Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (73300)	4/27/2010 1:07:55 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

The antipathy to Goldman Sachs is overwrought. There's no reason why they can't take both sides of trades, and make markets and recommend both sides of a trade, as long as they are not fraudulent about it. It could very well be that they have two analysts working for them, with one recommending a sell of QCOM and one saying, "Buy QCOM". For marketing reasons, it's more likely that they'd adopt a corporate position with which all their employees have to comply. The attack on Goldman Sachs looks like a case of envy. The government chose to give them $billions of opm loot. Blaming Goldman Sachs for accepting it is ridiculous. Similarly, the antipathy to our great and estimable Uncle Al KBE was near hysterical when people realized they had been irrationally exuberant but didn't want to blame their own Zombie "thinking" as that would mean they are ignorant financial illiterates. Also, when pleading for opm, it's important to be thought of as a poor innocent victim of Evil-doers and malign forces over which one has no control. Being a greedy property speculator "Hey, property prices never go down, I can't go wrong - hit me with 110% mortgage". The Dow is still double what it was at the time he made his point about irrational exuberance. He was right that there was not irrational exuberance. House prices are also way above then, even post-crash. They are still above Y2K levels. It looks as though Alan GreenSpan was also right about financial institution shareholders managing their own risk [even though he says it was a mistake] - some of them lost but some of them won which is the nature of risky gambling against other gamblers. Unfortunately for Lehmans, Bear Stearns and others their gambles didn't pay off. Government rescues with opm went elsewhere. It is a good bet that governments will rob savers and hand it to the gamblers = they do it time after time. Warren Buffett knew they'd do it again and got in and made a fortune. The financial system is fine. Financial relativity theory processes continue to match reality. Big Ben has buckets of $billions still available for Round 2, with fleets of helicopters ready to launch at a moment's notice. Mqurice