Peter Schiff Educates congress on Economy

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dAHIf5IPQfU?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dAHIf5IPQfU?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[fj1200]

Typical rightie blather. :slap:

[revelarts]

Typical rightie blather. :slap:
then it's in the right place here.

I agree with most of it not all.

Schiff here is promoting limited gov't and the reality of the Feds hand in the crisis. but he also mentions how the market itself used the feds actions to cause the current mess.

I've tried to point out a few of the big banks etc. crimes here. you like to say that there's no "crime". Or no one went to jail or were fined so there was no crime.

FJ do you think the SEC is a good cop and actually tries very hard to stop illegalities like bear raiding or naked short selling to name a few crimes?

[red states rule]

then it's in the right place here.

I agree with most of it not all.

Schiff here is promoting limited gov't and the reality of the Feds hand in the crisis. but he also mentions how the market itself used the feds actions to cause the current mess.

I've tried to point out a few of the big banks etc. crimes here. you like to say that there's no "crime". Or no one went to jail or were fined so there was no crime.

FJ do you think the SEC is a good cop and actually tries very hard to stop illegalities like bear raiding or naked short selling to name a few crimes?

What crimes?

Has anyone been charged and arrested?

Or is this just more of your conspiracy fantasies?

[fj1200]

then it's in the right place here.

I agree with most of it not all.

Schiff here is promoting limited gov't and the reality of the Feds hand in the crisis. but he also mentions how the market itself used the feds actions to cause the current mess.

I've tried to point out a few of the big banks etc. crimes here. you like to say that there's no "crime". Or no one went to jail or were fined so there was no crime.

FJ do you think the SEC is a good cop and actually tries very hard to stop illegalities like bear raiding or naked short selling to name a few crimes?

I only listened to the first few minutes, I have a sense of Schiff's position.

You are of the position that the banks have committed a crime because of the profits that they have made, I dispute that. I'm sure crimes have been committed and that they should be prosecuted for them. I've said many times before that the "crime" has been done by the Fed because they have failed in the execution of their policy; Do you understand the difference.

I'm sure the SEC tries to enforce its regulations and I hope that they attack fraud where and when it happens. However, because you don't like "bear raiding" or "naked short selling" you happen to feel that they are illegal; that does not necessarily make it a crime (except a bear raid which implies collusion or outright manipulation). I'm sure fraud happens and it should be rooted out but that doesn't necessarily make the strategy illegal.

People get caught up in populist waves when they see something they don't like and feel that it should be a crime, many times to their own ultimate detriment; see costs of Sarbanes-Oxley (http://www.google.com/search?q=costs+of+Sarbanes-Oxley&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a).

[revelarts]

A very few but that's my point, a lot have been charged, many have settled out of court, many have been fined or slapped on the wrist. I can give examples if you like. Mainstream news like bloomberg and court docs etc..
Red do you think big banks NEVER commit crimes?

My question to FJ is if he thinks the SEC is a good cop like dirty harry or are they keystone cops or do they turn a blind eye or some combo or something else?

[red states rule]

I only listened to the first few minutes, I have a sense of Schiff's position.

You are of the position that the banks have committed a crime because of the profits that they have made, I dispute that. I'm sure crimes have been committed and that they should be prosecuted for them. I've said many times before that the "crime" has been done by the Fed because they have failed in the execution of their policy; Do you understand the difference.

I'm sure the SEC tries to enforce its regulations and I hope that they attack fraud where and when it happens. However, because you don't like "bear raiding" or "naked short selling" you happen to feel that they are illegal; that does not necessarily make it a crime (except a bear raid which implies collusion or outright manipulation). I'm sure fraud happens and it should be rooted out but that doesn't necessarily make the strategy illegal.

People get caught up in populist waves when they see something they don't like and feel that it should be a crime, many times to their own ultimate detriment; see costs of Sarbanes-Oxley (http://www.google.com/search?q=costs+of+Sarbanes-Oxley&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a).


Of course profits are considered evil these days. To some of these idiots only government can create prosperity and business creates oppression

[red states rule]

A very few but that's my point, a lot have been charged, many have settled out of court, many have been fined or slapped on the wrist. I can give examples if you like. Mainstream news like bloomberg and court docs etc..
Red do you think big banks NEVER commit crimes?

My question to FJ is if he thinks the SEC is a good cop like dirty harry or are they keystone cops or do they turn a blind eye or some combo or something else?

You remind me of a customer that called in all pissed of at the banks (his house was just referred to the f/c attorney)

He was bellowing how we were mistreating him (he had not made a payment in 4 months) he was looking forward to the Obama administration to putting ALL the banks out of business and people like me would then be out of a job

I asked him besides making him feel better, how that would improve his situation and the US economy. He hung up and the f/c sale took place 4 months later

[revelarts]

I only listened to the first few minutes, I have a sense of Schiff's position.

You are of the position that the banks have committed a crime because of the profits that they have made,
I've never said that there was a crime because of profits. You have miss read me in the extreme.
My position has always been that SOME of the profits where made by various forms of fraud or collusion. I don't have a problem with legal fair profits.




I'm sure crimes have been committed and that they should be prosecuted for them. I've said many times before that the "crime" has been done by the Fed because they have failed in the execution of their policy; Do you understand the difference. I'm not Sure. Are you saying you support the FED in it's policies but that the FED's policies didn't work there fore they failed in their execution. Or that their are policies they have that they haven't followed through on.



I'm sure the SEC tries to enforce its regulations and I hope that they attack fraud where and when it happens.
Agreed, It seems to me that at the least they have been very lazy, inefficient and under staffed. At worse they've turn a blind eye and some have been like mafia bought police.




However, because you don't like "bear raiding" or "naked short selling" you happen to feel that they are illegal; that does not necessarily make it a crime (except a bear raid which implies collusion or outright manipulation). I'm sure fraud happens and it should be rooted out but that doesn't necessarily make the strategy illegal.
People get caught up in populist waves when they see something they don't like and feel that it should be a crime,

"What Does Bear Raid Mean?
The illegal practice of attempting to push the price of a stock lower by taking large short positions and spreading unfavorable rumors about the target firm.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bearraid.asp#ixzz1cHow9DyJ

What Does Naked Shorting Mean?
The illegal practice of short selling shares that have not been affirmatively determined to exist.
Ordinarily, traders must borrow a stock, or determine that it can be borrowed, before they sell it short. But due to various loopholes in the rules and discrepancies between paper (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nakedshorting.asp#) and electronic trading systems, naked shorting continues to happen.
--While no exact system of measurement exists, most point to the level of trades that fail to deliver from the seller to the buyer within the mandatory three-day stock settlement period as evidence of naked shorting. Naked shorts may represent a major portion of these failed trades (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nakedshorting.asp#).


Investopedia explains Naked Shorting Naked shorting is illegal because it allows manipulators a chance to force stock prices down without regard for normal stock supply/demand patterns.
--In 2007, the SecuritiesandExchange (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nakedshorting.asp#) Commission (SEC) amended Regulation SHO to further limit possibilities for naked shorting by removing loopholes that existed for some broker/dealers. Regulation SHO requires lists to be published that track stocks with unusually high trends in "fail to deliver" shares. Some analysts point to the fact that naked shorting, albeit inadvertently, may help markets stay in balance by allowing the negative sentiment to be reflected in certain stocks' prices.
Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nakedshorting.asp#ixzz1cHqgsm9Q




"








I don't FEEL its Illegal, it is just plain Illegal. It's not a "populist wave" it's real criminal activity period.

To me and some lawyers, Naked short selling is basically defined a selling stocks that YOU DON"T OWN. I don't understand how doing that on the stock market could be considered legal or a legit business tacit and helpful but anywhere else in business selling stuff you don't own -or doesn't even exist- is just a plain ol crime. Profits are great, but it's my take that the Banks and many stock market players work with a skewed/immoral set of rules that don't "work" anywhere but in its rarefied air out of sight of most people. the populist wave that you mention may just be people realizing things like, when a banker/broker says he owns something he may be lying in REAL terms but He and his ilk just think of it as the way we do business.


