Goldman Sachs Wealth Management Loses 55% Of Wealth In One Year

In an effort to move away from proprietary trading, something we said could happen while Goldman was still merrily jamming oil prices to the moon, Goldman decided they were going to rely more heavily on fee-based businesses like wealth management. Ah, fee-based businesses. The 'buy and hold' business model. Don't try to time the markets, we'll manage it for you. And charge you enough money to buy Ferraris, yachts and Manhattan's premiere penthouses. To live like kings on other people's money. Isn't that called usury? Isn't usury immoral and often illegal? But, I suppose this must not be usury because it's legal. As part Goldman's fee effort, in 2007 they started a fund to invest in credit markets. It appears those investors only had to wait a year for outsized returns. Losses fo 55.3%. In the fund's one year of existence. That's pretty impressive. So, someone who worked a life time for savings only had to wait one year to lose more than half of it. In fact, it appears all of Goldman's fee-based funds that I see are delivering comparable outsized returns. How again is Goldman going to stay in business? Oh, that's right. Taxpayer money. The same taxpayers that had/has to choke down high commodity prices, failing private equity debt, failing emering market investments, real estate investments, credit default schemes, counterparty risk bailouts and basically everything else Goldman took substantial profits on before they all start(ed) blowing up.