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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (124793)	11/17/2016 1:34:19 AM
From: Alex MG	Respond to of 217548

why do you demand that a major political figure and moral advocate such as Warren should have to respond to an insignificant illiterate poster from an insignificant site such as SI Senator Elizabeth Warren should take a stand and defend the "little guy" from the predatory practices of Commercial Banks who not only grossly violated the Dodd Frank Act but even engaged in retribution and threats to my life. Wow, Warren is coming to kill you and Obama is gonna take your guns... quite the imagination... I need more popcorn

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (124793)	11/17/2016 2:28:55 AM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217548

Legal systems, for better or worse, tend to make a distinction between the duty due to customers in sophisticated vs naive venues - and I suspect you were involved in something "sophisiticated. As a consequence there's a lot of areas which are not regulated and in those areas no one can assist you as nothing illegal has occurred, even though it might be morally repugnant. Certainly you have no standing complaining how a bank determines capital tier, unless you're the shareholder of a failed bank and this is a fraud lawsuit. Likewise, you can pass on tips about money laundering - which may already be part of a larger investigation - but you're very unlikely to see your sing;e complaint leading to swift prosecution. There's way too much crime going on. As a foreign customer of Citibank Australia I've been offered all sorts of "peculiar" products which you'd really have to be stupid to take on. Products which are clearly the opposite side of a derivative the bank doesn't want to hold themselves. One example is a product which paid 7.5% interest so long as Australian mortgage rates remained above 4.5% and below 9% - if rates fell below 4.5% or above 9% the product paid nothing for that period of time - and you were locked into the contract for ten years. If something went wrong with with one of these toxic products Australian regulators would be almost certain not able to help me, nor would regulator in America as I was dealing with a foreign bank, even though it was a subsidiary of an American bank. A more common ares where you can be hurt is simply by buying or selling certain bonds where the the market is thin and not as transparent as the stock market, so broker dealers tend to offer their clients prices which are grossly not in their favor - the spreads are often shocking. Horrible but all legal. The only reason to bring this type of experience to a legislator is in the hope they will be able to later introduce a law to make certain behavior clearly illegal. The justice department allocate their resource to the greatest benefit, so they tend not to like being used to criminally prosecute a case affecting few people in support of their civil lawsuit. Some other common examples of differential consumer protection: Stock brokers are allowed to offer far more risky products to people with high net worth under the sometimes dubious assumption that they are more sophisticated, or at a minimum they're more capable of withstanding the compete loss of that portion of their capital. The residential real estate market has extensive consumer protections, while there are few protections in the commercial market because the people who participate in that market are assumed to have a higher level of sophistication.

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (124793)	11/17/2016 3:46:48 AM
From: koan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217548

What did the Republicans do to support you position? <<Koan I have a simple question for you; (and same to Elroy and Alex MG) - lets see if you all will prove your colors!!! Are you going to write Senator Elizabeth Warren about my unanswered letter and request as a loyal Democratic party citizen that Senator Elizabeth Warren should take a stand and defend the "little guy" from the predatory practices of Commercial Banks who not only grossly violated the Dodd Frank Act but even engaged in retribution and threats to my life. Department of Justice, the Criminal Division knows of all this, where supportive, but the banks attorneys are more powerful and lobbied the FED, the SEC and the CFTC to be quiet and whitewash and not investigate the presented printed material and voice recordings. I do have a letter from the SEC that they may persecute based on preliminary evidence but nothing happen for almost 2 years. Was not even asked to testify under oath. The banks in question between others engaged in money laundering schemes, dumped risk exposure on clients accounts mispriced contracts to their benefits by hundreds of USD per transaction (all documented) gamed the Tier 2 capital requirement the LCR and NSFR to their benefit at a time they did not have sufficient equity. There is coincidal evidence of influencing attorneys I hired or wanted to hire no to take the case. Other Democratic senators on the Banking Committee including the Committee Senate Office, received same latter as Senator Elizabeth Warren and did nothing.