Ahhh -- Where's all the money?
That's as good as money sir. Those are I.O.U.s Go ahead and add it up. Every cent is accounted for.... you might want to hang onto that one.
Posted on 10/17/2009 6:09:52 AM PDT by Wolfie
Edited on 10/17/2009 8:54:23 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
On Tuesday, March 11th, 2008, somebody — nobody knows who — made one of the craziest bets Wall Street has ever seen. The mystery figure spent $1.7 million on a series of options, gambling that shares in the venerable investment bank Bear Stearns would lose more than half their value in nine days or less. It was madness — "like buying 1.7 million lottery tickets," according to one financial analyst.
Yep, I followed the Bear situation very closely. The mkt action in the oppies simply screamed 'Fix!'...but SEC showed themselves to be, as usual, thumb-fingered bureaucratic dorkasauruses. We won't EVER see any action from the supposed 'regulators' on this little caper.
However, on a happier note, when Lehman went south a bit later, I, relying on Bear's action as an example, traded for Tap City from about 26...and got it. Nice little profit, that.
I supsect for some protecting the scam is also protecting their income.
I think what we are seeing is the Auric Goldfinger principle:"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy ... Three times is enemy action."
Alas, poor Auric, I knew him, G-double-u...
While I fully appreciate your sentiments, surely you're joking.
"With all the people involved, I am sure there would be many plea agreements struck that would result in such a large number of senior bank officers and directors going to prison..."
Now that has a familiar ring to it, say circa 1998 +/- a couple years, & a certain administration's too numerous to mention, errrr peccadilloes?
Of course it didn't happen then and won't happen now and for the very same reason(s). Because we're essentially talking about the very same perps running the very same ruseS on the very same dolts. LOL
Sounds like ol' Christopher might've watched the same DVD I did. LOL
Thanks for the ping and the info, Liz.
Just keeps getting curiouser & curiouser. :^)
Those were the sentiments of Bill Cara, a surprisingly naive man.
I’m with you - the whole point of the law is to keep the rabble down so that the powerful can feast, so looking to the “authorities” for “justice” is laughable.
YW.......when you add to all of this what I view as the complicity of Henry Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner (both before and after his appointment), and the whole library of Goldman-Sachs alumni along and at the tip of the many tentacles, the old Rothschild quote takes on new meaning that cannot be pooh-poohed.
here’s another piece that will interest you....
My Manhattan Project
How I helped build the bomb that blew up Wall Street.
* By Michael Osinski
* Published Mar 29, 2009
http://nymag.com/news/business/55687/
Infamous Quote from Mayer Amschel Rothschild
“Give me control of a nation’s money
and I care not who makes the laws.”
Ahhh -- Where's all the money?
That's as good as money sir. Those are I.O.U.s Go ahead and add it up. Every cent is accounted for.... you might want to hang onto that one.
Great post, Wolfie!
B T T T
“We know that Soros’ organization is global....is this the paper trail? No question Obama, Rahm, Soros, and FDIC’s Sheila Bair, among others, are colluding in a naked grab to gain complete control of our financial system. “
” CIRCA Sept 15, 2009 A SHOCKING DISPLAY OF OBAMA’S THIRST FOR POWER-—IT MUST BE BE RESISTED AT ALL COSTS.
FOX News’ Judge Napolitano notes: if implemented, the unconstitutional proposals Obama urged in his speech to Wall Street will amount to a final coup d’état by banksters, their technocrats and enforcers, at the Federal Reserve (*the privately-held bankster cartel that masquerades as a government agency).
Obama’s “reforms” would install a dictatorial regulatory power controlled by international bankers over the entire US economy — down to the local grocer and hot dog vendor on the corner. It will control our lives down to the smallest detail. It will require us to ask permission for the most mundane and routine of financial transactions. “
B U M P
Like big Wall Street firms who donate millions to Obama?
White House Slams Financial Industry Execs, But Benefits From Their Donations
You make a mistake that is common on this forum of not differentiating firms and individuals.
Wall Street firms, just like Alcoa and others, donate not that much and do so to both Dems and Reps. Wall Street execs, acting as INDIVIDUAL, donate more to Dems.
You comment is thus disconnected from what I said.
It only shows that irrationality of hatred of Wall Street that is quite common on this forum.
I agree that not all Wall Street people are ideologically identical, so my text should be more precise, but consider that according to numbers from the Federal Election Commission, Goldman Sachs (20,000 employees, much smaller than other top donor organizations) was the number 2 Obama donor organization in 2008.
So I will rephrase:
"Like employees of big Wall Street firms who donate big bucks to Obama?"
You advocate a moral purity that seems very difficult for many of your Wall Street heroes to live up to.
Speaking of imprecision (on several levels), from your post 31:
It’s nice to see the unity of the leftist scum and the supposedly conservative forum...
It seems to me that Taibbi does have an ugly underlying hatred of capitalism in general, not just the Wall Street Ferengi, and unfortunately some FR posters do not seem to notice that. I think it's very unlikely I would have much in common with him or his friends. I guess I should not be too surprised with a Rolling Stone article.
The point of all this is that, even though I find Taibbi sleazy sometimes, I also find some of his enemies equally sleazy. If he were a pure marxist, why would he attack Crap and Trade so passionately?
And where did you get that they are my heroes? You are putting words in my mouth. I don't take sides but try to stand on position of principle.
Wall Street firms are actors in a capitalist economy. They are reviled for that reason now, since they symbolize that economy. Most of accusations are moreover false, mere repetitions of the NYTimes garbage.
"The point of all this is that, even though I find Taibbi sleazy sometimes, I also find some of his enemies equally sleazy."
There are plenty of sleazy capitalists. I personally despise those Wall Streeters that, while using and profiting from capitalism, send donations to fascists like Obama. And not only Wall Streeters, of course: Warren Bufffet and Bill Gates are the same (even worse: they are not even patriotic, spending most if not all of their charity abroad --- as if some Americans did not need help). The same is true about Hollywood: all those "start" marking $30M in six weeks support every Leftist cause under the sun. There is plenty of sleeze everywhere.
The point, however, is not to look at people but at what they do and say. I agree or disagree not with people (takign sides) but with SPECIFIC things they say or do. I have not a shred of respect for Taibbi, but if he said something correctly --- even on accident --- I would acknowledge that. Likewise, when the Wall Street honchos fall before Obama and send money to Dems, I view them as immoral scum. But when the same people are falsely attacked for what they do as managers of their respective firms, I point out that that is wrong.
"If he were a pure marxist, why would he attack Crap and Trade so passionately?"
You touch here on something deep: what you say is true and not only about Taibbi. There are very few pure Marxists today. You can't sell yourself well as a Marxist after the fall of the Soviet Union and millions killed by the communists. So they call themselves by other names: "progressives," liberals, etc. In addition, it's been 150 years since Marx, and the circumstances changed. So they too adjust to these changing circumstances. Finally, not all people are consistent: the conservative president Nixon instituted fixed prices --- control of the economy advocated and practiced by socialists and fascists. Likewise, the generally leftist Taibbi may be against Cap-and-trade. People are not always consistent.
But in case of Taibbi, I believe it to be simpler: he is a charlatan that spends little time reflecting on things and getting to the heart of matters. My impression is that he'll writever seems provocative --- just to get attention and feel important.
And where did you get that they are my heroes? You are putting words in my mouth. I don't take sides but try to stand on position of principle.
I apologize for putting words in your mouth. Some of the things you write sound a little short of being objective, but I don't know, you might be using hyperbole for effect, e. g. "It’s nice to see the unity of the leftist scum and the supposedly conservative forum..." I admit I need to step back and look at myself too.
