Seeking Alpha

"When I see Goldman Sachs (GS) pull back risk that much that quickly, I get a little...

"When I see Goldman Sachs (GS) pull back risk that much that quickly, I get a little anxious about what could be around the corner," says Nomura's Glenn Schorr. Goldman's "value at risk" (VAR) fell to its lowest level since before the financial crisis, it reported yesterday - this despite Q1's rally in risk assets.
Comments (17)
  • chumash123
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    What is VAR, Value at risk?
    18 Apr 2012, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • Blackbeard
    , contributor
    Comments (95) | Send Message
     
    VAR is an estimate of how much a portfolio would lose in a worst case scenario.
    18 Apr 2012, 01:44 PM Reply Like
  • Gary Jakacky
    , contributor
    Comments (2391) | Send Message
     
    D'oh...do you think they'll ever STOP calling them risk assets and call them stocks, bonds, gold, whatever? These fianancial writers have all the groupthink of overhormoned girlie teeny boppers at Beatles concerts.
    18 Apr 2012, 01:45 PM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1434) | Send Message
     
    selling to the muppets; looks like the selloff in AAPL caught someone off guard so it had to be brought up to suitable levels
    18 Apr 2012, 01:50 PM Reply Like
  • wmbeam02
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    wasn't J. Abbey Cohen just out beating the drum for how "cheap" risk assets were?
    18 Apr 2012, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • phdinsuntanning
    , contributor
    Comments (1199) | Send Message
     
    bullish for the Euro, GS should ask the IMF to issue stocks, so we can short sure things!
    18 Apr 2012, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • cshanahn12
    , contributor
    Comments (238) | Send Message
     
    It makes sense due to the fact that Europe is on the verge of collapse..Profit taking is good now because who knows whats going to happen in JUNE once the Fed stops" OPERATION TWIST". If Bond yields in Spain hit 7% or above, this will be the point of no return. Not that I already don't think Europe is at the point of NO RETURN!! Bail outs will make a major problem go away temporarily..However the situation will become much much worse..Don't buy into the recovery, the STOCK MARKET IS A BUBBLE!! The Dow Jones has returned 100% since it's bottom in 2009. Our economy hasn't grown 100% in that period. The free money is still being spread around..This is turning into a classic BEAR MARKET TRAP!!!!
    18 Apr 2012, 02:00 PM Reply Like
  • trivspy
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    to actually get to the article without signup, search for:

     

    Goldman adds caution to risk appetite site:ft.com

     

    in Bing or Google (I tried re-pasting the link into the address bar and it still goes to the sign up pop-up, but it will open from the link in Bing)

     

    the article is titled: "Goldman adds caution to risk appetite" - FT.com
    23 hours ago
    18 Apr 2012, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • cszkalak
    , contributor
    Comments (22) | Send Message
     
    The lying, cheating, stealing by our self-serving Washington politicians and money printing by the Fed is never ending. They simply can not stop and stay in power. The current plan will keep spinning until it all gets out of control and blow up. The politicians will end up swinging like Mubarak and Qadaffi.
    18 Apr 2012, 02:12 PM Reply Like
  • Yo' Mamma
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    @ cszkalak

     

    It's all the fault of Washington & the Federal Reserve?

     

    Well they certainly have their share in the blame, but they aren't the only ones out there. It's not the government that does the loan-lending to the average citizen. Nor is responsible for building exotic structured investment vehicles. That was the handywork of private-sector financial and mortgage banking groups (with commercial banks and bond ratings agencies as silent partners) as a semi-coordinated response to a flailing American economy in which the investment climate had been stagnant since early 2002 in the aftermath of the tech bubble.

     

    Put the blame where it should go, not just where you'd like to conveniently apply it because it's favorable to your own political ideology.
    18 Apr 2012, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • gh1616
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    Yo Mamma, well that's the problem isn't it, the government gets no blame except on financial sites like this one! You need to get your facts straight; this mess started with the Fair Housing Act of 1978 & grew from there. Every politician wanted to get in on the gravy-train. The mortgage quality got steadily worse so the GSE's came up with the bundling scheme & sold it to the mortgage banks, who then sold them on to the private sector, investment-grade paper backed by the government.
    Its been a house-of-cards for years with signs on the sides of roads: Buy a house & get $500! So what happens...government sues the banks, after it saves, them the gives the leadership of the GSE's huge bonuses!! And you criticize cszkalak for being cynical?
    18 Apr 2012, 10:24 PM Reply Like
  • RAP77
    , contributor
    Comments (347) | Send Message
     
    (gh1616) So what you're saying is the government enabled dishonest lenders?

