In short: Snipe owns it through the week's worst financials drawdown (32:40). Solomon guided FICC trading slightly softer for Q3, but "I think fixed income trading will be fine… Goldman is best of breed in IB" — one of his two "favorite picks." Sechan (31:12) counts it among the "haves" that gain from deals, capital raises and fixed-income volatility.
Goldman fell more than other banks this week after its CEO said bond, currency and commodity trading would be a bit softer this quarter. Snipe thinks that is a short-term blip: Goldman is the top investment bank for mergers and stock/bond sales, and a busy deal market plus volatile bond markets are good for its business.
In short: Ethridge's final trade (42:22), after a rough week. Santoli: Goldman flagged softer fixed-income/commodity/currency trading and is "still down like 7% week to date" despite a 1.5% bounce. Ethridge: "well off its 52 week high" — "this freak out over rates is going to create an opportunity to own the name that ends up at the far left of the Anthropic prospectus" (lead underwriter on the IPO).
Goldman fell this week after warning that trading revenue may be softer. Ethridge sees the drop as an overreaction to rates and expects Goldman to be the lead bank on Anthropic's IPO — the name listed first ("far left") on the prospectus cover — which would bring large fees and prestige.
In short: Weiss owns it but it "just hasn't performed that well" — he blames "talk of delaying IPOs and a slowdown in the AI spending." A steeper curve helps banks and insurers, but if yields fall on the hike "you just don't know what's going to happen"; rate hikes will hit non-financial, non-AI earnings and lending appetite — "a mixed bag."
In short: Part of a ~$500B AI financing raised by "like six groups," firms that "wouldn't ordinarily work together." The hosts mock David Solomon's "I believe deeply in these numbers" as narrative in place of math. A financing reference.
14:49And there's actually not much that's tangible other than narrative, which I don't consider tangible. But it's, but you don't understand. This is unbelievable. It's like, I believe that David Solomon believes that. Mining that gap, I think they were looking at $500 billion? $500 billion raised by like six groups of people.
In short: Weiss's only bank — down on the IPO read-through, which he dismisses. On the market's first reaction to the Amodei essay: "right now the market thinks that it's going to slow down all IPOs. So we can take a look at Goldman Sachs and see that down." Then on the Fed: "I think the banks look great here… we've seen some steepening of the yield curve… it's also a hedge on the economy… I own Goldman Sachs, the only one I own… I guarantee you they've got enough M&A to do and they've got enough other high margin business… they're going to be fine." Santoli: "I'm not worried about Goldman Sachs at this point."
Goldman is the investment bank most tied to big stock listings (IPOs), so when the AI-safety news raised doubts about Anthropic's and OpenAI's listings, Goldman's shares fell as a proxy.
Weiss owns it and is unbothered: even without the AI IPOs, Goldman has plenty of merger advisory and other high-margin work. He also likes banks into a rate hike because a steeper gap between short and long interest rates lets banks earn more on loans funded by cheap deposits — and banks act as a hedge if the economy stays stronger than he fears.
In short: Named in the bull-to-bear flip: the PM who made clients ~$1bn in subprime and was "a raging bull" on the XLF names is now "bearish on Bank of America, bearish on Goldman, bearish on the financials as a whole."
Goldman is named as part of the flip: the formerly bullish investor is now "bearish on Bank of America, bearish on Goldman, bearish on the financials as a whole."
The logic is sector-wide rather than Goldman-specific — cheap options, crowded positioning, and exposure to the credit that has been written against the AI build-out.
3:53long a lot of the XLF names. And he made his clients about a billion dollars during the subprime crisis. But he's been a raging bull and now he's turned much more bearish. Bearish on Bank of America, bearish on Goldman, bearish on the financials as a whole. We can get into that. And we had Lee Robinson on this on the last week.
In short: Not a stock view, but central to the episode: the super spike call was an institutional product — the China/BRICs economists (Jim O'Neill, Hong Liang), the on-the-ground steel and metals analysts, and the J. Aron commodities franchise (Steve Strongin, Jeff Currie, David Greely). "I don't think we could have made the call if we weren't at Goldman Sachs and I've never been confused about that." He still uses Goldman's global GDP forecasts as his demand-growth input.
Not an investment view — but Goldman is effectively the second character in the episode, and the point he makes about it is a research-process point worth keeping. The super spike call was not one analyst's insight. It needed the equity team's project-by-project supply screen, the commodities desk (Steve Strongin, Jeff Currie, David Greely) showing that investment flows rather than speculation were bidding up the curve, an economics team that had actually named and modelled the BRICs (Jim O'Neill, Hong Liang), and steel and metals analysts on the ground in China who had better real-time data on Chinese growth than the oil team did.
His conclusion is unusually direct for a famous analyst: "I don't think we could have made the call if we weren't at Goldman Sachs." He is also pointed about the failure mode — people who leave a franchise and then take all the credit for calls the franchise made possible. The practical version for anyone rerunning his method: a differentiated macro call usually requires a second, independent data source outside your own sector.
He still uses Goldman's global GDP forecast today as the input that would tell him Super-Vol has flipped back to Super-Spike.
30:54I made the call, but I also was at Goldman Sachs when I made the call and the Goldman Sachs part of it was a really core part of it. And I think a lot of folks who left Goldman Sachs prematurely kind of artificially gave themselves too much credit. I will say that I deserve some credit for having made the call, but Goldman Sachs and my colleagues deserve a huge portion of the credit as well.
In short: Singled out with Morgan Stanley as the worst of the topping financials: "especially the broker dealers. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have very scary charts." Also on the first pass of the sweep — "Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo all look like they're topping."
Goldman Sachs is the investment bank and trading house — a "broker dealer" in the language he uses.
It gets the sharpest phrasing of the episode: "especially the broker dealers. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have very scary charts." That is a technical judgment, not a fundamental one — no comment is made on earnings, trading revenue or the deal pipeline.
The reason he singles out the broker dealers within financials is that their businesses are the most sensitive to markets themselves. If his broader view is right — deleveraging still to come, another fund blow-up ahead, a market that has been rallying on rotation rather than breadth — the firms whose revenues rise and fall with trading and issuance volumes are where the topping pattern should show up first.
17:11weeks. But yeah, like I said, when I went through that chart package, this is all the stuff that looks like it's topping to me. Especially the broker dealers. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have very scary charts. — Tell me about copper. — Out of all the metals, I am least bullish on copper.
In short: Not a stock call, but a strategy datapoint: Goldman Sachs Asset Management is buying NEOS, having previously bought Innovator Capital Management — "there's a common theme developing here." Lake: "we're seeing that investors want the ETF wrapper and they're looking for something differentiated in it. Innovator invented the defined outcome space; NEOS has come onto the scene with an incredible range of income products." Read as: the biggest asset managers are buying their way into derivative-income and defined-outcome ETFs.
In short: The framing data point for the corporate-vs-consumer disconnect (raised by Lin): record profits, EPS +78% y/y to $20.98, ROE 23.5% — against University of Michigan consumer sentiment near record lows. Goldman's analysts are also the source of the FT's $1.5T hyperscaler lease-commitment tally ($1T not yet started).
31:40— Okay. Overall, I think the bigger picture here is that earnings have been spectacular for Q2, in fact, record earnings for a lot of companies. For example, Goldman Sachs reporting record profits surging 78% on a year-to-year basis to 20.98 EPS. Analysts returns common equity of 23.5%. The company itself reports record profits.
In short: Named with Morgan Stanley by Verrone as the excellent brokers inside a leadership group that is global — "Japanese banks, even with yen intervention and JGB yield… continue to lead. European banks have been absolutely exceptional." His discomfort is the flip side of the same fact: "I just can't think of too many times in my career… where you're on the verge of a big problem and every bank stock around the world is at new highs. It seems a little out of step."
Named beside Morgan Stanley as leadership within a globally strong bank tape. Trennert supplies the fundamental case rather than the chart: he expects the yield curve to steepen (banks borrow short and lend long, so a steeper curve widens their margin), the economy is strong enough that "credit losses should be pretty minimal," and deregulation is a tailwind.
His structural aside is worth keeping: private credit grew as "largely a regulatory arb" — post-crisis rules pushed lending out of banks, and private funds stepped into the gap. If that cycle turns, the damage lands outside the banking system, "so it won't be that systemic" — but it will be concentrated on the wealthy investors who own it.
32:32And I think the charts know it and the stocks know it and they continue to exhibit it. The brokers have been excellent here. We've all seen Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, but even some of the smaller ones, they are still leadership. And I just can't think of too many times in my career or historically where you're on the verge of a big problem and every bank stock around the world is at new highs.
In short: The source of the lease numbers, credited: "Goldman Sachs, that's where I got the numbers from. They did God's work in going through all the filings to find that stuff." Wigglesworth's own contribution was the parallel purchase-commitment tally. Attribution, not a view.
3:29But a trillion dollars of that is for leases that haven't even started yet. And that doesn't appear except as a footnote. So Goldman Sachs, that's where I got the numbers from. They did God's work in going through all the filings to find that stuff. What I did then was I started looking at the purchase commitments, because these companies have also promised to buy obviously chips and equipment, cooling, stuff like that, but obviously power as well.
In short: The first leg of the financials move: "Initially, it was more of the capital markets, the investment banks, the Goldman Sachs and the Morgan Stanleys" — inside a sector he is overweight and "very encouraged actually about."
Goldman was in the first wave. Newton's sequence for the financials recovery starts with "the capital markets, the investment banks, the Goldman Sachs and the Morgan Stanleys" — firms that earn from advising on mergers, underwriting share and bond sales, and trading, all of which pick up when markets are active and confident.
Because it led, it is less of a fresh breakout than the lenders that followed; but it sits inside a sector he is overweight and "very encouraged actually about."
22:50Initially, it was more of the capital markets, the investment banks, the Goldman Sachs and the Morgan Stanleys. But just in the last year we've seen more evidence of Bank of America and Bank of New York and Citigroup starting to push higher breakout and make good headway. So, I'm very encouraged actually about the financial sector.
In short: Consortium member. His analogy is 2007-08 mortgage securitization: the arrangers "won't get hurt" because they earn fees for structuring and distributing the paper — the loss sits with whoever holds it when the collateral turns out to be obsolete chips.
33:56slower growth in the AI sector. Take a look at this story that was released just two days ago. Nvidia and AI compute $500 billion of third party capital. Nvidia today announced strategic partnerships to establish independent compute financing platforms with Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs, and KKR to mobilize over $500 billion of third party capital for the buildout of AI infrastructure over time.
In short: One of the six firms signing MOUs with NVIDIA. Goldman also supplies the day's bull framework twice over — Tony Pascarello's four pillars (durable economy, superb earnings growth, favourable August flows, a trillion dollars of AI CapEx) and the Alphabet reiteration at a 435 target. No stance on the stock itself.
In short: "Goldman is the only bank in the group, positioning itself as lead bookrunner on the public debt to come" — the single bank inside an otherwise private-capital consortium, staking out the underwriting seat for the moment this financing migrates from private deals into public bond markets.
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
In short: Named (per the FT, via Leslie Picker) as one of the Wall Street giants entering a partnership with NVIDIA to provide ~$500B of AI financing — deal possibly announced as soon as Monday, with all parties declining to comment and CNBC not independently verifying. Separately Goldman's Tony Pascarello supplies the day's bull note on cleaner positioning. No committee stance on the stock.
In short: The most fully reported example of the Dallas build-out: Goldman has grown its Dallas-area workforce to more than 4,500 from 900 in 2017 and is building a much bigger campus a mile from its 1985-vintage downtown offices. Dallas office head Aasem Khalil, sent there in 2016 by David Solomon ("You've got to be kidding me. Did I upset you?"), now says "'Equities in Dallas' is a relic of the early '80s."
Goldman is the article's fullest illustration of how far the Dallas shift has gone. Its local headcount is up to more than 4,500 from 900 in 2017, and it is building a much larger campus. The human detail carries the point: the executive now running the office treated a 2016 posting there as a punishment ("Did I upset you? Did I do something wrong?") and now calls the old Liar's Poker insult, "Equities in Dallas," "a relic of the early '80s."
No stance on the stock is expressed. As a signal, though, a bulge-bracket firm quintupling a regional workforce and committing to a purpose-built campus is a durable, capital-committed vote on where the business is going — the kind of migration evidence that shows up in real estate and local wage data long before it shows up in anyone's earnings model.
In short: Named in the same peer set — an investment bank whose cycle is now levered to AI financing, so owning it is "just one more aspect of the AI trade," not diversification.
18:48So, in a sense, owning Morgan Stanley, Goldman, Bank of America, Citigroup, etc. is just one more aspect of the AI trade. Simply put, buying banks to me does not provide diversification from tech. I am releasing a masterclass on how to analyze banks and how to value them in the near future, where I do a deep dive on the entire sector.
In short: A closed Sells-table position — sold 06/15/2026 at $1,076.17 for +133.86%. Appears only as a realized winner on this week's table; no fresh stance in the update.
In short: Weiss's pick/holding: "I prefer Goldman honestly, that's what I own" — the "most leveraged, the underwriting to the M&A cycle"; a "blowout" report ripping to record highs, and he's impressed by the humility ("the battle's ahead of us still… one day at a time") given the quarter. Rate volatility / a steepening curve under Warsh a tailwind; Mayo's target list tops out at $1,325 on the name.
Goldman Sachs is the investment bank most tied to deal-making (mergers and IPOs). Steve Weiss owns it and prefers it among the banks: "I prefer Goldman honestly, that's what I own." It's the most leveraged to the merger-and-acquisition cycle — and with AI labs (OpenAI, Anthropic) heading toward IPOs that then fuel more deals, that pipeline keeps building. It posted a blowout quarter and ripped to record highs, and Weiss is impressed that management stayed humble ("the battle's ahead of us… one day at a time"). Rising and volatile interest rates (a steepening yield curve "under Warsh") add another tailwind for the trading business.
In short: Named by Link (with Morgan Stanley) as "the obvious plays" on the capital-markets recovery into earnings — IB fees seen +26%, M&A +9% (global M&A +57% ytd). CEO David Solomon is on CNBC with Faber tomorrow; Goldman reports Tuesday.
In short: Named alongside JPM and Bank of America into earnings — expected to do "really well in their trading floors, in their investment activities, the investment services" given the market's high volatility.
18:32Now, going through this week, we also have JP Morgan, we have ASML, and we have TSM. I'll first start off with JP Morgan and the big banks. Simply put, I think these earnings are going to be really good. These companies make a lot of money from trading activity, and the market has been highly volatile.
In short: Jason's favorite name in financials: IB revenue +48% last quarter, capital markets set to keep surging; +20% YTD, regaining momentum after a recent pullback. He'd normally wait past earnings (volatility) but continues to like the space.
Goldman Sachs is Jason Snipe's favorite name in the financial sector. His case is that Goldman's investment-banking business is booming — revenue there jumped 48% last quarter — and he expects "capital markets" activity (deals, IPOs, trading) to keep surging. The stock is up 20% this year and, after a recent dip, is regaining momentum.
The one hesitation is timing: the committee generally avoids buying banks right before earnings because results can swing the stock sharply, and bank earnings start next week. But he continues to like the space, with investment banking as the standout.
In short: Weiss's largest position ("uncomfortably large"). Off ~today on the OpenAI IPO delay — Goldman trades with the tech-IPO cycle because it's the leader — but he shrugs it off: those deals (OpenAI included) will come public eventually. "The best tone in all the financials." Above $1,000; dividend raised $4.50→$5 (11%) after the stress test (Simpson's footnote).
Goldman Sachs is Weiss's biggest holding. It dipped on the news that OpenAI is delaying its IPO, because Goldman is the leading underwriter of big tech stock offerings — so its stock tends to move with the IPO calendar. Weiss shrugs that off: those deals (OpenAI included) will eventually have to come public because the companies will need the money, so a delay is just noise. He calls Goldman "the best tone in all the financials" — meaning the highest-quality, best-positioned bank.
A bonus, flagged by Simpson: after passing the Federal Reserve's annual "stress test" (a health check that clears banks to return more cash to shareholders), Goldman raised its dividend from $4.50 to $5 a share — an 11% increase — and JPMorgan raised its too.
In short: Up 27% in Q2 in the recession-fears-fade bank rally — a bellwether of improving economic sentiment.
14:08Nike and Lululemon are two turnaround stories that are just not turning. Nike was down 21% and Lulu was down 26%. Financials were up 9%. Large investment banks are bellwether stocks for how investors feel about the economy. As recession fears faded, they rallied with Morgan Stanley up 34%, Goldman up 27% and Citigroup also up 27%. The payment space remains a place to avoid.
In short: Trim/sell after a big win: twice highlighted by Haymaker in 2024 (Aug 5, 2024 ~$460) and now ~$1,080 — ~130% ex-dividends. The team has turned cautious: "a lot more downside over the next year or so than upside." (Detailed rationale paywalled.)
Goldman Sachs is the big Wall Street investment bank. Haymaker recommended it twice in 2024 (around $460 in early August), and it has since soared to about $1,080 — roughly a 130% gain before dividends. This update is them ringing the register: after a move that large, they now think the stock has more room to fall than to rise over the next year, so they're trimming or selling.
The detailed "why" — valuation, where they think the cycle is, how it fits the rest of the portfolio — is in the paid post and isn't reproduced here. What's public is simply the call: a winning position they're now stepping out of.
In short: Wall Street beneficiary — reported $5.63B profit (+19% YoY); positioned as a primary intermediary for the capital shifts the conflict requires.
Goldman Sachs is one of the main middlemen for the huge flows of money that a crisis like this sets in motion — from hedging oil prices to financing new energy projects. Its profit rose 19%, and Prins (a former Goldman MD herself) points to it as a prime beneficiary of the volatility.
In short: Cited as a research source — Prins's "old firm" is quoted seeing copper demand overtake supply from 2029 onward; a forecast reference, not a rated company.
In short: "Up sharply" — the rallying side of the financials divergence (vs the private-credit names sinking).
Goldman Sachs is the Wall Street investment bank. He mentions it as the strong side of a split in finance: traditional big banks like Goldman are rallying, while private-credit lenders are sinking. It's an illustration of the divergence, not a buy recommendation.
8:08I want to turn to the credit markets. We've discussed Oracle's bonds sliding after the CapEx hike, but you've also flagged a major divergence in the financial sector — while Goldman Sachs is up sharply, private credit players like Blue Owl are down significantly. Is private credit the subprime of the cycle? Well, I was at Lehman Brothers. I sat down in Palm Beach with a legendary credit investor who made over half a billion dollars during the subprime crisis. And he sees a massive crisis next year.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.