....lybob Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 link Wow Wikileaks just mentioning Banks might cost BoA millions in fees.
/dev/null Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Thats awesome, isnt it? Hellzyeah! It's not like those millions of dollars will be passed on to the end consumer or affect the stockholders (which include pension funds) Big faceless corporation run by greed corporate execs finally get their comeupance!
....lybob Posted January 5, 2011 Author Posted January 5, 2011 Hellzyeah! It's not like those millions of dollars will be passed on to the end consumer or affect the stockholders (which include pension funds) Big faceless corporation run by greed corporate execs finally get their comeupance! 1. Correct the free market stops competing corporations from passing non-universal expenses to the consumer- I mean it is a free market isn't. 2. Stockholders have the means and responsibility to check malfeasance of the corporate governance of their holdings 3. As far as I know Wikileaks never mentioned BoA just "a major bank" so maybe this spending is just a jobs program.
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 So when the industry tightens its lending standards as a result of these leaks, and as a result fewer poor and minorities are able to own homes, are you going to congratulate banks on their responsible corporate governance, or do you already have your "banks are evil for exploiting the poor and minorities" post already queued up?
....lybob Posted January 5, 2011 Author Posted January 5, 2011 So when the industry tightens its lending standards as a result of these leaks, and as a result fewer poor and minorities are able to own homes, are you going to congratulate banks on their responsible corporate governance, or do you already have your "banks are evil for exploiting the poor and minorities" post already queued up? Yes
boyst Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 They quote an unnamed bank official saying the company wants to be ahead of the situation. But analysts say this proves one thing clearly: Assange's and Wikileaks' credibility is cemented by BoA's actions The Times can use secret sources but WikiLeaks cannot? Wikileaks, whether anyone likes it or not, is just as much a news media source as the Times, WSJ, or TMZ. Regardless, don't these big corporations run our government and pull the strings of our manchurian President? They're the ones who got all of the laws passed, corruption rules, Sarbanes-Oxley. It is totally a free market, Enron, BP, Ford. This country is not at all a free market. BoA will wobble for a little bit but they will not fall. The Fed will still swap money with them, the customers will remain loyal. I will keep my stock, which started at Carolina Bank, and it will do alright. Maybe I will buy more when it crashes like I did JP Morgan.
RkFast Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 The Times can use secret sources but WikiLeaks cannot? Wikileaks, whether anyone likes it or not, is just as much a news media source as the Times, WSJ, or TMZ. Regardless, don't these big corporations run our government and pull the strings of our manchurian President? They're the ones who got all of the laws passed, corruption rules, Sarbanes-Oxley. It is totally a free market, Enron, BP, Ford. This country is not at all a free market. BoA will wobble for a little bit but they will not fall. The Fed will still swap money with them, the customers will remain loyal. I will keep my stock, which started at Carolina Bank, and it will do alright. Maybe I will buy more when it crashes like I did JP Morgan. Oh this is rich...companies "pushed" Sarbanes-Oxley" to get passed. Ya know...so they can spend all that money making sure they are in compliance. Nothing does more for a public company's bottom line than spending money and resources to make sure its in compliance with goverment regulations.
....lybob Posted January 5, 2011 Author Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) Oh this is rich...companies "pushed" Sarbanes-Oxley" to get passed. Ya know...so they can spend all that money making sure they are in compliance. Nothing does more for a public company's bottom line than spending money and resources to make sure its in compliance with goverment regulations. Seriously RK is there something wrong with you- he's not saying those corporations asked to be regulated - he's saying that their scandals demanded that the congress take action which resulted in Sarbanes-Oxley and other anti-corruption legislation- you are such an idiot :wallbash: :wallbash: "Sarbanes-Oxley" The bill was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets. Edited January 5, 2011 by ....lybob
boyst Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Seriously RK is there something wrong with you- he's not saying those corporations asked to be regulated - he's saying that their scandals demanded that the congress take action which resulted in Sarbanes-Oxley and other anti-corruption legislation- you are such an idiot :wallbash: :wallbash: "Sarbanes-Oxley" Thank you! Someone got it! I am not at all for regulation; I HATE it. But, when you cannot practice good business ethics expect some sort of backlash and in this pussified country people cannot take responsibility and handle they made a bad investment. It is just the way it all works. Anyone who thinks investing in a company is a sure-thing is a fool and deserves to be ripped off and those who can make money playing such odds deserve it.
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Seriously RK is there something wrong with you- he's not saying those corporations asked to be regulated - he's saying that their scandals demanded that the congress take action which resulted in Sarbanes-Oxley and other anti-corruption legislation- you are such an idiot :wallbash: :wallbash: "Sarbanes-Oxley" Which was itself retarded. Enron, Tyco, etc. were already engaged in acts illegal under the existing law...so let's pass another law and make it even more illegal! Only idiots like you think congress actually addresses problems like that.
RkFast Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Seriously RK is there something wrong with you- he's not saying those corporations asked to be regulated - he's saying that their scandals demanded that the congress take action which resulted in Sarbanes-Oxley and other anti-corruption legislation- you are such an idiot :wallbash: :wallbash: "Sarbanes-Oxley" "Regardless, don't these big corporations run our government and pull the strings of our manchurian President? They're the ones who got all of the laws passed, corruption rules, Sarbanes-Oxley." Youre an idiot.
Adam Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Which was itself retarded. Enron, Tyco, etc. were already engaged in acts illegal under the existing law...so let's pass another law and make it even more illegal! Only idiots like you think congress actually addresses problems like that. Were you also against the law in Florida to keep people from petting dead whales
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Were you also against the law in Florida to keep people from petting dead whales Uhhh...wait, what? Is it sufficient that I'm against the statute in Chico, CA, that makes it a misdemeanor with a $500 fine to detonate a nuclear weapon within city limits?
Adam Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Uhhh...wait, what? Is it sufficient that I'm against the statute in Chico, CA, that makes it a misdemeanor with a $500 fine to detonate a nuclear weapon within city limits? A few years ago, that law was passed. I've forgotten a bit about it, but I think someone boated out and petted a dead whale and something bad happened. Maybe it would be better to pass a law that blocks stupid people from doing stupid things
GG Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 A few years ago, that law was passed. I've forgotten a bit about it, but I think someone boated out and petted a dead whale and something bad happened. This?
Booster4324 Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 A few years ago, that law was passed. I've forgotten a bit about it, but I think someone boated out and petted a dead whale and something bad happened. Maybe it would be better to pass a law that blocks stupid people from doing stupid things Or this?
RI Bills Fan Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Stupid should hurt. Some idiot wants to pet a shark, let them. Just revise the rules so their insurance co can deny their claim on the grounds that they deserved what they got!
Chef Jim Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Is it sufficient that I'm against the statute in Chico, CA, that makes it a misdemeanor with a $500 fine to detonate a nuclear weapon within city limits? Awwwww ****. Well there goes a really great plan for my weekend.
Nanker Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Awwwww ****. Well there goes a really great plan for my weekend. You're out on parole now Mr. Kaczynski?
Recommended Posts