Showing posts with label Insider Trading. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Insider Trading. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Stratfor: Imam of “Ground Zero Mosque” is an FBI Asset

9/11 Truth News
Cosmos



One of the first juicy bits to trickle out of Wikileaks release of 5 million Stratfor emails is the comment from Fred Burton, Stratfor’s Vice President of Intelligence, that the Imam of the controversial so-called Ground Zero mosque is an “FBI operational asset.” Burton, who was formerly a special agent with the US State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service and the Deputy Chief of their counterterrorism division, made the comment on an email chain regarding a New York Observer article, Untangling the Bizarre CIA Links to the Ground Zero Mosque. The controversy surrounding the “Ground Zero mosque” overwhelmingly dominated the news and discussion surrounding the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

UPDATE: The above was posted about an hour after the GI Files had been announced. It seems relatively minor compared to some of the other items coming out, but still quite interesting and perhaps important. Now, 12 hours later, it’s apparent that the scope of issues involved in the GI Files release will be immense. Spying on activists, insider trading, money laundering, “sexual control” of assets and mind-boggling arrogance and incompetence seem to be only the tip of the iceberg.

Here is the full Wikileaks GI Files press conference, which took place a few hours ago:

Cass Sunstein even gets a mention, in connection to the Bhopal tragedy and cover up, of all things.



Video streaming by Ustream


Sunday, December 4, 2011

6 Shocking Revelations About Wall Street's "Secret Government"

Alternet
Les Leopald


We now have concrete evidence that Wall Street and Washington are running a secret government far removed from the democratic process. Through a freedom of information request by Bloomberg News, the public now has access to over 29,000 pages of Fed documents and 21,000 additional Fed transactions that were deliberately hidden, and for good reason. (See here and here.)

These documents show how top government officials willfully concealed from Congress and the public the true extent of the 2008-'09 bailouts that enriched the few and enhanced the interests of giant Wall Streets firms. Here’s what we now know:

The secret Wall Street bailouts totaled $7.77 trillion, 10 times more than the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) passed by Congress in 2008.

Knowledge of the secret bailout funds was not shared with Congress even while it was drafting and debating legislation to break up the big banks.

The secret funding, provided at below-market rates, gave Wall Street banks an additional $13 billion in profits. (That’s enough money to hire more than 325,000 entry level teachers.)

The secret loans financed bank mergers so that the largest banks could grow even larger. The money also allowed banks to step up their lobbying efforts.

While Henry Paulson (Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury) was informing Congress and the public that only minor reforms were needed to protect Fannie and Freddie from collapse, he met secretly with leading Wall Street hedge fund managers -- among them his former colleagues at Goldman Sachs -- to alert them that he was about to nationalize the giant mortgage companies – a move that would eradicate nearly all the stock value of the companies. This information was enormously valuable because it allowed these hedge funds to short Fannie and Freddie and thereby make a fortune.

While Timothy Geithner was head of the NY Federal Reserve, he argued against legislative efforts by Senator Ted Kaufman, D-Delaware, to limit the size of banks because the issue was “too complex for Congress and that people who know the markets should handle these decisions,” Kaufman recalls. Meanwhile, Geithner was fully aware of the enormous secret loans while Senator Kaufman was kept in the dark. Barney Frank, who was authoring key bank reform legislation was also not informed of the secret loans. No one in Congress was told.
So what does this all mean?

1. The big banks and hedge funds were in much more trouble than we were led to believe.

As many of us suspected, all the big banks were on their knees begging for help – secretly – while telling their investors, the public and Congress that all was well. They had gambled and lost. Under the rules of ideal capitalism, they should have suffered some “creative destruction,” and seen their shareholder value eliminated through bankruptcy, and their managers replaced. The entire banking system should have been reorganized from top to bottom as well. Instead, these colossal failures were secretly rewarded.  

2. Wall Street’s secret government made sure the largest banks would grow even larger, aided by the secret funding.

While Congress was debating legislation to break up the large banks and reinstitute Glass Steagall (to separate risky investment banking from insured commercial banking,) the secret government was using public funds to grow even larger through mergers and acquisitions. Because Congress and the public were unaware of the secret funding and ill-health of all the banks, the legislation was easily defeated. As the chart below makes painfully clear, too-big-to-fail banks grew even bigger.  

3. The bigger Wall Street becomes, the more government it can buy.

This part isn’t secret. As the top six banks grew larger, they spent more funds lobbying to make sure that they wouldn’t suffer any unprofitable impacts from banking reform legislation. So after the biggest banks received hundreds of billions in secret loans, they upped their lobbying funds to maintain their size and power. Read ‘em and weep:

4. Wall Street’s secret government protects its own.

At first, it’s not easy to understand how Treasury Secretary Paulson, the former head of Goldman Sachs, could risk attending a secret meeting with giant hedge fund managers, many of whom used to work at Goldman Sachs. How could the nation’s highest ranking financial official dare to tip off these hedge fund elites about the imminent government takeover of Fannie and Freddie before Congress and the public were informed? Well, one answer is that Paulson felt obliged to warn his old comrades of the impeding nationalization. Maybe, he wanted to get them out of harm’s way just in case they were heavily involved in those markets. Or maybe he also wanted to give them a very valuable tip to profit by. But the deeper explanation, I believe, is that Wall Street’s key government officials – Paulson, Summers, Geithner, Orszag (the former Obama OMB chief who now makes millions working for CitiGroup), etc. truly believe the following:

Wall Street banks are the best in the world and are the cutting-edge of the American economy. They are our future.

Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers are enormously smarter and sharper than the rest of us. They deserve our admiration.

Helping Wall Street to grow and prosper is precisely the same thing as helping all Americans and the entire economy. They deserve our support.

Secret meetings to provide insider information are normal on Wall Street. There’s nothing wrong with warning your friends about upcoming policy decisions that might impact their profits.

There’s also absolutely nothing wrong with providing trillions of dollars of secret loans to the best and the brightest and not telling Congress about it.

It’s all a closed loop of self-justification and self-deception: Wall Street is brilliant. What Wall Street does is for the good of the country. Helping Wall Street profit is good for the country. Hiding the truth from democratically elected leaders is also for the good of the country because Wall Street is brilliant and knows better.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11

Foreign Policy Jounal


Kevin Ryan
Just after September 11th 2001, many governments began investigations into possible insider trading related to the terrorist attacks of that day.  Such investigations were initiated by the governments of Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Monte Carlo, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United States, and others.  Although the investigators were clearly concerned about insider trading, and considerable evidence did exist, none of the investigations resulted in a single indictment.  That’s because the people identified as having been involved in the suspicious trades were seen as unlikely to have been associated with those alleged to have committed the 9/11 crimes.
This is an example of the circular logic often used by those who created the official explanations for 9/11.  The reasoning goes like this: if we assume that we know who the perpetrators were (i.e. the popular version of “al Qaeda”) and those who were involved in the trades did not appear to be connected to those assumed perpetrators, then insider trading did not occur.
That’s basically what the 9/11 Commission told us.  The Commission concluded that “exhaustive investigations” by the SEC and the FBI “uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions.”  What they meant was that someone did profit through securities transactions but, based on the Commission’s assumptions of guilt, those who profited were not associated with those who were guilty of conducting the attacks.  In a footnote, the Commission report acknowledged “highly suspicious trading on its face,” but said that this trading on United Airlines was traced back to “A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda.”[1]
With respect to insider trading, or what is more technically called informed trading, the Commission report was itself suspect for several reasons.  First, the informed trades relating to 9/11 covered far more than just airline companystock.  The stocks of financial and reinsurance companies, as well as other financial vehicles, were identified as being associated with suspicious trades.  Huge credit card transactions, completed just before the attacks, were also involved.  The Commission ultimately tried to frame all of this highly suspicious trading in terms of a series of misunderstandings.  However, the possibility that so many leading financial experts were so completely wrong is doubtful at best and, if true, would constitute another unbelievable scenario in the already highly improbable sequence of events represented by the official story of 9/11.
In the last few years, new evidence has come to light on these matters.  In 2006 and 2010, financial experts at a number of universities have established new evidence, through statistical analyses, that informed trades did occur with respect to the 9/11 attacks.  Additionally, in 2007, the 911 Commission released a memorandum summary of the FBI investigations on which its report was based.[2] A careful review of this memorandum indicates that some of the people who were briefly investigated by the FBI, and then acquitted without due diligence, had links to al Qaeda and to US intelligence agencies.  Although the elapsed time between the informed trades and these new confirmations might prevent legal action against the guilty, the facts of the matter can help lead us to the truth about 9/11.

Saturday, May 8, 2010

No joke: Goldman Sachs shorted Gulf of Mexico


Pure Energy Systems

It turns out that Goldman Sachs really did place shorts on TransOcean stock days before the explosions rocked the rig in the Gulf of Mexico sending stocks plunging while GS profits soared -- benefitting once again from a huge disaster, having done the same with airline stocks prior to 911 then again with the housing bubble.

by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News

On Apr. 30, the Huffington Post published a story stating:

In what is looming as another public relations predicament for Goldman Sachs, the banking giant admitted today that it made "a substantial financial bet against the Gulf of Mexico" one day before the sinking of an oil rig in that body of water.

The new revelations came to light after government investigators turned up new emails from Goldman employee Fabrice "Fabulous Fab" Tourre in which he bragged to a girlfriend that the firm was taking a "big short" position on the Gulf.

"One oil rig goes down and we're going to be rolling in dough," Mr. Tourre wrote in one email. "Suck it, fishies and birdies!"

Not being aware that the author, Andy Borowitz, is a comedian, scores of Internet sites ran with the story as being genuine. As of today, Google search on <Goldman Sachs shorted "Gulf of Mexico"> pulls up 207,000 returns, beginning with the Huffington Post link. Many, such as Infowars, pulled their stories when they realized the mistake.

Christopher Rudy noted:

The news about Goldman's bet against the Gulf comes on the heels of embarrassing revelations that the firm had taken a short position on the housing bubble, profiting from economic collapse, followed by more billions in government bailout support that paid out a couple billion in bonuses to thousands of loyal Goldman "officers" (corporate stakeholders).

We shouldn't be surprised. The owners of Goldman Sachs are the same Rothchilds co-owners of the privately held Federal Reserve Banking System, and they know how to play this game. Watch how Congress capitulates to Wall Street losses that the lap-dog press attributes to "bankster bashing".

Goldman Sachs just settled with the SEC for $450,000 (one guy's salary for a month; or the price of one nicer home lost, among millions due to the collapse) as punishment for shorting the mortgage balloon. (Ref.) They made billions in the crime.

StreetInsider.com reported on April 30 in their "Top 10" recap for that week:

Shares of Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) fell about 7% this week as execs were grilled on Capitol Hill and then, later in the week, the SEC referred its fraud case against the firm to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution. While much of Wall Street cheered Lloyd Blankfein's snappy responses to an onslaught of questions, Main Street rejoiced as Carl Levin "stumped" other execs with "meaningful" interrogation tactics aimed at exposing the corruption within the US financial industry.

You can certainly see why people would be quick to believe the comedian's satire piece about Goldman Sach's shorting the Gulf of Mexico.

However, just because his piece was satire, doesn't mean there isn't something to it. The reason humor is funny is because it lampoons reality, providing an exaggerative and simplified caricature to bring out the key issues in a non-threatening way. Historically, especially in times of heavy oppression, the best truth tellers have been the comedians. Benjamin Franklin certainly used humor to his advantage in helping to win America's Independence.

A. True Ott, Ph.D., wrote the following to me last night:

I have confirmed that there were indeed numerous "shorts" placed on TransOcean stock just days before the "problem". Was it Goldman Sachs? That is yet to be conclusively determined (there is indeed a SEC investigation ongoing) -- but labeling something as "satire" is a lawyer's shrewd trick to keep from being sued for slander -- even if it is all true. Moreover, there were massive shorts placed literally seconds after the news hit the airwaves.

Who would dare to quote the actual e-mails from "Fabulous Fab", unless the writer would post them as a "satire" - especially after what happened to the Wall Street Journal writers who dared expose the 9-11 short sales involving Goldman Sachs. (They were assigned to Afghanistan, and had fatal "accidents" there.)

Dr. Ott has subsequently confirmed from two sources that Goldman Sachs was indeed in on the shorts being placed on TransOcean stock. (See Email from Don Nicoloff documenting Goldman Sachs short puts on TransOcean stock.) And he has confirmed that the comedian was aware of that as well.

Dr. Ott had me and Paul Noel on his two-hour radio show yesterday talking about the viral article we posted, "Mother of All Gushers Could Kill Earth's Oceans".

In response to the alleged Goldman Sach's shorting story, Paul, who is an expert on the Gulf Oil subject, provided the following intelligence:

There is a reason they could have known the rig was going to fail up to two weeks ahead of its failure. The nature of these wells is that they leave the drill mud in the well and compress using very heavy drill mud to keep the well from blowing up unlimited. The well would begin to bump (similar to boiling a big bubble) and the acoustic signals would tell the rig was in trouble that far ahead. Goldman Sacks could just have had inside info. They also know the scale of things. This is the best explanation. It could be otherwise.

If you were going to sabotage a drilling team, all you would have to do is load a lighter mud in the mix as they pulled a drill pipe. .... There are lots of ways to have this happen either accidentally or deliberately. Goldman teams are great on statistical stuff sort of like the odds of rolling dice. They might just have figured stats for probability of a failure.??? Of course we could surmise other reasons are possible.

In our interview with Dr. Ott yesterday, both Paul and myself pointed to the magnitude of this disaster as hopefully a death knell to the oil industry, spurring people to finally provide the support needed to get the myriad of free/renewable energy technologiesthat have been languishing into the marketplace. These would not only be much cleaner than oil, without the huge environmental consequences and risks, but in many cases they could be cheaper than fossil-based energy; and many of them provide distributed capability removing the need for a central grid.

This revelation about those with insider knowledge in fact shorting the TransOcean stock prior to the explosions, will hopefully also spell the beginning of the end of the ultra corrupt financial faction who have wrested control over the worlds financial organs. Their days are numbered as they show their true colors in the midst of an increasingly enlightened populace who will not continue to take their abuses. These ultra power and wealth addicts need to be humbled by serving time in prison with common criminals who will not give them privileged treatment. A bullet or lethal injection would be far too merciful and dignified.

Do we have a shred of clean justice left in our corrupt government system which has been bought out, blackmailed, threatened, or otherwise brought under the control of these New World Order manipulators?

It's a dark day in which we live. But I am confident that brighter days are ahead. This time of transition is going to be a wild ride.

# # #

References