A trader speaks... very fankly indeed!
Discussion
Dave_ST220 said:
Digga said:
Dave_ST220 said:
Chris Type R said:
Its most recent accounts show cash in the bank of £985. After four years trading net assets are £10,048 - in the red."
Not too dissimilar to some posters on these very forums who talk utter bulls
t judging by the state of the accounts filed for the companies they link to in their profiles.
Rolling Stone said:
The government might let other players on the market die, but it simply will not allow Goldman to fail under any circumstances. Its edge in the market has suddenly become an open declaration of supreme privilege. "In the past it was an implicit advantage," says Simon Johnson, an economics professor at MIT and former official at the International Monetary Fund, who compares the bailout to the crony capitalism he has seen in Third World countries. "Now it's more of an explicit advantage."
Once the bailouts were in place, Goldman went right back to business as usual, dreaming up impossibly convoluted schemes to pick the American carcass clean of its loose capital. One of its first moves in the post-bailout era was to quietly push forward the calendar it uses to report its earnings, essentially wiping December 2008 — with its $1.3 billion in pretax losses — off the books. At the same time, the bank announced a highly suspicious $1.8 billion profit for the first quarter of 2009 — which apparently included a large chunk of money funneled to it by taxpayers via the AIG bailout. "They cooked those first quarter results six ways from Sunday," says one hedge fund manager. "They hid the losses in the orphan month and called the bailout money profit."
Also, back onto GS, the end of that first paragraph about Thrid World crony capitalism... Once the bailouts were in place, Goldman went right back to business as usual, dreaming up impossibly convoluted schemes to pick the American carcass clean of its loose capital. One of its first moves in the post-bailout era was to quietly push forward the calendar it uses to report its earnings, essentially wiping December 2008 — with its $1.3 billion in pretax losses — off the books. At the same time, the bank announced a highly suspicious $1.8 billion profit for the first quarter of 2009 — which apparently included a large chunk of money funneled to it by taxpayers via the AIG bailout. "They cooked those first quarter results six ways from Sunday," says one hedge fund manager. "They hid the losses in the orphan month and called the bailout money profit."
Tonsko said:
Goldman Sachs can't and doesn't lose. Everyone should really read that Rolling Stone article. I knew it was bent, but this is fully 360 degree spirals.
Oh Really?http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/220838/20110927/go...
munky said:
Tonsko said:
Goldman Sachs can't and doesn't lose. Everyone should really read that Rolling Stone article. I knew it was bent, but this is fully 360 degree spirals.
Oh Really?http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/220838/20110927/go...
Digga said:
munky said:
Tonsko said:
Goldman Sachs can't and doesn't lose. Everyone should really read that Rolling Stone article. I knew it was bent, but this is fully 360 degree spirals.
Oh Really?http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/220838/20110927/go...
Anyway, the non-financial media (therefore the public) seem upset when banks make losses, and upset when banks make profits, even when those profits are recovering previous losses. So as it's a no-win situation re: public sentiment, the banks shouldn't give a stuff either way and just get on with the business of trying to run a business because whatever they do, someone will moan about it (not aimed at you!)
HarryW said:
The man is a gimp and of no consequence.
thisI just looked him up on Bloomberg Professional. If he was in any way a professional trader, or a serious independent trader, he would very likely be a Bloomberg Professional customer. He is not; he does not have a Bloomberg licence.
He is however listed in Bloomberg's "people search" - as a "professional speaker". Says it all. He talks s
te for a living and the BBC lap it up.munky said:
Anyway, the non-financial media (therefore the public) seem upset when banks make losses, and upset when banks make profits, even when those profits are recovering previous losses.
This is basically uninformed individuals often at the lower end feeding off their own capacity for envy while being wound up by socialists skilled at scapegoating via spin and bankrupting nations but little else. The media then feeds the hand that buys it.
munky said:
Digga said:
munky said:
Tonsko said:
Goldman Sachs can't and doesn't lose. Everyone should really read that Rolling Stone article. I knew it was bent, but this is fully 360 degree spirals.
Oh Really?http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/220838/20110927/go...
Anyway, the non-financial media (therefore the public) seem upset when banks make losses, and upset when banks make profits, even when those profits are recovering previous losses. So as it's a no-win situation re: public sentiment, the banks shouldn't give a stuff either way and just get on with the business of trying to run a business because whatever they do, someone will moan about it (not aimed at you!)
As for accounts, well you look at their US tax bills and tell me there's never been a "creative moment" in their previous accounts.
Digga said:
I just think it seems conveniently 'good' PR perhaps.
As for accounts, well you look at their US tax bills and tell me there's never been a "creative moment" in their previous accounts.
Well, I know for a fact that they fired a part of their IT engineering team because they've come sniffing for jobs at my place.As for accounts, well you look at their US tax bills and tell me there's never been a "creative moment" in their previous accounts.
I've also got a friend who works there whose team has gone from about 30 people to 1. I.e. just him.
So they have been feeling the pain.
And as for "creative accounting" they'll have been doing whatever is legally allowed in order to minimise their tax liabilities and support their business. As any other company does, and as they have an obligation to their shareholders to do.
BMWBen said:
Digga said:
I just think it seems conveniently 'good' PR perhaps.
As for accounts, well you look at their US tax bills and tell me there's never been a "creative moment" in their previous accounts.
Well, I know for a fact that they fired a part of their IT engineering team because they've come sniffing for jobs at my place.As for accounts, well you look at their US tax bills and tell me there's never been a "creative moment" in their previous accounts.
I've also got a friend who works there whose team has gone from about 30 people to 1. I.e. just him.
