Goldman Sachs lent money to the housing industry that Goldman claims was extremely risky. In order for Goldman Sachs to play it safe they bought "insurance" which was hedge funds, betting on the funds profits if the loans went bad.

Since this is really a question of ethics should Goldman Sachs be convicted of any crime?

Qwest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Goldman Sachs lent money to the housing industry
> that Goldman claims was extremely risky. In order
> for Goldman Sachs to play it safe they bought
> "insurance" which was hedge funds, betting on the
> funds profits if the loans went bad.
>
> Since this is really a question of ethics should
> Goldman Sachs be convicted of any crime?


It's a crime if the SEC can prove that Goldman Sachs developed a mortgage-backed product with the specific intent that it fail in order to get the insurance payout. That's called fraud.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Buying hedges funds it not illegal.

First, GS was not criminally charged.

Second, they lost millions in the deal in question.

Third, hedging against any transaction is not only perfectly normal, it is smart. If you aren't doing it in your own investing you are a fool.

Fourth, the SEC's own notes confirm statements by GS that their hedged position was the topic of a meeting.

The whole story is not known, and before posting crap one should get to know basics, like criminal vs civil and that by definition a long position requires a short position. A market does not exist with both buyers and sellers.

All this press in the MSM is nicely timed before the financial reform debate. Great job by Obama's SEC.

The emails that were released today are now in favor of GS. One financial analyst said the emails show Goldman doing exactly what a financial institute should do.

You know what the real problem is for GS? They were so entrenched in the government side of running things, that it will be hard to believe they were just some innocent bystanders. The fact that they were heavily involved in the shorts enough to be ahead of the game will probably not play well either.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/51bd439c-5099-11df-bc86-00144feab49a.html

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2010/PSI.Exhibits.pdf

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Looks like Obama is trying to stir up support for his financial reform bill with this media. Doesn't look like there much to the GS scandal.


Sen. Levin. “They bundled toxic mortgages into complex financial instruments, got the credit rating agencies to label them as AAA securities, and sold them to investors, magnifying and spreading risk throughout the financial system, and all too often betting against the instruments they sold and profiting at the expense of their clients.” The 2009 Goldman Sachs annual report stated that the firm “did not generate enormous net revenues by betting against residential related products.” Levin said, “These e-mails show that, in fact, Goldman made a lot of money by betting against the mortgage market.”

And now the question of timing has caught the attention of the SEC IG.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/94275-sec-ig-opens-investigation-into-timing-of-goldman-charges

This is horrible. I am very much in favor of a powerful SEC, they obviously didn't (or couldn't, still don't know which) do enough in the past (ref Madoff and others), but if these Goldman charges go down in flames their credibility will be wiped out. I sincerely hope the IG finds nothing to criticize them for.

There will 20 million emails given to investigators by GS. Only about 4 MIGHT be construed as incriminating.

CNBC was asking financial managers today "Is it time to buy Goldman Sachs now?"

Several fund managers said "Yes, it's time to grab a bargin and buy GS."

Bloomberg Business issues buy recommendation for Sachs

April 26 (Bloomberg) -- Now that the Securities and Exchange Commission has unofficially declared Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to be the big bad wolf of the 2007-2009 financial crisis, what should investors do?

I believe they should buy Goldman Sachs stock.

I like some other financial companies too, but let’s start with the wolf. With a market value of about $86 billion, New York-based Goldman is the largest U.S. securities firm, and the one currently occupying the regulatory hot seat. Several executives from the firm will testify tomorrow before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-26/goldman-fraud-suit-is-a-buy-sign-john-dorfman-correct-.html

I support free markets and capitalism - but these guys were seriously messed up with these deals. It is one thing to make money off legitimate products, but another entirely to be the equivalent of a snake oil salesman in equities trading.

Goldman Faces New Mortgage Allegations
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/business/27goldman.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Quote

...
But at the press briefing in Washington, Carl Levin, the Democrat of Michigan who heads the Senate committee, insisted that Goldman had bet against its clients repeatedly. He held up a binder the size of two breadboxes that he said contained copies of e-mail messages and other documents that showed Goldman had put its own interests first.

“The evidence shows that Goldman repeatedly put its own interests and profits ahead of the interests of its clients,” Mr. Levin said.

Mr. Levin’s investigative staff released a summary of those documents, which are to be released in full on Tuesday. The summary included information on Abacus as well as new details about other complex mortgage deals.

On a page titled “The Goldman Sachs Conveyor Belt,” the subcommittee described five other transactions beyond the Abacus investment.

One, called Hudson Mezzanine, was put together in the fall of 2006 expressly as a way to create more short positions for Goldman, the subcommittee claims. The $2 billion deal was one of the first for which Goldman sales staff began to face dubious clients, according to former Goldman employees.

“Here we are selling this, but we think the market is going the other way,” a former Goldman salesman told The New York Times in December.

Hudson, like Goldman’s 25 Abacus deals, was a synthetic collateralized debt obligation, which is a bundle of insurance contracts on mortgage bonds. Like other banks, Goldman turned to synthetic C.D.O.’s to allow it to complete deals faster than the sort of mortgage securities that required actual mortgage bonds. These deals also created a new avenue for Goldman and some of its hedge fund clients to make negative bets on housing.

Goldman also had an unusual and powerful role in the Hudson deal that the Senate committee did not highlight: According to Hudson marketing documents, which were reviewed on Monday by The Times, Goldman was also the liquidation agent in the deal, which is the party that took it apart when it hit trouble.

The Senate subcommittee also studied two deals from early 2007 called Anderson Mezzanine 2007-1 and Timberwolf I. In total, these two deals were worth $1.3 billion, and Goldman held about $380 million of the negative bets associated with the two deals.

The subcommittee pointed to these deals as examples of how Goldman put its own interests ahead of clients. Mr. Levin read from several Goldman documents on Monday to underscore the point, including one in October 2007 that said, “Real bad feeling across European sales about some of the trades we did with clients. The damage this has done to our franchise is very significant.”
...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Dodd is such a dimwit. I can't believe the chairman of the Senate banking committee is so unsophisticated when it comes to investment basics. I finally got around to watching my Tivo'd Meet The Press from this Sunday, and he said more than once that GS bet against the housing market and made money but produced nothing. Kind of how like when you buy a house before a runup and sell for a gain, you made money without producing anything. Kind of like how savers put money in the bank and gain interest without producing anything.

This guy is a serious dumbshit and it is scary that he's in charge of "financial reform." Every investment that does not break even has a winner and a loser, it can't be any other way. If you buy a stock and it goes down, you bought wrong and someone sold right. If you buy a stock and it goes up, you bought right and someone else sold wrong. If sellers can't win we won't have sellers. Which means we don't have buyers. Which means we don't have a market.

The banking system needs reform removing capital markets? Someone gets up there and says that on national TV, on the show Tim Russert used to host, and expects to be taken seriously?


RV: let me try to put this into perspective.

Goldman was selling products to people that wanted to bet the housing bubble wasn't a bubble. They sold products to people that wanted to bet the housing bubble WAS a bubble. They had investments themselves in both sides.

Honda is selling products to people that want to bet gas prices will go down (Pilot). Honda is selling products to people that want to bet gas prices will go up (Insight). They have factories that make both vehicles.


People are outraged because they don't understand investing. Very few really understand that there are investments that make you money when a stock or a market goes down, that big corporations and people like you and me can make those trades and yes, profit. It isn't a sin to make money on a trade any more than it is to lose money on a trade.

And these aren't the poor helpless homebuyers who were forced at gunpoint to take loans they couldn't afford. These are sophisticated investors going to Goldman to make multimillion dollar investments who totally understand what they are doing, and are doing so because they think they are smarter than someone else who is taking the other side of their opinion and making a trade.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2010 07:47AM by pgens.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dodd is such a dimwit. I can't believe the
> chairman of the Senate banking committee is so
> unsophisticated when it comes to investment
> basics. I finally got around to watching my
> Tivo'd Meet The Press from this Sunday, and he
> said more than once that GS bet against the
> housing market and made money but produced
> nothing. Kind of how like when you buy a house
> before a runup and sell for a gain, you made money
> without producing anything. Kind of like how
> savers put money in the bank and gain interest
> without producing anything.
>
> This guy is a serious dumbshit and it is scary
> that he's in charge of "financial reform." Every
> investment that does not break even has a winner
> and a loser, it can't be any other way. If you
> buy a stock and it goes down, you bought wrong and
> someone sold right. If you buy a stock and it
> goes up, you bought right and someone else sold
> wrong. If sellers can't win we won't have
> sellers. Which means we don't have buyers. Which
> means we don't have a market.
>
> The banking system needs reform removing capital
> markets? Someone gets up there and says that on
> national TV, on the show Tim Russert used to host,
> and expects to be taken seriously?
>
>
> RV: let me try to put this into perspective.
>
> Goldman was selling products to people that wanted
> to bet the housing bubble wasn't a bubble. They
> sold products to people that wanted to bet the
> housing bubble WAS a bubble. They had investments
> themselves in both sides.
>
> Honda is selling products to people that want to
> bet gas prices will go down (Pilot). Honda is
> selling products to people that want to bet gas
> prices will go up (Insight). They have factories
> that make both vehicles.
>
>
> People are outraged because they don't understand
> investing. Very few really understand that there
> are investments that make you money when a stock
> or a market goes down, that big corporations and
> people like you and me can make those trades and
> yes, profit. It isn't a sin to make money on a
> trade any more than it is to lose money on a
> trade.
>
> And these aren't the poor helpless homebuyers who
> were forced at gunpoint to take loans they
> couldn't afford. These are sophisticated
> investors going to Goldman to make multimillion
> dollar investments who totally understand what
> they are doing, and are doing so because they
> think they are smarter than someone else who is
> taking the other side of their opinion and making
> a trade.


The Honda example is ridiculous...GS new that the investments they were selling were constructed to FAIL...then they sold those investments to people who they did not share that information with. Would you buy a security knowing that it was designed to loose money? Of course not.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

According to GS they did disclose their hedged position. There is a difference between selling an instrument "designed to fail" (what exactly is that?) and selling an instrument that you also hedge against.

Again, your argument wishes away the reality that sophisticated investors bought into those positions knowing full well what they were, what they contained, and the risks involved. They could have hedged against it too if they thought the risk called for it.

Are you going to sue Fidelity because a S&P 500 index fund went down 50% in 2008? After all, the markets were overbought and they should have known the markets would go down, yet they still sold customers S&P 500 index funds WHILE ALSO SELLING S&P 500 bear funds.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2010 09:29AM by pgens.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to GS they did disclose their hedged
> position. There is a difference between selling
> an instrument "designed to fail" (what exactly is
> that?) and selling an instrument that you also
> hedge against.
>
> Again, your argument wishes away the reality that
> sophisticated investors bought into those
> positions knowing full well what they were, what
> they contained, and the risks involved. They
> could have hedged against it too if they thought
> the risk called for it.
>
> Are you going to sue Fidelity because a S&P 500
> index fund went down 50% in 2008? After all, the
> markets were overbought and they should have known
> the markets would go down, yet they still sold
> customers S&P 500 index funds WHILE ALSO SELLING
> S&P 500 bear funds.


