Talk:Goldman Sachs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Opening Paragraph

To whomever is changing the opening paragraph to depict GS as a criminal enterprise, please respect the nature of wikipedia and refrain from adding your own personal opinions. I understand that you may have strong feelings about Goldman Sachs, but Wikipedia is intended to be a neutral source of basic information, not an outlet for your personal opinions. If you would like to rant about your feelings on GS I'm sure that there are numerous forums where you could share your ideas, but it is not appropriate for you to add your personal analysis of GS on wikipedia. I am not disagreeing with your views on GS, I am merely asking you to respect the purpose of Wikipedia. Millions of people use Wikipedia every day as a source of legitimate, unbiased information, so please do not vandalize this or any other wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.128.166 (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that depictions of it as a criminal enterprise are wrong, but it is also strange to not see the fact that the govenrment agency responsible for monitoring it as well as federal prosecutors have charged the corporation with violations of federal laws, which is to say a crime, specifically fraud, involving hundreds of billions of dollars. Why would that fact not be in the lede graph? I can understand leaving out criminal investigations in the UK and Germany until further down, lots of companies are investigated, but charges of criminal fraud are in fact one of the most noteworthy facts concerning Goldman. Are we really saying that the street address of goldman, or spelling out that it is "lower manhandle" belong in the first graph and are more important fact that it is target than one of the biggest fraud prosecutions in US history? (Also why the second graph, has vry old facts about a former employee being a former treasury secretary, which seems highly political motivated statement, given that one does NOT see that in first or second graphs of Merill wiki page, that Don Regan was Treas Sec after being CEO and chairman of Merill? (or half a dozen similar examples)Jenston (talk)

The IP 75.111.128.166 is actively removing any criticism of Goldman Sachs, in the name of 'Wikipedia objectivity'. Following the same logic, all criticism of Stalin, Hitler and Mao crimes should be removed as well. Also, what credentials does the 75.111.128.166 have on the subject of financial industry. The history of his edits shows topics such as 'Hokkaido University','Prokaryotis' and 'Age disparity in sexual relations'. It appears that he is a human bot, hired by Goldman Sachs to cleanse the page of any negative information. Otherwise, in the words of Lenin, just an 'useful idiot' which is a historical term to describe low-information people acting on impulse against their own best interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.247.156 (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

The last sentence of the opening paragraph contains three factual errors:

1. "Goldman was the largest donor to both Barack Obama..."

The University of California was. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?id=N00009638&cycle=2008)

2. "... and John McCain in the 2008 presidential election".

Merrill Lynch was. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?id=N00006424&cycle=2008)

3. "... former Goldman Sachs employees such as Timothy Geithner and Hank Paulson..."

Geithner, according to an extensive web search, never worked for Goldman Sachs, in any capacity.

Does anyone object to the article being corrected? B0rez (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no corporation can contribute to a political campaign, nor can unions, and a lot of other corporate enities. Whether individuals employed by a corporation share the political views of the corporation is uncertain, and generally suspect. Do GM's union workers contribute based on being aligned with their union management or GM management? While the number of Goldman partners and employees going into public service is notable, it is unclear whether they favor Democratic or Republican or liberal or conservative political positions. Mulp (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Mulp, You are 2100% incorrect. That is a highly inaccurate characterization of assessing political contributions.

Employee Contributions: In fact the FEC forms specifically ask for employment data for a reason, and all monitoring groups aggregate donations from employees of a corporation for a reason as well. Please go to opensecrets.org, which is the largest and most respected and non partisan watchdog group reporting on contributions, or for that matter the FEC site itself, or the record of congressional hearings on contributions to see how they ALL put these aggregations of individual contributions by company and industry, and specifically that number -- at the top of their lists for data presentation.

Soft Money: You are also factually well off the mark when you say corporations cannot contribute. . Corporations directly contribute to parties all the time. Are you saying Godlman cannot or has not written directly from its CORPORATE checkbook. Either Goldmans own financial are fraudulent or they are writing direct checks to political parties. The exclusion there is corporate to federal elections, but corporations, unions and organizations (including goldman) can and do give to the huge general political party funds and non federal funds which are in essence fungible (and that is why those are tracked).

PACS: Goldman has a PAC which is huge and very active. You can see it REGISTERED with FEC. So millions in federal contributions from the Goldman Sachs PAC? here are the ~$one million expenditures for the Goldman Sachs INc PAC for 2009: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expend.php?cmte=C00350744&cycle=2008

527 Groups. Just check the wiki article. these are now in the hundreds of millions, expressly political and massively funded by corporations, unions and organizations

To other editors. Sorry to belabor the point, but Goldman sachs is not just a big political contributor, but one of the biggest, and the idea that they are not, asserted at the first screen users see the talk page is grossly misleading. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000085 Jenston (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

<unsigned entry>

I am sure people are familiar with Bonano Crime Family, the Lucesse Crime Family, the Gambino Crime Family, but dwarfing them all is the Goldman Sachs Crime Family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraxas72 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by why there is no mention of the events that affected Goldman Sachs and the financial world in general in 2008 which lead to the creation of the TARP funds and Wall Street bailout, and Goldman Sachs' acceptance of the funds which lead to its metamorphosis from an investment bank to a "bank holding company". Certainly, these events were a major milestone in Goldman Sachs history and should be addressed.

It is just an observation, why would a spokesman for Goldman Sachs make a comment that oil will go to 149.00 by the end of the year and immediatly the price jumps on their comment. It leaves one to wonder what they may have to gain at the expense of the american people. Why else make a public comment which sparks an immediate rise to oil, while it was on a downslide in spite of the Russia/Georgia ordeal. What other means will be dealt to keep oil inflated and keep the economies in an inflationary mode, killing the little people and jumping profits for the already rich.

This article is not a place for conspiracy theories.—DMCer™ 19:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is when information of a negative and secretive nature which may be true always written off as a "conspiracy theory" Wikipedia is about accurate information regardless if you deem it a "conspiracy theory" Sadly the running contemporary behavior of the United States government and its corporate allies is secretive in nature the fact that this article is sadly lacking the accurate portrayal of the Goldman Sachs actions during 2007-2009. Example being the exemption from CTFC regulations allowing Goldman Sachs to operate in commodities market in which it was not a supplier or consumer and allowed to manipulate the price of oil by using it like stocks which was why gas was up to $4.11 in 2008. In 2008 a barrel of oil was traded 27 times, on average, before it was actually delivered and consumed. All I ask is that the writers of wikipedia take a serious look at data that some choose to write off as "conspiracy theory" material, just because it is named as such does not necessarily mean that the information is inaccurate. 24.10.121.82 (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As you said, "Wikipedia is about accurate information." Also, re: the previous comment, every time an investment bank speaks, let along about something as speculative as oil prices, the market jumps. Investors pile in after things like that, and have been since the very beginning of markets. It's not "suspicious" in the least. —DMCer™ 06:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Links to other GS information

Hi -- I thought this article might be a useful external link -- it discusses GS from more of an investor's perspective (how they compare to their competitors, how their business works and key issues impacting it, etc) rather than the cultural / encyclopedic one on Wikipedia. What do folks think -- worth adding a link at the end? Many users will undoubtably be looking for this kind of information. Parkerconrad 20:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't really a place to "discuss" as much as define I think. That site doesn't cite sources, and spends a lot of fluff on describing the terminology (Private Equity would be a good example) rather than commenting on Goldman's place in the sector. You're welcome to add whatever you want, but I think a better source can be found. Plus, your connection with the site (on your user page) worries me a little bit as well. Just my $.02 --Thesilence 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The following IP addresses have been adding the same edits continuously: User:80.43.67.151, User:80.41.71.86, User:80.41.106.239, User:80.43.65.45, User:61.14.24.21. These edits are highly NPOV (referring to alumni as criminals and felons). I have removed all opinionated language in the areas that these edits are entered. I rewrote the summary before the alumni listing and have shifted David Brown and Robert Freeman into the Other category as Criminals is a highly biased entry name. I noticed that User:80.43.65.45 added an entry to David Brown as well even though there is no such article about a David Brown from Goldman Sachs. This really leads me to believe there is vandalism here. I'm giving you this chance to explain your views so we can resolve this conflict and ask that you write articles for both men that covers their biographies. Otherwise, there really isn't a reason to have them in here as they aren't explained anywhere else or have any articles to cite. Thesilence 20:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for their motivations, but the article could do with a *Criticism* section to make it more balanced. That would give people who want to add stuff like that a place to do it legitimately rather than messing around with other parts of the article. --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to the creation of a Criticisms section if someone else has cited Criticisms they'd like to put up there. Really, the whole article could use a bit of a cleanup as the timeline format doesn't look that great.Thesilence 17:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Timelines are puerile. Featured Articles and Good Articles require an article be well-written. General consensus (from what I've observed) is that timelines should be turned into prose, or else the article reeks of amateurness. —ExplorerCDT 18:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to put the Criminals section back in, and move Freeman and Brown to it. Although you may not like it, they are convicted felons (both served time for the crimes that they committed while at Goldman). You say you have never heard of David Brown??? I find that hard to believe. Talk to any Goldman person - certainly any partner/MD - they know of him. In any event, it is inappropriate to try to hide them in an "Other" category. A convicted felon is a convicted felon. And they didn't get probation - they served time. It is a part of Goldman/Giuliani lore that Freeman was handcuffed in his office and was lead away in tears. What I would like to suggest - now that you have opened up this discussion - is to have a separate section devoted to the insider trading mess/convictions, and detail how the Freeman arrest and conviction stemmed from the arrest of Ivan Boesky, i.e. give a detailed discussion of how it went from Boesky to Siegal to "Bunny" Lasker and then finally the inside information went to Freeman, and that he traded on it, both for his own account and for Goldman's account. And how he and Goldman denied it for three years until he finally pleaded guilty in 1989. Perhaps it should also be noted that Freeman was Rubin's protege - his right hand man (Rubin turned the department over to him). Thanks for bringing all this up.

I am going to reinsert the full quote about the "Goldman-sponsored pyramid scheme" that you vandalized. I am putting in the link. It is to The New York Times, so I think that is good enough. After all, Goldman never sued The New York Times over this. Can I say something to you "Thesilence"? Take your personal opinions elsewhere!!! DO NOT VANDALIZE WIKIPEDIA ENTRIES!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.1.9 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 11 January 2007

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, considering that you vandalized the heading of this article diff --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 05:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• First, I should state that I worked at Goldman Sachs briefly. In training, you learn about Freeman and Brown and are admonished to avoid their mistakes. Still, there's a lot of corrupt (or at least unethical) stuff going on there. But that's endemic throughout the entire industry and not solely a Goldman Sachs problem. HOWEVER, removing information that shows Goldman Sachs in a bad light renders this article into a mindless "Cheerleader piece", and that, I'll assert is a major POV violation. This article needs to include criticism of the subject in order to be neutral and somewhat balanced. Does the negative deserve equal coverage? Probably not since I doubt the bad apples equal the good. BUT, as long as information is referenced, it should never be removed unless justified by better referenced information. If cited information is removed just because it is a negative portrayal of the subject, that is vandalism. —ExplorerCDT 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, I removed what looked like common vandalism. The information had been removed prior to my removal once and had been labeled as spam before being reinserted by another random IP address from the same ISP. In fact, I think the same person is continuing to undo any attempt to undo their edits. If you are, please get a login name so you can receive credit for your contribution. Now, I cleaned up the edits a bit and moved them around. You still don't have a reference for David Brown but have linked to an article with no reference about him and you have no reference for Robert Freeman either. Please either create the article for David Brown or remove the encyclopedia link. The New York Times article I cannot access (I refuse to get a login to the NYT) but looks like a book review. I can't verify it so if someone else wants to that's fine. No, this shouldn't be a "Puff Piece" about the company but nowhere do I see any of the other investment banks with this kind of text in their articles. Personally, I think the fault lies in the fact that it's a timeline and list of alumni that easily opens it up to criticism. The best thing to do is rewrite in Prose as suggested above and eliminate the lists altogether.Thesilence 22:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's a logical fallacy to say "I don't see it there, so it doesn't belong here". It's in the same category of "if your friends jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you?" Your refusal to check the NYT article isn't grounds to dismiss a claim. Get the terminology right...it's not that you cannot access it. It's that you plain won't. This isn't a case of uncontrollable inability. It's a deliberate refusal. If you're afraid of cookies, Wikipedia probably has put more cookies on your computer. Your idea of "common vandalism" is disingenuous. From your reversions, I'd gander you wouldn't recognize common vandalism if it were starring you down and saying..."Hi, I'm common vandalism". Your first, and more appropriate response would have been to tag it {{citation needed}} or {{fact}} and waited to see if it was cited. If not, then away it goes. But your reversions are contributing to an unfortunate POV in the article...a whitewashing of problems this company has contributed to the ills of the financial world.—ExplorerCDT 23:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Careful, ExplorerCDT, you're coming close to violating WP:NPA. The fact is that Thesilence clearly stated his/her willingness to have a criticism section added to the article. I'm the one who originally deleted the link in question as spam since the same IP user posted ELEVEN links to that site to TEN articles in the space of 30 minutes. In no case did the poster add any content to the articles and in most cases he/she tried to hide the link as an inline citation in a completely unrelated section of the article. Looked, talked, and walked like spam, so I deleted everything he/she posted. As for this article, with the amount of time you've used to get angry here on the talk page, you could have written a well sourced criticism section to the article and given it the balance it really does need. I really don't know enough about the subject to do it myself. --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 05:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I want it noted that I didn't say the link to the source wasn't good, just that I couldn't access it. I asked someone to look at it for me, which I think Yandman did as he reverted the edit. I haven't edited the article since I started this dispute in the talk page.Thesilence 21:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.citypaper.net/articles/112201/news.ivan.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.125.219 (talk • contribs)

Okay you have gone ahead and reverted the deletes that Yandman made. In fact, looking at his talk page, it looks like you're arguing with him as well. As this article is now the focus of a dispute, I'm going to ask that you observe the WP:DR policy and stop editing the page. I myself have stopped editing in observance of this rule. While this article does reference David Brown, I'd be more comfortable if the link pointed to a bit more Safe For Work source. The fact that it has blatant references to sexual content on its page bothers me a bit. If you want to build a quality article, you need good sources.Thesilence 21:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• What is amazing is that you people go around "editing" topics that you ADMIT that you don't even know anything about. It would be like me trying to edit a Wikipedia page on nuclear physics or some obscure form of Calculus. If you KNOW that you don't know the subject matter, DON'T GO MAKE ANY EDITS. The David Brown conviction is WELL known on Wall Street, and even more so at Goldman Sachs. One of you (Elipongo) was unable to even realise that that "petition" did not have to do with Brown's conviction. Anywhere, here is a link to CNN that mentions the conviction: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1986/12/22/68462/index.htm. And where TheSilence got off saying that other link had sex on it, I will never know. Must have been a banner ad or something. THINK before you edit. And don't even attempt to edit something that you ADMIT that you know nothing about. Nitwits.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.53.39 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 14 January 2007

• Okay, nitwits, now go see how many links I have have put up for Freeman's felony insider trading conviction, and his subsequent prison sentence (he was NOT just given parole). I know you like to think that this is pushing POV, but, I'm sorry, a felony is a felony. Serving time is serving time. I say, if a person is convicted of a felony, and they serve time, and the crime is in the course of their normal course of business, then that is what they should be listed as.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.53.39 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 14 January 2007

My friend, calling other editors childish names doesn't exactly advance your position very well, and it's a violation of WP:NPA. I would ask that instead of writing so much on the talk page here, you make the effort to write a well balanced criticism section for the article that adheres to WP:NPOV. The article really does need a well sourced criticism section because it's unbalanced right now. You seem like an intelligent enough person that if you try to, I'm sure that you can write a paragraph that reads like an encyclopedia entry rather than an activist's pamphlet. --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 15:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Bottom line - a convicted felon is a convicted felon. I fully realise that Goldman alunmi do not want this pointed out. Fair enough. Understood. I dunno. I guess it is just a question of who out-lasts the other - You? Or me? The truth be told, this isn't that big an issue with me, so you will undoubtedly win. So, just go do it, and delete it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.53.39 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 15 January 2007

I'm no Goldman Alumnus, I'm a paramedic from Connecticut- visit my user page to learn all about me. All I was doing was deleting spam links from another anonymous user who was trying to boost his/her page's Google rankings by linking all all over Wikipedia. As for this debate here, it's not about "winning", it's about building a consensus. Other editors and myself have been telling you exactly what you have to do to "win" here- i.e. create a section entitled *Criticism* and write a paragraph or two in a properly encyclopedic, neutral tone. State the facts, not opinions or judgements; e.g. "Joe Blow was convicted in Federal court for securities fraud." is a statement of fact; "Joe blow is a criminal." is a judgement. And before you object to it, the term "criminal" is indeed a judgement- George Washington though a hero to the Americans, was a criminal as far as the British were concerned; he would have been hanged for treason if we hadn't won the war. On the other extreme, all of Adolf Hitler's actions during the Third Reich were conducted within the framework of German law. Please understand, we're not trying to protect Goldman Sachs or any other business from criticism, rather we are protecting Wikipedia from becoming something other than an encyclopedia. Please take my statements in the constructive spirit that I mean them. Thank you and have a great day. --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 05:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• I find it funny that "collecting money from taxpayers" is in the first sentence. It is definitely true, but I'm not necessarily sure it describes GS's function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidfischer (talk • contribs) 05:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Puff Piece

This article reads as a puff piece, omitting any criticism of Goldman, its role in the research and other scandals of the late 1990s. Recently, Goldman has come under considerable fire (particularly in Britain)for conflicts of interest surrounding its principal investments in private equity and the activities of its private equity funds. While Goldman seems to get away with a lot more of this sort of thing than its rivals, it does have quite a reputation for arrogance on Wall Street. Its archrival is Morgan Stanley--entertainingly enough, Goldman employees tend to refer to Morgan Stanley as 'the evil empire'--and vice versa12.111.30.89jsl

I titled this so it would be in-line with the rest of the discussion. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. It really shouldn't attack or support its subjects. If you have sources and news articles related to Goldman's "scandals", then insert them into the article and cite them. If I recall correcty, Goldman was fined the least for problems with the analyst scandal and hasn't even been touched by the options backdating. As for the 'evil empire' - that's kind of irrelevant and pointless trivia IMO. Thesilence 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

While portions of the article do seem like PR, the recent additions do have significant historical value, and the description of alternative mortgage products does seem to be in keeping with the idea of an encyclopedia- it's part and parcel of the events that led to the current financial crisis. But- given the similarity of content and the length of the article, should this portion be combined with the criticism/controversy para above it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogpa14 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Puff Piece" is too kind

HAHA Their Corporate PR Propaganda Relations Department is too stupid to even hide their own ISP address from their attempts to "manage" the GS collapse into socialism that would shame Stalin! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.170.240 (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no personal ax to grind with them but I was shocked when I read this Wikipedia entry on Goldman Sachs! It reads like it was written in the GS Public Relations department. The "Criticism and controversy" section is a pathetic joke. Major criticisms of GS such as their incestuous relationship with the US Treasury Dept, among other serious things, are not even mentioned. I would very much like everyone with a current or former business relationship with GS to state that fact when editing the entry. I also think that it would be the ethical thing for an editor to admit that editing the entry is part of his employment. I myself have never had any relationship with them whatsoever. Also, it seems to me that "thesilence" has an inordinate influence on what the entry will look like while carrying an obvious bias in favor of Goldman Sachs. Sorry if that offends, but that's the way it looks to me. 75.164.153.79 (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)dwargo

Whenever I put up the fact that Goldman bonuses are bigger than bail-out, it is taken out, latterly by Ohnoitsjamie.

I've asked you several times to provide a citation. I don't see what's so difficult about that. Furthermore, I don't do anything latterly. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I and several others have now put the bail-out to Goldman in the Goldman article.

This is with full references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.185.249 (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I just came across this article and Goldman Sachs, and was so blown away by the consistency of writing style and complete disregard of criticism that I was appalled Wikipedia would allow such a thing. This is literally my first time ever editing wikipedia, and on a talk page nontheless. Just wanted to get my voice out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.103.8 (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Misleading analysis of telecommunications companies

Removed: <!-- What were the sentences? Did anyone go to prison? --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerryseinfeld (talk • contribs) 23:47, 2 January 2005 (UTC)

External links

Removed: <!-- I'm not picking on Goldman-Sachs particularly, I just happened to see an article in [[Private Eye]] about this. From the information I've found, it seems the others involved could do with their articles expanding, too. [[User:MrJones|Mr. Jones]] 13:27, 3 May 2004 (UTC) --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerryseinfeld (talk • contribs) 02:03, 3 January 2005 (UTC)

Articles

Removed link to bizarre article which sanctions Joyti De-Laurey 4m theft. If it should go anywhere, and I don't believe it should, it should go in Joyti De-Laurey http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1200369,00.html An article criticising GS] and using this criticism to defend the criminal actions of Ms De-Laurey. Psychofox 23:43, 21 March 2005 (UTC) Removed link to mother jones, it seemed completely irrelevant, pretty npov, and it's a blog. revert at will --Dilaudid 22:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

History

Can anyone contribute a history of the company? Who was Goldman, and who was Sachs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeavisSanchez (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 March 2005 (UTC)

Goldman started out in the garment business. 199.66.11.253 (Talk) 14:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that garment business? The company has a nice flash presentation here if anyone wants to read it and translate it to Wikipedia: http://www.gs.com/our_firm/corporate_information/our_story/index.html 12.47.208.34 (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Earnings vs. Revenues

In the investment banking section of the intro, it says that segment "accounts for around 15 percent of Goldman Sach's revenues". In the asset management section of the intro, it states that part "accounts for around 19 percent of Goldman Sach's earnings".

