[equalizer]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Jp: Don’t you find it strange that Bernie Madoff did not go to trial, but, rather, took the full weight (150 year sentence) and went straight to prison?

What do you want to bet that, for almost all of these guys (like Allen Stanford, of Stanford Financial), there won’t be a trial at all?

I think if the US government opens up that particular door, there will be a huge backlash with potentially lethal consequences for a lot of those folks involved in the fiasco.

There were AIG employees afraid to go to work because of the potential for violence. There were death threats left on voice mail and email and people actually out in front of the office.

This is going to get ugly, especially as the situation worsens.[/quote]
Alan,
No one, no one, no one ever is to blame.
Certainly not guys working seventy hours a week counting all their commissions.

BTW: I’ve steered jp to gold jewelry place, make her forget all about knives.

[equalizer]

Hate to spoil this great party, but Barry Ritholtz says Liddy is not the bad guy and points to Washington post and to Fortune article for more details.

For those 2 people not familiar with Barry, he is a long term bear, hedge fund guy who is not afraid to ridicule Wall St.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/investigating-aig/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/risk/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/23/news/companies/AIG_150bailout_Loomis.fortune/index.htm

[equalizer]

Hate to spoil this great party, but Barry Ritholtz says Liddy is not the bad guy and points to Washington post and to Fortune article for more details.

For those 2 people not familiar with Barry, he is a long term bear, hedge fund guy who is not afraid to ridicule Wall St.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/investigating-aig/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/risk/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/23/news/companies/AIG_150bailout_Loomis.fortune/index.htm

[equalizer]

Hate to spoil this great party, but Barry Ritholtz says Liddy is not the bad guy and points to Washington post and to Fortune article for more details.

For those 2 people not familiar with Barry, he is a long term bear, hedge fund guy who is not afraid to ridicule Wall St.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/investigating-aig/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/risk/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/23/news/companies/AIG_150bailout_Loomis.fortune/index.htm

[equalizer]

Hate to spoil this great party, but Barry Ritholtz says Liddy is not the bad guy and points to Washington post and to Fortune article for more details.

For those 2 people not familiar with Barry, he is a long term bear, hedge fund guy who is not afraid to ridicule Wall St.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/investigating-aig/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/risk/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/23/news/companies/AIG_150bailout_Loomis.fortune/index.htm

[equalizer]

Hate to spoil this great party, but Barry Ritholtz says Liddy is not the bad guy and points to Washington post and to Fortune article for more details.

For those 2 people not familiar with Barry, he is a long term bear, hedge fund guy who is not afraid to ridicule Wall St.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/investigating-aig/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/risk/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/23/news/companies/AIG_150bailout_Loomis.fortune/index.htm

[equalizer]

[quote=Diego Mamani]From the RS article:

“They [Wall Street investment bankers] then convinced ratings agencies like Moody’s and S&P to give that top tranche the highest AAA rating — meaning it has close to zero credit risk.”

I think convinced is too lenient a word to use. IMO there was something criminal or near criminal in granting AAA rating to subprime mortgage-backed securities. There’s no way someone can “convince” me that a pool of junk mortgages can have AAA associated with it, no matter how you dice it, or how much you polish it.

The big issue here is that it was Wall Street paying the three rating agencies for their rating. Conflict of interest! Or, as humans learned thousands of years ago, you don’t put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

The clowns at S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch, should be personally prosecuted in civil and criminal courts. They were the crucial chain link in the whole scheme. [/quote]
Yes, the only loans that should get AAA are those held by govt employees with 15 or more years of service with no chance of layoff.

Dylan Ratigan on CNBC was attempting to take S&P guest to task back last fall and you could tell producers were screaming in his ear to shut up. He was lucky he didnt get fired that day for having the temerity to ask simple questions like how could S&P rate all this junk as AAA?

[equalizer]

[quote=Diego Mamani]From the RS article:

“They [Wall Street investment bankers] then convinced ratings agencies like Moody’s and S&P to give that top tranche the highest AAA rating — meaning it has close to zero credit risk.”

I think convinced is too lenient a word to use. IMO there was something criminal or near criminal in granting AAA rating to subprime mortgage-backed securities. There’s no way someone can “convince” me that a pool of junk mortgages can have AAA associated with it, no matter how you dice it, or how much you polish it.

The big issue here is that it was Wall Street paying the three rating agencies for their rating. Conflict of interest! Or, as humans learned thousands of years ago, you don’t put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

The clowns at S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch, should be personally prosecuted in civil and criminal courts. They were the crucial chain link in the whole scheme. [/quote]
Yes, the only loans that should get AAA are those held by govt employees with 15 or more years of service with no chance of layoff.

Dylan Ratigan on CNBC was attempting to take S&P guest to task back last fall and you could tell producers were screaming in his ear to shut up. He was lucky he didnt get fired that day for having the temerity to ask simple questions like how could S&P rate all this junk as AAA?

[equalizer]

[quote=Diego Mamani]From the RS article:

“They [Wall Street investment bankers] then convinced ratings agencies like Moody’s and S&P to give that top tranche the highest AAA rating — meaning it has close to zero credit risk.”

