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, June 12, 2010

Morality, BP and Goldman

William Cohan talks about morality, BP and Goldman

BP’s Mess, and Wall Street’s
Just because you can do something, does that mean you should? It’s a question that might have saved us a lot of pain in recent months if both Goldman Sachs and British Petroleum had asked it of themselves during the last decade.
Sure, Goldman, and other Wall Street firms, could — and did — create “synthetic C.D.O.s” to allow consenting investors, including Goldman itself, to gamble on the risk in the U.S. housing market. Sure, Goldman and others could — and did — package up mortgages that should never have been issued into mortgage-backed securities and sold them to investors around the world who, in turn, abdicated their responsibility to investigate the soundness of the investment because some rating agency — paid by the underwriters — had slapped a AAA-rating on them. That technology existed, and Goldman and others just availed themselves of it, right? Besides, they were simply supplying the demands of the marketplace, right?

Read the rest here


JR said...

Goldman's CDO woes mean dollar signs for lawyers

11 June 2010

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Goldman Sachs Group Inc's mounting legal and regulatory woes stemming from the firm's sale of subprime mortgage-linked securities are turning into gold for a growing number of lawyers in New York and Washington.

The Wall Street investment firm tapped well known litigation specialists Boies, Schiller & Flexner to defend a lawsuit filed June 9 by an Australian hedge fund that seeks $1 billion (688.6 billion pounds) in damages, said people familiar with the situation, but who declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak on the matter.

More here:

JR said...

Regulators need correct tools to get full picture

By Aline van Duyn

Published: June 11 2010 19:04 | Last updated: June 11 2010 19:04

How long would it take to read 2.5bn pages?

Making a few assumptions about average reading speeds and the number of words that appear on an average page, the answer is slightly less than 6,000 years. And that assumes the person reads 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. In short, it is a truly indigestible amount of information that cannot be processed even in a lifetime.

More here:

JR said...

A good place to follow the stock fortunes of GS:

Anonymous said...

It looks very suspicious that certain BP people sold their shares prior to the oil slick disaster. What I find odd is that BP share prices don't seem to have dropped - what with all the compensation payments BP will have to pay out and the cost of the (extremly slow) clean up.

JR said...

Goldman's Stonewall Is Bad Business
By hiding information from regulators and customers, the bank is hurting its already-damaged reputation.
By Heidi N. Moore
Posted Friday, June 11, 2010 - 2:14pm

Goldman Sachs (GS) has always had a reputation for being above the fray, aloof from the concerns of mere mortals. This reputation has served the bank splendidly as it fends off the pleas, hearings, and subpoenas of federal regulators. To the experienced (or simply jaded), it appeared that the 141-year-old Wall Street stalwart is just, well, being Goldman.

More here:

JR said...

AIG "poisonous" to the taxpayer: congressional panel

Kuala Lumpur News.Net
Saturday 12th June, 2010

A congressional panel has labelled the government bailout of AIG in 2008
A congressional panel tasked with examining the virtue of the US government’s massive bailout of various industries following the collapse of the market in 2008 has said that the bailout of AIG was “poisonous” to the taxpayer.

More here:

Post a Comment