Goldman sachs ..the evil bubble web, breakdown of the paulson heist [Archive] - NightClubCity.com: New York Nightlife Guide, New York Nightclubs

View Full Version : Goldman sachs ..the evil bubble web, breakdown of the paulson heist

jameznyhc

07-19-2009, 10:04 AM

.laurenx.

07-21-2009, 02:17 PM

lol @ alll 29,000 employees getting a $700,000+ bonus:rolleyes:

double lol @ this mess

"So the two former employees from Goldman Sachs now allow Goldman Sachs to be a bank holding company. Well, why would they want to be a bank holding company? Well, now they can get even more funds from the government. They cannot only get the TARP funds but they can also get FDIC funds. Oh, and there's also this other little pesky thing. The SEC, the SEC doesn't oversee bank holding companies. The Federal Reserve oversees a bank holding company "

funny how theres no mention that morgan stanley, citigroup, amex, , etc were also allowed to become bank holding companies.

and the entire thing about the sec not regulating BHC's is just completely wrong. the additional federal filings and regulatory reporting is off the charts. i dont know where the hell he got that info from.

jameznyhc

07-21-2009, 03:16 PM

.laurenx.

07-21-2009, 03:34 PM

When you become a BHC you are overseen by the federal reserve.. who monitors federal reserve? nobody .. SEC oversee investment firms ..not bhc's

BHC's with over 300 shareholders are required to register with the SEC. so we report to both.

jameznyhc

07-21-2009, 04:01 PM

BHC's with over 300 shareholders are required to register with the SEC. so we report to both.

yes but that is specifically for new or smaller banks restructuring for advantage of federal liquidity and the takeover over of other banks .. Because goldman can use hedge for collatiral it exempts them from reporting to the sec.. as oppossed to smaller banks who dont have the collatrial with 300 plus shareholders .. its all a scam read it yourself

Former-New York Fed Chairman's ties to the firm
In May 2009, it was reported that the Chairman of the New York Fed, Stephen Friedman, was a former-director at, and shareholder of Goldman Sachs, having retired from the firm in 1994 and retained substantial stock.[80] The controversy and criticism caused by what was seen as a conflict of interest between Friedman's new role as supervisor and regulator to Goldman Sachs (due to its conversion from securities firm to a bank holding company), and in particular, his purchase of shares in the firm when it traded at historical lows in Q4 2008, forced him to resign on May 7 2009. Although Friedman's purchases of Goldman stock did not violate any Fed rule, statute, or policy, he stated that the Fed did not need this distraction. He also claims his purchases, made while approval of a waiver was pending, were motivated by a desire to demonstrate confidence in the company during a time of market distress.[81]

Friedman was named Chairman of the New York Fed in January 2008. However, Goldman's conversion to bank holding company in September 2008 meant it was now regulated by the Fed and not the SEC. When it became apparent that Timothy Geithner, then-New York Fed president would leave his role at the Fed and become Treasury Secretary, a temporary one-year waiver of a rule was granted to Friedman that would otherwise forbid Fed board members from direct interest with those it regulated ('class C' directors).

Friedman therefore agreed to remain on the board until the end of 2009 to provide continuity in the wake of the turmoil caused by Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy. Had the waiver not been granted, the New York Fed would have lost both its president and its chairman (or Friedman would have had to divest his Goldman shares).[80] This would have been highly disruptive for the New York Fed's role in the capital markets, and Friedman claims he agreed to stay on the NY Fed board out of a sense of public duty, but that his decision was "being mischaracterised as improper".[82] Currently, the corporation has two executives with ties to the Obama administration and also a board member on the TARP monitoring committee.

.laurenx.

07-21-2009, 04:12 PM

trust me, GS is still required to make filings and report to the sec.

pages 113-117
http://www2.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/investors/financials/current/10q/10q-2009-1q.pdf

jameznyhc

07-21-2009, 04:36 PM

trust me, GS is still required to make filings and report to the sec.

pages 113-117
http://www2.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/investors/financials/current/10q/10q-2009-1q.pdf

But that does not give the sec the power to regulate and oversee them .. they are overseen by federal reserve .. and the federal reserve is overseen by nobody including the sec

By becoming bank holding companies, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley gained some breathing room in the immediate term. But the change also may lay the groundwork for additional deal making. Given the number of bank failures expected this year, it is possible that Goldman and Morgan Stanley could seek to buy those banks cheaply in a “roll-up” strategy.

Before the move to make the two investment banks into holding banks, federal regulations prohibited them from pursuing such deals. Indeed, Morgan Stanley’s recent talks with Wachovia revolved around Wachovia buying Morgan Stanley.

Being a bank holding company would also give the two banks access to the discount window of the Federal Reserve. While they have had access to Fed lending facilities in recent months, regulators had planned to take away discount window access in January.

The regulation by the Federal Reserve also brings a host of accounting rule changes that should benefit the two banks in the current environment.

.laurenx.

07-21-2009, 04:59 PM

But that does not give the sec the power to regulate and oversee them .. they are overseen by federal reserve .. and the federal reserve is overseen by nobody including the sec

By becoming bank holding companies, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley gained some breathing room in the immediate term. But the change also may lay the groundwork for additional deal making. Given the number of bank failures expected this year, it is possible that Goldman and Morgan Stanley could seek to buy those banks cheaply in a “roll-up” strategy.

Before the move to make the two investment banks into holding banks, federal regulations prohibited them from pursuing such deals. Indeed, Morgan Stanley’s recent talks with Wachovia revolved around Wachovia buying Morgan Stanley.

Being a bank holding company would also give the two banks access to the discount window of the Federal Reserve. While they have had access to Fed lending facilities in recent months, regulators had planned to take away discount window access in January.

The regulation by the Federal Reserve also brings a host of accounting rule changes that should benefit the two banks in the current environment.

By becoming bank holding companies, the firms are agreeing to significantly tighter regulations and much closer supervision by bank examiners from several government agencies rather than only the Securities and Exchange Commission. Now, the firms will look more like commercial banks, with more disclosure, higher capital reserves and less risk-taking.

Top 50 bank holding companies Summary Page (http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/nicweb/Top50Form.aspx)

are you really trying to tell me that none of these entities on that list have to answer to the SEC? just admit it,when it comes to this aspect ur wrong and so is ur friend glenn.

jameznyhc

07-21-2009, 07:14 PM

By becoming bank holding companies, the firms are agreeing to significantly tighter regulations and much closer supervision by bank examiners from several government agencies rather than only the Securities and Exchange Commission. Now, the firms will look more like commercial banks, with more disclosure, higher capital reserves and less risk-taking.

Top 50 bank holding companies Summary Page (http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/nicweb/Top50Form.aspx)

are you really trying to tell me that none of these entities on that list have to answer to the SEC? just admit it,when it comes to this aspect ur wrong and so is ur friend glenn.

What dont you understand? do you know what oversight & regulation means? .. thats approval of mergers, takeovers, accounting practices, ..get it?? ..The fed reserve is the decision maker ..filing a quarterly earnings summary is what any public company does lol ..here one more time

In May 2009, it was reported that the Chairman of the New York Fed, Stephen Friedman, was a former-director at, and shareholder of Goldman Sachs, having retired from the firm in 1994 and retained substantial stock.[80] The controversy and criticism caused by what was seen as a conflict of interest between Friedman's new role as supervisor and regulator to Goldman Sachs (due to its conversion from securities firm to a bank holding company), and in particular, his purchase of shares in the firm when it traded at historical lows in Q4 2008, forced him to resign on May 7 2009. Although Friedman's purchases of Goldman stock did not violate any Fed rule, statute, or policy, he stated that the Fed did not need this distraction. He also claims his purchases, made while approval of a waiver was pending, were motivated by a desire to demonstrate confidence in the company during a time of market distress.[81]

Friedman was named Chairman of the New York Fed in January 2008. However, Goldman's conversion to bank holding company in September 2008 meant it was now regulated by the Fed and not the SEC. When it became apparent that Timothy Geithner, then-New York Fed president would leave his role at the Fed and become Treasury Secretary, a temporary one-year waiver of a rule was granted to Friedman that would otherwise forbid Fed board members from direct interest with those it regulated ('class C' directors).

Friedman therefore agreed to remain on the board until the end of 2009 to provide continuity in the wake of the turmoil caused by Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy. Had the waiver not been granted, the New York Fed would have lost both its president and its chairman (or Friedman would have had to divest his Goldman shares).[80] This would have been highly disruptive for the New York Fed's role in the capital markets, and Friedman claims he agreed to stay on the NY Fed board out of a sense of public duty, but that his decision was "being mischaracterised as improper".[82] Currently, the corporation has two executives with ties to the Obama administration and also a board member on the TARP monitoring committee. [83]

jameznyhc

07-21-2009, 07:33 PM

trust me, GS is still required to make filings and report to the sec.

pages 113-117
http://www2.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/investors/financials/current/10q/10q-2009-1q.pdf

ok and what does that have to with oversight, approval of maergers, takeovers, and accounting practices? ... lol,

there only one agency with that authority and guess who it is?

Submitting a form 8-k form doesnt mean the sec can oversee and regulate them get it? all public companies submit that form lol ..they only way around it is to go private .. you should know that before running your mouth without the facts

the fed regulates and oversees banking ..

the sec does not regulate banking ..

[B] the SEC enforces the statutory requirement that public companies submit quarterly and annual reports, as well as other periodic reports. In addition to annual financial reports, company executives must provide a narrative account, called the "management discussion and analysis" (MD&A), that outlines the previous year of operations and explains how the company fared in that time period.

.laurenx.

07-21-2009, 08:23 PM

:wallbang'

did u actually read the pages i suggested? i didnt post the 10Q as an example of an sec filing. it goes into detail about how GS&Co. GSEC and other subs still report to the SEC becaquse they're broker dealers.

LMAO @ running my mouth. ur right james, what the fuck do i know? i only fucking work there.

so for the last time.
the point is that the video u posted is completely misleading. its making i tseem like GS is completely free of the SEC and free of all their regulations and requirements operating soley under the fed WHICH ISNT TRUE.

GET IT??????

jameznyhc

07-21-2009, 08:33 PM

:wallbang'

did u actually read the pages i suggested? i didnt post the 8k as an example of an sec filing. it goes into detail about how GS&Co. GSEC and other subs still report to the SEC becaquse they're broker dealers.

LMAO @ running my mouth. ur right james, what the fuck do i know? i only fucking work there.

so for the last time.
the point is that the video u posted is completely misleading. its making i tseem like GS is completely free of the SEC and free of all their regulations and requirements operating soley under the fed WHICH ISNT TRUE.

GET IT??????

no he never said public companies are no longer not required to submit 8-k forms lol ..what he said was converting to a bhc they get access to tarp, bailouts, fdic, and now are regulated by the federal reserve who nopw over sees goldman .. when they were an investment firm the sec oversaw them and the fed could not .. why? hmm because maybe banking as oppossed to security exchange markets is federally insured? ... yep running your mouth and looking ignorant

jameznyhc

07-21-2009, 08:34 PM

:lol:lol

Friedman was named Chairman of the New York Fed in January 2008. However, Goldman's conversion to bank holding company in September 2008 meant it was now regulated by the Fed and not the SEC. When it became apparent that Timothy Geithner, then-New York Fed president would leave his role at the Fed and become Treasury Secretary, a temporary one-year waiver of a rule was granted to Friedman that would otherwise forbid Fed board members from direct interest with those it regulated ('class C' directors).

.laurenx.

07-21-2009, 08:41 PM

no he never said public companies are no longer not required to submit 8-k forms lol ..what he said was converting to a bhc they get access to tarp, bailouts, fdic, and now are regulated by the federal reserve who nopw over sees goldman .. when they were an investment firm the sec oversaw them and the fed could not .. why? hmm because maybe banking as oppossed to security exchange markets is federally insured? ... yep running your mouth and looking ignorant

and as i mentioned he singles gs out like we're the only ones who were granted BHC status.

his exact words were "they dont have that pesky SEC thing to look them over". and as i said 500 times we still do have to adhere to sec regulations.

jameznyhc

07-21-2009, 08:45 PM

and as i mentioned he singles gs out like we're the only ones who were granted BHC status.

his exact words were "they dont have that pesky SEC thing to look them over". and as i said 500 times we still do have to adhere to sec regulations.

they dont oversee you your a banking firm lol ..thats federal reserves job..the sec does not have the authority .. why did he specifically point out goldman? lol .. the connection to the treasury, the fed reserve, and the goverment web .. why are all these guys who can make so much goin for govt jobs?????? lmao wake up and get with it .. he was pointing out the Goldman- Govt connection

jameznyhc

07-21-2009, 08:47 PM

and as i mentioned he singles gs out like we're the only ones who were granted BHC status.
his exact words were "they dont have that pesky SEC thing to look them over". and as i said 500 times we still do have to adhere to sec regulations.

um no he didnt he specified the connection goldman had with the govt .. from ceo's , partners, waivers, etc ..lol you dont even know and you workl for the company

.laurenx.

07-21-2009, 09:00 PM

um no he didnt he specified the connection goldman had with the govt .. from ceo's , partners, waivers, etc ..lol you dont even know and you workl for the company

:yourcrazyplease dont tell me what i know.

um yes he did. he made it seem as if GS got something special because of our connections. and thats not true when it comes to becoming a BHC because every other fucking firm was granted that status also.

jameznyhc

07-21-2009, 09:04 PM

:yourcrazyplease dont tell me what i know.

um yes he did. he made it seem as if GS got something special because of our connections. and thats not true when it comes to becoming a BHC because every other fucking firm was granted that status also.

he was breaking down the paulson heist the man who once ran your company lmao .. of course those other firms went BHC as well to take advantage..As did Goldman .. But what do they have to do with the goldman -Govt connection he was speaking about? :yourcrazy

lol since when does the sec oversee the banking industry and not the securities industry? .. you know nothing and whats worse you work there

.laurenx.

07-21-2009, 09:04 PM

they dont oversee you your a banking firm lol ..thats federal reserves job..the sec does not have the authority .. why did he specifically point out goldman? lol .. the connection to the treasury, the fed reserve, and the goverment web .. why are all these guys who can make so much goin for govt jobs?????? lmao wake up and get with it .. he was pointing out the Goldman- Govt connection
oh my god u dont get it.

gtua043y ea4086y457g6get7ye76tw78G9987

wow.i dont know why i bother with you. obviousfuckingly he was pointing out the gs gov connection but highlighting the fact that we got BHC status TO ME IS POINTLESS BECAUSE SO DID EVERYONE ELSE. WE DIDNT GET SPECIAL TREATMENT

AND AGAIN I ASK, did u fucking read the pages i posted? yes or no? u can keep posting little snippets of random news articles with no sources. but my sec filing proves you're wrong.

.laurenx.

07-21-2009, 09:07 PM

he was breaking down the paulson heist the man who once ran your company lmao .. of course those other firms went BHC as well to take advantage..As did Goldman .. But what do they have to do with the goldman -Govt connection he was speaking about? :yourcrazy

lol since when does the sec oversee the banking industry and not the securities industry? .. you know nothing and whats worse you work there

ive worked there for 4 years im well aware of hank.

oh man. we have well over 5000 subsidiaries, noteable ones are listed in the link i posted which are fucking regulated by the SEC.

whats worse is u trying to tell me about the company i work for?the only one looking like an idiot here is you. but u should be used to that ;)

alrighty off to my bf's house.. cant wait for that $770,000 check to come in :rubhands:lol

jameznyhc

07-21-2009, 09:09 PM

oh my god u dont get it.

gtua043y ea4086y457g6get7ye76tw78G9987

wow.i dont know why i bother with you. obviousfuckingly he was pointing out the gs gov connection but highlighting the fact that we got BHC status TO ME IS POINTLESS BECAUSE SO DID EVERYONE ELSE. WE DIDNT GET SPECIAL TREATMENT

AND AGAIN I ASK, did u fucking read the pages i posted? yes or no? u can keep posting little snippets of random news articles with no sources. but my sec filing proves you're wrong.

lmao every public company has to file with the sec.. that does not give them the authority the federal reserve has in banking industry..the sec is limited to securties industry NOT BANKING .. we know everyone else took advantage AFTER paulson engineered this heist .. .the point was to show the connection Goldman had in engineering this fraudalent bailout

jameznyhc

07-21-2009, 09:15 PM

ive worked there for 4 years im well aware of hank.

oh man. we have well over 5000 subsidiaries, noteable ones are listed in the link i posted which are fucking regulated by the SEC.

whats worse is u trying to tell me about the company i work for?the only one looking like an idiot here is you. but u should be used to that ;)

alrighty off to my bf's house.. cant wait for that $770,000 check to come in :rubhands:lol

he said there compensation package could equate to 770k for each of the 29k employees with millions left over .. he never said thats what each employee will recieve lol take the shit out of your ears your full of it

jameznyhc

07-21-2009, 09:19 PM

what is Steven Freidmans job and where does he work? lol

jameznyhc

07-21-2009, 10:01 PM

Benny B

07-21-2009, 10:31 PM

so hold on a second.. someone actually thinks the SEC is something to worry about??? you mean the same SEC that couldnt even catch bernie madoff??? the same SEC that is soo underfunded it cant perform half the jobs its supposed to?? lol

Gspot555

07-21-2009, 10:41 PM

jameznyhc

07-21-2009, 11:08 PM

Jamez, this does not mean less regulation, only more...between SEC, OCC and the Federal Reserve

if you want to argue no one oversees the FED, then that is a different argument...but if there is definitely more regulation, with more to come for FHC's

Steve Fredman is in charge of overseeing goldman ..he works for the fed not the sec.. the fed decides all of goldmans aquisitions .. and can investigate their accounting practices etc.. thats now out of the sec's hands they dont touch that .. why?

jameznyhc

07-21-2009, 11:10 PM

Jamez, this does not mean less regulation, only more...between SEC, OCC and the Federal Reserve

if you want to argue no one oversees the FED, then that is a different argument...but if there is definitely more regulation, with more to come for FHC's

bingo and how does the fed regulate goldman now that they are an bhc? ..they benefit with tarp, fed discount window, fdic, and the fed oversee's theyre aquisitions, mergers, accting practices etc...again any public company has to register with the sec.. thats not what he arguing

metfan85

07-22-2009, 03:52 AM

BHC's with over 300 shareholders are required to register with the SEC. so we report to both.

you didn't get special treatment? Who are you lying to? They are the friggin government, oh no wait you think you run something because you voted didnt you HAHAHA

Matt Taibbi - Taibblog - True/Slant (http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/)

read that link study it educate yourself a bit. and you don't register with anyone. you're not GS, you're nothing there just like the rest of us, if you leave tomorrow the company, or as Matt Taibbi described so eloquently the world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money, will run just as smoothly.

And yeah GS has no special connections that could possibly get them special favors...

By now, most of us know the major players. As George Bush's last Treasury secretary, former Goldman CEO Henry Paulson was the architect of the bailout, a suspiciously self-serving plan to funnel trillions of Your Dollars to a handful of his old friends on Wall Street. Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's former Treasury secretary, spent 26 years at Goldman before becoming chairman of Citigroup – which in turn got a $300 billion taxpayer bailout from Paulson. There's John Thain, the rear end in a top hat chief of Merrill Lynch who bought an $87,000 area rug for his office as his company was imploding; a former Goldman banker, Thain enjoyed a multibillion-dollar handout from Paulson, who used billions in taxpayer funds to help Bank of America rescue Thain's sorry company. And Robert Steel, the former Goldmanite head of Wachovia, scored himself and his fellow executives $225 million in golden parachute payments as his bank was self-destructing. There's Joshua Bolten, Bush's chief of staff during the bailout, and Mark Patterson, the current Treasury chief of staff, who was a Goldman lobbyist just a year ago, and Ed Liddy, the former Goldman director whom Paulson put in charge of bailed-out insurance giant AIG, which forked over $13 billion to Goldman after Liddy came on board. The heads of the Canadian and Italian national banks are Goldman alums, as is the head of the World Bank, the head of the New York Stock Exchange, the last two heads of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York – which, incidentally, is now in charge of overseeing Goldman – not to mention ...

.laurenx.

07-22-2009, 11:11 AM

.laurenx.

07-22-2009, 11:12 AM

you didn't get special treatment? Who are you lying to? They are the friggin government, oh no wait you think you run something because you voted didnt you HAHAHA

Matt Taibbi - Taibblog - True/Slant (http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/)

read that link study it educate yourself a bit. and you don't register with anyone. you're not GS, you're nothing there just like the rest of us, if you leave tomorrow the company, or as Matt Taibbi described so eloquently the world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money, will run just as smoothly.

And yeah GS has no special connections that could possibly get them special favors...

By now, most of us know the major players. As George Bush's last Treasury secretary, former Goldman CEO Henry Paulson was the architect of the bailout, a suspiciously self-serving plan to funnel trillions of Your Dollars to a handful of his old friends on Wall Street. Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's former Treasury secretary, spent 26 years at Goldman before becoming chairman of Citigroup – which in turn got a $300 billion taxpayer bailout from Paulson. There's John Thain, the rear end in a top hat chief of Merrill Lynch who bought an $87,000 area rug for his office as his company was imploding; a former Goldman banker, Thain enjoyed a multibillion-dollar handout from Paulson, who used billions in taxpayer funds to help Bank of America rescue Thain's sorry company. And Robert Steel, the former Goldmanite head of Wachovia, scored himself and his fellow executives $225 million in golden parachute payments as his bank was self-destructing. There's Joshua Bolten, Bush's chief of staff during the bailout, and Mark Patterson, the current Treasury chief of staff, who was a Goldman lobbyist just a year ago, and Ed Liddy, the former Goldman director whom Paulson put in charge of bailed-out insurance giant AIG, which forked over $13 billion to Goldman after Liddy came on board. The heads of the Canadian and Italian national banks are Goldman alums, as is the head of the World Bank, the head of the New York Stock Exchange, the last two heads of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York – which, incidentally, is now in charge of overseeing Goldman – not to mention ...

i said special treatment in respect to becoming a BHC. please learn how to read.

.laurenx.

07-22-2009, 11:13 AM

what is Steven Freidmans job and where does he work? lol

ur aware he resigned from the fed months ago right?

jameznyhc

07-22-2009, 11:37 AM

ur aware he resigned from the fed months ago right?

he resigned in may of this year lol .. what was his job? ..why did he resign?..where did he work..

.laurenx.

07-22-2009, 11:38 AM

he resigned in may of this year lol .. what was his job? ..why did he resign?

isnt that months ago? isnt that what i said lol?

just wanted to bringing it up since u kept using the present tense when referring to him @ the fed :geek

jameznyhc

07-22-2009, 11:39 AM

isnt that months ago? isnt that what i said lol?

just wanted to bringing it up since u kept using the present tense when referring to him @ the fed :geek

well answer the questions..

metfan85

07-22-2009, 03:04 PM

i said special treatment in respect to becoming a BHC. please learn how to read.

and I said you are wrong. they received special treatment everywhere in becoming a BHC, in changing regulations on speculating, on recieving bailout money.

