The Federal Reserve Cartel: The Eight Families

This article was first published on Global Research June 1, 2011

(Part one of a four-part series)

The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo) own the Four Horsemen of Oil (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP and Chevron Texaco); in tandem with Deutsche Bank, BNP, Barclays and other European old money behemoths. But their monopoly over the global economy does not end at the edge of the oil patch.

According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation.[1]

So who then are the stockholders in these money center banks?

This information is guarded much more closely. My queries to bank regulatory agencies regarding stock ownership in the top 25 US bank holding companies were given Freedom of Information Act status, before being denied on “national security” grounds. This is rather ironic, since many of the bank’s stockholders reside in Europe.

One important repository for the wealth of the global oligarchy that owns these bank holding companies is US Trust Corporation – founded in 1853 and now owned by Bank of America. A recent US Trust Corporate Director and Honorary Trustee was Walter Rothschild. Other directors included Daniel Davison of JP Morgan Chase, Richard Tucker of Exxon Mobil, Daniel Roberts of Citigroup and Marshall Schwartz of Morgan Stanley. [2]

J. W. McCallister, an oil industry insider with House of Saud connections, wrote in The Grim Reaper that information he acquired from Saudi bankers cited 80% ownership of the New York Federal Reserve Bank- by far the most powerful Fed branch- by just eight families, four of which reside in the US. They are the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.

CPA Thomas D. Schauf corroborates McCallister’s claims, adding that ten banks control all twelve Federal Reserve Bank branches. He names N.M. Rothschild of London, Rothschild Bank of Berlin, Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Warburg Bank of Amsterdam, Lehman Brothers of New York, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy, Goldman Sachs of New York and JP Morgan Chase Bank of New York. Schauf lists William Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff and James Stillman as individuals who own large shares of the Fed. [3] The Schiffs are insiders at Kuhn Loeb. The Stillmans are Citigroup insiders, who married into the Rockefeller clan at the turn of the century. Continue reading

Raise interest rates on old student loans, secret report proposes

This article is from The Guardian and shows how dispicable and desperate the powers that be are getting to find new debt to create. Not happy with going back on agreements made with 3.6 million students in England to fix the rates for life, myself being one of them, but committing them to a life of debt servitude. Surprisingly it is the Rothschild Investment Bank who are behind the plans to enslave a new generation or two, just down right under handed! If you think the government are in charge, they are not but skip to the beat of the Rothschilds et al. What they are proposing benefits investors only, this has no benefit for students or society whatsoever.

If this doesn’t start the alarm bells ringing I don’t know what will:

In order to sell as much of the loan book as possible, the financiers advise that the government underwrite the risk with a financial instrument called a synthetic hedge, in effect using the public finances to guarantee returns to private investment.

Ah the synthetic hedge. Definition of synthetic – Not natural or genuine; artificial or contrived so essentially backing it with hypothecated assets that investors can claim when revenues are not met.

Alternatively, they suggest dumping the cap on loan rates altogether. If that proves impossible, the team suggest “an ‘offer of compromise’, including a payment holiday, or an interest-free period or a different cap”.

Ministerial assurances were given this rate would never be changed. Why would we expect anything but lies and false promises.

“The [financial] risk is best taken by government…; second best is it being taken by graduates…; and lastly by investors who want inflation protection.”

Seems investors are top of the pile for profit but take the least risk…that’s not investment but modern day debt slavery.

Removing the cap would, however, burden graduates with years of extra repayments, lasting in some cases until the end of their working lives. At the moment, the cap on student debt taken out before 2012 keeps repayment rates at 1.5%. Lifting it would mean a rate of 3.6%, in line with RPI in March 2012. One indicative calculation suggests that an employee on £25,000 a year, with £25,000 of undergraduate loans taken out before 2012, could work until retirement without ever paying off their debt if the interest rate cap were removed.

image

Full article:

A confidential report commissioned by the government has proposed redrawing the terms of student loans taken out over the past 15 years, that would make them more expensive to pay back for 3.6 million borrowers in England alone.

The proposal to increase the interest rates on the £40bn worth of loans is the most controversial of a series of options contained in a Whitehall-commissioned study examining how the coalition could privatise the entire stock of student loans issued since 1998.

Increasing the amount that students would be forced to pay back would make the loans more attractive to buyers.

The document, prepared by Rothschild investment bank, was submitted to the business department in November 2011, but is understood to still be under active review. It has never been made public, or been seen by higher education professionals.

Any move to increase the interest rates on loans already taken out could add extra years of repayments even for those who left university long ago.

In the report, dubbed Project Hero, the authors suggest a script for ministers to persuade graduates to accept the worsening of their conditions. “We all live in difficult times,” they suggest ministers argue. “You have a deal which is so much better than your younger siblings (they will incur up to £9,000 tuition fees and up to RPI+3% interest rates)”.

A statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills confirmed that ministers were still looking at how to privatise the pre-2012 student loan book. It noted: “The government has not made any changes to the pre-2012 loans interest rate terms … Work on the feasibility of selling the pre-2012 student loan book is ongoing.”

Ministers already plan an auction of the remaining student loans issued between 1990 and 1998. Although they have a face value of £900m, they are expected to fetch a fraction of that amount. The real value lies in the loans issued after 1998, which are worth between £35bn and £45bn – many multiples more than all the state assets otherwise lined up for sale.

At the moment, the interest on all student loans taken out before 2012 is capped. Graduates pay interest at either the RPI measure of inflation or banks’ base rate plus 1%, whichever is lower.

But in the privatisation study, Rothschild found that the rate-cap was a major deterrent to potential investors, who worried that if inflation outstripped the base rate they would lose out on returns.

In order to sell as much of the loan book as possible, the financiers advise that the government underwrite the risk with a financial instrument called a synthetic hedge, in effect using the public finances to guarantee returns to private investment.

Alternatively, they suggest dumping the cap on loan rates altogether. If that proves impossible, the team suggest “an ‘offer of compromise’, including a payment holiday, or an interest-free period or a different cap”.

“The [financial] risk is best taken by government…; second best is it being taken by graduates…; and lastly by investors who want inflation protection.”

Removing the cap would, however, burden graduates with years of extra repayments, lasting in some cases until the end of their working lives. At the moment, the cap on student debt taken out before 2012 keeps repayment rates at 1.5%. Lifting it would mean a rate of 3.6%, in line with RPI in March 2012. One indicative calculation suggests that an employee on £25,000 a year, with £25,000 of undergraduate loans taken out before 2012, could work until retirement without ever paying off their debt if the interest rate cap were removed.

Loans taken out since 2012 have interest rates fixed at RPI plus 3%.

The proposals were greeted with fury by lecturers’ and students’ representatives. “This government is showing that it’s more concerned with helping investors make money than defending the interests of student and taxpayers,” said Simon Renton of the University and College Union. “Students and taxpayers deserve better than a Hobson’s choice between payday lending or another giant PFI.”

Lifting the cap would also fly in the face of ministerial assurances that there would never be a retrospective change in terms. Speaking to a parliamentary select committee last June, universities minister David Willetts told MPs: “In the letter that every student gets there are some words to the effect that governments reserve the right to change the terms of the loans. That is a text that has always been there for students, but we have no plans to change the framework we have explained to the House of Commons.”

The report was obtained by the False Economy website through a freedom of information request. Although over 90% of it was redacted, the blacking-out was light enough that virtually the entire report can be read. It was analysed for the Guardian by higher education analyst Andrew McGettigan.

“Many people have speculated about the problems associated with selling student loans,” said McGettigan, author of The Great University Gamble. “This is the first authoritative confirmation we’ve had that the main impediment to sale is the interest rate protection in place for existing borrowers. Under these proposals, this government will get cash now but borrowers or future governments pick up the tab.”

“The government must immediately rule out this outrageous suggestion,” said Liam Burns of the National Union of Students. “Despite pushing them to establish in law that conditions on student loans could not be altered retrospectively the government refused and gave weak assurances that they had no plans to do so. Now we see their own advisers are suggesting that very move.”