Skip to comments.U.S. will not prosecute Goldman Sachs, employees for Abacus deal
Posted on 08/09/2012 4:27:22 PM PDT by EBH
Neither Goldman Sachs Group Inc nor its employees will face U.S. criminal charges related to trades they made during the financial crisis that were highlighted in a 2011 U.S. Senate report, the Justice Department said on Thursday.
The unusual announcement not to prosecute criminally came in an unsigned statement attributed to the department.
Few expected the bank to face criminal charges, but in April 2011, U.S. Senator Carl Levin asked for a criminal investigation
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
“Goldman Sachs Group Inc nor its employees will face U.S. criminal charges...” because of their close working relationahip with BOTH political parties.
There would be too much fallout from the criminal investigation with individual politicians publicly named.
The employees at Goldman Sachs probably know who it was who crashed the system this past 2008.
We no longer have a justice system with rule of law - the fix is in.
Wasn’t G-S a client of Eric Holder’s law firm back when Holder was in “private practice”?
Ummmmm.....they were synthetic CDOs. When you sell one to a "client", of course you're betting against them. You're the other side of the trade.
It's like calling your bookie and placing a $10 bet on the Cubs and then whining after the Reds win and saying, I didn't know he'd be cheering for the Reds. Doofus, that's what bookies do, take the other side of the trade.
I couldn’t agree more. Both parties are on the take by the financial elite. Anything to expose that incestuous relationship will be buried and covered up. A big problem comes down to corruption between the financiers and policymakers and politicians (both Parties). Examine how the SEC ,Treasury, Fed Reserve all have Goldman Sachs on their resume.
“Wasnt G-S a client of Eric Holders law firm back when Holder was in private practice?”
What difference does that make. Goldman owns it all. The politicians, The Regulators, The FED, They control it all. There is a revolving door between Banks like Goldman and the government. It is a provable fact.
Except that in this case, when the bookie took the bet on the Cubs, he knew that the entire team had gastroenteritis and wouldn't even make it to the dugout, much less play the game.
Just look and see how much money Goldman-Sachs gave Obama and the Democrats over the past 6 years, and how many G-S employees went to the White House and Democratic Party positions?
The money would feed a small country for decades.
The revolving door between G-S and the Democrats moved so fast it was named an F-5 Hurricane (Goldman-Sachs), also known as the Big Blow Job.
Oh yeah. The smart thing to do today is get all your cash out of "the system" and convert to gold, weapons, ammo, and hard assets. Then get under - - and stay under - - the radar as best you can. It's long past time to hunker down. We already live in an anarchy, and the illusion that camoflages that anarchy is evaporating a little bit more every week.
Umm... No they don't.
Bookies couldn't care less who wins and loses. That's why they spend a fortune coming up with a "line" that attempts to even out the bets on both sides. That's also why "the line" moves when the betting gets too heavy on one side.
Bookies make their money on the "vig". It's their commission for handling the bets.
Yes they do.
Bookies couldn't care less who wins and loses.
That's why they spend a fortune coming up with a "line" that attempts to even out the bets on both sides.
You mean they can take the opposite side of opposing bets? Duh. But they don't have to, do they? And sometimes they can't.
By adjusting the odds in his favour or by having a point spread, the bookmaker will aim to guarantee a profit by achieving a ‘balanced book’, either by getting an equal number of bets for each outcome, or (when he is offering odds) by getting the amounts wagered on each outcome to reflect the odds. When a large bet comes in, a bookmaker can also try to lay off the risk by buying bets from other bookmakers. The bookmaker does not generally attempt to make money from the bets themselves, but rather by acting as a market maker and profiting from the event regardless of the outcome. Their working methods are similar to that of an actuary, who does a similar balancing of financial outcomes of events for the assurance and insurance industries.
Your complete ignorance of sports betting is ingratiating.
Stick with your studies, get good grades, and stay away from sports betting.
If this is the case I'm thinking of, Goldman knew the underlying mortgages were crap and passed them off as AAA.
If you buy an IBM call, because you believe IBM will rise in the short term, the person who sold you the call has taken the other side of the trade and believes price of IBM will remain at the same level or decline in the short term.
OMG! Scandalous. LOL!
I'm pretty sure Goldman isn't a rating agency.
Goldman and Paulson had an opinion about the mortgages. Neither is always correct. They created a synthetic security. Showed the potential buyer the pieces that the security derived its value from and said, would you be interested in buying some? They weren't selling to unsophisticated investors, they were selling to other huge entities who could do their own research on the mortgages
They were buying AAA ratings from Moody’s et. al.
The mortgages already existed, Goldman didn’t create them.
Had nothing to do with rating them. Sorry.
Now you’re making sense.
Just stay away from sports-betting analogies.
They didn’t create the mortgages, but they did securitize them.
These are synthetic CDOs. They didn’t securitize the original mortgages. That would make them insiders. Then the claim that they “knew they would fail” might make more sense.
Whatever you say, Jimmy the Greek.
Whatever I can do to help you learn and grow up - - I’m a nice guy that way.
"In other words Paulson combed through the data available on these subprime mortgage deals and picked out the crappiest of the garbage - the most-rotting of the dead fish, all of which allegedly were "AAA" at the time one would presume but which he was quite sure would soon be either downgraded - or default outright - and then asked Goldman to use those as the references against which it would write the swaps that Paulson wanted to buy.
But remember - Goldman didn't buy the bonds to set up the CDO - they just issued a credit-default swap, which, it appears, Paulson's hedge fund bought.
Goldman then went out and solicited people to buy the tranches of the CDOs, selling what was alleged to be a cash-flow stream that Mr. Hedgie had offered (out of the goodness of his heart, no doubt - ed: yes, that's sarcasm) to fund!
Here's the question:
Did Goldman disclose to the potential buyers in the offering circular that John Paulson had come to them with a laundry list of characteristics he wanted in the CDO and offered to fund the credit-default swaps which would only make him money if those reference bonds blew up, and that he would take large, material losses IF THE SECURITIES - AND THE CDO - PERFORMED AND ACTUALLY GENERATED THE CASH FLOWS PROMISED?
It's About Damn Time (Goldman) Posted 2010-04-16
The Audacity Of Synthetics Posted 2010-02-09
See my post #29.
Has it been that long? ;-P