No Wonder Goldman Sachs is a Cesspool

It upgraded Tesla from neutral to buy this morning and then it was announced this afternoon that they were co-lead in a secondary. 



Well I never really believed in the Chinese wall.  

If this was a firm in LI or Brooklyn, they'd be accused of pump and dump. 

Stuff like this makes one almost want to vote for Bernie. 


Stuff like this.....didn't Hillary tell Goldman to "Cut it out?"


As long as stuff is disclosed I don't see a problem. Wall Street research was largely discredited years ago, so people should know to take it with a boulder of salt. 

I'd take the current imperfect banking system over Bernie's pie-in-the-sky "break up the banks!" followed by lots of ums, ers and ahs when asked how exactly he'd do this.      


Were any rules violated by Goldman, other than the smell test? I learned about it yesterday from financial tweets that I follow.  All of the tweeters criticized Goldman and some asked where the SEC was in something like this.

I probably shouldn't complain - Goldman did something similar in February and it happened to be a company that I follow and was waiting to pull the trigger.


I doubt it. If rules were violated it would be a major flub on a very high-profile name and all over today's financial headlines (and probably mainstream headlines as well). 

Goldman Sachs commits a securities violation on Tesla stock? The press would have a field day with that. 


Student_Council said:

I doubt it. If rules were violated it would be a major flub on a very high-profile name. 

Goldman Sachs commits a securities violation on Tesla stock? The press would have a field day with that. 

That's what I thought.


"Goldman Sachs' tangled relationship with Tesla draws fire" 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/goldman-sachs-lands-tesla-stock-offering-as-it-upgrades-stock-twitter-blasts-deals-2016-05-18


I would never follow any buy/sell recommendation from a large institutional investor.  


Robert_Casotto said:

I would never follow any buy/sell recommendation from a large institutional investor.  

Unless it is an oil company that has a close relationship with it as its investment banker which is co-lead for a secondary offering and which,  five days later, raises its rating from "neutral" to "buy." Based on the action of the stock after that, it should have been a "strong buy," although the fact that oil prices bottomed at $26 a couple of days after the offering didn't hurt. But otherwise, I agree with you. 

eta - As I recall, it was less than five days - two or three. It was a good call.


Student_Council said:

I doubt it. If rules were violated it would be a major flub on a very high-profile name and all over today's financial headlines (and probably mainstream headlines as well). 

Goldman Sachs commits a securities violation on Tesla stock? The press would have a field day with that. 

http://fortune.com/2016/05/19/twitter-goldman-tesla-musk/



It's just tsk-tsking. I'm not saying the tsk-tsking isn't justified, I'm just saying that tsk-tsking is all it amounts to. It's not a securities violation.  


Student_Council said:

It's just tsk-tsking. I'm not saying the tsk-tsking isn't justified, I'm just saying that tsk-tsking is all it amounts to. It's not a securities violation.  

I didn't know what the actual rule was. The Fortune bit explains it. Like you, I couldn't believe that Goldman would be so blatant. Having said that, the Tesla deal is getting a lot of attention.


Student_Council said:

It's just tsk-tsking. I'm not saying the tsk-tsking isn't justified, I'm just saying that tsk-tsking is all it amounts to. It's not a securities violation.  

But it ought to be.


I don't recall offhand, but secondaries could have had the prohibition some time ago.  Yes, looks bad.  Yes, probably should be tighter.  GS won't care much.  Elon surely won't.


To be fair, here's an article that basically says that Goldman was in the wrong place at the wrong time: 

http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-tesla-equity-offering-2016-5


Damned if you do and damned if you don't.  Which is why it looks bad on several fronts (now to pick the time to raise it from a hold after all this time?), but really isn't that bad at all. Have to read a bit more on Musk's exercise though... that sounds at least somewhat interesting.


Buyer beware. Why does a buy announcement mean anything. Only fools act on something someone else says. And if they do the blame is on them. 


Chinese wall.  Do urinal partitions count?


bramzzoinks said:

Buyer beware. Why does a buy announcement mean anything. Only fools act on something someone else says. And if they do the blame is on them. 

For educated buyers, I would generally agree with this.  However, I do support the expansion of rules applying a fiduciary standard to financial advisers providing retail services because the vast majority of Americans have no clue as to how they should invest their money.


If you have no clue stick with index funds. If you have a clue mostly stick with index funds.


bramzzoinks said:

If you have no clue stick with index funds. If you have a clue mostly stick with index funds.

You don't seem to understand that a lot of Americans don't even understand index funds.


If so that is the fault of what the statist bureaucracy chooses to teach in school. 


bramzzoinks said:

If so that is the fault of what the statist bureaucracy chooses to teach in school. 

Stop with the stupid statist crap.  It makes you sound like a small, bitter person.  When I was in junior high school, we were taught how to maintain a checkbook.  However, I would wager that at least half of the kids with whom I graduated high school had completely forgotten how to do this by the time we graduated.


Ok that just cracked me up.


I never once "balanced" a checkbook.  Honestly, I don't even have an idea what that even means.  I do it all in my noggin.  


What's a checkbook? 


bramzzoinks said:

What's a checkbook? 

A tool for statists


cramer said:

It upgraded Tesla from neutral to buy this morning and then it was announced this afternoon that they were co-lead in a secondary. 

If the 2 sides were allowed to talk, they may have timed these announcements differently.  


Woot said:
cramer said:

It upgraded Tesla from neutral to buy this morning and then it was announced this afternoon that they were co-lead in a secondary. 

If the 2 sides were allowed to talk, they may have timed these announcements differently.  

You are correct, and that is what the Fortune article linked above explains:  

http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-tesla-equity-offering-2016-5  

Goldman was the co-lead in a secondary for an oil company on  February 5, and on February 10 raised its rating from neutral to buy and put it on its conviction buy list.  The stock was trading at 42 when the secondary was announced, sending the stock down to 38. The upgrade moved the stock 3  to take it back to 42 (I follow the stock and happened to be glad about the Goldman upgrade.)



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.