ProPublica

Journalism in the Public Interest

Cancel

NY Fed Fired Examiner Who Took on Goldman

Lawyer Carmen Segarra said she was pressured to change her finding that the way Goldman Sachs managed conflicts of interest was flawed.

« Return to Story

Sort by: Oldest Newest  <  1 2

Logan

Oct. 14, 2013, 2:25 p.m.

Well, before the comments disintegrate into name calling and agenda pushing, lets all agree that progressives, neo-liberals, neo-conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, ‘TeaBags’, Libtards (as the most childish of adults in our society style them) can all agree that this chick has a hell of a case and deserves to hold her entire leaderships feet to the fire on this issue.

Finally, some common ground EVERYONE can agree on. Manipulating regulation for financial gain is BAD. Seems too hard to find something everyone can actually support these days.

Good Job Propublica, on keeping the reporting fact based and unbiased, which you do not always do. Kudos.

Archie1954

Oct. 14, 2013, 3:25 p.m.

But Mr. Greenwood, it isn’t the poor who are destroying balanced budgets. It isn’t welfare that is increasing the deficit. It is in fact a bad choice by all US administrations with help from Congress. The choice to export violence everywhere in the world, the setting up and maintenance of over 700 military bases in foreign countries, the purchase of military armaments. All of these are poor choices and the result of such government errors of judgement is the destruction of American society and American infrastructure. The nation is literally bleeding itself to death. Don’t blame today’s problems on the poor.

R. T. Greenwood

Oct. 14, 2013, 3:41 p.m.

I agree with the military stuff completely but it’s everything and yes including the poor who are a drain on resources rather than paying a fair share FOR resources.

Dina J Padilla

Oct. 14, 2013, 3:50 p.m.

The military budget is about what percentage of our government budget? About 2/3rd’s and that’s not counting all of the money corporations gave and made off of the war via KPMG & lots of it made under the table.  The war products are also on the stock market like invest in fighting machines, night goggles or humvees…. anything that our soldiers will need to fight these so called “wars” but one can make a lot of investment money in one’s own portfolio and really isn’t all this is ever about, making money at any cost including wars for oil? OH Yeah, forgot about the oil. What DOE contractor(s) made out on that?
Who owned the oil drills and oil pipes that went into the Mideast?
The poor WERE created because the money was being used for war & the oil,, a well oiled plan…. while everything else, like real jobs were & were not being created. AND when you blame the poor, the real attention to the those who caused the biggest deficit diverted our attention by blaming the newly created “poor”.

Lavonne Khayyat

Oct. 15, 2013, 4:13 p.m.

RE. Jim’s comment (Oct 10) “Well, there goes the NY Fed’s claims of freedom from conflict of interest.  Of course, everyone knows the folks who ran Goldman Sachs are too important to fail.” 

I like the description I heard from a politico/economist source that shall remain anonymous: “too important to jail”.

Stephanie Palmer

Oct. 15, 2013, 4:47 p.m.

Actually this is the single best news story I’ve heard all day. It’s about time that we held these “pillars of society” to account for their nefarious business practices which have caused so many of us to lose our hard earned savings. I look forward to the scathing evidence that’s presented.

so tame

Oct. 15, 2013, 8:20 p.m.

Ok, so where is the SEC prosecution & perhaps whistleblower protection that is provided under Dodd/Franks {gawd the dodd/franks makes me cringe just saying those farcical names)? 

It isn’t like all these the toobigtofail banks are not under Federal contract, with literally billions or millions/day thru The Federal Reserve Board, yanno to be misused in transactions such as this El Paso and whatever else the plaintiff could possibly prove.

so tame;)

carolyn

Oct. 15, 2013, 10:53 p.m.

ibsteve2u: I like your ProPublica delayed post - an especially well documented rundown on the Koch’s bros. environmental record. Just a piece of a much larger picture which, when combined, clearly shows their agenda to rid this nation of any hindrances towards their goal of rapid, unfettered wealth accumulation. Short term “thinking”, not caring that the end game would result in the destruction of their consumer base along with a degraded environment for future generations.

Soros and Buffet are regarded as traitors to the teaparty “cause” since not only are they very successful, rich, self-made men, they are long term thinkers who make their views about societal needs known. I’m sure neither are saints, but both possess a global view, have a deep understanding of how inextricably tied all countries are to the world economy, how the balances between nations and their economies change with changing politics, and how the US has been rapidly losing its edge domestically due to eroding consumer buying power (accelerating along with our increasingly polarized domestic economic politics ). Soros and Buffet are both strong proponents of economic stability which they realize requires a more equitable spread of wealth along with an even playing field for all populations. They fully understand that an economically healthy consumer base is absolutely vital to maintain the stability and growth required to continue their success into the future.

The SEC and the FED should be staffed with people who, along with Carmen Segarra, also possess this very basic understanding.

R. T. Greenwood

Oct. 16, 2013, 7:02 a.m.

More liberal Archie Bunker comments proving my point that every belief of the Tea Party is extreme. I,e, because they oppose some actions of the EPA and its wielding of power that they want to destroy the environment and create health hazards everywhere.

James

Oct. 16, 2013, 1:05 p.m.

Our regulatory agencies need to be separated from the institutions they regulate, and the regulators themselves need to be paid a percentage commission based on the fraud monies and penalties they’ve recovered.  That would help incentivise them.

We get what we pay for.

Kudos to Segarra.  Hopefully she’ll get a big settlement.

ibsteve2u

Oct. 16, 2013, 8:34 p.m.

@R.T. Greenwood, who spake thusly:  When Ron Paul says he does not believe in the FAA he is saying we need freedom so a few hundred plane crashes a year is the price of freedom?

Nah…Paul is saying that the level of passenger safety - like the age a person lives to - should be a function of wealth possessed.

I.e., do away with regulation so that the airlines can selectively let safety slide…some aircraft get all of the maintenance needed to keep them safe, some aircraft get 70% of the maintenance now required, some get [...] only 10%...

After a few gross thousand Americans fall out of the sky, hinging the public’s probability of survival on their ability to pay for seats on various steps of maintained aircraft would become quite the profit generator.

Not to mention the fact that the labor and equipment costs of the maintenance eliminated (and the pensions of the aircrew of aircraft that go down) become pure profit.

(What, you don’t think the airlines - influenced by modern so-called “conservatives” - would do that?  All of the regulations that protect the American people now were not created in a vacuum…they came into being because somebody, somewhere in America was jeopardizing the financial and/or physical safety of the American people in the name of self-enrichment.

And that “competition” and “the free market” argument won’t hold water, either.  Without regulation, every sector would become dominated by monopolies…

That has been the intent and effect of the merger and acquisition activity of the last 25 post-Reagan years. 

Ya think the rest of America’s CEOs like just watching the way Big Oil can extort “profit” into private taxation with their collusive monopoly?  lolllll….)

Joe Collins

Oct. 18, 2013, 1:54 p.m.

She will spend at least four years defending herself.  It will cost her more than she would ever like to pay.  She will come to doubt herself.  Memory will fade.  She’ll probably win financially but it won’t matter.  She will never get paid and even if she does she will be permanently changed forever- and not for the better.  Until you have been a whistleblower you have no clue what it is like.

Dina J Padilla

Oct. 18, 2013, 2:26 p.m.

I remember when good was rewarded and now with corporations in charge of everything, that no longer exists. Yes, once this woman became a whistle blower, her life will be forever changed and not for the good, unless she never regrets blowing the whistle and can live with her self and her decisions to tell the truth for the common good Those that dare persecute the good guy or the good woman, belong in hell!. The corporations who claim citizenship, lack the one thing that whistle blower’s have, a conscience!

Barbara

Oct. 28, 2013, 3:49 p.m.

She has integrity, honor and the people who suffers by behind closed doors decisions - to heart. I pray for you.

Tiffany

Nov. 2, 2013, 9:18 p.m.

This is stunning.  I’ve worked at law firms all my life, 11 of those years in administration.  We had to have a competent conflicts policy in order to obtain liability insurance for business practices.  Another firm for which I worked had the entire conflicts process automated, and each and every new case had to go through that process and was eye-balled by a risk manager who had more authority than any of the attorneys in this regard.  There is no excuse for this, other than greed, ego and corruption at the highest levels.  I hope Segarra kicks their asses all over the courtroom.

ibsteve2u

Nov. 3, 2013, 6 a.m.

@Tiffany:  I bet he was told he could give up on becoming a member of The Metropolitan Club, too.

(And/or the <i>Core, Harvard, Yale, and University clubs…or, of course, the Knick.)

Dina J. Padilla

Nov. 3, 2013, 2:48 p.m.

Humans being referred to as a wasteland speaks for itself and why this country has bottomed out because there are people who think that somehow they are better than many others who aren’t afforded real opportunities and I remember when it did happen! No good education,  no good paying jobs and no opportunity leaves people with their devices for their own demise and the insurance (risk) companies are betting on all of it.
WHY give people opportunity to make it better when risk insurance companies are counting on you dying sooner with others investing in it for their retirement and perhaps it is one of those who think of people as wasteland!? AND none of us are off of that list! NONE OF US!

ibsteve2u

Nov. 4, 2013, 2:09 p.m.

@Tiffany:  I bet she was told she could give up on becoming a member/associate member of The Metropolitan Club, too.

(And/or the Core, Harvard, Yale, and University clubs…or, of course, the Knick.)

———

There, fixed that…I get so very used to “the bad guy” being just that - a guy - that the gender bias sneaks into anything I say on the subject…even, it appears, when speaking of a victim such as Carmen Segarra.

(In my defense, at least it doesn’t take a startling exception like a Leona Helmsley to remind me to always look both ways.)

Ramin

Nov. 6, 2013, 4:12 a.m.

Some examiners become victims of having too much skepticism. I think it is a common practice everywhere that very aggressive findings are being polished before published.
Ambitions and ego oftentimes problematically work agains those who were given power to investigate or examine others. It is Carmen’s subjective opinion that her findings are objective. Lack of description in finding’s description, cause, criteria, effect and risk can make it invalid. For istance, if policies on the conflict of interest have not been provided, it does not necessarily mean those policies are absent. It could be due to: - lack of care and responsibility to make available all the documents to an examiner; or due to intentionally hiding them because of their poor quality or because actual practices do not confirm to policies. As a matter of fact, jumping into a conclusion without in-depth analysis of reasons and causes, is a widespread deficiency in the profession.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.