Has Goldman fatally damaged their Franchise?

[Arraya]

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogapr10/vampire-squid-piranhas04-10.html
Vampire Squid, Meet Ravenous Piranhas, 4/19/10.
There is even a slight chance that the Democratic leadership prompted this precise timing to light a fire under reluctant Republican senators to pass some sort of gutted, weak, sure-to-be-unenforced “financial reform.” Once again, for purposes of political theatre, it is important for the Democrats to pass a simulacrum “reform” of Wall Street to appease the frightfully hot public anger at the craven obedience of the political class to the whims and wishes of the big banks and Wall Street.
Meanwhile, as the Republicans claim to have their fingers on “the pulse of Middle America,” their Wall Street-soiled fingers are actually clasped on the cold wrist of the corpse of their own credibility. Resisting bank/financial reform, even a watered-down version, will eviscerate what little credibility the Repubs have left after lording over the destruction of the U.S. economy and their despicable rewarding of Wall Street for eight dreadful years (2001-2008).
In other words, both parties desperately need some political theatre to mask their enslavement to Wall Street and the big banks. This SEC action fits the bill very nicely, along with calling a few incredibly wealthy former CEOs up to Congress for a public flaying.

[patb]

[quote=SK in CV]Right Allen, they had a very temporary cash crunch. But never an equity crunch. They didn’t need, nor get any TARP money directly. But as counter-party, they got almost $13 billion in cash from AIG. Compared to Lehman, Bear Stearns or GM, they were never in danger.[/quote]

Had AIG declared Chapter 11, the court could have
pulled all that back and more.

Goldman was very vulnerable to AIG, and had Paulsen not gone in and paid all AIG CDS at Face, Goldman would have choked.

[patb]

[quote=SK in CV]Right Allen, they had a very temporary cash crunch. But never an equity crunch. They didn’t need, nor get any TARP money directly. But as counter-party, they got almost $13 billion in cash from AIG. Compared to Lehman, Bear Stearns or GM, they were never in danger.[/quote]

Had AIG declared Chapter 11, the court could have
pulled all that back and more.

Goldman was very vulnerable to AIG, and had Paulsen not gone in and paid all AIG CDS at Face, Goldman would have choked.

[patb]

[quote=SK in CV]Right Allen, they had a very temporary cash crunch. But never an equity crunch. They didn’t need, nor get any TARP money directly. But as counter-party, they got almost $13 billion in cash from AIG. Compared to Lehman, Bear Stearns or GM, they were never in danger.[/quote]

Had AIG declared Chapter 11, the court could have
pulled all that back and more.

Goldman was very vulnerable to AIG, and had Paulsen not gone in and paid all AIG CDS at Face, Goldman would have choked.

[patb]

[quote=SK in CV]Right Allen, they had a very temporary cash crunch. But never an equity crunch. They didn’t need, nor get any TARP money directly. But as counter-party, they got almost $13 billion in cash from AIG. Compared to Lehman, Bear Stearns or GM, they were never in danger.[/quote]

Had AIG declared Chapter 11, the court could have
pulled all that back and more.

Goldman was very vulnerable to AIG, and had Paulsen not gone in and paid all AIG CDS at Face, Goldman would have choked.

[patb]

[quote=SK in CV]Right Allen, they had a very temporary cash crunch. But never an equity crunch. They didn’t need, nor get any TARP money directly. But as counter-party, they got almost $13 billion in cash from AIG. Compared to Lehman, Bear Stearns or GM, they were never in danger.[/quote]

Had AIG declared Chapter 11, the court could have
pulled all that back and more.

Goldman was very vulnerable to AIG, and had Paulsen not gone in and paid all AIG CDS at Face, Goldman would have choked.

[patb]

[quote=UCGal][quote=briansd1]
GS is an investment bank and not a consumer bank, so I don’t think that public image is as important to them.
[/quote]

Technically they aren’t an investment bank anymore – they switched their label (and acquired *some* regulation) becoming a commercial bank – because commercial banks got more government cheese – in the form of virtually free overnight lending at the Fed window.[/quote]

Goldman is at the end of the day a trading house and a hedge fund. If nobody comes to them to make deals, because they distrust Goldman, how much does that impair the franchise.

[patb]

[quote=UCGal][quote=briansd1]
GS is an investment bank and not a consumer bank, so I don’t think that public image is as important to them.
[/quote]

Technically they aren’t an investment bank anymore – they switched their label (and acquired *some* regulation) becoming a commercial bank – because commercial banks got more government cheese – in the form of virtually free overnight lending at the Fed window.[/quote]

Goldman is at the end of the day a trading house and a hedge fund. If nobody comes to them to make deals, because they distrust Goldman, how much does that impair the franchise.

[patb]

[quote=UCGal][quote=briansd1]
GS is an investment bank and not a consumer bank, so I don’t think that public image is as important to them.
[/quote]

Technically they aren’t an investment bank anymore – they switched their label (and acquired *some* regulation) becoming a commercial bank – because commercial banks got more government cheese – in the form of virtually free overnight lending at the Fed window.[/quote]

Goldman is at the end of the day a trading house and a hedge fund. If nobody comes to them to make deals, because they distrust Goldman, how much does that impair the franchise.

[patb]

[quote=UCGal][quote=briansd1]
GS is an investment bank and not a consumer bank, so I don’t think that public image is as important to them.
[/quote]

Technically they aren’t an investment bank anymore – they switched their label (and acquired *some* regulation) becoming a commercial bank – because commercial banks got more government cheese – in the form of virtually free overnight lending at the Fed window.[/quote]

Goldman is at the end of the day a trading house and a hedge fund. If nobody comes to them to make deals, because they distrust Goldman, how much does that impair the franchise.

[patb]

[quote=UCGal][quote=briansd1]
GS is an investment bank and not a consumer bank, so I don’t think that public image is as important to them.
[/quote]

Technically they aren’t an investment bank anymore – they switched their label (and acquired *some* regulation) becoming a commercial bank – because commercial banks got more government cheese – in the form of virtually free overnight lending at the Fed window.[/quote]

Goldman is at the end of the day a trading house and a hedge fund. If nobody comes to them to make deals, because they distrust Goldman, how much does that impair the franchise.

[SD Realtor]

Yeah looks like Goldman is shaking in their boots.

[SD Realtor]

Yeah looks like Goldman is shaking in their boots.

[SD Realtor]

Yeah looks like Goldman is shaking in their boots.

[SD Realtor]

Yeah looks like Goldman is shaking in their boots.

[Author]

Posts