Robespierre

Bear Verdict Should Please Wall Street

Agreed on all except they will never "take all their money to the bank". They are greedy and sociopaths but not fools


On Nov 11 08:58 AM AndrewBaker wrote:

> Bad judgment and greed aren't crimes: agreed, but the mentality that
> these people have is no better than that of a criminal, only they
> don't break laws that will make them that.
>
> The difference between breaking in and stealing someone else's goods,
> and taking their money in, high risk gambling with it, and telling
> them it's been lost in a bad investment, is not one of criminal or
> not criminal but one of morals and ethics. These financial workers
> have as low if not lower morals and ethics than a criminal when it
> comes to regard for others and their possessions, and the effect
> that depriving them of such has on people and their families.
>
> One big difference is a criminal goes to jail, whilst a stupid financier
> languishes in his expensive home, leaving it only to laugh all the
> way to the bank.

Bear Verdict Should Please Wall Street

BTW the S&L crisis "produced" 100s of investigations and 100s of successful criminal sentences and as far as debacle it was orders of magnitude smaller that our current crisis. Of course the current one has an SEC that refuses to investigate and an FDIC/FED who allows bankers to lie with impunity : "Banks are moving quickly to restructure commercial mortgages under new U.S. guidelines that are more forgiving of battered property values and can help banks avoid bigger losses.

Citigroup Inc., regional bank Whitney Holding Corp. and other lenders around the country are planning to review loans now considered nonperforming to determine if they can be reclassified under the guidelines announced Oct. 30 by bank, thrift and credit-union regulators, according to bank executives and people familiar with the matter. The moves could help the banks absorb fewer losses on troubled real-estate loans and preserve capital.."

Of course being able to hide loses means that these banks will show a fake profit that will produce very REAL bonuses for them. Funny how "greed and stupidity" works so well for the individual bankers and so badly for the banks and tax payers!

Bear Verdict Should Please Wall Street

"But bad judgment and greed aren’t necessarily crimes.

Going forward, prosecutors will have to make sure they really have the goods on Wall Street executives before trying to criminalize sheer stupidity."

So interesting that their "bad judgment and greed" always produces millions of dollars to them and loses to tax payers. I would like to see for once one of these executives lose ever single penny of THEIR own wealth because of what you call : "bad judgment and greed"

BTW every year 100s of people are set free for many different crimes such as theft, homicide etc. I guess other criminals should feel very safe if we follow your logic of: "The quick verdict by a federal jury in Brooklyn will send a chilling message to other prosecutors looking to hold Wall Street executives responsible for the events that sparked the Great Recession."

How Regulated Does Wall Street Need to Be?

None of what you mention will come to pass. There will be no regulation of any of these banks. What you fail to see is that this money is not just for the bankers themselves. Some of this money will end up in the pockets of "our" elected officials in many different ways from campaign contributions to speakers fees (once they leave office) to very lucrative "consulting" jobs to jobs to family members etc. So all these talk about regulation is just absurd and completely detached from the facts on the ground. These people are for all practical purpose untouchable.

Jamie Dimon: The Man Who Could Save Wall Street

The only "diligence" and "smarts" that all these CEOs have demonstrated is clearly shown on their acquisition binge:
Aquire congress
Aquire presidents
Undermine regulation

And after all is done start re-writing history so the people you just robbed (tax payers) are fooled into believing that you just saved the country.

Have anyone noticed the recent PR attack by all these CEOs?

Are Banks Being Naughty Again with Derivatives? Could Be Good

Yes, there is enough exposure to bankrupt the financials with leverage, provided that they haven't managed risk.

But they are managing risk very well via a future tax payer bail-out if needed. Isn't that kind of peace of mind that you can get when the commander in chief works for you and have nothing to fear?


On Sep 29 11:20 AM Jasonaidan wrote:

> The notional value of the derivatives contract seems irrelevant to
> me considering the fact that some contracts are netted with equal
> dollar amounts being swapped. It seems to me that the importance
> of Reggie's analysis is the amount of net credit exposure based on
> TCE. Yes, there is enough exposure to bankrupt the financials with
> leverage, provided that they haven't managed risk.
>
> Anthony Harrison wrote: "This highly respected and highly rated financial
> giant holds nearly $80 trillion in derivatives (notional value),
> ahead of Bank of America’s $75 trillion and Goldman Sachs’ $48 trillion.
> This notional value of JPMs derivatives is nearly 39 times its total
> assets, 850 times its tangible equity and six times the US GDP."
>
>

Private Equity Releverages with a Vengeance

To expect the banks to behave differently while keeping the same players is my definition of insanity. These people will ripoff the taxpayers again with the full cooperation of the current administration and the regulatory minions.

High Frequency Trading: We Fear What We Do Not Understand

To me the solution is simple. Force investment instead of trading to benefit GS. How? Tax gains on holdings of less than a few hours at %90 a few days at %80 and so on. There is no reason at all for the benefit to the country to have GS make millions of $$$ doing this. If they want to skim the public go an open a casino in Vegas

How Oversold Are We?

.. We know that the market will eventually rebound
This is the dumbest statement ever uttered by the "experts" when no time frame is given. So next time you fell like saying that why don't you add something like in a year, in two, in ??