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, October 14, 2010

Goldman Sachs Works For Goldman Sachs

CNBC recently aired a program about Goldman Sachs called "Goldman Sachs: Power and Peril." It was hosted by David Faber. The information on Hank Paulson as Treasury Secretary was particularly revealing especially the fact that most of his advisors were alumni from Goldman Sachs: Stephen Friedman, Josh Bolton, Robert Steele, Neel Kashkari, Kendrick Wilson, Ed Forst, Dan Jester, Steve Shafran and Robert Rubin.

When Paulson takes advice primarily from one source (GS), then you know that he will probably reach an outcome favorable to that source.

Blogger C. Neul speaks candidly about the program but with a positive bias for GS:

David Faber's CNBC Program: Goldman Sachs: Power and Peril

I didn't see David Faber's CNBC program Goldman Sachs: Power and Peril, when it first aired on October 6. But I did record it for later viewing.

While I like Faber's wit and style, it seems pretty obvious that CNBC is having difficulty using his intellect for entertainment purposes. It's just not good fit, and this latest Faber effort illustrates this point yet again.

The hour-long program broke virtually no new reporting ground whatsoever. If you are already familiar with investment banking and trading, this was nearly a wasted hour of your time. If you don't, it was too narrowly focused on Goldman Sachs to really give you a proper, broad sense of the topic.

Faber's House of Cards documentary on CNBC, aired last year, was better, but also deeply flawed, with its complete omission of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Congress as the first movers in America's mortgage finance and, then, general banking system meltdown.

This hour-long examination of Goldman Sachs was, for me, an odd mix of the company's history, now largely irrelevant, combined with what I believe to be an unfair portrayal of the firm in its current state of evolution.

The first and last thirds of the piece merely recounted information you could find elsewhere. While the firm's history from the 1950s was mildly interesting, it's really of no particular import today. The later part of the program, focusing on various mortgage-finance-related activities of the firm before, during and after the 2008 financial crisis, was both unfairly one-sided and largely a repetition of old news.

But, for me, the truly interesting portion of Faber's program was about 10-15 minutes of the middle third of the documentary. This portion contained the most revealing interviews with Goldman personnel, past and present. At this point, Faber also explained that the promised, conclusive, long interview with Lloyd Blankfein had been cancelled.

There are two major aspects of Goldman Sachs which this handful of interviews revealed in a rather startling fashion. Mind you, again, they are not 'news' to anyone remotely familiar with the firm, but they conveyed the points in a rather chilling manner.

First, an ex-Goldman staffer, now an asset manager and CNBC 'contributor,' told a story of being required to attend a 5pm meeting on a Friday starting the Labor or Memorial Day weekend. The partner holding the meeting did not arrive until 10pm, by which time an unspecified, but significant number of the recent hires had left in frustration. The staffer recalled that when the partner arrived, he circulated a sheet for signatures of the remaining employees, then explained the reason for the meeting, i.e., that they were junior in rank to him, a more important person, and this meeting was to teach them patience for when they would, one day, have to wait, or be forced to wait, on some large, important client, with no recourse other than to simply endure until the client allowed them access.

He then replied to Faber that those who left the meeting before 10pm were soon fired from Goldman.

Read the entire article here


C Neul said...

I would not say I showed an overall favorable bias to Goldman.

If anything, I think my entire post, which isn't copied here, warns any clients to distrust GS. That the firm is now essentially a publicly-owned hedge fund only out for itself.

I spent a large portion of the post lampooning the firm's contentions that they put clients first.

If you read the whole post, you won't feel I am charitable to the firm. The only point I make that might be construed as positive is to criticize Washington politicians for incorrectly describing capital markets and misunderstanding the trading of risk.


Joyce said...

CN, I did read the whole post and I just wanted to clarify that I didn't agree with everything you said. But that is what I should have said instead of repeating the word "bias."

Anonymous said...

Why would you rely on this network for unbiased anything??

Ha Ha - NOW CNBS Reports On The Underlying SCAM?

Anonymous said...

Premieres Fri, October 29 at 10P

Jesse goes inside the secret billionaire's boy's club to find out what caused the financial meltdown and how the group allegedly continues to manipulate and control the stock market and oil, gold and silver prices. From Wall Street to Washington, the governor barges in on the rich and powerful to demand answers

Anonymous said...

