PDA

View Full Version : In other news today....



Norman Bernstein
03-23-2017, 04:45 PM
The Healthcare vote wasn't the only thing happening on Capitol Hill today... there was also the hearing on Trump's nominee to head the SEC.... Jay Clayton, a Goldman Sachs lawyer.


Under government ethics rules, [Elizabeth] Warren noted, Clayton would have to recuse himself from any enforcement actions the SEC takes against companies that he represented, or companies that his law firm Sullivan & Cromwell represents in cases before the SEC. That creates a scenario in which the agency’s two Republican and two Democratic commissioners are likely to deadlock about enforcement ― a common occurrence during the tenure of SEC Chair Mary Jo White, who was also a prominent corporate attorney before going into government.

“Based on your personal client disclosures then, for half of your tenure as SEC chair, you would not be able to vote to enforce the law against several big banks, including Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Barclays and UBS,” Warren told Clayton at the hearing. “Those banks have repeatedly violated securities laws in the past few years. But if they violate securities laws again in your first two years as SEC chairman, you can’t vote to punish them. And I think that’s a problem.”

Can you spell 'conflict of interest'? :)


Goldman Sachs has faced a long list of charges that it’s run afoul of the law. Last year, the bank agreed to pay $5 billion to settle charges (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/goldman-sachs-agrees-pay-more-5-billion-connection-its-sale-residential-mortgage-backed) that it defrauded its clients by selling them toxic mortgage-backed securities. It paid a $120 million penalty (http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7505-16) to settle charges that it manipulated foreign exchange markets. It paid a separate $36.3 million (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/enforcement20160803a.htm) penalty to resolve charges that it accepted confidential regulatory information from the New York Fed and used it to get clients. In 2014, the company paid $3.15 billion (https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Announces-Settlement-with-Goldman-Sachs.aspx) to settle charges that it defrauded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2012, the bank paid $12 million (https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2012-2012-199htm) to settle “pay-to-play” campaign contribution violations involving the Massachusetts state treasurer, paid $22 million (https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2012-2012-61htm) to settle charges that its research and sales teams were holding meetings that allowed them to improperly share insider information, and paid $1.5 million (http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6450-12) and $7 million (http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6206-12) to settle two other supervision problems. A member of Goldman Sach’s board of directors was sentenced to prison the same year for illegally tipping off a hedge fund manager to the company’s boardroom secrets (https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-53.htm). In 2010, the bank paid $550 million to settle charges that it defrauded (https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-123.htm) its own clients by selling them mortgage-linked securities that were designed to fail, and which Goldman Sachs itself bet against.

That just covers the years since the financial crisis. Prior to that, Goldman Sachs had settled charges that it had rigged (https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2006/2006-83.htm) the auction-rate securities market, cheated (https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2005-10.htm) while managing initial public offerings, and illegally traded (https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-107.htm) government bonds.

I think the phrase is 'letting the fox guard the hen house'. Could there possible be a WORSE pick than this guy?

Tom Montgomery
03-23-2017, 04:54 PM
No question but that the Trump decisions have thus far been shambolic.

robm
03-23-2017, 05:03 PM
Shambolic? Not at all. As I have posted before, why should all that money be wasted on kickbacks from business to politicians? Just let business in to feed at the trough direct.

Ian McColgin
03-23-2017, 05:07 PM
In 1933 FDR appointed Joe Kennedy to head the SEC and clean up the investment world. And Kennedy, knowing all the dodges, did a great job. FDR wanted real work to be done and his long relationship with Kennedy, going back to naval construction in WWI, gave FDR certainty that Kennedy really would be a force for good.

Trump has none of FDR's commitment to the common weal and Clayton has no record of any acts for the public good. FDR "set a thief to catch a thief". Trump is setting a con artist and oligarch's apologist to facilitate super theft.

Tom Montgomery
03-23-2017, 05:13 PM
Shambolic? Not at all.
I had in mind his miserable appointments, mendacious tweets, silly feuds, etc. that continue to be ongoing since his inauguration.

wudzgud
03-23-2017, 05:56 PM
In 1933 FDR appointed Joe Kennedy to head the SEC and clean up the investment world. And Kennedy, knowing all the dodges, did a great job. FDR wanted real work to be done and his long relationship with Kennedy, going back to naval construction in WWI, gave FDR certainty that Kennedy really would be a force for good.

Trump has none of FDR's commitment to the common weal and Clayton has no record of any acts for the public good. FDR "set a thief to catch a thief". Trump is setting a con artist and oligarch's apologist to facilitate super theft.

Soooo, you think it's OK to hire a crook, as long as it's a good liberal crook? Got it, thanks for clearing that up...

Ian McColgin
03-23-2017, 06:26 PM
You sure don't know much about the 20's or the rogues' gallery of the time. Or about the utter lack of ethics finance demanded then and always tempts now.

Kennedy certainly enjoyed a free wheeling immorality with young women, and he invested in huge stores of good scotch and gin before Prohibition took effect, enabling him to sell through the dry spell, but mainly he was a genius at seeing profit margins in finance. In an era of rampant investment fraud, he made money smartly and did not cheat his investors. But he also rubbed elbows with the Wall Street fraudsters of the time and with guile avoided either losing money to them or becoming one of them. More often that those smart boys liked, he relieved them of money just as they thought they were robbing him. And that's why he made such a brilliant head of the SEC.

Gerarddm
03-23-2017, 06:54 PM
Soooo, you think it's OK to hire a crook, as long as it's a good liberal crook? Got it, thanks for clearing that up...


Soooo, you think facile comments pass for cogent analysis? Got it, thanks for clearing that up...

wudzgud
03-23-2017, 07:22 PM
You sure don't know much about the 20's or the rogues' gallery of the time. Or about the utter lack of ethics finance demanded then and always tempts now.

Kennedy certainly enjoyed a free wheeling immorality with young women, and he invested in huge stores of good scotch and gin before Prohibition took effect, enabling him to sell through the dry spell, but mainly he was a genius at seeing profit margins in finance. In an era of rampant investment fraud, he made money smartly and did not cheat his investors. But he also rubbed elbows with the Wall Street fraudsters of the time and with guile avoided either losing money to them or becoming one of them. More often that those smart boys liked, he relieved them of money just as they thought they were robbing him. And that's why he made such a brilliant head of the SEC.
Cheat is subjective, insider trading was not illegal when Joe was getting rich.

Boater14
03-23-2017, 07:29 PM
Stay out of it. You don't know what he's talking about. Joe knew all the dodges, legal at the time. He was tapped to enforce the changes after the crash. Got it. Thank me for clearing that up. I'd recommend a book on the subject. PATRIARCH about old Joe.

George Jung
03-23-2017, 07:30 PM
Cheat is subjective, insider trading was not illegal when Joe was getting rich.
Funny what you choose to defend.

Canoeyawl
03-23-2017, 07:53 PM
Funny what you choose to defend.

Not funny ha-ha...

wudzgud
03-23-2017, 08:00 PM
Funny what you choose to defend.
I'm not defending anything, just pointing out that Kennedy was just another Wall Street insider and not the angel Ian is trying to make him out to be. Geez, look what he did to his daughter.