Talk:Carmen Segarra

Title?

Is Carmen Segarra the best name for this article? At present at least it is 100% about a particular, definitely notable, process, with no biographical material whatsoever. Pol098 (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

I've added the POV tag. This article needs to be checked very carefully for neutrality and factual accuracy. Here are some of my initial concerns:

1. The first sentence implies that Segarra was the regulator for Goldman. She was one of a team of regulators  Fixed
2. "She discovered that Goldman Sachs did not have any policy on conflict of interest when it advised El Paso Corporation on selling itself to Kinder Morgan" - Segarra believed that Goldman "did not have any policy on conflict[s] of interest" (sic). Whether or not Goldman had such a policy is a matter of dispute. As the This American Life story describes in great detail, Segarra's superiors believed that the firm had a policy, but that the policy was inadequate. Given that the facts are in dispute, we should attribute the claim explicitly to Segarra - we should say that she believed the firm did not have such a policy, we should not state definitively that it did not.  Not done
3. "She was pressured by her superiors at the Federal Reserve to falsify her report" - the word "falsify" needs significant sourcing here. I don't believe the sources use a word like "falsify", and I don't think its appropriate in this context, given my previous comment.  Resolved
4. The link to Santander Bank is wrong, it should be Santander Group or Banco Santander. Santander Bank is a US subsidiary acquired by the Spanish group.  Resolved
5. The last sentence uses the passive voice ("opinions were published...") In this context, this kind of claim needs to be clearly attributed.  Not done
6. I think this article is burying the lede. What makes Segarra notable is her taping conversations and then releasing the tapes to the press. That needs to go in the first paragraph. Not sure
7. Overall, the article feels fairly one-sided. We don't hear much from either the Fed or Goldman. Not sure

GabrielF (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I took a stab at some of these, and tried to mark all their status with checkmarks, &c. above; please feel free to update them. I fixed 1 because it was easy, and 3's wording was changed around Oct. 7. That leaves 2 and 5 to be done, and 6 and 7 are judgement calls. 4 is a piped link which I think is ok but I'm not 100% sure? As for 7, because this is pending litigation, we are unlikely to hear from the defendants outside the judicial process, I think, so while it may be somewhat one-sided, I think that's the best that can be reasonably hoped for, and is better than no article. jhawkinson (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Links and references need cleaning up

There is a dead-end link just randomly placed after the first paragraph ("dead-end," not "dead" because the link goes to NYT, but indicates that the story is unavailable/removed). There apparently was a NYT story on 9/23/15, but it is now apparently on an AP website: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/17c71f6586fa4157afb330b826c99413/court-nixes-federal-reserve-ex-employees-retaliation-claim

A NYT search lists the following as the most recent article related to Carmen Segarra (21 Nov 2014). Perhaps this can be worked into the wiki article (probably as a reference): http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/new-york-fed-chief-faces-withering-criticism-at-senate-hearing/

I am sure there could be more cleaned up, but these are the more obvious ones I saw. Thanks to anyone who can work on this. Best Jdevola (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Disputed Claims

It was Ms. Segarra job, based on her legal background and training by the Fed, to render her opinion (aka, beliefs) about the operations and procedures of Goldman Sachs relative to then existing regulations. If other members of her team or her supervisors have a differing `belief` it is their job as a `team` to come to a majority opinion. It is not their job to unilaterally demand that she change her report without compelling contrary evidence. It is only by building links in the chain that cases against the companies are built:

    Goldman Sachs-"unsafe and unsound practices" 2018
    Wells Fargo- "fraudulent accounts"
    Morgan Stanley- "violation of the custody holding rule" 2017
    Goldman Sachs-"misled mortgage bond investors" 2016
    Morgan Stanley-"overbilling"
    Bank of America 76 billion in fines since 2008
    JPMorgan 44 billion in fines since 2008

Given this brief history of these captains of finance is it any wonder Ms. Segarra erred on the side of her constituency, us. This disputes illustrates several continuing issues within the system;

    The continued inability of the regulators to understand the rules that they are to enforce
    The unwillingness of Goldman Sachs and their brethren to apply any ethics to operation
    The unwillingness or inability of the Fed to perform two of its four primary duties;
        1) Supervising and regulating banks and other important financial institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and 
           financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers.
        2)Maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets.
    The lack of separation between the upper echelons of enforcement and the upper echelon of the regulated
    The ease with which whistleblower are regulated to the sideline 

What no one has pointed is whether this trial occurred in the state of New York which I certainly would consider a hostile venue.

As is well documented so often after the fact and almost always with nothing more the a wink and a nod Ms. Segarra allegations do give greater weight to the unspoken code of Wall St. The rules do not apply to them. Shady deals and silent handshakes are normal operating procedures. Anyone slightly familiar with Sarbanes-Oxley is can only wonder how is it that highlevel exceutive Angelo Mozilo is the only one that paid a price for the economic crash of 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D0A0:29C0:ECE6:B99:ECF9:BDEE (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)