Banks Bundled Bad Debt, Bet Against It and Won

  • News
  • Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date
  • Tags
    debt
In summary, authorities are investigating whether securities laws or rules of fair dealing were violated by firms like Goldman Sachs, which created and sold mortgage-linked debt instruments and then bet against the clients who purchased them in the run-up to the market's collapse. This likely fits under "What is wrong with the US Economy", but more information is needed to make a full judgement.
  • #106
Al68 said:
I consider the inability to comprehend how depriving people of their liberty is harming them to be "nutty". That was my technical word for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath" , ie a disregard for, and/or violation of the rights of others, and/or an associated lack of remorse/empathy for others.

Ooooooh... I'm familiar with ASP/ASPD/Sociopathy/Psychopathy (reverse time-line of the name). I'm not clear that Soros comes close to being sociopathic; he plans, he reflects, he learns from errors; simply lacking compassion (and I'm not saying that he does or doesn't) is not sociopathic. A decent, if VERY one-sided and simplistic view that hits all of the technical points approachably: 'Bad Boys, Bad Men: Confronting Antisocial Personality Disorder' ... just don't STOP there, or you'll have all kinds of wrong notions. Still, it's a good entry to the subject if it's not really your area of interest.

Anyway, given his past I see him as very ruthless, and obviously he has an immense ego, but no more so than many in finance, and certainly more philanthropic than many.


I'd add... "nuts" is usually reserved, when used at all, for those disorders which have elements of psychosis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
nismaratwork said:
Ooooooh... I'm familiar with ASP/ASPD/Sociopathy/Psychopathy (reverse time-line of the name). I'm not clear that Soros comes close to being sociopathic; he plans, he reflects, he learns from errors; simply lacking compassion (and I'm not saying that he does or doesn't) is not sociopathic. A decent, if VERY one-sided and simplistic view that hits all of the technical points approachably: 'Bad Boys, Bad Men: Confronting Antisocial Personality Disorder' ... just don't STOP there, or you'll have all kinds of wrong notions. Still, it's a good entry to the subject if it's not really your area of interest.

Anyway, given his past I see him as very ruthless, and obviously he has an immense ego, but no more so than many in finance, and certainly more philanthropic than many.


I'd add... "nuts" is usually reserved, when used at all, for those disorders which have elements of psychosis.

eh, i dunno, from what i remember, it fits the mold. but sociopathy is more the benign flavor, and psychopathy the malignant one. sociopaths and psychopaths can certainly plan, reflect, and learn from errors.
 
  • #108
Proton Soup said:
eh, i dunno, from what i remember, it fits the mold. but sociopathy is more the benign flavor, and psychopathy the malignant one. sociopaths and psychopaths can certainly plan, reflect, and learn from errors.

No, but that's a common misconception.

Origin:
Pinel: “Manie sans delire” (Mania without delirium)
Pritchard: Moral Insanity
Around the same time...
'Moral Imbelicity'
Then: Psychopathic inferiority
Then the Germans: Psychopathology (Psychopath)
Partridge for the AMA: Sociopath (referring to the SAME thing)
DSM: "Personality Disorder: Antisocial Type"
DSM-**: "Antisocial Personality Disorder"

You're going by Hervey Cleckley (Mask of Sanity), but in fact the word evolved along with the definition.
 
  • #109
russ_watters said:
Aprops: USA Today published a far more honest and even-handed article on exactly the same topic as the Rolling Stone article:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-02-28-editorial28_ST_N.htm

In the middle is a list of people we'd like to see go to jail but won't.

I think the USA Today article is more even-handed, but perhaps less honest. Bear-Stearns was pushed over the cliff by a whole bunch of naked-short-sells. This is illegal- but there hasn't been a serious investigation.

After the bottom dropped out of subprimes, it took months for the securities (supposedly based on these same mortgages) to fall. In these months, market makers like Goldman unloaded tons of bad investments. Why haven't there been investigations into the market makers? What propped these markets up just long enough for the maker's themselves to get rid of their bad investments?

What about the regulators interviewed by Taibbi who claim insider trading cases are not being pursued?

In short, there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that fraud was committed somewhere. But, because the very same people who should be pursuing investigations are hoping to one day work for the banks, it seems unlikely that any real digging will be done.
 
  • #110
I can't believe I'm saying this about such a pig, but flaws or not, we need Eliot Spitzer back on Wall Street.
 
  • #111
nismaratwork said:
I can't believe I'm saying this about such a pig, but flaws or not, we need Eliot Spitzer back on Wall Street.

Would that restore confidence in the markets?:rolleyes:
 
  • #112
WhoWee said:
Would that restore confidence in the markets?:rolleyes:

I don't really care; he was effective. If we remove everyone who's effective in public office because they're borderline or full-blown sociopaths, we'll have no public officials left.

Besides, you think he was somehow alone in procuring those services? On Wall Street, it's a win if you're not drunk or on cocaine.
 
  • #113
  • #115
WhoWee said:
Would that restore confidence in the markets?:rolleyes:

by "confidence", i assume you mean "confidence" game. that's exactly what we don't need. for some reason, we always fall prey to this sort of rhetoric from the very people that need to be placed on a short leash.
 
  • #116
Proton Soup said:
by "confidence", i assume you mean "confidence" game. that's exactly what we don't need. for some reason, we always fall prey to this sort of rhetoric from the very people that need to be placed on a short leash.

They have money, and power... or rather, money as a means of exercising power. Most people still cling to the American Dream, because the alternative would be to admit a privatized kleptocratic undertone to all of it.
 
  • #117
Proton Soup said:
by "confidence", i assume you mean "confidence" game. that's exactly what we don't need. for some reason, we always fall prey to this sort of rhetoric from the very people that need to be placed on a short leash.

By confidence, I mean regulators we can trust - not Spitzer.
 
  • #118
nismaratwork said:
I don't really care; he was effective. If we remove everyone who's effective in public office because they're borderline or full-blown sociopaths, we'll have no public officials left.

Besides, you think he was somehow alone in procuring those services? On Wall Street, it's a win if you're not drunk or on cocaine.

That sounds a bit like a Charlie Sheen quote. Do you honestly believe the norm in the investment banking world is working under the influence?
 
  • #119
WhoWee said:
That sounds a bit like a Charlie Sheen quote. Do you honestly believe the norm in the investment banking world is working under the influence?

Not as bad as Sheen, but Wall Street investment bankers and traders do have a high rate of drug use.

With the down economy they are switching from cocaine to pot.

http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2010-08-24/wall-street-employees-swap-cocaine-pot-pills

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-24/justice/madoff.lawsuit_1_bernie-madoff-kpmg-jp-morgan-chase?_s=PM:CRIME

Edit
Come to think of it that could explain a lot of the irrational decisions that were made in real estate.

This Deal Journal post about drug use on Wall Street caught our eye on Friday. Buried in the middle of the post was this nugget: “The highest levels of drug abuse in the financial sector seem to be a real estate investment trust companies

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2...y-reits-top-list-for-drug-use-on-wall-street/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #120
edward said:
Not as bad as Sheen, but Wall Street investment bankers and traders do have a high rate of drug use.

With the down economy they are switching from cocaine to pot.

http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2010-08-24/wall-street-employees-swap-cocaine-pot-pills

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-24/justice/madoff.lawsuit_1_bernie-madoff-kpmg-jp-morgan-chase?_s=PM:CRIME

Edit
Come to think of it that could explain a lot of the irrational decisions that were made in real estate.

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2...y-reits-top-list-for-drug-use-on-wall-street/

my bold

Does 7% of all employees represent a high rate of drug use among traders and brokers? How does 7% compare to workers in other industries and the population in general (at similar age groups).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #121
WhoWee said:
That sounds a bit like a Charlie Sheen quote. Do you honestly believe the norm in the investment banking world is working under the influence?

If you include improper use of prescribed drugs, and as I mentioned, alcohol... yeah you bet your butt.

Beyond that, see edward's post.

edit: I note you said WORKING under the influence... I didn't say that they came to work in a terrible state; and why would they? Remember, if you don't care about your health, you can take Provigil, benzodiazapines, antidepressents, and a hypnotic sleep aid... all at once. It's overdose that kills in that world, but also it is cumulative damage, and drug interactions.

Again note: taking these drugs not as indicated, or not as a means of treatment, but abuse. Nothing is wrong with those drugs if used properly... athough maybe not in that combination! :bugeye:
 
  • #122
WhoWee said:
my bold

Does 7% of all employees represent a high rate of drug use among traders and brokers? How does 7% compare to workers in other industries and the population in general (at similar age groups).

7 percent overall failed drug tests. Do you really believe that the top producers were even given drug tests? Do the CEO and CFO take drug tests?? Do those who make the important deciscions take drug tests?

The point is the peons take mandatory drug tests.

Edit

A lawsuit filed by a former employee of Bernard Madoff's investment firm alleges rampant cocaine use and a rowdy party corporate culture. The supplemental filings to the suit also add new defendants to the civil case, including Bank of New York and JPMorgan Chase. The plaintiffs alleged that Madoff Securities was ripe with debauchery, including parties featuring topless cocktail waitresses and so much cocaine that the office was nicknamed the 'North Pole'.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4432249
 
Last edited:
  • #123
edward said:
7 percent overall failed drug tests. Do you really believe that the top producers were even given drug tests? Do the CEO and CFO take drug tests?? Do those who make the important deciscions take drug tests?

The point is the peons take mandatory drug tests.

...And the people who can't afford or don't have the wit to cheat. Remember, Charlie Sheen had a clean drug test... :smile:

edit: Can you imagine how easy it would be to get some random person to piss in a cup for you, if you have any money at all?! Ha
 
  • #124
nismaratwork said:
...And the people who can't afford or don't have the wit to cheat. Remember, Charlie Sheen had a clean drug test... :smile:

edit: Can you imagine how easy it would be to get some random person to piss in a cup for you, if you have any money at all?! Ha

See edit above
 
  • #125
edward said:
7 percent overall failed drug tests. Do you really believe that the top producers were even given drug tests? Do the CEO and CFO take drug tests?? Do those who make the important deciscions take drug tests?

The point is the peons take mandatory drug tests.

Do you honestly believe the CEO's and CFO's are sitting in their offices snorting coke? Tell me that brokers working in remote boiler rooms are doing this and I might not question your characterization - the executive offices and the main trading floors are another story. As for making the "important decisions" - are we now talking about fund managers?

Stock brokers are salespeople - they write up sales orders - and traders make the trades they've been instructed to make on the sales orders. Decisions are made by the clients - whether it's Mrs. Jones or fund manager 789-Billion. For every seller - there is a buyer.
 
  • #126
WhoWee said:
Do you honestly believe the CEO's and CFO's are sitting in their offices snorting coke? Tell me that brokers working in remote boiler rooms are doing this and I might not question your characterization - the executive offices and the main trading floors are another story. As for making the "important decisions" - are we now talking about fund managers?

Again, where do you get these fanciful images of snorting cocaine in the office? I didn't say any of that, and I just finished making clear that very point. Guess what though, I don't want them doing on their off-time either, it has an effect that is extremely adverse when your job is to judge risk.

WhoWee said:
Stock brokers are salespeople - they write up sales orders - and traders make the trades they've been instructed to make on the sales orders. Decisions are made by the clients - whether it's Mrs. Jones or fund manager 789-Billion. For every seller - there is a buyer.

AND? We both know the convolutions of who is selling and buying, repackaging and selling again, and again. I'm not moved at all.

There's a market for suicide, rape, and drugs... the fact that buyers exist doesn't excuse sellers
 
  • #127
WhoWee said:
Do you honestly believe the CEO's and CFO's are sitting in their offices snorting coke? Tell me that brokers working in remote boiler rooms are doing this and I might not question your characterization - the executive offices and the main trading floors are another story. As for making the "important decisions" - are we now talking about fund managers?

Stock brokers are salespeople - they write up sales orders - and traders make the trades they've been instructed to make on the sales orders. Decisions are made by the clients - whether it's Mrs. Jones or fund manager 789-Billion. For every seller - there is a buyer.

It is not necessarily just Wall Street. That term covers a lot of area. The big investment banks aren't even on Wall Street.

http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/wall-street-cocaine-bernie-madoff-fridays/10/27/2009/id/25132
 
  • #128
edward said:
7 percent overall failed drug tests. Do you really believe that the top producers were even given drug tests? Do the CEO and CFO take drug tests?? Do those who make the important deciscions take drug tests?

The point is the peons take mandatory drug tests.

Edit

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4432249

From your (CNN) link in post 119 - my bold

"Among the allegations in the 264-page lawsuit are that during the mid-1970s, Madoff began sending employees to buy drugs for company use.

The complaint alleges that some employees and investors were aware of the drug purchases, and that BMIS [Bernard Madoff Investment Services] was known by insiders as the "North Pole" in reference to the excessive amount of cocaine use in the work place."
 
  • #129
WhoWee said:
From your (CNN) link in post 119 - my bold

"Among the allegations in the 264-page lawsuit are that during the mid-1970s, Madoff began sending employees to buy drugs for company use.

The complaint alleges that some employees and investors were aware of the drug purchases, and that BMIS [Bernard Madoff Investment Services] was known by insiders as the "North Pole" in reference to the excessive amount of cocaine use in the work place."

Bernie Madoff shows nearly every sign of being a true sociopath; I don't think you can use the exception to highlight the norm here. One is a criminal and knows it, the other thinks they're just walking a legal razor.
 
  • #130
edward said:
It is not necessarily just Wall Street. That term covers a lot of area. The big investment banks aren't even on Wall Street.

http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/wall-street-cocaine-bernie-madoff-fridays/10/27/2009/id/25132

The "real world"?

from your post my bold
"Of course, using drugs to get through the trading day is nothing new. Cocaine use within the gilded walls of the New York Stock Exchange dates back to such a bygone era, Freud was advocating the drug then. Digitally archived copies of The New York Times detail 1915 drug raids of company heads with offices located a few blocks down from the trading floor. Numerous links between the drug and Wall Street have emerged through the years -- including a high-profile sting that resulted in the arrest of 19 brokers in 1967.

Cocaine grew in popularity within the bathroom stalls of Lower Manhattan's banks and brokerage offices in the 1970s -- Time magazine famously referred to the drug as a "chic refreshment" in a 1973 article -- and hit its towering stride during the mid-1980s.

With cocaine well along its comeback trail, it wouldn't be surprising to find tiny discarded baggies in a Lower East Side punk bar. But a T.G.I. Friday's a block and a half south from the Stock Exchange? A tad out of the ordinary.

A raid of the chain restaurant in March of this year busted a well-known drug hook-up among Wall Street employees. Exchanges would be made in plain view -- albeit surreptitiously inside Friday's napkins -- but allegedly with the knowledge of the restaurant's management and staff.

A July article in New York magazine detailed the financial woes of the cocaine dealer post-recession, but it will take more than a financial crisis to cripple the decadence in the land of financial bailouts and golden parachutes.

Along with Madoff's recent connection to the drug, cocaine seems to not only hit the highest of profiles, but also span the vast hierarchy of Wall Street employees -- from the 16 brokers arrested in 1987 to CNBC's Larry Kudlow, who entered rehab and found religion to combat the addiction.

