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

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Goldman Sachs Links and News - December 16, 2009

Goldman Sachs Capital PartnersImage via Wikipedia
Bank Bonuses: The 'Fat Cats' Try to Look Slimmer
Goldman Sachs Accused by Teamsters of Driving YRC Toward Ruin
Two bills in Congress restore Glass-Steagall
Goldman Sachs Mortgage Role Should Be Probed, Labor Union Says
McCain backs restoring Glass-Steagall bank limits
Goldman Sachs Traders: Firm's Ethos Fading With Blankfein As CEO
By The Huffington Post News Team » Economy » Max Keiser: “Goldman Sachs Are Scum”
By JasonRines 
Goldman Sachs has changed | Investing Contrarian
By Investing Contrarian
Goldman Protests Moun
ABC News
Has Goldman Sachs Lost Its Luster?
Dumbest moments in business 2009 - Goldman Sachs's PR blitz (1 ...
As Goldman Thrives, Some Say an Ethos Has Faded
New York Times
Obama brings purrs from Wall Street's fat cats
Washington Examiner
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Anonymous said...


Can I have a loan and an equity investment to allow me to boost my bonuses to about $20 million?

I think one of the most important points are being missed. Most of
these banks swore that they didn't need TARP. Despite this, in order
to return it, they must go back out to the capital markets. Why do you
have to hit the market to return a loan that you said you didn't need,
unless you needed it? This obvious lie has went unchallenged.

It gets worse. Citi is diluting the hell out of it shareholders, as
well as all of the other TARP banks that are selling shares. Some may
even be taking on debt. They are doing this primarily to gain the
freedom to declare bonuses at higher rates despite uncertain credit
condition surrounding the toxic assets that caused the problem in the
first place. Why in the world would any lender or shareholder agree to
dilution and/or higher debt service "primarily" to pay higher bonuses
to employees in the highest compensated (as a percent of net revenue)
industry in the world???

Imagine if you ran this business, you have rocky times during a
recession with revenues in nearly all aspects of your business down
save the blatant risk taking of trading, and you go to your bank and
say I need a big loan so I can pay myself a $20 million bonus
Do you think Citibank would give you this loan? They expect it from
their shareholders. The same goes for Goldman, JPM, BAC, etc.

Anonymous said...

McCain's Redemption?

Reinstating Glass-Steagall would be a near-total reversal of his previous position. It would be recognition of the facts: Banks that are allowed to gamble in the financial markets inherently are gambling with the sovereign credit of The United States, and inevitably transfer their losses to the taxpayer while keeping ALL of the profits for their overpriced staff and executives.

This is often said to be of "benefit" to the public because these banks are public companies. This is a flat lie:

Goldman typically bonuses out roughly half of their gross profits, with only a minuscule piece being paid in dividends to shareholders. Other banks have similar compensation policies.

Post a Comment