TPS Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Goldman doesn't deal with retail investors, but I'm sure you know that. I was answering your query highlighted, not addressing how it affects retail investors. Again, nothing wrong with having the "best" information, but there is something wrong in falsifying and misinforming for profit. The penalties as so small in comparison to the profits made that it happens over, and over, and over, and over..... Surely that hurts retail investors at some point though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Financial markets are all about the quickest access to information. Nothing more, nothing less. A great man once said: "There are two kinds of people in business today. The quick and the dead". I can't remember who it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 A great man once said: "There are two kinds of people in business today. The quick and the dead". I can't remember who it was. Michael Douglas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 A great man once said: "There are two kinds of people in business today. The quick and the dead". I can't remember who it was. paul walker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 4, 2016 Author Share Posted February 4, 2016 paul walker? I had no business laughing at that... but I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I was answering your query highlighted, not addressing how it affects retail investors. Again, nothing wrong with having the "best" information, but there is something wrong in falsifying and misinforming for profit. The penalties as so small in comparison to the profits made that it happens over, and over, and over, and over..... Surely that hurts retail investors at some point though. This debate will go on forever because the SEC and the big banks are playing the public relations game. SEC wins the scorecard on the fines, while the banks agree to big fines and move on. But if you truly want to understand why this is happening, look at the case history of prosecutions in the financial industry and you will get a huge goose egg, because very rarely are laws broken. Is there unethical behavior? Are traders a bunch of pond sucking scum? You betcha. But there's a big difference between that and breaking the law. Even in the case you cite, there were no laws broken. GS & the other banks are willing to pay the billions in gov't extortion racket to move on to another day. The Abacus write up is a clear example of misreporting. All the journalists have to do is to present Goldman Sachs as on both sides of the deal, while there's a clear regulatory separation between the arm that makes the deal and the arm that sells it to investors (you know, other evil bankers). Note how that part is omitted in the story, nor the fact that SEC missed such a glaring and obvious rule violation, if it actually happened. And we know that SEC is vigilant, because they're trumpeting the fine they imposed on Goldman for a POTENTIAL conflict violation of disseminating research. Yet they missed a huge violation of a multi-billion debt offering with banking and sales conspiring on the deal? Yeah, ok. Do you think that an Obama administration goaded by the patron saint of the Native American Tribes by way of Harvard, would hesitate for a split second to prosecute the banks if there was true criminal activity going on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 4, 2016 Author Share Posted February 4, 2016 Do you think that an Obama administration goaded by the patron saint of the Native American Tribes by way of Harvard, would hesitate for a split second to prosecute the banks if there was true criminal activity going on? Of course he would, and has. Obama is in the pocket of the big banks far more than he is in other special interest groups. He's gotten more political campaign donations from Wall Street than any other president in history, including W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) paul walker? I think he paraphrased it. i looked up the originator. It was Phillip Barbay. Edited February 4, 2016 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 A great man once said: "There are two kinds of people in business today. The quick and the dead". I can't remember who it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Of course he would, and has. Obama is in the pocket of the big banks far more than he is in other special interest groups. He's gotten more political campaign donations from Wall Street than any other president in history, including W. And that's where you're wrong. Obama's ego would be magnified a million times over with a successful bank conviction than a few million in campaign contributions he got from Wall Street. That's where I agree with Trump. He gave to everybody. Wall Street gives to everybody. But they also know if they screw up, the donations won't help a single bit, because politicians get far more mileage out of public trials. Look at the reputation Spitzer earned, despite losing 99% of the cases he brought against financial firms and individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Of course he would, and has. Obama is in the pocket of the big banks far more than he is in other special interest groups. He's gotten more political campaign donations from Wall Street than any other president in history, including W. Furthers my point The long-standing arrangement between Democrats and financial giants like Goldman is that the politicians collect money and get to pose as populists by publicly attacking the big banks, and in return the big banks enjoy high regulatory barriers that prevent smaller firms from competing with them. New York Sen. Chuck Schumer has perfected this bargain, which may have reached its zenith with the Dodd-Frank law of 2010, which brought Wall Street giants and Washington into a historically intimate embrace. Yes, Wall Streeters love to complain about Dodd-Frank, but they also know it virtually ensures that no upstart finance company in the Midwest is going to challenge Goldman’s position in global finance. “More intense regulatory and technology requirements have raised the barriers to entry higher than at any other time in modern history,” said Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein last year. “This is an expensive business to be in, if you don’t have the market share in scale.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Furthers my point Guess which firm is in charge of charge of clearing swap transactions based on the new dodd frank rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Guess which firm is in charge of charge of clearing swap transactions based on the new dodd frank rules? Any firm that can afford to hire 1,000s of new compliance people to deal with Dodd Frank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Any firm that can afford to hire 1,000s of new compliance people to deal with Dodd Frank? JP Morgan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 JP Morgan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Way to miss the point. Are you trying to acquire the asshat title? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 Way to miss the point. Are you trying to acquire the asshat title? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 This debate will go on forever because the SEC and the big banks are playing the public relations game. SEC wins the scorecard on the fines, while the banks agree to big fines and move on. But if you truly want to understand why this is happening, look at the case history of prosecutions in the financial industry and you will get a huge goose egg, because very rarely are laws broken. Is there unethical behavior? Are traders a bunch of pond sucking scum? You betcha. But there's a big difference between that and breaking the law. Even in the case you cite, there were no laws broken. GS & the other banks are willing to pay the billions in gov't extortion racket to move on to another day. The Abacus write up is a clear example of misreporting. All the journalists have to do is to present Goldman Sachs as on both sides of the deal, while there's a clear regulatory separation between the arm that makes the deal and the arm that sells it to investors (you know, other evil bankers). Note how that part is omitted in the story, nor the fact that SEC missed such a glaring and obvious rule violation, if it actually happened. And we know that SEC is vigilant, because they're trumpeting the fine they imposed on Goldman for a POTENTIAL conflict violation of disseminating research. Yet they missed a huge violation of a multi-billion debt offering with banking and sales conspiring on the deal? Yeah, ok. Do you think that an Obama administration goaded by the patron saint of the Native American Tribes by way of Harvard, would hesitate for a split second to prosecute the banks if there was true criminal activity going on? “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult to prosecute them,” Holder said. He said he was “inhibited” by the fact that a criminal charge could have a negative impact on the U.S. and possibly world economy. Yeah, I'm sure they really wanted to go after them. It's a rigged system. The banks make a billion, then pay a 5% "fine" to the government. If the dems or reps go after Wall Street, then the don't get their "contributions" and speaking fees. Regulators have been captured by the industries they are supposed to oversee. You mention in another post something I've been saying for a long time, regulations are meant to punish the small firms and protect the big guys from competition. Here's what the SEC does... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult to prosecute them,” Holder said. He said he was “inhibited” by the fact that a criminal charge could have a negative impact on the U.S. and possibly world economy. Yeah, I'm sure they really wanted to go after them. It's a rigged system. The banks make a billion, then pay a 5% "fine" to the government. If the dems or reps go after Wall Street, then the don't get their "contributions" and speaking fees. Regulators have been captured by the industries they are supposed to oversee. You mention in another post something I've been saying for a long time, regulations are meant to punish the small firms and protect the big guys from competition. Here's what the SEC does... Oh goodie, Matt Taibbi's view on finance. Do you think it's an unbiased piece that presents things factually? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 That's not one of the proper definitions, idiot. What don't you get about corporate profit margins??? Revenue less corporate expenses = corporate profit margin. Its first day stuff, dude. I know, I've been working for the corporate office of a corporation. Our motto is margin growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts