3 ms·

Nothing at all alarming about "You didn't hear that?", really? Actually, the non-alarming part you do address is invalidated by the actually-alarming part you d

• dreamweapon 12y ago
  If it was so unremarkable, why did her colleague instruct her to pretend it never happened? Most likely the regulator simply didn't know what to make of what the Goldmanite had said (and might not have even been aware of the exemptions granted to accredited investors -- assuming those are applicable here). So (being in over his head) rather than confess his ignorance, he did what must have come naturally for him: he shat his (presumably male) pants, and told his co-worker to keep her trap shut.
  • waterlesscloud 12y ago
    Are you seriously suggesting a Fed regulator at Goldman wouldn't know about something as basic as accredited investors?
    • dreamweapon 12y ago
      Based on available evidence, it seems that there are two basic outlines that can be drawn around what transpired: (1) What the Goldmanite said was innocuous (and the regulator simply didn't know what to make of it -- i.e. yes, he must have not known about exemptions for accredited investors); or (2) What the Goldmanite said was potentially quite troubling (and the regulator knew it), for reasons we don't know yet (due to the missing context). Which it was, or even likely was, of course I cannot say. But the basic point is that the fact that the regulator tried to hush his colleague up in this situation is by itself quite troubling. Especially if it's part of a larger pattern. (2)