The Obama Adminstration's Handling of Wall Street.

Well, chuckles, you do talk a lot of **** - you talk down to people as if you're an expert, but you refuse to provide any credentials and from what I've seen you possess the knowledge of the typical autodidact - which isn't to say you display a lack of knowledge, but that you don't display any greater knowledge than other people who educate themselves on the subject.

And, chuckles, your massive ego-driven bomblast notwithstanding, many people who work in finance have a great personal stake in obfuscating the information they work with. That is to say: I AM AN EXPERT, THIS IS TOO COMPLEX FOR YOU is essentially their only claim to exclusive expertise. This is an unfortunate fact in all debates of this nature (and note: the so-called "experts" in this field want to drive every argument into a realm where they feel they can sufficiently make facts obscure and unsure because that is where they feel comfortable).

I hate to tell you this MFW ... but it's really not all that complicated. And what's more - this particular debate isn't, and shouldn't be, about the minor details - you know, the area of your "expertise" (chuckles) - it's about a much larger issue than the things you banter about in your day-to-day life. It's funny that you say "this isn't about me" because, really, you always make it about you.

But, it does seem you've accomplished your goal of making this issue hinge entirely on an area where you can proclaim your "expertise" and then brashly blunderbuss your way into anyone who disagrees with you by your one-and-only argument on all issues like this: I AM MFW AND I AM AN EXPERT, THIS IS TOO COMPLEX FOR YOU. I AM SMARTEST. LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS. THEY ALL ADD UP TO I AM SMARTEST.

 

Yeah, I did not like where this was going either.

 

Once again, moron Sammy, I'm not on an H-1, not that I see it as anyhow relevant.

And actually Sammy, your moronic ass is about to find out (because I'm about to tell you) that Goldman is NOT obligated to admit any wrongdoing in the case, which Sammy, sounds to me that the SEC did not really have much of a case, or it would litigate.

Further salt to your wounds, that settlement involves whether Goldman should have disclosed John Paulson's involvement and whether it is material. It is not, we went through this several month ago. You lost. Nowhere did the settlement by Rule 10b-5 (or whatever you decide to haul out of your ass) did it define whether Goldman had a fiduciary duty. It doesn't.

All in all, it didn't turn out any better than your Ralph Cioffi fraud case. You lost that one too.

When? After it is distributed? Make no mistakes about it. TARP's purpose was to stabilize the financial system. It is NOT to bail out the individual banks. I gotta tell you, I am amazed at how many people would love to stick it to the financial system, as if its collapse is somehow to their benefit.

When your whole ship is sinking, it is ridiculous to argue who's at fault.

Yes, if carry on a false modesty, and maybe a hint of self-deprecation, I'm sure some here would like me better. I don't see the need to waste my time doing so. As you've stated, this is the internet.

The whole point (and it remains) that if you are accusing somebody of fraud, perhaps conspiracy to commit fraud, perjury, etc etc etc, you better acquaint yourself with the details.

By your own admission, you've no expertise in the subject AND haven't bothered to acquaint yourself with the facts. Don't blame me for pointing it out to you. Whether I am or am not an arrogant mother*****er is completely irrelevant.

As for whether Goldman places a "massive bet against the housing market." Two things. The first, betting against the housing market is not illegal. Secondly, define massive. There is NO legal definition of that term referring to any segment of the financial markets.

If you plan to convict Goldman on perjury for stating that it did not have a massive short, at best you'd be splitting hairs, because you couldn't actually force through a fraud case.

Except you're not saying that are you? I'm sure Lloyd Blankfein relishes rubbing his fingers together enjoying the thought that he (along with a select few) can bring the whole **** down. Except he can't. As Hank Paulson puts it, it's a "systemic" problem. You don't get a systemic problem by Goldman playing loose with the rules.

I haven't met a single person in the financial services industry who DOESN'T think they're at fault, but boy, I do find it somewhat hilarious that some try to push them on the sacrificial slab for the entire systemic failure.

There's a name for that. It's called scapegoating.

Once again, your lack of knowledge in the structured finance is showing through. Structured products are a tool, an instrument, just like derivatives are instruments (btw, CDS are derivatives, NOT structured products and yes, there is a difference). There is NO inherent risk to structured products in and of themselves and in fact, as I've mentioned, they mitigate the risk.

The risk always is, always was and always will be with the underlying assets, which in this case is ****. Prime loans are ALSO packaged into various structured products. The products do not magnify the risk Mr. X's $500 a month $300000 mortgage. The risk always is Mr. X's $500 a month $300000 mortgage.

As it turned out, when the US financial system got leveraged to the extent that it did those structured products could no longer mitigate the risk. It popped. I know, what a shock huh?

Lastly but certainly NOT the least, the ratings agencies rated the STRUCTURED PRODUCTS. It DID NOT rate the underlying assets. It did not rate Mr. X's $500 a month $300000 mortgage. It rated the tranches, in the case of AAA bonds, the most senior bonds.

Did the CMO pay you what it said it would pay as stipulated in the PSA? Absolutely.

Once again, let me repeat, what is your expertise in structured products, fixed income trading, underwriting, brokerage, sales, etc etc etc.

 

Well, chuckles, where am I supposed to display my expertise here? Where in this thread did it discuss for example, the structure of a deal? Where did it discuss how to price it? Risks? Modeling?

Not exactly much to work with here.

Well, except "many people who work in finance" and "who have a stake in obfuscating the information they work with" have actually ZERO NEED to obfuscate the information they work with. IT IS TOO COMPLEX FOR YOU. That is not necessarily direct directly at you (because I have zero knowledge of your personal background) but by and large is true.

All the information you need is out there. And it is all in the public domain. If you don't know what to do with them, don't blame somebody else.

I'd actually like to extent the above statement further. It is too complicated for many people in finance, who have no business trading structured products.

Already addressed above, but I'll state it again. By Northside Storm's own admission, he has no expertise in the subject matter. Also by his own admission, he did not read the Senate report. Neither of which can be held against him except in the case that he pass judgment on that very subject, which he did.

Do I expect somebody who pass judgement on the subject to acquaint himself on the subject at hand? Expect no... unfortunately. Prefer, absolutely.

Now of course, this isn't about his expertise or lack-there-of, nor mine, as stated. Had he actually been right in his opinions it wouldn't have mattered what experience he had. He wasn't. And his factual errors were duly pointed out to him.

 

So catch-22. Even if you have credentials then you are not only not trustworthy but when thy start to talk on a higher level than you understand they are using it as a tool to win the debate.

 

Poor H1Back Office Beaver - you really should do research before you post.

Actually the very terms of the settlement themselves involved an acknowledgement of wrongdoing - you're confusing the standard "admitting or denying liability" part of a SEC Lit Rel. with the actual terms of the settlement here.

Rather than than "not obligated to admit wrongdoing" they were obligated to acknowledge they had misled investors, read the consent decree, genius:

They SIGNED that, acknowledging their wrongdoing, and that's just one paragraph, there's a bunch more like it in the decree.

Salt in my wounds? You're the same r****d who argued 6 ways from Sunday that they had no case and wouldn't get anything...lol.

Anyhoo....as I told youu 10,000 times, and am telling you again, it's completely ****ing irrelevant to a 10b-5 action. There is no "I'm not a fiduciary!" exception to 10b-5. End of argument. Final. It doesn't exist.

Lost? LOL, who "lost"? Yeah it only turned out A HALF A BILLION DOLLARS better, but toher than that, a mere half a billion dollars, THE LARGEST SETTLEMENT IN A CIVIL ENFORCEMENT ACTION IN THE HISTORY OF THE SEC - it was basically NOTHING. And a paltry HALF A BILLION dollars.

hey must have not had much of a case. I guess that's why GS was able to get off nearly scott-free BY PAYING THE LARGEST FINE IN HISTORY.

You are so painfully dumb. And you wallow in it like the angry netizen kane that you are.

It's gorgeous.

You didn't address this to me, but as stated a year ago, my expertise in litigating structured product 10b-5 disputes for Goldman Sachs in S.D.N.Y. consists of litigating structured product disputes for Goldman Sachs in S.D.N.Y............which probably explains why you are so thoroughly out of your element here.

Maybe later I'll dig up some of your old stupid predictions about the case while you toil over a greasy takeout container in your back office, building your little H1Beaver Dam. We'll have a good laugh

 

So in essence, you all want to burn a firm for doing unethical but legal business, but you'll settle for perjury, which is illegal...as long as you get your pound of flesh?

Sorta like taking down Al Capone for tax evasion? Is that the plan?

 

Actually no moronic hack lawyer. I don't know which world you live in, but in this one, aka, the real world, admitting "incomplete information" is completely different than admitting fraud.

And once again, we went through several month ago when I owned your ass in the Abacus thread, after which you sorta disappeared. As usual right Sammy?

As for H-1B back-office beaver Sammy, one of them would be far more useful than you, given your pathetic supposed lawyer skills. Personally I'd take one of them over you any day.

They had no case, we went through this several month ago. There was ZERO MATERIAL information that WASN'T disclosed.

LMAO. That's hilarious Sammy. How much did Goldman's market value go down while the threat of litigation existed? Not that the fine was a minor amount, the alternative was worse. The alternative was a politically motivated hatchet job please-the-angry-taxpayer-so-we-could-shift-the-blame lawsuit that would have costed tens of millions to litigate while its stock took a beating.

It's hilarious moron Sammy. Let's see, Goldman got fined $550 million while removed the threat of litigation without admitting wrongdoing. The government and investors lost how much again? Tens of billions, between Abacus, Timberwolf, etc etc etc?

LMAO. That's hilarious. Well, not for the investors I'm sure. So the DoJ, SEC et al had an iron-clad case proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Goldman had committed a securities fraud but let them walk away for $550 million? Man, if I was an investor, I'd be seriously p1ssed. Sounds to me like you came up at least $9.45 BILLION short. Sounds like the government wasn't nearly as sure about its chances.

But of course, in your mental masturbation world, everything works just a little different...

LMAO. My bold prediction was that the government had no case against Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin and that they would be found not guilty. They were. My other bold prediction was that the government had no case against Goldman and at best would give them a slash on the wrist for a minor technicality. That happened too.

Sounds like I'm going 2 for 2 here. Feel free to dig them up. I actually do remember that thread. That was the very one in which you claimed, chuckles, that with a shine in your eye and with certainty that Cioffi and Tannin were NOT acquitted but rather the case shifted from SDNY to EDNY in which it only took me two seconds to prove was bullsh1t.

Why don't you go back to the photocopier Sammy, instead of coming here pretending to be a real lawyer. LMAO.

 

****, my browser crashed and took down my response the first time around.

I have moral revulsion about a great many number of things. Except I keep it as just that. I can separate moral revulsion from illegality.

You're not reading that report for my sake nor I for you. Contrary to your belief, I understand the "whole brouhaha about perjury" quite well. I watched the Senate Subcommittee hearing to know that putz Carl Levin has no case so he tried to bait Tourre, Sparks and Blankfein from saying something wrong. He couldn't bring forth a securities fraud case so he brought forward a bullsh1t perjury charge.

Fine, let's cut the crap here. I'll address your Senate report and perjury charge.

Levin said that Goldman did not disclose its short positions and short view of the market. Goldman responded that since it was the market maker, as supposed to adviser, it had no duty to disclose its short position, which is factual. As a matter of fact, no firm would disclose ANY of its positions. Goldman is far from alone in that regard.

Levin said Goldman sold crap. Goldman responded that the investors, as sophisticated participent of the market, could have said no, which was also factual.

What gets me here is nobody talked about price. Levin is a moron so obviously he wasn't going to bring it up; and Goldman probably judged it not in their interest to bring it up. In reality though, there are "boxes of crap" being sold on EBay. Price is everything.

Levin said Goldman deceived investors by not disclosing that Paulson picked the short. Goldman stated as sophisticated investors, they should have understood the risks and that Paulson picked the shorts was immaterial, which also was factual.


I've already mentioned this several months ago but I'll bring it up again, because it obviously didn't stick in people's heads the first time around. Abacus was a SYNTHETIC CDO. BY DEFINITION IT HAD A SHORT.

As I've also mentioned several months ago, it took me about 20 minutes, not using any analytical tools, just looked at the underlying collateral, to figure out that you'd gotta be a dumbass to be on the long side of that trade. I didn't even bother trying to price it.

And of course, ah yes, Paulson. Who the ***** was he before the financial crisis? Nobody but a handful had heard of him and those that have would have said he's nothing but a run-of-the-mill hedge fund guy. That financial crisis short was what put him on the map.

If I told somebody "oh btw, John Paulson's on the short" he would have given me a blank stare of "so what." Anybody who had ANY BUSINESS buying those products wouldn't have cared.

Lastly, Levin said Goldman was betting against its clients (which of course you know how aren't their clients) and against the housing market. Goldman said they didn't have a "massive net short" and that most of the time its short positions were largely offset by its long positions. Depending on your definition, there isn't any perjury case there either.

On what terms do you (or Levin) propose to convict Goldman of perjury?

You can find any number of those things morally repugnant, but in a court of law, you have no case.

 

Not when you're legally obligated under 10b-5 to make full disclosure. This includes omissions as well. GS was forced - in open court, to admit that they had made such omissions - to swear to it and sign their name.

Maybe it's your ESL acting up again, but in the "world live in" - this is called admitting wrongdoing. Which is why everybody called it such at the time.

You mean this one? Considering I'm still awaiting your response, looks like you're the one who pulled the disappearing act. :grin:

LOL, are you blind? Again:

The government lost 0, GS gained $15 million from the trade and then ended up paying hte governmen $550 million dollars. Please tell me how this was a good trade for GS? You may want to run it through MS Back Office Books 2.0 or whatever you're running out there, dollface, first, cause I don't get it.

Heheheheh a "slash" on the wrist? ESL Idiomatics are cute, but appropos in this case. The LARGEST FINE IN SEC ENFORCEMENT HISTORY is certainly a lot more like a slash than a slap.

Sorry I'm too busy dialing dragon escorts I hear your mom is working there now..ooh.burn burn burn!

 

Again, you're using an emotional argument here. You can be damned sure that Blankfein finely tuned his words with lawyers - and you can see that in his use of "consistently", "significantly", and "massive" before each instance of talking about short positions. Given the size of GS, and the number of net long positions they almost assuredly had that lost money with the collapse of the housing market and the accompanying recession, it would be hard to criminally prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the net short position was massive. You can be sure that this language was intentional by Blankfein. In part that's because the words are open to interpretation themselves, and in part because they could argue that it was a hedge against its own other positions correlated to a positive market (for example, if I'm long $1MM on AAPL, GS, WAL, and FCX, but then go short $200k on the S&P500 as a hedge, I'm technically net-short the S&P500, but I'm really not.) You can also sort of see this by looking at the stock price - going from $250 to $50, losing 80% of it's value, as a result of the collapse.

This is the problem with the "unethical" vs. "illegal" situation - proving a case like this is far more difficult than you might think. You see this with the Barry Bonds perjury case, which took something like 5 years to build by the Feds and still didn't really work out, despite everyone knowing that Bonds lied and took steroids.

 

these quotes only bolster major's argument. "losses offset by gains" that doesn't wheter they were net short or long

 

In the first case, they say they were not significantly net-short the entire residential mortgage market. In the 2nd, they simply say they were net short the sub-prime mortgage market.

Sadly, there's nothing necessarily contradictory there.