The Department of Justice made headlines with high-profile lawsuits against Wall Street firms, but noted some irregularities not solve systemic
In politics, public humiliation can often be a useful motivator. Take the Department of Justice, which was dragged over the coals in a recent PBS Frontline documentary about his lack of strength on Wall Street prosecutions. The Ministry of Justice has been on a rampage lately.
The Ministry of Justice is considering a complaint against the Royal Bank of Scotland, and last night there was a real demand for Standard & Poors misrating mortgage bonds before the financial crisis.
The Ministry of Justice is also being created and a new direction. Standard & Poor's and other rating agencies have long maintained that his notes, which were opinions, were protected by freedom of expression, in essence, you can not kill the messenger. This proved to be a defense bullets for years.
The Ministry of Justice, in its application responds to S & P acted as a double agent for allegedly violating its own rules. Rating agencies are paid by the banks to value products created by banks - a clear conflict of interest in many cases. Standard & Poors, like other companies, has promised objectivity.
Thus, the Ministry of Justice stated that the S & P, while aiming to ensure objectivity, working on behalf of banks that need good grades to mortgage-backed securities loans. To support this claim, the Department of Justice cites several e-mails showing S & P to worry about losing customers to Moody.
MJ v Wall Street: from zero to hero
agitation is great ... directional. The Ministry of Justice is usually to go crawling on Wall Street, which treats amazing temporarily will not hurt very bad financial reputation and net income almost nothing.
Who does not love a main character finally overcome their low self esteem and your own power?
In terms of cinema, which is equivalent to the librarian nerd who takes off her glasses and shakes her hair, where people shout: "Why, Miss Jones, you're great! "Beyonce is voluntarily file his nails in the video for" Irreplaceable ", squaring his shoulders and said:" Do not know about .. I 've Got me twisted "Patrick Dempsey is increasingly thin silver gallant idol.
Given that the Department of Justice is trying to regain his arrogance seems rude object still can not think big enough. And yet ...
Approach
The Ministry of Justice is in theory. It's good for the reputation of a business tax rake over the coals and publicly humiliated. But the truth is that the effect is limited. Other companies, rather than seeking the signature of shame and thought, "disciplined, not only by the grace of God go," rather than thinking, "God, I'm glad I'm not like that poor fool who got caught doing what everyone else does. "
The Department of Justice is pursuing the greatest force in the country. He has subpoena power - to requisition excellent financial documents embarrassing - and the resources and power enough to attack advertising scares criminals on Wall Street. The SEC also has sufficient funds, the CFTC has a shorter range. The Ministry of Justice is, in short, the only entity in the country in the hope of accomplishing anything in the way of the application of white collar.
Why "make an example" does not work
there a way to strike fear into the heart of the wicked. On the one hand, the wicked always think they are exceptional. This is also the case for Wall Street. Anyone who does something fishy with money is usually quite self-conscious. He never fooled into thinking, "Oh, I do nothing wrong." Think instead: "The authorities will never be smart enough to catch me."
- This is why RBS draw, or UBS, or S & P should never fear the deterrent effect that the Department of Justice really wants. In fact, to go after the partial signatures, the Department of Justice can actually
- encouraging
- future criminals instead of away from crime. You see, the Department of Justice goes after one or two companies for actions that were widespread in the industry. Setting interest rates was the work of thousands of people. It is safe to say that the rating agency S & P was not the only one afraid that he would lose if the fee deferral began obligations. In fact, the S & P, according to emails provided by the Ministry of Justice, often worried that was not consistent with Moody.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2013
(102)
-
▼
February
(26)
- Reading 0-3 Wigan Athletic | Premier League match ...
- Blackpool 0-0 Leicester City | Championship match ...
- In praise of … If You See God, Tell Him | Editorial
- High culture versus pop culture: which is best for...
- Iain Duncan Smith: shelf-stacking as important as ...
- Michael Appleton settles in after ejecting circus ...
- Marco Rubio survives his water bottle moment with ...
- Should workplaces have on-site psychiatrists?
- Ronald Dworkin: a modern-day Mill | Editorial
- Rehabilitate Macbeth for Scotland? If you want his...
- Valentine's Day retailers say it with flawed surve...
- US plan aimed at shoring up US business networks
- NQT job tips: how to get that first teaching post
- Mid Staffs NHS scandal shows compassion is the qua...
- Michael Gove's gang perfect the art of fighting di...
- Poverty-stricken Indian women forced into prostitu...
- Education reform: a lesson to learn from | Editorial
- This is a job for super-wonk
- Michael Gove's GCSE U-turn is a reprieve for secon...
- The horsemeat scandal: could there be much more to...
- Public sector cuts hit judges' pensions
- Pro bono and access to justice: mind the gap
- Standard & Poor's feels Justice's lash, but can th...
- Let's not be wed to outmoded ideas of what marriag...
- Today's poor are depicted as a freak show, just as...
- Internet copyright law has to have public support ...
-
▼
February
(26)
0 comments:
Post a Comment