this GS congressional testimony is comedy gold

#1
D

droski

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
21,914
Likes
3
#1
they ask they french guy if he was trying to rip off unsophisticated investors. he says no he was refering to people who weren't as concerned with the spreads and pricing on the securities. so only the people who dont' care about price? gotcha. bright people i'm sure.

:lolabove:

and of course it becomes completely clear that the congressmen/women have no idea what they are talking about or what questions they should be asking.
 
#3
#3
it was at least 6 times. i can't imagine cnbc et all were very happy about that.
 
#4
#4
i'm not sure why they are going after goldman for this. this appears to be legal (maybe unethical, but certainly legal).

in reality they should be going after them for shorting lehman and bear on inside information (since their customers told them they were transfering their money).
 
#5
#5
This is a smoke screen to rally support for the reform bill. Nothing more, nothing less. They know they have no legal case against GS.
 
#6
#6
#7
#7
not sure it contributed to the financial crisis. it's a huge problem for penny stocks and small cap stocks, but the major companies are pretty easy to borrow even in a financial crisis and if they aren't people can buy options. and you'll find few firms that will legally allow you to do it. if i did it i'd get fired immediately for instance.
 
#8
#8
Not sure how much can be attributed to the hearings but the market is having a bad day.
 
#9
#9
volinbham said:
Not sure how much can be attributed to the hearings but the market is having a bad day.
Click to expand...

the euro markets tanking were the primary factor, but i think it's pretty clear that they are going after wall street and goldman is only the beginning. i haven't seen a single accusation that is illegal and the fact htey still went ahead with this shows how politics are going to effect enforcement.
 
#10
#10
droski said:
the euro markets tanking were the primary factor, but i think it's pretty clear that they are going after wall street and goldman is only the beginning. i haven't seen a single accusation that is illegal and the fact htey still went ahead with this shows how politics are going to effect enforcement.
Click to expand...

once this new pile of overbearing regulation is passed, this will all go away, except for the legit illegal crap.
 
#11
#11
still at it 5 hours later, asking the same stupid questions...
My favorite was when Blankfein described Market Making... the senators were like "u mean your betting against them"?
 
#12
#12
VolsNSkinsFan said:
still at it 5 hours later, asking the same stupid questions...
My favorite was when Blankfein described Market Making... the senators were like "u mean your betting against them"?
Click to expand...

i wish the goldman guy would say "are you really arguing we should have told institutional, theoretically sophisticated investors, who were paid big money to invest peoples assets that they are stupid and shouldn't buy our deal?" these senators are acting like goldman was shorting grandma's 401k. if they didn't sell this crap to the institutions someone else would have.
 
#13
#13
I have an innocent question...while what GS did wasn't illegal, would it have made a difference if it was? I guess what I am asking is would the financial crisis have been as bad if this wasn't going on, or would it have had little effect anyway and GS was just practicing good business acumen?
 
#14
#14
My impression is that what did was not in and of itself a main cause. More that it was symptomatic of trades that were designed to generate pure transactional cost profit in a zero sum game where the interest of GS was served purely by promoting the transaction and no value placed on the investor's interests.

A glorified version of churning.
 
#15
#15
rjd970 said:
I have an innocent question...while what GS did wasn't illegal, would it have made a difference if it was? I guess what I am asking is would the financial crisis have been as bad if this wasn't going on, or would it have had little effect anyway and GS was just practicing good business acumen?
Click to expand...

This is a stunt so that BHO can scream, "see, I told you we need financial reform". Funny how this came up as the bill is being debated.
 
#16
#16
lawgator1 said:
My impression is that what did was not in and of itself a main cause. More that it was symptomatic of trades that were designed to generate pure transactional cost profit in a zero sum game where the interest of GS was served purely by promoting the transaction and no value placed on the investor's interests.

A glorified version of churning.
Click to expand...

Absolutely no. They were hedging positions in the securities that they were having to bank in order to sell.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#17
#17
BigPapaVol said:
Absolutely no. They were hedging positions in the securities that they were having to bank in order to sell.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


I defer to your superior info and knowledge of this -- thought that they were trading phantom derivatives they ahd created. Just shuffling it back and forth, charging each time.

Guess I'm way off?
 
#18
#18
lawgator1 said:
I defer to your superior info and knowledge of this -- thought that they were trading phantom derivatives they ahd created. Just shuffling it back and forth, charging each time.

Guess I'm way off?
Click to expand...

Some churn, but not with inst securities and not in this case. These guys always hedge underwritings that are anything less than fully subscribed. Risk mitigation more than anything else.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#19
#19
BigPapaVol said:
Some churn, but not with inst securities and not in this case. These guys always hedge underwritings that are anything less than fully subscribed. Risk mitigation more than anything else.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Nothing illegal about, is there?
 
#20
#20
Makes one wonder what the point is of paying GS commissions, since it's up to you to figure out what goes on in the backroom anyway.
 
#21
#21
BigPapaVol said:
Some churn, but not with inst securities and not in this case. These guys always hedge underwritings that are anything less than fully subscribed. Risk mitigation more than anything else.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Way over my head.
 
#25
#25
Velo Vol said:
Don't say that. There has to be some reason to justify six- and seven-figure bonuses.
Click to expand...

You strike me as someone who knows investment banking inside and out. Isn't helping that he was wrong.

Further, it's retarded to assume any company is anything but self interested.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top