- advertisements -
I'm pretty sure I saw Reggie in one of those "Monty" videos.
"Someone" always pops in to re-direct the discussion and focus of attention from the comdemnation of the guilt of the perpetrator to the defense of the victim by implying guilt ( your fault for getting robbed, defend that). Clever tactic for changing the focus of attention and yet an old and worn out one that the most don't buy anymore. Just like regular scams structured into our society the general public are becoming increasingly more savy to it all.And the readership here.
Reggie- Ambac is one cog in the gear ring.
GS is the ring itself.
JPM is 19-20 cogs.
BofA is 7-8 cogs.
WFC is 5-6 cogs.
Deutsche Bank is 5-6 cogs.
Socitie Generale is 4-5 cogs.
Right on down to the bond insurers which each represent 1-2 cogs, with Ambac ebing just one. Oh, the gears are shredding. Wait until Next week when the fireworks really begin as China calls the bluff of the US and shouts to the world that the US/UK/EU have been tricking them the whole time...
The catalyst will be the defaulting of one or more periphery nations of the EU, most likely Greece or Ireland. Germany has unofficially said "NO MORE!" to Greece and the PIIGS.
Criminals ALWAYS blame their victims. Right David?
BTW, love your work Reggie
Living a lie is living a lie... participating in a lie is participating in a lie...
Ignorance of the law, is no defense?
Don't believe the Hype?
But other than that Reggie... you are fantastic, keep preaching the facts Brother!
Reggie, I don't know if you are just stupid or are a genuine reactionary. In any event, your petit bourgeois notion of a "mark" is utterly ridiculous. Were those who invested with Madoff marks or co-conspirators.
I'll choose co-conspirators. Somehow there are the blessedly innocent in a Ponzi scheme. No Reggie, you're just going to have to swallow hard and repeat after me:
THERE ARE NO INNOCENT PARTICIPANTS IN A PONZI SCHEME.
So you are saying someone who is naive is not innocent? Naive = guilty?
Show me who, in FACT, was naive. No one, no matter how naive, could reasonably rely on the representations made when the returns were as good as they were. If it seems too good to be true, it is too good to be true, and you held to have realized.
"Naive"--don't make me laugh. Prove they were naive.
Ha ha! You'll find out that they are just as guilty as Madoff.
Hi from Germany,
maybe I have an example:
In Europe there was a UCITS3-"Madoff-Feeder"-Fund called "Herald". The prospectus did not mention Madoff and did not mention the fact, that the custodian bank (HSBC Lux) had delegated the custody to BMIS via a secret sub-custodian aggreement that had not even been filed to the CSSF (kind of SEC from Luxemburg) and brokerage was delegated to BMIS as well. Investors were led to believe they were investing in a kind of long-short us-equity-fund with no overnight risk (basically us-treasuries over night).
We are not talking about some Cayman-Island-Offshore-Managed Account. It was UCITS3.
The case is in courtrooms in Luxemburg right now.
"Investors were led to believe they were investing in a kind of long-short us-equity-fund with no overnight risk (basically us-treasuries over night)."
Baloney. With what kind of returns? And let's find out WHO was actually led to believe WHAT.
I don't believe this little Pollyanna story of yours for a minute. Indeed, you are ASSUMING they "were led to believe"--that is, assuming they are innocent--before knowing whether in FACT they were knowing participants in a Ponzi scheme.
Hope the lawsuit finds THAT out.
Ridiculous! You're assumption is that everyone in the market has perfect access to all information and is equally able to judge risk. You sound like an Economist who cannot separate himself from classical economic theories.
The bottom line is that modern capital markets require intermediaries which act as "honest brokers" who have access to both information and understanding in which to deliver judgements on what are essentially opaque instruments or products.
That is purportedly what the rating agencies were supposed to be doing. If no one believes what they are doing is "honest" and likewise everyone believes everyone is deceiving everyone else with a hidden agenda --- then guess what? It is the end of capital markets and the end of the economy.
Really, get real. At some level you are paying someone to do due diligence and tell the truth. If your assumption of outsized returns = corruption and everyone comes to believe that; then trust is finished and it is the end of economy.
No, it is YOU who are assuming "everyone" and "perfect."
Instead, let's ACTUALLY FIND OUT who knew what. Let's see if someone at the Church deciding whose advice to accept, actually--surprise!--went to college with that investment guy that the Church just happened--surprise!--to advise them.
You are a complete clown. Listen to what this idiot says:
"If no one believes what they are doing is "honest" and likewise everyone believes everyone is deceiving everyone else with a hidden agenda --- then guess what? It is the end of capital markets and the end of the economy."
Hey clown, let's FIND OUT if the people involved knew the facts. Let's take some depositions, eh clown? That won't result in "the end of capital markets and the end of the economy," but it WILL allow the Church to recover money from those who defrauded it, AND LET'S FIND OUT WHO THOSE PEOPLE WERE.
You're a jerk.
I don't know exactly what you are either, but explain this: The main investment fund of the Presbyterian Church was stuffed full of toxic waste MBS with awesome credit ratings by Evergreen, a Wachovia sub since taken over by Wells Fargo. The bond fund (!!!) of the entire Presbyterian Church USA and any congregations that invested in it lost over 20% just from that scam.
Have you checked your loved ones' investment funds>>>this is in your lap.
Now who is the co-conspirator? The church? The people in the pews?
Your cartoon of a Ponzi scheme cannot encompass the enormity of the crimes we are witness to.
Don't be UTTERLY ridiculous. If it looks too good to be true, it IS too good to be true. Bet the Church was happy as long as the money was flowing, wasn't it? Bet they couldn't believe the returns they were getting. Fantastic, weren't they? Yeah, TOO fantastic.
So the Church happily sucked up the money. NO facts justified the rating these securities got. NO reasonable person would rely on those ratings, where they were a professional or not. Don't make me laugh. The Church knew perfectly well it was part of a Ponzi scheme, just as Madoff's investors knew perfectly well they were a part of a Ponzi scheme.
Nor could the Church rely on its lying investment advisors, although those advisors ALSO knew it was a Ponzi scheme. Don't tell me the Church innocently relied on advice. Why not? BECAUSE THE RETURNS WERE TOO GOOD. No reasonable person--professional or not--could have relied on those returns and representations.
The Church better look again at the documents it signed in order to see what FACTUAL representations it made. Let's see the "innocent" investor, the Church, become the DEFENDANT in some of these suits.
Shocking, isn't it?
You are RIDICULOUS.
Reggie rocks while others spew
Larry Summers cost Harvard billions with debt derivatives before he was fired as President
Somehow the 0 Team missed all this during vetting him as 0 adviser, or just plain did not care, perhaps thinking his Nobel Laureate uncle would come thorough with that Nobel Peace Prize for a manchurian candidate who sealed his records
Who knows except those ruined by Fed IRS Red Tape corporate government monopolies?
Reggie: This white girl thinks you rock!
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertise With Us
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
How to report offensive comments
Notice on Racial Discrimination.