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, January 16, 2010

Goldman Sachs Links and News - January 16, 2010

Goldman Sachs Capital PartnersImage via Wikipedia
SEC Subpoenas Goldman Sachs, Citigroup over CDOs | The Economic ...
By Robert Oak 
MYG | Goldman Sachs - AIG | The public right to know
Want to Protest Wall Street's Bonus Bonanza? Good Luck
Daily Finance
theRacetotheBottom - Home - Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Says Goldman ...
By Jennifer S. Taub  
Bankers apologize for actions that led to crisis - Yahoo! News
Paulson Asked to Testify at Hearing on AIG Payments to Partners
Wall Street Journal
Goldman Sachs Clarifies Various Media Reports of Aspect of FCIC Hearing
Financial Meltdown: Act of God, or Just the Ungodly Acts of Bankers?
Politics Daily (blog)
Goldman Sachs CEO Admits “Improper” Hedges
theRacetotheBottom - Home - Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Says Goldman ...
By Jennifer S. Taub 
The Great Bank Robbery Conspiracy- Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner ...
By Foreclosure Fraud  
Goldman Sachs: Blankfein didn't say firm's practices were improper'
Goldman Sachs admits 'improper' actions in sales of securities
Austin American-Statesman
 Behind the Goldman Sachs-AIG Scandal | The Hollywood Liberal
By Reliapundit 
Fed Made More Money than Goldman Sachs | My Share Space
By The Daily Reckoning Australia  
Celente Goldman Sachs Schemes unheard of | Gerald Celente Trends Blog
They still don't get it
Baltimore Sun
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Anonymous said...

January 14, 2010: The Word - Honor Bound
Your honor was so precious to those banks that they bundled your honor with other people's honor and cut that honor bundle into securitized honor derivatives, that were then sold to Wall Street honor speculators. And in an attempt to get more honor to sell they mixed your honor with the honor of people who did not honor their honor and eventually the honor bubble burst.

But that doesn't mean that they're responsible.

Anonymous said...

The Show Must Not Go On

Published: January 16, 2010

The commission must uncover what bankers, investors, government officials and other people in positions of power, past and present, would prefer not to say — or perhaps do not know or understand — about the crash and the bailouts. The primary aim is not to air issues and foster debate, but to test views, resolve contradictions and arrive at evidence-based conclusions.

Yet the commission — which is supposed to file a final report by Dec. 15 — has not issued a single subpoena for documents. Instead, investigators have apparently been relying on voluntary cooperation, public records and information-sharing agreements that have been negotiated with federal agencies. A thorough investigation requires source documents that reveal what people were thinking and doing at the time of the events and that illuminate, buttress or contradict testimony.

Anonymous said...

Obama’s “Get Tough on Banks” Again Tries to Play the Public for Fools

But more is that FDR from the very outset set himself up as an opponent of rule by the banking classes. He depicts them as failures and calls them unscrupulous and selfish. By contrast, have were ever heard Obama even hint that bankers were less than ethical? Let’s see, last December, he called them “fat cats“! Ah yes, of course, everyone knows a cat will steal a sardine if you aren’t watching. Yeah, that Obama sure knows how to dress those bankers down!

As we discussed at greater length earlier this week, this new “get our money back” idea is pure three card Monte. Put the spotlight on the TARP so everyone will ignore all the other massive subsidies that the banks have gotten, continue to receive, and are abusing. Those who claim many banks have “paid back the TARP” are missing (more likely choosing to obfuscate) the point: the TARP calculus grossly understates of the gives and the gets here (although as we have said before and will say again, Obama’s focus on the TARP is pure political expediency).

But this time, the Fed supports are far less covert (kinda hard to miss the ballooning of its balance sheet) and the banks are being pigs and undermining the purpose of this operation by skimming way too much off in employee pay. But it certainly appears no one has called the bankers into a private meeting and threatened them (and the regulators do hold the whip hand, even if they have been brainwashed into not recognizing that). Bernanke seems unable to see how his whole market manipulation program has been repurposed by the industry into welfare for the rich.

More important, despite the firms’ claims otherwise, >they are now effectively backstopped by the government, and they know it. They should be paying insurance premiums, NOW, hefty ones, for being beneficiaries of the “No more Lehmans” policy. But there is no desire for anything remotely resembling a full accounting from the crew in the Administration.

Anonymous said...

Bill Black: We Must Solve the Wall St. Bonus Problem

Anonymous said...

Eliot Spitzer Talks To Fareed Zakaria About Wall Street Bonuses (VIDEO)

Spitzer made the point that when it comes to holding banks accountable, the political divisions of left versus right are disappearing:

Anonymous said...

Monday, January 18, 2010
Are Securitized Mortgages Subject to Usury Laws?

His argument is effectively the routes that allowed banks to evade state usury laws (a Supreme Court decision plus adept jurisdiction-shopping) may not extend to securitization trusts. And note this logic would apply to other types of securitizations, such as auto loans.

These aren’t mere academic questions. Securitization trusts hold around 60% of mortgage debt and 25% of other consumer debt. There’s no law directly on point, but if I’m correct, then usury could be raised as a viable defense to the collection of a sizable portion of consumer debt. And states would have pretty broad rein to regulate the collection of debts held by securitization trusts.

Anonymous said...

You think?

JANUARY 19, 2010.U.S. Aid Benefits Banks, not Homeowners

Government support for the economy has helped banks make all manner of windfall profits. But have outsize returns in banks' mortgage operations deprived borrowers of lower mortgage rates?

In 2009, there was a big jump in an industry margin used to gauge the profitability of banks' main mortgage business, selling home loans to government-supported Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In theory, if that margin had remained at narrower, historical levels, mortgage rates for borrowers could have been lower. That might have created sizable savings for homeowners over the life of their loans and breathed more life into the housing market.

Post a Comment