Financial Crisis

[sokal]

FRAUD!!!

It is about time isn't it

Goldman Sachs charged with fraud by SEC

Yeah, and all the people like Max Keiser where called lunatics for alleging that Goldman et al committed fraud. In this video, Max Keiser explained the fraud pure and simple, just as it is written in the SEC charges.

[sokal]

haha, this guy is awesome, he gets kicked off CNBS for black balling Cramer and Goldman.

[Naam]

FRAUD!!!

It is about time isn't it

Goldman Sachs charged with fraud by SEC

what will the result look like?

[flying]

FRAUD!!!

It is about time isn't it

Goldman Sachs charged with fraud by SEC

what will the result look like?

Well having seen what we have seen these past few years......

I am guessing either...

1) this slap on the wrist was actually engineered & planned by GS to take attention away from the much bigger

offenses like manipulation of markets.

or

2) The govt. ends up saying sorry our mistake in your favor here is a few more billion to share with your employees as bonuses.

Because lets face it.... the whole system is FUBAR

Without a major reset along with all the pain that brings...... then nothing will ever change.

I do not see Sofa Joe ever getting off the couch & withdrawing from the broken system so.....

Until groups get truly organized & take these useless pieces of meat like GS et al off the face of the earth nothing will change.

Edited April 17, 2010 by flying

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

Naam.........Should you get tired of spending all your time keeping track of your investments. I have the answer for you, you can be happy no matter which the market goes on your investment if you invest in wine.

#

Join the Cru - fine wine yields 70% annually

In 2003, a bottle of 1982 Lafite-Rothschild sold for an average amount of $490. Last year, the same bottle sold for $2,586, yielding the seller an annual return of around 70%. Still wondering where to put your cash?

[Naam]

Naam.........Should you get tired of spending all your time keeping track of your investments. I have the answer for you, you can be happy no matter which the market goes on your investment if you invest in wine.

Join the Cru - fine wine yields 70% annually

In 2003, a bottle of 1982 Lafite-Rothschild sold for an average amount of $490. Last year, the same bottle sold for $2,586, yielding the seller an annual return of around 70%. Still wondering where to put your cash?

some of my cash i put into (more or less) fine wines. but not for monetary yield. when my focus is on (more or less) fine wines in the evening... i usually pee them out the next morning and perhaps the bacteria in my septic tank are having a ball

[Gambles]

Naam.........Should you get tired of spending all your time keeping track of your investments. I have the answer for you, you can be happy no matter which the market goes on your investment if you invest in wine.

Join the Cru - fine wine yields 70% annually

In 2003, a bottle of 1982 Lafite-Rothschild sold for an average amount of $490. Last year, the same bottle sold for $2,586, yielding the seller an annual return of around 70%. Still wondering where to put your cash?

some of my cash i put into (more or less) fine wines. but not for monetary yield. when my focus is on (more or less) fine wines in the evening... i usually pee them out the next morning and perhaps the bacteria in my septic tank are having a ball

Agreed - fine wine is for drinking not investing!

[Gambles]

FRAUD!!!

Goldman Sachs, which emerged relatively unscathed from the financial crisis, was accused of securities fraud in a civil suit filed Friday by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly devised to fail.

The move marks the first time that regulators have taken action against a Wall Street deal that helped investors capitalize on the collapse of the housing market. Goldman itself profited by betting against the very mortgage investments that it sold to its customers.

The suit also named Fabrice Tourre, a vice president at Goldman who helped create and sell the investment.

The instrument in the S.E.C. case, called Abacus 2007-AC1, was one of 25 deals that Goldman created so the bank and select clients could bet against the housing market. Those deals, which were the subject of an article in The New York Times in December, initially protected Goldman from losses when the mortgage market disintegrated and later yielded profits for the bank.

As the Abacus deals plunged in value, Goldman and certain hedge funds made money on their negative bets, while the Goldman clients who bought the $10.9 billion in investments lost billions of dollars.

According to the complaint, Goldman created Abacus 2007-AC1 in February 2007, at the request of John A. Paulson, a prominent hedge fund manager who earned an estimated $3.7 billion in 2007 by correctly wagering that the housing bubble would burst.

Goldman let Mr. Paulson select mortgage bonds that he wanted to bet against — the ones he believed were most likely to lose value — and packaged those bonds into Abacus 2007-AC1, according to the S.E.C. complaint. Goldman then sold the Abacus deal to investors like foreign banks, pension funds, insurance companies and other hedge funds.

