Investigations and negotiations involving billions of dollars, complex issues, potential major precedents, and multiple participants representing corporate and public interests may, on occasion, drag on a bit.
They've been investigating analysts in general for some time now. And yet, a case involving a large accounting firm that broke in November or so has already gone to trial. And you yourself, in that sentence, used both the terms "negotiations" and "complex issues." Indeed.
certain issues do seem rather "cut-and-dried" - in particular that some at least unseemly and potentially illegal practices on the part of major Wall St. firms have been exposed.
What is or is not "unseemly" is a matter of opinion - and generally, legislating morality is a no-win proposition. And re: "potential" illegalities, potentially is obviously the operant word.
Surely there may be more actions coming, but do you think the NYAG would be allowing/pursuing settlement talks if numerous, clearly illegal practices - let alone fraud - were readily apparent to them?
I absolutely do not. It'd be too big an opportunity to appear a champion of the little guy to be squandered on a mere (from the perspective of political capital) AWC.
then again, I guess you never know what's going to get one of those pathetic "message board posters" going.
Nah, it's pretty easy to figure out. Suggest that they might have to stand on their own two feet, express the opinion that they should be responsible for their own fate, and/or that their essential boogiemen are often little more than psychological constructs for self-preservation, and man - you've got an industrial-sized hissy fit on your hands.
LP. |
