Jump to content
Washington DC Message Boards
Luke_Wilbur

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley Are Now Bank Holding Companies

Recommended Posts

Guest LAW

Goldman Sachs executives testified before a Senate committee about whether it used a large hedge fund to bet against the complex financial instruments it was marketing to investors. Jeffrey Brown gets two views on the hearings from financial writers Roger Lowenstein and Gregory Zuckerman.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAW

Goldman Sachs was first established in 1869. Originally a private partnership, in 1999, it became a publicly traded corporation. In 2008, it converted to a bank holding company, in part to gain access to Federal Reserve lending programs. Its headquarters are located in New York City’s Wall Street and the firm manages about $870 billion in assets. Goldman employs about 14,000 employees in the United States, and 32,500 worldwide. In 2007, it paid about $68 million in compensation to its CEO Lloyd Blankfein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bling Bling

Looks like Republicans were against investigating Goldman Sachs. Two REPUBLICAN Commissioners voted against the SEC to investigate their stealing money and jobs. Two DEMOCRATS voted to investigate these thieves. DEMOCRAT Shapiro broke the tie. I wonder how that will play out during the elections. People need to get this story out. REPUBLICANS ARE THE BANKERS.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Human

Just for that comment blongblong, I am going after your group with a passion. You want to play politics? I WILL PLAY INVESTIGATION.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like Republicans were against investigating Goldman Sachs. Two REPUBLICAN Commissioners voted against the SEC to investigate their stealing money and jobs. Two DEMOCRATS voted to investigate these thieves. DEMOCRAT Shapiro broke the tie. I wonder how that will play out during the elections. People need to get this story out. REPUBLICANS ARE THE BANKERS.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fedup

Too big too fail banks like JPM and HSBC have been artificially manipulating the price of silver and gold, scamming the tax payer, and ultimately will lead to the biggest financial disaster in the history of human financial civilization. The run on the comex has begun. The COMEX offered dollars instead of physical metal on December 1st silver deliveries. GAME OVER. Crash the JP. Buy physical.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Just a thought

It appears the better the employment rate less valued silver and gold become. So, we need to understand whether there is a manipulation of unemployment claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fedup

Goldman Sachs is planning to do a private IPO for Groupon, just like it did for Facebook. This making it more unfair for public traders to get a piece of the action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pete

Who would invest in facebook? they make nothing, the are just a internet fad, fads soon go out of style. if i am wrong, what happened to myspace? once the next internet meeting place fad starts, facebook will be so 2010, on to the next fad. like google, these guys make money by selling your private info to advertisers, who then sell it over and over again. and i say "your", because i won't go on facebook, only to have them sell me out. once the facebook culture turns into big business, it is all downhill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tea Party Patriot

How can this Facebook be worth more than Time Warner? It does not make sense. Is having a person's email and identity worth that much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GS says only foreign investors for FB. Sorry but United States investors not allowed. Isn't Goldman Sach's an American Bank? Isn't Facebook an American company? But, Americans cannot invest in it? What is wrong with this picture?

 

We completely understand that clients are disappointed, and we are sorry about that," the Goldman spokesman said. "But our view was that it would not have been prudent for Facebook or for investors to have proceeded with the offer in the U.S.

 

http://online.wsj.co...0048416766.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Motley

Goldman reported today that its fourth-quarter profits plunged more than 50 percent. Now their fiasco poisoned the once good reputation of Facebook with a over valuation scheme that is clearly not legal and real here in the United States. Facebook is a good application, but it is not worth 50 billion. Goldman says the move to exclude U.S. investors was not required or requested by any outside party. I am sure investors will remember the money they should have made. And companies considering hiring Goldman to broker the deal might just go across the street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Natalia

I'd am now considering cutting back on my personal use of Facebook. I am tired of everyone knowing what I am doing anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Joe NY

Goldman is doing the Devil's work. Hedging themselves to avoid taxes. Oh, I know, hedging is a strategy that has been used for a long time, but let's be honest about it. While small-time investors might theoretically and legally be allowed to do it, they don't do it, because it's too difficult and too risky without a great deal of sophistication. Wealthy investment bankers and hedge fund managers do it. They consider buy and hold investors to be suckers. They profit from our foolish confidence and make money no matter what direction an individual stock moves or the stock market, in general, moves. The game is rigged and fundamentally unfair when wealthy investors have a slew of strategies unavailable to the rest of us. We have to face this.

Insiders are not buying, by the way. They are selling. Insider selling has far outpaced insider buying for several quarters in a row. Insiders are locking in profits because they know the bubble is heating up and about to burst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fedup

Goldman Sachs is the king of price manipulators. Now Coca-Cola is feeling their claws.

 

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11160546/1/coke-to-goldman-dont-mess-with-aluminum-prices.html

 

The mega soft drink company has a big beef with Goldman, and it is letting Goldman know about it. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Coke has registered a formal complaint to the London Metals Exchange, which oversees the large network of storage units for its traded commodities, including copper, zinc and tin. But Coke's concern is with aluminum, a key input need for the canning of many of its products and a critical input cost. Coke has seen aluminum prices explode more than 13% since the start of the year, even though supplies have been running at deep surpluses inside the LME's network of storage warehouses.

That's because those storage warehouses aren't publicly owned or owned by the exchange. They are privately held, among others by newly-public Glencore International, JPMorgan and in Detroit, where Coca-Cola gets most of its aluminum, by Metro International Trade Services, owned entirely by Goldman Sachs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Desert Rat

Looks like these traitors are moving their operations out of the country before they get caught. Fox News did a great job reporting this.

 

As Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) plans major job cuts in the United States, the firm is planning to expand overseas with a major hiring spree in Singapore and taking the unusual step of alerting Congress before even it's widely known to its own shareholders, the FOX Business Network has learned.

 

Goldman is so concerned about the potential for criticism that the firm’s representatives have been alerting staffers of lawmakers in Washington of the hiring spree in recent weeks as a way to mollify any concerns they may have about previously undisclosed plans to add 1,000 jobs to the firm’s Singapore office, according to people in Washington with direct knowledge if the matter. Goldman is concerned about criticism because it is adding those jobs while it is planning what could be a significant retrenchment in its U.S. workforce, these people say.

 

With profits coming under pressure in the U.S., Goldman appears to be launching possibly the most aggressive effort among the big banks to expand operations overseas where the business climate is more favorable, analysts say. The firm is betting that if it can clamp down on any negative publicity by alerting Congressional leaders of the move first, it can continue to move jobs in higher growth areas globally, while it cuts jobs and slashes expenses in its lower-growth areas, such as its U.S. operations, people with knowledge of the matter say.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/06/27/goldman-to-embark-on-hiring-spree-in-singapore/#ixzz1QaD9awDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nic Levin

Since they control the treasury department do they plan to outsource its staff as well. Think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vampire Squid

Here is some major news. Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein has hired a prominent Washington criminal law attorney to defend him against any charges resulting from government investigations into the financial crisis.

 

Blankfein, one of the most prominent and successful figures on Wall Street, retained Reid Weingarten, an attorney known for representing clients in high-profile cases of alleged corporate wrongdoing. He has represented such former executives as WorldCom Inc. CEO Bernard J. Ebbers and former Tyco International Ltd. general counsel Mark Belnick.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/23/business/la-fi-blankfein-goldman-20110823

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nico

Here is a great way to make a ton of money on the downturn of GS.

 

To enter the spread on GS, traders can sell to open one September 100 put for $5.50 while buying to open two September 90 puts for $3.15 apiece. The net debit for the spread comes to $80, which represents the max upside risk if the stock remains above $100 by September expiration. Since the spread involves an extra long put option, it offers unlimited profit potential to the downside. The risk graph below displays the potential risk and reward of the position.

 

I found this strategy at Investors Place.

 

http://www.investorplace.com/2011/08/use-options-to-bet-against-goldman-sachs/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stevo

ICBA President and CEO Cam Fine talks with about JPMorgan Chase and too-big-to-fail.

 

http://video.cnbc.co...ideo=3000090024

 

The fallout continues on JP Morgan's $2 billion tading loss. Jamie Dimon said the strategy was poorly executed and poorly vetted. He says the incident hasn't changed his overall view on what the goals should be. take a listen. We support getting rid of too big to fail. We think Dodd-Frank gave the FDIC the authority to take down a big bank. And when it happens, the board should be fired and the name should be buried in disgrace.

 

Carl Levin says the incident proves the need for stricter regulation. i think the issue here is the power of banks and whether or not we're going to regulate those banks and put a cop back on wall street. The issue is whether we are going to stick with the law as written, which will prevent us from bailing out banks again and the only way to do that is to make sure they don't take the kind of risks that were taken.

 

Jamie Dimon says the bank is open to inquiries from regulators. it's likely to face more questions tomorrow at a shareholder meeting in Florida. and Ina drew, head of the unit that incured those losses is expected to leave the company, along with two other executives. she offered to resign several times directly to Jamie Dimon. he would not accept it. it's almost a sad story, she was calling so many colleagues offer the weekend and she was crying and upset. she was one of the top paid executives there. she made almost $15 million the last couple of years. What I don't understand -- the ft has the story about how the bank was looking as to whether there was a coverup as to what was happening there.

 

if Jamie Dimon is the top risk ta officer, did he know what was happening with those trades or didn't he? i don't think he understood the, extent extent of it. There were two hands not all talking to each other and a trade that went bad -- it's a big bank but that bank had over $100 billion he was responsible for, she was responsible for over $400 billion. i would think Jamie Dimon would know about a bet that was a $100 billion bet -- i'm not suggesting that he didn't know that the bet existed. but they didn't explain it properly? i don't think he knew all of the aspects of exactly what they were doing and what the exposure truly therefore was. that's where my question is. following the impact from JP Morgan's big bet gone wrong, we have a former senior adviser to wl ross and company and cam fein is president of a imagine trade association representing the nation's community banks.

 

I've got all kinds of conflicting feelings here. I'm going to read from the journal just quickly. it's worth noting that once upon a time a $2 billion banking loss was a problem for the bank, not for politicians but in Dodd-Frank world the biggest banks became more or less regulated utilities. I'm going to ask both of you, john, is that a bad thing given what happened that maybe banks that do protect depositors' money and do provide a function for society, is it bad to head back to a kind of a quasi utility scenario? i'm sure cam will agree, there are banks and there are banks. right. there is a case to be made here that at a certain level of size and complexity that different rules should apply and perhaps different capital standard should apply. Bassel Committee will be looking hard at it. Jamie dimon and his management team are the most talented people in the industry. If they can't figure it out, who can. that's right. my point is no one is saying this is anywhere close to being for JP Morgan an existential threat at all. nobody's arguing that it is. I know they're not. then why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Luke

Why is Jamie Dimon a member of the Federal Reserve Board?

 

http://money.cnn.com...x.htm?hpt=hp_t2

 

Is there a conflict of interest when bankers like JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon serve on the board of the same institution that regulates them?

 

Insiders say no. But critics harp on the central bank for what seems like an incestuous relationship with Wall Street.

 

Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren called for Dimon's resignation from the New York Fed's board last week, and Sen. Bernie Sanders has used the uproar to promote the idea of overhauling the Federal Reserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×