GostHacked Posted May 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Swartz was never convicted. All charges were dropped after his suicide. -k Hmm, that's my confusion then... I was thinking of this incident. http://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/trader-charged-manipulating-stock-market-flash-crash-n345651 A futures trader was arrested in the United Kingdom on U.S. wire fraud, commodities fraud and manipulation charges in the May 2010 "Flash Crash," the Department of Justice said on Tuesday.Navinder Singh Sarao, 37, of Hounslow, United Kingdom, was arrested on Tuesday in the United Kingdom and the United States is requesting his extradition, the department said. The charges were filed in a federal complaint in Illinois in February, but were unsealed today following the arrest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Nonsense. Madoff's scams had nothing to do with anything other than himself. Madoff was a fallguy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Madoff was a fallguy. No, he's a con man and a criminal. He took people's money, told him he was investing it, but didn't. He's responsible for his actions. Nobody else. Fall guy nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 It all happened in the world's major democracies, the home of the capitalist free enterprise system, the ones that operate by the rule of law. I use all those terms lightly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Yes it is different than 2008. ... If youre gonna prosecute banks, prosecute the legislators in government as well that helped foster the problem in the first place. Prosecute Freddie Mac and Fannie mae as well. Prosecute former president Clinton too. Don't pick and choose which accomplices get punished. Shady: Don't pick and choose which accomplices get punished like I'm doing. Was Clinton the prez in 2008? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Shady: Don't pick and choose which accomplices get punished like I'm doing. Was Clinton the prez in 2008? Ever heard of Glass-Stegel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Ever heard of Glass-Stegel? Nope, but I've heard of Glass-Steagall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Ever heard of Glass-Stegel? Does not exist. Repealed in 1999. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Does not exist. Repealed in 1999. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Exactly. So what point were you trying to make with it? And why was that not rectified with Bush or Obama? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 So what point were you trying to make with it? And why was that not rectified with Bush or Obama? My point is that the government was complicit in the situation going back many years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Big fines. If the amount of money they made was more than the fines, then they weren't big fines at all. They were profitable fines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Who do these companies pay the fines to? What happens to that money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Who do these companies pay the fines to? What happens to that money? They pay the money to the government. What happens to it? It gets given right back to the perpetrators (along with a lot more) next bailout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 They pay the money to the government. What happens to it? It gets given right back to the perpetrators (along with a lot more) next bailout. This article has a summary of fines paid by major banks in the US over the past 7 years. They're paid to a lot of different places. The Department of Justice has collected the most fines. Other major recipients have included the Securities Exchange Commission, Housing and Urban Development, Fannie Mae (settlements relating to repayment for fraudulent Mortgage Backed Securities), the Treasury, the State of New York Financial Services department, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (whatever that is.) -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Yes it is different than 2008. Government was complicit in the distortion of the housing market and the lowering of lending standards all in the name of so-called helping people that wouldn't otherwise qualify for mortgages. If youre gonna prosecute banks, prosecute the legislators in government as well that helped foster the problem in the first place. Prosecute Freddie Mac and Fannie mae as well. Prosecute former president Clinton too. Don't pick and choose which accomplices get punished. We've gone over this many times before but what's the harm in one more? The above post deals with all of this in detail. Read it today and remember it tomorrow. The private lenders were lending subprime mortgages so rapidly that Fanny and Freddy were left in the dust. Fanny and Freddy's market share shrank dramatically between 2002 and 2006, because the private lenders were originating so many private mortgages. That's where the bubble happened. They were lending to (as Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo put it) "Anybody who can fog a mirror." They were so enthusiastic about getting subprime mortgages, they short-circuited their own due diligence processes. You can point to the Community Reinvestment Act as a factor, but the truth is that CRA-mandated mortgages made up a small fraction of subprime mortgages. You can point to lower lending standards, but the fact is that the banks gave out more risky mortgages because they wanted to, not because