Slashdot Mirror


Goldman Sachs Launches GS Bank, An Internet Bank With A $1 Minimum Deposit (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader recaps a report from TechCrunch: Traditionally, Goldman Sachs has functioned like a run-of-the-mill investment bank with minimums to open an account in the range of $10 million, and returns not guaranteed. Goldman is opening its doors to the masses today with the launch of GS Bank, an FDIC-insured, internet-based savings bank. Anyone with an internet connection and a dollar can join, as that is what each account's minimum balance must be. GS Bank's interest rates give customers an annual yield of 1.05 percent, a rate that trumps the average U.S. saving's bank yield of .06 percent APY. GS Bank was a result of Goldman's acquisition of GE Capital Bank, the online retail bank previously run by General Electric's capital arm. The move is to diversify revenue streams and strengthen liquidity. GS Bank currently has total deposits of around $114 billion. In other news from the multinational banking firm, Goldman Sachs believes virtual-reality and augmented-reality "will be the next generation computing platform" worth $80 billion by 2025.

190 comments

  1. So evil, it just might work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give them convenience and let them run out the line a bit.

    1. Re:So evil, it just might work. by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      At only 1.05% it doesn't sound like a very good Ponzi scheme.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:So evil, it just might work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh it's not a Ponzi scheme. That's the introductory rate. After 6 mo, it goes to -1.05% with the proceeds going to Hillary 2016.

  2. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would I use this over any other bank? What comes to mind is 'cheap way for non-USians to have a US bank account', but without Visa or Mastercard debit available it'd be kind of useless.

    1. Re:So... by taxman_10m · · Score: 1

      The interest rate?

    2. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Informative

      My credit union has a higher interest rate than the 1.05% currently being offered by GS Bank.

    3. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except you have to be a US citizen for AML laws... as per they sign up agreement

    4. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My credit union has a higher interest rate than the 1.05% currently being offered by GS Bank.

      I call BS. I have accounts with three large credit unions, and the best account pays 0.55%.

    5. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with First Tech, and my savings account is earning 0.05%. You're right that he is full of crap.

    6. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First Tech is generally considered to be the best credit union. Most of my coworkers here at Microsoft use them.

    7. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the same rate BECU(Boeing) pays. The GP is full of it.

    8. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice how the liar refuses to name the credit union.

    9. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he has a time machine and traveled back to 1980.

    10. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they pay 4.07%...on the first $500 which is a joke.

    11. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

      I call BS. I have accounts with three large credit unions, and the best account pays 0.55%.

      https://www.patelco.org/Checking-And-Savings/Savings/Money-Market/#MoneyMarket

    12. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call BS. I have accounts with three large credit unions, and the best account pays 0.55%.

      https://www.patelco.org/Checking-And-Savings/Savings/Money-Market/#MoneyMarket

      Wow, that's pretty bad. They only pay 0.2% at the top amount. Why would someone open an account with them when GS pays five times that much?

    13. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but this is a real bank so they don't do everything ass backwards.

    14. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call BS. I have accounts with three large credit unions, and the best account pays 0.55%.

      https://www.patelco.org/Checking-And-Savings/Savings/Money-Market/#MoneyMarket

      So you are full of BS. They only pay 1/5 of a percent, except for tiny deposits. Why would you even post that? You just proved the GP correct.

    15. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0.2% is smaller than 1.05%. Go take a maths class.

    16. Re: So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Notice how the liar refuses to name the credit union.

      Notice how many ACs didn't bother to ask.

      https://www.patelco.org/Checking-And-Savings/Savings/Money-Market/#MoneyMarket

    17. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know how I know you're not an engineer?

    18. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call BS. I have accounts with three large credit unions, and the best account pays 0.55%.

      https://www.patelco.org/Checking-And-Savings/Savings/Money-Market/#MoneyMarket

      That's terrible. They only pay 0.25% on $50k and over. GS pays more than four times that much!

    19. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      They only pay 1/5 of a percent, except for tiny deposits.

      On those tiny deposits, I'm getting paid a lot more interest.

      You just proved the GP correct.

      GP didn't say how much money was in the account.

    20. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That shows .2% interest you damn liar.

    21. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which proves you a liar. Did you forget to hit post as AC before posting a lie so easy to get caught in?

    22. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even look at the link you posted? Or, are you that bad at math? 1.05% is more than five times larger than your 0.2% example. The GS offer is a great deal. I don't trust GS, but for a rate that high, I might trust them enough to open an account.

    23. Re: So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Do you know how I know you're not an engineer?

      As the asshole who works in the IT department, do you think I care about your question?

      (Hint: Oh, hell no!)

    24. Re: So... by DaHat · · Score: 1

      That would seem to depend on how much you've got liquid in the bank. If you've got under 2k in the bank, sure, your CU may just be better, ditto under 5k, but anymore and a GS account starts to look more attractive.

    25. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My credit union has a higher interest rate than the 1.05% currently being offered by GS Bank.

      I call BS. I have accounts with three large credit unions, and the best account pays 0.55%.

      Probably not BS, he just didn't mention that 1.05% is for a 5-year CD.

    26. Re: So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Which proves you a liar.

      Uh, no. I'm getting paid more interest at my credit union than GE Capital/GS Bank for the modest amount I have on deposit. No one asked about the interest rate for the maximum deposit.

      Did you forget to hit post as AC before posting a lie so easy to get caught in?

      I never ever post as AC.

    27. Re: So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That would seem to depend on how much you've got liquid in the bank.

      Precisely. Although I only keep enough in savings to cover several months of expenses at different institutions. I would rather put my money into under-valued, dividend-paying stocks with well-established track records.

    28. Re: So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Maybe he has a time machine and traveled back to 1980.

      When the banks were terribly boring, savings account paid 5.00% interest (give or take), and the wolves of Wall Street were kept far, far away from Main Street.

    29. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Or, are you that bad at math?

      Did anyone state how much money was in the account? My statement stands true — for small deposits.

      It's somewhat interesting that everyone is looking at the interest rate for the maximum deposit. I've heard about this behavior. Always scrambling to find the best interest rate, lurching from institution to another, and probably spending more effort than it was worth. Must be a sad way to live.

    30. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe creimer doesn't understand decimals and is only looking at the fact that two is larger than one.

    31. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That's terrible. They only pay 0.25% on $50k and over. GS pays more than four times that much!

      For the small amount I have on deposit, I'm getting more interest than GS.

    32. Re:So... by DogDude · · Score: 1
      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    33. Re: So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That shows .2% interest you damn liar.

      You're looking at the wrong end of the chart. My statement stands true — for small deposits.

    34. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That shows .2% interest you damn liar.

      You're looking at the wrong end of the chart. My statement stands true — for small deposits.

      Why would you care about the rate for only a small portion of your account instead of looking at the actual rate?

    35. Re: So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Go take a maths class.

      $7,000 (blended APY): 2.00% > 1.05%

      QED

    36. Re: So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

      Why would you care about the rate for only a small portion of your account instead of looking at the actual rate?

      Because that's the actual rate for my small deposit. Everyone else is comparing rates for $50,000+. I'm not even sure if I would keep that much money in one institution.

    37. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that's the actual rate for my small deposit. Everyone else is comparing rates for $50,000+

      Then what was the purpose of your original comment? To present some trivial personal anecdote in a way that could only serve to mislead others?

    38. Re: So... by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Which is where you enter the territory some will accuse you of being a paid shill... as where only in a narrow band for balance, which is also dependent on resulting deposits and debts is your particular credit union better than the mentioned bank above or other cited credit unions.

      For your particular set of conditions, yes, your credit union may be best, and I might claim that (for my particular hair & scalp (a similar condition you only offered after being challenged repeatedly)), my shampoo is best... yet neither however gives either of us credibility to declare that ours is best for all cases... something you apparently keep trying to do.

    39. Re:So... by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      Yes, but your credit union won't pay Slashdot to have their ad featured as a news story. So tough for them.

    40. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because that's the actual rate for my small deposit.

      My bank pays a million percent interest on accounts with zero balances.

    41. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will they let one person open 50 accounts?

    42. Re: So... by matbury · · Score: 1

      Tried Canadian CUs? http://www.meridiancu.ca/Pages...

    43. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      remember when banks were regulated and even passbook savings made 4-8x the interest you get today?

    44. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My credit union has a higher interest rate

      Yes, but credit unions are for poor people and other plebs. Come join the success of Goldman! Let the prestige of prestigiousness flow over you as your portfolio bathes in the exclusiveness of a Goldman internet account. Be The Best. Dump the rest.

    45. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would I use this over any other bank? What comes to mind is 'cheap way for non-USians to have a US bank account', but without Visa or Mastercard debit available it'd be kind of useless.

      It trains the rest of the world to use an account, to get used to not having cash, to depend on an owned institution to manage all the little details of their life.

      Can't control the world if half the economy is still by barter or cash.

    46. Re: So... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      His original comment was valid because pretty much nobody should be keeping large amounts of money in checking or savings accounts (unless they're saving up for a down payment on real estate). Beyond what is necessary for your liquidity needs, everything else should be invested, not merely "saved." The point is that even creimer's 3% return is chump change compared to the 7% (after inflation) average long-term returns from the stock market.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    47. Re:So... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The irony here is that you are clearly better at math than the ACs that keep attacking you. Only a chump keeps large amounts of money in a bank account; what the AC fails to understand is that anything beyond the 2% Patelco tier ought to be invested in the stock market (returning 7%+) instead. (Thanks for the tip about that credit union, by the way.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    48. Re:So... by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Hmm... Some other countries pay double interest rate for saving than GS. ;)

      By the way, if you are far from retirement and do not need to worry about liquid asset (cash), it would be better off in a long run to invest money than put in a saving account. Just a thought...

    49. Re: So... by Anrego · · Score: 2

      I keep about 6 months living expenses in a plain-ol savings account (earns %0.8 interest) for accessibility and safety. Sure I could dump that money in with the rest of my investments and risk eating a loss if I need it at the wrong time, but I prefer the peace of mind of knowing I have that money available and can use it worry free if required.

    50. Re:So... by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Yep, you an me both.... my first account was in 1982, at what is now Key bank... paid 5.25 percent IIRC.

      --
      C|N>K
    51. Re:So... by Outta_the_way_peck! · · Score: 1

      Also long as I use my debit card a dozen times a month, mine pays better as well. https://www.myconsumers.org/pe...

    52. Re: So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      To present some trivial personal anecdote in a way that could only serve to mislead others?

      How did I mislead others? When I posted my comment about interest rates, I was immediately called a liar because I didn't post a link. After I posted a link, I was again called a liar because the interest rate for $50,000+ was significantly less than the Goldman Sachs. The problem is no one specified a dollar amount at the beginning of the thread. For $21,999 or less, my credit union pays more interest (blended APY). Goldman Sachs is a better deal for account with more than $22,000.

    53. Re: So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      His original comment was valid because pretty much nobody should be keeping large amounts of money in checking or savings accounts (unless they're saving up for a down payment on real estate).

      My late father used to keep $50,000 in his checking. That is until Sprint debited $5,000 from checking account for his $50.00 bill. Twice. After that, he kept only $2,000 in checking and kept the rest in a CD ladder. When short-term CDs started paying less than a saving account, he got tired chasing after the rates and dumped everything into a savings account.

    54. Re: So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      [...] credibility to declare [...]

      That's funny. If I wanted creditability, I wouldn't be posting here. Slashdot exists to keep me amuse while I'm waiting for a script to complete at work. Thank you for your participation.

    55. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but this is a real bank so they don't do everything ass backwards.

      When the bank comes to you with a paddle, you bend backwards, take a whack in the balls, and ask for another?

    56. Re: So... by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's why instead of giving creditors your ACH information so they can "pull" payments from your account, you should use your bank's online bill pay feature to "push" the payments. Sometimes that isn't a good option (e.g. when the bill is variable but the creditor refuses to send e-bills, or when they give a discount for signing up for their auto-pay system), but otherwise you should use it.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    57. Re: So... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I suspect that on average the opportunity cost of leaving your six months of expenses uninvested exceeds the risk-adjusted cost of taking a loss during a poorly-timed emergency. Not to mention, there's no reason you couldn't temper that possible loss by investing in something like a balanced index fund (as opposed to a total stock market fund).

      Besides, for me, six months of expenses would only be $12,000 or so anyway. (I'm on the "live inexpensively so I can retire super early" plan.) Even so, I've opted for springy debt instead.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    58. Re: So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That's why instead of giving creditors your ACH information so they can "pull" payments from your account, you should use your bank's online bill pay feature to "push" the payments.

      The only two items I have deducted from my checking account is gym membership and rent. Both are in the no choice category. Everything else is deducted from a credit card with 2% cash back.

    59. Re: So... by Anrego · · Score: 1

      I admit it's mostly a psychological thing for me, objectively you're probably 100% right.

      That said, I have certainly been considering moving a big chunk (at least half) of it into a low to mid risk index fund (I'm Canadian and lean towards tangerine for that kind of thing).

      In general I'm in the Canadian couch potato crowd (primarily relying on index funds and self balanced ETF allocations). I've played with investopedia enough to learn that individual securities trading is probably a terrible idea for me.

      And since it's life story time, I'm on the "live within my means, balance between mid and long term goals and enjoying life while young and healthy, retire comfortably within a reasonable timeframe" plan, but I have respect for the live frugal retire well and early plan.

    60. Re:So... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      3% of that was inflation though.

      Still better, but not as dramatic as it looks. Banks have definitely benefited from the everyone kinda needs an account to exist now, low interest, lots of small deposits model.

      http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cp...

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  3. Ooooh~~ by Edis+Krad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Goldman Sachs!
    Synonym with trustworthiness and financial stability. Just exactly where I want to put all my money in!

    1. Re:Ooooh~~ by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Goldman Sachs! Synonym with trustworthiness and financial stability.

      GS had enough sense to short the sub-prime mortgage market when everyone else was digging in deeper. So they aren't dumb.

    2. Re:Ooooh~~ by secretsquirel · · Score: 1

      why did they need the bailout then?

    3. Re:Ooooh~~ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course they shorted it. They helped architect the whole thing.

    4. Re:Ooooh~~ by Desler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course they shorted it because they set up the whole thing to fail in the first place.

    5. Re:Ooooh~~ by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You think GS is bad. Here is my experience with a Delaware-based escrow company.

      Before I start, the main function of an Escrow company is to hold the money and pay it out to the correct people and only at the appropriate time.

      1. Money is in escrow. Intended to be held for some time with some conditions on release.
      2. One of the conditions on release of money puts payment in jeopardy.
      3. Escrow company sends one of the parties their share BEFORE the money should be sent to anyone and before the issue from step 2 is resolved.
      4. Escrow company sues the recipient (who is in India with no US connections) in US courts. Obtains a meaningless default judgement.
      5. Escrow company deducts the cost of obtaining the meaningless judgement from the amount to be shared amongst the rest of the escrow participants.
      6. One of the participants successfully sues the escrow company to force it to eat the legal bill (and any excess money sent in error in step 3.) itself.
      7. Escrow company adds its legal costs defending 6. to the amount deducted from the other participants (except for the one who sued).
      8. Other participants sue the escrow company to get it to eat all its legal costs and any excess sent in error to the one participant in step 3. Suit is successful and eventually, the Escrow company has to agree to not deduct any legal costs and make up any excess money sent in step 3.

      In summary, escrow company screwed up, tried to pass the costs onto the very people it should have protected and had to be sued twice to get it to eat the costs of its own mistakes.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re: Ooooh~~ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who says they needed it? They did?
      You believed that? Well isn't that special.

    7. Re:Ooooh~~ by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why did they need the bailout then?

      GS did not need a bailout. Their customers/victims did. They received some TARP money, but they certainly didn't need it.

    8. Re:Ooooh~~ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoulda mentioned the name of the company so everyone else can avoid them

    9. Re:Ooooh~~ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to explain #2 for me to care, if it was your mistake causing the whole mess you need to be honest.

    10. Re:Ooooh~~ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly why I have literally 50% of my net worth in Bitcoin.
      After 2008, and even before, I simply *cannot* trust the banking system.
      Let alone deal with their near zero interest and highway robbery fees.
      Hell, I make more interest in JoinMarket and other passive Bitcoin investments than that, *lots* more.
      Funny, every since the banks proved their lack of value, Bitcoin's been getting more solid every year.

    11. Re:Ooooh~~ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typically, escrow is paid only when certain criteria are met. If any of those criteria for release are not me, the payment from escrow is in jeopardy. If you understand escrow, you should understand what this means.

    12. Re:Ooooh~~ by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      They received some TARP money, but they certainly didn't need it.

      Goldman Sachs was made 100% whole by U.S. taxpayers via their customers and victims.

      Prior to 2008, Goldman Sachs was hardly a household name, but on Wall Street this investment bank is arguably the most powerful non-government bank in the world. Nobody thought that a bank of this size could be brought down, almost overnight. It happened, however, and along with an investment by Warren Buffett, Goldman Sachs received $10 billion in TARP funds. Using funds raised from a $5 billion stock offering, Goldman Sachs paid back TARP funds less than one year later, but in the end, tax payers made $1.4 billion.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/investopedia/2012/05/23/4-tarp-recipients-that-made-a-profit

    13. Re:Ooooh~~ by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Goldman Sachs! Synonym with trustworthiness and financial stability. Just exactly where I want to put all my money in!

      Their ToS is actually quite reasonable. It includes a clause allowing you to opt out of arbitration. Therefore you can sue the pants off of them if they try anything shady.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    14. Re:Ooooh~~ by caffiend2049 · · Score: 1

      Because when someone comes around offering trillions of dollars, you don't say "no."

      --
      Pandering to the lowest common denominator would be less frequent if more people were prime numbers.
    15. Re:Ooooh~~ by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      ...and advised their customers to buy what they were shorting. They aren't dumb, but they've demonstrated who it is that benefits when people trust them.

    16. Re:Ooooh~~ by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      In other words, something like this:

      Bob wants Eve to send him an office chair. Instead of sending Eve the money first, or asking her to send the chair before he sends the money, he offers to have Alice hold the money in escrow. When Bob confirms he has the chair (the condition), Alice will release the money to Eve.

      Instead of an office chair, Eve sends Bob a package containing a bobcat. This failure to meet the criteria puts the escrow payment in jeopardy.

      Relevant links:
      https://xkcd.com/325/
      https://xkcd.com/1323/

  4. diversify revenue streams and strengthen liquidit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Subject: " diversify revenue streams and strengthen liquidity"

    AKA steal your money with hidden fees on top of fees and then sell your zombie debt to a subsidiary for a loss to mask profits. Maybe as a new CZDO they can bundle and market to retirees along with reverse mortgages and high fee sub par rate annuities.

    Oh, and the "strengthen liquidity" bit means take your savings to Vegas. Just kidding, they hit Atlantic City by chopper. Flights are for Macaw.

  5. I got a bad feeling about this... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I moved my money out before the account got transferred from GE Capital to Goldman Sachs. I'm not sure if I will return the money to this account. I don't like my savings being used by the same corporation that was responsible for the Great Recession.

    1. Re:I got a bad feeling about this... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      ... the same corporation that was responsible for the Great Recession.

      GS did not cause the Great Recession. If more banks had done what GS had done, the recession would have happened sooner, and been more mild. Blaming short sellers for crashes is like blaming storms on the weathervane.

    2. Re:I got a bad feeling about this... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Blaming short sellers for crashes is like blaming storms on the weathervane.

      Let's focus on the short sellers. Pay no attention to the sucking sound from Goldman Sachs in the background.

      The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.

      http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

    3. Re:I got a bad feeling about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're basing a financial argument off something you read in Rolling Stone? Has it occurred to you that maybe that's not the most reliable source?

    4. Re:I got a bad feeling about this... by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Has it occurred to you that Rolling Stones may be on of the very few real investigative journals that are left?

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    5. Re:I got a bad feeling about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After that VA rape hoax, I don't think so.

    6. Re:I got a bad feeling about this... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Has it occurred to you that maybe that's not the most reliable source?

      I read the book, "Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America" by Matt Taibbi. Many other books on the Great Recession confirmed the details in that book.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griftopia

    7. Re:I got a bad feeling about this... by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      Very interesting reading, thank you for that.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  6. False advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    "Anyone with an Internet connection and a dollar" cannot open an account. By my estimate only around 4% of the population qualify to open an account due to the need for a US social security number, a US address and a US phone number as well as an internet connection. So perhaps a better headline would be: Goldman Sachs offers bank account only to a globally wealthy elite. Much more in line with their usual type of business.

    1. Re:False advertising by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Goldman Sachs offers bank account only to a globally wealthy elite.

      Oh, really? With a simple name change from GE Capital Bank to GS Bank, I'm now a member of the globally wealthy elite. Nice! Do I get a brass ring with that?

    2. Re: False advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4% huh? You dumb cunt shut your stupid mouth.

    3. Re:False advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even worse than that.

      "Note: Account Owners must be at least 18 years old and must be a U.S. citizen or legal resident."
      USA has a population of around 320 million, which is around 4.5% of the global population.
      Estimate about 75% of those are older than 18
      So that drops it down to 3.4%

    4. Re:False advertising by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      He's saying that GS bank is limited to the global elite because most Americans are the global elite. We often talk about the US 1% having obscene amounts of money, but globally-speaking, everyone making more than $35K is the 1%.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:False advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False advertising indeed. What they really mean is "GS need more muppets."

  7. *anyone* or just US residents? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

    I'd be looking at the fine print as far as taxation goes before parking any money there.

    1. Re:*anyone* or just US residents? by Sarlok · · Score: 2

      Here's the IRS page on the issue. Basically you won't owe any US tax on interest income as long as you don't work in the US or have other business interests in the US. However, since 2013 all US banks are required to report accounts of foreign nationals to the IRS if their country has an information sharing agreement with the US. This is not really for the IRS to tax you, but rather for the IRS to report your income to your home country so you can't hide US income from your country. See this page for more details and a list of applicable countries.

    2. Re:*anyone* or just US residents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be looking at the fine print as far as taxation goes before parking any money there.

      not even fine print, first line on their registration page.

      Please have the following information on hand to set up your new Account(s):
      Social Security Number
      Date of birth
      Valid U.S. physical address
      Email
      Phone number

    3. Re:*anyone* or just US residents? by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 1

      I'm an aussie that lives/works in the US.

      I get like 4% interest in my NZ bank account, so..... whatever GS?

      --
      You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
    4. Re:*anyone* or just US residents? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Victorian who lives in Victoria - I think my online saver still gets 3%, down from 6% before the GFC :(

      I wasn't thinking about the interest rate, more the AUD/USD conversion. When our dollars were at parity a few years ago I took a vacation to CDN/USA. If our currency did head upwards again I wondered about buying a hundred Benjamins for my next trip. i.e. lock in $10,000 at 90c and live well for a couple of months even if our own currency plummets back to 60c. (Also useful for countries where the US dollar is the defacto currency, e.g. Argentina)

    5. Re:*anyone* or just US residents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aussie with an NZ bank account

      Traitor

    6. Re:*anyone* or just US residents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's ok, their government has been subsidising our air travel until recently (via AirNZ's partial ownership of Virgin Australia).

    7. Re: *anyone* or just US residents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so. Almost all of NZ's major banks are Australian owned.

      There are a couple that aren't - TSB and Kiwibank spring to mind. TSB isn't too common unless you're rural or a farmer, and Kiwibank is just a joke.

      Co-operatives tend to be NZ owned as well - not that anyone would seriously consider using the organisation formerly known as PSIS after the disaster a few decades ago. But even then they can't be called a "bank", or claim to be a registered bank.

      Given the OP is an Australian working in the USA with an NZ bank account, membership is more likely to be with an Australian owned entity - well, that's my semi-educated guess anyway.

  8. Cool! by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

    Does that mean we get to enjoy their offshore tax haven also?

    I am left wondering though why anybody would want to let a thief (you do remember 2008, right?) keep their money.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Cool! by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      why anybody would want to let a thief (you do remember 2008, right?) keep their money

      If you have evidence of someone at GS actually stealing money, you should take that to the DoJ. But if you're just whining because you don't like the way the 2008 mess played out, and wish that we'd had a more total collapse just so other people could suffer more to make you feel better, then just mutter those things to yourself, instead of pretending you have secret knowledge of actual, specific crimes that thousands of investigators with multiple agencies couldn't spot.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Cool! by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Not tonight, sweetie. I gotta headache...

      Just read the Levin report... It's only 650 pages.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Cool! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      In other words, you're faking it, and you know it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Cool! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Ohhhh, no, never with you... You got what you wanted...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Cool! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      It's always fun to watch you being too busy to post the information you pretend to have to back up your snark, but never too busy to post vague hand-wavy ad hominem blather. At least you're predictable.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Cool! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The link is good enough. You got what you came for. Now come back later, maybe after you read it. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you. All indications are that you'll just wave it off like you did every other time, you're a typical reactionary troll and just not worth the trouble. So take it or leave it, hardly matters to me.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:Cool! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So in other words, your ability to make your point is SO bad, and the point you're trying to make is so weak that you could type another couple dozen words of ad hominem, but still couldn't muster the energy to type out a first and last name, and the simple name of the statute under which you think that person should have been charged, but which the DoJ elected not to use. First name, last name, law broken. Easy. Nope, you'd rather misdirect, and avoid substance.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:Cool! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Why do you ramble on like this? You already won.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:Cool! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Oh, just to watch you mumble and be all the more on the record being unwilling and unable to back up your off-target assertions and characterizations. Perhaps in the vague hope that one day you'll consider slinging that kind of stuff with some actual facts attached to it, instead of hoping to score cheap points with low information readers who fall for your kind of postings. And, as a side benefit, hoping to point out that words have meaning. You're quick to throw around the word "thief" without explaining which human beings you say have actually stolen something, and without explaining who at DoJ has information about a theft but is unwilling to charge the person who stole [whatever it is you failed to identify as having been stolen in 2008 from your unidentified victims, etc].

      Basically, you trot out hollow, context-free stuff like that all the time, and it's just fun to watch you leave a trail of confirmation that you know you're doing it. It's just fun when people who know they're posting without any intellectual integrity thump their chests and agree that that's how they carry on, and that they're proud of it. Good on you. The first step is admitting it. Your willingness to be annoyed and still typing for several posts straight gives lie to your empty hand waving about not having time to provide a single name and the theft charge that named person somehow dodged at DoJ. Nobody has "won" anything unless you stop doing that.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re: Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shilling poster is shilling.

    11. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My god you are a fucking shill. How can you type with your head so deeply stuffed up Lloyd Blankfein's shit tube?

    12. Re:Cool! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      :-) As always, you are right... I guess I'll never get the hang of these charades you like to play.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re:Cool! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Hey look! More snark and still nothing to back up your claims! Neato. It's always someone else's "charades" when you've been asked to back up what you say, right? Yup.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    14. Re:Cool! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It was there. Everything is backed up. I hope you are...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  9. GS has made it infinitely more expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    since ...GECB had a $0 minimum balance.

    Also GECB let you keep $3million in total, max $1million per account. GS won't let you have more than $250k in total (unless you are grandfathered in).

  10. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a former Met Bank. DON'T GO!

  11. goldman sachs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a TRAP!

    (Somebody had to say it.)

    1. Re:goldman sachs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's a TARP.

  12. Fuck Goldman right in the Sachs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."
                    ---Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

    Yeah, these are the "masters of the universe" that tanked our economy, was bailed out for 10s of billions of dollars after their CEO became the treasury secretary, then outsourced 1,000 American jobs and gave their execs huge raises and paid "up to" a paltry $5 billion for defrauding their own customers.

    No high level execs at Goldman Sachs went to jail,and the systemic problem is worse today than before the crisis.

    Why would I give even even a penny to admitted criminals with a proven record of abusing their customers and being grossly selfish and irresponsible?!

    Fuck those guys. Seriously.

    1. Re:Fuck Goldman right in the Sachs by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Troll

      No high level execs at Goldman Sachs went to jail

      Which GS people committed which crimes for which they should be in prison? Please be specific.

      Why would I give even even a penny to admitted criminals

      Which officials with GS admitted to which crimes? Be specific.

      You certainly don't have to do business with them. But if you have evidence of specific crimes that nobody else has managed to identify, you might want to pass those along to the DoJ.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Fuck Goldman right in the Sachs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So tell me, how's the bonus structure work at GS's customer relations department?

      But if you have evidence of specific crimes that nobody else has managed to identify, you might want to pass those along to the DoJ.

      Yeah, umm, the DoJ has already weighed in and GS already admitted to wrongdoing, so... y'know... nice try. There's more here, and in the 90,000 other articles that have been written about GS over the years. Goldman Sachs is a pretty high profile company and their activities are very well documented.

    3. Re:Fuck Goldman right in the Sachs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You certainly don't have to do business with them. But if you have evidence of specific crimes that nobody else has managed to identify, you might want to pass those along to the DoJ.

      There's no need to inform the DoJ. Goldman says that it did commit the crimes it was accused of. This statement is part of the settlement and rather unusual as most of the banks were allowed to settle with a "neither agree nor disagree" kind of statement.

      This note from the Justice department has some details of specific crimes.
      https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr...

    4. Re:Fuck Goldman right in the Sachs by ScentCone · · Score: 0, Troll

      So, if we wrote 90,000 articles about you, that would make you a criminal? Which specific people at GS committed which specific crimes for which they were not charged? You seem to know all about it, so let's hear some names, and the statutes under which those people should be criminally charged. I'm sure you're already typing that up, so we should see it in a moment or two.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:Fuck Goldman right in the Sachs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WTF is wrong with you. The DOJ settled the case with them. GS admitted wrongdoing and guilt. The articles are all about the details of that.

    6. Re:Fuck Goldman right in the Sachs by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No idea on which people there specifically belong in jail. But do you really think GS would pay 5.1 billion in compensation for fraud in a settlement with the DOJ if it was innocent? It was a disgrace that they were able to pay their way out of criminal charges.

    7. Re:Fuck Goldman right in the Sachs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So, if we wrote 90,000 articles about you, that would make you a criminal?

      Woah. Nice strawman you got here.

      Another question: are you being paid to do that dirty job?

    8. Re:Fuck Goldman right in the Sachs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it obvious? ScentCone either works for GS (or one of the other banks that took massive bailout money), is some extreme libertarian idiot that believes in pure laissez faire capitalism, or is just a blithering idiot.

      No point in wasting time on him. Post the links to the DOJ filings that document their GS's wrongdoings and move on.

      ScentCone is probably a paid sock puppet for GS.

    9. Re:Fuck Goldman right in the Sachs by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Which GS people committed which crimes for which they should be in prison? Please be specific.

      Lloyd Blankfein, CEO. See the presentence investigative report on him and Goldman from 2010.

      He traded against his clients, which is a crime. Then he lied to the FBI and Congress about doing so. That's conflict of interest, fraud and perjury.

      Now it's up to you to explain why he should NOT have gone to jail for these crimes other than the fact that Goldman controls the Fed. Please be specific.

      http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

      http://www.reuters.com/article...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Fuck Goldman right in the Sachs by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Well, actually since GS got TARP it stands to reason that it 'paid' that 5 billion with free money. It is likely easier for them to pay that 'penalty' than to go through the court proceedings, which would bring to light facts about government pushing the economy of the world into this calamity by manipulating money and interest rates.

      AFAIC GS had a talk, where it was made clear that no government official must be shown to have been involved in this and GS would have to 'fall on the sword' so to speak to cover up the real reasons behind the failure of the USA government not to push the world towards this collapse with all the massive inflation since 1980s

    11. Re:Fuck Goldman right in the Sachs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BULL FUCKING SHIT. It wasn't FREE money. The money they received required them to pay it back. No company gives away 5 billion out of the goodness of their heart. They were about to have criminal charges laid against them and managed to strike a deal with the DOJ to avoid any charges.

    12. Re:Fuck Goldman right in the Sachs by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is they were innocent of the fraud they were accused of and instead committed securities fraud by handing over money they didn't have to because it was convenient? You really should be presenting that theory to the SEC so they can be prosecuted.

    13. Re:Fuck Goldman right in the Sachs by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think GS is ever 'innocent' actually. I think GS people and government are pretty much the same people. I think that to accuse GS of fraud and to go to court with that argument is equivalent of shining the light on the behaviour of the government officials and systems. This behaviour (AFAIC) is treasonous, and it is most definitely unethical and stupid economically speaking. It is not stupid from point of view of expedience though.

      What I am saying is that the government system would rather have GS pay a 'fine' to sweep this under the rug rather than having dirt dug up that would lift the cover from behind the curtain dealings that are happening on the government level.

    14. Re:Fuck Goldman right in the Sachs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you have just described is a criminal conspiracy which should result in both government officials and GS execs behind bars. while it isn't beyond any involved it is extremely unlikely when the far more obvious reason is far more plausible. i.e. the government what shit scared of the effect of a second too big to fail organisation going down in flames, so rather than bring it down and destroy a lot of innocent lives in the process (not only the guilty suffer in such a situation), they decided on a compromise that would at least see them as having done something and not letting them off completely free.

    15. Re:Fuck Goldman right in the Sachs by golden_hands · · Score: 1

      When you have a revolving door between government and Wall Street, the entire system is begging for criminal conspiracy. Why- the person who was responsible for investigating/ prosecuting HSBC the other day Jennifer Shasky Calvery, the director of the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced she will be stepping down in May and joining HSBC. How could such a person be really doing her job in the best interest of the public ?

  13. They also believed Greece would be ... by dbIII · · Score: 0

    They also believed Greece would be an economic powerhouse - at least that's what they told Greece when Goldman Sachs offered to manage some money for them. Guess how that turned out?
    I'd even trust Bitcoin before Goldman Sachs - ok that's going a bit far, but what Goldman Sachs say is often very different to what they do.

  14. 1% interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is still a joke. When the interest rate is lower than inflation your savings still loses value over time. Yes, it's better than nothing but if they really want to impress me make it yield at least the inflation rate. That way the money I put in today has the same buying power when I need it later.

  15. Got a car analogy... by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

    You know a bit about stock racing, right? The cars have to be (loosely?) based on a regular factory production model.

    Well, a certain lady senator has been pushing for some new financial industry rules. And with GS, being the kind of people they are, a bunch of filthy crooks, you have to assume the worst. They are offering this service to circumvent the rules to keep their game going.

    Way back a long time ago, the U.S. Post Office use to offer banking services. Being a constitutional government agency, we should demand they reinstate that service. Definitely much more trustworthy. The money could hardly be in a safer place.

    This November, let's clean House, take out the trash.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  16. Predicting yesterday's future today by dbIII · · Score: 1

    In other news from the multinational banking firm, Goldman Sachs believes virtual-reality and augmented-reality

    I went to the Hitachi stand at a show in 1988 and tried out their 3D goggles - they believed virtual reality was the future and they have actually done something over the years to make it happen. Goldman Sachs on the other hand are predicting it after it's already in video game consoles FFS!

  17. You're going to give the vampire squid your money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1% interest isn't even worth the time it takes to open an account.

  18. Ghee... by no-body · · Score: 1

    feed the big one's again... Go to your local Credit Union and leave your $$'s near where you live!

    1. Re:Ghee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I can get 0.05% at Boeing's credit union? No thanks. Why would I do that when GS pays 21 times more?

    2. Re:Ghee... by Yosho · · Score: 1

      So I can get 0.05% at Boeing's credit union? No thanks. Why would I do that when GS pays 21 times more?

      Because "savings" accounts are an awful deal if you're trying to actually make money off of the interest. If you have $10k that you can let sit in your savings account for 5 years, at a 1.05% APY you will make about $500 in that time. Tell you what, I'll give you that $500 up front if you let me hold on to that $10k for five years. Does that sound like a good deal now?

      A savings/checking account is just a place to store your money on hand so that somebody can't break into your house and take it all. Go stick your money in a Roth IRA or a 401(k) instead if you actually want to save.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    3. Re:Ghee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A savings/checking account is just a place to store your money on hand so that somebody can't break into your house and take it all. Go stick your money in a Roth IRA or a 401(k) instead if you actually want to save.

      Adding more money to a retirement account isn't an option because those Republicans have so greatly limited the amounts we can save. Adding money just isn't an option for most of us.

    4. Re: Ghee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. The 491(k) suggestion is a terrible one since we are allowed to only put small amounts ($18k this year) away. The republicans don't want to allow us to save for retirement. Also Yosho's Roth IRA comment was even more dumb. The republicans will not allow us to put a single penny into one if we make more than $116k. Neither one is an option for most people in the tech industry.

    5. Re:Ghee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for those of us saving up to buy most of a house outright or to start a business and not storing the money for retirement?

    6. Re:Ghee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should mention that I'm serious. As a new graduate who never had school or parents provide any financial advice other than always pay your credit card bills in full and max our your 401K contributions, how do I go about getting my money to work for me?

    7. Re: Ghee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wut. Just do a backdoor Roth IRA. Just be warned about pro rata taxation on conversion if you have traditional Ira.

    8. Re:Ghee... by Yosho · · Score: 2

      And for those of us saving up to buy most of a house outright or to start a business and not storing the money for retirement?

      Well, what you have to ask yourself is: Do you want your money to be easily accessible or do you want to (safely) make money off of it? There's nothing wrong with putting your money in a savings account as long as you realize that it's just a holding area and you're not going to make a significant amount off of it.

      Realize the saving up to buy a house outright is something that basically nobody does, and the finance industry isn't going to help you out with that; they want you to put 20% down and take out a loan for the rest. Same with starting a business. You can withdraw up to 10k out of a Roth IRA without penalty for a first-time home purchase, so there's that.

      But if you want to try to make money and your cash easily available, the stock market is probably your best option. Invest in some low-risk stocks and cross your fingers.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    9. Re: Ghee... by Yosho · · Score: 1

      You can still contribute partially to a Roth IRA if you make up to $131k, or $183/$193 if you're married filing jointly. There's also no limit to contributions on a Traditional IRA, even though the rates aren't nearly as good (but still better than you'll get from a savings account).

      And quite frankly, if you're already maxing out your 401(k) contributions and you make enough that you can't contribute to a Roth IRA, congratulations, you're a member of the upper middle class and you're going to be just fine (unless you make a series of terrible decisions and squander your money). You don't need simple financial advice.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    10. Re:Ghee... by coinreturn · · Score: 2

      So I can get 0.05% at Boeing's credit union? No thanks. Why would I do that when GS pays 21 times more?

      Because "savings" accounts are an awful deal if you're trying to actually make money off of the interest. If you have $10k that you can let sit in your savings account for 5 years, at a 1.05% APY you will make about $500 in that time. Tell you what, I'll give you that $500 up front if you let me hold on to that $10k for five years. Does that sound like a good deal now?

      A savings/checking account is just a place to store your money on hand so that somebody can't break into your house and take it all. Go stick your money in a Roth IRA or a 401(k) instead if you actually want to save.

      But "savings" accounts are great for getting a trickle of bonus while you park some of your cash you need for liquidity purposes. I'd rather get $500 over that 5 year period than $25.

    11. Re:Ghee... by neminem · · Score: 1

      > "Tell you what, I'll give you that $500 up front if you let me hold on to that $10k for five years. Does that sound like a good deal now?"

      No...? Because that isn't describing a savings account, that's describing a CD, which has justifiably higher rates than savings accounts...?

      A savings account is a place to store your money on hand, yes. And I'd rather it generate more money than *not* as much money, cause, duh. (Also, Roth IRA and 401k contributions are both capped, so those are only remotely relevant if you aren't already hitting the cap.)

  19. AR vs VR by suupaabaka · · Score: 1

    Virtual reality's all well and good if you're just sitting around, but I'd say the real potential is in augmented reality. AR lets you stay mobile, and I think people are becoming increasingly accustomed to mobility.

    1. Re:AR vs VR by skids · · Score: 1

      Really? Personally, I've found the more advanced tech gets, the less reason there is to leave my chair.

  20. Which rock did you crawl out from under? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have enough money to pay for your crimes, you just pay your way out of the US justice system with settlements.

    http://www.corp-research.org/goldman-sachs

    1. Re:Which rock did you crawl out from under? by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you have enough money to pay for your crimes, you just pay your way out of the US justice system with settlements.

      Unless that's not the case, and you've done something criminal while working, and you get charged with a crime and you go to jail. Which happens regularly even amongst very well-off circles. Why? Because when individuals do crimes, especially in industries that leave a huge paper trail, the evidence doesn't go away. So, instead of generalities, name the names of the people at GS who committed specific crimes, and name the crimes that the DoJ decided not to charge those individual people with. You know, since you haven't been under a rock, you'll have that list of DoJ-knew-who-committed-crimes-but-elected-not-to-charge people somewhere handy. Do tell.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Which rock did you crawl out from under? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      GS is one of those examples where the whole hierarchy was involved, so as there couldn't be a sacrificial goat they bought there way out of it. Pick any of the top level GS execs during the fraud commited by GS and you have examples of those that belong in Jail.

    3. Re:Which rock did you crawl out from under? by wbr1 · · Score: 1
      Yes, paper trails (or e-records trails) are there. However it would cost a small fortune for the DOJ to investigate that and name names. In an investigation like that you are looking for a needle in a stack of needles.
      In addition, target investigations do not work well against systemic problems. If a company decides to skirt close to the edge of the law (using tactics such as regulatory capture) and fuck everyone over, the net result is a negative on society but the culprits can get by with a little hand waving and cash to grease the wheels.

      Also, occasionally the DOJ will pull a name out of a hat and make an example of some execs. Normally only when the stink gets so bad it can't be swept under the rug. This keeps the peasants appeased, meanwhile it is business as usual.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    4. Re:Which rock did you crawl out from under? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have enough money to pay for your crimes, you just pay your way out of the US justice system with settlements.

      Unless that's not the case, and you've done something criminal while working, and you get charged with a crime and you go to jail. Which happens regularly even amongst very well-off circles. Why? Because when individuals do crimes, especially in industries that leave a huge paper trail, the evidence doesn't go away. So, instead of generalities, name the names of the people at GS who committed specific crimes, and name the crimes that the DoJ decided not to charge those individual people with. You know, since you haven't been under a rock, you'll have that list of DoJ-knew-who-committed-crimes-but-elected-not-to-charge people somewhere handy. Do tell.

      You retard, you keep saying this over and over, and your question is answered in the settlement and the Depart of Justice's summary statement posted above.
      Here's a question for you, answer yes or no,:have you read either the settlement or the DoJ summary?

