Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Oh give a FUCKING break! The SEC is corrupt, it didn't "miss" Madoff or Stanford.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 08:48 PM
Original message
Oh give a FUCKING break! The SEC is corrupt, it didn't "miss" Madoff or Stanford.
It's called common fucking sense, at some point. No one is so incompetent that after being informed multiple times by highly credible sources, they take no action. NO ONE, GET ME?

I want to know, how did the corruption occur? Was it offering people jobs after they were off the SEC? Was it bribery? Indirect bribery? Did they pick insiders from these two or other corrupt organizations?

At some point we have to start asking about the corruption of the SEC.

It is so clear that these regulators were "captured" by the people they were regulating.

I'll have to post a short article from Wikipedia when it stops fucking up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. yep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. Thank you. Very important point that seems to be lost in the debate. (Big surprise)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I know...
you do not "miss" a $50 billion or $8 billion fraud. It just doesn't happen. NO HOW, NO WAY!

And every time I hear one these god damn little weasels open their mealy mouths and say it, my blood boils!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. My blood pressure can't take it, so I stick my fingers in my ears and go "la la la la"
Well, not really. But I wish I could. x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
4. Did they ignore the August 6th PDB?? "Pretty Damn Bold" memo??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbgrunt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
22. the briefing and a LOT of other warnings!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. SEC - Skimming Evil Capitalists.
I no wanna hear ANY bull paddies on how "they didn't know". It rings as hollow as the Bewsh administration's "caught by surprise" crap on 9/11 despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
6. Stealing, cheating, scamming, etc....
...is "Capitalism" to the Republicans. It was a matter of policy not to go after them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. So true....they think we're all powerless and stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
8. billions of dollars can buy a lot of incompetence...
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Indeed it can.
Stanford made political donations to both sides, while Madoff donated to Democrats. The Democrats weren't in power during the past decade or so, so why would he have donated to them exclusively (which he did) if he was bribing them with donations?

Perhaps it was something done to grease the wheels of his scam, but not really to get people to look the other way, but to suck in potential clients?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comrade snarky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. I say investigate
And let the chips fall where they may. If some Democrats go down then good, get the corrupt bastards out of my party. If anyone was being bribed to look the other way throw the book at em. Charge them and if you get a conviction they should lose everything and serve jail time. Same with the SEC. Fraud of this scale wasn't detected? Bullshit. Madoff ran a classic ponzi scheme.

There are 2 options here. The regulators were in collusion with the perpetrators or they are incompetent and should be removed. If it's the second option we should probably make sure they have their little helmets on when they get on and off that short bus.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. K&R. Exactly, Sancho. Just more theft and
collusion. Pervasive during the entire Bush Administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
9. This question has been asked 'relentlessly' on every news
channel since this scandal broke and still nobody owns up to anything. No indictments, no senate hearings, no nothing. The buck has got to stop somewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
exboyfil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #9
18. Actually we have House hearings
Complete hearing
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15082

5 Minute clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOKSkaQoF_I short five minute reaming of SEC. Thomsen has since resigned after being raked over the coals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Thanks for the link. I don't get C-span anymore, so no wonder
I missed it. The fact remains that the SEC is still a dysfunctional entity and no charges have been brought, as yet, and don't think there will be any, but keep hope alive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
exboyfil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. Can't agree more with your assessment of the SEC
They are worse than useless. I advocate integrating bulldog FBI agents into their structure, letting a bunch go especially at the senior management level, and making a portion of their paycheck contingent upon performance (ie bounties for finding fraud).

I honestly think many of them should be brought up on charges along with the crooks they were supposed to watch.

I guess it comes down to "Who watches the Watchmen?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. The funny thing is the SEC did take actions
Edited on Fri Feb-20-09 09:09 PM by depakid
Laughable actions that didn't even amount to a slap on the wrist in the Stanford case.

Down the line, there are going to need to be invstigations- criminal investigations- of the actions at FINRA and the SEC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
13. I keep trying to bring that point up
that the Madoff whistleblower dropped everything right into their laps and still they did NOTHING!

That isn't just laziness or incompetence. That is COLLUSION.

The sooner we get this stuff off the message boards and into the mainstream, the better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. What's interesting is the Allen Stanford scandal...
because he donated to Republicans and Democrats, and two of the Republicans he donated to were Bob Ney and Tom Delay, both of whom were associated with the Abramoff scandal. Ney of course went to prison for 17 months, and was only released last year in August for his involvement in that scandal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
15. ABC 2020 is doing a great little Madoff story...complete with pics of him at his computer
taken with a covert camera through his window while he was under house arrest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 06:33 AM
Response to Original message
17. Kucinich: Who Got SEC To Stand Down?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
19. If you haven't seen this video of Rep. Ackerman - it's a must-see...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
20. Sometimes you need to be blunt.
No one is buying their act. It's stupid that they even try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
24. Just like they "missed" GWB's Harken "deal" AFTER
Poppy Bush saw to it that there were "friendlies" on the board to look the other way..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. ** and Harken, insider trading. Links:
* helped them every step of the way. Treason.



Report: Bush signed lockup letter
By CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last update: 10:52 p.m. EDT July 15, 2002
WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Two and a half months before George W. Bush sold his stock in Harken Energy Corp., he signed a "lockup" letter promising to hold onto the shares for at least six months, according to internal company documents obtained by the Washington Post.
The Post reported late Tuesday that the letter, signed by Bush on April 3, 1990, is now being compared with the account his lawyers gave federal securities regulators who examined the stock sale as a possible insider trade.
According to the Post story, the letter Bush signed promising to hold onto the stock was released by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Freedom of Information Act. At the time he signed it, Harken (HEC: ), was considering a public stock offering to raise money to solve a cash flow problem.
The President's lawyers have said that Bush had a pre-existing plan to sell his stock in Harken and other companies to pay a tax bill and a loan he owed for his stake in the Texas Rangers ball team.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid={C1852050-B4B6-4A57-B4C8-374A5B3BA25C}&siteid=mktw



Buzzflash has an excellent "The Bush Harken Insider Trading Collection", with good links, some are included below:




http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/bush_harken.html



The Bush Harken Insider Trading Collection

Don't let Bush fool you, he's as slimy a businessman as any that ran Enron.

Harken Energy Chronology
October 25, 2002

The purpose of this chronology is to show plainly and clearly that:

1. President George W. Bush did indeed have material non-public knowledge of adverse financial conditions at Harken Energy Co. prior to the sale of his Harken stock and therefore violated 15 U.S.C. § 78u-1 , insider trading of securities based upon material non-public information.

2. The Securities and Exchange Commission was indeed aware of Bush s insider trading violation and chose to stand down.

3. While serving on the Board of Directors at Harken Energy Company, George W. Bush s performance, motives and ethics were no different than those of the corporate executives and officers of Enron, Worldcom or any other national corporation being criticized by Bush for doing what he did.

4. The Aloha Petroleum sale was an act of fraud and Bush was in a position to know it and prevent it.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00178.htm





Bush and Harken
By Jason Leopold

July 18, 2002

Last week, while Bush spoke to Wall Street about corporate malfeasance, he was beset by questions about the timing of his sale of stock twelve years ago while he served as a director of Harken Energy. Bush sold the Harken stock about two months before the company reported huge losses and shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait, leaving many asking whether the President had benefited from inside information. In addition, Bush was tardy in filing the appropriate sale-related forms with the SEC. Bush has said he filed the proper documents with the SEC on time--even though it arrived thirty-four weeks late--and suggested the agency must have lost the file. Last week, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said there had been a "mix-up" by the Bush lawyers who handled the paperwork.

While SEC reporting requirements may seem like a minor issue, it's crucial information for the average investor because it allows them to determine whether insiders have received undisclosed information about the company's financial condition. The Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 requires company insiders to disclose publicly, in a report called a Form 4, all stock purchases and sales by the tenth day of the month following the transaction.

This week, as President Bush's own business acumen is being called into question, additional SEC documents show that Bush violated federal securities laws on three other occasions during his tenure at Harken by missing the deadline for filing documents about his stock transactions with the SEC.

Bush purchased stock in Harken three times between 1986 and 1989, and was several months late in reporting those transactions to the SEC, according to documents from the agency. One transaction, in which Bush purchased 25,000 shares of Harken stock on June 16, 1989, took place three days before Harken started selling its shares on the New York Stock Exchange, where the stock traded as high as $50. The stock had previously been sold in the over-the-counter market. Bush did not report the transaction to the SEC until September 7, 1989, more than four weeks after the deadline, according to SEC documents, and he reaped a windfall in profits by purchasing the additional shares before they were sold on the NYSE.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020722/leopold20020718





Bush and Harken Energy

As George Bush announces a crackdown on corporate fraud, the president's own financial dealings from 10 years ago have come under renewed scrutiny, as Mark Tran explains

* Mark Tran
* guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 July 2002 11.06 BST
* Article history

What is the fuss over Mr Bush's financial transactions?
On June 22 1990, George Bush, then a director with a company called Harken Energy, sold 212,140 shares for $848,000 (£548,100). Almost exactly two months later, on August 20, Harken announced a $23.2m loss, which caused its shares to drop to $2.375 from $3. The next day, Harken returned to $3, but fell to $1 at the end of 1990.

Did Mr Bush do anything wrong?
Although the law requires prompt disclosure of what are called insider sales, or sales by senior executives, Mr Bush did not inform the securities and exchange commission (SEC), the US market regulator, until 34 weeks later. So technically Mr Bush was at fault. Bush supporters say that he did fully disclose the transaction, and that "half of corporate America was filing forms late at that time".

How does Mr Bush explain the episode?
A decade ago, Mr Bush blamed the SEC, which he said had lost the forms he had filed. When the story resurfaced last week, the White House admitted that this had not been the case. Instead, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer blamed the delay on "a mix-up with the attorneys", but could not shed light on how the confusion arose.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/10/qanda.usa





Published on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 by the Boston Globe
Board Was Told of Risks Before Bush Stock Sale
Harken memo went to SEC after probe
by Michael Kranish and Beth Healy

WASHINGTON - One week before George W. Bush's now-famous sale of stock in Harken Energy Corp. in 1990, Harken was warned by its lawyers that Bush and other members of the troubled oil company's board faced possible insider trading risks if they unloaded their shares.

The warning from Harken's lawyers came in a legal memorandum whose existence has been little noted until now, despite the many years of scrutiny of the Bush transaction. The memo was not received by the Securities and Exchange Commission until the day after the agency decided not to bring insider-trading charges against Bush, documents show.

"It appears that Mr. Bush had insider information, that he was told that such insider information could be considered material, was given express warnings about what the consequences could be." Michael Aguirre
California securities lawyer

The memo, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe, does not say directly whether Bush would face legal problems if he sold his stock. But it does lay out the potential for insider-trading violations by Bush and other members of the Harken board, and its existence raises questions about how thoroughly the SEC investigated Bush's unloading of $848,000 of his Harken stake to a buyer whose name has not been made public.

The SEC cleared Bush after looking into whether he had insider knowledge of an upcoming quarterly loss at Harken. But the SEC investigation apparently never examined a key issue raised in the memo: whether Bush's insider knowledge of a plan to rescue the company from financial collapse by spinning off two troubled units was a factor in his decision to sell.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1030-06.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dos pelos Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
25. One law for the rich,a different one for everyone else
The rants about a financial/power aristocracy in this country start to ring true when you see stuff like this.Madoff under "house arrest" in a plush Manhattan penthouse,while some kid in jail for five years for marijuana.
We look more like the French Ancien Regime all the time.The division of wealth has become too extreme,the leadership myopic and sclerotic,disaster pending.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
26. Yeppers...
...and sadly, it wasn't just during the last 8 years, although it certainly became worse during that time.

According to the latest reports, Madoff's organization never bought any securities. None, zero, zip, zilch. All the while billions were flowing through him, and he was claiming these great return-on-investment numbers.

Also: surely he was not running the outfit by himself? So where are the other folks who should be in jail?

And why in the hell is he allowed to languish about in his Manhattan apartment?

Well I suppose there is one good thing here. As it becomes more and more transparent, the hoi polloi are starting to figure out that really, there is no "there" there. Really, what we have at the heart of our financial system and our political system, is the proverbial den of thieves.

Time for some justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindrifter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. I absolutely do not understand how anyone working for
Madoff could have gone for 12 years never meeting anyone in their company who was buying and selling stocks. WTF? You never saw securities sellers? You never wondered where they were? It makes no sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
30. Word there. Thanks! :) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC