Search results

This committee is laughable at best.... Levin is really embarrassing himself.

god they are still going. the epitome of a political red herring. all you sheep that think there is news here, you're beyond help.

This thing on the hill today was a fucking car wreck. No wonder no one has faith in our reps: they're all undereducated on the topics they chair.

theories are like assholes: everybody has one.

There's a lot of that all around though.

links please.

What problems did they have? They didn't want any fed money in the first place! All banks over a certain size were FORCED to take TARP funds.

The feds took everyone's crap mortgages - GS is not special in this regard. GS didn't end up like Bear or Lehman becuase they have better risk management. Period.

You have to understand the people buying these things are SOPHISTICATED investors - not joe schmo with an etrade account. The buyers better not have fucking been acting off of "GS's reputation that they wouldn't intentionally screw them.." the should have been investing WITH THEIR HEADS AND...

Why should they have disclosed that Paulson was taking the other side? What does it matter? It didn't affect the performance of the instrument in any way. If the buyer didn't like what was in the products they shouldn't have purchased them. Period. End of Story. The only way this is...

You really have no idea how things inside a firm like this work, do you? Spare us sweeping statements on how "bad corrupt etc. etc. etc. things inside wall st..." are. It makes you sound inexperienced and a puppet of the TV news.

You actually hit the nail on the head. They're doing something just to appease the proletariat.

GS paid back everything with interest - so did several of the banks. You just plain don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Bullshit - traders from the same firm being both long and short an issue goes on every single day. GS prides itself on different parts of the company acting independently of each other. I don't know of a firm that doesn't take both sides of a trade. You're trying to cloud this discussion...

You know what? No one put a gun to these people's heads and said "you must buy these products!" If it takes a few lawyers to figure them out, then the buy-side SHOULD NOT HAVE PURCHASED THEM. If they bought something they didn't understand, then that's their fault. I've been burned by...

agreed, but the problem is the sec has no case. This is yet another sec disaster that will play-out with them being incompetent fools. The only reason it's getting positive play right now is becuase GS is the current "bad guy" poster-child in the media and any stern action against them is...

Are you being serious? (not sure if you're joking or not) edit: in case you're not...http://www.scribd.com/doc/13112282/AIG-Risk-Bankruptcy-Report They had insurance by some estimates against 1.6 trillion USD worth of derivatives. The only way you could think this didn't cause them to go...

The sentence was pretty short - not a lot to get lost in....

If GS got par for debts due to them from AIG, how did the other AIG counterparties fair? Was GS the only firm to get par?

The losses would have been written-down. While you may look at the AIG bailout as indirect support for a company like GS, the fact remains that the banks got direct money which not all of them needed. AIG is a unique case becuase they insured derivatives. The fact that the feds could affect...