This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Goldman Sachs Updated Equity Holdings Analysis
The updated Goldman Sachs 13F is out. With 10,244 security holdings, amounting to $180 billion in gross exposure, split among 7 institutional investment managers (Goldman Sachs & Co; Goldman Sachs Asset Management; Goldman Sachs International; Goldman Sachs AG; Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing; The Ayco Company; Goldman Sachs Trust Company), it presents an interesting picture of Goldman's core equity positions. The bulk of the security holdings are held at GS & Co. ($94.5 billion of market value), followed by Goldman Sachs Asset Management ($80 billion of market value). Furthermore, Goldman breaks down holdings based on value of Calls and Puts, in addition to underlying stock.
Here is the breakdown:
Goldman Sachs & Co. top 10 net positive holdings:
Goldman's largest position by a huge margin is a net positive exposure in the SPY, for a total exposure of $3.5 billion. Following far behind are positions in the EFA, and EEM ETFs ($650 million and $590 million), followed by Philip Morris and the S&P Retail ETF (XRT). The other names that round out GS&Co.'s holdings include Altria Group, the Investment Grade Bond Fund (LQD), the rather under the radar Allied World Assurance, Validus Holdings, and lastly JP Morgan at $356 million.
Goldman Sachs & Co. top 10 net negative holdings:
The biggest net negative position is the Q's, and surprisingly Goldman seems to have a rather negative opinion of Wells Fargo and PNC, which are #2 and #5 in the list, at ($290) and ($202) million exposure. Other financial names that round up Goldman's most negative exposure include Mastercard ($267) million and AIG ($152) million. The balance of the names that round up the list include the FXE ETF (FXE is a long Euro bet - is Goldman positioning for Euro weakness?), two gold names: Agnico Eagle Mines and Barrick Gold, as well as the Brazil ETF index and Exxon Mobil.
In terms of gross negative exposure (via Puts), the top 5 names were SPY, RUT, QQQQ, AAPL, and Google.
Whether the hedged puts/share combinations are delta hedged (-1 puts =?= +1 calls) is unknown as there is no data on the strikes or the maturity of the various call families: merely the market value of the option exposure is available.
A full representation of the top 50 net exposures is provided below:
In the more boring side of things, at Goldman Sachs Asset Management, the top 20 names accounted for 20% of the total AUM ($80 billion). The top names held by GSAM include Microsoft, J&J, Cisco, JPM and Exxon. Full list of Goldman's "mutual fund" below:
We hope that soon Goldman, which has stressed the need for increased transparency, will commence breaking out its cash and CDS fixed income exposure as we are confident that the trillions in gross CDS exposure on Goldman's books deserve a much more detailed analysis.
»
- 11945 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
aem is the most obvious one...when gold corrects that damn thing crashes....
"... CDS exposure on Goldman's books deserve a much more detailed analysis."
correction: CDS exposure OFF Goldman's books
No surprise Goldie is thumbs down on PNC and Smells Fargo.
Just for the spectacle this blogger would pay big money to put Smells Fargo folks' under sodium pentathol on their conference call.
So... what is your name and weight?
By the way, The Wachovia deal that was promulgated in part due to Treasury's notice 2008-83, subsequently slapped down, that suspended the rule in Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that disallows the use of a net unrealized built-in loss for financial institutions...how much of Wachovia's 'top-of-the-market purchases of insolvent companies' turned losses were monetized into taxable income?
What are your commercial marks relative to the Moody's/REAL index, where are your residential marks relative to Case-Schiller?
Charge-offs rose to $4.4 billion from $3.3 billion in the first quarter. The bank increased reserves by only $700 million compared with a $1.2-billion buildup in the first quarter.
In the first quarter the bank's non-performing assets grew 40 percent and reserves increased 5 percent!
Pray tell, when the squints make you pony up for year end audit what will be the hit and what is the strategy to manufacture the fantasy offset?
PNC purchase of National also came in under this ILLEGAL ruling by the Treasury.
Both companies basically bought net operating losses.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act slapped it down but grandfatherd in transactions that occurred after Treasury's notice 2008-83 was issued and on or before January 16, 2009.
Its' good to be a bankster!
GS is long those US national banks with the highest derivatives exposures (BAC and JPM) and short WFC, whose derivatives exposure is basically non-existent by comparison.
Total derivatives held by US commercial banks in Q2: $203trillion
figures in millions
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA OH
Total Assets: $1,663,998. Total Derivatives: $79,941,219
2 GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA NY
Total Assets: $119,678. Total Derivatives: $40,477,262
3 BANK OF AMERICA NA NC
Total Assets: $1,450,830. Total Derivatives: $39,064,884
4 CITIBANK NATIONAL ASSN NV
Total Assets: $1,165,400. Total Derivatives: $31,943,721
5 WELLS FARGO BANK NA SD
Total Assets: $1,100,177. Total Derivatives: $5,111,215
Growth at what price?
http://investment-blog.net/the-notional-value-of-derivatives-held-by-us-commercial-banks-increased-15-trillion-in-the-second-quarter-or-07-to-2035-trillion/
http://www.occ.gov/ftp/release/2009-114a.pdf
yes we see your ugly mug over there blank fink. doing God's work huh? ....
and now as a aside.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KxiEjPCXA8
a little saturday afternoon rust courtesy of neil young from back in the day.....
happy birthday neal young....
Where is the off-book toxic crap? Oh yeah, at the never to be audited federal reserve.
interesting stuff (Goldman's down-loadable data from the SEC is here ( you can then import into a spreadsheet and explore and manipulate to taste)
The CONviction buy list and one reiteration (to date) of BAC is interestingly reflected in the holdings LOL! I thought GE was notable as well.
Thank you TD and ZH for this breakdown.
didn't I read somewhere, that wachovia underwrote hedges on their own book.? maybe reggie middleton
Trillions of dollars coming home. What are central banks going to do with with the money. Put it on a thumb drive and hail it's mighty digital power? No they are going to stare dumbfounded at the meaningless of all that they have created. Jaws first slack then gaped then gasping.
http://www.gata.org/node/8021
GOLDMAN REVEALING WHAT IT DOESN'T LIKE, SPECIFICALLY Barrick mining, leaves itself open to a short squeeze--abx open for perfect short covering--but gs is very nimble--at the first smell of a short squeeze, which I fully expect to happen--they will cover & be out--cutting any losses & sending abx to over 50--why is gg priced over a buck more than abx?--I don't see it--if this week or next abx plows up over 2 points higher than gg you'll know gs & teir followers are covering--
Excellent work! Thank you Tyler! All I clearly take away is that they are tactically positioned against the Euro and some commod names but my cheap analysis doesn't take into account any of their R2 correlation hedges / diffusions.
MA position is not only fundamentally driven but also a technical pair trade offset that presents a double beta bang, dollar-for-dollar; also nothing new there. That said, just took a look at and will highlight MA within an upcoming piece since it is so very juicy here.
From its all-time intra-day high of 320.30 on 5/30/08 ... fast forward exactly 377 Fibonacci trading days to 11/11/09 ... and get a failure to plot a new swing high that fell just a single dime shy of reaching 242.93 as it had 2 days prior. And a price retracement drawn from that intra-day all-time high on 5/30/08 to the trough of Primary wave 1 (circle) on 11/21/08 shows that the wick of that 377th trading day on 11/11/09 failed at the precise 61.8% retracement level of 241.13. As I like to ask, ever so tongue-in-cheek ... random ?
Lastly, if you read into their rather puny XOM put position as anything more than just a sheer weighting-scale hedge ... take a look at a possible A-B-C-D-E within Exxon on the daily / weekly which has recently ended what appears to me as a head-fake up out of a tight wedge .. flushing out weak shorts and pulling in weak hands who are anticipating a move over 75 but who will most likely be disappointed.
The weekly for XOM that closed 10/30 was a wide-range Bearish Engulfing candle whose lower wick held perfectly at the support of the weekly 34 EMA. For the profile to turn negative it must invalidate the week closing 10/16's Bullish Marubozu bar's low at 69.44; which, effectively, is the simple line of demarcation for bulls and bears alike. Failure there ought likely continue the pattern of moving average pinball by testing the weekly 377 EMA as it rises into 65.
Bulls must see a close above the weekly 89 and 144 EMAs at 73.95 and 73.93 to have any chance of turning this neutral chart back towards an upward trajectory; if so, it would most likely require significant basing just under 75 before thrusting toward 81. Personally, would not have any position here and strongly suggest waiting it out for a definitive break either way; err on the short side as the weekly 233 at 70.80 continues to see price oscillate feverishly across it.
XOM is coiling here, BIG time, HUGE time ... and whichever direction it thrusts toward in the days / weeks / months ahead will have an inordinate influence upon all linked instruments who are so heavily dependant upon it .. from the DJIA and S&P to various ETFs and, consequently, their related derivative issues. IMHO, this is a massive pause before further continuation to the downside over the months and years ahead. That said, only price action can forecast what might lay ahead for the single best actual bank on the planet, EXXON Mobil.
Anyone else notice them sliding out the backdoor of owning locations (real estate, the actual gas station) last year and further streamlining their risk management practices in terms of not only RE liabilities but also a dependency on the consumer for discretionary spending, outside of the natural vertical & horizontal integration which they still enjoy; save this one significant link within the chain. Again, they are brilliant bankers. GS are not bankers, JPM are not bankers. Please. HCBK is a bank; brokers masquerading as bankers are plainly not.
Fibozachi, do you blog somewhere?
Thank you for your interest in our work FischerBlack. We are in discussions with a handful of select sites about blogging full time for them during the trading day. We have also recently accepted an offer from the MTA to pen a weekly blog for them which will highlight price action and inter-market relationships across financial markets.
In the meantime, should you be a TeleChart subscriber, you can still catch us chatting throughout the day within our free club, Fibozachi. Hopefully, ZH will develop a similar venue in the near future where we can share a few thoughts here and there during the trading day. Again, thank you for your interest in work. Should you have any questions do please contact us directly at fibozachi@fibozachi.com. Enjoy what's left of the weekend folks!
The Barrons cover on XOM will send it up over $75 this week. In the event oil goes down to $72 or lower I bet $75 is all XOM has for the moment. They do actually have low margin parts of their business.
seriously...all of this is irrelevant..
their cash cow is HFT and fees for issuing new shares.
the rest of their business is just for cosmetics.
Cosmetics indeed. Everyone wake up!!! GoldSach is a taxpayer backed hedge fund.
Does a 1.5-month-old point-in-time snapshot really mean anything for a firm that trades with such high frequency?
The gold plunge is imminent when the squid is short!
JPM was short and got their tit caught in a wringer. The world central banks had to make good. All part of doing God's work.
They may be short the euro on equities and long it in futures and or spot. Same thing with S&P and QQQQ. Same thing with the gold stocks (with gold futures and physical) and Exxon (with oil or better yet RBOB futures)
Tyler Durden,
Don't 13Fs include Synthetic Prime Brokerage, cash inventory backing/hedging equity swaps and both xchg and equity derivative positions, marketing-making inventory, index arb etc. such that there is no way to reliably infer what is prop and what is customer lodged on their balance sheet with smoke and mirrors. I think there's much useful info in 13Fs but where BDs are concerned it is notoriously hard to ferret out anything reliable. Caveat Emptor!
//nihoncassandra//
Tyler:
Question: in case I have missed it, are you or anyone aware of seeing a press release wherein Goldman Sachs paid off the $22 billion in FDIC TLGP bonds that are being backstopped and subsidized at taxpayer expense? I recall that Lloyd Blankfein said in his WSJ interview that he wishes that Goldman had utilized "zero" of this program and now that they have $22 billion plus for bonuses, I figured he would have avoided the hypocrite label and paid off the FDIC bonds.
Kinda innerestin' that Goldman is short Exxon. This week's Barron's cover story is "Four reasons to buy Exxon."
I hope this one works out better than Barron's "Buy GM" or "Dow 15K" covers.