PDA

View Full Version : Another demokrook kriminal exposed.



LWW
11-16-2011, 05:14 AM
First he worked at Goldman-Sachs and helped develop the accounting fraud scheme that helped the ENRON debacle happen.

The far left slavishly howled B-B-B-BOOOOSH D-D-D-DID IT!!!!!

Next, as gubner of Noo Joizey, he left the state broke from his moonbat crazy leftist policy.

The far left obediently groaned C-C-C-CHRISTIE D-D-D-DID IT!!!!!

Now we have Corzine raping citizens of their net worth and walking away with the left giving him full cover for his thievery.

Why aren't our resident leftists all over the Wall Street fraud that they swear to detest?

Apparently because they are more concerned with lynching Herman Cain.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>INCONVENIENT TRUTH (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/15/mfglobal-idUSN1E7AE1PN20111115)</span>

Qtec
11-16-2011, 06:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">helped develop the accounting fraud scheme that helped the ENRON debacle happen. </div></div>

Just checked out the source of this nugget of info since you <span style="color: #990000">didn't provide any link.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 26pt'>Rush</span> then went on to say that Corzine helped Enron. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>That he helped “create assets from liabilities on the balance sheet.” He is no doubt talking about Goldman Sachs here, but it is still incorrect. </span></div></div>


LMAO


Q

Soflasnapper
11-16-2011, 11:02 AM
Another LWW mashup of a few at best facts and a lot of dross? Say it ain't so!!

First he worked at Goldman-Sachs and helped develop the accounting fraud scheme that helped the ENRON debacle happen.

The far left slavishly howled B-B-B-BOOOOSH D-D-D-DID IT!!!!!

Hmmm, I don't remember it that way at all. Checking the net, I find mentioned that Enron hired its own ace CPAs in house to develop those frauds, and uniquely on its own extended a previous mechanism that had been used by Merrill and Goldman, in a far riskier form. I find nothing indicating Enron was given this method by Goldman, still less that Corzine was any kind of principle actor in what Enron eventually did on its own, apparently.

Next, as gubner of Noo Joizey, he left the state broke from his moonbat crazy leftist policy.

In your fantasy world, perhaps, but not in reality. Looking over his Wiki page, his 'make the public unions pay for their benefits' policies substantially mirrored Scott Walker's. And then there's the little problem that generally all the states were broke, when none of the others had Corzine at their helm.

Now we have Corzine raping citizens of their net worth and walking away with the left giving him full cover for his thievery.


Quite a claim there. WHO is giving him full cover on the left, and how are they doing that, exactly? As I understand it, there is a criminal fraud investigation proceeding, and as for me, I say let justice be done, though the heavens (or Corzine) may fall. If you have links to Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, Dennis Kucinich, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, etc., advocating clemency or leniency for Corzine, or even expressing sympathy for him in this case, please provide them.

Otherwise, and as I believe is the case, simply admit you made that up.

LWW
11-16-2011, 04:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just checked out the source of this nugget of info since you <span style="color: #990000">didn't provide any link.</span>

Q </div></div>

Literacy never was your stong suit was it.

See the big multi syllable words in bolded 26 point type?

That's called a link.

LWW
11-16-2011, 04:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another LWW mashup of a few at best facts and a lot of <s>dross</s> truth? Say it ain't so!!</div></div>

I fixed that for you.

LWW
11-16-2011, 04:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> First he worked at Goldman-Sachs and helped develop the accounting fraud scheme that helped the ENRON debacle happen.

The far left slavishly howled B-B-B-BOOOOSH D-D-D-DID IT!!!!!

Hmmm, I don't remember it that way at all. Checking the net, I find mentioned that Enron hired its own ace CPAs in house to develop those frauds, and uniquely on its own extended a previous mechanism that had been used by Merrill and Goldman, in a far riskier form. I find nothing indicating Enron was given this method by Goldman, still less that Corzine was any kind of principle actor in what Enron eventually did on its own, apparently.</div></div>

So are you denying that Corzine was the man at Goldman-Sachs at the time ENRON was cooking the books ... or are you denying that G-S invented a security called "Monthly Income Preferred Shares" which resembled a loan so that interest could be deducted from income yet to shareholders and rating agencies it resembled equity ... or are you denying that "MIPS" were sold through G-S to investors and promised an 8% annual dividend to be paid monthly?

What exactly are you disputing here?

He thinks Corzine helped invent the accounting scheme, and the only evidence he has is that Corzine helped invent the accounting scheme.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>&gt;&gt;&gt;THIS IS A LINK SNOOPY&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/articles/mipsdescr.htm)</span>

LWW
11-16-2011, 04:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WHO is giving him full cover on the left, and how are they doing that, exactly? </div></div>

Actually .... you are. But ... you already knew that.

The crowd that lines up to blame Bush for Obama spending the nation into oblivion and was willing to blame Bush every time their aunt Nelly's car battery went dead ... well know they ignore, overlook, and outright lie to keep from seeing the obvious and then have the unmitigated gall WHO is doing it.

I would ask if you all are capable of shame, but the question would be completely rhetorical.

Soflasnapper
11-16-2011, 04:45 PM
See the big multi syllable words in bolded 26 point type?

That's called a link.

Yes, a link that says nothing about Corzine supposedly enabling or authoring the fraudulent methods employed by Enron.

Q looked THAT claim up, which you didn't support with any link.

This 'literacy' of which you write? It must not mean what you think.

LWW
11-16-2011, 04:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Otherwise, and as I believe is the case, simply admit you made that up. </div></div>

That was simply precious.

You are so far gone I don't believe you realize what a tool you are.

LWW
11-16-2011, 04:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q looked THAT claim up, which you didn't support with any link.</div></div>

Other than the one you ignored.

Soflasnapper
11-16-2011, 05:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q looked THAT claim up, which you didn't support with any link.</div></div>

Other than the one you ignored. </div></div>

So you added a link afterwards, after it was pointed out you hadn't supported your claim at all? About time. Although you've still missed the critical differences.

From your second link:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One letter, signed by Jon Corzine, then chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, and 34 others portrays the Treasury as attempting to draw "completely arbitrary" lines between debt and equity. Mr. Corzine, now a Democratic senator from New Jersey, says <span style='font-size: 14pt'>it's unfair to equate Enron's early use of the new financial instrument, which was disclosed in SEC filings, with its subsequent creation of partnerships to hide debt and generate dubious earnings.</span>

'A Legitimate Question'

"I'm not saying it wasn't aggressive tax policy -- that's why the Clinton administration did what it did -- but it wasn't designed to hide bad assets," Sen. Corzine says. "There was a legitimate question with regard to the tax treatment," he said. But "lawyers said it was right. Accountants said it was right -- not that that counts for much now -- and the courts said it was right."</div></div>

So, WHAT ABOUT the change from the plain vanilla form that was created by Goldman and Merrill Lynch, compared to what Enron did?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> (From Wiki's Enron Scandal page:)

Revenue recognition
Main article: Revenue recognition

Enron and other energy suppliers earned profits by providing services such as wholesale trading and risk management in addition to building and maintaining electric power plants, natural gas pipelines, storage, and processing facilities.[16] When taking on the risk of buying and selling products, merchants are allowed to report the selling price as revenues and the products' costs as cost of goods sold. In contrast, an "agent" provides a service to the customer, but does not take on the same risks as merchants for buying and selling. Service providers, when classified as agents, are able to report trading and brokerage fees as revenue, although not for the full value of the transaction.[17]

How Fastow's Partnerships Worked (based on Enron 10-K)

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Although trading firms such as Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch used the conventional "agent model" for reporting revenue (where only the trading or brokerage fee would be reported as revenue), Enron instead elected to report the entire value of each of its trades as revenue.</span> This "merchant model" approach was considered much more aggressive in the accounting interpretation than the agent model.[17]</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Mark-to-market accounting
Main article: Mark-to-market accounting

In Enron's natural gas business, the accounting had been fairly straightforward: in each time period, the company listed actual costs of supplying the gas and actual revenues received from selling it. However, when Skilling joined the company, he demanded that the trading business adopt mark-to-market accounting, citing that it would reflect "... true economic value."[20] Enron became the first non-financial company to use the method to account for its complex long-term contracts.[21] Mark-to-market accounting requires that once a long-term contract was signed, income was estimated as the present value of net future cash flows. Often, the viability of these contracts and their related costs were difficult to judge.[22] Due to the large discrepancies of attempting to match profits and cash, investors were typically given false or misleading reports. While using the method, income from projects could be recorded, which increased financial earnings. However, in future years, the profits could not be included, so new and additional income had to be included from more projects to develop additional growth to appease investors.[20] As one Enron competitor pointed out, "If you accelerate your income, then you have to keep doing more and more deals to show the same or rising income."[21] Despite potential pitfalls, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved the accounting method for Enron in its trading of natural gas futures contracts on January 30, 1992.[20] However, Enron later expanded its use to other areas in the company to help it meet Wall Street projections.[23]

For one contract, in July 2000, Enron and Blockbuster Video signed a 20-year agreement to introduce on-demand entertainment to various U.S. cities by year-end. After several pilot projects, Enron recognized estimated profits of more than $110 million from the deal, even though analysts questioned the technical viability and market demand of the service.[22] When the network failed to work, Blockbuster pulled out of the contract. Enron continued to recognize future profits, even though the deal resulted in a loss.[24]
[edit] Special purpose entities
Main article: Special purpose entity

Enron used special purpose entities—limited partnerships or companies created to fulfill a temporary or specific purpose—to fund or manage risks associated with specific assets. The company elected to disclose minimal details on its use of special purpose entities.[25] These shell firms were created by a sponsor, but funded by independent equity investors and debt financing. For financial reporting purposes, a series of rules dictates whether a special purpose entity is a separate entity from the sponsor. In total, by 2001, Enron had used hundreds of special purpose entities to hide its debt.[22]

The special purpose entities were used for more than just circumventing accounting conventions. As a result of one violation, Enron's balance sheet understated its liabilities and overstated its equity, and its earnings were overstated.[25] Enron disclosed to its shareholders that it had hedged downside risk in its own illiquid investments using special purpose entities. However, the investors were oblivious to the fact that the special purpose entities were actually using the company's own stock and financial guarantees to finance these hedges. This setup prevented Enron from being protected from the downside risk.[25] Notable examples of special purpose entities that Enron employed were JEDI, Chewco, Whitewing, and LJM.</div></div>

LWW
11-17-2011, 06:33 AM
So you again prove me wrong by switching to agreeing with me?

G-S created the means ENRON used.

Corzine was a chief player.

He is a chief player in the most recent debacle.

And ... as I predicted ... you are going into self flagellation fits to distract from the fact that yet another demokrook has raped people of their net worth.

Shame on you.

Soflasnapper
11-19-2011, 08:16 PM
More absurd claims from you.

Corzine and Goldman have plenty to answer for. I fervently hope they are fully prosecuted for what they did that was illegal.

But it wasn't the Enron fraud for either party.

Clearly from these links, what Goldman and Merrill Lynch did was lawful according to tax law.

Clearly as well, what Enron stretched these practices to reached enough difference in degree to be a difference in kind, and veered into illegalities not present in the original concept and execution, reaching the level of securities fraud (for which they received multiple convictions and jail terms).

And as the links again show, Enron came up with their stretched-beyond-the-breaking-of-law point on their own, with in-house CPAs doing the conniving, not under the advice and creation of those mechanisms by G-S as a firm, or Corzine in particular as an executive. As if the CEO of G-S came up with ANYTHING, as opposed to their own in-house evil geniuses.

LWW
11-20-2011, 03:37 AM
Your problem is you consistently come to wrong conclusions because you insist upon starting from a spoon fed premise.

Since reading non party approved data is something you are allergic to, I'll post the verbiage and some pictures which should make it easier for you to follow:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In 1993, Goldman Sachs & Co. invented a security that offered Enron Corp. and other companies an irresistible combination.

http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/articles/mipsdescr_files/image002.jpg

It was designed in such a way that it could be called debt or equity, as needed. For the tax man, it resembled a loan, so that interest payments could be deducted from taxable income. For shareholders and rating agencies, who look askance at overleveraged companies, it resembled equity.

To top officials at the Clinton Treasury Department, the so-called Monthly Income Preferred Shares, or MIPS, looked like a charade -- a way for companies to mask the size of their debt while cutting their federal tax bill.

Treasury made repeated attempts to curtail their use. In 1994, it scolded Wall Street firms and asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to intervene. The next year, the department sent legislative proposals to Congress aimed at closing loopholes and punishing offenders. In 1998, the Internal Revenue Service tried to disallow Enron's tax deductions. Each move was beaten back by a coalition of investment banks, law firms and corporate borrowers, all of whom had a financial stake in the double-edged accounting maneuver.

The MIPS saga shows how moneyed interests, with armies of well-connected lobbyists and wads of campaign contributions to both parties, defeated the Treasury's efforts to force straightforward corporate accounting. With corporate bookkeeping now under scrutiny, the story of this flexible financial instrument shows how such accounting gimmickry gained acceptance.

Enron's collapse cannot be traced to any one decision. But the survival of MIPS was an early milestone for what became a series of transactions in which the company borrowed more and more without making clear that was what it was doing.

In the first of several similar deals, Enron in November 1993 set up a subsidiary called Enron Capital LLC in Turks and Caicos, a Caribbean tax haven. The unit sold about $214 million in preferred shares -- the MIPS -- to investors through Goldman Sachs, promising an 8% annual dividend paid in monthly installments. The subsidiary then lent the proceeds to the parent corporation, to be paid back over 50 years or more. </div></div>

Qtec
11-20-2011, 04:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In 1993, Goldman Sachs & Co. invented a security that offered Enron Corp. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>and other companies</span> an irresistible combination. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Corzine and Goldman have plenty to answer for. I fervently hope they are fully prosecuted for what they did that was illegal.

But it wasn't the Enron fraud for either party.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Clearly from these links, what Goldman and Merrill Lynch did was lawful according to tax law.</span> </div></div>

ie, Corzine did not create a method of accounting in order to help Enron commit fraud.

Q

LWW
11-20-2011, 06:34 AM
http://www.catalogs.com/info/bestof/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/give_dog_treat-300x299-treat.jpg

Good boy.

Soflasnapper
11-20-2011, 09:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Although trading firms such as Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch used the conventional "agent model" for reporting revenue (where only the trading or brokerage fee would be reported as revenue), Enron instead elected to report the entire value of each of its trades as revenue. This "merchant model" approach was considered much more aggressive in the accounting interpretation than the agent model.[17] </div></div>

Your complaint by comparison is like blaming the legal use of the deduction for mortgage interest for a felony tax fraud when someone deducts mortgage interest for more than 2 homes or beyond the capped amount.

Or blaming the original and safe securitization of mortgages that existed for over 20 years for the later abuses and frauds that occurred in the middle to later '00 years.

Enron went far beyond what had been done prior to this, taking a legal tax loophole and running a fraudulent truck through it. Leading to criminal charges for what they did.

You think this means all they did is use this same identical dodge, when clearly that isn't so.