What You Should Know About Goldman Sachs

So you're thinking about investing in Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS  ) , are you? Part of me can't blame you. The reasons people hate Goldman -- government connections, market dominance, endless supplies of capital -- also bring ungodly profits.

That makes some believe that Goldman will always and forever be a fantastic investment. Maybe they're right. But I'll give an alternative view. If there's ever been a time to be worried about Goldman's earnings potential, I'd say it's right now. Let me tell you why.

First, trying to piece together the gritty details of a bank like Goldman -- or Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC  ) or Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS  ) or Bank of America (NYSE: BAC  ) -- is a lost cause. The most critical bits of information needed to understand how banks operate get conveniently veiled. Banks don't disclose much. They'd rather not get into details. They're horrendously complex black boxes of hell that few can truly decipher. Refer to the fall of 2008 if you don't believe me.

Nonetheless, we can gain meaningful conclusions from broad observations. If I wanted to invest in Goldman, I'd want to answer two very basic questions:

  • Where is it making money?
  • What's likely to happen to those segments going forward?

That's what I'll try to do right now.

1. Where the money comes from
We call Goldman an investment bank, but this is about as accurate as calling Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO  ) an aluminum-can company. Investment banking is an appetizer for Goldman's main course: trading.

Over the past few quarters, here's how Goldman's business segments break out:

Percentage of total revenue

Segment

Q3 2009

Q2 2009

Q1 2009

Investment banking

7%

10%

9%

Asset management

12%

11%

15%

Trading/principal investments

81%

78%

76%

Sources: Company filings, author's calculations.

Goldman is a trading shop ... that much is obvious. But this doesn't tell us much. What is it trading? Stocks? Homes? Gold? Eggs?

Trading and principal investments is made up of several segments. The largest and most important is called FICC, or fixed income currency and commodities.

Why is it the most important? Because not only does trading make up the majority of total revenue, but FICC is the majority of trading. You get a better understanding of this by looking at FICC as a percentage of total revenue:

Segment

Q3 2009

Q2 2009

Q1 2009

FICC percentage of total revenue

48%

49%

70%

Sources: Company filings, author's calculations.

So more than half of Goldman's total revenue this year came from FICC. Goldman isn't just a trading shop, but more specifically a fixed-income trading shop.

Answer to question No. 1: FICC has been driving Goldman's recent earnings.

2. What now?
It hasn't always been this way. FICC was big in the past, but not nearly as big as today. In 2006 and 2007, FICC made up about 35% of revenue. Trading arms at JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM  ) and Citigroup (NYSE: C  ) have experienced similar jumps. Fixed income is on fire this year.

Why the sudden surge, you ask? To some extent, it's because there's less competition sans Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. But for the most part, it's interest rates.

Fixed-income trading is based almost entirely on the spread between short-term and long-term interest rates. Right now, the spread is astronomically wide thanks to the Federal Reserve's zero-interest-rate policy. Traders can borrow short-term money at 0% and invest it longer-term products that yield, 3%, 4%, 8%, whatever. If you're wondering how banks are minting money while the economy slogs along, that's your answer. Today's interest-rate environment is banking nirvana. It's about as good as it gets.

Seriously, though: When borrowing costs are 0%, that's really about as good as it gets.

A hard reality for the fixed-income market is that there's only one place for short-term borrowing costs to go: up. You can't get better than zero. And make no mistake: Interest rates will go up someday.

What happens then? Short-term rates are far more volatile than long-term rates, so higher short-term rates typically squashes fixed-income spreads. For example, from 2004 to 2006, the Federal Reserve raised short-term rates from 1% to 5.25%, but the yield on 10-year Treasury notes only increased from roughly 4% to a peak of 5.2%. The spread got substantially tighter.

And when that spread tightens, the money machine behind FICC's explosion, and, hence, Goldman's record earnings, will start to turn off. The easy, brainless, riskless -- yet torrential -- profit machine of Goldman's will begin to fade as the spread it's been exploiting tightens.

Answer to question No. 2: Higher interest rates, which are virtually assured at this point, will cramp FICC's future profits.

Moving on
Now tie everything together:

  • FICC has been the main driver of Goldman's earnings.
  • FICC is on fire because of record-low interest rates.
  • There's only one place for interest rates to go: up.
  • When that happens, FICC's earnings, and, hence, Goldman as a whole, could get squeezed.

Now, perhaps Goldman will time everything perfectly and exploit the heck out of interest rates when they do move. That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

But if there's ever been a time when it's safe to say the odds that Goldman's earnings power will increase are low, while the odds that it'll decrease are quite high, it's today.

Disagree? Let me know in the comments section below. 

Fool contributor Morgan Housel doesn't own shares in any of the companies mentioned in this article. Coca-Cola is a recommendation of Motley Fool Inside Value and Motley Fool Income Investor. The Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (46) | Recommend This Article (115)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Fool wrote:

    You don't think Goldman is a mofia organization?

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2009, at 12:53 PM, plange01 wrote:

    starting to look like we can add yahoo to the growing list of 2010 bankruptcys that already has..GM,moodys,sirius,hertz and rite aid on the list

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2009, at 1:59 PM, plange01 wrote:

    with the US just entering its first year in a depression since the 1930's and with rising bankruptcy and forclosures banks are stopping almost all lending to invest their money and buy back their own shares with the profits...

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2009, at 2:00 PM, PaulEngr wrote:

    Take a look at high speed trading, too. There is some suspicion that Goldman's profit may be coming from this source as well since they are involved in the vast majority of it.

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2009, at 2:03 PM, TMFHousel wrote:

    "starting to look like we can add yahoo to the growing list of 2010 bankruptcys"

    Strong words for a company that has no debt.

    "banks are stopping almost all lending to invest their money and buy back their own shares with the profits."

    I'll add that to the list of things that would be scary if it were even remotely true.

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2009, at 5:06 PM, KAYESHINKER wrote:

    read my blog. Goldmans chart is not good from an astrologers point of view.

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2009, at 5:10 PM, mingvest64 wrote:

    The articles brings up some good questions;

    How will the banks profit in a rising interest rate environment? And which ones will profit most?

    And which banks, considering a rising interest rate environment, look like bargains now?

    Any suggestions?

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2009, at 6:01 PM, Fool wrote:

    Hmmmmm. Now let's see. If GS has an inside track to many sources, and the Fed would surely be considered a source....wellllll. when rates are gonna go up will GS receive a li'l jingle on some anonymous phone? And voila!! more profits from subsequent seemingly prescient decision on the part of GS.

    I dunno, but morality has some meaning to this writer, so I'd pass on GS either way, (premised upon your article, or premised upon the above scenario.

    Cheers for the Holidays

    Lindy

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2009, at 6:25 PM, excessenergy wrote:

    I heard on kyw news about a month ago that when the banks stopped lending and the credit squeeze began it would of been far worse if it was not for illigal money laundring So let me get this right. Channel 12 front line said that the banks ran the country in the ground by using deritives than they stay afloat with money laundering. Then the government bails them out with inflated fresh printed money. then they make killer proffits with the spreads from free fed money. Enough from what grit tv says would pay for everyones house that is in defaught in the country. And while President Obama is at a interview telling the american public that he is going to get tough with banks Congress is having a special meeting to regulate the deritives and the banking lobby killed it. Does anybody remember Ross Perot talking about the giant sucking sound when we enacted free trade. How about Ron Paul speech in front of congress in 2006 on the federal reserve printing money. You can see that one on you tube. God help us

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2009, at 7:25 PM, BuckeyeChuck wrote:

    The key word in your article is "someday". I don't think the Fed will raise rates in the first half of 2010 and that allows GS and the other banks to continue to make money on fixed rates hand over fist for at least the next 6 months. GS's 2010 earnings should be in the $19 to 20 per share range. Apply a 10X P/E ratio to that and the current stock price below $165 is undervalued.

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2009, at 7:59 PM, showmethefacts wrote:

    It's more than just "government connections;" Goldman Sachs literally controls the part of government that is supposed to regulate it. SO it will continue to profit.

    Goldman's former Chairman, Robert Rubin, helped repeal Glass-Steagall under Clinton and Goldman's influence only increased under Bush-Cheney. More critically, Goldman was one of the main voices behind the deregulation movement and it helped defeat any efforts at regulation of derivatives. This allowed the sub-prime mortgage crisis to spread far beyond the mortgage banking and housing industries, causing global financial near-collapse. Among the unregulated derivatives that Goldman helped bring into existence and gambled in heavily in its own trading accounts were "credit default swaps" (which were nothing more than unregulated insurance policies). They spread the contagion worldwide, as Bernanke has made clear. Mortgages were packaged up into collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), which were in many cases piles of steaming "waste." But the rating bureaus gave them AAA ratings! Then insurers like AIG insured the CDOs by selling credit default swaps -- collecting large premiums and of course bonuses for the London AIG office who issued them, even though no regulator was empowered to make sure that AIG had the reserves to pay on the CDSs if they were presented for payment (such as when the collateralized debt obligations proved to be worthless and the holders tried to collect on the credit default swaps that insured them). AIG had no such reserves. So much for the Repbulican mantra about "the market will correct itself" and the myopia about the virtues of no regulation... AIG would have collapsed in the fall of 2008 had it not been bailed out. Who orchestrated the bailout? Bush's Treasury Sec'y, Henry Paulson, also a former Goldman chairman -- and what was AIG told to do with the money? Pay it to Goldman Sachs, 100 cents on the dollar! Goldman made bad bets, but the taxpayer bailed it out -- 100 cents on the dollar. Goldman never loses.

    So while you make a good point about how Goldman makes its money today and that interest rates must eventually rise, don't count on Goldman having decreased profits. When you control the very government that is supposed to regulate you, you always make a profit. Yes, it's obscene. It was under Clinton; it was under Bush and it is under Obama, to the disappointment of many of his progressive fans who hoped that after we swept out the Bush crowd, things would change. And until it changes, Goldman is like gold.

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2009, at 8:13 PM, hartpall wrote:

    What are the odds that GS goes private before the interest rate increase?

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2009, at 9:08 PM, REJOYCE7 wrote:

    After reading your summation of G.S. I concur that is a logical conclusion. In fact it strengthens my belief of why the price of gold has had a sudden drop in price. If banks can borrow at 0%, what a better way to buy gold and then unload just as the year comes to an end; giving a year end jump in profit margin.

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2009, at 9:44 PM, Doccus wrote:

    OK.. here's my 2 bits..

    GS has been successful in the past, and i would assume that it's likely they don't do their trading and business planning with their eyes closed, meaning that i suspect they're already well aware of the points you raised, and are making plans to compensate for the downward profits from that division. The fact that the third quarter earnings show just 48% of total earnings from FICC, as opposed to 70% from 1st Quarter, shows they must have other irons in the fire.

    I thiink that your analysis would be fully accurate, if things stood still and did not change, but if the company employes normal, responsible management of it's assets, this may not be the case at all, in fact thery may have a few good surprises in store. Or not.

    This, i suppose, would be discernible from a good analysis of their past performance .

    If i were interested in investing in GS, a thorough analysis of their history is the course i would take...

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2009, at 10:00 PM, Fool wrote:

    In discussing Goldman you should be aware of

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_grea...

    Goldman never loses

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2009, at 11:40 PM, ronron1001 wrote:

    Interesting article, but i think i'm going to continue to bet on GS...year after year they have made stellar profits. They know what they are doing and the do it better than anyone else...

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2009, at 11:54 PM, snapperreef wrote:

    'piecing together the gritty details' of a bank like GS is putting it mildly. I bought HG's IBOC and really gave a big effort to delve into their financials and to find out the pertinent ratios etc.

    I finally had to realize that my getting a grip on a reasonable guess at its worth was impossible so I sold it when it started down.

    I can only imagine the difficulty GS's financials would present.

  • Report this Comment On December 23, 2009, at 6:04 AM, esotericrajen wrote:

    I think that what the article points out is valid - i.e. that interest rates will go up and there will be more pressure on Goldman due to the narrower spread. However, there will still be a spread and I am sure Goldman and other banks will fully exploit that spread. I don't think the Fed will push interest rates so high that the spread disappears. So, I don't see Goldman doing any worse in the future - they will just increase their risks to get higher returns.

  • Report this Comment On December 23, 2009, at 11:12 AM, ARJTurgot wrote:

    I think we are already well over the edge of institutional corruption in this society. GS is run by some very smart people who understand how to hedge, including how to hedge their political influence. And the tab gets added to the deficit. I think the rationalization of that is probably a bit like Milo Minderbinder, everyone has a share.

    But, no way this government is going to do anything to really disturb their operation. I think the people here are not cynical and pessimistic enough - someone in the Fed won't tell them when rates are going up, they will tell the Fed when it's okay to raise them.

  • Report this Comment On December 23, 2009, at 11:16 AM, halbiz wrote:

    On so many other fronts, GS is not the kind of company I want to invest in. It may do fine, but I wonder how much is done because they are smarter and more knowledgeable, and how much is from basically insider knowledge. I would bet the latter is more a part of their culture than the former.

    I also believe this Too Big to Fail "Bank" is Too Big to Manage and is not necessary for our society to function well. More competitors would be more productive and less liable to manipulate our government. A quick read of Matt Tabbai's recent article in Rolling Stone would be educational and fun for everyone.

  • Report this Comment On December 23, 2009, at 3:12 PM, trac1964 wrote:

    clawback the $ GS gambled and use it to payback the taxpayer for AIG bailout. Read the McLatchy article. If that happened,then the choice should be either you pay it back or face criminal charges. I think these Suits would choose the former rather than face jail time.

  • Report this Comment On December 23, 2009, at 3:34 PM, DarylDad wrote:

    How many millions must you have for GS to manage your money???? Now their not going to give there top executives cash bonuses instead their going to give themselves stock. Is that the reason for their drop in stock price or do they take extra stock options? The fact that they were bailed after changing their status to a "bank" is sickening. You must read the Rolling Stone article highlighted

    above @Dec 22, 1000PM. You won't find many articles about these since the newspapers are all being bought up and are totally biased. There is legislation proposed to stop online communication of such articles if you didn't publish them originally.

    I couldn't wait for Bush to go away, yet didn't have any faith in Palin. I hope the choices are better this next election. I loved watching Paulson explain GS and AIG, he looked like he was in disbelief at the bailout/ payback to GS. Cap/Trade is covered in R. Stone article as the next bubble of GS. It's amazing how many articles there are about Tiger Woods and how little the press stalks the GS exploits. The fact that they are carrying concealed weapons now indicates their conviction to not change. The world has not changed for the better.

  • Report this Comment On December 23, 2009, at 9:53 PM, DrTarr wrote:

    An interesting point of view.. Dont invest in Goldman because the way that they have made money historically (over decades) has slipped during the worst market turmoil in a looooonnnnngggg time and while they made it up with FICC in the short term - now FICC will magically go away with higher interest rates and, then so will Goldman.

    Yes, read Tabby Cat's RS piece. It is educational and fun. So is Alice in Wonderland.

  • Report this Comment On December 24, 2009, at 10:42 AM, JEBJrinNYC wrote:

    The question, it seems to me, is not only whether Goldman Sachs's earnings from FICC will decline in the next year or so; it's also whether Goldman will find other ways to exploit current conditions and replace the earnings lost as (if) FICC earnings decline. I might even ask (tentatively, since I don't know much about this stuff) whether interest rates are necessarily the major influence on potential earnings from FICC. As far as I can tell, fixed-income, currency, and commodities depend on other factors as well as on each other.

  • Report this Comment On December 24, 2009, at 10:42 AM, DwightSchrute wrote:

    Read today's (24 Dec) article in the NYT written by Morgensen about GS's practice of foisting crappy CDOs onto its clients while taking negative positions against their own products.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/business/24trading.html?pa...

  • Report this Comment On December 24, 2009, at 10:49 AM, vanonuma wrote:

    I liked the comment from hartpall about Goldman going private and I think that is something to think about. It was only a few years back that they went public and with regulation and the bashing that they receive everyday, I am sure there is a committee that will make a recommendation to management soon. What will the stock valuation be for an LBO?

    It may be your last chance to make them pay more by owning their stock now.