But the deck was stacked against the Abacus investors, the complaint contends, because the investment was filled with bonds chosen by Mr. Paulson as likely to default. Goldman told investors in Abacus marketing materials reviewed by The Times that the bonds would be chosen by an independent manager.

Mr. Paulson is not being named in the lawsuit.

In recent months, Goldman has repeatedly defended its actions in the mortgage market, including its own bets against it. In a letter published last week in Goldman's annual report, the bank rebutted criticism that it had created, and sold to its clients, mortgage-linked securities that it had little confidence in.

"We certainly did not know the future of the residential housing market in the first half of 2007 anymore than we can predict the future of markets today," Goldman wrote. "We also did not know whether the value of the instruments we sold would increase or decrease."

The letter continued: "Although Goldman Sachs held various positions in residential mortgage-related products in 2007, our short positions were not a 'bet against our clients.' " Instead, the trades were used to hedge other trading positions, the bank said.

In a statement provided in December to The Times as it prepared the article on the Abacus deals, Goldman said that it had sold the instruments to sophisticated investors and that these securities "were popular with many investors prior to the financial crisis because they gave investors the ability to work with banks to design tailored securities which met their particular criteria, whether it be ratings, leverage or other aspects of the transaction."

Goldman was one of many Wall Street firms that created complex mortgage securities — known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations — as the housing wave was cresting. At the time, traders like Mr. Paulson, as well as those within Goldman, were looking for ways to short the overheated market.

Such investments consisted of insurance-like policies written on mortgage bonds. If the mortgage market held up and those bonds did well, investors who bought Abacus notes would have made money from the insurance premiums paid by investors like Mr. Paulson, who were negative on housing and had bought insurance on mortgage bonds. Instead, defaults spread and the bonds plunged, generating billion of dollars in losses for Abacus investors and billions in profits for Mr. Paulson.

For months, S.E.C. officials have been examining mortgage bundles like Abacus that were created across Wall Street. The commission has been interviewing people who structured Goldman mortgage deals about Abacus and other, similar instruments. The S.E.C. advised Goldman that it was likely to face a civil suit in the matter, sending the bank what is known as a Wells notice.

Such investments consisted of insurance-like policies written on mortgage bonds. If the mortgage market held up and those bonds did well, investors who bought Abacus notes would have made money from the insurance premiums paid by investors like Mr. Paulson, who were negative on housing and had bought insurance on mortgage bonds. Instead, defaults spread and the bonds plunged, generating billion of dollars in losses for Abacus investors and billions in profits for Mr. Paulson.

For months, S.E.C. officials have been examining mortgage bundles like Abacus that were created across Wall Street. The commission has been interviewing people who structured Goldman mortgage deals about Abacus and other, similar instruments. The S.E.C. advised Goldman that it was likely to face a civil suit in the matter, sending the bank what is known as a Wells notice.

Mr. Tourre was one of Goldman's top workers running the Abacus deal, peddling the investment to investors across Europe. Raised in France, Mr. Tourre moved to the United States in 2000 to earn his master's in operations at Stanford. The next year, he began working at Goldman, according to his profile in LinkedIn.

He rose to prominence working on the Abacus deals under a trader named Jonathan M. Egol. Now a managing director at Goldman, Mr. Egol is not being named in the S.E.C. suit.

Goldman structured the Abacus deals with a sharp eye on the credit ratings assigned to the mortgage bonds associated with the instrument, the S.E.C. said. In the Abacus deal in the S.E.C. complaint, Mr. Paulson pinpointed those mortgage bonds that he believed carried higher ratings than the underlying loans deserved. Goldman placed insurance on those bonds — called credit-default swaps — inside Abacus, allowing Mr. Paulson to short them while clients on the other side of the trade wagered that they would not fail.

But when Goldman sold shares in Abacus to investors, the bank and Mr. Tourre only disclosed the ratings of those bonds and did not disclose that Mr. Paulson was on other side, betting those ratings were wrong.

Mr. Tourre at one point complained to an investor who was buying shares in Abacus that he was having trouble persuading Moody's to give the deal the rating he desired, according to the investor's notes, which were provided to The Times by a colleague who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to release them.

In seven of Goldman's Abacus deals, the bank went to the American International Group for insurance on the bonds. Those deals have led to billions of dollars in losses at A.I.G., which was the subject of an $180 billion taxpayer rescue. The Abacus deal in the S.E.C. complaint was not one of them.

That deal was managed by ACA Management, a part of ACA Capital Holdings, which changed its name in 2008 to Manifold Capital Holdings.

Goldman at first intended for the deal to contain $2 billion of mortgage exposure, according to the deal's marketing documents, which were given to The Times by an Abacus investor.

On the cover of that flip-book, it says that the mortgage bond portfolio would be "selected by ACA Management."

In that flip-book, it says that Goldman may have long or short positions in the bonds. It does not mention Mr. Paulson or say that Goldman was in fact short.

The Abacus deals deteriorated rapidly when the housing market hit trouble. For instance, in the Abacus deal in the S.E.C. complaint, 84 percent of the mortgages underlying it were downgraded by rating agencies just five months later, according to a UBS report.

It takes time for such mortgage investments to pay out for investors who short them, like Mr. Paulson. Each deal is structured differently, but generally, the bonds underlying the investment must deteriorate to a certain point before short-sellers get paid. By the end of 2007, Mr. Paulson's credit hedge fund was up 590 percent.

Mr. Paulson's firm, Paulson & Company, is paid a management fee and 20 percent of the annual profits that its funds generate, according to a Paulson investor document from late 2008 titled "Navigating Through the Crisis."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/business...ml?pagewanted=2

that is just SOOOO Goldman Sachs....

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

Naam.........Should you get tired of spending all your time keeping track of your investments. I have the answer for you, you can be happy no matter which the market goes on your investment if you invest in wine.

Join the Cru - fine wine yields 70% annually

In 2003, a bottle of 1982 Lafite-Rothschild sold for an average amount of $490. Last year, the same bottle sold for $2,586, yielding the seller an annual return of around 70%. Still wondering where to put your cash?

some of my cash i put into (more or less) fine wines. but not for monetary yield. when my focus is on (more or less) fine wines in the evening... i usually pee them out the next morning and perhaps the bacteria in my septic tank are having a ball

Agreed - fine wine is for drinking not investing!

What else can you invest in that you can enjoy drinking your mistakes?

[midas]

next... perhaps your bid of 21.3% for greek treasuries which you posted a week ago? for your information: Greece sold day before yesterday 6 and 12 mth treasury bills

quote: "The 26-week Treasury bills saw a uniform yield set at 4.55%. ...the proportion of bids received to bids accepted -- of 7.67 to 1."

this result sheds some light on the shitty² obscure sources you use for information and post here

Its not just the Greek government that has been “ extending and pretending “ - the citizens of Greece have also been doing it for at least a year .

Greek officials are only now starting to worry about the effects of this practice even though they started writing about it one year ago.

The new cash: cheques are being passed from hand to hand, but could the practice cause an economic meltdown?

Anyone who has ever written a post-dated cheque knows it can be a convenient, interest-free means of deferring a payment. In Greece, however, there are now fears that 400bn euros' worth of post-dated cheques are simply "floating around", said Dionysios Chionis, an economics professor at Democritus University of Thrace.

The startling figure is more than one-and-a-half times Greece's annual GDP of 250bn euros, Chionis noted.The banking source at the conference explained that cheques in some cases are being written with advance dates of 12 months or more.

"One large Greek hotel chain is even paying its laundry bill with 12-month post-dated cheques," he claimed.

http://worldfailure.com/business/9-the-eco...ues-a-time-bomb

Edited April 17, 2010 by midas

[midas]

FRAUD!!!

It is about time isn't it

Goldman Sachs charged with fraud by SEC

what will the result look like?

As it was God’s work, a bolt of lightning will likely come down from heaven and strike the Judge down stone cold

[lannarebirth]

FRAUD!!!

It is about time isn't it

Goldman Sachs charged with fraud by SEC

what will the result look like?

Here's my guess. Later evidence will suggest that a former Goldman employee working at the SEC colluded wih Goldman to bring these charges. Goldman traders will have got the word to "get long volatility" and buy ST out of the money Goldman puts. Goldman has another record quarter leading to record bonus disbursements.

Edited April 17, 2010 by lannarebirth

[sokal]

Guess which house is a crack shack and which one is a mansion. A game on real estate in Vancouver Canada.

Play Crack shack or Mansion

[midas]

FRAUD!!!

It is about time isn't it

Goldman Sachs charged with fraud by SEC

what will the result look like?

Here's my guess. Later evidence will suggest that a former Goldman employee working at the SEC colluded wih Goldman to bring these charges. Goldman traders will have got the word to "get long volatility" and buy ST out of the money Goldman puts. Goldman has another record quarter leading to record bonus disbursements.

Or it was just a diversionary tactic by SEC ………………………..

HOLD EVERYTHING: The SEC's Fraud Case Against Goldman Seems VERY Weak

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodg...ery-weak-2010-4

The real news being US debt just jumped to $12.817 trillion, $51 billion higher on the day, $101 billion higher for the month of April, and $965 billion higher for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2009

[Naam]

FRAUD!!!

It is about time isn't it

Goldman Sachs charged with fraud by SEC

what will the result look like?

As it was God’s work, a bolt of lightning will likely come down from heaven and strike the Judge down stone cold

good one!

[ronz28]

Just when things started to look better, eight more US Banks failed this week-

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html

Edited April 17, 2010 by ronz28

[Gambles]

Just when things started to look better, eight more US Banks failed this week-

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html

they weren't looking better if you were looking ahead....

Great comments on GS everyone

- I'd say that Lanna could be spot on with this but just supposing this lets the genie out of the bottle and apathetic middle America finally gets a tiny bit annoyed about having the micky taken all the time by Wall St ?? Maybe not....

[lannarebirth]

Just when things started to look better, eight more US Banks failed this week-

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html

they weren't looking better if you were looking ahead....

Great comments on GS everyone

- I'd say that Lanna could be spot on with this but just supposing this lets the genie out of the bottle and apathetic middle America finally gets a tiny bit annoyed about having the micky taken all the time by Wall St ?? Maybe not....

Yeah, well there are some things that work all the time, its just that they don't happen very often. A 98% weekly stochastic on the $SPX is gonna pay off for short sellers and it did the very next day. Likewise a 35% Bull/Bear spread on the AAII Investors sentiment poll. Didn't quite get there on the latter one, so only 1/2 position. Funny these announcements only come in extremely overbought conditions.

Edited April 17, 2010 by lannarebirth

[Gambles]

Just when things started to look better, eight more US Banks failed this week-

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html

they weren't looking better if you were looking ahead....

Great comments on GS everyone

- I'd say that Lanna could be spot on with this but just supposing this lets the genie out of the bottle and apathetic middle America finally gets a tiny bit annoyed about having the micky taken all the time by Wall St ?? Maybe not....

Yeah, well there are some things that work all the time, its just that they don't happen very often. A 98% weekly stochastic on the $SPX is gonna pay off for short sellers and it did the very next day. Likewise a 35% Bull/Bear spread on the AAII Investors sentiment poll. Didn't quite get there on the latter one, so only 1/2 position. Funny these announcements only come in extremely overbought conditions.

agreed but you gotta be careful - don't knwo when they'll ban shorts again...

[AlexLah]

Do I need to ask a question?

[flying]

The End is Nigh: How Goldman Sachs Triggered the Apocalypse

In case you’re wondering, that whistling sound you hear is the sky falling. When Erin Burnett stays late to host a special report on something, you know it’s a “game-metamorphosizer”. Why else would all bank stocks tank because a firm they’re not affiliated with was charged with non-criminal fraud in one transaction after months of SEC digging? Why else, at this very moment, are traders in Tokyo and Hong Kong counting down the minutes to when they can sell every last security on the planet ahead of the rest of the world this weekend? Why else would the price of gold – the ultimate refuge in times of uncertainty – be falling?

The simple fact that the market knows is that there is no uncertainty: Armageddon is upon us, and thus all the gold in the world has no value.

In its infinite wisdom, the always-rational, level-headed market knows that Goldman is finished once and for all. In fact, it’s already just a memory. A civil case whose maximum damages, including treble damages for fraud, are $3B could easily bankrupt a firm that had only $45B in revenue last year. Especially since there’s no chance this case will be settled without a trial for a small fraction of that amount. Why else would the only Google search term related to GS that’s more popular than “Goldman Sachs fraud” be “Goldman Sachs careers”? Everyone knows that the imminent liquidation will require lots of manpower and overtime. And even if, by some miracle, GS emerges from the SEC and inevitable investor litigation without resorting to Chapter 7, no one will ever do business with them again, which will cut their revenue to $0.00, which will require them to resort to Chapter 7.

