Florida State Seminoles

[AugustWest]

[img2]http://i.min.us/iYZqWjfFGJetw.jpg[/img2]

[Jungle Rat]

Are you supposed to be on some weird type of drug to get that post Augie?

[aTm]

Cheezin

[TheBigMook]

Totally cheezin his balls off.

[AugustWest]

Are you supposed to be on some weird type of drug to get that post Augie?

dont think of it as two cartoons.

[Bklyn]

That shit was funny.

[BigRedMan]

The other response to her statement would be...

[AugustWest]

I read that in Farnsworth's voice. Get out of my head!!!!

[BigRedMan]

HEH, I think everyone does.

[Ron Mexico]

You need extra security when you're dealing with a Barksdale at a courthouse...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... 0812.story

[T Dot O Dot]

LMAO

[Bklyn]

Some are pretty good...

http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-b ... 010-8?op=1

[sardis]

Some are pretty good...

http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-b ... 010-8?op=1

" I have pledged – to you, the rating agencies and myself – to always run Berkshire with more than ample cash. We never want to count on the kindness of strangers in order to meet tomorrow’s obligations. When forced to choose, I will not trade even a night’s sleep for the chance of extra profits"

Unless we invest in Goldman Sachs. Then we don't mind the kindness from Washington...

[Bklyn]

Actually, the Goldman move was more about the other quote in that list...where price is what you pay and value is what you get. Goldman was just suffering a price hit because of the total Financial sector. The value of GS was always strong. If I had the capital that Buffet did, I would've done the same thing. Any wise investor would.

Plus, unless you're talking about the impending total collapse of the banking system and Capitalism, in general, back in 2008 Goldman was never in any trouble. That's why it was a no-brainer to toss cash to them. Goldman took TARP money...but only because they were forced to. They never needed government cash, but the government could not signal to the wider market the ones who did need it <ahem>CITI</ahem>. Then, what was more hilarious is that Goldman wanted to pay the money back, but the govt told them they had to wait...because paying it back quickly would be just as bad as not taking it (JP Morgan dealt with the same issue...and PNC). It was pretty humorous to watch.

With all that said, obviously if the government did not prop up the market...along with saving AIG, as well...then everyone, EVERYONE, would have failed and the government would own all of these entities today, so Goldman did benefit from that.

Personally, besides regulations that were stripped away over the past 15 years and regulatory bodies that turned a blind eye to malfeasance along the way (or were atrophied by budget cuts), the biggest driver of the whole calamity is letting these banks go public. That alone allowed banks to crank up the risk because they were playing with shareholder money and not their own and got paid off of the short-term returns. No way would you have seen the risk appetite for CDSs, CDOs and other structured products if the money pushed to the middle of the table was their own.

/soapbox

[sardis]

Actually, the Goldman move was more about the other quote in that list...where price is what you pay and value is what you get. Goldman was just suffering a price hit because of the total Financial sector. The value of GS was always strong. If I had the capital that Buffet did, I would've done the same thing. Any wise investor would.

Plus, unless you're talking about the impending total collapse of the banking system and Capitalism, in general, back in 2008 Goldman was never in any trouble. That's why it was a no-brainer to toss cash to them. Goldman took TARP money...but only because they were forced to. They never needed government cash, but the government could not signal to the wider market the ones who did need it <ahem>CITI</ahem>. Then, what was more hilarious is that Goldman wanted to pay the money back, but the govt told them they had to wait...because paying it back quickly would be just as bad as not taking it (JP Morgan dealt with the same issue...and PNC). It was pretty humorous to watch.

With all that said, obviously if the government did not prop up the market...along with saving AIG, as well...then everyone, EVERYONE, would have failed and the government would own all of these entities today, so Goldman did benefit from that.

Personally, besides regulations that were stripped away over the past 15 years and regulatory bodies that turned a blind eye to malfeasance along the way (or were atrophied by budget cuts), the biggest driver of the whole calamity is letting these banks go public. That alone allowed banks to crank up the risk because they were playing with shareholder money and not their own and got paid off of the short-term returns. No way would you have seen the risk appetite for CDSs, CDOs and other structured products if the money pushed to the middle of the table was their own.

/soapbox

You need to read "Too Big To Fail' before you hang your hat on that...Goldman would have taken a hit on the AIG debacle. And there weren't no way Buffett was investing unless Paulson was guaranteeing gov't backing.

[Bklyn]

I read a bunch of Sorkin's articles leading up to "Too Big..." The thing is, most of the people who really meant something to the shit show that was 2008 would not talk to him. So, he got A LOT of information from Jamie Dimond and Paulson, but that tome is nowhere near the totality of what was going down inside the IBs here...and the funds up in CT.

Goldman DEFINITELY would have taken a hit on the AIG debacle. That was my point with the following sentence:

obviously if the government did not prop up the market...along with saving AIG, as well...then everyone, EVERYONE, would have failed and the government would own all of these entities today

If AIG would have gone belly up, then Goldman, Merrill, Morgan Stanley, a looooooong list of hedge funds, other IBs and ultimately JP Morgan would have gone up in smoke. AIG sat on the other side of a shitload of the "insurance" (CDS) taken out that funded the above list. My biggest gripe about the AIG bailout, personally, is that the Obama administration (via AIG) paid out 100 cents on the dollar for the insurance. All of these entities were looking at getting zero dollars in an AIG collapse...and they got paid out fully without a gripe. I would've paid no higher than 80cents. The alternative was much worse for these banks. That's what you get when you have so many ex IBankers in Washington "advising." Banks get the better end of the deal.

Anyway, besides the AIG issue (which would've forced our whole system to collapse...and Socialism, real Socialism, would have been our reality), Goldman did not have as many toxic assets on its balance sheet as the other banks (granted because a shitload of what they did have was packaged and sold to the Germans and Australians before the curtain got pulled back). They did not need direct bailout cash to maintain operations. That shit is fact.

"Too Big To Fail" was a decent starting point. But, to be honest, the REALLY good book that would detail all the dirt and dirty dealings has not been written yet and you won't see it for another 5 to 10 years, IMO.

[TheBigMook]

This story has everything. Shame on you Rat.

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... y=obinsite

[Jungle Rat]

I hope she learned her lesson.

[sardis]

"Goldman DEFINITELY would have taken a hit on the AIG debacle. That was my point with the following sentence..."

Wasn't that my original point? Goldman was vulnerable and the "Oracle of Omaha" capitalized on buying them cheap with the help of the federal government...

Shouldn't he feel led to give any profits from that investment back to the fed since they assisted him?

[Bklyn]

Everyone in the market with exposure to Financials, Consumer Goods, Industrial Goods and maybe Conglomerates were assisted by the government in 2008. The Government propped up the capital markets tremendously.

Your comment ("buying them cheap with the help of the federal government") makes it seem as if the government in some way assisted Buffet in buying them cheap. That's not true. The government did not cause Goldman's price to drop...and thereby did not help Buffett take advantage of a sweet situation. The govt assisted (saved) the banking sector (in order to preserve its preferred economic system), and Goldman...plus a slew of other banks...were the beneficiaries of the sector's rescue via Govt intervention. Shit, anyone with a Large Cap fund in their 401(k) benefited the same way. Should you give back your profits gained from that save?

Hell, Buffett's doing the same play now with Bank of America...although I think it's a riskier move. The GS bet was a no-brainer...and it netted him about $3B (a 60% return). I don't know if the Return Gods will smile on him in the same way with BofA, but I doubt he'll lose much money, if any. The bank is too important to go away, even today, although the political climate for saves has changed dramatically in the past 3 years.