Comments on: Goldman controversy deserves right questions

By: CO2-Exhaler

CO2-Exhaler — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:02:57 +0000

Grandstanding and headline-grabbing hectoring. Spot on. Politicians at their very worst. It seems that UKIP’s slogan “Sod the Lot” is not so offensive after all. Quite mild in fact, and I’m not even a banker and never have been.

By: Scueto

Scueto — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:54:48 +0000

To appreciate the depths of Goldman’s duplicity, just take a look at its 2009 annual report. In the opening salvo of the report, Goldman is downright indignant and asserts that its only role in the financial markets has been positive.

To deflect attention away from Wall Street matters, Goldman went to great lengths to say that it spent the year acting in the interests of its clients and that these actions were the driving force behind its business.

That fails to address the huge sums of money that Goldman made in proprietary trading that did nothing to benefit clients, but enriched Goldman’s shareholders and employees. The investment bank pressed the case that it paid workers only for their performances and nothing more.

On page 39 of the 2009 report, you find Goldman’s broad-brush disclosure in all its vague and generalized glory. Specific references to the Wells Notice, open investigations, lawsuits, administrative actions? Move along. Nothing to see here.

This was also the subject of an article “Goldman Sachs’ Annual Report: It’s All Smoke and Mirrors” on the International Business Law Advisor Blog http://www.IntlBusinessLaw.com on April 20, 2010.
http://bit.ly/cML7Po

By: Bert2

Bert2 — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:49:03 +0000

Amen!

By: Woltmann

Woltmann — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:17:19 +0000

The questions you propose Goldman has already answered in fact if not in word: 1, Yes they structured multiple Abacus deals and would continue to do so until the wheels fell off. 2, Goldman could and did sell these CDO’s to anyone they could peddle them off on. 3, No one but Goldman and Paulson knew the how about their “little arrangement” until after the conned parties had been thoroughly screwed so obviously Goldman wasn’t going to tell anyone anything more or less. Goldman knew what they were doing going into the deals, they knew the fallout they were going to have to eventually endure when light was eventually shined on the deals and they made the conscious decision to go ahead with the deals because the returns outweighed the costs. The question that needs to be asked of Blankfein is what he plans on doing NOW about all the damage he’s done to the US economy. If he has no answer to that, then he needs to be told Goldman will need to post a $1T corruption bond with the US Treasury until Goldman’s complicity in this financial crisis is sorted out. Fabulous Fab can wash dishes in the local homeless shelter while his part in this is determined. To hell with Goldman Sachs.

By: Risk_Manager

Risk_Manager — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:38:08 +0000

The clients/investors were NOT a ‘sweet old grandmother & her life savings’ – the investors must take personal responsibility. In business, all clients ALWAYS check their purchased goods against cash delivery very thoroughly.
You cannot blame Goldman, however much we all envy them & wish we were them, for making money.

By: VeritasVincit

VeritasVincit — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:59:23 +0000

Since they seem to be able to put their own money in stock options, obligations and such – a good question in my view would be why did they not invest into the Abacus themselves?

Interesting 10 min overview video of Goldman Sachs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rI9JA1d6 4w