That's not what I asked Icehouse - those are civil actions. I know, I've worked on them before. I'm talking about criminal entity prosecutions by the U.S. Attorney under federal criminal statutes (the SEC does not do this). These cases would be captioned "United States vs. Enron" or "United States vs. Worldcom" - the docket number would be YY-cr-XXXX and be filed in federal district court. Please tell me what the docket numbers of these criminal entity prosecutions are....you are telling me that the absence of a criminal prosecution means the absence of any wrongdoing. Therefore - no wrongdoing in Enron or Worldcom, by your logic. Actualy i know several institutions that have received subpoenas from state and federal regulators (Cuomo and Blumenthal will play a big role here too..) If you had common sense you'd realize that this isn't over, not by a long shot. I will bump this or the other thread as various criminal and civil proceedings result in mulitmillion dollar settlements, deferred prosecutions, and other sanctions. Of the naive things you have said, the implication that the government wouldn't give money to a bad actor is the most naive of all.
My assertion this entire time has been that if the govt thought these companies as a whole were fraudulent, then they would have investigated them, AND FAST, similar to those other fraudulent companies. And they surely wouldn't give them record amounts of money without even a hint of an ivnestigation. You can hide behind "civil vs criminal" all you like, but it's quite evident what I was talking about. I'm telling you the govt isn't going to hand record sums of money to companies they think are fraudulent and have been ripping people off. If you can't get that then I don't know what to tell you. That defies all common sense. Is your assertion that the govt would hand billions to companies that they could investigate/prosecute civilly...if they thought fraud was going on? When firms that received bailout money (isn't that what this thread revolves around) are deemed to be fraudulent as a whole, or have had super weak controls which contributed to fraudulent behavior (therefore forcing them to receive civil sanctions from the SEC), then feel free to bump the thread. Does this mean you accept my wager? Yes, I am naïve for thinking the govt wouldn't bail out firms they thought were fraudulent. Good look finding anyone to agree with you on that point. I wonder why they didn't give Enron, AA and Worldcom billions....
Uh - they are being investigated. Every single major investment bank and ratings agency has received an SEC request for docs and/or a Martin Act request, not to mention whatever Blumenthal is doing. Check the form 8-K's from last year or the press releases. It's ironic btw that Linda Thomsen is before Congress RIGHT NOW saying that she doesn't have enough resources....Look up who she is. Many of the companies that received TARP monies settled with the government for hundreds of millions of dollars in the ARS probes last year - basically they were defrauding investors - this is a documented fact - so your assertion is already a failure. Yes, I accept it - it's already happened. See above. . Let's see...anybody agree with me on this point? It's very nice that you once took a "fraud for accounting majors" class in college but...it shows.
And what a surprise, in an unpredictable development, Cuomo just subpoenad Thain, which came across the newswire about 30 minutes ago: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...00447-5584-4FC6-BD40-FA595B79D5EB}&dist=msr_1 I guess they didn't teach the Martin Act in Accounting classes did they.
Let's see...maybe Andrew Cuomo and TARP Inspector General Neil Barofsky for starters.... http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/jan/jan27a_09.html STATEMENT FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL ANDREW CUOMO REGARDING NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN INVESTIGATION OF MERRILL LYNCH BONUSES AND BANK OF AMERICA "Today, as part of our ongoing inquiry into executive compensation issues at institutions who have received TARP funds, my Office issued subpoenas seeking the testimony of former Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain, as well as the testimony of Bank of America Chief Administrative Officer J. Steele Alphin. These subpoenas are part of an ongoing inquiry into billions of dollars in bonuses paid by Merrill Lynch late last year just days before Merrill was taken over by Bank of America. The fact that Merrill Lynch appears to have moved up the timetable to pay bonuses before its merger with Bank of America is troubling to say the least and warrants further investigation. With that in mind, I am also pleased to announce that our ongoing inquiry into executive compensation practices at TARP funded institutions, including this matter, will be conducted cooperatively and in coordination with the TARP Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky. Our offices have already begun working together and I look forward to a continuing and productive working relationship with the Special Inspector General. Our cooperative efforts set a perfect example for how federal and state authorities should be working together on behalf of taxpayers. "
LOL< this is your support for fraud by the company?? This politician (i.e. not even the govt) wants documemntation to see what their funds were spent on. So please enlighten us on how this ties into your fraud theory of big whigs deceiving investors on purpose and running away with huge dollars. You are on two seperate issues.
So it if has already happened, then all you have to do is show where one of these firms (that got bailout $$$) got busted for perpetrating fraud and you win. The firm, not some individual that works there. I'll be waiting.....
LOL - what was your thought process when you made this stupid post? That I was lying about ARS litigation settlements? That I don't know where to find Enforcement Division Litigation Releases. Anyway, here you go bro, hope I didn't keep you waiting too long: SEC v. Citigroup and UBS http://sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2008/lr20824.htm
Sam Worldcom filed for bankruptcy on July 21st. Their former CFO and Controller were arrested on August 1st, and charged by the SEC. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49156-2002Jun26_3.html Stuff started hitting the fan for Enron around August, when Skilling resigned. The SEC moved in by the end of October. Yet, you think the govt would give record sums of $$ (taxpayer dollars at that) to companies they thought were fraudulent? You don't think they (the SEC) would have brought these firms up on charges by now if they thought something were there? I'm not talking about making inquisitions too see how their bailout funds were spend. I'm not talking about prosecuting individuals (companies automatically get hit if a trader goes rouge and does something on his own for example). I'm not talking some pissed off shareholders deciding to sue, because those folks sue all the time for any and everything. I'm not talking about some politician bringing up charges to make a better name for himself, because that happens all the time as well. I'm speaking of our government not going after anyone...and not only not going after them...but saying "here, take all this cash while you are at it". I'm talking no charges to those firms relating to fraud from the SEC at all. It would have happened by now. The govt has a clear (and recent) track record of moving in fast if they think firms are shady. Yet, not only have they not done that in this case...but they gave them record sums of money. And somehow...that makes sense to you??
Do you even know anything about the support you just gave? Now tell me, did those banks get in trouble for committing fradulent behavior (purpously deceiving their investors)...or was it a case of them thinking this market was safe, and then it collapsed (similar to the sub-prime mess)?
Yes, and it is precisely how I described it to you: Here is the quote: you said this was not true. Why? I don't know. Probably because you are an accounting student trying to play Perry Mason. They were charged with violations of Section 15(c) of the Exchange Act, Now I know you're not a lawyer, but you tell me if this involves fraud: Hint: It does. Yes...because unlike you I actually 1) know how the SEC Enforcement division works, 2) know a lot of people who work in the enfocement division, and 3) know the time frame it takes them to prepare a case (years in many cases). Also unlike you I've read some of Linda Thomsen's testimony today...and I actually have been paying attention to them for the last few years and know that they can't get to everything.
It's a documented fact that those companies committed fraud? Did they admit they committed fraud? Does settling a lawsuit = guilty? Actually, what I said was what these firms got in trouble for (the subprime mess, etc) was not related to fraudulent behavior, but instead...related to bad investments. I.E. not purpously shafting folks into taking bad investments. And this is related to the subprime fiasco which is why we were required to bail them out...when the market tanked? And FYI, their response was we did not commit fraud and have faith in our accounting policies. But it's funny that the SEC has yet to move in on them for the things you say they are fraudulent for in this thread...which led to this bailout. Kinda like the years that it took to prepare a case against Enron, Worldcom and AA? I have given these examples of the govt moving in quickly numerous times. Why do you continue to ignore them? If the govt thought these firms were guilty of fraudulent behavior related to this subprime mess (i.e. the reason they are being bailed out), then they would be all over them for it by now. Wow, you know what I have done with my day. Do you know what I had for lunch too, since you are in the assumption game?
First off - it's a civil suit so it's preponderance of the evidence, there's no guilt or innocence here. Second - the government obviously believed they committed fraud, or else they wouldn't have spent our tax $$ bringing the action - and that was the premise of your argument: That the government wouldn't bailout a fraudulent entity. So that part has been proven wrong. And for the record, I could probably show you dozens of SEC civil actions against affected entities dating back over the last decade for various activities. And you were wrong, because what they got in trouble for is what is known as securities fraud under Section 15(c) of the Exchange Act. Here's a little hint - anytime you see a part of the federal securities laws that deal with "manipulative, deceptive or fraudulent devices" - you are dealing with fraud (and Rule 9(b) applies among other things). LOL - you said that it was naive to believe the government would ever give money to an entity that committed fraud - well I'm telling you it happens every damn day. Just this week, Halliburton entered into the largest FCPA settlement in history w/DOJ and SEC, about 600 million. Does this mean the government stopped dealing with Halliburton as of this week? No...of course not. Thain and co. are being investigated by Cuomo for raping Merrill on the way out the door - that just came out today. You think this is over? Every single major entity has gotten a Martin Act subpoena - since you don't know what that is or means it's pretty stupid of you to comment on it. It's not actually funny if you know what the **** you are talking about or anything about SEC investigations. Oh and by the way, subpoenas and document requests HAVE gone out. I know this for a fact. The government did not prepare a case against Enron - we have been through this many times. But nice of you to keep citing a fictional case as evidence. Arthur Anderson's indictment - which was a DOJ obstruction of justice proceeding and was not under federal securities laws - is an entirely different kind of proceeding. Anyway - yes it generally takes years for these cases to get resolved. The Halliburton case mentioned above? The bribery dates back to 1998. The investigation began in 2004. You do the math to see how long that case took to settle - you're an accountant. Uh, you gave actually one example. My experience with these kinds of cases is a bit more in depth than that...I have never been on one of these kinds of cases where it has been resolved in anything less than a year....things simply don't work that way. The initial internal investigation and document production generally takes longer than that. As you don't know what a document production is I don't think you're qualified to comment on it. .Plus you still didn't tell me who Linda Thomsen is and what her testmony was today? I'm going to give you a hint: It's very relevant. I know that you don't know sh-t about securities fraud or financial crimes or SEC enforcement, hence the silly arguments you keep repeating which is why you are not a lawyer...not that there's anything wrong with that. So for lunch you probably swallowed a big serving of crow because pretty much everything that you have posted on this subject has been shown to be wrong. Because you don't know what you're talking about. P.S. I won my bet so change your sig please.
