PDA

View Full Version : Goldman Sachs fraud explained



Qtec
04-18-2010, 03:52 AM
link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/goldman-sachs-fraud-expla_n_540938.html)

Q

cushioncrawler
04-18-2010, 04:13 AM
The financial sektor are all prix.
T-Party are prix.
Republikans are prix.
Go gettum barack.
madMac.

LWW
04-18-2010, 06:44 AM
Why did they wait until 2007?

Could it be that they knew they had just "BOUGHT" congress, and that they would buy the new POTUS?

>>>OH DEAR ... THEY WERE FUNDING DEMOKOOKS AND RINOS THE WHOLE TIME<<< (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000085)

LWW

wolfdancer
04-20-2010, 12:44 AM
interesting read, Q !!
Thanks for posting the link.

eg8r
04-20-2010, 07:17 AM
Very interesting.

eg8r

Chopstick
04-20-2010, 08:17 AM
I found the article to be a bit thin. I don't think the author understands the issues in question. Failure to disclose a conflict of interest is a regulatory violation but it is long way from proving fraud. Also buying a CDS is not a short.

Don't get me wrong, this kind of thing goes on all the time. One of the guys in training ask about getting a Series 66 license (we are all Series 7). The instructor said: "So you want to be a Certified Investment Adviser. Why don't you just go get a gun and go to 7/11. It's a more honorable profession." Those guys really a bunch of crooks but hey, they learned from the best. The first stock market was founded in Amsterdam in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. They are still doing the same things today as they did back then.

A more important point is that I do not believe that this is a coincidence. The Obama crew definitely set this up. They know the charges won't stick. They just want to raise a stink so they can steal another 50 billion from the American taxpayers.

I don't suppose anyone noticed that it was two European banks that bought most of the securities. Why are the American taxpayers bailing out European banks?

LWW
04-20-2010, 09:08 AM
Why did G-S lose $95M on the deal?

LWW

cushioncrawler
04-20-2010, 05:25 PM
The usofa lost money internally. But now it stands to looz money externally -- lots and lots of money i think -- this will really really hurt.
Damages?? -- can overseas pipple get damages on top of the money stolen?????
madMac.

Qtec
04-20-2010, 08:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I found the article to be a bit thin. I don't think the author understands the issues in question.</div></div>

I don't think you do.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Failure to disclose a conflict of interest is a regulatory violation but it is long way from proving fraud.</div></div>

Its a bit more than that. Paulson put together a product that was designed to fail. GS knew it but still sold this product on to investors without telling them. It was a con. That's fraud.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Also buying a CDS is not a short.</div></div>

Nobody said it was.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> They know the charges won't stick </div></div>

We will see.

Q

Qtec
04-20-2010, 08:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One of the more popular analogies to describe the alleged fraud, this is how the Guardian's Richard Adams put it:

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"The analogy would be a broker who arranged for fire insurance to be sold to an arsonist by misrepresenting the arsonist as a member of the fire brigade and then sold him matches and a can of petrol."</span> </div></div>

Q

Chopstick
04-21-2010, 08:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The usofa lost money internally. But now it stands to looz money externally -- lots and lots of money i think -- this will really really hurt.
Damages?? -- can overseas pipple get damages on top of the money stolen?????
madMac. </div></div>

Well, in the case of Iceland, the taxpayers refused to pay. That is still going on. A sizeable chunk of the TARP money went overseas and they have no intention or repaying it. The derivatives problem is not confined to the USOFA, It was and is practised throughout the international financial system.

I read an article yesterday that puts the derivatives bubble at $600 trillion worldwide. That's 10 times the GDP of the entire planet. What's going to happen if that thing pops? And we have a bunch of pinheads in the White House.

A head of the Crappynomix Advisory Board that destroyed the Harvard Endowment fund with the same derivatives scheme that caused the nationwide crash.

A director of Homeland Security that no experience at all in security or law enforcement.

A Supreme Court judge who is a member of La Rasa who believes that Mexico should take over, by force if necessary, the western half of the country.

The list goes on and on. We have to get rid of those people before they destroy the world.

Chopstick
04-22-2010, 08:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I found the article to be a bit thin. I don't think the author understands the issues in question.</div></div>

I don't think you do.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Failure to disclose a conflict of interest is a regulatory violation but it is long way from proving fraud.</div></div>

Its a bit more than that. Paulson put together a product that was designed to fail. GS knew it but still sold this product on to investors without telling them. It was a con. That's fraud.

<span style="color: #000099">That is why I don't think the article was written very well. Paulson did not assemble the portfolio. ACA Management did. They are the fund manager and only they have final authority over what was in it. Paulson submitted 123 securities as suggestions to ACA. ACA rejected 68 and put in their own. The article leaves out ACAs role as the portfolio manager and makes it sound like it was all GS and Paulson & Co. That's just plain wrong.</span>





<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Also buying a CDS is not a short.</div></div>

Nobody said it was.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> They know the charges won't stick </div></div>

We will see.

Q

</div></div>