SEC charges GS with fraud

Quote from asiaprop:

WHO gave them money? Can you give us a link to a credible source?

You make up stories all day long without the slightest backup. I am asking you again: Back up your claims or stfu because your word on an anonymous board means next to nothing other than you are parroting popular media...

Any money from government/taxpayers they received, they have paid back in full. Its all well documented. You are denying hard facts and evidence thats all I can say to you.
More...

Do you know what the MAiden LAne accounts consists of?
Stop asking for verification of common knowledge!
Ihavent lost .10 cents on any of this but I do have a problem with 2 firms like Lehman and Bear Stearns going out of business while a GS stays in business all becasue they know the "umpires".
 
Quote from walter4:

"Investment banks such as Goldman Sachs were not simply market-makers, they were self-interested promoters of risky and complicated financial schemes that helped trigger the crisis," Levin said. "They bundled toxic mortgages into complex financial instruments, got the credit rating agencies to label them as AAA securities, and sold them to investors, magnifying and spreading risk throughout the financial system, and all too often betting against the instruments they sold and profiting at the expense of their clients."

Goldman Sachs e-mails show bank sought to profit from housing downturn
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 24, 2010; 10:44 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/24/AR2010042400882.html
More...



"The back-and-forth over which way the market would go, and how to invest in it, continued into 2007."

"the prevailing view of executives, as described in the paper, was not that the housing market was headed into a prolonged decline. They were not looking to short the market overall"

"There will be very good opportunities as the markets goes into what is likely to be even greater distress and we want to be in position to take advantage of them."

"It does feel to me like the market in general underestimated how bad it could get. And now could be overestimating where we are heading," he wrote in an e-mail. "While undoubtedly there will be some continued spillover, I'm not so convinced this is a total death spiral. In fact, we may have terrific opportunities."

"Sparks later endorsed that optimistic view, suggesting as late as August 2007 that Goldman begin buying more mortgage securities."


This just shows how stupid these senators are. Hindsight is 20/20 (damn fool), at the time nobody knew that these assets would be toxic.

All those quotes above contradict the SEC case and the belief that GS knowingly sold assets they knew would devalue. Clearly they had no clue as to where the market was going. Executive where even considering increasing their long positions, the same side as their clients who bought abacus. How is that fraud? Clearly they where considering it for their own company so why is it fraud if they allowed their clients to do the same.

GS was net long the housing market. Sometime in 2006 they began to notice signs of trouble. In December of 2006 they decided to reduce the firm exposure to the housing market, they did this by increasing their short position. Throughout most of 2007 executive where split on their outlook on the market. However, by late 2007 they brought the company overall position on that market to natural.

This move is responsible for them coming out of this crisis better off than others. There is nothing illegal or unethical about what they did. The decision to increase their short position where good BUSINESS decisions and NOT an effort to defraud any of their clients
 
Bashing GS I said essentially on facebook 10 minutes after that it is hilariously politically expedient to bash a company that less than 1 million people in the United States are qualified to even speak about.

These lawyers are frivolously prosecuting caveat emptor rules for all investments. Risk managers hedging overleveraged bets is only proper, and the economically profitable fee based business and proprietary trading operations capable of full-scale contango mispricing exploitation, is just a tool to defend against bottom line depreciation by minimizing losses that are exactly identical economically to maximizing profits. In this case, preservation of capital and prudent hedging of a heavily long biased market I'm sure was a very obvious move considering how well heeled their clients are already.

Anyway, it'll take at least 10 years to get it sorted out, but I think GS will win that one.
 
The fraud charge has only to do with whether they misrepresented Paulson's position in the ABACUS deal, nothing more.

But I am puzzled, because it seems such a thing would usually be quickly settled with a fine that is probably less than what GS pays for stamps in a quarter. By not handing over some pocket change, they opened themselves up to all this scrutiny, which is bad considering the hand they had in helping Greece hide its debt from the EU.

But what's done is done. Now there is no way they are stopping the litigation lawyers from swimming toward the smell of blood. Too late.
 
Quote from Trader666:

Wow, what turnip truck did you fall off of? Gretchen Morgenson's article from last December doesn't prove squat. Maybe you should try reading the documents yourself instead of relying on others for what to think.

You're a rube to think that Goldman would spin losing $75 million on this particular deal for "PR" purposes. Why go out on that limb, especially when the case against them is so weak? Or don't you think Goldman understands the concept of risk/reward?

Why don't you call the SEC (if you can pry them away from their porn) and blow the whistle on Goldman's "cover-up"? I know, I know... Goldman's involvement was so massive that their offsets can't be conclusively linked.
More...

I'm a fool for having not seen your character from a mile away. At first I thought you were just misinformed, but it's now evident you are nothing but a common ET troll.

Your lack of a remotely competent retort says it all. What I was trying to impress upon you simply went straight over your head. It's quite sad. Either you are trolling because your ego has been bruised, or you are flat out incompetent. I'd wager both.

You are now on ignore.
 
you know jack shit, so dont throw "Maiden Lane" into the air pretending you know anything about GS.

Lehman and BS went under because they were helplessly over leveraged not because they did not have any friends in government. The hubris that Leh's exCEO exhibits, even now, is unbelievable. Goldman employed much more prudent risk management and yes, they did take a neutral to slightly short exposure against lots of real estate stuff. This is about you being completely wrong in attempting to throw those 3 firms into the same pot.

You really should shut up because the more you open your mouth the more it becomes apparent you really dont know much of what was going on other than what you heard on CNBC.

Quote from wmb:

Do you know what the MAiden LAne accounts consists of?
Stop asking for verification of common knowledge!
Ihavent lost .10 cents on any of this but I do have a problem with 2 firms like Lehman and Bear Stearns going out of business while a GS stays in business all becasue they know the "umpires".
More...
 
lol, how come you sound more and more like Jack Hershey? What do you actually wanna say other than you think GS comes out ahead?

Quote from bwolinsky:

Bashing GS I said essentially on facebook 10 minutes after that it is hilariously politically expedient to bash a company that less than 1 million people in the United States are qualified to even speak about.

These lawyers are frivolously prosecuting caveat emptor rules for all investments. Risk managers hedging overleveraged bets is only proper, and the economically profitable fee based business and proprietary trading operations capable of full-scale contango mispricing exploitation, is just a tool to defend against bottom line depreciation by minimizing losses that are exactly identical economically to maximizing profits. In this case, preservation of capital and prudent hedging of a heavily long biased market I'm sure was a very obvious move considering how well heeled their clients are already.

Anyway, it'll take at least 10 years to get it sorted out, but I think GS will win that one.
More...
 
Quote from asiaprop:

you know jack shit, so dont throw "Maiden Lane" into the air pretending you know anything about GS.

Lehman and BS went under because they were helplessly over leveraged not because they did not have any friends in government. The hubris that Leh's exCEO exhibits, even now, is unbelievable. Goldman employed much more prudent risk management and yes, they did take a neutral to slightly short exposure against lots of real estate stuff. This is about you being completely wrong in attempting to throw those 3 firms into the same pot.

You really should shut up because the more you open your mouth the more it becomes apparent you really dont know much of what was going on other than what you heard on CNBC.
More...


their exposure was enough to put them out of business. Why? because the counterparty who had the other side was going belly up. Even if they were on the right side of the trade, they would not have been paid and the tax payer had to pony up. Cmon, how can anyone argure this looking back? not to mention they were also stuck holding bad paper. I would wonder what they would have gotten for the swaps had AIG evaporated? A big goose egg.....and there is no need to insult, we all know very well how courageous people get behind their keyboards...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top