Because the allegation is that at the request of an outside hedge fund investor Goldman created a specific instrument designed to fail, strong-armed credit rating agencies into giving it a better rating it deserved and then went through a series of managers who refused to manage it due to the risk to their reputations until they found a chump to run it into the ground.

It would be the same as loading up a mutual fund with a bunch of shit securities and selling it as a blue chip fund, knowing full well it will fail.

If this is true, it is fraud.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to GS they did disclose their hedged
> position. There is a difference between selling
> an instrument "designed to fail" (what exactly is
> that?) and selling an instrument that you also
> hedge against.
>
> Again, your argument wishes away the reality that
> sophisticated investors bought into those
> positions knowing full well what they were, what
> they contained, and the risks involved. They
> could have hedged against it too if they thought
> the risk called for it.
>
> Are you going to sue Fidelity because a S&P 500
> index fund went down 50% in 2008? After all, the
> markets were overbought and they should have known
> the markets would go down, yet they still sold
> customers S&P 500 index funds WHILE ALSO SELLING
> S&P 500 bear funds.

The real problem pgens is that many of these investors were using other people's money. Sure, they want returns on their investments, but some of the folks that chose to invest in these "funds" as a bet were being misled. Again, I am all for free market and capitalism - but there has to be a line where there is some social responsibility or the whole system falls apart. If it becomes an anything goes market, and you have investors that are being led one way or another in manipulative practices designed to maximize profit - it really is no better then going to a casino. I like casinos too - just not when it gets to the level where these funds were being traded around.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

The only thing the GS hearings are going to do is make Republican heads spin in confusion. Most Republicans think going short means not running far to the catch the ball.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
If it becomes an
> anything goes market, and you have investors that
> are being led one way or another in manipulative
> practices designed to maximize profit - it really
> is no better then going to a casino. I like
> casinos too - just not when it gets to the level
> where these funds were being traded around.


Who is posting under RV's nick? Now he wants government control now?

Qwest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only thing the GS hearings are going to do is
> make Republican heads spin in confusion. Most
> Republicans think going short means not running
> far to the catch the ball.

Says the guy who posed the questions, "Should Goldman Sachs Be Convicted by the SEC?"

Considering a conviction can only come from a judge or jury, and the fact that there are no current CRIMINAL charges pending, how confused are you?

Qwest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only thing the GS hearings are going to do is
> make Republican heads spin in confusion. Most
> Republicans think going short means not running
> far to the catch the ball.


It's a lot of political theater. Carl Levin yelling "shit" at the GS execs and then not allowing them to answer leads me to believe that the SEC probably can't convict and Congress is taking its shots now. I bet anything GS cuts a deal with the SEC in a few weeks to make this go away. The White House and Dems in Congress claim victory, the SEC seems relevant again (from a perception standpoint, anyway) and GS loses very little in the end compared to the windfall they netted from being sleazy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Qwest Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The only thing the GS hearings are going to do
> is
> > make Republican heads spin in confusion. Most
> > Republicans think going short means not running
> > far to the catch the ball.
>
>
> It's a lot of political theater. Carl Levin
> yelling "shit" at the GS execs and then not
> allowing them to answer leads me to believe that
> the SEC probably can't convict and Congress is
> taking its shots now. I bet anything GS cuts a
> deal with the SEC in a few weeks to make this go
> away. The White House and Dems in Congress claim
> victory, the SEC seems relevant again (from a
> perception standpoint, anyway) and GS loses very
> little in the end compared to the windfall they
> netted from being sleazy.


Quit being an ass

enuff already Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> Quit being an ass


How the fuck am I being an ass?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Lopter78 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> If it becomes an
> > anything goes market, and you have investors
> that
> > are being led one way or another in
> manipulative
> > practices designed to maximize profit - it
> really
> > is no better then going to a casino. I like
> > casinos too - just not when it gets to the
> level
> > where these funds were being traded around.
>
>
> Who is posting under RV's nick? Now he wants
> government control now?

What I am saying is there needs to be some government oversight and regulation to make sure serious fraud is not being used to bilk investors to the tune of billions and trillions of dollars. Capitalism does not equal "legalized fraud". But no - I don't want government control, I want the SEC to do its job.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The real problem pgens is that many of these
> investors were using other people's money. Sure,
> they want returns on their investments, but some
> of the folks that chose to invest in these "funds"
> as a bet were being misled.

So when you invest with someone, and you make gains, you don't realize someone else had to lose money for that to happen? We should legislate out massive losses?

Why aren't massive gains on a long trade criticized with such fervor?

When you give your money to someone to invest, you are trusting them with your money. If it is a bank in a CD or savings account, you have FDIC to protect a chunk of the money. If you place money in non-FDIC-insured vehicles you can lose money. This is and always has been a fact of investing life.

Many who lose money investing say the system is rigged, they were misled, blame everyone but themselves for the decisions they made. But NO ONE is taking out fifty percent of their gains to give to people who lost out on the investments that caused THEM to make money. It is hypocritical to say those who gain by others' loss must be regulated. It is utter bullshit.

WTL: we will see what all of the evidence says. Business news agencies keep pointing to evidence the SEC has that says GS did indeed inform that they were going to take a short position against whatever they put together as a hedge. Until I see otherwise, I hold out the distinct possibility that the losing end of the trade sicked the SEC on GS.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2010 02:45PM by pgens.

RV, answer this: suppose you sold your house in NoVA in 2006 because you thought you would get a great price, the market would probably go down eventually and you wanted out while the seller's market was going gangbusters. Someone proceeds to buy your house at what in hindsight was near the top of the market. Two years later due to the housing crash, they had to foreclose or sell the house back into the market at a significant loss.