     

    Blaming the Fair Housing Act is common for senile old white men. There is a racist/elitist undertone to that opinion.

     

    One told me the financial crisis of 07-08 was all Jimmy Carter's fault.

     

    The Fair Housing Act was an attempt to stop discrimination in housing - part of the Civil Rights Act. That financial institutions over speculated has little to do with the Fair Housing Act. Govt was at fault for not regulating.

     

    Was the S&L crisis caused by the Fair Housing Act or was it the deregulation of S&Ls in 1980 which gave S&Ls the same function as banks but without the same regulations, that started the problems?

     

    The Tax Reform Act of 1986 eliminated most tax write offs for real estate investors, many of whom were using low income housing more as write offs than as money makers. This helped end the real estate boom and left S&Ls scrambling to cover losses on their books. 747 out of 3,234 S&Ls failed.

     

    I think they did a better job dealing with that fiasco - the S&Ls were eliminated and some of the most dishonest executives actually went to jail. Though that crisis was only a fraction the size of 2007-08's bubble.

     

    BTW - RAP77 has nothing to do with Rap music or hip hop, it's my initials. I have had racist replies (totally misplaced) because of that handle.
    18 Apr 2012, 11:40 PM Reply Like
  • gh1616
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    RAP77....My post did not blame the Fair Housing Act for the housing disaster as you accuse. I did say the mess started there & I stand by that!!! You might enlighten yourself reading Barron's just this week; interview with Charles Calomiris, Henry Kaufman professor of financial institutions, Columbia Univ, that is if its not too "senile. old, white, racist, elitist" for you! Let me assist....."When WaMu signed a merger agreement in 1999, it was permitted to do so only after it also signed a written agreement to make loans to urban constituencies under the Community Reinvestment Act. WaMu's combined assets after the merger came to about $150 billion. It was required to make a 10 year CRA commitment of $120 billion, plus contribute 2% of its pretax earnings to not for profits, which eventually helped to bring about its collapse." So my point was/is the government's the root-cause of the housing disaster however well intended, & I believe they were well intended, they usually are.

     

    BTW - I don't give a damn about your posting name. And your accusation toward me was abusive. If it happens again I will report abuse. I stand by the accuracy of my post, it was certainly not racist in any way. People across the spectrum were hurt by the housing fiasco, & in most social-economic categories & most of the country. And that's my opinion until people like you take over & the rest of us have to hide in the basement.
    19 Apr 2012, 10:02 PM Reply Like
  • RAP77
    , contributor
    Comments (347) | Send Message
     
    I admit, I confused the Fair Housing Act of 1968 with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which I think is what you’re talking about when you mention “the Fair Housing Act of 1978.”

     

    I did a quick research on the CRA – it was instituted as an attempt to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the needs of local communities in which they were chartered.

     

    Supposedly, it emphasized that an institution’s CRA programs should be done in a safe manner. It does not require those financial firms to make high-risk loans that might bring losses.

     

    The context for the CRA was the terrible conditions in American cities during the 1970s.

     

    One article states: “CRA was passed to discourage ‘redlining,’ a practice originally based on Home Owner’s Loan Corporation ‘residential security maps,’ many of which dated back to the 1930s. It was the government’s attempt to help homeowners avoid foreclosure during the Great Depression.

     

    Redlining was the practice of denying or increasing the cost of services like banking, access to jobs, health care and even supermarkets to residents of certain areas – often racially determined.

     

    So basically, the government was doing what a government is supposed to do, protect citizens from financial domination by private economic powers or interest groups.

