Yeah I think they all knew it was unethical, but it’s tricky because they wanted to make the point that unethical things <> illegal things (unless written in laws). it is kind of like if someone’s having an affair, it adversely affects the person’s life partner’s interests but it is not necessarily illegal…that’s what they are trying to prove…that they didn’t do anything “wrong” in terms of laws…however, it’s very clear that it is unethical, and if they think it is ethical…then it reflects their ethics standards… and in your post you mentioned the Chinese wall between the departments - i agree and i think that’s what the senators should really be asking…there was definitely information flow… when putting in a CFA ethics context…they must have had violated some of the rules… (however, isn’t that what they have always been doing anyways?..) frisian Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Skies Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > so there is no evidence of conspiracy…but if > > there was, why would it be written in emails? > > unless further evidences are coming out…they > > don’t seem to be violating any laws… > > > > the conflict of interests are there and it > seems > > that the Goldman ethics standards is below the > CFA > > ethics standards…CFA ethics tells us a > covered > > person must follow the strictest rule if the > local > > rules conflicts with the CFA rules…however, > it > > seems like none of the people in the panels > holds > > a CFA charter… > > > Thank you. I made a comment about this earlier in > the thread. > > I’d be curious what the CFA Institute thinks of > Goldman’s actions in some of these cases.
I will speak truth, total truth and nothing but the truth - that right there is the biggest crap. Even if they had malicious intentions why would they admit. No concrete evidence- FAIL and these senators should at least go through CFA L1 stuff before opening their mouth to ask questions. Jeez, they want Goldman to disclose counter party to all transactions!
My favorite phrase of today… “I don’t recall”. Who’s their lawyer, Alberto Gonzales? It sounds just like the bush administration all over again. Perhaps some waterboarding will jog their memory…
‘I am not sure what you are asking senator…’
all of this is not worth of the $15m they got from the deal…this violates the higher risks higher returns principal… ohhh john mccain is in the hearing, too…how do they select the senators to ask questions? any criteria?
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I bet numi looks a little like Fab. He and I even go to the same barber, although I have a slightly better haircut.
Skies Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > all of this is not worth of the $15m they got from > the deal…this violates the higher risks > higher returns principal… > > ohhh john mccain is in the hearing, too…how do > they select the senators to ask questions? any > criteria? BA in Music, an MD…pretty much any non finance related background will qualify.
is this done in purpose? i can see if non-finance people are selected to represent some of the mass…but they should also have one or two finance background people to ask real questions… anyone from Treasury or Fed? are they doing some other testimonies that’s gonna have real questions? it almost feels like mr. blankfein is taking a finance101 test. marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Skies Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > all of this is not worth of the $15m they got > from > > the deal…this violates the higher risks > > higher returns principal… > > > > ohhh john mccain is in the hearing, too…how > do > > they select the senators to ask questions? any > > criteria? > > > BA in Music, an MD…pretty much any non finance > related background will qualify.
Another issue to consider is the difference between “best” and “least worst.”. Our situation is not the best and we do need regulation. But consider… Say America’s megabanks lose power due to new legislation and regulation…then America’s small and weak future banks are exposed to takeover by megabanks that are under control of authoritarian regimes, i.e. China. This may be a more dangerous and scary prospect than the current calamity and a huge national securuty issue. Complexity and abstractions upon complexity and abstractions!
i don’t think the regulations will make them lose power to the extent that they are going to be acquired by like People’s Bank of China…(another case if they go bankrupt…but i doubt the government will abandon their favorite kid…) if the mass (assumed not as smart and banks would like to get more money from them) lose confidence in the capital market…wouldn’t that be a bigger threat? (including foreign capital withdrawing from US capital markets and the reputation damage…) U.S. investors have always been known as the bravest of the bravest…they won’t refrain…so if GS promise to be a good student and hand out some $$, they will be fine and soon people will forget about the whole thing… sublimity Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Another issue to consider is the difference > between “best” and “least worst.”. Our situation > is not the best and we do need regulation. But > consider… > > Say America’s megabanks lose power due to new > legislation and regulation…then America’s small > and weak future banks are exposed to takeover by > megabanks that are under control of authoritarian > regimes, i.e. China. This may be a more dangerous > and scary prospect than the current calamity and a > huge national securuty issue. > > Complexity and abstractions upon complexity and > abstractions!
Banks will not be taken over by other foreign banks as these are subject to regulatory approval much like the supposed regulations controlling market concentration that has increased lately with mergers. Congress can subpoena people to testify and they have to rely on their aides to help them understand the material. SEC can enforce the laws that are enacted, though apparently they were too busy looking at pron the last few years. Thats why a Charterholder had to blow the whistle on Madoff. My friend from the SEC said that they are lawyers and can only look at violations of the law after the fact and are not financial experts.
Not a full outright daylight takeover, but a creeping tender offer and increased influence.
The directors have to be US citizens.
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here’s my take on the dog and pony show today: > > 1.) Most of the senators do not understand what > they are talking about. > 2.) Goldman’s selection of Paulson was possibly > unethical, but not illegal. The assets were the > assets and they were in plain view. > 3.) There is no hard evidence except for a few > emails that are up for interpretation. > 4.) If you buy GE stock, is the person you bought > it from responsible if the price falls? No. > 5.) If this was truly fraud, then Goldman’s > institutional clients will stop doing business > with it. They won’t, because it wasn’t. > 6.) This was political grandstanding, nothing > more. > 7.) Goldman ran wild in a poorly regulated system. > The system crashed. That doesn’t mean they > committed a crime. > 8.) Goldman will be acquitted. > 9.) Only proper regulation will prevent this in > the future. > 10.) The GOP are idiots if they prevent this > regulation. They are lieing when they say it will > cause more bailouts. Agreed + Fab got burned. The others were perfectly coached
Thats why they included him on the indictment so he would roll over. Thats also why he was asked if GS was paying for his lawyers. Prisoners dilemma.
I’d love to see members of congress testify on their actions leading up to the housing bust. They keep talking about wasting tax payer money as if they have been good stewards. They are so arrogant and disconnected from reality it’s beoyond laughable.
JustPass Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’d love to see members of congress testify on > their actions leading up to the housing bust. > They keep talking about wasting tax payer money as > if they have been good stewards. They are so > arrogant and disconnected from reality it’s > beoyond laughable. Great point. If anyone up there should be in orange jumpsuits it is the bobbleheads asking the questions. Who do you trust with your money, Goldman Sachs or Barney Frank?
Hmmm…the last time I checked it wasn’t congressmen handing out subprime loans like Candy. BTW it was the Senators not Congressmen asking the questions.
What do you think Fannie and Freddie did?? How many tax dollars lost there?? (I thought you could use congressman as a catch all for both houses… My bad)
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/full-annotated-lloyd-blankfein-testimony We could argue the legal technicalities and the political motivations behind the case, but I agree that Goldman Sachs’ conduct was morally bankrupt. And where is the CFA Institute in all this? Stony silence… The Institute should be on the front foot and be looking into whether any CFA members were involved in this concept of putting the interests of Goldman and themselves ahead of that of their clients. “The Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct are the ethical cornerstone of CFA Institute. They are essential to our mission to lead the global investment profession and critical to maintaining the public’s trust in the financial markets.” - CFA Institute Website. If the above means anything in the real world its time the Institute and its members stepped up to the plate, and start attacking the clearly unethical individuals in our industry (and perhaps among the ranks of CFA charterholders) head-on.