Posted on 10/14/2009 3:50:16 PM PDT by opentalk
Goldman Sachs is considering donating in excess of $1bn (£627m) to charity in an attempt to quell the growing furore over the likely size of its 2009 bonus pot. The investment bank which is set to report its results for the three months to September on Thursday, is understood to be giving serious thought to some form of large philanthropic donation.
The aim of the donation, first disclosed by Henry Blodget's Business Insider blog, would be to deflect the likely row come at the end of the year. By then Goldman's total compensation pot is expected to be a record $22bn, delivering average pay and bonuses of more than $700,000 per employee, higher even than the average $661,000 paid out in 2007 – its last record year. The bank's partner managing directors – a top-tier of approximately 300 senior bankers who tend to be its biggest money-earners – are believed to be discussing the plan as one of a number of ways of deflecting political and investor backlash over the eventual size of the bonus pool.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I don't know if this is the most corrupt administration or I just wasn't paying attention before.
ACORN?
Organizing for America?
What leftwing organizations will they be donating it to?
The Bush admin tried to fix it several times only to be rebuffed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-goldman-sachs-wins-big-in-secret-bailout-via-aig-2009-3
"In case you were wondering where on earth all that money went..."
AIG owed money to various lenders --- that is why its bankruptcy posed a SYSTEMIC risk. It has used bailout money to pay those lenders, as intended by the bailout. Yes, the money WENT to banks, including GS. What's the problem?
"Goldman Sachs Wins Big"
Goldman did not win anything; AIG owed Goldman $13B, and it simply got its money back. The author lacks basic intellectual honesty.
And continues with more of the same. This conclusion is absolutely unrelated to whatever he wrote before; he simply plugs in something new as if it followed from the foregoing: "By now, however, one thing should be clear: The government's decision to bail out AIG on the terms it did was a colossal mistake."
Whether the bailout was a mistake has nothing to do with the foregoing, where the author has insinuated something nefarious ("secret" bailout, "wins big").
Only an ignorant person can claim that the bailout of AIG for a "clear" mistake. And the author does not even provide a shred of reasoning.
Just one more guy who has nothing to say and thinks he looks smart by putting down others. We have plenty of such people on FR and even on this very thread. No need to provide links to external garbage.
I believe that charity was extended to Goldman Sachs. How the freaking hell can they extend charity when they have not paid the original charity extended to them back?
This is crap. What about the shareholders?
Irrelevant to my post.
"Who are you to even tell anyone that Goldman Sachs did not receive any bailout money?"
I did not say it. Please read more carefully before you fly off the handle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.