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

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Goldman Sachs Bonus Rage "Will Kill Our Golden Goose"?

Editor's note: the Times has an interesting piece on Goldman Sachs bonus rage worth checking out in its entirety. The title is a tad off-putting but I reluctantly admit that he's got a point. - JDA

It's nice to know that it isn't just us. I think.

Foolish bonus rage will kill our Goldman Sachs goose (Dominic Lawson via the UK Times):

What is it about the name Goldman Sachs that makes otherwise sensible people foam at the mouth? Over the past few days it has become mandatory for any public figure to fulminate about Goldman’s announcement that it would be paying billions in bonuses to its 5,000 London-based employees. Alistair Darling declared that this was a grievous mistake and that no bank “would be standing here today if the taxpayer had not put their hand into their pocket”.

Lord Mandelson spoke darkly of an “unacceptable return” to past practices. Lord Myners, the minister responsible for the financial sector, lambasted people “being grossly over-rewarded for their contribution to the value added”. Even Boris Johnson, as London mayor the City’s stoutest defender, wrote that Goldman’s decision was “unbelievable ... what Asperger’s afflicts them?”.

Read the rest over at Jr Deputy Accountant ("Killing Goldman Sachs' Goose, Across the Pond Style")


Larry Rubinoff said...

There has been a lot of outrage over these bonuses both here and abroad. Just a week or so ago, most news articles and blogs about Goldman were about their bonuses.

The article you quote from the UK does have a lot of merit and perhaps we are making too much about these bonuses.

Are the bonuses the issue or the control Goldman may exert on politics and governments the issue?

Is there a level of corrucption or at the very least a level of insider manipulation?

Was Goldman forced to take the US Government TARP money? After all who was it that "forced" them? Of course, former US Treasury Secrectary and former Goldman CEO. Hmmm?

As to the bonuses, they are reallyl the problem for the stockholders. Somewhere along the line corporate execs have forgotten that they work at teh pleasure of their stockholders who are the true owners of the compnay. Well, the stockholders seem to have forgotten that as well.

Post a Comment