decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Accidentally Released Documents Show How Goldman et al Engaged in Naked Short S | 200 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Accidentally Released Documents Show How Goldman et al Engaged in Naked Short S
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 28 2012 @ 07:09 AM EDT
I don't agree with those conclusions.

Branches remain available because that is how retail banking products - such as current accounts, savings accounts and mortgages - are signed up for in practice. Without them, how would they be able to explain the product to the level required by law, and obtain a reliably signed contract from the consumer customer? No, to the psychos they are a necessary cost centre, loathed and sidelined but never entirely eliminated.

As for the bonuses, they are going to the people at the top of the organisation chart, who are in law ultimately responsible for the whole enterprise. It is their responsibility to keep their subordinates in line, and make sure they keep *their* subordinates in line, etc. They have failed to exercise responsible oversight to that degree, and they should not be awarded enormous bonuses for that failure.

And meanwhile the front-line staff who do their jobs competently in the aforementioned branches get only their basic pay. They are paid a tiny fraction of what the big bosses get. Yet they are the ones actually handling cash, actually signing contracts with customers, and actually taking the abuse when a policy set by the bigwigs bites a customer unfairly - and generally doing their best to keep the economy moving. They have no control over the policies they are given to implement.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Accidentally Released Documents Show How Goldman et al Engaged in Naked Short S
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 28 2012 @ 07:21 AM EDT
"No, they don't. Most of the time the banks make an effort to re-negotiate
mortgages to get their money back. It's just that those stories don't make it to
the front page of the tabloids so most people don't know that the re-negotiating
is going on."

Actually, I know several people and houses that were foreclosed on and the
people kicked out DESPITE the people in the house offering to continue renting
and taking care of the place. The end result in all cases was the house did not
sell for what the banks wanted (no surprise, they wanted the full mortgage
amount, for a house selling for 1/2 that), the houses fell into disrepair and
were condemned by the city and torn down (charged to the bank). Banks ended up
with property worth at most 1/5th what the mortgage was, no income whatsoever,
and the people ended up homeless.

If they'd taken up the offers, they would have ended up with rental income and a
well-maintained house, which could have eventually sold for something (although
not the mortgage amount - at least not for another 20 years).

Don't know who is making the decisions, but I suspect their problem is they're
graduates of American MBA programs - the worst thing to happen to American
business (and we did it to ourselves).

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Accidentally Released Documents Show How Goldman et al Engaged in Naked Short S
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 28 2012 @ 11:56 AM EDT

Bank of America charges people to talk to a teller. At least in those states in which they haven't closed their branches. (In Fly Over Country BOA relies on ATM's, and the Internet for most banking things.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Accidentally Released Documents Show How Goldman et al Engaged in Naked Short S
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 28 2012 @ 12:00 PM EDT

If the company almost fails, then it is the fault of the CEO, and Board of Directors --- the people who gave themselves the bonus for abysmal performance. That they were not directly responsible is irrelevant. They failed their fidicury duty, and in a just society would be penalized for their lack of prudence.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )