Comments on: Shock! Goldman favours big clients http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/2009/08/24/shock-goldman-favours-big-clients/ Now raising intellectual capital Sun, 08 Nov 2015 08:31:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Nick Grayson http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/2009/08/24/shock-goldman-favours-big-clients/comment-page-1/#comment-2754 Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:01:18 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/?p=2960#comment-2754 When will people realise that they can make their own decisions on what stock to buy. You can ban beer sold in glass pints but you can’t stop a drunk falling over and injuring themselves. You can’t legislate to wrap everyone in cotton wool.
If you do your own research you can achieve more than the banks, how many banks got a 100% short on Lehman but I personally know someone who has, who did his own research, and there are others like this. Look at all the opportunities the traditional finance folk have missed. They’re too busy fumbling around with Markowitz portfolio theory instead of growing a pair, using common sense, experience or insight.
When will Americans do their own legwork when investing their own money. Goldman Sachs analysts are not really doing an invaluable job so why are we to be worried.

]]>
By: Mike http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/2009/08/24/shock-goldman-favours-big-clients/comment-page-1/#comment-2706 Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:26:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/?p=2960#comment-2706 The problem, Mr. Larsen, is that those clients seem to be buying ahead of the reports; and then dumping stock once the report has been publicly released. That IS illegal. Goldman knows that it’s clients are breaking the law. By continuing to give their clients tips, Goldman is complicit.

]]>
By: Peter Thal Larsen http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/2009/08/24/shock-goldman-favours-big-clients/comment-page-1/#comment-2704 Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:10:23 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/?p=2960#comment-2704 Mike, nobody is suggesting Goldman broke the law. The implication of the WSJ piece, however, is that they are bending the rules by giving big clients preferential treatment.

My point is that big clients will always get preferential treatment. Indeed, why would Goldman bother spending hundreds of millions on a team of research analysts if their expensive insights cannot be used for the benefit of its best clients?

]]>
By: Mike http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/2009/08/24/shock-goldman-favours-big-clients/comment-page-1/#comment-2702 Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:57:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/?p=2960#comment-2702 Mr. Larsen: I’m not sure what your point is. Are you arguing that what Goldman did is legal? Or are you arguing that the law should be changed? It’s not clear in your post, and you seem to conflate the two points.

E.g., you write: “The rules dictate that written research must be sent to all clients simultaneously ….” You then write: “Whatever rules regulators devise, it is hard to expect Goldman, or any other investment bank, not to give preferential treatment to big clients.”

Those two statements seem to lead on to infer that you think Goldman Sachs has broke the law; and that you are quite OK with the lawlessness.

]]>
By: Alejandro http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/2009/08/24/shock-goldman-favours-big-clients/comment-page-1/#comment-2694 Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:35:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/?p=2960#comment-2694 I love how all these people who barely understand the business or what Goldman does, are suddenly critical of what Goldman does.

]]>