Reacties op: “Godsman Sachs”

Door: Emeline (Viviane)

Emeline (Viviane) — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:52:51 +0000

Deze morgen las ik op DFT.NL: “Knoeiende Grieken kregen hulp van zakenbanken VS”.

Goldman Sachs en JP Morgan hebben dus de Griekse regering jarenlang geholpen om hun schuldenberg te verdoezelen.

Dit lijkt nu echt wel het einde.
Als goedmenende burgers……Wie kunnen wij dan nog vertrouwen?

Dus alweer heeft Goldman Sachs God’s werk verricht!

Door: Marcel

Marcel — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:18:10 +0000

Gisteren avond op Nederlandse TV, was Willem Middelkoop te gast bij Pauw & Witteman.
Hij voorspelde dat het huidige financiële systeem aan zijn einde is gekomen zoals elk systeem (zoals bijvoorbeeld het Sovjet Systeem) na een periode instort en verdwijnt. Het optimisme dat we dagelijks in de kranten lezen is compleet vals. Er dreigen nu gevaren uit Japan, Engeland en de VS door de enorme schulden en dit is vrij uitzichtloos. We kunnen niets doen en gaan economisch dood. We gaan naar Argentijnse toestanden.
Hij legde ook een link tussen de voorzitter van de Nederlandse Nationale Bank, Paulsen en vele anderen met Goldman Sachs.
Een korte samenvatting van het volledige programma is te vinden op http://pauwenwitteman.vara.nl/Archief-detail.113.0.html?&no_cache=1&tx_ttnewstt_news=13549&tx_ttnewsbackPid=111&cHash=5d35067519 (tijdsbalk 4:30)
Heden namiddag is er een volledige wederuitzending op Ned 1 om 16 u. (Willem Middelkoop komt helaas op het einde van de uitzending).

Door: Nick Doms

Nick Doms — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:51:42 +0000

@ Jan L

First GS is a bank holding company (under their new charter since 2008). There are reasons for that which i can explain later.
GS was so well hedged that with or without AIG they would not have suffered. They are masters at this.
And again GS did not ask for a bailout. It was a question of street stigmatism: some needed it, obviously, but if we all take it…well then…
GS was the first to give everything back, and all the banks followed suit with PE deals, again equalizing the playing field.

Sincerely,

Door: Theo

Theo — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:45:17 +0000

@ Jan L

Here is a link to what actually transpired from Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/mergersNews/idUSN1729956620090317

You see, the government bailed out AIG.
GS positions and exposer to AIG were OK. This means that even if AIG was allowed to go belly up, GS would not have lost much money – they would have been able to lay claim on assets under collateral or exercise their hedge.

Door: Jan L

Jan L — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:07:33 +0000

Nick and Theo,
I am just trying to understand this for I am obviously not following this as close as you.
But didn’t the AIG bailout sort of protected Goldman from enormous losses? If I may believe the press, Blankfein certainly asked for that one.

Door: Nick Doms

Nick Doms — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:21:25 +0000

Thanks Theo.
You see it the way it happened and why.
I am glad i am not the only insider or the only one that followed it from close up.

Door: Theo

Theo — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:04:55 +0000

@ Jan L

Obviously as I don’t work at Argenta, I can’t say how they generate their profit.

But as a rule, it’s dangerous to mix up or look for correlation between “main activity” with “biggest source of profit”.

The Insurance business is not the main activity of Berkshire Hathaway, but it’s its biggest source of profit!

Door: Jan L

Jan L — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:48:45 +0000

@ Theo

You’re right that they also sell insurances and funds.

What I meant was that Argenta’s main activity is collecting savings and investing these savings into mortgages and government paper. For me, this is what a traditional bank does.

Since it is their main activity, I (maybe wrongly) assume it is their biggest source of profit, leading to my point that traditional banking can be profitably.

Door: Theo

Theo — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:59:57 +0000

@ Jan L

Goldman Sachs is not a bank!

How exactly is Argenta “the prototype of the boring traditional bank”?
All you need to do is to visit their website to know this is not the case.

They might be not as big or taking as much risk, but they are definitely not a traditional boring bank: they offer e-saving and sell insurances and manage funds in addition to selling mortgages.
That’s pretty much what the other banks do as well. they just limit themselves (judicially and operationally) geographically and to self-employed clients as a client base.
They sell insurances under Dutch law
They collect savings via internet
Their managed fund operates under French law
…

Door: Jan L

Jan L — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:22:41 +0000

@ Nick Doms
Aren’t there any traditional banks in the US that keep generating enough revenue from traditional banking? Here in Belgium for example, we have Argenta which is the prototype of the boring traditional bank but which is also doing good business I guess.
Or is good business for Argenta just not comparable to the great business GS is doing?