Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rande Is who wrote (57559)	7/1/2009 10:47:44 AM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

Facts on Goldman Sachs: Goldman Sachs paid 14 million dollars in taxes in 2008. Goldman Sachs paid out $10 billion in compensation and benefits that same year. Goldman Sachs paid the Treasury less than a third of what it paid its CEO Lloyd Blankfein, who made $42.9 million last year.

To: Rande Is who wrote (57559)	7/2/2009 10:55:06 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 57584

Good Questions. (Even if they come from Spitzer) ______________________________________________________________ Here are a few questions relating to past decisions: Where is the legal analysis showing the Fed had no power or insufficient power to intervene to save Lehman Bros.—widely viewed as the failure that precipitated the credit crisis—as it has claimed repeatedly, yet had sufficient power to orchestrate the gift of Bear Stearns assets to JPMorgan Chase? How did it differentiate between the two? What analysis had the Fed done of the potential impact of derivatives trading over the five years preceding the meltdown as derivatives trading grew exponentially? Was there any effort made to assess the overall risk facing the banks the Fed was supposed to oversee? Did the Fed do any analysis of the risk that would result from AIG's potential default, and how did the Fed analyze the risk to each of AIG's counterparties? When the Fed authorized the first $80 billion payment to AIG, almost all of which flowed directly through to counterparties, why did the Fed not arrange for taxpayers to get equity in the counterparties, rather than the essentially worthless AIG equity? What communications did the Fed have with the counterparties over this period? What analysis had the Fed done of the general leverage ratios in the financial-services sector and the need for additional capitalization? Had it done any "stress tests" during this period, or did it believe that there would never be an economic downturn? And a few questions related to the Fed's governance: Is the N.Y. Fed willing to release minutes and attendance records of the past five years, even if redacted to avoid company-specific information? How can the public be assured that this powerful institution is focusing on the right issues? Since the N.Y. Fed is controlled by the very institutions that were at the heart of the meltdown, and these institutions used the Fed to give themselves hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to resuscitate their balance sheets without any public scrutiny, will the Fed release any conflict-of-interest rules it has in place to assure the public that board members do not act on policies that will affect their own corporate interests? Six of the nine members of the N.Y. Fed board are supposed to be "public" representatives, yet these individuals have all too often been CEOs of major corporations or financial entities. How does the Fed define "public" board members, and what is the process by which those board members are selected? And some questions about its prospective functions: The Fed itself states that "the safety, soundness and vitality of our economic system" is its responsibility. How exactly are these terms measured? By GDP growth? Bank profits? Job growth? Growth of median household income? Without knowing how it will measure success, how can we measure whether the Fed is succeeding or failing? . . . How does the Fed believe it can regulate "systemic risk" meaningfully if institutions remain "too big to fail," necessitating that the federal government be an insurer of their risk in any serious downturn? slate.com

To: Rande Is who wrote (57559)	8/20/2009 10:48:48 PM
From: ~digs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

thoughts on lightpath?

To: Rande Is who wrote (57559)	10/2/2009 11:02:56 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 57584

I always thought the handling of the Lehmen situation STUNK. Here is more: Fed Draws Court's Eyes in Lehman Bankruptcy The Wall Street Journal ^ \| 10/2/09 \| Jeffrey McCracken and Mike Spector online.wsj.com A court-appointed examiner investigating Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s bankruptcy has been exploring whether the Federal Reserve improperly cut in front of other creditors owed money in the $613 billion bankruptcy case, records show. Billing records filed with the court show the examiner is investigating an issue that has angered many of Lehman’s creditors: how the Federal Reserve and the New York Fed — which lent Lehman $46 billion in cash and securities before its bankruptcy filing last September — were paid promptly and in full, while tens of billions of dollars in other debts were left to be sorted out in court. It remains unclear when and how much Lehman creditors will be repaid. ... Such a finding would have little legal precedent and could turn politically fraught, bankruptcy lawyers say. Yet it could bring a focus to one of the unresolved questions of the financial crisis: just how much special treatment the federal government receives above private-market players when it becomes a direct participant in the markets… Many legal experts said bringing claims against the Fed would be an uphill battle, because the Fed would qualify under a long-held standard of sovereign immunity. That concept generally holds that the government can’t be held legally accountable for its actions. But Lehman’s estate could have an opening, because by the standards of bankruptcy law, the government isn’t supposed to receive immunity, said Richard Levin, a partner at law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP who helped write the U.S. bankruptcy code. “The Lehman estate could sue the Fed,” Mr. Levin said, adding that the Fed would likely argue it can’t be held liable. ... ____________________________________________________________ So is the Fed a private institution or is it the US government? A lawsuit like this would bring up that question for all to see.

To: Rande Is who wrote (57559)	10/16/2009 2:10:56 PM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

Goldman Sachs Executive named first COO of SEC enforcement by AP Business Writer Marcy Gordon Oct. 16, 2009 news.yahoo.com WASHINGTON – A Goldman Sachs executive has been named the first chief operating officer of the Securities and Exchange Commission's enforcement division. SEE PHOTO of 29 year old Adam Storch : static.businessinsider.com The market watchdog says Adam Storch, vice president in Goldman Sachs' Business Intelligence Group, is assuming the new position of managing executive of the SEC division. The move comes as the SEC revamps its enforcement efforts following the agency's failure to uncover Bernard Madoff's massive fraud scheme for nearly two decades despite numerous red flags. Storch, who will be responsible for project management and operations, will report to SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami. . . _____________________________________________________________ MORE: businessinsider.com Storch graduated from SUNY Buffalo. During college he did a stint as a summer intern at Neuberger Berman and worked at Deloitte & Touche for two years after graduating. He then went to NYU's Stern School of Business. This lead to a job at Goldman, where he worked for the last five years. ... Interestingly, Storch seems to be a big fan of Bill Clinton. At Stern, he created a website asking people to vote for Bill Clinton in the 2008 election. ________________________________________________________ Storch wanted the 22nd Amendment repealed so Bill Clinton could have a third term: Check Out The Website SEC COO Adam Storch Apparently Took Down John Carney\|Oct. 16, 2009 businessinsider.com Newly hired SEC COO Adam Storch's website went down just moments after we linked to it this morning. But we grabbed a screen shot of the cached version. Check it out below. static.businessinsider.com