10 ms·

We don't prosecute people just because we don't like them, or because bad things happened. Not in a free society with the rule of law, anyway. In the case of

We don't prosecute people just because we don't like them, or because bad things happened. Not in a free society with the rule of law, anyway. In the case of SBF there is pretty clear evidence that he broke laws. If there was such clear evidence about anyone in 2008, they definitely would have been prosecuted. Prosecutors love to grandstand, and if they thought they could nail the people who "caused the recession" they would have been tripping over each other to be the first to do it. The fact that it never happened is convincing proof that they had no case.

ck2 4y ago
There were endless stories pouring out after 2008 of laws broken with wild disregard, you can't make that much money and then not just burst the bubble but send a tidal wave of destruction across the world without a serious crime spree. Of course SBF should be prosecuted, but the fact no CEO was even charged after 2008 means there was something far more corrupt at play, it was politics, they feared the repercussions of inhibiting the profit makers, pension funds and retirement plans would have collapse. SBF is "easy" because no repercussions.
- wilg 4y ago
  > the fact no CEO was even charged after 2008 means there was something far more corrupt at play It doesn't mean that, but it might make you suspect that!
- Khaine 4y ago
  Weren't most of the law breaking done by people applying for loans and lying about their income? Losses in the market for private label residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) were at the epicenter of the financial crisis from 2007-2009. Existing research has shown that a substantial portion of the poor performance of the loans securitized in this market was caused by fraudulent origination practices and that these practices were misrepresented to investors who purchased securities based on these loans. However, to date no paper has estimated the effects of mortgage fraud on losses from foreclosure in this market. This paper fills this gap by 1) Accounting for total losses from foreclosure due to no/low documentation loans which were known colloquially within the industry as Liar's Loans, and 2) Estimating what portion of these losses can be considered excess from the perspective of the investor. Losses are considered excess in the sense that they were higher than the expected losses for investors, had the loan quality information disclosed to them been accurate, instead of fraudulent. I find that Liar's Loans account for roughly 70% of total losses, and 36% of losses in Liar's Loans can be considered excess. Projected to the level of the entire market, this implies that $345 billion of the $500 billion in losses from foreclosure are accounted for by Liar's Loans. Roughly $125 billion, or 25% of total market losses, can be considered excess losses caused by fraud in Liar's Loans. From https://peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1008-liar-s-loans-mortgage-fraud-and-the-great-recession-working-paper https://peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1008-liar-s-loans-mo...
landemva 4y ago
>> definitely would have been prosecuted This government financial regulator explicitly allowed backdating capital infusions. They cooked the books. Not prosecuted. Kept the sweet federal pension. "Dochow knew that IndyMac couldn't meet its capital requirements and allowed it to record a capital infusion six weeks before it occurred." https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6514493&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6514493&page=1 And in 1989 Dochow similarly pulled a not-regulate stunt with a failing S&L. "As federal regulators were preparing a file against Lincoln’s CEO, Charles Keating Jr., Dochow ordered his staff “to cease all examinations of Lincoln Savings, all supervisory acts with regards to Lincoln Savings"' https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/ex-sec-chief-now-helps-companies-navigate-post-meltdown-reforms https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/e...
greendude29 4y ago
> Not in a free society with the rule of law, anyway. How strange to negate mountain loads of evidence with a single religion-like self-defending assumption. Of course you would believe that yours is a society of Law if you actively ignore all evidence to the contrary.
- smegger001 4y ago
  >How strange to negate mountain loads of evidence with a single religion-like self-defending assumption. He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law before a jury of his peers, who must be convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt. Do we all know he did it? Yes. But a jury hasn't ruled on it yet and until then he is legally speaking innocent. He must have his chance to face his accusers and present his arguments and present his own evidence. Due processes must be fallowed. If we don't fallow due process and presume innocence than anyone can be imprisoned at any time for anything on trumped up charges because prosecutors and police simply say they have evidence whether or not it is true. at that point trials are nothing but farce and we have fallen into tyranny. >Of course you would believe that yours is a society of Law if you actively ignore all evidence to the contrary. While our society is far from living up to our own ideals, giving up on those ideal because we haven't always met them is not the answer; we should instead endeavor to adhere to them more fully. To do otherwise is nothing but a societal nihilism.

ck2 4y ago

There were endless stories pouring out after 2008 of laws broken with wild disregard, you can't make that much money and then not just burst the bubble but send a tidal wave of destruction across the world without a serious crime spree. Of course SBF should be prosecuted, but the fact no CEO was even charged after 2008 means there was something far more corrupt at play, it was politics, they feared the repercussions of inhibiting the profit makers, pension funds and retirement plans would have collapse. SBF is "easy" because no repercussions.

wilg 4y ago
> the fact no CEO was even charged after 2008 means there was something far more corrupt at play It doesn't mean that, but it might make you suspect that!
Khaine 4y ago
Weren't most of the law breaking done by people applying for loans and lying about their income? Losses in the market for private label residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) were at the epicenter of the financial crisis from 2007-2009. Existing research has shown that a substantial portion of the poor performance of the loans securitized in this market was caused by fraudulent origination practices and that these practices were misrepresented to investors who purchased securities based on these loans. However, to date no paper has estimated the effects of mortgage fraud on losses from foreclosure in this market. This paper fills this gap by 1) Accounting for total losses from foreclosure due to no/low documentation loans which were known colloquially within the industry as Liar's Loans, and 2) Estimating what portion of these losses can be considered excess from the perspective of the investor. Losses are considered excess in the sense that they were higher than the expected losses for investors, had the loan quality information disclosed to them been accurate, instead of fraudulent. I find that Liar's Loans account for roughly 70% of total losses, and 36% of losses in Liar's Loans can be considered excess. Projected to the level of the entire market, this implies that $345 billion of the $500 billion in losses from foreclosure are accounted for by Liar's Loans. Roughly $125 billion, or 25% of total market losses, can be considered excess losses caused by fraud in Liar's Loans. From https://peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1008-liar-s-loans-mortgage-fraud-and-the-great-recession-working-paper https://peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1008-liar-s-loans-mo...

landemva 4y ago

>> definitely would have been prosecuted This government financial regulator explicitly allowed backdating capital infusions. They cooked the books. Not prosecuted. Kept the sweet federal pension. "Dochow knew that IndyMac couldn't meet its capital requirements and allowed it to record a capital infusion six weeks before it occurred." https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6514493&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6514493&page=1 And in 1989 Dochow similarly pulled a not-regulate stunt with a failing S&L. "As federal regulators were preparing a file against Lincoln’s CEO, Charles Keating Jr., Dochow ordered his staff “to cease all examinations of Lincoln Savings, all supervisory acts with regards to Lincoln Savings"' https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/ex-sec-chief-now-helps-companies-navigate-post-meltdown-reforms https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/e...

greendude29 4y ago

> Not in a free society with the rule of law, anyway. How strange to negate mountain loads of evidence with a single religion-like self-defending assumption. Of course you would believe that yours is a society of Law if you actively ignore all evidence to the contrary.

smegger001 4y ago
>How strange to negate mountain loads of evidence with a single religion-like self-defending assumption. He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law before a jury of his peers, who must be convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt. Do we all know he did it? Yes. But a jury hasn't ruled on it yet and until then he is legally speaking innocent. He must have his chance to face his accusers and present his arguments and present his own evidence. Due processes must be fallowed. If we don't fallow due process and presume innocence than anyone can be imprisoned at any time for anything on trumped up charges because prosecutors and police simply say they have evidence whether or not it is true. at that point trials are nothing but farce and we have fallen into tyranny. >Of course you would believe that yours is a society of Law if you actively ignore all evidence to the contrary. While our society is far from living up to our own ideals, giving up on those ideal because we haven't always met them is not the answer; we should instead endeavor to adhere to them more fully. To do otherwise is nothing but a societal nihilism.