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 : Fundamental Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Madharry who wrote (1160)	4/19/2010 4:56:47 AM
From: bruwin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4719

I would say, Madharry, that the onus would be on the Broker to inform BOTH parties as to ALL the relevant information that he is aware of regarding the transaction. With regard to your example of a Real Estate Agent, my daughter and son-in-law have recently purchased a house. The REMAX Real Estate agent made it very clear that he was required to inform them, as well as the seller, of anything that he was aware of regarding the property and the purchase and selling details. It seems that Paddy Hirsch, in that link I provided, also believed that GS had an obligation to their clients seeing as they were aware of the true nature and quality of those CDO’s. In addition, it’s most unlikely that PAULSON would have bet so heavily, via GS, against those instruments if he wasn’t so certain that they would be losers in the future. But I’m no great expert in these matters. No doubt one will have to wait and see what comes out in court, or elsewhere. All we know is that GS’s share price has taken a real hammering, and if this was such a flimsy accusation, would that have been the case ?