Has Goldman fatally damaged their Franchise?

[patb]

[quote=flu]Playball!

LOL…. Brian, by the time government spends a lot of money and ends up producing nada (again), you’ll be so disillusioned that you might even end up voting for Palin….. Just kidding…

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Testimony-Could-Undercut-SEC-cnbc-3160283437.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

The government has testimony from a Paulson & Co. official that could contradict its own claims against Goldman Sachs, CNBC has learned.

Paolo Pellegrini told the government that he informed ACA Management that Paulson intended to bet against, or short, a portfolio of mortgages ACA was assembling.

If true, the testimony would go directly against government claims that ACA did not know Paulson was hoping the collateralized debt obligations would fail, and subvert charges that Goldman (NYSE:GS – News) breached its duty by not informing ACA of Paulson’s position.

CNBC has examined documents in which a government official asked Pellegrini whether he informed ACA CDO manager Laura Schwartz about Paulson’s position.

“Did you tell her that you were interested in taking a short position in Abacus?” a government official asked Pellegrini, referring to the name of the CDO portfolio.

“Yes, that was the purpose of the meeting,” Pellegrini responded.

The exchange is key in that the Securities and Exchange Commission is charging that the failure to disclose Paulson’s position was a “material” factor that could have caused both ACA and German Bank IKB to back out of the CDO investment. When the CDO failed, Paulson reaped a gain of more than $900 million, the government has said.

The SEC does not mention the exchange in its complaint against Goldman.

“We look forward to presenting a complete and accurate evidentiary record in court,” SEC spokesman John Nester said in a statement to CNBC.[/quote]

hearsay

[patb]

Is Goldman’s Hardball Stance a Big Mistake?

as i originally said has goldman damaged their brand?

[patb]

Is Goldman’s Hardball Stance a Big Mistake?

as i originally said has goldman damaged their brand?

[patb]

Is Goldman’s Hardball Stance a Big Mistake?

as i originally said has goldman damaged their brand?

[patb]

Is Goldman’s Hardball Stance a Big Mistake?

as i originally said has goldman damaged their brand?

[patb]

Is Goldman’s Hardball Stance a Big Mistake?

as i originally said has goldman damaged their brand?

[briansd1]

[quote=scaredycat]i don’t care or understand what we’re talking about. But it seems unlikely any of us really knows really what’s going on big picture.[/quote]

I only know what I read in the press.

This is however still puzzling me.

The press consistently reports that AIG got a bailout of $182 billion, of which nearly $13 billion was paid to GS.

Allan claims that $11 billion was already held by GS prior to the bailout, and that AIG would have kept that money had AIG gone bankrupt (the argument being that it was owed that money).

So why is that $11 billion included in the accounting for the $13 billion paid to AIG? Is it because AIG still considered that $11 billion an asset on its own books, and the amount was in dispute?

I have some knowledge of accounting. If there was no dispute of the $11 billion in question, it would have already been written off prior to the bailout; and it would not included in the bailout accounting.

It would been easier for AIG to simply report a $2 billion payment to GS out of the bailout (had the other $11 billion already been on deposit with GS prior to the bailout). That would serve public perception much better.

*

For example, let’s say that I’m experiencing a cash crunch and need a bailout from my dad.

My rent is $3,000. And I already paid my rent for May in advance (on deposit with my landlord).

My dad lends me $20,000. Did the bail me out to the tune of $20,000 or $23,000?

Of course the bailout was only $20,000.

[briansd1]

[quote=scaredycat]i don’t care or understand what we’re talking about. But it seems unlikely any of us really knows really what’s going on big picture.[/quote]

I only know what I read in the press.

This is however still puzzling me.

The press consistently reports that AIG got a bailout of $182 billion, of which nearly $13 billion was paid to GS.

Allan claims that $11 billion was already held by GS prior to the bailout, and that AIG would have kept that money had AIG gone bankrupt (the argument being that it was owed that money).

So why is that $11 billion included in the accounting for the $13 billion paid to AIG? Is it because AIG still considered that $11 billion an asset on its own books, and the amount was in dispute?

I have some knowledge of accounting. If there was no dispute of the $11 billion in question, it would have already been written off prior to the bailout; and it would not included in the bailout accounting.

It would been easier for AIG to simply report a $2 billion payment to GS out of the bailout (had the other $11 billion already been on deposit with GS prior to the bailout). That would serve public perception much better.

*

For example, let’s say that I’m experiencing a cash crunch and need a bailout from my dad.

My rent is $3,000. And I already paid my rent for May in advance (on deposit with my landlord).

My dad lends me $20,000. Did the bail me out to the tune of $20,000 or $23,000?

Of course the bailout was only $20,000.

[briansd1]

[quote=scaredycat]i don’t care or understand what we’re talking about. But it seems unlikely any of us really knows really what’s going on big picture.[/quote]

I only know what I read in the press.

This is however still puzzling me.

The press consistently reports that AIG got a bailout of $182 billion, of which nearly $13 billion was paid to GS.

Allan claims that $11 billion was already held by GS prior to the bailout, and that AIG would have kept that money had AIG gone bankrupt (the argument being that it was owed that money).

So why is that $11 billion included in the accounting for the $13 billion paid to AIG? Is it because AIG still considered that $11 billion an asset on its own books, and the amount was in dispute?

I have some knowledge of accounting. If there was no dispute of the $11 billion in question, it would have already been written off prior to the bailout; and it would not included in the bailout accounting.

It would been easier for AIG to simply report a $2 billion payment to GS out of the bailout (had the other $11 billion already been on deposit with GS prior to the bailout). That would serve public perception much better.

