Well, I would imagine people do understand and accept that the point of financing is profit, but that doesn't free investors or financiera from legal and moral

Well, I would imagine people do understand and accept that the point of financing is profit, but that doesn't free investors or financiera from legal and moral judgement, even when the goals of both act destructively towards one another. You don't get to eschew law/judgement because it's inconvenient to your goals. I don't know enough about finance to comment on the article itself but the idea of "that's it's purpose so you can't judge it that way" rings hollow for me. Scrutiny applies regardless of purpose. The article itself even suggests there are ways the story could play out where Cooperman is guilty, it's just not clear at the moment.