Worldwide, financial watchdogs are barking for banks to restructure and hold more capital. This, of course, beats and batters a bank’s bottom line. As a result, investors are put off. Can you blame them? The robust returns of the past have been hurt badly. Let’s face it, buying bank stock just ain’t what it used to be.
Simultaneously, trading fees are falling. Deals are drying up. The huge salaries within the industry have become a liability since taxpayers were forced to provide banks with billions in bailout bucks. And scandals are, it seems, uncovered every week. Let’s face it, being a bank just ain’t what it used to be, either.
As a result of all this, banks are contracting and handing out pink-slips to employees.
“Of the 29 [major] banks, from Europe’s biggest bank HSBC to U.S. investment bank Morgan Stanley,” according to Reuters, ” just over 83,700 net jobs have been lost since 2009.”
In the same article, Reuters reports that since early 2011, “major banks have announced some 160,000 job cuts since early last year and with more lay-offs to come as the industry restructures, many will leave the shrinking sector for good as redundancies outpace new hires by roughly two-to-one.”
Recall back in September when Bank of America announced it was chopping 16,000 jobs by year end and perhaps as many as 30,000 before the ax swinging stopped.
And today, the Telegraph is reporting “Barclays could slash as many as 2,000 jobs from its investment banking arm as part of a broad restructuring of the company.”
That is about 10% of Barclay’s full-time investment banking workforce.
So, the story is that thin profits, restrictive regulation, scarce deals and soiled reputations have forced the banking industry into contraction.
It makes sense. But could there be more going on here?
Let’s consider a few things.
Major countries outside of the West—China, Russia, India, Iran and others – have decided to do oil transactions outside the petro-dollar system. This is significant. America’s economy and the bankster’s profits are directly tied to the petro-dollar transaction. We know Bush, taking orders from the banksters, turned the rule of Saddam Hussein into rubble because he side-stepped petro-dollars. The message was clear—do oil deals with petro-dollars or be purged from power. But that message was apparently missed by Libya leader Muammar Gaddafi. He side-stepped petro-dollars in his oil transactions, too. And so, just last year, our current presidential-puppet, again on behalf of the banksters, had Gaddafi hauled out into the street and shot like a dog—a public execution being a rock solid exclamation point, don’t you think?
And now we have Iran. You’ve been told they have nukes. No, sorry, they are developing nukes. They have enough material for 10 missiles. No, sorry, it is probably more like six weapons. Israel, or more specifically the Zionists, are screaming that we only have six months until boom day. Others claim it is several years. Still others, typically those not receiving bankster payoffs and funding, state Iran is developing nuclear power but not developing weapons.
Do you see the point? Is Iran developing nuclear weapons? We just don’t know. But we do know Iran is selling oil outside the petro-dollar system—just like Iraq and Libya did. Could the “Iran is getting nukes” story be just that—a story, an excuse—to ratchet up public opinion in the West, so the banksters can tell Obama to force Iran back onto petro-dollars or it will be destroyed?
Jump quickly back to Iraq. In 2000, Iraq starts conducting oil business outside the petro-dollar system. In 2001, we have the “terror attack” of 9/11 and Iraq is immediately linked to the terrorists. The claim is weak and has troubling gaining traction. What happens next? In 2002, Bush starts his anti-Iraq chest-beating tour because—suddenly—there are reports of WMD within Iraq. Unfortunately, the public buys this tall tale and by 2003, America is in Iraq.
Isn’t this similar to what is happening now regarding Iran? Is the West and Israel really worried about a nuclear threat? Or is it that the banksters are pissed at Iran for cutting into their profits and they mean to make them pay, one way or the other?
But what does this have to do with global bank layoffs and contractions? (Continued)