If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Marketwatch)   PMITA futures look bright as Goldman Sachs may face criminal charges. Place your bets now   (marketwatch.com) divider line 40
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

689 clicks; posted to Business » on 30 Apr 2010 at 2:06 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2010-04-30 01:37:23 PM  
they couldn't convict the bear stearns execs, i have little reason to believe they'll be able to show that goldman employees knowingly committed fraud. but matt taibbi think's that they are f*ckers, so what do i know.
 
2010-04-30 02:08:35 PM  
I agree with above. The govt is just putting on a big show here.
 
2010-04-30 02:09:44 PM  
Washington putting their Wall Street buddies in the klink? I farking doubt it.
 
2010-04-30 02:10:45 PM  
I'll take "Snowball's chance in Hell" for $400, Alex.
 
2010-04-30 02:13:35 PM  
thomps: they couldn't convict the bear stearns execs, i have little reason to believe they'll be able to show that goldman employees knowingly committed fraud.


Exactly. Its near impossible to PROVE intent here. You can prove many other things but intent will never happen.

This is a standard smoke and mirrors threat designed to give the american people exactly what they want.

Someone to blame.


There is NOTHING in this world that is more American than a good old fashioned witch hunt.
 
2010-04-30 02:17:49 PM  
And, there's nothing wrong with selling crap, just as long as you disclose it's crap. If Goldman had all the details in the SEC filings, it's impossible to argue they did anything wrong.
 
2010-04-30 02:18:24 PM  
poisonedpawn78: There is NOTHING in this world that is more American than a good old fashioned witch hunt Lynch Mob.
 
2010-04-30 02:19:17 PM  
BalugaJoe: I agree with above. The govt is just putting on a big show here.

And...THIS.
John Stewart summed it up the other night.
 
2010-04-30 02:19:56 PM  
"We will vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation," the investment bank said at the time the SEC filed the case.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

But yeah, if anyone goes to jail, it'll be the punkass 29-year old Fabulous Fab, who was probably fresh out of Business Criminal U when the credit crisis landed.

// not heavily invested
 
2010-04-30 02:20:51 PM  
I gotta wear shades..
 
2010-04-30 02:21:56 PM  
Sin_City_Superhero: I'll take "Snowball's chance in Hell" for $400, Alex.

I'll take "there's a new Sherrif In town" for $600 and/or

"They picked the wrong week to Fark with the White House over a reform bill" for $1000
 
2010-04-30 02:25:51 PM  
wee beastie: And, there's nothing wrong with selling crap, just as long as you disclose it's crap. If Goldman had all the details in the SEC filings, it's impossible to argue they did anything wrong.

Exactly. And someone should remind the government that this CRAP would not have existed if they weren't out making the banks loan money to anybody that wanted to buy a house.
 
2010-04-30 02:30:32 PM  
Won't stop another country from extraditing them and throwing them in jail.
Oh please oh please oh please.
 
2010-04-30 02:34:04 PM  
y'know, call me cynical if you must...but I doubt any of these guys will end up in a jail cell. at worst, they might end up paying a fine or saying 'i'm sorry' to a camera somewehere...but I just don't see anyone actually having the balls to follow through and put them into a jail cell.

I think what'll happen is that we'll hear a lot of noise about this case right up 'till the midterm elections. we'll hear pundits from both sides of the issue waxing poetic about their positions, GS employees will lawyer up and say nothing, and the investigation will slowly grind its way to a court room...and then after the elections are over, there will be a quiet meeting somewhere off camera. A deal will be struck. fines will be paid. wrists will be slapped. And then both sides will make noises about how justice was served (or not served, depending on which side is doing the talking) and the story will quietly be dropped.
 
2010-04-30 02:35:54 PM  
cchris_39: wee beastie: And, there's nothing wrong with selling crap, just as long as you disclose it's crap. If Goldman had all the details in the SEC filings, it's impossible to argue they did anything wrong.

Exactly. And someone should remind the government that this CRAP would not have existed if they weren't out making the banks loan money to anybody that wanted to buy a house.


banks were loaning money out to anybody that wanted to buy a house because money was absurdly cheap and it was very profitable to make the loans since they could package and sell them before the ink was even dry. it has nothing to do with the government forcing anything on anyone.
 
2010-04-30 02:43:57 PM  
thomps: banks were loaning money out to anybody that wanted to buy a house because money was absurdly cheap and it was very profitable to make the loans since they could package and sell them before the ink was even dry. it has nothing to do with the government forcing anything on anyone.

Don't bother. Anyone who spews that kind of crap thinks Bill Clinton signed a law that required financial institutions to bankrupt themselves giving free houses to poor people, most of them black.
 
2010-04-30 02:45:31 PM  
poisonedpawn78: thomps: they couldn't convict the bear stearns execs, i have little reason to believe they'll be able to show that goldman employees knowingly committed fraud.


Exactly. Its near impossible to PROVE intent here. You can prove many other things but intent will never happen.

This is a standard smoke and mirrors threat designed to give the american people exactly what they want.

Someone to blame.


There is NOTHING in this world that is more American than a good old fashioned witch hunt.

You misunderstand the term "intent" as it applies to criminal law. To prove "intent" in this case, all they have to prove is that GS took a series of actions to materially misrepresent what they were selling and that they that they knew or should have known these misreprenstations would would create a false impression in the mind of investors

Once in a while, when there are actual "witches" around, a witch hunt may be appropriate. After all "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"(or to more properly translate the Hebrew "well poisoners"-which is exactly what GS and thier buddies did to our shared economic "well")
 
2010-04-30 02:51:56 PM  
Magorn: poisonedpawn78: thomps: they couldn't convict the bear stearns execs, i have little reason to believe they'll be able to show that goldman employees knowingly committed fraud.


Exactly. Its near impossible to PROVE intent here. You can prove many other things but intent will never happen.

This is a standard smoke and mirrors threat designed to give the american people exactly what they want.

Someone to blame.


There is NOTHING in this world that is more American than a good old fashioned witch hunt.
You misunderstand the term "intent" as it applies to criminal law. To prove "intent" in this case, all they have to prove is that GS took a series of actions to materially misrepresent what they were selling and that they that they knew or should have known these misreprenstations would would create a false impression in the mind of investors

Once in a while, when there are actual "witches" around, a witch hunt may be appropriate. After all "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"(or to more properly translate the Hebrew "well poisoners"-which is exactly what GS and thier buddies did to our shared economic "well")


are you saying that you think that the abicus deal tanked our economy?
 
2010-04-30 02:52:47 PM  
Magorn: poisonedpawn78: thomps: they couldn't convict the bear stearns execs, i have little reason to believe they'll be able to show that goldman employees knowingly committed fraud.


Exactly. Its near impossible to PROVE intent here. You can prove many other things but intent will never happen.

This is a standard smoke and mirrors threat designed to give the american people exactly what they want.

Someone to blame.


There is NOTHING in this world that is more American than a good old fashioned witch hunt.
You misunderstand the term "intent" as it applies to criminal law. To prove "intent" in this case, all they have to prove is that GS took a series of actions to materially misrepresent what they were selling and that they that they knew or should have known these misreprenstations would would create a false impression in the mind of investors

Once in a while, when there are actual "witches" around, a witch hunt may be appropriate. After all "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"(or to more properly translate the Hebrew "well poisoners"-which is exactly what GS and thier buddies did to our shared economic "well")


Like any law, ignorance is not a defence. What is intereseting is they will be able to prove a whole bunch of things they did was unethical. They knew it was unethical (on some level) but somehow didn't figure it was actually illegal but that is not a defence. Should be entertaining if nothing else.
 
2010-04-30 02:55:37 PM  
mrshowrules: Like any law, ignorance is not a defence.

well, ignorance of the law is no defense. however, depending on the level of culpability required by a law, ignorance of the illegality of an act may very well be a defense.
 
2010-04-30 03:02:07 PM  
cchris_39: Exactly. And someone should remind the government that this CRAP would not have existed if they weren't out making the banks loan money to anybody that wanted to buy a house.

Making? They're banks, it wasn't an accident and it certainly wasn't forced if they were planning to commit fraud.
 
2010-04-30 03:02:36 PM  
I'm betting on "settle, with extra cash for the incumbents"
 
2010-04-30 03:04:17 PM  
10:1 odds there are no convictions.
 
2010-04-30 03:17:14 PM  
mrshowrules: Magorn: poisonedpawn78: thomps: they couldn't convict the bear stearns execs, i have little reason to believe they'll be able to show that goldman employees knowingly committed fraud.


Exactly. Its near impossible to PROVE intent here. You can prove many other things but intent will never happen.

This is a standard smoke and mirrors threat designed to give the american people exactly what they want.

Someone to blame.


There is NOTHING in this world that is more American than a good old fashioned witch hunt.
You misunderstand the term "intent" as it applies to criminal law. To prove "intent" in this case, all they have to prove is that GS took a series of actions to materially misrepresent what they were selling and that they that they knew or should have known these misreprenstations would would create a false impression in the mind of investors

Once in a while, when there are actual "witches" around, a witch hunt may be appropriate. After all "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"(or to more properly translate the Hebrew "well poisoners"-which is exactly what GS and thier buddies did to our shared economic "well")

Like any law, ignorance is not a defence. What is intereseting is they will be able to prove a whole bunch of things they did was unethical. They knew it was unethical (on some level) but somehow didn't figure it was actually illegal but that is not a defence. Should be entertaining if nothing else.


It reminds me of the discussion we had in Crim law about a laate 1890's case that etablished that ignorance of a girl's true age was no defense against statutory rape, because, as the thinking went at the time, having pre-martial sex was already a wrong thing to do therefore it was on you if your wrong action also turned out to be a criminal one.
 
2010-04-30 03:45:28 PM  
Macinfarker: 10:1 odds there are no convictions.

I know how this works. I take your bet, and you turn around and hedge it with a fancy derivative to another Farker. Even if you lose you won't pay because you figure Drew will back your account as to important to fail. Is there another farker in this thread who can certify this bet as triple A? Perhaps someone you sponsored before?
 
2010-04-30 03:47:34 PM  
thomps: mrshowrules: Like any law, ignorance is not a defence.

well, ignorance of the law is no defense. however, depending on the level of culpability required by a law, ignorance of the illegality of an act may very well be a defense.


I hate to see an American company harassed like this. Is there a web-site where I can contribute to the Goldman Sachs defence fund?
 
2010-04-30 03:49:37 PM  
mrshowrules: thomps: mrshowrules: Like any law, ignorance is not a defence.

well, ignorance of the law is no defense. however, depending on the level of culpability required by a law, ignorance of the illegality of an act may very well be a defense.

I hate to see an American company harassed like this. Is there a web-site where I can contribute to the Goldman Sachs defence fund?


eh, if you want to convict them in your mind that's your prerogative.
 
2010-04-30 04:23:25 PM  
thomps: banks were loaning money out to anybody that wanted to buy a house because money was absurdly cheap and it was very profitable to make the loans since they could package and sell them before the ink was even dry. it has nothing to do with the government forcing anything on anyone.

While I agree with a lot of what you say (particularly your part about cheap money), I don't believe the banks were selling off the entire loans. If that were the case we would see a whole lot of originators who didn't go into the red. Instead the banks decided to hold onto some of the tranches while selling off the riskiest bunch. Unfortunately, there were fundamental flaws in the equations used to predict the actual value of these loans.
 
2010-04-30 04:26:06 PM  
I think the reporter may have been hungry when writing this since he claims GS has been downgraded by "Merrill Lunch". Omn Nom Nom.... Im in your banks eatin' your ratings......
 
2010-04-30 04:27:47 PM  
You're the jerk... jerk: thomps: banks were loaning money out to anybody that wanted to buy a house because money was absurdly cheap and it was very profitable to make the loans since they could package and sell them before the ink was even dry. it has nothing to do with the government forcing anything on anyone.

While I agree with a lot of what you say (particularly your part about cheap money), I don't believe the banks were selling off the entire loans. If that were the case we would see a whole lot of originators who didn't go into the red. Instead the banks decided to hold onto some of the tranches while selling off the riskiest bunch. Unfortunately, there were fundamental flaws in the equations used to predict the actual value of these loans.


i can agree with that. i'd also add that the perceived security of those higher tranches convinced a lot of firms *cough lehman cough* to leverage the living hell out of their holdings.
 
2010-04-30 04:52:52 PM  
thomps: You're the jerk... jerk: thomps: banks were loaning money out to anybody that wanted to buy a house because money was absurdly cheap and it was very profitable to make the loans since they could package and sell them before the ink was even dry. it has nothing to do with the government forcing anything on anyone.

While I agree with a lot of what you say (particularly your part about cheap money), I don't believe the banks were selling off the entire loans. If that were the case we would see a whole lot of originators who didn't go into the red. Instead the banks decided to hold onto some of the tranches while selling off the riskiest bunch. Unfortunately, there were fundamental flaws in the equations used to predict the actual value of these loans.

i can agree with that. i'd also add that the perceived security of those higher tranches convinced a lot of firms *cough lehman cough* to leverage the living hell out of their holdings.


Absolutely. The whole idea behind a hedge play is you find very likely events and leverage them. This is actually a great idea in boom markets where credit is cheap and markets systematically undervalue very low risk/low return assets.

This whole situation is going to repeat itself in a few years, as markets become more liquid, money remains cheap and people gain more access to data they will follow the next trend.
 
2010-04-30 04:57:55 PM  
Magorn:
You misunderstand the term "intent" as it applies to criminal law. To prove "intent" in this case, all they have to prove is that GS took a series of actions to materially misrepresent what they were selling and that they that they knew or should have known these misreprenstations would would create a false impression in the mind of investors

Once in a while, when there are actual "witches" around, a witch hunt may be appropriate. After all "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"(or to more properly translate the Hebrew "well poisoners"-which is exactly what GS and thier buddies did to our shared economic "well")


Do you honestly believe that there is any evidence that they were (intent)ionally missrepresenting anything?

If these guys were half as smart as people think they are evil, those kinds of conversations were done on a golf course, driving in a cart to the next shot when nobody could hear anything. No emails, no meetings, no trail at all.

There is no evidence and they know it.
 
2010-04-30 05:01:53 PM  
I'm all in on the "nobody of any real importance will ever be convicted of a crime" bet. They may throw us a scapegoat to ease the collective conscious of the voters. At the end of the day, as others have already stated, it will be a lot of bluff and bluster and political posturing.
 
2010-04-30 05:20:08 PM  
Blankfein has a dozen White House visits under his belt, and is a million deep in Obama's campaign coffers. Not only will I jump in on the "no conviction" bet, I'm considering taking a long position in GS -- they'll be at $200 by year's-end.
 
2010-04-30 05:28:54 PM  
thomps: mrshowrules: thomps: mrshowrules: Like any law, ignorance is not a defence.

well, ignorance of the law is no defense. however, depending on the level of culpability required by a law, ignorance of the illegality of an act may very well be a defense.

I hate to see an American company harassed like this. Is there a web-site where I can contribute to the Goldman Sachs defence fund?

eh, if you want to convict them in your mind that's your prerogative.


I want to see them convicted because I think they are guilty and I think they deserve to be punished. Also, I think they need to be made examples of. However, I hope the trial is fair but I am not concerned about their ability to defend themselves.
 
2010-04-30 05:44:52 PM  
Nothing will happen. Move along nothing to see here. Even if they are convicted the trial will take 20 years and the sitting president will pardon them before they get the cuffs on.
 
2010-04-30 06:05:30 PM  
mrshowrules: thomps: mrshowrules: thomps: mrshowrules: Like any law, ignorance is not a defence.

well, ignorance of the law is no defense. however, depending on the level of culpability required by a law, ignorance of the illegality of an act may very well be a defense.

I hate to see an American company harassed like this. Is there a web-site where I can contribute to the Goldman Sachs defence fund?

eh, if you want to convict them in your mind that's your prerogative.

I want to see them convicted because I think they are guilty and I think they deserve to be punished. Also, I think they need to be made examples of. However, I hope the trial is fair but I am not concerned about their ability to defend themselves.


I think bankers are antisocial to the point society ought to have some means of defending itself against them, but I'm not sure exactly what laws are in place, right now, to do that.
Even so, if the government wants a scalp badly enough, I think they're going to get one. Look at what happened to Michael Milken. Or Al Capone, for that matter. So we'll get to call them criminals, pretty much on technicalities. But no one is going to go to jail for "looting Dusseldorf", or anything like that. Even if that's what they did.
 
2010-04-30 06:59:26 PM  
rumpelstiltskin: Even so, if the government wants a scalp badly enough, I think they're going to get one. Look at what happened to Michael Milken. Or Al Capone, for that matter. So we'll get to call them criminals, pretty much on technicalities. But no one is going to go to jail for "looting Dusseldorf", or anything like that. Even if that's what they did.

i think more deserving scalps can be found by looking into the lehman collapse than goldman.
 
2010-04-30 09:00:06 PM  
In a press conference earlier today, Lloyd Humungus said that there had been too much violence, too much pain. He went on to say that none here are without sin.

Speaking on behalf of his organization, Lloyd Humungus said that he had an honorable compromise. "Just walk away," he told assembled reporters. "Give me the pump, the oil, the gasoline, and the whole compound, and I'll spare your lives."

Lloyd Humungus gave his personal assurances that taxpayers would be given free passage in the Wasteland, and concluded by stating that if they walked away there would be an end to the horror.
 
2010-04-30 09:29:26 PM  
I am skeptical anything will happen to Goldman Sucks, but I can still hope that they are destroyed. I say this as a proud capitalist pig.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report