Likewise, when the Wall Street honchos fall before Obama and send money to Dems, I view them as immoral scum. But when the same people are falsely attacked for what they do as managers of their respective firms, I point out that that is wrong.
A very good approach.
You touch here on something deep: what you say is true and not only about Taibbi. There are very few pure Marxists today. You can't sell yourself well as a Marxist after the fall of the Soviet Union and millions killed by the communists. So they call themselves by other names: "progressives," liberals, etc. In addition, it's been 150 years since Marx, and the circumstances changed. So they too adjust to these changing circumstances. Finally, not all people are consistent: the conservative president Nixon instituted fixed prices --- control of the economy advocated and practiced by socialists and fascists. Likewise, the generally leftist Taibbi may be against Cap-and-trade. People are not always consistent.
Exactly. I think Taibbi has a following here because he attacks some who have a role in the capitalist system but may be doing harm to capitalism and all this nation is supposed to stand for.
But in case of Taibbi, I believe it to be simpler: he is a charlatan that spends little time reflecting on things and getting to the heart of matters.
I would not go that far, but the linked article seems weak in some parts. He says
"As such, Prime Brokers have tended to be lax about making sure that their customers actually possess, or can even realistically find, the stock they've sold. That point is made abundantly clear by tapes obtained by Rolling Stone of recent meetings held by the compliance officers for big Prime Brokers like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank."
What tapes? Where is the link or reference? I did a web search for such tapes on Rolling Stone but was not successful. He may be right, but this is hardly a good way to convince. The lack of proof here may a tease for his next article.
Under vast majority of circumstances, such words are highly inappropriate. My emotions --- and I apologize for expressing them so strongly -- stem from the constant battles on this forum --- against the defamation of innocent people and blind repetition of leftist propaganda on this forum. Just enter --- on any thread --- the words "CEO" or "Goldman Sachs" or "bonuses" and watch the NYTImes repeated here verbatim, with much gusto and hatred. When I point out that most of such vitriol is unsubstantiated, I am outed as a bond trader for Cantor Fitzgerald (I am not kidding), a director at Goldman Sachs, one of those "fat cats" who does not care about "regular people."
FOr months now I have been patiently showing that the substance of most such posts is lacking. My patience apparently has grown thin, which showed in the sentence you quote. I am sorry for that.
TQ: "But in case of Taibbi, I believe it to be simpler: he is a charlatan that spends little time reflecting on things and getting to the heart of matters."
ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas: "I would not go that far"
My opinion was based on more than one article. His previous one, on the same topic (evil Wall Street) was referenced on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2301629/posts?page=49#49
My analysis of it may be found here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2301629/replies?c=49
I simply have no time to provide a detailed debunking of what he says in the latest article.
The nontracibility of his sources -- tapes in this case, as you have pointed out -- is not uncommon in his writing.
""As such, Prime Brokers have tended to be lax about making sure that their customers actually possess, or can even realistically find, the stock they've sold."
Firstly, he portrays Prime Brokers as existing to accommodate short-sellers. They make most of the money providing a myriad of other services.
Brokers should've indeed been more diligent. But many, many companies delegate entering information nowadays. If you are distributor of a manufacturer, you often can enter information on that manufacturer's site. That is what short-sellers borrowing a stock do (previously you'd call the Broker, who would then enter the same request manually, which wasted precious seconds).
I was and am still unhappy with the state of affairs in this area; "naked" short-selling bothers me a great deal. But Taibi made a conspiracy out of this. Without it, there would be no article at all.
He misunderstands and misuses some even basic terminology of finance (there is only so much one can learn from a disgruntled trader during lunch; you'd mostly learn swearing, and Taibi thinks he looks like a part of the inner circles by dropping the word "sh--loads" here and there; to me, he looks like a fool). I know, these last words are unsubstantiated, but I simply lack time to go through the article as I did last time.
Thank you too for your detailed and patient reply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.