Crypto Whales Are Loading Up — Are You?
New research shows the biggest crypto buyers are back. And this time? They could hold for the possibility that Bitcoin will surpass $100,000 in 2024. You don’t want to miss the next massive crypto bull run like we saw in 2020 and 2021. To know exactly what’s going on and what to buy… Get Access To Benzinga’s Best Crypto Research and Investments For Only $1.
I hate hypocrites. It's no secret. I've stated it on countless occasions in previous commentaries. Supposedly, the Western legal system (the literal “foundation” of our democracies) “hates hypocrites” as well.
To be specific, supposedly our legal systems don't allow a group of people to call themselves “experts” when they are pocketing fat fees for their analysis/assessment of the quality of complex financial products; and then to say “Just kidding. We're not experts, and no one should base any financial decision on our opinions” once such “opinions” have been shown to be severely flawed.
ENTER TO WIN $500 IN STOCK OR CRYPTO
Enter your email and you'll also get Benzinga's ultimate morning update AND a free $30 gift card and more!
Then there is the United States of Crime. In the Land of Looting, we see the “double-standard” (i.e. blatant hypocrisy) enshrined as the highest ideal. On the one hand, cheap con-men (i.e. the privileged financial insiders in their expensive suits) can use the “rules of Justice” to hide behind – irrespective of how fraudulent/absurd are their legal defenses. On the other hand, the victims of these sleazy shysters discover that (one by one) all of our legal protections are nothing but illusory anachronisms, simply erased whenever they threaten the interests of those same financial criminals.
There is no more blatant demonstration of “American Justice” at work than with respect to the fraudulent double-standard which has been invented for the sole benefit of the Wall Street crime syndicate, and their accomplices – the ratings agencies.
The sham/scam is as simple as it is blatant. When someone sells something, they can get a higher price for it if there is some “warranty of quality assurance” or “verification of independent testing” to reassure potential buyers of the safety/security/suitability of the product in question.
Note the need for “independence”. If Goldman Sachs is looking for another chump to buy a “mortgage-backed security”, and it says to a potential buyer “ our boys in ‘quality control' have given this one their highest rating” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink), no sane buyer who is aware of Goldman Sachs' long track-record of fraud would be reassured. However, when that same potential buyer is told that an independent group of experts has assessed this financial product as “AAA”, then that buyer will reach for his cheque-book .
Want Private Access to Benzinga Analyst?
Check out the latest strategies our team of experts are using every week so that you can always adapt to the market like the pros!—Get FULL Access to This Week's Webinar Here.
It is unequivocal that these ratings are used as “inducements to purchase”. Indeed, countless institutional investors and funds are prohibited from investing in any financial product which has not received a sufficiently high “rating” from these ratings agencies.
There can be absolutely no doubt that any/every buyer of these financial products considered the “independent ratings” attached to these financial products to be a “warranty” of the quality/stability/reliability of these financial instruments. The reason I'm stressing what the buyers perceived is because that is what our laws are based upon. Specifically, the standard of justice is how “an ordinary person” would view such transactions.
The intent of the Wall Street banks in using these ratings is legally irrelevant. The intent of the ratings agencies in issuing these ratings (in return for fat fees) is legally irrelevant. All that is relevant is how this system of paying for “expert ratings” was perceived by the general public (i.e. the average retail investor).
What is the ridiculous “defense” of the ratings agencies, when confronted with the $trillions which investors have lost – just on their “AAA” rated junk? They claim that they were merely exercising “free speech”, and that the “AAA” rubber-stamps they used on this financial feces were “mere opinions” which no investor should “rely upon”. In other words, they are claiming that their prestigious “ratings” are no more meaningful than what some anonymous stock-jockey posts on some obscure bulletin board.
It is a legal defense without an iota of merit.
1) They accepted large payments in return for their officially recognized ratings .
2) They made no attempt to refute their obvious status as “experts” with any form of remotely sufficient legal disclaimer.
Crypto Whales Are Loading Up — Are You?
New research shows the biggest crypto buyers are back. And this time? They could hold for the possibility that Bitcoin will surpass $100,000 in 2024. You don’t want to miss the next massive crypto bull run like we saw in 2020 and 2021. To know exactly what’s going on and what to buy… Get Access To Benzinga’s Best Crypto Research and Investments For Only $1.