anyone forced them to. Why did the banks want to give out so many subprime mortgages? Because they had invented a way to spin straw into gold, and they needed a whole lot of straw. Through the magic of derivatives and mortgage-backed securities, they were able to package up all these risky mortgages and sell them to mutual funds and other suckers. You can point at deregulation as a cause (which is funny in itself, coming from the forum's biggest Romney supporter. "Let's free our financial institutions to create prosperity by unshackling them from the regulations that hold them back!") But the thing is, Alan Greenspan lobbied the Clinton administration for deregulation in the belief that the financial institutions could be trusted to act prudently. His expectation was that ensuring their own long-term survival would prevent financial institutions from acting recklessly. His big mistake was assuming that when the executives and traders can all make millions of dollars in bonuses by acting for short-term gain, the long-term survival of the firm became an afterthought. Deregulation was a mistake, we discovered, because it turns out that the firms couldn't be trusted to limit risky behavior after all. But calling the government "complicit" in the disaster that followed is ridiculous. It's like saying the government is complicit in a shooting-spree because they relaxed gun-control laws. "They scrapped the Long Gun Registry, so I had to go shoot all those people!" The government never made any lenders fake their due diligence process. The government never made lenders plunge so heavily into subprime lending. The government never made anybody bundle up worthless mortgages and sell them to suckers as "AAA-rated securities". The government never made ratings agencies give AAA ratings to worthless mortgages. Trying to blame the government for this stuff is absurd. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) ...Deregulation was a mistake, we discovered, because it turns out that the firms couldn't be trusted to limit risky behavior after all. "We" discovered no such thing, as deregulation was a purposeful action with known risk(s). The U.S. is not Canada, and will not accept the choke holds on capital markets that force Canada to seek so much international investment. "No balls...no blue chips". Edited May 23, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2015 But calling the government "complicit" in the disaster that followed is ridiculous. It's like saying the government is complicit in a shooting-spree because they relaxed gun-control laws. "They scrapped the Long Gun Registry, so I had to go shoot all those people!" The government never made any lenders fake their due diligence process. The government never made lenders plunge so heavily into subprime lending. The government never made anybody bundle up worthless mortgages and sell them to suckers as "AAA-rated securities". The government never made ratings agencies give AAA ratings to worthless mortgages. Trying to blame the government for this stuff is absurd. -k The government is complicit in the sense they repealed a law that would have prevented exactly what the financial institutions did in 2008. Or at least it would have come with heftier fines and or significant jail terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 24, 2015 Report Share Posted May 24, 2015 But calling the government "complicit" in the disaster that followed is ridiculous. It's like saying the government is complicit in a shooting-spree because they relaxed gun-control laws. "They scrapped the Long Gun Registry, so I had to go shoot all those people!" The government never made any lenders fake their due diligence process. The government never made lenders plunge so heavily into subprime lending. The government never made anybody bundle up worthless mortgages and sell them to suckers as "AAA-rated securities". The government never made ratings agencies give AAA ratings to worthless mortgages. Trying to blame the government for this stuff is absurd. -k Yes, we've gone over it before, but you're still repeating the same incorrect meme. It was government policy that maniuplated the mortgage market. It was government that pushed for the lending of money to people that wouldn't otherwise qulify. It was government that fined banks for not lending enough to lower income individuals. It was government that lolowered mortgage standards. It was government that refused to correct the problems with it's policy because those that pointed out the problems were dubbed racists and hating the poor. It was government run institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that started the ball rolling. And you wanna blame banks for wanting in on a piece of the action that they were getting? Absurd. How anyone can think that banks want to lend money to people that they know probably won't be able to pay it back takes a willing suspension of logic and reason. "We have an excessive degree of concern over home ownership and it's role in the economy. This is not the dot com situation." 