Re: Joe Stocks Re: Goldman’s Quasi-Monopoly Earnings Report
Thought this may be of interest to some here as a follow-up to what I wrote.
Hi Joe,
My name is Michael Blomquist. I am a 2nd generation developer, mortgage and real estate developer in Silicon Valley, CA. I have 20 years of experience in the industry and have been writing to the regulators, legislators, FTC, DAs and others for years about the terrible declines in lending standards.
The current pandemic is not just an issue of irrational exuberance; it is FRAUD! The criminals behind this fraud need to be arrested and prosecuted. I have filed a lawsuit against Goldman, Hank Paulson, Countrywide, S&P and numerous other players for antitrust, unfair competition, securities fraud and APA.
I am looking for information/evidence and expert testimony. If you or anyone else reading this thread has information please forward it to:
michaelsblomquist@yahoo.com
These crooks are destroying the American Dream of Homeownership, capitalism, and our country.
This BS should not be tolerated!
Michael Blomquist
408-399-0590______________________________________
Hi Michael, You da man! Nail those bastages! I will paste your post to some of the boards I visit. I will also drop you an email.
Here is an excerpt from an essay I wrote last year - the last part. It was another essay which I discuss what I think is Greenspan's and the Federal Reserves mindset back in 2002. I wrote this before I found out about the CRMPG. Contrary to what some may think from my essay of the last couple days, I am just a serious investor that sees our free markets being taken away by the likes of the quasi-monopolies like Goldman and others. I just collect information over a period of time and then get peeved one day I put it all together and write, just hoping it will land in the right minds someday that may be able to do something to stop this nonsense.
Below are just a couple of observations from 2002-2003. Something happened in 2002. Something that scared the Federal Reserve and the Government that they felt the best way to firm up the finances of the nations mega-banks was to let them have a free hand to innovate. That innovation eventually turned to defrauding the public as we have all witnessed through collusion and manipulation of the markets with their schemes.
I will follow this post with another excerpt that overlaps these two recent postings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
June 2006
In summary of the speech, Greenspan embraces the idea that mega-banks should be able to collude in developing trading strategies that undermine the smaller investor with out fear regulation, in that these “innovations” are good for the growth of the economy by making the PCS banks stronger. Anyway, that the way I see it. Read the speech yourself. I think anyone would have a hard time coming away with a different conclusion.
So, where are we today? Program Trading reported last week for the previous week was 69.7% of ALL shares traded on the NYSE. Just six mega-banks accounted for 64.2% of ALL the program trading. Their program trades accounted for 44.7% of ALL shares traded on the NYSE.
Are their “innovations’ working?
Just a year later in June of 2003 we started seeing news like this; June 16 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and MORGAN STANLEY, the top merger advisers and equity underwriters in the past decade, are making twice as much money this year from trading than from investment banking. The emergence of trading as Wall Street's biggest profit center will be confirmed when Goldman Sachs, MORGAN STANLEY, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Bear Stearns Cos. release earnings for the quarter ended May 31 during the next two weeks.
And just in the last few months…
Bear Stearns recent earnings report was interesting. Their principle transactions trading unit showed a 52.2% increase in revenues year over year, 29.7% increase over last quarter. On the other hand, commission revenues were down 2.7% year over year. Guess they were making so much money for themselves that they did not let their clients in on their success. Then there is this from their report;
>>Asset Management net revenues were $22 million for the second quarter of 2006 a decrease of 56% from $50 million in the prior year's quarter mainly due to a decline in performance fees on proprietary hedge funds. Assets under management increased 20% to $48 billion on May 31, 2006, from $40 billion on May 31, 2005.<<
If I am reading this right, assets under management for the hedge funds that they manage for other people's money were up 20%. But, because the hedge funds they manage did not perform well, their management fees were down 56%. You don't think that their managed hedged funds (other people's money) was on the losing side of a trade with their own principle trading unit that is trading THEIR money, would you?
Goldman Sachs recently reported. Principle trading and investments were up 147% year over year. biz.yahoo.com/bw/060613/2....html?.v=1 Goldman's trading and principle investment unit accounted for 69% of overall revenue in the second quarter.
UBS reported net trading income up 93% for their first quarter. They had this to say about the money they manage for others; “Global equity markets rose by more than 5% in first quarter. The actively managed global equity composite underperformed its benchmark for the quarter, despite positive contributions across some sectors, such as software. The underperformance was largely a result of stock selection in diversified financials and the underweight position in the strongly performing materials sector.” Another one that was on the right side of every trade with their money, but something quite different when they manage other people’s money.
Another. Credit-Suisse, a Swiss mega-bank, recently reported a 95% increase in trading revenues y-o-y. “These significant increases reflected higher revenues across all major business areas amid strong markets.” Later in the report when they are talking about the accounts they manage…” Asset management revenues decreased slightly versus the fourth quarter of 2005 also due primarily to lower trading revenues.” www.credit-suisse.com/inv...1_2006.pdf
All the above banks are also top program traders as reported by the NYSE. All implied in recent reports that their energy trading units were very profitable. In my opinion, these energy traders were able to keep energy futures high in face of building inventories to squeeze the shorts. ‘Trader Monthly’, an industry magazine, reported in April that top traders are earning $15 to $50 million a year.
I think one must ask themselves how, across the board, the top mega banks can show such substantial growth trading their own funds while the funds they manage for others show less stellar returns. The only way it can be done is through an orchestrated effort involving the Federal Reserve and the ‘PCS’ team. Remember, these are the same banks that the Federal Reserve uses to put more money into the system. Through collusion these member banks can gain substantial profits for their proprietary accounts at the expense of not only the small investor, but anyone that is not a member of this group.
The public needs to know about these shenanigans. Greenspan’s speech pretty much says that it is best that the mega-banks profit from the little guy to have a robust economy. In his example he felt it best that the individual land owner remained unaware of the highest and best use of his property and the values that it may represent. He fairly much endorses ‘irrational exuberance’ as long as the mega banks benefit. |
