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, December 26, 2009

Goldman Sachs Links and News - December 25, 2009

Goldman Sachs Capital PartnersImage via Wikipedia
Goldman Sachs - DailyFinanceResponse to Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein Named Financial Times Person Of The Year
Huffington Post (blog)
Editor's Note:  So much for my admiration for the Financial Times
Vox Verax: Goldman Sachs: The Grinch who stole Christmas?
By Leigh Pomeroy
Master of risk who did God's work for Goldman Sachs but won it little love
Financial Times

Editor's Note:  As you can see, there was not much news about GS on Christmas Day.  It was a great day for everyone to take a break from all that is happening and I hope everyone - including all those at Goldman Sachs - did just that. 

As we near the end of 2009 we hopefully can look back at all that had happened and turn that knowledge - now called history - into positive action for change in the future and to right the wrongs that have occurred. 
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Anonymous said...

NOW we know Who brought many to the brink
“The simultaneous selling of securities to customers and shorting them because they believed they were going to default is the most cynical use of credit information that I have ever seen,” said Sylvain R. Raynes, an expert in structured finance at R & R Consulting in New York. “When you buy protection against an event that you have a hand in causing, you are buying fire insurance on someone else’s house and then committing arson.”
Goldman Sachs: The Grinch who stole Christmas?
Goldman Sachs Sold Hot Air
Goldman Scam: Selling Bad Debts While Betting Against Them
Goldman Sachs' secret bets
Goldman Sachs secretly bet on housing crash

Q&A WITH KEVIN DUFFY AND BILL LAGGNER: Two hedge-fund managers predict the economy's next leg down. Shorting Goldman Sachs.

Anonymous said...

Barron's: What would you have done differently as the credit bubble was bursting and the Fed and the Treasury were declaring that the world would come to an end without an $800 billion bailout package?

Duffy: Allow those who essentially bet wrongly to fail, instead of bailing out people with friends in high places.

Barron's: What about the argument that a financial panic would have ensued and crushed the little guy?

Duffy: The little guy actually has been crushed. The little guy is always going to be the last one in the soup line. So he will get a bone tossed to him, like cash for clunkers. But if you are Goldman Sachs or if you have got essentially the red bat-phone to Washington, D.C., you are first in line.

Anonymous said...

Gee, Who WASN'T Bribed?

And let's remember, he is accused of basically stealing the money.

Now tell me how different this is from Henry Paulson showing up at the SEC's office to press for, and receive, a removal of leverage limits from the Investment Banks - an act that then allowed big Wall Street firms to package up trash loans into securities, shop ratings to get that coveted "AAA" and then sell them off to unsuspecting rubes - who in turn took huge losses in 2007 and 2008?

I argue there is no difference.

There is a fine line between a "campaign contribution" and a "bribe". The law defines it in one place - an explicit "quid pro quo."

Anonymous said...

Sunday, December 27, 2009
2009: The Year Wall Street Bounced Back and Main Street Got Shafted

In September 2008, as the worst of the financial crisis engulfed Wall Street, George W. Bush issued a warning: "This sucker could go down." Around the same time, as Congress hashed out a bailout bill, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, the leading Republican negotiator of the bill, warned that "if we do not do this, the trauma, the chaos and the disruption to everyday Americans' lives will be overwhelming, and that's a price we can't afford to risk paying."

In less than a year, Wall Street was back. The five largest remaining banks are today larger, their executives and traders richer, their strategies of placing large bets with other people's money no less bold than before the meltdown. The possibility of new regulations emanating from Congress has barely inhibited the Street's exuberance.

But if 2009 has proved anything, it's that the bailout of Wall Street didn't trickle down to Main Street. Mortgage delinquencies continue to rise. Small businesses can't get credit. And people everywhere, it seems, are worried about losing their jobs. Wall Street is the only place where money is flowing and pay is escalating. Top executives and traders on the Street will soon be splitting about $25 billion in bonuses (despite Goldman Sachs' decision, made with an eye toward public relations, to defer bonuses for its 30 top players).
The year 2009 will be remembered as the year when Main Street got hit hard. Don't expect 2010 to be much better -- that is, if you live in the real economy. The administration is telling Americans that jobs will return next year, and we'll be in a recovery. I hope they're right. But I doubt it. Too many Americans have lost their jobs, incomes, homes and savings. That means most of us won't have the purchasing power to buy nearly all the goods and services the economy is capable of producing. And without enough demand, the economy can't get out of the doldrums.

Post a Comment