Goldman Sachs ponders $1bn charity donation

Telegraph UK ^ | 13 Oct 2009 | James Quinn

[opentalk]

Goldman Sachs is considering donating in excess of $1bn (£627m) to charity in an attempt to quell the growing furore over the likely size of its 2009 bonus pot. The investment bank which is set to report its results for the three months to September on Thursday, is understood to be giving serious thought to some form of large philanthropic donation.

The aim of the donation, first disclosed by Henry Blodget's Business Insider blog, would be to deflect the likely row come at the end of the year. By then Goldman's total compensation pot is expected to be a record $22bn, delivering average pay and bonuses of more than $700,000 per employee, higher even than the average $661,000 paid out in 2007 – its last record year. The bank's partner managing directors – a top-tier of approximately 300 senior bankers who tend to be its biggest money-earners – are believed to be discussing the plan as one of a number of ways of deflecting political and investor backlash over the eventual size of the bonus pool.

[cranked]

How about provide a bailout to the American people since you know, we bailed you out and all..... =.=

[DonaldC]

interesting.

[jwalsh07]

Must be a good year for fleecing suckers.

[Callahan]

How about the “Rush Limbaugh NFL Bid Legal Defense Fund.” That ought to irk a few DUers.

[pnh102]

Why are these welfare queens still in business... on OUR dime.

[MHGinTN]

Just how much HAS GS given to ACORN in teh last ten years?

[freekitty]

Is Acorn the recipient of our money?

[opentalk]

Why are these welfare queens still in business... on OUR dime.

I guess the pay czar doesn't apply to them. They should be audited along with the FED.

[Need4Truth]

Send a check to every tax payer as a think-you for bailing them out. That would be what? Maybe 10 bucks each. Wow, I’d forgive them of their fraud. (sarc)

[Will88]

Will Hank Paulson be getting a bonus this year?

[org.whodat]

The thing Goldman's president and board needs to cure their problem:

[pnh102]

I guess the pay czar doesn't apply to them. They should be audited along with the FED.

I still believe that had all these companies simply been allowed to fail, there would be few long term negative impacts on the economy.

[Freddd]

Redistribution of wealth.

[edcoil]

Only if the stock price goes up. A Board has fiscal responsibility to increase stock to share holders.

[originalbuckeye]

Timmy Geithner making sure that his company gets money AND still pays out what it wants to in bonuses. Where’s Zero’s Pay Czar when you need him?

[paul51]

how about giving it back to the people you stole it from

[6SJ7]

Wait’ll the rat bastards cash in on being the broker for the Cap & Trade scam.

[Lancey Howard]

I shoulda been an “investment banker”.

[TopQuark]

"How about provide a bailout to the American people"

How do you know that the recipients of the charity are not Americans?

As fat as I remember, GS did not need a bailout but, just as the other banks, had no choice in the matter.

[opentalk]

how about giving it back to the people you stole it from

I don't know if this is the most corrupt administration or I just wasn't paying attention before.

[StolarStorm]

This makes no sense at all.

Two groups are getting fleeced (and in this case WE are both groups): The shareholders and the US GOV. Return that Billion to the US and shareholders...not pet charities.

Giving out huge bonuses to most of the same Aholes that screwed the pooch in the first place is insane. Many of these crooks should be in jail for commodities manipulation (crude), not be getting bonuses.

[StolarStorm]

This is the most corrupt, followed by the Bush admin. Bush himself wasn't corrupt, but the people he put in charge of the SEC and other regulatory orgs, turned a blind eye to lots of things. And I bet most are now working for the people they were supposed to be watching.

Before I get flamed by the "knee jerk republicans are always perfect" types, consider several things; 1) SEC was warned about Madoff during Bush years, 2) The massive amount of fraudulent mortgage securities occurred during Bush's admin, 3) Commodities manipulation causing 150 crude occurred during Bush admin

If we want a strong party we have to recognize our faults, and not play the same game the democrats to.. "defend the indefensible". WE hold our own accountable!

[GeronL]

ACORN?
Organizing for America?

What leftwing organizations will they be donating it to?

[GeronL]

The massive amount of fraudulent mortgage securities occurred during Bush's admin

The Bush admin tried to fix it several times only to be rebuffed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd

[cranked]

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-goldman-sachs-wins-big-in-secret-bailout-via-aig-2009-3

[TopQuark]

I don't know why you would post a link to a nonsensical paper without making a comment: does that vitriol constitute a self-evident truth to you? Just look at this "logic".

"In case you were wondering where on earth all that money went..."

AIG owed money to various lenders --- that is why its bankruptcy posed a SYSTEMIC risk. It has used bailout money to pay those lenders, as intended by the bailout. Yes, the money WENT to banks, including GS. What's the problem?

"Goldman Sachs Wins Big"

Goldman did not win anything; AIG owed Goldman $13B, and it simply got its money back. The author lacks basic intellectual honesty.

And continues with more of the same. This conclusion is absolutely unrelated to whatever he wrote before; he simply plugs in something new as if it followed from the foregoing: "By now, however, one thing should be clear: The government's decision to bail out AIG on the terms it did was a colossal mistake."

Whether the bailout was a mistake has nothing to do with the foregoing, where the author has insinuated something nefarious ("secret" bailout, "wins big").

Only an ignorant person can claim that the bailout of AIG for a "clear" mistake. And the author does not even provide a shred of reasoning.

Just one more guy who has nothing to say and thinks he looks smart by putting down others. We have plenty of such people on FR and even on this very thread. No need to provide links to external garbage.

[indylindy]

I believe that charity was extended to Goldman Sachs. How the freaking hell can they extend charity when they have not paid the original charity extended to them back?

[cranked]

You work for Goldman Sachs? Who are you to even tell anyone that Goldman Sachs did not receive any bailout money? Oopss, I forgt, another guy looking to say something so that "he looks smart," huh? USA Today lying or misleading, as well. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-04-14-tarp-repay-bank-bailout_N.htm Be assured, more can be produced without commentary to boot. =.=

[Auntie Mame]

This is crap. What about the shareholders?

[TopQuark]

"You work for Goldman Sachs?"

Irrelevant to my post.

"Who are you to even tell anyone that Goldman Sachs did not receive any bailout money?"

I did not say it. Please read more carefully before you fly off the handle.