AIG Is Thinking About Suing the Government for Bailing It Out

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

Bankers are the reason for what? the reason your company could make payroll? the reason you are able to drive over bridges and through tunnels, fly into airports in airplanes, have clean water and not have sewer water in your street, have a stable food supply, medicine.... i assume that is what you meant. Bankers are evil and all those things brought to you from them should be outlawed.

So because banks provide essential financial services then the way banks do business is therefore above reproach? Nonsense.

Doctors provide essential services that you'd miss if they were gone... but if a doctor turned up to surgery smashed off his tits and amputated your leg instead of removing your appendix then you'd sue the fuck out of him and everyone else in the hospital who let it happen.

i never implied they were above reproach. He made a comment and i asked for clarity. i DID remind him of what bankers do because i sensed where he was going. He did not let me down either.

I am a strong advocate for bank regulation. I strongly support the prosecution of criminals, including bankers. Bank fraud damages the business i am in. My posts have never implied otherwise. What i do comment on when someone makes a fictional tirade about crimes that did not occur. i call that out so others dont repeat it.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

you can also get a huge check from the gov't by exposing people who commit bank fraud. so by all means, do that too.

I seem to recall an article about a bloke who noticed that Bernie Madoff's fund consistently posted brilliant returns, as in, every time without fail. So he looked into it in a bit more detail, became very suspicious, wrote a few letters to the FBI and SEC and received back some responses thanking him for his time.

And then several years later it all came crashing down and everyone found out Madoff was one of the biggest fraudsters in the history of money.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

you can also get a huge check from the gov't by exposing people who commit bank fraud. so by all means, do that too.

I seem to recall an article about a bloke who noticed that Bernie Madoff's fund consistently posted brilliant returns, as in, every time without fail. So he looked into it in a bit more detail, became very suspicious, wrote a few letters to the FBI and SEC and received back some responses thanking him for his time.

And then several years later it all came crashing down and everyone found out Madoff was one of the biggest fraudsters in the history of money.

Bernie did not run a bank. he was not guilty of bank fraud. he was a money manager.

the FBI and SEC dropped the ball and should have been more shamed. he was caught by Finra, an organization i have mentioned numerous times should regulate everything. Or at least be emulated by the others. nobody messes with them

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

Weekender, there are sales guys at Standard and Poor. They sell a service right? Now the sales guys at S&P might not have been the ones applying the bogus ratings, but S&P employees fraudulently gave high ratings to paper that was junk, so that sales guys at banks could sell paper based on the attractiveness of the rating. By you saying you don't know what the front end paper is, in the giant banking scheme that involved bogus mortgage paper being pulled into mortgage back securities and were insured of default tells me you really don't have a clue what happened to this country. And you work in banking?

It was a ponzi scheme predicated on fake loans, pooled, sold and then insured against failure. It failed when buyers left and Lehman was stuck with the bag of worthless paper. AND THE BANKERS< YOU, DIDN"T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE BUSINESS YOU WERE IN.

So tell me all about commissions earned off of selling investments. Here bankie, buy this lot of AAA paper for 1 billion. And OH, it's insured never to fail and you'll earn 10%APR.... Funny how AIG and Lehman we're the ones left with the trash. And even those guys got there commission checks.

Your post makes no sense to me. I'm sorry, perhaps you know something i do not. I suppose its possible you know more about banking than me. if i had to guess, based on your fictional term, "front end paper" i'm not the one who is lacking knowledge on what happened to this country.

I am at a huge disadvantage in this discussion because i am saddled with the burden of knowledge on the topic. you on the other hand, can make up terms and theories and expect me to make a coherent response to them. its just not possible. i only respond to people like you for the edification of other readers. so they see how clueless people like you are in finance and do not repeat your comments. i dont want them to feel as embarrassed as you should be right now

Well we got through the English discussion with much success.
About terms. If you view the financial crisis started during the ending years of Bush's term in its entiretly, front end paper were the mortgages. I suppose you could label the adverts selling mortgages the front end but adverts are not financial instruments. I already defined the term. If you have trouble understanding what a mortgage is, then there's little I can do about that.
Now about bankers and your attempt to only respond to me so that no one will take any misconceptions away with what I've written, combined with your words where you seemlingly alude to the fact you haven't a clue what a mortgage is, clearly demonstrates you attempt is a failure.

You've offer nothing in your understanding of the financial crisis. And there was a crisis. Surely a banker would know what happened. If I don't have it right then fess up!

I've only written things most have read about anyway and have reserved writing things about what my friends who work for Justice and have been investigating and prosecuting banking and financial crimes for years. Quite an eye opener banker crimes. Crimes in the sense that if they did those acts outside of their country club set of rules, they'd go to jail. Madoff as an example. Exec at BOA, JP untouched.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Bernie did not run a bank. he was not guilty of bank fraud. he was a money manager.

That's what I've been saying all along. Bernie ran a Ponzi, but Bernie was outside the Bankster Industry. Hence he got caught. I suspect Bernie is sorry he wasn't in banking as if he were he might have enjoyed the benefits of a Ponzie AS ALL THE OTHER BANKERS ENJOYED without repercussions. All the worlds banks were participants in a huge ponzi that failed the reason the banking crisis and NOT ONE PERSON WENT TO JAIL.
It's a double standard.

[Bertt 0]

Just an aside here. CNN reported that AIG had decided not to join this lawsuit. Their report didn't mention Greenberg. Most especially, they didn't say anything about Greenberg leaving AIG under the cloud of a suit by New York for fraud.
On the plus side, reports from the Daily Show and Rolling Stone were much more accurate and complete (and funnier at the same time). With the news coverage most people get, it's no wonder so many people don't understand what's going on around them.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[weekender 0]

i know debt instruments much better than most. What i fail to understand is your posts because you use fictitious terms like "front end paper". No reasonable person should be expected to understand an argument based on something that only exist in your head. you cannot create your own terms and expect to make an intelligent argument. another example is trying to explain to me "adverts selling mortgages could be considered the front end." that is complete jibberish to anyone with knowledge on the topic. you might as well have mentioned the flux capacitor because that is about as real as your described financial instruments.

I'm going to reit(thats real jargon for reiterate, feel free to use it later so at least you have one real banking term), i cannot actually have a discussion with you about a topic you do not understand. It is not fair to me. Google some of the instruments you are trying to describe and maybe you can put together a coherent thought. otherwise, you look foolish trying to show how i do not understand the topic because i do not understand your fabricated terms.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

>OHCHUTE wrote "So now that we know you have banking experience please tell us exactly how the sales guys at Standand and Poor rated the junk paper to AAA status so that the paper would be attractive to sell, so much so, they were having a hard time fueling the front end paper scam even by having people who didn't have a dime, apply for mortgage loans.
I take it you never got your coffee shop the reason you're a tad huffy. And not a member of the club!
I know business and there's a double standard."
_________________________________________________
i cannot respond because your post makes no sense to me. S&P's salesmen do not give ratings. i have no idea what a "front end paper" is. S&P has nothing to do with mortgage sales as you seem to imply. You seem to have heard a lot of names and terms you do not understand and attempted to put them in sentences to make an argument. you failed. You should not argue finance. you have no understanding of it.

pause for a moment and ask yourself. who is mostly likely naive about finance here? the guy who openly admitted to working in banking for 20 years or you? The guy who has openly admitted to working at GSCO and other IB's or you? I suppose it could me but doubt it.

save face and pretend you have to go jumping or something.

S&P (along with Moodys and Fitch) certainly gave AAA ratings to junk. And then they claimed 1st amendment rights as a reason they should not be held accountable. Maybe not outright fraud but certainly reprehensible, yet the financial services industry appears to find it acceptable.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[weekender 0]

Quote

Just an aside here. CNN reported that AIG had decided not to join this lawsuit. Their report didn't mention Greenberg. Most especially, they didn't say anything about Greenberg leaving AIG under the cloud of a suit by New York for fraud.
On the plus side, reports from the Daily Show and Rolling Stone were much more accurate and complete (and funnier at the same time). With the news coverage most people get, it's no wonder so many people don't understand what's going on around them.

yes, i mentioned that yesterday when it hit the tape. i imagine CNN didnt mention Starr or Hank G because they do not understand the topic much. They are in the business of selling add time and dont really care either. CNBC is much better but still pretty lame. Bloomberg TV is really the best. Boring to most and no ratings but the best actual news.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

>OHCHUTE wrote "So now that we know you have banking experience please tell us exactly how the sales guys at Standand and Poor rated the junk paper to AAA status so that the paper would be attractive to sell, so much so, they were having a hard time fueling the front end paper scam even by having people who didn't have a dime, apply for mortgage loans.
I take it you never got your coffee shop the reason you're a tad huffy. And not a member of the club!
I know business and there's a double standard."
_________________________________________________
i cannot respond because your post makes no sense to me. S&P's salesmen do not give ratings. i have no idea what a "front end paper" is. S&P has nothing to do with mortgage sales as you seem to imply. You seem to have heard a lot of names and terms you do not understand and attempted to put them in sentences to make an argument. you failed. You should not argue finance. you have no understanding of it.

pause for a moment and ask yourself. who is mostly likely naive about finance here? the guy who openly admitted to working in banking for 20 years or you? The guy who has openly admitted to working at GSCO and other IB's or you? I suppose it could me but doubt it.

save face and pretend you have to go jumping or something.

S&P (along with Moodys and Fitch) certainly gave AAA ratings to junk. And then they claimed 1st amendment rights as a reason they should not be held accountable. Maybe not outright fraud but certainly reprehensible, yet the financial services industry appears to find it acceptable.

They claim they can only use the data given to them by the inv banks. The inv banks claim they can only use the data given to them by the commercial bank or mortgage originator who in turn blames the buyers. Huge mess and the truth is no one is really lying. the system was broken.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[weekender 0]

i'm on my way to meet some people from drinks. sorry, not running from my comments but i doubt i will reply till tomm.

i say this because im aware alot of people want to beat me up and they will have to wait to tomm.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Huge mess and the truth is no one is really lying.

Spoken like a banker, now that the banker chooses to actually discusss the matter.

Witholding information is just as culpable as lying. The guy who orginated the mortgage and loan knowing that mortgagee couldn't pay and then selling the note to someone else without letting them know the mortgage was bogus is in my opinion fraud. There was much withhold of info, not only bank to bank but internally with employees who were kept in the dark purposely.

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

Huge mess and the truth is no one is really lying.

Spoken like a banker, now that the banker chooses to actually discusss the matter.

Witholding information is just as culpable as lying. The guy who orginated the mortgage and loan knowing that mortgagee couldn't pay and then selling the note to someone else without letting them know the mortgage was bogus is in my opinion fraud. There was much withhold of info, not only bank to bank but internally with employees who were kept in the dark purposely.

I have always been discussing finance. you were the one discussing something that only exist in your head. made up products sold by fictional characters was the thesis of your rants. its humorous how now you try to act as though im the one getting on board with the topic.

The rest of your post is just your normal nonsense and merits no response from someone who actually understands the topic. another failed attempt to summarize a situation you have no knowledge on nor the ability to understand, from what i gathered by your use of fictitious terms and characters. I'm still trying to figure out "front end paper" and "adverts". That is complete gibberish.

if you have friends in the justice dept they have done a horrible job of explaining their job to you. I'm guessing these friends are a fantasy that only exist in the same imaginary world "adverts" push "front end paper". Hopefully you spent some time googling real terms so at a minimum you can pretend better to understand the topic.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[weekender 0]

Quote

Bernie did not run a bank. he was not guilty of bank fraud. he was a money manager.

That's what I've been saying all along. Bernie ran a Ponzi, but Bernie was outside the Bankster Industry. Hence he got caught. I suspect Bernie is sorry he wasn't in banking as if he were he might have enjoyed the benefits of a Ponzie AS ALL THE OTHER BANKERS ENJOYED without repercussions. All the worlds banks were participants in a huge ponzi that failed the reason the banking crisis and NOT ONE PERSON WENT TO JAIL.
It's a double standard.

This makes no sense. it reminds me of the Adam Sandler movie where the moderator comments that we are all dumber by having heard it. I'm sure someone can find the link for you.

Bernie was a money manager but not employed by a bank. If he had been, he would have been caught much much sooner since they are regulated MORE not less. It should be common knowledge to someone who has friends in the justice dept that money managers and hedge funds have less restrictions. That was the problem, he was outside of most bank regulators supervision. That was my point and it went right over your head.

you seem to think the opposite because as i stated repeatedly, you have no understanding of this topic. you also seem to lack the ability to be embarrassed.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Huge mess and the truth is no one is really lying.

Spoken like a banker, now that the banker chooses to actually discusss the matter.

Witholding information is just as culpable as lying. The guy who orginated the mortgage and loan knowing that mortgagee couldn't pay and then selling the note to someone else without letting them know the mortgage was bogus is in my opinion fraud. There was much withhold of info, not only bank to bank but internally with employees who were kept in the dark purposely.

I have always been discussing finance. you were the one discussing something that only exist in your head. made up products sold by fictional characters was the thesis of your rants. its humorous how now you try to act as though im the one getting on board with the topic.

The rest of your post is just your normal nonsense and merits no response from someone who actually understands the topic. another failed attempt to summarize a situation you have no knowledge on nor the ability to understand, from what i gathered by your use of fictitious terms and characters. I'm still trying to figure out "front end paper" and "adverts". That is complete gibberish.

if you have friends in the justice dept they have done a horrible job of explaining their job to you. I'm guessing these friends are a fantasy that only exist in the same imaginary world "adverts" push "front end paper". Hopefully you spent some time googling real terms so at a minimum you can pretend better to understand the topic.

I was wrong, you don't want to discuss the matter.


You are not reading or understanding. Front end paper= the mortgages that were pooled into mortgage back securities. Also, Kallend posted similar information about the the rating of securities. Why do you resort to BS when discussing the matter? You started off by attacking my spelling, avoiding the issue. Now you're coming up with much BS to do the same. Your words don't give you much creditability. I too am discussing finance and if "mortgages" or front end paper "terms" to a broad scheme that resulted in our financial collapse is unknown to you then, there's not much sense discussion the matter with you.

But being the kind person I am, I'll give you one last change to help yourself out from under how horrible you are looking right now with YOUR TYPING.

Lets see if you can handle one aspect. Since you are in banking, can you please tell us if it was OK S&P rated junk AAA when they knew it was junk? That is if you believe that to be true. And should you fail to answer the question and avoid answering it via circuitous language, will most definitely show you are trolling.

We curiously await your response.

The queston is isolated from prose to help you answer the question:

Was OK S&P rated junk AAA when they knew it was junk?

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Huge mess and the truth is no one is really lying.

Spoken like a banker, now that the banker chooses to actually discusss the matter.

Witholding information is just as culpable as lying. The guy who orginated the mortgage and loan knowing that mortgagee couldn't pay and then selling the note to someone else without letting them know the mortgage was bogus is in my opinion fraud. There was much withhold of info, not only bank to bank but internally with employees who were kept in the dark purposely.

I have always been discussing finance. you were the one discussing something that only exist in your head. made up products sold by fictional characters was the thesis of your rants. its humorous how now you try to act as though im the one getting on board with the topic.

The rest of your post is just your normal nonsense and merits no response from someone who actually understands the topic. another failed attempt to summarize a situation you have no knowledge on nor the ability to understand, from what i gathered by your use of fictitious terms and characters. I'm still trying to figure out "front end paper" and "adverts". That is complete gibberish.

if you have friends in the justice dept they have done a horrible job of explaining their job to you. I'm guessing these friends are a fantasy that only exist in the same imaginary world "adverts" push "front end paper". Hopefully you spent some time googling real terms so at a minimum you can pretend better to understand the topic.

I was wrong, you don't want to discuss the matter.


