Anyone buying it? Book or idea?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Chinese-bestseller-slams-apf-3990136665.ht...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Chinese-bestseller-slams-apf-3990136665.ht...
Goldman Sachs Conspiracy - Book
- Thread starter mar350
- Start date
—————
The company’s ultimate goal, he says in the first chapter, is to “kill China.”
“Like a fox chewing a bone, Goldman Sachs knows the rules of the game and when to go for your neck,” it says.
With the “cruel character of a Manchurian tiger, the group creeps around the world, like a veteran hunter stalking its prey, when it smells blood it pounces!” the chapter says.
—————-
Buying it for sure, I love such entertainment
!
The company’s ultimate goal, he says in the first chapter, is to “kill China.”
“Like a fox chewing a bone, Goldman Sachs knows the rules of the game and when to go for your neck,” it says.
With the “cruel character of a Manchurian tiger, the group creeps around the world, like a veteran hunter stalking its prey, when it smells blood it pounces!” the chapter says.
—————-
Buying it for sure, I love such entertainment
!ChickenTikka
New member
- Jun 18, 2026
- 0
- 0
It’s already killed America. I guess it might as well find someone with money still to steal.
marcus phoenix
New member
- Jun 18, 2026
- 0
- 0
I am surprised that this book does not have any anti-semitic content.
FrankArabia
New member
- Jun 18, 2026
- 0
- 0
what is with all the hate on GS?
I don’t understand it. 90% of you would want to work there but not qualified to.
So please explain aside from plain jealousy why you hate GS.
I don’t understand it. 90% of you would want to work there but not qualified to.
So please explain aside from plain jealousy why you hate GS.
- Thread starter
- #10
i don’t hate GS, i think the book is unintensionally satirical. being written from a protectionist and conservative point of view gives this book a developing nation’s perspective of the ‘big and evil’ financial industry.
what makes GS appear so violent is their relentless competitiveness. i don’t think there’s another firm out there where people in all areas of the bank actually care about their jobs or strive to achieve so much.
what makes GS appear so violent is their relentless competitiveness. i don’t think there’s another firm out there where people in all areas of the bank actually care about their jobs or strive to achieve so much.
QuantJock_MBA
New member
- Jun 18, 2026
- 0
- 0
Would this book make a good gift?
FrankArabia Wrote:
——————————————————-
> what is with all the hate on GS?
>
> I don’t understand it. 90% of you would want to
> work there but not qualified to.
>
> So please explain aside from plain jealousy why
> you hate GS.
Because they (and other I-banks) get to basically run a casion with their prop desk and when they fail we the tax payers get to bail them out. I dont’ care how much they pay in comp as bonuses, salary, etc. if they are not backed by the govt. They still have like $12 Billion in FDIC insured bonds out there. Pay that back, and if they go kaput then let them fail.
Plus, they do shady stuff with client front running, HFT, etc.
m
——————————————————-
> what is with all the hate on GS?
>
> I don’t understand it. 90% of you would want to
> work there but not qualified to.
>
> So please explain aside from plain jealousy why
> you hate GS.
Because they (and other I-banks) get to basically run a casion with their prop desk and when they fail we the tax payers get to bail them out. I dont’ care how much they pay in comp as bonuses, salary, etc. if they are not backed by the govt. They still have like $12 Billion in FDIC insured bonds out there. Pay that back, and if they go kaput then let them fail.
Plus, they do shady stuff with client front running, HFT, etc.
m
QuantJock_MBA
New member
- Jun 18, 2026
- 0
- 0
Where is this book for sale at?
FrankArabia
New member
- Jun 18, 2026
- 0
- 0
mep_cfa’10 Wrote:
——————————————————-
> FrankArabia Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > what is with all the hate on GS?
> >
> > I don’t understand it. 90% of you would want to
> > work there but not qualified to.
> >
> > So please explain aside from plain jealousy why
> > you hate GS.
>
> Because they (and other I-banks) get to basically
> run a casion with their prop desk and when they
> fail we the tax payers get to bail them out. I
> dont’ care how much they pay in comp as bonuses,
> salary, etc. if they are not backed by the govt.
> They still have like $12 Billion in FDIC insured
> bonds out there. Pay that back, and if they go
> kaput then let them fail.
>
> Plus, they do shady stuff with client front
> running, HFT, etc.
>
> m
I could be wrong on this, but GS did not “formally” need a bailout. They were asked to take it “just in case”. They were actually one of the firm’s that were profitable during the meltdown.
In terms of TARP outstanding, they were the first (or very close to it) to pay it all back including warrants they were forced to issue. The government actually made a lot of money off goldman including that $550mm they had to pay to settle a case that had no real grounds in my opinion.
——————————————————-
> FrankArabia Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > what is with all the hate on GS?
> >
> > I don’t understand it. 90% of you would want to
> > work there but not qualified to.
> >
> > So please explain aside from plain jealousy why
> > you hate GS.
>
> Because they (and other I-banks) get to basically
> run a casion with their prop desk and when they
> fail we the tax payers get to bail them out. I
> dont’ care how much they pay in comp as bonuses,
> salary, etc. if they are not backed by the govt.
> They still have like $12 Billion in FDIC insured
> bonds out there. Pay that back, and if they go
> kaput then let them fail.
>
> Plus, they do shady stuff with client front
> running, HFT, etc.
>
> m
I could be wrong on this, but GS did not “formally” need a bailout. They were asked to take it “just in case”. They were actually one of the firm’s that were profitable during the meltdown.
In terms of TARP outstanding, they were the first (or very close to it) to pay it all back including warrants they were forced to issue. The government actually made a lot of money off goldman including that $550mm they had to pay to settle a case that had no real grounds in my opinion.
ohai Wrote:
——————————————————-
> mep_cfa’10 Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> >
>
> If you did not notice, GS is spinning off their
> prop business.
Are they going to keep a stake? ‘case their prop desk makes up ~75% of their revenue, correct? Plus, I read how they are moving parts of their prop desk to other depts to change their image.
——————————————————-
> mep_cfa’10 Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> >
>
> If you did not notice, GS is spinning off their
> prop business.
Are they going to keep a stake? ‘case their prop desk makes up ~75% of their revenue, correct? Plus, I read how they are moving parts of their prop desk to other depts to change their image.
- Thread starter
- #17
FrankArabia Wrote:
——————————————————-
> I could be wrong on this, but GS did not
> “formally” need a bailout. They were asked to take
> it “just in case”. They were actually one of the
> firm’s that were profitable during the meltdown.
they were indirectly bailed out when the govt bailed out AIG, whom GS had created their own insurace with
——————————————————-
> I could be wrong on this, but GS did not
> “formally” need a bailout. They were asked to take
> it “just in case”. They were actually one of the
> firm’s that were profitable during the meltdown.
they were indirectly bailed out when the govt bailed out AIG, whom GS had created their own insurace with
FrankArabia Wrote:
> I could be wrong on this, but GS did not
> “formally” need a bailout. They were asked to take
> it “just in case”. They were actually one of the
> firm’s that were profitable during the meltdown.
>
> In terms of TARP outstanding, they were the first
> (or very close to it) to pay it all back including
> warrants they were forced to issue. The government
> actually made a lot of money off goldman including
> that $550mm they had to pay to settle a case that
> had no real grounds in my opinion.
Who “formally” needed a bailout besides AIG, Bear, Lehman, Wamu? Wasn’t the world going to come to an end if TARP wasn’t passed? That’s what Paulson told the Congress and public. If Goldman, MS, etc. were to explode tomorrow the gov’t would bail them out. I don’t think you can argue against that.
Plus, do you think the gov’t correctly priced the warrants on all the warrants/pref stock they bought from the banks? Experts did not think so. I don’t have any links but I remember reading about this at the time.
> I could be wrong on this, but GS did not
> “formally” need a bailout. They were asked to take
> it “just in case”. They were actually one of the
> firm’s that were profitable during the meltdown.
>
> In terms of TARP outstanding, they were the first
> (or very close to it) to pay it all back including
> warrants they were forced to issue. The government
> actually made a lot of money off goldman including
> that $550mm they had to pay to settle a case that
> had no real grounds in my opinion.
Who “formally” needed a bailout besides AIG, Bear, Lehman, Wamu? Wasn’t the world going to come to an end if TARP wasn’t passed? That’s what Paulson told the Congress and public. If Goldman, MS, etc. were to explode tomorrow the gov’t would bail them out. I don’t think you can argue against that.
Plus, do you think the gov’t correctly priced the warrants on all the warrants/pref stock they bought from the banks? Experts did not think so. I don’t have any links but I remember reading about this at the time.
FrankArabia
New member
- Jun 18, 2026
- 0
- 0
I remember I did some work on this. government made a nice return on Goldman Sachs.
Prop trading represented 10% of revenue. Trading revenue is not all prop trading.
Prop trading represented 10% of revenue. Trading revenue is not all prop trading.
FrankArabia Wrote:
——————————————————-
>
> Prop trading represented 10% of revenue. Trading
> revenue is not all prop trading.
From Zerohedge. So it’s lower than I said…
Recently Goldman Sachs has been attempting to downplay the impact of prop trading on its operations, with various executives, among them both Lloyd Blankfein and David Viniar, claiming that proprietary trading accounts for a mere 10% of total revenue. This is likely a major misrepresentation and a substantial underestimation of the true impact of prop trading to the firm if an earlier analysis by third party credit analysis firm CreditSights is correct. According to CS analysts, Goldman’s true prop exposure is at least 30% and probably inbetween 30% and 40%. This would imply that the proposed ban will have a truly material impact on Goldman, much more so than Goldman’s executives claim.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/goldman-materially-misrepresenting-its-...
——————————————————-
>
> Prop trading represented 10% of revenue. Trading
> revenue is not all prop trading.
From Zerohedge. So it’s lower than I said…
Recently Goldman Sachs has been attempting to downplay the impact of prop trading on its operations, with various executives, among them both Lloyd Blankfein and David Viniar, claiming that proprietary trading accounts for a mere 10% of total revenue. This is likely a major misrepresentation and a substantial underestimation of the true impact of prop trading to the firm if an earlier analysis by third party credit analysis firm CreditSights is correct. According to CS analysts, Goldman’s true prop exposure is at least 30% and probably inbetween 30% and 40%. This would imply that the proposed ban will have a truly material impact on Goldman, much more so than Goldman’s executives claim.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/goldman-materially-misrepresenting-its-...