Bank con exposed on MSNBC!

Then they paid back the TARP funds at extremely low interest rates while charging the public loan shark rates.

A Wall Street bank doesn't loan money to individuals. So how can they charge loan shark rates to the public?

Goldman Sachs is an investment bank. As was Lehman Brothers, and Bear Stearns. Goldman Sachs is not a conventional retail bank. There is a huge difference. Don't confuse a Wall Street bank engaged in investment banking with a conventional retail bank that lends to the public.

I would be really curious to know what "loan shark" rates Wall Street is charging if they don't even lend to the public!!!

Here is a definition of an investment bank (such as Goldman Sachs):

"Investment Bank: An institution which acts as an underwriter or agent for corporations and municipalities issuing securities (stocks, bonds, etc.). Most also maintain broker/dealer operations (stockbrokers, etc.), maintain markets for previously issued securities, and offer advisory services to investors. Investment banks also have a large role in facilitating mergers and acquisitions, private equity placements, and corporate restructuring.

Unlike traditional banks, investment banks do not accept deposits from and provide loans to individuals."

Read that last line again. No deposits from the public, and no loans to individuals.

Do you want to explain to everyone how an investment bank like Goldman Sachs is charging "loan shark rates" if it doesn't lend to the public? I am all ears.

If you follow the money you will see that Wall Street execs made, by far, the most money, and the rest got chump change.

Tell that to a Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns executive. Most of the Wall Street investment banks are out of business.

Goldman, JPMChase, and Morgan Stanley are the last men standing. These bonuses are concentrated in these 3 dominant players.

Again, don't confuse these 3 firms with traditional banks.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by CookieMonster09]

reply to post by CookieMonster09


There are Wall Street banks, I never claimed that investment banks take direct deposits.

However what do you call it when people put their 401k plans into the market. They have been robbing 401k plans to pay their bonuses, and that is part of the deal that has forced so many banks into bankruptcy. It is a repeat the the S&L robbery twenty years ago.

Why do you make excuses for these crooks?

reply to post by Ouroborus2012


agreed. though it's sad to think that this information that many of us ATSers have been privy to for a long while is mind blowing news to more than 90% of the populous.

There are Wall Street banks, I never claimed that investment banks take direct deposits.

No, you claimed that Wall Street was loaning money to the public at loan shark rates. And I quote:

Then they paid back the TARP funds at extremely low interest rates while charging the public loan shark rates.

Wall Street investment banks, like Goldman Sachs, don't lend money to the public. Your suggestion that they are lending money at loan shark rates is totally false.

However what do you call it when people put their 401k plans into the market. They have been robbing 401k plans to pay their bonuses, and that is part of the deal that has forced so many banks into bankruptcy.

Oh my goodness. First, when someone places money into a 401k plan, it typically consists of a smattering of different stock and bond funds of their choosing.

How have the banks been robbing 401k plans exactly? Because the overall market has dipped? I don't get it.

The reason why traditional retail banks have failed is because of the massive number of defaulted real estate loans on their books. Most of the banks that have failed were located in the boom areas that saw major residential real estate development - such as Georgia, Florida, Arizona, etc. The biggest problem with most of these banks has been speculative residential real estate lending to builders and developers, house flippers, and sub-prime borrowers.

That's why they are in trouble. Not because of the stock market or because of 401k plans!

Why do you make excuses for these crooks?

I am not making excuses for anyone. I am asking you to be very specific, make differentiations, and provide reliable evidence. You refuse to do so. And you refuse to answer even a single question that I have posed.

Maybe other readers buy your claims and wild speculations. I don't.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


You linked to a blog from the CEO of BofA. That actually is a bank where you can deposit money, so why are you going off the deep end on this? It is clear that you think banks of any kind can do no wrong, and the last few posts demonstrate that you are only here to discredit the thread. In essence you are a troll.

Do you know anything about what has been happening to 401k plans?

www.huntingtonnews.net...

