SEC charges GS with fraud
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Anaconda is talking about 30 million NOT to just Goldman Sachs. Look to his post again.
Asiaprop, I do not hate Goldman Sachs like you say. I am just curious how the money works with the big banks. No bet for me in this, I just want to know how this work. (But I think Goldman Sachs know they buy the bundle of JUNK (in the beginning), and take the AAA rating, then sell this)
You say Goldman Sach will be ok with no AIG bailout. So what you are saying is the Goldman Sach money from AIG ($12 billion?) is no big deal if they do not get this. Ok.
They hedge the bet with AIG with swaps to pay them if AIG default. true?
So if no AIG bailout happen, I am saying (this other swaps/banks) that have to pay Goldman if AIG fail, can not pay Goldman if AIG fail. You understand my question?
Asiaprop, I do not hate Goldman Sachs like you say. I am just curious how the money works with the big banks. No bet for me in this, I just want to know how this work. (But I think Goldman Sachs know they buy the bundle of JUNK (in the beginning), and take the AAA rating, then sell this)
You say Goldman Sach will be ok with no AIG bailout. So what you are saying is the Goldman Sach money from AIG ($12 billion?) is no big deal if they do not get this. Ok.
They hedge the bet with AIG with swaps to pay them if AIG default. true?
So if no AIG bailout happen, I am saying (this other swaps/banks) that have to pay Goldman if AIG fail, can not pay Goldman if AIG fail. You understand my question?
LOL. The rube has fallen off of his turnip truck again and back onto this thread.
During last Tuesday's conference call, Goldman's attorney (Greg Palm) said:
"Our overall losses in connection with the transaction [ABACUS 2007-AC1] exceeded $100 million including $83 million with respect to the retained long position. We certainly had no incentive to structure a transaction designed to lose money"
Does Syprik the rube understand what the word "overall" means? Apparently not. It means "covering or including everything."
Had Goldman been hedged specifically against their long slice of ABACUS 2007-AC1, Palm's statement would have been fraud because it would have been false and made during a conference call with intent to deceive.
EVERYONE knows Goldman was short subprime but that doesn't mean this particular long was hedged. And why would Goldman misrepresent that they lost money when the SEC's case against them is so weak?
So sad that Syprik feels the need to keep coming back to dig himself deeper...
During last Tuesday's conference call, Goldman's attorney (Greg Palm) said:
"Our overall losses in connection with the transaction [ABACUS 2007-AC1] exceeded $100 million including $83 million with respect to the retained long position. We certainly had no incentive to structure a transaction designed to lose money"
Does Syprik the rube understand what the word "overall" means? Apparently not. It means "covering or including everything."
Had Goldman been hedged specifically against their long slice of ABACUS 2007-AC1, Palm's statement would have been fraud because it would have been false and made during a conference call with intent to deceive.
EVERYONE knows Goldman was short subprime but that doesn't mean this particular long was hedged. And why would Goldman misrepresent that they lost money when the SEC's case against them is so weak?
So sad that Syprik feels the need to keep coming back to dig himself deeper...
Try reading comprehension but thanks for pinpointing the exact number that is appropriated to Goldman Sachs alone. Would like to add anything else?
You might want to stop arguing about Goldman losses, as the CDS payout for a particular CDO are several times more than the actual equity piece of it. CDS is the profit, not the CDO payments, and the CDS could only be fulfilled via AIG bailout.
lol, a "contracted consultant". This guy so clearly displays he has never worked for any serious financial firm nor does he understand the issue under discussion other than what he picked up on some freebie websites. What a monkey. I am out of here, getting too hilarious.
Quote from Trader666:
LOL Gotcha!!! I was responding to your prior post where you admitted your mistake but you deleted it. And now you pretend I need reading comprehension? You're so full of crap
Your deleted post:
"Our overall losses in connection with the transaction [ABACUS 2007-AC1] exceeded $100 million including $83 million with respect to the retained long position. We certainly had no incentive to structure a transaction designed to lose money"
Thanks again for clarifying the ****overall CDO loss **** = transaction #1.
Do you have counter-evidence that GS did not lock in CDS on the following Baa2's on or after April 27, 2007 in separate balance sheet transactions (I'll give you a hint, it was contained to only 2 separate CDS):
CMLTI 2007-WFH1 M9
CARR 2006-FRE2 M8
MSAC 2007- NC1 B2
MSAC 2007- HE1 B2
ABSHE 2006- HE9 M9
To name just 5 of 14 (these 14 = 15.5% of AC-1) RMBS relevant to this discussion.
Before you strike out once again, keep in mind AIG or Deutsche Bank or ??? has released it's CDS counter-party position data after being subpoenaed. These documents are in pdf format. I'll give you the opportunity to prove you have a shred of competence that you allude to have in this space and can break down these transactions. I gave you the primer key to work with.
I'm back in a "toy with the troll" mood. You are just too easy a target. For those that already know, please do not help him. This clown will be put in his place.
Thanks again for clarifying the ****overall CDO loss **** = transaction #1.
Do you have counter-evidence that GS did not lock in CDS on the following Baa2's on or after April 27, 2007 in separate balance sheet transactions (I'll give you a hint, it was contained to only 2 separate CDS):
CMLTI 2007-WFH1 M9
CARR 2006-FRE2 M8
MSAC 2007- NC1 B2
MSAC 2007- HE1 B2
ABSHE 2006- HE9 M9
To name just 5 of 14 (these 14 = 15.5% of AC-1) RMBS relevant to this discussion.
Before you strike out once again, keep in mind AIG or Deutsche Bank or ??? has released it's CDS counter-party position data after being subpoenaed. These documents are in pdf format. I'll give you the opportunity to prove you have a shred of competence that you allude to have in this space and can break down these transactions. I gave you the primer key to work with.
I'm back in a "toy with the troll" mood. You are just too easy a target. For those that already know, please do not help him. This clown will be put in his place.