Has Goldman fatally damaged their Franchise?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Pat: Utter gibberish and utterly divorced from reality.

Goldman had NO counterparty risk with AIG at all. Their position was nearly fully collateralized through cash and securities and the balance was covered by insurance (in the form of CDS).

You might want to assemble the actual facts before weighing in on a topic.[/quote]

I don’t think gibberish. I’ll take your word that some of it was collateralized, though some reports I’ve found indicate that it was much less than the $11,000,0000 that you suggested.

On the insurance part, AIG is an insurance company. CDSs ARE insurance. If they go bankrupt, insurance claims against them are general credit obligations. Those contracts would have been examined and probably never sorted out. Hence my claim yesterday that it would last 10 years.

[UCGal]

[quote=flu][quote=UCGal][quote=SD Realtor]Yeah looks like Goldman is shaking in their boots.[/quote]

I don’t know if they’re shaking in their boots – but they announced great earnings numbers today – and the stock is still down. On the analysts call they had their lead council discuss the case. If they weren’t concerned, why would they have a lawyer talk on their earnings call?

I almost bought some GS a week or so ago – with the attitude that if I couldn’t beat them, I’d try to piggyback some profits out of their gaming of the system… But decided it fell into the camp with a few other profitable stocks (RAI, WMT) that I just wouldn’t feel right about owning because of my very misguided sense of morals. In this case, it worked out. I was looking at it at $170ish – it bumped up to 190 while I was debating it, internally.

Before I get slammed – I fully recognize that I’ll never get rich in the market if I let morality get in the way of my investment choices. I’m ok with that.[/quote]

Dudette, you’re talking about getting into the markets??? I’m thinking about getting out of the markets….It’s getting too hot to handle for my blood. Serveral things are already at the top ranges, with several at years high.

Anyone want to guess if Yahoo pukes this afternoon?[/quote]

I’m mostly out of the market in both my non-tax deferred and my 401k/IRA stuff… but it pains me to see the lack of returns… I’ve been trying to figure out a way to get *some* return on a small portion of my sidelined money.

And just so you know… as a native San Diegan and alumni of “ridgemont HS” (clairemont HS.)… I always thought “Dude” was gender neutral – could be used for girls and boys… But maybe I’m the only one who feels that way. LOL. (And I’ll never be as cool as “the Dude” Jeff Bridges.

[UCGal]

[quote=flu][quote=UCGal][quote=SD Realtor]Yeah looks like Goldman is shaking in their boots.[/quote]

I don’t know if they’re shaking in their boots – but they announced great earnings numbers today – and the stock is still down. On the analysts call they had their lead council discuss the case. If they weren’t concerned, why would they have a lawyer talk on their earnings call?

I almost bought some GS a week or so ago – with the attitude that if I couldn’t beat them, I’d try to piggyback some profits out of their gaming of the system… But decided it fell into the camp with a few other profitable stocks (RAI, WMT) that I just wouldn’t feel right about owning because of my very misguided sense of morals. In this case, it worked out. I was looking at it at $170ish – it bumped up to 190 while I was debating it, internally.

Before I get slammed – I fully recognize that I’ll never get rich in the market if I let morality get in the way of my investment choices. I’m ok with that.[/quote]

Dudette, you’re talking about getting into the markets??? I’m thinking about getting out of the markets….It’s getting too hot to handle for my blood. Serveral things are already at the top ranges, with several at years high.

Anyone want to guess if Yahoo pukes this afternoon?[/quote]

I’m mostly out of the market in both my non-tax deferred and my 401k/IRA stuff… but it pains me to see the lack of returns… I’ve been trying to figure out a way to get *some* return on a small portion of my sidelined money.

And just so you know… as a native San Diegan and alumni of “ridgemont HS” (clairemont HS.)… I always thought “Dude” was gender neutral – could be used for girls and boys… But maybe I’m the only one who feels that way. LOL. (And I’ll never be as cool as “the Dude” Jeff Bridges.

[UCGal]

[quote=flu][quote=UCGal][quote=SD Realtor]Yeah looks like Goldman is shaking in their boots.[/quote]

I don’t know if they’re shaking in their boots – but they announced great earnings numbers today – and the stock is still down. On the analysts call they had their lead council discuss the case. If they weren’t concerned, why would they have a lawyer talk on their earnings call?

