Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

The Obama Adminstration's Handling of Wall Street.

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Northside Storm, May 24, 2011.

Tags:

Page 7 of 14

pgabriel Educated Negro

Joined:

Dec 6, 2002

Messages:

43,786

Likes Received:

3,705

mfw's and sam's information are very helpful in this thread. both guys work in this field from different aspects and even though they are being jerks to each other they aren't being jerks by sharing their expertise.

#121 pgabriel, Jun 14, 2011

pgabriel Educated Negro

Joined:

Dec 6, 2002

Messages:

43,786

Likes Received:

3,705

I think one of the key issues that MFW is trying to state especially in the case of Abacus is that the buyers should've known better from the information available.

#122 pgabriel, Jun 14, 2011
Northside Storm Member

Joined:

Dec 24, 2007

Messages:

11,262

Likes Received:

450

MFW said: ↑

So that's it then? Your retort was Wachovia's money laundering, which incidentally has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the subject in hand? I don't know where your happy place is but you seem completely ignorant of how the real world works. And btw, it goes far beyond the "cozy relationship" between government and big banks, a relationship that wasn't too cozy to begin with, considering how frequent government seems to throw banks under the bus. Self-interest reins supreme. This isn't the first time it's happened nor will it be the last.

Let me tell you what ACTUALLY happened. For a structured product, sub-prime CMO's are amazingly simple in structure compared to the others, especially the prime-backed CMO's out there. For an average American with his 5 second attention span, nothing may stick, but I'm hoping that you at least retain something.

Here's how it works. Goldman acquires from a originator $1 billion in sub-prime mortgages. As high as that sounds, it's actually shockingly typical for such deals. It goes to S&P and says, "we want to securitize this deal." S&P says, "these are crap," we'll only give you AAA's if your senior enhancement percentage is 50% with 5% overcollateralization.

Goldman says fine, its structure creates $500 million worth of senior tranches, let's assume a vanilla one group deal, A1 through A6, which get rated AAA for the first 3 and maybe AA for the 4 through 6. It creates a 5% OC. That leaves $450 million spread between the "mezzanines," M1 through M3, and subordinates B1 through B6. Of course, Goldman doesn't want to call the B's subs, so it calls them M4 through M9 instead.

The Net Weighted Average Coupon on the mortgages are for example, 7.5%. Goldman gets 3% underwriting fee. Goldman hires Wells Fargo (the largest servicer) to service the mortgages, which for its trouble, gets typically 0.5%. It hires LaSalle as the trustee, which gets typically 0.1 to 0.3%. It hires Ambac as the mortgage insurance agent for the senior tranches, which gets between 1 to 3% and of course, hires let's say Lehman as the swap/cap counterparty because many of those sub-prime CMO tranches have coupons floating off LIB1. But for simplicity's sake, let's just say that fees only total 0.5%. So it's Net WAC 7.5% mortgages that are 7.0% after servicing fees and pays LIB1 + spread on the bonds, which let's say totals 6.8%. The other 0.2% is excess interest, used to pay losses, basis risk and interest shortfalls, etc.

Here's how it pays. May of those sub-prime mortgages have 2/3 year teaser rates. So before period 37, the step-down date (right after 3 years, shocking huh), it pays everything sequentially. It first pays A1, A2, A3, so on and so forth. So let's say $100 million in principal came in, your seniors paid down from $500 million to $400 million.

After step-down date, everything pays to a target. You needed 50% senior enhancement percentage to maintain AAA rating on the A1 through A3, but now your senior percentage (assuming no loss) is 55.56% because you still have $500 million (subs + OC) backing now only $400 million in senior bonds. So for a couple of periods, the seniors get actually nothing and the subs get paid until you have $400 million in subs + OC. Then it pays everything to target to maintain the AAA rating, 50% to seniors, 45% to subs and 5% to OC.

Except there is one problem. Losses. The deals are structured to protect the seniors such that if cumulative losses or delinquencies hit a certain percentage of the cut-off day balance ($1 billion), everything pays sequentially again. Furthermore, the subs get first loss. It hits OC first, then M9, M8, M7, so on and so forth. So it is obvious the seniors actually get quite a bit of protection while the most subordinate subs are ****.

