When it comes to equities, they play both sides of the argument.
From Business Insider:
You’ve got to be kidding us, Goldman Sachs.
In recent weeks, at least four different strategists from Goldman Sachs (honestly we’ve lost count) have offered different opinions on the direction of the stock markets. They range from extremely bullish to uber bearish:
David Kostin, Chief Equity US Strategist: BEARISH
Back in December, Kostin said he thought the S&P 500 would end 2012 at 1,250. This officially made him one of the most bearish strategists on all of Wall Street. And despite the monster rally in stocks since then, Kostin hasn’t budged.
Jim O’Neill, Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management: BULLISH
When O’Neill published his 11 predictions for 2012, his position was that the S&P 500 was more likely to head to 1,400 than 1,000. His call came two weeks after Kostin’s 1,250 call.
Abby Joseph Cohen, President of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute and Senior Investment Strategist: BULLISH
It’s hard to think of a time when Cohen wasn’t bullish. She made a name for herself in the late 1990’s by being bullish as the stock markets soared during the dotcom bubble.
Peter Oppenheimer, Co-Head of Economics, Commodities and Strategy Research in Europe: BULLISH
Everyone’s still buzzing about Oppenheimer’s note titled The Long Good Buy; the Case for Equities where he argued that the equity risk premium made stocks look incredibly cheap.
“The prospects for future returns in equities relative to bonds are as good as they have been in a generation,” he concluded.
The embarrassing thing for Goldman is that their uncertainty and disagreement over where markets are going reflects that the masters of the universe — no matter how well connected — are just as clueless as the rest of us.
The problem for muppets (i.e. Goldman clients) is that it is impossible to be both short and long. Muppets will have to decide whose arguments to listen to for themselves, and will have be responsible for gains or losses. The difference between the masters and the muppets is that Goldman don’t have to take responsibility for their actions. If Goldman screws up — say, by purchasing CDS from a counter-party that goes bust, like they did in 2008 — they can easily get a bailout, and a boatload of loose QE money to turn their balance sheet around.
Underwater equities? Balance sheet full of junk? No problem for Goldman — merely “hunt elephants” (as Greg Smith put it): encourage your clients to put their money into whatever Goldman wants to sell.
Problem with regulation? No problem: just call up any of their friends in government. The friendship starts at the top.
Certainly, Obama sucked at the teats of Goldman Sachs more than any other politician in recent times. It began for him as little-known Senator from Illinois with a razor- thin resume whose ambitions outshone his accomplishments. Obama’s eloquent, heavily prepped address to the Democratic National Convention caught not only the eyes of the Democratic top brass, but that of the big bankers. As early as the Spring of 2006, Senator Barack Obama was intimately involved with Bob Rubin and Goldman Sachs through his involvement with the Hamilton Project.
Fittingly, Senator Obama was chosen by Rubin and the Hamilton Project to give the inaugural address of the Hamilton Project in April, 2006. An excellent, seminal discussion of the Hamilton Project by Dr. Kirk James Murphy, M.D., can be found here. A video clip of then Senator Barack Obama speaking at the inauguration of the Hamilton Project in April, 2006 can be found here and here (with an excellent discussion) and here.
Obama not helpful? Is he having one of those days where he needs to pretend to be a populist to keep his muppets (i.e. voters) on board? That’s fine — Goldman can try Geithner, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Hillary Clinton, Peter Orszag, William Dudley, or any of the other Goldmanites in positions of power.
Muppets may not be so well-connected. Muppets don’t get bailouts, or QE slush money.