View Full Version : Goldman Sachs stock soars after record fine!?

07-16-2010, 04:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that Goldman, Sachs & Co. will pay $550 million and reform its business practices to settle SEC charges <span style='font-size: 17pt'>that Goldman misled <span style="color: #990000">ie conned</span> investors in a subprime mortgage product</span> just as the U.S. housing market was starting to collapse.

In agreeing to the SEC's largest-ever penalty paid by a Wall Street firm, Goldman also acknowledged that its marketing materials for the subprime product contained incomplete information...

In settlement papers submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Goldman made the following acknowledgment:

Goldman acknowledges that the marketing materials for the ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction contained incomplete information. In particular, it was a mistake for the Goldman marketing materials to state that the reference portfolio was "selected by" ACA Management LLC without disclosing the role of Paulson & Co. Inc. in the portfolio selection process and that Paulson's economic interests were adverse to CDO investors. Goldman regrets that the marketing materials did not contain that disclosure.

In April, the SEC charged Wall Street's most profitable bank with civil fraud over complex mortgage securities sold under its 'Abacaus' deals. The SEC alleged that Goldman failed to disclose the securities in the Abacus portfolio were chosen by another bank client, the hedge fund manager John Paulson, who made billions betting against the housing market. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>The securities were, according to the SEC, secretly designed to fail.</span>

Still, <u>the bank's stock surged today </u>(scroll down for a chart) rising 4.43 percent as rumors swirled about a settlement. (The bank's stock continued rising an additional 5 percent in after hours trading.) </div></div>

Lets put this fine into perspective.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With a cost of roughly $550 million (plus millions in legal fees), Goldman Sachs likely came out ahead for the day, as the stock's surge added hundreds of millions to the bank's market cap. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>The settlement amount comes to roughly <span style="color: #3333FF">3.4 percent of the bank's 2009 bonus pool.</span></span> </div></div>

Its like a guy found being guilty of embezzeling $1 million from the company he works for and as punishment he gets a promotion and a $5 million bonus!

Where is the outrage?


07-16-2010, 05:06 AM
No ... it's like a guy agreeing to plead guilty for the mob in exchange for a huge payoff.

G-S has been well protected by the regime's policies and it's former employees have crafted legislation which has benefited them nicely.


07-16-2010, 05:13 AM
According to CNN the fine was only equivalent to 4 days of operational expenses.

Perhaps there was fear of a several billion dollar fine and when it didnt come to pass investors bought.

Dont blame the investors.

07-16-2010, 07:04 AM
Outraged that stock prices are going up? Nope. If investors and individuals want to buy their stock then so be it.


07-19-2010, 08:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No ... it's like a guy agreeing to plead guilty for the mob in exchange for a huge payoff.

G-S has been well protected by the regime's policies and it's former employees have crafted legislation which has benefited them nicely.

LWW </div></div>

That whole thing was just another stickup by the Obama thugs. Everyone knew that GS was going to give in, they just did not know how much. Once the number came out then everybody put it into their pricing models and the stock took off.

07-19-2010, 11:14 AM
It's so obvious that only the most willingly blind partisan can't see it.

Discussing it with a leftist usually goes something like this:

<u>OBAMATRON:</u> What G-S is doing is wrong.

<u>SANE PERSON:</u> I know.

<u>OBAMATRON:</u> The republicans let these guys get away with murder.

<u>SANE PERSON:</u> To a degree that's true, but both parties are in the back pocket of special interests.

<u>OBAMATRON:</u> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>NO!!!!!</span> We need to listen to Obama who promised he would punish the guilty and have no lobbyists in his administration like Bush had!

<u>SANE PERSON:</u> That would be great if he actually delivered, but this regime is ran by lobbyists ... and a lot of them came straight from G-S to the regime.

<u>OBAMATRON:</u> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>NO!!!</span> Obama promised <span style='font-size: 11pt'>CHANGE!!!</span> And <span style='font-size: 11pt'>HOPE!!!</span> And no more earmarks in legislation.

<u>SANE PERSON:</u> Yes, it was great campaign rhetoric ... but he then started signing legislation with record earmarks within.

<u>OBAMATRON:</u> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>NO!!!</span> Bush spent us into oblivion!!!

<u>SANE PERSON:</u> Actually congress spent us into oblivion, and the deficits under this congress are running over 900% of what they were when they took over.

<u>OBAMATRON:</u> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>NO!!!</span> The Bush tax cuts reduced income.

<u>SANE PERSON:</u> Actually, even the Obama regime disputes this and the numbers show that the tax cuts brought in record high income and low unemployment while the new regime's policies have collapsed income and skyrocketed unemployment.

<u>OBAMATRON:</u> <span style='font-size: 23pt'>NO!!!</span> Obama says he inherited this all fro Bush.

<u>SANE PERSON:</u> Partly true, but senator Obama voted for the spending that he inherited and in fact was pizzed because Bush wouldn't spend more.

<u>OBAMATRON:</u> <span style='font-size: 26pt'>NO!!!</span> There was a surplus before Bush.

<u>SANE PERSON:</u> Only if you count loading the pension funds into the general fund ... which would land a business operator in prison ... and only if you give Clinton credit for the spending cuts forced onto him by the prior congress, which he opposed and swore would kill the economy if passed.

<u>OBAMATRON:</u> You just don't get it do you?

<u>SANE PERSON:</u> Oh, the regime has made sure that I got it and got it good.

<u>OBAMATRON:</u> <span style='font-size: 26pt'>B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span>

<u>SANE PERSON:</u> Why didn't you just say so in the first place.