SEC unit hires ex-Goldman Sachs worker as chief operating officer

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,146
26
91
Defenders will say we need experienced guys in positions like this.[/b]

Linkaroo



Adam Storch had worked since 2004 in a Goldman unit that reviewed contracts and transactions for signs of fraud. His new job is to make the SEC's enforcement division more efficient.

The Securities and Exchange Commission hired a 29-year-old former employee in Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s business intelligence unit as the first chief operating officer in the agency's enforcement division, according to people familiar with the decision.

The new operating chief, Adam Storch, had worked since 2004 in a Goldman unit that reviewed contracts and transactions for signs of fraud.

His new job is to make the SEC's enforcement division more efficient. Reached by phone at the SEC, he declined to comment.

Robert Khuzami, head of the enforcement division, announced the creation of the position in August as part of the unit's biggest overhaul in three decades.

Khuzami is taking steps to add front-line investigators, speed inquiries and create specialized units after the agency was faulted for failures including missing Bernard Madoff's massive Ponzi scheme.

Storch holds degrees in accounting and finance from the State University of New York at Buffalo.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
On this, we agree, of course. Goldman Sachs should be a target of our government, with drastic reforms to its practices, its size, its corruption of our government.

It's a little like Bernie Madoff becomeing so wealthy he could buy the legalization of his scheme, and then say how he's nothign but a respectable capatlist.

Their practices are largely bad for the country, and they have inordinate political influence. When people think of threats to our interests, Goldman Sachs should be high on the list.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
GS is like a bad cough that won't go away.

That is the most understated post I otherwise generally agree with I remember seeing.

I have a hard time understanding why you are against GS, picking a negative metaphor, but pick one so trivial for something so large.

Matt Tiabi said GS is like a "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity". That seems far more accurate.

'Global warming is like an unpleasant hot wind that blows by.'
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Link

Glenn Greenwald above on the topic.

One excerpt:

Business Insider has more details on Storch, the new COO of SEC Enforcement: He's 29, and has worked at Goldman Sachs for the last 5 years -- since he's 24 years old. I'm sure there was nobody more qualified for that position and that he'll be an absolutely relentless and fearsome force in helping the SEC enforce applicable laws and regulations.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Skoorb
GS is like a bad cough that won't go away.

That is the most understated post I otherwise generally agree with I remember seeing.

I have a hard time understanding why you are against GS, picking a negative metaphor, but pick one so trivial for something so large.

Matt Tiabi said GS is like a "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity". That seems far more accurate.

'Global warming is like an unpleasant hot wind that blows by.'
I think I was so reserved because it made my statement so defensible ;)

I like the squid metaphor, though.

GS sure as hell has friends in high places doesn't it?
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: Craig234
Link

Glenn Greenwald above on the topic.

One excerpt:

Business Insider has more details on Storch, the new COO of SEC Enforcement: He's 29, and has worked at Goldman Sachs for the last 5 years -- since he's 24 years old. I'm sure there was nobody more qualified for that position and that he'll be an absolutely relentless and fearsome force in helping the SEC enforce applicable laws and regulations.

:laugh: Gotta love Greenwald.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Good fall guys are hard to come by. Most of them have been used up in the last 2-3 years.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Craig234
Link

Glenn Greenwald above on the topic.

One excerpt:

Business Insider has more details on Storch, the new COO of SEC Enforcement: He's 29, and has worked at Goldman Sachs for the last 5 years -- since he's 24 years old. I'm sure there was nobody more qualified for that position and that he'll be an absolutely relentless and fearsome force in helping the SEC enforce applicable laws and regulations.

:laugh: Gotta love Greenwald.

I don't care what kind of wunderkind they think they are, a 29 year old is inexperienced and naive. Anybody who chooses a 29 year old as a COO is an idiot or has a hidden agenda.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
They're parasites, not golden geese.

I'd say that completely depends on whether or not you're a client of theirs.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Originally posted by: Craig234
They're parasites, not golden geese.

I'd say that completely depends on whether or not you're a client of theirs.

No, it doesn't - looking at the larger situation, the distinction between parasite and golden goose is pretty objective.

The 'relative' aspect you describe' exists within the parasitical structure - parasites benefit their own, and drain the host. That relative aspect doesn't make them not parasites.

Goldman Sachs does activities that cost others greeatly to gain their profit - they aren't inventing and producing useful goods and services nearly as much as extracting wealth.

Just as some parasites learn to protect any defense by the host by using the host's own defense against it, Goldman Sachs uses our political system against us to protect it.

These interests always exist - the oligarchy who would destroy democracy to cement their own power, the war profiteers who promote war for profit, the demagogues who use scapegoats to build movements based on ahte to gain power and wealth, and the financiers who go beyond the legitimate role of running the machine of the economy to turn that machine into a weapon against its own society for their own gain.

The question is how well the society protects itself. We're not doing well at that, as citizens fume at their televisions, impotent.

I've often said from an old saying, "Politicians have to LOOK good to voters and DO well for donors." That's the situation now as the finance industry eats our country.

You know what happens to hosts as parasites feed - and our country has seen the parasite grow to get over 40% of all profits, and to cause our country to take on massive debt.

The simple fact is that the rich are doing incredibly well and it's not a happy right-wing story about a tide lifting all boats, it's a parasitical growth.

The world has other organisms ready to compete as the king is ill, and the United States is facing problems from them as it allows this to go on.

This glorification of the rich having no responsibility to the effects of their pursuing our wealth on society is a corruption with a very high price that can cause catastrophe.

So why so little revolt? In my opinion, it's likely because as technology has advanced to the point that it's very cheap for most to have their basic food needs met, that has caused a complacency about outrageous transfers of wealth to the top. If the masses aren't starving in the streets, they don't get too upset, allowing for unprecedented increases in the concentration of wealth without the usual politicial crisis. Yet.
 

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,146
26
91
"not a happy right-wing story about a tide lifting all boats, it's a parasitical growth."

Well, with reading the Greenwald story, there is plenty of questionable actions with both parties:

"In March, President Obama nominated Goldman Sachs executive Gary Gensler to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates futures markets, even though (or "because") Gensler confessed to lax regulation during the Clinton administration over the very derivative instruments that caused the financial crisis. In April, Goldman hired as its top lobbyist Michael Paese, the top aide to Rep. Barney Frank on the House Financial Services Committee which Frank chairs."
"As Michael Moore has been pointing out, Goldman was the number one source of funding for the Obama 2008 presidential campaign. "
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
I'm a former employee of said firm, should I be forever barred from working in the gov't?

This sort of populist rabble is just absurd; goldman hires the top talent and the burnout rate is pretty damn high. God forbid that the gov't hires top people with experience on wall street to regulate wall street.... :roll:
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Originally posted by: Craig234
They're parasites, not golden geese.

I'd say that completely depends on whether or not you're a client of theirs.

No, it doesn't - looking at the larger situation, the distinction between parasite and golden goose is pretty objective.

The 'relative' aspect you describe' exists within the parasitical structure - parasites benefit their own, and drain the host. That relative aspect doesn't make them not parasites.

Goldman Sachs does activities that cost others greeatly to gain their profit - they aren't inventing and producing useful goods and services nearly as much as extracting wealth.

Just as some parasites learn to protect any defense by the host by using the host's own defense against it, Goldman Sachs uses our political system against us to protect it.

These interests always exist - the oligarchy who would destroy democracy to cement their own power, the war profiteers who promote war for profit, the demagogues who use scapegoats to build movements based on ahte to gain power and wealth, and the financiers who go beyond the legitimate role of running the machine of the economy to turn that machine into a weapon against its own society for their own gain.

The question is how well the society protects itself. We're not doing well at that, as citizens fume at their televisions, impotent.

I've often said from an old saying, "Politicians have to LOOK good to voters and DO well for donors." That's the situation now as the finance industry eats our country.

You know what happens to hosts as parasites feed - and our country has seen the parasite grow to get over 40% of all profits, and to cause our country to take on massive debt.

The simple fact is that the rich are doing incredibly well and it's not a happy right-wing story about a tide lifting all boats, it's a parasitical growth.

The world has other organisms ready to compete as the king is ill, and the United States is facing problems from them as it allows this to go on.

This glorification of the rich having no responsibility to the effects of their pursuing our wealth on society is a corruption with a very high price that can cause catastrophe.

So why so little revolt? In my opinion, it's likely because as technology has advanced to the point that it's very cheap for most to have their basic food needs met, that has caused a complacency about outrageous transfers of wealth to the top. If the masses aren't starving in the streets, they don't get too upset, allowing for unprecedented increases in the concentration of wealth without the usual politicial crisis. Yet.

Wow this has gotta be the biggest hyperbole of 2009. I'm surprised you didn't say anything about them being a jewish firm... (OMGZZ JOOZ TAKING UR JERBSSS)

You don't think GSAM (asset management) creates value? What about research? The conviction list has consistently outperformed S&P on risk adjusted basis. The ibanking dept has been on top of the game for the past 20 years (m&a advisory in particular)

Nothing like good ole fashion populist anger towards something you know very little about. Reminds me of Obama's oil company tax bullshit from a year ago.

Be pissed because AIG has a history of fucking up and needing gov't money; not because goldman sachs is making money when the market is up 45% YTD
 

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,146
26
91
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Originally posted by: Craig234
They're parasites, not golden geese.

I'd say that completely depends on whether or not you're a client of theirs.

No, it doesn't - looking at the larger situation, the distinction between parasite and golden goose is pretty objective.

The 'relative' aspect you describe' exists within the parasitical structure - parasites benefit their own, and drain the host. That relative aspect doesn't make them not parasites.

Goldman Sachs does activities that cost others greeatly to gain their profit - they aren't inventing and producing useful goods and services nearly as much as extracting wealth.

Just as some parasites learn to protect any defense by the host by using the host's own defense against it, Goldman Sachs uses our political system against us to protect it.

These interests always exist - the oligarchy who would destroy democracy to cement their own power, the war profiteers who promote war for profit, the demagogues who use scapegoats to build movements based on ahte to gain power and wealth, and the financiers who go beyond the legitimate role of running the machine of the economy to turn that machine into a weapon against its own society for their own gain.

The question is how well the society protects itself. We're not doing well at that, as citizens fume at their televisions, impotent.

I've often said from an old saying, "Politicians have to LOOK good to voters and DO well for donors." That's the situation now as the finance industry eats our country.

You know what happens to hosts as parasites feed - and our country has seen the parasite grow to get over 40% of all profits, and to cause our country to take on massive debt.

The simple fact is that the rich are doing incredibly well and it's not a happy right-wing story about a tide lifting all boats, it's a parasitical growth.

The world has other organisms ready to compete as the king is ill, and the United States is facing problems from them as it allows this to go on.

This glorification of the rich having no responsibility to the effects of their pursuing our wealth on society is a corruption with a very high price that can cause catastrophe.

So why so little revolt? In my opinion, it's likely because as technology has advanced to the point that it's very cheap for most to have their basic food needs met, that has caused a complacency about outrageous transfers of wealth to the top. If the masses aren't starving in the streets, they don't get too upset, allowing for unprecedented increases in the concentration of wealth without the usual politicial crisis. Yet.

Wow this has gotta be the biggest hyperbole of 2009. I'm surprised you didn't say anything about them being a jewish firm... (OMGZZ JOOZ TAKING UR JERBSSS)

You don't think GSAM (asset management) creates value? What about research? The conviction list has consistently outperformed S&P on risk adjusted basis. The ibanking dept has been on top of the game for the past 20 years (m&a advisory in particular)

Nothing like good ole fashion populist anger towards something you know very little about. Reminds me of Obama's oil company tax bullshit from a year ago.

