Happy Face 29 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 (edited) Most of Wall Street, and America, is still waiting for an economic recovery. Then there is Goldman Sachs. Up and down Wall Street, analysts and traders are buzzing that Goldman, which only recently paid back its government bailout money, will report blowout profits from trading on Tuesday. Analysts predict the bank earned a profit of more than $2 billion in the March-June period, because of its trading prowess across world markets. If they are right, the bank’s rivals will once again be left to wonder exactly how Goldman, long the envy of Wall Street, could have rebounded so drastically only months after the nation’s financial industry was shaken to its foundations. The obsessive speculation has already begun, along with banter about how Goldman’s rapid return to minting money will be perceived by lawmakers and taxpayers who aided Goldman with a multibillion-dollar cushion last fall. “They exist, and others don’t, and taxpayers made it possible,” said one industry consultant, who, like many people interviewed for this article, declined to be named for fear of jeopardizing business relationships. Startling, too, is how much of its revenue Goldman is expected to share with its employees. Analysts estimate that the bank will set aside enough money to pay a total of $18 billion in compensation and benefits this year to its 28,000 employees, or more than $600,000 an employee. Top producers stand to earn millions. Goldman was humbled along with the rest of Wall Street when the financial markets froze last year. As a result, it lost money in the final quarter, a rarity for the bank. Along with other big banks, it was compelled to accept billions of dollars in federal aid, which it paid back last month. Amid the crisis, it also converted from an investment bank to a more regulated bank holding company. Goldman declined to comment over the weekend, pending its Tuesday earnings report. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/business...tml?_r=1&hp Superb timeline of how they achieved it going right back to the bailout application here. "at the outset of the crisis, the oligarchs are usually among the first to get extra help from the government. . . . Under duress, generosity toward old friends takes many innovative forms. Meanwhile, needing to squeeze someone, most emerging-market governments look first to ordinary working folk -- at least until the riots grow too large". That "until" provision never seems to be triggered, which is why the behavior continues unabated. Edited July 15, 2009 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SloopJohn 0 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 I have a friend who just started working for Goldman Sachs. He got a 9 grand signing fee... fucking unbelievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 I have a friend who just started working for Goldman Sachs. He got a 9 grand signing fee... fucking unbelievable He must be young then as 9k is peanuts for that lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt 0 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Ah if only..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9234 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Well Matt, maybe if you spent less time messing around on here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SloopJohn 0 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 I have a friend who just started working for Goldman Sachs. He got a 9 grand signing fee... fucking unbelievable He must be young then as 9k is peanuts for that lot. 21 at the time. that's forgetting the 60K salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 26, 2009 Author Share Posted July 26, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 Building 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 15, 2009 Author Share Posted October 15, 2009 It’s literally amazing to me that our press corps hasn’t yet managed to draw a distinction between good news on Wall Street for companies like Goldman, and good news in reality. I watched carefully the reporting of the Dow breaking 10,000 the other day and not anywhere did I see a major news organization include a paragraph of the “On the other hand, so fucking what?” sort, one that might point out that unemployment is still at a staggering high, foreclosures are racing along at a terrifying clip, and real people are struggling more than ever. In fact the dichotomy between the economic health of ordinary people and the traditional “market indicators” is not merely a non-story, it is a sort of taboo — unmentionable in major news coverage. Here’s an example of the Dow-10000 coverage, from USA Today: If investors view the Dow’s recovery as a signal that the economy and financial markets are healing, it could serve as a mood-altering boost. It might also lure skeptical investors hiding in safe fixed-income investments such as money market funds and certificates of deposit, which are yielding close to 0%, to move cash back into stocks, says Bruce Bittles, chief strategist at Robert W. Baird. “Dow 10,000 will act like a magnet,” Bittles says. “It will increase optimism and bring in more money off the sidelines.” But, he says, the index must stay above 10,000 for a few weeks or more before investors think it is safe to get back in. No one mentions here that this is a carrot-and-stick story — the stick being that ordinary people have been robbed of the interest they should be getting in CDs and ordinary bank savings accounts by the various bailout programs and lending guarantees, which have brought the cost of capital down to nothing for the big banks, and punished those people who have been doing the right thing all along by saving. The Fed lends its money to Goldman Sachs and BOFA for free, why does anyone have to pay Grandma a high rate for her CD or her bank savings? And now that those good, savings-oriented people are getting gouged, they’re being encouraged to get back into the stock market, where the returns are better at the moment. They’re being called people on the “sidelines” who have to be encouraged to “get back in.” What’s so tiresome about all of this is that no one reports this stuff as a political story. This is politics at its most basic. The Dow is going up, sure, but what does that mean, if the rest of the economy still sucks? http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Must say Nicos you've come a long way in the last couple of years. 3 Parky stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 15, 2009 Author Share Posted October 15, 2009 Must say Nicos you've come a long way in the last couple of years. 3 Parky stars. I'm starting to bore myself. Who stands up to wipe their arse but also turns around to have a look at their 'product' before covering it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 16, 2009 Author Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) SEC unit hires ex-Goldman Sachs worker as chief operating officer Adam Storch had worked since 2004 in a Goldman unit that reviewed contracts and transactions for signs of fraud. His new job is to make the SEC's enforcement division more efficient. The Securities and Exchange Commission hired a 29-year-old former employee in Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s business intelligence unit as the first chief operating officer in the agency's enforcement division, according to people familiar with the decision. The new operating chief, Adam Storch, had worked since 2004 in a Goldman unit that reviewed contracts and transactions for signs of fraud. His new job is to make the SEC's enforcement division more efficient. Reached by phone at the SEC, he declined to comment. Robert Khuzami, head of the enforcement division, announced the creation of the position in August as part of the unit's biggest overhaul in three decades. Khuzami is taking steps to add front-line investigators, speed inquiries and create specialized units after the agency was faulted for failures including missing Bernard Madoff's massive Ponzi scheme. Storch holds degrees in accounting and finance from the State University of New York at Buffalo. It's like appointing Mike Ashley to keep an eye on price fixing. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-sec-...0,6370675.story Edited October 16, 2009 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 16, 2009 Author Share Posted October 16, 2009 The bloggers are loving this too... http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...dman/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Fat piggies gotta get their swill. These people have been doing it for years, without detailed regulation it will just continue. Which nobody in govt has ever wanted to do, because it's all too hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Fat piggies gotta get their swill. These people have been doing it for years, without detailed regulation it will just continue. Which nobody in govt has ever wanted to do, because it's all too hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 19, 2009 Author Share Posted October 19, 2009 Self-certification mortgages will be banned under the proposals with lenders required to verify borrowers' incomes. FSA chief executive Hector Sants said that some people who were able to get home loans in the boom would no longer be able to under the proposed rules. The industry will have until 30 January 2010 to comment on the plans. The FSA, in its mortgage market review, has outlined a series of proposals for increasing regulation in the mortgage market. However, it drew back from any ban on 100% mortgages, or any limit on loan-to-value levels. There was also no ban on loans over a certain multiple of borrowers' incomes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8313853.stm This is incredible (while also entirely predictable). The ONLY regulation to be brought in will be against the public. Banks can still offer whatever product they like to whichever individuals, they just have to make sure the customer earns what they say they earn, irrespective of whether that makes it an affordable loan. I hear that if this measure doesn't work they're going to legalise leg breaking for those that default. Capitalism marches on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4006 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I do think there should be some culpability for the public - I know people who want to buy can get desparate but "yes, yes give me 125%" does have consequences (though the stupidity is on both sides). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26803 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I do think there should be some culpability for the public - I know people who want to buy can get desparate but "yes, yes give me 125%" does have consequences (though the stupidity is on both sides). Agreed, should people be protected from their own stupidity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 19, 2009 Author Share Posted October 19, 2009 I do think there should be some culpability for the public - I know people who want to buy can get desparate but "yes, yes give me 125%" does have consequences (though the stupidity is on both sides). Agreed, should people be protected from their own stupidity? It's more a case of you and me being protected from their stupidity. It's been demonstrated that the banks don't lose anything when people default, so why would they stop lending to people that can't afford it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26803 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I do think there should be some culpability for the public - I know people who want to buy can get desparate but "yes, yes give me 125%" does have consequences (though the stupidity is on both sides). Agreed, should people be protected from their own stupidity? It's more a case of you and me being protected from their stupidity. It's been demonstrated that the banks don't lose anything when people default, so why would they stop lending to people that can't afford it? Agreed, so should banks be protected from their own stupidity? I think this one has probably been done before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 19, 2009 Author Share Posted October 19, 2009 I do think there should be some culpability for the public - I know people who want to buy can get desparate but "yes, yes give me 125%" does have consequences (though the stupidity is on both sides). Agreed, should people be protected from their own stupidity? It's more a case of you and me being protected from their stupidity. It's been demonstrated that the banks don't lose anything when people default, so why would they stop lending to people that can't afford it? Agreed, so should banks be protected from their own stupidity? I think this one has probably been done before. When you said people i assumed you menat the borrowers. Borrowers and Lenders go into a deal with an agreed level of risk. A premium is added to reflect the risk/reward for each party. The government have removed this risk for the lender and left it solely with the borrower. yes, the lender should be left at risk and there should be no government safety net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26803 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I agree with less intervention from the government on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 19, 2009 Author Share Posted October 19, 2009 I agree with less intervention from the government on both sides. So the banks and the borrowers continue to pursue their own interests and well intentioned., financially astute savers like you and me end up paying the price? If a bank fails, i don't want to see taxpayers bail them out, but i'd rather the bank didn't fail in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26803 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 It'll learn them. As you can see I am very much up for a deeply intellectual discussion on this matter today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4006 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I think a few articles recently have played the "they're just going back to what they did previously" outrage card which may not be true. The bank I work for has opted for a 6bn Euro recapitilisation package from its shareholders but EU approval for that has meant a restructuring plan which redefines a focus on customers more and a more cautious approach to risk in general (as well as 25% staff cuts over 4 years). Maybe big players like GS have just continued as if nothing has happened but I don't think thats universal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now