As discussed earlier on another board - There w
Post# of 76
Posted On: 09/02/2014 12:25:55 PM
As discussed earlier on another board -
There was someone went through ING's financial accounts at the time of their bail out and REALLY dissected them and came to the conclusion that the reason ING were claiming the bonds held by PFNO were fake was because at the time ING prepared its accounts for its bail out that they in fact counted the bonds as an ASSET on their own balance sheet - so they couldn't then admit EVER that they had already sold them and decided to cook the books at the time they prepared their accounts for their bail out as that would be admiring fraud!
ING as we know has better track record of being fined for very large sums by regulators and also losing court cases brought against it. It seems like the case against PFNO will be just added to the list of large settlements. Well - at least they have the wherewithal to at least be able to raise the finance to pay these settlements!
Our turn is coming. If these bonds were fake why would have $6m worth have been bought back recently? I'm sure the company that did its DD sure inspected them, checked the numbers were correct and all necessary checks etc - or - did they just pay out $6m to PFNO because they thought the bonds were fake?
La Porte clearly thinks they are genuine or his work for the company would have been only for a very short time. An internationally renowned expert who is happy to be quoted - I will put my money behind him any time.
There was someone went through ING's financial accounts at the time of their bail out and REALLY dissected them and came to the conclusion that the reason ING were claiming the bonds held by PFNO were fake was because at the time ING prepared its accounts for its bail out that they in fact counted the bonds as an ASSET on their own balance sheet - so they couldn't then admit EVER that they had already sold them and decided to cook the books at the time they prepared their accounts for their bail out as that would be admiring fraud!
ING as we know has better track record of being fined for very large sums by regulators and also losing court cases brought against it. It seems like the case against PFNO will be just added to the list of large settlements. Well - at least they have the wherewithal to at least be able to raise the finance to pay these settlements!
Our turn is coming. If these bonds were fake why would have $6m worth have been bought back recently? I'm sure the company that did its DD sure inspected them, checked the numbers were correct and all necessary checks etc - or - did they just pay out $6m to PFNO because they thought the bonds were fake?
La Porte clearly thinks they are genuine or his work for the company would have been only for a very short time. An internationally renowned expert who is happy to be quoted - I will put my money behind him any time.
(0)
(0)