To evaluate the financial contribution of each segment, these should be parallel numbers, either earnings or revenues (or both)... but it should not alternate between the two. Uris♥ (Talk) 18:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Known as "The Firm" in some financial circles

I'm a bit curious about this: I've never heard Goldman referred to as "The Firm" (in caps) in any sense other than that of current Goldman employees talking about "the firm" (lower case) in the same way that any employees talk about their own firm as "the firm". Can we have a citation please? 87.74.103.131 21:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have been bold and made the change. I have also removed reference to Audrey McNiff and Abby Joseph Cohen as key people - not because, strictly speaking, they're not key - they're both senior partners of the firm - but because, institutionally, they are no more key than any of the other partners of the firm (of which there are hundreds). The remaining key people listed hold formal institutional roles which make them key "ex cathedra". 87.74.103.131 21:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I worked briefly for an outsourcing company that had a contract with Goldman Sachs. I was asked/directed to refer to GS as "the firm" in conversation, and to avoid discussing my work at GS (which was by no means anything very sensitive) as a general rule. I was told that this was to help avoid a lot of the social engineering problems that GS goes through with regards to employee poaching, client poaching, client privacy and other issues.

Light Spam?

The Goldman Sachs JBWere (Australia) link seems a little out of place, as other country-specific divisions don't have seperate links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcaplock (talk • contribs)

Gone. By the way, you can do it yourself by clicking the "edit" button. Don't forget to sign your name with ~~~~. Thanks for your help! yandman 10:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there may be a justification for referring to Goldman Sachs JBWere as my understanding is that this is a joint-venture, and its ownership structure varies from that of the Goldman Sachs Group (in particular, the former shareholders of JBWere now hold shares in Goldman Sachs JBWere Pty Ltd alongside the Goldman Sachs Group, as per this link http://www2.goldmansachs.com/our_firm/media_center/articles/press_release_2003_article_030326180114.html). In any case, Goldman Sachs JBWere is the branding used by the company within Australasia, as opposed to the rest of the world were Goldman Sachs is used.

Advertising

I wonder if it's at all significant to put down here that goldman-sachs' advertising corporation is Ogilvy & Mather... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.118.198.115 (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

I would probably add it to Ogilvy & Mather's page instead. Do you have a link supporting that? The Ogilvy & Mather page definitely is a bit messy.Thesilence 14:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

Per Yandman's prompting, I have rewriten the article and he has overwritten the old one. I tried as much as possible to keep as much of the timeline in place only in prose format as well as reference the more famous debacles, criticisms, and accomplishments in the firm's history using accurate sources. I'd like to see the article stay like this. A few notes about the rewrite:

• Please edit grammatical and spelling errors as you catch them of course; I know there are a few.
• Let's try and keep the alumni list short. There were a lot of dead links in the previous list and a lot of pointers to stubs as well. If the person is key to the firm's history, hasn't been mentioned in the article, or is extremely famous (Sascha Baron Cohen for example) then they should be added. People like CNBC anchors are a little more questionable I think.
• I'm also a little hesitant about the Current Goldman Sachs holding list and I don't think it's very accurate - Goldman has extensive holdings in many public and private companies, as everyone in that industry does. The link seems to reference only holdings in Computer companies. I really think it should be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesilence (talk • contribs) 14:33, 17 January 2007

The article is much better for your efforts, I can actually read through it now without without my eyes crossing!

Thank you very much! --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 20:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Citing Alumni already mentioned in article

Per the recent edits of User:ExplorerCDT and User:Yandman, I'd like to head off an edit war and talk it out here. I hopefully have reverted to the most recent copy edited by Elipongo, and let's leave it at that until we've talked this through. I deleted all references to people who are mentioned in the article because if we mention everyone already mentioned, I think it's redundant. I also think it's pointless to include 7 references for one person in an article not about them. If you want to create a Robert Freeman article and link it there, go ahead. However, we already have a great reference (NY Magazine) regarding him and I think any more is unnecessary. I think that JPMorgan Chase is a good example of another article that does this as well. Note that Jamie Dimon, the CEO and biggest face of that company right now, is not referenced down in alumni, just like William B Harrison Jr.Thesilence 16:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your reversions to delete referenced material appear (even if not deliberaly) that you're cherry picking information that omits or whitewashes the negative side of GoldmanSachs. Removing cited information is disingenuous, especially if it's negative material. There's no reason that this information shouldn't be included in "Notable Alumni" because often it gets lost in article text. From your recent edits, it is fair to say that you and Elipongo have gone on a consistent campaign to make this a warm-and-fuzzy, Goldman-is-great, We-love-Goldman article, and this POV cheerleading makes me wonder about possible conflicts of interest and POVs. The copyedit by Elipongo removes a lot of the teeth (and verifiable accuracy) from any criticism or controversy, and regarding Freeman, is sorely inaccurate (especially regarding the Boesky situation). —ExplorerCDT 17:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to let the rest of you know, I got a silly threat on my talk page from the anonymous editor whose IP starts with 81.41... Since I never deleted any of his edits, I'm not exactly sure why he singled me out, but whatever. Keep an eye on you own watchlists and userpgages. As to the accusation about a whitewash, the controversy section explains about that person far better than a single ungrammatical sentence, IMHO. I consider myself a good judge of this because I have no connection to investment banking beyond my 401k plan at work. Just being arrested and convicted doesn't by itself qualify a person for the *Notable people* section of an article, otherwise most articles on professions and activisms would be a mile long— could you just imagine what the United States Congress article would look like?! --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 17:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the previous post before reading yours, ExplorerCDT. Could you please point out the specific edit of mine that you're referring to because I confess to not having a clue what you're talking about. I'm a paramedic in Connecticut and I don't really care what the article has to say about the company, so long as it's encyclopedic. --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 17:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an explanation of your assertion, ExplorerCDT. I have made exactly eleven edits to this article and none of them resemble what you're talking about. Making baseless accusations against myself, a neutral third party, does very little to advance your argument in my mind. --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 21:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've slightly modified the section header to emphasise the distinction referred to above. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks! Thesilence 19:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Competitors section

Interesting addition. I'm wondering though if it might not work better as a navigation template? --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this person added it to all of the banks on that list, which makes sense. However, there is already an Investment Banks Category and this bank is a member of it (see bottom of the page). Wouldn't it be implied that all banks on that list are competitors? Just my $.02 --Thesilence 21:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That would indeed be implied. There is nothing wrong, however, with having inter-related articles linked together in addition to being in the same category. I just think that a navigation template would look better than the current listing. I'll put it on my "to do" list... if someone else doesn't beat me to it! --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 04:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Corporate Citizenship

Goldman Sachs has been one of the most aggressive firms on Wall Street about taking action on climate change; the company sends its bankers home at night in hybrid limousines.

The way this is worded sounds like satire, very unwikipedian. --64.75.187.195 06:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't look like satire to me, but your edit reads just fine as well. I believe they were also cited by CNN/Money recently as one of the top 10 environmental firms in the US. --Thesilence 20:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LogoGS.gif

Resolved

 – Taken care of by Boothy443 (talk · contribs), thank you! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:LogoGS.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Recent criticism" Section

I have added in a "Recent Criticism" section on GS. I do not work/have never worked for the company so have no axe to grind. This is an objective look at their current investor policies and advice which seem to be very misleading. Ivankinsman 14:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that Michael Busch removed this insert from the main article page without ANY EXPLANATION ON THIS DISCUSSION PAGE. I have since made improvements to this insert and have included appropriate references which he check to verify its contextual accuracy. Ivankinsman (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This section, added by Ivankinsman, consisted of largely of a copy of an email claimed to have been sent to the firm. Since emails are generally not reliable sources, I have removed it - also because WP:QUOTE recommends strongly against replication of primary sources. The section also included two sentences critical of Goldman-Sachs' actions in the sub-prime mortgage crisis and their recent actions on the gold market. However, the cited sources are not critical of the company, merely reporting on the activity as a successful strategy. I agree that a section on criticisms of the firm is a very good thing to have, but copies of emails and mis-cited newspaper articles are not acceptable sources. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again M Busch has removed relevant copy from this article. I do not accept his 'reasons' and would like an independent editor to adjudicate on this matter. Please do not remove this copy until this has taken place. Ivankinsman (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ivankinsman, I have explained that the sources you cited are either not suitable for Wikipedia or do not support those particular criticisms. I have removed the section again because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you can find reliable sources that support the section, you may add some of it back. However, a block quote of an anonymous email is never a reliable source and should not be copied back into the article. If you really insist on outside evaluation, wait a day or so and maybe file a WP:RFC. I would much prefer that you find suitable sources and re-write the section, however. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK MichaelBusch, as a good Wikipedian, I take your point here. I admit that I rather acted on the 'spur of the moment' and have now written a much more considered piece backed up by solid references/reliable sources that actually do criticise the company for first selling subprime loans and then shorting them. I would like to state here that I have no 'personal grudge' here against GS (why should I? Your viewpoint seems to be that criticising a company's investment policies = bearing a grudge (rather subjective I think). I simply want to state the facts regarding GS' role in the recent subprime crisis that has hit both the US and UK hard (as well as major banks in other countries). Ivankinsman (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(plus can you use : sign so we can rank this discussion properly)

I can indent posts, but if I did that sequentially, we'd run out of room on each line. I apologize for my error re. your bearing a grudge - I mistook the email for one you had written. I'm afraid I still don't see an explicit criticism of the company here - the articles describe how Goldman Sachs contrived to make money on both sides of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, without condemning this. From one perspective I see the criticism: they made money at the expense of other lenders. From another perspective, this can be considered a positive: while many other firms were greatly harmed by the crisis, they succeeded in making large profits for their shareholders. The material seems notable and should be included, but I just don't see how it is a criticism. It seems value-neutral. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this. I see Allan Sloane's Washington Post article as being critical, as well as The Daily Record and SFGate.com. The FinFacts article is value-neutral but still verifies the approach - outlined by these first two sources - as to how GS increased revenues from subprime. However, I have no problems with your new title for this insert. Ivankinsman (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

While I do not agree with the recent criticism section at all (Where is the recent accolades section? What true purpose does this section serve? Can this section lead to subjective opinions on the part of the readers? What constitutes recent? Again, why only criticism and no accolades?), I think that I will leave the decision for it to stay up to more practiced wikipedians. The insider trading scandal that was previously listed at the bottom does not deserve its own section, and has been annotated and moved into the criticism section. Finally, of most importance is the entire section devoted to the 2007 mortgage crisis that Goldman seems to have averted. Let's start from the top: most of the first paragraph is a word-for-word plagiarized version of the San Francisco Chronicle article that it loosely references. This section:

"As chief of Goldman Sachs, Paulson was involved, to degrees as yet unrevealed, in the mortgage securitization process during the halcyon days of mortgage fraud from 2004 to 2006. Paulson became the U.S. Treasury secretary on July 10, 2006, after the extent of the debacle was coming into focus for those in the know. Goldman Sachs achieved recent accolades in the markets for having bet heavily against the housing market, while Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch and others got hammered for failing to time the end of the credit bubble. Goldman Sachs is the only major investment bank in the United States that has emerged as yet unscathed from this debacle. The success of its strategy must have resulted from fairly substantial bets against housing, mortgage banking and related industries, which also means that Goldman Sachs saw this coming at the same time they were bundling and selling these loans."

should be in quotes, not just referencing the source that it was taken word-for-word from. Additionally, the Chronicle cannot be construed as a reputable source for these allegations, as it clearly states that, for instance, Paulson was involved to degrees yet unknown. Does this mean that the degree could have been 0? Yes, it does. This brings me back to my original statement: undue criticism, especially of the kind that is unquantifiable and unqualified is absolutely inappropriate for this, a knowledge-disseminating wiki (not an opinion-disseminating one). Can we really use the word 'halcyon days of mortgage fraud' and believe that this is objective reporting? I am removing all items in this section that are complete plagiarism, and hope to spark a discussion that would remove undue, subjective criticism from all financial institution wikis. --Yuu.david (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Max Keiser seems to think that GS are at the epicentre of "the cause of the Financial Problems", and they they are "looting the system"? Anon 27 November 2008 22:23 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.165.71 (talk)

After reading it, I think the section should be eliminated. Most of it immaterial to the article and the company. It should not be a current events section, and the only things that should be included are those that are ""known"" to have had a material impact on the firm. I've quoted below the only part of the section I believe may be material.

"In 1986, David Brown was convicted of passing inside information to Ivan Boesky on a takeover deal.[37] Robert Freeman, who was a senior Partner, the Head of Risk Arbitrage, and a protégé of Robert Rubin, was also convicted of insider trading, with his own account and with the firm's.[38]"

I propose deleting the section and integrating the above criticism into the firm history section. 139.147.81.231 (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Involvement with the bailout of AIG, Q1 2009 and December 2008 Results (new sections)

I've written a new section within 'Criticism and controversy' that clarifies (with references) the events surrounding AIG's bailout and its relation to Goldman Sachs. Unfortunately, this seems to be a common area of misinformation and misconception in public circles.

The previous sentence in the 'Criticism and controversy' section, which claimed that payments from the AIG bailout were 'chiefly responsible' for Goldman's profits in 2008 and Q1 2009, was highly non-NPOV and not based upon fact. It goes directly against official statements issued by the firm's CFO and other executives that: (1) their exposure to AIG was immaterial after hedges, and (2) any mark-to-market profits from their hedges were insignificant, and the hedges did not pay out because AIG was not allowed to fail.

I don't know if the new section is too long, but I think it's important that the facts are presented clearly and thoroughly given all the misinformation that's floating around (and often repeated). It is unfortunate that some of the public's anger may also be based upon this misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.99 (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

- furry_goat (131.111.8.99/131.111.8.98). 15th April 2009

Also written a new section on Q1 2009 and December Financial Results. I should stress that I think this section is unnecessary. There was a lot of chatter and criticism in the 'blogosphere' about December losses, but to be honest most of the commentators didn't know what they were talking about or were trying to be sensationalist. Sometimes both. (Some that thought Goldman arbitrarily changed their fiscal year to exclude December losses, others simply didn't look at what happened in December - continued market deterioration, significant writedowns on credit, real-estate, $850m writedown from loans to bankrupt company LyondellBasell, etc)

A particular Wikipedia contributor has insisted on reverting my edits that deleted his references to December, which were arguably non-neutral and had a decidedly negative slant on the firm (see revision 285293920 and 285377295). Because of this, I decided to flesh the whole thing out and explain the matter fully and properly for the record. I do think the section is unnecessary, but if people insist on mentioning 'disappearing' losses in December it is better to have the full story rather than a misleadingly negative slant with 'conveniently' selective quotations from the media.

Case in point - Morgan Stanley's earnings released on 22 April 2009. They also had a stub month of December, as they converted to a bank holding company too. However, their December losses were $1.3B vs $780M from Goldman. However, far less chatter in the blogosphere about it this time round... probably because they also missed earnings forecasts for their new January-March first quarter by a considerable margin. Obvious double standards in reporting. It was probably because Goldman's first quarter results were so much above street expectations (i.e., double), people just assumed it was because they 'piled' losses into December. Morgan Stanley's results show that this is not the case.

Now, before some mentions the FDIC Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP).... perhaps they should think about the other banks who have issued far more debt under this program than the $28bn issued by Goldman. Don't forget, banks have to pay fees to participate in TLGP.

- furry_goat (Special:Contributions/131.111.193.101). 22nd April 2009

While I personally think that Goldman did nothing wrong with AIG, I find myself concerned with the unsigned nature of these comments here. Furry Goat's only Contribs have been to the Goldman page. I think it might be better if on such a touchy and technical subject an editor who has edited numerous other articles and who has shown neutrality in regards to financial firms checks these.Musing Sojourner (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Bankrupt

I thought Goldman Sachs went bankrupt, how come this article doesn't say that? 204.133.215.130 (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Because they did not go bankrupt. You may be thinking of Lehman Brothers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.193.101 (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this belong here, does it actually say anything believable?

I question the relevance of the following paragraph to this article, since it is not really about Goldman, only about an incoherent article that claims to say something about Goldman. I'd added the 2 sentences starting with "The piece generated much media attention" but they were removed, apparently because the reverter doesn't want the quality of the "story" to be understood. 24.127.162.147 (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In July 2009, Rolling Stone contributor Matt Taibbi published an article on Goldman Sachs titled, 'The Great American Bubble Machine', where he condemns the company as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money," and going on to assert that Goldman Sachs and similar companies have engineered and then profited off of every economic recession and bubble since The Great Depression. The piece generated much media attention and controversy, with critics or the story calling it "incoherent" and "really not meant for an audience interested in a discussion of financial markets.". Even supporters of the story stated "this piece is not to be taken literally and perhaps not even seriously." The story reportedly impelled Goldman Sachs to take expensive action to attempt to repair its public image.

References

It looks like a borderline case to me. If the "controversy" was mentioned in RS's it could probably be mentioned, with both sides presented fairly. On the other hand it might not have so much importance to the overall picture. Borock (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Archon Hospitality

A new section titled "investments" was started for this company, owned it's said by GS. Is there a reason it can't just be included in the "major assets" section?Borock (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Done.—DMCer™ 05:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Trimming criticism section (discuss)

I made a lot of revisions to this section, and in some cases removed what was either clear original research or just had no place in the article. I realize many people are angry at GS in this recessionary environment, but some of this section was just ridiculous and in some cases, misleading. I removed the following (thoughts welcome):

• The current chief economic adviser to President Obama, Lawrence Summers, was noted for receiving $5.2 million from hedge fund D.E. Shaw in 2008 and speaking fees (ranging from $45 thousand to $135 thousand per event) from banks including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch at a time when he was expected to become the most influential financial official in the U.S. Government.

This has nothing to do with Goldman Sachs and shouldn't be in the article, as it wouldn't be notable for inclusion in any of the articles for banks the quote mentions. As the quote states, most banks hire officials to speak in their area of expertise honorarium/speaking fees.

• Former bank regulator William K. Black, appearing on Bill Moyers Journal on April 3, 2009, accused the financial industry of massive fraud, citing the role Tim Geithner played before being promoted to Treasury Secretary as well as the successful efforts of Alan Greenspan, former Goldman CEO Robert Rubin (Geithner's mentor) and Larry Summers in the late 1990s to block regulation of the financial derivatives market. According to Brooksley Born, former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Summers, Rubin and Greenspan blocked her efforts to regulate the derivatives market, on the grounds that the financial industry was objecting. Born was then succeeded as head of the CFTC by former Goldman Sachs executive Gary Gensler, who stated that he "should have done more to rein in exotic financial instruments that have battered global markets".

First of all, the Stanford source doesn't even mention Goldman Sachs. And actually states that Rubin "supported closer scrutiny of the derivatives market," but that he didn't think it was feasible at the time. Secondly, the sentence, "William Black...accused the financial industry of massive fraud, citing the role Tim Geithner played before being promoted to Treasury Secretary..." also has nothing to do with GS, as some have tried to remind many on this page, Geithner never worked for GS.

• In April 2009, Goldman's former in house counsel John Squires, who had moved to law firm Chadbourne & Parke, sent a cease and desist letter to Michael Morgan founder of GoldmanSachs666.com for trademark violation. The site has published negative articles and conspiracy theories on the firm and their alleged involvement in the global financial crisis. Morgan sued Goldman Sachs. Morgan settled his case with Goldman Sachs, on June 19, 2009. As part of the settlement, Morgan agreed to put a disclaimer on the website saying the site was not affiliated with or approved by Goldman.

Is a common ceases and desist letter, to a blogger of all people, really notable for an international investment bank? It's especially odd that it's in the "Criticism" section.

• In an interview in July 2009, former Assistant Secretary of Treasury Paul Craig Roberts was asked "Does the US Secretary of the Treasury work for the people or does he work for the banking system on Wall Street?" to which he replied, "He works for Goldman Sachs."

This sentence was given an entire section entitled, "Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Treasury claims Treasury works for Goldman Sachs." First I'd point out that we don't cite YouTube, and that this would constitute original research. If anything, the quote would be more appropriate in the context of criticism of the Treasury Secretary/Department, but even there would be a stretch.

• Goldman Sachs expected in December 2008 to pay $14 million in taxes worldwide for 2008 compared with $6 billion in 2007. The company’s effective income tax rate dropped to 1 percent from 34.1 percent. According to Robert Willens, president and chief executive officer of tax and accounting advisory firm Robert Willens LLC: “Clearly they have taken steps to ensure that a lot of their income is earned in lower-tax jurisdictions.”

I moved this to the "Corporate Affairs section. Again, simply stating this report in the criticism section (without the cited story actually criticizing it), is OR. It's a useful fact though, hence my moving it rather than removing it.

• Goldman has played a major role in advising states on how to structure privatization deals—even while positioning itself to invest in the toll road market. Conflicts of interest in such transactions are difficult to quantify.

This one wasn't in the Criticism section. The source didn't cite anything that would lead one to conclude the firm was "positioning itself" to invest in the toll market. Notwithstanding, I realize that Mother Jones magazine isn't exactly the pinnacle of financial reporting, but on every research report published by every U.S. investment bank, you will see a notice that states something along the lines of, "[Name of firm] does and seeks to do businesses with companies covered in its research reports. As such investors should be aware of the inherent conflicts of interests...." Often times, firms will take an equity stake in a private equity project they're advising on, to both participate in potential upside and to ease concerns of buyers or investors. The "even while positioning itself..." quote implies some form of illegal wrongdoing.

—DMCer™ 05:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Bonuses

Moved from my talk page.—DMCer™ 08:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
WSJ and Guardian are not merely speculating, but fine, i won't argue this point, right now. That said, rest assured, next week, I will put in a separate and comprehensive section on Goldman's bonuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.35.181 (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

They actually are, because nobody knows what bonuses, let alone year-end results are until the company releases them. I kept your WSJ source and moved it to support similar wording about completing what sources say is the firm's "most profitable year" ever (2009). Later, I suggest thinking about a way to integrate what you're referring to somewhere else in the article. An entire section would be excessive. Wall St. banks have been paying out large bonuses of decades, some centuries, so this is noting out of the ordinary.—DMCer™ 06:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

if "nobody knows what bonuses" Goldman projects for this year, then its CEO should not have prematurely commented on public reaction to the anticipated bonuses. In early Dec, NYT reported that Goldman set aside an avg. of $700k per employee in bonus pool. I am sure 29-year-old bankers making a million in bonuses work real hard, but so does the guy who works at a gas station and just lost his home. If the already vulnerable latter was punished for gambling, then "record" bonuses for the former is something "out of the ordinary". Unless Goldman has been receiving billions as a result of a bailout by the Fed "for decades, some centuries", this year's bonuses are something "out of the ordinary". Unless Goldman funded subprime mortgages "for decades, some centuries", this year's bonuses are something "out of the ordinary". and just because it has been going on "for decades, some centuries" does not mean, it should not receive special attention today. I would take your point if it were a thing of the past. I am spent, but in a bit, we can further discuss why I don't think the bonuses should be buried in the article and earn a well deserved section under "criticism and controversies". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.35.181 (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The CEO only said that neither the public, nor the employees, will be happy. No one is saying other people don't work as hard, but even though you don't like the bonuses, that doesn't mean it warrants building up the lengthy criticism section. You may want to take a look at WP:NEUTRALITY A company that has repaid government money with interest isn't subjected to any sort of compensation restrictions. There is already a section on subprime sales in the criticism section, which every single large financial institution was involved in. For follow up, let's take this to the talk page instead. Also, SineBot is taking care of it for now, but please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so I know who I'm talking to. Thanks.—DMCer™ 18:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unlike previous decades, this year there is a widespread and well-documented outrage over the anticipated bonuses, and this alone - criticism by the public, the press as well as government officials - warrants a separate section under controversies. I said it will be comprehensive, but it doesn't have to be lengthy. But that's not your main concern, is it? As for neutrality, we can get a wiki editor who is not a Goldman lackey to mediate.

The section on subprime mortgages does not discuss bonuses. bonuses despite gambling, loosing and jeopardizing the entire economy only to be saved by the government is a separate issue. And yes, many financial institutions were involved in it, but my resources are limited, and I can only adequately focus on one institution. Someone else will have to examine the others.

(as an aside, not only is Goldman not "subjected to any sort of compensation restrictions", but such restrictions would be redundant if the government's lawyers pay more attention to Goldman's dealings and work overtime on how to implement steep taxes on bonuses along with the TARP fees to offset the deficit.)

To be continued next week...

xx --67.84.35.181 (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism additions

There's always a tendency for some users (usually new) to add to, or expand, criticism sections of company articles in order to list every detail from every news headline that mentions a company. Many times, this results in WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT, and other violations. For example...

10K press mention

User:Georgeccampbell's addition of the section:

Public Relations Problems Threaten Viability
Under pressure from a whithering (sic) torrent of negative press and government inquiries into its activities, including its role in the 2010 financial collapse in Greece, Goldman Sachs was forced to concede in a 10K filing on March 1, 2010 that negative publicity was a growing threat.

First of all, describing a routine 10K disclosure as, "threatening viability" is illogical. Viability is threatened when the feasibility of a company's business is in doubt. Second, "...was forced to concede..." is both inaccurate and not neutral. No one "forced" the company to list "bad press" as a risk, and it is not a "concession," which suggests the company first denied it. Third, the Greek financial mess is a crisis, not a "collapse," technically speaking. I could go on, but my overall point is that this isn't notable, and certainly not worth a paragraph.

Greece

Regarding User:Leladax's addition of the following:

Hints of intentionally destabilizing the Greek market

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called for a probe on Goldman Sachs after it allegedly first had deals to subsidize Greece debt but later betting against it for profit by stating "obviously using these instruments in a way that intentionally destabilizes a company or country is counterproductive."

First, anytime the words "Hints of..." is used, there's probably a strong case to be made for why the content is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Ben Bernanke did in no way "call for a probe on Goldman Sachs." The direct quote, from the source, is, "We are looking into a number of questions related to Goldman Sachs and other companies and their derivatives arrangements with Greece." Anyone familiar with the Federal Reserve System knows that they "look into" financial transactions made by member banks every single day. Apart from monetary policy, that is one of the Fed's primary responsibilities. Leladax's edit also synthesis information to suit his or her point of view by taking Bernanke's response to a question Sen. Dodd posed (in the source) about institutions in general, not Goldman Sachs, and attributing it to GS. As a side note, "after it allegedly first had deals to subsidize Greece debt but later betting against it for profit" makes no grammatical sense.

While it's obvious Goldman has been mentioned in news stories recently regarding services it provided to Greece, this article should avoid recentism and remain neutral, as nothing worth noting has occurred either way yet.—DMCer™ 06:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Abacus 2007 AC1 and SEC 2010 suit discussion

I have added information about the SEC suit related to the Abacus-2007AC1 and referenced responses from Goldman and third party analysis.Bull Market 04:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving of SEC suit discussion towards top of page

This is about the boldest thing I have even done on wikipedia, but it really makes sense to move the SEC fraud suit up where it's easily found as volume spiked through the roof upon its filing. Tens of thousands of visitors are coming to this page to read about the suit in plain english, not to have to scour to find it. When the visitation volume decreases, then I'll move the discussion back toward the end of the article. Thank you for your indulgence. Bull Market 08:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. As stated in the edit summary, this is blatant recentism", and gives undue weight to the mere fact of a single lawsuit being filed (over what, in terms of financial markets, is a paltry sum – $15 million in fees to Goldman, or $1 billion in losses to major investors). Wikipedia is not a daily newspaper, and should not be writing or rearranging articles to fit the "hot story" du jour. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Fat&Happy: Your argument is sound when you call this "recentism" and apply a Wikipedia standard with a reference. Well done. Your argument is absurd and nearly demonstrates willful blindness if you reduce the impact of the suit to just a 15 million dollar fee and a billion in losses. Goldman investors lost 10 (ten) billion dollars in market capitalization the day the suit was filed, affecting 401K's and mutual fund results for main street investors who are seeking to read about the suit on Wikipedia. 8,000 extra visitors per day are not coming here to read about Mr. Goldman in the 1800's or how Goldman fared during the Great Depression. Rather, they are looking for what Wikipedia is known for-- an easy to find, plain and simple explanation-- this time of the SEC case against Goldman and Goldman's defense. This lawsuit is a top subject on Wall Street, plastered all over the news, heavily discussed in the banking world, stands to make the SEC look bold or bad, is seen by many as raising a question about the very integrity of Goldman (I am not taking a side on this) and plainly driving people to the article (daily traffic is up 500% since the suit was announced). Please don't narrowly define this issue without recognition of the broader context. Thank you.Bull Market 06:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the "broader context," if one considers the nearly 150-year history of the company, moving the suit to the top is about as "recentism" as it gets. I wouldn't call a clear listing of the suit in the table of contents akin to forcing users to "scour" for the information.—DMCer™ 18:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

DMSer, of course it's recentism andI dont contest the reversion on that basis. The dispute under discussion now here was related to what was additionally argued to suggest the topic was relatively unimportant when it is highly important based on the objective facts provided.Bull Market 06:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In furtherance of previous points, now with the criminal probe, the GS stock is down another 15 points, again affecting the 401K's and mutual funds of millions. That's a lot of affect for what some here chalked up as "just a billion dollars". Bull Market 20:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing close to a NPOV

Take the food bubble allegations for example, even the economist calls calls bull.MMMMKKKKQQQQ (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

that is an interesting economist article and so i have tried to add it to the article, instead of deleting it. the fact that there is a debate over it in an esteemed journal like the 'economist' imho makes it sort of notable. thank you. Decora (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Article structure terrible and unreadable---buries important information under a mountain of blather

This article is excessively verbose and wordy. It 'talks over the heads' of the average reader. Fellow editors, I contend that this article needs a complete structural overhaul for readability. It scores very poorly for readability.

I copied the text of the article and pasted it into Microsoft Word 2010, then did a spelling and grammar check with readability analysis. This article scored:

Statistics:

• Words: 8490
• Characters: 45041
• Paragraphs: 345
• Sentences: 295
• Sentences per paragraph: 9.5
• Words per sentence: 25.2
• Characters per word: 5

Readability:

• Passive sentences: 17%
• Flesch reading ease: 32.5%
• Flesch-Kincaid grade level: 14.5

For comparison, I also copy/pasted the Wikipedia article for financial derivatives into Word. Although it is an extremely technical and complex subject matter, it scored 37.6% for Flesch reading ease. And it had many sentence fragments.

The article, as currently structured, buries the most socially, culturally, financially, and factually relevant information under a pile of hodgepodge factoids.

My suggestions: Put the History section later in the article. History section should be in reverse order (most recent first) as that is more readable and promotes the overall readability and flow of the article. Additionally, the order of topics should be rearranged for readability and flow. Rearrange Controversies section in order of most recent first. Add links or explanations of what various banking entities are and what legal and social ramifications they have: for example the bank holding company. What's the importance to finance, access to capital, access to government support, social importance? Add a section about "too big to fail" institutions. What does it mean for ownership, liabilities, and how does GS fit in socially, culturally, financially? Add a section about GS's increasing political profile. What are the political connections between Goldman Sachs and Washington DC politicians, think tanks, and influential news organizations?

As currently structured, this article reads like an excessively wordy, cagey, boring and garbled mish-mash. It isn't terribly informative, even if it contains many facts. This is because it is not readable. I hope not intentionally. Nicklockard (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Levin-Coburn Report moved

I moved the Levin-Coburn Report section into Controversies. Considering the segment's own wording, it certainly isn't worthy of its own section: "The report alleged that Goldman Sachs may have misled investors." The ambiguous wording clearly indicates these "assumptions" are not necessarily true. Until, as the segment also mentions, the report is considered by the DOJ and the insinuations graduate to established known facts, this is controversy. --SentientParadox (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs firing

Found a new source about firing procedures:

• Steinberg, Julie. "At Goldman, You're Fired Gently." FINS. August 2, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Let off paying £10m interest

Is this "Goldman Sachs let off paying £10m interest on failed tax avoidance scheme" article related to the SEC civil fraud lawsuit? I was about to inlucde it as a notable event but don't want to put it in the wrong section! Please excuse my ignorance. Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source explicitly connects the two, I'd say they're unrelated. Lagrange613 15:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Puppet governments

A few words in the article about Goldman Sachs' takeover of Europe would be appropriate.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.53.42 (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Europe - Sponsored by Goldman Sachs. "Marc Roche: Union européenne - Goldman Sachs, la banque qui nous veut du bien. Le Monde, 16 novembre 2011" - here a translation "European Union - Our friends from Goldman Sachs..." http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/1177241-our-friends-goldman-sachs. --80.136.44.158 (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Section Involvement in the European sovereign debt crisis was removed

I edited the section "Greece and European sovereign debt crisis" and turned it into a new section called "Involvement in the European sovereign debt crisis", adding some facts. See my version of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goldman_Sachs&oldid=461555289

This was removed with the following comment:

WP:Coatrack list of names with no demonstrated relevance to section (there IS an alumni section where they may be listed if not already there, though))

I must protest against the removal of this new section. Only a few of the people I mentioned are alumni- Mario Monti (Italys new, unelected Prime Minister), Otmar Issing and Peter Sutherland are listed as still being employed by Goldman Sachs in the source I referenced. What I was doing was not merely pointing out a list of alumni but demonstrating that Goldman Sachs affiliated leaders, economists and politicans are actively serving in very high positions (even as Prime Ministers) and that this is a source of controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.39.129.209 (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Should there be a mention of the Timberwolf deal anywhere - including an entry on the Timberwolf disambiguation page?

I suggest that the Timberwolf deal gets a mention due to both the controversy surrounding it (congressional hearings, allegations of misleading and betting against clients etc.) as well as the lawsuits filed in its wake. There's a pretty long article on Huffington Post on the subject which include a copy of the lawsuit.[3] If included, I would also suggest adding an entry along the line of Timberwolf (Goldman Sachs) on the Timberwolf disambiguation page redirecting to the section.

Mojowiha (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Backpage.com/Village Voice Media controversy

I think we could add a section on the recent controversy with Goldman Sachs' 16% stake in Village Voice Media, owner of Backpage.com which allegedly facilitates human trafficking and, according to this article in the Huffington Post, seems rather unwilling to comply with requests to help stop sex trafficking. I'd like to do a little more research on this matter first, though. Of course, if other, more knowledgeable, editors can help, it'll be greatly appreciated. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dragon Systems Verdict

The controversy section contains a paragraph regarding the lawsuit against Goldman by Dragon Systems. It should probably be updated to reflect the court's recent ruling.

"Goldman cleared of all charges in doomed Dragon sale naresh"

www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/23/goldman-dragon-trial-idUSL1N0ASHU820130123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.142.38 (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Same suggestion (now deleted) from: FactZebra (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done by someone. Swliv (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Aluminum -- and other commodities?

NYTimes here and noted here in July 2013 Swliv (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see also:

• http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/07/21/goldman_sachs_commodities_scam_how_does_it_work.html
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/22/heres-how-goldman-sachs-is-making-your-beer-more-expensive/
• http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/07/goldman-sachs-and-aluminum-warehouses-part-3

Does anyone know whether this has been going on with other commodities or futures contract instruments? 71.215.67.175 (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It takes storage infrastructure to hoard market-swinging quantities of commodities, and it doesn't work well with perishables, but the Koch brothers hoard oil.[4] EllenCT (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest something about this go into the article. Swliv (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Goldman Sach's Growth Environment Score as part of the BRIC report

Does anyone know if this score is estimated on a regular basis. I found this score only for 2005. Are scores for 2006 and 2007 available? Does Goldman Sachs continue estimating this score? Ramil --81.30.149.109 (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)..