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.

(The New York Times)   Oh JP Morgan? The SEC would like a word with you over those reckless trades that lost you $2 billion in the last six weeks, two words, actually, and they are "you're farked"   (dealbook.nytimes.com) divider line 207
    More: Followup, JPMorgan Chase & Co.  
•       •       •

14617 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 May 2012 at 7:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



207 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-12 12:32:57 AM

thomps: Dinki: doublesecretprobation: they were only trading recklessly because their taxes are so high.

I thought it was because they were over regulated.

they had to concentrate on risky short-term gains because there was so much long-term uncertainty in the market due to the threat of obama further tinkering with the economy. can't we just vote that scumbag out of office yet so the banks can get back into the business of stimulating job growth?


===============================

Can't you just go shoot yourself for being so damn stupid? Yeah sure, let the banks just do whatever in the hell they want, we've all seen how well that works out before. Seriously, how are you alive when there is clearly no brain in your head? Admit it, you just don't like the idea of a black man in the White House... racist!
 
2012-05-12 12:38:00 AM
Lately it seems like every other week one of my stocks is taking a hit from sheer stupidity on the part of the company leadership. le sigh. (I inherited them and split them with sisters, it's not like they're worth a lot in the grand scheme of things but it would be nice if they'd stop screwing around).
 
2012-05-12 12:46:22 AM

lisarenee3505: thomps: Dinki: doublesecretprobation: they were only trading recklessly because their taxes are so high.

I thought it was because they were over regulated.

they had to concentrate on risky short-term gains because there was so much long-term uncertainty in the market due to the threat of obama further tinkering with the economy. can't we just vote that scumbag out of office yet so the banks can get back into the business of stimulating job growth?

===============================

Can't you just go shoot yourself for being so damn stupid? Yeah sure, let the banks just do whatever in the hell they want, we've all seen how well that works out before. Seriously, how are you alive when there is clearly no brain in your head? Admit it, you just don't like the idea of a black man in the White House... racist!


at this point i feel obligated to note that i was attempting a joke.
 
2012-05-12 12:52:38 AM
Are you kidding? They made too many bribes campaign contributions to get hit with anything.
 
2012-05-12 01:00:59 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: theteacher: The Jami Turman Fan Club: 9beers: 2 billion is chump change for them.

Nah, this wasn't investor money- it was THEIR money. I'm not saying they'll collapse, but it ain't chump change for them.

They forgot the first rule of investment banking.

Honest question: where did the money go?

That's an excellent question. I'm no expert on this, so take this with a ton of salt. But there was two hundred billion tied up in this deal. There aren't many companies or groups that would touch something this big, even if the risk of losing that much was small.

The Fed isn't allowed to touch these by law. Fannie and Freddie have no interest in them. The Bank of Japan won't touch North American debt like that. Who's left?

I can think of a few companies that could handle that much: Goldman Sachs, AIG, and HSBC. Deutsche Bank definitely could, and they've been involved in shady practices before. Or it could be the Chinese directly.

Any of these answers would be...very interesting, for different reasons. AIG would have to get it approved by the U.S. Government. If Goldman Sachs or Deutsche Bank you know this is the tip of the iceberg. If it's the Chinese, they're going to leverage this into a share of J.P. Morgan. HSBC I don't know enough about. They're known to be fairly conservative, so I have to believe that this would be the iceberg then.


Wasnt it HSBC and JPMorgan that secretly manipulated the silver market all those years, via massive naked shorts covered by none other than the Federal Reserve? Both banks made out like bandits. The guy who blew the whistle was run down and nearly killed.
 
2012-05-12 01:08:18 AM

thomps: lisarenee3505: thomps: Dinki: doublesecretprobation: they were only trading recklessly because their taxes are so high.

I thought it was because they were over regulated.

they had to concentrate on risky short-term gains because there was so much long-term uncertainty in the market due to the threat of obama further tinkering with the economy. can't we just vote that scumbag out of office yet so the banks can get back into the business of stimulating job growth?

