....lybob Posted December 28, 2010 Author Share Posted December 28, 2010 Yes. Bet you can't explain how. Sorry trick question the answer was no, they manipulated no data merely withheld their opinion of their products and they came to a settlement with no claim of wrong doing- the insider trading was a little trickier but it could be said that the information was out there if one knew what they were looking for and had the fortitude to pour through the numbers- so legally no fraud only fraud in the way a normal human being would use the word and that excludes you Tommy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 Sorry trick question the answer was no, they manipulated no data merely withheld their opinion of their products and they came to a settlement with no claim of wrong doing- the insider trading was a little trickier but it could be said that the information was out there if one knew what they were looking for and had the fortitude to pour through the numbers- so legally no fraud only fraud in the way a normal human being would use the word and that excludes you Tommy. Sorry, the answer was yes, because they knowingly and with intent made affirmative statements that misrepresented material information to the public (namely: that their underwriting standards hadn't changed). That is legally fraud. You're funny. GS is criminal because they starve people. BoA is evil because they buy up URLs. Countrywide is in the clear even though they committed fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted December 28, 2010 Author Share Posted December 28, 2010 Sorry, the answer was yes, because they knowingly and with intent made affirmative statements that misrepresented material information to the public (namely: that their underwriting standards hadn't changed). That is legally fraud. You're funny. GS is criminal because they starve people. BoA is evil because they buy up URLs. Countrywide is in the clear even though they committed fraud. Sorry while those charges were made( and probably true) they were dismissed without prejudice due to lack of standing and statute of limitations- so we will never know because they settled. Hey they did suck back 67mil of the 140mil he snagged out before the roof collapsed on Country Wide well 47mil from him and 20mil from Country Wide- so he only came out with 93mil- so listen here kids being unethical doesn't pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 29, 2010 Share Posted December 29, 2010 Sorry while those charges were made( and probably true) So he committed fraud before he didn't commit fraud. Shut the !@#$ up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 29, 2010 Share Posted December 29, 2010 Dammit, I was expecting an answer along the lines of "He committed fraud because he was a CEO...therefore all CEOs commit fraud." Stop spoiling my fun. (And never mind that he was sounding warnings that his COO and CFO were ignoring.) I still remember when CountryWide. Everyone at the office said pretty much in unison: "It's about time." What a **** company...and people have the gall to complain that they didn't know CountryWide's "Loan money to people with a demonstrated history of not paying it back" business model was unsustainable. I know all too well that shitstorm in soCal. Countrywide is based there. I had several clients in the mortgage business and a few working for Countrywide. Orange county where my office was was loaded with mortgage shops. From Ditech to two man operations. In retrospect it was very interesting to watch that whole thing grow to a point that you is was going to blow. But those in the middle of it just felt it was never going to end. Fools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted December 29, 2010 Author Share Posted December 29, 2010 So he committed fraud before he didn't commit fraud. Shut the !@#$ up. A charge is not proof and you know I'd charge everybody, I'm sure you're guilty of something but I'm waiting for mob rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 29, 2010 Share Posted December 29, 2010 But those in the middle of it just felt it was never going to end. Fools. Like all the "New Economy" bull **** during the tech boom. "We lost $100m last quarter...but we got 400 million eyeballs!" Great...let me know what the eyeball-to-dollar conversion is, so I can price your stock. Perfect time to short...when the "knowledgable insiders" start saying it's too good a thing to ever end, and nothing like that has ever happened before in the history of the world. Only people that were ever right about that last were the Dutch tulip farmers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted December 29, 2010 Share Posted December 29, 2010 1000-1500 URLs bought to defend against possible unflattering description! So what's the name of your company it'd be good to know what company is so reprehensible that it has to preemptively limit descriptions of such attributes. Maybe what should have been news was that this is common practice. You realize that domain names cost almost nothing, right...? And did you miss the part where I said every company does it? If you actually have a job, I bet your company has them registered as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted December 29, 2010 Author Share Posted December 29, 2010 You realize that domain names cost almost nothing, right...? And did you miss the part where I said every company does it? If you actually have a job, I bet your company has them registered as well. at $3 -$10 a pop not too bad but it's an on going expense isn't it- the hilarious and more expensive part is the 3 guys in the room figuring out want domain names to get- I imagine it as something like this GuyOne: well we got "business name" su#k$, su#k$ D$@#,su%k$ F#$%ing D#@%, etc etc.... does that wrap up su#k GuyTwo: what about donkey, like "business name" su#ks donkey D#@% GuyOne: good catch, good catch- Henderson get on all the donkey variants, and what about Zebras people we are global lets think multi-culturally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts