You keep on saying this, and people keep on answering you
I will continue to say so, as I haven't yet received a single answer that distinguishes (beyond personal perceptions of what an analyst "should be" with respect to their clients or the general public) that which makes this case any different than that of our now oft-cited car dealer, et al. I've seen opinions, I've read speculation about what might have "actually" been known by the analysts or been their "real" opinions, and there have been assertions as to the intent of the positive recommendations...such as this one: the brokerages were selling out one constituency (retail investors), in favor of another (actual and potential investment banking clients).
But while that may be the case, where's the proof of what they knew or didn't know, of what their intent was, and of a "conflict of interest" that existed over and above that of any other agency relationship? And more importantly, what is the specific crime whereby an individual has a different personal belief than the one which they maintain or are charged with maintaining on behalf of their place of employ?
When a customer service rep says, "We love to have your business, have a great day," and the instant after hanging up launches into a string of customer-directed obscenities to make a wounded sailor proud, what crime is committed? Or, when a weight loss program is marketed exuberantly - and aggressively - that works in one out of a thousand users' cases? If there are no guarantees made or representation made as to incidence of success, what's the crime?
The answer is, there is no crime. There's low attribution to ones' product and service, and there are ridiculously optimistic opinions, both which are not illegal, last I'd heard. Nothing more than that. Fraud, in this context, would have taken the form of materially altering financial statements and those types of actions: all of which if had been done, would have been pounced upon far earlier.
Unless, of course (as I expect will come sooner rather than later in this discussion)...someone would like to suggest that the regulators are involved in the "scam"? LOL.
but [the emails a]re not at the heart of this matter either, I don't think.
I'm sure they are at the crux of the issue, as anything more substantial - proven backdoor deals, stock/cash payoffs, verifiable misrepresentation of facts, etc. - would almost certainly have not resulted in mere settlement talks.
You can bet that with the unhappiness out there right now, the regulators and pols would have taken full advantage of substantial, damning evidence with all the surety that their predecessors have after bull markets died in the past.
LP. |
