GatewayRedbirds.com

Arthur Dent wrote:

heyzeus wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... t/1891103/

Long overdue, but the justice dep't is pursuing fraud charges (but only civil, not criminal!) against Standard & Poor's for the bogus AAA ratings they were giving to mortgage-backed securities.

If they have any balls they'll go after Moody's too, as well as the investment banks that were paying S&P and Moody's to create the BS ratings for CDOs. They were absolutely complicit in influencing the ratings agencies to give phony grades.

Anybody else watch the recent Frontline report the Justice Department's investigation of Wall Street? The head of the unit had this to say:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... npunished/

Frontline: You gave a speech before the New York Bar Association. You talked about your use of nonprosecution and deferred prosecution agreements. And in that speech, you made a reference to “losing sleep at night over worrying about what a lawsuit might result in at a large financial institution.” Is that really the job of a prosecutor, to worry about anything other than simply pursuing justice?

Lanny Breuer: I think I am pursuing justice. And I think the whole entire responsibility of the department is to pursue justice. But in any given case, I think I and prosecutors around the country, being responsible, should speak to regulators, should speak to experts, because if I bring a case against institution A, and as a result of bringing that case there’s some huge economic effect, it affects the economy so that employees who had nothing to do with the wrongdoing of the company –

Frontline: Or shareholders.

Lanny Breuer: Well, first let’s talk about the employees. Employees may lose their jobs. Shareholders may or may not lose, and shareholders invested. But the employees perhaps did something different.

If it creates a ripple effect so that suddenly counterparties and other financial institutions or other companies that had nothing to do with this are affected badly, it’s a factor we need to know and understand.

We have, as a government and as an administration, dug out of one of the great financial crises in the world. And at the Department of Justice, we’re being aggressive, but we should in fact take into consideration what the experts tell us.

That doesn’t mean we won’t go forward, but it has to be a factor. And if you look at deferred prosecution agreements and nonprosecution agreements, they are a tool that we use in appropriate cases. And we have to continue to use those.

What a truly amazing thing to say.

Arthur Dent wrote:

heyzeus wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... t/1891103/

Long overdue, but the justice dep't is pursuing fraud charges (but only civil, not criminal!) against Standard & Poor's for the bogus AAA ratings they were giving to mortgage-backed securities.

If they have any balls they'll go after Moody's too, as well as the investment banks that were paying S&P and Moody's to create the BS ratings for CDOs. They were absolutely complicit in influencing the ratings agencies to give phony grades.

Anybody else watch the recent Frontline report the Justice Department's investigation of Wall Street? The head of the unit had this to say:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... npunished/

Frontline: You gave a speech before the New York Bar Association. You talked about your use of nonprosecution and deferred prosecution agreements. And in that speech, you made a reference to “losing sleep at night over worrying about what a lawsuit might result in at a large financial institution.” Is that really the job of a prosecutor, to worry about anything other than simply pursuing justice?

Lanny Breuer: I think I am pursuing justice. And I think the whole entire responsibility of the department is to pursue justice. But in any given case, I think I and prosecutors around the country, being responsible, should speak to regulators, should speak to experts, because if I bring a case against institution A, and as a result of bringing that case there’s some huge economic effect, it affects the economy so that employees who had nothing to do with the wrongdoing of the company –

Frontline: Or shareholders.

Lanny Breuer: Well, first let’s talk about the employees. Employees may lose their jobs. Shareholders may or may not lose, and shareholders invested. But the employees perhaps did something different.

If it creates a ripple effect so that suddenly counterparties and other financial institutions or other companies that had nothing to do with this are affected badly, it’s a factor we need to know and understand.

We have, as a government and as an administration, dug out of one of the great financial crises in the world. And at the Department of Justice, we’re being aggressive, but we should in fact take into consideration what the experts tell us.

That doesn’t mean we won’t go forward, but it has to be a factor. And if you look at deferred prosecution agreements and nonprosecution agreements, they are a tool that we use in appropriate cases. And we have to continue to use those.

What a truly amazing thing to say.

Arthur Dent wrote:

heyzeus wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... t/1891103/

Long overdue, but the justice dep't is pursuing fraud charges (but only civil, not criminal!) against Standard & Poor's for the bogus AAA ratings they were giving to mortgage-backed securities.

If they have any balls they'll go after Moody's too, as well as the investment banks that were paying S&P and Moody's to create the BS ratings for CDOs. They were absolutely complicit in influencing the ratings agencies to give phony grades.

Anybody else watch the recent Frontline report the Justice Department's investigation of Wall Street? The head of the unit had this to say:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... npunished/

Frontline: You gave a speech before the New York Bar Association. You talked about your use of nonprosecution and deferred prosecution agreements. And in that speech, you made a reference to “losing sleep at night over worrying about what a lawsuit might result in at a large financial institution.” Is that really the job of a prosecutor, to worry about anything other than simply pursuing justice?

Lanny Breuer: I think I am pursuing justice. And I think the whole entire responsibility of the department is to pursue justice. But in any given case, I think I and prosecutors around the country, being responsible, should speak to regulators, should speak to experts, because if I bring a case against institution A, and as a result of bringing that case there’s some huge economic effect, it affects the economy so that employees who had nothing to do with the wrongdoing of the company –

Frontline: Or shareholders.

Lanny Breuer: Well, first let’s talk about the employees. Employees may lose their jobs. Shareholders may or may not lose, and shareholders invested. But the employees perhaps did something different.

If it creates a ripple effect so that suddenly counterparties and other financial institutions or other companies that had nothing to do with this are affected badly, it’s a factor we need to know and understand.

We have, as a government and as an administration, dug out of one of the great financial crises in the world. And at the Department of Justice, we’re being aggressive, but we should in fact take into consideration what the experts tell us.

That doesn’t mean we won’t go forward, but it has to be a factor. And if you look at deferred prosecution agreements and nonprosecution agreements, they are a tool that we use in appropriate cases. And we have to continue to use those.

What a truly amazing thing to say.

May 14, 2009:
Swiss Franc Trader: pls can we get super high 3m[,] super low 6m
Swiss Franc Trader: PRETTY PLEASE!
Primary Submitter: 41 & 51
Swiss Franc Trader: if u did that [,] i would lvoe [sic] u forever
Primary Submitter: 41 & 55 then …
Swiss Franc Trader: if u did that i would come over there and make love to you [,] your choice
Primary Submitter: 41+51 it is
Swiss Franc Trader: thouht [sic] so
Primary Submitter: so shallow

August 17,2007:
Senior Yen Trader: we need usd libor to drop faster
Yen Trader 1: jpy libors v high[,] i set them then [Primary Submitter] overrides them[,] he has gone now for 2 weeks [ ... ]
Senior Yen Trader: I dont think 3m jpy libor will drop that much[,] 3mjpy at most down 1bps
Yen Trader 1: oh no[,] not if i have anything to do with it[,] and i do have somethin gto do with it ! lol

Late last month, Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) reported in a filing with the SEC that it had sold nearly $30 million in complex debt instruments called structured notes that were tied to the performance of Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) . That sale happened to come immediately before Apple released its most recent earnings report, after which the stock plunged. Although Goldman vehemently denies that it made money at the buyer's expense, various firms have sold billions of dollars in structured notes tied to Apple and other investments in the past year, and given the tech giant's losses, many of those notes have worked out badly for their buyers.

How structured notes work
Structured notes were designed to cater to the need among investors for substantial and dependable income. In general, they involve short-term bets on market benchmarks or individual stocks, offering yields well in excess of what the targeted investment offers in dividends. For instance, as Bloomberg reported, some of the notes that Goldman sold on Apple earlier in January were designed to pay a yield of more than 9% per year for as long as three years, with protection for investors' principal as long as the stock avoided losses of more than 30%.

But there's no such thing as a free lunch on Wall Street, and the lucrative income from structured notes comes with a catch. If the stock does fall below a certain threshold, then the company that sold the notes can force investors to accept shares of stock in repayment of the note rather than cash. Moreover, the notes are structured so that the amount of stock investors receive in case of a loss leaves them holding the bag for the entire amount of the loss. And to add insult to injury, after the threshold is triggered, the clock stops on any further income payments from the note, leaving investors with far less in total income than they expected when they first entered into the transaction.

Corporate earnings have risen at an annualized rate of 20.1 percent since the end of 2008, he said, but disposable income inched ahead by 1.4 percent annually over the same period, after adjusting for inflation.

“Right now, C.E.O.’s are saying, ‘I don’t really need to hire because of the productivity gains of the last few years,’ ” said Robert E. Moritz, chairman of the accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers.

At 218,300 employees, United Technologies’ work force is virtually unchanged from seven years ago, even though annual revenue soared to $57.7 billion in 2012 from $42.7 billion in 2005.

The relentless focus on maintaining margins continues, even though profit and revenue have never been higher; four days after the company’s shares soared past $90 to a record high last month, United Technologies confirmed it would eliminate an additional 3,000 workers this year, on top of 4,000 let go in 2012 as part a broader restructuring effort.

“There’s no doubt we will continue to drive productivity year after year,” Mr. Chenevert said. “Ultimately, we compete globally.”