Jump to content

Goldman Sachs


Decyferon

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No that is how you are misinterpreting what I am trying to say. I'd like to introduce you to my friend...reading comprehension.

 

..........

 

I've told myself before that I wouldn't discuss matters with you because not only are you obviously not too bright but you hardly pay attention to what other people write and you're just a fucking idiot, basically.

 

Most people here can carry on a civil conversation with those coming from differing view points, you cannot, you have to have a smart mouth that I'm pretty fucking sure would stop if your young and stupid self were face to face with at least half the people you talk to here. Don't know why the fuck I even bothered replying to your childish shit in the first place.

 

Learn how to discuss rather than argue, stupid child.

 

 

Sorry people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL!

 

Dude every single one of your posts is beyond condescending. I could give a fuck. You are the absolute truth on every matter. Am I right?

 

And I'm 99% sure most of the people posting against my views on this forum are a lot more immature than me.

 

It's the internet though. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings with that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goldman Sachs are cunts.

 

A relative of someone I work with was telling her family that the very next day after the first ever big bail out, three guys came into the swanky Manhattan restaurant where she worked. Not only was it super fuckin' expensive but they ordered some of their best bottles at $1,300 a pop. She checked with them to make sure they knew the price tag on the drinks. They ordered more... the result was a $3K lunch which they put on their Goldman-fuckin-Sachs corporate credit card.

 

Fuckin top notch cunts right there...

 

 

If you are pulling in millions of dollars a year for your company that isn't too uncommon for them to give you a huge expense account and encourage you to take big clients out to expensive lunches dinners and whatever. There are hundreds of restaurants in NYC that specialize in just that. It seems hard to understand but I'm actually surprised the woman working at the restaurant found this unusual. I'd be happy they came through and dumped some loot into my workplace instead of going out talking shit on the table that I mad a huge tip off of, but that's just me. Anyway I could think of all kinds of shit that might seem weird but it's not like they didn't pay the money back to the government and it's not like they are government workers or some shit.

 

An example of what it's like to deal with billionare money. I've heard of the interest payoffs some of the private traders come up on. Like your client wants to buy 300 million worth of something, the money will sometimes be routed through your own account during the transfer, (this transfer takes only seconds to do) you get 300 million sitting in your account for like 7 seconds. You can come home with 20 - 30 grand in interest for a couple trades like that. They had a word for that type of come up but I forgot what they called it. Not to mention the commissions and other normal shit these guys can make in a day.

 

Just trying to throw out an example of why $3000 on lunch ain't really shit. It's very commonplace here, even during a recession. I've heard of way bigger tabs at restaurants. Percentage wise based on some of the incomes these guys have it's really not much different than a small business owner footing the bill for a $300 lunch for his employee's. Most of the disgust people have is purely based on classism. Even though they might drop some loot like that it's still a private company out to make a profit. If it's unwarranted the company probably wouldn't be giving them a corporate card in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/21/executive-pay-bonuses-goldmansachs

 

Oh check that out.

 

We have to learn to tolerate the ridiculous bonuses that these amazing people continue to give out to themselves.

 

It would help if you actually read the article but I'll break it down for you.

If a company wants the best and brightest it needs to pay a competitive salary.

The money in an employee bonus can either a. go to the stockholders, or b. go to employee's.

Seeing how a stockholder is probably much wealthier than an employee that money is getting spread around.

Not to mention being spent in whatever local economy thus improving things for the general population.

 

Now, if a company is singled out and told "you no longer can give bonuses" they would have to do something or fail.

 

a. They could not get good employee's because it sucks to work for less pay and only the scrubs would stick around. The company may fail loosing all it's top earners to other businesses.

 

b. They could restructure that bonus money into the salaries, only problem with that is if they have a bad year they loose even more money that way.

In a bonus system the bonuses grow and shrink on that company's overall earnings.

 

c. they could say, well fuck this, lets move the headquarters to a country outside of the U.S. where we have the freedom to make our own salary decisions.

 

In any case the rest of us would be screwed on way or another, either by having a business fail or move out.

Like I said, none of us our actually entitled that money in the first place unless we are stockholders. It's a private business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem isn't with GS wanting to attract the best people to work for them.

 

My problem is that these people were given 10 million dollars of TAX PAYER MONEY!

 

I am under the impression that this money hasn't been given back yet.

 

If I am wrong I am sorry. I jumped to conclusions. However if I am right, and they haven't. They should be working to pay back the people who helped keep them in business before throwing large sums of money at themselves.

 

I did read the article, and I understood it. Thanks for your breakdown. It really helped me a lot! I also understood a through c. Which brings me to...

 

C is very interesting. Because Goldman Sachs apparently is going to be given $321m dollars from NYS because we (Micheal Bloomberg) apparently promised them a new facility at ground zero by the end of this year. Which of course due to the idiots that are controlling that is no where near to be completed. So...$321m dollars of our state's money is now heading towards them.

 

Boy am I happy that GS is still in down town!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true. If there wasn't some facilitation via deregulation or lenders relaxing their standards on what was an acceptable risk, none of these subprime mortgages would have gone through.

 

What happened was that the lenders and the people backing the lenders saw that there was a lot of potential profit in playing the market off of these loans and commodities futures. However, as any gambler will tell you there's no such thing as a sure thing, and once things started going south it snowballed into the crash that they knew was inevitable...but by that time they had cashed out so they stood to lose nothing on the deal.

 

Goldman Sachs was one of the biggest high rollers at the table, and they were in position to clean up on both sides of the deal if they played the game a certain way...and play it they did. Do I hold them directly accountable? It really depends...it's one of those things where they should have anticipated the worst case scenario but for whatever reason (greed? hubris?) they chose to look the other way.

 

But as some people will point out, they're in business to make money, and you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

 

you and smart are making good points.

the thing you are missing is that in the days when people put down 20% and bought a house with a monthly payment that was 25% of their income... the government did not like this. they thought it was racist and instituted policies to allow for the down trodden minorities to be able to buy houses via 'sub prime loans.' the federal government wanted sub prime loans.

 

you both act like some one turned off a switch, which 'deregulated' the lenders and they all of a sudden started making silly loans. in a free market this would never of happened. why would you make a loan that you would not get paid back on? you would lose money. they made these loans because they were guaranteed by the government not to lose money. regulation had nothing to do with it... government policy, coupled with easy credit from the artificial manipulation of the money supply and interest rates by the FED created false signals to the banks that credit was cheaper than it should of been. couple this with a government that says they will bail you out if you dont get your loans repaid. federal deposit insurance for instance, in its self creates a false sense of security allowing banks to lend more recklessly than they normally would. there was total 100% guarantee that if banks got burned on loans, they would be bailed out by the tax payers. private profit, socialized risk. this phenomenon is what is called moral hazard.

 

add to this people lining up to buy houses with 110% financing with home values sky rocketing due to the easy credit. banks would gladly loan the money when houses were doubling every year. it was a win win. you can thank the fed and the regulatory apparatus for this illusion. then of course you housing boom with situations like...you lose your job and cant pay your mortgage... no big deal. just buy a vacation house. problem solved. no need to save either. your house is an atm. when the charade came to an end, the problem is blamed on 'deregulation.' its hilarious. what 'deregulation?' the federal government WANTED subprime loans. they wanted everyone to own homes. this is the aim of fannie mae since its inception. the 'right' of every american to own a home.

 

after the horses ran away, now they want to shut the barn door. now we need 'regulation.' what regulation was repealed back when banks wanted 20% down and enough income to cover your mortgage payments? the only thing that changed was the cheapness of credit and government policy aimed at creating the housing bubble.

 

and now everyone wants to trust the people who said this system was in capable of collapsing and that houses never lose value, to fix the problem.

what a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem isn't with GS wanting to attract the best people to work for them.

 

My problem is that these people were given 10 million dollars of TAX PAYER MONEY!

 

I am under the impression that this money hasn't been given back yet.

 

If I am wrong I am sorry. I jumped to conclusions. However if I am right, and they haven't. They should be working to pay back the people who helped keep them in business before throwing large sums of money at themselves.

 

I did read the article, and I understood it. Thanks for your breakdown. It really helped me a lot! I also understood a through c. Which brings me to...

 

C is very interesting. Because Goldman Sachs apparently is going to be given $321m dollars from NYS because we (Micheal Bloomberg) apparently promised them a new facility at ground zero by the end of this year. Which of course due to the idiots that are controlling that is no where near to be completed. So...$321m dollars of our state's money is now heading towards them.

 

Boy am I happy that GS is still in down town!

 

 

I hear you there, it's such a fucking waste to promise "hey stay in town, if we can't accomplish the impossible will just give you 321 million."

That said, they had to basically do whatever they could to entice them into sticking around.

$321 million isn't shit compared to what the city would loose in tax revenue if they were to set up shop someplace else.

Not to mention having all the salary money being spent here locally by the employee's and then taxed again.

 

They're going so fucking slow in ground zero it's a joke, they breached the top of the pit last year and only added about 50 feet of bare steel since then.

It's a shame with all the vacant office space in Manhattan that all this effort is being put into rebuilding something at the WTC.

If they were smart they'd just cover that shit over with a park or something until it made sense to rebuild there.

Let Sacks move uptown or into all the empty spots down there like in the world financial center which was almost completely vacant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you and smart are making good points.

thanks

 

 

the thing you are missing is that in the days when people put down 20% and bought a house with a monthly payment that was 25% of their income... the government did not like this. they thought it was racist and instituted policies to allow for the down trodden minorities to be able to buy houses via 'sub prime loans.' the federal government wanted sub prime loans.

 

you both act like some one turned off a switch, which 'deregulated' the lenders and they all of a sudden started making silly loans. in a free market this would never of happened. why would you make a loan that you would not get paid back on? you would lose money. they made these loans because they were guaranteed by the government not to lose money. regulation had nothing to do with it...

 

You betray yourself too soon. You say some other stuff further on that, while arguable is still admirable but... for this^^^... no.

 

Regulation had everything to do with it. As always I support the 20% down strategy to avoid mortgage insurance but I've also espoused constantly the 15% of monthly income standard becaus 25% is borderline for lending but if you keep you ducks in a row and your spending humble you can make a 30% payment and shave decades off the ass end utilizing the amortization scales. HUGE down payment, LOW monthly payment at the shortest term you can get. You're better off taking a 30 year loan that you can pay off twice as fast than a 15yr loan that you have to pay close to double fees on per month.

 

It's not a switch thing, more like a leash thing. The lenders pulled, the holders demurred. The promise, which is the blackest sort of one world ugliness, is that gullible consumers, presented with the correct bait would indemnify themselves forever. Debt slaves, they are out there, they are being exploited and they are too dumb to save.I don't just mean too dumb to save their own money, I mean, too dumb to bail out and if a credit institution put their future in the hands of these idiots then they should also be beyond reprive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why did this sub prime crisis not happen back when credit was tight, you needed a real down payment and had to be able to make monthly payments? because the market determined the 'regulation.' during this period the government thought banks were being greedy, racist, and not helping minorities and were holding out lending money, even though they were making proper risk assessment because credit was more expensive than when greenspan lowered it to next to nothing.

i still stand on the point that no one turned off a switch deregulating the mortgage market which in turn let credit institutions 'exploit' the consumer.

 

so what are you suggesting? government mandates on how much lenders can lend, how much people can borrow, how much down payment, etc? why do you need this, when if you had a free market with free interest rates not manipulated by the FED, and no govt insurance/bailout/moral hazard scenario, NO bank will lend money they will not get back?

 

as i said before, the government had a dream. the dream is that everyone has a 'right' to own a home. look at how they insure risky loans with FHA, fannie, etc. that is because the market wouldnt make those loans.

 

i support your first paragraph. sure, you should put down as much as possible and have your monthly payment consume as little of your monthly income as possible. you dont think banks know this? this is the way it was for years, before the FED induced boom, with the government winking in your corner. hell, paying for the house in cash is best. should we also mandate this?

 

main point... the entire thing wouldnt of happened without artificially low interest rates and the federal regulatory apparatus that guaranteed banks would not lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that the fed lowered interest rates in a bid to help minorities buy houses.

I also feel like if you get into buying a anything, especially a house and don't research, it's on you.

The fed has little to do with government pipe dreams of spreading the American dream.

Their main concern is protecting the interests of "big banking" and large financial institutions.

 

 

I'm pretty sure the interest rate bullshit came from trying to fend off the effects of the dot com bubble burst, and post 911 economic fear.

Lining their assets up and bracing for the impact instead of just taking it on the chin and getting it over with.

While other investments were failing the housing boom drove the economy for that time.

Economic failure sucks, but sometimes it's better to tighten the belt than keep borrowing.

They chose when they would tighten the belt and knew it was coming the entire time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agreed. i didnt mean to imply that the FED lowered interest rates to help minorities buy houses. but i am saying the federal gov. housing sector created a state of affairs to do so, created moral hazard, insured and guaranteed these silly loans.

 

you are correct.... the recession is the cure. no one wants to accept that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Here's the argument, not sure if I agree but I kinda see their point. All the investment companies, even those that didn't recieve bailout funds, provide bonuses. It's a fundamental part of the pay structure. GS (et al) argue that if they are restricted from providing bonuses they will be hamstringed and will lose their 'talent'. On a 9-5 level they are saying that if Wal-Mart was suddenly forced to cut employee wages in half then everyone would quit and the company would fail. That much seems obvious and seems to bolster GS's case. The thing is, these bonuses could be regulated across the board or done away with and replaced by large salary increases but it's this very act of regulation that the Republicans object to claiming the Govt. would be socializing the markets or hindering free operation of private business that keeps the reforms from moving forward. Political catch-22.

 

I didn't actually see it on FoxNews but I read in the papers how, after 9 months of blaming Obama for the failing economy, the moment the Dow hit 10K again Fox asked "Is this the beginning of the Bush recovery?"... I'll just leave that out there for you to decide.

 

Heheheh, yeah I don't know about this so-called "Bush recovery" - oh, Fox News, how we love thee. ;)

 

Anyway, this is really a key point that a lot of the general public seems to not grasp. Most of us are used to maybe getting a bonus, and if we do it's maybe like 3-5% of our salary. But if you look at, say, a typical broker salary, it's way less than you might think - these guys make like $100-200k, right? It's half in the bonuses, that's the motivation to excel. I'm reading the later posts about potential ways to restructure this and have to agree, there's just no clear option...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heheheh, yeah I don't know about this so-called "Bush recovery" - oh, Fox News, how we love thee. ;)

 

Anyway, this is really a key point that a lot of the general public seems to not grasp. Most of us are used to maybe getting a bonus, and if we do it's maybe like 3-5% of our salary. But if you look at, say, a typical broker salary, it's way less than you might think - these guys make like $100-200k, right? It's half in the bonuses, that's the motivation to excel. I'm reading the later posts about potential ways to restructure this and have to agree, there's just no clear option...

 

If I'm not mistaken, the people in question would be investment bankers and not stock brokers.. Banks like GS, Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan etc. are more wholesale or commercially based while Schwab, ScottTrade, Wachovia are more retail and regional.. not that it really matters, i just felt like being a nerd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heheheh, yeah I don't know about this so-called "Bush recovery" - oh, Fox News, how we love thee. ;)

 

Anyway, this is really a key point that a lot of the general public seems to not grasp. Most of us are used to maybe getting a bonus, and if we do it's maybe like 3-5% of our salary. But if you look at, say, a typical broker salary, it's way less than you might think - these guys make like $100-200k, right? It's half in the bonuses, that's the motivation to excel. I'm reading the later posts about potential ways to restructure this and have to agree, there's just no clear option...

 

 

Financial advisers and investors have to build their business, it's not like they just inherit multi-million dollar accounts that they manage, except for rare occasions. The incentive to create business and increase revenue comes from the unlimited amount of money you can make. If you gain a lot of investors, and are successful then you will be compensated.

 

This type of compensation for the broker or individual financial adviser is different than that of the Managers or CEO. These guys are getting salaries and stock options and shit like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...