Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

This is Why OWS happened

Recs

14

August 10, 2012 – Comments (15) | RELATED TICKERS: B , S

Again they get away with it.  Going on 5 years and still no meaningful prosecutions.  Just fines which the stockholders wind up paying.

 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-09/justice-finds-no-viable-basis-for-charges-against-goldman.html

15 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On August 10, 2012 at 10:12 PM, scotchlover (< 20) wrote:

While what they did was unethical and immoral, it is not illegal.  They do the same thing with all their financial instruments.  The direction the "house" takes is not always to the benefit of the customer.  Which is why the individual investor has to do more homework than ever and why they are using discount reputable clearing houses.

Report this comment
#2) On August 10, 2012 at 10:17 PM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.60) wrote:

awallejr, your a lawyer can you explain to me how these things are not brought to the highest court in the land. (I know the answer will be politics, but would like to see it in print)?

Also can you give me an over/under line when the corruption of Government will soon start eating itself alive.(hopefully entrails first)

Bottoms up.

Report this comment
#3) On August 10, 2012 at 10:26 PM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.60) wrote:

Blankfein said in his testimony that the firm never bet against its clients for its own profit.

How is this not perjury?

Report this comment
#4) On August 10, 2012 at 11:50 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

This quote ticked me off:

"Attorney General Eric Holder defended the Justice Department's record in pursuing high profile financial fraud cases. "There have been, I guess, 2,100 or so mortgage-related matters that we have brought here at United State Department of Justice. Our state counterparts have done a variety of things. The notion that there has been inactivity over the course of the last three years is belied by a troublesome little thing called facts."

Holder is proud of a measley 2100 matters none of which involved major heads of companies?  And mainly he tries for corporate fines which doesn't hurt the individuals whatsoever, just the sucker shareholders.

Harry give me the backstaff and I could make a case against many.  It can't get to the Supreme Court unless the US AG shows some balls and starts prosecuting serious names.

It's a club Harry.  A club neither you nor I nor many who visit this site will ever be a member of.  Until voters become more active and start booting incumbents out it will always be a problem.

Report this comment
#5) On August 10, 2012 at 11:59 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

Oh and love your name scotchlover.

Report this comment
#6) On August 11, 2012 at 12:20 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Until voters become more active and start booting incumbents out it will always be a problem.

On THIS, we agree. 

See? Our love affair is not hopeless...

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#7) On August 11, 2012 at 12:41 AM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

LOL.  See? You misjudged me in the end.  I am both liberal and conservative depending  upon the issue.

Report this comment
#8) On August 11, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Valyooo (99.47) wrote:

I don't really understand what was done wrong.  If you short something...do you want it to go up? Of course not. That is why they SOLD it to investors, not BOUGHT IT from investors.

Report this comment
#9) On August 11, 2012 at 1:07 AM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

Well Val when you sell someone a bill of goods, maybe, just maybe you should tell them that you are betting on the opposite side.

Report this comment
#10) On August 11, 2012 at 1:13 AM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

Or to be more succinct since I could see a response to my #9 post.  If you hire me to represent you in an action, I submit that I have a duty to disclose if I have a contrary position to the one I am advising you to take. It is called "conflict of interest."

Report this comment
#11) On August 11, 2012 at 1:22 AM, rdub76 (45.67) wrote:

This is the reason I am against government regulation.  The alleged regulatees are just like brer rabbit.  "OH NO Please don't throw me in the briar patch" all the while actually wanting the regulations because they are in bed with the supposed regulators.  The powerful fund the politicians who then turn a blind eye to their misconduct while suppressing the honest competition of true capitalists hence doing the exact opposite of what they claim to be doing.  Typical government.  

PS @awallejr.  If you are liberal on some issues and conservative on others you might be a libertarian which is a good thing. 

Report this comment
#12) On August 11, 2012 at 4:26 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

PS @awallejr.  If you are liberal on some issues and conservative on others you might be a libertarian which is a good thing.

Somewhere in the world you just made David laugh heheh.  Nah I am a Constitutionalist who believes in social contract theory, something that a libertarian wouldn't agree with. That isn't to say I don't necessarily disagree with all libertarian ideas.  I just hate our two-party system which just developed on its own over the years.

Report this comment
#13) On August 11, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Valyooo (99.47) wrote:

Or to be more succinct since I could see a response to my #9 post.  If you hire me to represent you in an action, I submit that I have a duty to disclose if I have a contrary position to the one I am advising you to take. It is called "conflict of interest."

Why would they be selling something if they thought it was going to go up in value?

When you sell a stock to another investor, do you tell your broker to tell the other investor you think the stock price has peaked? 

Report this comment
#14) On August 11, 2012 at 11:53 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

This isn't a "I will buy" and "I will sell" situation.  You went to GS for advice.  They told you to buy "x" while they were betting that "x" would decline.  You don't see the conflict there?

Harry gave you the best quote: Blankfein said in his testimony that the firm never bet against its clients for its own profit.

Except they in fact did.  But the US AG doesn't want to prosecute.  And it is why Corzine won't be prosecuted either.  "Club" members get passes.

I am of the view that if you think you have a case then prosecute the bastards and let JURIES decide. Win, lose, draw at least the system played out.

Report this comment
#15) On August 12, 2012 at 2:03 AM, mhy729 (30.47) wrote:

"Club" members get passes.

It is difficult to change this when you don't have enough ppl who are making a stink of it, or when those ppl who are complaining get derisively labeled as "populist" (gotta love those "dirty" labels that get you summarily dismissed).  I concur with one of your earlier comments about Spitzer being a great choice for AG if we want to see some real prosecutions.  I recall the article by Taibbi where an unnamed insider said that this crap won't stop until ppl start serving prison time.

What I want to know is just how much trust has GS (and the ratings agencies) lost from all of this?  You would think that prosecutions or no, ppl would never again want to do business with these outfits.  Maybe I'm missing something....

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement