Klamotten-Affäre an der Wallstreet

jetzt würde ich aber schon mal das 15. Prinzip von GS kennenlernen.

Bin schon richtig gespannt.

Gruß

RJ  

In der Frage, wieso die A.I.G. zu Gunsten Dritter "gerettet" und die LEHMAN Brothers
zu Gunsten Dritter NICHT "gerettet" werden mussten, gibt es jetzt einen hoch interessanten Rechts-Streit, dessen Basis der FoIA (Freedom of Information Act) ist:

"Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on May 11 against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system related to the financial bailouts of American International Group (AIG) and LEHMAN Brothers on behalf of former FDIC employee Vern McKINLEY. The lawsuit is part of Judicial Watch’s comprehensive investigation to determine under what legal authorities and lawful rationales the federal government initiated the Wall Street bailouts.

With his March 21, 2010, FOIA request targeting information related to the AIG bailout McKinley requested: “…any and all communications and records concerning or relating to the Board [of Governors’] decision that detail that ‘the disorderly failure of AIG was likely to have a systemic effect on financial markets that were already experiencing a significant level of fragility,’ as described in the [Board] meeting minutes.”

With his March 28, 2010, FOIA request targeting information related to the Lehman Brothers bailout, McKinley requested: “…any and all communications and records regarding analysis undertaken regarding Lehman Brothers and the assessment in September 2008 or earlier of what ‘contagion’ might have flowed from Lehman Brother’s filing of bankruptcy, as the word contagion was used in the case of the Board of Governors’ deliberations over Bear Stearns…or ‘systemic effect of financial markets’ that may have flowed from a Lehman Bankruptcy as the phrase was used in the Board of Governors’ deliberations over American International Group…”

The Board of Governors acknowledged receipt of both FOIA requests but failed to respond within the statutory allotted time period, prompting Judicial Watch’s lawsuit.

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors used Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act to justify its decision to radically break from precedent and authorize these massive financial bailouts"...

SOURCE / QUELLE dieses Ausschnitts:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2010/may/...-and-lehman-brothers-ba

"Working Together:

The Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve work together in an effort to maintain a stable economy. The Federal Reserve serves as the government's banker, processing transactions, such as accepting electronic payments for Social Security taxes, issuing payroll checks to government employees and clearing checks for tax payments and other government receivables.

The Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury also work together to borrow money when the government needs to raise cash. The Federal Reserve issues U.S. Treasury securities and conducts Treasury securities auctions, selling these securities on behalf of the Department of the Treasury.

The Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury are also linked in another way. The Federal Reserve is a nonprofit company. After their expenses are paid, any remaining profits are paid to the Department of the Treasury. The Department of the Treasury then uses that money to fund government spending. It's a relationship that produces a considerable amount of money. The Federal Reserve System contributed in excess of $29 billion to the Treasury in 2006, according to the Federal Reserve Board (FRB). So, the Federal Reserve not only helps to make and implement policies, it also serves as the government's bank and generates a portion of the revenue used to fund the country's activities"...

SOURCE / QUELLE dieses (äußerst seicht formulierten) Ausschnitts:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/...-fed-reserve.asp

Doch wer die Sinn gebende KLAMMER zwischen diesen beiden "together working" Institutions sucht, stößt immer wieder auf Goldman Sachs. - Alles nur ZUFALL?

Und mit dem FED (also dem Federal Reserve SYSTEM) hat JUDICIAL Watch wohl den STÄRKEREN www.ariva.de/_AIG_and_LEHMAN_t285084?pnr=8050286#jump8050286 derer beiden so selbstlos "together working" Institutions rein FoIA-mäßig Erfolg-reich am Haken, deren ßegens-reiche Zusammen-Arbeit sich aus der jeweiligen EINZEL-Betrachtung nur recht unvollkommen erschließt:

"The secret Paulson-Goldman meeting wasn’t the only time that Hank PAULSON treated his buddies at Goldman Sachs ESPECIALLY well while at Treasury. In fact, it wasn’t the ONLY time he did so before he got the now-famous WAIVER.

A bit further on in the SORKIN book, while [Goldman-Sachs-Henry "Hank"] PAULSON is trying to work out what should be done with an imploding LEHMAN Brothers, we find THIS:

If all that weren’t enough to deal with, [LEHMAN president Bart] McDADE had just had a baffling conversation with [CEO Dick] FULD, who informed him that PAULSON had called him directly to suggest that the firm open up its books to Goldman SACHS. The way FULD described it, GOLDMAN was effectively advising TREASURY. Paulson was also demanding a thorough review of Lehman’s confidential NUMBERS, courtesy of Goldman Sachs.

McDADE, though never much of a Goldman conspiracy theorist, found FULD’s report discomfiting, but moments later was on the phone with Harvey SCHWARTZ, Goldman’s head of capital markets. “I’m following up at HANK’s request,” he began.

After another perplexing conversation, McDADE walked down the hall and told Alex KIRK to immediately call SCHWARTZ at GOLDMAN, instructing him to set up a meeting and getting them to sign a confidentiality agreement.

“This is coming directly from PAULSON,” he explained.

In many ways, this is worse than Paulson’s meeting with Goldman’s BOARD: In THIS case, PAULSON is FORCING Lehman to open its books fully to a direct COMPETITOR, for no obvious reason. And in this case it’s not at all obvious that PAULSON got a sign off from TREASURY’s general counsel before doing so"...

Und die SOURCE / QUELLE dieses schon zupackender formulierten Ausschnittes findestu HIER: http://seekingalpha.com/article/...an-the-lehman-heads-up?source=feed

[Bloggs at] Barrons:
May 19, 2010, 5:58 PM ET
The Atlantic: Goldman Beyond Redemption?
By Tiernan RAY:

"Heather HORN, a writer for The Atlantic, has a nice summary this afternoon on the magazine’s Web site of the impact to Goldman Sachs’s (GS) IMAGE as laid out in the article this morning in the New York Times by Gretchen MORGENSON and Louise STORY, in case you haven’t perused the piece in depth.

MORGENSON and STORY cite a sales of Washington MUTUAL mortgage-backed securities in 2007 as a prime example of Goldman’s conflict of interest, given the firm made $2.5 million shorting those securities even as it was promoting them as long investments to various parties.

HORN cites a variety of bloggers who see evidence of conflict of interest in the article, including former Goldman EMPLOYEE Yves SMITH, who writes that Goldman’s moral compass [?] seems broken [!] and that, if TRUE, the firm is “beyond redemption”...

Und nicht nur IHR, auch dieser phlegmatosophisch veranlagte TERAS was schierlichst erschrocken, als er das las, und das war HIER:
http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatchtoday/2010/.../?mod=rss_BOLBlog

Es scheint wohl DOCH eine Art "moral Compass" bei Goldman Sachs gegeben zu haben; zumindest dieser Artikel scheint mir nun klar genug zu beweisen, dass es einen solchen "Compass" tatsächlich einst gab:

Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Goldman Clients Increasingly Wary of Firm’s Conflicts and Trading Orientation

"When the SEC filed its civil suit against Goldman, the firm and its stalwarts argued that the firm would come through with its reputation intact.

Anyone who watched Goldman over the last decade had reason to doubt that cheery view. The firm has undergone a remarkable change, from one that was notoriously aggressive but had a keen sense of where the boundaries of propriety lay, to one out to maximize its bottom line with little regard to the long-term consequences. Greed and short-termism won in 1999 when the firm went public. At most times in the preceding 15 years, if not even earlier, Goldman could have gone public or sold itself, producing a nice killing for its current partners. But most saw Goldman as an institution and felt that selling it would be an act of opportunism, of cashing in on what others had built without compensating them fairly.

I would occasionally have dinner with a senior staff member, one in an influential position that put him regularly in front of the CEO and the management committee. He had been with the firm a very long time and had institutional memory, a very scarce commodity. He was always discreet, but his unhappiness with the devolution of the firm was palpable. He did not have much respect for Hank Paulson, but it appeared the other members of the management committee, particularly John Thornton and John Thain, were thoughtful and acutely aware of the tradeoff between short-term profits and maintaining the firm’s franchise. By contrast, after Blankfein took the helm and the management team came to be dominated by traders, I could see him do everything in his power to steer our conversations away from Goldman, even the Goldman of long ago. And it became obvious why: the times we did wind up on that topic, he would be unable to contain his contempt for the people leading the firm, and the damage he was convinced they were doing to the firm’s culture, which he was also certain would play out in its reputation. It has taken a few years for him to be proven correct.

The New York Times chronicles how some of the firm’s corporate clients are increasingly uncomfortable with how Goldman will use the information the firm gains from its business dealings (meaning its corporate finance relationships and underwritings, where the banker is expected to treat its customers as a relationship, not a trade) for its own profit, particularly to bet against the client. This would have been completely unthinkable when I was briefly at Goldman (the early 1980s); Sidney Weinberg would spin in his grave if he could read this story.

The article describes in particular how the firm both represented WaMu as a manager of its mortgage-backed securities offerings, yet shorted its bonds and its stock. Goldman maintains, in effect, that the short wasn’t “personal” but was part of a broader portfolio management strategy. If you believe that, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

The suspicions of WaMu’s CEO Kerry K. Killinger appear well founded:

In that [e-mail] message, Mr. Killinger noted that he had avoided retaining Goldman’s investment bankers in the fall of 2007 because he was concerned about how the firm would use knowledge it gleaned from that relationship. He pointed out that Goldman was “shorting mortgages big time” even while it had been advising Countrywide, a major mortgage lender.

“I don’t trust Goldy on this,” he wrote. “They are smart, but this is swimming with the sharks.”

One of Mr. Killinger’s lieutenants at Washington Mutual felt the same way. “We always need to worry a little about Goldman,” that person wrote in an e-mail message, “because we need them more than they need us and the firm is run by traders.”

Yves here. WaMu is not an isolated case. I have had a former financial firm executive tell me that when Goldman was pitching to manage an offering, its executives asked point blank, “Are you shorting our company?” They did not get a straight answer, which they took to mean, “Yes”.

The article also contends that the firm encourages its staff to ignore conflicts of interest, a charge the firm’s spokesman, Lucas Van Praag, denies:

When new hires begin working at Goldman, they are told to follow 14 principles that outline the firm’s best practices. “Our clients’ interests always come first” is principle No. 1. The 14th principle is: “Integrity and honesty are at the heart of our business.”

But some former insiders, who requested anonymity because of concerns about retribution from the firm, say Goldman has a 15th, unwritten principle that employees openly discuss.

It urges Goldman workers to embrace conflicts and argues that they are evidence of a healthy tension between the firm and its customers. If you are not embracing conflicts, the argument holds, you are not being aggressive enough in generating business.

Yves again. The article alludes to two of the 901 pages of exhibits released by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. I’m puzzled that the web version did not point to them directly; they are a revealing example of Newspeak in action (click to enlarge, or see pages 259-260): http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/...nexhibits0427.pdf

Yves here. Van Praag reportedly contends, “This policy and the excerpt cited from the training manual simply reflects the fact that we have a diverse client base and give our sales people and traders appropriate guidance.”

Ahem. Anyone who has lived in Corporate America will recognize these pages as CYA. One thing Goldman has long-ago mastered is getting its story straight BEFORE it engages in questionable behavior. I saw that first hand when I worked for Goldman in the 1980s. For instance, I once walked into the Syndicate department well after normal hours for that group to find two junior staffers being briefed by one of the most powerful partners from Goldman’s main law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell (i.e., someone who would normally never deal with people so far down the totem pole) walking them through the party line on an upcoming deal. It was an unusual type of underwriting; the head of Syndicate had crowed, “I’m going to make that stock sing!” but that was not the sort of thing you say to the SEC should they happen to come calling.

Similar legalistic positioning in the excerpt is obvious to anyone who has an operating brain cell. The Goldman argument is that trading decisions are not based on “any one piece of data” which seeks to claim that no one piece of information (which of course could come fro a client and hence constitute front running or simply abusing a presumed relationship) would lead to a trade. Huh? Traders often jump to take or lighten a position PRECISELY because they have gotten a SINGLE piece of information which they see as significant and believe the market does not have yet.

The story accounts other examples of less than savory conduct by Goldman. One case involved the auction rate securities market. Goldman refused to to waive a contract provision, as other banks had, after they abandoned the auction rate securities market. The article does not state as clearly as it might that the reason the issuer in question, a hospital, wanted a waiver was because it was paying a penalty rate precisely because Goldman and other firms who had once been willing to act as market makers, were refusing to do so. This is more serious than it might seem because an underwriter is expected to continue to make a market after an issue is sold; this is an important service to investors and issuers. But there is no contractual obligation, even though it is widely regarded as an essential part of the business. Hence the hospital’s outrage when Goldman welshed on its part of the deal but insisted the hospital adhere to its contract.

Another juicy item: Goldman recommended shorting the debt of six states….the same year it had underwritten bonds for those states, which meant it sold them to (presumably) other investors.

The article describes more incidents: how Goldman sold a notoriously toxic CDO, Timberwolf, to a Bear Stearns hedge fund (the one that blew up in July 2007, ushering in the first acute phase of the credit crisis) and then shorted Bear’s stock, and how aggressive collateral calls might have led to the demise of Thornburg Mortgage.

While Goldman is a sufficiently embattled firm these days it is well nigh impossible for outsiders to get candid answers, the firm’s conduct in the Senate hearings and some of Lloyd Blankfein’s star turns give the impression that the firm’s moral compass is so badly broken that its leadership and many of its employees genuinely thinks there is nothing questionable about this type of conduct. And if that is true, the firm is beyond redemption"...

SOURCE / QUELLE:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/05/...nd-trading-orientation.html

WASHINGTON—The Senate on Thursday approved the most extensive overhaul of financial-sector regulation since the 1930s, hoping to avoid a repeat of the financial crisis that hit the U.S. economy starting in 2007.

The legislation passed the Senate 59 to 39 and must now be reconciled with a similar bill passed by the House of Representatives in December, before it can be sent to President Barack Obama to be signed into law.

Hier zum Artikel:
http://online.wsj.com/article/...5906.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories  

Mit der GESCHICHTE von Goldman Sachs beschäftigt sich FORBES. - Der Artikel ist zwar etwas sehr GS-freundlich geschrieben, was ja aber kein Grund sein kann, ihn allein deshalb nicht zu studieren...

Inside Wall Street
The Evolution Of Goldman Sachs
Andrew BEATTIE, 05.21.[20]10, 07:18 PM EDT

"The fraud allegations against them have tarnished the reputation of the firm. But how exactly did they get to this point?

With the ongoing cases against Goldman Sachs (GS), a lot of sound bites have been focused on the firm losing its way and tarnishing its traditional values. Since much is being made of these "good old days," it's worth looking back at how exactly Goldman Sachs went from being a specialist in commercial paper to the expediter of speculative investors' dreams.

Goldman, Sachs & Co.

In 1848 Marcus Goldman left a teaching job in Bavaria to start again in America. He worked as a shopkeeper for years before settling in New York and starting a new business of trading in commercial paper in 1869. Basically, Goldman helped other small businesses secure short-term capital. He would connect investors (often banks) and entrepreneurs, shaving off a slight profit for himself in the deal. As his reputation as a broker in short-term credit grew, more and more businesses came to him with their funding needs. Business was thriving when Goldman's son-in-law, Samuel Sachs, joined the firm in 1882

Finding a Niche
[...]
The Crash
[...]
Government Sachs
[...]
Leveraging Up"...

SOURCE / QUELLE dieses Ausschnitts:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/21/...aud-case-personal-finance-gs.html

In der ollen ABACUS-Klamotte kommt Taesik YOON zu folgendem Schluss:

Taesik YOON:
May 11, 2010 - 5:41 pm
A Closer Look at the Case Against Goldman Sachs:

"Frankly, there’s little doubt in my mind that the SEC’s decision to bring action against Goldman was appropriate.  Let me make this crystal clear, I’m not saying that Goldman is guilty or not guilty but rather that there is enough evidence to suggest they could be guilty.  Nor do I absolve ACA of any blame.  It’s obvious that they wanted to place a bet on housing prices continuing to rise, which likely would have proved to be a bad play no matter the circumstances.  But would they have wanted help in the construction of that product from someone with a strong incentive to see to see it fail?  That would, quite simply, be like letting the coach of an opposing baseball team select half of your starting line-up for the championship game.  No matter how honest a person the opposing coach may be, who in their right mind would allow that to happen?

In the end, we need to take sight of the fact that this case isn’t about Paulson or ACA, the two primary parties involved in the transaction.  It’s about Goldman’s alleged misrepresentation as facilitator of that transaction.  Will it be easy to prove?  Probably not.  But just looking strictly at the facts and the allegations based solely on those facts, it doesn’t sound as difficult as so many think"...

SOURCE / QUELLE dieses Ausschnitts:
http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/2010/05/...elatedstoriesbox

Es gibt "No similar Goldman Sachs Situation", zumindest nicht in SINGAPORE:

05:55 AM May 20, 2010
MAS: No similar Goldman Sachs situation
by Ryan HUANG ryanhuang@mediacorp.com.sg

"SINGAPORE - The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has assured there is no similar situation to the Goldman Sachs fraud charges here.

This was in response to concerns raised in Parliament yesterday by Nominated Member of Parliament Teo Siong SENG over its possible impact on Singapore's economy.

The US authorities have brought charges against the Wall Street giant for failing to fully disclose potential conflicts of interest in its dealings.

Minister of Trade and Industry and deputy chairman of MAS Mr Lim Hng KIANG explained that the charges specifically refer to its collateralised debt obligation product (CDO) which was linked to the performance of securities backed by subprime residential mortgages. These were marketed to financial institutions, but not the retail public, said Mr Lim.

"Goldman Sachs allegedly failed to disclose the role that a large hedge fund had played in the portfolio selection process, and the fact that the hedge fund would benefit if the mortgage-backed securities defaulted," he added.

MAS said it is monitoring developments overseas, but not all are applicable in Singapore. The central bank added that rules are in place to COMPEL financial institutions to DISCLOSE all the information required for the investor to make an INFORMED decision. It will also take the appropriate regulatory ACTION where there is a breach of law, Mr Lim added"...

SOURCE / QUELLE dieses Ausschnitts:
http://www.todayonline.com/Business/...r-Goldman-Sachs-situation--MAS

Auch CHINA will keine "Goldman-Sachs-Situation" und baut deshalb VOR:

Fraud charge may stifle Goldman bid
By Hu YUANYUAN (China Daily)
Updated: 2010-05-21 09:01

"New insurance industry rules dictate foreign firms must have clean slate

BEIJING - Goldman Sachs' plan to enter China's insurance market might be deterred as the country's insurance regulator tightens the rules on foreign investments in the sector.

The China Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC) on Thursday issued a rule on insurance companies' equity management, setting a strict threshold for the entry of foreign capital into the country's fast growing insurance sector.

According to the rule, only domestic business entities and overseas financial institutions could purchase a stake in a Chinese insurer. And foreign financial firms looking to invest in Chinese insurers should have net assets of no less than $2 billion yuan by the end of last year.

Moreover, foreign institutions should be profitable for three consecutive years and have an "A" rating or above from international rating agencies for the past three years.

These firms should not have been involved in any major legal irregularities over the past three years, and their business practices should be in line with the regulatory requirements of their home country.

In a filing by the US Securities and Exchange Commission in April, Goldman allegedly committed investor fraud by failing to disclose a conflict of interest on mortgage investments the firm sold while the US housing market went south.

As a result, CIRC's new rule may prevent the investment bank from getting into the market, analysts said".

"Industry sources said last week that the investment arm of Goldman Sachs is in the final stages of an agreement to buy AXA's $1.05 billion stake in TAIKANG Life, a deal that could give GOLDMAN a substantial stake in China's fourth largest life insurer.

"We haven't received Goldman Sachs' application on this deal yet," Ben BEN, head of the development and reform department of the CIRC, said. "If we receive the application, we'll follow the rules during the approval process."

Wang XIAOGANG, senior analyst with Shanghai-based Orient Securities, said the rule aims to strengthen risk management of foreign investors, especially after the financial crisis"...

SOURCE / QUELLE dieses Ausschnitts:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2010-05/21/content_9876184.htm

Goldman Sachs hat nichts zu befürchten, jeden Falls nichts vom US-Gesetzgeber:

May 21, 2010, 11:20 AM ET
Goldman Sachs, Banks Rebound: Lobbyists in Control?
By Tiernan RAY:

"Pretty amazing bounce-back for the financials this morning: from being mostly down by more than a percent pre-market, Goldman Sachs (GS) et al. are climbing several points, as the Senate’s financial reform bill moves toward reconciliation with a House version.

Amazing considering the provisions in the Senate bill are stronger than those in the House bill, according to one derivatives expert, Adam White with White Knight Research & Trading, quoted in a piece by The Journal’s Randall Smith this morning.

Still another expert, Jim Hardesty who runs Hardesty Capital Management, tells Smith that the final bill can’t possibly be much of a threat because “the lobbyists are firmly in control of Washington, and the reform efforts are likely to be modest.”

Hence, Morgan Stanley (MS) is up $1.21, or 5%, at $26.85, Bank of America (BAC) is up 41 cents, or 3%, at $15.71, Citigroup (C) is up 7 cents, or 2%, at $3.71, JP Morgan Chase (JPM) is up $1.63, or 4.3%, at $39.45, and Goldman is up $5, or 3.7%, at $141.17"...

SOURCE / QUELLE:
http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatchtoday/2010/.../?mod=rss_BOLBlog

Moin
sollte jemand heute Zeit haben, möge diesen Artikel lesen.http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/stocks/...0100614_10008_10008

From Canadian Business magazine, June 14, 2010
Investing
Warren Buffett: The sage of capitalism
Warren Buffett has evolved from amiable value investor to an ambassador for markets, teaching investing basics to all ages.
By Jacqueline NelsonFrom his perch in Omaha, Neb., Warren Buffett has long frowned upon Wall Street's excesses. But at some point, between calling derivatives toxic time bombs in 2002 and declaring his "100%" support of Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein in January, Buffett seems to have shifted from his role as amiable value investor toward something of an apostle of capitalism. Buffett has developed a taste for preaching the ideals of the market, and because he's spent time cultivating his role as a successful investor and a generous philanthropist, he seems uniquely positioned to persuade people of all ages of the virtues of the financial system.

The Securities and Exchange Commission alleges that some of Goldman's clients were encouraged to bet against the sub-prime mortgage market in the U.S., while it advised others to make deals supporting that same market.

But when Buffett said after Berkshire Hathaway's annual meeting in early May that he hadn't "seen anything in Goldman's behaviour that makes it any more subject to criticism than Wall Street generally," there was a clear pause in the Goldman bashing. Buffett went further, adding that he had no problem with Abacus Securities at the core of the SEC's lawsuit, nor with John Paulson, the hedge fund manager who made billions shorting Abacus. "It's very strange to say, at the end of the transaction, that if the other guy is smarter than you, that you have been defrauded," he said.

He recently took this same pro-market doctrine to the next generation of investors by way of a children's cartoon. It's called The Secret Millionaires Club and features Buffett himself teaching a pack of kids how to make smart business decisions. In the pilot, the Club brainstorms ways to save the Omaha Candy Co.

"The habits you develop live with you the rest of your life," says Buffett of the show's importance. He says he hopes to show kids that it's better to be a little ahead of the game than behind, and that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. "It may save them learning it the hard way later," says Buffet.

An animated Buffett points out the dangers of investing, and shows his proteges that the onus is on the purchaser to look beyond the seller's appeal to decide whether an investment is solid. "Now, can any of you think what the downside of the candy business might be? Forty per cent of all candy sales occur in the last three months of the year. If you miss that yearly window, you miss almost half your yearly sales," he says.

