i haven't read this post b/c i have the poor - but i had to commend Cajun Boy for realizing a dream i once had wherein Anne Hathaway was a mermaid who's only wish was to step out of the water and suckle some bull balls. Appreesh!
@sublicon: AIG bailed them out by actually covering their risk [unlike others], the govt bailed out AIG and we bail out the govt. the money flows directly from one to the next. so you're pretty much 100% wrong but thanks for playing!
@hypocriteoath: But he's RIGHT! It's the finest example of capitalism the world has yet seen. Even in the midst of financial collapse, through a system of dick sucking favour-mongering, cronyism and Government handout, Goldman Sachs has, for whatever reason, gotten their hands on record profits.
All Investment banking firms are not created equal. Goldman Sachs is apparently one of those firms that our Don Corleone government forced to take TARP money so that the other firms wouldn't be embarrassed by their own lack of financial virility.
GS is paying back the money (our money) with interest specifically so that they can return to the policies that made them the juggernaut in the financial industry that they are.
Goldman has a history of paying its employees the largest and most obscene bonuses of any of the investment banking firms. If that was a bad business practice for them, then that was - and now that they are repaying their debt is - solely the business of the shareholders.
Thanks for treating our money like a loan, GS and not a hand out. FWIW, I'm not outraged.
@ChillbearLatrigue: GS could pay the money back because the rest of the TARP money was funneled through AIG et al, and directly into GS's pockets to make them whole on terrible bets they placed that relied on the solvency of counterparties. Shocking that they are in good shape after taking virtually all of the money that went to AIG. Paulson executed the greatest trainrobbery in human history, although his brazeness can be admired.
@AliHajiSheik: In fairness, had AIG been allowed to fail, other parts of Goldman Sachs' portfolio would have allowed them to re-coop their losses. This is according to GS. Since the government intervened on behalf of AIG, GS was not able to collect on their hedges and AIG was obligated to pay them. My source, since we are getting all sourcy.
@ae38: You may be right. My info was definitely from pre-financial meltdown times (2005-2006). At that time GS paid out more $ in bonuses than any other firm. However, those bonuses could have been lower on a percentage basis. I may not have been clear, but I wasn't trying to be deceptive. I couldn't find an exact source on this, but this article kind of points to what I was referring:
Neel was in a very spendy mood one night and he gave me two grand for a lap dance. I did not thank him privately, though, except for a few pats on his nice smooth dome.
The money is well accounted for,. But if you're expecting public disclosure of how said money is being used by these banks, I'm confused. Is it just the journalist in you that wants everything brought to light, do you have suspicions of wrongdoing, or do you just hate the bailout idea generally and feel like that information would help you make a case against it?
You sort of have to substantiate WHY you think secrecy is a bad thing, because the position of the banks and the government thus far has been that the money goes farther from a confidence and intrabank lending perspective if we keep quiet about where it is and what it's doing. The banks also have a fiduciary responsibility to their clients, who stand to be damaged both reputation-wise and relationship-wise if borrowing activities are made public by virtue of the funding source. You're going to have custies saying "don't lend us TARP money, we don't want to be in the news" and creating this flow to the stronger banks, exacerbating the capital issues at the weaker ones.
@ADismalScience: I was going to stop commenting because it is kind of getting old but this comment threw me for a loop.
The banks and govt officials [ex-bankers] can just say that secrecy is good for the banks and the economy but you want Pareene to substantiate why he thinks secrecy is bad? Give me an Fing break.
This is the same argument you used to validate private planes and ridiculously expensive offices, wardrobes, dinners, etc: Bankers know better and should be able to do whatever they want. Secrecy allows them to make pretend things are better when they really aren't and the people lending the money to them don't need to know where it goes because that might make them less confident in the system.
RIDICULOUS. People SHOULD be less confident in the system, it is flawed. Banks should NOT be representing that they are fine when they aren't... that is part of what got us into this mess.
I know you're biased because you work in the industry but give me a break... banks have new clients and it is the US taxpayers. limiting secrecy comes with the territory. you lose that right when you need a bailout.
If the banks refuse money from TARP because they are afraid of info going public then they CLEARLY have something to hide... and we shouldn't lend them money in the first place.
Yeah I mean you not commenting is probably a pretty good idea.
Like, look, let me say it again: banks have customers. If banks say "this money went to X!" they're creating newspaper targets out of every single entity that borrows money from them. If banks have to disclose everybody they lend to, it makes it functionally impossible for them to operate while still holding government money on the balance sheet.
