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

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Goldman's Trading Advice: HORRIBLE!

From Business Insider:

Goldman's Trading Advice To Clients Has Been HORRIBLE This Year

Your latest moment of Goldmanfreude courtesy of Bloomberg:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. racked up trading profits for itself every day last quarter. Clients who followed the firm’s investment advice fared far worse.

Seven of the investment bank’s nine “recommended top trades for 2010” have been money losers for investors who adopted the New York-based firm’s advice, according to data compiled by Bloomberg from a Goldman Sachs research note sent yesterday. Clients who used the tips lost 14 percent buying the Polish zloty versus the Japanese yen, 9.4 percent buying Chinese stocks in Hong Kong and 9.8 percent trading the British pound against the New Zealand dollar.

The comparison between Goldman's own trading profits (which have been perfect) and its client advice is amusing, but... it's a little unfair.

Goldman isn't taking directional bets on Chinese stocks on the zloty. And it can't tell its clients to become a bank, borrow from the Fed and lend long.


Anonymous said...

Remember this one when you vote in your area:

Nations Over Banks

Oh there's no question at all Lloyd. Goldman and the rest of the large banks have made clear that their interest is singular: Whatever makes money the banks will do, irrespective of how "clients" are treated or, in many cases, whether what is being done is legal.

Unlawful? Yep. We have at least two known examples among the banksters (the GIC conspiracy and Jefferson County), including this fabulous quote I cited yesterday:

“The whole investment process was rigged across the board,”

This isn't capitalism. It's thuggery and when institutionalized and formalized as a policy of "we have a legal shield behind which we will do this as we won't be prosecuted for breaking the law in the process of ripping everyone off" it can also be thought of as fascism.

Remember that John Dillinger "made money" too. But he was, at least, honest about the fact that he stole it.

Anonymous said...

Financial Reforms 'Cosmetic,' Won't Stop More Crises: Roubini

“We need more radical reforms," he added. "The idea that we’ll be able to close down an institution like Goldman (Sachs) in an orderly way—a business that operates in nearly a hundred countries—is absurd.”

Roubini, an NYU professor who has been called "Dr. Doom" for his dire economic outlook, said the three main problems with big banks like Goldman were that they were 1) Too big to fail, 2) Too big to be bailed out and 3) Too big to be risk managed.

Post a Comment