Whether or not you told the buyers at closing that you were selling while the market was high (they bought it regardless so they either agreed with you and bought anyway, didn't believe you, or had no opinion), do you feel you owe those buyers money for their loss?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2010 09:24PM by pgens.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> enuff already Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > Quit being an ass
>
>
> How the fuck am I being an ass?


By continuing to breathe. You bug the fuck out of everyone on this board. I don't think there is anyone left on this board tha likes you anymore. And it's obvious that you have no friends or family that like you or else you wouldn't waste your entire life on this lame message board.

You get what you pay for. Short selling is a crap shoot.
Attachments:

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> WTL: we will see what all of the evidence says.
> Business news agencies keep pointing to evidence
> the SEC has that says GS did indeed inform that
> they were going to take a short position against
> whatever they put together as a hedge. Until I
> see otherwise, I hold out the distinct possibility
> that the losing end of the trade sicked the SEC on
> GS.


I don't believe the hedge disclosure is the issue here. That may be what GS is saying, but from what I have heard, the SEC is going after GS for developing a security with the specific intent that it fail and then pressuring credit agencies into giving it a rating it didn't deserve in order to get investors to buy it. I think GS may be blowing a lot of smoke over the hedge disclosure thing in order to take attention away from the real alleged fraud.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Lloyd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> By continuing to breathe. You bug the fuck out of
> everyone on this board. I don't think there is
> anyone left on this board tha likes you anymore.
> And it's obvious that you have no friends or
> family that like you or else you wouldn't waste
> your entire life on this lame message board.


The insights of an unregistered troll.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RV, answer this: suppose you sold your house in
> NoVA in 2006 because you thought they would get a
> great price, the market would probably go down
> eventually and you wanted out while the seller's
> market was going gangbusters. Someone proceeds to
> buy your house at what in hindsight was near the
> top of the market. Two years later due to the
> housing crash, they had to foreclose or sell the
> house back into the market at a significant loss.
>
>
> Whether or not you told the buyers at closing that
> you were selling while the market was high (they
> bought it regardless so they either agreed with
> you and bought anyway, didn't believe you, or had
> no opinion), do you feel you owe those buyers
> money for their loss?


Another stupid example..the situation was more like..RV was digging up the basement and burying dead bodies in it...and then sold the house...which would then have to gutted to find the bodies. Your entire premise is that Goldman Sachs was as much a victim of this crime. They werent..they created the situation..lied about the situation..and gained monetarily from their lies.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2010 05:34PM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgens Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > RV, answer this: suppose you sold your house in
> > NoVA in 2006 because you thought they would get
> a
> > great price, the market would probably go down
> > eventually and you wanted out while the
> seller's
> > market was going gangbusters. Someone proceeds
> to
> > buy your house at what in hindsight was near
> the
> > top of the market. Two years later due to the
> > housing crash, they had to foreclose or sell
> the
> > house back into the market at a significant
> loss.
> >
> >
> > Whether or not you told the buyers at closing
> that
> > you were selling while the market was high
> (they
> > bought it regardless so they either agreed with
> > you and bought anyway, didn't believe you, or
> had
> > no opinion), do you feel you owe those buyers
> > money for their loss?
>
>
> Another stupid example..the situation was more
> like..RV was digging up the basement and burying
> dead bodies in it...and then sold the
> house...which would then have to gutted to find
> the bodies. Your entire premise is that Goldman
> Sachs was as much a victim of this crime. They
> werent..they created the situation..lied about the
> situation..and gained monetarily from their lies.


Vince,

The first analogy was on point. Unfortunately, yours was an epic failure!

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgens Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > WTL: we will see what all of the evidence says.
>
> > Business news agencies keep pointing to
> evidence
> > the SEC has that says GS did indeed inform that
> > they were going to take a short position
> against
> > whatever they put together as a hedge. Until I
> > see otherwise, I hold out the distinct
> possibility
> > that the losing end of the trade sicked the SEC
> on
> > GS.
>
>
> I don't believe the hedge disclosure is the issue
> here. That may be what GS is saying, but from what
> I have heard, the SEC is going after GS for
> developing a security with the specific intent
> that it fail and then pressuring credit agencies
> into giving it a rating it didn't deserve in order
> to get investors to buy it. I think GS may be
> blowing a lot of smoke over the hedge disclosure
> thing in order to take attention away from the
> real alleged fraud.

+1

It is one thing to bet on a security for a company or a commodity. It is another thing when the company offering that security developed the security, and is betting against the security, and then offers it up for "suckers" to take the opposing bet.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

It is one thing to bet on a housing bubble for your house or home. It is another when you put your house up for sale because you are betting the housing market will soon go down, and offer it up to "suckers" to buy your house at the top of the market.

Surprisingly, perhaps even shockingly, you still haven't answered my question RV: do you feel homeowners who sold pre-housing-bubble-burst owe money to the people who bought them and later lost money?

Thats why i only bet on cum-bubbles

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is one thing to bet on a housing bubble for
> your house or home. It is another when you put
> your house up for sale because you are betting the
> housing market will soon go down, and offer it up
> to "suckers" to buy your house at the top of the
> market.
>
> Surprisingly, perhaps even shockingly, you still
> haven't answered my question RV: do you feel
> homeowners who sold pre-housing-bubble-burst owe
> money to the people who bought them and later lost
> money?

No - they were not the ones driving the rates to be paid for houses, they were selling their homes in that market. They didn't set the situation up. The banks were the ones abetting this fiasco, and they were the ones profiting by it as well. There were some folks in the speculative market that got burned, but they should have known better also - again though, they did not setup the situation to cause the bubble. These folks were taking advantage of an up market.

