I had to quit watching the hearing to avoid either blowing a blood vessel or throwing something through the TV.

They can’t see the forest for the trees.

A company of deniers.

Reminds me ever so much of a line from Animal House:

You fucked up! You trusted us.

These guys have all been coached by their lawyers to not admit anything, deny everything and string out the questioners’ time.

If GS stock is up, the Street is betting that the worst is over and there won’t be any credible follow-up to these hearings. Alternatively, GS and its “supporters” have been out buying their own stock to create a self-fulfilling perception. Kabuki, indeed.

It’s just a show, will congresscritter bite the hand that feeds them? It will be business as usual until the laws change and the are duck walked out the towers into the waiting paddy wagon

That does express it.

Why is their stock up today? You’d think people would be nervous at the blatant public acknowledgment that it’s all a scam and they can’t trust those who are selling these investments.

I guess not.

Perhaps the market is saying, “they may be crooks, but they’re our crooks, and we know how to work with them, and Congress is NOT proposing to change it that much.”

Fantasy Sports,at RETAIL prices

Certainly all of these issues surrounding G-S beg the question as to how it is the Obama administration can be comfortable being so close to G-S, with G-S officials in high places in the administration.

Could it be that all GS employees were instructed to “assist” the stock price by upping activity in their favor? works like crazy, I understand.

No one can do indignant outrage like McCaskill.

I mean that in a good way. :)

McCaskill is pretty fierce. But Lloyd’s got the humble mousy clerk schtick to a T. Amazing what money will buy.

OK anybody know what the expression “build exposures” means?

a lot of the strategy rests on a long litany of obscure financial scientific sounding terms.

I recommend ZeroHedge if you have to choose one site.

I think that is probably one feeling. My other guess is that no new info came out, so no surprises. That’s what they hate most; surprises.

If you watched earlier, Lloyd’s style is to get people comfortable and then ask the tough questions in the exact same tone of voice. interesting to watch.

tester had me completely frustrated, he sounded like a complete bumkin, then pulled the rug out from underneath the four boys at the end.

it’s all very interesting to watch.

thanks. I can figure many of them out, but that one had me baffled a bit.

It’s very interesting to see these guys at work. Lloyd here is the Sidney Crosby of Big Finance. I would pay to see Bill Black have a go at him.

I would actually find that comforting.

The alternative is that everyone already knows that it’s all a scam, has accepted it, and there is no true confidence in the market. Which means that everyone is just waiting for someone to yell “fire” and then jump out, and it all comes falling down.

Blankfein acts so humble and contrite. Ugh

Uh did I hear what I think I just heard?

Blankfein says maybe CDS should not be permitted in the future?

Did I really hear that?

With Levin asking, it feels like Blankfein isn’t the smartest guy in the room.

lol, tester was all huggy bear and blankfein contrite and now here comes levin like, cut the crap.

SumOfChange is upstairs!
Control & Tax: Legalization of Cannabis

Holy shit. Blankfein would be smarter to shut up, throw himself at Levin’s feet, and beg for mercy.

Levin: “So why did you end up with $2 billion from the taxpayers (via AIG).”

Blankfein: “We got money from AIG.”

Levin: “That was TAXPAYER’s MONEY … ON A PRIVATE DEAL!”

Blankfein, it was insurance on the default of AIG>
So we were either going to get it from AIG, or from the government if AIG went into default.

That is not a ‘bet’.
That is creating an absolute certainty by taking down a company that you’ve taken out insurance on.

Blankfein is in some other universe.
Dizzying.

Make someone vulnerable to financial predation.

A pack of lions who go after an injured elephant ‘increase its’ exposure’.

Get someone ready for ‘the kill’. (Financially.)
A phase in predation.

“Goldman Sachs stock is up today….”

“I’m shocked, shocked to find that there is gambling in this establishment.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/c_04202010.gif

“Your winnings, sir.”

“Thank you.”

I am loving the net short chart.

Thanks. I’ve been forcing myself to read some of this stuff for years and it’s never as clearly put.

They not only got paid off through AIG (and the taxpayer), AIG (i.e. taxpayers) will pay for their legal defense

April 24 (Bloomberg) — American International Group Inc. may be required to pay to defend lawsuits against Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s top executives, including Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein, under directors and officers insurance policies held by the company.

AIG, which was rescued from collapse by the U.S. government, sold so-called Side A directors and officers’ coverage to New York-based Goldman Sachs, according to a person with knowledge of the policy. Goldman Sachs was sued last week by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which claimed it misled investors about collateralized debt obligations tied to subprime mortgages in 2007.

[...]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-24/aig-may-be-on-the-hook-in-lawsuits-against-goldman-sachs-board.html

I realize this is redundant, but DAMN! is Blankfein an arrogant little prick. Just amazing.

I posted this on a previous thread,earlier today:

Here’s a couple of knockout articles.The second link has extensive info on Abacus,btw:

More About AIG’s Bad Paper and the Banks That Took It — Seeking AlphaFeb 23, 2010 … in CDOs that AIG insured — more than any other investment bank. … are in charge of the military and the police – in their pockets. …
seekingalpha.com/…/190132-more-about-aig-s-bad-paper-and-the-banks-that-took-it – Cached

CNews World: Richard (RJ) Eskow: There’s a New AIG Story. I Was an …Apr 19, 2010 … It turns out that AIG insured seven Abacus deals, and the debts they …. cnewsworld.co.cc/…/richard-rj-eskow-theres-a-new-aig-story-i-was-an-aig-exec-heres-the-deal/ – Cached

I am loving that Sen Levin seems to have a list of the exhibits, points, lines of inquiry, and errata that reveals GS as unwilling to accept even the idea that economic activity should be of larger social benefit.

I don’t think the GS philanthropic checks are going to cover their rear ends after today.
The volume of building evidence is impressive.

Levin: “You were short, short, short. It’s clear from all these documents…. you told the Board repeatedly what you were doing to focus on the short position. I think you may have been the only company… to make money when the housing bubble burst.”

Looks like Levin is into “building (Goldman’s)exposure “.

Since they are sociopaths the banksters wouldn’t see any conflict.

Interesting to compare McCain’s statement that actions may be illegal but are unethical with that of William Black on Moyer’s TV show last weekend where he indicated that he thought it was criminal fraud; the market had been criminalized. I believe McCain and other Repub. commentators were trying to limit the damage to just being unethical?

Oh, Goldman did that all by itself.

And wow, Levin calling GS out for whining that the Senate committee ‘cherry picked’ the documents that it released. “That’s a whole bowl of cherries in front of (Blankfein).”

It’s really hard to see how the Senate avoids at least some structural bank and finance reform after this. Dodd’s proposals just don’t cut it, and when even the FT says this went badly for Goldman, well…

Heh.

OK, time for a stupid question. If I buy a synthetic CDO from GS and don’t buy a CDS from somebody, how do I gain if the instrument has no true value and only “references” the assets of a CDO, which I don’t own?

This might help you:

The Audacity of Synthetics

This is Fear and Loathing on Wallstreet:

Lucy: Those two men in the dock they gave me the C.D.O.’s and they took me to the hotel. I don’t know what they done to me, but I remember it was horrible.
[Llyod Groans]
Judge: They gave you what?
Lucy: C.D.O.
Judge: Castration! Double castration!

Got it, thank you.

To highlight a perfect example of what I referred to previously with Eisenhower’s statement to be aware the shadow government, was this beauty that came out during Senator Levin’s questioning of Blankfein.

The question asked was who decided that Goldman would be paid 2.5 billion from AIG? Blankfein stated that if government ( the tax payer ) didn’t make the payment, that Goldman’s own insurance company would pay it.

Dumb question #1. Who was Goldman’s insurance company is this matter with AIG?

Dumb question #2. Who within our government decided that the US tax payer should step in rather than Goldman’s own insurance carrier to pay the 2.5 billion that Goldman would have lost if AIG had failed?

As usual, the questioner never did get any type of credible answer. My question again is who exactly is it that works behind the scenes who would prefer to run fast and lose with our tax dollars, rather than allow the private insurance carrier to take the hit? While just a guess on my part, Could one of Warren Buffett’s insurance companies have been on the hook for that one?

These hearing exposed only one thing and accomplished little. There is a connection between government and the private sector that is incredibly corrupt and relies on US tax payer bailouts to keep this ponzi scheme going. This was a CYA session.

It’s people like GS that control the “scoreboard”. To the best of their ability, they will keep the price action tilted in GS and I-banks favor. The market has gone up for over a year without a meaningful correction.

At least, unlike some posters here, thinks the future cannot be predicted.

As I have said before, hind sight is 20/20.

Yes, there were a few people saying a bubble was about to burst. But, that didn’t mean it was going to happen. In hind sight, it looks obvious.

As an example, at the same time, there were also writers and experts saying the credit card lending was too easy and likely to lead to some disaster. It didn’t come true. There were problems with credit cards, but no collapse of the market.

Just because someone predicted it, doesn’t mean it is going to come true and therefore everyone should follow that advice.

As noted before, no one on this blog can predict even today where the housing market will be one year from now. You can hazard an educated guess, but that is all it is.

As for shorting and selling long at the same time. Kaufman brings up, well what about if you have someone who you sold a long position in some investment and now you are shorting it, is that a conflict of interest?

It is, ONLY IF YOU HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL AND KNOW FOR CERTAIN WITHOUT ANY DOUBT WHAT YOU ARE THINKING WILL COME TRUE. At the time, the guy long could be just as right as you. Shorts lose money ALL the time. And man, they are convinced whatever they are shorting is going to go down.

What if they shorted something, told the guy in a long position to get out, and then the investment went up?? Do you think that guy might come back to them for some payback?

Investment banks are constantly selling stocks and investments that one guy thinks are going bad to another guy who thinks they are going well. Which of them is right? Only hindsight tells.

In March of last year, I told my brother in law to get back into stocks at the point the Dow was 6500. He did and it worked out well. But, it could have gone down too.

Those bozo’s on the dias generally had no idea what they were talking about. They were talking as if GS had an absolute knowledge of the future.

And, with the kind of clients they were dealing with, it is highly likely they KNEW what they were buying–subprime mortgages. They generally do their own due diligence.

And, if John Q’s posting on this blog knew (or at least claim they knew) what sort of lending was going on, I would guess a sophisticated investor in mortgage securities knew exactly what was going on the market from top to bottom.

Why did they buy? Rightly or wrongly, they thought the market was not going to tank.

They were kind of dumb because those companies could have hired some blogger from FDL who could have told them it was tanking and saved them a lot of money. At least, that’s my understanding from reading here today.

I meant Kaufman at least acknowledged the future cannot be predicted.

What Jane is missing here is that Kaufman is providing a defense for Goldman. He is saying that in 2007 it was obvious there was a bubble and Goldman was wise to sell short. He uses almost exactly those words.

So, if GS knew, and Kaufman knew, then why didn’t GS’s clients? So, he’s not attacking Goldman, he’s defending it! Especially in the first 2 minutes of this tape. Note too that Kaufman doesn’t call what Goldman does illegal! He repeatedly says, “I’m not saying there’s anything wrong.” He also calls it a “tough call” as to conflict of interest.

In Sen. Durbin’s words, the banks “own Washington D.C.” and there is no more powerful bank than Goldman Sachs. Goldman has people on Dodd’s staff and on Barney Franks. There are huge numbers of Goldies in the Obama administration.

Robert Rubin and Goldman essentially bought Obama’s stock in 2006 when they invited the young Senator Obama to give the inaugural address at the Hamilton Project. There Obama talked of “my friend Bob [Rubin, ex head of Goldman Sachs] and spoke of the need to cut entitlements and write more NAFTA like agreements. Goldman also was Obama’s biggest campaign contributor as a Senator and second biggest as a presidential candidate. They own Obama.

So is it a wonder that NO CRIMINAL charges have been filed against Goldman Sachs? The SEC action is civil. And even that only names one individual (Fabulous Fab) who is a little fish.

Don’t expect these politicians to bite the hands that feed them. That includes especially Obama.

how is this different from me insuring my neighbor’s house and then stacking oily rags and gas cans alongside his garage?….