"Wall St's Naked Swindle"

Quote from Vespasian:

Usually I ignore flytiger's posts because he does not understand the realities of Capitalism and he is a Socialist ... BUT in this case he is right and this is not Capitalism but a CRIMINAL matter that must be investigated.
More...

My wife said , "you!!!??? Someone accused you of being a socialist? What planet are they on?"

So I'll interrupt dinner to tell you my concern, and try to qualify this.

I was in this business. My concern is (was), if we screw the rubes, the customers, eventually, they'll turn on us in such numbers, they'll be no business. That's where we areat this moment. By not being fair, we have imperiled capitalism.

Are you telling me, that if GS doesnt' play fair, they can't make money? You and I both know what scum goes on behind closed doors. OK, I know more than you. But what I know you can imagine. So, imagine. Figure out the worst stuff you can think of, imagine it, and understand it's been done, and taped. That deal today, Galleon, since 2006 the Feds looked at this. And the only reason they pulled the ticket was the guy was going to flee.

Maria opened up her 3pm show, which I hate, but before I could turn it she said, "Wall St. suffers another black eye." Well, how do you think this plays on Main St? And brother, you ain't seen nothing yet. The indictments coming will shake you to your boots. Thank God, Obama is such an incompetent fuckup, because if he wasn't, if he didn't continually step on his dick, if he maintained the power he had on January 20, he could make a really good case on just abolishing our Capitalistic system.
 
Quote from flytiger:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30481512/wall_streets_naked_swindle
More...

The article doesn't mention the fact that Bear Stearns and Lehman should have failed anyway because they were craptastic companies with craptastic risk management until the very end of the article (and only in brief passing).

Whether you like it or not Bear Stearns and Lehman would have been flushed down the toilet regardless of naked shorting. They deserved to go bankrupt (of course most of these financial entities deserve to be out of business as well).

There are also other instances of the author taking liberty with reality. Like when he states that financial companies soared after shorting was declared illegal. They might have for a day, but then they all hit new lows shortly thereafter. The author is clearly bending the material to suit his own case.

Of course naked shorting should be actively prohibited, but naked shorting is only a problem when the business prospects of the underlying companies are shaky at best. I wish you would get that point through your head, flytiger.
 
Quote from sprstpd:

The article doesn't mention the fact that Bear Stearns and Lehman should have failed anyway because they were craptastic companies with craptastic risk management until the very end of the article (and only in brief passing).

Whether you like it or not Bear Stearns and Lehman would have been flushed down the toilet regardless of naked shorting. They deserved to go bankrupt (of course most of these financial entities deserve to be out of business as well).
More...

Ya know I think that this:

If you squint hard enough, you can see that the derivative-driven economy of the past decade has always, in a way, been about counterfeiting. At their most basic level, innovations like the ones that triggered the global collapse — credit-default swaps and collateralized debt obligations — were employed for the primary purpose of synthesizing out of thin air those revenue flows that our dying industrial economy was no longer pumping into the financial bloodstream. The basic concept in almost every case was the same: replacing hard assets with complex formulas that, once unwound, would prove to be backed by promises and IOUs instead of real stuff. Credit-default swaps enabled banks to lend more money without having the cash to cover potential defaults; one type of CDO let Wall Street issue mortgage-backed bonds that were backed not by actual monthly mortgage payments made by real human beings, but by the wild promises of other irresponsible lenders. They even called the thing a synthetic CDO — a derivative contract filled with derivative contracts — and nobody laughed. The whole economy was a fake.

For most of this decade, nobody rocked that fake economy — especially the faux housing market — better than Bear Stearns. In 2004, Bear had been one of five investment banks to ask the SEC for a relaxation of lending restrictions that required it to possess $1 for every $12 it lent out; as a result, Bear's debt-to-equity ratio soared to a staggering 33-1. The bank used much of that leverage to issue mountains of mortgage-backed securities, essentially borrowing its way to a booming mortgage business that helped drive its share price to a high of $172 in early 2007.

But that summer, Bear started to crater. Two of its hedge funds that were heavily invested in mortgage-backed deals imploded in June and July, forcing the credit-raters at Standard & Poor's to cut its outlook on Bear from stable to negative. The company survived through the winter — in part by jettisoning its dipshit CEO, Jimmy Cayne, a dithering, weed-smoking septuagenarian who was spotted at a bridge tournament during the crisis — but by March 2008, it was almost wholly dependent on a network of creditors who supplied it with billions in rolling daily loans to keep its doors open. If ever there was a major company ripe to be assassinated by market manipulators, it was Bear Stearns in 2008.
More...

DOES say that Bear was "ripe to be assassinated by market manipulators". in the 2ed page of the articl.

"But a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest."
 
I wish you would get it thru your head that it's illegal. Who says ahead of time what it to be good, and what is going to be bad? Can you make that decision? You may be egotistical enough to believe you can, but what if you're wrong.

Many companies are targeted for destruction simply because they are vulnerable at that particular point in time.

Let's use Goldman. They were targeted as was Bear, as was Lehman. Why? Because they were bad? No, because they were vulnerable, and enemies of the US, as well as our own decrepit system turned GS own weapon against them.

If a company is bad, the market sorts it out. Not a bunch of Greenwich punks who are looking to line their pockets.

Keep your eye on Galleon. I hear there is some very surprising developments coming.

PS. If there were to be no damage to an already vulnerable system, I can think of no better company to be destroyed than Goldman. But it's not my call. And it wasn't Goldman's call to destroy BSC and LEH. So, we stand aside. But someone didn't.
 
So, Fly - it's seems like you know a lot of people, seen a lot of things. What's the end game? How do you see things playing out?

Personally - I don't see a massive good government movement spearheaded by some third party - so my conclusion is that the whole system collapses from within.

What's a "collapse?" That's the tuff part. Who knows how bad it gets and what that means to the average person.
 
Quote from flytiger:

I wish you would get it thru your head that it's illegal. Who says ahead of time what it to be good, and what is going to be bad? Can you make that decision? You may be egotistical enough to believe you can, but what if you're wrong.

Many companies are targeted for destruction simply because they are vulnerable at that particular point in time.

Let's use Goldman. They were targeted as was Bear, as was Lehman. Why? Because they were bad? No, because they were vulnerable, and enemies of the US, as well as our own decrepit system turned GS own weapon against them.

If a company is bad, the market sorts it out. Not a bunch of Greenwich punks who are looking to line their pockets.

Keep your eye on Galleon. I hear there is some very surprising developments coming.

PS. If there were to be no damage to an already vulnerable system, I can think of no better company to be destroyed than Goldman. But it's not my call. And it wasn't Goldman's call to destroy BSC and LEH. So, we stand aside. But someone didn't.
More...

Yeah!

Here is the Goldman, Sachs & Co. revenue break down for the past 3 months:

* Financial Advisory-M/A: 325 million.

* Equity Underwriting: 363 million.

* Debt Underwriting: 211 million.

* Trading-Principal Investments: 10 billion.

Notice that 10 billion is much bigger than two or three hundred million made from the traditional Wall Street businesses.

That $10 billion is evidence of their magic trick. For we the taxpayer gave Goldman Sachs the following:

1. 10 Billion in TARP
2. 11 Billion from the Fed
3. 30 Billion from the FDIC
4. 13 Billion from AIG

For a grand total of $70 Billion (Goldman along with every other bank and AIG would have been defunct without this money).


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/goldman-sachs-black-magic_b_324095.html

70 Bill.

SEVENTY BILLION DOLLARS!

23 Bill to Bear and 70 to GS.

And who got shorted to death?
 
Quote from truehawk:

Ya know I think that this:



DOES say that Bear was "ripe to be assassinated by market manipulators". in the 2ed page of the articl.

"But a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest."
More...


That's crap. The whole slant of the article is laying blame at market manipulators, not the fact that this craptastic company deserved to go down in flames. Apply your quote to yourself.
 
Quote from flytiger:

I wish you would get it thru your head that it's illegal. Who says ahead of time what it to be good, and what is going to be bad? Can you make that decision? You may be egotistical enough to believe you can, but what if you're wrong.
More...

I'm surprised you haven't pulled out the term "stealing from grandma" yet. That was one of your favorites.

All this time you've been harping on the same thing and you still can't understand that the targets of these raids are dying companies. Because if they weren't sickly, they wouldn't be targeted. But you never admit that so your arguments don't hold water.
 
He is just barkin up the wrong tree now. Someone inside Bear knew how bad it was and let the secret out. Probably someone seeing all the requests for money outta that dump. This is insider info, not naked short selling. Who didn't know Lehman was going? Everyone knew, but Soros. The fact that they didn't go earlier was only because of accounting fraud by them. Einhorn knew it and called them on it. Bear and Lehman victims? lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top