I almost bought some GS a week or so ago – with the attitude that if I couldn’t beat them, I’d try to piggyback some profits out of their gaming of the system… But decided it fell into the camp with a few other profitable stocks (RAI, WMT) that I just wouldn’t feel right about owning because of my very misguided sense of morals. In this case, it worked out. I was looking at it at $170ish – it bumped up to 190 while I was debating it, internally.

Before I get slammed – I fully recognize that I’ll never get rich in the market if I let morality get in the way of my investment choices. I’m ok with that.[/quote]

Dudette, you’re talking about getting into the markets??? I’m thinking about getting out of the markets….It’s getting too hot to handle for my blood. Serveral things are already at the top ranges, with several at years high.

Anyone want to guess if Yahoo pukes this afternoon?[/quote]

I’m mostly out of the market in both my non-tax deferred and my 401k/IRA stuff… but it pains me to see the lack of returns… I’ve been trying to figure out a way to get *some* return on a small portion of my sidelined money.

And just so you know… as a native San Diegan and alumni of “ridgemont HS” (clairemont HS.)… I always thought “Dude” was gender neutral – could be used for girls and boys… But maybe I’m the only one who feels that way. LOL. (And I’ll never be as cool as “the Dude” Jeff Bridges.

[UCGal]

[quote=flu][quote=UCGal][quote=SD Realtor]Yeah looks like Goldman is shaking in their boots.[/quote]

I don’t know if they’re shaking in their boots – but they announced great earnings numbers today – and the stock is still down. On the analysts call they had their lead council discuss the case. If they weren’t concerned, why would they have a lawyer talk on their earnings call?

I almost bought some GS a week or so ago – with the attitude that if I couldn’t beat them, I’d try to piggyback some profits out of their gaming of the system… But decided it fell into the camp with a few other profitable stocks (RAI, WMT) that I just wouldn’t feel right about owning because of my very misguided sense of morals. In this case, it worked out. I was looking at it at $170ish – it bumped up to 190 while I was debating it, internally.

Before I get slammed – I fully recognize that I’ll never get rich in the market if I let morality get in the way of my investment choices. I’m ok with that.[/quote]

Dudette, you’re talking about getting into the markets??? I’m thinking about getting out of the markets….It’s getting too hot to handle for my blood. Serveral things are already at the top ranges, with several at years high.

Anyone want to guess if Yahoo pukes this afternoon?[/quote]

I’m mostly out of the market in both my non-tax deferred and my 401k/IRA stuff… but it pains me to see the lack of returns… I’ve been trying to figure out a way to get *some* return on a small portion of my sidelined money.

And just so you know… as a native San Diegan and alumni of “ridgemont HS” (clairemont HS.)… I always thought “Dude” was gender neutral – could be used for girls and boys… But maybe I’m the only one who feels that way. LOL. (And I’ll never be as cool as “the Dude” Jeff Bridges.

[UCGal]

[quote=flu][quote=UCGal][quote=SD Realtor]Yeah looks like Goldman is shaking in their boots.[/quote]

I don’t know if they’re shaking in their boots – but they announced great earnings numbers today – and the stock is still down. On the analysts call they had their lead council discuss the case. If they weren’t concerned, why would they have a lawyer talk on their earnings call?

I almost bought some GS a week or so ago – with the attitude that if I couldn’t beat them, I’d try to piggyback some profits out of their gaming of the system… But decided it fell into the camp with a few other profitable stocks (RAI, WMT) that I just wouldn’t feel right about owning because of my very misguided sense of morals. In this case, it worked out. I was looking at it at $170ish – it bumped up to 190 while I was debating it, internally.

Before I get slammed – I fully recognize that I’ll never get rich in the market if I let morality get in the way of my investment choices. I’m ok with that.[/quote]

Dudette, you’re talking about getting into the markets??? I’m thinking about getting out of the markets….It’s getting too hot to handle for my blood. Serveral things are already at the top ranges, with several at years high.

Anyone want to guess if Yahoo pukes this afternoon?[/quote]

I’m mostly out of the market in both my non-tax deferred and my 401k/IRA stuff… but it pains me to see the lack of returns… I’ve been trying to figure out a way to get *some* return on a small portion of my sidelined money.

And just so you know… as a native San Diegan and alumni of “ridgemont HS” (clairemont HS.)… I always thought “Dude” was gender neutral – could be used for girls and boys… But maybe I’m the only one who feels that way. LOL. (And I’ll never be as cool as “the Dude” Jeff Bridges.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Wake up and smell the lucre, Bubba. Its a rigged game. As the old saw goes: If you can’t find the sucker in the game, chances are its YOU.[/quote]

In any society, people at the very top will always get protected. There’s no way around that.

