¿quien es Goldman Sachs?

[old man of the mountain]

como sigan a si las monjas ..va tener que disolver el Vaticano las organizaciones femeninas de la iglesia

 

[Monsterspeculator]

como sigan a si las monjas ..va tener que disolver el Vaticano las organizaciones femeninas de la iglesia

Ya las llamarán al orden desde el Vaticano:

http://www.burbuja.info/inmobiliari...-vaticano-llama-al-orden-teresa-forcades.html

 

[hugolp]

Mapa de ex-empleados de Goldman Sachs en el gobierno de USA

Map of Goldman Sachs Employees Past and Present In Government ~ Goldman Sachs Information, Comments, Opinions and Facts

 

[Sargento Highway]

Goldman takes on new role: taking away people's homes | McClatchy



Goldman takes on new role: taking away people's homes



By Greg relleniton | McClatchy Newspapers

SAN JOSE, Calif. — When California wildfires ruined their jewelry business, Tony Becker and his wife fell months behind on their mortgage payments and experienced firsthand the perils of subprime mortgages.
The couple wound up in a desperate, six-year fight to keep their modest, 1,500-square-foot San Jose home, a struggle that pushed them into bankruptcy.


The lender with whom they sparred, however, wasn't the one that had written their loans. It was an obscure subsidiary of Wall Street colossus Goldman Sachs Group.
<!-- story_feature_box.comp --> <!-- /story_feature_box.comp -->

Goldman spent years buying hundreds of thousands of subprime mortgages, many of them from some of the more unsavory lenders in the business, and packaging them into high-yield bonds. Now that the bottom has fallen out of that market, Goldman finds itself in a different role: as the big banker that takes homes away from folks such as the Beckers.


The couple alleges that Goldman declined for three years to confirm their suspicions that it had bought their mortgages from a subprime lender, even after they wrote to Goldman's then-Chief Executive Henry Paulson — later U.S. Treasury secretary — in 2003.


Unable to identify a lender, the couple could neither capitalize on a mortgage hardship provision that would allow them to defer some payments, nor on a state law enabling them to offset their debt against separate, investment-related claims against Goldman.


In July, the Beckers won a David-and-Goliath struggle when Goldman subsidiary MTGLQ Investors dropped its bid to seize their house. By then, the college-educated couple had been reduced to shopping for canned goods at flea markets and selling used ceramic glass.


Theirs is an infrequent happy ending among the hundreds of cases in which subsidiaries of Goldman, better known for sending top officers such as Paulson to serve in top Washington posts, have sought to contain bondholder losses by foreclosing on properties and evicting delinquent borrowers.


Goldman spokesman Michael DuVally declined to comment on individual cases or on the firm's new role in bankruptcy courts.


Joining other Wall Street firms that bought millions of subprime mortgages, Goldman companies have gone to courts from California to Florida seeking approval to foreclose on the homes of middle- and lower-income Americans who couldn't keep up with their loans' soaring monthly payments.


Some borrowers were speculators or homebuyers who exaggerated their incomes on loan applications, thinking they'd always have an escape hatch because housing prices would keep rising. Others, however, were victims of fast-talking mortgage brokers who didn't explain that the loans' interest rates could rise to as high as 15 percent. Many borrowers who defaulted on their mortgages may never qualify for a home loan again.


In court encounters, Goldman and other Wall Street firms have faced the impact of their own wheeling and dealing. Many of the families being put on the street never would've gotten their big mortgages if investment banks hadn't provided a seemingly insatiable secondary market for millions of loans to marginally qualified buyers.


Subprime borrowers were supposed to provide a safe income stream for investors who bought mostly high-grade, triple-A-rated bonds from Goldman and bigger subprime players, such as now-defunct Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch.


Now, millions of these borrowers have defaulted on mortgage payments, contributing to a historic slump in home prices and depressing the bonds' value. Half the homes in some California neighborhoods have been subject to foreclosures or short sales, in which a home is sold for less than the mortgage balance, and either the seller or the lender takes a loss.


Earlier this year in Los Angeles, the Wall Street giant took possession of the home of Gladys Aguirre, a housecleaner who's married to a construction worker. Together, the couple listed monthly earnings of $7,480, including $3,480 from a job she'd held for two months.


