Sam..can you explain this line to me: "If valuing CDOs were so impossible, whey did the collapse of that market in late 2007 precede the broader collapse of more normal securities?"
What's the answer...why did the collapse of that market in late 2007 precede the broader collapse of more normal securities, and what does that have to do with valuing CDOs? And moving along..how about this line: "But securities fraud this isn't. As McArdle<http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/matt_taibbi_gets_his_sarah_pal.php> reminds Taibbi, there was this whole Eliot Spitzer-led inquisition on Wall Street to ensure that the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing -- so a company can sell a product and its traders can be short it, and that's okay." What's he really saying in that long sentence? And again: "Taibbi brings this up in the beginning, ticking off names of famous Goldman alums, but other than talking about their role in fighting derivatives regulation, they don't seem to do a whole lot for the company. You'd think he'd explore that more." In Taibbi's article he notes specifically how they have helped Goldman Sachs, by funnelling money to them when necessary, since by some happy circumstance they were all in the right place at the right time. The author launches into his closing statements with: "That being said, there are two good points that come out of this. First is his prediction that cap-and-trade will prove to be the next bubble or at least market for financial chicanery. Of this we have little doubt, and it's why Goldman and GE are so eager to create this new market where none currently exists." Wait...What?? Here he is saying that Goldman Sachs is actually orchestrating a new previously undeveloped market to create the next rounds of Bubbles and financial chicanery. What? Is this guy agreeing with the fact that Goldman Sachs is corrupt and responsible for the past bubbles, but not agreeing with Taibbi's reasoning for saying that? Or is he saying that Goldman Sachs is NOT corrupt and is NOT responsible. And if it is the latter, then Sam can you explain his closing statements? 2009/7/14 Sam <[email protected]> > > Don't have to, someone else did. > > > http://www.businessinsider.com/matt-taibbis-goldman-sachs-story-is-a-joke-2009-7 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:300161 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