Be pissed because AIG has a history of fucking up and needing gov't money; not because goldman sachs is making money when the market is up 45% YTD

Funny you should mention AIG. Also funny how you forgot to mention how Goldman Sachs profited the most from the AIG bailout:

"one of the more interesting aspects of AIG's disclosure statement is the fact that Goldman Sachs, at $12.6 billion, is the single largest beneficiary of AIG largess."

Link



More shock and awe. The banks don't want to have new regulations:

Link

Hey, maybe you have a point that we need the top talent at Sachs to help us. Even Geithner relied upon that top talent to advise him, as Greenwald points out:

There's this great sequence of phone calls one night in the middle of the auto crisis where the secretary takes
three phone calls and it's Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, the president of the United States; hangs up with the
president and then he's immediately back on the phone with JPMorgan. And when you look at it in that way, you can see that
those three banks have greater influence - they have a greater ability to influence policy than any other bank. I
mean, it's really an unmatched ability to have the secretary of the Treasury's ear when he's right
about to speak with the president, when he's just about to go up to Capitol Hill.


 

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,146
26
91
Greenwald update: Way back in 2002, Adam Storch was Co-Winner of the SUNY-Buffalo Intern of the Year award at Deloitte & Touche.
That's quite an advancement to go from intern of the year in 2002, to chief operating officer of the Securities and Exchange Commission's enforcement division in 2009.
Boy genius.
 

xeemzor

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2005
2,599
1
71
Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Greenwald update: Way back in 2002, Adam Storch was Co-Winner of the SUNY-Buffalo Intern of the Year award at Deloitte & Touche.
That's quite an advancement to go from intern of the year in 2002, to chief operating officer of the Securities and Exchange Commission's enforcement division in 2009.
Boy genius.

I don't care who you are, you can not get enough real world experience in 7 years to be the COO of that division.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: halik
I'm a former employee of said firm, should I be forever barred from working in the gov't?

This sort of populist rabble is just absurd; goldman hires the top talent and the burnout rate is pretty damn high. God forbid that the gov't hires top people with experience on wall street to regulate wall street.... :roll:

I'm all for the government hiring former people from Wall Street to regulate Wall Street, as FDR did when he made top stockbroker Joe Kennedy the first SEC Chairman.

It was understood he was using a fox to catch the other foxes - and he did.

But I'm not in favor of the government hiring people from Wall Street *as part of a Wall Street agenda and corruption to get their people in positions to serve Wall Street*.

That's the key distinction you need to look at, the motive and aganda in the hiring.

With FDR, it was to reign Wall Street in, not to serve them over the public. In recent years, it's the opposite, as these people have pushed Wall Street dereguation agendas.

The fact you call the protest against the corrupt dominance of WallS treet in its huge rise to become the dominant sector of our econony 'populist rabble [rousing]' tells me you are clueless about the issue - too inside to have much persepctive, a forest and trees problem. Why don't you read Kevin Phillips' "Bad Money" and then tell me your opinion?

You are defending some of the most harmful practices by an 'enemy within', and all you can say is not a critical word, just calling them 'the best'. That's pretty bad.

Of course they hire 'the best' - and all too frequently use them for bad purposes. That's part of the corruption in the system - 'the best' follow the money, and their bad activities give them the money to hire 'the best' and further increase their dominance. when yiou look at an organization doing parasitical, bad things, do you say 'well, they do have 'the best' people, so that makes it ok'? You shouldn't.
 

extra

Golden Member
Dec 18, 1999
1,947
7
81
I'm not big into conspiracies or stuff like this but honestly there does seem to be something too this. There's way too many ex-goldman people in gov it seems like now. And they were the ones who benefited from the bailout of AIG the most. Almost like we are being taxed and then instead of money going to pay for services for all of us, it's just going into the pockets of a few bankers. Friggin nuts.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Originally posted by: halik
I'm a former employee of said firm, should I be forever barred from working in the gov't?

