LumberJocks

The financial scams of Wall Street

  • Advertise with us

« back to Coffee Lounge forum

Forum topic by TopamaxSurvivor posted 11-27-2011 11:22 PM 1187 views 1 time favorited 28 replies Add to Favorites Watch
View TopamaxSurvivor's profile

TopamaxSurvivor

15065 posts in 2421 days


11-27-2011 11:22 PM

Topic tags/keywords: financial industry wall street scam

I keep meeting people who have left the financial industry because for ethical considerations. The most recent moved from New York to Seattle. After being totally disgusted with the industry and the scams they are running on the public, the person who was highly licensed and worked in international business finance, let the licenses go!

Another fellow who comes to mind quit Soleman Smith Barney because he said he would not do what the company told him to do to people’s accounts and milk them for commissions.

I could mention others, but the story is the same. I totally regret ever having trusted Merrill Lynch and hope any one who reads this will heed the warnings.

My question is, what does this say about those who are left in that industry?

-- "some old things are lovely, warm still with life ... of the forgotten men who made them." - D.H. Lawrence


28 replies so far

View HorizontalMike's profile

HorizontalMike

6968 posts in 1660 days


#1 posted 11-28-2011 12:22 AM

”My question is, what does this say about those who are left in that industry?”

Uh… Rode hard and put up wet? While stopped at a RED stoplight, wink, wink…

;-)

-- HorizontalMike -- "Woodpeckers understand..."

View TopamaxSurvivor's profile

TopamaxSurvivor

15065 posts in 2421 days


#2 posted 11-28-2011 12:36 AM

Maybe we should be able to deal with the ethically challenged as we see fit? They want no laws or regulations on their scams, why should we be limited in how we chose to deal with them?

-- "some old things are lovely, warm still with life ... of the forgotten men who made them." - D.H. Lawrence

View Dez's profile

Dez

1124 posts in 2823 days


#3 posted 11-28-2011 01:15 AM

Tit for Tat OR What is good for the banker/politician/lawyer is good for the regular Joe?

-- Folly ever comes cloaked in opportunity!

View bluekingfisher's profile

bluekingfisher

1103 posts in 1725 days


#4 posted 11-28-2011 12:15 PM

Long live the revolution!

-- No one plans to fail, they just, just fail to plan

View TopamaxSurvivor's profile

TopamaxSurvivor

15065 posts in 2421 days


#5 posted 11-28-2011 04:32 PM

CR, You agree with Greensapn/Reagan that fraud and criminal activity is a market risk? The gov’t should not be regulating or prosecuting criminals in the financial industry? Most of the frotune 500 filing fraudlent financials and lying to drive stock prices for many years is not worng?

-- "some old things are lovely, warm still with life ... of the forgotten men who made them." - D.H. Lawrence

View TopamaxSurvivor's profile

TopamaxSurvivor

15065 posts in 2421 days


#6 posted 11-28-2011 05:32 PM

Obviously the hills of WV are not penetrated by the news of the day. Even your hero, Bush the Dumbest, told them they were going to jail if they did not clean up their financials in 6 months. You don’t remember that?

Sharp business practices do not include lying to stock holders to drive stock prices nor do filing false financial statements on publicly traded companies.

Goldman Sachs lying about their mortgage backed securities, selling them to trusting investor then taking shorts against their own securities is “sharp business practice”? If you believe that, I doubt you are really an atty. Even the worst of them has to have a basic understanding of legal principle and president.

-- "some old things are lovely, warm still with life ... of the forgotten men who made them." - D.H. Lawrence

View BOB67CAM's profile

BOB67CAM

269 posts in 1817 days


#7 posted 11-28-2011 06:03 PM

I kinda agree with topo AND cr, if im allowed…
If your dumb enough to jump into the pool of sharks then you had better be smart enough to know what your doing in that pool, if your going to wholeheartedly follow what youre being told, then u had best trust the 1 giving the advice, however i will always try to be the smart 1 or i wont take that leap…
If i were to take that leap then failure is ALWAYS a possible option!
Now that being said this occupy wall street crap drives me nutz, for the simple fact that if they are the 99% were plain out screwed because 90 of them dont have any clue what theyre actually protesting, theyre just mad about things, from housing to jobs, to college tuition…...
Regardless if u hear of a child molester in your neighborhood, chances are pretty good you wont let them watch your child, even at the advisement of a trusted friend, why would you hand your money to a money molester even at the advice of friend?...thats where i get baffled
those 1% are the people with any possibility of giving working folks a job, how many people do u know of making $30,000 or even $60,000 that employ ANYONE full or EVEN part time? The only 1 i do know of is a buddys father who has a garage door business where hes the only employee, but he does employ his son about 1-2 days a month to help him on his “bad days” when he cant do it alone and at that point he literally makes about 50 bux for that day after paying his son…
people nowadays all seem to want freebies, or to be assured everything is totally stable, thats just not how it works. if you dont keep your own stability, why would anyone else?
any of you jocks out there that do this woodworking as a business know that jobs generally dont just fall into your lap, u have to bust your butt to get them and keep them, sure ull get a freebie here and there but its not the norm, in fact id bet money that 99% of it is hard work whether it getting the job, doing the job or even the advertising to get the job, vs. 1% freebie/easy jobs that fall into your lap…i could say im a welder or a mechanic and call it a bussiness but if im just sitting on the couch playing video games chances are pretty slim im going to get anywhere….
on the other hand if someone is “unethical” why would you deal with them? I personally will not. There is a line between illegal and unethical, i was taught that awhile back when my buddy got screwed but it wasnt just 1 time, it was many times. I realized pretty fast that it was him allowing himself to get screwed. The reasons could be chalked up to “not knowing better”, or “dealing with unethical people”, or just plain “ignorance of what he was getting himself into”.
Regardless what it all amounted to was, he wasnt watching his back, someone else was…
Just my opinion on the matter….

-- if you dont have it, build it, especially when its a stupid idea

View Bertha's profile

Bertha

12951 posts in 1439 days


#8 posted 11-28-2011 06:14 PM

The hills of West Virginia? Where is that coming from?
Before you trash our backwards way of life, you might want to check your own states first.
http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/West_Virginia_Ends_Fiscal_Year_With_Surplus_124998584.html?ref=584

-- My dad and I built a 65 chev pick up.I killed trannys in that thing for some reason-Hog

View TopamaxSurvivor's profile

TopamaxSurvivor

15065 posts in 2421 days


#9 posted 11-28-2011 06:52 PM

Sorry Al, I thought cr said he was in WV ;-))

BOB67CAM, I guess that means all the customers of Merrill Lynch, Soleman Smith Barney and the other 15 of the nation’s 19 largest brokerage houses identified by Eliot Spitzer s criminal and anyone who bought mutual funds from Strong, Putnam or any of the others that were ID’d as corrupt deserved what they got? Bottomline, anyone who trusts anyone in the financial business is a fool? Since they are all liars, stop the economy? A reasonable expectation of trust and stability is what facilitaes economic growth.

-- "some old things are lovely, warm still with life ... of the forgotten men who made them." - D.H. Lawrence

View HorizontalMike's profile

HorizontalMike

6968 posts in 1660 days


#10 posted 11-28-2011 06:53 PM

^Yeah Al^ and make sure that Topa doesn’t know about Fred Zane either… Then we would have to talk about all the innocent folks put in jail by this former West Virginian. At least when Zane made it to Texas we caught him, but only after much more fraudulent testimony convictions of the innocent. Too bad Zane didn’t go after the Wall Street crooks…

-- HorizontalMike -- "Woodpeckers understand..."

View Bertha's profile

Bertha

12951 posts in 1439 days


#11 posted 11-28-2011 08:02 PM

^Yeah, Zane’s a turd, no doubt about it. His type are all around, in every State. We try to weed them out the best we can but there’s no real oversight like there is for clinicians. Anyone can pass the Daubert mustard to testify like he did. It’s very sad. I wish he’d come from a different State. That was way before my time here, thankfully.

-- My dad and I built a 65 chev pick up.I killed trannys in that thing for some reason-Hog

View patron's profile

patron

13165 posts in 2087 days


#12 posted 11-29-2011 02:41 AM

Fed Loaned Banks Trillions in Bailout, Bloomberg Reports Email 49 Smaller Font Text Larger Text | Print

In a story that sheds new light on the extent of the country’s financial crisis, Bloomberg Markets magazine reported today that the Federal Reserve lent trillions of dollars to beleaguered financial institutions, with $1.2 trillion going out on just one day in 2008.

“The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy,” Bloomberg reported today. ”And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates.”

Bloomberg Markets said it went over 29,000 pages of Fed documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and central bank records of more than 21,000 transactions.

“Saved by the bailout, bankers lobbied against government regulations, a job made easier by the Fed, which never disclosed the details of the rescue to lawmakers even as Congress doled out more money and debated new rules aimed at preventing the next collapse,” Bloomberg reported.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke had argued back in 2008 when the crisis hit that revealing borrower details would create a stigma that would have led to more banks collapsing. And the Fed fought to keep the details of the loans, which totaled $7.77 trillion, secret long after.

