Accidentally Released: Embarrassing Docs Show How Goldman et al Engaged in 'NAKED SHORT SELLING'

[kpete]

Last edited Wed May 16, 2012, 10:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Accidentally Released - and Incredibly Embarrassing - Documents Show How Goldman et al Engaged in 'Naked Short Selling'

“The bank has spent a fortune in legal fees trying to keep this material out of the public eye, and here one of their own lawyers goes and dumps it out on the street.”

Matt Taibbi
Rolling Stone Magazine

May 15, 5:39 PM ET

It doesn’t happen often, but sometimes God smiles on us. Last week, he smiled on investigative reporters everywhere, when the lawyers for Goldman, Sachs slipped on one whopper of a legal banana peel, inadvertently delivering some of the bank’s darker secrets into the hands of the public;

The lawyers for Goldman and Bank of America/Merrill Lynch have been involved in a legal battle for some time – primarily with the retail giant Overstock.com, but also with Rolling Stone, the Economist, Bloomberg, and the New York Times. The banks have been fighting us to keep sealed certain documents that surfaced in the discovery process of an ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit filed by Overstock against the banks.

Last week, in response to an Overstock.com motion to unseal certain documents, the banks’ lawyers, apparently accidentally, filed an unredacted version of Overstock’s motion as an exhibit in their declaration of opposition to that motion. In doing so, they inadvertently entered into the public record a sort of greatest-hits selection of the very material they’ve been fighting for years to keep sealed.

.................

............through the magic of this unredacted document, the public will be able to see for itself what the banks’ attitudes are not just toward the “mythical” practice of naked short selling (hint: they volubly confess to the activity, in writing), but toward regulations and laws in general.

.....................


DYNAMITE here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/accidentally-released-and-incredibly-embarrassing-documents-show-how-goldman-et-al-engaged-in-naked-short-selling-20120515


More to come: until then, here’s the motion, and pay particular attention to pages 14-19.
http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/Plaintiffs%20Opp%20to%20MSJ.pdf

[myrna minx]

1. I can't wait to dive into this. K&R n/t

[hobbit709]

2. OOPS!!!

[DCKit]

3. Where are the Matt Taibbi haters? They've failed to show for three articles in a row.

The number of pro-nukkers is down as well, and it's making DU boring.

We need to make a distinction between "troll" and "fun to play with troll".

I don't/can't have a pet, this is my only outlet.

[hobbit709]

4. I think they're all in Meta having cows over words.

[RC]

98. An apt description of what goes on there.

The idea of an exciting life for some is scanning DU for stuff to alert on.
Or gloating over some senseless alert that went their way because the Alerter lied.

[Scuba]

6. Taibbi haters are payed trolls. Perhaps they got sick to their stomachs and quit.

[trumad]

20. There's only one---

I wish he was banned like he was in KOS

[Rex]

88. Where could he be?

I opened this thread expecting 100 rebuttals by You Know Who...I feel ripped off now.

[Scuba]

5. This is very damning stuff, if it holds up....

... self-proclaimed evidence of an ingrained pattern of fraud within Goldman-Sachs.


This should be interesting. Fasten your seat belts.

[xtraxritical]

26. Naked short selling is not illegal per se, neither are derivative transactions in general.

What was, before, and should be now illegal is banks using fractional reserves as a basis to borrow from Federal Reserve Banks and then using that money to speculate in derivatives. Moneys borrowed against fractional reserves were meant to be lent for business expansion and home loans to qualified buyers. Deregulation of the financial sector is the real villain.

[Scuba]

32. I would argue that selling shares that don't exist, resulting in the share price dropping, is fraud.

But I am not an attorney.

[stevenleser]

66. I would agree, subject to guarantees that the person or entity has no insider information.

If I believe that apple's stock is going to drop, I should be allowed to short sell them without having a friend have apple stock, provided I have the money to cover possible losses.

I doubt very much, however, that a large investment bank would engage in short selling without having insider information. I think that is the real problem. If it is found out that Goldman or anyone else engaged in naked short selling and did not have insider information, I would have no problem with that.