I think convinced is too lenient a word to use. IMO there was something criminal or near criminal in granting AAA rating to subprime mortgage-backed securities. There’s no way someone can “convince” me that a pool of junk mortgages can have AAA associated with it, no matter how you dice it, or how much you polish it.

The big issue here is that it was Wall Street paying the three rating agencies for their rating. Conflict of interest! Or, as humans learned thousands of years ago, you don’t put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

The clowns at S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch, should be personally prosecuted in civil and criminal courts. They were the crucial chain link in the whole scheme. [/quote]
Yes, the only loans that should get AAA are those held by govt employees with 15 or more years of service with no chance of layoff.

Dylan Ratigan on CNBC was attempting to take S&P guest to task back last fall and you could tell producers were screaming in his ear to shut up. He was lucky he didnt get fired that day for having the temerity to ask simple questions like how could S&P rate all this junk as AAA?

[equalizer]

[quote=Diego Mamani]From the RS article:

“They [Wall Street investment bankers] then convinced ratings agencies like Moody’s and S&P to give that top tranche the highest AAA rating — meaning it has close to zero credit risk.”

I think convinced is too lenient a word to use. IMO there was something criminal or near criminal in granting AAA rating to subprime mortgage-backed securities. There’s no way someone can “convince” me that a pool of junk mortgages can have AAA associated with it, no matter how you dice it, or how much you polish it.

The big issue here is that it was Wall Street paying the three rating agencies for their rating. Conflict of interest! Or, as humans learned thousands of years ago, you don’t put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

The clowns at S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch, should be personally prosecuted in civil and criminal courts. They were the crucial chain link in the whole scheme. [/quote]
Yes, the only loans that should get AAA are those held by govt employees with 15 or more years of service with no chance of layoff.

Dylan Ratigan on CNBC was attempting to take S&P guest to task back last fall and you could tell producers were screaming in his ear to shut up. He was lucky he didnt get fired that day for having the temerity to ask simple questions like how could S&P rate all this junk as AAA?

[equalizer]

[quote=Diego Mamani]From the RS article:

“They [Wall Street investment bankers] then convinced ratings agencies like Moody’s and S&P to give that top tranche the highest AAA rating — meaning it has close to zero credit risk.”

I think convinced is too lenient a word to use. IMO there was something criminal or near criminal in granting AAA rating to subprime mortgage-backed securities. There’s no way someone can “convince” me that a pool of junk mortgages can have AAA associated with it, no matter how you dice it, or how much you polish it.

The big issue here is that it was Wall Street paying the three rating agencies for their rating. Conflict of interest! Or, as humans learned thousands of years ago, you don’t put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

The clowns at S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch, should be personally prosecuted in civil and criminal courts. They were the crucial chain link in the whole scheme. [/quote]
Yes, the only loans that should get AAA are those held by govt employees with 15 or more years of service with no chance of layoff.

Dylan Ratigan on CNBC was attempting to take S&P guest to task back last fall and you could tell producers were screaming in his ear to shut up. He was lucky he didnt get fired that day for having the temerity to ask simple questions like how could S&P rate all this junk as AAA?

[equalizer]

[quote=EconProf]This is really shabby journalism, and is the reason newspapers like the LA Times are increasingly viewed as irrelevant.
First of all the Black/White unemployment has historically been a 2:1 ratio. For a variety of reasons, blacks have fairly consistently had about twice the unemployment rate of whites, whatever the white rate is. The article complains of a 12% rate for blacks with a 8% rate for whites (not sure when measured, or where), which I’d call an improvement over historical norms.
They later state that thousands of teachers and educators are about to get laid off across the state. Reality: every year at about this time school districts mail out scary notices to mobilize their ranks and alarm parents. Come September pretty much everyone gets rehired. It is a political game aided and abetted by the MSM. The fact is, the unemployment rate for teachers is way below that of the private sector.
As Richs’ posts have pointed out, the big employment cutbacks in San Diego, mirroring the nation, are in manufacturing, retail, finance, construction, etc.–all private sector. In other words, the taxpayers who support the public sector. In what categories are the jobs growing or stable? Government, education, and health services–all public sector or largely government funded.
I’d wager that the cuts in hours and cuts in pay are also far more common in the taxpaying private sector as well. Let’s hear a bit less whining from government workers and the biased media.[/quote]
But I though teachers were paid nothing. After the degree was she going to make 120K? Maybe that’s why she is getting laid off? School jobs in CA are one of the few professions that are paid much higher than other states compared to doctors and engineers where salary is only slightly more.

“thought she had it made, earning a six-figure salary as a reading and writing specialist. On the side, she was close to finishing work on a doctorate in educational administration at Pepperdine University. Then she got the news that her position was being eliminated because of recession-related budget cuts. If she’s lucky enough to land a teaching job back in the classroom — and that’s far from certain — she would have to take a 40% pay cut.”

[equalizer]

[quote=EconProf]This is really shabby journalism, and is the reason newspapers like the LA Times are increasingly viewed as irrelevant.
First of all the Black/White unemployment has historically been a 2:1 ratio. For a variety of reasons, blacks have fairly consistently had about twice the unemployment rate of whites, whatever the white rate is. The article complains of a 12% rate for blacks with a 8% rate for whites (not sure when measured, or where), which I’d call an improvement over historical norms.
They later state that thousands of teachers and educators are about to get laid off across the state. Reality: every year at about this time school districts mail out scary notices to mobilize their ranks and alarm parents. Come September pretty much everyone gets rehired. It is a political game aided and abetted by the MSM. The fact is, the unemployment rate for teachers is way below that of the private sector.
As Richs’ posts have pointed out, the big employment cutbacks in San Diego, mirroring the nation, are in manufacturing, retail, finance, construction, etc.–all private sector. In other words, the taxpayers who support the public sector. In what categories are the jobs growing or stable? Government, education, and health services–all public sector or largely government funded.
I’d wager that the cuts in hours and cuts in pay are also far more common in the taxpaying private sector as well. Let’s hear a bit less whining from government workers and the biased media.[/quote]
But I though teachers were paid nothing. After the degree was she going to make 120K? Maybe that’s why she is getting laid off? School jobs in CA are one of the few professions that are paid much higher than other states compared to doctors and engineers where salary is only slightly more.

“thought she had it made, earning a six-figure salary as a reading and writing specialist. On the side, she was close to finishing work on a doctorate in educational administration at Pepperdine University. Then she got the news that her position was being eliminated because of recession-related budget cuts. If she’s lucky enough to land a teaching job back in the classroom — and that’s far from certain — she would have to take a 40% pay cut.”

[equalizer]

[quote=EconProf]This is really shabby journalism, and is the reason newspapers like the LA Times are increasingly viewed as irrelevant.
First of all the Black/White unemployment has historically been a 2:1 ratio. For a variety of reasons, blacks have fairly consistently had about twice the unemployment rate of whites, whatever the white rate is. The article complains of a 12% rate for blacks with a 8% rate for whites (not sure when measured, or where), which I’d call an improvement over historical norms.
They later state that thousands of teachers and educators are about to get laid off across the state. Reality: every year at about this time school districts mail out scary notices to mobilize their ranks and alarm parents. Come September pretty much everyone gets rehired. It is a political game aided and abetted by the MSM. The fact is, the unemployment rate for teachers is way below that of the private sector.
As Richs’ posts have pointed out, the big employment cutbacks in San Diego, mirroring the nation, are in manufacturing, retail, finance, construction, etc.–all private sector. In other words, the taxpayers who support the public sector. In what categories are the jobs growing or stable? Government, education, and health services–all public sector or largely government funded.
I’d wager that the cuts in hours and cuts in pay are also far more common in the taxpaying private sector as well. Let’s hear a bit less whining from government workers and the biased media.[/quote]
But I though teachers were paid nothing. After the degree was she going to make 120K? Maybe that’s why she is getting laid off? School jobs in CA are one of the few professions that are paid much higher than other states compared to doctors and engineers where salary is only slightly more.

“thought she had it made, earning a six-figure salary as a reading and writing specialist. On the side, she was close to finishing work on a doctorate in educational administration at Pepperdine University. Then she got the news that her position was being eliminated because of recession-related budget cuts. If she’s lucky enough to land a teaching job back in the classroom — and that’s far from certain — she would have to take a 40% pay cut.”

[equalizer]

[quote=EconProf]This is really shabby journalism, and is the reason newspapers like the LA Times are increasingly viewed as irrelevant.
First of all the Black/White unemployment has historically been a 2:1 ratio. For a variety of reasons, blacks have fairly consistently had about twice the unemployment rate of whites, whatever the white rate is. The article complains of a 12% rate for blacks with a 8% rate for whites (not sure when measured, or where), which I’d call an improvement over historical norms.
They later state that thousands of teachers and educators are about to get laid off across the state. Reality: every year at about this time school districts mail out scary notices to mobilize their ranks and alarm parents. Come September pretty much everyone gets rehired. It is a political game aided and abetted by the MSM. The fact is, the unemployment rate for teachers is way below that of the private sector.
As Richs’ posts have pointed out, the big employment cutbacks in San Diego, mirroring the nation, are in manufacturing, retail, finance, construction, etc.–all private sector. In other words, the taxpayers who support the public sector. In what categories are the jobs growing or stable? Government, education, and health services–all public sector or largely government funded.
I’d wager that the cuts in hours and cuts in pay are also far more common in the taxpaying private sector as well. Let’s hear a bit less whining from government workers and the biased media.[/quote]
But I though teachers were paid nothing. After the degree was she going to make 120K? Maybe that’s why she is getting laid off? School jobs in CA are one of the few professions that are paid much higher than other states compared to doctors and engineers where salary is only slightly more.

“thought she had it made, earning a six-figure salary as a reading and writing specialist. On the side, she was close to finishing work on a doctorate in educational administration at Pepperdine University. Then she got the news that her position was being eliminated because of recession-related budget cuts. If she’s lucky enough to land a teaching job back in the classroom — and that’s far from certain — she would have to take a 40% pay cut.”

[Author]

Posts