Looks like the bank losses are stopping Goldman Sachs post $1.8bn 1st 1/4 profit.

mrposhman

bubblesmoney wrote: »

i rounded off the 12.9 billion to 13billion routed via AIG to GS. i had prev posted a visual to this. in the visual if you add up the amounts going to GS via the AIG bailout you will get 12.9 billion.

also GS did apply for the TARP funds although the date is not known. and it wasnt a small amount it was 29% of their market capitalisation. in this link which is interactive please click on the letter G then click on GS on the left hand side or click on the red dot coinciding with 10billion and a small pop up chart will show that 10 billion bailout already paid out to GS amounted to 29% of their market capitalisation which was the 8th highest bailout from TARP funds.

also the following from wiki corroborates that figure of 12.9 billion in GS bailout and also the 10 billion TARP bailout on 28oct 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs_Group_Inc.

You fail to understand the difference between capital and profit. Do you just copy and paste this stuff or actually understand it.

To state that most of this stuff affects profit shows that the former that I stated is probably truer.

Most capital items that you have stated are balance sheet only items and DO NOT touch the income statement so your statement of what their "loss" was above is incorrect.

bubblesmoney

mrposhman wrote: »

You fail to understand the difference between capital and profit. Do you just copy and paste this stuff or actually understand it.

To state that most of this stuff affects profit shows that the former that I stated is probably truer.

Most capital items that you have stated are balance sheet only items and DO NOT touch the income statement so your statement of what their "loss" was above is incorrect.

i do know the difference.

one needs to have adequate capital as well to call the profits your own.

borrowing money (needing bailouts) to the tune of billions and generating profits doesnt mean that the company is doing great. wasnt it the same game northern rock, RBS etc were playing by borrowing and leveraging. look where it got them. you win some and lose some in shares, be it individuals playing the game or companies. leveraging just increases the profits or the losses. debt is just leveraging but ultimately debt has to be repaid and then it affects the company.

saying a company is doing great while a few months ago the same needed billions in bailouts is just playing with words and the books.

do you know people who have run loads of companies and played with the books using these fancy words like capital, loss, depreciation, profit etc so long as they are playing with other peoples money? well i dont know about you, but i have the misfortune of being related to one such jerk who was a professional in these things, had loads of companies, factories, closed down one after the other playing with profits and losses and capital etc, while all the while finding a legal way to have the losses as non recourse and profits diverted away and then the company would go bust and a new company or two would spring in its place. this was repeated many times over decades sparing no one including his own siblings. but after seeing and experiencing how people get away with playing with accounting and how companies are used and abused, i'll take these accounting standards and profit loss statements with a big pinch of salt. if things can be misused they will be misused in the world of companies.

mrposhman

bubblesmoney wrote: »

i do know the difference.

one needs to have adequate capital as well to call the profits your own.

borrowing money (needing bailouts) to the tune of billions and generating profits doesnt mean that the company is doing great. wasnt it the same game northern rock, RBS etc were playing by borrowing and leveraging. look where it got them. you win some and lose some in shares, be it individuals playing the game or companies. leveraging just increases the profits or the losses. debt is just leveraging but ultimately debt has to be repaid and then it affects the company.

saying a company is doing great while a few months ago the same needed billions in bailouts is just playing with words and the books.

do you know people who have run loads of companies and played with the books using these fancy words like capital, loss, depreciation, profit etc so long as they are playing with other peoples money? well i dont know about you, but i have the misfortune of being related to one such jerk who was a professional in these things, had loads of companies, factories, closed down one after the other playing with profits and losses and capital etc, while all the while finding a legal way to have the losses as non recourse and profits diverted away and then the company would go bust and a new company or two would spring in its place. this was repeated many times over decades sparing no one including his own siblings. but after seeing and experiencing how people get away with playing with accounting and how companies are used and abused, i'll take these accounting standards and profit loss statements with a big pinch of salt. if things can be misused they will be misused in the world of companies.

Ok thats a fair point. I take back what I said earlier.

I know that accounting allows manipulation, theres a huge amount that can be dealt with on provisions etc to enable profits to be deferred or monitored elsewhere.

Its a fair enough point you make about capital in that some banks are now effectively profitting from others peoples cash but isn't that just capitalism? Most companies are now gaining fresh capital in order to change their business plans that haven't worked in the past, and this is how capitalism moves to the next stage. I'm sure high gearing will not be seen as such a good thing for a long time to come and that will surely be good for the vast majority of people. Clearly, many more businesses than just banks had poor business models, housebuilders, oil companies, miners, all have had to request more funds and all have gained them and hopefully gained from the experience and lead us to a better future, though capitalism will inevitably lead us into another bust, there will always be boom and bust.

Fortunately for me I have never met anyone like the man you describe, and hope I never have to. I understand that many people can create these types of messes very easily, though is far more difficult in big business due to external auditing, though of course this is only as good as the auditor in question, who are regularly recent uni graduates, and therefore they are not particularly experienced, which can of course lead to mistakes.

bubblesmoney

mrposhman wrote: »

Ok thats a fair point. I take back what I said earlier.

I know that accounting allows manipulation, theres a huge amount that can be dealt with on provisions etc to enable profits to be deferred or monitored elsewhere.

Its a fair enough point you make about capital in that some banks are now effectively profitting from others peoples cash but isn't that just capitalism? Most companies are now gaining fresh capital in order to change their business plans that haven't worked in the past, and this is how capitalism moves to the next stage. I'm sure high gearing will not be seen as such a good thing for a long time to come and that will surely be good for the vast majority of people. Clearly, many more businesses than just banks had poor business models, housebuilders, oil companies, miners, all have had to request more funds and all have gained them and hopefully gained from the experience and lead us to a better future, though capitalism will inevitably lead us into another bust, there will always be boom and bust.

Fortunately for me I have never met anyone like the man you describe, and hope I never have to. I understand that many people can create these types of messes very easily, though is far more difficult in big business due to external auditing, though of course this is only as good as the auditor in question, who are regularly recent uni graduates, and therefore they are not particularly experienced, which can of course lead to mistakes.

not just mistakes, they are pressurised as well both by the companies and the auditing partners as well to meet auditing time targets. it is a common game even in the big4 companies where junior people get pressurised to overlook 'mistakes / things that dont add up / buy the internal auditing teams story when things dont add up'. too often big companies have more leverage because the entire group might be getting audited by the same external auditor and if the company gets annoyed they might hire other external auditors for the entire group the next time around costing the auditing partners loads of cash revenue lost. hence partners in big4 companies have 'ways' of pressurising juniors to meet deadlines and not dig too deep. i know to some extent what happens in auditing firms as have many in close family/friends who are in auditing / multinational companies at senior management level across a few countries. hence my comments as they are based on what i gathered from my discussions and casual chat with these people. apart from my discussions with people in tax enforcement sectors as well who are well versed with these accounting games companies play (very often). eg. see the games barclays seems to be playing for tax breaks as shown in papers / blogs recently but later barred by court order but think it still may be available on wikileaks outside uk jurisdiction on the internet. the numerous messes (frauds) in big companies audited by big4 auditing firms are well documented on wiki.

*MF*

As I read your posts, bubblesmoney and mrposhman, I can't help recalling that there was a big5 in accountancy, until Arthur Andersen met Enron, and Enron was in its own way - a dry run for what we have witnessed in the Banks etc.

*MF*

For any conspiracy theorists in our midst ... :cool:



Edward M. Liddy, the dollar-a-year chief executive leading the American International Group since its bailout last fall, still owns a significant stake in Goldman Sachs, one of the insurer’s trading partners that was made whole by the government bailout of A.I.G.

Mr. Liddy earned most of his holdings in Goldman, worth more than $3 million total, as compensation for serving on the bank’s board and its audit committee until he stepped down in September to take the job at A.I.G. He moved to A.I.G. at the request of Henry M. Paulson Jr., then the Treasury secretary and a former Goldman director.

Along the way, Mr. Liddy has clearly disclosed that A.I.G. was serving as a conduit, with much of the rescue money passing through and ending up in the hands of A.I.G.’s trading partners.

Goldman has said in the past that it had collateral and hedges to reduce the risk of its exposure to A.I.G.

Still, his stake could represent a potential conflict and is likely to reignite questions about Goldman’s involvement in A.I.G., and about why taxpayer money was used to shield A.I.G.’s trading partners from losses, when asset values plunged everywhere and most investors suffered greatly.

Had A.I.G. simply declared bankruptcy, the financial institutions doing business with it would have ended up in court, as they did in the case of Lehman Brothers, fighting to get pennies on the dollar for their claims.

Instead, Goldman Sachs received $13 billion of the Federal Reserve’s rescue money to close out various contracts it had outstanding with A.I.G. It was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the government rescue.

From here today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/business/17liddy.html?th&emc=th