Jon Stewart calls them 'These Fucking Guys' - apt for Goldman Sachs' geniuses and their recent shenanigans. I read the following bit in the Times this morning that summed up the situation perfectly...

From here: Adam Smith taught us that the point of a robust capital market is to direct capital to its best and highest use, where, combined with labor, it will produce the goods and services most valued by society. Asset bubbles are a problem, but at least mortgage-backed securities enabled people to live in their overvalued houses. The Goldman “Abacus” transaction involved “synthetic” collateralized debt obligations, derivatives whose value rose and fell with the value of real C.D.O.’s elsewhere. It produced no goods or services, financed no consumption — nothing at all. Money that could, and should, have been used to add value to society was not invested; it was squandered as surely as if the parties had wagered on a horse race. Legitimate hedging is one thing. Gambling with people’s savings, university endowments and municipal funds, on the other hand, should be a crime. 

Vanity Fair compares five of America’s most volatile fringe groups: the Tea Party, Goldman Sachs, the Republican National Committee, Ron Paul acolytes, and the Animal Liberation Front.

Goldman Sachs invented the most toxic financial instruments that led to the 2008 financial meltdown. While it was inherently clear to those following the brouhaha on a regular basis, now they seem to have proof. Meanwhile, Wall Street bonuses rise 17%.

Goldman Sachs and other big banks aren't just pocketing the trillions we gave them to rescue the economy - they're re-creating the conditions for another crash!!! from Matt Taibbi. Unless we break up these big banks we are falling headlong into another crisis. Greece is an example where Goldman Sachs is directly implicated in hiding that country's debt until the situation imploded. When are we going to stop this??? In the excerpt below, Matt talks about Goldman's scam also known as "Swoop and Squat"...

In response to recent news that homeowners were coolly walking away from their 'underwater' homes, a wall street economist said recently that borrowers were not victims - they “signed contracts, and as adults should also be held accountable”. My response is simple: Give us a single instance where an 'adult' was punished for the reckless financial practices promoted on Wall Street... Keep walking away - may your ilk increase!!! ... Other ironies of the day include the news that AIG will distribute about $100 million in bonuses today to "adults" working at its financial products unit, which traded in the derivatives that imploded in September 2008, leading to the biggest government bailout ($182 BILLION) in history. The gravy train on the casino never amazes me – there is also news that the CEO of Goldman Sachs will receive $100 million in bonuses.

Meanwhile on Wall Street

The sub prime mortage meltdown seems like distant memory...

From here: Based on analysts' earnings forecasts for 2009, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is on track to pay out as much as $20 billion this year, or about $700,000 per employee. That would be nearly double the firm's $363,000 average last year, and slightly higher than the $661,000 for the average Goldman employee in fiscal 2007, according to analyst estimates reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Sleight of hand and orphan month based accounting - Goldman Sachs style

Goldman Sachs keeps getting better at the 'hoodwink' game... Just about everyone heard about their wondrous profits declared yesterday. Now the rest of the story...

From here: Goldman Sachs reported a profit of $1.8 billion in the first quarter, and plans to sell $5 billion in stock and get out of the government’s clutches, if it can.

How did it do that? One way was to hide a lot of losses in not-so-plain sight.

Goldman’s 2008 fiscal year ended Nov. 30. This year the company is switching to a calendar year. The leaves December as an orphan month, one that will be largely ignored. In Goldman’s earnings statement, and in most of the news reports, the quarter ended March 31 is compared to the quarter last year that ended in February.

The orphan month featured — surprise — lots of write-offs. The pretax loss was $1.3 billion, and the after-tax loss was $780 million.

Would the firm have had a profit if it had stuck to its old calendar, and had to include December and exclude March?

Note: In spite of their profits, the fact that they are blogger bullies remain...

Goldman Sachs - a blogger bully?

New lows for the supposedly 'venerable Wall Street institution'...

Goldman Sachs has instructed Wall Street law firm Chadbourne & Parke to pursue blogger Mike Morgan, warning him in a recent cease-and-desist letter that he may face legal action if he does not close down his website. Florida-based Mr Morgan began a blog entitled "Facts about Goldman Sachs" – the web address for which isgoldmansachs666.com – just a few weeks ago. In that time Mr Morgan, a registered investment adviser, has added a number of posts to the site, including one entitled "Does Goldman Sachs run the world?". However, many of the posts relate to other Wall Street firms and issues. According to Chadbourne & Parke's letter, dated April 8, the bank is rattled because the site "violates several of Goldman Sachs' intellectual property rights" and also "implies a relationship" with the bank itself. ... He claims he has followed all legal requirements to own and operate the website – and that the header of the site clearly states that the content has not been approved by the bank.

Photo from a recent exhibition of Barry Le Va's works at Mary Boone Gallery titled “Hands, Handles, Blades: Cleaver Configurations 1969-2009”, an exhibition curated by Klaus Kertess. From the press release: Le Va has said that these and other sculptures similarly fraught with danger and created between 1968 and 197l, such as Within the Series of Layered Pattern Acts created by shattering sheets of glass on the floor, were more about exploring mathematical givens in relation to time and space than about threat of danger. In the case of the Cleaver pieces, those givens are the artist’s height and the fixed radius of the arc of his arm’s thrust. Of course, these works were originally created during a time of great violence in our culture.

AIG - a cover play? - II

Eliot Spitzer, former john and former governor of New York State makes a compelling case for the AIG bailout serving as a front for saving firms with deeper connections (like Goldman Sachs)...

But wait a moment, aren't we in the midst of reopening contracts all over the place to share the burden of this crisis? From raising taxes—income taxes to sales taxes—to properly reopening labor contracts, we are all being asked to pitch in and carry our share of the burden. Workers around the country are being asked to take pay cuts and accept shorter work weeks so that colleagues won't be laid off. Why can't Wall Street royalty shoulder some of the burden? Why did Goldman have to get back 100 cents on the dollar? Didn't we already give Goldman a $25 billion capital infusion, and aren't they sitting on more than $100 billion in cash? Haven't we been told recently that they are beginning to come back to fiscal stability? If that is so, couldn't they have accepted a discount, and couldn't they have agreed to certain conditions before the AIG dollars—that is, our dollars—flowed? The appearance that this was all an inside job is overwhelming. AIG was nothing more than a conduit for huge capital flows to the same old suspects, with no reason or explanation.

AIG - a cover play?

Is it AIG that's playing us for fools or is it really Goldman Sachs?

From here: The roots of the linkage between Goldman Sachs and AIG go back to the closing months of the Bush administration, as the financial meltdown reached crisis proportions and key decisions were made that are now reaping the whirlwind. Remember who played a key role in deciding to bail out AIG? Henry Paulson, the Goldman CEO-turned George W. Bush Treasury Secretary. Paulson, according to a September 27, 2008 New York Times piece by Gretchen Morgenson, led a team of regulators and bankers in early September to determine what to do with the most severely wounded financial institutions. One of the participants in those meetings was Lloyd C. Blankfein, Paulson's successor at Goldman Sachs. Out of those meetings came the controversial and heavily criticized decision to allow Lehman Brothers, a Goldman competitor, to go belly up, and to bail out AIG. Starting with $85 billion from the Fed, taxpayers have pumped a total of $170 billion into the giant insurance company. The bailout was crucial to Goldman in that it permitted AIG to pay off its $12.6 billion debt to the firm, $8.1 billion of which was to cover AIG-backed credit derivatives. At a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee on February 11, 2009, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein denied that his firm had a major stake in bailing out AIG. Blankfein told the panel that "with respect to our dealings with AIG, we were always fully collateralized and had de minimis or no credit risk at any given moment because we exchanged collateral....We had transactions with them. And if they had gone the wrong way, they would have owed us money. We assumed they'd pay it, but if they defaulted, they wouldn't pay us. We insured against that default. We didn't win money from it. We wouldn't have made money. But it would have protected our down side."

Throughout the past six months of economic crisis, Goldman has taken full advantage of what the government has to offer. On October 28, 2008, Goldman and eight other banks were the first to receive federal bailout money under the Treasury Department's Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). which was initiated by Paulson. On November 25, 2008, Goldman became the first bank in the nation to benefit from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP), issuing $5 billion in government-secured debt at 3.367%, substantially less than the market rate facing banks which issued unsecured debt. All told, Goldman has issued a total of $20 billion in government-guaranteed debt under TLGP. In their dealings with banks, both Treasury and the Fed have been subject to relatively minimal disclosure, in order to protect the proprietary interests of financial institutions, especially to prevent rumors of illiquidity or excessive debt from threatening a bank's viability.

Behind the soundbites

Actual news item on Bloomberg today...

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. wants to repay the $10 billion it got from the U.S. Treasury last year to signal the firm is healthy.

What this story actually translates to:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. would like to continue paying clueless investment bankers millions of dollars in bonuses and does not really want to be shackled by the $500K limit on executive compensation that President Obama plans to impose on firms who have been bailed out by the Federal government.Cartoon ripped from here.

The bonus of parsing the fine print

A lot of people are agog over the fact that Goldman Sachs is not giving out bonuses this year. I urge such people to look deeper than just the attention grabbing headlines. The truth is that only 7 employees in Goldman are not getting bonuses. The rest of the employees are collectively pocketing 7 billion dollars in bonuses.

Now it looks like other banks are following the same strategy. Produce eye popping headlines and hide the dirty laundry in the fine print. Today’s headline splashed across the online Times read the following: Top Executives at UBS Will Not Get Bonuses.

Until I got to the fine print:

UBS said that its chairman, its chief executive, and other members of the executive board would receive only fixed salaries this year and that all other UBS employees would get lower 2008 bonuses.

Is Goldman Sachs pulling the wool over our eyes?

Today, Goldman Sachs, the bank that vacuumed in 10 billion dollars of taxpayer bailout money made a pathetic announcement: They said that they were trimming the bonuses of 7 employees. Here is what they said:

Our senior executive officers made this decision because they believe it is the right thing to do. We cannot ignore the fact that we are part of an industry that is directly associated with the ongoing economic problems.

I guess they could not have made it sound more condescending. Of course, other than the seven people singled out as 'top management', the rest of the firm is set to receive 7 billion dollars in bonuses (per last week’s news). Each of the firm's 443 partners is set to pocket an average of more than 5 million dollars as part of the annual Christmas windfall this year.

It might be better if the people at Goldman try not to pull the wool over the public eye with contrite sounding statements like ‘the top management at the firm are getting no bonuses’ – when it amounts to just 7 individuals. Individuals who might more than likely have some left over change from last years bonus packages that totaled more than 17 billion dollars.

Bonus pools of Wall Street firms up until 2006. In 2007, the total bonus pool was a whooping 36 billion dollars. 36 billion dollars would not have fit into the vertcal axis of the above graph. Source: The Washington Post - December 20, 2006

On what we could learn from the Chinese regarding bailouts

Today was yet another great day for bailouts. Firstly, there was yet another bailout of the beleaguered insurance giant AIG, then there was news that the Treasury Department on the sly decided to give American banks a tax windfall of $140 billion and thirdly, there was news of a half a trillion dollar Chinese bailout. OK, now why am I mixing the Chinese bailout with similar measures taking place here? Well, it is indeed interesting to see how these monies are being put to use. To get a quick idea on the differences between the plans hatched by the Treasury as opposed to the Chinese in bailing out, it is instructive to see the details. Or, maybe it is even time to learn from the Chinese.

On what the Chinese would do with their bailout:

At a time when major infrastructure projects are being put off around the world, China said it would spend an estimated $586 billion over the next two years — roughly 7 percent of its gross domestic product each year — to construct new railways, subways and airports and to rebuild communities devastated by an earthquake in the southwest in May.

On the sly tax windfall to US banks:

Late September, the Treasury Department issued a five-sentence notice that attracted almost no public attention. Administration officials had just given American banks a windfall of as much as $140 billion. The change to Section 382 of the tax code came after a two-decade effort by the Republican administration to eliminate or overhaul the law. Section 382 of the tax code was created by Congress in 1986 to end what it considered an abuse of the tax system: companies sheltering their profits from taxation by acquiring shell companies whose only real value was the losses on their books. The firms would then use the acquired company's losses to offset their gains and avoid paying taxes.

On bailing out AIG again and yet again:

The government created an $85 billion emergency credit line in September to keep A.I.G. from toppling and added $38 billion more in early October when it became clear that the original amount was not enough. As part of the new revision announced today, the Federal Reserve said it would reduce that credit line to $60 billion. When the reorganized deal is complete, taxpayers will have invested and lent a total of $150 billion to A.I.G., the most the government has ever directed to a single private enterprise.

So just to get this clear:

• China spends its bailout money on actual projects like infrastructure additions that benefit its citizens and in turn keep the economy humming and productive.
• In the United States, the Treasury decides to award tax write-offs to banks that shelter their profits from taxation by acquiring shell companies whose real value indicates losses on their books, but then manage to offset imaginary losses with actual capital gains to avoid any payment of taxes.