Aguirre originally took a $444,000 subprime mortgage on Sept. 1, 2005, from Argent Mortgage Co., a subsidiary of big subprime lender Ameriquest Mortgage Co., which shut down in 2007. The adjustable interest rate sent her monthly payments zooming to $3,800 from $2,479, and Aguirre couldn't keep pace on that loan or a $119,000 second mortgage. She filed for bankruptcy protection.


Aguirre's Los Angeles lawyer, Eber Bayona, declined to discuss her case, but said that subprime loans amounted to "setting up the person for failure" because interest rate adjustments hit borrowers with "shock payments."
For example, he said, loan agents promised applicants that they could buy a $600,000 house for payments of $1,200 a month, and the buyers "never read the fine print ... (and) didn't know their interest would increase and that eventually they would lose their house and their money."


In San Fernando, Calif., Dina Alfero-Pacheo qualified for two mortgages totaling nearly $500,000, with monthly payments starting at $2,004. By 2007, the payments had grown to $3,761. In a bankruptcy filing early this year, Alfero-Pacheo said she was a bartender earning $3,800 a month. Goldman bought her first mortgage from Argent and recently got title to the house, which had sunk in value to $280,000 from more than $500,000.
In Orlando, Fla., Adela Mendez seems to be someone who would've known the risks when she took a $164,000 mortgage from Argent on her home in 2005 and a $75,000 second mortgage a year later. In a bankruptcy filing this year, she listed her occupation as a loan specialist for Washington Mutual, a leading subprime lender that collapsed last year.


Not only did Mendez fall 11 months behind on her mortgage payments, but her home's value also plummeted to $100,000. Goldman Sachs Mortgage, which bought the Argent loan, took the house — and at least a 50 percent loss.


Alfero-Pacheo and Mendez, whose cases are detailed in court records, couldn't be reached to comment.


The Beckers charged that in their case, Goldman engaged in years of obfuscation and resistance.


"In bankruptcy court, they tried to portray us as incompetent or deadbeats,'' said Celia Fabos-Becker, blinking back tears as she sat with her husband in their living room, with boxes of mortgage-related documents surrounding them.


The couple thought they'd made a safe bet in 2000 when they opened a retail jewelry business in two San Diego County areas populated mainly by military personnel.


The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, however, brought big military call-ups, sapping their market. After a wildfire ravaged much of the area in 2002, the Beckers refinanced their house to generate some $70,000 in cash to prop up their two stores. They wound up with an adjustable-rate, subprime loan from WMC Mortgage Corp., an arm of General Electric's GE Money unit, and a 10.75 percent second mortgage with the same lender.


A second wildfire in 2003 all but killed their business and left the couple reeling financially as interest-rate adjustments pushed the mortgage payments higher.


"We'd gotten to the point where I was cutting my own hair. I was cutting his on occasion," Fabos-Becker said.


"And trolling the Goodwills," Tony Becker said.


Tony Becker, an engineer, took short-term contract jobs amid the technology bust. Celia Fabos-Becker, meanwhile, found a provision in the mortgages that allowed the borrower to push payments to the end of the loan term in the event of a disaster such as the two fires.
When she wrote to Paulson, however, lawyers for Goldman denied that it owned the Beckers' mortgages. So did Germany's Deutsche Bank, a trustee that was holding thousands of subprime mortgages Goldman had converted to bonds.


To stall foreclosure, the Beckers wound up negotiating "forbearance agreements" with Ocwen Loan Servicing, a Florida company, that required the couple to pay several thousand dollars under the threat that their house would be auctioned off in a week or a month, Fabos-Becker said. Their monthly payments rose to nearly $3,300 from $2,650.
The couple already had taken Goldman and Morgan Stanley, another Wall Street firm, to arbitration over their $325,000 in stock market losses, accusing the investment banks of misleading investors about public offerings.


On the same day in June 2006, Goldman sued to end the arbitration, and Ocwen filed papers seeking to foreclose on the Beckers' home.
In desperation, the couple filed for bankruptcy protection. With no money to hire an attorney, they acted as their own lawyers.
As the months dragged on, Fabos-Becker finally found a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission confirming that Goldman had bought the mortgages. Then, when a lawyer for MTGLQ showed up at a June 2007 court hearing on the stock battle, U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California demanded to know the firm's relationship to Goldman, telling the attorney that he hates "spin."


The lawyer acknowledged that MTGLQ was a Goldman affiliate.
That was an understatement. MTGLQ, a limited partnership, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman that's housed at the company's headquarters at 85 Broad Street in New York, public records show.


In July, after U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Roger Efremsky of the Northern District of California threatened to impose "significant sanctions" if the firm failed to complete a promised settlement with the Beckers, Goldman dropped its claims for $626,000, far more than the couple's original $356,000 in mortgages and $70,000 in missed payments. The firm gave the Beckers a new, 30-year mortgage at 5 percent interest.


That lowered their monthly payment to $1,900, less than half the maximum $4,000 a month their subprime loans could've demanded.
Fabos-Becker, 60, said that the trauma has left her hair "a lot grayer." Much of the stress would have been alleviated, she said, if a law required lenders to identify themselves, especially to borrowers facing hardships.
"I take solace," Tony Becker said, "in knowing that I was up against the worst possible opponent — the biggest, strongest investment bank in the world."

(Tish Wells contributed to this article.)
(This article is part of an occasional series on the problems in mortgage finance.)



COMING TUESDAY


Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms turned to secret Cayman Islands deals to draw overseas investors, including European banks and other foreign financial institutions, to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in securities tied to risky U.S. home loans. Unlike U.S. investors that lost money on the securities, however, these overseas institutions have fewer legal options.

 

[Mr. Batty]

From The Sunday Times
November 8, 2009
I'm doing 'God's work'. Meet Mr Goldman Sachs
The Sunday Times gains unprecedented access to the world's most powerful, and most secretive, investment bank

Number 85 Broad Street, a dull, rust-coloured office block in lower Manhattan, doesn’t look like a place to stop and stare, and that’s just the way the people who work there like it. The men and women who arrive in the watery dawn sunshine, dressed in Wall Street black, clutching black briefcases and BlackBerrys, are very, very private. They walk quickly from their black Lincoln town cars to the lobby, past, well, nothing, really. There’s no name plate on the building, no sign on the front desk and the armed policeman stationed outside isn’t saying who works there. There’s a good reason for the secrecy. Number 85 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004, is where the money is. All of it.

It’s the site of the best cash-making machine that global capitalism has ever produced, and, some say, a political force more powerful than governments. The people who work behind the brass-trim glass doors make more money than some countries do. They are the rainmakers’ rainmakers, the biggest swinging dicks in the financial jungle. Their assets total $1 trillion, their annual revenues run into the tens of billions, and their profits are in the billions, which they distribute liberally among themselves. Average pay this recessionary year for the 30,000 staff is expected to be a record $700,000. Top earners will get tens of millions, several hundred thousand times more than a cleaner at the firm. When they have finished getting "filthy rich by 40", as the company saying goes, these alpha dogs don’t put their feet up. They parachute into some of the most senior political posts in the US and beyond, prompting accusations that they "rule the world". Number 85 Broad Street is the home of Goldman Sachs.

The world’s most successful investment bank likes to hide behind the tidal wave of money that it generates and sends crashing over Manhattan, the City of London and most of the world’s other financial capitals. But now the dark knights of banking are being forced, blinking, into the cold light of day. The public, politicians and the press blame bankers’ reckless trading for the credit crunch and, as the most successful bank still standing, Goldman is their prime target. Here, politicians and commentators compete to denounce Goldman in ever more robust terms — "robber barons", "economic vandals", "vulture capitalists". Vince Cable, the Lib Dem Treasury spokesman, contrasts the bank’s recent record results — profits of $3.2 billion in the last quarter alone — and its planned bumper bonus payments with what has happened to ordinary people’s jobs and incomes in 2009.

It’s even worse in the US. There, Rolling Stone magazine ran a story that described Goldman as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money". In his latest documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore drives up to 85 Broad Street in an armoured Brinks money van, leaps out carrying a sack with a giant dollar sign on it, looks up at the building and yells: "We’re here to get the money back for the American people!"

Goldman’s reputation is suddenly as toxic as the credit default swaps and other inexplicably exotic financial instruments it used to buy with glee. That’s bad for the one thing it values more than anything else: business. Being the prime target for popular and political outrage could put Goldman first in line for draconian new regulation. So it has, reluctantly, decided that the time has come to speak out, to fight its corner. That’s how, on one of those bright autumnal New York mornings when anything seems possible — even an invitation to break bread with the masters of the universe — I find myself walking past the security guard who held up Michael Moore and into the building with no name.

"Aha! You catch us plotting in real time," says Lloyd Blankfein, breaking away from a cabal of senior executives discussing his trip to Washington the previous day. Blankfein, 55, Goldman’s chairman and chief executive, is wearing a grey suit with a jaunty Hermès tie with little red bicycles on it. In his hand, he’s carrying one of those cups of coffee that look bigger than the human stomach. Maybe it’s the caffeine, maybe it’s the tie — a birthday present from his daughter — but he’s in a remarkably jolly mood for a man everyone seems to hate. "It’s like a safari here," he jokes. "You’ve come in to look at the animals."

Blankfein may be Wall Street’s Sun God, but, with the economic outlook stormy, he doesn’t want to advertise it, so the merest hint of a status symbol or — horror! — ostentation is airbrushed out of his life, publicly, at least. Take his office on the 30th floor. The chairs are the same ones that were there when he became CEO three years ago. There are none of the $87,000 handmade rugs or $5,000 wastepaper baskets of Wall Street lore. There’s no sign of irrational exuberance. Only coffee, which arrives cold. It sets just the right tone for the job in hand. The grand wizard of Wall Street is steeling himself for the hardest sell of his life: he’s here to argue for good ol’ capitalism, for investment banks and for Goldman Sachs.

Luckily for him and his firm, he’s a damn good salesman. He starts with a little humility. He understands that "people are pissed off, mad, and bent out of shape" at bankers’ actions. Goldman played its part in the meltdown that almost destroyed the global financial system. It, like most other banks, lent too much money, made its first quarterly loss for more than a decade last year and ended up taking bail-out cash from Washington. "I know I could slit my wrists and people would cheer," he says. But then, he slowly begins to argue the case for modern banking. "We’re very important," he says, abandoning self-flagellation. "We help companies to grow by helping them to raise capital. Companies that grow create wealth. This, in turn, allows people to have jobs that create more growth and more wealth. It’s a virtuous cycle." To drive home his point, he makes a remarkably bold claim. "We have a social purpose."

Social purpose? Those who have lost their jobs or seen their pay slashed thanks to bankers who flogged dodgy mortgages and dreamt up investments so complex not even they understood them, would gladly tell him where to stick his social purpose. But the problem is, Blankfein is a good advertisement for wealth creation. His own. He is no scion of privilege, dispensing plummy-voiced homilies to raw capitalism from his 30th-floor eyrie. Born in a tough neighbourhood in the Bronx, the son of a postal worker and a receptionist, he was the first in his family to go to college and used financial aid to go to Harvard.

Even though he proudly pays himself more in a year than most of us could ever dream of — $68m in 2007 alone, a record for any Wall Street CEO, to add to the more than $500m of Goldman stock he owns — he insists he’s still "a blue-collar guy".

But what about the charge sheet? Bankers brought the world to the brink of bankruptcy and instead of doing the decent thing and jumping out of the nearest window, they turned up cap in hand to governments to hoover up taxpayers’ money to save their skin. Now, just one year on, they are carrying on as if nothing has happened, gambling, and winning, handsomely, with our cash. Goldman’s profits in the second quarter were a record $3.4 billion. Most of the money is being made in trading in bonds, currencies and commodities.

Goldman is coining it again for two reasons. First, global markets are booming — up 50% from the credit-crunch lows, as new money, much of it from governments, has gushedhttp://www.burbuja.info/inmobiliaria/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=83839 into the financial system. Second, with Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns off the street, Merrill Lynch a crippled shadow of its former self, and neither Citigroup nor UBS the forces of old, Goldman has a bigger slice of a growing pie. "We didn’t f*** up like the other guys. We’ve still got a balance sheet. So, now we’ve got a bigger and richer pot to piss in," is how one Goldman banker puts it. Small wonder the bank is on course to set aside over $20 billion for salaries and bonuses.


Page 1 of 7

I'm doing 'God's work'. Meet Mr Goldman Sachs - Times Online

 

[Mr. Batty]

Goldman pide perdón: lanza un programa de ayuda de 500 millones para empresas pequeñas

Goldman Sachs pide disculpas por su participación en la crisis financiera. Al menos eso ha dicho, y para apoyarlo ha preparado junto a Warren Buffett, su principal accionista, un programa de 500 millones de dólares para ayudar a 10.000 pequeñas empresas.

"Los pequeños negocios juegan un papel vital en la creación de empleo y crecimiento en la economía americana", explicó el presidente y consejero delegado de Goldman, Lloyd Blankfein, en un comunicado emitido ayer.

El programa, denominado "10.000 Small Businesses Inititative" será guiado por un consejo presidido por Blankfein, Buffett y el economista de Harvard Michael Porter. La dotación de 500 millones de dólares es aproximadamente un 3% de los 16.700 millones que la compañía ha reservado para pagar a sus empleados este año.

Por otro lado, Blankfein pidió disculpas en una conferencia por el rol de Goldman en algunas de las actividades que han desembocado en la crisis financiera, aunque no dio detalles del asunto.

"Hemos participado en cosas que estaban claramente mal y tenemos razones para arrepentirnos y pedimos disculpas por ello", explico en el evento, en el que la revista Directorship le nombró consejero delegado del año.

Bajo este plan, Goldman destinará 200 millones de dólares para apgar a propietarios de pequeños negocios para que acudan a cursos de gestión en instituciones educativas. Además, el programa otorgará servicios de supervisión y asesoramiento con sus propios profesionales, mientras que en último lugar dará 300 millones en créditos y becas para pequeños empresarios.

Goldman Sachs se ha situado en el ojo del huracán durante la crisis, y ha sido acusada de provocar el desastre financiero y además aprovecharse de ello. También se ha convertido en la cara visible de los excesos de Wall Street, y ha sido muy criticado por sus lazos con el Gobierno (Geithner, actual secretario del Tesoro y Henry Paulson, su antecesor, trabajaron en Goldman antes de acceder al Gobierno).

Goldman pide perdón: lanza un programa de ayuda de 500 millones para empresas pequeñas - 18/11/09 - 1705326 - elEconomista.es

 

[kemao2]

Dando limosnas para limpiar la imagen, tipica actitud de quien tiene cargo de conciencia por saber que roba (en este caso con información privilegiada y con dinero de la impresora) y quiere limpiar la imagen y la conciencia


La dotación de 500 millones de dólares es aproximadamente un 3% de los 16.700 millones que la compañía ha reservado para pagar a sus empleados este año

 

[otropepito]

Siempre puedes ir a la web de la FED y y consultar el "Quienes somos":

FRB: About the Fed

Y además tiene sus faq:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs.htm

 

[Touching_Balls]

Año de bienes, año de 'bonus'
La gran banca prepara unas primas hasta un 60% mayores que en 2008.
¿Te interesa? Si Compartir Facebook Otras redes

Temas relacionados:
Banca
Sectores relacionados
Banca y finanzas
Cinco Días - Nueva York - 10/11/2009
John Donelly, director de recursos humanos de JPMorgan Chase envió ayer una comunicación a los empleados de este banco informándoles de que se ha decidido acabar con la congelación salarial que se puso en marcha el año pasado, en el pico de la crisis, para los empleados que cobraban más de 60.000 dólares al año (unos 40.000 euros al cambio actual). El fin de esta medida tendrá efecto el año que viene y es una evidencia más de que la gran banca ya ve la luz a final del túnel.
La otra evidencia, en este mismo sentido, llegará cuando se acerque el fin de año y los empleados de la gran banca, un club reducido por la crisis del que son miembros JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs y Morgan Stanley, empiecen a conocer las cifras de los cheques de sus bonus. Son unos cheques que, suelen suponer casi el 60% de la retribución anual. Este año, y según las estimaciones hechas por consultores y "cazadores de talentos", puesto que ha sido un año de beneficios elevados, también será un año de cheques generosos.
Según los analistas consultados por la agencia Bloomberg, los grandes supervivientes de la crisis, ahora más grandes que en 2007, con menos competencia y beneficiados por las ayudas con las que el Estado ha estabilizado el sistema financiero, van a repartirse unos 29.700 millones de dólares en bonus. Es un 60% más que en 2008 y más que en 2007 cuando se distribuyeron 26.800 millones de dólares en un año de altos beneficios. Si se repartiera de forma uniforme, los empleados de estas firmas ganarían un cuarto de millón de dólares, cinco veces más que la mediana salarial del resto del país.
Otras estimaciones en las que se contempla a la industria que opera alrededor de Wall Street en su conjunto habla de un aumento de los bonus con respecto al año anterior del 40%. Es la estimación que dará a conocer el jueves Johnson Associates, una consultora que prevé que los más favorecidos en el reparto sean los empleados de la línea de negocio de renta fija y materias primas, las mas rentables. Los empleados de hedge funds, y firmas de capital riesgo, verán una rebaja de sus cheques del 15% o el 30% por la peor rentabilidad de sus inversiones.
Eso si, después de la controversia generada por la desproporción con la que se ha remunerado a una industria causante de parte de la devastación financiera y las multimillonarias ayuda que ha recibido, los bonus vienen este año en forma de acciones, que tienen que conservarse durante más tiempo sin ejecutarse, y no tanto en dinero líquido.
Este forma de pago no es del gusto de las autoridades de Nueva York, un estado y una ciudad cuyo equilibrio presupuestario depende de Wall Street y que se encuentran que este año, el bonus no va a ser inmediatamente fiscalizable.
Venta vetada
El Tesoro de EE UU ha vetado la venta de créditos fiscales de Fannie Mae a Goldman Sachs y Warren Buffett porque aunque esta hipotecaria (intervenida por el Gobierno) no podrá usarlos, la oferta no compensa a los contribuyentes, pues eso significaría que el inversor y el banco tendrían rebajas a fin de año con Hacienda.



Año de bienes, año de 'bonus' en Cincodias.com

Que buenas son las monjitas carmelitas que nos llevan de excursión

Upss
Blankfein SUENA como a Hebreo?

http://thetruthburns.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/lloyd_blankfein031.jpg?w=220&h=280

 

[1929]

Goldman Sachs threatens Spanish move - Business News, Business - The Independent

Goldman Sachs threatens Spanish move

Goldman Sachs has threatened the UK Treasury with plans to move up to 20 per cent of its London-based staff to Spain in a standoff over tax and bonuses.

It's believed that the Wall Street investment bank, which paid more than £2bn to the Exchequer's ailing coffers in corporation tax alone last year, has fired a warning shot across the Government's bows in response to the tax measures unveiled in the pre-Budget report earlier this month.

Goldman Sachs International was the biggest contributor from the financial services sector to Britain's purse last year. Previous reports suggest that in some years the firm's staff have contributed more than £1bn in personal income tax to public coffers.

A City source said: "Goldman could move a relatively large number of people if it wants to. Given how much Goldman and its staff contribute to the tax take, the firm has plenty of leverage. This is a bargaining position more than anything."

The bank, which employs around 5,000 staff in London, is believed to have strong links to the Spanish government, although it has a relatively modest number of employees in the country. Although staff moving to Spain would not receive any special tax incentives, the bank could avoid paying the bonus tax, details of which, so far, remain sketchy. A Goldman Sachs spokesman said it is looking at all options as it negotiates with the tax authorities over the bonus tax.

Tullett Prebon, a City money broker, said last week that it was offering its staff the chance to relocate, in an effort to avoid paying the super tax. But it is thought that the offer only relates to a portion of its 700-strong London staff.

Barclays' chief executive, John Varley, waded into the bonus debate on Friday, warning that talent was likely to flee London because of the tax. "This is a global industry and talent is mobile. We need a level playing field to make sure that we can compete with the best companies in the world," he said.

The Bank of England added fuel to the bonus fire last week when it said that the bailout of Britain's banks might have been avoided had City bonuses been just one fifth less in the years running up to the crisis. In its Financial Stability Report, the Bank said: "If discretionary distributions had been 20 per cent lower per year between 2000 and 2008, banks would have generated around £75bn of additional capital – more than provided by the public sector during the crisis."

Meanwhile, firms continue to negotiate with Her Majesty's Revenue over details of the super tax, which will tax bonuses of £25,000 at 50 per cent. It is believed that independent stockbrokers will be spared, after initially being caught in the Chancellor's net.

 

[NosTrasladamus]

The bank, which employs around 5,000 staff in London, is believed to have strong links to the Spanish government,

Que se sepa pero ya quienes son los infiltrados de los bankermen estos en el bobierno, ¿Alguien tiene nombres y apellidos? ienso:

 

[NosTrasladamus]

Ya es viejuno, lo he encontrado buscando en google "españa gobierno goldman sachs"... sigo esperando alguien que conozca los nombres...
La alegría de Goldman Sachs | ATTAC España

La alegría de Goldman Sachs
23 Julio 2009

La alegría de Goldman Sachs
Paul Krugman – El País

La economía de EE UU sigue en situación precaria, con uno de cada seis trabajadores en paro o subempleado. Aun así, Goldman Sachs acaba de anunciar beneficios trimestrales históricos, y se prepara para repartir enormes primas, comparables a las que pagaba antes de la crisis. ¿Qué nos dice este contraste?

Primero, que Goldman es muy buena en lo que hace. Desgraciadamente lo que hace es malo para Estados Unidos. Segundo, demuestra que los malos hábitos de Wall Street (sobre todo, el sistema de compensación que contribuyó a generar la crisis financiera) no han desaparecido. Tercero, demuestra que, al rescatar el sistema financiero sin reformarlo, Washington no ha hecho nada para protegernos de una nueva crisis y, además, ha hecho que sea más probable que se vuelva a producir.

Empecemos por hablar de la forma en que Goldman gana dinero.

Durante la generación anterior (desde la liberalización de la banca de los años de Reagan), la economía estadounidense ha estado financiarizada. La importancia del negocio de mover el dinero, de rebanar, trocear y reenvasar activos financieros, ha subido vertiginosamente en comparación con la de la producción real de cosas útiles. Eso que se ha dado en llamar oficialmente sector de “seguros, contratos de mercancías e inversiones” ha crecido muy deprisa, desde sólo un 0,3% del PIB a finales de los años setenta hasta el 1,7% en 2007.

Dicho crecimiento sería estupendo si ese carácter financiero realmente cumpliese sus promesas (si las empresas financieras ganasen dinero dirigiendo el capital hacia sus usos más productivos y desarrollando formas innovadoras de repartir y reducir los riesgos). Pero, ¿puede alguien, en este momento, afirmar eso sin inmutarse? Las empresas financieras, como sabemos ahora, han dirigido enormes cantidades de capital hacia la construcción de casas invendibles y de centros comerciales vacíos. Han hecho aumentar el riesgo en vez de reducirlo y lo han concentrado en vez de repartirlo. En la práctica, el sector ha estado vendiendo peligrosos medicamentos patentados a consumidores crédulos.

El papel de Goldman en ese cambio de EE UU ha sido similar al de otros actores, salvo por una cosa: Goldman no cayó en su propio lazo. Otros bancos invirtieron muchísimo dinero en la misma basura tóxica que vendían a los ciudadanos de a pie. Es bien sabido que Goldman ganó un montón de dinero vendiendo seguros respaldados por hipotecas de alto riesgo y luego otro montón más vendiendo en descubierto seguros respaldados por hipotecas, justo antes de que su valor se hundiese. Todo esto era perfectamente legal, pero el resultado neto fue que Goldman obtuvo beneficios tomándonos al resto por bobos.

Y los de Wall Street tienen todos los incentivos necesarios para seguir jugando al mismo juego. Las enormes primas que Goldman pronto repartirá ponen de manifiesto que las empresas de altos vuelos del sector financiero siguen funcionando según el sistema de que si sale cara ellas ganan y si sale cruz otros pierden. Si usted es un banquero que genera grandes beneficios a corto plazo, se le recompensa magníficamente (y no tiene que devolver el dinero aun en el caso de que esos beneficios resulten ser un espejismo). Por tanto, no tiene usted más que buenos motivos para empujar a los inversores a asumir riesgos que no comprenden. Y los acontecimientos del año pasado han pervertido todavía más esos incentivos, al hacer que los contribuyentes, además de los inversores, carguen con el mochuelo si las cosas se tuercen.

No voy a tratar de analizar las afirmaciones contradictorias sobre el beneficio directo que Goldman ha obtenido gracias a los últimos rescates financieros y sobre todo la asunción por parte del Gobierno del pasivo de AIG. Lo que está claro es que Wall Street en general, con Goldman sin duda incluida, se ha visto enormemente beneficiada por la red de seguridad financiera ofrecida por el Gobierno (una garantía de que rescatará a los principales actores financieros si las cosas salen mal).

Se podría argumentar que dichos rescates son necesarios si queremos evitar que se repita la Gran Depresión. De hecho, estoy de acuerdo. Pero la consecuencia es que el pasivo del sistema financiero está ahora respaldado por una garantía implícita del Gobierno.

Pero la última vez que se produjo una ampliación comparable de la red de seguridad financiera, la creación del seguro federal de depósitos en los años treinta, fue acompañada de una regulación mucho más estricta, para garantizar que los bancos no abusaban de sus privilegios. Esta vez, las nuevas normativas están todavía en fase de borrador (y el grupo de presión financiero ya está oponiéndose a las más elementales garantías para los consumidores).

Si estas presiones logran su objetivo, tendremos todos los ingredientes para un desastre financiero aún mayor dentro de unos cuantos años. La próxima crisis podría parecerse al desastre de las cajas de ahorros de la década de los ochenta (cuando los bancos no regulados apostaron con el dinero de los contribuyentes o, en algunos casos, lo robaron), salvo en que en esta ocasión abarcaría a todo el sector financiero en su conjunto.

La conclusión es que el asombroso trimestre de Goldman es una buena noticia para Goldman y la gente que trabaja allí. Es una buena noticia para las superestrellas financieras en general, cuyas nóminas están ascendiendo rápidamente hasta las alturas anteriores a la crisis. Pero es una mala noticia para casi todos los demás.

 

[NosTrasladamus]

Goldman Sachs se muda a España - Armando Bronca
Los Oligarcas tras hundir a Inglaterra, huyen: vienen a Hundir a España

Como el gobierno inglés les quiere poner impuestos a sus horrendas ganancias los banqueros de Goldman Sachs UK se mudan a España. Algunos años contribuyeron con más de Dos mil millones de dólares a las arcas de Inglaterra -nadie sabe lo que se llevaron pero gracias a ellos el país está hundido irremediablemente.
Goldman Sachs threatens Spanish move

Goldman Sachs threatens Spanish move - Business News, Business - The Independent

Goldman Sachs has threatened the UK Treasury with plans to move up to 20 per cent of its London-based staff to Spain in a standoff over tax and bonuses. Goldman Sachs International was the biggest contributor from the financial services sector to Britain’s purse last year. Previous reports suggest that in some years the firm’s staff have contributed more than £1bn in personal income tax to public coffers.

The bank, which employs around 5,000 staff in London, is believed to have strong links to the Spanish government, although it has a relatively modest number of employees in the country. Although staff moving to Spain would not receive any special tax incentives, the bank could avoid paying the bonus tax

Otros financieros y banqueros planean lo mismo. Dicen que se les va el talento porque no quieren pagar impuestos -por cierto, a recordar que cuando la Gran Depresión el Presidente Roosevelt puso tasa máxima de IRPF en 90% de las ganancias.

Tullett Prebon, a City money broker, said last week that it was offering its staff the chance to relocate, in an effort to avoid paying the super tax. But it is thought that the offer only relates to a portion of its 700-strong London staff.

Barclays’ chief executive, John Varley, waded into the bonus debate on Friday, warning that talent was likely to flee London because of the tax

Viñeta: En "un" Banco. Prensa en el ordenador que pone "Inesperado plan de impuestos" Banquero: "Tan solo tengo que encontrar otro país al que haya que poner de rodillas..."

 

[NosTrasladamus]

"Si cae Goldman, caerán los demás" - 16/12/09 - 1774996 - elEconomista.es

Por cierto, unmarronazo, gracias por subir el artículo de "Si cae Goldman, caemos todos". Como evidencia el hecho de que Paulson estuviese en donde estaba (Secretario del Tesoro), Goldman ES la FED y el Tesoro. Estos parásitos han inoculado a su progenie en todos los gobiernos, como se demuestra que ellos mismos se jactan de tener contactos dentro del gobierno español para hacer las maletas si les obligan a pagar más impuestos en el R.Unido. Parece que ya le han debido hacer un guiño al gobierno para que les deje mudarse aqui "de gorra": Recientemente, un informe en el que confirmaban el broteverdismo de la economia apañola... ahora el gobierno "les debe una", así que no se atreverán a tocarles los narices con impuestos sobre bonus, no vaya a ser que empiecen a emitir informes financieros "negativos"....
Menudos pajarracos...

P.D.:Ya de paso hago el post Nº 2000, dejaré de ser "Agarrao a las kalandrakas", y a ver qué nuevo "título honorifico" me asigna el VBulletin... :rolleye:

 

[NosTrasladamus]

Repito: ¿Alguien conoce los nombres del/los infiltrado/s de Goldman Sachs en el gobierno que menciona el artículo de The Independent? (De Monsanto sabemos que es Cristina Garmendia, por ejemplo)...