Source:
Goldman Sachs Is Not Ripping You Off
Peter Gorenstein
Jul 30, 2009 11:25am EDT

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/292652/Goldman-Sachs-Is-Not-Ripping-You-Off

Category: Video

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

6 Responses to “Goldman Sachs Is Not Ripping You Off”

  1. R.D. says:

    HIGH FREQUENCY,FLASH, and especially DARK POOLS.. new words for Frontrunning ,,which is ILLEGAL.

  2. Jgold says:

    The key phrase here is ..”at least not in this case” which is only the assumption of these three ..all of which are not traders .. Henry Blodget..you gotta be kidding me.. I dont know how much money you and your Mary Meeker counterparts have lost for retail.. Goldman Sachs reportedly has a 98% win rate and have had only 2 losing days recently.. That is a red flag if anything .. Let them put down their computer programs and secrets and let’s see these guys really trade in the open market like me..

  3. randomletters says:

    Did that talking head actually suggest that there can’t be anything bad about GS doing HFTs, because there has been no regulatory action?

    1. It’s been a pretty lax time in the recent past for regulatory actions, and regulatory controls always lag behind new technologies and approaches.

    2. It’s a pretty stupid argument that “the lack of police shows there is no crime”. Sometimes, the lack of police CAUSES an increase in crime. (I’m not saying HFT is a crime, it’s a metaphor.)

    I’ve seen the arguments in favor of HFT as a market-price-seeking tool. I’m not sure that I believe them. I’m not sure, at all, that the market is served by having interim trades (for profit) on the way to final price agreement is efficiency – by my definition an excess trade (and therefore excess fees) is an inefficiency. Nor do I think the market and the overall purchaser in trades has their position vastly improved by accelerating price agreement from 5 seconds to 2.

    I’m looking forward to it all making more sense to me. Right now, it just seems like unnecessary and useless trades, and every trade contains a built-in bit of cream skimming.

  4. bdg123 says:

    Something would have been done about it already? You mean like mortgage-backed securities? Or credit default swaps? Or mark to market accounting? Or, or, or……………

    Is this guy for real?

  5. joeblo says:

    If the 6th largest market maker in 2008 (named Madoff ) had been running an illegal $64 billion Ponzi scheme for 30 years, the SEC would have shut it down after 5 separate investigations…

    What a tool.

  6. aupanner says:

    what are the odds this guy has some tie to GS? it seems he’s making up b.s. to defend GS. he has to have an incentive.