This sort of populist rabble is just absurd; goldman hires the top talent and the burnout rate is pretty damn high. God forbid that the gov't hires top people with experience on wall street to regulate wall street.... :roll:

It's not talent that is in question but rather the conflict of interest.

Maybe something similar that the government has for members of the department of defense but specifically tailored for wall street to prevent conflicts of interest and influence by the member's previous firm or firms.

This is just an example of how the DOD is supposed to handle such situations. rest of document at link


AN ETHICS GUIDE FOR CONSULTANTS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

At the Department of Defense (DoD), we are fortunate to have many experts and industry leaders from outside of the Government to provide advice to the Secretary as consultants or members of an advisory committee. Because many of you retain extensive links to Defense industries or other organizations related to national security, it is important that you understand potential conflicts of interest that may arise from your appointment to this Department. Recognizing your demanding schedules, this guidance only briefly summarizes those statutes and regulations most likely to affect you, and does not describe each element or exception.

1. Getting Advice

If you believe your situation may be affected by any of the guidance below, please contact the Standards of Conduct Office (SOCO) of the Office of the DoD General Counsel at (703) 695-3422, fax us at (703) 697-1640, or email us at SOCO@dodgc.osd.mil. We also have considerable guidance, including financial disclosure reporting, on our website at: http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics.

SOCO is available to provide advice on any ethics question you may have, many of which may be answered in a telephone call or by email. Good faith reliance on the ethics advice from an ethics official will, in most cases, protect you from adverse administrative action and dissuade the Department of Justice from criminal prosecution.

2. What Does It Mean to be a Special Government Employee?

In the Department, almost all consultants and all members of advisory committees are appointed as Special Government Employees (SGEs). This means that upon appointment, you assume the responsibilities, obligations, and restrictions that are part of public service. Because SGEs are not full-time employees, several of these restrictions apply to you only in limited circumstances.

Service as an SGE may be compensated or uncompensated, but it is always temporary. In fact, you should not serve for more than 130 days during any period of 365 consecutive days. This 130-day period is an aggregate of all your Federal service, not just your appointment at the Department of Defense. For example, it includes days you have served as an SGE in other Federal agencies or departments, and even days as a military reservist. If you have served in other Federal agencies or departments within the last year, please advise the appropriate committee manager, executive director, or Designated Federal Official (DFO), so that you do not exceed the 130-day period of appointment.

When computing days that you work as an SGE, count each day in which you perform services, even if it does not amount to an entire workday. Brief non-substantive interactions, such as emails or phone calls to set up a meeting, do not have to be counted as a day of duty.

3. Financial Disclosure

You are required to file either a public or confidential financial disclosure report (SF 278 or OGE Form 450) when you are first appointed, and annually thereafter if you are reappointed. As a member of an advisory committee, you may also be required to update the report before each meeting throughout your term of appointment. The purpose of financial disclosure is to protect you from inadvertently violating any of the criminal conflict of interest statutes, discussed below, and to ensure the public and this Department that your advice is free from any real or perceived conflict of interest. The supervisor or DFO, and a DoD ethics official review the reported information, which is not releasable to the public if it is a confidential financial disclosure report, except as authorized by the Privacy Act.

4. Criminal Conflict of Interest Statutes

You are required to comply with various criminal statutes while you are an SGE. These statutes are codified at 18 U.S.C. 201, 203, 205, 207, and 208, and are divided into the following subject areas: (1) financial conflicts of interest; (2) representational activities; and (3) limits on representation after you leave the Government.