Since the peak of the stock market in October 2007, the nation's 401(k)s have lost a collective $1 trillion in value. That's fully a third of the value of all 401(k)s. The picture is actually worse than that because another $1 trillion has been stripped from people who lost or changed jobs and rolled their 401(k)s into individual retirement accounts.

Essentially, the bailout was allowed to save 401k plans, but this article paints a rosy picture of how badly 401k plans have been robbed since deregulation by Next and his gang of crooks.

Here is some breaking news.

online.wsj.com...

The hedge fund involved in the Goldman case, Paulson & Co., also contributed to the headline effect. Paulson had earned legendary status on Wall Street during the crisis by making an estimated $20 billion in betting again the housing crisis. Paulson executives were not immediately available for comment Friday.

Who pays for Paulson's $20B gambling gain from winning his bet?

This is from the Wall Street Journal mind you.

Exactly how is gambling in the stock market good for our nation's economy?

You linked to a blog from the CEO of BofA. That actually is a bank where you can deposit money, so why are you going off the deep end on this? It is clear that you think banks of any kind can do no wrong, and the last few posts demonstrate that you are only here to discredit the thread. In essence you are a troll.

Get your facts straight. It was Jamie Dimon from JP Morgan Chase. He doesn't have a blog. The news article was from your favorite newspaper, the NY Times, under the Deal Book section:

dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com...

It's not a blog. It's a news article.

I won't dignify the troll comment, other than to say that it speaks volumes about your character (or lack of it). Because you can't answer a single question, you resort to name-calling. Nice.

And no, I don't think that banks can do no wrong. I have little empathy for Wall Street. But the root of this financial crisis - the very root - is mortgage fraud on a massive scale by sub-prime mortgage companies, real estate speculators, and fraudulent borrowers.

Retail banks were hardly the beneficiary of this crisis - Have you seen how many banks have been shut down in the past year? How many banks have closed? How many will be closed in the upcoming year?

Do you know anything about what has been happening to 401k plans?

Yes. But what does the stock market have to do with the retail banking industry?

Essentially, the bailout was allowed to save 401k plans, but this article paints a rosy picture of how badly 401k plans have been robbed since deregulation by Next and his gang of crooks.

How did TARP "save" 401k plans?

Reagan deregulated the banking industry, not Newt.

Who pays for Paulson's $20B gambling gain from winning his bet?

Goldman Sachs is a Wall Street investment bank, not a retail bank. Goldman takes no deposits, and issues no debt to the public.

Exactly how is gambling in the stock market good for our nation's economy?

You tell me. I never said that it was.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


I'm sorry, BofA, Chase Morgan, it is easy to get confused. Both banks with depositors and both took bailout money.

But the root of this financial crisis - the very root - is mortgage fraud on a massive scale by sub-prime mortgage companies, real estate speculators, and fraudulent borrowers.

Really, OMG, those poor innocent naive investment giants all got duped by the little guys!

BUT, somehow the execs at the top of these giant firms got the lions share of the money!

HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?

Really, you honestly believe this?

Where were you in the nineties? Don't you remember Newt's contract on America?

Maybe I am wrong, maybe you are not a troll. Maybe you read a book and you believed what you read without checking the facts, and if so, I am sorry.

Here is another thread, educate thy self.

But please, shorter posts.

Oops, forgot to add link.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 16-4-2010 by poet1b]

I'm sorry, BofA, Chase Morgan, it is easy to get confused. Both banks with depositors and both took bailout money.

Yeah, the taxpayers really got screwed over by Chase. Oh, wait...My bad. Chase repaid TARP with interest....to the tune of $795 million dollars!:

"JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) announced today that it repaid in full the $25 billion preferred stock investment it accepted through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). In addition to this principal amount, JPMorgan Chase has paid the U. S. Treasury an aggregate of $795,138,889 in dividends on the preferred stock, including dividends that had accrued through the redemption date."

www.jpmorgan.com...

Hmmmm.. Strange isn't it? Seems like the American taxpayer actually benefited from the TARP funds given to Chase.

Must be Bank of America that screwed the taxpayer? Let's see....Nope:

newsroom.bankofamerica.com...

"To date, Bank of America has paid $2.54 billion in dividends to the U.S. Treasury on the TARP investment. Repaying TARP will save the company approximately $3.6 billion in annual dividend costs from the TARP investment."

Pretty decent return on investment for the American taxpayer if you ask me.

Really, OMG, those poor innocent naive investment giants all got duped by the little guys!

Well, actually, most of the "investment giants" failed and went out of business, like Lehman and Bear Stearns. Investment banking giants fell by the wayside left and right. Goldman was pretty much the only one that didn't get shut down. Even Merrill had to scramble to find a buyer. Where have YOU been?

So if you don't think that mortgage fraud caused the financial crisis, what did? Where did it originate? I'd love to hear your leftist theory on this one.

Where were you in the nineties? Don't you remember Newt's contract on America?

You must be too young to remember that Reagan, not Newt Gingrich, deregulated the banking industry. Crack open a history book, poet.

Here is another thread, educate thy self.

How many times do we have to discuss this? Goldman is a Wall Street investment bank - Not a retail bank. They don't lend to the public, and they don't accept deposits. What part of that don't you understand?

Goldman never lent money to sub-prime borrowers. They never financed a single house for a sub-prime borrower - That's not their business. All they did was package up the toxic real estate loans and sell them as AAA investments. That's not traditional banking - that's legalized gambling ala Wall Street investment banking.

I am no fan of Goldman. But the point is moot. Because I never defended Wall Street - I am only defending the traditional banking industry that has been smeared by these outrageous deceptions and lies that you continually post.

You actually think that mid-sized banks and small traditional community banks are in the same business as Goldman Sachs!

[edit on 17-4-2010 by CookieMonster09]

reply to post by CookieMonster09


The only reason they repaid TARP so quickly is that Obama put restrictions on the loans which prevented them from paying their execs huge bonuses. It was a great move on the part of the Obama admin.

The interest on those loans were extremely low, it was a hellofa sweet deal.

So if they didn't need the TARP funds, then the whole bailout was just a big con that these banks were forced to participate in? Only an idiot or a troll would believe that.

If they were being forced to take the money, why did they so quickly pay it back? Originally the money came with no strings attached, only after restrictions were put in place did they suddenly decide they didn't need the money.

No, the American taxpayer has not benefited from this, they took all the risk while Wall Street crooks made all the money. It has been a con job from the get go.

Yes, many investment companies went bankrupt, but the execs who ran those companies walked away with billions of dollars. Goldman Sach survived, but right now they are being charged with fraud in a civil suit, and chances are that a lot more civil suits will follow.

Here is the link on Gingrich and the republican contract on America. This is the legislation that destroyed our economy.

pwtenny.newsvine.com...

Newt Gingrich and the GOP writing a new Contract to Destroy America

McCain's economic adviser also played a primary role in writing and passing the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which largely repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Glass-Steagall was passed in the shadow of the Great Depression to prevent the Wall Street abuses that caused it. And Republicans repealed it. The result shouldn't be all that surprising: nearly another Great Depression.

Nobel Prize-winning economist, economics professor, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, and Nobel Prize-winner Joseph Stiglitz have attributed the 2007-2008 financial crisis to this legislation, with Krugman referring to Gramm as "the father of the financial crisis".

Phil Gramm. The man who would be in charge of America's financial regulators had John McCain become President. Yeah, that Phil Gramm.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, as it's also known, largely exempted the kinds of derivatives trades that were responsible for the lending crisis from regulation by the SEC. It also removed the regulations that prevented a single business from being both a lender (e.g. a typical commercial bank, such as Bank of America) and a private investor (e.g. the failed Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers.)

Reagan deregulation lead to the SNL disaster, but what the repubs did under their free market/communist ideology was far worse.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


Oh yeah, missed this one.

So if you don't think that mortgage fraud caused the financial crisis, what did? Where did it originate?

Never claimed that mortgage fraud wasn't the biggest cause of our current economic crisis, I just pointed out that your claims that it was all created by the small players is extremely ludicrous.

The root problem the biggest problem? You pointed it out yourself.

All they did was package up the toxic real estate loans and sell them as AAA investments. That's not traditional banking - that's legalized gambling ala Wall Street investment banking.

This is exactly what created the crisis. The article I linked to above explains the problem very well.

pwtenny.newsvine.com...

With Glass-Steagall out of the way, many investment firms and commercial banks merged their businesses, and when the investment sides started going bankrupt in 2007, the government was forced to bail them out to prevent the country from losing its entire commercial banking system.

These two things – the Enron loophole and Gramm-Leach-Bliley – are just a fraction of the problems created by excessive deregulation by Newt Gingrich's Republican party in the 90s. Wild fluctuations in the price of oil – detached from supply and demand economics – has largely been blamed on the Enron loophole which also deregulated the trading and speculating of oil futures contracts.

All three of the most recent crises – the west coast energy crisis, the oil price crisis, and the lending crisis and lending collapse -- were directly caused by what Newt Gingrich and Republicans did in the 90s, and proposes to do again in 2013 if they win control of Congress and the White House.

So kid, is it starting to sink in yet?

So if they didn't need the TARP funds, then the whole bailout was just a big con that these banks were forced to participate in? Only an idiot or a troll would believe that.

When the nation's financial system is in free fall, and the Treasury Secretary of the United States asks your bank point blank to take additional capital to restore public and investor confidence in the financial system as a whole, do you say "Yes," or "No"?

You are taking TARP out of its historical context. At the time, record numbers of banks were failing due to mortgage fraud, and Wall Street was collapsing.

The move by Paulson was designed to stem the hysteria, and slow down the panic. It worked. BOA and Chase didn't need additional capital. If you think they did, it's up to you to prove it.

No, the American taxpayer has not benefited from this, they took all the risk while Wall Street crooks made all the money. It has been a con job from the get go.

The Treasury earned interest on the TARP funds. It would only be a con if the TARP funds were absconded without repayment.

How risky is it to lend to BOA and Chase when they don't need the capital? Not very. And the evidence that TARP wasn't risky is the fact that the majority of the banks have repaid TARP with little difficulty.

Yes, many investment companies went bankrupt, but the execs who ran those companies walked away with billions of dollars.

Be specific. Name names. Which executives at which firms?

Here is the link on Gingrich and the republican contract on America. This is the legislation that destroyed our economy.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall was idiotic by any measure. Agreed. However, the beginning of the deregulation of the banking industry initially started with Reagan's policies.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


What proves they needed the money is the fact that they took it.

If they didn't need the money, should have been easy to explain. All they had to say was that if the funds are available, they will take it when they need it.'

Another indicator is that they had to raise the funds to pay back the government. If they hadn't needed the money, they wouldn't be needed additional funding to pay the money back.

You have to prove your claim, I certainly don't need to prove you wrong when have yet to come up with any solid evidence to back up you claim. You claim this book you read is proof, so point out the evidence in the book, aside from some conversation where only the people who were present actually knew what was said.

BofA clearly had serious problems. Who knows what the situation was with Chase, but they took the money, and that is proof that they needed it.

Yeah, Reagan started the whole de-regulation craze but Nest and his pals really pushed the madness over the edge.

What proves they needed the money is the fact that they took it.

Nope. You'd have to prove - using the bank's Balance Sheet - that they were under-capitalized. Chase and BOA have pretty strong balance sheets. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that they needed additional capital. But go ahead and try. Pull up their Balance Sheet online, look at the date that they took out TARP, and prove me wrong.

If they didn't need the money, should have been easy to explain. All they had to say was that if the funds are available, they will take it when they need it.

Those are not the words you want to say when the Treasury Secretary is asking you to help him regain public confidence in the solvency of the banking system as a whole. Again, you can't look at TARP in a wind tunnel. You have to take into account the historical context at the time.

Another indicator is that they had to raise the funds to pay back the government.

Some banks did, some didn't. Some just paid back TARP out of their own profits.

You have to prove your claim, I certainly don't need to prove you wrong when have yet to come up with any solid evidence to back up you claim.

The proof is in the Balance Sheets of any bank you choose at the time they accepted TARP. Which bank do you want to look at?

You claim this book you read is proof,

The book has anecdotal evidence from a legitimate, well-recognized business author. Again, you tell me. Pull up the Balance Sheets of these banks and show me which ones you feel desperately needed TARP. I believe TARP was needed by some banks, but the big ones - Like Chase and BOA and Wells, etc. - are pretty well capitalized and have no problem raising funds under normal circumstances.

It's suspicious you would call TARP a "con" given the historical context at the time - banks and Wall Street in freefall - and given that TARP has been repaid with interest. Seems just a wee bit prejudicial.

BofA clearly had serious problems.

Then how did they acquire Merrill Lynch? BOA has the largest deposit footprint in the country.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


This is ridiculous.

You claim they were forced to borrow the money, but have absolutely no evidence to back up the claim. You have to prove your claim. I don't have to prove you wrong.

Yeah, I think they would have told the Treasury Secretary no if they didn't need the money. By not borrowing the money, they would decreased the fear of panic. By borrowing the money, they made the situation look extremely bad.

There is only one reason they would borrow the money, they needed it.

The taxpayers wound up covering their risk. This makes the whole justification for their profits one huge scam.

You claim they were forced to borrow the money, but have absolutely no evidence to back up the claim. You have to prove your claim. I don't have to prove you wrong.

You need to prove your initial claim with evidence. I wasn't the one that made the original claim that TARP was a scam - You did. I gave you contrary evidence from a legitimate source.

You still haven't proven your initial assertion. I didn't make any claims - I just provided reliable, documented evidence to the contrary.

If you don't want to supply proof, then your claim that TARP was a scam by the banks is just your opinion, and nothing more. You have no evidence, just as you have no evidence for any of the other claims that you have posted here. No surprise there.

You're right - It is ridiculous for you to make a claim without evidence. I agree. Maybe you should just say this is my opinion - or this is what I suspect - or this is how I feel. Then at least we would know that you aren't making factual statements, but instead just stating your opinion.

There is only one reason they would borrow the money, they needed it.

....Or they were heavily pressured to take the funds by the Treasury Secretary for the purpose of restoring public confidence.

It doesn't matter. You can't convince anyone it was a scam since TARP was repaid with interest. Taxpayers weren't defrauded by TARP.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


I have already pointed out why TARP was a big scam.

The taxpayers wound up covering their risk. This makes the whole justification for their profits one huge scam.

These investment houses claim they should make the big bucks because they take the risk of investment, but it the taxpayers wind up bailing them out, then they aren't taking any risks.

These investment houses made tons of money by selling bad loans as good loans, and then when the whole thing fell apart, the government had to bail them out. So what if they repaid the loans, the whole economy has fallen apart.

Seriously, the "they made me do it" excuse is the lamest excuse of all.

Anybody else notice all this stuff happening at once...riots in phoenix...that polish crash...now they are telling people about the banking scam...does it seem like they want to start gettting people all worked up and angry on purpose? Could that be part of the plan so people do start getting angry so then they justify the right to come at us harder with tougher laws because of the unrest it could cause...or people voicing their dipleasure due to the things that we are finding out...prob not...just a thought...

the right thing to do could be to take the gandhi path...peace and love

Yeah,they keep exposing something here,something there but people are too complacent,it seems,to do anything about it.Unless a major mental paradigm shift occurs,status quo will remain with some minor changes here and there.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
MSM was in on it.

Ever seen Prestige? The Tesla / Magic movie.

The elaborate trick has been performed. But their EGO is having them tell us the magic trick."See how we fooled you."

Informing us, is the setup for the next trick. "See how we let you think you took back government? The guys in power who were on your side and against us, were working for us!"

This is PRECISELY how I feel; they're only talking about it after the fact because they've made their money couple times over. I don't mean to rain on everyone elses' parade, but this is rubbish. Oh! And MSNBC/CNBC/FAUXNEWS are all the same; they serve the same master(s) and their modus-operandi.