Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Posted: **Wed 24 Sep 2008, 00:59:32**

As I said, the conspiracy theories are alive and well here.

you don't bet $5 Billion on a bank that may or may not exist in a week. You don't even risk 10% on $5 Billion

Goldman wasn't in nearly as dire straights as the other investment banks. Nobody (except maybe you) had any doubt Goldman would still be around next week. Especially given the bailout, and given that Goldman re-classified themselves Sunday night as a regular bank, the combination of the two took away a fair amount of risk, and Buffet saw a good opportunity.

Posted: **Wed 24 Sep 2008, 01:10:53**

OilFinder2 wrote:As I said, the conspiracy theories are alive and well here.

It's not a conspiracy to assume the big players talk to each other. Buffet does not gamble with that kind of money. Goldman's position is better off now with the changes, but without the bailout, I would think the price would drop even lower and it would be better to snatch it up later in the year. With the bailout, it would be a good time to buy.

Posted: **Wed 24 Sep 2008, 01:45:35**

AlexdeLarge wrote:
OilFinder2 wrote:As I said, the conspiracy theories are alive and well here.

It's not a conspiracy to assume the big players talk to each other.

Of course they do. I'm sure Warren Buffet's phone has been ringing off the hook for the past 3 weeks or more, with people practically begging him to bail out one or another financial institution.

But so what? Everybody knows he's got gobs of money, so who else would they call in such a time of need? Ghostbusters?

AlexdeLarge wrote:Buffet does not gamble with that kind of money. Goldman's position is better off now with the changes, but without the bailout, I would think the price would drop even lower and it would be better to snatch it up later in the year. With the bailout, it would be a good time to buy.

Agreed, it might have been the case that without the bailout, Goldman would have become even cheaper months from now - but it also would have been riskier. However, with the bailout and the switch to a traditional bank, Goldman suddenly became safer, and thus more palatable to Buffet (who tends to invest pretty conservatively). As I said, without the bailout I doubt he would have injected the $5 billion.

Posted: **Wed 24 Sep 2008, 03:01:57**

Interesting. JP Morgan did exactly the same thing in 1929.

Reporters learned that an important meeting was taking place at the office of J.P. Morgan and Company, involving many of the most important men in banking. After the meeting broke, Thomas Lamont, senior partner at Morgan – a company founded by a man who had help stop a panic in 1907, made the following statement to newspaper reporters: “There has been a little distress selling on the Stock Exchange… due to a technical condition of the market” and that things were “susceptible to betterment.”

The market moved up a bit after Lamont’s statement, but the real recovery came at 1:30 pm, when self-confident Richard Whitney, vice-president of the NYSE and floor broker of J.P. Morgan and Company, walked into the exchange floor. The crowd went silent. Everyone expected an announcement that the NYSE would be closed. Instead, Richard Whitney surprised everybody…

Whitney asked for the latest bid on U.S. Steel. “195” someone shouted. Then he promptly announced that he was buying 10,000 shares of U.S. Steel at 205. He immediately received 200 shares and then left the rest of the order with the specialist. He continued to make similar orders for over a dozen more stocks. Fear evaporated as investors became worried that they would miss the new boom. The market would have closed much higher if stop loss orders from earlier that day hadn’t been triggered during the upward surge. Needless to say, the recovery on Black Thursday was impressive, but so was the massive sell off earlier in the morning that gave it its name.

About.com

Buffett has a lot more to lose if the economy goes into the toilet. He gets a sweetheart deal from Hank, on one of the remaining banks that is still functioning, giving him a chance to really fatten up if it ever turns around, and has done all he can to keep the situation from falling apart. If he succeeds, he makes a lot of money. If he fails, whether he loses 5 or 10 billion or 50, it doesn't really matter that much. So, why not do the deal?

Posted: **Wed 24 Sep 2008, 09:15:51**

There is one thing I fail to understand with this dude. he is an overweighted 78 yo, how much does he have left to live? 3, 4, 5 years? How many of them will be worth living? Now I would understand if he needed money for whatever reason (making a puppet president somewhere, empregnating every miss universe, saving pola bears, whatever) but he doesnt. The guy eats cheap steaks and drinks cherry coke and every meal or drink can be his last one. He will die, and all that money eventually will go to thousands of different people who deserved none of it. They will eat his fortune like ants and worms eat a dead elephant. Is that what he worked for for 64 years or so?

Posted: **Wed 24 Sep 2008, 12:23:29**

There are two things which I don't understand:

1) Buffet usually buys companies, or at least a controlling stake in his companies. He doesn't like someone other than Berkshire managing his investments.

2) 10% sounds like a lot, but Buffet normaly doesn't invest in things which yield less than 20%. These yield are hard to come by at the moment, but normally he would just keep sitting on his cash. The reason they have so many cash available at this moment is because he hasn't been able to find such sweet deals in recent years.

Maybe, and I am out on a limb here, there are other interest playing. In his annual letters he mentioned a couple of years ago that he had a sizeable toxic derivate position via one of his holdings, which he wasn't able to offload.

From his letter:

But closing down a derivatives business is easier said than done. It will be a great many years before we are totally out of this operation (though we reduce our exposure daily). In fact, the reinsurance and derivatives businesses are similar: Like Hell, both are easy to enter and almost impossible to exit. In either industry, once you write a contract – which may require a large payment decades later – you are usually stuck with it. True, there are methods by which the risk can be laid off with others. But most strategies of that kind leave you with residual liability.

Could this deal also mean that he quietly could get rid of these investments via the backdoor? In that case the profit for BH would be much more than just the profit on GS stocks.

I guess the FED would also like to keep this quiet. It is one thing if some greedy bankers get burned. It is another thing if the most valued investers fall for the same trap.

