**** you, method of characteristics

[KrazyHorse]

It's not that surprising that they could raise that much capital when they fix the game via Uncle Sugar.

Do you mind producing some proof of this, or is it simply the same old conspiracy claptrap?

[DanS]

Goldman attracted the capital fair and square. Although I note that they paid a fairly high price for it.

[KrazyHorse]

The way the AIG Lehman default swaps were handled by the government to pay them 100% is probably the best example of Goldman exerting their political influence for profit. Why didn't the government negotiate when there was so much latitude for the government to do so. Counter-party failure = 0% payout.

No, counterparty failure = whatever payout the bankruptcy judge decides. And those payments are COLLATERAL. When the contracts expire without the underlying defaulting AIG gets the money back. AIG was driven under by a classic liquidity failure disguised in new terms. Its liabilities became temporarily overvalued, which caused its counterparties to request additional collateral. The government stepped in to provide AIG with liquidity to cover its obligations, and in general provided as much liquidity as the market could handle for the next 6 months or so.

[KrazyHorse]

dp

[MRT144]

It's not that surprising that they could raise that much capital when they fix the game via Uncle Sugar.

Do you mind producing some proof of this, or is it simply the same old conspiracy claptrap?

There's no conspiracy in the obvious: Former employees of Goldman have some of the highest posts in the government where money and financial regulation are concerned. They come from a background where Goldman has given them so much and they are compromised in their vision of what makes the world go round: Goldman and finance in general.

I could do a list of specific actions (and I already posted the AIG CDS debacle) that show how much the interests of Goldman are served by the government.

I am not in denial that Goldman is also the best at what they do (and now that one of their main competitors passed away, they'll be even better) . The reason they aren't as evil as Citi is that they are at least more than competent managers of their client's money. Evil incompetence is far worse than evil competence.

[DanS]

Goldman's long list of friends didn't mean **** to Warren Buffett, from whom Goldman raised about half the cash.

[KrazyHorse]

To add to the discussion: I do believe that financial innovations often lead to greater instability in the short term. People get excited about the possibilities and are blind to the flaws of the new structures, models etc. But the same is true about innovations in the non-financial sector as well. Does anybody remember the tech bubble? Does the admitted unpleasantness of market crashes outweigh the good being done by these innovations? No.

Stock market crashes couldn't exist without joint-stock companies. But I'm not willing to give up the latter to get rid of the former. And any system of regulations which succeeded in preventing bubbles and crashes would also stifle these innovations.

[MRT144]

The way the AIG Lehman default swaps were handled by the government to pay them 100% is probably the best example of Goldman exerting their political influence for profit. Why didn't the government negotiate when there was so much latitude for the government to do so. Counter-party failure = 0% payout.

No, counterparty failure = whatever payout the bankruptcy judge decides. And those payments are COLLATERAL. When the contracts expire without the underlying defaulting AIG gets the money back. AIG was driven under by a classic liquidity failure disguised in new terms. Its liabilities became temporarily overvalued, which caused its counterparties to request additional collateral. The government stepped in to provide AIG with liquidity to cover its obligations, and in general provided as much liquidity as the market could handle for the next 6 months or so.

It's unprecedented that the CDS obligations would not be negotiated at all and paid at 100% when over subscribed to the underlying value of the bonds in question. It was throwing money at a problem for the sake of investment banks. Hamfisted and solely for the benefit of investment banks.

[KrazyHorse]

It's unprecedented that the CDS obligations would not be negotiated at all and paid at 100% when over subscribed to the underlying value of the bonds in question.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The underlying has nothing to do with this. The payouts are COLLATERAL ON CONTRACTS. They are not free money to GS & co. The money COMES BACK TO AIG.

[MRT144]

To add to the discussion: I do believe that financial innovations often lead to greater instability in the short term. People get excited about the possibilities and are blind to the flaws of the new structures, models etc. But the same is true about innovations in the non-financial sector as well. Does anybody remember the tech bubble? Does the admitted unpleasantness of market crashes outweigh the good being done by these innovations? No.

Stock market crashes couldn't exist without joint-stock companies. But I'm not willing to give up the latter to get rid of the former. And any system of regulations which succeeded in preventing bubbles and crashes would also stifle these innovations.

Innovation for its own sake isn't worth protecting. The fact that nothing has come in preventing the potential fraud, abuse, and pitfalls of Credit Default Swaps is an indication that the argument that innovation will be stifled is firmly unfounded in any fact.

[KrazyHorse]

Innovation for its own sake isn't worth protecting. The fact that nothing has come in preventing the potential fraud, abuse, and pitfalls of Credit Default Swaps is an indication that the argument that innovation will be stifled is firmly unfounded in any fact.

at the thought that CDS are more prone to fraud and abuse than are joint stock companies.

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, as far as I'm aware, there have been only 1 or 2 cases of serious malfeasance with CDS in their existence.

Meanwhile, there are 50+ Ponzi schemes discovered every year in the US alone, and millions of identity thefts committed over the internet.

[MRT144]

Innovation for its own sake isn't worth protecting. The fact that nothing has come in preventing the potential fraud, abuse, and pitfalls of Credit Default Swaps is an indication that the argument that innovation will be stifled is firmly unfounded in any fact.

at the thought that CDS are more prone to fraud and abuse than are joint stock companies.

at your strawman.

[KrazyHorse]

What strawman? You're obviously concerned with the prospect of abuse of CDS, but you're willing to live with the ever-present FACT of corp. misgovernance.

Your concern over CDS is almost certainly based on nothing more than a facile understanding of their terms and some sort of scare story you read in the WaPo/NYT/WSJ.

[Asher]

I really don't miss the days where all I did was swim through CDS deals.