Video: Carl Levin’s got a fee-vah and the only prescription is more “sh***y deals”

posted at 4:52 pm on April 27, 2010 by Allahpundit

You make the call. A simple case of C-Lev grooving on dropping the S-bomb? Or a brilliantly calculated propaganda victory in the Dems’ war on Goldman Sachs? Levin must have known this vid would go viral, thus making the case against GS to online viewers who never would have paid attention otherwise. Well played, sir. Very well played.

Before you ask, no, this isn’t going to earn anyone a fine from the FCC, but please observe your official content warning anyway. Or, actually, don’t: What objection could your boss have if he/she caught you watching this on break? If anyone overhears and complains about profanity in the office, you stand up, look ‘em in the eye, and say, “Hey — I’m watching C-SPAN.

Update: Congrats to Goldman and other Wall Street bankers, currently number one on the list of people/entities most likely to be demagogued by the White House before the midterms!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

E Trade offers solicited advise, if you choose it.

Just trying to disagree and play nicely…

Odie1941 on April 27, 2010 at 7:25 PM

When E-Trade advises a client, do they have an obligation to provide their honest opinion on whether the product they’re advising is likely to make the client money?

If E-Trade takes a large net short position on that product, do you not think that that may be evidence of dishonesty on their part?

MJBrutus on April 27, 2010 at 7:30 PM

All together now for Carl. *(golf clap)*

yoda on April 27, 2010 at 7:41 PM

MJBrutus on April 27, 2010 at 7:30 PM

For every buyer, there is a seller.

When E-Trade advises a client, do they have an obligation to provide their honest opinion on whether the product they’re advising is likely to make the client money?

“Make them money” can be buying or selling, depending on who they are advising and their portfolio. I have been pretty consistent on this.

If E-Trade takes a large net short position on that product, do you not think that that may be evidence of dishonesty on their part?

Thats where it gets tricky. Again, level 1, 2 and 3 screens depict ask and bid prices, and by whom. At the individual level, you get Level 1. At the institutional level, you get Level 3 – with active, real time positions. It is highly illegal for a Level 3 to be viewed by someone, share that screen – then buy and sell to an individual, based on it.

Now – if you are an institution (as in the GS case)- you will know E Trade is buying or selling that position and should make decisions accordingly.

E Trade and other automatic e systems opened the world to many data points, volume, bid/ask, etc – along with closed market trading. The complexity of a fincial companies positions, divisions, recommendations is in my opinion WORSE off to the average individual.

If I were working with E Trade, and called you to say “Brutus – buy 20,000 shares of XYZ company – because E Trade is longing the position” is flat out wrong. However, if I say “Brutus, buy 20,000 shares of XYZ, even though E Trade is short – but I feel based on where you bought it and where it may go, comapred to our holdings” is perfectly legit.

E Trade may have 10 different funds, with the same stock in it – bought at various levels, prices, with some long, some positions short, etc. For them to tell you 1 way or the other would be tough.

Odie1941 on April 27, 2010 at 7:45 PM

So what’s the difference between a basic E-Trade trading customer and a basic Goldman market maker customer. What’s the difference? What’s the difference? What’s the difference?

blink on April 27, 2010 at 7:51 PM

There isn’t a difference WHEN GS is acting as a market-maker. There is WHEN GS is marketing or advising.

This simple point is beyond your grasp. I explained it to you several times but you’ve got too much of Senator Comb Over’s favorite noun between your ears to get it.

MJBrutus on April 27, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Odie1941 on April 27, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Sure, I agree that the investing goals and size of an investor are factors in providing advice. I also agree that at times such conflicts (when viewed simplistically as I have for brevity) are explainable.

In the particular case of GS and the ABACUS deal, I’ve seen enough evidence to convince me that they colluded with Paulsen to encourage (to avoid the market/advise verbs for now) other institutions to take a bad trade.

MJBrutus on April 27, 2010 at 8:04 PM

Finally. Thanks for admitting this.

blink on April 27, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Finally admitting it? I explicitly stated it half a dozen times and never said otherwise!

MJBrutus on April 27, 2010 at 8:18 PM

No, you didn’t. You never broke out the difference between market maker and investment advisor.

blink on April 27, 2010 at 8:27 PM

As an adviser, they have a fiduciary interest to advocate instruments that they believe are sound. It is not simply a case of acting as a market-maker who holds on to securities that they think they got at a bargain to sell later.

MJBrutus on April 27, 2010 at 6:37 PM

A post that you responded to with one of your many STRAW MAN arguments.

MJBrutus on April 27, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Carl Levin has every right to feel this was a sh*tty deal, because if there is one guy in Congress who is more full of sh*t than Nancy Pelosi, it is Carl Levin!

pilamaye on April 27, 2010 at 9:02 PM

Look ‘em in the eye, and say, “Hey — I’m watching mother-effing C-SPAN.”

ultranaut on April 27, 2010 at 11:32 PM

Are we sure he didn’t say “Thats one Citi Deal” maybe they sold shares to CITI.

These hearings, and all hearings are such BS. I really hope no one watches these things thinking that they’re anything more than lies told over and over again to try and make these moron senators look like they do anything during the year.

As a video editor I’d love to know how C-Span can show this live and edit out the slim dripping off Levin.

Rbastid on April 28, 2010 at 1:29 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I introduce to you the gutless wonder, Senator Carl Levin (D-Socialism). This putz can put on a wonderful dog-and-pony show with Goldman Sachs while studiously avoiding his own constituents with a town hall meeting on Obamacare. What do you call someone who will dish it out but can’t take it? GUTLESS.

olesparkie on April 28, 2010 at 7:36 AM

I’m against any regulation. I favor laws. Having said that,
there should be no reform unless it includes Fannie and Freddie. This ridiculous bill favors big banks et. al.

lilium on April 28, 2010 at 8:07 AM

Clearly Levin, mental midget that he is, did not want to hear context. If you have ever worked in sales you know that your estimation of the worth of this or that product/ proposition can go up or down, sometimes twice in the same day. Sales people are not technical experts and very often they know only a little more than the people they are selling to. Carl Levin has no point here beyond wanting to hear the sound of his own (proxy) vulgarity.

virgo on April 28, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2