Explaining Lehman's devastation Down Under

The most interesting question raised was why did ASIC the financial regulator not persue this case, to uphold the public interest. Again our regulators have been found wanting (Explaining Lehman's devastation Down Under, September 24).
It continues to amaze me that the GFC was the greatest failure by regulators world wide and yet not one, not one of these regulators in any country has been publicly fired for incompetance.

So you mean that it is illegal to act deceptively in Australia? Don't we have bodies like the ACCC, ICAC, ASIC and Fair Trading to make sure that illegal activity does not occur? Or maybe these organisations are really public relations organisations which do nothing in 99% of cases other than send victims fob off and patronising correspondence.
I am quite frankly surprised that Lehman Bros had a case to answer. The fact that they deliberately acted fraudulently never seems to matter at other times so why now?
As I have stated on many occasions: the day your jail corporate crooks will be the day corruption slows to a trickle. The message is well understood and the refusal to act is what keeps the game ticking over (Explaining Lehman's devastation Down Under, September 24).

My understanding of the whole fiasco was that even Lehman Brothers did not understand the innerworkings of these derivatives (Explaining Lehman's devastation Down Under, September 25). Sadly (and I am as guilty as anyone) human nature stops us from admitting our shortcomings and saying "I don't understand that, please explain it again".
Like everyone else, I'm asking where was ASIC, and the other regulators of these guys?

The councils might have satisfied the definition for a "sophisticated investor" but those working for the council and investing its funds clearly did not (Explaining Lehman's devastation Down Under, September 24).
If an individual is to be classified as sophisticated it has to be signed off by their accountant. There is no mention of this being done for the councils.
Lehman took advantage of flaws in the system and they were caught out by the GFC. If the GFC had happen 5-10 years later who knows what would have happened.

Never ever ever trust the regulator to protect you.
They are underfunded.
Always always limit your risk by limiting your exposure to say 1 per cent of your capital in any investment.
I never invest on principal in any investment originating from white shoe brigade terriority (Explaining Lehman's devastation Down Under, September 24).

Interesting to put this judgement beside Lloyd Blankfein's (Goldman CEO) testimony to the US Senate 2 years ago (Explaining Lehman's devastation Down Under, September 24). Goldman operatives were on file congratulating themselves for selling dud investments to paying clients. Lloyd seemed puzzled at the Senators disquiet at that. His clients, he explained, were sophisticated people who knew how the game was played. Not so sophisticated that they didn't buy his rubbish, obviously. It was breathtaking. But Lloyd still has his job, and the fact that he, and his like, haven't been tarred and feathered by the US taxpayers that have had to bail out the system he helped to destroy is remarkable to me. Maybe soon.
Good for a copy of this Australian judgement to be sent to the US Senators in question. The stinking mess started in New York and it must be cleaned up there.

Rambotrader jj s last paragraph (September 24, 12:13 PM) is a perfect summation of the whole CDO/GFC global crime (Explaining Lehman's devastation Down Under, September 24).

Sure Lehman's were deceptive and good to see the ruling against them, but what of the councils and the council officers trading in products they didn't fully understand on the basis of the assurances of the seller (Explaining Lehman's devastation Down Under, September 25).
These people might be unsophisticated relative to the Lehman's sales people, but they were paid professionals and should know to not trade stuff they don't understand or seek independent quality advice.
The ratepayers should be suing the council officers and whoever hired them.