Pourquoi et comment investir dans l’or et l’argent ? Plus qu’un placement d’opportunité, il s’agit avant tout de sécuriser le pouvoir d’achat de votre épargne contre l’érosion monétaire et les conséquences de la crise systémique mondiale, tout en déjouant les pièges que réserve le marché de l’or et de l’argent, à l’investisseur non averti.
-Editaux Or et Argent métal -Cotations et graphes -Convertisseurs et lexiques-Futures -Recherches et travaux sur le marché de l'or -Sites des WGC et consorts
certains d'entre vous se souviendront peut etre de la parodie antigoldeux .. présentant Hitler comme victime d'une margin call ( appel de couverture ) sur ses longues positions gold durant le raid sanglant d'aout 2008... la vidéo date du 15 -09 2008 .. en plein enfer
ba la, c'est plus une parodie .... GS emprunte du fric ... pour pouvoir répondre à des appels de couverture !!
m'est avis , et pour expliquer les échecs significatifs et répétés du cartel à contrecarrer la hausse de nos 2 métaux, que JPM doit avoir des ennuis similaires.. ce qui expliquerait bien des choses sur le mouvement en cours .
Well, lookie here … yesterday in MIDAS we presented an expose on Goldman Sachs’s horrendous cash position, which appears like it could lead to some sort of stock debacle. JUST IN: *DJ Several Goldman Sachs Partners Borrowing Money To Cover Margin Calls –CNBC Goldman drops after CNBC margin call report
NEW YORK, Feb 18 (Reuters) - Shares of Goldman Sachs fell more than 2 percent to $83.95 on Wednesday after CNBC reported that several partners in the firm were forced to borrow "tens of millions" of dollars to cover massive margin calls. -END- Was the GS analysis in MIDAS yesterday timely or what! The share price of Goldman Sachs has made a U-turn the past two days… GS ($84.50, down $1.21.) http://www.stockwatch.com/swnet/utilit/utilit_snapsh_result.aspx Meanwhile, the share price of their sidekick in market manipulation, JP Morgan Chase (JPM), continues to evaporate. It lost 14 cents to $21.51, while Citigroup (C) lost 15 cents to fall to $2.91.
Marie Pas de copier-coller: merci de faire un lien vers ce post. Suivez Hardinvestor sur Twitter et sur Facebook
Dernière édition par marie le Mar 20 Nov 2012 - 23:04, édité 4 fois
Bill, By chance, I recently decided to look at the financial statements of a very well known company and what I found was shocking. I thought that maybe their latest results were a fluke, but looking back I found a recurring pattern almost every year since they went public.
Just to give you a sense of my surprise, let me ask you if by the information provided below you can figure out which company I am talking about (the figures are cumulative over the last 10 years):
Earned $420bn in revenues
Paid $105bn in compensation and benefits
Generated $46bn in net profits
Paid $4.6bn in dividends
Generated negative $190bn in operating cash flow…
…which together with a negative $26bn investment cash flow yielded a negative $216bn cash flow before financing
Absorbed $235bn in financing cash flow
Has a current market capitalization of $40bn
I should also add that only in two out of the last ten years (2000 and 2001) it managed to generate positive cash flow before financing, totaling $8bn. This means that in the other eight years it generated negative cash flow before financing of $224bn.
Can you guess which company I am talking about?
Well, look no further than… Goldman Sachs…!!!!!!
I confess that I am not very familiar with the accounting of financial institutions, but cash is cash. So in search of more clues, I tried to understand in their latest 10-K how their net income profits end up generating such massive cash flow losses. Here’s a short summary of what I found (page 125):
"Cash Flows
As a global financial institution, our cash flows are complex and interrelated and bear little relation to our net earnings and net assets and, consequently, we believe that traditional cash flow analysis is less meaningful in evaluating our liquidity position than the excess liquidity and asset-liability management policies described above. Cash flow analysis may, however, be helpful in highlighting certain macro trends and strategic initiatives in our business.
Year Ended November 2008. Our cash and cash equivalents increased by $5.46 billion to $15.74 billion at the end of 2008. We raised $9.80 billion in net cash from operating and financing activities, primarily from common and preferred stock issuances and deposits, partially offset by repayments of short-term borrowings. We used net cash of $4.34 billion in our investing activities.
Year Ended November 2007. Our cash and cash equivalents increased by $4.34 billion to $10.28 billion at the end of 2007. We raised $73.79 billion in net cash from financing and investing activities, primarily through the issuance of unsecured borrowings, partially offset by common stock repurchases. We used net cash of $69.45 billion in our operating activities, primarily to capitalize on trading and investing opportunities for our clients and ourselves."
It is worth highlighting the following sentence, which reminds me of what people used to say when valuing dot coms: "our cash flows are complex and interrelated and bear little relation to our net earnings and net assets and, consequently, we believe that traditional cash flow analysis is less meaningful in evaluating our liquidity position."
It cannot be argued that their consistent net profits translate into consistent cash flow losses, with the exception of a couple of years, as detailed above. We are not talking peanuts here. In 2007, their historical net profits of $11.4bn generated a historical operating cash flow loss of $69.4bn – a staggering $81bn adjustment to the net income line. No detailed explanation for that adjustment was provided.
GS is indeed a fantastic profits machine, delivering a net income margin of 11% on average over the last 10 years. But it is also an amazing cash destroyer, generating on average an operating cash loss of 45 cents for every dollar of revenue earned over the same period.
Am not sure what to make of this, but if these are the underlying economics of one of the world’s preeminent financial institutions and market makers, we are in deep trouble.
All the best, ET
Marie Pas de copier-coller: merci de faire un lien vers ce post. Suivez Hardinvestor sur Twitter et sur Facebook
Bill, In the February 17 session on the TOCOM Goldman Sachs made no change to their positions yet again which leaves them SHORT 69 contracts with no long position at all. Their position has remained the same since Jan 22. It was interesting to see the analysis of GS financial reporting in Midas yesterday. Here is my analysis of the GS "cash flow" for their TOCOM account. You can see that they generated 1B$ of cash by selling short gold that they didn’t have. Unfortunately to cover that same position cost them 1.2B$ making the whole TOCOM operation since January 2006 a loss of 200M$. Brilliant bit of investing! They probably paid big bonuses for having skillfully invested (cough, cough!) to gain 1B$ in 2006!
Cheers Adrian
Marie Pas de copier-coller: merci de faire un lien vers ce post. Suivez Hardinvestor sur Twitter et sur Facebook
Speaking of overrated Muppet stocks, how about Goldman Sachs (down 95 cents to $84.59)? Their own 49 year old president just stepped down. Talk about a red flag … and heck when their so-called brilliant partners are going around begging for tens of millions of dollars, what kind of shape can that firm really be in? As mentioned yesterday, if AIG is one of their major counterparties, as is generally acknowledged, then GS has to be in big trouble. The share price of AIG (50 cents) is collapsing AFTER receiving more than $100 billion from our bailout nation government.
lol, Dup ... amah le Paulson. fait partie des rats qui sont en train de quitter le navire .. tu te souviendras peut etre, qu'il avait annoncé que quelque soit le résultat des élections US, il ne resterait pas au trésor us .. et ce bien avant que les sondages ne donnent obama gagnant ...
pour en revenir au sujet ...le § sur AIG, vraisemblable contrepartie principale de GS est éloquent
tu n'es pas sans savoir que AIG est une des principales contreparties sur gold et silver market ... et qu'il fut jusqu'en 2004 -2005 l'un des gros vendeurs à découvert sur le silver comex, ce pourquoi Bill Murphy insiste lourdement
Marie Pas de copier-coller: merci de faire un lien vers ce post. Suivez Hardinvestor sur Twitter et sur Facebook
Dave From Denver - More on Goldman Sachs' massive negative cash flow I wanted to follow up on the financial information on Goldman Sachs that was presented in Midas last week. The negative operating cash flow numbers were so staggering that I wanted to see what was going on for myself. Goldman went public in early May 1999, so I tallied up the numbers from 1999 thru the first three quarters of 2008, the most up to date financials filed by GS. To summarize what was reported last week (my numbers will be slightly different because I shifted the time period slightly). From 1999 - 3rd qtr 2008, Goldman reported at total of $48.4 billion in net income. During this period, Goldman reported a total of $238 billion of negative cash flow from operations and investing (mostly operations) which was funded by $246.5 billion in cash from financing, primarily bank debt and bonds. I also wanted to look at the quality of Goldman's earnings. From 2002 thru Q3 2008, net interest earned represented anywhere from 35.1% to 113% of total net income (77% of net income during 2008 so far has been this "carry trade"). That means that not only has Goldman's operations sucked up $238 billion in cash over the last 10 years, the quality of its earnings has been largely dependent on being able to earn more interest on its investments than it pays to finance those investments. I thought Goldman Sachs was an investment bank that made money from selling stocks and bonds, advising on mergers and acquistions and other traditional securities firm activities. But based on the nature of their earnings, Goldman looks more like an savings and loan bank, hoping to make more on its investments (interest income) than it has to pay out in the cost of its liabilities (interest expense). If you step back and think about what Goldman is doing conceptually, the operations of the firm look somewhat like a Ponzi scheme. As you follow the pattern of cash flow use and the financing required to fund their operations, it looks like they require more and more financing just to tread water. For example, in 2007, GS had $1.1 trillion in assets and generated $11.4 billion in net income (GAAP accrual income, not cash on cash economic income). This is a 1% return on assets. Do the large shareholders of GS really want to pay out massive compensation to the top management of GS for delivering a whopping 1% return on assets? I can do better and take less risk investing in 1 yr. bank CD's. I'm not quite sure why anyone would want to own this stock. I may buy some long term out of the money puts on GS on Monday. What I find even more interesting to contemplate is that, based on looking at Goldman's uses and sources of cash, if the market for funding Goldman's balance sheet were to slow down, there is a high degree of probability that Goldman would become insolvent. Remember, Goldman's ability to service its debt and rollover its short term financing is highly dependent on the quality of those assets. If the music stops on Goldman's source of financing, and Goldman has no ability to generate cash from its portfolio of rapidly deteriorating assets, Goldman collapses. This would explain why the Fed/Treasury is working so hard to squeeze money from the Government/taxpayer to keep these banks alive. Let's not forget that the Fed is quickly swapping bad assets from these investment banks for Treasuries held by the Fed and taxpayer gurarantees. For now, this is keeping firms like Goldman alive... Then, a comment from one of GATA's finest: But what I find most amusing is the statement made by CEO Llyod Blankfein the other day, under oath in front of Congress, that he didn't really need the $10 billion in TARP that Paulson gave GS in October and that he wanted to pay it back. Well Lloyd, where is that $10 billion? If you didn't need it, why don't you pay it back today? The answer to why you can't pay it back is no hidden secret - the answer is that Goldman can't pay it back because they need every dime they can get ahold of just to keep their operations going. The truth will always be found if you follow the money. My hat is off to the Midas contributor who originally looked into this quite revealing topic. My guess at to why Jon Winkelreid, who I remember as a rapidly rising star in fixed income corporate finance when I worked there for 2 years in the late 1980's, unexpectedly left Goldman last week despite being a candidate to run the firm is that he is wisely trying to distance himself legally from being associated with a collapsing Ponzi scheme.
Marie Pas de copier-coller: merci de faire un lien vers ce post. Suivez Hardinvestor sur Twitter et sur Facebook
Hardinvestor
Accueil 
Edito 
Marie 
et ce bien avant que les sondages ne donnent obama gagnant ... 
» WORLD WAR III ? je suis vert de rage d'ouvrir ce fil dédié, on serre les miches: on commence avec Gerald Celente
» COMSTOCK MINING Inc. (NYSE : LODE) Fil dédié:
» a quoi joue la Russie ..
» Energies "propres" et renouvelables, batteries, véhicules électriques, fil dédié.
» fondamentaux de l'argent métal / décryptage de la désinformation
» Les Podcast et interviews de David Brady, Sprott, Rick Rule, Katusa, Bix Weir, etc...SILJ (Hardin mini-fonds Silver Juniors et Royalties)
» Alain Juillet (que je découvre) une capacité d'analyse et de synthèse en raréfaction.
» Argent (SILVER) / analyses techniques