Nice try spinmaster. I never said these entities never committed fraud, or weren't ever sanctioned by the government for things. Your premise related to this thread (and others like it) has been that these firms tanked because they were fraudulent in relation to this subprime mess (what led to the market tanking...what led to the bailout, etc). My premise has been that they got caught with some bad investments, and obviously could have been called stupid, but that they didn't purpously deceive folks in this case...and that's not what led to their downfall. My argument is quite clear in all of my posts. Your argument has been "those guys were crooked with this whole subprime thing". My argument has been "they weren't fraudulent...they just got stuck holding overvalued assets when the market tanked...which is not fraud". And that if the govt thought they tanked for committing fraud, then they would not have bailed them out. Now again, do you have support related to that?
A friend of mine works for BofA and he's PO'd because ML is still giving out bonus' and they've been told they probably won't get them and no cost of living adjustment either...
And you have taken this incredibly naive argument, combined it with your complete and total absence of a legal background in general and securities law and its enforcement in particular.. and well... we know what you've done with this. Suffice it to say, your argument is not being accepted by literally hundreds of civil suits and dozens of ongoing state and federal investigations, as well as the criminal prosecutions, ongoing today. Do YOU have support for your assumption that the government would not bailout a fraudulent institution? I can cite probably hundreds of investigations and lawsuits against bailout recipients over the last decade. All one has to do is peruse the SEC's litigation releases. Guess who shows up as defendants: Morgan, Merrill, UBS, Citi etc etc etc. And that's just SEC. The State AG's have many more. And I'm not even going START with AIG and the nubmer of times they have been investigated (Christian Milton got sentenced yesterday. Know who that is? Or Why? No? I thought not...guess you must have skipped that day of accounting class down at UH or whereever). I know that you have no legal background and don't know a single solitary thing about securities fraud and have never worked on any of these matters, but you do know that TARP was not approved by Linda Thomsen, or that Richard Blumenthal does not distribute bailout funds, or that a Martin Act subpoena has something to do with writedowns, right? Oh wait...that would entail you actually know something about the subject matter we are discussing as you would have to know who those people are...which you don't.
Again, I have never stated that these companies never got in trouble or had fraud related incidents there. I stated that this whole mess is not related to fraud, and if they thought it was they would not have bailed them out...and they would have moved in for fraud related incidents related to this mess...and not given money instead. Basic common sense. I will find my old posts that clearly highlight my premise since you are trying so hard to spin things. And you don't know what I know or have worked on, but you may continue to assume.
Sam...i.e. Master of Spin This is how we arrived at out bet. It started in this thread, revolving around firms giving out bonuses: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=159511 Major and I argue that the earnings in 2007 and 2008 were based on real income: Your initial response implies that the firms were fraudulent in these cases (what they are in trouble for, or getting bailed out for): And again.... And my initial response to your fraud claims: And your response: And my response, which is the premise for this bet: I even clarified for you in a later post: So again, spinmaster, do you have any support to show that what these banks are in trouble for...i.e. what they received bailout money for...i.e. what led to their downfalls...i.e. what these articles are about that we are commenting on (paying bonus $$$)...IS FRAUD RELATED??? Don't try to change my assertion into some BS about these firms never getting in trouble (didn't I say we can find isolated fraud incidents anywhere), or whatever other garbage you want to lean back on. My assertion is, and has always been, that these firms didn't get bailed out/in trouble for fraudulent behavior. They valued their assets wrong and got stuck holding the bag. If the govt thought otherwise, RELATED TO WHAT THEY GOT IN TROUBLE FOR, then they would not have bailed them out. They would have moved in fast to prosecute, similar to other companies that they thought were fraudulent. I even clarified for you a 3rd time: So either feel free to respond to my assertion...and stop trying to change it. I know lawyers specialize in wordplay but some of us are knowledgeable and can see through layers of BS.
^ U.S. v. Cioffi. You lose. Oh and you will lose again later, as the investigations play themselves out. It took over 2 years for charges to get filed against JP Morgan Chase for their Enron fraud aiding & Abetting. - hey, weren't you an accountant there? What a coincidence!
