SEC charges GS with fraud

Quote from wmb:

These clients are not traders, they bought a fund that GS said they were buying. However they didnt know that the "traders" from GS were shorting what their brokers were buying, that is a fundamental illegal move on any trading floor any where and always has been. LEt alone push it on your clients! It is fraud and its unethical. IF you dont understand that that is the point of all this! Many Americans dont get the unethical behavior we are all exhibitng in the name of "F..K You I'm making money".IT is what took down many companies and the SEC is inundated with boatloads of claims! Growing up means having some morals, values ehtics, and money!
More...


You are a damn idiot...GS was not a financial adviser for these clients, GS is an INVESTMENT BANK and these clients were also sophisticated investors. Every investor has their own outlook on markets, whether there are long or short bias. And you would be a damn fool if you bought something from an investment bank and not think that they might have a different view than yours and might act up on it

Further, if you really wanted to know the truth, you would have done a little research. Upon completing that research, you would have known that contrary to what is being carried in the news, buyers of abacus 2007 was aware that GS May and was on the other side of the market.

Below is a quote from materials that were made available to buyers of ABACUS 2007-AC1

ABACUS 2007-AC1 RISK FACTORS.

"Goldman Sachs is currently and may be from time to time in the future an active participant on both sides of the market and have long or short positions in, or buy and sell, securities, commodities, futures, options or other derivatives identical or related to those mentioned herein."

I suggest you read a book on critical thinking and learn how to analyze information without bias and emotions and more with fact. Your lack of critical thinking ability is preventing you from knowing the truth. Do you really want to obtain the truth or do you have other agendas.


Its people like you that are going to make changes to something they don’t fully understand. Acting out of emotions and failing to take the time to find the truth and analyze the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of their actions.
 
Quote from ElCubano:

The whole lot of them would have ceased to operate had it not been for the back room arm twisting up the ass they gave the tax payers. Do you really expect anyone to believe they had superior risk management? there would not have been record bonuses had they managed their risk properly....

was it the end of the world or was it not? or was it a calculated move to dump all that toxic paper on us?

one more week of not doing anything may have seen all of them go to zero bid. If you watched the tape during that week you would know what I am talking about.....
More...


I think this is on target. They saw ruin staring them in the face Fall '08 and were fortunate enough to have Paulson and who knows else to save them. The minute they saw the shorts turning on them, they got in high gear. Doom had crept into the stock and they knew they would be next. It was obvious.
 
Quote from rude:

[ABACUS 2007-AC1 RISK FACTORS.

"Goldman Sachs is currently and may be from time to time in the future an active participant on both sides of the market and have long or short positions in, or buy and sell, securities, commodities, futures, options or other derivatives identical or related to those mentioned herein."



Yeah right, I'm an etrader with nothing else to do.... Blow me, that disclaimer doesnt give GS any leaway to do anything it wants .Stop smoking the crack at lunch time... Tell lloyd you quit you have had it ......go get a bonus from a real company where you actually have to follow some type ofd rules!
More...
 
Quote from olias:

I remember an article from December...can't remember what magazine, but I think it was Blankfein himself who was waffling on whether or not Goldman needed the bailout. I think he said something along the lines of "I think we would have survived without it, but I slept a lot easier once I knew it was coming". Maybe somebody else can dig that up.

Also found this: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/02/did-goldman-need-a-bailout/35383/
More...

The GS propaganda on this thread is nutty! If AIG does not get any money neither does GS!. That is the whole point here children! The government orchastrated a bailout and gave top dollar to GS because GS had an in to the mediator.... AIG gets paid for their crap and in turn pays GS top dollor for what they owe GS. Aig and GS are sunk without the bailout! No matter what LLoyd says ...tell him to take the Maiden Lane portfolio today and manage it and take the losses. Even today he would be weighted down so heavily he wouldnt get back up!
 
Quote from krazykarl:

links please.
More...

Links please yourself....go read The federal Budget report... go read The maiden lane 1,2,3,4 accounts. Go read the frickin past ET posts here.... link yourself to obsurity 2 years later. The house is burning......don;t be the last man standing!
 
the only thing that is burning is your red hairs, dude. Serious, wake up dude. Nobody claimed GS is completely clean, NOR is any other bank, nor is any other corporate entity world wide. You wanna see GS go down for what the SEC charges it for? Thats ridiculous. Then you would have to shut down almost all of corporate America. Dont misunderstand me, should GS be convicted then they deserve a slap in the face. But dont come out here and make anyone believe GS is the only bad kid in town.

a) Either you really believe that then you are a very naive child
b) You have some axe to grind, in plain English: You probably lost a stash and cannot take it that some bankers get away with millions in bonuses, based on practices that you do not condone. By the way the millions are NOT yours, NOT of any taxpayers, NOT of the government.
c) Can you finally let go of your AIG-GS conspiracy connection story? EACH SINGLE CDS contract AIG wrote to GS was a contractual obligation to deliver upon the default of the reference security. How AIG got to the moneys to pay GS its obligation you should discuss with lawmakers and politicians. This decision was NOT alone signed by someone close to GS, only. A number of people, completely unrelated to GS and without any motivation to support GS signed the deal to funnel money into AIG, in my opinion one of the biggest mistakes during this crisis. However, GS cannot be blamed for demanding payment on those contracts, as much as you kick and scream.

Quote from wmb:

Links please yourself....go read The federal Budget report... go read The maiden lane 1,2,3,4 accounts. Go read the frickin past ET posts here.... link yourself to obsurity 2 years later. The house is burning......don;t be the last man standing!
More...
 
I must have missed this... about what I'd expect from someone whose posts are as ignorant and whining as yours :p
Quote from wmb:

No body is giving me any money to take my visa bill, or my house that is engulfing me into BK because I can't pay my bills.
More...
 
"Investment banks such as Goldman Sachs were not simply market-makers, they were self-interested promoters of risky and complicated financial schemes that helped trigger the crisis," Levin said. "They bundled toxic mortgages into complex financial instruments, got the credit rating agencies to label them as AAA securities, and sold them to investors, magnifying and spreading risk throughout the financial system, and all too often betting against the instruments they sold and profiting at the expense of their clients."

Goldman Sachs e-mails show bank sought to profit from housing downturn
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 24, 2010; 10:44 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/24/AR2010042400882.html
 
I think the case boils down to the disclosure rule. If so,

1) The "Sophisticated investors" argument is immaterial.
2) Goldman losing money on the specific CDO is immaterial.
3) "Extensive" disclosure is not necessarily the same as "full".
4) "Not wishing" to create a failed CDO is not the same as creating one.

All arguments really boil down to - did they misrepresent Paulson's involvement or not. Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top