Friday, January 22, 2010

How to Protect Yourself From the Federal Reserve


kcb wrote: [questions about how/why to buy Treasuries]

At Dow 14K, I recommended that everyone, who does not have a risk profile compatible with shorting, move to 100% cash and Treasuries. That was mid-2007 (the first pop of Dow 14K) with T rates around 6%.

Since then, Treasuries have been crushed by demand to around 0% (or even negative) yield, by people and entities with real money ($millions to $billions) who are investment savvy.

So it's true that the smart money has already removed the possibility of getting the 6% yield that I urged everyone to jump-on. But it's still not too late to switch to cash and Ts. To the contrary, with the most expensive Dow ever by roughly five fold, as priced by P/E, broad market prices are only beginning their multi-decade decline. With the dumb money still fully vested in stocks, paper gold, and banks, Treasuries at 0% are the opportunity of a lifetime. Every time prices halve, safe cash bags a cool 100% return.

In order to survive the current and future financial chaos, the most important thing is to convert as many assets into cash as possible. I'm talking about everything, not just your "investment portfolio." Cars, vacation homes, boats, extra furniture, everything you can sell for cash should be sold. Next, figure out a way to protect that cash.

In the coming decades, protection of cash will be extremely difficult, much more difficult than it is today. Banks are not a safe option. Some will survive, but which ones will be unpredictable, it depends which politicians the private Fed has purchased, which banks they wish to destroy, and how long the Federal Reserve banks themselves survive.

As a minimum, avoid any large American bank that is not based in NY. These are the Fed's primary objectives for destruction, they will likely be the early casualties of the Federal Reserve's war on Americans. Hint: a big bank with a name like Washington Mutual is not generally a member of the NY Fed's bank cartel. Big, Carolina-based Bank of America is an easy pick to fall in the opening battles, while the Federal Reserve still has residual political clout.

Especially avoid FDIC insured banks.
The private FDIC, desperate to avoid insurance payouts, will kick dead insured banks to stronger insured banks, bringing down most of them.

So, where to stash your cash? First, if you have the means, protect it yourself. This will be the lowest risk option for most people. Hide it; fireproof it; waterproof it. FDR sent thugs door to door to steal Americans' gold at gunpoint. He jailed any American who didn't submit. The same thing could happen tomorrow with cash.

With cash you cannot safely store, buy Treasuries. Treasuries are a near-cash equivalent. Once the big banks start to fall, it will be too late to buy Treasuries without paying a large premium, so do it now. Treasury prices have already exceeded $1 per $1. Once $15T in bank deposits starts competing for a few billion in weekly T auctions, don't be surprised to pay an 80% surcharge to preserve 20% of your cash.

The U.S. Treasury is NOT your friend. It is indirectly controlled by the commercial Fed banks like most of our government and court system. But it is where the smart money hides and they have political power in our country, so you cannot do better.

There may be safer options in other countries, but given the U.S. propensity to commercialize and legalize Federal Reserve counterfeiting, while possibly safer, other currencies will not experience the same surge in buying power as U.S cash as our economy crumbles. I've said this many times but I'll say it again, I recommend U.S. cash and/or Treasuries not as a safe INVESTMENT, but as a high yield TRADE as prices tumble around you. The risk:reward ratio can't be beat.

Because our government is owned by the for-profit Federal Reserve banks, there are some wonderful, recent Treasury innovations aimed directly at destroying their American bank competitors. You should take advantage of these features, unless you want to go down with the ship.

The first is the Treasury's new zero percent C of I account. C of I stands for Coupon of Indebtedness. It functions like a U.S. Treasury "bank account" (but without bankers habitually gambling away your deposits). You can buy electronic coupons of any size, and your balance is recorded at the U.S. Treasury. You can redeem all or part of your C of I balance at any bank you select, by electronic funds transfer which takes one business day. You can change your selected bank if it fails, any redemption to a dead bank bounces back into your Treasury account.

C of I was recently implemented. Why? To encourage and accelerate bank runs; to help cause the Fed's depression. There is no reason in the world today to keep money a risky bank account. The Fed and the Treasury need your help to destroy their commercial competition, they are going to do it with or without you, so place your money with them.

C of I has one very important limitation. It doesn't seem important, but it is. You can only directly buy C of I coupons up to a $1,000 at a time. However, you can redeem Treasury instruments of any size into your C of I account. So if you want to get, say, $10 million into your C of I account quickly, there is only one way to do that, buy a 4 week T-Bill and elect C of I as the destination upon maturity.

Why this limitation?

Simple.

They want the dumb money, the late money, to have to pay a potentially huge negative yield when the roof falls in. The new option to hold C of I, plus the requirement to fight for Treasuries via auction, will be a multi-trillion dollar money making machine during the coming Federal Reserve-engineered panic.

How do you purchase Treasuries?

Visit: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/go_to_login.htm

Register. It takes about a week to receive the "decoder card" they require to login, via snail mail. You have to jump through a couple of pages of login hoops...


Set up a bank to fund your Treasury account. This is similar to using any financial site, acct #, routing #, etc. To buy Treasuries, all you do is select an instrument, it pulls funds from your bank account on the auction date.

Be sure to select...



...to keep money from flowing back into your bank account.

You can buy any any type of Treasury instrument in any odd dollar amount using the site, it is self-explanatory. You bid on instruments, meaning you must pay the going rate. Usually, that means paying a price slightly lower than face value at maturity. The discount is your yield. If you pay 99 cents on the dollar for a 52 week Treasury, that's like getting a 1.01% yield.

When times get bad, you may actually have to pay more than $1 per $1. Throughout the entirety of U.S. history, all of our precipitous ups and downs, World Wars, the Great Depression, through the struggle and strife of our storied nation, that has never happened. Until recently. Now, it is not uncommon. Soon, it could become punishing. Beat the rush.

25 comments:

  1. Thanks very much for posting this. I would request that you also link to it in your "Read Me First" section.

    Now to the big question I have about them:

    Why do you believe treasuries to be a safe haven in the face of a bankrupt U.S. government? Wouldn't the government simply seize the treasury assets for its own use under those circumstances, similar to how it went door to door and confiscated everyone's gold during the Great Depression?

    Given the risk of seizure of treasuries, isn't a foreign bank a safer location for one's cash? Yes, it won't increase in buying power at the same rate that the U.S. dollar does, but the risk is lower as well. This smells like a traditional risk versus reward setup to me.


    That said, I do see treasuries as one of the many hedges one can use to protect one's assets. But as with any hedge, I'm skeptical of the wisdom of putting the bulk of one's assets there.


    Oh, one other question: do there exist any banking institutions in the U.S. that aren't over-leveraged? If so, what/where are they?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks so much! The pointer to C of I was very helpful. I was just about to pull the tigger on moving money into treasury direct and I wasn't sure how to derisk through maturies and ladders. This solves a lot of the headache.

    And I take great heed to everything else you're saying too.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  3. any comments on Operation Stillpoint?

    ReplyDelete
  4. FDR as a Canadian I am inelegible to participate in Treasury Direct (sigh). Who exactly qualifies? For now buying US Dollars from my bank and Treasuries through my broker is my only option.

    Ah the Dollar and Treasuries. When was the last time something so widely disparaged and hated was in a bubble? (Answer: never).

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Why do you believe treasuries to be a safe haven in the face of a bankrupt U.S. government? Wouldn't the government simply seize the treasury assets for its own use under those circumstances, similar to how it went door to door and confiscated everyone's gold during the Great Depression?"

    Yes, that's possible. At least you're in the same boat as the filthy rich and politically influential. Like I said, it's the best risk:reward trade, not necessarily a safe haven.

    There are risky banks and their are extremely risky banks. The safest banks are extremely over-leveraged. You can get relative ratings here:

    http://www.thestreet.com/bank-safety/index.html

    Consider an A+ to be like a C- and anything below C-, an F.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cramer also says avoid any bank below C. I prefer to avoid all banks, except to hold pocket money.

    Why give your money to a compulsive gambler in distress when you can store it more conveniently in the Treasury?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Banks are of course the most likely entities to crash and burn if it gets as bad as you're suggesting because of their diversified investments in bloated assets. However, credit unions, although definitely not exempt from credit risk, seem to be faring much better than banks right now. Many are much more conservative with loan qualifications and seem to be positioned well for the coming depression.

    On that note, maybe Obama's proposal to limit banks' equity positions seems rational afterall. (I'm sure it's Volcker's anyway, but we'll give BHO credit)

    ReplyDelete
  8. FDR,

    How about brokerage accounts? Do the main brokerages keep their money or "float" in TBTF banks?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi FDR,

    What about credit unions? Specifically thinking of Pentagon Federal credit union.

    Keep I bonds... redeem I bonds?

    Best,

    ReplyDelete
  10. The FED has created $trillons to refloat the big banks and prop up asset prices. Surely they will just continue this to whatever lengths are needed?

    Most other commentators are suggesting cash is trash.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Most other commentators are suggesting cash is trash."

    Most = guaranteed wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "The FED has created $trillons to refloat the big banks and prop up asset prices. Surely they will just continue this to whatever lengths are needed?"

    The money supply has been plunging for nearly 2 years because the Fed has been draining as hard as they can. The US dollar has never strengthened faster than the past 22 month bull market surge.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In answer to my question about the risk of the government seizing treasury assets, FDR wrote: "Yes, that's possible. At least you're in the same boat as the filthy rich and politically influential. Like I said, it's the best risk:reward trade, not necessarily a safe haven."

    This (being in the same boat as the rich and influential) doesn't follow at all.

    The accounts are named and individual. And electronic, of course. Therefore, the government knows with ease which accounts have how much money in them, and can preferentially seize the smaller accounts while leaving the larger ones alone. Since the smaller ones are likely to outnumber the larger ones by a couple of orders of magnitude or more, the number of smaller accounts makes up for their small size. Why would the government do that? Because it answers to the wealthy to a much greater degree than it answers to the rest of us.

    Additionally (or, at least, as an alternative), the extremely wealthy almost certainly have connections that will alert them to the pending action and will thus be able to transfer their money elsewhere before the seizures occurs.

    Either way, the end result is the same: the wealthy keep their assets, while the not so wealthy do not.

    Where would you place the risk versus reward of treasuries for someone who doesn't qualify as one of the wealthy?


    Also, why are the most over-leveraged banks also the safest?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Therefore, the government knows with ease which accounts have how much money in them, and can preferentially seize the smaller accounts while leaving the larger ones alone."

    I don't think that's a realistic option.

    "Also, why are the most over-leveraged banks also the safest?"

    I don't remember saying that.

    ReplyDelete
  15. FDR

    What do you mean by every time prices half, safe cash returns a cool 100%?

    Do you mean most asset prices, stocks, RE etc?

    Also, i got my Treasury Direct card and placed my first order. For example if i bought 1000 dollars of T'bills, will they debit my account for 999 dollars?

    Thanks in advance

    ReplyDelete
  16. "What do you mean by every time prices half, safe cash returns a cool 100%?"

    Panda, when an asset falls 50% in value it takes a 100% return to break even. Your cash can buy twice as much of it in other words.

    ReplyDelete
  17. In response to my assertion that the government could preferentially seize smaller treasury accounts, FDR wrote: "I don't think that's a realistic option."

    Why do you believe that's not a realistic option? There's no technological or logistical reason they can't do such a thing, so the only thing left is political. And as I said, the government answers to the wealthy much more than it answers to the not-so-wealthy, and therefore such a thing is also a political possibility. Remember, we're talking about a U.S. government that, if it doesn't do this, will cease to function.


    In response to my question about the safest banks being the most over-leveraged, FDR wrote: "I don't remember saying that."

