They weren't murderers or anything; they had merely stolen more money than most people can rationally conceive of, from their own customers, in a few blinks of an eye. But then they went one step further. They came to Washington, took an oath before Congress, and lied about it.
Thanks to an extraordinary investigative effort by a Senate subcommittee that unilaterally decided to take up the burden the criminal justice system has repeatedly refused to shoulder, we now know exactly what Goldman Sachs executives like Lloyd Blankfein and Daniel Sparks lied about. We know exactly how they and other top Goldman executives, including David Viniar and Thomas Montag, defrauded their clients. America has been waiting for a case to bring against Wall Street. Here it is, and the evidence has been gift-wrapped and left at the doorstep of federal prosecutors, evidence that doesn't leave much doubt: Goldman Sachs should stand trial. ... Goldman, as the Levin report makes clear, remains an ascendant company precisely because it used its canny perception of an upcoming disaster (one which it helped create, incidentally) as an opportunity to enrich itself, not only at the expense of clients but ultimately, through the bailouts and the collateral damage of the wrecked economy, at the expense of society. The bank seemed to count on the unwillingness or inability of federal regulators to stop them — and when called to Washington last year to explain their behavior, Goldman executives brazenly misled Congress, apparently confident that their perjury would carry no serious consequences. Thus, while much of the Levin report describes past history, the Goldman section describes an ongoing? crime — a powerful, well-connected firm, with the ear of the president and the Treasury, that appears to have conquered the entire regulatory structure and stands now on the precipice of officially getting away with one of the biggest financial crimes in history. ...
To fully grasp the case against Goldman, one first needs to understand that the financial crime wave described in the Levin report came on the heels of a decades-long lobbying campaign by Goldman and other titans of Wall Street, who pleaded over and over for the right to regulate themselves.
Before that campaign, banks were closely monitored by a host of federal regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC and the Office of Thrift Supervision. These agencies had examiners poring over loans and other transactions, probing for behavior that might put depositors or the system at risk. When the examiners found illegal or suspicious behavior, they built cases and referred them to criminal authorities like the Justice Department.
This system of referrals was the backbone of financial law enforcement through the early Nineties. William Black was senior deputy chief counsel at the Office of Thrift Supervision in 1991 and 1992, the last years of the S&L crisis, a disaster whose pansystemic nature was comparable to the mortgage fiasco, albeit vastly smaller. Black describes the regulatory MO back then. "Every year," he says, "you had thousands of criminal referrals, maybe 500 enforcement actions, 150 civil suits and hundreds of convictions."
But beginning in the mid-Nineties, when former Goldman co-chairman Bob Rubin served as Bill Clinton's senior economic-policy adviser, the government began moving toward a regulatory system that relied almost exclusively on voluntary compliance by the banks. Old-school criminal referrals disappeared down the chute of history along with floppy disks and scripted television entertainment. In 1995, according to an independent study, banking regulators filed 1,837 referrals. During the height of the financial crisis, between 2007 and 2010, they averaged just 72 a year.
But spiking almost all criminal referrals wasn't enough for Wall Street. In 2004, in an extraordinary sequence of regulatory rollbacks that helped pave the way for the financial crisis, the top five investment banks — Goldman, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns — persuaded the government to create a new, voluntary approach to regulation called Consolidated Supervised Entities. CSE was the soft touch to end all soft touches. Here is how the SEC's inspector general described the program's regulatory army: "The Office of CSE Inspections has only two staff in Washington and five staff in the New York regional office."
Among the bankers who helped convince the SEC to go for this ludicrous program was Hank Paulson, Goldman's CEO at the time. And in exchange for "submitting" to this new, voluntary regime of law enforcement, Goldman and other banks won the right to lend in virtually unlimited amounts, regardless of their cash reserves — a move that fueled the catastrophe of 2008, when banks like Bear and Merrill were lending out 35 dollars for every one in their vaults.
