The People vs. Goldman Sachs- Matt Taibbi does the damn thing...again.

[jordanhendrix]

Originally Posted by reigndrop

i still fail to see what GS did wrong... people that are bashing them and other banks have no clue about finance

Thread/
people are just stupid, Im not saying GS is right, but in the current context of investment banking nothing illegal occurred. I do believe the laws need to be addressed. I dont think GS should be allowed to do what they did. 

If anyone should be blamed its the SEC and Congress for never addressing these issues to begin with. Its the lobbyists who fight for GS's right to continue to have a major say in the laws congress passes. 

Again I repeat People are stupid, they dont learn how things work, they jump to conclusions, they read rolling stone, they post weak arguments on NT. Dude read one article and is calling for their heads...simp stuff

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by reigndrop

i still fail to see what GS did wrong... people that are bashing them and other banks have no clue about finance

At best it's fuzzy. Somewhere along the line they did probably do something illegal (lied to clients vis-a-vis their position on the products which they were selling them) but that's where plausible deniability comes in. Who lies, how material was the lie, etc. It'd be tough to prove for either the client or the feds. Considering the legal costs it'd be a Pyhrric victory against GS if they were sued for this. 
Back in the day when IB's were still private partnerships the partners would never pull stuff like this because (imo) they cared what the wider community thought of them. Nowadays the top brass doesn't really give a +#*% what the wider community thinks. Different brand of people running the show . The field may have become more competitive and more complex but I don't think that has much to do with how the culture has changed. The "skin in the game" part has led to the change. 

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by reigndrop

i still fail to see what GS did wrong... people that are bashing them and other banks have no clue about finance

At best it's fuzzy. Somewhere along the line they did probably do something illegal (lied to clients vis-a-vis their position on the products which they were selling them) but that's where plausible deniability comes in. Who lies, how material was the lie, etc. It'd be tough to prove for either the client or the feds. Considering the legal costs it'd be a Pyhrric victory against GS if they were sued for this. 
Back in the day when IB's were still private partnerships the partners would never pull stuff like this because (imo) they cared what the wider community thought of them. Nowadays the top brass doesn't really give a +#*% what the wider community thinks. Different brand of people running the show . The field may have become more competitive and more complex but I don't think that has much to do with how the culture has changed. The "skin in the game" part has led to the change. 

 

[jordanhendrix]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by reigndrop

i still fail to see what GS did wrong... people that are bashing them and other banks have no clue about finance

At best it's fuzzy. Somewhere along the line they did probably do something illegal (lied to clients vis-a-vis their position on the products which they were selling them) but that's where plausible deniability comes in. Who lies, how material was the lie, etc. It'd be tough to prove for either the client or the feds. Considering the legal costs it'd be a Pyhrric victory against GS if they were sued for this. 
Back in the day when IB's were still private partnerships the partners would never pull stuff like this because (imo) they cared what the wider community thought of them. Nowadays the top brass doesn't really give a +#*% what the wider community thinks. Different brand of people running the show . The field may have become more competitive and more complex but I don't think that has much to do with how the culture has changed. The "skin in the game" part has led to the change. 

it has nothing to do with caring how they are portrayed. When they were private they put their own money in the pot, youre right about that. IB never cared what regular people thought about them.

 

[jordanhendrix]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by reigndrop

i still fail to see what GS did wrong... people that are bashing them and other banks have no clue about finance

At best it's fuzzy. Somewhere along the line they did probably do something illegal (lied to clients vis-a-vis their position on the products which they were selling them) but that's where plausible deniability comes in. Who lies, how material was the lie, etc. It'd be tough to prove for either the client or the feds. Considering the legal costs it'd be a Pyhrric victory against GS if they were sued for this. 
Back in the day when IB's were still private partnerships the partners would never pull stuff like this because (imo) they cared what the wider community thought of them. Nowadays the top brass doesn't really give a +#*% what the wider community thinks. Different brand of people running the show . The field may have become more competitive and more complex but I don't think that has much to do with how the culture has changed. The "skin in the game" part has led to the change. 

it has nothing to do with caring how they are portrayed. When they were private they put their own money in the pot, youre right about that. IB never cared what regular people thought about them.

 

[db west]

Originally Posted by reigndrop

i still fail to see what GS did wrong... people that are bashing them and other banks have no clue about finance

While it may not be illegal, it should be easy to see how people would find it immoral.  Especially considering Goldman as a company that manages peoples money and should have some sort of fiduciary responsiblity.  Goldman took advantage of their clients trust and screwed them over in order to make billions.

 

[db west]

Originally Posted by reigndrop

i still fail to see what GS did wrong... people that are bashing them and other banks have no clue about finance

While it may not be illegal, it should be easy to see how people would find it immoral.  Especially considering Goldman as a company that manages peoples money and should have some sort of fiduciary responsiblity.  Goldman took advantage of their clients trust and screwed them over in order to make billions.

