Corzine
 

Here's another ********* who has screwed the American public and will probably get away with it.

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- After a violent car crash that left him with 18 broken bones and half his blood in 2007, Jon Corzine learned an important lesson: Don’t take unnecessary risks.

And no, we’re not talking about trading in derivatives or wearing your seat belt. We’re talking about taking care of No. 1.


Reuters
Jon Corzine
That’s why as regulators attend to a post-mortem of MF Global Holdings Inc. MFGLQ -24.25% , Corzine has lawyered up to deal with his belly-up firm. Corzine is not only the No. 1, he’s the 1% that have a bulls-eye painted on their backs.

If you’re from the New York area you might remember Corzine’s series of public-service statements he filmed after the accident.

“I’m New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, and I should be dead,” he said.

Many MF Global investors and employees and the kids down at Zuccotti Park might have some mixed feelings about that statement. And why shouldn’t they? Corzine ratcheted up leverage at the firm, failed to heed warnings and put the firm at the precipice. A couple of downgrades from the ratings firms were all that was needed to nudge MF Global off the bankruptcy cliff.

Corzine declined to comment, but you can imagine his defense. MF Global wasn’t a bank. Depositors were never at risk. Moreover, even in its implosion, MF Global never threatened to create an imbalance in the market. Sure, stocks swooned on the day MF failed, but fears about Europe were in the headlines, too.

Click to Play
Banks differ on Europe risk exposures reporting
Is any amount of disclosure enough when it comes to a financial firm's exposure to Europe? How Jefferies Group fares in coming days may help answer that, David Reilly reports on Markets Hub. Photo: AP.

Of course, even if this were true, none of this absolves Corzine from the failures of his reign at MF Global. Moreover, it underscores just how the system remains tilted to the most untouchable of the 1%, the CEOs of big brokerages and banks.

For one, there is Corzine’s ability to distance himself from the mess. He resigned late last week and expressed sorrow (though he never said he was sorry) over MF’s collapse. Corzine said he would not seek severance from the firm.

It all sounds very noble until one realizes that Corzine was stepping away from the mess. He less likely to be challenged in the bankruptcy proceedings by investors and employees who are looking to scrape for the money owed to them.

For another, Corzine almost surely will walk away from the mess without threat of prosecution either criminally or civilly. If operators such as Richard Fuld, the former head of Lehman Brothers, and Kerry Killinger, the former head of Washington Mutual Inc., can get away without giving back their compensation, why would anyone in Washington push Corzine into court?

Moreover, Corzine’s connections to Washington’s top levels — from former high-level Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS +0.79% bankers now serving in government to President Barack Obama himself — suggest that any deceptive statements and missing client money probably won’t be cause for concern in the Corzine camp.

Looks to me like the American public is fine, the investors in MF, however, are going to take a bath.

*************

That would be "douchebag".

I think the most interesting thing surrounding this is that when the mainstream media reports on this, they do NOT mention that he is a democrat. If he were a Republican, I wonder if they would mention that?

The article is a bit of a mess. Resigning from a company doesn't make one less culpable for an wrong doing, it just eliminates the possibility of being terminated by the Board of Directors.

Reminds me of:

Jeffrey Skilling

Maybe so, but here's a guy that the voters of New Jersey put in office in a position to handle America's tax dollars, who then went into private money managing and tried to run THAT business just the way he was operating in government. Unfortunately, private companies, unlike the US government, aren't allowed to just fire up the printing presses and print more money when they screw up. I guess he didn't realize that when he was in charge of MF Global . . .

Warren Buffet was correct when he said that financial institutions would be run much more differently if the officers were financially liable for their management decisions.

I'd like to see that law get passed.

That's true. If you break the law and get caught, you're still subject to arrest whether you leave the company or not. As that article when on to point out, Corzine is clearly looking out for one person only: Corzine.

It's not like these guys are screwing just their clients, or the tax payers, when we have to bail their companies out. They are screwing their shareholders, employees, everybody but themselves. They are no different than a guy with a gun, who robs you on the street, except their robbery is wholesale . . .

I believe that is incorrect; NJ voters elected him governor of their state after leaving Goldman Sachs; NJ subsequently elected Mr. Christie, a rebuke to Mr. Corzine's re-election campaign for a second term.


While all investments carry risks, including the loss of principal investments, there is an investigation as to whether there was any wrong doing and if there was any unlawful transfer of investor assets.

That would be a silly law.

Why are you making things up again?

Jolly,

Not making up anything AT ALL! I saw a piece on this Sunday I think on NBC. They pointed out he had been NJ governor, but there was no indication WHATSOEVER indicating his party affiliation.

BTW, I've never made ANYTHING up that I've posted on this forum. I have indeed made some posts in error, but I DO NOT "make things up."

Are you implying that I am a liar?

Yes.

Wow, look, this one is on RWNJ Bogeyman site NPR:

Now-Bankrupt MF Global, Ex-CEO Corzine Had Deep Pockets For Democrats : It's All Politics : NPR

Of course he is. Do you expect any different from him?

Really? Why is that? They certainly seem to feel they are entitled to vast sums of money that often don't seem to be connected in any meaningful way to their performance. Why is it silly to make them responsible for being reckless and irresponsible with people to whom they have a fiduciary responsibility?

If I commit my money to you for safe-keeping, and you then take it to Las Vegas and gamble it all away without my knowledge or permission, why is it silly for me to expect you to be held accountable?

Money has corrupted both parties, and turned what was once a democracy into a system of legalized bribery where the rich have created a society that revolves around them and their needs, but don't worry, the Supreme Court says it is ok.

So, were there no politicians that have looked the other way and let it happen?

It's silly because there are already laws governing criminal conduct in the securities and exchange industry. There are also existing laws pretaining to fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligence in business.

It's silly because investment firms are not, never have been, and should not be confused with government insured banks or depositories. In virtually every investment prospectus there are standard disclaimers, the most important of which, states that there is a risk of loss to the capital investment and there is no guarantee of profit or retun of investment.

It's silly because investors, by definition, are taking risks, but are alleging that they bear no risk of losses?

Your Las Vegas analogy is right on point, except that investors aren't putting money into their accounts for "safe keeping" . . . they are funding the account manager's bets but investors know that, don't they? In this case, the bets were on the European economy, which the brokerage was betting would be a short downturn followed by recovery. They were wrong.

Would MF have been one of the investment instruments that would serve a privitized SS?

Can you just imagine what the world would be like if George Bush had succeeded with his "retirement accounts" insanity?

I doubt that 10% being put in the hands of the retiree and the retiree having RESPONSIBILITY for that 10% would have made much difference. Where it WOULD have made a difference would be when people LOST their 10%. All of the liberal thinking that encourages people to put the responsibility on the government instead of the individuals has conditioned too many people NOT to take responsibility. Once they lost their 10% by their own hand, they would then have insisted that the government take the loss.

This is the way liberals think and is one of the biggest differences between liberals and conservatives. A liberal wants to look to the government for everything while a conservative takes responsibility for his own life.

Actually, we just don't want to watch old folks starve, something that would apparently not bother you much.

I disagree. Money can only corrupt individuals who are susceptible to being corrupted. Honest individuals, individuals of integrity, cannot be corrupted. A few prison terms for lobbyists and Legislators who have been corrupted would stiffen the resolve of many.

When, in the history of the world, has money, wealth or the attendant power that comes with it, not been a "corrupting" factor in what is called politics? Here in the US, the "party system" demands that money is a powerful element in the process. For the 2010 "frosh" members of Congress, their respective parties keep close track on their fundraising and war chests, mostly to evaluate whether to support those newly minted incumbents, or whether to put someone up against them.

What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. No one wants to watch anyone starve. What I DO want to see is people act resonsibly instead of relying on the government for everything. The Nanny state appears to be quite appealing to folks like yourself, however.

As far as what GW wanted to do with SS, he wanted to offer AS AN OPTION the ability to privately invest 10% of the SS money. That option would probably have been exercised by the liberals and then when they lost their money, they would come crawling back to the government crying about it.

I don't think that the loss of 10% of their retirement savings would have resulted in anyone starving.

Because the rich love living in a welfare state catered to dregs of society. It's impossible to shop on the first and third week of the month anymore due to everyone getting their SSI. It's honestly a joke that these slugs can get food stamps, cellphone services, a car and a home in good ol' Connecticut.

It disgusts me how people just don't have to earn their standard of living anymore.

I don't see why people can't be self sufficient. My entire family does it. All off the boat immigrants, be it from France, Poland or Cuba. If they were able to do it, why can't the rest of America?

The problem is that it is all legal. The system is rigged. Democracy no longer exists, which is why you have an OWS and why you have a Tea Party. Democracy isn't working for either of them. The government works for the highest bidder.

Those people worked all their lives and paid into SSI, they are not "slugs". You guys exaggerate the crap out of the rest of it. But what really wants to make me vomit is listening to you ***** about the poor while the Wall Street banks just walked off with trillions. Why don't you smarten up and figure out who is really screwing you? You begrudge some old lady a friggin sandwich, while the bankers just sold out the entire future of this country. The only thing I can figure is that without people who are weaker than you for a scapegoat, you're just not happy.

Interesting take. I have 'less' of an issue with people receiving SSI who actually worked for it. However I'd like to say over 60% of New Haven either doesn't work or hasn't put in what they take out. These banks also did walk out with money, sure. But a lot of them were also bailed out. "Too big to fail", I think the tagline was? If the government wants to hand out money, they can be my guest. But I'll be damned if it's mine. I fully support birth licensing that you obtain past a certain education level-- it'll prevent the leeching the left seems to accept as normal. Gramps can collect if he paid in, sure. SSI should have been offed like it was planned too after the Depression. Y'know, when boys were men and men were men? If you honestly believe the banks ruined the future of this country, that's also fine. But those with actual business and manufacturing know-how will all tell you it's cap-in-trade. Why does China flourish in manufacturing jobs? If they have an equivalent to the DEP or EPA, I haven't heard of it. We all share the same air and water, so why should we let China go along and not do it ourselves? Fire up the coal plants, make our own power for our factories, let em dump in the rivers. If anyone eats fish or crawdads out of any river in CT, they deserve to die of lead poisoning.

Its legal only because the ones writing the legislation are the ones taking the bribes (in whatever form they may actually be paid).

Having lawyers write the laws--how's THAT working out for us?

"it works for a few, why can't it work for 350,000,000"? That's three hundred and fifty million. So if you counted people eight hours a day for thirty years or so you could count all of them. I suggest you try it.

I am glad I lived when I did. There was still some vague idea that we needed to make this work for everyone. I even heard an occasional person say that we should love our fellow man.

It was never intended to work for them, they are righteously pissed. Does that make sense?

It doesn't work for them. It was never intended to work for them. Why do you insist on pretending there is any possible way in hell for it to work for them? Does pretending make you feel better? Because all it will do for them is piss them off even more. Does it make you feel better to piss people off?

Some people are fine as long as they have someone to spit on. Not long ago we had the Trail of Tears, Nazi Germany, Civil War. Does the solution you see have any similarity? Are you considering any real sequence in history as a solution or are you basing your views on some ideal that has never existed in the history of humanity?

The problem with the "piss on them" attitude is that if they will do it to them they will do it to you too.

deep, very very deep