March 28, 2024, 02:20:53 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is Barack Obama the face of Goldman Sachs?  (Read 1853 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« on: May 02, 2010, 08:22:47 AM »

I have to wonder how many at Goldman Sachs donate money to political campaigns? 

How much does the company donate and where do they record those funds?  An expense?

How much does it cost to put a president in office?

Derivatives are like gambling.
  They are not insurance. 

REAL insurance costs a lot of money because actuaries and other financial people look at the risk. They read the fine print, look at the business in all it's ugliness.

For some reason, Obama thinks that 'regulation' is going to make derivatives safe - no more gambling losses. 

We'll just regulate SOME, but not all.  Why?  Gotta keep some secrets?

There is gambling and there is GAMBLING.  Some buy may buy a $1 lottery ticket each week.  Is this the same as gambling it all away, millions (home, credit cards, car) in a few hours in a casino?   

For some reason, Obama thinks we need a permanent bailout fund.  Crony capitalism?  Privatized profits - socialized losses?

Why should honest businesses pay for the reckless, calculated behavior of a few?

What are the chances that no one will apply for the bailout fund?

Why not let the market decide?  No more bailouts?

The ones who lose are honest people.  They don't get involved, don't expect the government to bail them out, and they end up paying for gambling losses.

For some reason, Obama thinks we need to maintain the status quo - privatized profits, socialized losses.

Does Obama work for Main Street or Wall Street?

Whose interests does he serve?

Is there anyone who does more for Goldman Sachs?  Keeps Goldman Sachs in the green?

Chicago Climate Exchange?  Insurance brokerage?

Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2010, 08:26:26 AM »

Why isn't Obama pushing for a robust, comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve?

Where does all the money go?

How many on Main Street can borrow money from the Federal Reserve for almost no interest?  Lend it back and make money in this paper trail?

Why lend money to banks if it isn't helping to build America?

What really goes on at the Federal Reserve?

Don't Americans have a right to know how that private bank is managing our money?

I read that businesses will have to report every expense over $600 to the government...

And what exactly does the Federal Reserve do to manage all the taxpayer money?

Where is the robust audit? 

Why does it seem that Goldman Sachs has more alumni in big government than any other entity?

Federal Reserve?  Treasury?  White House?
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2010, 03:50:58 PM »

Quote
An investor gamble which only paid off for the banks

HUGH MCLERNON
April 27, 2010

An understanding of the true nature of a synthetic CDO (collateralised debt obligation) is required before any conclusions can be drawn about the Goldman Sachs transaction or synthetic CDOs in general. Synthetic CDOs are not what they appear to be and the deceptive appearance is entirely intentional. They are financial wolves in sheep's clothing.

Quote
Typically investors were paid an extra 1 per cent or so annually by the CDO issuer, a straw company set up by the investment bank and typically domiciled in a tax haven, with the interest they received from their deposited money. As the deposit interest was theirs in any event, it was this 1 per cent a year which was the price the investors received to put their whole investment at risk.

Quote
The US President, members of Congress, the Treasury secretary and virtually all financial commentators are now referring to synthetic CDO transactions as gambling, and they are completely correct in doing so. But they have not taken the next step - such gambling is illegal, so why is it allowed to continue?

Courts have always refused to enforce gambling debts, so why don't investors refuse to pay? These synthetic CDOs are very dangerous for sophisticated financial players such as Goldman Sachs because huge returns may be made from small outlays on bets about the unknowable future.

Quote
It would be best to clean this up in the same way that insurance has been cleaned up. No one is permitted to enter into a contract of insurance (which is, after all, a gambling contract) unless they have an insurable interest in what is being insured. You can insure your house or your life but not your neighbour's. This exception to the rule against gambling has social utility, as would a rule that allows synthetic CDOs to be employed only when they are used to protect an existing financial arrangement.

more here http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/an-investor-gamble-which-only-paid-off-for-the-banks-20100426-tn9m.html

Financial Reform = Obamacare for Wall Street

Someone else get's to make Wall Street's gambling 'affordable'.

Who's looking out for Main Street?
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2010, 06:17:53 PM »

Quote
The Myth of the Sophisticated Investor
Wall Street buys its chips with your money.

By Heidi N. Moore
Posted Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - 4:18pm

As part of their defense in a messy SEC investigation, Goldman Sachs (GS) and investor John Paulson have trotted out a classic Wall Street defense: Their customers were "sophisticated investors." So buyers beware—this is just how the big boys roll. It's a high-stakes game for experienced players, they all know the real rules, and the public shouldn't care. Don’t fret over the higher workings of the princes of finance, because it's not like mom and pop lost money in their deals. Goldman’s Fabrice Tourre told the Senate Monday: “I was an intermediary between highly sophisticated professional investors—all of which were institutions. None of my clients were individual, retail investors.”

Quote
Wall Street loves the "sophisticated investors" argument, and little wonder: It could generate infinite financial fees if only the populace could be convinced that it's OK to fool some of the people all of the time. The problem is that even when only some of the people get fooled, all of us are paying all of the time.

For some reason, Goldman donates a lot of money to Democrats...

Quote
Informational asymmetry is also contagious: Once started, it becomes easier and easier to withhold information that buyers really need to make decisions. And if it's done to one client, it can be done to any. Most of those clients can put two and two together and recognize  that what happened in the Abacus deal is unlikely to be an isolated incident; in Wall Street parlance, there's never just one roach. That's why Goldman and Paulson started assiduously groveling to their other clients after the SEC announced its case, hoping to ease those clients' predictable fears that the bank and the hedge fund could have treated them the same way they treated RBS and IKB. No client wants to think that it is being treated like raw meat to feed the carnivorous appetites of other, bigger clients seeking profit.

Quote
The banks were caught empty-handed. To save them, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates to zero and ate the banks' poison: It bought with its own money $1.4 trillion of the remaining mortgage dreck; as a result, the Fed is now the least-capitalized bank in the United States and would not pass one of its own stress tests, although there isn't enough money in the world to bail it out if necessary. Besides that, the banks got the law changed so that they could keep optimistically boosting the value of these toxic mortgage securities still on their books, making their current financial positions today look far stronger than they are.

Quote
It's a top-to-bottom mess. So here's a radical idea: Instead of buying the idea that there's a difference line between sophisticated investors and the mom-and-pop variety, banks should tell the truth. To everyone. Wall Street is the factory for all the financial products in the United States, and you can't allow a factory to put out some poisonous products and claim the rest are healthy.

More here - http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2010/04/27/myth-sophisticated-investor?page=full

And...who does Barack Obama represent?

Who gets the best bits of the 'Financial Reform'?
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2010, 07:47:48 PM »

Quote
While the fund would be gone, taxpayers could wind up fronting billions of dollars to help cover the costs of taking down a failed firm, money that would take the forms of loans from the Treasury to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

How many firms would qualify for FDIC funds due to special overnight changes?  Think how Goldman became a regular bank to qualify for all that money!

Quote
Additionally, the Treasury would be required to recover those costs over time from the sale of a firm's assets and from its creditors. As a last resort if not enough money could be raised, the government would assess a fee on other large financial institutions.

I'm thinking the FIRE sale of LEHMAN deals AFTER Lehman filed for bankruptcy.  The invitation only sale by the CME.  All hush, hush...

Quote
Additionally, Democrats hope to use the legislation to create federal controls on complex investments known as derivatives, which many experts blame for the near-collapse of the economy in 2008. The issue has exposed splits among Democrats, and between Senate liberals and the White House, as much as partisan disagreement with the Republicans.

Hmmm...let me think...control SOME, but not ALL derivatives...what are the exceptions?  Goldman?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/04/tentative-deal-reached-future-big-bank-failures/

Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2010, 08:09:29 PM »

Quote
Swaps desk ban seen fading from U.S. bank reform

WASHINGTON, May 3 (Reuters) - Support was slipping on Monday in the U.S. Senate for a proposal to require that banks spin off their swap-trading desks, analysts and sources familiar with discussions among lawmakers said.

The proposal, drafted by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln, was added last week to a wider Wall Street reform bill that senators continued debating on Monday. No votes on amendments to the bill will come until Tuesday.

The Senate will likely drop the Lincoln proposal and allow bank holding companies to continue to trade derivatives. But it will likely impose other new limits on derivatives, said Paul Miller, policy analyst at investment firm FBR Capital Markets.

Quote
The wider bill in the Senate, drawn up by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, seeks to push as much OTC derivatives trading volume as possible through exchanges, electronic trading platforms and central clearinghouses. All would make the market more transparent and accountable.

Lincoln, a Democrat facing a tough re-election campaign at home in Arkansas, went Dodd one better in her own OTC derivatives bill. She called for requiring banks to separate their traditional businesses from swaps dealing.

The idea -- embraced by reform advocates -- is that banks that enjoy government support, from either deposit insurance or Federal Reserve backing, should not be able to use that to their trading advantage in the OTC derivatives market.

http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=7872507&action=article

Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 6.224 seconds with 19 queries.