[gratuitous]

72. Except that if you or I short a stock

If you or I were shorting Overstock, we're not going to be manipulating much of its outstanding stock, and the financial big boyz aren't likely to do a little analysis and say, "Good lord! stevenleser and gratuitous appear to be shorting Overstock. Quick, move large amounts of money!"

When Goldman did it, they not only shorted large blocks of stock they didn't have, they failed to deliver the stock they didn't have to the buyers when it was time to settle up accounts. According to their own documents, they shorted Overstock so much that they owed 107% of all outstanding shares of Overstock to various buyers. All investors knew was that they had bought shares of Overstock, but hadn't had those shares delivered.

This had the effect of further depressing Overstock's share price (salutary for Goldman, but incredibly damaging to Overstock), which was taking a financial hit on its stock due to Goldman's shenanigans. Goldman didn't need insider information to know that its naked short selling was driving down the price of Overstock shares.

As Jay Gould, 19th Century robber baron remarked, "He who sells what isn't his'n, buys it back or goes to prison." That rule no longer seems to apply.

[stevenleser]

74. Right, and I agree, but don't other financial rules come into play at that point?

1. If you are going to buy or sell certain percentages of a public company's stock (I think 5% or more), aren't there forms you are supposed to file in advance?

2. If you are going to short what you have to know would be close to the entire leveraged amount of a company, isnt it incumbent upon you to make sure you aren't selling more stock than exists?

I think those are the real problems here, not the idea of naked short selling per se. I think rules are supposed to kick in at buying or selling 5% of a company's stock. If I am going to short sell 50% of a public company's stock and have to file one of those publicly searchable forms so people can see what I am doing, then there should be no issue.

As an addendum to #2, you should be able to short sell 100% of a firm's stock, but then you need to do whatever necessary to buy those shares to deliver them to those to whom you have sold shares, meaning if the last holdouts want $10,000,000 per share, you have to pay it to get them on time, or you pay a massive fine and go to jail or have your corporate charter pulled. That, in my humble opinion, should be the control on that and in this case, Goldman would probably have gone under as a result once people understood what was happening. If I held overshare.com stock, I would have asked $10,000,000 per share to let them go. That would be an effective control on naked short selling anything more than a few percent of a public companys stock.

[gratuitous]

79. And that's part of what this lawsuit is trying to unravel

Again, you or I as private individuals, are going to invite a lot of scrutiny and be subject to a lot of rules (you sound far more conversant about them than me). But a big outfit like Goldman? Who knows how they operate, and through how many channels? It's a fine art finessing that 4.9% of shares outstanding so as to avoid reporting requirements. In addition, I wonder if Goldman was operating through several frames, short-selling 4.9% through Acme Consolidated and another 4.9% through Consolidated Acme, but all those transactions ultimately being controlled by Goldman? I don't know if the rules cover that kind of manipulation, and Goldman was certainly doing its level best to keep it under wraps.

As long as nobody can really unravel who's behind all this short-selling activity, nobody who holds Overstock shares is going to know that there's some desperate investment house somewhere frantically (or not) trying to put together 107% of the outstanding shares. All investors really know is that Overstock shares aren't being delivered as promised, which depresses the stock price even further.

[stevenleser]

84. It will be interesting to see what the investigation finds.

Goldman is under the same constraints in terms of filing that you or I are and theoretically, we could do the same thing as what you suggested. I could start accounts at several brokerage houses and buy 4.9% of a publicly traded company's stock at each, but I would be breaking the law if I did so without filing the right forms and so would Goldman.

I just researched and the relevant forms are 13D and 13G. Once you file them they are publicly searchable. See http://secnet.cch.com/homepagecontent/info/FormTypesByAct.htm for a list of the forms and their descriptions. The info about 13D and 13G are towards the bottom. Goldman would have definitely needed to file at least a 13G. http://www.secfile.net/forms/sched13g.pdf

If Goldman did not get everyone their shares on time, they should get hammered by the SEC. If they did not file the appropriate forms, they should get hammered by the SEC. If they sold more shares than exists outstanding, they should get hammered by the SEC.

It would be great if someone reading this had an account on the appropriate websites to search SEC form filings and could check if Goldman filed a 13G regarding overstock and if so to post the contents of that filing.

[MerryBlooms]

7. ugh, bastids

[yodermon]

8. Aside from this RS article, prepare for a deafening silence.

Except perhaps for some mentions in the MSNBC primetime shows once or twice.
Hope I'm wrong.

[OnyxCollie]

9. K&R. nt

[valerief]

10. Thank you, Matt, for explaining it all! nt

[jeff47]

11. Naked Short Selling definition

For those not reading the article, here's what naked short selling is:

A short sale is perfectly legal. In a short sale, you borrow a stock from someone, and then sell it. At a later date, you have to return the stock you borrowed. If the stock goes down in price, the replacement costs less. Your profit is the difference in price.

In a naked short sale, you don't bother borrowing the stock. You just claim you have it. It's effectively issuing new stock without the company's permission.

[randome]

13. Crap!

I thought it was about a clothes-only office environment.

Bummer.

[uponit7771]

18. GREAT definintion!!!

[Skidmore]

51. In school, we would have been sent to the office for something like this.

If I tried that now with, oh say, some product at Wallyworld, I would be arrested for fraud or theft.

[stevenleser]

69. If you dont have insider information, I have no problem with that. It is extremely risky absent

insider information. Most people I have ever known who liked to try short selling ended up losing substantial sums of money.

[jeff47]

75. Um....no.

I think the government would not take kindly to you printing $100,000 yourself.

The difference between a short sale (legal) and a naked short sale (not) is a naked short sale is a form of counterfeiting.

[stevenleser]

76. Um yes. See my posts upthread. nt

[jeff47]

77. Ok, let me try this more slowly.

I sell you a 1964 Mustang. You pay me.

I do not have a 1964 Mustang. I just claim I parked one in your garage.

What happens to me?

I go to prison for fraud. Even if I have the funds to buy one before you want to drive it.

Replace "1964 Mustang" with "stock" and we have naked short sales.

[stevenleser]

78. Apples to oranges. Read my post upthread. nt

[jeff47]

80. Your post upthread is wrong.

Because you don't seem to understand what a naked short sale is. You also seem to be confused about what a regular short sale is.

Admittedly this is much more confusing now that trading is all electronic. You can't watch the literal stock move through the trade.

In a short sale, you actually transfer the stock. You don't just place a bet - you literally sell someone a stock. You borrowed it from a lender, and it enters your possession. You then sell it to a buyer and it leaves your possession and becomes the buyer's.

You then have to settle with the lender at some future date, which you and the lender negotiate. But that settlement does not involve the original stock. That's the buyer's possession. You have to go buy the stock from someone else so that you have something to give back to the lender.

In a naked short sale, there is no lender. You create stock out of thin air and then transfer it to a buyer.

[stevenleser]

81. My post is not wrong, I understand the difference between the two quite well. nt

[jeff47]

83. No, you really don't.

2. If you are going to short what you have to know would be close to the entire leveraged amount of a company, isnt it incumbent upon you to make sure you aren't selling more stock than exists?

This is not possible with a short sale.

You have to take possession of the stock to short it. Because you are actually selling it. It is not physically possible to sell more stock than exists using a short sale.

Which is why Goldman had to use naked short sales to do it. They more than doubled the number of outstanding Overstock shares.

You also don't seem to understand that naked short selling is the equivalent of me scrawling "IBM" on a piece of paper and claiming it's a share of stock.

[stevenleser]

86. Yes, I do. I am exclusively talking about naked short sales and my statements thus make sense. nt

Edited to add: If you read the entire thread, you would know it was about naked short selling.

[freethought]

122. Wow! Selling something you don't own.

Kind of sounds like something else...fraud.

[sarchasm]

12. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

I love Taibbi! K&R !!!!

