A friend of mine had a manged account at GS after his company's IPO in the late 90's. During the 2001 stock market crash GS lost about 70% of his money. GS's response was to call my friend and ask him to give them more money because with the 70% loss his account fell under the $5M minimum size of managed accounts. He did not have more money so GS simple kicked him out. This was GS 10+ years ago. It seems that they did not change or if they did it was not for the better. I would not trust them to take my dog for a walk, not to mention manage my money.
Wall Street is a nest of vipers. Anyone who trusts these crooks with their money deserves to have his head handed to him.
Reminds me of the story of the frog and the snake:
"One day a snake needed to get to the other side of a lake. He asked a nearby frog, "Friend, will you let me ride on your back to the other side?". The Frog replied, "Ok, so long as you don't bite me". So the two set off on the water. Half way thru, the snake bit the frog. The Frog screamed out, "Why did you do that! Now, we'll both die!". The snake replied, "Because it's my nature... and I work for Goldman Sachs".
Goldman Sach are the cream of the investment world, which by the day is getting more greedy. I do not believe that the testimony of one employee make a firm evil especially when the employee has worked for most of the financial crisis but it surely does raise serious questions.
Just a correction to my comment above: After reading through the complaint further, Sutardja and Dai did not buy the Marvell shares with their margin account as stated above. Instead, they were urged by Goldman to offer Marvell shares as collateral for Nvidia stock bought with the margin account. According to the complaint, when Marvell's stock price fell below $5 for one day in 2008, Goldman representatives told Sutardja and Dai that they had to sell the shares to comply with an SEC rule. According to the complaint, the rule does not actually exist. According to the complaint, Goldman kept the proceeds from the sale of the Marvell shares.
GS is fully capable of doing anytihng they want to benefit themselves with complete disregard to ethics towards its clients. I guess people still leaning on GS to improve/enhance their portfolio are the cows getting milked from under..he..he. Dumb and dumber.
My understanding about the rules of the Margin call is based on the house requirements, it has to satisfy the SEC rules but on top of the house rules. They can decide how much margin percentages you can have.
You can have margin position if the stocks are below $5 and high margin requirements if you own the volatile stocks like the internet stocks.