From: Norris, Jeffrey B.Curiously, SEC chairman Christopher Cox recused himself from the commission vote on whether to bring charges against Cuban.
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 2:27 PM
To: Mark Cuban
Cc: Cox, Christopher
Subject: RE: “Lose Change”
I AM SHARING THIS WITH CHAIRMAN COX. NEITHER HE NOR THE COMMISSION ENDORSE MY OPINIONS, BUT IN LIGHT OF YOUR THREAT, I THOUGHT SHOULD SEND THIS TO HIM.
Mark:
If this upsets you, I wonder how George Bush feels. I assume that Mr. Cox would view your involvement with “Loose Change” much as I do. After all, he served his country as a Republican Congressman from Orange County for nearly 20 years and was appointed by President Bush. If you feel like sharing my thoughts with Chairman Cox, be my guest.
Previously, I thought you were merely foolish and naïve (sic). Now, however, I see that you are also a hypocrite. I guess your belief in free speech has severe limitations. If someone else is the victim of an absurd conspiracy theory, you defend your right to participate in smearing the good name of of a patriot like President Bush. But, when you are the subject of a parody of the attack you have endorsed, you suddenly issue threats.
I think I will e-mail this to Chairman Cox myself. I think he will enjoy it. I’m sure he is also a Laker (sic)fan.
Since Chairman Cox may not know the background, I will explain. Mark Cuban is the owner of the Dallas Mavericks and has participated in distributing the vicious and absurd documentary, “Loose Change,” which posits that President Bush planned the demolition of the World Trade Center as a pretext for going to war against Iraq. We have had some past exchanges about my opinion the Mr. Cuban’s support for this project is irresponsible and immoral. Below, I parodied his position that every opinion, no matter how absurd and vicious, deserves to be broadly disseminated.
People who criticize the SEC have a much higher chance of having an enforcement action brought against them and we're going to demonstrate that. Very persuasively. In the right forum.
A senior Republican senator is seeking an investigation into potential conflicts of interest among former Goldman Sachs executives serving at the US Treasury and whether any officials exceeded their authority by implementing a controversial tax change without the approval of Congress.Since ex-Goldman CEO and current Treasury Secretary Paulson signed and approved the tax change, this investigation is headed right at Paulson.
Chuck Grassley, the most senior Republican on the Senate finance committee, asked Eric Thorson, inspector-general of the Treasury, to investigate the "independence" of several Treasury officials who formerly worked at Goldman Sachs and serve as advisers to Treasury secretary Hank Paulson, the former chief executive of the Wall Street bank.
Mr Grassley said in a letter to Mr Thorson that there was reason to be concerned that “relationships” between the officials and board members at two merging banks, Wells Fargo and Wachovia, gave the “appearance of preferential treatment”.
Mr Grassley singled out Robert Steel, a former Goldman official who worked under Mr Paulson at the Treasury before he became chief executive of Wachovia...
Mr Grassley, who has a reputation for aggressively uncovering and pursuing tax evasion, has a previous working relationship with Mr Thorson, who served as chief investigator for the Senate finance committee and whom Mr Grassley once praised for having “integrity and courage”.
Europe's economy officially collapsed into recession for the first time since its inception during the third quarter ... The eurozone, made up of the 15 countries that use the euro as their primary currency, shrank by 0.2 percentage points between July and the end of September, having contracted by the same margin during the preceding three months as well. ...
Germany and Italy, the continent's largest and fourth largest economies, dragged the eurozone down – both slipped into recession during the third quarter. Spain also suffered its first quarter of negative growth in 15 years. However, France just managed to maintain a positive growth rate.
Japan's economy, the world's second largest, contracted more than economists expected in the third quarter, confirming it entered its first recession since 2001 as companies cut back spending.The United States has not yet been officially declared in recession, Jeffrey Frankel who directs the program in International Finance and Macroeconomics at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is also a member of the Business Cycle Dating Committee, says:
Gross domestic product fell an annualized 0.4 percent in the three months ended Sept. 30 ...
The weight of evidence is now overwhelming: We are currently in recession.
It is just outrageous that the American people don't know that Congress doesn't know how much money he (Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson) has given away to anyone.Inhofe wants to freeze what is left of the initial $350 billion — reportedly $60 billion, but Inhofe concedes he does not know for sure, according to the Tulsa World.
It could be to his friends. It could be to anybody else. We don't know. There is no way of knowing.
He was able to get this authority from Congress predicated on what he was going to do, and then he didn't do it.
I have learned a long time ago. When they come up and say this has to be done and has to be done immediately, there is no other way of doing it, you have to sit back and take a deep breath and nine times out of 10 they are not telling the truth.
And this is one of those nine times.
John Gutfreund did violence to the Wall Street social order—and got himself dubbed the King of Wall Street—when he turned Salomon Brothers from a private partnership into Wall Street’s first public corporation. He ignored the outrage of Salomon’s retired partners. (“I was disgusted by his materialism,” William Salomon, the son of the firm’s founder, who had made Gutfreund C.E.O. only after he’d promised never to sell the firm, had told me.)
He lifted a giant middle finger at the moral disapproval of his fellow Wall Street C.E.O.s. And he seized the day. He and the other partners not only made a quick killing; they transferred the ultimate financial risk from themselves to their shareholders. It didn’t, in the end, make a great deal of sense for the shareholders.
But it made fantastic sense for the investment bankers. From that moment, though, the Wall Street firm became a black box. The shareholders who financed the risks had no real understanding of what the risk takers were doing, and as the risk-taking grew ever more complex, their understanding diminished. The moment Salomon Brothers demonstrated the potential gains to be had by the investment bank as public corporation, the psychological foundations of Wall Street shifted from trust to blind faith.
No investment bank owned by its employees would have levered itself 35 to 1 or bought and held $50 billion in mezzanine C.D.O.s. I doubt any partnership would have sought to game the rating agencies or leap into bed with loan sharks or even allow mezzanine C.D.O.s to be sold to its customers. The hoped-for short-term gain would not have justified the long-term hit.
Now I asked Gutfreund about his biggest decision. “Yes,” he said. “They—the heads of the other Wall Street firms—all said what an awful thing it was to go public and how could you do such a thing. But when the temptation arose, they all gave in to it.” He agreed that the main effect of turning a partnership into a corporation was to transfer the financial risk to the shareholders. “When things go wrong, it’s their problem,” he said—and obviously not theirs alone. When a Wall Street investment bank screwed up badly enough, its risks became the problem of the U.S. government . “It’s laissez-faire until you get in deep shit,” he said, with a half chuckle. He was out of the game.