Comments on: Goldman goes off-message A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: C.D. Walker Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:40:32 +0000 How are these executives at Goldman Sachs different than any gambling addict addicted to high risk schemes?

What’s worse, these addicts aren’t gambling with their own money, they are using Investor money, and when they lost, they profited because they hedged their bets with AIG, then got Billions in Bailout from the Government, while amazingly their two largest competitors did not receive Bailout funds and went bankrupt.

And Tres. Sec. Henry Paulson was an Ex-Goldman Executive? And saved his old company? And let competitors fail? So much for a free market.
Business backed by Government is Fascism,
and the “White Voter Party” the GOP,
the blonde hair, blue eye party was in power.
See any people of Color in Goldman’s upper management?

By: deadhead Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:36:39 +0000 they are welcome to take on all the risk they want as long as they dump the BHC status, pay off the fdic supported bonds, and state that they are not TBTF and refuse to accept any government assistance whatsoever going forward.

By: Guest Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:23:32 +0000 There is nothing arrogant about that quote. He just said that risk appetite increases as liquidity increases. There’s nothing inherently arrogant about that. In fact, it might just be good management. And then, you talk about VaR, which is known to actually be an inaccurate measure of risk.

Furthermore, 2nd quarter prop trading accounted for only 10% of total profits, which was cited in the article you’re selectively pulling from here. A big bet from this portion of profits came from betting that volatility would be down–again, nothing unethical/arrogant here.

Also, the article clearly states Goldman’s leverage decreased in the 2nd quarter (opposite of the claim you make in the 2nd to last sentence).

I have a feeling you’re just jumping on the trails of ZeroHedge/Taibbi/etc. here, rather than writing responsibly.

By: Terry Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:56:04 +0000 Goldman Sachs will drop its bank holding status at the hint of any regulator trying to crack down on, what you feel is excessive risk taking.

By: Gerter Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:02:52 +0000 This may be a stupid question but isn’t a rising VaR these days normal? Since VaR calculations are short sighted, isn’t the increase partially due to the fact that the two or five year history (whichever is used) now involves quite a lot of the “irregular” market behaviour witnessed recently?