Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (108690)	12/2/2014 8:25:17 AM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 219957

You must think the US imports refined products, rather than being the net exporter of refined products it is. The very last thing the United States needs is additional refinery capacity. As for domestic drilling for oil, there are very few potential oil fields which are not open for exploitation and virtually all of these are costly offshore fields in waters far deeper than the Gulf of Mexico. just imagine if the U.S. did it's own real oil drilling and refining. You've overlooking the tremendous increase in Russian oil production - and China's increased imports from Iran, most of which are not captured in official figures as these exports as China and Iran have many reasons to pretend these sanction breaking trades are not significant. Even Iraqi exports are up significantly, even though not all sales occur through Iraqi government channels. Between increased Russian, Iraq and Irani oil and gas production and increased U.S. gas production, and related extinguished oil demand, a mere resumption of Saudi output has collapsed prices. Is is possible Saudi Arabia could cut output enough to raise prices? Probably, but it would be very costly to them and low prices currently serve the own foreign policy objectives.

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (108690)	12/2/2014 2:38:46 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219957

OCC Fines Three Banks $950 Million for FX Trading Improprieties November 12, 2014 Contact: Bryan Hubbard (202) 649-6870 WASHINGTON – The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today assessed $950 million in fines against three national banks for unsafe or unsound practices related to their foreign exchange (FX) trading businesses. The fines against Bank of America, N.A.; Citibank, N.A.; and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., follow multiagency examinations and investigations of the banks’ activities in the global FX market, which has an average daily volume of more than $5 trillion dollars. “We expect national banks and federal savings associations to have controls in place that are sufficiently robust to ensure that employees will follow the law and adhere to the highest standards of conduct,” said Comptroller of the Currency Thomas J. Curry. “The enforcement actions we are issuing today make clear that the OCC will take forceful action, not only when the institutions we supervise engage in wrongdoing, but when management fails to exercise the oversight necessary to ensure that employees follow laws and regulations intended to protect customers and maintain the integrity of markets.” Mr. Curry said that it is vital that federal banks and thrifts, particularly the large institutions that play an important role in currency and credit markets, foster a healthy corporate culture that encourages ethical business practices. “These enforcement actions were taken because several large banks permitted an environment to develop in which unscrupulous traders discussed manipulating foreign exchange markets. Our action today, and those of our fellow regulatory agencies here in the United States, in the United Kingdom and in Europe, sends a very strong signal that such misconduct will not be tolerated.” The OCC’s examinations found the banks failed to identify or prevent employee misconduct related to FX sales and trading. The OCC found that between 2008 and 2013, some of the banks’ traders held discussions in online chat rooms about coordinating FX trading strategies to manipulate exchange rates to benefit traders or the bank. In addition, the traders disclosed confidential bank information, including customer orders and rate spreads. The OCC’s examinations also found that traders discussed activity to trigger trading actions potentially detrimental to customers and beneficial to the trader or bank, and discussed pending orders and agreed not to trade in particular currencies. The OCC’s examinations found that the banks had deficiencies in their internal controls and had engaged in unsafe or unsound banking practices with respect to the oversight and governance of FX trading, resulting in the banks’ failure to identify the risks related to sales, trading, and supervision of employee conduct in FX trading. As a result of these control deficiencies and unsafe or unsound practices, the employee misconduct went undetected for several years. The $950 million total includes $250 million assessed against Bank of America, $350 million against Citibank, and $350 million against JPMorgan Chase Bank. In addition to assessing civil money penalties, the OCC issued cease and desist orders requiring the banks to correct deficiencies and enhance oversight of their FX trading activity. Concurrent with the OCC’s enforcement action, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority took actions against some of these financial institutions for improprieties related to their FX trading activities. Related Links •Consent Order Against Bank of America, N.A. (PDF) •Consent Order for Civil Money Penalty Against Bank of America, N.A. (PDF) •Consent Order Against Citibank, N.A. (PDF) •Consent Order for Civil Money Penalty Against Citibank, N.A. (PDF) •Consent Order Against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (PDF) •Consent Order for Civil Money Penalty Against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (PDF) # # # occ.gov

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (108690)	12/4/2014 3:25:43 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219957

There's a defect in that idea. < just imagine if the U.S. did it's own real oil drilling and refining... OPEC and all the other terrorist supporting countries would have no more money to support and spread terrorism around the world... first clue...> If the USA produced sufficient for all its own needs, then the terrorist countries would simply sell their oil to the other 95% of people on Earth. The USA consumption of oil from the 'terrorist' countries is relatively small. Another defect is that it's all about the money. If oil inside USA costs 3 times as much as it does from Saudi Arabia, then the local yokels in the USA will be unhappy having to pay 3 times the price for their gasoline. $12 a gallon would make them grumpy. It's better to buy from the bad guys and control the terrorists. Stopping buying cheap oil won't stop terrorists and it will supply cheaper oil to 'strategic competitors' such as China who also happen to be building big military services while Americans would be impoverished by $12 a gallon gasoline. One needs to be careful of unintended consequences and think through what would actually happen. Mqurice