And if you don't believe then you can follow the links Matt Taibbi documents every deal GS has made to get them what they want.

Since you think you know how to read, why don't you try and use that ability to learn a thing or two.

.laurenx.

07-22-2009, 03:11 PM

and I said you are wrong. they received special treatment everywhere in becoming a BHC, in changing regulations on speculating, on recieving bailout money.

And if you don't believe then you can follow the links Matt Taibbi documents every deal GS has made to get them what they want.

Since you think you know how to read, why don't you try and use that ability to learn a thing or two.

since every other firm that applied to become a bhc was ALSO granted the status, i dont agree that we got special treatment. if MS, citi, etc were denied then yea id agree.

.laurenx.

07-22-2009, 03:12 PM

well answer the questions..

lol il answer the questions when u answer mine from yesterday about reading those pages

:chuckle

jameznyhc

07-22-2009, 03:13 PM

and I said you are wrong. they received special treatment everywhere in becoming a BHC, in changing regulations on speculating, on recieving bailout money.

And if you don't believe then you can follow the links Matt Taibbi documents every deal GS has made to get them what they want.

Since you think you know how to read, why don't you try and use that ability to learn a thing or two.

lol they became a bhc in oh sept of 2008 ..perfect timing .. but lehman could not :disgusted..see they had no special treatment

.laurenx.

07-22-2009, 03:15 PM

lol they became a bhc in oh sept of 2008 ..perfect timing .. but lehman could not :disgusted..see they had no special treatment

because they said they were in talks with bofa and barclays (BOTH BHC'S) to purchase them. why would they become a bhc if someone who was already a BHC was going to take them over?

jameznyhc

07-22-2009, 03:29 PM

because they said they were in talks with bofa and barclays (BOTH BHC'S) to purchase them. why would they become a bhc if someone who was already a BHC was going to take them over?

to stay in business duh.. some banks were aquired IE taken over ..others were BAILED OUT BY GOVT, and got all those goodies that came along with their newly minted BHC status right in time for bailouts .. lol

.laurenx.

07-22-2009, 03:48 PM

to stay in business duh.. some banks were aquired IE taken over ..others were BAILED OUT BY GOVT, and got all those goodies that came along with their newly minted BHC status right in time for bailouts .. lol

ok and lehman brothers north american was ultimately taken over by barclays who is a BHC.

metfan85

07-22-2009, 04:24 PM

lol they became a bhc in oh sept of 2008 ..perfect timing .. but lehman could not :disgusted..see they had no special treatment

not only in september of 08, but during the weekend and at night time.

I hate having to do work for other people, but Lauren here ya go pal, this is why select other companies were given special treatments:

1. The AIG bailout. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/taibbi/taibbi10.1.html) Goldman might have gone out of business last year if AIG had been allowed to proceed to an ordinary bankruptcy, as AIG owed Goldman about $20 billion at the time it went into a death spiral. Instead, Goldman gets to call upon its former chief, Hank Paulson, who green-lights this massive, $80 billion bailout of AIG (with Lloyd Blankfein in the room), at least $12.9 billion of which went straight to Goldman. Moreover, let's not forget this: both Goldman and Bank Societe Generale had been tattooing AIG with collateral calls in the period before AIG's collapse, with Goldman extracting a full $5.9 billion from the company during that time. It was those collateral calls that really killed AIG.

Now, ask yourself: exactly how big would Goldman's profits be this year, if they had to fill a still-extant $13 billion or even a $20 billion hole on its balance sheet from AIG's collapse? You think it would still be $3.44 billion? What if Hank Paulson had elected to save Lehman instead of saving AIG/Goldman, how big would Goldman's profits be then? Is anyone even asking this question?

I keep hearing people say, "Well, so what – it's only fair that Goldman got paid off for its deals with AIG. After all, AIG was contractually obligated to Goldman. Goldman deserves that money, because it was doing the right thing in buying insurance from AIG in the first place."

That's bullshit, too. As Rich Bennett over at the hilarious monkey business blog pointed out to me the other day, Goldman was insane and reckless in making those deals with AIG. Goldman wasn't removing risk from its books by buying CDS protection from AIG, they were exchanging one kind of risk for another kind of risk, counterparty risk. "If you have too much risk to one entity and they go bust, you're shit outta luck," Rich says. "They took AIG for a ride, and when the music stopped, they and their partners were going to be taking up the proverbial tookus."

So to review: Goldman makes insane bets, runs wild on AIGFP's house idiot Joe Cassano for a while, sticking him with $20 billion in risk, and when it all went to shit – as it inevitably had to – they drove a big stake through AIG's heart and got the government to step in and pay them off using our money. How's that for market capitalism? Just like Adam Smith drew it up, right? They're just smart guys!

.laurenx.

07-22-2009, 04:34 PM

not only in september of 08, but during the weekend and at night time.

I hate having to do work for other people, but Lauren here ya go pal, this is why select other companies were given special treatments:

1. The AIG bailout. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/taibbi/taibbi10.1.html) Goldman might have gone out of business last year if AIG had been allowed to proceed to an ordinary bankruptcy, as AIG owed Goldman about $20 billion at the time it went into a death spiral. Instead, Goldman gets to call upon its former chief, Hank Paulson, who green-lights this massive, $80 billion bailout of AIG (with Lloyd Blankfein in the room), at least $12.9 billion of which went straight to Goldman. Moreover, let's not forget this: both Goldman and Bank Societe Generale had been tattooing AIG with collateral calls in the period before AIG's collapse, with Goldman extracting a full $5.9 billion from the company during that time. It was those collateral calls that really killed AIG.

Now, ask yourself: exactly how big would Goldman's profits be this year, if they had to fill a still-extant $13 billion or even a $20 billion hole on its balance sheet from AIG's collapse? You think it would still be $3.44 billion? What if Hank Paulson had elected to save Lehman instead of saving AIG/Goldman, how big would Goldman's profits be then? Is anyone even asking this question?

I keep hearing people say, "Well, so what – it's only fair that Goldman got paid off for its deals with AIG. After all, AIG was contractually obligated to Goldman. Goldman deserves that money, because it was doing the right thing in buying insurance from AIG in the first place."

That's bullshit, too. As Rich Bennett over at the hilarious monkey business blog pointed out to me the other day, Goldman was insane and reckless in making those deals with AIG. Goldman wasn't removing risk from its books by buying CDS protection from AIG, they were exchanging one kind of risk for another kind of risk, counterparty risk. "If you have too much risk to one entity and they go bust, you're shit outta luck," Rich says. "They took AIG for a ride, and when the music stopped, they and their partners were going to be taking up the proverbial tookus."

So to review: Goldman makes insane bets, runs wild on AIGFP's house idiot Joe Cassano for a while, sticking him with $20 billion in risk, and when it all went to shit – as it inevitably had to – they drove a big stake through AIG's heart and got the government to step in and pay them off using our money. How's that for market capitalism? Just like Adam Smith drew it up, right? They're just smart guys!

call me crazy, but i thought i had said special treatment in respect to becoming a BHC.
oh yes yes, thats right i did, like three times already.

so u can google till ur hands fall off but it's pretty pointless lol.

chrisd1163

07-23-2009, 12:05 AM

I didn't read the thread but here is something I found interesting. My uncle is named on this and he swears he had nothing to do with it but he retired at 36 years old LOL.

15 Specialists From Big Board Are Indicted
By Jenny Anderson
The New York Times

Federal prosecutors announced the indictment yesterday of 15 former New York Stock Exchange floor traders, who are charged with cheating customers by mishandling trades to enrich their firms.

The Securities and Exchange Commission also filed securities fraud complaints against the 15 and against 5 other traders, saying they had made thousands of illicit trades from 1999 through 2003. The 20 were specialists - traders on the floor of the exchange who manage activity in particular stocks. The Big Board also settled S.E.C. accusations that it failed to regulate its traders properly.

The joint enforcement action is another black eye for the New York Stock Exchange, which has had scandals in recent years, and comes at a pivotal moment in the exchange's evolution. While the S.E.C. recently endorsed its floor-based system as part of an overhaul of how stocks are traded in the United States, the Big Board was still forced to make some radical changes. A hybrid system allows more electronic trading while maintaining the core floor-based operations.

But a backbone of the New York Stock Exchange is the specialist, a trader who has the obligation to create an orderly market in the stocks he or she supervises.

Critics of the system, often proponents of purely electronic markets, say the human element slows the process, creates conflicts of interest - all the traders buy and sell for their company's account as well as for customer accounts - and is unnecessary, given the technology that is available.

Defenders of the exchange say that because of the large volume of stock that is traded there, it offers better prices with fewer fluctuations while providing the opportunity for human judgment when such judgment is needed. About 1.6 billion shares a day, worth $56 billion, are currently traded on the Big Board.

At its heart, the case again raises the question of whether self-regulatory organizations like the New York Stock Exchange can successfully police themselves. Yesterday's indictments represented the second big floor-trading scandal in recent years. In 1999, the S.E.C. found that the Big Board failed to uncover and halt illegal proprietary trading by a ring of independent floor brokers.

While the Big Board uncovered the original instances of improper trading in this latest case, it failed to follow through, leading to S.E.C. supervision of the investigation. Last year, the S.E.C. brought enforcement actions against seven specialist firms. The firms paid more than $243 million without admitting wrongdoing. The S.E.C. is considering whether to change the self-regulatory model.

