personalities and things like that. It is alegedly used on various puppets to “program” them to perform their role.

    I’m not sure if it’s true, or just more propoganda BS. I recall that there was a guy who brought it out into the open and gave talks on various TV shows and then was killed, so maybe there is some truth to it. If it is BS, then it suggests that Tarpley is just trying to spin the story off into la-la land.


"I think you're fantastic! I love to read what you write...you're so interesting and amusing and I've learned so much" -
Money Morning reader, Chris Gadd

"You guys are brilliant. I feel more relaxed about the future than ever simply because I know what is going on rather than floundering around with smoke screens and mirrors from the government and mainstream" -
Money Morning reader, Helen Carter

"Wow what can I say? I was an economically confused moron until I read your newsletter and even though I've been a subscriber for a short period I can now see how easy it is to understand, if you use common sense and can have the spin translated into everyday language. Thanks for an entertaining read." -
Money Morning reader, John

"Keep up the good independent and well thought out articles offering a view that often debunks mainstream myths." -
Money Morning reader, Craig

"I do admire your straight talking and simple analysis of the situation, I think of you as the Jeremy Clarkson of finance." -
Money Morning reader, Jeffery

openX sidebar signup form
Openx pos2
Latest Stock Market Updates
  • ^NDX4452.057+6.697 - +0.15%
  • ^FTSE6942.50-18.64 - -0.27%
  • ^AORD5868.600-5.100 - -0.09%
  • ^AXJO5898.900-5.300 - -0.09%
  • AUDUSD=X0.7816
  • USDJPY=X120.0275
openX sidebar banner
Openx pos7
3 Small Cap Stocks leadgen

Receive our unique and useful investments ideas straight to your inbox for FREE, enter your email to sign up: