Q Poll: Dodd 42 Simmons 43

It's time for Chris Dodd (4.00 / 2)

... to introduce legislation to reform the banking industry. If not, the Democratic Party should find a candidate who will.

By the end of May, we should be well on our way toward having a well-regulated financial services industry, or progressive groups should support a Democratic replacement for Dodd. We shouldn't be stuck with the option of losing that seat to a Republican or keeping it in the hands of a banking industry lackey.

I hope the progressive groups who support Dodd can help him understand the urgency of the situation.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:09:00 PM UTC

Therein lies the problem for Dodd (0.00 / 0)

Dodd's credibility on the issue of the banks has been put into question and the public no longer trusts him. It's not simply a matter of campaign contributions either, or the idiotic mortgage brouhaha over essentially nothing. Perception is everything in politics.

---

by: Scarce @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:22:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Gotta Laugh (0.00 / 0)

At the last quote of Simmons.

Perhaps now the idiot will  finally realize why a DEFINED BENEFIT retirement plan instead of the failed Defined Contribution Model Republicand foisted on my generation is the only answer to future generations.

---

by: ctkeith @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:50:30 PM UTC

Another Simmons shining moment (0.00 / 0)

"Good for him to stand up for his beliefs," Simmons said of [Judd] Gregg. "It's ironic that the Democratic choices don't get approved because they don't pay their taxes, and the Republicans don't get approved because they won't sell out their principles."

http://blogs.courant.com/capit...

---

by: Scarce @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 13:05:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not in this case (0.00 / 0)

Gregg stepped down.

Actually nothing ironic that when a Democrat reaches out a hand toward bipartisan cooperation it gets stepped on.

The irony is when one of the Republican's principles is to "sell out anything that belongs to the public" and another is to "say anything irregardless of the facts"; principles like that are about the only thing they won't sell out.

because Connecticut voters count: http://www.CTVotersCount.org

---

by: BlastFromGlast @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 15:37:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's recall Linda Chavez, shall we? (0.00 / 0)

It was Linda Chavez who withdrew her nomination as W's labor secretary in 2001 after it became known that she had employed an illegal alien in her home.  Chavez maintained that she was reaching out and helping the woman, but that she was never really her employee.  Of course, critics said that was really the problem: she kept that woman in her house knowing full well that she was undocumented and, not only did she not pay Social Security contributions, she didn't even pay the woman a salary, but instead just gave her money on occasion.  She was roundly accused of keeping the woman in virtual indentured servitude.

But as W's labor secretary-designate, she was just "standing on principal" when she didn't give that illegal alien a salary for working for her in her house right?  The problem is how shameful that conservative principal of labor is.

---

by: thomashooker @ Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 20:40:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"and I'm luckier than most" (4.00 / 1)

I wonder if his "good luck" includes his $75,000 a year taxpayer funded current job...

---

by: notcho @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 13:16:00 PM UTC

The Dodd numbers are OK for now (4.00 / 1)

Closer than he'd like, I'm sure, though they'll probably improve if the economy makes a significant recovery.

But did you see those numbers for Rell? Her approval rating is 65% among Democrats and 71% among Independents.  

Whoever finally goes against her had better not be afraid to take off the gloves, because barring a total budget disaster, with numbers like that she's gonna be tough to beat.

Connecticut Bob

---

by: Bob Adams @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 14:40:23 PM UTC

Funny how Schwartz downplays the lousy numbers for LIEberman (0.00 / 0)

46% approval versus 46% disapprove for LIEberman- better than for Dodd.  

I'm very unhappy with Chris Dodd.  His problem isn't with Republicans, but with Democrats.  His sticking up for Lieberman demonstrates his tin ear towards voters and towards those who must be his strongest supporters.

I'll wager that he decides to retire once he figures out that he's in real trouble.

---

by: thomashooker @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 14:53:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually (0.00 / 0)

The poll shows pretty clearly that Dodd's problem is with Independents (where he trails by 17 vs. Simmons and is -11 on job approval), not with Democrats (where he leads by 59 vs. Simmons and is +50 on job approval).

---

by: tparty @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 15:38:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Both (4.00 / 2)

Statistically, it's unaffiliateds -- but the problem, imo, is that it's been impossible for his friends and supporters to advocate for him for the last year or so due to his recent erratic political decisions and the veil of secrecy surrounding his official business regarding the bailouts etc.

Anyone who has been inclined to give Dodd the benefit of the doubt has had nothing whatsoever to work with for ages.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 16:02:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

but the economy won't recover (4.00 / 1)

... until the financial services industry is reformed.

That means hedge funds, accounting firms, derivatives trading, short-selling, ratings agencies (Moody's and S&P), investment banks, etc., all have to be re-regulated.

If investors have to wonder whether a company is cooking its books, or whether short-sellers will slam the stock, they won't put their money in it.

Our financial industry was once the envy of the free world. Now it's like Russia's -- stinking from criminality and corruption. It has to be fixed, and it's Dodd's job as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee to fix it.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 15:21:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The essential problem is the banks (0.00 / 0)

It is the banks that create credit, and that is where the problem lies.  The hedge funds and investment banks don't create liquidity (for the most part) as do money center banks.  Short-selling is never more than a short-term problem, because those shorting stocks leave themselves open to a large investor coming in and taking the opposite tack, forcing them to frantically cover their shorts by buying stock.  It sounds bad to be betting against stocks going up, but in terms of even the medium-term it's no biggie, and in terms of the economy a virtual non-issue.

But the negative equity in the money center banks is a horrific problem, and remaining on the sidelines while the banks are burdened with no equity and rising impaired assets, as the Obama administration is, is killing the economy.  We absolutely must take over the big banks, inject shareholder funds and swap out the bad debts for government debentures.  Countries around the world have done the same thing and it works.  It's SOP.

Geithner and Obama have got to get over the Republican hand-wringing over nationalization and just get the job done!

---

by: thomashooker @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 15:32:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just "fixing" the banks ... (0.00 / 0)

doesn't fix the systemic problems in the financial industry. Banks need to be able to accurately measure risk/return before they lend, and they can't do that if they don't know the value of the underlying asset (this is why Himes has been talking about the importance of transparency).  

The following laws helped to destroy the banking industry:
- Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA)
- Gramm-Leach-Bliley (Financial Securities Modernization Act)
- Commodities Modernization Act
- FASB's treatment of stock options
- no laws regarding ratings agencies (Moodys, S&P)
- Repeal of the "uptick rule" in 2007 and the ensuing market manipulation

Check out the transcripts from this Frontline episode, and you'll see the devastation caused by Congress (Lieberman) messing with FASB standards and Dodd pushing the PSLRA.  

See also this Bloomberg report on how naked short-selling led to sales of "phantom stocks" and devastated companies like Overstock.com.

Congress helped create the problem. Congress needs to fix it.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 16:39:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Uptick rule (0.00 / 0)

Barney Frank just announced on CNBC that he expected the uptick rule to be reinstated within a month. See, that wasn't so hard.

But the SEC is doing it, not Congress. When the next administration comes along, they can just change that rule again. Better for Congress to make those kinds of rules.

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 17:17:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's hope after all (0.00 / 0)

Bernake just announced that we need a financial system overhaul, and that Congress needs to be involved.

The reforms need to be real, not watered down, and hopefully in place by the end of spring. And Dodd should promote the heck out of them. Keep your fingers crossed that this happens.

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 19:22:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

actually, I just had the opportunity (0.00 / 0)

to get an interesting re-education on this whole thing by listening to This American Life Episode Transcript
Program #355: The Giant Pool of Money on NPR.

http://www.thisamericanlife.or...

get it, listen to it, read the transcript.

Unregulated capital markets. Not just banks. Yes, banks made the NINA loans, but only because there was someone there to buy them from the banks that made them. Here's a taste...

Alex Blumberg: So, I guess the first thing we have to talk about is the global pool of money, right?

Adam Davidson: Right. The global pool of money. That's where our story begins. Most people don't think about it but there's this huge pool of money out there, which
is basically all the money the world is saving now. Insurance companies saving for a catastrophe, pension funds saving money for retirement, the central bank of England
saving for whatever central banks save for. All the world's savings.

 Ceyla Pazarbasioglu: It's a lot of money. It's about 70 trillion.

Adam Davidson: That is the head of capital market research at the International Monetary Fund, the place to go if you want know how much money is in the world.

 Adam Davidson: How do we pronounce your name?

 Ceyla Pazarbasioglu: That will take two minutes at least. It's Pazarbasioglu.
 Ceyla Pazarbasioglu. I'm very impressed.

Adam Davidson: And, by the way, before you finance enthusiasts start writing any letters, we do know that 70 trillion technically refers to that subset of global savings
called fixed-income securities. Everyone else can just ignore what I just said. Let's put 70 trillion dollars in perspective. Do this. Think about all the money that people
spend everywhere in the world. Everything you bought in the last year, all of it. Then add everything Bill Gates bought. And all the rice sold in China and that fleet of
planes Boeing just sold to South Korea. All the money spent and earned in every country on earth in a year: that is LESS than 70 trillion, less than this global pool of
money.

Alex Blumberg: Wow, that is a lot of money.

Adam Davidson: It is a lot of money. And that money comes with an army of very nervous men and women watching over the pool of money: investment managers. This army is nervous because they don't want to lose any of that money and they also want to make it grow bigger. But to make it grow, they have to find something to invest in. So, for most of modern history, they bought really, really safe, really boring investments: things called treasuries and municipal bonds. Boring things. But then, right before our story starts, something changed, something happened to that
global pool of money.

 Ceyla Pazarbasioglu: This number doubled since 2000. In 2000 this was about 36 trillion dollars.

 Adam Davidson: So, it took several hundred years for the world to get to 36 trillion. Then, in six years, to get another 36 trillion.

 Ceyla Pazarbasioglu: Yeah. There has been a very sharp increase.

Adam Davidson: How's the world get twice as much money to invest? Lots of things happened, but the main headline is all sorts of poor countries became kind of rich making TVs and selling us oil: China, India, Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia. Made a lot of money and banked it. China, for example, has over a trillion dollars in its central bank, and there are office buildings in Beijing filled with math geniuses-real math geniuses-looking for a place to invest it. And the world was not ready for all this money. There's twice as much money looking for investments, but there are not
twice as many good investments. So, that global army of investment managers was hungrier and twitchier than ever before. They all wanted the same thing: a nice low5
risk investment that paid some return. But then something happened to make matters worse, at this precise moment, one
guy took one of that army's favorite investments and made it a lot less attractive.

Alex Blumberg: So, this is where we have to talk about Alan Greenspan, right?

Adam Davidson: We have to.

Alex Blumberg: Alright. But I'm going to promise the people here that this is the last time you're going to hear Alan Greenspan in this story. So bear with us.

Adam Davidson: Here is one of his speeches that really drove that army of investment managers crazy.

 Alan Greenspan: The FOMC stands prepared to maintain a highly accommodative stance of policy for as long as needed to promote satisfactory economic performance.

Adam Davidson: You might not believe me, but that little statement: that is Central Banker speak for "Hey, global pool of money - screw you."

Alex Blumberg: Come on, that's not what he said

Adam Davidson: It is! I speak central banker and that's what he's saying. What he's technically saying is he's going to keep the Fed Funds rate at the absurdly
low level of one percent. It tells every investor in the world: you are not going to make any money at all on US treasury bonds for a very long time. Go somewhere
else. We can't help you. And so the global pool of money looked around for some low-risk, high-return investment. And among the many things they put their money into, there was one thing they fell in love with. To get it, they called Wall Street - a guy like this:

 Mike Francis: My name is Mike Francis. During the beginning of the mortgage implosion, I was an executive director at Morgan Stanley on the residential mortgage trading desk.

Adam Davidson: Mike was one link in a chain that connected the global pool of money to its new favorite investment, these residential mortgages, the US housing market, and guys like Clarence Nathan. Think how attractive a mortgage loan is to that 70 trillion dollar pool of money. Remember, they're desperate to get any kind of interest return. They want to beat that miserable 1 percent interest Greenspan is offering them. And here are these homeowners, they're paying 5, 7, 9 percent to borrow money from some bank. So what if the global pool could get in on that action? There are problems. Individual mortgages are too big a hassle for the global pool of money. They don't wanna get mixed up with actual people and their catastrophic health problems or debilitating divorces, and all the reasons which might stop them from paying their mortgages. So what Mike and his peers on Wall Street did, was to figure out how to give the
global pool of money all the benefits of a mortgage - basically higher yield - without the hassle or the risk.
So picture the whole chain. You have Clarence. He gets a mortgage from a broker. The broker sells the mortgage to a small bank, the small bank sells the mortgage to a guy like Mike at a big investment firm on Wall Street. Then Mike takes a few thousand mortgages he's bought this way, he puts them in one big pile. Now he's got thousands of mortgage checks coming to him every month. It's a huge monthly stream of money, which is expected to come in for the next thirty years, the life of a mortgage. And he then sells shares of that monthly income to investors. Those shares are called mortgage backed securities. And the 70 trillion dollar global pool of money loved them.