You are not reading or understanding. Front end paper= the mortgages that were pooled into mortgage back securities. Also, Kallend posted similar information about the the rating of securities. Why do you resort to BS when discussing the matter? You started off by attacking my spelling, avoiding the issue. Now you're coming up with much BS to do the same. Your words don't give you much creditability. I too am discussing finance and if "mortgages" or front end paper "terms" to a broad scheme that resulted in our financial collapse is unknown to you then, there's not much sense discussion the matter with you.

But being the kind person I am, I'll give you one last change to help yourself out from under how horrible you are looking right now with YOUR TYPING.

Lets see if you can handle one aspect. Since you are in banking, can you please tell us if it was OK S&P rated junk AAA when they knew it was junk? That is if you believe that to be true. And should you fail to answer the question and avoid answering it via circuitous language, will most definitely show you are trolling.

We curiously await your response.

The queston is isolated from prose to help you answer the question:

Was OK S&P rated junk AAA when they knew it was junk?

You cannot make up your own terms like "front end paper" and "admen", then accuse me of avoiding the discussion. I cannot intelligently discuss your imaginary financial instruments.

to answer your question. if anyone at S&P purposely rated something higher than they believed for financial gain or any reason, then they should be held accountable. I have been clear on this topic since my first post. Criminals should be convicted.

Because you said it happened does not make it so. I feel you do not understand that.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[weekender 0]

>" I too am discussing finance and if "mortgages" or front end paper "terms" to a broad scheme that resulted in our financial collapse is unknown to you then, there's not much sense discussion the matter with you."



i pulled this sentence out to make a point. this is our problem. You have created an imaginary instrument called "front end paper" then claim its definition is mortgages. You then additionally claim that they are part of a scheme that collapsed our markets. That is no truth to that claim so its unfair to accuse me of avoiding the topic. its not possible for me, someone who understands fixed income instruments and the financial markets, to discuss your imaginary ones.

That does not make me a coward for avoiding this argument. This makes me a rational sane person.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

>" I too am discussing finance and if "mortgages" or front end paper "terms" to a broad scheme that resulted in our financial collapse is unknown to you then, there's not much sense discussion the matter with you."



i pulled this sentence out to make a point. this is our problem. You have created an imaginary instrument called "front end paper" then claim its definition is mortgages. You then additionally claim that they are part of a scheme that collapsed our markets. That is no truth to that claim so its unfair to accuse me of avoiding the topic. its not possible for me, someone who understands fixed income instruments and the financial markets, to discuss your imaginary ones.

That does not make me a coward for avoiding this argument. This makes me a rational sane person.

It is curious your attention to detail, and words used to talk about the same item. OK since you disagree with the use of "front end paper" I'll retract the use of front-end-paper and stick with Mortgages instead.

Although the question for you is still tabled, I believe a discussion about financial terms is necessary. I find it particualar interesting that the FINANCIAL INDUSTRY is the only INDUSTRY that can label its own papers. They can call their papers JUNK and that's OK. But somehow according to you if I use FRONT END PAPER, as a means to describe mortgages, FRONT END PAPER that CountryWIDE was printing at such a fast rate their printing pressess melted, to aid the mortgage back security guys efforts, that's not OK. In using the term FRONT END PAPER, I was being polite in my description of labeling papers used to start the scam. I was considering using: DOG CRAP, which is what those papers amounted to in discussing your glorious papers.

Now answer the question or we shall surely see what is dog crap and what is a plate of your finest food. As I'm not dishing any canine fare.

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

>" I too am discussing finance and if "mortgages" or front end paper "terms" to a broad scheme that resulted in our financial collapse is unknown to you then, there's not much sense discussion the matter with you."



i pulled this sentence out to make a point. this is our problem. You have created an imaginary instrument called "front end paper" then claim its definition is mortgages. You then additionally claim that they are part of a scheme that collapsed our markets. That is no truth to that claim so its unfair to accuse me of avoiding the topic. its not possible for me, someone who understands fixed income instruments and the financial markets, to discuss your imaginary ones.

That does not make me a coward for avoiding this argument. This makes me a rational sane person.

It is curious your attention to detail, and words used to talk about the same item. OK since you disagree with the use of "front end paper" I'll retract the use of front-end-paper and stick with Mortgages instead.

