Are you sure? I am beginning to believe. We have a new sheriff in town: "Banks are likely to lose a key lobbying battle in the US over whether they will be forced to spin off their lucrative swaps desks, according to people familiar with financial reform negotiations in Congress." http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b6a56f88-77...coln-proposal-cds-spinoff-set-pass&ftcamp=rss "In a stunning development, and what may be the biggest loss for the Federal Reserve's lobbying power in history,..." http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ft-reports-blanche-lincoln-proposal-cds-spinoff-set-pass
"Goldman Sachs Said to Seek Extension to Reply to SEC Lawsuit" http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...o-seek-extension-to-reply-to-sec-lawsuit.html
For years I wanted to believe saner heads would prevail. I think you're at the point where it's about to break, but there are so many hands in the cookie jar, they can't give it up. goes back to Clinton, and Bush is no better. They all sold us out. And you know, they'll come get us all. Don't see how any industry or group of people will be spared. Cancer runs too deep. My god, just look at Dodd. 54 mm to the Indians? Maybe he's comped now.
It would seem to me that any flaw in the economy can be attributed to whoever the president is, but the president doesn't control the economy. These interventions eliminated systemic risk, and were not the same as hand outs. They came with a great deal of strings attached meant to ensure each firm's survival and ability to repay their TARP/TALF funds...<b>in no uncertain terms as quickly as they possibly can.</b> It doesn't seem to me to be a case of malicious fraud, but may actually be more negligent professional misconduct. The problem is more that these CDS/CDO products were untested and improperly simulated, but most assuredly brokered as caveat emptor. Put another way, I'm sure there are institutions out there that would buy exotic securities even if it was clearly stated in bold black: <b>THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF FINANCIAL LOSS WITH THESE NEW PRODUCTS, AND YOU MAY LOSE MORE THAN YOUR WHOLE INVESTMENT.</b> So what if that had been on these products? People would still have bought them, because they served a function in the mortgage underwriting process depending on which tranche you were exposed to.
"The food bubble: How Wall Street starved millions and got away with it" "The history of food took an ominous turn in 1991, at a time when no one was paying much attention. That was the year Goldman Sachs decided our daily bread might make an excellent investment..." http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/07/0083022 Shameless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are talking about this nitro? "A primary issue involves so-called âswap dealersâ, who have obtained "hedge exemptions", allowing them to masquerade as commercial hedgers when they are really issuing derivatives and speculating on commodities. Naturally, big derivatives dealers, like Goldman Sachs (GS) and JP Morgan Chase (JPM), are fighting tooth and nail, warning of terrible consequences if the law is finally enforced by the previously do-nothing agency." "As far as we know, this Goldman Sachs letter was the first secret exception, given to a big bank speculator, who wanted to be reclassified as a commercial âhedgerâ. It was delivered by the CFTC staff to Goldman Sachsâs âJ. Aronâ commodities division, back in 1991, and it allowed them to engage in buying long positions in wheat, corn and soybeans based upon the fact that they were selling derivatives." http://seekingalpha.com/article/152438-cftc-the-key-to-market-manipulation
Goldman Sachs Sued by Liberty Mutual Over 2007 Fannie Mae Stock Offering http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...tual-over-2007-fannie-mae-stock-offering.html
trendlover, that is an interesting article in its own right. It does appear to be related...However, the article I posted is specific to food, something that no moral person would ever even dream of manipulating.