Quantcast

«

»

Feb 08 2014

Strange circumstances involving investment banks

Via Atrios I came across this article by Pam Martens. She worked for over two decades on Wall Street but has since turned into a watchdog, exposing its wrongdoings with her insider’s perspective and knowledge.

In this article, she writes about a trio of mysterious deaths in a short space of time, along with a business reporter for the Wall Street Journal who suddenly went missing without a trace. The connection between them is that all were associated with big investment banks that were under investigation.

One has to be careful about retrospectively seeking patterns in events that have already occurred. When you have a large set of data points, it is relatively easy to pick some that appear to conform to some pattern that one is looking for. In this case, there are a huge number of people involved in the financial sector and with the major investment banks. Almost all the big banks are under suspicion of engaging in fraudulent activity which throws suspicion on practically everyone. It may not be that hard to find a pattern connecting some people involved with them and it is possible that all these things, although serious and tragic, are unrelated and the timing coincidental.

But I pass it along in case people hear of other strange doings. If many such events turn up, then it becomes less likely that they are coincidences. As Auric Goldfinger told James Bond “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.”

3 comments

  1. 1
    Pierce R. Butler

    Today’s Wall Street supervillains would chew up Auric Goldfinger & his Korean houseboy and spit them out before breakfast.

  2. 2
    jamessweet

    It would be exceedingly stupid for Wall St folks to go around bumping off their under-investigation colleagues — Wall St is very good at avoiding any kind of accountability just the way things are, and adding a murder-for-hire angle for prosecution would do far more damage in terms of exposing them to accountability in the long term than it would benefit in terms of limiting testimony.

    Which is not to say that some short-sighted idiot wouldn’t do such a thing anyway. But I’m a little skeptical, since it would be such a very foolish move.

  3. 3
    kevinalexander

    It would be exceedingly stupid for Wall St folks to go around bumping off their under-investigation colleagues

    .
    You’re thinking of Wall Street as a monolithic entity. There’s nothing stopping an individual in deep shit from swimming out of that shit by drowning someone in his way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>