Filip Stefanovic
In the UK there is an ongoing debate which we, here in the province, comes just a few broken murmurs. Subject of the controversy is the announcement that investment bank Goldman Sachs, which is made of raspberries in quarterly net financial crisis turning out a surplus after another - the third and last written to date show a profit of 3 billion / $ ( 2.11 billion €), are expected to grow for the last quarter of this year - will provide its 30,700 employees, and projected data to 31 December, including salaries, bonuses and various benefits, the beauty total of 24 billion / $ (16 billion €). In other words, more than 520,000 € per person, not as evenly distributed: some top traders will share prizes of € 27 million, with 14 others, 7 and so on. If so, it means that in 2009, hopefully with a crisis that is considered already behind but from which it has not really gone out and, in truth, it is very difficult to predict when the U.S. group will cross the threshold record registered in 2007 21 billion / $.
The same Goldman Sachs that less than a year ago received state aid for $ 10 billion, promptly returned in July 2009, with a zeal that many have a little naively read as a demonstration of good will, other, more viciously, in the announcement of the Obama presidency that the groups that have benefited from the support plan Tarp would have roofs of compensation for managers and executives set by the state. In short, as he said Giulio Andreotti, "to think the worst is a sin, but we often guesses."
In my view, figures of this size push an interested reader to ask themselves, in reverse, a fundamental question: What is Goldman Sachs? Twenty-four billion dollars is maybe too much to defuse the question with a simple "bank."
GS is basically a financial holding company, hours supervised by the Federal Reserve, which draws most of profits from operations on every kind of financial market, betting on the future value of disparate assets: commodities, interest rates, equities , indices, currencies, in the far west where the cowboys of the most famous are nice as nails that (Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers), and where was the last gringo, Goldman Sachs, in fact, is now master (or almost) the entire prairie. However, if, however, our gunman is the only one capable of hitting the target, which will have the steadiest hand in the west or the target is to materialize where he shoots? Said it best: If Goldman Sachs operates in markets uncertain and invisible, illegible betting on the future values \u200b\u200bex ante, then where everything is played on the quantity, quality and reliability of the information and those who create this information, as well as the behavior of other participants ( the dead and sickly), but weigh the same analysis on the results of the partners of Goldman? The question is, in short, if you are not faced with the classic autorealizzanti prophecies, and how much space is therefore still given more to the risk that the real chance. Sure is that the bank always wins, if we consider the fact that the various fees accounted for 50% of net revenues. As the saying long on the scale and urgency of values \u200b\u200bthat guide our choices of good traders, certainly everlasting love of profit maximization, the Taliban are hiding behind the neoclassical dogma ever proved the perfect rationality of the market, and why not, the merchants. The clamor raised by those gambling has never been attracted, and therefore remains immune to the charm of the green table of the bag, unless the scandal of awards millionaires rose perhaps a bit 'too much, we tried to run for cover promising that Goldman may donate more than a billion dollars to charity, the classic dish of lentils to soak up the bulk of the cake without poisonous glances out the window.
In short, ethics and finance that do not go hand in hand I do not think a recent discovery or just shared, the real problem to solve is to understand whether this is correct and above all, now more than ever, safe for future developments global economy, or if there is a need for stricter controls and regulations and sought, without raising the specter of a feared statist spectrum. Any necessary adjustment will markedly, however, be adopted worldwide, it is the imposition of caps on commissions and fees, or the ratio of total assets between debt and equity capital. The effort would otherwise be not only vain and counterproductive but difficult to achieve. A subject that would be interesting to bring to the table of the G20 and see if it's too pretentious to believe they can change something with the same rapidity with which it is able to respond to the crisis in the autumn of last year. Anyone who still believes against all historical evidence, or do it again, perfect in the gears of a market to watch, I just wish for an unforgettable concert orchestra and decent, while the Titanic runs into the next iceberg.
In the UK there is an ongoing debate which we, here in the province, comes just a few broken murmurs. Subject of the controversy is the announcement that investment bank Goldman Sachs, which is made of raspberries in quarterly net financial crisis turning out a surplus after another - the third and last written to date show a profit of 3 billion / $ ( 2.11 billion €), are expected to grow for the last quarter of this year - will provide its 30,700 employees, and projected data to 31 December, including salaries, bonuses and various benefits, the beauty total of 24 billion / $ (16 billion €). In other words, more than 520,000 € per person, not as evenly distributed: some top traders will share prizes of € 27 million, with 14 others, 7 and so on. If so, it means that in 2009, hopefully with a crisis that is considered already behind but from which it has not really gone out and, in truth, it is very difficult to predict when the U.S. group will cross the threshold record registered in 2007 21 billion / $. The same Goldman Sachs that less than a year ago received state aid for $ 10 billion, promptly returned in July 2009, with a zeal that many have a little naively read as a demonstration of good will, other, more viciously, in the announcement of the Obama presidency that the groups that have benefited from the support plan Tarp would have roofs of compensation for managers and executives set by the state. In short, as he said Giulio Andreotti, "to think the worst is a sin, but we often guesses."
In my view, figures of this size push an interested reader to ask themselves, in reverse, a fundamental question: What is Goldman Sachs? Twenty-four billion dollars is maybe too much to defuse the question with a simple "bank."
GS is basically a financial holding company, hours supervised by the Federal Reserve, which draws most of profits from operations on every kind of financial market, betting on the future value of disparate assets: commodities, interest rates, equities , indices, currencies, in the far west where the cowboys of the most famous are nice as nails that (Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers), and where was the last gringo, Goldman Sachs, in fact, is now master (or almost) the entire prairie. However, if, however, our gunman is the only one capable of hitting the target, which will have the steadiest hand in the west or the target is to materialize where he shoots? Said it best: If Goldman Sachs operates in markets uncertain and invisible, illegible betting on the future values \u200b\u200bex ante, then where everything is played on the quantity, quality and reliability of the information and those who create this information, as well as the behavior of other participants ( the dead and sickly), but weigh the same analysis on the results of the partners of Goldman? The question is, in short, if you are not faced with the classic autorealizzanti prophecies, and how much space is therefore still given more to the risk that the real chance. Sure is that the bank always wins, if we consider the fact that the various fees accounted for 50% of net revenues. As the saying long on the scale and urgency of values \u200b\u200bthat guide our choices of good traders, certainly everlasting love of profit maximization, the Taliban are hiding behind the neoclassical dogma ever proved the perfect rationality of the market, and why not, the merchants. The clamor raised by those gambling has never been attracted, and therefore remains immune to the charm of the green table of the bag, unless the scandal of awards millionaires rose perhaps a bit 'too much, we tried to run for cover promising that Goldman may donate more than a billion dollars to charity, the classic dish of lentils to soak up the bulk of the cake without poisonous glances out the window.
In short, ethics and finance that do not go hand in hand I do not think a recent discovery or just shared, the real problem to solve is to understand whether this is correct and above all, now more than ever, safe for future developments global economy, or if there is a need for stricter controls and regulations and sought, without raising the specter of a feared statist spectrum. Any necessary adjustment will markedly, however, be adopted worldwide, it is the imposition of caps on commissions and fees, or the ratio of total assets between debt and equity capital. The effort would otherwise be not only vain and counterproductive but difficult to achieve. A subject that would be interesting to bring to the table of the G20 and see if it's too pretentious to believe they can change something with the same rapidity with which it is able to respond to the crisis in the autumn of last year. Anyone who still believes against all historical evidence, or do it again, perfect in the gears of a market to watch, I just wish for an unforgettable concert orchestra and decent, while the Titanic runs into the next iceberg.
The 