We just need to make sure the powerful don’t abuse their power too much.

Like I said before, I don’t believe in all or nothing. I’d rather end up with something rather than nothing.

You already know my feelings about incremental improvements over time. I think of small improvements as compound interest that add up to a lot over decades.

Do you want a fixer house or nothing at all while you hope for that dream house?[/quote]

Brian: Again, you offer half-assed and nothing as my options, but you fail to address the third option.

If the Dems exist as the “party of the people” and are there to curb the worst excesses of the Republicans (and I don’t disagree with this, either, by the way) and the Dems control both Congress and the presidency, why aren’t the Dems going full bore after substantive and enforceable regulation?

Its a fair question, but one you won’t answer. Instead, you come back with the “thin soup is better than no soup” response, which is a complete dodge.

What are your thoughts on the Dodd bill? Do you feel it has teeth? Do you think it is sweeping legislation that will offer true reform?

Again, don’t come back with some bilious aphorism: Answer the questions.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Wake up and smell the lucre, Bubba. Its a rigged game. As the old saw goes: If you can’t find the sucker in the game, chances are its YOU.[/quote]

In any society, people at the very top will always get protected. There’s no way around that.

We just need to make sure the powerful don’t abuse their power too much.

Like I said before, I don’t believe in all or nothing. I’d rather end up with something rather than nothing.

You already know my feelings about incremental improvements over time. I think of small improvements as compound interest that add up to a lot over decades.

Do you want a fixer house or nothing at all while you hope for that dream house?[/quote]

Brian: Again, you offer half-assed and nothing as my options, but you fail to address the third option.

If the Dems exist as the “party of the people” and are there to curb the worst excesses of the Republicans (and I don’t disagree with this, either, by the way) and the Dems control both Congress and the presidency, why aren’t the Dems going full bore after substantive and enforceable regulation?

Its a fair question, but one you won’t answer. Instead, you come back with the “thin soup is better than no soup” response, which is a complete dodge.

What are your thoughts on the Dodd bill? Do you feel it has teeth? Do you think it is sweeping legislation that will offer true reform?

Again, don’t come back with some bilious aphorism: Answer the questions.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Wake up and smell the lucre, Bubba. Its a rigged game. As the old saw goes: If you can’t find the sucker in the game, chances are its YOU.[/quote]

In any society, people at the very top will always get protected. There’s no way around that.

We just need to make sure the powerful don’t abuse their power too much.

Like I said before, I don’t believe in all or nothing. I’d rather end up with something rather than nothing.

You already know my feelings about incremental improvements over time. I think of small improvements as compound interest that add up to a lot over decades.

Do you want a fixer house or nothing at all while you hope for that dream house?[/quote]

Brian: Again, you offer half-assed and nothing as my options, but you fail to address the third option.

If the Dems exist as the “party of the people” and are there to curb the worst excesses of the Republicans (and I don’t disagree with this, either, by the way) and the Dems control both Congress and the presidency, why aren’t the Dems going full bore after substantive and enforceable regulation?

Its a fair question, but one you won’t answer. Instead, you come back with the “thin soup is better than no soup” response, which is a complete dodge.

What are your thoughts on the Dodd bill? Do you feel it has teeth? Do you think it is sweeping legislation that will offer true reform?

Again, don’t come back with some bilious aphorism: Answer the questions.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Wake up and smell the lucre, Bubba. Its a rigged game. As the old saw goes: If you can’t find the sucker in the game, chances are its YOU.[/quote]

In any society, people at the very top will always get protected. There’s no way around that.

We just need to make sure the powerful don’t abuse their power too much.

Like I said before, I don’t believe in all or nothing. I’d rather end up with something rather than nothing.

You already know my feelings about incremental improvements over time. I think of small improvements as compound interest that add up to a lot over decades.

Do you want a fixer house or nothing at all while you hope for that dream house?[/quote]

Brian: Again, you offer half-assed and nothing as my options, but you fail to address the third option.

If the Dems exist as the “party of the people” and are there to curb the worst excesses of the Republicans (and I don’t disagree with this, either, by the way) and the Dems control both Congress and the presidency, why aren’t the Dems going full bore after substantive and enforceable regulation?

Its a fair question, but one you won’t answer. Instead, you come back with the “thin soup is better than no soup” response, which is a complete dodge.

What are your thoughts on the Dodd bill? Do you feel it has teeth? Do you think it is sweeping legislation that will offer true reform?

Again, don’t come back with some bilious aphorism: Answer the questions.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Wake up and smell the lucre, Bubba. Its a rigged game. As the old saw goes: If you can’t find the sucker in the game, chances are its YOU.[/quote]

In any society, people at the very top will always get protected. There’s no way around that.

We just need to make sure the powerful don’t abuse their power too much.

Like I said before, I don’t believe in all or nothing. I’d rather end up with something rather than nothing.

You already know my feelings about incremental improvements over time. I think of small improvements as compound interest that add up to a lot over decades.

Do you want a fixer house or nothing at all while you hope for that dream house?[/quote]

Brian: Again, you offer half-assed and nothing as my options, but you fail to address the third option.

If the Dems exist as the “party of the people” and are there to curb the worst excesses of the Republicans (and I don’t disagree with this, either, by the way) and the Dems control both Congress and the presidency, why aren’t the Dems going full bore after substantive and enforceable regulation?

Its a fair question, but one you won’t answer. Instead, you come back with the “thin soup is better than no soup” response, which is a complete dodge.

What are your thoughts on the Dodd bill? Do you feel it has teeth? Do you think it is sweeping legislation that will offer true reform?

Again, don’t come back with some bilious aphorism: Answer the questions.

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
If the Dems exist as the “party of the people” and are there to curb the worst excesses of the Republicans (and I don’t disagree with this, either, by the way) and the Dems control both Congress and the presidency, why aren’t the Dems going full bore after substantive and enforceable regulation?
[/quote]
As a progressive/Dem… I have to say I’m very disappointed in the Dems. I expect bad behavior from the GOP. When Obama appointed Geithner and named Summers as his go to guy I knew it was more of the same under a different political label.

I’ve come to the conclusion that only politicians who are at odds with their parties will introduce decent stuff… Blanche Lincoln most recently on financial reform – but Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich don’t have problems thumbing their noses at politics as usual. Maybe we need more dis-enfranchised, alienated, elected officials. Ones that are willing to challenge convention because they’re already on the outs with the insiders.

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
If the Dems exist as the “party of the people” and are there to curb the worst excesses of the Republicans (and I don’t disagree with this, either, by the way) and the Dems control both Congress and the presidency, why aren’t the Dems going full bore after substantive and enforceable regulation?
[/quote]
As a progressive/Dem… I have to say I’m very disappointed in the Dems. I expect bad behavior from the GOP. When Obama appointed Geithner and named Summers as his go to guy I knew it was more of the same under a different political label.

I’ve come to the conclusion that only politicians who are at odds with their parties will introduce decent stuff… Blanche Lincoln most recently on financial reform – but Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich don’t have problems thumbing their noses at politics as usual. Maybe we need more dis-enfranchised, alienated, elected officials. Ones that are willing to challenge convention because they’re already on the outs with the insiders.

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
If the Dems exist as the “party of the people” and are there to curb the worst excesses of the Republicans (and I don’t disagree with this, either, by the way) and the Dems control both Congress and the presidency, why aren’t the Dems going full bore after substantive and enforceable regulation?
[/quote]
As a progressive/Dem… I have to say I’m very disappointed in the Dems. I expect bad behavior from the GOP. When Obama appointed Geithner and named Summers as his go to guy I knew it was more of the same under a different political label.

I’ve come to the conclusion that only politicians who are at odds with their parties will introduce decent stuff… Blanche Lincoln most recently on financial reform – but Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich don’t have problems thumbing their noses at politics as usual. Maybe we need more dis-enfranchised, alienated, elected officials. Ones that are willing to challenge convention because they’re already on the outs with the insiders.

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
If the Dems exist as the “party of the people” and are there to curb the worst excesses of the Republicans (and I don’t disagree with this, either, by the way) and the Dems control both Congress and the presidency, why aren’t the Dems going full bore after substantive and enforceable regulation?
[/quote]
As a progressive/Dem… I have to say I’m very disappointed in the Dems. I expect bad behavior from the GOP. When Obama appointed Geithner and named Summers as his go to guy I knew it was more of the same under a different political label.

I’ve come to the conclusion that only politicians who are at odds with their parties will introduce decent stuff… Blanche Lincoln most recently on financial reform – but Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich don’t have problems thumbing their noses at politics as usual. Maybe we need more dis-enfranchised, alienated, elected officials. Ones that are willing to challenge convention because they’re already on the outs with the insiders.

[Author]

Posts