Tuesday, 23 February 2010 23:00

For Those Who Chose Not To Heed My Warning About Buying Products From Name Brand Wall Street Banks,

Some of the top secret AIG bailout info is out. Guess who's at the heart of it, making money by creating straight trash, selling it to its clients then buying insurance to benefit from its inevitable crash?
I have been warning about Goldman's ability to sell trash to its clients
for some time now.

This is not a short post, for it is packed with a lot of supporting information, analysis and data. If you are looking for quippy paragraph, soundbyte or quick headline to get an overview of,,, well whatever, click here, or better yet, click here. For everyone else who may be looking for deeper investigative analysis and the unbridled TRUTH for a change, please continue on.

First a little background info. Goldman is supremely overvalued in my opinion. It is even more so considering much of its profit is generated solely from the raping of its clients. I say this holding absolutely no ill will towards Goldman. This is strictly factual. Let's walk through the evidence, of profit potential, valuation, and the stuff behind some of the value drivers in their business model, like brokerage and investment banking...

For one, Goldman is overvalued considering the economic profit that it
generates. See
Continuing the Goldman Sachs Valuation Debate (for those who have
closely followed my Goldman opinion, you can skip down to the Bloomberg
article towards the bottom of the page):

RM: GS return on equity
has declined substantially due to deleverage and is only marginally
higher than its current cost of capital. With ROE down to c12% from c20%
during pre-crisis levels, there is no way a stock with high beta as GS
could justify adequate returns to cover the inherent risk. For GS to trade back at 200 it has
to increase its leverage back to pre-crisis levels to assume ROE of 20%
And for that GS has to either increase its leverage back to 25x. With
curbs on banks leverage this seems highly unlikely. Without any increase
in leverage and ROE, the stock would only marginally cover returns to
shareholders given that ROE is c12%. Even based on consensus estimates
the stock should trade at about where it is trading right now, leaving
no upside potential. Using BoomBustBlog estimates, the valuation drops
considerably since we take into consideration a decrease in trading
revenue or an increase in the cost of funding in combination with a
limitation of leverage due to the impending global regulation coming
down the pike. Using your method, our valuation would drop from where it
is to an even lower point.


Second, it still has a bunch of trash on its balance sheet, see
vs Goldman Sachs, Round 2:

So, what is GS if you strip it of its government protected, name
branded hedge fund status. Well, my subscribers already know. Let' take a
peak into one of their subscription documents (Goldman Sachs Stress Test<br />
	Professional Goldman Sachs Stress Test
Professional 2009-04-20
- 131 pages). I
believe many with short term memory actually forgot what got this bank
into trouble in the first place, and exactly how it created the
perception that it got out of trouble. The (Off) Balance Sheet!!!


Contrary to popular belief, it does not appear that Goldman is a
superior risk manager as compared to the rest of the Street. They may
the same mistakes and had to accept the same bailouts. They are
apparently well connected though, because they have one of the riskiest
balance sheet compositions around yet managed to get themselves insured
and protected by the FDIC like a real bank. This bank's portfolio looked
quite scary at the height of the bubble.


You know what most people don't realize is that it looks quite scary
now as well.


If one were to strip out the revenues from prop trading, it would leave
bards some balance sheet issue. Again, I query, should virtual hedge
funds that pay out half of revenue as compensation trade at such high
premiums to the rest of the market? I don't think so, and I have put my
money behind the idea that the market will not think so in the near
future either.

Now that we
have established at least a basic understanding of what is underneath
the GS hood, let's see how the engine runs in order to generate said
profits. In Reggie
vs Goldman Sachs, Round 1,
I noted that
Goldman often peddled horrible advice and products to clients that
repeatedely lost tons of money, yet Goldman is still considered the best
and the brightest on the Street. Let's take a look:

The mainstream media jumps when Goldman's sales and marketing staff analysts make a recommendation or
prediction, despite the fact that no one really bothers to look back to
see how profitable the GS sales and
marketing staff
have been for their clients vs the risk-adjusted profitability for
their bonus pool shareholders. One example that I
have used in my previous posts was Lehman Brothers, who I became
increasingly bearish on in early 2008 (if you're a regular reader,
please bear with this rehash):

The esteemed Goldman Sachs did not agree with my thesis on Lehman.
Reference the following graph, and click it if you need to enlarge.
Notice the tone, and ultimately the outright indication of a fall in the
posts from February through April 2008 above, and cross reference with
the rather rosy and optimistic guidance from the esteemed Goldman
(Sachs) boys during the same time period, then... Oh yeah, Lehman
filed for bankruptcy!!!


Does anybody think that Lehman was a "one off" occurrence? Or for that
matter does anyone believe that only Goldman is guilty of a lack of
actual performance for their clients vs. their bonus pool???


Reference "Blog
vs. Broker, whom do you trust!"
and you will be able to track the
performance of all of the big banks and broker recommendations for much
of the year 2008 for the companies that I covered on my blog. Since the
concept of sell is rather remote to any big broker whose trading desk is
not net short a particular position, it would be safe to assume that if
the market turns the broker's recommendations will also turn in a
similarly abysmal year as well. Just to be clear, this is not about
ability, or who is the smartest. It is about marketing and conflicts of
interest. Brokers do not charge for their research. Thus it should be
obvious to anyone with even the slightest modicum of business savvy that
the sunk costs that is freely disseminated research is most likely a
loss leader (with the losses being born by the consumers of said
research) otherwise known as the marketing arm for underwriting, sales
and trading.

The blind following of Wall Street marketing research, and the abject
worshipping of Goldman marketing,inventory
sales research allows them to rake
billions of dollars off of their clients backs, yet clients still come
back for more pain. A fascinating, Pavlov's dog's/Stockholm Syndrome
style phenomena. Have you, as a Goldman client, performed as well as
their employees receiving $19 billion in bonuses? Don't get me wrong.
I'm not hating Goldman, but now they are actually raping raking billions of dollars off of
the tax payers backs as well. I do not do business with them, hence I do
not want get my back raked - but it appears that as a US taxpayer I
have no choice. A company that nearly collapsed a year ago, receives
mysteriously generous government assistance (AIG full payout during its
near collapse as an insolvent company) with the help of highly ranked
government officials (many of which are ex-Goldman employees) and then
pays out record bonuses on top of so many tens of billions of dollars of
taxpayer aid with taxpayers facing high unemployment and sparse credit
is not necessarily a company that should be looked upon as a scion of
Wall Street. There is no operational excellence here. The only reason
such an aura exists is because main street and Wall Street clients have
an amazingly short memory, as I will demonstrate in the paragraphs
below. This goes for the big Wall Street banks in general, and Goldman
in particular.

As stated above, Goldman is now underwriting CMBS under a broad fund our $19 billion bonus pool "buy" recommendation in the CRE
REIT space. Let's take a look at another big bonus development exercise,
marketing push they made into MBS a few years ago...

gsamp_2007.pngIn April of 2006, a Goldman Sachs formed
"Goldman Sachs Alternative Mortgage Products", an entity that pushed
residential mortgage backed securities to its victims clients through GSAMP Trust
2006-S3 in a similar fashion to the sales and marketing of the CRE CMBS
that is being pushed to its victimsclients
as described in the links above. The residential real estate market
faced very dire fundamental and macro headwinds back then, just as the
commercial real estate market does now. I don't think that is the end of
the similarities, either.

Less then a year and a half after this particular issue was floated, a
sixth of the borrowers defaulted on the loans behind this product,
according to CNN/Fortune,
where the graphic to the right was sourced from. Here's an excerpt from
the article of October 2007 (less than a year after the issue was sold to Goldman
clients, clients who probably didn't know that Goldman was short RMBS
even as Goldman peddled this bonus bulging trash to them)

By February
2007, Moody's and S&P began downgrading the issue. Both agencies
dropped the top-rated tranches all the way to BBB from their original
AAA, depressing the securities' market price substantially.

In March,
less than a year after the issue was sold, GSAMP began defaulting on its
obligations. By the end of September, 18% of the loans had defaulted,
according to Deutsche Bank.

As a result,
the X tranche, both B tranches, and the four bottom M tranches have been
wiped out, and M-3 is being chewed up like a frame house with termites.
At this point, there's no way to know whether any of the A tranches
will ultimately be impaired...

,,, Goldman said
it made money in the third quarter by shorting an index of
mortgage-backed securities. That prompted
Fortune to ask the firm to explain to
us how it had managed to come out ahead while so many of its
mortgage-backed customers were getting stomped.

The party line answer to the bolded phrase above is "risk
management". Goldman is prone to say, "We were just hedging out client
positions". Well, I wonder, were they net short or net long RMBS. You
want to know what my guess is??? Looking back to there CMBS offerings of
late, clients and bonus pool enhancement customers should inquire, "Is
Goldman net short the trash, bonus pool
products that they are peddling to me???"

Now, fast forwarding to the present day, we look into "GSAMP Trust
2006-S3" and we find (courtesy of a follow-up
CNN/Fortune article

formulas used by Moody's and S&P allowed Goldman to market the top
three slices of the security -- cleverly called A-1, A-2 and A- 3 -- as
AAA rated. That meant they were supposedly as safe as U.S. Treasury

But of course
they weren't. More than a third of the loans were on homes in
California, then a superhot market, now a frigid one. Defaults and
rating downgrades began almost immediately. In July 2008, the last piece
of the issue originally rated below AAA defaulted -- it stopped making
interest payments. Now every month's report by the issue's trustee,
Deutsche Bank, shows that the old AAAs -- now rated D by S&P and Ca
by Moody's -- continue to rot out.

As of Oct.
26, date of the most recent available trustee's report, only $79.6
million of mortgages were left, supporting $159.9 million of bonds. In
other words, each dollar of bonds had a claim on less than 50¢ of

All the
tranches of this issue, GSAMP-2006 S3, that were originally rated below
AAA have defaulted. Two of the three original AAA -rated tranches
(French for "slices") are facing losses of about 90%, and even the
"super senior," safer-than-mere-AAA slice is facing losses of 25%.

As of Oct.
26, date of the most recent available trustee's report, only $79.6
million of mortgages were left, supporting $159.9 million of bonds. In
other words, each dollar of bonds had a claim on less than 50¢ of

... ABSNet
valued the remaining mortgages in our issue at a tad above 20% their
face value. Now, watch this math. If the mortgages are worth 20% of
their face value and each dollar of mortgages supports more than $2 of
bonds, it means that the remaining bonds are worth maybe 10% of face

...If all the
originally AAA -rated bonds were the same, they'd all be facing losses
of 90% or so in value. However, they weren't the same. The A-1 "super
senior" tranche was entitled to get all the principal payments from all
the borrowers until it was paid off in full. Then A-2 and A-3 would
share the repayments, then repayments would move down to the lower-rated

But under the
security's rules, once the M-1 tranche -- the highest-rated piece of
the issue other than the A tranches -- defaulted in July 2008, all the
A's began sharing in the repayments. The result is that only about 28%
of the original A-1 "super seniors" are outstanding, compared with more
than 98% of A-2 and A-3. If you apply a 90% haircut, the losses work out
to about 25% for the "super seniors," and about 90% for A-2 and A-3.

So, after reminiscing about the GSAMP Slide, we get to a news story in
Bloomberg released just this morning...

Secret AIG Document
Shows Goldman Sachs Minted Most Toxic CDOs

From Bloomberg:

Feb. 23 (Bloomberg)

Representative Darrell
, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, placed into the hearing record a five-page
document itemizing the mortgage securities on which banks such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Societe Generale SA had bought
$62.1 billion in credit-default swaps from AIG...

The public can now see for the first time how poorly the securities
performed, with losses exceeding 75 percent of their notional
value in some cases.
Compounding this, the document and
Bloomberg data demonstrate that the banks that bought the swaps
from AIG are mostly the same firms that underwrote the CDOs in the first

The banks should have to explain how they managed to buy
protection from AIG primarily on securities that fell so sharply in
, says Daniel
, a former swaps trader and marketer who’s now a
structured-finance consultant in Warren, New Jersey. In some cases, banks
also owned mortgage lenders, and they should be challenged to explain
whether they gained any insider knowledge about the quality of the loans
bundled into the CDOs,
he says. [Let's not play games here. The
banks knew what trash was hidden where!]

‘Too Uncanny’

“It’s almost too uncanny,” Calacci says. “If these banks had insight
into the underlying loans because they had relationships with banks,
originators or servicers, that’s at the least unethical.
”[At the
very least. I think it's called ILLEGAL!

The identification of securities in the document, known as Schedule A,
and data compiled by Bloomberg show that Goldman Sachs
underwrote $17.2 billion of the $62.1 billion in CDOs that AIG insured
-- more than any other investment bank.
Merrill Lynch &
Co., now part of Bank of America Corp., created $13.2 billion of the
CDOs, and Deutsche Bank AG underwrote $9.5 billion.

These tallies suggest a possible reason why the New York Fed kept so
much under wraps
, Professor James
of Duke University
School of Law says: “They may have been trying to shield Goldman
-- for Goldman’s sake or out of macro concerns that another investment
bank would be at risk.”

Poor Performers

Goldman Sachs spokesman Michael
declined to
[Of course...]

Schedule A also makes possible a more complete examination of why AIG
collapsed. Joseph
, the former president of the AIG Financial Products unit
that sold the swaps, said on a December 2007 conference call that his
firm pulled back from selling swaps on U.S. subprime residential CDOs in
late 2005. The list shows that the $21.2 billion in CDOs minted
after 2005, mostly based on prime and commercial mortgages, performed as
badly as or worse than the earlier subprime vintages.
seriously doubt so. Don't you guys know we are in the middlet of a steep
"V" shaped economic recovery and a roaring bull(shit) market? The CRE
and residential real estate markets have just about bottomed out and the
worst is over!]

.... As details of the coverup emerge, so does anger at the perceived
, chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission,
at a hearing held by his panel on Jan. 13, questioned how banks
could underwrite poisonous securities and then bet against them. “It
sounds to me a little bit like selling a car with faulty brakes and then
buying an insurance policy on the buyer of those cars,” he said.

[Actually, if I may correct you my good man, it's more like
selling a car with faulty breaks, then buying a car accident swap on the
driver (through your own car accident swap dealer which has practically
cornered the car accident swap market, may I add) and getting repeat
business from the sucker who bought the car with bad breaks in order to
sell him multiple upgarded models of said faulty break car, complete
with free car accident swap counterparty membership! You make money off
of him until he dies, and then you simply cash in your swap. The swaps
may not be as profitable as they once were because the damn bad brake
and car accident swap regulators are starting to bitch and moan about
you making so much money from damn near killing poeple while having
access to federal funds. God's work, forbid. They are actually asking us
to foot the bill for damn near killing the clients without access to
the Fed window and 0.25% rates on our FDIC insured bonds!!!

‘Part of the Coverup’

, founder of Tavakoli Structured Finance Inc., a
Chicago-based consulting firm, says the New York Fed’s secrecy has
helped hide who’s responsible for the worst of the disaster. “The
suppression of the details in the list of counterparties was part of the
coverup,” she says.

E-mails between Fed and AIG officials that Issa released in January
show that the efforts to keep Schedule A under wraps came from the New
York Fed. Revelation of the messages contributed to the heated
atmosphere at the House hearing.

