Yeah, that's the list from Schauf but it's nonsense.

Unfortunately, we can't actually know who, ultimately, owns the fed. This is by design.

The fed is actually 14 different entities, 3 of which are important. 12 regional banks (the one in New York having real importance), the board and the open market committee.

The NY fed is the principle node of activity.

When it is said that private banks own the fed, this is true: they own shares in the regional fed banks, not the board or fomc, which are not share held entities.

So, what most concerns us, then, is who owns shares in the NY fed. This is supposed to be based on capital and surplus (cash on reserve, which banks tend to avoid) of member banks (nearly all banks in the region).

The biggest owners are usually citi, jp morgan and chase manhattan. This fluctuates more by surplus than capital.

Shares in this sense dont really give the banks much benefit. They only get 6℅ of the Fed's profits. 94℅ goes to the Treasury. Nor do these shares confer control; in electing the directors of the Fed banks, each member bank gets a vote, regardless of size. The problems with the Fed lie elsewhere than the shareholding pattern.

As you have probably already surmised, since each bank gets a vote, what's to stop concentrated financial power from simply owning many different banks and thus votes? Nothing, of course. Except captured regulators (the fed) issuing licenses, as keeps down the competition to the founding cabal. And nothing keeps them from obscuring their ownership to the public and even to the government.

The financial game is enshrined behind many layers of secrecy, or as they prefer, financial privacy.

Does one imagine, for instance, that when Forbes or Bloomberg wishes to tell us who the wealthiest people are that they actually are? Apart from why publications owned by oligarchs would be honest with us if they knew... how would they know in the first place? How would anyone? The only records they can consult are the SEC's schedule 13d and g filings. They tell us who owns more than 5℅ of a publicly traded company.

A great deal of wealth is in privately owned companies whose shares are unavailable to the public and thus whose ownership is undocumented where anyone but their lawyers, bankers and accountants are concerned.

Beyond that, this reporting doesn't substantively cover real beneficial ownership-the ultimate owners of stock. It is very easy for large owners to disguise their ownership behind a maze of shell companies and nominee owners, onshore and offshore. That aside, what if an individual owned 4℅ of several huge companies, even without the shell game? That would be massive wealth but unless they trumpeted it they'd go unlisted and we'd never know.

Beyond that, the info we (and Forbes, etc) get from the SEC only covers stock, not bonds and hybrid instruments, nor derivative positions. These greatly exceed the stock market, but are completely dark to us.

Because of the shell game, even the IRS has no idea who really owns what.

A few legislative committee have commissioned reports that scratch the surface of the banking racket, like Wright Patman's.

The one that examined Nelson Rockefeller's candidacy also accidentally took a peek.

Good books on the fed include those by Antony Sutton, Eustace Mullins, G. Edward Griffin and Murray Rothbard.

We can get a good idea who really runs the financial system from knowing who set it up in the first place.

Yeah, that's the list from Schauf but it's nonsense.

Unfortunately, we can't actually know who, ultimately, owns the fed. This is by design.

The fed is actually 14 different entities, 3 of which are important. 12 regional banks, the one in New York having real significance, the board and the open market committee.

The NY fed is the principle node of activity.

When it is said that private banks own the fed, this is true: they own shares in the regional fed banks, not the board or fomc, which are not share held entities.

So, what most concerns us, then, is who owns shares in the NY fed. This is supposed to be based on capital and surplus (cash on reserve, which banks tend to avoid actually) of member banks (nearly all banks in the region).

The biggest owners are usually citi, jp morgan and chase manhattan. This fluctuates more by surplus than capital.

Shares in this sense dont really give the banks much benefit. They only get 6℅ of the Fed's profits. 94℅ goes to the Treasury. Nor do these shares confer control; in electing the directors of the Fed banks, each member bank gets a vote, regardless of size. The problems with the Fed lie elsewhere than the shareholding pattern.

As you have probably already surmised, since each bank gets a vote, what's to stop concentrated financial power from simply owning many different banks and thus votes? Nothing, of course. Except captured regulators (the fed) issuing licenses, as keeps down the competition to the founding cabal. And nothibg keeps them from obscuring their ownership to the public and even to the government.

The financial game is enshrined behind many layers of secrecy, or as they prefer, financial privacy.

Does one imagine, for instance, that when Forbes or Bloomberg wishes to tell us who the wealthiest people are that they actually are? Apart from why publications owned by oligarchs would be honest with us if they knew... how would they know in the first place? How would anyone? The only records they can consult are the SEC's schedule 13d and g filings. They tell us who owns more than 5℅ of a publicly traded company.

A great deal of wealth is in privately owned companies whose shares are unavailable to the public and thus whose ownership is undocumented where anyone but their lawyers, bankers and accountants are concerned.

Beyond that, this reporting doesn't substantively cover real beneficial ownership-the ultimate owners of stock. It is very easy for large owners to disguise their ownership behind a maze of shell companies and nominee owners, onshore and offshore. That aside, what if an individual owned 4℅ of several huge companies, even without the shell game? That would be massive wealth but unless they trumpeted it they'd go unlisted and we'd never know.

Beyond that, the info we (and Forbes, etc) get from the SEC only covers stock, not bonds and hybrid instruments, nor derivative positions. These greatly exceed the stock market, but are completely dark to us.

Because of the shell game, even the IRS has no idea who really owns what.

A few legislative committee have commissioned reports that scratch the surface of the banking racket, like Wright Patman's.

The one that examined Nelso Rockefeller's candidacy also accidentally took a peek.

Good books on the fed include those by Antony Sutton, Eustace Mullins, G. Edward Griffin and Murray Rothbard.

We can get a good idea who really runs the financial system from knowing who set it up in the first place.