Euro's Loss = Gold's Gain?

You are correct that your opinion is irrelevant. I expressed no opinion on JPM and I'm satisfied to let the justice system run its course. And I see that you are twisting in the wind again and posting lies about JPMs position on MF Global. This is classic fatima, and everyone should take note. Now it's your turn to go into a rage, start spitting up blood, and slander people. Go for it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You certainly seemed to have taken notice so bark like a dog while you are at it. Back to the topic, your logic still fails no matter what you call me.

 

Wow I'm still laughing at this one all the way from when I read it through writing this post. Thanks for brightening my day

Since I might guess that someone will ask me to quantify this, I'll provide a link with one of numerous examples. With the exception of Madoff, these people are never prosecuted. They merely face fines to a lesser tune than the amount of damage done. Then there's always John Corzine too. Apparently ignorance is a valid excuse for some people in a court of law, just not us common folk.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303936704576399801103678040.html

 

A lot of the Jews sent to the concentration camps had gold. It was simply taken from them and they were sent on to the camps. Where many no killed outright....starved to death.

 

Do you think their paper currency would have saved them instead? Go back and get the context.

 

MF Global

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86538643/MF-Memo

Full memo above. And for those who say it is not a smoking gun, read last paragraph on page 4 and first paragraph on page 5.

A smoking gun, a "dead body" i.e MF Global, but no trial yet and no conviction either. That seems to be where we're at. Corzine seems to have questions to answer in court, but will the authorities let that happen? Maybe right now is too "inconvenient," for the US authorities, given the state of the global economy in general - including the U.S? It would be more than a little shocking to discover top bankers can just help themselves at will to (supposedly) segregated funds to bail themselves out, rather than bother to go through the usual Fed/Treasury channels, because no one is going to bother prosecuting them anyways.

 

Yes indeed ukgoldbug. The rot runs deep. You won't get any response to what you have posted because the ones arguing that all is well and good, are not willing to consider the facts that don't fit their view of the universe.

For the rest of us, the ones concerned with protecting their wealth, we know what assume spells. out.

 

Nobody here has seen the evidence compiled by the prosecutor for any of these cases. I guess its fun to pontificate about what the outcome should be, but the alternative to the courts is mob rule. I, for one, prefer things the way they are.

 

Andrew Maguire's evidence is in the public domain, and is rock solid in my opinion. In spite of this information on that particular case, every time these institutions receive a fine that is equivalent to being found guilty. This has happened numerous times. They are just not prosecuted. It doesn't matter that we don't know what the suppressed evidence is, because if they were innocent they wouldn't be getting fined.

 

Sir, if you really believe "if they were innocent they wouldn't be getting fined" then its proof you do not work in business. Businesses get fined all of the time from government authorities, many time without right of appeal, or by appealing they are jeapordizing many other contracts. It really is basically a shakedown, whenever politically a government agency wishes to be seen as "doing something" they go out and issue fines which businesses are basically forced to pay regardless of innocence. I personally have approved pay 3 fines for my firm in the last year which we have proof we were innocent but our lawyers warned us we must pay anyway.

Btw, Mr Maguire writes all of his material from a outsiders perspective, not taking into account other markets where his alledged "violations" are also done. Always take his writings with a grain of salt, and always ask yourself if there may be another reason certain actions may be performed. He basically assumes every single action of certain parties is proof of guilt until proven otherwise. Unfortunately, our legal code is written in the opposite fashion.

 

Even if the fine is over $100 million? Sorry, that's not my flavor of kool-aid.

Maguire has timestamped e-mails sent to the CFTC. It is proof of advance knowledge of market moves.

 

I guess I am not understanding the nature of your comment. You don't believe me?

Its a matter of size. $100 million to a large bank is not as severe as $1 million to a smaller company. Both, however, can face multiples large if the fight it, (ignoring legal bills), and have certain rights frozen or prohibited in the meantime, as well as ticking off agencies that have great latitude in judgment calls.

If you are just arbitrarily calling me a liar about it, then again its simply clear you do not understand today's regulatory environment for businesses.

 

Sir, the vast majority of fines issued by the government are civil and not criminal. It has nothing to do with the discussion.

What we ARE talking about putting people in executives and CEOs in jail for deliberately breaking the law(s). Laws that are designed to prevent individuals from getting hurt.

 

Inflexion's post 89 said "if they were innocent they would not be getting fined". That is what I was referring to, I posted a link in my reply, so I have no idea how you come here and say it has nothing to do with the discussion. If his post about companies getting fined has nothing to do with the discussion, that's fine, but I was simply disputing his assertion that civil fines imply guilt.

 

If this is an issue for you I recommend reading it again.

As far as "jumping in here", I created the topic.

 

As far as I know, Peter is the only one who "owns" anything on CT Fatima. Why don't you ask him if you can have ownership of this thread?

My reading comprehension is fine, I was responding directly to the post above me. Inflexion was trying to make the case that civil fines was implying criminal guilt. I was objecting to that assertion. You may be ok with such assertions being bandied about, but I am not.

 

I haven't followed Maguire closely, but when he testified, it was generally a mix of opinion and narrative, not evidence. I doubt any prosecutor could use his testamony in front of a grand jury to obtain an inditement. Forget about a conviction. Fines are not evidence of criminal guilt, and nobody gets a criminal record because they were fined.

 

As I said, his timestamped e-mails to the CFTC including foreknowledge of moves in the silver market are in the public domain. What happens in the courtroom is of no relevance to this. The e-mails are what they are regardless of what the testimony is.

In response to medoraman on my previous statement, I simply cannot reconcile that a company would pay a fine of hundreds of millions of dollars if they are innocent. Maybe it does happen, maybe the world is just that bizarre, but it doesn't make any sense to me. Typically people pay fines to avoid prosecution, to cut a deal so to speak. That is how the world works that I know, but I am not in the financial industry either.

 

Sorry for my tone earlier Inflexion. As a background I have worked at a company who paid a $42 million dollar fine when they did nothing wrong, since to fight it would have angered regulators and the company would have been more damaged by forebearances while we were fighting it than the fine cost. I didn't make this decision but I would have if it had been mine to make.

My only point sir is issues like that are easy for the general public to misjudge unless they know the regulatory environment businesses face, and have to deal with. I would say at least half of all fines levied on business are unwarranted but business pays it for fear of regulatory retaliation. The general public does not know this, so its easy to get persuaded that paying a fine means admitting guilt.

Same with Maquire's emails. I don't know anything about them, but even if true, what does this PROVE? Does it prove he knows illegality is going on, or does it prove he is good at analyzing the market? Proof is what lawyers need, not coincidences. Technical issues like this are a lot like the fine thing, its very easy, if you do not know the background very well, for someone to get convinced of something that simply is not true.

Chris

 

Fair points about the fines. I guess I just assume that since I would never pay a fine if I were innocent that nobody else would either, but we're not all me I would duke it out as a matter of principle even if it cost me more money.

All Maguires e-mails really show is that he correctly predicted the exact time and magnitude of silver market moves on more than one occaison. I do not know the odds of this, but they have to be very slim, and to be confident enough to e-mail the CFTC in advance leaves a neglible possibility for anything other than inside information. It wasn't like he was just throwing darts, or right twice like a broken clock. He is 2 for 2 where it counts. Anything beyond that is left to inference though without more details.