The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
There were those, possibly including Tyler Durden, who complained loudly last September that Paulson was proposing a scheme in which the Fed and Treasury would pick winners and losers in the market. Paulson was the former CEO of GS. Surprise! GS is a BIG winner. Given that, it hardly would be surprising that the Fed and Treasury knew that this is what GS would do with the SLP provision and thought it was a good thing.
From their point of view strengthening GS IS strengthening the economy. THAT POINT OF VIEW IS THE REAL PROBLEM. They just didn't think that this whole arrangement would be exposed so publicly. And it is still not too bad. Most of the MSM is still ignoring it. This could be related to the fact that only GS has taken advantage of the incredibly lucrative opportunity provided by the SLP program, through intimidation, IMO. Only one SLP provider at a time would be readily able to combine the fraction of a penny incentive for "market making" with the monitoring and proprietary desk trading as GS has done and GS has the mojo with Treasury.
As the saying goes "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!" The others don't want to volunteer to have their heads cut off in a failed challenge. Neither do the heads of most financially troubled MSM organizations. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
I'm not so much addressing the illegality of the practice (interesting enough, in itself) as the implications for the overall cost (overhead) of the financial system.
To go into more speculation, I don't know what Goldman Sachs charges for executing program trades. I guess it ends up as pennies. These are costs of doing transactions. People who trade through Goldman Sachs should know that the costs don't end there. There's tailgating, possible front-loading, a range of practices to steer or manipulate the market (the difference may be hard to tell). These are hidden transaction costs of doing business through Goldman Sachs. They may not affect your individual trade negatively, but they extract rents from the market that would not exist if there were no dominant firm.
Galbraith has (as usual) a couple of pithy quotes about that, but my copy of The Great Crash of 1929 is at a friend's house right now...
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
How can we tell the difference between profits from market-making and front-loading?
On the weekend of September 13-14, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, respectively the 4th and 3rd "pure" investment banks in the US, were in talks brokered by the US treasury and the Fed to avert bankruptcy. Merrill Lynch was taken over by Bank of America. Lehman Brothers failed. This left Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley as the remaining two investment banks.
On Wednesday the 17th, the stock of Goldman Sachs lost about 15% and the stock of Merrill Lynch lost about 25%. There was also a run on both banks' prime brokerage businesses. Clients (such as hedge funds) who used MS and GS as intermediaries decided they didn't trust them to not collapse taking their portfolios down with them (like Lehman did) and started switching their portfolios to "supermarket" banks with broad retail and commercial banking operations such as Citi and JP Morgan.
It was then that Paulson and Bernanke went to Congress and told them that a meltdown of the entire financial system was looming.
On Thursday the 18th, Paulson introduced the TARP. As we soon found out, this was a 3-page plan drafted in huge haste, clearly in reaction to the events of the day before and not the result of a longer contingency planning process.
I wrote at the time that Paulson had acted to save GS's from a run on its prime brokerage business. The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
Well, not exactly at the time. That was February, and I had an earlier version in December... The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
the stock of Goldman Sachs lost about 15% and the stock of Merrill LynchMorgan Stanley lost about 25%
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Oui - May 30 15 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 27 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 5 22 comments
by Oui - May 13 66 comments
by Carrie - Apr 30 7 comments
by Oui - Jun 17 comments
by Oui - May 3125 comments
by Oui - May 3015 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 273 comments
by Oui - May 2726 comments
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 233 comments
by Oui - May 1366 comments
by Oui - May 910 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 522 comments
by Oui - May 450 comments
by Oui - May 312 comments
by Oui - Apr 30273 comments
by Carrie - Apr 307 comments
by Oui - Apr 2644 comments
by Oui - Apr 889 comments
by Oui - Mar 19144 comments