 |
|
|
|||||
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
700 billion of the taxpayer's money give or take to bail out these
supposedly public sector enterprises. So, what about the officers and
boards of directors of these various firms who were ultimately
responsible for the decisions that caused the problems? Theoreticaly
these are the people who bear the weight of responsibility for these
firms, isn't that why they're supposedly in these positions - and
getting the big payday?
They're asking you and me to foot the bill, what are they who have
been profiting the most going to forfeit? Are their assets being
garnished? Are any trophy wives having to give up any jewelry or miss
some appointments at the salon? Any of their kids going to pull out of
private schools?
Or do the conditions of their positions insulate them from personally
feeling any real pain?
In article
<3...@k...go
oglegroups.com>,
HiC <b...@y...com> wrote:
> 700 billion of the taxpayer's money give or take to bail out these
> supposedly public sector enterprises. So, what about the officers and
> boards of directors of these various firms who were ultimately
> responsible for the decisions that caused the problems? Theoreticaly
> these are the people who bear the weight of responsibility for these
> firms, isn't that why they're supposedly in these positions - and
> getting the big payday?
>
> They're asking you and me to foot the bill, what are they who have
> been profiting the most going to forfeit? Are their assets being
> garnished? Are any trophy wives having to give up any jewelry or miss
> some appointments at the salon? Any of their kids going to pull out of
> private schools?
>
> Or do the conditions of their positions insulate them from personally
> feeling any real pain?
Nope, they aren't feeling any pain in these bills. That's my biggest
complaint, although no the only one I have.
Well, good question. Now read the story below and it will indirectly
answer your question.
Warren Buffett, when he invests in these Wall Street companies, is
asking the officers not to sell their shares for several years.
Do you think Uncle Sam will do the same? No. Uncle Sam, clueless, will
fork over billions of dollars in loans (not even equity, so taxpayers
risk all the downside but get none of the upside) while these jokers
then dump their options whenever the vest, or no later than the day
after they vest.
Wall Street has no loyalty, unless you force them. This Buffett
knows, but our government does not. The government will lose
billions, if not trillions, on this bailout. Buffett will profit
(having an equity stake rather than foolishly spending money on buying
toxic junk loans).
That's why if given a choice between investing your hard earned money
with Warren Buffett or the US government, most people would chose the
former. Unfortunately, we have no such choice. Kiss your portion of
the $800 billion goodbye. How many taxpayers does it take to collect
$800,000,000,000? Quite a few.
RL
Goldman Executives Restrained From Stock Sales in Buffett Deal
By Christine Harper
Oct. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s top four executives
agreed to hold on to 90 percent of the stock they own in the company
as part of Goldman's agreement to raise money from Warren Buffett's
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein, Chief Financial Officer David
Viniar and Co-Presidents Gary Cohn and Jon Winkelried are named in the
``material definitive agreement'' disclosed by New York-based Goldman
in a regulatory filing today.
The accord prevents the executives, their families and their estates
from selling more than 10 percent of the common stock they own until
Oct. 1, 2011, or until Berkshire redeems its $5 billion in preferred
stock, whichever comes soonest. Blankfein last month turned to
Buffett, the second-richest American and a cult figure in the
investing world, to shore up the investment bank's capital base and
restore market confidence after Goldman's stock tumbled and its
borrowing costs spiked.
``The bet he's making is not just on the horse but on the jockeys,''
said Douglas Ciocca, a managing director at Renaissance Financial
Corp. in Leawood, Kansas, which manages $1.8 billion including Goldman
shares. ``That's the kind of commitment that is really being sought
after in a lot of efforts to protect investors.''
Blankfein, 54, owned 3.4 million shares of Goldman common stock as of
Feb. 11, according to Goldman's 2008 proxy statement. Cohn, 48, owned
2.04 million shares, Winkelried, 49, owned 2.89 million shares and
Viniar, 53, owned 1.91 million shares, according to the same filing.
`Keep Your Money Here'
``It certainly is a reinforcement of Warren Buffett saying `you have
to keep your money in here if you have my money,''' said Eleanor
Bloxham, president of the Corporate Governance Alliance in Columbus,
Ohio, which provides board education and advisory services. ``It is
something investors would like to see.''
Lucas van Praag, a spokesman for Goldman in New York, didn't reply to
calls and e-mails seeking comment.
``Warren Buffett is known as one who relies on the people running
organizations almost as much as the core business itself,'' said
Michael Yoshikami, president and chief investment strategist at YCMNet
Advisors in Walnut Creek, California, which manages $1 billion
including Berkshire Hathaway stock.
On Oct 2, 4:44 pm, HiC <b...@y...com> wrote:
> 700 billion of the taxpayer's money give or take to bail out these
> supposedly public sector enterprises. So, what about the officers and
> boards of directors of these various firms who were ultimately
> responsible for the decisions that caused the problems? Theoreticaly
> these are the people who bear the weight of responsibility for these
> firms, isn't that why they're supposedly in these positions - and
> getting the big payday?
>
> They're asking you and me to foot the bill, what are they who have
> been profiting the most going to forfeit? Are their assets being
> garnished? Are any trophy wives having to give up any jewelry or miss
> some appointments at the salon? Any of their kids going to pull out of
> private schools?
>
> Or do the conditions of their positions insulate them from personally
> feeling any real pain?
The purpose of the "Bail Out" is to formally give governmental
backing,recognition, and protection to those "Monopoly Capitalistic"
individuals, institutions, and practices which have caused in the
current financial crises. It is not to solve the current problem by
addressing and correcting those individuals, institutions, and
practices which caused the problem. That is what our elective
officials vehemently refuse to do as to do the same would be destroy
the current concentration of both economic and political power which
have proven so profitable to the "monopoly capitalists" which is and
has resulted in the impoverishment and political disenfanchisement of
the American electorate.
On Oct 3, 8:44 am, HiC <b...@y...com> wrote:
> 700 billion of the taxpayer's money give or take to bail out these
> supposedly public sector enterprises. So, what about the officers and
> boards of directors of these various firms who were ultimately
> responsible for the decisions that caused the problems? Theoreticaly
> these are the people who bear the weight of responsibility for these
> firms, isn't that why they're supposedly in these positions - and
> getting the big payday?
>
> They're asking you and me to foot the bill, what are they who have
> been profiting the most going to forfeit? Are their assets being
> garnished? Are any trophy wives having to give up any jewelry or miss
> some appointments at the salon? Any of their kids going to pull out of
> private schools?
>
> Or do the conditions of their positions insulate them from personally
> feeling any real pain?
Its a cut and dry case of FRAUD
If as a qualified butcher { banker } , I was to package up bundles of
low grade burger mince [ low garde securities ] and sell them labeled
as first grade prime beef steaks , [ AAA mortgaes on houses ] and do
it repeatedly
I would face courts on FRAUD charges
I could not say it was accidental as I am an expert in my trade and
did it repeatedly and made millions
I would get jailed for FRAUD
There is no way this is not simple old fashioned FRAUD on a massive
world wide scale and in time taxpayers will demand justice
I qualified butcher KNOWS AAA steaks from low grade burger trimmings
So does finance industry
If a ciustomer comes and asks a reputable butcher or banker for AAA
grade product for his valued customers and a butcher KNOWINGLY
packages up low grade trimmings to look like quality product and sells
them as such he would go to jail
Its not complex
We all expect to get what we pay for
Especially if we request AAA grade and are happy to pay for it rather
than risk low grade cheaper products
We have been DOUBLY WRONGED , and if we get ill or sick [ lose jobs or
houses ] we could claim losses far beyond the cost of the meat , like
when people get ill after eating bad foods
We could claim heaps in losses incurred by the fraud , on top of the
cost of the meat / loans
AS WELL AS JAIL OF ALL WHO HELPED IN THE CRIME
The "legal eagles" will soon smell bloood and start up court cases
kangarooistan wrote on 10/3/08 11:06 AM:
> If as a qualified butcher { banker } , I was to package up bundles of
> low grade burger mince [ low garde securities ] and sell them labeled
> as first grade prime beef steaks , [ AAA mortgaes on houses ] and do
> it repeatedly
That's why the bundles were sold in 5 "tranches"........
Each tranche had a **different ratio** of "first grade prime beef steaks"
and "low grade burger mince" AND WERE PRICED ACCORDING TO THE RISK
INVOLVED.......
If you want to blame someone, blame the buyers who accepted the lower
quality tranches in order to get the higher yield.......
Marcus Aurelius <a...@h...com> wrote without
thinking...:
>The purpose of the "Bail Out" is to formally give governmental
>backing,recognition, and protection to those "Monopoly Capitalistic"
>individuals, institutions, and practices which have caused in the
>current financial crises. It is not to solve the current problem by
>addressing and correcting those individuals, institutions, and
>practices which caused the problem. That is what our elective
>officials vehemently refuse to do as to do the same would be destroy
>the current concentration of both economic and political power which
>have proven so profitable to the "monopoly capitalists" which is and
>has resulted in the impoverishment and political disenfanchisement of
>the American electorate.
The financial crisis was due to government social engineering through
the auspices of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 and
enhanced by Bill Clinton in 1995.
In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's
administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were
strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on
institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs.
These revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995
were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate
amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income
borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as
a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been
fully implemented for seven years. Thus in 2002, the regulators opened
up the regulation for review and potential revision.
Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and
the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan
risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new
subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for
mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans
containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA
loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. The number of CRA mortgage
loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans
increased by only 17 percent.
Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage,
allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments,
vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed
nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market. Thus leading us
to the problems of today.
For many years President GW Bush and his Administration have not only
warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing
government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful
plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would
encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE
reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately,
these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to
reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the
legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were
problems.
Bush's warnings started in 2001. The Bush Administration’s FY02 budget
declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential
problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong
repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured
entities and economic activity.”
Republican Congressmen wanted new oversight rules of the GSEs, but
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were extensions of the Democratic Party so
any new law to regulate them were held up in committees and
subcommittees with a strict Democratic party line vote.
Just like broadcasters have to petition the FCC for renewal of the
license by showing they did some broadcasting for the community, banks
had to have a good rating by the CRA if they had to do business that
required banking regulator's approval such as a merger. To get that
good CRA rating they took on risky loans.
===USA===
Justice will be served
And the battle will rage
This big dog will fight
When you rattle his cage
And youll be sorry that you messed with
The U.S. of A.
cause well put a boot in your ass
Its the American way
-Toby Keith, "Courtesy Of The Red, White & Blue"
HiC <b...@y...com> wrote without thinking...:
>700 billion of the taxpayer's money give or take to bail out these
>supposedly public sector enterprises. So, what about the officers and
>boards of directors of these various firms who were ultimately
>responsible for the decisions that caused the problems? Theoreticaly
>these are the people who bear the weight of responsibility for these
>firms, isn't that why they're supposedly in these positions - and
>getting the big payday?
>
>They're asking you and me to foot the bill, what are they who have
>been profiting the most going to forfeit? Are their assets being
>garnished? Are any trophy wives having to give up any jewelry or miss
>some appointments at the salon? Any of their kids going to pull out of
>private schools?
>
>Or do the conditions of their positions insulate them from personally
>feeling any real pain?
Of course they will not be charged, they work for the Obama campaign.
It would be racist to charge them for a crime worse than the Enron
scandal.
===USA===
Justice will be served
And the battle will rage
This big dog will fight
When you rattle his cage
And youll be sorry that you messed with
The U.S. of A.
cause well put a boot in your ass
Its the American way
-Toby Keith, "Courtesy Of The Red, White & Blue"
On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:25:58 +0000, Ich bin ein Amerikaner wrote:
> Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage,
> allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments,
> vs. 10% for banks.
that's a huge part of the problem, 40x1 leverage which is even worse than
what the investment banks were doing (30x1) which was already completely
out of control. so when exactly did that happen & who to blame (dems or
repubs?)
Republicans protect the wealthy and they are to blame for poverty and
despair of poor people.
If everyone had a 4 year degree then we would have people with medical
degrees washing dishes or waiting tables.
It's a big lie to say EVERYONE can go to college...it wouldn't work..
Invest in CNBC because they hype math formulas which show no logic. It
entertains idiots who buy advertised products....So your returns on
CNBC will be 12-20% every 5 year grace cycles.
good luck...
PS The only thing worse than law breakers are law makers.
Congress is the legal way to steal money and crush poor people.
On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:45:57 GMT, Mike <M...@l...localhost>
sayd the following:
>On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:25:58 +0000, Ich bin ein Amerikaner wrote:
>
>> Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage,
>> allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments,
>> vs. 10% for banks.
>
>
>that's a huge part of the problem, 40x1 leverage which is even worse than
>what the investment banks were doing (30x1) which was already completely
>out of control. so when exactly did that happen & who to blame (dems or
>repubs?)
>
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
Takes "Open Mouth, Insert Foot" to an entirely new level
Bailout: What Really Happened on Wall Street
"Stocks drop on concern bailout won't help economy" - And a Nobel Prize is ready
The drama surrounding this bill is like a horror movie at the drive-in
Up