Goldman's chief financial officer then and now, a fellow named David Viniar, wrote a letter in February 2004, commending the SEC for its efforts to develop "a regulatory framework that will contribute to the safety and soundness of financial institutions and markets by aligning regulatory capital requirements more closely with well-developed internal risk-management practices." Translation: Thanks for letting us ignore all those pesky regulations while we turn the staid underwriting business into a Charlie Sheen house party.
...
This isn't just a matter of a few seedy guys stealing a few bucks. This is America: Corporate stealing is practically the national pastime, and Goldman Sachs is far from the only company to get away with doing it. But the prominence of this bank and the high-profile nature of its confrontation with a powerful Senate committee makes this a political story as well. If the Justice Department fails to give the American people a chance to judge this case — if Goldman skates without so much as a trial — it will confirm once and for all the embarrassing truth: that the law in America is subjective, and crime is defined not by what you did, but by who you are.
This is just a small snippet from an excellent article, highly recommended reading.
This case should be of interest. The Mob, Hedge Funds, SEC, etc were all in bed together.
Recently, in the prosecution of this case, we uncovered evidence of collusive action between Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street bad guys, in a scheme designed to fool regulators and profit illegally at the expense of Overstock.com. As a result of this discovery, in December 2010, we added a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act claim and requested treble damages under this RICO claim. We firmly believe the conduct of Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch were "racketeering" and "corrupt." We are moving forward: trial is scheduled to commence this year, on December 5, 2011. At trial we will hold Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch accountable and expose a slew of illegal Wall Street practices to the public".
I was just recently listening to a segment on NPR on this and the fact that in the wake of this financial disaster there have been next to zero prosecutions.
I was just recently listening to a segment on NPR on this and the fact that in the wake of this financial disaster there have been next to zero prosecutions.
"The court did not rule yesterday on Defendant's motion to seal the record of the documents filed in support of the motion to amend, despite pleadings from The Economist and The Rolling Stone to release such documents to the public. The court indicated that in the future it would issue a written ruling on Goldman and Merrill's efforts to seal these documents."
I see what they're driving at in that article (especially about the evidence itself), but I'm having a hard time shaking off a sort of "Fox News-like" spin in the direction of sensationalism.
The article starts right off with:
"Imagine a world in which a man who is repeatedly investigated for a string of serious crimes, but never prosecuted, has his slate wiped clean every time the cops fail to make a case."
The "never prosecuted" part would only indicate that the investigations found nothing worth prosecuting, but the tack, "..slate wiped clean every time the cops fail to make a case," only says the cops were wrong, and begs the question, "why should he have a 'dirty' slate if the cops were wrong?"
It could be seen as either a poor analogy in attempting to make a point about government coverups or a good analogy about nothing to cover up.
The "never prosecuted" part would only indicate that the investigations found nothing worth prosecuting, but the tack, "..slate wiped clean every time the cops fail to make a case," only says the cops were wrong, and begs the question, "why should he have a 'dirty' slate if the cops were wrong?"
Buried in page 9 is a possible rational for retaining the records of MUI's in accordance to law.
"It goes without saying that no ordinary law-enforcement agency would willingly destroy its own evidence. In fact, when it comes to garden-variety crooks, more and more police agencies are catching criminals with the aid of large and well-maintained databases. "Street-level law enforcement is increasingly data-driven," says Bill Laufer, a criminology professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "For a host of reasons, though, we are starved for good data on both white-collar and corporate crime. So the idea that we would take the little data we do have and shred it, without a legal requirement to do so, calls for a very creative explanation.""
"It goes without saying that no ordinary law-enforcement agency would willingly destroy its own evidence.
In fact, when it comes to garden-variety crooks, more and more police agencies are catching criminals with the aid of large and well-maintained databases.
"Street-level law enforcement is increasingly data-driven," says Bill Laufer, a criminology professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "For a host of reasons, though, we are starved for good data on both white-collar and corporate crime.
So the idea that we would take the little data we do have and shred it, without a legal requirement to do so, calls for a very creative explanation."
Well, ok.
"No legal requirement to shred the (innocent until proven guilty) data," which is not even "evidence" once the prosecuting authority (D.A., DOJ, etc) decides so.
