Has Goldman fatally damaged their Franchise?

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Wake up and smell the lucre, Bubba. Its a rigged game. As the old saw goes: If you can’t find the sucker in the game, chances are its YOU.[/quote]

In any society, people at the very top will always get protected. There’s no way around that.

We just need to make sure the powerful don’t abuse their power too much.

Like I said before, I don’t believe in all or nothing. I’d rather end up with something rather than nothing.

You already know my feelings about incremental improvements over time. I think of small improvements as compound interest that add up to a lot over decades.

Do you want a fixer house or nothing at all while you hope for that dream house?

[Coronita]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]Remember, Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 signed into law by George W. Bush?

There was a lot more bi-partisan support back then. (423–3 and 99–0)

What we have now is the Party of No, Hell No!

*

We just have to wait see what the outcome of the SEC lawsuit is.

And we’ll see who supports financial reform and who doesn’t.[/quote]

Brian: How does everything manage to get framed by you in a partisan context?

How does Sarbanes-Oxley fit into this?

And, do you really believe that there are any teeth at all in the Dodd bill? Meaning, do you think that is honest financial reform?

None of these issues has dick to do with right or left, or Dem versus Repub. Its ALL about money, hence my earlier question as to why the Dems haven’t been going after Wall Street with an axe (hint, its cuz the banksters are throwing bags of money their way, too).

Wake up and smell the lucre, Bubba. Its a rigged game. As the old saw goes: If you can’t find the sucker in the game, chances are its YOU.[/quote]

Brian, if you want to frame this up as a partisan thing, you might also want to check out Glass Steagall when and how it was repealed. Both parties contributed to this mess, dude.

You’re dreaming if you think the SEC is any better then the way it was before. Your brightest aren’t going to be working for the SEC. Your brightest are working for those banks with that 20x bonus carrot dangling in front, creating the next complex financial models that once again the SEC will not understand…Rinse and repeat.. BTW: it’s getting very close to election time. Coincidence that Obama is suddenly pretty quite about Wall Street reform????

[Coronita]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]Remember, Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 signed into law by George W. Bush?

There was a lot more bi-partisan support back then. (423–3 and 99–0)

What we have now is the Party of No, Hell No!

*

We just have to wait see what the outcome of the SEC lawsuit is.

And we’ll see who supports financial reform and who doesn’t.[/quote]

Brian: How does everything manage to get framed by you in a partisan context?

How does Sarbanes-Oxley fit into this?

And, do you really believe that there are any teeth at all in the Dodd bill? Meaning, do you think that is honest financial reform?

None of these issues has dick to do with right or left, or Dem versus Repub. Its ALL about money, hence my earlier question as to why the Dems haven’t been going after Wall Street with an axe (hint, its cuz the banksters are throwing bags of money their way, too).

Wake up and smell the lucre, Bubba. Its a rigged game. As the old saw goes: If you can’t find the sucker in the game, chances are its YOU.[/quote]

Brian, if you want to frame this up as a partisan thing, you might also want to check out Glass Steagall when and how it was repealed. Both parties contributed to this mess, dude.

You’re dreaming if you think the SEC is any better then the way it was before. Your brightest aren’t going to be working for the SEC. Your brightest are working for those banks with that 20x bonus carrot dangling in front, creating the next complex financial models that once again the SEC will not understand…Rinse and repeat.. BTW: it’s getting very close to election time. Coincidence that Obama is suddenly pretty quite about Wall Street reform????

[Coronita]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]Remember, Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 signed into law by George W. Bush?

There was a lot more bi-partisan support back then. (423–3 and 99–0)

What we have now is the Party of No, Hell No!

*

We just have to wait see what the outcome of the SEC lawsuit is.

And we’ll see who supports financial reform and who doesn’t.[/quote]

Brian: How does everything manage to get framed by you in a partisan context?

How does Sarbanes-Oxley fit into this?

And, do you really believe that there are any teeth at all in the Dodd bill? Meaning, do you think that is honest financial reform?

None of these issues has dick to do with right or left, or Dem versus Repub. Its ALL about money, hence my earlier question as to why the Dems haven’t been going after Wall Street with an axe (hint, its cuz the banksters are throwing bags of money their way, too).

Wake up and smell the lucre, Bubba. Its a rigged game. As the old saw goes: If you can’t find the sucker in the game, chances are its YOU.[/quote]

Brian, if you want to frame this up as a partisan thing, you might also want to check out Glass Steagall when and how it was repealed. Both parties contributed to this mess, dude.

