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 7, 2011

More Goldman Sachs Secret Borrowings

I have tried to keep track of all the money that Goldman Sachs has borrowed from the Fed and from other sources. Here is the list so far:

1. $ 10 billion TARP funds (just so everyone will be in the same boat!);
2. 12.9 billion from AIG TARP funds used for GS counterparties;
3. 1.9 billion of the AIG funds used for its own purposes;
4. 5 billion loan from Buffet;
5. 589 billion PDCF short term loans from the Federal Reserve;
6. 193 billion TSLF
7. either 53.4 billion or 30 billion from ST OMO (shingle-tranche open-market operations)

It adds up to a total of $865.2 billion (and we shouldn't be surprised if there are more secrets out there to be disclosed and the sum reaches 1$ trillion.)

If you want to see a chart of the money that Goldman Sachs has borrowed over the years, see here.

Just think, if that money had been used to increase employment, help homeowners, assist states that need help, etc. instead of creating all those billionaires and millionaires with their fat salaries, bonuses and stock portfolios!

Here is Zero Hedge's Tyler Durden on bailout programs:

Fed Releases Details On Secret $855 Billion Single-Tranche OMO Bailout Program: Just Another Foreign Bank Rescue Operation
By Tyler Durden - Zero Hedge

A month ago we reported about Bob Ivry's discovery that the Fed had been conducting a secretive bailout operation between March and December 2008, under which banks borrowed as much as $855 billion over the time frame for a rate as low as 0.01%. As the Fed itself explains following a just disclosed launch of a page dedicated to this Saint OMO, "The Federal Reserve System conducted a series of single-tranche term repurchase agreements from March 2008 to December 2008 with the intention of mitigating heightened stress in funding markets. These operations were conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York with primary dealers as counterparties through an auction process under the standard legal authority for conducting temporary open market operations. In these transactions, primary dealers could deliver any of the types of securities--Treasuries, agency debt, or agency MBS--that are accepted in regular open market operations. By providing term funding to primary dealers, this program helped to address liquidity pressures evident across a number of financing markets and supported the flow of credit to U.S. households and business." Well, not really. As the chart below shows the banks, pardon primary dealers, that benefited the most from this secret iteration of Fed generosity were once again foreign banks, with the Top 5 borrowers being Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, RBS and Barclays. Together these five accounted for $593 billion of total borrowings, or 70% of the total. So perhaps the Fed should rephrase the last sentence to "supported the flow of credit to U.S. European households and business" which is to be expected. After all, as we have demonstrated before, the European banking system's liabilities are orders of magnitude greater than the US. So in order to preserve the global Ponzi (a main reason why Greece must never be allowed to fail), the biggest weakness that has to be addressed constantly is and will be in Europe.

Read the entire article here


Anonymous said...

Gerald Celente wants to know did any of that bailout trickle down...?...seems just up

Anonymous said...

Take a look at the items you listed above....just remember this...they took the food right out of your mouth...maybe that's what it will take for people to realize how badly they were duped by government and wall street! Somebody had to pay for those bonuses!!!

AARP Screams Bloody Murder

The idea of using this different measure of inflation, known as a “chained” consumer price index, has won support from numerous deficit-reduction commissions as well as many liberal and conservative economists." Yet reminding everyone that there is no such thing as a free lunch in finance, the "biggest savings—an estimated $112 billion—would be from slowing the growth in the cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security beneficiaries." Sure enough someone is unhappy. Enter the AARP which is already screaming, justifiably, bloody murder should the administration proceed with what will be an outright slashing of Social Security obligations. "AARP will not accept any cuts to Social Security as part of a deal to pay the nation’s bills,” said Rand. “Social Security did not cause the deficit, and it should not be cut to reduce a deficit it did not cause." Did Obama's war with America's seniors just enter Defcon 1?

Anonymous said...

How Goldman Sachs Created 'Shitty' CDOs, Sold Them To AIG, Forced AIG Into Bankruptcy, Got A $20 Billion Bailout, Paid Themselves Billions In Bonuses, And Watched As Tim Geithner Covered It All Up

Here's what you need to take from this: Goldman put together crappy CDO's, bought Credit Default Swap protection (insurance) from AIG, pushed AIG into bankruptcy by making claims on the insurance, and then got paid -- not by AIG -- but by the TAXPAYER.

Oh, and the guy who tried to cover all this up? Barack Obama picked him to be your Treasury Secretary. Is this a great country, or what?

Anonymous said...

This Time is Different, or will The Next Financial Crisis Be Even Worse

3. The incentives remain crooked. People outside finance from respected political pundits like George Will to normal people on Main Street still don’t fully get this. Wall Street rules aren’t like Main Street rules. The guy running a Wall Street bank isn’t in the same “risk/reward” situation as a guy running, say, a dry-cleaning shop. Take all our mental images of traditional American free-market enterprise and put them to one side. This is totally different. For the people on Wall Street, it’s a case of heads they win, tails they get to flip again. Thanks to restricted stock, options, the bonus game, securitization, 2-and-20 fee structures, insider stock sales, “too big to fail” and limited liability, they are paid to behave recklessly, and they lose little or nothing if things go wrong.

4. The referees are corrupt. We’re supposed to have a system of free enterprise under the law. The only problem: The players get to bribe the refs. Imagine if that happened in the NFL. The banks and other industries lavish huge amounts of money on Congress, presidents and the entire Washington establishment of aides, advisers and hangers-on. They do it through campaign contributions. They do it with $500,000 speaker fees and boardroom sinecures upon retirement. And they do it by spending a fortune on lobbyists so you know that if you play nice when you’re in government, you too can get a $500,000-a-year lobbying job when you retire. How big are the bribes? The finance industry spent $474 million on lobbying last year alone, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Anonymous said...

Can't imagine why?

At Goldman, Pressure on Staff to Keep a Low Profile

In Ms. Baker’s case, she was told that writing about her time at Goldman would represent a breach of her confidentiality agreement, which extended indefinitely. The firm informed Mr. Levine, 33, that he would have to take a paid 60-day leave before he could start at Dealbreaker, a common industry waiting period referred to as a “garden leave.”

“I don’t think it’s all that surprising, given everything that’s gone on with Goldman Sachs and the press,” said Bess Levin, the Dealbreaker editor who hired Mr. Levine.

A Goldman spokesman declined to comment. Ms. Baker and Mr. Levine declined to talk about the contractual terms of their departure, citing their confidentiality agreements.

Investment banks have always prized discretion among employees. But at Goldman — an investment bank so private that many of its employees refer to it simply as “the firm” — there is added pressure to keep a low profile.

Anonymous said...

The secret to their success....

How do you borrow 200 billion against $1 and make 10 billion doing it

Anonymous said...

Bankers and Wall Street benefit from "too big to fail" and monetary printing. Unions buy votes from corrupt politicians.

Inflation benefits those with first access to money. Who has that first access? Banks and the already wealthy.

Anonymous said...

Keep believing in fairness..

I.R.S. Drops Audits of Political Donors
The Internal Revenue Service on Thursday abandoned its effort to force five big-ticket donors to pay gift taxes on contributions they made to nonprofit advocacy groups that are playing an increasing role in American politics.
The memo was a sharp reversal for the tax agency, which had invoked a rarely used, 30-year-old ruling to warn the five donors in February that they might owe gift taxes on their donations. Organizations heavily financed by conservative donors like David Koch, or in the case of Crossroads GPS, tied to top Republican strategists like Karl Rove, would have come under such newly enforced rules, were they to be imposed across the board.

Anonymous said...

Not Prosecuting Corporate Crime Aggressively Has Been US Government Policy Since 2008

Federal prosecutors officially adopted new guidelines about charging corporations with crimes — a softer approach that, longtime white-collar lawyers and former federal prosecutors say, helps explain the dearth of criminal cases despite a raft of inquiries into the financial crisis.

Though little noticed outside legal circles, the guidelines were welcomed by firms representing banks. The Justice Department’s directive, involving a process known as deferred prosecutions, signaled “an important step away from the more aggressive prosecutorial practices seen in some cases under their predecessors,” Sullivan & Cromwell, a prominent Wall Street law firm, told clients in a memo that September.

Joyce said...

This last link is really intriguing. I tried to access the link to the story at Jesse's Crossroads Cafe and couldn't but I found the source for the same information here:

I remember hearing somewhere that George W. Bush tried to deregulate everything he could before he left office. I know he "inspired" the justice department to soften its outlook on torture and I'm sure he picked people for the Supreme Court with similar views to his--to make things softer for banks and businesses.

This article reveals just how successful he was in re-creating things the way HE thought they should be. He was all for self-regulation and deferred prosecution is one aspect of that.

It begins to explain why there have been no criminal prosecutions of banks like Goldman Sachs.

It will take years and years to undo the harm the "W" caused to all democratic processes in the US (IMHO).

Anonymous said...

With rulings like this, miscreants will face NO PENALTY !!!

Anonymous said...

Hey, Washington, I've Been Paying Into Social Security And Medicare For 48 Years--So How Much Are You Cutting From YOUR Benefits?

This letter points out that Sen. Simpson himself, along with many other career politicians, has spent his life sucking on the taxpayer's teat.
To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling bs on your incompetence. Well, now I have a few questions for YOU.

1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your 50-year political career?

2. At what age did you retire from your political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?

3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?

4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or, as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?

Read more:

Post a Comment