I have no choice but to post this:

Category: Video

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

4 Responses to “Sen. Levin Grills Goldman Sachs Exec On “Shitty Deal” E-mail”

  1. The_Speculator says:

    Honestly, this guy is a putz.

  2. Senor Tropicana says:

    Honest question: Why is it Goldman’s job, other than reputation and further business dealings, to ensure that the other party knows it was a “shitty deal.” It seems to me like whoever is on the other side of the deal should know what they are getting into, unless Goldman outright lied to them about the underlying loans within the deal. The context of whether or not it was a shitty deal should have been left up to market participants, right?

  3. ilene says:

    Senor Trop, it’s the law: SEC Rule 10b-5, codified at 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, is one of the most important rules promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to its authority granted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The rule prohibits any act or omission resulting in fraud or deceit in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.

  4. ilene says:

    Good article on the subject, and related comment to email group:

    For instance, see this post, written by Mike Whitney on the hearing with Lloyd Blankfein: http://philsbackupsite.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/the-interrogation-of-lloyd-blankfein/


    “Levin was just as tough on Blankfein, reiterating the same question over and over again: “Is there not a conflict when you sell something to somebody, and then you bet against that same security, and you don’t disclose that to the person you’re selling it to? Do you see a problem?”

    At first, Blankfein acted like he’d never considered the question before, as if “putting himself in his client’s shoes” was something that never even entered his mind. His look of utter bewilderment was revealing. Then he launched into the excuses, the evasions, and the elaborate, long-winded ruminations that one expects from schoolboys and hucksters. But Levin never gave and inch. He kept pushing until Blankfein finally gave up and responded.

    “No,” he stammered, “In the context of market-making that’s not a conflict.”

    Blankfein’s answer was a triumph for Levin, and he knew it. To the millions of people watching the sequence on TV, Blankfein’s denial was as good as an admission of guilt. It showed that Wall Street kingpins don’t share the same morals as everyone else. In fact, Blankfein seemed genuinely confused that morality would even be an issue. After all, it wasn’t for him.”