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

Friday, November 19, 2010

Charlie Gasparino - Fox Business News - Goldman Sachs Unwinds Buffet Investment

The marriage between Goldman and Warren Buffet was a marriage of convenience for both parties. Buffet knew his investment would spark a more positive attitude amongst other investors that in turn would drive his meager $50 billion investment even higher.  At the same time, Goldman needed the money (they have always claimed they were solvent so why take any money at all?) and even more needed what ever credibility Buffet's name could lend to their heavily tarnished image.  Frankly, I now think both of their images are tarnished and there is no one out there that can help improve them.  One final comment as to Goldman's need for government bailouts, behind the scenes repayment in full from AIG, Buffet's investments and other "free" money deals they received.  Where are the billions of dollars they made on all the Asset Backed Securities they sold, the Credit Default Swaps and Derivatives they played with?  IN fact, where are all the billions of dollars all the banks - The Too Big To Fail and The Too Big To Go To Jail gangs - made?  Where's the money?  In one of their many off shore corporations that remain off of their domestic balance sheets and/or hidden by that unique accounting method of "off balance sheet" items.  In other words, it is much like the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.  We all know it exists but won't admit it.

Now, Goldman wants to rid themselves of Buffet and the return on his investment that they are paying him.  IN other words, he served his purpose at the time but now the honeymoon needs to be over.  They would like to annul the marriage probably using the money they made with his money to do so.  


Charlie Gasparino of Fox Business Network has done a fine job of following and questioning the actions of Goldman Sachs and continues to do so.  We are alerted to his programs and reports when he does and gladly share them with our readers. 

November 17, 2010

Goldman to Unwind Buffett Stake Post-Dividend Rule

FBN's Charlie Gasparino on the Fed issuing guidelines for banks wanting to raise dividends.


Fox Business Network (FBN) Senior Correspondent Charlie Gasparino reports that Goldman Sachs is anxious to unwind Warren Buffett’s stake in the company and the “dividend rule was the one thing holding it up.”

Excerpts from the  ** FOX BUSINESS NETWORK** report are below.

On what Goldman Sachs will do with Warren Buffett’s stake if the dividend rule is lifted:
“Last night I was speaking to someone close to Goldman Sachs who said they expect to unwind that stake immediately because the dividend rule was the one thing holding it up and so now you will see Goldman Sachs unwind that Buffett’s stake.”

On how the dividend rule has been preventing Goldman Sachs from unwinding shares:
 “We have been reporting that Goldman Sachs is looking to unwind its stake that Warren Buffet holds. He bought during the height of the fiscal crisis about 50 billion dollars and he told Liz Claman he is making fifteen dollars a second on that stake and they would just love to unwind that. One of the hurdles was this dividend rule.”

On Warren Buffett’s stake in Goldman Sachs:
“It was a very profitable investment for Warren Buffet. It was much needed for Goldman. When Buffet put his money in the firm, it was a vote of confidence to the markets that Goldman was going to survive the 2008 financial crisis, but it was very costly.”


Post a Comment