Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
Mon Apr 11, 2016, 03:40 PM Apr 2016

Goldman Sachs Probably Won’t Have To Pay All Of The New $5 Billion Mortgage Fraud Settlement

...But the way such consolidated settlements are structured means Goldman will not pay the full $5 billion price tag touted by Schneiderman.
The so-called “vampire squid” of the banking industry, which manages $861 billion in assets, will be able to write off $1.8 billion worth of consumer relief actions that Goldman must take under the settlement, for example. The same goes for $875 million in payments to settle related cases brought by Schneiderman, his Illinois counterpart Lisa Madigan, the National Credit Union Administration, and federally-backed housing lenders in Chicago and Seattle.
Less than half of the total sticker price — $2.385 billion — is structured as a civil penalty, which is generally not deductible. The settlement papers do prohibit Goldman from seeking FDIC reimbursement for any of the deal’s costs, but that language does not rule out simple deductions....

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/04/11/3768216/goldman-sachs-schneiderman-fine-print/

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Goldman Sachs Probably Won’t Have To Pay All Of The New $5 Billion Mortgage Fraud Settlement (Original Post) Human101948 Apr 2016 OP
It's still an expense even if it is a write off? No? Or am I missing something? Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2016 #1
The real thing is that no one is going to jail, so it is just another "expense" Human101948 Apr 2016 #3
Who at G/S should have gone to jail and for what? 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2016 #4
Fraud... Human101948 Apr 2016 #6
Yeah but proving someone in the executive suite know about it is far more difficult than just saying 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2016 #7
If they got this small fish, they could have gotten bigger ones... Human101948 Apr 2016 #8
Corporations are specifically designed to shield the "big fish" ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2016 #9
Need Some for Hillary. n/t Herman4747 Apr 2016 #2
I'm shocked, *shocked* to find out that thievery is going on in this establishment! KamaAina Apr 2016 #5

Hassin Bin Sober

(26,330 posts)
1. It's still an expense even if it is a write off? No? Or am I missing something?
Mon Apr 11, 2016, 03:43 PM
Apr 2016

Not that I think they should be able to write off any fines.

 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
3. The real thing is that no one is going to jail, so it is just another "expense"
Mon Apr 11, 2016, 03:48 PM
Apr 2016

Cost of doing business.

And thank God they saved those bonuses!


With the help of more than $23 billion in direct and indirect federal aid, Goldman appears to have emerged intact from the economic implosion, limiting its subprime losses to $1.5 billion. By repaying $10 billion in direct federal bailout money — a 23 percent taxpayer return that exceeded federal officials' demand — the firm has escaped tough federal limits on 2009 bonuses to executives of firms that received bailout money.

Goldman announced record earnings in July, and the firm is on course to surpass $50 billion in revenue in 2009 and to pay its employees more than $20 billion in year-end bonuses.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24561376.html#storylink=cpy

 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
6. Fraud...
Mon Apr 11, 2016, 04:08 PM
Apr 2016

Many there knew that they were lying to investors about the quality of the crap they were selling.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
7. Yeah but proving someone in the executive suite know about it is far more difficult than just saying
Mon Apr 11, 2016, 04:11 PM
Apr 2016
Many there knew that they were lying to investors about the quality of the crap they were selling.
 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
8. If they got this small fish, they could have gotten bigger ones...
Mon Apr 11, 2016, 04:15 PM
Apr 2016

A former Goldman Sachs trader nicknamed "Fabulous Fab" has been found liable of six fraud claims in one of the most high-profile cases related to the credit crunch.

Fabrice Tourre was described by the face of "Wall Street greed" by Securities and Exchange Commission lawyers during a civil case brought by federal regulators in response to the 2007 mortgage crisis.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/aug/01/fabulous-fab-tourre-guilty-fraud

Though I suspect that he got indicted because someone at Goldman Sachs didn't like him.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
9. Corporations are specifically designed to shield the "big fish" ...
Mon Apr 11, 2016, 04:24 PM
Apr 2016

so, those are all that get caught ... and nothing changes until we take the financial incentives out of it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Goldman Sachs Probably Wo...