Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 4:06PM

This is your 5th GS article today. Stop talking about my minions.

-Lloyd B.

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 4:06PM

What's funny about Taibbi is how condescendingly authoritative his pronouncements are about things that anyone with even the slightest experience can tell he knows almost nothing whatsoever about.

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 4:07PM

@3 agreed

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 4:10PM

@1 why would that be offensive to bess? does she write tinfoil hat manifestos?

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 4:14PM

"acutally"? WTF, Greg?

Even a cursory reading before posting would be helpful.

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 4:25PM

kids, stay in school..

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 4:28PM

who the f is matt taibbi? sounds like a douche...

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 4:28PM

@10

Cluzo, good one. Now, how long before this video becomes the new darling of the yahoos in the intertubes?

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 4:37PM

@3, @5 and @10 - you couldn't explain the subprime crisis yourselves - he's dead right about why GS didn't meet the same fate as Lehman. After you're done staring uncomfortably at chicks and then doing nothing when you're out tonight, you can gather around Guitar Hero at 3am and come up with something to back up your stupidity.

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 4:39PM

it's the jews at goldnut sacks that put the illegal alien obama into office. i love this site, it was linked off clusterstock.

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 4:45PM

Say what you will about the man, but the vampire squid imagery alone was worth the admission price.

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 4:47PM

@13 - it's douche not dooche. We wouldn't let Greg get away with that - so we won't let you.

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 4:54PM

@cluzo - wow, that could be the dorkiest attempt at an insult I've ever seen. You must be a riot at parties. When you leave your daytrading terminal don't make eye contact on your way home - the less human contact for you the better.

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 5:00PM

Cluzo's a herb...streak's on the china

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 5:05PM

@18/cluz, In fairness, that was a douchey response.

-Not 14/19

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 5:13PM

@cluzo - does your mom make you pumice her feet when you're watching all this television? Do you like doing it?

@19

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 5:25PM

hey guys.

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 5:44PM

@ 15- WTF are you talking about.The Jews voted for McCain not Obama. Get your facts straight before posting, idiot.

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 5:57PM

Wow. the GS PR-department has taken over the Dealbreaker comment section.

...and no, you certainly don't come across as smarter than everyone else.

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 6:29PM

This guy is a total joker.

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 7:26PM

lmao at people getting super defensive about wall street anytime someone criticizes it. you guys are spending more time critiquing taibbi's misuse of terminology than many of the grander points he is making.

how about someone tells me how the situation he is describing is NOT securities fraud?

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 10:23PM

Fuck! I'm jonesin' for Bess badder than PTJ for the Colonel. If she hadn't said anything, I coulda least had the weekend.

Posted by guest , Jul 31, 2009 11:37PM

Time to call in Blackwater and pick off GS operatives one by one.

Posted by guest , Aug 01, 2009 2:18AM

Two things that really surprise me on the goldman bashing

1) They committed securities fraud by selling subprime mortgages while shorting them. If your a major financial institution it would be detrimental to the market if you stopped selling things to long investors just because your shorting them at the time. For example, it would be absurd to stop making markets in Citi or BofA because you hold very large short positions on the stock. It is not securities fraud to sell something you dont personally have huge holdings in or think is a good investment. Bottom line the firm provided a service at the request of its clients. If there were not buyers of the product then there would be no incentive to sell it. When someone starts making points that goldman materially misrepresented the product to clients then we can start talking about securities fraud.

2) AIG Bailout.... perhaps Goldman saved money by the bailout of AIG since it was paid 100 cents on the dollar for its positions with AIG. The fact is... Goldman had insurance type positions with AIG (to hedge risk in real estate) and then insurance on AIG (to hedge risk of bankruptcy). Before we discuss the idea that an AIG failure would have bankrupted Goldman.... it is more important to know exactly the exposed amount they would have had in an AIG failure. Without that knowledge the AIG bailout may or may not have helped Goldman. Bigger issue is why the government didn't move in sooner to protect firms from their insurance going out of business. Its also important to think about the issues you would run into if you lost all your insurance due to insurers going out of business just at the time you got sick, crashed your car, and a hurricane destroyed your house. You take out insurance to protect your risks and this is the same thing GS and others did and it becomes very problematic if you cannot claim on that insurance at the time you need it the most.