As mentioned, the seniors get AAA and AA's, the mezzanines (M1 through M3) get maybe BBB and BB. The subs, B1 through B6 (or M4 through M9) are so sh1tty that Goldman doesn't even ask S&P to rate them, because they'll be junk bonds.

Why is Goldman doing this? Underwriting fees of course. Those companies (think unions, retirement funds, health insurances, apparently also RBS and Deutsche Landesbank) who doesn't know **** about these deals and their risks said "holy crap, there's a AAA rated mortgage banked bond yielding (assuming priced at par) 6.8%. The 30 year treasury only yields 4.5%. And of course the housing market can't colllapse." They couldn't get enough of that ****.

So the banks (the biggest in this was actually Lehman, Countrywide was bigger but wasn't an investment bank) keep creating those deals because there is a huge demand for them. They keep earning 3% fees had something else not happened.

Remember those M4 through M9? Those subs? Those junk bonds? So bad that they don't even rate them? They never get sold. Nobody buys them. Even those idiots who had no business buying those deals don't buy them. Because they buy based on rating (instead of analysis) and those aren't rated. They stay on the banks' balance sheets.

Eventually the banks realized, holy crap, we have this huge ticking time bomb on our balance sheets. That's why you had Cioffi saying "IF the report is correct, we should close the funds now." We need to get rid of them. So they create, guess what, CDO's. Go to S&P again, we got those (not mortgages any more) CMO's, we want to securitize them. S&P, which is at least a decade behind the curve, gives AAA to tranche A, tranche B gets AA, tranche C gets BBB, tranche D gets BB, First Loss tranche doesn't get rated.

Goldman now sells tranches A and B, C, D and First Loss never gets sold. Then it does it again and creates CDO Squared. Doing the same thing in another CDO backed by C, D and First Loss. It wasn't long before some smart guys figured they could go beyond going flat. They could create a synthetic CDO to actually short the market.

Through it all though, structured products did precisely what it was supposed to do. It mitigated risk. Instead of having $300 to $450 million debilitating losses concentrated at the major banks, it spread them out. But it mitigates, as supposed to completely eliminate the risks on the underlying assets, those mortgages.

What went in Abacus? Check them out. They're all M7, M8, M9, etc etc etc. As a matter of fact, as I said, it was already blatantly obvious by the time that deal came out they were going to fail. It wasn't just based on historical data, there's a probability they were going to fail. Cumulative losses and deliquencies already hit such a high proportion but it was virtually certain it was gonna fail. The only difference between that and any other CDO based on the subordinate tranches was that it was already certain. All the others were also crap.

And furthermore, given that data I gave you, which showed the sub-prime frenzy kicked in in 2005, are we really surprised that the whole thing came tumbling down in late 2007 early 2008, when the teasers expired?

So is what the banks did unethical? Absolutely. But you know what, the government's role is already widely established, what about the others?

Why did Goldman create those deals? Because some idiotic investor wants them so bad without EVER understanding the risks and had no business trading them. Those very idiotic investors are now trying to blaming Goldman for things they asked Goldman to create so they could buy. The only investors that have a right to sue are the investors to the likes of RBS and Landesbank, who should very well ask why their banks (so called highly sophisticated investors) lost them so much money by missing something so blatantly obvious.

The very same people who were suing banks under the Fair Housing Act for not giving them mortgages they shouldn't ever receive are now suing the very same banks for giving them mortgages they shouldn't ever receive. And on top of that, Obama is giving them loan mods, which opens another can of worms (and I don't even mean the "moral hazard" bullsh1t, but effects on the housing/securitization market). But that's story for another day.

I don't think I'll even respond to this drivel.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'll even read this drivel, because you obviously have not given me the courtesy of reading anything I post.

MFW said:

There was nothing Goldman did that any other participants in the market haven't. To dogmatically pursue Goldman (as you have) simply gives the appearance of justice to the fools who are too stupid to know better; unless of course, you were to bring lawsuits against the other guilty parties, and it doesn't stop at banks.
Click to expand...

MFW said:

So that's it then? Your retort was Wachovia's money laundering, which incidentally has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the subject in hand?
Click to expand...

The Obama Adminstration's Handling of Wall Street.

Holy f**k, can I not make it more clear?