You’re dreaming if you think the SEC is any better then the way it was before. Your brightest aren’t going to be working for the SEC. Your brightest are working for those banks with that 20x bonus carrot dangling in front, creating the next complex financial models that once again the SEC will not understand…Rinse and repeat.. BTW: it’s getting very close to election time. Coincidence that Obama is suddenly pretty quite about Wall Street reform????

[Coronita]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]Remember, Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 signed into law by George W. Bush?

There was a lot more bi-partisan support back then. (423–3 and 99–0)

What we have now is the Party of No, Hell No!

*

We just have to wait see what the outcome of the SEC lawsuit is.

And we’ll see who supports financial reform and who doesn’t.[/quote]

Brian: How does everything manage to get framed by you in a partisan context?

How does Sarbanes-Oxley fit into this?

And, do you really believe that there are any teeth at all in the Dodd bill? Meaning, do you think that is honest financial reform?

None of these issues has dick to do with right or left, or Dem versus Repub. Its ALL about money, hence my earlier question as to why the Dems haven’t been going after Wall Street with an axe (hint, its cuz the banksters are throwing bags of money their way, too).

Wake up and smell the lucre, Bubba. Its a rigged game. As the old saw goes: If you can’t find the sucker in the game, chances are its YOU.[/quote]

Brian, if you want to frame this up as a partisan thing, you might also want to check out Glass Steagall when and how it was repealed. Both parties contributed to this mess, dude.

You’re dreaming if you think the SEC is any better then the way it was before. Your brightest aren’t going to be working for the SEC. Your brightest are working for those banks with that 20x bonus carrot dangling in front, creating the next complex financial models that once again the SEC will not understand…Rinse and repeat.. BTW: it’s getting very close to election time. Coincidence that Obama is suddenly pretty quite about Wall Street reform????

[Coronita]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]Remember, Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 signed into law by George W. Bush?

There was a lot more bi-partisan support back then. (423–3 and 99–0)

What we have now is the Party of No, Hell No!

*

We just have to wait see what the outcome of the SEC lawsuit is.

And we’ll see who supports financial reform and who doesn’t.[/quote]

Brian: How does everything manage to get framed by you in a partisan context?

How does Sarbanes-Oxley fit into this?

And, do you really believe that there are any teeth at all in the Dodd bill? Meaning, do you think that is honest financial reform?

None of these issues has dick to do with right or left, or Dem versus Repub. Its ALL about money, hence my earlier question as to why the Dems haven’t been going after Wall Street with an axe (hint, its cuz the banksters are throwing bags of money their way, too).

Wake up and smell the lucre, Bubba. Its a rigged game. As the old saw goes: If you can’t find the sucker in the game, chances are its YOU.[/quote]

Brian, if you want to frame this up as a partisan thing, you might also want to check out Glass Steagall when and how it was repealed. Both parties contributed to this mess, dude.

You’re dreaming if you think the SEC is any better then the way it was before. Your brightest aren’t going to be working for the SEC. Your brightest are working for those banks with that 20x bonus carrot dangling in front, creating the next complex financial models that once again the SEC will not understand…Rinse and repeat.. BTW: it’s getting very close to election time. Coincidence that Obama is suddenly pretty quite about Wall Street reform????

[Coronita]

[quote=UCGal][quote=SD Realtor]Yeah looks like Goldman is shaking in their boots.[/quote]

I don’t know if they’re shaking in their boots – but they announced great earnings numbers today – and the stock is still down. On the analysts call they had their lead council discuss the case. If they weren’t concerned, why would they have a lawyer talk on their earnings call?

I almost bought some GS a week or so ago – with the attitude that if I couldn’t beat them, I’d try to piggyback some profits out of their gaming of the system… But decided it fell into the camp with a few other profitable stocks (RAI, WMT) that I just wouldn’t feel right about owning because of my very misguided sense of morals. In this case, it worked out. I was looking at it at $170ish – it bumped up to 190 while I was debating it, internally.

Before I get slammed – I fully recognize that I’ll never get rich in the market if I let morality get in the way of my investment choices. I’m ok with that.[/quote]

Dudette, you’re talking about getting into the markets??? I’m thinking about getting out of the markets….It’s getting too hot to handle for my blood. Serveral things are already at the top ranges, with several at years high.

Anyone want to guess if Yahoo pukes this afternoon?

[Coronita]

[quote=UCGal][quote=SD Realtor]Yeah looks like Goldman is shaking in their boots.[/quote]

I don’t know if they’re shaking in their boots – but they announced great earnings numbers today – and the stock is still down. On the analysts call they had their lead council discuss the case. If they weren’t concerned, why would they have a lawyer talk on their earnings call?