-

-- david - only thru kindness can this world be whole . If we don't succeed we run the risk of failure. Dan Quayle

View TopamaxSurvivor's profile

TopamaxSurvivor

15065 posts in 2421 days


#13 posted 11-29-2011 03:36 AM

Nice to hear another sane voice David. One mortgage modification issues and the free money from the Fed to the banks turn out to be why modify mortgages? They got interested free loans from the gov’t that they can loan back to the gov’t at a tidy profit. Meanwhile these bastards that crashed the economy continue to take billions out in bonuses for themselves. Bank of America is reported to be in trouble, but upper management set aside 10 Billion for bonuses. That 10 Billion would solve there problems.

Just curious CR, is there any level of fraud that becomes a crime? If there are to be no laws or regulations about fraud in the markets, why not let the victims deal with the perpetrators as they see fit? How about luring young girls into the country to sell off as sex slaves. Seems like a shrewd practice to me; low acquisition costs and high margin. Sounds like perfect 21st century business that would blend well with the practices of the past decade.

-- "some old things are lovely, warm still with life ... of the forgotten men who made them." - D.H. Lawrence

View patron's profile

patron

13165 posts in 2087 days


#14 posted 11-29-2011 04:38 AM

NEW YORK (AP) — A judge on Monday used unusually harsh language to strike down a $285 million settlement between Citigroup and the Securities and Exchange Commission over toxic mortgage securities, saying he couldn’t tell whether the deal was fair and criticizing regulators for shielding the public from details of the firm’s wrongdoing.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff said the public has a right to know what happens in cases that touch on “the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives.” In such cases, the SEC has a responsibility to ensure that the truth emerges, he wrote.

Rakoff said he had spent hours trying to assess the settlement but concluded that he had not been given “any proven or admitted facts upon which to exercise even a modest degree of independent judgment.”

He called the settlement “neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest.”

The SEC shot back in a statement issued by Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami, saying the deal was all four of those things and “reasonably reflects the scope of relief that would be obtained after a successful trial.”

The SEC had accused the bank of betting against a complex mortgage investment in 2007 — making $160 million in the process — while investors lost millions. The settlement would have imposed penalties on Citigroup but allowed it to deny allegations that it misled investors.

Citigroup said in a statement that it disagreed with Rakoff because the proposed settlement was “a fair and reasonable resolution to the SEC’s allegation of negligence” and was consistent with long-established legal standards.

“In the event the case is tried, we would present substantial factual and legal defenses to the charges,” it added.

This wasn’t the first time that the judge struck down an SEC settlement with a bank, and Rakoff has made no secret of his disdain for settlements between the government agency and banks for paltry sums and no admission of guilt.

“The SEC’s longstanding policy — hallowed by history, but not by reason — of allowing defendants to enter into consent judgments without admitting or denying the underlying allegations, deprives the court of even the most minimal assurance that the substantial injunctive relief it is being asked to impose has any basis in fact,” he wrote in Monday’s decision.

Adam Pritchard, a professor of securities law at the University of Michigan Law School, said courts could become clogged with cases that would normally be settled if other judges adopt Rakoff’s reasoning and deprive companies of their incentive to avoid trial.

He called it a powerful SEC tool to encourage settlements “and Judge Rakoff is taking that away from them.”

The SEC’s consent judgment settling the case was filed the same day as its lawsuit against Citigroup, the judge noted.

“It is harder to discern from the limited information before the court what the SEC is getting from this settlement other than a quick headline,” the judge wrote.

“In much of the world, propaganda reigns, and truth is confined to secretive, fearful whispers,” Rakoff said. “Even in our nation, apologists for suppressing or obscuring the truth may always be found. But the SEC, of all agencies, has a duty, inherent in its statutory mission, to see that the truth emerges; and if it fails to do so, this court must not, in the name of deference or convenience, grant judicial enforcement to the agency’s contrivances.”

He set a July 16 trial date for the case.

Khuzami said in the SEC statement that Rakoff made too much out of the fact that Citigroup did not have to admit wrongdoing. He said forcing Citigroup to give up profits, pay fines and face mandatory business reforms outweigh the absence of an admission “when that relief is obtained promptly and without the risks, delay and resources required at trial.”

Khuzami added: “Refusing an otherwise advantageous settlement solely because of the absence of an admission also would divert resources away from the investigation of other frauds and the recovery of losses suffered by other investors not before the court.”

Rakoff said the power of the judiciary was “not a free-roving remedy to be invoked at the whim of a regulatory agency, even with the consent of the regulated.”

He added: “If its deployment does not rest on facts — cold, hard, solid facts, established either by admissions or by trials — it serves no lawful or moral purpose and is simply an engine of oppression.”

In the civil lawsuit filed last month, the SEC said Citigroup Inc. traders discussed the possibility of buying financial instruments to essentially bet on the failure of the mortgage assets. Rating agencies downgraded most of the investments just as many troubled homeowners stopped paying their mortgages in late 2007. That pushed the investment into default and cost its buyers’ — hedge funds and investment managers — several hundred million dollars in losses.

Earlier this month, Rakoff staged a hearing in which he asked lawyers on both sides to defend the settlement.

At the hearing, Rakoff questioned whether freeing Citigroup of any admission of liability could undermine private claims by investors who stand to recover only $95 million in penalties on total losses of $700 million.

In his decision, he called the penalties “pocket change” to a company the size of Citigroup and said that, if the SEC allegations are true, then Citigroup got a “very good deal.” If they are untrue, the settlement would be “a mild and modest cost of doing business,” he said.

In 2009, Rakoff rejected a $33 million settlement between the SEC and Bank of America Corp. calling it a breach of “justice and morality.” The deal was over civil charges accusing the bank of misleading shareholders when it acquired Merrill Lynch during the height of the financial crisis in 2008 by failing to disclose it was paying up to $5.8 billion in bonuses to employees even as it recorded a $27.6 billion yearly loss.

In February 2010, he approved an amended settlement for over four times the original amount, but was caustic in his comments about the $150 million pact, calling it “half-baked justice at best.” He said the court approved it “while shaking its head.”

Citigroup’s $285 million would represent the largest amount to be paid by a Wall Street firm accused of misleading investors since Goldman Sachs & Co. agreed to pay $550 million to settle similar charges last year. JPMorgan Chase & Co. resolved similar charges in June and paid $153.6 million.

All the cases have involved complex investments called collateralized debt obligations. Those are securities that are backed by pools of other assets, such as mortgages.

Rakoff’s ruling Monday was the latest in a series of setbacks for the SEC under the leadership of Chairman Mary Schapiro. Rakoff has said he doesn’t believe the agency has been sufficiently tough in its enforcement deals with Wall Street banks over their conduct prior to the financial crisis.

The SEC told Rakoff recently that $285 million was a fair penalty, which will go to investors harmed by Citigroup’s conduct, and that it was close to what the agency would have won in a trial.

-- david - only thru kindness can this world be whole . If we don't succeed we run the risk of failure. Dan Quayle

View TopamaxSurvivor's profile

TopamaxSurvivor

15065 posts in 2421 days


#15 posted 11-29-2011 06:23 AM

Stockholders do not have the assets to go up against management of publicly traded companies. In reality, your position is pure BS! Just like the Topamax Malpractice drug pusher, $400,00 to start. I was told no atty will take on Merrill Lynch, and none would. You are either in a fantasy world, being paid to push corporate propaganda on the web or an ignorant fool. You obviously have no experience in these matters, at least not for the perspective of the general public.

After Spitzer ID the criminals of Wall Street, 17 of the largest 19 paid millions in fines to the SEC and to the states in 2 different enforcement actions and agreed to to not respond to any public statements about their criminal activities. The millions Merrill Lynch paid amounted to about 1/2 day’s earnings as far as I could tell from their financials. Solomon Smith Barney paid bigger fines but it was impossible to tell what the impact would be on them as their financials are buried in Citigroup’s financials. Too much effort to bother to find out.

Complaints to the SEC are pointless and have been since the late 80s or early 90s.. If they were doing anything at all, Bernie Madoff would have been shut down years ago.

Face it CR, you and your ilk are morally repugnant and the epitome of what is wrong with America in the 21st Century. A weasel clause to cover every crooked scam you can dream up. I’m certainly glad no one in my family has any attitudes remotely similar to yours. Our traditions go back to the founding of this country. We were among the first to aid Boston when the British blockaded the Patriots.

I never thought I would do this, but Good Bye!!

-- "some old things are lovely, warm still with life ... of the forgotten men who made them." - D.H. Lawrence

showing 1 through 15 of 28 replies

Have your say...

You must be signed in to reply.

DISCLAIMER: Any posts on LJ are posted by individuals acting in their own right and do not necessarily reflect the views of LJ. LJ will not be held liable for the actions of any user.

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics

HomeRefurbers.com

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics

GardenTenders.com :: gardening showcase