"End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:11 am

Elizabeth Warren's been floated as an SC candidate by clever people on the left, in the same way the DLCers had Kagan out there as the inevitable choice a minute after Stevens announced his retirement. Won't happen but I'd love to see it and it would be politically shrewd. These kinds of statements would be used against her - and probably end up winning it for her.

http://counterpunch.org/whitney04102009.html

Elizabeth Warren's Devasting Report to Congress

April 10 / 12, 2009

"Liquidate the Banks; Fire the Executives!"

By MIKE WHITNEY

On Tuesday, a congressional panel headed by ex-Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren released a report on Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's handling of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Warren was appointed to lead the five-member Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) in November by Senate majority leader Harry Reid. From the opening paragraph on, the Warren report makes clear that Congress is frustrated with Geithner's so-called "Financial Rescue Plan" and doesn't have the foggiest idea of what he is trying to do. Here are the first few lines of "Assessing Treasury's Strategy: Six Months of TARP":

"With this report, the Congressional Oversight Panel examines Treasury’s current strategy and evaluates the progress it has achieved thus far. This report returns the Panel’s inquiry to a central question raised in its first report: What is Treasury’s strategy?"

Six months and $1 trillion later, and Congress still cannot figure out what Geithner is up to. It's a wonder the Treasury Secretary hasn't been fired already.

From the report:

"In addition to drawing on the $700 billion allocated to Treasury under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA), economic stabilization efforts have depended heavily on the use of the Federal Reserve Board’s balance sheet. This approach has permitted Treasury to leverage TARP funds well beyond the funds appropriated by Congress. Thus, while Treasury has spent or committed $590.4 billion of TARP funds, according to Panel estimates, the Federal Reserve Board has expanded its balance sheet by more than $1.5 trillion in loans and purchases of government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) securities. The total value of all direct spending, loans and guarantees provided to date in conjunction with the federal government’s financial stability efforts (including those of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as well as Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board) now exceeds $4 trillion."

So, while Congress approved a mere $700 billion in emergency funding for the TARP, Geithner and Bernanke deftly sidestepped the public opposition to more bailouts and shoveled another $3.3 trillion through the back door via loans and leverage for crappy mortgage paper that will never regain its value. Additionally, the Fed has made a deal with Treasury that when the financial crisis finally subsides, Treasury will assume the Fed's obligations vis a vis the "lending facilities", which means the taxpayer will then be responsible for unknown trillions in withering investments.

From the report:

"To deal with a troubled financial system, three fundamentally different policy alternatives are possible: liquidation, receivership, or subsidization. To place these alternatives in context, the report evaluates historical and contemporary efforts to confront financial crises and their relative success. The Panel focused on six historical experiences: (1) the U.S. Depression of the 1930s; (2) the bank run on and subsequent government seizure of Continental Illinois in 1984; (3) the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s and establishment of the Resolution Trust Corporation; (4) the recapitalization of the FDIC bank insurance fund in 1991; (5) Sweden’s financial crisis of the early 1990s; and (6) what has become known as Japan’s “Lost Decade” of the 1990s. The report also surveys the approaches currently employed by Iceland, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and other European countries."

This statement shows that the congressional committee understands that Geithner's lunatic plan has no historic precedent and no prospect of succeeding. Geithner's circuitous Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP)--which is designed to remove toxic assets from bank balance sheets--is an end-run around "tried-and-true" methods for fixing the banking system. In the most restrained and diplomatic language, Warren is telling Geithner that she knows that he's up to no good.

From the report:

"Liquidation avoids the uncertainty and open-ended commitment that accompany subsidization. It can restore market confidence in the surviving banks, and it can potentially accelerate recovery by offering decisive and clear statements about the government’s evaluation of financial conditions and institutions."

The committee agrees with the vast majority of reputable economists who think the banks should be taken over (liquidated) and the bad assets put up for auction. This is the committee's number one recommendation.

The committee also explores the pros and cons of conservatorship (which entails a reorganization in which bad assets are removed, failed managers are replaced, and parts of the business are spun off) and government subsidization, which involves capital infusions or the purchasing of troubled assets. Subsidization, however, carries the risk of distorting the market (by keeping assets artificially high) and creating a constant drain on government resources. Subsidization tends to create hobbled banks that continue to languish as wards of the state.

Liquidation, conservatorship and government subsidization; these are the three ways to fix the banking system. There is no fourth way. Geithner's plan is not a plan at all; it's mumbo-jumbo dignified with an acronym; PPIP. The Treasury Secretary is being as opaque as possible to stall for time while he diverts trillions in public revenue to his scamster friends at the big banks through capital injections and nutty-sounding money laundering programs like the PPIP.

From the report:

"Treasury’s approach fails to acknowledge the depth of the current downturn and the degree to which the low valuation of troubled assets accurately reflects their worth. The actions undertaken by Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC are unprecedented. But if the economic crisis is deeper than anticipated, it is possible that Treasury will need to take very different actions in order to restore financial stability."

This is a crucial point; the toxic assets are not going to regain their value because their current market price--30 cents on the dollar for AAA mortgage-backed securities--accurately reflects the amount of risk they bear. The market is right and Geithner is wrong; it's that simple. Many of these securities are comprised of loans that were issued to people without sufficient income to make the payments. These "liar's loans" were bundled together with good loans into mortgage-backed securities. No one can say with any certainty what they are really worth. Naturally, there is a premium for uncertainty, which is why the assets are fetching a mere 30 cents on the dollar. This won't change no matter how much Geithner tries to prop up the market. The well has been already poisoned.

Also, according to this month’s Case-Schiller report, housing prices are falling at the fastest pace since their peak in 2006. That means that the market for mortgage-backed securities (MBS) will continue to plunge and the losses at the banks will continue to grow. The IMF recently increased its estimate of how much toxic mortgage-backed papaer the banks are holding to $4 trillion.

The banking system is underwater and needs to be resolved quickly before another Lehman-type crisis arises sending the economy into a protracted Depression. Geithner is clearly the wrong man for the job. His PPIP is nothing more than a stealth ripoff of public funds which uses confusing rules and guidelines to conceal the true objective, which is to shift toxic garbage onto the public's balance sheet while recapitalizing bankrupt financial institutions.

So, why is Geithner being kept on at Treasury when his plan has already been thoroughly discredited and his only goal is to bailout the banks through underhanded means?

That question was best answered by the former chief economist of the IMF, Simon Johnson, in an article which appeared in The Atlantic Monthly:

"The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming... is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government - a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF's staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation; recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression we're running out of time." (The Atlantic Monthly, May 2009, by Simon Johnson)

The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Many of their foot soldiers now occupy the highest offices in government. It's up to people like Elizabeth Warren to draw attention to the silent coup that has taken place and do whatever needs to be done to purge the moneylenders from the seat of power and restore representative government. It's a tall order and time is running out.

* http://cop.senate.gov/reports/library/r ... 09-cop.cfm Elizabeth Warren's 8 minute video summary of the COP report.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:24 am

Guns and Butter program, April 8, 2009

"The Deepening Economic Crisis" with Richard Becker (ANSWER)



The myth of free enterprise; the crash of 2008-2009; derivative speculation; the $8.5 trillion corporate bailout with no strings attached; the maximization of profit and the domination of the banks; the crisis of overproduction; the subprime housing, heathcare, and education crisis; the great depression and the permanent war economy; the need for a movement of people to bring about change. Richard Becker is Western Regional Coordinator of the International ANSWER Coalition.

http://aud1.kpfa.org/data/20090408-Wed1300.mp3


http://counterpunch.org/hudson04062009.html

Guns and Butter program, April 8, 2009

"The Financial Barbarians at the Gate" with Dr. Michael Hudson.

"The Financial Barbarians at the Gate" with financial economist and historian, Dr. Michael Hudson. Europe; worsening financial situation and indebtedness; the history of banking and the criminalization of the banking system; tax policy; real estate asset inflation; US imperialism via the monetary system; neoliberal/neofeudal economics; classical political economy; finance capital breaking away from industrial capital; the financial crisis leading to a political crisis; similarities with the Roman Republic; what measures labor should take.

http://aud1.kpfa.org/data/20090415-Wed1300.mp3


http://counterpunch.org/hudson04062009.html

Will the Debtors Fight Back?
The IMF Rules the World


April 6, 2009

By MICHAEL HUDSON

Not much substantive news was expected to come out of the G-20 meetings that ended on April 2 in London – certainly no good news was even suggested. Europe, China and the United States had too deeply distinct interests. American diplomats wanted to lock foreign countries into further dependency on paper dollars. The rest of the world sought a way to avoid giving up real output and ownership of their resources and enterprises for yet more hot-potato dollars. In such cases one expects a parade of smiling faces and statements of mutual respect for each others’ position – so much respect that they have agreed to set up a “study group” or two to kick the diplomatic ball down the road.

The least irrelevant news was not good at all: The attendees agreed to quadruple IMF funding to $1 trillion. Anything that bolsters IMF authority cannot be good for countries forced to submit to its austerity plans. They are designed to squeeze out more money to pay the world’s most predatory creditors. So in practice this G-20 agreement means that the world’s leading governments are responding to today’s financial crisis with “planned shrinkage” for debtors – a 10 per cent cut in wage payments in hapless Latvia, Hungary put on rations, and permanent debt peonage for Iceland for starters. This is quite a contrast with the United States, which is responding to the downturn with a giant Keynesian deficit spending program, despite its glaringly unpayable $4 trillion debt to foreign central banks.

So the international financial system’s double standard remains alive and kicking – at least, kicking countries that are down or are falling. Debtor countries must borrow a trillion from the IMF not to revive their own faltering economies, not to pursue counter-cyclical policies to restore market demand (that is only for creditor nations), but to pass on the IMF “aid” to the poisonous banks that have made the irresponsible toxic loans. (If these are toxic, who put in the toxin? To claim that it was all the “natural” workings of the marketplace is to say that free markets curdle and sicken. Is this what is happening?)

In Ukraine, a physical fight broke out in Parliament when the Party of Regions blocked an agreement with the IMF calling for government budget cutbacks. And rightly so! The IMF’s operating philosophy is the destructive (indeed, toxic) belief that imposing a deeper depression with more unemployment will reduce wage levels and living standards by enough to pay debts already at unsustainable levels, thanks to the kleptocracy’s tax “avoidance” and capital flight. The IMF trillion-dollar bailout is actually for these large international banks, so that they will be able to take their money and run. The problem is all being blamed on labor. That is the neo-Malthusian spirit of today’s neoliberalism.

The main beneficiaries of IMF lending to Latvia, for example, have been the Swedish banks that have spent the last decade funding that country’s real estate bubble while doing nothing to help develop an industrial potential. Latvia has paid for its imports by exporting its male labor of prime working age, acting as a vehicle for Russian capital flight – and borrowing mortgage purchase-money in foreign currency. To pay these debts rather than default, Latvia will have to lower wages in its public sector by 10 per cent -- and this with an economy already depressed and that the government expects to shrink by 12 percent this year!

To save the banks from losing on their toxic mortgages, the IMF is bailing them out, and directing the Latvian government to squeeze labor all the more – and to charge for education rather than providing it freely. The idea is for families to take a lifetime of debt not only to live inside rather than on the sidewalk, but to get an education. Alcoholism rates are rising, as they did in Russia under similar circumstances in Yeltsin’s “Harvard Boys” kleptocracy after 1996.

The insolvency problem of the post-Soviet economies is not entirely the IMF’s fault, to be sure. The European Community deserves a great deal of blame. Instead of viewing the post-Soviet economies as wards to be brought up to speed with Western Europe, the last thing the EU wanted was to develop potential rivals. It wanted customers – not only for its exports, but most of all for its loans. The Baltic States passed into the Scandinavian sphere, while Austrian banks carved out financial spheres of influence in Hungary (and lost their shirt on real estate loans, much as the Habsburgs and Rothschilds did in times past). Iceland was neoliberalized, largely in ripoffs organized by German banks and British financial sharpies.

In fact, Iceland ( where I’m writing these lines) looks like a controlled experiment – a very cruel one – as to how deeply an economy can be “financialized” and how long its population will submit voluntarily to predatory financial behavior. If the attack were military, it would spur a more alert response. The trick is to keep the population from understanding the financial dynamics at work and the underlying fraudulent character of the debts with which it has been saddled – with the complicit aid of its own local oligarchy.

In today’s world, the easiest way to obtain wealth by old-fashioned “primitive accumulation” is by financial manipulation. This is the essence of the Washington Consensus that the G-20 support, using the IMF in its usual role as enforcer. The G-20’s announcement continues the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve bank bailout over the past half-year. In a nutshell, the solution to a debt crisis is to be yet more debt. If debtors can’t pay out of what they are able to earn, lend them enough to keep current on their carrying charges. Collateralize this with their property, their public domain, their political autonomy – their democracy itself. The aim is to keep the debt overhead in place. This can be done only by keeping the volume of debts growing exponentially as they accrue interest, which is added onto the loan. This is the “magic of compound interest.” It is what turns entire economies into Ponzi schemes (or Madoff schemes as they are now called).

This is “equilibrium”, neoliberal style. In addition to paying an exorbitant basic interest rate, homeowners must pay a special 18 per cent indexation charge on their debts to reflect the inflation rate (the consumer price index) so that creditors will not lose the purchasing power over consumer goods. Labor’s wages are not indexed, so defaults are spreading and the country is being torn apart with bankruptcy, causing the highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression. The IMF approves, announcing that it can find no reason why homeowners cannot bear this burden!

Meanwhile, democracy is being torn apart by a financial oligarchy, whose interests have become increasingly cosmopolitan, looking at the economy as prey to be looted. A new term is emerging: “codfish republic” (known further south as banana republics). Many of Iceland’s billionaires these days are choosing to join their Russian counterparts living in London – and the Russian gangsters are reciprocating by visiting Iceland even in the dead of winter, ostensibly merely to enjoy its warm volcanic Blue Lagoon, or so the press is told.

The alternative is for debtor countries to suffer the same kind of economic sanctions as Iran, Cuba and pre-invasion Iraq. Perhaps soon there will be enough such economies to establish a common trading area among themselves, possibly along with Venezuela, Colombia and Brazil. But as far as the G-20 is concerned, aid to Iceland and “doing the right thing” is simply a bargaining chip in the international diplomatic game. Russia offered $4 billion aid to Iceland, but retracted it – presumably when Britain gave it a plum as a tradeoff.

The IMF’s $1 trillion won’t help the post-Soviet and Third World debtor countries pay their foreign debts, especially their real estate mortgages denominated in foreign currency. This practice has violated the First Law of national fiscal prudence: Only permit debts to be taken on that are in the same currency as the income that is expected to be earned to pay them off. If central bankers really sought to protect currency stability, they would insist on this rule. Instead, they act as shills for the international banks, as disloyal to the actual economic welfare of their countries as expatriate oligarchs.

If you are going to recommend more of this consensus, then the only way to sell it is to do what British Prime Minister Gordon Brown did at the meetings: announce that “The Washington Consensus is dead.” (He might have saved matters by saying “deadly,” but used the adjective instead of the adverb.) But the G-20’s IMF bailout belies this claim. As Turkey was closing out its loan last year, the IMF faced a world with no customers. Nobody wanted to submit to its destructive “conditionalities,” anti-labor policies designed to shrink the domestic market in the false assumption that this “frees” more output for export rather than being consumed at home. In reality, the effect of austerity is to discourage domestic investment, and hence employment. Economies submitting to the IMF’s “Washington Consensus” become more and more dependent on their foreign creditors and suppliers.

The United States and Britain would never follow such conditionalities. That is why the United States has not permitted an IMF advisory team to write up its prescription for U.S. “stability.” The Washington Consensus is only for export. (“Do as we say, not as we do.”) Mr. Obama’s stimulus program is Keynesian, not an austerity plan, despite the fact that the United States is the world’s largest debtor.

Here’s why the situation is unsustainable. What has enabled the Baltics and other post-Soviet countries to cover the foreign-exchange costs of their trade dependency and capital flight has been their real estate bubble. The neoliberal idea of financial “equilibrium” has been to watch “market forces” shorten lifespans, demolish what industrial potential they had, increase emigration and disease, and run up an enormous foreign debt with no visible way of earning the money to pay it off. This real estate bubble credit was extractive and parasitic, not productive. Yet the World Bank applauds the Baltics as a success story, ranking them near the top of nations in terms of “ease of doing business.”

One practical fact trumps all the junk economics at work from the IMF and G-20: Debts that can’t be paid, won’t be. Adam Smith observed in The Wealth of Nations that no government in history had ever repaid its national debt. Today, the same may be said of the public sector as well. This poses a problem of just how these debtor countries are not going to pay their foreign and domestic debts. How will they frame and politicize their non-payment?

Creditors know that these debts can’t be paid. (I say this as former balance-of-payments analyst of Third World debt for nearly fifty years, from Chase Manhattan in the 1960s through the United Nations Institute for Training and Research [UNITAR] in the 1970s, to Scudder Stevens & Clark in 1990, where I started the first Third World sovereign debt fund.) From the creditor’s vantage point, knowing that the Great Neoliberal Bubble is over, the trick is to deter debtor countries from acting to resolve its collapse in a way that benefits themselves. The aim is to take as much as possible – and to get the IMF and central banks to bail out the poisonous banks that have loaded these countries down with toxic debt. Grab what you can while the grabbing is good. And demand that debtors do what Latin American and other third World countries have been doing since the 1980s: sell off their public domain and public enterprises at distress prices. That way, the international banks not only will get paid, they will get new business lending to the buyers of the assets being privatized – on the usual highly debt-leveraged terms!

The preferred tactic do deter debtor countries from acting in their self-interest is to pound on the old morality, “A debt is a debt, and must be paid.” That is what Herbert Hoover said of the Inter-Ally debts owed by Britain, France and other allies of the United States in World War I. These debts led to the Great Depression. “We loaned them the money, didn’t we?” he said curtly.

Let’s look more closely at the moral argument. Living in New York, I find an excellent model in that state’s Law of Fraudulent Conveyance. Enacted when the state was still a colony, it was enacted in response British speculators making loans to upstate farmers, and demanding payment just before the harvest was in, when the debtors could not pay. The sharpies then foreclosed, getting the land on the cheap. So New York’s Fraudulent Conveyance law responded by establishing the legal principle that if a creditor makes a loan without having a clear and reasonable understanding of how the debtor can repay the money in the normal course of doing business, the loan is deemed to be predatory and therefore null and void.

Just like the post-Soviet economies, Iceland was sold a neoliberal bill of goods: a self-destructive Junk Economics. Just how moral a responsibility – and perhaps even more important, how large a legal liability –should fall on the IMF and World Bank, the U.S. Treasury and Bank of England whose economies and banks benefited from this toxic Washington Consensus junk economics?

For me, the moral principle is that no country should be subjected to debt peonage. That is the opposite of democratic self-determination, after all – and of Enlightenment moral philosophy that economic policies should encourage economic growth, not shrinkage. They should promote greater economic equality, not polarization between wealthy creditors and impoverished debtors.

At issue is just what a “free market” is. It’s supposed to be one of choice. Indebted countries lose discretionary choice over their economic future. Their economic surplus is pledged abroad as financial tribute. Without the overhead costs of a military occupation, they are relinquishing their policy making from democratically elected political representatives to bureaucratic financial managers, often foreign – the new Central Planners in today’s neoliberal world. The best they can do, knowing the game is over, is to hope that the other side doesn’t realize it – and to do everything you can to confuse debtor countries while extracting as much as they can as fast as they can.

Will the trick work? Maybe not. While the G-20 meetings were taking place, Korea was refusing to let itself be victimized by the junk derivatives contracts that foreign banks sold. Korea is claiming that bankers have a fiduciary responsibility to their customers to recommend loans that help them, not strip them of money. There is a tacit understanding (one that the financial sector spends millions of dollars in public relations efforts to undermine) that banking is a public utility. It is supposed to be a handmaiden to growth – industrial and agricultural growth and self-sufficiency – not predatory, extractive and hence anti-social. So Korean victims of junk derivatives are suing the banks. As New York Times commentator Floyd Norris described last week, the legal situation doesn’t look good for the international banks. The home court always has an advantage, and every nation is sovereign, able to pass whatever laws it wants. (And as America’s case abundantly illustrates, judges need not be unbiased.)

The post-Soviet economies as well as Latin America must be watching attentively the path that Korea is clearing through international courts. The nightmare of international bankers is that these countries may bring the equivalent of a class action suit against the international diplomatic coercion mounted against these countries to lead them down the path of financial and economic suicide. “The Seoul Central District Court justified its decision [to admit the lawsuit] on the kind of logic that would apply in the United States to a lawsuit involving an unsophisticated individual investor and a fast-taking broker. The court pointed to questions of whether the contract was a suitable investment for the company, and to whether the risks were fully disclosed. The judgment also referred to the legal concept of “changed circumstances,” concluding that the parties had expected the exchange rate to remain stable, that the change in circumstances was unforeseeable and that the losses would be too great for the company to bear.”

As a second cause of action, Korea is claiming that the banks provided creditor for other financial institutions to bet against the very contracts the banks were selling Korea to “protect” its interests. So the banks knew that what they were selling was a time bomb, and therefore seem guilty of conflict of interest. Banks claim that they merely were selling goods with no warranty to “informed individuals.” But the Korean parties in question were no more informed than were Iceland’s debtors. If a bank seeks to mislead and does not provide full disclosure, its victim cannot be said to be “informed.” The proper English word is misinformed (viz. disinformation).
.
Speaking of disinformation, an important issue concerns the extent to which the big international banks may have conspired with domestic bankers and corporate managers to loot their companies. This is what corporate raiders have done for their junk-bond holders since the high tide of Drexel Burnham and Michael Milken in the 1980s. This would make the banks partners in crime. There needs to be an investigation of the lending pattern that these banks engaged in – including their aid in organizing offshore money laundering and tax evasion to their customers. No wonder the IMF and British bankers are demanding that Iceland make up its mind in a hurry, and commit itself to pay astronomical debts without taking the time to ask just how they are to pay – and investigating the creditor banks’ overall lending pattern!

Bearing the above in mind, I suppose I can tell Icelandic politicians that I have good news regarding the fate of their country’s foreign and domestic debt: No nation ever has paid its debts. As I noted above, this means that the real question is not whether or not they will be paid, but how not to pay these debts. How will the game play out – in the political sphere, in popular ideology, and in the courts at home and abroad?

The question is whether Iceland will let bankruptcy tear apart its economy slowly, transferring property from debtors to creditors, from Icelandic citizens to foreigners, and from the public domain and national taxing power to the international financial class. Or, will Iceland see where the inherent mathematics of debt are leading, and draw the line? At what point will it say “We won’t pay. These debts are immoral, uneconomic and anti-democratic.” Do they want to continue the fight by Enlightenment and Progressive Era social democracy, or the alternative – a lapse back into neofeudal debt peonage?

This is the choice must be made. And it is largely a question of timing. That’s what the financial sector plays for – time enough to transfer as much property as it can into the hands of the banks and other investors. That’s what the IMF advises debtor countries to do – except of course for the United States as largest debtor of all. This is the underlying lawless character of today’s post-bubble debts.

Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist. A Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), he is the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (new ed., Pluto Press, 2002) He can be reached at mh@michael-hudson.com


http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/133228

The Real AIG Scandal: How the Game Is Rigged at Wall Street's Casino

By Lucy Komisar, AlterNet
Posted on March 26, 2009, Printed on April 16, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/133228/


There's nothing like a grandstanding member of Congress to deflect attention from the real issues at hand by throwing a few juicy bones to the masses.

Most legislators at a House Finance subcommittee hearing last week deftly avoided the real story of AIG's collapse. Instead, they homed in on the public relations disaster of hundreds of top AIG officials and staff getting $165 million (later revealed as over $218 million) in bonuses.

The key issue ignored by the congressmen and women was the potential catastrophe represented by as much as $2.7 trillion in AIG derivative contracts and how AIG and the U.S. government are dealing with them. To put that number in context, we've so far provided the company only about $170 billion.

An exception at the hearing was Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., who declared that "naked credit default swaps" were little more than "gambling ... dreamed up" by Wall Street to create additional profits, and he suggested that instead of being bailed out, "when the casino goes bust, the guys who are gambling close shop."

He noted that if ordinary Indiana citizens acted the same way as the titans of Wall Street had, they'd be in jail. But Donnelly never got to explain what he meant by "naked credit default swaps."

We did learn early at the hearing that the Federal Reserve is in charge of overseeing AIG. The Fed is strongly influenced by some of the same big banks and brokerages that are getting AIG payouts and taxpayer funding.

These same firms have opposed regulating credit default swaps, other derivatives and naked short selling (which are explained below). That should have set the stage for the rest of the questions, not to mention an investigation into where, exactly, all that money that AIG received went.

More Money for AIG

We discovered in passing at the hearing that AIG has $1.6 trillion of derivatives left to "unwind" -- the mess remaining of the AIG derivatives debacle. Nobody asked the basic details of how the other $1.1 trillion was "unwound" or how the rest will be dealt with. And nobody got an answer to the question of how much more in taxpayer money it will take to finish the job, and who will benefit from this unwinding process. Or, since the U.S. government is now in the derivatives business through its financial support of not only AIG but also Citigroup ($300 billion in guarantees), and other financial companies, how much taxpayer money may be required to pay off those other firms' derivatives bets.

Derivatives

Derivatives are financial instruments derived from something else, hence the name. In the lingo of Wall Street, nouns are turned into verbs and verbs beget nouns. If a bank or brokerage firm "securitizes" debt -- for example, turning a bundle of mortgages into financial products -- the resulting securities are derived from those mortgages, thus they are mortgage "derivatives." They can be sliced and diced and sold and, at the insistence of Wall Street powers and their representatives, the derivative transactions are unregulated.

Central to AIG's demise were derivative credit default swaps (CDS), basically insurance on financial deals. Some people bought insurance against their houses burning down. Others made bets on somebody else's house burning down. That's an insurance policy for someone without a house at risk.

The first type of contract should be seen as legitimate. But should U.S. taxpayers, who own nearly 80 percent of AIG, pay off a wager that somebody else's house would burn down in this financial casino Wall Street built out of the ashes of cut-and-burn deregulation?

More importantly: Should they pay off the wager if there are indications that the game may have been rigged in the first place?

