The fallout from the Target card hack: JP Morgan Chase limits & 'cyberattacks'

[sellersm]

Hmmm, with many discussions here about the Fed, and precious metals, and $$$ in general, think about this: a 'hack' of Target steals 40 million cards and now JP Morgan Chase limits the amount their customers can use.

Call me a conspiracy theorist all you want, but this is not a coincidence nor an isolated event. With all the major banks talking of their perpetual hacks & 'cyberattacks', this is just a setup for other things that are coming down the road...

http://govtslaves.info/jp-morgan-chase-limiting-cash-withdrawal-100-day/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/22/debit-and-credit-cards-stolen-in-target-breach-reportedly-for-sale-in/

[KestrelBike]

I can understand limiting cash withdrawals to prevent a theoretical run on banks, but why would they try to limit purchases?

Anyways, in a scenario where the general public feels the need to make a run on the banks, I have to imagine it would be stopped dead in its tracks within an hour by cutting off the ATMs. And then major banks would just call their branches and tell them to lock their doors.

[merl]

Just a friendly reminder: DO NOT USE DEBIT CARDS. The data on them gets taken the money comes from you, you are on the hook until things get sorted out. Data from a CC gets taken the money comes from the bank, dispute the charge and the money never leaves your accounts.


And color me amazed that Chase will fuck over its customers in the guise of limiting losses. Had had to deal with them once and their fees are amazingly high.

[Inconel710]

Just to clarify things, Merl - if you use your debit card as a credit card, it has the same protections as any Visa or MC credit card. It's using your PIN number that removes the protections because it goes through the ATM network.

[merl]

You have the same final liability but you are out the money until noticed and fixed.

[Monky]

So chase attempts to limit their own liability and their customers after a widely known and talked about 'hack' and it's a bad thing?

I'm sorry but I'd rather have someone only get $300 out of my account that I am liable for initially, than $3000.

Until they know the extent and can get everything changed for their customers I'd say it's a smart move.

[merl]

So chase attempts to limit their own liability and their customers after a widely known and talked about 'hack' and it's a bad thing?

I'm sorry but I'd rather have someone only get $300 out of my account that I am liable for initially, than $3000.

Until they know the extent and can get everything changed for their customers I'd say it's a smart move.

There is a standard solution, issue new card numbers. That costs money though so is done after it is fraudulently used. Instead chase will limit the usability of the cards and if the customers want to pay for a new one they can get the old function back.

Target says the PIN was not taken so they cannot be used at ATM anyway (unless you use 1234 as your pin) :)

[Skip]

Hmmm, with many discussions here about the Fed, and precious metals, and $$$ in general, think about this: a 'hack' of Target steals 40 million cards and now JP Morgan Chase limits the amount their customers can use.

Call me a conspiracy theorist all you want, but this is not a coincidence nor an isolated event. With all the major banks talking of their perpetual hacks & 'cyberattacks', this is just a setup for other things that are coming down the road...

http://govtslaves.info/jp-morgan-chase-limiting-cash-withdrawal-100-day/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/22/debit-and-credit-cards-stolen-in-target-breach-reportedly-for-sale-in/

I'm with you on the conspiracy.

There has been a lot written about banks wanting to guarantee liquidity and limit withdrawals.

Here's what I've been wondering...

The banks are borrowing money at 0-0.25% (Fed Funds rate). They are lending at 4.5% (mortgage) to 20%+ (credit cards). That is a huge margin when you compare Fed Funds rates to retail rates pre-Obama. This doesn't even address mark-to-market where banks can essentially create their own money (based on assets).

Now imagine rates go up. What happens? Borrowers can't really stomach higher rates. A reasonable Fed Funds rate in the 4% range puts the retail rate at 8% for a mortgage. How will that work?

[sellersm]

So chase attempts to limit their own liability and their customers after a widely known and talked about 'hack' and it's a bad thing?

I'm sorry but I'd rather have someone only get $300 out of my account that I am liable for initially, than $3000.

Until they know the extent and can get everything changed for their customers I'd say it's a smart move.

Please think much bigger, and broader! This is just one example of many issues and many problems, all of which can lead to one end result: the 'solution' to such "cyberattack" problems will be _________________? Fill in the blank, and see if you like the result.

Talk to a few cyber security folks, especially those that work for some local cellular telecom companies that happen to own the infrastructure upon which these 'attacks' are happening. Then talk to a few in the banking industry. Then talk to some politicians and see what legislation's being formulated (and who's pushing for it). Then look at things like the TPP (which contains the new version of SOPA) and other 'treaties' (that are outside of congressional control).

Then read your Bible... You fill in the rest.

[<MADDOG>]

I'm with you on the conspiracy.

There has been a lot written about banks wanting to guarantee liquidity and limit withdrawals.

Here's what I've been wondering...

The banks are borrowing money at 0-0.25% (Fed Funds rate). They are lending at 4.5% (mortgage) to 20%+ (credit cards). That is a huge margin when you compare Fed Funds rates to retail rates pre-Obama. This doesn't even address mark-to-market where banks can essentially create their own money (based on assets).

Now imagine rates go up. What happens? Borrowers can't really stomach higher rates. A reasonable Fed Funds rate in the 4% range puts the retail rate at 8% for a mortgage. How will that work?

Mortgage rates were at 8% as recent as 2000... http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.htm

I do find it curious that "Ancient Aliens" has more facts than some of the conspiracy theories posted on this gun-board [LOL]

[Skip]

Mortgage rates were at 8% as recent as 2000... http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.htm

I do find it curious that "Ancient Aliens" has more facts than some of the conspiracy theories posted on this gun-board [LOL]

The Fed Funds rate was 6.24% in 2000...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm


The "margin" on consumer loans was 1.75%. Now banks need 2.5x more just to keep the doors open with no signs of this changing.

You've completely missed the point of what I said yet somehow found a way to still be critical.

[<MADDOG>]

If you're butthurt at the Alien analogy, it was not directed at you personally.

Also, I was not directing my commentary at the Fed rate, I was directing it at the 8% mortgage.

And out of curiosity, how is it banks "need" margins at 3-4% as you stated if they successfully operated in the lower range prior to the current debacle? Is that shareholder perception or true mechanics?

[Skip]

If you're butthurt at the Alien analogy, it was not directed at you personally.

Also, I was not directing my commentary at the Fed rate, I was directing it at the 8% mortgage.

And out of curiosity, how is it banks "need" margins at 3-4% as you stated if they successfully operated in the lower range prior to the current debacle? Is that shareholder perception or true mechanics?

TARP and QE have completely failed to stabilize the banks after 2007/8 and actually made things worse. There is a metric shit-ton of info out there on this--too much to post. A good place to start is http://www.zerohedge.com/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-15/bernanke-obama-keynes-toxic-triangle-dead-end
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-04/guest-post-housing-prices-are-being-dangerously-distorted-big-institutional-money


One of the biggest (hidden) Obama lies is that the economy is/was recovering. It never was. QE-I just provided a perception that it was. When you take QE-I out of any economic stat, you'll see numbers that rival the first Great Depression.

TARP was justified in the name of isolating the "toxic assets" but was never successful--because the actual amount needed would be far in excess of the $700B. Banks are still holding these assets and if rates increase, they will multiply. You don't see much of this being reported anymore...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36466923

[sellersm]

This article hints at items to which I was referring: http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/push-of-a-button-this-is-how-fast-they-can-lock-down-the-entire-banking-system_12242013