In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/10989
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
stevieb 04/05/2011 06:51 PM Report
How is he stubborn?! This is the core of the problem GS faces - the ignorance of the public. Marketmaking is NOT an advisory business. The role of a marketmaker is to make prices for potential buyers/sellers who are professional investors and in any case don't care what your opinion on a security is. Marketmakres are only there to act as middlemen in the market....THAT IS ALL!! What's amaziong is that Charlie Rose doesn't even seem to understand this, and you can see flashes of Mr. Blankfein's frustration with having to explain over and over again to GS's detractors how they didn't do anything wrong!!
jamestanit 01/28/2011 11:02 PM Report
Wow, this guy is real stubborn. He can't even see where he did wrong? Amazed. I remembered reading a book by Dale Carnegie, even Al Capone thought he was right. Oh, my. What a world we live in.
Toojdwin 10/30/2010 10:16 PM Report
Of course Blankfein loves all financial reform bills. He's the one writing them.
dekkerfraser 09/08/2010 03:42 AM Report
Are we forgetting who invented mortgage-backed securities in the first place?
forrestgump79 09/07/2010 11:50 AM Report
Fogive me my ignorance, but when Mr Blankfein at 32:39 gives an example of marketmaking and acting like NY Stock Exchange (sell-buy, buy-sell), does it really apply to the situation in question - Abacus deal?
Selling something from the inventory and then short selling it again. Is this how stock exchange is supposed to work? Very confusing
ric 05/29/2010 10:25 PM Report
The financial system failed the american people. Agreed in a criminally fraudulent manner. GO TO JAIL AND THINK ABOUT IT FOR A WHILE.
Everything you said after that was a superficial, poorly constructed white washing of whats been going on since the beginning of centralized banking.
ric 05/29/2010 10:25 PM Report
The financial system failed the american people. Agreed in a criminally fraudulent manner. GO TO JAIL AND THINK ABOUT IT FOR A WHILE.
Everything you said after that was a superficial, poorly constructed white washing of whats been going on since the beginning of centralized banking.
anne4444 05/29/2010 04:41 PM Report
Mr. Blankfein is a very smart man.
Smiling when he makes money,
Smiling more when others lose money...
winter 05/19/2010 02:29 PM Report
Freedom, Freedom, Freedom to preside over boiler rooms full of traders each with six monitors apiece and all the
advantages of Michael Jordan and whistle swallowing refs.
They're all there "earning" their living not by making money but by taking money from retail investors who participate in the market thinking they're investing. The trade has all the noble merit of a mugging at gunpoint. There is no shame, just hold down grandma's pension so that
we can get your bonuses. That these sort of "bankers" exist in America is a blight. If you don't believe that then you're of course participating. Doesn anybody "work" anymore, the Mexicans will pick our food and change our sheets. Teabaggers, you're pointed in the wrong direction; you ignorant dupes.
doodah 05/14/2010 06:42 PM Report
ferret-eyes! Ha!
If it looks, talks, and acts like a ferret, it is a WEASEL.
So when the bank robber holds a gun to his head, the thief is 'just' "managing his risk". .. I understand completely now; thanks for the explanation, Lord Blankfein. You get a kiss on both cheeks by your deity, Our Keeper, Rothchild.
robdverity 05/13/2010 12:43 AM Report
Old ferret-eyes has it all rationalized as ". . . we managed our risk . . . ."
"--From Blankfein’s prepared testimony: “I recognize … that many Americans are skeptical about the contribution of investment banking to our economy and understandably angry about how Wall Street contributed to the financial crisis. … While derivatives are an important tool to help companies and financial institutions manage their risk, we need more transparency for the public and regulators as well as safeguards in the system for their use. … While we strongly disagree with the SEC’s complaint, I also recognize how such a complicated transaction may look to many people. To them, it is confirmation of how out of control they believe Wall Street has become … We have to do a better job of striking the balance between what an informed client believes is important to his or her investing goals and what the public believes is overly complex and risky. … We didn’t have a massive short against the housing market and we certainly did not bet against our clients. Rather, we believe that we managed our risk as our shareholders and our regulators would expect.”
doodah 05/09/2010 07:35 AM Report
Give me $10,000 dollars in cash and take away all 'Loyd's' here cash except for $400 dollars and let the two of us play a game of poker; NO, actually let's invite 10 or 12 'successful' 'financial' 'experts', they must start the game with no more than $400 dollars. Then let's see who 'wins' 'the game'. . Even invite Boomberg, and his 'Capital Markets' rhetoric (bullshit).
And I will show everybody the REAL value they're getting for their hard earned money through this shit that belongs in jail. . Even those that failed math will figure it out. The bullshit 'these bankers' are trying to cram down everybody's throat. AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!
doodah 05/08/2010 09:23 AM Report
According to 'esq13', the 'Financial-Services' INDUSTRY can do no wrong, simply by virtue of 'owning' everybody else's money.. and politicians.
esquire13, stay anonymous you jack-ass.
"Don't blame a company or industry, blah blah blah", you say. Well that wouldn't happen if a company or industry isn't GIVEN unfair advantages over the people who produce the real value for society. Those advantages GIVEN to them by the politicians, who are their (your?) partners. .. Good cop, bad cop.?. Is that what it's called?. Is that how it's done?.
GFYS Pig!
robdverity 05/05/2010 10:57 PM Report
From USA Today:
Columnist Al Neuharth was a bit amiss from his usual astute and incisive observations when he deemed Goldman Sachs the scapegoat rather than the perpetrator of subprime mortgage investments' chicanery ("Goldman: Bad guys or just a scapegoat?," The Forum, Friday).
READ OPINION: Goldman: Bad guys or just a scapegoat?
His transferring blame to both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not totally unfounded, as any number of culprits are involved in shady financial dealings. But Goldman, not Fannie or Freddie, concocted bundles of ersatz collateralized debt obligations backed with toxic subprime bonds and sold them to clients as bona fide rated instruments, all the while selling short, betting the investments would go bad.
Bob Amento; Scottsdale, Ariz.
robdverity 05/04/2010 12:58 AM Report
Your editing reflects that you're desparate for a point. Touche! Take your victories where you can. Aghast tho that you think I would not be forthright in every respect in assertions made to this forum.
In this mode I think you're (see I'm learning) right about Goldman being the wrong SEC target. Citi's my pick for scumbags of the scumbags. But Mssrs Rubin and Summers have purchased Citi's protection. GS is not inviolate, they dabbled but relatively little compared to most. So yes there's better targets.
The SEC probe will ultimately be a validation for GS. They will be able to crow about performing 'within the law.'
It will be good for my business long term.
RONN 05/04/2010 12:24 AM Report
friggin money changers screwing people.... we all know who are these people....yikes
esq13 05/04/2010 12:14 AM Report
robdverity, your is spelled "you're". I highly doubt you are a multi-millionaire and your stated profession could be a bunch of BS like the SEC suit against Goldman. The recession would not have occurred if people didn't buy houses they couldn't afford. Keep in mind the traders were shorting subprime loans that someone was dumb enough to take. The people who provided those loans to those unwitting buyers were not Goldman Sachs people. They did not originate those kind of loans so the government is wasting time on the wrong company. How about going after government sponsored Fannie and Freddie? Oh that's right, they're government sponsored and god forbid that the government might actually take some responsibility for this crisis. But these people will sure have no problem taking Wall Street money during the next election cycle. One thing I respect is about Wall Street is they're about the money and they admit it. Politicians are worse than Wall Street; they will take both Wall Street money and taxpayer money and then stab you in the back. Until they return their money they received from Goldman Sachs, the Senate Finance Committee imbeciles have no credibility with me nor should they with the American people.
robdverity 05/04/2010 12:03 AM Report
Your still succeeding. No contest re finance guys vote - with their money. Obama got a million dollars, which will assure the SEC BS will fall flat. Robert Rubin, Larry Summers bought him during his campaign. They still have the receipt. You're easily gulled if you think the relative charity (from our tax paid bonuses) is somehow worthy. The recession would have had a tough time occuring without the financial industry.
Very presumptious of you to assume Wall Streeters make more than we do. I'm a yacht salesman. They're all shelling out to me big time. Tax free in the Bahamas of course.
They're all proxy baby shakers, but socially adept, mostly.
robdverity 05/04/2010 12:03 AM Report
Your still succeeding. No contest re finance guys vote - with their money. Obama got a million dollars, which will assure the SEC BS will fall flat. Robert Rubin, Larry Summers bought him during his campaign. They still have the receipt. You're easily gulled if you think the relative charity (from our tax paid bonuses) is somehow worthy. The recession would have had a tough time occuring without the financial industry.
Very presumptious of you to assume Wall Streeters make more than we do. I'm a yacht salesman. They're all shelling out to me big time. Tax free in the Bahamas of course.
They're all proxy baby shakers, but socially adept, mostly.
esq13 05/03/2010 11:37 PM Report
I also find it extremely hypocritical when Obama and every member of the Senate Finance Committee except for one person took money from Goldman Sachs and yet they seem to have no problem keeping the money and singlehandedly blaming Goldman for this crisis. Sen Levin, especially is shameful considering GM and Chrysler and his own state of Michigan took bailout money and haven't even paid it back. At least Goldman was upset that they had to take bailout money where the car companies, LIKE DOGS, begged to be bailed out. Goldman paid back the money in eight months with interest. The government made money on bailing out Goldman Sachs.
esq13 05/03/2010 11:30 PM Report
I think you guys are just jealous because people on Wall Street make a lot more money than you, and remember people in financial services vote. I suspect they will vote the incumbents out. This reminds me of when the government sued Arthur Andersen and the company went down, then the Supreme Court unanimously nullified the conviction. It is weak reasoning and pure scapegoating to pin this recession on one company and one industry. Let's take a look at our own government and people who made irresponsible financial decision to purchases houses they couldn't afford. I suspect that you guys don't donate nearly as much to charity as any Goldman executive. Keep in mind that people get jobs from wealthy people and wealthy companies. A poor person cannot give someone a job.
robdverity 05/03/2010 11:22 PM Report
JohnOH - hear, hear!
robdverity 05/03/2010 11:18 PM Report
THE MEMORANDUM NEVER CONTEMPLATED (by any grownups): EDITED TO APPLY TO ANY OF THE 'AMBITIOUS' LARGE BANKS.
____________________________________________________________________________
INSERT THE BANK NAME OF YOUR CHOICE
Memorandum
Date: January 1, 2007
To: All Officers, Department Heads, Trading Desks, Employees and Clients
Subject: Due Diligence as it relates to Risk Management and Our Mission Statement
As we embark on this new year with our clients welfare always upper most in our overall objectives, I have directed our ablest Due Diligence officers to thoroughly vet all of our positions (long, short and net) of all our varied interests; with singular concentration on mortgage backed securities. It is becoming more apparent - nearly with each news cycle - that the quality of the underlying product does not meet the Goldman Sachs standards.
Responding in their usual thorough efficiency, they have each individually come to the same or similar conclusions, namely that the underling securities are fraught with irregularities, inconsistencies and potential for outright fraud. Citing cases of unverified entries of income, credit history, appraisal, age, citizenship, insurance etc.
In short, the residential mortgage backed securities are so unworthy of a Goldman Sachs portfolio, even for our own book, or especially for a client, that the long term interest of our firm dictate that we abstain completely from this market for the interim; or until our Due Diligence people give us a more positive outlook on the quality of the originating documents.
I know some of you will be dismayed with this directive, given our brethren are all awash with earnings from their participation in this market. There are times when principles, integrity and plain old common sense must prevail.
To be candid, bonuses may be (temporarily) affected. We value all our employees and hope none will leave us. But given the nature of our breed we wish you the best should you choose to do so.
Thank you for your cooperation. Avoiding this facet of the market is essential for our long term quality, benefit and survival. It will pass.
___________________________________________________________
Such a utopian Nirvana. The tooth fairy resides here, along with Mother Goose.
robdverity 05/03/2010 11:04 PM Report
Bernie could use the company. He's reading John Grisholm novels.
robdverity 05/03/2010 11:02 PM Report
esq13 - Your attempts at being disingenuous are way too successful. Banks like Goldman duping European and German banks to take on our toxicity damaged our credibility and confidence in our system more than say 20 Bernie Madoffs.
Jettisoning the dollar will be an ultimate outcome as the reserve currency for world trade. The TARP BS exploding our debt devaluing our money as a result of their scamming the public hardly helps make us competitive globally. In fact virtually everything they've done has bloodied us abroad.
We really do need to lock them up. Clank!
JohnOH 05/03/2010 10:51 PM Report
It does not take a sophisticated scheme to create an asset designed to fail. The simplicity of the Goldman Sachs betrayal and exploitation is astounding; and all the more reason it should have be self terminated by Goldman Sachs.
Goldman touts 140 years of service, which is self promoting BS. Charlie Rose was a shill; he was love stuck and gave Blankfein a platform.
esq13 05/03/2010 08:46 PM Report
Enraged, actually if an investment bank is helping companies grow by raising capital and/or financing them, then, yeah, they are doing a lot of good; they are assisting businesses to grow so that they can hire more people and produce more goods for our economy. If they are managing someone's money, they are helping that person. Banks like Goldman and JP Morgan also sponsor charity events. JP Morgan sponsored the Light the Night Walk for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. A lot of these bankers go off to form other companies, giving people jobs. Having a strong banking system is important. Like it or not, banks like Goldman play a very important role in making us competitive globally.
esq13 05/03/2010 08:40 PM Report
Well Goldman and their execs donate a lot to charity. \
From Time Magazine:
"Under the firm's voluntary-giving plan, which was started just before the firm handed out bonuses two years ago, Goldman's top executives gave about $130 million to charity in 2008. Goldman's own foundation, which it funds with corporate profits, has about $200 million in it, making it one of the largest charity trusts in corporate America."
Enraged 05/03/2010 08:13 PM Report
This weasel made me throw up in my mouth when he
said with a straight face that Goldman's objective
was to serve the public good. I love Charlie but in this
case he let the weasel off the hook. This made me so mad
I could crush this POS melon head with a lead pipe.
Ellen_Dibble 05/03/2010 06:30 PM Report
Robdverity, I'm not all that sophisticated, but I try to hop into a variety of places. As to that opera: The clerk (a baritone) actually did die. The script sure did not have that. And the script for Wall Street sure did not have the crash that occurred in the fall of 2008 either. One would think it would be the business of the banksters to have the welfare of the entire society in mind, but apparently not. Answering to Senator Levin, Blankfein said that was not his focus. He focused on profit and loss (P&L) The GS witnesses all said "we are market makers." And I'm not so sure they will all be kicking around on stage for the rest of the opera. I think there is a fair chance a lot of them will be found to have engaged in illegal activities, although they sort of thought "those" laws were not really being enforced. We'll see. Enough Americans have been thoroughly ruined, in so many ways, for reasons beyond their control, that we have to get to the bottom of it. We have to understand how and why. A lot of people were trying to be conscientious (in a sometimes warped way), and like King Lear, may be astonished someday at their legacy. Literature and the arts do help contextualize. Have you ever heard of killing the goose that laid the golden egg? I don't know the whole story, but I believe it parallels don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is not a big chance to lay blame and be rid of "it."
robdverity 05/03/2010 05:56 PM Report
But Ellen, that's the very point that blows my mind. The whole system collapsed on the acts of relatively few people. They tippled (wd?) the world finances with impunity and (worse) big bonuses. Blatant excesses for the fun and profit of the top (say) 1%. Cheap thrill is more of an abject sorrow for how our system is corroding into an abyss of corruption that will be impossible to come out of. Minimizing the enormity to a cheap thrill is counterproductive.
You're over my literary class strata obviously. Confused re the clerk actually dying on stage - and not as part of the script. Took me awhile to grasp the difference. Not a happy scene. Tough stuff.
Segue, segue - the clerk and the financial fall. I get it. But the "Golden Guys" fall is short of commensurate retribution. Unlike the innocent clerk/actor they are neither innocent nor dead. They are alive and very well (off) and will do it all again if not reined in.
Ellen_Dibble 05/03/2010 05:18 PM Report
robdverity, I am not defending Goldman Sachs and its ilk. But I think it's a cheap thrill to blame the whole system on a few people. I'll leave it to the lawyers and regulators to determine legal responsibility.
I noted Nesbitt's post that if Goldman hired the "Masters of the Universe," he didn't see that on display at Tuesday's hearing. I noted one familiar face (a sleight of memory)? Let me remind you of Dickens' Bleak House and the case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, in an empire where great wealth made for similar legal issues and dislocations. Let me remind you of The Makropulos Case, an opera by Leos Janacek 1923, after Karel Capek, a Czech version. There an alchemist fed an elixir of youth to his daughter, who 300 years later is pulling strings in a 100-year-old contested will (Austro-Hungarian excesses), and she "has it all," a star singer, knowledge, a 300-year youth (which she forfeits along with its apathy/amorality at the end). In scene one, the first aria, the law clerk atop a ladder is searching a document in the Prus will case, maybe 20 feet up in the Metropolitan Opera house, about 1995. I was sitting next to a young man new to Wall Street. We were both "alone." He had opera glasses. The clerk fell. The clerk died on stage. The management eventually came out and sent us home. The Wall Street man and I stood in the hall and stared at each other. How could it happen? How could there be such a fall? I never went back. But I remember that face. It morphs onto certain of these Golden Guys. What a fall.
robdverity 05/03/2010 04:40 PM Report
esq13 - Goldman per se didn't cause 'shaken babies,' but the recession did. To the extent they were part of the stampede for casino-type money they contributed. The article says there are 4.5 more cases per month since recession. Out of say 50 per year, I'll leave any allocation to GS to others.
The point was made Ellen Dibble: ". . . stresses experienced broadly are quite an undertow on the body . . . ."
Your defense of GS may have some merit merely because they're possibly not AS guilty (as Citi for instance) - but still guilty.
A culture (any culture) should not tolerate the level of venality and corruption that we are experiencing in our finances and politics. Too corrosive to be sustainable long term. The financial wise-guys - important as they are donot deserve the pass they're getting.
Retribution is needed for civil progress. For confidence alone if nothing else. The moral hazard threat is real.
Your unquestioning defense worries me that retribution will be easily purchased. Money is powerful - too much so in our culture. Capitalism for the wise-guys bonuses and socialism for our taxes (and the wise-guys bonuses).
robdverity 05/03/2010 04:04 PM Report
Goldman has a pretty good cite at:
http://www2.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/on-the-issues/risk-man-doc.pdf
Provided it's not too jerry-picked.
The graphs make a pretty good case for their minimalist participation in RMBSs.
HORRORS! Have I and the SEC got it all wrong? I would much rather Citi be the primary culprit. (Maybe we both have to go cold turkey on our porn consumption. Gasp!)
The duplicity (or is it complicity?) of the whole system is too easily manipulated (willingly fooled?). How can you tip over the world's financial outhouse (like a halloween prank) without being caught - and retribution duly meted out? Tulips anyone?
Is Goldman stocking up on BP puts?
doodahdaze 05/03/2010 04:00 PM Report
Ellen Dibble,
That's why I think he would make for a fein ingredient in a salsa. But he'll (or they)(bwah ha ha ha) will have to be cooked first to get all that nasty salmonella off of them.
doodahdaze 05/03/2010 03:55 PM Report
esq13
To answer you, yes. My comments are derived (derivatives) of the truth. If you are in defense of the criminals making their livings in the 'Financial-Services' INDUSTRY. Then yes, you would have a problem with the truth (or any derivatives of the truth). Probably because 'the truth' doesn't have dollar signs in front of it, unless of course you really earned it (worked for it) as opposed to 'winning' it using somebody elses real money (work).
Ellen_Dibble 05/03/2010 03:54 PM Report
doodah, who says Blankfein is a Jew? Do you deduce that from the fact he is friendly, smart, good at his trade (oops, pun there), skilled at turning "a dollar"? All the things we value -- oh, and there is the great tradition of valuing social values, too. Reverence, tradition. Communal values, caring among themselves and as regards to those outside the Jewish community. Actually, Blankfein exactly has the mannerisms of a friend of mine from the Bronx, a younger generation though. Surely a close relative; definitely from the same corner of the Big Apple. He trades, nationally, in, um, let's call it baseball cards. Has a dad in Omaha. Every mode of speech and gesture is out of the same genetic pool, and not worm-like at all. Look at the worms in your own circle, or are you Universal Man? Have you "looked at life from both sides now," and "it's life's illusions I recall; I really don't know life at all" either. Would you "get out" (as someone recommends below) if you were worth that kind of money? Would you go out in disguise, as in Mark Twain's The Prince and the Pauper? Maybe.
esq13 05/03/2010 03:44 PM Report
doodahdaze, can you make any substantive comments? I am not sure who is worse, Robdverity (goldman caused mass suicides) or you.
doodahdaze 05/03/2010 03:34 PM Report
43 minutes into this interview, this guy is such a great idiot. Weasel. the 'Lobbyists' are just 'invited' 'advisers' for the politicians. .. I'm supposed to believe that?.
This guy clearly represents the 'mentality' of these worms 'working' in this 'industry'. Very sad. very very very sad indeed. Pathetic. .. Charlie Rose may have well just been talking to a wall.
The 'Golden Key' the Goldman Sachs must be.
smoss11 05/03/2010 03:32 PM Report
What is difficult to reconcile is that GS received 100 cents on the dollar for its credit default swaps with AIG and, the following year, paid the bonuses that it did to its executives. GS was the ultimate sophisticated investor and should have known that it was taking a huge counter party risk in loading AIG with so many CDS's. GS should be required to pay back every cent of its AIG guarantee before bonuses any bonuses are paid to executives. The bottom line is that the wall street incentive system is broken. Traders are compensated for risks that become apparent long after bonuses are paid. The excuse that "if we don't pay these people, our competitors will" is prima facia evidence that the entire incentive system is defective.
robdverity 05/03/2010 03:24 PM Report
THE MEMORANDUM NEVER CONTEMPLATED (by any grownups):
____________________________________________________________________________
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP
Memorandum
Date: January 1, 2007
To: All Officers, Department Heads, Trading Desks, Employees and Clients
Subject: Due Diligence as it relates to Risk Management and Our Mission Statement
As we embark on this new year with our clients welfare always upper most in our overall objectives, I have directed our ablest Due Diligence officers to thoroughly vet all of our positions (long, short and net) of all our varied interests; with singular concentration on mortgage backed securities. It is becoming more apparent - nearly with each news cycle - that the quality of the underlying product does not meet the Goldman Sachs standards.
Responding in their usual thorough efficiency, they have each individually come to the same or similar conclusions, namely that the underling securities are fraught with irregularities, inconsistencies and potential for outright fraud. Citing cases of unverified entries of income, credit history, appraisal, age, citizenship, insurance etc.
In short, the residential mortgage backed securities are so unworthy of a Goldman Sachs portfolio, even for our own book, or especially for a client, that the long term interest of our firm dictate that we abstain completely from this market for the interim; or until our Due Diligence people give us a more positive outlook on the quality of the originating documents.
I know some of you will be dismayed with this directive, given our brethren a la Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Bear, AIG et al are all awash with earnings from their participation in this market. There are times when principles, integrity and plain old common sense must prevail.
To be candid, bonuses may be (temporarily) affected. We value all our employees and hope none will leave us. But given the nature of our breed we wish you the best should you choose to do so.
Thank you for your cooperation. Avoiding this facet of the market is essential for our long term quality, benefit and survival. It will pass.
esq13 05/03/2010 03:20 PM Report
I personally thought Senator Levin and the rest of the Senate Finance Committee demonstrated a lack of understanding of financial markets and were extremely rude and arrogant. They clearly wanted to make a point without trying to understand Goldman's side of the story. Given that they were grilled for eleven hours, the Goldman executive handled themselves pretty well. Without attacking Lloyd Blankfein or Goldman, who I still think did nothing wrong, I have to agree with HML 48. I do think many of the banks were overleveraged but the credit rating agencies' poor models for rating these securities encouraged a lot of banks to take on these products. In addition, the US Government itself plays a role in encouraging people to be homeowners regardless of whether they could afford to be. Fannie and Freddie and other mortgage companies were encouraging home buyers who did not verify income to buy a home. Many Americans, like it or not, made irresponsible financial decisions. Goldman Sachs is not in the business of giving out mortgages to homeowners. Firms like Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns and Lehman and other smaller banks were more involved in mortgage loan origination, Banks like Citi, Merrill, and Lehman played a larger role in trading structured products which is largely why Goldman did not get hit as hard as firms like Lehman and Bear. There is a lot of blame to go around in this crisis, and I don't think that Goldman, because it is a successful bank and has survived this crisis, should be the scapegoat for every wrong in this recession. The personal attacks on Blankfein's appearance or blaming Goldman for mass suicides do not offer intelligent assessment of this crisis. I respect Lloyd Blankfein as a CEO.
robdverity 05/03/2010 03:19 PM Report
Mr Nesbitt - nice post - from someone that's apparently been there.
Ellen, exactly and none of the big bank boys feel any of that undertow. They're exempt because they're entitled. Just ask em.
doodahdaze 05/03/2010 03:10 PM Report
What a nice CEO. :) EVERYBODY is the "RIGHT" person. "lose the right people to make room for other right people..." LOL
People who need people are the luckiest people in the world.
This man is ready for politics. Drum-roll please...
Ellen_Dibble 05/03/2010 02:47 PM Report
In Germany, with the reparations after World War I, the wheelbarrows full of worthless money, the crisis led to the rise of scapegoating (Holocaust), messianic militarism (Anschluss), and Heil Hitler. We get it, stresses experienced broadly are quite an undertow on the body politic.
doodahdaze 05/03/2010 02:47 PM Report
Why doesn't he spend some of all of that money he has and join the hair club and get an Afro?
America needs a Treasury Secretary with an Afro. .. We must restore pride in America! So the world will take 'us' more seriously.
robdverity 05/03/2010 01:54 PM Report
Actions have consequences no more plainly demonstrated than the May 3, 2010 news item, “Recession linked to rise in ‘shaken baby’ cases.”
REMant 05/03/2010 11:14 AM Report
It's one thing to make markets and quite another to dole out "liquidity" to make them. It's the leverage that's the problem and it was in 1929, as well. In the last analysis the danger comes from the position the Fed takes, even if trade imbalances are also involved. When equity mkts rise, it can mean only one thing, in this country or worldwide, that inflation has increased, because there is a commensurate decline in worthwhile investments, and an increase in money (or credit) relative to return. The plain fact is that when ppl make money on the rise in equities, they are doing so only because the economy is declining. Wealth is measured by the adequacy of supply in relation to demand, not by demand alone.
JackNesbitt 05/03/2010 07:42 AM Report
Dear Sir,
The Goldman representatives who testified this week before the Levin Committee were a singularly unimpressive bunch—including the Chm/CEO! From my time in Corporate Finance sector of the Financial Services industry, I worked with and met many more impressive people than the arrogant, condescending, and evasive bores who testified in the US Senate this week. Mediocracy ran deep in that group --from Messrs Sparks, Birbaum, Swenson, Viniar, Broderick and Blankfein through to even the “Fabulous Fab” (however, at least the “Fabulous Fab” had a bit of panache and flair and humility).
Goldman has positioned itself --a claim promulgated by its own external publicity machine and the Business Schools they recruit at, by the way --as a selective organization who prides itself on its recruiting prowess and its exclusivity. In other words, Goldman sold the financial public on the notion that it selectively recruits “Masters of the Universe”. The Goldman individuals I saw last Tuesday were about as far from Masters of the Universe as you can get—including Mr. Blankfein. (Consider the absurd statement that even Mr. Blankfein made regarding his ignorance about what rated tier of investments (AAA or whatever) certain pension funds, school districts, and foundations could buy for their own portfolios.)
In a word, then, I do not know how some or maybe all of the above-mentioned individuals ever got through their first interviews on campus or the Recruiting doors at Goldman (in the US or the UK) or even got promoted to the next level. I would not hire anyone of them for even a dogcatcher position except for maybe the “Fabulous Fab” who might be good with customers and new business.
Jack Nesbitt, MBA and Recruiter
& former Corporate Finance Associate, First Chicago Capital Markets, Chicago, IL
Welwyn, Herts, England, UK and Jacksonville, Fla, USA
HML48 05/03/2010 05:48 AM Report
The Senate, or at least Carl Levin beat up Blankfein for the wrong reasons. If Goldman's clients believe they are being had, the reputational risk will destroy the firm quite effectively. In fact, it would have done so already. Nor do I believe that Blankfein is correct when he states that the origin of the crisis is over-leveraging. Certainly, that make the crisis more painful but had the Mortgage Backed Securities represented solid mortgages we would not be in a crisis.
No, the crisis occurred because Greenspan's monetary policy and lack of oversight. This permitted the creation of a housing bubble which hid the risk of sub-prime mortgages. In turn, that permitted the under-pricing of risk associated with sub-prime mortgages to become institutionalized. Where Wall Street may be criminally liable is in the corruption of the rating agencies in connection with those securities.