It is a circular notion, in some ways, imo. I'd rather err on the side of investigating entities (cops, etc) leaving people alone who are not worthy of prosecuting, no matter who they are.
"No legal requirement to shred the (innocent until proven guilty) data," which is not even "evidence" once the prosecuting authority (D.A., DOJ, etc) decides so.
It is a circular notion, in some ways, imo. I'd rather err on the side of investigating entities (cops, etc) leaving people alone who are not worthy of prosecuting, no matter who they are.
The SEC is only allowed to investigate, the DOJ is responsible for law enforcement. This division may be a flawed concept. I *believe* those licensed to engage in securities are aware that records will be kept.
(p1) "By whitewashing the files of some of the nation's worst financial criminals, the SEC has kept an entire generation of federal investigators in the dark about past inquiries into insider trading, fraud and market manipulation against companies like Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and AIG. With a few strokes of the keyboard, the evidence gathered during thousands of investigations – "18,000 ... including Madoff," as one high-ranking SEC official put it during a panicked meeting about the destruction – has apparently disappeared forever into the wormhole of history."
(p1) "Under a deal the SEC worked out with the National Archives and Records Administration, all of the agency's records – "including case files relating to preliminary investigations" – are supposed to be maintained for at least 25 years.
Good old Goldman, charging for the borrowed shares it didn't have or plan to acquire, then front running its client that it was forcing to cover in a non-margined account. Priceless.
“I think Goldman Sachs is a racketeering entity that does whatever they can to make a dime without conscience, thought, foresight or care about ramifications,” Mr. Cohodes concluded in his testimony. “I think they are cold-blooded and could care less about the law. That’s my opinion. I think I can back it up.”
Golden Slacks are well known on Wall Street for their cutthroat antics. Former employee and trader for GS Jim Cramer had exposed some of their tactics; When GS wanted to get into a position, Cramer himself admitted to calling down to the trading floor in the morning and talking to the market maker of stock xyz and asking what he thought about a problem that would affect earnings of xyz. The 'problem' would be completely fabricated but carry weight because it came from the mighty GS. So the market maker would start lowering the bid price, xyz's stock price would fall, the herd mentality kicks in and the stock is well down solely because of that phone call. Then GS would step in and buy up shares at a nice discount. Because GS is getting into a substantial long position, the bidders come back and the stock price goes right back up. Or GS was already short on xyz and closed the position after knocking the stock down. Easy money on Wall Street when you have hundreds of millions at your disposal.
After Cramer aired the video on thestreet.com admitting this tactic, there was huge uproar on Wall Street and he quickly backtracked saying that he hadn't used such methods...he'd only heard of others doing it.
That's just one example of the how the 'smart money' operates on Wall Street. The average person that has never been involved in daily trading would be shocked if they knew how Wall Street controls Main Street.
There are some (myself included) that believe GS initiated the recession by heavily shorting companies like Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, et al. And starting the rumors that their MBS's were severely overvalued.
...that's just one example of the how the 'smart money' operates on Wall Street. The average person that has never been involved in daily trading would be shocked if they knew how Wall Street controls Main Street.
There are some (myself included) that believe GS initiated the recession by heavily shorting companies like Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, et al. And starting the rumors that their MBS's were severely overvalued.
Welcome to unfettered Free Market. Nothing new here folks, just go about your business.
I was just recently listening to a segment on NPR on this and the fact that in the wake of this financial disaster there have been next to zero prosecutions.
Yeah this Frontline series is raising the same question. It all comes down to money and politics. Anyone who opposed the banksters were removed. It has only gotten worse.
"SAN DIEGO (CN) - The SEC allows the nation's richest firms and financial institutions - and only the biggest and richest firms - to handpick the lawyers investigating them for corruption, a whistleblower claims in Federal Court."
"Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and Merrill Lynch & Co. employees discussed helping naked short-sales by market-maker clients in e-mails the banks sought to keep secret, including one in which a Merrill official told another to ignore compliance rules..."
Last edited by OutofDate1980; June 12th, 2012 at 07:52 PM.
