Goldman Sachs could seize to exist after 11.40

I will correct ONE of your obvious misrepresentations here because you will debate the others and its a waste of time.

Private Equity is MUCH more than advisory fees. The carried interest that is made by the firms and its principals that invest in these deals FAR outweighs the advisory fees they receive for AUM. But who cares about the facts when somewherelse is in play. More misstatements by you above, but like I said not worth my time.....

Wow, rangersfan, every time you post you actually convince me that you know less.

Thats not what "advisory" means in terms of investment banks.... advisory generally refers to M&A.

WOW, do you need to take a class in this stuff. Are you a secretary?

"I will correct ONE of your obvious misrepresentations here because you will debate the others and its a waste of time. "

So, the one correction you made was wrong (again)... and you're admitting I was right on the others.

Thanks.

to be complete, I'll also say that advisory can sometimes include risk management as well.

But connecting advisory to AUM... WOW, impressively wrong.

If you think advisory in terms of of investment banks just references M&A, you are beyond hope. Its laughable considering the buckets of money they make in their advisory businesses that has NOTHING to do with M&A. I never conceded your other points, just not worth the time pointing out your obvious misrepresentations.

What a complete turd.

ranger you are always getting beat up. Its like you like it?? What is the end game for you? I never understood women like you

Long term, it's better for our economy if Wall Street's treated their clients as customers and not counter-parties. There was an interesting story today how customers finally got wise and bypassed the dealers and purchased direct from treasury.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/377478ea-062d-11df-8c97-00144feabdc0.html

The dealers that dominate the US Treasury market had rarely seen anything like it.

Last week there was a surge in the number of investors who bypassed them entirely and bought large chunks of Treasuries directly in the US government's debt auctions.

It raised the question of whether the rules of engagement between the dealers and domestic institutional investors are changing in a way that has distinctly unpleasant implications for the dealers.

"The idea that auctions are a slam dunk for primary dealers is over," said Dominic Konstam, head of interest rate strategy at Credit Suisse. "A lot of customers have the ability to bid directly."

Bypassing the dealers to directly buy Treasuries at auction means that the flows are hidden. Typically in the build up to an auction, if a dealer sees strong investor demand, they can feel more comfortable about bidding. That, however, can push prices higher, meaning investors pay more to own part of the sale.

"If you think advisory in terms of of investment banks just references M&A, you are beyond hope. Its laughable considering the buckets of money they make in their advisory businesses that has NOTHING to do with M&A."

Let me get this right... you have no idea what something means, but this ridiculous mistake is ok to make because the thing is big and important?

I love it!

Sorry, toots, you have no idea what you are talking about (as usual).

"ranger you are always getting beat up. Its like you like it?? What is the end game for you? I never understood women like you"

Some people like the pain, I guess... maybe the folks she's a secretary for just won't talk to her.

ranger the kitchen needs to be cleaned before you leave. We were all busy and did not have the chance to do our dishes, sorry about that

"Long term, it's better for our economy if Wall Street's treated their clients as customers and not counter-parties."

riversider, 100% agreed.

But consider how hard these guys lobbied to NOT have fiduciary duty! Imagine a doctor who isn't responsible for your actual care. Or a lawyer who isn't technically supposed to win the case for you.

Somehow banks you PAY for advice on managing money aren't actually responsible for giving you good advice.

Surprised Obama hasn't addressed this part... granted, Goldman was his second biggest donor...

somewherelese. I don't dismiss Wall Street's power. And just today the Suprmeme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to place limits on campaign contributions on big business or unions. Imagine the free-for-all(see below)
I attribute Obama's obout face to the Brown victory. Also this increases the probability of Geithner getting kicked out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp

WASHINGTON — Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

I would like to think that he finally realized Volcker was right but I think this really a way to put Republicans in the corner. Are they on the side of "fat cat bankers" or will he get the bipartisan support for something he has been looking for?

"somewherelese. I don't dismiss Wall Street's power. And just today the Suprmeme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to place limits on campaign contributions on big business or unions. Imagine the free-for-all(see below) "

I'm actually sorta happy about that. Not because I want biz political contributions. But because it evens the playing field with the unions... who own all our local politicians because they had phone banks, la la. Will be nice when the biz community can directly refute that stuff here...

"I would like to think that he finally realized Volcker was right but I think this really a way to put Republicans in the corner. Are they on the side of "fat cat bankers" or will he get the bipartisan support for something he has been looking for?"

Thing is, the fat cats actually support the democrats. Check the political contributions for obama/mccain. The big boys have shifted way democrat.

I think its just easy to go after wall street in this climate, period.

'm actually sorta happy about that. Not because I want biz political contributions. But because it evens the playing field with the unions... who own all our local politicians because they had phone banks, la la. Will be nice when the biz community can directly refute that stuff here...

umm disagree. Unions have not traditionally been powerful at the national level because of donations, more in my mind because leadership can deliver the votes.
I can't see the unions matching big business campaign spending. The unions have gotten power because they are so in bed with the Democrats and are a dependable voting base.

This really weakens the one voice one vote notion.

"Thing is, the fat cats actually support the democrats." supportED. We'll see next time if the republicans nominate two leaders with any clue on economics/finance.

well, its a pick your poison. Neither is good. But if the politicians are going to be owned by someone, I'd rather it not be the unions that they negotiate with... which is bankrupting NYS.

ranger you are always getting beat up. Its like you like it?? What is the end game for you? I never understood women like you

This coming from the guy who started this post that Goldman could "seize" to exist by 11:40.

Brilliant statement by you once again. You really need to decouple your car from the insanity train. These forums are for informed insights on the re market - not for the hystirical rants and predictions from the uninformed.

bjw - thanks for remembering. I don;t think it will solve all the problems but more jobs will be better.

Let me get this right... you have no idea what something means, but this ridiculous mistake is ok to make because the thing is big and important?

I love it!

Sorry, toots, you have no idea what you are talking about (as usual).

somewherelse - you are a total jackass and try to pass yourself off as knowledgeable. Cut and paste, wikipedia references - freshman debate team tactics and your giant inflatable rat and bullhorn. And, by the way toots, I would kick your ass in a hearbeat. Nuff said.

wow, this secretary is one pissed off lady...

might I suggest vocational training? Maybe you'd be good at that.

"These forums are for informed insights on the re market - not for the hystirical rants and predictions from the uninformed. "

rotlf. did rangersfan really just say that?

thanks for the brilliant laugh!

More people see that somewhereelse is clueless and talks a lot of nonsense. Interesting . . .

Somehow banks you PAY for advice on managing money aren't actually responsible for giving you good advice.

Another wild misrepresentation by somewherelse - if you are paying for advice, banks have an implicit and explicit fiduciary duty - by law and by contract....it never ends.....

LICC, you had so little respect on this board to start... but when you have to add rangersfan to your support list, WOW, you know you have problems.

;-)

I thought being so wrong on the buying in LIC was bad, but WOW... rangers fan. impressive.

wow, rangersfan, you just keep digging yourself deeper... oh my lord.

back to the secretarial pool!

well, its a pick your poison. Neither is good. But if the politicians are going to be owned by someone, I'd rather it not be the unions that they negotiate with... which is bankrupting NYS.

At the end of the day, I prefer our politicians to have kiss many small asses instead of one big one :)

if it was just ass kissing in NYS, I'd be happy. But being owned by the unions is another story...

Oy vey!!

who cares...point being is that today just set the record straight on bonuses and crushed evry developer

More likely the end of Obammy...the guy has a tin ear for politics and is the kiss of death. every pol he stumps for LOSES! Now he's out in Nevada for Harry Reid. Harry's all through.

actually this seems rather shrewd to me. i always thought that people without healthcare would lead to pitchforks, and maybe it will, but he can probably patch over the problem with special measures for awhile. i agree with RS on this one, and whoever said that this should have been first. EXCEPT that the timing here is really brilliant. the mid-terms are coming up. the people are pissed off. who wants to go on record as supporting the big bad banks? really?

interesting times ahead.

upon further reading about GS rev., they are even more screwed then I thought

GS and MS are now financial holding companies rather than bank holding companies. This would hardly affect them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104935_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010012104948

To make his case, he met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill and gave numerous speeches on the subject, traveling to at least nine cities on several continents to warn that banks had developed "unmanageable conflicts of interest" as they made investments for clients and themselves simultaneously.

"We ought to have some very large institutions whose primary purpose is a kind of fiduciary responsibility to service consumers, individuals, businesses and governments by providing outlets for their money and by providing credit," he said(Volcker) during one speech in Toronto. "They ought to be the core of the credit and financial system. Those institutions should not engage in highly risky entrepreneurial activity."

Gradually, Volcker picked up allies. John Reed, the former chairman of Citigroup, expressed his public support. So did Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England.

At the time, administration officials were growing concerned that government guarantees designed to spur lending by letting banks borrow cheaply were instead funding banks' speculative investments and fueling soaring profits, said Austan Goolsbee, a member of the president's Council of Economic Advisers.

"We started coming out of the rescue and you saw some of the biggest financial institutions . . . who had access to cheap financing . . . use that money without lending or anything, just doing their own investments," he said. "That clearly started putting [the issue] on the radar screen for us."

Goolsbee said that Vice President Biden became a particular advocate for Volcker's approach.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eaa7dc64-06c2-11df-b426-00144feabdc0.html

For Glass-Steagall in the 1930s, read the Volcker Rule for a new decade. Instead of the crude separation of commercial and investment banking, we will now see an equally crude split of the banking business from proprietary trading, hedge funds and private equity.

Some salient points on Glass-Steagall are often missed. First, for decades, it worked. The US financial reforms of the 1930s helped to deliver decades of stable economic growth and reasonably stable growth in equity markets.

I love how the bulls are trying to downplay the potential impacts this will have on the banks...I guess theyve now given up on the fact that bonus season has now officially been a bust for them. gonna be a long haul from now till next year when maybe people might buy some RE.

I'm far from a bull but I think the impact of this is being far overplayed with respect to NY real estate. Other factors are going to continue to drag it down.

I think this is a non-story too. Nobody who works on Wall Street has great clarity with regards to their income, so even if they have a good bonus this year, they are more inclined to hold on to it and not spend it on Real Estate. It would take several years of steady bonuses before they start trusting it.

> who cares...point being is that today just set the record straight on bonuses and crushed evry
> developer

Bingo. 10,000 brokers, LIC, and SteveF resumed crying yesterday. (juiceman revised his strawmen)

"I think this is a non-story too. Nobody who works on Wall Street has great clarity with regards to their income, so even if they have a good bonus this year, they are more inclined to hold on to it and not spend it on Real Estate. It would take several years of steady bonuses before they start trusting it."

Good point, RS. Even if bonuses has doubled, tripled, whatever, the bull idea that Wall Streeters were stupid enough to NOW spend it on RE at the original bubble prices was ridiculous. Add in the fact that its less money again, thats just icing...