4 ms·
I read this article. They mention TARP, they just never called it TARP. The whole premise of the article is based on the activities of a regulated bank, which h
by bushido 12y ago
I read this article. They mention TARP, they just never called it TARP. The whole premise of the article is based on the activities of a regulated bank, which has everything to go with TARP.
> They mention:
- Goldman Sachs became a regulated bank
- Which in turn allowed them to partake in activities that were allowed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
- Also that they were not a 100% on the validity and asked the Fed's to confirm if they could continue their business
> What the article fails to mention or is unclear about is:
- Goldman and Morgan Stanley were forced to accept the TARP
- A condition of TARP was that they had to immediately become a regulated bank (again not by choice)
- They complied with everything that was clear under TARP immediately and months/years before their counterparts
- They closed off their highest money making departments
- The so called windfall gain/Gift of the crisis/unfair advantage is something that is permitted under another law, which Goldman asked for clarification on
So yeah, read the article, if you did not notice that this was about TARP, it wasn't your fault, this article is constructed very very poorly and leaves a lot out and glosses over the anything else that may cast a doubt on their headline.
- tacostakohashi 12y agoGood point; silly me for not noticing that the article is actually about a list of things that it doesn't mention. I wouldn't say it's poorly written, it's just that isn't not the article you want it to be. In what sense were Goldman & MS "forced to accept the TARP"? They were both free to choose bankruptcy, were they not?
- ams6110 12y agoIn the same way that when you are robbed at gunpoint on the street you are free to choose handing over your wallet or being killed.
- tacostakohashi 12y agoUmm, no - the two investment banks in question weren't being robbed at gunpoint, they were suffering from their own failures to manage risk, and various other management failures entirely of their own doing.
- ams6110 12y agoI agree. But their "choice" to accep TARP or not was not really a choice. They could accept the terms of the bailout, or die (go bankrupt). Whether or not it was their own fault that they were in that situation is irrelevant.
- desdiv 12y agoYou talk as if these investment banks were poor helpless living creatures or something. They gambled and they lost, then they had their government cronies bail them out. An analogy would be an idiot gambling away his entire live savings on the slot machine, and then going to the house and complaining: "I deserve all my money back because I didn't win."
- drumdance 12y agoCompanies choose bankruptcy all the time. They don't like to do it, but sometimes it's their best option. GS clearly thought it was their second-best option.
- forgotpasswd3x 12y agoIt's nobody's fault but their own if they faced the possibility of bankruptcy.