• Sharebar

Say what you will about Liz Warren, she knows how to give the feckless bank regulators hell on camera. It’s kinda funny that a Senate hearing is blowing up on YouTube, but here we are. It's hilarious how not one bank regulator can cite a single case of a Wall Street bank being brought to trial. It’s no secret that I have a lot of respect and admiration for Warren, which I realize is not a popular opinion on Wall Street. But you have to give credit where credit is due, and she’s definitely a bigger asset on the Senate Banking Committee than we’ve seen in a long time. Give 'em hell, Doc:

And here's the uncut testimony that's going viral:

Comments (160)

  • In reply to newfirstyear
    CountryUnderdog's picture

    newfirstyear wrote:
    Nobody wanna watch this liberal junk.

    "They are all former investment bankers that were laid off in the economic collapse that Nancy Pelosi caused. They have no marketable skills, but by God they work hard."

  • In reply to JulianRobertson
    duffmt6's picture

    JulianRobertson wrote:
    Wasn't this the lady who lied about being a native American? Maybe conservatives and moderates should just join the Democratic party in Massachusetts, since that seems to be the only necessary qualification to get elected there. That's my rant for today.

    That was a pretty irrelevant rant.

    "For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

  • TNA's picture

    She is a liberal and a liar, which is synonymous. And why hasn't a bank been brought to trial? Plenty of individuals in finance have been arrested and tried. Just because a bank fails or had poor controls doesn't mean the CEO has committed a crime.

    But sure, if the sheep want it, why not imprison everyone who works at Citi. I mean that would be throwing a bank in jail and I am sure the morons would cheer for it.

    Government creates a problem, then creates more government to solve the problem it created. The SEC is and was incompetent and now we have an elected official who is trying to increase government to solve the problem.

    Fail ^3

  • In reply to JulianRobertson
    UFOinsider's picture

    JulianRobertson wrote:
    Wasn't this the lady who lied about being a native American?

    Yes, and I get the impression that she a lot of skeletons in her closet. Perhaps not as funny as Bill O'Reilly's vibrating dildo (true story) or J Hoover's cross dressing....but no one's taken a close look into her past. I'm all for slipping through the cracks and moving past youthful indiscretions, but I'd like some integrity in investigators or we just end up with another Elliot Spitzer who screws us all over and then goes down in a fiery ball of flames themselves.
    Addinator wrote:
    it is certainly refreshing to actually see someone start going after the regulators asking, " what the fuck were you clowns doing?"

    Hell yeah dude.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to TNA
    UFOinsider's picture

    TNA wrote:
    She is a liberal and a liar, which is synonymous. And why hasn't a bank been brought to trial? Plenty of individuals in finance have been arrested and tried. Just because a bank fails or had poor controls doesn't mean the CEO has committed a crime.

    But sure, if the sheep want it, why not imprison everyone who works at Citi. I mean that would be throwing a bank in jail and I am sure the morons would cheer for it.

    Government creates a problem, then creates more government to solve the problem it created. The SEC is and was incompetent and now we have an elected official who is trying to increase government to solve the problem.

    Fail ^3


    Fuck are you talking about? Angelo Mozillo isn't guilty? Jon Corzine isn't guilty? Dick Fuld had no idea what the fuck was going to happen?...and I call bullshit on that because I and other guys KNEW that Bear and Lehman were in deep shit during recruiting season months before. A family member was specifically told NOT to accept the offer at Bear because their shit was getting jacked and the firm was getting fucked all ways like a hooker at a gang bang. Nothing was fucked? ....uhm, everything was fucked, and everyone knew about it. At the time, I was fucking bartender....IF I KNEW THAT, THEY DEFINTELY KNEW ABOUT IT.

    I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this to you, unless you just don't want to see, and therefore just aren't worth acknowledging.

    Just to illustrate how little accountability there was in industry, Jim Cramer was telling people to buy Lehman shares days before and still has his show. Had that been any other sector, any other field, these people would all be unemployed at the least, much more likely behind bars. He still has credibility? He still has a fucking job in this business??? HOW? It's an insult to guys like you and me who know what the fuck they're doing. He's a fake, a snake oil salesman, and it's fucking demoralizing when a crook gets ahead. If you just want to rationalized that away, good for you, but personally it pisses me the fuck off.

    I call bullshit, they cruise on momentum and buy corruption, and unlike you I personally don't care what side of the political isle they come from.

    Look at it this way:

    Truthfully, in my darker days, I look at this stuff and conclude "shit, the rules are selectively enforced and your precious fucking America is bullshit so I'm just going to do whatever the fucking hell I can get away with, your Constitution and nosy rule books be damned. Fuck the rules, fuck 'capitalism', and fuck you. I'm just taking what I want." Not bad if it's just me, one person, but you seem to have no comprehension of how many people, more and more, see things this way. If a bad law is made, then argue it, but if basic fraud laws aren't going to be enforced then the system that you profit so much from starts to break down. Truth also is, I'd get away with anything I tried, but I have a concience. Getting away with something doesn't make it right, and these guys are still fucking crooks. If someone fucks up, they get canned. If they cross the line, they go to jail. It applies for you and me and I'll be damned the day I condone things just because someone has a lot of money and power. IT'S STILL WRONG.

    You ever play in a hockey game where the ref is just calling one side? You want to just take it out into the parking lot after the game, it's maddening, and you cease to care what the consequences are because, shit, it doesn't matter anyway. THAT'S how a lot of America feels right now, especially the ones hurt by the recession who had NOTHING to do with the fucking bubble. 40% of American wealth was vaporized, and it's no one's fault? Dude, seriously, you need to get in touch with reality, I truly don't understand where you're coming from and you sound ridiculous.

    Disagree if you must argue just to do it, I'm just the messenger.

    Get busy living

  • West Coast rainmaker's picture

    I don't mind that she's hard on banks. Charlie Gasparino is hard on banks, and I think he's great.

    I can't stand her because she is hard on banks while peddling populist rhetoric. Then there is her role in the CFPB...a new, remarkably unaccountable government agency that "solves" non-existent problems.

    Were swipe fees really an issue? Really? How about overdraft fees and payday lending? Yes, those products are terrible values, but it was not exactly a secret...Then you have her role in Dodd-Frank, the grandfather of all "fixing problems that don't exist" acts. 4 years, thousands of pages, and it still fails to address the causes of the crisis.

    And personally she's atrocious. The affirmative action fraud is the least of my objections. Whenever she opens her mouth, you could swear she's the bastard offspring of Pelosi and Matt Taibbi. Bullshit enveloped in the authority of academia.

  • In reply to TNA
    duffmt6's picture

    TNA wrote:
    She is a liberal and a liar, which is synonymous.

    Thoughtful.

    TNA wrote:
    And why hasn't a bank been brought to trial? Plenty of individuals in finance have been arrested and tried.

    Who exactly has been arrested and/or tried stemming from the financial crisis? Most high profile cases I can think of involve rogue traders (who harmed the banks).

    TNA wrote:
    Just because a bank fails or had poor controls doesn't mean the CEO has committed a crime.

    Negligence is a crime. If you are supervising employees who are laundering money for terrorist organizations (HSBC) you are breaking the law.

    "For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

  • TNA's picture

    In the USA it is innocent until proven guilty. The onus is those who think there is guilt to prove it. While I have no doubt the players in the financial crisis hold a lot of the blame for what happened, that doesn't mean they were committing a crime.

    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/no-criminal...

    "After 10 months of stitching together evidence on the firm’s demise, criminal investigators are concluding that chaos and porous risk controls at the firm, rather than fraud, allowed the money to disappear, according to people involved in the case.

    The hurdles to building a criminal case were always high with MF Global, which filed for bankruptcy in October after a huge bet on European debt unnerved the market. But a lack of charges in the largest Wall Street blowup since 2008 is likely to fuel frustration with the government’s struggle to charge financial executives. Just a few individuals — none of them top Wall Street players — have been prosecuted for the risky acts that led to recent failures and billions of dollars in losses."

    "...concluding that chaos and porous risk controls at the firm, rather than fraud, allowed the money to disappear..."

    "...The hurdles to building a criminal case were always high with MF Global..."

    Hey, fuck it. Because your family members knew that you shouldn't accept an offer at Bear or Lehman then everyone knew Fuld was committing crimes. Makes perfect sense. Let me know where to send my payment for the 1-800 Lawyer services people are offering here.

    And she is a liberal, which means she supports more government, more taxes and less freedom. I ignore Nazi's and racists because I know the shit that will come out of their mouths. Same with liberals. Every problem in the world can be solved with more government and more taxation. Yeah, I don't need to pay attention to that Anti-American bullshit.

  • In reply to duffmt6
    TNA's picture

    duffmt6 wrote:
    TNA wrote:
    She is a liberal and a liar, which is synonymous.

    Thoughtful.

    TNA wrote:
    And why hasn't a bank been brought to trial? Plenty of individuals in finance have been arrested and tried.

    Who exactly has been arrested and/or tried stemming from the financial crisis? Most high profile cases I can think of involve rogue traders (who harmed the banks).

    TNA wrote:
    Just because a bank fails or had poor controls doesn't mean the CEO has committed a crime.

    Negligence is a crime. If you are supervising employees who are laundering money for terrorist organizations (HSBC) you are breaking the law.

    Criminla negligence is a crime. Negligence in its most simple for is a CIVIL offense. Big distinction.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence

    The management at HSBC were guilty of civil negligence. Criminal negligence is much harder to prove and the government probably wouldn't have been able to make a case.

  • In reply to TNA
    duffmt6's picture

    TNA wrote:
    In the USA it is innocent until proven guilty. The onus is those who think there is guilt to prove it. While I have no doubt the players in the financial crisis hold a lot of the blame for what happened, that doesn't mean they were committing a crime.

    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/no-criminal...

    "After 10 months of stitching together evidence on the firm’s demise, criminal investigators are concluding that chaos and porous risk controls at the firm, rather than fraud, allowed the money to disappear, according to people involved in the case.

    The hurdles to building a criminal case were always high with MF Global, which filed for bankruptcy in October after a huge bet on European debt unnerved the market. But a lack of charges in the largest Wall Street blowup since 2008 is likely to fuel frustration with the government’s struggle to charge financial executives. Just a few individuals — none of them top Wall Street players — have been prosecuted for the risky acts that led to recent failures and billions of dollars in losses."

    "...concluding that chaos and porous risk controls at the firm, rather than fraud, allowed the money to disappear..."

    "...The hurdles to building a criminal case were always high with MF Global..."

    Hey, fuck it. Because your family members knew that you shouldn't accept an offer at Bear or Lehman then everyone knew Fuld was committing crimes. Makes perfect sense. Let me know where to send my payment for the 1-800 Lawyer services people are offering here.

    And she is a liberal, which means she supports more government, more taxes and less freedom. I ignore Nazi's and racists because I know the shit that will come out of their mouths. Same with liberals. Every problem in the world can be solved with more government and more taxation. Yeah, I don't need to pay attention to that Anti-American bullshit.

    As far as I'm concerned the MF Global situation simply highlights how weak US regulators are. You're telling me that overseeing a multi billion dollar brokerage firm with "porous risk controls" isn't worthy of a criminal conviction?

    "For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    BTbanker's picture

    UFOinsider wrote:
    TNA wrote:
    She is a liberal and a liar, which is synonymous. And why hasn't a bank been brought to trial? Plenty of individuals in finance have been arrested and tried. Just because a bank fails or had poor controls doesn't mean the CEO has committed a crime.

    But sure, if the sheep want it, why not imprison everyone who works at Citi. I mean that would be throwing a bank in jail and I am sure the morons would cheer for it.

    Government creates a problem, then creates more government to solve the problem it created. The SEC is and was incompetent and now we have an elected official who is trying to increase government to solve the problem.

    Fail ^3

    Nothing was fucked? ....uhm, everything was fucked, and everyone knew about it. At the time, I was fucking bartender....IF I KNEW THAT, THEY DEFINTELY KNEW ABOUT IT.

    LOL. If you knew what was going on at the time, you'd be retired on a fucking beach right now. Anybody can talk shit about knowing something AFTER it happens, but the fact is that you were too much of a pussy to do anything about it. That's why Fuld, Corzine, and every other CEO who's bank went under is unemployed, and why Cramer was recommending a stock days before it collapsed. Nobody, including the employees knew the scale of the situation. They were only speculating, and that's how Paulson made $4B that year. He figured he might as well make the best out of the situation for his investors, and there was no going back at that point. It's not like he was hoping America would fail, which is how every idiot perceives short sellers.

    People make mistakes, were human, and you can't predict the future. I'm sure Fuld didn't wake up everyday and think, "hmm, how can I bankrupt a 100 year old investment bank, lose my job, and make the entire human population hate me?"

  • In reply to TNA
    UFOinsider's picture

    TNA wrote:
    In the USA it is innocent until proven guilty. The onus is those who think there is guilt to prove it

    I learned this in kindergarten too, congrats buddy.

    If no one's ever being taken to trial then that's a pretty easy way to redefine the rules in favor of those pulling the strings, yes? They're just throwing money out for a settlement with "no admission of guilt", and I'd fault the regulators like Warren is. Settling is probably a better idea in small cases, but these guys wrecked the global system....and by system, I don't mean some abstraction, I mean people. A world full of people that were adversely affected by this, and nothing happened to the people with the most power and responsibility. Talk about irresponsible: if one idiot takes out too much mortage and loses his home, he's irresponsible. If a bank takes the wealth of a nation and levers it 40x on stuff they themselves call horseshit....it's irresponsible. Instead of lawsuits, they got bailed out, and now I want to see heads on a fucking pole. Stop drinking the GOP koolade for a few minutes and realize that the government wasn't enforcing its own laws because the people in office at the time were on the side of the people breaking them.

