Abacus is a more complicated case. The more shocking one to me is why Dick Flud isn't in jail. His use of the Repo 105 to move assets off the books to make Lehman look less leveraged and in better condition is a clearer case of fraud. He essentially did the same thing that Enron did - and Sarbanes Oxley requires that CEO sign off on the truthfulness of financial statements. Here's a guy that seems to have deliberately misled in those financial statements, yet he walks free. To me, that case is a more clear case of how the SEC is a toothless agency.
Is it fraud though? Repo 105 (and 108) were perfectly legitimate financing transactions and their reporting adhered to the relevant accounting standards.
Yes they were done to lower the firm's reported leverage, but again this computation conformed to regulator standards.
So not so clear cut it's "fraud" as nothing was mis-reported.
Edit: incidently this is nothing like what Enron did, which was to move assets off balance sheet by moving them to SPVs and swapping the risk back (incidently also completely legal and fairly common in structured finance). These were simple repo transactions.
When I was growing up, my father used to tell me "bankers cause wars; they are the biggest criminals in the history of mankind." The article, and my own personal experience, which I'd rather not divulge in public, illustrate this perfectly. I know all the managers knew about the scam; they perpetrated it; and yet, they walk free and flush with cash from such deals, while ordinary people lost their homes and jobs. The S.E.C. is in cahoots with them. Essentially, the managers and lawyers inside of the S.E.C. and the banks found a way to commit criminal acts without going to prison.
It's pretty simple: the Treasury head and many others in regulators are ex-Goldman. The word is subversion. The biggest violators have people embedded into the regulators to make sure they're not a problem.
For those of you who haven't spent the past 10 years of your lives following this and want a quick TL/RD, the below link has a good recap of what Abacus is.
I am not an American and I wonder why the most likely presidential candidate is the one taking somewhat opaque "speaker's fees" from an organisation that a lot of Americans realise operates in ways akin to a mafia. From the outside it like turkeys voting for Xmas.
I boil this down to a few categories of people in positions of government. There is a certain word, don't say it too loud or they might run or grab pitchforks, but the word is... cough... accountability.
Looks around carefully. I spent some time contracting in DC, and the conclusion I came to is that there are three main types of people around the government and financial centers of power.
1) Those who are aware of the coming shitstorm and the complete corruption and subversion, and are just trying to "get theirs". This usually ends up in a "I got mine, fuck you" attitude. They don't push back because they know they would get punished for it, so they instead use their knowledge to further their career at the expense of their duty, and principles. They know, but don't care (enough to risk anything) about the status quo.
2) Those who know about the situation, and agree with it. These are usually indoctrinated extremists on either side of the spectrum, neocon, ultra-lib, the kind of people who now think capatalism in it's current form is the best gift from god and they speak of peace while selling massive amounts of weapons to dictators they setup all around the world. They know, and they care (for the wrong things), and actually perpetrate many of the abuses of the system.
3) Those who are too ignorant or stupid to know, or the slightly modified, those who have an idea about how bad it is but would rather stick their head in the sand and pretend reality doesn't exist. They don't know and don't care.
Don't tell me where all the true patriots went. I have told my friends, that "I know not one brave soul, not one." (keep in mind I'm not talking about media figures, like Snowden, Manning, Drake, Binney, Tice, Edmonds, all of whom I do consider brave souls) To me, that is the real problem I faced when I had my Descartes reset, in that I started to realize that while I still believe in the power of an oath, and the duties that come with them, the majority of the people around me and in positions of real power pay tons of lip service to principles, but never actually do them. Personally, I think this is causing a kind of mass cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization that we have yet to realize the full impact of.
When I think about the leadership traits I learned in the Corps, and how little of them I see in our leaders, I fear for the future of my country.
(in case anyone is wondering, they are: Justice, Judgement, Dependability, Initiative, Decisiveness, Tact, Integrity, Enthusiasm, Bearing, Unselfishness, Courage, Knowledge, Loyalty, and Endurance.)
I've seen a steady erosion of ethics in all professions.
I don't know what's causing it. Actually, I have a few hypothesis, but I'll get hammered for even mentioning them.
I used to look at people's actions in society, with the expectation that the average guy would be one of the 65% who delivered the legal 450v sting in the Milgram experiment. That left 35% who would do The Right Thing.
As, I've aged, I see a number much greater than >65%. I'm seeing way too many people doing immoral legal acts. Acts that are highly immoral, but legal.
I used to just take ethics for granted.
I am now Shocked when I run across a person with ethics.
I've gotten so jaded when someone is being honest/genuinely helpful--I look for the catch I missed. So, basically I look at most people, especially the financially successfully with extreme caution.
In Ireland, I was told they look at successful people differently than we so I the United States. They look at that person, and wonder, "Who did they screw over, or step on in order to get there." I overheard this. It might be wrong. I haven't got there, but it's getting close.
I'm not even talking about blatant criminals. I'm talking about the guys in ties. The guys with licenses. The guys with power. The guys who bend the rules in order to get ahead. The guys who exploit poor and uninformed just because they are easy marks.
Why can't people excel and be experts while being a regulator? That's like saying police have to be criminals before they can be police or they won't be experts.
If the financial industry is doing things so complicated that they cannot be policed, then they should be made to define their actions so that they CAN be policed, or their actions should be illegal.
The question that the revolving door complaint raises is whether these people can competently perform in these regulatory positions without bias.
The solution isn't picking different people, it's transparency and enforcing the checks and balances. Articles like this are important, because the SEC is notoriously bad at being transparent (getting a D- on FOIA) and it exists as an independent agency in the executive branch.
Program/code the regulations into the financial systems instead of relying on the thumbs up from an easily corruptible human being.
Edit: immediately after posting this it occurred to me how terrible if not impossible this would be with the spaghetti code that is the tax and compliance legal code. So that would ideally have to be reformed, or rewritten and consolidated which is quite a big proposition
Mainstream Banks laundered close to 400 billions in drug money and got slapped with fines in 10 mil. range. Everyone is up in arms about GS.
GS counterparties are supposed to be sophisticated Fund managers they are payed millions in fees for managing money. It's their job to do due diligence on the deals they do with GS or otherwise.
"In our conversations, Kidney reflected on why that might be. The oft-cited explanations—campaign contributions and the allure of private-sector jobs to low-paid government lawyers—have certainly played a role. But to Kidney, the driving force was something subtler. Over the course of three decades, the concept of the government as an active player had been tarnished in the minds of the public and the civil servants working inside the agency. In his view, regulatory capture is a psychological process in which officials become increasingly gun shy in the face of criticism from their bosses, Congress, and the industry the agency is supposed to oversee. Leads aren’t pursued. Cases are never opened. Wall Street executives are not forced to explain their actions."
Basically, regulators don't have the balls to go after the big guys.
Sounds very similar to this story[0][1]. If i recall correctly: Ambitious NY Fed employee claims she was fired because she wouldn't soften language in a report; secretly records meetings that show extreme deference to banks. The This American Life version is really great.
But at the bottom of it, there was this thing that he [Eric Holder]
laid out called the "collateral consequences doctrine."
And what "collateral consequences" meant was that if
you’re a prosecutor and you’re targeting one of these big
corporate offenders and you’re worried that you may
affect innocent victims, that shareholders or innocent
executives may lose their jobs, you may consider other
alternatives, other remedies besides criminal
prosecutions—in other words, fines, nonprosecution
agreements, deferred prosecution agreements.
And again, at the time, it was a completely sensible
thing to lay out. Of course it makes sense to not always
destroy a company if you can avoid it. But what they’ve
done is they’ve conflated that sometimes-sensible policy
with a policy of not going after any individuals for any
crimes. And that’s just totally unacceptable.