And GS deserves to be destroyed for this particular transaction. To put their egregious behavior in the complicated CDO market in perspective, let’s break it down in terms of equities:

Let’s say a sophisticated investor – call him “Johnny the Jackal” -- tells an investment bank – call it “Dewey Goldmanthem & Howe” -- that he thinks a select group of stocks in the Russell 2000 index is a real dog. He asks the investment bank to create a new ETF that tracks the performance of the stocks he selected so that he can short it. The investment bank agrees, takes a fee, and unveils the newest ETF, the “Bow Wow 30” (ticker symbol: WOOF). Now let’s say a second sophisticated investor comes along – call it “Head-Up-Our-Ass European Bank” -- and says they believe the Bow Wow 30 represents the best companies on earth, and they want to go Hail Mary long. Even if DG&H doesn’t have a crystal ball, and even if it’s not sure which way the Bow Wow 30 is heading, it has a make-believe fiduciary duty under the pretend law to tell Head-Up-Our-Ass European Bank that there’s another investor who thinks the Bow Wow 25 is flea-ridden. Sure, Head-Up-Our Ass has analysts, lawyers, consultants and accountants who could do their homework on the companies in the Bow Wow 30, but it’s up to DG&H to tell them Johnny the Jackal knows better than them. That’s why every time you want to buy a security your broker sends you a list of all the people who've shorted it. GS broke the law because it didn’t provide the short list.

In addition to being the polite thing to do, this rule serves the important public policy of dissuading potential investors from investing whenever another investor disagrees with their judgment. The efficient functioning of the capital markets is all about no one buying when someone else wants to sell and no one selling when someone else wants to buy.

Not that politeness, public policy or capital markets matter now that the end of days is apparently Monday. (Unless you live in Asia, in which case it’s Sunday). Time for everyone to get their affairs and souls in order.

[flying]

CBS news cannot be pasted here.

but....

Katie Couric speaks with Janet Tavakoli, a financial expert on investments known as derivatives, about the recent SEC lawsuit filed against Goldman Sachs over default mortgage loans.

Edited April 18, 2010 by flying

[Gambles]

The End is Nigh: How Goldman Sachs Triggered the Apocalypse

In case you're wondering, that whistling sound you hear is the sky falling. When Erin Burnett stays late to host a special report on something, you know it's a "game-metamorphosizer". Why else would all bank stocks tank because a firm they're not affiliated with was charged with non-criminal fraud in one transaction after months of SEC digging? Why else, at this very moment, are traders in Tokyo and Hong Kong counting down the minutes to when they can sell every last security on the planet ahead of the rest of the world this weekend? Why else would the price of gold – the ultimate refuge in times of uncertainty – be falling?

The simple fact that the market knows is that there is no uncertainty: Armageddon is upon us, and thus all the gold in the world has no value.

In its infinite wisdom, the always-rational, level-headed market knows that Goldman is finished once and for all. In fact, it's already just a memory. A civil case whose maximum damages, including treble damages for fraud, are $3B could easily bankrupt a firm that had only $45B in revenue last year. Especially since there's no chance this case will be settled without a trial for a small fraction of that amount. Why else would the only Google search term related to GS that's more popular than "Goldman Sachs fraud" be "Goldman Sachs careers"? Everyone knows that the imminent liquidation will require lots of manpower and overtime. And even if, by some miracle, GS emerges from the SEC and inevitable investor litigation without resorting to Chapter 7, no one will ever do business with them again, which will cut their revenue to $0.00, which will require them to resort to Chapter 7.

And GS deserves to be destroyed for this particular transaction. To put their egregious behavior in the complicated CDO market in perspective, let's break it down in terms of equities:

Let's say a sophisticated investor – call him "Johnny the Jackal" -- tells an investment bank – call it "Dewey Goldmanthem & Howe" -- that he thinks a select group of stocks in the Russell 2000 index is a real dog. He asks the investment bank to create a new ETF that tracks the performance of the stocks he selected so that he can short it. The investment bank agrees, takes a fee, and unveils the newest ETF, the "Bow Wow 30" (ticker symbol: WOOF). Now let's say a second sophisticated investor comes along – call it "Head-Up-Our-Ass European Bank" -- and says they believe the Bow Wow 30 represents the best companies on earth, and they want to go Hail Mary long. Even if DG&H doesn't have a crystal ball, and even if it's not sure which way the Bow Wow 30 is heading, it has a make-believe fiduciary duty under the pretend law to tell Head-Up-Our-Ass European Bank that there's another investor who thinks the Bow Wow 25 is flea-ridden. Sure, Head-Up-Our Ass has analysts, lawyers, consultants and accountants who could do their homework on the companies in the Bow Wow 30, but it's up to DG&H to tell them Johnny the Jackal knows better than them. That's why every time you want to buy a security your broker sends you a list of all the people who've shorted it. GS broke the law because it didn't provide the short list.

