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 Sachs E-Mail by Montag Described CDO as âShi**y Dealâ
- Thread starter ASusilovic
- Start date
Quote from nutmeg:
BSC and LEH both owned retail mortgage cos, I don't think GS did. Why'd the SEC miss the fraud on them? I suppose the shit hadn't hit the fan. For that matter, suppose this is the tailend of the crisis and it's only now the SEC discovers fraud. Par for the course.
Probably the SEC didn't "miss the fraud on them." Goldman is the logical place to start however, as the other two are out of business. From what is available in the press it is far to soon to be drawing conclusions. Let the fraud case play out and see what develops. It may be months or years before we learn how this ends.
I am surprised there are so many people out raged by this whole "shitty deal" saying. Blankfein described it in his testimony perfectly, anytime they are looking to sell something they are obviously selling for a reason. If they thought it was undervalued they sure as heck wouldnt be selling it just to be charitable. Any time a buyer and a seller meet, both sides think they are getting a deal, or they are looking out for their best interest. You dont buy something off someone which you think is going down in price, just as you dont sell something to someone which you think is going up in price. It isnt a hard concept, it is the basic fundamentals which drive the market.
Quote from Hello:
I am surprised there are so many people out raged by this whole "shitty deal" saying. Blankfein described it in his testimony perfectly, anytime they are looking to sell something they are obviously selling for a reason. If they thought it was undervalued they sure as heck wouldnt be selling it just to be charitable. Any time a buyer and a seller meet, both sides think they are getting a deal, or they are looking out for their best interest. You dont buy something off someone which you think is going down in price, just as you dont sell something to someone which you think is going up in price. It isnt a hard concept, it is the basic fundamentals which drive the market.
Goldman's relationship with clients, in some instances, may be quite different from a simple buyer-seller relationship. Suppose the client has retained Goldman and will pay them for rendering investment advice, and further suppose that as part of this advice Goldman recommends that the client purchase something from Goldman's inventory. That's not a straight forward buyer-seller relationship, rather it is a clear-cut example of conflicting interests.
Even if Goldman renders no advise whatsoever but merely sells a product to a buyer they may have a problem if they knowingly sold a product that was grossly defective for a use that a buyer could reasonably assume the product was useful for, and as a result the buyer suffered damages.