It was tongue in cheek. But, when someone says that, they generally mean a counterparty who owes money to GS, not the other way around. And I don't think goldies lost money on archegos.

> But, when someone says that, they generally mean a counterparty who owes money to GS, not the other way around.

All the examples I brought up are about counter-parties owing money to GS.

> And I don't think goldies lost money on archegos.

At most trivial amounts, yes. Goldman got out of the position really quickly. But your earlier claim was a bit more universal than that.

Goldman ain't stupid: if there were a treasury 'put' on Goldman's counterparties (and Goldman knew that), then Goldman would exploit that and monetise that 'put'. Instead of getting out early as they did in real life, they would demand and get ridiculous compensation for staying in the position, and then enjoy the bail-out.

(Disclosure: I used to work for Goldman for a few years, but not as a proper banker. I liked the place, but I also think they are much less important than people think they are. And I suspect Goldman is partially playing into the perception, because being a villain is cooler than being a middling also-ran bank.

You might like the book 'What happened to Goldman Sachs'. They have never been the same since the IPO in the late 1990s.)