Goldman Sachs Group is in talks to buy millions of dollars of tax credits from Fannie Mae, but the U.S. Treasury could block the deal

Yeah, like that's gonna happen.

"Treasury is reviewing and will not let it proceed unless it is clearly in the taxpayers' interestwe receive enough lobbying gifts," Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said,

FTFY.

well, fannie mae is at $1, might be worth it to buy some shares if goldman does infact buy it

As if Goldman Sachs gives a shiat about their reputation.

Mind you, the dirtier they get, the more certain types of people want to work there. I'm all for cockroaches nesting together when it makes them predictably easy to avoid, but in this case, the cockroaches have taken over the kitchen.

THIS is the kind of crap that Obam should NOT allow.

Unfortunately they donated quite heavily to his campaign.

Just in case you thought the water was different:
GS -> The "O" (new window)

Bankers -> "Cheeks" (new window)

MBrady: THIS is the kind of crap that Obam should NOT allow.

It's obvious that the administration/Treasury is completely outplayed by the suits at Sachs. My only hope is that they order a military strike on these banks that obviously played dead to get all the free taxpayer money...

Look at the profits of these guys that Congress bailed out... Meanwhile the rest of the country is in the toilet.

Great plan guys.

Magorn: GurneyHalleck: Please. Whoever has the ninja army working for the forces of light--release them now and make Goldman Sachs your first target. Make sure you use plenty of fire to cleanse their evil from this world.

And Let's not forget they are now the #1 forecloser in the nation (new window)as they send out squads of foreclosure lawyers try to squeeze out a few more drops of profit from the Mortgage-backed securities they hold. You know the ones they continued to enthusiatically push to thier clients even while THEY were secretly laying heavy bets on the real-estate market collapsing (new window)?


Is Goldman-Sachs really Just an alternative spelling of Vader-Palpatine?


Each and every one of us, including the children, are being raped and mugged for tens of thousands of dollars. I thought the second amendment was supposed to prevent/fix this kind of crap. Apparently its purpose is really to make you feel safe at the zoo.

AmazingRuss: I thought the second amendment was supposed to prevent/fix this kind of crap. Apparently its purpose is really to make you feel safe at the zoo.

The guys with the guns are against the government stopping anything.

dragonchild: As if Goldman Sachs gives a shiat about their reputation.

Exactly. Why should they care? They've done absolutely nothing wrong in this whole disaster (well, nothing that every other financial firm didn't do) and they've managed their balance sheet much better than any of the other top financial firms. Still they are demonized by idiots, just because they managed their risk better than anyone else.

I'm sure Goldman Sachs is crying about their global reputation into their solid gold beer glasses.

and wondering why people all of a sudden hate them for doing their job.

Debeo Summa Credo: dragonchild: As if Goldman Sachs gives a shiat about their reputation.

Exactly. Why should they care? They've done absolutely nothing wrong in this whole disaster (well, nothing that every other financial firm didn't do) and they've managed their balance sheet much better than any of the other top financial firms. Still they are demonized by idiots, just because they managed their risk better than anyone else.

do you like goats, troll?

MBrady: THIS is the kind of crap that Obam should NOT allow.

People at Goldman Sachs gave money to Obama 3:1 to what they gave to McCain. You think he is going to go after them?

Debeo Summa Credo: dragonchild: As if Goldman Sachs gives a shiat about their reputation.

Exactly. Why should they care? They've done absolutely nothing wrong in this whole disaster (well, nothing that every other financial firm didn't do) and they've managed their balance sheet much better than any of the other top financial firms. Still they are demonized by idiots, just because they managed their risk better than anyone else.

No. They managed to put/bribe individuals in government positions to protect them. They did not effectively manage their risk as is evident by the amount of AIG counter party risk that they had. Had the Treasury not given them 100% value on the CDSs, since many other banks didn't get the privilege of 100% payouts, they would have lost money and wouldn't be making record bonus payouts.

The only thing they did better was committing fraud.

gittlebass: Debeo Summa Credo: dragonchild: As if Goldman Sachs gives a shiat about their reputation.

Exactly. Why should they care? They've done absolutely nothing wrong in this whole disaster (well, nothing that every other financial firm didn't do) and they've managed their balance sheet much better than any of the other top financial firms. Still they are demonized by idiots, just because they managed their risk better than anyone else.

do you like goats, troll?

Why is his post a trolling post?

Clarence Potter: Why is his post a trolling post?

because im norwegian and can spot trolls up to a mile away.

illusi0n: Had the Treasury not given them 100% value on the CDSs, since many other banks didn't get the privilege of 100% payouts, they would have lost money and wouldn't be making record bonus payouts.

Many other banks from the AIG debacle? I'll need you to source that, please.

gittlebass: Clarence Potter: Why is his post a trolling post?

because im norwegian and can spot trolls up to a mile away.

Your optics are out of alignment.

mandrsn1: People at Goldman Sachs gave money to Obama 3:1 to what they gave to McCain. You think he is going to go after them?

McCain stopped his campaign to help the banks. That being said the highest levels of the GOP and Democratic party are owned by Wall Street and the bankers. They've been fleecing us long before Obama got into to office and will do so after he is out of office.

At night when the White House is quiet and Obama's taking a long drag on a cigarette with a stack of financial papers in front of him from the banks, he finishes off his scotch and thinks about who really runs the country. He turns out the lights, thinks of his daughters, and goes to bed.

Clarence Potter: illusi0n: Had the Treasury not given them 100% value on the CDSs, since many other banks didn't get the privilege of 100% payouts, they would have lost money and wouldn't be making record bonus payouts.

Many other banks from the AIG debacle? I'll need you to source that, please.

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a7T5HaOgYHpE

Well, I was wrong, all banks got 100% bailout as far as we know. It still goes to show that they weren't managing their counter-party risks though.

They were making these CDO's, taking huge hedges against a housing collapse while selling those securities to clients as AAA investments. They knew they weren't AAA investments based on the massive hedging activities they participated in, but this is not the picture they painted for investors. They intentionally misled investors to purchase securities they were advertising as top- grade investments while simultaneously betting huge against them, that is fraud plain and simple.

illusi0n: that is fraud plain and simple.

It's not fraud when you own the government.

illusi0n: It still goes to show that they weren't managing their counter-party risks though.

In this one instance, yes. However, one of the reasons why Goldman has bounced back so quickly is that they did have other hedges, so even had AIG gone the way of Lehman, they'd still be paying bonuses this year. I note with interest that Goldman began adding additional requirements to AIG's cost of funds when AIG came looking for operational capital in their repo market.

illusi0n: They were making these CDO's, taking huge hedges against a housing collapse while selling those securities to clients as AAA investments.

Blame the ratings agencies.

illusi0n: They knew they weren't AAA investments based on the massive hedging activities they participated in, but this is not the picture they painted for investors.

So you are saying they hedged their bets? That is bad, because why?

illusi0n: They intentionally misled investors to purchase securities they were advertising as top- grade investments while simultaneously betting huge against them, that is fraud plain and simple.

No, it absolutely is not. Specifically, how did they "intentionally" mislead anyone? Unless, of course, you can cite the relevant law, ruling, or regulation they broke. This is done all the time. One of the more common strategies used by hedge funds betting on a housing market downturn was to get firms like Goldman (or Lehman, Merrill, etc) to sell CDO's to other institutions, which then these funds "insure" and take the downside of that.

Clarence Potter: gittlebass: Debeo Summa Credo: dragonchild: As if Goldman Sachs gives a shiat about their reputation.

Exactly. Why should they care? They've done absolutely nothing wrong in this whole disaster (well, nothing that every other financial firm didn't do) and they've managed their balance sheet much better than any of the other top financial firms. Still they are demonized by idiots, just because they managed their risk better than anyone else.

do you like goats, troll?

Why is his post a trolling post?

He's not a troll, he's a shill.

And there are many, many people out there who'd LOVE to see just how they 'manage risk' beyond ensuring their former employees are installed in key government positions like Treasury Secretary, along with a few, quiet 'letters of exemption' that regulatory authorities seem to just rubber-stamp, etc.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/20/the-secret-paulson-goldman-mee t ing/

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/77791.html

Golden Sacks

xtragrind: MBrady: THIS is the kind of crap that Obam should NOT allow.

It's obvious that the administration/Treasury is completely outplayed by the suits at Sachs. My only hope is that they order a military strike on these banks that obviously played dead to get all the free taxpayer money...

Look at the profits of these guys that Congress bailed out... Meanwhile the rest of the country is in the toilet.

Great plan guys.

Not to mention the fact that a bunch of people in the Treasury Dept came FROM Goldman-Sachs.

MBrady: xtragrind: MBrady: THIS is the kind of crap that Obam should NOT allow.

It's obvious that the administration/Treasury is completely outplayed by the suits at Sachs. My only hope is that they order a military strike on these banks that obviously played dead to get all the free taxpayer money...

Look at the profits of these guys that Congress bailed out... Meanwhile the rest of the country is in the toilet.

Great plan guys.

Not to mention the fact that a bunch of people in the Treasury Dept came FROM Goldman-Sachs.

Keep in mind that Goldman got $10b that they didn't want, but gave in to the Treasury's request to take the money. Then they paid it back, with interest. Don't let that fact get in the way of your irrational conspiracy theory.

kittylittle: He's not a troll, he's a shill.

And you're an ill-informed and uneducated tool. I suppose I am a shill, by the way.

kittylittle: And there are many, many people out there who'd LOVE to see just how they 'manage risk' beyond ensuring their former employees are installed in key government positions like Treasury Secretary, along with a few, quiet 'letters of exemption' that regulatory authorities seem to just rubber-stamp, etc.

The many people who wonder this often have zero idea what it is a place like Goldman does, above and beyond what they uncritically learn from bloggers like Tyler Durden. From your own link:
"Anxious about the prospect of such a meeting, Wilkinson called to get approval from Treasury's general counsel. Bob Hoyt, who wasn't enamored of the "optics" of such a meeting, said that as long as it remained a "social event," it wouldn't run afoul of the ethics guidelines."

The part about the optics is why he should have turned down the meeting, of course. One wonders if you saw the part where he did check with general counsel to make sure he kept in good with the ethics guidelines. Was the meeting stupid on his part, yeah... but can you make a connection between that and something illegal?

A lot of people at my uni are applying for entry-level trading or analyst jobs at Goldman Sachs. The figure usually kicked around as far as first year salary goes is something like USD 60Ks, so I highly doubt they'll ever become a global pariah.

gittlebass: do you like goats, troll?

I doubt Debeo Summa Credo is a troll and I know Clarence Potter isn't one. They're not "trolls" because they actually believe their BS. In the last related thread, I linked to Michael Lewis' heralded article on how Steve Eisman figured out the massive fraud they perpetrated, but it didn't seem to do much good. Oh, and when I say "figured out" I mean "made billions off of" (which you can't do if you really don't know what's going on) and when I say "massive" I mean you'll realize they had to be clinically insane to take greed to the level they did. There was no sense of sanity in what they were doing. "Sanity" implies someone is limited by some semblance of conscience or, in the case of unapologetic scumbags, lack of imagination. Trailer trash don't think beyond hiding grandma's body to keep collecting Social Security checks. Scummy, but limited in scope. The Credit Default Swaps and Collateralized Debt Obligations were far more dangerously creative innovations. They practically bankrupted the world, because they were specifically designed for infinite fraud.

Here it is again:
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-En d -of-Wall-Streets-Boom/

I can't save anyone who already drank the Kool-aid, but maybe I can convince a few lurkers.

Goldman isn't doing anything illegal. They are just taking advantage of the myriad rent seeking opportunities created by government and playing the game better than anyone else.

Clarence Potter: So you are saying they hedged their bets? That is bad, because why?

It's only a hedge if they keep the CDO's on their books. But they didn't. They sold them off to investors.

So, in effect, they sold off investment packages which they knew were toxic, and shorted them internally. To add to the story, the sold off toxic waste to pension funds, hence they paid out regular people's pension plans as bonuses.

Goldman Sachs are scum, and you can't defend this.

Mammon was the least of the Angels that was kicked out of Heaven.

SigmaAlgebra: Goldman isn't doing anything illegal. They are just taking advantage of the myriad rent seeking opportunities created by government and playing the game better than anyone else.

They collected 100% on AIG CDS's, as a result of the NY Fed being infiltrated by GS staff. Why isn't this blatant corruption?

SigmaAlgebra: Goldman isn't doing anything illegal. They are just taking advantage of the myriad rent seeking opportunities created by government and playing the game better than anyone else.

Honestly, you are 100% correct, but it's a bit irrelevant as no one here is complaining that they're doing something illegal.

The issue is, it's easy to be the best at a game when you're in control of the guys who make the rules.

As for its deal with Fannie Mae, TFA is too sketchy on details, so I can't comment specifically on that.

Clarence Potter: illusi0n: It still goes to show that they weren't managing their counter-party risks though.

In this one instance, yes. However, one of the reasons why Goldman has bounced back so quickly is that they did have other hedges, so even had AIG gone the way of Lehman, they'd still be paying bonuses this year. I note with interest that Goldman began adding additional requirements to AIG's cost of funds when AIG came looking for operational capital in their repo market.

illusi0n: They were making these CDO's, taking huge hedges against a housing collapse while selling those securities to clients as AAA investments.

Blame the ratings agencies.

If they didn't believe the ratings agency themselves then they were misleading investors. Not an excuse.

illusi0n: They knew they weren't AAA investments based on the massive hedging activities they participated in, but this is not the picture they painted for investors.

So you are saying they hedged their bets? That is bad, because why?

Are you suggesting that hedging strategies for AAA assets and junk assets are the same? Their hedging strategy is an indication of their risk assessment.

illusi0n: They intentionally misled investors to purchase securities they were advertising as top- grade investments while simultaneously betting huge against them, that is fraud plain and simple.

No, it absolutely is not. Specifically, how did they "intentionally" mislead anyone? Unless, of course, you can cite the relevant law, ruling, or regulation they broke. This is done all the time. One of the more common strategies used by hedge funds betting on a housing market downturn was to get firms like Goldman (or Lehman, Merrill, etc) to sell CDO's to other institutions, which then these funds "insure" and take the downside of that.


They mislead people by selling people assets rated at AAA when they knew weren't. Just because they could point to a rating agency doesn't mean anything if they believed differently from the way they presented their belief.

"In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual."

If their assessment was that the housing market was going to tank yet they continued to present those securities as AAA investments they were intentionally deceiving investors for their own personal gain.

illusi0n: If their assessment was that the housing market was going to tank yet they continued to present those securities as AAA investments they were intentionally deceiving investors for their own personal gain.

Congratulations on defining "hedging." This is not illegal. Companies such as GS will often buy and sell the same futures contract, hedging their bets and counting on volatility to make money.

illusi0n: They mislead people by selling people assets rated at AAA when they knew weren't. Just because they could point to a rating agency doesn't mean anything if they believed differently from the way they presented their belief.

I should mention that your point makes sense ONLY IF Goldman Sachs knew with certainty that the housing market was going to crash. If they thought it was a reasonable possibility then they were simply hedging their bets which is what you would expect any intelligent investor to do.

Are you suggesting that GS was 100% sure that the housing market was going to crash?

jfsimpson: illusi0n: If their assessment was that the housing market was going to tank yet they continued to present those securities as AAA investments they were intentionally deceiving investors for their own personal gain.

Congratulations on defining "hedging." This is not illegal. Companies such as GS will often buy and sell the same futures contract, hedging their bets and counting on volatility to make money.

To quote my earlier post..

"Are you suggesting that hedging strategies for AAA assets and junk assets are the same? Their hedging strategy is an indication of their risk assessment."

dragonchild: SigmaAlgebra: Goldman isn't doing anything illegal. They are just taking advantage of the myriad rent seeking opportunities created by government and playing the game better than anyone else.

Honestly, you are 100% correct, but it's a bit irrelevant as no one here is complaining that they're doing something illegal.

The issue is, it's easy to be the best at a game when you're in control of the guys who make the rules.

As for its deal with Fannie Mae, TFA is too sketchy on details, so I can't comment specifically on that.

What are you talking about, "no one is complaining that they did something illegal"? You yourself said 'fraud' which would naturally imply illegal activity.

ParadigmLeftShift: Clarence Potter: So you are saying they hedged their bets? That is bad, because why?

It's only a hedge if they keep the CDO's on their books. But they didn't. They sold them off to investors.

So, in effect, they sold off investment packages which they knew were toxic, and shorted them internally. To add to the story, the sold off toxic waste to pension funds, hence they paid out regular people's pension plans as bonuses.

Goldman Sachs are scum, and you can't defend this.

They also bought loans that turned out to be garbage. Were they, in turn, victims of scummy mortgage brokers or deadbeat borrowers? What they did was part of the business model for any investment bank. Buying and selling of risk. Because they did it better than anyone else morons somehow think of them as scum.

Do you have similar hatred for Wachovia or Lehman or AIG, who lost it all on similar type products? Or you deem them to be victims of mean old Goldman? How about Fannie and Freddie, who loaned hundreds of billions to people with shoddy credit, then sold the risk to investors (while still managing to go bankrupt themselves) and inflating the housing bubble? Were they just benevolent organizations trying to facilitate homeownership among the poor and working class that got caught up in Goldman's evil trap?

And what of the homeowners themselves? Let's not forget that if this group lived up to the contractual obligations which they signed on for none of this crisis would have occurred. Did Hank Paulson trick them into paying 3x for a house than it was worth less than 10 years prior?

Or is too complicated to realize that there are many, many parties to blame for this fiasco and therefore you simple-mindedly declare that GS are fraudsters and were allowed to get away with their diabolical plan only because they are disproportionately represented at the Treasury and Fed?

Debeo Summa Credo: dragonchild: SigmaAlgebra: Goldman isn't doing anything illegal. They are just taking advantage of the myriad rent seeking opportunities created by government and playing the game better than anyone else.

Honestly, you are 100% correct, but it's a bit irrelevant as no one here is complaining that they're doing something illegal.

The issue is, it's easy to be the best at a game when you're in control of the guys who make the rules.

As for its deal with Fannie Mae, TFA is too sketchy on details, so I can't comment specifically on that.

What are you talking about, "no one is complaining that they did something illegal"? You yourself said 'fraud' which would naturally imply illegal activity.

ParadigmLeftShift: Clarence Potter: So you are saying they hedged their bets? That is bad, because why?

It's only a hedge if they keep the CDO's on their books. But they didn't. They sold them off to investors.

So, in effect, they sold off investment packages which they knew were toxic, and shorted them internally. To add to the story, the sold off toxic waste to pension funds, hence they paid out regular people's pension plans as bonuses.

Goldman Sachs are scum, and you can't defend this.

They also bought loans that turned out to be garbage. Were they, in turn, victims of scummy mortgage brokers or deadbeat borrowers? What they did was part of the business model for any investment bank. Buying and selling of risk. Because they did it better than anyone else morons somehow think of them as scum.

Do you have similar hatred for Wachovia or Lehman or AIG, who lost it all on similar type products? Or you deem them to be victims of mean old Goldman? How about Fannie and Freddie, who loaned hundreds of billions to people with shoddy credit, then sold the risk to investors (while still managing to go bankrupt themselves) and inflating the housing bubble? Were they just benevolent organizations trying to facilitate homeownership among the poor and working class that got caught up in Goldman's evil trap?

And what of the homeowners themselves? Let's not forget that if this group lived up to the contractual obligations which they signed on for none of this crisis would have occurred. Did Hank Paulson trick them into paying 3x for a house than it was worth less than 10 years prior?

Or is too complicated to realize that there are many, many parties to blame for this fiasco and therefore you simple-mindedly declare that GS are fraudsters and were allowed to get away with their diabolical plan only because they are disproportionately represented at the Treasury and Fed?

someone must work for goldman sachs

Debeo Summa Credo
How about Fannie and Freddie, who loaned hundreds of billions to people with shoddy credit, then sold the risk to investors Not that I keep the closest track of this sort of thing, but F&F do not broker or service mortgages. They are the money that mortgage originators draw from / sell to. The golden honeypots that were F&F were cracked open 5 to 6 years ago.

That's beside the point. The problem with goldman is that their single-minded pursuit of profit is counter-societal. They are a loud mean drunk in the world bar, and heading for a trouncing, gov't buddies or no.

We need money for Health Care.

BalugaJoe: We need money for Health Care.

Can we get a Brick Tamland pic up in here?