 

[djprestige21]

 

[djprestige21]

 

[abovelegit1]

Originally Posted by jordanhendrix

Originally Posted by reigndrop

i still fail to see what GS did wrong... people that are bashing them and other banks have no clue about finance

Thread/
people are just stupid, Im not saying GS is right, but in the current context of investment banking nothing illegal occurred.

Wrong. If I was prosecuting I'd generally look for various instances of false pretenses, which is in fact a crime. Specifically, I'd look into felonious breach of trust,  liability for misleading statements (under title15, 78r I believe), breach of investment advisory contracts (80b-5), etc. There are also extensive laws regarding full reporting and disclosure of transactions that I'm sure were shirked. So even on the surface there were various illegalities that may have taken place, to say nothing of what is in that 600 page report, or what could be unearthed in a federally mandated investigation of GS.

All that aside, the actions of these bank bigwigs are morally despicable.

 

[abovelegit1]

Originally Posted by jordanhendrix

Originally Posted by reigndrop

i still fail to see what GS did wrong... people that are bashing them and other banks have no clue about finance

Thread/
people are just stupid, Im not saying GS is right, but in the current context of investment banking nothing illegal occurred.

Wrong. If I was prosecuting I'd generally look for various instances of false pretenses, which is in fact a crime. Specifically, I'd look into felonious breach of trust,  liability for misleading statements (under title15, 78r I believe), breach of investment advisory contracts (80b-5), etc. There are also extensive laws regarding full reporting and disclosure of transactions that I'm sure were shirked. So even on the surface there were various illegalities that may have taken place, to say nothing of what is in that 600 page report, or what could be unearthed in a federally mandated investigation of GS.

All that aside, the actions of these bank bigwigs are morally despicable.

 

[bruce x two]

 

 

[bruce x two]

 

 

[reigndrop]

Originally Posted by DB WEST

Originally Posted by reigndrop

i still fail to see what GS did wrong... people that are bashing them and other banks have no clue about finance

While it may not be illegal, it should be easy to see how people would find it immoral.  Especially considering Goldman as a company that manages peoples money and should have some sort of fiduciary responsiblity.  Goldman took advantage of their clients trust and screwed them over in order to make billions.

People don't understand it, that's why they think it's immoral...  every hedge fund, p/e firm, pension, etc. they have their own models and what not and will trade/invest off of their model and investment advisory board decisions.  NOBODY, let me repeat, NOBODY listens to wall st. sales guys.  Clients use Goldman for market access, not investment advice...  clients trust Goldman to get them the products that they want/need, they don't trust them in regards to investment advice.  if a client wants something, and they don't want to lose business, they will sell that product to the client, and in this case, the client wanted CDOs. 

if this were an m&a advisory deal and GS misled clients, that's completely different... but we won't get into that

 

[reigndrop]

Originally Posted by DB WEST

Originally Posted by reigndrop

i still fail to see what GS did wrong... people that are bashing them and other banks have no clue about finance

While it may not be illegal, it should be easy to see how people would find it immoral.  Especially considering Goldman as a company that manages peoples money and should have some sort of fiduciary responsiblity.  Goldman took advantage of their clients trust and screwed them over in order to make billions.

People don't understand it, that's why they think it's immoral...  every hedge fund, p/e firm, pension, etc. they have their own models and what not and will trade/invest off of their model and investment advisory board decisions.  NOBODY, let me repeat, NOBODY listens to wall st. sales guys.  Clients use Goldman for market access, not investment advice...  clients trust Goldman to get them the products that they want/need, they don't trust them in regards to investment advice.  if a client wants something, and they don't want to lose business, they will sell that product to the client, and in this case, the client wanted CDOs. 

if this were an m&a advisory deal and GS misled clients, that's completely different... but we won't get into that

 

[triplekrown]

"Long-term greedy." Like the mob, they are well connected, legal/risk cache, speak in argot, highly feared, war chest that rivals the EU. Clients seeks out their expertise, name, and "protection" to get the highest return out there. Currently reading Cohan's book will post more later. Truly amazing for the year of 2011.

 

[triplekrown]

"Long-term greedy." Like the mob, they are well connected, legal/risk cache, speak in argot, highly feared, war chest that rivals the EU. Clients seeks out their expertise, name, and "protection" to get the highest return out there. Currently reading Cohan's book will post more later. Truly amazing for the year of 2011.

 

[rexanglorum]

triplekrown wrote:

---

"Long-term greedy." Like the mob, they are well connected, legal/risk cache, speak in argot, highly feared, war chest that rivals the EU. Clients seeks out their expertise, name, and "protection" to get the highest return out there. Currently reading Cohan's book will post more later. Truly amazing for the year of 2011.

They seem invicible and while I dream of the day they are liquidated and consigned to history, in the meanwhile, asymetrical attacks are the way to go. It does not cost much to create bad PR with some hidden cameras (catch them saying something racist or sexist in a moment of candor), launch lawsuits and if those fail, use violence. If you are a rival banker or a well off and civic minded person you can pay a Mexican or Colombian a few hundred thousand to turn a high powered rifle into a "change of leadership." It only cost a pittance to buy a grenade in Mexico and while Lloyd Blankfein said that playing with tax payer bailout money was an act of "doing God's work," the shrapnel from a $6.50 grenade will rip through his billion dollar flesh the same as any man's.

In the long run, bills beat bullets but in the short run, a dedicated person plus some high explosives would send a  few of those animals, who call themselves "Masters of the Universe," to their maker.





  

 

[rexanglorum]

triplekrown wrote:

---

"Long-term greedy." Like the mob, they are well connected, legal/risk cache, speak in argot, highly feared, war chest that rivals the EU. Clients seeks out their expertise, name, and "protection" to get the highest return out there. Currently reading Cohan's book will post more later. Truly amazing for the year of 2011.

They seem invicible and while I dream of the day they are liquidated and consigned to history, in the meanwhile, asymetrical attacks are the way to go. It does not cost much to create bad PR with some hidden cameras (catch them saying something racist or sexist in a moment of candor), launch lawsuits and if those fail, use violence. If you are a rival banker or a well off and civic minded person you can pay a Mexican or Colombian a few hundred thousand to turn a high powered rifle into a "change of leadership." It only cost a pittance to buy a grenade in Mexico and while Lloyd Blankfein said that playing with tax payer bailout money was an act of "doing God's work," the shrapnel from a $6.50 grenade will rip through his billion dollar flesh the same as any man's.

In the long run, bills beat bullets but in the short run, a dedicated person plus some high explosives would send a  few of those animals, who call themselves "Masters of the Universe," to their maker.





  

 

[shatterkneesinc]

all these so called regulators either worked for them big companies or want to work for them...there is a conflict of interest

one word to sum it all up, collusion

ill give you a recent example..FCC regulators quiting their jobs to work as VPS for comcast

http://finance.yahoo.com/...ies&pos=main&asset&ccode

 

[shatterkneesinc]

all these so called regulators either worked for them big companies or want to work for them...there is a conflict of interest

one word to sum it all up, collusion

ill give you a recent example..FCC regulators quiting their jobs to work as VPS for comcast

http://finance.yahoo.com/...ies&pos=main&asset&ccode

 

[knightngale]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

triplekrown wrote:

---

"Long-term greedy." Like the mob, they are well connected, legal/risk cache, speak in argot, highly feared, war chest that rivals the EU. Clients seeks out their expertise, name, and "protection" to get the highest return out there. Currently reading Cohan's book will post more later. Truly amazing for the year of 2011.

They seem invicible and while I dream of the day they are liquidated and consigned to history, in the meanwhile, asymetrical attacks are the way to go. It does not cost much to create bad PR with some hidden cameras (catch them saying something racist or sexist in a moment of candor), launch lawsuits and if those fail, use violence. If you are a rival banker or a well off and civic minded person you can pay a Mexican or Colombian a few hundred thousand to turn a high powered rifle into a "change of leadership." It only cost a pittance to buy a grenade in Mexico and while Lloyd Blankfein said that playing with tax payer bailout money was an act of "doing God's work," the shrapnel from a $6.50 grenade will rip through his billion dollar flesh the same as any man's.

In the long run, bills beat bullets but in the short run, a dedicated person plus some high explosives would send a  few of those animals, who call themselves "Masters of the Universe," to their maker.





  

 

[knightngale]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

triplekrown wrote:

---

"Long-term greedy." Like the mob, they are well connected, legal/risk cache, speak in argot, highly feared, war chest that rivals the EU. Clients seeks out their expertise, name, and "protection" to get the highest return out there. Currently reading Cohan's book will post more later. Truly amazing for the year of 2011.

They seem invicible and while I dream of the day they are liquidated and consigned to history, in the meanwhile, asymetrical attacks are the way to go. It does not cost much to create bad PR with some hidden cameras (catch them saying something racist or sexist in a moment of candor), launch lawsuits and if those fail, use violence. If you are a rival banker or a well off and civic minded person you can pay a Mexican or Colombian a few hundred thousand to turn a high powered rifle into a "change of leadership." It only cost a pittance to buy a grenade in Mexico and while Lloyd Blankfein said that playing with tax payer bailout money was an act of "doing God's work," the shrapnel from a $6.50 grenade will rip through his billion dollar flesh the same as any man's.

In the long run, bills beat bullets but in the short run, a dedicated person plus some high explosives would send a  few of those animals, who call themselves "Masters of the Universe," to their maker.





  

 

[noskey]

Damn Rex, tell 'em how you really feel

Posting for the morning, def too late to get into this right now.

 

[noskey]

Damn Rex, tell 'em how you really feel

Posting for the morning, def too late to get into this right now.