 Mike Francis: it was unbelievable. We almost couldn't produce enough to keep the appetite of the investors happy. More people wanted bonds than we could actually produce. That was our difficult task, was trying to produce
enough. They would call and ask "Do you have any more fixed rate? What have you got? What's coming?" From our standpoint it's like, there's a guy out there with a lot of money. We gotta find a way to be his sole provider of
bonds to fill his appetite. And his appetite's massive.

Alex Blumberg: The problem was, to make a mortgage backed security, you needed mortgages, lots of them. So for Mike Francis to satisfy his demand, and take his quite hefty fee from the global pool of money, he needed to buy up as many
mortgage pools as possible. And to do that, he called a guy one link below him, on the mortgage backed security
chain, a guy named Mike Garner, who worked at the largest private mortgage bank in Nevada, called Silver State Mortgage. And to give you a sense of how fast this
business was growing, Mike got into the mortgage business straight from his previous job as a bartender.

 Mike Garner: One of my regulars in the bar, he actually hired me from the bar. He said he needed some guys, and we started talking about how much I made. He beat what I was making. I didn't know anything about the mortgage business. I was as green as you could be.

Alex Blumberg: Mike Garner's job was to buy up individual mortgages, mainly from brokers, bundle two or three hundred of them together, and sell them up the chain to wall street, to guys like Mike Francis.

Adam Davidson: Too many Mikes here.

Alex Blumberg: So many Mikes. Actually just two. Mike Francis on Wall Street and Mike Garner, the guy we're talking about now.

Adam Davidson: He's in Nevada.

Alex Blumberg: And in the beginning, he'd only buy mortgages that were pretty standard and pretty safe. Mortgages where people had come up with a down payment and proven they had a steady income and money in the bank.
And they sold so many mortgages that there came a point in 2003 where just about everybody who wanted a mortgage and was qualified to get one .... had gotten one. But the pool of money had just gotten started. They wanted more mortgage backed securities. So Wall Street had to find more people to take out mortgages. Which meant lending to people who never would've qualified before. And so Mike noticed that every month, the guidelines were getting a little looser.
Something called a stated income, verified asset loan came out, which meant you didn't have to provide paycheck stubs and w-2 forms, as they had in the past. You could simply state your income, as long as you showed that you had money in the bank.

 Mike Garner: The next guideline lower is just stated income, stated assets. Then you state what you make and state what's in your bank account. They call and make sure you work where you say you work. Then an accountant has to say for your field it is possible to make what you said you
make. But they don't say what you make, just say it's possible that they could make that.

Alex Blumberg: It's just so funny that instead of just asking people to prove what they make there's this theater in place of you have to find an accountant sitting right in front of me who could very easily provide a W2, but we're not asking for a W2 form, but we do want this accountant to say yeah, what they're saying is plausible in some universe.

Mike Garner: Yeah, and loan officers would have an accountant they could call up and say "Can you write a statement saying a truck driver can make this much money?" Then the next one, came along, and it was no income, verified assets. So you don't have to tell the people what you do for a living. You don't have to tell the people what you do for work. All you have to do is state you have a certain amount of money in your bank account. And then, the next one, is just no income, no asset. You don't have to state anything. Just have to have a credit score and a pulse.

Alex Blumberg: Actually that pulse thing. Also optional. Like the case in Ohio where 23 dead people were approved for mortgages.

Adam Davidson: An interesting fact, here. Mike Garner's bank did not care how risky these mortgages were. This was the new era: banks didn't have to hold on to these mortgages for 30 years. They didn't have to wait and see if they'd be paid back. Bank's like Garner's just owned them for a month or two and then sold them on to Wall Street. Wall Street would sell them on to the global pool of money.

Alex Blumberg: Which is how we get half-million dollar, no income, no asset loans.

Adam Davidson: And loans to dead people. So there's another thing going on: housing prices were rising, fast. Lots of people in the mortgage industry had this faith that housing prices, in the US, simply never go down. So, from the bank's
perspective, even if the worst happens and someone defaults, the bank would then own the house which is now worth even more than when they gave out the loan. So, All Mike cared about was whether or not his customers--the Wall Street investment banks--would buy those mortgages from him. And he was under pressure to approve more and more loans. Because other guys in his company--the actual guys cruising strip malls all across Nevada buying mortgages from brokers, their commission depended on selling more loans. And occasionally, those guys would hear about some loan that some other mortgage company offered that they
weren't allowed to offer. And they'd complain to Mike.

 Mike Garner: Three of them would show up at your door first thing in the morning and say, I lost 10 deals last week to Meritius bank. They've got this loan. Look at the guidelines for this loan. Is there any way we can do this?
We're losing deals left and right. I'd get on the phone and start calling all these street firms or Countrywide and say "Would you buy this loan?" Finally, you'd find out who was buying them.

 Alex Blumberg: So, Merrill Lynch would say no. And Goldman Sachs would say no. And you'd finally hit on somebody and they be like "Yeah, we'll buy that loan."

 Mike Garner: Yeah, and once I got a hit, I'd call back and say, "Hey, Bear Stearns is buying this loan. I'd like to give you the opportunity to buy it too." Once one person buys them, all the rest of them follow suit.

So, with all that unregulated money sitting around, it was only a mater of time before someone figgured out how to tap into it.

Not to give wall street any real credit though... just look at the way Fannie and Freddie operate and guess what you will see. They have been doing this for years. What happened was that the guys on wall street figured out that they could cut into Fannie and Freddies action and then, the deals were just too damn good to let go once all the qualified people got homes, so they started to water down the quality so they could continue making sales.

But to ensure that the crapolla that they were pulling together was able to be sold, they got this small company called AIG to back them up. To insure them. And since they were basically the same thing that Fannie and Freddie were doing they got S&P to give them the best ratings on what was really degraded crap paper.

Between the S&P prime ratings and the AIG coverage on the crap assets, the wall street crew had something that they could sell to those guys with all that money who didn't want Greenspan's measly 1%.

A really good listen. Lot's of greed to go around, from the pool of money to wall street to bartenders turned mortgage consolidators.

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 09:27:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually quite abysmal (0.00 / 0)

Not much point in sugar coating it. Assuming Doug doesn't have his finger on the scale we can see these results as a protest vote against Chris Dodd and his role on the Senate banking committee, and other related controversies. Politicians in similar circumstances typically consider retiring. Since that doesn't sound at all within the realm of possibility right now, one would assume Dodd would make overtures to improving his image in CT. He might but more likely he won't. If we've learned anything from Chris Dodd's continued endorsement of Lieberman it is that he's stubborn and reluctant to change his ways.

It may well turn out to be that as the economy goes so goes Chris Dodd's political fortunes.

---

by: Scarce @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 15:29:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dodd's vulnerable and the Repubs smell it (0.00 / 0)

I think his troubles are only going to multiply as time goes on.

---

by: thomashooker @ Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 20:41:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In CT-02, Simmons 54%, Dodd 34%. (0.00 / 0)

That's pretty scary.

I mean we're talking about a district with a PVI of D+8.

And that's also where both Simmons and Dodd live.

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 16:44:26 PM UTC

You have to wonder why (0.00 / 0)

Or at least I do.  Has Simmons done any kind of public appearance lately just before the calls were made?  What can be determined about the mix of people who were polled for this question?

Just even barely scratching the surface on this guy, he just seems to have enough going against him  in terms of views and how he operates that it doesn't seem like 2010 would be a good year for him.  e.g. He gave to Tom DeLay's defense fund, and got caught with his pants down running a hypocritical ad claiming Courtney didn't help keep the sub base open -- Courtney had saved the Simmons thank you voicemail so Simmons looked like a jerk.  Whatever magic dust he has laid on voters in his district doesn't seem to me like it would stick elsewhere -- or at least it seems like he has yet to make a case that would stick  It's early etc.

I'm not saying ignore these results -- I just like to kick the tires a little -- I remember when Q Poll refused to give the Lamont campaign the underlying info on the group polled, which ethically they should do/full disclosure on the conditions of the poll.  I would like to make sure this is not a ground softening exercise rather than a genuine poll.

I recall a Q Poll a few months ago (actually more like a year?) that was asking people if they were upset with Dodd for not being at home in CT more (or similar).  My thought at the time was that it was just this side of push poll wording (seemed that way to me anyhow -- I could figure out a more neutra wording).

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 18:26:21 PM UTC

Why is Jim Cramer not in jail? (0.00 / 0)

In this video, Jim Cramer of CNBC brags about how he manipulates the stock market. If this is legal, why is it legal? If it isn't, why isn't Cramer in jail? And why isn't Senator Dodd as annoyed by this as I am?

The HuffingtonPost.com has more.

---

by: CaptCT @ Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 15:48:04 PM UTC

because he hasn't broken the law (0.00 / 0)

he didn't manipulate the market. His track record is very iffy, 50-50% at best, despite what he says. I've watched him for years (my husband is addicted, yet he never follows Cramer's advice, thankfully)

when Cramer mentions a stock, regardless of what he says (positive or negative) the stock goes up in the VERY short term.. and then it does whatever it was going to do anyway. So it USED to be, if he mentions a stock, short it.

I don't usually recommend books to virtual strangers, but if you get a chance check out Howard Kurtz' The Fortune Tellers. Its a real eye opener. According to Kurtz, Cramer, while insane, is actually not an unlikeable person. Lou Dobbs on the other hand.. well, it's been a while since i read it but lets just say he's not portrayed as anyone you'd want to havea nice cup of tea with on a rainy day.


.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 16:35:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

others would disagree (0.00 / 0)

... about whether he's a crook. And whether he's "likeable," well it depends on what kind of people you like.  

Check out this story by Columbia Journalism Review business editor Mark Mitchell:

I have analyzed well over a thousand stories written by this clique of journalists. The vast majority of them were sourced from a small group of short-sellers who are also friends of Cramer. Other popular sources for this group of journalists include convicted felons, mobsters, dubious private investigators, crooked lawyers, hired stock bashers, and gun-toting goons - most of whom are tied to the Cramer constellation of short-sellers.

   Some of the stories written by these reporters are accurate enough. But many are not. The journalists misconstrue data with seemingly purposeful intent. They exaggerate and obfuscate. They publish innuendo or merely repeat, Deus Optimus Maximus, the words of their hedge fund and criminal friends. A single negative story by one of these reporter-thugs can send a company's stock tumbling by more than 50% - pure profit for their hedge fund sources, who of course sell the company short (often right before the articles are published). Meanwhile, an overwhelming majority of the companies targeted by these journalists will also be the victims of phantom stock selling and other shenanigans. [...]

Cramer, who is a sociopath, owns TheStreet.com with Marty Peretz, who is an aristocrat. Peretz is also the former editor of the New Republic magazine. ... Cramer was his student. Then Cramer was destitute. He lived in a car with a loaded gun hidden under the seat. Eventually, though, Peretz gave Cramer some money to start a hedge fund....

Cramer had originally planned to run his hedge fund out of the offices of Ivan Boesky. Shortly before he was to move in, however, the feds busted Boesky for insider trading, making him one of the most famous criminals of the 1980s. [...]

When Boesky went to prison, Cramer worked instead with hedge fund manager Michael Steinhardt. The media portrays Steinhardt as a financial wizard, a deep thinker and an all-around swell guy. The truth is, he's a thug who perfected the concept of trading on privileged information, and pounded it into the heads of his employees. [...]

Indeed, Steinhardt has one of the most fearsome reputations on Wall Street. Which is perhaps unsurprising given that Steinhardt's father, Sol "Red" Steinhardt, was a mobster once described by a Manhattan district attorney as the biggest Mafia fence in America. [...]

By Steinhardt Jr.'s own account, the principal partners in his first hedge fund were the Genovese Mafia, Ivan Boesky, Marty Peretz (the aristocrat who funded Cramer), and a man named Marc Rich. Rich is closely connected to Ronald Greenwald, described in the authoritative book Red Mafiya as the man who, along with the Genovese family, brought the Russian Mob to America.[...]

So this is a rough crowd. Says one Wall Street trader: "It was the day the bad guys came to town - when Steinhardt and his people arrived."

One of Steinhardt's people is Jim Cramer. Another is Cramer's wife, who was known as the "Trading Goddess" when she worked as Steinhardt's head trader. Maria Bartiromo, a CNBC anchor known as the "Money Honey," is married to the top partner in Steinhardt's newest hedge fund. (A former employee of Cramer's hedge fund has written that Cramer often fed tips to the Money Honey, trading ahead of her stories, and it is rumored that she recruited him to CNBC.)

And the story goes on and on ... If this is legal, then our financial markets are dysfunctional, which only adds to our economic crisis.
 

---

by: CaptCT @ Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 17:35:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Market manipulation: definition (0.00 / 0)

Market manipulation describes a deliberate attempt to interfere with the free and fair operation of the market and create artificial, false or misleading appearances with respect to the price of, or market for, a security, commodity or currency.[1] Market manipulation is prohibited under Section 9(a)(2)[2] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934...

Markets manipulation can occur in multiple ways: [...]
Runs
   "When a group of traders create activity or rumors in order to drive the price of a security up." [...]
Bear raid
   "Attempting to push the price of a stock down by heavy selling or short selling.

---

by: CaptCT @ Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 19:10:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]