Goldman Sachs's (GS) normally reclusive CEO and noted theologian Lloyd Blankfein has been conducting an unprecedented number of interviewers of late to try to bolster the company's image.

Maybe they'd be better off if he crawled back into his shell.

In an interview with London's Sunday Times, Mr. Blankfein explained that Goldman Sachs is "doing God's work."

Who does our Treasury Secretary speak to most of the time? Yup. You guessed it. It's the big three bankers.

Who are they? First, we have Lloyd Blankenstein, CEO of Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE GS). Then we have Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Company (NYSE JPM) and then CEO, Vikam Pandt of Citigroup Inc. (NYSE C).

You are probably also wondering how do we know this? The Associated Press did a review of Geithner's calendar under the Freedom of Information Act.

In his first seven months on the job, Geithner made at least 80 contacts with the "big three." Not only that Geithner jumps to the phone when they call. They are the dominant players on Wall Street who can move markets and even economies.

In the wake of widespread populist outcry over his company's ability to profiteer off of government bailout money, Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) CEO Lloyd Blankfein is joining the chorus of people lashing out over excessive bonuses.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Speaking at a banking conference in Frankfurt, Blankfein said that guaranteed multi-year contracts for bankers should be banned.

"Compensation continues to generate controversy and anger," Blankfein said, according to Bloomberg. "And, in many respects, much of it is understandable and appropriate. There is little justification for the payment of outsized discretionary compensation when a financial institution lost money for the year."

Talk of "green shoots" abounds with the S&P 500 up 40% from its lows in March 2009, but Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) CEO Lloyd Blankfein remains cautious in his outlook for the global economy. "I think it's going to be a long, protracted recession," he said while speaking on a panel at the annual International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) conference in Tel Aviv.

Blankfein also emphasized the importance of intelligent regulation and risk management, warning fellow finance executives not to discount the latter. "The culture of risk management is very important and hard to legislate, but at the end of the day, you have to make sure that the people on the risk management side of your operation are just as capable, and maybe therefore, just as well-paid and have the career opportunities as people on the producing side of the business."

The founders of Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) can stop rolling over in their graves. Management is about to bring the firm back to its rightful place on Wall Street. With a $5 billion equity offering, the esteemed firm is going to pay the government back the money from the TARP and get on with being the biggest, baddest firm on the Street. Enough of the handcuffs. It wants to get back in the capital markets ring and knock everybody else out.

Goldman Sachs as a bank? Just wasn't in their entrepreneurial blood. They could no more cater to the whims of regulators than a Ferrari can be used as a school bus. These guys are risk takers and big rewarders. They do their homework, make big bets, and reap the profits, if there are any, or lose millions. And when they're right, they want the money. As a bank and TARP recipient, there were rules about risk and limits on pay. That really chafed.

Yesterday, in his speech to the Council on Institutional Investors, Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) CEO Lloyd Blankfein spoke about Wall Street pay. As a fellow who made $43 million in 2008 -- to be fair, Goldman actually made a $2.3 billion profit in 2008 -- Blankfein obviously knows a thing or two about the Wall Street pay envelope.

And he gets points for trying to balance Goldman's interests with those of the public -- but he still missed the mark. I think Wall Street needs its pay in escrow -- if its deals pay off after three years, bankers get the escrow cash; if not, that escrow pays the deals' investors.

An era of greed that began with the election of Ronald Reagan has come to an abrupt end. That means that the seething emotions of greed and envy that come along with bonus time at investment banks will have fewer dollars attached to them. And talent will flow to government and academia rather than Wall Street. This could be good for the U.S.

Some of those masters of the universe in the investment banking industry have seen the value of their stock tumble (and many of them are going without bonuses this year). Here are some of the "casualties":

As the sordid tale of Bernard Madoff continues to unspool, it has become increasingly clear that somebody -- in fact, a lot of somebodies -- were asleep at the switch. Beyond the standard warning signs, like Madoff's incredible secrecy, his surprisingly consistent rate of return, and the clubby nature of his selling staff, there were far more obvious portents. For example, Madoff's chief compliance officer was his brother Peter, and one of the compliance attorneys was his niece. For that matter, the fact that Harry Markopolos, a Boston accountant, has been urging the SEC to investigate Madoff for the last nine years should have been a hint. The same, of course, goes for the 2006 SEC investigation that found violations, but didn't feel obliged to take any substantive action.

As the SEC attempts to assign blame in finest Three Stooges form, it's worth noting that this is hardly the first time that a lack of serious governmental regulation has reared its ugly head this year. At the moment, mobs are currently clamoring for Dick Fuld's head, with a healthy side order of Hank Greenberg, John Thain, John Mack, Lloyd Blankfein, Jimmy Cain, and pretty much everyone who works in New York's financial district. The general perspective seems to be that these men engaged in business practices that ran the gamut from risky to actionable and now should be forced to pay for the economy that they have ruined.

This post is part of a series featuring bargain stocks that are worth a look now. See more Cheap Stocks.

Of the 15 components on our Cheap Stocks roster, Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) is the one that my colleague Nick Perry dubbed "a bold choice." With plenty of question marks still surrounding the major financial names, there are undoubtedly those who will go even further and dub this pick "an unwise choice." On the other hand, some will probably just say we're stealing Warren Buffett's idea. With all potential criticisms thusly taken into consideration, let's take a look at what makes Goldman so hard to resist.

First, let's be upfront about the fundamentals. Amid the recent financial crisis, Goldman Sachs is one of the few major names on Wall Street that still has a pulse. Although it's now a bank holding company rather than an investment bank, Goldman stands out by sheer virtue of the fact that it has dodged bankruptcy rumors and has not needed an emergency rescue by one of its peers.

In fact, Goldman Sachs survived because it knew that most of those subprime-derived securities were toxic, and placed bets that the investments would lose value. Regardless, the bank still sold those securities to its clients, so we're not talking about the financial equivalent of Mother Theresa. On the bright side, nor are we discussing the financial equivalent of Nero -- and in today's market, there are plenty of favorable comparisons to be made between GS and its sector peers.

Even with its stock off by an enormous amount, it is business as usual at Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS). Its CEO sees no reason to change course even with its new status as a commercial bank. Perhaps, all the money from Warren Buffett and the Treasury have made it feel secure even in these dangerous markets. Rumors that it would have to raise more money have pressured the stock in recent days.

Goldman Chief Executive Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein was almost defiant in a presentation yesterday. According to The Wall Street Journal, he said "We're going to consider everything," but won't be provoked into "doing something rash" that the company will spend years reversing,"

Taken at face value, the comments could call a bottom to the financial crisis among the more healthy firms in the financial sector. The weak sisters in the industry may not be saved, but, with federal money moving into the market and hope that plans by the government may make housing prices more stable, Goldman and strong banks like Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC) may be in a position as dominant and relatively healthy companies to expand their franchises as competitors simply hope to survive.

Of course, if the recession gets substantially worse and lasts well over a year, optimistic predictions won't be worth a dime.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 24/7 Wall St.

The Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) plans to can 10% of its 32,500 person staff. Despite its glorious reputation, Goldman is not that different from other financial institutions (FIs). It earned high returns by borrowing too much and now that over-borrowing is causing a painful implosion. As I pointed out last night at The Wharton Club of Boston, the current debt-led bubble has cost $37 trillion so far -- six times more than the equity-led dot-com bubble.

The cost of debt is clear from a quick examination of Goldman's financial statements under current CEO Lloyd Blankfein. When he took over from current Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Goldman's ratio of assets to shareholder equity was 18.7 but by the end of 2007, the ratio peaked at 26.2 as assets more than doubled to $1.1 trillion and its return on equity (ROE) climbed to 32%.

Much of the increase in Goldman's ROE was due to debt. In particular, 65% of the increase in Goldman's ROE from 2003 to 2006 was a result of its industry-leading use of borrowed money to increase its assets. While high leverage amplifies returns when asset values climb, it causes even more offsetting pain when asset values decline. For example, the $305 billion in profits earned by the top nine investment banks over the last three years has been wiped out by $323 billion in write-downs in the last year.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) is cracking down on how its employees can waste their time while they are at work.

