SEC Charges Goldman Sachs With Fraud

[Paradoxium]

Official official. FROM the SEC. SEC finally gets something @#)($*@# right

SEC Charges Goldman Sachs With Fraud in Structuring and Marketing of CDO Tied to Subprime Mortgages

Goldman Sachs stock value: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=gs

TANKING

[Marx]

I just heard about this!

[Paradoxium]

The dip****s were supporting "A", and betting against "A" knowing it will fail. It's pure fraud. This is a step in the right direction. More that this gets out, the better. So more people will understand the shenanigans that occurs with the financials.

[DACrowe]

Good news. While chances are whatever damages Goldman pays will be pennies on the dollar for how much they gained over shorting the market, they are publicly being humiliated and creating a climate for serious economic change. Plus this caused there stock to drop by over 12 percent, just today. So there is some justice in the world, after all.

[hippie_hunter]

I'll give Obama credit on actually getting the SEC to actually do their job this time around as opposed to the previous administration.

[Kelly]

Agreed...

[Paradoxium]

Merrill Lynch is next in line. Same problem as Goldman.

[Hobodeluxe]

Originally Posted by Paradoxium

Merrill Lynch is next in line. Same problem as Goldman.

a lot of them are. and not only in trouble with the U.S. SEC but with foreign entities also. Germany is waiting in line to have their turn at them too.


Let the great unraveling begin.

p.s. If somehow Goldman eludes charges then we know for sure more is broken that just the financial regulation system.

[Hobodeluxe]

GOP blocking efforts to make the big Wall st banks insure themselves from failure. I guess they'd rather the taxpayer keep on doing it.

[Heretic]

Originally Posted by Hobodeluxe

GOP blocking efforts to make the big Wall st banks insure themselves from failure. I guess they'd rather the taxpayer keep on doing it.

Thank god. These poor bankers have been victimized long enough. I'm glad that someone in the government is finally trying to help them get ahead for once.




/sarcasm

[Matt]

Sadly, they're going to take the economy down with them.

[Paradoxium]

Where does it say insuring themselves. I would love for them to drop insurance for the banks because it created a chunk of the moral hazzards in 2008. I do see this:

a $50 billion liquidation fund, raised by imposing a tax on major financial institutions, that would be used to cover the government's costs in the event that it has to liquidate an insolvent firm.

That is not insurance. If that is suppose to cover insurance deposits that is not even close to enough. If something in the market so much as collapse a big bank, it won't be one bank... For an example if there is a collapse in the derivatives market, every single bank and brokerage exposed to it is FUBAR.

Personally I have no faith in the administration for proper reform, considering they are getting their ****ing advice from mother****ing Goldman "The Fraudsters" Sach. I recall last year Geithner gave up a speech on how they planned to deal with the Toxic assets. Had no god damn clue what he was doing. Goldman invites him over and basically goes: "no this how you are going to do it".

Both Summers and Geithner are schills, and I have no ****ing clue (even if you are a pro-wallstreet regulator) why Obama would use these two losers. Just go a head and read up Brooksley Born; it was a god damn travesty what these two clowns (along with a few others, including Rubin) did to her. And she was a pro-derivatives regulator.

If they are serious, they would raise interest rates instead of trying to pump up a ****ing asset bubble.

[DACrowe]

Matt are you referring to Goldman with the SEC charges or the GOP trying to kill financial reform to protect Wall Street banks?

If the former, I do not necessarily agree. If the latter, I'd agree because if another bubble bursts in 10 years and we have nothing in place to minimize it or to take down the huge banks without crashing the market....well it will be 2008 all over again except the public won't support bailouts which may make it 1929 all over again.

Anyway, I don't see why Goldman getting charged up the arse will destroy the economy. It is going to significantly weaken the company if the SEC wins its case (it should) and hurt their stocks and prestige. Then if Britain and Germany, who are waiting their turns to charge Goldman, wins similar suits it will hurt them even more. But they're too big to go belly up over this. And if they do it will be a YEARS long process unlike Lehman Brothers disappearing over night and Goldman's competitors will quietly assume its market share lost due to these investigations.

Despite Goldman losing close to 15 percent of its value in less than a week, Citigroup (who along with Merill Lynch should also be investigated, but probably won't be) and Bank of America posted amazing profits in the First Quarter today in the multi-billion dollar range and the DOW shot up 8 points already. Goldman releases its First Quarter reports tomorrow. If the banks all do well this week, this will be a slap on the wrist for them (one that will hopefully galvanize the public for real regulatory reform, despite the Luntz-led GOP opposition).

[DACrowe]

double

[DACrowe]

I honestly wonder how much Matt Tabbibi had to do with this. His scathing 15 page exposé/thesis on Goldman Sachs was scary and viscous. Wall Street scoffed and laughed at it as silly rantings. Yet, ever since that article Goldman Sachs has been Enemy #1 in the media for the Subprime Mortgage Crisis and the writer's infamous characterization of them as a "Giant Vampire Squid attached to the face of America" has stuck to this day.

Who said print was dead? In many ways I think Rolling Stone's multiple articles on Goldman Sachs got the ball rolling on this investigation.

[Paradoxium]

The banks have gotten bigger, they are not anymore fundamentally sound. They are doing everything in their power to create a new bubble with current interest rate held this long. Almost EVERYWHERE in the world. 10 years is a bit generous if you ask me.