In addition to being the polite thing to do, this rule serves the important public policy of dissuading potential investors from investing whenever another investor disagrees with their judgment. The efficient functioning of the capital markets is all about no one buying when someone else wants to sell and no one selling when someone else wants to buy.

Not that politeness, public policy or capital markets matter now that the end of days is apparently Monday. (Unless you live in Asia, in which case it's Sunday). Time for everyone to get their affairs and souls in order.

and GS sat on this for months

class action suit by GS stockholders?? PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[midas]

Naam.........Should you get tired of spending all your time keeping track of your investments. I have the answer for you, you can be happy no matter which the market goes on your investment if you invest in wine.

Join the Cru - fine wine yields 70% annually

In 2003, a bottle of 1982 Lafite-Rothschild sold for an average amount of $490. Last year, the same bottle sold for $2,586, yielding the seller an annual return of around 70%. Still wondering where to put your cash?

some of my cash i put into (more or less) fine wines. but not for monetary yield. when my focus is on (more or less) fine wines in the evening... i usually pee them out the next morning and perhaps the bacteria in my septic tank are having a ball

Agreed - fine wine is for drinking not investing!

Naam yes I know, I know ......its another one of those " Allegations " .........but still $311,804 to pay " to pee out the next morning " is a lot

The way things are going soon you will need count your fingers after shaking hands with the vicar................this dishonesty is too much

Christie's sells 'fake' vintage wine, claims billionaire

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/am...re-1947859.html

[Naam]

Naam.........Should you get tired of spending all your time keeping track of your investments. I have the answer for you, you can be happy no matter which the market goes on your investment if you invest in wine.

Join the Cru - fine wine yields 70% annually

In 2003, a bottle of 1982 Lafite-Rothschild sold for an average amount of $490. Last year, the same bottle sold for $2,586, yielding the seller an annual return of around 70%. Still wondering where to put your cash?

some of my cash i put into (more or less) fine wines. but not for monetary yield. when my focus is on (more or less) fine wines in the evening... i usually pee them out the next morning and perhaps the bacteria in my septic tank are having a ball

Agreed - fine wine is for drinking not investing!

Naam yes I know, I know ......its another one of those " Allegations " .........but still $311,804 to pay " to pee out the next morning " is a lot

The way things are going soon you will need count your fingers after shaking hands with the vicar................this dishonesty is too much

Christie's sells 'fake' vintage wine, claims billionaire

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/am...re-1947859.html

these things do not concern me Midas, i find them ridiculous and even chuckle when a sucker is taken for a ride. when i talk about "more or less" fine wines then i refer to a bottle price of 800-1000 Baht.

[sokal]

Even Bill Clinton is now saying that Larry Summers and Robert Rubin are dumb as$holes, and yet they are still advising Obama.

April 18 (Bloomberg) -- Former President Bill Clinton said his Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers were wrong in the advice they gave him about regulating derivatives when he was in office.

“I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take” their advice, Clinton said on ABC’s “This Week” program.

Their argument was that derivatives didn’t need transparency because they were “expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of people will buy them and they don’t need any extra protection,” Clinton said. “The flaw in that argument was that first of all, sometimes people with a lot of money make stupid decisions and make it without transparency.”

[BlackJack]

there is no conspiracy

repeat

there is no conspiracy

now click your heals together and say take me home

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN161669...ype=marketsNews

[Abrak]

I think a suitable punishment for Goldman Sachs is to merge the company with Greece.

[flying]

there is no conspiracy

repeat

there is no conspiracy

now click your heals together and say take me home

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN161669...ype=marketsNews

First off I had to see if this John Paulson was related to Hank Paulson.... they say he is not....

Then I looked at this John Paulsons bio...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paulson

This caught my eye too.....

In early 2008, the firm hired former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

In September 2008, Paulson bet against four of the five biggest British banks.

ahhhhhh yep

[Naam]

Even Bill Clinton is now saying that Larry Summers and Robert Rubin are dumb as$holes, and yet they are still advising Obama.

April 18 (Bloomberg) -- Former President Bill Clinton said his Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers were wrong in the advice they gave him about regulating derivatives when he was in office.

“I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take” their advice, Clinton said on ABC’s “This Week” program.

another brilliant conclusion from the Austrian School of... Bullshit