... many times to their own ultimate detriment; see costs of Sarbanes-Oxley (http://www.google.com/search?q=costs+of+Sarbanes-Oxley&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a).
I didn't mention Sarbanes Oxely and I can't defend the details but part of the reason it's there is because people - Enron and the like- committed HUGE accounting fraud. more crime . many went to jail etc but the loss it caused investors and stock holders caused a back lash. We can blame the congress for another stupid law sure but the problem started in the accounting firms and Big corporate players. who caused more real harm in a shorter time than the law ever did.

[revelarts]

You remind me of a customer that called in all pissed of at the banks (his house was just referred to the f/c attorney)

He was bellowing how we were mistreating him (he had not made a payment in 4 months) he was looking forward to the Obama administration to putting ALL the banks out of business and people like me would then be out of a job

I asked him besides making him feel better, how that would improve his situation and the US economy. He hung up and the f/c sale took place 4 months later

huh, what?
Are you making up stuff about me again Red?

[red states rule]

what? you making up stuff about me again Red?

I do see you as leading the charge to put the banks out of business Rev

Then bitch as the unemployment rate goes up, no credit available for anything, Wall St becomes a ghost town, and NY State goes bankrupt due to the lost tax revenue and failed companies

[revelarts]

I do see you as leading the charge to put the banks out of business Rev

Then bitch as the unemployment rate goes up, no credit available for anything, Wall St becomes a ghost town, and NY State goes bankrupt due to the lost tax revenue and failed companies

Do you want the banks bailed out?
Do you want criminal fraud activity to go unpunished and continue?
I don't. And if that means the corrupt Banks go out of business then that's the market at work correct?
Hopefully we'll get honest solvent banks or maybe credit unions will thrive instead or they'll be other ways to finance things. But in the long run propping up a weak businesses and turning a blind eye to corrupt activity for the sake of faux stability is self defeating.

[red states rule]

Do you want the banks bailed out?
Do you want criminal fraud activity to go unpunished and continue?
I don't. And if that means the corrupt Banks go out of business then that's the market at work correct?
Hopefully we'll get honest solvent banks or maybe credit unions will thrive instead or they'll be other ways to finance things. But in the long run propping up a weak businesses and turning a blind eye to corrupt activity for the sake of faux stability is self defeating.

NO, I am against ALL bailouts. If a company can't compete they should fold up

What fraud Rev? I get what are called "posse" letters everyday from deadbeats and idiot attorneys who think they were "tricked" into taking out their loan. It used to be you bought a house and you paid the loan every month. Now, it is the banks fault for loaning the idiots the money, and they are playing the vicitm card

In the long run, if you want things to get better then we have to let all the f/c's go thru. Clean out the dead wood and the deadbeats from the system and only then will things get better

[fj1200]

I've never said that there was a crime because of profits. You have miss read me in the extreme.
My position has always been that SOME of the profits where made by various forms of fraud or collusion. I don't have a problem with legal fair profits.

I think I pretty much have the measure of many of your banking/investing posts over the years. And if my opinion is "in the extreme" it's NOT because I misread. We've discussed the Abacus deal in the past.


I'm not Sure. Are you saying you support the FED in it's policies but that the FED's policies didn't work there fore they failed in their execution. Or that their are policies they have that they haven't followed through on.

Their base role of a stable monetary policy has been a failure post 2001 or so, check out a 10 year gold chart. Much of the meltdown failure had it's origin in other failed governmental policy of which the Fed had a role with Treasury. Check out Kathianne's SEC thread for the piece I linked.


Agreed, It seems to me that at the least they have been very lazy, inefficient and under staffed. At worse they've turn a blind eye and some have been like mafia bought police.

It would be easier for them to do the best job if they removed some other onerous type roles that are much fluff.


I don't FEEL its Illegal, it is just plain Illegal. It's not a "populist wave" it's real criminal activity period.

