Bank of America fine $17 Billion dollars

Status
Not open for further replies.


monkeytassle said:
let it go man. unless you can back it up.
Click to expand...

They admitted at the time they were parcelling up shit investments, telling one set of investors they were brilliant and to buy them, then telling another set of investors to short them because they were shit. Just because they're better at operating in the grey areas and have more politicians by the balls doesn't mean they're less dishonest than the other criminals
 
Cockney Mackem said:
They admitted at the time they were parcelling up shit investments, telling one set of investors they were brilliant and to buy them, then telling another set of investors to short them because they were shit. Just because they're better at operating in the grey areas and have more politicians by the balls doesn't mean they're less dishonest than the other criminals
Click to expand...

well that's the polarised version of it. the other version is that they were asked by one investor that wanted to go short to build a package that another would go long. the payout was asymmetric for Paulson but IKB and ABN should of course have known this both being sophisticated investors. both buyer and seller assumed risk.

clearly goldman could have gone about it in a cleaner manner but fraud is a bit strong. their fee on the deal was $15m. the settlement was $550m. they had no trading exposure to the deal.

ouro said:
Which country?
Click to expand...
Denmark mate. The balance principle.
 
 
monkeytassle said:
well that's the polarised version of it. the other version is that they were asked by one investor that wanted to go short to build a package that another would go long. the payout was asymmetric for Paulson but IKB and ABN should of course have known this both being sophisticated investors. both buyer and seller assumed risk.

clearly goldman could have gone about it in a cleaner manner but fraud is a bit strong. their fee on the deal was $15m. the settlement was $550m. they had no trading exposure to the deal.


Denmark mate. The balance principle.
Click to expand...


I liked this bit "clearly Goldman could have gone about it in a cleaner manner." and your argument that the investors knew they were dealing with Goldmans so should have known the deal was crooked

monkeytassle said:
individuals so irrelevant.
Click to expand...

:lol: right.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
I liked this bit "clearly Goldman could have gone about it in a cleaner manner." and your argument that the investors knew they were dealing with Goldmans so should have known the deal was crooked
Click to expand...

that's not what I'm saying at all. you do understand the buyers of the deal were sophisticated investors (banks) themselves right? I don't know the ins and outs of CDO deals but I wouldn't have thought disclosing the other side unless it was a named principle trade would be in anyone's interests.

Cockney Mackem said:
:lol: right.
Click to expand...

go on then....expand on the smiley.

every time we do this you come out with ill-informed and generally baseless accusations. I'm not defending goldman, it's pretty well noted on here I'm not a fan but I do like to deal in facts.
 
The global economic crisis WAS NOT caused by honest retail bankers giving mortgagee to well intended people who wanted better for themselves and so where encouraged to ask for things beyond there means. IT WAS caused by a few unscrupulous, clever, untouchable and yes fraudulent individuals in Goldman and similar. These few individuals(who largely got away scot free,) found increasingly complicated and devious ways to package up this risky debt into bonds and financial construct which were used to trade leveraging multiples of 10s and hundreds on the original debts. The poorly paid (comparatively) and slightly dumber advisors at Moody's and Standard and poor a) didn't see the risk or b) were coerced into mis representing the risk. I'll advised financial companies that needed large financial assets (mostly insurance companies and pension funds) unwittingly fuelled this dodge market and then the bubble burst. The lie we've been sold is that it was the publics debt that caused the problem. The fact is the publics debt was/is fractions on the dollar... in the final analysis Lehman/Goldman Sachs/etc top dozen or so bond ridiculously well rewarded and crazily incentivised traders took down the worlds pants and reemed us all, US and UK governments included. Dress it up however you like, it was and is an unregulated market. One of the GS traders had never even had a bank account when he was put to work, IN HIS first week out of college, trading bonds worth billions. Guess what..... he was the son of one of G-S executives. We were all tucked over by a couple of grey Jews, a select few ivy league scholars and their inner circle.
 
Boots said:
The global economic crisis WAS NOT caused by honest retail bankers giving mortgagee to well intended people who wanted better for themselves and so where encouraged to ask for things beyond there means. IT WAS caused by a few unscrupulous, clever, untouchable and yes fraudulent individuals in Goldman and similar. These few individuals(who largely got away scot free,) found increasingly complicated and devious ways to package up this risky debt into bonds and financial construct which were used to trade leveraging multiples of 10s and hundreds on the original debts. The poorly paid (comparatively) and slightly dumber advisors at Moody's and Standard and poor a) didn't see the risk or b) were coerced into mis representing the risk. I'll advised financial companies that needed large financial assets (mostly insurance companies and pension funds) unwittingly fuelled this dodge market and then the bubble burst. The lie we've been sold is that it was the publics debt that caused the problem. The fact is the publics debt was/is fractions on the dollar... in the final analysis Lehman/Goldman Sachs/etc top dozen or so bond ridiculously well rewarded and crazily incentivised traders took down the worlds pants and reemed us all, US and UK governments included. Dress it up however you like, it was and is an unregulated market. One of the GS traders had never even had a bank account when he was put to work, IN HIS first week out of college, trading bonds worth billions. Guess what..... he was the son of one of G-S executives. We were all tucked over by a couple of grey Jews, a select few ivy league scholars and their inner circle.
Click to expand...

well this is a new angle. a very hard to read one.
 
monkeytassle said:
that's not what I'm saying at all. you do understand the buyers of the deal were sophisticated investors (banks) themselves right? I don't know the ins and outs of CDO deals but I wouldn't have thought disclosing the other side unless it was a named principle trade would be in anyone's interests.



go on then....expand on the smiley.

every time we do this you come out with ill-informed and generally baseless accusations. I'm not defending goldman, it's pretty well noted on here I'm not a fan but I do like to deal in facts.
Click to expand...

Which part of the accusation is baseless when I'm referring to a case where Goldman Sachs was found guilty of wrongdoing and subjected to what the SEC said at the time was the largest fine they'd ever given a financial institution. Listen to yourself. You're making excuses for greedy dishonest behaviour that sought deliberately to deceive the market. It could have been a bit cleaner, you say. Half a billion dollar fine. The investors were sophisticated, as if that makes it OK to rip them off. Whose money was it that ABN lost a billion dollars of? Was it all just numbers on a sheet or was that someone's mortgage, pension or life savings put into an investment?

I think you've been working in financial services too long mate, you seem to have lost a bit of perspective on what constitutes right and wrong in business
 
Cockney Mackem said:
Which part of the accusation is baseless when I'm referring to a case where Goldman Sachs was found guilty of wrongdoing and subjected to what the SEC said at the time was the largest fine they'd ever given a financial institution. Listen to yourself. You're making excuses for greedy dishonest behaviour that sought deliberately to deceive the market. It could have been a bit cleaner, you say. Half a billion dollar fine. The investors were sophisticated, as if that makes it OK to rip them off. Whose money was it that ABN lost a billion dollars of? Was it all just numbers on a sheet or was that someone's mortgage, pension or life savings put into an investment?

I think you've been working in financial services too long mate, you seem to have lost a bit of perspective on what constitutes right and wrong in business
Click to expand...

whoa, whoa. you're the one throwing around accusations of fraud and criminal activity.

how were the investors ripped off in your view? what if the bet had gone right? would you claim Paulson had had his eyes out?
 
monkeytassle said:
whoa, whoa. you're the one throwing around accusations of fraud and criminal activity.

how were the investors ripped off in your view? what if the bet had gone right? would you claim Paulson had had his eyes out?
Click to expand...

The SEC's lawsuit argued that Goldman was fraudulent because it failed to disclose that it was betting against subprime mortgage investments that it was promoting to clients.

Per the New York Times, the "creation and sale of synthetic C.D.O.’s helped make the financial crisis worse than it might otherwise have been, effectively multiplying losses by providing more securities to bet against." “When you buy protection against an event that you have a hand in causing," said a structured finance expert, "you are buying fire insurance on someone else’s house and then committing arson.”

Thor'd obviously
 
Cockney Mackem said:
The SEC's lawsuit argued that Goldman was fraudulent because it failed to disclose that it was betting against subprime mortgage investments that it was promoting to clients.

