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

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Here is Goldman Sachs's Business Model in Operation

Many people have wondered why any company would want to work with, or be a client of, Goldman Sachs when Goldman has an earned reputation as a greedy and predatory bank.  Money---huge amounts of profitable money--is the answer.  The other answer is that Goldman makes deals with its clients that give them even more opportunities to make more money (See Addenda page 56) for an example of "clients making pointless trades to feed commissions to Goldman." 

If anyone is still unsure about Goldman Sachs's motives or its rotten-to-the-core business model, then just examine the way Goldman Sachs treated eToys when it was underwriting their IPO.  The actions of Goldman Sachs were scurrilous and reprehensible. 

As mathbabe suggests, lies are incorporated into the business model and have inherently become part of the business plan of banks and some corporations.  Fraud is part of Goldman's business and from Goldman's behavior we can deduce that anyone who insists on working with or for Goldman accepts implicitly that fraud and corruption are part of their business model too.
Rigging the I.P.O. Game
By Joe Nocera - The New York Times

 ONCE upon a time, in a very different age, an Internet start-up called eToys went public. The date was May 20, 1999. The offering price had been set at $20, but investors in that frenzied era were so eager for eToys shares that the stock immediately shot up to $78. It ended its first day of trading at $77 a share.

The eToys initial public offering raised $164 million, a nice chunk of change for a two-year-old company. But it wasn’t even close to the $600 million-plus the company could have raised if the offering price had more realistically reflected the intense demand for eToys shares. The firm that underwrote the I.P.O. — and effectively set the $20 price — was Goldman Sachs. 

After the Internet bubble burst — and eToys, starved for cash, went out of business — lawyers representing eToys’ creditors’ committee sued Goldman Sachs over that I.P.O. That lawsuit, believe it or not, is still going on. Indeed, it has taken on an importance that transcends the rise and fall of one small company during the first Internet craze. 

Read the whole article here
See the Documentation here


Biloxi Marx said..., too at end of piece on Scalia:  scribdFortune-Magazine-1933-Cast-of-Characters-Five-Jews-and-one-Gentile-played-the-chief-roles-in-the-tragic-comedy-of-the-Bank-of-U-S By M. R. Werner<Click

Joyce R said...

Thanks, Biloxi Marx, for the link.

Biloxi Marx said...

you are very welcome Joyce R, the banks got "their chops" doing "Desk Drawer Corporations" - Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and ?name a 'bank' that is not fraud modern and what Bernanke studies to know what to do about the "Great Depression."  Yes, all has been very carefully orchestrated and all the while we get to worship "Holy Dressers Up."  Religion has obfuscated the real problem of America - digital dust.

laserDliquidator said...

Thank you guys for helping get the word around about our eToys debacle. Much has happened recently and there's HUGE news in a few weeks.

Post a Comment