Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (159560)	10/23/2008 7:14:18 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Goldman Sachs said to cut 10 percent of work force biz.yahoo.com Goldman Sachs said to cut 3,260 jobs as credit crisis leads to significant business slowdown NEW YORK (AP) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is cutting about 10 percent of its work force amid the ongoing downturn in the credit and lending markets, a person briefed on the plan said Thursday. Goldman Sachs will cut about 3,260 jobs. Goldman's work force, which was at record high levels at the end of the third quarter, will be pared back close to 2006 and 2007 levels. No additional cuts are planned, the person said. This person requested anonymity because the company hadn't publicly disclosed details of the plan. The job cuts are a direct result of the current economic environment and significantly lower levels of business activity, the person told the Associated Press. Last month, amid the increasing turmoil that saw Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. file for bankruptcy protection and Merrill Lynch & Co. sell itself to Bank of America Corp., Goldman Sachs along with Morgan Stanley received approval to become bank holding companies. September was considered one of the worst months during the credit crisis as banks essentially stopped lending money to each other for fear they would not be repaid. The problems intensified when Lehman filed for bankruptcy and the government loaned insurer American International Group Inc. $85 billion to help it remain in business. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley made the change to bank holding companies as investors worried the stand-alone investment bank model may no longer be viable. With the new status, Goldman Sachs will likely face increased regulatory scrutiny, which could force it to scale back some of more leveraged and aggressive business units. The new status also allows Goldman Sachs to grow a large deposit base to help fund its operations, while providing permanent access to borrow money from the Federal Reserve. Before changing its status, Goldman Sachs only had temporary access to that lending option. Goldman Sachs has widely been considered among the best performing banks amid the ongoing credit and mortgage crisis that began in the middle of 2007. During its fiscal third quarter, which ended Aug. 31, the company's profit fell 71 percent, but that performance was still better than many of its competitors, which have reported quarterly losses throughout much of the year. Last month, Goldman Sachs struck a deal with Warren Buffett to sell preferred and common stock to Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway. As part of the deal, Buffett planned to invest at least $5 billion in fresh capital to help Goldman Sachs. The investment could double to $10 billion. At the same time, Goldman Sachs issued common stock to raise an additional $5 billion through a public offering. Shares of Goldman Sachs fell $6.13, or 5.3 percent, to close at $108.58

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (159560)	10/23/2008 7:46:48 PM
From: nextrade!	Respond to of 306849

Ron Paul - We are headed into a new era of slavery Too Big to Fail? by Ron Paul lewrockwell.com In the midst of highly unpopular bailouts of Wall Street, many justifications have been given about why Washington feels the need to act. Some claim that capitalism and the free market are to blame, but we have not had capitalism. If you compare our financial capital to our aggregate debt, this would be obvious. In the same way, we have not had a truly free market. The monetary manipulations of the Federal Reserve, a complex tax code, the many “oversight” agencies and their mountains of regulations show that we are far removed from a free market economy. Another unsatisfying argument is that certain entities have to be bailed out because of their economic importance. Supposedly, some entities can be so big, so important, that no matter what they do, citizens must perpetually sustain them. Even limited government has a basic duty to defend against force and fraud. Some argue that force is somehow permissible just because the entity engaging in it is "economically significant." But one could use this reasoning to prop up slavery. It could be deemed unfortunate but economically beneficial, and indeed these arguments have been used historically to deprive people of their liberty. But slavery should never be tolerated regardless of any economic benefit, just as systemic fraud should not be tolerated. Some banks on Wall Street should fail. Fannie and Freddie should fail. They are perpetrating fraud against the people. Yet, government insists on rewarding behavior which should instead be investigated, prosecuted, and punished. There has been much evidence of fraud at Fannie and Freddie, but when one man, Franklin Raines, defrauded the organization out of millions of dollars through illegal accounting tricks, and ends up agreeing to pay back just a fraction, one could argue that it was well worth it to him. Fannie went on to only get more deeply involved in subprime mortgages after this investigation. Several organizations are suffering right now precisely because the free market is trying to work and punish mismanagement, if only the government would get out of the way and let it. Perhaps banks are not lending to each other because they know that complicated accounting standards, created in part to defend against confiscatory tax policy, enables false fiscal pictures to be presented, which erodes trust. But this is not a time for the government to step in with more burdensome and complicated regulations, or more foolish liquidity injections. This is a time for some banks to fail, and remaining banks to deal honestly and transparently once again. More regulations will only result in more lies. Just as economies that turned away from slave labor had a transition period, our economy would transition as well, but in the end, if we turned to honest, sound money and a truly free market, we would end up with a more just society, founded on truthfulness and decency, not subject to the violence of force or the whims of fraudulent institutions. Unfortunately, it seems we are headed into a new era of slavery, however, where all taxpayers will be forced to render to the Fed and big banking interests the bulk of the fruits of their labor, possibly through higher taxes but definitely through the eroding force of inflation. See the Ron Paul File October 22, 2008