I don't really see Birks' argument on that one, Mike. If you're the only game in town, then surely you don't need to pony up $x0,000,000 to "protect your reputation."
On the other hand, these out-of-court settlements seem to be pushing the boundaries of credibility. I'm an old fashioned sort of guy. Either you did wrong, or you didn't. (There's also the possibility that you honestly fucked up.) If you did wrong, you go to court. The court may punish you too severely, or not severely enough, or (in the case of most FSA cases) it may be so incompetent that you get off scott-free.
I'll accept the (dubious) merits of plea-bargaining, but I still think that some level of court proceedings would be in order -- if you've done wrong.
Look at it from Goldman Sachs' angle (and assume they are as pure as the driven snow). You pay the Feds off to protect your reputation. This is perilously close to extortion (because it doesn't really address the matter at hand; more some sort of nebulous "brand" thing). Down the road, you're just encouraging a Spitzer or whoever to try it on again, on an annual basis.
It's equally bad for everybody else in the same community or market. If a self-proclaimed #1 won't stand up for itself in court, what chance does a mere hedge fund with less than a billion in assets have?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-04-19 04:12 pm (UTC)On the other hand, these out-of-court settlements seem to be pushing the boundaries of credibility. I'm an old fashioned sort of guy. Either you did wrong, or you didn't. (There's also the possibility that you honestly fucked up.) If you did wrong, you go to court. The court may punish you too severely, or not severely enough, or (in the case of most FSA cases) it may be so incompetent that you get off scott-free.
I'll accept the (dubious) merits of plea-bargaining, but I still think that some level of court proceedings would be in order -- if you've done wrong.
Look at it from Goldman Sachs' angle (and assume they are as pure as the driven snow). You pay the Feds off to protect your reputation. This is perilously close to extortion (because it doesn't really address the matter at hand; more some sort of nebulous "brand" thing). Down the road, you're just encouraging a Spitzer or whoever to try it on again, on an annual basis.
It's equally bad for everybody else in the same community or market. If a self-proclaimed #1 won't stand up for itself in court, what chance does a mere hedge fund with less than a billion in assets have?