Thoughts On The Macroeconomic Impact of Goldman Sachs

By Peter Boone and Simon Johnson

The influential Goldman Sachs economist Jan Hatzius has a new research note out (with Sven Jari Stehn), “Thoughts on the Macroeconomic Impact of Basel III,” arguing that the move to raise capital standards for banks will put a serious crimp in growth in the United States – knocking 1.5 to 2 percent off gross domestic product in the next few years. Their findings are questionable, but in any case we should broaden the discussion to consider exactly how banks like Goldman Sachs affect our macroeconomic dynamics going forward – particularly if they are able to effectively lobby against higher capital. Growth based on risky banking has a tendency to prove illusory.

There are three issues. First, what is the short-term impact of raising capital requirements? Second, how should capital be increased? And third, and perhaps most important, do we really need global banks like Goldman Sachs to operate in their recent “high risk – highly variable returns” mode?

In their note, which is not in the public domain, Mr. Hatzius and Mr. Stehn are willing to acknowledge that raising capital standards can help make banks safer and that this is good for sustained growth over a sufficiently long period of time (think a decade or more), as the Bank for International Settlements suggests. But they make the case that raising capital – at least in the form that this is likely to take place – can slow growth over the next several years.

As they see it, forcing banks to have more capital (as a buffer against losses) relative to assets will increase their cost of capital – leading to higher lending rates and tighter credit standards.

On the merits of this point, Mr. Hatzius and Mr. Stehn unfortunately do not deal with or cite the detailed counter-arguments put forward by Anat Admati, Peter DeMarzo, Martin Hellwig, and Paul Pfeiderer – top finance professors (three at Stanford; Professor Hellwig is at the Max Planck Institute in Bonn), who strongly assert that raising capital requirements would have minimal if any negative effects.

They argue that government subsidies to debt financing of large banks, through tax incentives and implicit guarantees (which relatively penalize equity financing) are inefficient and distortive, and that higher equity levels would reduce this subsidy and lead to fewer distortions in lending decisions.  In particular, Admati and colleagues emphasize that because raising capital requirements makes bank equity less risky and banks less prone to collapse, it lowers the rate of return they are required to seek for equity funding. 

(The perspective here is that everyone is looking for a combination of risk and return – if you offer a safer asset, it is fine with investors if that pays less return; this, in turn, means that bank executives do not need to seek risk so aggressively.)

Mr. Hatzius and Mr. Stehn also overlook the point made persuasively by Anil Kashyap, David Scharfstein and Jeremy Stein (from the University of Chicago, Harvard, and Harvard, respectively) and their co-authors that even if forcing banks to hit a particular capital-asset ratio could be contractionary (because the banks will dump assets), that will not constrain or limit credit.

The Obama administration has had many missteps with regard to banking – and should have run more demanding stress tests in spring 2009 – but there is no question that when the time came to force banks to raise capital, they used the right approach: they told the banks the precise amount, in dollars, that they needed to obtain from private markets (or receive public capital on terms they would not like – including with salary caps.)

But even if Mr. Hatzius and Mr. Stehn prevail on the short-term issues (at least in the corridors of power) and regulators target capital-asset ratios rather than the more sensible Kashyap-Scharfstein-Stein proposal, so what?

The rationale for the capital increase is that in recent years the financial sector imposed massive losses on the rest of society by the mismanagement of credit. If the big banks have become a machine that provides supernormal returns to employees and creditors while causing frequent losses to taxpayers (through the fiscal costs, measured in terms of the increase in net government debt as a result of the recession), savers (because interest rates are cut to zero by the Federal Reserve’s policy response), and their own shareholders in many instances, then reducing the voracity of this machine is for the general good.

Correlations in economic data that suggest higher credit helps “cause” higher growth are not worth much – if they fail to take into account future losses on “bad credit.” If G.D.P. were adjusted with provisions for future losses, G.D.P. growth would be lower during periods where credit grows very fast.

G.D.P. in the United States in real terms is currently at about the same level now as it was in 2006. (Real G.D.P., annualized, was around $12.9 trillion in the first quarter of 2006 and $13.2 trillion in the second quarter of 2010, although this number is still subject to revision; see Table 3B (on Page 19) in the July 2010 report of the Bureau of Economic Analysis). If you expect G.D.P. growth to be weak for the rest of this year – as does Goldman Sachs – and also factor in population growth, which is about 1 percent a year, very soon we will all realize that G.D.P. per capita has actually declined over the past half decade.

If we had stopped the excessive credit growth in the second half of the 2000s, we would have limited the boom – and also removed a lot of the downside damage.

Highly risky, massive global banks that are – post-Lehman – unambiguously “too big to fail” are absolutely not in the social interest. If we give up some short-term illusory growth as a side effect of curtailing their activities, this is a small price to pay.

A version of this post appears this morning on the NYT.com’s Economix; it is used here with permission.  If you would like to republish the entire article, please contact the New York Times.

42 responses to “Thoughts On The Macroeconomic Impact of Goldman Sachs

  1. I think it boils down to this fact: America will not have a healthy and sustainable economy until we rebuild our manufacturing base. How can we do that??

    Well first it might be a good idea to create jobs and facilitate jobs which produce something which is short in supply in the market. What is one of the things in short supply on the market now??? A big and important one: Rare earth minerals/Neodymium.

    In fact we have a place in America (more than one actually) 60 miles west of Las Vegas that can supply these rare earth minerals to the market (the market hopefully being mostly our own U.S. Military). Coincidentally, you have a huge amount of people in Nevada and specifically Las Vegas with no jobs, no employment and having their houses foreclosed on as I’m typing this.

    If we have another fiscal spending package sometime soon (as we should since when it is targeted in the correct sectors and industries it can be a huge help to the economy, especially targeted in long-term demand industries and needs), why not choose to spend those fiscal dollars in area of high need/short supply that benefits America economically and militarily??? These rare earth metals (like Neodymium) are very important in many of our U.S. Military components, as you can see in this very educational news video from Bloomberg (please excuse the 30 second advertisement at the start).

    http://www.bloomberg.com/video/63400346/

    Instead of spending on projects like new sidewalks in places that already have sidewalks, or Museums and public works that nobody uses so Republican Dick Shelby can say he has done one thing more than kiss the as*hole of the ABA(American Banker’s Association), or give QE which sits in the bank reserves collecting dust until they can find some poor uneducated sap to get an ARMS loan with a monstrous rate so they can suck his blood until he defaults………… How about instead Geithner, Jacob Lew, etc… showing a little long term vision???

    And if Republicans don’t want to vote for it, put it up on the floor for a vote anyway, and let the Republicans explain to Americans why they didn’t vote for it. I don’t think Republicans want to explain that “nay” vote. Eventually if Senators and Congressman don’t do the above (maybe not that specifically, but in a general way) I can say it won’t be many years before Congressman better have a very good, and I mean very good PSD.

  2. Oh dear, so the move to raise capital standards for banks might knock 1.5 to 2 percent off gross domestic product in the next few years.

    Gee, I wonder what specific sector of the economy might suffer the brunt of that falloff in economic growth? Hmmm, let me think who might stand to lose most from the higher capital standards. Hmmmm.

  3. Sufferin' Succotash

    Here’s how Republicans would “explain” voting against a bill to jump-start American industry:
    “Look over here, folks, Shar’ia law is taking over America!!”

  4. Let’s see…

    Low regulatory capital requirements -> speculative boom/bust -> taxpayer bailout. Net effect: Massive wealth transfer to bankers.

    High regulatory capital requirements -> less bank lending -> slow economic growth -> Fed holds short-term rates at zero -> banks borrow from Fed at 0% and buy Treasuries. Net effect: Massive wealth transfer to bankers.

    The system is arranged (designed?) such that no matter what happens, the least productive and most parasitical class in our society — the financiers — eventually accumulate all of the wealth for doing precisely nothing. Impressive, in a way.

  5. How we measure economic activity is flawed: GDP included extractive economic activity. We need to seaparate out the two components of the GDP: EDP (extractive domestic product) and CNP (constructive domestic product). EDP must be kept as low as possible, while CNP growth should be maintained at a (hopefully) sustainable level in the 1-2% once we reach ‘full’ employment. Finance, capital gains, insurance: EDP. Manufacturing, construction, writing and programming (for non-extractive purposes): CNP.

  6. It should not be difficult to produce a study that shows how detrimental Goldman Sachs is to the U.S. economy.

  7. “Extractive domestic product” – very good name-calling – precise.

    Look, it’s all a head game. “They” proclaimed themselves the smartest people on the planet, and therefore, GODS of the $$$$. Everyone else is too stupid to know how to create EDP.

    The REALITY is that they are no better morally, politically, or mathematically :-)

    than the armed criminals roaming Africa who pick an unarmed agricultural village, camp out on the outskirts of the village watching and waiting for the fruits of someone else’s labor to ripen, be harvested, and secured in the food bank

    at which point in time, they ambush the village, kill everybody, and then live in splendor off the booty they stole.

    Yes, a harsh assessment when “plain speak” and “common sense” are the judges of the situation.

    No one, and I mean no one, has another bottom line of the situation other than massive theft.

    Constitutional Convention – it’s time.

    Spaceship Earth is TRASHED – how “smart” was that?

  8. Does anyone else wonder if Annie is ghostwriting Sarah Palin’s tweets???

  9. jeff simpson

    She hasn’t used the word refudiate even once.

  10. Weak capital standards for the banking oligopoly + Quantitative Easing by the government sympathetic to the banks = wealth inflation for the few who hog the wealth + de facto inflation (not recognized fully since the Boskin Commission) for the rest of us + currency wars that will incite political irrationalism ever more, feeding back to . . . more of all of the above (plus bailouts for the oligopolies) via the inevitable next crisis, with a Tea Bag garnish and a predictive voucher from Jamie Dimon. Factor in more war from the Mideast plus oil spikes and you have the formula for the next act in the farce. Enjoy!

  11. Gov. Christie just cancelled the tunnel project. He doesn’t seem to support infrastructure spending. I think he wants fiscal austerity – make little people suffer.

  12. How about 100% reserve banking and elimination of the Fed. Then we wouldn’t need a TARP. This is all fraud by central banks and their owners.

    The Republic will not be a republic until it takes back the money power.

    Trade policy. It would be better to go back to a closed economy with 100+% tariffs where we grew based on productivity and population growth. We are a debtor trade country and would benefit from a trade war.

    We have experienced 40 years where a small few have been enriched by dissipating the wealth of a nation through harmful monetary and trade policies.

    Mr. Johnson is just parroting a more benign version of a terrible cancer on the US economy.

  13. Re: @ Glen___The governor is correct – being a transplant from my hometown Boston, I remember the infamous, “Boston Big Dig”? Yes, it put people too work…but let us not forget that the corruption of “Bid Rigging” put the state in the a financial hole, never mind the Federal Government humongous cost/time overrun to pay for this half-ass project! “The Fishbowl that almost sunk into Quincy Bay”?

  14. “How about 100% reserve banking and elimination of the Fed. Then we wouldn’t need a TARP. This is all fraud by central banks and their owners.”

    I couldn’t agree more. Absolute fraud. And all the widely published economists just go along to get along, including Mr. Johnson, Mr. Krugman, and Mr. Reich.

    All of them apparently are afraid to state the obvious: the Emperor has no clothes.

  15. Today I had a great day!

    For someone who since 1997 has been opposing the regulatory paradigm used by the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision, even as an Executive Director of the World Bank 2002-2004, today was a great day.

    As a member of Civil Society, whatever that now means, at a City Society Town-hall Meeting during the 2010 Annual Meetings, I had the opportunity to pose the following question to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, and to Robert B. Zoellick, the President of the World Bank:

    “Right now, when a bank lends money to a small business or an entrepreneur it needs to put up 5 TIMES more capital than when lending to a triple-A rated clients. When is the World Bank and the IMF speak out against such odious discrimination that affects development and job creation, for no good particular reason since bank and financial crisis have never occurred because of excessive investments or lending to clients perceived as risky?”

    Dominique Strauss-Kahn answered in no uncertain terms that “capital requirement discrimination has no reason to be” and Robert B. Zoellick agreed and pointed to what he has done in order to diminish the regulatory discrimination against trade finance.

    The question that now floats around there out in the open, is what the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the supreme global regulatory authority, has to say about that, because bank capital requirement discriminations based on perceived risks is precisely the heart and soul of their regulatory paradigm… without that they have nothing!

