RBSC

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Once again - Was the economic collapse a conspiracy?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Once again - Was the economic collapse a conspiracy?

    http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news...dex.htm?hpt=T1


    SEC charges Goldman Sachs with fraud

    By Colin Barr, senior writerApril 16, 2010: 1:23 PM ET




    (Fortune) -- The Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday charged Wall Street's most gilded firm, Goldman Sachs, with defrauding investors in a sale of securities tied to subprime mortgages.
    The SEC said it charged New York-based Goldman (GS, Fortune 500) and a vice president, Fabrice Tourre, for their failure to disclose conflicts in a 2007 sale of a so-called collateralized debt obligation. Investors in the CDO ultimately lost $1 billion, the SEC said.


    cnnad_createAd("721200","http://ads.cnn.com/html.ng/site=cnn_money&cnn_money_position=220x200_ctr&cnn_ money_rollup=business_news&cnn_money_section=quigo &params.styles=fs","200","220");

    Hedge fund manger John Paulson.

    The SEC's civil fraud complaint alleges that Goldman allowed hedge fund Paulson & Co. -- run by John Paulson, who made billions of dollars betting on the subprime collapse -- to help select securities in the CDO.
    Goldman didn't tell investors that Paulson was shorting the CDO, or betting its value would fall. When the CDO's value plunged within months of its issuance, Paulson walked off with $1 billion, the SEC said.
    "The product was new and complex but the deception and conflicts are old and simple," said Robert Khuzami, director of the Division of Enforcement for the SEC.
    A Goldman spokesman didn't immediately return a call seeking comment, but in a statement the bank said that "the SEC's charges are completely unfounded in law and fact and we will vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation."
    Goldman shares tumbled 13% following the midmorning announcement, wiping out $12 billion of shareholder value. Shares of Deutsche Bank (DB), another big player in the structured securities markets of the bubble era, slid 8%.
    The shares of JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500), Citigroup (C, Fortune 500), Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500) and other big banks declined between 3% and 5%, as investors all over Wall Street heard the footsteps of an apparently revitalized federal law enforcement apparatus.
    "This litigation exposes the cynical, savage culture of Wall Street that allows a dealer to commit fraud on one customer to benefit another," Chris Whalen, a bank analyst at Institutional Risk Analytics, said in a note to clients Friday.
    Khuzami said the case was the first brought by a new SEC division investigating the abuses of so-called structured products such as CDOs in the credit crisis. He said the investigation continues but declined to comment further.
    "We continue to examine structured products that played a role in the financial crisis," Khuzami said in a phone call with reporters. "We are moving across the entire spectrum of products, entities and investors that might have been involved."
    The SEC alleged that Paulson & Co. paid Goldman Sachs approximately $15 million for structuring and marketing the deal, known as Abacus 2007-AC1.
    Khuzami said Paulson wasn't charged because, unlike Goldman, which sold the securities to investors, it didn't have a duty to fully disclose conflicts to other investors.
    Paulson & Co. wasn't immediately available for comment.
    A CDO is a financial instrument backed by pool of assets, typically loans or bonds. In this case, the instrument in question is a so-called synthetic CDO -- which is backed not by actual loans but by a portfolio of credit default swaps referencing residential mortgage-backed securities.
    While many CDO deals performed poorly, particularly in the latter stages of the housing bubble, the Abacus CDO at the center of this case blew up particularly quickly.
    Within six months of the deal's closing, 83% of the residential mortgage-backed securities in the portfolio had been downgraded, the SEC said. Within nine months, 99% had been downgraded.
    Khuzami said the SEC is entitled to disgorgement of ill-gotten gains as well as penalties that will be considered "at the appropriate time."
    But it's early yet to say whether Goldman will end up with any liability in the case, said Ron Geffner, a former SEC enforcement attorney who is now a partner with Sadis & Goldberg in New York.
    He said the case would hinge on variables including the objectivity of the portfolio designer, what was communicated to investors, what fiduciary duties Goldman may have had and how sophisticated the investors were.
    "There is some meat on the bone, but it's too early to determine guilt," he said.


    cnnad_createAd("674070","http://ads.cnn.com/html.ng/site=cnn_money&cnn_money_position=628x215_bot&cnn_ money_rollup=technology&cnn_money_section=quigo&pa rams.styles=fs","215","628");
    The same type of thinking that created a problem cannot be used to solve the problem.

  • #2
    The NPR program This American Life did a good story on the CDO scam that Wall Street was running. Then they have the nerve to say "nobody saw this coming" LOL!

    http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radi...405/inside-job
    "‎It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men" - Frederick Douglass

    Comment


    • #3
      The product was new and complex but the deception and conflicts are old and simple,"

      nothing is written but old news again and again....

      Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas Paine

      Comment


      • #4
        When the history of the "great recession" (the current one) is written it will be the same as the great depression. the running up of wall street, the lack of financial control, a president who had no clue and Americans on a whole started to believe in the hype that the "financial analysts' were spewing.
        • Don't let negative things break you, instead let it be your strength, your reason for growth. Life is for living and I won't spend my life feeling cheated and downtrodden.

        Comment


        • #5
          Don't see what the big deal is on this. This seems more like a situation of these guys feeling bad that Goldman took advantage of the TARP through AIG, so we have to get them back.

          Both the Long Investor and the Short Investor were involved in selecting the portfolio. It is not commonplace for the market maker to tell the buyer the who is the person on the other end of the transaction. If that was the case, they wouldn't need the market maker in the first place.
          Goldman Sachs lost a significant amount of money in the transaction.

          They are going to get technical and catch them on something, but quite frankly this transaction is not much different from how the typical structured portfolio is created. A man wants to short a market, so you find somebody who is interested in the other side of that transaction.

          Comment


          • #6
            is this the big deal?

            Originally posted by Me View Post
            Don't see what the big deal is on this. This seems more like a situation of these guys feeling bad that Goldman took advantage of the TARP through AIG, so we have to get them back.

            Both the Long Investor and the Short Investor were involved in selecting the portfolio. It is not commonplace for the market maker to tell the buyer the who is the person on the other end of the transaction. If that was the case, they wouldn't need the market maker in the first place.
            Goldman Sachs lost a significant amount of money in the transaction.

            They are going to get technical and catch them on something, but quite frankly this transaction is not much different from how the typical structured portfolio is created. A man wants to short a market, so you find somebody who is interested in the other side of that transaction.
            http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/fe...gold-f10.shtml
            The same type of thinking that created a problem cannot be used to solve the problem.

            Comment


            • #7
              That is a separate issue from the other one. Furthermore just as in the other one, them structuring a CDO and advising against AIG is normal. There is nothing wrong with that. People are simply upset because they lost a lot of money.


              Them manipulating the bailout to get a 100 cents on the dollar payout from AIG is where the real problem and unethical behaviour is, but because they are unable to take legal action against Goldman in that case, they have gone into the CDO structuring market and tried to get technical.

              Since most journalist (and business people) don't even understand the CDO market and the roles, everyone is just eating up the headlines and running with it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Another thing it seems people do not realize is that Paulson & Co. -- run by JOHN Paulson is not the same person as HANK Paulson who was running the Treasury.

                Comment


                • #9
                  But you don't think there is something fundamentally wrong with a company like Magnatar helping to structur a crappy CDO portfolio that they purchase and then buying credit default swaps that pay off much bigger if they fail?

                  Now I am not saying Goldman was involved at that level, but it seems as if they were all making money from fees off those kinds of trades. Maybe not illegal but I would say unethical also.


                  That is like allowing people to buy insurance for millions of dollars on a car worth tens of thousands. I guarantee you would have a lot of people having strange accidents where thier car is written off and the insurance company would go bankrupt.

                  The whole system is a cesspool.
                  "‎It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men" - Frederick Douglass

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Could the system have conflict? Yes. Almost every market in the US has a conflict somewhere in it.

                    Goldman gets paid to structure a portfolio that a client would like to short. For the trade to work, someone else has to be on the other side. So as a market maker, their job is to find an investor who doesn't believe the market is about to collapse and would like that level of exposure. They found ACA.

                    ACA vetted the portfolio, looked at the underlying securities (or maybe they didn't LOL) and decided it is exposure they are willing to take. Goldman also decided to take a long position on the security and as a result lost way more than the 15 million they were paid to structure it.

                    Magnetar, I am still reading on because most of the stories don't tell you enough about their role and positions.

                    What I do know is that all these stories talking about Wall Street are ignoring the simple fact that bad loans were being made to people who couldn't afford them at "Wall Street" were not the ones responsible for most of those loans. They played a huge part, but ultimately the American consumer needs to realize that they need to save and not "spend to stimulate"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Islandman View Post
                      But you don't think there is something fundamentally wrong with a company like Magnatar helping to structur a crappy CDO portfolio that they purchase and then buying credit default swaps that pay off much bigger if they fail? .
                      The only way I see anything wrong with what they did is if they tried to push riskier loans into the pools and hide their risk or someway influence the portfolio failing.

                      They aren't selling these securities to Joe and Tom off the street. They are selling to smart individuals who should have been doing their own due diligence on the underlying securities (which they probably didn't do).

                      If the financial market allows them to legally buy protection against their portfolio and they do not influence the product to fail, but simply profit from that failure, I am not going to curse them because they saw an arbitrage opportunity that made a lot of money for their clients.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Me View Post
                        The only way I see anything wrong with what they did is if they tried to push riskier loans into the pools and hide their risk or someway influence the portfolio failing.

                        They aren't selling these securities to Joe and Tom off the street. They are selling to smart individuals who should have been doing their own due diligence on the underlying securities (which they probably didn't do).

                        If the financial market allows them to legally buy protection against their portfolio and they do not influence the product to fail, but simply profit from that failure, I am not going to curse them because they saw an arbitrage opportunity that made a lot of money for their clients.
                        With the amount of disclosures demanded (regulated disclosure demands) and the constant refrain of doing (own) due diligence... ...plus the natural tendency of these firms and investors to hedge their 'bets'...it looks more like a great political move by the Dems and the Republicans knee-jerk reaction to anything with the name Obama attached plus voters (all voters in whichever country) craving to reject candidates labeled 'friends of big business'...the Dems may just come out of the November elections contrary to the 'talking heads' - up trumps!
                        Last edited by Karl; April 18, 2010, 12:54 PM.
                        "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          In the PBS story they were in effect saying that Magnetar was pressuring the CDO managers to put more risky bonds in the portfolio. Banks like Citi, JP Morgan, Merril lynch were all part of making the deals for them.



                          The story is based on research done by a group named Propublica (www.propublica.org) so I guess the question is does that group have an agenda other than getting the story out there.

                          Here is a website version of the story for those interested:

                          http://www.propublica.org/feature/al...housing-bubble


                          I do agree that these are deals among the big boys and I would not really care much, EXCEPT that they are operating at a scale that affects the global economy and so it can't be a free-for-all thing.
                          "‎It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men" - Frederick Douglass

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Islandman View Post
                            I do agree that these are deals among the big boys and I would not really care much, EXCEPT that they are operating at a scale that affects the global economy and so it can't be a free-for-all thing.
                            That is the major issue in that market that they need to address.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Me View Post
                              The only way I see anything wrong with what they did is if they tried to push riskier loans into the pools and hide their risk or someway influence the portfolio failing .

                              They aren't selling these securities to Joe and Tom off the street. They are selling to smart individuals who should have been doing their own due diligence on the underlying securities (which they probably didn't do).

                              If the financial market allows them to legally buy protection against their portfolio and they do not influence the product to fail, but simply profit from that failure, I am not going to curse them because they saw an arbitrage opportunity that made a lot of money for their clients.
                              Your first concern is the heart of the goverment case. The person who designed the portfolio designed it to fail because they interested in betting against something that it would fail and big G never disclosed that. This article explains it nicely.

                              http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/...ure?mod=retire

                              Quote
                              .................................................. .................................................
                              In early 2006 Mr. Paulson asked him to size up whether housing was in a bubble. After weeks of work, Mr. Pellegrini came back with historical data suggesting homes were very overpriced. He then helped Mr. Paulson figure out how to place a wager on that view. They decided to bet against subprime mortgages through insurance-like contracts that rise in value if the bond declines in value or defaults.
                              Messrs. Paulson and Pellegrini turned to Wall Street to ask various firms to create pools of debt, known as collateralized debt obligations, backed by subprime mortgages so that the Paulson team could buy this insurance protection on them.
                              .................................................. ................................................

                              With respect to you other point, in the bigger picture big G executives are accused of deliberately influencing the marget to fail and even going on the trading floor to influence traders.
                              The same type of thinking that created a problem cannot be used to solve the problem.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X