Goldman Sachs- Our congress just doesnt get it

[boedicca]

banks operate in the public trust. investments houses have no such stated obligation although they should. allowing them to be one and the same was a huge failing.

high risk lending isn't what crashed the market. that was only one teeny, tiny, part of it. what crashed the market were trash derivatives bundled up in little packages until no one knew what they were buying or betting on.

the lending practices that were problematic is that banks didn't care about risky investments. they told people to keep re-financing and suck out the equity from their homes. then promised they would re-fi when the ARM hit. however, when the ARM hit, the properties were already devalued and because there was no equity, they couldn't get a re-fi. the fault for that type of thing was the banks, the mortage brokers (who both made huge fees for every re-fi) and people borrowing on their mcmansions because they thought the bubble would never burst. i know, i closed a lot of those re-fi's for people. and each time i did it, i said to myself, i would NEVER take on that type of obligation.

and everyone else was running around with cash in their hands thinking it would never end.

You're leaving out an important piece. The fact that many of those derivatives were ultimately backed up by the Full Faith & Credit of the United States enabled their creation in the first place. This "crisis" was manufactured by socializing risk and privatizing profit. That is not a free market - it is cronyism. It needs to stop.

The financial reform bill will actually make it worse by expanding the governments ability to take over businesses and bail them out.

 

[Jarhead]

I don't think their issue was buying and selling financial instruments and making a commission. It seemed to be more of Goldman setting up shaky derivitives and then making money when they failed

I need to correct something you said. You referred to those derivitives as "shaky". That is inappropriate as there is no such thingt as "shaky" when you invest.

Shaky implies corrupt; or not sound or unethical etc.

Those derivitives were known as "high risk" investments. Anyone who invested in derivitives were aware that they were high risk. The allure was the return if they were successful. But the liklihood of being successful is not as great as a low risk investment, but thus the greater return.

Now, as I see it GS did not want the risk so they sold out. Many of their clients opted for the risk with the hope of a high return. What is wrong with that?

Again, maybe they lied and manipulated. We will find out. But if they didnt, then exactly what is wrong with what they did?

A triple "A" rating is high risk? .. The fact that Goldman was playing long AND short without full disclosure is the issue sparky. Not to mention the bogus ratings they were peddling.

Okie dokie huggy.

Throwing in the triple A rating is a talking point. The investors knew the potential return. And it was high. That makes it a high risk.

Learn about the investment world before you arrogantly say something that is foolish.

 

[jillian]

You're leaving out an important piece. The fact that many of those derivatives were ultimately backed up by the Full Faith & Credit of the United States enabled their creation in the first place. This "crisis" was manufactured by socializing risk and privatizing profit. That is not a free market - it is cronyism. It needs to stop.

The financial reform bill will actually make it worse by expanding the governments ability to take over businesses and bail them out.

there isn't a thing in what you just said that anyone with any type of knowledge of the financial markets would agree with... mostly because your statement is fallacious and regurgitates rightwing talking points. the fund for 'bail out' as you call it, would be paid by the banks, not us. and if a market can crash the world economy, damn right the government should exercise some oversight LIKE IT USED TO... until greed allowed them to deregulate the banks.

 

[HUGGY]

I need to correct something you said. You referred to those derivitives as "shaky". That is inappropriate as there is no such thingt as "shaky" when you invest.

Shaky implies corrupt; or not sound or unethical etc.

Those derivitives were known as "high risk" investments. Anyone who invested in derivitives were aware that they were high risk. The allure was the return if they were successful. But the liklihood of being successful is not as great as a low risk investment, but thus the greater return.

Now, as I see it GS did not want the risk so they sold out. Many of their clients opted for the risk with the hope of a high return. What is wrong with that?

Again, maybe they lied and manipulated. We will find out. But if they didnt, then exactly what is wrong with what they did?

A triple "A" rating is high risk? .. The fact that Goldman was playing long AND short without full disclosure is the issue sparky. Not to mention the bogus ratings they were peddling.

Okie dokie huggy.

Throwing in the triple A rating is a talking point. The investors knew the potential return. And it was high. That makes it a high risk.

Learn about the investment world before you arrogantly say something that is foolish.

What exactly is your point anyway? The system failed..Why? Somehow I get the idea that you are not really interested why our country was almost brought to the edge of a very tall cliff. Let's cut to the chase. I believe those that had knowledge of what they were doing should be assasinated. Not tried..and sent to Club Fed..but have thier fucking throats slit.

Now stuff THAT into your briefcase you slimey fuck!

 

[boedicca]

You're leaving out an important piece. The fact that many of those derivatives were ultimately backed up by the Full Faith & Credit of the United States enabled their creation in the first place. This "crisis" was manufactured by socializing risk and privatizing profit. That is not a free market - it is cronyism. It needs to stop.

The financial reform bill will actually make it worse by expanding the governments ability to take over businesses and bail them out.

there isn't a thing in what you just said that anyone with any type of knowledge of the financial markets would agree with... mostly because your statement is fallacious and regurgitates rightwing talking points. the fund for 'bail out' as you call it, would be paid by the banks, not us. and if a market can crash the world economy, damn right the government should exercise some oversight LIKE IT USED TO... until greed allowed them to deregulate the banks.

You are just revealing your own lack of knowledge and regurgitating Leftwing talking points.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been bailed out with $400B, more than all of the banks combined. The mortgage industry is one of the most heavily regulated areas of business, and yet, here we had the creation of No Doc loans which FM/FM bought up. What's up with that? (Hint: The Boston Federal Reserve wrote a white paper encouraging banks to adopt "subjective lending standards" in order to increase minority lending. Regulators then used that as a hammer to threaten banks with revocation of bank charters if they didn't comply.)

Without that backstop by the government, the ability to package up the crap to sell it off would have been significantly limited, if it existed at all.

 

[Truthmatters]

I also am not supporting Goldman. But as was covered at length in the hearing yesterday, they had insurance coverage which would have paid them off if AIG had gone under.

The fact that the Feds bailed out AIG was a government decision. GS had a legal and fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to collect money that was owed. As no attempt was made in the AIG deal to renegotiate lower amounts (which is odd, why didn't the Feds require that, hmmmm?), GS' obligation was to collect in full.

Now prove that the insurance company would have honored the policy.

You know as well as anyone they would have found a way out of paying the claim.

What makes you think they wouldnt? Does Lloyds of London, or any reinsurance firm have such a reputation? Would they still be in business if they did?

You are using conjecture to make a point.

I said PROVE

 

[Jarhead]

A triple "A" rating is high risk? .. The fact that Goldman was playing long AND short without full disclosure is the issue sparky. Not to mention the bogus ratings they were peddling.

Okie dokie huggy.

Throwing in the triple A rating is a talking point. The investors knew the potential return. And it was high. That makes it a high risk.

Learn about the investment world before you arrogantly say something that is foolish.

What exactly is your point anyway? The system failed..Why? Somehow I get the idea that you are not really interested why our country was almost brought to the edge of a very tall cliff. Let's cut to the chase. I believe those that had knowledge of what they were doing should be assasinated. Not tried..and sent to Club Fed..but have thier fucking throats slit.

Now stuff THAT into your briefcase you slimey fuck!

Quite mature of a response Mr. Huggy.

If you are being honest, then I suggest you start with those that referred to them as triple A. Fannie and Freddie. Butr something tells me you are not interested in their role whatsoever.

 

[boedicca]

Now prove that the insurance company would have honored the policy.

You know as well as anyone they would have found a way out of paying the claim.

What makes you think they wouldnt? Does Lloyds of London, or any reinsurance firm have such a reputation? Would they still be in business if they did?

You are using conjecture to make a point.

I said PROVE

What a fucking moron. If GS had a valid insurance policy (which is what was represented in the Congressional Hearing), then they would have a legal cause of action if the claim was not satisfied.

 

[Jarhead]

Now prove that the insurance company would have honored the policy.

You know as well as anyone they would have found a way out of paying the claim.

What makes you think they wouldnt? Does Lloyds of London, or any reinsurance firm have such a reputation? Would they still be in business if they did?

You are using conjecture to make a point.

I said PROVE

I just did. If they had a reputation of NOT paying, they would not be in business.

Or are you completely clueless as to what keeps companies IN business.

 

[boedicca]

I said PROVE

I just did. If they had a reputation of NOT paying, they would not be in business.

Or are you completely clueless as to what keeps companies IN business.

I'm assuming your last sentence is a rhetorical question.

 

[Jarhead]

I said PROVE

I just did. If they had a reputation of NOT paying, they would not be in business.

Or are you completely clueless as to what keeps companies IN business.

I'm assuming your last sentence is a rhetorical question.

You are correct Mr. Bond.

 

[boedicca]

Ms. Bond!

 

[LibocalypseNow]

It's all just another Democrat shell game in the end. How much cash did this current President receive from Goldman Sachs over the years and especially in the last Presidential Election? In fact how much cash have Democrats in general received from Goldman Sachs over the years? Now these same Democrats are all playing the bad cop routine. Some people fall for this stuff but many don't. I am perfectly comfortable in stating that this Democrat-led Congress is by far the most corrupt U.S. Congress in History. They ain't got nothing on Goldman Sachs. Just a bunch of corrupt A*sholes pretending their angry at their fellow corrupt A*sholes. I'm not buying their B.S. on this one.

 

[jillian]

You're leaving out an important piece. The fact that many of those derivatives were ultimately backed up by the Full Faith & Credit of the United States enabled their creation in the first place. This "crisis" was manufactured by socializing risk and privatizing profit. That is not a free market - it is cronyism. It needs to stop.

The financial reform bill will actually make it worse by expanding the governments ability to take over businesses and bail them out.

there isn't a thing in what you just said that anyone with any type of knowledge of the financial markets would agree with... mostly because your statement is fallacious and regurgitates rightwing talking points. the fund for 'bail out' as you call it, would be paid by the banks, not us. and if a market can crash the world economy, damn right the government should exercise some oversight LIKE IT USED TO... until greed allowed them to deregulate the banks.

You are just revealing your own lack of knowledge and regurgitating Leftwing talking points.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been bailed out with $400B, more than all of the banks combined. The mortgage industry is one of the most heavily regulated areas of business, and yet, here we had the creation of No Doc loans which FM/FM bought up. What's up with that? (Hint: The Boston Federal Reserve wrote a white paper encouraging banks to adopt "subjective lending standards" in order to increase minority lending. Regulators then used that as a hammer to threaten banks with revocation of bank charters if they didn't comply.)

Without that backstop by the government, the ability to package up the crap to sell it off would have been significantly limited, if it existed at all.

lol.. i just showed you that there are multiple factors involved and you're going about fannie/freddie? too funny.

please don't ever accuse anyone of reaching for talking points again. the irony is just too delicious.

 

[manu1959]

so congress passes the laws and regulations by which the banks were esentially forced to pass out toxic loans and to cover their posistion they shorted the loans and end up making money.....

so once again congress fucks up and blames someone else.....

if the idiots hadn't deregulated the industry over the past 40 years we would be in this mess....

congress will now fix this....ya right....

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The Democrats have been in bed with Goldman Sachs for many years. Just look at the amount of cash this current President took from them in the last Presidential Election. It's the old good cop/bad cop routine. Now the Dems are pretending they just hate those evil Goldman Sachs demons. Just another shell game in the end. It still surprises me that so many Americans still fall for these shams. This Dem-led Congress is every bit as corrupt as Goldman Sachs. It is what it is.

 

[boedicca]

please don't ever accuse anyone of reaching for talking points again. the irony is just too delicious.

How odd. I was just thinking the same thing about you, dearie.

 

[Jarhead]

there isn't a thing in what you just said that anyone with any type of knowledge of the financial markets would agree with... mostly because your statement is fallacious and regurgitates rightwing talking points. the fund for 'bail out' as you call it, would be paid by the banks, not us. and if a market can crash the world economy, damn right the government should exercise some oversight LIKE IT USED TO... until greed allowed them to deregulate the banks.

You are just revealing your own lack of knowledge and regurgitating Leftwing talking points.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been bailed out with $400B, more than all of the banks combined. The mortgage industry is one of the most heavily regulated areas of business, and yet, here we had the creation of No Doc loans which FM/FM bought up. What's up with that? (Hint: The Boston Federal Reserve wrote a white paper encouraging banks to adopt "subjective lending standards" in order to increase minority lending. Regulators then used that as a hammer to threaten banks with revocation of bank charters if they didn't comply.)

Without that backstop by the government, the ability to package up the crap to sell it off would have been significantly limited, if it existed at all.

lol.. i just showed you that there are multiple factors involved and you're going about fannie/freddie? too funny.

please don't ever accuse anyone of reaching for talking points again. the irony is just too delicious.

Why do you consider Fannie and Freddie talking points?

They required a bailout.
They are directly involved with the mortgage lending industry.
They were directly involved with the development of te derivitives.
Their top execs received very handsopme bonuses.

Why are they talking points but CITI and GS are the issues at hand?

 

[boedicca]

Why? Because FM/FM are favored and protected patronage organizations for the Dems.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I love watching despicable corrupt politician creeps preaching to fellow despicable corrupt creeps. It sure is some nice entertainment. The Democrats have been in bed with Goldman Sachs for years. So it's pretty hilarious watching them feigning outrage. Do people still fall for this chit? Yikes!