This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Goldman, Whose "Employees Did Nothing Wrong", Just Deregistered Fab Tourre In England
Goldman spent about 28 hours on Monday repeating over and over how neither it nor anyone else has done anything wrong. Which is why we are scratching our heads at the news just reported by the WSJ that Goldman decided to deregister Tourre with the London FSA. Sure, there is an explanation: "A Goldman spokeswoman said the company decided to de-register Mr. Tourre with the Financial Services Authority because the London-based employee is on indefinite paid leave, and therefore won't be interacting with Goldman's clients." That sounds about as credible as Irene "Cash Cow" Aldrdige's defense of the ethics of HFT.
Goldman's de-registration of Mr. Tourre came the same day that the FSA said it was launching "a formal enforcement investigation" of Goldman's U.K. subsidiary "in relation to recent SEC allegations." Goldman said it plans to fully cooperate with the FSA in its investigation.
Mr. Tourre worked for Goldman in New York at the time that the alleged fraud occurred. He transferred to Goldman's London offices in late 2008, and the FSA registered him to work in a client-facing job at Goldman Sachs International on Nov. 24, 2008.
Tuesday afternoon, the FSA's online database of registered financial employees continued to list Mr. Tourre's registration as "active."
That's ok. Fab Fab can always come work in the US where his Finra broker record still lists him as registered with 10 SRO and is allowed to practice in 52 US states and territories.
»
- 5261 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Start singing Fab!
Why do you think they sort of cut him loose?
Seems like they'd hug him even tighter if they thought he might sing.
Pretty hard to start singing when you know you'll be suicided shortly after.
indefinite paid leave, wow i bet he is starting fight clubs across the country now
Fab's getting offers...
This just in;
C hires GS alum....
OK but GS co-counsel Greg Palm said this today.
Also on today’s call with reporters, Palm said the firm and its representatives haven’t had discussions with the Department of Justice on the case involved in the SEC matter or on any similar issues.
“We’ve had no discussions with the DOJ,” Palm said.
Doesn't seem to me that , at least, the US government is going after Goldman in a serious way.
I bought some stock in POSC several months ago. Can I sue the broker if I find that the shares resulted from Warren Buffett selling his shares?
I also happened to sell some WFC. If I find that Warren Buffett was the buyer, and the broker did not inform me, how much can I sue them for?
It really will get interesting when the brokers are responsible for informing both parties as to exactly who is on the other side of trade. Just wondering, IF the broker holds it in inventory for 15 sec. will that make them the owner? How about 15 days? At what point would the provinence of the shares not be of interest?
What would really be interesting would be if I could identify that I sold my GLD shares to chummie several months ago at 118.
ABACUS was an initial offering with a prospectus and underwritten by GS, smartass. Big difference between trading shares in the secondary.
Sir ScrewLoose,
The question relates to "Why was the Buyer not informed that the Seller had actually Decided to Sell." It has always been clear to me that I cannot buy without there being a seller. Only the government can simply decide to take whether there is a willing seller or not.
Suppose you had $100 million to invest and put to work. You consult with several brokers and decide upon 20 tickers a $5 million each. After the trade occurs and you lose money on some of the picks, you find that the broker did not tell you that the noted investor Warren Buffett was selling what they sold to you. What the HELL is that for Full Disclosure. They withheld important information from you. Sue their ASS and get the OBangye Administration to do it also so you won't have to pay anything if it doesn't work out. "You mean that you knew that WGB was selling and did not tell me?" Dirty, Crooked, Liar, Cheat, Pay Me my losses.
@Augustus
I was a bit short with you, but where did you read this:
I read the original post again and I don't see that question. Maybe it's a strawman you created? In any event, I don't think it's a relevant question.
The reason it is relevant is this:
Paulson had nothing to do with creating the underlying securities. He did nothing to originate the mortgages or underwrite the original MBS. Those were done and were trading already. The crap that was out there was not created by Paulson and was not a whole lot different from a whole lot more that was trading. I haven't tried to look it up but I would suggest that there were a lot of the MBS that declined even more than what Paulson selected to try to short. Now, after the fact, and after it is obvious that he did the homework and others did not, he is being painted as the evil villan and GS as the enabeler. Note that Paulson was on the hook for a whole lot of liability if that trade goes against him.
Suppose in January, 2000 you were running several hundred million. You decide that there is no way that the InterBubble crap can be worth the prices. Netscam.com, Street.com, ICGM.com, and a whole bunch of others just cannot make enough money to justify the price. You could buy some special long calls, put those in a security, and short the security. Bubble pops, you become recognized as a genius instead of a cart pusher, and you and your investors are wealthy. Three years later everyone decides that "we all knew those stocks were worthless" so why didn't the underwriter tell us that the genius Cursive was on the other side of the trade? Sue the bastards and get our money back.
No real difference. Note also that if the stocks had kept going up you would have been wiped out as you had to keep rolling the stuff over at higher prices. Paulson would have had to hump either the interest of the insurance fees. It wasn't free for him to play.
And, for all those who seem to believe that it was so obvious that there would be a crash, I suppose you made a an absolut fortune on the FNM puts or the TMA puts? With FNM at $25 or so they sold more stock to "firm up their equity", then the FNM $15 puts should have been pretty darned cheap, right. Suppose they were $1. Payoff would have been 14X, maybe better than Paulson. Would it have been illegal? All it took was some bucks and the willingness to commit. Didn't all of you dickweeds connect the dots and get filthy wealthy?
congrats! you win the award for worst analogy of all time.
I second that.
Ha, I was thinkin same thing, huh? hehehehe
@ Augustus
Your analogy is as provocative as a dog fart, and demonstrates a total inability to comprehend the accusations.
Look in the mirror, behind your left ear. There should be a button. Push it to immediately activate your brain.
Wait 5-10 minutes for your brain to warm, or until you're capable of walking upright.
Then re-read your post, and make the necessary adjustments.
You know of those buttons since you use them to activate your blowup bed buddy. Do you grease one or two?
You just don't know what you are talking about. Going short is not a crime. And, if you have ever bought sharesw, did the broker tell you who sold them? Sue them if it was a losing trade, maybe you can get some of those who agree with you to be selected to be on the jury. Why should any trade ever be a loss?
Again, nobody has in issue with that fact in your post. The sole argument that xx commentators replied to you about was how your analogy was about as concise Cramer's reasons for sticking with BSC.
Haven't learned much in 11 weeks at ZH, eh?
GOLDMAN FELLAS:
http://williambanzai7.blogspot.com/2010/04/goldman-fellas.html
Prepare to be de-rezzed!
Yo TD check this:
*DEUTSCHE BANK SAID TO REPLACE LIPPMANN AS HEAD OF CDO TRADING
can you say Wells notice?
By the way, Alistair Darling offered his analysis of the Abacus portfolio today. Yes, no kidding Frabjous Fab won't be interacting with London clients in the near future. Suds didn't get where he today is by taunting European governments. (But don't worry, it's nothing fatal.)
This ....from Offshore Alert. Great read about more Goldman Sach's alledged fraud as well as govt corruption.....
.........
News that Goldman Sachs has been accused of defrauding its own clients by the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission came as no surprise to OffshoreAlert.
In the late 1990s, OffshoreAlert found out first-hand what little regard Goldman Sachs had for its smaller customers – and the investing public at large – when we exposed a Bermuda-based insurance broker that went on to commit frauds of approximately $1 billion on the global reinsurance market and at least $50 million on investors.
OffshoreAlert began exposing Stirling Cooke Brown Holdings in November, 1997 – the same month that the broker was taken public by Goldman Sachs at $22.50 per share in a $50 million IPO, after which Goldman continued to control 23% of the broker's shares through various onshore and offshore investment funds and had two seats on Stirling Cooke's small Board of Directors.
The headline of our first story said it all: 'What investors will not find in Stirling Cooke's share prospectus' and detailed a plethora of material negative information, including prior allegations of fraud against some of its principals, that was not disclosed to investors.
OffshoreAlert continued to expose Stirling Cooke relentlessly until the broker filed for bankruptcy in December, 2003 under the weight of numerous arbitrations and litigation in which several reinsurance contracts brokered by the firm were voided due to fraud. Its share price plummeted to zero – an outcome that was inevitable the day the shares were first publicly-listed.
"If OffshoreAlert could find out all of this negative information, it defied belief that a company the size of Goldman Sachs, with all of its resources, couldn't," says David Marchant, publisher of OffshoreAlert. "At the very least, Goldman Sachs was negligent and incompetent. At worst, it was knowingly involved in one of the biggest reinsurance frauds ever perpetrated. My investigation led me to believe it was the latter.
"I informed Goldman Sachs from the outset that a fraud was being committed and I offered to give them my evidence free of charge – but I was rebuffed. I contacted Goldman four times and, on each occasion, the firm's representatives did not respond to my inquiries.
"The only possible conclusion was that Goldman Sachs had a lack of concern for the welfare of investors – even its own clients – and reinsurers. It was the epitome of sleaze."
Despite making several materially false filings with the SEC while under the control of Goldman Sachs, the SEC never took any action against Stirling Cooke and, in a sad indictment on the state of financial journalism, OffshoreAlert could not persuade a single news organization to report what was going on, despite offering to hand them the evidence on a plate.
A final twist to the sordid story was yet to come when, astonishingly, the Goldman Sachs Managing Director who was responsible for the Stirling Cooke account and who served as a director of Stirling Cooke throughout its international crime spree later went on to become the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the federal agency that regulates commodity futures and options on futures trading in the United States.
He is Reuben Jeffery III, a close associate of former US. President George W. Bush, who nominated him for the CFTC position and whom Jeffery served in a number of positions, including Special Assistant to the President, Senior Director for International Economic Affairs at the National Security Council, and Under Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs.
"It is remarkable that someone who was either knowingly involved in a massive fraud or, alternatively, could not spot it when it was right in front of his face could be deemed suitable to be a top regulator," says Marchant. "What confidence can investors have in the financial system when someone who has played a leading role in a major scandal is appointed to such a lofty position, apparently because of his political connections rather than his ability to regulate? No wonder the financial industry is in such a mess."
Any clients of Goldman Sachs or Wall Street's other financial institutions who want assistance in detecting whether they are being ripped off will benefit from several sessions on how to conduct financial due diligence that will take place at The 8th Annual OffshoreAlert Financial Due Diligence Conference, in Association with Grant Thornton, at The Ritz-Carlton, South Beach on May 2-4, 2010.
Ominously for Wall Street's countless dubious companies, other sessions are being presented by the world's leading asset recovery attorneys, who will show attendees how to go about locating, freezing and seizing the assets of those responsible for defrauding them and will explain the legal standards for determining who might be liable for their losses, such as financial advisors, banks, auditors, officers and directors. Details about the event can be found at www.OffshoreAlertConference.com.
Register today if you haven't already, and I look forward to seeing in South Beach on May 2 - 4, 2010.
All the best,
David
:: David Marchant
:: Publisher
:: OffshoreAlert
Rogue trader, I knew it. Problem solved, GS's integrity is restored. Those damn rogue traders.
Fab = ant crushed under heel of Blankfein's boot.