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

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Goldman Sachs, Sued Again

Is there any corner of the financial market that Goldman Sachs didn't foul? Probably not. Maybe Credit Unions should not deal with these "big boys!" We should be very angry that a bank like Goldman Sachs goes everywhere, in every little corner, to sniff out where it can make money through fraudulent practices.

Nothing is sacred to Goldman Sachs. Credit Unions are non-profit and owned by the individual members none of whom seeks to be as rich as Croesus. Goldman Sachs is a wealth destroying bank.

Goldman Sachs is also roiling around with the likes of Rupert Murdock, which is probably more understandable. Foul, foul. Goldman Sachs has its own witches' brew--"For a charm of powerful trouble, /Fire burn, and caldron bubble." GS has charm in spades as the financial system burns and bubbles away because of their fraud. Oy!

A Korean firm, Heungkuk Life Insurance Co., is suing the Korean-based Goldman Sachs executives for selling them fraudulent CDOs. As was said before, They are everywhere inhaling profits. You can read about other potential lawsuits against Goldman Sachs here.

Credit Union Regulator Accuses Goldman
By Bloomberg News

The Goldman Sachs Group was sued on Tuesday by the National Credit Union Administration over claims that the bank violated federal and state laws in the sale of mortgage-backed securities to corporate credit unions that subsequently failed.

The agency, which charters and regulates credit unions, said in a statement that it was seeking more than $491 million from Goldman Sachs. The complaint, filed Tuesday in federal court in Los Angeles, is the fourth case aimed at recovering almost $2 billion from “sellers and underwriters of questionable securities,” the National Credit Union Administration said. It claims in the complaint that Goldman Sachs misrepresented securities in offering documents, causing the credit unions to believe the risk of loss was minimal when it was substantial.

Goldman Sachs “systematically abandoned the stated underwriting guidelines described in the offering documents” for the mortgages in the pools of collateralized residential mortgage-backed securities it underwrote, the group’s complaint said.

Stephen Cohen, a spokesman for Goldman Sachs, declined to comment on the lawsuit.

The agency said it expected to file five to 10 such cases. On June 20, the agency separately sued, in federal court in Kansas City, JPMorgan Chase and the Royal Bank of Scotland over similar claims.

“N.C.U.A. continues to carry out our responsibility to do everything reasonable in our power to seek maximum recoveries,” its chairwoman, Debbie Matz, said in the statement. “Those who caused the problems in the wholesale credit unions should pay for the losses now being paid by retail credit unions.”

The Goldman complaint relates to the collapse of the U.S. Central and Western Corporate federal credit unions, two of the five liquidated under the conservatorship of the national agency, the regulator said.

Read the article here


Anonymous said...

Jeremy Grantham: My Worst Fears Are Being Realized, The US Is A Banana Republic
Certainly too good for President No-Show. Come to think of it, the choice was between technical default and looking like a Banana Republic and technical blackmail and looking like a Banana Republic! Just different bananas perhaps?

Read more:

Joyce said...

This week there seems to be anger all over the place. When will it transform into action?

Anonymous said...

Barry Ritholz & Todd Harrison basically say when we divorce ourselves from bad ideas and policies...

Anonymous said...

The Junkie in the Pool and False Idols: Faith in Wall Street and The Fed Has Eroded (August 10, 2011)

The financial Status Quo has an unsolvable problem: reality isn't swayed by propaganda. Does anyone really believe another couple years of low interest rates and a snapback rally or two will fix what's broken in the U.S. and global economies?

Hasn't it been made abundantly clear that super-low interest rates only fuel speculation and malinvestment?

This loss of faith is not a temporary phenomenon but rather a sea change in the zeitgeist, somewhat akin to the loss of trust in a partner caught cheating: you can never go back to what existed before, even though you go through the motions of a return to normalcy.

I have covered this systemic loss of faith in the Status Quo many times--a process of delegitimization that is reflected in declining participation, withdrawal of funds, and increased skepticism of official pronouncements and statistical "proof" that the Status Quo is healthy and sustainable.

Faith in the Fed and Wall Street has eroded because their bailouts failed to repair the real economy or household balance sheets. If all the Federal/Fed backstops are included, the total exceeds $23 trillion, but let's see where the most visible $10 trillion ended up:

Anonymous said...

....and the greed of the bankers is a function of:

Lessons Forgotten

"Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter, by peaceful or revolutionary means, into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it."

Frederic Bastiat

"And remember, where you have the concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that."

Lord Acton

...and with their bank accounts full through corrupt extraction the tbtf wonder why the masses are irritated?...a court of law is their refuge!

Anonymous said...

Given that many in Congress and top government posts are multi-millionaires, the study might help explain why politicians seem only to work to make themselves wealthier and to help their wealthy buddies:

Anonymous said...

Those otc derivatives need to be curbed...

At the GATA Conference, Jim Sinclair repeated again and I’ve heard him say it many times before, that the world banking system is so polluted with all of the notional value of derivatives, that if liquidity weren’t made abundantly available, continuously, that the whole financial system would collapse.

Therefore the expression, ‘QE to infinity’, I happen to believe, is necessary to avoid this fate because they (central planners) do not want to see the banking system collapse on their watch. Accordingly that takes us down the road to hyperinflation and I think Bernanke’s words and actions are certainly indicative of that exact phenomenon.”

Anonymous said...

If the Authorities had let the banking system fail, as well as the businesses and people who were over-extended with debt or those that had money on deposit at the banks – pretty much all of us - it would have ended the politicians’ pursuit of social objectives. Instead, they chose to rescue the banks, and everyone else, but the expense of depositors, by slashing interest rates to zero. It has required printing money in unprecedented quantities, at least for peace-time. From the Bear Sterns rescue in March 2008 to the present time, the Fed has increased the US monetary base by 220%, a similar rate to the Reichsbank in 1913-1917.
The Bank of England’s balance sheet liabilities, which we can say equates to the money it has created, increased by 500% between 2007 and 2011. And where did this money go? It gave the banks liquidity and funded government spending not covered by taxes.
Having discouraged and destroyed savings over the years, the money does not now exist to cover today’s budget deficits.

Anonymous said...

Robert Rubin, Bank America and the fate of the dollar

The reason for the inaction in Washington, needless to say, has to do
with the vacuum surrounding President Obama, a lack of political
substance which stems from the continuing influence, nay hegemony, of
former Citigroup Chairmen Robert Rubin and his minions. Older more
experienced Rubin operatives such as Larry Summers have already
abandoned the sinking ship, but Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
remains, we are told, until Rubin gives him permission to leave the

Post a Comment