===============================

Can't you just go shoot yourself for being so damn stupid? Yeah sure, let the banks just do whatever in the hell they want, we've all seen how well that works out before. Seriously, how are you alive when there is clearly no brain in your head? Admit it, you just don't like the idea of a black man in the White House... racist!

at this point i feel obligated to note that i was attempting a joke.

======================================

Ahhh, my bad then. I take it all back and uhhh.... this isn't awkward at all. Carry on.
 
2012-05-12 01:34:24 AM

Sliding Carp: Where "you're farked" is actually defined as, "in 2 years, you'll pay a $25,000 civil fine, and 2 current members of the SEC staff will become assistant directors of government liason at JP Morgan"


No doubt. $2B isn't quite lunch money to these guys, but something else is going on here. Not to mention the whitewash and backchannel stuff you mentioned.
 
2012-05-12 01:40:00 AM

thisisyourbrainonFark: Why hasn't

[occupywinstonsalem.org image 524x432]

led to

[ierg.net image 428x318]

?


Everyone is too busy to protest. If they skip work they get fired, lose their insurance, and then what happens if their kid gets sick? Our country has a perfect balance of things are farked up but they could be worse and I'm too busy dealing with my own shiat to do anything about it. If you're worried about feeding your kids you're not going to cut work and get on a bus to D.C. to protest. Then they get everyone arguing about abortion or gay marriage instead of focusing the real issues that are causing our once great country to spin down the shiatter. You'll notice the news channels always cut away for commercial right when any real debate starts up. Once someone gets off the talking points and starts laying down the facts they go, "We're gonna have to leave it there."
 
2012-05-12 01:56:25 AM

flamingboard: If you're worried about feeding your kids you're not going to cut work and get on a bus to D.C. to protest.


Nah, I was told only those without jobs spend months in the street protesting because nobody with a job agreed with occupy. Surely you must be incorrect.
 
2012-05-12 02:02:34 AM

BAM! Barney Frank: "In other words, JP Morgan Chase ... has lost 5 times the amount they claim financial regulation is costing them."

- jennifer bendery (@jbendery) May 11, 2012
 
2012-05-12 02:09:10 AM

janzee: *ring* "Hello. Yes. Just a moment. Mr. Dimon? There's an Angelo Mozilo on the phone and he says he's gotta good joke to tell you."


Is your name Jamie Dimon?
No, my name's Clarence.
 
2012-05-12 02:10:29 AM

Sliding Carp: Where "you're farked" is actually defined as, "in 2 years, you'll pay a $25,000 civil fine, and 2 current members of the SEC staff will become assistant directors of government liason at JP Morgan"


Done in one. Not even gonna scroll down.

/I feel all 2008. Or is it 2000?
 
2012-05-12 02:14:25 AM

thisisyourbrainonFark: Why hasn't

[occupywinstonsalem.org image 524x432]

led to

[ierg.net image 428x318]

?


phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com

Keep the masses in cheap flat screens, doritos and Two and a Half Men and they will stay quiet. The French aristocracy wasn't smart enough to actually "let them eat cake" so they got a revolution. Our overlords have learned.
 
2012-05-12 02:21:17 AM
i149.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-12 02:39:56 AM
Are we Americans or are we slaves to these gods damn parasites?
 
2012-05-12 03:09:56 AM

Kittypie070: Are we Americans or are we slaves to these gods damn parasites?


Yes.
 
2012-05-12 03:12:37 AM
[smacks alabasterblack carefully with rolled up newspaper]

there's no nuance whatsoever in the question

plz try again
 
2012-05-12 05:56:11 AM

phaseolus: Shadyman: Shostie: The Jami Turman Fan Club: They forgot the first rule of investment banking.

Never get involved in a land war in Asia?

Don't talk about fight club?

There is porn of it, no exceptions?


Don't eat the yellow snow?
 
2012-05-12 07:03:43 AM

Indubitably: Indubitably: Inherently systemic flaws abound.

STFD.

Make right and be real about profitabilities, now.

I mean it.

;)

P.S. Cyber-punch for what is right...


Am I the only one who doesn't have you on ignore? Your shtick is really irritating
 
2012-05-12 08:32:13 AM

thisisyourbrainonFark: Why hasn't

[occupywinstonsalem.org image 524x432]

led to

[ierg.net image 428x318]

?


Because most of us can still afford adequate housing & food, that's why.

/ of course, more and more people can't afford these things
// Wouldn't be too surprised if something breaks in the near-future
 
2012-05-12 08:32:44 AM

thisisyourbrainonFark: Why hasn't

[occupywinstonsalem.org image 524x432]

led to

[ierg.net image 428x318]

?


Because:
encrypted-tbn0.google.com
 
2012-05-12 08:41:24 AM
The SEC should be experts on who's farked, since they've apparently just been watching porn while Wall Street sends the world economy into a tailspin...again.
 
2012-05-12 10:00:51 AM
I think the severity of the loss itself is being overblown. The investment unit that made the bad hedge made other winning hedges so the net reported loss is somewhere around $800M. Now, JPM is sitting on $55B in cash and routinely earns $4B-$5B per quarter so unless things have been understated by an order of magnitude the impact of the loss itself is marginal.

The bigger hit is psychological and will affect the perceived market value of JPM going forward. See, until now, investors had widely regarded JPM as the smartest and most bulletproof of the big investment banks and so they traded shares of JPM at a premium compared to shares of other banks. That aura of invincibility is probably gone now.
 
2012-05-12 10:30:13 AM

alabasterblack: thisisyourbrainonFark: Why hasn't

[occupywinstonsalem.org image 524x432]

led to

[ierg.net image 428x318]

?

[phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com image 500x332]

Keep the masses in cheap flat screens, doritos and Two and a Half Men and they will stay quiet. The French aristocracy wasn't smart enough to actually "let them eat cake" so they got a revolution. Our overlords have learned.


=============

True, but this lot has farked the economy so bad, they won't be able to deliver even those small diversions much longer. I know more than a few people who have cut off cable because they can no longer afford it. In the words of Mr. Simpson, "No beer and no cable make Homer go crazy."
 
2012-05-12 11:28:44 AM
If your money is in a commercial bank, rather than a credit union (preferably a local community or employee one), then you're part of the problem, not the solution.

Government regulation isn't the answer to "too big to fail". Local control is.

Crooks, whether on a board of directors or sitting in Congress, can't do harm with money they don't have. Starve the bastards.
 
2012-05-12 11:31:33 AM

krackpipe: Sliding Carp: Where "you're farked" is actually defined as, "in 2 years, you'll pay a $25,000 civil fine, and 2 current members of the SEC staff will become assistant directors of government liason at JP Morgan"

No doubt. $2B isn't quite lunch money to these guys, but something else is going on here. Not to mention the whitewash and backchannel stuff you mentioned.


Would be nice to just once get the truth.
 
2012-05-12 11:56:50 AM

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: theteacher: The Jami Turman Fan Club: 9beers: 2 billion is chump change for them.

Nah, this wasn't investor money- it was THEIR money. I'm not saying they'll collapse, but it ain't chump change for them.

They forgot the first rule of investment banking.

Honest question: where did the money go?

Where do broken hearts go?


Where do whores go?
 
2012-05-12 12:12:01 PM

Yoyo: The Jami Turman Fan Club: BullBearMS: In particular, informed sentiment has shifted against continuing to allow very large banks to operate in their current highly leveraged form, with a great deal of debt and very little equity.

This wager was with their equity. That's why people are so upset.

They were gambling with the very money that they're not supposed to gamble with.

Can someone explain to me how the investment bankers are not allowed to invest their own, i.e. owners/stockholders, money, but are only allowed to invest their customers' money? Aside from the fact that it's a bad idea (to risk playing the game when you're effectively the referee), what illegal/immoral/unethical shenanigans are going on when an investment bank is effectively its own customer?


Because this is the money that they're required by law to keep in case there's a run on the bank.

Think of it as two separate institutions- an investment bank and a traditional bank. This was the money that had to be kept by the traditional bank, and could only be invested in certain limited ways. Instead, they used the money like it was part of the investment bank.

From the government's perspective, it's not "how did you lose two billion", it's "how can you lose two billion in six weeks with a safe investment"?
 
2012-05-12 12:17:50 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: From the government's perspective, it's not "how did you lose two billion", it's "how can you lose two billion in six weeks with a safe investment"?


You turn it into gymnastic math, throw it into the air and sweep the paperwork into your safe. These people steal, folks. Pay attention.
 
2012-05-12 12:46:39 PM

Mouser: If your money is in a commercial bank, rather than a credit union (preferably a local community or employee one), then you're part of the problem, not the solution.


What if the commercial bank offers me a far better credit card than the local credit union? ( eg. no annual fee, higher credit line, rewards) I still have my day-to-day checking account with the credit union, so am I part of the problem too?
 
2012-05-12 01:43:43 PM

tjfly: Some of you people get pissed when the banks make and lose money.
Do you even know why you're md?


It comes down to this: they loot the economy. They're like a mafia. And it's all perfectly legal, thanks to the current crop of politicians who refuse to do anything about it, because they benefit from it. The financial sector sucks resources out of the rest of the economy and fraudulently consolidates it within the ranks of a relatively small group of people, leaving future generations of taxpayers to pay for their messes. And the end result is misallocation of resources, our best and brightest going in to the financial sector to create financial products (which are nothing but logical constructs), instead of going into productive fields which might actually have a net benefit for society.

Some links:

1) Fabrice Tourre. Shouldn't have been so loquacious in his emails.
2) William K. Black. Keyword: accounting control fraud.
3) Matt Taibbi.
 
2012-05-12 03:33:35 PM
 
2012-05-12 03:35:45 PM
BullBearMS,

I thought you were a big bsrb so vote Ron Paul guy, who constantly biatches about Democrats and Obama?
 
2012-05-12 05:28:00 PM

JungleBoogie: It comes down to this: they loot the economy. They're like a mafia. And it's all perfectly legal, thanks to the current crop of politicians who refuse to do anything about it, because they benefit from it.


THIS THIS THIS.

It's like they're not even trying to cover it up anymore, they're just rubbing it in our faces.
 
2012-05-12 09:48:55 PM

Smackledorfer: BullBearMS,

I thought you were a big bsrb so vote Ron Paul guy, who constantly biatches about Democrats and Obama?


I know you're one of the politics tab Obama shills, so it's no wonder that you get so incredibly butthurt when someone criticizes Obama for doing something wrong.

Ron Paul's positions on Civil Liberties issues are so far ahead of Obama's continuation (and worsening) of Bush's Civil Liberties positions that it isn't difficult for any sane person to praise them.

Or perhaps you think the bipartisan drive towards converting our nation into a corporate owned police state is a good thing?
 
2012-05-12 10:16:06 PM

Dinki: thomps: can't we just vote that scumbag out of office yet so the banks can get back into the business of stimulating job growth?

Don't worry, come next January Rmoney will be in the white house, the GOP will control both houses, and wall street will be out from under the heavy hand of government, free to lead the world into a new dawn of capitalist freedom. We need a forward thinking free market visionary, a man with a true grasp of what this country needs in economic terms in the white house. And Rmoney, the guy that would have let the car companies collapse into ruin, is just that man.


And the guy who led the company that invested in well-run businesses and used its capable expert management to strip them of employees and cash while reaping enormous fees and putting them into bankruptcy is just the leader this country needs to create jobs and get Americans working again.
 
2012-05-12 10:19:54 PM

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: theteacher: The Jami Turman Fan Club: 9beers: 2 billion is chump change for them.

Nah, this wasn't investor money- it was THEIR money. I'm not saying they'll collapse, but it ain't chump change for them.

They forgot the first rule of investment banking.

Honest question: where did the money go?

Where do broken hearts go?


Where do whores go?
 
2012-05-12 10:50:35 PM

netringer: And the guy who led the company that invested in well-run businesses and used its capable expert management to strip them of employees and cash while reaping enormous fees and putting them into bankruptcy is just the leader this country needs to create jobs and get Americans working again.


As opposed to this guy?

PBS's epic four hour Frontline report: Money, Power, and Wall Street
CHARLES DUHIGG: Thirteen bankers were called into a room to meet with the president of the United States. They were told that they were going to be chastised, that this was going to be the opportunity for the president to vent the public's anger.

NARRATOR: The bankers feared they could be forced to accept dramatic reforms- a ban against "too big to fail," a limit on executive compensation, and a requirement that they refinance mortgages for underwater homeowners.

RON SUSKIND: Walking into that meeting, these guys have not been this nervous since they were in nursery school. They're ultimately powerful, sovereign men atop their institutions, but now they know that they really could get whacked.

NARRATOR: No one knew what to expect, Summers's Old Testament justice or Geithner's cautious encouragement. Now they'd find out what he thought.

RON SUSKIND: Obama comes in, and he's all business.

NARRATOR: There were few pleasantries exchanged. The president spoke first.

KEN LEWIS, CEO, Bank of America, 2001-09: The president made it pretty clear when he talked to us, you know, "We're between you and the pitchforks, guys. And you need to just acknowledge that."

CHARLES DUHIGG: The bankers have essentially made a decision that they're prepared to go along with what needs to be done to resolve this problem, to get the public back on the side of corporate America.

NARRATOR: But as the meeting progressed, to their astonishment, it became clear the president was in no mood for confrontation.

RON SUSKIND: What's interesting is that the next statements and the rest of the meeting essentially is Obama skinning back as fast as he can on that pitchforks punch. And he says right after that, "What we have, gentlemen, is a public relations disaster that's turning into a political disaster. And I'm here to help."

Instead of fixing the problem, Obama chose to protect those who caused the problem.

/Both sides are owned by the rich
//So stop voting for them
 
2012-05-12 11:18:01 PM

lisarenee3505: thomps: lisarenee3505: thomps: Dinki: doublesecretprobation: they were only trading recklessly because their taxes are so high.

I thought it was because they were over regulated.

they had to concentrate on risky short-term gains because there was so much long-term uncertainty in the market due to the threat of obama further tinkering with the economy. can't we just vote that scumbag out of office yet so the banks can get back into the business of stimulating job growth?

===============================

Can't you just go shoot yourself for being so damn stupid? Yeah sure, let the banks just do whatever in the hell they want, we've all seen how well that works out before. Seriously, how are you alive when there is clearly no brain in your head? Admit it, you just don't like the idea of a black man in the White House... racist!

at this point i feel obligated to note that i was attempting a joke.
======================================

Ahhh, my bad then. I take it all back and uhhh.... this isn't awkward at all. Carry on.


To be honest when I read your reply, I thought it was a joke in the same vein, it had just the right combination of screechy and racist accusation. It's scary to think that was serious....

arcas: I think the severity of the loss itself is being overblown. The investment unit that made the bad hedge made other winning hedges so the net reported loss is somewhere around $800M. Now, JPM is sitting on $55B in cash and routinely earns $4B-$5B per quarter so unless things have been understated by an order of magnitude the impact of the loss itself is marginal.

The bigger hit is psychological and will affect the perceived market value of JPM going forward. See, until now, investors had widely regarded JPM as the smartest and most bulletproof of the big investment banks and so they traded shares of JPM at a premium compared to shares of other banks. That aura of invincibility is probably gone now.


It's much more significant because the CEO of JPM was leading the charge against the Volcker Rule. This is going to discredit him and other banks - his own industry is going to want his head on a pike, and he'll likely get his golden parachute before the next quarter's earnings call. It's not like he doesn't have enough to buy a private island and the cruise ship to get back and forth for the rest of his life, but I'm sure his pride will be wounded.

There is also wide suspicion now that the losses may expand, both within Chase and to other companies tangled in the web, but whether they'll be announced early or come at the next earnings call is anyone's guess.
 
2012-05-12 11:38:11 PM

HaywoodJablonski: Am I the only one who doesn't have you on ignore? Your shtick is really irritating


Thanks. I thought I was the only one.
 
2012-05-13 01:18:21 AM

BullBearMS: Smackledorfer: BullBearMS,

I thought you were a big bsrb so vote Ron Paul guy, who constantly biatches about Democrats and Obama?

I know you're one of the politics tab Obama shills, so it's no wonder that you get so incredibly butthurt when someone criticizes Obama for doing something wrong.

Ron Paul's positions on Civil Liberties issues are so far ahead of Obama's continuation (and worsening) of Bush's Civil Liberties positions that it isn't difficult for any sane person to praise them.

Or perhaps you think the bipartisan drive towards converting our nation into a corporate owned police state is a good thing?


We are talking about finances right now. You are apparently in favor of stiff regulations in this thread - something I like, something RP, the guy who I believe you usually talk up like a savior, wants to eliminate them. A private bank like chase should be able to do whatever they want with their money. Hell, Ron Paul thinks they should be allowed to issue their own currency...
 
2012-05-13 08:45:02 AM

Smackledorfer: We are talking about finances right now. You are apparently in favor of stiff regulations in this thread - something I like, something RP, the guy who I believe you usually talk up like a savior, wants to eliminate them. A private bank like chase should be able to do whatever they want with their money. Hell, Ron Paul thinks they should be allowed to issue their own currency...


We are talking about finances right now, and nobody has brought up Ron Paul but you.

On fiscal matters, Obama has gone out of his way to protect those who brought down the economy from the consequences of their illegal acts even though his inner circle begged him to bring them to justice.

Frontline:
NARRATOR: At the White House, the political team worried it was just a matter of time before the anger would be aimed at the president. They wanted to make an example of one of the CEOs.

NOAM SCHEIBER: David Axelrod, Obama's top political advisor, very much wanted some scalps. Robert Gibbs, who was the press secretary but also a very senior political aide, wanted scalps. And even (former Treasury Secretary) Larry Summers thought there should be a scalp. And that was when the talk drifted toward, "Do you fire," you know, "the CEO of Bank of America"?

NARRATOR: Summers and the political team thought that maybe it was time for a CEO like Ken Lewis to lose his job. It would send the banks and the public a message- those responsible for the financial crisis would pay a price.

JONATHAN ALTER: Summers thought that maybe they needed to have a change in management, at least one bank, and that they needed to send a signal that, you know, poor performance was going to lead to consequences.

Sen. TED KAUFMAN (D), Delaware: Royal Bank of Scotland is almost twice as big as CitiGroup. You know what the British government did? They took it over and they fired the CEO. Guess what? When we had the problem with car dealers, car companies, we went out there, we fired the CEO. Why do we not fire the CEOs of some of these companies that have gotten into terrible trouble?


Obama's goal was to protect his friends on Wall Street from justice. Even when his inner circle begged him to bring those responsible for destroying our economy to justice.

To the dismay of many of Obama's supporters, nearly four years after the disaster, there has not been a single criminal charge filed by the federal government against any top executive of the elite financial institutions.

"It's perplexing at best," says Phil Angelides, the Democratic former California treasurer who chaired the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. "It's deeply troubling at worst."

"There hasn't been any serious investigation of any of the large financial entities by the Justice Department, which includes the FBI," says William Black, an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, who, as a government regulator in the 1980s, helped clean up the S&L mess. Black, who is a Democrat, notes that the feds dealt with the S&L crisis with harsh justice, bringing more than a thousand prosecutions, and securing a 90 percent conviction rate.


Obama controls the Justice Department, where he put a lawyer who previously worked representing Wall Street firms in charge. All three of his Chiefs of Staff have also come directly from banking interests to the White House.

dl.dropbox.com

This is unfortunately not a joke from the Onion, but reality.
 
2012-05-13 11:00:40 AM
A second dodge. Nice.
 
2012-05-13 12:43:37 PM

Nobody is trying to bring up irrelevant things but you, Obama shill.

Bill Moyers on PBS:

We've already made our choice for the best headline of the year, so far: "Citigroup Replaces JPMorgan as White House Chief of Staff."

When we saw it on the website Gawker.com we had to smile - but the smile didn't last long. There's simply too much truth in that headline; it says a lot about how Wall Street and Washington have colluded to create the winner-take-all economy that rewards the very few at the expense of everyone else.

The story behind it is that Jack Lew is President Obama's new chief of staff - arguably the most powerful office in the White House that isn't shaped like an oval. He used to work for the giant banking conglomerate Citigroup. His predecessor as chief of staff is Bill Daley, who used to work at the giant banking conglomerate JPMorgan Chase, where he was maestro of the bank's global lobbying and chief liaison to the White House. Daley replaced Obama's first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who once worked as a rainmaker for the investment bank now known as Wasserstein & Company, where in less than three years he was paid a reported eighteen and a half million dollars.

The new guy, Jack Lew ran hedge funds and private equity at Citigroup, which means he's a member of the Wall Street gang, too. His last job was as head of President Obama's Office of Management and Budget, where he replaced Peter Orzag, who now works as vice chairman for global banking at - hold on to your deposit slip - Citigroup.

It's startling the number of high-ranking Obama officials who have spun through the revolving door between the White House and the sacred halls of investment banking.

President Obama may call bankers "fat cats" and stir the rabble against them with populist rhetoric when it serves his interest, but after the fiscal fiasco, he allowed the culprits to escape virtually scot-free.

It turns out, according to The New York Times, that as President Obama's inner circle has been shrinking, his "rare new best friend" is Robert Wolf. They play basketball, golf, and talk economics when Wolf is not raising money for the president's campaign.

Robert Wolf runs the U.S. branch of the giant Swiss bank UBS, which participated in schemes to help rich Americans evade their taxes.


Then there is this:
Justice's inaction regarding the big Wall Street firms is not for a lack of suspicious activity. Three different government entities exhaustively examined the practices that contributed to the financial collapse, and each has referred its findings to the department for possible criminal investigation. One such matter involved a 2007 transaction by Goldman Sachs, in which Goldman created an investment, based on mortgage-backed securities, that seemed designed to fail. Goldman allowed a client who was betting against the mortgage market to help shape the investment instrument, which was called Abacus 2007-AC1; then both Goldman and the client bet against the investment without informing other clients (whose investments were wagers on its success) how the securities included in the portfolio were selected. These uninformed clients lost more than $1 billion on the investment. In 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Goldman with securities fraud "for making materially misleading statements and omissions" in marketing the investment. The SEC, which conducts only civil litigation, referred the case to Justice for criminal investigation.

A year later, in April 2011, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Democrat Carl Levin, after a two-year inquiry, issued a fat report detailing several transactions, including Goldman's Abacus deal, that Levin and his staff believed should be investigated by Justice as possible crimes.
The subcommittee made a formal referral to the department (as did the federal Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, chaired by Phil Angelides), and Levin publicly stated his view that criminal inquiry was warranted. Goldman executives, including the firm's chief executive officer, Lloyd Blankfein, started hiring defense lawyers.

Meanwhile, Obama's political operation continued to ask Wall Street for campaign money. A curious pattern developed. A Newsweek examination of campaign finance records shows that, in the weeks before and after last year's scathing Senate report, several Goldman executives and their families made large donations to Obama's Victory Fund and related entities, some of them maxing out at the highest individual donation allowed, $35,800, even though 2011 was an electoral off-year. Some of these executives were giving to Obama for the first time.


The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch and completely failed to keep their word and prosecute those guilty of massive fraud.

dl.dropbox.com

Obama has been publicly claiming that they will be relentless in prosecuting those guilty of fraud while privately promising to "stand between the bankers and the mob with pitchforks".

Lying politician is lying and taking money from the guilty hand over fist.
 
2012-05-13 01:00:19 PM
Man this is serious!

So serious bonuses might be cut by 10%!!

/get a scalpel big enough
//carve between government and corporations
///slash that bastard
 
2012-05-13 02:04:37 PM

BullBearMS: Nobody is trying to bring up irrelevant things but you, Obama shill.


How Paul going to do this things you tards always talk about? Try to post something without attacking Obama.

How is Paul going to take on Wall Street. Loosen their regulation even more? What exactly is his plan here?
 
2012-05-13 02:27:12 PM

Halli: BullBearMS: Nobody is trying to bring up irrelevant things but you, Obama shill.

Try to post something without attacking Obama.


dl.dropbox.com

It's OK when Democrats sell America out to the obscenely wealthy!
It's only bad when Republicans do the same thing!

/So vote Democrat
 
2012-05-13 02:41:03 PM

BullBearMS: Halli: BullBearMS: Nobody is trying to bring up irrelevant things but you, Obama shill.

Try to post something without attacking Obama.

[dl.dropbox.com image 479x398]

It's OK when Democrats sell America out to the obscenely wealthy!
It's only bad when Republicans do the same thing!

/So vote Democrat


Hmm so nothing yet about RON PAUL.
 
2012-05-13 02:42:02 PM

BullBearMS: It's OK when Democrats sell America out to the obscenely wealthy!


No one said it was.

I'll admit I have plenty of complaints about Obama. I see no valid third party running in this election, and frankly without changes to the system I never see more than two parties thriving, unfortunate as that is.

What I'm asking you is how you, someone who constantly talks about how superior Ron Paul's economic platforms are, can justify also being apparently so in favor of regulation. I want extra regulation of the banking industry. Obama not so much. Republicans not at all. Many democrats favor regulation. Ron Paul, so far as I know, favors pretty much none, and in fact would be letting the Chase banks of the world create their own currencies to compete with the federal government's which he would have locked into a Gold standard.

I'm asking you if you would like to explain how you can support the anti-regulation excessively free market guy one day while the next you are in favor of heavier regulation on the banking industry. If you don't want to, you can merely say no thanks.

Anytime you want me to explain why I voted for, and will likely vote for again, Obama, I would be happy to do so. But you aren't asking me that question as far as I can tell. You are just responding to my question with "OBAMA BAD; BULLBEARSMASH!" and that isn't really relevant at all. That is just you lashing out out me and instead of explaining how you can apparently hold two beliefs that are at odds with one another: that Ron Paul is the solution, and that you want increased regulation of industries.
 
2012-05-13 03:01:30 PM
Awwww. The Obama shills from the politics tab certainly are desperate to change the subject to something off topic.

Obama has done nothing but protect those guilty of bringing down our economy since he took office. He stuffed the Justice Department's top positions with people who have earned millions defending the big names on Wall Street.

Eric Holder, a former Clinton Justice official who, after a career in government, joined the Washington office of Covington & Burling, a top-tier law firm with an elite white-collar defense unit.

Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Deutsche Bank are among the institutions that pay for Covington's legal advice, some of it relating to matters before the Department of Justice.

Holder's was not the only face at Justice familiar to Covington clients. Lanny Breuer, who had co-chaired the white-collar defense unit at Covington with Holder, was chosen to head the criminal division at Obama's Justice. Two other Covington lawyers followed Holder into top positions, and Holder's principal deputy, James Cole, was recruited from Bryan Cave LLP, another white-shoe firm with A-list finance clients.


You don't appoint the top Wall Street defenders to lead the Justice Department if you ever had any intention of prosecuting those whose fraud and greed destroyed our nation's economy.

However, I'm sure the politics tab shills will continue to try to change the subject and make excuses.
 
Displayed 50 of 207 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report