Has Goldman fatally damaged their Franchise?

[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=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

if the Goldmanites were so well hedged they wouldn’t have taken a dime from TARP or TALF or all those other ones, and Paulsen wouldn’t have spent august puking in his trash can.

no, Goldman was vulnerable….

they got Paulsen to bail them out.

[patb]

[quote=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

if the Goldmanites were so well hedged they wouldn’t have taken a dime from TARP or TALF or all those other ones, and Paulsen wouldn’t have spent august puking in his trash can.

no, Goldman was vulnerable….

they got Paulsen to bail them out.

[patb]

[quote=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

if the Goldmanites were so well hedged they wouldn’t have taken a dime from TARP or TALF or all those other ones, and Paulsen wouldn’t have spent august puking in his trash can.

no, Goldman was vulnerable….

they got Paulsen to bail them out.

[patb]

[quote=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

if the Goldmanites were so well hedged they wouldn’t have taken a dime from TARP or TALF or all those other ones, and Paulsen wouldn’t have spent august puking in his trash can.

no, Goldman was vulnerable….

they got Paulsen to bail them out.

[patb]

[quote=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

if the Goldmanites were so well hedged they wouldn’t have taken a dime from TARP or TALF or all those other ones, and Paulsen wouldn’t have spent august puking in his trash can.

no, Goldman was vulnerable….

they got Paulsen to bail them out.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb]
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[/quote]

Pat: Actually, I’m quite familiar with clawback and referenced it in an earlier post on this very thread. Its doubtful you read that post, and its doubtful you read any of my other posts describing Goldman’s position in re AIG.

BK didn’t have dick to do with any of this, especially given the fact that Goldman was IN POSSESSION of AIG’s cash and securities as collateral on the owed monies and whatever difference that existed was covered by CDS from other third parties.

They would have been paid EITHER WAY.

This tiresome discussion on BK is utterly pointless. There would have been no clawback, in that Goldman ALREADY HELD THE FUNDS.

I don’t know if you are being intentionally obtuse or you simply don’t understand how collateral works in the securities industry. They did NOT have have counterparty risk, so what is your point?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb]
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[/quote]

Pat: Actually, I’m quite familiar with clawback and referenced it in an earlier post on this very thread. Its doubtful you read that post, and its doubtful you read any of my other posts describing Goldman’s position in re AIG.

BK didn’t have dick to do with any of this, especially given the fact that Goldman was IN POSSESSION of AIG’s cash and securities as collateral on the owed monies and whatever difference that existed was covered by CDS from other third parties.

They would have been paid EITHER WAY.

This tiresome discussion on BK is utterly pointless. There would have been no clawback, in that Goldman ALREADY HELD THE FUNDS.

I don’t know if you are being intentionally obtuse or you simply don’t understand how collateral works in the securities industry. They did NOT have have counterparty risk, so what is your point?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb]
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[/quote]

Pat: Actually, I’m quite familiar with clawback and referenced it in an earlier post on this very thread. Its doubtful you read that post, and its doubtful you read any of my other posts describing Goldman’s position in re AIG.

BK didn’t have dick to do with any of this, especially given the fact that Goldman was IN POSSESSION of AIG’s cash and securities as collateral on the owed monies and whatever difference that existed was covered by CDS from other third parties.

They would have been paid EITHER WAY.

This tiresome discussion on BK is utterly pointless. There would have been no clawback, in that Goldman ALREADY HELD THE FUNDS.

I don’t know if you are being intentionally obtuse or you simply don’t understand how collateral works in the securities industry. They did NOT have have counterparty risk, so what is your point?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb]
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[/quote]

Pat: Actually, I’m quite familiar with clawback and referenced it in an earlier post on this very thread. Its doubtful you read that post, and its doubtful you read any of my other posts describing Goldman’s position in re AIG.

BK didn’t have dick to do with any of this, especially given the fact that Goldman was IN POSSESSION of AIG’s cash and securities as collateral on the owed monies and whatever difference that existed was covered by CDS from other third parties.

They would have been paid EITHER WAY.

This tiresome discussion on BK is utterly pointless. There would have been no clawback, in that Goldman ALREADY HELD THE FUNDS.

I don’t know if you are being intentionally obtuse or you simply don’t understand how collateral works in the securities industry. They did NOT have have counterparty risk, so what is your point?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb]
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[/quote]

Pat: Actually, I’m quite familiar with clawback and referenced it in an earlier post on this very thread. Its doubtful you read that post, and its doubtful you read any of my other posts describing Goldman’s position in re AIG.

BK didn’t have dick to do with any of this, especially given the fact that Goldman was IN POSSESSION of AIG’s cash and securities as collateral on the owed monies and whatever difference that existed was covered by CDS from other third parties.

They would have been paid EITHER WAY.

This tiresome discussion on BK is utterly pointless. There would have been no clawback, in that Goldman ALREADY HELD THE FUNDS.

I don’t know if you are being intentionally obtuse or you simply don’t understand how collateral works in the securities industry. They did NOT have have counterparty risk, so what is your point?

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal]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.[/quote]

Couldn’t agree more with everything you’ve said there. The Democrats have been extremely disappointing, and Obama is at the top of that heap.

BTW, yes, as a fellow native Californian, “dude” is gender neutral. 😉

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal]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.[/quote]

Couldn’t agree more with everything you’ve said there. The Democrats have been extremely disappointing, and Obama is at the top of that heap.

BTW, yes, as a fellow native Californian, “dude” is gender neutral. 😉

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal]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.[/quote]

Couldn’t agree more with everything you’ve said there. The Democrats have been extremely disappointing, and Obama is at the top of that heap.

BTW, yes, as a fellow native Californian, “dude” is gender neutral. 😉

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal]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.[/quote]

Couldn’t agree more with everything you’ve said there. The Democrats have been extremely disappointing, and Obama is at the top of that heap.

BTW, yes, as a fellow native Californian, “dude” is gender neutral. 😉

[Author]

Posts