Hedging the Bets

Derivatives contracts on stocks can be "hedged" with a short sale.

Short selling is selling a stock that you borrow. The short-seller hopes the price will go down in order to buy the security cheaper and transfer it back to the lender, gaining a profit from the difference in prices from the time the shares were borrowed and the time the shares were returned to the lender.

Naked short selling is selling shares that were never borrowed -- it's selling thin air, or in essence, selling counterfeit securities. Done on a large scale, this pushes down share prices across the board as the artificial supply of shares -- ballooned by those phantom shares -- outweighs demand.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's real effort in stopping naked short selling has been on a par with its interest in investigating Bernie Madoff.

A newly released report from the Office of Inspector General revealed that the SEC received 5,000 complaints regarding naked short selling of stocks in 2007 and 2008, which led to zero enforcement actions by the SEC.

A Market Ripe for Fraud and Manipulation

Here’s how naked short selling relates to manipulation of CDSes. The face value of CDS contracts at one time was $60 trillion. Even Christopher Cox, who took no meaningful action on the matter as SEC chairman, got worried and acknowledged in testimony, "Holding a credit default swap is effectively, or nearly effectively, taking a short position in the underlying ... and because CDS buyers don’t have to own the bond or the debt instrument upon which the contract is based, they can effectively naked short the debt of companies without any restriction, potentially causing market disruption and destabilizing the companies themselves. This market is ripe for fraud and manipulation.

"This is a problem we have been dealing with, with our international regulatory counterparts around the world with straight equities (stock), and it’s a big problem in a market that has no transparency and people don’t know where the risk lies."

The most profit from these types of contracts is obtained if the security that is the asset for the contract declines to a price of zero. Derivative trades are often sham transactions between cooperating dealers designed solely for the purpose of creating shares to sell into the public market. Securities prices can be manipulated downward through naked short selling. Even though derivatives are unregulated transactions, the stock manipulation occurring from the sham transactions that create the naked short shares is regulated and is illegal under U.S. securities laws.

If the derivatives contracts were hedged with a short sale by the casino operators, they have already received profit from the sale of the securities they did not own.

Where Does the Money go?

Derivatives trades are generally accounted for by the big broker dealers (now getting taxpayer money) as "off balance sheet" transactions. They are hidden from regulators and investors, via special purpose entities (SPEs), which can be offshore and presumably are for the profit of elite special partners or clients of these same firms.

More Transparency Needed

So, we need to know about the claims AIG and others on Wall Street are paying out from taxpayer funds. Who made these derivative trades? Did they own the underlying assets or not? Did the parties that received money from the taxpayers write sham contracts to create shares to sell and then naked short sell securities they didn't own into the U.S. markets? Is AIG paying on "losses" for which no claims have yet been made?

Shouldn't Congress, the Fed -- which is overseeing AIG -- and law enforcement agencies be investigating these SPEs and the money they received? Shouldn't they investigate whether it was obtained illegally?

What if there are trillions of dollars in the special purpose entities that have been hidden for the benefit of a powerful few? Should the U.S. taxpayer come to the aid of the largest U.S. banks and brokerages that created these fancy off-balance-sheet financial instruments without full disclosure to at least one government agency of the monies in SPE accounts?

How can Congress make intelligent regulation without understanding the scope of the problem and the trading techniques they are trying to regulate, which took down AIG and are destroying the economy -- especially the sham transactions designed for the purpose of creating shares of publicly traded companies?

Since Congress is so focused on Wall Street salaries and bonuses that compensate obscenely paid Wall Street executives, shouldn't it be asking if these titans of business have reaped financial rewards through the use of SPEs? Beyond that, were offshore SPEs used to avoid taxes or hide improper gains?

Why should we pay anything for the casino gambling debt? If there were illegal profits made on derivatives transactions that created sham shares sold into the marketplace, we should claw back that money, which could amount to a lot more than the bonuses paid to AIG officials.


Lucy Komisar is an investigative journalist who focuses on offshore and financial corruption. Her articles are posted at the Komisar Scoop.
© 2010 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/133228/
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:50 am

And finally, two revealing pieces on very important players. Remember that Madoff wasn’t some marginal operator, shunned or unknown. He was a founder and long-time chairman of the NASDAQ.

I had an interesting moment a couple of weeks ago hearing a clip on the radio of Madoff at a 2007 panel on the financial system sponsored by NPR. He talked in detail about how the government had complete oversight over the system, as he knew from experience in his own activities, and how it was impossible to conduct major frauds. Anyone who did that would be caught. (In his case it only took 35 years and, oh, the collapse of his scheme and $50 billion lost to his investors, so that he had to turn himself in before the Russian mafia killed him.)

The thing about it was how calm and honest his voice sounded. Had I heard him back then I would have believed that this guy was naïve, but not a crook. A real good guy.

Sociopaths have that talent. The smart or the connected ones go to Wall Street.

Fraud and corruption are features of the financial industry, not bugs. How could it be otherwise when the goal is to make money from money alone, to avoid personal exposure, to extract value from industries without risk? When fooling people is celebrated because the winners are ipso facto the betters?

Two more financial pioneers exposed:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN055 ... 05?sp=true

US charges father of money market funds with fraud

Tue May 5, 2009 6:33pm EDT

* Reserve Primary operators accused of deceiving investors
* SEC cites failure to disclose Lehman holdings
* Reserve Management says to defend itself vigorously
* SEC: seeks to expedite distribution of fund assets

By Martha Graybow and Rachelle Younglai

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON, May 5 (Reuters) - The pioneer of the money market mutual fund, Bruce Bent Sr, was charged with fraud by U.S. regulators on Tuesday over accusations he deceived investors into believing his flagship fund was safe before it "broke the buck" last year.

The civil charges against the veteran investor, his son and their investment company come eight months after the Reserve Primary Fund, brought down by the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, halted redemptions and sparked a run on money-market funds.

The collapse of the once $62 billion fund helped accelerate the global financial crisis last September and triggered a guarantee program by U.S. authorities to prevent a massive outflow from money funds.

The fund is being liquidated and its collapse has spurred numerous lawsuits. Its demise has been a stunning turn for Bent, who regulators called "a longtime advocate of the safety and stability of money market funds."

Bent created the first money market mutual fund in 1970 with a business partner, the late Henry B.R. Brown, and these investments eventually came to be seen as the safest of mutual funds. Their assets have ballooned to about $3.7 trillion.

"There is no need for a trial sheriff here, the markets have already taken (Bruce Bent) out back and shot him," said Peter Crane, president of Crane Data and publisher of Money Fund Intelligence.

The Securities and Exchange Commission accused Reserve Management Company Inc, chairman Bruce Bent Sr, vice chairman and president Bruce Bent II and another entity, Resrv Partners Inc, of failing to provide key information about the fund's Lehman holdings to investors, the fund's board of trustees, and rating agencies.

The defendants "engaged in a systematic campaign to deceive the investing public" into believing the Primary Fund was secure despite its substantial Lehman holdings, the SEC said.

The fund held $785 million in Lehman debt, which became essentially worthless when the investment bank filed for bankruptcy last Sept. 15. A day later, the fund's net asset value fell below $1, meaning that investors who thought their funds were safe had lost money.

Money funds are designed to maintain a constant net asset value of $1 per share. When net assets drop below $1 a share, the funds are said to have "broken the buck."

Reserve Management Co said in a statement it is reviewing the SEC complaint and "intends to defend itself vigorously."

Bruce Bent Sr, 71, said the Lehman bankruptcy "created an unforeseeable and out-of-control condition for many parties."

"Our management worked extremely hard throughout the chaotic and fast-moving events of Sept. 15-16 and we remain confident that we acted in the best interest of our shareholders," he said in a statement.

Bruce Bent II, 42, could not be reached for comment. The father and son are both of Manhasset, New York.

The SEC complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, seeks financial penalties and the repayment of ill-gotten gains.

The agency also said it is seeking to expedite distribution of the fund's remaining assets to investors, many of which have filed lawsuits seeking damages.

In a statement, the fund's trustees said they "will continue to fully cooperate" with the SEC in the asset distribution to shareholders and "to ensure that all decisions are made in the shareholders' best interest."

One of the first investor lawsuits, brought by Ameriprise Financial Inc (AMP.N) accused the fund of tipping off certain investors before the fund's share price dropped.

"Ameriprise is gratified by the SEC's actions," said Harvey Wolkoff, a lawyer for the brokerage. He said Ameriprise's goal "has been that all investors, both large and small, should be treated equally and the SEC reiterates that objective."

Another lawsuit filed on Tuesday by Visa USA accused the Primary Fund of breach of contract and wrongful retention of its investment.

The Primary Fund was created in 1971, and was long known for investing in conservative assets such as government securities and bank certificates of deposit.

Bruce Bent Sr had long complained that his competitors were taking on too much risk by buying higher-yielding corporate debt known as "commercial paper."

"Commercial paper is anathema to the concept of the money fund," he told Reuters in 2001. "People prostituted the concept by putting garbage in the funds and reaching for yield."

But the SEC said in its complaint that starting in 2007, the Primary Fund started snapping up commercial paper issued by Lehman as well as Merrill Lynch and Washington Mutual, generating attractive returns for investors and bolstering the fund company's management fees as new money poured in. (Reporting by Rachelle Younglai in Washington, Martha Graybow and Grant McCool in New York and Svea Herbst-Bayliss in Boston; Editing by Tim Dobbyn, Bernard Orr)


http://newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail. ... irst=bruce

Bent's political donations
NEW YORK, NY 10014
RESERVE MANAGEMENT CORP./INVESTMENT MCCAIN, JOHN S. (R)
President
MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 $1,000
primary 09/07/08
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Founder and Chair
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $5,000
primary 05/22/08
BENT, BRUCE
MANHASSET, NY 11030
THE RESERVE/CHAIRMAN
RESERVE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION POLITICAL COMMITTEE $5,000
primary 04/03/08
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/CEO WALBERG, TIMOTHY L. (R)
House (MI 07)
WALBERG FOR CONGRESS $2,300
primary 03/31/08
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001 OLLER, THOMAS (RICO) (R)
House (CA 04)
RICO OLLER 2008 $-690
primary 03/29/08
BENT, BRUCE II
NEW YORK, NY 10014
RESERVE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION/VICE
RESERVE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION POLITICAL COMMITTEE $5,000
primary 03/24/08
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Chief Executive O JENKINS, LOUIS (WOODY) (R)
House (LA 06)
WOODY JENKINS FOR CONGRESS $2,300 03/12/08
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Founder and Chair JENKINS, LOUIS (WOODY) (R)
House (LA 06)
earmarked via CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $2,300† 03/11/08
Bent, Bruce R
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/CEO ROSS, CHARLES EDWIN (R)
House (MS 03)
CHARLIE ROSS FOR CONGRESS $4,600
primary 03/04/08
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Founder and Chair ROSS, CHARLES EDWIN (R)
House (MS 03)
earmarked via CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $4,600†
primary 03/03/08
Bent, Bruce R
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds ANDAL, DEAN F (R)
House (CA 11)
CITIZENS FOR ANDAL $2,300
primary 03/02/08
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Chief Executive O JENKINS, LOUIS (WOODY) (R)
House (LA 06)
WOODY JENKINS FOR CONGRESS $2,300
primary 02/28/08
Bent, Bruce R
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/CEO ROSS, CHARLES EDWIN (R)
House (MS 03)
CHARLIE ROSS FOR CONGRESS $2,300
primary 02/26/08
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Founder and Chair JENKINS, LOUIS (WOODY) (R)
House (LA 06)
earmarked via CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $2,300† 02/25/08
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/CEO OLLER, THOMAS (RICO) (R)
House (CA 04)
RICO OLLER 2008 $2,300
primary 02/15/08
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/CEO SCALISE, STEVE MR. (R)
House (LA 01)
SCALISE FOR CONGRESS $2,300 02/11/08
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Founder and Chair WALBERG, TIMOTHY L. (R)
House (MI 07)
earmarked via CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $2,300†
general 02/11/08
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Founder and Chair ANDAL, DEAN F (R)
House (CA 11)
earmarked via CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $2,300†
primary 02/11/08
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Founder and Chair ROSS, CHARLES EDWIN (R)
House (MS 03)
earmarked via CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $2,300†
primary 02/11/08
BENT, BRUCE R
NEW YORK, NY 10001
THE RESERVE FUNDS/CEO PEARCE, STEVE (R)
Senate - NM
PEOPLE FOR PEARCE $2,300
primary 02/09/08
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Founder and Chair SCALISE, STEVE MR. (R)
House (LA 01)
earmarked via CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $2,300†
primary 02/06/08
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Founder and Chair LAMBORN, DOUGLAS (R)
House (CO 05)
earmarked via CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $2,300†
primary 02/06/08
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Founder and Chair
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $2,300
primary 01/24/08
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Founder and Chair
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $2,300
primary 01/24/08
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Chief Executive O HARRIS, ANDREW P (R)
House (MD 01)
ANDY HARRIS FOR CONGRESS $2,300
primary 12/24/07
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Fund/CEO SCHWEIKERT, DAVID (R)
House (AZ 05)
DAVID SCHWEIKERT FOR CONGRESS $2,300
primary 12/23/07
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Chief Executive O SCHWEIKERT, DAVID (R)
House (AZ 05)
earmarked via CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $2,300†
primary 12/18/07
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Chief Executive O HARRIS, ANDREW P (R)
House (MD 01)
earmarked via CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $2,300†
primary 11/02/07
Bent, Bruce R Mr.
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/CEO BUEHRER, STEVE (R)
House (OH 05)
STEVE BUEHRER FOR CONGRESS $2,300 10/11/07
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Founder and Chair
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $2,300
primary 10/04/07
BENT, BRUCE R
NEW YORK, NY 10001
THE RESERVE FUNDS/CEO SUNUNU, JOHN E (R)
Senate - NH
TEAM SUNUNU $2,300
general 07/17/07
BENT, BRUCE R
NEW YORK, NY 10001
THE RESERVE FUNDS/CEO SUNUNU, JOHN E (R)
Senate - NH
TEAM SUNUNU $2,300
primary 07/17/07
BENT, BRUCE
NEW YORK, NY 10021
THE RESERVE FUNDS/CEO SCHAFFER, ROBERT W (R)
Senate - CO
BOB SCHAFFER FOR US SENATE $-2,300
primary 06/30/07
BENT, BRUCE
NEW YORK, NY 10021
THE RESERVE FUNDS/CEO SCHAFFER, ROBERT W (R)
Senate - CO
BOB SCHAFFER FOR US SENATE $4,600
primary 06/30/07
BENT, BRUCE
NEW YORK, NY 10021
THE RESERVE FUNDS/CEO SCHAFFER, ROBERT W (R)
Senate - CO
BOB SCHAFFER FOR US SENATE $2,300
general 06/30/07
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Chief Executive O SCHAFFER, ROBERT W (R)
Senate - CO
earmarked via CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $2,300†
primary 06/25/07
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Chief Executive O SCHAFFER, ROBERT W (R)
Senate - CO
earmarked via CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $2,300†
general 06/25/07
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Chief Executive O SUNUNU, JOHN E (R)
Senate - NH
earmarked via CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $2,300†
primary 06/25/07
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Chief Executive O SUNUNU, JOHN E (R)
Senate - NH
earmarked via CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $2,300†
general 06/25/07
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10001
The Reserve Funds/Chief Executive O
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $5,000
primary 03/08/07
BENT, BRUCE R
PLANDOME, NY 11030
RESERVE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION/CHAI
RESERVE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION POLITICAL COMMITTEE $5,000
general 12/22/06
BENT, BRUCE II
NEW YORK, NY 10014
RESERVE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION/VICE
RESERVE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION POLITICAL COMMITTEE $5,000
primary 12/22/06
BENT, BRUCE R
PLANDOME, NY 11030
RESERVE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION/CHAI
RESERVE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION POLITICAL COMMITTEE $5,000
primary 12/22/06
BENT, BRUCE II
NEW YORK, NY 10014
RESERVE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION/VICE
RESERVE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION POLITICAL COMMITTEE $5,000
general 12/22/06
BENT, BRUCE MR
NEW YORK, NY 10021
THE RESERVE FUNDS/CEO KYL, JON L (R)
Senate - AZ
JON KYL FOR U S SENATE $2,000
general 10/30/06
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10021
The Reserve Funds/Chief Executive O KYL, JON L (R)
Senate - AZ
earmarked via CITIZENS CLUB FOR GROWTH INC PAC $2,000†
general 10/26/06
Bent, Bruce
New York, NY 10021
The Reserve Funds/Chief Executive O PROSPERITY PAC
earmarked via CITIZENS CLUB FOR GROWTH INC PAC $5,000†
general 10/04/06
BENT, BRUCE
NEW YORK, NY 10021
THE RESERVE FUNDS/CEO BOUCHARD, MICHAEL J (R)
Senate - MI
BOUCHARD FOR US SENATE $2,100
general 09/30/06
BENT, BRUCE
NEW YORK, NY 10021
THE RESERVES FUND/CEO MCGAVICK, MICHAEL SEAN (R)
Senate - WA
FRIENDS FOR MIKE MCGAVICK $2,100
general 09/28/06
BENT, BRUCE MR
NEW YORK, NY 10021
THE RESERVE FUNDS/CHIEF EXECUTIVE O STEELE, MICHAEL (R)
Senate - MD
STEELE FOR MARYLAND INC $2,100
general 09/27/06


Follow the link for better formatting:

http://www.deepcapture.com/category/1-the-players/

Michael Steinhardt – “When the Bad Guys Came to Town”

Posted on 12 March 2008
Tags: David Rocker, Jim Cramer, Marty Peretz, Michael Steinhardt, Patrick Byrne


I feel the same strange admiration for Michael Steinhardt as one would for an old mobster sitting in a Tucson retirement home playing canasta. Steinhardt slipped through minefields that destroyed others, and for that alone he should be beyond cheap shots now. However, without telling Steinhardt’s story there is no way for me to make the connections that I wish to make, so I will relate the Steinhardt Tale, in four acts, with none of the shots being cheap ones.

Some years ago, I asked a Wall Street old-timer to summarize how Michael Steinhardt would be remembered. The old-timer was unusually pensive. A faraway look came into his eyes as he seemed to recall how the Street had once been, and how it had changed.

At last he replied, “Steinhardt? That’s when the bad guys came to town.”

Prelude

The central character of Mario Puzo’s The Godfather was “Vito Corleone” (played in the movie by Marlon Brando). Don Corleone was modeled after real-life Mob boss Vito Genovese, who headed the Genovese Crime Family. Other figures from this family include Charles “Lucky” Luciano, Frank Costello, Bugsy Siegel, Meyer Lansky (“Hyman Roth” in Godfather II), and Vincent “Jimmy Blue Eyes” Alo.

The Genovese Crime Family had a fence named Sol Frank “Red” Steinhardt, who was arrested in 1958 on charges of buying and selling stolen jewelry. The prosecutor at Red Steinhardt’s trial, Frank Hogan, described Red Steinhardt as “the biggest Mafia fence in America.” Red was sentenced to 5-10 years on each of two charges of fencing, and served several years at Sing Sing, a prison just north of New York City.

While in prison, Red Steinhardt put his son Michael through the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business. When Michael Steinhardt finished Wharton in 1967 he started an early hedge fund, “Steinhardt, Fine, Berkowitz & Co.” As Michael later revealed in his book, cash from Steinhardt’s father and his “associates” funded his hedge fund. Thus, it was a conduit by which Mob cash passed into Wall Street (one former prosecutor shared with me an elegant phrase a Mafia suspect used under interrogation: “Yeah, in da 70’s weeze went from concrete to Wall Street”).

Michael Steinhardt Act I

Steinhardt’s first act was notable in three ways:

a) In the early 1970’s Steinhardt was a close financial associate of an international oil trader and general bon vivant named Marc Rich.

b) From his start in the early 1970’s, Steinhardt’s reputation was that of a hater, an in-your-face profanity-laced screamer of unprecedented proportions. Nothing I have ever seen from Hollywood captures the way I have seen it occur in reality on Wall Street, yet in that environment, Steinhardt’s verbal brutality towards others, including towards his subordinates, became the stuff of legend. For example, there is a story that may be true, or it may be apocryphal, but whichever it is, it is widely repeated around Wall Street: in the early 1990’s Steinhardt had a partner, Peter Toczek of the New York and Foreign Securities Corporation, who handled Steinhardt’s overnight trading. They were considered close (I even heard that Peter and Michael were “godfather” to each other’s children, but cannot verify that). As the story goes, Peter was paid a bonus that was smaller than he (Peter) expected, and he confronted Steinhardt over it. Steinhardt screamed at Toczek so abusively that all conversation in the office ceased, then continued berating and humiliating Toczek so badly that Toczek was reduced to tears. Toczek left for the day, went home, and keeled over, dead. Steinhardt showed no regret. (Whenever I hear this I think of the Eddie Murphy/Dan Akroyd movie Trading Places, where an essentially similar event transpires between Mortimer and Randolph Duke). Be this incident true or not (and in fairness to Steinhardt, Toczek is said to have topped out at 300 pounds), what is undeniable is that from the early 1970’s on Steinhardt was well-known for being absolutely brutal in his interactions with others.

c) The other technique Steinhardt pioneered in the 1970’s was an extremely aggressive trading style centering upon, “The Edge.” What “The Edge” means is “information asymmetry.” One person who worked at a major brokerage covering Steinhardt described to me their first encounter, decades ago: “We came out with a downgrade on a stock, I think it was GM. Minutes later I got a call from Steinhardt. ‘You fucking asshole,’ he said. ‘Why didn’t I know about this thirty minutes ago?’” (In other words, Steinhardt was demanding to know why he had not been tipped off to the coming downgrade.) “I told him, ‘Come on Mr. Steinhardt. You know that would be illegal. You know I can’t do that.’ Steinhardt told me, ‘You dumb fucking kid, you know the way the game is played. You look at how much vig I pay your firm each month and you tell me that.’” (Another Wall Street money manager who worked in these circles tells me, “Steinhardt always liked to get what he called, ‘fancy information.’ You know, analysts’ upgrades and downgrades, before the market got them. Steinhardt would tell them, “You want my business? You gotta get me some fancy information. That’s how you win my business.” )

Together, the screaming and “the edge” explain Steinhardt’s success: bullying people to get them to cough up “fancy information” minutes before the rest of the market has it (which makes it “fancy” no more), placing gigantic bets on that information, making tiny percentages from each, and rewarding providers of information with trading commissions while starving those who don’t play ball. That, anyway, is how Steinhardt is remembered (compare this with, say, Warren Buffett, whose “edge” is that he removed himself to Omaha to stay away from such Wall Street chatter, and who instead relies on business acumen and economic insight).

In fairness to Steinhardt, I do not mean to suggest that he was alone in seeking “The Edge”. He may have sought it more aggressively than those who came before him, but his methods pale in comparison with those of certain current money managers who will themselves be the subjects of later pieces.

Steinhardt Act II

Steinhardt’s second act also contained three scenes.

a) In the early 1980’s Steinhardt’s buddy Marc Rich turned out to be a traitor who was secretly doing oil business with Libya and Iran in violation of a number of US laws. This was a felony, as were the tax evasion schemes by which he hid his profits (Time: “The Marc Rich Case: A Primer“). Marc Rich the Traitor fled the United States with his associate “Pinky” Green for Zug, Switzerland, where he would become the most notorious fugitive financier since Nixon’s friend Robert Vesco (Slate: “Know Your Fugitive Financiers“). His present net worth is estimated at $1.2 billion (it is also uncertain as to whether he is or is not a US citizen, as for years he has neither paid US taxes nor renounced his citizenship).

b) Steinhardt morphed his hedge fund into a solo act: “Steinhardt Partners.” He also morphed politically: originally a Goldwater Republican, in the 1980’s Steinhardt played a leading role in the development of the new “Democrat Leadership Council,” and became its chairman in 1985. The DLC is the centrist Democrat group out of which Bill Clinton emerged onto the national stage. This brought him into close proximity with Marty Peretz, who parlayed his skill in marrying a Singer Sewing Machine heiress into becoming publisher of The New Republic (which I believe he has since sold, though he retains editorial control).

c) Another notable thing Michael Steinhardt did, at least according to the SEC and US Department of Justice, was in April and May, 1991 collude with another hedge fund, “Caxton”, to organize a scheme to manipulate the market in US Tresury Securities, a scheme which netted him tens of millions of dollars (Forbes put the number at $600 million). As a FOB (Friend of Bill) he is said to have been irked when President Clinton would not intervene on his behalf with the Department of Justice. However, Steinhardt’s pique may have been mollified when, in December, 1994, the DOJ settled the case for a $70 million fine and a lifetime promise to keep such crooked schemes out of the United States Treasury market (permanent consent decrees are a way of saying, “I may not have done it but I promise not to do again that thing I didn’t do”: when I see them, I think of the financial equivalent of Hannibal Lecter in a straight-jacket and mask, someone who can never be trusted around civilized peoples’ money).

Interestingly, accounts of this episode that I find in the press rarely fail to mention the tens (if not hundreds) of millions that Steinhardt made from the act. It appears to me that Steinhardt’s sense of shame is more developed than his sense of guilt, and hence, by making sure that the story is told in such a way that he appears to have had the last laugh on the DOJ, Steinhardt’s sense of shame is appeased. No sense of guilt, of course, can be invoked in such people (i.e., “sociopaths”).

Steinhardt Act III

After skating through his SEC and DOJ issues, Michael Steinhardt got busy reinventing himself as a friend to all mankind and general Great American. His first act as a Great American was to approach then-President Bill Clinton seeking a pardon for his good friend Marc Rich the Traitor (the billionaire who made his fortune doing deals with Iran and Libya while they were taking Americans hostage and killing GI’s in Berlin nightclubs). Steinhardt’s December 7, 2000 letter to Bill Clinton seeking a presidential pardon for Marc Rich the Traitor is remarkable to me in numerous ways. I respectfully suggest you read it here because I am going to spend some time on it, as I think it reveals a great deal about Great American Michael Steinhardt.

Steinhardt’s letter opens, “Dear Mr. President, I think you may remember me…” Given that Steinhardt was Chairman of both the DLC and Progressive Policy Institute, which were Bill Clinton’s left and right skates through the Democratic Party in his rise to power, such coyness is scarcely credible.

“I became involved in the political world in the mid 80’s primarily because of my interest in ‘ideas’…” It is interesting to me that he put the word “ideas” in quotes. Whether they were intended as scare-quotes, or as some subtle nudge in a code known only to them, I do not know.

“Invariably, life is filled with conflictual judgments and none of us escapes unscathed,” opines Steinhardt before coming, in the second sentence of the second paragraph, to his request: “I am writing this letter, Mr. President, to appeal to you on behalf of my friend, Mr. Marc Rich, who, I think, has been punished enough.” At the risk of being schoolmarmish, I draw attention to the numerous infelicities of grammar and style, and note how odd it seems to find them in a letter to a sitting US president from a well-educated Wall Street tycoon. I hazard a guess that this was composed in some haste and not reviewed by a lawyer (who generally write competently). Again, this fact is mildly interesting.

At the crux of Steinhardt’s letter, where we would expect to find a semblance of argument, we find instead this odd collection of statements:

“While there remains controversy as to the facts surrounding Marc Rich’s indictment in the early 1980’s, there’s no doubt he was a successful person both, before and after, (sic) that horrific experience.” The “controversy” about Rich is that after breaking US law by trading with Iran and Libya he became a fugitive hiding out in Zug, Switzerland rather than face legal consequences for his actions. Steinhardt leaves unstated why a person’s “success” should generally make him a good candidate for a pardon. It is also interesting because in the case of Marc Rich, “success” meant “making money breaking US laws by doing business with nations which were kidnapping and killing Americans.” Steinhardt’s statement is also interesting in that it recasts Marc Rich’s actions from traitorous felonies into “a horrific experience” for Marc Rich (“playing the victim” scarcely describes this). Lastly, again I note the childish grammatical errors.

“It would not be possible to recreate the circumstances surrounding a highly complicated series of facts occurring over a long period in the early 1980’s.” That much is correct. It’s what happens when one flees the country for two decades. Why the difficulties created by this additional felony should count in Marc Rich’s favor, as opposed to counting against him, Steinhardt leaves unstated.

“For Marc Rich, whose personal life has already been burdened by the profound constraints imposed by the circumstances of this case punishment (sic), have been in some ways severe. He could not properly mourn his daughter. He could not live with his children or grandchildren. He has suffered more than most. As in his (sic) mid 60’s, there would be nothing more important to him than to return to the United States of America and to live in peace.” Steinhardt’s letter, which is a compilation of intellectual gibberish, reaches a crescendo in this description of the hardships that Marc Rich the Traitor has endured. Marc Rich made a fortune committing numerous felonies, fled the country with his fortune, and has lived as a fugitive ever since: this has imposed a hardship on Rich and his fortune because his family remained in the country he betrayed, but now he wants to return to that country with his fortune without facing legal consequences for his acts, and therefore he should be allowed to do so. As an old professor of mine used to say, “I understand everything but the ‘therefore’.”

“I have known Marc Rich for more than twenty-five years. I assure you that Marc Rich’s moral and ethical standards amply justify your consideration of his pardon, so that in his remaining years he could fulfill his highest aspirations (sic), which will make all of us, as Americans, proud.” What can we learn from this bizarre claim? We learn that Marc Rich the Traitor, indicted felon and fugitive financier, has “moral and ethical standards” to which Michael Steinhardt looks up: I suspect that much is true. We also learn that Marc Rich has aspirations to return to this country, and he should be allowed to do so because…. he has aspirations to do so. Why the aspirations of billionaire fugitive felon traitors should be accommodated is something Steinhardt considers so obvious as to need no defense.

As far as I can see, Steinhardt’s sole argument in this letter is that Marc Rich should be accommodated because he is “successful.” And we should be proud of successful men and their aspirations because we – are — Americans. And we should be proud of that, too, dammit. Unless we get a good deal on some Libyan Light Crude.

This lack of argument notwithstanding, on his last morning in the White House, Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich. Bill was unusually close-mouthed about his reasons, saying only that he had become “impressed” with the case for pardoning Marc Rich. How that “case” was presented (or on what size check) is something that Clinton archivists refused to release to the press just last week, seven years after the events in question. Marc Rich’s attractive socialite wife Denise Rich also played a role in convincing Bill Clinton of the merits of this case, though precisely how she posed her “case” remains similarly unknown.

Another interesting event from Michael Steinhardt’s third act is that he got involved in the creation of an elite private school in New York City, the plans for which were scrapped from fear it might tolerate miscegenation (that is, the creation of mixed ethnicity couples). I am not writing of some half-educated redneck preacher’s college, I am writing about a proposed elite private school in Manhattan. I tend to be a “whatever makes you happy” kind of guy, but there are lines for me, and they exist this side of philanthropy that takes as a paramount concern the possible co-mingling of races.

Michael Steinhardt, Act IV

How is Michael Steinhardt currently regarded? A man who got his start with and became a conduit for Mafia cash on Wall Street? A man whose personal brutality became the stuff of Wall Street lore (e.g., dressing down a longtime partner to the point of cardiac arrest)? A man who joined that personal brutality to a system of high fees paid to knowledgeable insiders to develop “the edge” with which he could rob “the dumb money” not privy to that information? A man who made tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars tampering with the market for United States Treasury securities, then bought his way out of trouble with a $70 million payment and a lifetime promise to wear the financial equivalent of a Hannibal Lecter mask around the US Government’s money? A man who was financier to a fugitive felon trading with our nation’s enemies, then obtained a presidential pardon for that traitorous crony? A man who lets his philanthropy be constrained by bigotry?

Thanks to the wonders of a PR agency known as, “the New York press corps,” the man is now considered a deep-thinking financial statesman, philanthropist, and yes, Great American.

Dénouement

Steinhardt Partner’s head trader was Karen Backfisch, also known as “The Trading Goddess,” who has often been described as “Steinhardt’s protégé.”

Jim Cramer, the television personality, publicly emphasizes his career at Goldman Sachs followed by his time spent running his own hedge fund. In truth, however, as soon as he left Goldman Sachs, Jim Cramer spent 1-2 years ensconced in Steinhardt’s offices at the Burroughs Building in Manhattan. Cramer housed in Steinhardt Partners and his office was three doors down from Michael Steinhardt’s.

Karen Backfisch met Jim Cramer there in Steinhardt’s offices, and they married. As will be discussed shortly, Jim has publicly acknowledged that what he knows about trading he gleaned from Karen Backfisch, which knowledge she had gained as Steinhardt’s head trader.


Before Karen Backfisch, Steinhardt had another protégé, in the early 1970’s, fresh out of Harvard’s MBA program. His name is “David Rocker,” and I will have something to say about him soon as well.

And so ends the tale of when the bad guys came to Wall Street.


Nice story!

They were there before that, of course. All along.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:15 am

A year later, the New World Basket Currency seems to still be a while off.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/world ... l?_r=5&hpw

Medvedev Resurrects Idea of Replacing Dollar as Reserve Currency

By HELENE COOPER
Published: April 2, 2009

LONDON — So much for that fresh start.

Barely 24 hours after announcing that Russia and the United States would cooperate on a variety of long-simmering issues, President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia reproposed a Russian idea that the United States had thought it had batted away: starting a new basket of strong regional currencies to replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

In a speech before leaders here at the Group of 20 summit meeting, Mr. Medvedev said that the countries most responsible for the global economic crisis (read: the United States) are not taking their fair share of the burden for “macroeconomic policies” needed to fix the problem.

“On this basis we conclude that it would be wise to support the creation of strong regional currencies and to use them as the basis for a new reserve currency,” Mr. Medvedev said. “One could also consider partially backing this currency with gold.”

This is not the first time Russia has brought up the idea of replacing the dollar — it floated the idea two weeks ago, and a recent essay by a Chinese economic official said the same thing.

But Obama administration officials quickly poured water on the proposal, and it had seemed that the issue was dead after Group of 20 officials said they would not be taking up the proposal at the meeting.

Mr. Medvedev, however, brought it up anyway. “It is not our goal to destroy existing institutions or to weaken the dollar, pound or euro,” he said, according to a translation of a speech provided by an adviser to the Russian government. “We are simply calling for a joint assessment of how the global currency system can most favorable be developed for the sake of the global economy.”

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Apr 17, 2010 4:31 am

Okay, I have to post tomorrow's NYT coverage on the Goldman case.

It has the surprising feel of a Kremlin line shift. Maybe Gorbachev's in the house?

First, Paulson for now is getting off, because, well, he didn't sell the junk to the investors. Goldman created CDOs off his list of very bad mortgage funds at his behest, but he's covered because THEY sold it to the investors. This they did after getting the RATINGS AGENCIES on board. Then they bet against it, also taking Paulson's bets. So he's in the clear. He's even issued a tacit admission of his role. What's unusual is that the Times coverage is focusing on him in detail as a bastard, anyway.

Nocera's piece meanwhile basically returns us to the story as outlined by Michael Lewis at the top of this thread.

For the debate column, apparently they couldn't find anyone to argue in Goldman's defense. William Black, Nomi Prins and Yves Smith in the Times? Former CFTC director Michael Greenberger (under Brooksley Born) compares September 2008 to "Pearl Harbor" and the SEC charges against Goldman to the Battle of Midway, where "the Japanese navy was neutralized." Am I getting this right, the Times is letting people say openly that Wall Street is at war with America?

And that's the vein of all the comments, of course. Some are skeptical, like one who says, big deal, Goldman will pay a million dollar fine and continue as before. However, the investors are going to want their billions back. And this opens the way for class actions and state AGs to step in. And how is Goldman going to sell the next round of junk?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/busin ... nted=print

Investor Who Made Billions Not Targeted in Goldman Suit

April 16, 2010

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON and LOUISE STORY

Three and half years ago, a New York hedge fund manager with a bearish view on the housing market was pounding the pavement on Wall Street.

Eager to increase his bets against subprime mortgages, the investor, John A. Paulson, canvassed firm after firm, looking for new ways to profit from home loans that he was sure would go sour.

Only a few investment banks agreed to help him. One was Deutsche Bank. The other was the mighty Goldman Sachs.

Mr. Paulson struck gold. His prescience made him billions and transformed him from a relative nobody into something of a celebrity on Wall Street and in Washington.

But now his brassy bets have thrust Mr. Paulson into an uncomfortable spotlight. On Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil fraud lawsuit against Goldman for neglecting to tell its customers that mortgage investments they were buying consisted of pools of dubious loans that Mr. Paulson had selected because they were highly likely to fail.

By betting against the pool of questionable mortgage bonds, Mr. Paulson made $1 billion when they collapsed just a few months later, the S.E.C. said. Investors, who bought what regulators are essentially calling a pig in a poke, lost the same amount.

Mr. Paulson, 54, was not named as a defendant in the S.E.C. suit, but his role in devising the instrument that caused $1 billion in losses for Goldman’s customers is detailed in the complaint. Robert Khuzami, the director of enforcement at the S.E.C., explained that, unlike Goldman, the manager of the hedge fund, Paulson & Company, had not made misrepresentations to investors buying the security, known as a collateralized debt obligation.

“While it’s unfortunate that people lost money investing in mortgage-backed securities, Paulson has never been involved in the origination, distribution or structuring of such securities,” said Stefan Prelog, a spokesman for Mr. Paulson, in a statement. “We have always been forthright in expressing our opinion as to the quality of the underlying mortgages. Paulson has never misrepresented our positions to any counterparties.

“There’s no question we made money in these transactions. However, all our dealings were through arm’s-length transactions with experienced counterparties who had opposing views based on all available information at the time. We were straightforward in our dislike of these securities, but the vast majority of people in the market thought we were dead wrong and openly and aggressively purchased the securities we were selling.”


Still, the details unearthed by the S.E.C. in its investigation show a deep involvement by Mr. Paulson in the creation of the investment, known as Abacus 2007-AC1. For example, he approached Goldman about constructing and marketing the debt security.

After analyzing risky mortgages made on homes in Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada, where the housing markets had overheated, Mr. Paulson went to Goldman to talk about how he could bet against those loans. He focused his analysis on adjustable-rate loans taken out by borrowers with relatively low credit scores and turned up more than 100 loan pools that he considered vulnerable, the S.E.C. said.

Mr. Paulson then asked Goldman to put together a portfolio of these pools, or others like them that he could wager against. He paid $15 million to Goldman for creating and marketing the Abacus deal, the complaint says.

One of a small cohort of money managers who saw the mortgage market in late 2006 as a bubble waiting to burst, Mr. Paulson capitalized on the opacity of mortgage-related securities that Wall Street cobbled together and sold to its clients. These instruments contained thousands of mortgage loans that few investors bothered to analyze.

Instead, the buyers relied on the opinions of credit ratings agencies like Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings. These turned out to be overly rosy, and investors suffered hundreds of billions in losses when the loans underlying these securities went bad.

Mr. Paulson personally made an estimated $3.7 billion in 2007 as a result of his hedge fund’s performance, and another $2 billion in 2008.

He was also treated like a celebrity by members of a Congressional committee that invited him to testify in November 2008 about the credit crisis. At the time, none of the lawmakers asked how he had managed to set up his lucrative trades; they seemed more interested in getting his advice on how to solve the credit crisis.


A Queens-born graduate of New York University and the Harvard Business School, Mr. Paulson went to Wall Street in the early 1980s just as the biggest bull market in history was starting. He joined Bear Stearns in 1984 as a junior executive in the investment banking unit.

Ten years later, he started his hedge fund with $2 million of his own capital. During the technology-stock bubble of the late 1990s, Mr. Paulson took a negative stance on high-flying shares and profited handsomely for himself and his clients.

By the end of 2008, Mr. Paulson’s assets under management had risen to $36.1 billion. In an early 2009 interview with The New York Times, Mr. Paulson talked about his success. “We are very proud of our performance last year,” he said. “We provided an oasis of profitable returns for our investors in a year where there were few sources of gains.”

His investors, which included pension funds, endowments, wealthy families and individuals, were huge beneficiaries of his strategy, Mr. Paulson added. “They made four times as much as we did,” he said.

Mr. Paulson and his investment program was the subject of the 2009 book by Gregory Zuckerman “The Greatest Trade Ever.” Mr. Zuckerman wrote that Mr. Paulson did not think there was anything wrong with working with various banks to create troubled investments that he could then bet against.

“Paulson told his own clients what he was up to and they supported him, considering it an ingenious way to grow the trade by finding more debt to short,” Mr. Zuckerman wrote. “After all, those who would buy the pieces of any C.D.O. likely would be hedge funds, banks, pension plans or other sophisticated investors, not mom-and-pop investors.”

[[CAVEAT EMPTOR, EH? IF NOT FOR THAT MINOR MATTER OF THE RATINGS AGENCIES AND "CONSULTANTS" HIRED BY GOLDMAN TO DO THE SELLING]]

Late last year, Mr. Paulson donated $20 million to the Stern School of Business at New York University and $5 million to Southampton Hospital in Long Island’s East End, where he bought a $41 million home in early 2008. He lives with his wife and two daughters on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

Amid criticism of investment strategies that profited from mortgage defaults, home foreclosures and other miseries, Mr. Paulson has also given $15 million to the Center for Responsible Lending for a center devoted to providing foreclosure assistance to troubled borrowers.

At the time of the donation, Mr. Paulson said of the center and its work, “We are pleased to help them provide legal services to distressed homeowners, many of whom have been victimized by predatory lenders.”


No need to add that these predatory lenders - some of whom no doubt were selling mortgages to Goldman as the raw material for the CDO and CDS scams - were at even more than "arm's length" from Paulson.

He's not a killer, merely the vulture who encouraged the murder.

!!! SUCH A FRIEND TO MAN !!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/busin ... nted=print

A Wall Street Invention That Let the Crisis Mutate

April 16, 2010

By JOE NOCERA

Can it get any worse?

Every time you pick up another rock along the winding path that led to the financial crisis, something else crawls out. Subprime mortgages were sold as a way to give low-income people a chance at homeownership and the American Dream. Instead, the mortgages turned out to be an excuse for predatory lending and fraud, enriching the lenders and Wall Street at the expense of subprime borrowers, many of whom ended up in foreclosure.

The ratings agencies, which rated the complex investments that were built with subprime mortgages, turned out to be only too happy to be gamed by firms that paid their fees — slapping AAA ratings on mortgage bonds doomed to fail. Lehman Brothers turned out to be disguising the full reality of its horrid balance sheet by playing accounting games. All over Wall Street, firms pushed mortgage originators to churn out more loans that were doomed the moment they were made.

In the immediate aftermath, the conventional wisdom was that Wall Street had simply lost its head. It was terrible, to be sure, but on some level understandable: Dutch tulips, the South Sea bubble, that sort of thing.

In recent months, though, something more troubling has begun to emerge. In December, Gretchen Morgenson and Louise Story of The New York Times exposed the role that some firms, including Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, played in putting together investment structures — synthetic C.D.O.’s, they were called — that were primed to blow up. They did so, reportedly, because some savvy investors wanted to go short the subprime market.

On Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission dropped the hammer, charging Goldman Sachs with securities fraud for its purported failure to disclose that the bonds that were the basis for one particular synthetic C.D.O. had been chosen by none other than John Paulson, the billionaire hedge fund investor, who was shorting them.

Oh, and one other thing is starting to become clear: synthetic C.D.O.’s made the crisis worse than it would otherwise have been.



Remember in the months leading up to the crisis, when the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, and Henry Paulson Jr., then the Treasury secretary, were assuring everyone that the “subprime problem” could be contained? In truth, if the only problem had been the actual mortgage bonds themselves, they might have been right. At the peak there were well over $1 trillion in subprime and Alt-A mortgages that were securitized on Wall Street. That’s a lot, to be sure — but it was a finite number. You could have only as much exposure as there were bonds in existence.

The introduction of synthetic C.D.O.’s changed all that. Unlike a “normal” collateralized debt obligation, which contained the bonds themselves, the synthetic version contained credit-default swaps — derivatives that “referenced” a particular group of mortgage bonds. Once synthetic C.D.O.’s became popular, Wall Street no longer needed to feed the beast with new subprime loans. It could make an infinite number of bets on the bonds that already existed.

And why did synthetic C.D.O.’s become popular? One reason was that the subprime companies were starting to run out of risky borrowers to make bad loans to — and hitting a brick wall. New Century, a big subprime originator, went bankrupt in early April 2007, for instance. Yet three weeks later, the Goldman synthetic C.D.O. deal, called Abacus 2007-ACI, went through, because it was betting on subprime mortgage bonds that already existed rather than bundling new ones. It didn’t even have to go to the trouble of repackaging old C.D.O. tranches into new C.D.O.’s, which was also a common practice. (Goldman has vehemently denied any allegations of wrongdoing, pointing out that it lost $90 million on the particular Abacus deal that is the subject of the S.E.C. complaint.)

The second reason, though, is that synthetic C.D.O.’s gave people like John Paulson a way to short the subprime market. Mr. Paulson’s bet against the subprime market, which famously reaped the firm billions in profits, was the subject of a recent book, “The Greatest Trade Ever.” Boy, I’ll say.

Both Gregory Zuckerman, the author of that book, and Michael Lewis, who wrote the current best seller “The Big Short,” make it clear that the heroes of their narratives — the handful of people who had figured out that subprime mortgages were a looming disaster — were pushing Wall Street hard to give them a way to short the market. Maybe synthetic C.D.O.’s would have been created even without their urging, but it seems a little unlikely. They were the driving forces.

It is important to note that every synthetic C.D.O. required both investors who were long and others who were short. That is, there needed to be investors who believed the “referenced” bonds would rise in value, and others who believed they would fall. Everyone, on both sides of the transaction, understood that. What makes it feel like dirty pool is the allegation that Paulson & Company and Goldman Sachs were actively involved in choosing the bonds that would be bet on — knowing they were going to be short. In its filing on Thursday, the S.E.C. charged that Goldman never told investors of Mr. Paulson’s involvement. “Credit derivative technology helped people disguise what they were doing,” said Janet Tavakoli, the president of Tavakoli Structured Finance, and an early critics of many of the structures that have now come under scrutiny.

There appear to be other examples of this, as well. Last week, Pro Publica, the nonprofit investigative journalism outfit, reported how a big Chicago hedge fund, Magnetar, helped put together some synthetic C.D.O.’s — precisely so that it could bet against them. In his book, Mr. Zuckerman seems to have stumbled onto Abacus and similar deals. One banker, he writes, “suspected that Paulson would push for combustible mortgages and debt to go into any C.D.O., making it more likely that it would go up in flames.” Which is precisely what the S.E.C. is claiming. But in his quest to lionize his central character, Mr. Zuckerman rushes past what by all rights should have been the most shocking revelation in his book.

Mr. Lewis, for his part, recounts a dinner, late in the game, in which one of his heroes, Steve Eisman, is seated next to a man who is taking the long position on many of the C.D.O.’s he is shorting. They get to talking, and the man says to Mr. Eisman: “I love guys like you who short my market. Without you, I don’t have anything to buy.” He adds, “The more excited that you get that you’re right, the more trades you’ll do, the more product for me.”

As a reader, it is hard not to love that moment, rich as it is in irony and foreboding. The guy on the long side — who was making investments that the housing and mortgage markets would remain strong — is an obvious fool; Mr. Eisman, on the short side the trade, is clearly going to be vindicated. (And, by Mr. Lewis’s account, Mr. Eisman never “helped” a Wall Street firm pick the bonds for the C.D.O.’s he was shorting, the way the S.E.C. says Mr. Paulson did.)

But on second reading, the passage isn’t quite so funny. The people on the short side of those trades were truly savvy investors, who, unlike so many others, did their homework and had insights that made them a great deal of money. But the rise of synthetic C.D.O.’s that they pushed for — and their ability to use credit-default swaps to short subprime mortgage bonds — took an already bad situation and made it worse.

And here we are now, all of us, paying the price.


Schadenfreude Alert!

Apropos to Nocera’s article, here are some lovely bits from the current front page of the Rupert Murdoch attack vehicle still claiming it’s the “Wall Street Journal”

U.S. Charges Goldman With Subprime Fraud

Goldman Sachs was charged with deceiving clients by selling them mortgage securities secretly designed by a hedge fund run by John Paulson. Goldman denied the SEC's civil charges, setting up a major clash between Wall Street and regulators.


A Narrative for the Crisis Emerges
Goldman didn't create this crisis on its own, but the SEC complaint will fuel conspiracy theories that it did, theories that overlook other culprits.


Too bad non-payers can’t get more of that hilarity than the following:

BY DAVID WESSEL

Even after all that has been said and written, people are still searching for a narrative to explain how a relatively small number of homebuyers failing to make mortgage payments led to such a deep recession. The 22-page Securities and Exchange Commission complaint against Goldman Sachs & Co. provides an outline of such a narrative.

It has big players: Goldman Sachs and Paulson & Co.—not the former Treasury secretary, the hedge fund that famously made a winning bet on the collapse of the housing market. It has an alleged villain with a spy-novel name: Fabrice Tourre, the 31-year-old vice president ...


I wonder how that will turn out! Bet those relatively small number of homebuyers are going to turn out culprits after all. But it's not a conspiracy, just lazy poor folk.

Paulson Found a Partner in Goldman

When Paulson & Co. wanted to go short on mortgages, some banks weren't willing to work with a bearish client. Goldman was, and now faces civil fraud charges.


Poor Goldman! Just for serving a customer! That nasty Paulson. Those cowardly “some banks”!

In the following, go to link for the full comments.
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... more-35941

What Goldman’s Conduct Reveals
April 16, 2010, 3:31 pm

By THE EDITORS

Brendan McDermid/Reuters
The Goldman Sachs global headquarters in Manhattan.

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil lawsuit against Goldman Sachs for securities fraud on Friday, charging the bank with creating and selling mortgage-backed securities that were designed to fail.

According to the complaint, Goldman let John Paulson, a prominent hedge fund manager, select mortgage bonds that he wanted to bet against because they were most likely to lose value and packaged those bonds into the “Abacus” investments, which were sold to investors like pension funds. As those securities plunged in value, Goldman and the Paulson hedge fund made money on their negative bets, while the Goldman clients who bought the investments lost billions of dollars.

Is this chain of events surprising? The S.E.C. is suing Goldman Sachs, but could regulation or monitoring of these financial instruments have prevented such losses? What kind of regulatory structure would need to be put in place?

Lynn A. Stout, professor of corporate and securities law, U.C.L.A.
Michael Greenberger, former commodities regulator
Nicole Gelinas, Manhattan Institute
Yves Smith, financial analyst
Nomi Prins, senior fellow, Demos
Edward Harrison, banking and finance specialist
Douglas Elliott, Brookings Institution
Megan McArdle, Asymmetrical Information
William K. Black, former banking regulator


The Natural Result of Deregulation

Lynn A. Stout is the Paul Hastings professor of corporate and securities law at U.C.L.A. and an expert on corporate governance.

If the allegations against Goldman Sachs are true, then much of the blame for investors’ losses in the Abacus deal can be laid at the feet of an obscure statute passed by Congress in 2000, the “Commodities Futures Modernization Act.”

If we allow the unscrupulous to buy fire insurance on other people’s houses, the incidence of arson would rise sharply.

In one dramatic move, that act eliminated a longstanding legal rule that deemed derivatives bets made outside regulated exchanges to be legally enforceable only if one of the parties to the bet was hedging against a pre-existing risk.

This traditional derivatives rule against purely speculative derivatives trading has a parallel in insurance law, because insurance, like derivatives trading, is really just a form of betting. A homeowner’s fire insurance policy, for example, is a bet with an insurance company that your house will burn down.

Under the rules of insurance law, you can only buy fire insurance on a house if you actually own the house in question. Similarly, under the traditional legal rules regulating derivatives trading, the only parties who could use off-exchange derivatives to bet against the Abacus deal would be parties who actually held investments in Abacus.

Read more…


Accountability, at Long Last

Michael Greenberger is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law and a former director of trading and markets at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

If Sept. 15, 2008, the day Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail, marks the Pearl Harbor or widely acknowledged onset of the present Great Recession (in Franklin Roosevelt’s words “a date which shall live in infamy”), April 16, 2010 may be deemed the equivalent of the U.S. victory in the crucial Battle of Midway in 1942 or the day the U.S. neutralized the Japanese fleet.

If the fall of Lehman was Pearl Harbor, the S.E.C.’s case against Goldman may be the Battle of Midway — a crucial victory.



On April 16, 2010, the S.E.C. announced its enforcement action against Goldman Sachs alleging the improper marketing of what the S.E.C. alleges was the sale of two evenly matched, but highly conflicting, investments: essentially bets for and against the proposition that subprime (non-creditworthy) mortgage borrowers would pay back their loans. Goldman is alleged to have profited substantially from those who bet against subprime repayment while aggressively marketing to its other customers bets in favor of repayment.

Let’s be clear. Goldman Sachs vigorously denies the S.E.C.’s allegations, and doubtless it will fight the action with the utmost vigor. It is certainly entitled to do so.

Read more…


A Third Party Problem

Nicole Gelinas, a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, is the author of “After the Fall: Saving Capitalism from Wall Street — and Washington.”

The government’s charges against Goldman and its employees — if true — are not shocking. People lie. The Securities and Exchange Commission can do better at enforcing the laws that make liars think twice. But policing fraud cannot be our first line of defense against financial excess.

It’s simple: the German bank that bought the mortgage securities shouldn’t have relied on a consultant.

The S.E.C. says that Goldman, in early 2007, told mortgage-bond buyers that the consultant who helped create their securities had their best interests at heart. The consultant was taking advice, at Goldman’s behest, from another investor who would profit when the securities went bust.

Synthetic collateralized debt obligations are hard, but dishonesty with clients is easy. Raking through the details of the case uproots far deeper problems, though.

Read more…


Immoral, Destructive Behavior

Yves Smith writes the blog Naked Capitalism. She is the head of Aurora Advisors, a management consulting firm, and the author of “Econned: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism.”

Strange as it may seem, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s lawsuit against Goldman Sachs for selling collateralized debt obligations (C.D.O.) designed to fail illustrates what a long and difficult haul it will be to reform the financial services sector.

This case should be a slam-dunk, but years of deregulation have narrowed the ground for lawsuits.

Goldman allowed hedge fund manager John Paulson to sponsor a C.D.O. The sponsor can influence how the C.D.O. is constructed, the notion being that the sponsor will act in ways that help all the other investors. But this C.D.O. was allegedly a Trojan horse for Mr. Paulson to take a large short position, betting against the very same C.D.O. he was creating.

But his intent was not disclosed. And, not surprisingly, the deal was a complete wipeout, with Mr. Paulson collecting a billion dollars of winnings at the expense of investors who had been kept in the dark and would almost certainly have turned down the deal if they had had the full picture.

By any commonsense standard, this case should be a slam-dunk. However, despite tough talk by the Obama administration on financial reform, it is not mounting a criminal case against Goldman.

Read more…


Smelling the Deception

Nomi Prins is a senior fellow at Demos. She is the author of “It Takes a Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses and Backroom Deals from Washington to Wall Street” and “Other People’s Money: The Corporate Mugging of America.” She was a managing director at Goldman Sachs.

It’s probably no coincidence that Goldman Sachs took such great pains to deliver a decisive “we don’t bet against our clients” statement right before the S.E.C. levied its charge that the firm “defrauded” its clients through “misstating and omitting key facts.”

The entire nature of the C.D.O. business invites firms to act for certain clients and against others.

Indeed, under the particulars of this complaint, Goldman didn’t bet against its clients directly, it merely acted on all possible angles of a deal that facilitated one huge client betting against other clients, while obfuscating the specifics of its enabling and fee-taking role in the triangle.

That’s why it is dangerous to single out one member of Goldman (where the title of vice president is low on the totem pole) as the culprit. Collateralized debt obligations were very lucrative for everyone involved. The bad apple approach enforces an inaccurate representation of two main problems.

Read more…


Is This Political?

Edward Harrison is a banking and finance specialist at the economic consultancy Global Macro Advisors. He is also the principal contributor to the financial Web site Credit Writedowns.

When Lehman Brothers collapsed in a heap in 2008, the financial world was thrown into turmoil. The financial calamity was entirely foreseeable for those who chose to look. Reckless borrowing, lending and speculation were an integral part of the breakdown in our financial system. But so too was fraud.

It seems unlikely that the Goldman legal case is better than a potential legal challenge to Lehman’s use of ‘Repo 105.’

Since at least 2004, when the FBI warned of a mortgage fraud “epidemic,” it has been clear that deception, predatory lending and outright fraud have been rampant in the financial services industry. Yet regulators did nothing. Therefore, my initial reaction to the fraud charges against Goldman Sachs for misleading clients is largely positive. I have long felt that the government was treading lightly against large U.S. banks, perhaps for fear of our economy’s fragile state.

But, Goldman Sachs has often been accused of looking after its own interests rather than that of its clients. Allegations that Goldman bet against its own clients in derivatives deals involving American municipalities and European countries are examples of the purported double dealing. It is no wonder that former Washington Mutual Kerry Killinger recently testified before Congress that he was wary of engaging Goldman Sachs as an adviser for just this reason. To date, most of this behavior could have been construed as legal but unethical.

Read more…


The Current Regulatory Battle

Douglas Elliott, a former investment banker, is a fellow in the Initiative on Business and Public Policy at the Brookings Institution.

We will not know for some time how important this is, because it depends on the strength of the government’s case and the extent to which this is a forerunner of lawsuits against other firms.

This case will raise the level of public anger and help move the financial reform proposals through the Senate.

It is important to remember that complicated securities fraud cases can be difficult to prove. But this could be a watershed event if the S.E.C. has a strong case and follows this suit with broadly similar lawsuits against other banks.

In the short run, the suit is likely to strengthen the hand of the Democrats who are pushing financial reform legislation. This case will raise the level of public anger still further, providing fuel to move the proposals through the Senate.

Read more…


Undermining Trust in Markets

Megan McArdle blogs at Asymmetrical Information on The Atlantic magazine Web site.

In one respect, this is not shocking at all. Goldman Sachs is publicly perceived to have not merely weathered this crisis well, but to have actually profited by it. Public anger is high. It was only to be expected that prosecutors and regulators would go head-hunting. But the details of these particular charges are rather surprising.
Minimize insider dealing by pushing more transactions onto central clearinghouses and exchanges.

If the allegations are true, Goldman Sachs allowed a third party with a material economic interest to determine the structure of securities it sold. By itself, this is not worrisome — but according to the S.E.C., Goldman did not disclose this relationship, instead allowing investors to think that it had been structured by a disinterested analyst.

One side of the transaction had dramatically more information than the other — a situation which most market regulation is supposed to prevent. If the S.E.C. is correct, this isn’t merely evidence of a crime, but of a distressingly cavalier attitude toward basic rules of market conduct.

Read more…


So Much We Don’t Know

William K. Black, an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, is a former top federal financial regulator. He is the author of “The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One.”

It’s been a bad two weeks for our most elite financial leaders. Citicorp’s top mortgage credit officer, Richard Bowen, testified before Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission on April 7 that while Citi represented to Fannie and Freddie that the toxic mortgages it was selling them were “conforming” — 60 percent were not.

Why have there been no criminal charges?

He warned Citi’s top managers, including Robert Rubin. They jumped right on the problem (which will cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars) — by allowing things to get worse.

The Senate Banking Committee released the findings from its investigation of Washington Mutual — the largest savings and loan and largest bank failure. My research specialty is “control fraud,” which involves fraudulent accounting. Lenders optimize accounting fraud through extreme growth; making bad loans at high interest rates; extreme leverage and trivial loss reserves. The Senate Banking Committee’s findings show that WaMu’s business operations followed this recipe.

Read more…



65 Readers' Comments

1.
R. Law
Texas
April 16th, 2010
4:32 pm
Integrity of the markets is sacrosanct to capitalism, on a pedestal equal to fiduciary responsibilities.

Firrms in charge of making markets and spreading the gospel of capitalism are doubly-charged with protecting both tenets.
Recommend
Recommended by 22 Readers

2.
Tom
Midwest
April 16th, 2010
4:33 pm
Considering the Republicans, maintaining their status quo, today unanimously vowed to oppose financial reform while at the same time President Obama vowed to veto any legislation that did not include regulation of derivatives which I believe are at the core of the financial collapse and problems. The Democrats, rightly or wrongly are proposing specific legislation while the Republicans propose nothing. That explains everything to me in a nutshell. Now tell me again which party is more beholden to the big financial companies and banks? The Republicans keep driving me farther and farther from the party I used to support. They used to have ideas, now they have only no.
Recommend
Recommended by 156 Readers

3.
greenmountain boy
burlington, vt
April 16th, 2010
4:33 pm
Lynn Stout has it exactly right. Bankers and investors will always be greedy. Trying to police a market of synthetic cdos is a waste of time. The traditional rule that you should only be hedging against your own actual risks needs to be reinstated.
Recommend
Recommended by 61 Readers

4.
Arin
Buffalo, NY
April 16th, 2010
4:37 pm
The politics of this plays very well. This lawsuit comes on the very day that the Republicans have unified to prevent debate of the financial reform bill in the Senate. It will hopefully shape the message of the Democrat party, that the Democrats stand for Main Street, and the Republicans stand for Wall Street. Whatever the outcome of this lawsuit, its intent has already paid dividends (no pun intended)

Recommend
Recommended by 43 Readers

5.
Mark O
Boston
April 16th, 2010
4:38 pm
I was under the impression that the Federal government was in thrall to Goldman Sachs because the firm has until now been allowed to seek bilk the financial system with impunity. This lawsuit is both shocking and refreshing evidence of the government's independence.
Recommend
Recommended by 36 Readers

6.
jimmy
san francisco
April 16th, 2010
4:38 pm
I think Professor Stout cleared it up for those on Wall Street. They burned the house down insured at 100 cents on the dollar with our bail out tax money in the hundreds of billions of dollars to AIG and they'll do it again. How can this not make anyone just completely sick. How many lives and careers have they ruined? And Obama says he's not out to get the bankers? I hope he was lying.
Recommend
Recommended by 52 Readers

7.
Atlanta Guy Making serious dough
Atlanta, GA
April 16th, 2010
4:46 pm
Why is Goldman Sachs only facing a civil suit? The allegation against them is criminal fraud and they should face criminal prosecution. This feeds the long standing view (held by many) that the rich get away with murder while the average joe is held to a higher standard. Though a civil case will indeed be very damaging to GS, it is NOT enough. You deceived investors and nearly destroyed the entire financial system and you're sitting there looking pretty (with billions in profit)
Recommend
Recommended by 81 Readers

8.
timfenton1
laura
April 16th, 2010
4:47 pm
Why didn't you request comment from Sen. Mitch McConnell who seems determined to sink financial markets reform?
Recommend
Recommended by 35 Readers

9.
GrammyofWandA
Maine
April 16th, 2010
4:47 pm
The teabaggers will surely point out that the Goldman Sachs employees who allegedly committed the fraud are extremely dedicated workers who should not be subjected to an income tax increase.
Recommend
Recommended by 51 Readers

10.
mark
Honolulu, Hawaii
April 16th, 2010
4:47 pm
The insurance analogy is spot on! We don't let people bet on whether other people's buildings will burn down for reasons that are so obvious they have been a part of insurance law forever. It's called the necessity of having an insurable interest. What do you think would happen if we allowed the mob to buy insurance on people's lives? When we allowed people to take out insurance without an insurable interest we converted a financial instrument predicated on personal risk avoidance into one predicated on profiting on other people's losses. The results are here in front of us for all to see. We need to reverse the mistake we made and reverse it quickly.
Recommend
Recommended by 77 Readers

11.
sara
oakland, ca
April 16th, 2010
4:47 pm
i am waiting for the apologists for Market Innovation to begin the talking points that will crush litigation and effective reform.
Beneath the Goldman/Magnator shorting of these faulty CDOs with wildly high credit default swap pay-offs lies the RATIONALIZATION. Risk is diluted buy these derivatives, shorting keeps the market honest, capitalizing our realestate market bring poor folk into home ownership....ALL these arguments are either gross distortions of reality or cynical ways to preserve the looting of our economy by shallow wise guys. These short-term profiteers (thru millions in commissions from creating CDOs to the billions collected in crooked swaps as they failed) are now safely stashing away their fortunes; NO LESSON has been learned. And the law blocks retroactive taxation of windfall profits....or does it ?
Recommend
Recommended by 18 Readers

12.
jjcrocket
New Britain, Conn.
April 16th, 2010
4:48 pm
Dianna Farrell:
Obama Administration: Deputy Director, National Economic Council
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Financial Analyst
Stephen Friedman:
Obama Administration: Chairman, President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Board Member (Chairman, 1990-94; Director, 2005-)
Gary Gensler:
Obama Administration: Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner and Co-head of Finance
Robert Hormats:
Obama Administration: Undersecretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, State Department
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs Group
Philip Murphy:
Obama Administration: Ambassador to Germany
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Head of Goldman Sachs, Frankfurt
Mark Patterson:
Obama Administration: Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geitner
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Lobbyist 2005-2008; Vice President for Government Relations
John Thain:
Obama Administration: Advisor to Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner
Former Goldman Sachs Title: President and Chief Operating Officer (1999-2003)

http://the-classic-liberal.com...
Recommend
Recommended by 63 Readers

13.
Older but Wiser
Dallas
April 16th, 2010
4:48 pm
In a criminal trial most people withhold judgement until the verdict is reached. As civil cases turn far more on interpretations of rules it would be more seemly if the New York Times and its panelists waited until there is a conviction before crowing and trying to tell us what all this means.
Recommend
Recommended by 3 Readers

14.
smiths
ar
April 16th, 2010
4:48 pm
I'm more concerned about Goldmans Sach's ownership of the Obama administration
Recommend
Recommended by 44 Readers

15.
RS Love
Palo Alto, CA
April 16th, 2010
4:48 pm
Just a reminder that Frank Partnoy testified back in 2002 before a Senate committee that Enron was enabled to game and defraud investors using derivatives and that unless the law was corrected, more of the same was coming down the road. No one listened.

The culprit in the Enron crime wave was a recipe of CFMA 2000 mandated deregulation of trading exotics/synthetics, the corporate accountants serving no one, credit agencies for hire and our own lax Federal regulators too.

Roll tape forward to 2010. We are about to ignore the lessons of the past once again. Hard to admit that post-Depression banking legislation actually worked then and it worked up until the recent1990s while both parties dismantled it. There can be no real reform without separating the main street banking businesses from the casino bankers.

The mighty legends are headed to disgrace including Greenspan, Rubin, Summers, our Presidents (from Reagan to Obama), Paulson, Geithner, Gramm and the Senate Republicans who blindly took Wall Street's money; now it's the Democrats turn to pave the next road to financial ruin. They're right on schedule.

Recommend
Recommended by 36 Readers

16.
BTT
Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
April 16th, 2010
4:49 pm
One other point to Lynn Stout: you can't buy Home Insurance while the house is on fire! America at its worst! How immoral! BTT
Recommend
Recommended by 18 Readers

17.
Marcel Duchamp
Maine
April 16th, 2010
4:49 pm
Next up: criminal prosecutions.

Let's go!
Recommend
Recommended by 54 Readers

18.
T.L.Moran
Idaho
April 16th, 2010
4:49 pm
Forget the SEC and its hunt through the dense weeds of microscopic regulatory law.

The attorneys general of many states facing bankruptcy, the many pension funds, university systems, and other public institutions, need only find one instance -- I'm sure there are many -- of death from heart attack or crisis-driven suicide and they have a perfect case against these corporations for depraved-heart murder.

The Wall St. thugs, driven by their addiction to complex scams and outsize profits, have demonstrated 'callous disregard' and 'extreme indifference' to the value of American lives with every million dollar profit they've made, every lavish bonus they've awarded themselves.

Never mind what slimy combination of congressional dopes and financial addicts undermined the laws protecting the country from this kind of daylight robbery. The intentions and the results speak clear: the executives of firms like this set aside all consideration for the continued life, health and happiness of everyday Americans in their adolescent race to see who could be the fastest, biggest looter of our national economy.

If corporations are people (thank you activist neo-con SCOTUS), then they are all guilty of depraved indifference. Prosecute, punish, and GET THIS COUNTRY'S MONEY BACK!
Recommend
Recommended by 25 Readers

19.
JVM Fan
Hollywood
April 16th, 2010
4:49 pm
I just saw a movie on Sunset Blvd. called "Stock Shock" about all this Wall Street corruption and the audience was pretty shocked. It was the same story told through the eyes of Sirus XM investors that nearly went broke because of market manipulation. The movie is now sold on DVD just about everywhere, but cheaper at http://www.stockshockmovie.com
Recommend
Recommended by 3 Readers

20.
frank
providence, ri
April 16th, 2010
4:49 pm
None of this is news. Zuckerman in The Greatest Trade Ever (p.179) names Goldman, Bear Sterns, and Deutsche Bank (and others) as working with Paulson to create "controversial" CDO's (meaning this is not news) tailor made to fail. What can also be said it that mostly the banks were betting the other way, which is why they had so much losses, and the argument they were hedging really seems correct. But the fraud is ultimately about charges against an outside rating agencies, that maybe one didn't exist in this trade despite what was said. But all the rating agencies were also pushed and threatened no doubt NOT to rate the CDOs accurately. There is fraud everywhere, of course. The whole system was a fraud.
Recommend
Recommended by 21 Readers

21.
Docb
denver
April 16th, 2010
4:50 pm
Come on folks --there has to be a market for these products...another IB or two or perhaps the street! They all did this created a market-- bought and sold against a fail...Go to the SEC site and pull up the Complaint--there is a firm mentioned , Paulson &Co---Hmmm could it be true? But this is just the tip...the SEC needs to be contacted and reminded that this is not isolated and not a case for fines and wrist slaps...1.888.732.6585 or the Sec of the SEC 1.202.551.5400
Recommend
Recommended by 4 Readers

22.
Dan
NYC
April 16th, 2010
4:50 pm
I disagree with these rosy optimistic analysis of these so-called "experts."

This is the start of new chapter of regulations? Thats BS - These are civil charges, NOT criminal. Sure, Goldman will get hit with a settlement (probably around a million), which might sound big to the "main street average person" but in reality its not big at all to them. They will continue to do what they do and generate much much more money than that. Then, of course, Goldman Sachs will deny any wrongdoing, and Obama will praise the Justice System that we have. Every one wins! Except, of course, the people on main street and the people who GS fleeced.

Do you HONESTLY expect any better when the insane run the asylum?
Recommend
Recommended by 28 Readers

23.
pstgradny
New York
April 16th, 2010
4:52 pm
What a shocker...dishonest and greedy investment bankers and traders. Sounds like fodder for a movie that might be entitled, Wall Street. I think Michael Douglas would be perfect for the lead role, and Charlie Sheen would be great as a conflicted young broker/trader. In the aftermath of the recent financial meltdown, this movie could be a huge hit, especially if done in 3D. Cameo performances might include Bernie Madoff, Jeffrey Skilling, Andy Fastow, Bernie Ebbers, Edward S. Digges Jr., etc.
Recommend
Recommended by 6 Readers

24.
Zenster
Manhattan
April 16th, 2010
5:13 pm
It seems every single person in the country knows for a fact that Goldman Sachs is a criminal organization, a white collar mafia - and still it took this long for the SEC to prosecute - and only this one charge, so amazingly egregious. What about the thousands and thousands of other crimes this giant vampire squid committed?
Recommend
Recommended by 22 Readers

25.
ron
new orleans
April 16th, 2010
5:14 pm
I believe that the current banking crisis started out many years ago in Denver when the Silverado Bank and Neil Bush were bailed out by his father(Bush I) and his friends(Cheney,et al). Instead of starting a new wave of bank regulation at the time, Congress with the support of Bush, et al opened the flood gates to SEC deregulation. Being an optimist, I believe that everything that goes around, comes around. The American public will not be satisfied until the current group of creative criminals are exposed. Once they are indicted, historians should then revisit the first banking crisis.
Recommend
Recommended by 26 Readers

of 3
Next


Post a Comment

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:24 pm

Goldman Had 9 Months' Warning From SEC--Report


By Alistair Barr

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) was warned nine months ago that Securities and Exchange Commission staff wanted to bring a civil case against it, but the investment bank didn't specifically disclose this to investors in regulatory filings, Bloomberg News reported Saturday, citing unidentified people it credited with direct knowledge of the communications.

Goldman Sachs responded to the so-called Wells notice from the SEC within months and met with agency officials in an effort to fend off the civil lawsuit, Bloomberg reported, citing its sources, who declined to be identified because the discussions weren't public.

The SEC sent Goldman the Wells notice in July 2009, and the company responded in September. In March 2010, the New York-based firm said in a regulatory filing that it was cooperating with regulators' "requests for information," Bloomberg noted.

On Friday, the SEC charged Goldman with securities fraud, alleging that the bank didn't tell investors in a collateralized debt obligation that hedge-fund firm Paulson & Co. had helped structure the deal and was betting against it. Goldman shares slumped 13% after the suit, the stock's biggest one-day loss in more than a year, knocking more than $10 billion off the company's market value.

Companies typically disclose legal issues such as regulatory probes in their quarterly and annual financial reports. If companies get Wells notices from the SEC, they often specifically disclose this, too. However, Goldman wasn't required to disclose the Wells notice if it believed it wasn't a material event. The notices don't always lead to charges or fines, a report in The Wall Street Journal noted.

"The question is whether a general disclaimer like that is rendered misleading because you left out the specifics," Adam Pritchard, a former SEC attorney, told Bloomberg News. "The prudent, conservative choice is to disclose more," because omissions can lead to shareholder lawsuits, Pritchard added.

Goldman's annual report for 2009, filed with the SEC in March, recycled a passage the company had used in the previous year's report to describe regulatory probes involving securities linked to subprime mortgages, Bloomberg reported. In both cases, the firm stated the following:

"GS&Co. and certain of its affiliates, together with other financial services firms, have received requests for information from various governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations relating to subprime mortgages, and securitizations, collateralized debt obligations and synthetic products related to subprime mortgages. GS&Co. and its affiliates are cooperating with the requests."

Lucas van Praag, a spokesman for Goldman Sachs in New York, declined to comment to Bloomberg.

On Friday, Goldman had said the SEC's charges were "completely unfounded in law and fact," and the investment bank promised to "vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation."

But Goldman may now face a raft of private lawsuits that could try to piggybank on the SEC's case, The Journal reported.

Paul Geller of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, which represents a union that's suing Goldman over mortgage-securities losses, told the Journal that private lawyers are "foaming at the mouth."


Investors who were hurt by the alleged fraud are likely to sue. ABN Amro, now owned by the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), and German lender IKB lost roughly $1 billion after investing in the Goldman CDO at the center of the SEC's suit.

These banks may have a fiduciary duty to their private or public shareholders to sue, James Kramer, a lawyer at Orrick who defends companies against securities claims, told the Journal.

"IKB and other disappointed Abacus investors will almost certainly pursue related CDO claims against Goldman," Brad Hintz, a Wall Street analyst at Bernstein Research, wrote in a Friday note to investors.

Hintz estimated that Goldman could face a liability of $706.5 million from the SEC's suit, in a worst-case scenario. This includes the cost of claims by ABN Amro and other investors in the CDO, known as Abacus 2007-ACI. It also includes $70 million in fee disgorgement and fines by the SEC.

If Goldman doesn't settle with the SEC, the regulator could take depositions of Goldman employees, among other things, and disclose it publicly in court, potentially helping lawsuits filed by alleged victims, Kramer explained to the Journal.

Direct or so-called derivative lawsuits from Goldman shareholders could also follow. That's because Goldman shares slumped 13% after the SEC suit was announced Friday.

In derivative suits, which would be easier to bring than direct claims, Goldman shareholders--acting on behalf of the company--would sue Goldman's board of directors for allegedly exposing the company to financial and reputational damage, Kramer told the Journal. Direct claims by shareholders that the company or officers made material omissions or misstatements to them would be more difficult to prove, he added.


Goldman CDO case could be tip of iceberg
Aaron Pressman and Joseph Giannone - Analysis
BOSTON/NEW YORK
Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:56pm EDT

(Reuters) - The case against Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) over a 2007 mortgage derivatives deal it set up for a hedge fund manager could be just the start of Wall Street's legal troubles stemming from the subprime meltdown.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charged Goldman (GS.N) with fraud for failing to disclose to buyers of a collateralized debt obligation known as ABACUS that hedge fund manager John Paulson helped select mortgage derivatives he was betting against for the deal. Goldman denied any wrongdoing.

The practice of creating synthetic CDOs was not uncommon in 2006 and 2007. At the tail end of the real estate bubble, some savvy investors began to look for more ways to profit from the coming calamity using derivatives.

Goldman shares plunged 13 percent on Friday and shares of other financial firms that created CDOs also fell. Shares of Deutsche Bank AG (DB.N) ended down 9 percent, Morgan Stanley (MS.N) 6 percent and Bank of America (BAC.N), which owns Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup (C.N) each declined 5 percent.

Merrill, Citigroup and Deutsche Bank were the top three underwriters of CDO transactions in 2006 and 2007, according to data from Thomson Reuters. But most of those deals included actual mortgage-backed securities, not related derivatives like the ABACUS deal.

Hedge fund managers like Paulson typically wanted to bet against so-called synthetic CDOs that used derivatives contracts in place of actual securities. Those were less common.

MORE LAWSUITS?

The SEC's charges against Goldman are already stirring up investors who lost big on the CDOs, according to well-known plaintiffs lawyer Jake Zamansky.

"I've been contacted by Goldman customers to bring lawsuits to recover their losses," Zamansky said. "It's going to go way beyond ABACUS. Regulators and plaintiffs' lawyers are going to be looking at other deals, to what kind of conflicts Goldman has."

An investigation by the online site ProPublica into Chicago-based hedge fund Magnetar's 2007 bets against CDO-related debt also turned up allegations of conflicts of interest against Deutsche Bank, Merrill and JPMorgan Chase.

Magnetar has denied any wrongdoing. Deutsche Bank declined to comment. Merrill and JPMorgan had no immediate comment.

The Magnetar deals have spawned at least one lawsuit. Dutch bank Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A., or Rabobank for short, filed suit in June against Merrill Lynch over Magnetar's involvement with a CDO called Norma.

"Merrill Lynch teamed up with one of its most prized hedge fund clients -- an infamous short seller that had helped Merrill Lynch create four other CDOs -- to create Norma as a tailor-made way to bet against the mortgage-backed securities market," Rabobank said in its complaint filed on June 12 in the Supreme Court of New York.

