ForumGarden

DrLeftover;1304853 wrote: October 2009

" A Goldman Sachs executive has been named the first chief operating officer of the Securities and Exchange Commission's enforcement division.

The market watchdog says Adam Storch, vice president in Goldman Sachs' Business Intelligence Group, is assuming the new position of managing executive of the SEC division.

The move comes as the SEC revamps its enforcement efforts following the agency's failure to uncover Bernard Madoff's massive fraud scheme for nearly two decades despite numerous red flags.

"

From the New York Times.


DrLeftover;1304866 wrote: If a clear conflict of interest, not to mention the buying of special favors with over a million in campaign contributions from G-S execs, isn't relevant.... then I'll stand down.


What exactly is it you are alleging with these two posts, DL?

Ahso!;1305065 wrote: What exactly is it you are alleging with these two posts, DL?


That perhaps I should find another forum when my membership expires.

That's all.

Nothing else.

Thank you for agreeing.

I'm at a loss to understand why you would write posts and then wish not to discuss them within their proper context.

It seemed to me you were alleging some impropriety by mentioning campaign contributions, though you failed to mention who those contributions were to. I thought you were suggesting that the democrats were benefiting from the hiring of Storch. Goldman Sachs has contributed to both parties, haven't they?

Were you aware that the SEC is an independent agency that has no formal built in ties to either party though the board of directors (which Storch is not one) are appointed by the sitting president when there are vacancies? Heres some information for you. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I thought a discussion would result, I would participate.

In the mean time, go read the news.

Goldman Sachs executives have been frequent guests at the White House, there has been considerable movement back and forth by officials, they have given a great deal of money to Democratic campaigns. GS was treated favorably during the meltdown, and so on.

"where there is smoke...."

DrLeftover;1305244 wrote: If I thought a discussion would result, I would participate.

In the mean time, go read the news.

Goldman Sachs executives have been frequent guests at the White House, there has been considerable movement back and forth by officials, they have given a great deal of money to Democratic campaigns. GS was treated favorably during the meltdown, and so on.

"where there is smoke...."Do you mean to say that White House personnel should not be meeting with GS officials? How do you propose they communicate then?

How do you know whats being said?

You infer that since they are meeting and talking it must be with some dishonest, underhanded purpose. Why then is it not going on in total secrecy?

Show us more than campaign contributions for your case to be made.

And I still don't see the connection of Storch being hired by the SEC and the White House. Nobody in the Obama administration hired the guy. The SEC is an independent agency. If you want to say that someone in the Obama administration broke the law then fine, show us what you got. But don't make hay because you read more into a story than was there.

DrLeftover;1305244 wrote: If I thought a discussion would result, I would participate.

In the mean time, go read the news.

Goldman Sachs executives have been frequent guests at the White House, there has been considerable movement back and forth by officials, they have given a great deal of money to Democratic campaigns. GS was treated favorably during the meltdown, and so on.

"where there is smoke...."DrLeftover;1305126 wrote: That perhaps I should find another forum when my membership expires.

That's all.

Nothing else.

Thank you for agreeing.I'm feeling like you think the folks at the SEC and I have attempted to victimized you? Is that accurate?

Scrat;1305400 wrote: Hiring the fox to watch over the chicken coop. I expected nothing less. :yh_rotfl:yh_rotflActually if you read Adam's job description, he doesn't seem to have a whole lot of authority over area's of concern.