[zzaapp]

14. My own personal opinion....a little off topic...sorry

I remember when Rolling Stone was a music magazine.
I know I'll probably catch hell for this..BUT...I am a musician myself, and I hate when politics or religion (right, left or in the middle) enters the music realm. I just want to play my guitar, have fun, and not preach to anyone.

[corkhead]

17. Why are you posting this at a political site and not a music site?

[zzaapp]

19. It was a side reference to Rolling Stone, where the link came from

Why, was I out of line?

[randome]

21. No. Welcome to DU!

[zzaapp]

25. Thanks randome, that was nice of you.

[riderinthestorm]

23. No, welcome to DU. Honestly, I love it when politicians are also into music

It humanizes them. Vice versa some musicians are pretty damn good politicians (like Bono). No need for there to be strict separation imho.

I think RS just has to meet the bottom line and their magazine has diversified in order to stay relevant (and solvent)

[zzaapp]

27. Thanks for the welcome rider....obviously you are a Doors fan?

[riderinthestorm]

57. Yay! Somebody gets my username riffed off the great Doors song!

And another kick for this article which shouldn't drop off the front page for at least a day or more... really eye-opening information.

[Warren Stupidity]

73. Nope. RS has been doing this for 40 years.

Always mixed politics, left wing politics, and cultural reporting.

[corkhead]

28. No, I just find it a little peculiar.

I've been reading RS for over 30 years and thought they always had some news mixed in. They are still predominantly a music magazine as near as I can tell.

To me, your remark here is as if I went to the Rolling Stone music blog and lamented about how Democratic Underground has posts about music and I miss the good old days when all they did was politics.

No harm done though.

[zzaapp]

30. cool

[HiPointDem]

53. Yes, they've always had politics & cultural comment.

[trumad]

22. Huh?

Preach to anyone?

Ya ever think its a business model that keeps them in business.

[zzaapp]

24. As I said, just a personal opinion. And, yes, I guess they have to change with the times.

[HangOnKids]

29. Rolling Stone Has Been Political Forever How Long Have You Been Reading The Mag?

Here is an excerpt from 1973 by Hunter Thompson

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/fear-and-loathing-at-the-watergate-mr-nixon-has-cashed-his-check-19730927

They are staying current with the times and always have. You should do the same.

[zzaapp]

31. Sheeeeesh

[HangOnKids]

34. No Sheeeeesh Doesn't Cut It, You Complained About RS Getting Political

When it is clear to anyone who actually reads the magazine, they have been political for a very long time. It seems to me your real beef is about "this" political article. Why is that zzaapp?

[zzaapp]

35. PS

What....no welcome?

[HangOnKids]

36. Well Now That You Ask....

How about answering my questions?

[zzaapp]

38. I'm not sure that I appreciate your tone.

Please refrain from posting incendiary comments to me in the future or I will have to report you to the authorities.

[HangOnKids]

40. My Tone? Really? YOU Don't Appreciate It?

I posted some facts and asked you a question, which you dodged and asked for a welcome. Now my tone is your issue? LOL!!!!!!!

[HillWilliam]

58. OTOH, my tone is usually

A440.

Welcome to DU

[HangOnKids]

62. Concert A

Perfect pitch! Thanks for the welcome HilWilliam.

[HillWilliam]

63. Wasn't going to brag or anything

You'll find quite a few classical musicians here. I left classical for bluegrass myself and love to explore cajun fiddling.

[zzaapp]

100. I'm not a bad flat picker myself

[sabrina 1]

90. An incendiary comment is to call Matt Taibbi a 'preacher' and an odd comment is to claim

that RS has just recently begun covering politics. Very odd, considering how long they've been doing it. They are among the best resources for political commentary and have been for as long as I can remember.

[zzaapp]

113. Huh????

I didn't call MT a preacher. Please read my posts more closely in the future. I said that "I just wanted to play guitar and not preach to anyone.

Wow, what's a girl to do !!!?????

[sabrina 1]

114. We're having a lot of fun aren't we?

But I do hope you are not under the illusion that you are, well, fooling anyone, that would be sad.

