Has Goldman fatally damaged their Franchise?

[Coronita]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1][quote=SK in CV] To quote Will Rogers, I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a democrat. [/quote]

haha. that’s funny but true.

SK, I agree that Democrats have been more compromising and more intellectually honest. They’ve negotiated more but they’ve gotten nothing in return.

Democrats need to learn from Limbaugh and talk in slogans that appeal emotionally to people and rile them up to the voting booths.

Then there’s also the fact that after they arrive in Washington, some Democratic politicians get smitten by power and wealth and forget their ideals. I would expect that of Republicans but I’m less forgiving of Democrats.

But such is human nature and such is the corrupting power of money. Once you get seduced by money, all your ideals go out the window. As Allan said, it’s all about money.

I accept that as part the human fate. So I’ll settle for some social progress rather than nothing at all.[/quote]

Brian: For someone who spends so much of his time answering in aphorisms, I wouldn’t be so quick to rip on slogans and sloganeering.

Dems are more intellectually honest than Republicans? Oh, puh-leeze. The slime extends to both sides of the aisle.

Just for shits and giggles, look up the “Keating Five”, and then we can discuss Democratic honesty versus Republican honesty.[/quote]

Keating…Oh man, that rings a bell.

[Aecetia]

Appearing to bite the hand that feeds you:

“Wall Street’s top investment bank was a generous contributor to Obama’s presidential campaign. According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs’ political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama’s presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/20/obama.goldman.donations/

[Aecetia]

Appearing to bite the hand that feeds you:

“Wall Street’s top investment bank was a generous contributor to Obama’s presidential campaign. According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs’ political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama’s presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/20/obama.goldman.donations/

[Aecetia]

Appearing to bite the hand that feeds you:

“Wall Street’s top investment bank was a generous contributor to Obama’s presidential campaign. According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs’ political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama’s presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/20/obama.goldman.donations/

[Aecetia]

Appearing to bite the hand that feeds you:

“Wall Street’s top investment bank was a generous contributor to Obama’s presidential campaign. According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs’ political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama’s presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/20/obama.goldman.donations/

[Aecetia]

Appearing to bite the hand that feeds you:

“Wall Street’s top investment bank was a generous contributor to Obama’s presidential campaign. According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs’ political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama’s presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/20/obama.goldman.donations/

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]
I’m not convinced there wasn’t any counterparty risk. Collecting on the CDSs would still have been GS claims against other creditors, not AIG. (Very possible that would cause those issuers to go bankrupt.) And there is still the issue of their claims over and above the collateral they held. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that everything in excess of that collateral would have been anything other than an unsecured debt.[/quote]

SK: Okay, now the debate has moved into what potentially might have happened, which is very different from what actually did happen.

Advancing the idea that Goldman’s collection on the CDS might have potentially triggered BK in the issuers is sheer speculation.

Yes, I agree with the government position that allowing AIG to go under would have triggered an exceptionally disorderly “unwinding” of positions across the world and the systemic crash which would have followed would have been catastrophic, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate that any of the CDS issuers were at risk here.

I guess my point is this, SK: We can go round and round about potential outcomes and various scenarios, but it would appear that Goldman was in a solid position (at least, that’s my take) and one that they had protected with cash, securities and insurance.

To argue that they were the recipient of a “bailout” or some back-room largesse on the part of the Fed is simply unsupported by the facts.

It would be interesting to game out what might have happened had the gubment and the Fed allowed the whole bubble to pop, but I think financial Armageddon would have ensued. I understand exactly what Bernanke means when he said that he held his nose as he performed the AIG rescue, but that it was ultimately necessary.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]
I’m not convinced there wasn’t any counterparty risk. Collecting on the CDSs would still have been GS claims against other creditors, not AIG. (Very possible that would cause those issuers to go bankrupt.) And there is still the issue of their claims over and above the collateral they held. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that everything in excess of that collateral would have been anything other than an unsecured debt.[/quote]

SK: Okay, now the debate has moved into what potentially might have happened, which is very different from what actually did happen.

Advancing the idea that Goldman’s collection on the CDS might have potentially triggered BK in the issuers is sheer speculation.

Yes, I agree with the government position that allowing AIG to go under would have triggered an exceptionally disorderly “unwinding” of positions across the world and the systemic crash which would have followed would have been catastrophic, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate that any of the CDS issuers were at risk here.

I guess my point is this, SK: We can go round and round about potential outcomes and various scenarios, but it would appear that Goldman was in a solid position (at least, that’s my take) and one that they had protected with cash, securities and insurance.

To argue that they were the recipient of a “bailout” or some back-room largesse on the part of the Fed is simply unsupported by the facts.

It would be interesting to game out what might have happened had the gubment and the Fed allowed the whole bubble to pop, but I think financial Armageddon would have ensued. I understand exactly what Bernanke means when he said that he held his nose as he performed the AIG rescue, but that it was ultimately necessary.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]
I’m not convinced there wasn’t any counterparty risk. Collecting on the CDSs would still have been GS claims against other creditors, not AIG. (Very possible that would cause those issuers to go bankrupt.) And there is still the issue of their claims over and above the collateral they held. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that everything in excess of that collateral would have been anything other than an unsecured debt.[/quote]

SK: Okay, now the debate has moved into what potentially might have happened, which is very different from what actually did happen.

Advancing the idea that Goldman’s collection on the CDS might have potentially triggered BK in the issuers is sheer speculation.

Yes, I agree with the government position that allowing AIG to go under would have triggered an exceptionally disorderly “unwinding” of positions across the world and the systemic crash which would have followed would have been catastrophic, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate that any of the CDS issuers were at risk here.

I guess my point is this, SK: We can go round and round about potential outcomes and various scenarios, but it would appear that Goldman was in a solid position (at least, that’s my take) and one that they had protected with cash, securities and insurance.

To argue that they were the recipient of a “bailout” or some back-room largesse on the part of the Fed is simply unsupported by the facts.

It would be interesting to game out what might have happened had the gubment and the Fed allowed the whole bubble to pop, but I think financial Armageddon would have ensued. I understand exactly what Bernanke means when he said that he held his nose as he performed the AIG rescue, but that it was ultimately necessary.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]
I’m not convinced there wasn’t any counterparty risk. Collecting on the CDSs would still have been GS claims against other creditors, not AIG. (Very possible that would cause those issuers to go bankrupt.) And there is still the issue of their claims over and above the collateral they held. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that everything in excess of that collateral would have been anything other than an unsecured debt.[/quote]

SK: Okay, now the debate has moved into what potentially might have happened, which is very different from what actually did happen.

Advancing the idea that Goldman’s collection on the CDS might have potentially triggered BK in the issuers is sheer speculation.

Yes, I agree with the government position that allowing AIG to go under would have triggered an exceptionally disorderly “unwinding” of positions across the world and the systemic crash which would have followed would have been catastrophic, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate that any of the CDS issuers were at risk here.

I guess my point is this, SK: We can go round and round about potential outcomes and various scenarios, but it would appear that Goldman was in a solid position (at least, that’s my take) and one that they had protected with cash, securities and insurance.

To argue that they were the recipient of a “bailout” or some back-room largesse on the part of the Fed is simply unsupported by the facts.

It would be interesting to game out what might have happened had the gubment and the Fed allowed the whole bubble to pop, but I think financial Armageddon would have ensued. I understand exactly what Bernanke means when he said that he held his nose as he performed the AIG rescue, but that it was ultimately necessary.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]
I’m not convinced there wasn’t any counterparty risk. Collecting on the CDSs would still have been GS claims against other creditors, not AIG. (Very possible that would cause those issuers to go bankrupt.) And there is still the issue of their claims over and above the collateral they held. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that everything in excess of that collateral would have been anything other than an unsecured debt.[/quote]

SK: Okay, now the debate has moved into what potentially might have happened, which is very different from what actually did happen.

Advancing the idea that Goldman’s collection on the CDS might have potentially triggered BK in the issuers is sheer speculation.

Yes, I agree with the government position that allowing AIG to go under would have triggered an exceptionally disorderly “unwinding” of positions across the world and the systemic crash which would have followed would have been catastrophic, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate that any of the CDS issuers were at risk here.

I guess my point is this, SK: We can go round and round about potential outcomes and various scenarios, but it would appear that Goldman was in a solid position (at least, that’s my take) and one that they had protected with cash, securities and insurance.

To argue that they were the recipient of a “bailout” or some back-room largesse on the part of the Fed is simply unsupported by the facts.

It would be interesting to game out what might have happened had the gubment and the Fed allowed the whole bubble to pop, but I think financial Armageddon would have ensued. I understand exactly what Bernanke means when he said that he held his nose as he performed the AIG rescue, but that it was ultimately necessary.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]

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.[/quote]

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]

you’ve never heard of clawback.
When you are in CH 11 the court can pull back
the collateral. The hedge assumed AIG kept running, not in bankruptcy

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]

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.[/quote]

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]

you’ve never heard of clawback.
When you are in CH 11 the court can pull back
the collateral. The hedge assumed AIG kept running, not in bankruptcy

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]

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.[/quote]

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]

you’ve never heard of clawback.
When you are in CH 11 the court can pull back
the collateral. The hedge assumed AIG kept running, not in bankruptcy

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]

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.[/quote]

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]

you’ve never heard of clawback.
When you are in CH 11 the court can pull back
the collateral. The hedge assumed AIG kept running, not in bankruptcy

[Author]

Posts