Very Interesting Information on the Abacus Prospectus RE: Goldman Sachs

So you can make a statement (on paper) like this: I'm gonna steal money from you!

And, then, you are not to be held responsible...


Fascinating!

reply to post by DangerDeath


I guess if you have read it and agreed to sign the contract

That is pretty much what it states, wouldn't you agree?

reply to post by belial259

But how could we contain large financial institutions like Goldman and separate their operations without a whole lot of hassle? You'd have to discuss that with several other countries.

Maybe the g20. Who just as it happens are going to be in Washington for a meeting in just a few days.

Quite a fortunate coincidence wouldn't you agree?

I doubt it's possible to "contain" yet "separate" when it comes to international finance. At least, not the way it's working now ... and reform? Pfft. Who to take that up? Not Congress - I agree with Greenbicman - that is loaded with issue and fail.

Wish I had the answer, it's not a simple question, though.

reply to post by LadySkadi


The only way to avoid this is campaign contribution limits for everyone IMO

Good luck ever seeing that though, welcome to the new world of investing

IT's not a good legal defense although pomps want the lil folks to be dazzled and petrified by the Bull Chit
i.e I could have a sign in my taxi cab that says; "This taxi and its operator may decide to
enter onto a freeway going the wrong direction for no apparent reason, without warning at the operators digression. Operator may be intoxicated and might decide to undertake violent acts while on route... This taxi, it's owners and operator are not reasonable for any consequence that may result directly or indirectly by anyone officially
associated in anyway to said vehicle..."



[edit on 17-4-2010 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by LadySkadi
I doubt it's possible to "contain" yet "separate" when it comes to international finance. At least, not the way it's working now ... and reform? Pfft. Who to take that up?

Who indeed? What men could handle such a task?

Ladies and gentlemen. I give you Gordon Brown

And Barack Obama

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by DangerDeath

 

I guess if you have read it and agreed to sign the contract

That is pretty much what it states, wouldn't you agree?

I understand how it works, GBM. For instance, if you come to my place, I'll rape you!

Now, a man has to ask himself about the ethics of it - but not all men have this problem...

Masoch wrote a famous book - "Venus in Furs". That is the original "masochism" - a social contract! And, actually, it is - pathological state of mind.

If they wanted to stop the packaging of these kinds of investments, it would have been very simple to do so.

1.) Just make it illegal for banks to sell off mortgages to third parties. Make them hold the paper for 10 years before they can sell it. No selling the mortgages to Fannie, Freddie, or Wall Street until the 10 years have passed.

If banks were forced to hold this paper, they would have been a lot more cautious in their underwriting of sub-prime mortgage assets.

2.) Eliminate mortgage brokers. If you want a mortgage, you have to go directly to the bank and apply directly. This would have stopped a lot of the mortgage fraud at the local level, where mortgage brokers and borrowers colluded to write up bogus loan applications with inflated income.

3.) Require 20% down on all residential mortgages. Period. Stops speculators and non-qualified borrowers from taking out mortgages.

4.) Make interest-only mortgages illegal. If you want a mortgage, you must purchase a home on a conventional 30 year fixed rate mortgage. No interest only loans.

If you implemented even some of these steps, it would have stopped this crisis from taking place. Unfortunately, we don't have leaders with any guts to implement these measures.

reply to post by DangerDeath


Maybe it's more like "Beware of dog". If someone gets bitten by the dog after the warning has been displayed who is liable?

Or "It's a condition of entry that all bags must be searched" maybe it is but I didn't consent to that. Did you see me sign anywhere?

Tort law is a very subjective business. There are a myriad of justifications and arguments and loop holes. At the end of the day though one might come to any conclusion. The advantage of using government regulators and commissions into matters like these is you can appoint someone to head it up who can come to the right conclusion. Which you've already decided beforehand.

It avoids any unwanted fallout that would be generated by independent investigations or reports but at the same time makes it look as though you're achieving something tangible.

You can take the credit for it now. And after bit of media attention it'll drag on unnoticed for years keeping quite a few people getting paid hundreds by the hour occupied and happy. It gives the SEC and courts an opportunity to get in there and do some work.

So what if the outcome has already been predetermined.


[edit on 17-4-2010 by belial259]

As far as im concerned a criminal act (fraud) is a criminal act, no matter what the fine print states.

They can be held accountable for every fraudulent action they make. So are all other people involved

reply to post by CookieMonster09


Good Post

Someone with ideas for the future

reply to post by DangerDeath


Well that is a little overboard, but if you could provide a picture of yourself first..

But if I was to sign the agreement, then if you proceeded to rape me I guess I would not have anything to stand on would I IYO?

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by DangerDeath

 

Well that is a little overboard, but if you could provide a picture of yourself first..

But if I was to sign the agreement, then if you proceeded to rape me I guess I would not have anything to stand on would I IYO?

I didn't mean "you" GBM, but thanks for the compliment

What I am saying, social contract is a contract which legalizes rape.
Now, the intent behind it allows all these fraudulent actions to be taken and going on, while in some idealistic minds there still is the idea of "justice" which should be applied to disregard this contract.

Sorry, but this is the way things are - this is how society works, and in all cases, society is a contract which enables uneven distribution of wealth, "rights", privileges and "justice".

Goldman Sucks may go down only if there is a group of people which are capable and willing to take him down. Then, all the lawyers in this world won't be able to help him. The upper hand - the bigger sword.

reply to post by DangerDeath


I am trying not to look at this from any perspective.

Just the way that an independent party would look at this from the agreement that was signed by the participants.

Anything else IMO would be incorrect.

Senate subcommittee under Levin began gathering evidence almost a year ago...remember ?

Senator Levin Subpoenas Goldman Sachs & Deutsche Bank
Jul 30, 2009

Senator Carl Levin is the chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and has jurisdiction to conduct investigations into a broad range of issues, including federal waste, fraud, and abuse, corporate crime, offshore banking and tax practices, energy markets, corruption, and national security.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Senator Levin has subpoenaed several financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Deutsche Bank AG, seeking evidence of fraud in last year's mortgage-market meltdown.

Apparently the investigations will be focused on whether internal communications, such as email, show bankers had private doubts about whether mortgage-related securities they were putting together were as financially sound.

Full Text

In November 09 , results of a 5mo McClatchy investigation claimed to expose GS corruption/US treasury collusion:

How Goldman secretly bet on the U.S. housing crash

While it's impossible to overlook the political motivations for this GS fraud case...when you start pulling on an errant string...beware unintended consequences.

Edit add: And in October 09 , a former Goldman Sachs VP , Adam Storch , was named managing executive of the SEC's enforcement division

Link





[edit on 17-4-2010 by OBE1]

reply to post by OBE1


Interesting.

Even more interesting months ago GS disclosed (not to shareholders of course) the SEC was looking at them regards civil lawsuit.

Makes you wonder how many long puts they were at 175.

Most likely were also selling calls like a possessed high frequency program.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by GreenBicMan]

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
Makes you wonder how many long puts they were at 175.

What I wonder is was the whole period after the sub prime mortgage crisis just one massive two year long pump and dump.

All that time Goldman have been saints and too big to fail. Now this.

Max Keiser and other media pundits were out there over a year ago slamming Goldman for exactly what they've been charged for and we mere mortals hear nothing official about an SEC case until now.

But obviously insiders have known for quite some time.

Did Goldman commit Fraud ?

Janet Tavakoli says Yes.

CBSNewsOnline — April 16, 2010 — Katie Couric speaks with Janet Tavakoli, a financial expert on investments known as derivatives, about the recent SEC lawsuit filed against Goldman Sachs over default mortgage loans.

Video

A short trip in the ATS Time Machine reveals a few GS related threads like this one from exactly 3yrs ago...April 10, 2007.

Not much interest generated back then , but my...how times have changed.

EDIT: It is better explained here:

www.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 17-4-2010 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by LadySkadi

 

I believe #4 was directly stated in the prospectus - just in "other" wording of course

Can you actually point to where in the Prospectus GS has stated it?

I think this is what it comes down to. GS will need to demonstrate that the prospectus does not mislead investors and that argument can go either way depending on your interpretation of what is sufficient. And who knows how a judge is going to see it.

Though i would love to see the SEC pursuing GS and all the other major CDO players on the credit quality of the portfolios. Mathematically there must have been misrepresentation of the credit quality of CDO pools, as you simply cant put together a portfolio of securities that pay higher yields than same-rated corporate bonds despite higher construction costs and the added cost of insuring the issues.

Not unless the underlying pool is actually riskier than described, and hance paying the higher coupons associated with that level of risk to the pool. Only then can the higher yields be possible, as well as a fees by the advisors and CDS providers.

If GS are found guilty i do hope they go after individuals and seek jail time. Fines aint gonna do anything to discourage this behaviour in the future.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by zvezdar]

[edit on 18-4-2010 by zvezdar]