Because Buffett built his fortune by studying and encouraging his team — like the kids in the cartoon — not to rely too heavily on anyone else's advice, people accept his support for Goldman. "The lesson of his investment career is basically what he said about Goldman: do your homework," says Fred Lazar, who teaches economics at the Schulich School of Business, "And that's the lessons he's trying to get across in this cartoon. If you're going to make an investment, understand what you're doing."

Grüße  

Da jetzt das NYSE-Bid für Goldman Sachs auf nur noch U$-Dollar 42 (statt: 142) gefallen sein soll, habe ich diesen fetten Anzeige-Fehler in den zuständigen Discussions-Faden zur ENTSTÖRUNG gemeldet:

www.ariva.de/Goldman_Sachs_Spread_241_t378449?pnr=8060028#jump8060028

Mit Entstörungs-freundlichen Grüßen: Teras.

Judge projects fair image on Goldman destiny
Larry NEUMEISTER - AP

"The federal judge presiding over civil fraud charges brought against Wall Street's most powerful firm can be counted on to run a tight courtroom as she considers claims that Goldman Sachs took unfair advantage of lax controls on financial firms.

Lawyers and others who have worked before her say Judge Barbara Jones does not waste time as she commands lawyers to focus their arguments and stick to the key legal issues.

Barry MAWN, who led New York's FBI office at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and who has since retired, said she can be counted on to have a firm grasp of the legal issues surrounding the GOLDMAN case, regardless of how much she knew about the subject before.

"Some judges can be very quick and decisive but don't always know what they're talking about. But . . . both as a prosecutor and as a judge, she was always on the money," he said.

JONES will find the spotlight bright as she tackles legal issues surrounding the allegations by the Securities and Exchange Commission that GOLDMAN cost investors close to $1 billion by failing to tell them that subprime mortgage securities they bought had been chosen with help from a hedge fund client that was betting the investments would fail. Goldman has DENIED any impropriety.

Usually, civil lawsuits targeting companies end up being settled, but a judge's ruling on legal issues surrounding the case can still play a PIVOTAL role.

The course the case follows also could influence criminal investigators, who reportedly are taking a preliminary look at whether major banking institutions misled investigators about complex mortgage-related securities created to profit from the housing bubble.

JONES may be best known for the 25-year sentence she handed WorldCom's former chief, Bernard EBBERS"...

SOURCE / QUELLE:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/...ldman_zupeHGKAAn4fne52IiQuuL

Bei Jenen, wo Goldman Sachs als ihren Adviser oder sonstwas zu verlassen bereit sind, handelt es sich BISLANG ganz offenkundig um KLEINERE Fische; was man schon daran erkennt, dass sie diesen Schritt SELBST mitzuteilen bestrebt sind, an Statt ihn in's Gespräch bringen zu LASSEN - und sich zu einer dies-bezüglichen RÜCK-Frage dann bestätigend oder (ganz edel:) gänzlich Commentar-los zu stellen:

20.05.2010, 17:47
UPDATE 1-NY MTA to replace Goldman as financial adviser

"NEW YORK, May 20 [2010] (Reuters) - The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority is ending its relationship with Goldman Sachs and will pick a new financial adviser next week, a source familiar with the negotiations said on Thursday.

Goldman's contract with the MTA -- which runs New York City's buses, subways, commuter railroads and several major bridges and tunnels -- expired in 2009 and since then has been renewed on a month-by-month basis, the authority said.

The MTA began a search for a new financial adviser last June and is due to announce its pick on Monday morning at its monthly budget meeting. The full MTA board will vote to approve the choice on Wednesday.

A spokesman at Goldman Sachs declined to comment"...

SOURCE / QUELLE dieses Ausschnitts:
http://www.finanznachrichten.de/...ldman-as-financial-adviser-020.htm

Whitman WHO? - Auf den Namen Meg WHITMAN jeden Falls hört weiterhin die GESTALT, wo jetzt von ihren Beziehungen zu GOLDMAN Sachs am liebsten gar nimmer nichts mehr zu hören bereit ist. - Und der HINTER-Grund dieser seltsamen Abkehr? - Sie strich von Goldman Sachs ein "EQUIVALENT" von U$-Dollar 475'000.-- ein, obwohl diese Connection KEIN "good Fit" gewesen sein soll:

WHITMAN's ties to GOLDMAN Sachs won't go away...
Published Wednesday, Apr. 28, 2010
jortiz@sacbee.com
By Jon ORTIZ:

"While Congress ripped into investment giant Goldman Sachs executives on Tuesday, the scandal threatened to tear the scab off a political wound in the California governor's race.

Republican FRONT-runner Meg WHITMAN tried again to put her prior relationship with the bank behind her, telling the Associated Press she REGRETS taking part in a now-BANNED stock sale practice involving the firm and that she left its board after 15 months because it "wasn't a good fit."

But her remarks only provided ammunition to political foes seeking to remind voters that WHITMAN, a former Goldman Sachs BOARD [!] member, has a past with the investment firm now under scrutiny for its role in the national financial crisis.

Steve SMITH of the California LABOR Federation, which represents a coalition of more than 1,200 unions, said in an e-mail that WHITMAN's remarks were "dumbfounding" and that while "she'd like to sweep her dealings with GOLDMAN under the rug, the evidence points to a CLOSE, LASTING relationship that CONTINUES to this day."

Sterling CLIFFORD, spokesman for Democratic Attorney General Jerry BROWNS's gubernatorial campaign, asked, "Does she regret it because it was wrong or because it's become an issue in her race for GOVERNOR?"

And Jarrod ANGEN, communications director for WHITMAN's Republican RIVAL, Insurance Commissioner Steve POIZNER"...

Und zur SOURCE / QUELLE dieses Ausschnitts geht es dann HIER:
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/28/2710794/...ies-to-goldman-sachs.html

Diese kleine Andeutung des im vorigen Beitrag #143 citierten Artikel's reicht schon vollkommen aus, klar genug zu erkennen, um was es dabei eigentlich GEHT:

Es geht um's "SPINNING", eine besondere Form des FRONT-Running's, das für ganz besondere "Clients" mit entsprechender Goldman-Sachs-Connection JAHRE-lang äußerst profitabel gewesen ist, bevor diese auch vorher schon vollkommen ASOCIALE und UNETHISCHE Practik dann schließlich auch FORMELL verboten wurde:

Business Wire:  
25.05.2010 17:35
Bernstein Liebhard LLP Announces Filing of Action on Behalf of Investors in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

"Bernstein Liebhard LLP today announced that a class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers (the "Class") of Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE: GS) ("Goldman" or the "Company") common stock during the period of October 15, 2009 and April 16, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Defendants are Goldman and certain of its officers and executives.

The complaint charges Goldman and certain of its officers and executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Goldman is a financial holding company that provides global banking, securities and investment management services in the United States and internationally.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose: (i) the Company had, in violation of applicable law, not fully disclosed the facts and circumstances concerning the formation and sale of the ABACUS 2007-AC1 deal to investors such that it had engaged in misleading conduct; (ii) the Company had, in fact, bet against its clients and constructed collateralized debt obligations that were likely, if not designed, to fail; and (ii) the Company had received a WELLS Notice from the SEC about the ABACUS transaction but failed to inform shareholders of this fact"...

SOURCE / QUELLE dieses Ausschnitts:
http://www.finanznachrichten.de/...in-goldman-sachs-group-inc-004.htm

"Zwischen 140,34 und 151,08 U$-Dollares liegt JETZT die REGULÄRE Bewegungs-Zone" www.ariva.de/_140,34_und_151,08_t285084?pnr=8001479#jump8001479 habe ich am MITTWOCH (12.5.2010), also vor nunmehr über 2 WOCHEN(!), geschrieben, dabei aber verabsäumt, die Ansage auch graphisch zu illustrieren, was ich (vermittels des unten documentierend anhangende PHOTO's) hiermit nachholen will:

Trend-Canäle und Bewegungs-Zonen sind zwei Grund-verschiedene Dinge, was man allein schon daran erkennt, dass die Bewegungs-Zone eine (practischer Weise in ROT zu gebene) HEIßE oder MAGNETISCHE Linie und eine KALTE Linie kennt (die meist in BLAU gegeben wird). - Ober- und unterhalb dieser Linien wird "IRREGULARITÄT", also GEWÖHNLICHE statistische Ordnung (oder Unordnung) gesehen, was die EXTREME statistische AUSRICHTUNG und ORDNUNG innerhalb der REGULÄREN Bewegungs-Zone auch rein begrifflich schon genügend hervorhebt.

Trend-Canäle sind Trend-FOLGENDE Einzeichnungen im Chart, also Hervorbringungen des gewöhnlichen Chartismus, der keinerlei oder nur geringen ERRECHNUNGS-Aufwand erheischt. - Die Bestimmung von Bewegungs-Zonen hingegen folgt dem Bedürnis nach PUNCT-genauer ZUKUNFTS-Ansage. - Sie sind Hervorbringungen echter PROGNOSTIK und zählen als Solche zum so genannten REINEN Chartismus.

Abschließend darf noch festgestellt werden, dass sich SCHRÄG-linéaristische Schulen kaum jemals mit Bewegungs-Zonen befassen, HORICONTALITISCHE Schulen (wie zum Beispiel das PHLEXX-Trading) hingegen sehr oft.

(Und mein nächster Beitrag wird sich wahrscheinlich mit der Bedeutung der weiter oben bereits angesagten STABILISIERUNGS-Marke innerhalb der regulären Bewegungs-Zone befassen)...

Mit chartistischen Grüßen:
Der olle Teras.

Als ich am vor-vor-vorigen MITTWOCH (12.5.2010) bei 17 Uhren die chartistische "Stabilisierungs"-Marke @145,00 U$-Dollares www.ariva.de/_Stabilisierung_t285084?pnr=7999153#jump7999153 angesagt habe, durften sich alle Horicontalisten über diesen lustigen FORM-Fehler verwundern; und dies sofort aus ZWEIEN Gründen:

ERSTENS: Das, was in der Situation, wo die HEIßE oder ROTE oder MAGNETISCHE Linie UNTER-halb der KALTEN oder BLAUEN Linie zu liegen kommt, sich als STABILISIERUNGS-Marke manifestiert, entspricht doch in der umgekehrten Situation, in der die HEIßE oder ROTE oder MAGNETISCHE Linie OBER-Halb der KALTEN oder BLAUEN Linie der regulären Bewegungs-Zone zu liegen kommt, verdammt genau der DE-Stabilisierungs-Marke, deren gemeinsamer, wissentschaftlicher OBER-Begriff die ENTSCHEIDUNGS-Marke ist. - Ja, WEIß denn dieser Teras das überhaupt gar nicht? - Und

ZWEITENS: Diese 'mal als STABILISIERUNGS- und 'mal als DE-STABILISIERUNGS-Marke fungierende ENTSCHEIDUNGS-Marke der regulären Bewegungs-Zone wird aus der HEIßEN oder ROTEN oder MAGNETISCHEN Linie jeweils (procentuell) nur ABGELEITET, während die HEIßE oder ROTE Ableitungs-BASIS doch vorher mühsam erst ERRECHNET werden muss!  - Wie also kommt der Teras dazu, seine salopp als "Stabilisierungs"-Marke praesentierte ENTSCHEIDUNGS-Marke anzusagen, BEVOR er die HEIßE oder ROTE oder MAGNETISCHE Linie in irgend einer Form auch nur ERWÄHNT hat?

Andererseits war aber auch klar, dass man nichts Abgeleitetes ansagen kann ohne vorherige Klärung der Ableitungs-BASIS, während es durchaus "Chartisten" gibt, die aus lauter Spaß an der Freude am laufenden Bande irgendwelche Ableitungs-BASEN "ansagen", ohne dieselben vorher durchgerechnet zu haben...

Es war also am vor-vor-vorigen MITTWOCH (12.5.2010) bei 17 Uhren schon klar, dass zu der völlig correcten ENTSCHEIDUNGS-Marke @145,00 U$-Dollares (hier unten GRÜN eingezeichnet) auch eine ROTE Linie schon vorliegt, obwohl dieselbe am gleichen Tage erst bei 23:32 Uhren @140,34 U$-Dollares angesagt worden ist:

Wie hinlänglich klar geworden ist, wird die HEIßE oder ROTE oder MAGNETISCHE Linie unter Anderem deshalb mühsam errechnet, weil sie eine reguläre Bewegungs-Zone CONSTITUIERT, "innert welcher der Klein-Anleger in RUHE darüber NACH-denken kann,
http://www.ariva.de/_140,34_und_151,08_t285084?pnr=8001479#jump8001479
ob er die Gurke DURCH-halten oder AB-geben will"...

Diese ZWEITE Chance gewährt ihm die vorherige Kenntnis der so bedeutsamen HEIßEN oder ROTEN Linie deshalb, weil sie auf Grund ihrer besonderen, MAGNETISCHEN Eigenschaften einen vom Klein-Anleger gern schläfrig verpassten, ERSTEN Durchbruch zunächst verlässlich wieder ZURÜCK-holt.

Soweit ist das ja Alles VERSTANDEN - und ausweislich der dem vorherigen Beitrag #148 angehängten Graphik auch hinlänglich BEWIESEN.

Und worin bei diesem Concert die Function der GRÜNEN oder ENTSCHEIDUNGS-Linie (@145,00 U$-Dollares) besteht, versuche ich im nächsten Beitrag kurz zu erläutern...

Mit chartistischen Grüßen:
Der olle Teras.

Die bekannte DOPPEL-Function der ENTSCHEIDUNGS-Linie in der regulären Bewegungs-Zone entpuppt sich bei näherem Hinsehen als gleich ZWEI-fache DOPPEL-Function:

Die (hier in GRÜN gegebene) Entscheidungs-Linie (hier @145,00 U$-Dollares) fungiert nämlich nicht nur 'mal als STABILISIERUNGS-Marke (dies in jenen Situationen, wo die KALTE oder BLAUE Linie OBER-halb der ROTEN liegt), dann wiederum als DE-Stablisisierungs-Marke (in jenen Situationen, wo die KALTE oder BLAUE Linie UNTER-halb der ROTEN oder HEIßEN Linie zu liegen kommt); sie teilt den Chart auch VERTICAL (siehe die hier unten documentierend angehängte GRAPHIK mit der dort eingezeichneten VERTICALE in PINK):