http://money.msn.com/stock-broker-guided/article.aspx?post=64ba356a-901f-4c32-b6e0-a79a39516a1e What are we supposed to do........read between the lines? Hear one recommendation and do the opposite? Even though this article had none I am sure someone here will jump to the defense of GS and point out how blatantly honest they are to operate in a such a manner. Of course.......maybe I am just looking for a handout of sincerity and a freebie of integrity from Wall Street. :wink: :roll:
Clueless....this reminds me of the hearings they held on Capitol Hill where our Congress and their staff illustrated how ill-informed they are..... For example: GS is a market-maker - they provide liquidity to clients across a vast range of asset classes - that is if a client wants to sell a particular holding in an asset, GS will give them a bid. If a client wants to buy a particular asset, GS will ask for a price.....oftentimes, different clients want to buy and sell the same thing at the same time......so GS buys from one and sells to another - shame on them! It's ridiculous. That is what they do......that is what a market-maker is for crissakes.....when, in their role as market-maker, they are long (meaning they own) a position in excess of their risk management guidelines, they will sell it to manage the firms risk profile..... For it's clients, GS manages/offers for example, funds that benefit from increases in commodity prices, clients who have reason or desire to invest in commodities will buy pieces of these funds.......GS also manages/offers funds that benefit from a decline in commodity prices for the benefit of clients who have reason or desire to invest in such an asset class......in other words during every minute of every day of the year, GS has clients that have differing, and often quite opposite, investment needs..... Should GS not respond to needs of their clients on both sides of the trade or manage their firm within appropriate risk tolerances because some idiot without a f$%$king clue in the world in Washington or writer with a keyboard will think that they are somehow cheating somebody...... Keep in mind these are the same idiots making the rules......just sayin'. It's a joke......don't go there.
"News broke this week -- or rather, a blogger pulled data -- to show that Goldman dumped 1,260,802 shares of Apple (AAPL) during the first quarter, even as its research division rated the stock "buy" and maintained its lofty $470 target. Little due diligence is done in the journalism community on the interplay between asset-management and research units." So GS didn't "dump" Apple shares it managed. They just executed sell orders from their clients?
That is a great juxtaposition of those comments.....here is a picture of what it reminds me of along with the buffoons on Capitol Hill.....with equally credible and effective results..... So some writer makes a statement that GS "dumped" shares of Apple during the first quarter.....I assume that to mean that there was a sale of Apple shares and that GS was the named selling counterparty....so what does that tell you? Does that tell you that the shares were GS that they hold in one of their proprietary trading accounts or were they owned by a client and held in a GS "street name" and sold at the direction of the client, or were they held in one or more of many mutual funds or other investment funds that GS manages for the benefit of their clients or were they sold by GS to "true up" the positions in the trades to facilitate one of many types of stock repurchase programs or other option arrangements facilitated for Apple at Apple's request - either the company or it's executives? So let's say even if they were GS proprietary, does it tell you whether that at the end of the first quarter does GS now have a greater of lesser exposure to Apple? How much did they buy or was bought for them? Did they sell the stock to hedge a greater holding in options or other forward/future commitments or as debt holder against Apples billions in land, plant and equipment and in fact now have a greater exposure to fortunes of Apple? Does it tell you whether or not the transaction was an offset or used in conjunction with their role in assisting Apple manage their billions of dollars in foreign currency exposure via currency swaps/forwards or options contracts or somehow help facilitate their international trade obligations, etc, etc, etc, etc? I'll tell you what it tells you......it doesn't tell you squat.....carry on :roll: