Tesa

Goldman Sachs' Latest Initiative: Business Plan or Charitable Donation?

Instead of an appology, the financial companies like Goldman should not be apposing and blocking new regulatory directives. The should not be constantly lobbying against working people, public insurance, unions and mimimum wage while they themselves bagged money through racketeering and bail outs.

How about that.

Fannie Mae Plus Goldman Plus Tax Credits Plus U.S. Treasury Add Up to Big Mess

Basically these banks:

- have passed their losses to the public
- they have traded against worthless leverage assets that they have dumped on the public
- they have received a subsidy from public to prevent their collapse and in return they have rewarded their executives with bonuses

And now they want to extract more cash from public through :
- further tax subsidy and taking those collapsed assets
- To either sell them again back to the public through the back door or hold on to these assets and jack them up and profit from them.

It is obvious that privatizing Fannie and Freddy has been very costly for American public. There is no way that public ownership of mortgage business would have cost the American public this much losses over and over.

The mortgage vending that is virtually subsidized by the public should be removed from private banking because they use this business to dump their losses on public using multiple paths.

Big Banks: The Consensus Is Cracking

Its not just the bigger banks that are corrupt. There many small banks that issue credit cards with 30-75% annual interest rates too. The systematic problem with the financial industry is not related to their size. It is related to lack of regulation that contains their rackets.

Both small and large banks have incentives to scam the public and participate in increasing systematic risk because only high risk actions are very profitable.

The Secret Paulson-Goldman Meeting

Felix Salmon, they had done it before and that is why Paulson would guesstimate the response.

Either the banks behind the scene would racketeer and collude to buy the failed banks to keep themselves afloat or given lack of sufficient capital in total and they would force the government to subsidize them by showing the results of the first collapse.

It is not possible for Paulson to have not known that the collapse of Lehman would trigger a chain reaction.

Hands Off Goldman Bonuses

davidbdc, it doesn't even matter if they pay it or not. It is the public assets that they have raided to make those profits. Many people have lost their assets when the markets collapsed. GM and Chrysler are bankrupt.

The profits that they make through buying collapsed assets was not ever theirs.

Hands Off Goldman Bonuses

You have to realize for anyone to extract millions from markets, others have to lose money.

Those assets sold during collapse of the markets at lower valuations became assets were sold by the public and bought up by the financial markets who sold at higher prices to make a profit. It is the public assets that got raided because of the collapse.

We have a case here where finanancial institutions are selling and buying public assets with public money and they use leverage to increase their take in any directions that the winds take them. The other side of their trades are public assets and pensions that they can raid. The speculative highly leveraged markets provide the means to bubble up and then collapse the markets on a whim.

The public assets have become subjected to gambling house evaluations through excessive use of levering as the source of funding for a gambling industry that extracts cash from it.

Upon miscalculating and losing their game the governments have no choice but to fund their game all over again because they have public assets as their hostages.

Financial money game has become a very profitable business as the risk is shed to the public and profits are extracted through sphisticated computer programming that trade these assets.

Both the financial industry and the governments are very aware of that scamming the public has become a big in financial industry but public is prevented from regulating it through vast amount of propaganda that is propagated by those that profit by these schemes.

Fannie Mae: Trading Derivatives...and Losing

There is no field that is growing money other than government money that they are harvesting right now. Goldman is harvesting government cash be it through AIG, be it through Fannie/Freddie or any other bank that the government has rescued and they would use the cash the government gave them to do take more of their money.

Government has become the counter party for these banks and the profits are pretty much taxpayer cash.

High Frequency Trading: We Fear What We Do Not Understand

Combination of net capital available for investment and speed can and will drive the markets otherwise no single algorithm could extract cash from the markets so readily. The famed "velocity of money" works perfectly for those who also push market information to the markets. They upgrade, downgrade and trade it fast. Nothing beats that. The periods where the market information is supplied by those that they can not control is always preceded and followed by periods where they do so intensively.

Somebody has to lose for others to make a bundle and who will be the loser.

Goldman Sachs: No Global Financial Espionage Story Here

Kid Dynamite, I hate to disagree here but manipulation is possible by bullying through targeting specific apposition in the market and not a whole market. We wouldn't have seen these massive overvaluations in housing market and sub prime mess that we did if it wasn't possible. All the short speculators that were sane in that case were taken out but how. Its not the mechanics of longing and shorting the markets that makes it possible but the unequal power to dump more cash into a position to remove their apposing traders that does.

Is there trading bullying code just for this purpose, I suspect that there is.

Goldman Sachs: No Global Financial Espionage Story Here

Of course that is true otherwise it would mean that NYSE is controlled by that specific code that GS runs.


On Jul 06 10:53 AM Kid Dynamite wrote:

> yes - this guy probably stole the code. this happens all the time.
> it does NOT threaten the sanctity or the integrity of the NYSE!
> all it does is potentially reduce whatever competitive advantage
> GS may have.

Goldman Sachs: No Global Financial Espionage Story Here

What amazes me is the fact that any code can be relied up to extract cash from the markets consistently.

Glass-Steagall: If Not the Cause, Maybe the Cure?

"gu econ", yes it would have prevented it in fact. Many of the institutions that had purchased CDOs were regular banks who insuring high risk CDOs with an institution that insured banks and these high risk activities. There would have been no intermingling if the act was there. The act would have disallowed that.

The moral of the story is that low risk assets should not be used to insure high risk assets; at least not being hedged and the hedging requires fairly regulated body that does not cheat. Glass-Steagall is just one act that could have interfered with that process but there are others that could have replaced it but what was the replacement!.

Just think about it, imagine someone uses their house as collateral for gambling. Only the paid portion can be used as collateral otherwise other people will hold the bag for the gambler. If the house is mortgaged, its peak value should not value as collateral. Another way is o hedge against the loss of its market value when its used as collateral. The hedge should not be devised fraudulently and that means that the gambler can not do the hedging or use other gamblers to do the hedging in collusion.

Glass-Steagall: If Not the Cause, Maybe the Cure?

Nova, a good potion of what you say is valid but you are wrong in one aspect, in fact no one forced the banking system into sub prime loan making.

State governments were trying to halt the activities to protect their population but the banks were lobbying to nationalize and legalize the predatory lending. The did so for profiteering purposes.

In fact the sub-prime and predatory lending were anti-social and they were known to cause poverty because the financial institutions would try to extract more funds from those that couldn't afford it.

To top that off, many of these institution converted real estate to cash machine by allowing more and more borrowing against properties without any invested equity.

I hope you read this article to understand that there was no social engineering involved here but rather many mainstream banks were involved fraudulent practices to make more money.

www.cjr.org/the_audit/...

On Mar 09 02:46 PM nova wrote:
> -- Forcing banking system into making loans for

Glass-Steagall: If Not the Cause, Maybe the Cure?

Here were the arguments for and against the act in 1987. Its obvious now that none of arguments for its removal were valid. Conflicts of interest was not resolved and the diversification only worsened the situation by exporting more fraudulent assets. The more blurring of disjunction between loans and assets were outcome of the act.

"The argument for preserving Glass-Steagall (as written in 1987):

1. Conflicts of interest characterize the granting of credit – lending – and the use of credit – investing – by the same entity, which led to abuses that originally produced the Act

2. Depository institutions possess enormous financial power, by virtue of their control of other people’s money; its extent must be limited to ensure soundness and competition in the market for funds, whether loans or investments.

3. Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses.

4. Depository institutions are supposed to be managed to limit risk. Their managers thus may not be conditioned to operate prudently in more speculative securities businesses. An example is the crash of real estate investment trusts sponsored by bank holding companies (in the 1970s and 1980s).

The argument against preserving the Act (as written in 1987):

1. Depository institutions will now operate in “deregulated” financial markets in which distinctions between loans, securities, and deposits are not well drawn. They are losing market shares to securities firms that are not so strictly regulated, and to foreign financial institutions operating without much restriction from the Act.

2. Conflicts of interest can be prevented by enforcing legislation against them, and by separating the lending and credit functions through forming distinctly separate subsidiaries of financial firms.

3. The securities activities that depository institutions are seeking are both low-risk by their very nature, and would reduce the total risk of organizations offering them – by diversification

4. In much of the rest of the world, depository institutions operate simultaneously and successfully in both banking and securities markets. Lessons learned from their experience can be applied to our national financial structure and regulation.[7]"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...