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

Monday, May 10, 2010

Goldman's Perfect Score

We have an anonymous commenter here at GS666 that continues to post one great link after another. I don't know whether this is the work of one person or many.
Here's one from the last post-
What is the probability of this in a true free market? Good?...Go scratch your ass something else is going on here...

Goldman Sachs Has First Perfect Quarter With Zero Trading Loss
May 10 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s traders made money every single day of the first quarter, a feat the firm has never accomplished before.


Exactly. The market is rigged. I heard some commentator talking about how the stock market has become just a whole bunch of computers jabbering away at each other. Here's Ellen Brown talking about the subject:

Parts 2 & 3 are at Max's site here

That link came from another anonymous commenter. Good work. These two fit perfectly together in explaining the problem and solution. Goldman reminds me of those caper movies where the bad guys figure out a way to rig the system and make off with the loot to a tropical isle. The Perfect Score. Just gotta pay off a few Congressmen, plant a few insiders in the system, plant your virus in the system and Boom! You're Golden.

 I'm most of the way through the book The Lost Science of Money, and it's pretty clear that this game has been played for about 3,000 years. There seems to be a problem with those in charge not looking back in history to see what sort of monetary system works and what doesn't (hint: it's not gold). Goldman is playing the game just like the rest in their bunch, extracting wealth from society without regard for the consequences.

Psst...Anonymous, it would take only slightly more effort to turn those comments into posts. Why don't you contact Larry and become a posting contributor? You can still remain anonymous.


Anonymous said...

Maybe China could send over some officials to investigate the link between Wall Street, the regulators, and government. Instead of slaps on the wrists they attach hand cuffs. What a welcome change that would be...

Ex-official sentenced to life for bribery

Anonymous said...

Buffett defends Goldman, joins greed Conspiracy
Uncle Warren strums ukulele, in denial of Wall Street's toxic business model

Yes, folks, Uncle Warren has a bad case of denial. Remember, not too long ago Buffett was calling derivatives "weapons of financial mass destruction." And yet, there he was on stage at his love fest last week defending Wall Street's most toxic companies, trapped in denial, defending the greedy culture that got America into its current mess:


Defending Goldman Sachs bad behavior despite the fraud suit and a possible criminal indictment (while hiding his own conflicts of interest as a big investor in both Moody's and Goldman)

Praising Goldman's CEO Lloyd Blankfein ... by far Wall Street's greediest fat-cat banker who paid himself $68 million of his stockholders profits last year

Defending Goldman with a bizarre argument that Goldman is no more guilty than the other Wall Street banks, a tacit approval of the bad behavior of all Wall Street banks in the Goldman Conspiracy

Anonymous said...

I stopped trusting Buffett when he said Hank Paulson was doing the right thing when he was forking over trillions of taxpayer dollars to the banks - no questions asked.

Goldman REO said...

Scary thing when they do something like this , hunh?

I recently got a request from goldman to price one of their foreclosures out , I don't understand why ,but they were EXTREMELY picky about how I did the order, I'm not sure if that means anything, but I did take note of it during the report.

Anonymous said...

Do you believe numbers or words? In the past, how many times have the numbers lied to you?

Goldman Sachs’s Infrequent Losses Prove Client Focus, Cohn Say


More On Goldman's "Perfect Record"

The odds of this outcome happening in any one quarter since the founding of the nation are approximately 8.1 x 10-16 or quite significantly (by close to 100 times) less likely than a one-in-a-trillion chance.

Now certainly trading is not a pure game of chance. Indeed, quite to the contrary; trading is allegedly a game of skill in the main.

I will leave it to you, and those who investigate frauds, to determine whether the application of skill, without any sort of cheating such as front-running client orders, insider information or other forms of rigging the markets, can turn the random chance odds of 8.67 x 10-19 into an event that has, in fact, actually occurred.

Anonymous said...

Look at the date of this article and the SEC is still doing absolutely nothing...we have serious ----bags in leadership positions!

Who’s Afraid Of High-Frequency Trading?

Many institutional money managers are uneasy about how the fast traders anticipate their transactions, and worry that there might be information leakage about their trading intentions — a critical issue for asset managers.

“High-frequency trading, fundamentally, when you look at what their algorithms are finding, they’re almost a structured way of trying to front-run,” said Jim McCaughan, chief executive of the asset management arm of Principal Financial Group, where he oversees about $215 billion (129.6 billion pounds) in assets.

“That just seems to me ultimately as doing it at the expense of other investors,” he said.

Mr. McCaughan said he had no proof of wrongdoing, yet he suspected it is quite likely the leaking of information may have happened. “If it has, it would at best be unfair to other investors and perhaps criminal,” he said.

Post a Comment