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: carranza2 who wrote (73338)	5/5/2010 12:52:23 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Respond to of 74559

It would surprise me if Goldman Sachs is in the clear, but they might be for all I know and I have kept a passing eye on proceedings. Sure they have friends in high places handing them government loot, but what are friends for? The USA is well known for having the best politicians money can buy. But that's not illegal. So far, it looks like just business as usual, with no fraud or crime required to get loads of loot. The particular case at issue seems like a non issue and I have previously written what Buffett is now saying = so what if they take opposite sides of the trade, or 10 different sides via 5 different departments with 20 different counter-parties. It's just markets and liquidity, offsetting risk and collecting a fee each time somebody passes Go. Once upon a time, I wanted to borrow US$1 million in yen to convert to US$ and buy MSFT = that was about 1995 when the yen got as high as 89 yen to the dollar and the Japanese government said that that was as far as it was going. But I couldn't find counter-parties to take the opposite bets. Goldman Sachs would have been my best mates if they had created such trades for me to conduct and I wouldn't have cared if Paulson was the counter-party who put the securities together for me to trade. My trades would have been winners! MSFT zoomed, as did US$. Mqurice