Reason: Added a sarcastic smile
How is the money class expected to promote Free Markets and less government if the government attempts to restrict stealing ?
This assumes the 'money class' as you call them really want free markets and less government. Contrary to the simplistic narrative that companies want no regulations, many large companies that are leaders in their markets seek out not freer markets but onerous regulations and they even help to write them. Why? Because large companies know that burdensome regulations will help to stifle any threat of future competition by creating barriers of entry to small startups. The established companies can afford to comply with the regulations and the small companies not as easily.
As far as the government attempts to restrict stealing, well that goes back to the premise of this thread, why hasn't anyone been arrested? In the case of Goldman Sachs there's a revolving door between government and Sachs employees hence the nickname Government Sachs. Any dirt that gets dug up on Sachs will also likely splash onto the government so the government is not too inclined to look very hard for wrongdoing.
"Citigroup is far from the only such repeat offender — in the eyes of the S.E.C. — on Wall Street. Nearly all of the biggest financial companies, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America among them, have settled fraud cases by promising the S.E.C. that they would never again violate an antifraud law, only to do it again in another case a few years later"
Great thread everyone. Really opened my eyes and filled in the info.
Thanks again everyone.
Not surprised though. I wonder how much they've contributed over the years to Romney.
Last edited by as439726; June 4th, 2012 at 04:41 PM.
Just days after 60 Minutes ran its piece last year about the epidemic of unprosecuted fraud on Wall Street, the S.E.C. charged into action. Take a look at the dates on these twodocuments. While Chase’s "London Whale" was preparing to play billion-dollar faro with federally-insured money and MF Global was still struggling to find its "misplaced" $1.6 billion in customer money, the S.E.C. was gallantly taking on the likes of A.J. Ross Logistics, Inc., Status Game Corp., and Fightersoft Multimedia Corporation. And bragging to Congress about its conquests. It's as clear a case of juking the stats as you'll ever see."
while I wont argue that the times an actual crime is involved the SEC tends to come down lightly...... regardless of the money involved or the players
but seriously....... could you possibly have worse facts or a bigger strawman position to spout them from?
did you know EVERY business day the SEC releases findings? in fact on the 2 days you seem to use as a basis they also released 6 other findings....... and in the decades prior to the 60 minutes hit piece they released kajillions of them...... several a day..... every day....... including the Friday before the 60 minutes piece (that makes them psychic or something I suppose)
did you also bother reading the 2 documents you posted? they have nothing to do with going after someone for fraud....... they are about overdue paperwork..... pretty big jump there dont ya think?
before reading from the talking points sheets...... try SEC.gov
while I wont argue that the times an actual crime is involved the SEC tends to come down lightly...... regardless of the money involved or the players
but seriously....... could you possibly have worse facts or a bigger strawman position to spout them from?
did you know EVERY business day the SEC releases findings? in fact on the 2 days you seem to use as a basis they also released 6 other findings....... and in the decades prior to the 60 minutes hit piece they released kajillions of them...... several a day..... every day....... including the Friday before the 60 minutes piece (that makes them psychic or something I suppose)
did you also bother reading the 2 documents you posted? they have nothing to do with going after someone for fraud....... they are about overdue paperwork..... pretty big jump there dont ya think?
before reading from the talking points sheets...... try SEC.gov
It's obvious you didn't read the title, much less the article. The two documents, support the authors case that the SEC pretends, i.e. "juking" to enforce serious security crimes.
"Therefore toward the end of every calendar year, you’ll see a rush of these 12(j) revocations. In 2011, about one out of every six S.E.C. enforcement actions – 121 out of 735 – involved these delinquent filings. In the stats they submit to Congress, they list these cases right next to things like market manipulation, insider trading, and financial fraud. “The S.E.C. Enforcement staff takes 10 minutes and shoots a zombie company in the head and then has the guts to call it enforcement,” is how one attorney put it to me."
"Just days after 60 Minutes ran its piece last year about the epidemic of unprosecuted fraud on Wall Street, the S.E.C. charged into action. Take a look at the dates on these twodocuments. While Chase’s "London Whale" was preparing to play billion-dollar faro with federally-insured money and MF Global was still struggling to find its "misplaced" $1.6 billion in customer money, the S.E.C. was gallantly taking on the likes of A.J. Ross Logistics, Inc., Status Game Corp., and Fightersoft Multimedia Corporation. And bragging to Congress about its conquests. It's as clear a case of juking the stats as you'll ever see."
It's obvious you didn't read the title, much less the article. The two documents, support the authors case that the SEC pretends, i.e. "juking" to enforce serious security crimes.
"Therefore toward the end of every calendar year, you’ll see a rush of these 12(j) revocations. In 2011, about one out of every six S.E.C. enforcement actions – 121 out of 735 – involved these delinquent filings. In the stats they submit to Congress, they list these cases right next to things like market manipulation, insider trading, and financial fraud. “The S.E.C. Enforcement staff takes 10 minutes and shoots a zombie company in the head and then has the guts to call it enforcement,” is how one attorney put it to me."
"Just days after 60 Minutes ran its piece last year about the epidemic of unprosecuted fraud on Wall Street, the S.E.C. charged into action. Take a look at the dates on these twodocuments. While Chase’s "London Whale" was preparing to play billion-dollar faro with federally-insured money and MF Global was still struggling to find its "misplaced" $1.6 billion in customer money, the S.E.C. was gallantly taking on the likes of A.J. Ross Logistics, Inc., Status Game Corp., and Fightersoft Multimedia Corporation. And bragging to Congress about its conquests. It's as clear a case of juking the stats as you'll ever see."
Careful, or you'll be cast as a "liberal elitist" that "reads".....
I never understood why some people are apologists and defenders of corrupt entities. Faux news does a masterful job of manipulating duh masses I guess....
no its obvious the article is the only thing you read....... you didnt bother to read my post OR the 2 pieces of evidence cited in the article
the article is idiocy on its face.... title and throughout...... there is no mad rush at the end of the year...... there was no 'juking' "just days after"
as I CLEARLY stated to you........ they file those EVERY DAY........ I could easily list for you the hundreds of filings with thousands of targets that took place over 2011 alone...... I thought it would be easier to just give you the website that most people can easily filter through and find the answer for themselves....... SEC.GOV
yes Im sure the fact that they happened to release some a few days after the 60 minutes story (just as they did every day BEFORE the story.... for decades) it made it pretty easy to write a talking points article and find a couple of quick filings after the story as 'evidence'
as I said....... if youre using the fact that they DAILY release administrative findings against hundreds of small names as proof that they refuse to go after the big names in legal proceedings then you couldnt have worse evidence or a bigger strawman argument
youre comparing speeding tickets to murder charges and believing youre onto some massive coverup attempt
but Im sure it all smacks of logic in certain circles and among sheeple
no its obvious the article is the only thing you read....... you didnt bother to read my post OR the 2 pieces of evidence cited in the article
the article is idiocy on its face.... title and throughout...... there is no mad rush at the end of the year...... there was no 'juking' "just days after"
as I CLEARLY stated to you........ they file those EVERY DAY........ I could easily list for you the hundreds of filings with thousands of targets that took place over 2011 alone...... I thought it would be easier to just give you the website that most people can easily filter through and find the answer for themselves....... SEC.GOV
yes Im sure the fact that they happened to release some a few days after the 60 minutes story (just as they did every day BEFORE the story.... for decades) it made it pretty easy to write a talking points article and find a couple of quick filings after the story as 'evidence'
as I said....... if youre using the fact that they DAILY release administrative findings against hundreds of small names as proof that they refuse to go after the big names in legal proceedings then you couldnt have worse evidence or a bigger strawman argument
youre comparing speeding tickets to murder charges and believing youre onto some massive coverup attempt
but Im sure it all smacks of logic in certain circles and among sheeple
Which part of the term "enforcement actions" don't you think the "sheeple" (Faux News audience ?) understand ?
I think its the part where talking point experts cite strawman arguments as proof
16% of the "enforcement actions" they took involved enforcement of policies
84% of the "enforcement actions" they took involved enforcement of policies and other measures
sounds to me like 84% of the time they are enforcing through more extreme measures
or to take a page from the style of talking points......... since youve cited the 16% of the time they go after the small guy as proof
this means 84% of the time they go after the big players????
you really need a new sheet....... those are tired
Which part of SEC Commissioner Gallagher's speech "focusing more attention on smaller entities..." don't you understand ? btw, your stats are meaningless, the author states "Therefore toward the end of every calendar year, you’ll see a rush of these 12(j) revocations. In 2011, about one out of every six S.E.C. enforcement actions – 121 out of 735 – involved these delinquent filings." Notice the term 12(j) revocations.
Which part of SEC Commissioner Gallagher's speech "focusing more attention on smaller entities..." don't you understand ? btw, your stats are meaningless, the author states "Therefore toward the end of every calendar year, you’ll see a rush of these 12(j) revocations. In 2011, about one out of every six S.E.C. enforcement actions – 121 out of 735 – involved these delinquent filings." Notice the term 12(j) revocations.
and which part of english dont you understand......... I already said I agree they dont go after the big sharks.... scroll up and have someone read it to you......
but I also said you CANNOT cite a small percentage of actions...... WHICH OCCUR EVERY SINGLE DAY OF SEC BUSINESS..... not just the last few days, after exposure, or at the end of the year...... as some proof that they do a last minute cram of filings in an effort of "juking" the system.... try getting the facts before reading from the sheets
the article is trying to cite 16% of business as proof that the SEC doesnt do the other 84% of business....... and that this 16% only happens at the end of the year in an effort to fool you into believing it did more than the other 84% it did
and as I ALREADY stated once.... youll have to have someone read that do you I suppose........ I agree they tend to tread lightly and not go after the few big problems out there...... although it would seem to me that while they certainly should go after those few big players....... the majority of their work and concentration efforts is certainly going to be on smaller players....... since they probably outnumber the big ones at a rate of (guesstimation) oh lets say a trillion to 1........ I suppose you think they should ignore all of the other work they do and only go after the 1 or 2 big problems we see every 5 or 6 years?
........ they file those EVERY DAY........ I could easily list for you the hundreds of filings with thousands of targets that took place over 2011 alone...... I thought it would be easier to just give you the website that most people can easily filter through and find the answer for themselves....... SEC.GOV
The author, not me, is citing the SEC database, SEC Administrative Proceedings Index 2011 Archive. This is THE statistical database that the SEC supplies to Congress on the 735 enforcements for 2011, which is overstated by 17% by including 12(j) revocations, i.e., "juking". It appears that your major objection to the article is the author only cited the relevant SEC database. I don't believe also citing SEC Public Relation bulletins would have added any value to the article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag
... did you know EVERY business day the SEC releases findings? ...
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag
......... since youve cited the 16% of the time they go after the small guy as proof
this means 84% of the time they go after the big players???? ...
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag
and which part of english dont you understand......... I already said I agree they dont go after the big sharks.... scroll up and have someone read it to you......
.... the majority of their work and concentration efforts is certainly going to be on smaller players....... since they probably outnumber the big ones at a rate of (guesstimation) oh lets say a trillion to 1........ I suppose you think they should ignore all of the other work they do and only go after the 1 or 2 big problems we see every 5 or 6 years?
As you do appear to have difficulty writing anything near a structured and/or complete English sentence, you may have confused yourself into thinking you had made such claim in this thread.
The S.E.C.’s has yet to make a case against any high-ranking executives involved in major frauds leading to the 2008 crash, Matt Taibbi goes on and lists 6 instances the S.E.C. has failed to police powerful criminals.
The SEC should concentrate its resources on crimes that cause greater economic damage, but the SEC can't or won't because the criminals have too much "political juice", so therefore go after the low level street criminals, rather than the Dons. This is a structure problem with the SEC, which should be folded into the Justice Department, i.e., FBI, which can bring criminal charges against the criminals and public officials that aid and abet said criminals.
From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression -- and they're about to do it again
The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates."
My what a small world some people live in, Goldman Sach, Bain & Co, and Koch brothers. These "financial things" blew up and the rest of us got the bill. Wonder what these yokels would do to non-kin. These characters want to run a country. Anybody who support the causes of these scoundrels need to take a breather and do a little research and concentrate on self preservation.
"They claim Charles and the company hid valuable assets from them and their blue-chip advisers, Goldman Sachs & Company and Bain & Company, and that the two brothers should have received double what they got."
""We have the desire and capability to be a bank," said William Hanna, Koch's president. "We don't just want to sell commodities; we want to handle the financing as well." Added Mr. Brooks, the company's senior vice president: "The industry is going to see Koch doing financial things in ways they have never seen before.""
thats quite a hilarious post....... talk about construing your own context...... sheesh
so a greedy brother who tried to take over a company via coup was ousted and paid handsomely to leave
a brother who has a lawsuit which he has no intentions of winning based on facts...... instead he has taken to persuading the public he is a good person by throwing money at them
vs another brother who has done everything honestly and over generously....... according to every judge this and similar cases have been in front of (hence every previous case being thrown out)
yet somehow you have found a way to turn this story into 'republicans are bad'
I should say KUDOS to you sir....... you are dedicated to your cause...... no matter how misdirected or insanely ridiculous the tactic
lets expose those dirty Koch brothers ........ oops......... you seem to be defending the dirty ones
'The idea is to provide customers of its commodities with loans, hedging packages and other financial products -- not unlike the way that the General Electric Company or the General Motors Corporation got into financial services by making loans to buyers of refrigerators or cars.'
wait....... arent these 2 of your cause's heroes? did you not read that part for context or did you just conveniently forget to include it?
as for Koch or Bain blowing up and leaving you with some bill........ refresh my memory on those 2 facts please......... I dont recall (admittedly maybe Im just not aware).... where exactly these 2 companies cost YOU anything other than for their earned services
you are correct......... time for a breather.... and a reality check... emotions and talking points are rarely facts to be spewed
Last edited by copestag; June 17th, 2012 at 12:20 AM.
... as for Koch or Bain blowing up and leaving you with some bill........ refresh my memory on those 2 facts please......... I dont recall (admittedly maybe Im just not aware).... where exactly these 2 companies cost YOU anything other than for their earned services ...
Perhaps you are unaware of the ongoing economic collapse and taxpayer bailout which unregulated derivatives played a major role. The following is from a Koch mouthpiece published in 1994 which explains why said derivatives shouldn't be regulated.
'The idea is to provide customers of its commodities with loans, hedging packages and other financial products -- not unlike the way that the General Electric Company or the General Motors Corporation got into financial services by making loans to buyers of refrigerators or cars.'
let me requote that for you......... since you want to ignore it...... and ask
since you seem to (in every thread) be on a personal vendetta agains the koch brothers....... because youre afraid they may cost you money because of the things they would like to do in the future
and as the quote reminds us........ they just want to emulate your 2 heroes..... 2 of the biggest players in the mess you keep whining about
when are you going to start actively campaigning against your 2 hero companies?..... or is it OK as long as they donate to your cause?
let me requote that for you......... since you want to ignore it...... and ask ...
You asked "as for Koch or Bain blowing up and leaving you with some bill........ refresh my memory on those 2 facts please......... I dont recall (admittedly maybe Im just not aware).... where exactly these 2 companies cost YOU anything other than for their earned services"
I answered, then you go off calling names again. You add nothing of value to any discussion. Fortunately this forum has tools to eliminate clutter.
Lets see, a vulture capitalist bankrupts a company (And no I didn't say ALL companies, but ENOUGH companies), guts employee retirement accounts, and the displaced workers now have to go on unemployment and look forward to no money for their retirement.....Yeah they're not costing society while they gut companies... .
Lets see, a vulture capitalist bankrupts a company (And no I didn't say ALL companies, but ENOUGH companies), guts employee retirement accounts, and the displaced workers now have to go on unemployment and look forward to no money for their retirement.....Yeah they're not costing society while they gut companies... .
youre very confused about what bain did with these companies...... Im guessing they dont have many facts on the talking points rags where you obviously formed your opinion
take some time to read and understand what actually occurred before you let peer pressure force you to condemn them for the sake of politics
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980
You asked "as for Koch or Bain blowing up and leaving you with some bill........ refresh my memory on those 2 facts please......... I dont recall (admittedly maybe Im just not aware).... where exactly these 2 companies cost YOU anything other than for their earned services"
I answered, then you go off calling names again. You add nothing of value to any discussion. Fortunately this forum has tools to eliminate clutter.
you answered by the usual method.... 'look at the mess we are in' which has nothing to do with anything THEY have done in the past or present
I asked what have they done...... you answered..... others have done it so lets blame them also?
I hope the talking points committee isnt reading this....... youll be in trouble ....... you forgot to add "its Bush's fault" in your garb
of course I add nothing of value to you.... because I refuse to let you continiously spread lies and talking points while going unchecked....... its not my fault you get butthurt when facts get in the way of your good stories
youre very confused about what bain did with these companies...... Im guessing they dont have many facts on the talking points rags where you obviously formed your opinion
take some time to read and understand what actually occurred before you let peer pressure force you to condemn them for the sake of politics
Quote:
“In the real world, some things don’t make it,” Romney offered as an explanation for the layoffs he had overseen as Bain’s CEO. However, the plant in South Carolina is not an isolated incident. Under Romney, “four of the 10 companies Bain acquired declared bankruptcy within a few years, shedding thousands of jobs.” But documents show that “Bain investors profited in eight of the 10 deals, including three of the four that ended in bankruptcy.” Indeed, the firm pointedly made higher profits “by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits.”
As Romney’s own business partner stated, “I never thought of what I do for a living as job creation.” It’ll be an interesting display of acrobatics to see how Romney explains to South Carolinians that the profit his company made off the backs of 150 laid off workers proves his bona fides as a job creator.
There's some facts, now feel free to counter with something that doesn't resemble a personal attack.
yes..... in 6 out of 10 the companies performed better than ever and are still performing..... in 4 out of 10 they bought companies that were on the verge of bankruptcy..... sustained them for a few additional years...... profited for their troubles....... and ultimately the companies that were going to go bankrupt a few years earlier ended in bankruptcy
sounds to me like he saved some jobs for at least a few years....... and some jobs for a lot longer
at what point did they do something wrong here?
if your boss said to you...... 'look we can fire you today....... or we can let this guy buy us out and theres a chance you may never be fired..... but theres a chance you will be fired a few years from now' ..... who exactly would you blame for this? your boss or the guy who offers you at least a chance..... and at the very least a temporary reprieve
Ummm, yeah I don't remember K B Toy Store being in any real trouble before Bain got its hands on them. I still don't see facts, all I see are assumptions. How do you know that the 6 of 10 companies are performing "better than ever"? Do you even know the name of the 6 of 10 companies (without using google) in order to make that claim? I'm guessing not.
Another example of how some very successful people get to be very successful, I believe they call it taking personal responsibility and not being dependent on government handouts.
"Similarly, when Kaufman tried to advocate for rules that would have prevented naked short-selling, Connaughton was warned by a lobbyist that it would be "bad for my career" if he went after the issue and that "Ted and I looked like deranged conspiracy theorists" for asking if naked short-selling had played a role in the final collapse of Lehman Brothers. Naked short-selling is another controversial practice. Essentially, when you short a stock, you're supposed to locate shares of that stock before you go out and sell it short. But what hedge funds and banks have discovered is that the rules provide "leeway" – you can go out and sell shares in a stock without actually having it, provided you have a "reasonable belief" that you can locate the shares.
This leads to the obvious possibility of companies creating false supply in a stock by selling shares they don't have. Without getting too much into the weeds here, there is an obvious solution to the problem, which essentially would be forcing companies to actually locate shares before selling them."
3Likes
The People vs. Goldman Sachs
