3 ms·

>It was an ultimatum that was forced Actually, revelations from the ongoing AIG trial are proving otherwise. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/11/aig-bailou

>It was an ultimatum that was forced Actually, revelations from the ongoing AIG trial are proving otherwise. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/11/aig-bailout-trial-revelation-morgan-stanley-told-geithner-file-bankruptcy-weekend-became-bank.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/11/aig-bailout-trial-rev...

bushido 12y ago
We maybe digressing a tad, but that link isn't proving much in relation to necessities of accepting TARP. If one takes into consideration that 4 days after that email was written Goldman announced a $5 billion investment into GS from Warren Buffet. A $5 billion deal does not get conjured overnight, takes days if not weeks of work prior to public announcements. Regardless, that was over a full month prior to them receiving the TARP funds. Also if one absolutely must, they could take into consideration that 4 days prior to that email GS, mid-crisis had beat prior earning and profit estimates by a tad over 10%. Also, GS had not had a single losing quarter since 1999. They did however report a loss mid-December 2008, mostly stemming from being required to mark the value of various assets at currently distressed prices, mostly because their status was recently changed to a regulated bank.
- marcusgarvey 12y ago
  The email you are referring to, an exhibit from the AIG trial: "FYI, Morgan Stanley called Tim Geithner late last nite and indicated they can not open Monday. Morgan Stanley advised Goldman Sachs of that and Goldman Sachs is now panicked because feel that if Morgan Stanley does not open, then Goldman Sachs is toast. So appears we will definitely need to resolve both entities in one way or another this weekend. Options under active discussion range from sovereign wealth injection to merger with / acquisition by a bank to becoming Bank Holding Companies themselves to government assistance (unlikely). Tim Geithner and PDM team just finished getting first hand report of liquidity situation from Morgan Stanley. Have not heard assessment of that call yet. Baxter only EVP present. Checki expected shortly. Dudley, Rutledge and Krieger on standby at home for likely conf calls." No, no distress here at all.
  - bushido 12y ago
    > No, no distress here at all Sarcasm noted. I am not saying that there is no distress. But, all I have tried to do is give light to missing information. There is always some bias and opinions that bleed through. But everything I have said is verifiable. If I mentioned something that is incorrect I would be happy to accept it and not repeat in the future. Back to that email. It says "Goldman Sachs is now panicked because feel that if Morgan Stanley does not open", how does that statement in anyway prove that they had an internal reason to worry? Again not saying that they were not distressed, the inevitable sell-off that would result from MS not opening was huge, and could possibly create a bank run and possibly lead to bankruptcy as all bank runs do. But it does not indicate that there was a choice for GS/MS to be bank holding company. If anything the email itself notes that the option for them to be a bank holding company was unlikely.

bushido 12y ago

We maybe digressing a tad, but that link isn't proving much in relation to necessities of accepting TARP. If one takes into consideration that 4 days after that email was written Goldman announced a $5 billion investment into GS from Warren Buffet. A $5 billion deal does not get conjured overnight, takes days if not weeks of work prior to public announcements. Regardless, that was over a full month prior to them receiving the TARP funds. Also if one absolutely must, they could take into consideration that 4 days prior to that email GS, mid-crisis had beat prior earning and profit estimates by a tad over 10%. Also, GS had not had a single losing quarter since 1999. They did however report a loss mid-December 2008, mostly stemming from being required to mark the value of various assets at currently distressed prices, mostly because their status was recently changed to a regulated bank.

marcusgarvey 12y ago
The email you are referring to, an exhibit from the AIG trial: "FYI, Morgan Stanley called Tim Geithner late last nite and indicated they can not open Monday. Morgan Stanley advised Goldman Sachs of that and Goldman Sachs is now panicked because feel that if Morgan Stanley does not open, then Goldman Sachs is toast. So appears we will definitely need to resolve both entities in one way or another this weekend. Options under active discussion range from sovereign wealth injection to merger with / acquisition by a bank to becoming Bank Holding Companies themselves to government assistance (unlikely). Tim Geithner and PDM team just finished getting first hand report of liquidity situation from Morgan Stanley. Have not heard assessment of that call yet. Baxter only EVP present. Checki expected shortly. Dudley, Rutledge and Krieger on standby at home for likely conf calls." No, no distress here at all.
- bushido 12y ago
  > No, no distress here at all Sarcasm noted. I am not saying that there is no distress. But, all I have tried to do is give light to missing information. There is always some bias and opinions that bleed through. But everything I have said is verifiable. If I mentioned something that is incorrect I would be happy to accept it and not repeat in the future. Back to that email. It says "Goldman Sachs is now panicked because feel that if Morgan Stanley does not open", how does that statement in anyway prove that they had an internal reason to worry? Again not saying that they were not distressed, the inevitable sell-off that would result from MS not opening was huge, and could possibly create a bank run and possibly lead to bankruptcy as all bank runs do. But it does not indicate that there was a choice for GS/MS to be bank holding company. If anything the email itself notes that the option for them to be a bank holding company was unlikely.