Could somebody point to an article that explains the Goldman Sachs/Fed ties?

[Brian Defferding]

I want to point out to those summoning the lynching mob at Goldman Sachs in another forum just how much of an enabler the Federal Reserve was to them.

Thanks in advance RPForums! :D

[bobbyw24]

http://www.ny.frb.org/markets/Forms_of_Fed_Lending.pdf

[bobbyw24]

Some have cited, although incorrectly as others have noted,[92] that Goldman Sachs received preferential treatment from the government by being the only Wall Street firm to have participated in the crucial September meetings at the New York Fed, which decided AIG's fate. Much of this has stemmed from an inaccurate but often quoted New York Times article. The article was later corrected to state that Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, was "'one of the Wall Street chief executives at the meeting" (emphasis added). Bloomberg has also reported that representatives from other firms were indeed present at the September AIG meetings.[93] Furthermore, Goldman Sachs CFO David Viniar has stated that CEO Blankfein had never met with his predecessor and then-US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to discuss AIG;[94] Paulson was not present at the September meetings at the New York Fed. It is also a lesser known fact that Morgan Stanley was hired by the Federal Reserve to advise them on the AIG bailout.[95]

According to the New York Times, Paulson spoke with the CEO of Goldman Sachs two dozen times during the week of the bailout, though he obtained a ethics waiver before doing so.[96] While it is common for regulators to be in contact with market participants to gather valuable industry intelligence, particularly in a crisis, the Times noted he spoke with Goldman's Blankfein more frequently than with other large banks. Federal officials say that although Paulson was involved in decisions to rescue A.I.G, it was the Federal Reserve that played the lead role in shaping and financing the A.I.G. bailout.[96]

Former New York Fed Chairman's ties to the firm

In May 2009, it was reported that the Chairman of the New York Fed, Stephen Friedman, was a former director at, and shareholder of, Goldman Sachs, having retired from the firm in 1994 and retained substantial stock.[97] The controversy and criticism caused by what was seen as a conflict of interest between Friedman's new role as supervisor and regulator to Goldman Sachs (due to its conversion from securities firm to a bank holding company), and, in particular, his purchase of shares in the firm when it traded at historical lows in Q4 2008, forced him to resign on May 7, 2009. Although Friedman's purchases of Goldman stock did not violate any Fed rule, statute, or policy, he stated that the Fed did not need this distraction. He also claims his purchases, made while approval of a waiver was pending, were motivated by a desire to demonstrate confidence in the company during a time of market distress.[98]

Friedman was named Chairman of the New York Fed in January 2008. However, Goldman's conversion to bank holding company in September 2008 meant it was now regulated by the Fed and not the SEC. When it became apparent that Timothy Geithner, then-New York Fed president would leave his role at the Fed and become Treasury Secretary, a temporary one-year waiver of a rule was granted to Friedman that would otherwise forbid Fed board members from direct interest with those it regulated ('class C' directors).

Friedman therefore agreed to remain on the board until the end of 2009 to provide continuity in the wake of the turmoil caused by Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy. Had the waiver not been granted, the New York Fed would have lost both its president and its chairman (or Friedman would have had to divest his Goldman shares).[97] This would have been highly disruptive for the New York Fed's role in the capital markets, and Friedman claims he agreed to stay on the NY Fed board out of a sense of public duty, but that his decision was "being mischaracterised as improper".[99]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs#Final_AIG_meetings_on_September_15_a t_the_New_York_Federal_Reserve

[Brian Defferding]

Thanks Bobby. So it's pretty clear now that the Federal Reserve's bailouts were never actually needed to avoid potential bankruptcy, right?

[bobbyw24]

In a story that is sure to infuriate you, ZeroHedge lays out the sordid story of how Goldman continues to rake in "billions in "profits" which is nothing else than money stolen from the future of America's workers" and why their partners in crime, the Federal Reserve should either be put under the control of the Treasury, as the American Monetary Act proposes or done away with entirely, as proposed by Freedom's Vision plan.

One of the most botched cases of conflict of interest abuse by a Federal Reserve official will forever remain the purchase of Goldman Sachs shares by Goldman Board Member, and FRBNY Board Member (the squid likes to keep its Federal Reserve puppets closely supervised) Stephen Friedman: an act strictly forbidden by the Fed itself. The action was so indefensible it led to Friedman's quitting shortly after disclosure of his transgression leaked. Yet the reasons why Friedman managed to effect this purchase of 37,000 shares of GS on December 17, 2008 is because he was granted a "waiver" by the Fed. A month ago, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Edolphus Towns sent a rather angry letter demanding an explanation from Ben Bernanke why he had allowed this blatant case of semi-insider trading to occur at the highest echelons of shadow government. Today, we find out that Towns is unhappy with the production provided by the Fed, and concludes "that senior officials had misgivings about granting the waiver but were ultimately overruled" and that "we believe a closer examination of this issue is necessary, especially when Congress is considering increasing the Fed’s powers.

http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2010/04/goldman-and-fed-thick-as-thieves.html.

[emazur]

This isn't explicitly about Goldman/Fed ties, but such ties are covered, and I consider this article by Eliot Spitzer to be one of 2009's "must read" articles:
http://www.slate.com/id/2217811/

So who selected Geithner back in 2003? Well, the Fed board created a select committee to pick the CEO. This committee included none other than Hank Greenberg, then the chairman of AIG; John Whitehead, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs; Walter Shipley, a former chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, now JPMorgan Chase; and Pete Peterson, a former chairman of Lehman Bros. It was not a group of typical depositors worried about the security of their savings accounts but rather one whose interest was in preserving a capital structure and way of doing business that cried out for—but did not receive—harsh examination from the N.Y. Fed.

The composition of the New York Fed's board, which supervises the organization and current Chairman Friedman, is equally troubling. The board consists of nine individuals, three chosen by the N.Y. Fed member banks as their own representatives, three chosen by the member banks to represent the public, and three chosen by the national Fed Board of Governors to represent the public. In theory this sounds great: Six board members are "public" representatives.

So whom have the banks chosen to be the public representatives on the board during the past decade, as the crisis developed and unfolded? Dick Fuld, the former chairman of Lehman; Jeff Immelt, the chairman of GE; Gene McGrath, the chairman of Con Edison; Ronay Menschel, the chairwoman of Phipps Houses and also, not insignificantly, the wife of Richard Menschel, a former senior partner at Goldman. Whom did the Board of Governors choose as its public representatives? Steve Friedman, the former chairman of Goldman; Pete Peterson; Jerry Speyer, CEO of real estate giant Tishman Speyer; and Jerry Levin, the former chairman of Time Warner. These were the people who were supposedly representing our interests!

[bobbyw24]

Goldman Sachs Scams-R-Us: SEC & Congress Culpable
by DAVID DEGRAW (GLOBAL RESEARCH)

(April 28, 2010) Not only did Goldman Sachs profit on betting against CDOs they designed to fail; more importantly, they insured them through AIG which led to a $182 billion taxpayer bailout.

Have you heard the news? It's everywhere! The SEC and Congress have all of a sudden sprung to life and are now "getting tough" on Goldman Sachs.

Is this all the first phase of a long-awaited investigation that will reveal the causes of our current economic crisis, or is this just more show trials and psychological operations designed to manipulate public opinion and make the American people feel that our elected officials are finally standing up to their campaign funders on Wall Street?

First off, let's address these SEC charges against Goldman Sachs. At first glance you might think, oh big deal, this is just a minor civil suit that only indicts a low-level Goldman employee.

Goldman will just throw some money at it and it will most likely go away. After all, Wall Street firms have already thrown over $430 billion out to derail 1500 cases against them, so what will make this any different?

We are also left wondering, if the SEC was serious about this case, why aren't they investigating and prosecuting John Paulson and top Goldman executives under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statutes?

Even the NY Times reported that top executives were involved in the process.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=46&contentid=6861

[bobbyw24]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2691965#post2691965