*

For example, let’s say that I’m experiencing a cash crunch and need a bailout from my dad.

My rent is $3,000. And I already paid my rent for May in advance (on deposit with my landlord).

My dad lends me $20,000. Did the bail me out to the tune of $20,000 or $23,000?

Of course the bailout was only $20,000.

[briansd1]

[quote=scaredycat]i don’t care or understand what we’re talking about. But it seems unlikely any of us really knows really what’s going on big picture.[/quote]

I only know what I read in the press.

This is however still puzzling me.

The press consistently reports that AIG got a bailout of $182 billion, of which nearly $13 billion was paid to GS.

Allan claims that $11 billion was already held by GS prior to the bailout, and that AIG would have kept that money had AIG gone bankrupt (the argument being that it was owed that money).

So why is that $11 billion included in the accounting for the $13 billion paid to AIG? Is it because AIG still considered that $11 billion an asset on its own books, and the amount was in dispute?

I have some knowledge of accounting. If there was no dispute of the $11 billion in question, it would have already been written off prior to the bailout; and it would not included in the bailout accounting.

It would been easier for AIG to simply report a $2 billion payment to GS out of the bailout (had the other $11 billion already been on deposit with GS prior to the bailout). That would serve public perception much better.

*

For example, let’s say that I’m experiencing a cash crunch and need a bailout from my dad.

My rent is $3,000. And I already paid my rent for May in advance (on deposit with my landlord).

My dad lends me $20,000. Did the bail me out to the tune of $20,000 or $23,000?

Of course the bailout was only $20,000.

[briansd1]

[quote=scaredycat]i don’t care or understand what we’re talking about. But it seems unlikely any of us really knows really what’s going on big picture.[/quote]

I only know what I read in the press.

This is however still puzzling me.

The press consistently reports that AIG got a bailout of $182 billion, of which nearly $13 billion was paid to GS.

Allan claims that $11 billion was already held by GS prior to the bailout, and that AIG would have kept that money had AIG gone bankrupt (the argument being that it was owed that money).

So why is that $11 billion included in the accounting for the $13 billion paid to AIG? Is it because AIG still considered that $11 billion an asset on its own books, and the amount was in dispute?

I have some knowledge of accounting. If there was no dispute of the $11 billion in question, it would have already been written off prior to the bailout; and it would not included in the bailout accounting.

It would been easier for AIG to simply report a $2 billion payment to GS out of the bailout (had the other $11 billion already been on deposit with GS prior to the bailout). That would serve public perception much better.

*

For example, let’s say that I’m experiencing a cash crunch and need a bailout from my dad.

My rent is $3,000. And I already paid my rent for May in advance (on deposit with my landlord).

My dad lends me $20,000. Did the bail me out to the tune of $20,000 or $23,000?

Of course the bailout was only $20,000.

[briansd1]

Furthermore, according to the NY Times:

In addition, according to two people with knowledge of the positions a portion of the $11 billion in taxpayer money that went to Societe Generale, a French bank that traded with A.I.G, was subsequently transferred to Goldman under a deal the two banks had struck.

So, if Soc Gen had not gotten paid by the AIG bailout (and AIG had gone bankrupt), AIG would have been affected.

How much of the Soc Gen money did GS get? We don’t know. How about the AIG bailout money paid to Deutsche Bank and other banks?

I believe that the SEC lawsuit is very appropriate. It will encourage other people who lost money to sue a well. In the end, if anything at all, we’ll get a better understanding of what happened.

[briansd1]

Furthermore, according to the NY Times:

In addition, according to two people with knowledge of the positions a portion of the $11 billion in taxpayer money that went to Societe Generale, a French bank that traded with A.I.G, was subsequently transferred to Goldman under a deal the two banks had struck.

So, if Soc Gen had not gotten paid by the AIG bailout (and AIG had gone bankrupt), AIG would have been affected.

How much of the Soc Gen money did GS get? We don’t know. How about the AIG bailout money paid to Deutsche Bank and other banks?

I believe that the SEC lawsuit is very appropriate. It will encourage other people who lost money to sue a well. In the end, if anything at all, we’ll get a better understanding of what happened.

[briansd1]

Furthermore, according to the NY Times:

In addition, according to two people with knowledge of the positions a portion of the $11 billion in taxpayer money that went to Societe Generale, a French bank that traded with A.I.G, was subsequently transferred to Goldman under a deal the two banks had struck.

So, if Soc Gen had not gotten paid by the AIG bailout (and AIG had gone bankrupt), AIG would have been affected.

How much of the Soc Gen money did GS get? We don’t know. How about the AIG bailout money paid to Deutsche Bank and other banks?

I believe that the SEC lawsuit is very appropriate. It will encourage other people who lost money to sue a well. In the end, if anything at all, we’ll get a better understanding of what happened.

[briansd1]

Furthermore, according to the NY Times:

In addition, according to two people with knowledge of the positions a portion of the $11 billion in taxpayer money that went to Societe Generale, a French bank that traded with A.I.G, was subsequently transferred to Goldman under a deal the two banks had struck.

So, if Soc Gen had not gotten paid by the AIG bailout (and AIG had gone bankrupt), AIG would have been affected.

How much of the Soc Gen money did GS get? We don’t know. How about the AIG bailout money paid to Deutsche Bank and other banks?

I believe that the SEC lawsuit is very appropriate. It will encourage other people who lost money to sue a well. In the end, if anything at all, we’ll get a better understanding of what happened.

[Author]

Posts