Per the New York Times, the "creation and sale of synthetic C.D.O.’s helped make the financial crisis worse than it might otherwise have been, effectively multiplying losses by providing more securities to bet against." “When you buy protection against an event that you have a hand in causing," said a structured finance expert, "you are buying fire insurance on someone else’s house and then committing arson.”

Thor'd obviously
Click to expand...

that's the lawsuit filed by the SEC. The Justice Department said there was no criminal case to answer. these are the facts man. I'm not absolving goldman of blame, I'm just pulling you up on your views which don't seem to contain fact, but mainly press conjecture.

just entertain me here right. let's say IF goldman prepared the abacus deal and mortgages hadn't collapsed. IKB and ABN make out like heroes and Paulson drops a bundle of money. Would you still have the same opinion?

Let's not forget Goldies had to be itself bailed out by Warren Buffet in this.
 
chr1s1973 said:
Ok, let's start again. There was a lot of hubris in those times. Banks lending without proper checks and to people they shouldn't have, assuming/ hoping the economy and housing market would always go up. That debt was then bundled up, leveraged and sold on. Within that, there were some outliers who outright lied about or fraudulently represented buyers' incomes and then others who misrepresented the credit quality of this debt, this was not everybody.

This was a long time ago now. The offenders have largely left their jobs, or those jobs don't exist any more, the regulations and scrutiny are considerably more tight and the things that happened then, largely wouldn't be able to happen now, nor would there likely be the chance that the people who essentially committed fraud, be allowed to get away with it. What you thought was so funny, was me saying that we can't go back in time and add regulations which had been loosened under Clinton over here and Blair over there.

Bank of America bought Countrywide Financial after they went out of business, then did the same with Merrills. The latter in particular was in the same way as Lloyds bought HBoS; to stop them going completely and creating an even more systemic shock. So today (yesterday) BoA settled with this branch of the government on charges of offenses of mis-selling that was not actioned by BoA, but by Merrills and Countrywide.

My opening paragraph was intended to be a synopsis of a small part of what happened. Obviously you didn't understand that, does this make more sense to you?
Click to expand...

How can you put forward the argument it was a long time ago?? Should Rolf Harris have used this defence?? Or the argument that the offenders have left their jobs?? If that's the case why do we keep banging on about Hillsborough which was 25 years ago when all the offenders have left there jobs.

The we are all on this together ethos is flawed as well. Bank workers still get decent annual pay rises, public sector don't. The only people that pay their full taxes are people who are in paye schemes not self employed where taxing is based largely on trust and honesty. We are not all in this together.
 
monkeytassle said:
that's the lawsuit filed by the SEC. The Justice Department said there was no criminal case to answer. these are the facts man. I'm not absolving goldman of blame, I'm just pulling you up on your views which don't seem to contain fact, but mainly press conjecture.

just entertain me here right. let's say IF goldman prepared the abacus deal and mortgages hadn't collapsed. IKB and ABN make out like heroes and Paulson drops a bundle of money. Would you still have the same opinion?

Let's not forget Goldies had to be itself bailed out by Warren Buffet in this.
Click to expand...

Many possible reasons why they decided not to prosecute, such as them wondering whether they could get a conviction in court with a financial system so murky even its own people can't fully explain it, and Goldman's clever lawyers.

As for the second part of your post, that's like asking if it's still match fixing if the Malaysian betting syndicate picks the other team to win.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
As for the second part of your post, that's like asking if it's still match fixing if the Malaysian betting syndicate picks the other team to win.
Click to expand...
we could go on all day with this. let me finish my side by saying I'm not defending goldies at all. I find them rapacious and disingenuous but given some of the utter horse shit thrown at my "industry" I do like to put facts in now and again.

having settled on it and seen the changes in finance, my post to @---Nemo--- sums it up. the financial crisis was caused by greedy people, exploiting people's greed and presided over by even greedier people.

we're not all arseholes you know. I genuinely go out every day to try and do the bets job I can for my clients and their investors.

fwiw the industry is a a hell of a lot cleaner than pre-08. unrecognisable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top