> 1) The stock-market itself is theoretically a zero sum game.
Stock markets aren't necessarily a zero sum game, because investors have some say over the management and running of the company. For someone with .00001% of the company they don't make much difference, but if Warren Buffet buys 15% of a company, he also brings prestige, cache, signals it's a good buy and will be going well for a while, and thus helps the company attract greater personnel. So if Buffet buys a stake of the company, it can be a net gain in the long run. The smaller the company, the greater value-add intelligent investors can be.
Individual stock transactions might or might not be zero sum - they might even be slightly negative sum if you consider brokers' fees. But this is a bit different from the stock market itself - wise and intelligent ownership and investors can bring value to a company by taking over ownership positions from less wise and intelligent investors.
Very good comment though, I agree with the essence of what you're saying.
1) Your argument is baseless...
Because (Fact)
a) We (the taxpayers) were compelled to bail GS out to the tune of 12 billion dollars to prevent a catastrophic worldwide economic collapse.
b) GS has access to huge amounts of credit at zero percent interest from the Fed.
Conclusion
1) We the people don't require evidence of a "crime" to take further action to protect our interests going forward.
Which they repaid in full in April-May 2009 along with 23% interest. 23%!!! thats more per annum than a sub prime individual with no security would pay!
Your interests in what exactly? You don't even know the facts of your own investments.. if at all you would like to call it that. i guess you meant interest as in the 23%!
Go dig up the archives for 14 Sep 2008 - 30 Nov 2008, since I dont remember the exact date for the statements "We dont want or need any funds from the TARP".
Why not, because in Sep 2008 they had already raised 10 Billion from buffet. Not to cover their asses etc. but to use the money to make more money.
Of course this also brings up the question whether the motive of force funding GS was to save them or just get a slice of an awesomely lucarative delicious pie! something you the taxpayer profited from!
But of course you could have easily missed that, due to a beautiful blame shifting concept called "dissonant discomfort/cognitive dissonance". google it.
Question: 1. Which we the people are you referring to, the ones who understand issues, or just carry a vote without any knowledge? 2. If everyone understands the issue, I am sure you realize that "don't require evidence of a 'crime'", is an unlawful non-democratic statement in every way. ..... and hence you could definitely not mean "we the people"? 3) Again, what interests exactly?
in conclusion: are you really under the illusion that you are going forward ? LMAO!
Here's Judicial Watch's page on this meeting: http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicial-watch-fo...
The talking points that were coughed up 3/4ths of a year later for Judaical Watch's FOIA request match the leaked substance of the meeting including these details:
"We don't believe it is tenable to opt out because doing so would leave you vulnerable and exposed.
"If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance."
The leaks said that they were told they weren't leaving the room until they'd signed on the dotted line. This is the sort of thing you expect from the Mafia or in a Third World country, not the USA! Not to mention that the 23% interest they were charged was Mafia like.
Too many envy the successful, and in this case technical excellence was part of the story. Goldman developed their own computer language "Slang", and while it's not too hot today, their overall system for using it gives them a fantastic advantage. When their leadership wants to play "what if", or the world changes, they can use their system to query all their units and get an answer in something like a few hours at the most.
Other firms keep this embedded in a zillion different (and by definition often broken) spreadsheets and the like. Finding out which end is up is a largely manual and error prone process taking days (or so I read; whatever the time amounts, Goldman's system is going to be a lot faster and more accurate).
1) The stock-market itself is theoretically a zero sum game. So regardless of the instrument being trade someone is always betting against a trade. ex. over and above a long/short combo, even if person X is going long and person Y is booking profits. Person Y is theoretically betting against X.
2) GS is a clearing house among other things. Hence there is a high probability that on any given day they have hundreds of transactions that are long/short withing the same client pool.
3) Most transactions take place on a level 2 platform, i.e. the maximum someone can see if which company cleared the transaction, not which client etc.
4) Even if it is the same advisor, it would be illegal to disclose the transaction details of a client to another client.
5) I have never come across a retail investor that invests in CDOs and other exotic instruments.
6) There is a difference between hedging and naked/un-hedged trade. If someone is smart enough to be willing to trade an exotic instrument in the later category they better have the ball s to take ownership of the losses.
7) I wonder if people would have whined at all if GS did not make money on the hedge, since that happens in the majority of cases. Even in the case of GS. Like a number of other activities/sports a 30% win rate can be awesome.
8) This article is baseless is theory and practicality...
Because(Opinions):
a) Either they are trying to say, hedging should not be allowed. If it should be allowed the ones hedging should not make a profit(??). If they do make a profit they should feel sad about it.
b) If making a profit is a bad thing then, I guess they are trying to promote a way to eliminate losses. If thats the case I wonder what they would like to do. More bailouts or close the stock markets completely.. what would be the use if no one should make a profit??
c) I guess to make the article/issue clearer the next thing they could say is underwriting of any kind is also an illegal practice, since the institution assuming the risk is only entitled to risk and losses, go forbid if they make a profit, well we can see GS getting bashed for now :)
d) Anyone who lost money, even if they were GS's clients ought to have done their own due diligence too, if the people investing do not understand the inherent risks involved with doing business they are better of staying away from the markets as much as possible.
e) lastly, IMO the intent of this article is not to do anything but upset people who lost money or know someone close to them who lost money (includes all most everyone)to help gracefully without opposition let others implement speculative unhedged measures to curb speculation, hedging, profit making, angel funding etc..
Cheers!!