About bloody time

[kallend 2,182]

money.cnn.com/2013/02/05/news/economy/sandp-subprime-lawsuit/

U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 210]

Agreed. Hope they tell all the tales and turn over every one of those thiefs.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[normiss 906]

I thought you wanted people charged and prosecuted?

[DougH 270]

Quote

money.cnn.com/2013/02/05/news/economy/sandp-subprime-lawsuit/

U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

I don't disagree with this.

That being said fair is fair.

I expect to see lawsuits against every culpable party.

We need to sue the individuals at the SEC and other regulators who were taking a government salary, and were asleep at the switches.

We need to sue the individuals in government agencies, all the way up the chain to the presidential administrations, that was responsible for loosening government lending standards in order to drive up home ownership.

We need to sue the pseudo government agencies like Freddie and Fannie, including past executives, and a claw back of prior investor profits.

We need to sue individual homeowners who were guilty of negligent borrowing. If you were a pizza delivery guy that took out a liar loan on a 700k house then fuck you, your owe the rest of us retribution, because you were a key element of this fuck up.

I am sure there are others. Sue them all, I don't fucking care.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[OHCHUTE 0]

They'll pay a fine no where near what they made. It's called cost of doing business. Not sending the white collar perps to jail is the reason this country is owned. The idea is don't get caught and when you do just pay the fine.

[DougH 270]

There was more than just white collar crime involved in this crisis.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[normiss 906]

I understand, but those screaming the loudest were all about having those that were at fault of this collapse be charged and prosecuted....

Now they're fine with civil suits. Not the same on any scale.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

I thought you wanted people charged and prosecuted?

I do. Why do you see a contradiction?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 906]

Read my post.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Read my post.

I did, Your logic is, as usual, faulty.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 906]

No.
Your understanding of the difference between civil and criminal prosecution is laughable.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

I thought you wanted people charged and prosecuted?

defendants can be sued civilly and prosecuted criminally for the same infraction. happens all the time.

[normiss 906]

I know this man.

That ain't what's happening here.

Generally, the criminal process proceeds any civil process doesn't it? The ones I'm familiar with have anyway. The ones that have tried the other way around, the civil process was stopped by the courts to await the criminal process. Again, the ones I've seen or looked into.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

I thought you wanted people charged and prosecuted?

defendants can be sued civilly and prosecuted criminally for the same infraction. happens all the time.

Problem is we have a DOJ that is unwilling to prosecute.

I remember quite clearly the suicides, bankruptcies and divorces that happened as a result of the "pop". When I was brand new in the indusrty I thought it was absolutely retarded to assume 3% appreciation forever. Yet, "the smartest men in the room" made a "mistake"....bullshit. It was premeditated fraud pure and simple.

The goverment was in on it too, so I have absolutely no faith that justice will be served.

Iceland really had the right idea.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Generally, the criminal process proceeds any civil process doesn't it?

Generally, yes, or at least pretty often.

(That's because facts already proven in a criminal trial are generally pre-deemed as conscusively established at a subsequent civil trial, due to the tougher standard of proof in criminal cases.)

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

No.
Your understanding of the difference between civil and criminal prosecution is laughable.

Ummm NO.

I can want them criminally prosecuted and be pleased that at last there is a civil suit, both at the same time. They are NOT mutually exclusive.

I can walk and chew gum at the same time too. With enough practice I expect you would be able to.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[weekender 0]

Quote

money.cnn.com/2013/02/05/news/economy/sandp-subprime-lawsuit/

U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

The same gov't that forces people to use these agencies. How about, like in equities, you mandate that they publish their financials on debt and let the consumer decide. by letting people rely on a rating agency rather than do their own due diligence, people get burned. The gov't should not force debt ratings on people.

My point is not that the gov't should not hold anyone liable for fraud. they should. My point is that they should not mandate ratings to protect people. Let people decide by actually taking the time to understand their investment. mandate financial disclosures. if you cannot understand them, dont buy the instrument. And there is the problem. The banks want to sell as much of this as possible and so do the gov't's who are issuing debt. Would anyone take the time to read the financials on a municipal sewer bond, no. slap a AAA rating on it and you have a brand new sewer plant. Banks win, Gov't wins and your grandmother is left holding the bag.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[DougH 270]

There is no free lunch either. If S&P is sued out of existence it will hit bond funds that peoples pensions depend on, it will raise the cost of mortgages, probably even trickle down in other consumer credit markets.

People refuse to admit how interconnected everything is.

I still want to see the lawsuits against government officials, speculators, and idiots that took out mortgages for houses they never could afford.

I won't hold my breath.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[normiss 906]

Your love of underhanded insults and PA's is pretty fucked up.
More so that it's not only tolerated, but embraced here by the greenies.
Carry on with your gum chewing. It's not a skill you really have.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

money.cnn.com/2013/02/05/news/economy/sandp-subprime-lawsuit/

U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

The same gov't that forces people to use these agencies. How about, like in equities, you mandate that they publish their financials on debt and let the consumer decide. by letting people rely on a rating agency rather than do their own due diligence, people get burned. The gov't should not force debt ratings on people.

My point is not that the gov't should not hold anyone liable for fraud. they should. My point is that they should not mandate ratings to protect people. Let people decide by actually taking the time to understand their investment. mandate financial disclosures. if you cannot understand them, dont buy the instrument. And there is the problem. The banks want to sell as much of this as possible and so do the gov't's who are issuing debt. Would anyone take the time to read the financials on a municipal sewer bond, no. slap a AAA rating on it and you have a brand new sewer plant. Banks win, Gov't wins and your grandmother is left holding the bag.

No one should be charged with fraud you say Mr. Weekender? Spoken like a true banker.
You are really something. Here you talk about: "you mandate that they publish their financials on debt" per Weekender, when in another thread you claim you know what "investment in debt security" on a balance sheet is about. Seems disjointed. How in one thread you say you have knowledge yet in another thread you advocate you don't have knowledge and need a mandate to get the information you seek? You raise more questions than anwers you give.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Your love of underhanded insults and PA's is pretty fucked up.
More so that it's not only tolerated, but embraced here by the greenies.
Carry on with your gum chewing. It's not a skill you really have.

Just because you can't understand that someone else can do two things at the same time, doesn't mean that they can't.

Suck it up and deal with it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 906]

Oh I understand a lot more than you claim I do.
I don't have to deal with you.

There IS a legal difference between civil and criminal, but you'll always twist, bend, and stretch, without making a clear point anyway.

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

money.cnn.com/2013/02/05/news/economy/sandp-subprime-lawsuit/

U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

The same gov't that forces people to use these agencies. How about, like in equities, you mandate that they publish their financials on debt and let the consumer decide. by letting people rely on a rating agency rather than do their own due diligence, people get burned. The gov't should not force debt ratings on people.

My point is not that the gov't should not hold anyone liable for fraud. they should. My point is that they should not mandate ratings to protect people. Let people decide by actually taking the time to understand their investment. mandate financial disclosures. if you cannot understand them, dont buy the instrument. And there is the problem. The banks want to sell as much of this as possible and so do the gov't's who are issuing debt. Would anyone take the time to read the financials on a municipal sewer bond, no. slap a AAA rating on it and you have a brand new sewer plant. Banks win, Gov't wins and your grandmother is left holding the bag.

No one should be charged with fraud you say Mr. Weekender? Spoken like a true banker.
You are really something. Here you talk about: "you mandate that they publish their financials on debt" per Weekender, when in another thread you claim you know what "investment in debt security" on a balance sheet is about. Seems disjointed. How in one thread you say you have knowledge yet in another thread you advocate you don't have knowledge and need a mandate to get the information you seek? You raise more questions than anwers you give.

i clearly state they should be held accountable for fraud. reread my post. your clueless. your response besides being factually wrong about what i clearly stated, is nonsense. i cannot even begin to understand your point. you are confusing an equity and a fixed income security. i am not. if you do not even know the difference and which is responsible to publish what, then you should refrain from speaking. you, once again, show yourself the fool.

i will repeat. the gov't should not mandate ratings but mandate financials. people should then decide for themselves and not rely on others opinions.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

money.cnn.com/2013/02/05/news/economy/sandp-subprime-lawsuit/

U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

The same gov't that forces people to use these agencies. How about, like in equities, you mandate that they publish their financials on debt and let the consumer decide. by letting people rely on a rating agency rather than do their own due diligence, people get burned. The gov't should not force debt ratings on people.

My point is not that the gov't should not hold anyone liable for fraud. they should. My point is that they should not mandate ratings to protect people. Let people decide by actually taking the time to understand their investment. mandate financial disclosures. if you cannot understand them, dont buy the instrument. And there is the problem. The banks want to sell as much of this as possible and so do the gov't's who are issuing debt. Would anyone take the time to read the financials on a municipal sewer bond, no. slap a AAA rating on it and you have a brand new sewer plant. Banks win, Gov't wins and your grandmother is left holding the bag.

No one should be charged with fraud you say Mr. Weekender? Spoken like a true banker.
You are really something. Here you talk about: "you mandate that they publish their financials on debt" per Weekender, when in another thread you claim you know what "investment in debt security" on a balance sheet is about. Seems disjointed. How in one thread you say you have knowledge yet in another thread you advocate you don't have knowledge and need a mandate to get the information you seek? You raise more questions than anwers you give.

i clearly state they should be held accountable for fraud. reread my post. your clueless. your response besides being factually wrong about what i clearly stated, is nonsense. i cannot even begin to understand your point. you are confusing an equity and a fixed income security. i am not. if you do not even know the difference and which is responsible to publish what, then you should refrain from speaking. you, once again, show yourself the fool.

i will repeat. the gov't should not mandate ratings but mandate financials. people should then decide for themselves and not rely on others opinions.

Maybe if you START capitalizing the first words to your sentences you'd be better understood. Lets do an anaylsis of what you wrote:

You (weedender) wrote: "My point is not that the gov't should not hold anyone liable for fraud. they should. My point is that they should not mandate rating to protect people. Let people decide by actually taking the time to understand their investment. mandate financial disclosures."

Translations: Hold banks for fraud, but don't mandate the banks to be more transparent with disclosures; allow the fraud to continue. Buyer beware.

Question: How can buyer beware if the seller of the investment witholds information and when there is no mandate for transparency?

Solution: Buy nothing from broker dealer until financial disclosure mandates are in place.

Thanks!

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

money.cnn.com/2013/02/05/news/economy/sandp-subprime-lawsuit/

U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

The same gov't that forces people to use these agencies. How about, like in equities, you mandate that they publish their financials on debt and let the consumer decide. by letting people rely on a rating agency rather than do their own due diligence, people get burned. The gov't should not force debt ratings on people.

My point is not that the gov't should not hold anyone liable for fraud. they should. My point is that they should not mandate ratings to protect people. Let people decide by actually taking the time to understand their investment. mandate financial disclosures. if you cannot understand them, dont buy the instrument. And there is the problem. The banks want to sell as much of this as possible and so do the gov't's who are issuing debt. Would anyone take the time to read the financials on a municipal sewer bond, no. slap a AAA rating on it and you have a brand new sewer plant. Banks win, Gov't wins and your grandmother is left holding the bag.

No one should be charged with fraud you say Mr. Weekender? Spoken like a true banker.
You are really something. Here you talk about: "you mandate that they publish their financials on debt" per Weekender, when in another thread you claim you know what "investment in debt security" on a balance sheet is about. Seems disjointed. How in one thread you say you have knowledge yet in another thread you advocate you don't have knowledge and need a mandate to get the information you seek? You raise more questions than anwers you give.

i clearly state they should be held accountable for fraud. reread my post. your clueless. your response besides being factually wrong about what i clearly stated, is nonsense. i cannot even begin to understand your point. you are confusing an equity and a fixed income security. i am not. if you do not even know the difference and which is responsible to publish what, then you should refrain from speaking. you, once again, show yourself the fool.

i will repeat. the gov't should not mandate ratings but mandate financials. people should then decide for themselves and not rely on others opinions.

Maybe if you START capitalizing the first words to your sentences you'd be better understood. Lets do an anaylsis of what you wrote:

You (weedender) wrote: "My point is not that the gov't should not hold anyone liable for fraud. they should. My point is that they should not mandate rating to protect people. Let people decide by actually taking the time to understand their investment. mandate financial disclosures."

Translations: Hold banks for fraud, but don't mandate the banks to be more transparent with disclosures; allow the fraud to continue. Buyer beware.

Question: How can buyer beware if the seller of the investment witholds information and when there is no mandate for transparency?

Solution: Buy nothing from broker dealer until financial disclosure mandates are in place.

Thanks!

your "translation" is the exact opposite of what i clearly stated

my post is quite clear. make the financials mandatory. as they are now, fixed income securities are mostly exempt, thus the name "exempt securities". they should not be exempt, like equities.

you dont get any of this because you do not understand the difference between and equity and a fixed income security. because, as evidenced everytime you post, you are clueless on finance.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante