Obama's Double-Dealing Bank Tax -- Government Sachs, indeed.

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 01-19-10 | HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR

[GOP_Lady]

Forget Goldman Sachs funding a housing bubble even while betting against it. Revisit the famous collapse of Long Term Capital Management, in which (according to a 2000 book by former Journal reporter Roger Lowenstein) Goldman used information gathered from its hedge fund client to bet against the client's positions.

Or revisit a column in this space, circa 1998, about Goldman holding a splashy event in Moscow to sell investors $1.25 billion in new Russian government bonds, which allowed Russia to pay off a $500 million loan to Goldman just before Russia defaulted on its international debts.

Goldman chief Lloyd Blankfein was understandably wide-eyed with wonder at last week's hearing of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. He pointed out that the people on the other side of every Goldman housing-related trade were, for Jiminy Cricket's sake, professional investors.

He might have added that Goldman bets against its clients every time it buys something they want to sell or sells something they want to buy. He might have suggested that any client who doesn't understand Goldman is looking after its own interests (just as Goldman expects the same of its client) is an idiot and has no business being in business.

He could have, but for an exquisite sense of decorum, also pointed out that one of the things hampering recovery is Washington's own record of double-dealing with respect to bank investors.

Hark back a few months to the shadow play of the Obama bank stress tests. Crediting themselves with mending the crisis, President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner ruled that banks were on a solid footing because private investors would provide fresh capital and banks would be free to book profits and earn their way out of trouble.

[GOP_Lady]

To be added or removed from the "The Wall Street Journal" Ping List, FReepmail GOP_Lady.

[JouleZ]

“..banks would be free to book profits and earn their way out of trouble.”
__________________________________________________________

Interesting info. We just applied for a re-fi on our home mortgage, lowering our payment by $112.00 month. The title company sent someone to witness our signing and low and behold, the paperwork said “Deed of Trust” not “Mortgage”. We asked what the difference was and were told “Deed of Trust makes it easier for the bank to repo your house”.

Some research shows that a “Deed of Trust” allows a third party to take over the repo and sell your property, on the bank’s behalf in 90 days. A mortgage, means the bank must take you through a civil/court process which can take a year or more.

We have excellent credit and qualified for this loan but we cancelled because it is like we are selling out to the gov’t who has taken over the banks. Buyer beware!!!!