To me and some lawyers, Naked short selling is basically defined a selling stocks that YOU DON"T OWN. I don't understand how doing that on the stock market could be considered legal or a legit business tacit and helpful but anywhere else in business selling stuff you don't own -or doesn't even exist- is just a plain ol crime. Profits are great, but it's my take that the Banks and many stock market players work with a skewed/immoral set of rules that don't "work" anywhere but in its rarefied air out of sight of most people. the populist wave that you mention may just be people realizing things like, when a banker/broker says he owns something he may be lying in REAL terms but He and his ilk just think of it as the way we do business.

It IS a populist wave, because they're illegal doesn't discount the origin of them becoming illegal. This is akin to the uptick rule which, last I checked, hasn't been shown to alter the market but has nonetheless been put back in place. Interesting you mention lawyers (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv31n1/v31n1-6.pdf)...

Despite a recent spate of lawsuits and media attention, the existing literature on naked short selling consists almost entirely of self-confessed advocacy pieces by lawyers and consultants involved in naked short selling cases or parties who are defendants in such lawsuits.
because you just got the definition wrong for one; Shorting is selling something THAT YOU DON'T OWN whereas naked shorting is selling it where you have no intention of borrowing the shares first. But there are plenty of people who will get up in arms about something and raise the "problem" up to the level of scrutiny where they just demand that, "something must be done."

I'd say if you don't understand you need to do a bit more research on the subject because there are plenty of legitimate reasons that things you don't understand are actually helpful to the market rather than detrimental. The two main people I'm nervous about garnering any sort of power are those with their feelings based on populism and those who use the term "ilk" to define the other side.

You know, if you put a bit more stock in the short sellers it's possible that Enron wouldn't have gotten as far as they did:

On top of that, some short sellers are outstanding stock analysts who have a good eye for fraud, mismanagement, or aggressive accounting. Take Jim Chanos of Kynikos Associates, for example, who was one of the first (and only) investors to call Enron out for its fuzzy accounting. If only more investors had listened to his arguments instead of those of Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling.
And...

Myth No. 2: All naked short selling is illegal
This myth is unfortunately widespread, but it's simply false.
...
What the critics are actually referring to is what the SEC describes as "abusive naked short selling (http://wiki.fool.com/Naked_short_selling?source=ihlsitlnk0000001)," in which (a) short sellers sell shares they have not borrowed, and (b) are unable to deliver those shares on the settlement date of their sale. The SEC wants to eliminate abusive naked short selling through a series of measures that took effect on Thursday, which penalize failures to deliver borrowed shares at settlement. In addition, on Friday, the SEC banned all short sales of 799 financial stocks until Oct. 2, and increased the reporting burden for short sellers.

So what you claim to be illegal isn't necessarily so although the article was dated 2008 so God knows what could have changed since then but the point is that what you said wasn't necessarily true at the time and if it is now then that would confirm my "populist wave" charge. And besides, I love the last line from that piece:

Short-sellers didn't cause the credit crisis (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/15/the-biggest-financial-story-of-the-past-50-years.aspx).
http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/09/22/the-truth-about-naked-shorts.aspx


I didn't mention Sarbanes Oxely and I can't defend the details but part of the reason it's there is because people - Enron and the like- committed HUGE accounting fraud. more crime . many went to jail etc but the loss it caused investors and stock holders caused a back lash. We can blame the congress for another stupid law sure but the problem started in the accounting firms and Big corporate players. who caused more real harm in a shorter time than the law ever did.

That's right, I did. And I did because it was a law based on a populist movement that caught Congress up in a wave of disgust to create more rules/regulations for actions that were not only illegal in the first place but specifically put people in jail. Now this populist law is on the books and costing public companies billions in annual fees and lost market value for some phantom security that people can try and feel good about while being oblivious to the unseen cost to American business which only drives down job growth and advancement.

SOX is a perfect example of you wanting the SEC to pursue its duties but when it fails you demand more laws and regulations rather than them getting it right in the first place.

[red states rule]

I suspect the next big idea from Obama and the bank haters will be for the mortgage bankers to "forgive" a portion of the principal owed on mortgage loans

Yea, that will "fix" the problem

Only who will eat the amount written off? The investors, the US taxpayer?