  16. Bayard Waterbury

    Simon and Peter, nice and thorough analysis. I say amen, my friends. However, this is but one item on a vast agenda which is challenging us to question the government’s capture by the plutocracy, in our nation of hyper oligarchic control, in which ideas constructive to the general weal are substantially suppressed, and defeated even before consideration. There is always a bout of quick lip service paid to all sensible measures, then these things are rapidly set aside by a complicit media machine only to be replaced with the incessant blather which is its preoccupation.

    Just this week it has been revealed that a substantial percentage of the mortgages, when scrutinized legally do not pass muster on enforceability. Guess what, we are now talking about further toxifying the assets that have been taken over from the banks by Fannie, Freddie and the FED. So, the taxpayers asset “coffers” are now filled with nothing but rotting sludge. This is money which is being destroyed by the failure of oversight to catch the underpinnings of greed. From my perspective, it becomes harder each day to imagine how America can survive itself with a government so completely captured.

  17. The B.I.S itself published studies in August
    proving the contrary:Assessment of the macroeconomic impact of stronger capital and liquidity requirements
    http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs173.htm, to debunk the claim
    of the banking lobbyists

  18. And because an infrastructure project failed all infrastructure projects are bad.

    If people thought like that we’d still be driving in dirt roads.

  19. There is an all too common misconception regarding who is controlling whom in this country. This lack of understanding stems from thinking of our circumstances as being detached from the global economy, with an outdated viewpoint. A viewpoint which is understandable considering how quickly the world is changing, but a misleading an errant view nonetheless.

    The most critical national objective of our time is that of establishing global market share. This quest is like that of establishing domain over markets much the same as when miners stake a claim on a potential site for mining. The US government therefore is little different than the governments of colonial times. And its objective runs parallel to that of the financial services sector and to that of all MNCs. So even though it may seem that financiers have ‘captured’ the government, that is only an illusion caused by the common objective of gaining advantages over competitor nations and of foreign financiers, and of foreign-based MNCs.

    The power and control in the US is in fact firmly in the grasp of the segment of the population that predominantly exercises its voting rights. Accordingly, our democracy is functioning just as it was designed to function. The difference though is that the investment-class has grown to such an extent, with its propensity to include those who vote in overwhelming numbers, that each of the dominant political parties have shifted their platforms to accommodate this critical voting bloc. And so… with roughly half of the population deriving direct benefits from investing, the objective of gaining global market-share runs parallel for not only the government and the MNCs, but also for the entire investment-class. Consequently, the US is not controlled by an ‘oligarchy’, but instead by an unprecedented form of democratic tyranny. This being a necessary arrangement to enable a collective form of neocolonialism that could not exist if the spoils were not being shared with a large enough voting bloc. Plus, it wise to consider, that democratic policies are shaped as much by a lack of dissent, as policies are shaped by all else.

    The social turmoil during the Viet Nam era made it perfectly obvious that global domination would require two crucial changes in our social engineering:

    1) A much larger segment of the population must benefit from global hegemony so as to align political mandates with the objectives of neocolonialism (global market-share).

    2) The remaining population must be allowed fewer options and opportunities so as to present military service as a more attractive alternative. This downgrading of wages and options for the working-class was of course also consistent with the need to improve our competitive standing in the global markets. (This reasoning is however diluted somewhat by the fact that for US exports to be more competitive, the incomes of all US citizens should have been equally stagnant. But of course that would not allow a larger segment of the population to be brought into the compliant fold of the investment-class).

    The social engineering of an imperialist democracy is fairly easy to understand in retrospect, but a very complex combination of dynamics were required to configure the population in its current form. But there is no oligarchy in the USA, what exists instead is much more powerful, dangerous, self-serving and exploitative, and harmful, and with the potential to be much worse than it is as resources become increasingly scarce. And to blame an ‘oligarchy’ is not simply misleading… it is irresponsible squared.

    Ray L-Love

  20. A clear and compelling argument. The other flaw in the Goldman case is an assumption that banks are the only source of credit. Surely one consequence of higher capital ratios for banks will be a shift towards financial intermediation through the bond market. This shift is most visible in corporate borrowing. It seems naive to assume that credit can only be intermediated through the balance sheets of large and unstable banks.

  21. I already mentioned and don’t pretend you don’t know,

    dumbing down a consistent message “captured” off public internet blogs written as a PERSONAL opinion – mine –

    is done all the time – isn’t it? How else to control the masses other than to steal the identity of REAL people?

    I stand by THE FACTS of both the armed Africans waiting until after the harvest to kill the “labor”

    and the FACT that Russian is rated below Namibia as a country that is Female-friendly.

    Bolsheviks lived for 70 years off the accumulated agricultural harvest of Mother Russia after they “killed the Czar and his ministers”…hard to refudiate :-))

    I never had a shaman sprinkle me with magik juju chants and pixie dust to protect me from bad vibes like yours, Ted K – should I start?

  22. oh, and Liz liked the “picture”, but at least added her own touch to it – calling the “fine print” in contracts “muggers” hiding in the bushes – seems she agrees, in “principle” – lol

    Which reminded me of the time back in the early 1970s when I should have been on the upper deck of the Washington Bridge instead of the lower deck

    and took a wrong exit

    the dark, trashed exit was blocked halfway around the turn by a “speed bump” of garbage tires, and when I stopped the car to consider my options, muggers DID start coming out from the bushes…a car still can be quite a “weapon”…

    So that’s our “economy” in a nutshell, one wrong turn, a neglected infrastructure, and there’s the bottom rung who is made of the same stuff as the top rung

    waiting to enforce:

    More misery for others = More money for ME ME ME

  23. Re: @ Kyriakos____I’m sorry for being so crass…it just upsets me when hard earned monies are taxed on the average day drone to pay for “Postponed/Perpetuated Delayed Projects” of such importance. Its been a century, and now they want to build? Why is it always the same scenario thoughout our entire country – so dire,so misguided…when monies for these projects were funded decades ago, if not longer. Why? The politicians spend it on their lobbyist cronies useless special (pet) projects, with absolutely no meaningful social or tangible public benefits! Where did all the special taxes (road/gasoline taxes/ matching gov’t funds…toll collection,etc.,etc.,) go, when specifically (ten years on the drawing board?) earmarked for projects like NJ? I’m as frustrated as you…but you have no ideal of the eventual cost of a project like this with the eventual employment of ( whopping) ~6k workers – which to me is miniscule in proportion to the demographics. Lastly, every state in the nation deserves a project as NJ’s that should cost upwards of $20bn – now time that, times 50 states which equates to ~$100bn+/+, employing approx. (to be kind) 600 thousand over “Five Years”?

  24. uh oh, Per, the drama is building – although what is wrong with looking at the USA as an “emerging economy”?

    Waterbury, “But there is no oligarchy in the USA, what exists instead is much more powerful, dangerous, self-serving and exploitative, and harmful, and with the potential to be much worse than it is as resources become increasingly scarce.”

  25. I don’t think you realize how important that tunnel is. Christie is just being an ass. If you want to bitch about cost over-runs, why don’t you complain about military spending?

  26. Can I have some of what you are smoking? The bankster class are parasites. Can you tell me what good they do that they are worth the immense sums they pay themselves?

  27. Same old, same old, all regulation, compliance with law, and taxation will erode jobs and GDP. They must believe that the public is ignorant. Never was a job created before the Bush years of deregulation and detaxation.
    Get real; modernly, Bush has the lowest job creation on record. He created a net of 3 + million jobs and left us with a huge budget deficit based on low taxes and increase spending. The $2-trillion surplus in Social Security has been used to fund the Republican tax cuts for years, beginning with St Reagan and his huge increase in Social Security contributions.
    Massive job losses have occurred because of the likes of GS and their debt fueled bubble. So many of the large investment banks funneled money to mortgage brokers, owned mortgage brokers and sucked money out of the economy while creating a real estate bubble. Their leverage limits of 30-40 to 1 were created as the begged at the foot of the SEC, led by Bush’s future treasury secretary.
    Wall Street cheered as more and more good paying American jobs were outsourced. They claim that they support free markets and yet demand taxpayer guarantees for their investments, no bid taxpayer paid government contracts, low taxes for themselves and austerity for the rest of us.
    Their greed knows no bounds; they only act in their own self interest. When we try to defend ourselves against their predation, we are accused of “glass warfare”. Why should we ever believe them?

  28. Calvin,

    I did not suggest that bankers are not parasites.

  29. Hey Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle. Cool links :)

    Quote: “Health care reform will destroy America by defunding the military. No European socialist country has any military to speak of, because they can’t afford it. America spend $650 billion a year on the military.”

  30. Re: @ Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle___I have complained about the “Military Complex Machine” running this country into the ground with the fear-mongering for decades! Never once clearing leather these gun toting “Chicken Hawks” we call our “Fearless Leaders”!____”morrow upon morrow…abstract contumely cascading from the tongues of Babylon – crushing pillars of esoteric freedom chisled only by the populus myrmidon – plagarizing the flag of thy kingdoms blood – thrust into a vortex of compressed conformity at thous own peril?”____ This has been a country of man-made wars for several decades, and look what our grandiose leaders have squandered,…eg. F-22 Raptor Fighter (WWWIII Stealth? Designed/Designated)Jets @ $260ml x 277 units ~= $72bn. / F-35 Fighter Jets @ $130ml x +/- 300units ~= $39bn., and the list goes on! PS. Do you really want to get angry/frustrated? The United States has sold F-18’s / F-35’s to Saudi Arabia, and Israel to protect them from Iran? Lastly…we train the Afghanistan’s, Pakistan’s, Saudi’s, Isralites, Indian’s, Brazilian’s,…etc.,etc., in our flight schools here on every major US Airforce Base located in the United States, and territories to fly ,and kill with these beastly warcraft as I write. Remember…it is subsidized by our gov’t, and sold at a profit by a private entity sanctioned by Uncle Sam! :^(

  31. The only strange thing I find missing here is the finnishing touches/label for “Wall Street”…that is to say…”Made-in-China, from the original building blocks of The Great Wall? Thankyou Simon and James, and yours truly contributing, Mr. Peter Boone :-))

  32. Of course it is “class” warfare! The useless parasite-infesting psychotics (war lords and drug lords)

    vs.

    the PRODUCERS of the wealth – the Middle Class – that they are now telling us were too stupid in the first place to “create” the wealth that they are stealing!

    It’s a sick head game that psychos play – as soon as they really realize that you no longer believe them or fear them

    they WILL cold-blooded kill you – or send in an army of sadistic hooligans to do it for them…

    This situation has every potential for getting really ugly for ONE big reason – MSM does NOT report on the NEWS of what is happening – FOR REAL, are they?

    Look at the slate of NON-serious people rising up through “secret” funding political campaigns – are THEY the best of 1000 “average” NORMAL MIDDLE CLASS people?! Total fruit loops – it’s insulting.

    Constitutional Convention and BURN a copy of The Patriot Act to start it off – the SYMBOLISM is CLEAR.

    This still is USA and it is our LEGAL and MORAL option to have a Convention – especially when looking at the “candidates” put forward by god-knows-who’s $$$ – bunch of Nihilists…

  33. earle, I respectfully submit that when you are on a roll with your poetry, rather than use the dash, hit the enter to start a new line. It would make it easier for me. Love your comments.

  34. Re: @ hermanas___Sorry, but I type with one finger only, and my computer is old…not to mention I’m computer illiterate. I submit my work in handprinting once edited, finally having to use my typewriter to establish my hardcopy. I’m to old to learn new tricks – the old dog is tired, and reserves his habits for better or worse excepting his frailities with subtle dignity? PS. `But’…I have learned the usefullness of having a printer for backup files. I leave the format at the publishers descretion, not to mention the spelling errors? Oh, by the way …do you like your sentences running, or paragraphs sunny-side up? I’m good at both. ;-)

  35. Maybe we can create more jobs in “financial services” if USA citizens get access to the banking records of people living in India and China and set up call centers in Detroit or Idaho so that USA people can call them over there about their late payments?

    :-)

    Symbolic burning of The Patriot Act – yes, printing out a copy to burn is killing a few trees, but the ends justifies the means.

  36. theotherguydidit

    Burn the bankers and be done with it.

    A dozen a week, until they see the error of their ways and repent.

    Then we can discuss capital requirements.