[Hobodeluxe]

I'm with Paraduck in that I think Geithner and Summers need to go.
Let's bring in Volcker and start talking about chopping these too big to fail banks up. let's put the wall back up between investment banks and securities/commodities. let's get some transparency and regulations for the derivatives market. bring back Glass–Steagall and have them properly leveraged.

and let's get the tax code back in order. let's quit letting the rich bleed the middle dry and pay some damn bills.

[StorminNorman]

Originally Posted by Hobodeluxe

I'm with Paraduck in that I think Geithner and Summers need to go.
Let's bring in Volcker and start talking about chopping these too big to fail banks up. let's put the wall back up between investment banks and securities/commodities. let's get some transparency and regulations for the derivatives market. bring back Glass–Steagall and have them properly leveraged.

and let's get the tax code back in order. let's quit letting the rich bleed the middle dry and pay some damn bills.

[Hobodeluxe]

I see Stormin is here to enlighten us with his vast knowledge of

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

smiley faces.

[StorminNorman]

You made a ridiculous statement. You know you made a ridiculous statement and you know exactly what my response will be to that statement.

I felt it was more prudent to fast forward through the whole exercise and just pick up at the point where I laugh at you.

[Hobodeluxe]

that's just your opinion which holds very little weight with me.
the facts are on my side as is history.
the Tea Party wants to have "Their America Back" which I'm guessing is when the US was actually making stuff and one man could raise a family,own a home and be fairly secure in his job. back in their youth. which would be in the 50-70s.
when the rich and corporations actually paid their fair share.

[Hobodeluxe]

Looks like the IMF have the same idea as the Democrats.

[BlackLantern]

Originally Posted by Hobodeluxe

the Tea Party wants to have "Their America Back" which I'm guessing is when the US was actually making stuff

and polluting the hell out of the environment while doing it

and one man could raise a family,own a home and be fairly secure in his job. back in their youth. which would be in the 50-70s.

also back when black people (like myself) had very little equality and had to just "get by" with very little opportunity or room to excel

not to mention a whole generation of middle income to poor kids being sent to Vietnam to die because the wealthy bought deferments for their kids or kept them in college

when the rich and corporations actually paid their fair share.

do incidents like Watergate, rampant police curruption (especially in the 60's and 70s) escape your recollection of that America back then??


the Tea Partiers want an America for people, people that are white, heterosexual, and Christian

and thats not an America I want to be a part of

[Hobodeluxe]

Originally Posted by BlackLantern

and polluting the hell out of the environment while doing it

well yeah but at least we had jobs and weren't dependent on cheap 3rd world labor for everything. manufacturing was one place where a man with a meager upbringing could find good work with benefits thanks to the strength of the unions. then the politicians sold us out to foreign interests and multinationals.

also back when black people (like myself) had very little equality and had to just "get by" with very little opportunity or room to excel

not to mention a whole generation of middle income to poor kids being sent to Vietnam to die because the wealthy bought deferments for their kids or kept them in college

do incidents like Watergate, rampant police curruption (especially in the 60's and 70s) escape your recollection of that America back then??

I'm not sure what that is all about but yeah I remember watergate. with the media and partisanship we have today Nixon would have skated no problem. none of the GOP would have voted for impeachment.

but I was talking about the Tea party's main grievance. Taxes. back then the bills got paid and the deficit was low. but the federal income taxes are low today. what has us by the nads is that wages have been stagnant and losing ground with the cost of living.

but the guys at the top never had it so good.
and it's been that way for a while now. they keep getting richer. everyone else notsomuch.

[DACrowe]

I have to add talking about the economics and political climates of these eras (the 1950s-1970s can easily be divided into at least 3 or 4 different transitional periods of American life).

Following the 1930s of the New Deal and the huge victories and growth spurred by WWII in the 1940s, America had a huge prosperous growth that made it the most powerful nation in the world. Part of it was military superiority, as well as not being war-torn following WWII, but much of it was FDR's progressive market regulations and oversight that kept the banks from exploding.

So in terms of economic growth from the late 1930s all the way to the mid-late 1970s, we were doing pretty well. Of course much of it was dated and stringed along by then, so as opposed to tweaking it, Reagan acme in and began dismantling it all, with future help from both Bushes and Clinton (we reaped the rewards in 2000 and again in 2008).....

But on the political side, yes. When Tea Partiers say "We want our country back" and "We want to go back to the good ol' days," presumably when they grew up in the 1950s, they are not talking about tighter government regulation of the financial sector. They are talking about a political world where they, mostly white men, pretty much had all the power.

Now why would women who could barely push their way into the workforce (and there be met with disdain) want to go back? Why would a rape victim who wants an abortion would want to go back? Why would gay men and lesbians who had to hide in the closet for social acceptance want to go back? Why would anybody who served in Vietnam in the 1960s because they couldn't afford getting deferred and saw friends die want to go back? Why would African-Americans, who well into the 1970s were treated as second class citizens in the South and whose leaders who civilly protested inequalities in the 1960s ended up gunned down want to go back?

That there is no question to. But hey, there is nothing racial about the Tea Party movement. And I'm sure they would argue slavery was not a big deal in Virginia during the Civil War (the slave population was 45% of the state's total) too? Oh wait...they are.