The risk is that then you have a customer flight to borrow from what are perceived to be "quality" banks who will immediate pay off the TARP money. That bilks the taxpayers out of everything they gave to what are perceived to be "bad" banks. The whole point or TARP is to prevent systemic pressure from fear-driven bank defaults! To accomplish the goals of the bailout, secrecy is a requirement.
I mean, fuck, this is an old debate even. Look at Obama's administration and the way they handled it. Don't take it from me, take it from hopey and the gang if you need to.
I'm so glad I had the presence of mind to keep my high school yearbook page simple. If I ever decide to apply for a White House fellowship, my yearbook photo won't come back to embarrass me.
You'll need to tell me what it means to have a pinkie toe that is set an inch back on your foot so I can insult my husband when I tell him I have to be gay now.
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
COLLARS POP, PANTIES DROP. AIIIIIIGHT!
06/22/09
06/22/09
GS is paying back the money (our money) with interest specifically so that they can return to the policies that made them the juggernaut in the financial industry that they are.
Goldman has a history of paying its employees the largest and most obscene bonuses of any of the investment banking firms. If that was a bad business practice for them, then that was - and now that they are repaying their debt is - solely the business of the shareholders.
Thanks for treating our money like a loan, GS and not a hand out. FWIW, I'm not outraged.
06/22/09
06/22/09
[www.reuters.com]
@ae38: You may be right. My info was definitely from pre-financial meltdown times (2005-2006). At that time GS paid out more $ in bonuses than any other firm. However, those bonuses could have been lower on a percentage basis. I may not have been clear, but I wasn't trying to be deceptive. I couldn't find an exact source on this, but this article kind of points to what I was referring:
[www.nytimes.com]
06/22/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
You sort of have to substantiate WHY you think secrecy is a bad thing, because the position of the banks and the government thus far has been that the money goes farther from a confidence and intrabank lending perspective if we keep quiet about where it is and what it's doing. The banks also have a fiduciary responsibility to their clients, who stand to be damaged both reputation-wise and relationship-wise if borrowing activities are made public by virtue of the funding source. You're going to have custies saying "don't lend us TARP money, we don't want to be in the news" and creating this flow to the stronger banks, exacerbating the capital issues at the weaker ones.
04/29/09
The banks and govt officials [ex-bankers] can just say that secrecy is good for the banks and the economy but you want Pareene to substantiate why he thinks secrecy is bad? Give me an Fing break.
This is the same argument you used to validate private planes and ridiculously expensive offices, wardrobes, dinners, etc: Bankers know better and should be able to do whatever they want. Secrecy allows them to make pretend things are better when they really aren't and the people lending the money to them don't need to know where it goes because that might make them less confident in the system.
RIDICULOUS. People SHOULD be less confident in the system, it is flawed. Banks should NOT be representing that they are fine when they aren't... that is part of what got us into this mess.
I know you're biased because you work in the industry but give me a break... banks have new clients and it is the US taxpayers. limiting secrecy comes with the territory. you lose that right when you need a bailout.
If the banks refuse money from TARP because they are afraid of info going public then they CLEARLY have something to hide... and we shouldn't lend them money in the first place.
04/29/09
Yeah I mean you not commenting is probably a pretty good idea.
Like, look, let me say it again: banks have customers. If banks say "this money went to X!" they're creating newspaper targets out of every single entity that borrows money from them. If banks have to disclose everybody they lend to, it makes it functionally impossible for them to operate while still holding government money on the balance sheet.
The risk is that then you have a customer flight to borrow from what are perceived to be "quality" banks who will immediate pay off the TARP money. That bilks the taxpayers out of everything they gave to what are perceived to be "bad" banks. The whole point or TARP is to prevent systemic pressure from fear-driven bank defaults! To accomplish the goals of the bailout, secrecy is a requirement.
I mean, fuck, this is an old debate even. Look at Obama's administration and the way they handled it. Don't take it from me, take it from hopey and the gang if you need to.
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
There's a very cool gray tabby in my neighborhood named Mr. Clean, so I would agree.
04/29/09
Geithner is wonderful except in this instance because he is praising Kashkari on his public service.
I think the bailout was a mistake from day one, but you are all over the place.
04/29/09
[gawker.com]
[gawker.com]
[gawker.com]
look how fucking wonderful i think he is because as everyone knows I NEVER WRITE ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT DEMOCRATS EVER
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/10/09
04/10/09
04/10/09
04/10/09
04/10/09
04/10/09
01/13/09
01/13/09
01/13/09