    You didn't say exactly that. Here's what you did say, in your first response to my questions (emphasis mine):

    "There are risky banks and their are extremely risky banks. The safest banks are extremely over-leveraged. You can get relative ratings here:

    http://www.thestreet.com/bank-safety/index.html"


    So I suppose I extrapolated where perhaps I shouldn't have, and my question should be: why are the safest banks so extremely over-leveraged? Is that what makes them safe? If so, why? If not, what does make them safe (relatively speaking, of course)?

    ReplyDelete
  18. kcb, I think the safest banks are the ones that are TBTF (too big too fail) - the government won't let them fail. And those all happen to be extremely over-leveraged (the best way to get big is to be over-leveraged).

    ReplyDelete
  19. kcb, if the government starts to issue super senior/preferred treasuries, they might be getting ready for what you're talking about ;-).

    But who knows, maybe the gov would default on c-of-i's before other treasuries. It's hard to game these things out. At some point, I would just take cash out of the bank and put in under my mattress. For the moment though, I like the idea of keeping the money in c-of-i's.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Why do you believe that's not a realistic option?"

    because its "very unusual", of course ;)

    ---

    EVEN the safest banks are extremely over-leveraged

    ReplyDelete
  21. FDR;
    A possibility in lieu of treasury and/or cash seizures during a crisis
    I haven't seen you address is placing an expiration date on circulating cash. This may not have been possible in 1913, but with current technology of embedding nan-size filaments in newly printed cash, they could simply devalue bills held by hoarders 'forcing' the bills back into circulation. Here is how it could work: A 6-month window would be called to redeem all currently held cash for a rfid'd
    bills that would need to be re-depsoited into the bank, otherwise would expire worthless - all this of course a stepping stone to their much planned cashless society.

    Going one step further, foreigners could have a different maturity.
    Someone at Goldseek predicted the 'multi-colored' bills we now see over a decade ago and this was his hypothesis. If this were to come to pass, would there be any warning signs to look for? You say the 'smart' money is pouring into near zero interest rate treasuries to protect cash - do you have a breakdown of the weight held by forgeiners vs. Americans? Do you see any validity to this hypothesis and if so do you see it as a low med or high probability?
    thanks - have enjoyed all your posts since the mw days.
    Appreciate the service you're providing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi FDR,

    You said: 'With the dumb money still fully vested in stocks, paper gold, and banks'.

    Do I understand rightly that you do not consider holding actual bullion as dumb, because though it's price will fall, it's value will rise in the coming mega deflation?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hello kcb,

    Regarding your question about:

    "There are risky banks and their are extremely risky banks. The safest banks are extremely over-leveraged. You can get relative ratings here:

    http://www.thestreet.com/bank-safety/index.html"

    I think FDR meant that based on the ratings provided by The Street.com, it seems they are grading with an "A" banks that in FDR's opinion are over-leveraged.

    So, just imagine how bad are the banks that are rated below "C".......

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Do I understand rightly that you do not consider holding actual bullion as dumb, because though it's price will fall, it's value will rise in the coming mega deflation?"

    I recommend holding a reasonable amount physical metal (I do) as insurance or a hedge against disaster. Just realize that all insurance must cost you money. Never expect to make money on a hedge--it's intended to be written off as a total loss.

    Virtually by definition, a hedge must be MUCH higher leverage than the primary position to work. Otherwise, you'd simply be holding both the winning and losing side of the same trade.

    So you don't need much money stored in physical metal, if you think you do, then it can't function properly as a hedge.

    That is why most people buying gold today are holding a non-nonsensical position. That is like expecting to make money on both your car and your car insurance policy.

    It is entirely possible that a given insurance policy might increase in value as the insured position also increases in value. That should set off an alarm because you aren't insured, whether you know it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  25. FDR, What do you consider to be a reasonable amount of gold insurance to have on hand?

    ReplyDelete

The USA's political-economc system is best described as:

On Nov 2, 2010, I plan to vote (FOR or AGAINST) my incumbent congressman

 
Free Hit Counter