Return on Investment Case Study
Comments
-
One and the sameBleachedAnusDawg said:
-
I would argue Supreme Leader.Baseman said: -
I'll say this: I have worked closely with Goldman my entire career. They've been the primary banker at every company on my trail. I know them well.
Two things: they do know how to make money - in fact, it's all they know how to do - and they hire the very smartest people. McKinsey is the only other place I know who is as particular as is Goldman. They really do get the 1%.
But then I also go back to how I, and most others, viewed Lehman. They are almost too complex. It's harder to understand what's really going on at Goldman than it is other companies just by reading their financials. The nature of the iBank is, year over year over year making money hand over fist, then, BOOM, something happens, massive liquidity crisis, and they either can or cannot bridge the gap.
Lehman was a lynch pin event to 2008. They are the primary reason that the Reserve MM Funds broke the buck. They had circled the drain before, scrambling to raise cash any way they could. In the end, they defaulted on their short-term debt obligations and POOF! No more Lehman.
I suppose we can say, Goldman is no Lehman. I suppose. -
But it's different now....That's what I hear, anyways. Dodd Frank is good legislation. Banks need regulating and this is not a Tug type argument.creepycoug said:I'll say this: I have worked closely with Goldman my entire career. They've been the primary banker at every company on my trail. I know them well.
Two things: they do know how to make money - in fact, it's all they know how to do - and they hire the very smartest people. McKinsey is the only other place I know who is as particular as is Goldman. They really do get the 1%.
But then I also go back to how I, and most others, viewed Lehman. They are almost too complex. It's harder to understand what's really going on at Goldman than it is other companies just by reading their financials. The nature of the iBank is, year over year over year making money hand over fist, then, BOOM, something happens, massive liquidity crisis, and they either can or cannot bridge the gap.
Lehman was a lynch pin event to 2008. They are the primary reason that the Reserve MM Funds broke the buck. They had circled the drain before, scrambling to raise cash any way they could. In the end, they defaulted on their short-term debt obligations and POOF! No more Lehman.
I suppose we can say, Goldman is no Lehman. I suppose.
Banks can't leverage like they used to. Basil, Tier 1 and all that shit. But it's good, so far and seems to work.
If I recall correctly Hank Paulson forced Goldman to take money during the crisis. Out of all the banks -- traditional and investment -- Goldman (I think) was in the best shape.
I'm told they also were betting heavy against the mortgage bonds and shorting the shit out of AIG. I don't have a problem with this. There are two sides to every trade.
Whatever the case, I like Goldman which means it will probably nose dive and i'll lose my $. For now, I'm enjoying my astute (just ask me) investment.
That is all.