None of that has anything to do with the fraudulent securities being offered up, other than the fact that they were what the market was betting on. I have always had issues with the stock market where they allow "betting" on the direction a market or security will go, rather than the investment in the security itself. It becomes a much more salient issue when the folks offering up the "bet" act as if they are disinterested in the "bet" even though they are heavily backing it going a certain way, and then selling it to folks as a good investment.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

GS did not drive the direction of the events that they profited from, they took a position based on an opinion (in advance, I might add) of where the components of the securities would go. What if their bets had been wrong? Would you then be crying for them, calling up the SEC to investigate those that profited from their loss? They ran risks of being wrong and could have lost even more money than they did on the investment in question. That's why we have higher rewards for higher risk.

Quote

I have always had issues with the stock market where they allow "betting" on the direction a market or security will go, rather than the investment in the security itself.

This makes absolutely no sense. What are you doing when you buy a share of a company, or a share of an index fund? You are betting the position will go in an upward direction, after which you plan to sell for profit. If you agree markets should exist at all, then you MUST accept that in markets there will be winners and losers. If a buyer is a little more sophisticated, they will do research to find good buys. That really means trying to find areas where they think others are missing an opportunity. Do you now have a problem with that too? After all, it isn't fair that Goldman, putting millions into market research every month, uses the fruits of their research to stake positions!

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GS did not drive the direction of the events that
> they profited from, they took a position based on
> an opinion (in advance, I might add) of where the
> components of the securities would go. What if
> their bets had been wrong? Would you then be
> crying for them, calling up the SEC to investigate
> those that profited from their loss? They ran
> risks of being wrong and could have lost even more
> money than they did on the investment in question.
> That's why we have higher rewards for higher
> risk.
>
>
> I have always had issues with the stock market
> where they allow "betting" on the direction a
> market or security will go, rather than the
> investment in the security itself.
>
> This makes absolutely no sense. What are you
> doing when you buy a share of a company, or a
> share of an index fund? You are betting the
> position will go in an upward direction, after
> which you plan to sell for profit. If you agree
> markets should exist at all, then you MUST accept
> that in markets there will be winners and losers.
> If a buyer is a little more sophisticated, they
> will do research to find good buys. That really
> means trying to find areas where they think others
> are missing an opportunity. Do you now have a
> problem with that too? After all, it isn't fair
> that Goldman, putting millions into market
> research every month, uses the fruits of their
> research to stake positions!

Sure, you have never bought a stock that offers dividends then? 95% of my portfolio is made up of those kind of stocks. I might invest in a stock early in a company that is developing a new and promising product - but no, I don't "bet" the market in hopes that miraculously the stock I picked will light up the boards and go rocketing up in value. While that is nice, that is not what long term investing is about. These derivative "bets" were truly short term issues in the grand scheme of things, and had little to do with stable values or looking at market share and earnings. These were purely speculation on a group of securities moving in a certain direction. Basically legalized gambling on a large scale.

While I am sure that has always been part of what the stock market is about, that is not called investing, that is called gambling.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure, you have never bought a stock that offers
> dividends then? 95% of my portfolio is made up of
> those kind of stocks. I might invest in a stock
> early in a company that is developing a new and
> promising product - but no, I don't "bet" the
> market in hopes that miraculously the stock I
> picked will light up the boards and go rocketing
> up in value. While that is nice, that is not what
> long term investing is about. These derivative
> "bets" were truly short term issues in the grand
> scheme of things, and had little to do with stable
> values or looking at market share and earnings.
> These were purely speculation on a group of
> securities moving in a certain direction.
> Basically legalized gambling on a large scale.
>
> While I am sure that has always been part of what
> the stock market is about, that is not called
> investing, that is called gambling.


You are changing the subject. What does this conversation have to do with investment advice? I am giving examples of what investors do, that YOU do, that is exactly what you are criticizing Goldman Sachs for.

But I will certainly entertain your comment... you are full of it and probably don't even know it. If you bought a dividend-paying stock that pays 5% annualized, you are betting that the stock will lose no more than 4.99999% annualized so you will make money. Who said anything about "lighting up"? You are betting that the value of your position will go up, either through price appreciation or dividend growth or some combination, but you ARE putting money into a bet, belief, guess, whatever you want to call it, that the value will increase.

You ARE making a bet that the security will move in one direction. So what if people take risks and "gamble" as you say? Isn't that their right?

It is really funny how conservatives will hold up their signs about freedom and don't tread on me, but when the smartest financial company in the nation made money when everyone lost it because they put the money in that direction, they are in front of Congress and we have "conservatives" like you and all of them having gotten contributions from Goldman criticizing them. What happened to hard work, getting ahead by your own efforts, and enjoying the fruits of your efforts? Look up where the current CEO of GS came up from. I guarantee he was poorer (as a child in the projects in the Bronx) than you were, and he should be held up as an American example of starting at or near-poverty and getting where he is today.

No, I am not making the bet that it will move up. I am investing in a stock that pays out dividends that, over time, will grow the value of my position. If the stock goes up that is great, if it goes down, that is fine too - what I am looking for is dividend returns, not betting a stock will go up or down. Is it better for me in the long run if it goes up? Sure. But I am not basing my value off that - I have had way too many stocks go from $10 to $77 to $1 to really put as much value in that. You might be thinking of day traders, whose only purpose in life is to deal in speculative stocks, and make short term bets on the up or down positions in a market. Those are the people that entertain the notion of how the market works like you do. When you are a long term investor, short term gains and losses are much less important.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Poor pgens. It's a bitch to argue with an idiot. No of COURSE he's not making a bet that his "portfolio" goes up--that would be way too proletarian for the great Reginator. Of COURSE he's only in the game for the dividends, and thats why he's not investing in CDs, where his principal can be guaranteed by the godawful federal goverment, and his 4% return can kick the shit out of 2% inflation. FAR better to "not bet" on a public company, ONLY for the dividends, and slit his tea-baggin wrists when the principal drops by 20%. And inflation goes up to 6%.

Reggie, you are the dumbest fuck of all times. Go argue with a light pole, you idiot.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Poor pgens. It's a bitch to argue with an idiot.
> No of COURSE he's not making a bet that his
> "portfolio" goes up--that would be way too
> proletarian for the great Reginator. Of COURSE
> he's only in the game for the dividends, and thats
> why he's not investing in CDs, where his principal
> can be guaranteed by the godawful federal
> goverment, and his 4% return can kick the shit out
> of 2% inflation. FAR better to "not bet" on a
> public company, ONLY for the dividends, and slit
> his tea-baggin wrists when the principal drops by
> 20%. And inflation goes up to 6%.
>
> Reggie, you are the dumbest fuck of all times. Go
> argue with a light pole, you idiot.

Seriously Fairy - what is your fascination with twisting what I say into something I didn't say?

Sure, it is great if the stock value goes up, but that only matters if I actually cash out, doesn't it. For the long term, I like to invest in stocks that pay out decent dividends and let them re-invest. That is for stocks I happen to like. It doesn't mean I don't put money in CDs or otherwise - just for long term stocks I am looking for dividends. Some I re-invest, and some I let accrue in an interest bearing account. On occasion I will invest in a new company, or one that has a longer upward growth trend. Am I betting on them - sort of. But not like these folks who put down bets on whether the market will trend up or down on shorts, or if the wind will blow west tomorrow instead of east. You want to equate long term value investments with these pieces of shit that GS tried to peddle off - feel free.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is really funny how conservatives will hold up
> their signs about freedom and don't tread on me,
> but when the smartest financial company in the
> nation made money when everyone lost it because
> they put the money in that direction, they are in
> front of Congress and we have "conservatives" like
> you and all of them having gotten contributions
> from Goldman criticizing them.

It is one thing when I, as an individual, make a choice to do something and either succeed or fail with things that are my own. It is another thing entirely to throw caution to the wind with other people's money, and to throw out investments you know are very likely to fail, and offer them up for "sucker" investors that maybe aren't paying attention to market trends. Sure, those investors are at fault as well, but the fact is, GS went out of their way to fuck people over - as evidenced by this French idiot.

As far as Conservatives - I hold myself in a minority position over my feelings about GS. Most Conservatives are not the ones calling GS in to testify before Congress at the moment. That would be the Democrats that have called these hearings and are roasting GS nuts. Most of the "political" Republicans would not have pulled in GS most likely - this is a Democrat witch hunt at the moment, and GS is on the hot seat. I happen to believe that the government has a role to play in monitoring and regulating certain areas of commerce and activities. In particular energy, banking, food production and health care. Regulate and monitor - not outright control and run. The companies should still be private, but should be held to strict guidelines on operations in areas where they can cause significant damage to the public.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

They should face charges because they are criminals. These manipulations of the market may not be illegal but why arent they? Wall Street has gone way beyond the original purposes of such devices and created a world unto itself in which the gains are reserved for privileged insiders and the losses are borne by everybody else.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reggie, you are the dumbest fuck of all times. Go
> argue with a light pole, you idiot.

Unfortunately I think I beat him to it.

The Democrats are using GS as a sounding for passing financial reform. The Republicans have to cave in order to make it look like they are not blocking reform and against public opinion. The Democrats have a very tight plan for the next 2 years with stuff like this going on.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They should face charges because they are
> criminals. These manipulations of the market may
> not be illegal but why arent they? Wall Street has
> gone way beyond the original purposes of such
> devices and created a world unto itself in which
> the gains are reserved for privileged insiders and
> the losses are borne by everybody else.

Exactly. +1000

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Lopter78 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Democrats are using GS as a sounding for
> passing financial reform. The Republicans have to
> cave in order to make it look like they are not
> blocking reform and against public opinion. The
> Democrats have a very tight plan for the next 2
> years with stuff like this going on.

Yeah, Democrats being the party of the poor and abused.

"Goldman Sachs was top Obama donor"
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/20/obama.goldman.donations/index.html

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They should face charges because they are
> criminals. These manipulations of the market may
> not be illegal but why arent they? Wall Street has
> gone way beyond the original purposes of such
> devices and created a world unto itself in which
> the gains are reserved for privileged insiders and
> the losses are borne by everybody else.

You are arguing that if you didn't establish a short position in housing that you wouldn't have made the same money. Bullshit, it just isn't true. You are arguing that if someone benefits from things that go wrong because they saw them coming that such behavior and results are "manipulation"... not true either.

I'll ask you what I asked RV and he totally evaded because he is either too unsophisticated to understand, knows he is wrong, or is lying to himself and others: If you sold a house at the top of the market having a feeling or other evidence the value would decrease and you wanted to "sell high," do you owe money to the buyer who lost value on the property? No nuanced bullshit answer, yes or no?

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ferfux Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They should face charges because they are
> > criminals. These manipulations of the market
> may
> > not be illegal but why arent they? Wall Street
> has
> > gone way beyond the original purposes of such
> > devices and created a world unto itself in
> which
> > the gains are reserved for privileged insiders
> and
> > the losses are borne by everybody else.
>
> You are arguing that if you didn't establish a
> short position in housing that you wouldn't have
> made the same money. Bullshit, it just isn't
> true. You are arguing that if someone benefits
> from things that go wrong because they saw them
> coming that such behavior and results are
> "manipulation"... not true either.
>
> I'll ask you what I asked RV and he totally evaded
> because he is either too unsophisticated to
> understand, knows he is wrong, or is lying to
> himself and others: If you sold a house at the
> top of the market having a feeling or other
> evidence the value would decrease and you wanted
> to "sell high," do you owe money to the buyer who
> lost value on the property? No nuanced bullshit
> answer, yes or no?

