Why Do People Love to Hate Goldman?

[KrazyHorse]

Are there any ethical, honest corporations? Or is there no such thing because psychopathic behavior is something that is inherent in corporate culture?

I suggest you try www.gs.com

[flash9286]

Tourre should have pulled a Sammy Sosa.

QFT. That was eerily like watching Ben or Kid have something explained to him, then go right back to repeating whatever retardation the explanation was meant to correct.

I ended up liking the bankers more and the senators less.

[MrFun]

I suggest you try www.gs.com

Not that you're biased or anything.

[MrFun]

How could the others sitting by the one being questioned restrain themselves from laughing as Senator Levin blabbed on?

[Asher]

I have to say, I was embarrassed for the four dudes testifying today. My God that was uncomfortable.

[Asher]

Are there any ethical, honest corporations? Or is there no such thing because psychopathic behavior is something that is inherent in corporate culture?

I think you'll find corporations more ethical and honest than anything in academia.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think you'll find corporations more ethical and honest than anything in academia.

QFT

[Drake Tungsten]

How could the others sitting by the one being questioned restrain themselves from laughing as Senator Levin blabbed on?

Laughing at a Senator is a bad idea. Like it or not, those retards have real power.

[Flubber]

Law firms have to do complex checks when they accept a new client to make sure that the other party in the case is not also one of their clients. If both clients waive the conflict, then they can accept the new client.

Note that I'm not an expert; I may have some details missing or incorrect.

You have it right at least as far as law firms in Canada are governed. The rules have actually gotten stricter such that you are not supposed to act against even the business interests of a client. That test gets quite broad and is actually unrealistic for big firms and big corporations that want to use the subject matter experts in a variety of firms. Taken to extremes my employer could retain the patent guy at a big firm and then preclude that firm from ever acting against us on any matter. Since the big firms have hundreds of lawyers across several cities that just gets absurd. So in the real world we routinely provide wiavers unless the firm has acted for us or gained knowledge relevant to the matter in question.

Goldman-- I am ambivalent at the moment. If they did what the SEC alleges they should face the consequences but I learned long ago that there are always complexities and two sides to every story. IT would not shock me if

1. GS were a bunch of thieving bustards or
2. They were fully ok in what they did and people are misrepresenting complex but ultimately valid transactions

or somewhere in-between---

[Hauldren Collider]

Flubber: my knowledge is of US law firms, father is a lawyer. I suppose it makes sense that canada and the US are similar.

[Saras]

I was almost completely on Goldman's side of this, but read this bit this morning, and it made me think:

http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/817.html

especially the footnote:

"If a position is not client-initiated, but initiated by the bank in response to some other party’s wishes, then the bank is not acting as a market maker but as an agent for the initiating party. An investment bank is free to act as an agent for a client when it trades at arms-length in public markets. But it may not act as an agent of a client while transacting with underwriting clients, unless it discloses the nature of the relationship. This failure to disclose is the essence of Goldman’s ethical foul in the ABACUS deal. It is also, I think, why Goldman is fighting the case so hard. Goldman gains competitive advantage by letting underwriting-driven demand take on customer risk that Goldman itself is unwilling to accept. There is, in the lingo, a synergy. But it is also an unethical practice, in violation of Goldman’s duty to its underwriting clients. I think Goldman is fighting so hard because it benefits from this synergy and wants to keep it. Goldman wants to normalize the practice, and rhetorically attempts to do so every time it protests that market makers don’t disclose the identity of counterparties. When Goldman is shifting risk that it did not wish to bear or hedge to an underwriting client, it is not acting as a market maker. Rather it is acting as an agent for a client wishing to take a position, while imposing the burden of liquidity provision on uncompensated and uninformed underwriting clients. When a bank arranges and underwrites deals to meet its own hedging needs, or especially to take an opposing speculative position, that is also ethically questionable if not plainly disclosed."

[Dauphin]

By the way, we were the only major bank whose stock was up today.

Down 9% so far today?

Fickle friend, the market.

[DanS]

A big score was when Tourre was shown that Goldman was preparing to throw him under the bus. That stays with me.

[Az]

I think you'll find corporations more ethical and honest than anything in academia.

not really saying much, over here.

This congressional hearing vid made me move around in the chair with unease. I wonder how those guys feel.
I think that Goldman's tactic of letting that french guy take the blame is going backfire. badly.

Down 9% so far today?

steep S&P downgrading first and foremost IMHO.

[Dauphin]

Down 9% so far today?

steep S&P downgrading first and foremost IMHO.

That's a middle step.