Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

cowpip

Does Paulson Still Own Shares of Goldman?

Recommended Posts

I'm not an equity trader, so I'm not aware of the tools that can be used to figure this out. But I'm dying to know if King Henry, by chance, still owns shares in Goldman Sachs?

 

If he does, can anyone tell me how many shares he owns?

 

Is it possible that his intentions contain more than "national best interests" at heart? Is it possible that he is also going to profit enormously if the bailout allows Goldman to make a killing?

 

I'm just a wee bit concerned about a conflict of interest with his role as the "master banker" right now. Is it justified, or did he have to relinquish his shares when he took the Treasury role?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap! REALLY??? No kidding. So it really is possible that he is making bad decisions to help keep his own investment alive. Hmmm.... very interesting.

 

Thanks very much for the info, MidKnight. Much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where do you get your facts, and understandably no one at the Treasury or the Fed has too much credibility right now, but Paulson should have had divested himself of GS holdings back in June 2006.

 

  Quote
Last update: 2:12 p.m. EDT June 30, 2006

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) - Former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson filed to sell about $500 million worth of Goldman Sachs stock late Thursday shortly after the U.S. Senate voted to confirm his appointment as U.S. Treasury Secretary.

Paulson filed to sell 3.23 million shares in a shelf offering of Goldman Sachs (GS:

 

135.63, +2.63, +2.0%) stock according to a prospectus filed with

regulators. Based on the bank's closing price of $152.50 on Thursday, the stock is worth about $492 million.

The banking chieftain is unloading the shares to adhere to conflict-of-interest rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I figured he should have had to do. Thanks for that. However, does he have any stock or options left in the company (or did he build any up after having left)? I would assume conflict of interest rules would forbid that, but do the rules permit the ownership of a minimum number of shares? Hopefully he had to divest them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I found it on the net now. He had 3.23 million shares and was required (along with his wife) to divest all of the shares prior to taking office. BUT, he was allowed to reinvest the proceeds into government approved mutual funds or treasuries to avoid a tax hit. Given the market turmoil, if he would have invested there, is it possible he may still be feeling a pinch?

 

PS: I don't know if he reinvested in mutuals or other government-allowed entities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the bad info above...I guess what I read in my brief morning skim read was what his holdings were when he was with GS. My apologies. The morning news skim is a speed read glance at best...

 

All my best,

MK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, cowpip. I don't know why it still feels like government of Goldman-Sachs, by Goldman-Sachs and for Goldman-Sachs. In the Reuters article you referenced, the "That some sort of action is needed to rescue the financial system from itself is hardly a point of contention." comment was interesting, considering that constituents' communications to their elected representatives ran about 100 to 1 against the bailout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We aren't living in a democracy anymore. It's some sort of bastardized version of democracy - socialized democracy - something. It's sick, whatever it has become. And the media is just loving it. Of course, they're also muppets.

 

And now we have Geithner named to be Treasury secretary. The devil himself. Couldn't Obama find someone in the population who has not been formed in the likeness of the Fed and Treasury? I swear, he must have been pulled from the same mud.

 

The markets are responding positively to this, but my gut says he's just another cog in the socialistic wheel that the powers-that-be are secretly putting together. Man, I hate sounding conspiratorial, but this environment is so surreal that I just wish I'd wake up from this bad dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're bold enough now to be putting together that socialistic wheel publicly, gathering equity as they rescue, and even flat out projecting government takeover of 401K's and pensions. I'm afraid your - our! - bad dream is past the point of no return, toward nightmare. Socially, it would be called rape. Financially, we've been gangbanked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Chips said:
They're bold enough now to be putting together that socialistic wheel publicly, gathering equity as they rescue, and even flat out projecting government takeover of 401K's and pensions. I'm afraid your - our! - bad dream is past the point of no return, toward nightmare. Socially, it would be called rape. Financially, we've been gangbanked.

 

Gangbanked!! LOL! THAT's a good word for it! I'll have to remember that one. So true.

 

Chains and shackles are already being placed on the witless public, and no one seems to mind. Lack of a good liber education will do that.

 

Geithner has been raised by the Fed. I even heard someone from the Fed say (I can't remember who) that they have "taken him under their wing as a rising star." They've been raising him specifically for this purpose. Geithner will be in control of the Treasury (he will hold the wallet of the Nation now). Bernanke is trying to spend his way out of this hell hole that Greenspan and the Fed put us in. The Fed's balance sheet has exploded from somewhere around 800 billion before this crisis kicked in, to (as of yesterday) over 2 TRILLION. And we're still sinking.