  37. Bruce E. Woych

    cayman islands

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/12/30/81465/goldmans-offshore-deals-deepened.html

    among others:
    Goldman takes on new role: taking away people’s homes
    Goldman left foreign investors holding the subprime bag
    Why did blue-chip Goldman take a walk on subprime’s wild side?
    Goldman’s chief executive apologizes for part in fiscal crisis
    Under fire, Goldman scraps cash bonuses for executives
    Goldman Sachs chief will face bipartisan financial crisis panel
    How Moody’s sold its ratings and sold out investors

    Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/12/30/81465/goldmans-offshore-deals-deepened.html#ixzz12BjlRcgu

  38. Bruce E. Woych

    so much wasted space here; I thought the quest was to assess the macro/micro relations of GS = assets of global securities and GS = asses pf global insecurities?

    well if anyone cares to evaluate the team spirit of GS:

    “Goldman Sachs people”

    The following 65 pages are in this category, out of 65 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
    A

    * Bernard W. Aronson
    * Cliff Asness

    B

    * Fischer Black
    * Erin Burnett

    C

    * Mark Carney
    * Abby Joseph Cohen
    * Gary Cohn
    * Michael Cohrs
    * E. Gerald Corrigan
    * Jon Corzine
    * Jim Cramer

    D

    * Emanuel Derman
    * William C. Dudley

    F

    * J. Christopher Flowers
    * Randall M. Fort
    * Henry H. Fowler
    * Stephen Friedman (PFIAB)

    G

    * Gary Gensler
    * Alexis Glick
    * Marcus Goldman
    * Gus Levy

    H

    * Charlie Haas

    H cont.

    * Jan Hatzius
    * Thomas J. Healey
    * Jim Himes
    * Robert Hormats

    J

    * Reuben Jeffery III
    * Suzanne Nora Johnson

    K

    * Neel Kashkari
    * Paul Kazarian

    L

    * Edward Lampert
    * Laurene Powell
    * Edward M. Liddy
    * Amber Liu

    M

    * Clifton Maloney
    * Chris Meek
    * Andrea Miller
    * R. Scott Morris

    N

    * Jim Neal

    O

    * Jim O’Neill (economist)
    * Richard Ong

    P

    * Henry Paulson
    * Eugene Plotkin
    * Dina Powell

    R

    * Eileen Clarkin Rominger
    * Jack Ryan (politician)

    S

    * Samuel Sachs
    * Mark Sanford
    * Jeffrey W. Schroeder
    * Peter Sutherland

    T

    * David Tepper
    * John Thain
    * John L. Thornton
    * William Toy

    V

    * David Viniar

    W

    * Sushil Wadhwani
    * George Herbert Walker IV
    * John Weinberg
    * Peter Weinberg
    * Sidney Weinberg
    * John C. Whitehead
    * Meg Whitman
    * Robin Wiessmann
    * Jon Winkelried

    Z

    * Robert Zoellick

    Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Goldman_Sachs_people”
    Categories: People by company | Goldman Sachs

  39. Re: @ Bruce E. Woych____Great digging…Thanks! PS. Here’s another thing that bothers me…no, I’m sorry that’s the wrong word – irritates me. My irrational mind has flipped-flopped to a rational mass of boiling grey matter – how, now that Goldman Sachs can borrow (o% int.) at the “Fed’s Handicap Drive-by-Window” knowing all too well that the Nat’t. Debt is currently close to surpassing $14tn ? Let’s do some quick arithmetic shall we – I’ll start by dividing America’s ~315ml population into the Nat’t.Debt ($14tn.+/+) and we come up with ~$44.5k debt/citizen! The ironic, and laughable fact being…how truly and, amazingly generous our U.S. Gov’t/ U.S. Treasury/ Central Bank (Fed Reserve System), and certainly not to forget the TBTF’s. Their bizzarro altruism…so willing and able too extend to all american’s…an, invisable “Line-of-Credit” for the benefit of the few in broad daylight?

  40. A thorough dissection of macroeconomics and banking world. Certainly throws light on  the capital generating and raising in the economy

  41. Not only is the Basel Committee wrong and counterfactual when it so odiously discriminates based on the perceived risk of default they are also grossly negligent when calculating the risk-weights http://bit.ly/bBx9Nd

    All of its members and professionals should be forced to parade down a canyon of the inept… wearing cones of shame!