Posted: **Wed 24 Sep 2008, 12:51:24**

I see conspiracy theories are alive and well on this forum.

Are you saying Warring Buffett didn't buy gold right after some buildings went down? Cause your wrong.

Or are you saying his intentions were based on calculated economic principles? Cause your wrong.

Are you saying there wasn't a meeting with this clown and the other clowns on a golf course? Cause your wrong.

The conspiracy theories are alive and well, but your ability to think is dead as a door nail.

:lol:

Posted: **Wed 24 Sep 2008, 14:32:15**

greenworm wrote:
I see conspiracy theories are alive and well on this forum.

Are you saying Warring Buffett didn't buy gold right after some buildings went down? Cause your wrong.

Or are you saying his intentions were based on calculated economic principles? Cause your wrong.

Are you saying there wasn't a meeting with this clown and the other clowns on a golf course? Cause your wrong.

The conspiracy theories are alive and well, but your ability to think is dead as a door nail.

While he has enormous Paper Wealth, Warren is not in the Seat of Power. His assets are as subject to anyone else's at being seized. If he did NOT pour some of the money into Goldman to keep it liquid, he was done for.

Warren is not the Bank. He is just a big investor who has all the paper wealth he organized up over the last 40 years IN the bank. He doesn't hold the keys to the bank.

Get real folks. The Money is ALL in the hands of the ARMY now, and those who control the army.

Reverse Engineer

Posted: **Wed 24 Sep 2008, 18:53:12**

Get real folks. The Money is ALL in the hands of the ARMY now, and those who control the army.

Huh?

Posted: **Thu 25 Sep 2008, 08:55:08**

SEC will be probing possible insider trading due to a $5.00/share bump right at the end of trading, before Bershire broke the news later that night.

Posted: **Fri 10 Oct 2008, 04:47:15**

A guest on Worldwide Exchange on CNBC said Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley would be nationalized this weekend.

The talking head quickly stated this was one man's opinion.

Posted: **Fri 10 Oct 2008, 04:59:09**

Cid_Yama wrote:A guest on Worldwide Exchange on CNBC said Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley would be nationalized this weekend.

The talking head quickly stated this was one man's opinion.

I would expect this has to happen. The game of mergers is over between the banks, the Gooberment has to take it all over now to try to keep the system functioning in some way. WHAT way though I am without a clue on.

I'm considering internal price fixing on all goods currently on shelves. Nationalization of all shipping and trucking companies. Government guarantees providing the equivalent of letters of credit to get the goods moving off the docks to specific locations deemed essential for national security.

Beyond that, I have no clue how security issues are addressed within individual communities left out of the loop.

Reverse Engineer

Posted: **Fri 10 Oct 2008, 11:07:17**

GS down 13%

MS down 28%

Posted: **Fri 10 Oct 2008, 12:03:50**

GS down 21%
MS down 36%

They could well be doomed. What shockwaves that would send...

Posted: **Fri 10 Oct 2008, 14:36:04**

I would like to see both of them sink into a black hole. These two entities, particularly GS are leading agents for this mess. H. Paulson is a prince of thieves on Wallthief and should be in jail.

Here's what should be done, before any global plan is considered. All the elite thieves must put their entire personal wealth up as collateral to back whatever ideas they wish to put forward.
If their plan works, they may get to keep at least some of their wealth.

Posted: **Thu 16 Oct 2008, 18:11:19**

I pledge allegiance to Goldman Sachs...

Interesting read...

Posted: **Fri 07 Nov 2008, 00:15:20**

Well...maybe the price didn't hit $250 or $200/barrel but it sure looks like a SuperSpike in hindsight.

[hr]

Goldman "super spike" analyst cuts oil forecast

Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:30pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Goldman Sachs energy equities analyst Arjun Murti, one of the first to predict $100 a barrel crude, cut his 2009 oil price forecast to $110 from $140 a barrel this week due to global economic weakness.

Posted: **Fri 07 Nov 2008, 00:42:03**

I think what we've seen so far would be better classified as a speed bump, compared to what could happen when a significant supply drop has a head on collision with the printing press.

Posted: **Fri 07 Nov 2008, 01:11:50**

I think this is what he meant. I don't know what he envisaged happening afterwards, seems to have lost his touch with this last bit of volatility, but really this is unprecedented in human experience. Its got everyone off balance, in all markets including the oil one. I'd bet the next spike happens 3q 2009, but hell I didnt see $70 either so who knows.

Posted: **Fri 07 Nov 2008, 01:22:14**

The most important part it´s not the spike, it´s the exponential growth observed in another similar chart:

Oil Price Chart Too Big For This Website.

Peak Oil News and Message Boards

THE Goldman Sachs Thread (merged)

Re: Berkshire buying $5 billion of Goldman Sachs

Re: Berkshire buying $5 billion of Goldman Sachs

Re: Berkshire buying $5 billion of Goldman Sachs

Re: Berkshire buying $5 billion of Goldman Sachs

Re: Berkshire buying $5 billion of Goldman Sachs

Re: Berkshire buying $5 billion of Goldman Sachs

Re: Berkshire buying $5 billion of Goldman Sachs

Re: Berkshire buying $5 billion of Goldman Sachs

Re: Berkshire buying $5 billion of Goldman Sachs

Re: Berkshire buying $5 billion of Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley to be nationalized?

Re: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley to be nationalized?

Re: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley to be nationalized?

Re: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley to be nationalized?

Re: Morgan Stanley & Goldman Sachs might lose credit rat

I pledge allegiance to Goldman Sachs

Has The Goldman Sachs "Super Spike" Happened?

Re: Has The Goldman Sachs "Super Spike" Happened?

Re: Has The Goldman Sachs "Super Spike" Happened?

Re: Has The Goldman Sachs "Super Spike" Happened?