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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (361667)	4/28/2010 8:55:29 AM
From: Elroy	Respond to of 794358

d) some combination of the above? I would guess this. What I am after Goldman about is the arm twisting deal they pulled to get AIG paid to so that they could pay a Euro bank who then paid Goldman ten Billion. They got off Scot free. If it's some combination of the above then saying we had net revenue of less than $500 million has little meaning. Maybe they had commission revenue of $5 billion, trading losses of $4.5 billion, for net revenue of $500 million. 5 billion in commission is a bit nuts, but by netting out trading profits, and then calling that "revenue", makes the statement about net revenues pretty opaque. I still think the government should have taken equity stakes in return for their TARP loans to the banks. Make the distressed bank dilute its equity when it is low if the bank gets in that bad of shape. TARP equity stakes would have made over 100% depending on the bank.