SEC charges GS with fraud
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
=============
Actually Nitro;
counting C, AIG & GS= about 20% downtrend
If they dont investigate the 10% GS position in Chicago -climate exchange , & the gov charges dont stick, GS may turn out fine.
If the gov charges prove true ??;private sector lawyers probably will pile on against GS .
"Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud.â - Proverbs 16:18-19
âWhat do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?â - 1 Corinthians 4:7
AP source: Criminal probe of Goldman under way
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AP-source-Criminal-probe-of-apf-2962291402.html?x=0&.v=4
âWhat do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?â - 1 Corinthians 4:7
AP source: Criminal probe of Goldman under way
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AP-source-Criminal-probe-of-apf-2962291402.html?x=0&.v=4
The fed still needs to put a name and a face on this crisis.
Brings to mind.
On May 31, 2005, in the case Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously reversed Andersen's conviction......
. The opinion, written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, was also highly skeptical of the government's concept of "corrupt persuasion"âpersuading someone to engage in an act with an improper purpose even without knowing an act is unlawful.
The end results may be the same.
Ps. On the flip side I have to agree with Clintons comment on what was the economic purpose of these transactions, esp cds with aig.
It is interesting to note that the ammount of short interest held
against a security is public knowledge. Investors can reference this data. but was there public disclosure of the level of short in-
terest held against cdo's? Did investors of these cdo's even inquire? Is the safe harbor statement adequate in this case?
against a security is public knowledge. Investors can reference this data. but was there public disclosure of the level of short in-
terest held against cdo's? Did investors of these cdo's even inquire? Is the safe harbor statement adequate in this case?
GS suffering collateral damage again.
I was wondering why they didn't just settle with the SEC originally and just pay the minor fee, but now maybe they were afraid it would open them up to being guilty on a lot of other stuff behind it. Can't think of any other reason why they just didn't pay to make it go away.
Its hard to believe that they considered all the stuff that's happening now the "better alternative".
I was wondering why they didn't just settle with the SEC originally and just pay the minor fee, but now maybe they were afraid it would open them up to being guilty on a lot of other stuff behind it. Can't think of any other reason why they just didn't pay to make it go away.
Its hard to believe that they considered all the stuff that's happening now the "better alternative".
Reputation. From all the material I've read on this case the SEC has pretty much nothing except public outrage that people made money on the short side. You can tell when they start throwing around phrases like "it may not be illegal but.....". From the people I've spoken with GS wanted to initially settle for PR reasons but as time has gone on and more of the SEC's case has come out they feel so strongly they can win they're going to take it all the way. Keep in mind the SEC has been busy watching porn for the past 36 months....
That sounds plausible, but if so, that would be a strategic error made while trying to in a tactical victory.
The reputation problems they are having to deal with now are getting worse. If their lawyers thought this was the better alternative for their reputation, I would fire the lawyers.