Only the $100mn for Lloyd Blankfein then....

[rocksteadyeddie]

I mean, how will the poor love survive?

Given that at least part of all investment banking profits this year are as a consequence of the public money sloshing round the system, and the uber-lax monetary policy can this in any way be justified?

Even if it can is it really sensible to go thumbing your nose at the collective politicians of the developed world when they are right up for new legislation?

For a smart chap - albeit his recent interview in the Sunday Times would suggest otherwise - this seems more than a little ill conceived.

[Martial Arts Man]

Good for him, I say.

[rocksteadyeddie]

I really don't have a problem in what any company chooses to pay its people. My issue is more with the woeful approach to the PR side of things, and the "red rag to a bull" feel that this has to it.

[Martial Arts Man]

rocksteadyeddie said:

I really don't have a problem in what any company chooses to pay its people. My issue is more with the woeful approach to the PR side of things, and the "red rag to a bull" feel that this has to it.

I cannot think of a way, in the current climate, to spin this in any way that would be acceptable to the masses.

[rocksteadyeddie]

Martial Arts Man said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

I really don't have a problem in what any company chooses to pay its people. My issue is more with the woeful approach to the PR side of things, and the "red rag to a bull" feel that this has to it.

I cannot think of a way, in the current climate, to spin this in any way that would be acceptable to the masses.

But spinning it needs or the Govt will come down like a ton of bricks.

[Soovy]

rocksteadyeddie said:

I mean, how will the poor love survive?

Given that at least part of all investment banking profits this year are as a consequence of the public money sloshing round the system, and the uber-lax monetary policy can this in any way be justified?

Even if it can is it really sensible to go thumbing your nose at the collective politicians of the developed world when they are right up for new legislation?

For a smart chap - albeit his recent interview in the Sunday Times would suggest otherwise - this seems more than a little ill conceived.

What utter populist and ill informed cobblers.


This bank has paid back EVERY PENNY with INTEREST. It owes the government ZERO and is making huge profits.

Good for all of them.


Still, let's not let some facts get in the way of a jealous rant, eh?

[rocksteadyeddie]

Soovy said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

I mean, how will the poor love survive?

Given that at least part of all investment banking profits this year are as a consequence of the public money sloshing round the system, and the uber-lax monetary policy can this in any way be justified?

Even if it can is it really sensible to go thumbing your nose at the collective politicians of the developed world when they are right up for new legislation?

For a smart chap - albeit his recent interview in the Sunday Times would suggest otherwise - this seems more than a little ill conceived.

What utter populist and ill informed cobblers.


This bank has paid back EVERY PENNY with INTEREST. It owes the government ZERO and is making huge profits.

Good for all of them.


Still, let's not let some facts get in the way of a jealous rant, eh?

Which part of the near zero cost of funding did Goldmans not benefit from?

[Martial Arts Man]

rocksteadyeddie said:

Martial Arts Man said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

I really don't have a problem in what any company chooses to pay its people. My issue is more with the woeful approach to the PR side of things, and the "red rag to a bull" feel that this has to it.

I cannot think of a way, in the current climate, to spin this in any way that would be acceptable to the masses.

But spinning it needs or the Govt will come down like a ton of bricks.

can you think of an angle?

[rocksteadyeddie]

Martial Arts Man said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

Martial Arts Man said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

I really don't have a problem in what any company chooses to pay its people. My issue is more with the woeful approach to the PR side of things, and the "red rag to a bull" feel that this has to it.

I cannot think of a way, in the current climate, to spin this in any way that would be acceptable to the masses.

But spinning it needs or the Govt will come down like a ton of bricks.

can you think of an angle?

Nope. That's probably why I am not earning $100m million though.

I don't really have a better answer. Just fearful of the backlash and potential consequences for the wider market.

[rocksteadyeddie]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Goldmans have done what Goldmans do best - be the best investment bank on the Street, and make truck loads of money. The fact remains that at least part of this record year was the consequence of the very cheap funding available.

Nevertheless, this is not really about GS, but the specific issue of whether it is smart to pay your CEO 50% more than he got at the 2007 peak with all the furore that will inevitably come down on Goldmans and the wider industry as a consequence?

[Soovy]

rocksteadyeddie said:

Nevertheless, this is not really about GS, but the specific issue of whether it is smart to pay your CEO 50% more than he got at the 2007 peak with all the furore that will inevitably come down on Goldmans and the wider industry as a consequence?

Do you really think they care? At all?

No.

[rocksteadyeddie]

Soovy said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

Nevertheless, this is not really about GS, but the specific issue of whether it is smart to pay your CEO 50% more than he got at the 2007 peak with all the furore that will inevitably come down on Goldmans and the wider industry as a consequence?

Do you really think they care? At all?

No.

They should if they care about future years.

[Soovy]

rocksteadyeddie said:

Soovy said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

Nevertheless, this is not really about GS, but the specific issue of whether it is smart to pay your CEO 50% more than he got at the 2007 peak with all the furore that will inevitably come down on Goldmans and the wider industry as a consequence?

Do you really think they care? At all?

No.

They should if they care about future years.

I keep hearing this. What do you mean by this statement?

"Oh they'll be sorry, first against the wall come the revolution..." Yadda yadda.

Where do you think politicians go to earn money when they get booted out of office? That's right, directorships of banks and hedge funds.

See Blair? Working for a hedge fund now.



None of these highly paid people give a flying fook about what you (or indeed I) think. They don't. They don't have to.


If you can't beat them, join them, or stop moaning!

[rocksteadyeddie]

Soovy said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

Soovy said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

Nevertheless, this is not really about GS, but the specific issue of whether it is smart to pay your CEO 50% more than he got at the 2007 peak with all the furore that will inevitably come down on Goldmans and the wider industry as a consequence?

Do you really think they care? At all?

No.

They should if they care about future years.

I keep hearing this. What do you mean by this statement?

"Oh they'll be sorry, first against the wall come the revolution..." Yadda yadda.

Where do you think politicians go to earn money when they get booted out of office? That's right, directorships of banks and hedge funds.

See Blair? Working for a hedge fund now.



None of these highly paid people give a flying fook about what you (or indeed I) think. They don't. They don't have to.


If you can't beat them, join them, or stop moaning!

I mean deferred bonuses. I mean deferred bonuses paid in stock. I mean 50% tax rate. I mean 50% payroll tax. I don't want this to be the think end of the wedge. I suspect it will be.

Oh, and I "joined them" 17 years ago. Unlike some jonny-come-latelies

I moan from a particularly selfish pre-disposition.

[AndrewW-G]

rocksteadyeddie said:

Soovy said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

I mean, how will the poor love survive?

Given that at least part of all investment banking profits this year are as a consequence of the public money sloshing round the system, and the uber-lax monetary policy can this in any way be justified?

Even if it can is it really sensible to go thumbing your nose at the collective politicians of the developed world when they are right up for new legislation?

For a smart chap - albeit his recent interview in the Sunday Times would suggest otherwise - this seems more than a little ill conceived.

What utter populist and ill informed cobblers.


This bank has paid back EVERY PENNY with INTEREST. It owes the government ZERO and is making huge profits.

Good for all of them.


Still, let's not let some facts get in the way of a jealous rant, eh?

Which part of the near zero cost of funding did Goldmans not benefit from?

Is 23% interest, near zero cost?

[Bing o]

Soovy said:

See Blair? Working for a hedge fund now.

And a US bank, and an insurance company....

[rocksteadyeddie]

AndrewW-G said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

Soovy said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

I mean, how will the poor love survive?

Given that at least part of all investment banking profits this year are as a consequence of the public money sloshing round the system, and the uber-lax monetary policy can this in any way be justified?

Even if it can is it really sensible to go thumbing your nose at the collective politicians of the developed world when they are right up for new legislation?

For a smart chap - albeit his recent interview in the Sunday Times would suggest otherwise - this seems more than a little ill conceived.

What utter populist and ill informed cobblers.


This bank has paid back EVERY PENNY with INTEREST. It owes the government ZERO and is making huge profits.

Good for all of them.


Still, let's not let some facts get in the way of a jealous rant, eh?

Which part of the near zero cost of funding did Goldmans not benefit from?

Is 23% interest, near zero cost?

Since when have Goldmans EVER funded at 23% or anything like? 23bps over maybe....

[anonymous-user]

rocksteadyeddie said:

Since when have Goldmans EVER funded at 23% or anything like? 23bps over maybe....

are you serious? do you have any clue what you're talking about?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/breakingviewsco...

[Soovy]

rocksteadyeddie said:

AndrewW-G said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

Soovy said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

I mean, how will the poor love survive?

Given that at least part of all investment banking profits this year are as a consequence of the public money sloshing round the system, and the uber-lax monetary policy can this in any way be justified?

Even if it can is it really sensible to go thumbing your nose at the collective politicians of the developed world when they are right up for new legislation?

For a smart chap - albeit his recent interview in the Sunday Times would suggest otherwise - this seems more than a little ill conceived.

What utter populist and ill informed cobblers.


This bank has paid back EVERY PENNY with INTEREST. It owes the government ZERO and is making huge profits.

Good for all of them.


Still, let's not let some facts get in the way of a jealous rant, eh?

Which part of the near zero cost of funding did Goldmans not benefit from?

Is 23% interest, near zero cost?

Since when have Goldmans EVER funded at 23% or anything like? 23bps over maybe....

Telegraph said:

Goldman even noted that when the interest it paid before repaying the Treasury’s $10bn of actual Tarp investment is combined with the warrant payment, taxpayers earned an annualized 23 pc return – conveniently the same as the firm’s return on equity in its blowout second quarter.

You clearly understand NOTHING about this industry. The taxpayer earned 23% annualised on the money lent to Goldmans.

Give it up dude, you're showing yourself up.

Edited by Soovy on Monday 1st February 16:15

[rocksteadyeddie]

Soovy said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

AndrewW-G said:

Is 23% interest, near zero cost?

Since when have Goldmans EVER funded at 23% or anything like? 23bps over maybe....

Telegraph said:

Goldman even noted that when the interest it paid before repaying the Treasury’s $10bn of actual Tarp investment is combined with the warrant payment, taxpayers earned an annualized 23 pc return – conveniently the same as the firm’s return on equity in its blowout second quarter.

You clearly understand NOTHING about this industry. The taxpayer earned 23% annualised on the money lent to Goldmans.

Give it up dude, you're showing yourself up.

Edited by Soovy on Monday 1st February 16:15

You chaps clearly have no idea of the difference between a small amount of enforced cash taken from the government - which was always going to be very expensive - and the level that Goldmans are able to fund their wider operations at. Goldmans fund at close to LIBOR flat - not being a funding monkey I couldn't tell you how close. LIBOR has been very close to zero for all of their 2009 FY due to the massive monetary stimulus pushed through the system by the Fed. All banks benefited enormously from this windfall cheap funding. To suggest that any bank on the Street funds voluntarily at 23% is palpable nonsense. As the article states this is equivalent to their ROE so why would they?

A proper paper said:

All banks benefit from the Federal Reserve's zero-interest-rate policy, but Goldman Sachs Group appears to be benefiting more than most.

The Wall Street firm's filing on Wednesday contained an eye-popping number: The interest rate on its long-term borrowings was a minuscule 0.92% in the third quarter, down from 3.53% in the third quarter of 2008. This $203 billion of debt is Goldman's largest single funding source, so as its cost plunges, its bottom line benefits, as long as assets it buys yield more and trades pay off.

Linky

In this context the enforced $10 bn from the Government is neither here nor there in impacting their funding costs.

HTH