Comments on: The Goldman wars continue

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 07:18:11 +0000

Every business makes good and bad decisions, just a matter if they learn and eventually bounces back from it. But what’s important is they move on instead of dwelling and harping on the mistakes.

By: mutant_dog

mutant_dog — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:48:07 +0000

“They show Goldman people going about their line of work, doing what Goldman people do, taking long positions, taking short positions, sometimes even taking big short positions. This is what broker-dealers should do if they have decent risk management.”

So, in re: ABN AMRO, you can’t assert that their trade was stupid, or even bad, without reference to their entire trading book, complete with VaR analysis, durations, and so forth.

btw, @STORYB.., what you say is true of the synthetic CDO, but not for an real one; that is, an actual pool of actual loans, structured as a CDO. No short interest is needed in that situation.

By: longandshort

longandshort — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:07:34 +0000

ABN AMRO was selling protection on the CDO (albeit via ACA). And the were selling the protection on a leveraged basis (over $1 billion in protectionon a $200 million CDO).

One doesn’t have to be a Wharton MBA or a U of C Financial Engineer or even a Devry Tech grad to figure out that someone wants to pay you chump change for a majorj bet against the mortgage market.

ABN obviously thought the “chump” was the protection buyer.

By: STORYBURNcom_0

STORYBURNcom_0 — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:26:34 +0000

ABN AMRO didn’t know somebody was shorting the very transaction they were going long on? Uh huh….You can’t set up a CDO otherwise

By: xyz70

xyz70 — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:42:11 +0000

J Bradford “Annoyingly Smug Mayflower Descendant” Delong’s response is less learned than spuriously pedantic (as usual). There can be no doubt that media coverage since 2007 and the recent SEC lawsuit depict GS in unflattering and reputationally damaging terms. This non-dispute (as Delong frames it) concerns how much reputation Goldman has to lose. With or without Delong’s quibble, Goldman will lose gobs of reputation.

Delong needs a lithium prescription.

By: longandshort

longandshort — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:47:51 +0000

So no one on the mortgage related trading desk received any bonuses becuase of the ‘losses’?

By: Ghandiolfini

Ghandiolfini — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:34:39 +0000

This is getting long in the tooth and tardy, let’s change the topic, let’s attack the buyer now…

By: savo

savo — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:35:14 +0000

Wow a lot of news about the profit they made. If you look at the profit and loss for the group, they actually lost money overall.

110 – 294 + 553 + 107 – 1 219 + 170 – 507 – 130 = -1 210

By: freroht

freroht — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 07:26:57 +0000

I actually agree with this opinion. I can’t stand the lawmakers lambasting Goldman for having short positions? What are they thinking, people don’t short sale. If you are on the wrong end of the equation, too bad…you should learn and do a better job next time.
Not everyone will be a successful investor, investing is not like going to school,it is different, not everyone will get A’s. If there are A’s, there will be F’s with the curve around C.

By: hsvkitty

hsvkitty — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 23:28:55 +0000

So are you giving Goldman points for what may well be another case of creative accounting? Being huge bonuses were made on income never earned, didn’t they also defraud their shareholders?

That 90 million loss should be looked at a whole lot closer. Someone made money besides Paulson.

Financial industry’s political power is increasing and they have been waging war against reform …. The SEC, the Government and the people have to ensure Wall Street and banks are restricted in their ability and power to cause crises and manipulate government, Do it now or more will follow. Business as usual should not be an an option.

The rest of the world doesn’t really want to watch you crumble and take us down with you. We can’t understand why so many are standing idly by, when they are already being hit by the rubble.

By: HBC

HBC — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 21:24:09 +0000

This is rather scatterbrained stuff, coming from Felix.

At stake appears to be Goldman’s reputation. This hasn’t been tarnished by the SEC charge so much as it has been by Goldman’s own proximity to shady dealings and an overbearing sense of entitlement to continue as-was. They simply do not have sufficient arm’s length from rigged deals. Nor have they had the modesty to refrain from seeding Treasury with (ex?) employees of theirs. That’s the problem their reputation is now suffering, not “populist” sentiment nor the SEC’s capacity to regulate, which it may have done here with surprising diligence.

The flurry of arrogant denial from Goldman substantively fails to convince. Given what’s at stake they protest too savagely, like Wall Street’s very own Jerry Springer cast members, thereby even further from saving face.

With relentless transparency being now called for, self-indulgently obscurant side-bar condolences for Goldman’s plight now consume what little of that vaunted Goldman reputation remains to defend.

One doesn’t have to be a stochastic sleeveless wizard to figure out that the only way out for Goldman is down.

By: alea

alea — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:02:30 +0000

GS is more like Salomon, they trade for their own account. Lazard and Rothschilds don’t and you can’t compete on big deals or big customer deals if you don’t trade, you can’t underwrite bonds or stocks if you don’t know where the market is.