Although the question for you is still tabled, I believe a discussion about financial terms is necessary. I find it particualar interesting that the FINANCIAL INDUSTRY is the only INDUSTRY that can label its own papers. They can call their papers JUNK and that's OK. But somehow according to you if I use FRONT END PAPER, as a means to describe mortgages, FRONT END PAPER that CountryWIDE was printing at such a fast rate their printing pressess melted, to aid the mortgage back security guys efforts, that's not OK. In using the term FRONT END PAPER, I was being polite in my description of labeling papers used to start the scam. I was considering using: DOG CRAP, which is what those papers amounted to in discussing your glorious papers.

Now answer the question or we shall surely see what is dog crap and what is a plate of your finest food. As I'm not dishing any canine fare.

you seem upset that i refuse to discuss your imaginary financial instruments. Its customary in a conversation to use common terms and not create your own.

I am sorry i do not understand your comments about labeling paper. it could be because i do not understand finance or because your post is nonsense. either way i will try to respond. in the fixed income industry the debt is labeled according to its perceived risk. Junk is a generic term for low rated instruments. C rated and below is normally referred to as junk. i cannot say they are the only industry to label their paper because i do not understand what you mean by that. it makes no sense. i dont think you understand what the term "label" even means.

the bottom line is no, i will not subscribe to your theory that their was a grand scheme for admen to push front end paper they labeled AAA but knew was junk and it collapsed the economy. i cannot because i am an intelligent sane person who actually knows what im talking about and does not believe in farcical conspiracy theories.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

I am sorry i do not understand your comments about labeling paper. it could be because i do not understand finance or because your post is nonsense. either way i will try to respond. in the fixed income industry the debt is labeled according to its perceived risk. Junk is a generic term for low rated instruments. C rated and below is normally referred to as junk. i cannot say they are the only industry to label their paper because i do not understand what you mean by that. it makes no sense. i dont think you understand what the term "label" even means.

the bottom line is no, i will not subscribe to your theory that their was a grand scheme for admen to push front end paper they labeled AAA but knew was junk and it collapsed the economy. i cannot because i am an intelligent sane person who actually knows what im talking about and does not believe in farcical conspiracy theories.

After I said I'd refrain from using "front end paper" in describing mortgages, now you are using "front end paper in refering to mortgages. Although I think this will take more effort than I have time for I'll sum it for you. Finally.

It doesn't take a lot of decision makers to make a financial crisis. At Enron, only two people went to jail and that involved billions. Mizolo and his crew at Countrywide handled billions too for which there was a class action suit waged againt Countrywide and there is a criminal fraud case pending against him individually for his crimes. If you think for a second countrywide wasn't talking to others he exchanged money and papers with, you are pretty misguided.

You answered no to the question that JUNK was NOT rated AAA. I don't know how you could say that as it's been reported pretty heavily that papers were given bogus ratings in order to make the investments saleable. And everyone along the chain of the SCAM were incentivized to do things they would not normally do: false ratings, generating bogus mortgages to fuel the Mortgage Backed Securities, insuring securities they knew were bogus etc. The only people that didn't know anything were the people with money who were taken advantage of by these scumbags. I gather Lehman was selected as the fall guy as they had most of the paper and they knew they were holding the bag so conveniently they went out of biz and many headed to Brazil to cool off. Probably back in biz under a different name.

Speaking of a phony world, imaginary concepts and instruments, the financail industry reeks of such instruments as its so easy to create a penny piece of paper and call it an instrument or security. Whereas creating a John Deer tractor or build a house take effort, the press, now the computer, can churns billions of papers into billions of instruments with one push of a button. And the idea you suggest these guys, as few as they may be, don't talk to each other as they hand each other money. You've got to be kidding. President Bush was in Cayman a few months ago to meet with Hedge Fund managers most of whom do FUND TO FUND money transfers and you claim they don't talk to each other.


You are stating the same things bankers stated during learning about the crisis. We didn't know about it. Or the investments were too complicated to either understan them. Balon. People knew what they were doing.

So tell us what happened to all the toxic debt created by all your bogus papers. What did the banks do with that or in their fantasy world of imginary concepts? Did they just push the ERASE button and recaluculate their balance sheets to get rid of the debt as we've not heard about toxic debt for a long time now and I suspect your financial buddies are happy the public has forgotten THOSE PAPERS, what ever you might call them now THAT THOSE PAPERS HAVE DISAPPEARED.

I guess the toxic debt evaporated into nothing. Gone in your phoney financial world that OWNS THIS COUNTRY with all their financial wizzardry.

Here's a one of your kind who says he didn't know what was happening. The crisis just happened. We can't explain it.

Sure....

http://consumerist.com/2010/05/07/countrywide-settles-class-action-suit-for-624-million/

[weekender 0]

>"What did the banks do with that or in their fantasy world of imginary concepts? Did they just push the ERASE button and recaluculate their balance sheets to get rid of the debt as we've not heard about toxic debt for a long time now and I suspect your financial buddies are happy the public has forgotten THOSE PAPERS, what ever you might call them now THAT THOSE PAPERS HAVE DISAPPEARED."


I only responded to you earlier so i could expose that you do not know what your talking about. That was my goal and it has been achieved. at this point im just picking on you so we can end this discussion.

For anyone still reading this thread and curious about the truth. the debt still exist and is slowly being sold off or written down. The banks report their losses on this debt in charges when they file their 10Q and K's. It has not gone anywhere except down, reported and reflected on their balance sheets. All the major banks are public, anyone reading this can go to the net and pull down their financials and see the debt listed. no conspiracies or hidden numbers. Just people who do not know what they are talking about. (Or am i in on it???, couldnt help myself)

lastly, to be very clear. I am well aware of what caused the last crisis. I lived it first hand while employed at an IB. I dont deny the banks, as well as others, made huge mistakes that cost billions and hurt many. I will never believe, because im sane, that there was a conspiracy or scam perpetrated by bunch of evil doers.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

>"What did the banks do with that or in their fantasy world of imginary concepts? Did they just push the ERASE button and recaluculate their balance sheets to get rid of the debt as we've not heard about toxic debt for a long time now and I suspect your financial buddies are happy the public has forgotten THOSE PAPERS, what ever you might call them now THAT THOSE PAPERS HAVE DISAPPEARED."


I only responded to you earlier so i could expose that you do not know what your talking about. That was my goal and it has been achieved. at this point im just picking on you so we can end this discussion.

For anyone still reading this thread and curious about the truth. the debt still exist and is slowly being sold off or written down. The banks report their losses on this debt in charges when they file their 10Q and K's. It has not gone anywhere except down, reported and reflected on their balance sheets. All the major banks are public, anyone reading this can go to the net and pull down their financials and see the debt listed. no conspiracies or hidden numbers. Just people who do not know what they are talking about. (Or am i in on it???, couldnt help myself)

lastly, to be very clear. I am well aware of what caused the last crisis. I lived it first hand while employed at an IB. I dont deny the banks, as well as others, made huge mistakes that cost billions and hurt many. I will never believe, because im sane, that there was a conspiracy or scam perpetrated by bunch of evil doers.

You've not achieved diddly. You answered junk was not rated AAA when it was, which is unbelievable.

I like those terms: "Written Down" What does that mean?: writing down the debt to a lesser value than what it was before the write down. More financial wizardry. OK today the debts a billion. Tomorrow lets make it 500 million. That should do it.

OH, the idea of of buying and selling debt is one of our problems the reason the Araba way of finance is much better. And the reason Arab banks didn't fail. Every piece of paper is tied to a tangable asset where as Wall Streets way every piece or paper is tied to another piece of paper that you might not be sure any value. Gold is no longer a standard, some guy's paper is the standard.

ON THIS END NOTE, and since I'm a really good guy who doesn't have to continually state as you do, that I'm a sane person, I'm going to give you something. It should cap off exactly your world.

---------------------------------------------------------
Genuine Authorized Certificate
ONE BILLION BONDS
Par value. $1.00 each
Made payable to Weekender for being such a sane informative person, and very engaging with all his banking expertise.

Signed by issuer: OHCHUTE
___________________________________________


Mr. Sanity, Just print it out along with all your words as all will grow in value over time. BTW its insured, and you'll have no problem selling it to one of your banking buddies. Just let me know if you want me to send over the BOND INSURANCE COVERAGE document. OH and BTW, the Bonds are rated AAA. IF you need the rating certificate, let me know. I have that one here too I can send you which will help you sell my generous gift for a profit. And OH btw way, Steel Workers Union is ripe to be sold bonds. Give them a call. Hank over there will buy the billion from you for 1.2b so hey time to party.

You're a funny banker.
Have a great day.

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

>"What did the banks do with that or in their fantasy world of imginary concepts? Did they just push the ERASE button and recaluculate their balance sheets to get rid of the debt as we've not heard about toxic debt for a long time now and I suspect your financial buddies are happy the public has forgotten THOSE PAPERS, what ever you might call them now THAT THOSE PAPERS HAVE DISAPPEARED."


I only responded to you earlier so i could expose that you do not know what your talking about. That was my goal and it has been achieved. at this point im just picking on you so we can end this discussion.

For anyone still reading this thread and curious about the truth. the debt still exist and is slowly being sold off or written down. The banks report their losses on this debt in charges when they file their 10Q and K's. It has not gone anywhere except down, reported and reflected on their balance sheets. All the major banks are public, anyone reading this can go to the net and pull down their financials and see the debt listed. no conspiracies or hidden numbers. Just people who do not know what they are talking about. (Or am i in on it???, couldnt help myself)

lastly, to be very clear. I am well aware of what caused the last crisis. I lived it first hand while employed at an IB. I dont deny the banks, as well as others, made huge mistakes that cost billions and hurt many. I will never believe, because im sane, that there was a conspiracy or scam perpetrated by bunch of evil doers.

You've not achieved diddly. You answered junk was not rated AAA when it was, which is unbelievable.

I like those terms: "Written Down" What does that mean?: writing down the debt to a lesser value than what it was before the write down. More financial wizardry. OK today the debts a billion. Tomorrow lets make it 500 million. That should do it.

OH, the idea of of buying and selling debt is one of our problems the reason the Araba way of finance is much better. And the reason Arab banks didn't fail. Every piece of paper is tied to a tangable asset where as Wall Streets way every piece or paper is tied to another piece of paper that you might not be sure any value. Gold is no longer a standard, some guy's paper is the standard.

ON THIS END NOTE, and since I'm a really good guy who doesn't have to continually state as you do, that I'm a sane person, I'm going to give you something. It should cap off exactly your world.

---------------------------------------------------------
Genuine Authorized Certificate
ONE BILLION BONDS
Par value. $1.00 each
Made payable to Weekender for being such a sane informative person, and very engaging with all his banking expertise.

Signed by issuer: OHCHUTE
___________________________________________


Mr. Sanity, Just print it out along with all your words as all will grow in value over time. BTW its insured, and you'll have no problem selling it to one of your banking buddies. Just let me know if you want me to send over the BOND INSURANCE COVERAGE document. OH and BTW, the Bonds are rated AAA. IF you need the rating certificate, let me know. I have that one here too I can send you which will help you sell my generous gift for a profit. And OH btw way, Steel Workers Union is ripe to be sold bonds. Give them a call. Hank over there will buy the billion from you for 1.2b so hey time to party.

You're a funny banker.
Have a great day.

you have done an excellent job of exposing my financial ignorance and insanity. this last post doesnt at all make you look slightly off or ignorant of general accounting principles.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[Napalm_C 0]

This is my first post on DZ. I'd just like to say that this was one of the most entertaining discussions I've seen in a long time. Really had me cracking up.

Weekender - I truly admire your patience

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

This is my first post on DZ. I'd just like to say that this was one of the most entertaining discussions I've seen in a long time. Really had me cracking up.

Weekender - I truly admire your patience

No bonds for you!

The papers are littered with fines to cover financial crimes for wrong doing. Reported today Goldman and Morgan Stanley settle $557 million in fines.

Of course they get to write off the fines as losses from their balance sheets. No jail time.

You are owned.