 

So what will Bernanke do? The answer is clear: INCREASE THE BALANCE SHEET SOME MORE. But to do that will require close coordination with the Treasury. They needed a point-man inside the Treasury so that cash can be unleashed to the Fed with impunity. What better man for the job than Timothy Geithner. I have no doubt he will do anything to help the Fed. Anything at all. Absolutely anything. And without scruples. If you thought Paulson was tricky and manipulative, you just wait and see. Geithner is the king-master of manipulation. He'll do exceedingly well as a Paulson look-a-like.

 

So it looks like the Fed has essentially accomplished their goal: Create a crisis so severe that fixing it would require taking ownership of every major financial and mortgage institution and in the United States and the major manufacturing base as well. Since the Fed is a PRIVATE institution, independent of the government, they would obtain sufficient power to control the agenda of the nation and would even have leverage over the individuals in the country through their ownership in the mortgage markets, making the President of the United States nothing more than a puppet to the Fed President and their controlling board.

 

Think about it. Who is paying for everyone's pay-checks now? Since the Fed entered the commercial-backed paper market, THE FED IS. They're now YOUR boss. Without them, corporate institutions would not be able to payout salaries because they couldn't obtain the short-term loans to do so. Has the problem eased? No. If the Fed left the market now, what would happen? You'd lose your job. So who controls whether you can pay your bills and eat tommorrow? The FED does! Unfortunately, we're all led to believe that they're "saving us." Well, they are - through ownership.

 

Anyone who does not think the Fed has succeeded in a coup d'etat is really living in a dream world. They've accomplished it without an assassination, without military action, and without even announcing it. But they have accomplished it.

 

The fact that Geithner has now been chosen for the position of the Treasury suggests to me that the Fed is now officially and 100% in control of EVERYTHING, and the role of the President is nothing more than a figure-head.

 

A nice quiet (tall) island ruled by bartenders sounds pretty good to me right about now.

 

Does emigration sound attractive to anyone yet? Good luck. Getting out of the country is now almost as difficult as getting into the country now.

 

It's frightening how quickly a dream can turn into a nightmare... speaking of the American Dream, that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nightmare does indeed seem to be integrating rather quickly. There are those out there who have seen this coming for decades, but the reality and speed of the disintegration is, I think, still a shock.

 

You're way ahead of me on this Geithner fellow; I'll have to come up to speed. But the Fed sprang from the bowels of the international banking elite, and is apparently simply fulfilling its destiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are those who are hailing Geithner as a good choice (mostly the media, who can't be trusted to give an unbiased opinion). He is, unquestionably, a very smart cookie. But he has been born from so deep inside the bowels of the Fed that I simply can't trust that what he will do will be for the benefit of the people as much as it will be for the benefit of the Fed and the banks that control the Fed. He is not only currently the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, but he is also the VICE CHAIRMAN of the Federal Open Market Committee (Bernanke is the Chairman) where they set interest rates for the nation. He's so deeply imbedded in the Fed's thinking that you couldn't extract him from their bowels even with an elephant-sized enema.

 

If the Fed wants unrestricted access to the nations purse, Timothy is absolutely the best man for the job. I guess they've already had it with Paulson, so Timothy will just maintain the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are those who are hailing Geithner as a good choice (mostly the media, who can't be trusted to give an unbiased opinion). He is, unquestionably, a very smart cookie. But he has been born from so deep inside the bowels of the Fed that I simply can't trust that what he will do will be for the benefit of the people as much as it will be for the benefit of the Fed and the banks that control the Fed. He is not only currently the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, but he is also the VICE CHAIRMAN of the Federal Open Market Committee (Bernanke is the Chairman) where they set interest rates for the nation. He's so deeply imbedded in the Fed's thinking that you couldn't extract him from their bowels even with an elephant-sized enema.

 

If the Fed wants unrestricted access to the nations purse, Timothy is absolutely the best man for the job. I guess they've already had it with Paulson, so Timothy will just maintain the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting factoid:

 

http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/orgchart/geithner.html

 

He was put in place at the New York Fed in 2003. From 2003 until now, he has been about as close to the bad-behavior that got us all in this current financial crisis mess as you could get.

 

And yet they want HIM to fix it???? Would someone kindly tell me... WHY????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the only thing that makes sense is that he's not really expected to fix anything. That is, unless it's the 'fix' as in, "OK, cauliflower ears, the fix is in, ya understand me?...ya go down in the 6th, and make it look good. On second thought, I don't care if you make it look good or not. Just go down. They'll never notice."

 

And am I imagining things, or are CFR members now filling virtually every position in the coming administration? It's the fulfillment of the mission of the Creature from Jekyll Island.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.