Quote from asiaprop:
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
Perfectly described. Total joke that they are trying to do this 3 years later. Yes GS made craploads of money, and yes the $10B might have helped them and yes they benefited GREATLY from the AIG bailout... BUT who put a gun to ACA and IKB's head and forced them to buy these products? You trade in a product which you know at least one other party is selling, why do you trade? because you and the other party of different opinions or interests.
