Comments on: Charlie Gasparino and all the weird defenses of Goldman Sachs

By: suzanne

suzanne — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:59:55 +0000

“see how much money Goldman is making now, eating up Lehman’s market share.”
In fact, it’s JP Morgan Chase that is by far the biggest beneficiary of Lehman’s demise, judging by the league tables. In equity underwriting, JPM share of fees went from something like 8% in 2005 to more than 21% in the first half of 2009. And I don’t think that’s all because of the addition of Bear Stearns. (The claim doesn’t hold up in M&A or debt league tables either, as far as I can tell.)

I’m no fan of Goldman Sachs. But if I had to choose one firm to pick on as a symbol of what went wrong, it would be Citigroup, hands down. Without Sandy Weill and his empire building, there would have been far less pressure to eviscerate Glass-Steagall (something that could have put Goldman in a bad position, since it instantly created a host of potential rivals with massive balance sheets to put to work.) Moreover, while you might be furious about one group of traders within Goldman spotting risks in the subprime arena and shorting the whole sector (and making a windfall) while another part was still churning out product, no one at Citi even
REALIZED the risks they were running — and they were churning out still more product. They were utterly oblivious, firmwide, to anything that was going on. Read the UBS shareholder report, and multiply the mishaps fourfold.

Goldman is fun to pick on, because of their air of entitlement, intellectual arrogance and surreal profits. But the real story, while less exciting (you couldn’t really call JP Morgan a ‘vampire squid’, for instance), is far more complex. And while you may have intended Goldman Sachs to stand for the whole of Wall Street, that’s not the way a lot of people out there are interpreting it. True, no journalist is responsible for people failing to understand the nuances in his/her articles, but they should also be aware of the risk, in the current environment, that people will see this story as blaming Goldman Sachs for the whole mess. Because I assure you, they do. I’ve had it pointed out to me, over and over again, as evidence that Goldman is responsible for the mess we’re in. Not many stop and think through the actual argument you’re making, vs. the rhetorical flourishes.

By: jamesm

jamesm — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:30:36 +0000

What I cannot understand is how in the July 17 issue The Economist basically made the same points you have, specifically about how Goldman would only continue to exist and is making its billions because it was propped up by the U.S. government, and yet no one calls them on advancing “conspiracy theories” or whatever bullshit dodge is popular this week. I guess they get a pass because they’re St. James’s street and T/S is a blog, or some such nonsense.

By: wtwrva

wtwrva — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:41:05 +0000

You forgot to mention the fact that GS paid more bonus money than their net income for Q3.

How do you pay more bonus than you actually make?

That really burns me!!

I think we ought liberate their heads from their bodies.

By: econocataclysm

econocataclysm — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:47:54 +0000

These people are going to do anything they can to discredit their detractors, and also to avoid prosecution when the time comes.
Good job, Matt. You can’t hammer away at these fools enough as far as I’m concerned.

By: | P2Lx

| P2Lx — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:07:43 +0000

[...] responds effectively, so it’s not necessary to pick apart and analyze every point Gasparino makes. I think I had a [...]

By: ashgreat

ashgreat — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:18:34 +0000

Dude, that’s Zero Hedge…have you heard of it?

By: ashgreat

ashgreat — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:16:49 +0000

Money quote from CJR:

“Rather than dismiss Taibbi, the mainstream business press would do well first to read him, learn from him, and above all, refrain from all attempts to outwrite him, because that seems to be a losing game.”

By: lann

lann — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 18:05:19 +0000

You have successfully addressed Gasparino’s misleading article. I hope that you will continue to search out the entire GS story. I now rely mainly on TrueSlant and I also believe that Naomi Klein brings us true insight on what is really going on with the bailouts. She had this to say on her current website: “I usually talk about the bailout in speeches these days. We all need to understand it because it is a robbery in progress, the greatest heist in monetary history.” I would appreciate TrueSlant’s, Matt’s or all or any of the contributors views on the veracity of this statement. I believe it, I thought Klein’s book, The Shock Doctrine was right on, but I don’t really understand much about market transactions and what really has happened though by reading true/slant, the NY Times, and Ms. Klein’s material, I hope I am getting a balanced view.

By: trendisnotdestiny

trendisnotdestiny — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 15:22:12 +0000

Matt, Your efforts are working; probably not without costs to yourself and the people who care about you. The disruption and the illumination of G$ branding processes over time is an important thing to show and tough thing to overcome (Edward Bernays writes about this in his book Propaganda);

You know your voice resonates when you get dismissed by G$ and embraced by a knowledge seeking public.

You know you are affecting them when they trot out the likes of three stooges Heidi Moore, Gaparino, and the legal action threats.

You know you are in a war when previously trusted sources, relations, and systems become tainted with re-framed G$ bullshit…

You know that they have won when their message drowns you out…

Your efforts are working; Keep infecting the pristine brand of G$; Keep it up!

By: sandy

sandy — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 12:30:01 +0000

As a mainstream financial journalist I have to say I totally agree with you Matt, and while there are a number of people I work with that think your article was great, and much needed, unfortunately the whines of wounded egos such as Gasparino and Heidi Moore makes us all look bad.

Moore has even posted a second attempt to defend Goldman, every bit as bad as her first though this time she at least pretends to address some arguments in your piece. While I would love to see you rip her to shreds again, I also think at this stage its below you to even respond to the moron, shameless that she is.