“What date did you know there was a coverup?” Republican CongressmanBrian
of California
demanded of Geithner. Lawmakers used the word coverup more than a dozen
times as they peppered Geithner with questions.


The government has committed more than $182 billion to AIG and owns
almost 80 percent of the company.

Document Withheld

In late November 2008, the insurer was planning to include Schedule A
in a regulatory filing -- until a lawyer for the Fed said it wasn’t
necessary, according to the e-mails. The document was an attachment to
the agreement between AIG and Maiden Lane III, the fund that the Fed
established in November 2008 to hold the CDOs after the swap contracts
were settled.

AIG paid its counter parties -- the banks -- the full value of the
contracts, after accounting for any collateral that had been posted, and
took the devalued CDOs in exchange. As requested by the New York Fed,
AIG kept the bank names out of the Dec. 24 filing and edited out a sentence that
said they got full payment.

The New York Fed’s January 2010 statement said the sentence was deleted
because AIG technically paid slightly less than 100 cents on the

Paid in Full

Before the New York Fed ordered AIG to pay the banks in full, the
company was trying to negotiate to pay off the credit- default swaps at a
discount or “haircut.”

By March 2009, responding to a request from Christopher
, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and
Urban Affairs, AIG released the names of the counterparty banks. In a
filing later that month, AIG included Schedule A, showing bank names
while withholding all identification of the underlying CDOs and the
amounts of collateral each bank had collected. The document had more
than 800 redactions.

In May 2009, AIG again filed Schedule A, this time with about 400
redactions. It revealed that Paris-based Societe Generale got the
biggest payout from AIG, or $16.5 billion, followed by Goldman Sachs,
which got $14 billion, and then Deutsche Bank and Merrill Lynch. It
still kept secret the CDOs’ identification and information that would
show performance...

“This is something that belongs in the public domain because it was
done with public money,” Issa says. “The public has the right to know
what was done with their money and who benefited from it.” Now, thanks
to Issa, the list is out, and specific information about AIG’s
unraveling can be learned from it. At the Jan. 27 hearing, the New
York Fed was still arguing that the contents of Schedule A shouldn’t be
fully disclosed. Thomas
, the New York Fed’s general counsel, testified that
divulging the names of the CDOs could erode their value: “We will be
hurt because traders in the market will know what we’re holding.”

[Let's get this straight, your selling your housem but it had a fire
and 60% of it is burned down. According to Baxter, you don't want
anyone to tell your broker or other housing investors that your house
has burnt down or even the address because it could (and let me quote
this for the most accurate effect) "could erode
their value: “We will be hurt
because traders in the market will know what we’re holding.
Now (and excuse my French here), if that ain't some shit to be
admittting in public, in a Congressional hearing to boot, I don't know
what it. You guys have balls the size of bowling balls, ya' hear me!

Tavakoli calls that wrong. With many CDOs, providing more information
to the market will give the manager a greater chance of fetching a
realistic price, she says. [Who wants a realistic price when you can try
to fetch a Goldman RIPOFF price??? Really, let''s be real here!]

, a spokesman for the New York Fed, declined to comment, as did
AIG’s Mark
. What comment could they possibly have after a statement like
one above???

Bad to Worse

Tavakoli also says that the poor performance of the underlying
securities (which are actually specific slices or tranches of CDOs)
shows they were toxic in the first place and were probably replenished
with bundles of mortgages that were particularly troubled. Managers who
oversee CDOs after they are created have discretion in choosing the
mortgage bonds used to replenish them.

“The original CDO deals were bad enough,” Tavakoli says. “For some that
allow reinvesting or substitution, any reasonable professional would
ask why these assets were being traded into the portfolio. The Schedule A
shows that we should be investigating these deals.”

gsamp_2007.pngAmong the CDOs
on Schedule A with notional values of more than $1 billion, the worst
performer was a tranche identified as Davis Square Funding Ltd.’s DVSQ
2006-6A CP
. It was held by Societe Generale, underwritten by
Goldman Sachs
and managed by TCW Group Inc., a Los Angeles-based
unit of SocGen, according to Bloomberg data. It lost 77.7 percent of
its value -- though it isn’t in default and continues to pay
. [Hey,
doesn't this remind you fo the GSAMP Slide, that funky new dance,
introduced above???!!!

[As you can see, part of the probable reason for bailing out SocGen
was that Goldman sold them the equivalent of a financial terrorism
event, and the French government probably said, "Make this right, or
we'll go public!]

[Well, for all of those guys who oppose mark to market rules, this
CDO hasn't lost any of its value since it continues to pay and is
probably considered a longer term asset. Mayhap they will take their
capital and buy it at par???]

SocGen spokesman James
and TCW
spokeswoman Erin
declined to comment. [Of Course]

One really wonders why anyone would even bother to buy trash like this
from Goldman or any other bank. Oh well, why not? They are the best and
the brightest, Right???

More of Reggie on Goldman Sachs

Middleton vs Goldman Sachs, Round 2

Middleton Personally Contragulates Goldman, but Questions How Much More
Can Be Pulled Off

Get Your Federally Insured Hedge Fund Here, Twice the Price Sale Going
on Now!

§ As Reality hits, the Masters of the Universe are starting to look like regular bank employees

Reggie Middleton's Goldman Sach's Stress Test: Breaking Ranks with the Crowd Once Again!

Who is the Newest Riskiest Bank on the Street?

More remium Stuff!

Goldman Sachs Report June 21, 2008 Goldman Sachs Report June 21, 2008 2008-10-20 16:48:01 361.18 Kb

Reggie Middleton on Goldman Sachs' fourth quarter, 2008 results

Goldman Sachs - strategic investment and public offering Goldman Sachs - Buffet's strategic investment and public offering 2008-09-26 02:29:15 895.36 Kb

Goldman Sachs' Bank Holding Company Fundamental Valuation and Forensic Analysis - Professional Goldman Sachs' Bank Holding Company Fundamental Valuation and Forensic Analysis - Professional 2008-12-18 10:12:37 267.49 Kb

Goldman Sachs' Bank Holding Company Fundamental Valuation and Forensic Analysis - Retail Goldman Sachs' Bank Holding Company Fundamental Valuation and Forensic Analysis - Retail 2008-10-20 15:45:05 348.99 Kb

GS ABS Inventory GS ABS Inventory 2008-02-25 06:48:56 1.22 Mb

Goldman Sachs Valuation Model updated for PPIP - Retail Goldman Sachs Valuation Model updated for PPIP - Retail 2009-04-04 19:50:51 388.04 Kb

Goldman Sachs' Bank Holding Company Fundamental Valuation and Forensic Analysis - Professional Goldman Sachs' Bank Holding Company Fundamental Valuation and Forensic Analysis - Professional 2008-12-18 10:12:37 267.49 Kb


Goldman Sachs Stress Test Retail Goldman Sachs Stress Test Retail2009-04-20 10:08:06 720.25 Kb - 17 pages

Goldman Sachs Stress Test Professional Goldman Sachs Stress Test Professional 2009-04-20 10:06:45 4.04 Mb - 131 pages

Free research and opinion

Last modified on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 23:00


  • Comment Link Oragreekred Saturday, 30 November 2013 05:25 posted by Oragreekred

    ome while using option of two different sets for laces: red, discolored, and black. Every pair also has an custom brick shoebox to carry out the look. The collection should hit stores regarding November 2nd in any respect Limited Edt. merchants. Release Date: Nov 2nd, 2013 (Saturday)Limited Edt : ChamberThe Shoppes located at Marina Bay SandsStore #B2-23 | Map2 Bayfront Avenue018972 SingaporeLimited Edt -- Vault 313313 @ SomersetStore #04-13 | Map313 Orchard RoadSingaporeLimited Edt -- QueenswayQueensway Shopping CentreStore #01-21 | Map149053 SingaporeLimited Edt : PeninsulaPeninsula Shopping CentreStore #01-09 | Map179804 SingaporeThe "Bel Air" color ways recently burst for the seen on popular silhouettes for instance the Air Jordan 5 in addition to CP3. VII and after this the Six Much more hybrid gets a turn. Inspired with the style made well-liked in East LA with the late 80's and additionally early 90's, the "Bel Air" Six Rings incorporates a flashy mix regarding purple, neon efficient, pink, black, royal blue and additionally turquoise with elements of many of the most popular Retro Test models. The ct
    purple upper and tongue consists of elements of a Retro 8, 11 along with 12, neon efficient laces, a multicolored inner lining plus the iconic Retro 13 outsole circle out this striking hybrid. The Discuss Jordan Six Bands "Bel Air" droplets this Saturday, March 19th at Bottom Locker, House in Hoops by Bottom Locker, and (starting within 8: 00 a new. m. EDT) pertaining to $160. Grade school kids sizes also are available. Check the Launch Locator to find which stores are going to have this release and tell us what you think about the shoe during the comments. On Tuesday morning, suspended Dolphins lineman Richie Incognito sat down on an interview with The writer Glazer of He Sports and said that your chosen week before "all it went down" this individual received a written text from Jonathan Martin thinking "I will murder the effing family. "Sunday afternoon Martin's legal counsel David Cornwell delivered some context compared to that text, tweeting out the things he says will be the profanity-filled text Martin transport to Incognito. (Cornwell contains the tweet on his page along with a bad word. We've included a censored versio
    d below. ); Country wide Commissioner for UNESCO. "In influence, we (now won't) have a very full tool system. We're missing this hammer. "The movie is actually "trying to divert attention faraway from the actual way to the problems. This is exactly why I think it's a really dangerous narrative, inch said Hasan Zaidi, a new Pakistani director so, who runs the Karachi Worldwide Film Festival. The pharmaceutical company has acquired by Salix meant for $2. 12 billion mainly because it expands its applications for gastrointestinal conditions.

