Has Goldman fatally damaged their Franchise?

[briansd1]

Allan, I didn’t follow the AIG case closely but my previous understanding was that GS was paid nearly $13 billiout of the government bailout.

I stand corrected.

But since you know, what is the breakdown of the nearly $13 Billion?
– cash
– securities. Which securities?

Upon a quick search here is what I found:

By the time of the A.I.G. bailout in mid-September, he said that Goldman held $7.5 billion in collateral from A.I.G. and had hedged the remaining $2.5 billion of its $10 billion net exposure using credit-default swaps with other parties. Goldman’s overall position with A.I.G., or the “notional” value of the contracts, was about $20 billion, he said.

After the rescue, Goldman received an additional $2.6 billion in collateral from A.I.G.

In mid-November, Goldman also sold $5.6 billion in securities related to the swaps at full value to a government-backed vehicle that had been created to help unwind A.I.G.’s ill-fated trades.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, I didn’t follow the AIG case closely but my previous understanding was that GS was paid nearly $13 billiout of the government bailout.

I stand corrected.

But since you know, what is breakdown of the nearly $13 Billion?
– cash
– securities. Which securities?

Upon a quick search here is what I found:

By the time of the A.I.G. bailout in mid-September, he said that Goldman held $7.5 billion in collateral from A.I.G. and had hedged the remaining $2.5 billion of its $10 billion net exposure using credit-default swaps with other parties. Goldman’s overall position with A.I.G., or the “notional” value of the contracts, was about $20 billion, he said.

After the rescue, Goldman received an additional $2.6 billion in collateral from A.I.G.

In mid-November, Goldman also sold $5.6 billion in securities related to the swaps at full value to a government-backed vehicle that had been created to help unwind A.I.G.’s ill-fated trades.

[/quote]

Brian: Of the $12.9Bn owed, approx $11Bn was in cash and securities and the remainder was in CDS. Not being an insider at Goldman, I have no idea of the composition of cash versus securities, and as regards either amount of each or type of securities.

My point was that, as was explained to me, there was no counterparty risk, nor would Goldman have had to stand in line with everyone else at BK had AIG imploded.

What I was trying to do was rebut the idea that Goldman was without options and would have had to belly up to the bar with everyone else if the gubment hadn’t bailed AIG out. That is factually incorrect, but folks like you and Pat keep repeating it as gospel.

The larger issue is that we’re attempting to explain complex and arcane financial instruments, as well as the inner workings of the securities industry, and do so without bias. Clearly, given the tenor of many of the comments, that simply isn’t possible.

To isolate Goldman Sachs as a bad actor is to miss the horrific bullshit of the last three plus decades on Wall Street. To then shine a light on the Republicans and say that this is solely their fault is just as laughable and idiotic. That was the basis for my questions to you (still unanswered, I might add) as to why the Dems aren’t swinging a fucking axe at Wall Street.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, I didn’t follow the AIG case closely but my previous understanding was that GS was paid nearly $13 billiout of the government bailout.

I stand corrected.

But since you know, what is breakdown of the nearly $13 Billion?
– cash
– securities. Which securities?

Upon a quick search here is what I found:

By the time of the A.I.G. bailout in mid-September, he said that Goldman held $7.5 billion in collateral from A.I.G. and had hedged the remaining $2.5 billion of its $10 billion net exposure using credit-default swaps with other parties. Goldman’s overall position with A.I.G., or the “notional” value of the contracts, was about $20 billion, he said.

After the rescue, Goldman received an additional $2.6 billion in collateral from A.I.G.

In mid-November, Goldman also sold $5.6 billion in securities related to the swaps at full value to a government-backed vehicle that had been created to help unwind A.I.G.’s ill-fated trades.

[/quote]

Brian: Of the $12.9Bn owed, approx $11Bn was in cash and securities and the remainder was in CDS. Not being an insider at Goldman, I have no idea of the composition of cash versus securities, and as regards either amount of each or type of securities.

My point was that, as was explained to me, there was no counterparty risk, nor would Goldman have had to stand in line with everyone else at BK had AIG imploded.

What I was trying to do was rebut the idea that Goldman was without options and would have had to belly up to the bar with everyone else if the gubment hadn’t bailed AIG out. That is factually incorrect, but folks like you and Pat keep repeating it as gospel.

The larger issue is that we’re attempting to explain complex and arcane financial instruments, as well as the inner workings of the securities industry, and do so without bias. Clearly, given the tenor of many of the comments, that simply isn’t possible.

To isolate Goldman Sachs as a bad actor is to miss the horrific bullshit of the last three plus decades on Wall Street. To then shine a light on the Republicans and say that this is solely their fault is just as laughable and idiotic. That was the basis for my questions to you (still unanswered, I might add) as to why the Dems aren’t swinging a fucking axe at Wall Street.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, I didn’t follow the AIG case closely but my previous understanding was that GS was paid nearly $13 billiout of the government bailout.

I stand corrected.

But since you know, what is breakdown of the nearly $13 Billion?
– cash
– securities. Which securities?

Upon a quick search here is what I found:

By the time of the A.I.G. bailout in mid-September, he said that Goldman held $7.5 billion in collateral from A.I.G. and had hedged the remaining $2.5 billion of its $10 billion net exposure using credit-default swaps with other parties. Goldman’s overall position with A.I.G., or the “notional” value of the contracts, was about $20 billion, he said.

After the rescue, Goldman received an additional $2.6 billion in collateral from A.I.G.

In mid-November, Goldman also sold $5.6 billion in securities related to the swaps at full value to a government-backed vehicle that had been created to help unwind A.I.G.’s ill-fated trades.

[/quote]

Brian: Of the $12.9Bn owed, approx $11Bn was in cash and securities and the remainder was in CDS. Not being an insider at Goldman, I have no idea of the composition of cash versus securities, and as regards either amount of each or type of securities.

My point was that, as was explained to me, there was no counterparty risk, nor would Goldman have had to stand in line with everyone else at BK had AIG imploded.

What I was trying to do was rebut the idea that Goldman was without options and would have had to belly up to the bar with everyone else if the gubment hadn’t bailed AIG out. That is factually incorrect, but folks like you and Pat keep repeating it as gospel.

The larger issue is that we’re attempting to explain complex and arcane financial instruments, as well as the inner workings of the securities industry, and do so without bias. Clearly, given the tenor of many of the comments, that simply isn’t possible.

To isolate Goldman Sachs as a bad actor is to miss the horrific bullshit of the last three plus decades on Wall Street. To then shine a light on the Republicans and say that this is solely their fault is just as laughable and idiotic. That was the basis for my questions to you (still unanswered, I might add) as to why the Dems aren’t swinging a fucking axe at Wall Street.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, I didn’t follow the AIG case closely but my previous understanding was that GS was paid nearly $13 billiout of the government bailout.

I stand corrected.

But since you know, what is breakdown of the nearly $13 Billion?
– cash
– securities. Which securities?

Upon a quick search here is what I found:

By the time of the A.I.G. bailout in mid-September, he said that Goldman held $7.5 billion in collateral from A.I.G. and had hedged the remaining $2.5 billion of its $10 billion net exposure using credit-default swaps with other parties. Goldman’s overall position with A.I.G., or the “notional” value of the contracts, was about $20 billion, he said.

After the rescue, Goldman received an additional $2.6 billion in collateral from A.I.G.

In mid-November, Goldman also sold $5.6 billion in securities related to the swaps at full value to a government-backed vehicle that had been created to help unwind A.I.G.’s ill-fated trades.

[/quote]

Brian: Of the $12.9Bn owed, approx $11Bn was in cash and securities and the remainder was in CDS. Not being an insider at Goldman, I have no idea of the composition of cash versus securities, and as regards either amount of each or type of securities.

My point was that, as was explained to me, there was no counterparty risk, nor would Goldman have had to stand in line with everyone else at BK had AIG imploded.

What I was trying to do was rebut the idea that Goldman was without options and would have had to belly up to the bar with everyone else if the gubment hadn’t bailed AIG out. That is factually incorrect, but folks like you and Pat keep repeating it as gospel.

The larger issue is that we’re attempting to explain complex and arcane financial instruments, as well as the inner workings of the securities industry, and do so without bias. Clearly, given the tenor of many of the comments, that simply isn’t possible.

To isolate Goldman Sachs as a bad actor is to miss the horrific bullshit of the last three plus decades on Wall Street. To then shine a light on the Republicans and say that this is solely their fault is just as laughable and idiotic. That was the basis for my questions to you (still unanswered, I might add) as to why the Dems aren’t swinging a fucking axe at Wall Street.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, I didn’t follow the AIG case closely but my previous understanding was that GS was paid nearly $13 billiout of the government bailout.

I stand corrected.

But since you know, what is breakdown of the nearly $13 Billion?
– cash
– securities. Which securities?

Upon a quick search here is what I found:

By the time of the A.I.G. bailout in mid-September, he said that Goldman held $7.5 billion in collateral from A.I.G. and had hedged the remaining $2.5 billion of its $10 billion net exposure using credit-default swaps with other parties. Goldman’s overall position with A.I.G., or the “notional” value of the contracts, was about $20 billion, he said.

After the rescue, Goldman received an additional $2.6 billion in collateral from A.I.G.

In mid-November, Goldman also sold $5.6 billion in securities related to the swaps at full value to a government-backed vehicle that had been created to help unwind A.I.G.’s ill-fated trades.

[/quote]

Brian: Of the $12.9Bn owed, approx $11Bn was in cash and securities and the remainder was in CDS. Not being an insider at Goldman, I have no idea of the composition of cash versus securities, and as regards either amount of each or type of securities.

My point was that, as was explained to me, there was no counterparty risk, nor would Goldman have had to stand in line with everyone else at BK had AIG imploded.

What I was trying to do was rebut the idea that Goldman was without options and would have had to belly up to the bar with everyone else if the gubment hadn’t bailed AIG out. That is factually incorrect, but folks like you and Pat keep repeating it as gospel.

The larger issue is that we’re attempting to explain complex and arcane financial instruments, as well as the inner workings of the securities industry, and do so without bias. Clearly, given the tenor of many of the comments, that simply isn’t possible.

To isolate Goldman Sachs as a bad actor is to miss the horrific bullshit of the last three plus decades on Wall Street. To then shine a light on the Republicans and say that this is solely their fault is just as laughable and idiotic. That was the basis for my questions to you (still unanswered, I might add) as to why the Dems aren’t swinging a fucking axe at Wall Street.

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Speaking of those who DON’T support reform (in its present iteration): From HuffPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/exclusive-dem-insiders-ec_n_544187.html

So? What’s your take on this? An article in Huffington Post about the toothlessness of the present bill and not a GOPer in the bunch.[/quote]

Thanks for posting that link, Allan. Their 8 points are very good.
The first one should satisfy the GOP stated objections. The 4th one sounds like the Lincoln proposal I mentioned the other day. (transparency for derivatives by having them traded in public exchanges.)

(I know I’m not Brian… not trying to be Brian. I just thought the link added interesting fodder to the discussion.)

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Speaking of those who DON’T support reform (in its present iteration): From HuffPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/exclusive-dem-insiders-ec_n_544187.html

So? What’s your take on this? An article in Huffington Post about the toothlessness of the present bill and not a GOPer in the bunch.[/quote]

Thanks for posting that link, Allan. Their 8 points are very good.
The first one should satisfy the GOP stated objections. The 4th one sounds like the Lincoln proposal I mentioned the other day. (transparency for derivatives by having them traded in public exchanges.)

(I know I’m not Brian… not trying to be Brian. I just thought the link added interesting fodder to the discussion.)

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Speaking of those who DON’T support reform (in its present iteration): From HuffPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/exclusive-dem-insiders-ec_n_544187.html

So? What’s your take on this? An article in Huffington Post about the toothlessness of the present bill and not a GOPer in the bunch.[/quote]

Thanks for posting that link, Allan. Their 8 points are very good.
The first one should satisfy the GOP stated objections. The 4th one sounds like the Lincoln proposal I mentioned the other day. (transparency for derivatives by having them traded in public exchanges.)

(I know I’m not Brian… not trying to be Brian. I just thought the link added interesting fodder to the discussion.)

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Speaking of those who DON’T support reform (in its present iteration): From HuffPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/exclusive-dem-insiders-ec_n_544187.html

So? What’s your take on this? An article in Huffington Post about the toothlessness of the present bill and not a GOPer in the bunch.[/quote]

Thanks for posting that link, Allan. Their 8 points are very good.
The first one should satisfy the GOP stated objections. The 4th one sounds like the Lincoln proposal I mentioned the other day. (transparency for derivatives by having them traded in public exchanges.)

(I know I’m not Brian… not trying to be Brian. I just thought the link added interesting fodder to the discussion.)

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Speaking of those who DON’T support reform (in its present iteration): From HuffPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/exclusive-dem-insiders-ec_n_544187.html

So? What’s your take on this? An article in Huffington Post about the toothlessness of the present bill and not a GOPer in the bunch.[/quote]

Thanks for posting that link, Allan. Their 8 points are very good.
The first one should satisfy the GOP stated objections. The 4th one sounds like the Lincoln proposal I mentioned the other day. (transparency for derivatives by having them traded in public exchanges.)

(I know I’m not Brian… not trying to be Brian. I just thought the link added interesting fodder to the discussion.)

[briansd1]

What isn’t clear to me is how the money AIG received from the government was spent.

If GS held AIG assets but was only paid a little more, then how does the $13 billion add up? And how is that amount included in the total AIG bailout?

I’d like to see a debit and credit accounting of the AIG bailout money.

Interesting indeed.

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/aig/index.html

[briansd1]

What isn’t clear to me is how the money AIG received from the government was spent.

If GS held AIG assets but was only paid a little more, then how does the $13 billion add up? And how is that amount included in the total AIG bailout?

I’d like to see a debit and credit accounting of the AIG bailout money.

Interesting indeed.

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/aig/index.html

[briansd1]

What isn’t clear to me is how the money AIG received from the government was spent.

If GS held AIG assets but was only paid a little more, then how does the $13 billion add up? And how is that amount included in the total AIG bailout?

I’d like to see a debit and credit accounting of the AIG bailout money.

Interesting indeed.

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/aig/index.html

[briansd1]

What isn’t clear to me is how the money AIG received from the government was spent.

If GS held AIG assets but was only paid a little more, then how does the $13 billion add up? And how is that amount included in the total AIG bailout?

I’d like to see a debit and credit accounting of the AIG bailout money.

Interesting indeed.

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/aig/index.html

[Author]

Posts