Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

This Just In

Recs

4

March 01, 2011 – Comments (9)

The top 30,000 have largely earned every penny of what they have.  They haven't stolen it from anyone. -  a blog reply.

I Disagree...Can anyone in the 5 largest financial firms in the USA claim they deserve their money after the bailout they got?

My answer is no.

- Devoish

This Just In; Water Wet, Investment Banks Cheat investors.

Mr. Gupta, a friend and business associate of Mr. Rajaratnam, allegedly spoke with Mr. Rajaratnam by phone after a special telephone conference call by Goldman's board and tipped him to the Berkshire investment and Goldman's upcoming public-equity offering before it was announced in September 2008, according to the SEC. The Berkshire investment came at the height of the financial crisis, within days of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. seeking bankruptcy protection.

Within a minute after the call, Mr. Rajaratnam allegedly arranged for Galleon funds to purchase more than 175,000 Goldman shares, the SEC said. Mr. Rajaratnam had begun purchasing shares earlier in the day, following another call with Mr. Gupta, the SEC said. Mr. Rajaratnam caused the Galleon funds to liquidate their Goldman holdings the day after the information became public, making $900,000 in illicit profits, the SEC said. Mr. Gupta didn't seek reelection to Goldman's board last year.

Goldman Sachs declined comment Tuesday

I mean allegedly cheat of course.

I also remember news reports of GS showing a trading profit every single day for three months. 

Best wishes,

Steven

 

9 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 01, 2011 at 6:35 PM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

A cap on investment income would probably stop some of this.

Just sayin...

Of course this isgood theft. It is not like it is a Government or Union doing it.

Report this comment
#2) On March 01, 2011 at 6:43 PM, JakilaTheHun (99.93) wrote:

I Disagree...Can anyone in the 5 largest financial firms in the USA claim they deserve their money after the bailout they got?

(1) Some of the banks didn't even want the money; the Feds required them all to take in the vain hope that investors would have a more difficult time distinguishing the "rotten apples" from the good ones. 

(2) Why does a secretary or bank branch manager at Bank of America not deserve their income stream due to the bailout?

(3) Even many higher-level employees actually did very good work for the banks.  The people who made the absurdly risky bets were confined to small arms of the banks and insurers; but with the way the banks are structured, that's all it took to drag some of them to the point of insolvency.

(4) Trying to connect the big banks' bailouts with a pension fund bailout is an exercise in futility.  Shareholders in banks like Citigroup were diluted to an extreme level, so that the value of their investments is worth about 1/5 of what it was beforehand.  All the bailouts did was stop the banks from going bankrupt; not from destroying shareholder value. 

(5) Pension funds receiving 40 cents on the dollar would be fairly analogous to the shareholders of the banks being diluted to the extent that their investments' value were often cut 30% - 80%. 

 

Overall, your argument is weak and based on nothing other than emotion.  You are proposing to *PUNISH* private sector workers in order to fund an extravagent retirement plan for public sector employees.  You're not supporting "the workers", so much as mindlessly supporting one group of politically-connected unions, that has managed to get better deals than anyone in the private sector.  It's a patronage system --- the idea that they "fought" for it is nonsense. 

Morally speaking, suggesting that the unions deserve to be paid out the "unfunded liabilities" is equivalent to saying that the Federal government should have required the banks to continue paying out massive bonuses in order to receive aid. Both parties disregarded the risks to their ultimate stakeholders (e.g. shareholders for the banks and taxpayers for the public employee unions).  You seem to be believe that one party should be rewarded, but the other punished. 

Report this comment
#3) On March 01, 2011 at 6:50 PM, L0RDZ (82.15) wrote:

I believe those cheating investment bankers will respond :

Its only cheating if you get caught

Just like Bill Clinton didn't have relations with Monica.

Let me be clear I did not have sexual relations with that woman. 

Moments later he's told that she preserved that dress with his special dna all over it ~ oh well you guys got me ~ or whatever his excuse was for the misunderstanding.

 

Report this comment
#4) On March 01, 2011 at 7:17 PM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

Lordz,

I agree with that response.

Jakila,

You don't want to think that trading desks are populated with thieves? What about encouraged to cheat? What about rewarded for a succesful cheat?

You did not like my little joke either. 

Best wishes,

Steven

 

Report this comment
#5) On March 01, 2011 at 7:29 PM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

So I'm thinking Mr Gupta owes every shareholder of Berkshire Hathaway for any running up the price ahead of Buffets purchase, along with all other purchasers of the stock, plus he owes every trader (not investor) whose trade went south when he sold the next day.

Plus a penalty big enough to make billionaires notice, and of course jail time.

If he's actually guilty of insider trading.

I'd hate to see the last good apple spoiled by the rest of the bunch.

Best wishes ,

Steven

Report this comment
#6) On March 01, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Valyooo (99.41) wrote:

It seems you are trying to sculpt an argument against free markets by using an example of something which is the opposite of a free market (bailouts and insider trading) by confusing "corrupt rich socialists and big government thieves" and "hard working rich free market capitalists". Jakila summed up my feelings already, but there is a difference between a real free market, and wall street capitalism, which is more similiar to what you are supporting.

Report this comment
#7) On March 01, 2011 at 8:30 PM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

Other than Lordz, does everyone else want to change the subject away from investment bank thievery?

Report this comment
#8) On March 01, 2011 at 10:46 PM, russiangambit (29.30) wrote:

Devoish, what is the question? Insider trading is illegal, nobody argues that. As for people on the top, most of them are what was used to be called "rentiers", i.e. living on investment income from riches amassed by their ancestors. No, such people don't deserve it as such, they are just lucky to be born into rich families, but they didn't steal it either. As for their ancestors I am pretty sure some did deserve it and some didn't but most of fortune building is done within the confines of the laws, so it is pointless to argue who deserves what. Life is not fair. But the stronger nd smarter you are the more chances you have regardless. So why not concentrate on what you can control? 

Report this comment
#9) On March 02, 2011 at 9:01 AM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

Things I can control include whether or not I believe the idea that the top 30,000 "earned" what they have, and what I am willing to ignore.

The truth is that I agree that some of them have. But for the most part the financial industry cannot be included among them, and they are the most part.

I believe it is stealing to sell "comprehensive" health insurance that is not comprehensive. I believe I have expressed that.

I believe as David in Qatar does, that Government is  being used to concentrate power in the hands of the few at the expense of most Americans, and most is 270 million.

Unlike David, I believe that it is arguments in favor of "smaller" government that have allowed that.

I believe that the "small government" guys just voted to extend taxpayer subsidys into the control of a few corporate executives, rather than making that same money available to every American that wishes to choose to buy renewable energys.

Now I am pretty sure that is the wrong direction for America, but I am absolutely certain that Government did not get any smaller or closer to balancing its budget.

Best wishes,

Steven

Who believes he sees a Republican/Conservative/Tea Party that is actively doing harm to the majority of Americans by reducing medicare and SSI while extending subsidys to a small number of executives to spend on themselves.

 

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement