Goldman Sachs Asset Management

Goldman Sachs, pillar of ethical honesty in the lead up to the last market top and crisis, appears to be so bullish on leveraged loan and high-yield debt that it prefers to create an entirely separate holding company (that requires less transparency and avoids the Volcker Rule), raise external equity capital, lever up, and use a management team with "no experience managing a business development company (BDC)."  As the WSJ reports, Goldman plans to offer shares in a new unit, Goldman Sachs Liberty Harbor Capital LLC "as soon as is practicable," in a BDC that means it is exempt from the so-called Volcker Rule. The entity also enables Goldman to report less transparently since it qualifies as an emerging growth company under the JOBS Act. Given the richness of credit, and the 'frothiness' in high-yield, is this an implicit option on credit (if credit rallies, profits go up to parent entity; if credit tanks, entity implodes and eats 'remotely' the new equity capital without affecting the bank itself)? Or maybe we are being too negative?

The Chairman of Goldman's Asset Management group, unwise supporter of Man Utd, promoter of 'decoupling' myths, and creator of the BRIC mnemonic has decided, with everything looking so tickety-boo, to retire. Whether his great Buy BRICS fail or his BoE leadership bid fail was the final straw is unclear, but for now, the erstwhile permabull (and mocker of market skeptics) leaves us on a bright note:

• *O'NEILL SAYS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF THINGS DOING BETTER ECONOMICALLY

20 years of 'broken record' survival and the Brit throws in his chips now - just as everything looks be taking off? Leave your farewell message below...

Back in 2011, BlackRock's Larry Fink revealed one of the great unspoken truths of capital markets, namely that "markets like totalitarian governments." They also like authoritarian socialism, sprinkled in with a healthy dose of nationalization, because as Bloomberg reports, one of the biggest beneficiaries of over ten years of the "glorious socialist revolution" in Venezuela, coupled with over 1000 nationalizations by the bed-ridden and roughly 15 times deceased Hugo Chavez (if one believes all the rumors), is none other than Goldman Sachs, which generated some 681% in returns due to "aligning its interests" with those of the unshakable Venezuelan ruler.

• Wal-Mart misses topline expectations: Revenue $113.93bn, Exp $114.89bn, Sees full year EPS $4.88-$4.93, Exp. $4.94, Unveils new FCPA allegations; Stock down nearly 4%
• China chooses conservative new leaders (FT)
• Eurozone falls back into recession (FT)
• Moody’s to Assess U.K.’s Aaa Rating in 2013 Amid Slowing Economy (Bloomberg)
• Another bailout is imminent: FHA Nears Need for Taxpayer Funds (WSJ)
• Hamas chief vows to keep up "resistance" after Jaabari killed (Reuters)
• Obama calls for rich to pay more, keep middle-class cuts (Reuters)
• Obama Undecided on FBI's Petraeus Probe (WSJ)
• Battle lines drawn over “growth revenue” in fiscal cliff talks (Reuters)
• Rajoy’s Path to Bailout Clears as EU Endorses Austerity (Bloomberg)
• Zhou Seen Leaving PBOC as China Picks New Economic Chiefs (Bloomberg)
• Russia warns of tough response to U.S. human rights bill (Reuters)
• Japan Opposition Leader Ups Pressure on Central Bank (WSJ)
• Zhou Seen Leaving PBOC as China Picks New Economic Chiefs (Bloomberg)

As we have explained recently, the US fiscal cliff is a far more important issue 'fundamentally' than the Fed's economic impotence. While most market participants believe some kind of compromise will be reached - in the lame-duck session but not before the election - the possibility of a 3.5% drag on GDP growth is dramatic to say the least in our new normal stagnation. As Goldman notes, the window to address the fiscal cliff ahead of the election has all but closed, the 40% chance of a short-term extension of most current policies is only marginally better than the probability they assign to 'falling off the cliff' at 35%. The base case assumptions and good, bad, and ugly charts of what is possible are concerning especially when a recent survey of asset managers assigned only a 17% chance of congress failing to compromise before year-end. Critically, and not helped by Bernanke's helping hand (in direct opposition to his hopes), resolution of the fiscal cliff will look harder, not easier, to address as we approach the end of the year - and its likely only the market can dictate that direction - as the "consequence is terrible, but bad enough to force a deal."

All you can read.

Just because it is always amusing to watch the cognitive dissonance in the head of a permabull, here is Jim 'Soon to be head of the BOE... allegedly' O'Neill's latest missive to (what?) GSAM clients. Yes, the same O'Neill who week after week, letter after letter kept on saying that 2012 is nothing like 2011, finally being forced to admit that 2012 is, as we have been saying since January 1, nothing but 2011, as the central planners' script writers prove painfully worthless at coming up with anything original. That, of course, and that the lifelong ManU fan had to suffer the indignity of interCity rivals picking up the trophy this year after a miraculous come back win against QPR. Oh, the horror...

Two weeks ago we reported the somewhat surprising news that according to the FT, current Bank of Canada head, and former co-head of sovereign risk at Goldman Sachs had been "informally" approached by the Bank of England to be Mervyn King's replacement when the latter's contract runs out in June 2013. Once the news broke, the tenuous arrangement to have a former-Goldmanite at virtually every single developed world central bank seemed to have hit a snag as both the Bank of Canada and Carney himself were forced to deny that any interest by the BOE had been expressed. Of course, what was missing from the public discourse is that this was likely one of those "reverse inquiry" type of career moves, whereby the candidate himself, or rather the employing firm - in this case Goldman Sachs, makes the decision whether or not the candidate would be suitable to head the Goldman subsidiary known as the Bank of England. Which is why it is with even less surprise that we now learn that it is none other than the firm's most permabullish strategist Jim O'Neill, who after coining the globalist wet-dream term "BRIC" was sent in exile to chair the firm's worst performing division, GS Asset Management, that is rumored to be the latest replacement for Mervyn King.

All you need to read and more.

As we pick apart the Facebook offering the BoomBustBlog way...

How Jim O'Neill still has a job is beyond us. Not only is he the head of the worst performing vertical at Goldman Sachs, not only is he the creator of the Bloody Ridiculous Investment Concept (BRIC), but now this? Come on...

Sometimes observing the counterclockwise rotation on Jim O'Neill's Koolaid-O-Dispener knob from 10 to 1.5 is the most gratifying thing that can happen to a person. Which is precisely what the most recent weekly report by the man who was sanctimoniously relegated to managing Goldman's most unprofitable division, GSAM, present: a bleak world in which the perpetual twisting of reality by the Man Utd fan has lost all credibility. To wit: "On Thursday lunch time, I joined some Goldman Sachs colleagues for a lunch with some leading macro hedge fund investors, most of which I had enjoyed a similar lunch with last October. The mood this time couldn't be more different. I guess it is kind of understandable given the recent run of data, the markets and the apparent policy impasse in DC on fiscal matters. But it seemed to me it was all a bit over the top. The general mood around that lunch table was gloomy, whether it was about the US, Europe or China, both with respect to data and policy options. I was regarded as a raving lunatic for suggesting it was possible that US unemployment might fall below 6 pct by the end of 2013." Hmm, whoever could possibly conceive of the man whose predictive track record is only better to DB's Joe Lavorgna, as a raving lunatic. Anyway, more importantly, even O'Neill is now forced to admit that in the off case that he has OD'ed on the Keynesian-spiked red substance, that the Fed will have no choice but to launch into another round of easing, something which is pretty much a given for everyone else, and would indicate that the US economic depression, which started almost 4 years ago never ended, but was briefly interrupted by bear market rallies inspired by dollar dilution: "while a QE3 would clearly involve “externalities,” it seems obvious to me that if the recent weak US data is for real, then there is a good chance that the Fed would deliver on something more." Naturally O'Neill then goes on to explain why even a negative GDP print which may be in the cards for Q3 is absolutely nothing to worry about. Lastly, there is always next year's Champions' League for Manchester United...