Federal regulators say the specialists engaged in two illegal trading schemes: using knowledge of a trade to deal in front of it, and "interpositioning," which occurs when a specialist intervenes in a trade rather than matching buy and sell orders.

The 15 specialists indicted, all but two of whom have left their firms, were members of the New York Stock Exchange's five major specialist trading companies. They are accused of making illegal trading profits from interpositioning of $13.4 million and costing investors more than $19 million from trading for their firms' accounts ahead of customers.

In some instances where, prosecutors said, the traders were cheating customers, they referred to the exchange's electronic order system with an obscenity. Mark Schonfeld, director of the S.E.C.'s Northeast Region office, said the specialists' disregard for their obligations was "profound, and at times profane."

In one case, at 9:41 a.m. on Oct. 2, 2002, the computer of a specialist in General Electric stock indicated that at a price of $25.85, there were orders to buy 39,500 shares and orders to sell 35,000 shares. The specialist, David A. Finnerty of Fleet Specialist, should have matched the 35,000, prosecutors say. Instead he bought 22,700 shares for Fleet's own account at $25.85, then raised the price to $25.95. Just after 9:42, he sold 12,800 shares from the same account, making $1,280 in about 14 seconds.

Regulators say he made $4.3 million in illegal profit and caused $5 million in customer harm.

But Mr. Finnerty's lawyer, Frederick P. Hafetz, said of his client: "His conduct was consistent with his obligations to the New York Stock Exchange. He is fully confident that he will be vindicated at trial."

David N. Kelley, the United States attorney in Manhattan, said at a news conference that the specialists put "their own interests and the interests of their firms before the interests of the unwitting investors."

"Over time," Mr. Kelley continued, "these small thefts accumulate into large profits that translate into higher compensation and bonuses for specialists who execute the trades." He added that the investigation was continuing and that other indictments could follow.

If convicted, the accused face prison terms as long as 10 to 20 years and fines of $1 million to $5 million, or twice the gross gain or loss resulting from the improper trades, prosecutors said.

Fourteen traders who were indicted have been arrested (the 15th is thought to be in the Netherlands.) All 14 pleaded not guilty late yesterday.

As part of its settlement with the S.E.C., the stock exchange agreed to finance an outside monitor to conduct audits of its regulatory program every two years through 2011. In addition, it will set up a pilot program of video and audio surveillance on its trading floor for at least 18 months in a group of 20 highly liquid stocks.

The Big Board had instituted a number of measures to curb abuse. In December 2003, it created a chief regulatory officer and formally separated its regulatory arm from the business side. Regulatory management has been almost entirely replaced, and the size of the group has increased markedly. A specialist surveillance unit and a risk assessment unit have been created.

The 15 people indicted yesterday include, in addition to Mr. Finnerty, Donald R. Foley II, Scott G. Hunt and Thomas J. Murphy Jr., all former employees of Fleet Specialist, now part of Bank of America; Frank A. Delaney IV and Kevin M. Fee, former specialists at Bear Wagner; Freddy DeBoer, a former Labranche & Company specialist; Robert A. Johnson, of Spear, Leeds Kellogg Specialists; and Patrick J. McGagh, Joseph Bongiorno, Michael J. Hayward, Richard P. Volpe, Michael F. Stern, Gerard T. Hayes and Robert A. Scavone, of Van der Moolen Specialists USA.

At the arraignment yesterday, Barry H. Berke, who represents Mr. Bongiorno, called the charges "an unprecedented attempt to transform industrywide issues into a criminal case" against individuals.

The S.E.C.'s case names five other specialists. They include two former Spear Leeds chiefs, Todd Christie and Robert Lucklow. Neither continues to work at Goldman Sachs, which acquired Spear, Leeds in 2000. James Parolisi and Patrick E. Murphy also worked at Spear Leeds.

"Patrick Murphy has long enjoyed a sterling reputation for his skill and his integrity as a specialist at the N.Y.S.E.," Mr. Murphy's lawyer, Robert F. Katzberg, said.

The fifth trader is Warren Turk, who worked at Van der Moolen.

Lawrence Iason, Mr. Turk's lawyer, said, "My client testified before the S.E.C., and in doing so explained he has done nothing wrong and intends to contest the charges."

Robert J Giuffra Jr., a lawyer for Van der Moolen, said, "Van der Moolen specialists continue to cooperate with all government investigations, and the N.Y.S.E. and has taken remedial steps to put these past matters behind the firm."

Representatives of the other firms declined to comment.

In calls to homes of 12 of the 15 former executives, either the executives refused to comment or the calls were not returned. Thomas Murphy, Mr. DeBoer and Mr. Volpe could not be reached.

TheHipHopBillGates

07-25-2009, 09:26 AM