“Goldman’s many hats — trader, adviser, underwriter, matchmaker of buyers and sellers, and salesperson — has left some clients feeling bruised or so wary that they have sometimes avoided doing business with the bank.” — The New York Times. Who are these clients? Let’s investigate!
â — Washington Mutual. (Seized by the government in 2008 after a run on the bank in which nearly 10% of deposits were withdrawn, after the bank embraced a business strategy high-fee services for providing loans and credit to “risky” clients. Shareholder class action lawsuits over the seizure are ongoing.)
â — University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. (Not just a group of hospitals! The UPMC actually has a large wing of for-profit companies, including insurance companies, in addition to hospitals in Ireland and Qatar.)
â — New Jersey. (With up to $4.2 billion in debt, as much as $3,478 per resident as of early 2008, New Jersey turned to Goldman Sachs to raise that cash and panicked when other divisions in the company noticed that the debt of New Jersey was a potential disaster.)
â — Thornburg Mortgage. (A now-bankrupt high-end mortgage lender, whose top four executives cashed themselves out handsomely right before the company folded. And then were sued for essentially looting the office.)
The Times may or may not also include AIG in this list of “worried” clients, but it seems unlikely that they could have, as in no way did AIG “avoid” “doing business” with the bank at any time in that company’s extremely deep relationship with Goldman Sachs.
Number of times the words “bet” or “betting” appear in the piece, conveying a fundamental misunderstanding of what different and shielded divisions do with money at firms like Goldman; 19. Number of times the word “wager,” “wagers,” or “wagered” appear in the piece; 6.