GS testimony

cfajedi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BizBanker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ^^ Do you know what a question is? Its when > > someone expects an answer to their statement. > He > > seems to be doing alot of that and the GS execs > > seem to be avoiding answers. Questions start > with > > “do, are, have, what, did,”. I seem to hear > alot > > of those and very few “yes, no”. > > > Ironic seeing as how I asked you whether or not > you would want the most qualified to represent you > and I didn’t get a yes nor a no. No, I want a representative Congress. I want a qualified SEC.

The regulators do not understand what is going on, that is clear. Someone who is more informed regarding this stuff should be asking the questions.

1morelevel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What does PM stand for? Prime mover? LOLOLOLOL n sht - i almost barfed

pupdawg82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > IMO, That lady was smart The one that knew way to much about gambling for a woman?

BizBanker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Their point, if you are watching, is that GS took > a position to profit from the decline of the > asset, not the trade. Their clients believed they > were acting as advisors is the main point when in > fact they werent even acting as a neutral third > party becuase they took the short position. Advisors? You think the buyside relies on sales guys for advice? Give me a break. They want an exposure and rely on Goldman to provide it.

Can’t congress hire someone that knows whats going on to ask the questions? Is the sole purpose of this to provide entertaining TV? What good are the congressmen when they ask a question, recieve an answer and don’t understand the answer well enough to ask a follow up question with substance?

1morelevel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Advisors? You think the buyside relies on sales > guys for advice? Give me a break. They want an > exposure and rely on Goldman to provide it. Exactly. If I buy the CDO, I know what I am getting into. I could care less what goldman traders are doing. I have my own opinions that don’t necessarily coincide with theirs. And why do they have ppl asking questions that keep saying “xxxxx…can you tell me what that means?”

> > > Exactly. If I buy the CDO, I know what I am > getting into. I could care less what goldman > traders are doing. I have my own opinions that > don’t necessarily coincide with theirs. > That makes you a fool. GS shorts it GS assembles it GS works closely with Paulson so he can short it Then GS sells it to you to go long? Are we really to believe that any long had full information?

DanLieb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Exactly. If I buy the CDO, I know what I am > > getting into. I could care less what goldman > > traders are doing. I have my own opinions that > > don’t necessarily coincide with theirs. > > > That makes you a fool. > GS shorts it > GS assembles it > GS works closely with Paulson so he can short it > > Then GS sells it to you to go long? > > Are we really to believe that any long had full > information? Goldman and other IBs structure and sell a lot of things that go up in value that have shorts on the other end as well. What does the ultimate performance have to do with it? If I buy a put from Goldman and it goes up in value, should Goldman have dislosed to the put writer that they were assisting me in taking an opposite position? Does it only matter if their position lost money? What about if they sold me a put and it went down in value? Isn’t this the whole point of efficinent markets to allow investors with different viewpoints and outlooks to be able to efficiently use capital to seek alpha?

Here’s my take on the dog and pony show today: 1.) Most of the senators do not understand what they are talking about. 2.) Goldman’s selection of Paulson was possibly unethical, but not illegal. The assets were the assets and they were in plain view. 3.) There is no hard evidence except for a few emails that are up for interpretation. 4.) If you buy GE stock, is the person you bought it from responsible if the price falls? No. 5.) If this was truly fraud, then Goldman’s institutional clients will stop doing business with it. They won’t, because it wasn’t. 6.) This was political grandstanding, nothing more. 7.) Goldman ran wild in a poorly regulated system. The system crashed. That doesn’t mean they committed a crime. 8.) Goldman will be acquitted. 9.) Only proper regulation will prevent this in the future. 10.) The GOP are idiots if they prevent this regulation. They are lieing when they say it will cause more bailouts.

DanLieb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Exactly. If I buy the CDO, I know what I am > > getting into. I could care less what goldman > > traders are doing. I have my own opinions that > > don’t necessarily coincide with theirs. > > > That makes you a fool. > GS shorts it > GS assembles it > GS works closely with Paulson so he can short it > > Then GS sells it to you to go long? > > Are we really to believe that any long had full > information? Considering the deal in question, Abacus, and the nature of the parties involved, what makes you beleive they had incomplete information? The long investors were ACA and IKB. Do you think they didn’t perform independent analysis if the deal structure, the collateral, cash flow waterfall etc? They were wrong, thats all. Their internal models on the reference portfolio used assumptions that were wrong. The model assumptions were poor and resulted in a poor forecast of deal performance. It certainly wasnt because GS sold them something they didnt understand, they were just wrong.

marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here’s my take on the dog and pony show today: > > 1.) Most of the senators do not understand what > they are talking about. > 2.) Goldman’s selection of Paulson was possibly > unethical, but not illegal. The assets were the > assets and they were in plain view. > 3.) There is no hard evidence except for a few > emails that are up for interpretation. > 4.) If you buy GE stock, is the person you bought > it from responsible if the price falls? No. > 5.) If this was truly fraud, then Goldman’s > institutional clients will stop doing business > with it. They won’t, because it wasn’t. > 6.) This was political grandstanding, nothing > more. > 7.) Goldman ran wild in a poorly regulated system. > The system crashed. That doesn’t mean they > committed a crime. > 8.) Goldman will be acquitted. > 9.) Only proper regulation will prevent this in > the future. > 10.) The GOP are idiots if they prevent this > regulation. They are lieing when they say it will > cause more bailouts. Well said.

its only unethical because the market crashed and there are lots of losers. otherwise no one would be complaining. we have a way of playing the blame game when times are tough, but do not look to do the right thing when no one is watching and the money is rolling in. GS looks terrible in this testimony, i think that is the reason why they keep drilling them - to take their reputation down a peg. but the people at GS do not care. their habits and culture will not change because of what happened. the government has the power to regulate, and if they are really so fed up with them, then they will impose new rules for the future. this is all a political dog and pony show.

I bet numi looks a little like Fab.

how long this thing is gonna go? did they order any pizza?

adehbone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > how long this thing is gonna go? did they order > any pizza? no but they did take a break so Fab can go and $h!t

so there is no evidence of conspiracy…but if there was, why would it be written in emails? unless further evidences are coming out…they don’t seem to be violating any laws… the conflict of interests are there and it seems that the Goldman ethics standards is below the CFA ethics standards…CFA ethics tells us a covered person must follow the strictest rule if the local rules conflicts with the CFA rules…however, it seems like none of the people in the panels holds a CFA charter… it reminds me of the school days when the students were called to the principal’s office…

Skies Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so there is no evidence of conspiracy…but if > there was, why would it be written in emails? > unless further evidences are coming out…they > don’t seem to be violating any laws… > > the conflict of interests are there and it seems > that the Goldman ethics standards is below the CFA > ethics standards…CFA ethics tells us a covered > person must follow the strictest rule if the local > rules conflicts with the CFA rules…however, it > seems like none of the people in the panels holds > a CFA charter… Thank you. I made a comment about this earlier in the thread. I’d be curious what the CFA Institute thinks of Goldman’s actions in some of these cases.

DanLieb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That makes you a fool. > GS shorts it > GS assembles it > GS works closely with Paulson so he can short it > > Then GS sells it to you to go long? > > Are we really to believe that any long had full > information? I agree with what 1morelevel and marcus phoenix said. The longs in this situation had full knowledge of what they were buying. GS and Paulson did not make any of the underlying securities fall, they made a bet and won (unfortunately at the expense of others, but that’s how this works).

Clearly Levin has no idea what market marking is. He looks like a fool.