CNBC v. Goldman Sachs: The Battle Of The Petty
That's not a dis, btw, everyone here should be fully aware of the fact that battles of the petty variety are our favorite kind. Quick recap, then down to the dirty. Last week, in a CNBC BREAKING NEWS segment, Charlie Gasparino report that Goldman Sachs had held a double secret you must have the password to enter meeting, mere hours after Tim Geithner's Congressional debut. According to Chaz, those gathered at the coffee klatch, which included the likes of Ken Griffin, were of the mind that the boy toy Treasury Secretary has no idea what he's doing.
Almost immediately following the hit, Goldman Sachs denied that the meeting was secret, saying it had been planned weeks in advance, and that T. Geith was not the issue. Later that afternoon, Chaspo, in a way only he can, claimed GS was talking BS, because if the meeting hadn't been secret, "where was my invitation?" And speaking of shit from a bull? The next morning CG suggested Goldman change its ticker to that, which he believes to be a more fitting acronym for the bank's business model. For those of you who thought that was the end of it-- how wrong you are.
This morning, Gaspo appeared in a bit called "Goldman's Losing Luster," and though the Times said pretty much the same thing this morning, the rag's piece lacked that angle of vendetta. While he Gasparino charitably noted that GS "is not going under," he went on to wax poetic:
"I'm very disappointed in that firm and their little reaction to my secret private meeting story last week. You know, first they denied there was any sort of meeting anywhere...even though it was at the top levels of the firm...and then they came out with this ridiculous statement afterward about how we got everything wrong, which we really didnt. You know, here's the thing, I think there's a bigger story in their bizarre reaction to that, and I got this from speaking to people on the Street, speaking to people at Goldman Sachs. And it's essentially that they are terrified about losing their stroke in Washington...and their influence broadly on Wall Street...and I think right now they are worried about losing that sort of stroke in the Obama administration. And one of the reactions... you get a reaction like the one to that story because they're worried about losing that stroke...[stuff about how Geithner isn't reaching out to the banks]...now, they do still have stroke there, someone told me, I have to confirm this, but one of Geithner's top liutenents is a Goldman guy. And when you talk to people they say, 'well they're always going to have stroke because they have a thousand of their little minions running around as lobbyists down there.' But clearly, inside Goldman, they're scared about not having the same access they used to have."
And then Joe Kernan asked Chaz if he was "mad at Lucas Von Trapp or something," in a zinger of a dig to Lucas van Praag, spokesman for Goldman Sachs! And though Gasparino claimed he "likes Lucas" he couldn't in good conscience not characterize GS's denial as "a bonehead move," to which Kernan added, "and now they're gonna pay!"
All this begging the question-- who's going to make a hit on whom first?
