SEC charges GS with fraud

Quote from Anaconda:



BTW, I actually think GS is a buy, that lawsuit won't go far and such conflicts of interests are regular business on Wall Street.
More...


Not so sure about this - I think maybe around 141ish is the time to evaluate.

GS has a lot of collateral damage - from the SEC charge to the nondisclosure of the Wells notice (I think it ended up being "material" to stockholders since the stock took a dump). The litigation lawyers are foaming at the mouth.

The ones long the stock (Blankfein got it as his last bonus that way) might want to talk it up, but uncertainty is usually a bad thing for a company/stock.
 
dont mix up stuff. We talked about GS's need for the CDS it purchased from AIG and there is clear evidence GS would not have been in trouble even without AIG fulfilling any of its obligations.

I never claimed GS was not in trouble as anybody else before that.

Stick to the topic buddy.

Quote from Anaconda:

GS was rushed through to become a money center in the midst of the TARP being enacted, so what exactly are you talking about when mentioning credit lines & reserve ratios. GS did not have these requirements as it was a pure investment bank but was rushed through the process and converted to a money center (along with Morgan Stanley), in order to become eligible for the TARP, TALF and get access to the Fed discount window.
When such drastic courses of action are taken, it's kinda obvious whether there was trouble or not.
More...
 
no they would not have, read the numbers, do the f. homework buddy. Seriously, a lot of you GS haters simply dont read a few simple documents that provide all the evidence that is needed to refute your claims.

GS was in trouble when it accepted moneys from Buffet, it was in trouble when it requested conversion to a banking entity, it was in trouble when it accepted tarp (at least I believe so despite what GS's CEO has to say about that now) but GS was CLEARLY not anymore in trouble when it came to the debate how much AIG owed to GS. Its simple history and all numbers are openly available.

If you ignore facts then that only speaks against you and makes your whole approach to trading very questionable.

Quote from trendlover:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


:) Ok, pretend AIG never get bailout money, so they can not pay Goldman "a single penny" like you say.

Now Goldman have CDO that only is worth the .40 cent to the dollar (in this time)(this is true and proof by how much collateral AIG have to post in this time) Ok, but they hedge this risk with more swaps on AIG Default, true? BUT if no bailout to AIG, then this other swaps Goldman Sach have can maybe not pay either? (systemic risk)

Now, who (in this time because no one trust any CDO) can the Goldman Sachs sell their .40 cent on the dollar CDO to? NO MARKET in this time.
So would Goldman collapse?
More...
 
I never claimed they were not in trouble (read my post above). The point I argue is that GS was in the LEAST trouble of all banks PLUS they were long time out of any trouble when the AIG question arose.

Please read carefully before you jump to conclusions.

Quote from ElCubano:

of course they were in trouble and perhaps on the verge of being extinct. It's amazing how even with the advantage of hindsight some still would say that they were doing ok. Asia has popped up in every thread having to do with GS and has defended them on every single one of them. I could care less wether they did or did not committ fraud, we all know fraud is part of the game in almost every industry, but to come out and say they weren't in trouble is too funny.
More...
 
lol, as much as you scream (and you really start to sound like a true cry baby) none of GS's 2009 bonuses are anyone elses business, for sure not yours and for sure not any tax payer's. But keep on getting your brain wash from popular media who have nothing else to report than GS.

Quote from wmb:

Hey,
You are the one who was either missing my point about MAiden lane accounts being a billion dollar hiding place for GS or your decimal points are in the wrong spot!
So, my moronic posts are the exact posts that everybody is talking about except for the GS flag bearers! GS would have perished if all of the above mentioned help didnt come together when it did to save their arrogant f'ing asses. To think your fing better than Lehman is wild but take your bonus and shove it up your ass! Stop trying to defend GS and their bonuses because this is what this thread is really all about!
If I'm the moron why the F are you still confused?
More...
 
Quote from asiaprop:

dont mix up stuff. We talked about GS's need for the CDS it purchased from AIG and there is clear evidence GS would not have been in trouble even without AIG fulfilling any of its obligations.

I never claimed GS was not in trouble as anybody else before that.

Stick to the topic buddy.
More...

Take your own advice. You specifically mentioned GS's credit lines and reserve ratio. Reserve ratio applies to banks and money centers, with a specific focus on the Federal Reserve system. I gave you a retort that addressed that and noted that when a pure investment bank is taken through such rapid steps to become a money banking center in order to access bailout programs and the Fed's lending facility, it means trouble.

As for relying on AIG's bailout for something like $30 billion, there is no reason to debate as to whether Goldman needed this or not, along with Magnetar, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, that hedge fund ran by the guy with one eye and other parties. That was the short bet. AIG allowed to fold meant no payouts and the synthetic short positions become worth nil and all of the sudden these positions become long toxic waste.
 
Looks like pollution still spews from the bowels of the clueless.

Some braille for the blind:

Goldman has PR'ed that is lost $90million on AC-1. This is a completely factual and legal PR statement, as far as I'm concerned. Never have I stated otherwise. What is incredibly disingenuous about this slick GS statement and fools most laymen, including trader666, is that per "legal" balance sheet representation, a synthetic CDO transaction of this type will split the offset hedge as a SEPERATE 2nd transaction, even though the CDS/ABX etc selections will often be worked out by the CDO manager& middle-office risk manager handling the Abacus. Does one understand the significance of that?

Ex for laymen: CPO goes LONG 100 FDAX with Broker #1 CQG. Hedge SHORT 125 ES with Broker #2 MFGlobal. Two separate "legal" transactions.

PR to CPO clients: We lost on FDAX long with CQG.

Completely factual, but disingenuous without knowing the outcome of the short hedge.

The purpose of providing links to articles such as that by Morgenson (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/business/bio-morgenson.html) was to show that Goldman internal prop decision making was short RMBS biased for quite some time prior to AC-1 finalization. Perfectly legal, perfectly normal. Once again, there is very little to zero probability that GS middle-office would have allowed that particular AC-1 0-9% equity (1st pool to get zero'd on a default) to go naked knowing full-well how GS was positioning themselves with similar/same Baa2 tranches. Goldman was likely looking to offload that tranche on red alert, but when the spreads started to split only a few months after AC-1 signed off, they got caught holding the bag.

There is no inside scope. Just logic and a basic fundamental understanding how this market works.

Sad how so many loud-mouth imbeciles pollute so many threads here on ET with piss-poor insight. Nitro, I don't know how you have the patience (indicative of post count) to deal with these clowns.

For those that have genuine interest in learning more about this market, recommend stopping by places like Wilmott, NucPhy, NakedCapitalism etc. Do not recommend the loose-with-fact artists like those @ ZeroHedge.
 
Try $12.9 billion.
Quote from Anaconda:

As for relying on AIG's bailout for something like $30 billion, there is no reason to debate as to whether Goldman needed this or not
More...
 
its ok, there is a reason why 95% of "traders" lose out. There are too many who are guided in their decision making by emotions and anecdotal evidence rather than by facts. I pointed to material that can be easily accessed and I rest my case. I dont work for GS and I dont want to long this stock, especially not right now. But I dont have an axe to grind vs some others who apparently seem to be in the know about all that GS stands for and has done, unfortunately their source of info is other GS haters, CNBC, and the like.



Quote from Trader666:

Try $12.9 billion.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top