    Jordan Gamma Blue XI Release Date,Pre Order Gamma Blue 11s At Cheap Price,Jordan Retro 11 Gamma Blue 2013,New Jordan 2013 Release Dates,Real Retro Jordans 2013 For Wholesale,Cheap Authentic Jordan For Sale,Gamma Blue 11s GS On Feet,Jordan 11s Retro For Sale,Space Jam 11s 2013 For Sale,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue On Foot,Real Jordan 11 Gamma Blue,Buy Cheap Real Jordan Shoes,When Will Jordan 11 Gamma Blue Come Out,Fresh Jordans Kicks for sale,Buy Gamma Blue 11s 2013,Buy Cheap Jordan XI GS Gamma Blue,Gamma Blue 11s Size,Gamma Blue 11s Jordans 2013,Buy Gamma Blue 11s GS,Gamma Blue 11 Jordan,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue On Feet,Gamma Blue 11s For Cheap Sale,Jordan XI Christmas 2013,Order Gamma Blue 11s,December XI Release,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue Available Early,Buy Cheap Jordan 11s 2013,Gamma Blue 11,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue Release Date,Authentic Cheap Jordan 11 Retro,Real Air Jordans For Sale,Gamma Blue 11s GS For Sale,Retro XI Gamma Blue Release Date,Jordan Retro XI Gamma Blue,Where To Pre Order Gamma Blue 11,Pre Order Gamma Blue 11s and tagged 2013 Retro Jordans For Sale,Gamma Blue 11s Preview,When Will Gamma Blue XI Releas,Pre Sale Jordan 11 Gamma Blue,Jordan Gamma Blue XI,Jordan 2013 Holiday Release,Buy Gamma Blue 11s,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue Price,Jordan New Release,Real Gamma Blue 11s For Cheap,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue Kicks,Gamma Blue 11s Packing,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue Sales,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue Pre Order,Gamma Blue 11 Pre Order,Gamma Blue 11s Online Store,378037-006,Jordan Brand 2013 Holiday Release,Jordan Holiday Release 2013,Gamma Blue 11s Online Shop,Holiday Release Gamma Blue 11s,Buy Cheap Authentic Jordans 11s Online,Gamma Blue 11s Pre Look,Jordan 11s For Sale,Jordan 11 Retro Gamma Blue,Order Real Gamma Blue 11s,Gamma 11S,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue 2013 Price,Jordan 11 Release Dates 2013,Pre Order Gamma Blue XI,Order Gamma Blue 11s Jordans,Gamma Blue 11s Retro,Buy Gamma Blue 11s Jordans,Cheap Retro Jordans 11 For Sale,Gamma Blue 11 GS,Gamma Blue 11 Jordan Online,378037-006 Gamma Blue 11s,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue For Cheap,Gamma Blue XI Online,Jordan Gamma Blue XI Online,Buy Gamma Blue 11s Online Early,Buy Real Cheap Gamma Blue 11s,Gamma Blue Retro 11,Authentic Jordan 11 Gamma Blue,Buy Real Gamma Blue XI,Gamma Blue 11s Online,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue Online,Gamma Blue 11s Release Date,Jordan Gamma Blue XI For Sale,Buy Gamma Blue XI,Jordan Gamma Blue 11s,Gamma Blue 11 GS For Sale,Gamma Blue Jordan 11,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue Packing,Order Gamma Blue 11s Online,Air Jordan XI releases,Official Website For Authentic Jordan Shoes,Gamma Blue 11s Release Date & Price,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue Outfit,Gamma Blue XI 2013,Jordan 2013 Release Dates,Gamma Blue 11s Jordans Release,Where To Buy Jordan 11 Gamma Blue,Gamma Blue XI Sale Online,Buy Jordan 11 Gamma Blue,Gamma Blue XI For Sale,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue 2013,Gamma Blue 11s 2013 Release,Where To Get Gamma Blue 11s Early,Real Gamma Blue 11s Online,Air Jordan 11s For Sale,Gamma Blue 11s On Foot,Pre Order Jordan 11 Gamma Blue Cheap,Authentic Jordans 2013 Sale,Gamma Blue 11s For Kids,Shop Gamma Blue 11s,Gamma Blue 11s GS,When Will Gamma Blue 11 Come Out,Pre Order Gamma Blue 11s,Jordan Gamma Blue XI Sale,Buy Jordan Gamma Blue XI,New Jordans Release In Fall 2013,Gamma Blue 11s On Feet,Gamma Blue 11s More Images,Buy Gamma Blue XI Online,Gamma Blue 11 On Feet,Gamma Blue 11s,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue For Sale,Pre Order Jordan 11 Gamma Blue,Gamma Blue 11s 2013,Gamma Blue XI Pre Order,Cheap Concord 11s For Sale,Pre Order Gamma Blue 11s Online,Authentic Gamma Blue 11s,Buy Cheap Jordan 11 Retro Gamma Blue,Gamma Blue 11s Buy,New Jordan Retro Colorways,Gamma Blue 11s Jordans Price,Jordan Gamma Blue XI For Real,Gamma Blue 11s Release Date,Gamma Blue 11s Available Early Online,Gamma Blue 11s Jordans For Sale,Buy Authentic Cheap Jordans Online 2013,Gamma Blue 11s Cheap,Cheap Authentic Jordan 11 Online For Sale,Where To Pre Order Gamma Blue 11s,Holiday Release Jordan 11 Gamma Blue,Jordan Release Dates 2013,Shop Jordan 11 Gamma Blue,When Will Gamma Blue 11s Release,Cheap Jordan 11 Gamma Blue Price,How Much Will Gamma Blue 11s Cost,Gamma Blue 11s Pre Sale,Order Gamma Blue XI Online,Buy Jordan 11 Gamma Blue Online,Pre Order Gamma Blue 11s Jordans,Air Jordan 11 GS Gamma Blue,Jordans 2013 Cheap Sale,Jordan Holiday Releases,Gamma Blue 11s Jordans Online,Gamma Blue 11s Jordans,Jordan Gamma Blue XI On Feet,Air Jordan 11 Gamma Blue GS,Where To Buy Authentic Gamma Blue 11s,Gamma Blue 11s Price,Pre Sale Gamma Blue XI,Gamma Blue 11s Gs 2013,Gamma Blue 11 Release 2013,Buy Jordan 11s Retro Cheap,Gamma Blue 11 Release,Gamma Blue 11s Kid,Jordan Holiday Season Release,Authentic Jordan 11 Gamma Blue For Cheap,Jordan 11s Gamma Blue GS,Retro XI Gamma Blue Price and tagged 2013 Retro Jordans For Sale,AJ11 Gamma Blue,Gamma Blue 11s Pre Order,Where To Get Jordan 11 Gamma Blue,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue 2013 Sale,Gamma Blue XI Price,Gamma Blue 11s Box,Jordan Gamma Blue XI Price,Authentic Jordan 11s For Sale,Pre Sale Gamma Blue 11s Jordans,Buy Gamma Blue 11s Cheap,Where Can I Buy Gamma Blue 11s,Jordans 2013 For Wholesale,Jordan Release Dates 2013 Kicks On Fire,Jordan 11s Release Dates 2013,Gamma Blue 11s Jordans Pre Order,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue Kids,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue,Retro 11 Gamma Blue For Sale,Jordan 11 Retro For Sale,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue Release,Gamma Blue 11s Whole Family Sizes,Where To Buy Gamma Blue 11s Jordans,Air Jordan 11 Gamma Blue,Gamma Blue 11s Outfit,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue For Sale Early,Order Jordan 11 Gamma Blue,Gamma Blue 11s Jordans For Cheap,Gamma Blue XI,Authentic Cheap Gamma Blue 11s,Authentic Jordan For Sale,Jordan Release Dates 2013 News,Jordan Brand Holiday Release,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue GS,Cheap Jordan 11 Gamma Blue,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue Prcie,Order Gamma Blue XI,Gamma Blue 11 Price,Gamma Blue 11s Jordans Release Date,Jordan 11 Gamma Blue Box,Buy Authentic Cheap Jordan 11s Online,Order Cheap Gamma Blue 11s,Gamma Blue 11s For Sale,Buy Authentic Gamma Blue 11s,Gamma Blue 11 Release Date,Cheap Gamma Blue 11s,Gamma Blue XI Sale,Gamma Blue 11s Images,Real Gamma Blue 11s,New Jordan Retro 11 Colorway

  • Comment Link Oragreekred Saturday, 30 November 2013 05:25 posted by Oragreekred


  • Comment Link Oragreekred Saturday, 30 November 2013 05:24 posted by Oragreekred


  • Comment Link ken4aub Saturday, 27 February 2010 21:29 posted by ken4aub

    So, Reggie, who do you think is in the worst position in the coming Commercial Properties debacle? The regionals like STI/FITB or the GS/JPM/MS/WFC/BAC's of the world. I am of the opinion that the regionals will suffer the most.......unless all their customers are shorting them....lol

  • Comment Link MBA_MSF_CFA Friday, 26 February 2010 19:50 posted by MBA_MSF_CFA

    I personally think going short the banks in this environment is very dangerous. Facts don't matter it seems and the government will prop these guys up. Short of another Lehman occurring they will command a high premium for the foreseeable future. Any significant drops will just be bought. I'm also in cash and pretty much have been since beg of 2009.

  • Comment Link NDbadger Wednesday, 24 February 2010 21:08 posted by NDbadger

    I have heard Paulson is very bullish (with leverage). And Barron's listed a lot of hedge fund guys that own STI. To own STI, one must be bullish, and either not know how to read a balance sheet, or think the govt will just continue to break laws to save shareholders. Indeed, I recently heard the Obama administration is thinking about putting a moratorium on foreclosures until after the election, for obvious reasons. That would provide more support for banks. Eventually, the government will just write the banks a check, as they realize the current subsidies won't accomplish the job.

  • Comment Link Reggie Middleton Wednesday, 24 February 2010 12:26 posted by Reggie Middleton

    Reggie --

    I am concerned you are just pessimistic. I read the stuff on your site post-Q1 2009... this was a FANTASTIC Q for banks. Go back and read the BAC Q1 2009 release again. It should've been obvious to you that it was a huge turn. You missed it. Why?

    I think this analysis of GS is silly. The stock is depressed for reasons related to pending legislation and news headline risk (none of which will materially affect GS). Further, there is no better ROE business than "equity investment banking" where GS is the clear #1. In a recover cycle, this can drive ~50% earnings growth with next to ZERO capital usage. Remember, the Goldman banking franchise has been on the sidelines the last 18-months. Why count them out?

    Further... the stock trades at 1.25x book. "Book" probably greatly understates the value of many of their businesses and assets in a break-up scenario.

    Its an easy trade.

    reply flag as junk (0)

    by Reggie Middleton
    on Wed, 02/24/2010 - 12:13

    "Go back and read the BAC Q1 2009 release again. It should've been obvious to you that it was a huge turn. You missed it. Why?"
    It's not that I missed it. I (generally) don't invest in BAC, and further I didn't believe it. If we didn't have FASB rollover on the 166-7, BAC would be in the single digit range. Think about it. BAC bought the leaders of the subprime loan manufacturing industry (CFC and ML) as they were both about to collapse, without subsidy (the ML backstop was given back, unused) and in the case of ML at a significant premium, all the while the problems that caused the collapse not only haven't been corrected, but have been exacerbated in many areas. These two companies have assets (combined) that equal or exceed the size of BAC pre-acquisition. Why in the world would anybody in their right mind believe that BAC had a huge turn, coincidentally right after it was made acceptable not to report balance sheet losses accurately - the same losses that drove LEH, BS, ML, WC and CFC out of business or damn close to it? I suggest you look at the last 4 quarterly reports of Fannie and Freddie to see what mortgage losses MAY look like if they were just a LITTLE more accurately reported. Roughly $6 billion per quarter, lost, and that is just one company. There is absolutely no reason to believe that BACs balance sheet is losing less - none at all.

    I think this analysis of GS is silly. The stock is depressed for reasons related to pending legislation and news headline risk (none of which will materially affect GS).
    Just the deletion of prop trading would hit GS revenues by about 13% and a much larger percentage of net profits. I don't follow your logic. Listen, if I miss something I'll admit it. I can't catch everything, and probably can't even catch most things. That being said, don't mistake manipulated stock market rallies as a true representation of fundamental well being. Things are far, far from well.

    Further, there is no better ROE business than "equity investment banking" where GS is the clear #1. In a recover cycle, this can drive ~50% earnings growth with next to ZERO capital usage. Remember, the Goldman banking franchise has been on the sidelines the last 18-months. Why count them out?
    I think you are confusing recovery cycle with credit bubble. The revenues that GS garnered from 2002 to 2007 and in Q42008 to q1 2009 were driven by an unsustainable, and probably unrepeatable (at least in the medium term) credit, liquidity and housing bubble. We will not see those anytime soon. At best they will grow revenue from taking market share. So, optimistically, let's assume they do that. How big is the market? Do you truly believe were in a sustainable frecovery or do you think the government has simply purchased GDP print points, paying $1.75 for every dollar worth of print? That is the question, and I think all know where I stand on it.

    Further... the stock trades at 1.25x book. "Book" probably greatly understates the value of many of their businesses and assets in a break-up scenario.
    The business franchise probably has a higher break up value, but you are totally disregarding the balance sheet. Come on, buddy. Look at the examples of the stuff they have underwritten, sold, insured and held. Look at the GSAMP slide and the AIG stuff. 70 to 75% decreases in value???!!! It is not as if I believe all of their balance sheet consists of this, but it is quite prudent to assume that a material amount of this is stuck on and off balance sheet. Do you think it is increasing in value or decreasing as we move further away from the bubble (that is being reblown, just to pop again). Look at new home sales and mortgage applications released today. Look at the NSA case shiller numbers from yesterday. Look at the value you and your neighbor's homes. How about their employment situation. The strength of the local municipalities, federal govt., sovereigns??? It is amazing that I even have to make this argument.

  • Comment Link gjk313 Wednesday, 24 February 2010 12:21 posted by gjk313

    Thanks for the info Reggie...you definately put things in perspective.

    This is an interesting video someone sent me about the ex IndyMac bank shenanigans.


  • Comment Link shaunsnoll Wednesday, 24 February 2010 12:01 posted by shaunsnoll

    that's basically where I'm sitting too. So hard to find anything interesting on the long side that most of my longs are just partial hedges for my shorts. I also can not think of anyone good that I know that is bullish which really makes me wonder who is doing all the buying? I always feel more comfortable with my positions when everyone around me disagrees so to hear most everyone I know be bearish is concerning to me.

    I guess you never "know" what is going to happen, just have to keep taking trades with asymmetric risk/reward and wait.

    look forward to the reply on the russian coal stock. thought it had potential.

  • Comment Link Reggie Middleton Wednesday, 24 February 2010 11:20 posted by Reggie Middleton

    Nobody I truly trust is bullish, but there are many who are literally day trading long. With enough of this, it is possible it will go up. This is why I say a simple S&P 500 hedge is in order. They go up when the market does. I am in almost all cash because I feel it is literally gambling to be long the market now. That being said, you know the adage, "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent"

    I also have a reply on that mining stock and will post it sometime today.

  • Comment Link shaunsnoll Wednesday, 24 February 2010 10:41 posted by shaunsnoll

    puts on CYB could be interesting too, check out that implied vol!

  • Comment Link shaunsnoll Wednesday, 24 February 2010 10:34 posted by shaunsnoll

    is ANYONE you respect bullish on the market at this point? The only one I know if is James Grant from the Interest Rate Observer. Sometimes I feel like the bear trade at this point is pretty consensus and if that is true then probably more upside to this crazy market.

Login to post comments