rbr 1,247 Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 I believe you are wrong. Goldman Sachs didn't have major troubles during the credit crunch - in fact, they had $4 billion in PROFIT by short-selling the sub-prime market - I wouldn't mind some of that crisis. The only issues that Goldman had during the financial crisis was that their traders were blamed for causing it by short selling (which is a legal technique) - Sorry Craig but if thats an attempt at defending GS , its pretty pityful 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 I believe you are wrong. Goldman Sachs didn't have major troubles during the credit crunch - in fact, they had $4 billion in PROFIT by short-selling the sub-prime market - I wouldn't mind some of that crisis. The only issues that Goldman had during the financial crisis was that their traders were blamed for causing it by short selling (which is a legal technique) - Sorry Craig but if thats an attempt at defending GS , its pretty pityful Who is defending them ? I am saying that they didn't have any financial worries during the financial crisis - they more than recovered any losses. What other issues did they have during the crisis, pray tell..... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 Who is defending them ? I am saying that they didn't have any financial worries during the financial crisis - they more than recovered any losses. What other issues did they have during the crisis, pray tell..... Your under playing their part in what was the greatest financial disaster this century and to say oh well its ok they made a profit out of it whilst everyone else across the western world bore the brunt is pretty poor. Short selling though legal is morraly reprehensible and to be honest those bastards should have been locked up for what they did, because they knew what their actions were going to lead to. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 Your under playing their part in what was the greatest financial disaster this century and to say oh well its ok they made a profit out of it whilst everyone else across the western world bore the brunt is pretty poor. Short selling though legal is morraly reprehensible and to be honest those bastards should have been locked up for what they did, because they knew what their actions were going to lead to. Try reading what I posted and put it in context. I am neither over playing nor under playing Goldman Sachs part in the financial crisis. All I was doing was replying to someone who said GS had issues as part of the meltdown. By the way, I would hope that it IS the biggest meltdown this century.... seeing as this century is only 12.5 years old Someone (der Berliner) said that GS had problems during the financial crisis - I retorted that they didn't, they made money through the financial crisis. That is no defence of them, nor is it saying what they did is right. Again, read what I posted and read WHY I posted it. Just because you cant stand GS for their part in the financial meltdown doesn't mean you need to derail the thread to state such. By the way, short selling is, in my opinion, NOT morally reprehensible - it is no different to buying long other than being on the other side of the trade. So why aren't you saying that anyone buying stocks is morally reprehensible ? And, before you suggest that short sellers can push the price down, anyone buying large enough blocks of stocks can just as easily push prices up. Watch Boiler Room to see what the old pump and dump method does... Goldman short selling wasn't the issue whether you or I like it or not. The issue was that people and institutions were buying stuff they had NO IDEA they were buying - the very concept of sub-prime mortgages is a foundation based on sand. It makes no sense at all unless you are speculatively trading and, in which case, you shouldn't be betting the boat on those types of trades. All that Goldman did was see that other firms were very heavy into sub prime mortgages and that Goldman as a firm didn't like them. They weren't the ones with leveraging in their trade books of 50 to 1. But, to re-iterate, this is a different subject for a different thread. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 Goldman short selling wasn't the issue whether you or I like it or not. The issue was that people and institutions were buying stuff they had NO IDEA they were buying - the very concept of sub-prime mortgages is a foundation based on sand. It makes no sense at all unless you are speculatively trading and, in which case, you shouldn't be betting the boat on those types of trades. To be honest I thought about this after posting and your 100% correct ,also after re reading your correct I sort of missed the context , been a long day 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 No worries rbr, have a great weekend. Happy Fathers Day to all the fathers out there too 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,273 Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 (edited) So perhaps I was wrong with regard to GS having trouble during the credit crunch. I know for certain that they and theirs were neck-deep in trouble in recent years, something you can easily find even on their Wikipedia page (one of those that will be correct to the core). I'm not saying (again) that I blame Prior for that or say that he shouldn't be here. All I am saying is that Goldman Sachs does not exactly ring a positive bell ... AND that I will treat him like any newcomer to the club, as I did with Green et al. NB: The thread did not derail in any fashion. Everyone can check out GS on their own ... or have an opinion on them, Prior or whomever. He's an investor now and his pedigree will become an issue at some point. Edited June 15, 2013 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 Goldman Sachs had to get a bailout from Warren Buffet turned out to be one of the best deals Buffet ever did from his side. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 Goldman Sachs had to get a bailout from Warren Buffet turned out to be one of the best deals Buffet ever did from his side. Not strictly true, at least not from what I have read. Goldman didn't "need" a bailout from Buffett - at the time of his capital injection they were already well capitalized - the $5 billion from Buffett was more to bolster their liquidity, though increasing capitalization was a secondary motive. I don't think Goldman NEEDED the $5 billion, but it added capital to their balance sheet at a time when there was a great deal of uncertainty in the marketplace. I wont disagree though that it was a great deal for Buffett - preference shares plus a dividend at 10% on the worlds most eminent investment bank which was still trading at $129 a share at the time ? Very good deal indeed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 Not strictly true, at least not from what I have read. Goldman didn't "need" a bailout from Buffett - at the time of his capital injection they were already well capitalized - the $5 billion from Buffett was more to bolster their liquidity, though increasing capitalization was a secondary motive. I don't think Goldman NEEDED the $5 billion, but it added capital to their balance sheet at a time when there was a great deal of uncertainty in the marketplace. I wont disagree though that it was a great deal for Buffett - preference shares plus a dividend at 10% on the worlds most eminent investment bank which was still trading at $129 a share at the time ? Very good deal indeed. Everyman and his dog had liquidity problems at the time. Quite smart Goldman's opting for Buffet over TARP, deal probably suit them both though Buffet got the better of it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.