Exclusive: Bank of America's trading practices have been probed, filing shows

Comments (12)
UNY wrote:

The concept of enough is foreign to these greedy plutocratic pigs. Even when they literally have their hired lobbyists write the law (so as to make what was once illegal, legal) and have a revolving door relationship with all the regulators (in other words teh guys “investigating” BOA today will be working for the bank tomorrow) these greedy pigs STILL have to steal. It’s kind of pathetic really. I used to get mad but now i just kind of pity the greedy pigs. After all, these are people who would sell their mothers and children into bondage if it brought them a few more bucks and shiny trinkets.

Poor, pitiful, pathetic, greedy pigs….

Jan 25, 2014 10:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
Gillison wrote:

Here is a good news for all: http://www.insidertradingwire.com/sandberg-sherylchief-operating-officer-of-facebook-inc-sells-16401096-worth-of-shares-symbol-fb/

Jan 25, 2014 1:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bertanderson wrote:

Seriously, another banking scandal, I’ve completely lost track of the number of banking, mortgage lending and investment company law suits in process. All I know is that the penalties are tiny relative to the profits so it’s no wonder these companies operate this way. The trading complexity is way out of hand. There are so many derivatives products that only these industries can understand them. If the regulators were to take away their licences for 5 years or more and put the CEOs in jail…wow, I think we would see them cleaning up their act. I read about them paying billions in penalties and this is just pocket change. I don’t know what the solutions is…it’s very sad state of affairs.

Jan 25, 2014 1:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
breezinthru wrote:

Exactly why would anyone want to do business with B of A, GS,JPM, etc?
They have well established that they have a high regard for their own profit and little regard for their customers and even less regard for ethical behavior.

Jan 25, 2014 4:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SaveRMiddle wrote:

Please don’t fine them. They pass it down to the consumer. Just ask them to not do it again.

Jan 25, 2014 6:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PaulBradley wrote:

@bertanderson – I think you are pretty much ‘on target’ . . .

@breezinthru wrote: “Exactly why would anyone want to do business . . ”
Well, POLITICAL POWER !!! Take Goldman Sachs, for example. Influence can be exerted not only through people but through money, awards, sponsored scholarship, and creation of an agenda favorable to Goldman Sachs (which is where Brookings and the Hamilton Project come in and have proved especially useful to Goldman Sachs). . . . etc., etc., etc., etc.

Jan 25, 2014 6:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PaulBradley wrote:

P.S. Understand that “The highest return on assets is always a political contribution.”

Jan 25, 2014 6:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PaulBradley wrote:

P.S. Understand that “The highest return on assets is always a political contribution.”

Jan 25, 2014 6:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
breezinthru wrote:

@PaulBradley
But if you managed a pension fund, for example, why would you invest through any of the Wall Street Banks? You would have a obligation to look out for the best interests of your shareholders and you would also know that the advice and assistance you get from Wall Street banks may very well be only in the bank’s interest.

Jan 25, 2014 6:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PaulBradley wrote:

@breezinthru – - It’s a question that demands answer on a very complex situation with a lot of possibilities.

One simple answer, without having to write a book, is that a motive for a ‘pension fund’ “investing through any of the Wall Street Banks” such as Goldman Sachs is the logical access to ‘insider information’ to assure successful investment that the ‘fund’ might not have available.

You have to understand that if you own or having controlling interest in an entity such as Brookings or Hamilton, for example, you can’t be sued for ‘insider information’ which in reality is created through legal communication with these entities that, through carefully crafted influence on a particular government body’s decision is expected to have an influence on a targeted related segment of the market.

I don’t think your average ‘pension fund’ is in a position equal to such strength, in terms of information, such is afforded to, for the sake of the example, Wall Street ‘market-maker’ such as Goldman Sachs.

After all, based on the testimony of Goldman’s Chairman – Lloyd Blankfein – to one of the U.S. Senate’s investigative committee and widely televised: “We do God’s work”! To me it translates to: “We are untouchable!” What ‘fund’ enjoys that kind of work with ‘God’s blessing’??? Only few of the ‘chosen’!:-)

Jan 25, 2014 9:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Laster wrote:

@bertanderson wrote:

Seriously, another banking scandal, I’ve completely lost track of the number of banking, mortgage lending and investment company law suits in process.

Yes, and the whole notion becomes even more absurd when you consider the large banks are using their commercial customer’s FDIC insured accounts, and subsequent fee structures, at 0% interest to make large bets in the derivatives market.
As if frontrunning a government (read taxpayer) backstopped, and FRB supported entity wasn’t enough.

Jan 26, 2014 8:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Smauney wrote:

Let’s wind down FNMA & FMCC and give it all to BOA. To heck with FDR what did he know? Party on and pass the weed!

Jan 28, 2014 3:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.