So they have been feeling the pain.
BMWBen said:
[And as for "creative accounting" they'll have been doing whatever is legally allowed in order to minimise their tax liabilities and support their business. As any other company does, and as they have an obligation to their shareholders to do.
Fully aware of fiduciary duties and the differences betweeen avoidance and evasion etc. and was merely opinting out that accounts can and will be manipulated.
While it's said that it's tin foil hat - which implies conspiracy. A plan carried out in secret. What else were some of their actions in particular to trading oil futures when quietly requesting permission to begin. I don't like the word or the meme, but what are you supposed to think when people leave GS and go into the higher echelons of gov't and then change the rules that make the company that they have just left far more cash than they otherwise would able to have done?
I have no objection to companies making money, but why do it in such an obviously destructive way that pushes up prices across teh globe for everyone else?
I have no objection to companies making money, but why do it in such an obviously destructive way that pushes up prices across teh globe for everyone else?
Tonsko said:
While it's said that it's tin foil hat - which implies conspiracy. A plan carried out in secret. What else were some of their actions in particular to trading oil futures when quietly requesting permission to begin. I don't like the word or the meme, but what are you supposed to think when people leave GS and go into the higher echelons of gov't and then change the rules that make the company that they have just left far more cash than they otherwise would able to have done?
I have no objection to companies making money, but why do it in such an obviously destructive way that pushes up prices across teh globe for everyone else?
which rules?I have no objection to companies making money, but why do it in such an obviously destructive way that pushes up prices across teh globe for everyone else?
alfaman said:
article on the Telegraph online. The guy fooled BBC into thinking he was genuine- he's a Joe Nobody without a serious job, who just likes to hear the sound of his own voice.
It's yet another example of the Beeb providing free advertising. This guy comes in, speaks a lot of guff, and gets a link to his website up on BBC News - one of the world's most popular sites. How much is that worth? Quite a lot I'd have thought. Same thing with all these banale "surveys" the BBC loves to publish, like the one today from "cool brands". BBC said:
Stephen Cheliotis, chairman of the CoolBrands Expert Council, said: "Cool is subjective and personal. But being identified as a Cool Brand by the British public and a panel of influential opinion formers implies it is a brand that most Brits wish to own.
. In their top 10 are google and youtube, so how do you go about "owning" these brands? Again, a lot of old guff and yet they get a link to their site on the BBC, for free.BBC: suckers.
Digga said:
I'm alwys dubious of filed accounts - 'good' or 'bad' - because even if they are audited, they can be manipulated for various means; upside to fluff things nicely for a sale, downside to mitigate tax liabilities etc. etc..
ETA that filed accounts can be very 'creative', such as those of a company we once had dealings with, which showed and initial capitalisation of £1m. A few years of losses had seriously eroded this, but there was still a few hundred grand in there. But a little note, tucked away in the back of the accounts showed the owner had taken a £250k loan...
I had a client with a £2.5m balance sheet (net worth, all tangible assets). When the company went bust, the liquidators got £10k for anything they could. The rest was the refurbishment of his premises that he'd capitalised... Quite hard to get much for second-hand plaster and paint ETA that filed accounts can be very 'creative', such as those of a company we once had dealings with, which showed and initial capitalisation of £1m. A few years of losses had seriously eroded this, but there was still a few hundred grand in there. But a little note, tucked away in the back of the accounts showed the owner had taken a £250k loan...
Edited by Digga on Wednesday 28th September 08:56
The only upside was that my credit insurers, who had provided a limit based upon the large net asset value, covered the loss. He got an awfully large amount of credit based upon that balance sheet, and lost the lot.I got the low down on this guy today after a meeting in the city, someone actually new him personally. Alessio Rastani is of Italian decent but was born and bought up in North London. He's girlfriend is American but he is not.
He is an 'intro' speaker at this borderline fraudulent personal development 'investment education' company.
http://www.wininvesting.com/
He hasn't yet graduated onto actually teaching trading, he just does the free events and gets commission if he signs anyone up to the course, apparently his results aren't great. And he has been there for YEARS.
Hence why after four years trading net assets are £10,048 -- in the red,
The guys is a hobby trader that doesn't even trade.
He decided to take on an American persona a few years back because he thought it gave him more credibility. So pretty much everything about this guy is fake and delusional.
You could not really get a better definition of looser.
The most disgusting thing is that the Beeb interviewed him without first checking out who he was.
And their economics guru and scare mongerer in cheif Peston fell for it hook line and sinker. He is one of the contributing factors of economic collapses for putting the fear of god into everyone with his doom and gloomery. And the fact he jumped on board then back peddled on twitter doesn't do any more for my already low opinion of him.
He is an 'intro' speaker at this borderline fraudulent personal development 'investment education' company.
http://www.wininvesting.com/
He hasn't yet graduated onto actually teaching trading, he just does the free events and gets commission if he signs anyone up to the course, apparently his results aren't great. And he has been there for YEARS.
Hence why after four years trading net assets are £10,048 -- in the red,
The guys is a hobby trader that doesn't even trade.
He decided to take on an American persona a few years back because he thought it gave him more credibility. So pretty much everything about this guy is fake and delusional.
You could not really get a better definition of looser.
The most disgusting thing is that the Beeb interviewed him without first checking out who he was.
And their economics guru and scare mongerer in cheif Peston fell for it hook line and sinker. He is one of the contributing factors of economic collapses for putting the fear of god into everyone with his doom and gloomery. And the fact he jumped on board then back peddled on twitter doesn't do any more for my already low opinion of him.
Edited by handbraketurn on Thursday 29th September 00:26
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff