

Goldman Sachs loses $428 million in third quarter - acak
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP52bb9071b0854bac85714ae4138d3445.html

======
chris_dcosta
I doubt if they "lost" anyting. They are probably writing-down something so
that next year will be a bumper harvest.

------
monochromatic
Anything less than $50 billion rounds to zero.

[http://www.smh.com.au/business/lot-of-bull-about-
goldman-200...](http://www.smh.com.au/business/lot-of-bull-about-
goldman-20090728-dzrl.html)

------
astrodust
I wonder how much of this is attributable to bonus payouts.

~~~
paperwork
General bonuses don't get payed out until end of the year. The actual
disbursement doesn't usually occur until well into the first quarter, although
the record books probably reflect the bonuses in the fourth quarter (not sure
about this).

~~~
suking
Looks like they might amortize the bonuses over the year though?

------
heyrhett
Cry me a river.

------
cpeterso
I misinterpreted this article title as "Goldman Sachs _"misplaces"_ $428
million".

~~~
wmf
That's such a small amount it wouldn't be newsworthy.

------
ck2
_revenue slumped 60 percent_

So bonuses are going to be 60% lower, right? (not likely)

~~~
cims
I have difficulty understanding the negative attitude people have towards
bonuses in this case. Are you a Goldman shareholder who feels that the bank is
performing so poorly that its employees don't deserve bonuses? And when you
refer to bonuses, are you referring to bonus pay-outs to all employees or just
those connected with the financial losses? Just trying to understand this
perspective because it seems very bandwagony.

~~~
squishi
1\. When banks loose money they shouldn't get bailed out. 2\. The Bonuses come
from bailout money. 3\. If the banks want bailout money they should work as
civil-servants(and get an average salary) and not pretend that they are
winners(like traders or hedge funds - who get no bailouts, when they loose
they really loose). Bankers lost money, and caused a major financial crisis so
they should Loose their bonuses!

We have no capitalism right now. we have Lemon socialism.

~~~
cims
I do understand this sentiment, to an extent. The reality is that all the
banks participate in the same job market and need to compete to attract and
retain talent. If a bank (regardless of bail-out status) does not compensate
employees competitively, it will fail to attract and retain the necessary
talent and as such fail to perform. The only way a bank could still succeed
without paying bonuses is if all banks did the same thing. Don't hate the
player, hate the game.

~~~
smashing
If this were a game, what sport would it be? Last I checked, gambling, and
lets be honest, that's what this is, isn't a sport.

------
raheemm
Q1 profits: $2.7 billion

Q2 profits: $1.0 billion

Q3 profits: -$.5 billion

Unless they lose $3.2 billion in the 4th quarter, they will still be plenty
profitable.

------
chrisbennet
It's a bit like a business that takes horrible risks with fire. The business
burns down and the fire takes out most of the town. The business borrows money
from the town to rebuild itself and pays what it borrowed back with interest.

How do you think the rest if the town's citizens feel toward the fabulously
wealthy business owner when he states: "I paid you back with interest!"

------
owlmusic
My heart bleeds...

------
1010011010
Not enough.

------
gcb
They found out that loosing money and then getting bailed out gives even more
profits.

------
sp332
Why are people happy about this? I thought Warren Buffet was supporting higher
taxes on rich people. And GS is already moving toward closing up the
"investment banking" part of their business and becoming a normal "bank
holding company".

Who are they hurting?

~~~
leverage
Actually, GS will never be a "normal" bank holding company. Their commercial
banking business is open to a very select number of clients, and will stay
that way. GS became a BHC because they would have access to the Fed's
emergency funds in case of another major crash -- a line of defense. GS hardly
makes any money from their commercial banking arm.

GS's core business will remain their cash cows: Investment Banking,
Securities, and Asset Management (in that order). GS will NEVER wind down
their Investment Banking arm, in which GS is king above all other banks
(closely followed by Morgan Stanley).

GS's core businesses actually did quite well relative to the rest of the
industry. This loss is really just "on paper", coming primarily from the
Private Equity portfolios. GS has a reputation for aggressively marking-to-
market, and their PE portfolio lost a lot of value on paper because the equity
markets shit the bed this quarter.

------
nextparadigms
Obama better get out quickly before he gives them one last bailout.

~~~
melling
Obama made money lending to Goldman. They paid all their loans back with
interest.

[http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/jpmorgan-repays-
treas...](http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/jpmorgan-repays-treasury-as-
tarp-exits-continue/)

~~~
alttag
Yes, Goldman paid back (with what looks to be about 4% interest), but the
total expenditures of TARP have not yet been recovered, and are still a
significant loss.

From wikipedia [1]: Of the $245 billion invested in U.S. banks, over $169
billion has been paid back, including $13.7 billion in dividends, interest and
other income, along with $4 billion in warrant proceeds as of April 2010

1: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program>

~~~
melling
On that page, they list the participants, the amounts borrowed, and how much
they paid back.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#P...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Participants)

It looks like most of the money has been paid back. GMAC is one of the big
outstanding exceptions.

(+ 45 45 40 25 25 8.1 10 10 7.579 6.6 4 3.555 3.389 3 3 1.23)