     

    It is a long stretch to connect to the recent housing bubble and securitization of mortgages which were handed to any and everyone. It had a bigger effect on the S&L crisis of the 1980s, which I mentioned. To blame the outrageous practices of lenders in the years leading up to the 08 bubble sounds like more scapegoating. And there is a whole racial element to that argument.

     

    I said your comments sounded racist/elitist ("a racist/elitist undertone").

     

    The melt-down could have been avoided if the SEC had done its job. At the time there were many articles written about Christopher Cox asleep at the wheel (he was SEC Chairman under Pres Bush) while the housing bubble and mortgage securitization got totally out of hand, or else looking the other way was their form of deregulation.

     

    I don’t know the details of the WaMu merger deal and the government’s part in its eventual collapse, though it appeared that WaMu went though a big expansion well after 1999. At least they spent a lot of money on advertising in the years leading up to the melt down of 07-08.

     

    The numbers you mentioned for WaMu in 1999 ($150b) don’t come close to those of the 08 bubble. In June 2008 WaMu's assets were listed at $307 billion, so it's hard to see the conditions imposed by the government in 1999 as causing its collapse in 2009.

     

    The 08 investment bubble was tens, and by some accounts, 100s of Trillions tied up in derivatives, mortgage securities and other shaky financial instruments of the 07-08 collapse.

     

    It’s too easy to blame the government for that, because of something that was done decades earlier, though obviously there is some connection.
    20 Apr 2012, 06:13 PM Reply Like
  • gh1616
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    The government saved the banks, then the government sues the the banks, insanity come to my mind but, folks can make of it what the will. Most of the banks & bankers involved in the mortgage securitization schemes have been deeply penalized, are no longer in business, under indictment, etc. But, (to my initial post) the GSE's barely a slap on the hand, Dodd-Frank doesn't touch them & there is some concern they continue to operate with similar strategies.

     

    It is what it is, & I see no change for the future until it becomes much more painful (interest rates) for the government to borrow. We might well be at that point if it were not for the EU financial debacle.

     

    Now what part of that position is raciest?? (rhetorical question, I really don't care what your answer is) Any time libs like you are challenged someone is being "scapegoated" & its always "racial"!!! I really resent it, its despicable, & slanderous! Then you have the audacity to go there again with your comment..."I said your comments sounded raciest/elitist" You say its too easy to blame the government, I say its too easy to simply blame business, & free markets!!
    20 Apr 2012, 07:57 PM Reply Like
  • RAP77
    , contributor
    Comments (347) | Send Message
     
    "Any time libs like you are challenged someone is being "scapegoated" & its always "racial"!!! I really resent it, its despicable, & slanderous! Then you have the audacity to go there again with your comment."

     

    That is a totally ridiculous statement that could be applied to you. I challenged you and you are totally overreacting. Now you're calling me names. Your arguments are weak and you lose control of your emotions.

     

    I rebutted your arguments and all you have left is bluster and insult.

     

    Blaming everything on the government is scapegoating. Blaming low income people for the mess is racist/elitist. I stand by that.

     

    "Free markets.." Conservatives constantly chant that mantra, but tell me when were markets free? What point in history, recent or otherwise were there actually free markets? Can you answer that?

     

    There have been periods when markets were truly free - when were they?

     

    I doubt you'll answer. You can't handle a discussion. You are too weak.
    23 Apr 2012, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • gh1616
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    "Blaming low income people for the mess is racist/elitist" So in your world saying the government was the clear enabler for the abused mortgage securitization issue is racist. The "emotion" that comes to my mind is that's laughable!! Bernie Goldberg is correct; "the left see everything through a racist prism"!! The fact is people of all colors and social economic circumstances lost everything in your wonderful housing social experiment.

     

    In my opinion the U.S. has not had libertarian markets since 1900. Arguments can be made for other dates. I don't know what this has to do with the housing crisis. Usually you libs argue we need all the current controls, Sar-Ox, Dodd-Frank, etc because before that there were no controls, the market too free.

     

    The abusive names you used in your original email, some you've continuously used, are sophomoric intended to get a rise, well you got one. I understand you libs are used to haughtily stepping on people without being called-out. It must be a shock to your sensitivities!
    24 Apr 2012, 04:54 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|