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 : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Madharry who wrote (37982)	5/22/2010 1:02:28 AM
From: Spekulatius	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78464

GS is absurdly cheap only in the current framework. Teh current framework is that they can borrow for almost nothing - their balance sheet is 880B -72B$ in equity that is roughly 802B$ in liabilities. Even if you consider that 200B$ is probably pass through they are currently able to borrow roughly 600B$ and paid only 1.5B$ in interest. This money is not coming from depositors, it's coming from FED's quasi guaranteed interbank lending at libor for 0.6% interest rate currently. Would you lend money to GS for 0.6% annually? 80% of GS revenues are coming from trading business (their own internal proprietary trading and acting as a market maker for all sorts of things) and the remaining 20% from asset management and investment banking. Those trading business are profitable only when they are financed cheaply. For example look at SRE energy and metal trading business they were making 20% on equity but only when backing from RBS was available for the huge sums. Once RBS bailed out, those very profitable business were sold (to another bank - JPM) at book value and the rest is barely braking even. SRE is no lightweight financially but they are BBB+ rated and would have to borrow LT money at 6% probably. that would probably eat away most of the profit. Anyways to get back to GS -their trading business has several hundred B$ financed with debt at 0.6% rates - what were GS profits, if the interest rate were a more normal 5% (reasonable for an A-rated company). I am sure you can do the math? Will that happen? I don't know but the financial legislation will make it more likely. but here is the other angle of that equation - all this financing at Libor is short term and need to be rolled over daily or monthly. Now when indeed criminal charges are pressed how many institutions will want to lent them money for a measly 0.6%. many will not be allowed to do interbank lending or other business because of their bylaws, others will decide that it's not worth it. Without access to that cash, GS will be on life support within 2 weeks, I'd venture to guess. Then the FED will come in and do an AIG with them. Could this happen? I think so. Is it likely? I think not - maybe a 10-20% chance. i think a settlement is more likely but somehow In believe that GS will not be left off the hook that easily (same may apply to MS). Just something to think about over the weekend. Well I leave my GTC order open for GS @125$ but I am aware of the risks.

To: Madharry who wrote (37982)	5/22/2010 2:34:31 AM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78464

GS: "GS is absurdly cheap when you consider that they have billions under management..." I'm seeing $840B for assets under management (last q report), and a GS market cap of $72B. Can't determine enterprise value from Yahoo's numbers -- there's so much cash (pass-through stuff?) on the balance sheet apparently. Anyway, aum/mkt cap = .086 = 8.6%, which to me seems high, although perhaps not out of line for these financial conglomerates (vs. pure asset managers). I like GS for its brain power, its m&a strength, and its seeming to be a "go to" company when large businesses want or need to do deals, restructurings, etc. I also like its growth as measured by growth in stated bv. Negatives are the complexity of the businesses and GS's bruised (or worse) reputation. Further, the difficulty in assessing what affect the government regs will have on GS. Plus perhaps also should be considered Spekulatius's point--assessing how or if GS will sustain profits when interest rates increase on GS's borrowed monies.