Billionaire Rajaratnam Just a Poor Schmuck

We harbored no illusions that Raj Rajaratnam was going to beat the rap for insider trading, but we were rooting for him just the same. The hedge-fund billionaire faces a possible life sentence after being convicted by a jury on Wednesday on all 14 counts of a case billed as the biggest insider-trading scandal of them all. The poor schmuck! Like some zoo specimen of ecopistes miratorius, the common pigeon, he seems so very unlucky for having been one guy among 10,000 quasi-criminals on Wall Street whom the Feds chose to make an example of. Now Rajaratnam will go to jail for crimes against no one in particular, even though many of his colleagues who stole directly from investors through deceit, misrepresentation and gray-area fraud will remain free and unaccused. And rich. Moreover, at the time Rajaratnam was trading on insider tips, there were so many trillions of dollars’ worth of funny money swirling in the financial ether that, however much of the grand sum he stole, no other investor could demonstrably have been denied his fair share.

Because the crimes Raj is accused of committing are far worse than the ones that sent Martha Stewart to prison, it seems highly doubtful he’ll avoid doing time in a minimum security prison. Recall that Martha did what any of us would have done if we’d received a phone call from our broker’s clerk warning that a company in which we held quite a few shares was about to announce some bad news: She dumped the shares. However, because the Feds couldn’t get a jury to convict her for doing what most of us would have done, they ultimately sent her to prison for covering up the paper trail.  And while Raj may also have lied to those who prosecuted him, over-the-top self-promoter that he was, we doubt that he would have lied to his clients. They all knew the guy was wired and that he had become rich by leveraging the most exclusive stock tips that money could buy. As far as the investors were concerned, it was undoubtedly a case of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Raj’s returns were too good to be true — but, hey, maybe the guy just had the Midas touch.

A Peddler of ‘Good Stuff’

So it was with Bernie Madoff.  His top money-raisers undoubtedly knew that Bernie’s returns were inexplicably high. But hey, maybe he’s been on a roll for the last 20 years. Yeah, sure. They’ll all get sued to death, and beaten in court, by Madoff’s intrepid trustee, Irving Picard. But at least none of them will go to jail. They’re lucky to live in an era in which the moral boundaries of white-collar crime have grown so faint that we’ve ceased to recognize that the financial system itself is run as a quasi-criminal enterprise. When Facebook goes public for $50 billion, the ridiculous mark-ups over wholesale will all be there in the prospectus. Maybe that’s how Raj should have operated, carving out a large gray area by disclosing that the sources of his hot tips could not be assumed reliable.  For what it’s worth, nearly all of the hot-tips to which we’ve been privy personally — but, perforce, did not act upon — would have produced a loss, not a gain. Give credit to Rajaratnam for peddling good stuff to clients willing to pay top dollar for it, even while his less successful colleagues, all of them hypocrites, continue to sell unmitigated swill to a gullible public.

(If you’d like to have Rick’s Picks commentary delivered free each day to your e-mail box, click here.)

  • tip o neill May 23, 2011, 8:22 pm

    gd story!
    Prof’s say “W’s gov’s only can pay int. no way to
    pay down prin. (unless as you say w/ inflated printed
    funds). U = . S total pub pvt debts est $75t,
    or prof says ctwo hundred trillion , gdp us$14/t/yr,
    debts 13x gdp.”

  • John Jay May 15, 2011, 9:08 pm

    Inflation update:
    Hershey candy bars have just gone up to $1.19 from $.89 at the local Vons here in Los Angeles.
    I had to look closely at the price sticker to be sure.
    They were $.69 about four months ago.
    You can always catch them on sale, but still, the on sale price will now be $.89, and not $.69.
    That is about a 70% increase from about four months ago.

    &&&&&

    You’re not measuring Hershey-bar inflation correctly until you’ve tasted the “chocolate.” If you try a Hershey’s kiss after you’ve been eating good chocolate for a while, you’ll find nothing to like about Hershey’s. The ingredients have changed, much for the worse, so that today’s $1.19 bar is not even remotely the equal of its 10-cent, 1955 predecessor. A similar comparison could be made between college tuitions circa 1955 and today’s tuitions, which are 30 times higher. Allowing for the depreciation in quality, you could infer that college costs 100 times as much today. RA

    • Chris T. May 16, 2011, 6:10 am

      Rick, like the point.
      SUGAR! (of HFC when possible to substitute), or art. sweetener.

      Here is another one for you:
      try to find a good old-fashioned bubble-gum (Bubble Yum, Bubbleicious) WITHOUT any artificial sweetener.
      You can tell by the reduction in girth of each piece alone, that less mass is in one.
      Why, because ANY of the nasty art. sweeteners is cheaper for equivalent sweetness (not taste of course) than any ag.-commodity derved sugar.
      These things are now a sugar/fake sugar mix.

      What’s left is Bazooka Joe, but they are now full of anti-oxidant/preservatives (BHA, BHQ, etc), as longer shelf life=less cost.

      Sad, sad
      (btw: no matter how unhealthy sugar or HFC might be, any of the artificial sweeteners, any, are worse. Best to leave on the shelf or out of the coffee)

      On a more serious note: When there was a qualitative “improvement” the hedonic adjustment shenanigans, etc of the CPI were put in place, but let’s wager a large bet that the declines in quality are completely ignored.

      &&&&&&&

      Indeed. Otherwise, 10 zillion Hershey’s kisses with cocoa butter gone missing might negate the implied economic benefits of Gresham’s law. RA

  • mario cavolo May 15, 2011, 1:37 pm

    Rick, the college bubbbbbble has more than spread to
    nouveau white collar China..the average online EMBA in affiliation with some fancy schmancy university partnership between U.S. or European and China universities, HEC Paris in particular http://www.hec-emba.com.cn , doing a marketing binge extraordinaire here, with an average fee of 500,000rmb…that’s $80k plus….and the #1 reason cited by grads as to the value?…the guanxi gained being in the alumni group, which exactly fits the cultural/relationship thinking here…

    Cheers, Mario

  • Chris T. May 15, 2011, 12:10 am

    Kabitzer, you write:

    “If not Society, a group of people, then who should decide what is criminal behavior and what is acceptable behavior?”

    Very simply any behavior which does not affect other people.
    Your overall comment just justifies tyranny, because it is one group telling another what to do, or what not do to.
    We are and have been on a road to losing everything that once made us civilized.
    Take the example of the old common law rule:
    “Your are NOT your brother’s keeper”
    This centuries old precept means that you do NOT have to render aid, just because there is a need.
    Now the Roman-civil system has always punished “acts of ommision” in the same way it has punished “acts of commission”. But an act of ommission is simply something you did NOT do, that someone else has decided you should do.
    That is tyranny.
    It doesn’t matter if that decision what you should do was made by one person, by a small group of people or even by a majority vote of most.

    You probably would not understand the following argument:
    Taxation is theft, because if one person does not have the right to take from you, then just because a bunch of them decided to take from you by a 51-49 vote makes it no more right.

    Why the mention of the act of omission above? Because you only need to look around you today and see how that old principle has been eviscerated.

    ” Why do we criminalize “public nudity”, “public intoxication”

    Yes, why indeed?
    Please YOU justify them, I do not believe either should be crminalized, as those mere “acts” (they really are not acts at all:
    Your natural state is one of being nude, so criminalizing public nudity is FORCING you to do something — putting on clothes. ), they are just states of being.
    How do they hurt anyone else?
    By corrupting children? That argument could be mustered to snuff out most human action in one way or another, and as to the whole concept of child-worship, I refer you to the eminent George Carlin.

    But more to the point of public nudity, because you brought it up:
    Apparently “society” has decided that its “moral sensibilities” are somehow offended by that, so LETS BAN it under threat of force.
    That this is only a specific-to-time-and-place sensibility is clear when you look at native tribes in the jungle or the Greek civilization, neither of which have/had a problem with it.

    But in todays context:
    This modern society of ours is filled by the fat-rolled, waddling, sloppily dressed humanity I call my fellow countrymen, and in one way this multitude of 300/400/500 lbs lard butts offends me, I simply don’t like the sight of them (even if I never have to suffer that actual discomfort of being squeezed out of my subway seat, when they plunk down next to me.)

    So, just like public nudity, you would feel that it is acceptable, if the society, by a majority vote, decides to make public fat-ness criminal, and forces them to stay out of our sight?
    While it may seem absurd to you, your argument makes it possible, so long as that “society” has at that point decided to do so. Just look at the public hysteria about child nudity and pictures of nude children, when most of us who were children 30+ years ago can probably find pictures of us as kids playing in the buff on the beach. Today? People have actually gotten prosecuted for that.

