Three Cheers for the SEC

[KissMy]

I like Carl Icahn's plan "say on pay" vote, giving shareholders voting rights to determine executive pay. Most of these banks have the government as major a shareholder who could determine executive pay.

One of the weaknesses of American capitalism is the level of governance. The board system does not work particularly well in the United States. Shareholders have less power than they should whereas managers can often dictate board composition and agendas at the expense of shareholders. America should look at Scandinavia, where it is much easier for shareholders to fire incompetent and venal executives.

I agree. Shareholders & investors need more power over corporate governance.

 

[Paulie]

I like Carl Icahn's plan "say on pay" vote, giving shareholders voting rights to determine executive pay. Most of these banks have the government as major a shareholder who could determine executive pay.

One of the weaknesses of American capitalism is the level of governance. The board system does not work particularly well in the United States. Shareholders have less power than they should whereas managers can often dictate board composition and agendas at the expense of shareholders. America should look at Scandinavia, where it is much easier for shareholders to fire incompetent and venal executives.

Board members, or institutions holding major share amounts and who have vested interest in a particular company, end up being the majority in the shareholder pool, and thereby have the voting power.

I'm not so sure that's necessarily a reflection on anything other than our wealth gap.

Do you not agree with one share/one vote?

 

[KissMy]

Bottom line is these wall street banks need to fail. They are not lending much here in average Americans anymore.

The Fed should not be creating money for wall street to package junk & sell it to them. We should be getting something worthwhile for the money.

We could either limit leverage, or impose loan origination accountability & transparency, or impose a fiduciary responsibility on wall street, or separate wall street from banking like Glass Steagall or nationalize them like we just did the GSEs.

Currently It looks like the government has invested in them to make a profit from the federal reserve zero interest money machine for the government slush fund, cronies & political contributions. This may be worse than communism.

 

[Gunny]

Yep, because corporations are run by saints who obviously never do anything wrong.

Did you actually bother to look into the allegations?

Because our government is run by saints. Ever look into the allegations?

 

[Gunny]

I was expecting to hear a conservative on here bitch about how the stock market went down in part due to this news

Just as I expected a dickhead, leftwing troll to shit on the thread.

 

[Gunny]

They are just so predictable, first thing I thought when reading the argument Tend not to read to much of Xenophobe's tripe

So if only one or a few people go to jail, you will be satisfied?

and that has what to do with anything we've been talking about or anything I"ve said

You haven't said a word worth responding to. Why should anyone waste their time on your dumb ass?

 

[editec]

IF some people -- the people who really were responsible -- don't go down, then seriously...how can anybody invest wisely?

What Goldman did was really a crime AGAINST CAPITALISM.

It takes a particularly blind faith in corporatism to claim that you love capitalism so much, that you'll let insider capitalists STEAL from outsider capitalists with impunity.

Which is, incidently, exactly what Bush II allowed to happen on his watch.

 

[KissMy]

I think the best thing to do is have the buyers pay the rating agency instead of the sellers.

 

[Toro]

I think the best thing to do is have the buyers pay the rating agency instead of the sellers.

I think this is a great idea.

The problem is that there is more money on the side of the guys selling the bonds than the guys buying the bonds.

 

[jeffrockit]

Three Cheers indeed. Finally someone is taking action.

Way to go SEC.

You mean this SEC?
SEC watching porn instead of financial industry / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Way to go indeed!

 

[jeffrockit]

Congrats to the SEC, for now, wonder if they will continue to weed out these corporate slime?


The people got fed up enough with Corporatism that they made Wind Chimes out of Benito and his wife.

No they are too busy watching porn.
SEC watching porn instead of financial industry / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
Still want to congratulate them?

 

[chanel]

Something smells fishy. How did the NYT get the info before the announcement? How could Organizing for America send out "millions" of emails less than a half hour after the NYT article? Why wasn't GS notified before the official announcement, as is common practice with other SEC investigations?

http://republicans.oversight.house....rs/20100423issalettertoseciginvestigation.pdf

If they are guilty, let them be prosecuted - BECAUSE of wrongdoing - NOT to further a political agenda.

 

[frazzledgear]

The Buzz: SEC deserves praise for taking on Goldman Sachs - Apr. 16, 2010

By Paul R. La Monica, editor at large April 16, 2010: 2:13 PM ET

The Buzz is now on Twitter! Follow me @LaMonicaBuzz

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The SEC showed some major teeth Friday. It's about time. And hopefully this won't be the last time the agency bares its fangs.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is going after the biggest of the big on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs.

paul_lamonica_morning_buzz2.jpg

The SEC alleged that Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500) failed to disclose to investors in a pool of subprime mortgages that Paulson & Co., one of the most influential hedge funds in the world, was making bets against the security.

If the SEC's claim is true, this is a major transgression. Even if it turns out that the wrongdoing was the work of one rogue employee -- the SEC specifically named Goldman Vice President Fabrice Tourre -- it is clear that Goldman has some explaining to do and must pay. <more>

The SEC doesn't deserve any praise whatsoever. These porn watching morons at the SEC collecting six figure salaries paid by taxpayers - failed in their jobs in the first place. The very same people who never saw Madoff's pyramid scheme when even Madoff admitted it was blatantly obvious for YEARS he was running a pyramid scheme. So please, let's not pretend these overpaid, incompetent assholes at the SEC are suddenly interested in doing their jobs now.

But THIS charge is the typical Obama regime sleight of hand BULLSHIT. Watch what they are doing over here so you don't notice what is going on over there. Because that is how stupid the Obama administration believes people really are anyway -in fact, liberals in general believe people are cows made to be led around and manipulated by them anyway. Which is why they have zero qualms about standing up before the American people and deliberately lying and misleading them -such as happened with the health care bill. It took how many WEEKS for the truth about the fact that health care bill will overload our already overloaded deficit and will result in even MORE unsustainable spending when Congress already created an unsustainable level of spending even before that bill -to finally come out? Oh I'm sure if Democrats had only known they would have changed their vote, right? But "fortunately" for those who intend to play dumb, someone with the pull, control and authority somehow managed to hold that important information from being released until AFTER the vote was in. Another coincidence I'm sure.

What Goldman Sachs has actually been charged with as specifically spelled out in the document itself -wasn't a crime at the time. Doesn't matter if anyone thinks it should have been or not. It wasn't -and in this country, unlike the Soviet Union, you can't go back and charge someone with a crime by making it a crime after the fact. Since those at the SEC would certainly know this (assuming they can pry themselves away from their favorite bestiality flick), it begs the question what is the Obama administration really up to here with this bogus charge. Painting one industry after another as the "enemy" in this country serves Obama very well, it is what he does and it is how he justifies setting the groundwork for government takeover of entire industries. In THIS case where people already have a low opinion of this kind of business anyway, it would be an easy sell and he would expect most people to not bother doing any real questioning of what is really going on here. But let's not forget that Obama is the same guy who has surrounded himself with around a dozen former Goldman Sachs CEOs, COOs and CFOs, maybe more -including some who were still with Goldman Sachs during the time period when this supposed "crime" took place.

As one cynic suggested, since what Goldman has really been charged with wasn't a crime at the time and the Obama administration is jammed pack full of Goldman Sachs bigwigs who still have financial interests with the company - it is far more likely this bogus charge was made as part of a deal. Goldman Sachs ends up pleading guilty or more likely no contest in exchange for no further charges being filed against Goldman Sachs having to do with their REAL role, involving real crimes in the near global financial meltdown that started back in 2007. If it doesn't get thrown out even before trial, it gets reversed on appeal because it wasn't a crime at the time anyway and these charge are never re-filed. Obama can still use it as part of the justification for the kind of "regulations" that amounts to government takeover -and everyone is happy. (Because we all saw what a great job government already did with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac we can all be assured of that same level of excellence from government.) Including the people who only needed to hear that Goldman Sachs was charged, won't bother finding out it wasn't a crime at the time, won't pay attention when the charges are either thrown out or the outcome reversed on appeal -and will be forever satisfied as a result of the charge being filed in the first place without any regard to the ultimate outcome and without understanding the real bullet Goldman Sachs dodged with this bogus charge. THIS charge has nothing to do with the near global financial meltdown whatsoever -and it is a fact that Goldman Sachs was a major player in that. How much culpability it carries for that may never be known as a result of whatever backroom deal was made in exchange for filing this bogus charge that wasn't even a crime at the time it is alleged Goldman Sachs did this.

One of the biggest winners in that near meltdown -was Goldman Sachs, with government taking an active role in allowing Goldman's top competition to go under -and where listing Goldman Sachs as your previous employer made being picked up by the Obama administration a near certainty to become one of his top "advisers". Something really, really stinks in this entire thing but the Chicago fix is in. Which means it is a pretty safe bet that it is a really good deal for the power players in all this, but almost certainly really bad for everyone else.

 

[Paulie]

When are some of you going to realize that the SEC didn't "miss" the fraudulent actions, but rather knowingly did nothing to stop them?

 

[Cuyo]

When are some of you going to realize that the SEC didn't "miss" the fraudulent actions, but rather knowingly did nothing to stop them?

uhhh... Yeah, what do you guys think Hank Paulson did before he was Treasury Secretary? The same Hank Paulson who proposed a 3/4 TRILLION bank handout with no oversight, and that actually excluded itself from judicial review? Not the bill that passed; the 3 page bill that got shot down.

Anyone know? Anyone know what Hank Paulson was, before he was Treasury Secretary?

Please tell me you guys know.

 

[Paulie]

When are some of you going to realize that the SEC didn't "miss" the fraudulent actions, but rather knowingly did nothing to stop them?

uhhh... Yeah, what do you guys think Hank Paulson did before he was Treasury Secretary? The same Hank Paulson who proposed a 3/4 TRILLION bank handout with no oversight, and that actually excluded itself from judicial review? Not the bill that passed; the 3 page bill that got shot down.

Anyone know? Anyone know what Hank Paulson was, before he was Treasury Secretary?

Please tell me you guys know.

Goldman's CEO. But I'm a registered republican, so I don't care about that

 

[Cuyo]

When are some of you going to realize that the SEC didn't "miss" the fraudulent actions, but rather knowingly did nothing to stop them?

uhhh... Yeah, what do you guys think Hank Paulson did before he was Treasury Secretary? The same Hank Paulson who proposed a 3/4 TRILLION bank handout with no oversight, and that actually excluded itself from judicial review? Not the bill that passed; the 3 page bill that got shot down.

Anyone know? Anyone know what Hank Paulson was, before he was Treasury Secretary?

Please tell me you guys know.

Goldman's CEO. But I'm a registered republican, so I don't care about that

I believe you that it doesn't bother you, and I believe that it's because you're a registered republican.

And that's scary as shit.

 

[Paulie]

uhhh... Yeah, what do you guys think Hank Paulson did before he was Treasury Secretary? The same Hank Paulson who proposed a 3/4 TRILLION bank handout with no oversight, and that actually excluded itself from judicial review? Not the bill that passed; the 3 page bill that got shot down.

Anyone know? Anyone know what Hank Paulson was, before he was Treasury Secretary?

Please tell me you guys know.

Goldman's CEO. But I'm a registered republican, so I don't care about that

I believe you that it doesn't bother you, and I believe that it's because you're a registered republican.

And that's scary as shit.