But really, would anyone doubt it?"

Perhaps it would be appropriate to compare these statistics to arrests among union workers - for a "real world" perspective?
 
  • #131
My point is that it's incorrect to blame the financial crisis on drug abuse.
 
  • #132
nismaratwork said:
... "nuts" is usually reserved, when used at all, for those disorders which have elements of psychosis.
Fine, you're absolutely correct on this one. I improperly used the technical term "nut-job". :smile:
 
  • #133
Al68 said:
Fine, you're absolutely correct on this one. I improperly used the technical term "nut-job". :smile:

Yes, yes... very funny... :-p

@WhoWee: It would be fair to implicate it as a contributing factor, but not only on Wall Street. The thing is, what's a mailman going to do? Lose your mail? A banker can lose your savings and you lose your home.
 
  • #134
nismaratwork said:
Yes, yes... very funny... :-p

@WhoWee: It would be fair to implicate it as a contributing factor, but not only on Wall Street. The thing is, what's a mailman going to do? Lose your mail? A banker can lose your savings and you lose your home.

Let's define who that banker is - and how "he" can lose your home. Are we now talking about a predatory lender?

I'm not sure where the mailman example came from - have anything on arrests of auto workers?
 
  • #135
WhoWee said:
Let's define who that banker is - and how "he" can lose your home. Are we now talking about a predatory lender?

I'm not sure where the mailman example came from - have anything on arrests of auto workers?

Lets not move the topic out of the realm of the OP, and the points being made by myself and Norman.
 
  • #136
nismaratwork said:
Lets not move the topic out of the realm of the OP, and the points being made by myself and Norman.

Again - "Let's define who that banker is - and how "he" can lose your home."
 
  • #137
WhoWee said:
Again - "Let's define who that banker is - and how "he" can lose your home."

Why? For what possible need other than a side-track from other points? If you're going to selectively respond, why should I keep adressing multiple points? This is my personal line in the sand for ideology, even with you, who I recognize as a valid source of information.
 
  • #138
nismaratwork said:
Why? For what possible need other than a side-track from other points? If you're going to selectively respond, why should I keep adressing multiple points? This is my personal line in the sand for ideology, even with you, who I recognize as a valid source of information.

IMO - the banker using coke is a non-starter - that's all.
 
  • #139
WhoWee said:
IMO - the banker using coke is a non-starter - that's all.

You have failed to make that case, in the face of evidence to the contrary. Your opinion is noted, but in the face of massive fraud and wrongdoing by a group that is famous for their drug abuse (again, not just cocaine), is something worth noting.

I know I pay attention when Hugo Chavez says he chews Coca leaves EVERY DAY.
 
  • #140
nismaratwork said:
You have failed to make that case, in the face of evidence to the contrary.

The evidence contained in the above posts included a description of cocaine use in 1915 (I think it was still legal?), several references to the 1970's, and a total of 35 arrests between 1967 and 1987. Again, this is a non-starter - let's move on (please).
 

Similar threads

How Did Goldman Sachs Make Money From 2008 Housing Crash?
Replies
2
Views
1K
News Get laid off but keep your salary
Replies
4
Views
3K
News [Economy] Federal Reserve announces new round of quantitative easing
Replies
10
Views
3K
News Should Governments Bail Out Banks During Financial Crises?
Replies
29
Views
5K
News Lanny Breuer and The Untouchables
Replies
21
Views
5K
News Criminality of bond rating agencies
Replies
22
Views
4K
What U.S. Economic Recovery? Five Destructive Myths
5
Replies
156
Views
37K
News Ben Bernanke in Europe: Global Finance Credit Crisis Relief
Replies
5
Views
3K
News Should America Create An Infrastructure Bank?
Replies
19
Views
5K
News A rant on Fed policies and what can be done
Replies
31
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top