I almost bought some GS a week or so ago – with the attitude that if I couldn’t beat them, I’d try to piggyback some profits out of their gaming of the system… But decided it fell into the camp with a few other profitable stocks (RAI, WMT) that I just wouldn’t feel right about owning because of my very misguided sense of morals. In this case, it worked out. I was looking at it at $170ish – it bumped up to 190 while I was debating it, internally.

Before I get slammed – I fully recognize that I’ll never get rich in the market if I let morality get in the way of my investment choices. I’m ok with that.[/quote]

Dudette, you’re talking about getting into the markets??? I’m thinking about getting out of the markets….It’s getting too hot to handle for my blood. Serveral things are already at the top ranges, with several at years high.

Anyone want to guess if Yahoo pukes this afternoon?

[Coronita]

[quote=UCGal][quote=SD Realtor]Yeah looks like Goldman is shaking in their boots.[/quote]

I don’t know if they’re shaking in their boots – but they announced great earnings numbers today – and the stock is still down. On the analysts call they had their lead council discuss the case. If they weren’t concerned, why would they have a lawyer talk on their earnings call?

I almost bought some GS a week or so ago – with the attitude that if I couldn’t beat them, I’d try to piggyback some profits out of their gaming of the system… But decided it fell into the camp with a few other profitable stocks (RAI, WMT) that I just wouldn’t feel right about owning because of my very misguided sense of morals. In this case, it worked out. I was looking at it at $170ish – it bumped up to 190 while I was debating it, internally.

Before I get slammed – I fully recognize that I’ll never get rich in the market if I let morality get in the way of my investment choices. I’m ok with that.[/quote]

Dudette, you’re talking about getting into the markets??? I’m thinking about getting out of the markets….It’s getting too hot to handle for my blood. Serveral things are already at the top ranges, with several at years high.

Anyone want to guess if Yahoo pukes this afternoon?

[Coronita]

[quote=UCGal][quote=SD Realtor]Yeah looks like Goldman is shaking in their boots.[/quote]

I don’t know if they’re shaking in their boots – but they announced great earnings numbers today – and the stock is still down. On the analysts call they had their lead council discuss the case. If they weren’t concerned, why would they have a lawyer talk on their earnings call?

I almost bought some GS a week or so ago – with the attitude that if I couldn’t beat them, I’d try to piggyback some profits out of their gaming of the system… But decided it fell into the camp with a few other profitable stocks (RAI, WMT) that I just wouldn’t feel right about owning because of my very misguided sense of morals. In this case, it worked out. I was looking at it at $170ish – it bumped up to 190 while I was debating it, internally.

Before I get slammed – I fully recognize that I’ll never get rich in the market if I let morality get in the way of my investment choices. I’m ok with that.[/quote]

Dudette, you’re talking about getting into the markets??? I’m thinking about getting out of the markets….It’s getting too hot to handle for my blood. Serveral things are already at the top ranges, with several at years high.

Anyone want to guess if Yahoo pukes this afternoon?

[Coronita]

[quote=UCGal][quote=SD Realtor]Yeah looks like Goldman is shaking in their boots.[/quote]

I don’t know if they’re shaking in their boots – but they announced great earnings numbers today – and the stock is still down. On the analysts call they had their lead council discuss the case. If they weren’t concerned, why would they have a lawyer talk on their earnings call?

I almost bought some GS a week or so ago – with the attitude that if I couldn’t beat them, I’d try to piggyback some profits out of their gaming of the system… But decided it fell into the camp with a few other profitable stocks (RAI, WMT) that I just wouldn’t feel right about owning because of my very misguided sense of morals. In this case, it worked out. I was looking at it at $170ish – it bumped up to 190 while I was debating it, internally.

Before I get slammed – I fully recognize that I’ll never get rich in the market if I let morality get in the way of my investment choices. I’m ok with that.[/quote]

Dudette, you’re talking about getting into the markets??? I’m thinking about getting out of the markets….It’s getting too hot to handle for my blood. Serveral things are already at the top ranges, with several at years high.

Anyone want to guess if Yahoo pukes this afternoon?

[Veritas]

I agree with you flu. I think this is more irrational exuberance and I do not see what is driving it and I am also in the process of moving some things to “safer” areas (if such a thing exists).

[Veritas]

I agree with you flu. I think this is more irrational exuberance and I do not see what is driving it and I am also in the process of moving some things to “safer” areas (if such a thing exists).

[Veritas]

I agree with you flu. I think this is more irrational exuberance and I do not see what is driving it and I am also in the process of moving some things to “safer” areas (if such a thing exists).

[Veritas]

I agree with you flu. I think this is more irrational exuberance and I do not see what is driving it and I am also in the process of moving some things to “safer” areas (if such a thing exists).

[Author]

Posts