I re-published the Future News Today link primarily due to stumbling into something which certainly needs to be verified, both specifically and in general, regarding Goldman Sach’s purported hostile assault on Bear Stearns:
What caught my attention was the March 11th (2008) date that Taibbi highlighted as the day the crazy $1.7 million option “bet” (naked short) was placed. This is the same date Goldman Sachs sent out a killer memo saying that Goldman would no longer honor counterparty claims from Bear Stearns …
Did I just read that and interpret it correctly? Is Goldman Sachs the authority by which derivative counter-party claims is judged legitimate? Could that explain how Goldman appeared to be the de facto “regulator” who decided that they themselves should receive no haircut on their $12 billion counter-party payment through the AIG bailout, endorsed and enabled (if not extorted) by former Goldman Sachs CEO, then Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson?
Please don’t tell me it’s the DTCC which oversees the legitimacy of derivative counter-party claims. Whenever an organization which has both the words TRUST and CORPORATION in its legal name, all sensible people should run as fast as they can away from it, and certainly never do business with it, but the DTCC is nonetheless the clearinghouse which turns over the gross domestic product of the the United States every three days in securities trading values.
Differences in the structure of the derivative instruments involved aside, whenever a financial instrument is “so complex” that it is difficult to value – something we’ve heard over and over regarding derivatives – it follows naturally that it is also difficult to regulate. And when that happens, the foxes are are basically regulating themselves right into the pockets of the taxpayer henhouse.
But apparently, China didn’t exactly accept the legitimacy of currency-based derivative claims when the counterparty shit hit the fan last November, and that should have been front page news in every mainstream media financial section in the World – but it wasn’t?
This brings up the ghost of the DTCC, derivatives and Goldman’s AIG counterparty play in a new light though (topics covered thoroughly in past posts and easily found in a search) as we ask ourselves, amidst the fog of confusion and complexity surrounding the entire bailout swindle, is Goldman Sachs in fact the unchallenged judge and jury of derivative counter-party claim legitimacy? And if not, who in fact is?
More clues over here Watson, smelling a bit of ASS if I must say so myself.
You Should Also Check Out This Post:
- Keeping Score - GO ENDEAVOR !!!
- Reality: The Final Frontier
- Tradition
- What a Summation
- The Facebook Homeowner Revolution
More Active Posts:
- What's the Big Deal about State Banks - doesn't every State already have one? (4)
- Ready to fund the next big bubble? Carbon Derivatives (3)
- Healthcare (2)
- States be Damned! You get what you DESERVE! (2)
- The Dichotomy of Toxic Debt "Value" (2)
- Other States Take Note: State Bank of Florida Proposed (2)
- Stern's Crony-Corporatism (2)
- Shorter's Last Stand (2)
- Mutually Assured Consequences (2)
- The American Way - an Economic Culture (1)
My comment is not for this particular post. It’s the way I view not only this post but your entire site. KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK!!! Our tax dollars has already made these white collar criminals too wealthy already!
But why should they think any different? We’ve bailed out these people several times over the past century. They knew the taxpayers money would come to the rescue when they entered their ‘den of theives’.