[NYtimes] AP Study Finds $1.6B Went to Bailed-Out Bank Execs

Oneal is certainly guilty of being a complete fool that played a large part in ML's demise, that's for sure

 

Fool...for sure. But fradulent? I don't think the heads of any banks were fradulent, or that even most were fradulent. I certainly don't see the govt shelling out $700B if they thought so....

 

But the problem is there are ALWAYS gloom & doom predictions. Just as there are always "the world is great" predictions. Those can only be evaluated after the fact.

You can't just point to a few predictions and say "see, everyone should have known!" - or you can second guess anything. The reason there is a market is that everyone has differing opinions on an asset's value - and these assets were valued at what other people (not the firm itself) were willing to pay for them. At any given minute, these firms could have locked in their profits and walked away.

 

Give me discovery and enough resources, and I bet i could. Do you know what that even means? The fact that you don't says something.

Many people are accusing many bankers of committing fraud. Many people civilly are accusing banks of being fraud. The fact that you're not going to see an entity prosecution on criminal charges (aside from SEC civil enforcement proceedings which are already ongoing) doesn't mean much as i've explained to you in the previous post.

Anyway, as for your example, what does the case of Madoff who was reported to the SEC 8 years ago show you? How fast did the government move there? How many people who work in the Enforcement Division do you know? I know quite a few in the NERO, and they are dedicated people - however they don't really have the resources to move like you are pretending they do (mostly they piggyback on SDNY for big actions filing a civil suit like in the Cioffi case)

OK - I already won. You don't have to change your sig.....unless you're going to start backpedaling again....

BEEP BEEP BEEP

so you're going to hang your hat on the lack of entity prosecutions after all....which is especially dumb in this case because most of the entities in question are now defunct. As I said earlier entity prosecutions are about as common as a unicorn for various reasons not worth getting into here. And by the way, your McDonalds example, you can bet that the SEC/DOJ would extract a large civil fine from the company if they found they were in any way complicit, even on just a reckless basis, with respect to the cashier committing fraud. Look up the most recent FCPA enforcement actions for more info.

The general time frame of these lawsuits is 5-10 years from filing to settlement - they almost never go to trial and verdict - I think there's been less than ten 10b-5 class action cases that went to verdict in the last ten years or so. Same goes for shareholder derivative actions. This goes for SEC civil enforcement actions and most criminal prosecutions too....when there is an entity involved the SEC and DOJ generally pressures them for a huge settlement that accompanies deferred prosecutions. Us
So anyway, since I just had to explain all of that to you.... you can change your sig now.

 

Give you? You are the one claiming these banks are being fradulent. Where is your support? Saying "wait fot the emails to drop" is not support. Do you have anything to tie these companies (not individuals) to fraud?

Folks get accused of all types of things. You should know that, being in the field of law. If there were serious fraud allegations, why would the govt not move in similar to the AA, Enron and Worldcom fiascos? Surely none of those fraud situations required a $700B bailout.

Are you really asserting that the govt doesn't have the resources to move in on these companies that they gave $700B to....if they believe fradulent behavior exists? Is that really what you are hanging your hat on?

Again, how long did it take them to move in on AA, Enron and Worldcom?

I'm not backpedaling at all. If one of these companies gets penalized for fraud then I will change my sig. If they don't then you will. You seem to be the one claiming it will take too long to see....

No, I'm hanging my hat on the fact that nothing has come out about these companies getting hit with fraud allegations. And you have yet to show any kind of support for your allegations. And I don't see the govt giving a $700B handout if the govt thought they were being fradulent. You don't need to be in law to interpret that. You just need to have common sense (not saying you don't). Would you give a thief $1,000??? You don't think the govt would move swiftly on these banks if they thought they were being fradulent???

And these companies still exist, and a lot of their Sr Managers are still in place. Merrill Still exists. They have just been acquired and Thain still has a key role. Goldman still exists. Etc.

It took 5 years for AA, Enron and Worldcom to get in serious trouble relating to financial fraud? I think not.....

 

Adobe ain't the problem. Your biggest problem is lubricants. You are running out. What will you put on your ass next? Dalai expect you at 9PM sharp.

 

Give me discovery and I'll do it. Again, the fact that you don't even know what i mean by this kind of shows the futility of your cause here. Maybe you should change your sig now.

If you want to make a bet, do some research and pick some terms (criminal, civil, 10b-5, Section 20 control person liability, Sarbanes Oxley, Martin Act, settlement). But of course, if you did that, it would make the "Icehouse knows nothing about fraud liability" kind of an oxymoron, so maybe just do it anyway.

Suffice it so say, your initial point that "no one" is even alleged to have committed any fraudulent behavior has been sufficiently shot down, so there's not much point in continuing this.

 

On an only slightly related note:

I got an Enron settlement check yesterday!

 

Dude, you are the one saying these banks were fradulent. Is that not your assertion? You are the one doing the accusing. You don't accuse, then ask one to show support that your accusations are false. You prove your accusations are legitimate. If you don't want to accept the bet then just say so....no shame. But let's skip the "wordplay games".

And I never said no one committed fraud. I said no firm is going to be seriously accused of committing fraud...not individuals. It's not that hard to comprehend. Enron, Worldcom, AA....all firms with serious fraud allegations (Sr Mgmt i.e. the company at large made a move to deceive). You had it with your Ken Lay example. You didn't have it with your Stan Oneal example.

 

So this sort of crystallizes what I am talking about....I love how you keep citing worldcom...please let me know the docket number of the entity prosecution of worldcom if you can find it......lol....(PS I am not talking about the 2000 antitrust action - different things)...


Anyway, I'll just sum up the reasons for my incredulousness and I shall leave it at that (feel free to respond, you can have the last word) - Icehouse, from your previous posts you seem quite convinced that nobody on wall street, and I mean nobody ("There was no deception" "no one fradulently valued their assets too high"), can even be alleged to have done anything remotely fraudulent in connection with the entire current morass. Granted you have backtracked and moderated a bit since, but you're still going pretty strong to the hoop on this.

Aside from the inherent ridiculousness of this proposition, which renders you into appearing to be a complete naif, I can tell you from my professional experience, a lot of which has been defending fraud cases (civil not criminal, tho I have responded to a number of subs related to criminal investigations) in SDNY, among other places, against the entities you cite, that your implication that nobody of any significance, no how, never, can or will ever be alleged to have acted fraudulently in connection with current events...is just totallly ridiculous. As shown by current events and as will be shown by future events.

Anyway, we'll see, and as indictments and settlements (trust me there will be massive ones with SEC, probably in the multi-hundred million dollar range if I had to guess) come down over the next few years I guess I can bump this thread if I feel like it but I will probably forget or not care.

 

I don't need a docket number to show that Worldcom got in trouble (THE COMPANY, NOT INDIVIDUALS) for committing fraud. They were investigated by the SEC.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=worldcom+scandal

The same applies to Enron and AA. The companies were investigated for fraud. Since you don't seem to get it and keep resorting to word play to avoid my point (which I did clarify for you earlier), I don't see the govt sitting by and handing out $700B to these companies if there are serious fraud allegations out there, or if they believe they committed fraud. Recent history has shown us that they move pretty fast in these situations. Common sense will tell you that they won't hand out $700B to companies if they thought they were deceitful. You don't need a law degree to come to that conclusion. You just need common sense.

Actually, I believe I clarified what I meant in another post. Why do you continue to ignore it and post this accusatory drivel?

Not once, but twice. Well we know you certainly picked the right profession, with all these attempts at misleading, lol. Other posters were able to get what I was saying.

Can you say the pay structure was jacked and some traders were cheating for their own benefit? Sure you can, but again...you can find isolated incidents of fraud anywhere. An individual committing fraud is not a company committing fraud. You are an educated man, so I refuse to believe that this just keeps going over your head. That is not backtracking. I clearly clarified my point twice and provided 3 examples of companies getting in trouble for fraud. Again, you may be able to blame the companies control environment, but no one is even doing that.

Your assertion is that these companies were committing fraud, and were running a big scheme.

You have nothing to support these claims. Fuc&^%g up and valuing your books wrong is completely different from purpously valuing your books wrong for your own benefit. One is a mistake (a very costly one). The other is fraud. If this did occur, why has the SEC not moved in? Why did the govt reward them with $700B??? If they believed their control environment led to fraudulent activity then they would have moved in by now. If they believed that Sr Mgmt got together to screw folks over then they would have moved in by now. But there has been no movement, and my bet is there won't be any (this is the best that I'm offering). There has only been $700B transferred to keep these companies afloat....

As far as the rest of your post, I have clearly communicated my point (again), and it's not that hard to comprehend. You can continue to run in the other direction and post drivel about folks backtracking, asking for document numbers, asking folks to prove you’re your unfounded claims are false, etc. You are just making yourself look silly. Even a 3rd grader knows the difference between I meant to spill juice and I accidently spilt juice.....

 

^It's going to be fun to bump this thread the next time a financial institution settles with SEC and various state AG's as there are number of investigations in progress.

 

Cool. You just make sure it's the bank getting in trouble, and not some individual that works for the bank getting in trouble. My assertion is that firm's didn't decide to commit fraud directly (i.e. Enron, Worldcom). I've already noted that I'm sure you can find individuals doing so in each industry. And to make sure you don't try to use this as an out, an individual can commit fraud that results in his firm/bank paying a penalty. But that's not the same thing as the bank deciding to commit fraud (i.e. Enron, Worldcom), which is what you have been asserting. Here is an example of the bank (or Sr Mgmt) committing fraud:

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-32.htm

Here is another example of banks getting in trouble because their control environment led to fraud:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20030429/ai_n14546217

I haven't seen any of this either, and doubt you will because it will make the govt look very stupid for just giving these dudes $700B.

I think I have clarified my assertion on numerous occasions in this thread (that the latter two won't happen), so there should be no confusion when we don't see the govt taking down banks they freely gave our $$ to (this thread revolves around those banks). At least 21 banks have received $$ per this article.

http://www.freep.com/article/20081230/OPINION01/812300351

 

Nice prediction icehouse. When do I get to change your signature?


SEC Charges Bank of America with Misleading Investors over Bonuses, Agreest to $33 Million Penalty

 

Well here's another one - and guess who, Goldman goes down.

SEC Accuses Goldman Sachs of Fraud

Icehouse that makes two times that you have been proven wrong on this. Although as previously noted, your statement was erroneous at the moment it was made. Subsequently, both GS and BOA have been accused of fraud, thus disproving your extremely ridiculous "the government wouldn't have bailed them out if they thought they were acting fraudulently/the SEC catches everything!" theory.

When do I get to change your signature?

 

Ha ha ha. I am very very interested to find out how the GS case ends, but I find it highly humourous Sammy, that you are here gloating, especially re the BoA case.

Let's recap: Merrill Lynch was in **** and was looking to sell itself before it collapses. Ken Lewis was the sucker that had the brain fart. He of course was rightfully fired later, even one mistake as bad as Countrywide was enough. He's got two.

But to Ken Lewis' credit, at least he caught himself and tried to back out at the 11th hour, that got the US government's (and its various organization and agents) panties in a knot. Hank Paulson knew (rightfully) what disastrous consequence it would be if Merrill fell (after of course, the monumental failure to bail out/find a buyer for Lehman, like I said way back).

He and Bernanke threatened Ken Lewis with no less than his removal from his job (among other things), which got Ken Lewis between a rock and a hard place. Disclose the Merrill losses and the merger never gets approved. Hence, he essentially "had" to hide the losses. After which, of course, the US government (or its various organizations, special interests, agents, etc) could not prosecute Ken Lewis without him spilling the beans, so of course it was expedient to make that little slap on the wrist SEC settlement/fine to sweep it all under the rug.

Which was all fine until a certain Judge Rakoff threw a monkey-wrench into the whole plan. Then of course, a certain AG named Andrew Cuomo with just a wee bit of political ambition (angling for the governor job and everything) jumped on the case.

I mean god, after all that you still felt like gloating. Just wow.

Oh btw, I found out sometime back that Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin were acquitted. Nice of you not to come back and remind us of that little event. Cherry-pick away.

 

Forgot to mention, the only one who comes out smelling like a rose in the whole sordid BoA event turned out to be John Thain, who unloaded Merrill and an obscene price, exactly like I said he did way back.

Of course, smelling like a rose is in a former Merrill shareholder (as suppose to BoA or tax payer) perspective.

 

I tried to read all this but it became clear you had no clue at all what you are talking about...I don't really understand the purpose of your exposition.

What happpened was that they filed a fraudulent or misleading proxy statement in violation of Section 14.

That was after they had to toss out the evidence - anyway, that wasn't the bet.

 

You could have just cut off your post after the first four words Sammy. Your lack of reading comprehension is not news by now. But if I must summarise even further (oh god)...

1. Stanley's workplace was on fire (completely his fault). Stanley gets fired (pun intended).
2. Johnnie was hired to put out fire but couldn't.
3. Johnnie look to sell house before burnt out structure burnt to ground.
4. Ken the idiot R/E agent walked in, decided to buy Johnnie's house, worth about 200 bucks, for 2800 bucks for his client.
5. Ken the idiot realize last second it was dumb, tries to pull out.
6. Uncle Sam, who's both Ken and Johnnie, etc's uncle realizes Johnnie would be bankrupt without selling his house for obscene prices, tells he'll disinherit Ken if he doesn't buy the house for his client.
7. Ken lies to client because it was only way he would buy house, hires Johnnie.
8. Client buys house.
9. Client finds burning house.
10. Client fires Ken.
11. Client sues.
12. Ken is boot deep in ****.
13. Ken fires Johnnie even though he was the one who didn't do his homework.
14. Rich Uncle Sam (a judge, imagine that) realizes he caused it, tells his buddy to give Ken a small fine to pretend to have served justice for client.
15. Another judge rejects previous fine.
16. Uncle Sam's b*stard son, out to make a name for himself, throws a pretense outrage.

Is that clear enough for ya? Yes I know I suck at talking "5-year old" for you to understand. Haven't done that for a while.

The bet, IIRC, was distinctly, whether Cioffi and Tannin, but Merrill in general, committed fraud. The court found that they didn't.

Which evidence got tossed out? Evidence presented clearly showed there was significant doubt on the part of Cioffi et al, whether their assessment on the impending doom of the sub-prime deals are correct. Unfortunately they turned out to be right.

 

No - 16 points is too much for me to read. Boil it down to 4 and then maybe I'll take a look at it.

Fail. It was not. Read above.

Anyway, what actually happened was that the prosecution had to dismiss the main count (voluntarily) because they were in EDNY and not SDNY.

And actually they are both still facing a civil suit by the SEC in SDNY - the EDNY case was the criminal cause.