There has been another mysterious banker suicide, and if you've been following that story over the last few years, this one will interest you; the story was spotted and passed along by A.S. (to whom a big thank you). I've written a great number of blogs about this theme, which you can access on the website by searching for "banker deaths". In this case, the banker death in question is that of the well-known French investment manager Charles de Vaulx:
Note the following:
Charles de Vaulx, the renowned value investor and co-founder of International Value Advisers, died in an apparent suicide on Monday afternoon, leaving the asset-management industry in shock.
The French money manager entered his midtown Manhattan office on Monday afternoon and jumped from the 10th floor, according to the New York Police Department. The news came less than seven weeks after IVA abruptly announced that it was closing down, and a week after it liquidated its two U.S. mutual funds.The decision to close the fund firm had surprised the industry. While assets had fallen sharply from onetime levels of $20 billion, the firm still had more than $2 billion in assets, and value investing was beginning to see a resurgence.
The article continues by various testimonies by friends and associates concerning how respected M. de Vaulx was, particularly for his conservative "value-oriented" strategy of investment. The picture is painted of a man who, far from "playing the market" for fast paper profits, was in it for long-term steadiness and genuine value to his shareholders and investors. Sadly, M. de Vaulx leaves behind a wife and two daughters, and it is these facts about his personality that make me suspicious; these traits - the steadiness of his personality, his attested kindness and willingness to work with other serious investors, and so on - does not to my mind paint a picture of a man prone to suicide.
The New York Post is offering a somewhat standard view that de Vaulx was perhaps in despair over his company:
Colour me suspicious. In this regard, I point out two things that seem mightily odd about his unfortunate and sad death. Firstly, the manner of his death, suicide by "jumping" from a height. How many times have we seen this in recent years? I've lost count: we've had accountants and managers for major banks allegedly committing suicide by jumping to their deaths in London, Hong Kong, New York, and Paris, in some cases to be impaled on iron-spikes on fencing around apartments. Given the type of mind manipulation technology I discussed yesterday, I have to wonder if these bankers have literally been driven mad by a kind of mental torture. By the same token, I have to wonder if they knew something, something so despairing they were driven to this step, or something so insightful that they had to be silenced before they could talk. Given the number of these types of deaths in recent years, I'm quite frankly suspecting that last alternative. One or two suicides I can buy. But a whole raft of them over recent years, often in the same way (or in other bizarre "suicides" such as leaping in front of trains), and I'm suspicious. As the old adage goes, one is a tragedy, two is a coincidence, and three or more is a pattern.
Which bring us to the second odd point about the unfortunate M. de Vaulx: its timing. Back in 2014 I composed a blog about the topic of banker deaths titled "Those Banker Deaths: A Recent List and Some More High Octane..." (see here:
As the list stood then, there were 48 bankers dead under highly unusual circumstances. Here's the way I summarized it then:
- Of the 48 dead bankers or financiers, five were connected to the Rockefeller interests, including JP Morgan;
- Of the 48 dead bankers or financiers, anywhere from five to seven were connected with aspects of finance conceivably involving some degree of competency or understanding of the use, and perhaps design, of high frequency trading algorithms;
- Of the 48 dead bankers, at least two are directly involved in legal and regulatory issues (and most of those dead would at least have been aware of regulatory and legal issues as a matter of professional competence);
- Of the 48 dead bankers, at least seventeenand possibly eighteenwere CEO's senior vice presidents, or upper echelon managers;
- Of the 48 dead bankers, only one was not directly involved in banking per se, and that is Mr. Richard Talley, the mortgage title businessman found dead; the official story being that he committed suicide by using a nail gun to drive several large nails into his head. (Boldface emphasis added here)
What is of interest for our "timing" suspicion and high octane speculation is the second and third points I wrote about back in 2014 - long before the "great reset" talk and digital "currencies" had hit the public narrative, and long before the FASAB 56 regulations were promulgated under the Trump administration - that "of the 48 dead bankers (or) financiers, anywhere from five to seven were connected with aspects of finance conceivably involving some degree of competency or understanding of the use, and perhaps design, of high frequency trading algorithms" and that "of the 48 dead bankers, at least two are directly involved in legal and regulatory issues (and most of those dead would at least have been aware of regulatory and legal issues as a matter of professional competence". So what has this to do with the timing of M. de Vaulx's death?
Well, consider the story I blogged about just a little over a week ago about the death of Shuvro Biswas, 31, also in New York City:
As I wrote in that blog, Mr. Biswas' death may very likely have been coupled to his work. Biswas was, as I noted in the blog, displaying very bizarre behaviour shortly before the end of his life:
What is notable about the article, however, is that Mr. Biswas' death is as yet not being reported as a suicide... and that raises other more speculative implications. His bizarre behavior, and his apparent awareness of it, and consultation with a neurologist suggests, as noted before, that he was seeking an explanation in a physiological condition, conditions which could and sometimes do occur as the result of mind manipulation technologies. But why would anyone target Mr. Biswas?
Because of the nature of his work:
Biswas said his sibling was self-employed and most recently working on a cryptocurrency security program, and online profiles show that the younger Biswas also dabbled in artificial intelligence.
This is where it gets more interesting, for as the article also notes, Biswas had an apartment on West 37th St in Manhattan, and was a mere 31 years old. So put all that together: (1) self-employed; (2) working on security programs for cryptocurrencies; (3) also "dabbled" in artificial intelligence; (4) could afford an apartment in Manhattan at a mere 31 years old; and (5) in the final year of his life exhibited very bizarre behavior to the extent he sought out a neurologist.
What I strongly suspect is that the unfortunate Mr. Biswas may have been able to afford such an apartment in such a location at such a young age because he might have been performing important contract work on a program for a client. Security programs for a crypto-currency would be of great interest to anyone involved with them, from central banks to coin "miners", and a security program would also be of great interest to potential hackers. In short, Mr. Biswas had specialized access to a very valuable form of specialized knowledge and expertise. Perhaps his work involved artificially intelligent security programs for a crypto-currency, a concept which only magnifies the potential importance of his work. Either way, however, I believe it is strongly possible that Mr. Biswas' death is very suspicious and that we may be looking at yet another strange "banker death," perhaps the first of those involved with crypto-currencies and digital currency security.
Given the timing of M. de Vaulx's death, I cannot help but entertain the speculation that somehow it may be related to Mr. Biswas' death, and that they in turn are related to all the other strange banker deaths. The question is, if this is so, then what might be the motivation for a stable and conservative style investor such as M. de Vaulx to contemplate suicide, or worse, to be "suicided"? One answer might be that M. de Vaulx, being the type of investor he was, might have seen through something, for example, might have seen through the vast scam of "great resets" and "digital currencies" as representing things that had little to no stable value over time.
Howsoever one interprets that high octane speculation, or entertains others of one's own, the bottom line for me that sends M. de Vaulx's death into the red zone on my suspicion meter remains the manner, and timing, of his death.
See you on the flip side...