[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=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

[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]

ruud has served me well get a high efficiency unit

[patb]

ruud has served me well get a high efficiency unit

[patb]

ruud has served me well get a high efficiency unit

[patb]

ruud has served me well get a high efficiency unit

[patb]

ruud has served me well get a high efficiency unit

[patb]

[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]

Goldman is at the end of the day a trading house and a hedge fund. If nobody comes to them to make deals, because they distrust Goldman, how much does that impair the franchise.

[patb]

[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]

Goldman is at the end of the day a trading house and a hedge fund. If nobody comes to them to make deals, because they distrust Goldman, how much does that impair the franchise.

[patb]

[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]

Goldman is at the end of the day a trading house and a hedge fund. If nobody comes to them to make deals, because they distrust Goldman, how much does that impair the franchise.

[patb]

[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]

Goldman is at the end of the day a trading house and a hedge fund. If nobody comes to them to make deals, because they distrust Goldman, how much does that impair the franchise.

[Author]

Posts