It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Goldman Sachs poised to pay out $9billion to its employees

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



Now is that illegal?

Not when your close friends/associates/former colleagues are making the rules.


Goldman Sachs' (GS) ties to the Obama Administration are two fold. Financial contributions to Federal Government organizations and U.S. politicians of both parties is the first hand of Goldman Sachs ' business in the affairs of Washington D.C. The second hand is Goldman Sach's many former employees who hold, and have held rather telling positions in the government.

The facts that demonstrate Goldman Sachs is tied to the Obama administration are evident in the statistics of the watch dog group www.opensecrets.org.(4) At the top of the 2008 recipients list was Barak Obama followed by Hillary Clinton who jointly received over $1.4 million from Goldman Sachs. In the 2010 cycle, and as of record on 4/23/2010, Michael E. McMahon, a House of Representatives member is the top recipient of Goldman Sachs funds. McMahon is also a sponsor of the Derivative Trading Accountability and Disclosure Act (H.R. 3300).

Of the Obama administration's employee links to Goldman Sachs are 4 former Goldman Sachs payroll recipients. The 'World Socialist Website' reports these Obama administration representatives to all be affiliated with the U.S. Treasury or U.S. Economic affairs. Specifically, wsws.org lists these people as being Mark Patterson, Jeffery Reuben III, Neel Kashkari, and Diana Farrell. All these individuals were instrumental in the financial decision making surrounding the federal bailout of Wall Street firms of which Goldman Sachs was a major recipient.(5)

The ties between Goldman Sachs (GS) and the U.S. Federal Government aren't really a new thing, as the relationship goes back several administrations. The ties between Goldman Sachs and the Obama administration isn't a one way one either. Former Government officials can also work for Goldman Sachs. One such example being Gregory Craig, former Obama White House Council according to Greg Gordon of McLatchy newspapers. This lawyer has allegedly been hired by Goldman Sachs to assist with the charges held against it by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Of previous administrations' links to Goldman Sachs is Henry Paulson, who has not been linked to the hedge fund the SEC claims is fraudulent, and is the former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury as well as former executive of Goldman Sachs...


A look at Goldman Sachs' ties with the Obama administration

This really is a non-partisan US political madness/intrigue issue.




posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 



Not when your close friends/associates/former colleagues are making the rules.


You deliberately ignored the question and attributed it to something else. Please, don't do that, it's rather rude.

Let me rephrase. Is using high frequency trading programs legal? Could anyone with a computer and the right knowledge be able to use such a program without breaking a law?



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
And there are still those who will defend Obama, and his minions.


Yes, we're still here. Probably because it was the republicans that gave Goldman Sachs the $10 Billion TARP Bailout and another $13 Billion by the backdoor through AIG. Not Obama. Not even close.


Republican, Democrat...a ridiculously fallacious dichotomy.

Yes ,the Republicans screwed up, as you say.

But then again, i believe that it was Geithner who arranged for GS to come out unscathed (due to his previous connections with them). I would also say that the Frank/Dodd conncection with Fannie/Freddie would be further damning evidence against the Democrats.

They both suck. Lets not argue politics on a level that is steeped in the fallacy that is meant for consumption by the masses.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



You deliberately ignored the question and attributed it to something else.

On the contrary, I addressed the question directly, and gave a succinct answer (FYI 'not' = 'no'). It appears your hackles were raised by the provision of background information (provided in good faith, in order to analyse why the status quo permits what many would assume to be illegal).

I am left with the impression you have an agenda.


Please, don't do that, it's rather rude.

I can assure you I will continue to provide whatever background information I chose in the interests of denying ignorance. Intimidation will get you nowhere.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


Ok, let me rephrase it yet again.

The question is, would it be illegal for ME to use said program in the manner that GS used it? High volume quick trading.

Don't get me wrong, I might be on your side about this, but I just want to leave out the political BS and get a straight answer. We all know about the ties between GS and the current administration. This is nothing new in Washington, Halliburton comes to mind for the last administration.

[edit on 7/18/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



would it be illegal for ME to use said program in the manner that GS used it?

Clearly the practice has not been outlawed, and could in theory be practiced by all.

However in the real world the type of technology/programming being used in this way is a relatively new phenomenon. Many people find the way it works shocking as it appears to go against the spirit of a transparent open market.


I just want to leave out the political BS and get a straight answer

I'm right with you, (which is precisely why I referred to this as a non-partisan issue).


Don't get me wrong, I might be on your side about this

If you're for transparency and fairness you are on my side.

Would you agree using a "program trader to peek at major incoming orders and jump in front of them to skim profits off the top" is against the spirit of an open, fair trading system? And that those without this technology (i.e. most traders) are being scammed by the illusion of a truly open market?


[edit on 18/7/10 by pause4thought]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


If anyone can use the technology, then it's a technological issue and not a fairness issue, because in reality, life isn't fair, and in the cutthroat world of wall street someone who has that edge has an advantage. Now, if they did something illegal, that's another story, perhaps this kind of technology should be illegal.

I am not saying what they do is right, fact is, in my opinion little of what wall street does is right. I see the whole market share thing as a huge scam, to me it all looks like gambling and it's marketed to make people think they will get out more than they really will.

When you have these massive companies that can afford to give out bonuses to employees that could instead be used to either hire more employees or lent out to small business owners to grow their business, that in my opinion is just wrong, but, again, if we are to truly have a free market capitalist society, I guess that while unfortunate, greed is the word.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I can see where you're coming from. Yet considering it is your "pension funds, mutual funds, and 401Ks, etc." that are losing out as a result of a tilted/rigged market, can you remain so philosophical?



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


That's part of what I am talking about when I say I think it's a scam. They tell you that these accounts are safe, that they will always preform well. But it's a lie, as we have seen. There is risk in these things. People didn't realize that, what's worse to me is, people didn't realize that there were some really shady scumbags that were behind these accounts doing some sneaky underhanded things with the money.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


All Financial Services companies payout performance rewards.. I had gone on at least one trip for sales when I did insurance. And aside from the "average" .. I'd say the "average" employee won't get much at all.. it will be GS's investors that are going to make an obscene amount of money.

But hey.. in 6 months they earned over 18 billion dollars.. Surely they deserve compensation or else another firm could attract them with bigger payouts.

Simply the nature of the game.

The only thing I see truly wrong, is most of GS's investing profits come from computer programs anymore...



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


What do you make of the way the GS software functions? Should it be legal? (And if not, is there any way something could be done about it?)



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


I believe ALL electronic trading and electronic exchanges should be illegal.. The only benefit to me or you is that electronic trading helps stabilize the markets for the most part, but the computer can compute far faster than a Human can, if you have a good program it's going to put you miles ahead of mere day traders. Eventually it becomes manipulation.. and when you get as big as GS, and your using the power of billions to push the markets, you become the market manipulator.

All trades should be executed by Human Beings. All transactions should be done by Humans. All brokering should be done by Humans. And unless it's the SEC offering a program to every trader for free, it should be considered fraud.

Think of it this way: If you go to an online Casino, if they find out you are using a "bot" to calculate odds and make plays in Poker, you loose your account. Why any different in market trading.. it's cheating.. simple as that.

EDIT to add: We talk about "market manipulation" .. how the equities markets no longer reflect "the real economy" .. how it can blast off 300 points on bad economic news.. for the most part it's computers, and in the last decade they have gotten faster, larger and far more powerful, able to compute trades and calculate odds far faster than before.

There are even "Electronic Exchanges" now.. essentially NYSE type structure, only absolutely no traders.. all computers.

[edit on 7/18/2010 by Rockpuck]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join