Has Goldman fatally damaged their Franchise?

[SK in CV]

Right Allen, they had a very temporary cash crunch. But never an equity crunch. They didn’t need, nor get any TARP money directly. But as counter-party, they got almost $13 billion in cash from AIG. Compared to Lehman, Bear Stearns or GM, they were never in danger.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]Right Allen, they had a very temporary cash crunch. But never an equity crunch. They didn’t need, nor get any TARP money directly. But as counter-party, they got almost $13 billion in cash from AIG. Compared to Lehman, Bear Stearns or GM, they were never in danger.[/quote]

SK: Given the facts (as I understand them), your assessment above is correct and better stated than mine.

Speaking of the AIG counterparty payment, what’s your take on that? Nearly all of my information on that comes from former brokers, so I might be somewhat biased, but I don’t see any major problems with Goldman having received that payment (in that it was collateral they already held, so they were getting the money one way or the other).

I’m not a Goldman Sachs fan. I’m not a fan of any of these organizations and I believe that their “role” in helping allocate capital most efficiently has been completely lost in their collective stampede towards ever larger bonuses.

However, that said, I also believe the gubment is equally to blame and in areas ranging from inadequate oversight, to lax enforcement of rules and regulations, to a complete blindness when it comes to the actions of Citi, GS, AIG, etc, etc.

We’ve known for years about all this bullshit going on and have done nothing. This latest Dodd legislation is also thin soup and we’re being told that it will fundamentally “change” these behaviors. What hooey.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]Right Allen, they had a very temporary cash crunch. But never an equity crunch. They didn’t need, nor get any TARP money directly. But as counter-party, they got almost $13 billion in cash from AIG. Compared to Lehman, Bear Stearns or GM, they were never in danger.[/quote]

SK: Given the facts (as I understand them), your assessment above is correct and better stated than mine.

Speaking of the AIG counterparty payment, what’s your take on that? Nearly all of my information on that comes from former brokers, so I might be somewhat biased, but I don’t see any major problems with Goldman having received that payment (in that it was collateral they already held, so they were getting the money one way or the other).

I’m not a Goldman Sachs fan. I’m not a fan of any of these organizations and I believe that their “role” in helping allocate capital most efficiently has been completely lost in their collective stampede towards ever larger bonuses.

However, that said, I also believe the gubment is equally to blame and in areas ranging from inadequate oversight, to lax enforcement of rules and regulations, to a complete blindness when it comes to the actions of Citi, GS, AIG, etc, etc.

We’ve known for years about all this bullshit going on and have done nothing. This latest Dodd legislation is also thin soup and we’re being told that it will fundamentally “change” these behaviors. What hooey.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]Right Allen, they had a very temporary cash crunch. But never an equity crunch. They didn’t need, nor get any TARP money directly. But as counter-party, they got almost $13 billion in cash from AIG. Compared to Lehman, Bear Stearns or GM, they were never in danger.[/quote]

SK: Given the facts (as I understand them), your assessment above is correct and better stated than mine.

Speaking of the AIG counterparty payment, what’s your take on that? Nearly all of my information on that comes from former brokers, so I might be somewhat biased, but I don’t see any major problems with Goldman having received that payment (in that it was collateral they already held, so they were getting the money one way or the other).

I’m not a Goldman Sachs fan. I’m not a fan of any of these organizations and I believe that their “role” in helping allocate capital most efficiently has been completely lost in their collective stampede towards ever larger bonuses.

However, that said, I also believe the gubment is equally to blame and in areas ranging from inadequate oversight, to lax enforcement of rules and regulations, to a complete blindness when it comes to the actions of Citi, GS, AIG, etc, etc.

We’ve known for years about all this bullshit going on and have done nothing. This latest Dodd legislation is also thin soup and we’re being told that it will fundamentally “change” these behaviors. What hooey.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]Right Allen, they had a very temporary cash crunch. But never an equity crunch. They didn’t need, nor get any TARP money directly. But as counter-party, they got almost $13 billion in cash from AIG. Compared to Lehman, Bear Stearns or GM, they were never in danger.[/quote]

SK: Given the facts (as I understand them), your assessment above is correct and better stated than mine.

Speaking of the AIG counterparty payment, what’s your take on that? Nearly all of my information on that comes from former brokers, so I might be somewhat biased, but I don’t see any major problems with Goldman having received that payment (in that it was collateral they already held, so they were getting the money one way or the other).

I’m not a Goldman Sachs fan. I’m not a fan of any of these organizations and I believe that their “role” in helping allocate capital most efficiently has been completely lost in their collective stampede towards ever larger bonuses.

However, that said, I also believe the gubment is equally to blame and in areas ranging from inadequate oversight, to lax enforcement of rules and regulations, to a complete blindness when it comes to the actions of Citi, GS, AIG, etc, etc.

We’ve known for years about all this bullshit going on and have done nothing. This latest Dodd legislation is also thin soup and we’re being told that it will fundamentally “change” these behaviors. What hooey.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]Right Allen, they had a very temporary cash crunch. But never an equity crunch. They didn’t need, nor get any TARP money directly. But as counter-party, they got almost $13 billion in cash from AIG. Compared to Lehman, Bear Stearns or GM, they were never in danger.[/quote]

SK: Given the facts (as I understand them), your assessment above is correct and better stated than mine.

Speaking of the AIG counterparty payment, what’s your take on that? Nearly all of my information on that comes from former brokers, so I might be somewhat biased, but I don’t see any major problems with Goldman having received that payment (in that it was collateral they already held, so they were getting the money one way or the other).

I’m not a Goldman Sachs fan. I’m not a fan of any of these organizations and I believe that their “role” in helping allocate capital most efficiently has been completely lost in their collective stampede towards ever larger bonuses.

However, that said, I also believe the gubment is equally to blame and in areas ranging from inadequate oversight, to lax enforcement of rules and regulations, to a complete blindness when it comes to the actions of Citi, GS, AIG, etc, etc.

We’ve known for years about all this bullshit going on and have done nothing. This latest Dodd legislation is also thin soup and we’re being told that it will fundamentally “change” these behaviors. What hooey.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=UCGal][quote=briansd1]
GS is an investment bank and not a consumer bank, so I don’t think that public image is as important to them.
[/quote]

Technically they aren’t an investment bank anymore – they switched their label (and acquired *some* regulation) becoming a commercial bank – because commercial banks got more government cheese – in the form of virtually free overnight lending at the Fed window.[/quote]

UCGal: Right you are, and I stand corrected.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=UCGal][quote=briansd1]
GS is an investment bank and not a consumer bank, so I don’t think that public image is as important to them.
[/quote]

Technically they aren’t an investment bank anymore – they switched their label (and acquired *some* regulation) becoming a commercial bank – because commercial banks got more government cheese – in the form of virtually free overnight lending at the Fed window.[/quote]

UCGal: Right you are, and I stand corrected.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=UCGal][quote=briansd1]
GS is an investment bank and not a consumer bank, so I don’t think that public image is as important to them.
[/quote]

Technically they aren’t an investment bank anymore – they switched their label (and acquired *some* regulation) becoming a commercial bank – because commercial banks got more government cheese – in the form of virtually free overnight lending at the Fed window.[/quote]

UCGal: Right you are, and I stand corrected.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=UCGal][quote=briansd1]
GS is an investment bank and not a consumer bank, so I don’t think that public image is as important to them.
[/quote]

Technically they aren’t an investment bank anymore – they switched their label (and acquired *some* regulation) becoming a commercial bank – because commercial banks got more government cheese – in the form of virtually free overnight lending at the Fed window.[/quote]

UCGal: Right you are, and I stand corrected.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=UCGal][quote=briansd1]
GS is an investment bank and not a consumer bank, so I don’t think that public image is as important to them.
[/quote]

Technically they aren’t an investment bank anymore – they switched their label (and acquired *some* regulation) becoming a commercial bank – because commercial banks got more government cheese – in the form of virtually free overnight lending at the Fed window.[/quote]

UCGal: Right you are, and I stand corrected.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]This latest Dodd legislation is also thin soup and we’re being told that it will fundamentally “change” these behaviors. What hooey.[/quote]

Would you rather have thin soup or go hungry?

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]This latest Dodd legislation is also thin soup and we’re being told that it will fundamentally “change” these behaviors. What hooey.[/quote]

Would you rather have thin soup or go hungry?

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]This latest Dodd legislation is also thin soup and we’re being told that it will fundamentally “change” these behaviors. What hooey.[/quote]

Would you rather have thin soup or go hungry?

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]This latest Dodd legislation is also thin soup and we’re being told that it will fundamentally “change” these behaviors. What hooey.[/quote]

Would you rather have thin soup or go hungry?

[Author]

Posts