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, October 19, 2011

Goldman Sachs’s exceptionalism takes another knock

Reuters Breakingviews

Goldman Sachs’s exceptionalism takes another knock
By Antony Currie and Rob Cox

The authors are Reuters Breakingviews columnists. The opinions expressed are their own.

The exceptionalism of Goldman Sachs took another knock this week. For a brief period on Wednesday, shares of the Wall Street firm traded at a bigger discount to book value — or assets minus liabilities — than those of megabank rival JPMorgan. This rarely happens and suggests that investors fear the bank’s franchise, both as a trader of securities and financial adviser to corporations and governments, is somehow damaged.
Compared to other banks, Goldman historically commanded a premium valuation relative to its book value. That has traditionally given the bank a strong defense against critics of its business model, the assets on its books or indeed its management team. And for years this has mostly been deserved. For one, Goldman marks its assets to market prices more aggressively than rivals. Second, Goldman’s return on equity, a measure of its ability to make money above its cost of capital, usually has bested rivals.
Read here 

Enhanced by Zemanta


Kiss the ring said...

Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world

AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters' worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.

The study's assumptions have attracted some criticism, but complex systems analysts contacted by New Scientist
say it is a unique effort to untangle control in the global economy.
Pushing the analysis further, they say, could help to identify ways of
making global capitalism more stable.

The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York's Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere (see photo).
But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond
ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines
the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive
corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational
corporations (TNCs).

"Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it's conspiracy theories or free-market," says James Glattfelder. "Our analysis is reality-based."
When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of
it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit
companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the
super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the
network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to
control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were
financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan
Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

Silenced said...

NPR Gets Radio Host Fired for Occupying

Simeone told me: "I find it puzzling that NPR objects to my exercising my rights as an American citizen -- the right to free speech, the right to peaceable assembly -- on my own time in my own life.  I'm not an NPR employee.  I'm a freelancer.  NPR doesn't pay me.  I'm also not a news reporter.  I don't cover politics.  I've never brought a whiff of my political activities into the work I've done for NPR World of Opera.  What is NPR afraid I'll do -- insert a seditious comment into a synopsis of Madame Butterfly?

It may be difficult for NPR bigwigs to understand why we don't all just rent $400 per night hotel rooms instead of littering a public square with tents.  But NPR's highly paid political agitators on behalf of the 1% are part of the problem.  They are what we are protesting.  And that is presumably what makes our speech and assembly "unethical."

Or perhaps the breech of ethics is to be found in behaving as a decent citizen while simultaneously possessing some connection to the most insidious corporate loudspeaker in the country, one labeled "public" but belonging to the 1%.

The most important point to stress here, I think, is that all requests should be routed through NPR Communications at 202-513-2300 or

Post a Comment