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

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Knowing What We Know About Goldman Sachs....

Knowing what we already know about Goldman Sachs, why would we pay the least bit of attention to what they say (except maybe to envision the opposite as the truth)? That anyone would bother to invest in or be a client of Goldman Sachs is a mystery. That is why the following post is only important for the comments that it raises at the end and that is the reason this article has been posted.

In their sociopathic manner, Goldman Sachs successfully compartmentalizes their actions: they can, without conscience, buy up sub-prime mortgages (and even buy a servicing company to hurry things along), create CDOs, have them fraudulently rated AAA and sell them to unsuspecting investors (savers and pensioners) who take a loss. Without missing a beat, Goldman then puts forward its own ideas on why letting underwater homeowners rent would not work. Goldman does this without acknowledging their participation in bringing down the mortgage system in the US.

Goldman never has to acknowledge any of its mistakes frauds.

REO To Rental Fed Play Would Do Little For Housing Says Goldman Sachs
By Loren Berlin - HuffPost Business

The Federal Reserve's foreclosure rental program would do little to lift the ailing housing market, Goldman Sachs analysts wrote in a research paper released on Friday morning.

The analysis, written in response to a Federal Reserve paper released earlier this week, calculates the nationwide effects of renting foreclosed properties as "positive but modest," possibly fostering a 0.5 percent increase in home prices in the first year of program implementation, and a 1 percent increase in the second year. But those are Goldman's maximum increases, and the researchers are quick to add that the "actual effect would likely be less."

According to Goldman, three factors limit the program's potential. First, there is the possibility that some of the foreclosed properties that would become available for rent could sit vacant as rental properties, meaning that while the homeowner vacancy rate would decline (because the home has never come up for sale), the vacancy rate on rental properties would not, merely pushing the problem of vacant structures from one part of the market to another.

Goldman researchers also argue that the program likely wouldn't do much to decrease the overall availability of homes for sale, which is one of the biggest problems currently plaguing the American housing market: There is too much housing supply relative to the demand. As Goldman sees it, even if every single foreclosed home owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- the two government-owned mortgage giants that would sell the foreclosed homes to investors in any federal rental program -- shifted to the rental market, banks and large investors that have held off on selling some of their foreclosed homes would likely bring them on the market, in effect perpetuating the problem of too many homes for too few buyers.

Finally, the Goldman analysts assert that some of the foreclosed properties aren't suitable for rental, either because of the home's condition or location, or because the economics of renting that specific home are unappealing to an investor. Though there's no easy way to determine what percentage of homes would be inappropriate for renting, Goldman suggests that as many as half of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's homes wouldn't qualify, indicating that a rental program couldn't scale up to the size necessary to change the dynamics of the housing market in a meaningful way.

That some homes are unsuitable to rent is acknowledged in the Fed paper released Wednesday. But exactly because it's hard to get a sense for how big or small this issue would prove to be, the Fed's analysis on the issue remained very limited.

Read the rest of the article here


We settle for garbage said...

Fed to Announce Monetary Penalties for Robo-Signing and Unsafe Practices ; Another Whitewashing Move by the SEC

Expect Trivial Penalties, Spread a Mile Wide

Don't expect this announcement to amount to much of anything. Penalties, if any will be trivial and the fines are nearly guaranteed to not benefit those harmed in any substantial way. Instead, expect fines to be spread out to include those not harmed at all.

Another Whitewashing Move by the SEC

Similarly, don't expect much of anything from this feeble announcement: SEC to demand admission of wrongdoing in some cases
"My take on things is it is all about managing the press," said James Cox, a professor at Duke Law School. The agency "looked pretty silly before Judge Rakoff the other day," he said.

While essentially ignoring billions of dollars in repeated fraud allegations against Citigroup, the SEC brought full weight down on Martha Stewart over (drum roll please) ... $45,673.

Martha Stewart went to prison and was fined $30,000. Since then, no one has gone to prison or even been criminally indicted in $trillions of dollars of fraud in the global financial crisis. And unless someone does admit criminal action, the SEC reserves the right to do more whitewashing without seeking admission of guilt.

Goldman goes both parties said...

listen to the end...

Doug Wead to Reporter: Do Your Job and Find Out Who Made the Anti-Huntsman Video

Hmmm said...

Public Officials Found Helping Clients of Family

Medill Watchdog examined statements of economic interests of public
officials, lobbying registrations filed with the City of Chicago, Cook County
and the state, and records of state bills and local ordinances. The
investigation found 14 elected officials from Cook County alone who, while not
lobbyists themselves, are related to or in business with lobbyists.

The review found more than a dozen instances in which an official took action
that benefited the lobbying client of a family member or business partner.

Reformers say Illinois has a historic tolerance for corruption. “There are
people who believe that’s just the way it’s done,” said Kyle McCarter, a
Republican state senator from Lebanon. “Cultures don’t change overnight.”

Challenge them said...

Poll: Who Won the NBC / Facebook GOP Debate?

Break the status quo said...

Ron Paul Highlights – ABC / WMUR NH Debate

Post a Comment