Sounds a bit like a variety of legal realism, roughly the idea that the law is not what's formally written down, but the collection of practices that can be inferred from what people (judges, prosecutors, police, etc.) actually do. If Wall Street practices have become culturally normalized, especially among elites, then they simply get thought of as "legal", regardless of whether they follow the letter of the law, and it appears radical to argue that they should be prosecuted for doing things that are just normal practice and therefore presumptively legal. It looks to many people like you're trying to change the law in that case (the government intervening to overturn normal business practices) even if formally you're just enforcing the law as actually written. Many people in a position to initiate prosecutions shy away from that unless they have strong political backing (e.g. from a popular politician willing to make trust-busting or taking on Wall Street their signature issue).
I totally get that piece, but I feel like in some ways it is meant as an attempt to deflect conversation away from what is stated to be a factor:
"The oft-cited explanations—campaign contributions and the allure of private-sector jobs to low-paid government lawyers—have certainly played a role."
Emphasis on "have certainly played a role." The moment I hear that, I ask why the hell we aren't focusing the conversation there and keeping it there. Guarantee a lot of the "lack of balls" has to do with worrying about future security in the form of campaign contributions and private-sector jobs.
How about we solve for that problem first and see if they still lack balls when they are no longer worried about their financial future being directly tied to those they are supposed to police.
The movie "The Big Short" has a brief scene with reference to this that you reminded me of and I highly recommend the movie. In the scene one of the main characters is discussing with his brother's ex who is an SEC regulator and she says something to the affect of "the regulators are a revolving door of industry insiders and you aren't going to get looked at when applying for the cushy bank job if you're known as the stickler regulator."
This explanation is just an attempt at hiding the actual problem: the revolving door between the public and the private sector, specially in the banking industry. Of course you don't want to be the one sending Lloyd Blankfein to prison. No way you are going to get a lofty job at a bank after that.
This is the one case where regulators would have massive popular support, specially in an election year when two very popular candidates (well, three if you believe Hillary's latest statements) are calling for stronger measures against the people responsible for the "Great Recession".
Or, alternatively, in this case there was no good case as some SEC lawyers suggested. It seems strange to me to suggest that assembling a security of mortgage bonds so that one party could short it while another could go long it is a crime. That is what Goldman is supposed to do !
I read it differently. My take away was that the SEC didn't have the _evidence_ to go after anyone but Fabricci.
However, I really don't understand how Goldman would have profited from aiding Paulson & co. Goldman set up a security that let people bet for or against the housing market. It's similar to Vegas letting people bet on a sports match. Why would Vegas fix the game that other people were betting on? It's not like Goldman made more money because Abacus paid out to Paulson vs. the Germans.
They don't have the upside. They already have the power to do almost anything to a bank. The top ranks of most big banks already spend most of their time worrying about the next inspection.
As far as regulators go, there is not much more fear and respect and obedience they can get.
So why make an example of anyone when day-to-day regulators are the big I ams
A sort of reverse Regulatory capture has been achieved. The regulators are calling the shots, but don't see the need to dig deeper.
The best analogy I can give is if Lord Ventinari from disc world were running 30's Chicago - Al Capone has been tamed, does not rock the boat and only kills his "own kind". Why should cleaning up the city and arresting Capone be a priority - he is under control.
I like discworld novels but I am not sure I want to live innsuchba compromised society
> Basically, regulators don't have the balls to go after the big guys.
Wouldn't you? The regulators receive direct or indirect instructions. They can see what happens when they choose not to listen. So why bother playing hero? Real life is not hollywood. You can always make the opposite argument no matter how flawed might be e.g. "hey! this guy is killing corporate America whilst the entire world is the midst of a crisis! It's crazy right?", you know how many bellow 50k/year households will buy that argument? It's crazy ;-)
This is a government policy, whether is good or bad depends on which side of the fence you stand. It's bad for the majority and for the rule of law, but who cares.
Panama papers is not a "leak" it was a hack by the NSA and only released a bunch of info on Panama based shell companies that are largely BRIC nations, none the US - and that it is a PSYOP to get a bit of anger against specifically others to protect US financial hegemony...
The only country to prosecute bankers/Wall Street - the PM resigned after he got caught doing the same thing.
It's revenge and a pre-emotive attack - but one that kind of lost control.
Watch the Panama papers doc to see how In The 2013 doc PBS' "the warning" the DOJ literally stonewalls against all questions regarding going after Wall Street.
The whole system is absolutely a corrupt greed ponzu scheme.
What happened those three vids, please, and give me your opinion.
The oft-cited explanations—campaign contributions and the allure of private-sector jobs to low-paid government lawyers—have certainly played a role. But to Kidney, the driving force was something subtler.
The only "subtler" thing is that corrupt actors of this sort need to manufacture vague and appealing alternatives to plain-old-corruption in order to look themselves in the mirror.
> Basically, regulators don't have the balls to go after the big guys.
The other component to this, is that regulatory compliance becomes a significant barrier to entry for new firms. Incumbents end up gaining even more organizational power as market power increases, and competition on price and service quality decreases.
What if it's simply bribes and he won't say it because they will eat him alive? "Tarnished concept of government blah blah" sounds great to those who love the concept while not exposing this guy to libel lawsuits from the people put by this concept into positions to take the bribes.
It's a political process in which officials are intimidated by their bosses from pursuing justice. Regulators don't have guns big enough for the big guys; they can't play the game of thrones.
[+] [-] inthewoods|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] retube|10 years ago|reply
Yes they were done to lower the firm's reported leverage, but again this computation conformed to regulator standards.
So not so clear cut it's "fraud" as nothing was mis-reported.
Edit: incidently this is nothing like what Enron did, which was to move assets off balance sheet by moving them to SPVs and swapping the risk back (incidently also completely legal and fairly common in structured finance). These were simple repo transactions.
[+] [-] Annatar|10 years ago|reply
"Liberty and justice for all."
[+] [-] Synaesthesia|10 years ago|reply
http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q42012/list-of-goldman...
[+] [-] alanwatts|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickpsecurity|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxerickson|10 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Lew
Tim Geithner is also reasonably described as having a career in public service:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geithner
Don't despair! He has shadowy connections to the Kissinger Group (a brief stint early in his career).
Henry Paulson did in fact lead Goldman Sachs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paulson
John Snow was a railroad tycoon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Snow
Paul O'Neill was an industrial magnate that did a stint leading the mysterious RAND Corporation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_H._O'Neill
[+] [-] carsongross|10 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Which is a result found in Public Choice analysis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
The SEC is specifically mentioned in the first article.
As I said elsewhere, what is surprising here is not that Goldman got a wrist slap, but that intelligent people expect some other result.
[+] [-] chollida1|10 years ago|reply
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-goldmansachs-abacus-factbo...
[+] [-] Von_Jones|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulddraper|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arca_vorago|10 years ago|reply
Looks around carefully. I spent some time contracting in DC, and the conclusion I came to is that there are three main types of people around the government and financial centers of power.
1) Those who are aware of the coming shitstorm and the complete corruption and subversion, and are just trying to "get theirs". This usually ends up in a "I got mine, fuck you" attitude. They don't push back because they know they would get punished for it, so they instead use their knowledge to further their career at the expense of their duty, and principles. They know, but don't care (enough to risk anything) about the status quo.
2) Those who know about the situation, and agree with it. These are usually indoctrinated extremists on either side of the spectrum, neocon, ultra-lib, the kind of people who now think capatalism in it's current form is the best gift from god and they speak of peace while selling massive amounts of weapons to dictators they setup all around the world. They know, and they care (for the wrong things), and actually perpetrate many of the abuses of the system.
3) Those who are too ignorant or stupid to know, or the slightly modified, those who have an idea about how bad it is but would rather stick their head in the sand and pretend reality doesn't exist. They don't know and don't care.
Don't tell me where all the true patriots went. I have told my friends, that "I know not one brave soul, not one." (keep in mind I'm not talking about media figures, like Snowden, Manning, Drake, Binney, Tice, Edmonds, all of whom I do consider brave souls) To me, that is the real problem I faced when I had my Descartes reset, in that I started to realize that while I still believe in the power of an oath, and the duties that come with them, the majority of the people around me and in positions of real power pay tons of lip service to principles, but never actually do them. Personally, I think this is causing a kind of mass cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization that we have yet to realize the full impact of.
When I think about the leadership traits I learned in the Corps, and how little of them I see in our leaders, I fear for the future of my country.
(in case anyone is wondering, they are: Justice, Judgement, Dependability, Initiative, Decisiveness, Tact, Integrity, Enthusiasm, Bearing, Unselfishness, Courage, Knowledge, Loyalty, and Endurance.)
[+] [-] alanwatts|10 years ago|reply
Just because you don't recognize them doesn't mean they're not there.
Sometimes when you're "behind enemy lines" or consciously trapped in extreme group think, being tactful means being subtle, delicate, or unnoticeable.
[+] [-] marincounty|10 years ago|reply
I don't know what's causing it. Actually, I have a few hypothesis, but I'll get hammered for even mentioning them.
I used to look at people's actions in society, with the expectation that the average guy would be one of the 65% who delivered the legal 450v sting in the Milgram experiment. That left 35% who would do The Right Thing.
As, I've aged, I see a number much greater than >65%. I'm seeing way too many people doing immoral legal acts. Acts that are highly immoral, but legal.
I used to just take ethics for granted.
I am now Shocked when I run across a person with ethics.
I've gotten so jaded when someone is being honest/genuinely helpful--I look for the catch I missed. So, basically I look at most people, especially the financially successfully with extreme caution.
In Ireland, I was told they look at successful people differently than we so I the United States. They look at that person, and wonder, "Who did they screw over, or step on in order to get there." I overheard this. It might be wrong. I haven't got there, but it's getting close.
I'm not even talking about blatant criminals. I'm talking about the guys in ties. The guys with licenses. The guys with power. The guys who bend the rules in order to get ahead. The guys who exploit poor and uninformed just because they are easy marks.
[+] [-] whatok|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrgreenfur|10 years ago|reply
If the financial industry is doing things so complicated that they cannot be policed, then they should be made to define their actions so that they CAN be policed, or their actions should be illegal.
[+] [-] bduerst|10 years ago|reply
The question that the revolving door complaint raises is whether these people can competently perform in these regulatory positions without bias.
The solution isn't picking different people, it's transparency and enforcing the checks and balances. Articles like this are important, because the SEC is notoriously bad at being transparent (getting a D- on FOIA) and it exists as an independent agency in the executive branch.
[+] [-] alanwatts|10 years ago|reply
Edit: immediately after posting this it occurred to me how terrible if not impossible this would be with the spaghetti code that is the tax and compliance legal code. So that would ideally have to be reformed, or rewritten and consolidated which is quite a big proposition
[+] [-] qaq|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cloudjacker|10 years ago|reply
But I can never get a discussion deep enough going on about how the rule of law is implemented there.
[+] [-] known|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jbob2000|10 years ago|reply
"In our conversations, Kidney reflected on why that might be. The oft-cited explanations—campaign contributions and the allure of private-sector jobs to low-paid government lawyers—have certainly played a role. But to Kidney, the driving force was something subtler. Over the course of three decades, the concept of the government as an active player had been tarnished in the minds of the public and the civil servants working inside the agency. In his view, regulatory capture is a psychological process in which officials become increasingly gun shy in the face of criticism from their bosses, Congress, and the industry the agency is supposed to oversee. Leads aren’t pursued. Cases are never opened. Wall Street executives are not forced to explain their actions."
Basically, regulators don't have the balls to go after the big guys.
[+] [-] fcp|10 years ago|reply
[0]https://www.propublica.org/article/carmen-segarras-secret-re...
[1]http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/536/t...
[+] [-] kqr2|10 years ago|reply
Enron was probably the last big corporate take-down by the government.
From an interview http://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/15/who_goes_to_jail_matt_...
1. http://smile.amazon.com/Divide-American-Injustice-Age-Wealth...[+] [-] _delirium|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shostack|10 years ago|reply
"The oft-cited explanations—campaign contributions and the allure of private-sector jobs to low-paid government lawyers—have certainly played a role."
Emphasis on "have certainly played a role." The moment I hear that, I ask why the hell we aren't focusing the conversation there and keeping it there. Guarantee a lot of the "lack of balls" has to do with worrying about future security in the form of campaign contributions and private-sector jobs.
How about we solve for that problem first and see if they still lack balls when they are no longer worried about their financial future being directly tied to those they are supposed to police.
[+] [-] wldcordeiro|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dguaraglia|10 years ago|reply
This is the one case where regulators would have massive popular support, specially in an election year when two very popular candidates (well, three if you believe Hillary's latest statements) are calling for stronger measures against the people responsible for the "Great Recession".
[+] [-] maxxxxx|10 years ago|reply
That's a little harsh. Everybody loses their balls quickly if they aren't backed up by their bosses.
[+] [-] carsongross|10 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
What's interesting to me is that quite smart people would expect the SEC to act otherwise.
[+] [-] vasilipupkin|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spinlock|10 years ago|reply
However, I really don't understand how Goldman would have profited from aiding Paulson & co. Goldman set up a security that let people bet for or against the housing market. It's similar to Vegas letting people bet on a sports match. Why would Vegas fix the game that other people were betting on? It's not like Goldman made more money because Abacus paid out to Paulson vs. the Germans.
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|10 years ago|reply
As far as regulators go, there is not much more fear and respect and obedience they can get.
So why make an example of anyone when day-to-day regulators are the big I ams
A sort of reverse Regulatory capture has been achieved. The regulators are calling the shots, but don't see the need to dig deeper.
The best analogy I can give is if Lord Ventinari from disc world were running 30's Chicago - Al Capone has been tamed, does not rock the boat and only kills his "own kind". Why should cleaning up the city and arresting Capone be a priority - he is under control.
I like discworld novels but I am not sure I want to live innsuchba compromised society
[+] [-] ikeboy|10 years ago|reply
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-26/strict-regu...
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-12/mortgage-de...
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-14/argentine-b...
[+] [-] atmosx|10 years ago|reply
Wouldn't you? The regulators receive direct or indirect instructions. They can see what happens when they choose not to listen. So why bother playing hero? Real life is not hollywood. You can always make the opposite argument no matter how flawed might be e.g. "hey! this guy is killing corporate America whilst the entire world is the midst of a crisis! It's crazy right?", you know how many bellow 50k/year households will buy that argument? It's crazy ;-)
This is a government policy, whether is good or bad depends on which side of the fence you stand. It's bad for the majority and for the rule of law, but who cares.
[+] [-] samstave|10 years ago|reply
Panama papers is not a "leak" it was a hack by the NSA and only released a bunch of info on Panama based shell companies that are largely BRIC nations, none the US - and that it is a PSYOP to get a bit of anger against specifically others to protect US financial hegemony...
The only country to prosecute bankers/Wall Street - the PM resigned after he got caught doing the same thing.
It's revenge and a pre-emotive attack - but one that kind of lost control.
Watch the Panama papers doc to see how In The 2013 doc PBS' "the warning" the DOJ literally stonewalls against all questions regarding going after Wall Street.
The whole system is absolutely a corrupt greed ponzu scheme.
What happened those three vids, please, and give me your opinion.
[+] [-] devy|10 years ago|reply
Bernie would change that if given the opportunity.
[+] [-] joe_the_user|10 years ago|reply
The only "subtler" thing is that corrupt actors of this sort need to manufacture vague and appealing alternatives to plain-old-corruption in order to look themselves in the mirror.
[+] [-] CPAhem|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] julian_1|10 years ago|reply
The other component to this, is that regulatory compliance becomes a significant barrier to entry for new firms. Incumbents end up gaining even more organizational power as market power increases, and competition on price and service quality decreases.
[+] [-] _yosefk|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ArkyBeagle|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daodedickinson|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blazespin|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jheriko|10 years ago|reply
they are inept and impotent.
[+] [-] ErikAugust|10 years ago|reply