Maybe we need some spreading of the wealth - II

Recession or not, Wall Street bonuses for this year tell us the usual story - it is a fixture that remains in spite of the turmoils and the bailouts.

• Goldman Sachs has set aside about $6.85 billion for bonuses, or an average of $210,300 for each employee.
• Morgan Stanley has $6.44 billion for bonuses, or $138,700 per person
• Merrill Lynch has $6.7 billion for bonuses and set aside an average $110,000 for each employee.

What is especially egregious is that these very same banks were given taxpayer money to shore up their finances a couple of weeks back - part of the bailout package put together by Sec. Paulson.

Just as reminder, the mean annual wage for the average U.S. employee is about $40,690. (according to the May 2007 Bureau of Labor Statistics report). Time here has an article today on how the bailout will actually boost Wall Street bonuses.

We could use some distribution of wealth here...

Flawed on many levels

Below are four news snippets that have hidden issues associated with the $700,000,000,000.00 bailout in the papers today: The first smacks of 'inbred nepotism', the second an instance of 'the fox guarding the henhouse', the third reeks of 'siphoning public cash to the CEOs' whilst the fourth talks about 'a clear conflict of interest'.

• The Treasury Department said that it would soon post help-wanted ads on its Web site for asset managers to run the bailout program and that because of the urgency, the hiring may be “through other than full and open competition.”
• Former Goldman Sachs employee, Neel Kashkari has been appointed the bailout czar and will lead the bailout. By the way, a useful way to pronounce this Indian last name is ‘Cash Carry’ per Michelle. Fitting indeed.
• Under a proposal being discussed with the Treasury Department, the Fed could buy vast amounts of the unsecured short-term debt that companies rely on to finance their day-to-day activities. The move would put more taxpayer dollars at risk. Buying commercial paper could open the Fed to difficult conflicts of interest, because it would be juggling the goals of protecting its investment portfolio with its traditional goals of promoting stable prices and low unemployment.
• Administration officials plan to outsource almost the entire bailout effort, which will largely rely on “reverse auctions” in which the government accepts bids from financial institutions that want to sell their troubled assets. The Treasury is accepting bids only from experienced investment managers, almost all of which are likely to be either sellers or buyers of mortgage-backed securities.

Is it any wonder that the economy is in shambles? Meanwhile, the presidential candidates seem to be busy launching personal attacks at each other. Nero fiddles while... The bailout looks more and more like a big 'up yours' neon sign out of D.C.

Photos of Kwang-Young Chun's mulberry paper on small polystyrene form sculptures at the Robert Miller Gallery (exhibition on from Sept 4 - Oct 11)

How the $700,000,000,000.00 bailout will ensure that Goldman Sachs employees keep getting their bonuses come December this year...

Conjecture

• Wonder why Warren Buffet suddenly started to decide on investing $10.0 billion in Goldman Sachs today?
• Did Secretary Hank Paulson decide on unrolling the $700 billion bailout the moment his alma mater Goldman Sachs started to get into trouble? The bailout was announced the day Goldman shares sank almost $30 last Wednesday...
• Why did Goldman Sachs suddenly change its position from a investment bank to a 'commercial bank' last Sunday? Looks like it was in real trouble...

Of course, now Bloomberg news is now reporting this:
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley may be among the biggest beneficiaries of the $700 billion U.S. plan to buy assets from financial companies while many banks see limited aid, according to Bank of America Corp.

Maybe just an inconsequential conspiracy theory, but the bailout really starts to stink - in investment banks they have a word for this situation: 'conflict of interest'...

Executive paycheck watch - II

As the investors keeps getting hammered with more bad news (AIG falling under after ratings cut last night, Goldman announced a couple of minutes back that their profits were down 70%, the first time since the company went public, Merrill to see large layoffs, thousands of Lehman workers out on the street), here is a bit of news that looks to the bright side of things...

From here: Merrill Lynch & Co. Chief Executive Officer John Thain and trading-division head Thomas Montag may reap payouts totaling more than $47 million if they leave or are given lesser roles after Bank of America Corp. buys the firm.

The ultimate irony with the whole payout was that John Thain was hired into Merrill nine months back explicitly to turn the ailing company around. Instead, he turns tables and sells the company lock stock to Bank of America (of course, he had no other option after the debacle at Lehman). Yes, greed is good.

The executive paychecks for CEOs who were responsible for sending Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground covered here previously.