According to Dealbreaker, the top investment bank has blocked Facebook and prohibits workers from posting comments on the snarky Web site. The incident is so noteworthy that the gossip blog has a flashing siren graphic above its post on the topic.

"I'm sure the lot of you are going to argue that the vast majority of financial firms have long blocked access to the social networking site, but Goldman's supposed to be above such pedestrian measures," the blog says, adding that Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein used to not care about such things as "as long as you're kicking ass (by lying about level three assets)."

Fair enough but times are tough on Wall Street. Investment bankers are scrambling to hold onto their jobs as the credit crunch shows no signs of easing. Nannies who used to care for the children of Wall Streeters are finding themselves unemployed. I am sure the strippers at New York's "gentlemen's clubs" are hurting too.

Even Goldman, the best run of any Wall Street bank, is not immune. Its shares are down more than 25 percent this year. Maybe Blankfein needs to remind Goldman's employees that they should be grateful to have jobs at a time when banks are laying off tens of thousands. They are plenty of eager people who could live without recreational Internet surfing who would love to take their place.

Bruce Wasserstein's New York Magazine published a list of Wall Street titans who have seen their personal net worth decline in the last year. One name was conspicuously absent from that list: Bruce Wasserstein, who would rank second on the list of biggest losers if he not decided to exclude himself from his own publication. This type of omission has a proud history, as I have never seen Steve Forbes's name on his magazine's rich list.

Nevertheless, here are the top three biggest losers when Wasserstein's name is added accompanied by the amount they have lost:

• The Bear Stearns Companies (NYSE: BSC) former CEO James Cayne saw his net worth plummet $467 million
• Lazard Ltd.'s (NYSE: LAZ) CEO Bruce Wasserstein's net worth has fallen fallen $260 million. (This is calculated by multiplying Wasserstein's 11,394,504 shares by Lazard's stock tumble -- from its May 2007 high of $56.90 to January 24, 2008's $34.09); and
• The Goldman Sachs Group's (NYSE: GS) CEO Lloyd Blankfein has suffered a $100 million decline.

It's nice to own the means of production over at New York Magazine -- and that ownership clearly influences what it chooses not to publish.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) today posted solid fourth quarter results which were particularly impressive given the turmoil on Wall Street.

Profit after paying preferred dividends was $3.17 billion, or $7.01 per share, compared with $3.10 billion, or $6.59 per share in the year-ago period. Revenue rose 14% to $10.74 billion. Wall Street analysts were expecting profit of $6.87 per share on revenue of $10.16 billion, according to Thomson Financial.

Investment Banking net revenue rose 47% to $1.97 billion, while Trading and Investments jumped 4% to $6.93 billion and Asset Management and Security Services increased 29% to $1.84 billion.

In the press release, Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein said the New York-based investment bank continues to "see significant growth opportunities across the global economy."

Ralph Cole of Ferguson Wellman Inc., a Goldman shareholder, summed up the situation well to Bloomberg News:
"They continued to perform as every one of their competitors had troubles..They've been able to establish that they're the best investment bank out there.''

Goldman seems to be profiting at the expense of its rivals. As Bloomberg notes, analysts expect Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) and Bear Stearns Cos. (NYSE: BSC) to both report their first ever quarterly loss because of bad bets on mortgage securities.

I've never met Goldman Sachs Group's (NYSE: GS) CEO, Lloyd Blankfein. But his rise within Goldman from being a lowly gold trader to bossing around investment bankers who shunned him has a satisfying story arc. And this year's bonus of about $70 million looks to be more than 30% higher than last year's lowly $54 million.

But -- like last year -- he'll probably continue to suffer by comparison with some of the hedge fund managers within Goldman who report to him. Not to mention the measly pay he received relative to his predecessor -- Hank Paulson.

But I don't really feel sorry for Blankfein. After all, Goldman seems to have emerged relatively unscathed by all the subprime gloom that has slowed things down on Wall Street this year compared to last. I think it has something to do with a decision to short mortgage backed securities this summer.

And it doesn't lower Blankfein in my eyes that he awarded my brother, William D. Cohan's book ,The Last Tycoons, the Financial Times & Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year Award 2007.

Be sure to check out more Money Winners of 2007.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in Goldman Sachs.