2005 You can't re-write history kimmy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted May 24, 2015 Report Share Posted May 24, 2015 Yes, we've gone over it before, but you're still repeating the same incorrect meme. It was government policy that maniuplated the mortgage market. It was government that pushed for the lending of money to people that wouldn't otherwise qulify. It was government that fined banks for not lending enough to lower income individuals. It was government that lolowered mortgage standards. It was government that refused to correct the problems with it's policy because those that pointed out the problems were dubbed racists and hating the poor. It was government run institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that started the ball rolling. And you wanna blame banks for wanting in on a piece of the action that they were getting? Absurd. On the one hand you want to argue that the banks got into the subprime market because congress made them do it, and on the other you want to argue that the private banks wanted to get "a piece of the action" because Fanny and Freddie were doing it. That's hilarious. The cognitive dissonance in your position is so immense that it's visible from space. A quick reminder of some of the facts that are inconvenient to the "congress made them do it!" claim: -mortgages required under CRA or any other government requirement constituted a small fraction of subprime mortgages. The vast majority of these mortgages were entirely voluntary. -in the mid-2000s the private lenders were issuing so many subprime mortgages that Fannie and Freddie's market share in subprime mortgages almost vanished within the span of a few years. -subprime mortgages lent by private lenders defaulted at a far higher rate than subprime mortgages lent by Fanny and Freddie. That's because the private lenders didn't even care if the borrowers defaulted, so they shortcut their due diligence process to accept as many applications as possible. That last point seems confusing to some people. They can't understand why banks would issue mortgages to people who were at high risk of defaulting. They might say something like... How anyone can think that banks want to lend money to people that they know probably won't be able to pay it back takes a willing suspension of logic and reason. Anybody who bothered to learn how Mortgage Backed Securities worked understands exactly why banks wanted to lend money to people who they knew were likely to default. They made these loans because they were able to sell them and pass the risk along to somebody else. That's the part you bank apologists refuse to acknowledge. They engaged in extremely risky behavior because they found a way to pass the risk along to somebody else. They wanted to originate as many mortgages as possible, due diligence be damned, because mortgages were just raw material that they could bundle to create securities that they could sell to suckers. They put high-risk mortgages into pools which were known internally by nicknames like "Subprime Meltdown", "Nuclear Holocaust", "Mike Tyson's Punch-Out", and "Sh!tbag". Then they bundled them into securities. Then they called up their friends at Moody's and Fitch and Standard & Poor's and got AAA ratings for their mortgage backed securities. Then they sold them to investors who were completely unaware of the actual contents of these securities. And that worked great for several years... until people started realizing how risky the MBSs actually were, investors stopped buying them, and banks were left holding stacks and stacks of toxic mortgages and no way to pass the risk off on other people anymore. The result was "TARP" -- Troubled Asset Relief Program. The "trouble assets" that were bought from banks were high-risk mortgages that the banks knew were likely to default before they were even issued. "We have an excessive degree of concern over home ownership and it's role in the economy. This is not the dot com situation." 2005 Obviously politicians and the general public were grossly unaware of how risky banking practices had become. But now that the details of what actually happened are understood, there's no excuse for being so uninformed. You can't re-write history kimmy. And yet you keep trying. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 25, 2015 Report Share Posted May 25, 2015 It's quite clear who actually knows what they're talking about who's just rooting for their team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 It's quite clear who actually knows what they're talking about who's just rooting for their team. Yeah Kimmy is pretty much right about everything she said. Theres still plenty of blame for Uncle Sam though. The Federal Reserve cut the overnight rate from 6.5% to 1% between 2000 and 2003, and basically the governments best plan to deal with the bursting of the NASDAQ bubble was to replace it with a housing bubble. If Shady wanted to send some blame the governments way he could mention THAT... But of course that happened under President Bush's watch and Shady only wants to blame democrats LOL. So you just get the same re-hashed arguments about the government manipulating lending standards, and Fannie and Freddy that have been debunked a thousand times before all over the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 Both the Democrats and Republicans are in bed with the largest banks in the country. Every president. You don't run a billion dollar campaign on "grass roots" donations, as Bernie Sanders is about to find out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 They are supposed to be in bed with the banks. It's the U.S.A, not Canada. When the Canadian peso was going under in the 90's, the world just yawned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 Both the Democrats and Republicans are in bed with the largest banks in the country. Finance ministers become bank CEO's and vice versa? Nah, couldn't be. What revolving door? Now look over here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.