  • Report this Comment On December 24, 2009, at 11:26 AM, CarryOnAgain wrote:

    Based on the comments so far, nobody has noticed the elephant in the living room.

    There are powerful forces at work to get the western nations to sign up to a binding CO2 emissions trading scheme. Washington is pushing, the EU is pushing and it is only some disagreement with China, India, SA and Brazil that stalled the CoP15 agreement. Let's imagine what will happen if this goes through next year.

    It has been suggested that the total value of CO2 trading by 2020 will exceed the value of oil. GS is positioning itself to be a key player in CO2 trading. I suggest keeping your eyes on this particular ball for a while.

  • Report this Comment On December 24, 2009, at 11:32 AM, allstars wrote:

    If interest rates are changing aren't we always warned beforehand?

    What would be wrong with investing and taking advantage of the goodies while they are there, just as GS does, and jumping off if you don't like the looks of any given new rate?

    WRT of MO, The Show Me State.

  • Report this Comment On December 24, 2009, at 12:19 PM, Fool wrote:

    This discussion moves into a realm of obfuscation and fed/big bank hood-winking of the american people that has been going on for a really long time. I was not fully aware of the extent of this sham until I read this well researched book: The Creature from Jekyll Island. It answers much of what does not seem to make sense about the recent cycle of bailouts of the auto industry, big banks and the ties to the Fed. We are all being played here. Once you understand the rules of how we are being played, some of the uncertainties voiced in this thread will be less uncertain I think. If you are an investor, it is worth reading. The author does have some theories about global governement that go way beyond simply the good research done about the Creature (Fed) and it makes you wonder. But the insight is an interested backdrop to trying to figure out how the government thought process plays out in these interesting times. Sorry for the long message.

  • Report this Comment On December 24, 2009, at 2:00 PM, efmagowan wrote:

    CarryOnAgain wrote:

    <snip>

    It has been suggested that the total value of CO2 trading by 2020 will exceed the value of oil. GS is positioning itself to be a key player in CO2 trading. I suggest keeping your eyes on this particular ball for a while.

    <snip>

    BINGO! You've done well, Grasshopper, you have followed the money and arrived at the Truth. It's not about 'Global Warming' or 'Climate Change'; it is and always has been about the money......and Government Sachs will be there to collect it with their sacks.

  • Report this Comment On December 24, 2009, at 5:06 PM, wessew wrote:

    The article is interesting and informative, but it does not review what happens during the rest of the market cycle. When interest rates do begin to rise at the short end in perhaps another six to twelve months, it will be in part because the economy is doing much better. A healthier economy will mean an increase in M&A and new issuance activity. Goldman is extremely well positioned to take advantage of these trends given the demise of Lehman, the weakness at Citi, etc. So the source of profits will shift as interest rates rise. I suspect that given the fragility of the economy and the likely gradual movements of the Fed, these other sources of income will more than offset the decline in fixed income trading profits. I believe Goldman will do well until the yield curve inverts which is probably two to three years away at the earliest. It would be interesting to see where M&A and new issuance profits are now versus where they were at the peak and how they have trend versus fixed income trading profits.

  • Report this Comment On December 24, 2009, at 5:08 PM, FOOLTHISFOOL wrote:

    GS has always had an inside track and probably will continue to get away with easy takings as long as they maintain their chummy relationship with the Fed. The Fed watches out for the banks first the economy second. GS is a bank so the Fed will take care of them, no matter where the rates go.

  • Report this Comment On December 24, 2009, at 5:08 PM, 4bees wrote:

    when one spigot is turned off another spigot is turned on.

  • Report this Comment On December 24, 2009, at 6:18 PM, newtier1 wrote:

    Last year the catch phrase was "too big to fail". Now that the truth is coming out, perhaps the new phrase should be "too crooked to fail".

    http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/108476/ba...

  • Report this Comment On December 24, 2009, at 7:56 PM, sentinelbrit wrote:

    GS is trading on a forward PER of 8.8x. The five year peak is 22x and low is 4x. I'd say, the shares look cheap.

  • Report this Comment On December 24, 2009, at 7:57 PM, HLlassie wrote:

    Soooo - how to/when to short GS?? The obvious question?

  • Report this Comment On December 24, 2009, at 8:03 PM, DrTarr wrote:

    Right now - I would say short it when it hits about $350.....

  • Report this Comment On December 25, 2009, at 5:42 AM, luckyman1 wrote:

    Goldman is a criminal organization of fraudsters, just like the rest, only the most successful. They successfully manipulated our government for years. The question now is will the Obama administration give their tacit approval of these scum going forward much less take them to task for the recent past. The handling of the crime-ridden financial sector has been the biggest disappointment in Obama. But maybe he was left with too large of a crap pile.

  • Report this Comment On December 25, 2009, at 7:49 AM, bk57 wrote:

    Anyway to assess the Commodities portion of FICC? Those have been on a tear too.

  • Report this Comment On December 26, 2009, at 2:09 PM, TrustIsEarned wrote:

    showmethetruth has an excellent comment above. But I continue to have a lot of faith in the sincerity and honesty of President Obama and, for that matter, in Secretary Geitner and Ben Bernake. Goldman needs to be watched carefully by regulators and I expect the firm has not been a model of ethical behavior. But I believe we now have people in charge of government who put the broader interests of the American people ahead of the special interests of a company like GS and that, over time, we'll see the impact of this change. The fox is no longer in charge of the hen house.

  • Report this Comment On December 26, 2009, at 2:44 PM, alexxlea wrote:

    Fool frequently censures my posts so it seems that everyone just wants everyone to blunder along and believe that this century is going to turn out like the last, with our interests dominanting the landscape and our corporations infiltrating every last aspect of all socities, turning a blind eye to personal freedoms or the belief that they remain personal or free.

    Government can't function without money. They can't tax that money. They'll buy their own debt. They'll destroy the dollar. Other countries will see this. Sell their dollars. Raise the rates even more. Inflation goes to 20%. Then 100. Then 2000. Then infinity. Then it's worthless. Wars start sometimes during 100% inflation. We fully withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan to focus on the new, bigger theatres of war. Everything has already started except for the massive inflation part. We haven't fixed the budget, the defecit, the economy, outstanding debt, and we definitely haven't restored confidence in our economy, our prospects for our future, and thus our dollar, in the eyes of ourselves or other nations.

  • Report this Comment On December 27, 2009, at 8:48 AM, Docdearth2 wrote:

    "Showmethefacts"....One of the commentators above I thought did a terrific job of explaining the problems with companies like GS. I thought his note was very well written as well as very true and disheartening at the same time. Company's like GS have a virtual license to mint money. Company's like GS are in bed with the Gov't and apparently get away with whatever they want. They, in effect write the laws and regulations governing their own industry. Its almost a perfect world for these "wise guys" who continue to profit royally on the taxpayer's dime and who almost single handedly brought the world's economy to its knees. I guess some folks feel if you can't beat 'em.. join 'em. I'd have a personal moral conflict with that way of thinking.

  • Report this Comment On December 27, 2009, at 10:33 AM, burrowsx wrote:

    I have expected a contraction in the large banking sector for some time, and am guessing at a bottom of about $120 for GS. Unless there is a more broad based economic expansion in the US, the recent stock market inflation has nothing to back it. The larger banks' return to the speculative bubble based on interest rate policy, without a commensurate investment in business loans will simply eat out the heart of the economy

  • Report this Comment On December 27, 2009, at 1:28 PM, tacowolf wrote:

    I like your thesis, and perhaps GS will find other ways to make money, but with interest rates probably staying low for the foreseeable future, GS will probably be a good investment for 2010.

  • Report this Comment On December 29, 2009, at 10:39 AM, BMFPitt wrote:

    That theory hinges on the belief that GS and the Fed are seperate entities.

  • Report this Comment On March 17, 2010, at 11:48 AM, DJDynamicNC wrote:

    Good analysis, but as mentioned above, Goldman doesn't lose. The question is not "is Goldman worth investing in." The question is, "can I justify investing in a company that literally rapes the global economy?"

    Not terribly interested in adding rape, financial or otherwise, to my portfolio.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1071958, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/22/2014 4:31:08 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement