.....
The mainstream media jumps when Goldman's sales and marketing staff analysts make a recommendation or prediction, despite the fact that no one really bothers to look back to see how profitable the GS sales and marketing staff analysts have been for their clients vs the risk-adjusted profitability for their bonus pool shareholders. One example that I have used in my previous posts was Lehman Brothers, who I became increasingly bearish on in early 2008 (if you're a regular reader, please bear with this rehash):
.....The esteemed Goldman Sachs did not agree with my thesis on Lehman. Reference the following graph, and click it if you need to enlarge. Notice the tone, and ultimately the outright indication of a fall in the posts from February through April 2008 above, and cross reference with the rather rosy and optimistic guidance from the esteemed Goldman (Sachs) boys during the same time period, then... Oh yeah, Lehman filed for bankruptcy!!!
.....
The blind following of Wall Street marketing research, and the abject worshipping of Goldman marketing, inventory dumping, sales research allows them to rake billions of dollars off of their clients backs, yet clients still come back for more pain. A fascinating, Pavlov's dog's/Stockholm Syndrome style phenomena. Have you, as a Goldman client, performed as well as their employees receiving $19 billion in bonuses? Don't get me wrong. I'm not hating Goldman, but now they are actually raping raking billions of dollars off of the tax payers backs as well. I do not do business with them, hence I do not want get my back raked - but it appears that as a US taxpayer I have no choice. A company that nearly collapsed a year ago, receives mysteriously generous government assistance (AIG full payout during its near collapse as an insolvent company) with the help of highly ranked government officials (many of which are ex-Goldman employees) and then pays out record bonuses on top of so many tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer aid with taxpayers facing high unemployment and sparse credit is not necessarily a company that should be looked upon as a scion of Wall Street. There is no operational excellence here. The only reason such an aura exists is because main street and Wall Street clients have an amazingly short memory, as I will demonstrate in the paragraphs below. This goes for the big Wall Street banks in general, and Goldman in particular.
Read the rest here
4 COMMENTS:
Nothing has changed in 100 years...not enough people care!
Who’s In Charge? – The Regulators
The U.S. Federal Reserve System was established by an Act of Congress in 1913, directly as a result of the banking crisis and stock market crash of 1907. While Congress had no constitutional authority to pass the Federal Reserve Act, its intent was to erect a central bank “as a lender of last resort” in order to protect the assets of the bankers. Indeed, in his book, “Secrets of the Federal Reserve,” author Eustace Mullins purports that the Fed is actually owned by wealthy banking families, such as the Rothchilds, Rockerfellers, Goldmans, Morgans and other bankers.
Furthermore, the Federal Reserve Board, comprised of twelve districts and one director (the Federal Reserve Chairman) would control the nation’s financial resources by controlling the money supply and available credit, all by mortgaging the government through borrowing. The plan worked. The Federal Reserve Bill was held until December 23rd. (two days before Christmas) before it was presented to the House and Senate. Only those senators and congressmen who had not gone home for the holidays – those who owed favors to, or were on the payroll of the bankers – were present to sign the legislation.
http://tinyurl.com/yapbc25
Bankers Lose to Congressmen Among Americans Furious Over Pay
Two-thirds of Americans say they have an unfavorable view of financial executives. More than half say big financial companies are only out to enrich themselves and also say they shouldn’t have received government aid. And most Americans don’t want to see bankers collecting fat checks at the end of the year if their companies were bailed out by taxpayers.
“The fact that they’re even in existence should be bonus enough,” says Cassie Swihart, a 58-year-old retired registered nurse from Warsaw, Indiana, who responded to the poll of 1,000 U.S. adults, conducted Dec. 3-7 by Selzer & Co., a Des Moines, Iowa-based firm. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
The public opposition to Wall Street firms paying bonuses shows the widening disconnect between executives such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s Lloyd Blankfein, who argue they need to pay generously to retain good employees, and the broader public that blames big banks for an economic collapse and doubling of the unemployment rate in two years.
http://tinyurl.com/y9u6r3m
The president has packed his economic team with Wall Street insiders intent on turning the bailout into an all-out giveaway
The irony of Bob Rubin: He's an unapologetic arch-capitalist demagogue whose very career is proof that a free-market meritocracy is a myth. Much like Alan Greenspan, a staggeringly incompetent economic forecaster who was worshipped by four decades of politicians because he once dated Barbara Walters, Rubin has been held in awe by the American political elite for nearly 20 years despite having fucked up virtually every project he ever got his hands on. He went from running Goldman Sachs (1990-1992) to the Clinton White House (1993-1999) to Citigroup (1999-2009), leaving behind a trail of historic gaffes that somehow boosted his stature every step of the way.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout
Do you think the well educated goldmanites and their political advocates care if you feel powerless?...throughout history it repeats...
"The three aims of the tyrant are:
one, the humiliation of his subjects;
he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody;
two, the creation of mistrust among them;
for a tyrant is not to be overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another --
and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the
good; they are under the idea that their power is
endangered by them, not only because they [the good] will
not be ruled despotically, but also because
they are too loyal to one another and to other men, and do
not inform against one another or against other men --
three, the tyrant desires that all his subjects shall be incapable of action,
for no one attempts what is impossible and they will not attempt to overthrow
a tyranny if they are powerless."
-- Aristotle
Source: Politics, Book V Chapter 11.
Post a Comment