Soph the vet Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Call me slow. Sec. Paulson was the CEO of Goldman Sachs and had worked for that company since 1974 according to Wikipedia. What are the chances his "rescue" plan are going to allow him to return to Goldman (if he loses his treasury job in four months) with a clean slate and no bad assets on the books?? His estimated worth is $700million. My head is spinning and I think the conflict of interests here needs to be seriously scrutinized!!! Are you all aware of this? Am I that slow?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 One bright spot in this (from what I understand) is that Goldman Saks under Henry Paulson's tenure (and under his orders) did not involve itself in purchasing mortgage backed securities, as he saw them a unreasonably risky. And with $700 million in the bank I doubt Sec Paulson's biggest worry is what job he'll have next. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Call me slow. Sec. Paulson was the CEO of Goldman Sachs and had worked for that company since 1974 according to Wikipedia. What are the chances his "rescue" plan are going to allow him to return to Goldman (if he loses his treasury job in four months) with a clean slate and no bad assets on the books?? His estimated worth is $700million. My head is spinning and I think the conflict of interests here needs to be seriously scrutinized!!! Are you all aware of this? Am I that slow?? Yep, I'm aware. I think you're right. And yep, they put him and his history of reading the market correctly in charge of the hen house. Remember this lovely little tidbit from his original plan? Sec. 8. Review. Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency. Lovely, I tell you. Does it not freak you out that the most conservative of all the congress people and all the Democrats were on the same side on this thing? It makes me scratch my head not a little bit. Here from a liberal site. It's carefully annotated, though. This one last from the Free Republic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 One bright spot in this (from what I understand) is that Goldman Saks under Henry Paulson's tenure (and under his orders) did not involve itself in purchasing mortgage backed securities, as he saw them a unreasonably risky. And with $700 million in the bank I doubt Sec Paulson's biggest worry is what job he'll have next. Bill Depends on which bank it's in, I guess. :auto: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Depends on which bank it's in, I guess. :auto: Touché :lol: :auto: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caroline Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Depends on which bank it's in, I guess. :auto: Wouldn't it have to be in 7,000 different banks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacy in NJ Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Actually, Goldman is kinda like the Harvard of Investment Banks. It's top shelf, best quality. Many well known money guys have held management positions at Goldman. Jim Cramer from CNBC (not CEO), Gov. Corzine of New Jersey. You'll find the cross pollination between Goldman and high level political positions really common across both parties. I'm just going to add that our current situation wasn't manufactured at Bear Sterns, Goldman or Lehman. It was a direct cause of the lending policies put into place by our political class (i.e. congress and the executive branch). None of this would have happened if Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac hadn't guaranteed millions of high risk sub-prime mortgages. The investment banks did what investment banks do. They took government backed mortgages and turned them into investment securities. Stupidly, the believed that the federal government knew what it was doing. All the politicians running around screaming about those thieves on Wall Street are demagoguing the issue. They know were the responsibility lies, with them. Watch closely over the next few weeks. They'll be spinning like crazy to avoid responsiblity. Here's a link the explains further http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karenciavo Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 All the politicians running around screaming about those thieves on Wall Street are demagoguing the issue. They know were the responsibility lies, with them. Watch closely over the next few weeks. They'll be spinning like crazy to avoid responsiblity. Here's a link the explains further http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/ I like the Youtube link someone posted in the comment section of your link. BTW, we are a family that benefited by one of these wacky loans. My husband makes a very decent salary, but is self employed. His company was 18 months old when we bought this house and even though he had a credit rating in the 800's, no one would give him a mortgage, but they gave me one, a no doc, declared income loan at 6.5%. It made absolutely no sense to me. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacy in NJ Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 I like the Youtube link someone posted in the comment section of your link. BTW, we are a family that benefited by one of these wacky loans. My husband makes a very decent salary, but is self employed. His company was 18 months old when we bought this house and even though he had a credit rating in the 800's, no one would give him a mortgage, but they gave me one, a no doc, declared income loan at 6.5%. It made absolutely no sense to me. :lol: Ya, that's a good vid. I'm really glad the mortgage situation worked out for your family. :001_smile: It didn't work out so well for my dh's cousin. She lives down in Tampa, Florida and recently lost her home. She owed 80K more than the original purchase price of the home. Lender after lender offered her home equity loans, which she gladly took them up on. Two years later and she's homeless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demal Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Call me slow. Sec. Paulson was the CEO of Goldman Sachs and had worked for that company since 1974 according to Wikipedia. What are the chances his "rescue" plan are going to allow him to return to Goldman (if he loses his treasury job in four months) with a clean slate and no bad assets on the books?? A return to Goldman for Paulson would be entirely up to Warren Buffett. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcconnellboys Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 It's actually probably off-shore, where it's better protected and not losing its value..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soph the vet Posted September 29, 2008 Author Share Posted September 29, 2008 A return to Goldman for Paulson would be entirely up to Warren Buffett. Yes, I addressed Warren Buffet's recent investment of 5B in Goldman on another thread. We're bailing out Warren Buffet. Who would've guessed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demal Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Yes, I addressed Warren Buffet's recent investment of 5B in Goldman on another thread. We're bailing out Warren Buffet. Who would've guessed? I have to disagree with you. The Goldman deal reflects his value-investing philosophy: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/01/071801.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmamainva Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Warren Buffett purchased Goldmans Sachs after it tanked. The only thing I see in that is that Warren Buffett is hoping to make a ton of money off of this deal! And he usually does. Btw...Warren Buffett's sister lives in our area and she gives away a TON of money for philanthropic work. I mean TONS. So I have no bone to pick with the Buffetts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.