Maria Bartiroma: No Fraud at GS
By Barry Ritholtz - April 23rd, 2010, 9:47AM
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
Comments
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:49 am
Speaking of clueless dolts who should STF
Hey, Maria: Buyer beware is not the rule in securities law
Remind me where you got your JD from?
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:18 am
Why anyone pays any attention to the intellectual fraud is beyond me. But that’s show biz, I guess.
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:27 am
“I know! It’s amaaazing!”
She is a A-list idiot.
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:29 am
BTW Barry you should personally invite her to take your $1000 bet.
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:37 am
I used to be amazed by how pompous people could be while having nothing useful or substantive to say, but then I grew up.
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Its just this kind of behavior…
…that insures her continued access to the big-shots in finance.
Isn’t HER need a sufficient reason to do whatever?
We should remember that Ms Honey is the same person who took private jet flights for free, even though this behavior got the exec in question fired. I believe we should accordingly scale our view of her ability to determine moral behavior.
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:55 pm
I saw her WSJ weekly report in CNBC this Sunday, and was surprised to find that she did not even mention GS case as a happening for the week. It just came as a scrolling “Headline News” when they were showing the weekly charts.
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:57 pm
She is a well established SHILL for financial industry, with an unparalleled intellectual dishonesty among Money-Honeys at CNBC!
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:41 pm
This is precisely the problem that Charlie Rose identified when he had David Boies, Andrew Ross Sorkin and Michael Lewis on to discuss it. Boise (the lawyer) said repeatedly that the SEC probably did not have a good legal case. Lewis pointed out in his enthusiastic way that the issue was not whether what GS had done was illegal but that it was WRONG and that the only way to fix this kind of egregious ‘wrong’ was to make it illegal. In the meantime he was confident that there were elements in GS behavior that were illegal enough to warrant going forward with the case. Sorkin, as is his style, dabbled with the irrelevancies of ‘what if.’
Lewis also implied that going forward with the case could only have happened because the SEC achieved a majority through President Obama’s appointment of a new commissioner. That is, the new SEC majority was able to recognize that this kind of ‘wrong’ although perhaps not ‘illegal’ needed to be addressed. In simple terms, they were able to understand that when you have a fire you put it out and not worry about whether you’re authorized to do it.
April 23rd, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Hey Barry,
Take it easy on her, she’s a fellow blogger…
http://www.cnbc.com//id/36648429
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:32 pm
I remember a time when Barry wouldn’t bother posting shit like this.
This site is becoming nauseating, but instead of deleting it from my blog list, I now visit the site as a commuter driving past the scene of a horrific accident.
Shame. Not for your conclusions, but for your utter lack of analysis.
April 24th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Maria’s out of her league commenting on something as complex as security fraud. She’s got a B.A. in journalism with a minor in econ and is married to the CEO of Wisdom Tree. While that doesn’t mean she can’t do her job, it does mean she might consider resisting comment at this stage of the game given her lack of a legal background in securities law. For example, I have a Ph.D. but my wife is an attorney and I’d be cautious about arguing with her about a legal issue, especially if it were in her area of expertise. Maria gets paid to be on TV but she doesn’t get paid to shill for GS when the complaint has just become public for a week or so.
April 24th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Well… she may be proved right in the end [which doesn't mean she is not currying favor],
but I think you guys are just bein’ mean [and probably really just want to know,
"Are those real?"].
April 24th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Ms. Bartiroma is right. There is no fraud. Incest is quite legal on Wall Street. Consensual adult incest, on Wall Street, is considered a victimless crime, and thus, it is rarely reported by the victim or Perpetrator. In this case it was reported by the SEC.