GoldmanSachs666 Message Board

According to the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage".[1] In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g. in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain
*As defined in Wikipedia

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

CIT and Goldman Sachs - Another Coincidence?

Editor's Note: Maybe it is just another coincidence. Maybe not. But a reader sent me an article from last year with Goldman Sachs arranging $3 billion in financing for CIT. Seems a bit odd that the amount of financing CIT needs now is $3 billion.

It's starting t look like, if there is "financial stink" in the air you only need to look under one or two rocks, and you will find a Goldman Sachs connection.

I wonder who is on the hook for the Goldman Sachs $3 billion . . . a pension fund client? a county or state government? or just some poor saps that thought they were being looked after?

By the way, Goldman Sachs gets a 2.85% fee on the $3 billion . . . annually. That means $85 million a year for funding a deal they should have ran away from. Unless . . . they cut a sweetheart deal with CIT.

Oh, and one more thing. The agreement bars CIT from using mortgages as collateral. If anyone knows how stinky the CIT mortgages were, it was Goldman Sachs. I'd almost bet a pizza, Goldman Sachs comes out of this one smelling like a rose, leaving the rest of the banksters and their clients with the stink.

Here's a link to the June 2008 piece about the $3B - Click Here



Post a Comment