Goldman Sachs vs. SEC

Nicker on 23/4/2010 at 05:04

Quote Posted by CCCToad

On an aside, its scary that I actually agree with Nicker.

Don't worry, CCCToad. You won't lose any cred for that. :cool:

Anyway, I was talking in a much broader sense, as in, ever since we started hanging out together in tribes...

the_grip on 26/4/2010 at 17:54

Interesting discussion here:

"10 things you don't know about the GS case"

(http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/04/10-things-you-dont-know-gs-case/)

Vivian on 26/4/2010 at 22:41

GOLD MAN-SACKS

Nicker on 26/4/2010 at 22:59

Quote:

(http://www.thatsnutz.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=65&products_id=197&zenid=ho2qiqsh8ofir8brulpf8otkn3) GOLD MAN-SACKS

Augmented for enhanced jollity.

Nicker on 28/4/2010 at 06:52

The National Post calls the exes (http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=9b692fc1-a30d-4928-ad09-154bd2436611) Crimeless Victims in this Op Ed by Peter Foster, of the Financial Post.

Are people misreading the apparently gloating Emails that floated between alleged conspirators? Are their less than categorical denials of wrong doing admissions of guilt?

Stay tuned: same batshit time - same batshit channel!

Tocky on 29/4/2010 at 02:57

Foster is spinning it fairly heavy but he is likely right that it isn't a crime to bundle shit and sell it then bet it really is shit. It is soulless when peoples pensions are on the line. Tasteless to laugh about it in emails but still not a crime. Foster did a teeny bit of lying about it being just pride at recognising shit but most people expect a bit of lying where financial sycophants are concerned.

Lucky for GS the public are idiots who will still give them money to pile up in thier bonus matresses. And it is true GS did lose money because you can't handle that much shit without getting it on your hands but they are way ahead of the schmucks who lost half of thier retirement and will have to pinch pennies.

Or maybe I'm wrong and these guys are sweethearts?

Chade on 29/4/2010 at 03:52

Lots of grandstanding involved whenever Wall Street is involved, as usual.

There's nothing wrong with betting against housing while making products for clients who want to bet on housing going up. Insitutions should be free to make their own bets, regardless of what another institution thinks about that bet. If more institutions had shorted housing, we all would have come through the crisis in better shape.

What is wrong is misrepresenting a product you sell.

Pardoner on 29/4/2010 at 03:59

You don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you?

Chade on 29/4/2010 at 04:07

I look forward to your attempts to educate me.

Rug Burn Junky on 29/4/2010 at 17:44

Quote Posted by Tocky

Foster is spinning it fairly heavy but he is likely right that it isn't a crime to bundle shit and sell it then bet it really is shit.

Quote Posted by Chade

Lots of grandstanding involved whenever Wall Street is involved, as usual.

There's nothing wrong with betting against housing while making products for clients who want to bet on housing going up.

I agree that there's a lot of grandstanding, and am dismayed by many of the senators scoring cheap points which are poisoning the general environment without addressing the specifics of this deal. That said it's far more complicated than simply "betting against" the deal.

Though, as I said earlier, I can't go into too much detail, and the reason is two-fold, though I may as well explain why.

1. My law firm drafted these transaction docs. In fact, the associate in charge of this deal is a friend and her office was directly next to mine. So even though my knowledge is second hand, I'm still bound by attorney-client privilege.

2. On the flip side of the coin, I'm currently up for consideration for a post with the S.E.C. and may end up on the enforcement side. I obviously won't end up working on this deal, but I would be dealing with similar ones, since it's my area of practice.