Regulators at the SEC and around the country said they would be investigating other deals beyond ABACUS.

"We are looking very closely at these products and transactions," Robert Khuzami, head of the SEC's enforcement division, said. "We are moving across the entire spectrum in determining whether there was (fraud).

Meanwhile, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said in a statement his office had already begun a preliminary review of the Goldman case.

"A key question is whether this case was an isolated incident or part of a pattern of investment banks colluding with hedge funds to purposely tank securities they created and sold to unwitting investors," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said in a statement.

(Reporting by Aaron Pressman and Joseph Giannone. Additional reporting by Dan Wilchins and Rachelle Younglai, editing by Leslie Gevirtz)



Our Pecora Moment
with 215 comments

By Simon Johnson

We have waited long and patiently for our Ferdinand Pecora moment – a modern equivalent of the episode when a tough prosecutor from New York seized the imagination of the country in the early 1930s and, over a series of congressional hearings: laid bare the wrong-doings of Wall Street in simple and vivid terms that everyone could understand, and created the groundswell of public support necessary for comprehensive reregulation. On Friday, that moment finally arrived.

There is fraud at the heart of Wall Street, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Pecora took on National City Bank and J.P. Morgan (the younger); these were the supposedly untouchable titans of their day. The SEC is taking on Goldman Sachs; no firm is more powerful.

Pecora exposed the ways in which leading banks mistreated their customers – typically, retail investors. The SEC alleges, with credible detail, that Goldman essentially set up some trusting clients and deliberately misled them – to the tune of effectively transferring $1 billion from them to a particular unscrupulous investor.

Pecora had the drama of the congressional hearing room and used his skills as an interrogator to batter the bastions of Wall Street, day-after-day, with gruesome and convincing detail. We don’t know where and when, but the SEC action points in one direction only: Lloyd Blankfein (CEO of Goldman) in the witness box, while John Paulson (unindicted co-conspirator) waits in the on-deck circle.

Either Blankfein knew what was going on – and is therefore liable before the law – or he was clueless and therefore incompetent. Either way, the much vaunted risk management and control systems of Goldman, i.e., what is supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening, are exposed to be what we have long here claimed: bunk (as I argued with Gerry Corrigan, former head of the NY Fed and long-time Goldman executive, before the Senate Banking Committee when we both testified on the Volcker Rules in February).

“Too big and complex to manage” is actually the best defense for Goldman’s executives and they should offer to break up the firm into smaller and more transparent pieces as a way to settle the firm’s liability with the SEC. The current management of Goldman – along with the team that ran the firm under Hank Paulson – have destroyed the value of an illustrious franchise. Goldman used to stand for something that customers felt they could trust; now it is just a sophisticated way of ripping them off.

John Paulson obviously knew what he was doing in helping to create the “designed to fail” securities – and the consequences this would have. If he cannot be convicted of conspiracy to commit fraud, then the law in this regard needs to be tightened significantly. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, chaired by Phil Angelides, is probably already planning to grill John Paulson about his taxes – the point Pecora made in this regard with J.P. Morgan junior was most telling and gripped the nation; it turned out that Morgan hardly paid any tax. I would respectfully suggest that the Angelides Commission also pull in Hank Paulson and pursue a similar line of questioning with him – when it focuses on how much money Hank Paulson made, and how little tax he paid, while building and overseeing an extortion scheme of grand proportions, America will scream.

We have something today that Pecora did not have – the pattern of behavior is already established, if not yet widely comprehended. Senator Levin’s recent grilling of WaMu revealed another layer of deliberate mistreatment of consumers within the mortgage industry. The Valukas report on the failure of Lehman exposed exactly how investors are misled by balance sheet manipulation in its most modern and insidious form. And we have learned more than enough about Goldman misleading investors over Greek debt levels.

Brooksley Born was right, a very long time ago, to fear the “dark markets” of over-the-counter derivatives and what those would bring.

Senator Ted Kaufman was right. Just a few weeks ago, he argued strongly from the Senate floor that there is fraud at the heart of Wall Street. Even some people who are generally sympathetic to his critique of modern financial practices thought perhaps that this specific notion was pushing the frontier. But now they get it – and today Ted Kaufman is more than mainstream; he is the public figure who made everything crystal clear.

When you deliberately withhold adverse material information from customers, that is fraud. When you do this on a grand scale, the full weight of the law will come down on you and the people who supposedly supervised you. And if the weight of that law is no longer sufficient to deal with – and to prevent going forward – the latest forms of very old and reprehensible crimes, then it is again time to change the law.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Apr 18, 2010 7:30 pm

Report: SEC ignored Allen Stanford's ponzi scheme
Regulators were alerted to flamboyant banker Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme a decade ago, but failed to act until thousands more people were scammed, a report said.
Image
R. Allen Stanford is photographed in the office of Dick DeGuerin, the Houston attorney, Stanford hopes to hire once he frees up some money on April 19, 2009 in Houston, Texas.

BY MICHAEL SALLAH

Years before federal regulators shut down billionaire Allen Stanford's businesses in a massive fraud case, agents strongly suspected he was running a Ponzi scheme but waited nearly a decade before seriously investigating his troubled banking empire, an internal report found.
In a bombshell report released Friday, federal auditors blamed the Securities and Exchange Commission -- including powerful industry influences -- for the long delay in investigating the network of companies now blamed for one of the largest frauds in U.S. history.
``The SEC's Fort Worth office was aware since 1997 that Robert Allen Stanford was likely operating a Ponzi scheme,'' said the SEC's Inspector General's Office, adding that ``no meaningful effort was made by enforcement to investigate.''
Like the case of convicted swindler Bernard Madoff, the scathing report offers yet another reminder of the breakdowns in regulatory oversight that allowed a major fraud scheme to flourish for years.
Suspicious of the glowing returns on Stanford investments, the SEC began four inquiries into his brokerages starting in 1997, but agents were never able to convince supervisors to launch a full investigation until 2005, the report said.
One of the reasons: Agency leaders didn't feel there were enough U.S. investors in the 1990s to justify a major investigation.
The report also said SEC supervisors were more interested in quicker turn-around cases -- not the kind of examinations needed to look into a complex entity like Stanford's, the report said.
``As a result, cases like Stanford, which were not considered `quick hit' or `slam dunk' cases, were not encouraged,'' auditors said.
Miami attorney Bowman Brown said he was troubled by the agency's indecision to probe Stanford at a time he was opening dozens of brokerages in the United States.
``A lot of people were hurt very badly by this,'' said Brown, who represents numerous burned Stanford investors.
``It was such a serious oversight. Even a cursory examination would have led anyone to conclude it was fraudulent.''
Stanford, 60, who was indicted last year in the $7 billion fraud case, is accused of fleecing more than 21,000 people, mostly through the sale of his prized investment: certificates of deposit issued by his banking headquarters in Antigua and then sold at his brokerages.
Auditors said Stanford, charged with stealing billions for personal luxuries like private jets and mansions, drew the attention of SEC agents over the years because he was touting double-digit returns on his CDs when other banks were offering far less.
SEC agents began looking at his companies in 1998, 2002 and 2004, but then dropped their efforts.
Auditors raised questions in their report about a former chief of enforcement in Fort Worth who helped quash the inquiries and later went to work for the banker in 2006 before he was told by the agency to stop because ``it was improper to do so.''
The IG's office said it did not believe anything `improper'' took place, but several critics say they were troubled by the revelation.
``The scariest part of the report is that the problem was at a higher level,'' said Scott Silver, a Coral Springs attorney representing several investors. ``The examiners on the ground'' wanted to move forward, but ``the higher up the food chain, the more the incompetence grew.''
Brown said the report ``has got to send a strong message to Congress that these kinds of [frauds] have far greater impact on just those who were direct investors, that it has shaken confidence in the country's entire regulatory system
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby Nordic » Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:46 pm

Now we know the truth. The financial meltdown wasn't a mistake – it was a con

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... il-charges
Hiding behind the complexities of our financial system, banks and other institutions are being accused of fraud and deception, with Goldman Sachs just the latest in the spotlight. This has become the most pressing election issue of all

The Observer, Sunday 18 April 2010

The global financial crisis, it is now clear, was caused not just by the bankers' colossal mismanagement. No, it was due also to the new financial complexity offering up the opportunity for widespread, systemic fraud. Friday's announcement that the world's most famous investment bank, Goldman Sachs, is to face civil charges for fraud brought by the American regulator is but the latest of a series of investigations that have been launched, arrests made and charges made against financial institutions around the world. Big Finance in the 21st century turns out to have been Big Fraud. Yet Britain, centre of the world financial system, has not yet levelled charges against any bank; all that we've seen is the allegation of a high-level insider dealing ring which, embarrassingly, involves a banker advising the government. We have to live with the fiction that our banks and bankers are whiter than white, and any attempt to investigate them and their institutions will lead to a mass exodus to the mountains of Switzerland. The politicians of the Labour and Tory party alike are Bambis amid the wolves.

Just consider the roll call beyond Goldman Sachs. In Ireland Sean FitzPatrick, the ex-chair of the Anglo Irish bank – a bank which looks after the Post Office's financial services – was arrested last month and questioned over alleged fraud. In Iceland last week a dossier assembled by its parliament on the Icelandic banks – huge lenders in Britain – was handed to its public prosecution service. A court-appointed examiner found that collapsed investment bank Lehman knowingly manipulated its balance sheet to make it look stronger than it was – accounts originally audited by the British firm Ernst and Young and given the legal green light by the British firm Linklaters. In Switzerland UBS has been defending itself from the US's Inland Revenue Service for allegedly running 17,000 offshore accounts to evade tax. Be sure there are more revelations to come – except in saintly Britain.

Beneath the complexity, the charges are all rooted in the same phenomenon – deception. Somebody, somewhere, was knowingly fooled by banks and bankers – sometimes governments over tax, sometimes regulators and investors over the probity of balance sheets and profits and sometimes, as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) says in Goldman's case, by creating a scheme to enrich one favoured investor at the expense of others – including, via RBS, the British taxpayer. Along the way there is a long list of so-called "entrepreneurs" and "innovators" who were offered loans that should never have been made. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman's CEO, remarked only semi-ironically that his bank was doing God's work. He must wake up every day bitterly regretting the words ever emerged from his mouth.

For the Goldmans case is in some ways the most damaging. The Icelandic banks, Anglo Irish bank and Lehman were all involved in opaque deals and rank bad lending decisions – but Goldman allegedly went one step further, according to the SEC actively creating a financial instrument that transferred wealth to one favoured client from others less favoured. If the Securities and Exchange Commission's case is proved – and it is aggressively rebutted by Goldman – the charge is that Goldman's vice-president Fabrice Tourre created a dud financial instrument packed with valueless sub- prime mortgages at the instruction of hedge fund client Paulson, sold it to investors knowing it was valueless, and then allowed Paulson to profit from the dud financial instrument. Goldman says the buyers were "among the most sophisticated mortgage investors" in the world. But this is a used car salesman flogging a broken car he's got from some wide-boy pal to some driver who can't get access to the log-book. Except it was lionised as financial innovation.

The investors who bought the collateralised debt obligation (CDO) were not complete innocents. They had asked for the bond to be validated by an independent expert into residential mortgage-backed securities – a company called ACA management. ACA gave the bond the thumbs-up on the understanding from Fabrice Tourre that the hedge fund Paulson were investing in it. But the SEC says Tourre misled them, a pivotal claim that Goldman denies. The reality was that Paulson was frantically buying credit default swaps in the CDO that would go up in price the more valueless it became – a trade that would make more than $1 billion. Worse, Paulson had identified some of the dud sub-prime mortgages that he wanted Tourre to put into the CDO. If the SEC case is true, this was a scam – nothing more, nothing less.

Tourre could see what was coming. In one email in January 2007 he wrote: "More and more leverage in the system. The whole building is about to collapse anytime now… only potential survivor, the fabulous Fab[rice Tourre] .. standing in the middle of all these complex highly leveraged exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstrosities". Fabulous Fab, like his boss, will not be feeling very fab today.

The cases not only have a lot in common – using financial complexity allegedly to deceive and then using so-called independent experts to validate the deception (lawyers, accountants, credit rating agencies, "portfolio selection agents," etc etc ) – but they also show how interconnected the financial system is. In Iceland Citigroup and Deutsche Bank covered the margin calls of distressed Icelandic business borrowers, deepening the crisis. Lehman uses the lightly regulated London markets and two independent British experts to validate that their "Repo 105s" were "genuine" trades and not their own in-house liability. The American authorities pursued a Swiss bank over aiding and abetting US nationals to evade tax.

Bankers will complain these cases all involve one or two misguided individuals, but that most banking is above board and was just the victim of irrational exuberance, misguided belief in free market economics and faulty risk management techniques. Obviously that is true – but, sadly, there is much more to the crisis. Andrew Haldane, executive director of the Bank of England, highlights the remarkable reduction in the risk weighting of bank assets between 1997 and 2007. Put simply, Europe's and the US's large banks exploited the weak international agreement on bank capital requirements in the so-called Basel agreement in 2004 to reclassify the risk of their loans and trading instruments. They did not just reduce the risk by 5 or 10%. Breathtakingly, they claimed their new risk management techniques were so wonderful that the riskiness of their assets was up to half of what it had been – despite property and share prices cresting to new all-time highs.

Brutally, the banks knowingly gamed the system to grow their balance sheets ever faster and with even less capital underpinning them in the full knowledge that everything rested on the bogus claim that their lending was now much less risky. That was not all they were doing. As Michael Lewis describes in The Big Short, credit default swaps had been deliberately created as an asset class by the big investment banks to allow hedge funds to speculate against collateralised debt obligations. The banks were gaming the regulators and investors alike – and they knew full well what they were doing. Simon Johnson's 13 Bankers shows how the major American banks deployed vast political lobbying power and money to create the relaxed regulatory environment in which all this could take place. In Britain no money changed hands. Gordon Brown offered light-touch regulation for free – egged on by the Tories, who wanted to go further.

This was the context in which Goldman's Fabulous Fab created the disputed CDOs, Sean FitzPatrick allegedly moved loans between banks and Lehman created its Repo 105s along with the entire "debt mule" structure revealed this weekend of inter-related companies to shuffle debt around its empire. London and New York had become the centre of an international financial system in which the purpose of banking became making money from money – and where the complexity of the "innovations" allowed extensive fraud and deception.

Now it has all collapsed, to be bailed out by western taxpayers. The banks are resisting reform – and want to cling on to the business practices and business model that has so appallingly failed. It is obvious why: it makes them very rich. The politicians tread carefully, only proposing what the bankers say is congruent with their definition of what banking should be. Labour and Tories alike are united in opposing improved EU regulation of hedge funds, buying the propaganda those operations had nothing to do with the crisis. Perhaps Paulson's trades at Goldman, and the hedge funds' appetite for speculating in credit default swaps, may disabuse them.

It is time to reframe the question. Banks and financial institutions should do what economy and society want them to do – support enterprise, direct credit to where it is needed and be part of the system that generates investment and innovation. Andrew Haldane – and the governor of the Bank of England – are right. We need to break up our banks, limit their capacity to speculate and bring them back to earth. Britain should also launch an official investigation into what went wrong – and hand the findings to the Serious Fraud Office. This needs to become this election campaign's number one issue – not one which either a compromised Labour party or a temporising Conservative party will relish. The Lib Dems, the fiercest critics of the banks, have begun to get very lucky.

Crisis timetable

September 2007 Funding problems at Northern Rock triggers the first run on a British bank. It is nationalised in February 2008.

April 2008 Bear Stern faces bankruptcy after a run on the company wipes out cash reserves in less than two days. Backed by the Federal Reserve, JPMorgan buys up shares at far below market value.

September 2008 Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy protection, becoming the first major bank to collapse since the start of the credit crisis.

December 2008 Bernard Madoff arrested for operating the largest Ponzi scheme in history.

January 2009 The Bank of England launches £200bn quantitative easing.

March 2010 Former chairman of Anglo Irish bank Sean Fitzpatrick is arrested in Dublin after failing to disclose details of loans worth millions from the bank.

April 2010 Northern Rock former directors, David Baker and Richard Barclay, are fined £504,000 and £140,000 for deliberately misleading analysts prior to nationalisation.

April 2010 The US Securities and Exchange Commission accuses Goldman Sachs of "defrauding investors by misstating and omitting key facts".
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby beeline » Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:39 am

JR wrote:No chance of being organized - I'll just start dumping stuff I've read that was interesting.


Well, there goes me getting any work done today. Thanks JR.
User avatar
beeline
 
Posts: 2024
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 4:10 pm
Location: Killadelphia, PA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Apr 19, 2010 12:44 pm

MAGNETAR

was among the operators that - after the housing bubble slowed down already in 2005 - pulled the same scam as Paulson and Goldman Sachs, on an equally grand scale, of pumping it further so as to bet against it.

The Apr. 9 episode of "This American Life" (the one show on NPR with authentic reporting) had a spectacular piece on it.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-a ... inside-job

405:
Inside Job
Originally aired 04.09.2010
For seven months a team of investigative journalists from ProPublica looked into a story for us, the inside story of one company that made hundreds of millions of dollars for itself while worsening the financial crisis for the rest of us. It includes our original Broadway song "Bet Against the American Dream": MP3; video; sheet music.
30 Second Promo
Stream Episode
Buy CD
Share


Prologue.
Ira talks about a friend who for years had a very trusted business partner and bookkeeper, until one day when he ran away with all of her money. (1 1/2 minutes)

Act One. Eat My Shorts.

A hedge fund named Magnetar comes up with an elaborate plan to make money. It sponsors the creation of complicated and ultimately toxic financial securities... while at the same time betting against the very securities it helped create. Planet Money's Alex Blumberg teams up with two investigative reporters from ProPublica, Jake Bernstein and Jesse Eisinger, to tell the story. Jake and Jesse pored through thousands of pages of documents and interviewed dozens of Wall Street Insiders. We bring you the result: a tale of intrigue and questionable behavior, which parallels quite closely the plot of a Mel Brooks musical.

If you have any questions after hearing this story, you can email the ProPublica team for an answer. (40 minutes)

We commissioned a Broadway song to go along with this story, which you can listen to here. (Click to stream; right click or control click to download.)

You can also download the sheet music.

And here is a video of the recording session for the song:


Music and Lyrics: Robert Lopez
Vocalists: John Treacy Eagan and Christian Borle
Music Supervisor/Producer: Stephen Oremus
Orchestrator: Bruce Coughlin
Piano: Mark Hummel. Keyboard: Randy Cohen. Bass: Dave Phillips. Drums: Sean McDaniel. Sax/Flute: Dave Mann. Sax/Clarinet: Charles Pillow. Sax/Clarinet: Dave Riekenberg. Trumpet: Tony Kadleck. Trumpet: Bud Burridge. Trombone: Randy Andos

Studio Engineer: John Kilgore. Music Contractor: Michael Keller. Copyist: Karl Mansfield


YOU MUST CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK AND READ THE ARTICLE WITH THE PICTURES AND CITES -

Support these people!

http://www.propublica.org/feature/all-t ... ing-bubble

(Reproduced here as fair-use for non-commercial archival educational discussion purposes only.)

The Magnetar Trade: How One Hedge Fund Helped Keep the Bubble Going

Business

by Jesse Eisinger and Jake Bernstein, ProPublica - April 9, 2010 1:00 pm EDT

A hedge fund, Magnetar, helped create arcane mortgage-based instruments, pushed for risky things to go inside them and then bet against the investments. (Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

In late 2005, the booming U.S. housing market seemed to be slowing. The Federal Reserve had begun raising interest rates. Subprime mortgage company shares were falling. Investors began to balk at buying complex mortgage securities. The housing bubble, which had propelled a historic growth in home prices, seemed poised to deflate. And if it had, the great financial crisis of 2008, which produced the Great Recession of 2008-09, might have come sooner and been less severe.

At just that moment, a few savvy financial engineers at a suburban Chicago hedge fund helped revive the Wall Street money machine, spawning billions of dollars of securities ultimately backed by home mortgages.

Get ProPublica's Top Stories and Major Investigations Delivered to Your Inbox


When the crash came, nearly all of these securities became worthless, a loss of an estimated $40 billion paid by investors, the investment banks who helped bring them into the world, and, eventually, American taxpayers.

Yet the hedge fund, named Magnetar for the super-magnetic field created by the last moments of a dying star, earned outsized returns in the year the financial crisis began.

How Magnetar pulled this off is one of the untold stories of the meltdown. Only a small group of Wall Street insiders was privy to what became known as the Magnetar Trade. Nearly all of those approached by ProPublica declined to talk on the record, fearing their careers would be hurt if they spoke publicly. But interviews with participants, e-mails, thousands of pages of documents and details about the securities that until now have not been publicly disclosed shed light on an arcane, secretive corner of Wall Street.

According to bankers and others involved, the Magnetar Trade worked this way: The hedge fund bought the riskiest portion of a kind of securities known as collateralized debt obligations -- CDOs. If housing prices kept rising, this would provide a solid return for many years. But that's not what hedge funds are after. They want outsized gains, the sooner the better, and Magnetar set itself up for a huge win: It placed bets that portions of its own deals would fail.

Along the way, it did something to enhance the chances of that happening, according to several people with direct knowledge of the deals. They say Magnetar pressed to include riskier assets in their CDOs that would make the investments more vulnerable to failure. The hedge fund acknowledges it bet against its own deals but says the majority of its short positions, as they are known on Wall Street, involved similar CDOs that it did not own. Magnetar says it never selected the assets that went into its CDOs.

Magnetar says it was "market neutral," meaning it would make money whether housing rose or fell. (Read their full statement.) Dozens of Wall Street professionals, including many who had direct dealings with Magnetar, are skeptical of that assertion. They understood the Magnetar Trade as a bet against the subprime mortgage securities market. Why else, they ask, would a hedge fund sponsor tens of billions of dollars of new CDOs at a time of rising uncertainty about housing?

Key details of the Magnetar Trade remain shrouded in secrecy and the fund declined to respond to most of our questions. Magnetar invested in 30 CDOs from the spring of 2006 to the summer of 2007, though it declined to name them. ProPublica has identified 26.

An independent analysis commissioned by ProPublica shows that these deals defaulted faster and at a higher rate compared to other similar CDOs. According to the analysis, 96 percent of the Magnetar deals were in default by the end of 2008, compared with 68 percent for comparable CDOs. The study was conducted by PF2 Securities Evaluations, a CDO valuation firm. (Magnetar says defaults don't necessarily indicate the quality of the underlying CDO assets.)

From what we've learned, there was nothing illegal in what Magnetar did; it was playing by the rules in place at the time. And the hedge fund didn't cause the housing bubble or the financial crisis. But the Magnetar Trade does illustrate the perverse incentives and reckless behavior that characterized the last days of the boom.


Magnetar says it invested in 30 CDOs from the spring of 2006 to the summer of 2007. At least nine banks helped the hedge fund hatch these deals, and Merrill Lynch, UBS and Citi all did multiple deals. (From left: Daniel Barry/Getty Images; Jonathan Fickies/Bloomberg News; Seokyong Lee/Bloomberg News)
At least nine banks helped Magnetar hatch deals. Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and UBS all did multiple deals with Magnetar. JPMorgan Chase, often lauded for having avoided the worst of the CDO craze, actually ended up doing one of the riskiest deals with Magnetar, in May 2007, nearly a year after housing prices started to decline. According to marketing material and prospectuses, the banks didn't disclose to CDO investors the role Magnetar played.

Many of the bankers who worked on these deals personally benefited, earning millions in annual bonuses. The banks booked profits at the outset. But those gains were fleeting. As it turned out, the banks that assembled and marketed the Magnetar CDOs had trouble selling them. And when the crash came, they were among the biggest losers.

Some bankers involved in the Magnetar Trade now regret what they did. We showed one of the many people fired as a result of the CDO collapse a list of unusually risky mortgage bonds included in a Magnetar deal he had worked on. The deal was a disaster. He shook his head at being reminded of the details and said: "After looking at this, I deserved to lose my job."

Magnetar wasn't the only market player to come up with clever ways to bet against housing. Many articles and books, including a bestseller by Michael Lewis, have recounted how a few investors saw trouble coming and bet big. Such short bets can be helpful; they can serve as a counterweight to manias and keep bubbles from expanding.

Magnetar's approach had the opposite effect -- by helping create investments it also bet against, the hedge fund was actually fueling the market. Magnetar wasn't alone in that: A few other hedge funds also created CDOs they bet against. And, as the New York Times has reported, Goldman Sachs did too. But Magnetar industrialized the process, creating more and bigger CDOs.

Several journalists have alluded to the Magnetar Trade in recent years, but until now none has assembled a full narrative. Yves Smith, a prominent financial blogger who has reported on aspects of the Magnetar Trade, writes in her new book, "Econned," that "Magnetar went into the business of creating subprime CDOs on an unheard of scale. If the world had been spared their cunning, the insanity of 2006-2007 would have been less extreme and the unwinding milder."

Magnetar Gets Started


Magentar founder Alec Litowitz speaks at a private equity conference held at Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University in February 2007. (Nathan Mandell)
The guiding force behind Magnetar was Alec Litowitz, a triathlete, astronomy buff and rising star in the investing world. In 2003, Litowitz retired from a Chicago-based hedge fund, Citadel, one of the most successful in the world, where he had spent most of his career and became a top executive. He promised to stay out of the business for two years.

As he waited for his non-compete agreement to expire, Litowitz and his wife traveled through Europe collecting antiques to stock a big house they were building on the shores of Lake Michigan.

By spring 2005, Litowitz's wait was over. Then 38 years old, Litowitz quickly raised money to start his own hedge fund. The fund, Magnetar, attracted $1.7 billion from investors and opened in April.

Litowitz, who declined to be interviewed, had an approach to investing that emphasized scale and simplicity. He told those he hired: "Figure out a way to make money and figure out how to repeat it and do it over and over again," according to a former employee. The firm handed out T-shirts emblazoned with a confident slogan: "Very Bright, Very Magnetic." Employees privately joked about working for a fund named after something like a black hole.

Litowitz brought on board David Snyderman. A New Yorker with a serious mien, Snyderman, in his mid-30s, began hunting for investment opportunities in Wall Street's burgeoning market in mortgage-backed securities.

It didn't take them long to find something promising.

Snyderman and Magnetar focused on Wall Street's mortgage assembly line, which had been super-charged during Litowitz's time away from the business. Banks bundled pools of mortgages into large bonds, which they combined to create even larger investments. These were the now-infamous collateralized debt obligations. Each month, homeowners paid their mortgages. Each month, payments flowed to investors. (Here is an excellent video explaining CDOs.)

Large investors across the globe snapped up the CDOs, which took the hottest investment around -- the U.S. housing market -- and transformed it into something that supposedly had little or no risk. Wall Street preached that the risk had been diluted because it was spread out over such large collections of mortgage bonds. (CDOs can also be based on side bets that rise and fall with the value of other mortgage bonds. These are known as "synthetic" CDOs. Magnetar’s deals were largely synthetic.)

Just as they did with mortgage-backed securities, investment banks divided CDOs into different layers, called tranches. As the mortgages were paid, money flowed to investors holding the top tranche. Since they were the first to get paid, and thus took the least amount of risk, they earned low interest rates. Next came the middle levels -- the so-called mezzanine tranches.

Last in line for money were investors in what's known as the equity. In return for being at the bottom, equity investors got the highest returns, sometimes 20 percent interest -- money they would receive only as long as the vast majority of mortgage holders made their payments.

Even back then, Wall Street insiders called the equity "toxic waste," and as anxiety built in late 2005 that the housing boom was over, investment banks struggled to find takers.

To Magnetar, the toxic waste was an opportunity.

At a time when fewer investors were stepping up to buy equity, the little-known hedge fund put out the word that it wanted lots and lots of it. Magnetar concentrated in a particularly risky corner of the CDO world: deals that were made up of the middle, or mezzanine, slice of subprime mortgage-backed bonds. Magnetar CDOs were big, averaging $1.5 billion, about three times the size of earlier deals built on subprime mortgages.

Magnetar's purchases solved a crucial problem for the banks. Since the equity was so risky and thus difficult to sell, banks didn't like to create new CDOs unless someone committed to buy them. Indeed, such buyers were so crucial that Wall Street referred to them as the CDOs' "sponsors."

Without sponsors, Wall Street's mortgage bond assembly line could grind to a halt, and with it bank profits and banker bonuses. A top CDO banker could earn $3 million to $4 million annually on the CDOs he created and sold.

Usually, investment banks had to go out and find buyers of the equity. With Magnetar, the buyer came right to the bank's doorstep. Wall Street was overjoyed.

"It seemed like a miracle," says one mortgage market investment banker, because "no one" had been buying equity.

"By the end of 2005, the general sense was that the CDO market would slow down. These trades continued to fuel the fire," says Bill Tomljanovic, who worked for a firm that helped build a Magnetar CDO. Magnetar was "a driving force in the market."

According to JPMorgan data, Magnetar's deals amounted to somewhere between a third and half the total volume in the particularly risky corner of the subprime market on which the fund focused.

Outsiders thought Magnetar was piling in at exactly the wrong time. A March 2007 Business Week article titled "Who Will Get Shredded?" would later put Magnetar near the top of its list. The hedge fund, said the magazine, "showed bad timing."

How could Magnetar hope to make money on such risky stuff? It had a second bet that was known only to insiders.

At the same time it was investing in the equity, the fund placed bets that many of the same CDOs it had helped create would actually blow up. It did that using one of the most opaque corners of the investment world: credit default swaps, which function as a kind of insurance on CDOs and other types of bonds.

Credit default swaps work roughly like an insurance policy: You pay a small premium regularly, on any bond you want -- whether you own it or not -- and if it goes bust, you get paid off in full.

Nobody but Magnetar knows the full extent of its bets. Hedge funds are private and they don't disclose the details of their trades. Also, credit default swaps are mostly unregulated and not publicly disclosed. Magnetar says it didn't bet only against its own CDOs. The majority of its credit default swaps, says Magnetar, were on other CDOs. (Update April, 9:We have added additional detail from Magnetar’s response in which the hedge fund says it was “net long” on its own CDOs, an assertion on which the fund has declined to elaborate.)

Since it was the sponsor, Magnetar had privileges. Placing the risky equity was so important to banks that they typically gave those who bought it a say in how the deal was structured. Like all investors, equity buyers had to weigh risk and reward, the goal being to maximize returns while minimizing the chances that your investment will blow up.

But people involved in Magnetar's deals say the hedge fund took a different tack, pushing for riskier bonds to go inside its CDOs. Doing that would make it more likely that Magnetar's bets against the CDO would pay off.

The equity bought by Magnetar represented just a tiny fraction of the overall CDO. If it costs, say, $50 million, an entire CDO could be 20 times that, $1 billion. And if the CDO begins to go south and you're smart enough to have taken out enough insurance, you can make hundreds of millions of dollars. That, of course, would take a bit of the sting out of losing your original $50 million investment in the equity.

Magnetar Does Its First Deal

As Magnetar set up its CDO shop, the hedge fund hired Jim Prusko, a smart and affable investor who had worked previously at the Boston money-manager Putnam Investments. He would shoulder much of the work of courting Wall Street bankers and managers who worked with the hedge fund. He operated out of Magnetar's office in midtown Manhattan around the corner from Saks Fifth Avenue. In an office of 20-somethings, Prusko, then 40 years old, stood out as the "old man."

Prusko and his boss at Magnetar, Snyderman, began approaching investment banks, offering to buy the riskiest, highest-yielding portion of CDOs. They always wanted a middleman, known as a CDO manager, on their deals. Many CDOs are operated day to day by such independent firms, who are often brought in by investment banks.

The managers also played a vital role in creating deals. When an investment bank created a CDO, it would often give what amounted to blueprints to the managers, who would then go out and find the exact bundles of bonds to fill the CDO. The managers had a fiduciary duty to represent the CDO fairly to all investors, ensuring investors got accurate and equal information.

Magnetar's deals were numerous and big, and just like for investment banks, the bigger the deal, the larger the fee for managers.

"Prusko's job was to butter up the CDO managers and the bankers," said one banker who dealt with him.

By relying on a manager rather than managing the deal itself, Magnetar had no legal obligations to the CDO or others who bought it.


A guard stands outside the New York headquarters of Deutsche Bank in Lower Manhattan on April 8, 2010. An internal investment fund within Deutsche Bank bought the risky equity along with Magnetar in the hedge fund's maiden CDO. (Dan Nguyen/ProPublica)
Magnetar completed its first deal in May 2006. In what became a habit, it named the CDO after a constellation, in this case, "Orion," known for the trio of stars that form the mythological Greek hunter's belt. For its maiden CDO, Magnetar enlisted a partner to buy risky equity alongside it, an internal investment fund within Deutsche Bank.

Deutsche and Magnetar didn't reach for a Wall Street powerhouse to put the deal together. Instead the investors worked with Alex Rekeda, a young Ukrainian immigrant who was then working for Calyon, the investment banking arm of the French bank Crédit Agricole.

Magnetar and Deutsche were deeply involved in creating Orion. "We want to make sure we control the deal," a banker who worked on it recalls them emphasizing.

One person involved in Orion recalls Deutsche's point person, Michael Henriques, and Magnetar's Prusko pressuring the CDO manager, a division of the Dutch bank NIBC, to include specific lists of bonds in the deal.

Prusko and Henriques told this person that the investors "needed more spread in the portfolio." More "spread" means more return and more risk.

This person recalled Magnetar asking, "Would you consider these bonds?" Their suggestions were invariably for riskier bonds. "Let's just say we didn't think their suggestions made a lot of sense," the person said.

He said the CDO manager refused Magnetar's requests to put riskier bonds in the deal. Still, it was an eye-opening experience. "I began to realize there were things you had to defend yourself against," he said.

Magnetar and Deutsche declined to comment on Orion specifically. Magnetar says it made suggestions about the general outlines of the CDOs. But, the hedge fund says, it "did not select the underlying assets of the CDO at any time prior to or subsequent to transaction issuance."

Other buyers of the CDO could have figured out they were getting relatively risky bonds, but they would have had to look hard at the minutiae of the deal. By this point in market history, the ratings had less and less meaning. Two sets of bonds rated AA could have very different levels of risk. Most investors chose not to dig too deeply.

One investor in Orion was a fund affiliated with IKB, a small German bank. Eventually, it invested in at least four more Magnetar deals. In mid-2007, because of the disastrous investments in subprime securities, the German government was forced to bail out IKB. The failure of the bank was an early warning sign of the global financial crisis.

Deutsche's Henriques would later quit the bank and join Magnetar.

Orion lost value but never defaulted. That was better than every subsequent CDO that Magnetar helped create, according to ProPublica's research.

Magnetar's (Nearly) Perpetual Money Machine

By buying the risky bottom slices of CDOs, Magnetar didn't just help create more CDOs it could bet against. Since it owned a small slice of the CDO, Magnetar also received regular payments as its investments threw off income.

With this, Magnetar solved a conundrum of those who bet against the market. An investor might be confident that things are heading south, but not know when. While the investor waits, it costs money to keep the bet going. Many a short seller has run out of cash at the gates of a big payday.

Magnetar could keep money flowing -- via its small investments in CDOs -- and could use that money to pay for its bets against CDOs.

Similar, commonly traded, assets appeared in multiple Magnetar CDOs. Experts say the benefit of that overlap to Magnetar was that when the hedge fund bet against non-Magnetar CDOs, the CDOs still had similar characteristics to the ones Magnetar had invested in.

Soon enough, bankers and CDO managers had a sense of how it worked. "Everyone knew," said one person who managed Magnetar CDOs. "They used the equity to fund the shorts."

Magnetar further increased its odds by insisting that the CDOs it helped create had an unusual construction. Typically, cash flowing to the last-in-line equity buyers is cut off at the first signs of trouble -- such as a rise in mortgage delinquencies. Those at the top of the CDO -- who accepted lower returns for less risk -- received that cash, leaving none for the high-risk holders.

Magnetar wanted its deals to be "triggerless," meaning lacking these cash-flow dams. When the market turned shaky and homeowners began to default, money kept flowing down to the risky slices that Magnetar owned.

Even today, bankers and managers speak with awe at the elegance of the Magnetar Trade. Others have become famous for betting big against the housing market. But they had taken enormous risks. Meanwhile, Magnetar had created a largely self-funding bet against the market.

E-mails Give Glimpse of How Magnetar Worked


On Sept. 29, 2006, Magnetar's CDO specialist Jim Prusko wrote to bankers at Societe Generale and Ischus executives that he thought the CDO's portfolio had a 'strangely low spread target.'
By the fall of 2006, housing prices had already peaked and Magnetar's assembly line started producing, helping to create CDOs it would bet against. The hedge fund's appetite seemed insatiable. The deals were the talk of CDO desks across Wall Street.

Between the end of September and the middle of December 2006, Magnetar had a hand in spawning at least 15 CDOs, worth an estimated $23 billion. Among the banks involved with those deals were Citigroup, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch.

E-mails obtained by ProPublica from that time suggest Magnetar's clout. The firm was involved at the start of deals and pushed for riskier bonds to be included.

After Magnetar expressed interest in buying the equity, the French bank Société Générale began to build the CDO, and selected a New York-based manager, Ischus Capital Management, which would choose the exact bonds to go into the CDO.

Magnetar wanted to name the CDO after a small constellation in the southern sky called Hydrus, which means "male water snake." But by late September, Magnetar and Ischus began sparring over the composition of the deal.

Magnetar pressed Ischus to buy lower-quality assets for the deal, according to three people familiar with Hydrus. In an e-mail to bankers at Société Générale and Ischus executives, Magnetar's CDO specialist, Jim Prusko, wrote on Sept. 29, 2006, "The original portfolio target spreadsheet that I have... had a strangely low spread target. That of course would not at all be beneficial to us. I have attached the target portfolio that I would like for this deal with target spreads."

The portfolio Magnetar outlined didn't list specific bonds, but executives at the CDO manager Ischus felt that they understood what Prusko wanted. A request for higher-spreading assets means more risk in the deal.

Andrew Shook, an Ischus executive, answered forcefully on Oct. 3, "We will not assemble a portfolio we are not proud of and feel strongly about in the name of a spread target."

Prusko dialed down the pressure, responding within an hour. "Of course, the actual security selection is totally your purview," he wrote. "I just wanted to make sure the overall portfolio characteristics worked for our strategy."

Shook declined to comment on the e-mail exchange. Magnetar says that the deal as originally conceived wouldn't have been profitable and that it was merely trying to get a higher return -- a higher "spread" -- to balance out the risk it was taking in owning the bottom-rated slice of the CDO.

The two sides subsequently drifted apart, partly over Ischus's unease with Magnetar's pressure, and the deal was never completed.

Concerns About 'Reputational Risks'


Magnetar partnered with Lehman Brothers on the CDO named after the constellation Libra, which closed in October 2006. A banker who worked on the CDO remembers that 'there was a back-and-forth fight about' assets between Lehman and Magnetar, with the hedge fund pushing for riskier assets. (Chris Hondros/Getty Images)
As part of the big business Magnetar was doing in the fall of 2006, the hedge fund put together a CDO with Lehman Brothers named for the constellation Libra. John Mawe, a banker who worked on Libra, remembers that "there was a back-and-forth fight" about the assets between the bank's CDO manager and Magnetar, with the hedge fund pushing for riskier assets.

Mawe says Lehman's CDO in-house-management arm, which handled the deal, never put assets into Libra that it thought were bad investments.

Among the other banks that Magnetar approached during that time was Deutsche Bank, with whom it had teamed up to do its first deal months earlier. Deutsche Bank was anxious for business in order to maintain its standing as one of the top CDO banks, according to one of its bankers. Deutsche recommended CDO manager State Street Global Advisors.

The State Street managers were "highly skeptical" of doing a deal with Magnetar, according to one participant. "State Street wanted their deals to do well," said the participant, and with Magnetar, there was "a lot of reputational risk to be concerned about."

Hoping to close the deal, Magnetar's master salesman Jim Prusko drove up from his home in the New York suburbs to State Street's headquarters in Boston, to mollify executives in the management team. After the meeting, the deal went forward. As one banker explained, "there were other managers who were dying to do this deal" and get the millions in fees.

After subprime losses, State Street closed the business that managed its CDOs in late 2007. Frank Gianatasio, who worked in State Street's CDO business says, "We were comfortable with every transaction we put into our CDOs."

Deutsche, Magnetar and State Street called the $1.6 billion CDO they created Carina, a constellation whose name in Latin means a ship's keel. In November 2007, Carina had the distinction of being the first subprime CDO of its kind to be forced into liquidation.

State Street and Magnetar declined to comment on their negotiations over Carina.

A Lawsuit Suggests Merrill Lynch's Role


Magnetar teamed up with Merrill Lynch on a $1.5 billion CDO named Norma that closed in March 2007. In a lawsuit filed against Merrill Lynch by the Dutch bank commonly called Rabobank on Wall Street, Rabobank alleges that 'Merrill Lynch teamed up with one of its most prized hedge fund clients....to create Norma as a tailor-made way to bet against the mortgage-backed securities market.' (Mario Tama/Getty Images)
By early 2007, the mortgage market was falling apart. Lenders were reporting big losses, delinquencies were mounting -- and Magnetar's business was booming.

Between late February and April, banks rolled out five Magnetar-sponsored deals, with a value of about $7.2 billion. Among them was a $1.5 billion CDO named Norma. Following Magnetar's branding convention, Norma is a constellation in the Southern Hemisphere named for the Latin word for "normal." This CDO was anything but.

Details about Norma, which was created by Merrill Lynch, have emerged through an ongoing lawsuit between Merrill and Dutch bank Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, known commonly on Wall Street as Rabobank. (The Wall Street Journal had the first detailed report of Norma, in late 2007.) The dispute involves a side transaction that Rabobank made with Merrill involving Norma. Magnetar is not a party to the litigation. Yet the allegations are scathing in their depiction of how the CDO was developed.

"Merrill Lynch teamed up with one of its most prized hedge fund clients -- an infamous short seller that had helped Merrill Lynch create four other CDOs -- to create Norma as a tailor-made way to bet against the mortgage-backed securities market," the complaint reads. (Emphasis in the original.)

"[T]o facilitate the selection of assets that would allow Norma to operate as a hedging instrument rather than an investment vehicle, Merrill Lynch hand-picked a beholden collateral manager that was willing to ignore its fiduciary duties to Norma's investors."

The manager for Norma was a small shop out of Long Island, N.Y., called NIR Capital Management. Run by Corey Ribotsky, the firm's primary line of business before entering CDOs was speculating in penny stocks.

NIR brought in a team of experienced bankers to run its CDO business. The firm also had a variety of other ventures. At one point, they put money into a documentary called "American Cannibal," that profiled the aborted launch of a reality television show in which contestant were stranded on an island and goaded into cannibalism. (The New York Times found it "absorbing.") Ribotsky is now under investigation by federal authorities for misleading clients about its investment returns. NIR and Merrill Lynch declined to comment on dealings with Magnetar; Merrill Lynch denies liability in the litigation. Magnetar declined to comment.

Norma began to suffer setbacks even before the deal closed in March 2007. According to the lawsuit, by the time Norma was completed, its value had already declined by more than 20 percent.

JPMorgan Gets Into the Game -- And Loses


A pedestrian passes the JP Morgan Chase building in midtown Manhattan on Jan. 16, 2008, by which time its CDO with Magnetar called Squared had dropped to a fraction of its initial value. (Chris Hondros/Getty Images)
Despite the bad news in the mortgage market, Magnetar continued to find a few willing bankers to do CDOs, including a new one: JPMorgan Chase.

JPMorgan had avoided many of the complex financial transactions that decimated the banking industry. As the market grew frothier, JPMorgan pulled back from the CDO business. In 2005, the men who ran JPMorgan's CDO unit told their bosses that they couldn't see how to complete a CDO without sticking the bank with the large top tier, which would not appeal to investors because of its low returns. Other banks dealt with this problem by retaining these CDO layers on their books.

But by mid-2006, JPMorgan joined the herd. It hired bankers to expand its CDO team and got to work.

A few months later -- in early 2007 -- Magnetar and JPMorgan banged out a deal. Unlike the earlier CDOs it helped create, Magnetar didn't name this one after a constellation. Opting for a more literal name, they called the deal "Squared," after the term for a CDO that was made up of other CDOs. Squared was filled in part with other CDOs Magnetar had helped create.

According to a person familiar with how the deal came together, Magnetar committed to purchase $10 million worth of Squared's equity. Magnetar's purchase allowed JPMorgan to create and sell a $1.1 billion CDO. As it had on previous deals, Magnetar pushed the bankers to select riskier bonds. "They really cared about it," said the person involved in the deal. "They wouldn't pull punches. It was always going to be crappier."

The hedge fund requested that Squared have slices from many Magnetar CDOs, including Auriga, Carina, Libra, Pyxis and Virgo. They all went into the deal. Magnetar also successfully pushed for Squared to include slices from one of the Abacus deals, a group of CDOs that, as the New York Times later reported, Goldman Sachs had created and bet against.

JPMorgan earned $20 million in creating Squared, according to the person involved in the deal.

JPMorgan's sales force fanned out across the globe. It sold parts of the CDO to 17 institutional investors, according to a person familiar with the transaction. The deal closed in May 2007, nearly a year after housing prices had peaked. Within eight months, Squared dropped to a fraction of its initial value.

Just about everybody lost out, including Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, a Minnesota-based not-for-profit fraternal organization, whose $10 million investment was wiped out. Thrivent declined to comment.

Small pieces of Squared, as well as Magnetar's CDO Norma, also ended up in mutual funds run by Morgan Keegan, a regional investment bank based in Memphis, Tenn.

The funds, advertised as conservative investments, cratered after betting on various exotic assets. Morgan Keegan was sued by individual investors who claimed that they were misled about the risks. Among the investors was former Chicago Bulls player Horace Grant, who was awarded $1.4 million in arbitration. This week, the SEC accused two Morgan Keegan employees of misleading fund investors about the value of its holdings in CDOs. Morgan Keegan called the charges "factually inaccurate" and promised to defend itself "vigorously." Morgan Keegan did not respond to a request for comment on the specifics of the two Magnetar CDOs.

The biggest loser was JPMorgan Chase itself, which had kept the large, supposedly safe top slices of Squared on its books, without hedging itself. The bank lost about $880 million on the CDO. JPMorgan declined to comment on the details of the transaction.

Magnetar came out a winner. The fund earned about $290 million on its bet against Squared, according to a person familiar with the deal. Magnetar declined to comment.

Magnetar's Exit: A Deal so Bad Even a Credit-rating Agency Balked


Led by Alex Rekeda, who had worked on previous Magnetar deals, one of Japan's biggest banks Mizuho teamed up with the hedge fund on Tigris, a CDO squared which tied together $902 million of Magnetar's risky assets. (Andy Rain/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Prusko was buoyant as Magnetar's trades began to make money as its short bets rose in value. One friend recalls Prusko ribbing him: "What are you going to do after this blows up?" (Magnetar declined to comment on the exchange.)

In the spring of 2007, Magnetar began to have a problem: The hedge fund was sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of CDO equity and other low-rated portions of its deals. With the decline of housing prices accelerating, off-loading these pieces would be very hard.

Magnetar needed a buyer and some deft financial engineering. It found the answer through its former partner, Alex Rekeda, who had been the banker on Magnetar's first CDO. Rekeda now worked at Mizuho, one of Japan's biggest banks. Mizuho was eager to get into the CDO world. It hired Rekeda in part because he could bring Magnetar's business, according to one CDO manager who worked with him.

Rekeda and Magnetar came up with a remarkable CDO. They took their risky portions of 18 CDOs they had helped created -- and repackaged them to sell them to others. Bundling up the dregs of a CDO was rare, if not unprecedented.

This deal, Tigris, which closed in March 2007, tied together $902 million of Magnetar's risky assets. Rekeda convinced two rating agencies, Standard & Poor's and Fitch, to rate it. Fitch designated $259 million of it as triple A, the highest rating. S&P rated nearly $501 million as triple A. (When contacted for this article, S&P said it was comfortable rating Tigris; Fitch didn't respond to questions about the deal.)

In a highly unusual move, the third major rating agency, Moody's, refused to rate Tigris. Rekeda lobbied Moody's for a rating, according to a person familiar with the deal. But Moody's then-head of CDOs, Eric Kolchinsky, wouldn't budge.

Magnetar got $450 million from Mizuho, which in return received income from assets in Tigris, according to several people familiar with the transaction. It was what's known as a non-recourse loan: If things went wrong, Mizuho could only lay claim to what was in Tigris.

In response to ProPublica's questions about this deal, Magnetar said the fund "as a matter of general practice, and as do most hedge funds, enters into non-recourse financing on specific assets in its portfolio."

By September, just six months after Tigris had been created, Fitch downgraded most of the CDO's slices. By the end of January 2008, the CDO had gone into default. The Japanese ended up with the paper, which was worthless. Mizuho eventually wrote Tigris off, as part of about $7 billion in total losses from its subprime missteps. Mizuho declined to comment, as did Magnetar.

Just as with a refi gone bad, when Tigris was wiped out, the hedge fund walked away from the house -- in this case its collateral. A person who worked on Tigris boasted about how innovative the deal was. If it hadn't blown up, he says, it would have been "deal of the year." For Magnetar, it may have been.

Records it shared with investors show Magnetar had a spectacular 2007. Founder Alec Litowitz pulled down $280 million, according to Alpha Magazine. That spring, a trade journal awarded Prusko and Snyderman "Investor of the Year" honors. The Magnetar Constellation Fund, the firm's fund that had the most exposure to the CDO trades, was up 76 percent in 2007, according to a presentation Magnetar gave to investors in early 2009. The main fund, the Magnetar Capital Fund, was up 26 percent that year. By the end of 2007, Magnetar had $7.6 billion under management, up from the $1.7 billion it began with two years earlier. Magnetar declined to comment on its performance.

ProPublica has learned that the SEC has been looking into how the Magnetar deals were created, but it's not clear how much progress the investigation has been made or who might be the target. In a statement yesterday, Magnetar said:

Our understanding is that for some time, the SEC staff has been looking broadly at the sales, marketing, and structuring of CDOs. In connection with that inquiry, the SEC staff has from time to time requested information from Magnetar and other market participants, and Magnetar has been cooperating and responding to the requests. We are not aware that this inquiry is focused on any particular person or firm.

ProPublica Research Director Lisa Schwartz and researcher Kitty Bennett contributed to this story. ProPublica’s Ryan Knutson also helped with research. Finally, a big thanks to This American Life’s Alex Blumberg.

Write to Jesse Eisinger at Jesse.Eisinger@propublica.org.

Write to Jake Bernstein at Jake.Bernstein@propublica.org.

Want to know more? Follow ProPublica on Facebook and Twitter, and get ProPublica headlines delivered by e-mail every day.

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:32 pm

Too Big to Prosecute? Goldman Sachs Must Die!

A pile-on is developing and though none of these states' hands are clean, and though the system won't change through this alone, and though the simple justice of a liquidation of Wall Street and the indictment of all of the major banking executives still seems remote, it's still a step forward and, of course, a pleasure to watch. An EU investigation of the Greek bonds scam, a UK investigation, and following the trail to the ratings agencies and the AIG-to-Sachs money-pipeline are all in the mix.

First off, you can rely on them not to help themselves in the PR department - they're too busy helping themselves to the furniture.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... ay-bonuses

Goldman Sachs finds $5bn for pay and bonuses amid fraud investigation


Goldman staff will benefit from almost half the investment bank's first-quarter revenues

Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, is expected to put $5bn in the compensation pool for the bank's staff. Photograph: Ramin Ralaie/EPA


Goldman Sachs is expected to earmark about $5bn (£3bn) for staff pay and bonuses this week, days after being accused of securities fraud by the US regulators, fuelling the controversy over bankers' rewards in the teeth of the financial crisis.

Chief executive Lloyd Blankfein is expected to unveil revenues of $11bn for the first quarter of this year on Tuesday, up from $9.4bn in the same period of 2009. About 47% of that will go into a "compensation pool" for bosses and employees.

The bank, along with Fabrice Tourre, one of its vice presidents, is the subject of a civil fraud complaint by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It denies the accusations and is understood to believe they are the result of a politically motivated witch-hunt – timed to coincide with a drive by President Obama to get tough on banks, and to come just ahead of its results.

The bank has been aware of the SEC's investigation for two years but had not spoken to investigators since September 2009 and is thought to have been taken by surprise by last week's events. Tourre has been interviewed by Goldman's internal compliance department but is still employed by the bank and has not been suspended.

Speculation over Blankfein's future is seen by insiders as "silly". However, the episode is likely to have incurred the ire of US investor Warren Buffett, who lost more than $1bn on paper in 24 hours on warrants held by his Berkshire Hathaway investment fund as Goldman shares plunged. Buffett endorsed the bank by loaning it $5bn at the height of the crisis at 10% interest. He is an outspoken critic of Wall Street sharp practice and excessive pay. Senior Goldman executives have held talks with major investors, thought to include Buffett, over the SEC accusation.

Blankfein is also anticipating tough questioning later this month on Capitol Hill. Along with other financiers he is expected to testify before the Senate's permanent subcommittee on investigations. The panel's head, Democratic senator Carl Levin, said it had discovered levels of greed that were "frankly disgusting".

Goldman made record profits of $13.4bn last year, after net revenues more than doubled to $45.2bn, racking up at least $100m in net trading revenues every other working day. This came after the demise of several rivals and despite the bank coming close to disaster itself when the crisis was at its height. It took $10bn of US government money, which it has since repaid.

Amid widespread popular anger against the banks, Goldman last year shrank its bonus pool to 36% of revenues rather than the usual 50%. Despite reining in, however, it still paid out a total of $16.2bn. Blankfein was awarded a $9m bonus in shares in 2009, down from the $68m he received in cash, shares and options in 2007.

Due to accounting rules, Goldman sets aside a higher proportion of revenues for staff rewards at the start of the year. The rate at which they are accruing for 2010 overall is likely to drop in subsequent quarters, to end up at about the same as in 2009.




Top Leaders at Goldman Had a Role in Mortgage Unit

April 18, 2010
By LOUISE STORY


(Love her name, by the way. It's a KWH on all future stories.)

Tensions were rising inside Goldman Sachs.

It was late 2006, and an argument had broken out inside the Wall Street bank’s prized mortgage unit — a dispute that would reach all the way up to the executive suite.

One camp of traders was insisting that the American housing market was safe. Another thought it was poised for collapse.

Among those who saw disaster looming were an effusive young Frenchman, Fabrice P. Tourre, and his quiet colleague, Jonathan M. Egol, the mastermind behind a series of mortgage deals known as the Abacus investments.

Their elite mortgage unit is now at the center of allegations that Goldman and Mr. Tourre, 31, defrauded investors with one of those complex deals.

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil fraud suit on Friday that essentially says that Goldman built the financial equivalent of a time bomb and then sold it to unwitting investors. Mr. Egol, 40, was not named in the S.E.C.’s suit.

Goldman has vowed to fight the S.E.C. But the allegations have left many on Wall Street wondering how far the investigation might spread inside Goldman and perhaps beyond.

Pressure on Goldman mounted on Sunday as two members of Congress and Gordon Brown, Britain’s prime minister, called for investigations into the bank’s role in the mortgage market. Germany also said it was considering legal action against the bank.

Mr. Tourre was the only person named in the S.E.C. suit. But according to interviews with eight former Goldman employees, senior bank executives played a pivotal role in overseeing the mortgage unit just as the housing market began to go south. These people spoke on the condition that they not be named so as not to jeopardize business relationships or to anger executives at Goldman, viewed as the most powerful bank on Wall Street.



(SHIP SINKING! GO RATS, GO!!!)


According to these people, executives up to and including Lloyd C. Blankfein, the chairman and chief executive, took an active role in overseeing the mortgage unit as the tremors in the housing market began to reverberate through the nation’s economy. It was Goldman’s top leadership, these people say, that finally ended the dispute on the mortgage desk by siding with those who, like Mr. Tourre and Mr. Egol, believed home prices would decline.



(OMG, I thought no one could have foreseen the action of gravity on pop-rockets. Other than 6,000 economists and analysts who don't count, because they're not selling pop-rockets. Hudson had the front cover of Harper's on "The Coming Real Estate Collapse" in May 2006, laying out the numbers in easy pictograms in the article, but NO ONE reads Harper's, erm, I mean, COULD HAVE IMAGINED. - Anyone know what the code is for strike-through, by the way?)


Lucas van Praag, a Goldman spokesman, said that senior executives were not involved in approving the Abacus deals. He said that the executives had sought to balance Goldman’s positive bets on the mortgage market, rather than take an overall negative view.

Mr. Tourre, who now works for Goldman in London, declined to comment, as did Mr. Egol, Mr. van Praag said.

Mortgage specialists like those at Goldman were, in a sense, the mad scientists of the subprime era. They devised investments by bundling together bonds backed by home loans, a process that enabled mortgage lenders to make even more loans.

While this sort of financing helped make loans available, the most exotic creations also spread the growing risks inside the American housing market throughout the financial world. When the boom went bust, the results were disastrous.

By early 2007, Goldman’s mortgage unit had become a hive of intense activity. By then, the business had captured the attention of senior management. In addition to Mr. Blankfein, Gary D. Cohn, Goldman’s president, and David A. Viniar, the chief financial officer, visited the mortgage unit frequently, often for hours at a time.

Such high-level involvement was unusual elsewhere on Wall Street, where many executives spent little time learning the workings of their mortgage businesses or how those businesses might endanger their companies.


(A generalization to protect "many executives"? Regardless, if "investment consultants" were flogging bonds at that point and getting AAAs, it was either fraud or negligence.)

The decision to get rid of positive bets on mortgages turned out to be prescient. Unlike most other Wall Street banks, Goldman profited from its mortgage business as the housing bubble was inflating and then again when the bubble burst.


(Again, apparently you count as smart ("prescient"!) only if you deal in billions. Me, you, Hudson: doomsayers then, doomsayers now!)

At the heart of all of this is the mortgage trading unit that, at its peak, employed several hundred people. As recently as 2007, Goldman’s mortgage division was split into 11 subgroups, each with a specialty, according to an internal Goldman document that was provided to The New York Times by a former employee.



And if they don't get nailed personally, what the fuck will they care what happens to the world, or Goldman Sachs for that matter, once they've cashed in their own piece?

Together, these groups stood astride the nation’s real estate market. One group, for instance, handled actual home loans. Another provided mortgage advice. A third syndicated loans among banks. And still another handled commercial real estate.

During the boom, Goldman’s mortgage unit was a leader on Wall Street. In 2006 alone, the bank underwrote $26 billion of collateralized debt obligations, according to Dealogic, a financial data provider. Many C.D.O.’s have since turned out to be bad investments.

But in 2006, some inside Goldman began to worry about the fragile state of housing. Daniel L. Sparks, the Texan who ran the mortgage unit, sided with those who believed the market was safe. Two of his traders, Joshua S. Birnbaum and Michael J. Swenson, had placed a big bet that mortgage bonds would rise in value.


Astonishing. Astonishing. I don't know them, but I respect anyone who can master feats on the level of touching your nose or thumbing a remote control not to really be this stupid.

But this camp clashed with Goldman sales staff who were working with hedge funds that wanted to bet against subprime mortgages. Mr. Birnbaum told the team to stop promoting bets against some mortgage investments since such trades were hurting the market and Goldman’s own position, according to two former Goldman employees.

But a few desks away, Mr. Tourre and Mr. Egol were quietly working on the Abacus deals.

They were, former colleagues say, something of an odd couple. A slight man with a flair for salesmanship, Mr. Tourre joined Goldman in 2001, after coming to the United States to study business operations at Stanford. At Goldman, he courted investors like European banks and big hedge funds.

The taller Mr. Egol, a specialist in analytical finance with a quiet but sometimes intimidating demeanor, devised the Abacus investments. He came to Goldman after studying aerospace engineering at Princeton and finance at the Booth School of the University of Chicago.


("Taller" I think is journalistic convention for letting you know that the other one is a shortie.)

Image
The Fabulous Fab

What united them was an unusually negative view on the mortgage market. As far back as 2005, they clashed with Goldman traders who worked with big mortgage lenders like Countrywide to buy and package loans. Their Abacus deals included insurancelike protection that would pay out if certain mortgage bonds soured. Such credit-default swaps were not worth much in 2005, when housing was flying high, but became highly valuable once the market sputtered.

“Egol and Fabrice were way ahead of their time,” said a former Goldman worker. “They saw the writing on the wall in this market as early as 2005.”


(Shut up, already.)

Unlike many of their colleagues at Goldman and other banks, they argued that the nation’s mortgage market was far more interconnected than believed, former Goldman employees said. Their view was that if one group of mortgages or mortgage bonds ran into trouble, the entire market might falter.

Mr. Tourre and Mr. Egol created a way for a prominent hedge fund manager, John A. Paulson, to bet against risky mortgages.

With Mr. Paulson’s help, Goldman created an Abacus investment that, the S.E.C. now says, was devised to fall apart. By betting against that Abacus investment, Mr. Paulson reaped $1 billion in profit, according to the S.E.C. Mr. Paulson was not named in the S.E.C. complaint.

Goldman’s top ranks changed its stance on housing in December 2006. In a meeting in a windowless conference room on the executive floor, Mr. Viniar, the chief financial officer, and Mr. Cohn, the president, gathered about 10 executives for a briefing. Mr. Sparks, the head of the mortgage unit, walked them through the numbers. The group was unanimous: Goldman had to reduce its exposure to the increasingly troubled mortgage market.

A few months later, in February 2007, senior executives began turning up on the trading floor. The message, one former employee said, was clear: management was watching.

“They basically said, ‘What does this department do? Tell us everything about mortgages,’ ” this person said.

The executives told Mr. Sparks to tell his traders to sell Goldman’s positive bets on housing. The traders’ short positions — that is, negative bets, mostly used to hedge other investments — were placed in a central trading account.

Not everyone was happy about it. One trader leaving the firm wrote the mortgage unit a one-word e-mail message: “goodbye.”

Goldman turned over all these negative positions to Mr. Swenson and Mr. Birnbaum, the traders who had previously been positive on the market. Along with Mr. Sparks, they have been credited for managing the short position that yielded a $4 billion profit for Goldman in 2007. Mr. Sparks retired in 2008. Mr. Birnbaum also left in 2008, to start his own hedge fund.

But former Goldman employees said those traders benefited from the short positions that were given to them. And their trading was tightly overseen by senior executives.

At one point in the summer of 2007, for instance, Mr. Birnbaum made a case to Mr. Cohn that some mortgage assets were cheap and that Goldman should let him add $10 billion in positive bets. Mr. Cohn said no.


(Wow what an idiot. I guess I was wrong, you don't have to thumb a remote control to run a hedge fund. Point me at it, I gotta invest in his stuff.)

Meantime, Goldman managers instructed Mr. Egol in early 2007 to add insurance against mortgage bonds.

By the third quarter of 2007, the mortgage unit was minting money, while Goldman’s rivals were losing big.

Mr. Viniar, the chief financial officer, told analysts that the mortgage unit was posting record profits because of its short bets that mortgage investments would lose value.

“Our risk bias in that market was to be short, and that net short position was profitable,” Mr. Viniar said.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:16 pm

Image
Everyone, Pile On Goldman!

For the moment, I can't help being transfixed.

Let's start with some sophistry from the NY Daily News that basically goes, "Goldman's totally criminal, but they're TBTP - too big to prosecute." - Money quote from Fabrice!

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/201 ... _fire.html

SEC is playing with fire by charging Goldman Sachs in subrime fiasco

Editorials

Sunday, April 18th 2010, 4:00 AM

Related News
Hedge fund 'ideas' party sparks big controversy over euro
Trader arrested in insider-trading crackdown made Morgan Stanley list of all-star investors
Insider trading scandal deepens: Ex-IBM exec pleads guilty in Galleon case
Siris: Are these mega-payday managers giving back enough? [Not "taking too much" but "giving back enough"?]
Feds slam Goldman Sachs with fraud charges

The Securities and Exchange Commission has poured gasoline on the populist fires burning Wall Street with its charge that Goldman Sachs created and peddled subprime mortgage investments that were designed to go bust.

The agency could not have picked a juicier target than the world's richest bank or done so at a more perilous time for both the U.S. economy and the fortunes of New York.

Because, like it or not, what's good for Goldman - as the ultimate representative of the financial industry - is good for the city. In fact, the economic well-being of the entire state is inextricably tied to the presence of big, thriving banks.

Those money factories caused incalculable damage across the globe by engaging in irresponsible risk-taking in the go-go years of the housing bubble. They made billions, the public got stuck with the bill and now they're making billions again.

Goldman, seen as either the wiliest or the least culpable of the lot, scored $13.4 billion in profit in 2009 - a year after getting a $10 billion assist from taxpayers in the financial crisis. Rage is justified.

Now, the SEC alleges Goldman worked with a hedge fund to create some of the complicated securities that magnified the damage of the subprime mortgage meltdown. That, in itself, was common.

What sets this deal apart, according to the SEC, was that Goldman and the hedge fund designed the securities to maximize the chances they would tank. Goldman then profited by selling the questionable investment to customers, and the hedge fund reaped $1 billion by betting that the securities would plummet.

In the thick of this was then-29-year-old Goldman whiz kid Fabrice Tourre, who predicted the subprime crash in an e-mail and wrote with obnoxious pride of himself:

"Only potential survivor, the fabulous Fab standing in the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstrousities!!!"

More soberly, Goldman said in a statement: "The SEC's charges are completely unfounded in law and fact and we will vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation."

Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein has his work cut out for him.


Image
Lloyd. You wish.

Meanwhile, though, far more is at stake than whether Goldman has to cough up big bucks. These allegations will only increase Washington's zeal for tightening the screws on Wall Street with a new regime of regulations.

President Obama and Democrats in the Senate and House all have their multilayered versions of how to crack down. While some of their proposed stringencies would be welcome, they must remember that the object is to protect the public - not to exact retribution through regulation that hobbles U.S. finance.


AIG, UK, Germany... the following has everything but the ratings agencies. You could bold the whole thing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/busin ... nted=print
(Reproduced here as fair-use for non-commercial archival educational discussion purposes only.)

An alternate lead:
AIG Insured $6 Billion Worth of Abacus

Actual Headline:
A Glare on Goldman, From U.S. and Beyond

April 18, 2010

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON and LANDON THOMAS Jr.

Calls for increased scrutiny of Goldman Sachs emerged on Sunday as two congressmen pressed for investigations into possible taxpayer losses generated in securities sold by the firm, and the British prime minister also asked his nation’s securities regulator to investigate the Wall Street powerhouse because of losses suffered by a major British bank.

The German government, too, said it was considering taking legal action against Goldman because of a German bank’s losses, a spokesman said.

A civil lawsuit filed against Goldman last Friday contained damaging allegations whose reverberations are just beginning to be felt. In the lawsuit, the Securities and Exchange Commission contends that Goldman misled investors who bought a mortgage-related instrument known as Abacus 2007-AC1 by not disclosing that the security was devised to fail.

Goldman has denied the allegations and says it will fight them.

The Abacus transaction cited in the S.E.C. case is just one of 25 such securities worth $10.9 billion that Goldman issued during the mortgage mania. Investors in the Abacus 2007-AC1 security lost $1 billion, regulators said.

The beleaguered American International Group also lost money in its dealings with Goldman on other Abacus securities. A.I.G. insured $6 billion of Abacus securities issued by Goldman; since the government rescued the insurer in September 2008, it has posted $2 billion in losses on these securities. A.I.G. received a taxpayer commitment of $180 billion to keep it from failing and causing havoc in markets worldwide.

Because the government has committed so much money to A.I.G., Representatives Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland, and Peter DeFazio, Democrat of Oregon, are asking the S.E.C. to investigate all the Abacus deals issued by Goldman, and especially those insured by A.I.G.

The congressmen want regulators to determine whether fraudulent conduct by the investment firm contributed to billions of dollars in losses. If such conduct is found, the congressmen are urging the S.E.C. to recoup payments made by A.I.G. to Goldman.

Mr. Cummings and Mr. DeFazio are also asking the S.E.C. to refer matters that appear to involve criminal misconduct on the part of Goldman Sachs to the Justice Department.

“We request that S.E.C., with all due haste, pursue investigations into the remaining 24 Abacus transactions for securities fraud, evaluate the extent of any receipt, by Goldman Sachs, of fraudulently generated A.I.G.-issued credit default swap payments, and vigorously pursue the recovery of such payments on behalf of the U.S. taxpayer,” the representatives wrote to Mary L. Schapiro, the head of the commission, in a letter dated April 19. Mr. Cummings and Mr. DeFazio are still gathering signatures from other members of Congress to add to their letter, so it has not yet been sent.

A.I.G. collapsed in the fall of 2008 after the mortgage market plummeted. The company was imperiled when it was unable to supply billions of dollars in collateral to its trading partners as required under the insurance it had written on complex mortgage-related securities like Abacus. Goldman Sachs was one of its biggest trading partners.

The Abacus securities insured by A.I.G. were not among those that the Federal Reserve unwound in late 2008, paying the insurer’s trading partners 100 cents on the dollar for what they were owed.

A.I.G.’s participation was crucial to the success of many Abacus securities issued by Goldman Sachs. In the Abacus deals, a type of derivative known as credit default swaps were linked to mortgage bonds; those firms underwriting the swaps, like A.I.G., were essentially insuring that the mortgage bonds would perform well. When they did not, the swaps created enormous losses for those who sold them.

“We’ve got to look into every aspect of these deals and figure out exactly what went wrong,” Mr. Cummings, a senior member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said in an interview on Sunday.

“And if people were participating in any type of fraudulent activity we need to expose it and they need to be brought to justice and we need to get our money back.”

Anger over Goldman’s dealings also surfaced Sunday in Britain, where Prime Minister Gordon Brown accused the firm of “moral bankruptcy.” He said that British regulators should investigate, and that he believed banks themselves would be considering legal action, without specifying which banks.

“We need a global financial levy for the banks,” he said in a television interview Sunday. “We have to quash remuneration packages such as Goldman Sachs’s. I cannot allow this to continue.”

The Royal Bank of Scotland and IKB Deutsche Industriebank of Germany lost just less than $1 billion after buying the Abacus investment vehicle constructed by Goldman. The Royal Bank of Scotland inherited a loss of $841 million after taking over the Dutch bank ABN Amro.


During the financial crisis, each bank was saved from collapse by their home governments. Together, Germany and Britain pumped about $83 billion into the Royal Bank of Scotland and IKB. Because of those bailouts, and with anti-banker sentiment on the rise as Mr. Brown and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany face political challenges, the complaint against Goldman will most likely serve as fodder not only for lawsuits but for proponents of tougher financial regulation.

As Britain prepares for a national vote on May 6 and the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia follows three days later with local elections that will have national implications, politicians in both countries were quick to join the chorus of condemnation against Goldman.

The German government has asked the S.E.C. for more information regarding IKB’s part in the scandal and might take legal steps, a spokesman said.

Legal experts said the potential liability of Goldman for losses suffered in the Abacus investments was an issue of debate.

Marcel Kahan, a law professor at New York University, said he suspected that much of the story had not yet been told concerning the strength of the S.E.C. charge. But based on what he has read, he said, the allegations against Goldman look bad but might not be illegal.

For instance, he said that those who lost money in the deal were sophisticated investors who knew what was in the financial instruments and could check them out for themselves. As such, Goldman may argue that there was no material misstatement or omission in the documents and statements that it provided investors.

Peter J. Henning, a law professor at Wayne State University and a former S.E.C. attorney, said he too believed that Goldman might mount a “blame the victim defense.”

“To fight the case, they have to focus on the investors,” he said. “These were very sophisticated investors who weren’t fooled by these transactions.”

Adam Pritchard, a law professor at the University of Michigan who teaches securities law, said the S.E.C.’s inclusion of IKB, the German bank, was important. “I think the S.E.C. has a pretty good argument here,” he wrote. “Conflicts are presumed, so the fact that Goldman had clients that were betting against these C.D.O.’s is scarcely material. The facts alleged here are different. It is one thing to know that there are others betting against you; it is quite another to know that the people betting against you are selecting the bets.”

A spokeswoman for Britain’s financial regulator, the Financial Services Authority, declined to say whether it would start its own investigation into Goldman. It is in contact with the S.E.C. regarding its investigation, she said.

Whether the British regulator begins its own investigation would depend on whether the agency came to believe any of the suspect activity took place in Britain or had an effect there.

Graham Bowley and Andrew Martin contributed reporting.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... -says.html

EU’s Investigation of Goldman Will Be ‘Profound,’ Rehn Says
Bloomberg

April 17, 2010, 9:21 AM EDT
More From Businessweek
Greek Yield Premium to Bunds Rises Above 400 Basis Points
Obama Medicare Panel Targets Costs, Sparks Bipartisan Backlash
Germany Reviews Legal Action Against Goldman After Fraud Case
Germany to Review Possible Legal Steps Against Goldman: Wilhelm
Goldman Serves One Master Better Than the Others: Jonathan Weil

(Adds Goldman lawsuit starting in fourth paragraph. For more on Greece crisis EXT3 <GO>)

By Ben Sills and Ben Moshinsky

April 17 (Bloomberg) -- The European Union investigation into Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s role in providing swaps to the Greek government to help reduce its budget deficit will be “profound and thorough,” EU Monetary Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn said.

The investigation relates to “our relationship with Goldman Sachs,” Rehn said at a press conference in Madrid today after a meeting of EU finance chiefs and central bankers. “I have asked the Ecofin and Eurostat to conduct a profound and thorough investigation in which the Greek authorities are very well cooperating.”

The U.S. bank arranged the swap deal for Greece in 2002. It helped the government to hide the extent of its budget deficit and overall debt level. Greece’s excessive borrowing subsequently engulfed the country in a debt crisis that Morgan Stanley this week said may lead to the break up of the euro region. Goldman Sachs’s spokeswoman Fiona Laffan declined to comment. Gerald Corrigan, chairman of Goldman Sachs’s regulated bank subsidiary, last week told the European Parliament that while the bank would be prepared to repeat such a deal, it would likely execute it differently. “We probably would do it again today,” Corrigan said, “but we would do it in a somewhat different manner.”

Under the terms of the deal, Greece entered a cross- currency swap agreement with Goldman Sachs on about $10 billion of debt issued in dollars and yen. That was swapped into euros using a historical exchange rate, a mechanism that generated about $1 billion in an up-front payment from Goldman to Greece.

The Greek government is scheduled to meet officials from the International Monetary Fund and the euro region on April 19 to discuss the terms and procedures of a proposed 45 billion- euro ($61 billion) bailout loan as it struggles to finance the region’s largest budget deficit.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday said it is suing Goldman Sachs for fraud tied to collateralized debt obligations linked to subprime mortgages in 2007. The bank sold the securities without disclosing that hedge fund Paulson & Co. helped pick the underlying securities and bet against the vehicles, the SEC said.

European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet declined to comment on the SEC’s allegations against Goldman at the press conference with Rehn.

The firm’s shares tumbled 13 percent yesterday and financial stocks slumped.

--With assistance from Rainer Buergin, Lorenzo Totaro, Christian Vits, Meera Louis, Svenja O’Donnell, Agnes Lovasz, Jonathan Stearns, Mark Deen and Charles Penty in Madrid. Editors: Andrew Davis, Jones Hayden

To contact the reporters on this story: Ben Sills in Madrid at bsills@bloomberg.net;

To contact the editors responsible for this story: John Fraher at jfraher@bloomberg.net; James Hertling at jhertling@bloomberg.net.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ben Sills in Madrid at bsills@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jones Hayden at jhayden1@bloomberg.net


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... ate2-.html
(Reproduced here as fair-use for non-commercial archival educational discussion purposes only.)

Rajaratnam Sought Tips on Goldman Stock, U.S. Says (Update3)
Bloomberg

April 16, 2010, 8:30 PM EDT
More From Businessweek
Goldman Sachs Executives Should Resign, Bove Says (Update1)
Buffett’s Goldman Sachs Warrants Drop by $1 Billion (Update2)
Goldman Sachs’s ‘Fabulous Fab’ Tourre Loses ‘Survivor’ Bet
Goldman Sachs Said to Have Been Warned of SEC Suit (Update1) [!!!]
Rajaratnam Asks Court to Strike New Trading Claims (Update3)

(Adds alleged sources of tips in ninth paragraph.)

By David Glovin and Bob Van Voris

April 16 (Bloomberg) -- Galleon Group founder Raj Rajaratnam, who faces federal insider trading charges, sought to acquire secret information about Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s 2008 purchase of preferred shares in Goldman Sachs Group Inc., federal prosecutors said in a court filing today.

A letter from federal prosecutors to Rajaratnam’s lawyers detailing new allegations of insider trading was made public today in a filing in Manhattan federal court. In it, prosecutors elaborated on an earlier claim that Rajaratnam tried to use confidential information to trade on Goldman Sachs stock.

Rajaratnam “conspired to obtain material, nonpublic information about the quarterly earnings of Goldman Sachs” before its public announcement of earnings in June 2008 and December 2008, the letter says. “In addition, Rajaratnam conspired to obtain material, nonpublic information about the purchase by Berkshire Hathaway of preferred stock in Goldman prior to Goldman’s public announcement” on Sept. 3, 2008.

Lawyers for Rajaratnam are asking a judge to exclude evidence of additional allegations of insider trading, saying prosecutors waited too long to disclose it.

The filing doesn’t identify Rajaratnam’s source for information about Goldman Sachs. It does provide details about other alleged efforts to obtain inside information.

‘Allegation Is False’

“The allegation is false,” said a spokesman for Rajaratnam, Jim McCarthy.

Federal prosecutors are probing whether Rajaratnam received confidential tips from Goldman Sachs director Rajat Gupta, the Wall Street Journal reported. Gupta is the former worldwide manager director at McKinsey & Co. Inc.

Ed Canaday , a spokesman for Goldman Sachs, didn’t immediately respond to an e-mail request for comment.

Today’s filing identifies some of the alleged sources of Rajaratnam’s tips, including Anil Kumar, a former McKinsey & Co. director, ex-Intel Corp. managing director Rajiv Goel, and former hedge fund manager Ali Far. They have pleaded guilty. Many other alleged sources aren’t disclosed.

The filing says Rajaratnam sought advance tips on the 2008 closing of the acquisition of Clear Channel Communications Inc. by Bain Capital LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners LP. He got the information from Zvi Goffer, a hedge fund trader who is also charged in the case. Prosecutors say Goffer got the information from two lawyers working at the Ropes & Gray LLP law firm. Goffer has denied wrongdoing.

Tipped by Goffer

Prosecutors say Rajaratnam was also tipped by Goffer about the potential acquisition in February 2008 of PF Chang’s China Bistro Inc. “There was never any public announcement relating to this potential acquisition,” the filing says.

Prosecutors say in the letter that Rajaratnam and other Galleon employees are heard on recordings discussing efforts to get information about Broadcom Corp., Cavium Networks Inc., Garmin Ltd., Maxim Integrated Products, MEMC Electronic Materials Inc., NVIDIA Corp. and Synaptics Inc.

The case is U.S. v. Rajaratnam, 1:09-cr-1184, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

--Editors: Peter Blumberg, Michael Hytha.

To contact the reporters on this story: Bob Van Voris in New York federal court at rvanvoris@bloomberg.net; David Glovin in New York federal court at glovin@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: David E. Rovella at drovella@bloomberg.net.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... -says.html
(Reproduced here as fair-use for non-commercial archival educational discussion purposes only.)

Goldman Sachs Executives Should Resign, Bove Says (Update1)
Bloomberg

April 16, 2010, 6:35 PM EDT
More From Businessweek
Rajaratnam Sought Tips on Goldman Stock, U.S. Says (Update3)
Buffett’s Goldman Sachs Warrants Drop by $1 Billion (Update2)
Goldman Sachs’s ‘Fabulous Fab’ Tourre Loses ‘Survivor’ Bet
Rajaratnam Sought Tips on Goldman Stock, U.S. Says (Update2)
Wells Fargo Bonds Rejected by Paulson for Abacus Deal (Update1)

(Adds comment from Goldman Sachs in the sixth paragraph.)

By Dakin Campbell and Joanna Ossinger

April 16 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein and finance chief David Viniar should resign over fraud allegations, according to Dick Bove, an analyst at Rochdale Securities.

“Will Lloyd Blankfein, CEO, and David Viniar, CFO, maintain their positions in the company? I do not think so,” Bove wrote in a note to clients today. “Someone must ‘fall on their swords’ for the devastating decline in this company’s persona and they may be forced to do so for public relations reasons.”

Goldman Sachs, the most profitable securities firm in Wall Street history, was sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission today for fraud tied to collateralized debt obligations. The shares tumbled as much as 16 percent, marking the biggest one-day decline since Jan. 20, 2009.

The firm’s “deep bench” makes the executives replaceable, and Viniar would likely have to be succeeded by someone from outside the company, Bove wrote. Goldman Sachs remains a “buy,” according to Bove.

“I do not believe institutions will stop trading with Goldman Sachs over this issue,” Bove wrote. “The company’s presence, systems, capital, and expertise in trading markets make it number one in the world in this activity.”

Goldman Sachs said in a statement that it lost more than $90 million because it had an investment in the deal, overwhelming the $15 million it made in fees. The firm said it provided “extensive disclosure” about the risk of the underlying mortgage securities.

--Editors: William Ahearn, Steve Dickson

To contact the reporters on this story: Dakin Campbell in San Francisco at dcampbell27@bloomberg.net; Joanna Ossinger in New York at jossinger@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Alec McCabe at amccabe@bloomberg.net; Nick Baker at nbaker7@bloomberg.net
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 pm

Following from a hedge fund analysis sheet, so it's got the best and most relevant info in one piece. Plus, it confirms what everyone else seems to keep leaving out:

Abacus Rated AAA by both S&P and Moody's

http://www.hedgefundsreview.com/hedge-f ... fund-trade
(Reproduced here as fair-use for non-commercial archival educational discussion purposes only.)


Goldman charged over subprime hedge fund trade


Author: Kris Devasabai

Source: Hedge Funds Review | 17 Apr 2010

Categories: Legal

Topics: Fraud, Goldman Sachs, subprime, ratings, CDS, litigation, collateralisation, Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), Collateralised debt obligation (CDO), Marketing, Retail mortgage backed securities (RMBS)


The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has charged Goldman Sachs with misleading investors about a collateralised debt obligation (CDO) it created for hedge fund Paulson & Co.

The SEC claims Paulson & Co paid Goldman Sachs $15 million to structure and market a synthetic CDO known as ABACUS 2007AC1 (Abacus).

The CDO was tied to the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) which the SEC claims Paulson had a significant role in selecting.

Paulson then shorted the mortgages tied to the CDO by purchasing credit default swap (CDS) protection on specific layers of the Abacus capital structure.

The deal was put together just as the US housing market was starting to show signs of overheating. The transactions were arranged by Goldman Sachs vice president Fabrice Tourre, who was named in the SEC filing.

The SEC claims Goldman Sachs and Tourre misled investors by failing to disclose Paulson's short interest in Abacus and the hedge fund's role in selecting the RMBS underlying the CDO.

Goldman Sachs' marketing materials for Abacus claimed the portfolio of RMBS behind the CDO was selected by ACA Management, a monoline insurer specialising in RMBS.

The SEC claims ACA was misled into believing Paulson had invested $200 million in the equity of Abacus, leading it to conclude that Paulson's interest in selecting RMBS for the portfolio were aligned with its own.

The deal closed on April 26, 2007. The Abacus CDO was rated Aaa by Moody's and marketed to investors. Goldman marketed and sold the Abacus CDO to investors like pension funds, insurance companies, banks and other hedge funds.

The deal began to unravel as the credit crunch intensified. In November 2007, Moody's downgraded the CDO to Baa2 and the rating was cut again to Ca in April 2008.

The SEC said 99% of the RMBS underpinning the CDO had been downgraded by the end of January 2008.

Investors in ABACUS were left with more than $1 billion in losses, while Paulson collected a $1 billion profit from its CDS positions.

ACA's parent company sold Goldman protection against the super senior tranche of the Abacus CDO.

The Dutch ABN AMRO, later aquired by Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), provided an additional guarantee aginst the super senior tranche in the event that ACA was unable to meet its obligations.

ACA ran into problems in late 2007 and later went into runoff. Royal Bank of Scotland assumed the obligation for losses on the super senior tranche and paid Goldman nearly $841 million to unwind the position. Most of this money was subsequently paid to Paulson by Goldman, the SEC said.

Paulson & Co has not been charged with any wrongdoing. Robert Khuzami, director of the SEC's enforcement division, said Paulson had not played a role in misleading investors. "Goldman made representations to investors. Paulson did not," Khuzami told reporters.

He declined to say whether the SEC was looking into CDO deals involving other banks and hedge funds.

Paulson & Co outlined its involvement in the Abacus deal in statement: "While Paulson purchased credit protection from Goldman Sachs on securities issued under the ABACUS ABS CDO programme, we were not involved in the marketing of any ABACUS products to any third parties.

"ACA as collateral manager had sole authority over the selection of all collateral in the CDO, securities of which were subsequently rated AAA by both S&P and Moody's.

"Paulson did not sponsor or initiate Goldman's ABACUS programme, which involved at least 20 transactions other than that described in the SEC's complaint," Paulson & Co said.

Goldman issued a statement refuting the SEC's allegations. "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 said.

Legal experts said investors in the Abacus CDO were likely to file a class action lawsuit against Goldman in a bid to recover their losses.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/1 ... 41509.html
(Reproduced here as fair-use for non-commercial archival educational discussion purposes only.)

Simon Johnson On 'Real Time' (VIDEO):
Broken System If Goldman Conspirator John Paulson Is Not Charged

First Posted: 04-17-10 02:46 AM | Updated: 04-17-10 03:36 AM

Economist Simon Johnson appeared on Bill Maher's "Real Time" panel Friday alongside GRITtv host Laura Flanders and New Yorker editor David Remnick.

The panel covered the tea party movement and the Securities and Exchange Commission's decision to charge Goldman Sachs with fraud.

While explaining how Goldman made billions by selling bad securities, Johnson mentioned investor John Paulson.
Johnson: "They designed something intentionally complex that's basically a mechanism of transferring money from you to John Paulson. John Paulson, it is true, has not been charged with anything. But he was involved in designing the the security."

Paulson, who was named in the SEC's civil fraud lawsuit against Goldman Sachs, conspired with Goldman and Deutsche bank to sell investments made up of bad loans. The New York Times reports that Paulson personally made $1 billion off of the deals.

Johnson told Maher that if Paulson avoids charges similar to Goldman, it will show how broken our system is.

"For all we know right now, it was probably [Paulson's] idea," Johnson said. "If he walks away without being charged, that just tells you there's something even more profoundly broken..."

Johnson said that Goldman would fight the lawsuit "tooth and nail" because it could open the doors for customers to file a class-action lawsuit against the firm.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/busin ... nted=print
(Reproduced here as fair-use for non-commercial archival educational discussion purposes only.)

For Goldman, a Bet’s Stakes Keep Growing
April 17, 2010
By LOUISE STORY and GRETCHEN MORGENSON

For Goldman Sachs, it was a relatively small transaction. But for the bank — and the rest of Wall Street — the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Accusations that Goldman defrauded customers who bought investments tied to risky subprime mortgages have only just begun to reverberate through the financial world.

The civil lawsuit that the Securities and Exchange Commission filed against Goldman on Friday seemed to confirm many Americans’ worst suspicions about Wall Street: that the game is rigged, the odds stacked in the banks’ favor. It is the first big case — but probably not the last, legal experts said — to delve into a Wall Street firm’s role in the mortgage fiasco.

It is a particularly sensitive time for Wall Street. Washington policy makers are hotly debating a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s financial regulations, and the news could embolden those seeking to rein in the banks. President Obama on Saturday stepped up pressure for financial reform by accusing Republicans of “cynical and deceptive” attacks on the measure.

The S.E.C.’s action could also hit Wall Street where it really hurts: the wallet. It could prompt dozens of investor claims against Goldman and other Wall Street titans that devised and sold toxic mortgage investments.

On Saturday, several European banks that lost money in the deal said they were reviewing the matter. They could try to recoup the money from Goldman.

And it raises new questions about Goldman, the bank at the center of more concentric circles of economic and political power than any other on Wall Street. Goldman — whose controversial success has leapt from the financial pages to the cover of Rolling Stone — has fiercely defended its actions before, during and after the financial crisis. On Friday, it called the S.E.C.’s accusations “unfounded.”

Wall Street played a complex and, at times, seemingly conflicted role in the mortgage collapse. Goldman and others worked behind the scenes, bundling home loans into investments for sale to investors the world over. Even now, more than 18 months after Washington rescued the teetering financial system, no one knows for sure how much money was lost on those investments.

The public outcry against the bank bailouts was driven in part by suspicions that a heads-we-win, tails-you-lose ethos pervades the financial industry. To many, that Goldman and others are once again minting money — and paying big bonuses to their employees — is evidence that Wall Street got a sweet deal at taxpayers’ expense. The accusations against Goldman may only further those suspicions.

“The S.E.C. suit against Goldman, if proven true, will confirm to people their suspicions about the total selfishness of these financial institutions,” said Steve Fraser, a Wall Street historian and author of “Wall Street: America’s Dream Palace.” “There’s nothing more damaging than that. This is way beyond recklessness. This is way beyond incompetence. This is cynical, selfish exploiting.”

On Friday, Goldman’s stock took a beating, falling 13 percent and wiping out more than $10 billion of the company’s market value. It was a possible sign that investors fear that the S.E.C. complaint will damage Goldman’s reputation and its ability to keep its hands on so many sides of a trade — a practice that is immensely profitable for the firm.

It is unclear whether the S.E.C. can prevail against Goldman. The bank has long maintained that it puts its clients first and, in a letter in its latest annual report, it reiterated that position. Goldman said it never “bet against our clients” in its trades but rather was trying to hedge against other trading positions.

The transaction cited in the S.E.C. complaint cost investors just over $1 billion, relatively small by Wall Street standards.

Still, Wall Street analysts said Goldman and other banks, having navigated the financial crisis, might now face a new kind of risk: angry investors. Most major Wall Street banks also created collateralized debt obligations, which are at the heart of the Goldman case. C.D.O.’s, which are essentially bundles of securities backed by mortgages or other debt securities, turned out to be among the most toxic investments ever devised.

“Any investor who bought these C.D.O.’s and lost a significant amount of money is probably looking at their investment and wanting to know: what were the details behind the sale?” said William Tanona, an analyst at Collins Stewart. “Will they contact the S.E.C. and say, ‘Here’s the transaction we participated in, and we’d love to know who is on the other side of it?’ ”

The biggest victim among investors, the S.E.C. complaint said, was the Royal Bank of Scotland, which inherited a loss of $841 million after it took over the Dutch bank ABN Amro. According to a person briefed on the matter, the Royal Bank, now controlled by the British government, is studying the documents but is not ready to decide whether to try to recoup money from Goldman.

The German bank IKB Deutsche Industriebank, as well as the German government, which in 2007 put up billions to prevent IKB from collapsing, still seemed to be sorting out who might have legal standing to pursue a possible claim.

Goldman faces a dilemma in its response. Wall Street firms tend to settle cases like this one, but Goldman’s statement on Friday indicated it intended to dig in its heels and fight, perhaps in part to discourage suits by investors. That strategy could set it up for a long, messy and public battle.

The S.E.C. complaint named just one Goldman employee: Fabrice Tourre, a vice president in the bank’s mortgage operation who worked on the questionable transaction.

But securities lawyers say Mr. Tourre appears to be a small fish. Federal investigators may try to gain his cooperation and extend their investigation to other Goldman employees. On Friday, Mr. Tourre’s lawyer did not provide a comment on the complaint.

A big question is how far up this might go. The S.E.C. said the deal in its complaint had been approved by a panel at Goldman, the Mortgage Capital Committee.

“It’s typical that they’d start with someone lower down on the chain and try to exert pressure on that person,” said Bradley D. Simon of Simon & Partners, a white-collar defense lawyer in New York. “Is it really conceivable that no one else was involved in this?”

As the housing market began to fracture in 2007, senior Goldman executives began overseeing the mortgage department closely, said four former Goldman Sachs employees, who spoke on the condition they not be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Senior executives routinely visited the unit. Among them were David A. Viniar, the chief financial officer; Gary D. Cohn, then the co-president; and Pablo Salame, a sales and trading executive, these former employees said. Even Goldman’s chief executive, Lloyd C. Blankfein, got involved.

Top executives met routinely with Dan Sparks, the head of the mortgage trading unit, who retired in spring 2008. Managers instructed several traders to sell housing-related investments. Indeed, they urged Mr. Tourre and a colleague, Jonathan Egol, to place more bets against mortgage investments, the former employees said.

A Goldman spokesman said Saturday that the top executives were not involved in the approval process for Abacus, the deal cited by the S.E.C., and that their involvement with the mortgage department in 2007 was related to their desire to counterbalance the positive bets on housing the banks had already made.

Mr. Blankfein has already been questioned by a Congressional commission about the toxic vehicles Goldman devised and sold, even as the bank realized the housing market was in trouble.

Recent public statements made by Mr. Blankfein seem to conflict with the S.E.C. account.

In testimony in January before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, the panel appointed by Congress to examine the causes of the crisis, for example, he described Goldman’s approach to dealing with its clients: “Of course, we have an obligation to fully disclose what an instrument is and to be honest in our dealings, but we are not managing somebody else’s money.”

But the S.E.C. complaint says Goldman misled investors who bought one of the bank’s Abacus deals. The bank failed to tell them the mortgage bonds underpinning the investment had been selected by a hedge fund manager who wanted to bet against the investment, the S.E.C. says. Those bonds were especially vulnerable, the commission says.

Graham Bowley and Jack Ewing contributed reporting.

With $4.4 Billion Profit, Citigroup Turns a Corner


This one I'm throwing in because of the salary information:

Image

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/weeki ... 8dash.html
(Reproduced here as fair-use for non-commercial archival educational discussion purposes only.)

Measuring Wall Street Apologetics

April 16, 2010

By ERIC DASH

The parade of bankers called to account for the financial crisis continued last week when Kerry K. Killinger, head of Washington Mutual, the largest bank ever to fail, apologized, sort of, as have many before him. But he also said that his firm “should have been given a chance.” Here are some of those mea culpa moments.



Angelo R. Mozilo

Co-founder, former chairman and chief executive, Countrywide Financial

QUOTE “No single entity or industry sector is responsible for the collapse in housing prices. ... The issue is not so much the products, but the housing market.”

BLAME In testimony before a House panel in March 2008, he faulted real estate speculators, rating agencies, a sharp decline in investor appetite for certain mortgages, and market psychology.

TOTAL COMPENSATION $530.9 million.



Kenneth D. Lewis

Former chairman and chief executive, Bank of America

QUOTE Mr. Lewis has never apologized for the Merrill Lynch deal, which caused the bank to seek a second bailout from Washington. “Some observers have said the price to which we agreed looked steep given the economic environment of the moment,” Mr. Lewis said, referring to his ill-fated purchase of Merrill Lynch. “I believe the price we paid represented a good value, given the full value of the company in a more normal economic environment.”

BLAME Mr. Lewis said the economic downturn has many causes, but said the primary contributor was a massive bubble in home values and housing finance over several years.

TOTAL COMPENSATION $251.5 million



Kerry K. Killinger

Former chief executive, Washington Mutual

QUOTE “As C.E.O., I accept responsibility for our performance and am deeply saddened by what happened.”

BLAME In his testimony before a Senate panel, he also said that federal regulators and Wall Street’s “too clubby to fail” culture contributed to WaMu’s demise. “For those outside the club, the penalty was severe,” he said.

TOTAL COMPENSATION $95.7 million



Robert E. Rubin

Former chairman of the executive committee and board member, Citigroup

QUOTE “We all bear responsibility for not recognizing this, and I deeply regret that.”

BLAME In testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission on April 8, Mr. Rubin stopped short of accepting personal responsibility for Citigroup’s troubles. He blamed at least a dozen forces — from trade imbalances to a surge in the use of complex derivatives.

TOTAL COMPENSATION $101 million



E. Stanley O’Neal

Former chairman and chief executive, Merrill Lynch

QUOTE “The bottom line is, despite our best efforts, a lot of money was lost in this one area” — mortgage securities — “and I, as the chief executive of the firm, was held accountable,” he told The New Yorker in a written statement in March 2008. “At the same time, the record over all is that we — the firm under my leadership — did a lot of things that benefited Merrill Lynch greatly and will continue to benefit the firm in the years ahead.”

BLAME In testimony before a House committee in March 2008, Mr. O’Neal blamed an “unprecedented meltdown in the credit market” and noted that credit rating agencies failed to foresee the magnitude of the risk. In the latest issue of Fortune magazine, Mr. O’Neal said he recognized Merrill’s mortgage problems in August 2007 but failed to persuade Merrill’s directors to sell the company at the time. (Bank of America bought it a year later at a much lower price.)

TOTAL COMPENSATION $201.9 million.



Lloyd C. Blankfein

Chairman and chief executive, Goldman Sachs

QUOTE “We participated in things that were clearly wrong and have reason to regret and apologize for,” he said at a conference last November in a response to a question about impact the crisis has had on the firm’s image. “Some of this is real and some of this is extrapolated.”

BLAME In an appearance before the financial crisis panel in mid-January, Mr. Blankfein said overdependence on credit ratings, risk models that substituted data for judgment, and a fundamental mispricing of risk also contributed to the crisis.

TOTAL COMPENSATION $391.2 million



Alan Greenspan

Former chairman of the Federal Reserve

QUOTE “I was right 70 percent of the time but I was wrong 30 percent of the time.”

BLAME In testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission on April 7, Mr. Greenspan pointed to an undercapitalized banking system and inadequate risk management by banks. He said that the Fed’s limited powers restricted it from doing more to stop abusive lending practices.

TOTAL COMPENSATION $2.6 million.



Richard S. Fuld

Former chairman and chief executive, Lehman Brothers

QUOTE “I take full responsibility for the decisions that I made and for the actions that I took,” he told a House committee in October 2008. “I feel horrible about what has happened to the company and its effects on so many — my colleagues, my shareholders, my creditors and my clients.”

BLAME Mr. Fuld said he acted prudently but Lehman was done in by higher borrowing costs, naked short attacks, accounting rules that forced the bank to mark down the value of its assets, and credit rating agency downgrades. He suggested that the Federal Reserve was unwilling to save the firm.

TOTAL COMPENSATION $167.5 million. (He lost about $900 million in stock when his firm went bankrupt.)



Charles O. Prince III

Former chairman and chief executive, Citigroup

QUOTE “Let me start by saying I’m sorry. I’m sorry the financial crisis has had such a devastating impact for our country. I’m sorry about the millions of people, average Americans, who lost their homes. And I’m sorry that our management teams, starting with me, like so many others could not see the unprecedented market collapse that lay before us.”

BLAME In his testimony before the financial crisis commission on April 8, he also said that other factors — from rating agencies, to patchwork regulation, to the explosive growth of securitization — contributed to the crisis.

TOTAL COMPENSATION $132.7 million.



James E. Cayne

Former chairman, Bear Stearns

QUOTE “I have no anger, only regret,” he told employees at a final meeting in May 2008. “Fourteen-thousand families were affected. I personally apologize. I feel an enormous amount of pain and management feels an enormous amount of pain.”

BLAME In a Fortune magazine article in August 2008, Mr. Cayne blamed himself. “I didn’t stop it,” he said. “I didn’t rein in the leverage.”

TOTAL COMPENSATION $424.3 million. (He lost about $900 million in stock when Bear was taken over by JP Morgan Chase.)

Total compensation includes career salary, bonus, proceeds from stock and options sales and accumulated stock and retirement benefits, according to publicly available filings. For executives who left their firms, their stock is valued at their date of departure. For those who remained, their stock was valued as of Friday’s market close. Data analyzed by Equilar, James F. Reda & Associates.
Last edited by JackRiddler on Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:49 pm

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/19/news/co ... ldman_aig/
(Reproduced here as fair-use for non-commercial archival educational discussion purposes only.)

Why AIG won't be next

By David Goldman, CNNMoney.com staff writer
April 19, 2010: 1:41 PM ET



NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Many believe that corporate greed brought on the Great Recession, yet Friday's fraud charge against Goldman Sachs is one of only a few federal lawsuits to come out of the economic downturn.

Why? Well for one thing, many of the products created by Wall Street firms are highly complex and difficult to understand.

On top of that, the government has to prove that fund managers were intentionally deceiving stakeholders.

For the past two years, the Justice Department has reportedly been investigating AIG, the poster child for the kind of over-the-top deals that led to the financial crisis in September 2008.

Yet criminal charges against AIG are considered unlikely "because the underlying instruments are so complex," said Matt Levine, principal at Fish & Richardson and former acting chief of the Business and Securities Fraud Division in the U.S. Attorney's office in New York's Eastern District.

In the sole criminal case against Wall Street executives stemming from the credit crisis, two former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers were found not guilty on fraud charges in November. The defendants successfully argued that that they had no way of knowing what lay ahead in the subprime mortgage market when they made their bets.

A civil case would be difficult as well. While the SEC is getting a lot of attention for its civil charges against Goldman, it was only able to formulate a case based on a very specific and narrow transaction: Goldman's failure to disclose conflicts in a 2007 sale of a single collateralized debt obligation.

The case against AIG

AIG's downfall stemmed from bad bets made by its Financial Products division. The unit wrote insurance contracts called credit default swaps on mortgage securities. The value of those securities plummeted when the bottom fell out of the housing market in the summer of 2007. In fact, AIG had insured tens of billions of dollars of CDOs written by Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500).

At the same time, Joseph Cassano, who headed up AIG's financial products unit, said publicly that the company's losses would be limited. He ultimately left AIG in March 2008 after the insurer reported an $11 billion quarterly loss for the division.

Losses related to credit default swap deepened in the second quarter of 2008, and nearly brought the company to its knees following Lehman Brothers' collapse on Sept. 15. On Sept. 16, the government gave AIG a bailout worth up to $85 billion, a total that has since risen to $182 billion.

If Cassano knew that the underlying value of those contracts was less than he made public to shareholders, that would be a criminal offense, said experts.

"He not only would have deceived investors, but he caused enormous trouble to AIG, and as a result to the government and society," said Tamar Frankel, a professor at Boston University's School of Law.

The Justice Department has reportedly been building a criminal case against Cassano over the past two years. But a recent CBS News report said that prosecutors will likely drop their case.


Why it won't happen

"The Justice Department would have to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt," said Levine. "They don't necessarily need a smoking gun, but they'd have to pull enough smoke together to convince a jury that there was a fire inside."

That "smoke" may be difficult to find, because prosecutors would have to show that Cassano and AIG intended to lie and didn't just unintentionally screw up.

A civil case would encounter similar snags. Legal experts say AIG could easily claim it wasn't alone in believing that its credit default swaps were secure. AIG relied on ratings agencies like Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch Ratings to determine the risk on the underlying assets.

"They'll say they had a [perfect] AAA rating on the securities, and that will be a good defense," said Frankel. "If no one else questioned the ratings, why should AIG?"

And if the SEC's case against Goldman succeeds, AIG could also reasonably argue that it was duped, said Mike Perlis, partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan and former assistant director at the SEC.


"There's a fine line between vigorous enforcement and excessive zeal," said Perlis. "AIG has made many management changes, so there's no point in proceeding against an entity in which any malfeasance, assuming there was some, is gone. The only victims would be innocent shareholders, innocent management, and the government itself."

:sadcry: :sadcry: :sadcry:

The Justice Department, the SEC and AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) would not comment for this story. Calls to Cassano's attorney were not returned.


That's it for today! Thanks!
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby StarmanSkye » Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:41 pm

Noted economics professor/analyst William Black deeftly pierces into the heart of the systemic , endemic fraud aka ponzai scam of the whole financial crisis, proposing ten steps for comprehensive reform that the administration and Congress has absolute authority and DUTY to implement, but won't.

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQbcNP0MUQY&NR=1

Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IENsfk40sYU&NR=1
describes the political malaise that infects the Obama administration and Congress: parasites and leeches. Crony Capitalism at work. Black suggests some GREAT proposals to 'fix' the system, such as: IF corporations are 'just like' people, then there should be a 3-strikes law -- Commit 3 felonies financial abuses then you are out of business; With ONE felony conviction, minorities in Florida lose their voting rights forever -- How about if corporations were treated the same, ie, they can make NO MORE campaign contributions.
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Political

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest