Hey at least there's a quid pro quo in the world's oldest....
I'm not a big conspiracy fan, but it's almost as if the 'media' either does not understand, or simply does not want to spend resources on, making a bigger story out of HUGE dollar figure scandals. The best and easiest example is Prudential (cf. Serpent on the rock) When I went to Amazon to link to this book IT WAS OUT OF PRINT, no longer available from the publisher!).
Here's synopsis:
Editorial Reviews
Synopsis
An award-winning financial reporter tells the story of the massive securities fraud perpetuated by Prudential Bache in the 1980s, revealing key players in a story of kickbacks, payoffs, and shady deals that caused thousands to lose enormous sums.
From the Publisher
"Eichenwald presents an appalling indictment of the firm's managers, who did dozens of deals with a convicted embezzler, spent millions of investors' dollars on lavish trips to places like Cancun and Maui and made cozy arrangements with developers to make themselves rich no matter how their clients fared. By the time readers finish this well-reported tale, they'll want to string Pru[dential]'s managers up by their power ties." -- Newsweek
Prudential, in a bizarre twist of irony, holds itself out as "rock solid" ... it sells trust! Yet, here is a company forever caught on the skuzzy side of the ethical line. Prudential also was FOUND LIABLE in an insurance dispute that found the company had misled policy holders. These items end up as tiny paragraphs buried on page 20 of the WSJ.
Merrill Lynch brokers have been found again and again misleading investors, yet they too seem made of Teflon when it comes to news coverage of any great importance. Perhaps mentioned, but never truly dug into my mainstream media. Is the assumption the public won't be able to follow the scheme since many times technicalities allowed these firms to get away with, well, quite a bit? Why in the world do people continue to do business with Prudential? Why don't these stories 'stick'?
Some might argue ML would have the greatest number of complaints since I believe they have the greatest number of brokers by far. Okay, so in aggregate they are the worst of bunch based on sheer numbers...does that excuse the wrongs?
Since brokers are offered a higher commission on real estate limited partnerships, who is surprised when there are allegations the brokers got certain clients into the investment that were 'inappropriate' investors given risk profile, time frame, etc.? Drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park...
RO |