    Me, I would be opposed to this, because, while my sensibilities may be revolted by these lard-butts, I realize that they are doing NOTHING to me that affects me otherwise.
    Just to show you how very little theoretical that actually is, what about those communities in the US that banned dancing as somehow being offensive?

    As to your last comment, the whole willful disregard of the law thing, you are using circular logic:
    Because a jury convicted him, he must have broken the law. You are taking the outcome as the proof of his guilt, not anything else.
    Because no person was every wrongly convicted, and every prisoner in every jail is guilty?

    In federal court, juries convict based upon how a case, the facts, and the law applying to those facts is presented to them (assuming non of the by-and-large-braindead masses are part of the jury).
    But if the system skews all of that in its favor, putting novel interpretations on laws (just look at how RICO is (ab)used today vs. its targeted intent upon passage, or the legal-interpretation shenannigans of a John Woo), disallowing defense information to the contrary, etc, then even the best jury can be found to convict, but that still is no proof that a certain conduct actually violated the law.

    That that law shouldn’t even exist is a different argument, and one which you hardly even acknowldeged other than sarcastically.
    Look at the work of Walter Bloch, Murray Rothbard, Steven Kinsella if you really are willing to even think about these things, otherwise, there is no substance to your comment.

    Finally, as to your comment “nonsensical….. HUH”, just because you didn’t understand doesn’t mean it is nonsense.

    It is really a very simple concept,not hard to understand.
    The elite I am referring to at the outset, that cadre of people that has been ruining this country for quite some time (by its own deeds, or through those of its puppets) for its own gain, at the expense of the rest of us, makes the rules of the system.
    Which means they by-and-large get all the benefits without breaking any rules for which they could be punished.
    No need to buy a judge, or a prosecutor (Mafia-style) if you keep your conduct from being illegal in the first place.
    Only the little guys have to game the system, the big guys create it.
    If you still can not understand that, sorry.

  • Tsutomu Tomutsu May 14, 2011, 6:34 am

    If it’s come down to composing poetry, I’ve got a few haiku to do this debacle justice:

    Insatiable greed
    But scheme collapses, oh no!
    It’s time for prison

    This fat tick got ripped
    Off the dog’s back before he
    Could suck out all blood

    10,000 shysters
    Time to make an example
    It’s your lucky day

    Gelatinous mass
    Glistening with salty gel
    What the hell is it?

    (Ok, that last one is from an old Spam haiku contest, as I recall… I ran out of inspiration.)

  • A. Ran Fand May 14, 2011, 5:11 am

    In honor of poem night at the White House the other night.

    Wallow in the Greed
    If you could learn how much I earn,
    I’m sure to see you blush!
    To earn the stipend that I do
    Will mean therefore, I look at you
    From high above in my success
    And say to you, ‘Poor thing, God bless.’

    The greedy bastard that I am –
    I love to drown in bling!
    Unlike you – so bloody poor, and
    Picking coins up off the floor!
    But sorry mate, I’m not to blame –
    The fact your bank account is lame!

    Come and see my flashy car,
    Awash inside with leather –
    I saw the battered wreck you drive,
    Spewing out its oily smog!
    Your banger, friend, is such a dog –
    Clanking out its dialogue.

    I shall die in gleaming wealth,
    Floating out in gentle stealth –
    Having bought an excellent health.
    As for you, my hard-up mate,
    You’ll fade away a slave to fate,
    Surviving on the welfare state.

    Copyright Mark R Slaughter 2009

  • Ramakrishnan Krishnaraman May 14, 2011, 12:53 am

    So just because there are 10,000 other Wall Street shysters who haven’t (yet) gotten their due, this shyster is somehow a poor, singled-out schmuck? In my book, skulduggery is skulduggery, whether perpetrated by one individual or one billion. What goes around comes around — eventually, one way or another.

  • roger erickson May 13, 2011, 8:51 pm

    cops tear-gas protesters in Athens
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGETccFkVCc

    it costs a lot to keep a population suppressed & underperforming; must be one helluva perceived profit margin;
    what makes it worthwhile?

    it’s no longer just a rentier mentality, it’s scaled up to distant-rentier perspectives hopelessly diverging from population alignment

    we need access to far more info, faster, or we’ll never converge fast enough to coordinate growing populations to emerging contexts

    this is just tragic

    • Robert May 17, 2011, 12:43 am

      Hmmm- more access to far more info, faster…

      Maybe when the Borg finally arrive to assimilate all of us.

      Does not “convergence” reek of collectivism? It does to me. Once we are all homogenized and “coordinated” will the essence of personal taste and preference not evaporate soon after?

      Roger- your ideals scare me. Nature abhors a vacuum.

      Meantime- I’m sticking with the right of the individual not to have his property or his livelihood
      F-ed with by anyone else, save the market.

  • Chris T. May 13, 2011, 8:00 pm

    Cabernet and Kabitzer:

    Your cheering is purely outcome driven, of the sock-it-to-them mentality.
    While I fully agree that the connected-elite has been conning us for years, and deserves to be treated harshly by the rest of us, that elite DOES NOT break the rules by-and-large to enrich themselves off of the rest of us.
    They MAKE THE rules they need, so it is primarily not criminal, but systemically accepted.
    Therefore, they can not be prosecuted in the way you are cheering here, nothing to prosecute (or anyone to do it, the prosecutors are part of the system too).

    BUT: your cheering mentality is exactly that which has led to the decay of even those rules that do exist, and their abuse by said elite, not by what they themselves do, but what they do to us.
    Think this guy should be in jail “for something”?
    No problem we’ll find a way.
    Think we can extract information from (put your favorite Gitmo name here)?
    No problem lets apply whatever treatment is necessary.
    This attitude justifies the Nifong’s of this world, and only serves to make us poorer because our civil liberties are being eviscerated.

    Your comment about this being some sort of crime “against everyone in general” shows exactly what type of crime it is: a non-crime, criminal only because a group of peopel decided to say that it should be criminal.
    Just like making marijuana illegal.
    No one not a party to the transaction (whether “insider trading” or buying a nickel bag) is hurt, both agree to it.

    The so-called effect on the public is just smokescreen:
    With that argument, just about ANY thing can be criminalized, no transaction or human action will have no effect on society. We could ban you eating meat, taking a vacation, etc, because there is always an opportunity cost.

    The supposed social ill of insider trading that goes beyond the above stated “some form of effect” rests on shoddy economic analysis. For a realy perspective on this, and that “insider trading” actually is a victimless crime economically speaking, see theMises institute.

    Bottom line:
    a) shouldn’t be prosecuted because it shouldn’t be criminal in the first place
    b) and if prosecuted then at least not by bending the rules, ie. coming up with novel spins on the meanig of some vague federal statue or regulation.

    See Bill Andersons articles about the horrendous conduct of the Dept of Justices prosecutions and the spineless judiciary’s complicity.
    There is no one who couldn’t be indicted or convicted in federal court for something, so a conviction there does not mean “guilty” at all in the way carbernet inferrs

    • Kabitzer May 14, 2011, 12:19 pm

      I won’t attempt to respond to your opening remarks, since they appear to be simply nonsensical. “They MAKE THE rules they need, so it is primarily not criminal, but systemically accepted.” HUH??

      However, you state: “Your comment about this being some sort of crime “against everyone in general” shows exactly what type of crime it is: a non-crime, criminal only because a group of people decided to say that it should be criminal.”

      If not Society, a group of people, then who should decide what is criminal behavior and what is acceptable behavior? Why do we criminalize “public nudity”, “public intoxication”, “Driving under the Influence” (assuming one gets to wherever he is going without a mishap), “Driving without a license”, “carrying non-permitted firearms on your person wherever you go”, “speeding through school zones (or anywhere for that matter)”, and “not stopping for red lights or 4-way stop signs when no one else is around”. There are no victims here. I could go on and on with “victimless crime” examples.

      Then you say, “No one not a party to the transaction (whether “insider trading” or buying a nickel bag) is hurt, both agree to it.” I see your point here. We can extend the argument to soliciting a prostitute, buying liquor on Sunday (better yet, 24/7), fornicating in the park (a little afternoon delight) maybe even with a “consenting” 15 yr old.

      And as for your citing “shoddy economic analysis” as a reason for legitimizing insider trading, I think it would be better used by Chris Dodd’s and Barney Frank’s defense team. Then, if it works for them, maybe Greenspan and Bernanke could use the argument to explain why they failed to see the abyss.

      Bottom Line: Raj (a poor “greedy”schmuck who got caught) was not wrongly prosecuted given his willful disregard of the law (it is what it is…)

  • Rich May 13, 2011, 7:54 pm

    Just tweeted Harvard Historian Nial Ferguson’s Las Vegas Hedge Fund SALT address on the End of US Dominance might be right up there as the flip side of Yale Economist Irving Fisher’s Fall 1929 Plateau of Permanent Prosperity address at the Harvard Club.
    Flight from EurAsia currencies and Treasury bonds into dollars and equities not entirely inconceivable…

  • gary leibowitz May 13, 2011, 7:29 pm

    By GC’s own testimony to congress there will be some major ramifications. The chutzpah they displayed during those “discovery” sessions amazed me. Imagine telling everyone that they knew the mortgage bundled packages were toxic and hedged against their sale to unsuspecting clients.

    Is there such a thing as a “lemon law” for selling billions of worthless derivitives?

    The “glory days” for these brokerage firms are behind them. They will be the number one short on my list going forward.

    • Rich May 13, 2011, 7:58 pm

      Inside Job well worth seeing in BluRay.
      Even non-financial types get it.
      Kass buying GS, despite PnF targeting 114.
      The cat, having once sat upon a hot stove, will not sit on a cool one either…

  • Rich May 13, 2011, 6:41 pm

    Nice S&P trade, Rick…

  • John Jay May 13, 2011, 6:10 pm

    I just read an article about the Hunt Brothers silver problems back in the day.
    TPTB did just what they did just now with margins, plus they changed silvers futures contracts to liquidate only!
    Jesus, I thought todays criminals in charge were blatant.
    That’s a nice rule to deploy to force prices down, I’m guessing they are saving that one for the next silver spike.

    &&&&&

    This article on the Hunt episode has been making the rounds:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/54739808/Silver-Finger-by-Harry-Hurt-III-September-Issue-1980-Playboy

    • Chris T. May 13, 2011, 6:45 pm

      Which shows you that the Hunts, for all their money and generally perceptive approach to managing it (the started loading up on PMs years before the end of the 70s), didn’t really understand how things were being done.

      Their ONLY crime was being gullible enough to believe that there were certain rules everyone would observe, and that those rules would not be changed midstream.
      If they had only continually taken delivery…

    • Billy Bodean May 15, 2011, 2:35 am

      the demand from outside the US is too great. in the 80’s the silver buying market was smaller.

  • VegasBob May 13, 2011, 5:26 pm

    Yeah, Rajaratnam is a poor schmuck. He’s kind of like the poor kid who gets to be “it” in a children’s game of tag.

    It’s truly sad that the heads of criminal enterprises such as the Federal Reserve, Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan Chase still walk the streets, free as birds, enjoying complete immunity from prosecution for the criminal acts committed under their direction or stewardship.

    Without the rule of law, the United States has no future.

  • ricecake May 13, 2011, 5:02 pm

    On top of him being a Schmuck, he’s not white and worst he’s an imported. lol

  • fallingman May 13, 2011, 3:16 pm

    So spot on Rick. A pigeon indeed.

    Spot on comments too.

  • Cabernet May 13, 2011, 3:01 pm

    Raj is not poor and he is not a “quasi” criminal. He is the real deal. Guilty on all counts

    • Kabitzer May 13, 2011, 4:23 pm

      Right on Cabernet! “We” were NOT rooting for him. Oh, Rick was using the personal “we”. I, for one, am glad the slovenly billionaire will be locked away. No, his crimes were against no one in particular, but then again neither are JP Morgan’s or any of the other scum bags on wall street. They are crimes against everyone in general. Yes, it will be a shame if he is the only one put away, but just because the other quasi-criminals are allowed to continue their crime spree is not justification for giving Raj a pass. And selling his insider info (regardless of its merit) to the highest bidder, is not something particularly credit worthy. My mother once told me that just because Bluto (the bully) was always picking on Jerry (a polio survivor) at recess, was no reason for the rest of us to laugh and poke fun too. I was supposed to do the right thing regardless of what others were doing. Raj did not do the right thing.

  • roger erickson May 13, 2011, 2:31 pm
  • Aussie Mick May 13, 2011, 2:21 pm

    Listing JP Morg and Goldman Sachs and the other big banks as thieves and criminals is ‘favouritism’…the other criminals should be listed as well…The Federal Reserve…the CFR…The Bilderberbers…the Rockerfellers….and the corporations, trusts and foundations they control…they are like a massive school of piranahs in a feeding frenzy…ripping the guts out of the American people. Protected by the drug lords (CIA)..homeland security..FEMA..etc. And not just the American people…the rest of the world. How many more children will starve to death..be blown apart..or burnt to death..to appease the appetite for money and power of these cretins. It can only be stopped by the voters of the USA…I think you will only get one more chance.Aussie Mick

    • Chris_de May 13, 2011, 8:02 pm

      If voting changed anything they’d make it illegal.

      So the voters will not stop them.

  • DG May 13, 2011, 7:38 am

    http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/ny-fed-chairman-stephen-friedman-pockets-17-from-gs-shares/16420

    Boy that is tough one to prosecute. A fed chairman buying stock in the very company that said fed is adjusting policy for. And nothing was done, other than asking for a resignation. No money, no time.

    It sickens and saddens me, but the America we have is a pathetic, pusillanimous shell of what it once was and we all are all culpable, if simply only for tolerating it.

    Obviously, the feds did their job when they nailed Martha Stewart. Weak. Really, really weak. BTW, my back of the napkin math show that Martha made a whopping 40k on her “insider” info. And the NY Fed chairman made 1.7 million and NOTHING WAS DONE.

    Oh, and BTW, please feel free to counterfeit stock at will, I mean, naked short sell. We are too busy chasing food show hostesses to have time to consider prosecuting such trivial matters as counterfeiting…stock, dollars, whats the difference….

    • Chris T. May 13, 2011, 7:44 am

      or selling physical silver and charging storage fees but of course neither buying nor storing it.
      no jail time there, either
      (I don’t mean SLV, btw)

  • Chris T. May 13, 2011, 7:10 am

    Indeed a very interesting post, makes one think.

    Couple things pop-up:

    Like Martha Stewart, he is also a victim of prosecutorial overreach, ala Guiliani grandstanding, using the super-pliant federal code and rules of procedure to get a conviction.
    Just look at the stats of how many beat a federal rap these days.

    Too bad for him that he is not connected like Marc Rich. That is how you do these things.

    Highly recommended is the movie: “Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould”.
    Watch the segment where Glenn Gould is in a restaurant calling his stock broker. That’s how it’s done right!

    Finally, ;life in prison? We are descending back to a more primitive state if that is imposed or gets justified.
    But then, there is a story out there of a 6-year old possible being indicted for sex-crimes because he played doctor.
    Society seems to countenance this stuff more and more, we really don’t deserve any better.

  • sportsdoc May 13, 2011, 5:36 am

    Rick
    Great treatise ! So true, the thieves at the banks , Morgan , GS et al rob ,cheat steal,,hey that’s ok as long as the pols are in your pocket. The hypocrisy is disgusting.
    Throw the masses a scapegoat for all that’s wrong.
    If Raj cannot throw them an even bigger fish, he is in trouble.

  • TKO May 13, 2011, 4:34 am

    A great take on the Rajatnam affair. RA at his best! Does he jump the 100 mill bail and head for the hills, or give up some of his cronies?

  • Martin Snell May 13, 2011, 4:11 am

    Many years ago in Hong Kong I met a guy in a bar and as we talked about markets we somehow started talking about insider trading laws. When I explained American insider trading laws to him he was aghast. His response was classic – “Why would you ever buy a stock if you did not have insider information?”

  • Marc Authier May 13, 2011, 4:00 am

    Just a little bit of distraction like Bernnie Madoff. Arrest a small criminal clown to hide the real criminals at JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs and the FED.

    • fallingman May 13, 2011, 3:12 pm

      Precisely.

  • John Jay May 13, 2011, 1:23 am

    Looks to me like the Raj man should have been a little more generous with his campaign contributions.
    You’ve all read the book or seen the movie.
    You’ve got to let the Godfather wet his beak!
    All the banks want to pay a 5 billion dollar fine to make trillions of bogus MBS paper legal, see what I mean?
    Once they indicted the Raj man, he should have given up a bigger fish for the Feds to hook.
    Nothing personal, it’s just business.