As usual you resort to name calling when you can't even answer a simple question. Can you really tell me with a straight face that any of the financials at that time were not sickly? Do you have any credibility left? For as long as you've been bringing this topic up, has anything really changed?
I completely agree with fly. Think about it: many of you have passively accepted a system whereby Goldman has a proprietary system enabling it to use flash order reveals to show what bid price is for to be completed transactions BEFORE the deal is consummated, and Goldman can buy at some point lower and sell to the end buyer instead. That's basically theft from all traders. And that's one example. These failures to deliver shares, and now a credible allegation that the those phantom shares both conflate and deflate share prices, by dilution of the float, is huge. Thousands of people on Wall Street should be prosecuted, including many heads of the largest brokerage houses and investment/trading "banks" (since Goldman and JP are "banks" now).
Think about it: many of you have passively accepted a system whereby Goldman has a proprietary system enabling it to use flash order reveals to show what bid price is for to be completed transactions BEFORE the deal is consummated, and Goldman can buy at some point lower and sell to the end buyer instead. --------------------------------------------- Just some additional food for thought on flash orders. The above is a computer program and GS dissects that program and "patents " their own computer program which is designed to get in between the prior program. How are you going to outlaw that? I suppose you could but the process is patented, it seems to me, one would have to change the original way of doing business to thwart the program/patent that is "stealing" the information. GS is no slouch on patents.
All these passionate discussions about illicit profits made by the big securities houses fail to highlight one vital point: overcharging. Fees & spreads paid by funds for buying and selling blocks of shares on either the primary or secondary market are not only made up by the IBs but TOTALLY UNCHALLENGED by the fund managers supposedly trying to make money for investors. Why unchallenged? Simply put, it's not their cash so they don't give a damn. It's ours. If you object to the big IBs ripping everyone off then DON'T invest in pension or mutual funds or anywhere else where 99.9% of the population puts its money.. this is the truly dumb, bottom-of-the-pyramid money.
Catch a cold, we'll put you down like an old dog. Same difference. You don't have the right. That's why there is a market. but of course, you're smarter than the market. so, rather than Bear (a horrible firm, no doubt) working out it's problems were it to come to that, having an orderly liquidation, you and your crew just wish to blow it up, make a few hun mill, and stick the taxpayer w/the rest. Nice moral code you live by. Dipshit.
"flytiger ... is a Socialist" " "capitalist ânoun 1. a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises." source: dictionary.com A capitalist is the opposite of a socialist (gov't ownership of biz) . Anyone who trades their own money is by definition - a capitalist. It seems that someone hasn't even looked up the definition of capitalist. A person can advocate government regulation of capitalism without being a socialist.
Nice name calling again. You really know how to prove my point for me, don't you? And by the way, when the viability of companies are put into question, the outcome is NEVER orderly. Maybe you wish it was, but it will never be that way. Sorry.
Lets put it this way. Say that You intrust to me, a Prime Broker 20000 shares of your company to sell, while you keep 25,000. I register the change in benificial ownership with the Depository Trust. Then I sell those shares to A, then I sell those shares to B, the I sell those shares to C. Then to D. Your company now has 80,000 shares outstanding, not the 20,000 that you sold. I have the money from the 60,000 shares which I will fail to deliver. plus the 20,000 that I give to you. It's just free money to the prime broker, who gets ALL the money from these transactions. It is like there were no penalty for making no interest loans to bank officers. (Oh there is not any penalty for that either). Now I don't know about you, but I only voted my stock on one occasion. Only a tiny minority of stock holders ever fill out the card. So when they say that in almost every issue put to stock holder vote there are more votes cast than shares of stock that exist that pretty much says that availing themselves of the opportunity to make a couple of bill in free money selling stock that does not exist without penalty is a pretty common practice. Thing is that suddenly a vote comes in to put in a board of directors that are interested in running the company but only in distributing the retained earnings to themselves. You should have a controling interest, but somehow the vote goes against you 30000 to 25000. The owner/management of a company that I worked for lost a proxy fight this way, and I only now understand what probably happened.
As I've stated before, the SEC should enforce the laws on naked shorting. But to claim that the markets don't work because of naked shorting is false or at least a gross exaggeration. To claim that Bear Stearns is out of business because of naked shorting is delusional.