Financial Conflicts of Interest

The main financial conflict of interest statute, 18 U.S.C. 208(a), prohibits you from participating personally and substantially in any particular matter that affects your financial interests, as well as the financial interests of your spouse, minor child, general partner, an organization in which you serve as an officer, director, trustee, general partner, or employee, or an organization with which you are negotiating or with which you have an arrangement for prospective employment. The primary reason you are required to disclose your financial interests is to alert the supervisor or DFO, and agency ethics official of any potential conflict of interest prior to your participation in a particular matter involving an entity in which you have a financial interest.

For example, you could have a conflict of interest if you were to participate in an advisory committee meeting that reviews whether a certain weapons program should be continued and:
? you own stock in the prime or subcontractor that supplies the weapon;
? your spouse owns stock in, or works for, the contractor(s);
? you are a consultant to, or employee of, the contractor(s);
? you are a member of the board of directors of the contractor(s), or
? you have a contract with the contractor(s) to provide supplies, parts, or services.


Generally, DoD advisory committees address broad policy matters, not particular matters. This greatly reduces the potential for conflicts of interest. In certain instances, however, the committees may address matters that focus on the interests of specific persons or a discrete and identifiable class of persons. For example, an advisory committee may recommend that the Department purchase more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Since only two or three companies manufacture UAVs, the committee?s review and recommendation would constitute a particular matter. If any SGEs had financial interests in these companies, they would have a conflict of interest if they participated in the advisory committee discussion.

If you become aware of such a financial conflict of interest, you must disqualify yourself from acting in a governmental capacity in the matter and notify the DFO, committee manager, or supervisor. You should also consult your ethics official, since there are several regulatory exemptions that permit you to have certain financial interests that cause a conflict of interest. For example, employees are permitted to participate in particular matters affecting companies that they own as part of a diversified mutual trust. Employees may also act in particular matters affecting companies in which the aggregate value of the employee?s holdings does not exceed $15,000. Since there are other exemptions, you should contact your ethics official.

The statute and implementing Federal regulations provide for waivers that may allow you to work on matters in which you have a financial conflict of interest. Such waivers must be obtained before you participate in the matter. Since waivers are complex, you should seek advice from your DoD ethics official.

Another Federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 201, commonly known as the bribery statute, prohibits Federal employees, including SGEs, from seeking, accepting, or agreeing to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: 1prophet
Another Federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 201, commonly known as the bribery statute, prohibits Federal employees, including SGEs, from seeking, accepting, or agreeing to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act.
[/quote]

One problem is how hard it is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when someone in government who selects a vendor is later hired by that vendor, that it was 'bribery'.

That's why we need the laws ntot just to ban 'bribery', but to limit the revolving door that is so corrupting.

Does it say something that when the healthcare industry wanted to lobby Congress this summer, they were able to hire 500 (IIRC) former staffers and members of Congress?

That's one central issue, another is the fact of how much money the politicians have to raise to get elected, basically *forcing* what is essentially bribery in many races.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Originally posted by: halik
I'm a former employee of said firm, should I be forever barred from working in the gov't?

This sort of populist rabble is just absurd; goldman hires the top talent and the burnout rate is pretty damn high. God forbid that the gov't hires top people with experience on wall street to regulate wall street.... :roll:

Are you kidding? The SEC should be investigating GS as we speak. Are you saying that hiring a recent employee of GS to friggen COO of the enforcement division will not create even more conflict of interest? Is that what you are really trying to sell?

GS doesn't even try to hide the fact that they are fucking everyone of us over anymore. They blatantly and obviously take huge positions based off inside info, front run the market, and numerous other illegal and fraudulent practices time and time again. Pass through/backdoor bailouts, cheap debt backed by the FDIC that they gamble with (guess thats not that big of a deal, even though they are gambling with the money they never seem to lose), purchasing members of our government, purchasing legislation, getting taxpayer money to pay off positions they had hedged (betting on red and black and getting paid for both bets).... the list goes on.

Yeah, I can see why you would have no problem with the fox guarding the hen house.

As Karl Denninger, who has documented dozens of outright illegal actions GS continues to commit, it is well past time to stop the looting and start prosecuting .