Would Goldman and Citi have been good for each other?

Goldman is not out of Citi's league, anyone can be Citi's bitch, with a balance sheet the size of theirs - personally I think time will only tell but Guru Vikram Pandit (despite his bungled Wachovia effort is no mug) and may well be waiting until Goldman is on its knees before stepping up, akin to what Barclays did with Lehman.

No offence guys, but wild, bootlicking comments about Goldmans supposed god-like aura do nothing but make you sound like wannabes.

I have to take one step back and say, although I work in a bank, I am no CEO and will probably never be. Both Lloyd and Vikram, however, are and so probably know whats better for their respective companies than any of us do. Supporting slavishly every Goldman opinion about their own brilliance is simply foolish and 'Pandit Pal' is probably right to some extent, even though its not what everyone wants to hear.

So the caviar was placing a call to be eaten by tinned sardines, wizard...

I have worked for both venerable institutions and I certainly believe if one model is well placed to survive the current financial crisis is that of Citi.

The pure investment banking model is broken and prime brokerage for GS is over, so either GS ties up with Citi or ends up being acquired by Wells Fargo, HSBC or a Japanese bank. GS and MS employees and shareholders would have been lucky if Citi were ready to agree to a deal to acquire their businesses and balance sheets.

Just a matter of time to see where GS and MS end up as standalone entities, specially once Paulson is gone.

Having said that, Vikram could have done better, the humiliation of Wachovias broken deal isnt encouraging for great M&A prospects.

Although I do admire Goldman it looks like their alpha was just a whole lotta beta leveraged to the moon. Indeed it looks like that for everyone.
Banking needs to get boring again.

Goldman to Citi= Caviar to tinned sardines