From the Bess Levin hot tips hotline(tm): Goldman to conduct secondary offering to fund their bonus-preserving liberation from the chains of government equity ownership. (Good for you Goldman!)
Smart stuff if true, really. True, salary caps look like they might be defanged, but who can argue that Goldman would not run rings around any institution still burdened by the need to submit to the enlightened mercies of government decree?

Comments (37)

  1. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 11:26 AM

    I want to call Bess

  2. Posted by NAS Keflavik boi | February 6, 2009 at 11:28 AM

    “True, salary caps look like they might be defanged, but who can argue that Goldman would not run rings around any institution still burdened by the need to submit to the enlightened mercies of government decree?”
    The boys at 85 Broad will run rings around everyone no matter what — they are the “court financiers” and enjoy the same indulgence and deference from the US Government that the Rothschilds traditionally did with Europe’s royal families.
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=paulson

  3. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 11:30 AM

    why don’t they take themselves private again? the public edge is gone, private is back.

  4. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 11:31 AM

    Why the hell Goldman is now a bank holding company? They are not giving away any toasters yet. They must not have any deposits. How about if they just get out of the bank holding company phony business and buy back all the TARP money at the same time? Can Goldman do that? We have too many banks as it is.

  5. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 11:35 AM

    how come goldman is noted (positively) in the media every year for having the largest bonus pool ($50 billion in 07), but when the public is out for blood NOW in regards to bonuses, goldman’s name is barely mentioned? where is the rage against those thieves for paying out $332 million in bonuses to FIVE MEN in 2007, less than one year before accepting $10 billion in taxpayer money. goldman’s bonus pool for 2008 is still well over $20 billion and they’re getting no flack over it, when other firms with their measly $1 billion bonus pools are being dragged over hot coals? goldman really does have all the right people in government. they are unstoppable and basically run the entire world. the US just happens to be their biggest beatch.
    http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/ceopay/index.html

  6. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 11:38 AM

    Hey, this is my scoop! A “source” called me with the tip, but I was in the Mens Room and couldn’t get it on air in time. No fair!
    C.Gasparino

  7. Posted by Anal_yst | February 6, 2009 at 11:38 AM

    @ 5
    Back to cnn money for you. Very clearly, any explanation or response to your question would fall on deaf ears.

  8. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 11:44 AM

    @7 aw c’mon, give it the ol’ college try.

  9. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 11:49 AM

    raising money from Buffett with a convert at $110 to keep their heads above water, then doing a secondary at $95 so they can pay themselves as much as they want… too funny.
    You would have thought the Buff had enough fun with investment bankers when he was running Solly after the price-fixing scandal, but I guess not.

  10. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 11:50 AM

    8 Let me try: although the firm as a whole lost money, there are those that were actually net contributors. If such talented people are not sufficiently compensated they will walk. So paying them even though the firm as a whole lost money is a good business decision. Probably a lot of truth to that, although I’m not sure that the objective couldn’t be accomplished with a lot less than $20 billion. But who am I to judge.

  11. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 11:55 AM

    Yes, a Secondary so that management can pay themselves, what is in their own eyes, a proper bonus. Return on that use of capital is…?
    Fuck’em. Remember $47.41? I do. Lloyd and his crew were scared fish.
    Let the shorts teach’em another lesson, this time with sand as lubricant.

  12. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 11:56 AM

    You are assuming that there would not be a run on Goldman the moment they became the only major financial institution without government support.

  13. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 12:01 PM

    Yes, a Secondary so that management can pay themselves, what is in their own eyes, a proper bonus. Return on that use of capital is…?
    To hell with them. Remember $47.41? I do. Lloyd and his crew were scared fish.
    Let the shorts teach’em another lesson, this time with sand as lubricant.

  14. Posted by Equity Private | February 6, 2009 at 12:07 PM

    “Posted by guest, Feb 06, 2009 11:56AM
    You are assuming that there would not be a run on Goldman the moment they became the only major financial institution without government support.”
    Hey… wait a minute. You aren’t short QGRI, are you?

  15. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 12:08 PM

    @4 – *cough* ability to shove Level 3 assets through the discount window, which no longer seems to require repayment in any set amount of time *cough*

  16. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 12:19 PM

    This is idiotic. We all know goldman is insolvent. They need the TARP money and much more. They will try to squeeze their shareholders so they can live another day. All the talk about mark-to-market accounting doesn’t mean much when you have 60B in level-3 assets (which are NOT marked to market).

  17. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 12:19 PM

    @15
    Exactly. Lets see how independent they really want to be.
    And @12 and @13 are exactly right. The consequence is if they make this all about compensation restrictions, then expect shareholder lawsuits as the stock dives. The Goldman weasels are posturing. Lets see how long it lasts.

  18. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 12:26 PM

    twill all be for nought. the world has discovered that it needs much less of the “service” GS offers. tarp or no tarp they will be half their current size in 2-4 years, about the same time their pipeline to DC gets reamed.

  19. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 12:27 PM

    Does anyone know if Geithner made his new COS sell all his GS stocks when he took the job?

  20. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 12:28 PM

    They cannot pay back the TARP loan with earnings, only with recapitalization funds.. the rumor makes sense..

  21. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM

    @10–inquiring minds want to know–who buys that “pay me or I walk” line these days–

  22. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 12:37 PM

    @19 – Geithner HAS no dough — the dumbfuck drained his 401(k) for pete’s sake…

  23. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 12:44 PM

    @19
    I believe he had to, and probably got a huge tax break as Paulson did. (We are talking his COS, not Geithner).

  24. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 12:50 PM

    But nobody knows for sure if Paulson did sell all his GS stocks or if he just put everything in a blind trust until he left the job.

  25. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 1:00 PM

    @24
    What? You mean Paulson was dumb? Here:
    http://www.theracetothebottom.org/executive-comp/henry-paulson-and-government-service-the-ultimate-tax-shelte.html
    How about @200 million capital gains tax free?

  26. Posted by Investorcluzo | February 6, 2009 at 1:17 PM

    good for gs, get the money before the new care (dilution) package from obama and his capital hill conspirators comes down the pike.
    for the record, gs is now the third largest commercial bank in the us (by market cap):
    jpm $99 bn (I think I can, I think I can…get to $100)
    wfc $79 (new ticker should be “wtf”)
    gs $44
    bk $32
    bac $31 (thanks to the big rally today)

  27. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 1:26 PM

    rich people don’t pay taxes. that’s a fact.

  28. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 1:31 PM

    I don’t think Paulson really cares that much about money – he already made enough of it and he doesn’t buy fancy homes, yachts and cars the way most bankers do.
    But they still should have made him sell all his GS stock when he took the job.

  29. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 2:07 PM

    I presume you mean a follow-on offering, since a secondary yields no proceeds to the company.

  30. Posted by Equity Private | February 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM

    “I presume you mean a follow-on offering, since a secondary yields no proceeds to the company.”
    This was surely the intent of the tipster, despite the unfortunate choice of words.

  31. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 2:59 PM

    “why don’t they take themselves private again? the public edge is gone, private is back.”
    It’s more fun being able to play with other people’s money.
    @10 – In this environment someone is going to jump ship from GS and go where?

  32. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 3:03 PM

    what is going on with this comment board, I come to dealbreaker to revel in unabashed greed, and now all I get is this self deprecating loathsome drivel.
    of course goldman is stealing from the discount window, I’m sure they’re doing a ton of stuff, they are to be admired for their whit. They have no allegience except to mother is-rah-yel and that shit is probably going to be blown up.
    Point is quit crying, and think of your own scheme, or at least get off dealbreaker.

  33. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 3:25 PM

    Self Deprecating Loathsome Drivel = the Jewish comments

  34. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 4:08 PM

    When you call the Bess Levin Tip Line, do you leave Just the Tip? Do you leave it as quickly as possible? So it’s Just the Tip, Just for a Second?

  35. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 4:33 PM

    @31
    They’ll go to a hedge fund!

  36. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 5:22 PM

    @35…Sure…Great funds like Citadel, SAC, Highbridge are ALL hiring right? right?

  37. Posted by guest | February 8, 2009 at 12:34 PM

    i am shocked there are so many comments on this thread. am i the only one willing to say “too Goldman, didn’t Sach?”
    Cheers B1tches!
    Tnned Banker

Leave a comment

You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.