    5. Re:Which rock did you crawl out from under? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What should have happened is every employee above a certain pay grade should have been brought up on RICO charges and the corporation itself should have lost its charter and been dissolved.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  21. Introduction video by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    Here is a great video of how the new bank will work...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DT7bX-B1Mg

  22. Which MILL is that? by mi · · Score: 0

    Goldman Sachs has functioned like a run-of-the-mill investment bank

    Which mill is it, that produces investment banks? The following was written 70 years ago (!):

    Dying metaphors. A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically "dead" (e.g. iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Examples are: Ring the changes on, take up the cudgel for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles' heel, swan song, hotbed. Many of these are used without knowledge of their meaning (what is a "rift," for instance?), and incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign that the writer is not interested in what he is saying. Some metaphors now current have been twisted out of their original meaning without those who use them even being aware of the fact. For example, toe the line is sometimes written as tow the line. Another example is the hammer and the anvil, now always used with the implication that the anvil gets the worst of it. In real life it is always the anvil that breaks the hammer, never the other way about: a writer who stopped to think what he was saying would avoid perverting the original phrase.

    — George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  23. No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh fuck no! I don't need Gordon gecko fucking up my life.

  24. To sum up what I fully expect out of this by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    I'm honestly surprised nobody posted it before.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  25. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not giving out my personal information and granting the privilege of playing god over my credit score to a bunch of wall street assclowns. If you get right down to brass tacks I suppose all of us already have to some degree but I have no desire to pour napalm on that particular fire.

  26. Is the rate really this shit in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1.05% PER ANNUM?! I had to double check that wasn't per month. Is that really the rate you get in the US?

    I'm in the UK and my standard current account (checking account to USians) gives me 1% on balances up to £1,000, 2% on £2000 and 4% on £4000 and above.

    That is just my standard current account. I haven't bothered to shop around or look at savings accounts even.

    -Matt

    1. Re:Is the rate really this shit in the US? by Maddog+Batty · · Score: 1

      That would be with Lloyds then.

      You get 4% if (and only if) you have between £4000 and £5000 in the account. You get no additional interest for balances above £5000.

      Santander 123 gives 3% for balances up to £20000 which is better overall.

      However, if you have more than £20000 then good luck in finding somewhere sensible to put it. A quick look shows that the best I can find is 1.45% with RCI Bank (who?!). Better than 1.05% but not dramatically so.

      --
      wot no sig
  27. Anyone can join? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have a valid address on US, an US SSN and so on. Seems like free advertisement on Slashdot

    1. Re: Anyone can join? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be careful. The last time I legitimately mentioned that an article was worded like an advertisement whipslash (or whatever) went off on me.

  28. I don't need this by istartedi · · Score: 1

    We have Indian casinos nearby. /sarc?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  29. Nice... by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

    Something for those 323,995,528 * 0,99 = 320,755,573 million temporarily embarrassed millionaires to aspire to. <--- That was sarcasm.

  30. US only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Account Owners must be at least 18 years old and must be a U.S. citizen or legal resident.

  31. Does this bank print money out of thin air? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like all the others?

    www.positivemoney.org

    What? You didn't know that 97% of the money in existence was created by private banks, and is OWED to them as debts, which means that they own 97% of everything in the world, without having earned it? But surely the controlled media would have told you that. (sarcasm)

  32. Anyone with an internet connection and a dollar.. by clickety6 · · Score: 1

    Where values of anyone are restricted to people in the USA....

    Note: Account Owners must be at least 18 years old and must be a U.S. citizen or legal resident.

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  33. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... diversify revenue streams and strengthen liquidity ...

    Meaning: They want to cover their arse using your money. But savings banks have to give that money back. They were better off as "a run-of-the-mill investment bank", where refunds are optional.

    I think I see a reason: More cash in their hand means bigger day-trades in the business of arbitrage via computerized leverage; also called HFT. Ignoring the fact this will take stock exchange computers from billions of trades, to trillions of trades; the quantity of stock being moved in one direction, will distort the market value of that stock.

  34. Didn't look good in "The Big Short" by swb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Goldman didn't look good in the movie the Big Short.

    MIchael Burry, the fund manager who "discovered" how bad mortgage backed bonds were due to poor lending practices, bought hedges against these bonds from Goldman to the tune of at least a hundred million dollars. They thought he was an idiot and sold them willingly.

    Yet when the default rate skyrocketed and should have made the hedges he bought greatly increase in value they kept acting like the hedges hadn't increased in value, basically ignoring the defaults in the bonds. I don't know what their actual role was but the movie portrayed them as acting extremely dishonestly. Maybe they were just going along with the systemic dishonesty of the larger bond market. Maybe they were desperately working to unload their own holdings in order to not get taken to the cleaners by Burry.

    And I think they were accused of basically double-dipping -- selling mortgage backed securities in the front of the house while shorting them in their own profile. That's like an oncologist selling chemotherapy to the public while investing in hospice care personally.

  35. Obligatory: Aaaand. . . it's gone! by Idou · · Score: 1
    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  36. Quoting Southpark by De_Boswachter · · Score: 1

    GS:

    Anyone with an internet connection and a dollar can join.

    Aaand it's gone...

  37. another day.. another con in the making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just what the title says

  38. Why not? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    What could possible go wrong?

    It's not like they haven't coughed to actively and willfully screwing investors for their own gain. Oh wait...

  39. If they can't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they can't be competitive with other online bank savings rates, who cares? Honestly. Whoa new bank that offers 0.01% interest, just what US consumers need

  40. Anyone can join by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Anyone with an internet connection and a dollar can join"
    CORRECTION
    Any AMERICAN with with an internet connection and a dollar can join", as an attempt to get an account from Australia did not work (we do not have Social Security Numbers)

  41. Irrational conclusion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should put our money where it is safest, right?

    Well, Goldman Sachs, just like Wells Fargo and JP Morgan have passed the greatest safety test of the past century, the survived and even mostly turning a profit during the greatest financial crisis that we have known for many years. They received TARP money because they were forced to take it.

    Now, who would you want to deposit your money with, a company that passed this test or someone else which did not for whichever reason?

    The great recession was caused due to financial ignorance and greed of the common people, the powers that be simply used this fact as it has always been.

    Educate yourself to have a better life. Blaming the scapegoat will not.

  42. cahoots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't fuck with these cunts.

  43. Anyone with an internet connection and a dollar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Anyone with an internet connection and a dollar can join" ... AND a US social security number.