reply to post by TrickoftheShade
So let me get this straight? Goldman were in on it but Lehman and Merrills were not? What I love about you guys is your ability to decide who was
running the show afterwards, judged by who has the money at the end. Before the financial crisis all bankers were running the world. Afterwards it's
suddenly only some of them. Goldman's 4 bn was small beer in terms of the losses by the way. Howie Hubler at Morgan Stanley lost 9 bn on subprime
bets. Your contention seems to be that some of the bankers - although not all - wanted to lose this money so that they could have it partly refunded
in the form of equity loss via TARP. Why on earth would they want to do that?
Correct, now you are learning. If you would have read the whole post, you would notice that I posted all the individuals who have worked for Goldman
Sachs, and are now within high positions within several national administrations. Lehman, and Merill were not nearly as connected as Goldman, so they
They didn't lose any money, they were bailed out, and made billions at a time when most banks were failing. Which seems insignificant, and
unimportant to you for some reason. Here I was thinking that Capitalism was about free markets, and not bailing out those who fail to properly
operate their businesses...
The documentary "Inside Job" produced by Sony Entertainment, details how rating agencies (Moody’s, Standard & Poors, Fitch), falsified their
ratings to make it seem like certain mortgages, loans etc.. were better rated then they actually were, which netted firms like Goldman huge
"Goldman-Sachs sold more than $3 billion worth of CDOs in the first half of 2006. Goldman also bet against the low-value CDOs, telling investors they
This is known in some country's as predatory lending, but in "America", its businesses as usual.
How funny that " Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner decided that Lehman must go into bankruptcy", Paulson, who was previously a CEO of Golman Sachs,
decided to bail out his old corporation, while letting the Lehman Brothers who were a rival of Goldman fail. I guess that doesn't strike you as
suspicious at all, just business as usual, right? Also the fact that Goldman Sachs handed out billions in bonuses to its employee's right after
being bailed out, which begs the question of what exactly they needed to be bailed out for? If they didn't need the money to invest back into their
bank, then it seems like they need to be bailed out so that they could afford new yachts....
"The big bank said Thursday it rewarded employees with $16.2 billion in salaries and bonuses for 2009."
Oh man. Are you just adding the 10 bn to the 4 bn and coming up with 14 bn profit? Do you even understand how financially illiterate that is? And are
you pretending that a stock investment for equity is a profit? Jesus.
So you're saying that they prefered not to make money, but instead to borrow it?
It was a rudiment, and altogether underestimation of the profits they made, no doubt they made much more, and I understand the difference between
stock, and raw profits. Considering as stated by the huffington post "The $4.79 billion profit was the biggest quarterly gain ever for the New
York-based bank.", they made a quarterly gain of $4.79 billion, I would say my estimate for their gains during 2008 wasn't that far off. Another
interesting point, "In 2008, Goldman set aside 48 percent of its revenue to pay employees."...
Ah, now you are being the financially illiterate one, you honestly don't understand what an investment/loan shark, can do with borrowed tax payer
money? Their turn around was probably phenomenal, all with money they didn't need, and which they bet on CDO's, and invested in CDS, which were
falsely rated for them by the rating agency's.
I think you largely missed the point, the fact that one of the "very few banking firms to come out on top", was the one who had its former CEO as
the secretary of the U.S. treasury during the crisis... They gave their employee's billions of dollars, how is that not desirable? They BET against
loans they KNEW would fail, and made billions on that, how is that not desirable? They CREATED the crisis, and USED it to their advantage, how is
that not desirable? The FACT, that they had "insiders" who previously worked for them, and one of Obama's largest campaign contributes was Goldman
Sachs speaks volumes....
You seem to be living in a fantasy world where everyone is a peachy kind Capitalist hero, who want's nothing better then to help the poor
farmer/worker along. The truth is stunningly different if you would take the time to look around you. Heck, like I previously stated, their
predatory loaning is considered a crime in most country's. In "America", its just business as usual...