Competition? Yeah right.

[SeattleUte]

Credit default swap.

That's what he said. Are you trying to show us how much you know about this? Say it again, "credit defalt swap." Oooooh.

[Colly Wolly]

That's what he said. Are you trying to show us how much you know about this? Say it again, "credit defalt swap." Oooooh.

Is this really your field? Quit your day job.

[byu71]

No, Goldman Sachs is not any investment bank any more. You're even an idiot about finance!!!

Jarid. Interpretation help. If financial reporters and wickepedia refers to Goldman as an investment bank, can you interpet what SU is saying here.

[Colly Wolly]

Jarid. Interpretation help. If financial reporters and wickepedia refers to Goldman as an investment bank, can you interpet what SU is saying here.

Goldman is an investment firm. It also happens to be a bank holding company as well. I guess techinically there aren't any "investment banks" anymore. This last crisis killed an industry in name only. The day-to-day changes at Goldman Sachs due to the change to a bank holding company are negligible.

[byu71]

Goldman is an investment firm. It also happens to be a bank holding company as well. I guess techinically there aren't any "investment banks" anymore. This last crisis killed an industry in name only. The day-to-day changes at Goldman Sachs due to the change to a bank holding company are negligible.

People in the real world don't play in technicalities to generate gotcha's. If someone said they need an investment bank to work with, Goldman would be a suggestion. Maybe someone who wanted to impress people would pipe up and say, well technically they are not an investment bank.

[Colly Wolly]

Back to my original question to SU. The claim is that Goldman would have gone bankrupt had the government not bailed out AIG.

The below link is a letter to the Wall Street Journal from a GS spokesperson rebutting this same claim.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123967007321015621.html

The crux of the response is this:
"We have consistently said that we had no direct economic exposure to AIG. We marked to market the risk we had insured with AIG, and AIG was contractually required to give us collateral to cover any diminution in value. Because there were periods when AIG didn't provide enough collateral, we hedged ourselves against the then seemingly unlikely event that AIG might default. The cost of this hedging was over $100 million. If AIG had failed, we would have had both the collateral and the proceeds from the credit default swaps and therefore would not have incurred any economic loss."

SU, are you wrong, or are they lying?

[Colly Wolly]

People in the real world don't play in technicalities to generate gotcha's. If someone said they need an investment bank to work with, Goldman would be a suggestion. Maybe someone who wanted to impress people would pipe up and say, well technically they are not an investment bank.

I agree.

[byu71]

I agree.

When discussing something with SU and confronting his self assured style. Something to consider.


http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2291782


Speaks volumes.

[wuapinmon]

Are byu71 and SeattleUte jaded former lovers?

[SeattleUte]

Back to my original question to SU. The claim is that Goldman would have gone bankrupt had the government not bailed out AIG.

The below link is a letter to the Wall Street Journal from a GS spokesperson rebutting this same claim.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123967007321015621.html

The crux of the response is this:
"We have consistently said that we had no direct economic exposure to AIG. We marked to market the risk we had insured with AIG, and AIG was contractually required to give us collateral to cover any diminution in value. Because there were periods when AIG didn't provide enough collateral, we hedged ourselves against the then seemingly unlikely event that AIG might default. The cost of this hedging was over $100 million. If AIG had failed, we would have had both the collateral and the proceeds from the credit default swaps and therefore would not have incurred any economic loss."

SU, are you wrong, or are they lying?

A Goldman Sachs Managing Director lying? And in that font of Wall Street apologetics, the Wall Street Journal editorial pages? GASP!!!!!! Who could think such a thing!!!

The very fact a GOLDMAN SACHS managing director feels compelled to write such a piece in the Wall Street Journal Editorial pages establishes that the firm was hanging by a thread at the very least. Not only do I think they would lie, particularly for financial gain, I think they might slit your throat if they felt that would help ensure their bonuses and they could get away with it.

[Surfah]

Goldman Sachs owes our engineering firm about a hundred grand. We worked on their new building across from Ground Zero.

[byu71]

I was watching the discussion about Goldman on CNBC's fast money. I start screaming, you idiots, you idiots, Goldman is not an investment bank. They keep it up and screw up again referring to them as an investment bank. I plead with them, come on guys get it right.

These people could use reading CUF and getting it right. Appalling.

[Colly Wolly]

A Goldman Sachs Managing Director lying? And in that font of Wall Street apologetics, the Wall Street Journal editorial pages? GASP!!!!!! Who oculd think such a thing!!!

The very fact a GOLDMAN SACHS managing director feels compelled to write such a piece in the Wall Street Journal Editorial pages establishes that the firm was hanging by a thread at the very least. Not only do I think they would lie, particularly for financial gain, I think they might slit your throat if they felt that would help ensure their bonuses and they could get away with it.

I certainly couldn't fathom it (them lying). I invite you to name a Wall Street firm with a better reputation. Can you do it? Granted, it's a subjective question, and you've obviously got quite the imagination, so this excercise is proving pointless.

Bottom line - Goldman Sachs is the premier investment firm in the world. It has been for some time, and will continue to be for the forseable future. The most elementary study of the firm's history and rise to dominance reveals that its culture of integrity, client service, and innovation are the reasons for its success - not lying, cheating, and stealing.

Van Praag choosing to share Goldman's side of the story is obviously a sign that the firm was in dire straights? Come to grips, please.

Your performance in this thread has been disappointing to say the least. It serves as a reminder to me that you aren't ever to be taken seriously. Speaks volumes.

P.S. I had sex with your wife.

[byu71]

I certainly couldn't fathom it (them lying). I invite you to name a Wall Street firm with a better reputation. Can you do it? Granted, it's a subjective question, and you've obviously got quite the imagination, so this excercise is proving pointless.

Bottom line - Goldman Sachs is the premier investment firm in the world. It has been for some time, and will continue to be for the forseable future. The most elementary study of the firm's history and rise to dominance reveals that its culture of integrity, client service, and innovation are the reasons for its success - not lying, cheating, and stealing.

Van Praag choosing to share Goldman's side of the story is obviously a sign that the firm was in dire straights? Come to grips, please.

Your performance in this thread has been disappointing to say the least. It serves as a reminder to me that you aren't ever to be taken seriously. Speaks volumes.

P.S. I had sex with your wife.

Your ending is dissapointing. Sinking to this level has me exiting from from the fray.

[Colly Wolly]

Your ending is dissapointing. Sinking to this level has me exiting from from the fray.

Lighten up, Francis.