Has Goldman fatally damaged their Franchise?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

IForget: As Rich correctly pointed out, buy you refuse to admit: There is an inherent contradiction in your statement.

Also, comparing AIG to Sachs completely misses the fact that one is an insurance company and one is an investment bank.

Also interesting is the fact that your friend in securities litigation didn’t discuss Bear Stearns or Lehman Bros during the course of your conversation. Both of them stand at opposite poles in terms of gubment/Fed “favoritism” (in that Bear was saved and Lehman was allowed to implode). Did your attorney friend look at the SEC complaint? Are you aware of how politically connected Goldman Sachs is? Do you have any idea of their risk exposure? I would imagine “no” is the answer to all of these questions.

Do a little research on what investment bankers call the “overnight repo” market. All the major houses survive on these type short-term lending facilities. Bear Stearns was scuttled, and within a few days, when the Street lost confidence in them and their repo facilities dried up. Lehman and Goldman also found themselves in this same situation and Goldman came periously close to foundering, just like Bear and Lehman. Ever wonder why they didn’t go under, too? The answer is right there in front of you.

[Coronita]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]IForget: As Rich correctly pointed out, buy you refuse to admit: There is an inherent contradiction in your statement.

Also, comparing AIG to Sachs completely misses the fact that one is an insurance company and one is an investment bank.

Also interesting is the fact that your friend in securities litigation didn’t discuss Bear Stearns or Lehman Bros during the course of your conversation. Both of them stand at opposite poles in terms of gubment/Fed “favoritism” (in that Bear was saved and Lehman was allowed to implode). Did your attorney friend look at the SEC complaint? Are you aware of how politically connected Goldman Sachs is? Do you have any idea of their risk exposure? I would imagine “no” is the answer to all of these questions.

Do a little research on what investment bankers call the “overnight repo” market. All the major houses survive on these type short-term lending facilities. Bear Stearns was scuttled, and within a few days, when the Street lost confidence in them and their repo facilities dried up. Lehman and Goldman also found themselves in this same situation and Goldman came periously close to foundering, just like Bear and Lehman. Ever wonder why they didn’t go under, too? The answer is right there in front of you.[/quote]

GS will pay a pidly fine of say $1billion. SEC gets credit for bring “justice” to the matter, and SEC doesn’t look like they have mud on their face, after botching other things recently. It’s a PR move from the SEC probably, right?

[Coronita]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]IForget: As Rich correctly pointed out, buy you refuse to admit: There is an inherent contradiction in your statement.

Also, comparing AIG to Sachs completely misses the fact that one is an insurance company and one is an investment bank.

Also interesting is the fact that your friend in securities litigation didn’t discuss Bear Stearns or Lehman Bros during the course of your conversation. Both of them stand at opposite poles in terms of gubment/Fed “favoritism” (in that Bear was saved and Lehman was allowed to implode). Did your attorney friend look at the SEC complaint? Are you aware of how politically connected Goldman Sachs is? Do you have any idea of their risk exposure? I would imagine “no” is the answer to all of these questions.

Do a little research on what investment bankers call the “overnight repo” market. All the major houses survive on these type short-term lending facilities. Bear Stearns was scuttled, and within a few days, when the Street lost confidence in them and their repo facilities dried up. Lehman and Goldman also found themselves in this same situation and Goldman came periously close to foundering, just like Bear and Lehman. Ever wonder why they didn’t go under, too? The answer is right there in front of you.[/quote]

GS will pay a pidly fine of say $1billion. SEC gets credit for bring “justice” to the matter, and SEC doesn’t look like they have mud on their face, after botching other things recently. It’s a PR move from the SEC probably, right?

[Coronita]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]IForget: As Rich correctly pointed out, buy you refuse to admit: There is an inherent contradiction in your statement.

Also, comparing AIG to Sachs completely misses the fact that one is an insurance company and one is an investment bank.

Also interesting is the fact that your friend in securities litigation didn’t discuss Bear Stearns or Lehman Bros during the course of your conversation. Both of them stand at opposite poles in terms of gubment/Fed “favoritism” (in that Bear was saved and Lehman was allowed to implode). Did your attorney friend look at the SEC complaint? Are you aware of how politically connected Goldman Sachs is? Do you have any idea of their risk exposure? I would imagine “no” is the answer to all of these questions.

Do a little research on what investment bankers call the “overnight repo” market. All the major houses survive on these type short-term lending facilities. Bear Stearns was scuttled, and within a few days, when the Street lost confidence in them and their repo facilities dried up. Lehman and Goldman also found themselves in this same situation and Goldman came periously close to foundering, just like Bear and Lehman. Ever wonder why they didn’t go under, too? The answer is right there in front of you.[/quote]

GS will pay a pidly fine of say $1billion. SEC gets credit for bring “justice” to the matter, and SEC doesn’t look like they have mud on their face, after botching other things recently. It’s a PR move from the SEC probably, right?

[Coronita]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]IForget: As Rich correctly pointed out, buy you refuse to admit: There is an inherent contradiction in your statement.

Also, comparing AIG to Sachs completely misses the fact that one is an insurance company and one is an investment bank.

Also interesting is the fact that your friend in securities litigation didn’t discuss Bear Stearns or Lehman Bros during the course of your conversation. Both of them stand at opposite poles in terms of gubment/Fed “favoritism” (in that Bear was saved and Lehman was allowed to implode). Did your attorney friend look at the SEC complaint? Are you aware of how politically connected Goldman Sachs is? Do you have any idea of their risk exposure? I would imagine “no” is the answer to all of these questions.

Do a little research on what investment bankers call the “overnight repo” market. All the major houses survive on these type short-term lending facilities. Bear Stearns was scuttled, and within a few days, when the Street lost confidence in them and their repo facilities dried up. Lehman and Goldman also found themselves in this same situation and Goldman came periously close to foundering, just like Bear and Lehman. Ever wonder why they didn’t go under, too? The answer is right there in front of you.[/quote]

GS will pay a pidly fine of say $1billion. SEC gets credit for bring “justice” to the matter, and SEC doesn’t look like they have mud on their face, after botching other things recently. It’s a PR move from the SEC probably, right?

[Coronita]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]IForget: As Rich correctly pointed out, buy you refuse to admit: There is an inherent contradiction in your statement.

Also, comparing AIG to Sachs completely misses the fact that one is an insurance company and one is an investment bank.

Also interesting is the fact that your friend in securities litigation didn’t discuss Bear Stearns or Lehman Bros during the course of your conversation. Both of them stand at opposite poles in terms of gubment/Fed “favoritism” (in that Bear was saved and Lehman was allowed to implode). Did your attorney friend look at the SEC complaint? Are you aware of how politically connected Goldman Sachs is? Do you have any idea of their risk exposure? I would imagine “no” is the answer to all of these questions.

Do a little research on what investment bankers call the “overnight repo” market. All the major houses survive on these type short-term lending facilities. Bear Stearns was scuttled, and within a few days, when the Street lost confidence in them and their repo facilities dried up. Lehman and Goldman also found themselves in this same situation and Goldman came periously close to foundering, just like Bear and Lehman. Ever wonder why they didn’t go under, too? The answer is right there in front of you.[/quote]

GS will pay a pidly fine of say $1billion. SEC gets credit for bring “justice” to the matter, and SEC doesn’t look like they have mud on their face, after botching other things recently. It’s a PR move from the SEC probably, right?

[Arraya]

GS already shorted itself before the news came out.

[Arraya]

GS already shorted itself before the news came out.

[Arraya]

GS already shorted itself before the news came out.

[Arraya]

GS already shorted itself before the news came out.

[Arraya]

GS already shorted itself before the news came out.

[UCGal]

[quote=Arraya]GS already shorted itself before the news came out.[/quote]

Is it sad that I believe this could be true?

[UCGal]

[quote=Arraya]GS already shorted itself before the news came out.[/quote]

Is it sad that I believe this could be true?

[UCGal]

[quote=Arraya]GS already shorted itself before the news came out.[/quote]

Is it sad that I believe this could be true?

[UCGal]

[quote=Arraya]GS already shorted itself before the news came out.[/quote]

Is it sad that I believe this could be true?

[Author]

Posts