Foreclosure Crisis Finally Hitting Banks Where it Hurts: Their Stock Prices

We’ve been poking at this story since early in the year, more intensively since May, and even with persistent effort and good contacts to people in a position to give good readings on the legal and procedural issues, there are still a lot of unknowns, simply because the real estate market is fragmented and practices varied. But what has been striking the deeper we have dug into this morass is that on almost every matter of fact (as in how exactly did the banks handle the notes, which is the borrower IOU), the answers are coming in consistent with worse case scenarios. I continue to be gobsmacked at the flagrant disregard by large numbers of securitization industry participants for adherence to their own contracts and legal procedures necessary to protect their clients and ultimately, their organizations.

Ah, but I forget, a banker’s primary loyalty is to his own paycheck.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes you have to wonder about the authenticity(integrity?) of the opinions(conflicts) of the guests/shows of that network..don't you think?

Presenting David Tepper's Holdings

Anonymous said...

This guy shows up on that network all the time:

...Over the past 30 years, the economics discipline has been systematically subverted, in much the same way as American politics - by money, especially from the financial services industry. Many of the most prominent economists in America are now paid to testify in Congress, to serve on boards of directors, testify in antitrust cases and regulatory proceedings, and to give speeches to the companies and industries they study and write about with supposed objectivity. This is not a marginal activity; it is now an industry, run by a half dozen large companies....

Anonymous said...

From the interviews I've heard between the newspeople and thier guests, it seem s to me that the REAL news people think all these testimonies of fraudulent Wall Street behavior are made up.

I'm pretty sure that the News is censored by the Bigger Pockets.

I don't know what to expect anymore - since I am a victim of Wall Street fraud and have experienced and am experiencing what is being done to ordinary people, I know that the testimonies are true.

I'm really worried about China being sold worthless paper desguised as gold - just like investors were also sold worthless paper, and the homeowners were robbed of equity of years to come in order to make it happen.

Is it possible, that all these foreclosed properties (land) is the real thing being traded here? If US owes China billions, and then gave them worthless paper to pay for it (to keep them quiet for just a while), what would China's ultimate reaction be?

A bigger question still - WHERE DID ALL THE REAL MONEY GO??

Anonymous said...

Several Congressmen have seen proof of the frauds - and yet thier interviewers don't seem to buy it, and almost immediately after such a video is posted on the Net there are numerous comments against the Congress person.

The news room people seem to try to debunk the guests, saying "where's the proof?". I guess a Congressman's testimony that he's seen proof doesn't really matter. I guess several dispositions of Banker employees stating they committed fraud doesn't matter. As long as the Bank says that "it's own audit" shows that no fraud exists - then the Bank must be right.
The homeowner is called a deadbeat that is to blame for Wall Street Banker's fraudulent and unethical behavior, and the robo-signer's perjury.

Something is very wrong here. America's people, from all walks of life, are going broke, losing thier investments, pensions and homes, and fast becoming dependent on government aid - social security is broke, and the Fed gov is now printing new money that is backed by nothing.
The Banks got money from homeowners (whatever payments, and then the property), investors, and the Fed.

Anonymous said...

He got great training....see above

David Tepper Dumps 20% Of Financial Holdings During Quarter Of Infamous CNBC Speech

Guess who, after on September 24 David Tepper almost screamed that he was "balls to the wall long" and EVERYTHING was about to go up on QE2, you were very likely buying shares Bank of America and Citigroup from? Why, David Tepper, that's who. In Tepper's just released Q3 13F, the Appaloosa fund manager disclosed that in the quarter ended September 30, one week after his pompous, self-serving speech on CNBC served as a reason to pump the market up by almost 2%, he sold 18% of his BofA holdings (his largest holding both at June 30 and September 30), 11% of Citi, 19% of Wells Fargo, 19% of Fifth Third, 19% of Capital One, 75% of his then $157 million Hartford Financial position, and lighten up on pretty much all of his other financial positions. And congratulations to CNBC for serving as the medium which David Tepper manipulated to his advantage and dump about 20% of his financial stake, which as of June 30 was his biggest, at 56% of total holdings.

Post a Comment