Its my understanding that GS is being accused of playing both sides: telling clients to continue to invest while GS was internally hedging for a fall. This article possibly points out some evidence of this.
Unless it's the same employee at Goldman doing both within a short timeframe, I'm not sure what the problem is. Goldman is a big place; of course they'd have divisions dedicated to shilling instruments and divisions dedicated to exploiting market opportunities.
A lot of the blame should be laid at the investors feet; why did they buy something they so manifestly failed to understand?
If you invest in something you don't understand I'm not sure you're entitled to complain when it doesn't do what you wanted.
(If you don't want to have to spend all your time managing your investments then you're best off sticking to simple things like index funds or cash. That's not a bad choice at all)
In my grandparent's youth, you could invest in "simple things" but nowadays, with the 12mo T-bill yielding 0.42% and an inflation rate of 2.3%, your cash strategy won't get you very far.
I'm confounded. How can interest be below inflation? Don't people want money now? I though there was a premium on saving money, because people were short-sighted and greedy. I though that saving your money let it get put to work, creating productive stuff, and you would get rewarded for your short-term austerity.
It can happen when it's the least worst place to park your money. E.g. what's your interest rate when you put it under your mattress?
In a deflation, which we still seem to be in (or so many think), the trick is to find safe places, because the big way to lose is to have the entity you're investing in go under. This is why blue chip bonds were so popular during and for a long time after the Great Depression. AT&T with its government monopoly wasn't going to go under....
One should also note that a T-bill is funding the Federal government's deficit (hardly putting your money in a place where it will "get put to work, creating productive stuff"); you do that for safety and short term liquidity. You can get higher yield instruments ... with a higher risk (almost by definition). Obviously there's a lot of risk aversion nowadays.
(In fact, in general but in particular right now the Federal government has a perverse incentive to make their instruments look like the safest in the world....)
If we have deflation, that makes sense. Banks could even charge you to hang onto your money.
But if you have any inflation above interest rates, surely you could just take out a loan, buy durable goods (houses, tinned fish, iron ore), hide them under your mattress, and make a killing.
Yeah, but you need liquidity for a variety of things. You can't easily turn those durable goods into payment for unexpected medical expenses and other emergencies, college for your children, etc.
Gold has been favored for deflations since it's "the only liquidity that doesn't depend on someone else's liquidity", but FDR got Americans out of that game when he confiscated the nation's gold supply. It wasn't legal to own gold until a little while after Nixon closed the gold window, and the wild gyrations after that due to a variety of factors didn't make gold look like a good place to put your money (in general, commodities haven't been a good bet against inflation in the modern era as we get better and better at extracting/growing/whatever them).
Hmmm, my father is the sort of person who can play this game, he's at times acquired various sorts of goods and sold them generally at a profit (I can remember one time 1/4 of our garage being filled with cases of suntan lotion), and he never played that game.
Probably because if you have the sorts of skills and network my father has, there are much better games to play, in his case N startups, a few of which paid off big. Also real estate, but that's mostly passive in his case.
In your deflationary scenario, you'd be better off holding the cash, because there are costs for storage. Your cash would appreciate as much as the price of the goods.
But holding onto physical cash is not without costs, e.g. you have to provide your own security, it's probably not going to be as good as a bank's, etc.
In the investment domain, cash is shorthand for T-bills, money markets accounts, insured bank deposits. I wasn't referring to actual banknotes. If the banking system fails entirely, banknotes will be equally worthless as accounts.
Was it possible to understand what Goldman was selling? They certainly weren't telling the whole story. Isn't part of the suit about disclosure? In general, I agree with you, if you don't understand it then don't invest in it, but in reality close to nobody would invest in anything if they only invested in what they really understand.
Regardless of which side prevails in the courts, there are some ethical issues that have been raised. Would you ever buy something from Goldman now? Personally, I've had brokers tell me they thought I was being to aggressive or careless with investments, that's pretty much what I pay them for. Perhaps it's a different relationship at that level. Between the flash trading and front running questions and then the piles of cash that they've made since the crisis, it definitely warrants more investigation.
If you invest in index funds, odds are pretty high that you simply won't make money at any given point in the future, that was good advice 60 years ago, there are an awful lot of people who did that and see 2000 to 2010 as totally flat. It doesn't seem easy to call cash a good idea either, at some point the over extended currencies are going to normalize.
I don't think that even a sophisticated investor could understand many of the instruments that Goldman was selling; so for the most part I think people should have taken that as a warning. (Hell, even Warren Buffett was saying he couldn't understand derivatives and the odds of a given investor being sharper than Warren are low).
I agree with you on the ethical issues but I didn't believe them to be particularly trustworthy in the first place, all of their incentives are lined up to do things that will make them money and their advice will be tainted by this.
Re: Index funds and cash - yeah, they aren't going to get you stellar returns. Cash in particular gives you poor dividends. The point of these is that the chance of your money vanishing is low and they require little time investment, enabling you to focus on your area of expertise instead.
If I had to choose areas to invest in that would (potentially) give better returns, I'd try:
1) Investing in oneself. ie improving skills, becoming better known, etc. Much easier to get above market returns here, of course.
2) A small number of small/medium size companies in unfashionable areas you can study and understand; basically stocks where there is the potential for decent growth and comparatively few people are looking.
3) Well chosen property for the leverage. You'd need to really spend time choosing well or the leverage would potentially fuck you over.
You do have to be pretty careful if you're selling some instruments and exploiting market opportunities in the same instruments, though. In particular, you have to be really certain that those two sides are walled off from each other, and not sharing information.
Yours is a common argument, but isn't it functionally equivalent to, say, breaking up GS into two firms, each of which would be able to do one of the roles?
If so, isn't this primarily about economies of scale? Since the only reason both roles take place within one firm today are because there are efficiencies associated with the ancillary services (and perhaps capital requirements) that give a conglomerate iBank an advantage over two smaller firms. ??
> telling clients to continue to invest while GS was internally hedging for a fall.
I think it's slightly more subtle than that. They didn't actively tell clients to invest - rather, they had clients who wanted to go long housing, and facilitated the trade without telling the buyers that GS thought it was a bad idea. At least, that's my understanding, based on talking to some people who spent decades at GS and left between six months and three years ago.
"The German bank on the losing end of the Goldman Sachs derivatives deals that have attracted the ire of the Securities and Exchange Commission was so absorbed in the pursuit of high-yield returns from financial instruments linked to the U.S. housing market that it preferred to lose one of its top executives rather than change course."
Sounds a bit like what happened at Harvard; in that case, envy forced out the team that was earning them their high rate off return, leaving B Ark types who mindlessly continued the same strategy (it was so bad they neglected to unwind one position until they'd needlessly lost 1 billion dollars on it). In this case, their portfolio manager of the German bank in question predicted what would happen, was ignored by upper management, and then left.
The bank was getting squeezed by the spread between their short term commercial paper and their long term investments like this one, e.g. others were noticing their reckless real estate bets as things in general in this market were starting to get bad. But they needed high yields to keep the game going (they got bailed out/bought out by another German bank in the end), so in this case (not the only one, I gather) they went to Goldman to get that.
Others with a clue like Paulson (who was at the other end of the transaction) and certainly many at Goldman thought they were wrong ... but at what point do you get so sure someone is wrong that you refuse to do business with them? They were hardly the only ones betting this way!
Note also that things get really ugly when everyone stops doing transactions in a market, which is exactly what eventually happened, resulting in unmarketable "toxic" financial instruments. We need liquidity in markets and I don't think it's the job of entities like Goldman to "pull away the punchbowl". That's supposed to be the job of e.g. the Fed, especially the NY Fed (headed at the time by our current Treasury Secretary).
This only looks bad in hindsight... I cannot speak for GS et al., but it seems like most of the commentary attributes the banks with prescience (and therefore malice).
How's this bad? It was blindingly obvious to anyone in 2005-2007 that the UK housing market was crazy and overheated (and it still is). The fact that people still invested is their own stupidity, and if GS made money off that fact, good for them.
Any time a stock transaction takes place, one party believed it was a good idea to sell and the other party believed it was a good idee to buy.
This is not entirely true, and I can think of two counterexamples immediately:
1. A long-term stock investor who is at or near retirement will tend to want to convert stock holdings to bond holdings in order to reduce the volatility of the portfolio and start to receive cash income to meet daily needs regardless of his/her opinion of the quality of the stocks.
2. An index mutual fund will sell/buy stock shares in response to investor redemptions/purchases of fund shares without regard to the quality of the shares or the state of the market because the fund is in the business of matching its benchmark and not trying to pick the best stocks.
The market is not always a zero-sum game because participants have different goals and time horizons. There are even more examples than this in the derivatives markets.
You're right but it doesn't mean that it's not a zero sum game. When you buy a stock you do not assume it has perfect liquidity (if you wanted that you'd invest in a more liquid investment). So you trade liquidity for growth. Liquidity correlates strongly with volatility.
If (as you approach retirement) you decide to trade growth for liquidity and convert to cash, you may end up penalized if the volatility of the stock reduces your return (if you have to sell in a dip). This is part of the trade off that you entered into and you are not penalized as long as you can afford to wait out whatever volatile price movements make the conversion temporarily disadvantageous.
As for your point 2, while this is true for an individual trade it's the sort of thing that averages out over time...
These articles have sensational headlines that don't point to the real issue. The possible fraud committed relates to GS recommending securities that they were betting against.
Personally I cheered the housing market's decline as well. It's interesting how we're always told it's a disaster when there's a market correction but never when an asset class is getting overvalued.
1) The stock-market itself is theoretically a zero sum game. So regardless of the instrument being trade someone is always betting against a trade. ex. over and above a long/short combo, even if person X is going long and person Y is booking profits. Person Y is theoretically betting against X.
2) GS is a clearing house among other things. Hence there is a high probability that on any given day they have hundreds of transactions that are long/short withing the same client pool.
3) Most transactions take place on a level 2 platform, i.e. the maximum someone can see if which company cleared the transaction, not which client etc.
4) Even if it is the same advisor, it would be illegal to disclose the transaction details of a client to another client.
5) I have never come across a retail investor that invests in CDOs and other exotic instruments.
6) There is a difference between hedging and naked/un-hedged trade. If someone is smart enough to be willing to trade an exotic instrument in the later category they better have the ball s to take ownership of the losses.
7) I wonder if people would have whined at all if GS did not make money on the hedge, since that happens in the majority of cases. Even in the case of GS. Like a number of other activities/sports a 30% win rate can be awesome.
8) This article is baseless is theory and practicality...
Because(Opinions):
a) Either they are trying to say, hedging should not be allowed. If it should be allowed the ones hedging should not make a profit(??). If they do make a profit they should feel sad about it.
b) If making a profit is a bad thing then, I guess they are trying to promote a way to eliminate losses. If thats the case I wonder what they would like to do. More bailouts or close the stock markets completely.. what would be the use if no one should make a profit??
c) I guess to make the article/issue clearer the next thing they could say is underwriting of any kind is also an illegal practice, since the institution assuming the risk is only entitled to risk and losses, go forbid if they make a profit, well we can see GS getting bashed for now :)
d) Anyone who lost money, even if they were GS's clients ought to have done their own due diligence too, if the people investing do not understand the inherent risks involved with doing business they are better of staying away from the markets as much as possible.
e) lastly, IMO the intent of this article is not to do anything but upset people who lost money or know someone close to them who lost money (includes all most everyone)to help gracefully without opposition let others implement speculative unhedged measures to curb speculation, hedging, profit making, angel funding etc..
LMFAO!
Where did you get this from:
"GS has access to huge amounts of credit at zero percent interest from the Fed"??
whereas in fact:
They had "10 billion" shoved down their throats in Oct-Nov 2008, in exchange of preferred stock, with the condition that they had to take the money, and had to keep it for six months.
Which they repaid in full in April-May 2009 along with 23% interest. 23%!!! thats more per annum than a sub prime individual with no security would pay!
Your interests in what exactly? You don't even know the facts of your own investments.. if at all you would like to call it that. i guess you meant interest as in the 23%!
Go dig up the archives for 14 Sep 2008 - 30 Nov 2008, since I dont remember the exact date for the statements "We dont want or need any funds from the TARP".
Why not, because in Sep 2008 they had already raised 10 Billion from buffet. Not to cover their asses etc. but to use the money to make more money.
Of course this also brings up the question whether the motive of force funding GS was to save them or just get a slice of an awesomely lucarative delicious pie! something you the taxpayer profited from!
But of course you could have easily missed that, due to a beautiful blame shifting concept called "dissonant discomfort/cognitive dissonance". google it.
Question:
1. Which we the people are you referring to, the ones who understand issues, or just carry a vote without any knowledge?
2. If everyone understands the issue, I am sure you realize that "don't require evidence of a 'crime'", is an unlawful non-democratic statement in every way.
..... and hence you could definitely not mean "we the people"?
3) Again, what interests exactly?
in conclusion:
are you really under the illusion that you are going forward ? LMAO!
Goldman was one of the 9 banks at that infamous meeting where Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (not to be confused with the selling short hedge fund counter party of this deal) said "Take this money or else".
The talking points that were coughed up 3/4ths of a year later for Judaical Watch's FOIA request match the leaked substance of the meeting including these details:
"We don't believe it is tenable to opt out because doing so would leave you vulnerable and exposed.
"If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance."
The leaks said that they were told they weren't leaving the room until they'd signed on the dotted line. This is the sort of thing you expect from the Mafia or in a Third World country, not the USA! Not to mention that the 23% interest they were charged was Mafia like.
Too many envy the successful, and in this case technical excellence was part of the story. Goldman developed their own computer language "Slang", and while it's not too hot today, their overall system for using it gives them a fantastic advantage. When their leadership wants to play "what if", or the world changes, they can use their system to query all their units and get an answer in something like a few hours at the most.
Other firms keep this embedded in a zillion different (and by definition often broken) spreadsheets and the like. Finding out which end is up is a largely manual and error prone process taking days (or so I read; whatever the time amounts, Goldman's system is going to be a lot faster and more accurate).
Quite a good post and I agree with most of it, just a slight nitpick:
> 1) The stock-market itself is theoretically a zero sum game.
Stock markets aren't necessarily a zero sum game, because investors have some say over the management and running of the company. For someone with .00001% of the company they don't make much difference, but if Warren Buffet buys 15% of a company, he also brings prestige, cache, signals it's a good buy and will be going well for a while, and thus helps the company attract greater personnel. So if Buffet buys a stake of the company, it can be a net gain in the long run. The smaller the company, the greater value-add intelligent investors can be.
Individual stock transactions might or might not be zero sum - they might even be slightly negative sum if you consider brokers' fees. But this is a bit different from the stock market itself - wise and intelligent ownership and investors can bring value to a company by taking over ownership positions from less wise and intelligent investors.
Very good comment though, I agree with the essence of what you're saying.
I liked Bill Black's comments on the Bill Moyer's Journal last week. He said (my paraphrase) that if corporations are to have the privileges of personhood, most notably free speech and rights to political contributions, then they also should have the same consequences: As in losing civil rights for felony convictions, and the "three strike" rule, meaning I guess they should be permanently dissolved upon the third felony conviction.
Corporations of this type are "executed" by starting the first criminal prosecution. E.g. Arthur Anderson, the shell of which was ultimately vindicated.
WRT to Goldman, a pointless discussion since they are primary dealer of Federal government treasury bills and bonds. As long as the government is depending on borrowing 1.5 trillion a year at low interest rates, they can't afford to trash primary dealers.
Somehow it's controversial to argue that corporations should have responsibilities other than to their shareholders. You don't have to take many steps back from our present-day paradigm to see that as awfully weird. Personally, I'd have thought the controversial view would be that corporations shouldn't need to balance shareholders' interests against, say, employees' and public's. That seems like the ideological dogma to me: this idea that if you place one set of interests above all others, magic will happen.
47 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 96.4 ms ] threadAny time a stock transaction takes place, one party believed it was a good idea to sell and the other party believed it was a good idee to buy.
How is the housing market any different? Should we all be made to believe it's always a strong buy?
A lot of the blame should be laid at the investors feet; why did they buy something they so manifestly failed to understand?
(If you don't want to have to spend all your time managing your investments then you're best off sticking to simple things like index funds or cash. That's not a bad choice at all)
Funny old world.
In a deflation, which we still seem to be in (or so many think), the trick is to find safe places, because the big way to lose is to have the entity you're investing in go under. This is why blue chip bonds were so popular during and for a long time after the Great Depression. AT&T with its government monopoly wasn't going to go under....
One should also note that a T-bill is funding the Federal government's deficit (hardly putting your money in a place where it will "get put to work, creating productive stuff"); you do that for safety and short term liquidity. You can get higher yield instruments ... with a higher risk (almost by definition). Obviously there's a lot of risk aversion nowadays.
(In fact, in general but in particular right now the Federal government has a perverse incentive to make their instruments look like the safest in the world....)
But if you have any inflation above interest rates, surely you could just take out a loan, buy durable goods (houses, tinned fish, iron ore), hide them under your mattress, and make a killing.
Gold has been favored for deflations since it's "the only liquidity that doesn't depend on someone else's liquidity", but FDR got Americans out of that game when he confiscated the nation's gold supply. It wasn't legal to own gold until a little while after Nixon closed the gold window, and the wild gyrations after that due to a variety of factors didn't make gold look like a good place to put your money (in general, commodities haven't been a good bet against inflation in the modern era as we get better and better at extracting/growing/whatever them).
Hmmm, my father is the sort of person who can play this game, he's at times acquired various sorts of goods and sold them generally at a profit (I can remember one time 1/4 of our garage being filled with cases of suntan lotion), and he never played that game.
Probably because if you have the sorts of skills and network my father has, there are much better games to play, in his case N startups, a few of which paid off big. Also real estate, but that's mostly passive in his case.
Regardless of which side prevails in the courts, there are some ethical issues that have been raised. Would you ever buy something from Goldman now? Personally, I've had brokers tell me they thought I was being to aggressive or careless with investments, that's pretty much what I pay them for. Perhaps it's a different relationship at that level. Between the flash trading and front running questions and then the piles of cash that they've made since the crisis, it definitely warrants more investigation.
If you invest in index funds, odds are pretty high that you simply won't make money at any given point in the future, that was good advice 60 years ago, there are an awful lot of people who did that and see 2000 to 2010 as totally flat. It doesn't seem easy to call cash a good idea either, at some point the over extended currencies are going to normalize.
I agree with you on the ethical issues but I didn't believe them to be particularly trustworthy in the first place, all of their incentives are lined up to do things that will make them money and their advice will be tainted by this.
Re: Index funds and cash - yeah, they aren't going to get you stellar returns. Cash in particular gives you poor dividends. The point of these is that the chance of your money vanishing is low and they require little time investment, enabling you to focus on your area of expertise instead.
If I had to choose areas to invest in that would (potentially) give better returns, I'd try:
1) Investing in oneself. ie improving skills, becoming better known, etc. Much easier to get above market returns here, of course.
2) A small number of small/medium size companies in unfashionable areas you can study and understand; basically stocks where there is the potential for decent growth and comparatively few people are looking.
3) Well chosen property for the leverage. You'd need to really spend time choosing well or the leverage would potentially fuck you over.
If so, isn't this primarily about economies of scale? Since the only reason both roles take place within one firm today are because there are efficiencies associated with the ancillary services (and perhaps capital requirements) that give a conglomerate iBank an advantage over two smaller firms. ??
I think it's slightly more subtle than that. They didn't actively tell clients to invest - rather, they had clients who wanted to go long housing, and facilitated the trade without telling the buyers that GS thought it was a bad idea. At least, that's my understanding, based on talking to some people who spent decades at GS and left between six months and three years ago.
"The German bank on the losing end of the Goldman Sachs derivatives deals that have attracted the ire of the Securities and Exchange Commission was so absorbed in the pursuit of high-yield returns from financial instruments linked to the U.S. housing market that it preferred to lose one of its top executives rather than change course."
Sounds a bit like what happened at Harvard; in that case, envy forced out the team that was earning them their high rate off return, leaving B Ark types who mindlessly continued the same strategy (it was so bad they neglected to unwind one position until they'd needlessly lost 1 billion dollars on it). In this case, their portfolio manager of the German bank in question predicted what would happen, was ignored by upper management, and then left.
The bank was getting squeezed by the spread between their short term commercial paper and their long term investments like this one, e.g. others were noticing their reckless real estate bets as things in general in this market were starting to get bad. But they needed high yields to keep the game going (they got bailed out/bought out by another German bank in the end), so in this case (not the only one, I gather) they went to Goldman to get that.
Others with a clue like Paulson (who was at the other end of the transaction) and certainly many at Goldman thought they were wrong ... but at what point do you get so sure someone is wrong that you refuse to do business with them? They were hardly the only ones betting this way!
Note also that things get really ugly when everyone stops doing transactions in a market, which is exactly what eventually happened, resulting in unmarketable "toxic" financial instruments. We need liquidity in markets and I don't think it's the job of entities like Goldman to "pull away the punchbowl". That's supposed to be the job of e.g. the Fed, especially the NY Fed (headed at the time by our current Treasury Secretary).
No, and neither are they supposed to not be assholes.
But imagine a situation in which someone elects to profit from a crowd of people getting run over by a freight train. Why is this bad?
This is not entirely true, and I can think of two counterexamples immediately:
1. A long-term stock investor who is at or near retirement will tend to want to convert stock holdings to bond holdings in order to reduce the volatility of the portfolio and start to receive cash income to meet daily needs regardless of his/her opinion of the quality of the stocks.
2. An index mutual fund will sell/buy stock shares in response to investor redemptions/purchases of fund shares without regard to the quality of the shares or the state of the market because the fund is in the business of matching its benchmark and not trying to pick the best stocks.
The market is not always a zero-sum game because participants have different goals and time horizons. There are even more examples than this in the derivatives markets.
If (as you approach retirement) you decide to trade growth for liquidity and convert to cash, you may end up penalized if the volatility of the stock reduces your return (if you have to sell in a dip). This is part of the trade off that you entered into and you are not penalized as long as you can afford to wait out whatever volatile price movements make the conversion temporarily disadvantageous.
As for your point 2, while this is true for an individual trade it's the sort of thing that averages out over time...
1) The stock-market itself is theoretically a zero sum game. So regardless of the instrument being trade someone is always betting against a trade. ex. over and above a long/short combo, even if person X is going long and person Y is booking profits. Person Y is theoretically betting against X.
2) GS is a clearing house among other things. Hence there is a high probability that on any given day they have hundreds of transactions that are long/short withing the same client pool.
3) Most transactions take place on a level 2 platform, i.e. the maximum someone can see if which company cleared the transaction, not which client etc.
4) Even if it is the same advisor, it would be illegal to disclose the transaction details of a client to another client.
5) I have never come across a retail investor that invests in CDOs and other exotic instruments.
6) There is a difference between hedging and naked/un-hedged trade. If someone is smart enough to be willing to trade an exotic instrument in the later category they better have the ball s to take ownership of the losses.
7) I wonder if people would have whined at all if GS did not make money on the hedge, since that happens in the majority of cases. Even in the case of GS. Like a number of other activities/sports a 30% win rate can be awesome.
8) This article is baseless is theory and practicality...
Because(Opinions):
a) Either they are trying to say, hedging should not be allowed. If it should be allowed the ones hedging should not make a profit(??). If they do make a profit they should feel sad about it.
b) If making a profit is a bad thing then, I guess they are trying to promote a way to eliminate losses. If thats the case I wonder what they would like to do. More bailouts or close the stock markets completely.. what would be the use if no one should make a profit??
c) I guess to make the article/issue clearer the next thing they could say is underwriting of any kind is also an illegal practice, since the institution assuming the risk is only entitled to risk and losses, go forbid if they make a profit, well we can see GS getting bashed for now :)
d) Anyone who lost money, even if they were GS's clients ought to have done their own due diligence too, if the people investing do not understand the inherent risks involved with doing business they are better of staying away from the markets as much as possible.
e) lastly, IMO the intent of this article is not to do anything but upset people who lost money or know someone close to them who lost money (includes all most everyone)to help gracefully without opposition let others implement speculative unhedged measures to curb speculation, hedging, profit making, angel funding etc..