[zzaapp]

118. My poor child

"Strange how paranoia can link up with reality now and then.”
― Philip K. Dick, A Scanner Darkly

[Warren Stupidity]

71. Perhaps all the replies pointing out that you are completely wrong might be a hint?

You made an assertion of fact that RS has somehow gone political and that it used to just be a music magazine. Your facts are wrong. The magazine has mixed left wing politics with music and culture from its start. You've been told that repeatedly and you've blown off everyone pointing out your error.

Not a great way to start out here.

[zzaapp]

101. Hi Warren, nice to meet you. Did you like Tyrion (sp) on this months cover?

[Gregorian]

37. Get outta here! The best music IS political.

Everything else is pablum.

[zzaapp]

39. I appreciate your opinion....thank you.

[valerief]

41. I'm SOOOOO glad RS is no longer a music rag. nt

[zzaapp]

42. Hi Valerief...I'm curious.....why is that? I LOVE music.

[valerief]

44. I love RS articles. nt

[sabrina 1]

91. So, since you are on a Political Forum, what do you think of Matt Taibbi's revelations?

You haven't said anything about the actual OP so far. I love music also, but the OP is not about music, you are as you said initially, way, way off topic for some reason.

[HangOnKids]

93. I'd Be Surprised if Our Friend Comes Back To Discuss LOL

Caught quite a bit of flack (well deserved) in this thread.

[sabrina 1]

95. Lol, I have a feeling you may be right!

[zzaapp]

103. Matt is a good writer...but I prefer HST.

[sabrina 1]

109. Well, that's nice but wasn't the question.

Your personal preferences for musicians or writers is not the topic of the OP or the article written by Matt Taibbi.

Have you read the attached links? If not, not sure what you are doing in this thread, and if you did, not sure why you are having a hard time discussing the explosive information contained in them.

Thank YOU again Matt Taibbi, for keeping the public informed!

[drm604]

43. Shooting the messenger?

Why is the source relevant to this discussion at all? They link to the documents so there's no question about the veracity of the reporting, so what's your point in posting this?

In any case, Rolling Stone has been political for as far back as I can remember.

Ignore the source and look at what's being reported (and documented).

[zzaapp]

45. Just trying to be friendly......how is your day going?

[The Doctor.]

64. No, you weren't.

You were attempting a backhand shot at the messenger and you have been roundly rebuked for it.

Most people around here don't fall for that shit.

[HangOnKids]

65. Thank You

[zzaapp]

105. Funny, I don't feel rebuked,

just spirited conversation. .thanks for participating.

[HangOnKids]

108. Of course you don't feel rebuked

Just keep going sport, everyone is having a good laugh!

[zzaapp]

112. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"There is nothing in which people more betray their character than in what they laugh at."

[sabrina 1]

115. Smart guy, Wolfgang!

Matt Taibbi thanks you for kicking this thread btw. So do the rest of us. It is a very important thread. But so far, you have not commented on the actual OP or the linked information provided by the OP.

Have you had a chance to do so yet? And what do you think of it?

[zzaapp]

116. Yes, I read it..it was kinda Greek to me.

I don't invest in the stock market, so I wasn't sure of all the terms. My opinion? If existing SEC laws were broken then
penalties should be administered. Laws are laws and should be adhered to.

How was that?

[zzaapp]

117. You know Matt !!??? Cool

[HangOnKids]

121. You Know Johann Wolfgang von Goethe?

Just sayin'. LOL! Keep going zzaapp.

[zzaapp]

123. Howdy HOK, Sometimes I FEEL old enuff to have known him !

How was your weekend ?

[drm604]

85. In what way was that a response to anything I said?

[just1voice]

48. LOL, very 1st edition had John Lennon on the cover

He was very political and an outspoken peace activist. Ever hear of The Beatles? LOL.

[zzaapp]

49. YES...I LOVE the beatles..I can play about ten of their songs.

Do you like them too? What is your favorite song?

[zzaapp]

50. Well, duty calls, got to get to work. I hope everyone has a GREAT day.

[Raine1967]

60. Rolling Stone is a music magazine that has always covered politics.

Always. Rolling Stone "is not just about the music, but about the things and attitudes that music embraces."

Does Hunter S. Thompson ring a bell? It has always been about Music, culture, and politics.

It helped launch the careers of many a journalist, photographer and illustrator. Rolling Stone has always been about more than music.


Welcome to DU!

[zzaapp]

102. I LOVE the good Doctor...read everything he's done

[Warren Stupidity]

70. Rolling stone has mixed politics and music since it began.

So I'm thinking you are misremembering. RS has been a consistent voice for the "counter culture left" since it started.

Does the name Hunter Thompson ring a bell?

[Nevernose]

82. I have the 1st six issues in my closet, plus online archive access

You're misremembering. Now, if you'd like to make the argument that they've replaced much of the good music coverage with Justin Bieber fluff, I'll back you 100%.

[zzaapp]

104. Aint THAT the truth !!!!!

[corkhead]

15. How quaint. Sad that nobody will be held accountable for this.

[uponit7771]

16. This is the overt crime where people should be put in jail, it was soooo overt

[Gregorian]

33. Listen to the Naked Short Club if you want to get informed, and entertained.

This show has been great to listen to over the last year or so. It won't let you down. I am very particular about what I listen to, and this is one of the best.

http://tunein.com/radio/The-Naked-Short-Club-p182769/

[raouldukelives]

46. As they play their shell games.

The world suffers and unknowing & uncaring gamblers in the market are fleeced accordingly. You pretty much have to not give two shits about oil spills, deforestation, fracking, climate change or human rights abuses to actually profit from the stock market and not feel like you just won some cash at a dog fight.

[Gregorian]

47. Regulations are there to preserve our economy. This is going to make it tough on anti-reg types.

These guys are crashing our economy in the name of profits. Well, this is going to put an end to the "regulations aren't needed" discussions.

Very scary stuff. Making money out of thin air, at the cost of other company's stock valuations.

[HiPointDem]

52. I remember when the Overstock CEO first starting talking about this (years ago). Tone in the

press was mostly mocking, to the degree that I didn't know whether to believe it or not.

This explains that:

The subject of naked short-selling is a) highly technical, and b) very controversial on Wall Street, with many pundits in the financial press for years treating the phenomenon as the stuff of myths and conspiracy theories.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/accidentally-released-and-incredibly-embarrassing-documents-show-how-goldman-et-al-engaged-in-naked-short-selling-20120515#ixzz1v3VKINXc


A concrete example of how we're lied to.

[KoKo]

56. Yes...Byrne was called a Kook and Conspiracy Theorist...

financial blogs and sites were particularly hard on him. It was hard to know what to believe...but, this does partially vindicate him. The article explains a lot and pgs 14-16 of the leaked legal documents show the Mob Tactics that Goldman used on him and use on everyone that dares to challenge them.

It's quite an eye opener...

[HiPointDem]

106. Yep. It's good to know how it came out, because it will make people much more skeptical of the

financial writers in such disputes in the future. Hopefully.

[Maven]

54. This is huge. They nearly destroyed a billion-dollar company (overstock.com) that employs 1300 ppl

by selling so many artificial shares of their stock that at one point they had "shorted" 107% of the total outstanding shares in the marketplace! They sold shares that didn't exist to drive the price down and then took profits from the depressed price of the stock that they had caused...all while treating regulators like mere irrelevancies to their profit-making schemes.

THAT is exactly how the financial predators strip out the value from a company like vampires sucking the blood of their prey.

What is it going to take to stop the crime syndicate known as Goldman Sachs???

[PA Democrat]

55. Great big K & R for another great Taibbi article.

[truebrit71]

59. Holy crap that is amazing...

...I don't know how they stand upright with balls that big...

[HangOnKids]

61. Snakes Don't Have Balls n/t

[Hubert Flottz]

67. Laws are for the

"little people"

[Uncle Joe]

68. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[stevedeshazer]

87. Rec #100

+1

[Rex]

89. As I've said all along GFS is a POS company

that deserves at best, to be broken up and sold off as scrap parts.