For someone who is attacking other people's attention spans and reading skills, can I kindly remind you to stick to the f**king subject, which you have not for something like three pages?

I will kindly debate you about the Goldman case, once you start being less of an ******* and demonstrate basic reading skills.

#123 Northside Storm, Jun 14, 2011
Northside Storm Member

Joined:

Dec 24, 2007

Messages:

11,262

Likes Received:

450

pgabriel said: ↑

I think one of the key issues that MFW is trying to state especially in the case of Abacus is that the buyers should've known better from the information available.
Click to expand...

Yeah, tell that to Ponzi scheme victims..."you should have known better, those products were absolute crap, what were you thinking?!"

disclosure laws, thank god, still put the onus on the seller. Otherwise moral hazard would go through the roof.

#124 Northside Storm, Jun 14, 2011
SamFisher Member

Joined:

Apr 14, 2003

Messages:

61,835

Likes Received:

41,311

Northside Storm said: ↑

Yeah, tell that to Ponzi scheme victims..."you should have known better, those products were absolute crap, what were you thinking?!"

disclosure laws, thank god, still put the onus on the seller. Otherwise moral hazard would go through the roof.
Click to expand...

LOL, yeah the famous "10b-5 is for wusses" defense ranks somewhere below the "b-b-b-ut I'm a market maker!" exemption to the federal securities laws.

#125 SamFisher, Jun 14, 2011
pgabriel Educated Negro

Joined:

Dec 6, 2002

Messages:

43,786

Likes Received:

3,705

Northside Storm said: ↑

Yeah, tell that to Ponzi scheme victims..."you should have known better, those products were absolute crap, what were you thinking?!"
Click to expand...

but its not a ponzi scheme so you shouldn't compare the two

#126 pgabriel, Jun 14, 2011
Northside Storm Member

Joined:

Dec 24, 2007

Messages:

11,262

Likes Received:

450

pgabriel said: ↑

but its not a ponzi scheme so you shouldn't compare the two
Click to expand...

In terms of disclosure law, they are very similar scenarios. In both cases, you and MFW are trying to argue that the onus should fall on buyers, which is a bit like faulting a consumer for buying Chinese lead paint or a used lemon car from a slick salesman.

If anything, Ponzi scheme victims should be the targets of your ire---since really, Madoff's statements, for example, were ludicrous, and if you did any basic research (including the fact that his auditing firm suspiciously was, if memory serves, an one-office affair---curious indeed), the whole thing kinda fell apart. Now, some leniency should be noted since Madoff targeted gullible individual and institutional investors and largely strayed away from large banks who did know better (and in fact probably knew a bit more than better as Madoff himself alleges)---

The first was when [Madoff] asserted that the “entire Government is a Ponzi scheme” in a magazine interview. Now he has come out saying that high level bank executives were aware of his illegal dealings and continued to allow it to happen. He specifically cites JP Morgan, one of the greatest beneficiaries of the banker bailout.

He rightly observes that it would be impossible for someone at the bank not to notice hundreds of billions of dollars coming and going without asking any questions. In fact, banks are required by law to report deposits in excess of $10,000.
Click to expand...

but still, the same train of thought runs through both cases.

#127 Northside Storm, Jun 14, 2011

pgabriel Educated Negro

Joined:

Dec 6, 2002

Messages:

43,786

Likes Received:

3,705

Northside Storm said: ↑

In terms of disclosure law, they are very similar scenarios. In both cases, you and MFW are trying to argue that the onus should fall on buyers, which is a bit like faulting a consumer for buying Chinese lead paint or a used lemon car from a slick salesman.
Click to expand...

one other thing, these are institutional investors, that's the point i was trying to make

also, madoff did some pure lying, he wasn't even buying securities.

#128 pgabriel, Jun 14, 2011
Northside Storm Member

Joined:

Dec 24, 2007

Messages:

11,262

Likes Received:

450

pgabriel said: ↑

one other thing, these are institutional investors, that's the point i was trying to make

also, madoff did some pure lying, he wasn't even buying securities.
Click to expand...

Madoff had some institutional investors/big banks snared as well, though none of the Wall Street ilk (curious eh?)

