TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says what stands out for firms doing brokerage business is that its peers need capital, while this success story doesn't.Not done, not done on this topic.
You are a client of a major brokerage house, say Bear Stearns (NYSE: BSC) (Cramer's Take), or Citigroup (NYSE: C) (Cramer's Take), or Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER) (Cramer's Take), or even Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) (Cramer's Take). You keep your assets there. You want ready access to the firm's capital and you don't want to worry for a moment about the firm you are dealing with.
You want to have a consistent group of people on your account because, take it from me, it is a royal pain in the butt to deal with a revolving door of coverers -- people who cover or service your account. You also don't want to be in a situation where the guy who is at the top goes and you have lost your juice. At every firm I dealt with, I knew the top guys and if I didn't, I didn't do a lot of business there.
Given that set of circumstances, why would you still keep your money at Merrill or Bear or Morgan Stanley? Why would you want to risk it? Why would you want the hassle?
What people may not realize is that one of the most lucrative businesses on Wall Street is prime brokerage, where you custody your account. The collateral is per se kept at the firm and the firm lends you money at a very good rate for the firm, no risk to the firm and lots of interest. Just a fantastic, high-margin business.
That business is going to Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) (Cramer's Take), which I own for
How do I know this? I have so many sources on this that I am aghast that others don't get how important this all is. I can't believe that outsiders really don't value stability as much as they should because Wall Street is a relationship business and the relationships across the Street are being blown up left and right.
Except for Goldman.
There is also a perception in the press that Goldman has alienated customers with its being so right and with its great gains, the implication being that the gains come at the expense of the customers.
Again, wrong.
If you trade mortgages at Goldman, believe me, you have access to the very team that saved the firm from vicious exposure to this toxic product. I was always, as a client, able to speak to anyone. I know that you could have spoken to Mike Swenson, largely described as the guy who saw mortgages imploding. Who would not want that access? Who? But you have to do business with Goldman to get it. Fair, right?
Now, the real issue: Do you want to go deal with a company that goes hat in hand to the Saudis, to Dubai, to the Chinese because it needs capital, because it needs credit?
Or do you want to go with a company that has so much excess capital that it stands there and buys back its stock, something that will happen a few days from now after the inevitable insider selling -- lots of people there are paid with stock -- subsides?
I can't emphasize strongly enough that clients love to deal with companies that have risk controls and that think that it is fabulous to deal with winners.
Why doesn't the press understand it? Why don't the analysts understand it that well?
Two reasons: they have never been clients, and they have never had to cater to clients as salespeople.
Maybe that's why I have so much appreciation for Goldman.
I did both.
RELATED LINKS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Cramer is a director and co-founder of TheStreet.com. He contributes daily market commentary for TheStreet.com's sites and serves as an adviser to the company's CEO. At the time of publication, Cramer was long Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.
Walmart's New Health Food Push: Is It Too Hard to Swallow?
Bonds Are a 'Safe' Investment: A Big Lie Gets Even Bigger


Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-20-2007 @ 12:29PM
Andrew Goldberg said...
I think this truly is eveident of people like Mr. Kramer who are looked at as Financial Gurus in their field. Where was he two months ago telling us how we should consolodate our growth funds into bond funds..? Little too late not the right information. Very similar to the Blogs on television after 1am telling stories of people who with a little money, buy the book of a person who has supposidly made 50K in 3 mos rolling a house....
Why would anyone with a chrystal ball want to share their wealth information with anyone else??
We need not listen to the Jim Kramers of the world and invest in a company you have a good feeling about. It is well know that every stock tip Kramer gives you on television jumps when you buy it and by that time he has already unloaded it..
12-21-2007 @ 11:33AM
richier said...
On GS Cramer is right on target. In 2008 where do you think the biggest dealmakers will go for advice ? At 202, GS will be cheap if the street recognizes the wealth of talent and leadership at GS. GS declaration to buy an additional 60M shares demonstrates that GS sees itself as the best undervalue around. After all they could buy anything they want and they choose GS. The fact that everyone at GS profits from the profits is a mighty motivator. GS in December 2008 will make you happy that in Dec 2007, you recognized its value.
1-02-2008 @ 1:21PM
danfog said...
Where is Bob Scott when shareholders need him again?