    Now it's time to pay the fucking piper, and well they should. If I'm going to build a career on honesty, I'd prefer to have it not work against me. I'd prefer to not be robbed. I'd prefer to think that I'd stand a chance in court if I was. Otherwise, what's stopping me from being a criminal too, aside from my own concience? What's stopping me from taking someone outside and breaking their fucking neck like I did when I was a bartender? (or having someone 'handle it' for me). The laws can be changed, but until they are the regulators are supposed to enforce it instead of merely giving the impression they do: I'm under the impression that anyone who disagrees is crooked as well.

    Not sure why this is seen as negotiable / arguable in any way.

    Christ, I know this bitch hates us, and just because of our jobs. She's never generated revenue in her life and simply has no concept of it, so all she sees is "OMGZ greedy business devils". So fuck her. Frankly, I don't think I'd like her at all if we were to be aquainted, she seems like a bitter jilted bitch who's chosen career over her personal life all the way and now regrets it and wants to make it someone else's fault (I'd bet money on that too).

    But if she's getting the government to do its fucking job, I don't care about that. I want to see the rules either 1) enforced or 2) made reasonable. I think that's not too much to ask for in the self proclaimed "greatest nation on earth". If not, America, hand over your title you fucking has been.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to duffmt6
    TNA's picture

    duffmt6 wrote:
    TNA wrote:
    In the USA it is innocent until proven guilty. The onus is those who think there is guilt to prove it. While I have no doubt the players in the financial crisis hold a lot of the blame for what happened, that doesn't mean they were committing a crime.

    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/no-criminal...

    "After 10 months of stitching together evidence on the firm’s demise, criminal investigators are concluding that chaos and porous risk controls at the firm, rather than fraud, allowed the money to disappear, according to people involved in the case.

    The hurdles to building a criminal case were always high with MF Global, which filed for bankruptcy in October after a huge bet on European debt unnerved the market. But a lack of charges in the largest Wall Street blowup since 2008 is likely to fuel frustration with the government’s struggle to charge financial executives. Just a few individuals — none of them top Wall Street players — have been prosecuted for the risky acts that led to recent failures and billions of dollars in losses."

    "...concluding that chaos and porous risk controls at the firm, rather than fraud, allowed the money to disappear..."

    "...The hurdles to building a criminal case were always high with MF Global..."

    Hey, fuck it. Because your family members knew that you shouldn't accept an offer at Bear or Lehman then everyone knew Fuld was committing crimes. Makes perfect sense. Let me know where to send my payment for the 1-800 Lawyer services people are offering here.

    And she is a liberal, which means she supports more government, more taxes and less freedom. I ignore Nazi's and racists because I know the shit that will come out of their mouths. Same with liberals. Every problem in the world can be solved with more government and more taxation. Yeah, I don't need to pay attention to that Anti-American bullshit.

    As far as I'm concerned the MF Global situation simply highlights how weak US regulators are. You're telling me that overseeing a multi billion dollar brokerage firm with "porous risk controls" isn't worthy of a criminal conviction?

    1) Regulators are incompetent. More regulators = more incompetence.

    2) Do I think Corzine should be drawn and quartered? Sure. I support this.

    But we live in a civilized society with rules and laws. Laws which can be manipulated. Manipulations which piss people off until then benefit from them. Just like how people hate banks until they realized that mortgage contracts were robosigned and could be fought. Now you have people living in homes for 3 plus years without paying for them.

    Law. It sucks, but it is the best thing we've got. We start lynching Corzine, Fuld, etc and the slope gets real slippery.

    Do I think he should pay? Yeah. Can I prove it? No. And this is the point. We throw around words like criminal and go to jail real casually, but the reality is a lot different. It is hard to prove criminal negligence which is why civil is the easier route.

    And for all the hate the bankers get, how about the government that failed in their job and now blames everyone else. How about we point the finger and the cops who were sleeping instead of policing? Those are the real criminals.

  • In reply to BTbanker
    UFOinsider's picture

    BTbanker wrote:
    If you knew what was going on at the time, you'd be retired on a fucking beach right now. Anybody can talk shit about knowing something AFTER it happens, but the fact is that you were too much of a pussy to do anything about it.

    LOL I didn't care about this stuff at the time broski, I just knew that some bank was in trouble, just like I knew the mayor was cheating on his wife and didn't care to be involved with that mess in any way. After seeing shit go down, well yeah I got interested, who the hell thought the entire global banking system would implode. FYI, that family member made a literal fucking killing between then and now, so, shut the fuck up. I have no reason to bullshit you, I'm just speaking my mind. If you don't like it, that's too bad for you.

    But at least offer some type of valid point, I'm not interested in an exchange with retarded folks today.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    TNA's picture

    UFOinsider wrote:
    TNA wrote:
    In the USA it is innocent until proven guilty. The onus is those who think there is guilt to prove it

    I learned this in kindergarten too, congrats buddy.

    If no one's ever being taken to trial then that's a pretty easy way to redefine the rules in favor of those pulling the strings, yes? They're just throwing money out for a settlement with "no admission of guilt", and I'd fault the regulators like Warren is. Settling is probably a better idea in small cases, but these guys wrecked the global system....and by system, I don't mean some abstraction, I mean people. A world full of people that were adversely affected by this, and nothing happened to the people with the most power and responsibility. Talk about irresponsible: if one idiot takes out too much mortage and loses his home, he's irresponsible. If a bank takes the wealth of a nation and levers it 40x on stuff they themselves call horseshit....it's irresponsible. Instead of lawsuits, they got bailed out, and now I want to see heads on a fucking pole. Stop drinking the GOP koolade for a few minutes and realize that the government wasn't enforcing its own laws because the people in office at the time were on the side of the people breaking them.

    Now it's time to pay the fucking piper, and well they should. If I'm going to build a career on honesty, I'd prefer to have it not work against me. I'd prefer to not be robbed. I'd prefer to think that I'd stand a chance in court if I was. Otherwise, what's stopping me from being a criminal too, aside from my own concience? What's stopping me from taking someone outside and breaking their fucking neck like I did when I was a bartender? (or having someone 'handle it' for me). The laws can be changed, but until they are the regulators are supposed to enforce it instead of merely giving the impression they do: I'm under the impression that anyone who disagrees is crooked as well.

    Not sure why this is seen as negotiable / arguable in any way.

    Christ, I know this bitch hates us, and just because of our jobs. She's never generated revenue in her life and simply has no concept of it, so all she sees is "OMGZ greedy business devils". So fuck her. Frankly, I don't think I'd like her at all if we were to be aquainted, she seems like a bitter jilted bitch who's chosen career over her personal life all the way and now regrets it and wants to make it someone else's fault (I'd bet money on that too).

    But if she's getting the government to do its fucking job, I don't care about that. I want to see the rules either 1) enforced or 2) made reasonable. I think that's not too much to ask for in the self proclaimed "greatest nation on earth". If not, America, hand over your title you fucking has been.

    Lying on a credit application is also criminal. When the bankers go to jail I hope to see homeowners sitting with them.

    Taking a fine is easier then going to court for a criminal case. Where you are simply trying to prove criminal negligence, a much higher standard. And who is going to go to jail? Fuld? His second in command? A VP on the MBS desk?

    Warren is a politician pushing populace bullshit. And if banks hold too much power it is because government gives it to them. Reduce government and you reduce their power.

  • In reply to BTbanker
    Addinator's picture

    BTbanker wrote:
    UFOinsider wrote:
    TNA wrote:
    She is a liberal and a liar, which is synonymous. And why hasn't a bank been brought to trial? Plenty of individuals in finance have been arrested and tried. Just because a bank fails or had poor controls doesn't mean the CEO has committed a crime.

    But sure, if the sheep want it, why not imprison everyone who works at Citi. I mean that would be throwing a bank in jail and I am sure the morons would cheer for it.

    Government creates a problem, then creates more government to solve the problem it created. The SEC is and was incompetent and now we have an elected official who is trying to increase government to solve the problem.

    Fail ^3

    Nothing was fucked? ....uhm, everything was fucked, and everyone knew about it. At the time, I was fucking bartender....IF I KNEW THAT, THEY DEFINTELY KNEW ABOUT IT.

    LOL. If you knew what was going on at the time, you'd be retired on a fucking beach right now. Anybody can talk shit about knowing something AFTER it happens, but the fact is that you were too much of a pussy to do anything about it. That's why Fuld, Corzine, and every other CEO who's bank went under is unemployed, and why Cramer was recommending a stock days before it collapsed. Nobody, including the employees knew the scale of the situation. They were only speculating, and that's how Paulson made $4B that year. He figured he might as well make the best out of the situation for his investors, and there was no going back at that point. It's not like he was hoping America would fail, which is how every idiot perceives short sellers.

    People make mistakes, were human, and you can't predict the future. I'm sure Fuld didn't wake up everyday and think, "hmm, how can I bankrupt a 100 year old investment bank, lose my job, and make the entire human population hate me?"

    No, he woke up everyday with a raging hard on for Goldman Sachs saying how much leverage do I need and how much risk do I need to take to be just like them. That's not a mistake as much as it is rampant greed and insecurity driving someone to encourage a culture of rampant risk taking. It is naive to think that people inside wall street didn't know how it was going to end. Of course they did. Did they think they were going to be the ones stupid enough to be left holding the bag? Of course not. And therein lies the problem. As with everything it was just a question of timing and whether you could either get out first or insure yourself enough against the losses to stay afloat. We were asking for higher returns, Houses for everyone and money for free. We desperately wanted the growth and spending ability to fuel the American dream and Wall Street facilitates and always will facilitate that.

  • TheKing's picture

    Look folks, here's what we need to do:

    --Either allow banks to fail when they blow themselves (and the global economy) up

    or

    --If the banks are considered "Too Big to Fail," then we need to either properly regulate them or make them smaller so that they can be allowed to fail like any other type of business on Earth

    Lastly, to anyone who has any doubts about the wrongdoing and illegal activities that went on in the lead-up to the crisis, I highly recommend you read the Levin-Coburn Report on the Financial Crisis that came out back in 2011. It's available for free online in a PDF form. It's a great summary along with an insane amount of primary sources (emails, testimony, etc.) I read it back when it came out and it's pretty mind blowing. To act like no one did anything illegal is insane. At the very least, there are several people, including Dick Fuld and Angelo Mozillo, that could have been brought to trial.

  • In reply to TNA
    UFOinsider's picture

    TNA wrote:
    But we live in a civilized society with rules and laws. Laws which can be manipulated.

    Do you have a point? The whole focus of this discussion is how the laws were manipulated and how someone is trying to deal with it. Yeah Warren is a liberal, but I don't fucking care if they're getting shit done.

    The guy who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance was a socialist, but that whole thing worked out well, yes? Christ, can you put reality ahead of your politics for one second? Seriously, I grew up around Irish, Catholic, Conservative, Repulican, Marines who weren't as toolishly brainwashed as you. It's impossible to explore any ethic topic here without you forcing people to either 1) write huge detailed exigesis or 2) adopting equally one sided rhetoric. Is this how you go through life?

    Or do you just argue to do it?

    What's your deal?

    Get busy living

  • In reply to Addinator
    UFOinsider's picture

    Addinator wrote:
    It is naive to think that people inside wall street didn't know how it was going to end. Of course they did. Did they think they were going to be the ones stupid enough to be left holding the bag? Of course not. And therein lies the problem. As with everything it was just a question of timing and whether you could either get out first or insure yourself enough against the losses to stay afloat.

    Exactly.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to TNA
    duffmt6's picture

    TNA wrote:
    duffmt6 wrote:
    TNA wrote:
    In the USA it is innocent until proven guilty. The onus is those who think there is guilt to prove it. While I have no doubt the players in the financial crisis hold a lot of the blame for what happened, that doesn't mean they were committing a crime.

    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/no-criminal...

    "After 10 months of stitching together evidence on the firm’s demise, criminal investigators are concluding that chaos and porous risk controls at the firm, rather than fraud, allowed the money to disappear, according to people involved in the case.

    The hurdles to building a criminal case were always high with MF Global, which filed for bankruptcy in October after a huge bet on European debt unnerved the market. But a lack of charges in the largest Wall Street blowup since 2008 is likely to fuel frustration with the government’s struggle to charge financial executives. Just a few individuals — none of them top Wall Street players — have been prosecuted for the risky acts that led to recent failures and billions of dollars in losses."

    "...concluding that chaos and porous risk controls at the firm, rather than fraud, allowed the money to disappear..."

    "...The hurdles to building a criminal case were always high with MF Global..."

    Hey, fuck it. Because your family members knew that you shouldn't accept an offer at Bear or Lehman then everyone knew Fuld was committing crimes. Makes perfect sense. Let me know where to send my payment for the 1-800 Lawyer services people are offering here.

    And she is a liberal, which means she supports more government, more taxes and less freedom. I ignore Nazi's and racists because I know the shit that will come out of their mouths. Same with liberals. Every problem in the world can be solved with more government and more taxation. Yeah, I don't need to pay attention to that Anti-American bullshit.

    As far as I'm concerned the MF Global situation simply highlights how weak US regulators are. You're telling me that overseeing a multi billion dollar brokerage firm with "porous risk controls" isn't worthy of a criminal conviction?

    And for all the hate the bankers get, how about the government that failed in their job and now blames everyone else. How about we point the finger and the cops who were sleeping instead of policing? Those are the real criminals.

    I think this is precisely what Warren is getting at.

    "For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    UFOinsider's picture

    UFOinsider wrote:
    But at least offer some type of valid point, I'm not interested in an exchange with retarded folks today.

    Monkey shit instead of counterpoint. Way to go. Don't you know I'll just jack more free SB's from WSO?

    Fucking frustrating when someone plays unfairly, isn't it.

    Now you know how it feels, jackass.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to BTbanker
    duffmt6's picture

    BTbanker wrote:
    duffmt6 wrote:

    Negligence is a crime. If you are supervising employees who are laundering money for terrorist organizations (HSBC) you are breaking the law.


    In this case, negligence is a tort that has to be proven with preponderance of the evidence. It doesn't involve criminal law.

    I'm no lawyer because I like having a job, but I think the criminal nature is more a matter of opinion - if HSBC execs were deliberately skirting anti money laundering rules to profit (which I believe they were), then that would constitute a criminal offense. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Quote:

    It's a case that has everything -- everything accept an arrest. That struck some as odd, because in 80 pages of court documents, the bank admits to almost going out of its way to act as a financial clearing house for international pariahs and drug dealers.

    Quote:

    Notre Dame professor Jimmy Gurule, who investigated money-laundering cases for the Treasury Department, said: "We're not talking about mere negligence. We're talking about a criminal scheme that was adopted as a policy of HSBC that involved looking the other way in regard to suspicious transactions involving money laundering."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57558618/dru...

    "For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    BTbanker's picture

    UFOinsider wrote:
    BTbanker wrote:
    If you knew what was going on at the time, you'd be retired on a fucking beach right now. Anybody can talk shit about knowing something AFTER it happens, but the fact is that you were too much of a pussy to do anything about it.

    LOL I didn't care about this stuff at the time broski, I just knew that some bank was in trouble, just like I knew the mayor was cheating on his wife and didn't care to be involved with that mess in any way. After seeing shit go down, well yeah I got interested, who the hell thought the entire global banking system would implode. FYI, that family member made a literal fucking killing between then and now, so, shut the fuck up. I have no reason to bullshit you, I'm just speaking my mind. If you don't like it, that's too bad for you.

    But at least offer some type of valid point, I'm not interested in an exchange with retarded folks today.


    Ah, so you're the "Why Did Bankers Destroy The World? Also, Are You Hiring?" kind of guys... I guess being unoriginal is one way to go.

  • In reply to duffmt6
    BTbanker's picture

    duffmt6 wrote:
    BTbanker wrote:
    duffmt6 wrote:

    Negligence is a crime. If you are supervising employees who are laundering money for terrorist organizations (HSBC) you are breaking the law.


    In this case, negligence is a tort that has to be proven with preponderance of the evidence. It doesn't involve criminal law.

    I'm no lawyer because I like having a job, but I think the criminal nature is more a matter of opinion - if HSBC execs were deliberately skirting anti money laundering rules to profit (which I believe they were), then that would constitute a criminal offense. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Quote:

    It's a case that has everything -- everything accept an arrest. That struck some as odd, because in 80 pages of court documents, the bank admits to almost going out of its way to act as a financial clearing house for international pariahs and drug dealers.

    Quote:

    Notre Dame professor Jimmy Gurule, who investigated money-laundering cases for the Treasury Department, said: "We're not talking about mere negligence. We're talking about a criminal scheme that was adopted as a policy of HSBC that involved looking the other way in regard to suspicious transactions involving money laundering."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57558618/dru...
    Yeah, you might be right.

  • In reply to BTbanker
    TheKing's picture

    BTbanker wrote:
    UFOinsider wrote:
    BTbanker wrote:
    If you knew what was going on at the time, you'd be retired on a fucking beach right now. Anybody can talk shit about knowing something AFTER it happens, but the fact is that you were too much of a pussy to do anything about it.

    LOL I didn't care about this stuff at the time broski, I just knew that some bank was in trouble, just like I knew the mayor was cheating on his wife and didn't care to be involved with that mess in any way. After seeing shit go down, well yeah I got interested, who the hell thought the entire global banking system would implode. FYI, that family member made a literal fucking killing between then and now, so, shut the fuck up. I have no reason to bullshit you, I'm just speaking my mind. If you don't like it, that's too bad for you.

    But at least offer some type of valid point, I'm not interested in an exchange with retarded folks today.


    Ah, so you're the "Why Did Bankers Destroy The World? Also, Are You Hiring?" kind of guys... I guess being unoriginal is one way to go.

    You sound, unfortunately, like someone who hasn't really examined the facts or read deeply about the crisis. I really recommend you at least give a skim-through of the Coburn-Levin Report. It's game changing stuff and goes deeper than anything else out there and uses primary sources. Yes, it's thick as hell, but it's worth reading if you want to understand what happened at the banks, the lenders, Fannie & Freddie, the rating agencies, etc. The chapter on the sub-prime lenders alone is mind blowing. There was fraud on outrageous levels.

  • West Coast rainmaker's picture

    Regulation is kind of fucked, to be honest.

    (1) There aren't very many regulators, but the companies they are monitoring are massive. It would be like if a KPMG audit team for a F500 client was 5 people.

    (2) They aren't very smart. They pay less than the banks and offer slower promotion, so of course they aren't going to attract the same caliber of applicant.

    (3) There is no accountability. What happens to a regulator if they are wrong? or they miss the next Madoff? Nothing.

    (4) Most of these people haven't actually worked in banks. So we get regulation that completely misses the point. Think about the Global Settlement. Was anybody really under the impression research was unbiased? It actually made the problem worse - research now has to be "unbiased". Of course it is...that's why half the market is "buy" and the other half is "hold".

    As for prosecution:

    There were so many causes of the crisis, I personally do not believe it is realistic to punish individuals. How do you disentangle predatory lending from the incentives to lend to the poor? The hawking of MBS from the near-universal belief that housing prices would always increase? It is almost impossible to point to individuals and say, "this is your fault".

    Even Lehman didn't necessarily have to fail. Liquidity was very, very tight...but they might have been able to make it through had the government not effectively closed the capital markets for banks by imposing a haircut on WaMu bondholders.

    There are a few cases where an individual can be faulted. For instance, the London Whale incident. Not sure jail would be appropriate. But revocation of securities licenses, fines, wage garnishment, etc. would be reasonable.

    Some Fannie/Freddie execs could also be brought up on charges. It would be hard to prove, but it seems quite clear that somebody deliberately misclassified subprime loans as Alt-A. This polluted the information pool for banks, ratings agencies, everybody.

  • In reply to TheKing
    BTbanker's picture

    TheKing wrote:
    BTbanker wrote:
    UFOinsider wrote:
    BTbanker wrote:
    If you knew what was going on at the time, you'd be retired on a fucking beach right now. Anybody can talk shit about knowing something AFTER it happens, but the fact is that you were too much of a pussy to do anything about it.

    LOL I didn't care about this stuff at the time broski, I just knew that some bank was in trouble, just like I knew the mayor was cheating on his wife and didn't care to be involved with that mess in any way. After seeing shit go down, well yeah I got interested, who the hell thought the entire global banking system would implode. FYI, that family member made a literal fucking killing between then and now, so, shut the fuck up. I have no reason to bullshit you, I'm just speaking my mind. If you don't like it, that's too bad for you.

    But at least offer some type of valid point, I'm not interested in an exchange with retarded folks today.


    Ah, so you're the "Why Did Bankers Destroy The World? Also, Are You Hiring?" kind of guys... I guess being unoriginal is one way to go.

    You sound, unfortunately, like someone who hasn't really examined the facts or read deeply about the crisis. I really recommend you at least give a skim-through of the Coburn-Levin Report. It's game changing stuff and goes deeper than anything else out there and uses primary sources. Yes, it's thick as hell, but it's worth reading if you want to understand what happened at the banks, the lenders, Fannie & Freddie, the rating agencies, etc. The chapter on the sub-prime lenders alone is mind blowing. There was fraud on outrageous levels.


    Listen, I know that people were knowingly selling worthless assets, but as you guys stated, "everyone on Wall Street knew what was going on," so there was no conflict of interest there. Both parties made the trade for profit in mind, and when the market no longer saw value in those assets, they decreased in value. That's just how it works. As far as the ratings agencies go, those ratings were merely opinions, the banks basically paid for them, and nobody could possibly take those seriously. They were essentially redundant, and you can't even blame them.

    It's like me selling you a broken iPhone, and you know it's broken, but you found a buyer who is willing to pay more, and so on. There is no issue here, and that's why nobody has been charged.

    If I'm missing anything big, please shortly summarize.

  • In reply to BTbanker
    UFOinsider's picture

    BTbanker wrote:
    Ah, so you're the "Why Did Bankers Destroy The World? Also, Are You Hiring?" kind of guys... I guess being unoriginal is one way to go.

    I saw people fuck up, I wonder why nothing happens to them. I saw first hand, friends of mine, who lost their jobs because of it. I was nice to those folks, and they encouraged me to go into industry, just not be a crook.

    I WANT to see dishonest people go to prison because I'm honest and it offends me. This whole concept of this industry is that you're a "trusted advisor" whether to individuals or institutions. That people don't trust the financial sector is really fucking bad dude, and it makes your and my jobs harder. The crooks cashed out and peaced out, now we're stuck cleaning up the mess. Don't you see: this works to our advantage in the long run.

    If you're on the loan sharking side of the business, it's different, but I'm honestly bewildered that there are still voices that proclaim the irresponibility of those in positions of trust is somehow justified. Have they not learned their lesson? Have not the last few years sucked enough? Are you not fucking annoyed that they made a bloody fortune, partially at your expense, and that the industry may not recover in your lifetime? What do you get out of agreeing with their side of the argument?

    Seriously, enlighten me.

    Does some preachy liberal harpie dyke annoy me? Well yes, yes it does. Is she doing the right thing? Yes again. So I don't care what her personal motive is. If I'm going to work here, I want to know that the gov't is keeping its end of the deal up and that I don't have to run my business like a mafia operation to turn a buck and keep from getting robbed. If not, what the fuck am I paying the police and judges with my taxes for? Word up from Warren to the regulators: do your fucking job. I'm all for it.

    I'm massively sleep deprived and highly caffeinated, so I think my manic, hostile tone is a turnoff....but I seriously fail to see why anyone is going to disagree with this unless they're a crook.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to West Coast rainmaker
    TheKing's picture

    West Coast rainmaker wrote:
    Regulation is kind of fucked, to be honest.

    (1) There aren't very many regulators, but the companies they are monitoring are massive. It would be like if a KPMG audit team for a F500 client was 5 people.

    (2) They aren't very smart. They pay less than the banks and offer slower promotion, so of course they aren't going to attract the same caliber of applicant.

    (3) There is no accountability. What happens to a regulator if they are wrong? or they miss the next Madoff? Nothing.

    (4) Most of these people haven't actually worked in banks. So we get regulation that completely misses the point. Think about the Global Settlement. Was anybody really under the impression research was unbiased? It actually made the problem worse - research now has to be "unbiased". Of course it is...that's why half the market is "buy" and the other half is "hold".

    As for prosecution:

    There were so many causes of the crisis, I personally do not believe it is realistic to punish individuals. How do you disentangle predatory lending from the incentives to lend to the poor? The hawking of MBS from the near-universal belief that housing prices would always increase? It is almost impossible to point to individuals and say, "this is your fault".

    Even Lehman didn't necessarily have to fail. Liquidity was very, very tight...but they might have been able to make it through had the government not effectively closed the capital markets for banks by imposing a haircut on WaMu bondholders.

    There are a few cases where an individual can be faulted. For instance, the London Whale incident. Not sure jail would be appropriate. But revocation of securities licenses, fines, wage garnishment, etc. would be reasonable.

    Some Fannie/Freddie execs could also be brought up on charges. It would be hard to prove, but it seems quite clear that somebody deliberately misclassified subprime loans as Alt-A. This polluted the information pool for banks, ratings agencies, everybody.

    Dude, the shit that went down at the sub-prime lenders is completely insane and has nothing to do with forced lending to poor people. Outright fraud was institutionalized. Literally firmwide mandates at places like WaMu to make as many loans as humanly possible no matter what so they could pass them onto banks for securitization. The banks needed them to fuel the CDO machine. And the CDO machine could only function because the crap it pumped out was rated (at times) AAA, but had a much higher yield than Treasuries. So, institutional investors that have requirements for holding a certain amount of top-grade paper sucked in CDOs like they were going out of style and because they were marketed as safe.

    People at the banks knew what was up. People at the rating agencies knew what was up. People at the lending houses knew what was up.

    Even if you don't want to prosecute, we need to have a system in which institutions can be allowed to fail. If a retail company goes bankrupt, the world keeps moving along. We need to have the same system for banks...which we had for 70 years, btw via Glass Steagall (and pre-the commodities futures modernization Act of 2000)

  • In reply to BTbanker
    TheKing's picture

    BTbanker wrote:
    TheKing wrote:
    BTbanker wrote:
    UFOinsider wrote:
    BTbanker wrote:
    If you knew what was going on at the time, you'd be retired on a fucking beach right now. Anybody can talk shit about knowing something AFTER it happens, but the fact is that you were too much of a pussy to do anything about it.

    LOL I didn't care about this stuff at the time broski, I just knew that some bank was in trouble, just like I knew the mayor was cheating on his wife and didn't care to be involved with that mess in any way. After seeing shit go down, well yeah I got interested, who the hell thought the entire global banking system would implode. FYI, that family member made a literal fucking killing between then and now, so, shut the fuck up. I have no reason to bullshit you, I'm just speaking my mind. If you don't like it, that's too bad for you.

    But at least offer some type of valid point, I'm not interested in an exchange with retarded folks today.


    Ah, so you're the "Why Did Bankers Destroy The World? Also, Are You Hiring?" kind of guys... I guess being unoriginal is one way to go.

    You sound, unfortunately, like someone who hasn't really examined the facts or read deeply about the crisis. I really recommend you at least give a skim-through of the Coburn-Levin Report. It's game changing stuff and goes deeper than anything else out there and uses primary sources. Yes, it's thick as hell, but it's worth reading if you want to understand what happened at the banks, the lenders, Fannie & Freddie, the rating agencies, etc. The chapter on the sub-prime lenders alone is mind blowing. There was fraud on outrageous levels.


    Listen, I know that people were knowingly selling worthless assets, but as you guys stated, "everyone on Wall Street knew what was going on," so there was no conflict of interest there. Both parties made the trade for profit in mind, and when the market no longer saw value in those assets, they decreased in value. That's just how it works. As far as the ratings agencies go, those ratings were merely opinions, the banks basically paid for them, and nobody could possibly take those seriously. They were essentially redundant, and you can't even blame them.

    It's like me selling you a broken iPhone, and you know it's broken, but you found a buyer who is willing to pay more, and so on. There is no issue here, and that's why nobody has been charged.

    If I'm missing anything big, please shortly summarize.

    "Please shortly summarize." smh

    This shit can't be shortly summarized. You need to be willing to do some reading and learn the facts. If not, you can continue saying what you like, just know that it's based on your wishful thinking rather than anything concrete.

    Again, it isn't like the info isn't out there. Check out the PDF. I know you're probably afraid of having your worldview shifted a bit, but that might be a healthy thing.

    Finally, it isn't like acknowledging this stuff means that you can't work in finance or like finance. We aren't talking about sports teams here. I will never understand people that treat this sort of shit with such a tribal mindset. I'll root for my NY Giants until the day I die, but I'm not going to do mental gymnastics to defend immoral and illegal shit that some assholes did to help fuck up our industry.

  • In reply to TheKing
    West Coast rainmaker's picture

    TheKing wrote:
    West Coast rainmaker wrote:
    Regulation is kind of fucked, to be honest.

    (1) There aren't very many regulators, but the companies they are monitoring are massive. It would be like if a KPMG audit team for a F500 client was 5 people.

    (2) They aren't very smart. They pay less than the banks and offer slower promotion, so of course they aren't going to attract the same caliber of applicant.

    (3) There is no accountability. What happens to a regulator if they are wrong? or they miss the next Madoff? Nothing.

    (4) Most of these people haven't actually worked in banks. So we get regulation that completely misses the point. Think about the Global Settlement. Was anybody really under the impression research was unbiased? It actually made the problem worse - research now has to be "unbiased". Of course it is...that's why half the market is "buy" and the other half is "hold".

    As for prosecution:

    There were so many causes of the crisis, I personally do not believe it is realistic to punish individuals. How do you disentangle predatory lending from the incentives to lend to the poor? The hawking of MBS from the near-universal belief that housing prices would always increase? It is almost impossible to point to individuals and say, "this is your fault".

    Even Lehman didn't necessarily have to fail. Liquidity was very, very tight...but they might have been able to make it through had the government not effectively closed the capital markets for banks by imposing a haircut on WaMu bondholders.

    There are a few cases where an individual can be faulted. For instance, the London Whale incident. Not sure jail would be appropriate. But revocation of securities licenses, fines, wage garnishment, etc. would be reasonable.

    Some Fannie/Freddie execs could also be brought up on charges. It would be hard to prove, but it seems quite clear that somebody deliberately misclassified subprime loans as Alt-A. This polluted the information pool for banks, ratings agencies, everybody.

    Dude, the shit that went down at the sub-prime lenders is completely insane and has nothing to do with forced lending to poor people. Outright fraud was institutionalized. Literally firmwide mandates at places like WaMu to make as many loans as humanly possible no matter what so they could pass them onto banks for securitization. The banks needed them to fuel the CDO machine. And the CDO machine could only function because the crap it pumped out was rated (at times) AAA, but had a much higher yield than Treasuries. So, institutional investors that have requirements for holding a certain amount of top-grade paper sucked in CDOs like they were going out of style and because they were marketed as safe.

    People at the banks knew what was up. People at the rating agencies knew what was up. People at the lending houses knew what was up.

    Even if you don't want to prosecute, we need to have a system in which institutions can be allowed to fail. If a retail company goes bankrupt, the world keeps moving along. We need to have the same system for banks...which we had for 70 years, btw via Glass Steagall (and pre-the commodities futures modernization Act of 2000)

    I agree. Reinstating Glass-Steagall would have been the easy solution. Hell, if regulators didn't want to cause that much turmoil, they could have just required that banks and investment banks be legally distinct entities, such that one could fail without bringing down the other.

    Instead we have this new system with a lot more red tape and a lot higher compliance costs. If anything, this web of regulation makes the regulators less accountable - there is always another regulator to pass the buck to.

    As for the sub-prime lenders- yeah, absolutely they were institutionalizing fraud. "All the devils are here" gave a great account of it. But I don't even know how you begin to prosecute that.

    TBTF causes unmanageable amounts of moral hazard. You still could have gotten a crisis-like situation with retail-only banks buying up bad CDOs...but the impact would have been mitigated.

  • In reply to West Coast rainmaker
    TheKing's picture

    West Coast rainmaker wrote:

    I agree. Reinstating Glass-Steagall would have been the easy solution. Hell, if regulators didn't want to cause that much turmoil, they could have just required that banks and investment banks be legally distinct entities, such that one could fail without bringing down the other.

    Instead we have this new system with a lot more red tape and a lot higher compliance costs. If anything, this web of regulation makes the regulators less accountable - there is always another regulator to pass the buck to.

    As for the sub-prime lenders- yeah, absolutely they were institutionalizing fraud. "All the devils are here" gave a great account of it. But I don't even know how you begin to prosecute that.

    TBTF causes unmanageable amounts of moral hazard. You still could have gotten a crisis-like situation with retail-only banks buying up bad CDOs...but the impact would have been mitigated.

    Yeah dude. I agree with you on Dodd-Frank. I argue that it's better than nothing, but it's a disgrace considering that everyone knows what the best solution is to the problem (Glass Steagall, getting rid of the Modernization Act of 2000).

    But, let's be honest. The reason why we have Dodd-Frank instead of a better and more elegant solution is because of the insane amount of lobbying done by the industry and the incestuousness of Capitol Hill. Throw in the amount of money in politics and the influence it buys from our disgraceful politicians and you see very clearly why we end up with worthless solutions and zero prosecutions.

    Makes me want to projectile vomit.

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    TNA's picture

    UFOinsider wrote:
    TNA wrote:
    But we live in a civilized society with rules and laws. Laws which can be manipulated.

    Do you have a point? The whole focus of this discussion is how the laws were manipulated and how someone is trying to deal with it. Yeah Warren is a liberal, but I don't fucking care if they're getting shit done.

    The guy who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance was a socialist, but that whole thing worked out well, yes? Christ, can you put reality ahead of your politics for one second? Seriously, I grew up around Irish, Catholic, Conservative, Repulican, Marines who weren't as toolishly brainwashed as you. It's impossible to explore any ethic topic here without you forcing people to either 1) write huge detailed exigesis or 2) adopting equally one sided rhetoric. Is this how you go through life?

    Or do you just argue to do it?

    What's your deal?

    1) Warren is grandstanding and looking to increase government. This will not deal with anything, it will only increase the problem.

    2) Throwing the word "criminal" around is a lot easier than going into court and proving a case. This is my point in a nutshell.

    3) How about you make a point that makes any sense, let alone simply common sense.

    It isn't what you know, it is what you can prove. AG's have every incentive in the world to press criminal charges against bankers, financiers, etc. They don't prosecute. Why? Because criminal negligence is fucking hard to prove.

    How can people not see this. This is like prosecuting the Joint Chiefs for something a Sgt. did in Iraq.

    Civil =/= Criminal.

    Oh, and I love the insults. Because I don't agree with your casual understanding of law means I am brainwashed. Just because you've watched every episode of Judge Judy doesn't mean you could convict Fuld or anyone else. And if crimes are being ignored it is because government is ignoring it, which Warren is part of.

  • In reply to TNA
    duffmt6's picture

    TNA wrote:
    UFOinsider wrote:
    TNA wrote:
    But we live in a civilized society with rules and laws. Laws which can be manipulated.

    Do you have a point? The whole focus of this discussion is how the laws were manipulated and how someone is trying to deal with it. Yeah Warren is a liberal, but I don't fucking care if they're getting shit done.

    The guy who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance was a socialist, but that whole thing worked out well, yes? Christ, can you put reality ahead of your politics for one second? Seriously, I grew up around Irish, Catholic, Conservative, Repulican, Marines who weren't as toolishly brainwashed as you. It's impossible to explore any ethic topic here without you forcing people to either 1) write huge detailed exigesis or 2) adopting equally one sided rhetoric. Is this how you go through life?

    Or do you just argue to do it?

    What's your deal?


    1) Warren is grandstanding and looking to increase government. This will not deal with anything, it will only increase the problem.

    I'm not sure this is the case. I don't think Warren is asking to grow the scope of the regulatory agencies in the video - I think she is asking them to grow some balls and stop being such a pacifist when it comes to prosecuting banks and bankers using laws already on the books.

    "For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

  • Maximus Decimus Meridius's picture

    I don't want to get in the political and philosophical discussion/argument, but I think you guys are missing a very important point. The idea is about leverage for settling. If they never take banks to trial they have the weaker hand and banks know it. So banks will pay less and less in settlements and they can't really negotiate because they both know that regulators are not going to go to trial. Until you get to the point of the utterly ridiculous fines and settlements banks get now, which are probably cheaper than actually doing it right in the first place. Whereas if every now and then they went to trial they would be able to negotiate settlements that actually hurt and therefore give banks an incentive to follow the law and supervise themselves better. Hell, they don't even have to win, specially this days banks have a lot to lose in terms of public image if they are taken to a trial that lasts for months/years. Settlements get published in the 37th page in the paper and everyone forgets about it 2 days later.

  • Edmundo Braverman's picture

    One point I think some of you might be missing is the necessity of taking these banks to trial. Not because you would ever get a criminal conviction; the burden of proof is way too high (as it should be) to ever be able to prove intent in 90%+ of the cases.

    So why go to trial instead of settling when you know you can't win? I'll tell you why. A beautiful little thing called DISCOVERY. Warren even mentions it in her testimony. You think Jon Corzine loses a moment's sleep over the prospect of going to jail? Of course not, because he knows it'll never happen. You wanna know what keeps Corzine awake at night? The thought of his private emails being on display publicly, the internal communications where the top guys joke about "ripping a client's face off", all the filthy, dirty shit that goes on every single day at the upper echelons of these banks being on public display for all to see.

    The process of discovery in most of these cases would absolutely lead to shareholder revolts and top guys being summarily fired if for no other reason than their boards just can't take the heat from bank clients and the general public. The bad press would force the issue and, while it's not jail, it's still justice.

    Because you know what these fucking pricks fear most? Watching the biscuit wheels fall off their gravy trains. Knowing that they can't get a foursome at their country club because there aren't three other people on the fucking planet who want to be seen with them. Knowing that their kids probably aren't going to get into the Ivy League because the schools won't risk the bad press. You can't put them in jail, but you can turn them into average, everyday shitheels, and for most of their type that's a fate worse than death.

    We need to take a page out of Ireland's playbook when it comes to dealing with these guys. Look what they did to Sean Fitzpatrick, former CEO of Anglo Irish Bank. This guy can't even show his face on the street anymore. All of his assets have been seized, he was forced into bankruptcy, and now he has to get government approval for any personal loan over €500. His life is over, and he's a complete laughingstock. That's how you bring justice to a Too Big To Jail bank CEO.

    And you get the ball rolling by bringing these guys to trial and opening up discovery, not by getting them to write a check and be on their merry way.

  • ozymandias's picture

    There's too much here to try to jump into the conversation, but here are some thoughts. I think everyone is right to a certain extent. Definitely, large banks behaving irresponsibly and getting bailed out by the taxpayer is an unacceptable standard to set. However, it doesn't solve the problem to try to legislate / regulate it out of existence... you just end up creating more paperwork and rules that bankers and their lawyers will get around. And you might create more complexity or perverse incentives that will cause another crisis.

    The way I see it, I take this view. Option #1: you need to let the banks deal with the consequences of their choices on their own; or Option #2: you need to fully nationalize the banks (for the record I am not in favor of this one). Do you guys think there is a middle path?

    "It doesn't matter where you are or where you came from: it's about where you're going."

Pages