Last active
1 year, 11 months ago
  • If it wasn’t satire it was a joke. See the intro to this ZH article:

    The joke is that GS had a sell rating so their traders surely must be buying the shares. There’s absolutely no evidence of that – it’s a made up “fact”.

    I think you’re misunderstanding the nature of the insider trading inquiry. it’s not saying that someone at GS was insider trading (though of course that’s possible though unlikely – if you worked at GS and wanted to do some insider trading would you really do it via a GS account?) It’s saying that someone using an omnibus account held at GS used it to buy Heinz shares. An omnibus account involves multiple investors:

    In other words, an investor probably made a suspicious trade through an account that was held at GS.

  • Errr…you realize the ZeroHedge article was (mostly) satire, don’t you? GS has had a sell rating on Heinz for more than a year and a half. There’s no evidence (at least not yet) of GS buying Heinz shares up ahead of the deal. And that insider trading inquiry is about someone using a GS account to buy Heinz options.

  • jellybelly commented on the blog post Goldman Sachs Caught Prop Trading Again

    2013-01-10 16:20:50View | Delete


    – Proprietary trading had nothing to do with the fine/settlement from the SEC. If anything that was about favoring one client over another

    - Goldman is not violating the law with this trading because the Volcker rule has not been finalized. Most banks are winding down their proprietary trading operations to conform with what they *think* the law is going to be.

    - Even if the Volcker rule was in effect Goldman is not violating it or exploiting a loophole – they are complying with it. The law says they have to usually have to hold positions for longer than X days and that is exactly what they are doing (there are exceptions allowed – no one expects a bank to hold on to the stock of a company that’s about to go bankrupt)

    This is also a fairly small operation. The unit’s total assets represent about 0.1% of Goldman’s balance sheet.

  • There’s not “direct evidence of him stealing $200 million in customer funds”. It seems that Corzine authorized a transfer but read the committee’s memo, especially the footnote on page 3 where it says:

    “Futures commission merchants and broker-dealers are permitted to, and in the ordinary course do, deposit funds in excess of segregation requirements in segregated accounts. These excess funds belong to the firm, and may be transferred out of the segregated accounts.”

  • jellybelly commented on the blog post This Is Your Defense of Goldman Sachs and Wall Street?

    2012-03-15 20:44:01View | Delete

    These clients were not paying Goldman for “the best possible financial advice”. They came to Goldman to execute trades and they weren’t interested in advice (and if they got it they’d be cynical about it). There’s no fiduciary duty with this kind of client – they’re more of a counterparty than the traditional notion of a client. Goldman and other similar firms do have other types of clients to whom they have a fiduciary duty – for example those wealthy individuals who have their money managed by private wealth advisors.

  • jellybelly became a registered member

    2012-03-15 20:36:43View | Delete