Seeking Alpha

Goldman Sachs (GS) "operates via institutionalized paranoia," writes Michael Santoli in a...

Goldman Sachs (GS) "operates via institutionalized paranoia," writes Michael Santoli in a bullish Barron's cover story. In other words, Goldman behaves as IB's did in the days when a partner's capital was actually on the line. Executives known for risk management are promoted (contrast to Citi's Chuck "Gotta dance while the music's playing" Prince), giving investors - with shares on offer for 90% of TBV - a bit of comfort no matter how turbulent markets may become.
Comments (9)
  • I only read Barron's when they offering it to me for almost nothing. That's what the information is really worth.
    They are not ground breaking. They are not innovative. Their ideas are no better than the average Wall Street analyst.
    Ask all media and analysts what stock to buy and they all say the same thing: AAPL, MSFT, GE, WMT, etc. Blah Blah Blah.

     

    If I need some extra "ommphf" I will take Barron's into the can with me on a Sunday morning.
    29 Sep 2012, 01:31 PM Reply Like
  • Yes. Read Seeking Alpha instead. <G>
    29 Sep 2012, 08:20 PM Reply Like
  • I have a difficult time believing that Goldman levered up 50-1 back when it was a partnership.
    29 Sep 2012, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • Romney said he is going to give tax cuts and subsidies to Goldman Sachs so they can create financial jobs.

     

    Romney is disgusting.....
    29 Sep 2012, 04:14 PM Reply Like
  • This article says otherwise:

     

    http://bit.ly/SW3WL7
    29 Sep 2012, 07:31 PM Reply Like
  • Thank you Dana, but i respectfully decline.

     

    I have a moral component, so i probably wouldn't fit it with the DC crowd.

     

    I do think OB went to Washington thinking he could effect change, but once there he discovered that the rot is SO pervasive as to be beyond the point of rescue.

     

    At this point we are just freewheeling WAY out of control, with someone (Bernanke?) pretending that they have the reigns. Imagine anyone in their right mind having spent spent, what, at least three trillion, and now another 500 billion, and has absolutely zero to show for it? (And please spare me the 'we would be a lot worse off if he had done nothing' crap. I happen to believe that if we had taken our medicine back in 2008 we would be showing meaningful growth, higher employment, and significantly lower deficits at this time).
    29 Sep 2012, 09:31 PM Reply Like
  • "taken our medicine". Is that like cutting pension to retirees, cutting healthcare benefits, cutting aid to the poor?

     

    We are number #1 in stupid mindless self-flagellation as well as in chest thumping self-aggrandizement.
    29 Sep 2012, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • Taken our medicine means having others take it for us. If the cuts had impacted the wealthy, and discomfited them in any way, Ted Bear would have been screaming bloody murder.

     

    In fact, any suggestion that the rich pay more to pay down the deficit is, in fact, given the reaction of bloody murder. Or bringing the status of unearned income into line with earned income. Or reducing tax breaks to capital and energy. Etc. etc. etc.

     

    If we're to "take medicine" we all must take it. And those who can afford to take more should take more. Much more. Otherwise it's just class warfare on behalf of the wealthy.
    1 Oct 2012, 08:35 AM Reply Like
  • Wow! i am astonished at how far afield one's comments can be pushed.

     

    Let me define taking our medicine, at least by 2008 standards (for 2012, i am not sure there is enough medicine, but i certainly would still like to see the cabal be first in line to have their assets returned to the people, who paid, and ARE paying for them):

     

    In 2008 we should have, and i submitted a similar plan to OB, done four things:

     

    Brought ALL assets, including derivatives, onto the balance sheets of our corporations (banks)

     

    Marked all assets to market.

     

    Determined which corporations were solvent, or could be reasonably made solvent.

     

    Kill off those corporations which are broken.

     

    Recapitalize, to the extent necessary, those corporations which will, or can , survive.

     

    This would have eliminated those drags on our economy which are now structural and cannot go away. It would have costs us (the taxpayers) , maybe, a trillion dollars. It would have rightfully cost the equity and bond holders many trillions (which is the amount which is now being monetized by the taxpayers, drip by drip).

     

    Long before this point in time we would have been breathing economic fresh air. Now we are stuck with even larger deficits, a market with no 'clearing' event in site, and worse, the further institutionalization of Congress and the people that pay them to be there as the winners--when they should be the losers (as the people who put us in this mess to begin with).

     

    At some point in time, who knows when, we will face a "Greece" or "Spain" moment. The people will tell the politicians and the people who benefited from their schemes that You got us here, You get us out. WE (and our tax dollars) are NOT part of the solution.
    2 Oct 2012, 08:50 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)