SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (636238)11/15/2011 7:49:36 PM
From: Emile Vidrine3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1583419
 
Israel--Jewish Stat receives total of $15 billion annually while America heads towards bankruptcy!

youtube.com



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (636238)11/15/2011 8:13:48 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1583419
 
If you had evidence you'd offer it.



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (636238)11/15/2011 8:15:44 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 1583419
 
It is NOT legal for Congressmen to trade on inside information:


The fact that many members of Congress appear to have traded on non-public information in their personal brokerage accounts during the financial crisis is outrageous.

But since this bombshell news broke on Sunday night, the excuse has been that, however ridiculous it may sound, insider trading is legal for Congress.

This same assertion has been repeated for years, every time someone observes that Congress members do much better in their personal stock trading than average investors do. Unlike average Joes, the pundits explain, Congress has exempted itself from insider-trading laws, so Congress-people are allowed to trade on private information that they gather in the course of their work while other Americans can’t.

But at least one law professor argues that this is just not true.



Insider trading is just as illegal for members of Congress as it is for the 300+ million Americans, Indiana Law Professor Donna Nagy argues.

Congress never “exempted” itself from insider trading laws, Nagy says–because Congress has never actually passed a law about insider trading.

By trading on information gathered in the course of their jobs, Nagy says, Congress-people are abusing the public trust and violating a legal duty, just the way any other insider-traders do.

So the Congress people who traded during the financial crisis (and since) should be investigated and, possibly, prosecuted for their behavior.

Read more here. In a sense, however, it is effectively legal for Congress to insider-trade, since any investigation would be conducted by the SEC. That agency’s budget is controlled by Congress and its Commissioner subject to Senate approval.


biggovernment.com



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (636238)11/15/2011 8:18:14 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1583419
 
Feinstein loaded up on biotech stock just before company got $24M govt grant:
by Wynton Hall

With a new congressional insider trading scandal unfolding in Washington, another name has been added to the hit parade: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).



In the new blockbuster tell-all Throw Them All Out, investigative reporter and Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer reveals that on November 18, 2009, Sen. Feinstein and her husband invested $1 million into Amyris Biotechnologies, a “green” company focused on plant-based renewable fuels and chemicals. The Feinsteins’ million-dollar investment was their only stock transaction for the entire year.

Feinstein, however, had good reason to feel that all her investment eggs were secure in the biotech basket, because just weeks after her seven-figure investment in Amyris, the company scored a $24 million grant from the Department of Energy (DOE) to build a pilot plant where altered yeast would turn sugar into hydrocarbons.

The company went public the following year with an IPO that raked in $85 million. Currently, it’s unclear exactly how much money Senator Feinstein and her husband made off their investment, “but it’s safe to assume that they did well,” concludes Schweizer.

Do we know for certain that Feinstein’s willingness to bet $1 million bet on Amyris was the result of insider knowledge that the DOE’s $24 million infusion of federal funds was forthcoming? No, not without further investigation. That, argues Schweizer in Throw Them All Out, is why insider trading laws should apply to members of Congress and trigger the kinds of SEC investigations to which ordinary investors must submit.

biggovernment.com



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (636238)11/15/2011 8:23:49 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 1583419
 
Who "invited" the Pelosi's to invest in Visa's IPO?

by Mike Flynn


Yesterday, I wondered how Nancy Pelosi and her husband were able to participate in Visa’s IPO in March 2008. It is very difficult for an individual investor to participate in IPOs, especially those which are heavily ‘oversubscribed’ as Visa’s was. It was the hottest IPO of the year, drawing what one analyst described as “extreme demand.” So, this tidbit from Newsweek’s story on Visa’s campaign to curry favor with Pelosi caught my attention:

Separately, Pelosi’s husband, Paul, a major investor in California, got a lucrative phone call from his personal broker—a pre-screen invite in March 2008 to take part in Visa’s $17.9 billion public stock offering, at the time one of the hottest stock offerings in an otherwise soft market. The initial-public-offering price was $44 per share and was limited to institutional investors and a group of specially selected individuals. Almost $18 billion was made available in public stock to preselected investors. Paul Pelosi made the cut.

Wait, what? He was called and ‘invited’ to purchase shares in the IPO? Seriously? Let’s isolate one particular sentence from this graph:

The initial-public-offering price was $44 per share and was limited to institutional investors and a group of specially selected individuals.

Specially selected individuals? Selected by whom? And, for what reasons, specifically?

If you are John Bresnahan at Politico, this will all seem like a fortuitous coincidence. The Pelosis obviously have lots of money to invest and their broker may have been one of the few people empowered to select who was lucky enough to buy into the hottest IPO of the year. Although, individual investors with access to IPOs tend to be far more active and wealthy investors than the Pelosis, a ‘reporter’ at Politico could view it all as perfectly normal. But, let’s look at the larger context here.

As Newsweek notes, Visa was very worried about Democrat proposals to regulate interchange, or “swipe” fees. Late in 2007, they organized a campaign to “court” then-Speaker Pelosi to plead their case and block new legislation regulating their business. One of their lobbying firms even hired a former top Pelosi staffer, Dean Aguillen, and the company, its executives and lobbyists began donating to her campaign.

Dean Aguillen was prohibited from lobbying his former boss for one year, but, according to Newsweek he provided key strategic advice to Visa:

By law he was unable to lobby his former boss for a year, but he immediately registered to lobby Congress on the credit-card issue, offering guidance to other lobbyists on Visa’s team during strategy sessions, according to a lobbyist present in strategy deliberations.

In other words, the former Pelosi staffer was helping Visa figure out a way to win her support on their top legislative priority.

In Spring 2008, Rep. John Conyers introduces the very legislation that Visa feared most and just a handful of days later, Paul Pelosi is invited to buy shares in Visa’s IPO. Again, really? Who made that decision? Was it Dean Aguillen, perhaps?

If that decision was in any way related to Nancy Pelosi’s position as Speaker, she may run afoul of House ethics rules. As even Politico notes:

Under House rules, lawmakers are prohibited from using their official position “for personal gain.” This ban includes instances when a lawmaker uses “his political influence, the influence of his position … to make pecuniary gains” or take any official action that affects their own personal finances, the House Ethics Manual states.

Being part of Visa’s IPO, where the stock price rose 50% in two days, would generate a heck of a lot of “personal gain.” Was the invitation in any way tied to her position as Speaker? As Politico noted this morning, Nancy Pelosi really does have a ‘golden touch.’


biggovernment.com



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (636238)11/15/2011 8:30:39 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1583419
 
Buffet helped shape bailout that he made massive profits from:

Capitol Cronyism: Obama-Backer Warren Buffett Helped Shape Bailout Rules, Then Made Massive Profits from Them
by Wynton Hall
In the wake of the $700 billion TARP bailout, Warren Buffett apparently shaped a plan to clean up toxic assets that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner later adopted–resulting in massive profits for Buffett.

I'm getting more and more disgusted with Warren Buffet. He wants to raise my taxes (while dodging his own) on top of exploiting his political ties to enrich himself further. Why should he get an exemption from SEC reporting rules too btw?



That’s the latest bombshell revelation from investigative journalist and Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer’s sensational new book, Throw Them All Out.

According to Schweizer, after the bailout bill’s passage, Warren Buffett sat down and wrote then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson a four-page private letter laying out a plan to clean up the toxic assets plaguing numerous financial institutions. Buffett proposed something he called a “public-private partnership fund.” For every $10 billion the private sector invested, Buffett said the government should put up $40 billion.

After Paulson’s exit, incoming Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner tweaked the plan and rolled it out in March 2009. But according to quarterly reports from Buffett’s holdings company, Berkshire Hathaway, between the time the billionaire crafted his plan and Geithner adopted it, Buffett quietly purchased 12.4 million shares of Wells Fargo stock and 1.5 million shares of U.S. Bancorp. Once the government unveiled its “Public-Private Investment Program,” bank stocks jumped, resulting in large profits for Buffett.

How much Buffett profited is hard to calculate, since there’s no way to know what his purchase price was. But prior to the government adopting Buffett’s plan, Wells Fargo had been trading at roughly $20 a share. In the weeks after Geithner’s announcement, the stock jumped to $30 a share. Likewise, U.S. Bancorp went from $8 in February 2009 to more than $20 a share by May.

Schweizer’s revelations contradict the image Warren Buffett has worked hard to create as that of a folksy, grandfatherly figure who stays above the political fray and rarely gets mired in the muck of partisan politics. Indeed, Throw Them All Out uncovers other alarming acts of apparent crony capitalism performed by the so-called “Oracle of Omaha.”

For example, Schweizer examines Buffett’s intense private lobbying efforts and deftly-timed stock buys that leveraged TARP bailout monies to create up to $3.7 billion in windfall profits for Berkshire Hathaway.

In September of 2008, Buffett invested $5 billion in the over-leveraged investment house of Goldman Sachs, having obtained impressive terms: Berkshire Hathaway would receive preferred stock with a 10% dividend yield, and the option to buy another $5 billion at $115 a share.

As the political debates surrounding the proposed $700 billion TARP bailout bill heated up, Buffett maintained an appearance of naivete, an “aw shucks” shtick that deferred to the judgment of politicians. “I’m not brave enough to try to influence the Congress,” Buffett told the New York Times.

Behind closed doors, however, Buffett had become a shrewd political entrepreneur. With his Goldman bet in place, the billionaire exerted his considerable political influence in a private conference call with then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats. During the meeting, Buffett strongly urged Democratic members to pass the $700 billion TARP bill to avert what he warned would otherwise be “the biggest financial meltdown in American history.”

Buffett had a strong financial interest in the bailout’s passage, says Schweizer. “If the bailout went through, it would be a windfall for Goldman. If it failed, it would be disastrous for Berkshire Hathaway.”

Yet Buffett had little reason to worry; his insider political connections afforded him two guarantees. First, many members of Congress were themselves investing heavily in Berkshire Hathaway throughout the bailout talks–a move that may simply have been a good investment in an unsteady time, or else a shrewd exploitation of unique information. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), for example, snatched up $130,000 worth of Berkshire Hathaway stock. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) also bought shares in Berkshire Hathaway, as did Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who purchased half a million dollars’ worth just days after the Wall Street bailout bill was signed. Second, Buffett knew he had an ally in the surging Barack Obama. Buffett had backed Obama in 2008. And as Obama has himself conceded, “Warren Buffett is one of those people that I listen to.”

When the TARP bailout passed, Berkshire Hathaway firms received a staggering $95 billion in bailout cash from U.S. taxpayers. In total, TARP-assisted companies made up almost a third (30%) of Buffett’s entire publicly disclosed stock portfolio. The payoff: by July 2009, Buffett’s Goldman bet and his congressional jawboning had yielded profits as high as $3.7 billion.

Incredibly, in a breathtaking public relations move, Buffett publicly complained that the government bailouts had put his company at a disadvantage, because funders “who are using imaginative methods (or lobbying skills) to come under the government’s umbrella–have money costs that are minimal.” Rolfe Winkler of Reuters best captured Buffet’s audacity: “It takes chutzpah to lobby for bailouts, make trades seeking to profit from them, and then complain that those doing so put you at a disadvantage.”

Still, despite Buffett’s apparent, and brazen, display of crony capitalism and political manipulation to produce billions in profits, Schweizer says that the most egregious part is that his behavior appears to have been entirely legal. Buffett merely leveraged his unique and powerful political connections to turn taxpayer money into massive private profits.

Now, with the 2012 presidential election right around the corner, Buffett plans to back President Obama again. In August 2011, the two men vacationed together in the plush surroundings of Martha’s Vineyard. Shortly thereafter, Buffett hosted an Obama fundraiser in New York City where contributors spent $35,800 for VIP tickets and the chance to discuss the economy with the Berkshire Hathaway CEO.

If Buffett’s political track record is any indication, his time spent alongside President Obama was an investment intended to yield a high rate of return–at taxpayers’ expense.

biggovernment.com