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."

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.

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.

The New York Post reports on Corporate Leader magazine's poll of the top CEOs based on a survey of analysts and investors. Here's my assessment of the top five:

• Steve Jobs, Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL). With its stock up 94.4% in the last year -- though 13% below its 52-week high -- Apple's new products this year have been outstanding. But it's a pretty pricey stock; it trades at a Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) ratio of 1.56 on a P/E ratio of 42.3 and Earnings Per Share (EPS) growth of 27.2% to $6.26 in fiscal 2009.
• Eric Schmidt, Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG). With its stock up 27.8% in the last year -- though 15% below its 52-week high -- Google continues to take share from traditional advertisers while struggling somewhat to profit from all its innovations. But it's a somewhat pricey stock; it trades at a PEG ratio of 1.39 on a P/E ratio of 49.6 and EPS growth of 35.8% to $18.19 in 2008.

The New York Times provides some useful clues on how Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) was able to profit while its peers took enormous write-downs on holdings of Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS). Its culture encourages a healthy paranoia, which gives unusual power and pay to Goldman's risk managers -- and a willingness to act in conflict with clients' interests if it helps Goldman make more money.

The critical moment came late last year -- coincidentally around the time of my NovaStar Financial (NYSE: NFI) short call -- when Goldman's CFO called a "mortgage risk" meeting which concluded that Goldman should reduce its MBS holdings and buy expensive insurance as protection against further losses. Despite this strategy shift, Goldman continued to package risky mortgages to sell to investors. Many of these clients took losses while Goldman made money. (I think if it was truly concerned about its clients' well-being, it would have warned them of the dangers it saw.)

Goldman has a relatively flat management hierarchy which allows people closest to the markets to get their views heard. And one of the keys to adapting to risk at Goldman is the unusual power and pay of its risk managers. Its controller's office, the group responsible for valuing Goldman's huge positions, has 1,100 people, including 20 PhDs. If there is a dispute, the controller is always deemed right unless the trading desk can make a convincing case for an alternate valuation.

I've heard about analysts having conflicts of interest, but this one takes the cake. Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) CEO Lloyd Blankfein actually called VTB Group CEO Andrei Kostin to apologize for an analyst's sell rating on the company's stock. Why would he do that? Bloomberg sums it up:

The situation highlights the tension U.S. investment banks face wooing clients in developing markets while complying with regulations at home that compel them to publish independent research. Goldman, which lags behind competitors in Russia, is adding 25 bankers in Moscow this year to tap what it considers the country's ``huge potential.''

Goldman worked on the bank's May IPO. While it's tempting to decry this as a sign of a lack of analyst independence, I think it's actually the opposite: This has all been done out in the open, and the analyst's report on the company was allowed to be published. That's a far cry from what might have happened a few years ago.

So while Blankfein's pandering is pathetic, we can take some encouragement from the fact that report is still available.

• Read about the exit of Goldman Sachs' star Mark McGoldrick

A top-tier investment bank like Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) might seem like it would logically be a supporter of the traditionally more pro-business GOP. But the company's CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, is casting his lot behind Senator Hillary Clinton. According to a PR put out by her campaign, Blankfein said that "As a New Yorker, I have seen firsthand the outstanding work Hillary Clinton has done as a senator, proving herself to be a strong and experienced leader."

Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) CEO John Mack, a formerly vocal supporter of the current President's candidacy, is also supporting Ms. Clinton. So what gives?

While it would be cynical to assume that these men cast their votes solely based on the interests of their employers, that could be one factor. The Democrats have been, by and large, vocal supporters of leveling the tax playing field between large private equity firms and the investment banks with which they compete. Having a firm like Blackstone (NYSE: BX) paying less in taxes puts Mack and Blankfein at a competitive disadvantage: If two firms are bidding for a deal and one has to pay twice as much in taxes, guess who's going to be able to bid the most on the deal? As a Senator from New York, Clinton is the logical choice for these executives.

Of course John Edwards was quick to attack Clinton for being supported by an investment bank. Wait, didn't he work for a hedge fund and receive compensation in the high six-figures? Oh yeah, he did that to learn about poverty. In a related story, Barry Bonds claims he used steroids to learn about how hard it is to compete as a drug-free athlete.