Cheers!!
1) Your argument is baseless...
Because (Fact)
a) We (the taxpayers) were compelled to bail GS out to the tune of 12 billion dollars to prevent a catastrophic worldwide economic collapse.
b) GS has access to huge amounts of credit at zero percent interest from the Fed.
Conclusion
1) We the people don't require evidence of a "crime" to take further action to protect our interests going forward.
Which they repaid in full in April-May 2009 along with 23% interest. 23%!!! thats more per annum than a sub prime individual with no security would pay!
Your interests in what exactly? You don't even know the facts of your own investments.. if at all you would like to call it that. i guess you meant interest as in the 23%!
Go dig up the archives for 14 Sep 2008 - 30 Nov 2008, since I dont remember the exact date for the statements "We dont want or need any funds from the TARP".
Why not, because in Sep 2008 they had already raised 10 Billion from buffet. Not to cover their asses etc. but to use the money to make more money.
Of course this also brings up the question whether the motive of force funding GS was to save them or just get a slice of an awesomely lucarative delicious pie! something you the taxpayer profited from!
But of course you could have easily missed that, due to a beautiful blame shifting concept called "dissonant discomfort/cognitive dissonance". google it.
Question: 1. Which we the people are you referring to, the ones who understand issues, or just carry a vote without any knowledge? 2. If everyone understands the issue, I am sure you realize that "don't require evidence of a 'crime'", is an unlawful non-democratic statement in every way. ..... and hence you could definitely not mean "we the people"? 3) Again, what interests exactly?
in conclusion: are you really under the illusion that you are going forward ? LMAO!
Here's Judicial Watch's page on this meeting: http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicial-watch-fo...
The talking points that were coughed up 3/4ths of a year later for Judaical Watch's FOIA request match the leaked substance of the meeting including these details:
"We don't believe it is tenable to opt out because doing so would leave you vulnerable and exposed.
"If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance."
The leaks said that they were told they weren't leaving the room until they'd signed on the dotted line. This is the sort of thing you expect from the Mafia or in a Third World country, not the USA! Not to mention that the 23% interest they were charged was Mafia like.
Too many envy the successful, and in this case technical excellence was part of the story. Goldman developed their own computer language "Slang", and while it's not too hot today, their overall system for using it gives them a fantastic advantage. When their leadership wants to play "what if", or the world changes, they can use their system to query all their units and get an answer in something like a few hours at the most.
Other firms keep this embedded in a zillion different (and by definition often broken) spreadsheets and the like. Finding out which end is up is a largely manual and error prone process taking days (or so I read; whatever the time amounts, Goldman's system is going to be a lot faster and more accurate).
> 1) The stock-market itself is theoretically a zero sum game.
Stock markets aren't necessarily a zero sum game, because investors have some say over the management and running of the company. For someone with .00001% of the company they don't make much difference, but if Warren Buffet buys 15% of a company, he also brings prestige, cache, signals it's a good buy and will be going well for a while, and thus helps the company attract greater personnel. So if Buffet buys a stake of the company, it can be a net gain in the long run. The smaller the company, the greater value-add intelligent investors can be.
Individual stock transactions might or might not be zero sum - they might even be slightly negative sum if you consider brokers' fees. But this is a bit different from the stock market itself - wise and intelligent ownership and investors can bring value to a company by taking over ownership positions from less wise and intelligent investors.
Very good comment though, I agree with the essence of what you're saying.
WRT to Goldman, a pointless discussion since they are primary dealer of Federal government treasury bills and bonds. As long as the government is depending on borrowing 1.5 trillion a year at low interest rates, they can't afford to trash primary dealers.