[Oilwellian]

92. Overstock CEO has been obsessed with getting these criminals

Patrick Byrne has been on a crusade to have these thieves brought up on criminal charges. His recent blog entry names the lawyer that is probably now crying in his fired ass beer.

http://www.deepcapture.com/joe-floren-screws-the-pooch/

I've been a fan of Byrne for quite some time. Goldman and others very nearly caused Overstock to go belly up. His website, (deepcapture.com) is chocked full of information about the modern day robber barons who are destroying 400 businesses per month by manipulating their stock value.

I stumbled upon Byrne's work while researching material for a video I was doing on Jim Cramer openly admitting to how the scam was played and how little regard they have for their customers.

These people are psychopaths and I'm so happy to see Mr. Byrne being handed this gift from the gods of divine justice.

[sabrina 1]

119. Thank you for that link. It's shameful that no one with authority will

take these criminals on. I cannot see how now, with this being in the public domain, the DOJ can ignore it. What is really troubling is that apparently all of this WAS public information, so the question is, 'why was it ignored'?

Another question, are any of our media 'financial experts' discussing this now or is it still being ignored?

I am not familiar with Mr. Byrne, but will add him to my list of blogs to follow. Anyone working to expose these criminals needs to be supported.

[WillyT]

94. K & R !!!

[leveymg]

96. knr - valuable post + thread

[blkmusclmachine]

97. They're "Too Big To Fail,"

All of us are "Too Small To Matter."

[Agony]

99. Cohodes "Yes, I think Goldman Sachs is just like the mob." Go kpete!

Page 20-21
" in spite of the lack of confidentiality designation, Goldman wants to keep the Cohodes transcript nonpublic because of potential embarrassment, including testimony such as the following:

Q. Well, do you know how -- do you have any view as to whether the securities lending market is actually efficient or inefficient?

A. I think the securities lending market is just like the mob. I think it's completely rigged. It's a completely manipulated black hole, non-transparent market.

Q. Now, when you say you think they're just like the mob, are you referring to Goldman Sachs?

A. Yes, I think Goldman Sachs is just like the mob.

Q. And are you referring to them in particular or them and the rest of the market altogether?

A. I think Goldman Sachs is a racketeering entity that does whatever they can do to make a dime without conscience, though, foresight or care about ramifications. I think they re cold-blooded and could care less about the law. That's my opinion. I think I can back it up. "

[HiPointDem]

107. Cohodes' hedge fund also like the mob, and not so long ago, either.

http://www.deepcapture.com/tag/marc-cohodes/

[Agony]

110. If they are ravaging each other that works for me!

Thanks for the link...

"The Columbia School of Journalism is our nation’s finest. They grant the Pulitzer Prize, and their journal, The Columbia Journalism Review, is the profession’s gold standard. CJR reporters are high priests of a decaying temple, tending a flame in a land going dark.

In 2006 a CJR editor (a seasoned journalist formerly with Time magazine in Asia, The Wall Street Journal Europe, and The Far Eastern Economic Review) called me to discuss suspicions he was forming about the US financial media. I gave him leads but warned, “Chasing this will take you down a rabbit hole with no bottom.” For months he pursued his story against pressure and threats he once described as, “something out of a Hollywood B movie, but unlike the movies, the evil corporations fighting the journalist are not thugs burying toxic waste, they are Wall Street and the financial media itself.”

His exposé reveals a circle of corruption enclosing venerable Wall Street banks, shady offshore financiers, and suspiciously compliant reporters at The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, CNBC, and The New York Times. If you ever wonder how reporters react when a journalist investigates them (answer: like white-collar crooks they dodge interviews, lie, and hide behind lawyers), or if financial corruption interests you, then this is for you. It makes Grisham read like a book of bedtime stories, and exposes a scandal that may make Enron look like an afternoon tea."

By Patrick M. Byrne, Deep Capture Reporter

[HiPointDem]

111. yep, that seems like it's about the size of it/ goldman did a margin call on cahodes' hedge

when it got into trouble on shorts that went wrong (goldman being cahodes' broker).

[libodem]

120. Best news ever