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/st_madoff_victims_20081215.html

Royal Bank of Scotland
HSBC
Société Générale
Fortis
Bank Medici
Banco Santander

I guess what it comes down to is that a lot of bankers and financial advisers are idiots earning 7-figure checks, though that's a digression of mine.

still, same thing right? if what you and MFW are arguing for comes to pass, we shouldn't even bother trying to seek restitution for the Ponzi scheme victims. It's even more egregious than the Goldman case, because well, as you put it, Madoff was plain out lying. Phooey on the investors who ponied up, eh? Caveat emptor and all that?

Goldman may have been a bit more sophisticated about it, and certainly did do some legitimate activity, but their securities, just like a Ponzi scheme, were more or less rigged to fail. Happily, and logically, disclosure laws weigh heavily on the seller (a happy thought the next time your used car burns down), so as to mitigate, as best as possible, any conflicts of interest and moral hazard.

#129 Northside Storm, Jun 14, 2011
MFW Member

Joined:

Apr 21, 2006

Messages:

1,112

Likes Received:

24

Northside Storm said: ↑

I don't think I'll even read this drivel, because you obviously have not given me the courtesy of reading anything I post.
Click to expand...

I read your post. It contained no useful information/argument, hence what I call drivel. My post on the other hand, was highly informative, whether you agree with the underlying thesis.

The Obama Adminstration's Handling of Wall Street.

Holy f**k, can I not make it more clear?

For someone who is attacking other people's attention spans and reading skills, can I kindly remind you to stick to the f**king subject, which you have not for something like three pages?

I will kindly debate you about the Goldman case, once you start being less of an ******* and demonstrate basic reading skills.
Click to expand...

I understood your points (or rather, lack-thereof) just fine. You had no point. I think to the contrary, it is you who lack the most basic reading comprehension. The risks were systematic. Always were. It goes beyond Goldman. It goes beyond the USG. It goes to investors, mortgagees and a slew of other people you don't care to name.

What I find interesting is, when the "investor" makes money on the way up, HE MADE MONEY, but when they lose money on the way down, it's the banks' fault? If you really cared for "morals," shut up and take it on the chin, then get smart about it.

Northside Storm said: ↑

Yeah, tell that to Ponzi scheme victims..."you should have known better, those products were absolute crap, what were you thinking?!"

disclosure laws, thank god, still put the onus on the seller. Otherwise moral hazard would go through the roof.
Click to expand...

Northside Storm said: ↑

In terms of disclosure law, they are very similar scenarios. In both cases, you and MFW are trying to argue that the onus should fall on buyers, which is a bit like faulting a consumer for buying Chinese lead paint or a used lemon car from a slick salesman.

...

but still, the same train of thought runs through both cases.
Click to expand...

You've gotta be kidding me. Did you just compare a Ponzi scheme to something that actually do have underlying economic value, no matter how much misjudged higher?

Not the least of your worries should be whether Goldman actually made misrepresentations, which if they did, you presented zero semblance of evidence.

I've said before and I'll say it again, nobody is talking about price. Carl Levin didn't talk about price. The SEC didn't talk about price. The DoJ didn't talk about price. NOBODY. If I'm trying to sell you a car that I know is a lemon but did not quote you a price, I've committed no fraud. Much like if Goldman made no representations of price in a pile of garbage, IT COMMITTED NO FRAUD.

If it did, the onus is on you to prove it.

Northside Storm said: ↑

Madoff had some institutional investors/big banks snared as well, though none of the Wall Street ilk (curious eh?)

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/st_madoff_victims_20081215.html

...

Goldman may have been a bit more sophisticated about it, and certainly did do some legitimate activity, but their securities, just like a Ponzi scheme, were more or less rigged to fail. Happily, and logically, disclosure laws weigh heavily on the seller (a happy thought the next time your used car burns down), so as to mitigate, as best as possible, any conflicts of interest and moral hazard.
Click to expand...

Essentially what you've been saying is that if the investors win, it garners the gain, but if it loses, Goldman's at fault.

I'll one up you. It's not just HSBC et al are idiots, I'm gonna broaden the base much more. I'm actually gonna broaden to within the industry.

You think the data analysts (the junior grunts) at major securiitizing banks knew what's going on? What about those collateral analysts? They know a bit about collateral but is completely devoid of knowledge of the structuring side of the deals. Those people also have no business trading those securities and fortunately, aren't in a position to.

Is it surprising then that the hierarchy (not the least of which is the pay scale) goes collateral analyst --> data analyst --> quant modeler --> structurer/trader?

#130 MFW, Jun 14, 2011
MFW Member

Joined:

Apr 21, 2006

Messages:

1,112

Likes Received:

24

SamFisher said: ↑

LOL, yeah the famous "10b-5 is for wusses" defense ranks somewhere below the "b-b-b-ut I'm a market maker!" exemption to the federal securities laws.
Click to expand...

10b-5 implies fraud. No fraud = no 10b-5. I'm surprised it didn't even get through your thick skull Sammy.

#131 MFW, Jun 14, 2011
Northside Storm Member

Joined:

Dec 24, 2007

Messages:

11,262

Likes Received:

450

MFW said:

I read your post. It contained no useful information/argument, hence what I call drivel. My post on the other hand, was highly informative, whether you agree with the underlying thesis.
Click to expand...

MFW said:

I understood your points (or rather, lack-thereof) just fine. You had no point. I think to the contrary, it is you who lack the most basic reading comprehension. The risks were systematic. Always were. It goes beyond Goldman. It goes beyond the USG. It goes to investors, mortgagees and a slew of other people you don't care to name.
Click to expand...

bla bla bla, yes others were to blame, but I don't exactly see "Deadbeats to blame!" and "System to reform!" in the thread title, do I? Clever how you also fail to acknowledge that for something like three pages, you have never understood the topic I was arguing about, something any 8 year old could have garnered from the thread title, by making direct references to my ignorance and non-reference to government culpability in these issues---LOL? "The Obama Adminstration's Handling of Wall Street.". now you're trying to derail further by arguing it's even beyond that. wow. Great.

I'm not reading anything you read, or responding with any kind of argument, until you stop misrepresenting my positions, stop attacking me personally, and get within the confines of the damn topic, or at least acknowledge that there are confines or a scope beyond the narrow case you are arguing and now the incredibly broad statements you are putting out there.

In fact, if I can say so in my most civil manner, I'd prefer it if you got out and made your own topic. You can spar with Sammy there, if you keep on being an *******, about Goldman's fraud case, or speculate on the systematic failure of the whole damn thing. Who knows, if you demonstrate a commitment to actually reading what other posters write, and not misrepresenting their positions and calling them idiots to boot, I might join you there.

so have a good day and all that (I most certainly am not), and may your new thread, if you choose to start one, be as popcorn-filled, eye-tiring and time-wasting as this one.

#132 Northside Storm, Jun 14, 2011
Northside Storm Member

Joined:

Dec 24, 2007

Messages:

11,262

Likes Received:

450

MFW, I wish to make it clear too, that you bring good points to the table, and you know what you are talking about. Your contributions have been appreciated and I have learned. However, what seriously pisses me off is that I have spent a lot of time on your posts, even if they are off-kilter a bit when it comes to the original topic---and you have spent nearly none on mine. I usually excuse derailing---after all, I frequently derail, and hell, this thread was the result of a derail. However, my patience is tried when someone tries to antagonize me and others, and then misrepresents my position, and assumes things about my intelligence and attention span as a result. I read your posts MFW, don't try to shift the goal lines. To stipulate that I am doggedly hunting down Goldman and ignoring the regulators---well, now, you want to go even beyond the regulators to the users, but that won't work. I know you aren't reading. usually I excuse this (who has the time? hell I skim), but then to try to attack my intelligence over it or my reading skills, while you yourself have not even read the thread title---no.

You are free to post here, but I won't be replying to you with counters, until you demonstrate that it's worth the time and effort---either by being more civil (which I doubt) or by at least not stipulating things in your argument that clearly show you don't read my posts or thread titles, or acquaint yourself in any way with the original thread topic (which for emphasis, is about how government/Main Street regulators have failed us all in dealing with Wall Street)

#133 Northside Storm, Jun 14, 2011

thadeus Member

Joined:

Sep 14, 2003

Messages:

8,313

Likes Received:

726

The Wall Street executives and the Federal oversight committees are the same people.

Henry M. Paulson

Was at Goldman for 22 years holding the position of CEO. He was eventually named CEO at Goldman before leaving to become the Secretary of Treasury under President George W. Bush.

Neel Kashkari

Was a VP at Goldman from 2002 – 2006 when he left to become the Head of the TARP fund. Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability.

Joshua Bolten

Was an Executive Director for Legal & Governmental Affairs in London who became White House Chief of Staff under George W. Bush

Robert Rubin

Was at Goldman for nearly 3 decades, then became Secretary of Treasury under Bill Clinton

William C. Dudley

Was at Goldman for 21 years leaving to become the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Robert Zoellic

In and out of various positions in the Federal Government (United States Trade Representative (2001–2005), Deputy Secretary of State (2005–2006), World Bank President) He spent one year at Goldman and then became World Bank President.

John Whitehead

Was at Goldman for 38 years and then became Deputy Secretary of State during Reagan’s administration

Reuben Jeffery III

He became Managing Partner of Goldman Sachs's European Financial Institutions Group in London in 1992, and then Managing Partner of the Goldman Sachs Paris office in 1997. In 2003, Jeffery became a Special Advisor to L. Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and then became the Representative and Executive Director of the Coalition Provisional Authority Office in The Pentagon. He served as a member of the United States National Security Council until 2005, as a Senior Director responsible for International Economic Affairs. Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs (2007– )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs#Alumni

#134 thadeus, Jun 14, 2011
Northside Storm Member

Joined:

Dec 24, 2007

Messages:

11,262

Likes Received:

450

Robert Rubin
Henry Paulson

Two former Secretaries of the Treasury as well, appointed by both a Democrat and a Republican, both of whom received significant GS contributions.

#135 Northside Storm, Jun 14, 2011
thadeus Member

Joined:

Sep 14, 2003

Messages:

8,313

Likes Received:

726

I need to reiterate - Wall Street and the Federal oversight commissions are THE SAME PEOPLE.

Let me repeat this again ... THEY. ARE. THE. SAME. PEOPLE.

Democrat, Republican ... it doesn't matter. Give this list a good read, and maybe you'll have a good bitter laugh looking at the titles of the government positions these people occupy/have occupied.

Here is a comprehensive list of the past two administrations.
Under Obama

<b>Lael Brainard: </b>Brainard is the United States Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs in the administration of Obama
<b>Gregory Craig</b>: Former White House Counsel, Recently hired by Goldman Sachs
<b>Thomas Donilon</b>: Deputy National Security Adviser(despite having a career that is mostly involved with domestic politics). Donilon was a lawyer at O’Melveny and Myers and made almost $4 million representing meltdown clients including Penny Pritzker (of Chicago) and Goldman.
<b>William C. Dudley</b> : president and chief executive officer of the FederalReserve Bank of New York, partner and managing director at Goldman, Sachs and was the firm’s chief U.S. economist for a decade
<b>Douglas Elmendorf</b>: Obama Director of the Congressional Budget Office in January 2009, replaced Furman as Director of the Hamilton Project ;(Note that the Hamilton Project was funded by Robert Rubin and Goldman Sachs)
<b>Rahm Emanue</b>l: Obama Chief of staff, on the payroll of Goldman Sachs, receiving $3,000 per month from the firm to “introduce us to people,” in the words of one Goldman partner at the time.
<b>Dianna Farrel</b>l: Obama Administration: Deputy Director, National Economic Council, Former Goldman Sachs Title: Financial Analyst
<b>Stephen Friedman</b>: ;Obama Administration: Chairman, President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Former Goldman Sachs Title: Board Member (Chairman, 1990-94; Director, 2005)
<b>Michael Frohman</b>: Robert Rubin’s Chief of Staff while Rubin served as Secretary of the Treasury and an Obama “head hunter” according to “Rubin Proteges Change Their Tune as They Join Obama’s Team” in the New York Times.
<b>Anne Fudge</b>: appointed Fudge to Obama budget deficit reduction committee. Fudge has been the PR craftsman for some of America’s largest corporations. She sits, according to the Washington Post, as a Trustee of the Brookings Institution within which the Hamilton Project is embedded.
<b>Jason Furman</b>: directed economic policy for the Obama Presidential Campaign, served as the second Director of the Hamilton Project after Peter Orszag’s departure for the Obama administration
<b>Mark Gallogly</b>: Sits on the Hamilton Project’s advisory council. He is also, according to Wikipedia, currently a member of Obama’s President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
<b>Timothy Geithner</b>: Secretary of the Treasury, a former managing director of Goldman Sachs
<b>Gary Gensler:</b> ;Obama Administration: Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner and Co-head of Finance
<b>Michael Greenstone</b>: the 4th Director of the Hamilton Project. Just as attorney Craig went from advising Obama to defending Goldman Sachs against the SEC complaint, Greenstone has used the revolving door to go from went an economic adviser position to Obama to one of the Goldman Sachs outlets, in this case its think tank embedded in the Brookings Institution and funded by Goldman and Robert Rubin. All 3 previous Directors of the Hamilton Project work in the Obama administration.
<b>Robert Hormats</b>: ;Obama Administration: Undersecretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, State DepartmentFormer Goldman Sachs Title: Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs Group
<b>Neel Kashkari</b>: served under Treasury Secretary Paulson and was kept on by Obama after his inauguration for a limited period to work on TARP oversight, former Vice President of Goldman Sachs in San Francisco where he where he led Goldman’s Information Technology Security Investment Banking practice.
<b>Karen Kornbluh</b>: (sometimes called "Obama’s brain") Obama Ambassador to the OECD, was Deputy Chief of Staff to Mr. Goldman Sachs, Robert Rubin
<b>Jacob (AKA "Jack ") Lew</b>: the United States Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources. According to Wikipedia, Lew sits on the Brookings-Rubin funded Hamilton Project Advisory Board. He also served with Robert Rubin in Bill Clinton’s cabinet as Director of OMB.
<b>David Lipton</b>: now at Obama’s National Economic Council and the National Security Council. Lipton -worked with Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, on the US response to the Asian financial crisis of the 1990’s. MergeFoundations reports that Lipton worked closely with Robert Rubin:
<b>Emil Michael</b>: White House Fellow, ;former investment banker with Goldman Sachs
<b>Philip Murphy</b>: Obama Administration: Ambassador to Germany, Former Goldman Sachs Title: Head of Goldman Sachs, Frankfurt
<b>Barack Obama</b>: Obama owes his career to Goldman Sachs which was not only his biggest financial contributor when he ran for the presidency but also his biggest contributor when he ran for the Senate
<b>Peter Orszag</b>, Obama Budget Director, founding director of the Hamilton Project, funded by Goldman Sachs and Robert Rubin. Wikipedia indicates that Robert Rubin, Goldman’s ex-head, was one of Orszag’s mentors.
<b>Mark Patterson</b>: Obama Administration: Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geitner, Former Goldman Sachs Title: Lobbyist 2005-2008; Vice President for Government Relations
<b>Mark Peterson</b>: Chief of staff to Timothy Geithner, Goldman Sachs vice president and lobbyist
<b>Steve Ratner</b>: the shady billionaire financier who Obama appointed as his “car czar” and who resigned after it was revealed that his company, the Quadrangle Group, was apparently involved in “pay to play” for a billion dollars or so of New York State pension funds, and was under possible indictment by the New York AG and the SEC, also sits on the Advisory Council of the Goldman funded Hamilton Project
<b>Robert Reischauer</b>: a member of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission from 2000-2009 and was its vice chair from 2001-2008. He too sits on the Hamilton Project’s advisory board.
<b>Alice Rivlin</b>: Obama named Alice Rivlin to his so called deficit reduction commission.
<b>James Rubin</b>: Son of Robert Rubin. Served as a headhunter for Obama per the New York Times article, "Rubin Proteges Change Their Tune as They Join Obama’s Team "
<b>Gene Sperling</b>: advisor to Timothy Geithner on bailouts, Sperling paid by Goldman Sachs for one year of consulting work.
<b>Adam Storch</b>: Obama Managing Executive of the Security and Exchange Commission’s Division of Enforcement Vice President in the Goldman Sachs Business Intelligence Group
<b>Larry Summers</b>: ;Obama chief economic adviser and head of the National Economic Counsel, Worked under Robert Rubin at Goldman Sachs
<b>John Thain</b>: Obama Administration: Advisor to Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geitner, Former Goldman Sachs Title: President and Chief Operating Officer (1999-2003)

Under the Bush Adminstration:
<b>Joshua Bolten</b>: Bush II Administration: White House Chief of Staff (2006 – 2009), Former Goldman Sachs Title: Executive Director, Legal Government Affairs (1994-99)
<b>William C Dudley</b>: NY Federal Reserve: Current President/CEO, Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner and managing director – 2007
<b>Edward C. Forst</b>: Bush II Administration: Advisor on setting up TARP to Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson 2008 Former Goldman Sachs Title: Co-head of Goldman’s investment management business
<b>Stephen Friedman</b>: NY Federal Reserve: Former Chairman of the Board – 2009, former Goldman Sachs Title: Board Member (Chairman, 1990-94; Director, 2005-)
<b>Gary Gensler</b>: Bush II Administration: Undersecretary, Treasury (1999-2001) and Assistant Secretary, Treasury (1997-1999), ;Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner and Co-head of Finance
<b>Reuben Jeffery III</b>: Bush II Administration: Undersecretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, State Department (2007 –2009) Former Goldman Sachs Title: Managing Partner Paris until 2002 Security Investment Banking Practice
<b>Dan Jester</b>: Bush II Administration: Advisor on setting up TARP to Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson 2008, Former Goldman Sachs Title: Deputy CFO
<b>Neel Kashkari</b>: Bush II Administration: Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability, Treasury (2008 – 2009) Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice President, San Francisco; led Information Technology Security Investment Banking Practice
<b>Henry Paulson</b>: Bush II Administration: Secretary, Treasury 2006 - 2009, Former Goldman Sachs Title: Chairman and CEO (1998-2006)
<b>Robert Rubin</b>: Bush II Administration: Secretary, Treasury 1995-1999, Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice Chairman (1987-90)
<b>Robert Steel</b>: Bush II Administration: Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, Treasury, (2006 – 2008) Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice Chairman – 2004
<b>Steve Shafran</b>: Bush II Administration: Advisor on setting up TARP to Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson 2008 Former Goldman Sachs Title: Private equity business in Asia until 2000
<b>Kendrick R. Wilson III</b>: Bush II Administration: Advisor on setting up TARP to Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson 2008 Former Goldman Sachs Title: Chairman of Goldman’s financial institutions groups
<b>Robert Zoellick</b>: Bush II Administration: United States Trade Representative (2001-2005), Deputy Secretary of State (2005-2006), World Bank President (2007-), Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice Chairman, International (2006-07)

----------------------------------------------

Note: This doesn't include those who served under Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, and so on .... this has been going on for awhile now, and Democrats and Republicans both bend over for it.

And now we're all bending over for it.

Let me say it again - deciding whether Wall Street or the Federal Regulators are to blame is a pointless and stupid game ... because THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE.

#136 thadeus, Jun 14, 2011

1 person likes this.
NotInMyHouse Member

Joined:

Apr 1, 2008

Messages:

3,644

Likes Received:

1,023

Excellent, informative, yet terrifying post Thadeus! So what can we do about all of this Goldman Sachs/Goverment incest?

#137 NotInMyHouse, Jun 15, 2011
Classic Member

Joined:

Dec 21, 2007

Messages:

6,101

Likes Received:

608

thadeus said: ↑

Let me say it again - deciding whether Wall Street or the Federal Regulators are to blame is a pointless and stupid game ... because THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

#138 Classic, Jun 15, 2011

SamFisher Member

Joined:

Apr 14, 2003

Messages:

61,835

Likes Received:

41,311

Northside Storm said: ↑

Robert Rubin
Henry Paulson

Two former Secretaries of the Treasury as well, appointed by both a Democrat and a Republican, both of whom received significant GS contributions.
Click to expand...

we're on this again? Ok, how much did Goldman Sachs, Inc. contribute?

#139 SamFisher, Jun 15, 2011
SamFisher Member

Joined:

Apr 14, 2003

Messages:

61,835

Likes Received:

41,311

MFW said: ↑

10b-5 implies fraud. No fraud = no 10b-5. I'm surprised it didn't even get through your thick skull Sammy.
Click to expand...

I know, and h1beaver MFW is the unilateral decider of what is (nothing) and isn't fraud (everything) despite never having stepped inside of a law school or a courtroom ... lol.

#140 SamFisher, Jun 15, 2011

(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Page 7 of 14

Share This Page