Posted by guest , Aug 01, 2009 2:19AM

Two things that really surprise me on the goldman bashing

1) They committed securities fraud by selling subprime mortgages while shorting them. If your a major financial institution it would be detrimental to the market if you stopped selling things to long investors just because your shorting them at the time. For example, it would be absurd to stop making markets in Citi or BofA because you hold very large short positions on the stock. It is not securities fraud to sell something you dont personally have huge holdings in or think is a good investment. Bottom line the firm provided a service at the request of its clients. If there were not buyers of the product then there would be no incentive to sell it. When someone starts making points that goldman materially misrepresented the product to clients then we can start talking about securities fraud.

2) AIG Bailout.... perhaps Goldman saved money by the bailout of AIG since it was paid 100 cents on the dollar for its positions with AIG. The fact is... Goldman had insurance type positions with AIG (to hedge risk in real estate) and then insurance on AIG (to hedge risk of bankruptcy). Before we discuss the idea that an AIG failure would have bankrupted Goldman.... it is more important to know exactly the exposed amount they would have had in an AIG failure. Without that knowledge the AIG bailout may or may not have helped Goldman. Bigger issue is why the government didn't move in sooner to protect firms from their insurance going out of business. Its also important to think about the issues you would run into if you lost all your insurance due to insurers going out of business just at the time you got sick, crashed your car, and a hurricane destroyed your house. You take out insurance to protect your risks and this is the same thing GS and others did and it becomes very problematic if you cannot claim on that insurance at the time you need it the most.

Posted by guest , Aug 01, 2009 11:19AM

Matt Taibbi is totally irrelevant.

BOOM! I said it, now scurry back to Kos to discuss it. And stay there.

Taibbi is not everyone's hero, he's a motherfuckin' tool. TOOL. TAIBBI IS A TOOL. He couldn't be more biased, he's an unreliable reporter, and you'd have to be an idiot to listen to him or read him. Are you an idiot? Are you? ARE YOU? I suspect that you are.

Posted by guest , Aug 01, 2009 11:53AM

@34/35, read 36. Live it, breath it, love it. Matt Taibbi is a tool. He's a junked up has been who has been elevated above his pay grade based on his drug loving days at an ungraded Russian fishwrap where they preferred to be outrageous before reporting on the actual economy.

Posted by guest , Aug 01, 2009 3:24PM

@14 - yes, in fact I could. And this guy IS and ass clown.

ABout the only single thing he said that makes any sense was that the AAA-rated securities weren't as safe as treasuries. Thank you captain obvious. Unfortunately, he said that it only became obvious "as early as 2005-2006". Uh, moron, if you're a debtor who can literally print your own money to pay off a debt, then there simply IS NO OTHER CREDITOR IN YOUR LEAGUE. Everyone with half a brain knows that / has always known that.

Why the agencies assign a rating equivalent to a T to anything other than a T is beyond me.

And his dumb-ass remark about "mostly unsuspecting buyers like pension funds?" There's the uninformed populism again. Why aren't people pissed off at the pension funds for doing no due diligence other than looking at a rating? Shouldn't their investment policies and processes be coming under fire, both in the press and regulatorily? Why is it only the evil investment banks at fault? What about the people actually managing the money? Bank - says "here, buy these, they're AAA". True statement. Pension fund says "I don't need to do anything further - here's my check!"

Who's at fault?

Posted by guest , Aug 01, 2009 8:12PM

so 34/35, I'm selling a piece of shit. It's a cubic zirconia but it's stamped 'DIAMOND' on it and my customers believe that's what they're getting.

I sell it to your mother, she's greatful (hey, she fucking asked me for a 'DIAMOND', i'm just making the market).

But I know it's a piece of shit, so I bet some other asshole that it's a piece of shit. He's a dumbass who believes that 'DIAMOND' stamp too (you know, because it was put on there by a well known and supposedly reliable appraiser who's paycheck I write.)

Lo and behold! Everyone finds out it's a piece of shit. Now, not only am I rich from bending your mother over, I get to collect money from some dumbass asshole. But, uh oh, he doesn't have the money to pay me.

But that's ok. See your mother crying in the corner from my reaming? Well, he's going to take it from her to pay me! Hooray!

thus, in summation, I fucked your mother... Twice and I'm rich. But it's her fault, she's fucking stupid.

Posted by guest , Aug 01, 2009 8:21PM

@36
I suspect, Taibibi has a bigger dick than you.

@37
did you read 34/35 post? he's defending GS. he's your partner in GS cocksucking. Don't hurt him.

Virgins, back your shit up. Seriously. Pull out some info, explain why your right. Right now, your just wasting space. At least 34/35 tried.

Posted by guest , Aug 01, 2009 9:42PM

@36

No, these are not Kos folks. These are Yahoo Finance Message Board folks coming in through Zero Hedge. Now that "Marla" is coming here to sub for Bess next week, they are following her. Prepare for a bad week of nonsense like this where Greg will be (involuntarily) the funniest writer on Dealbreaker. (I wonder whether EP is going to be Goldman bashing just for kicks. Whatdya say?)

Posted by guest , Aug 01, 2009 10:07PM

amazing. this dumb fuck does not know what he is talking about at all. his article has lost completely credibility with me after watching this video. i thought the stuff he wrote was extremely loaded and one sided to begin with, but having watched this i am completely writing off what he has to say. who is this kid? why the fuck does he have a license to write whatever he wants. he obviously is not informed.

Posted by guest , Aug 02, 2009 2:44AM

@39

I love analogies, but in this case there are some material issues with yours. Selling a product with INCORRECT and FRAUDULENT information would be a crime and a problem. This is not the same with the CDO/CLO market. Yes rating agencies screwed up on rating the products, but that was their fault, not the banks. Meanwhile its hard to state the rating agencies were fraudulent because the products themselves were harder to rate/understand... how do you know that the cash flows and risks of the product will be exactly what you predict it to be.

How bout this analogy.... the major diamond retailers decide that diamonds are a foolish investment for people to make. The assets are artificial inflated in price due to oligopolies and their future pricing will deteriorate greatly due to consumer demand falling. Is it more logical for the diamond retailer to

1) Stop selling diamonds completely and sell currently cheaper cubic zirconia
2) Continue to sell a product the consumers demand from them. (however assume all future pricing risk)
3) Continue to sell a product the consumers demand from them and hedge their products pricing risk through the markets.

Posted by guest , Aug 02, 2009 2:45AM

@39

I love analogies, but in this case there are some material issues with yours. Selling a product with INCORRECT and FRAUDULENT information would be a crime and a problem. This is not the same with the CDO/CLO market. Yes rating agencies screwed up on rating the products, but that was their fault, not the banks. Meanwhile its hard to state the rating agencies were fraudulent because the products themselves were harder to rate/understand... how do you know that the cash flows and risks of the product will be exactly what you predict it to be.

How bout this analogy.... the major diamond retailers decide that diamonds are a foolish investment for people to make. The assets are artificial inflated in price due to oligopolies and their future pricing will deteriorate greatly due to consumer demand falling. Is it more logical for the diamond retailer to

1) Stop selling diamonds completely and sell currently cheaper cubic zirconia
2) Continue to sell a product the consumers demand from them. (however assume all future pricing risk)
3) Continue to sell a product the consumers demand from them and hedge their products pricing risk through the markets.

Posted by guest , Aug 02, 2009 7:49AM

Double posting fuck