If your analogy was the same pgens it would have been answered. Selling a house at the height of the market is not even remotely close to what GS did. The home owner did not manipulate or try to mislead anyone into buying their home. They did not set the value the bank established, they did not tell the buyer it was a great deal. They were not selling a speculative position in a market - they were selling a house.

In either case, no, they do not owe the buyer money, as the bank is the one that performed the appraisal and set the value they were willing to lend. The bank was the most culpable in the entire transaction.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Pgens I appreciate your analogy, let's make it really closer to the GS issue at hand. If you, as the house seller, covered up structural defects to the property, and/or conspired or somehow induced the appraiser into using an inflated value as a loan basis, then yes, you would owe money to the buyer. They'd most likely need to sue you to get it, however. To answer your vanilla analogy, though, of course you wouldn't owe money to the buyer if the property value went down after he/she bought it: there's market risk in housing prices, as we all found out over the last few years.

But, since GS (reportedly) used their reputation to arm-twist the credit agencies for an overly-hyped rating of a "security" ( I use that term loosely, since it was a piece of crap synthetic derivative with basically nothing of value behind it) and then used that rating to scrounge up buyers of it, you have allegations of fraud and misdealing by GS. Except, in this case, the losses were on such a grand scale the federal govt had to step in to solve the problem. And yes, they need to be sued to get the money back where it belongs.

PS. Don't let the Reginator fool ya--he has no clue wtf he's talking about, but, since this is ostensibly a "political" thread, he feels he MUST post his usual drivel. And post. And post some more.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2010 03:40PM by fairfaxdude.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PS. Don't let the Reginator fool ya--he has no
> clue wtf he's talking about, but, since this is
> ostensibly a "political" thread, he feels he MUST
> post his usual drivel. And post. And post some
> more.

Fairy,
Your description of RV's drivel sounds familiar. In a post that isn't even addressed to him, you still feel the need to talk about him. Obsess much?

You truly are the king of all fairies.

> Your description of RV's drivel sounds familiar.
> In a post that isn't even addressed to him, you
> still feel the need to talk about him. Obsess
> much?


Oh it was addressed to him too. Trust me. Time for a troll-shower, obsessed one?

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

slapdanceboogie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fairfaxdude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > PS. Don't let the Reginator fool ya--he has no
> > clue wtf he's talking about, but, since this is
> > ostensibly a "political" thread, he feels he
> MUST
> > post his usual drivel. And post. And post some
> > more.
>
> Fairy,
> Your description of RV's drivel sounds familiar.
> In a post that isn't even addressed to him, you
> still feel the need to talk about him. Obsess
> much?
>
> You truly are the king of all fairies.



fake anonymous wannabe inkahootz post

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Your description of RV's drivel sounds familiar.
>
> > In a post that isn't even addressed to him, you
> > still feel the need to talk about him. Obsess
> > much?
>
>
> Oh it was addressed to him too. Trust me. Time
> for a troll-shower, obsessed one?

Fairy just feels the need to defend those he feels can't defend their own bad posts. Of course, no one can defend him from his own - but he continues to Fairy on down that road doesn't he?

And he calls you a troll - lol. Fairy here defines Registered Troll.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

slapdanceboogie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fairfaxdude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > PS. Don't let the Reginator fool ya--he has no
> > clue wtf he's talking about, but, since this is
> > ostensibly a "political" thread, he feels he
> MUST
> > post his usual drivel. And post. And post some
> > more.
>
> Fairy,
> Your description of RV's drivel sounds familiar.
> In a post that isn't even addressed to him, you
> still feel the need to talk about him. Obsess
> much?
>
> You truly are the king of all fairies.


anonymous RV post pretending to sound like inkahootz

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Your description of RV's drivel sounds familiar.
>
> > In a post that isn't even addressed to him, you
> > still feel the need to talk about him. Obsess
> > much?
>
>
> Oh it was addressed to him too. Trust me. Time
> for a troll-shower, obsessed one?

GO KING FAIRY GO!!!!!

Registered Voter Wrote:

> Fairy just feels the need to defend those he feels
> can't defend their own bad posts. Of course, no
> one can defend him from his own - but he continues
> to Fairy on down that road doesn't he?


I don't feel any need to defend anyone on here. Ever. But, on occasion, I find time to point out your hypocrisy, overwhelming need to blather on, and ridiculous tea-baggin rhetoric. ( I still chuckle when I recall your defense of Halliburton in the rape and abuse of their workers in Iraq. What a fucking dumbass you made of yourself on that one.)

Now go check your "value" stock prices in your $13,000 "portfolio" and just plain old shut the fuck up.

Reggie last word in 3....2...1...

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2010 04:33PM by fairfaxdude.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ferfux Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They should face charges because they are
> > criminals. These manipulations of the market
> may
> > not be illegal but why arent they? Wall Street
> has
> > gone way beyond the original purposes of such
> > devices and created a world unto itself in
> which
> > the gains are reserved for privileged insiders
> and
> > the losses are borne by everybody else.
>
> You are arguing that if you didn't establish a
> short position in housing that you wouldn't have
> made the same money. Bullshit, it just isn't
> true. You are arguing that if someone benefits
> from things that go wrong because they saw them
> coming that such behavior and results are
> "manipulation"... not true either.
>
> I'll ask you what I asked RV and he totally evaded
> because he is either too unsophisticated to
> understand, knows he is wrong, or is lying to
> himself and others: If you sold a house at the
> top of the market having a feeling or other
> evidence the value would decrease and you wanted
> to "sell high," do you owe money to the buyer who
> lost value on the property? No nuanced bullshit
> answer, yes or no?


The difference is that they dont go by "feeling" or "evidence" They manipulate. The execs at GS manipulated the market so that no matter the outcome they profited. If profits were made by investors then GS execs got paid. If investors got bilked then the GS execs got paid. If the economy collapses they GOT PAID by the taxpayers. They Are rigging the system so that no matter WHAT they get paid. For them there IS NO RISK AT ALL for them. Its like a quantum physics 3 card monty.

I look forward to your presenting evidence that all of that occurred. I'm not saying it is impossible, but it isn't in the evidence seen so far, certainly not presented during the Senate Banking Committee session.

Congrats on not answering my question though. You make accusations that the "little guy" can't do what they did, which is bullshit because I personally make money off short positions and I don't work for GS. You failed and now you are just adding bullshit blather to cover up your total ignorance of what is going on in the case. You don't understand how these types of investments work. You don't even know what GS does.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I look forward to your presenting evidence that
> all of that occurred.
Im dont have to present that evidence, The SEC and the FED will be presenting that evidence

I'm not saying it is
> impossible, but it isn't in the evidence seen so
> far

If there wasnt evidence to that affect then there wouldnt be a case brought against GS

, certainly not presented during the Senate
> Banking Committee session.
>
> Congrats on not answering my question though.
I understand perfectly well Buy low sell high. thats not AT ALL what this thread is talking about so dont YOU change the subject.


> make accusations that the "little guy" can't do
> what they did, which is bullshit because I
> personally make money off short positions and I
> don't work for GS.
I never said, "the little guy" I said investors. Investors means anyone who was manipulated by GS.

You failed and now you are
> just adding bullshit blather to cover up your
> total ignorance of what is going on in the case.
>
on the contrary ive read the stories in Washingtonpost. Wall Street Journal amongst other sources.

You don't understand how these types of
> investments work. You don't even know what GS
> does.
I understand that they are manipulating the markets so that it is Extremely difficult for anyone to understand what it is they are doing. I have been studying economics in school and have a pretty good understanding if the way markets have historically worked and are rigged to work by insiders who make money lose or fail or other investors.


Your arguments are the bullshit ones. You are the master at insulting other people's intelligence and trolling away with posts that arent germane to the topic at hand. Your condescending posts about how the market works and how you have profited from investments have NO bearing on whether the Execs at GS committed fraud. Nice try though.

Let's remember, GS had their investments "insured" through AIG and additionally AIG was invested in many of the CDOs which GS pushed - which went belly-up due to all the bad debts it could not cover. When they got their $180B bailout, GS got their money paid in full.

AIG leads Goldman Sachs directors and officers insurance
http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20100420/NEWS/100429988

This is all going to come back to haunt them...

Goldman Fueled AIG Gambles
Wall Street Titan's Role Shown in Journal Analysis; Firm Says Problems Hidden
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704201404574590453176996032.html

Quote

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. played a bigger role than has been publicly disclosed in fueling the mortgage bets that nearly felled American International Group Inc.

Goldman was one of 16 banks paid off when the U.S. government last year spent billions closing out soured trades that AIG made with the financial firms.

A Wall Street Journal analysis of AIG's trades, which were on pools of mortgage debt, shows that Goldman was a key player in many of them, even the ones involving other banks.

Goldman originated or bought protection from AIG on about $33 billion of the $80 billion of U.S. mortgage assets that AIG insured during the housing boom. That is roughly twice as much as Société Générale and Merrill Lynch, the banks with the biggest exposure to AIG after Goldman, according an analysis of ratings-firm reports and an internal AIG document that details several financial firms' roles in the transactions.

In Goldman's biggest deal, it acted as a middleman between AIG and banks, taking on the risk of as much as $14 billion of mortgage-related investments. Then Goldman insured that risk with one trading partner—AIG, according to the Journal's analysis and people familiar with the trades.

The trades yielded Goldman less than $50 million in profits, which were mostly booked from 2004 to 2006, according to a person familiar with the matter. But they piled risks onto AIG's books, which later came to haunt the insurer and Goldman. The trades also gave Goldman a unique window into AIG's exposure to losses on securities linked to mortgages.

When the federal government bailed out the insurer, Goldman avoided losses on its trades with AIG covering a total of $22 billion in assets.
...

AIG: A Goldman victim?
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/20/news/companies/goldman_aig/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=Sbin

Quote

...
The troubled insurer's downfall stemmed from insurance contracts (credit default swaps) on assets called collateralized debt obligations owned by Wall Street firms including Goldman Sachs. Those CDOs were made up of mortgage securities, which plummeted in value when the bottom fell out of the housing market.

AIG was forced to raise billions of dollars in collateral in order to insure against the CDOs' losses. Those so-called collateral calls eventually overwhelmed what was by far the world's largest insurance company to the point that AIG required a government bailout to stay afloat.

Goldman faces grilling over SEC suit

AIG is now thinking about going after Goldman if it can prove the Wall Street giant lied about the underlying value and risk of the assets it asked AIG to insure, according to news reports.

If Goldman withheld information about some of those CDOs from AIG, by not telling the insurer that the CDO's fund manager was betting its value would fall, for example, AIG may have a point.
...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now go check your "value" stock prices in your
> $13,000 "portfolio"

It's probably just as well you don't know the value of my "portfolio". Just like you know so little else about me Fairy.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

"knock, knock"

"Who's there?"

"Cares"

"Who, Cares?"

"Exactly."
Attachments: