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

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Goldman Sachs Links and News - July 29, 2010 - With Larry's Corner

Volatility Trade Buffett Embraced Backfires for Wall Street Hedge Experts
Want To Sue Goldman Sachs? Take A Number « Dealbreaker: A Wall ...
By Bess Levin
Citi Snags Ex-Goldman Trader For Japan Forex Role - Memo
Wall Street Journal
Goldman Confident Reform Law Is Manageable, BofA Says
File these next links under "Can You Believe This?"  The media has nothing better to report on GS then this sh...t!
Goldman Sachs bans employees from using swear words in e-mails, texts and ...
New York Daily News
Goldman Sachs: No More "Sh**ty" Deals
CBS News
Goldman Sachs Bans the Phrase “Shitty Deal”; Making Shitty Deals Still OK
Vanity FairDiversions: Goldman Sachs says no more expletives in emails
Washington Post (blog)

 Everyone's Talking About This

New York Daily News, CBS News, Vanity Fair (Vanity Fair?) and The Washington Post along with many blogs seem to think that Goldman's banning the use of certain profanity in their emails is news worthy.  Wow!  

Is this just a slow news day and there is a need for fill?  Wow!  Seems to me that publications like The Washington Post, New York Daily Times, CBS News and even Vanity Fair have investigative budgets and should be doing investigative work on the frauds and crimes that have been committed.  There should be enough fill in investigations of this type to fill slow news days for years to come.  In fact, there should be enough information to report on almost every day.  

But, that would ruffle too many feathers on Wall Street and probably hurt advertising sales along the way, if not directly then indirectly.  

Well, I hate to say this but this is pretty sh....ty.  (please fill in the blanks, I don't want to swear in public). 


Anonymous said...

An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President,

You don’t know me, but I was one of the millions of Americans who voted for you in the last election. I have since been fairly critical of your Presidency largely because I, like many others, feel betrayed by the policies you have enacted upon winning said election.

However, rather than simply becoming yet another “I voted for Obama and regret it” commentator who has a lot of complaints but no ideas, I thought it better to do my duty as a citizen of this country and try to offer a solution to some of the problems plaguing the US today.

First of all, I would create a new financial law in the US. It would be the following:

Any financial gain reaped by insider trading, manipulation, fraud, stealing, etc. would result in 100% of the gains generated by the action being confiscated by the Government and the company that committed the action being fined an amount equal to 10% of its (the company’s) net value.

Today, the most common punishment for financial or corporate entities that break the law is a small fine. A perfect example of this is the recent Goldman Sachs lawsuit in which the firm paid a $550 million settlement on a deal that helped the firm generate billions in profit. To put this in perspective, Goldman generates $500 million in profits in about a week of trading.
These fines accomplish little if anything. They are akin to fining someone $5 for running a stop sign. If that was the worst punishment for running a stop sign, no one would bother following motor traffic laws at all. So why do we impose similarly modest sums on those organizations that generate billions of dollars? It’s not like they DON’T have the money handy to pay off a sizable fine.

A fine of this size (10% of market capitalization or total assets, or Enterprise Value or whatever) as well as confiscating 100% of the ill-gotten gains, would act as a MAJOR DETERRANT to corporate and financial crime. It would, in plain terms, clean up Big Business’s (well, every business’s) act in no time.

Post a Comment