Never thought GS would get attacked in this way, considering its far reaching global web of connections throughout geopolitics etc etc, but they are going for it, Levin talking about "peddling" products, dunno what Torre is doing there , he's just small fry VP salesman.. sparks is struggling.. blankfein on later,, this is more fun than i could have imagined :-o
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Goldman Congressional Hearings
- Thread starter mgookin
- Start date
Quote from heypa:
Why GS ? Are they the only financial entity that takes opposing positions with their customers?
Whenever I see a dog and pony show like this I automatically assume the politicians are only posturing for political gain.
Nothing will come of this since they (GS) are deeply embedded in the Obama regime.
Nothing will come of this, but the politicians have to look like they are getting to the bottom of this. Grandstanding at best.
Perhaps a few peoples head may roll at GS at the end. then business as usual.
yes it completely is!!! Nobody says it tonight because its a vendetta not a fair hearing.
But let me assure you that every time I trade with a market maker I know that they may fully bet against me (which they essentially do if they keep the full exposure). What is the problem? I dont even see a problem with the Paulson issue simply because all the investors HAD to approve the assets in the portfolios/ reference securities (in the case of synthetic deals. They could do all the due diligence on it and reject assets they did not like. I did the same thing with proposed equity basket option deals. I rejected certain names and approved others. What is the deal?
Clients should have known and should know that the counter party may bet against them at any given time. When you gamble in Vegas the counter party is even all the time aligned against your interest. What do you expect from an investment bank when you buy such product, that someone holds your hands till death us part? What do you expect the interest of a used car salesman is? That your lemon goes as far as possible? Or that you soon bring it in for repairs or buy a new car?
The main point, I believe, is that all the information pertaining to the deal and its price and value was known to clients. If some politicians feel the involvement of Paulson should have been disclosed, fine, slap GS's cheek. Anything else appears as politicians searching for a scapegoat, and it cant be Citi...thats how it looks to me
But let me assure you that every time I trade with a market maker I know that they may fully bet against me (which they essentially do if they keep the full exposure). What is the problem? I dont even see a problem with the Paulson issue simply because all the investors HAD to approve the assets in the portfolios/ reference securities (in the case of synthetic deals. They could do all the due diligence on it and reject assets they did not like. I did the same thing with proposed equity basket option deals. I rejected certain names and approved others. What is the deal?
Clients should have known and should know that the counter party may bet against them at any given time. When you gamble in Vegas the counter party is even all the time aligned against your interest. What do you expect from an investment bank when you buy such product, that someone holds your hands till death us part? What do you expect the interest of a used car salesman is? That your lemon goes as far as possible? Or that you soon bring it in for repairs or buy a new car?
The main point, I believe, is that all the information pertaining to the deal and its price and value was known to clients. If some politicians feel the involvement of Paulson should have been disclosed, fine, slap GS's cheek. Anything else appears as politicians searching for a scapegoat, and it cant be Citi...thats how it looks to me
Quote from ASusilovic:
A lot of questions are politically motivated and have nothing to do with the case de jour. The question remains whether it is ethical to bet against your own customers...
Quote from asiaprop:
yes it completely is!!! Nobody says it tonight because its a vendetta nor a fair hearing.
But let me assure you that every time I trade with a market maker I know that they may fully bet against me (which they essentially do if they keep the full exposure). What is the problem? I dont even see a problem with the Paulson issue simply because all the investors HAD to approve the assets in the portfolios/ reference securities (in the case of synthetic deals. They could do all the due diligence on it and reject assets they did not like. I did the same thing with proposed equity basket option deals. I rejected certain names and approved others. What is the deal?
Clients should have known and should know that the counter party may bet against them at any given time. When you gamble in Vegas the counter party is even all the time aligned against your interest. What do you expect from an investment bank when you buy such product, that someone holds your hands till death us part? What do you expect the interest of a used car salesman is? That your lemon goes as far as possible? Or that you soon bring it in for repairs or buy a new car?
BINGO!
Quote from asiaprop:
I worked with GS people uncountable times and most struck me as being ethical, intelligent, collegial, and resourceful, as far as market makers as trading partners concern.
That statement alone proves to me that you are full of sh*t and are just spewing rhetoric. But I will make sure to quote this and email it to some colleagues who have actually had or have real business dealings with GS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote from johnnyqpublic:
I'm not convinced that the people grilling the four GS guys have any idea what they are talking about.
I think Mr. Tester is confused when he ask Mr. Sparks if they tell the rating agency Paulson want the short.
Because the rating is for the instrument, is not rated for how some people bet the instrument.
I did not hear all testimony today, but look how nervous Mr. Sparks feel when they talk about the rating agency. :eek:
Quote from Anaconda:
That statement alone proves to me that you are full of sh*t and are just spewing rhetoric. But I will make sure to quote this and email it to some colleagues who have actually had or have real business dealings with GS.
Dont send it to me..... I will print it out and laminate it to the top of my desk to constantly remind me of the possibilities!
lol, sounds like someone got skinned by some evil GS traders, ouch.
Quote from Anaconda:
That statement alone proves to me that you are full of sh*t and are just spewing rhetoric. But I will make sure to quote this and email it to some colleagues who have actually had or have real business dealings with GS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
These guys are out of their minds to me, talking about this in Congress. All these guys in the senate are pretending they are trial lawyers, its bullshit. My favorite was the steroids testimony, completely absurd. :eek:
These guys are out of their minds to me, talking about this in Congress. All these guys in the senate are pretending they are trial lawyers, its bullshit. My favorite was the steroids testimony, completely absurd. :eek: